two million you're going to get you below eight percent you get reelected we can't have that doug elmendorf the head of the c.b.o.t. specifically said that he's not dorsey any policy this is these are decisions that lawmakers will have to make and of course lawmakers are have to answer to their constituents what not true again and why here's alex couple the. book again with twelve is just making a recommendation that will be voted up or down by its side of god just a recommendation it they're going to they're going to lay out a committee they're going to lay out a piece of legislation of the as you say resolution a relegation zone spill agusta rubel. that's very different than any any but it's any disease or harmful than anything that in any piece along to any legislature can let legislative work and. my point is this at some point the law makers will have to respond to that and answer to their constituents just as yes they have to do it to represent democracy i think one example would be new york nine where we had a republican running in a in a heavily heavily democratic district and there

i'm astounded by this and i'm particularly is touted by herman cain pulling out the chilean mud doug elmendorf both the head of the c b o he mentioned during the hearing that we referenced earlier that these programs social security and medicare are growing far greater than our economy is growing at a far faster pace these are some unsustainable programs that have to be reformed right over the seventy five year period as i said it's you know i would have if you saw it so i know what it was of these thirty years said you tax you have people making over two hundred fifty thousand dollars pay the same now did i or tax rate just the same tax rate on social security taxes as their. janitors as wal-mart greeters why is it that the you know the chair of the lloyd blankfein at goldman sachs is paying less social security tax than a greeter at walmart please tell me ted why this is the only way out of iraq i don't know if you've ever seen chilean models but herman cain could be on the something more to the point more to the point look i've got very familiar with the chilean model and in fact let me let

you said that doug elmendorf approached you with a week ago wha. does -- what does expensing do? it's one form of super accelerated depreciation. accelerated deappreciation methods, again going to the cost of capital for the business, even, you know, from a sort of simple cash flow method, it means that you have more cash available after tax from being able to recover more of your cost sooner or if you look at it in terms of what economists refer to as the user cost of capital model looking over the lifetime of the assets, it -- by having cost reduced early over the life of the asset as opposed to later over the life of the asset, the present value 69 returns to the asset are increased, so it makes it a better investment. accelerated appreciation is a policy that encourages investment in the united states. similarly, you mentioned the research credit, and expensing of research activities. from sort of a -- from a -- >> but do you have studies showing if we did x or y, it would allow companies to do more investing here allowing more people to work and pay taxes? a whole lot of pos

you said that doug elmendorf approached you with a week ago wha. does -- what does expensing do?e form of super accelerated depreciation. accelerated deappreciation methods, again going to the cost of capital for the business, even, you know, from a sort of simple cash flow method, it means that you have more cash available after tax from being able to recover more of your cost sooner or if you look at it in terms of what economists refer to as the user cost of capital model looking over the lifetime of the assets, it -- by having cost reduced early over the life of the asset as opposed to later over the life of the asset, the present value 69 returns to the asset are increased, so it makes it a better investment. accelerated appreciation is a policy that encourages investment in the united states. similarly, you mentioned the research credit, and expensing of research activities. from sort of a -- from a -- >> but do you have studies showing if we did x or y, it would allow companies to do more investing here allowing more people to work and pay taxes? a whole lot of positive th

it's going, according to the doug elmendorf, dr.rf, the head of the cbo it will cost 800,000 jobs over time that is pretty big. jenna: i'm glad you brought up the director of the cbo because he was speaking to the supercommittee earlier this week about deficit reduction. >> right. jenna: one of the things he said and i'm paraphrasing this a bit. if you want to keep taxes where they are or lower them, you're going to need to severely cut entitlements. that is what you're going to have to do. so what entitlements are you willing to take a look at and start doing some cutting on? >> first of all, i don't think you do have to cut entitlements. we have 214 tax expenditus, some of which could be cut out and, these are, some of which have good reasons for being in existence too, like the home mortgage interest deduction, the corporate deduction of, health care that they provide for their employees, or, charitable deductions or 401(k)s. but there are about, like i say, at least 214 various tax expenditures to be cut out. plus, why don't we

you're looking at the cbo director, doug elmendorf, testifying up there on capitol hill.his will be a process and now before thanksgiving these 12 will have to come to some consensus for an up-or-down vote. the white house would like to see $2 trillion in deficit reduction. if it doesn't get to that point, they have, as a part of this jobs bill, the republicans call it the stimulus ii but as part of it is a double trigger. that if this committee doesn't get to 2 trillion, then these tax increases would add on to additional cuts at the department of defense. so the pressure is on, these 12 lawmakers. jon: there are some similarities to the simpson-bowles committee in a way. a smaller group that's tasked with solving a problem that the larger organization. jon: the congress and the administration, can't seem to get a handle on. we all know simpson-bowles came out and you know, was essentially ignored. >> exactly. and listen, washington has done this numerous times through different administrations. both parties. giving blue ribbon commissions some sort of task to do somethi

increase marginal tax rates which will also discourage work, end quote, and that was testimony of doug elmendorf, director of the congressional budget office. he was put in that position by speaker pelosi. that was at a house budget committee hearing in february of this year. some six months after the passage of obamacare. the third bullet, obama care will not lower health care costs for families by $2,500 a year. the president was wrong about that due to obama care, families buying insurance on their own can expect a $2,100 increase in premium, that's from a letter from c.b.o. to senator evan bayh, former senator evan bayh, of indianaering that was in thove of 2009, some five months after passage of obamacare. i'm sorry, that was actually six months before. this is when the bill was being developed an a -- and debated in the senate. if you like your health plan you cannot keep your health plan. according to the united states census pew roe, the 2010 census shows that employer-provided insurance fell by 1.5 million to 55.3% from 56.1% in 2009. and it is continuing to fall and it would not surpri