are joining by sander levin, and ian swanson. ian, go ahead with the first question. >> thanks. >> we have known each other for a few years. >> yeah, i will start with a disappointing topic at least. the labor department put out job figures for may, the economy only added 54,000 jobs, and after news on jobs and manufacturing. i am curious how worried you are approaching a possible double-dip recession? >> i wouldn't say that double-dip is all likely. but i think it's clear that we have an economic challenging continuing. and that's why i am really

disappointed why in the house there is a lost sight of that. and any effort to try to do something to stimulate the economy is shunted aside. and the interest seems to be cut the deficit. and that will somehow work miracles. we have to cut the deficit, but it surely won't work miracle in the short run. i was just talking earlier today about the build america bonds. which brought $100 billion of infrastructure development and the republican house refuses to look at them. that's the kind of program, ian we should look at. we have to continue to stimulate the economy. it's economics 101, i once took economics 101, the teacher went

on to win a nobel economic prize. and it's clear that you have to stimulate growth and the best way is through economic growth. so that report raises if not a red flag, a yellow flag. >> do you draw a line between the bad job report today and the spending measures in the fy-11 spending deal that was struck? >> now there was job stimulation in that. it was a mixed bag, and in the end everybody who was concerned about the mixture had to decide how to vote. but there was some stimulus in that. the republicans didn't like, obviously there was unemployment comp. and it's clear, i think almost

all economists say if you extend unemployment comp for people that have lost their jobs. the money will be spent, and in that sense it's good for economic growth. we need to get people back to work, while they are out of work, we need to be sure they have unemployment comp. i was talking today about a bill that the republicans brought up, that would take all the unemployment comp money beginning july, and said to the states, you can do any of three things. and you don't have to use it for unemployment benefits for the people laid off. the majority who have been laid off long-term. well, i think we created such an uproar, i think they have dropped that. i raise it because it illustrates i think the misguided notion that republicans have about whether

we need to stimulate economic growth. and what will do it besides lowering taxes. >> the republican argument for the last two years is that stimulus hasn't done enough to help the economy. at the same time we have had five months of freeze and spending, the 2011 spending bill cut of $40 billion for the rest of the year. now it seems we are seeing the economy slow up again after a few months of growth in the job sector. i am wondering if you have concern about the freeze in spending and the cuts are starting to slow down the economy had in building? >> i think it did, i think that was a negative side to some extent. there were positive sides. the republicans are just wrong that the stimulus package did nothing to stimulate economic

growth. look unemployment went down, it's gone up one-tenth of a percent in the last month. but we created more jobs this last period, in the last six months that were created under the george bush. >> at the same time you now have a situation where most of the stimulus from the famous stimulus bill from 2009 is running out this year. you have the payroll tax cut that works for the rest of the year. and that's only six months and the federal will stop pushing money into the economy, we think at least at the end of this month. now that we see the economy slow down, is there a worry that the stimulus would get worse? >> yes, the treasury says that. again economic growth is an important factor in addressing the deficit. if we don't grow much better,

it's going to be hard by any other measures to grab hold of the deficit. you know you would think this was relatively doable. you have been reporting for a long time. i think -- i would guess you may with the public, what is the problem here? why can't we move and find some common ground. and the problem i think in large measure, not only, but in large measure is that the republicans are kind of stuck on a rigid idiological base and they deny the feed back. and i was reading

the report and worried about the debt ceiling and one republican said, it's not our mess. and in the "new york times" report it indicates what is indicated that so much of the deficit is a result of the policies under george bush. later in these last months, the last year-and-a-half, in part because of the recession. i just say to the naysayers, when we had this problem, when there was a recession, what there was to do? nothing? not have any stimulus? not have any government action in concert with private industry. i remember to say this quickly, i remember about the debate on the floor for the build america bonds and the money goes to the private sector, and some

republicans got up and said y is the government into this? and i said, because we have to get money to the states. and they said, why is the states into this? well, the money goes into the states. that's why the infrastructure money went to build america bonds into the states and local communities. we are stuck and have to get off dead center. >> i would say that the debts are a huge problem, of the 14.3 trillion that we are about to hit, and the public is against spending. and it sort of sounds like you are talking about how to prevent the economy from getting worse. there somebody more government spending now? >> i think we need some stimulus carefully. but let me say a word about the public. because i really take pride in trying to find out what my

constituents think. and it needs some leadership, because i think the more we explain why we need to move on the debt ceiling, the more understanding there will be. because if we didn't act and the markets exploded like moody said would happen. then everyone would say why did you let it happen. and the only way is to make sure it doesn't happen. and the republicans are just too, too stringent. just having blinders on, and saying it's my way or the highway. >> when democrats seem to draw their own line in the sand and say, don't touch medicare, medicare cannot be part of the these negotiations. how given that the medicare trustees have come out recently and said it's worse than we originally thought. if you stay on this current path

to medicare, it will go bust earlier than we thought it would. so how can you keep going down this path to medicare and not reform it? how can you do that? >> well, first of all in terms of the short-term, what the republicans are suggesting doesn't affect it. and in the longer term, you know i said on the floor, and i try to say it carefully. just before i spoke a few days ago, someone on the majority side got up and said, we are here to save medicare. and i said, be forthright. you want to end it. not save it. you can't save something by ending it. you can have a different alternative. so i think the republican plan ends medicare and that's a bad idea. >> but then won't medicare go

bankrupt if nothing is done? >> i am not sure that bankrupt is the right word, we are talking about sovereignty. we need to get hold of the medicare costs, it's the longer term driver of the deficit. there are two ways to do it, one is to privatize medicare, end it. and say to the consume eares we give you a check and go out and buy the insurance. and do what we have done, and use medicare as the instrumentality of how to drive health care. and i can say for health care, the present fees for services is unsustainable, and also you can't phantom it if you try to

work for it. we need to take medicare and use it to reform the fees for service. and there are ingredients now in the affordable care act it do that. the president has said we need to go further and i agree with that. >> if there is a deal to raise the debt ceiling and approves cuts to medicare, would you vote for raising the debt ceiling? >> i think that the president has to make sure that we don't face that. i think we shouldn't cut benefits to medicare as part of the deal. >> how confident are you that the president is with you on that, you were there on thursday at the democratic caucus and this question came up. >> i am confident. i don't think there will be any tampering with the benefits. >> do you see some changes to medicare to find savings?

the senate republicans have said that medicare has to be a part of the deal to raise the debt limit. and the president has proposed some changes. and i want to get your take, the president in the past has made dale de deals with the republicans and disappointed with the tax deal and as well as the inheritance tax. >> yeah, the president made clear to the white house that we are not supposed to talk about these meetings. but i am not telling you any secrets. because he said it before, that he will not agree to any extension of the bush tax cuts to high income people. as i said in my talks to tax reform, the upper income people have done so well on the average these last 10-12 years. while 90% of the population have

had stagnant income. well for the upper income groups it's gone up. so we have more income disparity today than we have had in a long, long time. and so yes, i am confident that what the president says about the high income bush tax cuts is where he stands. i think if it's not addressed, i think it will be before the election and be resolved. and president obama reelected will make sure there is tax equity. and that means we do not extend beyond next year the upper end tax cuts. you know millionaires when we did the analysis, the joint tax committee said it would take 38 billion dollars to extend the bush cuts a year.

about 75-80% of that is income above one million dollars. it's not millionaires, it's income above one million dollars. that's multimillionaires unless someone hit the lottery. >> you can see that the health care costs add to the debt. do you think that they have put themselves into criticism of not attacking the deficit? >> you mentioned health care and again we are talking about this. and the president made clear in his speech that more has to be done in terms of controlling health care. part of it is prescription drugs. and making sure we can control the increase in those costs and move for and more to generics.

and by the way, we had a meeting with the director and funding nih and the republicans in real dollar terms have let it slip. so part of this is adequate funding for nih, and getting new drugs. so those are patented drugs. and we need to be sure that generics are more and more used. and in addition to that, and that's a lot of money. if we did the same as v.a. did through medicare, it would save many billions. we are paying not by results but by volume. by volume. and so if you go in and you see five doctors in a hospital, you can see five of the same speciality and you will get a bill from five of them.

and so -- i am not blaming the physicians, but more and more as i talk to them, i think they realize that we need to move away from fee for service. and the only way to do that, the main way to do that is through reforms, through medicare. like we begin to control hospital costs. and i remember the first couple of times i was in, and what a problem that caused but it helped to work. >> do you feel there should be a more concrete plan, that the democrats don't have a house budget. >> but we did have a house budget. they didn't like it. i betcha that regardless of what you could say, and if you turn out the lights and have a revote on the budget republican plan, and ryan, there would be many

more that would not vote for it. >> what do you think the number would be? >> i don't like to predict republican vote. i think it would be -- you can see a number of them are backing off. look at what happened in the senate, they lost several people. and i think that some of the senators who voted for it, wished they did not have to. >> you gave a major address on taxes today. and i want to go back to something you said, that you are confident that president obama will reelected and not allow the bush tax breaks next year. i wonder if you expect a comprehensive tax reform to happen before the election? or do something narrow in scope initially and a larger tax reform will come after the presidential election? >> we have had meetings and some

hearings on tax reform ways & means. but i said this in my speech, and i meant it. because in the republican house budget there is really nothing but a number. 25% top right for individuals and corporations. they don't say how they get there. and i pointed out to get there, you would have to end or almost end these so-called tax preferences. mortgage interest deduction. health care deduction and exclusion, charitable, you would have to eliminate that. and state and local taxes, and the education benefits that have transformed education in the district i represent. so what i am saying, if we have

honest and useful discussion about tax reform. you just can't throw out a number. and i think two reform commissions did some useful things. but when one said throw out all tax preferences and start from zero and build up. i think it failed to inform people as to who the beneficiaries in that speech. like the health care benefit is dominantly with middle income families. the same is true, not quite as much, but almost for the mortgage interest deduction. just walk the streets for the districts i represent, you can pick almost anyone, and you find so many middle class families that would not have that

purchase without the deduction. >> we have five minutes left. >> look at it. >> let's go back to these debt negotiations, the august 2 deadline. some republicans have said that if the debt ceiling is not raised, there would not be catastrophe? why not? >> i brought the movies in -- so i will just read it. if i can pick out the -- they said it may downgrade the u.s. government's credit rating if congress did not increase the nation's debt limit in coming weeks. a warning from wall street to washington, the global financial markets are watching the battle closely, and with a stand-off could have economic

consequences. >> can the treasury move things around though? >> someone is proposing to pay off china and not others, other bond holders. look, there are some issues you can't escape. the debt ceiling is one of them. there is one alternative and that's to raise it. and the issue becomes with what else? and those who want to escape that issue by saying, i heard senate tomby, say, he is wrong. we can't take a chance. >> there was an article written in the wall street journal that a short-term lapse in the debt ceiling would be acceptable. >> i don't take a chance. it's the country to disrupt our scaling credit rating? because of some theory.

>> how do you think it plays out. they went up until 11:30 or so and the government shut down earlier this year. and we have an august 2 deadline, do you expect a deal to come sooner? >> no, it has to be sooner, and that's what moody says. you can't always wait, i guess you are used to deadlines being the end and then we move them. but we can't play around. >> do you think that the message has been muddied a little since treasury has the ability to move around funds? >> no, i don't think that the message is muddy. except those who don't want to face it. >> you are going to columbia for a week, and how confident that there will be a vote on the columbia rate?

>> there was an action plan that was negotiated between the two governments. it's a result of work that was done for 15 years to put worker rights into the center of trade agreements. and the environment. it took a struggle, for it wpere first time it was done, and had to be negotiated by not president bush but mr. rangel and myself. i am going to columbia to see how the action plan is being implemented and whether further issues to be addressed. i have always done this and go myself and spend five or six days, serious negotiations with everyone. >> at this point you vote against it? >> i am going down to see what

is going on. >> let me ask you about redistricti redistricting, and it looks like you and congressman peters may be in the same district. what are your thoughts on redistricting plan? >> i wish i had brought the maps, the public would say, what kind of shapes are those? you have salamanders and crocodiles and cats and dogs. >> the republicans in illinois wonder too. >> it makes no sense, the voters need a choice, and this is just one, it's a map and isn't official. and i hope people realize what it does. what it does is to say there are now four contested seats in michigan. i ran for 10 years in a very contested seat. and that was good. to move from four contested seats in michigan under this

draft plan to zero. is bad democracy. >> are you confident that you can be reelected in this districting plan? >> yes, but i want to run in a plan that is fair to the people. i feel that deeply. each of us needs to look out after our own careers. but we have to look out at what this is all about. and redistricting that says there are no competitive districts. and the districts go like this and wiggle and wiggle and disregard community interest and community lines. county lines for purely partisan political reasons. i think that the more the public sees that, i hope they will reject it. and i hope that the republicans that control everything in michigan will realize it's bad for the people in michigan.

>> so you are running for re-election? >> i am running but at this point to try to make sure that the michigan voters have a fair shake. i want to say that strongly enough to you. because if you looked at this district, at these maps, you would say, if i might say so, what sense does that make. what sense does it make? and sense there would be some competitive districts. why are people voting? if it's all republican or all democratic. if the only people that count are the people of a party in each district, how does that work? it doesn't work for michigan. and it's bad for democracy. and here by the way, i finish with this, there seems to be a merg merger, on this "the wall street journal" agrees with the "new

york times." >> we will leave it there and thank you for being "newsmakers." >> thank you, glad to see you again. >> and we are back with our reporters of humberto sanchez and ian swanson, and ian, let's begin with the congressman, and talked about a meeting that he and other democrats had with the president on thursday. as they go forward with the negotiations of what to do to raise the debt ceiling, august 2 is the deadline. what did you hear from him? >> i heard a lot of confidence that the democrats feel that the president has their back. republicans say that the medicare has to be on the table, and they have a lot of leverage on the president because he wants to see the debt ceiling raise. but representative levin seemed

confident. >> it sound like they are making stimulation, medicare benefits. does that mean that something is dealing with medicare on the table? >> i wouldn't rule it out, that it's part of the debt ceiling increase to receive that, and his word carries a lot of weight in the caucus, i wouldn't rule out medicare. >> what can they do? >> congress levin mentioned medicare to negotiate with prescription drug providers, and according to one group that could save 100 billion in 10 years. >> what about tax cuts, ian? >> this is not a huge surprise but said he's confident that the president won't extend the bush taxes for the wealthy. and many were dispo