appreciate it.

american people still asking the question, where are the jobs? this debt crisis is standing in the way of a lot of employers hiring new people. >> the president made clear he refuses to allow a replay of the crisis that hurt the american economy. >> the back and forth at both ends of pennsylvania avenue. white house press secretary after a hearing that took place and the comments of the speaker of the house before the session took place. that president serving hoagies at the luncheon, something he picked up at a small business event earlier today. this is hour one of washington today. the hill newspaper and the reporter with his headline the president skpt the speaker clash at the white house over the debt ceiling hike as they are debating today with the speaker telling the president that he was not going to allow a debt ceiling increase without doing

something serious about the overall debt. meanwhile, the people of greece continue to pull euros out of the bank, a reflect of the uncertainty there. another round of elections will take place next month. the turmoil in greece causing continued fallout across the markets. dow jones finishing down 33 points lower. in politics 14 days of testimony no witness says they knew john edwards was violating laws. they decided not to call his former mistress. john edwards is accused of trying to use money to hide her from his 2008 presidential bid. the president had convened a meeting at the white house to discuss the president's to do list, something he has been talking about for the last week.

an aid to the speaker of the house saying the bulk of the meeting was spent on other issues. we learned yesterday from the treasury secretary that the debt limit vote could come early next year. that did not stop the debate today and dueling statements from the speaker of the house and the democratic leader, nancy pelosi. first this morning before going to the white house the speaker of the house meeting with reporters and his agenda was dealing with this debt ceiling vote that will come up early next year. here is the speaker taking reporters' questions. >> why are you -- >> whoa! i am not threatening default. >> you said if you don't get the number of cuts you wouldn't extend the debt limit. >> the issue here is the debt. almost $16 trillion worth of

debt. $1.3 trillion deficit. one has to read the publications that many of you write for to realize that the situation in europe is becoming grimmer every day. we have time to deal with our problems. what i'm trying to do is encourage people on both sides of the capitol and on both ends of pennsylvania avenue to be honest with ourselves to begin to tackle this in an adult-like fashion. where is the president's plan to tackle our looming debt crisis? where is the president's plan to tackle the largest increase in american history? where is the president's plan to replace the cuts to our military

which will devastate their ability to keep america secure. it is time to deal with the big issues that are affecting our society. we spent enough time playing small ball. >> [ inaudible ]. >> we get along fine. he has issues with what i believe in and i had issues with what he believes in. and we have looming problems facing our country. american people are still asking the question, where are the

jobs. this debt crisis is standing in the way of a lot of employers hiring new people. the fact that no one knows what the tax rates are going to be in january causes business people and investors to sit on their hands because the picture is uncertain. and then when it comes to what is going to happen to the military with cuts in january you can imagine that there are a lot of people concerned. the defense secretary has made clear that these cuts will devastate our ability to keep our country safe. the white house has admitted that these cuts will have a devastating impact on our military. so where is their plan? it's as simple as that. >> so in essence the line has been drawn in the sand. the comments of the speaker of the house, john boehner, those comments before the meeting that took place at the white house. if you log on to

u.s.debtclock.org the debt per citizen is just over $50,000 and per taxpayer it is $138,000. dueling statements from the speaker of the house. the speaker in a statement issued earlier this afternoon saying he participated in a friendly lunch meeting with the president and other congressional leaders. the president began by laying out policy goals. the bulk of the meeting was spent discussing other issues including the debt limit increase. and then the speaker as this of the president whether or not he was going to ask the president to pass an increase that does not include spending cuts. the president said the increase without doing something serious about the debt is a concern. the speaker asked the president for his plans to deal with the

largest tax increase in american history, the expiration of the bush tax cuts scheduled to take place at the end of this year. the speaker saying i am not going to allow a debt ceiling increase without doing something serious about the nation's debt. nancy pelosi responding saying in terms of what we know that the budget control act that was passed we know we must reduce the deficit. the former speaker of the house saying it is wrong that the characterization that you pose referring to the speaker i have no idea what the speaker said but is that what he is saying and he wants cuts more than lifting the debt sealing and the president said no. so the back and forth on all of this in terms of what the democrats and republicans are trying to do framing this clearly in an election year. the briefing taking place after the noon time luncheon at the white house with congressional leaders and the president. today president obama over

sandwiches from taylor gourmet, a shop that i'm sure many of you have sampled, met with senate majority leader, harry reid, john boehner and nancy pelosi. the president urged to strengthen the economic recovery including the five items on the president's to do list for congress like the tax cuts for small businesses that the president discussed with local entrepreneurs earlier today. the congress to do list includes items like helping veterans find jobs and assistance to responsible homeowners, the kinds of priorities that republicans and democrats should be able to work on. the president emphasized the need for congress to avoid refighting old political fights and act to prevent interest rates on student loans from doubling. the president made clear that he refuses to allow a replay on the

self inflicted political crisis. the president reminded the leaders that he has sign into law over $2 trillion in deficit reduction bringing domestic spending to the lowest level as a share of the economy since the eisenhower administration. the president reiterated an approach must be a balanced approach and made clear his willingness to work with republicans and democrats to stake out an agreement along those lines. but it was just as clear that he would not accept an approach that asks middle class families to make sacrifices without asking for anything more from millionaires and billionaires. with that i will take your questions. >> on that point, then, did the president raise the issue that boehner raised yesterday regarding the debt ceiling and does the president feel that he is in a better bargaining

position given that the bush tax cuts end december 31st, the mandatory spending cuts begin next year? does he feel that he can negotiate that kind of balanced approach that he is talking about in a better way than he could in the summer? and can he separate the debt ceiling? >> the topic did come up. the speaker raised it and the president made clear as i just said that we are not going to re-create the debt ceiling debacle of last august. it is simply not acceptable to hold the american and global hostage to one party's political ideology. it is the responsibility to the congress to ensure that the united states of america pays its bills, that it maintains its credit worthiness, that it fulfills its obligation and

maintains the full faith in credit that it has long enjoyed. >> the comments of jay carney earlier today. the headline from the washington times, sparks fly at a white house meeting. joining us live on the phone is susan crabtree who posted the story a short while ago. thank you for being with us. >> thanks for having me. >> we have the he said she said statements from the speaker of the house, john boehner, reaction from nancy pelosi saying the speaker's characterization of the meeting wasn't quite right. as you indicated and others indicated some rather tense words, if you want to say tense, between the president and the speaker on the debt limit vote. what have you been able to glean from the session? because nobody spoke on the record after the session. >> it seemed like the white house portrayed it in a friendly light when jay carney came out

for comments saying it was a friendly meeting and he was emphasizing his to do lists and goals he was trying to get accomplished or passed by the end of the year. but during the briefing you got a read out from boehner's office and it was saying quite the opposite, that the bulk of the meeting was taken up with boehner and the president squaring off again over last year's same issue from last year that caused so much havoc and was consumed washington's time and energy about he is not going to draw a line in the sand with the debt ceiling and the house is not going to approve a debt ceiling increase unless it includes a dollar for dollar offset. the one thing that i can see, though, that harry reid put out a statement, his office, saying

that the debt ceiling increase won't be needed until the end of the year during the lame duck session. that will come up again. the other issue that we have what some have called a lame duck loll plooza that is going to be the sequester issue and whether the military is going to face deep cuts and domestic spending, as well. to reach the $1.2 trillion in savings and deficit savings that both sides agreed to last year. >> and you have the bush tax cuts expiring, too. >> most definitely another problem. i think it is going to depend. if that is the case. if we don't need a debt ceiling increase until the end of the year after the election then i think it will be whoever wins

the election will have a mandate. they have the american people on their side. if it is divided outcome somehow republicans lose the house and obama gets reelected we will be in the same situation as now. if it really is something that we can put off until the end of the year i don't think we are going to see the mid summer brawl that we saw last year. >> clearly the speaker of the house had telegraphed what he was going to do today when he spoke yesterday at a forum here in washington in which he said we are not going to raise the debt limit without substantial cuts in spending. >> that's right. it was ant surprise that they were going to clash at this meeting today. it was just -- i think we came out of the meeting thinking this is the first time they have met since february and one of the only times that the president called a meeting with

congressional leaders up to the white house since the really divisive session last year that left both sides at odds with one another and the american people thinking raining in washington. i thought we would see boehner's declaring this yesterday but there might be more talk about bipartisanship and what they could get done. there was very little talk about it. it doesn't surprise me in an election year. we hoped there would be some talk of getting the student loan agreement to keep the student loan rates low. they have to do that before july 1st. something that on the transportation bill they need to get an agreement on that. this is some okay progress. president obama has had okay progress in the beginning of the year getting some of the

priorities passed. they had the stock act that helps against members being held to the same standard as other public officials when it comes to corruption. that was an agenda item that president obama really pushed. also a jobs act that would eliminate red tape for small businesses. both sides seem to agree on that. more recently he has had problems. we saw the republicans showing that his budget couldn't pass the senate today. we had progress. the agenda has stalled somewhat in the last few weeks. it may be a sign that this is an election year and the election is becoming more serious. >> since you pointed this out in your story, was the white house

chef off today because the president going to pick up hoagie sandwiches? what was that all about? >> i thought that was kind of one of those things that the white house is doing. he had a small business summit with entrepreneurs including some different markets around town. so small business, he was pushing his agenda, his priorities to try to provide tax incentives for small businesses that hire more workers and increase wages. he was at the deli. there is a lot of talk on twitter about these hoagies that he bought for the white house meeting and how delicious they were. >> at least they liked the sandwiches but the politics will continue. your story available online at washingtontimes.com. thank you for being with us. >> great being here. >> we have been asking you about this political grid lock.

listener feedback line. many of you weighing in with comments and calls. >> i'm calling from virginia. i do not think anything will get accomplished in this session of congress. it appears that both houses of congress and both parties within the congress have completely different views on what should happen in the country. the speaker of the house is just completely out of control. it appears the only thing he wants to do is try to defeat the president in this election when his whole purpose is to assist the president in running the country. north carolina. as far as the congress getting

anything done i don't think they will. the republicans' strategy is to just make the americans suffer and not let this president do anything positive while he's in office. and they are willing to just tank this whole economy just because they don't like him. and that's sad. and that's just a sad thing in america when you have people with those hurtful views and thoughts who hate one person so much that they won't do their job and do what they're elected to do. thank you. hi. i'm calling from fairfax, virginia, to say that i respect speaker boehner's stance on drawing a line in the sand for

the budget talks but i regret that he is only looking at one side of the issue and that sp spending cuts. i think spending cuts are absolutely essential. even the ones that hurt but along with that we need to be willing to accept tax increases in certain areas, as well. thank you. hi, my name is joe from orange county, california. no, i don't think they will come to any compromise. it almost seems like it is built to fail by design. the democrats are wrong. the republicans are wrong. he's right. they're right. it's going back and forth. the biggest problem is the back and forth. useless rhetoric is going to keep going on. i don't know what else to say

but i don't think they will. thank you. >> your thoughts on congress and the political grid lock. will congress accomplish anything in this election year? our listener feedback line is open. give us a call and tell us where you are phoning from and share your thoughts with us at 202-626-7962. the phone number 202-626-7962. bloomberg business week writing about the energy loan guarantee program. many saying the failures in the president's job creating efforts were evident with loan guarantee programs. but the chief executive officer of bright source telling lawmakers today that the $1.6 billion guarantee for his solar energy generating facility in california will create 1,400

construction jobs in its peak. executives say the program has encouraged investment and that the projects were awarded after rigorous u.s. review. questions from republicans including jim jordan of ohio are critical of the president obama this before the subcommittee. you will hear from the president ceo of bright source energy. >> mr. wool rd, do you agree with cats that the program is working and it has worked well? yes or no? >> i believe that the project works very well for project financings. >> do you think it worked well in your particular case? i think on page five of your testimony i'm quoting the process was thorough. so you thought it worked well in your situation? how much money did you get from department of energy? >> i fully agree with that statement. we got 1.6 billion and a very

thorough analysis. >> thorough and thoughtful analysis is your statement here. do you believe any -- do you believe you received a guarantee there was any political influence or was it based completely on the merts of the project and your particular company? >> i believe it was completely on the project. we started the application in 2006. and went through a four-year cycle for it. >> this is where i'm confused because you guys gave us 30,000 documents on friday. i want to put the first e-mail up. today you are telling us it was thorough and thoughtful analysis and no political influence. and yet we have this e-mail between you and matt rogers, senior secretary of energy who decides things. you say i think it is interesting is please don't distribute this. we wouldn't want the taxpayers to know what is going on with

their money. department of energy's credibility is thin and i'm trying to put off communications can people on the hill. today you say thorough and thoughtful and a great analysis but in this e-mail when you are trying to get the money you say the credibility is thin. which is it? >> i never said they were fast. >> this is not about timing. this is about credibility. you used the word credibility. >> it is very much about timing. if you allow me to explain we had invested quite a bit of money at bright source in moving the project forward. and the government, we had a conditional commitment and the loan transaction had been contemplated to close in september of 2009. >> let's move to the second thing. you said it was completely based on the merits of the project.

can you see the big print where it says also -- can you read that first sentence for me? >> also, darby at pg and e talked directly to obama about the program's challenges and the bad situations. >> who is the darby in that? >> peter darby was the ceo of pg and e. >> and they had a vested interest in getting this thing approved because you were providing the commitment for green power. and is the obama in this sentence in your e-mail sent to the guy making the decisions, the obama i think it is, the president of the united states? >> yes. >> you told me there was no political influence in deciding this and in an e-mail you reference the president of the united states who had a direct conversation with the guy who cares pretty deeply about this thing getting approved.

which is it? >> for our -- >> was it based on the merit? were they thorough and thoughtful or no credibility and based on politics? >> our project i can assure you was based on the merits. >> why did you find it was necessary to communicate that he talk directly with the president of the united states? >> with all due respect, what i believe -- >> i'm trying to clear up the confusion. >> i would like to help. what i believe that peter darby was saying was that he had many projects under this program. i believe a significant portion of many of his projects was dependent on this. >> you thought it was important enough to cite in an e-mail to the guy in charge of making the decision and one month after this you got the conditional approval. this is another e-mail from you to executive director of the

loan guarantee program. and the e-mail you start off please see a draft of the e-mail our chairman is preparing to send to the white house chief of staff. so you're asking the guy in charge of making the decision on you are passed the conditional. you are asking the guy to proofread an e-mail that your chairman is going to send to the white house chief of staff? and you say there is no political involvement. this is not some kid asking their mom to proofread the homework. this is the taxpayer dollars by the guy to decide it. we want our chairman to send a letter to the white house chief of staff and you said two minutes ago that there was no political involvement in the decision to give your company 1 had t .6 billion in taxpayer money.

>> i think it would be interesting to see what mr. nelson has to say. do you think it is customary for a company to say proofread this letter that our chairman is going to send to the white house chief of staff? that's unbelievable. >> i believe that the letter that was contemplated was around the program itself and making sure that the program -- >> you read this letter we need guidance and support from the white house. it's amazing. we need a commitment from the white house to quarterback the loan closure by march 18th. mr. chief white house chief of staff can you approve this by a certain date. we need this. >> the comments of congressman jim jordan as he questioned the president and ceo of bright source energy, one of four executives speaking before this committee earlier today. the headlines from forbes.com republicans trying