we will also discuss the latest unemployment number is. this is "washington journal." host: good morning, it is friday, december 3, 2010. the senate may come in on saturday to vote on the tax debate that has been happening in this capital city. and over the extension of the tax cuts. that may have been saturday afternoon here in washington d.c.. today, the president's commission on the deficit is set to vote on the plan. we begin today with the details that were released this week on

the aid programs that it gave during the height of the financial crisis. this all came out of the bernie sanders amendment of the financial reform bill debate. we learned who received money from the fed during the financial crisis the phone numbers are on the screen. good friday to you. our topic today is on the details that we are now learning of the extent of the aid that the federal reserve gave to other banks, financial firms, and in some cases to private industry and also to foreign banks. joining us on the phone is

school chant, washington correspondent for the "new york times." could morning, thanks for being with us. are you there? i cannot hear on the line. let's go through some more details while we are getting in connected with us this morning. a second story on the -- called "cross-section of the rich with the fed." also to get you started on this, we have the details of u.s. financial firms getting federal reserve money. they included citigroup at $2.2 trillion, merrill lynch at $1.2 trillion. -- $2.1 trillion.

some of the foreign banks had also received money, the european central bank at $8 trillion. mr. chan, good morning, are you on the phone now? we are having trouble with that phone obviously. we will make some phone calls and make that connection with him and learn more about what he is reporting. let's begin with a phone call from waterloo, indiana. this is michael on the line. caller: it concerns me greatly, a programs, different countries. i guess i'm one of those old fashioned conspiracy people believing in a new world order, that argument is going to be smeared into a new world order like in europe. europe has the hero and will eventually have one flag of

europeans. it all goes back to the basic sovereignty of borders. when we kept the world safe where we had it weapons pointed of russia and they had weapons pointed at us, we realize that in world war would not control things. the borders will be controlled by money. when it is typical for the united states to change would china. it all and boils down to the dollar. we are in an economic decline and the thing we are going to do is take trillions of dollars and give it to people that could care less about us to keep them safe. george soros knows better and he will pass the legislation on around the world.

host: michael, you made your point. third time is the charm. are you there, sold? -- school chant? -- sewell chan? guest: yes. host: what was released today. guest: it was a host of records as a whole array of financial lending used to support the credit markets when uighur -- when they were under strain. why were they released? because they were released of -- because of mr. sanders of new york because they were required even though the fed was reluctant to do so. host: what are we learning in these documents? guest: there is a lot there, but

one of the key revelations is that the scope and the reach of the fed bailout, essentially -- mind you, the fed was paid back, but the scope of the lending throughout the world economy, really, was even greater than we knew at the time. host: one of the things that was interesting was the private companies that took advantage of low-cost credit from the fed. can you talk a little bit about what those companies were and why they reached out to the fed? guest: sure, for example, there was a program called the primary credit facility, which enabled banks who previously could not get low-cost loans from the fed to do so. and you got morgan stanley and

merrill lynch and bank america, these key institutions. these institutions were solvent in many cases, but needed help because so much of the short- term borrowing upon which wall street realize and upon which the economy relies to pay its bills had frozen up. you had issuers of short-term corporate funds that companies use to make payroll. these were private companies like mcdonald's or harley- davidson or caterpillar coming into the fed to help keep that critical market for four -- for short-term financing going.

host: one of the programs that was administered by the fed bank of new york, the tlaf program, it seems to me is the sub heading for the story in today's story in the "new york times" and it talk about money being moved from one sector to the other to stabilize the economy. here is what i want to rescue. one company that tapped into the fed was general electric, correct? guest: yes. host: if you look at the bank of new york, jeffrey yemola is one of the heads that serves on that bank board. what are all the connections about here, about how the money moved around?

guest: a question that has been raised is at an extent of interdependence. many of these companies that found themselves represented, including the new york fed, one of the issues raised was that you had executives like those of jpmorgan chase, who were on the board of the new york fed. the representation of these private directors on these boards it's kind of a relic of how the fed was set up in 1913, with essentially like governors appointed by the president around the country. that system has come under increasing strain and scrutiny because it leaves it unclear.

is this a private or public entity? the federal position is that it is an independent agency within the government, but i think that at times is called into question because of the representation of private bankers on the boards of these district banks. host: i will encourage people, because our time is short this morning, to find your article in ."e "new york times i thank you for being with us to

help us understand what was released. it sounds like we will be putting more together over the next week since people like you have a chance to dig through the documents. thank you for being here today. i want to get to calls because we are only with you on call until about 7:30 a.m. let's go back to a call from manchester. caller: good morning, susan. first, i would like to say that bernie sanders is a hero for pursuing the outing, if you will, of this whole problem. secondly, when i saw the list of the companies that benefited i saw caterpillar on there and i became very angry because if i recall correctly, caterpillar has just outsourced their jobs to an over sort -- overseas place.

i have a concern about the companies who benefited from these funds reinvesting in the u.s. host: not surprisingly, bernie sanders has reacted strongly to the data. he wrote on december 2 on the huffington post, "a real job dropper at the federal reserve."

let's go back to phones. this is edgewater, md., maggie is a republican. caller: this is absolutely ridiculous, the amount of money that has been spent -- you know, giving it to these banks. we have people in this country that are starving. that cannot have jobs. we need to take that money for one year and give it to all of those people. we could have even taken half of that money that was given to all the banks and give it to these people. but we keep wasting money and throwing it around and no one seemed to care, especially those in congress. host: next is indianapolis, ted is an independent. caller: i think this is quite

overblown because these are actually overnight loans, for my understanding. merrill lynch, for example, to have $2 trillion, but that was for 200 separate overnight loans. host: that is correct. those were seven hunt -- several hundred loans in that instance. thank you for clarifying that. what do you think about the fed's involvement? caller: that was going on in october 2008 and it was pretty serious. they basically prevented a much more serious crisis from happening, i think. i think what mr. sanders is saying is completely overblown. host: your opinion is shared by the "washington post" editorial page today.

later on the post writes this --

that is the "washington post" today. next call is patrick. good morning to you, sir. caller: good morning.

what we need to do is get into those books and stephen and domestically who were the banks that lend it. if you remember correctly, a lot of those were not financial institutions. they changed their status overnight so they could get into the tills and take the money out. secondly, you said these companies had a joint -- a shortage of cash on hand. the fed opened of the lending bank and said, hey, take our money. now we are loaning money to worldwide banks and we have no way of getting that back. and on one last topic, caterpillar. they just issued a bunch of bonds for the first time in non- currency, which is the currency of china, bonds.

host: next call to his foreign debt. .aller: i'm a veteran calling please let me make a comment. i want all our veterans to get together. i feel like all of those guys out to be taking drug tests. they're playing with our lives. they're playing with unemployment. gives the president's top 1% that tax bonus i will never vote for the president again. host: thank you for your call.

greenway, wisconsin. paul is next, an independent. we're talking about the details of the fed loan during the height of the financial crisis. caller: good morning. i was really shocked about this when it came out, and i'm glad it came out. us doling out money to foreign banks, i mean, where does it stop? this is ridiculous. host: next call from port charlotte, fla., john is a republican. caller: i would like to reiterate again that ron paul is really responsible for this information that is coming out. we are seeingt " here is probably the biggest heist -- what we are seeing here is probably the biggest heist and our children and our children's children are going to pay for this.

host: next is a call from columbus, ohio, lynn is a democrat. caller: i want to say that the amount of money given in eight and dime of federal employee and they want to freeze my pay, i'm really upset about that. they want to take a little money that we are given, which really only cover our health benefits every year. and rich people get so much money. i'm so upset. host: the financial times has a follow-up story on its web site today.

next is a call from akron, ohio, james, independent, good morning, you are on the air. caller: ron paul is an independent and he is the one who got this through. when you talk about the federal reserve, you are actually talking about the jewish lobby. you are talking about goldman sachs. greenspan, robert rubin -- the host: james, i'm going to move on here.

this is from the "new york times" today. back to your telephone calls. the greenville, ohio, mike, good morning to you. caller: just gone to talk a little bit about the money that our government seems to be able to throw around for these problems. i'm sure it was needed for the banks and so forth, but i'm also

concerned about the unemployment situation. the heil has one of the strictest limits as far as -- ohio has one of the strictest limits as far as how long you are able to collect. i believe it is 96 weeks that someone is allowed to receive benefits for the duration of unemployment. i wonder if congress will extend that. what about the people who simply have not been able to find work at all, and they are not even included if the benefits are extended? host: thanks for your call. the front page of the "washington post" suggest that the gop and obama are in continued discussions about the tax cuts. some of the reporting suggests that the president is trying to use the extension of tax

benefits to leverage discussion. one side gives an the other side gets. that is still in discussion with the white house. also i wanted to point out on the front page, a big story last night to center charles rangel of new york. it has happened only 23 times in the congress's history. most turned to face the house chamber, but charlie rangel faced the speaker, nancy pelosi. here is a little bit of that speech last night. heart i truly feel good. it's not all the commitments that are made to god in 1950. a lot of it has to do with the fact that i know in my heart

that i'm not going to be judged by thicongress but i'm going to be judged by my life, my activities, my contributions to society and i just apologize for the awkward position that some of you that are in. but at the end of the day, as i started off saying, compared to ere i've been, i haven't had a host: congressman charles rangel on the house floor yesterday. we are talking about the details we are learning about the aid and loans given during the height of the financial crisis. it is detailed in over 21,000 documents. the fed itself has it on line. if your interested in digging through more about the programs,

you are certainly welcome to do that. gerald duracool has a piece asking why we have a central bank. back to telephone calls. good morning, randy, democrat, you are on the air. caller: i read a book about 20 years ago from pat robertson about the new world order and the federal reserve and stuff. i started investigating myself and stuff and i think they have too much power that they throw around. that is all i have to say. host: thank you. new york city, john, republican line. caller: this should be an issue of national security, seeing as how the federal reserve is taking and dumping it in.

they have been put in these positions, elected by the people and for the people and they are not doing anything to help the people. somebody should blow a whistle on these guys and say, hey, do your job. you are a united states congressman, not a rich guy congressman, you know? host: next call from jeff. caller: i will be 28 in february and it is not fair that my generation and many generations to come have been sold into economic bondage. what i mean by that is, if you've ever seen the movie "blazing saddles" a great analogy would be when the sheriff road into town and says, no one moves or the sherer gets it. and all these people off shrink back -- or the sheriff gets it.

and all of these people shrink back. we have done this. we can turn this thing around. we need to think locally instead of globally. host: jeff, thank you. here is what the home page looks like and as you can see, they have details on usage of credit and liquidity facilities. it is on their home page. it has all of the programs that we talked about with sewell chan including the mortgage- backed securities program. each of these programs robert broken out on the homepage. if you want -- are broken out on the homepage. if you want to see those, they are available online. next call. caller: good morning, susan. this crisis was of the fed's own

making with its absurd, is responsible, money creation policies and zero interest rate policies. this is, indeed, the biggest theft in world history by these banks. the question i guess i've got is, the fed went out and bought mortgage-backed securities from the banks, but it has not bought them from pension plans and 401k plans. and thanks to the market changed, they can hide those losses from the public. host: thanks for your comments. next is a royal in maine. caller: good morning. i think the "washington post" editorial is largely correct. but there is even more to this. it seems to me that in america, i take a kind of wondrous pride in the fact that we have the

instruments in the case in the federal reserve and the resources to make the depression of the 30's seem mild. the scale of the problems is enormous. we live in a country that has the capacity to manipulate, if you like, a terrible situation, and avoid something that would have been much worse. we object to a loan for general electric, one of our largest employers? host: your bottom line is, thank goodness the central bank was there. caller: absolutely. host: thanks for your comments on this. again, we have details and additional information on our website if you want to learn

more. and there will be room -- there will be more reported on this. we are going to be here just until 9:30 a.m. eastern time instead of 10:00 a.m. because at 9:30 a.m. the president's deficit commission will be needing to have its final vote on proposals it has put forth to address the deficit end hopefully stabilize the economy. -- and hopefully stabilize the economy. we will be carrying that live. next we will talk about comments of the debt commission as they move toward a vote. we will talk with you in the larger sense about the work of this commission and how we should address the debt and deficit in this country. we will begin with a telephone call. on the line with us is michael o'brien, a political reporter for the hill. mr. o'brien, thank you for being

with us. guest: good morning. host: let's talk about the deficit commission. it was established by the president for what goal? guest: was established with the goal of coming to an agreement of 14 commissioners agreeing and going to congress for an up or down vote. whether or not is going to do that, it does not look like it. but i think the president if nothing else, is going to move the ball forward with this. host: and you talk about the commission, who sat on it? guest: the commission was members who were appointed by leaders. the chairman and co-chairman were appointed by the president. it includes people like paul ryan, judge gray, tom coburn.

it also features some allies of congressional leaders like javier burris sarah and labor leaders, like the former chairman of the seiu. host: it seems that a few of the numbers are accounted for. everyone else is either formally or informally moving in a direction. what do you know? guest: we know that at least five members have said they will vote against it. what that means is this will not pass. it will not advance. it will fall at least one vote short of the 14 that it would need to go to congress to get an up or down vote. that said, some of the proponents of the plan, kent

conrad and others. -- and others, have said that a majority vote is a strong show. indeed, it may be even stronger than some conservatives have expected. and host: what seems to be interested -- host: what seems to be interesting is when you look at the breakdown of the members id seems to be house conservatives and senate conservatives. house conservatives saying a no vote, but the senate conservatives saying yes. can you talk about what that does on capitol hill? guest: is is actually one of the most fascinating stories. house republicans, paul ryan in particular, has said that it leaves health care reform in place to an extent that they would not like to see. that is significant because the

senate conservatives might be in favor of the plan. the house conservatives are the ones that will be in power next year. paul ryan is riding next year's budget in the house. for him to have staked out such a strong position on this relative to his own party, even in the senate, it is indicative of the hard line that republicans might take in next year's budget battles. host: thank you. again, we will be carrying the vote live and people can watch beginning in 9:30 a.m. eastern time. thanks again. let me introduce you to our first guest this morning as we put together an understanding of the work of the debt commission and what it means for a discussion about debt and debt reduction in washington.

robert bixby of the concord coalition. how long have you been around? since guest: 1992. -- guest: since 1992. when we started there were huge deficits, much like today. and the budget improved considerably. then we plunge right back into deficits and the situation is now even worse than it was several years ago. host: let's hear your view on the whole creation of this deficit panel here in washington. what do you think it's value is? guest: i think it was a good idea. regular order, so to speak, has failed to deal with the growing debt and deficit problems. messina that something out of the ordinary -- it seemed that something out of the ordinary would be appropriate. it is led by efforts from

congressmen wolf and house -- wolf and the senate. host: of the plan does not pass, does it have any value? guest: yes, and i think i've said all along that the important thing would be whether you could get some good ideas on the table with bipartisan support. it has not seemed that important that they get 14 out of 18 votes or something. and this has worked out a lot better -- a lot better than i expected, very significant bipartisan support. it is a very good thing that we will have a, a positive momentum going into this year's budget process. host: what are some of the key parts of the plan? guest: it freezes discretionary spending. actually, it would cut this pressure -- discretionary spending over time. and that would include defense.

the first one is very strict limits on appropriations, and that is something that congress ought to do year after year. and also raises revenues and by lowering rates. you fought in the tax code a little bit and you get rid of some leakage and you can raise more revenue. it also has social security reform. it puts a cap on health care spending. host: let's give people some more details. it specifically on social security, how does the plan to address it? guest: it is a thing that has been discussed for years, really. it would adjust the of the -- the benefit formula. some people think testing means

if you would not get any benefits after a certain point like a welfare park -- program. it does not do that. it makes the program more progressive. it raises slowly the eligibility age. both the early age and the so- called normal retirement age. it raises a very, very slowly. people about to retire would not need to worry that they would have to work some more years. it brings in state and local workers who are not covered. it slowly raises the cap on taxable payroll. right now, there is a cap after a certain income lovelorn, sixth out -- in kumble -- if it raises a cap after a certain income level, 6800 at this time i believe.

host: i think "the nation" captured this this week in a story called "the sacred cows." here is the graphic. the cow was divided into three parts. social security, $703 billion. defense budget, $664 billion, more spending than any time since world war ii. and here is the home mortgage interest deduction, $131 billion. how long has the program been around? guest: it came in after world war ii. host: you know -- do you have to know whether or not -- do you happen to know whether or not other countries such as canada or great britain have similar programs? guest: most do not. it is not something most of the world does.

host: what would be an argument against this form of deficit reduction? guest: the argument against would be we have a housing crisis right now and anything that would make the housing recovery is slower by making people less inclined to buy a home would be bad for the recovery. the other part of it -- on the plus side of why you would want to do it is, basically, it is a federal subsidy. if you think of it as a spending program, you know, people who own homes and have a lot of interest get a subsidy from the federal government. sometimes the second homes and that sort of thing. the argument for doing that is to make the tax code more efficient and a and so we're not picking winners and losers and we are raising more revenue that way.

by the way, it tends to benefit upper-income people. in other words, the more expensive house you have, the more benefits you get from this. by going after that. by capping it toward eliminating it is a progressive change to the tax code. host: we are talking about plans to address the nation's deficit and debt. we would like to comments by phone and also by twitter and e- mail. our firstn with telephone call. in san antonio, john, republican line. caller: i have a small problem with people who do things -- government employees and three times as much as those in the private sector and those in the private sector must work hard for the rest of their lives, so to speak, to give the ruling

class -- as some radio commentators, rush limbaugh, would say -- and so they can live above us. they are not talking about reducing the cost of salaries. a lot of programs in iran have been put forth over the years and they are blowing smoke -- in government have been put forth over the years and they are blowing smoke. they create debt. every time you hire one, you've got to go for somebody's taxes to pay that one. am i missing something here? host: mr. bixby, the president announced this week a freeze on federal salaries. do you know the size of the payroll? if guest: i do not know the total size of the payroll. i think the freeze is something that is probably going to

happen. i think a lot of people feel like the caller does. i can maybe modify the sentiment somewhat to say that the private sector is in difficulty right now and it makes sense for the federal government to also freeze pay and shrink the work force, because that is what is happening in the private sector in response to the tough economic times that we have. but it is not sufficient to deal with our budget deficit. i think is going to save about $5 billion this year and $28 billion over the next five years. we have debt in the $one trillion range. -- in the $1 trillion range. i think is good that the federal government is tightening its belt, but we have to do more.

host: and the fact that exempted the military, would you like to comment on that? guest: pentagon civilians were not exempted. people serving in the military were exempted. i think in a time of war it is difficult to impose a pay freeze on soldiers. host: next call from georgia, democrats line. caller: we are talking about sacred cows. everyone is making sacrifices here. there is no talk whatsoever about closing corporate loopholes and overseas tax shelters. can you comment? guest: a lot of times, what the -- what the commission did try to focus on was a lot of tax loopholes. i think there will be a lot more talk about that. the commission has kicked off a very valuable debate about the tax code and loopholes, breaks,

credit, extensions, things that leak revenue. they are sometimes referred to as tax expenditures. the commission began to refer to them as tax earmarks. i think it would be fair to say these are really spending programs being run through the tax code. if someone came along and said, here is a spending program. we will give you a subsidy to do such and such, will we support it? most of the time the answer will probably be no. i think you will see a lot more talk about this and it is a really good discussion being kicked off by the debt commission. host: next call from iowa, rob is a republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think you are right, the debt commission today will come down to a no vote. but i think is important to get people talking, getting the ball

whirling, so to speak, and getting ideas on the table. how much does a senator made a year and a congressman? and what are their pension plans? i mean, if they are really serious about cutting the deficit, i think maybe they should think, well, we've served our country and i think maybe we should do our own health insurance. most of these people are millionaires. guest: they did impose a pay freeze on themselves and the debt commission they did recommend a pay freeze. the members ofat congress make. i think it is $150,000 to $175,000. they are well paid, but again, we need to think about the

actual numbers here. the magnitude of our problem is a trillion dollar deficit. we may get some psychic benefit for people that we feel have not been making these hard choices, but if we want to get control of these -- this problem, we will need to look at the sacred cows. host: the next telephone call is from new york. chris is an independent. caller: i believe it boils them to the constitution. all men are created equal. you scrub the old tax code. the income tax rates that you are out, that is what you pay. no deductions for anybody. they are talking about doing away with the home tax exemption.

everybody gets to make decisions. i made some poor decisions. i did not go to college and i have been in blue collar work all my life. i worked two jobs to get my home so i could live in it. if they are taking away that, why don't they take away the money that the people who do not pay taxes are getting, and how much money with that saved? i will listen to your comment. -- how much money would that save? i will listen to your comment. guest: i do not think i have a way to comment. here is a way to look at it. it is a shared sacrifice throughout the federal budget. i think you have a good idea, which is what the commission was talking about, which is doing away with all of the things that make the tax code so frustrating and complicated. everybody seems to think that

somebody else is getting a better deal because they might have some sort of tax break that you do not. corporations are getting tax breaks that are contributing to the deficit. i think the tax reform piece is very important. the other part that you is, i would assume you are talking about welfare programs. those are on the table as well. but i do think there is a strong commitment for people in this country to have a safety net. programs like medicaid are very important, particularly in down times like this. unemployment compensation has been important with unemployment as high as it is. i do not think we want to eliminate that as a social safety net. it provides for the general welfare. host: next call from indiana,

steve kolly on the democrats line. -- steve calling on the democrats line. caller: the thing that i do not get is, the rich are going to get richer. nobody ever does anything for the poor people. we have got to take the burden on all of this stuff. just like the federal workers, they are going to freeze their pay. they have a you could union and they got them the money they are -- they have a good union and they got them the money they are getting. if you freeze their pay, they will basically stopped buying stuff and what good is that going to do? they will be laying off more people. that is not going to be doing any good. host: i will leave that as a

comment. binghamton, new york, john on the republican line. john, good morning. caller: i just have a comment about the pensions and health insurance for government employees and teachers. in new york -- i don't about every place else, but teachers can retire and they usually have really good health care. government workers, the same way. say instead of retiring after 20 years, retire after 30 years. the pension and medical costs a lot of money. guest: there are some changes to federal retirement programs in

the report and also in the report that i joined in by the bipartisan policy center. they would make dior pension programs less generous over time and ask people to pay more for health benefits -- they would make the pension programs less generous over time and ask people to pay more for health benefits. but again, making sure that there is broad sacrifice here. some of the smaller parts of the plans -- you know, the reason these plans to look at and medicare and medicaid and social security -- you look at some medicare and medicaid and social security, that is because that

is where the money is in the budget. and in freezing discretionary spending across the board, and doing the same for defense. these are really big pieces and it is not going to be easy to do that. we do need to get beyond talking about federal pay and federal pensions. those are on the table, believe me. but with trillion dollar plus deficits -- here is the thing you have to keep in mind with long-term budget deficits, it is really driven by demographics and health care costs. that is why people are talking about social security and medicare. it is not an ideological quest to go after these programs. i think there is broad consensus that these are important programs and it is difficult to know how to sustain them in a changing environment with the

population aging and baby boomers like me getting closer to retirement age and health care costs rising. host: all of these meetings are available in the video library if you are interested in going back and watching those. here's a comment from the durbin of illinois from this week's meeting. >> we believe that any crisis america faces will require shared sacrifice. but the multi vulnerable in our country cannot sacrifice the same as those of us who are physically and economically more fit and in better shape to do so. that is the standard i use as a progressive. i believe we have to look at the bottom line and see where the most vulnerable in america -- in america, the elderly, our poor and children, how are they in

this? and we have to do everything in our power to protect them. that is why some of the debates over taxes leave me struggling to understand. host: in advance of this morning's 9:30 a.m. meeting over the dead commission, we are talking about their plans. here's a comment on twitter. any comments on that? know what our gross receipts are before we start cutting programs. guest: i think what the commission did, and what we did in our task force was to look for any spending cuts we could make and look for savings and then say, now, do we need to raise more revenues? we looked at the spending first and then the revenues.

host: next phone call is for -- from mason, ariz., jeff is an independent. caller: you were talking about these loans from the federal reserve earlier. if these banks default on these loans, is it going to come back on us? and will we have to pay the interest on these loans as well? guest: so far, it is interesting. the t.a.r.p. money has not been as expensive as we feared. the banks have rebounded and repaid the loans. i think that has been a very frustrating experience for the american people to have to bail out banks that are in some cases partially responsible for some of our problems with irresponsible lending practices. but so far, we have gotten the money back.

that is how it works with any federal bailout. the taxpayers get left holding the bag. host: each one of these numbers is then a further source it's as members of congress read -- receive a yearly salary of $165,000. the speaker of the house ernst $212,000 annually. -- the speaker of the house burned spent $212,000 annually. people ask about their retirement programs.

and like other federal employees, members contribute one-third of their health-care costs with the government covering the other two-thirds. fairly standard? guest: yeah, i think is a generous program. it is a good program. federal workers are going to have to take a hit like everybody else. host: we are talking about the plans for addressing the nation's deficit and debt. today, the deficit commission will be voting. we have a tally for you based on statements from the 18 members and news reports. let's show you those over the next telephone call, so you can see where those the stand just a few hours before the meeting actually happens. as we look at that, we will listen to a call from chicago. this is mark on the democrats line. caller: i had a question.

for the last two years, we have been listening to a lot of conservatives, especially members of the two-party, talking about -- of the tea party, talking about spending. specifically sarah palin. i have done some research and i know that alaska, south carolina, alabama, oklahoma, all of these states are beneficiary states. they benefit from federal redistribution of money of wealthy rich blue states like my state of illinois. and alaska, for example, gets about $1.84 for each dollar the residents pay in federal taxes. south carolina gets about $1.35 in subsidies. my state of illinois receives 75 cents per dollar. my question is, instead of

looking at federal versus private, instead of looking cutting these programs across the board, why don't we just look at cutting spending and subsidies to specific states that already benefit

bepropriations are going to strained over the next couple of years. so i think what you are suggesting is certainly part of dave short-term solution -- part of a short-term solution. if it was not your mutt --

earmark, let us spend it on something else. in a trillion dollar deficit, it is fought. to get you very far. it is -- it is not going to get you very far. that is why the we have to look at other fans. i take your point. a lot of people that do complain about federal spending do not complain about what they see in their own districts. that makes sense to them if they are going someplace else. the hill reported they had tax reform proposals. here is what they write.

host: you spoke about the reform of tax cut. guest: guest: i think this is something the democrats and republicans can join in. it does something for everybody. if you do lower rates, -- you cannot lower rates by getting rid of a lot of the subsidies. things that make the tax code less efficient, more complicated and frustrating, so moving in the direction of tax reform, to come up with a better tax payer system that raises more revenues is more productive than debating the bush tax cuts. with those rates, why not come

up with a better tax system. that way, it brings in more revenues. more democrats can support that. it also lowered -- leads to lower rates. of guestsave a couple coming up. one person will be voting for the report and the other against it. here is a message by twitter. guest: unless he is going to line items will security and medicare, it will not save that much money.

the fact that there are so many sacred cows is really key. we went after them you have to do that. everybody has to know that their sacred cow is there also. it is not just those that are on the table. there is a lot in it that people do not like. almost everybody will find something that they do not like in the plan. you are not going to get a plan with problems this bake in a lot of popular options. there is no such thing. course there will be a popular element to it. host: the new york times had a chart they put together.

i wanted to go down to the bottom line. your plan if inactive would offer deficit reduction 2020. what is the heart of the difference? >> it may be a technical difference. the amount of deficit reduction achieved is dependent upon where you start. what do you assume the baseline is going to be. the plans are very similar. onve both put everything the table and have appropriations. we both lower the tax rates while getting rid of the exemptions and credits as we were talking about before. very similar on social security.

we achieve health care savings by moving to a premium support model. that is beginning in 2018. they recommend that. it is one of many recommendations. i think what the commission reports have shown our the things that -- the leverage that needs to be pulled. you do have to have spending cuts and revenue increases. you know from the budget, the numbers are and the big programs that you need to go after. host: we have a republican on. caller: congress talking about suspending their automatic pay raises. they also have some expense

accounts that they can charge just about anything on it. charlie rangel charge of the car that he parked illegally in a garage. i do not know why we look at -- look at who obama has. he has millions of dollars out of fannie mae. they are running general electric, which they have destroyed. why do we bring these people in wanting us to bail out their pensions? why do we think they can do a better job running our stuff? of thehat do you think

kinds of quality of advice that the president sought? guest: i think he has some excellent people on it. the tone was excellent. i was a bit surprised that they all seemed impressed with the magnitude of the task. we did not have partisan bickering as we normally have. we have taken some time to look at this problem, and it is serious. i see some of the statements today in from dick durbin and others. a lot of people come together and look at it and take it seriously. i thought they did a terrific

job and i was very impressed. we had the union leader in the stern on the and congressman ryan appeared to gather. it was terrific. host: dick durbin announced that he would vote in favor of this plan. he said it was not an easy decision. how will it put people back to work? guest: what we did in a bipartisan policy plan, which

was picked up as an alternative by the commission was an immediate tax roll holiday. we did not want the signal that fiscal austerity meant that you need to crack down in the middle of a recession such as raising taxes or slashing spending when the economy is still fragile. what you need to do is put in place a plan to deal with the long-term budget deficit, which i think would enhance short-term stimulus efforts, because it is not just an open ticket if you are lending us money. i think what senator durbin was referring to with the payroll tax holiday is to have a one- year payroll tax holiday which would help businesses help put

money in people's pockets and get to the economy going. economic growth is a very important part of this. host: here is one last sentence from dick durbin. a final vote will be today.

we will have live coverage on c- span. next is tennessee, the independent line. guest: 5 like to ask a couple of questions. -- i would like to ask a couple of questions. those that sponsor race teams and race cars, and then i have another question. they said the cost of living last year was not [unintelligible] and they did not give the social security people erase. yet the congress and the house got a big pay raise last year. guest: i may be wrong, but i do

not think they did. it is based on the consumer price index and if it is a zero. host: the first question was as a way to see the government wastes money where they may sponsor a race car or have another big sponsorship the event and wonders why they spend public money in that way. guest: that is a good question. we have some voluntary military. when the economy is doing well, the recruiting targets, the military had to go out.

in this economy, they probably do not. host: here is a another comment. next is a call from western, maine. caller: i wanted to make a comment on the home mortgage deduction. when i get to the tax return back, i usually get caught up on my credit cards and pay my property taxes. if the state takes away that the deduction, they will see crumbling in the housing economy. usually that is when people buy their cars and get caught up on their bills and all of that. i have to believe that will be terrible for the middle-class. thanks. guest: it is a benefit if you

own a home, and not if you do not. it affects home ownership. many people use that deduction in the same way that you do. there is no evidence that it increases home ownership. in countries that do not have that home mortgage subsidy have home ownership rates as much as we do. it can be used as a tax shelter to create a housing bubble as he just had. i do not think it will be eliminated. it is being scaled back considerably. it cannot be used as a tax shelter. it is not clear if it does anything to improve the rates of home ownership. people made plans based on that

deduction. there is no particular reason why we need to have a federal subsidy for that. host: economic warfare against the american people for pain the crimes -- paying the crimes of the bridge. guest: the war is against an unsustainable budget situation. it is an unsustainable debt burden. i think that is what the war is about. host: republican, maine. caller: my husband is retired military. a couple of comments i have is about the federal -- i do not mind giving of our race in january as long s congress is going to -- as long as it is not

across the board. postal workers -- they voted on the actual military still getting a raise, however for a couple of years we have not gotten it. he did not give his raise. what i am asking is if they are going to stop the rays, why are they not doing it across the board for everybody? on the social security, the question i have about that is the the i have a family member who has four of her children on social security benefits. it is gaming the system because of its. if that is just one person, how many other people across the country have scammed so security and it is taking money away from us. now you have to raise it.

guest: on the last one, what drives the long-term social security problem is aging. that is overwhelming rather than any sort of abuse on the system. it is because there are more of us that will be collecting benefits as the population ages. that is the overwhelming inevitable for social security. very slowly in it is raising the eligibility age. on the first part of that question, across the board freezes. the definition did have an across-the-board pay freeze for military. that would include members of

congress and their staff as well. they realize that that needs to be done for reasons that you accurately describe, which is a lot of people are willing to make sacrifices in pursuit of a brighter economic future. that is as long as there is the perception it is being asked of those. >> you have been at this for a long time trying to get washington to focus on the concerns which your organization has regarding federal debt. what are your feelings about the temperature at this time to address this situation? guest: optimistic. the problem has never been worse. a huge short-term budget and a long-term unsustainable problem. i am very heartened by the responses of some of the commission members in the past

week. on a bipartisan basis. republicans and democrats in the senate said they are willing to look at the broader good. that is the spirit that we need to tackle this problem. seen that break out, i go for gin the budget season with some optimism. host: thanks for being here. we will be joined by one of the members of the commission in a few minutes. he decided to vote yes. we will continue to take your calls, your e-mail messages, and your tweets on this whole topic of addressing the federal deficit and debt. let us listen to one of the comments of the private sector

members. the honeywell international chairman and ceo. >> about $4 trillion of our debt is money loaned to us by foreign countries, with $1 trillion loaned by china. what happens when they do not want to loan us any more money? where do we go? what do we do? what happens when the bank, foreign countries like china, does not want to loan you any more money? we have benefited a lot of being viewed as the world's reserve currency, a safe haven. what happens when we are not viewed that world -- that way anymore? when we have to pay interest to attract the loans that we need from foreign countries. when the interest rates that americans have to pay for homes, schooling, and car loans go up for the same reason, thereby hurting the very people that we

think we are protecting. finance is not an exciting subject. this goes to the core of our economic and homeland security. when that decline comes, it comes not as small monthly doses given us time to adjust, it happens overnight when fear grips the market. the american public deserves better. host: their 18 members appointed from various sides. we need a super majority before it goes to congress. it is estimated that they will not reach that number, they are uncertain what the exact plan will be. we do have a accounting of how

id is expected to be voted upon. the cochairs of the commission are included. senator gregg, tom coburn, mike crapo, senator dick durbin of illinois. opposing the commission proposal will be paul ryan, and dave camp, democrat of missouri, and the stern, and another. we still do not know about some of the other congressmen. here is a treat.

-- tweet. we are talking about the proposals to address the nation's debt and deficit. we have our next caller from montana. caller: i am in the extreme western end of the state. thanks for taking my call. i have a question. since america is no longer on the gold standard, why don't we take the gold and pay down the national debt in fort knox? we are sacrificing our economy. i hear this talk about the jobs. you sent them all overseas. all of our manufacturing base has gone overseas. we are not consumers but customers.

when they realize that we are customers, maybe things will change. spendthrift, wasteful, but we are not consumers. i object to being called that. host: here is some of the reporting in today's papers about the commission. here is a front-page story from a boston newspaper. also in the "washington post" today.

they think some will sign on to help with the country's woes. california is next. this is a republican. caller: good morning. i wish i had the opportunity to speak with the senator. i am about to go to bed. i have been up all night. i would like to address the prior callers to this last one. i think one was from illinois who brought of the proposition that some states are paying more federal taxes than what is being returned to their states.

i am having a brain lock. let me a suspect for a moment. i think the caller's on the liberal side of the spectrum and i have been retired now for a number of years, and i go back to a time when when what is his name, help me out, brian, when he was hosting the show. it was around the 1990's when i started watching. what i found is the liberal callers consistently think that the federal government is there for their safety net. bottom line. to go back to our constitution, this is not a democracy.

there are certain rights that states have that allow them to run their own affairs. the federal government has taken over that period just one portion of the federal government has taken over the states' rights, which is education. help me understand. are you any better off now than you were before the the department of education? i wish you would have the facility to ask a liberal caller is the department of education doing anything for your local schools? i would be hard pressed to say that they would. i will be off the phone here in a couple of seconds. a liberal college used c-span as

a way to communicate. that is fine. but i want them to understand that c-span is a private company not one single federal dollar was used to start it, run it now, or as i understand, and never will accept federal dollars. isn't that amazing? we listen to this program every morning and voice our opinions on what the federal government can do for you. you are using the channel that is privately sponsored by corporate rations of this country. thank you. have a good morning. host: some say it was the politicians that got the country into this mess. that is one coming from one person in here is a comment from an e-mail.

sumter, south carolina, a democrat, on the air. caller: i am a moderate clinton supporter. i think the democrats have given up too much, including in the commission. i would ask the congressman to go see obama and tell him, we need to fight harder and get tougher and to stick to the defense budget, the appropriations that was turned down, to fight for the taxes and

for the 250,000. we need lou -- a new leadership if average democratic party will not pick up the pace and fight to whiz -- when the game. -- win the game. that is all i really have to say today. host: thanks for the call. one person has decided that he will put a challenge in the house. we have time for a couple of more calls. then we will be joined by a senator.

listen to the republican side who decided not to support the deficit commission's plan. we will be right back. >> my primary concern with this plan is health care. i do not believe that this sufficiency -- sufficiently replaces the health-care problem. we just got a new number that says we haven't $88.60 trillion stemming from our health care programs. -- we have an $88.60 trillion stemming from our health care programs. i have a problem with this. host: this is the senator on your screen right now. he will be promoting the plan.

one member of the commission will not be supporting this. guest: this plan has a lot in it but we are uncomfortable with, but it is critical that we get engaged on it. i agree with the comments that paul ryan just made. this plan does not adequately deal with the health-care issues. nothing stops us from moving into that area in addition to what has been aimed at this plan. we have to take the action necessary to get moving i have a lot of heartburn with things in this plan. but i have a greater heartburn

with inaction. the time for gridlock and inaction has passed. if we do not take bold action now, we will see our nation face fiscal difficulties that will be more painful than anything in this plan. host: what specifically gives you hot -- heartburn? guest: i want to see much more in terms of reduction in spending. this goes a long way in dealing with the spending problem, but not far enough. a big part of my concern is the reduction in spending. i would like to see greater reform. it does not have significant reform of our tax cuts. guest: according to press reports, is -- if they reach

their super majority, what happens to the work that you have done? guest: if we do not get 14, the there will not be a mandatory vote on this plan with no amendments in the senate in the house. it does not mean that we will not have a plan before us. we believe it is time to take this strong action. we believe this plan will be in play. we want immediate action. host: we have been taking calls from the public so that you can respond to some of them. we take a call from houston. in the pan and line. caller: if i am not mistaken, there is no mandatory vote anyway.

i am sorry you have heartburn. for one thing, fix the trade problem. we're sending these jobs overseas. do something about these pharmaceuticals on these drugs. [inaudible] the banks, they've bankrupted this country with their credit default swaps. you need to put a price on credit default swaps for a -- about $10 a piece. then we would hit a surplus like he would not believe. guest: if it got 14 votes, it would move the florida senate in

the house under a mandatory agreement by the speaker of the health and the majority leader of the senate. i agree that we need to go further. i believe this is a good start. this is not the end of what we need to do. one of the positive things about this plan is the reform that is in it that will make us more competitive as a nation. we will start -- stop sending jobs overseas and make as the economy that we need to be. we are losing capital formation and opportunities to other markets around the globe. that should not happen because our tax code is so difficult to deal with. host: one of the key parts of the plan was to eliminate mortgage deduction. our last guest suggested that it would be much diminished because

of the housing market. guest: the mortgage deduction should be maintained. that is what i believe. the plan could for does eliminate the deductions and credits above the line. it also has options for congress to add back in some of those deductions in areas such as the mortgage industry. even under the commission's plan, the likelihood is that the mortgage interest deduction would be retained. guest: places like canada and great britain do not have this mortgage interest rate deduction. guest: yes. in the united states, it is so strongly liked by the american public and it has some significance to our housing market, i think congress would vote to put it back in. if they did, the reduction in

the rate would be adjusted to make room for that mortgage interest rate to be inserted back into the tax code. host: worthington, ohio. you are on. caller: i think that we have to communicate. we have seen the american people be attacked. in the next couple of years, we have to look et this. we have seen the devastation of one entity leaving. we need to see unity between republicans and democrats.

that is what we have to work on. we know so much to china and the japanese. all i have seen is a decline across the board. i am glad to see america come together again. host: a number of comments were made about the unity of the commission. what are some of the dynamics like that? guest: the same six democrats and then six appointees by the president and six republicans. it was a good working dynamic.

we also had people from outside of congress from the business community and parts of our economy who were able to bring to us a very different dynamic than the gridlock politics that we have seen in washington. i agree with the last caller that we need to see some unity. one of the things that i expect to see is bipartisan support for this plan and the majority support for this plan. i think that is one of the most positive developments in this process. majority not supermajority. i hope we will get to the supermajority. it is beginning to look like we will get to a bipartisan majority. i think that will help us put the plan on the map.

it will be one of the focal point of congress' efforts in dealing with our fiscal problem whether we get the supermajority or not. host: democrat on the line. caller: how do we let our money? [unintelligible] and other 7% being given to the rich? we are supposed to pay 39%. [unintelligible] s--we collect less revenue i then you want to turn around and tax everyone else 20 billion here and some billion there.

there is a reason why the republicans were not in office for 40 years. thanks for your time and have a nice day. guest: right now they're going on in the halls of congress, there is a debate on tax rates. whether we should raise taxes on any one or keep them the same for everybody. what i like about this commission plan is it takes the issue out of this continuous debate that we have over tax rates. it dramatically reduces tax rates across the board for everybody. it makes it much stronger and cuts the debate over tax policy in into the arena of tax reform. what kind of tax policy we should have to make our economy more stronger -- more strong and dynamic.

that is one of the biggest strengths of this proposal. host: here is an e-mail on this. guest: the earned income tax credit is one of those deductions that is on the table to be we inserted back into the package if congress deems it to be appropriate. i think that is something that congress would add back in. it is being taken into strong consideration. i voted against the original establishment of the commission, because i thought it would be a vehicle for at -- adding new fat facts into it. it would create some powerful engines in our system that would be detrimental to our economy.

i could see that they would move forward and we need to get engaged in the debate. one of the republican senators serving on it -- i agreed to do so. they did not move towards creating a new tax engine, but towards the tax reform in spending reforms. that is what i believe our nation needs. host: here is a call from burning -- birmingham. caller: thanks for giving the public an opportunity to speak out. i have a comment and then a question. i am on unemployment. i would love to see it get expanded. i own a home. i do not qualify for any programs that would allow me to change the that with my home.

i am middle-class. i would not want to see those things past if it does. to hurt all americans. pointing a finger at each other and arguing -- apparently at some point -- point, i will need medicare. if we cannot get together and sit down and come to some point where we are. to help all americans, we have to start giving back. we keep raising taxes and cutting here and there. it is killing the american class people. what plan for action are we going to take in the future? when are we going to stop the abuse? they do all these things that are so unnecessary. people in important positions --

we have to come to somewhere where we stop doing these things. guest: we need to address the waste, fraud, and abuse on the budget. that is one of the things that this plan aggressively deals with. i think it is important for everybody in america as we look at this plan or others to recognize that an action is also going to have consequences. we are at a place where the consequences of inaction are so severe to the middle class and to everybody in america that it is not an option that we should consider. we must take some kind of reform action now. i believe this plan gets as well down the road to where we are dealing with the two key parts of the decisive action that we need to take. we need to control our spending

and reform it and reform our tax code and make america much more competitive and give it a stronger and more dynamic economy. host: what the the, what about the 48% americans that do not pay income tax? is it appropriate that so many pay nothing into this system? guest: everybody should participate in the tax system, but it should also be progressive. host: bel air, md. is next. caller: i have a question and a comment. and does the balance of payments or the money we know all of these foreign countries like china, taiwan, because of our balance or imbalance, is it included in the federal budget?

now my comment is that it seems like there is so much a part crustacean washington. there always has been. now it seems to have reached a new level. the congressman not paying his taxes, one made a statement the that workers are underpaid. they have to make their needs met with the job they have. nobody knows what is going on. the that that is my comment. guest: with regard to your question, the answer is yes. that is calculated in the national debt. we pay off a portion of that as it becomes due. the interest along with it.

it is included. i think it would be helpful to explain that right now, that the debt is a 62% of our gross domestic product. if we take no action, it is expected to go to 90% of our gdp by 2020 and to 180% by 2035. these are unsustainable levels. the devastation that we will see in our economy if we do not address this is what i was talking about earlier. we do not have the option to avoid dealing with this. host: 1 opinion piece suggested that you may feel political heat from the anti-tax crowd? guest: i have heartburn about parts of it. but we have to move forward.

the tax reform largely out ways the potential for utilization for some of that tax revenue to pay down our national debt. that is a big issue. we should not rely on increased taxes to deal with our fiscal problems. it is not the taxes are too low but that spending is too high. another reason i like this plan is it is very heavy on focusing on spending in that equation. host: thanks for being with us. we will see you later when you all made for the final votes. -- meet for the final vote. one democrat will be voting against it, and she will tell us why.

>> i think it is time to look at social security, not just for the next 20 or 30 years, but for where we are going to be longer term. if we do not take the action now, we do not put ourselves in a position to address the issue longer-term. that brings me to my final point. i do believe the time is now. i would hope that as we move forward that we do not find ourselves caught up in a process which takes as in years to implement many of these things that if we take action now, and it is reinforced by many people that came before the commission before our deliberation, the importance of taking action now

can put us on a path for a stronger future over the long term than if we wait and discuss. host: we are joined by a congressman from illinois. you intend to vote no. guest: correct. i think too much is taken out of the middle class. it seems to me that the people that have paid the sacrifice for many years our middle and low income people, of that is with the tax cuts that went to the upper income people and the wars, etcetera. they had nothing to do with creating the deficit. now they are facing mortgage foreclosures, a loss of their savings because of the wall

street recklessness. i do believe that we need to address our deficits and long- term debt problems. i offered a plan that does not take it out of low and middle income people or senior citizens. the health care costs that are going on should not come out of the pockets of medicare beneficiaries. i think there is another way to go. i offered it in my own deficit- reduction plan. host: what does this process mean for legislation to address the deficit? how do you think this will play out? guest: the deficit commission has been very constructive. it has put on the table tax expenditures. this is all of these tax

deductions that have never been scrutinized before. the fact that we are looking at those does involve increasing the deficit. i think it is very important. the defense budget is put on the table in a serious way. there is a lot of waste. there are a number of ways that we can cut the defense budget. i do not say -- think we should cut military salaries or reduce military health benefits. host: what does it mean regarding negotiations going on with the bush tax cuts even while this plan has not had a chance to go to final vote? guest: the commission plan will not have the 14 votes that it

needs to trigger a vote in the congress. i think it is serving as a direction and a number of concrete suggestions on how we can move forward. congress is dealing not only with the question of how we deal with the tax cuts, but rather also the unemployment insurance. if we do not deal with the millions of people that have lost their unemployment insurance benefits, which is not only important to them into the economy -- if we do not put money in their pocket, they will not be customers. i think it will have a devastating effect of not only them but also our economy as a whole. host: we will take a couple of calls from our viewers.

this one is from connecticut. caller: when do the items for deficit reduction show that it is going into the red? what i do not understand is why it is going into the red. i have a report in the newspaper that the government has taken $2 trillion plus from the social security trust fund. to my knowledge, and that is a special type of trust fund. guest: the money in so security is in a trust fund. i understand when you are saying. i do not want you to worry that social security benefits are going to be there. they will.

even the report released today does not say that sells a security is part of the deficit problem. it has nothing to do with the deficit. it is over $2 trillion in the social security trust fund. in 2037 is going to face about 1/3 reduction in benefits, or it is going to -- we are going to have to do something to fix it. that is what we need to do. i don't think we need to fix social security by cutting social security for its beneficiaries. tweakare better ways to the program to make sure that you get full benefits when you retire, and the same goes for young people when they retire, without reducing the benefits. it is not necessary to do it. increased revenue over time, we can make sure that social security is absolutely solvent for the next 75 years.

it should not be and it is not part of the deficit reduction, and it shouldn't be part of the overall debt reduction either. it should be there and it should be there for the beneficiaries. host: two more calls for the commission member, congresswoman jan schakowsky. texas, and jr., independent. caller: yes, ma'am. it is nice to talk to you. i have some suggestions, and this probably could help. number one, the epa -- that is one of the most fraudulent programs you all have. they're supposed to be looking out for our children in the future, but yet they are not looking out for our -- people are hungry on the streets today. this not -- how do you put it

-- they even admitted it was false over in mexico, in cancun, that it was a false program. it was to spread the wealth throughout the country. this is the united states, and not the united nations -- host: jr., i'm going to jump in. he is talking about expenditures for the epa. how about the budgets for independent agencies? did you look at them in detail, across-the-board federal spending? guest: actually, there was a cap on discretionary spending both the defense and security and also for domestic. what i am concerned about is that there are dramatic cuts in discretionary spending, and that is spelled out. that could mean cuts. yes, he is right, it could mean cuts in the environmental protection agency, but it also could mean cuts in nutrition, education programs, job

training, medical research, could cause a 22% reduction in those. we don't want to do that for some of those programs. but we are going to be taking a very close look at the various agencies and departments. host: last call, bloomington, illinois, bud is a republican. caller: good morning, ladies. i am going to be late for work because i want to talk to y'all. when will you folks in congress give up on this harebrained idea of free trade and globalization? it has destroyed the u.s. economy, and now the value of the dollar is being debased. give it up. guest: let me respond to that by saying that there is one thing in the plan i'm very worried about. it would make it easier, in fact, and more profitable for companies to take jobs overseas territorial

system, saying they do not have to repatriate any of their profits, they don't have to pay taxes if they open up a subsidiary in another part of the world. i'm just shocked that this is included in the plan for reducing the deficit. i think it is another way that we just take a swipe at the middle class by enabling big multinational corporations to take their jobs overseas and make money doing it. host: we will say goodbye to you for now. thank you for joining us from the capitol this morning and we will see you live in about 25 minutes with the deficit commission's final vote. guest: thank you. host: our guest is in the studio, marilyn geewax, the senior business editor for national public radio. we ask her to tie a ribbon around our discussion on the debt and deficit commission and talk to us about unemployment numbers the deficit commission. it is looking like they will not get the votes they need, the

super majority of 14. the members all believe there was some value of this, the idea that get reaction -- debt reduction will take root in washington but what kind of reaction you get from people you talk to? guest: when you hear economists talk and people who think about the budget deficit, i think there is a consensus out there that this has been a useful process that has put a lot of things on the table, has focused attention, and even if it does not get to 14, it has created a sense of momentum, at least a baseline, something to work from. most people that i talked to, economists and political folks, everybody seems to think there was value and what this exercise has been, even if you don't get to that 14. host: one of the interesting dynamics, and some of our guests this morning have talked about it, is a split between house republicans, including paul ryan, and senate republicans who are voting in favor of it.

what does it mean about working relationships and plans for the deficit and taxes and the budget between the incoming house majority? guest: right now i think we are in it such a fluid time politically that it is hard to say how any of this is going to play out because you have the lame-duck session, new leadership coming in, people looking into their new offices trying to move in, but you still have people in place who have power right now. that means they are in an awkward situation. we have to economic news that could also shake up things politically -- we have a new economic news that could make people -- but also shake up things politically. there are all these ripple effects. you start to think about extending unemployment benefits, if they start thinking differently about extending tax cuts, maybe all new deals will be cut in the next couple of hours because we have new facts

on the ground about the economy. host: the nation's unemployment rate has climbed to the 9.8% in november, employers added only 39,000 jobs last month, a sharp decline from the 72,000 created in october. guest: this report today feels so bad that it has political ramifications, financial ramifications. there is a lot of bad news in this report today. it could hurt the white house and the sense that it makes -- they have been in charge of -- obama has been in charge of the white house for nearly two years now, so the economy is becoming the obama economy and this report is very negative. on the other hand, the democratic position that you should extend unemployment

benefits, or the republican position that you should not raise taxes when the economy is so weak. host: employers added only 39,000 jobs last month, a sharp decline from the 107 -- a sharp decline from the 172,000 credit in october. the weakness was widespread. private companies, the backbone of the economy, created 50,000 jobs, down significantly from the 160,000 private sector jobs created in october, the smallest gain since january." guest: let me put this in a little bit of context. in recent weeks, there has been this rising optimism. people and feeling like maybe the worst is over, maybe we are really starting to add jobs. there are indications that consumer spending is out that people are doing a little bit

more shopping at the stores, on- line. there is an almost maybe a little irrational optimism breaking out. the october numbers were not great, but not so bad. it looks like there was momentum towards hiring. now this report comes out and it is so bad that you almost question if there is a misreading here. maybe there is more hiring going on among small businesses that is not being captured here? but if the numbers are what they are, and usually the labor department as a pretty good job of capturing what is happening out there in general -- most economists, the consensus numbers people were looking for work 150,000 jobs created in november. it was 39,000. yes, we have job growth, there are people getting jobs, but 39,000, when you have 15 million people unemployed? it really puts it in some perspective that we are nowhere

near being out of this downturn. another thing was that here was the wage -- another thing that was that here was the wage data. people are still fighting a lot of debt and trying to save, and when wage increases are up one penny and the hours worked were no longer, it shows us greased average americans are when it comes >> to the paycheck -- how squeezed average americans are when it comes to the paycheck. host: for our audience, the cameras are in the deficit commission room, and we are expected to get like pictures in just a short while but they're waiting in the senate conference building, at the dirksen building. we will pick it up at 9:30 eastern time. texas, republican. caller: good morning. i have two quick questions.

the first is, why does it seem when republicans are in office, they come after us? i am on social security. i worked for 34 years putting money into social security, which is supposed to be available for me when i got to the age that i am now. but the government raises social security and took money out there was supposed to be for may and spent on other programs -- for me and spent it on other programs. now republicans are talking about making it from 65 to 69, cutting medicaid. why do they always want to cut what is helping people out here? second question is, like son has is on business, he is self- employed for 14 years now, and he has paid taxes every year, and he only makes $20,000- something the year. but exxon can move to another country and pay the lesser tax

than they would pay here, but they get a deduction on the tax that they paid. why is it that the republicans seem to be more interested in helping the business and the rich instead of people that make up this country? guest: you know, i think today's jobs report really underscores how much harder all these debates will become. hear this person is saying they've paid into social saberi, they want to get the money -- paying into social security, they want to get the money back, but when you have bad economic news like this, it just means that there are going to be more people who really cannot find jobs and who will declare themselves retired at 62, start drawing on social security even earlier than expected. there are people who would like to work until they are 70, but they cannot find a job, so they retire at 62 and a draw on what is owed to them, and it weakens

social security. you have a problem with -- you have more pressure than ever to do something to make social security solvent. at the same time, more people will be drawing on it. host: with regards to social security, here is with a deficit commission is recommending. that came out of the deficit commission that the president has put together and will be voted on in about 15 minutes. back to telephone calls. is it delphi, louisiana?

caller: yes. i wanted to ask a question to the effect of the veterans. i'm a disabled veteran, and all i ever hear is "the military, they deserve the best, the best for our troops, which always protect them." but now they are talking about cutting the benefits that we get. for me being disabled, i don't have any options to get a job, to look anywhere. they might as well put a bullet in my head, because i don't have the options, at a lot of people in the same position i and that just came out of the war. somebody talk about teachers a while ago. who was right to teach our young people to grow up and be good, respect -- who is going to teach our young people to grow and be good, respectable taxpayers and

have a generous jobs in our economy? guest: thank you for your service to the country. i appreciate it, we all do, and i'm sorry about your injuries. on the issue of veterans benefits, this is another situation where you have a rising level of unemployment and more people -- rising level of employment and more people paying taxes into the system, the need to cut is reduced. but when you have more people without work, it is really tough on veterans. government is definitely looking for places to cut spending, and at the same time, employers are looking for -- they just don't have jobs for even healthy, fit people, let alone going out of the way to help disabled people get jobs. it is just off all the way

round, and i'm sorry about that. -- tough all the way around, and i'm sorry about that. host: senator dick durbin, in his op-ed in "the chicago tribune" supporting the commission, talked about a payroll tax holiday. can you talk about how that would spur job growth? guest: the idea that anything you do to put money into people's paychecks, so that there is money immediately, is seen as a stimulus instead of something where you have a tax cut -- and state tax cut, let's say, were you have to die before it has any impact. but if you have a payroll tax cut, it could mean that you have more money in your paycheck right now. now is when we needed the stimulus. when we see these latest numbers on retail hiring, apparently, even though there was hope that

consumers were going to purchase some more, the reality, as far as hiring goes, is that retailers apparently are not seeing enough of an increase in customers to want to hire more. it probably strengthens the argument to "let's do something to put money into people's paychecks by a white." -- right away." host: pam, democrat. caller: can somebody please tell me what the cost of living has not won to -- has not went up? i am here to tell you, the cost of living has gone up. everything, our electric bills, gas bills. if there is a place where the cost of living has not gone up, i would like to know. guest: the statistics on inflation are quite low,

especially for groceries. so far we have had the lowest level of increases in grocery prices in about 20 years. government is just not finding it in the market when they go shopping. but there are other things that are more expensive, so people feel that. medical care, the cost constantly seem to rise, college tuition always seems to go up. energy prices are certainly rising. a lot of things that people buy on a daily basis -- filling up your tank gas is pretty painful compared with a couple of years ago during the worst of the recession. yes, i think that a lot of people do feel inflation. but when you look at the statistics, there is really not much -- if you go over the cost of groceries, most of them across the board have not gone up. now, we have seen a lot of rise in crop prices.

corn is up dramatically this year, wheat . probably we will be seeing higher gross represses coming. grocery prices coming. host: "the new york times" -- a chart they did -- we had this comment on at twitter. clearly there are negotiations going on between the white house and gop. guest: this is really kind of a motivator for people who wanted to compromise on things.

elisse sings like it would be awfully tough now politically -- it really seems like it would be awfully tough now politically for republicans to continue to say that they will provide long- term unemployment benefits, because these numbers show that people are really having a very tough time finding work, and that the economy is weak enough that it could use more stimulus. it could really strengthen the republicans' argument that raising taxes on anyone right now would be bad, because the economy is so weak. host: lead story in "at the new york times." "senate democratic leaders schedule their own symbolic vote on saturday designed to end tax

cuts for the rich." one would extend for under tutored 50,000, and another -- under to $50,000, and another that is a compromise, under $1 million. next is a richmond, republican. caller: good morning. good morning, ms. geewax. it is pitiful that they want to penalize people who want to pay -- who actually pay the taxes, the citizenry of the united states of america. we are the ones to pay the taxes, along with the corporations or whatever. joblessness and taxes, all that, go hand in hand.

we have it in the united states right now where people don't pay taxes. at one of the allies and a group of people -- i don't want to fill in is any group of people -- to villainize any group of people, but people who are your illegal -- here illegally, if they could pay some form of taxes, some form or way to help out society out, because they use our society. the city of washington, d.c. -- let's talk about people that people don't talk about. churches don't pay taxes. religious organizations don't pay taxes but people who work for them pickaxes -- -- who work for them pay taxes

-- host: let me jump in, because there is an article about nonprofits being worried -- guest: one thing they want congress to do is to eliminate tax deductions like -- things like mortgage interest deductions, which would cause a lot of people to be unhappy, but you could go through a system where you more broadly tax -- get rid of deductions and loopholes, lower the tax rate, but have more people paying taxes. that is one of the important ideas and some of this tax reform. host: ms. geewax, who has quite a twitter committee responding to your groceries comments. a lot of people think they paid more for groceries. guest: i know, i know. i go to the grocery store, too, and especially dairy products seem like they are way up.

but the numbers don't show that from the consumer price index. they just believe not gone up. i talked to -- they just really have not gone up. i talked to the general mills cereal company a few weeks ago, and they instituted the first price hike and a longtime -- in a long time in november. it is because of the crop prices are was referring to. if you are unhappy now, there will probably be more to come. but the statistics, at least those collected by the government, do not show sharp rises in food prices. all i can tell you is what the statistics show, and they show gross represses have been at the lowest level of increase since 19 -- grocery prices have been at the lowest level of increase since 1991. host: michael, independent bid

. caller: good morning, susan, good morning, ms. geewax. first of all, i love npr. but do you believe it is beneficial are detrimental to our society or any society 12% of the population -- when 2% of the population owns 7% of the wealth? you listen tod npr. i cannot tell you any and all but all i can tell you is the statistics. opinions on policy is not the end your way -- not the npr way. host: texas, you are on. caller: got a question for ms. geewax did what you think of means testing for social security? also, i watch a lot of c-span, i

watch a lot of congress and the senate, and the guys are up there, they are making their speeches, and they make a speech to an empty house. then everybody comes in and make the vote and they are in there for 15 minutes, they make the vote, and they have not even listened to the other side. as much as i hate to agree with the catholic church, whenever they are voting in a pope, they walk behind closed doors, they make the vote, and they don't get out until they settle the issue. what do you think about that? that you very much -- thank you very much. guest: that would be great. looking at the capitol and then coming out as they work on the budget deal, that would be great. a lot of times, the only people in the room are the person speaking on the floor, two or three reporters, and couple of interns checking their notes.

it is true that a lot of times they don't listen to each other. but it is just the system we have or speeches are made unfortunately there is c-span so the rest of us can do it. -- and fortunately there is suspense of the rest of us can l -- fortunately there is c-span said the rest of us can do it. host: iowa, jeff, good morning. caller: of the consumer price index and inflation, inflation is an increase in the money supply. we do have a massive inflation. the effect of that is prices going up. the measurement of that, cpi, that is manipulated in two different currencies. one under ronald reagan, and the second time under bill clinton. the manipulation was done this way -- under ronald reagan, the

basket of goods which would include, let's say homes, if the home prices go up significantly, more than the rental prices, they would switch from homes to rental prices, which ever is the lowest increase, therefore making the actual measurement of inflation much lower. under bill clinton, it was done for all goods. this includes -- let's say steak prices go up but hamburgers doesn't, they switch to the hamburger price. guest: these statistics are always controversial. everybody has their own individual rate of inflation. for example, if you have a mortgage that was at 6% interest, and you could refinance down 2 1/4, your inflation is way back.

you may have $100 less per month that it was spending, because your home prices are so much less, because you were able to take advantage of the low interest rates and you could refinance. your interest rate may be quite low compared to what you are spending years ago. but there are the people who maybe had to move because of a job or whatever, and the personal rate of inflation is much higher. it depends on what you eat. if meat prices go up, maybe you don't mind switching to a more vegetarian diet. it is just very individualized, whether you have children in college, whether you have elderly parents with education. your inflation rate can be different from your neighbors'. host: another shot of the

dirksen building, where the deficit commission -- i keep calling it debt -- will be meeting. you can vote by proxy, i understand it not all the commissioners will be in the room. it will require a supermajority of 14 for the proposal to go over to consideration by the house and senate. reporting suggests they won't reach the super majority but they will get a simple majority, oakand according to panel members who were here earlier. we have time for just another call as we wait for this to get under way. wilmington, north carolina. this is deborah. caller: hi, thank you so much. i have a quick question, and i want, it is about the commission report we will be hearing. i had been reading it for several days. unfortunately, i did not see any mention of the tariff on imports. looking at what has been going on, we have our own business and

i'm older now our family is a mish mosh of everything that is going on. my personal opinion, once unemployment goes up, taxes obviously go down. that is just a given in this country we need to create jobs. why is there not any mention anywhere of a tariff on imports? guest: this goes back to the question about consumer inflation. if you have a tariff on imports, how many millions of americans who shop at wal-mart this week -- this week there will be millions and millions of people going to stores to buy goods made in other countries. if we had stiff tariffs on imports, you could see a rise and the cost of those goods and would drive up the inflation rate. i'm not saying good or bad one way or the other, and it is a political decision for people to make, but if you start to put more taxes and tariffs on goods that are coming into the country, you are going to see

that rise and the consumer price index, and that is a political decision -- is that something that congress wants to do? host: looks like they are close to getting under way, so we will say thanks to you on friday morning, and sorry to bring us the bad news on unemployment numbers but to our audience, we appreciate it as always, the discussion on the deficit commission. we will take you to capitol hill for coverage of the final vote. h[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> i want to thank you all again. i cannot be more thankful for all those who fully participated, and that was something to watch for somebody who has been watching this scene for a long time. i want to thank my co-chair, co- worker, co-everything. he is -- you chuckle when i said that -- he is a warrior and wizard, all at the same time. i knew miy skills of politics, but my skills are in their infancy compared to this man right here.

the numbers guy has become a very fine friend indeed. everyone of us has cast tough votes, maybe the toughest of your careers. but i must single out one person. i served in the u.s. senate for 18 years, 10 years as assistant majority and minority leader under bob dole, and i always enjoyed the assistant majority leader will much more than the other. but the role of a leader is to lead, and you did, dick durbin. you and i worked on causes before. how about americans for campaign reform? that was a dazzler. you can see how well we have done there.

but again, a leader. to have five of the six senators appointed to support this plan is very special. i just leave you with one that thought, dick -- the tallest tree catches the most wind. the breezes will be about your head. they are already on mine, that is why i have no hair left. [laughter] to you, john spratt, you will have more time to serve this nation in ways that await you. to bruce reed and his band of wunderkind, rare talent.

i'm terribly proud of all of you. some asked me if i could do and alliteration of what occurred, and i said, well, here it is -- we took a big banana and threw it into the gerlach page, and the girl has picked it up, -- gorilla cage, and the gorilla has picked it up, they play with it and match it, but they will eat some. [laughter] that is where we are. many pieces of this will be digested in interest this country. -- digested and nourish this country. it is a great treat an honor, i will get the hell out of town and live it up and sleep in the streets. i want to tell you, it has been a great honor and privilege to be part of this and part of all of you, and to assess a new

friendship with each and everyone of you. thank you. >> how do you compete with that? [laughter] the great thing is, i have had a chance to have dinner with him 30, 40 nights, and he is the best. he is like this all the time. [laughter] it is a joy. somebody said i had a new wrinkle in this old face of mine, and i do from being with my pal al simpson. i also got a smile on my face, because i'm really, really pleased for our country with the outcome of this commission. it has been a long, hard slog for all us. i've never been involved in any political discussions myself or less partisan -- that were less

partisan. if there is such a thing as non- partisan, and i think there is, this has been it. i hope the american people has a chance to see you all, members of congress, work together, because it has been a beautiful thing to saee. you have cooperated in every way possible, and i think the countries better off for it -- the country is better off for it. i also think no one on this commission, and very few left in america, are in denial that this threat pressed upon us foby the ever increasing deficits are something we have to deal with. i think people really believe that this is the moment of truth, that the threat of these deficits are real, the solutions or absolutely going to be painful. there is no way are rounded --

no way around it. and there is no easy way out. but at the end of this journey, america will be a better place. a strong bipartisan coalition has already voted for this plan. while each has reservations -- lord knows i do and al does -- about the plan, all believe that by voting yes, this plan will make an important first step forward in proving something, in proving that our nation understands the peril of our ever increasing deficits, and our leaders, and you all, are prepared to do so the real -- do something real, something important, to address them. i want to personally thank my pal al simpson, my co-chairman.

we would not be here today without him. i want to thank the brain. if any of you have ever had an been asyou have never high as this guy has been every day. [laughter] i walked out of the first meeting, and i said, "bruce, i think we can do something here, but the guys we just met with, they think we are crazy. are we crazy?" getaid, "no, we're going to this done." that is the kind of party has been all along. thanks to the -- kind of partner he has been all along. thanks to the wonder twins and the staff. i also want to thank conrad.

if you were not there to push this forward, america would not have had the focus on this deficit. i want to thank my two new friends, senator crapo and senator coburn. i cannot respect you more. and my old friend dick durbin, thank you, sir. i have been honored to serve with you. director rivlin, the godmother of fiscal responsibility, who taught me my first thing about the budget, mr. cote, who somehow found the time to come to every meeting -- all of expressed their desire to vote yes, and i really appreciate it. i think you have done a great service for your country. today, several members have said they will vote no, and these numbers are great patriots and great people and they have been

constructive participants in this effort. folks like congressman camp and congressman ryan has said that while they are voting no, 80% of what we're recommending will wind up in their budgets, and i think that is a good thing. congresswoman schakowsky and mr. stern have come out with forward-looking plans that recognize that the deficit has to be dealt with, and they have dealt with it in a very positive manner, and i thank you. today we are going to hear from several of our members who have not expressed their opinion yet, and several others of you who would like to make a statement. i will recognize you now. we will start with senator durbin, and then we will go to congressman spreatt. >> thank you very much, chairman

bowles, chairman simpson. we would not be here without the inspiration of judd gregg and kent conrad, who patched this idea on a trip. -- hatched this id on a trip. even that good idea could not have been launched without define leadership of you two. i thank you, senator simpson, for knowing this institution of congress from the inside, and thank you, erskine bowles, for amazing amounts of energy and dedication to get to this point. bruce, thank you so much for all you have put into this. i've received a few phone calls in the last 24 hours. [laughter] so my closest allies in politics the -- so many of my closest allies and politics cannot understand this. "why is a progressive like dick

durbin of voting for this deficit commission report?" here is why -- i believe politicians on the left and right have to acknowledge the deficit crisis our nation faces. when we borrow 40 cents out of every dollar we spend, whether it is the pentagon or food stamps, that is unsustainable. being ein get it for generations to china, opec, other nations around the world, will not allow us to build a fair and just america. when we engage in critical decisions about our nation's future budgets, i want progressive voices at the table to argue that we must protect the most vulnerable in our society and demand fairness in budget cuts. today, with my vote, i am claiming a seat at that table. to use an analogy that only a senator bayh user, i don't view this as a vote on final passage. i wouldn't vote for this

commission report on final passage. but i do believe it is a motion to proceed, again, to debate. this is our report that is meant to kick start and adults debate on an issue that the united states congress must absolutely face. that is why i'm voting yes. as i said on wednesday, we face hard forces, just like american families face hard forces. you did not start by denying chemotherapy to your grandmother. we have to have priorities that look beyond dollars and cents to t-mobile what impact that the budget deficit -- to the real world impact that our budget faces. kent conrad and i met with our colleagues on the democratic side. he will probably make reference to it later. but a number of them, as many

as 12 democratic senators, have expressed support for our effort, though they disagree with particulars. at least a dozen have stepped up and more will follow, i believe. there are several areas i have strong disagreement with and i want to make them a a matter of public record. i believe some of the cuts are too big, too fast. as an appropriate or, i will work hard to make sure every tax dollar is spent wisely to save every penny we can come to look for savings every where we can breed a that is not the same as balancing the books on the backs of those needed the most. i believe the proposal is written takes too much away from programs that support the neediest it also clave to sit $16 billion -- it also claims to save $16 billion by eliminating earmarks. this plastic is not saved $16 billion by eliminating earmarks

-- this plan does not sit $16 billion by eliminating earmarks. second, on social security, i think we can receive -- we can read solvency for the most important in a market and bonds reducti -- in a balanced way. i would suspend. taxes on 90% of wages -- i would suspend payroll taxes on 90% of wages and use the additional revenue to alleviate benefit cuts that the proposed changes would create. on health care, there are many ideas here, and the fact that we still basically stand by the affordable health care act, the care reform act, is fundamental to my support of this commission report, but there is one proposal that troubles me greatly. i think is just unfair to treat

several employees under the benefit program as a guinea pigs in a voucher scheme for health insurance. if we're going to do that, in fairness, we should also have a not-for-profit public option available to these same employees. both series and see what about does -- let's test both theories and see what about your does, but also, let's treat eight not- for-profit public option. profit's create a not-for- public option but that would be a noble experiment. we should also have a medicare program that can negotiate for the best prices and not have a profit motive. if we are losing $1.10 trillion in tax earmarks each year, surely we can put more than $80 billion of that back i also want

to know that while we are dealing with the reality of the deficit and the reality of revenues, there is an irrational, on real conversation going on not far from here that suggests we can give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country and does not count. of course it counts. $700 billion added to the deficit to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in america. if we're serious about the budget deficit on both sides, we should acknowledge the reality. a word on medical malpractice. i wish this section had been left out. many of the suggestions have not been measured or tested. the one that has been tested suggest that we're going to raise the costs of medical treatment by including this in our plan. why would we want to do that? i wish we had not included that. so that is why i am going to can see to work for word from this stage to use this as the

starting point, the template, of what i hope will be a viable bipartisan conversation. let me be clear, it is just a step forward in the debate. both chairs would acknowledge that it is not the last word. erskine bowles and alan simpson have given this country a viable gift by raising the profile of this very real challenge we face the nation. i believe that this commission has done good work with limited resources and limited staff. i think is going to end up being a historic document, because it appears we have a three elected democrats and three elected republicans endorsing at least going forward with this commission report. 14 is just a number. but i think you have done more than just read a number. you have inspired us to do what we need to for generations. i got an e-mail from my son did this morning, and for a father in this business, there's nothing better.

he said, "thanks. thanks for your grandchildren." >> that has to make you feel good. chairman spratt. >> first of all, i want to associate myself with the comments made by my colleague, with whom we began our congressional careers 28 years ago dealing with this very problem. i associate myself with his comments, beginning with the indication that he supports the plan. so do i.. subject to a number of caveats, because there are a number of things i disagree with. as i read, i thought frequently, thank god i'm not running again. [laughter] on balance, the risks of not

moving with this process are greater than the risks of moving. the fiscal course of this country simply cannot be sustained. you know what, i know it, the american people know it. we need to say it forthrightly. there is too much at stake to make an action an option. the plan proposal calls for hart forces -- for hard choices. the agreement of 1997, on which german -- chairman bowles and i worked on, put the budget in balance for the first time in 30 years. we can do it again. i have no solution - -- i have no illusion -- this is one of many sessions before we reached the final conclusion. the plan makes the choice is a bit harder by tilting too much

towards spending cuts versus revenue increases, and by cutting discretionary spending by a substantial amount. i have my doubts about that. and making potential cuts in medicare and health care programs on the heels of what has already been made to health care reform. popular to say that spending is the problem. extending the 2001-2003 tax cuts would have an impact $3-4 killion on revenues -- trillion on defrevenues. it is an exercise in complex choices. there is no easy way out. a budget of this complexity -- it is easy to find fault and raise doubt. i mentioned mike caveats -- my

caveats. i support the plan despite my caveats and concerns because it is far from being final. this is out -- the budget process. if this is adopted, how is it implemented? the process remains intact. we can only make recommendations here. the commission's recommendations, to my way of thinking, illustrate the tax and spending policies that congress could pass. the commission's purpose is to show, by proposing these recommendations, the feasibility of the overall proposal. many of the recommendations are not endorsed by members of this commission. many are, but some are not.

in any event, they do not intend to override or replace the role of the house and senate committees, or the budget committee, which oversees the budget process. all of these are necessary components, believe me. the commission report, therefore, does not change the basic budget process. we will begin with the budget committee, and we will have reconciliation. committees with jurisdiction will still assume and ultimately decide. going back to caveats, there will be time to clean them up and clean them out. in the meantime, we began a national debate on our fiscal course. the president deserves credit for creating this commission. i have been honored to serve on it. the cochairs deserve credit for giving it the energy and focus and bringing it to a conclusion

on the designated date. the staff deserves credit for a prodigious amount of work, and not only work, but could work at that. thank you, mr. chairman, cochairs, for your benefits and efforts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i cannot help but say that john spratt has been my lifelong friend for 20 years. he served -- [laughter] he served this nation well. i look forward to the two of us going back and seeing a lot of each other in the future. senator conrad. >> i would come out first of all, like to say that senator gregg is not here because of a longstanding family obligation. there is no place he would rather be than with us today i want to thank him, first of all,

for partnering with me. we started this three years ago , because we recognize it was going to take a special process to bring to the attention of the nation the seriousness of the debt threat looming over the country. but the bus are so proud -- both of us are so proud of the two of you. you took up this responsibility. neither of you had to answer this call. alan, you are out there in wyoming with your fantastic wife. [laughter] you know, many of us have long thatht th -- long thought she is a really special one in that relationship. but alan is not so bad either. you got just done a superb and courageous job. erskine,