spending are also being contemplated? and what impact will it have on efforts here in washington to reduce spending where republicans pushed through $61 billion in cuts early saturday morning. is that sustainable? is there any way the senate is going to go along? if not, does that mean the government will have to shut down? congressman paul ryan, the head of the budget committee, is back home this morning in wisconsin. you were one of the engineers of these cuts, congressman. but i can't find anyone who believes the senate is going to go along with cuts this deep. so, what happens now? >> well, i think you're right. i don't think the senate will pass this cut. we will have to negotiate. look, we're not looking for a government shutdown. but at the same time, we're also not looking at rubber stamping these really high elevated spending levels that congress blew through the joint two years ago. they increased spending by 24% on domestic and discretionary two years ago.

84% when you add the stimulus. they want to keep that status quo locked in place. we want real spending cuts. we don't want to accept these extremely high levels of spending while we negotiate how to continue funding the government. >> schieffer: how then, senator... i mean, congressman, give me the starting point. where do you think would be a good place to start talking about how to get together with the senate on something more realistic? >> well, our goal is to bring spending back down to pre-bailout, pre-stimulus spending levels-- 2008 levels. my guess is we'll probably have some short-term extensions while we negotiate these things with spending cuts. we don't want to accept these extremely high elevated levels, and so we're going to have to start negotiating on these things, not just with the senate but also with the president as well. i'm not going to go through negotiating for the media, with all due respect, but we are not going to accept these extremely high levels of spending. we're not looking for a government shutdown. i think we'll have some negotiations with short term extensions with spending cuts in the interim is my guess. >> schieffer: you got these big demonstrations going on.

this is your home state, wisconsin, where i think 70,000 people turned out yesterday. there are also reports that this could spread to at least nine other states where similar proposals are being talked about among state governments. is madison, wisconsin, congressman, the tunisia of american politics now? are we going to see the kinds of demonstrations, not the kinds of demonstrations we saw and are seeing across the arab part of the world, but... >> no, no. >> schieffer: is this something that is going to spread here? >> well, look, this is an example of the kinds of fiscal and budget pressures all levels of government are experiencing. so, yes, i think in ohio, you already have this kind of activity going on right now. we have a proud tradition in wisconsin of people going out on the streets and expressing themselves. that's a good thing. but we have a huge budget shortfall here in madison. what our governor is trying to address this in a structural way

with modest shared sacrifice among public employees and to give local governments the tools to do the same. these are the hinges that governors all around the states are looking at. again, it just shows the point-- all levels of government have been making empty promises to people. these governors are telling people the truth. we need to do the same thing in washington. it just goes to show that we can't keep borrowing, can't keep spending and making empty promises to people. we have to tell the truth. we have to fix these problems. the sooner we do this, the better off everybody is going to be. >> schieffer: all right. you're a ranking democrat on the budget committee chris van hollen is in the studio with us. how do you, congressman, gauge this... the chances right now for a government shutdown? congressman ryan says they don't want one, but it looks like the two sides are awfully far apart to me. >> i hope they won't push it to that. look, everybody agrees we need to get the deficit under control, and that spending cuts has to be a big part ever of it. that's why the president's budget includes $400 billion in cuts to domestic discretionary

spending. the question we've posed is, are you going to be reckless about this? or are you going to be responsible about this? and the bipartisan commission on fiscal responsibility specifically warned against deep, immediate cuts in the year 2011. why? because it would hurt a fragile economy and put people out of work. in fact, there are estimates that about 800,000 americans would lose their jobs if you do this in a reckless manner. the speaker of the house the other day, when he was posed the question about some people who would lose their jobs, said "so be it." we think that's the wrong approach to this. we think we need to get the economy fully in gear, put together a plan now for cuts. and frankly, we need to look at the revenue piece. we need to close some of the tax loopholes for special interests, like the oil companies-- $40 billion worth of loopholes. i hope our republican friends will join us in closing some of those. >> schieffer: let me ask you about that number, because these

groups that are aligned with the white house put out a press release yesterday saying that 800,000 jobs might be lost if these cuts go through. do you take that as a serious figure, or is that a little bit overdrawn? >> i do take it as a serious figure. if you just look at the cuts to some of the investments that would be made in some of the infrastructure programs, you know-- state water revolving funds, a lot of the other transportation programs-- you're talking about cuts in construction areas at a time when you've got 20% unemployment in that sector. look, i don't think anybody knows exactly what number it would be. but i can assure one thing. this will not create one job. and in fact, it will cost jobs. again, when the speaker of the house was confronted with that fact, his response was quite callous. it was "so be it.' our view is put together a plan now for serious deficit reduction, including serious

spending cuts, but don't risk the fragile recovery. and the bipartisan commission had the same advice. don't do something irresponsible and reckless now. >> schieffer: let's ask chairman ryan. are you in the "so be it" crowd, and do you really think that if these cuts go through, it would cost 800,000 jobs? >> first of all, as a member of the bipartisan commission that point chris just made is definitely in dispute. the president does not cut $400 billion in spending. his plan locks in the high spending levels we have. his plan disavows the commission's recommendations. his plan spends about $400 billion more in discretionary spending than the commission recommended. this is the same economic methodology that was used to say that if we pass the stimulus bill, we would keep unemployment from hitting 8%. it went up to about 10%. so the problem is these high deficits today mean high tax increases and interest rate increases tomorrow. high deficits, uncontrolled debt, means job creation goes away today. if you actually get this deficit and debt under control, you can

help jobs today. our goal is to cut spending and grow the economy and get prosperity in a lasting way back in place in america taxing, borrow and spending which has been going on for a long time if it worked we wouldn't have these economic problems we have today. it won't work. the president is asking for much more spending than even the commission recommends. we know that if we keep going down this same path of borrowing and spending more money and taxing, it won't produce new results because we've already seen what it does. the president's proposing a $1.6 trillion tax increase. he's proposing $8.7 trillion in new spending. he's proposing to add $13 trillion to our new debt. he is not even meeting the test that chris van hollen is saying which is we need to put a plan in place. and the president doesn't do that. he's failed to lead on these issues. we intend to pick up where he left off and lead. and actually show the country a path to prosperity, a path to job creation, a path to get our budget and debt and deficit

under control, because the sooner we do that, the better off everybody is going to be. seniors, people looking for work, and the better we can get this economy growing. that's exactly what we intend on doing. >> well, it's interesting to see, here, paul talk about the fact that the president didn't embrace more of the commission's recommendations as part of this budget. all three of the house republicans on the bipartisan commission voted against the commission recommendations. when paul talks about the revenue components in the president's bill, it includes efforts to shut down taxpayer subsidies to oil companies. it also says that we can no longer afford to provide the folks at the very top, the top 2% of americans, with the big tax cuts. it says for them, we're going to take those tax rates down to the same level they were during the clinton administration, when we had unprecedented job growth and economic growth. so that's about a trillion dollars of what paul is talking about is the president's follow- through on the commitment to say our kids are no longer going to pay the bill for tax cuts for the folks at the very top.

now, the president's budget reduces the deficit in a steady manner, and in fact he gets to the point where we're no longer adding to the debt faster than plans that paul has put on the table and the republicans have put on the table. >> schieffer: congressman, let me ask you this. how can you really say that the president is serious about this when his budget does not mention social security or medicare, the two biggest items in the budget? aren't you going to... don't democrats are going to have to come to the table and say we're really ready to talk about serious restructuring of those two programs, if you're going to in fact get anything done? >> let's take each of those separately. social security, we're willing and ready to come to the table with republicans, as tip o'neill and ronald reagan did. but to strengthen social security. social security is not a driver of these deficits and debt. we're not going to balance the budget on the backs of social security beneficiaries.

it is solvent 100% until the year 2037. after that, you've got about a 25% gap. yes, we need to work together to close it, but we don't balance the budget now. medicare, i want to say something because the health care reform bill we just passed included significant medicare reform. for example, we've reduced the overpayments to medicare advantage. what was the response of our republican colleagues? they ran ads against democratic members of congress in districts around the country saying that they were cutting medicare. it was "medi-scare" ads. now, they're saying president obama, just after we ran these ads for some of the medicare reforms, you guys did in health care reform why don't you put more on the table. yes, we should come together to talk about these things but what just happened in the last election was a clear indication that they're not serious. >> schieffer: congressman ryan? >> look, we have a huge fiscal problem. primarily being driven by our entitlements. presidents are elected to lead. they're elected to see big

problems on the horizon and stop them from getting out of control. this president has punted in the words of "the washington post." he chose not to lead. in we wait for the other party to go first to propose reforms, nothing will ever get done. that's the problem we've had in washington all along. we are going to lead. where the president has fallen, we're going to lead. we're going to propose solutions to these problems to the drivers of our debt because the sooner we do that, the better off everybody will be. the better off these programs themselves will be made more solvent and our economy can grow today. so, look, the president punted on these issues. he seems to be complicit with an out of control debt because that's what his budget produces, and we just don't see it that way. we are going to offer the country a choice, an alternative, a different vision. one of a debt free nation. one of economic growth and prosperity today by living within our means, by getting these programs under control. and i would simply say if you keep kicking the can down, the road it will be pain and austerity for everybody. we don't have much more road to keep kicking the can down the road. we have to get serious about

this. we're going to lead and propose serious solutions to this country's problems so we can get growing again. >> schieffer: gentlemen, i want to thank both of you for an interesting discussion this morning. but i don't see how you're very close at all to resolving this problem. we'll all be watching. >> paul and i agree on more than you might think on some of these issues. >> schieffer: i hope we see that. we'll be back in one minute with the latest from across the middle east.

>> schieffer: and we turn now to the other big story, the latest from the middle east. protests continued in yemen today, where shots were fired as protestors turned out for the ninth straight day. there were also demonstrations in oman, kuwait, algeria. and djibouti. the most serious trouble has apparently been in bengazi, libya, where the government of moammar qaddafi opened fire on protestors.

at least 90 were killed in libya saturday, bringing the death toll to at least 173 there. in bahrain, across the persian gulf from iran and where the u.s. sixth fleet is headquartered, it's been calm since the government pulled back its forces. our allen pizzey is there. what is the latest? >> bob, pearl square is now packed with people. they've got banners and signs and bahraini flags everywhere. a lot of loud speakers. people up on the stage. basically, this situation here in bahrain has turned from street confrontation to political haggling. the crown prince representing the government have said, "look, we'll talk to everybody. we just want peace and to heal all the wounds and get on with things." the opposition says they'll talk but talks are not going on right now. people aren't sitting face to face across the table because the opposition's problem is they have to decide what can they negotiate away on behalf of people who are out there facing tear gas and bullets and are still actually quite angry. >> schieffer: at least it sounds like things are a little better than they were a couple of days ago.

the worst situation now today in libya, i take it. >> indeed, libya looks like the worst of it. it looks like it will get even worse than it is now. independent reporting, of course, is almost impossible from there. they don't allow journalists in. but again, you can't shut down the social networking, and people are getting information out. we're seeing horrific video of the police and military opening up on protestors. it started in ben ghazi in the east. that's always been a place that has been kept down in poverty because the people there are not qaddafi packers. we're hearing reports that it has spread to tobruk. there were some reports too that some people in some members of the military in security forces in ben ghazi said "we're not going to do this." they brought in outside mercenaries and using fairly heavy weaponry. qaddafi is as brutal and ruthless as he is flamboyant, bob. he won't step back as easily as the bahrainis did or mubarak, for example. he's in charge and has nowhere

to go but probably the gallows if this goes wrong. i think we'll see a lot of bloodshed there except we can't get there to see it all. >> schieffer: allen pizzey, who has been covering that part of the world for a long, long time. thank you so much. with me here in the studio now is david sanger the chief washington correspondent for "the new york times" who has been covering that part of the world and writing about it for a long, long time too. maybe not as long as allen. david, he made an interesting point, allen did here, that qaddafi probably goes to the gallows if he doesn't survive this. he's been longer than mubarak, i guess, hasn't he? >> he has. he's been there more than 40 years. we're approaching, you know, sort of castro records with mr. qaddafi. there are two categories here, bob, of countries that are facing this. there are american adversaries, where washington is perfectly happy to sort of stand back and watch this unfold-- iran, syria,

and qaddafi's libya, even though he has made some motions toward the west. then, there are a lot of close american friends-- bahrain, and you saw the president on the phone with the king on friday night. and his national security aide tom donlan talk to go the crown prince yesterday. that was all about trying to get them to make the changes that president mubarak never made. and these are not welcome phone calls in these countries, but bahrain is a place of huge interest. it's not only where the fleet is, it's also where the whole u.s. effort to contain iran is centered from. i mean, that is how the u.s. patrols the gulf. >> schieffer: i guess what they're trying to work out there and what the demonstrators are calling for, did they want the king to leave, or are they pushing for some sort of constitutional monarchy, as we have in great britain, for example? >> if you listen to the cheers from the roundabout, a lot of

them have been for the king to leave. but this is a different dynamic than in egypt. egypt was a fairly unitary society, had a lot of grievances against... particularly against president mubarak. in bahrain's case, there is the shia majority that is ruled by a sunni minority. and so the army has a very different calculation here. they know that, if the king leaves, the shia take over. this army is out. and so that's why you saw, i think, this incredible outpouring of violence, which only got called off by the king. now, whether they turn this on and turn it off periodically, you know, that could undercut the way they do the negotiations. >> schieffer: if the king was out and... what would happen? what would happen to u.s. interests there? would the fifth fleet have to leave? would they be ordered out? >> it's hard to know how this would work out.

of course, the fifth fleet is an enormous employer there. the biggest concern is saudi arabia, their next door neighbor. so far you have not seen this happen in saudi arabia. remember, it's the saudis who called in to president obama during egyptian crisis and said, "let president mubarak do whatever he needs to do, including shooting people on the streets," because losing the region would be just too difficult. in bahrain, they've got even stronger interests because it's right across the causeway. you have to think that their advice to the bahraini king is the same. so the saudis right now are very unhappy with washington, because they believe that president obama has just let this go on. president obama says "it's not my fight." >> schieffer: we really have no particular interest of note in libya, though, with qaddafi. i guess the good news is that qaddafi was building a nuclear weapon, and he turned over all his nuclear technology. >> that's right. he was trying. he didn't get very far. he turned it over in 2003 right after the american invasion of iraq. and at the same time, he tried to settle the pan am 103 issue,

which was of course believed to be libyan led. but that said, there's no love lost between washington and colonel qaddafi. and if he didn't survive this, i don't think he would see a lot of mourning going on in the state department or the white house. >> schieffer: about 20 seconds left. do you see these demonstrations across the region continuing, david? >> you know, bob, the c.i.a. missed this a month ago when they thought that tunisia wouldn't spread to egypt. i think now all of the common wisdom is the reverse. that this could keep on going. we don't know where it stops. the problem for the united states right now is there isn't very much leverage on this. not having encouraged a whole lot of reform before, it's a little bit too late to bring about reform in many of these countries today. >> schieffer: david sanger of "the new york times," thank so of, david. i'll be back with some final thoughts in just a second.

>> schieffer: finally today, reporters who went to president obama's news conference last week with the intention of writing down whatever news he had come to announce didn't have to worry about running out of space in their notebooks. there was so little news, they'll have plenty of room to write in the same notebooks at his next gathering. no news, but there was a moment of truth. the president said there would be a certain amount of posturing before the two sides really got serious about finding common ground on cutting government spending.

well, house republicans logged a full week on the posture clock. and by the pre-dawn hours of saturday morning, had rammed through $61 billion worth of spending cuts that no one, including them, believes the senate will ever approve. now, they're off for another vacation. this one to celebrate presidents' day, which reminds me-- who but congress gets a full week off for presidents' day? but back to the point. the white house will punch its own posture clock now. using the week congress is off to warn of dire consequences ahead if compromise can't be found and the government has to shut down march 4. here is the really scary part. once the vacation break is over, there will be only four days or so to work out a compromise to keep the government running. can they do it? let's hope so. but it is a long way to go with a short time to get there. which allows me to do my own posturing. what if we paid congress only for the days members actually spent on the job here in washington?

we might save a bundle on that one. back in a minute.

>> schieffer: and that's it for today. be sure to join us next week. we'll have an exclusive interview with new jersey's republican governor chris christie. thanks for watching. see you then. captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org ,,,,,,,,,,

narrator: do you make frequent trips to the bathroom? suffer from urgency? hesitancy? do you get up more than once a night? can you even sit through a movie? or, worse, have a diminished sex drive? if so, chances are you have an enlarged prostate.

...every other man now watching this show will someday face the same painful problems. until now, you had three choices... take expensive drugs with potentially serious side effects, face painful and bloody surgery, or try to live with the pain and embarrassment. introducing prosvent, the all-natural solution so good it's guaranteed to give you relief in less than 30 days. i experienced within the first two to three days a significant change. not having to worry about running to a bathroom is unbelievable. when i started taking the product, and i wasn't getting up at night, it was great. i mean, the rest you get at night was great. i didn't have to get up. it just a little pill i take, and it makes a difference. i'm not ruled by going to the bathroom, and i don't think i have to worry about those things again. i hadn't slept through an entire night...