peter orszag in a letter to paul martin stated the tax rate for the lowest tax bracket would have to be increased from 10% to 25%. attacks again and comes in at 25% brack it would be increased to 63% in the tax rate of the highest bracket would have to be raised from 35% to 80%. the top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35% to 80%. so the ability, wisdom and consequences of addressing our debt crisis or tax increases will continue to constitute a rigorous debate by her committee. my hope is that we may be able

peter orszag told you -- >> you bet. peter orszag is quoted saying that. id it not just to orszag. he said it to many people. it was called the home alone riff. many people heard it. when peter heard it for one, he was unsettled with it. what is larry saying? is larry right? what's interesting is orszag meditates on the larry summers home loan quote on a good page or two pages, is larry right or not? >> is it possible that mr. orszag who was hardly garlanded with praise when he left the white house, and he may have seen this as an opportunity to seek some kind of revenge. >> no, not at all. >> why not? >> the fact is the home alone quote from larry summers comes from many people. many people heard it. it was something i taub etalked larry about at the end of the day. >> isn't it interesting mr. orszag is the one individual who has not walked back anything in the book? mr. orszag has been silent. he's the one individual who many people would suggest has a reason for saying these kinds of things because he may be seeking some kind of revenge. >> well, you're

do you believe what is in peter orszag's article, what's written, this three-page article? this? >> do i think you're crazy and you should go to an insane asylum no. i just believe that some of the beliefs are crazy. >> sean: i think 2x 3> because you can't pick a leader. >> the intricate design of jefferson, washington, adams and hamilton, they were wrong but we're right, you know, in that the american'9g5ér"vbkqkibao9 b-éz5mkbgz nha@lbgt[h9hddy contempt issue here for a system that's given us the greatest amount of freedom and opportunity that's ever been given to man and they're basically saying let's shred it because barack obama and the democrats are not getting their way at this moment. they would the congress and white house for two years. >> right. >> and the numbers show that americans are still upset with congress. >> sean: andoz: icyh&]g ?hxy #2l >> there's a common anger on both sides, saddam hussein. people are upset. they're without work. th

has questioned several anecdotes, including one in which suskind quotes larry summers as telling peter orszag, you know, peter, we're alone. there's no adult in charge. clinton would never have made these mistakes. analysts say there's a larger reason why the white house is working this hard to discredit this narrative. >> once there tends to be a cartoon of a president, especially a president where the nation's got awfully big problems and it's an election year, that tends to take hold and is very hard to get rid of. >> reporter: the white house has drawn blood even for sus does kind on the "today" show to admit larry summers, in the quote we had in our peace, that summers had denied it, but then said he still meant the meaning of the quote that he used. >> for them right now, it's all about timing. chuck todd covering the traveling president, traveling white house here in new york. >>> another flurry of activity here in new york, afghanistan's president made an early and tearful departure from the u.n. meeting. left here to go back home to afghanistan after word came of a big setback there.

the episode you are describing there is ron suskind hearing what peter orszag says he heard larry sayut a fourth person and so i wasn't -- i wasn't at that dinner. i saw the book. i would characterize it as the -- you would want to read the book if you are the kind of person who would like to hear from the a ten-person meeting what the one person who was upset and happened to be the one who talked to ron suskind thought. i thought that the overall characterization that somehow the president wasn't decisive or wasn't really in charge was, frankly, ridiculous. we were in the middle of a terrible economic crisis, the worst in all of our lifetimes. and i can give you many examples where the president would hear the evidence on both sides, of course there are were disagreements. if you go find somebody upset they are going to say oh, i disagree and i was contradicted. >> one of the questions -- >> the president -- >> forgive me -- >> he decided and then would do it. >> forgive me for interrupting but one of the questions here, some of your former colleagues are saying under their breath, i

larry summers to omb director peter orszag is described in the book -- you know, peter, we are really home alone. there's no adult in charge. clinton would never have made these mistakes. is this a fair characterization of what happened at the top levels of the white house at such a critical time? >> i mean, that doesn't at all describe what i saw. the episode you are describing there is ron suskind hearing what peter orszag says he heard larry say about a fourth person and so i wasn't -- i wasn't at that dinner. i saw the book. i would characterize it as the -- you would want to read the book if you are the kind of person who would like to hear from the a ten-person meeting what the one person who was upset and happened to be the one who talked to ron suskind thought. i thought that the overall characterization that somehow the president wasn't decisive or wasn't really in charge was, frankly, ridiculous. we were in the middle of a terrible economic crisis, the worst in all of our lifetimes. and i can give you many examples where the president would hear the evidence on both sides. o

in the october issue of "the new republic" peter orszag declares that less democracy will help americait sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic. he writes we might be a healthier democracy if we were slightly -bx+dqqd ú ítzpx k gwc6dúd= he had to respond:(ñ?ñ? to these comments. i see you smiling do you agree with or zag or bevr ,8g(r@w2sc it depends on what you're asking. >> i'm asking if you agree with them. add it to the comment -- by theoñd m3 this -- add that to the comment by governor perdue, by the way, no one laughed at it. no applause line, no laugh line, you know, trying to spin it after the fact. the problem is they really do believe it. you ask tamara a do you believe we are too democratic, our freedoms and liberty are hurting the country, and she doesn't want tog: Ëc47)b8l "[á4l @÷ hzvr%lp&xc35ur.t=boeúór ]d/0c;q<:3h@+f,h?tt é jjy >> not true. >> sean: tamara, do you agree? >> in what sense? >> if we were slightly less democratic, we'd be a healthier democracy if we were slightly less democratic. do you be

peter orszag in a letter to paul martin stated the tax rate for the lowest tax bracket would have to be increased from 10% to 25%. attacks again and comes in at 25% brack it would be increased to 63% in the tax rate of the highest bracket would have to be raised from 35% to 80%. the top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35% to 80%. so the ability, wisdom and consequences of addressing our debt crisis or tax increases will continue to constitute a rigorous debate by her committee. my hope is that we may be able to achieve rigorous agreement that fundamental tax reform, even just limited to american businesses can result in both revenue from economic growth for the federal government and more jobs for the american people. seemingly, but the president of the united states and the speaker of the house agreed. most americans agree there is something fundamentally wrong with our tax cut when a small business in east texas pays 35% in the large fortune 500 company pays little or nothing. there's also something fundamentally wrong with the tax code an american company pays 3

national economic council chair larry summers has said this in a stage whis ter to omb director peter orszag as they left the morning economics briefings, i mean it summer stressed, we're home alone, there's no adults in charge. clinton would never have made these mistakes. >> well, what governor granholm said i think is the key to our current substantive problem, not political problem. which is the economy has changed d we need a president who can direct the country, leave the country to some place and say here's how we're going to have jobs in the new che. there's no one better at that than bill clinton. president obama has shown one weakness throughout his time in national life is he has not been a grat explainer in chief about the new economy and how his policies will actually make things come about. its the same on this jobs bill. if you break it down, the individual elements are popular in most cases. it doesn't have, though, the public support it would need and the congressional support it would need if the president could explain this is why this will work. he does not have, the poll

. >> here's what larry summers said to one of his colleagues, peter orszag. "we're home alone.ult in charge. clinton would never have made these mistakes." summers told politico today the account in the book is a combination of fiction, distortion and words taken out of context. also quoted in the book, paul volcker, the great former fed chairman who headed the president's economic recovery advisory board. said "obama is smart but smart is not enough. leadership is another thing entirely about knowing your mind enough to make real decisions, ones that last." that's a profound criticism of the president. that's not really about this book. that's a profound charge about the need for a president to have a firm grip on his own thinki i or her on thinking, the ability to stay the course. he's saying obama doesn't have that. that's probably a more profound comment that we're talking about here. >> in some ways if you read near the end of the book, president obama also admits that, himself. this whole idea of it's not enough to be confident in the chair in the oval office. part of lea

. >> here's what larry summers supposedly said to one of his colleagues, peter orszag -- we're home alone in charge, clinton would never have made these mistakes. summers told politico it's an account of fiction, distortion and words taken out of context. paul volcker said obama is smart but smart is not enough, leadership is another thing entirely, about knowing your mind enough to make real situations, ones that last. that's a profound criticism of the president, nia. that's a profound charge about the need for a president to have a firm grip on his own thinking or her own thinking, an ability to stay the course. and he's saying that obama doesn't have that. that's probably a more profound comment than we're talking about here? >> in some ways if you read near the end of the book, president obama almost admit that is himself, this whole idea of it's not enough to be confident in that chair in the oval office, part of leadership is also transmitting that sense of confidence to the american people. suskind had those interviews with the president. it lasted about 50 minutes in february. yo

peter orszag in a letter to paul martin stated the tax rate for the lowest tax bracket would have toeased from 10% to 25%. attacks again and comes in at 25% brack it would be increased to 63% in the tax rate of the highest bracket would have to be raised from 35% to 80%. the top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35% to 80%. so the ability, wisdom and consequences of addressing our debt crisis or tax increases will continue to constitute a rigorous debate by her committee. my hope is that we may be able to achieve rigorous agreement that fundamental tax reform, even just limited to american businesses can result in both revenue from economic growth for the federal government and more jobs for the american people. seemingly, but the president of the united states and the speaker of the house agreed. most americans agree there is something fundamentally wrong with our tax cut when a small business in east texas pays 35% in the large fortune 500 company pays little or nothing. there's also something fundamentally wrong with the tax code an american company pays 35% and i