but no, the way she did it, she pretended she always liked simps simpson-bowl simpson-bowles. >> as towas in simpson-bowles, as i said, i felt fully ready to vote for that myself. >> there's a reason for all the stuttering and stammering there. by the way, she still voted against the bill based on simpson-bowles yesterday. >>> sand box politics continue and one man who knows the sandbox so well he's leaving washington at the end of his term because of it is the senate budget committee chairman, kent conrad of north dakota. i spoke to him earlier and i asked him if paul ryan's budget was dead on arrival in the senate. >> the budget that has passed the house is not a governing document, it's a political document and an ideological document. you know, it's a very curious thing because what it says is even though we have massive deficits and debt, the first thing we're going to do is cut taxes further on the wealthiest among us. not only extend permanently all the tax cuts from the bush administration, but add $200 billion more in tax cuts directed at the very wealthiest among us. that's r

simpson-bowles is silent on those. alice rivlin and i had an amendment to this, to complete the package to have fundamental healthcare entitlement will reform. that was rejected by the elected democrats and as a result it wasn't passed. i didn't think this fixes the problem. simpson-bowles has a lot of good things to it and i put a lot of in our budget. but it doesn't fix the problem. i want to fix the problem. i want to stop this debt crisis. i want to stop medicare from going bankrupt and compromising the security of many seniors. >> a lot of people are saying that your plan would hurt the seniors. kaiser permanente, 70% of americans are satisfied with medicare and satisfied with what they get out of medicare. what do you say to them? it sounds like what you're trying to do is not what america wants. >> actually, if they look at the details, i would argue it is. because they would prefer our plan versus the president's plan. >> why is that? >> because the president's plan which is in law takes half a trillion dollars

you are a leader there, you were the person that put forth simpson-bowles. you had $4.6 trillion of cuts in the gang of six. is there any way to push that again? >> the question is the longer term. and that's why i think bowles-simpson has some value and what the work of the group of six has such value because it would save over $4 trillion on our deficit and debt over the next ten years. and it's a longer term plan. that's what we really need. and right now the two sides are so far apart that there seems to be an unwillingness to come to the center. >> is there a chance that we can get some sort of a grand bargain, though? i know you try hard and you end up with these continuing budgets. but is there a chance we could get something real, something long term, something that tackles all these things? i mean you're leaving your job, right, because you said, at least my understanding is, the best way to serve your country and reduce the national debt, well, you're leaving the senate. so it seems like you're saying the best way to do that is not to be in the sena

today bowles-simpson got put back forward to a bill late last night. only 38 members of the house voted for it. >> and you have nancy pelosi, unbelievable i was there but then i was there but then i was that. >> this is profiles and cowardice, day after day they prove they deserve to have the lowest approval ratings in congressional history. they talk about the deficit, demagogue about the deficit and refuse to deal with it. that'd rather do party line votes and it's disgusting. >> matt, you did an incredible piece of journalism. everyone has to read it. it is long and it is worth it. you wrote if we understand what really went on last july, we'll have a better sense of how difficult it will be for the two parties to stave off the coming political calamity and why too the situation may not be quite as hopeless as it seems. let's start with that, not quite as hopeless as it seems. give us some hope. >> i'm an optimist, erin. thank you for the kind words about the piece, i appreciate it. you know, if you read the piece, what you have to come away with an

the other thing i would say is i want to get you quickly on this, luke, which is simpson-bowles, thebrought up for a vote. 38 people, 38 members of the house, that's out of 435, voted for it. what is the scuttlebutt on capitol hill about that. does that mean that super commit es and bipartisan reduction panels don't work? >> it's an amazing, i think -- if you want to think about this, it's literal sense, chris, look at what we saw all summer between barack obama and john boehner, trying to work toward this bargain. this vote shows that a grand bargain looks to be impossible to pass through the house. nancy pelosi said earlier she would accepted the original simpson-bowles provision, that's not what was on the floor last time. there was tinkering to it. there is less in tax revenue but all that being said you only have 38 votes on something which is the most bipartisan of these bills, it shows where we are as a country and how divided we are, chris. >> here to talk about that and a bunch of other things representative shore from pennsylvania who can characterize the democratic argumen

the problem with bowles simpson and he said parenthetically i love alan bowles and simpson -- you have heard this song before, haven't you? >> yes, the music. >> rose: i loverer and alan simpson, the problem is, it didn't tackle healthcare entitlements those are the drivers of our debt, i don't want to sign an agreement i know ducedoesn't picks the problem. >> he made that point crystal clear during our discussions. we cut medicare and medicated, medicaid by about $485 billion over ten years with the hopes that that would slow the rate of growth of medicare to gdp plus one. and then we said gosh if that doesn't work if that is not a deep enough cut then what we have to do is take more drastic steps and one of those drastic steps would include a consideration of a premium support plan like paul recommended or other options but we have to slow the rate of growth to gdp plus one, paul would rather have us go to something like his premium support plan from day one. >> rose: could you support a premium support plan? >> only, only if by making the appropriate cuts now we couldn't slow the ra

say oh, i love simpson-bowles and they haven't read it.ad it there are things that i like and there are things i don't like. i would be willing to live with all of those things but there are other people in the world who would read it and say -- >> you can't go cherry picking. you can't pick the things you like and throw out the rest. >> i like simpson-bowles. i'm telling you simpson-bowles makes sense and at minimum is a good starting point. we had ed rendell on the show yesterday. we asked the question if it was an up or down vote on simpson-bowles in the country his answer was he thought it wouldn't pass. >> ed also said he loved it and loved simpson-bowles but he still wants to go back to the clinton era tax rate of 29% and it's 24. >> it's 28. >> it's 26. >> here we are. here we are all saying how much we love simpson-bowles. >> but the point is this. we, whoever gets elected you got to fight for america's competitiveness. overhauling the tax code is one way. putting in simpson-bowles is another. >> 26. >> 26. >> that's not high enoug

says of -- president obama this summer that last night the most bipartisan proposal based on simpson-bowles was only able to get 38 votes in the united states -- what does that say of the current state of american politics? >> it says it's pretty divided. >> bipartisan -- overrunning bipartisan majority on both sides. why? >> listen, the members -- the members arre constituents for their votes, and while i support this bipartisan group and all of the efforts they've put into this, they were doing it in the middle of a pretty heated philosophical debate about which is the best way forward, and while they may have been working with each other, i don't know how much reaching out were doing to garner more votes. >> mr. speaker -- >> i have -- i would be supporting the house republican always looking for bipartisan solutions. the senate did send you an overwhelmingly bipartisan transportation bill. what is wrong with passing that -- >> well i think when you look at the pay-for the in there, what you see is, you see some what i call gimmicks in terms of how it's paid for. secondly, they just run

this is what the simpson-bowles budget does and only the simpson-bowles budget. for those of my colleagues worried about certain pars of this, do not confuse the simpson-bowles report with the budget. a budget is just a framework. it instructs committees to come up with savings an the committees have the discretion to that -- to do that in the reports the simpson-bowles report is one way to do that but this is a guide for the committees of jurisdiction. that's what we must do tonight and do on a bipartisan basis. we must come together for the good of the country. we must put our nation first, we must celt partisanship aside. this is the only way that we can pass a budget in the house and the senate this year which we must have. it's easy to be critical, it's hard to perform. let's make it happen for america tonight. we have an opportunity within our hands to give the united states a budget. all of the other plans are purely partisan and they don't have a prayer. let's build a bring to the future, let's build a real budget that can pass both houses of congress. i

but we do need, simpson bowles was the spirit of what we need. we need a balanced approach that has revenue particularly through the wealthy through tax reforms. and then obviously entitlement reforms. >> let's talk about health care, the public seems to be going into this fight before the supreme court very negative, on the president's plan, we have our latest abc poll showing that 52% of the american public now opposes the president's law. 25% of the public want the supreme court to struck down the mandate. 42% want it scraped all together. >> george, you see a lot of polls on this issue as do i. polls also show that they don't want to refight this political battle again. what they want us to do is to implement the law smartly. but, most of the law doesn't take effect in 2014. now, you're beginning to see parts of the law come into effect. kids between 21 and 26, over 2 million of them now have health insurance. you got over 5 million seniors getting $600 roughly of prescription dug assistance. women are treated equally as men in preventive car

i think there was a lot of good work done on simpson-bowles.a part of that commission. i'm very glad it received a vote but at the end of the day unfortunately they didn't deal with the drivers of our debt crisis, which even the president has admitted are medicare, medicaid and health care. nothing comes close. that's a quote of the president. it reminds me again that i agree with 80% of what the president says. i just disagree with 80% of what he does. he doesn't deal with it in his budget. unfortunately notwithstanding there was a lot of good work done in simpson-bowles, they didn't deal with the drivers either. we deal with it under chairman paul ryan in our budget with a system that we believe will secure and save medicare for future generations, ensure that we don't have the rationing of health care for our seniors that this independent payment advisory board, 15 unelected, unaccountable democrats to impose price controls on medicare. we don't do that. we use the power of kcompetitiv markets, a transparent marketplace and bipartisan plan s

simpson-bowles is an outline. it's an essay.t was never put into legislative form because you can't. okay? because, again -- >> principles. >> right. >> however, one of their general principles was about a $2 trillion tax increase over -- the only one thing they were clear about was they were raising taxes, 2, paul ryon says $2 trillion over the decade. the heritage foundation says $3 trillion. they were trying to stick a tax increase and pretend it was reform. they damaged tax reform. we'll get tax reform only when the american people are convinced. it doesn't hide it. that's why the pledge makes the reform in '86 possible, makes tax reform now possible. >> to be fair to simpson-bowles, it was tax reform and it raised more revenues. so let me ask you this. we are taxing now at 14% of gdp. >> thanks to the recession. >> we're spending 23% of gdp. are you telling me that you believe you can get -- you can close that gap entirely by cutting spending, that is by taking something on the range of 7% or 8% of gdp out of government spe

republicans have gotten past the loophole thing because paul ryan budget closes loopholes and simpson bowlesand i think simpsons-- the. >> the union republicans have done more on this than democrats. >> i want to make a point on thelma and louise. >> i wish the last seen was the first scene. and horrible, horrible. >> two hours of-- >> and we do have an election and we're going to be fighting this out in the election and i tell you, i don't put any credence in the budget proposals now, we'll have an election about the budget and then decide. >> and the doctor raises a good view. ronald reagan was famous for saying, i'd rather have 80% after loaf than no loaf at all. and he was willing to negotiate and do whatever he can to move the ball ford and some republicans say we're going to wait this out and we think in november we have a good shot of winning the senate, maybe the white house and we'll be in the driver's seat, but you might not be. >> absolutely, you're 100% right, you may not be. and i echo with charlie said. >> in that as well. and it gets back to the ronald reagan. a certain type o

this is simpson-bowles, but it was a carriicature so we voted against it. until we saw it in print. keep your eye on what is happening here. that is, we have a shift of resources once again from the middle class to the wealthy. this has beeny members don't like me to say this, but they have sucked up the money from the middle class from the eight years of the bush administration to the advantage of the wealthy and now have gone one better by even giving more tax breaks to the high end. does nothing to reduce the deficit, nothing create job, nothing about fairness. doesn't invest in the education of our children, and weakens medicare. right now weakens medicare right now and in a few years eliminates the guarantee altogether. it also eliminates the affordable care act provisions in effect now. that means that $3.2 billion, seniors by trying to close the doughnut hole that would be gone. it means the annual wellness checkup without a co-pay, that would be gone. it means the 2.5 million students on their parents policy until age 26 would be gone. every child to the tune of millions in

and the fact is it does very much mirror the central tenants of simpson bowles. not a single house republican on that commission voted for it. chairman ryan did not support it. so i think that when we talk about what everyone agrees has to be the responsible approach to deficit reduction, we look at who would put forward different plans that embrace that balanced approach and then look at the republican proposal emerging from the house. you have to acknowledge the very grave differences between them. which i did today. >> jay carney responding to some of the details of the paul ryan bug plan. joining us live on the phone is jennifer ruben. it's titled right turn. thanks as always for being with us on c-span. >> my pleasure. >> let's dig into some of the details of the ryan plan. where are the disparity? where are the differences between what ryan and the republicans are looking at and what the presidents have proposed. >> one of the starkest differences between the two budgets and frankly between this budget and ryan's budget last time. first of all, remember the

and i would say in some respects going, for instance, beyond simpson/bowles on both the taxation and the spending si i thought they thought a big distance of setting out a set of possibilities. can we build on it? yourself, please. >> i'm a private investor. my question is about crony capitalism. do you think the concept of too big to fail might be more like too welcome connected to fail? why can't we have an rtc concept like after we had in the s&l crisis in texas and the southern states? >> well, you know, the question is to how much the rescues involving in too big to fail

second thick on bowles simpson in particular i actually don't think the administration got that one wrongey embraced bowles simpson immediately that becomes the left of the debate and the compromise would come several ticks to the right. i think they played that well. >> the longer you put off doing this the bigger and bigger problems you have particularly with the entitlement programs and the more draconian the if fix is going to have to be. >> i disagree. if you do this prematurely and growth just gets in the limbo of 1.52% a year be a you don't exceed that, balancing the budget over the ten-year period, it's really hard. >> but talking about deficit reduction, what deficit reduction steps that the obama administration took are you talking about? >> well, they had this basically three, three and a half month negotiation that began in late april of 2011, continued on through the final debt ceiling deal in early august 2011. they are preoccupied with deficit reduction, doing a deal with john boehner and the republ republican house -- >> never going to happen. >> yeah. >> and then in septe

the president appointed the simpson bowles commission. 60% of those members, including some of the republicans like tom coburn, voted for it. the president never embraced his own commission's proposal. it's not in any of his budget. we don't know what he's willing to do long-term. i think the failure to lay that out is a failure of leadership. >> if you'd like to join the conversation and speak with representative tom cole, republican of oklahoma, here are the numbers to call. republicans 202-307-0002. first up is anthony. independent line from valdosta, georgia. >> caller: good morning. i thought it appropriate that the representative is on discussing the budget after we talked about education. my question for him is, why don't we use the tax code to incentivize everything else but parent involvement in their children's education? why don't we utilize the tax code, say the child tax deduction, to incentivize parent involvement? have that tiered out for the performance of the children in schools? and i just listen for the representative's response to that. >> actually, it's a good idea. and it

simpson and bowles, the bipartisan commission appointed by the president to take a look at our tet andeficit problem advocated a very ambitious, far reaching approach, balanced approach that would reduce our deficit. this is something that -- that the congressman ryan did not support. and what we've seen from congressman ryan is an unbalanced approach. like i said, it would cut taxes for the wealthy. the folks at the top of the income scale would do very well under the approach that house republicans are laying out today. they would also extend subsidies for oil and gas companies that they currently enjoy on the order of about $4 billion a year. it would extend the tax benefits that are currently enjoyed by hedge fund managers, for example. what the president has advocated is similar to the approach that's been advocated by the whole range of bipartisan panels that have looked at deficit reduction. that is a balanced approach that, yes, asks the wealthy to pay their fair share. to pay a little bit more. and also asks the government to tighten our belt. that's something that the preside

when he voted against simpson bowles?rd burden to carry when you really carry about deficit and debt. >> he'll talk about it at 11:00 how he responds to simpson bowles and medicare all coming up at 11:00. >>> we are just over 30 minutes from polls closing in ill pill. we're getting new data on where it may be headed. up to the minute information from john king as the polls roll in. [♪...] >> announcer: with nothing but his computer, an identity thief is able to use your information to open a bank account in order to make your money his money. [whoosh, clang] you need lifelock, the only identity theft protection company that now monitors bank accounts for takeover fraud. lifelock: relentlessly protecting your identity. call 1-800-lifelock or go to lifelock.com today. there's a health company that can help you stay that way. what's healthier than that? >>> we are about 30 minutes away in the polls close in illinois. it could and huge night. 69 delegates in the state, 54 at stake to be allocated tonight. it is one of the big

i think we should do some version of simpson-bowles and do it soon and fast taken comes from leadershiphave to agree and that means the republicans have to agree to raise revenue because simpson-bowles raises $1 trillion of revenue. >> i think republicans -- >> i would like to get your votes on this, both of you agree. >> i think it is a brilliant solution to the most important problem facing our country and it's tragic, but it hit it on the head, where is the leadership? it's the president's commission and he basically threw it away because it didn't suit his ideological agenda. >> governor rendell, during the super committee, the president said hey, this is, you know, this is up to them. and that was when you could have stepped in and massaged both sides and maybe done something. >> remember, guys, in fairness to the president, and i agree there were times when he backed away and he shouldn't have but in fairness to the president, when we were talking about raising the debt ceiling he and boehner reached a preliminary agreement which would have eliminated trillions of dollars. >> we h

debating even beyond the simpson-bowles approach.rom the reagan-era reforms of 1986. ronald reagan improved taxes three times after the initial reductions in tax rates. the 1986 exemptions and credits were in many instances reduced. in some places, they were ended. the resulting revenue increases produced pillow or marginal income-tax rates, making a contribution towards reducing the budget deficit. simplification and revenue enhancement may be concepts possible in one fell swoop. a complementary -- the complementary approach the simpson-bowles is taking leads us to the corporate income tax. all of that it seems to me as part of the constructive debate. i do not want to stop there. my plea is far greater reform. we do need tax reform. we need to think hard about how we rely more on consumption based taxes and think about possible integration of corporate and personal taxes. we need to consider the impact of federal spending policies on state finances with consequences for infrastructure russia -- infrastructure support and medicare r

a complementary approach to simpson-bowles should be taken. all that seems to me to be part of a constructive debate. it is perhaps political possible in time but i don't want to stop there. my plea is for greater boldness. we do need tax reform. we need to think hard about relying more on consumption- based taxes, avoiding moving business abroad and think about possible incubation of corporate and personal taxes. we need to consider the impact of federal spending policies on state finances with consequences for infrastructure support and medicare responsibilities. i might remind you that between 500 and $600 billion of federal expenditures each year go to the states. we need clarity and consistency in state taxation and whatever one says about the debate, clarity and consistency do not apply. we need to consider how all tax and spending decisions bear upon the desire for energy independence, bear upon the threat of global warming and the environment. all that is a tall order. i could go on obviously much longer. is it impossible to do? all i

bush tax cuts expire, sequestration needs to be resolved and the plan by search such -- plan by simpson-bowlesould have done that. the ryan plan means we have that stuff staring at us in the face. i wish they would have made the vote now rather than in december. >>neil: by the end of the year the issues back up like planes at la guardia. >>guest: if the president is re-elected i have no doubt he will make the argument from the payroll tax cut we will let the tax ruts for hard work middle-class americans condition and we will not let the top 2 percent of wage earns so people will see their rates go up to frye percent and capital gains go up to 39 and 40 percent and inher tans tax come back and nothing the most conservative republican can do because he will be the president of the united states. >>neil: congressman, i admire your guts. we will see what happens. thank you. good to have you. where do governors come to break news? here. that's where. florida governor on a very surprising announcement. -new e-0 investing dashboard free streaming quotes, all your investments, positions, and even your

i am willing to go down the simpson-bowles road with my own proposal. >>neil: tell me about the simpson-bowles they did not advocate responding more. >>guest: if we did not build the federal highway system --. >>neil: we had money them. i don't how to tell people would live a grand lifestyle you have to wake up. you don't have the money to do what you are doing. in the company you work for, you have to borrow money because to be at top of the game you have to milk investments. >>neil: you do not invest when you do not have the money to invest. you have the ability to create this out of thin air, but, you are talking about investing america's money down the same road where we don't have it to go down that road. that is all i am saying. >>guest: we are 24 months of new job growth. >>neil: stop, then. i grant you that. then, stop. you can stop new. stop. >>guest: america is going to go forward and we will do what we need to do. we need to have a generation of politicians who are prepared to say, pay as we go. we need politicians who will say "stop." i will

i listened to simpson and bowles when they were here in denver and wondered what you thought of the plan, specifically the spending cut part of it, and then the second part is, what are the qualifications that you would have for the head of the federal reserve if you were to pick? if you can't think of one person, what would be the qualifications? >> the simpson-bowles plan is a big improvement over what we now ha would disagree with and i would have done more on spending but it was a step forward. it was a responsible document. in terms of the qualifications of the head of the fed, i would like somebody of course who is technically competent. bernanke is that. but for change, i would like an honest, open person, man or woman, to be head of the fed. and say congress has given us multiple targets, i cannot hit multiple targets. i'm not even sure i can hit one target. but which target would you like me to focus on. and for the head of the fed to say i cannot solve the unemployment problem through monetary policy, it can't be done. the reason we have big unemployment is because we are so ov

. >> guest: i do think the simpson-bowles commission, which at the end of 2010 released its report and was very substantive and conference and the president kind of ignored it and just sort of let it lay there. i think that was a real missed opportunity and i think some of those proposals may be, i think in 2013, and of course it will depend on who is elected president but i think we are probably going to have to deal with tax reform in the deficit. .. >> structural reform is that you think needs to have been? for a sample you talked earlier in the book about opening up the primary process. what does that do? >> guest: i think what i talk about is fairly modest. i don't say we need a third party. my reforms are fairly modest because they are realistic. those other kinds of things that average citizens can push for. opening the primaries is one that is very doable. i think citizens should push for this. district of columbia is one place. nine existed to begin with but it estate that does that have open primaries it should push for them. , all-out -- also about what initiative process to

something on simpson-bowles that charles referenced -- it had as its guiding principle that it would not increase poverty. >> talk about absence of the spine -- your guys have not introduced a budget on anything, anything on social security, anything on tax reform. that is the definition of an absence of the spine. blocks from here, $4.39 on gasoline. the president is feeling the pipeline and blues. he went out to oklahoma and announced he is fast tracking a portion of the keystone pipeline that will run to the gulf coast. unfortunately, colby, the oil is up north. >> yes, it is, it is in canada. .et's be clear there is nothing the country can do to lower the price of gas. >> do voters know? >> apparently not. >> as bob dole used to say, you know what, i know it, the american people you know it. you have china as a consumer, disruption anin the middle east. the president is in the hot seat. on the pipeline question, he is getting clobbered. not much to be had. >> i keep hearing how much oil consumption has gone down and how the drilling has increased, drilling everywhere. >> gas pric