well, we have to wait for the cbo score. but you see we don't have any of that this time and this is a hell of a lot bigger and it's going to cost a hell of a lot more money than the health care bill but you see there's a difference. the righties are getting exactly what they want. they're getting the top 2% tax cuts and they are getting the time frame that they want and they're getting the estate tax giveaway. i mean this is red meat to the righties. this, my friends, is not democratic process. we have had on this program numerous elected officials in both the house and the senate come to you and speak on "the ed show" and say this is not how it's supposed to work in washington. but because we've got a christmas holiday coming up and because we've got this deadline and because we can't really hold to our convictions from the campaign trail, we now have a gun to our head and i'm speaking from a liberal perspective. we have to give the righties exactly what they want. because they tell us that we're going to create jobs if we

situation for everybody, and for the work force development, it will allow them to work with their cbo's, where they can be part of the work force, where they can also monitor to make sure that the people are actually working. i appreciate the opportunity to have had the chance to work with a lot of different people and, again, i applaud you on taking the initiative, as well as ross mirkarimi and other members that will support this. i take my hat off to you. thank you. chair avalos: thank you very much. >> my name is reckless. i am a general contractor. i am very glad to see this legislation -- my name is -- radcliffe. the people do not have no money to spend with the locals. there are people out there who say this is going to cost the city money. this will make the city money. people pay taxes here. people buy homes here. so we need very good faith efforts in. -- in employment, and the next thing would be to have a good- faith effort in our contract and, so that contractors can get city contracts and spend the money year -- a good-faith effort in our contract in -- contracting, so that

the one thing missing in this legislation is to do not have the local cbo's. i would like to see them included. chairperson avalos: maxine, jim felinas, cesar verras, and jose abrego. >> good afternoon, supervisors. >> [speaking chinese] >> my name is mr. lin. i am a member of the chinese progressive association. i have been a construction worker for many years. >>i am also the main breadwinner for my family, but i have been unemployed very frequently. the job i am doing is not very secure. >> [speaking chinese] >> that is because of the high unemployment rate, and also because of language barriers. >> [speaking chinese] >> i have been mainly unemployed for the past year. and of course it is not just me who is unemployed, but many of my friends in the construction industry who have been unemployed. sometimes, i have work. sometimes, i don't. so the kind of jobs they get is if they do not have minimum wage. sometimes, they do not even get paid for the work they do. >> [speaking chinese] >> some employer says it is hard to find workers locally who have no experi

the one thing missing in this legislation is to do not have the local cbo's. i would like to see them included. chairperson avalos: maxine, jim felinas, cesar verras, and jose

the one thing missing in this legislation is to do not have the local cbo's. i would like to see them included. chairperson avalos: maxine, jim felinas, cesar verras, and jose abrego. >> good afternoon, supervisors. >> [speaking chinese] >> my name is mr. lin. i am a member of the chinese progressive association. i have been a construction worker for many years. >>i am also the main breadwinner for my family, but i have been unemployed very frequently.

working with the cbo. volunteer i volunteering their time in activities that are not just in their block. or just within you know perhaps within their sort of immediate structure. the vision is also that all the kid are our kids. and so whether they are the good kids the trouble makers what have you we are all responsible for their health and well being. the other element that the supervisor's office does and what supervisor mirkarimi does is he chairs the public safety committee. much of what is agendaized or what he focuses are things that have germ natd and ideas that have come up as a need from the community and that have been communicated to him. the capability that we have is in pulling in the different city agencies and departments and say, here's an issue how will we solve it? how will we deal with it? so, and that things are not working in the triage mode. the other thing that our office has done is part of the vision that some of the neighborhoods wanted is a clean neighborhood. we worked with th

when you read that cbo report that all the democrats like to refer, to very clearly it says government spending on health care under this bill goes up even more than if we had done nothing. so it will absolutely raise costs for the government. >> you're talking about the negatives of an expanded government, whether it's health care, whether it's, you know, ownership of various industries. democrats don't have a monopoly on that, right, michelle? let's talk about we actually saw a huge increase in the size of government with the creation of the tsa. and that also ballooned the deficit, and that was under george w. bush. how do you explain that? >> this is why i wrote the book, because i was so frustrated. "you know i'm right" was meant to be a pun on redefining the right. because i watched for eight years while supposedly small government party just made government bigger, bigger, and bigger. george bush expanded spending like crazy, even when you seclude iraq and afghanistan. and i think that's why the republicans lost the last election. and i think it's why president obama got shellac

the cbo says with bailed-out companies returning to help the government will spend less on aid to aig and automakers like general motors. scott, back to you. >> good news, hampton, thank you. >>> time is running out for some home tax credits. you have until the end of december to take advantage of some tax credits for energy-saving home improvements. now, these credits include installing wood pellet stoves, energy-efficient furnaces, water heaters, air conditioning systems, insulating roofs, windows, doors and wall and ceiling insulation. there's a full list available at energystar.gov. this credit covers about a third of the cost, up to $1500. >>> hannukah begins at sundown tonight and ends eight days later. that is the earliest start for the holiday in 20 years. the national menorah will be lit during a ceremony near the white house. a tradition started by president bill clinton. each night another light is lit. many families also have special treats they like to eat. >>> president obama's debt commission expected to unveil its final proposal to slash the u.s. budget deficit today,

additionally, according to cbo, the dream act would actually increase federal revenues by $2.3 billion over the ten years and increase net direct spending by $912 million between 2011 and 2020. in addition, the congressional budget office and the joint committee on taxation -- >> that's senator dianne feinstein talking about the dream act, which is conditional citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought to you u.s. as children. they would be given conditional citizenship so long as they complete two years of college or they serve in the u.s. military. today's vote is meant to head off a republican filibuster. we are watching that for you. >>> still ahead on "today in the bay," lawyers for barry bonds wants to make sure the witness list is not an all-star lineup. who they want banned from the bonds perjury trial. >>> a very good morning to you. i'm lorne scott. who i school football doesn't get much better than this. an undefeated team from the peninsula bringing home their  first ever state title. you've got to see it coming up in sports. lightning fast. lightning strong. verizon

those are cbo numbers. it would drastically impact health care. it could be more expensive, the doctors, the medical suppliers. >> what would you like to see happen over the medium- and long-term? >> he is talking about how we will ration care, you cannot afford it, so you don't buy it, which we all saw before. you end up with no mandate and no insurance. we ration care that way. i know people never went to the doctor because they could not afford it. that is different than rationing by income. this is not complicated. we have countries that have designed a health care system that has less cost. different people like different countries and what they do. none of them are based upon the rationing method. soft money, the cost is somewhere else. money shows up in any campaign in different ways. why does america not look at what our competitors do successfully? they say the economy is a miracle that made it through, germany. what is wrong with their system? >> you have a highly regulated system. there's a mandate in which everyone get private insuranc

the cbo says for each gallon of gas replaced with ethanol we pay $178 in subsidies. the country. it makes me feel good. i'm keeping the money in america. >> all these programs are designed to make people feel good. help the farmers and hurt the foreign oil producers with ethanol. we don't look at what is not seen. which is the rising price of milk, excessive amount of fertilizer and fuel that was used to produce this additional corn. >> oh yeah, good prices are higher. so much farmland now goes to corn used for ethanol. we consume lots of corn. corn syrup sweetens thousands of food. helps create the meat we eat. >> our biggest item. >> steve raises cattle is mad that feed costs more because ethanol is mandated and subsidized. >> if you want to do the same for they that you are doing for the ethanol guy you have to mandate that every man, woman and child in america has to eat 50 pounds of beef and then you going to give me dan -- we are at the same place. >> ethanol industry wants more subsidies while talking about free market. >> you should have free market competiti

and i think that's a significant issue that needs to be answered, when the scorn from cbo, because this thing was said to have reduced the deficit. and we are seeing all kinds of unintended consequences with this new health care law. the mini med problem was just one of many. train to use it in your opening statement that these things do more harm than good. and my question, kind of a rhetorical question, but my question would be if they do more harm than good, why did hhs grant waivers? i become if they're doing more harm than good shouldn't we just, shouldn't hhs just, sorry, that's the way the law is and these things, we are not going to grant any waivers, if, in fact, they were doing more harm than good? but what hhs i think recognize is it is better to have at least some in charge than no insurance, and that's why they are granted these waivers. at least hhs should be here to answer that question. so thank you, mr. chairman,. >> thank you, senator, ensign. and if there's no other statements to be made, let's go to our panel and we will start with mister stephen finan. senior direct

b, the cbo is telling us we'll lose 1.2 million jobs, but more importantly we will bring a bill right away to retroactively bring that he is tax cuts back. >> sean: what indication did the president give that he understands the severity of the situation and that he understands the need that the -- that markets and small business and large business and large corporations, that they need to know what -- what tax base they'll have to pay next year? does he understand it? >> i think so, because from my conversation with john and eric, they had a very cordial meeting that centered around the fact that the economy is really flat right now, and we've got to be careful about the economy. so i think there's an acknowledgment that this would be dangerous to the economy to raise these taxes at this 11th hour. so i do believe the white house is warming to this idea. they've been saying they're against it all long, saying we should spend the money somewhere else, but i think they're coming around to it, and cooler heads will prevail, and i'm hopefully and optimistic this will get done. >> sean: co

now, if this provision is struck down, it will change the cbo forecast because maybe not as many people will be in it. to say that it is key, no, it has nothing to do with pre-existing condition and nothing to do with an insurance company saying we're going to drop you because you got sick. those are the two big things. it has nothing to do with young kids going on their parents' policy until the age of 26. those are the three big things in the health care bill. >>> coming up, i'm taking on a group trying to bring republicans and democrats together. they think washington is too partisan. i think they're a bunch of fence sitters. you don't get anything done if you're a fence rider. >>> some say the tan man's crying shows his softer side. i think it's a complete double standard. show you what happened, what nancy pelosi, what would happen if her if she had lost control? stay with us. >>> it's not too late to let us know what you think. the number to dial is 1-877-ed-msnbc. do you think president obama's tax cut compromise will hurt his re-election chances? press the number 1 for yes, the

everybody begins, cbo, republican, that over the next two years this will add close to $1 trillion to the deficit. where are you going to cut to square the circle? you can't be both for the trillion dollar tax cut without cutting an equal a. spending if you're going to be true to your principles, as i understand. >> i think the new house majority is going to come up with those tax cuts. also, some of the welfare and domestic programs. you can't say after 19 months of 9% plus unemployment now's the time to raise taxes. it's not. that's the worst stretch of unemployment since world war ii. that's no time to raise taxes on folks. >> i'll concede the tax cuts for people who make less than a certain amount certainly are stimulative. if you're making 50 grand a year and you add a few hundred dollars into your paycheck, you'll go out and spend that money and that has a stimulative effect on commit. when the senate voted a week or so ago they had a choice to vote for tax cuts for everybody except for people who make more than $1 million a year. the republicans voted to stop that extend of the

a cbo base current policy baseline. these numbers would be reversed. $2 in tax increases for $1 in spending cuts is how we look at these numbers. i would like to share this with your staff and maybe we could go through this before friday. it is important to note that we have got to grow this economy and we have to get a good down payment on taxes and spending now. you cannot fix this problem. you are delaying it if you do not tackle health care. i understand the position you were put in. your president's appointees create this commission. he passed through health care law that i am sure you are not going to want to undo. that does not mean that those of us who do not have a problem with the law want to sign up for something we think advances that law. that is why some of us have some concerns. let me finish on a positive note. you are to be commended. this is a serious effort in serious proposal. i appreciate the contributions you do. thank you. >> you have been extremely constructive. i have become a real admirer. than

we agree at the beginning of deliberations of the debt commission to use cbo numbers. if you do that, you would note the death of our nation has risen from 32% of our gdp, just about eight or nine years ago, to 62% today. and the alarming thing is that if we continue on our current policies, that that debt will begin to skyrocket. it is projected if we do not change our course to hit approximately 90% in 2020. and grow as high as 180% by 2035. it probably will never hit that because if we don't take decisive action, then you economy will. and we will see the kinds of forced consequences that will change those dynamics. in very, very painful, difficult and damaging ways to every american. the reason that we are supporting this plan is because, although it is not everything we wanted, and although it contains things that frankly i painful to us and raise heartburn, it does take us dramatically down the path in the right directions toward addressing these issues. first and foremost it addresses the spending issue. under the proposal there'll be definite hard caps on spend

cbo as part of the $25 billion number is projecting on the a $12 billion expenditure out of a potential 7 a 5 -- 75. do you agree with that? >> i think it's bad news, but i think it's low. it's too low, too pessimistic. what we set aside was more like 45 or 50. they expect we spend 12. that's too low. but we're going through an assessment, and we'll share that with in the sometime in the first quarter. >> you're not satisfied with the type of overall impact that projection would appear to presume? >> look, my obligation is to make sure the programs reach as measure people as possible, and the more people we retch, the more we will be spending. -- i think it's a good use of the limited resources we have in the country because of the returns in helping the country in the housing crisis are very high overall. >> i want to say one thing in response to the question about how you evaluate risk and return these things, and i think it's straightforward. you have to look at, you know, we got a 20% return on some programs relative to what risk, but, we're the government. we're not an investment,

there is no disagreement by the official scorekeeper, cbo. >> chris: i understand. >> they say the healthcare reform bill will reduce the debt by $1 trillion in 20 years. it needs to have more done. this bill, this proposal from the commission does more. first of all, it deals with the most important thing most economists tell us, which is to change the tax treatment of healthcare, phasing out the deductions. >> chris: the number of tax exemptions. we're going to run out of time here and i want to get into taxes. congressman hensarling, your response on the revenue side and also about the healthcare? >> well, back to the commission plan and it depends on whose baseline you use, which is washingtonese for a huge set of assumptions. the commission decided to use the president's assumptions. we have respectfully disagree and believe it represents $2 trillion tax increase. be that as it may, yes, healthcare continues to be a contentious debate in washington. i think it is instrucktive that the congressional budget office that probably gave the healthcare plan et cetera most growing score, did not

the fact is for the talk of cutting the deficit, this plan will increase the deficit according to the cbo by $858 billion. almost $1 trillion. if you pass this, what do you plan to do to cut the deficit in your first three months in power with the new republican majority in the house? what do you plan to do to cut the deficit? will you move to bring down tax deductions, $1 trillion in tax deductions and decrease the tax rates? >> number one, what we're going to do is what the democrats didn't do, cut spending. i find it interesting that after the massive spending spree that took place over the last two years, creation of two new healthcare entitlement, now there is concern about deficit when they have a chance to raise taxes. we're not interested in raising taxes. $544 billion of the package you're talking about is keeping taxes where they are. the other $313 billion of the package is some of the spending stuff you're talking about. we don't want to see spending. we're going to come out of the good afternoons going after spending, chris, spending cuts, spending controls, reforms of the st

while we shifted from roughly three children and down to two children per woman and the trustees of the cbo, omb are working off projections that assume that will continue into the future even with the help of immigration that is substantial we still have a much, much lower number of people entering the population and that is causing the aging shift that we will be experiencing over the next 25 years. i mention that by the we've perspective it's not about the fact that we are living longer. as far as labour force participation rates are concerned there is no question there has been a major shift back to 1950 provided in the written testimony, some specific numbers. one thing we oftentimes like to do this sort of look at each interval basis just look at what the rates are, looking in terms of labour force participation without the effect of aging occurring in the population because given people with high year ages tended to work with a lower profitably than people at lower wages if we have aging had a population even if at each age the probability stays the same ballot to give our overall ra

just this summer in july, the cbo told the president and congress, if you guys don't get your act togetherdebt, you're going to see our credit rating go down. that's going to lead to higher interest rates, which will lead to higher debts. it will lead to bonds collapsing. that could lead to the markets collapsing. it could lead to the united states looking a lot like ireland and greece. that was the warning. how did they respond? adding another trillion dollars to the debt. how did moody's respond? by saying over the next two years, we may have to devalue your bond rating just like ireland. it's recklessness. >> austerity has to wait. that's what you saw out of this deal. this president wants to do everything he can to somehow move the needle on jobs, you know, in the next -- >> that's the politics, though. joe is absolutely right about the long term. basically, they have so raised the level from which to have to cut. to say we're going to get serious about deficit cutting in the future is really silly at this point. >> this happened a week, a week after the debt commission figured out how

the cbo is non-partisan, by the way. they're largely trusted to get the numbers right. $25 billion.ow much is that? if you took all the harry potter movies, all of them together. it's about five times what all the harry potter movies earned at the box office. $25 billion would buy three next generation aircraft carriers. you'd have some money left over to buy planes. roughly a third of what america paid for the apollo moon project, adjusted for inflation, of course, and 1/40 the cost of the war on terror. whether or not you believe the t.a.r.p. was a good thing, a bad thing, a constitutional thing, that's one argument. whether it was expensive, the argument is turning out $25 billion for the federal government -- >> that's a new round of medal of honor or call of duty. >>> if a picture is worth a thousand words, then a new app might be worth a thousand calories. a new app lets users take a picture of their food and they see how many calories it has. the software analyzes the color and shape of the food and calculates the number of calories. it can recognize more than 100,000 types o

a cbo base current policy baseline. these numbers would be reversed. $2 in tax increases for $1 in spending cuts is how we look at these numbers. i would like to share this with your staff and maybe we could go through this before friday. it is important to note that we have got to grow this economy and we have to get a good down payment on taxes and spending now. you cannot fix this problem. you are delaying it if you do not tackle health care. i understand the position you were put in. your president's appointees create this commission. he passed through health care law that i am sure you are not going to want to undo. that does not mean that those of us who do not have a problem with the law want to sign up for something we think advances that law. that is why some of us have some concerns. let me finish on a positive note. you are to be commended. this is a serious effort in serious proposal. i appreciate the contributions you do. thank you. >> you have been extremely constructive. i have become a real admirer. than

a race to the bottom in financial standards and all these terms, cdss, cbos is really jargon for banksetting and speculating with other people's money and you have to have proper supervision. >> gordon brown, thank you very much indeed for joining us. >> thank you. >>> you can see more of my interview with the former prime minister on abcnews.com. >>> coming up next, "in memoriam." and later "the sunday funnies." s." [ s. greenlee ] i would love to have been a musician but i knew that i was going to need a day job. we actually have a lot of scientists that play music. the creativity, the innovation, there's definitely a tie there. one thing our scientists are working on is carbon capture and storage, which could prevent co2 from entering the atmosphere. we've just built a new plant to demonstrate how we can safely freeze out the co2 from natural gas. it looks like snow. it's one way that we're helping provide energy with fewer emissions. but i wasn't winning any ribbons managing my diabetes. it was so complicated. there was a lot of information out there. but it was frustrating trying

the cbo estimates whiwe rely on said t.a.r.p. itself will cost $350 million. those estimates are now around 25. they are too high in my judgment. ultimately, they will be lower. the most important thing to point out is that the investment programs in t.a.r.p. means the combined investments we put in banks in aig. the support of other markets and the automobile industry. those investments together will show a positive return. the losses will be limited to the amount we spend in our housing programs, the investment programs in t.a.r.p. will show a positive return. not a negative return, the taxpayers will earn a positive return on those investments. now if you look more broadly, as many of you suggested at the combined cost of everything the fed did, everything the fdic did, the losses that we still face because of what fannie and freddie did before the crisis and t.a.r.p. together on reasonable estimates about the future, those can be less than 1% of gdp, which is less than 1/3 of the cost of the savings and loan crisis which as you know was a much milder, much

according to cbo, they've pretty loping for the buck in terms of economic growth. b that's the high impact tax cuts. pretty low bang for the buckkage according to the congressional budget office. this package also expanded child tax credit and earned income tai credit for working fliamilies. x the american opportunity tax credit for college minimum tax o fixf, otherwise millions of people would b be getting a tax hike completely unintended ander the r&d tax credits and otherso, expiring tax provisions. pacge, so mr. president, this package, as a package, according to the best economic advice that we cae get it will help economic growth, will help job creation created many as too manyjobs in additional jobs in the next i year. thr package also includes three critical measures to help the economy. it includes a payroll tax cut for working families. this will provide a twotion in percentage point reduction anduy employees social security payroll taxes. a worker with 40,000 income would save $800. this measure is widely recognized as one of the most effective ways to b

those are cbo numbers. it would drastically impact health care. it could be more expensive, the doctors, the medical suppliers. >> what would you like to see happen over the medium- and long-term? >> he is talking about how we will ration care, you cannot afford it, so you don't buy it, which we all saw before. you end up with no mandate and no insurance. we ration care that way. i know people never went to the doctor because they could not afford it. that is different than rationing by income. this is not complicated. we have countries that have designed a health care system that has less cost. different people like different countries and what they do. none of them are based upon the rationing method. soft money, the cost is somewhere else. money shows up in any campaign in different ways. why does america not look at what o competitors do successfully? they say the economy is a miracle that made it through, germany. whats wrong with their system? >> you have a highly regulated system. there's a mandate in which everyone get private insurance. >

we agree at the beginning of the jubilation of our commission to use cbo numbers. if you do that, you know that the data for nation has risen from 32% of our gdp, just about eight or nine years ago, to 62% today. and the alarming thing is that if we continue on our current policies, but that that will begin to skyrocket. it is projected if we do not change our course to hit approximately 90% in 2020 and grow as high as 180% by 2035. it probably will never hit that because if we don't take decisive action, then the economy will and we will see the kinds of force consequences that will change those dynamics in very, very painful, difficult and damaging ways to every american. the reason that we're supporting this plan is because although it is not everything we wanted and although it contains things that frankly are painful to us and raise heart earn, it does take us dramatically down the path and in the right directions toward addressing these issues. first and foremost, and dresses standing issue. under the proposal, there will be definite hard caps on spending put

of this committee to support an amendment i proposed that said we needed to have final and complete cbo scores, just the scores, along with the legislation, legislative language before the committee passed the health care reform pill. bill. so open and transparent we haven't been. >> i look forward to any forms of dialogue that i can engage in with you, senator -- >> i will guarantee you this, you will get open and transparent, and it'll be on the other side of the house. they will see to it that you are open and transparent because they are going to oversee cms very closely. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. i might just, also, say that we're working with your side of the aisle to make sure that doctors do not get suspended cuts in medicare. we're working on that right now and hope to get that enacted this year so doctors don't face that. we'll find a way. >> [inaudible] >> i know, i know, i know. senator white. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. berwick, you cannot find a more important issue in health care than end-of-life care. and the approach that i've supported is the oppo

the cbo estimates which we rely on said t.a.r.p. itself will cost $350 million. those estimates are now around 25. they are too high in my judgment. ultimately, they will be lower. the most important thing to point out is that the investment programs in t.a.r.p. means the combined investments we put in banks in aig. the support of other markets and the automobile industry. those investments together will show a positive return. the losses will be limited to the amount we spend in our housing programs, the investment programs in t.a.r.p. will show a positive return. not a negative return, the taxpayers will earn a positive return on those investments. now if you look more broadly, as many of you suggested at the combined cost of everything the fed did, everything the fdic did, the losses that we still face because of what fannie and freddie did before the crisis and t.a.r.p. together on reasonable estimates about the future, those can be less than 1% of gdp, which is less than 1/3 of the cost of the savings and loan crisis which as you know was a much milder, much

we know, according to the cbo. every dollar was checked. $1.60 or $1.90 of stimulus in the economy.hat say, you need to have the fed doing something and need to have congress spending more money. >> i got more chance of growing hair than we have getting another stimulus. >> i know, so there's politic, economics, and no one really knows what that thing is that's going to be that sparks the economy for jobs, and -- >> it's confidence. we know it's not in this report. we don't see the confidence in this report that's for sure. >> we have to go back to date night. saturday night, go out. spend money. >> christine, ali, as always, see you at the top of the hour. >> that's goetz it nic robe robertson, he's in kabul, afghanistan. the president is there on the ground, had hoped to meet face to face with afghan president hamid karzai. there's a lot for these two men to talk about. they might not meet face-to-face. might be a phone conversation, but there's a lot on the table for these two men to talk about. am i right? >> you're absolutely right. today was the day, if president obama was goi

obble somebody from hfs was here but also from the congressional budget office simply because did the cbotake into account these mini med plans and potential for people dropping their health insurance in these mini med plans and then dumping those into the exchanges and were those costs figured into whether or not this thing was actually going to hurt the deficit or not. and i think that that's the significant issue that needs to be answered when the scoring from cbo, because this thing was said to have reduced the deficit and we're seeing all kinds of unintended consequences with this new health care law, the mini med problem is just one of many. mr. chairman, you said in your opening statement that these things do more harm than good, and my question kind of a rhetorical question but my question would be, if they do more harm than good, why did hhs grant waivers? if they're doing more harm than good, shouldn't hhs just have said, sorry, that's the way the law is, and these things, we're not going to grant any waivers if in fact they were doing more harm than good? but what hhs i think r

those are cbo numbers. it would drastically impact health care. it could be more expensive, the doctors, the medical suppliers. >> what would you like to see happen over the medium- and long-term? >> he is talking about how we will ration care, you cannot afford it, so you don't buy it, which we all saw before. you end up with no mandate and no insurance. we ration care that way. i know people never went to the doctor because they could not afford it. that is different than rationing by income. this is not complicated. we have countries that have designed a health care system that has less cost. different people like different countries and what they do. none of them are based upon the rationing method. soft money, the cost is somewhere else. money shows up in any campaign in different ways. why does america not look at what our competitors do successfully? they say the economy is a miracle that made it through, germany. what is wrong with their system? >> you have a highly regulated system. there's a mandate in which everyone get private insuranc

we agreed at the beginning of the deliberations of the debt commission to use cbo numbers. if you do that, he would note that the death of our nation has risen from 32% of our gdp, just about eight or nine years ago, 262% today. and the alarming thing is that if we continue on our current policies, that debt will begin to skyrocket. it is projected if we do not change our course, to hit approximately 90% in 2020 and grow as high as 180% by 2035. it probably will never hit that because if we don't take decisive action than the economy will and we will see the kinds of force consequences that will change those dynamics in very very painful, difficult and damaging ways to every american. the reason that we are supporting this plan is because although it is not everything we wanted and although it contains things that frankly are painful to us and raise heartburn, it does take us dramatically down the path in the right directions toward addressing these issues. first and foremost it addresses the spending issue. under the proposal there will be definite hard caps on spending pu

the cbo estimates it will be a savings of about $10 billion per year. the simpson-bowles plan cuts the military budget, which is a good thing. mine does it as well. but not in combat military pay. these military families are not getting rich serving our country. they should not be the target of deficit reduction. responding to republican calls to slash spending, the bowles- simpson plan calls for deep cuts in domestic discretionary spending. using the bowles-simpson formula, there is a 22% cut that jeopardize everything from nutrition and education to medical research and job screening. amazingly, their plan opens a new huge loophole to incentivize companies to outsource jobs by adopting the territorial tax system. u.s.-based multinational corporations will never have to pay taxes from subsidiaries in foreign countries. finally, the bowles-simpson plant will require cuts in social security -- plan will require cuts in social security. social security has nothing to do with the deficit. their plan to make social security solvent for the next 75 years is

amarket was willing to offer pry more cds protection against a fall in the back of the subprime related cbos. goldman sachs wanted to continue to buy cds is but none were available at a reasonable price, so change the situation. golden, the abs desk, decided it would offer cds protection at a lower and lower price in order to drive down the market price. and induced current cvs holders to sell off their holdings. when the selloff was large enough, the price got loaded up the golden plan to move in and purchase a cds is for itself it artificially low prices. now, that schwarz we strategy was described in a number of exhibits including exit three a. which was shared with you and effective self-evaluation which was done by one of the goldman traders on the abs desk who participated in that activity, and i will include injury record at this time. they self-evaluation report by -- on page 15 of that exhibit, three a. at the bottom of the first paragraph, this is what h wrote. we remained as negative as ever on the fundamentals of subprime the market was trading very short. and susceptible to a sq

guest: the cbo came up with the estimate but said because we were putting the beneficiaries in non-immigrant visa status, kind of like tourist visas, they came up with a series of assumptions in the estimates that showed a net wash. the $2.3 bilon benefit is negligible in an economy of our size. and the estimates are off for a variety of reasons. the is definitely going to be follow-up legislation to try to create other status for people in the non-immigrant status even if they did not complete college. we feel that the cost estimates are wildly understated. after 10 years, imagine when they get green cards. there will be dramatic increases in the use of public benefits. 42% of taxpayers are not paying -- do not have a fighter -- pot -- do not have a positive federal tax liability. there will not be significant taxpayers over -- they will not be significant taxpayers overturned. we believe this will cost taxpayers billions of dollars. they do not by the way that it covers education costs. host: you can read more about that at thehill.com. it estimates there would cut spending by $1.4 billion