after the presidential had dodged and sometimes outright shunned the donald. well, that's how the las vegas sun is putting tonight's developments. earlier today in a las vegas hotel ballroom, a hotel owned by donald trump, the donald from new york endorses mitt romney and he accepted the endorsement. he said that there are some things in life you just can't imagine. mitt romney went on to say, this is one of them. donald trump who is, of course, a household name thanks to his television show "the apprentice" as well as his empire that includes casinos and hotels in las vegas and atlantic city, he is ever the publicity man. he stoked speculation about who he would endorse. many yesterday speculating it was going to be newt gingrich including the gingrich campaign leaking word it was going to be donald trump. but this afternoon in las vegas, donald trump had this to say. >> well, thank you very much. this is a great honor for me. as everybody in this room knows,

our country is in serious serious trouble. whether it's opec, the opec nations or china or virtually anybody that we do business with throughout the world, they take advantage of uls, they laugh at us. they can't believe their good fortunes. i deal with these people and they can't believe what that he getting away with. so we really have an opportunitying to do something great for the country. and just a little while ago, i didn't even mention this, but the cbo chief in washington announced that unemployment is going up to 9.2% by sometime in january. so it's going to go up. and the growth rate is going to be at about 1%. so this just came out not good news. it's my honor, real honor and privilegeton endorse mitt romney. i've gotten -- and by the way,

this it is a great couple. you look at this couple. about you, mitt is tough. he's smart. he's sharp. he's not going to allow bad things to continue to happen to this country that we all love. so governor romney, go out and get 'em. you can do it. >> thank you, thank you. thank you. >> there are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life. this is one of them.

being in donald trump's magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight. i'm so honored and pleased to have his endorsement and, of course, i'm looking for the endorsement from the people of nevada. donald truch has shown an extraordinary ability to understand how our economy works to, create jobs for the american people. he's done it here in nevada, he's done it across the country. he understands that our economy is facing threats from abroad. he's one of the few people who stood up and said you know what? china has been cheating. they've taken jobs from americans. they haven't played fair. we have to have a president who will stand up to cheaters. we believe if free afraid and free enterprise but don't believe in allowing people to cheat day in and day out. >> part of what was a very short event in las vegas, only about 7.5 minutes with donald trump and mitt romney. many speculating that newt

gingrich was going to get the donald's endorsement. newt gingrich today saying "i like to hire people taking a dig at donald trump with his famous you're fired line. the dnc weighing in using the you're fired by donald trump and a statement made earlier by mitt romney saying he likes to fire people. mitt romney at the time was referring to firing insurance companies. there's this from yahoo! news. . when the history of the 2012 race is written, i cannot wait to read the chapter that explains why donald trump got to play a starring role. we talked to david chalian about that. >> i mean, my tweet that you just read there, i grew up in the new york city media market. so donald trump, new jersey casinos and new york media mogul and his divorces and what have you, that has been a part of my entire upbringing. i watched all of that unfold. it is a bit shocking to see him at level of presidential

politics today. >> let me ask you in terms of the timing of this because clearly, the statement that mitt romney made yesterday and in his full context, he was saying he does care about the very poor but there's a safety net and if there's problems in the net, he wants to make sure that's taken care of. but that one line not caring very much about the very poor has been getting a lot of attention over the last 36 hours. then to appear in a ballroom with donald trump, how does that play off across the country? >> during that event with trump in the ballroom, you au romney joke a little bit saying i've been very lucky and been successful and not as successful as this guy pointing to trump but sufficiently successful. people would say it's a lot more sufficient arithmetic romney's success he's had. certainly when the president is out there this morning at the national prayer breakfast picking up on those comments you just cited from romney yesterday about not being concerned about the very poor, his policy is

much more focused on the middle class, you know, the president immediately played on those comments at the national prayer breakfast this morning and then mitt romney gives this image of standing next to the billionaire air in the afternoon. it is a bit tonely off. but your initial question to me is because this endorsement doesn't really matter. this isn't going to have a big impact. i can't imagine this swaying one vote one way or the off. i think it was helpful for the romney campaign because of that line he had yesterday, and that was just on a loop for 24 hours all throughout cable news. it was the dominant story line of the campaign, and that is far more damaging to him. that's now off the radar screen a bit. now all day long they've been able to move to this trump story. i think the romney campaign is just happy they weren't in another 24-hour period where his comments on cnn yesterday were being played yesterday. >> david chalian weighing in on

the endorsement today. donald trump in a hotel ballroom, a hotel that trump owns in las vegas pledging his support for mitt romney. that essentially ends any speculation that heal run as a third party candidate if mitt romney is able secure the republican nomination. the next set of caucuses set for saturday in nevada. we'll have coverage of the speeches from the winner and losers of the nevada caucuses. i anew poll showing moirn is 20 points ahead. the caucuses begin in the morning across most the say the. some will take place in clark county after sundown and then the next round of primaries next tuesday. this is washington today political reporting on what has become a sidebar story but getting a lot of angeles. the relationship or lack thereof between the speaker of the house and his top deputy eric cantor. today john boehner saying the two are teammates. he did say there is a discord between the two offices but

that's driven by staff rivalries. politico has the story at politico.com. here's how speaker john boehner responded to questions today earlier on capitol hill. >> this morning politico the headline is boehner canter call truce. within the article it says -- are hardly on speaking terms. boehner and kantor cannot agree on who would be allowed to attend. is that true? >> eric and i decided about three years ago that we would sit down, just he and i together just so we could have a chat about where we're going and do so between the two of us. now, listen, we've got a tough job around here. and anour members feel very strongly about a number of the issues that we've moved over the last year. when you're trying to do real work in this setting, you're

going to having some very passionate people. our members and our staff, their passionate about what they do. sometimes that leads to some disagreements. but i'll just say this. because i talked to the whole leadership team this morning along with the staff. the senior leaders about our feed to continue to work together for our team. and so i feel good about where we are. and happy that we've got the team that we have. >> speaker of the house john boehner responding to questions about the relationship that he has personally with eric cantor and i guess the story that came out of the political piece is that there have been rifs over the last year between kantor's staff and speaker boehner's staff and you heard speaker boehner essentially allude to that in his response to the question. polymerer house speaker is the democratic leader in the house of representatives. nancy pelosi who also meets with reporters every thursday, she was asked a similar question.

>> i'm just curious of your perspective. we've read some of these articles about inpiting between speaker boehner and eric kantor. similar stories were written but when you were speaker. does that just come with the post or? >> well, willet me first say i don't agree to the stipulation that similar stories. i don't know, there may have been some inference tosses be drawn from stories but mr. hoyer and i always had a partnership. we were not just a team. we were a participantship. i know it's grist for the milan people had fun interpreting one thing or another but the kind of story that i think is out there now on the other side is they couldn't even decide to walk into a room. why that's interesting to me is we need jobs legislation and we don't need anything to stand in the way of that job creation. >> so some of the political intrigue taking place on the house side of capitol hill. nancy pelosi, the democratic leader in the house of representatives responding to a

story front and center morning still available at politico.com discussing the relationship and a sometimes rocky relationship between eric kantor's staff and speaker of the haas, yuan boehner's staff. it looks like the stalk act is on its way to becoming the law of the land passing the senate by a vote of 96-3. the legislation on its way to the house of representatives. in a statement the president saying "last week i call on congress to pass a bill an makes clear members of congress may not engage in insider trading. no one should be able to trade stocks based on nonpublic information gleaned on capitol hill. he said i'm pleased the senate took up the bill known as the stalk act and there's also this statement released a short while agoing from congressman eric cantor say he is also pleased the senate passed the measure. he said insider trading at any level of the government is unacceptable. we will quickly review the entire bill to ensure that public servants in legislative

or executive branch do not personally profit from insider information. we should clarify that executive branch was one of the issues republicans wanted in the legislation but a number of amts at least 20 that were put forth before the senate many of which were shot down, this is just a sample of what the debate was like earlier today. you're going to hear from senator rand paul, a ron from kentucky as he outlines what was in his amendment. oppositionings from senator joe lieber of connecticut. we should point out the paul amendment went down in defeat. >> this amendment would say that those in the executive branch who decide loans and grants if them have a self-interest in the company or their family has a sel self-interest in the company ta they should not be making decisions awarding grants and loans. i think the idea that you should not make money off of government is an important one, but it's not just congress that this applies to. it should apply to the executive branch and we should not have

hundreds of millions of dollars in loans even billions of dollars in loans dispensed by people who used to work for that company or whose family still works for that company. thank you. i yield back my time. >> senator from connecticut. >> mr. president, this is one of a series of amendments in which our colleagues are applying ethics rules to the executive branch although the bill is focused, of course, on the members of congress. in this case, this supplies probably the harshest penalty that has ever been applied to members of the executive branch. the packet is that executive branch employees are already subject to an effective and some ways broader ethics regime than we face now. and it's backed up by criminal sanctions. as an example, executive branch employees filed financial disclosure forms. the agency ethics officials who examine them can compel divestiture of holdings and

require the individual to recuse himself from certain matters and if recusal is not efficient, the agency can reassign the individual. yeah. and in this case, senator paul would say that an executive branch employee is forbidden from holding a position in which they or their family have any financial interests of $5,000 or more. so i oppose the amendment. >> the question is on the amendments. >> the debate on the stock act and a series of amendments, the one you heard just a moment agoing from senator rand paul went down in defeat. the measure did pass the senate and on its way to the house where it is also expected to pass. the president indicated he would support the legislation. just a moment ago, senator harry reid issued a statement saying this legislation will ensure members of congress will be prosecuted if they abuse the public trust.

elected officials should play by the same rules as everybody else and should never use insider information to enrich themselves. on the other side, the house of representatives voting on a measure that would essentially freeze the pay for federal employees, congressional staffers and members of congress. the vote was overwhelming although the senate saying it will not take up the measure. president already saying he would veto this particular piece of legislation, but it did spark a debate here at c-span and certainly among of you listening on c-span radio and live on c-span3 your thoughts about a federal worker pay freeze. here's what om of you had to say. >> annapolis maryland, maryland. i agree that federal employee salaries should be frozen. lease no reason why they shouldn't be. they should be treated just like every other american, every other american worker who has had to endure pay freezes and reductions in their salaries. they're no different than anybody else.

chris van hollen should agree on that because you know, it's wrong for him to disagree on it. i think salaries should be frozen one more year. thank you. annapolis, maryland. >> i'm calling from college park, maryland. sean duffy is misrepresenting the situation. it turns out that the lower paid federal employees are being paid more than private sector employees. but upper paid federal employees are not. they're paid less than public sector employees. so to treat them all the same and want to freeze their wages is unfair and unrealistic. i think we should have the truth from representative duffy. >> calling from westchester, pennsylvania, my name's michael. and i think that the great idea, in can the fa, i would take it a step further and ask that they take a 10% pay cut when they

don't -- when they fail to meet a balanced budget. i think it's ridiculous that think that they should not be penalized for doing their job properly especially when you consider that most of the time they're not even at congress. they're off on other you know, tasks outside of congress instead of focusing on their core responsibilities. >> i think that the federal workers in this area should definitely take the pay freeze without complaining because there's a lot of us in the private sector who went from making you know, in this specific case software developer such as myself going from making $120,000 a year to $90,000 a year in this economy. so i took not only a pay freeze but a pay cut of obviously,

$30,000 pay cut. i don't have any recourse, i don't have anybody to complain to except for -- and i can go out and look for a different job. the fact that federal workers can't take a pay freeze while people are losing their jobs in the private sector and when they've already taken 10, 20, 30% pay cuts is just ridiculous. so they should be happy they still have a job. and that they don't have to go out and problem it every day like the rest of us. >> the debate over a pay freeze for federal employees, again, the legislation passing the house of representatives. it is unlikely to go anywhere in the u.s. senate. but eappreciate your calls and comments on c-span radio's listener feedback line. well, we've got more from the head of the congressional budget office who did project that economic growth will slow by next year. unemployment will be on the rise and we are facing another $1 trillion budget deficit this

year. adding to the overall debt so what does this mean for the country overall? susan tanaka is vice president of research for the peterson foundation. she's joining us live from new york tonight. thanks for being with us. >> thank you, happy to be here. >> as we look at your study which by the way is available online, you indicate some sobering information, something that many americans already know but based on where we are today as a country, we're on "an unsustainable and an uncertain path." explain. >> well, in just a few words, it means that we're spending far pore than we have coming in in the form of revenue at the federal level. anybody knows if you have a gap between income and expenses you're going to end up in debt and that means trouble. >> part of the debate is also focused on debt as a ratio of the gdp. we have heard from the obama administration that at least that number is on its way down into that number would be on its way down if the policymakers

decided not to do a lot of things that they like to do. for example, if they decided not to extend all the tax cuts tax that were first enacted in 2001-2003 and extended last year, we would be in much better shape. i don't think anybody really expects the policymakers allowing the tax cuts to expire. that adds quite a bit to our projected debt over the next ten years. >> the study also refers to the word uncertainty which is hanging over our fiscal and economic outlook. we saw this last year with the inability of congress to work out any long-term agreement. the simpson-bowles plan includes tax increases. we know where that is heading. the republicans on the issue of the payroll tax cut cannot seem to reach an agreement with the democrats on how to pay for that part of the bill. so the larger issue of how to reduce what is now a $16 trillion debt seems to be at least among democrats, raising

taxes. republicans say no. where does this all head? >> well, that is the uncertain part of the equation. if you look ahead and think we continue to do what we are doing now, we will add $10 trillion over the next ten years to the debt. that's unthinkable. i think most people think that some adjustment is going to happen and should happen. but nobody knows exactly what it means. therefore, it is hard for businesses to make their investment plans when they don't know what will happen to the tax burdens. it is hard for consumers to know whether they should buy a home or do those things or consume or whatever they want to do because they don't know what will happen to their tax burden. for people who are getting medicare and social security benefits, they don't -- it is unlikely they will be at immediate risk, but there is uncertainty there. all in all, state and local

governments, businesses, taxpayers are in a very uncertain environment. on top of that, we, of course, have these problems in europe that could spread to the united states. if they do, then our low-interest rates will go up. cbo estimates if the interest rate goes up 1% a year over the next ten years, that will add another $1 trillion to the deficit. all of those conditions mean that it is very difficult for people to plan and worst of all, the congress and president have done nothing so far that deals with the really long-term issues. we know baby boomers are retiring. we know baby boomers will be collecting social security and medicare benefits. as they do, it will cause our spending to grow at much faster levels. >> we are talking to susan tanaka. she is the researcher at the peterson foundation. the new report is out today. the web site is pgpf.org.

it stands for the peter g. peterson foundation. your's is a non-partisan foundation. you look at the numbers. what has to be done to reduce the growing debt? >> well, i think it is unlikely we will ever get this problem under control by just cutting spending. similarly, it is unlikely we will get it under control by just looking at raising taxes. we have to come together with a plan that nobody will like because everybody will have to give something up, but that's the only way we will come to a viable solution over the long term. >> you have seen the political gridlock in this town. it is an election year. both sides are talking about it. essentially nothing is happening. >> that's right. we can ill afford to take the year off. these problems get worse every year because more and more baby boomers retire. we want to make sure if we make

adjustments on the benefits side and we make adjustments on the tax side, that they are done in a gradual way rather than suddenly. of course, there is the risk there is some kind of financial crisis. that something that chairman bernancke talked about in his testimony today. that kind of event you cannot predict. no one predicted what would happen in 2007-2008. in order to strengthen our country's finances, we need to start gradually taking steps once we get out of the recession to put a plan in place and give people some certainty and show we are able to take care of our fiscal affairs. >> let me conclude with one point. there is a chart i was looking at earlier today that really looks at the glide path. it shows continued deficits of $1 trillion over the next eight-to-ten years. the impacts of the tax cuts have on the deficit. where will we be ten years from

now in 2022? >> where will we be? well, we'll have a debt that is above 90% of gdp. that is the level that most economists think is dangerous for economic growth. that is one of the factors we look at. it is not that you have to have an absolute balanced budget every year, but we have to have debt at a level the economy can service. once it gets above 90%, it becomes dangerous. that is where we are headed if we don't change our current course. >> susan tanaka, the vice president of research for the peterson foundation joining us tonight. the web site is pgpf.org. it is an analysis of the budget and budget debt. thank you for spending time with us. >> thank you. >> this is "washington today" on c-span radio. for the u.s. president who participated in the national

prayer breakfast. today, the president saying his christian faith is a factor in the reform. the president again, this morning at the washington hilton speaking at the national prayer breakfast. he was recently accused by republican presidential candidates of raising a wage on the war of religion following the church affiliated institutions to cover free birth control for employees. it is the debate within the catholic church and here in washington. the president trying to discuss all of these issues before the national prayer breakfast turning this religious event turning to his policies. here is more from the president at the washington hilton earlier today. >> majority of great reformers in american history did their work not because it was sound policy or because they had done good analysis or understood how to exercise good politics, but

because their faith and values dictate it. and called for bold action. sometimes in the face of indifference. sometimes in the face of resistance. this is no different today for millions of americans. it's certainly not for me. i wake up each morning and i say a brief prayer. i spend a little time in scripture and devotion. from time-to-time, friends of mine, some of whom are here today, friends like joel hunter or t.d. jakes will stop by and we'll pray together. they'll pray for me and my family and for our country. but i don't stop there. i'd be remiss if i stopped there. if my values were limited to

personal moments of prayer or private conversations with pastors or friends. instead, i must try imperfectly, i must try to move forward as a great nation. when i talk about our financial institutions, playing by the same rules as folks on main street. when i talk about making sure insurance companies aren't discriminating against those who are already sick or making sure that unscrupulous lenders are not taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us. i believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody, but i also do it because i know

far too many neighbors have been treated unfairly in the last few years. i believe in god's command to love thy neighbor as thy self. i know a version of that golden rule is found in every major religion and beliefs from hindu to islam to judaism and the writings of plato. when i talk about shared responsibility, it's because i genuinely believe in a time when many folks are struggling and a time when we have enormous deficits, it is hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income or young people with student loans or middle class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. and i think to myself, if i'm willing to give something up as