members of today and that is that they be able to talk to each other. i think that needs the reform of the full congress, the house the senate. we should get that in the bill, get it to the president and have him sign it into law. there are other suggestions. i worry about them because the last thing we need to do is take the hands of the agency and tie them behind their backs and say ok now go and function for the american people some have tied the place up in litigation for many, many years. that's not a reform. i look to the things that are really doable. always in the public interest.

i don't think we want to get in the way of competition. and the f.c.c. wants to ensure we have real competition in the country. the american consumer is the one that will benefit from that. now, sometimes stakeholders don't agree with that. but we are here for the american people and so the f.c.c. those are some of the things i'd like to see protected. reform and full disclosure and how they should use their money. of course we should review that. it is congress' role to review that. i don't have any problem with that. >> and we are out of time. anna eshoo has joined us for this edition of "the communicators" as has our guest reporter tony romm from

"politico." thank you both. >> thank you. >> thank you. .

they are able to record and edit things from the road. that is what we are doing. i want to get outside of washington d.c. to collect program for all of our networks. we will descend on it -- it city with all of our vehicles. one will do bookstores and one will do community relations events. they are important with us because we work with our cable partners. the last thing that is important to note that all of this goes on the air and is archived on our website. we are also doing extensive social media. you see our cable partners on facebook. you will see foursquare to tell people where we are going. you will see us on twitter as well.

it is a chance to get our message on air and on line. we want to get outside of washington d.c., get into places we don't normally do programming and get outside the beltway to produce programming throughout the c-span network. >> what our low -- our local content the ago in shreveport louisiana. >> we have a country will -- where millions of innocent people have had to go to prison. they put bars on their own windows and doors because we have abandoned their neighborhoods to crime. i cannot live with that. our neighborhoods should be saved. the children should be able to play in the streets. >> as candidates campaigned for president this year, we look back at 14 man who ran for the office and lost.

go to our website c-span.org to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact. >> the destiny of america is always in the hands of the people than in the conference rooms of the elite. let us get our country a chance to elect a government that will speak the truth. it is time for the troops in the life of this country. >> president obama released his 2013 budget on monday. the plan projects a deficit of $1.30 trillion this year. it aims to lower it to $29 billion by 2013. the white house acting budget

director led the briefing. >> thank you for coming for our overview of the budget. and we have a four-part agenda we are here to discuss economic assumptions. he is going to talk about the importance of the budget. >> i want to comment on four of the economic assumptions first the economic assumptions are developed jointly by the office of management and budget and the treasury department.

>> i want to comment on four of the economic assumptions first the economic assumptions are developed jointly by the office of management and budget and the treasury department. when we when we made the projections, the unemployment rate had been at 9% or 9% -- or at 9.1% for several months.

since we made our forecast we have learned that the unemployment rate has come down 0.8% in the last six months. we have also seen an improvement in other economic indicators particularly for the labor market, such as initial unemployment insurance claims. as a result of this welcome news, the budget forecast for the unemployment rate should be considered stale and out of date. the private sector forecasters have shaved over 0.5% from their 2012 forecast of the unemployment rate as a result of the improved situation in the job market. and that is just over the months since we made our forecast in mid-november.

if we were to do another forecast today, we would certainly lower our forecast of the unemployment rate from what appears in the budget. to be helpful, together with the budget tables, we included the january blue chip forecast by private sector forecasters of the unemployment rate, as well as other recent forecasts. these forecasts, in fact are all so out of date, as the new blue-chip private sector forecasters was released last friday and that is more current than the one from january that is included in the budget tables. i will quickly walk through the assumptions for three other key parameters in the budget, economic growth, inflation and the interest rate.

on a year-over-year basis, real gdp growth is assumed to be 2.7% in 2012. this is up from a pace of 1.7% in 2011. and it reflects the quickening pace of gdp growth at the end of 2011 and the presumption that we will continue to get a boost from the extension of the 2% payroll tax cut for the remainder of this year. for 2013, real gdp growth is assumed to be 3.0%. for inflation, we have a stand that the consumer price index will rise boy -- rise by two 0.2% this year and 1.9% in 2013. the interest rate on 10 year treasury notes is a sin to be 2.8% this year -- assumed to be 2.8% this year and will rise gradually to 3.5% next year. the current 10-year treasury interest rate is around 2%. as the economy strengthens interest rates are expected to rise.

there are another -- a number of other economic parameters that influence the budget, but these are the key assumptions and that is why i highlighted those. i will not bore you with the dozens of other parameters. instead, i will hand it back to jeff. >> thank you. before i joined the office of management and budget three years ago, i had spent my entire time in the private sector. one thing i found that was often helpful to boil things down to a few slides. given that the budget is multiple volumes of hundreds of pages, i thought that approach might work well today. minor over four topics first the current policy based fines. next come a key deficit reductions.

an overview of areas essential to our growth. and finally, a bottom-line of the budget and how to put this on a sustainable path. first, the baseline. we believe we have a base line accurately reflects our current policy. in essence, this baseline is business as usual. this baseline includes the extension of the 2001-2003 tax cuts in the estate and gift taxes. it has the permanent extension of the amt and the sdr -- sgr. permanent extension makes more sense than patching these year after year. it has the enforcement of gdp capps, an accounting for future disaster costs rather to in ignoring them.

this accounts for four 0.7% of gdp at the end of the budget window in 2002. last april, the president offered a blueprint for achieving more than $4 trillion deficit reduction. he maintained that the men and in his proposal last september. this budget is very similar -- that commitment in his proposal last september. this budget is very similar to the september proposal. the budget actually includes over $5 trillion of total deficit reduction. let me walk you through the critical elements. i'm going to work from left to right. if you start on the far left, you will see 6 android $76 billion in savings from the appropriation bills enacted last year. -- $676 billion in savings from the appropriation bills enacted last year.

moving right, over $1 trillion in reductions in discretionary spending, consistent with the discretionary caps in the budget control act. third are $252 reductions from savings in medicare and medicaid that will make these programs more effective and more efficient. then you will see $262 billion in savings from programs including agricultural subsidies, direct payments,

federal civilian worker retirement and the pbgc changes and reforms that we are suggesting. these costs are net of the costs of new mandatory initiatives. the next category, the $1.5 billion bar, is revenue. revenue for deficit reduction including the expiration of the high-income 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and the elimination of inefficient and unfair breaks for the highest earners. the 1.5 trillion dollar number is actually a net #as we further cut taxes for the middle class and small businesses. there are $13 billion in net savings from investing in a six-year surface transportation reauthorization.

capping occo closes the back door on security spending. their other savings of $483 billion. these include disaster adjustments, program integrity and averting the general fund transfer that happens every year. as a result of all of these initiatives coming of $800 billion less in debt service. that is the bar right next to the pink are. let me go to the pink are. that cuts the other direction. these are investments in short- term job initiatives. this is the remainder of fiscal year 2013 of the three entered $54 billion of jobs initiatives that is not spent -- $354 billion of jobs initiatives that is not spent in 2012. we do not can attribute this to the total debt of the said -- we

do not attribute this sequester to the total deficit reduction. the bottom line is that these efforts represent more than five trillion dollars in net deficit reduction. even as we achieve this deficit-reduction, we continue to make key investments in presidential priorities. gene is going to provide a little more color and these priories. these include short-term measures for job growth, tax breaks for the middle-class and small businesses, and continued investment in our long-term priorities including education and job training for american workers, innovation and research and development, clean energy and infrastructure. we make these investments while

abiding by the very tight spending caps, and we make hard trade-offs. and in ample this all together for you. on the left -- let me now pull this all together for you. as you can see, in 2012, deficits from the president's policies are below 3% of gdp compared to over 4.7% for the baseline. furthermore, the debt as a percentage of gdp is stabilized from 2018 on. this is important for maintaining a strong investment environment. the president's budget replaces the sequester with a balanced approach deficit reduction with $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 of revenue increases. in closing, as a business

person and now acting director at omb i believe the president's budget makes the right investments to make us even more competitive in the global marketplace. achieving declining deficit and stabilizing our debt are critical for business confidence and investment. this is good for business. it is good for the middle class, and it is good for america. let me now turn it over to jean. -- gene. >> thank you. the ultimate end of any budget is not any particular number or ratio. if this -- it is an economic

strategy that is designed to make the middle class stronger, more secure, and more inclusive. to meet at end, to meet that goal, you need a plan that returns us to medium to long- term fiscal sustainability to give companies the confidence to make the united states still the place to do long-term investment and job creation. secondly, you need to have more momentum to the recovery and job creation at this moment. we are still digging out of the largest hole and worst recession since the great depression. third, we need to have the investments that lay a foundation for the private sector to grow and become more competitive. these three goals are not contradictory. they are as complementary as good hitting, good pitching and good fielding is for a baseball team, or to seasonally adjust, a good shooting, a good rebound in in good playmaking.

if you contract too quickly, as we have seen in other parts of the world, it not only hurts your growth and job creation it can be counterproductive to your fiscal goals. there is widespread agreement widespread, ranging from the federal reserve chairman to the congressional budget office to top economists, that this type of balanced approach of ensuring strong demand and more momentum for recovery at the same time that you're laying out a framework for medium-long term fiscal discipline is exactly the right recipe to give confidence and growth in this recovery and expansion.

there is equally that outside independence -- independent validation for the fundamental fiscal approach the jeff discussed and the president has called for since he has come here, which is that you ultimately need a grand compromise that includes a combination of entitlement reform savings and revenues. that is what you have seen called for from goals-samson -- bowles-simpson and other commissions. whether or not you agree with every measure in this budget, there is no question it achieves this type of balance between revenue and spending cuts. the only question is whether the house republican budget that will come forward soon will, for the first time include any semblance of that balance in their budget.

now this plan, as jeff said, does include immediate efforts to strengthen the pace of recovery and job creation. there is little question that the payroll tax cut, the unemployment extension and the 100% expensing were critical for the resilience of our economy in 2011 when it faced several hits, both external and unfortunately from the debt crisis and downgrade internally. one economist said that deal probably saves us from another recession. the extension that we just did this december for another two months gave the possibility, the opportunity for us to have the type of strong january that we saw. imagine that instead of the payroll tax cut being extended and unemployment insurance being extended, we had story after story about a hundred and 60 million americans taxes going up, a million people losing unemployment insurance.

it is unlikely we would have seen the momentum and job creation that we did this january. so, the payroll tax cut and the unemployment insurance are seen as having some of the strongest bang for the buck by independent forecasters in the congressional budget office. these outside economists have said the full extension would mean a half percentage of growth this year and well over 500,000 jobs. if we fail to extend unemployment insurance right now, two 0.5 million americans would lose their unemployment benefits in the next two months alone, and the payroll tax cut as we have said, would go up. payroll taxes would go up for 160 million people with the typical family losing $40 per paycheck.

this is obviously a critical part of our short-term immediate job creation strategy. but we also include more aspects that we think are critical. as alan krueger would tell you about the only thing that was negative in the january jobs numbers was that 9600 teaching jobs were lost. 105,000 teaching jobs were lost to read the last 12 months and to under 54,000 teaching jobs have been lost since -- 254,000 teaching jobs a been lost since the recession. this is a self-inflicted wound. this did not have to happen. had the congress passed the president's initiatives regarding teachers and first responders, we could be gaining in these areas instead of losing in them.

so the president includes $30 billion for teacher layoff prevention and to help first responders in this budget as well. on school modernization, we know that the unemployment rate among construction workers is up 13%. we know there will never be a better time to, with lower interest rates and more available workers, to rebuild our schools and our infrastructure than there is today. the president include, as he has before, $30 billion for school modernization, $50 billion for infrastructure investments, and $10 billion for an infrastructure bank. again, there is nothing fiscally responsible about infrastructure delay. you get no points for that. what better time than right now when it would strengthen our recovery and help unemployed workers who are better -- who are desperate to get back to work?

beyond the immediate efforts that we need to do to get job creation going, stabilize our economy, the president laid out his keller's -- pillars both in the kansas speech and the framework in the state of the union. as you'll see in the details as well as the state of the union we put a strong focus on manufacturing jobs. we believe manufacturing punches above its way economically. beyond employing 11 million people, it has significant effects on multiples of additional jobs the support and are part of manufacturing. because a 70% of all private sector research and development, 90% of all patents, 60% of all exports. we put in detail some of the things we talked about in the state of the union on incentives for bringing jobs back, removing deductions for shipping jobs overseas. you can see in here today that there is a $6 billion tax

incentives over three years to prevent the downward spiral that happens too often in our communities where when there is a massive plant closings, layoffs, or perhaps layoffs that could be related to the military drawdowns, that we are -- have a strategy for those communities to attract new employers, not after they've gone to the downward spiral, the before. this budget will include a $5 billion clean energy manufacturing tax credit, often called 48 see, it is more than doubled. the demand is so high and this brings together the presidents pillars of both energy and manufacturing.

the same is true with the extension of the 16 a three provisions -- 1603 provisions that seem to have been very effective. an expanded and permanent r&d tax credit of 17% to give companies the confidence and security to make those investments. we will talk more about manufacturing innovations in weeks to come. another element that brings together the president's energy and manufacturing pillars are our advanced vehicle strategy.

you will see in your new consumer tax incentive for buying advanced vehicles. these are technology neutral. there at the point of sale. they're worth $10,000. we do not pick between natural gas or electric vehicles. we let the market determine that and give consumers the incentive to buy these cars. this will come together with the community challenge for infrastructure deployment, and the first-ever tax credit for heavy truck natural gas tax credits, the first credit of its kind. you have seen the we also, as part of our jobs manufacturing strategy, put forth an energy trade enforcement center 50 dass 60 new people greater coordination kick -- 50-60 new people, greater coordination in the government, and this is designed to bring additional trade cases that will level the playing field against countries around the world including china. the pillar of education and skills i am going to leave largely to cecilia, but make one point.

overall, you see a very significant commitment to training at this time of very high unemployment where we are still coming back from the worst of this recession, still gaining traction, still trying to make sure that more people are able to get the jobs. in this, you are a -- you will see a few principles in terms of community colleges -- >> in terms of having training designed to match workers with the skills that are open now and in the future. we are increasing simplicity and our reliance on community colleges as an important vehicle for that. this is where studies and evidence point us to go.

finally, the president talked about the deluge of response ability and shared sacrifice -- the values of responsibility and shared sacrifice in the state of the union. one of the items in this budget that has not been out was the fact that the president is calling in this battle -- in this budget or dividend income to be taxed as ordinary income for those making over $250,000. i want to be clear on something. those in these 15% bracket or the 10% bracket, the capital gains and dividend rate will remain at zero. if you are at the 15% bracket the capital gains income will be will at zero.

if you are in the 25% rate, it will be 15%. we are talking about americans who make over $250,000. this was what the rate was during the clinton administration. during those years, it was consistent with a strong and robust economy. the president sought to keep the dividend rate for those of the highest income at 20% as with capital gains. the president believes that at this time when we are asking for shared sacrifice across the board in the entitlement from health to agriculture to civilian retirement, we simply cannot afford to devote $206 billion for lower tax rates for

the highest income americans. our system for taxing investment income for the most well-off americans is clearly broken. the best way to fix that is through hard choices as part of comprehensive tax reform and not by spending $206 billion on a tax rate that is clearly part of the reason so many people who make over $1 million are paying lower rates and so may lower income families. with that, i will turn it over to my partner in crime our new domestic partner -- domestic policy adviser. >> you heard the president talking about the urgent need to make sure our students and our workers are getting the

education and the training they need for the jobs coming on as our economy continues to expand and grow. the president has a strong view that a quality education should not be a luxury available to every family. >> president obama's economic advisors take there is a vital need to make sure that we are providing opportunities for workers. to start with the education and

peace, you have heard some of this before. the first part has to do with higher education. he talked about how a student loan debt is outpacing credit cards and everybody has our role to play in making sure colleges more affordable road the budget proposes to do what the federal government can to play its part by making a permanent tax credit and also by making sure a student loan interest rates do not double as they are expected over this summer. this includes a proposal to make sure that does not happen this shoe live. there is also a series of incentives the budget reflects to make sure colleges and states are doing their parts. there is a series of incentives to keep tuition is affordable, to move aid in the direction of colleges but are keeping tuition affordable and providing good value and investing in students, needy students in particular. there is a race to the top program focused on affordability. there is a program to help states innovate, so it is a reflection of this notion that

states have a role to play, colleges have our role to play and the budget really reflects fiscal incentives to make sure we are making higher education affordable. the second big issue is continued investments in the race to the top program. the budget provides $850 million in driving reforms at the state level. it has been expanded to include an early learning challenge, so race to the top is being applied to make sure students enter kindergarten ready to learn. this year the program also includes sister fashionable program so we are not just driving reforms at the state level. did you heard the president described in the state of the union address a series of reforms aimed at elevating the teaching profession.

there is a $400 million innovation fund reflected in this budget and a program to challenge states and districts to work with teachers to really have a transformative change on the teaching profession, to create more career ladders to focus on training programs for education. this is something the department of education is working on pure good -- is working on. the president challenged do -- travel to the community college to announce his proposal to provide more americans with the skills they need in this 21st century the economy. this is a career fund designed i've training 2 million workers for the jobs coming and who in demand now -- coming in demand now. we know we are going to need to fill millions of positions in high-growth industries like health care, clean energy, information technology, and this fund is designed to create a partnership that would be implemented by the department of labor and the department of education. also to make sure they are

building a partnership to provide for their communities. the idea is to help community colleges become community career center. there is a piece of the same death the colleges themselves. -- there is a piece that is aimed at the colleges themselves. state and local governments can apply for these funds. there is a piece of this dedicated to entrepreneurship to help make sure we are providing training for folks in small

businesses, and this administration has made great investment already in making sure community colleges have the resources and infrastructure available to meet the needs of this economy and students in this economy, and what this does is build on that record by making sure community colleges are linked with states to make sure they are providing the training for the jobs where even as some americans are looking for work, jobs are looking for workers, and training is really going to make the difference with linking workers to jobs that are available, and i will try to go back to can. -- i will turn it over to ken. >> thank you.

>> [inaudible] >> i could go further. and he could add on. when the president came into office we knew things cannot in good shape, but we did not know how bad they were. the fourth quarter 2008 gdp we thought was - 3% or so. we now realize it was close to - 8%.

the president inherited a much worse situation. on top of that, during the previous administration, we had medicare, bush tax cut, so i think the situation was far worse than we had anticipated given the economic news i started with. now the president's budget actually does cut the deficit in half by 2014, so that is one year later than the original projection, and that is explained by the situation we inherited, particularly on the economic front. just look of the defense side. it would require $500 billion. across-the-board cuts is a bad

policy bureau did we believe this requester should be replaced with a balance -- is bad policy. we believe the requester should be replaced with a balanced we should get rid of it as bad policy and achieved the 1.2 trillion dollars called for. the sequester is a very important function, so this budget is not calling for the sequestered to be taken away. they are calling for the money to be replaced by balancing the deficit reduction. >> in november when you look at first quarter and the third quarter, the average was projected to be 1.65%. it ended up being a 8.9% and

6.7%, so that period we were averaging 7.8%, so have people down the deficit projections they would have been a bit darker. there is no question we face some external shocks. we do want to say this budget, when you look of the ultimate goal, is superior to the 2011 budget. now 2017 and after, the deficit has come under 3%, and let me add. it is not just that we think is. the opinion is not ours. the entire rationale was to create an enforcement mechanism designed to be mutually assured destruction on both sides to force people to come to the table to come up with an appropriate balance of deficit reduction.

that is what happened when they went to andrews air force base, so the whole design of this was as an action-forcing event to make us come forward with some sort of compromise, so i think it is totally appropriate to look at the amount rockaway over one trillion dollars, and there was an enforcement mechanism that would force us to come together and agree on amounts that were equal to or more and we have come up with those assets are equal to that, and that is where our focus should be. >> the difference between your deficit projections in this document and the september document, because the policy seems to be the same, but the debt in 2021 is one trillion dollars higher. >> the differences primarily economic assumptions.

we also have proposed now taking the aotc permanent, so that explains the remainder. good >> what about oco? >> is capped at $450 billion. that saves $800 billion. we use out for transportation.

>> which is another policy change. >> the super committee was meeting, and we wanted to put forward a provision that were deficit savings. the president thought that would be helpful to the process to have savings people could agree to, knowing they had the blessing of the president, so we tried to put in all the deficit savings. we did not put in all our aspirations, so there is also a different purpose to that submission. >> is this a situation where if

you have a compromise you would be going above and beyond 4 trillion dollars? would you go beyond the numbers in this budget, or would they just changed? >> obviously, i probably will not negotiate a compromise with you right now. i think that is called negotiating against yourself. i think we all realize when you engage in a good face bipartisan effort, if you have a common goal, which is to strengthen our economy. when we put out a budget, it has $600 billion in entitlement savings, and we have already

agreed to the most significant discretionary spending cuts in decades. the discretionary number in this budget, 2.5% of gdp. that is the lowest it has been since 1964. in other words, we have put forward significant entitlement savings. the president has taken on sacred cows on our side and put forward entitlement savings you have not seen details in the president's budget before, and he puts out a budget that is equivalent to $2.50 in interest cuts for every dollar. that puts forward the type of problems that offers the opportunity for compromise. less see if we ever see a budget coming from the republican leadership of the senate or the house or even of remark about has that type of balance, where revenues are exclusively put on the table in a significant amount that would be a step forward. we will see.

>> [inaudible] second, your overall thing about fairness. the trucks on corporate tax reform, we are going to speak further on that before the end -- >> on corporate tax reform, we are going to speak further at the end of the month, but the president has made clear he supports corporate tax reform that would reduce loopholes lower rates for people investing, creating jobs in the u.s., do so further for manufacturing, and that we need a global minimum tax so people have the assurance nobody is escaping during their fair share as part 0 of our race to the bottom or having our tax code actually subsidize and facilitating people moving their funds to tax havens, but we will say more in more detail before the end of the month, and in terms of revenues, the president is looking for shared sacrifice.

this is a democratic budget but has savings and medicaid. it has savings for new beneficiaries in 2017. it has agricultural, civilian retirement savings. it has tough choices. how can the president go to the town hall of look at average americans who are being affected, how can they be asked to do that at the same time they say the most fortunate americans do not have to contribute at all?

i think when you looked at what it takes to get the public and general support for a balanced budget agreement, you have to have that type of shared sacrifice for this to be in acceptable to the public at large. >> you talk about getting rid of the bush tax cuts.

is there a reflection in the budget? >> in the budget we have we returned to the pre-bush tax payers. for the people above 250. the only exception to the president had previously was he had not led dividends go all the way back to the clinton era but in this budget he decided that was something he could not afford. in terms of tax reform, he could not lay out what the rates

would be, because that was something he would have to work out, but i think what the president has made clear is it needs to be reform that leads to a tax code as progressive if not more progressive than it would be if you let the bush tax cuts expired. this is a fair point. in both the corporate and individual side, lead to reforms to the current system as we noted -- as we know it, so things like the dividend rate is a proposal under our current tax system. then we have other things where you hundreds the a more fair tax occurred. good and region where you could see a more tax code.

this as opposed to an explicit provision. we are saying when you do tax reform we ought to get rid of the alternative minimum tax. we have to patch it every year,, and we are essentially saying we should replace it ahoy -- to replace it, but the best off are being asked to pay less than the middle class. >> then you have corporate reform common sense stuff like corporate jets and tax expenditures, and those are offset by tax cuts for the middle class and small

businesses. you get a net of 1.5 trillion dollars. at the same time, the president is favorite to -- is in favor of corporate and individual taxes. >> [inaudible] but then not talk about your revenue assumptions? >> reform takes time, and the president wants to be very

specific about how we are going to raise the money to have a balanced approach. there is $2.50 of spending for every dollar of revenue, so we want to have tax reform, but the president's budget is very specific about where the revenue comes from. >> to answer your question we do believe in the individual tax reform we would like to see individual tax reform that would also contribute 1.5 trillion dollars to deficit reduction as part of the overall plan, so if we were just saying we wanted 1.5 trillion dollars of revenues in reform, you might say, you are just putting out a number. how would you get it? we are showing you in detail how we would get it under the current system.

the same values in terms of simplicity, making sure we had a tax code that was as a progressive as if the bush tax cuts expired. that gives some sense of what our standard would be, and that no 1.5 trillion dollars is more than the republicans would prefer. it is a bit less than called for, so i think it is a reasonable bipartisan measure to put out. >> i want to make it clear there are no tax increases for families to larger $50,000 or less. there are tax cuts, so no increases for families $250,000 or less. >> in the budget you tax the evidence for upper income taxpayers. it rolled back a little bit from the campaign promise to maintain the 20% rate on capital

gains. did that give you most of the way towards the revenue and you wanted, limiting the dividends for upper income taxpayers? i take your point that the upper income is lower than you expected. do you still have a relatively optimistic as the met? when we make a projection, we do it under the presumption that the president's proposals will become law. most importantly the extension of the payroll tax cut and continued extension of unemployment insurance benefits