>> production assistance for "inside washington" was provided by allbritton communications and "politico," reporting on the legislative, executive, and political arena. >> i am announcing my presidency pretende president of the edits -- i am announcing my candidacy for president of the united states >> this week on "inside washington," newt gingrich says makes it official. who is next? get ready for another big brawl on capitol hill. >> without significant spending cuts and changes in the way we spend the american people's money, there will be no increase and the debt limit. >> medicare is going broke. >> how did osama bin laden

managed to hide out in plain sight a stone's throw from pakistan's west point? >> complicity or incompetence -- absurd. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> the republican field is beginning to take shape. this week, a former house speaker newt gingrich announced with a tweet that he is running for the republican presidential nomination. that is it the first, tweeting your nomination. >> there was a much better american future ahead, with more jobs, more prosperity, greater independent living, a country that is decentralized under the 10th amendment, with power once again back with the american people and away from the

washington bureaucracy. >> two questions come first for mark shields. ken newt gingrich with the republican presidential nomination? and can he beat barack obama? >> he could win at the republican nomination, and i don't think he can beat barack obama. it was set ap -- it was said a british politician, "truth was to him a second home. he lived there occasionally." he constantly makes statements that approver wrong -- that are proved wrong and he is at an awkward position of having to qualify. >> charles? >> unlike politicians -- unlike other politicians, who only speak truth in their first and second homes. he has a long shot for the nomination and he has a lot of baggage. as a presidential candidate, he

would also be a long shot, a general election. >> evan? >> newt is a wonderful political figure in many ways, useful gadfly, but he thinks he is charles de gaulle, and he is not. >> nina? >> baggage? they would not let him on a plane. the press has been generally kind to him in the sense that they don't discuss this i did tell a lot, but that cannot stay that way. i don't see -- he is an interesting intellectual conservative, but i don't see that becoming the focus of our attention. >> in a sense, he is a guy who is great at other positions, great talents. he has a font of ideas. good leader, made a lot of mistakes as republican leader, but he brought them out of the wilderness and past welfare reform with the democratic

administration in 1996. he accomplished a lot, but he is not a president. he would be a good cabinet member, or sort of a think tank writer. i think he is in the wrong place. >> christianity is a faith of the her forgiveness and redemption, but can he get past iowa voters? >> we know his personal career. he twice had affairs while married to wives 1 and 2 with wives 2 and 3. to explain this, he went on the christian broadcasting network and said the following -- "there is no question that at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately i felt about the country, that i worked too hard and things happened at that were not appropriate." i heard "the devil made me do

it," but the patriotism defense -- [laughter] is new and refreshing, as charles said, a think tank idea, and so dishonest. >> leaving your wife while she has breast cancer is also going to be difficult to explain. >> that is why i mentioned iowa, where a large percentage of voters are evangelical. former massachusetts gov. mitt romney it is going to be forced to defend it and attack simultaneously the massachusetts health care plan, and acted on his watch as governor, and attack the president's healthcare plan. >> a lot of pundits say i should stand up and say this whole thing was a mistake. there is only one problem with that -- it would be honest. i did what i thought was right for the people of my stay. >> i agree with mitt romney, who recently said he is proud of what he accomplished on health care. >> that is a preview of what

you're going to hear if he gets the nomination. can he finesse this? >> no. >> fatal flaw? >> no, but it is a millstone around his neck. if he did not have this, he would be to prohibit a front runner. republicans often annoyed one guy early -- anoint one guy early. he would be the guy, the nominee. this is the reason we have a race. he proposed a plan in "usa today" this week which i think was quite reasonable, and he had a chart showing the defense between his plan and obamacare. what he should have said is, "i it did not work, i would not do it again." that is not how he puts it, and there was no other way around it, i think. >> no good deeds unpunished.

>> he has a bigger problem. he sounds dishonest when he is being honest. there is something about him that just sounds funny, even when he is trying to be non- phony. he sounds like he is pandering even as he does that. >> the other thing is that because he has changed on so many other positions -- abortion, civil unions, things like that -- because he changed his position on those, he can i just do what "the wall street journal" editorial-page wanted to do, which was apologize. he made actually an extremely articulate argument for why a mandate is necessary -- is the only way to keep the system: date for itself -- whole and pay for itself. >> marc, what you think? >> the massachusetts health-care

plans the is the signature achievement of his life. he cannot walk away from it, the same way that tim pawlenty could walk away from his cap-and-trade position, which he has done, rather effectively. the problem with that romney on this one is we will find out if he has a glass jaw, can he take a punch. the problem is not one of character as much as it mitt romney is a bad deal maker. -- iw s a dealmaker. he is a salesman. what is it going to take? that is his position. "let me talk to myself manager." a little change on abortion, a little change on gay-rights -- >> -- but > >> that used to make you a successful politician at one time. >> i would say, again, all politicians and do what our

colleague is saying is peculiar to mitt romney. they attack in a compromise -- the attack and the compromises. health care is incredibly complex, we tried a plan that looked reasonable. in the real world, things worked out in a different way, and thus we ought to go in a different way. that is an easy way to put it and i don't know why he doesn't. >> if we followed the traditional model in this town, every side retreats to the four corners of the room and screams at one another. while we're doing that, the meter is running. >> that is a freshman republican congressman. in a campaign advertisement last year, he said, "i will honor the greatest generation by always protecting social security and medicare." he came to washington and was confronted by political reality, and is one of a 42 republican house members who wrote a letter to obama last week urging

democrats to abandon "mediscare" tactics. can you say something to ease his pain? >> no, because they will demagogue this all the way. all this attention on "mediscare" is forcing the country to pay attention to what a big problem is, and you cannot demigod your way through it -- demagogue your way through it. even though it is chaotic and not fair and the political system will look awful, it does call attention to the scale of the problem and get people eventually, i hope, to deal with that. >> this is a case of what goes around comes around. this freshman class got elected with a lot of "mediscare" and then they went home and found that the democrats are doing the same thing to them and they were horrified. i am not as confident as evan that this will focus people's attention on the fact that you. have to pay for what.

>> ultimately. >> but will i live to see it? >> steny hoyer says that they seem to be embedded in their support for medicare overhaul. is that true, charles? >> it is, but i want to make a comment on our weekly republican hypocrisy segment about that congressmen. it is consistent tuesday that he ran to preserve medicare and social security, and that he is adopting the ryan plan because that is the only way we are going to have social cigarette or medicare in the future. if democrats are going to argue that staying with the current system the way to preserve it, that is ridiculous. anybody who looks at the numbers knows that both of them have to be changed in a fundamental way. let's return to steny hoyer. i was distracted with the republican -- >> but he is in a trap. it gives steny the opportunity

to say abandoning the overall -- >> now, there was no abandonment of the plan. what are they i think about is that this is going into effect in 10 years. i would argue that you could try the president's approach on medicare, essentially rationing, between now and 2012. if it works, you can not have the republican plan. but these are not exclusive alternatives. you can try them both. >> the ryan plan will never become law. let's understand the political reality of the situation. it is comparable to the 1993 energy vote in house of representatives, where bill clinton assured the democrats, "you walk the plank and a vote for this, and i will be with you in the foxwell." as soon as they did, if passed, max baucus and other democrats in the senate said, "now, we are

not with you," and bill clinton dropped them like a bad habit. they dropped this already, but it will not be part of the senate, not part of the republican platform in 2012. is this the only alternative, we will be stuck with the existing system. the ryan plan, the politics of it, are telling republicans in the northeast -- killing republicans in the northeast. you talked to republicans from new england -- >> florida. >> but particularly the northeast. there will be a change of the president shows leadership and a grabs the moment. i will tell you what is going to be a real problem in this matter, and that is the special house elections on the 24th of may in new york for the seat held by jack kemp, bill paxon, and chris lee, mr. shirtless, most recently. republican district for 45

years, and democrats are leading right now. if they win, they will lock in the position that you cannot touch as single gray hair -- >> what happens if they don't raise the debt ceiling? i heard austin goolsbee the other day said that if the nation defaults, we will be talking about it for the next 100 years. is that something to look forward to? >> they are not going to have a default. there is going to be an agreement. you could have a shorter extension for a month or two. there are ways you can manipulate the bodies. interest on the debt is 6% of the budget. 90% is out there that you can use to pay interest on the debt. it is not going to happen at midnight. you are not going to turn into a pumpkin. it is a long process. >> it is a little window for congress and the president to get serious about the deficit this summer. >> the trouble is they're cast of the tax increases as well as

spending cuts -- there have to be tax increases as well as spending cuts. >> we will seek a republican member of congress running for reelection, you go home and say, "we have to raise taxes." >> no, just let the bush tax cuts expire and it makes a huge difference. >> but taxes still go up. >> let me point out that we had a spending rate in this country now that it is -- that is higher than any time since world war ii, and our tax rate is lower than any time since 1950. does that tell you something? at both ends you have to do something. >> i agree with everything she says, but the way around this is tax reform. it allows you to not increase tax rates, but broadened the tax base so you get more revenue and get more revenue as we have to have, but you did not increase the tax rates while we do it.

>> somebody is paying more. >> to be honest, if i hear one more of these wall street enlightened leftists saying "raise the tax rates by all means," when they are paying 15%, absolutely unacceptable -- this capital gains tax rate for the hedge fund people is outrageous. the dollar is a dollar. that rate has to go up. >> absolutely. one of the great scandals is what they call "carried interest," which allows a judge on guys to get capital gains on what is actually -- which allows had found -- hedge fund guys to pay capital gains on what is actually income. >> charles, do you really think -- people of the top will pay more because there will be less

loopholes, etc. -- aren't we waiting for the tooth fairy for that to actually happen? >> it happened, 1986. >> it took two years and did not last long. >> it gave us a quarter-century of growth, the single most successful tax change probably in our lifetime. the one thing the republicans and democrats agree on. even the president has talked about, in the context of corporate taxes, you brought in at the base and use lower rates. we have the highest nominal rate in the world on corporate taxes, highest nominal, but the effect is about half of that, because of loopholes. the reason this is insane for us to have spent 12 years on a debate about whether the upper income level ought to be at 36 or 39%, which is able to cre -- which is a relative of triviality -- forget about that

debate. if you get tax reform, you eliminate loopholes and broaden the base. revenue is a man's. you start by making it revenue neutral and lower the rates for everybody, and then you add up one or two. in the bulls-a sense in commission -- bowles simpson commission, they take away all the polls and the highest is 23%. >> if you really eliminate all loopholes -- >> that is exactly it -- >> everybody benefits, everybody benefits. >> how do you feel about the home mortgage deduction, the charitable deduction? you want to deprive hospitals and schools in central cities? there will be a case made -- everybody recalls 1986 and that fight. remember the fight to retain the exception and to pull -- real- estate -- the exception and a

loophole for real estate deals? democrats all over the country were quaking and other birds. >> would you disagree that it would be a good idea of all of these were eliminated? >> i think that 1986 was one of the great achievements -- >> we agree on that. we ought to try to do it again. >> they exempted at the charitable and mortgage. >> try taking away the mortgage deduction and see what happens politically. what to do about pakistan? >> how could osama bin laden in plant site in the city and surroundin -- in plain sight in the city? let's not rush to judgment. >> that is yousuf gilani, prime minister of pakistan. "let's not rush to judgment."

>> this is all about money. pakistan would kick us out altogether if it were not for a couple billion dollars. this the 8 millionth example of where you know people believe in bad ways, but we just ignore the 7sovereignty -- >> and fight the guy who is responsible for the biggest -- >> i am not against it. >> as david ignatius pointed out in his column on friday, four two administrations, we have increasingly warned them that you have to do this more aggressively, and i don't understand why they don't. they lost 30,000 people to terrorist attacks and pakistan. they lost 80 police recruits at the end of this week. i don't understand this. i cannot figure it out. >> i am not going to answer that

question. just kidding. >> thank you. [laughter] >> there is a difference between the government and the military. these countries have a governments so weak that i would not be surprised if they are out of the loop. it is run by the military, essentially, but did the military and isi not know? no chance. did the government not now? it is possible. >> 10 years -- he has discovered living in an apartment in the shadow of the fbi building. there would be an uproar, wouldn't there? >> there would be a suggestion at least that he had some support system with a law enforcement agencies. i think there is only three alternatives that you can look at how three options. one is that they were incompetent, two is that they

were complicit, 3, that they were totally different. -- totally indifferent. i don't think the incompetence argument holds water, because they are quite competent, both military and intelligence service of pakistan. it is inescapable that they were either complicit or so monumentally in different that it ought to be -- >> they, as you say, are divided. their own intelligence service is divided into different camps and they are fighting a war on each other. part of the isi was probably sustaining bin laden while the other was trying to find him. >> we are mousetrapped. >> not the first time in our history that we had unreliable allies. will the war ii -- world war ii -- do you think we trusted stalin? no, but he was helpful and we

needed them. point of personal privilege -- they're stupid, nina. friendly needle. >> i know. >> if the government of pakistan collapses, and it becomes somalia with a nuke the repercussions are absolutely -- they are unthinkable. or they seek the umbrella of china. the options are not attractive. >> what is concerning is the report that they may have shown that the chinese those helicopters, which has a lot of high-tech stuff that we don't want anybody. to. >> you are right, that is disturbing. this is a far cry from our friend and colleague -- a photograph from our friend and

colleague, and she spent years at the it "post" and for years she was producer and a substitute host of this program. she died this week of lung cancer. she had a fine career in journalism and a wonderful family. she was married for 40 years and they raced three marvelous children. recently, to our supreme delight, she became a grandmother. colby king, one of our regular, said one of the things he liked about her, who recruited him for " inside washington," you always knew where she stood. john harris remembers her competitiveness but many years ago she spotted a "newsweek" writer and said it "you have got to have him on at." his name was evan thomas. >> she was lovely, not just

because she had me on. she was a truth teller. when you screwed up, she would let you know, and a gracious and lovely way, but you know where you stood with our. -- with her. >> she said, about what we have got to have it nina totenberg," to. >> she gave me confidence. at the same time, she was a tough task-master. she's scared the living daylights out of may that i had to be prepared. >> she had an iron fist and a velvet glove. >> i am grateful that she stuck with me and suffered a for all those years. she was just a lovely person, kind, one market, generous -- warmhearted, genevese. she was our producer for 12 years, and never heard a crossword.

terrible loss, shocking loss. >> mark, you go way back with her. >> she never changed. in a city of double talk, where mistakes were made, she was not only fun and talented, she said what she meant and and what she said. she will be best. >> -- will be missed. >> every now and then she would say, "you cannot use that word on television." [laughter] project has been a gift. last word. see you next week. for a transcript of this broadcast, log on to insidewashington.tv.