>> chris: the g.o.p. point man on health care, calls out the president. on the price tag for reform. >> this bill does not control costs. this bill does not reduce deficits. >> chris: we'll look inside of the numbers, with paul ryan, top republican, on the house budget committee. also was the health care meeting must-see tv or a dog and pony

show? we'll ask our very own critics, to give it thumbs up, or down. and, our power player of the week. nascar's number 88, gives troubled teams a second chance, all right now on "fox news sunday." e. >> chris: the president announced how he wants democrats to proceed on reform and will congress listen? we are joined by two senators from phoenix, jon kyl the republican's number 2 leader, and from new york, robert menendez in charge of getting democrats elected to senate this year. gentlemen, it seems almost certain that the president and congressional democrats are going to try to pass comprehensive health care reform by using the parliamentary maneuver, called reconciliation, where they would need 51 votes in the senate instead of 60 votes and you are both pro vegsal vote counters and senator

menendez, do democrats have the simple majority they need in the senate to pass it. >> chris, our first hope is that we could actually get movement from our republican colleagues, as a result of the summit, and, at the summit we heard a lot of democrats, including the president embrace many of the ideas the republicans -- of the republicans and hopefully we'll get movement shortly on that and in the absence of that, you know, there may be the ability to proceed on a simple majority vote, that has been used many times by republicans in the past including for the passage of the bush tax cuts and changes to medicare or the biggest cuts in medicare, and so, the opportunity is there, and we'd like to get a bipartisan bill in the absence of that, the american people have said in the polls they want to move forward on health care reform. >> chris: to answer my question... do you have the votes or not, senator? >> i think we will get to that point and we'll have the votes. i believe we will pass health care reform this spring. >> chris: senator kyl, do

democrats have the votes to pass what they will need to pass, which will basically be the fix to the senate bill, through a simple majority? will they have 51 votes. >> it is unclear now, as bob said. they may do a lot of things in order to get the votes, some of the back room deal-making that characterized the previous legislation, the american people didn't like so much and the bigger problem will be in the house of representatives, where, they basically don't have any votes to spare, on a pure majority vote. and when they took their vote not house it was many months before the legislation was well-known to the american people. and now that it is so unpopular, with the american people, i doubt seriously, that there will be enough house members, house democrats, who will risk their careers, to vote for the legislation the second time around. >> chris: senator kyl, while under reconciliation rules you could not filibuster, you can offer a limited amendment, is that what you would try to do.

>> it's not that simple. robert byrd who wrote the rule said the application in this case would be an outrage, that should be -- must be resisted, he said. and pointed out that it's not designed for this, because there is very limited debate, only 20 hours, and the opportunities to offer amendments is essentially meaningless, when you don't have more than 20 hours to consider the bill and he said it is not dined for this purpose and has been used several times before but primarily to balance the budget, and it is a budget procedure. >> chris: but, senator kyl, forgive me -- we'll get no that in a second, but, you could offer hundreds and hundreds of amendments, each of which would require conform calls and votes and you could tie the senate up in knots if you want to. >> sure, but nobody wants to do that. and there is no debate on the amendments. see that is the point. you could offer 200 amendments, and, nobody would ever have any debate on any of them. that is not a procedure designed

to reach a good conclusion. >> chris: senator menendez? are you as quinconvinced they w try to tie the senate up with a long list of amendments. >> look, americans should know that when we hear the words about reconciliation it is simple -- simply a majority vote. and we learned that all our lives, you know, 51 out of 100 and certain budget elements, the other thing, the whole bill cannot pabsed ssed on a reconciliation, the budget amendments of the bill, a simple majority and a procedure the republicans used to pass the bush tax cuts which are two times the size of this bill. and, that were used in other health care issues, like medicare and medicaid, by republicans in the past. so i find it very interesting that our colleagues on the republican side, many who defended the use of a simple majority, 51 vote process on budget related issues, now object to it. and the reality is, is that when

you see 40% premium increases in california, and when you see people denied because of preexisting conditions, when you have lifetime caps and can't keep your child, on your insurance, you know, through college, those are the things americans want to change and those are the things we're seeking to change, in our comprehensive health care reform. >> chris: senator kyl -- >> if i could just -- >> let me pose my question, it is right on this issue. >> okay. >> chris: let's look at the record of reconciliation's history. and, first of all, it has been used 22 times, 2/3 of the times by republicans. not democrats. and has been used for big-ticket items like the reagan tax and spending cuts and children's health program, welfare reform, and the bush tax cuts. question: a lot of those go beyond simple budget measures, senator kyl. >> most of the time it has been used for simple budget matters, other cases you had large majorities and welfare, there were 78 senators, who voted for

it. and a majority of democrats. and, on the bush tax cuts, i believe the number is 12 democrats, supported it. and, those were revenue measures, tax reduction or in creases are one of the things reconciliation is designed for and the american people according tie poll oppose the use of reconciliation by a vote of 52-39. i believe it is. and, the reason is because they appreciate that the comprehensive nature of it, bob spoke to, is precisely what makes it not applicable here. it's not just a matter of adj t adjusting a number here or there. you have a 2500 page bill, that in the first ten years of full implementation, is $2.5 trillion. it affects virtually everything having to do with health care, in the country. that is a process that needs more than 20 hours of debate, and an opportunity to provide amendments that you can actually debate. >> chris: senator kyl -- >> rather than throw out. >> chris: i'm not quite sure i understand. if reconciliation was a proper

tool to use for something as expansive as welfare reform why isn't it okay to be used for the fix of the senate bill? >> first of all, i'm not sure it should have been used for welfare reform but again, 78 senators said it was okay. and you didn't need to use reconciliation to get the number of votes. >> chris: but they did. >> what -- yes, but it wasn't needed for that purpose. is my point and here it is only used because they cannot get the 60 votes that would be required. and that is why robert byrd said to use it in a situation, would be an outrage as he said in his letter, if you can't do it the usual way, then you shouldn't do it by reconciliation, just because you can't get the votes otherwise and the waicase of th welfare legislation, 78 senators were willing to do it and it wasn't necessary to do it in order to pass it. >> chris: senator menendez -- >> we already have a -- >> let me ask the question and you can answer it. you know, the senator kyl keeps

talking about public opinion, and the fact is, was evened, you are the man in charge of electing democrats to the senate in november, the polls, senator kyl's right, are overwhelmingly against comprehensive health care reform. and we have the massachusetts election, in which scott brown won, campaigning as the 41st vote against health care reform. if democrats against all of that go ahead and pass comprehensive health care reform, using reconciliation, parliamentary maneuver, don't you risk tremendous voter backlash in november? >> chris, you know, the numbers i see, i see the "washington post" poll the other day and it said 66% of americans want to us move forward on comprehensive health care reform. i see the numbers of 40% premium increases in california, and other parts of the country. i see americans and -- in new jersey -- and people in new jersey who say they cannot afford health insurance and, this bill is the biggest tax cut for health insurance that we have seen.

$500 billion goes to tax cuts to help individuals and small businesses be able to afford health insurance. and it does it in a way, by eliminating the waste, fraud and abuse and stop overpayments to insurance companies. >> chris: but, senator i'm asking -- >> overpaid -- i don't know why republicans would oppose a process that they have used in the past to accomplish exactly those goals. >> chris: asking, senator menendez i'm asking you a political question, not a policy question and the political question i'm asking is, do you think that voters will reward democrats for passing comprehensive health care reform through reconciliation when the polls indicate they oppose it. >> i think americans when they see the final product, that stops the preexisting conditions limitations, gives them the biggest tax cut for health care, in history, that gives them $500 billion to them and small businesses, if you get your insurance at work, you will see a reduction in costs, and if you

buy insurance, you are going to, for the same exact type of insurance you might have now, under the exchange we offer, a 14 to 20% decrease and all of these things, and, fully paid for, reduce our deficit by $100 billion, in the first ten years, and a trillion dollars in the next ten years, after that, and i think americans want to see that, they -- >> senator, senator -- senator menendez, please, let me get in here a little bit. senator kyl, i want to you respond to that, but let me ask it to you in the form of another question, because you were involved in one of the more interesting exchanges with the president and let's look at it right here: >> do you trust the states or trust washington? do you trust patients and doctors, making the decision or do you trust washington? >> president barack obama: any time a question is phrased as, does washington know better, i think we are kind of tipping the scales a little bit there, since we all know that everybody is angry at washington, right now. >> chris: senator kyl do you think the president and democrats ever really wanted to reach out to republicans, or do

you think they just wanted to score political points of appearing to reach out? >> i don't know what was in the president's mind but i think that little exchange actually was very valuable because the president is right. people are not very crazy about washington's solutions these days. a bill that spends about $2.5 trillion, 2500 pages, massive government takeover here. big tax increases, that is what folks are leery of and don't want washington making all of those decision. especially if they think it might interfere between them and their doctor. and that is a fundamental difference between us, and one of the reasons it is hard to reconcile our two approaches here, to give you an example, the tax cuts that my friend bob menendez talks about are really direct subsidies to the insurance companies and a deal was made with the insurance companies and we'll force everybody to buy insurance, and, then we, the federal government, will pay you, insurance companies, directly, and it's not a tax cut to people, the people never see the money, it goes directly to the insurance

companies. it is one of the things that we don't like, and, the polls by the way, most recent polls, the cnn poll, three days old, 25% nissan support this plan. and 25% say, absolutely stop working on it. and 48% say stop and start over. and you've got, nearly 3/4 of the american people saying stop or stop and -- >> gentlemen, we have less than two minutes and i want to get in a couple of quick question, senator menendez, your democratic leader, in the snoot senate, harry reid, was just able to pass a smaller jobs bill with 13 republican votes, and one of the things he said is we will not pass one, big, huge bill and we have a jobs agenda which is several smaller bills and we have a lot of bipartisan support, why not treat health care the same way? >> look, even governor schwarzenegger says, you know, starting all over again is really political speak, for -- and part san speak, for my way or the highway in essence.

basically, we have spent months on this and have incorporated a host of republican ideas and to hear my friend, jon kyl say the insurance companies will get the benefit, look they are the ones fighting us the most and with all due respect, he took their positions on a host of amendments in the finance committee basically supporting their views. democrats believe that there should be, you know, simple rules of the road, in which insurance companies can tell people who have insurance when they make claim, no, you are denied and can't stop people who have an illness, from getting insurance -- >> senator menendez... okay. >> that is the fundamental difference, you know -- >> senator menendez i have to break in here, senator i have to break in here, because we are running out of time and i want to ask senator kyl one quick questio questions, one of your colleagues, senator bunting blocked the extension of unemployment benefits last week and this week will republicans vote against funding and extend

unemployment benefits to millions of americans. >> i think the -- a temporary extension and is over $10 billion, and all senator bunning was saying it ought to be paid for and congress paid the paygo legislation which is supposed to require we find offsets or other savings, if we are going to spend money -- >> so -- >> we except the bill from it. it will pass, though, because it is a temporary extension, and, the question for the longer-term extension is, is a different issue because that is well over $100 billion. >> chris: senator kyl, senator menendez sorry for occasionally having to break in, but i wanted to get to a lot of ground and we did. thank you both and please come back, gentlemen. >> thank you, chris. >> have a good interview with junior! >> chris: thank you, up next we'll go inside the numbers on health care reform, with a house republican's top expert, congressman paul ryan. we'll be right back.

>> chris: in the health care summit this week there was one republican president obama didn't want to mess with, someone who knows as much about the issue as he does and we want to go inside the numbers of health care reform with paul ryan the g.o.p.'s top man on the house budget committee, congressman one of t the big disagreementses and the first was the question of whether or not the democratic plan would raise or lower people's health care premiums, isn't it true, in fact, that most americans would end up paying less? >> no. it's not true. the congressional budget office says they will get higher premium increases. ten to 13 percent and private act wars put the premium increases in double to triple degenerative territory and blue

cross plans are telling us you'll see a massive spike in premiums for people and that is the problem and what we are hearing, the rhetoric doesn't match the facts that are underneath the legislation. >> chris: let me ask you about that. because i want to put up for lack of anybody better, we are dealing with the congressional budget office, nonpartisan agency, and here's what they said, put the numbers on the screen: it says for those in large group policies, there would be somewhere between no change and a 3% decrease in premium costs and for those in the individual market the average premium as you said, and lamar alexander said would go up 10 to 13% and the cbo added that those folks would get better policies policies and well over half would get sub kaesidies that wo reduce their costs below the premiums that would be charged in such policies under current law. >> if you had subsidies, sure. but, let's get the point clear. we're not going to have more insurance competition under the new law, we'll have less

insurance competition, and that will increase prices and if you put more mandates on insurance as this does it federalizes the regulation of health insurance, displacing states rights it will make it more expensive and what the bill attempts to do is, yes, make health insurance much more expensive and have washington subsidize more of it, to try and limit people's out of pock costs, and that is a -- out-of-pocket costs is a deficit and cost nightmare and you'll put more costs on the backs of the taxpayers at the end of the day, let's talk about the question of cost, because that is something you brought up with the president and another big disagreement, is whether as you said the democratic package bends the cost curve of government spending up or down. as the democrats claim. and again, let's go to the cbo. which says: it would cut the deficit $132 billion, over the first ten years. >> the cbo, has the legislation -- had to score the legislation in front of them and that is

full of smoke and mirror and gimmicks and double costs medicare cost savings and double counts increased taxes for social security and increased premiums for the new class act and if you take this double counting out of the bill which the cbo cannot do because that is the way it is put in front of them it is a $460 billion deficit the first ten years and 1.4 trillion dollar deficit -- >> explain the double counting. you made a big point of that. >> two things the bill looks like it reduces the deficit because they raise taxes a half trillion dollars over ten years and cut medicare a half trillion dollars over ten years, to bay for 6 years of spending. so, ten years of tax increases and medicare cuts, with six years of spending, makes it look as if the thing reduces the deficit and then, if you double-count those tax increases, those medicare cuts, what -- >> explain the double counting, though, what do you mean. >> right, they brarnging in more money for premiums to pay for a new entitlement called the class

act and you can't count that for deficit reduction and they are make taking more money in social security taxes reserved tor social security benefits and if you don't pay the benefits you can use it but you can't count it both for paying benefits and reducing the deficit and if all the medicare cuts are improving the solvency of medicare which they say you cannot use the money to spend on the creation of another government program. so, what they are doing is raiding a half trillion dollars from medicare to pay for a new government program and you can't say it will improve medicare and in each case they are counting the numbers -- >> let me ask you and the cbo says and they they're umpire in this deal, once revenue and spending have kicked in and you talk about ten years of revenue and six years of spending, once it is kicked in the revenue will still exceed the spending and says the cbo estimates enacting the legislation would not cause a net increase in deficits -- not cause a net increase in deficits in excess of $5

billion, in any of the four ten-year periods beginning after 2019 and are projecting out 50 years and saying if it has any impact on deficits it will be only minimal. >> now there are -- i can go great into the detail here -- >> chris: please don't do that! >> okay. one of the things they are saying is we're putting the new commission in charge of medicare, and, that is not elected, unelected bureaucrats to ration care, and put the clamps down on spending and they say if the commission does its job and cuts medicare across the board it will happen and other point is the president's own chief actuary, medicare and medicaid says the opposite and is saying, this is going to increase health care costs by $222 billion, over the first ten years, and, instead of bending the proverbial cost curve down it is going up and when you look at a real-life look at how these numbers add up, and take out the smoke and mirrors, the cbo cannot take out in their analysis, it reveals these things as not being true. >> chris: another point, let me

just -- >> go ahead, i want to go on to another subject. now, malpractice, in the summit, republicans kept talking about malpractice reform, limiting doctors' liability and in fact house leader, john boehner, your leader, said medical malpractice and defensive medicine are the single biggest driver of medical inflation, and that isn't true, is it? >> it is one of the biggest drivers, i think there are other contributing factors, which are not being addressed in this bill but it is a huge contributing factor. >> chris: let me pick up on that, because, again the cbo says and let's put up the numbers, malpractice reform would reduce total u.s. health care spending by about 0.5%, that is 1/2 of 1%, $11 billion in 2009 and the fact is, drugs, and technology, and an aging population are much bigger drivers, of medical inflation, than malpractice, aren't they. >> right. and what cbo measures is the cost of government and they say

it will have $54 billion of savings, with medical liability reform, and what they cannot measure and i understand why they can't measure this, they can't measure all the defensive medicine and measure the additional tests being ordered by doctors, not because it is good health care but liability protection and don't measure all of that and there's a lot of stuff that is not being measured, that we'd appreciate from, if you actually did liability reform and what john boehner is saying is, if we get rid of the process of defensive medicine, by having real for the reform, that would give us a lot more cost savings and those are savings the cbo cannot measure. >> chris: let's turn to another subject and, certainly, there is no disagreement about the numbers which is the question of coverage, the democrats say their plan would cover 30 million in insured americans -- uninsured americans and the republican plan would cover three million and what happens to the 27 other million americans. >> there are lots of republican bills and that is one bill the

president talked about and the president referenced the bill i had with tom coburn and richard burr which coverses those 30 million people and gets us toward full coverage, in america without all of these new tax increases and without all of the medicare cuts. so, we believe we can get to the same coverage numbers without having a government takeover of health care. >> chris: how do you -- generally, how do you do that? how do you cover 27 million other people? >> we propose to do it through refundable tax credits and give people the ability to have tax credits by ending discrimination of those who don't buy health insurance from their jobs and there are better ways of doing this and there are lots of republicans' ideas that have been offered, all session long, to get at the coverage number, without massive tax increases and medicare cuts, and a government takeover of health care. the point is, we haven't -- have been frozen out of the process, chris and the only time we have had bipartisan discussion, you have seen it because it has been on t we have been frozen out of the process, all session long, and, it is quite clear to us,

that -- they aren't interested in engaging and collaborating on bipartisanship and want to jam it through. >> chris: about two minutes left and i want to get to one last area, preexisting conditions and both sides agree there needs to be reform that prevents insurance companies from keeping out people who have preexisting medical conditions, and the white house says, democrats say, hey, look, the only way to do that is by having an individual mandate that everybody get insurance so you have these big pools, otherwise people will gain the system and won't get health insurance until they get sick and will they i want to buy a policy. >> that is not the only way to do it and the republican alternative says there is a better way to do it, well funded high risk pools in the states, that make sure we target subsidies to those people who have preexisting conditions. and you accomplish two things by doing that, you make sure the person with a chronic disease gets the care they have, and need, and so they don't go bankrupt when they get sick and by subsidizing their coverage you actually lower the price of health insurance for everybody

else. unlike the democratic plan, it raises everybody's health care costs, so what we're saying is you don't have to unnecessarily raise everybody's premiums, to help those with preexisting conditions, let's target and focus our support to those with preexisting conditions to help them get affordable coverage and by doing it how we're proegposi we are lowering everybody's premiums and think it is a better idea and can do it without making everybody buy health insurance and this is a -- let me -- they are saying you have to buy what the federal government defines and we have never done that before. >> chris: and, quickly, less than 30 seconds left, speaker nancy pelosi says we are going to push the senate bill and reconciliation, the bill through -- do the democrats have a majority of votes to get the comprehensive health care plan through the house. >> they do not now have the votes from our best count. i wouldn't count her out, because she good at muscling votes and they were down 24 on cap-and-trade the night before

and passed it by 8 and the speaker is very good at making deals behind closed doors and mustling votes but now -- must muscling votes but now they don't have the votes. >> chris: thanks, as always, it is a pleasure, sir. >> thanks. >> chris: coming up our sunday panel weighs in on the health care summit. was it a show or genuine outreach and what happens next? back in a moment.

>> itsy-bitsy spider, little teeny-tiny. you can't do it. certain things, unless you do them together, it doesn't have the impact. >> chris: speaker of the how, nancy pelosi putting her spin on why the republicans' incremental approach to health care will not work and it's time for our sunday group. bill kristol of the weekly standard, mara liasson of

national public radio, former state department official, liz cheney, and, juan williams, also from national public radio and before we start, liz, how is your dad? who suffered what was called a mild heart attack this past week. >> he's doing well and thanks for asking and probably watching us this morning, i would imagine. >> chris: we'll try to do nothing to upset him. >> it wouldn't be any fun that way... but he's doing well and i think there are two lessons from his experience and he has had coronary artery disease for 32 years and lived a very full life and you can live a full life, and his has been extraordinary with coronary artery disease but you have to be vigilant and get it checked out and not ignore the signs. >> chris: let me ask you, was high following doctors' orders on diet and exercise. >> he is good about that, and it is important, when you feel something that doesn't feel right get to the hospital right away and i know that would be the message he'd want folks out there to have. >> chris: speaking of health care, mara, it sure looks like the president and the democrats

are going to go ahead and try and pass a comprehensive reform bill and use the budget maneuver called reconciliation to pass it in the senate with a simple majority, 51 votes instead of the super majority of 60. why was the idea dead after the scott brown victory in massachusetts? and now it is alive again. >> i don't think it was dead after the scott brown victory and the initial comments the president made, maybe we should go to an incremental health insurance reform package were disavowed by the white house but the idea of having to do reconciliation was always out there. and that is why they wrote it into the bill in the first place and if it wasn't in the budget they wouldn't have a chance to do it and it was to do it regular order if possible and reconciliation if necessary and it came down to that and i don't think it surprises the two parties are in exactly the same spot now as they were, before the health care summit. the democrats' only chance of passing this is to push forward, using the reconciliation process which calls for a simple

majority vote in the senate and have to pass the senate bill in the house and those will be very very, heavy lifts. but, the health care summit, if it was political theater it was also very very, clarifying, laid bare exactly where the two parties stand and their deep philosophical differences about what to do about health care, the republicans don't believe covering everybody is a goal, and believe in cutting costs and, democrats believe in covering everybody and don't think you can cut costs unless you do cut -- cover everyone. >> chris: have you been clarified, bill? >> no, but i didn't watch it, so... i have a life, you snow you compare it to the -- the beginning of the hour like a dog and pony show and that is an nut to the dog and pony show and i like the shows on the animal planet! but having said that, the president chose his usual professorial ability to say certain things and highlights certain facts, alleged facts and alexander and the republicans

did fine and the bottom lines, one house republican said friday, unless it changes the political dynamics, this bill will not pass the house. i mean, it passed barely three months ago and it was less popular, less unpopular three months ago than today and that is they're and the president gave a speech september 9th, huge health care speech, and -- to congress and around then the numbers were about even, do you approve or disapprove of his health care proposal and two months later it went negative and now, negative as it has ever been and more people see it the less they like it and unless the summit madge jelly changes the dynamic, i do not believe -- magically changes the dynamic it will not pass on the party line vote, something that is -- unpopular. >> chris: everybody will agree it was not a huge game changer, the some and so under those circumstances, why would they go ahead and try and pass it through reconciliation, the whole shebang and comprehensive plan. >> two things, it's not a game-changer but they think the democrats, a lot of problems with the health care bill, is about the process and special deals and i think the problem is more substance and the problem

is process and if so the summit would have helped, a nice discussion and president respectful to his component and in that respect they may have done a little good, around i think at the end of the day, people don't like the bill and it will not change, because of the summit. >> chris: juan? >> i think the president's goal was to try to break things down into little pieces. and to say intern -- to the american people, if you think of insurance companies you want your premiums and the rates on premiums, somehow controlled, and you do want more americans covered. you do want these costs to come down because you know what? we're on a death spiral in terms of expanding costs of medicare and medicaid and the entitlement programs and, health care has to -- and to tie it to the economy, it is a jobs creation package and the president was successful in pitting forward all of these ideas, and i think the session was quite fascinating for anybody who wanted to listen and understand more, about the argument going down and now, the republicans, i thought were also terrific. in the sense they came prepared, and did not appear to simply be obstructionist, and appeared to have strong differences about whether or not washington should be setting standards for either

insurance coverage or medical care, and, all of a sudden, they are saying, mr. president, we just don't agree with the way you are going about it and i thought it was is a good session and, now, the key point is, the president in the aftermath says, i can sell it. i can sell this to the american people. and not only that, we should get it done before i sell it to the american people. that is the challenge... >> chris: maybe i have been out of touch. for the last six weeks. but i... the way i thought the last six weeks played out was they had the huge victory, with scott brown in massachusetts and all of the polls indicated that people were growing in their opposition to the bill, the democrats and the president were, let's focus on job one which is jobs and the economy, and, we weren't going to go down this road, and now, we are back for the next month, because their saying they'll get it done because now and the end of march. and the democrats again are talk about comprehensive reform, through reconciliation, what happened. >> you know, i think it is really supreme arrogance, frankly. i mean, you have a situation here where it is absolutely

clear the american people don't support the bill, it is absolutely clear they don't support ramming it through using reconciliation and the republicans, i agree with juan, showed up at the summit and laid out clearly the concerns about the costs of the bill and substance of the bill and yet, still, the white house is saying, we're going to push it through. speaker pelosi this morning is out there saying that go ahead and vote for this, even if it destroys your career. which it will, because the american people do not support it. so, it is fascinating as a political exercising but is dangerous as an xer signs democracy. -- and exercise in democracy. >> i was on a panel with two democratic strategists and they honestly believe we'll be worse off doing nothing than passing the legislation and thank they are probably wrong -- >> politically -- >> and, they think they need to pass the legislation. and they have been invested so much in it and think fit passes they can try and repair the damage to the american public and if it doesn't pass it goes down as a horrible defeat and they get the worst of both

worlds and i don't agree with that, if i were the president i'd say, walk away and, focus on jobs and that is what they believe and that is what why -- >> mara. >> i disagree and i think for democrats, if they don't pass it, if they give up, why... they have proven without a doubt they can't govern and that is what it says, number within priority, 14 months -- >> that is what he's saying -- >> and i think they are right. and passing the bill is not going to be a political winner. i mean, either way, it is pretty grim. but i think, it is marginally worse if they go home with nothing. they show they cannot govern effectively. why are they -- why are they in the situation in the first place because for a whole year with 60 votes, they couldn't pass their president's number one domestic priority and that is a stunning fact and why they are here now. and i don't believe the republican majority of any size would have let their president languish like that. >> chris: everybody gets ten seconds will it pass congress or

not. >> yes. and in fact the president's argument that this is the generation's big struggle and we'll get something done, what you elect meade for will carry the day with -- elected me for will carry the day. >> i don't think it will pass and the political damage done to the administration and the democrats in congress because of their willingness to push throughout the, regardless of the american people's view will be something they feel next november. >> chris: mara. >> i think they will not get the votes. >> chris: bill. >> not going to pass. >> chris: you have been saying that all along they weren't going to pass it. so... all right, we have to take a break and when we come back, politics inside the white house from the chief of staff to the sudden departure of the social secretary. our panel tells us whether the no-drama obama team is showing cracks. you won't want to miss it. toyota has done a lot of search and a lot of work,

and we've been open 24 hours a day -- 7 days a week. and we've made a tremendous amount of progress. you know, safety and reliability is top priority. i mean i got a family, too. i got a mother, a grandmother, kids, and we all drive in these cars. i am 100% confident in the product. [ male announcer ] we're grateful to technicians like ronny who are helping us provide you with safe and reliable vehicles. for more information, please visit toyota.com.

>> she's not been asked to leave, she's decided it is time to go back to doing other things that she loves. >> chris: press secretary robert gibbs explaining why the first family's social secretary, and close friend from their chicago days is suddenly stepping down and we're back now with the panel. we are talking of course about desiree rogers, who was surprisingly high profile, for a member of the white house staff. bragging about the obama brand and showing up at new york fashion shows and of course she is best known for the obama's first state dinner in november, when the infamous salahis crashed the party and she failed to put any of her staff at the white house gates and mara, despite robert gibbs a denial was her goose cooked at this point. >> i think she made a fatal mistake but just, i think, it

should be said that what desiree rogers and the first lady did, with the white house and the social events and bringing american culture into the white house and connecting the white house with the people was really extraordinary and great and should be commended for that and it has been an exciting year, for them with all of the events they've had at the white house and she did all of those parts of her social secretary job really, really well and now, she did one thing really poorly and it cost her her job, in large part. >> chris: let me ask you about that, because you hear in all of the accounts, that the knives were out for her, in the west wing, beyond just this one event. >> she has a very high profile, definitely had a high profile. generally, social secretaries, should be, you know, in the background, never, as in the front as this firsts lady and she was an unusual pick in the first place, she was a big corporate executive and powerhouse on the chicago scene before she came but i think it is the -- if the salahi incident

wouldn't have happened the knives could have been out but wouldn't have made any difference. >> chris: what washington is really buzzing about this is future of white house chief of staff rahm emanuel, with the failure of health care reform and cap-and-trade so far, some democrats are calling for his head, but washington poet columnist dana build milbank blamed everyone else including the president, obama's first year fell apart in large part because he didn't follow his chief of staff's advice on crucial matters. arguably, rahm emanuel is the only person keeping obama from becoming jimmy carter and there was this about the president's, what was scenes unproductive friendship to china, jared, gibbs and axelrod went along as courtiers and rahm emanuel struggled to keep alive the health care bill, he didn't want in the first place, it seems they are throwing everyone including the president under the bus, the rahm emanuel camp

is throwing everyone, including the president under the bus. >> that is not what you see when a presidency is viewed as successful but it is typical in washington when people think there is failure going on and things are not going well you see leaks like this. at the end of -- at the end of the day it comes back to the president and whether or not he'll tolerate this and rahm emanuel said he didn't talk to millbanks, a typical washington play he had his friends or associates do it and the question will be whether there will be repercussion and the president so far held nobody accountable except the social secretary. including in the intelligence arena and will be interesting to watch what happens. >> chris: juan, and i say this respectfully, you and i have been in this town a long time, can you remember a white house chief of staff either directly or indirectly blaming the presidents for the problems rather than taking responsibility himself? >> no, typically, what happens is this word goes out it may be time for the chief of staff to move on. >> chris: exactly. >> but not coming from -- the

difference here is rahm emanuel is a hard ball political player. and, his attitude towards the health care reform bill, towards cap-and-trade, and these other other things that have not come to pass, don't worry about public opinion, we have a democratic majority on the hill and we'll focus on the majority and focus on the process, and we will get it done. and the failure on health care as we have discussed in the previous panel is, the american people aren't eating the dog food and, if that is the case, you have to go out and sell and you have to do it effectively and the idea that he is now coming back and says, it wasn't my fatal, and everybody else is to blame, is pathetic. >> i think rahm emanuel set the template for the presidency, he said a couple days after the election, you never want a serious crisis to go to waste and that was his dime store machiavellian cleverness,nd a huge financial crisis and the country in disarray and we can jam through everything we wanted

to for this last 20 years and the country thinks we should fix the financial crisis first and he said, no, we can do health care and cap-and-trade and he was touting his own cleverness and to be fair to nancy pelosi, the reason she wants to jam the bill through is because she believes in it and we should look like a social democracy and doesn't care if they lose their seats in the house, and don't underestimate the ideological points from nancy pelosi and waxman and president obama himself and, rahm emanuel is a smart, tough politician and thought it was clever to go for the big bag and, now he's spinning the press i was always nervous about all of the big liberal plans and really wanted a more incremental approach and that is not what he said at the beginning. >> chris: i wanted to follow-up on that. he was the guy that was brought in by the president because he had the other chicagoans and was the inside guy and can he

successfully avoid responsibility for the legislative failures? >> no, of course not, i mean, everybody in there will accept responsibility, don't forget in the beginning of the administration we all thought, i certainly thought, wow he's put together a legislative machine. look at all the people he's brought from the capitol hill and this is a white house, geared and designed to pass legislation. through congress and which, rahm emanuel might have believed in a more incremental approach on health care but in general, he did believe in taking the opportunity that they felt they had, with a short window of opportunity and knew they didn't have more than a year to get as much done as possible. >> chris: we talk about how smart he is but -- >> this is not a story that is good for rahm emanuel and a story he directed to be written. >> chris: but you have to figure -- >> his friends talked to dana millbank. >> chris: that what is he's saying -- >> but it all added add up to something that can only hurt him, i mean, it paints him as an extreme disloyalist.

>> it also -- this president dine office, having run a masterful campaign and with the reputation of being' manager and leader and i think we have seen time and time again, that those same set of skills it took to run a campaign are not translating. and it has been more difficult to actually lead and govern. and you start see leaks, leaks like this like. >> chris: as for one of us who spends the most time in the white house, mara do you think rahm emanuel is in trouble in the west wing. >> i think he's talked about leaving for quite a while. now, in terms of trouble, like would he be fired by the president? i haven't heard that this week. >> i think the president values loyalty, absolutely and so, he's going to be upset that the story is out there. everybody in town is talking about the story, and, the suggestion is that the chicago cabal and the hard-knuckle kind of chicago political attitude rahm emanuel brought to the table may have to give away and if to deal with people and have a summit and go to the american people more effectively, the

only way democrats can win midterm and if you remember, the reason that rahm had trouble in the clinton administration was, that he leaves a lot of dead bodies behind him and doesn't make friends, he makes enemies an delights in it and at some point, that is going to come back to bite you. >> chris: let me ask you, just to sum it up, bill, we always heard about the president, no drama obama team. is that beginning to fray. >> yes, great to have drama in the white house and rahm emanuel didn't get along with the white house lawyer, the democratic lawyer got him fired and no drama was already fraying and let's hope it frays more to talk about disarray in the obama white house and democrats in the house hating democrats in the senate, it is great! >> chris: i'm glad you are happy and we'll talk about it more, thanks, see you next week and check out the latest edition of panel-plus, where our group continues the discussion, and we will on this subject, on our web site, foxnews.com --

foxnewssunday.com and we'll post the video before noon eastern time and tell us what you think, by sending your comments to foxnewssunday.com and up next a special power player of the week. come on, guys, sack those unwanted pounds. i'm lawrence taylor. i lost 35 pounds on nutrisystem. give nutrisystem for men a try.

losing weight has never been easier. i lost 22 pounds. trust me, you will lose weight. get back in the game with nutrisystem for men. order now and you can get two weeks of meals free. that's 70 meals absolutely free, plus the all-new nutrisystem jumpstart kit, designed to put you on the fast track to awesome weight loss. hey, get back in the game like i did. i did...go...all...the...way, whoop! i lost 50 pounds with nutrisystem for men. get off your butt and try it. nutrisystem worked for me, and it can work for you, too. order now and you can get two weeks of meals free, plus the all-new nutrisystem jumpstart kit, designed to put you on the fast track to awesome weight loss. call or click now. don't make me come looking for you.

>> when you are successful. it's so macho, you know, dale earnhardt,, jr. describing the thrill of nascar. >> and let's go racing, boy. >> a sport that brought his family tremendous high ap lows. >> seven time nascar's most popular driver you've been voted. what does it mean to you. >> i followed in my father's footsteps coming into racing and i give him a lot of credit as far as our-- my popularity, obviously. i was popular before i ever did anything on the race track. >> his father was a lend lend

his aggressive style earned him the name, the intimidator. until he died in a crash in the last lap of the daytona 500. we got to meet dale, jr. to promote the national guard's youth challenge program. >> the two stars are the cadets themselves. i don't give advice, i listen. >> it's a 17 month course that gives high school drop-outs a second chance to earn a diploma. more than 90,000 teens completed the program. >> a lot of kids problems are not of their doing, because of environment they're in or decision that someone before them made. >> but we also want today discuss his life. >> let me ask you a question i get asked a lot. is it a blessing or burden to be dale earnhardt's kid. >> the blessing far outweigh

the burdens. it's hard following in those footsteps and living up to expectations, but i feel very lucky. >> lucky or good. dale, jr. started fast winning 18 races including his own daytona 500 in 2004. >> dale earnhardt, jr. wins the daytona 500. >> man, taking the world by storm and i'm going to be on top of this sport for years and years, just watch out. but the last few years have been tough. just one win in the last 136 races. you know, it's hard to explain slumps to people. >> his second place finish this year at daytona gave him and his legion of fans reason to hope. >> i feel like we're on the upsweng for sure. my cars are prepared better and more comfortable to me this year. >> what are his goals now? >> basically racing now because it's been work ago day job and i want to win a championship and off the track i hope to have children one day. >> would you earn them dale

earnhardt the thid,-- third. >>, jr. are okay, i'm not sure i'd want to put him in the position to follow both of us. >> in the meantime he wants to enjoy what he calls the nascar fraternity. >> you're one of 43 guys out of this entire country that get to show up and do this each week at the top level of motor sports in america. >> earnhardt is on the same racing team with some of nascar's leaders, like jimmie johnson and this year, they are shaking up, jr.'s number 88 crew to give him more support. now, this program note, next week we'll talk exclusively with former grn mitt romney about his new book and new status as the early g.o.p. presidential front runner. and that's it for today. have a great week and we'll see you next fox news sunday.