this desire to take erskine bowles who is not necessarily a household name and trying to claim that hisy at a given time reflects some great republican compromise is dead on arrival. mr. bowles came out today and he said that the attempt to invoke his testimony was off base and that this republican offer, to the extent it offers anything, is not the simpson/bowles plan, is not the bowles plan. it reminds me of the rap group, 36 mafia. they say, keep my name out of your mouth. it's basically what mr. bowles said to speaker boehner, don't talk about me, don't talk about my plan, go work on your own plan. >> let's listen to another thing grover said yesterday about president obama. >> it's the president who is threatening to raise taxes on the middle class if he doesn't stamp his feet and get his way. >> it's so funny to see somebody talk about someone else in full projection mode. >> right. >> that is grover. you know, stomping his feet and getting his way and he's pretending that the president debafs the way he does. >> that's been his entire path to power and he has gotten his way becau

and even if you just moved the budget plan up a year, the same erskine bowles offered to the supercommittee that they are using now, for complicated reasons it it would now be worth $950 million in tax increases. so even in the kind of world of the bowles' plan and much less simpson/bowles plan, this isn't quite right there. >> ryan, do they think that one democrat in a world who is not in office anywhere and theoretically compromising with him even though he says, hey, that's not a workable deal, do they actually think that's a presentable step towards the president? >> clearly they do. you know, democrats have been kind of guilty of the same thing in the past but this is a little extra ridiculous because erskine bowles is not somebody that's just been out of operativeness for a long time. he wasn't in office. he was inoperative, but he also works for morgan stanley right now. it's not like this is some type of a new deal that says, look, here's the deal that we've cobbled together with erskine bowles and the fact that he came out and rejected it today is that much more embarrassing to the

on discretionary spending over what the select committee had debated. >> i should mention that erskine bowles has put out a statement himself. while i'm flattered the speaker would call something the bowles plan. the outline in the letter the speaker sent to the president does not represent the bowles simpson plan, nor is it the bowles plan in my testimony on deficit reduction. i simply took the mid point of the public offers, put forward during the negotiations to demonstrate where i thought a deal could be reached at the time. he's very much backing away from speaker boehner's letter. the question i wanted to ask you is some of the details, as you know, it's all in. >> can we spin one more point on that? >> absolutely. >> here's speaker boehner who is taking a mid point on the compromise between the two sides and offered it, and it's already flatley rejected? >> i think he may be rejected, sir, if i may -- >> i'm not talking about simpson -- erskine boelsz. i'm talking about the white house's response to it. >> let's get to that too. i think what erskine bowles is saying in his statement, t

mayor, let's just pick up on what we heard from erskine bowles and alan simpson. what are your constituents talking about? what are they telling you about this? how does this look from outside washington? >> well, i think there's an immediate fear. there are a lot of people, a couple of thousand dollars, which most americans will see their tax goes up, if we don't do something about this. for many families, not only in my city, but across our state, a couple of thousands dollars could be the difference between making that mortgage payment, being able to afford food and making critical investments during every month. the desire for washington to figure this out, and not to cause more harm, like they did during the last debt ceiling debate is absolutely krusk. this is not time for the republicans to hold the country hostage again, really at this point, holding it hostage to protect a couple of percent of our population. >> schieffer: well, i mean, the democrats -- there's got to be some give in there from democrats as well? >> i think you're absolutely right. someth

jeff, moments ago, actually, erskine bowles, they named this the erskine bowles counter offer said ininterview this is kabuki theater. if both sides got an agreement the way that washington is too quickly, their own side would kill them because they wouldn't think they had negotiated hard enough. they have to go through the exchange. we are in the early stages of the dance to take us a little while. >> there is some truth to that. there is posturing on both sides of this. the white house and speaker bane side. there are 29 days left. business world looking for signal from washington, not much time at all. but in washington that is all the time in the world. this comes down to something on the cusp of christmas, christmas eve or new year's eve. there is a risk for both sides off the cliff. some say the burden is on the republicans that come to the deal. but big part of what the president second term is like. what he can do on a variety of other things is shaped by what happens here. there is a significant risk and students for both sides. >> to that point. there are republicans who say

all he did was chop together erskine/bowles proposal to the super committee and not only opposed by thepresident but opposed by a large number of republicans. what does he do? >> this general's troops are running from the battlefield. when you read right wing sites you see a mix of despair and a lot of anger. i think the despair comes because they understand the capitulation is warranted. imagine a world in which wall street wrecks the economy and decides its wisdom to dominate the equivalent of a hedge fund manager and say, he should be the next president. when you do that and lose, have you to expect your next move is capitulation. they're going to lose on the top tax rate. just go ahead and do it.

over what the select committee had debated. >> the details if we can and i should mention that erskine bowlesut out a statement saying this -- does not represent the bowles-simpson plan, nor is it the bowles plan. in my testimony before the joint select committee on deficit reduction, i simply took the midpoint of the public offers to demonstrate where i thought a deal could be reached at the time. he's very much backing away from speaking boehner's letter, but the question i wanted the to ask you -- >> can we spend one more point on that? >> of course. >> what did he say? that was the midpoint of a compromise from the two. so, here's speaker boehner who is taking a new point on the compromise between the two sides and offered it and it's already flatly rejected? >> i think what he might be rejecting, sir, if i may -- >> no, i'm not talking abo about erskine bowles. >> i think what he's saying in his statement, this letter from speaker boehner does not represent his theerly, number one, but i think the line the white house is have been problems with, i believe i found it in page two of the sp

earlier on "squawk box," erskine bowles, the co-founder of the fix the debt campaign, co-chair of fiscal responsibility and reform was asked about the progress he thinks both sides were making. >> i think the atmospherics are getting so much better. we've kind of gotten out of the ka kooky theater and gone to dancing the tango with those two guys. any time you start to tango you got a chance. >> joining us this morning from newton, mass, greg manke, economic adviser to the romney campaign, former chair of economic advisers under george w. bush now an economics prof s professor at harvard and ron johnson, director at the institute for new economic thinking and a senior fellow at the roosevelt institute. skwre, good to have you both

erskine bowles, one hatch of simps simpson-bowles and we're not allowed to call it bowles-simpson. >> good reason for that. >> he doesn't want the whole bs business. >> i don't either. thank you. >>> the gaggle will be here to kick off the week, but first, the white house soup of the day. we start simple on mondays. tomato basil. probably going to need some sort of spicy sauce or something to make it more edible. more flavor. check out the show on facebook. like us, poke us, stick a proverbial facebook attack in the eye. whatever you want to do. we're at walmart with the simmons family. how much is your current phone bill? four sixteen seventy six a month! okay, come with me -- we're gonna save you money. with straight talk at walmart, you get unlimited talk, text and data for only $45 a month per phone. would we get the same coverage? same coverage on america's best networks. you saved $146.76 by switching to straight talk. awesome! now you can afford to share your allowance with me. get the season's hottest smartphones like the samsung galaxy s2 and get straight talk with unlimited

senator alan simpson are republican and former white house chief of staff for president clinton erskin bowles a democrat came up with a possible solution what they came up with is known to those even outside of the ball outside the beltway as the simpson bowles or the bull simpson plan depending on which way you see it and despite falling short of passing it off and took center stage and talks about the economy for most of the year expression leave during the presidential campaign governor what about simpson bowles you support simpson bowles simpson bowles the president should have grabbed that i mean do you support some simple i have my own plan it's not the same as in symbols but in my view the president should have grabbed it if you want to make some adjustments to that take it go to congress fight for it that's what we've done made some adjustments to it and we're putting it forward before congress right now but even though you everyone now has now heard of the plan very few people actually know what's in it r t political correspondent christine frizz out took a look through the plan and

let's talk about erskine bowles. that's a great place to start before we get to our interview with xavier becerra. erskine bowles, he's been sort of cited in the majority leader's letter as saying this is the bowles plan, and he, mr. bowles, was quick to put out a letter himself saying, not my plan. it's, it's sort of is his version 1.0 of his plan, isn't it? >> right. right. it's a plan that reflected the original thoughts. we put together a plan to move us towards some kind of deficit reduction package eventually evolved into the simpson-bowles commission plan. but the point i was making and i think the speaker is making is republicans have not come out here with some hardball, crazy off-the-table negotiation. what they have done is put something that bill clinton's former chief of staff at one time odd voe indicated for. and i think in the end that reflects that we are moving toward the potential compromise deal. >> he said -- >> i think i'm inappropriately in the middle here. i ought to be over there on the left.

erskine bowles, thank you so much for joining you. late this afternoon john boehner, the house speaker, sent a letter to the white house in which he said he needed to find different middle ground on this fiscal cliff issue. he particularly cited your report which he described as providing imperfect but fair middle ground as a way of breaking this political stalemate. he's saying only the president would adopt your approach that maybe this stalemate could be broken. what do you think about that? >> (laughing) well, i haven't seen th letter, as i tnk you know. it's nice that the speaker would give me some credit for trying to do that. but what he is referring to is when i testified before the super committee, i tried to show these guys that if they truly wanted to ghettoing that they could ghettoing at that time. and basically as an example on discretionary spending they were talking about cuts between $200-$400 billion. look, ghettoing on $300 billion. on health care between $500 billion and $700 billion. there was $600 billion. anothe

erskin bowles will join us this morning, as well. the democrats quoting him, the republicans quoting him, we'll very where he comes down and where things stand right now. >> you do simpson-bowles now instead of the bowls-simpson? >> i looked it up on going.. the more often cited is simple is son-bowles. >> the journal has an interesting piece. they don't like corker for breaking rank. they say why are republicans negotiating this themselves? they say let boehner do the negotiations. anyway, you would be hard pressed to find something who sdn have aen opinion on the fiscal cliff. this weekend, the ahead of the imf said the united states is more vulnerable to its domestic trouble more than anything else happening in the eurozone. christine lagarde says a balanced approach is needed and she says don't kick the can down the road, which is rich coming from a european. >>> european trading the lower this morning. italy's prime minister mario monti, yes, the same one that is famous from all the anti-trust things back in the -- was that the '

house republicans said theirs mirrors one proposed by erskine bowles, the democratic chair of the fiscal position. bowles shot down that suggestion. while i'm flattered the speaker would call something the bowles plan, the approach outlined in the letter speaker boehner sent to the president does not represent the simpson bowles plan nor is it the bowles plan. harry reid says not only does speaker boehner's proposal delay revenues into 2013, it sets up another destructive fight over the debt ceiling. the senate wasting the public time. house republicans should allow a vote on the senate passed middle income cuts. a discharge petition to force a vote on extending on tuesday at noon. the two sides are still talking informally. last night oklahoma senator tom coburn while berating the white house for rejecting boehner's plan out of hand, ended up criticizing both parties for what looks like brinksmanship right now. >> here is speaker boehner taking a midpoint and offered it and it's already flatly rejected? we need nothing offered in publ public. nobody should come out of the room until thi

here's what erskine bowles told my friend last night. >> i am positive that to get a deal done your' going to have to have higher tax rates on the top 2%. i'm actuallyequally sure $350 b worth of cuts that the president put on the table for health care entitlements, is not going to be sufficient to get the deal done. there's going to have to be compromise. >> compromise, that's a dirty word in washington. senator conrad, what do you think is going to be the outcome? is there going to be a deal? >> i think so. and, you know, it's not that far away. if you took the president's revenue and you took the republican's cuts, made some modifications to them, relatively modest modifications to them, you would have an overall package counting what's already been done of over $4 trillion which what is you need to get the country on track. we're starting to edge closer to a position that if you took both sides' positions you would be very close to a reasonable outcome. >> one of the questions the president was asked today, why don't you all get together and sit down at a table and hammer this th

the speaker's office clarified the proposal they essentially laid down is drawn from erskine bowles' dual testimony to the super committee in the fall of 2011. that is to say, not the simpson/bowles recommendation itself, but when erskine bowles testified and offered an alternative in trying to nudge them toward an agreement, this was not a republican proposal, per se, it was from erskine bowles. >> a prominent democrat. >> yes. >> thank you, john harwood. i can't believe we've had 13 months to figure out medicare, medicaid -- >> yes, you can. come o we're talking about congress. >> -- taxes, social security -- >> we're talking about politics. >> -- now down to the last 28 believes. >> of course you can believe that. that's how it works. it's human nature. did you study for your finals 13 months before you had to take them? you did not. >> that doesn't mean it's responsible. let's take a short break. 40 minutes before the closing bell sounds on the day. a market down 55 points on the dow industrials. >> ford and general motors getting a boost from all the folks who needed new cars aft

. >> part of what's curious that boehner would have started with talking about erskine bowls. last week he said he already denounced what they were trying to say he said during the assessment. by this afternoon maybe within a k. hours we'll have more b roll of erskine saying that's not what i said. >> they have to be printing "i heart erskine bowls." >> he has said that's not actually what i meant or said. also, though, again, look at the polls. these guys continue to make their argument. they continue to lose in the polls. more and more people agree with the president, so whatever argument john boehner thinks that he is making, people are -- i mean, if anybody is scratching their heads, they're not buying it. >> it's interesting. he didn't talk about tax cuts at all in this. he is trying to change the terms to spending cuts because he thinks republicans play better in that territory than the president does, and they've kind of seemed to yield the issue of tax cuts for the rich or trying to protect them. i think this is really him talking to the tea party caucus because i'm les

what they came to a was erskine bowles plan which is funny for a lot of reasons.e don't have the time to get into it. >> we don't. >> it's not their plan. it doesn't deal with the specifics. we will have a moment of clarity, and if during that moment of claire clity the republicans don't back down, the public will see this same mechanism again they want to put their political maneuvering ahead of a common sense middle class approach for the whole country. i think this time will be worse for them than last time and i think the markets can see what's going on. >> okay. >> two final points -- >> i'm sorry, we just don't have enough time but thank you both. >>> next, republicans really did think mitt and paul were going to win, didn't they? might explain why they have no plan "b." stay with us. hungry for the best? it's eb. want to give your family the very best in taste, freshness, and nutrition? it's eb. eggland's best. better taste. better nutrition. better eggs. it's eb. stop! stop! stop! come back here! humans -- we are beautifully imperfect creatures living in a

there is an erskine bowles as well. what about congressman tom coley, your colleague, and his overture that you would be ready to get moving and make this overture saying, i'm fine. i'm fine with this $250,000 a year family not getting a tax cut and letting that expire, that tax cut for those wealthier 2% to expire. there are a couple people who have come out with that. mary bono mack has said that doesn't sound too bad. also robert dole who said that. what about you? >> yeah, no, i don't support that. and tom is a great political strategist and what he was saying is, hey, look, we know there will be a revenue increase. if we can get that, big deal. and so let's just go ahead and take it off the table, you know, let's take that leverage away from the president there, but the reality is as a republican who my very core principles are lower taxes, limited government, to just take a solo tax -- or vote on a tax increase with not having everything else there to kind of, you know, give us the sugar to make the medicine go do

he brought in a new chief of staff the name of erskine bowles, and in that has popped up again. he immediately called me and said to my here to work with you and that enabled us to do al of things that i don't think the republicans today can get done with this obama white house. lou:and are you and i in agreement th the republicans are not innear sufficiently strong position, not with the lack of taent, there are ome quesonsabou that but because of the lack f power of the leaers in the house and the role of the housen this negotiation. >> i am not prepared to ay that. i go up to the capitol every week and meet with the republican leaders and lten to them as thy talked very openly about what tir views are d what they're trying to get done. and i cantell you tt they are a lot stronger than they have been presented by the conservative media. the interesting thng about the speaker is to o make you look carefully at his roposals, he is never implyg that e would increase tax rates. and yet the mentiod the breitbart comments. and that is really not accurate. lou: you know, as a former

erskine bowles is right. this is a spending problem. it's not a revenue problem.tal insane spending problem. the president's failure to put spending reductions on the table, even if he wants a few tax hikes, maybe somebody should negotiate with him, but only negotiate with him if you get real spending cuts. i would say, okay, if we're going to cave in at all on higher taxes, let it happen at the same time. we pass a bill, higher taxes, a lot more spending reduction, and it goes in effect in june when the spending reductions are done. we're not going to take it on the come, we're going to get it when it happens together. >> sean: if they do that, you know and i know the spending cuts aren't coming. what's frustrating to me. speaker boehner co-oped obama's language with raising taxes on the rich. i'm saying, wait a minute, there are things you can do. i thought there was a good piece in the "washington post" today, laying out five steps. stand your ground, go on offense, and pass your plans. >> yeah. one of the things we don't do is, we don't make the point that if

figure out where that mid-point is and where and if they can get a deal, larry. >> we'll leave erskine bowles to his own devices. this is not perfect. i'm not writing it. it's not perfect. here's boehner literally bending over backwards, rising above partisanship and the white house just slaps him down. slaps him down. don't they know how bad they are starting to look? only on the basis that boehner didn't raise tax rates on the rich but does have a tax concession on deductions. this is getting pretty silly. if the president wants tax rates on the rich why doesn't he say that. that's all i want, tax rates on the rich. >> reporter: it's clear both sides laid out plans that won't be the basis of the final deal. the white house put out a plan that was basically the white house democratic wish list. now we see boehner responding with a plan that is somewhat like where they were last year in 2011 in the summer negotiating over $800 billion in new revenue at that point. neither one of those plans it doesn't seem is going to be the basis for this final deal. it will be somewhere in between those two

roger altman, former treasury official, larry fink, be erskine bowles. this what is alan simpson, erskine bowles' partner in the deficit commission, had to say about that possibility last week on the show. >> he said he would be very pleased to do that. he shared that with me personally, as long as they move the treasury department to north carolina, to charlotte. i don't think -- >> he's worked so hard on this. you don't think he could be persuaded? >> never. because he wouldn't want to serve in a dysfunctional government. >> and no argument that it is dysfunctional. one of the key players here who is leaving government was mentioning -- i was asking, why is jack lew so disliked, let's say, by the republicans with whom he negotiates? and the answer that i was given was that he knows the budget. he knows the baseline and the baseline is really what mandates how much in cuts really will be cut and that he ran circles around the house negotiators last summer durings the super committee because he knew what he was talking about. which, you know, arguably th

voted for something as tough as of scandals and alan simpson's plan, and that would include -- as erskine bowles and alan simpson's plan, and that would include big durbin, tom coburn, mike crapo from wyoming. there are a handful of people who did. what you are confronted with right now is the reality that not since 1990 has any republican and a house or this and -- the house or the senate voted for any tax increase. what they are terrified of is a primary challenge. they have all of these bedwetters and nervous nellies in the caucus who are terrified ey will be primary ihey vo to incase t taxesf donald trump by a dime. >> when you listen to mark, you think this is a republic governed by the house of representatives. aptly, we have a president. as evan indicated, a heat south peddled it, as not shown leadership? he has done nothing. >> he has done nothing -- >> he appoints a debt commission and then he ignores it. he has nerropod in public ever a single serious change in entitlements. he knows exactly what all of this note, that it has to be done. the republicans responded to the election the da

. >> ifill: do you agree with erskine bowles who told us where we are right now resembles theater? >> i think it's a little bit more than that. i think that there is a much deeper partisan divide. i think erskine bowles, bless his mart heart, still wants to believe we live in the washington of 20 or 30 years ago where reasonable men could ghettoing and make sensible deals. i don't think we're in that washington anymore. i think this is going to be... i don't think there's going to be much of a deal. i think there's going to be a kind of... there will be an outcome which hopefully won't be too bad. but the idea that we're actually going to have a guy shaking his hands and everybody feeling good about the outcome. that's not necker in the year 202 or 2013. >> ifill: paul krugman of princeton university and the "new york times." thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you. >> ifill: we'll continue our conversation series in the days to come. that will include an interview with one of the most vocal conservative opponents of higher taxes, grover norquist. >> woodruff: now, as part

caller: allyson send an erskine bowles are the with- alan simpson -- alan simpson and erskine bowles are going around the country and speaking. the plan is full of compromises, compromises people do not like, but are necessary if you want to take on the problem. not to say that simpson-bowles has the best ideas. he framework touches all of the budget and it is the kind of framework you need. host: between then and now, what has changed to cause such a strong and serious look at the proposal? guest: thought of it is timing. political timing and economic timing. -- guest: part of it is timing, political timing and economic timing. we have the fiscal cliff facing us and the potential economically serious problems this will cause in terms of economic growth, unemployment and so forth. members of congress want to get something done. they are tired of this issue. they want it to be dealt with so they can go on to other things. if this is an opportunity for compromise, there is a growing desire to get there. host: we have paul weinstein here for 45 or 50 minutes to take your calls. republic

erskine bowles said you were absolutely right. what happens if we settle on what washington thinks is a big win? let's call it $3 trillion. >> i think $3 trillion, $4 trillion will be a sufficient number, erin, to sort of calm investment markets and to produce a real economy that is growth positive as opposed to growth negative. you know, the real problem going forward is, you know, we are going over the cliff no matter what and depends on whether we go over like will e. coyote or road run we are a parachute. that's the road runner with a ra pa ra chute and there's more taxes to raise and entitlements to cut over the ensuing years. >> that's i guess the problem. i prefer to be roadrunner with a ra pa parachute. how can washington do the deal that prevent it is country from -- to give a sense of the outcomes, could be borrowing costs skyrocket. the costs are very serious in the long term. right? >> i think they are. it involves what's known as fiscal drag to economists. basically when you raise taxes and lower entitlements, lower f

. >> that is erskine bowles, who along with alan simpson shared the deficit reduction commission a couple of years ago. they are both in town trying to pound a sense at into elected leaders. evan thomas has been out of town promoting his book, "ike's bluff." terrific christmas present. >> thank you. >> as i recall, we were having the same composition we are having now. >> like groundhog day. talk about bluffing -- they will be complete unreasonable until the last second where they agreed. while they are bluffing, we could go over the cliff. >> where are we headed, mark? >> one side says that raising tax rates is an example, the other side says we will not balance the budget on the backs of students and seniors without asking those who make as much as i do not to pay another diamond. we are in the chest thumping a stage of this negotiation. we are interested in the product rather than the process. the process does the fact of the product and you don't want hostilities to make the final product unreachable. >> nina, there were a bunch of c.l.'s in town saying please do something so we can p

some of the nation's leading c.e.o.s have banded together with deficit commission co- chairs erskine bowles and alan simpson to launch the "fix the debt" campaign. darren gersh spoke with maya macguineas, one of the organizers of the campaign. darren began by asking her if the business leaders are making a difference. >> i think the whole campaign is making a difference in that what we actually have is now over 300,000 citizens, 2,500 small businesses, well over 100 c.e.o.s and partners across the country who are basically trying to deliver a message that is different. and the message isn't take this off the table, take this off the table, take this off the table, at which point you have nothing left on the table and we can't fix the problem. but it is, we want the country to come together. we want them to come up wih a plan that is big enough to fix the problem, and we want them to do it in a way that is bipartisan. on the business leaders, they have, up until this moment, not been that involved in the issue. last summer, when we had the debacle about the debt ceiling, einsmall i think sma

frn in a letter to the president, republicans attempted to sell the offer as the erskine bowles plan, comparing it to the same offer he drew up last year. >> i think he'd disagree. >> the co-chair of obama's deficit commission, but yesterday mr. bowles flatly rejected that connection. meanwhile, the white house is turning to campaign style messaging as a reminder of whose tax plan was chosen in the court of public opinion on election day. >> under my plan, first of all, 98% of folks who make less than 250,000, you wouldn't see your income taxes go up a single dime. all right? because you're the ones who need relief. but we're not going to be able to get it done unless we also ask the wealthiest households to pay higher taxes on their income officials $250,000. the same rate we had when bill clinton was president and our economy kree aed nearly 23 million new jobs. >> and there are reports that republicans are considering a doomsday plan should talks break down. according to senior republican sources the gop would allow a vote on extending bush tax cuts for the middle class and nothing