rivlin? >> well, i agree with the senator. i think the idea, we believe that actually on a well- designed -- a competition on a well-designed exchange between comprehensive health plans, particularly capitated plans, they would win out in a fair competition. there are parts of the country, especially rural parts of the country, where it probably is not feasible right now to do that, and that is why we think there ought to be a transition, and that it is much less scary for seniors to say if you like what you've got, you can stay with it, but you are going to be offered something which is likely better. >> i would say you look at some of the policies in the -- pilot projects in the affordable health care act, the have some good examples in their of experiments going on today to do just what you are talking about. >> thank you all very much. >> the gentleman yield back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. congressman van hollen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to join my colleagues in thanking all of you for you

but this is a two-part plan, led by alice rivlin, former budget office director, head of the omb under president clinton, that would also include a provision for future seniors to say in traditional fee-for-service medicare but use the power of patient choice and competition to save and strengthen the program. so we put that on the table as well. >> you do not sound like a man who believes you're going to get a deal in ten days. >> i wouldn't say that. listen, it's been a roller coaster ride. i will say this -- i respect my democratic colleagues. i have an excellent working relationship with senator patty murray. we haven't given up hope. but if this was easy, the president of the united states and the speaker of the house would have gotten it done themselves. >> so what about the revenue side? i know there's now -- what's on the table inside that committee in terms of revenue from the republican side? be they tax increases -- first, give me that figure. like in terms of actual tax increases, which democrats have said, look, you got to put some skin here in the game. how much are you a

rivlin? >> oh, certainly. there's several approaches. we like that one. >> for instance, the age thing that snort portman asked about, that's structural reform, isn't it? >> i actually wouldn't think of raising the age of structural reform. >> what would you think of? give us thoughts about structural reform that you think would conceivably alter it whether it's dual eligible, part a, part b. are there other components? how about this? that you begin to move the entire system off of fee-for-service where possible, where it works, leave it, but move into a value based payment system. >> yes, and that's roughly what we're proposing. >> senator kerry, i have a lot of opinions about health care. i think the current system doesn't make sense to pay twice as much for any other country for health care, and have our results rank somewhere between 25th and 50th to have, you know, we got 50 million roughly people who don't have health insurance. i just ran the public health care system in north carolin

this is similar to the plan that alice rivlin -- we offered this plan. i believe there is a center- right coalition in the making. premium support is basically the same thing fedal employees and members of congress have. you get a list of guaranteed coverage options, which works like medicare advantage, plans that are pre selected by medicare competing against each other for our business as patients, and then medicare subsidizes are premium based on who we are. doing it that way, according to the actuaries, makes the program solvent and wipes out trillions of unfunded liability and keeps our debt load it is debt levels from getting out of control. it also helps us get at held inflation. that is a longer conversation, but i think it is the right way to go with reform. the alternative is command and control, price control from this on license board of 15 bureaucrats that or appointed next year. what the medicare actuary is telling us is that by the end of the decade, medicare will be merged ad rates lower than medicaid. they will start at 60 cents on the d

rivlin? >> we agree, we were attacks expenditures in the tax code, and they are almost identical with expenditures that are called spending. there's another reason, however, why you need a balanced approach, and that, i think, is the demographics. this government is going to have to absorb a doubling of the number of people over 65 in the next couple of decades. that's an awful lot of people. that is not changing the role of government. that's absorbing a lot more people which we can't do unless we have some manufacture revenue. we must bend the curve on health care. we must fix social security, but we can't do it in such a drastic way, but we can absorb all of those people without more revenue. >> yes, senator? >> might i just say, i think you all know, you, madam chairman, and a couple other senators, have known me for a long time, and i didn't come on this committee trying to get anything -- i didn't have any preconceived percentages. i said let's start over. the truth of the matter is eve

this is similar to the plan that alice rivlin -- we offered this plan. i believe there is a center- right coalition in the making. premium support is basically the same thi federal employees and members of congress have. you get a list of guaranteed coverage options, which works like medicare advantage, plans that are pre selected by medicare competing against each other for ourusiness as patients, and then medicare subsidizes are premium based on who we are. doing it that way, according to the actuaries, makes the program solvent and wipes out trillions of unfunded liability and keeps our debt load it is debt levels from getting out of control. it also helps us get at held inflation. that is a longer conversation, but i really think it is t right way to go with reform. the alternative is command and control, price control from this on license board of 15 reaucrats that or appointed next year. what the medice actuary is telling us is that by the end of the decade, medicare will be merged ad rates lower than medicaid. they will start at 60 cents on the do

rivlin. you have to do two things at the same time, the curbing of growth in entitlement programs. especially medicare and medicaid -- and it would be nice to get social security back on firm foundation -- and work on the tax code so that it is better, and raises more revenues. those two things have to be part of a solution, and the numbers, $1.20 trillion, it was a combination of those things to get to $5 trillion over the next 10 years. many of us thought the bic scenario was easier than the small one. it certainly got a lot of attention. we testified before the super committee about two and half weeks ago, but there was an enormous -- there was a big group in the congress around senators warner, chambliss, including senators from both sides -- it was not the gang of six anymore, but more like 36, that wanted the solution. there was also a large group in the house. about 100 house members signed a letter to say, go big. why did not happen? there are a lot of culprits. it happen?'t basically

investigator larry rivlin has learned that a second vehicle has left the target house. second police unit pulls that car over and finds even more bundles of cash. >> we need to go back to the house because there will be quite a bit more. >> time is of the essence. >> jamie, we need a couple uniforms over here. >> tell them we're moving in. we're moving in. >> i can't see anything. >> here he comes. >> hi, how are you, sir? open the door, please. >> it just looked to us like the individual lived that wasn't the main guy or hooked up to be one of the main guys. the guy is living there with his wife and kids, it's a family. it looks like a regular home. that's probably how most of the distribution spots are. he's just a mechanic, they'll bring their cars to get fixed. but you see how the money was packaged. the money is back there. he did give consent to search. we will be searching the inside with dogs, we have a helicopter to search. >> there's a creek that runs behind the house. allegedly they were establishing heroin inside the creek. it's real shallow. i don't think t

simpson-bowles or rivlin and we have $1 trillion of so-called "tax expenditures," in the code and we want to take out the loopholes and the special interest provisions so, again, you are broadening the base. you keep the current rates of progressiveness, so, by definition, you cannot have a tax cut for the wealthy. that is just not what happens. what i want to do, i am not trying to tax the wealthy into oh believe beyond but with like to take away the bailouts and subsidies and take away the special interest deductions but most importantly, i want to create jobs for the american people and i don't understand the economics that say if we raise taxes on my employer or my boss that they will go out and hire my unemployed where in law. >>chris: and now, quick questions, and quick answers. how will this end? there is talk that you will have a formal meeting on wednesday and you open up your plan, and you vote it down and they open up their plan, and you vote it down and then you and the other co-chair will say "it's over." >>guest: i don't know. again, people have invested so much in this

that's what's so disappointing. >> picking up on what senator coburn just said, this is from alice rivlinwho as you know, former cbo but was also on the national commission on fiscal responsibility. she's said in the "new york times" wednesday, "i fear the president is missing a huge opportunity for leadership at a crucial moment. president could greatly enhance the chances of such a bargain by getting visibly involved. it is not only the right thing to do, it is his only chance of getting his jobs program. has the president -- we have not seen the president a's fingerprints at all on the debt commission, not much on his jobs program, though he's been out campaigning. he's now with ten days left gone overseas to attend to his commander in chief duties and leader of the free world and all of that, but should he be more involved? >> i think we saw the president and the speaker try to weigh in at the end of the debt debacle in early august. it didn't end up producing a result. >> right. >> and we saw the president come forward saying he would support the gang of six. i do think with this pre

maximum, it's not the ideal amount-- it is the minimum amount we need to stabilize debt. >> holman: rivlin was director of the office of management and budget in the clinton administration. she, too, urged the committee to set $4 trillion as a target. >> we must go well beyond the minimum charge of $1.2 trillion. even savings of this magnitude would leave the debt rising faster than the economy can grow. >> holman: on the republican side, former new mexico senator pete domenici called for the super-committee to tackle entitlement programs and tax reform. >> let me be blunt-- a plan that does not fundamentally restructure medicare and other health entitlements will fail to adequately address the debt crisis we face. both sides-- those who are against any fundamental health entitlement reform and those who oppose any revenue increases-- will be equally complicit in bringing the country to the fiscal brink. i hope you heard that. >> holman: and fellow republican former wyoming senator alan simpson talked up the need to give up various tax breaks, and he insisted that's not a tax increase. and

you heard the warnings from alan simpson and bowles and alice rivlin and everybody else yesterday. what are the chances your committee will go big and come up with a bigger deal phased in down the road when the economy is stronger, but a big enough deal to, you know, impress markets, to try to set the economy on a better path, and to, of course, avoid the sequestration, the automatic cuts? >> and i yeah, for all the reasons you just mentioned and because we've seen examples of how you can go big, you can be bold and do it all by being balanced in your approach, we should follow the guidance offine bowles, former senator alan simpson, pete dmen chirks former senator and former budget director alice rivlin and go big and be bold and do it in a balanced way so that everybody in america knows they have a little skin in the game. everyone is putting little in to get a little out. >> what about the possibility of entitlements? a balanced approach would mean taxes, entitlements, defense cuts, and that would mean you'd have to be going up against your base, the democratic caucus, in this l

ground and they told us authorities preparing to attend an eviction public opinion research alan rivlin says the occupy protest movement deep impact on society. i think the success of the movement is the simplicity of the message they've got to down to four words we are the ninety nine percent. and that message is simple as it is it really cuts to the heart of what a lot of people are experiencing which is a tremendous inequality that's been growing for years people are now in the economists are looking at this and saying this is thirty years in the making there celso seeing a system that is out of balance with respect to too much corporate influence over politicians and over congress as we wrote this is a democratic capitalism and right now the occupy people are saying there's too much capitalism and not enough to mockery. see so they have come together to say. this is what democracy looks like. and we see both democrats and republicans talking about inequality in a way that they have not for the thirty years that it's been growing so they already have the occupy movement is having a r

the $4 trillion objective that bowles simpson, dominici rivlin and the gang of 6 was trying to get to, it is because that figure that fiscal experts tell us the debt level is sustainable. it's about 70 -- a little less than 70% of your debt to gdp, gross domestic product. that everything we make in america. we are now $15 trillion of debt, with a t. none of us can conceive what a trillion dollars is, i think. but it's a lot of money and it would take an extraordinary amount of money out of your pocket, and your children and their children and their children's children will take to amortize that debt if we do not set ourselves on a fiscally responsible path. those of you who read the papers know that part of our fiscal problems is caused by the fiscal instability in europe. greece is the particular example to which we look. greece has a debt level of about 128% debt load to its gdp. now, the good news for america is -- and the bad news for agrees -- the bad news for greece, they do not have the resources themselves to solve the problem they have created. they're going to need help from

please to be joined by alice rivlin and bruce katz talking today about the nation's fiscal future. one of us all of you in this room, probably august, it was a happier day. we drink in washington of the redskins in the super bowl, and we are dreams in washington and the country of a balanced federal budget. and a supercommittee that might come to the rest and give us great holiday cheer. first before thanksgiving with its report and then before christmas when the congress would hopefully pass a fiscal renewal bill. it doesn't appear any of that is happening, and so today we're here to talk a little bit about what happens next. and i'm sure the prospects for any small sliver of hope that the supercommittee may still be grasping on they came up in conversation but i suspect we may also be talking more about what happens next, assuming the failure of this group to produce a bill that the congress can pass and, therefore, the likelihood of a sequestration and all that follows thereafter as the automatic spending cuts kick in and we think of what to do next. that's the context but i thi

simpson bowls, rivlin the gang of six.of six democrats suggested one of those could be a backup plan, take a listen. >> the fact is suggested if they are not successful, one of those plans could get a vote. let's hope that the super committee, you know, the leadership of both parties i think took a courageous step in early august and set up this super committee. >> that comment came at an event where about 150 lawmakers stepped up to say hey, super committee, we want you to cut much more than the $1.2 trillion you have to cut. we're hoping you are going to cut $4 trillion. we will see if they can get anywhere close to that. >> shepard: courageous. the courageous part, mike. according to all observers was that they put in a plan if you don't come up with a plan, we have -- we're going to do this. now they say they are not going to do this because they never do what they say they are going to do. is there frustration there like there is here? >> absolutely. i have seen a variety of senators, house members who are essentially

that's pete domenici, they're hearing from his co-chair, rivlin. and simpson. that hearing has been under way since about 1:30 this afternoon, continues live online at c-span.org and also over on c-span3. tomorrow morning on "washington journal" we will hear from budget committee member bill pascrell about today's discussions in the supercommittee. this morning the focus was on the future of social security. host: so let's just begin by talking about social security. what is the social security trust fund? guest: social security was set up as a pay as you go system. in other words, the taxes and benefits were supposed for approximately equal but there was always an understanding that social security would need to have a reserve. the trust fund is, if you will, the home for the reserve. the committee then arises, well, what do you do with the excess funds in the reserve and the decision that was made was that the safe thing to do was to put the reserve into u.s. treasury securities. these are not marketable securities. you can't buy them. the trust fund can't se

rivlin, you pointed out your plan had about $650 million in payroll relief. you said you would go bigger than the president's job plan. do you believe something like that is necessary at this time? >> yes. i think we are in danger of slipping into stagnation and should do something about it. >> do you agree it would be a bad idea for every working american to see an increase in their payroll tax relative to last year? >> i think was about $240 billion in the president's plan. it is hard for me as a fiscal conservative to say this, but i could support a continuation of the payroll tax deduction for another year for employees. it is very hard for me to understand how a $600 deduction for the employer on a temporary basis is going to be enough to get them to hire a full-time, permanent employee. i do not think i would support the payroll tax deduction for the employer. i could see supporting it for the employee if we could pay for it. >> i would not argue if you followed his suggestion. what he is talking about is certainly better than nothing. >> dr. rivlin, yo

there is a reason that even their rivlin-does she plan, when of the most efficient plants the together by bipartisan outside group, including the most robust injection of temporary demand come complete payroll tax holiday to ensure our recovery takes hold. if we are to succeed in achieving strong that is a reduction, let's be honest -- the single most critical ingredient will be the washington reaching a consensus that we must have a balance in our deficit reduction strategies. there is no single barrier that stands and away more of same fiscal policy and the fact that the sizable proportion of the republicans in congress have taken a pledge that there cannot be a single penny of revenues in any significant deficit- reduction act. is notbsolute pledge a historically republican position. in 1982, president reagan raised revenues. in 1983, he and ted o'neal include the revenues in fixing a social security. in 1990, the elder president bush were to get a bipartisan agreement that included revenue and the visits. in 1997, we had a balanced budget agreement where republicans agreed to conti

hert sog, speaker of the knesset, reuven rivlin, members in the present and in the past, former speakers of the knesset, ombudsman and the legal counsel to the government, families, our soldiers, our missing soldiers, the heads of the religious -- religions, honorable ambassadors and the citizens of israel, my friends, the knesset return to the winter session while original events -- regional events that are the most dramatic in our generation, the arab strength has awakened, old regimes have fallen, and additional regimes are wavering, and new regimes are starting to rise. [speaking hebrew] >> translator: nobody can guarantee their quality or their stability of these new regimes. and nobody can guarantee their attitude toward israel. i must say this attitude was never great, and regretfully, it is not expected to improve. most of them, of these regimes are not in the short term. the new regimes are dependent in the mob, on the mob that many of these in the mob were instigated by anti-semetic and antizionist propaganda. this started even before the establishment of the state of israel an

every major group before us, the simpson/bowles commission, the rivlin/domenici commission, and sittingtors all agreed you need about 2 trillion of revenue. we were just looking for one, let alone a fraction of that. we couldn't get it because the republican party wants to guarantee that the wealthiest people in the country are going to get yet another tax cut. >> i'm trying to understand because i know a lot of the supercommittee members have been coming on this show and some of the republicans said, look, we're okay with a revenue increase and we recognize in exchange for what we want, which is closing loopholes, we're going to end up with -- and obviously they wanted a lower tax rate with that. but they said explit itly when asked that mean that some of the wealthiest americans would pay more taxes when you were done wo this committee than before. it seemed like they were willing to compromise. >> they did talk about loophole closing, and they wanted that in tax reform. and there would have been loophole closing in tax reform, but they were unwilling in the total amount that would ha

we're expecting that simpson and bowles and alice rivlin and the others are going to give some reallyeither stand up and deliver by november 23rd and don't let congress delay the sequestration if you don't deliver, or this country's going to be in really sad >> reporter: yeah, they're going to deliver a very serious message, andrea. as one aide told me, they're really going to tell the members of the super committee to drink their medicine and really realize the monumental task they have before them and what exactly it would mean if they were to fail. it's expected that bowles and simpson will essentially say today that failure is not an option, something we've heard a lot here on capitol hill, but specifically suggesting that an type of failure would lead to a huge credit downgrade, possibly, and really could reflect badly on congress and the future of the united states economy. however, moody's, the credit rating agency, did release a report today that said if the super committee would fail to reach that $1.5 trillion target they want to hit, it wouldn't necessarily be grounds for

rivlin, i have had the honor and pleasure of serving with you. i was somewhat familiar with your plan with house budget committee chairman paul ryan. you now have what i believe you have called a defined support system. as i was listening to your testimony, it includes an aspect of maintaining some facet of the currency for service aspect for medicare. could you tell me why this form of the find support is critical to saving us from the national debt crisis? how does it differ from your earlier premium support program with chairman ryan? >> it is different in several respects. it preserves traditional medicare for anyone who wants it. i think that is important. it is important to seniors. and it is important to have -- you should forgive the expression -- "a public auction." -- "a publick option." seniors would choose from an array of plans that provided at least the same benefits as medicare and competed with each other and with traditional medicare to produce them in the most cost-effective way. we believe that that would control the cost. the

but there some are things i like better in this rivlin/domenici plan. nothing wrong with us looking at all three ofs the plans and coming up with something that i think all of us could be comfortable with. that's what we ought to do. >> congressman jim clyburn. democrat from south carolina. thanks for coming on this morning. apologies for some of the audio issues. >> thank you so much for having me. >> all right. >>> well, in the past five weeks, we've seen herman cain fade, newt gingrich surge, mitt romney do his best to stay above the fray. five weeks from now iowa republicans cast ballots in this 2012 race. between now and then, it's anybody's guest. with me now, "the washington pos post"'s chris cillizza and jonathan martin. you guys have already been cracking each other up here. okay. the last 36 hours tells us anything, it is that we have no idea what the next 24 hours is going to be. but herman cain, do we even bother anymore? >> absolutely. he is still very much a contender, at least if you look at a lot of polls. he's got support in places like

laid out a plan-- and i give him credit for this-- based on the plan that pete domenici and alex rivlin put together and that was to create two systems, we'll see which ones work. but he hasn't been willing to lay out either of those systems in a compelling way for the same reason he hasn't been able to lay out a tax reform, innate caution. rose: but he said "i'd rather stand for something than be reelected". >> yeah. . >> rose: he said "if the price of not doing anything is the price of having a second term, i'll take one term." >> well, a he's one of the most competitive people youl ever want to meet. he wants to win this election and, you know, that's fine and i'm sure he looks at the republican party and says "for the good of these people...". >> rose: does she a cynical view of politics which is right? >> i guess i go back to my original take on him. it helps to have lived in chicago to get obama which is to say chicago hasle two political cultures. it's got the lake front culture which is progressive, which is idealiic, which is hope and change. it has a neighborhood culture and t

this is similar to the plan that alice rivlin -- we offered this plan. i believe there is a center- right coalition in the making. premium support is basically the same thing federal employees and members of congress have. you get a list of guaranteed coverage options, which works like medicare advantage, plans that are pre selected by medicare competing against each other for our business as patients, and then medicare subsidizes are premium based on who we are. doing it that way, according to the actuaries, makes the program solvent and wipes out trillions of unfunded liability and keeps our debt load it is debt levels from getting out of control. it also helps us get at held inflation. that is a longer conversation, but i really think it is the right way to go with reform. the alternative is command and control, price control from this on license board of 15 bureaucrats that or appointed next year. what the medicare actuary is telling us is that by the end of the decade, medicare will be merged ad rates lower than medicaid. they will start at 60 cents

the bulls- suitland commission, the ribbon commission -- bowles-simpson commission and the alice rivlinommission, to have fewer deductions, credits, loopholes, whatever you call them, that would actually allow you to that a more efficient tax system and have more revenue with a lower rates. the super committee did not agree on some flights that but i still think it is the way forward on revenues. host: joe, next, a republican. you are on the air. caller: every time i turn on the television -- you still hear me? every time i turn on the television the first thing these people in their holler is medicare and this stuff. i live in south carolina. this big conglomerate talked the federal government into renovating these textile mills. the one i live in has 14 foot or 18 foot ceilings and then. -- in them. we are poor people. you all have been getting increases in your money. we have not had the increase in our money in three years. ok? not only that, but this conglomerate that should be taking care of our building, we pay for our light bulbs now, we have had -- host: i think i get your poin