charles cogan, let me start with you.this is one of the hardest things about being a free country, isn't it? >> well, i would like to say a word about why france is such a target. and why they do extreme measures against terrorism. first of all, it has the largest muslim population in europe. it also has the largest jewish population in europe. many muslims are from north africa, and many are algerians who bear the history of the terrific reprisals between the french and the algerians in the war of independence between 1964. france has aggressive ly a-religious policies. they ban the veil. when you put all these things together you're going to get a huge threat against france now and in the future. the french traditionally have used very strong methods against their enemies, particularly during the algerian war. i don't think you're going to get the french public to have much heart burn about the methods used against these terrorists. >> what about the american public? >> the american public, of course, has a wave of revo

charles cogan former station chief in paris currently in harvard's belfour center in poverty. what did you find particularly unusual about this attack? >> you've got to take into account the fact that france is a very special country. it has the largest muslim population in europe, aggressively eants antisecular they went to the point of banning the head scarf. they are a boiling point for disgruntled jihadis. i think the attack was extremely daring and the fact that these guys escaped is amazing. and they apparently didn't look upon themselves as going to commit suicide. fortunately their identities are now apparently known because ever what they left in the vehicle they abandoned. so i have a lot of faith in the frenching internal security services which are very strong, you know france is one of the most heavily policed countries in the world. i think they're going to find these guys. i hope they do. >> what about intelligence leading up to this attack? what do we know about it? >> well, there were several -- president hollande pointed out today there were several attacks l

rich cogan has pointed out will have impacts not on the spending side but also on the revenue side. and steve has said this will be taken care of in the budget resolution. are you assuming that the senate will implicitly assume this for its budget reasons. >> i don't have knowledge of that what i meant to say to the extent the official scoring process incorporates micro economic feedback then any bias that is introduced in terms of spending versus revenue if in fact beneficial spending produces a revenue serge in later years the strict rules of the budget right now do not allow you to mix and match spending and revenues. but a budget resolution if that is a preferred policy does allow that. that was the only point i was making. >> anybody else on spending? anybody want to -- nobody, anybody? >> it's really important. really. >> do you guys want to wait. >> the gentleman there in the back. by the doors. by the fire alarm. please don't touch it. >> i'm basil, i have a question. what was the rational behind the house ignoring spending in its rule. i just think it should be made explici

important one -- just let me get it out on the table -- is basically -- and this is from work that richard cogan did. i didn't know about this. it's a bias that would lead dynamic spending scores and the budget forces allocations on the revenue side on the revenue target and the house and senate rules disallow taxes to go below the revenue floor or appropriations to go above committee's allocations. under the rule that we're talking about the house dynamic scoring rule if we were to move towards scoring discretionary, any positive growth effects would be scored almost entirely as extra revenues just by the rule itself, not as something that would give you room on the spending side. you would only have the ability to cut taxes more, not to increase spending based on what would pop out of the model. >> steve we know that when congress does things what we have found from listening to the jct folks on the tax side is if the new house rule had been implemented ten years ago, the quality of what you would get would be at one level but they've been working diligently all of these years to improve that