tee it up. let's play "hardball." good evening, i'm chris matthews in washington. leading off tonight, tempest in the tea party. the leaders of the republican party learned a hard fact it's tea party members they want to cut $2.5 trillion, trillion with a t, in spending over the next decade. they plan to do it without going with weather a lot of the money

is. no cuts in medicare, security, the pentagon. that leaves about every other area of the government, medical troerch law enforcement, they have to get cut back. we'll start with the people and a more interesting question -- will it sell with speaker boehner? we learned that michelle bachmann, who leads the nation in head-scratching statements, will give her own tea party response to the president's state of the union. you'll have three, the president, you'll hear from paul ryan, who's the republican response, and michelle bachmann in one night. three-ring circus. an idea of what to expect? ms. bachmann will talk to an iowa audience about the american freedom we enjoy and say the following -- "will it end with us? will we allow this great experiment in human liberty called america to end on our watch?" also, how nervous should republicans be about president obama's leap in the polls? we'll ask the "hardball" strategists about the changing nature of the competition. check out what happened when

i went on "the colbert report." a side show. kind of fun. let me finish tonight with how president obama could lose in 2012, even if his approval rating is over 50. something to worry about if you're a democrat. let's start with the spending cuts. phillip den sis organizer of the democratic party, and dean clancy with me from freedomworks, the dick armey outfit. "gop bloc presses leaders to slash even more." i want to start with dean with me here right now. how many jobs will be cut if you cut all this spending? how many federal jobs? >> well, first of all, chris, the american people want to see the federal government shrink. the politics of government is changing. the tea party grassroots that we at freedomworks are part of, we want to see the federal government get smaller. >> i know, but how many jobs do you want to cut?

if you cut $3 trillion, you'll cut hundreds of hundreds, a million jobs. wouldn't you? that's where the money goes. goes to checks. >> you will eliminate jobs through attrition. you just go back to the 2008 levels before this huge surge in the government. and this huge -- >> how many jobs is that? >> i don't know. specifically -- >> you want to make cuts without knowing how many jobs. let me ask phillip. do you know how many jobs you're talking about cutting? federal jobs if you slash the programs? i noticed that you're being careful not to go after the simple check writing like social security and medicare, that go to the middle class. you're getting rid of functions that involve people. i'm wondering how many people you're throwing on the unemployment rolls when you go about this business. >> if they're federal workers not enough. i think we're going to be happy when we get the federal workers off the backs of the american producers and taxpayers out there. those are non-producing jobs. they take money out of our checks to pay their salaries. they have over-the-top salaries and benefits and pensions, and it's a disaster zone. my answer is, there's not enough federal jobs being cut.

>> wow. do you agree with that? >> yeah. absolutely. >> that's tough talk. all these people will, if unemployed, go looking for other jobs. no, they're just people. let's accept the fact, he says they're bums. i get your point, they're not doing anything good, they're a bunch of bums, your argument. but they're still bums looking for jobs, part of the people looking for work. if you call them bums, i don't think they are. i think there's a mixed bag of people working for the government. >> the federal government is not a jobs employment. federal employment is not something simply to get people off the streets. folks are making $120,000 a year, twice the level in the private sector, they must be talented. so they'll probably do just fine -- >> do you think they make that kind of money, people who will get bounced? >> in canada, they cut 20% of their government in the 1990s. they got their public debt down from 70% of their economy down to 30%. there was no social upheaval. people were fine. nobody starved on the sidewalk. >> the first time i heard a conservative brag about canadian government policy.

you guys thought they were socialists up there. let me ask you about the economics, though. you say throw the bums out of work, get rid of these guys, they're leaf rakers, paper pushers. i don't agree, but fine. what's it going to do to the economy if you guys start throwing $2 -- two or three trillion people off the payrolls overall? >> one of the things it's going to do is free up the taxpayer. we're not paying as much money keeping those people employed at a federal level. those people will become productive or will starve. if we can get rid of some of the cradle to the grave welfare. >> you're in the raw seat of the hurricane, sir. you stay like it is. you say throw them off the payroll, see if they starve. if they don't, they might turn out to be productive. >> that's what i live with every day. if i can't make my living, if i get fired, i starve if i don't perform. it's not the same with the unionized federal workers. you might not like to hear that,

calling them pubums was your wo. some of them have talent and will make it in the private sector. >> you were saying they weren't doing anything public sector tuf. what's your word for a person who's unproductive? i don't want to give a worse name than you're giving them for sure. >> i'm sure they're good people. the question is should the federal government be doing all these things it's doing. it's in too many lines of business. needs to shrink back. >> okay. one political question, why are you so political? i thought you were purists. why do you leave harmless medicare, defense, social security? is that because the middle class benefit from these programs? >> no. at freedomworks, we put out a plan -- >> you're willing to cut social security, the third rail? >> we are. but understand we do that through reform just like paul ryan. we want to see social security benefit growth slowed gradually -- >> how do you do that? >> you have to change the benefit formula. also we want to see -- >> lower benefits. >> long term. mostly for people at the upper end of the income. if you don't do that -- >> the means test? >> well, no. >> you said it, upper end of the

income. >> right. but that's -- >> you're means testing. >> that's what a lot of progressives support. it's going to -- >> do you support means testing? >> we support reforming social security so that lodge term it's sustain -- long term it's sustainable. >> you slipped into something that's interesting, where some people think you should cut. are you one of those who believe that people who make a ton of money, retire with a ton of money, shouldn't get the same benefits as someone who's retired on, say, a teacher's salary, someone who doesn't have a lot of money when they quit? do you think we should means test -- you said -- at the upper end of the income? you can save on benefit formula. what did you mean by that? >> it means that the benefits are growing faster than the economy -- >> what do you mean your proposal? do you want to cut the benefits of people who make a lot of money? >> yes. >> okay, do you? phillip, are you willing to means test social security now for the first time since the '30s? >> if anyone's paid into -- >> this is paul ryan. >> i'm just asking. >> this is paul ryan. >> if anyone's paid into social security their entire life, they deserve to get what's coming back to them.

>> of course. [ all talking at once ] >> hold on. >> i'm getting conflict. are you for means testing social security? >> hold on one second. there is a lot of low hanging fruit we could do here. by example -- >> that's not right. that's not means testing. [ all talking at once ] >> let phillip talk. go ahead. >> there's a lot of low hanging fruit out there. we found a report that came out, aliens take one million jobs from americans each year. no, i'm telling you, we are spending money in a lot of places that is low hang williint that we can cut back. entitlements have to be addressed and i don't think -- >> why do you guys, you take it down the road gentlemen. you went -- you leapt into the truth saying you're going to means test, change the benefits of -- >> it means the benefits can't be growing so much faster than the economy that they end up being -- >> hiring people on the income curve, the higher level. that's means testing. >> that's not the same as means testing. >> it's asking people how much they make to decide benefits. i'm getting conflict.

i'm hearing you'd like to get the benefits of wealthy people lower than others because they don't need the money s. that a fair estimate of what you plan long term? >> that's not unreasonable. >> is that a fair idea of what you intend to do -- >> the country can't -- >> phillip? reduce the benefits of people who make a lot in social security because they don't need it? >> no. >> the country's going bankrupt -- >> who says they don't need it? >> you're focusing on the wrong -- you're saying changing the formula for benefits. >> this is the crazy talk you engage in here. there is low hanging fruit out there. >> you call low hanging fruit, i'm looking through the thicket of words to try to find the truth. when you say changing the benefit formula for people at a higher income level, i hear means testing. >> how much -- that's what we do. the formula is not perfectly the same for everybody now. but more importantly, how much is enough, chris? how much government is enough? >> i agree. let's get to the philosophy here. you guys have a political challenge. you've got a republican party in the congress.

here's your turn. you've got a leader there, boehner, who's been around for 20 years. you've got hal rogers, who's been on appropriations for 30 years, spending money. he's known as the prince of port back home. and you're counting on these guys to carry your water? your thought, fill snip. >> well, i am hopefully optimistic, but i'm not counting on anything with these guys. we saw what they did when bush was in power. they were in power. and the republicans, they spent money like a bunch of democrats. that was really what's caused the republicans to lose power and put obama into office. we're going to hold their feet to the fire. if they are not prepared to make the big boy decisions that we want them to make, then we're going to find bigger boys in 2012. we're not married to boehner. >> how do you beat bhoehner at home or hal rogers at home? they're unbeatable? >> you don't go after them, you change the majority as we did in the 2010 elections. we've got 80-republicans new republicans in congress.

the democrats lost 63 people in the house because they weren't doing what americans want. >> the last word -- in a sentence, what's your message for mr. hal rogers, 30-year veteran. appropriations, the prince of pork, your ally, who's sharing appropriations? what are you saying to him tonight, dean? >> i'm saying it's time to cut spending. $3 trillion or ten years is nothing. >> or else? >> well, we'll be watching you, and we'll be trying to hold you accountable. absolutely. >> mr. dennis, your message to the chairman of the appropriations committee who sat in office, feedsing at the federal trough, eating the low hanging fruit himself, by the way, to use your phrase, and kue consuming it for home consumption. you guys are civilians, what's your threat against them? >> my threat is you better find jesus or watch your butt because we're watching you in 2012. you're going to be in deep crap. >> well, mr. phillip dennis, i think everyone knows where you stand. thank you. thank you on a friday. will you guys come back? you're refreshing to hear from.

get that message cleared up about means testing. >> it's not means testing. >> i know -- we have the tape. coming up, another incredible statement from michelle bachmann. no surprise there. by the way, she's in iowa running for president apparently. talking about how our great experiment in human liberty may be coming to an end. what does she know that we don't? let's listen to her. you're watching "hardball." sometimes move out of place and blur my vision. my eye doctor said there's great news for people with astigmatism. acuvue® oasys for astigmatism. he said it's the only lens of its kind designed to realign naturally with every blink and created with hydraclear® plus. i'm seeing more clearly, crisply, comfortably, all day long. now life doesn't have to be a blur. [ male announcer ] learn more at acuvue.com. acuvue® oasys for astigmatism.

if you speak in iowa today, most people think that you're running for president. so the context of the remarks are "i am going to iowa bause i'm speaking about the issues that i believe will be important for 201. that's why i'm going to iowa." >> that's why you're going to iowa. that was michelle bachmann heading off to the campaign trail in iowa. people think she's running for the senate out there. hedging on the "today" show recently about whether she will

run for president, these teasing, it's fair to say, by going to iowa where the voters are. like willy sutton goes to the bank, that's where the money is. is she serious? the tea party express announced that michelle bachmann from minnesota will give her own state of the union address this tuesday night as a response to the president's and as a response to the republican reaction given by paul ryan of wisconsin. she's out there as the third leg of the chair, joining me is joan walsh. she has chutzpa. and richard wolfe. joan, you have to pay attention, this person who's fairly new to the political arena is out there saying i think she's saying if sarah palin doesn't run, i will, i'm there. >> i don't know if she's saying i am, but she's certainly saying i'm there. i don't like anything that she stands for. i like her going up against paul

ryan. paul ryan was one of the first saying, no, we don't want you as republican conference chair. i don't think it's any accident that the party has enshrined rising star paul ryan to rebutt the state of the union. she's going to come out and rebut paul ryan. >> you rebutted both of them. you knocked them both off their pedestals. we have the thing that freud says slow down, stop it, you're making an ass of yourself. these po these people don't have it. she runs for president without the pretense of running. here she is, issuing out scripts lake a president. like the president, the promise -- yeah, prepared remarks. for iowa tonight, "the promise of america is under threat as

never before." of course, "for 21 generations, the torch of liberty has been successfully passed from one generation to the next. and the question we need to ask ourselves tonight," that's tonight, "is will it end with us? will we be the first generation to fail when it is our turn to pass the torch of liberty? will we allow this great experiment in human liberty called america," i love that plan, called america, "to end on our watch?" that's a grand eloquent comment that sounds like she's thomas payne. where's the reason? >> this is echoing what we hear from glenn beck every night of the week. it's weirdly ahistorical historical analysis. there haven't been any other threat to the republic other than president obama. and his nefarious socialist plans. >> you bow what she says -- >> that's what she says. it makes no sense. she does skew the race. whether she's in or out or she's

in minnesota or she is, by the way, born in iowa. >> i heard that fact. >> she skews things to the right, and she's another woman on stage. if she does get to those debates. so as outlandish as it seems, it's now mainstream for republicans. alan keys used to be -- she is there and she gets much more respect. >> she has a family, number of kids. a husband, a family she has to get back to. she's a united states member of congress. that's a pretty big job. yet, she has the time to do this galavanting for president. i don't know how people live anyway. let's look at her on the floor wednesday. get another piece of her. i think she is -- maybe a moth to the flame here. i find her the most interesting of these otherwise dull group of candidates running for president. here she is talking about repealing health care and, of course, repealing obama. let's listen. >> yes. >> and to those across the united states who think this may be a symbolic act, we have a

message for them. this is not symbolic, this is why we were sent here, and we will not stop until we repeal a president and put a president in the position of the white house who will repeal this bill until we repeal the current senate, put in a senate that will listen to the american people and repeal this bill. >> look, let's talk geography for a second. we're talking minnesota here. she's from minnesota, right? i know they picked jesse ventura, an odd choice. joan, what happened to that state of jean mccarthy, hubert humphrey, walter mondale, the late paul wellstone? how could they flip far enough to go to her zone of life? >> they haven't entirely. we've still got al franken in there. we still have amy clobershar. we've got going progressives in minnesota. her district likes her and she goes back. i don't see her as even a statewide candidate in minnesota. >> everyone said she's going to

run against clobersr. >> she's going to and put up a good fight. i don't think it's necessarily a fait accompli that she wins. she is extreme, extreme for the state of minnesota, not for her district. listening to her there, first of all, you know, i supported the public option, chris. so i know that obama is not a socialist. and that is not socialized medicine. so there's just a tissue of lies around this whole argument that really needs to be refuted. and second of all, we do not repeal our presidents, we elect them. and i guess i should be glad that she said repeal and didn't say anything about reload. but there's such a fundamental misunderstanding about the way our american democracy works. it's shocking. >> okay. richard wolfe and joan walsh, thanks. up next "the colbert report," what a great guy even though he plays this crazy person. next, you're watching "hardball."

with all the equipment you use to stay fit, you might want to try lifting one of these. in recent years we've added a unique natural sea salt to over 40 campbell's condensed soups. it helps us reduce sodium, but not flavor. so if you're ready to eat a little better, grab your spoon and do a few lifts.

campbell's.® it's amazing what soup can do.™ this way, everyone will know about all our great discounts. safe driver, online, homeowner's -- more discounts than ever before. and they still get great service. ♪ ow! [ disco music plays ] ♪ whoa, yeah is it just me, or is it getting funky in here, huh? get your groove on, y'all! catch you on the flip side! i'd tell him the sign's not finished, but it would just break his funky little heart. more discounts, more ways to save. now, that's progressive. call or click today.

back to "hardball." time for "the sideshow." first fun with steve colbert. last night i went over and gave steve a little history. since it was the 50th anniversary to the day of president kennedy's inaugural address, i gave steve a hint of where kennedy came up with the famous words. they have may have come from, i believe, from something kennedy heard in high school. this was from his headmaster, used to say this to the kids -- >> what school? "the youth who loves his alma mater will always ask not -- ask not what you -- what your alma mat kerr do for me but what you can do for your alma mater." >> so kennedy's headmaster said -- >> said this. >> wrote that line? >> yes. >> so there's nothing left. that's it. that's the last leg of the

legacy. can i see -- can i see that? >> you can have it. >> wow, what is this worth? >> a xerox, nothing. >> okay. >> but it's from the book. >> what a hoot. next, dicky and ducky. last night nbc's brian williams interviewed george herbert walker bush and his team which included -- includes dick cheney and secretary of state jim baker. want an expected nugget? the two are going hunting together. >> well, i guess you guys are off to go hunting. >> next week. >> and i'm told your heart pump can also take a joke. so do you have any reservations when you get a hunting invitation from vice president -- >> i -- i extended the invitation to him. >> okay. >> but i have good body armor that i'm going to wear. >> very well. >> from the republican hunting set. for tonight's big number.

these two weeks sarah palin's faced the toughest criticism of her political career, and it shows. last year on the betting service in ireland, intrade.com, her chance of winning the republican nomination peaked. 29%. where is it now? about half that, 14%, cut in half. sarah palin's odds for the republican gold dwindled to one in seven, 14%. i'd say that's high. tonight's big number. that's "hardball" for now. coming up next, "your business." now the healing power of touch just got more powerful. introducing precise from the makers of tylenol. precise pain relieving cream works quickly to activate sensory receptors. it helps block pain signals fast for relief you can feel precisely where you need it most. precise. only from the makers of tylenol.

what's that? oh, you mean this giant check for 522 big ones? it's just the staggering amount of money i save people on average when they call me, "the saver," to switch their car insurance to esurance. you mean the same amount they save when they switch to esurance online...? do we have any giant envelopes? it costs $522. can you take a check? [ female announcer ] you could save 522 big ones. see for yourself at esurance. technology when you want it. people when you don't.