is there a prospect of some revival of simpson/bowles now? >> yes. i believe this is a contrarian view, but we have a good chance of actually getting the big package, big deficit reduction in 2012 for two reasons -- three reasons, really. first, the knives that i mentioned that were over our heads, the bush tax cuts expire in 2013. sequestration goes into effect in 2013. now that seems a year and a month away. but as we get closer and closer and closer, the pressure on both parties to come together in the middle, provided we don't remove one of those knives, like taking defense off the table, is going to be stronger and stronger. second, the republican primaries will end right now the republican primary the candidates and then their senate and congressional supporters to the right. you know, all of them said they wouldn't be for a dollar of revenue for $10, in return for $10 of spending cuts. but once you get a nominee, they have to move to the middle. that's where the american people are. and third, is people go home, they're going to hear from thei

straight, the super committee democrats propod a larger cu in medicare tn had been proposed by simpson-bowles or by president obama o or by any other political entit of record. i think that is part of it. there is no question that it was doomed to fail because our polarized pololitics and it is doomed to fail most of l because you have a republican party at has notot voted f any real tax increase since 1990, when george bush's budget deal, in which replican lore was the reason george herbert walker bush lost a second term. >> dana milbank in "the washington post" said that senator kyl was thehe spoioiler. >> you cannot pin this oone individual. we had no give on either sidof any significance. the republica were locked into their position, and why shouldn't they be? they have one on everythi they have tried to achieve by jt saying no. >> i actually give the democrats some credit for moving off the dime of it. but the l lack of trust and the lack of ability to ve a corresponding move -- thee tragedy at was this was a system that may have b been doomed to failure, but it also could have been doo

that has been the problem. >> just to correct the record, yes, tom coburn did support that in simpson-bowles, and he was excluded from the committee. pat toomey was on the committee. he endorsed $300 billion in revenues over the next 10 years, $30 billion a year, under one condition, that the bush tax cuts not simply be retained, but at the highest rate be cut to 28%. i would say this -- the democrats think they got a winner politically on this. they didn't. just let me finish, if i could, charles, before you interrupt. this discredits washington, this discredit congress, and the more it does that, it helps republicans in 2012. >> what i don't understand is how you can say oh, yes, the republicans would have increased revenues, but because the rates were lowered, it is not a good idea. who cares? do you think the chinese, who own our debt, care about the rates? what they care about is the net revenues and get. if you lowered the debt and can do it with lower rates, it is win-win-win. >> that is a big if. >> is there a silver lining here? >> that is the other thing, they are not going to let

we put forward the framework very consistent with where simpson/bowles was. medicaid savings. it called for a a third in revenues. it called for discretionary cuts, which we've already passed. so, we've been very much operating in that framework. that's the framework that we put up to the super committee. so, the president has been working with that kind of balance. and the reason we don't have a grand compromise is because the republicans, too many of them, have refused to do what was an essential component of the bowles/simpson bill to have respectable amount of revenue, overall compromise. every independent group, every expert, everyone knows that's the way forward. and the president's shown willingness to compromise over and over again with the type of framework that was put forward by bowles/simpson in which the president has put on the line, including two different times with the speaker of the house this summer. gene spurling from the white house. i don't think it will get done. >>> who will be the top dog on banking without barney? the fight is on. po

i do believe that there are some things in the simpson/bowles plan.r, i was on the biden group. so we studied that plan real well. we study ied domenici a whole l. we looked at the gang of six. i think we ought to look at all of these plans and see whether we can meld them and come up with a document that will be palatable for everybody. there are things in the simpson/bowles plan that i am not all that enamored with. but there some are things i like better in this rivlin/domenici plan. there's nothing wrong with us looking at all three ofs the plans and coming up with something that i think all of us could be comfortable with. that's what we ought to do. >> congressman jim clyburn. democrat from south carolina. thanks for coming on this morning. apologies for some of the audio issues. >> thank you so much for having me. >> all right. >>> well, in the past five weeks, we've seen herman cain fade, newt gingrich surge, mitt romney do his best to stay above the fray. five weeks from now iowa republicans cast ballots in this 2012 race. between now and the

to paraphrase one of our former colleagues, i new bowles and simpson. with them on the commit iand what was proposed by the republicans on the super committee was not even close to the bowles simpson proposal. what we have got to do is establish the basics. $2 in cuts for every dollar in revenue. now, let's do that in a thoughtful way that creates jobs now. does not handicap or damage medicare and social security and medicaid in the long run and creates the kind of approach that is balanced. we didn't get that out of the super committee. i thank them for their work but we have to really strive for that. >> chris: let me ask you directly because one of the big hangups is the bush tax cuts. simpson bowles said we are going to lower all the rates and the top rate maybe down to 28% but get a trillion dollars in tax expenditures. are you willing to say forget about ending the bush tax cuts we will lower rates dramatically if we get the tax expenditures? >> chris, you have to look at it in the total context. and i'm not dodging your question. the bush tax cut

i worked with simpson on the committee and what was proposed by the super committee was not close to the bowlespson proposal. we need two dollars in cuts for every dollar in revenue. do it in's thoughtful way and does not hand cap or damage medicare or social security or medicaid in the long run and creates a balanced approach. we didn't et that out of the super committee >> chris: let me just ask you directly. one of the hang ups is the bush tax cuts. would be willing. simpson bowl forgot them. we'll lower the tax rate and get trillion in tax expenditures. are you willing to say forget about ending the bush tax cuts. we'll lower our rates if we get tax expenditures. >> guest: look at the total context. bush tax cuts are overly genius to highest income americans. we don't want to disadvantage working familis and middle class families in america. let us put tax reform together to give them a fighting chance. there was a commitment to at least maintain if not improving the tax code. that means giving working families a fighting chance. i hope we can establish that in the future. >> chris: senator

a hearing with former officials that have all delivered their own plans, notably, alan simpson and erskine bowles luke russert is following the hearing from capitol hill. we're expecting that simpson and bowles and alice rivlin and the others are going to give some really tough advice to the committee, either stand up and deliver by november 23rd and don't let congress delay the sequestration if you don't deliver, or this country's going to be in really sad >> reporter: yeah, they're going to deliver a very serious message, andrea. as one aide told me, they're really going to tell the members of the super committee to drink their medicine and really realize the monumental task they have before them and what exactly it would mean if they were to fail. it's expected that bowles and simpson will essentially say today that failure is not an option, something we've heard a lot here on capitol hill, but specifically suggesting that an type of failure would lead to a huge credit downgrade, possibly, and really could reflect badly on congress and the future of the united states economy. however, moody's

they oppose simpson-bowles -- >> portman and toomey have proposed it. tax revenues. >> insufficient revenues. what matters is revenues. the only thing -- >> if you strip away all the loopholes, which is what simpson-bowles did, you still needed to have some tax increases. >> exactly right. >> you cannot do it just by getting rid of loopholes. >> i have rarely encountered such thickness. i told you eight times that these two were all the kids have proposed it, and you're telling me we have to have x -- for revenues -- to double republicans proposed it, you telling me not to have extra revenues. -- we have to have extra revenues. >> $300 billion over 10 years is what pat toomey is proposing in his loophole-closing initiative. that is $30 billion a year. we're talking about four trillion dollars over 10 years if we are going to make a dent in this. even with the sequestered now, that is the amount that will come in to be cut if there is no agreement. >> let me say this in closing -- i wish to the super committee could agree on things the way we do here. se

if you took away all the loopholes, which is what simpson-bowles did, you needed it tax increases. you cannot do it just by getting rid of the polls -- >> i have rarely encountered such thickness. i just told you eight times that these two republicans propose it, and you are telling me that you have got to have extra revenues. yes, and they were proposed. >> charles is right on this. it is not enough money -- >> $300 billion -- >> $300 billion over 10 years is what pat toomey is proposing. in his loophole-closing issue. that is $30 billion a year. we're talking about a need for $4 trillion over 10 years if we are going to make a dent in this. even with the sequestered amount, that is the amount that will come in to be cut if there is no agreement. $1.2 billion. >> increase, but not nearly enough. >> let me just say this in closing -- i wish to the super committee could agree on things the way we do here. last word. see you next week.

that's what bowles/simpson said.t the 900 days. in fairness to joe, he asked the question, where was president obama? i'm a believer the president should have been a little more involved. he may get a little more blame than he probably deserves here. at the end of the day it sounds like the president and the white house is more mired in a congressional speak as opposed to -- do democrats and republicans on the hill, particularly the democratic leadership believe if the president had been more involved that a different outcome might have resulted here? >> no. i'll tell you why point-blank. the republicans made it clear in the room that if this becomes the obama budget, we're finished. we'll talk to you as long as it's a congressional budget. but if it becomes obama's possible victory, we don't want to talk about it. let's be honest, too. three different times this president stepped up and said let's sit down and negotiate the real thing. each of those occasions the republican leaders walked away. so i think the presid

but the amount up to $1.10 trillion of what bowles-simpson referred to as tax expenditures. the $4 trillion of objected that bowles-simpson and the gang of six were trying to get to is because at that figure, economist and fiscal experts tell us the debt level is sustainable. it is a little less than 70% of your debt to gdp. everything that we make in america. we are now at $15 to yen of debt -- $15 trillion of debt. none of us can conceive what a trillion dollars is, but it is got a lot of money. we are taking an extraordinary amount of dollars out of everyone's pocket in this room, and your children and their children, and their children, in order to amortize that debt. if we do not set ourselves on a fiscally responsible path. those of you who read the papers know that part of our fiscal problem is caused by the fiscal instability in europe. reece is a particular example to which we look. greece has a debt level of about 128%, debt load to its gdp. the good news for america is, and the bad news for greece, is they do not have the resources themselves to solve the problem h

we have a chance here, you have two ban ban products, gang of six, bowles-simpson get them up so they votes to keep america from going bankrupt. this president has been a pa net evening fiscal leader. the obama budget got zero votes and threw the plan under the bus and added 35 percent to the national debt when he had the majority so president obama has been awol on the super committee negotiations so i hope people will consider firing him and hiring somebody would will actually lead because he has been very weak when it comes to providing leadership for save america from bankruptcy and i'm willing to vote on anything that makes sense. >>neil: thank graham, thank you, we will hear from colleagues on both sides but we are thankful for you joining. what does senator simpson make of this? he worked very hard on this, and the co-commissioner of the tax group with all of the tough recommendation and is my special guest an hour and a half great now on fox business network. you do not get fox business network? demand it. the president blasting the "do nothing," congress. stay tuned. >> the r

we had simpson bowles and another process and the gaping of six. now they tell us the supercommittee is going to do that. it seems like again, like, i don't know at what point do we demand -- you lead the party that believes government can take effective forceful action to change peoples lives. at what point do the democrats have to prove that, prove that government can be agile and effective? >> we don't want any more government. we have to recognize we have two paths. bless their hearts shall the republicans, they do what they believe. they do not believe in social security, medicare, medicaid, clean air, clean water, public legislation -- [cheers and applause] -- there are some. >> jon: they would somewhat disagree with that characterization. >> maybe some of them would. but i'm not painting them with all with the same brush. a significant number of them will use the debt that we all want to reduce the debt. it's a legitimate concern we have. quite frankly if they cared about the debt they would have squawked when president bush was amassing it.

who voted for that bowles-simpson. tom coburn of oklahoma, mike crapo, kent conrad of northica dota and dick durbin. none of the four was put on the super committee. there were four who voted against simpson bowles. all four of them were put on the super committee. so there was a certain orthodoxy. any deviation from what had been the party of orthodoxy was not encouraged and was discouraged. i think the democrats came out with a slight tactical rhetorical advantage, the sense they moved more, that the president tried harder, that the republicans were more obstinate, the sense that the republicans were more wed to protecting the wealthy. i think in the long run, however, it helps the republicans and the reason i say that is this-- that it discredits government. the democrats are, whether they choose to be or not, by historical mandate, the party of government. they believe that government can be an instrument of social justice and economic justice and whether it's eliminating polio, putting a man on the moon, ending ra

simpson? she says, i will not ask that question. mr. bowles says the human eye. to anyone who deals with these kinds of issues, we are doomed to live lifetimes of unfulfilled expectations. i was not where alex was, but i was optimistic that we would get somewhere with the supercommittee, and a part of the reason was because rob portman was on it. robb has an unparalleled blend of experiences in his professional lifetime that includes starting working as an n assistant to alan simpson, but being a member of the house known for his bipartisan efforts to be both budget director and trade representative before moving to the senate. he understands as well as anybody given the shakiness in europe, the troubles in the global economy, that we are not just playing with fire or even playing with live ammunition. we may be playing with atomic weapons in terms of the economic future. there is an urgency to act and a recognition that as much as the supercommittee leaves many of us who believe in the regular order of the legislative process and easy, these extra and unusual ac

simpson-bowles was the first. after about a year of invested time that bipartisan commission which was comprised of 18 members, could not get the requisite 14 votes to force congressional action on their recommendations. one year ago next month, the commission co-chairs released their draft recommendations and no stone was left unturned, no special interest left unscarred. their recommendations were described as a list of the third rail issues of american politics. federal workers were to be cut. the cost of participating in veterans and military health care increased. the age of social security eligibility raised, the defense department budget slashed. simpson-bowles would also have reformed the tax code in ways often contemplated by washington but never accomplished. many longstanding tax credits and deductions would have been eliminated. after the failure of simpson-bowles, president obama and speaker boehner attempted to work out a grand bargain. it was reported at the time that the two sides forged common gro

, bowles and simpson. we'll decide who gets top billing when we get on set here. their grand bargain to solve the debt crisis is pretty much gathering dust on a shelf. will the super committee take their advice this time? >>> plus, money trouble. hundreds of millions of dollars disappeared from former new jersey governor jon corzine's company. and then another government-backed solar energy company goes belly up. first, a look ahead at the president's schedule. as i told you, it's that big tv row of sorts, the president doing ten separate interviews today with various local television anchors. you're watching "the daily rundown" only on msnbc. [ male announcer ] humana and walmart have teamed up to bring you a low-priced medicare prescription drug plan. ♪ with the lowest national plan premium... ♪ ...and copays as low as one dollar... ♪ ...saving on medicare prescriptions is easy. ♪ so you're free to focus on the things that really matter. call humana at 1-800-808-4003. or go to walmart.com for details. ca

but i'm curious, you know, i frankly, you are going back to the simpson bowls. we had an economic panel that made everybody unhappy a year ago. two people spearheaded it who had no axe to grind and we couldn't get there. >> a republican and democrat came together to give a recommendation of how the congress could actually do their job that they are supposed to do, was summarily dismissed by president obama and in the white house. a lot of what the republicans have put forward have some elements of the simpson-bowl plan in it. he said to the ceo's, he said you guys better hold on to your hat because job creation is not going to get any easier because this congress is not going to do anything, this president is not going to sign anything that deals with our biggest problem and that isentitlements. >> they didn't get the vote. but simpson-bowl did get the vote. >> one of the reason is the president didn't get behind it. he on the record said it was not something that he could support. >> all right. there's that. but he's not gotten behind a lot of things, which my