you cited mark zandi before. dean macky, just as good as mark, says it's going to be 9.1. that's a prefound difference. >> it was a year ago today that the president announced the stimulus because he said we needed to put this in place to prevent unemployment from nearing double digits. here we are a year later, over double-digit unemployment, deeper in debt. i think the uncertainty is not pause people are worried that the stimulus won't continue. i think it's because they're watching the debate over the health care bill. the actions by the administration, i think, are creating a drag on the recovery. add to the uncertainty in the debate, what is in both of the bills, the new taxes, the new regulations, new penalties, i think that dr. romer had it right when she said the variable here is the private sector. the key is for the government to get out of the way. >> there's a lot of anger out there. you saw dr. romer out there. her head said it all. i think out in the country, there will be more vocal outrage when they see the bonus this is week. is there any way for the admin

by one measurement that mark zandi pointed to, bang for the bush. you spend a buck on unemployment insurance, or a buck on food stamps shall you get as high as $1.60, $1.70 in return. you can't say that according to his analysis with regard to some of the tax cut policy we've seen here. so investments in vulnerable americans who are trying to recover from the recession, food stamps, unemployment insurance being the two best examples, those investments actually have a return to the taxpayer as well. so what do we need to do? we have to focus on job creation, and when we focus on that legislation it should have a couple of component parts or elements. first of all, stabilizing that safe net for vulnerable americans i just spoke of. secondly, supporting small business in a very direct and targeted way. investing in -- investing more in infrastructure, including broadband infrastructure, which is another kind of knowledge infrastructure. and finally, building a clean energy economy. we continue to do that, we'll create jobs, we'll keep our environment c

mark zandy projected that unemployment would be 10.8% in october. how much of a burden is that for democrats? >> it's a huge burden; particularly, when you have an administration coming in saying they were going to fix that problem, and that, you know, they wanted to us spend all this money so we wouldn't have 10% unemployment. yet, what have we got going in the one-year celebration of the administration? we have no jobs, no healthcare, $13 trillion worth of debt and no sense of direction in terms of how we're going to create those jobs. so americans are very concerned right no when you look at last year's elections in new jersey and virginia, the reality of it is the message that the candidates were talking about, job creation, wealth creation, all of that mattered to people and they responded. right now in massachusetts, scott brown is making that a close race. >> chris: a special election to fill teddy kennedy's seat. >> to fill kennedy's seat because he's talking about the concerns he has -- >> chris: let me ask you about that, mr. steele. democ

mark zandy is the founder of moodyseconomy.com, a division of moody's analytics. sought by the obama administration and members of the house and senate from both parties. the last time i was with mark was at a session of the democratic caucus where he was holding forth on the state of the economy and policies that the democrats were considering. mark is the author of an expos a on the financial crisis and he has a book coming out soon called "paying the price," which provides the road map for meeting in the nation's daunting fiscal challenges. he will not reveal any of his secrets today. he will make you buy the book later. rudy penner is an institute fellow. he was the director of the congressional budget office from 1983 to 1987, and among the many other posts he has held are assistant director for economic policy in the office of management and budget, senior staff economist at the council of economic advisers. he also is the co-Ñichair of the committee on the fiscal future of the united states, which is a national academy of sciences and national academy of pu

and mark zandi said we save 1.6 million jobs. did it work perfectly? it worked better than the policies we were pursuing frankly that we inheritted. that my point and a valid point. if the gentleman disagrees with my figures, i will be glad to be corrected and i believe they're accurate. let me say one additional thing. >> i didn't yield, madam speaker. >> you took back the time. if you don't want me to continue, i won't. >> i yield. >> i want to say something about certainty, i agree with the gentleman. we need certainty. we try to give certainty in the estate tax. your side voted against that. we tried to give certainty in tax extenders and tried to extend the tax extenders and your side didn't vote for that. i don't think you did either. but i agree with your premise and wanted to make that clear, one of the reasons -- that's one of the reasons we tried to pass making sure that doctors treating medicare patients knew what they would be getting years out so that medicare would have the stability that it needs. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman,

and mark zandy said we saved over a million jobs, 1.6 million, i believe he says, we would have lost had we not passed that bill. so did it work perfectly? it worked better than the policies we were pursuing, frankly, that we inherited. that's my point. i think it's a valid point. if the gentleman disagrees with inside figures, i'd be glad to be corrected. i think they're accurate. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, madam speaker. mr. hoyer: let me say one additional thing. mr. cantor: i didn't yield, madam speaker. mr. hoyer: you took back the time. i didn't yield. mr. cantor: i yield. mr. hoyer: thank you. i agree with the gentleman, we need certainty. we tried to give certainty in the estate tax. your side voted against that. we tried to give certainty in tax extenders. we tried to extend the tax extenders. and your side didn't vote for that. i don't think you did either but i agree with your premise and wanted to make that clear. that's one of the reasons we tried to pass -- making sure that doctors treating medicare patients knew what they'd be getting years out so that medicare

and mark zandy said we saved over a million jobs, 1.6 million, i believe he says, we would have lost had we not passed that bill. so did it work perfectly? it worked better than the policies we were pursuing, frankly, that we inherited. that's my point. i think it's a valid point. if the gentleman disagrees with inside figures, i'd be glad to be corrected. i think they're accurate. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, madam speaker. mr. hoyer: let me say one additional thing. mr. cantor: i didn't yield, madam speaker. mr. hoyer: you took back the time. i didn't yield. mr. cantor: i yield. mr. hoyer: thank you. i agree with the gentleman, we need certainty. we tried to give certainty in the estate tax. your side voted against that. we tried to give certainty in tax extenders. we tried to extend the tax extenders. and your side didn't vote for that. i don't think you did either but i agree with your premise and wanted to make that clear. that's one of the reasons we tried to pass -- making sure that doctors treating medicare patients knew what they'd be getting years out so that medicare