and two congressman mr. zandi. c>> guest: it sounds like a no deal.opefullyy my forecasting and what they decided to do earlier in the week, but it sounds like no deal. >> chris: you heard two, old familiar refrain. republicans do it through spending cuts and entitlement reform and democrats want to see sizable increases from the wealthy and economic point of view which is the better way? >> guest: we need both. we came to terms around the debt ceiling debate that we needed four trillion. three trillion should be government spending cuts and trillion additional tax revenue. we'll need both and not accomplish this until they come to the realization. >> chris: during the debt ceiling debacle the markets dropped and let's assume for a moment that we ged no deal on one hand a terrible failure and on the other hand triggers . what do you think that the reaction will be from the markets. >> guest: it is all relative to expectations and investor expectations with regard to the committee have been and still very, very low. i don't think many expect much to co

after hearing our two congressman, mr. zandi, what do you think will happen?uest: well, to my ear it sounds like it is a "no," deal. hopefully my economic protests are better than what they decided early in the week but it sounds like this deal. >>chris: before we get to the impact in the markets, you heard two, republicans saying doing this through spending cuts especially with entitlement reform and democrats say they want to see size ability tax increases on the wealthy, from the economic point of view, which is the better way? >>guest: both. we came to terms around the debt crisis debate in august we need $4 trillion in ten year deficit reduction and the most logical approach is $3 trillion of the $4 trillion should be government spending cuts. and $1 trillion should be additional tax revenue so we need both. we are not going to accomplish this until they come to that realization. >>chris: during the debt ceiling debacle this summer the markets dropped 2,000 points. what do you thing the reaction will be from the markets? >>guest: well, why think it will b

after hearing our two congressmen, mr. zandi, what do you think is going to happen?ll, chris, to my ear it sounds like it as no deal he. hopefully my economic forecasts are better than my handicapping of what they decided to do earlier in the week but it sounds like no deal. >> chris: before we get to the impact in the markets of that, let me ask you because you heard two and it is the old familiar refrain, republicans say let's do this primarily through spending cuts especially to entitlement reform, democrats are saying we want to see sizeable tax increases especially on the wealthy from a strictly economic point of view which is the better way? >> we need both. i think we came to terms around the debt ceiling debate back in august that we need $4 trillion in ten year deficit reduction and i think the most logical approach would be about $3 trillion of that $4 trillion should be government spending cuts and a trillion dollars should be additional tax revenues. we need both. we will not accplish this until they come to that realization. >> chris: during the debt cei

mr. zandy told us we have to have $4 trillion in deficit. an absolute minimum as has every other witness and you said and i am not aware that they are moving toward that agreement. we are still in denial it seems to me. if we learned nothing else in the financial crisis of 2008, it is prosperity cannot be built on a foundation of debt. excessive debt, public and private provided the heir to the economy resulting in the first -- surely we know that is not a solution. not more debt and if there's a second lesson we should have learned it is a healthy skepticism for washington elite. the same people who fell asleep at the switch before the housing bubble did not see it coming to create more debt in the government. government bubble. i called them affectionately sometimes masters of the universe. they are quick to make confident predictions and quicker to explain why the failure of the last prediction should not count against the one they are making today. they say stimulus failed because it wasn't big enough. the explosion in regulation helped

host: this ties directly to what you are talking about, mr. zandi.erick asks, give your prospect on people making below $250,000 and stimulus spending on infrastructure, what you think that would do. guest: yeah, i think i would -- i'm very nervous about the near term, about really next year, 2012, because under current law the payroll fax holiday which is a benefit to all americans but obviously because of the limits on taxable income accrues most significantly to lower and middle-income households, that expires and that's a problem i think in this economy. so i think it's very important that the congress and administration needs to extend that tax cut for one more year. put another way, if congress and the administration don't act, then on january 1 everyone's taxes are going up. and i think just feel very uncomfortable with that in the context of the current scomme. you know, we're grappling with what's going on in europe. the foreclosure crisis is ongoing. confidence is very weak. i think congress and the administration needs to come together and

mr. zandi told us just a few weeks ago we had to have $4 trillions in reductions of deficit. $4 trillion, he said, as an absolute minimum. and i am not aware that they are moving toward that kind of an agreement. we're still in denial, it seems to me. so we learn nothing else from this financial crisis in 2008, it is that prosperity cannot be built on a foundation of debt. excessive debt, public and private, provided the errors that pumped into the economy, the which resulted in a burst bubble. if there is a second lesson we should have learned, it is a help the rich and healthy skepticism for washington elite, many of the same people who fell asleep at the switch before the housing bubble, did not seen come in, and now want to create more debt in the government. a government bubble. i have patiently sometimes call them masters of the universe. they're even quicker to explain why the failure of their last position did not count against the one they are making today. they say that the mammoth st

mr. zandi told us just a few weeks ago we had to have $4 trillion in reduced deficit. $4 trillion, he said, at an absolute minimum as has every other witness, as has you've said, and i am not aware that they're moving toward that kind of agreement. we're still in denial, it seems to me. so if we've learned nothing else in the financial crisis in 2008, it is that prosperity cannot be built on a foundation of debt. excessive debt, public and private, provided the air that pumped into the economy, resulted in the burst bubble. surely we know debt is not solution. not more debt. and if there's a second lesson we should have learned, it is a healthy skepticism for washington elites, many of the same people who fell asleep at the switch before the housing bubble did not see it coming, and they're urging us to create more debt in the government. a government bubble. i call 'em affectionately sometimes masters of the universe. they're quick to make confident predictions and even quicker to explain why

zandy predicted 3.9% growth. i don't agree, mr. chairman, that there is no contradiction between borrowing and taxing to spend today and the problems that have gotten this country into the fix we are in. as i see it, we are in a long- term financial difficulty as a result of debt. we have excessive debt throughout the system. the government has assumed huge amounts of private debt, and i agree, we have a 10 year or more deleveraging process to go through. we are just not going to see the growth we would like to see until that is true. but i would oppose adding more debt. nothing could be more simple or basic, and under the plan that the president has proposed, $450 billion in borrowing and spending in the near term plus a tax increase, i do not believe that is going to be 810 your benefit to the economy -- not going to be a 10-year benefit to the economy and i want to hear your view on the fact that you predicted, when we passed the first $800 billion stimulus package, you predicted that in the short run, there would be some benefi

mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i just want to -- my colleagues to understand that if we were to extend the payroll tax, according to mark zandi, a republican economist, advised john mccain in his presidential campaign, that would create 750,000 jobs. and he also says that we are likely to go into recession if a payroll tax expires, if my republican friends don't allow us to have a vote up or down on it, i'm going to ask people to vote no on a previous question so we can have an up or down vote and people have an opportunity to make their views known. the other thing is we heard this talk about the cost of regulation. again some of the numbers that have been touted here i question. very seriously. o.m.b.'s calculations demonstrate that regulation has a positive net effect on the economy and not by a little. in 2008 the bush administration's o.m.b. estimated that regulatory costs for major rules were between $46 billion and $54 billion. and the benefits of those regulations was between $122 billion and $656 billion. so it goes back to the point i was making earlier and that is, what we should be doing on this floor today is deb