what i would look to see them do is do what simpson-bowles did. they say pass our plan but trigger it when there is clearly growth because you won't have to convince anybody to do it then. as soon as there's real growth in this economy with all this public debt that has to be financed, interest rates will go through the roof, the cost of financing the deficit will be staggering and the private sector will be screaming for affordable credit. so -- but if we did it now people would see that we're a serious country and the american people would feel reassured about it and the europeans might have a way out of the box they have gotten themselves in. you see with both the eu and all these recent elections and u.k., if you impose astairity when interest rates are zero then what will happen -- i was really impressed actually after these last elections that other greek citizens would say things like we know we have to cut these pension benefits fwheerk everybody's got to start paying taxes, but we'd like to see the benefits of it. so that's what i think.

author of the simpson-bowles plan. nator simpson, i want to ask both of you, but i want to ask you what you think of president obama's embrace of your plan or lack thereof, and i'm going to start by asking you -- just bare with me because i talked to him in january. mostly will foreign policy, but i did ask him about simpson-bowles, and he probably got -- this got him more agitated than at any point in our conversation. this is what he said. he said, "i've got to tell you, most of the people who say if you ask them what's in simpson-bowles, they couldn't tell you. first of all, i did embrace simpson-bowles. i'm the one who created the commission. if i hadn't pushed it, it wouldn't have happened because the congressional sponsors, including a whole bunch of republicans walked away. the basic premise of simpson-bowles was we have to take a balanced approach in which we have spending cuts and we revenue increases, and although i did not agree with every particular thing that was in it, what i did do is take the framework a

i support the ratio and the accounting methodology of simpson bowls. yobt messily agree with every recommendation. if we disagree with a particular recommendation on revenue or cuts we have an obligation to come up with an alternative. i support the framework there be and the proposal on the house just was $1 trillion in revenue below simpson bowles. that's a pretty big difference. >> thank you all for participating in the panel. great discussion. thank you very much. we're going to move on to our next panel. again, thank you very much. >>> live tonight on our website book tv.org. journalist and former news anchor dan rather recounts his broadcasting career and his dismissal from cbs news after 44 years. we'll have that live at 7:00 p.m. eastern. with congress on break this week, we're featuring some to have programs from american history tv seen every weekend here on v pan 3. tonight lectures in history. join students in the classroom to hear lectures on campuses around the country. at 8:00 eastern university of michigan history professor kevin gains

i was positive there was, simpson-bowles would have been ? if there was such an elite consensus, simpson bowles would have been more -- i think the american people are way out ahead of their leaders on this. the leaders need to follow the hfr- >> what's your evidence for that? >> anecdotally when i go around to talk to people, when i go to campaign events, when i talk to people people in cafes or starbucks, people are worried. >> and you hear them saying i'm so worried, should you cut my benefits? i'm so worried i want to pay more taxes? >> i don't think they know the difference between simpson simpson-bowles and a the gang of six. they understand numbers. they understand the correction that the deficit is going and the peril that the country is in. i think they understand that and they understand that members of congress are not making sacrifices in their own -- with their own constituencies in order to getting across the finish line. it's the first time i think a lot of voters and taxation have seen it equated to mortality. i think they see

in 2010 he was a member of the simpson-bowles commission. last year he served on the super committee that tried to reach a longer-term deficit reduction agreement. kathleen hall jamieson, a professor of communication at the university of pennsylvania. director of the annenberg public policy center whi. the author and co-author of 15 books on policy and communications, she is an expert on how politicians bring their messages to voters and how communication tapes elections and policy. patricia murphy is the founder of citizensjane politics and covers politics for the daily beast newsweek. she has her ear to the ground having spent nine years as a hill staffers. she has a key sense of what americans are thinking and asking about what's happening in washington. the panel will be moderated by john taras, editor in chief -- jon harris, editor-in-chief and one of the co-founders of "politico." --john harris. please welcome our panelists. [applause] >> good morning, we have 40 minutes to tackle a pretty big question. the first thing i like our panel

with simpson-bowles. i support the framework of simpson-bowles but i support the ratios and the accounting methodology of simpson-bowles but i don't necessarily agree with every recommendation they make but i think for those of us if we disagree with a particular recommendation, whether it's on revenue or cuts, we have an obligation to come up with an alternative. so i support the framework there, and the proposal on the house just was $1 trillion in revenue, below simpson-bowles. that's a pretty big difference. >> all right. listen, thank you all for participating in this panel. great discussion. jodi, thank you very much. will have to move on to our next bill. again, thank you very much. [applause] >> we will move from one tricky subject, the fiscal situation here in america, to another tricky subject, the housing situation here in america. my colleague, nela richardson will moderate the next benefit if they want want to make away up to the station i would a quick introduction. shaun donovan, the secret

i heard the president express his frustration about simpson-bowles, especially about the way, frankly, the financial and the corporate community has reacted. they all press him he believes to endorse simpson-bowles, yet when it comes to the tax increases called for, particularly those on the business side, business runs away. >> yeah, i can only speak for myself. we're in. as a matter of public policy, economic outlook we sign up for that in its totality 18 heart beat. >> across the board? >> you bet. when you start breaking it into pieces you can't put it back together again. this is a matter of priorities and choices. we can do -- we're the richest country on the planet. we can do any hundred things we want. the only thing we can't do is everything and that's where we are at the moment. so you get a bipartisan group to sit down, wrestle with the issues, fight the good fight, come wake up something that works, how can you not as someone interested in the long-term, how can you not sign up for it. >> if you ask me, listen to a lot of people what's the one word that almost everyone can

i favor with simpson-bowles said. i've likened to take even more out of the deficit was simpson- bowles. -- i would like them to take even more out of the deficit. interest rates will go through the roof. the costs of financing the deficit will be staggering. the private sector will be screaming for a political credit. it thing we did it now, people would see that we are a serious country. the american people would still feel reassured about it. the europeans might have gotten themselves out of the box up the find themselves in. you e this both in the you and the recent elections -- in europe and the recent elections. revenues will drop more than you can cut spending. i was really impressed after the last election. all the political leaders themselves cindy jensen, ordinary citizens would say that we know you need to cut these benefits. we know we have to do these things. but would like to see the benefit of this. we should pass a plan asoon as possible, but you would simpson- bowles said. trigger an uncertain growth

he's the simpson of simpson-bowles.of the most passionate and entertaining speakers today. >> how many contractors do you have in the defense department? well, it's quite a range. well, what is it? between a million and 10 million. that is a hell of a range. obamacare, call it elvis presley care, i don't care care. where do you get your health care? is it free? there will be hair and blood and eyeballs all over the floor. how do you get that, reading the reader's digest, i guess.

he's the simpson of simpson-bowles.of the most passionate and entertaining speakers today. >> how many contractors do you have in the defense department? well, it's quite a range. well, what is it? between a million and 10 million. that is a hell of a range. obamacare, call it elvis presley care, i don't care care. where do you get your health care? is it free? there will be hair and blood and eyeballs all over the floor. how do you get that, reading the reader's digest, i guess. anyway, that's it. >> even the guy who used to be the youngest guy in the room but isn't so young anymore showed up. bill clinton he gave a great speech. he is 65, but he's spending towards bipartisan solutions. so look, here's the bottom line, it shows americans do care and older people do care a lot. tom brokaw was there, my mentor. they care. they're trying to change the country for the better. let's do a debt deal. >>> tonight, how the mighty have fallen. john edwards' corruption trial. can his daughter save him from a prison sentence? i'll

i read every word of the simpson-bowles report. if you haven't read it you should read it. and on the corporate tax reform thing, for example, i agree with what they did. they would raise slightly more money by flattening rates. the one thing they want to do i disagree with is get rid of the r and d tax credit. we're already 17th in the world in the generosity of our research and development tax credit and we're trying to get high end manufacturing back. we're getting a lot. manufacturers increasingly like to have r and d done at the site where they do manufacturing. but otherwise, i think you know, those two things are good. on the medicare, entitlement, you have two problems. one is demographic. if the baby-boomers consume health care at the same percentage of gdp our kid desire we're i mean, our parents did, we're sticking to our kids. about i would say $200 billion of the trillion dollar difference whan we pay under our system than we would pay if we had any other advanced country system, is because of diabetes and other lifestyle-related things that older people and ch

and then there was a vote against a simpson/bowles-like budget by the congress. understand that there isn't agreement on simpson/bowles. in fact, there's not a lot of damage about simpson/bowles and then the other thing i would say, we were talking about big government. another way to measure size of government is revenues as a share of gdp. they are near 15%. they were below 15%. they are at an historic low for the post world war ii. people need to talk about, are they willing to pay for the social security medicare student loans, et cetera, that they want. >> i think people get it recognize that we can't afford the programs that we have right now but people don't come out and say, hey, we can't afford this. this is what we need to do even though it's not going to impact people 55 and old ohher today but future generations are not going to have it there. how do you get the buy in, kevin, from the people, to make the hard choices that need to be made? >> well, i think it takes leadership and it takes a much different path than the one we are on. if you go back an

where are you and simpson bowls?mpson/bowles were enacted in whole would you be comfortable with that fiscal plan? >> i'd be more comfortable than i am today. i think it was a very good starting point. it was incomplete and as far as it went it wasn't fully adequate to the extent of the emergency we are facing. >> but that's compromise. >> it would have been -- but wait a minute, chuck. who was it that threw simpson/bowles over the side? it was the president. he created this commission then completely ignored it. has sent two budgets forward. >> so the house republicans who voted against it, they don't hold -- they don't deserve any blame for voting against this, paul ryan in particular? you had tom coburn, mike cray, two very conservative senators voting for this proposal. had the three house republicans jumped on, this thing would have been forced into a vote, it would have forced the president to support it because it would have gotten the 14 votes. >> exactly the same thing could be said of the democratic members

let's get to work and get bowles simpson put in place. >> senator johnson, it's not as simple as simpson-bowlesbut is this government now too big to succeed? >> it's certainly too big to manage, that's for sure. i want to go back to last summer because i have no idea hough close we might have come. i was totally opposed to negotiations because the american people simply don't know what was proposed, what was rejected. we should be really following basically regular order. again, the house has done that, the senate should do that here. the democrats and the senate should put forward a plan they can actually vote for. since i've been here, a senate democrat has yet to even vote for one budget proposal. none. they need to do that first so the american people can see what their plan is for preventing the fiscal cliff. >> senator, you'll agree at some point we've got to cut spending, wouldn't you? >> let me say, ron, we'd agree to call each other by senator but, ron, he and i have a common goal, which is to get our country on a physically sustainable path. strict spending cuts provides a way forward

he walked away from simpson bowl bowles. as simpson said, he asked us to put together the plan.ther the plan he asked us. we got the majority within the simpson bowles commission to do it. and it was abandoned. of course, everybody else is going to abandon it on the democratic side because he is the leader of the party. >> joe, let me pick up on that. i agree with you. but what was so refreshing about what senator toomey heard, i heard out of his mouth that rich guys should pay a little more. and by the way, so i'm going to criticize the republicans, save senator toomey here, for also not taking a stand. i'm not seeing the plans from them. >> well, they are on the floor today. >> ok. >> three plans today. and, pat, republicans and paul ryan has been putting up plans for three years. >> absolutely. >> and waiting for democrats to respond with their version of where america should go. and we're getting nothing from the democratic side. what are you hearing on the hill? why are the democrats refusing? because we know that the democratic senate budget chairman, he is a great man. an

the central idea of search -- simpson-bowles. the republican that congressman ryan and republicans voted against the simpson-bowles and governor romney stood up and raised his hand when they asked him, would you accept a deal that had $10 of spending if every $1 of new revenue, and governor romney said "absolutely not." because they had any new revenue he would not support it. now, the president's budget which is before the congressional budget office, and is not, i might add, the thing that they voted on in the senate, the president's budget would cut $4 trillion in a balanced way, with some new revenue. >>chris: sir, let me bring in congressman ryan. >> first of all, this promise to cut deficit in half over his first term, that is one of the biggest promise breaks he made. second, the congressional budget office did look at president's budget and it has $400 billion of deficit reduction over 10 years. an average of $40 billion of it will deficit reduction in the president's budget. that is according to the c.b.o., $1.45 trillio

he is the simpson of simpson bowles.ssionate and entertaining speakers today. >> how many contractors do you have in the defense department? well, it's quite a range. what is it? it's between a million and 10 million. that is a hell of a range. obama care, call it elvis presley carry. where do you get your health care? is it free? there'll be hair and blood and eyeballs all over the floor. how the hell do you get that? anyway. >> even the guy used to be the guy youngest in the room but not anymore showed up. president bill clinton was there. he's 65 years old which is young, but he's spending a lot of time working towards bipartisan solutions. so, look. here's the bottom line. shows americans do care. and older people do care allot. tom brokaw was there, my mentor. they care. >>> plus a primetime exclusive. jane lynch gets personal. >> i have a really strong life.

he is the simpson of simpson bowles.ssionate and entertaining speakers today. >> how many contractors do you have in the defense department? well, it's quite a range. what is it? it's between a million and 10 million. that is a hell of a range. obama care, call it elvis presley carry. where do you get your health care? is it free? there'll be hair and blood and eyeballs all over the floor. how the hell do you get that? anyway. >> even the guy used to be the

i'm proposing that we do a version of simpson-bowles. let's spend the next two weeks together, no press. and lets hammer out something and my guys are going to give an entitlements but you guys are going to give on revenue because everyone knows we can't do it by cuts alone and by revenue alone. >> you're right. i think that that's the reality and actually a little bit of a conundrum for the house leadership team if the president does put simpson-bowles on the table, which would be a wonderful thing since it was you know his team to put it together in the first place and creating this commission that he ignored for a year. we'll set that aside. if he comes to the table now, it's better late than never. number two, to the governor's point about you know, the members in the house and you know, those folks were elected. >> this governor or this governor? >> as a former lieutenant governor, i'm sitting here a little bit. >> alicia was a former, never mind. >> my point is that, you know, you talk about the house members. they came to the tabl

my three appointees to the bowles-simpson commission voted for it. one of my appointees will to the joint select committee later in the year offered our friends on the other side new revenue. that's not something that we lightly offer. we got nothing in return. about the long-term debt problem facing this country, and we all know that it's on the entitlement side. so at some point here, this president needs to become the adult because the speaker and i have been the adults in the room arguing that we ought to do something about the nation's most serious long-term problem. >> schieffer: well, talk to me about the timing here. are you talking about you'd like to do this, having this argument over whether or not to raise the debt limit before the election or are you willing to let that go until after the election? >> well, the timing will be determined by the president. they determine when to request of us that we raise the debt ceiling. we assume that will happen at the end of the year, early next year. >> schieffer: so, so you're not going to do anyth

frankly, none of them come close to being as good as bowles-simpson. alice rivlin has done good work, pete domenici, our former senator from new mexico, has done good work. bowles-simpson says we're going to raise $1 revenue for every dollar on the spending side. the grand compromise is democrats agree to an entitlement reform to make sure they are going to be around for our grandchildren and grandchildren. on the revenue side we reduce rates for the individual side and corporate side. we eliminate it by half the so-called tax expenditures in the tax code. tax credits, tax deductions, tax loopholes, tax breaks. get rid of about half of them. that, the bowles-simpson deficit commission plan enjoys the support of almost half the senate. almost half the senate. pretty much an equal number of democrats and republicans. when we get through this election -- we have a budget in place right now. we have a budget in place for 2012. we have a budget that's going to be effective in 2013. right now, we're seeing deficit reduction, $600 billion in defense spending i

. >> we had bowles-simpson. we heard timothy geithner just hesitate as he said we would get back to bowles-simpson. are you optimistic we could revisit the work of bowles-simpson after the election? >> i remember saying one of the sunday morning shows, probably "meet the press" the day after bowles-simpson came out. i said something of this nature. i was asked whether or not i thought it would pass the house and the senate. and i said the answer is yes it's only a question all it occurs before or after a bond market crisis. i still hold to that view. i think the worst mistake that the president made was not embracing that particular vehicle right away because there were very few initiatives which have the wonderful capability of getting republicans and democrats on board the exact legislative language interpreted differently. i mean, what's in the bowles-simpson initiative is a trillion dollars in tax expenditures. tax expenditures to republicans are subsidies. eliminating them is an excellent political maneuver.

absolutely i believe we should revisit bowles-simpson, as you know that grew out of a proposal of senatorgregg and iing we made that five years ago. i serveden 0 the bowles-simpson commission, as senator greg. we supported its findings. i believe that's the best blueprint for going forward. that's why i put that before the senate budget committee this year. but i said, we're not going to vote on it right now, because we all know what will happen if we vote on it right now it will go down. you've got to wait, i think, until after the election before people are prepared to move off their fixed positions. and that's what we've got to get all sides to do, move off their fixed positions. bowl simpsons is a great outline. i think domenici-rivlin was terrific. at the end of the day what's got to happen we've got to come together and deal with our long-term debt threat and i believe we've got it a chance to do that, either in a lame duck or the first part of next year, but we've got to do the homework now. >> and you're still -- are you getting any traction on this from the white house? >> you kn

simpson bowles had me and senator greg on it.r reforming the tax code which would raise revenues. we had 33 senators vote to eliminate the ethanol blending tax credit. it's overblown. we want to fix the problems in the country. we're willing to have increased revenues for the government. our problem with the grover tax pledge is he randomly picks what he decides is a tax increase. i would tell you that eliminating tax credits and tax gimmicks and tax loopholes is eliminating spending, it is not raising taxes. >> i think this is an important point. the tax code has these things called tax expenditures. they give people money to help buy a house. they give oil companies money. they give money for ethanol, millions of other things. they are bigger than medicare. they are huge. with more than a trillion dollars according to the tax policy center. alan greenspan says he should be considering spending. and donald marone says they should be considered spending do. you consider them spending, or are they just spending disguised as parts

/simpson says reduce tax rates across the board by closing special interest loopholes. the reason people like me didn't support bowles/simpson it ignored health care, the drive of our debt. we put up alternatives. the president hasn't offered a single solution to fix this debt crisis, to deal with this tax explosion that happens at the end of the year. more importantly he's disavowed any other alternative. that's how you get to compromiscompromis compromise, david. you pass what you believe. the senate passes what they believe. you compromise. that isn't happening because the president and his party leaders in the senate are refusing to do anything to address this debt crisis. what's going to happen at the end of the year i think will largely be determined by who wins this election. this election is going to be a great choice of two -- the president's approach or the idea offered by governor romney. the country will choose. i think that will decide what ends up happening in lame duck 2013. >> depending on the out-t toutc the election, will you and other republican leaders feel like we've had a referendum on this, we'

simpson-bowles commission. the president's debt reduction commission that he didn't push, republicans opposed. it's gone nowhere. >> i don't know the inside story. i have read the stories. it's hard to tell. i personally don't care. i wish they'd split the difference in half at one point. if you read, i hope the american public reads simpson-bowles. i think it's a fantastic road map to fix social security, to have fair taxation, which is progressive, but gets rid of a lot of tax entitlements. i think those things, if we do something like simpson-bowles, america can come back. it can make decisions. it will show we're doing the right thing, and certainty around taxes and a more efficient taxism will help growth. i think you'll fix the future problem. you won't create a fiscal cliff now. you'll fix a lot of other issues, and it will show the americans we're back. it will have to do something like that. >> you can see the full interview with jamie dimon, including additional thoughts on mitt romney, the campaign,