totally. you're implying that bp does not want to close the well. i have a hard time believing that. it seems they are bleeding money as well as oil. i think everybody down there would want to do everything they could to stop the oil. host: winston porter, thank you very much. guest: thank you very much. host: we will continue this conversation. among our guests tomorrow, we will focus on the confirmation hearings for elena kagan. edward lee will be joining us. he is the director of the mexican affairs office of the state department. that is tomorrow morning. thank you for being with us today. enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great week. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] ♪ . .

>> after the, reaction to the firing from senate armed services committee leaders, john

mccain and carl levin. and later, defense secretary greagates and admiral mullen exn why they agree with the decision to replace general mcchrystal. >> of course, the lottery is prescribed by law. if demand are basis supply you have to do a lottery. >> i think this is the civil rights issue of today and it is not just about race. it is about class. >> tonight, the market -- the lottery producer madeleine sackler on the family that she hosted for the lottery, and the anti-charter schools and demand. >> mr. chairman, we are pleased to have you here of the g-20 leaders are gathering for the same debate as we are having on

capitol hill, which is, what is a hybrid of a love spending -- what is the bright club level of spending in a weak economy. walter, let's start with you. >> house democrats said this week that they are not going to propose a traditional budget resolution. >> we're going to propose a budget resolution, chiefly enter merrilee for, discretionary spending. -- chiefly and primarily for discretionary spending. that will be the number that determines how much discretionary spending there will be. the president has requested a

freeze in discretionary spending. we're going to propose for 2011 about $7 billion less than he requested for discretionary funding. the issue we have in place, keep in mind this pretty much fix this mandatory spending and entitlement spending, and it also fixes tax cuts. little can be done if they have an adverse affect on the budget. finally, it sets a goal for the next five years and brings the budget down to 3% of gdp. hthen we have in place a fiscal commission who that will be making recommendations for the near term and the long term. put all that together and i think we have the equivalent of a budget. >> the one thing that is different about this year's

budget resolution from what we have seen in the past is that the past resolutions had some sort of road map to get to the deficit target in the future. why not this year? >> we have tried to report something about it. it does not do any good if we're going to lose. we have to give the majority of democrats because i do not think any republican is going to vote for it, i am sure. we have to get the majority. and we do have this fiscal commission in place. it " be interesting to see what the fiscal commission can achieve because there's a lot of diversity and big bird is a nation in it. -- and big participation in it.

>> isn't it true in your own caucus members just do not have the political courage to take a tough vote on a budget that has trillion dollar deficits in there? you have basically truncated that piece of legislation. you do not have to say they were voting on trillion-dollar deficits. is in the taking the easy way? >> the president, as you know, requested a freeze, for three years on the discretionary funding account. will be voting for the and we will be voting also to set the target of 50% of gdp. you can say that is a lack of courage, but i am pleased with where we're coming out because

it can be extended over time. >> on friday, we heard that the government is downgrading its assessment of economic growth for the first few months of this year. it was about 3% and now we will be below that. which is not by any standard robust. why are you discussing spending cuts when a lot of the congress is saying that what we will see in the next year or so, the economy will not be as strong as in past recoveries? >> there is a short war between short-term stability and -- we want to give the economy some short-term stimulus without socking it in the solar plexus with a budget.

we recognized over the long term we do have some budget decisions to make. we're starting out with $7 trillion, which is a significant sum. it is not huge, but it is if you compare us to other countries, we think that we do not want to have too much on the assistance of the federal budget into the economy because it has made this -- a difference in bringing along the economy, we believe. >> in terms of the stimulus spending, we did not see it much support for the stimulus sending this past week in the senate, and also in the house a couple of weeks earlier. they tried to pass unemployment benefits ended pay benefits for

teachers to keep them on their payrolls -- and pay benefits for teachers to keep them on their payrolls. it did not get much support. you guys have to do stimulus spending -- how you say at the g-20 that you guys have to do it in the spending we are not having much success here? >> we could have a second relapse of the recession, particularly with the decline in home sales. from time to time it becomes alarming. but we're taking a stand that i said, -- as i said balances short-term and long-term. we're trying to show that we are

moving toward long-term stability. we are basically adopting deneen said it can be cut in half -- a means to cut the deficit in half a over four years. by 2013 the deficit is cut in half over before your fiscal years. if we can achieve those results, then i think we can say we have done what we set out to do. >> stephen, let's get you win. >> i'm wondering -- we have seen a lot of internal division among democrats in both chambers. it seems hard to get consensus on anything going to the floor,

whether it be the text extenders vellbill. balad refreshments of mars are concerned about going back on -- a lot of the freshmen and sophomores are concerned about going back home to their constituents. it seems that they do not want to do that much more for this year. that they just want to go back home and run for their seats. >> pago, which has a corning name, but is substantive -- paygo, which has a corny name, but a substantive. it is everything except for the money that is provided for the troops in iraq and afghanistan.

the banking bill will also be a huge amount, $10 billion to $20 billion over a time frame. the gravity of in the government ii such that people are saying that they want to balance the budget as quickly as we can. i think what the president set out for, $700 billion over a term from four years is a pretty good one. the courts what has caused the coulter change? why are we at the point where the coulter shifting? -- the culture is shifting? >> i think that the fact that other countries are having

problems with their debt accumulation brings it on to us. we normally easend of naturalisc might happen to greece today and it can happen to other countries. >> you have participated in some of the big budget deals in the past 20 years. 1997, for example, was probably the last big deal that was bipartisan and made big cuts in the budget. since then, there has not been any substantial bipartisan deal. i'm wondering how high or low your hopes are forgetting something sweeping along the lines of 1997. it seems like going into it, the partisan lines are sharply drawn where every republican says no to anything that looks like a tax increase and

democrats say, well, nothing is going to happen unless there is a balance of spending increases and cuts. steny hoyer talked about last week things like tough medicine, raising the retirement age on sscial security, not its ackley a popular thing. but the democrats laid it out -- not exactly a popular thing. but the democrats laid out. >> in 1997 by porges abated in the balanced budget negotiations of 1997. the first element of that successor arrived -- was derived from the fact that president clinton was behind it. leon panetta, his folks were in the room. the house and the senate leadership supported what we were doing. everybody was moving in the same

direction. the people of the table, jon casey, lauenburg, and senator davincidomenica ci, we were all getting in same direction. we started off on a pretty good no, and the conversation that is for your right now -- of is going on right now has a common effort and belief. >> can i ask your by people moving in the same direction in 1997? are we seeing that today? with raising the retirement age and pegging the benefits levels to means, is that something that

you think can get done this year? >> of all the things we need to do of the begins for the future, adjusting social security to make it solvent and sound will not be easy, but compared to medicare it is easier to make social security solvent for the long run. we have made no decisions like this, but it could very well be that there will say, will take social security first. the problem is if you do all of these short-term and long-term, social security and medicare in one sitting with one bill, i think you would be risking failure. >> let me ask you about a steny

warrior's: that he floated, raising the retirement age and -- steny hoyer's idea that he floated, raising the retirement age end -- >> the cells of something that could get discussed, especially if you do not end of with cuts and spending. in an election year, it seems that five of the last seven of the election years that there has not been a full budget process passed. i know that you are pushing the president's proposal and a line of precision, but that is a small issue. >> process is important.

when we got to the end of the alliance and the process change in the balance was budget -- the budget was balanced, we realize d all of these things have the same affect. they helped achieve our objectives. >> let me pick up on the recision concept because i know you support it. it is a way of getting heart a line item veto, more or less. philosophically, many of your colleagues are concerned that it seems -- that it gives too much power to the executive branch.

>> dealt with this in several different forms all long time ago, 15 or 20 years ago. the last time it came up, i tried to offer an amendment to the republicans, line-item veto, saying this is likely to be found unconstitutional. let's append this to your goabu. -- let's append this to your bill. basically, the bill gives the president 45 days to decide it on things that he would like to delete and send back to the congress for a separate vote, shining the spotlight for deleting things unnecessary. i think 45 days is probably too long.

if we have 12 recision bills on top of the 12 appropriation bills, it could really log jam. >> what about the concern of the seating to much power to the executive? -- of giving too much power to the executive? >> if we made some changes like not 45 days, but 10 or 15 days, i think it will take away some of the president's power to manipulate. to understand the line item veto, you need to have served under lyndon johnson. to understand the pressure. >> we have seven minutes left.

>> on the politics of trying to get this decision pastor the house, we heard a lot of rank and -- passed through the house, we heard a lot of rank and file democrats that said they do not want to give too much power to the president, but the republicans on the other side were pretty supportive of the proposal that you pushed forward. we'll have to rely on the votes of the democratic leadership? >> we will lose some votes. the appropriators will not be enthusiastic, i am sure. but i think we can get the majority of democrats. not all and i would not pretend that, but a substantial number. i think we can take from the back and say, this is what we should have done and this will

have a healthy impact on fiscal responsibility. >> do you think we will see that before the first election? >> it could come up in july. we have had some hearings on whether or not it could be exploited. we always do what we did once before, and that is offered members to put an equal alternative. the bomb with the most votes is still standing, then that is the one we -- the one with the most votes that is still standing, than that is the one we adopted. we had a couple of republican bills that were targeted to just

a few taxpayers. >> before we go, the administrative officials have said that peter orszag is going to be leaving soon. can you assess his tenure, and who should replace him? >> we have some cable choices right there in the white house. -- capable choices right there in the white house. i think it is important that you have an economist of orszag's ability. secondly, you need somebody who is very capable and understands the budget, which is not something you can do on the job.

it needs to be someone who has a good grasp of the budget process. many would fit that bill. i think the president has several tauruses and all of them good. >> i want to -- several choices and all of them good. >> i want to talk to you about your own race. republicans seem to be going for your district. i wonder if you could talk about the political battle back home. what is the environment when you go out and talk to folks? what are they asking you, and what is your sense of this election season? >> jobs, work, and the economy, no question. i have 14 counties just south of charlotte, n.c. and the

unemployment rate in all 14 has been in the double digits for some time now. there is one district of a cyclical unemployment layered on top of structural unemployment. the structural unemployment coming from the demolition of traditional industries on top of the cyclical effects. we will probably be the last recovering. i have people very much concerned, very worried. in small towns, large cities, whatever it maybe, they are concerned. and secondly, when you get down to the man on the street to the builder to the developer to the small-business person, they do

not see it. they do not feel it. when you talk about the recovery, they do not feel any of the so-called recovery. the economy is a big burden to bear in this election. >> senator mahaney has seemed to benefit from some of this tea party activity down in south carolina. what do you make of that? >> there there and their dogged, so there will have an impact. >> you talked about the state of things in your district, but you've been around a long time and watched the economy shift over the years. how would you assess where we are at this point as a nation?

>> we have to feel we are at a turning point in making certain decisions about the economy. we will invest well, to be able to reassert america's pre- eminence in the world. when you look at this, i'm not sure we are not losing ground. i am not a pessimist. i think we have a huge resources. the government needs to set the example of a risk -- responsible fiscal policies.

the truth is, household debt isn't nearly as great as government debt at this time -- is nearly as great as government debt at this time. and today, in the aftermath of the financial institution failures especially. >> on that note we will say thank you. >> after our news makers discussion with john spratt, but we are here. chairman, what is going to be the greater challenge in reaching hissgoals, the republican in the house or democrats in the senate? >> is going to be very difficult in both chambers. >> why is that? >> in the house, these deficits are very big. we're talking about $1.5 trillion this year and the same next year and an average of five

trillion dollars over 10 years. and we see many of them coming up for reelection this year. it is hard to imagine adding anything to the deficit this year. pennsylvania is in play. illinois is in play. >> steven, you kept asking questions going back to the politics of all of this. if what is your thinking? >> it you take the totality of the interview, what congressman spratt really illustrated was that the democrats are being pulled into different directions get sort of, high speed. they're closer snapping right now because they're having a hard time