that's according to mr. zandi. how much damage do you think has been done. >> there's no question enormous damage has been done to our creditworthiness throughout the world, the perception of america as a country that not only is solid, and when there are difficult problems, as we have done in our history, we address them. we don't kick the can. we had a chance, and we still have a chance, albeit a difficult, because it's only nine days away to august 2nd, a chance to really do something serious. that's what the president wanted. that's what the president has been saying now for months. in april, he put out a $4 trillion roadmap to fiscal sanity, okay? he began to negotiate with speaker boehner, twice we've negotiated with the speaker for deficit reduction, and we haven't gotten there. gang of six that senator coburn's part of has been active over the last six months. they finally came out with something last week. i do think that out of this process, albeit rather disruptive to the political system and to the econ

mr. zandi was one of many advisors to my campaign. the key advisor was douglas holtz-eakin, former head of the c.b.o., who had no brief whatsoever for that proposal. please go ahead. mr. durbin: the second point i'd like to ask the senator from arizona, i think one of the real bedrock beliefs among republicans is that if you cut taxes particularly on the healthiest -- wealthiest people in america the economy will pros puss. didn't the debt of the united states double under the president and he left a shambles behind him? 2.3 million jobs lost in the first three months of president obama administration because of this failed economic policy which you continue to espouse, that if we cut taxes on the rich, america is going to get wealthier. haven't we tried it? where are the jobs? mr. mccain: could i take a little trip down memory lane with my friend from illinois who i had great privilege many years ago -- i don't know if i should mention the 1982 election, he and i came to the house of representatives together. you might recall that one

mr. zandi was one of many advisers to my campaign. douglas, who, as you know, former head of the cbo, you know him well, who had no really brief whatsoever for that proposal. please go ahead snop the second point i'd like to ask the senator from arizona, i think one of the real bedrock beliefs among republicans is that if you cut taxes, particularly on the wealthiest people in america, the economy will prosper. we hear that over and over again. didn't we try that experiment under president george w. bush? didn't the debt of the united states double under the president and he left a shambles behind him? 2.3 million jobs lost in the first three months of president obama's administration because of this failed economic policy which you continue to espouse, that if we cut taxes on the rich, america is going to get wealthier? haven't we tried it? where are the jobs? >> could i take a trip down memory lane with my friend from illinois, who i had the great privilege of many years ago, i don't know if i should mention, we came to the house of

mr. zandi was one of many advisors to my campaign. the key advisor was douglas holtz-eakin, former head of the c.b.o., who had no brief whatsoever for that proposal. please go ahead. mr. durbin: the second point i'd like to ask the senator from arizona, i think one of the real bedrock beliefs among republicans is that if you cut taxes particularly on the healthiest -- wealthiest people in america the economy will pros puss. didn't the debt of the united states double under the president and he left a shambles behind him? 2.3 million jobs lost in the first three months of president obama administration because of this failed economic policy which you continue to espouse, that if we cut taxes on the rich, america is going to get wealthier. haven't we tried it? where are the jobs? mr. mccain: could i take a little trip down memory lane with my friend from illinois who i had great privilege many years ago -- i don't know if i should mention the 1982 election, he and i came to the house of representatives together. you might recall that one

mr. president, unemployment, what would have happened without the federal response? according to this detailed study by sudan dip and blinder, without the federal response -- by zandi ande unemployment today would be 16% instead of the 9% we're experiencing. we would be in a depression. mr. president, that is the hard reality, and the amendment before us would have prevented that kind of governmental response. now, mr. president, they call this plan cut, cap, and balance. they should have called it cut, cap, and kill medicare, because that's really what this plan would do. it would cut, cap, and kill medicare. why do i say that? well, if we look at the house budget proposal that underlies this plan, we see what happens under traditional medicare. under medicare now, the beneficiary pays 25% of their expenses. under the republican budget plan that underlies the amendment that's come before us, medicare beneficiaries would pay 68% of the expenses of their health care. in other words, somebody who is medicare eligible, qualifies for the program, pays their required costs, pays their required co-pays, pays their required premiums, currently pays 25% of the cost, under the

mr. president, that has all of the potential to turn a recession into a depression. two of this country's most distinguished economists: alan blinder, former vice chairman of the federal reserve; and mark zandi former consultant advisor to this senator mccain evaluated the response to the last downturn. their conclusion: absent that federal response, we would have had great depression 2.0. mr. president, the legislation before us would have prevented that federal response. they call this legislation cut, cap, and balance. they misnamed it. they should have called it cut, cap, and kill medicare. because that's precisely what it would do. mr. president, why do i say that? because when i referred earlier to the internal -- inconsistency of this legislation, this is what i was referring to: they have two different spending caps in the lilings befor in the us. in one part of the legislation, they say the spending cap would take spendin spending from 24.1f g.d.p. to 19.9%. that's in one part of the bill before us. in another part of the bill -- constitutional amendment -- they say, the spending cap would be 18% of g.d.p. so i don't know who cooked this up, but you'd think they'd have at least gott

mr. president unemployment what would've happened without the federal responseg according to this detailed study by zandie -- by and blinder without the federal response, unemployment today with the 16% instead of the 9%. we would be in a depression.real and mr. president, that is the hard kin reality and the amendment before us would have prevented that kind of governmental response. now, mr. president, they called this plan cut cap and balance. they should have called it cuthi cap and kill medicare because that is really what this plan wouldwouldit wdo.ould it would cut cap and balancell i medicare. why do i say that? propol well, it if we look at the house budget proposal that underlies this plan we see what happens under traditional medicare. bene fi under medicare now the beneficiary pays 25% of theirthatnder li expenses. under the republican budget plan that underlies the amendment before as medicareld beneficiaries with pay 68% of the expenses of their health care.lifies in other words somebody who is medicare eligible, qualifies for the program, pays their requireds cost pays their required co-pay

mr. president, that has all of the potential to turn a recession into a depression. two of this country's most distinguished economists: alan blinder, former vice chairman of the federal reserve; and mark zandi former consultant advisor to this senator mccain evaluated the response to the last downturn. their conclusion: absent that federal response, we would have had great depression 2.0. mr. president, the legislation before us would have prevented that federal response. they call this legislation cut, cap, and balance. they misnamed it. they should have called it cut, cap, and kill medicare. because that's precisely what it would do. mr. president, why do i say that? because when i referred earlier to the internal -- inconsistency of this legislation, this is what i was referring to: they have two different spending caps in the lilings befor in the us. in one part of the legislation, they say the spending cap would take spendin spending from 24.1f g.d.p. to 19.9%. that's in one part of the bill before us. in another part of the bill -- constitutional amendment -- they say, the spending cap would be 18% of g.d.p. so i don't know who cooked this up, but you'd think they'd have at least gott

mr. president, that has all of the potential to turn a recession into a depression. two of this country's most distinguished economists: alan blinder, former vice chairman of the federal reserve; and mark zandi former consultant advisor to this senator mccain evaluated the response to the last downturn. their conclusion: absent that federal response, we would have had great depression 2.0. mr. president, the legislation before us would have prevented that federal response. they call this legislation cut, cap, and balance. they misnamed it. they should have called it cut, cap, and kill medicare. because that's precisely what it would do. mr. president, why do i say that? because when i referred earlier to the internal -- inconsistency of this legislation, this is what i was referring to: they have two different spending caps in the lilings befor in the us. in one part of the legislation, they say the spending cap would take spendin spending from 24.1f g.d.p. to 19.9%. that's in one part of the bill before us. in another part of the bill -- constitutional amendment -- they say, the spending cap would be 18% of g.d.p. so i don't know who cooked this up, but you'd think they'd have at least gott

mr. president, that has all of the potential to turn a recession into a depression. two of this country's most distinguished economists: alan blinder, former vice chairman of the federal reserve; and mark zandi former consultant advisor to this senator mccain evaluated the response to the last downturn. their conclusion: absent that federal response, we would have had great depression 2.0. mr. president, the legislation before us would have prevented that federal response. they call this legislation cut, cap, and balance. they misnamed it. they should have called it cut, cap, and kill medicare. because that's precisely what it would do. mr. president, why do i say that? because when i referred earlier to the internal -- inconsistency of this legislation, this is what i was referring to: they have two different spending caps in the lilings befor in the us. in one part of the legislation, they say the spending cap would take spendin spending from 24.1f g.d.p. to 19.9%. that's in one part of the bill before us. in another part of the bill -- constitutional amendment -- they say, the spending cap would be 18% of g.d.p. so i don't know who cooked this up, but you'd think they'd have at least gott

mr. president, unemployment, what would have happened without the federal response? according to this detailed study by sudan dip and blinder, without the federal response -- by zandi and blinder, without the federal response unemployment today would be 16% instead of the 9% we're experiencing. we would be in a depression. mr. president, that is the hard reality, and the amendment before us would have prevented that kind of governmental response. now, mr. president, they call this plan cut, cap, and balance. they should have called it cut, cap, and kill medicare, because that's really what this plan would do. it would cut, cap, and kill medicare. why do i say that? well, if we look at the house budget proposal that underlies this plan, we see what happens under traditional medicare. under medicare now, the beneficiary pays 25% of their expenses. under the republican budget plan that underlies the amendment that's come before us, medicare beneficiaries would pay 68% of the expenses of their health care. in other words, somebody who is medicare eligible, qualifies for the program, pays their required costs, pays their required co-pays, pays their required premiums, curre