simpson and bowles chaired it. they comprised.y produced a blueprint that makes members of congress wince. touching political third rails. this was shared sacrifice. nothing and no one was off limits. not entitlements, not the military, not the wealthy. as allen simpson told me yesterday, unless you punch a hole in every sacred cow, they'll just wander the fields forever. so the report garnered 11 of 18 votes of support, short of the 14 necessary to trigger congressional action. if simpson bowles couldn't get committee approval what makes us think boehner-reid will? here is my idea wp while congress stands around waiting for leaders to negotiate deals, most of which are dead on arrival, why doesn't someone ring the bell in washington and have the vote we never have. at least then the american people would know who was really ready to see the

we had simpson-bowles. all president obama had to do was come out and say let's just do all we can on the simpson and bowles and put it back out here. those people, both of them erskine and senator simpson, spent along with the rest of their colleagues an immense amount of time talking about the real pain and the real way to address it. and yet we passed it and we're going to pass something on to another commission. i do think and hope that we will take that out. i perceive it just as dangerous as putting up a balanced budget endment and telling me, mr. chairman, that we're going to have one day to look at something that we don't know what it is and we have been in this room many times. and you on that side and you were on the other side and we've talked about not having an opportunity to see everything. when we hit the wall, whatever that wall is, at some magical hour, a whole lot of stuff wl come over here, however it is that the agreement is being struck. and we won't know many of us that our rank and fil

what we have said is, a lot of the components of rolle simpson -- bowles-simpson, a lot of the recommendations we have taken. others, like on offense, we have taken some but not of the recommendations. -- some but not all of the recommendations. the bottom line is, this is not an issue of salesmanship to the american people. the american people are sold. [unintelligible] >> you have 80% of the american people who support a balanced approach. 80% of the american people support an approach that includes revenues and cut its. the notion that somehow the american people are not sold is not the problem. the problem is, members of congress are divided ideologically into various positions because they boxed themselves then with previous statements. this is not a matter of the american people knowing what the right thing to do is. this is a matter congress doing the right thing and reflecting the will of the american people. if we do that, we will have solved this problem. >> i wanted to ask about the two trains that seem to be rolling down the track down the hill. later mcconnell has laid out an elab

>> well, we do use the bowles-simpson template, if you will. so if you're familiar with the bowles-simpson template,hat is the basic foundatn from where we are building. but what we are doing is going into each issue-- from social security to the health care system, entitlements, all of the entitlements, to discretionary spending to defense spending and to the revenue issues- and we are finding... i guess what i would say is creative solutions that maintain the objective of achieving deficit reduction in each o those areas but still allow the competing ideologies to find success me the process. in other words, we are finding ways that help us bridge those gaps and develop win-win solutions. it's not easy. that's why it's taken so long. but we are making that progress. >> can i just add one thing all of us have really operad i think in enormously good faith. senator coburn took a sabbatical we're hopeful he may come back. there's lot ofenators that are very interested and it's really been challenging. but whate've done th the bowles-simpson appro

the simpson bowles debt commission, everyone was shooting for that target. everything since then, neither one of them fix it and with all due respect with senator boehner it gets us into an election year. if you think this has been a fiasco you ain't seen nothing yet if you put that kind of turmoil during that period of time. in all fairness, senator reid puts it to right up to the election. that is not fair either. it really hasn't fixed a big problem. if we are going to do it give something that gives aus guaranteed vote before the end of the year that we will vote on the big package to fix what we can. laid out and worked out with the simpson bowles, the debt, the gang of six. a group that basically makes sense. >> greta: are both speaker boehner and senator reid's bills creating more trouble later and not solving the problem and just an effort to sort of get something done and even like a band aid to get us to the next step. >> i'm brand new up here but i have always looked and my mind thinks if you have a problem you fix it because you will have another

they said no to simpson bowls, and they said no to the -- >> to be fair, there were parts of simpson also said no to. we get down to that. because our time with you is short i want to move on a little about that let's say you are more or less optimistic that we will get the debt ceiling done and move on to a different subject? >> i am neither. this is the first time in 19 years that i feel that something that can be done simply is being held hostage for a very high stakes game. >> you have a new bill you call the respect for marriage act, which would undo the defensive marriage act which defines marriage between a man and a woman and disallows same-sex couples from having federal benefits. >> that's right. >> and people will point out that 39 states have banned same-sex marriage. why is this the time to do this? >> six states plus the district of columbia now support same-sex marriage. marriage is also a creature of the state for legal reasons, all family matters are done by state law. what the defensive marriage act did was in 1993 or 1994, it was passed and it said you can have none

. >> greta: we had the bowles simpson committee. the american people think fine, but you didn't pay attention to the last one. >> this would have an up and down vote on recommendations and tackle this issue of entitlement reform. i think it is something we need to get done. it has to include that process or it going to be difficult to get republicans onboard. having said that, in april the president wanted a clean debt limit vote. he has come a long way. i think that's because republicans have driven him there to address the real problem which is the debt. >> greta: senator thank you. david plouffe joins us. why did the president want to speak to the american people tonight? >> first of all, eight days from now, if congress doesn't act the nation would default for the first time that would cause huge economic catastrophy. so i think it is important to let the country know we are getting close to that. most importantly, we are at a moment in washington where both parties seem to be committed to deficit reduction. a lot agree on the s

the only way you can explain why they did not take up simpson-bowles is because the incentives are all wrong. move the cheese, move the mouse. these people must be responding to a cheese that -- let's talk about what is that she's. what is that shecheese? there is a whole set of political changes that account for that. first has been the purging of liberal, rockefeller republicans from the republican party, and the purging of southern conservatives from the democratic party. both parties are so much more homogeneous. when it their work rockefeller republicans in the republican party and southern conservatives in the democratic party, but party spent a huge amount time negotiating with themselves before they negotiated with the others. we have completely lost all of this. that is reinforced by gerrymandering. testers are purely republican are purely democratic. -- districts are purely republican or purely democratic. then you have a whole campaign finance laws and special -- special interest to overlay on that. the bigger government gets, the more is at stake with special interests. and

because again, if you go back to simpson bowles, the idea of capping or reducing or alienating some of the tax expenditures which you could define as tax loopholes if you want to broaden the base that idea has been around a long time. the question is how much of that revenue capture can you then use for deficit reduction and how much to continue to support essential areas of government spending? >> now, i want to play for you one of the sound bites we have, i think from john boehner. i think these guy, arguing as real no exec exec coutures. >> we leave on the personal and corporate side would make america more competitive, help create jobs in our country and it's something that is under discussion. >> anybody for august 2nd? >> a comprehensive tax reform, we could agree in long run, healthy for jobs. ed idea the republicans are pushing, there's some direct link between spending cuts now and boosting the economy. isn't that nonsense? you're a licensed economist. >> i think it's nonsense and i actually am not -- i don't think just a democratic economist thinks that's nonsense. i mean, th

the simpson bowles debt commission, everyone was shooting for that target.en, neither one of them fix it and with all due respect with senator boehner it gets us into an election year. if you think this has been a fiasco you ain't seen nothing yet if you put that kind of turmoil during that period of time. in all fairness, senator reid puts it to right up to the election. that is not fair either. it really hasn't fixed a big problem. if we are going to do it give something that gives aus guaranteed vote before the end of the year that we will vote on the big package to fix what we can. laid out and worked out with the simpson bowles, the debt, the gang of six. a group that basically makes sense. >> greta: are both speaker boehner and senator reid's bills creating more trouble later and not solving the problem and just an effort to sort of get something done and even like a band aid to get us to the next step. >> i'm brand new up here but i have always looked and my mind thinks if you have a problem you fix it because you will have another problem tomorrow. i

i have supported the simps simpson-bowles plan all along. i believe taxes need to go up as part of an overall effort to get the deficits under control. but in fairness, grover does have a point. and simpson-bowles itself said it wasn't one-to-one, it was two-to-one in spenting cuts versus tax increases. the simpson-bowles commission recognizes that more central than taxes is the question of how much we're now spending. we've taken the level of spending in this country from about 20% of gdp at the federal level up to 24 hearse to 25% over the last two years, another year in sight for 25%. and what republicans are saying is you have to sweat that down. i believe that taxes ought to go up as part of this taxes. but i think it's unfair to villainize the republicans when, in fact, there is a very real possibility that the senate will present a plan which will have $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion dollars in cuts and no tax increases. and that's what the president will accept and that may be where we come out at the end of the day. >> the issue is mor

>> you know, i think he can be faulted here a little bit because again i go back to when bowles simpson was completed. and today when i-- i asked him specifically on bowles simpson and he wanted credit for creating the commission. and credit for making that, i was like okay, fine, but you didn't endorse their outcome. you know, he could have grabbed that in december. this is decemb of last year. he could have grabbed that, spent six months owning it and selling it. and then truly if republicans at the end of the day there are a lot of people in this white house, charlie, who believe repuicans never would have gned on to a big deal because ultimately the one part of the republican conference in that house was not going to sign on to anhing that reeked of a tax increase. fine, but that-- the presidents staked out higher ground lately but i would argue that higher ground would have a more solid foundation to it had he owned bowles simpson for six month. because guess what, tom coburn, had endorsed it he would have had a bipartisan consensus in his hand on white house stationery, charlie. i

>> no, i would -- simpson-bowles? >> no, i would say he's supportive of the approach taken by both and what is significant about -- >> [inaudible] . >> we made clear at the time the president agreed with many of the proposals put forward by simpson-bowles, disagreed with some, we embraced some of the proposals in his -- in the president's even -- own legislative proposals, ones them a nated from simpson-bowles. including corporate -- ones that emanated from simpson-bowles. fully paying for the alternative minimum tax pass for three years, strengthening social security for the future, these are all things that were part of simpson-bowles. the president endorsed them right away. in terms of enthusiasm, i think we're at different -- we're at a different period now in terms of where we are legislatively. the introduction by the gang of six of a concrete proposal put forward by six members of the senate, three republicans, three democrats, representing a broad ideological spectrum in american politics i think is a welcome

. >> greta: we had the bowles simpson committee. the american people think fine, but you didn't pay attention to the last one. >> this would have an up and down vote on recommendations and tackle this issue of entitlement reform. i think it is something we need to get done. it has to include that process or it is going to be difficult to get republicans onboard. having said that, in april the president wanted a clean debt limit vote. he has come a long way. i think that's because republicans have driven him there to address the real problem which is the debt. >> greta: senator thank you. david plouffe joins us. why did the president want to speak to the american people tonight? >> first of all, eight days from now, if congress doesn't act the nation would default for the first time that would cause huge economic catastrophy. so i think it is important to let the country know we are getting close to that. most importantly, we are at a moment in washington where both parties seem to be committed to deficit reduction. a lot agree on th

what we are doing is building on the bowles-simpson approach which changed the paradigm, if you will, of how we deal with tax policy. tin said the of the age-old battle over whether we're going to rage tax race or lower tax rates or whether we're going raise rates on the middle-class or what have you, we are approaching in the a different way. yes we are looking at the tax expenditures and loopholes, if you will, at will be discussed in the last few days. but we are talking about that the context of fundental tax reform, redusing... broaden the base, reducing the rates, not increasing the rates but reducing the rates and generating a powerful economic stimulus that will generate the kind of revenue we need to have in order to deal with the revenue side of the equation. >> hunt: but you still would add net revenue which is senator mcconnell says is a non-starter. >> well, i can't speak for anyone other than myself but i think it's very important to understand the difference between raising taxes and raising revenues. i don't think you will a lot of opposition to funmental tax reform th

president, i spent the last few months following up on the bowles-simpson deficit commission meeting with a number of my senate colleagues. three ofous the democratic side, three -- three of us on the democratic side and three republicans. and we have tried to take the bowles-simpson proposal and put it into language that works, make it -- make a law out of it so that it works. well, we've been at it for a long time and we've had our ups and downs. one of our members left, came back. it's a tough assignment. it isn't easy. and sometimes emotions run high because there are things of great value and importance that are being discussed. but, mr. president, something happened this morning that was perhaps historic. we took our plan, which still is short of completion, and we sa said -- invited every member of the united states senate, democrats and republicans, to come and listen to a description of the plan. and if it's not -- if i'm not mistaken, senator warner's on the floor, he's on this group with me, 49 senators came to the room. and you know what? there were no fistfights, there we

looking at some benefits as simpson-bowles said, we should mean test some of these things so there aret those struggling working poor in our country are not losing out on benefits when the wealthy can afford to go without them. there are a lot of things -- >> let me ask you, mr. mayor, one of the problems president obama faces is all this is all very well but he has to get the republicans to sign off on a deal here. as we've seen before, to do that, he has to comment promise his principles, keep giving tax breaks for the rich and so on, otherwise he won't get the deal done. are you comfortable with that or do you think the time is coming a democratic president has to basically say, no, i'm going to do this in the way a democrat would do this. that's why i was elected. if it goes to the brink and i have to call the republicans bluff, i will do that. >> first of all, i know this from barack and i believe it true, i feel it in my heart and my core, i'm an american always before i'm a democrat. democratic party is just that. it's a party, a political place with which people fall often with

. >> he was talking the simpson-bowles -- >> he rejected the simpson-bowles -- >> sean: the plan i accepting bankrupt now. cap spending and a balanced budget amendment. i support and we'll have on connie mack, we've had rand paul talking about it. i support this idea because we are using false baseline. keep the budget and tell me if all of you support this. 2011, keep the budget where, reduce it every year 1% for six years. we don't want to burden our kids and grandkids with debt. support it? >> i just heard about it. i have one concern.

. >> he was talking the simpson-bowles -- >> he rejected the simpson-bowles -- >> sean: the plan i accept we are going bankrupt now. cap spending and a balanced budget amendment. i support and we'll have on connie mack, we've had rand paul talking about it. i support this idea because we are using false baseline. keep the budget and tell me if all of you support this. 2011, keep the budget where, reduce it every year 1% for six years. we don't want to burden our kids and grandkids with debt. support it? >> i just heard about it. i have one concern. there are some places you could cut more heavily. >> sean: congress has the flexibility only if they don't do it becomes automatic with >> i would support it. >> sean: john? >> family had to tighten their belts more than that. >> i think it depends where the cuts come from. >> sean: congress as the flex ability. if congress doesn't do its job it has to happen automatically. across the board. >> i think -- i don't think we can make those choices on the backs of -- >> sean: we risk 25 trillion in debt. i don't know if you have children, i have tw

even when they do great things, like put something together like the simpson bowls commissies co and have democrats and republicans sit down and talk about issues and before they can even finish letting the ink dry, they're being attacked from the left and the right. i see we in america, most of us, actually are far more alike than we are different. we have a lot more of a common ideals. we tend to lean left oft often -- excuse me, lean right with our wallets and lean left a little bit with social issues, we don't want governments in our bedroom, don't want government intruding into our lives. on the praccalities, what my hope is we begin to face them, even if they're politically unpopular. for social security, we're going to have to extend the time before you can collect social security. it doesn't affect the people that are there now but those of us who are my age, in their 30s and 40s, we need to recognize we can't start collecting social security as early as our parents did. these are a lot of very pragmatic things. looking at some benefits as simpson-bowles said, we should mean

i have supported the simpson bowls plan all along.'s an overall effort to get this deficit under control. but in fairness, grover does have a point. and simpson bowles said it was twool to one in spending cuts versus tax increases. the more central than taxes is a question of how much we're now spending. we've taken the level of spending in this country from about 20% of gdp at the federal level up to 24, 25% over the last two years. another year in sight for 25%. and whatever public interests are saying that you've got to sweat that down. and i believe the tax unfair to villainize the republicans when, in fact, there is a very real possibility that the senate will present a plan which will have a trillion to a trillion and a half dollars in cuts and no tax increases and that's what the president will ultimately accept and that may be well where we come out at the end of the day. >> the problem is more political. >> the default versus tax increases is mistaking the problem somewhat. >> yeah, i'm not sure why the two are in the same di

but, yes, absolutely, i was on the simpson bowles commission.g to reduce our debt. but to do it on the backs of moderate and low-income people, especially our seniors, no, that's not the way to go. we don't need to do it that way, especially when the wealthy are getting away with huge tax breaks left and right. >> how do we get past this point, though, congresswoman? because the problem seems to be that every time we reach this point, one of two things happen. either lawmakers on both sides say, well, let's not do it now under all this pressure. we'll get back to it later, and you and i both know, you never do, or they say, yeah, we have to cut things, but not this. and everyone is saying that. that's why voters are going crazy over congress, because they're saying nobody will act like an adult. >> actually -- that is not true. actually, it's the republicans who haven't put one thing on the table. democrats have set, you know, all kinds of proposals on the kinds of things that we could make some cuts in, you know? and we would move forward. but

but there were certainly items in the simpson bowles plan that i'm certainly using in terms of fundamental tax reform, the approach to tax reform i thought was a strong, positive one. i'm trying to use that in terms of hearings we're having on the ways and means committee. we need to get the economy growing again. we need to get job creation occurring again. simply spending cuts won't do that. we need to move forward on fundamental tax reform, not just the one off and score easy political points on this provision or that provision. we need a comprehensive approach to that. we also need to implement the free trade agreements. the three pending agreements with colombia, korea -- >> i wanted to ask about that. have you reached an agreement with the white house yet? i know you were trying to negotiate over those programs of assistance to laid-off workers. >> we have reached agreement on trade adjustment assistance. what we haven't received is how that will be implemented, particularly in the senate, how will those votes occur. i know those discussions are ongoing and we hope to be able to have

. >> simms and balls -- simpson- bowles, commission after commissions as you have to have serious cuts. and they have to have revenue. the reality is, and charles krauthammer acknowledges you have to do it revenues, but it has become an article of faith that you cannot be a republican -- ronald reagan rose taxes 16 times but you would never know it. >> you are missing the point. what have democrats offered on entitlement? name it. >> they have't offered a anything. >> what is the plan, what is the policy? >> the president has publicly stated they will have to cut entitlements -- >> oh, that is tough. >> you guys seem to think the president of the units is should get up and act like a professor and say, "we have a problem here and we need to negotiate in private and here are the reasons it is so bad at." politicians, presidents are politicians, that iwhy ey get elected. they don't do that. >> franklin roosevelt said, "we have a problem, it is called old war ii." he did play a role. >> michele bachmann at getting a lot of attention this week. >> i am committed to life. [applause] >> cong

committee doesn't succeed in proposing something, then hopefully either the gang of six or the simpson-bowles commission. so isn't it key now to resolving this crisis and not defaulting our ability to be able to come together on a sufficient trigger or some sufficient mechanism that guarantees we're actually going to deal with the things similar to what the senator is raising? mr. coburn: well, i would not disagree that those negotiations are going on as we speak. i'm not a party to them. i don't know if you are. i suspect the -- the -- the president pro tempore is, and we're not going to get to decide that. that's going to come to us for a decision. i don't -- look, i worked a long number of months with my colleagues from the other side of the aisle. i put my name on a bill that really doesn't fix it but it was something to get us moving, it's better than where we are today. i agree with you. but what i would tell you is that's not good enough. we are not good enough yet to where we need to be if we're actually going to solve the problem. let me just finish going through this. we need to end

. >> i think that's based on the simpson bowles numbers and i think you're having alan simpson on your show later. i very much support what they did, i support what the gang of six tried to do in the senate and i think that's the solution and hopefully what they'll get to and maybe we'll get a vote on-- >> i notice there's been a tit for tat between the two bodies between the house and senate. the house says something and two hours later senate picks up the boehner measurely and the guys in the house, oh, no you didn't. we'll pick up a facsimile of what the senate is looking at, plan, and on and on. >> it's not helpful and folks around the nation are sick and tired of this politics, and that's politics, that's not leadership. and we have a lot of people in washington, who are very, very good at campaigning, unfortunately, don't have as many as good as governing. >> what's your gut say? >> that we will get something worked out. it may look like frankenstein in the end and i think they will keep something together. >> not to compare the two, but the frankenstein in this case, we're told,

. >> simpson-bowles, you name it, commission after commission comes out and says you have to have serious cuts, $2 trillion in cuts. and you have to have revenues. the reality is, and at charles krauthammer acknowledges there have to be revenues, but it has become an article of faith, you cannot be a republican -- ronald reagan raised taxes six different times, but he would never know it from -- >> george h.w. bush did it, too, and he lost the elections. >> you are missing the point, what are democrats offering on entitlements? >> they haven't. >> what is the plan, what is the policy? >> the president has publicly stated they will have to cut entitlements. >> oh, that is tough. >> you guys seem to think that the president of the united states should get up and act like a professor and say, "we have a problem here and we need to negotiate in private and here are the reasons it is so bad." presidents are politicians, that is why they get elected. they don't do that. >> franklin roosevelt said, "we have a problem, he is called world war ii." he did play a role. >> michele bachmann getting a

. >> simpson-bowles, you name it, commission after commission comes out and says you have to have serious cuts, $2 trillion in cuts. and you have to have revenues. the reality is, and at charles krauthammer acknowledges there have to be revenues, but it has become an article of faith, you cannot be a republican -- ronald reagan raised taxes six different times, but he would never know it from -- >> george h.w. bush did it, too, and he lost the elections. >> you are missing the point, what are democrats offering on entitlements? >> they haven't. >> what is the plan, what is the policy? >> the president has publicly stated they will have to cut entitlements. >> oh, that is tough. >> you guys seem to think that the president of the united states should get up and act like a professor and say, "we have a problem here and we need to negotiate in private and here are the reasons it is so bad." presidents are politicians, that is why they get elected. they don't do that. >> franklin roosevelt said, "we have a problem, he is called world war ii." he did play a role. >> michele bachmann getting a

they did see simpson bowles. is that enough? that this would sort of solve that problem?to see more of the details, were ut having served on a presidential commission back in 2005, president bush's bipartisan tax refor commission, i know how hard it is to end up way bold plan when dealing with bipartisan reform. i think wall street was disenchantsed it was tossed aside. to see that back on the table and teed up as the basis for the plan is a great thing. >> when wall street looks at plan like this, what primarily are think looking for? what of the benchmarks? >> i think the split, assumptions made by economic growth. that's the real key to pulling us out of this. you mentioned in a piece to this, the ratings agencies. i think maybe the ratings agency was erring on the side of progressiveness in light of they didn't do so well during the subprime crisis. think how much it priced off treasuries and the notion of credit, one of the biggest issues with what wall street was dealing as it retted to this deal. so i think if we can stem the tide of rating, a great piece in the sh

>> chris, i don't know about more than ten years, but certainly as you know, simpson bowles, senator simpson and former chief of staff erskine bowles, in their report they proposed making substantial cuts, raising revenues and across the board with all items of expansion. but they said in the near term, meaning the next year of so, we need to be very careful that we did not have the opposite effect by dampening down the struggling economy, obviously, as we saw today, which will decrease revenues and make the problem worse, not better. so in the short term, i agree with the bowles/simpson suggestion that we be very careful in the short term. there's no doubt, however, in the white house yesterday, or thursday -- yesterday -- there was a clear agreement that this was a serious, serious challenge that confronted us and it demanded at all of us try to come together and reach an agreement whereby we will certainly over the next 10 years and 20 years bring this deficit town and bring the debt down because it's not sustainable. >> do most of the members in your caucus agree that this is an u

he kind of endorsed the bowles simpson plan which he stl has never fully endorsed but the goals of it, he did endorse in the last couple of weeks so they didn't quite expect that, the republicans in that sense and then that's when they started to retreat from retreat on could up history of '95, think mitc certainly looks at that is bill clinton want to be a looks at 95 i more with was good republicans then. been good, possibly could for house the day he votes to get >> rose: boehner at that to newt >> tt's right. he was in leadership at the think he sees know, the figured it out won. republicans won. is the guy is ying to here and i different set. he was of a different mindset. >> hans, do you agree with this is the political take plac 2012, that presidentas sense of the resignation. >> well, it's not all resignation implies sort of and don't way to alter forward. i think what you have seen in the last weeks, there is the essentially for comes, happens. you get biden deal deal or would be the $4 trillion those out trillion pretty now, the way them. saying they the what happens recrimi