what they do. there are some deductions. we probably should eliminate some. we have people looking at that. but i appreciate so much already bringing that up for that is another one of the grave misconceptions. it is just saylie. we do not give big oil money. but we could eliminate some of the deductions like all the taxpayers get some. some are automatically taken even if you do not itemize. host: let's hear from an independent in new york. caller: how are you doing? guest: as far as i can tell, ok. caller: one of the most disturbing things about the republican party right now is the obsession with cutting taxes. i would like to encourage the audience today listening to the "wall street journal" article called "bushel and jobs -- the

worst track record on record. january 2009, you can google it. during his eight years, when they had those two enormous task cuts, the total jobs created were 3 million jobs. that is for eight years under the bush administration. bill clinton, 23 million jobs. george herbert walker converse, four years, 2.5 million jobs. ronald reagan, 16 million jobs. and i remind you that ronald reagan did raise taxes during his administration. guest: ronald reagan did not raise taxes. in fact, they're cut over 30%. what they did was in 1986, they eliminated a lot of loopholes. they streamline some of the things then. host: and before that, eliminating tax deductions.

guest: this is an ideal time to just go to a flat tax. you have made a wealthy people that do not pay -- their tax rate is 39%, but when you look at the effective tax rate, with all the loopholes, some of them do not pay much of anything. everyone ought have something in the game. we ought to go to a flat tax, and ronald reagan's economic adviser told him to cut taxes 30%. you will see the economy explode three it took three years to get the deal done. democratic congress phased in over three years. when the full 30% one in, the economy exploded. he did not raise taxes. he tried to simplify the tax code. i would say that perot that stupid ridiculous document out and start fresh. flat tax, two deductions,

mortgage interest and charitable deductions. and you get rid of everything else. everyone played -- pay a flat tax. we could do with a 13% tax and everybody, make a rich, not rich, pay the same thing. then we could get this thing on track and not of all the track and not of all the ridiculous deductions. british petroleum or t e getting away with as little as they paid in taxes? i think she had no tax? hot rages. -- ge had no tax? outrageous. host: we can show you the "wall street journal" website. street journal" website. it goes through all the

residents there. guest: i do need to corrected. once we get the report on this president's job creation record, and we can cut out all the baloney about save the jobs, which you could never document, it will be the worst record on record. host: we will go to shirley. caller: thank you for taking my call. i watch that most of yesterday because i was so worried that we might not get passed. to see gabrielle giffords last night. guest: wasn't that wonderful? caller: i was really upset because i am republican with the ones that did not go along with mr. boehner. that man worked tirelessly trying to get that worked out and together. you have to understand, we are in such a mess right now. you are not going to get

everything at the same time. butt: i don't want anything responsibility. surely, if you will go online and get this bill and reelect -- read it. i'm sure you will be disturbed with what we did. this is not a game changer. this is doing more of the same. i'm sorry you want me to vote, but do more the same, more the same, keep pushing things down the road like -- and let the next generation deal with it. this is just moving it and that is why i could not vote for it. i am so sorry you are disappointed with me and those that voted against it. but if you will read this bill as i did and go through and understand, you will see that we are pushing it off down the road. i know that there are promises that the committee is going to do this and all this kind of stuff. the bottom line, if you know our history and read this bill in conjunction with that, there --

we raise the debt ceiling, hallelujah, great. we're moving it down the road. i think with all my heart we owe my three children in the future generations the kind of opportunities that i had, and until we get this right and until we fix washington, we're not going to get it. host: 1 last phone call here. a democrat in louisiana. caller: i am 56 years old and had been paying taxes all my life. every time you get the bail the democrats toward the republicans out. are really upset me the most was a little while back about this bailout money. to the banks and to general motors. the one about the banks and everything, what i could not understand, instead of giving

them the money, and that money belonged to the people, why couldn't they give it back to the homeowners? host: i have a big jump in host: i have a big jump in because it is hard to hear you. you have to turn the television down. guest: i really appreciate that. tarp was a disaster. there was no need for that. we had never done that before in the history of the world. one man, $700 billion, don't fix things. we do not do that in america. i read that built a 700 pages. it was a disaster. we should never have done that. goldman sachs and aig should have done with every other entity does when they spend too much. you go into what is called bankruptcy. it could reorganize. virtually every one of the departments except for that credit defaults what department was doing well.

we took $700 billion and heard this country separate goldman sachs had the best profit in their history. that was wrong, so wrong. i really agree with you, tarp should never have been done. and this administration is still holding on the $129 billion in assets. we need to get rid of it and the terrible nightmare of tarp, the terrible injustice to the american people. i hope that we have learned a lesson for you just cannot do that. host: thank you for being here. guest: you're so gracious on tv. thank you. host: we have been following what congressmen have been tweeting. you can see if you go to our twitter page, you can see these lists of congressmen and reporters.

we will be back with gerry connolly in just a minute. ♪ ♪ ha ♪ ♪

♪ host: congressman gerry connolly, democrat of virginia, how did you vote last night? guest: i voted yes and that does not mean i was not concerned about the deal. our choice was between this proposal, a bipartisan proposal, and catastrophic default. host: when did you come to your yes vote? guest: 1 that vote -- when i was able look get the details. the boehner proposal was terrible and the reid proposal, it allowed for the democratic perspective to be preserved.

i was comfortable with this moving forward. is it what i would ever written? no. but it was the choice in front of us. i think it had something for everyone to like in a. host: are you confident the president will fight another day? many democrats have been critical of the president's negotiating skills. here is an article. it does not sound very positive about what the president has done so far. guest: a lot of friends on my side of the aisle are still in denial about the fact that we lost the november elections. he does not have the strongest hand in the world after the november results. we lost the house majority substantially. one of the worst elections defeating democrats in 7480 years. our numbers and significantly in

the senate. we're down to 53. compromise whether we like it or not it is the name of the game. the president did the best he could with a weak hand. some of that criticism is undeserved and serves no purpose if democrats want to come back into the majority. host: was that the masses of joe biden that the caucus meeting yesterday? guest: he allied why we arrived at this point and then listened a lot. he stayed to the bitter in listening to dozens of my colleague, including myself, expressed concerns and shared views with him. he did so very respectfully. i think it helped. host: described the exchange between your colleagues and the vice-president and other members of your party over this deal. guest: it was a respectful set of exchanges were a number of people express some of the

concerns you just reflected in that article. in some cases, to specific questions about what was in the deal, how will that work. i think some of my colleagues were seeking reassurances that we are going to fight for revenue. we're going to fight for medicare and social security. those reassurance were given. host: what the vice president say on those points? guest: those programs are sacrosanct and we're going to work to ensure their protection. he reassured the democratic caucus that it is the intention of the president to wind down wars in iraq and afghanistan and to bring those troops home. in a responsible but expeditious manner. and to identify savings from that drawdown. those reassurances that went a long way with democrats. it was very professional and direct. it was a good ventilation but at

the end of the day, 95 democrats voted for this agreement. host: what is the status of virginia's economy? virginia's economy? what effect will this debt deal have on state aid to virginia? guest: our economy has weathered the economic downturn better than most. it has recovered faster than most. in large part, because of the interaction with the federal government. the federal government is an enormous presence in terms of federal employees, military, retirees, and in terms of dollars. one of the county's i represent, fairfax county, i believe it is the number one believe it is the number one county in terms of federal contract dollars every year. prince william county is not far behind. anything that affects federal spending and federal activity obviously has a disproportionate

impact on the economy of virginia. we have benefited from the federal government and we will not be ineffective if we shrink deck government. host: this is coming in from emanuel cleaver. guest: i respectfully disagree. i understand that in the heat of the moment, the disappointment that we cannot get everything that we wanted. but the reality, the political reality is that we lost the majority last november, substantially. we have to deal with the hand that we got. i think we played it as well as can be expected. there are actually some protections from the democratic point of view that did not exist in previous proposals. the bipartisan commission is split in does not preclude consideration of revenues.

that is on the table, meaning that discretionary domestic spending will not take the whole hit. the protection of pell grants, the protection of social security and medicare in terms of benefit cuts, those are good things gregos world democratic values enshrined in this agreement. we did not get 100% everything that we wanted. that is true. and there is going to be some pain in the out years, especially if these cuts kick in acted the way at the moment they are envisioned. there's no question about that. we have to hope that the economy will recover so that some of that pain is lessened and we're able to grow again. now we can focus on economic growth in jobs, which is where we should have focused instead of this republican obsession with the debt. host: the "new york times" has this chart on how it would work.

of the immediate cuts, what is the impact on federal workers? guest: we do not know yet. in some previous proposals, federal pensions and compensation were on the table. they are not enshrined in this agreement. at the starting gate, federal workers do not have proposed cuts that we are considering. that does not mean that that will not reappear in order to meet the target. but the target in the first year and the second year are relatively modest. it is in the out years that we have to worry about. host: beyond 2014. as good to frank, a republican in connecticut. caller: this is america. what makes america so beautiful is the difference, and i like --

i do not like to hear the bad record. everyone has a different view. the constitution was based on god. as long as we key god ended and keep a positive attitude, i have wished that you would really that. host: let's hear from amy, a democrat in richmond, california. caller: good morning. i would like to place, i hope you give me more time and not cut me off, but i've been watching this debate now says it started, and i think it started back in december when the republicans regained the house, and they refused to give obama an extension on the unemployment

benefits. all this time, people have been saying it is three years, he raise the debt $4 trillion, and most of that was to help this economy to try to get back on a good footing. he had to split the republic -- the republicans wanted add more debt by extending the bush tax cuts in order for him to compromise and just get a few more dollars for one year of unemployment for people who are out of work. please send me out. people always saying, and he spent $4 trillion. what he did was try to stimulate this economy. and he was on the right track. host: we will have to leave it there. guest: i guess -- i think amy has a good point. i prints on the other side of the how do not want people to be reminded of the fact that the

overwhelming bulk of the debt we are dealing with was inherited from the bush years. president bush inherited record surpluses, balanced budgets that generated surpluses that get paid off the entire federal debt over the next eight years. he turned that around with republican congresses, unfunded wars in iraq and afghanistan, upper crush christian drug benefit, and unpaid for tax cuts in the middle of the war. unprecedented in american history. they created record deficits. an aide is strange to hear the sanctimony of my colleagues who were it in their voting for a year marks and big spending, voting for unfunded programs who are now concerned about deficits, and what the public to believe that there the making of

barack obama. that is not true. amy is right that what obama has added to the deficit was designed to try to stimulate the worst economic contraction in 80 years. that is the responsible thing he tried to do. and by the way, large pockets of it has success it began a man. he turned around the auto industry. gm will return to being the no. 1 auto manufacturer in the world. it almost went out of business two years ago. he has stabilize a financial system, he stabilize the automotive manufacturing sector, the most important part of the american economy. unfortunately unemployment remains stubbornly high. we need help on the other side of the aisle. i can tell you this, if you only focus on deficit cutting and deficit spending cuts, what you do not create is a single job by doing that. our republican friends to not want to a knowledge that their

policies are contributing to a contraction right now. that is why we're not creating as many jobs as we like to. we actually are creating new jobs in the private sector, but we're losing, more than offset by losses and the public sector and state and local governments. republicans do not want to deal with that. that is a huge drag on this economy. host: our guest is a gerry connolly democrat from virginia. our topic is the debt deal. here is how will work according to -- how it will work according to the "york times."

from paul in indianapolis. an independent caller. caller: i consider myself a practical progressive. i like to observe that according to pew, about 7% of the dollars from the bush tax cuts went to the people under $250,000. i'm not saying we should not do away with them, but you have to consider that when you consider the bush deficits. my question for the congressman -- willis give you the opportunity to do some major tax and entitlement reform, for example, doing away with special treatment for speculation in come? having another shot at a single payer health care system and a national pension system? host: before you go, that will

be under the purview of the special committee. do you have confidence in that? caller: if they pick the right people. they should let boehner take the democratic representatives. let pelosi pick the republicans. the same thing over and the senate. then they might have a chance of actually doing something. guest: as you know, the agreement last night in the house actually has an enforcement mechanism which was lacking in previous proposals. if that bipartisan committee is deadlocked and cannot agree on the necessary revenue increases and spending cuts, then there are automatic sequestration which affects defense 50% and domestic discretionary spending 50%. that is powerful. both democrats and republicans will find some common ground.

i do not know that the bipartisan committee cost purdue will go to a single payer, but there is an opportunity to simplify the tax code, too late -- do away with the loopholes to generate net new revenue which is sorely needed. one of the things missed in this debate is two simple statistics that drive this debate. and why people -- white democrats believe their revenue has to be on the table. we're spending a 25% of the gross national product, about as high as it has ever been since world war ii. our revenue is only 15% of gdp. that is as low as it has been since world war ii. that is too love. spending is too high. we have to do both. we have to bring them into balance. the last time we did that was under bill clinton and it generated four successive budget

surpluses. we would not be in this mess today had we pursued the policies that don't clinton was pursuing when he was president. host: a tweet. guest: at the end of the day, take the automotive bailout, it worked. we save 1 million jobs. when under 50,000 jobs have been created an ounce. gm has returned to the no. 1 auto manufacturer in the world. it was about to go bankrupt and out of business. as a result, we saved a very important court to the manufacturing economy in the united states. by any measure, if you have to say that was a success. philosophically some people think that is not a good deal.

but that taxpayers are likely to get their money back, and then some. from a financial point of view, we will not be in a hold hundreds of billions of jobs as projected. we will probably make some money for the tax payers and save those jobs and save that manufacturing capability for the future. i think that is a success, not a failure. philosophically people think that they should have been allowed to go bankrupt and go out of business. you're entitled to that point of view. i respectfully do not share. i think they would have been catastrophic for america. host: us go to a republican in dover, new hampshire. dover, new hampshire. caller: i did not hear too many people bring this up. i am a small business owner. high on small hair salons and struggle to make ends meet. i do all of my payroll. you increase our federal income tax for employees by 7% at the first of the year.

on top of that, you're taking away from the american people. you then lower the social security to 4.2% but employers still pay 6.2%. they took another 2% decrease as far as i'm concerned, and you call it a 2% increase for them on their payroll tax. now they do not have to% more in their social security later on down the road. who did this? why did you do it? we're struggling with social security to begin with. i cannot understand the logic of telling people that they have a 2% increase on their payroll check when they did not get that 2% increase which they took away, that is a 9% decrease in their payroll tax. i enjoyed that last speaker that you had on. i did not think he was biased.

i feel sorry for the one that is on. you're speaking so one-sided. once an ally, i like people to talk about it. talk about it. guest: i am sorry i am disappointed you in terms of my point of view. but we do have different points of view in america. that is why congress success, to bring those points of view together and find some common ground. the last speaker and i voted the same way last night. it was a strong bipartisan vote, not the most popular one in my party, but i thought was necessary for the country. with respect your question about social security, it was part of the tax code yesterday. there were a number of people on my side of the aisle to raise exactly the point you did. providing tipper relief -- providing tipper relief --