And Senate showdown, President Obama's stimulus plan hits the senate this week. And major changes could be coming up. We debate it.

And the Pittsburgh Steelers are the Super Bowl champs. But after spending millions, we'll look at which companies were the big winners with their TV ads.

We're serving that and much, much more on today's "MONEY FOR BREAKFAST."

Good morning everybody. Welcome to "MONEY FOR BREAKFAST." It is Groundhog Day, post Super Bowl, first trading day of February. I'm Jenna Lee along with Charles Payne. Alexis is off today.

Did you see that game?

CHARLE PAYNE, FBN CONTRIBUTOR: Oh of course I'm paying a heavy price for it right now.

LEE: You are not tired, are you?

PAYNE: Just a little bit, it was an incredible game though. These most recent Super Bowls are really living up to the hype.

LEE: Now hype on every level, do you like to advertise, the business side of it too?

PAYNE: I loved every aspect of it. I really did, the team I was rooting for won so that might have played a role too, but no it really was a great game and the commercials were fun as well.

LEE: You know, I thought we couldn't catch up -- I should say top the catch from last year.

PAYNE: Right.

LEE: But I think that's a pretty good contender.

PAYNE: Well I think if you live in New York, it's still the Cats and Giants. If you leave in Pittsburg and anytime you think of the catch it's going to be that catch right there, a phenomenal game.

LEE: But we congratulate the Steelers.

PAYNE: Yes.

LEE: We have to move on to the markets because it is shaping up to be not such a great day.

PAYNE: Yes, oh boy.

LEE: We're going to have a lot more on this TARP plan by the way. We have a lot more to get to on that along with a few other things.

Let's check futures right now Charles.

PAYNE: Yes.

LEE: Because Humana, Mattel, there was a miss for those companies. And the futures came down a little bit off for that at least coming off some of the lows of the day. So down day in Asia, down day in Europe and again, looking like a down day first day of February trading for us here.

All right, we start "MONEY FOR BREAKFAST" with the three things you should know.

Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire may be the third Republican to join President Obama's cabinet today. Gregg has been targeted as the new Commerce Secretary. However, Gregg's appointment could hinge on assurances that a Republican be appointed by Democratic Rhode Island Governor John Lynch to replace Gregg.

Well, Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle will face questioning from the Senate Finance Committee today over whether he improperly took gifts from charities he was involved with. Published reports have Daschle participating in questionable travel arrangements for speaking engagements.

And some Super Bowl viewers in Tucson Arizona saw a different kind of scoring when Sunday's game was interrupted with a pornographic clip on NBC affiliate KVOA for about ten seconds. Can you believe that, most Tucson fans did see the home state Cardinals fall to the Pittsburg Steelers 27 to 23 in its entirety, but wow, those are the three things you should know.

Ashley Webster, what do you think about that?

ASHLEY WEBSTER, FBN OVERSEAS MARKETS EDITOR: Well, congratulations to the Steelers, but oh, the Cardinals came so close. Of course I fell asleep just after Bruce Springsteen, so I wish I had actually stayed awake. Great game.

All right, let's take a look at the European markets as we get the new week and the new month under way and boy oh boy from snowy London we should have stayed in bed this morning. It's down one and a half percent on the FTSE 100. Down nearly two and a half percent on the CAC-40. Down two percent also on the DAX. Although, we are slightly off the morning lows so maybe we're coming back just a little bit.

A credit downgrade for Barclays. Moody's lowering the bank's credit rating citing potentially significant further losses as a result of write-downs. The British pound declined the most in almost two weeks on this news on concern that the U.K. banking crisis will deepen. Barclays down as much as 11 percent this morning.

Europe's largest discount airline reporting a big loss. The Ryanair says their fourth quarter numbers swung to a loss of $155 million thanks to a declining business and of course lower airfares; also a lack of cargo business or at least certainly a drop in cargo business. But the carrier says it does expect to make a profit in 09. So don't hear that very often. We shall see.

Now let's go to Connell McShane for the three market movers of the day -- Connell.

CONNELL MCSHANE, FBN CORRESPONDENT: All right, Ashley, good morning.

Let's get some of the earnings out this morning including Mattel. Fourth quarter net income there was down from the same time last year by 46 percent at the toy maker reporting its results just a little while ago this morning. The earnings actually were 49 cents on a per share basis; that missed estimates by more than 20 cents. This was a big miss by Mattel. And the CEO there Robert Eckert said that quote from him is, "In response our focus for 2009 is on cost and spending reductions maintaining a strong balance sheet." So we'll see how Mattel does today.

Now, another stock to watch, Humana, its fourth quarter results came in, saw earnings of $1.03 a share. That also slightly missed analyst expectations, nothing like the Mattel miss. And the good news from Humana's point of view might be that it reaffirmed its `09 guidance; 5.90 to 6.10 a share. Estimates of 5.92, so it looks like they could beat on the full year.

And there's a new CEO at the world's largest retailer today. He wants the company to get even bigger, believe it or not. Mike Dukes taking over as the Wal-Mart CEO, he's actually is just the fourth CEO in the company's 50 year plus history which is interesting.

Widely expected Duke is going to continue with aggressive international expansion plans because 2009 will actually be the first year in the company's history when it adds more space outside the U.S. than it does here in the U.S.

Those are your three market movers of the morning. Jenna, back over to you.

LEE: All right, Connell, thank you very much.

The Obama administration is delaying its launch of the next phase of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Sources telling Fox Business that the Obama economic team is facing difficulties on the concepts of creating a bad bank among other issues.

To cover those other issues, we bring in senior Washington correspondent, Peter Barnes with more on that story from our Washington bureau -- Peter.

PETER BARNES, FBN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well good morning Jenna.

Obama aides say to expect major details on the new provisions of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the TARP likely next week. Those details were expected this week, but Obama aides haven't disclosed what the holdup is, but financial industry sources say the President's economic team is trying to work through the challenges of creating a so-called bad bank to buy troubled assets from financial institutions.

The hang-up, sources say, is how and what to pay for these assets. Paying too much hurts the taxpayers. Paying too little could hurt the banks. While officials try to continue to figure out the pricing mechanism, aides say the President and administration officials this week will tee up executive pay and transparency in the TARP.

Reports of Wall Street's big bonuses to itself last year are still resonating here in the Capitol.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DICK DURBIN, (D-IL) DEMOCRATIC WHIP: It is sickening when families across America are making sacrifices and facing economic uncertainty that it's business as usual on Wall Street even with firms that are losing money that without a taxpayer subsidy wouldn't be in business. And here they turn around and issue billions of dollars of bonuses to their people.

Where is the spirit of sacrifice and unity? We are in this together. And you have to ask those captains of industry at the highest level to really pull with the rest of America to get us out of this crisis.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BARNES: Now on the timing of these coming announcements on the TARP, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will attend the House Democratic retreat this week and could talk about TARP 2 at that meeting according to sources.

The President will also be speaking there as well on Thursday. And to the Senate Democratic retreat on Wednesday. And Secretary Geithner is scheduled to testify before the Senate Banking Committee next week on Tuesday, so all of the details of the next phase of TARP will likely be announced by then. Jenna, back to you.

LEE: Well, another very busy week in Washington.

Peter Barnes, thank you very much. We appreciate it as always.

Well, the U.S. isn't the only country considering creating a bad bank. As Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel has expressed support for establishing a similar type of entity there.

Our next though, knows all about bad banks and their success as the former head of Securum, Sweden's bad bank. Joining me now is Lars Thunell, he's the Executive Vice President and CEO of the International Finance Corporation.

And Lars, it's true, not a lot of bosses of bad banks out there. Does the model work?

LARS THUNELL, INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP. VP: It worked in the Swedish case because what we were able to do was to reinforce the bad assets, bring them out and manage them and we actually got the money back for the taxpayers, which was the important part. And we got the system working again so the good bank could give credit to people to get the Swedish economy going.

LEE: So walk me through the process. What exactly were the bad assets in Sweden's case?

THUNELL: Well, the bank that I was involved with was Norbank and they had overextended the sales in the early 90s for real estate, around the world, as well as industrial buyouts and other things. And we took all these assets and the government basically bought the minority shareholders. They already had the shareholding in the back, it brought the minority shares out and effectively took control of the bank, divided it into two pieces and then managed the two separately because there's different skills that are needed to run a normal bank and to run a bad bank.

LEE: Well, one of the big questions here is the value of those bad assets. And you're quoted as saying that you could estimate a fair value based on the market in general of these assets because you could actually trace them back to real things.

The securities that are on our markets right now, far more complex.

THUNELL: Yes.

LEE: Do you think it's possible to really find the value of these bad assets in the economy we're in right now?

THUNELL: No, it's very hard as we all know that some of the sub prime loans and the very derivatives of those are very hard to value, so of course it is much more complex. And I think I said in the introduction earlier, the way -- you could price them too low, then you are taking too much away from the good bank. If you price them too high, you're giving away too much from the shareholders.

It's a complicated thing. And I think that's one of the issues that probably the U.S. administration and Treasury Department is working on right now.

LEE: And one of the other issues we're constantly talking about is nationalization. Can you tell us, at what point did the Swedish government step in, nationalized the bank before this other bad bank emerged?

THUNELL: Well, as I said, they already had a shareholder in the bank, and they bought in the minority. So that was done at market prices. And then it was easier to divide it up.

I think the important part is that if you nationalize or if the state comes in and owns it, that you put in place a good governance system so that you have independent boards because it is very important to separate out the political world from the business world.

We all know that governments are not the best owners or managers of banks.

LEE: And it seems like that is one of the most difficult things, good governance, --

THUNELL: Yes.

LEE: Something we'll try to look forward to Lars, thank you very much joining us this morning. Again, Lars Thunell, we appreciate it.

For more on a potential U.S. bad bank, I'm actually joined by Frederick Lane the CEO of not of Humana as you've just saw but of the investment bank Lane, Barry and Company as well as Bob Wright who is a financial historian and economic professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University. And do we have Fred because we didn't see him. Do we have him? We do have him.

FREDERICK LANE, LANE BERRY & CO. CEO: I'm here.

LEE: Ok Fred, great to see you.

LANE: Thank you.

LEE: Talk to us a little bit about -- you know you are in the trenches every day. Is the good bank-bad bank scenario one that you'd like to entertain?

LANE: I think it is a great idea. Though, I think one of the questions we have to ask ourselves is what's taken us so long to get here? It's the only real solution in light of the fact that these banks have assets that are steadily declining in value as a function of mark-to-market accounting.

We all know that mark-to-market accounting doesn't work if there's no market for an asset and that's where we are today. So debt by a thousand nicks quarter by quarter for these financial institutions has to end; the bad bank structure allows that to happened.

LEE: Ok, let's talk again about the assets, because that's also very important. The discussion has focused on mortgage backed securities. Where does the government draw the line as to what bad assets it will absorb or what it's actually going to look at in a bank's portfolio?

LANE: I think if we've been having this discussion two or three quarters ago, we would have been focused on obviously sub prime mortgages. We would have been focused on these fairly complicated structured investment products.

We would not be focusing as we need to currently on consumer loans, home equity loans, auto loans, credit card debt. Obviously a declining --

LEE: But you think we need to focus that way now, I mean, now do we need to include all of that?

LANE: I think if the objective is to fix the banking system, let's recognize that the asset base has been declining and deteriorating above and beyond the principle assets we would have talked about two or three quarters ago as a result of this deep and deepening, I might add, recession.

LEE: That's an interesting insight being what changed Bob over the last two quarters or so. But we do have -- we didn't have a bad bank, but we had the Resolution Trust Corporation. Why can't we just do the RTC part two?

ROBERT WRIGHT, NYU STERN SCHOOL ECONOMICS PROFESSOR: "Restoring Financial Stability," it's the title of a book coming out from Wiley in March, and it was written by over 30 Stern professors, and in that book, a synopsis of which can be downloaded from the Stern website --

LEE: Nice plug.

WRIGHT: We discuss the fact that the financial system -- we call it that for a reason because it is a system, because it's all interconnected so when you make one change, other changes will happen automatically.

LEE: So the RTC could have -- back to the RTC, though. The RTC wouldn't work now because the financial system is so different than it was let's say a decade ago?

WRIGHT: It's much bigger and more complex now than it was then, and also the problem then was confined to savings and loans that were insolvent. Right now we're talking about a much broader range of financial institutions, and so that means that any attempt that we make to fix it is going to have ramifications that, you know, will spread even wider throughout this interconnected system.

LEE: So what about the bad bank? I mean is the bad bank then, this new -- we don't even really know exactly what it would be, but would a bad bank, Bob, be the next evolution of an RTC in this financial system?

WRIGHT: It could be. And hopefully we will look at the history of the RTC to find out what went wrong there. I mean, overall it was fairly good, but its passage was delayed by six months due to politics.

It was much more costly by about $4.5 billion because of partisan struggle within Congress. And it was also larded with affordable housing initiatives that really didn't belong in that bill.

LEE: And Fred, you have to deal with this everyday, purchasing things that you think were actually worth something, how does the government not get involved in this scenario where they are just purchasing the wrong things? Who tells the government what they should buy?

LANE: Well, first, just to get back to the RTC analogy. That was a very small problem relative to this problem. This is probably a trillion and a half dollar problem. I don't care what the -- what Washington says it is right now, maybe it's a trillion, maybe it's a trillion and a half, it's a lot of dough.

It eclipses the RTC by a lot. I think to have this thing really work properly you really have to get government out of it. Obviously the FDIC is going to provide oversight to the bad banks. That makes sense to have that happen.

But it should be run by people -- I hate to say this -- be run by people out of the private sector who have an incentive to buy right and most importantly, as Lars Thunell mentioned earlier, to take these assets and convert them into valuable assets or assets of value for sure in order to get returns for the taxpayer.

LEE: Fred, I only have ten seconds here. Why not just let the bad banks that are bad banks now and just go out of business?

LANE: Well, I think that's probably a wasteful attitude -- the fact of the matter is there's an infrastructure set up as was mentioned earlier, the capital market system, the financial system is a system.

I think there's been a lot of disruption. This is probably the right way to do it because these assets are not without value. The problem is these assets don't have a current market value, and that's fundamental to the problem.

We have an accounting system problem in this country. That's not going to get addressed for a couple of years by the FASB, but mark-to-market accounting doesn't work when there's not a market, let's remember that. And that's part and parcel of the bigger problem we're having right now.

LEE: All right, well I'm going to take my wasteful attitude and hit the road. Fred, great to have you and great to have your perspective, Bob.

LANE: Thank you.

WRIGHT: Thank you.

LEE: Thank you for the historic perspective as well -- always important.

Coming up, Obama's stimulus calls for $15 billion for the nation's water infrastructure, but it may just be a drop in the bucket. More details next.

Then later, a day after the biggest pizza consumption day of the year, did you know that? We also looked at one of the great American business rivalries, Domino's versus Pizza Hut. Stay with us.