peter orszag, he is not a czar. they wanted me to point out that he has been approved by the senate. that's it? that's it. good god almighty, america, maybe it's time you should start considering, gee, what does all of this mean, because maybe glenn beck is right? i mean, also, i have showed you several other things, the framework, that, to quote barack obama is fundamentally transforming america, but i hope you get the impression here that this is much bigger than barack obama. a powerful special interest group, and many of them, began to lay this framework out over the last few years. remember, the green jobs act during the bush administration, we talked about this last night, many on capitol hill voted for it because they claimed it was unfunded, it was meaningless language, a feel-good thing, and it was tucked in to a 900-page bill during the last administration. heck, it only asked for $125 million, requested by a special interest group, the apollo alliance. hmm. now that meaningless unfunded green act doesn't

peter orszag, he is not a czar. they wanted me to point out that he has been approved by the senate. that's it? that's it. good god almighty, america, maybe it's time you should start considering, gee, what does all of this mean, because maybe glenn beck is right? i mean, also, i have showed you several other things, the framework, that, to quote barack obama is fundamentally transforming america, but i hope you get the impression here that this is much bigger than barack obama. a powerful special interest group, and many of them, began to lay this framework out over the last few years. remember, the green jobs act during the bush administration, we talked about this last night, many on capitol hill voted for it because they claimed it was unfunded, it was meaningless language, a feel-good thing, and it was tucked in to a 900-page bill during the last administration. heck, it only asked for $125 million, requested by a special interest group, the apollo alliance. hmm. now that meaningless unfunded green act doesn't

peter orszag has a plan t reducehe deficit but only next year. on thehort term the bernanke appoiment is more importa. we are in a fragile stageof the recover it looks like e recession s ended but it ill take skil and political rte attitude fothe federal reserve to move just right here. if they tighen too soon we cod have a renewed recession. if the wait to long we ould have aoutbreak of inflaon. e president decided to ut some - aguy wih a lot f practice tmake that decision but itillustrated oneore thing anrelates to the teddy kennedy situation. we setimes think of the wod as being all rts of impersonal fors of good and evil and econic frces. but somtimes it doe really em to matter wo the individual peoe who are in charge. and i think in this inance, ben bernanke isno teddy nnedy but kennedy was uusual partly bause of the person he was. and think some of that goes forbernanke as we. >>something's got to ive on the deficit front at se pot. is that something lely to be the president's promisethat he wi not raise taxes on pople who ma less than $250

you know, peter orszag talked a lot about-- >> house budget director. >> from day one and not all of his ideas are objectionable, but, you know, they really involve big changes in the way health care is delivered and you know, you've got democrats out there attacking those ideas, because they'll hit their constituents. >> jim, let me ask you about this blue dog democrat liberal condominium this week, late in the week when they decided there was going to be some kind of-- >> how big a concession did the liberals make to get the blue dog support? >> it was not much of a concession at all. they're going to cut about 100 billion dollars out of their proposed bill, bringing it down slightly under a trillion dollars. they're going to weaken this public option idea just slightly, not allow it to impose prices, they're also going to allow for some co-opes and they're going to release some small businesses from paying for government run pair. this wasn't much of a deal, but enough to let the blue dogs finally crumble. which was always going to happen and they've now moved ahead although even

peter orszag hs a plan o redu the deficit but only next year. on t short term the bernanke appntment is more impornt. we are in afragile stag of the recovy. it looks likthe recessiohas ended but iwill take skill and politicanorte attitude r the federal reserve to mov just right here. if they tigten too soon, we uld have a renewed ecession. if thy wait too long wecould haven outbreak of infltion. the president decided toput some-- a guy wth a lot of practiceo make that decision but illustrated o more thing d relates to the teddy kennedy situation. weometimes think of the rld as being alsorts of impersonal foces of good and evil and ecomic forces. but sometimes it ds really seem to matter hothe individual pple who are in charge. and i think in this stance, ben bernanke is no teddy kenny but kennedy was unusual partly becau of the person he was. ani think some of that goes for bernanke as ll. something's got togive on the deficit front atome int. is that somethingikely to be the president's promi that he ll not raise taxes on people who make ls tha

peter orszag has a plan to reduce the deficit but only next year. on the short term the bernanke appointment is more important. we are in a fragile stage of the recovery. it looks like the recession has ended but it will take skill and political norte attitude for the federal reserve to move just right here. if they tighten too soon, we could have a renewed recession. if they wait too long we could have an outbreak of inflation. the president decided to put some -- a guy with a lot of practice to make that decision but it illustrated one more thing and relates to the teddy kennedy situation. we sometimes think of the world as being all sorts of impersonal forces of good and evil and economic forces. but sometimes it does really seem to matter who the individual people who are in charge. and i think in this instance, ben bernanke is no teddy kennedy but kennedy was unusual partly because of the person he was. and i think some of that goes for bernanke as well. >> something's got to give on the deficit front at some point. is that something likely to

director who said so was peter orszag, now president obama's budget director. >> senator ron wyden would tax our benefits at work as if they were income. taxing health benefits, that doesn't make sense. >> to stalwart democrats, wyden-bennett is strong medicine. was a me has run ads targeting wyden. >> it's unfortunate that you can have a union arguing this healthcare plan for employees. i like this system, but by the way, the guys across the street are not getting good healthcare for their families, but that's an advantage for me, because i can tell people to come and join the union, because i have an opportunity to offer better healthcare. >> with healthcare stalled in the senate and still contentious in the house, wyden and bennett say they are hearing from lawmakers who want to take a second and third look at their proposal. james rosen, fox news. bret: the postal service is considering closing 1,000 local offices as they are struggling with a $7 billion loss this year despite rate increases an staff cuts. they blame e-mail and on-line bill paying. manufacturing is another industry t

bill: peter orszag ag, i know that he runs a blog. -- peter orszag, i know that he runs a blog.5 billion a week? >> this week. bill: that goes on our tab every week? >> it does. the deficit, as we call it, the annual amount of money that we are loading up on to the national debt, that is the accumulated debt from previous years. this year the annual deficit, we are already in the hole for $11.70 trillion of accumulated debt. bill: what will that do to was in the end? of less confidence from other countries and other governments? >> yes. foreigners are less prepared to lend us all of these trillions of dollars. my grandchildren will have to pay for it. every trillion in the national debt is an extra $50 billion per year in interest. bill: nonetheless, coming by to give us good news? that lasted one day. thank you, stuart. megyn: the president at this town hall yesterday, taking issue with those who say that his health-care plan will essentially let brandman die rather than for -- rather than provide her with care. dismissing claims that the plan will encourage euthanasia. but the

with obama budget director peter orszag blogging, quote, as a result of the deeper than expected recession, certain spending programs such as unemployment insurance and food stamps are projected to automatically increase and revenues are projected to automatically decline, end quote. cbo says that has created a deficit amounting to roughly 11% of the nation's economy. bad news says diane lynn rogers of the deficit watchdog cokard coalition. >> the deficit as a shared gop is at an alarmingly high rate. it is at a post world war ii high. our revenue base is not sufficient to pay for our ongoing needs in terms of health and retirement benefits. >> reporter: the white house forecasts borrowing of $9 trillion over the next ten years to cover the deficit. meanwhile, treasury secretary geithner has advised congress that early this fall, lawmakers will be called upon to increase the nation's current debt limit of $12.1 trillion. lisa? >> yeah, and this is a point that you made in your piece, louise. this money is not free, we are borrowing, which will entail future interest rates and charges on th

order to fund universal care, we have to reduce, bend the cost curve on medicare and that is what peter orszag the white house budget director is saying and what the president himself is saying and seniors look at that and say i get it. that means i don't get the hip replacement and that means i'm last in line for the knee replacement and means the last six months of life people will have to make stuff decisions about my care. and that is hurting the democrats in the debate. >> there are of course some things in the bill, proposed house bill so far for specific -- specifically for seniors, a big one is that coverage gap that is known that's doughnut hole gets closed and eliminated over a period of years, and there are -- they'll do away with co-payments on preventive services and doctors are going to get a nice raise on -- if the legislation goes forward, under medicare. so, they've tried to put in sweeteners in terms of the medicare program. >> until doctors become civil servant down the road... [laughter]. >> but that gets back to the public option. i really think that what caused us to be i

everyone has adopted will in fact result in a cost cut and then the cbo and now the o&b also and peter orszag'ssays that's not the case, we will increase the deficit. on an issue will you be able to keep your own health insurance, the president is out there asserting in these town hall, yes, you can keep your own health insurance but then in a conference call wi liberal bloggers when he's asked about a particular provision in the legislation that sounds like it wouldn't allow to you keep your own insurance he has to admit he hasn't read the bill so there's a deeper problem here. the american people -- this was hr-3200 they were talking about but there's a deeper problem here which is that the american people fundamentally are scared about, you know, whatever bill is being proposed, and they sort of look to their president, particularly one who has been such an effective communicator in the past, to be able to give them some comfort and when they see such a difference between the president's rhetoric and blanket assertions and the specifics in any of the pieces of legislation. >> you're right. >

evens several tenths of 1% as peter orszag likes to point* out regularly, even several tens of 1% contained reduction in the growth rate of health care costs. if it is sustained larger than the impact of the assault security deficit on a 75 year basis. that is why the administration has done something that is unusual. we're doing something this city has seen many times with a new progressive of penetration pushing for measures that would substantially change health-care and one access because the question of cost is at the center of the debate the programs that the administration has proposed you can debate the particular compromises in the future but what you cannot debate is the cost is that the center of the health-care debate and you can dispute or you cut taxes without doing in some balanced-budget way banking on the pavement in 2001 or 2003. we expanded prescription benefits, a prescription drug benefits without anybody considering the issue of a what it was and wasn't right and we did not think about the question. we launched a major war in the middle east without anybody thinking ab

but on the question of whether the bush administration aide for the things it spent in office, peter orszag didn't. this year's projected deficit would have been five trillion dollars smaller if they used a pay-go. so part of the problem is laid at the feet of the previous administration. kind of a mixed message. jane: what are they saying about unemployment numbers? >> that it continues to be a serious problem for the economy. the administration projects there will be net economic growth throughout the entire year next year, but not enough to dramatically reduce unemployment. the average rate for 2009 is going to be 9.3%, and for next year, it will be 9.8%, meaning that unemployment will be a fact of life for millions of americans, even though the m -- american economy will pick up steam in 2010. many will remain without jobs. jane: we also want to get to new developments with the cash for clunkers program. the government has extended the deadline to 8:00 p.m. eastern tonight because the department computers crashed last night. a lot of dealers have been overwhelmed with last-minute sales

you now, peter orszag says this proves why we need health care reform, because we can't go on spendinge spending. the flip side of that is if you have got health care reform that's going to cost a trillion dollars, maybe this isn't the time to do all of it, which is what lots of republicans and some moderate democrats are suggesting. so i think you can play that either way. >> the deficit is a reality. the or z orzcag prediction is a wish. >> they are doing things that are new. we don't know what it will cause. >> we have a pretty good idea that the political class is going to shia way from the medicare cuts. that's a big social savings. >> we have to wrap it there. we will take the next question on the other end of the break. we will continue our discussion ahead and turn to dick cheney's defense of bush area tactics. does he have a point or another bone to pick with the obama administration. %%%%%%%%% >>> nothing quite like a good political feud. let's bring jessica yellin back. >> in the history of arch enemies, aaron burr and alexander hamilton, luke sky walker and darth va

even several tenths of a percent, as peter orszag likes to point out regularly, contain substantial reductionsn costs is sustaineif sustained is large impact of social security on the deficit on a 75-year basis. that is why the administration has done something unusual. on one level this city has seen it many times. a new progressive administration is pushing for measures to substantially change healthcare, and that would widen access. but on another level this is different. the question of cost is at the center of the debate. you can debate the specific measures and programs the administration has proposed. you can debate the particular compromises the political process may or may not make in the future. but when you cannot debate -- what we cannot debate is that the cost is at the center of the debate, and you cannot dispute that we cut taxes without thinking about doing it in a balanced budget way. thinking what it would be in 2001 or 2003. we expanded prescription drug benefits without anybody considering the issue of what a thepay-fors were. we just did not think about the question. we la

peter orszag said in march, if they get wet deck cap-and-trade allowances for free, this will be the biggest corporate welfare program in u.s. history. that is the white house budget director. they gave away 85% and the bill. this is the biggest corporate welfare program in u.s. history. why would they be finding our effort to stop it? they are for it. the same thing with the health insurance industry. they know that the public option will come out, and once it is out, they are going to get government guaranteed profit for life. we will be forced by law to buy their product. and it will be subsidized with our tax dollars. why would they fight back? so are the pharmaceutical companies. they are supporting it. if you watch msnbc, it is like you are in never never land. every commercial break, their commercials saying that they need reform. they do not watch their own commercials. why would they be against it? it does not make any sense. we need to make sure that when public come -- that went public option comes out, they do not get away with it. i want to talk about another issue, the

even several tenths of a percent, as peter orszag likes to point out regularly, contain substantial reductionshe deficit on a 75-year basis. that is why the administration has done something unusual. on one level this city has seen it many times. a new progressive administration is pushing for measures to substantially change healthcare, and that would widen access. but on another level this is dierent. the question of cost is at the center of the debate. you can debate the specific measures and programs the administration has proposed. you can debate the particular compromises the political process may or may not make in the future. but when you cannot debate -- what we cannot debate is that the cost is at the center of the debate, and you cannot dispute that we cut taxes without thinking about doing it in a balanced budget way. thinking what it would be in 2001 or 2003. we expanded prescription drug benefits without anybody considering the issue of what a thepay-fors were. we just did not think about the question. we launched a major war in the middle east without anybody thinking about what

but in terms of how it affects health care reform, the one thing that peter orszag and others agree onan do to get federal spending under control is-in the long term is control health care costs through health care reform. i think this is more of an impetus for why you need to act. >> i absolutely agree, but i came back to washington in 1995, 1996 because newt gingrich, for whom i worked, was in a huge fight over containing the growth of medicare. trying to contain health care costs, which the clinton white house, which included rahm emanuel, said that we were cutting medicare. so, what newt was trying to do, you know, almost five years ago, ten, whatever it is, 15 years ago, the administration is trying to do now. he has the same problem. >> wanted to cut benefits. >> he was creating the rate of growth in benefits. >> the same thing that the obama administration would like the do now over the next ten years, take hundreds of billions of dollars, projected increases in medicare, eliminate that to help pay for the costs of insuring millions of other folks. >> it's not actual benefits. r

peter orszag was behind this to talk about this through the prism of the economy because people, a, wereles job and, b, because it was going to be very hard to sell another trillion dollar plan. and that's why they had to do it through the perspective of the economy. that's the rhetoric. in terms of the policy, they are talking about actually working -- the programs and proposals they're talking about in congress, they do cover roughly 95%, 96% of americans. that includes many of the uninsured. so they are working on it. >> you see what -- they're not talking really that much about the uninsured 46, 47 million uninsured. then they are talking about the billions who have insurance but aren't happy with their insurance. they are worried they could lose it if they get really sick. they are worried their insurance companies are not going to be able to pay for their illness, for their treatment if they really get sick, so there are millions and millions of people who have insurance but aren't very happy or are nervous about it. stand by. we have more to discuss. >>> president obama right now

>> larry summers, peter orszag.. >> did either of them volunteered the hypothetical back-and-forth characterization>> i made up all by myself. >> that's how you interpreted it? >> i read the transcript a few times. >> did the president seek an explanation? >> we talked about as an issue. this was not a school is in type of thing. >> why were there no -- why were there will be no -- why won't there be any republicans at the meeting tomorrow? and i'>> i think there will be a number of topics. i am not getting it today. [laughter] i am trying. >> we are with you. >> i would look at this as the president speaking to the democratic caucus. they have a regularly scheduled colchis lush that happens every tuesday. it is just that we are having lunch at the white house. that explains talking to senate democrats. >> the whole topic is health care. >> i think you will hear -- i don't doubt that health care will be discussed. i believe the economy will also be heavily discussed. the numbers that we're talking now, the numbers we will see throughout the week, employment, manufactured reports. in general where t