among other things, bowles/simpson raised the retirement age for social security from 67 to 69.t cuts benefits for current social security retirees, because it changes the way the cost of living adjustment, the cola, is calculated. it increases the cost of medicare. it increases cost sharing. shifts about $110 billion to seniors and persons with disability. it would undermine employer-sponsored health insurance as it cuts the tax expenditures, all these tax breaks. one of the things it would do would be to take a close look at how we can take this tax deduction for employer-provided health care and diminish that. it is two-thirds spending cuts and only one third increases in revenue. many of those increases in a bad way for middle class people and for poor people and so in many ways, if if people really look at bowles/simpson, this is more of the same, an attack on middle-income people and those who aspire to it. so what are the good solutions? let me give you an example of how we win not just elections with, but how we win on our issues. last week the president announced that t

and there is increasing now talk, not just among republicans, but democrats as well, about the bowles simpson plan, or as i like to call it, the b.s. plan. and roger is right, i offered my own alternative because i want to make sure everyone is clear about what bowles simple sson ry did. among other things, bowles simpson raised the retirement age for social security, from 67 to 69. it cuts benefits for current social security retirees because it changes the way the cost of living adjustment, the cola is calculated. it increases the cost of medicare, increases cost sharing, shifts about $110 billion in costs to seniors and persons with disability. it would undermine employer sponsored health insurance as it cuts the tax expenditures, all these tax breaks, one of the things we should look at is if we can take this tax detection for employer provided health care and do away with that. if people really look at bowles simpson, this is really an attack to middle income people and those who aspire to it. let me give you an example of how we win, not just elections, but how we win on our issues. las

we have dominici-rivlin, we have bowles-simpson and president bush's 2005 commission. are lots of ways. everything has to be on the table, and again, the adjustment really has to focus on upper income households. >> when you look at the spending reduction, you said he is going to take spending down to 20% gdp. that is from about 23, 24. it's a very big drop. medical record to do that, what is he going to do specifically? what programs would get cut, particularly, again, the big money, that's medicare and to a lesser extent, medicaid, social security? what would he do to medicine conveyor? >> well, he has two parts to the spending plan. the first is the near term, the 2016. getting spending down to 20% is not as radical as it sounds. spending was 20% of gdp, or a bit less before the financial crisis, so this isn't some radical rethink of the size of government. how to do that would be cuts in discretionary spend and block granting the medicaid program. he has been very specific about that. medicare and social security are longer term issues. he specifically said those a

by and large, keying off of rivlin and domenici, keying off bowles-simpson. they tend to be rough starting points that people agree with. to be candid, i don't think many members of congress have drilled down the details of bowles-simpson and rivlin-domenici. that's part of the exercise here. i'm going to hold hearings on each one, on bowles-simpson and rivlin-domenici. that's an opportunity for senators to better understand what is included in each and better understand the trade-offs that are needed in order to reach a solution. starting say with entitlements. people talk about entitlement reform. well, what is meant by that? let's take medicare. various actions one can take under medicare. senators and the country frankly need to know what the trade-offs are and what each change actually costs or what the consequences are. same thing on the revenue side. i'm a firm -- i firmly believe where there are facts, people tend to focus more on facts and less on rhetoric. i'm trying to get away from the rhetoric and get people to think about the facts. in these hea

to cut marginal rates, would you have to do it, as you say, the way simpson-bowles does it. they get rid of a lot of the deductions or so-called loopholes, but the big money is in the very popular deducks. simps simpson>> will he go et -- what governor romney has said is, look, first of all, we need to cut marginal rates, and he would cut them to exactly the same levels in the bowles-simpson so-called compromise plan. part of that revenue is made up in economic growth. most of that, though, has to come from base broadening, about which he said two things. one, everything should be on the table. there's nothing eliminated. put everything on the table. second, that the bulk of the adjustment be born by upper income households. remember, the bowles-simpson was trying to raise close to 2 percentage points of gdp in revenue. governor romney is trying to be revenue-neutral. his tax plan wouldn't have to raise as much revenue from base broadening as bowles-simpson. >> i want to press ow this because even if you're not trying to raise as much, it's very tough to get any significant r

and what they said about the bowles/simpson commission is it cut taxes on the rich. we all know it didn't do that. but that's all they care about is the rate. so i mean this is why we have every congressional bill from that side of the aisle proposing a new spending program. they pay for it by new taxes on the rick. ccpb and ctnj, they propose tax proposals. it's not that everybody needs to pay higher taxes, no no, no. there is one group of people they think should be paying higher taxes. luckily the person people, including the good citizens in washington which is not the red estate in the country, they generally don't go in for that. they are very critical solve some rich people, the crony capitalists, the beneficiaries bailouts, the beneficiaries of the government largesse. for those people who have rolled up their sleeves and worked hard, they want nothing but the success for them. i don't know if people here ever watched the west wing. they had a character on there, sam seaborn, very liberal, but very sensible in many ways. in one of the scenes he is arguing wit

that's where we were. >> that's just incorrect. >> the question about simpson/bowles. i can answer that question. simpson/bowles is a plan, it rais raises, enshrines obama-care, but that was not enough for the president because it also lowered tax rates for wealthy people for everybody for businessmen and this president is committed to raising tax rates to levels we have not seen since the 1970s, so he killed it. >> that's why he's cut taxes 18 times. >> he took it to levels we've not seen since the 1970s. >> you know, jennifer rubin, in the interview, which is going to come up later with speaker boehner, we talked about this, why didn't that deal get done last summer? and he said, because at the last minute president obama put in another $400 billion in taxes. >> correct. >> there was already $800 billion in tax. >> then why don't they -- >> excuse me, mayor, that's exactly right. >> right now. >> mayor, i don't know how you run atlanta, i'm sure you do a great job. >> balance the budgets, no tax increases. >> but raising taxes right now with a 1.9% gdp economy, there

people like myself have criticized him for not embracing simpson/bowles early. eaker boehner were close to doing the big deal, $5 trillion to $6 trillion in reduction. it's not fair to say the president has never embraced simpson/bowles. he should do it loudly and clearly. i'd love to see him do it this afternoon. >> well, i don't think that's in the cards. >> we'll see. >> we'll have to see what he says in the speech. by the way, when i arrived in philadelphia, look what i saw in philadelphia magazine, your advance team is already out. rendell for president. >> the book says i want to be hillary's campaign manager in 2016. that's the only thing i want. >> okay. looking ahead. thank you very much. that is the book, of course, "nation of wusses." thank you so much, governor rendell. of course, an nbc news political analyst. >>> up next, holy wars. the clash between american nuns and the vatican. this is "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. today from philadelphia. >> time for your business entrepreneur of the week. nicholas brand of seattle wanted to start a window

if there was a simpson-bowles or a simpson-bowles like plan that came forth it would probably take placectly the reasons you just raised, concern about hurting the economy more at a delicate time. is that something you'd get behind? >> president obama asked for simpson-bowles and when they came out with lots of very strong recommendations, he never embraced it, never even really discussed it. it was like forget about it. i think after the election you are going to see -- i agree with what steve is saying about people coming together. i don't know if they're going to come together like they have to come together but after the election, i think things will get -- and regardless of who wins, after the election, things are going -- because people realize and people in congress and the senate realize what trouble this country is in. we are in serious, serious trouble, and if it goes for another four years like this, you're going to have, you're going to see results like we've never seen since the great depression. something has to be done and done quickly. >> donald it's michelle. >> hi, mich

. >> of 42 senators said they are prepared to revisit bowles- simpson. is it time for the president to be addressed that and give some stronger signal that he would be willing to embrace the tough choices to get the market a better sense of confidence? >> but me say what would be most helpful. did the most helpful things you could see would be a willingness to legislate. the middle-class tax cuts affect 98th term of american taxpayers. no reason the should be put in jeopardy as the face those at the end of the year. take the risk of default off the table. those are damaging to confidence. both sides should negotiate a balanced framework of broader spending savings that will help bring our deficit down over time. the pace is consistent with the recovery. >> said that will not happen, why not take bowles-simpson and have the president sends it? >> this debate began there and that is where it will end. the framework the president laid out a bill is different in a small respect is very close to that basic design. that is the neighborhood we plan to govern. t

what governor romney said is he would look at simpson-bowles as. -bowles, the gang of six, the super committee-- even though it failed-- there's a formula that i think will take hold eventually. nobody wants to raise tax rates. not one person who has looked at this problem we have as a nation suggested raising tax rates. but tom coburn, pat toomey, the gang of six, simpson-bowles commission-- all said let's flatten and broaden the tax base. let's eliminate deduction, and when you ask him how many deductions? i think we should eliminate all deductions except interest on your home and charitable giving with a cap, take that money back into the treasure-- it's a trillion a year we give away in deductions-- and use most of it to pay down tax rates and about one-fourth of it to pay down the debt. that's what simpson-bowles, the gang of six, the super committee tried to do. and i'm confident that's what governor romney would embrace. >> schieffer: you know-- >> and here's the bottom-- here's the bottom line, bob. we're not going to get entitlement reform

that's not in bowles simpson. >> bowles simpson does -- >> gets rid of loopholes. >> speaker boehner,lar -- >> by the time i'm done with you guys this will fall apart. i read what you said about we've got to stop the political posturing. he brings up issa. that's the best metaphor -- with the way the president has been electioneering, not governing for the past year and a half. we lost an atf agent. things happened. that's your best example of posturing? that's what we have? >> couldn't be any better that we lost an agent. you blame it on the attorney general who knew nothing about this -- >> we don't know that because we don't have the documents. >> when george bush didn't produce documents when the attorney general fired u.s. attorneys and the democrats talks about there is no executive privilege were any republicans upset about that? >> we're trying to get around. that's what you threw down on an issue. i can find other -- >> yes, sir? >> when you look back on the way you were treated by certain parts of the left, i think you would say right now probably grover norquist and the tea

that simpson/bowles eliminated every single one of them. omney is unwilling to say that he's in favor of elimination of even one and then pretends to say he's in favor of simpson/bowles. >> right. well, remember he said that simpson/bowles shows it's quote/unquote, possible. right? by his own admission, he's not telling us where it's all going to come from. again, he says it's -- well, we'll just go through a process with congress and simpson/bowles kind of showed us that was possible. but as we've talked about before on your show, this is one of a growing number of issues where he is not willing to talk specifics. like the immigration issue. bob schieffer asked a very fair, straightforward question and gotted a dodge, dance, but not a real answer. this is the strategy that the romney team is employing, which is, play it safe. don't answer questions with any specifics, talk platitudes, you know, use the rhetoric, say why obama's bad, but if you don't ever give any specifics, you can't be accountable to those specifics. >> karen, i'm glad you

as you heard, the ronald reagan supported it, and the bipartisan bowles-simpson commission did as wellgument rolled out by those givens this is we need to create an incentive to get people to invest. but there is no evidence at all to support their view. none. they are simply wrong. hence reagan's support for our view. those who take the other side are like the russian economist who opposes an idea by saying it works in practice, but it doesn't work in theory. well, they are wrong in practice and theory. and here is a little data point that proves it. even with all the incentives we've given to those who control capital there is only 2 trillion-dollar sitting on the sidelines not invested. the so-called job creators haven't created jobs. instead, they've pocketed the cash. why? not because of the tax code, but because you don't hire people to produce more widgets if nobody is buying them. this is a demand crisis. demand drives investment, not the existence of a lower capital gains tax rate. so let's strike a blow for fairness and the economy and eliminate the biggest gaping loophole in

we haven't reached a grand bargain to bring down our deficit, not with my plan, not with the bowles-simpson plan and not with the so-called gang of six plan. despite the fact that taxes are lower than they've been in decades, they won't work with us on any plan that would increase taxes on our wealthiest americans. it's the reason the jobs bill that would put 1 million people back to work has been voted down time and time again. it's the biggest source of gridlock in washington today. and the only thing that can break the stalemate is you. but, you see, in our democracy, this remarkable system of government, you, the people, have the final say. this november is your chance to render a verdict on the debate over how to grow the economy, how to create good jobs and how to pay down our deficit and your vote will finally determine the path that we take as a nation and not just tomorrow, but for years to come. when you strip everything else away, that's really what this election is about. that's what is at stake right now. everything else is just noise. everything else is just a distraction. fro

what is happening with simpson bowles and where do we stand? he super committee, both failed for different reasons but i see congress especially the senate coming back to the issue of how to do this and simpson-bowles is the natural vehicle to do it, it's the only vehicle that exists where you had a bipartisan coalition, including some of the most fiscally conservative members of the senate and some of the most progressive joining together on a package which reduced the deficit by $4 trillion, and what we're proposing myself erskine bowles and call it erskine bowles 2.0, and we had a meeting last week, myself and erskine bowles, with about 40 senators showed up to talk about the opportunity, and there was great energy in the room and we're looking at trying to be a resource help move things along. i was impressed people took time to listen. >> senators from both parties? >> both parties across the political spectrum, some of the most progressive and conservative but what was impressive at one point we literally had about 40 senators listening, t

republicans to have done some sort of big thing, whether it's corporate tax reform, looking at bowles simpson, something to suggestion he was going to work with the other side. he isn't willing to work with the other side. it's a problem, a hope and change thing and it hasn't proven the the last two years and he can't run on that again either. >> when we come back, new calls for eric shoulder to resign amid growing outrage over the intelligence leaks investigations and allegations of stonewa ok! who gets occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas or bloating? get ahead of it! one phillips' colon health probiotic cap a day helps defend against digestive issues with three strains of good bacteria. hit me! [ female announcer ] live the regular life. phillips'. but not for long! your very own four course seafood feast for jt $14.99. start your feast with a soup, like our hearty new england clam chowder. next, enjoy a salad with unlimited cheddar bay biscuits. then get your choice of one of 7 entrees. like new coconut and pineapple shrimp shrimp and scallops alfredo or new honey bbq shrimp. then finis

and where could we be and is there an adoption of a simpson-bowles plan likely in the future? -term deficit reduction package that's combined with a lot more stimulus up front. for example, not simpson-bowles but demin chi rivlin, reported at the same time, had $650 billion in stimulus in one year. that was combined without your deficit reduction. now on simpson-bowles, specifically, the core problem is there while it may have plausibly passed the senate, it had no chance in the house which actually has now been demonstrated. >> peter, let me -- >> we need -- >> let me stop you one second. >> hold on. we need a long-term deficit reduction package, but a long-term deficit reduction package that has zero revenue, that's very challenging. >> so you talk about $650 billion spent in short-term stimulus spending. a lot of people out there would say that's reckless, irresponsible. it could never happen. but, explain how if that stimulus spending is coupled with a long-term debt plan, to take down the debt over a generation, how the markets not only would free up those $650 billion, bu

the simpson bowles bipartisan commission was exactly such a plan. the bipartisan effort i was a part of also proposed such a plan. you can raise revenue and reduce the deficit, which is a big threat to the economy. and without, i will send it off to bob. >> i appreciate the opportunity to participate in the discussion. it is really nice that we have been able to have these events and have these discussions on important issues. another thing i have to say is -- nothing i say should be construed to represent ernst and young, the organization i work for. it is interesting, when i wrote my notes for the stock, i was going to end with this particular point, the same point that glenn ended with. i think the discussion of whether we should have a more progressive tax system, whether we should tax the rich more, and the focus on tax rates is where i take issue with that discussion. the focus on tax rates is really problematic come out of the because tax rates themselves, the graduated tax rates contributes to the progress of the of the tax system and the ta

republicans to have done some sort of big thing, whether it's corporate tax reform, looking at bowles simpson, something to suggestion he was going to work with the other side. he isn't willing to work with the other side. it's a problem, a hope and change thing and it hasn't proven the the last two years and he can't run on that again either. >> when we come back, new calls for eric shoulder to resign amid growing outrage over the intelligence leaks investigations and allegations of stonewa i went to a small high school. the teacher that comes to mind for me is my high school math teacher, dr. gilmore. i mean he could teach. he was there for us, even if we needed him in college. you could call him, you had his phone number. he was just focused on making sure we were gonna be successful. he would never give up on any of us. nice'n easy colorblend foam is winning top beauty awards hands down! with beautiful tones and highlights... no other foam lasts longer. and no other foam is product of the year. check out colorblend foam. only from nice'n easy. t check out colorblend foam. but centurylink

republicans to have done some sort of big thing, whether it's corporate tax reform, looking at bowles simpson, something to suggestion he was going to work with the other side. he isn't willing to work with the other side. it's a problem, a hope and change thing and it hasn't proven the the last two years and he can't run on that again either. >> when we come back, new calls for eric shoulder to resign amid growing outrage over the intelligence leaks investigations and allegations of stonewalling, can the attorney general survive? did i ever think i would have heart disease. she just didn't fit the profile of a heart event victim. she's healthy, she eats properly. i was pushing my two kids in a stroller when i had my heart event. i've been on a bayer aspirin regimen ever since. [ male announcer ] aspirin is not appropriate for everyone. so be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. i know if i take my bayer aspirin i have a better chance of living a healthy life. [ male announcer ] learn how to protect your heart at i am proheart on facebook. [ male announcer ] learn

simpson-bowles wasn't per forget and there wforget -- perfect and pain for everyone, but we have to doe lines of simpson-bowles somewhere down the line. but, look, president obama is running against mitt romney. mitt romney's solution is to cut revenue. top cut revenue when everyone know, tom coburn, one of the most conservative members of the senate, understands we have to raise revenue. governor romney's idea cutting taxes will produce economic growth. andrea, you know for the last 60 years our biggest job creation occurred when the marginal tax race is 50, 60, 70% knop correlation to this. bill clinton raised taxes in 1993 on the most successful americans. republicans said we're going to get thrown into a recession. we gained 23.5 million jobs in the next 6.5 years. so there's no correlation to that, and the romney plan is no plan at all. the president has the best plan, no ifs, ands and buts about it. >> ed rendell. the book is "the nation of wooses." thank you very much. >> funny book. >> fun book. funny and fun. >> yes. >> thank you very much. someone moo knwho knows how to polit

bowles-simpson is an excellent road map to do that. some people question whether or not we'll have the will to do that. i think we will. democrats and republicans. there's 50 of us in the senate who support that particular approach. and we just need to do it. >> there's a new cnn/orc poll that says when they ask people about who has a better understanding of how the economy works. president obama and mitt romney are neck and neck. i think they're both at 45% with a margin of error of 3%, plus or minus. how do you -- what do you read into that poll? >> well, let's just back up. harry truman used to say the only thing that's new in the world the history forgotten or never learned. go back to the week after obama and biden became president and vice president. last week, something like 380,000 people filed for unemployment insurance. compared to where we were, we're doing pretty good. >> but the complaint is not doing enough, not doing it fast enough, that everybody expected the job growth would be much faster and stronger especially with

that's what simpson-bowles did. that was their framework. if that's what the republicans in the senate are proposing, it would be great to see their plan. i have never seen a proposal put forward by republicans in either the house or the senate that does that at all. so i would welcome that. if they said that to you on the show and they mean it and want to follow through, i'm happy to call them tomorrow to find out if that's what they meant. >> well, let me talk about something that -- i mean they're obviously talking specifically about closing loopholes. i think it's clear what they're saying, which i think is different than you're saying additional revenues. but there's something just, you know, existentially important here. if you tax people in this country who make over a million dollars at 100%, you get 700 billion, and then you can't tax them again. the debt burden is $15.6 trillion. if you increase taxes on the middle class at 8%, you get more than taxing the wealthy 100%. if we can't be honest about the math here, how can we have an

let me just say that, you know, i've served on the bowles/simpson commission, group of six, tried to be part of efforts to get us back on track because when you're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar, that cannot continue much longer, and we have got to get ahold of it. part of our issue, clearly, almost every bipartisan group that has looked at this has said that tax expenditures have got to be part of the solution because it's now $1.2 trillion a year. that's more being spent through the tax code than all of the appropriated accounts. so i personally believe we're going to have to reduce tax expenditures, broaden the base. i personally believe we should lower rates in conjunction with that to help america be more competitive. we need to lower the corporate rate to be more competitive, but we also need to generate some more revenue to help with the deficit. on top of reforming entitlements, on top of cutting spending in the discretionary accounts, all of which is going to have to be done, none of which is very popular. but we've got to be careful we don't throw the baby out with the

somebody thought that was -- somebody in the simpson/bowles commission thought that that would be a way to address our revenue problem. now, that's the setup. that's what we've got to worry about, and now the question is will democrats, because we know what republicans are going to do. the questions is will democrats start making unilateral concessions? we've heard a lot of things about the democratic party but we have a little weakness which is the tendency to make unilateral concessions so just give things away and hope that people will love us better. and we now know where that ends. all right? did that work out so well last summer? all right. now, never let it be said that people can't learn, so today as we stand here president obama is not making unilateral concessions. he's sending the right message, and his message has been pretty loud and clear, pretty tough. no more extensions of the bush tax cuts for families making over $250,000 a year. that's the top 2%. none! [ applause ] and by the way, as far as i'm concerned, most people making over $250,000 a year is a millionaire. a mi

get to work. >> rose: get to work using simpson bowles. >> using simpson bowles as a template. start bargaining it through. that's what happened with the tax reform. that's what happened with simpson misoli the best immigration reform we had before. and everyone can point back and say we didn't like this or that about it. but the fact is that it's those kinds of big grand deals, civil rights act, that make this country great. and that solve the puzzle that american democracy was created to solve. which is how do you, with such a varied, diverse population, a country of immigrants which had enormous problems, the biggest one being slavery, of course, enormous mars on its regard record, how do you move it forward. and we have a great set of institutions to do that, if only people would exercise leadership and compromise. >> rose: and the role of the university is. >> the role of the university is to speak truth to power but not be arrogant about it because politics and business and other areas of life deal with people who have human psychology. and therefore we need to educate pe

one of them that's in bowles/simpson i believe is eliminating the home mortgage exclusion. >> yes. >> well, that's something that affects 67% of american households. that's a big thing. i don't recall the loophole, but why do we have that? well, we had that years ago to encourage something. what we've got to start encouraging now are outcomes in a much horholistic way than we have done in a very systemic way over the course of time. now, in my industry, despite what you may believe, you know, we're quite reactive. there are those that like to thing we rush up to the army and say my goodness, we were in the lab the other day and we came up this thing here. and it -- it walks t.flies. it shoots guns. it goes under ware. it will leap over tall buildings. truth of the matter is we're quite reactivech the army comes and says here's what we'd like to have and how much does that cost and by the time we cost it out they go, my gosh, i never thought it would cost that. that's the situation we're n.but we have to recognize a couple of things. it was said up here that you'd much rather have the