that's something the simpson-bowles commission did in a most dramatic way, by the way. and i think if we pursue some of those things like energy reform, immigration reform. why shouldn't we go around the world and say to the best and brightest people in this world "if you want to come to the united states, we'd like to have you come to the united states." they're all job creators. talk to bill gates, he says every time he brings northbound in n here from india or china who's a scientist he adds four, five, ten jobs around that person. so we have an immigration policy which forces those people to go home after they've gone to our universities and doesn't allow them into the country. there's a lot of things we can do to reenergize our economy, make us more competitive. but the congressman is basically right on the fact that china has been playing unfairly in the market economies of the world. >> rose: so why did you leave the senate? >> (laughs) well, i've been in this business for 32 years, run for nine major jobs and my wife and i sat down and said "time to move on and

we are working on basically taking the president's commission, the simpson-bowles commission. we will introduce that as legislation and is put up or shut up time. there are democrats and republicans alike to say that the single largest long-term threat to our national economy is not simply the short-term town as we face right now or the financial crisis, but getting our nation's balance sheet in order. that will take both sides with dramatic cutbacks on spending. it will take meaningful tax reform. and a tax reform similar to what simpson-bowles did. by lowering their rates, it broadens the base. in some cases, it creates the revenue stream need. it does not take a rocket scientist to say that spending 24% of gdp and only 18% revenue is not sustainable. >> not to get too deep, but is it linked to the debt increase? >> time will prove that out. i trust you like a brother, but i will not share all of the strategy right here. [laughter] i think we will see broad bipartisan interest in not letting deficit-reduction -- at the end of the day, it is easy for politicians to give tax b

and saxby chambliss and i are working on, basically, taking the simpson-bowles commission which, by the way, got 11 out of 18 votes, even in the senate that was north of 60%. it is not perfect, but we're going to introduce that as legislation, and be it's put up or shut up time. and i think we will have a broad base of center of democrats and republicans alike who say that the single largest threat, long-term threat to our national economy is not simply the short-term challenges we face right now or the financial crisis, but getting our nation's balance sheet in order. and can that is going to take both sides. that is going to take dramatic cutback on spending, it is going to take meaningful tax reform and a tax reform similar to what simpson-bowles did that while lowering the rates broadens the base and in certain cases ends up creating the revenue stream we need. it doesn't take a rocket science to figure out that spending 24% of your gdp and revenues at 8% is not sustainable and will not self-correct even with a slightly better economy. so i think deficit reduction, you'll hear a lot

and a tax reform similar to what simpson-bowles did. by lowering their rates, it broadens the base. in some cases, it creates the revenue stream need. it does not take a rocket scientist to say that spending 24% of gdp and only 18% growth is sustainable. -- 18% revenue is not sustainable. >> not to get too deep, but is it linked to the debt increase? >> time will prove that out. i trust you like a brother, but i will not share all of the strategy right here. [laughter] i think we will see broad bipartisan interest in not letting deficit-reduction -- at the end of the day, it is easy for politicians to give tax breaks. it is hard to make the hard choices, but we have to make them to put our nation back on track. states are arguing it. i had that opportunity when i was the governor of virginia. >> would you tell us what the business community wants when it comes to deficit reduction? >> first of all, it is the number one issue. it is not way out there in the future. it is present. i think the last election cycle demonstrated very clearly that there is a lot people in this country -- t

do you think he will embrace simpson bowls? what do you anticipate? .. >> well, again, as you know that is one of the most closely held secrets in washington exactly what is president is going to say, even those of us from the house who have had the pleasure of working with the president are not privy to those details, but here is what i hope, al. i do hope he will lay out a pretty clear and bold vision about where we need to go to get the economy back in full gear, get americans back to work, and put our country on a fiscal i will sustainable footing going forward so i hope that he will use the boll simpson commission, the president, his own debt and deficit reduction commission, as an example of how we can put a lot of ideas on the table that need to be considered in an open and fair manner, that we should come to the table, open-minded about a lot of these ideas and not immediately say, well, that is a sacred you so we are, sacred cow so we are not going to touch it, that said i sure hope he will remain true to the principles he first ran on two ye

going to take dramatic cutback on spending, meaningful tax reform, and tax reform similar to simpson-bowles while lowering the rates broadens the rate and in certain cases ends up creates the revenue stream. it doesn't take a rocket scientist that spend 24% of the gpd and revenue at 18% is not sustainable and not will self-correct. you'll hear a lot more of that. you got to be careful with the world economy. >> not to get too deep in the mechanics. linged to the debt consumeing? or are they separate term laws? >> well, i ruled that out. i trust you like a brother. but i'm not going to share all of the strategy right here. i think you are going to see -- >> nobody is saying that. >> i know. i think you are going to see broad bipartisan interest. in not letting deficit reduction. at the end of the day, it's harder to make hard choices that we have to make to put our nation back on the stable balance. i had the opportunity, i think the country is ready to step up. the politicians need to step up. >> would you tell us what the community wants with regard to deficit reduction? >> first of all, i

the plan set forth by the simpson-bowles commission, supported by a jore of the commission's 18 members, makes it clear that addressing the debt and deficit isn't just a simple exercise in rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. it is all well and good to eliminate earmarks, fraud, waste, and abuse and rein in discretionary spending, but these things alone do not come close to solving the debt and the deficit. the infamous bank robber willie sutton reported he robbed banks, quote, because that's where the money was. in our government, the money is in entitlements, medicare, medicaid, and social security. let me say it again. if we do not deal with medicare, medicaid, and social security, we cannot solve this problem. we need to do it in a way that really fixes the problem for us and for the next generation. we need to do it in a way that strengthens america, creating economic growth and jobs. this will be difficult and at times controversial but the longer we wait, we can be certain it will become more difficult and more controversial. the commission's forth right assessment about what is

the bowles-simpson commission. one of the things that will be interesting to watch on tuesday is to what extent the president embraces the formula, the strategy that that deficit commission laid out for him, which is don't just call for reducing the deficit. added to the tax reform, lowering the individual income rate and broadening the base. if you put those together, you have a chance to find common ground. i think he will talk a lot about deficit reduction, but i don't know how specifically he will embrace recommendations. >> chris: i want to pick up on this. from both senators the word from the white house is he will call for budget deficit reductions and he's going to call for targeted new spending and has contemptuously senator mcconnell put it, investment in things like infrastructure and research and education. can the president sell a mix of both cuts and spending increases? >> he might be able to sell it for a few days or a few weeks. but reality is going to catch up. that is the key thing to remember. th

. >> the bowles-simpson recommendations -- alice was involved -- suggested there was $100 billion inpossible defense cuts. the big ticket items that they identified, the biggest of all was to reduce procurement by 15%. that would produce a $20 billion annual savings. i do not know whether you have looked at that and what that would mean as opposed to the kinds of more surgical strikes at the chairman you are talking about reduce overseas bases by 1/3, $8.50 billion. bob, you might also address the question of whether we really need all of those force deployments in europe. i could see the argument for korea and japan given exactly what he said, but can we save significant money by drawing driving europe wihtouthout up risk to hide? then there was $9.2 billion in freezing combat military pay at 2011 levels for three years, non-combat military paper. y. let's look at those three specific issues -- reducing overseas bases, cutting procurements in a more draconian way, and freezing noncombat military pay. alice, would you like to elaborate? >> those were illustrations. both the bowles-si

that is part of what simpson bowles did in lowering the rate. in certain cases, it creates the revolution we need. that does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that 24% of gdp and revenue at 18% is not acceptable. i think you'll hear a lot more about it. it will not disappear. you do not want to play russian roulette with the world's economy. time will prove that out. i trust you like a brother, but i am not going to share all the strategy. [laughter] >> i think you'll see broad bipartisan interest in not letting deficit reduction goal weight. it is harder to make the hard choices we have to make to put our nation on a state of balance. states are doing that. i had the opportunity to do that as governor of virginia. >> will you tell us what the business community wants when it comes to deficit reduction? >> it is the number-one issue. it is not way out there in the future, it is present. i think the last election cycle demonstrated very clearly that there are a lot of people in this country, perhaps a significant majority, that things we

are four senators, two staunch liberal, well, one launch liberal and conrad who voted for the bowles-simpsoneficit reduction cut, including social security. there is a bipartisan consensus, believe it or not, among a lot of players on how to reduce the cost of social security, including raising retirement age, limiting cost of living increases. means testing. so this is not like they are so far off the map. yes, they are the president and speaker boehner look like they are miles away, but kent conrad said repeatedly i'm not going to raise the debt limit unless we agree to serious budget cuts. he is a democrat and retiring which will give him flexibility to make hard choices. i don't think things are as dire as they seem. there is potential for agreement on this. >> chris: which raises the question, brit -- i know this is something we have been talking about for more than a year now, it's one thing to vote for commission report and different for a guy not seeking re-election. one republican already retired, judd gray. he's not in town anymore. do you see the political will for the democrats a

some of the harshest critics to the bowles-simpson commission were democrats -- nancy pelosi and others. does part of having that conversation include president obama getting his own party to be prepared to have a serious conversation? >> jake, i don't -- i think that the president would likely tell you that one group in a party or one party alone is not going to come to a series of decisions that allow us to solve this problem. we didn't get into this overnight. we didn't get into this because of one set of ideas. and it's going to take working together to get out of it. >> but the bowles-simpson commission very specifically, in terms of social security reform, talked about increasing benefits for poorer seniors, and then means testing benefits for older seniors. that became, in the mouths of capitol hill democrats, this commission wants to cut social security. i didn't hear a word from the president in terms of their unfair characterization of the recommendations. >> i'm not going to get into the specifics of what is or what isn't in the speech. yes, sir. >> can i ask about the specif

i think bowles-simpson got right.roblem that has to be faced honestly on a bipartisan basis. the first day of the new house of republican leadership across the gym and did not demonstrate the kind of honesty and kind of bipartisanship that we need to solve these problems. >> let me thank senator schumer and senator durbin for their leadership. again emphasize again, here they go again. some might call it voodoo economics. and it demonstrates whose side the house republicans are on and what their values and priorities are. they are willing to add over a trillion dollars to the national debt in order to protect the tax rights of millionaires and billionaires. while at the same time, adding costs to seniors that want to stay in the home, had a bright future, and security, and just want help with their medical costs. so they're willing to double this year the cost of granting drugs to seniors have high medical costs, but at the same time they're willing to add over a trillion dollars to the national deficit to protect mil

i honestly think that bowles-simpson got it right. we have a problem that has to be faced honestly on a bipartisan basis. the first day of the new house republican leadership across the rotunda did not demonstrate the honesty and kind of bipartisan that we need to solve these problems. >> let me thank senator schumer and senator durbin for their leadership and emphasize again. here they go again. some might call this voodoo economics. and it demonstrates who's side the house republicans are on and what their values and priorities are. they are willing to add over $1 trillion to the national debt in order to protect the tax breaks of millionaires and billionaires. while at same time, adding cost to seniors that want to stay in their homes, have a bright future, and security and just want help with their medicine costs. so they are willing to double this year the cost of brand name drugs for senior, but at same time, they are willing to add other $1 trillion to the national deficit to protect millionaires and billionaires. they are will

it was erskine bowles and alan simpson cochairing an effort with 18 members. at the end of the day 11 of us signed on to the final report. i always put the caveat and i think most would -- i don't agree with all of it, but i think it is the closest we were going todom facing a terrible -- going to come to facing a terrible crisis in america. out of every dollar we spend in america we borrow 40 cents. that's unsustainable. we have to borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend. where do we borrow the money? one of our major creditors was in town last week. president hu jintao of china. which takes me to the president's state of the union address last night. the republicans are fixed in one particular area. they believe that the sum and substance of all that we do in washington should be focused on the deficit. eupblgt deficit is kreut -- critically important. i think we have to do things unpopular and do them in a sensible and timely way. but it isn't the whole story. what the president tried to remind us of last night is that we also have a great american econom

i honestly think bowles and simpson were right. the first day of the new house republican leadership did not demonstrate the kind of honesty and kind of bipartisanship we need to solve these problems. >> let me thank senators schumer and center durbin for their leadership and emphasize again, here they go again. it is voodoo economics, and it demonstrates which side they are on and what their values and priorities are. they are willing to add over $1 trillion to the national debt in order to protect the tax breaks of millionaires and billionaires. at the same time, they are adding costs to seniors who may stay in their home and just what help with their medical costs. they are willing to double this year the cost of brand-name drugs to seniors. at the same time, they are willing to add over $1 trillion to the national deficit to protect me in tears and billionaires. they are willing to add to the cost for families who just want to talk to the doctor when the kids get sick in said it -- instead of talking to the insurance companies.

yet, a proposal to raise it a year or two more by the simpson-bulls commission -- since and-bowles commissionsed controversy. it couldn't -- host: jane on the line for over 65. caller: you look at china, the one baby roll and now you have all these men who cannot find brides. you look at america, we have the abortion laws and now we are running out of young children and we are getting older. you look at the epa and the rules and regulations driving industry out of the country. something you mentioned, you have a program about the price of food, the cost of food. nobody mentioning the fact that about half the people around where i live get the food stamp cards, and they did not even look at the price of food because if it is free you do not care. it has driven up -- and one local store the price of food has gone up dramatically -- in one local store. guest: i am glad that somebody raised china. because if we begin to feel overwhelmed by the magnitude of the challenge we have in the united states, we should consider the challenge in china. china by 2013, an incredible fought for anybody my age

the bowles-simpson commission was tried to get to a depth of -- trying to get to a deficit of 2.2% of gdp. prune e saying, not do not anything now. wait until 2011. everybody is trying not to constrain demand further. that is the challenge now. i love jim's point about [unintelligible] i think it is irresponsible to enter this conversation saying, do not pay any attention to it. i think we are paying attention to it. even the most progressive leaning epi are looking to bring deficits to 3.7% in 2020. i would like to say we are on the move to bring things back. nobody is saying anything in 2011. the most aggressive are saying we make progress by 2015. even if he left it a long, the congressional budget office says it will be [unintelligible] by 2013. what are we doing now to set it on the right path? i think you heard a powerful argument to deal with foreclosures. what i would also add is that, if there is a call for tax reform, do the tax policies that build household wealth and put something back into the economy. those will be the things that will be the tradeoff and will contribute

. >> the bowles-simpson commission in the final recorded, recommended repealing the class act. that's a telling recommendation coming so quickly after the bill became law. yes, sir? >> one the debates that congress has had over the last few years has involved earmarks. one the arguments that lobbyist come up and get special treatment for somebody for an earmark. now we have hundreds of waivers being sought through the department of health and human services. this is another prescription for political favoritism in the granting of waivers, much like we've seen in the corrupt practice with earmarks? >> i find this incredibly troubling. the 220 odd waivers we've seen already, first of all are prime fascia evidence of the unworkability of the law. it can't be implemented as written. more troubling, you cannot figure out the grounds by which these waivers are being decided. they can effect the competitive balance within industries, waivers these insurance requirements for some employers and not others. there appears to be no particular transparent process by which large groups could

boot every night, i see gisele in her birthday suit ♪ ♪ like homer simpson got a face full of stubble so i look good doing the pro bowl day ♪ ♪ had to go to jail 'cause my homeboy snitched then learned a new meaning for the word -- [ whistle ]♪ ♪ i can run it or throw it to score a goal i just wish they'd let me play in the puppy bowl ♪ ♪ stop barking bad about me all you'll get is the muzzle 'cause i just wanna do the pro bowl shuffle ♪ ♪ ♪ uh huh, uh huh uh huh, uh huh, uh huh ♪ ♪ well, they call me troy polamalu and spelling my name is hard to do ♪ ♪ if you really wanna be just like me well, use more shampoo than a sorority ♪ ♪ i'll hit you so hard i'll rock your world my helmet's like a big-ass jheri curl ♪ ♪ i do the pro bowl shuffle with a flick then i whip my hair like willow smith ♪ ♪ eli manning in the house the same place i'll be watching the super bowl this year ♪ ♪ you know my brother peyton, i'm sure you do i've been living in his shadow since i was two ♪ ♪ playing for the giants is pretty neat i love them even more than rex ryan loves feet ♪ ♪ i won the super bowl a few years ago now the pro bowl shuffle

along the lines of what erskine bowles and senator alan simpson just came up with.other than that, i don't know what the white house has on its agenda. they seem to have gotten a lot of it. what they didn't get in the last two years they got in the lame-duck, and there were policy options in the white house who were busy churning out other things. tax reform could be one of them. a freestanding tax reform bill, but on the other hand, the democratic congress was receptive to the president's agenda. i mean especially the house of representatives has the ability to sort of move. one thing you could maybe fault the administration for was moving on climate change or energy legislation, but nancy pelosi sure got that through the house to the consternation of some people who aren't going to be a member of the next congress. does that come back in some form but then you have to sort of say, what is the republican agenda in the house? the gavel is going to pass from, i mean it is very symbolically passed from nancy pelosi to john boehner. it was the other way around four yea