don't want tax increase for the middle class, again, the math doesn't work. everybody is going to pay a little bit more. >> john, you're a young man been a old washington hand. is washington different than it was even two years ago when we were talking about how polarized things were? >> ouch! yes, it is. it's still polarized. we see this deal today and this compromise and we'll see if it follows in the future. in terms of conversation in washington, remember when president obama took office. he came in office and passed a big health care plan that involved a huge activist role for the government. he passed a $800 billion stimulus plan that included a whole lot of government spending to prime the economy. he wanted to pass more infrastructure spending this year. he wanted to increase education spending. what is the conversation in washington about? cutting spending, shrinking government, not raising taxes. we'll see what happens with this supercommittee. we'll see if the president gets his revenues and tax increases in installment. this is a big conversation about

the role, the size of the federal government and where the money comes from and that's because of the last election. the american people in 2010 spoke a very different message than in 2008 and now we'll have a debate. 2008, obama. 2010 republicans and we'll carry that into 2012 including -- a lot of people say this deal will quiet this debate. no, it won't. just for a couple of days. when this committee gets to work we'll be involved in every one of these issues again and it will spill into the election. >> gloria, haven't there been a ton of committees already that have come up with plenty of ways to save money and cut the deficit? >> right. >> there's been -- i don't know how many. what is this one going to achieve -- get that the other ones haven't? isn't this a kind of -- oh, yeah, we'll created a committee? >> i think that's a really good question. i think there are a lot of skeptics about it and skeptics about it inside the white house. i think that the feeling is the hope is that maybe people will start seeing the light together

when they're confronted with these draconian cuts that would kick in. it's like saying to them -- it's an admission that we can't do our jobs that you sent us here to do unless you threaten us with these awful cuts and if these cuts actually occurred we'd probably not get re-elected. so the feeling is that when you put this sledgehammer to them, maybe they will do their work. one other thing -- and again, there's a short period of time here, but if somebody said to me today, this isn't new territory. people understand the issues here. you had the erskine bowles and alan simpson commission which did a very long and detailed report. everybody knows what needs to be done. they just have to agree on it. but i think you're absolutely right. i think there's a lot of reason for skepticism, i do. >> jessica, you're here in the treasury department is going to talk to rating agencies tonight. do we know what they're saying?

>> according to my sources they are already talking to rating agencies and they're asking for the details of the deal. they are still evaluating this to see if we're downgraded. we're not entirely out of the woods yet because the agencies will decide what this deal means and have yet to make this decision about a downgrade. so there are these conversations going on with the administration from treasury, and these agencies and we'll have to see tomorrow and in the coming days what kind of statements come out of the rating agencies ahead. >> if we go through all this and still get downgraded and -- there were warnings but there are levels. >> there are levels. there's triple-a to the next level. the next one is the serious one. we might get a little downgrade. japan went through this and recovered. when it's a small downgrade and you show efforts to fix it you can get back. >> ali, john, gloria, jessica, thank you. we'll turn to paul begala and

jessica. they give their take on what happened today and what will happen tomorrow. and tea party favorite, rand paul coming up. let us know what you think. we're be on twitter and facebook. why he called the budget deal a "sugar-coated satan sandwich." and who was right be side gabby giffords side as she made her appearance on the house floor. be right back. ' side as she made her appearance on the house floor. be right back. [ waves crashing ] [ martin luther king jr. ] i still have a dream that one day on the red hills of georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. i have a dream today!

[ male announcer ] chevrolet is honored to celebrate the unveiling of the washington, d.c., martin luther king jr. memorial. take your seat at the table on august 28th. sir, can you hear me? just hold the bag. we need a portable x-ray, please! [ nurse ] i'm a nurse. i believe in the power of science and medicine. but i'm also human. and i believe in stacking the deck. be kind to your eyes with transitions lenses. transitions adapt to changing light so you see your whole day comfortably and conveniently while protecting your eyes from the sun. ask your eyecare professional which transitions lenses are right for you.

ask your eyecare professional for your transitions certificate of authenticity for your chance to win instant monthly prizes or our $20,000 grand prize! a network of possibilities. in here, the planned combination of at&t and t-mobile would deliver our next generation mobile broadband experience to 55 million more americans, many in small towns and rural communities, giving them a new choice. we'll deliver better service, with thousands of new cell sites... for greater access to all the things you want, whenever you want them. it's the at&t network... and what's possible in here is almost impossible to say. energy is being produced to power our lives. while energy developement comes with some risk, north america's natural gas producers are committed to safely and responsibly providing decades of cleaner burning energy for our country, drilling thousands of feet below fresh water sources within self contained well systems and using state of the art monitoring technologies,

rigorous practices help ensure our operations are safe and clean for our communities and the environment we are america's natural gas. breaking news tonight, the senate takes it down to the wire voting not tonight, but tomorrow, deadline day on the compromise. in a home, rand paul who plans to oppose it but first, maiconation earlier with congressman emanuel clever, democrat from missouri and he said quite a bit more than "no" in opposition to the bill. congressman clever you voted "no" and called it, a, quote, sugar-coated satan sandwich." you'll see that there's nothing in the bill that would garner the support of any of the great religions of the world and

by that, i mean everything that we're supposed to do to take care of the elderly and take care of those that are unable to take care of themselves and also dealing with our children, those things were not protected and although there are some so-called fire walls in there, this new supercongress of 12 will have some enormous powers. and keep in mind, social security, medicare and medicaid, are not off the table. it's been delayed in terms of when that subject will surface. but it's a bad bill. i voted "no" after 250 something votes had already been registered so i knew that the bill was going to pass and, in fact, i said earlier if the bill needed my vote i would vote yes because i wasn't willing to try to make a point and at the same time drive the economy off into the abyss. but make no mistake, i don't know of a single democrat who

voted for this bill who thought it was a good bill. not one single democrat. >> i know you said that the consequences of default would be catastrophic but it's interesting you say you would have voted for it if your vote was needed to make it pass. a critic could say well, then, that your vote is sort of about politics because you knew your vote didn't really matter so it was a safe vote to vote "no" on? >> no. it really wasn't about politics because i made that statement before the vote and i thought it was a bad bill. i talked about the fact that it was a bad bill. so the safest and easiest political vote was to vote yes. i mean, i stand in favor with the white house. i get kudos from folks who just wanted to get it out of the way but i registered a protest vote. >> some democrats today in a meeting with vice president biden, reports that some of their complaints were saying the republicans were negotiating like terrorists.

how would you characterize the tenor of the debate and the willingness of some in the republican party to try to get what they want? >> well, you know, i'm disappointed in the way the debate went. we had a fact-free debate. but let me say this. i want to give kudos to the tea party members because they pretty much had their way. >> they won, you're say something. >> i don't think there's any question that they won politically. i think the american public and, in fact, the world probably won because we didn't blow up the u.s. economy and bring down the world economy with us. >> do you look forward or worry about the ability to govern and get compromise and get things done moving forward? >> it all depends on whether or not the individuals who won come to the conclusion that they can win every battle if they're

willing to send everybody off a cliff. and if they think that that's the way government is supposed to work, i think that's going to continue. >> congressman clever, i appreciate your time. thank you, sir. >> good to be here. >> congressman clever disappointed nancy pelosi. the poker analogies all day. was he making the best of a much weaker political hand? we have paul begala and eric erikkson who justory himself away from "the bachelorette." a sugar-coated satan sandwich?" >> yes. around congressman clever is also reverend clever. so he knows of which he speaks both legislatively and spiritually. democrats are furious because --

they make a good point. instead of even-zooef ven 250st 50/50, we're getting all spending cuts in priorities and programs in the main democrats strongly support. there's by bigger thing at play here, too. and i think congressman clever referred to that and it's this obsession on the debt ceiling. it's an artificial contrivians. it takes away from jobs and growth. i got an e-mail from willie nellson who said a lot more people are worried about a ceiling over their head than they are a debt ceiling. i think he's right. he's a -- >> i love that willie nellson has your e-mail account. >> i live a weird but blessed life. he's my hero. i'm from austin. if you don't belief ne willie and you're from austin --

>> who doesn't believe in willie. >> i talked to rand paul and we'll play that in just a moment, and he says, we were willing to compromise. we compromised willing do raise the debt ceiling. that wasn't really a compromise by republicans. that wasn't really a democratic issue, was it? >> for a lot of republicans, anderson, it actually was. and you and me and paul may scratch our heads over that but a lot of these guys ran on not raising the debt ceiling and a lot of them, particularly in the house, viewed themselves as replacing people who were willing to lose to vote for obama care and willing to lose to not raise the debt ceiling and we may say that's not how washington worked but they genuinely believed it. paul being from austin, that's where you can get the burger between the two krispy kreme donuts. i think that's the s achlttan's sandwich. >> is that fair? we were willing to compromise and raise the debt ceiling but i don't understand when that became a democratic position? >> we have been raising the debt

ceiling for generations. >> right. republicans and democrats? >> right. from either party. now, i will say, an admission against my party's interesting with when he was in the senate barack obama voted against raising the debt ceiling when president bush was president. >> he acknowledged and said that was wrong and that was political. >> correct. i think there's some principle at stake and in that sense i respect the tea party and the other conservatives. i don't agree with them and i think they would have done great damage to the country but at least they show they have the courage of their convictions. i wish the democrats would come forward with a jobs' bill. i hear the president and vice president today, were telling congressional democrats we get this done and then we pivot to jobs and i sure hope so. and it better be a pretty robust jooebs' program because we have a long-term deficit problem. no doubt about it but we have a near-term growth crisis and we'll never pay off this deficit with 14 million americans out of work. >> so did the president get crushed here? earlier we heard john king say

maybe this was a win for obama. a think a lot of tea party people feel it was a win for the tea party. do you think the president won here? >> it depends on whether you're looking at policy or politics. policy, probably not and he'll get hurt business his bay. if you look at mother jones they were all lamenting that this is maybe a rejection of the american people of the government. but politically i think he did win because he gets the issue off the burner before january. people will have forgotten about this by march. the deficit commission, by the way, to answer your question from earlier with gloria, this will be the 19th in 30 years. the first one was when it was $1 trillion. now we're at 14. he'll get all this off the back burner by march and people will have forgotten about this. this election is going to be about jobs. not the debt ceiling or diplomatic relations with foreign countries it will be about jobs. if the unemployment rate goes down he'll probably get elected but if it goes up, maybe not. >> do you think this was a win for president obama?

>> no, no i don't. i think having worked in the white house my heart goes out to him. he was working with folks who he believed would harm the economy to assume their political agendas. but this is the problem. the commerce department, president obama's own commerce department says in the last quarter, austerity measures by state, local and federal governments, spending cuts by government, reduced the gdp by 1.2%. so there's no doubt this is contractioniary and we're doing it when the president needs new jobs, not shaving jobs off of our payrolls. >> but anderson, i think there's a larger issue here. no one really is talking about this. if you go back to 1999 which was the best revenue the federal government has probably ever seen it only went up to 21%. the last time that happened was the end of world war ii in 1945. but the federal government is now spending at 25% of gdp and it seems pretty impossible to close the gap.

forget, go back to the '50s and '60s, tax rates in the 70% and now we're down to 30% and tax income has been pretty steady in the federal government with the extent of the recession but even if it goes back up it won't close the gap. so at some point the government has to say, we can't keep running perpetual debt. we're at $14 trillion. if this plan goes through as they plan we'll add another $12 trillion. >> that's a good point. most of that spending, almost all of it was automatic spending increases caused by the recession. but why then just seven or eight months ago in december, did we have all the so-called experts that thought it was wonderful, this bipartisan agreement to increase the debt by $858 billion in the form of tax cuts, which apparently have done very little to stimulate our economy since the economy is stil way. in other words, we need more revenue, higher taxes, i hope on the rich, and, yes, less

spending. >> but we've got to wrap this up. >> i have a question for you. if 49% of the country doesn't pay taxes and 51% already do i still have a hard time understanding what their fair share is. it's looking more and more like the middle class, at some point we're going to have to raise taxes, too, if we go that way, instead of cutting spending. >> but you're just talking about income tax which is a rich person's tax. poor people pay payroll and gas and excise tax and all kinds of taxes. working people are paying their fair share. i'm not worried about that. but warren buffett, one of the richest men on earth said, there's a class war going on and my class is winning and i think paul is right. >> paul, your southern accent has gotten more southern over the course of this interview. >> it's from the e-mail from willie nelson. still around, coming up, kentucky's junior senator, rand paul, plans to vote "no." why he's not willing to compromise on the debt ceiling. he said he's willing to

compromise. we'll figure it out. and a moment everyone, no matter which party could embrace, congressman gabby giffords to cast her vote. debbie wasserman schultz joins us with a behind-the-scenes look.

more on tonight's breaking news on the debt deal. the latest, the house voted to pass the agreement reached yesterday by president obama congressional leaders. final vote, 269-161. liberal democrats for the most part and tea party republicans joining in opposition. house majority liter eric canter downplayed this. >> i feel like we accomplished a lot by passing that bill. it is the beginning of a process but we'll change it. it also, i think, sends a signal that we can work together to try to produce results and right now it's about trying to address this economy so people can get back to work.

>> the bill raises the debt ceiling through the end of 2012, calling for more than $2 trillion in savings over the next decade. president obama reluctantly endorsed the compromise and said nothing publicly today. senate vote is expected around noon. earlier i talked to kentucky senator, paul reason, who plans to vote no. you plan to vote against this in the senate. you're unwilling to participate in a congressman that can pass through congress and get signed by the president. your critics say your choice not to compromise is not -- is compromise a dirty word? >> we've offered several compromises. i was part of a group that orchestrated a compromise called "cup, cap and balance." which would have given the entire $2 trillion the president requested in exchange. >> the cut cap and balance i understand the idea behind it but it's not something that can

really get passed but that's not really a compromise. >> there is an argument about when it's right to compromise and when it's right to make a deal. we offered to come halfway in the sense that we offered to raise the debt ceiling. but there were times in the 19th century when people were asked to compromise over many things that were just plain wrong. so i think it's god to stand up for what you believe in and i had's good for america to balance the debt. >> agreeing to this isn't that a moral obligation? >> i'm not saying we don't pay our debt. what i'm saying is this will increase our debt. we're at $14 trillion, this will take us up above $16 trillion and that's adding to our debt. >> but in this plan we're still cutting $2.5 trillion in debt? >> yeah. see, that gets into the whole talk about what we're cutting again. they're talking about cutting against a baseline that adds about 9 to $10 trillion so when

you subtract two you're still adding seven so there's certain semantics to this argument that i think are lost on the american people a lot of times. to my mind, i came out of the private world, if you spend more and add more debt you're not fixing your problem. to put this in contrast, if you had a real cut, 1%, the penny plan, over about six years your cut one penny out of every dollar you would balance the budget but i don't think that's that unreasonable. >> according to sources they say democrats were venting anger about republicans saying they negotiate like terrorists. what they're saying is a small group of tea party republicans, a powerful group were willing to hold the full faith and credit of the united states essentially, hostage. were rilg to risk the full faith and credit and not realize at a certain point, we're not getting what we want to we have to compromise. is that fair? >> not really. some people argue that by adding $2 trillion more in debt to our

country that that threatens our country more than a temporary inconvenience of not raising the debt ceiling. >> has this been a victory, you think, for the tea party? >> in some ways, yes. we didn't win the legislative battle. i didn't get what i want. but i'd say that the public debate now, everyone comes up to me and says, whether they're with me or not, they say the debate is all about cutting spending and before it was more about where are we going to go with the earmarks. >> is there any scenario that you believe raising taxes on the wealthiest americans which colding to a lot of polls americans seem to support, as part of a plan to get toward fiscal health, would you in any way, be able to vote for something like that down the road? >> i've been having this dialogue. we get painted as people who are not talking. i talk with democrats every day. in fact, the democrats say the rich need to pay more of their fair share and bear more of the burden. i can accept that premise. i think we could come together on that premise and then the

question is how should they do it? by paying more taxes or maybe we can get the rich to pay more by saying they should pay more for their benefits. the reason we don't want to do it for the most part is we think it will hurt job creation. >> look at approval ratings of congress people it's about as low as ratings of journalists and that's not very good. the is this debate a sign that government works or doesn't work? but from your perspective on the inside, what sign is this? >> on the debt ceiling i would say there's that debate. think how great it is that no one is shooting each other and the nice story of gabby giffords came back today. well, i mean, think about it compared to other countries where there's violence involved. people's freedom so express themselves is suppressed. we shouldn't complain about bickering and that's freedom of speech and you guys in the media, you really want to

protect the first amendment and so do i. that's what debate is about. it's first amendment expression. we won't always agree but we're not at each other's throats so to paint us as that is an improper. >> and paul begala and eric erikkson, editor and chief of red state.com. >> while he was speaking i think that illusion to the 19th century is slavery. he's compares a fight over an artificial debt limit to probably the greatest sin in american history. that's a little much, at least for me and i was struck at what a different type of republican we have in the senate. years ago, the leader was doirkson. he said, i'm a man of fixed and unbending principals and the first of those is flexibility. that's how deals got down.

that's how the civil rights legislation got passed, helping a democratic president, lyndon johnson. that era seems long gone to me to hear senator paul speak. >> eric, that's interesting, i think last week it was said that it's counterconstitutional. the idea that you fight hard for what you believe in but at a certain point when you realize it's not going to happen you have to be willing to compromise. a lot of folks think compromise is a dirty word? >> i think it depends on what you're compromising on. it can be practicality and a lot of other issues but if you compromise your principles, why bother? jesse helms said, if you think freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why are they barttering away? a lot of people believe that. rand paul is one of those. he believes we're going to a bad place in the cou