senator alap simpson, erskine bowles, gentlemen -- senator alan simpson, erskine bowles, gentlemen, thank you. >> thank you, judy. >> ifill: now, two takes on the mexican drug war. first, a report on how the drug trade is spreading far north of the u.s. border. "newshour" correspondent tom bearden reports from colorado springs. ( siren ) >> reporter: the violence of the mexican drug wars may seem far away. but the drugs and the dealers that fuel them are close to home. colorado springs is best known as the home of the air force academy and the army's fort carson. but this quiet, mostly conservative city of 400,000 is also a major distribution point for mexican cartels. matthew barden is the agent in charge of the federal drug enforcement administration office in colorado springs. >> this house was the focal point of one of our recent investigations into a large methamphetamine organization. >> reporter: he says mexican drug cartels began exporting large amounts of methamphetamine after law enforcement began cracking down on production in the u.s. five years ago. huge quantities of heroin

david, erskine bowles, i will not ask you any banana jokes to follow up on simpson but erskine bowles also said that the one thing this commission proves or now sets out is an adult conversation about the deficit. do you agree? >> i do agree. i think simpsons must save those up over the years. >> lehrer: he writes them down. >> i do think it has had an porn effect. obviously it is to the going to go in effect any time soon but in a number of ways, it expanded everybody time horizon so people are looking over debt problem over more than just five years. second it has had a huge affect on tax reform debate. they really put serious tax reform, sort of looks a little like 1986. and that debate has spread and i think that could come more quickly than people think, there is a serious debate inside the white house about trying to do tax reform. there are serious moves inside the congress. so that i think was really given a boost. and then finally the cuts that were suggested are the sort of thing we are going to have to do. and actually a little less than we are going to have to do. so the w

thank you erskine bowles. >> thank you. we would not be here without you and senator gregg. another congressman has asked to be recognized. >> i want to begin by saying thank you. thank you for giving us a chance to have this conversation. to alan since -- to alan simpson, who was the perfect choice to be a call to air -- to be a co-chair. he would say all of the wrong things before he said the right things. to erskine bowles, if you were doing the running of the bulls, the bulls would move out of your way. the president chose two individuals who had the courage of their convictions to move forward. the enormous applause or what you have done for helping that stay together. i stayed in my office until the wee hours this morning and kept my staff with me. i wanted to figure out if there was a way to get to a yes. for all of the reasons i think my colleague, dick durbin, said he is a yes, i think it is appropriately think about why we would all be a guest. i would be a no. dick durbin said he would be a yes because it is important to say we will have the courage to do somethin

but is erskine bowles right? a conservative like tom coburn on the right supporting this, will congress support the plan? >> in the environment, that is political momentum. there is some momentum behind it that needs to move forward. but i think you cannot talk about the debt, chris, without also looking at what another piece of news that came out friday which was the unemployment. unemployment statistic. 9.8%. at a time when the economy is rebounding and retail sales and real estate, corporate profits are up. we have to start asking ourselves why is there a long-term unemployment. add to the debt extending unemployment benefit, fine. are we hitting our head against the wall constantly? job vacancies surged by 37% and up employment continues to go up. there is a mismatch between skills, training and the jobs that are open. a small disincentive on the part of some people to find jobs that aren't necessarily the jobs they want. we've got to start looking more long-term, because when you create one way to go after t

erskine, you did not have to take on this obligation. truly believe that other than the terrorist threat to america, i believe this debt threat constitute the greatest challenge to our country going forward of any. i just want to say about senator gregg, he is a very good man. he is somebody that fully understands the challenges we confront, and he has been willing to put aside partisanship, to put aside any other consideration, to try to get a result for the country. chairman spratt, we could not have a better chairman of the budget committee. he is simply the best. we all went to thank you for your service to the country. i would ask others to join in recognizing his service. [applause] over and over, john has demonstrated courage. i have seen it many, many times. dick durbin, boy, you showed courage big time. i will never forget your stepping uppe. senator colbern, i watched your press conference yesterday, and it gave me chills. you have the courage to step forward and say, look, this is not exactly what we would do, but we are prepa

their own taxes and see how they like this 9,000 page ridiculous tax >> the tax code according to erskine bowles and senator simpson is so porked up, i don't know how many special interests -- they call them earmarks in the tax code special interests came into town and said i need a deduction for something and if you got enough money you got your lobbyist to get in there and put the deduction. the tax code is so loaded with special interests, to be so unjust to the average american trying to pay his taxes unless you are part of a special interest group. >> there's earmarking on the spending side. then the equivalent of earmarking on the tax code. if you the right lobbyist and enough power you get your special deal in the tax code. that has to be reformed as well. all of this has to be cleaned up. it is a mess. what we've got is big government, we big government, big labor and really big business coalescing to the disadvantage of everyday americans. and they get the special break. the poor get a hand-out and everybody else gets their wallet out and we are sick of it. >> greta: it is intere

erskine, i think you shed week -- you said we should not hollow out our country. i think that is one of the key things we must focus on. we must reform the tax code. in addition, as i have thought about the areas where i have problems -- they are similar to the issues that others have raised -- it struck me as i was thinking about it that in most of those areas, my concerns are with what is not in the plans as opposed to what is in the plan. not all of them, but some of them -- in fact, most of them. some have said the plan should go further. i am, on the -- on the spending side, it does not go far enough to get us where we need to get. we need to have a more robust effort to address the spending issues. the plan takes the very strong steps on the spending side. as you know, i have continuously harped about the fact that process is important. you cannot achieve the outcome if there are not processes in place. i would like to see the process protections strengthened so we can have an even stronger guarantee that the task this plant sets out are followed. i apprecia

was remarkable was that rather than watering down the plan to get support, the commission leaders, erskinebowles and alan simpson, persuaded all sides to compromise-- to get something the left could sign onto, the right could sign onto and, importantly, that was good policy. then last week, the tax deal. in typical washington fashion, more and more goodies were piled on: new spending, tax cuts for businesses, tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the middle class, tax cuts for the poor. even tax cuts for the deceased. and no one paid for anything. here's a stunner-- the decade- long cost of this tax plan is larger than all the savings from the fiscal commission's plan. somebody better call the bowles- simpson team back to washington. we're going to need them again. listen, we need more short-term stimulus, but this was more like a drunken, debt-financed bonanza. and by not combining any short- term stimulus with a budget fix, we failed to enact the model of spend now, save later that is watching washington last week was like watching a junkie promising this hit will be the last. let's just h

i heard erskine bowles, cochairman of the commission that we're talking about today, he was asked why are our interest rates low and why are our bonds still desirable. and he said, let's not fool ourselves, and senator chambliss would appreciate this because he used a southern turn of frayed. he said, look, we're still the best-looking horse in the glue factory, that's the only way our interest rates and our bonds are still strong. so what do we do about that? well, there's a way forward. the bipartisan commission has put in front of us a plan that we don't -- none of us agree with every single item but it's a way forward. and it's important to also note that of the 11 votes, five of those votes i believe were senators from our body. five of our six senators who represented us on that commission voted to move forward. so that's the way forward, is for us to join together, democrats and republicans alike. and despite our differences of opinion on many other issues, we can agree i think on one thing and that's to developing fundamental tax reform and addressing in the process our long-t

identify where the money should come from to cut back on federal spending, it was chaired by democrat erskine bowles of north carolina. he was president clinton's chief of staff. and former republican wyoming senator alan simpson. they sat down with the budget, came up with these suggestions, which are being hashed up, hacked apart and debated. but as they see it, they have a job to do and every american has to face up to this. we talked to both men late today from washington. >> this is a haircut greater than any hair i have left on doing something with everybody in the united states in a balanced, fair way, and getting rid of $1.2 trillion in these tax cuts. most of them go to the top 1% earners in the united states. >> this is the moment of truth. every business, every family, every university, every city, every state has faced these problems. washington hasn't. this is the moment of truth. the path we're on today is completely unsustainable. if we don't get this debt under control, this country will go bankrupt. >> here's a question for either of you. if these cuts go through, though not

erskine, i think you shed week -- you said we should not hollow out our country. i think that is one of the key things we must focus on. we must reform the tax code. in addition, as i have thought about the areas where i have problems -- they are similar to the issues that others have raised -- it struck me as i was thinking about it that in most of those areas, my concerns are with what is not in the plans as opposed to what is in the plan. not all of them, but some of them -- in fact, most of them. some have said the plan should go further. i am, on the -- on the spending side, it does not go far enough to get us where we need to get. we need to have a more robust effort to address the spending issues. the plan takes the very strong steps on the spending side. as you know, i have continuously harped about the fact that process is important. you cannot achieve the outcome if there are not processes in place. i would like to see the process protections strengthened so we can have an even stronger guarantee that the task this plant sets out are followed. i apprecia

think you could have a deal done even early next year with some small tweaks to what alan simpson and erskine bowles put forward. >> so social security obviously one of those big kahunas that we have to attack. and then there are the other entitlements. how do you do that? what is your vision in terms of really getting our arms around this deficit? >> well, over the long-term, social security is a problem. it's not actually the main problem. the main problem involves health care cost growth. but on social security, the proposals are relatively straight forward. for example, bowles and simpson put forward a combination of additional revenue in the form of, for example, raising the cap on where the payroll tax applies and then also indexing benefits or indexing the retirement age to life expectancy. there is a variety of changes that are possible here, and a combination of revenue and benefit changes is the most plausible scenario in terms of addressing the deficit in social security. >> and what is possible in terms of addressing the high cost of health care? >> well, there i think what we're

erskine,

erskine, you d not have to take on this obligation. you have heavy responsibilities back at home.try. other than a terrorist threat to america, i belve this debt rights constitutes the greatest challenge to our country. the senator is a very good man. somebody that fully understands that the challenges we confront. he has been willing to put aside partisanship to try to get a result for the country. the chairman, that you could not have a better chairman of the budget committee. he is simply the best. we all want to thank you for your service to the country. i would ask others to join in recognizing his service. [applause] over and over, and john has demonstrated courage. i have seen itany many times. senator dorgan, you showed courage big time. i will never forgets your stepping up. to senator coburn, i watched her press conference yesterday. it gave me chills. you two had the courage to step forward and say, look, this is not exactly what we do, but we are prepared to sign up to make a beginning. thank you for that. a 14-18. going to get when we put together this plan and finall

. >> reporter: erskine bowles and former senator alan simpson offered some revisions to the sweepingllion over the next nine years, and they got support from members of both parties worried about our future. >> we will be the first generation in the history of this country to pass less prosperous and secure nation to our children. >> i am prepared to support this plan. and to support it strongly. because i don't see another alternative. >> only one person said she will vote no. in all, seven commissioners were supportive, even those with reservations that want to keep the plan alive. >> i think it's extremely important we continue the process. >> the problem is real. the solutions are all painful. there is no easy way out. >> such as freezing domestic and defense spending for years and eliminating $1.1 trillion in annual tax deductions, including for mortgage interest, though some could be added back if paid for. some of the savings would be used to lower all tax rates, leaving them between 8 and 23%. simpson emphasizes we cannot keep borrowing so much money. >> no more fun and games

erskine bowles talked about it as a cancer that would keep us from within. we have to keep an eye on every single vote and make sure that is a significant part of the equation. i cannot tell you exactly how i would have about it. i would have been leaning no and following mr. hoekstra on that. >> the president says this should increase employment and it could bring unemployment down closer to 8%. given that, look to the future and what do you want republicans to do on jobs and the economy? >> the private sector creates prosperity. the public sector does not. we have to make sure we are focusing everything we do helping to create an atmosphere that will put paychecks in people's bank accounts and create those jobs. i think that is what we really need to be focusing on as we move forward. we have some very difficult decisions that we have to make on the spending side, on the revenue side and all those things. that has to be our primary focus. the key here is making sure that we have a vibrant private sector and the atmosphere that will allow the october norse

on president obama's deficit commission, a commission chaired by former white house chief of staff erskineles and former u.s. senator from wyoming, alan simpson. for ten months, we met and considered all of the possibilities for us to move toward a more stable fiscal picture in america. our goal was simple: to reduce federal spending, reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over ten years. it took us ten months to come up with a proposal, and yesterday 11 out of the 18 members of the commission voted in favor, as i did. i will tell you that i had my reservations about some of their provisions but i did not quarrel with the goal. unless we are serious about budget deficit reduction, america's economy will be in peril, borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend and borrowing it from countries like china, which as a result have leverage on the united states economy which we should not ever accept as normal. it is abnormal and dangerous. i left that commission hearing yesterday voting to cut $4 trillion over ten years to come to the floor of the senate, where the republican side of the ais

so the argument on behalf of them, and i talked to the co-chairs, erskine bowles and alan simpson saying that more than offsets that. >>guest: we don't know. lower rates and simpler rate would spur the economy in a big way. unfortunately, our deficit is so bad that nobody is willing to entertain that without other tax increases somewhere else. i look at it as how big the pie is, the government pie used to be about 20 percent of g.d.p. and now it is nearly 25 percent of g.d.p. and i want to shrink the government pie back down to 20 percent or 18 percent and in doing so expand the private sector and that is where the jobs are created. so i don't want to do anything that increases money that government will get. i would rather accept less benefits, for example, rather than punishing those who make $ 200,000 a year by having them pay more social security taxes up to $200,000, reduce the benefits of those would make a lot of money in retirement and have means debting in order to allow us to have a system that is solvent without racing taxes. >>neil: but isn't that at least on social security,

erskine bowles and centrist democrats agree with the premise. i'd love to see compromise so we have good pro-growth tax reform, not tax increases but lowering tax rate for growth in america. that's a step in the right direction. we'll see. >> chris: i have a minute left. i want to talk to congressman van hollen. in the house democratic caucus this week, members were chanting "just say no." you said the white house "got taken to the cleaners" and i want to put up what the president said about you guys. here it is. >> people will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the american people. we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious aboutbe how pure our intentions are and how tough we are. >> chris: congressman van hollen, how much anger is there among liberals with president obama at the point? house liberals. and do you anticipate the possibility of a primary challenge from the left against president obama in 2012? >> the short answer is no to the last question. >> chris: no challenge? >> there i

usa what erskine and bowles have done. you heard from others that the programs that we have an interest in -- medicare, social security, education, health care -- are in jeopardy if we spent all of the money without any recognition to help it will be paid for. i think people underestimate the size of this plan. this two-year compromise is estimated at $990 billion per year. that is large. that is larger than a stimulus package. it is more than the first tenure cost of the health care plan. it is nine under $40 billion. this is $990 billion. -- it is $940 billion. this is a $990 billion. >> [inaudible] >> the relationship will continue to be very strong. we are working with the president's and the best interest of our country. we have been working on each and every issue. when you look at the record, you'll see that our members supported 99.9% of the president's agenda. in addition to that, we have worked with the president where there are areas we disagree. we were to try to reach consensus on both areas. >> there is a ver

and as erskine bowles said today, the world markets will not wait for that point, so what you're seeing in europe right now with greece and ireland and portugal and spain will happen here, except there will not be a european union or anybody else to bail out the united states of america. it is a crisis. yet this congress isn't doing anything about it. we are talking about adopting a continuing resolution because this congress won't do an appropriations bill. a continuing resolution at its best which will freeze spending at last year's level. now, some of my colleagues will say that's good, see, we're not increasing the spending. it's not an accomplishment when last year we were more than a trillion dollars in deficit to freeze spending at that level. the two issues that the american people want us to deal with are jobs and out-of-control government spending, yet, mr. president, we are failing to do both. there is a lot of frustration in this chamber. i watched some of my colleagues on the other side today come speak on the floor, and they are frustrated that we are not getting things do

erskine, you did not have to take on this obligation. you have heavy responsibilities back at home.untry. other than a terrorist threat to america, i believe this debt rights constitutes the greatest challenge to our country. the senator is a very good man. somebody that fully understands that the challenges we confront. he has been willing to put aside partisanship to try to get a result for the country. the chairman, that you could not have a better chairman of the budget committee. he is simply the best. we all want to thank you for your service to the country. i would ask others to join in recognizing his service. [applause] over and over, and john has demonstrated courage. i have seen it many many times. senator dorgan, you showed courage big time. i will never forgets your stepping up. to senator coburn, i watched her press conference yesterday. it gave me chills. you two had the courage to step forward and say, look, this is not exactly what we do, but we are prepared to sign up to make a beginning. thank you for that. a 14-18. going to get when we put together this plan and

in 1997, erskine and i worked together. it has to be balanced, fair, and equitable. i have a problem with discretionary spending to start with. i think it is right to have a cap. i think it is right to have fire walls. if you ask someone who knows the problem well, one is revenues, what is tax cuts, and the other is mandatory spending. the reductions in discretionary spending, as i understand it, it was two times mandatory spending. it is part of the problem. it is a little odd that we are discussing the renewal of the tax cuts. it will be around $4 trillion. we are laboring to give birth. if we do nothing of the tax cuts, we would have the same bottom line effects. that must strike you as ironic. i go back to my initial point. it goes to the committees of jurisdiction. they will decide what policies are implemented in order to achieve the bottom-line results that are essential to achieving the overall results of this package. we only make illustrative ideas that are feasible, can be done, and that policy-based reasons to be changed. what we are looking at here is a

which is the point i believe that the chairman of the president's fiscal commission, erskine bowles, and alan simpson, were make. if i might, mr. president, i'd like to remind my colleagues today of the history of the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. those tax cuts were passed after we experienced one of the strongest economic environments in our history. those who supported tax cuts for the wealthy believe that because we had begun to reduce our long-term debt we could afford them. they believed those tax cuts would stimulate our economy further and create millions of new jobs. in the words of then-vice president cheney it was a time when -- quote -- "deficits don't matter" -- unquote. i did not support the tax cuts for the wealthy in 2001 or 2003. for much the same reason i don't support them today. i voted against them as a member of the house of representatives. now, i sincerely wish that those tax cuts had effectively spurred sustained job growth. i do. but, unfortunately, the next decade saw a decline in our economy like we haven't seen since the great depression. ba

individuals, it's about the future of our country and we ought to be focused on that and i think erskines is just a starting point. even if this bill comes out and gets passed by congress, it is not close to enough to get us out of the problem we're in. >> all right. >> and we need the american people to know how severe that problem is. >> but senator, they need votes. are you going to vote yes then on friday? >> i'm going to announce my vote today at 11:30 at a press conference. >> you don't want to announce it four hours early right now? >> no, i don't. >> all right. maybe i can get you to comment on this. president the other day enacted the federal pay freeze. did you see that strictly as a political move or did you see that as the president coming more to the center? >> no, i don't see it as a political move. the fact is as we have way too high of payments for comparable work in the government as we do to the private sector. we need not only to freeze pay, we need to look at the benefits structure of not the people that are in retirement now. not the ones that are coming out but in t

which is the point i believe that the chairman of the president's fiscal commission, erskine bowles,nd alan simpson, were make. if i might, mr. president, i'd like to remind my colleagues today of the history of the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. those tax cuts were passed after we experienced one of the strongest economic environments in our history. those who supported tax cuts for the wealthy believe that because we had begun to reduce our long-term debt we could afford them. they believed those tax cuts would stimulate our economy further and create millions of new jobs. in the words of then-vice president cheney it was a time when -- quote -- "deficits don't matter" -- unquote. i did not support the tax cuts for the wealthy in 2001 or 2003. for much the same reason i don't support them today. i voted against them as a member of the house of representatives. now, i sincerely wish that those tax cuts had effectively spurred sustained job growth. i do. but, unfortunately, the next decade saw a decline in our economy like we haven't seen since the great depression. bank

." >> reporter: and erskine bowles, the chairman of the president's deficit commission, said he was, quote, deeply disappointed with the plan because it failed to deal with the debt. the vice president spent almost two hours talking to house democrats last night. i am told that about 20 of them rose to speak. almost all of them against the deal. some of the most pointed comments came from congressman anthony weiner, who said the president just has to show stronger leadership in taking on the republicans. george? >>> and joining us now is the congressman jon just mentioned, anthony weiner of new york. thanks for getting up early this morning, congressman. so what did you say to the vice president and what did he say to you? >> well, it was a closed-door caucus, but apparently some information was leaked out. look, what it basically came down to was i urged the vice president and the president to fight a little harder. we can't see these arguments as static things. vote counts don't stand still. presidents of the united states, like no one else can, has the ability to move the needle.

because if you listen to erskine bowles and allan simpson, yesterday, a democrat that worked for bill and republican out of the state of wyoming who came out of retirement, these guys were dire in their prediction, they're telling america, if you don't act now, you're going to pay dearly down the road. >> well, three things i think we need to do right away. first, it's a small but symbolic step, get rid of the earmarks, secondly roll back nondefense, prestimulus levels, third, i've got a whole chapter in the book on how to improve medicare while making it more fiscally sustain ab. we've got to be serious about entitlement reform but bill, we need structural change. otherwise all these reform will go no naught. what we need is a balanced amendment in the constitution so they can't spend more than they take in. a supermajority requirement so they can't simply raise our taxes and like you reference, look, let's pay congress to stay at home, let's have a part-time congress. you're exactly right, mark twain was exactly right, we're safer when they're not in washington, d.c. by the way, the

erskine, you did not have to take on this obligatn. you have heavy responsibilities back at home. you recognized that this is one of the key challenges facing the country. other than a terrorist threat to america, i belie this debt rights constitutes the greatest challenge to our country. the senator is a very good man. somebody that fully understands that the challenges we confront. he has been willing to put aside partisanship to try to get a result for the country. the chairman, that you could not have a better chairman of the budget committee. he is simply the best. we all want to thank you for your service to the country. i would ask others to join in recognizing his service. [applause] over and over, and john has demonstrated courage. i have seen it many many times. senator dorgan, you showed courage big time. i will never forgets your stepping up. to senator coburn, i watched h press conference yesterday. it gave me chills. you two had the courage to sp forward and say, look, this is not exactly what we do, but we are prepared to sign up to make a beginning. thank you for t

erskine bowles from north carolina, alan simpson, former senator from ayatollah, chaired it. did a great job. it was inspired by kent conrad, our colleague from north dakota, senator judd gregg of new hampshire. they were the ones who asked for this commission. they went to work for ten months and today we voted on that commission report. i voted "yes." i left that deficit commission to take that short one-minute subway ride over here to the capitol to emerge in the senate chamber and to try to understand how two buildings so close to one another can be so far apamplet because here on the floor of the united states senate, the debate is on whether or not we should extend tax cuts for the wealthiest people in america. doing that will add dramatically to our national debt. just to put it in perspective, senator mitch mcconnell's proposal for tax cuts for the next ten years will cost us $4 trillion. does that number sound familiar? that's the amount of deficit commission was told to eliminate in spending and create in revenue over the next ten years. all of the work of this comm

leaders of the presidential panel, erskine bowles and alan simpson, saying the compromise ignores the cancer of national debt and they are frustrated it was announced just days after their plan was put forward. guest: i completely agree. host: you said you do not think the tax cut -- extension of the tax cuts would have impact on the deficit. guest: if you look in the past, the way the congressional budget office -- they are very good people but they are do what they are told. e way they are supposed to score, there term, how much a tax decrease caused the government is at is called a static modeling. they assume that people don't change their behavior when tax rates go up and down but i am a cpa, a master's in taxation and i used to prepare tax returns and you do, when the tax rate moves around, the first thing you do is sit down mu your client and say let us figure out how we can avoid this, how we can compensate for this, whenever. when tax rates go up, people make adjustments, when they g down, they make adjustments. of the look of the last major decreases, 2001 or 2003 or go back

extent of how ludicrous they are in washington never really hit home to me until the alan simpson, erskineon issued their findings. well before they asked for a vote on it. included in the report, as you remember, was the idea that we were going to raise the retirement age to help save social security to the age of 69 in the year 2075. 2075. and you had nancy pelosi and richard trumka going on tv saying this is an assault on the middle class. the year 2075. >> it's all pie in the sky. >> 65 years from now. >> this is juggling. >> richard, and god bless him, i love him, nancy pelosi were all angry because my son jack who is 2 years old would get social security when he was 69 years old. whereas a 10 or 11-year-old would still be getting it -- these people are not serious. >> no, they're not. >> they're actually trying to scare senior citizens and saying they're coming after your social security. let me tell you something, if somebody sal live 60 years from now that's 70, 80 years old, they probably will have saved up enough money. it's just ridiculous. >> that's what we're talking about, sp

along the lines of what erskine bowles and senator alan simpson just came up with.other than that, i don't know what the white house has on its agenda. they seem to have gotten a lot of it. what they didn't get in the last two years they got in the lame-duck, and there were policy options in the white house who were busy churning out other things. tax reform could be one of them. a freestanding tax reform bill, but on the other hand, the democratic congress was receptive to the president's agenda. i mean especially the house of representatives has the ability to sort of move. one thing you could maybe fault the administration for was moving on climate change or energy legislation, but nancy pelosi sure got that through the house to the consternation of some people who aren't going to be a member of the next congress. does that come back in some form but then you have to sort of say, what is the republican agenda in the house? the gavel is going to pass from, i mean it is very symbolically passed from nancy pelosi to john boehner. it was the other way around four yea

leaders of the presidential panel, erskine bowles and alan simpson, saying the compromise ignores the cancer of national debt and they are frustrated it was announced just days after their plan was put forward. guest: i completely agree. host: you said you do not think the tax cut -- extension of the tax cuts would have impact on the deficit. guest: if you look in the past, the way the congressional budget office -- they are very good people but they are do what they are told. the way they are supposed to score, there term, how much a tax decrease caused the government is what is called a static modeling. they assume that people don't change their behavior when tax rates go up and down but i am a cpa, a master's in taxation and i used to prepare tax returns and you do, when the tax rate moves around, the first thing you do is sit down much your client and say let us figure out how we can avoid this, how we can compensate for this, whenever. when tax rates go up, people make adjustments, when they go down, they make adjustments. of the look of the last major decreases, 2001 or 2003 or

by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] host: erskine bowles and alan simpson, of president obama's deficit commission. do you think the commission is off to a good start? here are the numbers to call -- good morning on this thursday, december 2. the deficit commission will vote tomorrow on the plan. it needs the support of 14 members before it can go to congress. let us take a look at some of the latest news reported from "the wall street journal." this story -- "deficit plan wins backers." the piece begins -- are question for you is, is the deficit commission off to a good start? to get a better sense of what is actually in the final plan, unveiled just this week's, let us go to "the wall street journal" where they detail the commission's proposals and what the elements are. increase the gas tax to 15 cents a gallon, freeze pay for federal workers, a lemonade in school interest subsidies in federal student loan programs, shifting to five day delivery, cut congressional and white house budget by 15%, eliminate all congressional earmarks

who elected erskine bowles? who elected alan simpson? will this one have any impact at all? >> i think it is already had an impact on the debate. i think people focusing on and we mention some of the issues earlier today that is corporate and personal tax restructuring as well. i think as you mentioned they have, and they have gone in the past and i think one of the issues that continues to regurgitate is the issue of the mortgage deduction, the issue that never seems to sit well with anybody i ever speak to. but i do think it has again not the way to forcing us to vote on something. they didn't quite get there but they have the weight of presenting issues for debate and discussion. i think it has been taken very seriously given as ron has mentioned just be overall growth of the deficit. the route question is going to be, do people love their tax breaks for them to hate the deficit? and i think that is what we are focused on right now. i think politically speaking. there is no question though from a responsible sense i think we all share, that we will have to deal with the i

and you saw the reaction of erskine bowles and alan simpson, after working eight months trying to drive an issue to get us back on course, to create a future for us that will allow us to control our destiny rather than someone else to control our destiny. and really, this is just a drop in the bucket. this amendment to the waste, the duplication, and the fraud. you know, we're going to run trillion-tkphrar deficits as far as the -- trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see with no grownups in the traopl say we ought to stop doing it, we're going to stop doing t. what are some of the things in this amendment? a cut in the executive branch and the congressional budget of 15%, a freeze on the salaries and size of the federal government, limiting what the government can spend on planning, travel and new vehicles, selling unneeded and excess federal property, stopping unemployment benefits to people who are millionaires. by the way, we are sending unemployment benefits to people who are unemployed but have assets in excess of $1 million. collecting unpaid taxes currently in excess o