"the wall street journal." this president watched up his trip to latden america with his attention focused on the rest of the world. what does it do for his ability to lead in the united states on vital issues that remain domestically? job creation, the budget, the deficit? >> one of the interesting things about history is that presidents come into office concentrating on domestic issues. so many times get involved in military conflicts. inme it was true of woodrow wilson and franklin roosevelt and lyndon johnson who was trying to do the great society and we had the vietnam war. so the president i think is somewhat distracted. but he can't be too distracted, because it's very clear to me that to voters, what matters most is not what's happening in libya or what's happening in iraq or what's happening in rio, but what's happening at home. they want jobs. and of course, don't forget, ali, two weeks from now we're going to be talking about a potential government shutdown to deal with the budget crisis. >> i want to bring in benjamin barber who is the author of "jihad versus mac world." ben, federal reserve found from 2007, which was the height of the housing market, to 2009, which was really a low point, families in america lost a quarter of their wealth. the result of the recession, the result of an overheated housing market. how long account president afford to be engaged in anything other than the economic problems in this country? i know on social media, ben, i continue to get comments, whenever i tweet anything out about president and libya or the middle east. i get responses from people saying what's he doing about employment and the people back home? >> he's probably got about two hours to get his focus back on the united states, not two weeks. the reality is we know that during elections and after elections, most americans are focused on understandably, domestic issues, the domestic economy. their jobs, their houses. and while they can get excited for an hour about a war abroad, about taking down a dictator. in the long-term what they care about is their own jobs. i think it's going to be a very real problem for him. many presidents when they're in trouble like the distractions of the foreign policy, it takes them away from the domestic problems which give them trouble. but in this case the president has got to deal on the ground with domestic issues. and i fear that the libyan crisis aside from other problems that we talk about that make it an intractable and difficult place to engage, would be hard in terms of domestic policy. >> at one point the president wasn't looking for that sort of a political distraction. candy crowley is our anchor for "state of the union." let us bring our viewers this recent poll. it shows that the majority of americans, 54%, support the way that the president is handling foreign affairs. but ask the public how the president is handling the economy, take a look, way down the list, it dips to 39%. let's go back to the time following the first gulf war. when bush 41 had the support of nine of ten americans, in 1991. ultimately he was undone by the economy when he lost a year later to bill clinton. >> and undone by an economy that was improving in that last year. so, and we see signs, still, and there are economists who can talk about this. and there are signs that the economy is beginning to improve. the problem is, if the unemployment rate doesn't come down, people now looking at the deficit as well. that that's huge. but i, you know when you look at the polling, anything domestic is under 50%. energy policy, health care policy, the deficit. that's bad news. it's you know, foreign policy is above the 50%. in rare cases -- i think foreign wars, or wars that the u.s. is involved in. can bring a president down. but they rarely lift him up when he's got that much trouble at home. so, look, there's a reason when the president went to latin america and libya was blowing up. that he said i'm going to latin america because this means jobs in the u.s. so they get it. they get it. >> you know, one thing that's different, ali, about what happened, when you mentioned those 91% approval ratings that george bush senior had. remember, the gulf war was a success he was kind of the war hero president. the jury is still out about how the american people are going to feel about what we're doing in libya. whether this will be a success. whether we'll be able to kill gadhafi. who knows. and the question is, if that operation does not succeed, does that interfere with his ability to get a domestic policy passed. >> and that's a good question. ben, let's talk about that. it's not like the president had clear sailing anyway on the domestic policy front. when it came to job creation, when it comes to taxes, when it comes to the deficit, when it comes to the increasing of the country's debt limit. does it make any difference in the end? as you said, he's got a couple of hours to get back to domestic issues. what's he going to do? >> it will make some difference whether we quote win or quote lose over there. that is, seem to succeed, gadhafi goes, things smooth out. no loss of american life. or if the opposite happens, which i fear could be likely in the complicated situation over there. so i think that is going to be in the short run, at best a wash, and in the long run, if there is is a long run. really damaging. i think the figures above 50% on foreign policy have to do with fact that most americans don't know much about it. it's kind of a vote for america, america in the world, good. but the real numbers are the numbers at home. because those are numbers that reflect what in social science would be called intensity. if you don't like him, you don't like him about this because you're intensely not liking what's happening in the economy. in foreign policy you like him, but not very intensely. >> there's an interesting outcome to all this, congress finally rallied bipartisan support for one idea, there are people on both sides of the aisle who are angry that the president did not seek their support before committing to military action in libya. that's not entirely true, we're going to talk about that. but how is congress, how is that anger affecting already-strained efforts to deal with our deficit and with job creation? we'll talk about that. [ male announcer ] nature is unique... pure... and also delicious. like nature valley. granola bars made with crunchy oats and pure honey. nature valley -- 100% natural. 100% delicious. nature valley -- 100% natural. but you can still refinance to a fixed rate as low as 4.75% at lendingtree.com, where customers save an average of $293 a month. call lending tree at... today. i want to overstate this. but lawmakers from both parties are voicing sharp criticisms that president obama kept congress out of the loop on early military efforts in libya and that the president's goals in libya remain unclear. ben, i want to start with you. democratic representative dennis kucinich, a former presidential candidate himself, made headlines this past week, vowing to work against the president regarding libya. listen it what he said. >> in this case, it's very clear that president obama exceeded his authority. now the immediate thing that congress needs to do, when it returns is to cut off any funds for continuing in libya. and i intend to bring forward such an amendment. >> he also, by the way, ben, said that this is an impeachable offense and he doesn't really believe that president obama should be impeached pore it but he said that. i think the question that dennis kucinich is holding that i think is of interest to a lot of people. john boehner has said the same thing -- what is the end game in libya for the president? and i earlier you said to me, it's not really the end game we're worried about. we need to know what's going on in the second quarter. >> dennis, first, the second quarter next. he as always is an honest man, a good man and he's right. and it's irrelevant. in this sense, the united states, the last time we were engaged in a constitutionally-declared war was world war ii. if we had followed cues initch's prescriptions, we would not have been in korea, in vietnam or in iraq and so on. the fact is for a very long time, the peerial presidency in the hands of both democrats and republicans, has operated the way they feel like operatinged on the basis of urgency. so it's a good point he makes, but probably not relevant. much more relevant is the second point, if the u.s. is engaged with some consultation with congress, with the president saying it's necessary for humanitarian reasons, but on the back of a series of different expectations. by different players. the arab league, nato, the u.n., the u.n. people who didn't vote but remain silent. china, brazil. russia, india. they all have very different expectations. we went in with the first quarter very much in sight. repress the ground fire, save civilians. but what happens in the second quarter if gadhafi is still standing? what happens in the third quarter if you're getting a civil war with both sides unable to put down the other. but both at war? what if gadhafi goes and you get an ongoing tribal war and insurgency. none of those questions has been examined yet. >> and the danger of a fourth quarter is a new democratically-elected government that's unfriendly to a whole bunch of people. candy, i didn't want to overstate it. i'm not sure. i remember the president's speech before these activities started with libya. where he had just come out of a meeting with congressional leaders of both parties. i'm not entirely sure the criticism is fair. how does it affect the president's struggle to get congress behind him on these domestic issues like slashing the deficit and balancing the budget? has the president damaged his relationship with congress more than it was already damaged? >> i don't think so. let's see. but in the end, let's face it. we're in a presidential election cycle. the people that are going to vote for him in the end, particularly those on the house side, including the liberals, have everything at stake in their own elections. and need to be attached to him. i can't see them going against him. simply because they're angry that he started this mission over libya. >> is it your sense, candy, that they really are that angry about it? >> first of all, can i just say they're not going to cut off funds, that's not going to happen. but second of all, they're venting their anger. we know that the liberal side of the democratic party is angry with president obama over a number of things. it's not always that bad to have your left wing or even your right wing upset with you when you're going for the center. so i mean yes, i think they're angry about this particular issue. i just don't see it when it comes to the budget deficit or the budget, they may oppose him for different reasons. but not because he did this in libya. >> and stephen, you made the point, if for some people it's politically convenient. it gives them cover. members of congress, that the president didn't go in and ask them. >> yeah, they whine about it. why wasn't i consulted. i don't think any of the members of congress want to stand up and have to take a vote. because if they do, they can be blamed for it if it doesn't work. it circles back to the domestic agenda. if president obama is strengthened politically by what happens, by his actions in libya, i think it gives him a better hand to work with in terms of dealing with the budget crisis, the jobs crisis, with the congress. on the other hand, if he is seen as weakened, then republicans are going to even ask for more. they're going to go independently, and i think it puts the president in a much weaker hand. and again, i keep going back to this. in two weeks, we have got to pass a budget or the government shuts down and we have to pass a 2012 budget, which starts in april. so there's a lot of budget business to get done in the months ahead. >> candy, ben, stephen, great to talk to all of you and we look forward to seeing candy on "state of the union." high oil prices could be doing more than costing you cash at the gas pump. they could cost this country hundreds of thousands of jobs, i'll tell you how, after this break. [ male announcer ] ten people are going to win the chevrolet, buick, gmc or cadillac of their choice. push your onstar button and you could be one of them. even if you're not an onstar customer. ♪ just push your blue button and tell the advisor you want to enter the onstar push on sweepstakes. ♪ but do it soon. no purchase necessary. see rules at onstar.com to enter without a blue onstar button. basic. preferred. at meineke i have options on oil changes. and now i get free roadside assistance with preferred or supreme. my money. my choice. my meineke. here with me now, christine romans, host of cnn's "your bottom line." and joining me from london, richard quest. first came the crisis in the middle east sending oil prices skyrocketing. and then natural disaster struck japan igniting a nuclear crisis and a debate over nuclear energy in this country. there's a great deal of uncertainty about what will fuel the american economy of the future. the economy of now seems to have taken one step forward and two steps back. >> if gas stays at about $3.50 a gallon, american will have a lot less money to spend on restaurant meals, iphones, new cars. in turn, it will mean less goods made here, fewer jobs, we could lose as many as 700,000 jobs from higher gas prices. >> that's peter morici from the university of maryland. remember this recession we just went through was prompted by a housing crisis, a mortgage crisis. but generally speaking, most recessions in the united states are prompted by oil prices. christine, are these high oil prices and high gas prices a major threat to our jobs recovery here in the united states? >> peter morici says if gas prices stay high and continue higher that you're going to see a second recession in the u.s. others say wait a second here, $3.50, $3.60 is well off the record highs and not as high as the $4 many people were saying it was going to take to hurt consumers. and there's also something else, people have a little extra money in their paycheck. i think there's $40 extra in the paycheck from the payroll tax holiday. high gas prices are meaning they're not spending the money someplace else. >> you're getting the exactly the same amount of something for more money that you were paying two weeks ago. >> absolutely. but it's causing them to pull back in other places as well. will it mean 600,000, 700,000 jobs? i don't think we know yet. >> richard, 64% of americans say rising gas prices cause hardship for them. okay. in europe gas prices much higher. where you are in london, much higher. there doesn't seem to be this recurring fear of a higher price of oil resulting in a higher price of gasoline and therefore resulting in setbacks to the economy. give me your take on this? >> no, no, it's exactly the same argument certainly in the uk. we have the budget just this past week. in which the finance minister, the chancellor of the exchequer actually cut a proposed increase in fuel duty deliberately, because he wanted to give motorists some relief, if you like. but you know, crying against the high price of gasoline when you live in free-market economy is bit like doing the proverbial at the wind. there's not a lot you can do about it. you're not going to tap the strategic reserves. you're just not. those strategic reserves are there for serious, major crises. >> actual shortfalls of oil going into refineries, not prices going up. >> absolutely. and the truth is, of course it's going to hurt. of course people are going to feel poorer as a result of it. of these price rises. but the reality is, that the percentage of oil price in manufacturing, indeed in our everyday lives is far lower than it was in the 1970s for example during the arab oil crisis. the truth is, this going to hurt, but there's not a lots you can do about it and ali and christine. get used to it. everybody i speak to says they're not coming down. >> people like to bellyache in this country about high gas prices on the one hand you have this bill political dynamic saying, get the government out of my life. and then two seconds later they say wait a minute, what is the administration going to do about the higher gas prices. you live in a premarket. do you want governments setting prices for things that you really need? or do you want to leave it to the markets? that's a big question. >> and then there's the whole question of speculation driving the market. speculation drives markets. richard, always our pleasure to see you at our condolences for the amount that you have to pay to fill your tank over there. christine, great to see you as well. coming up next, the future of energy in america, what role will nuclear power play in this country? plus, how close do you live to a nuclear reactor? [ sneezing ] ♪ [ male announcer ] what are you gonna miss when you have an allergy attack? benadryl® is more effective than claritin® at relieving your worst symptoms and works when you need it most. benadryl®. you can't pause life. the markets never stop moving. of course, neither do i. solution: td ameritrade mobile. i can enter trades. on the run. even futures and forex. complex options? done. the market shifts... i get an alert. thank you. live streaming audio. advanced charts. look at that. all right here. wherever "here" happens to be. mobile trading from td ameritrade. number one in online equity trades. announcer: trade commission-free for 30 days, plus get up to $500 when you open an account. what's all this? big news! we have another way to help you save. oh, really? how? by bundling. if you get your homeowners and auto insurance together, we give you even more savings. ooh! big bundle. [ chuckling ] home and auto together. it's like peanut butter and jelly. oh, or like burgers and fries. or pickles and ice cream. unicorns and glitter! no? bundling to save you more. now, that's progressive! call or click today. japan reels in crisis, the future of nuclear energy in this country is once again in the holt seat. robert kennedy junior has earned a reputation as a staunch protector of the environment, as an activist and attorney specializing in environmental law. while putting everyone's obvious initial reaction aside, robert, is it time for more nuclear energy in the united states? or less? >> i've always, a nuke is good if we can ever make it safe and if we can ever make it commercial. john rohe, the president and ceo of xelon which has the biggest fleet of nuclear power plants in north america said ten days ago there is no case for nuclear power in our country. and this was before the big catastrophe in japan. the problem with nukes is it's too expensive. it costs a conventional power plant. costs about $3.1 billion a giga watt. new costs nine to 15 $billion a giga watt. the most recent one built in finland costs $10 billion a giga watt. it's too expensive and just not safe. anybody who says it's safe i always say to them, get an insurance policy. you can't get an insurance policy. the insurance industry in a capitalist system, which we have is, the final arbiter of risk. they've passed the price anderson act in our country which be a solves them from accidents from the costs of nuclear power plants. so that if a home were irradiated by a nuclear accident at a plant, you have to pay for it. >> well let's take a look at what we have already in this country. about a fifth of our electricity is generated by nuclear power. there are 104 nuclear reactors in this country right now. you're looking at a map with commercial nuclear power plants in the united states. the majority of them as you can see, are along the east coast, some in the midwest, a few in california. half of them by the way, half of the 104 nuclear reactors in the united states are more than 30 years old. three million people live within ten miles of an operating nuclear power plant. nils diaz is a former chairman of the u.s. nuclear rectory commission and a manager director of a company that manages nuclear energy around the world. let's talk about this, it's been said for a long time that people don't have to be concerned about the safety of nuclear plants and things that go wrong with them are rare. should people be concerned? given what we've seen in japan, that something happened and now it seems that they are having great difficulty in getting it under control. >> well i think a little bit of rational concern, is adequate. i think in our democracy, we can see how that works in the favor of the people. but i do believe that nuclear power plants, if you look at the history of operation, and compare it to any other industry, they're safe and they are secure. what happened in japan is really a triple whammy. it's the earthquake, the tsunami. and then the devastation that in many ways prevented resources of the country from being deployed. and supporting the infrastructure of the power plants to go back to normal situation. in the united states, we have actually taken that into account. we are a much larger country and we have after 9/11, deployed the resources to take care of this issue in a manner that will be very responsive and assure the additional protection of the plants. >> you mentioned our democracy, let's talk about how americans feel about this. david gergen is a senior cnn political analyst. look at the polls, americans remain roughly split on whether they favor or oppose the construction of new nuclear power plants in the united states. 44 in favor, 47% opposed. nearly 40%, however, say they're a lot more concerned that a nuclear disaster could occur here. take a look at that since the disaster. about 30% are a little more concerned. almost that number are not more concerned. david, president obama has been a proponent of nuclear energy. what is the crisis in japan going to do for efforts on the part of those who would like more nuclear energy in this country? >> the japanese crisis is a body blow to the nuclear industry in this country, ali, that's clear to everyone. if you lived through three mile island, you remember how that eroded confidence in nuclear power so much. and we were just in the last few years, getting over our fears. and people in the nuclear power industry were talking about a renaissance of nuclear power. in this country. we had leading environmentalists, fred krup of the environmental defense fund for example, seriously entertaining conversations about nuclear power because the cleanness of nuclear power versus fossil fuels. and it looked as if wey just starting to go over the hump and there would be investors and public confidence in politicians when a democratic president came out and embraced nuclear power as president obama did. that was a big milestone. but all of this, i think now has been dealt a body blow. and i would, i would be surprised if we build another nuclear power plant in this country in the next ten years. >> robert, in the last few years, nuclear energy has been branded as a cleaner, better alternative to coal, which is a serious pollutant. i think you would agree with that, oil, which is volatile and exposed to geopolitical problems and is not endlessly in supply. wind and solar, great. but strictly supplemental. despite what some people have said in the last week about how we can replace all of our electricity with solar and wind. we do not have the infrastructure or the geography for that right now. tell me the best solution to this? >> well you know, we built nuclear power fleet in about 25 years in this country. we can move and build a solar fleet, and a wind fleet much, much faster. right now one of my companies i'm on the board of vantage point, the biggest green tech venture capital firm in this country. one of our portfolio companies, bright source, is building the biggest power plant, one of the biggest power plants in north america ever built of any kind, 2.7 giga watts, almost three times the size of a nuclear power plant. we're going to build the whole plant within three years. it would take ten to 20 years to build a nuke plant. it takes ten years to build a coal plant. we're building at a cost of $3 billion a giga watt. nuclear power plants cost $9 billion to $12 billion a giga watt. >> we're building it in the mojave desert mainly in california. the main problem we have, ali, is transmission. and we need a smart grid in this country that can intelligent intelligently store energy at night and transmit it during the day. >> we want to go to more solar or wind. that's a big deal. nils, let me ask you, do we, can we go further? without expanding nuclear energy generation in this country? >> can we go further? no. nuclear generation needs to be part of this, makes means that it has no the 20% to 30% part. and you know, the numbers in economics we can have a long discussion about that. but the reality is that nuclear power plants operate 90% capacity factor while solar is at the very most, 20%. and wind is at the very most, 30 to 35%. so they are intermidant. they have to come and go, we have to have other sources to come in. we have to have storage. we have to have transmission. they're good. we like them. we want them to come on. but we also need to have nuclear power to anchor the grid. to provide reliable electricity all the time. and it's competitive. it's not cheaper, but it is competitive. >> very good to hear you say that you can get that much out of wind and solar. there's some people who think those numbers might be a little high. david, let me ask you, you mentioned it was a real milestone when president obama, a democratic president, decided to embrace further construction of nuclear power plants in this country. in the aftermath of three mile island or chernobyl, no american president would have come out that same week saying that nuclear power is a key part of our energy future. why is president obama feeling secure in saying it now, and is he right? >> i'm not sure he feels secure, i think he's pushing it along and trying to preserve it but the truth is, his energy policies right now in coherent. because he's had so much trouble. when he came into office, he and the people in the administration thought he was in the driver's seat on energy and environmental policy and they started off with a lot of good ideas. look what's happened. they wanted to do more on offshore oil. along came the bp oil spill, blew out that tire. they wanted to do more with renewable energy and along came the question of cap-and-trade, couldn't get it through. that's falling apart, blew out that tire. there's a lot more natural gas that's now available to us because of new technologies. expensive, but we can do that. environmentalists are opposing it. that tire is very weak. and the nuclear power, the other part of this, that tire blew out this week over in japan. when you look at it. what's going to, beyond the deficit, one of the most important things, the political leaders in washington now must do is going ba to the drawing board. what is going to be the national energy policy of this country, that's clean and provides enough energy for a growing economy. those are hard questions today. >> there's nobody who this doesn't affect. the cost of heating your home, running your business, operating your car, the air you breathe, health care. it a appeals to everybody acrosses the board. what's the big news in priority mail flat rate boxes and envelopes from the postal service? over a billion used. in the days after a natural disaster struck japan, the nikkei dak a nosedive before bouncing back about halfway. take a look at that. this is investors seeking opportunity. nonprofessional investors, us for instance, often feel guilty profiting from someone else's misery. but my next guest argues that they, we shouldn't. doug hirschhorn is an investment psychology adviser and coaches financial professionals. doug, how should investors think about this? >> the basic premise is 0 it make optimal decisions you have to think rationally. you didn't cause this event, i didn't cause this event. people did not cause this event, it's a natural disaster. if you think about it in a pure logical sense, when you deal with money, you have to realize that we aren't responsible. feeling guilty is natural, but we're not responsible for it. >> one of the things point out is it's not a zero-sum gain. you don't have to lose or win. investors can make money and help at the same time. explain that to me. i love the way you explain this. >> people have to realize that when you purchase something, you're transferring money from you to a company or organization. that company that takes the money and they're able to put it to use or rebuild or grow or clean up. if you're buying into a company that's a japanese-based company or company that helps with clean-up. if it works out and they do a good job, you're helping their economy. and along the way you profit, and they're also benefitting. it's a pure win-win situation. >> take the money you made, the profit you got and give it to the red cross or give it to somebody else. >> i would say do it more specifically. not the red cross in general, but go to a specific organization and give it to them for specific results. >> excellent results. let's turn now to our good friend, jim awad, a managing director at zephyr funds. >> this is an environmental services etf, the symbol of evx, involved in companies that are involved in the recovery remediation, removal and recycling of hazardous waste and then it a lesser extent, solid waste. the theory here is in long term, as emerging markets grow and they pollute more and create more waste, there will be more demand for these products. but specifically now in japan there's going to be a huge clean-up. and if you want to invest in that clean-up right now, this would seem to be an efficient etf to invest in companies that will benefit from that. >> long-term, five-plus years, this isn't a quick play? >> no, you never should invest for the short-term and this is a long-term investment. but in the short-term, there should be a pick-up in demand over the next year or two as a result of japan and then other countries taking proactive actions to minimize the chance of other reactors get hurt or involved, that they're well provided or prepared for that. >> let's look at the top five holdings in this fund. what are the down sides to investing in a fund like this? you can see some major names there. what's the downside? >> the down side is it's a very concentrated fund. heaviered to a particular industry. involved in high-growth, high-p.e. stocks. only got about 25 names, no the big fund. it can have volatility, you have to make sure that is what you invest in and you understand you're investing in a concentrated portfolio of companies. >> and you should look into your own portfolio, too, to see where it fits in. this doesn't replace the fact that your risk-tolerance says you should be involved in a number of funds. >> this is a bolt-on because you want to invest in environmental clean-up and environmental technologies and remediation going forward. >> jim, always good to see you, thank you for joining us. billions of taxpayer dollars went to save the banking, insurance and auto industries during the financial crisis. where is your money now? i'll tell you, next. can a trading site help make you a sharper trader? mine can. td ameritrade can. they've got trading specialists i can call for help. and paper trading. free practice trading that helps me hone my technique. complex options. and free tutorials. online or in person. can a trading site really make a difference? if it can't, why are you trading there? number one in online equity trades: td ameritrade. trade commission-free for 30 days, plus get up to $500 when you open an account. uncovering hotel freebies like instant discounts, free-nights... ...and free breakfast at hotels in virtually every city. so, thanks to this large man in a little jetpack... you can search thousands of hotel freebies... right now only at priceline. [ male announcer ] ten people are going to win the chevrolet, buick, gmc or cadillac of their choice. push your onstar button and you could be one of them. even if you're not an onstar customer. ♪ just push your blue button and tell the advisor you want to enter the onstar push on sweepstakes. ♪ but do it soon. no purchase necessary. see rules at onstar.com to enter without a blue onstar button. see rules at onstar.com but you can still refinance to a fixed rate as low as 4.75% at lendingtree.com. plus, get the best deal or we'll pay you $1,000. call lending tree at... today. [ female announcer ] wake up to sweetness with honey nut cheerios cereal. kissed with real honey. and the 100% natural whole grain oats can help lower your cholesterol. you are so sweet to me. bee happy. bee healthy. 2008, the banks are in big trouble. the fed steps in with emergency money. which banks took money and how much did they take? that we don't know. but we will in the coming days, thanks to a supreme court decision that paves the way for disclosure by the federal reserve. neil barovsky is the outgoing inspector-general of t.a.r.p., that provided $700 billion worth of funds to hundreds of banks and others. he joins me for an exclusive interview. thanks for joining us. tell us first of all, whether this disclosure, this decision by the supreme court to have the fed tell us which banks took money and how much they took. good or bad. >> well it's great from a perspective of transparency and throughout the financial crisis we've heard different government entities as well as the industry itself, constantly sign the alarm that if there's a degree of transparency, the sky is going to fall. time and time again when the disclosures were compelled when they came out, nothing really happened other than we had a more informed debate. at this point, so many years removed from the crisis and the release of the final piece of information of government support, i think it's a good thing and i think it will contribute to the historical record. >> although those who opposed it said it would weaken the feds' ability in the future to go out there and do what needs to be done. i don't know that our viewers would understand that argument. why would people say that it was a bad thing to have this full disclosure? >> i think the idea is that because the facility is thought of as the last resort for a struggling bank or financial institution to get this type of money from the federal and therefore, if there's the promise or the threat of disclosure, that a struggling bank may otherwise not go to it. but these were extraordinary times when you go back to late 2008. everyone went to the well. and we're so far removed, i really think that those arguments, to the extent that they may have had some weight at the time, the time has passed. i think, i really don't think the dangers are real at this point. >> let's talk about t.a.r.p., which you were responsible for overseeing in so far as figuring out everything went where it was supposed to go. and to date, more than 60% of t.a.r.p. money was repaid. by your accounting, is it all going to be repaid? >> current projections are there's going to be somewhere between a $25 billion to $50 billion loss financially on the t.a.r.p. program. which is far less than was anticipated a couple of years ago. but still, a significant amount of else that really concerns us today, and that is the continued issue of foreclosures and short sales. you've criticized the federal modification program for mortgages. the money used to keep americans in their homes. why do you not like what was done or do you just don't think it was very effective? it's not been effective. this program has been a failure. when you look at -- now, look. the program has helped some people. a few thousand people and that is a good thing. but you have to look at the scale, the mortgage foreclosure crisis as well as what the program promised to do, as well as that t.a.r.p. was supposed to do. t.a.r.p. was supposed to help preserve home ownership. this was part of the bargain cut with congress that got this bill passed. when the president announced this program, he said it would help three-to-four million people stay in their homes. we are looking at between 10 and 13 million foreclosures filings. it has about 540,000 ongoing modifications. it is great for those people. what does it is a for the three million people that were supposed to get assistance and never did. this is such a deep problem. and really one of the deep failures of t.a.r.p. it wasn't supposed to help the banks return to profitability, it was supposed to help people stay in their homes. >> we are not out of the problem yet. we are far enough away from 2008 when we were all worried about banks failing across the board. we still have this problem. what can be done now to get those who might still qualify for modifications back into the mix and stem some of these foreclosures and try to protect the housing market. >> this is a tremendous source of frustration. this is not working. it is riddled with conflicts of interest. the interests that are built around are not sufficient enough. that's not my opinion. that is what secretary geithner electricitied to recently. treasury continues to celebrate the status quo of the program. they are not willing to make the necessary changes. without the necessary changes, just pretending that the program is successful because it has helped an incremental number of people. this crisis will continue. >> listen, when you testified before congress last month, you said that the government's safety net, and were you referring to things like t.a.r.p., they provide financial institutions to take greater risks than they otherwise would. this is a criticism we heard before and during t.a.r.p. does that mean the success of the program, which will repay all by $20 billion or $25 billion, could that mean the failure of the system? >> absolutely. one of the thungs we'ings we've saying. you look at the financial cost, you can't do a final accounting until you look at the big picture of t.a.r.p. part of that big picture, when the government came out in 2008 and 2009 and say the largest banks will not fail. it helped save the financial system. it gave the banks the incentive to take greater risks. it removed market discipline. we are in a very dangerous place right now. these banks are still too big to fail. there is still this implication that the government will bail them out. let's be clear. when we say too big to fail, it means that. if the banks hit the rocks again, and it's inevitable well, it's not a question of are we going to be weak and not let them fail, we will have to bail them out to preserve the financial system. without taking the right approach to deal with this problem, which so far has just not happened, at least from the perception of the markets, we are looking at a dangerous system and probably a far more devastating crisis. that is the risk. that is the stakes. >> what we used to call moral hazard, in two words. neil barofsky, good to talk to you. thanks for being with us. >> my pleasure. many people are quick to point out the dangers of nuclear energy. my xyz is next. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 like it's some kind of dream. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 it's either this magic number i'm supposed to reach, or... tdd# 1-800-345-2550 it's beach homes or it's starting a vineyard. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 come on ! tdd# 1-800-345-2550 just help me figure it out tdd# 1-800-345-2550 in a practical, let's-make- this-happen kind of way. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 a vineyard ? schwab real life retirement services is personalized, tdd# 1-800-345-2550 practical help that's focused on making your retirement real. open an account today and talk to chuck tdd# 1-800-345-2550 about setting up your one-on-one consultation. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 you think i have allergies? you're sneezing. i'm allergic to you. doubtful, you love me. hey, you can't take allegra with fruit juice. what? yeah, it's on the label. really? here, there's nothing about juice on the zyrtec® label. what? labels are meant to be read. i'd be lost without you. i knew you weren't allergic to me. [ sneezes ] you know, you can't take allegra with orange juice. both: really? fyi. [ male announcer ] get zyrtec®'s proven allergy relief and love the air®. time now for the xyz of it. two weeks after the tsunami, the nuclear crisis in japan is still unfolding and so is the debate over the future of nuclear energy in this country. 30 foot tsunami waves knocked out power causing fuel rods to overheat. that sent it into the atmosphere. nuclear insiders tell cnn they are frustrated of the coverage of the event which will put a halt to the nuclear renaissance in the united states. that nuclear renaissance is now in danger. right now, one-fifth of america's electricity comes from 104 nuclear reactors in this country. half of which were built more than 30 years ago. they are expensive to build. companies were already ready to -- loathe to build more of them, given the tangle of regulations. so the federal government offers loan guarantees to get operators to invest in nuclear power plants. president barack obama is asking for $36 billion for nuclear power in next year's proposed budget. there are up to 20 sites around the country being proposed for construction of new nuclear power plants. well, like what happened after the bp oil spill last year, the nuclear industry will have to address the real safety issues that arise from these unforeseen catastrophic events. just saying it is safe doesn't work anymore. before we jump the gun and say good riddance to expanding nuclear-generated electricity in the united states, let's assess the facts about the industry's safety record and the regulations in place to ensure it. if we do not decide it is not good to expand the nuclear energy, let's make that decision not on fear and emotion but on the facts and only the facts. it is a fact that america's energy security requires a mix of resources.