>> eliot, what we're basically saying, what bowles-simpson says is let's take the reagan approach in bipartisan support and said lower rates and get rid of exemptions and it generated more revenue. so i think that if they're following in the footsteps of ronald reagan, i think they'll be hard to oppose it. >> you're talking over a trillion dollars in increases coupled with lower rates. >> we're talking about a trillion dollars of revenue generated by lowering rates but also cutting back on exemptions. >> the exemptions, loopholes. so the hard part here is the details. which of the loopholes can you tell us you believe we should close to generate that additional revenue? >> i think you've seen an outline from the bowles-simpson report on areas where a lot of the money is. around mortgage deductions, charitable deductions, health care exclusions. we're not suggesting they'll be completely eliminated, we're saying you've got to cut them back. in doing so, you've got to start paying for some of those costs which right now are absorbed. >> you've put on the table just now some things that

you can look at the simpson-bowles debt commission and see where some democrats and rrps came to an agreement. and you can even look at the gang of six, now the gang of five centers, where they had some agreement. so you put any group of democrats-republicans together who are working in good faith, they ought to be able to figure out how to stop spending money that we don't have. >> democrats have been resistant to changing social security, resistant to medicare changes. the republicans have always been ruling out tax increases. is it realistic to think that democrats would come to the table on entitlement changes if republicans aren't willing to deal? >> i think it is realistic. let's take medicare. medicare is the biggest part of the federal budget. it is the biggest part of the problem of the -- of the spending problem we have. president obama has said that, president clinton had said that, vice president biden has said that. nancy pelosi said it has to be on the table. to democrats and republicans say that. the demin chi said that, and there's no responsible way to deal with the debt unle

fact these are the people most effected by some of the options that have been considered by the simpson bowles group and the people negotiating with vice president biden. chris: getting rid of medicare. >> and the home housing deduction. the fact is that housing has always led recoveries and construction and housing are just underwater as long as you have this huge inventory foreclosure is still a problem. you don't have any kind a spark to this recovery. rana is exactly right. the underlying factors are it's not just japan and the earthquake, tsunami and all of these under unintended events, the weather and the floods. it's a big issue. chris: every recovery we have been through, every recession has been led by housing. >> we had a huge oversupply of housing and we're working that down. one caution, i think rana's cover story is superb, but economies never turn around until suddenly the moment that everybody was expected no action and then, bam, here it comes. chris: when is the bam? >> we don't know. that's the point about economics. at some point given the factors that we're seeing, you do

is essentially we going to end up finally coming together at a point which is the result of a simpson bowles commission set of data plus what's missing in simpson boes which is an medicare appendix. that plus going back to the clinton taxut, to solve the problem. i'm reasonably well certain at some point because everybody kno what ben bernanke was sayin the other day, namely that the effects not so much of the interest rate issue or the continuing the debt servicing of the united states, but having huge obligations which contractual by nature, which we are effectively defaulting on. and that is not good for the united states. nobody wants to do that. and the question is what do they do when they finally decide well we're not going to do it and i'm saying as i read it, both sides are as far apart as you can get. >> rose: my impression is that they had not extended the bush tax cuts for those over $250,000 it would have-- the tax rate effective tax rate would have simply been what it was at president clinton era levels. >> that's correct. >> rose: okay so you think generally the country has be

it's from simpson-bowles. it says the problem is real, there's no easy way out. everything must be on the table, washington must lead. congressman ryan, why don't you lead us? yeah, this one is lousy. >> the one with the red tape isn't working. you want me to do that? >> yeah, i'll take this one. >> yeah, here, take this one. >> hello, everybody. i think i know everybody around the room. nice to be back with you, maya, thanks for doing this. you are doing a great service. i'll give you what a couple of minutes? >> we're going to do three-five minute opening statements. >> opening statements, we took over the majority this session. we took over the majority on the cusp of a debt crisis. we all know around here the size of the problem, the scope of the problem, the magnitude of the problem. we believe we had a moral obligation to put a solution on the table. that's precisely what we did in the house of representatives. to govern is to put an idea on the table and move towards solutions. that's what we did. i'll note that last year, congress didn't bother trying to

that's what the simpson-bowles commission came to the conclusion of. and i think that's the sound and right approach. but it takes a lot of effort to help the public understand the trade-offs and why sacrifice is necessary and both parties have to join together on that. >> mark, you have this uncertainty out there which also doesn't help, doesn't help small business. and don't the politicians sort of think about that and say, okay, uncertainty, bad for business, we need to tell business where we're headed? >> i think they're getting that message. i think businesspeople are telling them. and i entirely agree with it. i think the most significant restraint -- constraint on the job market, why we're not creating as many jobs as we need is because of that uncertainty. and it revolves around the debt ceiling. businessmen and executives can't get a narrative in their mind with respect to how we're going to address this issue. until they do, they're not going to fire workers but they're not going to hire them. so we need to resolve this. i think if we do reso

i served on the simpson-bowles commission that said exactly that, and the dimin chi-rivlin group saide thing. >> do you agree you can both cut spending and increase spending? >> she is from the lester wing of the economics profession. the trouble is on capitol hill you are seeing this dichotomy. you're not hearing the democrats say, yeah, we agree, we're going to change entitlements. we agree we're going to get tax reform done. they're saying no to both of those things. we need to do them both, they're saying no, and instead they're trying to get their political constituencies to come up with more spending. that's a mistake. >> would you both agree you cannot get spending under control unless you tackle the structural integrity at this moment of things like medicare, that you -- >> yes. oh, absolutely. >> you have to cut benefits. you can't just say -- >> no, no -- >> you have fraud and abuse. >> absolutely we need to restructure medicare and medicaid so they aren't growing as fast in the future. there are different ways of doing that. but to get back to your question can we do two th

>> i think the president waited too long to react to the simpson bowles commission report. he designated the vice president, which is the second ranking officer under the constitution in the united states, which is plenty high level enough. there is no question the president and vice president talk frequently. now it's the president, senate leaders, the house leaders. it's shocking to me the house is out for a ten-daybreak when after we come back from july 4th, nobody should take any breaks until we have a deal. >> maybe the politicians will listen to that. we'll keep in touch over the course of the next high-stakes month. up next here, a massive wildfire in new mexico threatens an important government facility. e seafood feast for $15. start with soup then have salad and biscuits followed by 1 of 7 delicious entrees and finish with something sweet all for just $15. right now at red lobster. so i wasn't playing much of a role in my own life, but with advair, i'm breathing better so now i can take the lead on a science adventure. advair is clinically proven to help significa

that gives you an example -- bowls-simpson for example.hat gives you an example that this can be done. everything has to be out there and you need the tax expenditure is to do the tax reform. pulling one thing out is dangerous, and you always have to remember that. >> the other thing is you need a credible enforcement rules. i think the lesson of the budget enforcement act of 1990 was exactly that. the president did agree to some tax increases. he came to regret it, but within the context of spending cuts and strong enforcement rules, and the enforced rules worked and ultimately brought us, along with a good economy, to a surplus. you have to do that again. >> an important point of that is, i think there rules worked so well because they weren't forcing a major agreement that was already on the table -- were enforcing a major agreement that was r.d. on the table. -- were already on the table. that will be a lot harder to pull off now. >> we had two components to the rules. one was pay as you go for entitlement programs. that said, we have

that gives you an example -- bowls-simpson for example. that gives you an example that this can be done. everything has to be out there and you need the tax expenditure is to do the tax reform. pulling one thing out is dangerous, and you always have to remember that. >> the other thing is you need a credible enforcement rules. i think the lesson of the budget enforcement act of 1990 was exactly that. the president did agree to some tax increases. he came to regret it, but within the context of spending cuts and strong enforcement rules, and the enforced rules worked and ultimately brought us, along with a good economy, to a surplus. you have to do that again. >> an important point of that is, i think there rules worked so well because they weren't forcing a major agreement that was already on the table -- were enforcing a major agreement that was r.d. on the table. -- were already on the table. that will be a lot harder to pull off now. >> we had two components to the rules. one was pay as you go for entitlement programs. that said, we hav

i think at the same time they put down a long term plan to address simpson bowls kind of way, fundamental fiscal issues. at the same time weeed to raise revenue because we have to invest to renew, refresh and inscrig rate the sources of our strength, whether it's infrastructure, education or government-funded research. we have to do four things at once. what does that mean. it means we need a hybrid politics. because those four things don correspond to agenda of our two parties. how do we basically develop a political platform and a mandate for those four things. >> i would add a couple things to what tom said which i basically agree with. but first there's a cultural element here. it's not just a problem in washington, it's a problem in the culture, a nation where people have distrust of authority, don't trust government, unwilling to accept sacrifice, feel very threatened, want more government than they are willing to i pay for so there has to be a gigantic education campaign to go under that. and then the second thing i uld add, and tom talks about a hybrid politics. i would say we've

it's from simpson-bowles. it says the problem is real, there's no easy way out. everything must be on the table, washington must lead. congressman ryan, why don't you lead us? yeah, this one is lousy. >> the one with the red tape isn't working. you want me to do that? >> yeah, i'll take this one. >> yeah, here, take this one. >> hello, everybody. i think i know everybody around the room. nice to be back with you, maya, thanks for doing this. you are doing a great service. i'll give you what a couple of minutes? >> we're going to do three-five minute opening statements. >> opening statements, we took over the majority this session. we took over the majority on the cusp of a debt crisis. we all know around here the size of the problem, the scope of the problem, the magnitude of the problem. we believe we had a moral obligation to put a solution on the table. that's precisely what we did in the house of representatives. to govern is to put an idea on the table and move towards solutions. that's what we did. i'll note that last year, congress didn't bother trying to

that gives you an example -- bowls-simpson for example.hat gives you an example that this can be done. everything has to be out there and you need the tax expenditure is to do the tax reform. pulling one thing out is dangerous, and you always have to remember that. >> the other thing is you need a credible enforcement rules. i think the lesson of the budget enforcement act of 1990 was exactly that. the president did agree to some tax increases. he came to regret it, but within the context of spending cuts and strong enforcement rules, and the enforced rules worked and ultimately brought us, along with a good economy, to a surplus. you have to do that again. >> an important point of that is, i think there rules worked so well because they weren't forcing a major agreement that was already on the table -- were enforcing a major agreement that was r.d. on the table. -- were already on the table. that will be a lot harder to pull off now. >> we had two components to the rules. one was pay as you go for entitlement programs. that said, we have

i was on the deficit commission, the bowles-simpson commission. we looked at it long and hard and realized that it is unsustainable for america to borrow 40 cents for every dollar it spends this work -- in washington. we can't continue to do this. the debt of our nation is growing dramatically, and we have to bring it to a stop. that means cutting spending and raising revenue. those are the only two ways to reduce the deficit, and we have to do both. that's what the bowles-simpson commission said and i voted for it. a bipartisan vote for a commission to move forward on the deficit. but they said something else. don't do it too precipitously. be careful to not kill off the recovery we're engaged n the bowls-simpson commission said wait a year, make your plan, make your commitment but say for this year we're going to get america back to work. the commission knew and we all know, you can't balance america's budget with 14 million people out of work. these are folks who should be earning a paycheck and paying taxes who instead are home looking for wor

>> let me say that where i would start is with bowles-simpson. >> schieffer: what? >> the bowels-simpson. >> schieffer: the deficit commission that the president appointed. >> the reason i say we ought to start with that is because we had a process. i wanted to see a statutory commission appointed that would have had real teeth. unfortunately, we couldn't get the votes in the senate. largely, republicans wouldn't get us give us the votes to get the bill on the floor. the president put in place a commission. that commission was bipartisan. paul served on that commission. they did some very substantive work. not only did they do substantive work, but you saw three republican members of congress and three democratic members of congress support it. along with boules, a democrat, and simpson a republican. you saw five out of the six members of the president's appointees support it, which means that it got 11 votes. very frankly, had paul and mr. camp and mr. hencealing supported it, it would have had 14 out of 18... let me continue. which would have meant then, both sena

i was on the president's deficit commission, the bowles-simpson commission. i sat there for almost ten months and i listened to everything. i tried to learn as best i could what we're facing. at the end of the day, i voted for the commission report. 11 out of 18 of us did, a bipartisan vote. and it was tough and it wasn't easy and there were parts of it that i hated as a democrat, and yet i knew that if we were going to solve this problem, there was no other way to do it. we had to say on the republican side of the aisle you have to step up with us and find ways to bring revenue to our government. mr. president, today we are bringing in 14% of our gross domestic product in federal revenue, federal tax receipts. gross domestic product is the sum total of our economy, all the production of goods and services. 14% of it comes in in federal revenue, 24% goes out in federal payments. spending. that 10% difference equals the annual deficit. just ten years ago, we were in balance. when president william jefferson clinton left office, the federal budget was balanced,

you have this deficit commission of senator simpson and earn steen bowles. you look into details.this is not partisan. this is raw economics in numbers. we're entering the danger zone. he will have to manage that. if that goes off the rails where, you know the republican -- chris: management again? >> it's management. look, it's survival politics. as talls is. >> i will tell what you else he will do, he will do this because it's good politics and he actually believes it's true. he's going to compaign as the last bulwark, the only bulwark in extremist in the republican party. the only way to protect my accomplishments in the first four years, the only way to protect it is keep the white house out of the hands of these people and will he have things to point out over the next two years. he will point at those things. that will be the politics -- chris: you talk about, if the republicans are red dogging the football, go right after the quarterback. him being the bad guy. get rid of him. can he then come out and say, i can inspire this country even if i'm under attack? >> he's got a n

i don't know where the money is going to come from if you take the recommendations of the simpson bowlesficit reduction, i think that would be great to have some action on that. i feel like politicians today, they really would rather not make the decision because then they can't make a mistake and they want to blame somebody else for their problems. i need to see what i would like to see is congress and the president coming together and i would like to see the republicans try to work together. there's too much -- it's too contentious. we're just kicking the can down the road right now. >> and i think what we all want to see, an economy start to grow again. certainly helps when you have a stronger economy as a tail wind at your back which we don't have. maybe you do a little bit, maria, in your business, but not in a lot of others. thanks so much. maria from southern energy management, sam bratton, wake stone corporation, it's 26 minutes past the hour. back after this. we search, browse, and shop from anywhere. we live in a social world. isn't time we had a social currency to match? membe

somethingather see along the lines of what simpson-bowles put out there. it was a relatively balanced proposal for dealing with spending, taxes, medicare, and social security. it would cause the world to say the u.s. can get it back together. this is congress. it's more likely we will see a shorter term deal. what ever we see, we need to vote to raise the debt ceiling. host: for you, medicare is on the table. your colleagues have said it cannot be part of the deal. guest: there's no way to live in this universe and to say that we can ignore medicare for the next 10 years or 20 years. medicare and the unfunded liabilities, which is a big word that means all the promises we have made 2 of every american that's alive today, who is 80 years old or eight months old, if you run the numbers, medicare runs into a huge problems. by the way, it is nobody's fault. this is due to the fact that our country is aging. there's nobody that someone with a straight face can say that at some point we do not need to reform medicare. the question is how. do we do it the way pau

responsible way to phase out some of those deductions along the lines recommended, by the way, by that simpson/bowles commission and others. that is a bipartisan approach to dealing with that. >> madam leader and mr. van holland, could you tell us what the president's reaction was about mr. cantor and center kyl's family walking away from a toxin was there discussion about kicking the can as it were up to the presidential level in him becoming more involved in the talks? >> well, we actually -- i'm not going to go into details of what went on in her discussion with the president, but on this particular fact that we learned of this just as we were leaving the white house. so this did not actually break news within the room when we were there. >> what was discussed at the white house and can you reassess about having these two key players at the table you said it is to be done in a bipartisan fashion. i receive has had very intense discussions with the president. it's a change where we go forward. >> i don't think the principles we play that will change. i am confident the president shares the principl

host: what about the simpson bowl provisions?st: there are delivery system reforms we already incorporated in last year's tpwhail we're prepared to move forward with saying, you manage someone's illness, you're going to save money. you get people preventive care, it will save money. you use health information technology more effectively, it will save money. you take on the pharmaceutical manufacturers and negotiate a fairer price, it will save money. we will save money in the medicare system. host: richard, you're on the air with senator cardin. caller: thank you for taking my call. the whole issue was what we were going to do about jobs. jobs is what brings revenue into the coffers. now, your answer was, well, we need to educate our people. we need to -- we need to do better with our manufacturing. educate millions of people to do what, senator? we need plu collar manufacturing jobs. we need our corporations to bring these companies back to america and bring us -- and let these people who are not going to be educated, they're lu

i complement the bowles-simpson plan in that it did a good job of trying to insure that whether you agree with all the aspects or not, there was shared sacrifice and there was not a sense of putting a disproportionate amount on those who have low income. i believe that we as a country, people have to be willing to move off their dime and move off their hard and fast positions, us included. you have to do so to gather and has to be a sense of mutual compromise and mutual shared sacrifice. that was the main point that i was trying to bring. we will have differences. if they can be express' in civil way, that is all the better. i am not going to forego the ability to say where i am deeply concerned when things are going to hurt those who i think our less fortunate nor do i mean to impugn the motives or the intent of anybody who might be on a different position. for example, going back to my initial point, i think there are things that were in the house republican budget that were there because they had no choice because they had decided there were no revenues. there were forced again by the

we can't see what they're doingment and i thought-- the bowles simpson gang of six made that point very well it seemed to have got traction for a little while and got forgotten about by the republicans. >> you have to look at what makes economic sense and is feasible. you see dramatic reduction, elimination and better targeting of tax preferences to broaden the tax base, lowering rates. also thinking about eliminating the difference between the capital gains and ode income depending how low you can get the rates but we've got two problems. we've got 51% of americans who don't pay income tax. they pay payroll tax but they don't pay payroll taxes. >> federal income taxes. >> correct. and the median effective income tax rate for the top 1% of americans is 18.8%, okay. so we've got a problem. >> but look. >> way up at the top, it is very low. 400 richest people are paying 18%. >> but i mean let me jt say, first of all we're talking about eliminating the two big deductions. the mortgage interest deduction and the employer based health-car deduction, right? that's ttalk about that as if it wa

none of the fundamental loophole closures suggested by bowles-simpson or even by the white house.ied over where they are. >> the bottom line is that republicans feel that they have serious leverage here. in some ways, they're not wrong. they feel that they -- that the president -- both sides would get the blame, obviously, if, god forbid, this ceiling -- we got to august 2nd and nothing happened. but republicans feel in terms of the narrative, the political dynamic and political atmosphere right now there is much more of an appetite to cut spending. and that's why they are pushing this. and that's why they've been setting up this narrative. it's not just today that we heard from mitch mcconnell, but also really for weeks saying over and over again they perceive anything that is cutting subsidy, cutting a loophole as a tax increase because they know that politically, as you well know, that sends the fear of god into certainly republicans and many democrats up for re-election. >> isn't there another reality? nancy pelosi got it right when she said john boehner, the speaker of the ho

but the one interesting thing that my friend failed to mention, as he talked about the bowles-simpson debt reduction program, is they said, among other things, of course we have to make significant cuts in domestic discretionary spending, in defense, in mandatory programs. they looked at some of the work we need to do with entitlements. but they also said there had to be something done with revenue. my friend ignores what they said about that. and the other thing that they said -- that is, bowles-simpson, together with the people who are on that commission, a number of appointments i made to that commission -- they said, yes, we need to do some cutting, but these next few years we have to spend some money to create jobs. and we lair no a hear not a wory republican colleagues about creating jobs. the house of representatives, all they do is flex their muscles on things they want to eliminate. but the one thing they don't talk about is creating jobs, not a word. now, mr. president, this week my republican colleagues killed their fourth jobs bill this ye year. the proven economic develop

ia can't we start, as the bowls simpson commission proposed, eliminating many of the subsidies and loopholesnd special deals in our tax code that total something over $1 trillion? that's a great place to start. if you follow that with tax reform, lower rates for corporations and businesses, that's an even bigger step that we could taifnlgt i think there's broader agreement in the chamber, at least certain any our conversations, with people across the country who represent their states. those are some commonsense steps forward. mr. bennet: we will, i completely agree. and why we wouldn't want to look at our tax code and regulatory code. i hear about that from the other side. i share their view. listen, i was a school sciewpt for almost four years. if you think i don't understand what it's like to be on the receiving end of well-intentioned legislation from washington, d.c., that by the time it get to a school or classroom makes no cent all, believe me, i lived it every single day. why wouldn't we look at our tax code and regulatory code and ask ourselves, are these things more or less likely

, former chief of staff to president clinton, erskine bowles and senator simpson told us that the budget committee that we are facing the most predictable debt crisis in this nation's history. the most predictable economic crisis in our nation's history. in other words, they explain that the debt trajectory that we are on guarantees an economic crisis. the question is when? so that's why we have got to change. we don't want to have to cut any spending. the last thing politicians want to do is cut spending. the reason we're talking about this is because we have to, and i do believe president obama deserves severe criticism for not being out leading on this, not telling the american people what his own experts are telling him. this was his expert, mr. bowles, his secretary of treasury mr. geithner, telling us we have got to change the debt path we are on. he needs to help explain to the american people why this is necessary, why it will be painful in the short run but can put us on the road to prosperity and not on the road to decline. other studies, including the 2010 study of

incidentally, that proposal was part of the bowles-simpson report, and it's a good one. third, continuing's time -- i think it's time to reform the premium structure. when the medicare was implemented, the premiums paid by the beneficiaries supported 50% of the cost of the program. in fact, when president johnson signed the medicare law into law, he noted that this equal contribution -- 50% from government, 50% from the insured -- was a critical part of the program. and he said -- and i quote -- "and under a separate plan, when you are 65, you may be covered for medical and surgical fees whether you are in or out of the hospital. you will pay $3 per month after you are 65, and the government will contribute an equal amount." end quote. 50 hr-rbs 50. un -- 50-50. unfortunately today, as a result of acts of congress of various kinds, well intentioned medicare enrollee premiums support only 25% of the cost of the program, half of what they were intended to when president johnson signed this extraordinarily progressive and beneficial law into effect. we make up the differenc

fiscal commission that reported back in december entitled moment of truth, otherwise known as the bowles-simpson commission, a bipartisan commission the president appointed himself, but he's ignored it. there is another one, the domenici-rivlin commission. another committee, another bipartisan commission that made recommendations. the president has ignored it. ignored it. well, the president yesterday said -- quote -- "call me naive, but my expectation that leaders are going to lead." that's what the president himself had the gall to say yesterday to the american people when he himself has displayed an astounding lack of leadership. like i said, we're ready to work with the president. i know senator mcconnell invited him to come over to congress and explain how this increase in taxes was somehow going to create more jobs in america, how we were going to solve the problems with medicare, which is going to run out of money in a little more than a decade, and i hope the president takes him up on that invitation. you know, it's not a partisan issue really. secretary of state hillary clinton says o

we cannot day response the discussion based on the bowles- simpson commission. if we respect the basic programs like medicare. >> the support raising the retirement age for benefits? where a meaningful savings to get? you said you don't want to break the promise but the reality is it is not sustainable in the future for the american people. >> saying to people wait two more years for medicare is not a good idea. think about how vulnerable people are at that age. maybe they are retired and at this point have no health insurance and medicare is their lifeline to basic health care protection. and i think the house republican budget went too far. college co-illinois senator dick durbin on a "meet the press." by the way, all of the sunday shows can be heard on c-span xm radio, and the baltimore washington area, 90.1 fm. we are talking about rising unemployment and the best -- deficit. how the bring down both? shaping up the 2012 presidential race. an issue the president will be dealing with as well. steve is joining us from new orleans. good morning. go ahead please.

erskine bowles and alan simpson, they testified and said we're facing the most predictable economic crisis in our nation's history. the most predictable. and when asked when it might happen, mr. bowles said, two years give or take. so we don't know what's going to happen. i think we've got to just grow up, realize that we have placed our nation in financial jeopar jeopardy, that this country has spent money in did not have to a degree greater than this nation has ever spent before except maybe in the height of world war ii when the entire nation was in a life-and-death struggle. we've never spent this kind of money. we've never had these kind of deficits. many remember the big fight over spending in the mid-1990's and resulted in the balancing of the budget in the late-1990's. that was a much simpler problem than we've got today. i've look ad ated at the number. to get this country to a balanced budget is going to take some very, very serious, sustained work. it is going to be much more significant than it was in the mid-1990's. and we simply cannot grow this comirks which is the key to ge

here are the two cochairs of the president's debt commission, erskine bowles and alan simpson in a recent op-ed in politico -- "a credible plan must address the growth of entitlement spending." here is the president himself. "to presoirve long-term fiscal health, we must address the growing health in medicare and social security." that's the president of the united states. as for me, i have been clear on this same point in public and private the moment i stepped out of a meeting with the president and other meet members on may 12. so it is not exactly a groundbreaking observation. they have to involve entitlement reform. since no one believes we can actually get at our fiscal problems without it. this is what serious people expect and are hoping for out of these talks. the moment rirks as i've said for weeks, three things. real cuts in spending over the short-term; that is, over the next two years, not more spending increases or freezes. second, real cuts over the medium-term, that is, over the next ten years, with enforceable caps on spending. and, third, meaningful reforms to entitlemen

bowles, former chief of staff to president clinton, and alan simpson in their fiscal commission report said that we are facing the most predictable crisis in our history and that it could cause an economic -- economic difficulties for us soon. mr. bowles said two years, give or take. not our grandchildren, but soon. this is why the experts are -- so we've got a problem. i don't believe we have in the white house any call to the kind of action necessary to alter the debt trajectory we are on, which is unsustainable. i don't think the american people fully understand, but they understand enough to punish the congress in this last election. i'm afraid they're going to punish us again because no congress can defend itself from the criticism that you have provided members of -- presided members of congress over a government that is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar you spend, that spends $3,700,000,000,000 and takes in only $2,200,000,000,000. and we just borrow the rest. and we're on a path that doesn't alter that. the president's budget, the most irresponsible ever submitted, made our de

>> guest: i think the simpson-bowles commission had it right. almost everything has to be dealt with here if we are going to put the country back on track for a long time. i think we should be quick to say social security is not causing today's deficits. just isn't. there's enough money coming in and enough interest on social security accounts to cover today's cost. but in the long term, social security and especially the exploding cost of medicare have to be dealt with. and then the rest of government we got to tighten our dealt. but it's also the case that you got to restore some of the revenue that was lost for the bush tax cuts and start paying for wars. you want to send soldiers aboard to risk their lives? how about asking the american people to pay their cost? >> host: is that your dream budget? we have a tweet. >> guest: i think you go through everything the federal government is doing. and try to determine which of these programs might have been wise yesterday but no longer are justifiable. there are some of those. we have to root out th

the bowles-simpson commission did that. it brought to the table all spending, domestic discretionary spending both on the defense and nondefense side, and i might add entitlement programs. now, that's an area where a lot of people get nervous because we're talking about social security, medicare and medicaid, to mention major elements of entitlement programs. the reason why many americans have concerns over this debate is that many of them are very couple. they know they have worked hard, and if they still have a job, they realize that even working hard they are falling behind. wages aren't keeping up with the cost of living. so even hard-working families look at their bank accounts and their future and say no matter how hard we work, it doesn't seem like we're able to keep up with the increased cost of living. and they realize their vulnerabilities, we all do, when it comes to health insurance. if you don't have good health insurance, you could be one diagnosis or one accident away from having all of your savings wiped out