and grover norquist, is the president of the advocacy group americans for tax reform. welcome to all of you. maya macguineas, i'll let you go first. we'll hear you're surrounded on two sides of different critiques. why do you think this is a good idea overall? >> well, i think if there's one thing we should agree on is that the deficit and debt present a real threat to this economy in the medium and long term. and this is the first time in years, really, that there's been a realistic plan that's been put out there of the kind of policies that are going to be required to address this threat. and my hope is that having this realistic blueprint out there changes the terms of the debate. no longer are we going to focus on things like "we can cut out earmarks and that will change the problem" or "we can grow our way out of it." instead we understand the parameters are large, we understand all parts of the budget will be involved and we change the terms of the debate to a more realistic one and i think that's very helpful. >> brown: david silvers, the president of your organ

. >> we heard grover norquist he, of course the influential head of americans for tax reform saying we need to stop the obama spend-a-thon and if that means, jamie, if they shut down, so be it. >> if they want to shut it down, bring it on. one of the few things about getting older and there aren't many that is great, it's wisdom. where was i in '95? oh, that's right, washington. i remember the shut down and who did it help? the democrats. that's right. it backfired on the republicans. if they want to shut it down, i think it's very short sided for them. there's one thing obama has in common with the republicans and that's dealing with the tea party. this desire to shut everything down. the voters i don't think really want that. i think they didn't give change a chance. i think that shutting everything down is not going to accomplish turning the economy around, which is really what we need. and some of the obama plan needs to continue in order to keep the economy going. some spending is necessary. >> and while all this is going on, this bipartisan commission is recommending tax increase

think you had one piece of data in, i don't know if you can throw it up or not, that i shared at grover norquist's meeting. it showed it was about a 20-point advantage for republican candidates to be pro-life. that, you know, pro-life voters were an asset to the party, not a liability. can you pull that up? i may have the number wrong. >> yeah i'm not sure i talking about. it is possibly, this one? .

. >> that's up to grover norquist. i'm willing to have an adult conversation. ur means again. i signed grover's pledged. lived by them for eight years at secretary of state and never raise add fear of tax in my political career and don't intend to, but that doesn't mean we can't make this tax code workable for the 21st century for businesses can be competitive with the rest of the world and we can get jobs. that's the only true way deregulation, cutting taxes, keeping the taxes low so we can be competitive in that we can compete with china and india and everyone else. >> before i let you go, i've got to ask you, two different indiana republicans thinking about running for president. your governor, mitch daniel. a colleague now in congress. mike pence. do you have a preference? >> chuck, you'd have the zingers. they're both great friends. ex-lengths peop excellent people. that will be worked out. maybe one for governor, one for president. we'll see. >> that's what you hope happens? is that what you're saying? you don't want to vote for -- >> well, until we do som

. >> the thing about taxes is you have groups like grover norquist he and i don't agree on much and we've each other and i enjoy the spirited combat. but he just lays in the weeds to go to people and make them sign a pledge no taxes. and he goes to people like orrin hatch and says "if you don't sign this pledge we'll do to you what we did to bob bennet." which was beautiful. bennet was a liberal. where are we? but when you can say to them you are really deceiving the american people when we can show you tax rates that have been reduced to 8% andÑi 14% and 23%, i'm not listening to your babble on the other side, it's time to just cut them off. they become irrelevant. >> rose: peter orszag talked to me about the social security benefits cuts. he said the main flaw in the proposal of the security plan is it relies too little on revenue increases and too much on future benefit reduction. >> i think peter'd rather see the ratios at 50-50. he has said some good things about the progressivety in our plan. >> rose: right. >> but i think he'd rather see it more on the revenue side. >> rose: he's a

one of the most interesting interviews i had after the election was with grover norquist. i asked what he would expect? did he expect solid gridlock? he said it is great. he said think of the things that won't happen and the new regulations that will not be implemented and the new spending plan that will not come to pass. we are used to thinking about and achieving met -- administration that legislates but we're about to see one that will unravel a whole different landscape. guest: the white house will be different next year. has been on offense two years with passing big problems to rescue the economy from a potential depression. they will go totally on defense. they will try to protect the health care bill to avoid rollbacks. i think there is no expectation on the part of the administration that they will be able to get big swings through congress now. host: what is next for steny hoyer may be in a race for the house democratic whip? guest: my assumption is that everybody goes down a step in the latter. nancy pelosi becomes the minority leader and steny hoyer becomes the

we had grover norquist coming out saying, oh, no, this is a lousy plan because it violates the no to tax pledge. another thing i absolutely love about bowles and simpson, and others is they both didn't fall into the trap of what we do about the tax cut. that isn't the issue. particularly, it's not the issue in the near term. i mean in the long term. the issue in the long-term is what can we do to change this '80s tax code that we have to make it better in terms of raising the revenues we need to the size of government into efficient and economic growth. and they both, they both tackle that. and i admire them both for doing that. mr. norquist only says it violates the tax pledge. this is what i would call ugly. unless these people are going to come out with an alternative themselves that addresses these positions, then taking these soundbite potshots at this i don't think is good. so, if you don't want to cut taxes, or if you don't want to increase taxes to pay for the level of government that we have now, fine. show me where you're going to cut spending. if you don't want to cut spen

on the other side, republicans like grover norquist says any republican who signs on to this is breaking the no new taxes pledge. how are you going to create a center of gravity to get something done? >> you know, at the end of the day, i trust in the good judgment of the american people. i think they know we're on an unsustainable course. we're headed for a debt that would be 400% of the gross domestic product of the united states unless we take action. that means we'd have to borrow more and more from the chinese and the japanese, put this country in hock for as far as the eye can see. that is not acceptable and ultimately it won't happen, because they won't loan us the money. we already just saw this week china downgrade u.s. debt, and they are our biggest creditor. hey, people have got to wake up in this country. on the left they've got to face up to the fact we cannot keep social security and medicare just as they are. we can through fairly modest changes over time -- and, by the way, the increase in the retirement age doesn't happen for 40 years. for 40 years. and they're saying, y

i mean, you can come in here -- you can come in here with your no taxes, i mean, i think grover norquisthis a tax increase, he's in disneyland. >> yeah. >> where did you guys come up with the 15 cents gas tax? what was the genesis of the idea? >> i like it. >> and how do you like to implement it? >> you might not like it as much if you read it. what we said was -- >> no, no, hurep nyou're not su to do that! you want to upset people, don't you? >> tell the truth. >> what we said is we're now spending, you know, more than we take in on infrastructure. and we said, let's either cut the spending back, you know, to what we're taking in or, by god, let's pay for it, and to pay for it we've got to raise another 15 cents in gas tax. >> what's wrong with that? >> that's the truth. that's what we said. some people that really want a gas tax really like it. and some people that don't want one don't like it. but let's pay for what we spend. >> in the trust fund. >> i thought it was a great idea. i thought there was a great secret that you didn't tell me. >> you look at what's happening in china, eve

one of the most interesting interviews i had after the election was with grover norquist. i asked what he would expect? did he expect solid gridlock? he said it is great. he said think of the things that won't happen and the new regulations that will not be implemented and the new spending plan that will not come to pass. we are used to thinking about and achieving met -- administration that legislates but we're about to see one that will unravel a whole different landscape. guest: the white house will be different next year. has been on offense two years with passing big problems to rescue the economy from a potential depression. they will go totally on defense. they will try to protect the health care bill to avoid rollbacks. i think there is no expectation on the part of the administration that they will be able to get big swings through congress now. host: what is next for steny hoyer may be in a race for the house democratic whip? guest: my assumption is that everybody goes down a step in the latter. nancy pelosi becomes the minority leader and steny hoyer becomes the

we had grover norquist coming out saying own up. this is a lousy plan because it violates the no new tax pledge. another thing i absolutely love about about about and since then if they both fall into the trap of what do we do about the tax cuts? that isn't the issue? particularly if not the issue in the near term -- and in the long-term. the issue in the long-term is what can we do to change this hideous tax code that we have to make it better in terms of raising the revenues we need for the size of government inefficient and promoting economic growth. and they both -- they both tackle that. i admire them both for doing that. mr. norquist only says that violate the tax pledge. this is what i would call it ugly. amongst these people are going to come out with an alternative themselves that addresses these positions, then taking these soundbite potshots at this, i don't think is good. so, if you don't want to cut taxes or if you don't want to increase taxes to pay for the level of government that we have now, fine, show me where you'

we had grover-norquist saying this is a lousy plan. it violates the new tax pledge. another thing that i love about bowles-simpson, and rivlin, they both didn't fall into the trap. this isn't the issue. particularly, it's not the issue in the near term -- i mean in the long term. the issue in the long term is what can we do to change the hideous tax code that we have to make it better in terms of raising the revenue that is we need for the size of government and efficient in promoting economic growth. they both tackled that. i admire them both. mr. norquist only says it violates a tax pledge. this is what i would call ugly. unless the people are going to come out with an alternative themselves that addresses these positions, then taking these sound byte pop shots at this, i don't think is good. so if you don't want to cut taxes or if you don't want to increase taxes to pay for the level of government that we have now, fine. show me where you are going to cut spending. if you don't want to cut spending, fine. then let's be upfront about how much of a tax increase? and