they have a lot more revenue, frankly, than simpson-bowles. everybody should know -- simpson-bowles also cut defense more than anyone is willing to talk about. this across-the-board sequester is a bad idea, whether it's defense spending or other areas, but if we are going to talk about these seriously, we have got to really delve into the ideas bipartisan groups have put out there. >> chris van hollen, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> this fall, and meningitis outbreak was traced to contaminated steroid injections in massachusetts. tomorrow, the house energy committee looks into the outbreak. bringing its eli starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3 and c-span radio -- it to you live starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3 and despair radio. >> watch book tv online ive tomorrow, streaming video from the national book awards in new york city and red carpet interviews with finalists. all online, live tomorrow at 6:00 p.m. eastern. add your comments on facebook.com/booktv. >> secretary geithner spent tuesday at the annual wall street journ

you'd sign on for simpson-bowles right now? mental idea that three pillars is something i would pay attention to, what's made our country great is having inducement for savings and investments and having capital gains rates, you have to >> simpson-bowles does not do that. >> it's a great three-legs is the right framework. my point is put all the puzzle pieces on the table and come one the right answers. >> would you take simpson-bow s simpson-bowles, even those who vote for it say they hate just about every line but you have to take it. >> we've got to move forward. >> the reagan tax also eliminated the capital gains discount that only lasted for about a year. i still think we shouldn't tax saving. simpson-bowl simpson-bowles, i think we need a wedge between ordinary rates and capex. real risk taking. >> what should the rates be? >> should be zero. >> i don't know about zero. >> 15 would be very nice. >> 15 is the lowest it's been in forever. you expect to see this. >> obama care in. >> if they go in between the 15 and 20 on the

one of the two bowles-simpson.president was to embrace bowles-simpson and put erskine bowles at treasury, would that be a signal that he is in it for the long haul on bowles-simpson in the broad term? >> i think it would be. it would be a brilliant idea. if he can get some kind of agreement on the lines of their recommendations, that will be a triumph. politically for him. and i think also, the country will benefit. i think one thing he might do if it's not bowles would be to offer the treasury to romney. i'm sure he would probably turn it down but it would be the ultimate gesture. i don't think it will happen. i agree john kerry will probably end up at secretary of state. i must say that my sources in the obama white house have been rather quiet since january 2009. [ laughter ] so i'm not sure i have any other inside information. i do that panetta is an interesting man, because he has said that the sequestration, the reduction of funds of the pentagon pentagon happens it will destroy and hallow out the military an

i think we should create the equivalent of eight simpson- bowles region of a simpson- bowles, and come up with a plan to buy 75 years of salt with the rigid of solvency. i might add a wrinkle here. every 10 years, a similar commission ought to be created. let's not get into this mess where we have six months to go with social security. you know how important it is for people. people are devastated by the recession and their pension plans lost. it is important to us, our kids come and grandchildren. i think we should create a commission that will report back to congress before a vote by the end of the next calendar year. i want to talk about the two toughest elements when it comes to entitlements, medicare and medicaid. represent about 20% of our budget. they are a real challenge to us. untouched, and amended, medicare will run up money in 12 years that is scary. we have so many americans who count on it. almost 50 million americans and the number is growing. yesterday, in america, 10,000 reached the age of 65. it will happen tomorrow. it will happen every day for the next 18 years. the

you know, you change it here and there and say now that we've made these changes in bowles-simpson, nowt's there. >> he was walking it back already. >> bowles and simpson are taking their act on the rooed to try to whip up popular support. >> the treasury secretary, one thing the president likes about tim geithner he had a good personal relationship, geithner could come over to the white house and chat about what was going on with the economy. the president has a good relationship with jack. he is there tight. he's been very pleased with how he's done as the chief of staff and i think it's right he's a front runner for the job. >> josh, in terms of the agenda that president can push forward independent of dodd/frank the question of tax reform and what happens to carried interest and capital gains, those deeply affect folks on wall street, do you think they're sort of prepared to take the pain as far as reform on those two issues? >> absolutely. i don't think there's pain in getting rid of the carried interest loophole. the other reason why jack is likely treasury secretary is he's a for

blacks obama rejected simpson- bowles. -- >> obama rejected simpson- bowles. hy are you considering it? >> this is both a strength and a week -- weakness for simpson- bowles. simpson-bowles provides great architecture. it does not flesh out every detail. nobody has taken simpson-bowles and converted that from a well thought out blueprint into legislation because there are lots of various ambiguities. the overall architecture of simpson-bowles says we should achieve deficit reduction through combination of cuts and revenue. it seems to me we could take that as the starting point. that is how we had deficit numbers. my view is we take the ratios, "wall street journal simpson- bowlsimpson-bowles, and move forward. if we disagree, we have an obligation to come up with something else. the president's budget is actually much more closely aligned with the framework of simpson-bowles than the other budget we have seen coming out of the house, for example. partly by virtue of the fact he has revenue in addition to cats. the president's budget has some significant cuts i

the final question is why is it simpson-bowles and not bowles- simpson? >> i will take the latter first. the reason is not bowles- simpson is the acronym for that is not appropriate. [laughter] simpson-bowles means son of a bitch, so it makes no difference. this council and others, it is to back these guys up who have the guts to do this. no one knows politics better than you. we have worked together for years. there is a political price. these groups will begin to circle. we will raise more bucks to be right there at their backs until our backs cave in. if the tipping point comes and we go over the cliff, the people in america who are looking around when they go to borrow money to send their kid to community college and it has gone up 2% interest rates, they will say, who did this? what a jerk allow this to happen? they will say, you were the rigid one who would never do anything and we will take it out on you. i hope it does happen. i think the guys who have the guts to go big or go home, we will protect them. being any thoughtful american, that is wher

peter and i were in a meeting earlier today with alan simpson and erskine bowles. a fair deal means everybody has some skin in the game and it's a serious proposal. that means on the revenue side, it has to be about a $6 trillion deal over ten years. you can't get there. alan simpson said, look, you can take every rich person in america, take away their island, their boat, tax everything, and you run the government for about nine months. the ugly truth and where the president has missed the boat, to this moment in time, is two-thirds of the federal budget is the middle class entitlements. you can't fix this problem without bringing the spending side to the tax side. all the talk today is about, oh, we get to -- these 2%, these 2%. it doesn't fix the problem. >> i think it's a shared sacrifice. how far are you willing to go on the tax issue? would you be willing to raise the rates, or are you only for getting rid of deductions? >> listen, i'm for a $5 trillion deal. but you don't get there. if you just raise the rates, you get $700 billion. you're still short $4.3 t

simpson-bowles is the way forward. what did simpson-bowles do? they didn't raise tax rates they eliminated deductions. all but two. interest on your home with a cap and charitable deductions and and they had lower rates at 25% corporate rate. the top individual rate was around 30%. they took that trillion dollars from eliminationing deductions and exemptions. they d they put some of it on the debt and buydown rates and did entitlement reform. that is what i think will wind up doing and we'll come together on discretionary spending cuts. i'm optimistic after hearing john boehner today that revenue would be on the table in the form of simpson-bowles. i think that's the magic way forward. and the democrats have to do entitlement reform. >> but if you look at the polls, people actually voted for, a lot of them support raising taxes on the wealthiest americans. boehner said he would not do that. he would not support it, harry reid said democrats would insist on those taxes being raised. >> all i would suggest is that every bipartisan group has looked

than simpson-bowles. so look, i think 1.6 trillion is a good target, although less than simpson-bowles, but i think if you look at his overall plan, the president has that right balance spent there's been some democrats have suggested maybe your leverage position would be enhanced if we went over the cliff. what do you think of that? >> well, i don't think we want to go over the cliff. we are trying to avoid going over the cliff. the real issue is whether our republican colleagues are willing to make those tough decisions before january 1, or whether they will only face those decisions after january 1. the president has laid out a very clear plan, not just since the election, but before the election or how to get there. so when i say that speaker boehner has set the right tone, but the jury is still out on the substance of his proposal, let's see the substance. the president has been transparent to let's see what the speakers proposing that because if it doesn't hit those targets, and then were not going t

this is what i do like about bowles-simpson. comprehensive reform.minating loopholes of our tax laws. i am proposing in my blueprint a 20% tax, much lower than the world 25%. that would create new jobs a year. another way to get revenues -- if we did that, throughout virginia, there would be hundreds of thousands of jobs created, we would have more affordable fuel and food and electricity, and the federal government would get over $1 trillion in revenues without raising taxes. that is the plan that will get america moving in the right direction. >> i let you go over but you did not answer the question. we have to have a balanced approach for dealing with the budget. you cannot get balance through in balance. -- imbalance. george's approach is to close it as follows. make all the bush tax cut permanent, even for the wealthiest. now it is getting bigger. then, close the tax all through cuts. if you have to have that big a gap, you will cut deeply into priorities that matter. i have a different approach. let the books -- pushed tax cuts expire. -- bush

bowles/simpson would eliminate almost every tax deduction for individuals and corporations, with only a few exceptions for charity donations and home mortgage interests. >> this stuff goes to the wealthiest people in america. 20% of the american people use 80% of that stuff. >> we have $1.1 trillion of loopholes, of back door spending in the tax code. >> reporter: $1.1 trillion? >> annual. and that's what we said: "let's start with a plan that wipes those out." >> reporter: their plan also called for deep spending cuts-- $200 billion a year-- and streamline both the pentagon and the federal bureaucracy. medicare and social security over time would reduce benefits give on the higher income families. your big message here is social security and medicare have to be on the table. there's no choice. >> i think most people understand that medicare has to be part of the deal. and most people believe today that you ought to do social security on a parallel track. >> reporter: both men blame the death of their report on lobbyists and warn that special interests are lined up again to fend off t

, or simpson bowls on testosterone. they want to hear the word "simpson bowls" because that provides a better blueprint than anything out there right now. >> sie: are you finding that all of this uncertainty about the fiscal cliff is affecting your business. >> our business is electricity demand growth, so right now it hasn't yet. but i think the longer they go, and i mean longer in terms of weeks and days, without showing signs of having a constructive solution, i think it will impact our business virtually more with every day in a very visible way. it is unusual for me to say that because our business tends to be a very long, long-term business, but this is an immediate crisis. >> susie: why an immediate crisisor your business? are you holding back on making plans for next year? is that it? >> because our business is derivative of other parts of the economy. a chemical plant's decision to go ahead and build will have a big impact on electricity demand in that area. so as other people sit on their hands, you know, becau

alan simpson and erskine bowles are next on this special "rise above" edition of the "closing bell." >>> coming up, fixing the fiscal mess. alan simpson and erskine bowles sit down with maria on the eve of the critical meeting between the president and congressional leaders. could their plan be the key to stopping america from going over the fiscal cliff? this exclusive event is next right here on this special edition of the "closing bell." iy stock screener, you can try strategies from independent experts and see what criteria they use. such as a 5% yield on dividend-paying stocks. then you can customize the strategies and narrow down to exactly those stocks you want to follow. i'm mark allen of fidelity investments. the expert strategies feature is one more innovative reason serious investors are choosing fidelity. now get 200 free trades when you open an account. >>> all right. welcome back. we have a hot show for you today. we are getting down to the brass tax on the fiscal cliff tomorrow. president obama and congressional leaders meet face to face with the clock ticking to new ye

look at the simpson-bowles plan. look at the overall framework. look at the revenue component of how they get to their deficit- reduction numbers. the simpson-bowles revenue is more than what the president has put on the table. it is important everyone recognized that. if our goal is deficit reduction over the long term, what we have to decide a front is how we can get the revenue in the cuts. the issue with going to a dollars million threshold is that means less revenue coming in the next 10 years to hit that target. where were you make of that revenue? he will have to find it somewhere else if you are going to take that a balanced approach to a long-term deficit- reduction. >> $one quinn 6 trillion. is that the target that you think is the right target in terms of the revenue? >> i do. i emphasize the fact that the simpson-bowles framework -- have a good framework in the sense that they have the right ratio of cuts to revenue. they recognize that their revenue estimates included in ther starting point. the route of never knew you would receive if

you can say simpson-bowles all you want. >> you're going to hear a lot of simpson-bowles. you do have a mid -- speaker boehner planted a flag today, he said i want to be conciliatory, i want to listen. harry reid said i'm not going to draw any lines in the stands. the burden is on the president of the united states and even a bit more so than usual, speaker boehner feels burned by the last time they went down the path. he thought he had a deal with the president. and he thinks the president walked away from it. is this a game of chicken? who blinks first? the president gives up higher taxes on the rich. for long term tax reform? republicans give up something in the short term to get more in the long term. that's going to be the kabuki dance, if you will, and the stakes are enormous. >> candy, can you see where the president gives up higher taxes on the wealthy? he did get re-elected on this and he's been clear on this issue. this was a major thing that he ran on. >> yes, and he said if he got a bill that did not include the end of tax hikes for the wealthy, he would veto i

>> there are pretty good parts of simpson-bowles. a structured approach to how you actually save social security fp that's a good thing. certainly some -- >> what do you not like in simpson-bowles? >> in terms of the way they approach taxes, unfortunately, they on a static basis required increased rev new and that's not an effective way of increasing revenue. i'm a small business guy that had to make those capital equipment investment decisions. when you increase the marginal tax rate or if you limit -- >> simpson-bowles raises things like capital gains and dividends to 28% along with ordinary income, but it lowers the overall rate to 28%. >> i understand. but in exchange for lowering those rates, it did try and increase rev new bydrill trillion dollars on a static basis. you need grow the economy. >> the question is can we grow the economy like we have in the past. some people question whether 2007 was just a big bubble. you're right the 8.5% in gdp is his totorically what we bring i but you have to find some way to change the defici

you are the bowles in simpson bowles. >> better be simpson bowles than bowles simpson since everybody knows him by his initials here in washington. >> so, when you talk about things, sacred cows, untouchables, whatever the word might be, in your proposal, the one paul ryan decided not to back, the one barack obama decided not to back, you had an increase in the federal gasoline tax. caps on mortgage interest. charitable donations and retirement contributions. these were all tough choices you made. you also increased the eligibility age for medicare and social security. reduced benefits for wealthier seniors. some of those things i've heard democrats and republicans say they agree on, others they loathe them. is there anything that should be untouchable? >> the problems are real, no easy way out. we've got to come up with at least $4 trillion of deficit reduction and that's not the maximum amount we need to do is not even the ideal amount. it's the minimum amount we need to reduce the deficit in order to stabilize the debt and get it on the path to stabilizing the gdp. >> it's interest

i really go back to simpson/bowles. i think they had it right. t everything on the table, repeat, everything on the table. >> one of my heroes there. welcome back. that was senator dick durbin of illinois who voted for the simpson/bowles plan and today he served on the commission and voted for the proposal. i'll say it again and again even though it includes significant entitlement cuts and he as a democrat doesn't like that. the upcoming december 31st deadline, the so-called cliff, anything from that fiscal cliff to that fiscal slope. liberals are saying to that austerity bomb that progressive people don't like at all. former senator alan simpson proposed a plan to get the united states financial house in order that some say was our best shot at solvency. and avoiding the mess that awaits us come december 31st. senator simpson, it's always an honor. politics, i know you understand the irony of politics, it makes strange bedfellows. i want to try something by you. the president wants a deal. the president would obviously like to include something

today, the politics have changed. >> say yes to simpson/bowles, mr. president. being discussed in the fiscal cliff negotiations. their plan was a mixture of the president's call for higher taxes, plus the republican call for tax reform and lower deductions. in medicare and social security bowles and simpson say the nation has no choice but to cut future benefits for those earning high incomes. we spoke to both men in washington. >> right now the president is under pressure not to touch social security and medicare. >> of course. so don't touch it. let's just let the damn thing rock along, grab your shorts you know get ready for the fun. >> let them go broke. >> let them go. >> if we don't touch them if we just take them off the table, you know what's going to happen? you know? we're not going to be able to spend money on whatever else it is you love. >> we asked both bowles and simpson if they were encouraged by at least the tone of compromise coming from congress and the president. >> based on what you see at the white house right now, are you optimistic or not

the same approach given by bowles-simpson. >> bret: this will be a busy sometime. thanks. a dive this morning and didn't get much better after that. dow plunged 313 today. the s&p 500 dropped 34. the nasdaq lost 75. analysis of the economic impact from the colleagues at fox business network. melissa francis. good evening. >> good evening. >> yeah. when you look out at the stock market and you try to ask yourself why did it fall today, but yesterday when it looked like president obama was winning, it went up. >> the difference they looked out and realized that the taxes would go up on the dividends and the capital gains most likely from a basic sense when you make invest in the the market you try to predict how much a stock will go up. the investments look less attractive. at the same time, people look down and maybe you voted for individual candidate. these are folks that let us get the economy, the cliff. and these are the same people. what makes me think together that it doesn't seem like it will make things better. >> bret: right. that is why the market things the fisca

if he leads on this and gets a deal along the line of sim southern bowles of what -- simpson-bowles andohn talks about. i am co-chair with judd greg to fix the the debt, we've raised $35 million from businesses, over 200 businesses that have signed on our petition knowing full well that means raising significant risk new. business understands. the reason the president is meeting with them, he wants business to deliver that message to the republicans, we want this done and getting it done means raising revenue. >> listen, isn't the trick that rich folks and that businesses that are plutocrat friends are trying to pull, raise our personal income tax rate because most of them don't pay it. most pay their taxes through the capital gains tax. >> which is another piece. >> where they get to keep their 15% capital gains tax rate, lower their corporate rates which is how they pay their taxes. income tax rates don't matter because they will find shelters in the cayman islands. >> the only way it works to lower the corporate rates close a lot of those loopholes. >> that sounds on what mitt romney

say yes to simpson-bowles, mr. president. i'm willing to say yes to simpson-bowles. we need more revenue in washington. we need more private sector jobs. we don't need to raise tax rates. we need to limit loopholes for the wealthy. mr. simpson, if you say yes to simpson-bowles when it comes to revenue, so will i and so will most republicans. we can get revenue without destroying jobs and both need to. no republican will vote for increased tax rates. we will insist our democratic friends reform entitlements something we've never done ask that's where the big money is at. say yes to simpson-expwoalz we'll get this behind us. >> schieffer: senator, thank you so much. and now we're going to get the other side of this picture. and joining us now, one of the architects of the president's victory, his senior campaign adviser, david axelrod, who is out in chicago. mr. axelrod, thank you so much for joining us. let me just start, on friday, the president said he was open to compromise, but he said he would not accept any approach to deficit reduction, that does not ask the wea

it is the next iteration of simpson-bowles. it is clarification and broadening of simpson-bowles. so what you are doing is valuable and you need to stay with it. because we are at a breaking point, frankly. and i think that something has to be done. i think a few things will be done. i think we will take some small movement, probably come up with a hundred billion dollars to address the question of the next year. the groundwork is laid that president boehner and president reid and mcconnell will step up, and we can see some really good things happening. you can do it in three and a half weeks wanting to be done. the next year is that moment of opportunity. i think what will help to get this result is that. >> trying to run with it, i don't know that we would've adopted it, but it would have been at least possible. while i think this can work now? is because the president has been reelected after a very tough campaign. republicans have been chastened by the results of the campaign. so you have the raw personal material for this to work out to everyone's benefit. the president is ve

i think there are going to be democrats will who want simpson-bowles. some would disagree but the question to me is if the republicans are willing to take simpson-bowles, will democrats will take it. >> can the president sell-- >> schieffer: if they do simpson-bowles, republicans in the house will have to disavow the pledge they took not to raise taxes that they all took. >> they have a little escape route-- the escape route could be tax reform. the rate doesn't change but you remove a lot of deduction so you get some revenue and it gives you a rhetorical way out to say we never raised rates. >> the challenge is, you can't do tax reform in the next two months and the tax rates expire december 31. so how do you get to a koms program-- >> you can extend it. the "washington post" pointed out you can keep tax rates exactly where they are, limit deductions to $50,000 and you would raise as much as you would raise by increasing rates on the wealthy. that would be a fair compromise, as long as it's accompanied by entitlement reform. >> schieffer: it would mean

i decided that what you have told me basically is that simpson-bowles rksz simpson-bowles, i think that's into focus with me. i think it would be easier to get simpson-bowles with boehner than with president obama. i don't think he's a true believer. >> we can have that debate but we're 40 days away from going off a cliff or small hill depending on who you ask. the question is what can each side give to get us where we need to be. >> but now you are really just talking about kicking the can again. >> i'm about rising above and rising above calls for compromise. >> i think harold is prepared. >> you are a simpson-bowles guy. >> the challenge is the president has drawn a line in the sand saying i want a pound of flesh period. don't get me a number. don't say a combination of spending cuts and a combination of discretionary of entitlement cuts and some tax increases. he's saying there's only one number. there's only one number. you got to give me that number. don't give me that number, the rest doesn't work. the problem is -- >> the country voted for him whether we like it or not. i like it

that's the but on simpson-bowles. >> i spent a year of my life on simpson-bowles.or it. i told my staff, the only thing worse than being for this is being against it, and so remember, what you're seeing at this point is a lot of positioning and that's understandable. i don't fault anybody for it but at the end of the day i think we basiccally know the contours of what it's going to take to get an agreement and it's critical for the country that we do. >> you can only speak to your side. i don't know about the republican side but do you think that democrats -- genetically incapable of accepting that 28% rate, senator, that in their mind that's rates going down and they can't possibly get their head around that. >> look, i don't think 28% works. i don't think the numbers work. >> that was in simpson-bowles. >> absolutely. >> you didn't like that. >> no, but remember, that had an assumption that you're going to tax capital gains and dividends at ordinary rates. do you think that's going to happen? >> it all has to happen. >> 28% is not bad. we could live with 28%, jus

simpson and mr. bowles who i think are heroes, i think they were given a job and did it. >> you're a business guy. i think mitt romney would call you a job creator. are you bringing something to the table that maybe another democrat might not bring? >> i've started two companies in maryland, created over 2,000 jobs, both of which became new york stock exchange company. i've always been a democrat. so i come at this from the perspective of what i consider core democratic values but real experience creating jobs. >> in two states they have now rlealizeed marijuana. what do you think ought to happen and -- legalized marijuana. what do you think ought to happen and should the federal government follow suit? >> i haven't looked at this issue in any depth, so i don't have an informed position at this point. >> just wanted to see what your thought about the idea was. >> i'm sure you did. >> we can't trick you. thank you for joining us. >>> well, the snow is already starting to pile up in parts of the northeast and

simpson bowles. art talking about new solutions. >> that was his commission. he was up for re-election. maybe it wasn't the greatest time to do system of those things. he should start talking about right now. simpson bowles. the fiscal cliff, that's something we've got to fix. >> do you know that in simpson bowles, they tax investment income as regular income? >> fine. >> as long as you're having an all-in debate with all of the components. >> just please get me back there. >> not necessarily, but it doesn't mean that you come to the table and you don't compromise. >> they don't go up, jared. they don't go up. they go down. >> closing the loopholes. >> of course they go up. they raise revenue. >> rise above. not rise rates. >> they raise revenue and cut spending. >> they've got to do both. they have to clean up the tax code. they're not revenue neutral. >> they're going to be with us for the rest of hour. ♪ [ female announcer ] today, it's not just about who lives in the white house, it's about who li

he is a simpson-bowles and not bowles-simpson. >> they're going to react right down to the last pointer it's going to be blood and hair and eyeballs all over the floor, and they're going to come up with something, but, let me tell you, if it's just kicking the can down the road, the can is now a 55-gallon drum filled with explosives. you can't play that game anymore. and if it's kick the can down the road, the markets are going to chop us up. >> i think that there are some people that are simply going to want to hire alan simpson and say just speak and let that go as a show. let's bring in our panel, contributor and former deputy press secretary for president george w. bush, msnbc contributor and former dnc spokeswoman and roll call's david directeder. i think the big news of the day is tom cole. how much influence does tom cole have inside the house republicans among the conservative pragmatists? >> not much. i wouldn't make too much of this other than it's another republican talking about the e idea that we don't have to raise -- we don't have to hold firm on this idea. it's notable

. >> reporter: on wall street, some hope erskine bowles, the co-chair the so-called bowles simpson commission will get the treasury job. but bowles is probably too closely identified with his own views on deficit reduction to take the lead pushing the president's agenda. also, it's no secret most traders and bankers wanted the president to lose this election, so the white house may not want to go out of its way to find a new treasury secretary wall street will love. darren gersh, "n.b.r.," washington. >> tom: it wasn't as bad as we thought. that's how the government sized up the summer drought which parched the midwest. a report out today says crops fared better than expected. still u.s. farmers probably produced their smallest corn crop in six years. and as diane eastabrook reports uncertainty over the weather could keep prices volatile for months. >> reporter: this morning chicago grain traders sent soybean futures prices tumbling and corn prices see-sawing on the latest news about this year's harvest. the department of agriculture forecast farmers will produce slightly more soybeans and co