hike. but what we're hearing today is a little bit of clean up, which is, here at the white house they're saying, no, we don't have any intention. there's not a tax hike in the offing. this is not something they want to do. they really haven't equivocated about this at all, the president's words since taking office, they've always said, we don't want to raise taxes on the middle class. we'll see if they repeat that again today. >> this may boil down to, how do you define the middle class? thanks, savannah. now, the government's popular cash for clunkers program, it's on a lifeline right now and it's now up to the senate to approve $2 billion to continue funding the program. joining us now, transportation secretary, ray lahood, from the department of transportation. thank you very much, mr. secretary. first of all, we have some opposition from the republicans. let me play what senator jim demint had to say on fox news sunday. >> we're helping auto dealers while there are thousands of other small businesses that aren't getting the help.

the role of the federal government is not to run the used car business. and it's clear, you can look at amtrak or the post office and now cash for clunkers. the federal government went bankrupt in one week in the used car business, and now they want to run our health care system. i just think this is a great example of the stupidity that's coming out of washington right now. >> now, senator demint is backed up, certainly, "usa today" and "the wall street journal," two editorials. "usa today" says it's a clunker of a program. as a way to improve mileage, the program has always been a farce. car buyers would qualify for a $3,500 of credit with trade-ins that net just four additional miles per gallon. with ten additional miles per gallon, they'd get $4,500. since all trade-ins must get 18 miles per gallon or worse, it provides no incentive whatsoever to buy any cars getting greater than 28 miles per gallon, because that is a segment of the market where the foreign makers are strong. is this a case where the auto

industry have had too much sway over good policy making? >> this is good for america, andrea. it's good for car buyers, it's good for americans, it's good for american workers, it's a wildly popular program. people that make automobiles are very happy. people that sell automobiles are, for the first time in a long time, able to make a living. and it's a program that -- where 80% of the vehicles being traded in are trucks or suvs. these are gas guzzlers. the lion's share of the cars that are being purchased are cars that are getting 9 miles per gallon better than the cars that are being traded in. >> but mr. secretary -- >> we're helping the climate and we're helping the economy. >> but some environmentalists, some liberals in the democratic party would say that you could have done more. you could have done more on the environmental side, be more demanding, than you were. in fact, that this was a cave-in

to the auto industry to go against the foreign cars, which do better mileage. >> i think everybody has been astounded by the fact that 80% of the vehicles being traded in are gas-guzzling trucks and suvs and the lion's share are cars like ford focus, which get very good gas mileage. the program is working the way that congress intended it to work. the lifelines to the automobile industry and also to people who make cars and sell cars and it's really a boost to our economy. >> well, there's no question that it's good stimulus. that is clear. but will you guys fund it, will the administration find money somewhere to try to keep it going if the senate goes out without having put the money on the table? >> well, look, the house passed it with over 300 votes. that's a big, big majority. we're working very hard with the senate, with the senate leadership, to make sure that all senators understand how

wildly popular this is, how good it is for the economy, how good it is for the environment, and we believe the senate will pass it this week. >> bottom line, though, if the senate doesn't, if there's a filibuster, will the program end next week, if you don't have the money? >> we're encouraging senators to listen to their car dealers and to the people they represent. if they do that, we believe this will pass the senate. we'll have the $2 billion additional, and we can continue a program that has been a lifeline for the economy, for ford motor company, for the american people, and people who make automobiles. >> as a former congress member, do you think it's going to survive? >> i believe the senate will pass it this week, because of the popularity of the program. >> okay. transportation secretary ray lahood, thank you very much. thanks for being with us. >> thank you, andrea. to an 18-year mistery.

the mystery surrounding navy pilot mike speicher is over. speicher's plane was shot down on the opening day of the first gulf war. finally, her remains were identified. joining us now, democratic senator bill nelson from florida. senator, i know you were very close to the family. you've been arguing on their behalf for many, many years. does this finally answer the questions of what happened to him, though? >> well, there are still some questions out there, but i think that a complete debriefing by the navy for the family with classified information, i think, should put those questions to rest. >> from what you know, with senator -- from what you know, did he survive the crash and were those initials found in that iraqi prison, went we finally did get into iraq after the second war, were those initials his? do you think he was held? >> i don't know if he survived the crash. i think it's unlikely that those

initials were his in that cell, but the question is, how long did he survive, if he did, after the crash? he ejected, so we know he was alive then and i think these are the questions that the family wants. but, finally, closure has been brought on this. these children don't have to keep wondering if their father is alive and they can get on with their lives. >> and do you think that the military -- did the pentagon do enough for him, in trying to rescue him or finding out what was going on during all those years when we were not in iraq? >> the pentagon and specifically the navy has been champs in the last decade. andrea, they dropped the ball back in the '90s. they declared him dead, and that was a mistake by the secretary of defense. we did not send a search and rescue mission, and that was a

violation of a major principle. that a pilot knows if he has to punch out, that there are people coming after him. and we didn't do that. and we're in the going to make that mistake again. >> senator bill nelson of florida, thank you. thank you for what you're doing on behalf of the family. >> thanks, andrea. and three other americans now missing in iran after crossing the border while hiking in iraq. details coming up next. plus, today in iran, president ahmadinejad gets a key endorsement from iran's supreme leader. the political divides that he'll be faced with next, with roger cohn, columnist for "the new york times." and we are taking the show on the road to africa. i'll be traveling with secretary of state hillary clinton as she sets off on her seven-nation tour. "andrea mitchell reports" live from africa this week only on msnbc. since arthur's been eating purina one, he has blossomed... into an incredibly strong, healthy cat. his coat is incredibly shiny and soft and very thick. everybody thinks he's the most handsome cat they've ever seen. [ woman announcing ] purina one for indoor cats...

unlocks the brilliance of nature... with a natural fiber blend that helps minimize hairballs... and maintain a healthy weight. [ laurie ] he's a character. he brings so much laughter into this household. and he's the best-lookin' cat there is. [ announcer ] it's amazing what one can do. or 100 pringles. both cost the same, but only the new pringles super stack can makes everything pop. same cost, but a lot more fun. everything pops with the new pringles super stack can. ( sheets buffeting ) man ) whoa ! ♪ long summer days and not enough sleep. hat i wouldn't do for a do-over. (announcer) new neutrogena total skin renewal. gentle exfoliating puffs and micro-vibrations speed surface cell turnover.

it's clinically tested to help undo the look of a year's worth of skin aging in just one week. that summer of sun? i just made it disappear. (announcer) new total skin renewal. neutrogena recommended most by dermatologists. do-overs do exist.

secretary of state hillary clinton just commented a few moments ago about those three american hikers that are reportedly being held in iran. the hikers apparently wandered across iran's shared border with iraq. here's what the secretary had to say. >> well, as of a few hours ago, we did not yet have official confirmation that the iranian government or an instrument of the iranian government were holding the three missing americans, and we asked our swiss partners, who represent our interests in iran, to please pursue our inquiries to determine the status of the three missing americans. >> on the phone now from brazil, roger cohen, columnist for "the new york times" and the international herald tribune, who has done so much unique

reporting out of tehran. recently in tehran and reporting for the sunday "new york times" magazine this weekend on u.s. policy toward iran. thank you so much for joining us. you reported that secretary clinton, in fact, whose instincts, you wrote, on iran, have always been more hawkish than the president's, quote, was pushing for a harder line sooner after the june 12th vote in iran. a mideast expert close to her told you last month, she was supported by her friend, joe biden, the vice president. they did not prevail. the tone was cautious, although obama's denunciations of the clampdown grew stronger as it worsened the extended hand which had proved more unsettling to iran tan all the bush administration bluster was not withdrawn. so why did president obama decide, from your reporting, to remain endangered, to offer the hand, even after we what saw on the streets in tehran. >> andrea, i think we all have to acknowledge that past policy failed and past policy was

consigning iran to the axis of evil. and the president came in, strongly believing that engagement with iran was essential to a successful withdraw from iraq and to advancing middle east peace between israel and palestine. and i think he's held to that, although his misgivings and even his anger over the brutal clampdown in iran since the june 12 election is clearly present. >> you wrote, also, that the president is driving iran policy. the iran gambit lies close to the core of his refashioned global strategy, america's new era of engagement, which you just alluded to. this really is the essential outreach, but so far, nothing to show for it. there was the outreach to the eye t ayatollah, a letter, then nothing, and now the ayatollah today is reconfirming the election, the re-election of ahmadinejad. >> not quite nothing to show for it, i think, andrea.

i think this policy has been very unsettling to the iranian regime. it is divided. there are important politicians who clearly favor some form of engagement with iran. and given that most iranians are strongly pro-american, unlike many middle eastern countries, i think it's also divided iranian society. so it's been unsettling to iran, and i don't think although president ahmadinejad will be sworn in this week, i don't think the reverberations from june 12th are over. iran is a much more volatile and more divided society than it was before that election. and just how that plays out internally and in the policies of the second ahmadinejad term remain to be seen. i wouldn't rule out iran trying to come to the table in september, an attempt by the regime to win back a little of the support that it has lost.

>> what hillary clinton said today is that there is always the possibility of sanctions. she's talking about them multilaterally, not u.s. sanctions alone. and it's always a big challenge to get the rnussians and the chinese on board. but you wrote that the back end is punitive sanctions. in the event engagement fails, that would change the iranian calculus on further uranium refineme refinement. cutting off iranian banks' access to credit, extending that isolation to insurance and shipping, stopping refined petroleum products from reaching iran. for all that to happen, obama will need to prove his outreach is more than rhetoric and that other nations have bought into the notion that a near-boycott of iran should be imposed. that's what condi rice tried, correct? >> correct. the downside of this back end, which is what the administration calls the alternative to engagement is that it has, in fact, been tried. we are back to bush, in a way, if we are going for draconian

sanctions. my own feeling is that for all president obama's outreach to russia and china, all his attempts to reset relations with those two very important nations, russia and china have both got big interests in iran. china gets 15% of its oil from iran, and it's very much an open question that these two states, even after the attempted outreach, would really get on board for the kinds of sanctions that would actually hurt iran. remember, iran's been living with sanctions for a very long time now. it's like a patient that's already inoculated against a virus. and now you try to reintroduce the virus. well, that's difficult. >> and just briefly, i know we're interrupting your trip to brazil, but the complication of three americans who crossed the border one way or another, we don't know the details, obviously, but that does make it diplomatly difficult right now for the u.s. >> it does make it difficult.

there are always complications between iran and the u.s., going back decades now. you know, the united states just released five iranian diplomats that were regarded as spies in iraq. they were released. that was a gesture on the part of the obama administration and i'm sure it's opening for a rapid reciprocal gesture in the form of the release of these hikers. this is a complication that an already difficult relationship that does not need. >> exactly right. thank you so much, roger cohen. thanks for all your reporting out of iran. really extraordinary work. we really appreciate your joining us. >> thank you so much. and right now we're going to the white house and robert gibbs, who is briefing and being asked, of course, about taxes. let's watch. >> as part of health care reform, the president's identified $500 billion in spending that he thinks can be cut. we worked just in the past two weeks on a bipartisan basis to look at a program like the f-22

and cut some of that wasteful spending out of the budget as well. yes, ma'am. >> if iran doesn't agree to talk with the united states, is the u.s. discussing with its allies the possible of steep sanctions, such as sanctions on gasoline and other refined petroleum products? >> well, as you know, the p 5 plus 1 has an outstanding invitation for the iranians to come to the table. the president strongly believes that we should, and many of our allies believe that we should not allow the iranians to acquire a nuclear weapon. that invitation has not been responded to. as you've heard the president discuss recently, we will evaluate as part of g-8 process where we are on that engagement in september, but i don't want to get into discussions amongst

allies are hypotheticals as we get toward those dates. >> when you say you're not going to allow, what do you mean by that? >> we think it's important to do what has to be done in order to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, yes. >> like what? >> well, a host of things, including, i think, beginning by engaging directly with them so that they can live up to their own responsibilities -- >> robert gibbs talking about engaging with iran before they deal with the possibility of sanctions and before that, talking about taxes. let's go to phil lebeau, who is at an auto dealer. are you in detroit? cash for clunkers. phil? >> reporter: andrea, we're just outside chicago. we're at a ford dealership, just outside chicago at a ford dealership, and business is brisk here. in fact, somebody's over here

taking a look at a ford focus. the story today, auto sales for july, largely improved because of cash for clunkers. ford reporting the first monthly sales increase in almost two years with sales improving 2.3%. chrysler has just reported that its july sales down just 9%. i say, just 9%, because last month, sales were down more than 40% for chrysler. and it's been a horrible year for chrysler. we're going to see positive numbers from general motors within the next half hour. what we are looking at here, andrea, one of the best months for the auto industry in well over a year, if not a year and a half, and the question is whether or not cash for clunkers continues, which, of course, it's in the hands of the senate now. >> exactly, that's going to be a big decision this week, a big political test for the senate. thanks so much, phil lebeau. now back to the white house, and robert gibbs, who has said that he see is no reason for the middle class to be taxed, let's watch. >> again, i think the president has been clear on this. the first thing that we can do,

the most important thing that we can do right now is get our economy growing again. we know that the deficit, part of the reason that the deficit is up right now is that the economy has slowed down so much that tax revenues, because this is what happens in an economic slowdown, have regressed a lot. i think the president, obviously, that we're going to have to make some decisions down the road on some of the president's legislative priorities and some of the things that congress wants to do to evaluate how we move back towards, on a path towards fiscal sustainability. yes, sir? >> so did geithner and summers go off script, or were they sort of testing the temperature out there of what something like this -- >> i don't know. i know the president's been clear about his commitment on this. >> there was no, there's no real scenario there, as the administration sees it, where

middle class taxpayers might be hit with a hike? there's no scenario right now -- >> the president's been clear. very clear. >> could i make that even a little more precise. >> the president as you know, not just middle class, but very precise about it, no family -- >> let me be precise. the president's clear commitment is not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year. >> any implication, anybody drew from geithner and summers yesterday to the contrary is flatly wrong? >> i think the president has been clear. i think you heard him reiterate it, not that long ago, right outside this room in the rose garden. >> but you can understand why people took what they said yesterday as geithner and summers trying to open the door a little bit. >> well, i'll hope you take my reiterate of his clear commitment as an update. >> so the door is closed? they did not open the door? >> i'm reiterating the president's clear commitment in

the clearest terms possible, that he's not raising taxes on those who made less than $250,000 a year. >> did he talk to them about the fact that they -- >> we talked a number of issues. >> so is everybody going to be on message now, that -- >> promising that everybody's going to be on message is maybe a bar too high for me -- >> but that's the goal? >> the goal is to get the economy moving again. >> any family making less than -- >> to get our government back on a path towards fiscal sustainability, to lay the path for economic growth, and one point i forgot that i think is important in this. within the very first month of the president taking office, 95% of americans received a tax cut. that's everybody in the middle class. the president ran because for eight long years, the middle

class had born the brunt of bad economic policies. right? even when jobs were being created, with even when you saw positive economic growth, for the very first time in our history, you actually saw wages for the middle class decline. that's one of the reasons that led the president of the united states to want to run for president of the united states. to protect the middle class. to cut their taxes, which he did, and to make sure that their voices were heard in the economic policy making of this country. >> the door's not open, even a millimeter. >> i hope you'll take seriously what i said. >> do we have an update from senator baucus, if you'll get any bill out of the finance committee this week? >> i don't. >> when was the last time the president talked to you? >> probably sometime last week. i don't think there were any calls over the weekend. >> not that i know of. >> and the friday's gdp number, it seems like every time there's

a reported number, then there's a revised number, and lately it's been revised downward. do you worry that the gdp number, which you guys jumped on which was very positive step forward, do you have any reason to believe that it could get revised downward? >> obviously, one of the things that was done, one of the things that was released on friday were revisions based on newer economic modeling back decades. i could ask if we assume -- i certainly don't believe -- >> -- a more precise number than before? >> yeah, i think so. plus, look, obviously, the number's not more than a weekend old, so i know they feel confident in that. obviously, the one thing that we do know now that we didn't have as clear a handle on as you see in these economic revisions is the sheer depth of what the -- of what we were facing

economically. you know, the growth -- the positive growth that you saw in the second quarter of 2008 was revised down sharply. the first quarter of 2008 went from a period of supposed economic growth to economic contraction. the depth of the third quarter in 2008 began to show you just how deep a recession we were in and continue to be. i think we take heart, take some heart from the numbers on friday that show, that one, the recovery plan is having an impact, cushioning the economic downturn that we saw. saving and creating jobs. understanding with this caveat, we'll get new jobs figures on

friday. right, and, you know, i think -- i don't think there's anybody that doesn't believe that we're going to see several hundred thousand more jobs lost in this economy. >> just to clarify, is this confusion on the tax thing, this is something that summers and geithners got caught up in and had questions or a media interpretation? >> i think a confluence of some of that stuff, sure. mark? >> robert, is this the administration looking at ft. leavenworth as a possible site for -- >> and as the robert gibbs briefing continues now to turn towards guantanamo, let's bring in tennessee senator, lamar alexander, member of the senate health committee. senator, did you hear enough from robert gibbs to make it clear that the president is not going to raise taxes on the, quote, middle class, which means people earning $250,000 or less, as defined by the white house? >> i find that very remarkable, andrea. for example, the health care

plan that the democratic bill proposed will shift to the states so much new cost for medicaid that in tennessee, it would be at least a 5% new state income tax. and if they also pay doctors to take care of the low-income people they put on medicaid, it would be a 10%. middle class will pay that. and this weekend, isabel sawhill, who's in the clinton administration, many others were saying, in order to pass the obama agenda, you're going to have to tax the middle class. so i thought the comments yesterday were honest and i think the comments today are s misleading. >> well, they do say that they would eventually save money if the health reform does, so-called, bend the curve and bring down inflation, medical inflation, that eventually there will be cost savings. >> well, they say that, but that's not what others say. the congressional budget office, which the democratic congress appointed, says not only will it raise the debt and raise costs in the first ten years, that costs will go up in the second ten years. and the democratic governors

have weighed in and said, holy smokes, you can't give us all those new costs for medicaid, because we couldn't possibly pay for those costs. then there will be no taxes for employers to pay as middle class people will be shifting out of their employer-based insurance into government-run insurance. so that's what's really going on. and i'm disappointed to hear mr. gibbs correct what i thought was the truth yesterday. >> let me ask you about cash for clunkers. what is your position on that, that the key test of political will in the senate coming up this week? >> i don't know if it's a key test. if it's just a question of whether we have $2 billion free, i'd use to it reduce the debt, if that's the choice. >> well, supposedly it's money that's already been set aside in the stimulus program, that has not been used. would you vote to set that money into the -- to put that money into cash for clunkers, so that

it doesn't run out? >> let me see how it comes before us. obviously, it would be better spent on cars than on the nonstimulative projects that were in the original bill, but that may not be how it comes to us. when it came to us before, it came as part of the war bill. it just took $1 billion out that could have been used to reduce the debt and i voted against it. >> and what are you hearing from your colleagues, there's talk of a possible filibuster? >> i haven't talked with them enough to know. i know there's -- among republicans especially, there's a great deal of concern about the massive debt that we're build up in this country. too much taxes, too much spending, too much debt. i mean, the idea that we would be spending over the next ten years, adding more new debt to our country over the next ten years, nearly three times as much as we spent in all of world war ii, according to the "washington post" is mind boggling and we have to draw the line wherever we can. >> of course, senator, the president and the white house

would say that so much debt was inherited from the bush years, the george w. bush years and from the republican-led congress that piled all that debt up. >> they say that about every five minutes. you know, sooner or later, the president and his administration are going to have to take responsibility for their own actions. i mean, their policy seems to be, well, i got in the vote and it was sinking because it had a hole in it, so i'm going to dig another big hole in it. >> it wasn't president bush who recommended that president obama have budgets that would add as much to the debt over the next ten years, three times as much as we spent on world war ii, and it wasn't president bush that recommended a health care plan that would $1 trillion to the debt and even more in the next ten years. i accept the fact that when president obama came in, he had some problems to solve, but he's adding to the problems.

>> senator lamar from tennessee, thank you very much. and up next, souhould democrats move forward on health care without republican support? and the debate over health care costs got a little rally in pennsylvania this week at an event with hhs secretary sebelius and arlen specter, now a democrat. 100 potato chips... or 100 pringles. both cost the same, but only the new pringles super stack can makes everything pop. same cost, but a lot more fun. everything pops with the new pringles super stack can.

the senate finance committee is pressing ahead with its attempts to get a bipartisan bill on health care, but there are new rumblings today that democrats could go it alone. if no deal, that is, is reached by mid-september. majority leader harry reid is reportedly ready to use a process known as reconciliation

to get a democrats-only bill on the floor with just 51 votes. democratic senator sherrod brown is with us. wouldn't this be declaring war in the senate? >> i don't know exactly what it means, declaring war in the senate. i do know that senator baucus has tried for months to get bipartisan agreement on things like important parts of legislation like an option. and republicans for philosophicals are not able to make any kind of significant concessions so they can move forward. we want to do this bipartisanly, but more important than a bipartisan bill is a good bill. and to allow the drug companies and the insurance industries to write this bill the way they did the medicare law under the bush years is certainly not tenable for the great majority of democrats and for the country, frankly. >> well, senator mccain this

weekend on cnn state of the union said that they've been shut out, particularly on the health committee, which i believe on which you serve. let's watch what he had to say. >> well, first of all, unfortunately, there was no input by republicans in the writing of the bill, in the health committee, it was all a democrat proposal. that's not the way you want to begin if you're really interested in true bipartisan result. >> senator, is senator mccain correct about that? >> no, he's not even close to being correct. we had 11 days of markup on this bill. granted, the bill was written by the democratic sponsors, just like bills are written by republican sponsors, regardless of who's in the majority. but this bill, we had 11 days of markup. i've been in the house and senate for a total of 17 years, 18 years now, and i've never seen a markup that long, that detailed. 160 republican amendments were accepted, either voted and passed or agreed to by consensus

or unanimously or whatever. so they had plenty of time and plenty of input into this bill. we just didn't agree with a lot of the things that senator mccain wanted to do, or did the country agree on some of his ideas, last fall. but we had a very open process. there are very great differences between the two parties. if we had had to have overwhelming republican support, we never would have gotten medicare in this country. we never would have gotten social security. so some issues, they're just like health care, there are some very different views, for instance, a public option. 70% of the public wants the public option. no republican has agreed to support the public option. so sometimes there's just legitimate, philosophical differences and sometimes it's, again, as i said earlier, andrea, it's because of the drug companies and insurance companies wanting more influence than they're getting with the democratic majority. >> we saw a little clip before from the u.s. constitution senator from philadelphia of people at a town hall meeting

and earlier there was the raucous town hall meeting in delaware. what are you experiencing when you go back home? what do you expect next week during the august recess? are people all riled up? >> people have strong feelings on both side. when i look at it, there's a lot of misinformation, as you know, andrea. as a good journalist, you've been combatting a lot of this madeup kind of information. i get stuff from any cousin in georgia that's just totally wrong. all these assertions about what's in this bill. they're totally fabricated. we hear a lot of that in our phone calls. i had lunch with all my interns in my cleveland office, they're answering the phone and my staff are hearing all this madeup information about requiring fors to decide when they're going to die early and all kinds of stuff. i hear that, i also hear strong support for this bill by a whole lot of people, people that have insurance, want to see this bill pass, people in small businesses especially know they're getting killed with these costs. they like what's in this bill

and people who are uninsured are going to get some help now so everybody in this country have access to health care. >> senator sherrod brown of ohio, thanks for being with us. and when we come back, another look at iran with a top expert about what is happening today in tehran and what is happening to those three americans. you're watching msnbc. bl controlled freeze zone is a new technology... being developed by exxonmobil... to remove the co2 from the natural gas... so we can safely store it... where it won't get into the atmosphere. exxonmobil is spending more than 100 million dollars... to build a plant that will demonstrate this process. i'm very optimistic about it... because this technology could be used... to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly. ♪ has the fastest serve in the history of professional tennis. so i've come to this court to challenge his speed. ...on the internet. i'll be using the 3g at&t laptopconnect card.

he won't. so i can book travel plans faster, check my account balances faster. all on the go. i'm bill kurtis and i'm faster than andy roddick. (announcer) "switch to the nations fastest 3g network" "and get the at&t laptopconnect card for free". finally, good news for people with type 2 diabetes or at risk for diabetes. introducing new nutrisystem d, the clinically tested program for losing weight and reducing blood sugar. hi i'm mike, and i lost 100 pounds on nutrisystem d when i was first diagnosed with diabetes, that first step was more like a giant leap. till i discovered nutrystem d. in a clinical study people on nutrisystem d lost 16 times more weight and reduced their blood sugar 5 times more than those on a hospital-directed plan. plus a1c w reduced .9%. choose from over 140 menu options, there is no counting carbs, calories or points. i lost 100 lbs. and lowered my blood sugar level. nuisystem d changed my life. mike is one of many who have lost weight and controlled their diabetes with new nutrisystem d.

backed by 35 years of research and low glycemic index science nutrisystem d works. satisfaction guaranteed or your money back! new! nutrisystem d. lose weight. live better. call or click today. medication to lower your bad cholesterol but your good cholesterol and triglycerides are still out of line? then you may not be seeing the whole picture. ask your doctor about trilipix. statin to lower bad cholesterol, along with diet, adding trilipix can lower fatty triglycerides and raise good clesterol to help improve all three cholesterol numbers. trilipix has not been shown to prevent heart attacks or stroke more than a statin alone. trilipix is not for everyone, including people with liver, gallbladder, or severe kidney disease, or nursing women. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you are pregnant or may become pregnant. blood tests are needed before and during treatment to check r liver problems. contact your doctor if you develop unexplained muscle pain or weakness, as this can be a sign of a rare

but serious side effect. this risk may be increased when trilipix is used with a statin. if you cannot afford your medication, call 1-866-4-trilipix for more information. trilipix. there's more to cholesterol. get the picture. let's bring in democratic strategist, steve mcmahon and republican strategist, john feehery. welcome both. robert gibbs just tried to make it very clear that they are not walking back from that no tax pledge. let's watch a bit of what he had to say. >> the president was clear during the campaign about his commitment on not raising taxes on middle class families. and i don't think any economist would believe that in the environment they were in, raising taxes on middle class families would make any sense. >> do you see any wiggle room there, john feehery? >> well, what you see is the

distancing between campaign rhetoric by gibbs and actual reality by geithner and summers yesterday. the fact of the matter is that if the democrats keep spending the way they are, they're going to have to raise taxes on everybody, and that's the big problem they've got. they've got this huge expansion of health care. that already includes an 8% tax on small business. it was interesting that gibbs said, that doesn't make sense to raise taxes on middle class families. well, it surely doesn't make sense to raise taxes on small businesses and they're doing that. i think the pressure is on the democrats right now. if want to keep spending the way that i do, they'll have to raise taxes. >> steve, why do you keep spending, you democrats keep spending and spending. >> you democrats. >> you know, the republicans didn't do any of that when they were in charge. >> no, no, they didn't, and they didn't leave a huge mess of debt or a broken economy or wall street in collapse or a banking crisis and they didn't leave the obama administration a world on the economic brink of complete

collapse. but we can talk about the gibbs news conference from just a moment ago. what i saw there was a press secretary who was trying to walk the fine line between saying those guys were crazy to say that and they shouldn't have said it and they're going to get smacked down later. >> i think they were smacked down in the oval office this morning. >> i think they might have been smacked down. but he was trying not to let on the fact that they were smacked down and that president obama has no intention of raising taxes on anybody, except john feehery. >> hey, now! steve, come on. >> no, come on, john, you toubd an 8% tax on small business, just to be clear who we're talking about -- >> talking about me. >> those would be small businesses that choose not to offer health insurance to their employees. that's a choice they make. there's no mandate under that scenario. it's just, insure your employees like a good small business would want to do anyone -- >> well, if they can afford it, steve. >> or pay the cost of taxpayers doing the same. those people are going to get insurance one way or another

under the obama plan, and they deserve it, frankly, john. >> okay, john, your rebuttal? >> well, the pressure right now is on democrats. you see the fact of the matter is that they had all these spending plans and they have to, what geithner and summers are saying, we've got to pay the bills somehow and they're trying to send a message to the bottom market that they've got to somehow get this under control. and i think they're in a tough bind. i think steve is absolutely right. he's walking a fine line there. and there's one other point. that is, it's if the going to be the president who raises taxes, it's going to be the democrats in congress. and when charlie rangel and those guys get involved, they'll raise taxes on anybody. >> john feehery, let me ask you quickly, do the republicans have the guts to kill the cash for clunkers program? gibbs has now said it will not proceed if the senate doesn't go along and vote for it this week? >> andrea, that's a great question. i don't know the vote count right now. i think a filibuster would be a little bit risky. i personally liked the cash for clunkers program, i thought it was a good program. i'm not with all those bads that

say it was a bad program. >> john feehery, steve mcmahon, i'm not sure who's going to get taxed next, but i don't think it's going to be either one of you guys. >> you want to bet! and straight ahead, secretary of state hillary clinton calling on iran to reveal the whereabouts of those three americans captured there. we'll have more on the other side. be sure to join us also live this week from africa as we join secretary clinton on her seven-nation tour. don't miss that 1:00 eastern only on msnbc.

secretary of state hillary clinton is calling on the iranian government to help locate the three missing americans. u.s. is working through its diplomatic channels at the swiss embassy in tehran trying to find them. ken pollack from brookings joins us now. we've had a swearing in today and our own bureau chief from tehran who is in london writes it was different than it was the first time. first of all, there was a rather awkward kiss. he seems to kiss his shoulder rather than his hand. now the state news agency is saying that's because ahmajinidad has a cold. ahmajinedad's civils kept them

apart. that doesn't seem likely, does it, ken? >> so hard to figure out these things. when we tried to figure out whose institution was up and down based on who was standing next to stalin, i think we're reduced to the same thing in iran. there clearly are differences from ahmajinedad and khomeini. we've seen that played out over the last couple weeks. we need to be cautious about reading too much as a kiss on the shoulder versus a kiss on the hand. >> when is a kiss not a kiss? >> exactly. i think we need to look for more things like in particular who ahmadinejad chooses for the rest of his cabinet as a better determinant of what the relationship is. >> ken, let me ask you this, one thing that is being pointed out is who didn't show up. you didn't see the two former presidents who were there at the first inauguration of ahmadinejad. does that represent a shift

among the iranian leadership? >> that's when we can say for sure this is reflective of a skis we know has emerged where rof san jan any has very much been shut out of power. whether they were told not to show up or whether they chose not to show up, i don't think that we'll ever know. this does reflect the fact of the regime itself has a much narrower base of power. it is made up right now mostly of the worst elements, the real hard line elements of the iranian regime. those are the people, ahmadinejad and khomeini. >> do you have any sense there can be progress in the near term over the three americans that wandered over the border? the u.s. has already traded as a gesture the five iranians have been held in iraq. we don't have a lot of bargaining chips right now. >> right. i think this is going to be a very interesting marker as to where the iranians stand.

the iranians seem -- let's remember who is now really in charge of iran. this is a group of people who hate the united states, who see anti-americanism as being one of the core elements of their ideology, their philosophy of the world. these are also people who really believe at some level the united states was at least involved, if not causing this protest movement. probably varies from person to person. they really seem to believe we're involved. that's mott the group of people more the kind of atmosphere that seems to lend itself to an easy or quick resolution. if it does happen, that would in and of itself be interesting. it would suggestions the iranians are at least sensitive to the image of the outside world and looking to try to repair some of the damage they did to themselves by the crackdown. >> ken pollack, fascinating times in tehran, but a lot of suffering going on as well. the administration caught right between its policy of engagement and its instinct to try to get a sanctions policy that actually would be a credible threat. thank you so much for joining us from brookings today.

>> always a pleasure. that does it for me. i'm andrea mitchell in washington. i'll see you live from african. contessa brewer picks up our coverage from here as we follow this breaking news. developments out of new york where prosecutors say a grand jury has indicted plaxico burress on weapons charges. the latest next here on msnbc.

you could buy 300 bottles of water. or just one brita filter. ( drop plinks ) brita-- better for the environment and your wallet. it's taken my time. time that i should have had to be with my family. it's like you're getting violated. these are uncertain times. and it's tough enough in this economy without... the added pressure, headache, and heartache of having... to struggle with a stolen identity. but you don't have to. lifelock works to stop identity theft before it happens. it's been more than a consequence of money. it's, it's taken time... out of my days for months on end now... and, uh, it just literally robbed me of my credibily. you feel like you went to law school and you...

have to become an attorney all of a sudden... for yourself because nobody else will do this for you. cleaning up the mess of identity theft can be... frustrating and take hours of your personal time. what we can't stop, our team will help fix... at our expense and restore your good name. for me, what having my identity stolen has meant... has been not just financial hardship... but having to tell my children no to certain things... because i just can't afford 'em right now. it's consequences that i'm serving for somebody else's behavior. with lifelock, you get our proactive identity theft protection... and our dedicated team who stand ready... to help you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. if this ever does begin again, lifelock will be there... to protect us and that, to me, is -- tt's priceless. take control of your identity. protect yourself with lifelock's proactive protection and our... $1 million total service guarantee. security. peace of mind. protection. that's what lifelock provides.

you can take control of your identity. call now for special savings and we'll also give you... 30 days to try lifelock absolutely free. call now and mention id. call now or go to lifelock.com. ♪ good monday everyone. welcome to msnbc. we have a lot of ground to cover the next hour. will he or won't he? the white house on defense after two of the president's own top advisors seem willing to raise taxes on the middle class. the fired back a short time ago. american really love a deal. if they can get a deal on a new car by trading in the an old clunker, by golly, they're going to jump on that. but cash for clunker is broke. will congress put more money into that program?

town halls are turning into screaming matches. a lawmaker shows up to answer questions and instead gets an angry mob. is this democracy at work? does it accomplish anything? all that ahead. the big story this hour, the president plans to keep his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. the strong message from the white house in the last half hour. it conflicts with the message the president's money men delivered this weekend. tim geithner and larry summers say tax hikes remain on the table. the press secretary spent a lot of time today knocking down that idea. >> let me be precise. the president's clear commitment is not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year. >> let's bring in deputy political director mark murray. we're getting a conflict here. what are we going to expect in terms of moving forward? will we see taxes hiked on the middle class? >> well, according to white house press secretary robert

gibbs, unequivocally there won't be any taxes for families who make over $250,000 a year, that's what president obama campaigned on. tax increases would be people making more than that amount, not the middle class. of course, the context was that treasury secretary tim geithner and chief white house economic adviser larry summers on the sunday shows left the door open to possibly their being a tax increase for the middle class. but leaving a door open in that kind of hypothetical is different than saying the president actually wants to have a tax increase on the middle class. >> mark, did the press secretary feel like tim geithner and larry summers got off message, that they were somehow running with a message that the white house wasn't comfortable with? >> they probably got taken to the wood shed today when they showed up to work a little bit. it wasn't on message, when there was actually really good economic news as they trum ted on those sunday talk shows, but they left that door open for a