captions paid for by nbc-universal television this sunday, an exclusive interview with treasury secretary timothy geithner. big questions about newes for wall street. will reform really mean tend of bailouts? big questions about jobs. wall street rallies, but companies are still slow to hire. what will change that? will the president ultimately have to raise taxes to tackle the debt? then our political roundtable weighs in. pennsylvania governor and former

dnc chair ed rendell, tennessee congresswoman and tea party supporters marsha blackburn, political director of atlantic media, ron brownstein, and host of the new public affairs program "enfoque" airing on telemundo, jose diaz-balart. they will debate the politics of the economy, which party stands to gain in this mid determine election year and what role the tea party will play in november. finally, a look back during our "meet the press" minute, astronaut john glenn defended the race to explore space. first the outlook on the economy. the pace of recovery and new rules for wall street. yesterday i sat down with an exclusive interview with the president's top economic adviser, treasury secretary, timothy geithner. >> welcome back to "meet the press." big developments have to do with

goldman sachs, a civil fraud case brought against the firm for allegedly misleading investors, essentially selling products that they would never themselves buy. if you take a step back, what is the broader significance of these charges? >> i can't comment on the details of the investigation or the merits. i can tell you i'm very confident that we'll have the votes for a strong package of financial reforms that will bring derivative markets out of the dark, help protects taxpayers from having to fund future bailouts and trying to make sure we're giving americans basic protections against fraud and abuse. i'm very confident we'll have a strong bill. this is about the basic financial security of the country, about the financial security of all americans. i can see you'll see republicans and democrats come together and pass strong reform. >> we'll get into some of that reform. does a case like this -- you won't talk about the specifics, i understand -- does it help your case getting financial reform? >> why would you need a case like this? you had 8.5 million americans lose their jobs, tens of

thousands of businesses fail, worst financial crisis in generations. that's a powerful case for reform. we'll see americans come together i'm con fi dented. >> in this case as it's alleged, you have somebody who apparently makes a billion dollars by betting against the market and a firm, goldman sachs, denying wrongdoing, but accused of, again, selling a financial product that it would itself not buy. doesn't this feed what america really recent about how wall street is operating? >> i can't comment on the merits of this case. in this financial crisis you saw a range of terrible things happen, catastrophic failures in judgments by people running these institutions, catastrophic failures in institutions, and the consequences were devastating. >> is it time to start teaching people lessons on wall street? >> i think again the best thing we can do for the country is to make sure we put in place strong protections, rules of the game, reforms with teeth. you want a system that acts preemptively to prevent these

thing from happening, not come up and clean the mess up later. the best way to protect americans is to put a stronger system in place where people were able to act ahead of the storm, ahead of the abuse, ahead of the crisis. >> let's talk more broadly about financial regulation. earlier this year, president obama issued a declarative statement. let me play it for you. >> never again will the american taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is too big to fail. >> so at the heart of financial reforms, new rules for wall street. can you guarantee that these rules will guarantee no more bailouts? >> what we can guarantee if congress joins with the president in passing the reforms we've proposed, reforms that passed the house, now working their way through the senate, then taxpayers will not be on the hook for bailing out these large institutions from their mistakes in the future. >> who will be then? >> the banks will be on the hook for paying the price. that's a basic proposition. that's something you'll see democrats and republicans agree on. it's a basic thing of fairness.

why should we put the american taxpayer in the position ever again where they have to use a penny of their money to pay for the mistakes of large institutions. >> it's not like the government wanted to use their money this go-around. if a financial firm gets in trouble, what do they need? they need cash to stay afloat. even if they put cash on the tashlgs what if they need more? aren't the firms going to expect the government is going to be there? >> that's why it's so important to put in place reforms. because of the actions we had to take, we were forced to take to protect the economy, that will lead people, if we don't reform the system -- >> i don't see what will be different. you say they'll have to pay foirt. what if they need more cash still? >> the two most important things to do is to make sure we can constrain risk-taking by these large institutions, prevent them from writing hundreds of billions in commitments they can't meet with capital, move derivatives out of the dark. >> you have to stop and tell people what a derivative is.

>> a derivative is a way to buy insurance against some risk or to bet in some financial outcome. it's a form of insurance or a way to make a bet on some particular financial outcome i want to come back again, what these bills will do, they will make sure if a large institution ever again managed itself to a point where it can't survive on its own and has to come to government support, the government will put it into receivership, wipe out shareholders, will replace management and we'll wind that firm down, dismember it, sem it off so it can't exist again to make those kind of mistakes in the future and make sure while we're doing that that the taxpayer themselves are not exposed to a penny of loss. >> republican critics including minority leader mcconnell says, in fact, these reforms amount to, in his words, an endless taxpayer bailout of banks. why isn't that true? >> absolutely not true. some of his own members say it was a bit over the top.

i've spent a lot of time with republicans, even the at the end of last week, and i believe we're very close on this, that we agree on the vast bulk of things to end too big to fail, protect taxpayers in the future. that's why i'm so confident. we're not together on everything. i think on derivatives and consumer protection, we're ways apart, we may not get there. on too big to fail and making sure we protect the taxpayer, i think we're very close. >> do you have republicans that will vote for this? >> i'm very confident we'll see republicans vote for this. >> do you have anybody now? >> you'll have to ask them now. >> you're working them, tripg to bring them along. >> that's why i'm so confident. how can anyone look at this damage caused and say we're going to leave this system in place, not support a strong set of reforms? >> you have been on different sides of this financial crisis. at the fed and now as treasury secretary. i'm curious to note, do you believe there are any rules for wall street that could prevent the kind of collapse that we saw?

>> absolutely i do. >> could have prevented it? >> absolutely. we made a series of devastating mistakes as a country. we let large institutions taking on enormous risk, operate in the dark, outside of any basic constraints on risk-taking, completely untenable. we let the country come into this crisis without basic tools to put a bank into bankruptcy. a large institution like aig into bankruptcy. those are terrible, preventable mistakes. i'm confident with this bill, it incorporates a lot of republican ideas. i'm confident with those protections we can reduce the risk of this happening again, prevent it from happening again. >> do you think you can change the culture of wall street? can you change the risk-taking, the search for profits that lead to the sort of excesses we saw? can you really change the way they do business? >> if you allow a system to create enormous opportunities for return where people can get the upside without being exposed to trising, it's going to attract lots of people, not the best kind of people to that business. out can't run a system on the

expectation that firms are going to act in any way other than what they think is their best interest. what you have to do is make sure the government is setting rules with teeth that prevent them from taking risks that could imperil the economy as a whole. >> you're sometimes criticized as a containment guy a instead of a more hard-charging, roll-back wall street guy. i go back to the sec charges, is it time to start teaching lessons? >> the best lesson we can teach and the best thirng we can do for the american people is put in place rules to prevent firms from taking these risks again, make sure we protect the taxpayer, bring derivatives out of the dark. american people deserve that. you've seen a devastating loss of trust and confidence in this financial system. we have to work very hard to restore their basic sense of trust and that the system will provide protections they need. >> there are some on wall street who have worked with this administration, some who are critical who say the view from you, the president and others in the administration, largely driven by politics is it's open

season on the banks, it's beat up on the banks time. is that the smart thing to do politically or for the economy? >> there's no politics in this. this is note a partisan thing. this is a basic proposition. >> not good politics to beat up on the banks. >> i don't know if it's good politics or not. we'll do what's good policy. that's what the president asked me to do. >> you know there's a populist wave in the country, jamie dimon was criticizedality speaking at seer kusz. do you think that's unhealthy for the economy? >> what the president is going to do and what he's asked me to do is to make sure we're designing reforms that will change what was broken, protect the american people better in the future. our judgment is he governs this way, david. you focus on doing the right thing, you let the politics take care of themselves. it's not always going to be popular. people will fight you on these kind of things. we'll focus on doing the right thing. >> let's talk about the broader economy and encouraging news. this is the "wall street journal" headline this week "dow breaks through 11,000.

stocks rise on outlook for the economy, corporate earnings, individuals still on the sidelines." you're out there talking to people you see so much. what gives you a reason to be optimistic right now? >> again, you're seeing in the numbers, and if you talk to businesses across the country and all industries, you see more confidence today. the private sector is growing, private investment is increasing. americans are spending a bit more of their income. these are very encouraging signs. they allow us to be more con fi dents today that we'll come out of this stronger. we have to deal in reality, too. the reality still is that this crisis caused a huge amount of damage. it's going to take a long time to heal that damage. we'll keep working to make sure we're hooelg what was broken. we've got work to do. >> that headline refers to individuals on the sidelines. 8.5 million jobs lost in the course of the recession in march, and something that the fed chairman was concerned about, 44 prps of those

unemployed in march have been unemployed for six months or more. is this a jobless recovery? >> i think the economy is starting to create jobs again. that's going to continue. just remember a year ago the economy lost 3/4 million jobs in one month, in march. last month the economy created 160,000 new jobs. i think we're now on a path where you'll see sustained job creation, see the workweek extended. people add hours to their payroll, income start to rise, more people come back to work. we have more work to do to help reenforce that process. >> you don't see the unemployment rate climbing again to over ten? >> i'm not an economist. if you see that it will be because more people are coming to the work force because there's hope again. we're in a much stronger position than we were three months ago, six months ago, stronger than we thought. faster recovery than many people expected because of the actions of the president. >> you told matt lauer on the "today show" that the unemployment rate will be unacceptablebly high for a

period of timt. these are the projections for urn employment out to the fourth quarter of 2012 at 7.9% which is still pretty high. i assume you think that would be unacceptably high. what would incentivize companies to build a new factory, to have workers improve on that outlook? >> we're working to improve on those numbers, we're trying to get congress to move to put in place a series of new tax incentiv incentives for hiring, business investment. trying toake sure states can keep teachers in the classrooms, fix schools, fix roads and bridges, improve infrastructure. there are a range of things we can do to help make the recovery stronger. and as we grow again, we'll see more job creation and not less. >> i want to ask you about housing, critical in the overall rebound of the economy. the administration had a big program to modify mortgages to be able to keep people in their homes. you had a congressional oversight committee this week say that the treasury department has lagged behind the pace of

the crisis. the u.s.a. today reported foreclosures rice in spite of efforts, home foreclosures are accelerating, and many more people are losing their homes more than a year after the government launched a program to aid financially stressed borrowers. i heard you say, look, you have to remember how bad things were. nevertheless, this is a results problem, is it not? >> i don't think so. the president's program did the necessary vital essential thing which is to bring stability to house prices that were falling off the cliff. now, as you know, for most people in the country, their house is the most important financial asset. so by helping stabilize house prices, we made an enormous difference in people's basic financial security. the president did that by working with the fed to help bring down mortgage interest rates which are at historic lows. four million americans have been able to refinance because of that. this is to help the innocent victims of the subprime crisis. a million americans today are getting lower monthly payments on their mortgage debt, on

average $500 a month because of the president's program. we're working very hard to make sure that program reaches more americans. we announced a series of programs over the last several weeks -- >> but you're trying to now get lenders to reduce the principal for people because you have, and this was always the warning about a mortgage remodification, that people redefault and end up getting foreclosed on. >> you're right to say the changes we made recently are to help the unemployed, help people under water refinance, help for more relief in terms of principal reduction. we gave the ten hardest hit states with high unemployment, we gave them a significant amount of resources to help insent pilot programs to help address those problems. we'll keep working to reach more people. one more thing. it's very important to recognize that we're not goings to be able to help and it would not be help to ask the american people to

help people speculating on real estate or who are irresponsible in financial decisions. we'll reach more people. this program has been very effective in bringing a measure of stability to a housing market that was in crisis and reaching the americans who were the greatest victims. >> do you think the worst of the foreclosure crisis is over? >> i think it's going to be very hard still. again, it's so important we work with congress to strengthen the recovery and make sure we're creating more joshs more quickly. >> this past week was tax day. i want to talk about taxes. first, i want to ask you what is your level of concern about inflation as you look ahead perhaps to next year? >> our biggest challenge now and this is a challenge not just in the united states but all the major economies is to make sure that growth is stronger. we have a recovery led by the private sector that can be self-sustaining. that's our biggest challenge. >> when we talk about taxes and spending, the debt is a huge concern. right now america's debt is 53% of the total economy.

deficit hawks like robert biggs by were quoted in washington times said this, the basic challenge is political and we've gotten to a situation where the spending promises we made can't be financed with the levels of taxation we've agreed upon. getting out of that dynamic requires either cutting back on the spending promises or raising taxes. those are politically explosive choices. will the president have to consider raising taxes on the middle class if he's going to be serious about taking on the debt? >> david, as you know, the president does not support raising taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year. the president recognizes that our deficits are too high and they're going to have to come down overtime. look what he's done when he came into office. he came in and cut taxes as he should have on 95% of working families, provided incentives to business to stimulate private investment. he's committed to bring the deficits down. he's outlined a very hard ambitious set of proposals that will cut our deficits by more than half a share of our economy over the next four years. he's convinced republicans to

join on a bipartisan fiscal commission to make sure we can propose reforms, identify policies that take us back to where we were -- >> is it enough -- first of all, cutting taxesor 95% of americans. the bush tax cuts will expire. there are tax hikes included in health care reform. look -- >> health care reform is enormously important and will be enormously important and effective in helping bring down the long-term deficits. >> there's debate about even though that is certainly the assertion about how it was passed. >> again, in our country we turn to the independent analysts to make those judgments. this is why we have health care reform today, because the president wouldn't have it any other way, in their judgment health care reform will bring down long-term deficits dramatically overtime. >> why don't you have to consider additional tax hikes when you have the likes of alice rev lynn, republican senator dom niche chi saying something has to give here and tax hikes have to be on the table in this

environment. >> you said the important thing which is the president is going to extend the middle class tax cuts, but he is also going to let expire the tax cuts that president bush put in place for the 2% of the most fortunate americans in our country. that will provide more than a trillion dollars, around a trillion dollars in deficit reduction over the next ten years. that's very important. in addition to that, the president proposed a range of other measures to help close tax loopholes, reform international tax -- tax treatment of international companies in the united states, imposed a fee on risk to cover the t.a.r.p., reimposed the basic budget rules, pay go that were in place in the '90s. those are necessary -- >> are any of these serious enough to tackle the trajectory our debt is on? >> absolutely. let me step back. this is something we can manage as a country. think about it this way. even a moderate recovery -- a moderate recovery along with the

president's commitment to make sure the recovery act expires, the emergency action we took expire when the economy strengthens, those two actions themselves will cut our deficits in half as a share of the economy, bring them down from 10% as a share of gdp to around 5% of gdp. that's not far enough. the other measures you just identified will take us down below 4% of gdp. we've asked the commission, a very talented group -- >> the debt commission -- >> to step back from politics and recommend additional measures. >> do you believe painful choice also be necessary by the government? >> of course they will. these are things we can do as a country. we're in a much stronger position to deal with these challenges. >> what's a painful choice you would advocate to the president if he wants to be serious ability tackling the deficit? >> the president has made very important proposals for the congress to consider and we hope they act on them. >> any specific ones? >> the ones i highlighted. >> anything with regard to entitlement spending, medicare,

social security, tax reform, broad-based tax reform. >> we'll look at everything. the commission's basic mandate is to step back from politics, take a look at all those things and come forward with recommendations that will return us to the point where we're living within our means as a country. >> two quick points before we're out of time. would the president support a gas tax if it were part of an overall climate change piece of legislation? >> david, that's not something i can address today. as you know, he's working with a number of senators to make sure we can put in place the kind of energy reforms our country needs. if you talk to businesses across the country, one thing many of them agree on is we need to bring certainty to what the rules of the game are and how we use energy, make sure we're encouraging greater energies efficien efficiency, not just for climate change, but for energy independence. the president will keep looking at that. >> is he looking at a gas tax, considering it? >> not something i can help you on today. but we are a working on making

sure we change how we use energy in this country, for energy independence and to make sure we're using it ef fish lee. >> you saw the tea party rallies around the country. it seems the biggest grievance have to do with taxes, with government spending, with the size of the deficit. how serious do you take those concerns? how viable a political force do you consider the tea party to do? >> let me do the positive side of this. we've just been through eight years where many people said deficits don't matter. we can pass huge tax cuts, pass huge new programs without paying for them. that debate has changed fundamentally. you don't hear people say anymore deficits don't matter. out don't hear people saying we can pass enormous expansions in government without paying for it. that's an important change. i think all americans understand our deficits are unsustainable. i think that will be helpful as we move to bring them down again. >> mr. secretary, we'll leave it

there. >> thank you very much, david. up next, pennsylvania governor ed rendell, tennessee congresswoman marsha blackburn, ron brownstein and jose diaz-balart tackle the economy, the midterm elections and impact of the tea party. our "meet the press" minute defending the race to space, only here on "meet the press."

the politics of the economy. what role will the tea party have on the midterm election?

we're back with our political roundtable joined by republican congresswoman marsha blackburn of tennessee, ed rendell of pennsylvania, host of the new public affairs program, "enfoque," jose b.a.r.t. and fellow washington capitals

fan ron brownstein. welcome to all of you. i want to talk about this left-right political divide over the economy. let's talk first, congresswoman, about secretary geithner. you heard what he said. >> yes, i did. >> new rules for wall street mean no more taxpayer-funded bailouts? is the cage closed? >> no, it is not closed at all. what the american people want to be certain that we do not do is take boone and bust and replace it with fraud and bailout. they are tired of the bailouts, they want this to end. >> he said the banks are going to pay for it now. >> this too big to fail -- they know better than that. they know this financial regulatory reform bill in its current form that is working its way through is going to institutionalize the bailouts, and this is something that they do not want. >> i have to stop you, congresswoman, what you heard him say, the banks would actually pay for this. why don't you believe that? >> into a fund. because you can look at history.

you can see it always gets passed. it's the reagan thing. corporations don't pay taxes. people do. they know they'll see fees go up. >> they can pass it on. >> the way community banks are treated through this consumer protection agency is horrendous. it would be the demise of community banking. i know everyone is working to get to reform that is going to be as tough on wall street as it is on washington. washington has some responsibility to bare in this also. david, that's what they're wanting to see. they want to see real reforms just like they did in health care. they wanted to see reform. what they got was control. they don't want more washington control coming out on this regulatory reform bill. >> are these rules that can really prevent what we've gone through? >> sure. i think the key thing you heard secretary geithner say is, if a bank gets in trouble, they get dismembered, taken over, essentially they go away. they go away because they're punished for what they do. i think that's the biggest incentive of all. what the republican party is doing now is like the death

squad stuff. they think if they say it often enough, this doesn't end too big to fail. people will believe it. but it's not true. this is a real test for the party of no. they have to say yes. >> we're the party of k-n-o-w. >> they can't keep taking money from these companies and do their bidding. >> governor, you know that's wrong. >> fact from fiction. >> two separate issues. first is how you regulate these large systemically risky businesses. the bill establishes for the first time, the house and senate bill, distinct federal oversight of the largest institutions whose failure could put the entire financial system at risk. that is something, when you said the public does not want more washington control, i think the polling is pretty clear that on this front the public wants more washington oversight of these large institutions which is not available now and would now be through a council of federal regulators and if feds.

the second issue is what do you do when one of these boheim myths fall over anyway and collapse. if you think of the 2008 as your template for a bailout where you put a lot of money in an institution and it continues to exist, same management, stockholders and so forth, the version of the senate bill negotiated by democrat mark warner and bob corker of tennessee is designed to prevent that. what they both say is the resolution mechanism in the bill is designed to eliminate the management, wipe out the stockholders, force the creditors to take a haircut and then that bank would be -- financial institution would be dismembered. bob corker has raised the concern in the last few days around the edges of that there are other provisions that may allow for more federal intervention without that kind of draconian response. but he has also said that those differences could be resolved in, quote, about five minutes if there was good will on the part of the two parties which mark warner has said as well. >> jose, you hear about the sec

filing, and goldman sachs has denied any wrongdoing. the way this goes is essentially they're accused of being a middle man on a transaction where you have all this bad debt that's part of a financial product that goldman sachs wouldn't itself buy, and this charge of misleading people. this is what drives people crazy around the country. are we really going to change any of that? >> we hear reform with teeth. we hear about too big to fail. we've been hearing this for so many years. u know what? a lot of people are watching what's going on in washington and new york. their eyes are glazing over because it doesn't affect or benefit them at all in their communities. we continue with high unemployment. the hispanic community, almost 14% of the men in the hispanic community are unemployed. what they see is more investment in government and less investment in small towns and in small businesses. a lot of people are saying, you know what? maybe the government shouldn't be so worried about funding government agencies and government programs, and let's start taking care of the small and large businesses that are in

the community, and they're the ones that hire. we hear all this money going into, for example, construction projects for the hispanic community, something very important. then you have e verify. e verify limits -- by the way, it has a higher record rate -- the amount of miss panics that feel that they are in some way drawn into those businesses and into those projects. you know what? government investment is important. but government investment also has to recognize that the people who generate jobs in this country are the small businesses or the bow day gation or supermarkets or gas stations. those people find absolutely no help out of washington or new york. >> ron, i want to start with you because you've looked at this analytically, who is wing politically on the economy, whether it's regulation, whether it's jobs, whether it's stimulus? who is winning, republicans or democrats? >> by and large, it feels as though republicans are driving the argument. look, the construct that republicans have made is that what is impeding recovery is

primarily big government at this point. and to a large extent they have succeeded in that argument. look at trend lines. obama approval on the economy. those are striking after the largest failure of the market economy in 2008 probably since the great depression. democrats have been losing control. this financial regulation is a place with two contending visions collide. as you heard from the congresswoman, the republican argument is that more government intervention is the problem. democrats i think want to make the case that what led to this disaster was the hands-off approach that the republican administration took, the bush administration, the low tax, low regulation approach that their agenda was built around led to this. i think you're going to see these contending both policy and political visions very clearly on display if this bill comes -- >> governor, on the economy taxes are a big piece of this. here is a provocative thought

reported by the long angles times. a key question in this midterm election year is whether democrats will get cold feet over raising taxes during hard economic times. quote, they're in a push-pull situation said robber ton williams a tax policy analyst. they really want the money from raising taxes but don't want to quash the nation's recovery. how do you threat that needle when they're preparing to let the bush tax cuts expire? >> i think the most important thing and what was said about small business is crucial. the tax cuts in the stimulus were one-third of the stimulus bill. nobody knows that. in pennsylvania 2.7 million taxpayers got cuts because of the stimulus bill. small businesses have received a ton of incentives, both in the original stimulus bill and the recently passed jobs bill. i think you've got to take your tax cuts and target them to job creation. i think the obama administration has done a good job and is doing a better job in that recently. i think we can do more to do that.

in terms of the bush tax cuts itself, the focus again has to be directed to the people who are -- who are letting the tax cuts expire. those people can afford to pay more taxes. after the bush tax cuts expire, the tax rate will still be the same as under ronald reagan. congresswoman before we move on, make the case as why the republican party is on the right side of this economic debate in this election year? >> the reason the republican party is on the right side of this economic debate is simply this, the election is going to be about freedom. the american people know that being dependent on the federal government for home loans, for your health care, for your education, for your jobs, even for the kind of light bulb that you want to put in the fixture, is not the aspirations of a free people. and because of that, we are on the right side of this argument. everything we're discussing here

-- >> is it not a fair question about the limits of the free capitalist system? >> we know if you let free markets work, there's no expiration date on the free market. there is no expiration date on the american economy. what the american people do not like is the overreach of government. >> my question is what did the free market get us? what did freedom get us in the economic collapse? you had an absence of government regulation and you had the free market running wild. look what the result was. >> and you need more oversight. we all agree with that. and the financial bill that senator corker and them are working on would lead to more oversight. the goldman charges that have come forward now, david, they have come forward under existing sec rules. more oversight, which i have always been a proponent of would have helped. >> i want to get another piece of this in here, jose, which is the tea party movement. it was just tax day, a big tea party rally on the mall in washington, tea party rallies across the country.

the focus here, taxes, spending, the deficit. the question is what is the political impact of the tea party come fall? ron foreign yay writing for the associated press wrote, the tea party is making a lot of noise, but the angry at government movement has yet to establish itself as a force that can determine the outcome of november's congressional elections. the key could be forging alliance with gop candidates but tea partiers in nearly every state are leery of that if not down right opposed. the day there's an organized tea party says mark block who runs tea party rallys in the state, is the day the tea party movement dies. politico did some polling after the rally we showed you in washington on thursday. a couple of interesting views of what tea partiers at this particular rally believe. 75% scared about the direction of the country. 73% want to send a message to both parties. look at this in terms of views of president obama himself, 76%

agree that barack obama is pursuing a socialist agenda. what's the impact? >> i don't think a lot of people in the hispanic community to be specific, think barack obama is a socialist. i do tell you there's a lot of anger and rejection as to what washington has been doing. i think this feeling that we see throughout the country is the exact same feeling i'm sensing in my community. they are sick and tired of government taking them for granted. politicians owe their jobs to our votes and they've gotten them and now it's time for them to say, this is what we're doing for you, not for us, not for the big corporations, and not for government. >> i should say that that poll from politico will be available in its entirety on monday at politico.com. speak to that. >> when the congresswoman said this election is going to be about liberty. there is probably about 40% of the lek tort for whom this election is about liberty. one of the things we know is there's going to be a big turnout of conservatives who are antagonized by what the obama

administration has been doing. for most it's going to be about results. that's why even though i say the republicans have won the economic debate i think over the past year, dlr more rounds left in this fight. what the administration is hoping is that there will be enough good news of the sort that secretary geithner was talking about that by november they can make the case that, look, things have been tough, but we are beginning to move the economy in the right direction and do you want to go back? there is a tremendous amount of overlap between the policies that republicans are advocating now and those that were implemented by bush, george w. bush during his two terms that produced one quarter as many jobs under the eight years as clinton and a decline in the median income over two terms of a president which we haven't seen for any other two-term president in modern times. even though i think republicans, all the polls suggest amid these hard times, because they have had the upper hand, the arguments isn't over, and there are beginning to be positive economic signs that i think obama is going to be able to

martial to argue that even that times are tough, at least he's begun to turn the corner. >> governor, let's take a live case of potentiality tea party impact, the senate race in kentucky, congressman, near your district. there you have tray grayson seen as more of an establishment candidate, and ran paul as the opponent, son of ron paul, the former presidential candidate, endorsed by sarah palin and jim bunning. he's actually ahead in the primary race. this is going to be a test to whether a tea party sentiment or movement has real political power. >> i think david, first thing we have to define is what's the tea party itself? if you say it's the anger that people feel about the economy, et cetera, that's giving the tea party too much credit. we had two recent tea party demonstrations in washington, one a week before the health care vote, drew about 1,000 people. the tax day rally by the

organizers' own estimate was 1,50 people. if i organized aa rally for stronger laws to protect pup byes, i would get 100,000. i think it's blown out of proportion. secondly, there is anger out there at washington, at wall street and it's anger that's justified. we, the american people were handed a bad deal by wall street. >> there's a real thing here, whether there's the culture wars being replaced by the government wars. people really angry about whether government can manage its own affairs, when a lot of governments are broke around the country and whether it can deliver on competently fight wars, protect the american people, those kind of things. this is a driving sentiment, is it not, congresswoman? >> tea parties are loosely knit organizations. i describe it as an amoeba, the way they work, governor.

if you came with me, what you would see is bill-paying moms and dads who are hard working. they've finally said, you know, we're going to do something about this. the nation is on the right track. it's not just directed at the president or this administration or this leadership. it's directed at both parties. what they want is leaders who are going to say, look, you may not agree with us. we're going to tell you the truth. we're going to tell you where we stand. we're going to stop spending taxpayer dollars on programs you don't want. people know they're overtaxed and government has overspent. >> let me ask you about some of the sentiments. earlier we talked about the view that barack obama is a socialist. michelle backman, a colleague of yours in the house from minnesota was at the tea party rally on thursday. she talked about the anti-government sentiment. is one of the things she had to say. >> we're onto them. we're onto this gangster government. >> gong center government,

congresswoman. are those views that you would stand behind, that kind of rhetoric? >> i just a different rhetoric. i choose to address the issues a little bit differently, david. >> is that over the line? this is a politician, is that over the line? >> those are words that she chose and statements that she made. what we have to focus on is tea party individuals, individuals who are activists who are coming to these tea parties are very, very concerned about what is happening with this country. they know that their taxes are high. they know government is overspent. they're not looking at government today. they're looking at what's going to happen 20, 30, 50 years from now. >> do those kinds of words -- april 19th, the anniversary of the oklahoma city bombing where an antigovernment person who was arguably a sociopath attacked the federal government. when you describe a gangster

government, do you think that's over the line and inappropriate? >> it would not have been a choice in words i made. what we have to realize is any time you have large public gatherings, whether it is a group from the left or a group from the right, you're going to have lots of individuals with different opinions that show up. >> jose, let me get you into this. broader perspective here then in terms of the overall impact of this kind of discourse right now. it says something about what's resonating for some people in the country in terms of their views of what washington is doing right or wrong. >> can i interrupt you something. there's something resonating in our community that i don't hear enough about. and i thank you for the opportunity. immigration reform is funneledmental for the hispanic community. you don't have to be an undocumented ill yen, illegal immigrant, however you want to call them, to want immigration reform. it's something everybody in the hispanic community is asking for. we want to know what the conservatives and the liberals and the tea party and what the democrats are thinking and saying. you know what, words do matter. i've got president obama in 2008

saying i can guarantee you we will have an immigration reform proposal during my first year. words matter. wet haven't seen it. then we have on the right people that trash hispanics by saying, for example, that -- what we're seeing in arizona, for example, that if you look like you could be an illegal worker, you could be -- both sides, both sides. >> one thing to keep in mind about the tea party is it is an overwhelmingly white movement. >> are you talking about immigration reform? >> no. tea party in general is overwhelmingly white. john mccain, almost 90% of his votes in 2008 came from whites. we're living through a fundamental demographic change. hispanics were 2% when bill clinton got elected. 9% in 2008. it's not only miami, phoenix, l.a., there are 99 congressional districts in which 20% of the

vote is hispanic. and one of the questions i think the republican party faces is not only on immigration, but more broadly on the role of government, the nonwhite community, the hispanic community, african-american community is more open to an activist role for government. 30% of hispanics don't have health insurance. >> can we focus on immigration reform? it never gets talked about. >> i want to go back to jose's point. >> my point about immigration reform, how much of this has been sidelined by all of the concentration on health care? >> that's exactly right. that's the question we're asking on "enfoque" today, later on telemundo, a gentleman from maryland meeting with president obama on the white house on the afternoon they were talking about immigration reform, at the same time they were picking up people in different places -- they picked them up for deportation says that. he says we understand he's got other priorities. but when you promise something, you have to at least deal with

it. >> how can you argue that health insurance reform is not a significant priority? >> i'm not arguing that. >> if 30% of the hispanic community lacks health insurance. >> you're absz buttely right. >> in terms of a material impact on the hispanic community, hard to think anything could be more direct than that. harry reid has said in the last few weeks he intends to bring a bill to the floor, unlikely to have 60 votes to get through this this quasi parliamentary system without majority rule that we live in. certainly no community had more of a stake. if you look at polling, hispanics are more likely than whites to say health care reform will personally benefit me and my family. >> not income pattedable. >> we can't talk about them at the same time? >> to say the hispanic community was ill served by putting health care in front of immigration reform. >> i'll have to make that the last word. so much more to discuss. we're out of time. more with jose, the soft-spoken jose about his new program and important issues facing the

hispanic community and the u.s. and around the world in our web extra on our website at mtp.msnbc..com. up next, president obama defended his new plans for nasa this week. we look back nearly half a century ago to a similar debate on the race to space with colonel john glenn right after this station break.

we're back. president obama visited the kennedy space center to dedpend his position to revamp the space program. his wants to send an astronaut to an astroid by 2025 while at the same time ending government-funded missions to the moon. critics accuse the president of short changing nasa which they fear can undermine our country's competitiveness in space. at the dawn of the space race when astronaut john glenn, the first american to orbit the

earth appeared right here on "meet the press" in 1963. >> colonel, as you know, there's a growing controversy in and out of congress over the question whether it is really worth the time, the money, the $20 billion to $40 billion to get a man to the moon. have you ever had any doubts about the poshs of get together the moon? >> i don't think we know really until the exploration is completed whether it will be worthwhile or not. i certainly think it will be. i don't think we can really pinpoint every answer until we complete the exploration. >> you risked your life and devoted your energy and your time in this race to get to the moon. are you, yourself, convinced beyond question that it's worth doing? and why? >> well, yes, i am, or i wouldn't be in the position i'm in. >> on july 16, 1969, "apollo 11" hurd ld to the sky.

then neil armstrong and buzz aldrin became the first to set foot on the moon. aldrin traveled with obama on thursday to show support. his fellow astronaut armstrong remained one of the administration's most vocal critics. we'll be right back.

a few programming notes before we go. two important specials coming up on msnbc. today at noon eastern, a discussion debating the black agenda hosted by tamron hall and ed schultz of msnbc. tomorrow night rachel maddow hosts "the mcvay tapes." as for us, this sunday afternoon "meet the press" re-air will be simulcast on sirius channel 90 and xm channel 120. we can be everywhere. that is all for today. we'll be back next week. if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com