martin feldstein of harvard and david leonhardt of the new york sometimes. >> it's the same thing as saying we want reallyevere cuts to social security, medicare a the military. and the question is when push comes to shove, which path is the party going to take. >> charlie: tim comes to assess what's going on in iraq today and what happens to american troops. >> there's this great sense on the streets of this understanding that their country is so fragile they still need u.s. presence. the occupation ended a long time ago. there's this pride that comes into play where they just want americans gone. their lives haven't become much much better. >> charlie: a program note, the actress vera farmiga will be seen at a later te. if you've had a coke in the last 20 years, ( screams ) you've had a hand in giving college scholarships... and support to thousands of our nation's... most promising students. ♪ coca-cola 5-note mnemonic ) every story needs a hero we can all root for. who beats the odds and comes out on top. but this isn't just a hollywood storyline. it's happening every day, all ac

bill bradley, thank you, david leonhardt, thank you martin feldstein a pleasure to have you here. >>erienced the deadliest die of violence this year. more than a dozen bombs went off across the country killing over 60 peopleiring many more. the attacks have renewed fear the iraq forces could get overwhelmed after the u.s. with drawvmentz it's a critical sometime that the american forces are leaving the country by the end of 2011. they are deciding whether to allow some forces to stay. with me is a baghdad bureau chief, i'm pleased t have him on this program. welcome. >> thank you. >> charlie: you followed great footsteps from john burns and others. >> and they've all been on your show. >> charlie: indeed with great pride. so what's happening today. >> what's happening today in iraq. i'm not there of courseut everyone is sitting through t events of monday. what's remarkable is after eight years and so much money and lives lost, you can have a day like monday and nobody's surprised by it. and the recommendation is people are angry about their security forces and their government and th

martin feldstein, professor of economics at harvard, chairman of the council of economic advisers under president reagan. this is what he said about tax expenditures on july 20th of last year. cutting tax expenditures, quote, cutting tax expenditures is really the best way to reduce government spending. eliminating tax expenditures does not increase marginal tax rates or reduce the reward for savings investment or risk-taking. it will also increase overall economic efficiency by removing incentives that distort private spending decisions and eliminating or consolidating a large number of overlapping tax base subsidies would also greatly sympathize--simplified tax filing. in short cutting tax expenditures is not at all like other ways of raising revenue. that is precisely why the fiscal commission and the group of 6, both groups are was proud to participate in shows the reduction of tax expenditures as one way of reforming the tax system, improving the competitive position of the united states and raising revenue to help reduce this debt threat. mr. president, anybody that wonders what i

martin feldstein, top adviser to presidents reagan and bush during the 2000 election said that the countryhance of a new recession. larry summers, director of president obama's national economic council, says there's a one in three chance of another recession. and of course, you've seen all the dreadful news about jobs. i'm here to tell you, you can't wait for this economy to make it work for you, so we wanted to ask chris gardner how to make it work for yourself. chris gardner's book "the pursuit of happyness" inspired the movie starring will smith. i need some inspiration? what do you have to say about that? >> the first thing i want to share with you about those economists, most of them were reluctant to admit we were in a recession in the first place. >> and larry summers said a one in three chance of a recession, i said, that means we've got a two-thirds chance we're not in a recession. i talk to people who don't seem to care what's happening in the macroeconomy if they've got a good idea on how to do it. especially if they don't have another job. talk to me about what it takes to sta

martin feldstein yesterday morning raised concerns, a lot of people are talking about today, he basicallyve back in january of 2008 when he was the well-known economist from the opposite side of the political spectrum of larry summers. basically our ideological spectrum, i should say, basically giving the same forecast in 2008. it was one of the early warning bells that things would be bad. there are concerns out there about just how robust or not robust this economy is, ali. >> you're a nerd but you sure are smart. >> it takes one to know one, ali. it's good to be a nerd. nerds rule the world. mayor michael bloomberg, a new york story, it's pretty important here, donating $30 million of his own money to help the city's minority youth. michael bloomberg and others like him, very rich people who are smart in business and interested in public policy concerned about things like the dichotomy and the wealth gap between different races, what recession means for education and opportunity. so putting his own money up ere, 30 million bucks out of his own pocket for new york city. we'll be hearing

another endorsement came from president reagan's chair, martin feldstein. he said his experience will give him a running start in his new job. he is an expert. numerous others have weighed in with similar assessments, that he's an excellent economist, an experienced one, whose background is particularly suited to the current economic environment. his advice will be very welcome. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> it over on c-span2 tonight at 8:00 eastern -- the challenge of securing the u.s. digital infrastructure in the final part of our series on cyber security. several guests are scheduled. that is at 8:00 eastern. following that, you can see book tv in primetime. henry kissinger talked about his book "on china." after that, the first world war and the debate in england between pacifists and those supporting the war. then at 10:40, microsoft co- founder, paul allen on his recent book. .hat's all this week on c-span2 ♪ >> had the associated press is repo

positions taken by reputable economist with widely varying political positions as paul krugman and martin feldstein. for purely fiscal reasons one should view with deep concern the path that is laid before the supercommittee to cut $1 trillion from federal deficits over the next decade in addition to the $935 billion agreed to in august. additional and equally important reason for concern is if the committee does not agree to cut $1.2 trillion through explicit measures then some or all will be cut through an automatic sequester. those implied cuts would reduce discretionary spending and national defense spending to levels that would threaten basic economic interests in the nation. i have a couple handout attached to the one i should mention earlier that available outside that show the magnitude of the cuts that would occur. i am going to conclude with one assertion about tax policy which bill will come back to. the best possible outcome in the debate whether to extend the bush tax cuts would be deadlocked so that they all expire and we could begin to talk about how to curb tax expenditures and loop

reputable economists which -- with such widely varying political positions as paul krugman and martin feldstein. we do with deep concern and the task laid before the supercommittee, to cut up to $1.50 trillion in addition to the $935 billion agreed to in august. but there is an additional an equally important reason for concern. if the committee does not agree to cut, then some or all of the $1.50 trillion would be cut through the sequester, and those implied cuts would be through both discretionary spending and national defense spending to levels that would threaten basic economic interests in the nation. i have some graphics outside the show the magnitude of the cuts that would occur. i'm going to conclude with one policy that i think bill will come back to and i think he will agree to. i think the best possible outcome for the debate over whether to extend the bush tax cuts with the deadlock so that they all expire, and at that point, we could begin to talk about how to curb tax expenditures, loopholes -- colorado what you will -- and use the revenue generated from them to lower rates by som

here is one of the most conservative economists in america, martin feldstein, professor of economics at harvard, chairman of the council of economic advisors under president reagan. this is what he said about tax expenditures on july 20 of last year. "cutting tax expenditures is really the best way to reduce government spending ... eliminating tax expenditures does not increase marginal tax rates or reduce the reward for saving, investment, or risk-taking. it would also increase overall economic efficiency by removing incentives that distort private spending decisions. and eliminating or consolidating the large number of overlapping tax-based subsidies would also greatly simplify tax filing. in short, cutting tax expenditures is not at all like other ways of raising revenue." mr. president, that is precisely why the fiscal commission and the group of six -- both groups that i was proud to participate in -- chose the reduction of tax expenditures as one way of reforming the tax system, improving the competitive position of the united states, and raising revenue to help reduce this deb

taken by reputable economists with such widely varying political positions as paul krugman and martin feldsteinfor purely fiscal reasons, one should youth-bang with deep concern the fact that is laid before -- what should view with deep concern the path that is laid before us. -- one should view with deep concern the path that is laid before us. if the committee does not agree to cut at least 1.2 trillion through explicit measures, some or all of $1.20 trillion will have automatic cuts. that will reduce discretionary spending and national defense spending to levels that will threaten basic economic interests in the nation. i have a couple of handouts attached to the one i mentioned earlier that are available outside that show the magnitude of the cuts that would occur. i am going to conclude with one assertion about tax policy, which is less sure that bill will come back to. -- which bill will come back to. one outcome about the debate about whether to extend the bush tax cuts would be about deadlock so that they all expired. at that point we could begin to talk about how to curb tax expenditur

taken by reputable economists with such widely varying political positions as paul krugman and martin feldstein for purely fiscal reasons, i think one should you with the concern the task that is laid before the super committee, to cut up to $1.50 trillion from federal deficit over the next decade in addition to the $935 billion agreed to in august. but there is an equally -- additional an equally important reason for concern. if the committee does not agree to cut at least $1.20 trillion at through explicit measures, then some or all of $1.20 trillion will be cut through an automatic sequester, and those implied cuts would reduce both discretionary spending and a national defense spending to levels that would threaten basic economic interests in the nation. i have a couple of handouts attached to the one that i mentioned earlier that are available outside that graphically show the magnitude of the cuts that would occur. i am going to conclude with one assertion about tax policy, which i am sure bill will come back to, and i think he would agree to. i think the best possible outcome for the deb