defense. it's about heart and emotion and inspiring the fans. the media don't pay all that much attention to women's sportses, so it's nice to see the soccer team break through. even if they did lose the big one. that's it for "reliable sources." i'm howard kurtz. join us sunlds morning 11:00 a.m. eastern for another critical look at the media. "state of the union" with candy crowley begins right now. it's hard to find common ground when nobody budges. today, meetings without movement. the administration's take from treasury secretary tim geithner. >> it's unthinkable that this country will not meet its obligations on time. it's just unthinkable we'd ever do that. >> the leadership view from house republican tom price. then senior democratic senator dianne feinstein. and presidential politics with governor tim pawlenty in iowa, doing what it takes. >> t-paw!

>> he's the president. come on out to the lawn of the white house with a microphone and tell us your plan on entitlement reform. and he won't do it because he doesn't have the courage to do it. >> i'm candy crowley. and this is "state of the union." >> late into the night, leaders scrambled for a last-minute debt deal, a two-step plan that would raise the debt ceiling through 2011 in exchange for about a trillion dollars in spending cuts. both sides are on board. but the hang-up is a second increase that will be needed in 2012. before that happens republicans want a special commission to outline future reductions. a no-go at the white house. i spoke with treasury secretary tim geithner earlier. thank you so much for joining us. >> nice to see you. >> you heard the two-tier plan coming from the republicans. let me have the white house take on it. >> let me tell you what we're trying to do, okay?

the most important thing is we remove threat of default from the country for the next 18 months. very important we do that. can't leave the american economy with -- >> through the election -- >> i wouldn't say through the election. this is a hard thing to do, and you want to take this out of politics. you don't want politics messing around with america's credit. >> a second too late on that. already messing around with it. >> they have taken it too far, frankly. the other thing we want to do is put in place a framework that locks in real reforms, real savings, so we can return to living within our means as a country. that's very important to do. we have to do it in a way that is fair and balanced and we have have a way to force congress, frankly, to make some tough decisions over the next several months, 18 months. we're trying to do both of those things. those are important because we need to get congress back to the business of trying to do things to help make this economy stronger and get more americans to work. >> does the speaker's plan get you there? >> when the president brought them to the house yesterday, we have two paths ahead of us we can choose.

one is the framework the president and the speaker have been talking about now for several weeks -- >> which is so far a no-go. >> that's the president's preference, still, and the value of that approach is we're identifying and really putting in place real savings, commitment to tax reform, balanced framework. the other approach -- >> let me just, on that point, are you saying -- i mean, the speaker and the president as far as i know are no longer negotiating. is that true? >> no, that is not true. in fact, over the course of yesterday, the president was in touch with all leaders and they met over the course of yesterday -- >> beyond that early-morning meeting. >> yeah. >> so the president is still actively involved -- >> absolutely. >> -- in those negotiations? with the speaker? >> yes. what the leaders know is they need to agree on something together that will pass the house and pass the senate that the president can accept.

that's what we're working towards. so there are two paths here. one is the framework comprehensive balance of reforms and the other is a process like what senator mcconnell introduced and senator reid have been talking about, which would take default off the table and set up a special committee, a very powerful committee, exceptional powers weather a clear deadline to try to enact a reform to achieve the same objectives within a specified period of time. >> my question is none of those appear to be on the table publicly at this point and the president is still negotiating with the speaker and others, but right now what we know publicly is that speaker boehner has a plan on the table that would take you through 2011 and give you -- lift the deficit by about a trillion, and then you'd have another go-around and lift it through 2011. 2012. is that acceptable to the white house? >> we will do it in two stages. we'll lock in the savings we agreed to, and then the second

stage where congress will agree on something, revenue and entitlement reform, to make sure that's on sustainable footing. the key question is what happens at the end of that first stage? what we cannot do, and this is very important, and what we cannot do because it would be irresponsible is to leave the threat of default hanging over the economy for a longer period of time. back in january, more than seven months ago, we started this process of working with the congress to get them to raise the debt limit so we could avoid a default crisis. it's taken us seven months to get to the place we are now, almost out of runway, not nowhere, but almost out of runway. we cannot put the american economy through this periodic -- >> is that a no? >> it's a no. >> that's what i needed to know. if speaker boehner comes back to you, i think we can agree the house is the most difficult place to get something through at this point, and if the speaker comes back and says this deal that i'm talk about, 2011 we'll raise it, revisit it in

2012, is the best i can get, will you believe him? >> it's been clear for sometime that to get legislation passed, to avert a default crisis and solve our fiscal problems will require democrats as well as republicans. i'll tell you a conversation i had with republican leadership after the midterm elections. they said to me, we will need democrats on the debt limit thing because it will be hard for us. they have known from the beginning they need democrats to pass the house, not just to pass the senate. >> yes, they will lose conservative republicans. >> right. so that what they're all doing now is figuring out what will get votes to pass both houses, because they don't have time left on terms of what the president can accept. let me give you the optimistic view. i'm very confident in this country. we're a aaa country. congress is just going to prove they can get this done in the short time remaining, and the forces of reason are getting stronger now. if you listen carefully now. there is a lot of political

rhetoric and gnashing of teeth, but if you listen carefully now, both sides are getting closer. you see the leadership of the republicans saying, we are not going to default. this country will not default. we're a country that meets its obligations. if you listen carefully you see people coming closing together on the tough choices the country will need. we have different visions for the country, and we're still a very divided country in many ways, but we all agree we have to find a better means and turn our attention to get this country back to work. >> and agreed upon means -- not the means, but the agreed upon goal has been there for a while. let me try and button up where we are on the current boehner proposal, the two-tier proposal is not -- >> two stage. >> -- two stage proposal. it's not acceptable in current form to the white house. if that comes to you, if a so-called short-term deal, which is defined as not taking you through the election, is sent to

the president, are you telling me deshgs spite all these dire warnings, that he would veto that bill? >> it will not make it that far. >> he won't have to veto it. >> he needs democrats for that to work. and nancy pelosi said she will not vote for that approach. and it will not make its way through the senate. that's not a viable option. there's nothing wrong with doing this in stages. but what we can't do is leave the threat of default hanging over the american economy. it's leek a tax on all americans. it's deeply irresponsible. you cannot put that additional burden of uncertainty and fear on average-working americans, and on the american businesses going forward. >> timing seems to be of great moment at this point. the speaker said he wants a deal before the asian markets open, which is 9:00, 10:00, eastern time today. what will happen -- i am told that you warned congressional leaders yesterday morning of what might happen in the asian

markets if no deal is struck by then. what would happen? >> well, if you look at markets around the world over the last few weeks or so, they still show a remarkable degree of confidence that america will meet its obligations as it always has and we'll find a way to make progress on our long-term fiscal challenges. that will start to erode the longer we wait. >> today? >> we can't tell. >> you come here confidently today saying we will get a deal as opposed to more of the dire warnings we've had if we don't get a deal. what i would like to know in the remaining couple of minutes, are you basing this on something in the process you think we're near, we're near, or are you basing it on trying to calm the markets? >> it's unthinkable we would not mite our obligations on time. unthinkable. >> it's not going to happen? >> no. you've heard the republican

leadership and the president say that. they all recognize it's very important to do, and that's why i'm confident. again, if you sit in the room with them as we have done and you listen to them talk about how to solve this, you hear people starting to come together. they are much more realistic about what is possible and they recognize we have to get it done . >> that's based on more than hope that you're going to get it done. >> yes. >> let me ask you about the economy. the first is there are a number of private forecasters who have lowered their growth rate estimates for the second quarter. will the second quarter be lower than the first? >> it's possible. it's hard to tell. the second quarter is behind us. what matters is what happens the rest of the year. >> you think the second quarter might be lower than 1.9%? >> yeah, first time to be at 2% or slightly lower. >> you think the third quarter or fourth quarters will be better? >> should be better. no reason why they shouldn't be. >> how much better? >> if you look at the average of private forecasters, the best forecasters in the country, they

think the second half should be around 3%, stronger than the first half. >> 9.2% unemployment. at what point do you think we will begin to see a fairly good downward trajectory on unemployment, by november of next year, which we all know is an election date, do you see unemployment below 9%? how much below? >> you need growth for americans to get back to work. that's the most important thing. faster growth than in the first half of this year. there's no reason that should not the happen as long as congress lifts this fear of a default crisis. >> so you see unemployment with an eight in front of it instead of a nine? >> depends on how fast the economy grows. unemployment is unacceptably high, terribly high. it's a very tough economy for millions of americans because of the trauma of the crisis. it's going to take time for us to get the unemployment rate down, but with stronger growth, the unemployment will start to come down again. >> somewhere in the 8% range by-election time? >> you cannot know.

depends on the choices congress makes. >> thank you, tim geithner, appreciate you being here. >> thank you. sure. >> what will it take for republicans to back a debt deal? ♪ let me entertain you

♪ let me make you smile ♪ let me do a few tricks ♪ some old and then some new tricks ♪ ♪ i'm very versatile ♪ so let me entertain you ♪ and we'll have a real good time ♪ [ male announcer ] with beats audio and flash, you can experience richer music and download movies straight to the new hp touchpad with webos. oh, we call it the bundler. let's say you need home and auto insurance. you give us your information once, online... [ whirring and beeping ] [ ding! ] and we give you a discount on both. sort of like two in one. how did you guys think of that?

it just came to us. what? bundling and saving made easy. now, that's progressive. call or click today. announcer: when life's this hard, it's no wonder

7,000 students drop out every school day. visit boostup.org and help kids in your community stay in school. joining me now, congressman tom price of georgia heading up the republican study group that formulates policy for republicans on the house side. you heard, congressman, from the treasury secretary, who says the plan on the table that speaker boehner is talking about is unacceptable to the white house. your reaction? >> at 9:15 on sunday morning, that may be the case. let me, if i may, stipulate three facts. the first is that this debt crisis is not being driven by politics but by math. the aging of our population dictate that we need to live up to the debts that we made but structurally change and fundamentally change the way

washington spends money. secondly, it's house republicans in a bipartisan activity last week, the house republicans on two occasions this year, once in the spring with our budget that would have put us on a path to a blan balanced budget and cut our cap, and the short-term decrease in spending right now, the midterm, and then long term the structure for a balanced budget amendment that your network says 66% of the american people want, and third, sadly, the senate democrats and the president, even though they continue to complain, have yet to live up to their responsibility and put a specific proposal on the table. in fact, when the president put the budget on the table last february, the senate democrats voted it down 97-0. you have to wonder who is not willing to compromise. >> again, we are where we are in the process, regardless of who left what on the table at what

particular point, so what is the next move for the speaker and for republicans on capitol hill with the white house saying they don't -- what they object to, as you know, is they want this issue settled at least through 2012, because next year is election year, and if we think it's about politics now next year would be worse. will you as a general principle -- are you opposed to taking this thing through 2012 so it's not dealt with again until 2013? >> not at all. that's why we passed the budget earlier this year, because we wanted to begin the discussion at a time when cooler heads might prevail. now we're up against a remarkable deadline. what we are trying to do is make certain we can get through the deadline in a way that brings about the structural reforms not just spend regularductions but the structural reforms that have to absolutely be nut putt in place so we don't find ourselves in this rashlable crisis again.

>> you're okay with lets get a deal that gets us through 2012. that is not particularly objectionable to you? >> we're okay with an agreement, a solution, and we're not interested in a deal, but a solution that changes the way that washington does business so that we correct the challenges that we have right now and get ourselves on a path to pay off our debt and to balance our budget. it's what the american people demanded in the elections last november. >> you republicans do make a lot of what the voters said in the last election, saying we want washington to spend within its means, et cetera, et cetera, but we are also seeing poll after poll after poll that shows americans want compromise, and they think there should be something on the revenue side, and you are saying no, so why are you ignoring the polls and saying this is what the elections said? >> well, that's not true. as you know, our budget that we passed in the spring dealt with all of the corporate

loopholes that the president wants to do away with it. our budget did away with those but did away with them in a manner that allows for fundamental tax reform so you get the whole situation fixed and solved. we're not interested in doing bites at the apple or nips at the side, because that is not what will get this crisis solved. yes, our budget took away the corporate loopholes and broadened the base for tax reform and lowered the rates for individuals so we can get this economy growing and creating jobs, because that's the key, we have to grow our way out of this challenge. >> speaking for yourself or the leadership if you care to, if you cannot get these things that you have outlined, major structural changes somehow within the next eight days, and i realize it has been going on for seven months, but the reality is you have eight days, if you can't get that, will you allow the u.s. to default, you personally or the leadership? >> the u.s. won't default, because default means that you

don't pay your creditors. it takes about 10% of the money coming in right now -- >> without raising the debt ceiling, then. let would you allow august 2nd to pass without a vote to raise the me change the question. debt ceiling? >> that's not what we desire at all, and that's why we passed the two pieces of legislation we have pass and seen no action on the part of the senate. to your question of default, that means you don't pay your creditors. that will not happen. it cannot happen and must not happen. we have more than enough money to come in to be able to pay those individuals. the question is what doesn't get paid? that's where the president has, i think, sadly put fear into this equation and saying that seniors won't get social security checks or active duty military personnel won't be paid. there's no reason for that kind of discussion because there's enough resources to get us through a short term. at some point, as i said, and this is all about math and arithmetic, so you have to solve the crisis, and we have been

ready since we took the majority in january of this we're. we just hope we have a willing partner on the other side to solve these challenges. >> if your speaker comes to you and says here is the best deal i can get and it does not include some of the things you are talking about, major structural changes, et cetera, and he says, as he's said publicly a lot of times, we cannot allow that august 2nd deads line to pass, will you vote with your speaker, or are you prepared to vote against raising the debt creeling if you don't get what you want? >> again, the house republicans in a bipartisan fashion last week, already voted to raise the debt ceiling. >> but that's not acceptable with the senate vote on the table. so we're not dealing with that. that's not reality. >> the reality is the senate has not lived up to their responsibility. that's where the onus ought to be. if you don't like the reductions in spending we put on the table, what do you like? if you don't like the limitations on government spending we put on the table,

what do you like? if you don't like our balanced budget amendment, what kind of balanced budget amendment do you want or what kind of controls do you want in washington spending? that's where we need to be. it's not an ideal of what we have passed. it's what we have passed versus what the senate is able to do. they haven't even put a plan or proposal on the table. >> congressman tom price, thank you for joining us tuesday. we appreciate it. up next, our "sound of sunday," highlights from the other is sunday morning talk shows. then senator dianne feinstein. d a super business? you know, the ones who do a super job? superpages.com®. for local maps, reviews and videos & it's the only local search site with the superguarantee®. so next time, let the good guys save the day. get the superguarantee®, only at superpages®. in the book, on your phone or at superpages.com®.

say i'm missing england. i type in e-n-g... and he gives me a variety of options. would you like to have a look at a map, my lad? ah, why not? shall we check on the status of your knighthood? yes. again? yes, again, please! thank you. with my digital manservant, i'll never be homesick again. would you like me to put the kettle on, sir? no, i'd like you to get rid of that ostrich. it's been here a month. [ male announcer ] think, type, go. with just type. only on the new hp touchpad with webos. man on tv: two outs with a runner on first base. now the big guy comes up to bat, hitting .342 with 92 rbis and 36 homers. [fans whirring] [ding] announcer: chill raw and prepared foods promptly. one in 6 americans will get sick from food poisoning this year. keep your family safer. check your steps at foodsafety.gov.

but afraid you can't afford it? well, look how much insurance many people can get through selectquote for less than a dollar a day. selectquote found, rich, 37, a $500,000 policy for under $18 a month. even though dave, 43, takes meds to control his blood pressure, selectquote got him a $500,000 policy for under $28 a month. ellen, 47, got a $250,000 policy for under $20 a month. all it takes is a phone call. your personal selectquote agent will answer all your questions ... and impartially shop the highly rated term life companies selectquote represents for your best rates. give your family the security it needs at a price you can afford. call this number or go to selectquote dot com. selectquote. we shop. you save.

time for today's "sound of sunday." it was unanimous from the white house this morning, both treasury secretary tim geithner and white house chief of staff william dailey said the current it ration of a debt deal put forward by house republican speaker john baner is no deal because it would mean revisiting the debt ceiling next year. that's a nonstarter for the president and his men who want to get past the 2012 elections without another battle over this issue. >> the debt ceiling must be extended, not just short term. it must be into 2013. senator mcconnell, speaker boehner, senator reid, congresswoman nancy pelosi have

all said the debt ceiling will be extended. but it must be extended in a way that gives certainty to the economy through '13 and not some short-term gimmick where we're right back in this fix in six or eight months. >> senator tom coburn, a member of the gang of six and a friend of president obama's, said he believes a short-term deal is unavoidable to fore stall what the president has predicted would be economic armageddon. >> i understand why they're saying they won't sign a short term, but i think they won't have any choice and i think that's the only answer right now. >> as an alternative, though likely a remote one, house speaker john boehner says his previous offer to the white house is still on the table. that includes $800 billion in projected new federal revenue over ten years by a tax code reform, not higher rates. >> i don't know. it may be pretty hard to put humpty-dumpty back together again. but my last offer is still out there. i've never taken my last offer

off the table. and they've never agreed to my last offer. i think a better path forward at this moment would be to work with my bipartisan congressional leaders and my republican colleagues in the house to put together a process that's doable. >> hundreds of same-sex couples are getting married today in new york, the first day same-sex marriages are legal in the state. though most states have banned gay marriage, new york mayor ply cal bloomberg predict astouns turnaround. >> this is a trend growing rapidly partially because new york is such a bellwether and so visible, so when we do something, a lot of people, they don't necessarily copy it but they look to see whether it would be appropriate for them as well. >> and that's today's "sound of sunday." up next, two opposing views on the future of gay marriage, first, senator dianne feinstein on her fight to repeal the defense of marriage act. and later, a defender of traditional marriage, republican presidential candidate tim pawlenty.

>> every time this issue has been put to the people, even in california, the people have supported traditional marriage. specialists, lots of doctors, lots of advice... and my hands were full. i couldn't sort through it all. with unitedhealthcare, it's different. we have access to great specialists, and our pediatrician gets all the information. everyone works as a team. and i only need to talk to one person about her care. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.

any questions? no. you know... ♪ we're not magicians ♪ we can't read your mind ♪ ♪ read your mind ♪ we need your questions ♪ each and every kind ♪ every kind ♪ will this react with my other medicine? ♪ ♪ hey, what are all these tests even for? ♪ ♪ questions are the answer ♪ yeah ♪ oh

r. joining me now, democratic

senator from california, dianne feinstein. if i can recap for you this morning ong the debt crisis, the treasury secretary has told us that the current plan that the speaker had been working on, which is sort of a two-phased plan for raising the debt ceiling tied to spending cuts, is unacceptable to the white house because it does not bring the debt crisis past the next election. and we have heard the speaker say, you know, we're perfectly willing to go ahead on that plan without the help of democrats on the house side, and that puts it back in the senate. >> right. >> so i want to gauge your optimism here. you have been around washington -- you and i have both been around washington for a while. are you more or less optimistic that we will come up on august 2nd and have a deal? >> what i'm surprised at is the recalcitrance, the real position -- i represent 37 million people. california's bigger than 21 states in the district of columbia put together.

15 million to 20 million people in my state depend on programs that the republicans want to take a meat axe, not a scalpel, but a meat tax to -- ssi, social security, medicaid, and medicare. we need to know how it's done because it's possible to cut back the programs, but it's going to take some real care and concern to see that it's done so that it hurts people the very least. republicans don't -- >> so you can see an entitlements cuts, it's just the nature of the cuts we're talking about? >> it's the nature of the cuts and when and how they come, and it's also, i think, how you fund them. we would probably take three parts cuts to one parts revenues. what we won't do is take $4 trillion in cuts with no addition to revenues.

we strongly believe the wealthiest in our society should help with this crisis, that it should be a fair-share plan, not just the people who are poor and dependent on these programs. that's not unreasonable. >> but for seven months we have been having this argument. >> that's right. >> as you know, it has been going on for seven months and everybody can argue who is to blame, but the reality is we're up against a deadline here, and the republicans are determined to go ahead. where do you see this coming out? >> i can tell you in the senate, but the house i cannot quite figure out. >> that's okay, they can't figure you out either. >> the senate, 39 members that support the gang of six proposal. >> three republicans and three senators that have come up with a collection of cuts and revenue. >> that's correct. the revenue enhancements take sense, and they would take the

simpson bowles' commission's tax reform in it. it's a big, big step forward for the senate. if that could be wrapped into a proposal that would provide the length of time to do it and do it carefully, i think you have an arrangement. but i think this business of -- you know, here you have two months of negotiation with the vice president, and the republican walked out. you had hours of negotiations withth the president, and the republican walked out. they said no to simpson bowles, no to the gang of six. >> to be fair, there were parts of simpson bowles that the democrats al said no to. we get down to that. because our time with you is short i want to move on a little about that let's say you are more or less optimistic that we will get the debt ceiling done and move on to a different subject? >> i am neither. this is the first time in 19

years that i feel that something that can be done simply is being held hostage for a very high stakes game. >> you have a new bill you call the respect for marriage act, which would undo the defense of marriage act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman and disallows same-sex couples from having any federal benefits. >> that's right. >> and why is now the time, because people will point out that 39 states have banned same-sex marriage. why is this the time to do this? >> i point out to you that six states plus the district of columbia now support same-sex marriage. marriage is always a creature of the state for legal reasons. divorces, inheritances, adoption. all family matters are done by state law.

what doma did, the defense of marriage act, was in 1993 and 1994, it was passed and it said you can have none of the federal rights or benefits that come with a state same-sex marriage. in my view, that's both wrong and unconstitutional. that's right. spousal benefits, and certain inheritance rights, all of those things, it's just plain wrong to do it. if a state enacts same-sex marriage, that state is entitled to be able to be treated like any other marriage state. so we have produced this bill and have 27 cosponsors and had the first hearing this week. i believe it may be a long march, but i believe it's going to happen. >> when you look at this, and you look at what is happening in new york today, do you think that over time this will just be a generally accepted practice? is that where you are headed despite what have been some most

recently in state votes people turning down the idea of same-sex marriage? >> yes, i think so. as time goes on what i find is more and more people have gay friends, gay relatives, people are much more forward with their thinking about this now, and i think they are much more open to it, and the polls are showing a change in attitude, and the problem here is that if a state says, yes, we're going to count the same-sex marriage, then all the rights and benefits of ought to be due to that relationship. >> federal benefits? >> exactly. >> senator dianne feinstein, always great to have you. hope you'll come back. >> thank you, candy. look forward to it. up next, catching up with republican candidate tim pawlenty, who grew up playing hockey and is doing whatever it takes to get the votes.

iowa, the first contest of the primary season and site of the ames straw poll next month, is a land of opportunity for campaigns looking for traction, which brings us to tim pawlenty. the minnesota governor is a charming candidate who has not moved the meter, polling in the low single digits nationally, he run as distant third behind romney and michele bachmann. for pawlenty, he seemed like the strongest contender, and his vote rides on iowa. he has a classic underdog strategy. >> i face an opponent experts say can't be beat. you fight. you bleed. you prevail. >> do you believe in miracles? >> join me and prove the experts wrong. >> friday, an encouraging word from an activist, pawlenty placed behind romney but ahead of bachmann.

till the august straw poll in iowa is a far bigger headline moment, pawlenty is reported by spending about a billion dollars and definitely spending time to rev up support. it's a rare chance to spark a campaign in need of fire. tim pawlenty in the hawkeye state next.

any questions? no. you know... ♪ we're not magicians ♪ we can't read your mind ♪ ♪ read your mind ♪ we need your questions ♪ each and every kind ♪ every kind ♪ will this react with my other medicine? ♪ ♪ hey, what are all these tests even for? ♪ ♪ questions are the answer ♪ yeah ♪ oh personal pricing now on brakes. tell us what you want to pay. we do our best to make that work. deal! my money. my choice. my meineke.

governor thank you for joining us. the debt ceiling. i think we are on plan c, d or e at this point. if you are president you are on the hot seat it seems to me. president obama has to come up with a deal or he gets blamed for what -- >> he should get blamed. he should get blamed. >> but you're a republican with your stated values. how would you get a deal at this moment? >> i have been a supporter, if i was president, long-term constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and peg spending so they can't just raise taxes -- >> but that's not going to happen before -- >> you are saying if i was president, what would i push for? that's what i would push for. >> i think we know what you would push for, but where would you compromise? because cut, cap, and balance is not passing the senate. you have to come up with something.

my question is, where do you -- where's the give here, if there is? you have to get it past the senate and that is controlled by democrats? >> how did we get here? president obama took office with a $500 billion or so deficit and he ran it up to $1.5 trillion. >> can i interject that he inherited two wars, an ongoing prescription drug plan that was passed under the bush administration, and a recession that went deeper and deeper? >> the two wars were taking place under bush at a larger level in iraq. so when president bush took office there was a $500 billion deficit, and now it's $1.5 trillion under president obama's watch. he tripled the deficit of this country. he looked the american people in the eye in march of 2009 after he new full well about the wars and after he new full well about the economic collapse and after he knew full well about the medicare part d prescription drug expansion, and he looked at

the american people in the eye and said, i will reduce the deficit in half in my first term, and he tripled it. that's one of his many broken promises, one of his many false statements. he needs to be held accountable for that. we are where we are, and we need to find a solution where we have some movement and progress towards real permanent reductions in spending. i believe congressman boehner and others can find a way to do that. it's gut-check time. and if you say we're in a tough spot. if they are not going to do tough cuts, then when is it going to be? they always say we're going to do the tough things. sometime we're going to make tough decisions. after the next election, we might fix that. the time is now, and as important as the debt ceiling is, the other issues of whether we're going to fix the spending problems of the country also deserve attention, and if not now, when? one example would be, what are they going to do to fix medicaid?

it's bankrupting states and running the federal government over the cliff financially. where is the president of the united states on the most pressing financial challenges of our country on entitlement reform? where is his specific medicaid reform proposal? where is his social security reform proposal? where is his specific medicare proposal? the answer is he does not have one. you can't find him publicly talking about that. he's ducking and bobbing and weaving, and he's not leading and that's why he needs to be removed from office. >> apparently with speaker boehner he has talked -- >> well, if you are the leader of the free world please come to the microphone and quit hiding in the basement with your proposals and come up and address the american people? is he chicken? >> can i see if i -- is he? let me have you answer that question. >> i love paul ryan, but we should not have to have a congressman from wisconsin

leading the debate on the nation's financial challenge in one of the most historically important moments in the country's history. the president should be standing out courageously and leading on these issues specifically, and you can't fight him on -- >> he has agreed to do that -- >> when? >> i want to move on from this, but i just wanted to say, he has agreed to do that in private, but they say the problem is the republicans -- >> if we can do that in private, i can have a beer with my neighbor over that. he's the president and come out of the basement and to the lawn of the white house to the microphone and tell us your plan on entitlement reform. and he won't do it because he doesn't have the courage to do it. >> all of these things you are talking about now -- medicare, medicaid, even cuts at the pentagon cannot get done between now and the time of the debt ceiling. let me ask a wrap-up question. you'd let that time frame

expire? >> they will have to fix it. we don't want to default. the united states of america should not default. but they do need -- they meaning the republicans and the president -- need to show the country and the world and the markets, a, that they can fix the problem, but b, that it's a meaningful structural permanent fix or at least a piece of real progress in that regard. and we'll see if they can do it. if they can't -- he was the one when he was a u.s. senator, barack obama said it's an example of failed leadership. now he's the leading champion of raising it. again, another sophistry, another piece of fake rhetoric from him. he made all these big promises to the country, all these big speeches, all these big -- things he said he's going to do and he hasn't done any of it. we've had enough of it. we need results. the country is sinking. the country is drowning. we need real leaders. that's why the emphasis on entertainment and rhetoric is not the right direction for the country.

>> when we come back, governor pawlenty on his opposition to gay marriage.

[♪...] >> male announcer: now, for a limited time, your companion flies free, plus save up to 65%. call 1-800-sandals. conditions apply.

welcome back. we are here with former minnesota governor tim pawlenty. the first legal gay marriages will take place in new york. they have been in place here in

iowa for more than a year. what has been the harm of that? >> well, from my standpoint, i don't think all domestic relationships are the same as traditional marriage, candy. i think a marriage between a man and a woman is something that should remain elevated socially, culturally, practically, legally, morally in our society. >> i understand your position on it. many people have that position. i'm wondering if you see that there has been harm to iowa, the state of iowa or will there be harm to the state of new york because they've legalized gay marriage? >> i wouldn't phrase it that way in the sense that i think there's just a difference of opinion about whether all domestic relationships are in the eyes of the law and otherwise going to be the same as traditional marriage. i don't think they should be. >> why? in particular, what should gay couples, lesbian couples not have that straight couples do?

>> well, i think we have a long-standing practice. it's social, it's legal, it's cultural, that says a man and woman are joined together for obvious reasons, in relationship, in marriage, in procreation, in raising children, in their function in society. i'm not at the point, nor will i ever be at the point, where i'm going to say, you know what? that really is not special. it's not any different than any other domestic relationships we can imagine or assemble. i don't buy that at all. >> there's a difference between saying, look, i'm never going to get there and saying there is harm to the state of iowa or society in general. >> i think when society devalues traditional marriage by saying all other domestic relationships are the same as traditional marriage you dilute and devalue traditional marriage. >> it's a cultural thing to you, just culturally or religiously you don't believe that and you won't believe that? >> it's certainly a cultural and

moral issue, but it also has practical effects. i think obviously a man and woman together are the traditional family. that's how children are born and raised traditionally. >> there's plenty of single parents. >> of course. >> plenty of gay couples have children that have adopted or otherwise had surrogates, whatever happens. are those not families? >> there are many examples of single parents and others who heroically and lovingly raise children. obviously, an example would be somebody who lost a spouse and is working two jobs and has children. so i'm not saying that there can't be single parents. there obviously are single parents who are wonderful parents. i'm just saying we want to maintain traditional marriage, elevate it in the eyes of the law and in our society. it is not the same as other domestic relationships. >> let me bring your attention to something rudy giuliani told

us last week. we were talking about gay marriage. he's also opposed to marriage. he's pro civil union. he said of the new york move and other states, i think the republican party would be well-advised to get the heck out of people's bedrooms and let these things get decided by states. do you think it's time for the republican party to say -- or members of the republican party such as yourself to say i'm never going to agree with this, but you know what, we've got a lot on our plate, let this one go, let the states decide and move on? >> clearly the main focus for the country is economy and jobs. our finances. but if you're going to be president of the united states, you have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time and address lots of different issues. these issues of being pro family or pro traditional marriage or being pro life are important. they're important to me. and i think they're important to -- >> most of the polls that we now see are that the majority of people favor gay marriage. so does the republican party look like it's behind the curve? does it risk looking intolerant?

>> every time this issue has been put to the people, even in california, the people supported traditional marriage. so this notion that the people broadly don't support traditional marriage, that hasn't been the case when it's been put to a vote. >> do you care if there are same-sex couples who have gotten married? does that truly bother you or is it just as a general principle? >> look, to me it's just -- the idea that we're going to have traditional marriage be viewed in the eyes of the law and society as no different than other domestic relationships i think is a bad idea. we want traditional marriage to remain elevated legally and socially. >> because? >> because it plays an obvious and unique role in our culture and society. >> man and a woman having a child is what you're talking about? >> of course, and a man and woman in a relationship. to say that is somehow the equal of all other possible domestic