it did not happen. i said that my expectations for a real result by the super committee were minimal to none. i think now that congress faces the sequestration, the automatic cuts, i think we need to look at that. i anticipate that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will immediately rally around preventing any cuts to defense and shifting the burden to domestic programs and other programs such as medicare, social security, medicaid, education. i think that will be the first test. the issue of fairness is important, but if we get into protecting that one aspect and not dealing with the overall issue that we are facing in this economy, that we're facing

by having to generate savings and revenue, congress is going to miss the boat. the ineptness that the american public has seen on the part of this congress is going to be magnified. there is an inability to create real jobs and to deal with the economic crisis in front of us. >> you said we should take a look at the sequestration? you want to be sure that the sequestration of defense spending is reduced, it should be done proportionally with domestic spending as well? >> i want to see domestic spending protected. i think it is unfair to say defense is going to be spared any reductions and we will shift that reduction onto valuable and important support

programs for the american people. i oppose that. i think it is a huge mistake. to continue to disinvest on the domestic side in this economic time. we have the unemployment issue coming out. we have the 2% payroll tax issue december 31. those are critical to the well- being of the american people and to the economy. those, i see, as priority issues. we hope that we have, at the very minimum, a hearing and that we are afforded a vote on the floor.

the american people will see the choice is between what is not being done and what some of us are trying to do. >> you mentioned some of the provisions that are set to expire by the end of this year. many people on capitol hill had hoped that the super committee would have addressed these tax provisions. now that the super committee has failed, how do you see congress resolving some of these issues, namely the unemployment benefits as well as the payroll tax cuts? funding for the government runs out on december 16. >> exactly. those are going to be crisis points that this congress is going to have to deal with. i anticipate that we will have

the same theatrics we had over the debt ceiling. the obvious thing for the government to continue to run is, at the very least, a continuing resolution that keeps things going on until congress can come to grips with a real fiscal plan and a real piece of legislation. i think we will see the same kind of minds. we'll go right to the brink again. this does nothing to help our economy and it does everything to continue to dispirit the american people in terms of their government being able to do anything about the economy. >> the "washington times" reported friday the best thing for the economy is if congress did nothing. if you let the payroll tax expire, let the unemployment

benefits expire, and you allow the spending cuts to go through and the bush tax cuts expire, you are looking at $7 trillion added to the deficit gap. wall street analysts say that is the best scenario for our economy. >> there are other alternatives. not extending the unemployment is going to hurt the economy. the payroll tax that helps the middle class so much is going to hurt the economy. letting the bush tax cuts expire, which we should have done that a year ago. that will create savings that can be used to shore up the existing programs and deal with the deficit. absent those kinds of decision making that we have been doing and absent a more general comprehensive approach to

dealing with the economy and employment -- what we're not talking about is the fact that we should deal with the other side. people continue to get significant tax breaks at the higher income brackets in this country. $40 billion a year is still being given to gas and oil in subsidies. the list goes on and on in terms of loopholes for corporations, the capital gains tax. all those could be brought back to levels a decade ago and you would see this economy generate revenue that it needs in order to create real jobs and you'd also see the stability that i've been talking about. >> congressman, you mentioned the progressive caucus will be rolling out an economic and jobs package in the coming weeks. what specifics are in that

package? also, can you talk about what are the chances that any of these provisions can even get through congress? >> we are counting on a very significant factor in terms of our proposal getting a fair hearing and an opportunity for people to cast a vote on it. we're counting on the factor of public opinion. we're counting on the factor that the public in general are going to see this not as a symbolic gesture, but a very concrete gesture. we're talking about saving $5.70 trillion over 10 years. we're talking about specific issues. emergency jobs to restore

america, infrastructure bank, buy america first, speculation tax, veterans bills, those are for the jobs creation side. we felt very strongly that the federal government has to play an active role, not just a passive role, as we did with the stimulus bill. part of it is responsible savings and fair taxation. that is going to be an important section. we talk about loopholes, dealing with the withdrawals from the two wars and what that will mean as far as savings. reinstate the superfund taxes. the last issue is protecting social security, medicare, and medicaid. those are essential. we are allowing medicare and medicaid to negotiate drug prices, and that brings tremendous savings to that system. lifting the social security payroll tax cap would create additional support for that

trust fund for the future. i think the three parts of this legislation are intended to create jobs, fairness in taxation, generate revenue, and make sure essential programs are not put on the chopping block as the only source in which we can deal with deficit reduction. there are other areas. we want a fair shot of presenting that. i really believe the american people look and compare and

contrast the public opinion. >> you would have $5.70 trillion in savings with the program you are proposing. are you assuming that all the bush tax cuts would expire at the end of next year? >> the 5.7 i am talking about is a generation of revenue now. the 3.7 or so that would be saved from the bush tax cuts would be additional to that amount.

we did not factor in because it is not a solid amount that we can count on. we did factor in new revenue generation. >> i am wondering about the discussion of income inequality that we've been hearing a lot of in the last month or so. the discussion in washington really seems to have shifted from deficits and debt to income inequality. i am wondering, what do you see happening for some of your proposals with this climate? >> absolutely. over a 12-year period -- we have new numbers now for working america. under $200,000 income. there was a 21% increase over that period of time.

41%, that was a 400 percent on income increase in that same -- for 1%, that was a 400% income increase in that same amount of time. with the capital gains breaks, the other loopholes that are there, that money becomes even more glaring as time goes by. the income disparity, the wage disparity, the purchasing power disparity, absolutely gives us an opportunity to have the discussion. this is not about class warfare. this is not about hurting the job creators. this is about fairness. that is a very disturbing trend, that gap in income sets up a social scenario where we will be tolerating a permanent underclass with regards to poor people, a shrinking middle class, and an elite class that will control 40% to 50% of the income of this nation.

people are realizing that is not only problematic in your individual lives, but as a society and economy. >> your gop colleagues say that taxing the wealthiest would also be dampening the possibility of job creation. they call those top earners job creators. >> the facts will bear out and the trend will bear out. the trickle-down philosophy that was even part of the stimulus package, if we support and stabilize that 1 or 2% in corporate america, the consequence will be an immediate infusion of jobs. we're talking about good paying jobs. providing this support around their families for education and opportunity down the road.

i really think the job creator has been a misnomer. in order to stimulate and incentivize job creation, there must be triggers. there has to be a corresponding number of jobs created within a certain period of time. that is where the federal government has to be involved directly in creation of jobs of the public sector side in order to bring unemployment down and began to circulate the kind of revenue. i am a simpleton when it comes to economics. people are working, they're spending money, businesses are doing better, families are more secure.

>> we have about 10 minutes left. >> you defended the occupy wall street movement in the past. i know you have met with some of the protesters in your home state of arizona. do you believe that this movement has the momentum to carry on to the winter and on to 2012? what impact will have on the 2012 elections? >> i really believed it has staying power. when i went to visit the people -- i have been in politics in my community longer than some people would want me to. i talk to individuals that i have never seen in a political setting. i saw a cross section of my community, from young to old,

professionals who cannot seem to find a job to young people who cannot seem to find an opportunity. i think it has staying power. it has focused on the issue of fairness in this country. while "99%" is a wonderful slogan, that has crystallized some real thought on the part of many people as to what the fairness in this country is. and what this american dream means and why people feel right now the insecurities that those dreams are in danger. raising the fairness issue, putting a light on that, it is a very positive step.

>> congressman, staying with 2012, do you think that president obama is a progressive? >> in some instances, yes. in the effort that he did, the jobs bill, some of the things he has tried to do in terms of moving this congress, yes. is he governing more from the center than many of us would like? of course. the position and composition of congress dictates what can and cannot be done. instinctively, yes. i am glad to see that the president is going with his instincts. i think the american people are

responding to his instincts about jobs, about calling on congress about doing nothing, and about saying there has to be fairness in this country. wall street has to pay its fair share. those are progressive themes. do i wish he would have gotten further earlier? absolutely. i think the wise thing is for progressives in this country to insist on their agenda points, press those agenda points, and make it part of the package. that is what we're trying to do in congress. we have alternatives that are rational and not extremist. i think that is what we need to do. a futile campaign would be divisive and destructive. the contrast is too stark. we have got to concentrate on our issues, and hope that the president keeps running with his instincts. >> you have expressed disappointment in the president on a number of issues. his willingness to compromise with republicans on things like

the bush tax cuts, the fact that the debt limit deal did not include any revenues. what grade would you give the president if you could for his first three years in office? do you plan to endorse him? will you commit to us that you will endorse him on his bid for reelection? >> i would give our president a passing grade. >> a c is a passing grade. >> yes. b- or c. i consider them passing grades. >> is that what you would you give the president? >> yes, i would say it is a passing grade. in terms of endorsements, like i said, i have seen the cast of characters on the other side. i think what they bring to the discussion right now is the same kind of hard positions -- the contrast with the president is obvious. i would support the president. >> i want to ask you about immigration. what kind of a grade would you give the president on the issue of immigration? >> that is a low grade. that is a d. i think the administrative moves he has made, the dream act, i think it is a fair step going forward. there should have been more energy and push on comprehensive reform early on. particularly on the senate side. we would not be dealing with a lot of these arizona, alabama, south carolinas that we're dealing with right now. the push should have been earlier.

but this is a pragmatic step and i applaud him for that. overall, after 2012, this country must have comprehensive immigration reform or we're going to be talking about this divisive wedge issue over and over again. it is an issue that is exploited.

we, as a federal government -- that is a responsibility. when to step up for the sake of this country and a comprehensive reform. something we can compromise on. something that deals with security. but something that keeps families unified. >> if hispanic leaders like yourself give the president a

d, how will hispanic americans be energized to come out and vote for president obama in 2012? >> we are facing some tough choices. the economy has hit the latino community the hardest. poverty rates continue to increase. we're the fasting growing population in this country. there is a disconnect between what we should be investing in and what the reality is for the latino people in this country. they will be energized. it is about our future and the future of our families. it is about the future of this nation. the latino voter is intelligent. they hear this from us and the rhetoric coming out of the republican presidential candidates. when it comes to immigration and fear mongering. having said all that, there is no doubt in my mind that our

community will be energized. >> all right. thank you for being our newsmaker. >> thank you. >> let me turn to our two reporters. let's discuss what we heard from the congressman. some sort of budget deal to reduce the deficit and also pay for these things that are expiring. to continue to extend them and pay for them. payroll tax cuts, he said it is a 2% payroll tax cut right now. president obama wants to extend it and make it 3.1%. what are the prospects of this passing? david? >> one idea is to attach this to an ominous spending bill. nine of the 12 spending bills have not been completed. they would be rolled into one.

with such big bills that might pass, lawmakers try to piggyback other issues that are more divisive. it would be something that democrats will be pushing hard for. the big question is whether republicans will say ok, we want a guarantee that the bush tax cuts will not expire at the end of next year. the deal that that the payroll tax cut last december and the unemployment benefits extension was extending bush tax cuts through the end of next year. >> scott, are republicans in the house, are they on board? >> first of all, there are 60 total tax provisions that expire at the end of this year.

we're focusing on a couple of the important ones. republicans want to see the spending offset with cuts from other parts of the government. that is really what this is going to come down to. there is a desire to get these things done by the end of the year. these are important programs for people, especially americans who were heading into the holidays. this would be a feel-good measure for these two parties to come together. at the same time, republicans are going to exact something in exchange. >> last year, when these provisions were extended or introduced, there was no demand that they be offset by spending cuts elsewhere. this year, it is different. republicans are going to say, you can extend the payroll tax cut, but we want it paid for. again, they will be asking for

cuts in the budget. >> what about a possible government shut down? >> we have seen a number of threats all the way from earlier this spring into the summer. we saw more with the debt crisis. i do not anticipate that there will be a true shutdown. congress has always found ways to renew funding and insure that thousands upon thousands of government employees can continue to go to work. i do not anticipate that it will come to that. >> i think congress got its lowest approval rating ever recorded. they would be reluctant to have a shut down right before the end of the year holidays. at the same time, the differences between the two sides are so great that bridging them with so few weeks left to do so is hard to see right now. there will have to be a lot of

deals for this to happen. >> the debate continues. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this past july 4 in a ceremony held in boston harbor, simon winchester became an american citizen. but i decided that i would take all of the -- >> i decided that i would take all of the necessary steps to take the exam. i have to confess, i got one of the question is wrong. >> which one? >> and australian i note was also up for citizenship and told her i got one of the question is wrong. she said, it is not the one about what color is the white house? and i laughed and said no. it was gone what is the national

anthem? and i blurted out "america the beautiful." and he said, well, it should be, but is not. >> republican presidential candidate, ron paul met with the editorial board of the des moines register for a discussion of his campaign issues. he also said he has ruled out running for a third-party candidacy if he does not receive the republican nomination. this is just over an hour. >> good morning, i am editor and vice president of news for the demo and register. here with us is ron paul, representatives from the fourteenth district of texas. the congressman is a candidate for the republican party nomination for the presidency of the united states. it is a pleasure to have you