as you know bowles-simpson was dead on arrival. camp cape up with ame up with a proposal that was frankly dead on arrival. what lesson do we learn from these efforts? >> you're discouraged. i read the camp proposal. i thought it was a good proposal. i thought it covered a lot of the bases that needed to be covered and you're right it was dead on arrival. this is one -- again i'm not going to badmouth the president, but it irritated me that he appoints this commission, and as soon as it comes out he just gives it the back of his hand. well, that practically kills it right there. but i thought the commission did a first-rate job. >> i think camp had some interesting ideas. what happened? he kind of started too late. people knew he was going out the door and he did his own thing and put something specific forward which is a requisite prerequisite. remember treasury one, treasury two. the two bills i put in. you have to put in something specific. because then the interests chew it up and you have to figure out what can be swallowed, wh

we created the forerunner to the bowles simpson commission, the kerrey entitlement commission. al gore cast the deciding vote. i president comes in with 370 electronic -- electoral votes has both houses, and does nothing but every single day press on this deficit reduction act, and it passes by one vote. however, it just shows how hard it is. it changed the world. it changed the world because people had expected at this point the deficit would go up enough and now the democrats controlled everything. markets completely expected that. when they saw there was tangible deficit reduction it had a dramatic effect on long-term interest rates, the investment climate, and it triggered and started what became the greatest investment-led recovery and expansion our country had. it changed the face of fiscal policy in the united states. 20. about, was he just there for the ride, they didn't live through 1993 and the tangible impact that had on turning the entire investment climate in the u.s. around. >> some would argue that the 1993 deal turned the house from democrats to republicans beca

as you know bowles simpson was dead on arrival. and it got no hearings and was dead on arrival. what lesson do we learn from these efforts? >> you're discouraged. i read the camp proposal. it was a good proposal. i thought it covered a lot of bases that needed to be covered. and you are right, it was dead on arrival. and i'm not going to bad mouth the president, but he appointed this council. and as soon as it comes out, he gives it the back hand. but i thought the commission did a first-rate job. >> i thought camp had some interesting ideas. what happened, he kind of started too late. people knew he was going out the door and he did his own thing and put something specific forward which is a necessary prerequisite, the treasury one and the treasury two, and you have to put in something specific because the interest chews it up and you have to figure out what can be swallowed and what can't. i think you need to see the total picture. i think he did a very good job of thinking through tax policy and coming out with a coherent package. >> senator bennett, you are next. >> thank yo

i'll just say, i'm a member of the bowles-simpson commission, as worked with the gang of six and othersn here. when we were working on that, the national debt was $11 trillion. it's $18 trillion today. under the budget window we are talking about here, it will go to $26 trillion-plus. i just don't see how we can make the argument that as long as the economy keeps growing we're okay. i just don't see that we can avoid trying to balance our budget and control this debt. >> senator warner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. you've made a smooth transition from hud secretary to omb director. i want to actually pick up on certain things that the senator said but maybe with a slightly different tinge. first, i want to commend you for getting rid of sequestration which i've always called stupidity on steroids. because even with sequestration, remove domestic discretionary at the end of the time period is down to 10% of spend, it would be much lower than that without getting rid of sequestration. as somebody again who's still -- for a few more years can sayive abeen in busine

as you know bowls simpson was dead on arrival. and it got no hearings and was dead on arrival. what lesson do we learn from these efforts? >> you're discouraged. i read the camp proposal. it was a good proposal. i thought it covered a lot of bases that needed to be covered. and you are right, it was dead on arrival. and i'm not going to bad mouth the president, but he appointed this council. and as soon as it comes out, he gives it the back hand. but i thought the commission did a first-rate job. >> i thought camp had some interesting ideas. what happened, he kind of started too late. people knew he was going out the door and he did his own thing and put something specific forward which is a necessary prerequisite the treasury one and the treasury two, and you have to put in something specific because the interest chews it up and you have to figure out what can be swallowed and what can't. i think you need to see the total picture. i think he did a very good job of thinking through tax policy and coming out with a coherent package. >> senator bennett, you are next. >> thank you

i remember when we were on this committee talking about simpson-bowles commission, the bipartisan commission that said we needed to cut $4 trillion in order to be able to get a handle on and stabilize the debt as a share of the economy, and we're step by step by step we're now at $3.3 trillion of the $4. i would suggest that's pretty good. and the fact that we are now looking at less than two-thirds of the annual deficit of what you inherited in 2009, less than two-thirds, less than two-thirds, i would suggest that's pretty good, too. 11.2 million jobs. i'd like very much to have more. nearly 3 million last year, but i couldn't agree with you more that the only way that works is to stop talking about trickle-down economics, and talk about and actually do something, that makes sure the next steps are laser focused on middle class. so, before i ask my question though, i also want to say that we talk a lot about debt, and about how we should never spend more than we have. i would just suggest, i have a mortgage. when something's important, we spend more than we have. we have a mortgage for our

the health savings that we've proposed if you look in the tenth year are the same as both what bowles simpson proposed in the tenth year of their proposal. so it phases into the same place they are. >> jonathan? >> you mentioned jason, you were talking about that the president's trade agenda, and you talk about its impact on gdp and productivity. but if you talk to a lot of democrats who are opposing the president's agenda they say that the disconnect here is between gdp and middle class income growth. it's not finish that's not happening -- it's not, that's not happening. how do you make the pitch to them and how do you make the pitch to us that a higher gdp actually will translate into stronger middle income growth when that has not happened, basically, for to 20 years. >> well, i think one of the important lessons that we have in chapter one of this report we look at middle class income growth from 1948 through 2013. and a lot of -- frankly, both democrats and republicans are increasingly aware that over the last several decades we haven't seen as fast income growth as we had in the decade

hoyer: i don't know about you but i'm for simpson-bowles. the problem for simpson-bowles for some people, it paid for what it did just like the camp bill. the camp bill made tough choices, and it was a zero sum game in the sense it cut taxes and it paid for them. a zero sum game. just like you had to run your business. because if you didn't run your business that way you would have gone bankrupt. now, i fought for that for a very long period of time and voted that way, as i say one of 18 with my friend from wisconsin. but i tell my friend, yes, we're following bad policy. this bill you can argue for the merits. i get that. the next bill you can argue for the merits. and the bill after that and the bill after that and the bill after that. and you then caused $600 billion in deficit spending that your kids and my kids will have to pay for because we're too old to be around long enough to pay for it. so i rise against this bill, not because i'm against fighting hunger. everybody ought to be against fighting hunger. mr. levin: i yield the gentlem

intense effort on the part of both parties, on the part of the many organizations -- remember simpson-bowlesformer chief of staff of president bill clinton along with the former distinguished senator from wyoming, a republican and a democrat together simpson-bowles. the public was getting behind this a $4 trillion over ten-year fix to the problem. it was pretty dramatic, and yet there was a lot momentum for it. it was shot down unfortunately by the president when it was presented. following that we had the gang of six a bipartisan effort. the super committee came, the group of 12, 6 democrats 6 republicans, all working diligently to try to put something together. outside organizations fix the debt any number of proposals that were worked on together in a bipartisan way realizing that as the debt was continuing to accumulate is going to have major negative consequences to the future of our children and grandchildren and perhaps even our own generation. we stand here today having gone through all that, the dinner committee which i was part of, eight of us agreeing with the president, no staff

i think we have to throw out the tax code and start with the bowles simpson reforms and getting rid of credits and have three simple lower rates. i don't think anybody else is going to say that. when it comes to national security i don't think there's anybody who will be as aggressive and understanding that if we just look the other way while things like isis behead christians we did that before. i was governor on september 11th. i saw the difference in thinking. we don't have to worry about it here they said. we do. >> would you put boots on the ground? >> yes, i would. i think right now we are at greater risk of being attacked in the united states than in any time since september 11th. and i think we have to attack them there before they attack us here. >> so you would re-engage in a new war? >> not in the same way. i think there are two false paradigms here. one is we have to have a massive army, spend a trillion dollars and create a democracy where one never exists. i wouldn't try to do that. the other is that we can simply look the other way, tinker around the edges and think isis

to that that the 3% target was also the one advocated by the minor deities that served on the simpson-bowles commission. it's worth pointing out while it certainly included the wisdom of the obama economic team it also included the stamp of approval from that bipartisan commission. two other points that are also relevant to this. the first is that the president's also been clear about the fact that his approach to dealing with our debt and deficit is that we're not going to ask the elderly and working families to bear the brunt of balancing our deficits and getting improving our fiscal situation. that there are a variety of steps we can take that reflect a balanced approach. and that's one that the president's committed to. the last thing is that, i'm going to sort of speak like an economist, so correct me if i'm wrong, one of the most important things we can do to deal with our debt and deficits is to ensure we have a strong, dimonic, growing economy. and we're not going to have a strong dynamic, growing economy if we're going to chip away at the kind of investments that we know are critica

hoyer: i don't know about you but i'm for simpson-bowles. the problem for simpson-bowles for some people, it paid for what it did just like the camp bill. the camp bill made tough choices, and it was a zero sum game in the sense it cut taxes and it paid for them. a zero sum game. just like you had to run your business. because if you didn't run your business that way you would have gone bankrupt. now, i fought for that for a very long period of time and voted that way, as i say one of 18 with my friend from wisconsin. but i tell my friend, yes, we're following bad policy. this bill you can argue for the merits. i get that. the next bill you can argue for the merits. and the bill after that and the bill after that and the bill after that. and you then caused $600 billion in deficit spending that your kids and my kids will have to pay for because we're too old to be around long enough to pay for it. so i rise against this bill, not because i'm against fighting hunger. everybody ought to be against fighting hunger. mr. levin: i yield the gentlem

. >> that was also the one targeted on the simpson bowles commission. so it included the wisdom of the obama economic team that also included the stamp of approval for the commission. two other planes that are also relevant to this the first is that that for the president the president has also been clear about the fact that his approach dealing with the debt and deficit is we are not going to ask the elderly families to bear the brunt and improving our fiscal situation that there are a variety of steps we can take that reflects a balanced approach and that's when the president is committed to. the last thing i'm going to sort of speak like an economist so correct me if i'm wrong one of the important things we can do is to ensure that we have a strong dynamic growing economy and we are not going to if we chip away at the kind of investments that we know are critical to the success of middle-class families so making the kind of investments that we know will be good for the growing economy are also going to be good for the debt and deficit reduction line.

i remember when we were on this committee talking about simpson-bowles commission, the bipartisan commission that said we needed to cut $4 trillion in order to be able to get a handle on and stabilize the debt as a share of the economy, and we're step by step by step we're now at $3.3 trillion of the $4. i would suggest that's pretty good. and the fact that we are now looking at less than two-thirds of the annual deficit of what you inherited in 2009, less than two-thirds, less than two-thirds, i would suggest that's pretty good, too. 11.2 million jobs. i'd like very much to have more. nearly 3 million last year, but i couldn't agree with you more that the only way that works is to stop talking about trickle-down economics, and talk about and actually do something, that makes sure the next steps are laser focused on middle class. so, before i ask my question though, i also want to say that we talk a lot about debt, and about how we should never spend more than we have. i would just suggest, i have a mortgage. when something's important, we spend more than we have. we have a mortgage for our

if you got to a rate that you thought was a good rate where you could brings things down like simpson bowlesanies that pay less to fight it. >> because they've already moved facilities over there. >> what i will say by this proposal, my biggest concern with it is by not addressing the territorial type of tax system that you are then incentivizing companies to move off shores. that's what we've been trying to prevent. we don't want them moving off our shores. >> it's a legitimate point, a legitimate problem. no question. although when they move overseas for tax purposes it's not like -- >> the biggest are here. employees are here. >> but a lot manufacture and sell over there. >> there are many that do that even without did sh. >> there's a reason they over there too. >> we've got to leave it there. this is fun. >> it's unbelievable. >> you guys just ran your mouths the whole time and here we are. >> are you guys having lunch together too? >> are you shocked he rooted for the patriots? >> a little bit. >> no no no. that was a joke. >> the seahawks are the politically conservative team. they're

guest: at least in that era simpson bowles did a great job of reviewing what will happen 10, 15, 20 yearsrom now. i also grew with mr. paul krugman who says, what are we worried about the long term for? let's deal with the short term. i think he is partly right. i think with these inks, we can work together if we start off with an open mind -- with these things, we can work together for the start off with an open mind. how many times has that happened? not many times. host: let's get to calls. tom is the first in concord indiana, on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. all of these talks about budgets, they seem to never work. by the time they get it going they take things away from the kids. that is what it should be all about, our kids. guest: this budget calls for tripling the tax credit for children, which i think is very important. some may have just missed that out of hand, and that is dead on arrival. that is just one of the areas that i think it would support. host: but to his point, is the budget process broken? guest: we

$400,000 a year so after the the winning play derek simpson gets $13,000 so finally -- the tom: he gets a piece of every player, $90,000 for winning the super bowl>> money for winning the super bowl but for being the agent to malcolm butler was 3%. that is how he makes money. from malcolm butler. i have a brother -- you don't make money but when you get a little luck and success it is a feel-good moment. tom: will begin a big new contract next year? >> i would imagine. he only has to -- pecan only go up from here. the deals are all done. i have to check on that. 3 year contract. they went up a little bit for 2015 so you know. tom: i checked the big board and find out how stocks are going. check the big board dow jones industrials still going well today at 168 points on the dow and oil adding to the gains we saw yesterday, the price of oil 51 and change pretty good jump really popping alas couple days. that is giving it pop as well, the new fields transition and diamond offshore numbers all of them with green arrows as lower oil is slipping up the drillers as well. isis and al qaeda are calling for more attacks on soft targets, things like malls

listening to the simpson's right the now because we will see it, we will see a shadow in ten or 15 minutes. >> let's talk about the half time. >> all eyes on katie perry during the super bowl half time show. i got milk reviews. this he were tweeting me. fans were blown away when special guest misty elliott hit the stage. >> lets take a look. >> misty elliott did work it. she sure d lenny cravats joined perigone stage for rock filled version of her hit song i kissed a girl. i like her entrance. katie perry's entrance was probably the best part. that lion walking in that was cool. >> she likes to roar good yes. >> was that the point of the rye on. >> someone said that is a such a big catch, but if the half time she was not the only thing people were talking about what about before the game. >> idina belted out an outstanding rendition i thought of the national anthem. others didn't like it. i don't know what do you think. >> ♪ for the land of the free, and the home of the brave ♪ >>> it was a little different. if you listened to the whole thing some people think it was drawn out. >> maybe that last night mentioned she ended it with a yes. >> because she nailed it. >> what ar