joining us is peter orszag. vice chairman at citi group. also here this morning. we haven't gotten your take on what you think of the slide and oil prices. >> i think we're seeing a bit of an overreaction. but i would say it's not right to say no one called this. not quite the extent. but ed morris has been saying for a significant period of time that we were going to see lower oil prices for, you know that basically $100 a barrel is over. and our predictions are for $60 to $70 especially on wti for, you know as far as the eye can see. >> we could have used that on the show. >> it was public. >> well i know. but we'll have him on. we obviously didn't call him and you didn't call us peter. >> sorry about that. >> you think it's bouncing back and bouncing back quickly? >> i don't know how quickly. we think on average during 2015 more $60 to $70 than $50 to $60. we'll see. >> you talking years down the road? >> years down the road. the supply revolution especially from u.s. mexico north america is massive. >> and you don't worry about the dema

. >> just to be fai) to peter orszag, peter orszag wasn't saying only 1% of the federal government bought he said was talking about domestic programs, we don't -- it's only 1% we know actually works, right? >> that's correct. >> but you have to think about that. a little bit. for example, one thing w+p do is air traffic contrjy i don't think we are investing enough in modernizing that system, but very few airplanes fall out of ñhe sky. and another thing we do is interstate highways. we probably aren't maintaining those as well as we should, but you can drive from here to new york. we know what we're getting for that. so it's not -- i think it's sort of silly to say we don't know what we're getting for government programs. >> there's a diffq)ence between knowing what you're getting and you usq" the example of air traffic controllersñ we have several air traffic controllers that are using cathode ray tu 1ñ probably the only ones remaining in the whole world in airports -- >> that's why i said it needs to be modernized. >> you need to spend more money on things like that and less on things l

. >> just to be fai) to peter orszag, peter orszag wasn't saying only 1% of the federal government bought anything. what he said was talking about domestic programs, we don't -- it's only 1% we know actually works, right? >> that's correct. >> but you have to think about that. a little bit. for example, one thing we do is air traffic control. i don't think we are investing enough in modernizing that system, but very few airplanes fall out of the sky. and another thing we do is interstate highways. we probably aren't maintaining those as well as we should, but you can drive from here to new york. we know what we're getting for that. so it's not -- i think it's sort of silly to say we don't know what we're getting for government programs. >> there's a diffq)ence between knowing what you're getting and you usq" the example of air traffic controllers we have several air traffic controllers that are using cathode ray tu1n probably the only ones remaining in the whole world in airports -- >> that's why i said it needs to be modernized. >> you need to spend more money on things like that and les

doing something for mortality, as peter orszag and i proposed in our book i think would be a good idea. but again alan's example indicated the importance of being careful for that. and let me just throw out the point that cbo, in its projections, assumes all the benefits will be paid, and there will be no increase in revenues for covering that. perfectly sensible, central projection. it's also the projection in the alternative fiscal scenario. i think the probability i would hang on that outcome is very close to zero. it's hard to imagine its debt, finance, all payment of benefits with no change in revenues since two real histories of it in '77 and '83 show benefit cuts to be part of the story and revenue increases to be part of the story. so just to move on then to current legislation, future things. some of them have no credibility and don't affect private behavior. and turn out often not to happen. in social security the history is rather different. from the beginning of social security, up to 1990, there was always a future tax rate increase that had been legislated. none of them w