i'm howard kurtz. join us next sunday morning for another critical look at the media. "state of the union" with candy crowley begins right now. a week to forget at the white house. falling poll numbers, twin defeats in special house elections, and tepid reaction to the president's jobs package. today the politics of a struggling economy with senate majority whip democrat dick durbin and republican senator lindsey graham. then a u.n. showdown over palestinian statehood with the plo's chief representative and the israeli ambassador. then recession worries with alice rivlin and douglas holtz-eakin. i'm candy crowley, and "state of the union." the president unveils how he will pay for his $447 billion jobs plan tomorrow. public reaction to part one has

been tepid. in the latest "new york times"/cbs poll, americans are split on whether the jobs plan will actually create jobs. as for the president's own employment, there is open democratic fear he's a one-termer. the vibe was bad enough this week that top obama campaign strategist sent a memo to reporters noting that the president's support from the democratic base is strong. the same cannot be said of independents. 54% disapprove of how he's doing his job. things can change between now and november 2012. the more immediate question is whether president obama has the political capital to sell his jobs plan to the public and push it through congress. joining us now, the number two democrat in the senate, senator dick durbin. thank you so much for being here. and let's just start with that question. we do see a president who's being openly criticized by democrats, whose poll numbers are falling, a weak economy. and people just not really sure this jobs plan is going to work. how do you sell that to the public, and how do you pass that

in the senate? >> well, candy, you can understand the skepticism of americans. they've watched the confrontation in washington virtually threaten to close down the government, even close down the economy. so they're skeptical of any political promises. but when you go to the specifics about president obama's plan, you can get a positive reaction. should we give a tax credit, an incentive to small businesses across america to hire the unemployed? should we give a payroll tax cut to working families that are struggling paycheck to paycheck? should we invest in making sure that we don't lose the jobs, important jobs, of firefighters and policemen and teachers? should we put money in the economy to build america for the 21st century? people say "yes" to those things. the president's plan is a positive plan to move us forward. >> but let me just point out that i think some of the skepticism -- you're absolutely right -- is about this gridlock in washington, but it is also about the fact that there was about $800 billion spent in

stimulus with the white house promising, as republicans point out all the time, that unemployment would not rise above 8% if we would just spend this money in stimulus. well, it's 9.1% now. got as high as 10.1%. now you want to spend more than half that again in a 447 -- i'm sorry, more than $400 billion in jobs. >> that's right. >> so why is that going to be any more successful than the first one was in bringing down the unemployment rate which is what this is about? >> candy, you're going to have some economists on later, and they're going to tell you this is one of the most challenging recessions america has ever faced. you go back to the great depression. what we did with the first effort by the president was to stop this recession from going deeper. now we've got to do something positive. look at the other side of the equation and ask what the republicans would do. they would make sure that we have no new tax burden on the wealthiest people in america and they would continue to criticize

any effort to step forward and do something positive to move this economy. most americans reject that. they understand that with 14 million people out of work and 46 million in poverty, we need to step up and move this economy forward. that's the president's plan. >> many economists say two things. in the short term now -- just the short term now and not the long term -- you shouldn't cut spending by too much and you shouldn't raise taxes. yet we now know from the white house that one of the things the president wants to do is the so-called buffett plan which is to make sure that no millionaire pays less of a percentage in federal tax than anyone in the middle class. is it a good idea right now to raise taxes on anybody right now? >> well, certainly on those who are wealthy and comfortable and wouldn't even notice it, yes. warren buffett has been honest and other people i know who have been fortunate in life and

wealthy have said, for goodness' sakes, you can raise my taxes if that's going to help this economy move forward. i wonder if john boehner knows what it sounds like when he continues to say the position of the republican party in america is that you can't impose one more penny in taxes on the wealthiest people. i wonder if he understands how that sounds in ohio to working families who are struggling paycheck to paycheck. >> do you think that's the point >> how it sounds to 46 million people out of work. >> when is this jobs bill getting on the senate floor? >> it will start the debate this week. there will be a lot of variations and ideas -- >> but the bill won't be on the floor to vote on this week. you guys can debate anything at any point. when is the bill going to get on the floor? >> the bill's on the calendar. majority leader reid moved it to the calendar. it is ready and poised. there are a couple other items that we may get into this week not on the bill and some related issues that may create jobs. but we're going to move forward on the president's bill. there will be a healthy debate.

i hope -- >> after the recess? so next month or when will it begin to be acted on? >> i think that's more realistic that it would be next month. >> next month. okay. let me turn to you some politics. as you know, the man who lost the new york district that used to be anthony weiner's, which has been a democratic district more than 80 years, says that he lost because it was a referendum on the obama administration. what does that tell you about democrats' chances in 2012 and the president's chances? >> i don't think anybody can predict 14 months from now what we're going to face and as david axelrod said in this memo you referred to, we're not talking about the president running in some black-box scenario. there will be an opponent. and as i listen to the republican presidential nominee candidates come forward and spout their ideas and bow to the tea party and their agenda, the tea party is not very popular in america. what they brought us to in washington twice already is a confrontation that is virtually

threatened to close down the government and our economy. so i don't think people like that style of politics and that's the reality of we'll be facing in november 2012. >> james carville, a democratic consultant, a true-blue democrat through and through, has said that those elections should cause the white house to panic. he said it is time to fire someone, that the economy hasn't gotten any better as far as people are concerned and still the president is using the same economic team, and as much as he respects them, it is time for them to go and get in some new blood to show the american people the president understands. good idea? >> i've listened to this president. he's been my friend, and i've worked with him for years. he is always open to ideas and contributions from everyone, from both sides. and he's tried to make sure that his team is in place but -- >> should he fire anybody? >> well, at this point i don't see that you would pick out one person and say that's the reason the economy's bad. that's the reason the campaign is not -- >> for people who think that he

doesn't -- >> of course you're right. >> yeah. so should he fire some people and get in a new team and say i'm working again, we're taking a fresh look? >> i don't think so. i'll tell you what i think. i think his team has put together a positive good plan. the american people believe that if you give incentives to small business to hire people, help working families, invest this making sure that we have our firefighters and policemen and teachers on the job, invest in infrastructure, america's going to start to move forward. what's the republican alternative? do nothing and protect the millionaires. >> senator dick durbin, thank you so much for your time this morning. coming up next -- americans are skeptical that either party can fix the economy. so what's the republican strategy? we ask senator lindsey graham next. [ oswald ] there's a lot of discussion going on about the development of natural gas,

whether it can be done safely and responsibly. at exxonmobil we know the answer is yes. when we design any well, the groundwater's protected by multiple layers of steel and cement. most wells are over a mile and a half deep so there's a tremendous amount of protective rock between the fracking operation and the groundwater. natural gas is critical to our future. at exxonmobil we recognize the challenges and how important it is to do this right.

joining us now from clemson, south carolina, republican senator lindsey graham. senator, thank you for being here. i want to kind of set the stage for this discussion because we talked about how the president's poll numbers are falling. but i wanted to show our viewers the latest cnn/orc poll. the question was, who do you trust more to handle the economy?

and the answer was 46% obama and 37% republicans in congress, 15% said neither. so, having said that, let's take a look at how you feel and how you think republicans will look at this latest thing which is the minimum millionaires tax. the so-called buffett rule. and this because the billionaire has said -- warren buffett has said, listen, i pay a lower tax rate than my secretary. how do you politically argue against that, or would you? >> well, i just think that's a political move by the president. i think senator durbin sort of tipped his hand. how would people in ohio accept an explanation from john boehner just say no? the truth of the matter is if you raise taxes on billionaires and millionaires, it adds a de minimis amount of money to the treasury to pay off the debt. and i would assume that's what they're trying to do. i think most americans are frustrated with the tax code

where 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of the taxes, the top 10% pay 70%, and i'm in the camp of the bowles-simpson gang of six attempt to flatten the tax code. ge paid no corporate tax last year, so let's do away with deductions and exemptions except for interest on your home, charitable giving with a cap. take that $1.2 trillion, buy down rates to create jobs and pay some debt off. if you really want to address what got america into this situation, policies matter. president obama's policies are killing job growth. what i hear at home is that you can't borrow money. the reason banks are not lending money is they don't know what the rules of borrowing is going to be because of dodd frank. no one knows what their health care cost is going to be under obama health care. it's going up 19% in 2014. there's another round of costs. when you look at his policies from health care to bush tax cuts expire. what will the tax bill be in a year?

people need to know the answers to that. >> okay. i know that you all think that regulations is what is making businesses sit on their money. >> yeah. that's the one i forgot. thanks. >> okay. >> yeah. >> then -- but let me get back to the idea of just the fairness of millionaires paying a lower rate than those in the middle class who do pay taxes. is that something you can argue against? and why not -- okay, let's say it doesn't add that much to the treasury. nonetheless, there is some fairness here. >> no. the goal is to do what with the tax code? collect taxes to run the government in a way future generations can afford. tax policy is job policy. the tax code should be reformed for one purpose -- to generate more revenue to run the government to help create jobs. when you pick one area of the economy and say we're going to

tax those people because those people are not those people, that's class warfare. look at what bowles-simpson did. they didn't pick on one person or any other group. they'll make all millionaires and billionaires pay a higher right by eliminating deductions. they'll make corporations pay a higher rate, 25% will be the top rate, but they'll have to pay it because they don't have the deductions and loopholes to get out of paying. that's the model. that's what bowles simpson did. let's take a tax code that's so complicated that ge pays no taxes, flatten the rates to be economically competitive but get people to actually pay taxes. >> in terms of the president's jobs plan, because the tax reform at this point, a lot of people don't think it can be done by the end of december. but lit's move aside -- move ahead from tax reform, and let me ask you, what is there in the president's jobs plan that you could support? what major item in that can you support? >> there is some. the payroll tax might be one. some infrastructure spending.

his $447 billion proposal is a lot like what republicans proposed the first time around. but here's where we're at as a nation. we have 11% unemployment in south carolina. and here's what i hear when it comes to hiring people. people are frozen right now. they're not going to hire. you may build a bridge in south carolina or deep in the port of charleston, that would help our economy in the short term, but if you want to have a wave of hiring in this country you got to provide certainty. people don't know what their tax bill will be because in 2013 the bush tax cuts expire. the obama health care costs are a nightmare for job growth because it adds a tremendous amount per employee to future hires. banking. you can't grow an economy if you can't borrow money. capital is locked down in my state. you could have all the stimulus you want. until you change obama's policies that have frozen job hiring, that's made everything worse, we're going to stay right where we are, bumping along the bottom. the president either needs to

change his policies -- you don't need to fire somebody, you need to hire -- fire somebody is good only if they do something different. but the president's policies are stifling job growth, and there will be no job growth until they change. >> let me turn you then to the presidential election. you have said that texas governor rick perry has to prove that he's electable. what about him -- or what about his policies makes you and people question -- >> all of them. >> -- whether he's electable? >> well, what i would say, number one, this is our election to lose. president obama's done everything he knows how to do to beat himself. the reason people have little confidence in president obama's policies, they're just not working. everything is worse. 2 million people unemployed after he took office. gas prices are 100% higher. home values are down. debt is up by 35%. there seems to be no relief on the horizon. he keeps proposing the same old things. yes, there are some -- here's

what we have to do -- >> what i'm trying to get at is, are there any republicans that are unacceptable alternatives that are currently in the field? >> we'll leave that up to the -- well, here's what i think a republican has to do to beat president obama. on day one, after the election, here's what's going to be different in your business life, in your personal life. you're going to have certainty in your taxes. we're going to flatten the tax code. we're going to make people pay taxes. we're going to have lower rates. we're going to replace obama health care with something that's more business friendly. we're going to get people into lending business by having a banking system that banks can actually understand. when it comes to entitlement reform, that's where the money is at. i hope this super committee will take up entitlement reform. governor perry has a good record on job creation. he needs to tell the country what he did in texas. but social security and medicare have to be on the table in a way to save these programs for future generations, and that's what i want the republican party to do -- look the camera in the eye and say that social security

is a vital program. 50% of americans will be in poverty without social security. it is going broke. we're going to have to adjust it for younger workers, protect it for people near retirement, and come up with a plan that will create jobs. >> thank you so much, senator lindsey graham out of south carolina for us today, we appreciate it. up next -- palestine wants full membership from the united nations and israel accused them of avoiding negotiations. both sides on this very contentious debate. [ doorbell rings ] hello there. i'm here to pick up helen. ah.

mom? he's here. nice wheels. oh, thanks. keeps me young. hello there, handsome. your dinner's in the microwave, dear. ♪ where do you want to go? just drive. [ engine revs, tires screech ] mom? ♪

when the president spoke to the u.n. general assembly last year, he had big dreams. >> when we come back here next year, we could have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the united nations, an independent, sovereign state of palestine living in peace with israel. >> one year later, there is no israeli-palestinian agreement. but when the u.n. general assembly opens this week, palestinian authority president mahmoud abbas says he will seek

full membership, recognition of a palestinian state. that would not make palestine a state with defined borders, but it would give its officials more international recognition and the u.s. fears more power to go after israel for what palestinians consider crimes committed in the gaza strip. the white house has vowed to veto the bid in the security council, insisting an independent palestinian state be created through direct negotiations with israel. up next, the palestinian ambassador to the u.s. and then the israeli ambassador to the u.s. [ grandma ] relationships are life... if you don't have that thing that fills your heart and your soul, you're missing that part of your life that just fulfills you. ♪ [ male announcer ] for us at humana, relationships matter too. the better we know you, the better we can help you choose the right medicare plan.

that's why humana agents sit down with you to figure out your medicare options. and we have nurses you can call anytime, even at 3 a.m. because when you're on the right humana medicare plan and taking good care of yourself, then you can be there for the people who matter most. [ grandma ] my family is my joy, my hope... they are my heart. it's the reason we get out of bed in the morning... [ grandpa ] the reason we fall into bed at night sometimes. [ grandma ] yes. that's right. [ male announcer ] humana.

joining me now, maen areikat, who is the palestinian liberation organization's chief representative to the u.s. thank you for joining us. what is the current plan for the u.n.? will president abbas go to the security council? is that set? >> well, the president did announce on friday that the palestinians will submit the request to the u.n. secretary-general on friday, september 23rd, for full membership at the united nations. so the plan that after his address at the united nations general assembly he would officially request that the u.n. consider the palestinian

request. >> and will the petition designate pre-'67 borders, as well as east jerusalem as the capital? >> well, i'm not that familiar with the exact language of the draft resolution, but i strongly believe that it will reiterate long-standing palestinian position. it will talk about the palestinian state in the west bank, the gaza strip with east jerusalem as its capital. it will call for two-state solution, two states, israel and palestine, living side by side in peace and security. and i believe it will also emphasize the need for negotiations to resolve the outstanding issues. >> you know that diplomatically this is very hard for the united states which, if it comes before the security council, as far as we know, is going to veto this idea. they have said this will undermine negotiations. israel says it will set back the

palestinian cause. is there anything right now that could be presented to you -- because lots of meetings are going on -- that would dissuade you from doing this at this time? >> well, the leadership -- the palestinian leadership said in the past that if we were presented with a viable alternative -- >> and what is that? >> a viable alternative would be clear terms of reference to return to the negotiations, clear time frame and an end game. to the palestinians, the end game is freedom, to be able to live free and for the israeli military occupation to end. we also insisted that we cannot continue to negotiate while the israelis are planting our territory, the same land that will become our state in the future with legal settlements. so that viable alternative unfortunately has not been offered to us to encourage us to sit and get engaged in israelis in meaningful negotiations. >> the united states, certainly there is feeling among some in

the united states, believe that the obama administration has taken israel to task for its continued settlements in east jerusalem and the west bank, that he has been very tough on benjamin netanyahu in israel, and that this particular action by the palestinians totally undercuts president obama in the middle east, with israel, with arab countries, that it just diminishes u.s. power at a time that the u.s. is really pushing israel to come to the table and to stop the settlements. >> we have no interest whatsoever to undermine president obama. >> but it will, won't it? do you agree that it will? >> well, you know, we -- the decision to oppose the palestinian effort is not a palestinian decision. it is an american decision. the united states decided that they will veto any request of the u.n. security council. we wish the united states would reconsider. we wish that the united states

will actually cast a vote in favor of palestinians seeking freedom, because this is the natural position of the united states. this is what we have seen in the region by the united states -- support for all the peoples in the region who are seeking freedom and independence. >> but the u.s. position is that the territory in the statehood can only be done through negotiations with israel and therefore this will undermine that effort. so you can see that if you force the u.s. to veto this, that people on the streets in the middle east will be very angry at the u.s. at a time where it is very delicate time throughout the middle east. >> but we don't disagree with the administration that there has to be negotiations. the problem is that there are no negotiations right now. we have been engaging with the united states for over a year now. the u.s. administration knows that very well.

senator mitchell, who was a special envoy, knows that very pel. we have been forthcoming, receptive, worked with every idea, suggestion, proposal that they was submitted to us. we urge the israelis to sit down and talk about security and borders, the same thing the united states did with israel. unfortunately, the israelis did not want to sit and engage. and today they say the palestinians don't want to return to negotiations. we are the party who needs negotiations the most, who need an end to the conflict the most. >> i'm sure that later -- obviously we will get the israeli point of view. they feel that israel's right to exist is not recognized throughout the palestinian community. but let me ask you if what your feeling is about the ability to get around this crisis. do you think there really is a chance that the u.s. or israel or the eu, somebody, could come up with something? is there a chance of that or not >> well, i mean the official decision was announced by president abbas on friday.

he is en route to new york. he will arrive later on tonight. i'm sure there will be continued discussions. but again, unless there is that viable alternative to the palestinian people, to tell them that this time around it is not going to be a waste of time. we don't want negotiations for the sake of going back, negotiations getting engaged in a process that will not produce peace. five days ago was the 18th anniversary of the oslo accords, an agreement that was supposedly aimed at providing palestinians with freedom and independence in 1999. at that time, 200,000 settlers were living in the occupied palestinian territories. today we have 550,000 settlers living in the occupied territory. things are getting worse for the palestinians. we want to keep the hope alive among the palestinians that the two-state solution is still feasible. this is why we are taking this step at the united nations. >> it is a symbolic step for

palestinians. >> we understand that it is not going to change things on the ground. israel has the upper hand. they are the stronger party in this equation. the aim of this is try to equate the palestinians to a more equal footing so that this disparity that existed over the last 18 years, which allowed israel to exploit it to its advantage, can end and they can talk now to an equal member state of the united nations. their land is occupied. they are the occupier. let's sit down and solve the problem. >> maen areikat, thank you so much for stopping by. busy week ahead. >> thank you. after the break -- the response from the israeli ambassador to the u.s. ♪ gue thameans youan dit all. it's thevseason of doing now combine the all-star editn discount with oer offers for a tal value of $6,000. or quifieduys can get 0% apr for 60 mont

plus $1,000 llan ll sileradmols. get to your evy aler and ghat truck today it's real milk full of calcium and vitamin d. and tastes simply delicious. for those of us with lactose intolerance... lactaid® milk. the original 100% lactose-free milk. somewhere in america, a city comes to life. it moves effortlessly, breathes easily. it flows with clean water. it makes its skyline greener and its population healthier. all to become the kind of city people want to live and work in. somewhere in america, we've already answered some of the nation's toughest questions. and the over sixty thousand people of siemens are ready to do it again. siemens. answers.

[ female announcer ] improve the health of your skin with aveeno daily moisturizing lotion. the natural oatmeal formula improves skin's health in one day, with significant improvement in 2 weeks. i found a moisturizer for life. [ female announcer ] only from aveeno. is best absorbed in small continuous amounts. only one calcium supplement does that in one daily dose. citracal slow release... continuously releases calcium plus d for the efficient absorption my body needs. citracal.

even though i'm a great driver, and he's... not so much. well, for a driver like you, i would recommend our new snapshot discount. this little baby keeps track of your great driving habits, so you can save money. [sighs] amazing. it's like an extra bonus savings. [ cackling ] he's my ride home. how much can the snapshot discount save you? 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. we are joined by michael oren, israeli ambassador to the united states. you have said, "the palestinians risk all that has been achieved if they go forward with this," "this" being the bid for statehood recognized by the u.n. it sounds like a threat. what does that mean exactly? >> first of all, good morning, candy. >> good morning! >> good to be here. israel wants peace. israel wants peace. prime minister netanyahu said he's willing to negotiate with president abbas anywhere, any time, without preconditions on the basis of territory for peace. that's what we've been negotiating about for years,

territory for peace. we know what it means, territory for peace. we know we have to make compromises. we have to work out all these difficult relationships and problems with the palestinians. palestinians want all the territory without the peace. they're end-running this peace process. now, over the course of the last 18 years the palestinians have achieved a lot. they have a very successful economy. they have security in the streets. we are prepared to go on a two-state solution, a jewish state living side by side with a palestinian state. all that could be jeopardized if the palestinians end-run the peace process and take the territory without the peace. >> but you heard the plo representative say we are willing to go to negotiations the day after this happens. they understand it's symbolic. they understand it doesn't change anything on the ground. but they feel that there has been very little hope that israel will come to the table because it keeps, as you know, the u.s. is opposed to the continuing development in the west bank and east jerusalem by the israelis. so why does it jeopardize anything if nothing changes on the ground, it's just a bid by

the palestinians to be seen as a state that you think that eventually they shall be? >> well, the plo representative says one thing, but president abbas says a different thing. in a "new york times" op-ed in may, he said that he's going to the u.n. to get this state -- not to make peace but to challenge israel's legitimacy in international arenas and to try to undermine the peace process. he's also made a pact with hamas. let's not forget this. hamas is a terrorist organization. it's fired thousands of missiles at israel. it calls for not destruction of israeli but the annihilation of the jewish people worldwide. it's a genocidal organization. what kind of state is this going to be? is this a state that's going to live in mutual respect and recognition with israel? is this a state that's going to operate on the orders of iran and bring more instability and terror to the region? i think these are very important questions. >> but even just the bringing up of this -- we know that the u.s. has said they're going to veto it if it comes to the security council.

that's the route they go, which it seems as though they will. if it goes to the general assembly for just sort of an increased status for palestinians, it's quite likely to pass. how does that -- why is that such a threat to israel? >> well, as mahmoud abbas said in that article in the "new york times" and other palestinian leaders have reiterated since then, that they tend to use that enhanced status to go to international courts and delegitimize us. they can try to impede our ability to defend ourselves from the coasts, from the air. they can try to put sanctions on us. it is not about making peace, it is about building their conflict against us into a different level, a different field. >> from your point of view, has the u.s. done enough to try to prevent this petition from being presented to the u.n.? >> indeed, they have. they've been working tirelessly to try to prevent this happening. american diplomatic

representatives have been working with other members of the quartet -- the european union, the russians, the u.n. -- that create a format which would be acceptable to us and we are very, very close now to the american position, and to persuade the palestinians to desist from going to the u.n., to come back to the negotiating table. again, we are willing to negotiate today without preconditions on all the outstanding issues. >> now, do you accept the premise at this point that u.s. influence in the middle east is a lot less than it has been in the past? >> i think the situation in the middle east is very fluid. no one knows what's going to happen in the middle east tomorrow, never mind in two weeks. >> isn't that a reason for you to just stop the settlements and come to the table? >> we've stopped the settlements for ten months and the palestinians didn't come to the table. we're willing to extend that for another three months and the obama administration determined that they weren't still going to come to the table with the palestinians. but i need to go back to your first question. candy, is american influence

waning? it's a very important question. you look across the middle east today, many people are protesting for democracy and opportunities and jobs and a future for their children. the model they're looking for is not somewhere in the east. the model they're looking toward is still the united states and when governments and leaderships in the middle east look for peacemakers, they turn to the united states. there's no alternative to american influence in the middle east. >> i want to show our viewers a poll that was done by pew research. this is among israelis. and the question was do you approve or disapprove of president obama's handling of the israeli-palestinian conflict. not necessarily the u.n. only 29% of israelis approved of how the president's handling this. 64% of israelis disapprove of how the president is handling israeli-palestinian conflict. which side are you on, and why do 64% of israelis disapprove of the president of the united states? has he not been a huge ally? lots of money, lots of sharing of intelligence.

right now he's standing between you and the u.n. why is it that israelis don't see him as helping? >> we've have some tactical differences about how to get to the two-state solution, but they've been tactical differences. those make a lot of press in israel and they make a lot of press here. but the fact of the matter is we're very much on the same page about where we need to get to. we need to get to a two-state solution based on a palestinian state living side by side with a jewish state in perm negligent and mutual peace and recognition. there are excellent security relations between the israeli government and obama administration, truly fine security arrangements. >> you'd be among those who would approve. >> a couple weeks ago we had the problem with our embassy in egypt. prime minister netanyahu called the president. the president immediately got on the phone to egyptian leaders and helped evacuate our embassy personnel. and prime minister netanyahu came out and thanked president obama warmly about that. we have a very deep relationship with the united states of america.

it's based on common values, common interests. we face some common enemies. it's a permanent and unbreakable relationship. >> israeli ambassador to the u.s., michael oren. thank you for joining us today. when we come back, a crucial meeting for ben bernanke and the federal reserve next week. we'll tell you what it could mean for the economy. as a manager, my team counts on me to stay focused. so i take one a day men's 50+ advantage. it's the only complete multivitamin with ginkgo to support memory and concentration. plus it supports heart health. [ bat cracks ] that's a hit. one a day men's.

here to talk about fears of a double-dip recession and a number of other things, former congressional budget office director's alice rivlin and douglas holtz-aikan. thank you both. okay. this fed meeting, all of a sudden i started hearing economists saying, oh, the fed is meeting next week, it's not just a one-day meeting, it's a two-day meeting and it's very important. >> well, the fed has a big problem right now as to whether there's anything else they can do to help the economy along. >> they said there wasn't. >> bernanke himself has said we did a lot, we lowered interest rates, we bought a lot of government bonds. the one thing they're talking about now is can they rebalance their portfolio, as it were, to roll off the short term eurobonds as they come due and invest in long-term bonds. that's called "the twist." and all it would mean is they

use the powers that they have because they have a very big portfolio, to put a little downward pressure on long-term interest rates. >> i think what alice is saying, it's going to be a boring two-day meeting. >> first of all, aren't long-term interest rates really already really down? >> so this is more evidence that there's really not much the fed can do to push the economy along faster. it is still well positioned if something bad happens. you worry about europe. it can step in if things start to spill over to the u.s., something goes wrong here, they're well positioned for that. >> but in terms of creating jobs, we're looking elsewhere. let me move you, then, to the president's jobs plan. i was interested, your initial reaction i saw was it might create some jobs but they're really expensive jobs, and your reaction was there's not enough money here to make a difference. did i sum this up correctly? >> well, i think that they should do many of the things that are in the president's program because it would help and because the economy does seem to be stalling and the government needs to do what it

can in the short run to create more jobs and create more demand and that's what the president is trying to do. i would do it big. >> bigger than he's done it? >> well, he won't get all -- >> no, but if you could rule the world. >> i would do it at least as big as he is proposing, but i would fold it into the other big problem, which is the long-run deficit. he's got this joint select committee, the 12 apostles as they are being called, who have extraordinary powers. and they can put together a plan that not only supports the economy in the short run, but much more importantly, is a grand bargain to reform entitlements and reform the tax code and put us on a sustainable deficit track. >> let me ask the question in a different way. that is, we have spent over $800

billion in the first wave of stimulus, and, you know, it saved jobs, whatever, but we are still looking at 9.1% unemployment rate. the administration's predictions were nowhere near the 8%. >> right. >> why would another $448 billion be any different? >> i don't think it's the dollars. i think it's the strategy. i do the administration would be well served to do some of the things analysts talked about. we need entitlement reform. we are sailing to a debt crisis. we need a better tax code. they are permanent changes to the environment. that's what we should focus on. there was a time and a place for one-time temporary targeted stimulus. it's not now. we have been growing two years, we are growing far too slowly. we need permanent reforms to speed economic growth in the united states. he would be well served to focus on that. on this committee it won't be successful without presidential leadership. in the end, this is a congress that has one part republican, one part democrat.

to be successful we need bipartisan solutions. that always requires the white house taking the lead. that's the main challenge now. >> let me ask about a couple of specifics. one of the things the president is proposing is a tax break for businesses who hire either vets or people who -- new hires. but corporate profits are up. all i hear is how much money they are all sitting on because they are so scared of what will happen next. why would more profit and more money cause them to hire more people? >> well, at the margin, i think it would. and he's talking about small businesses. really big businesses with payrolls beyond the cut-off of this bill aren't going to be affected. and probably big business hiring isn't much affected by it. but for small business, the payroll tax is a big deal. and at the margin, it could help hiring more people, more veterans, more anybody.

and that's a good thing. but it's one more complication in the tax code and i'm -- you would think the main thing the president needs to be emphasizing is the long run and the opportunity to simplify the whole tax code. >> it's emblematic of the problem and the strategy. it's temporary, so it's not going to change permanent hiring positions very much. it's not aimed at everybody. it's targeted on particular groups. i think that's not worked. i mean, you don't want the president picking special groups for labor treatment. you don't want temporary policies. we need better growth for everyone on a long-term basis. >> one thing we know that a lot of this temporary tax stuff tends to be permanent. it's hard to get it out of the system. >> it's a mess. >> it totally is for anybody who has to file their taxes, for sure. let me ask you about the so-called buffett rule, the idea that tomorrow the president will

propose that no millionaire pays a lower percentage of taxes than someone in the middle class. is this another margin things, around the margins it may help? this is introduced is this is how i will pay for my plan. >> we should let alice go first and be reasonable. because i'm really unhappy with this. >> be reasonable in a short way so i can get him in. >> i'm fond of warren buffett. i think his basic observation that he pays too little taxes is right. but the way to fix the tax code is to fix the tax code. not to ood another complication at the margin. >> you're nodding. >> this is politics. we already have the alternative minimum tax that is supposed to make sure millionaires pay their fair share. it's broken. layering a buffett tax on top of it won't fix that. we need what's talked about. when the president gets in trouble beginning in 2007, starts talking about taxing high-income people. we have seen this before. >> thank you both for joining us. up next, our "sound of

sunday" -- highlights from the other sunday morning talk shows. then on "fareed zakaria: gps," a conversation with president obama's job czar, ge's ceo jeffrey immelt.

time for today's "sound of sunday." president obama is expected in the rose garden tomorrow to sell part two of his jobs plan, the how to pay for it part. it will include the notion of a millionaire minimum tax rate to be at least as high as the middle-class rate. it is dubbed the buffett rule after warren buffett, who says he pays a lower percentage of his income to taxes than thin anyone in his office. >> class wafr may make for really good politics but it makes for rotten economics. we don't need a system that seeks to divide people.

>> if warren buffett would like to give up some of his benefits, we'd be happy to talk about it. i think assessing benefits is one of the ways we're going to have to solve at least the social security and medicare problems long term for the next generations. with regard to his tax rate, if he's feeling guilty about it, i think he should send in a check. >> former president clinton was the administration's utility infielder this sunday morning, defending the president's overall plan. >> if you look at the group that has had the biggest income increases and the benefit of most of the tax cuts of the previous eight years before the obama administration took office, those of us in that income group, we're in the best position to make a contribution to changing the debt structure of the country. >> the negotiations continued over a showdown at the u.n. over a palestinian bid for statehood. the u.s. has prompted to veto

the position and the u.n. security council arguing it would only undermine the real path to statehood, direct israeli/palestinian talks, which do not currently exist. former bringish prime minister and envoy tony blair is one of those in search of middle ground. >> now, i understand why the palestinians feel that they should go to the united nations, and by the way, they're perfectly entitled to go there. but i think what we would be looking for over the next few days is a way of puttinging to something that allows their claims and legitimate aspirations for status to be recognized while reviewing the only thing that is going to produce a state, which is a negotiation between the two sides. >> pressure is on. absent an acceptable alternative, palestinian president mahmoud abbas intends to present the petition next friday. that's the "sound of sunday." thanks for watching "state of the union." i'm candy crowley in washington. up next for our viewers in the u.s., "fareed zakaria: gps."