they have a lot more revenue, frankly, than simpson-bowles. everybody should know -- simpson-bowles also cut defense more than anyone is willing to talk about. this across-the-board sequester is a bad idea, whether it's defense spending or other areas, but if we are going to talk about these seriously, we have got to really delve into the ideas bipartisan groups have put out there. >> chris van hollen, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> this fall, and meningitis outbreak was traced to contaminated steroid injections in massachusetts. tomorrow, the house energy committee looks into the outbreak. bringing its eli starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3 and c-span radio -- it to you live starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3 and despair radio. >> watch book tv online ive tomorrow, streaming video from the national book awards in new york city and red carpet interviews with finalists. all online, live tomorrow at 6:00 p.m. eastern. add your comments on facebook.com/booktv. >> secretary geithner spent tuesday at the annual wall street jour

i think we should create the equivalent of eight simpson- bowles region of a simpson- bowles, and come up with a plan to buy 75 years of salt with the rigid of solvency. i might add a wrinkle here. every 10 years, a similar commission ought to be created. let's not get into this mess where we have six months to go with social security. you know how important it is for people. people are devastated by the recession and their pension plans lost. it is important to us, our kids come and grandchildren. i think we should create a commission that will report back to congress before a vote by the end of the next calendar year. i want to talk about the two toughest elements when it comes to entitlements, medicare and medicaid. represent about 20% of our budget. they are a real challenge to us. untouched, and amended, medicare will run up money in 12 years that is scary. we have so many americans who count on it. almost 50 million americans and the number is growing. yesterday, in america, 10,000 reached the age of 65. it will happen tomorrow. it will happen every day for the next 18 years. the

simpson-bowles is the way forward. what did simpson-bowles do? they didn't raise tax rates they eliminated deductions. all but two. interest on your home with a cap and charitable deductions and and they had lower rates at 25% corporate rate. the top individual rate was around 30%. they took that trillion dollars from eliminationing deductions and exemptions. they d they put some of it on the debt and buydown rates and did entitlement reform. that is what i think will wind up doing and we'll come together on discretionary spending cuts. i'm optimistic after hearing john boehner today that revenue would be on the table in the form of simpson-bowles. i think that's the magic way forward. and the democrats have to do entitlement reform. >> but if you look at the polls, people actually voted for, a lot of them support raising taxes on the wealthiest americans. boehner said he would not do that. he would not support it, harry reid said democrats would insist on those taxes being raised. >> all i would suggest is that every bipartisan group has looked

less than simpson-bowles. look at his overall plan -- '-- s. . >> maybe his negotiating position would be enhanced if we went over the cliff. >> i do not think we want to go over the cliff. we are trying to avoid going over the cliff. the real issue is whether our republican colleagues are willing to make those tough decisions before january 1, or whether they will only face those decisions after january 1. the president laid out a clear plan not just since the election but before the election for how to get there. when i say that speaker banner has set the right tone but the jury is still out on the substance of this proposal, let us see the substance. the president has been transparent. let us see what the speaker is proposing because if it does not hit those targets, then we are not going to accomplish our goal of long-term deficit reduction with inappropriate revenue component. it would be really bad if we just kicked the can down the road here again. between what happens in the next six weeks and what hap

than simpson-bowles. so look, i think 1.6 trillion is a good target, although less than simpson-bowles, but i think if you look at his overall plan, the president has that right balance spent there's been some democrats have suggested maybe your leverage position would be enhanced if we went over the cliff. what do you think of that? >> well, i don't think we want to go over the cliff. we are trying to avoid going over the cliff. the real issue is whether our republican colleagues are willing to make those tough decisions before january 1, or whether they will only face those decisions after january 1. the president has laid out a very clear plan, not just since the election, but before the election or how to get there. so when i say that speaker boehner has set the right tone, but the jury is still out on the substance of his proposal, let's see the substance. the president has been transparent to let's see what the speakers proposing that because if it doesn't hit those targets, and then were not going

go back to simpson-bowles. simpson bowles rejected the idea of higher tax rates. the people who will give up most deductions are the wealthy among us. big a rate, 30% and tell people you have to pay it. how many americans in the upper income level fully pay 35%. the tax code is a social engineering document. flatten the tax rate, make people pay the rate you pick, have a 25% corporate rate. if you have bad tax policy, you're going to have bad job creation. simpson-bowles is the way to go forward. i'm confident that's the way we will go. >> we'll watch it, senator graham, appreciate your time. >>> coming up next, john king and candy crowley, also david gergen and gloria borger. when you listen to senator graham, do you get a sense that we're looking at anything other than gridlock? you can say simpson-bowles all you want. >> you're going to hear a lot of simpson-bowles. you do have a mid -- speaker boehner planted a flag today, he said i want to be conciliatory, i want to listen. harry reid said i'm not going to draw any lines in the stands. the burden is on the pr

blacks obama rejected simpson- bowles. -- >> obama rejected simpson- bowles.why are you considering it? >> this is both a strength and a week -- weakness for simpson- bowles. simpson-bowles provides great architecture. it does not flesh out every detail. nobody has taken simpson-bowles and converted that from a well thought out blueprint into legislation because there are lots of various ambiguities. the overall architecture of simpson-bowles says we should achieve deficit reduction through combination of cuts and revenue. it seems to me we could take that as the starting point. that is how we had deficit numbers. my view is we take the ratios, "wall street journal simpson- bowlsimpson-bowles, and move forward. if we disagree, we have an obligation to come up with something else. the president's budget is actually much more closely aligned with the framework of simpson-bowles than the other budget we have seen coming out of the house, for example. partly by virtue of the fact he has revenue in addition to cats. the president's budget has some significant cuts

simpson-bowles was terrific.rspective. >> you can't figure out why they haven't been? there's entitlement cut and lowering marginal rates to 20%. that's a nonstarter, both of those. >> if you look at the distributional effect of simpson-bowles it's much more favorable because simpson-bowles also raised the capital gaines. if you look back to 86, what we did was we lowered rates by raising the capital gains rate. that's something that would -- republicans aren't going to like but it's a way to tax the rich. >> i agree. i think i could sell it to the left if they would just listen. i could sell higher capital gains. some of it is much better than this. it's like 2% or 3% rise on the upper marginal rates. you know, they've got a much better deal if we do no deductions and we do a rise in capital gains rate. you get a lot more money from rich people. i don't think they understand that. >> absolutely. the certain peculiarities like people have been talking about for years where it's automatically solved. i love that i

simpson-bowles was theoretical. it was never really pushed out in terms of language and it didn't do enough on entitlement side. so there is a document that would actually put dates and requirements and say, by the way, if you don't do it, you will be faced with simpson-bowles plus. the problem is that is what sequester wise. >> my first job was working for the congressional quarterly and like a kid, i went out and studied all the rules of congress. someone said there is only one rule that you need to know. and they said congress can do whatever they want to do. and you can't force it. >> it requires budgets every year, budget resolutions. so to make it work this time, it is not a guarantee. that is why it is part of this package, we need to adopt some spending cuts. the second thing is this time, sequester is death. no one would accept this in a single shot. i think the next time around it has to be a slow death. you know, they are going to be across the board cuts in spending and tax expenditures by october 1. if

, or simpson bowls on testosterone. they want to hear the word "simpson bowls" because that provides a better blueprint than anything out there right now. >> susie: are you finding that all of this uncertainty about the fiscal cliff is affecting your business. >> our business is electricity demand growth, so right now it hasn't yet. but i think the longer they go, and i mean longer in terms of weeks and days, without showing signs of having a constructive solution, i think it will impact our business virtually more with every day in a very visible way. it is unusual for me to say that because our business tends to be a very long, long-term business, but this is an immediate crisis. >> susie: why an immediate crisis for your business? are you holding back on making plans for next year? is that it? >> because our business is derivative of other parts of the economy. a chemical plant's decision to go ahead and build will have a big impact on electricity demand in that area. so as other people sit on their hands, you know,

simpson-bowl simpson-bowles, i think we need a wedge between ordinary rates and capex.aking. >> what should the rates be? >> should be zero. >> i don't know about zero. >> 15 would be very nice. >> 15 is the lowest it's been in forever. you expect to see this. >> obama care in. >> if they go in between the 15 and 20 on the ordinary rate that's 17.5 and you add the 3.8, that might be a compromise position over there, not that i wouldn't like it lower but that's a compromise so you bring it back about to the 20 if you cut, split it down the middle on the capital gains rate. >> marty, thank you. andrew, i've got a website here, cabellas, beautiful crossbows. if you want me not to -- >> if you're going to go hunting, buy a crossbow. >> home protection. >> a home protection security. >> am a lowed to have a baseball bat? i'm out in the middle of nowhere. >> i don't know, i don't know. >> a baseball bat? sports, so that's okay. >> louisville slugger, i'm game for that. >> thank you very much. >> as a dual purpose. >> a big dog. >> i have dogs. >> my dog likes big steaks when

say yes to simpson-bowles, mr. president. i'm willing to say yes to simpson-bowles. we need more revenue in washington. we need more private sector jobs. we don't need to raise tax rates. we need to limit loopholes for the wealthy. mr. simpson, if you say yes to simpson-bowles when it comes to revenue, so will i and so will most republicans. we can get revenue without destroying jobs and both need to. no republican will vote for increased tax rates. we will insist our democratic friends reform entitlements something we've never done ask that's where the big money is at. say yes to simpson-expwoalz we'll get this behind us. >> schieffer: senator, thank you so much. and now we're going to get the other side of this picture. and joining us now, one of the architects of the president's victory, his senior campaign adviser, david axelrod, who is out in chicago. mr. axelrod, thank you so much for joining us. let me just start, on friday, the president said he was open to compromise, but he said he would not accept any approach to deficit reduction, that does not ask the we

one of the two bowles-simpson. resident was to embrace bowles-simpson and put erskine bowles at treasury, would that be a signal that he is in it for the long haul on bowles-simpson in the broad term? >> i think it would be. it would be a brilliant idea. if he can get some kind of agreement on the lines of their recommendations, that will be a triumph. politically for him. and i think also, the country will benefit. i think one thing he might do if it's not bowles would be to offer the treasury to romney. i'm sure he would probably turn it down but it would be the ultimate gesture. i don't think it will happen. i agree john kerry will probably end up at secretary of state. i must say that my sources in the obama white house have been rather quiet since january 2009. [ laughter ] so i'm not sure i have any other inside information. i do that panetta is an interesting man, because he has said that the sequestration, the reduction of funds of the pentagon pentagon happens it will destroy and hallow out the military and

i decided that what you have told me basically is that simpson-bowles rksz simpson-bowles, i think that's into focus with me. i think it would be easier to get simpson-bowles with boehner than with president obama. i don't think he's a true believer. >> we can have that debate but we're 40 days away from going off a cliff or small hill depending on who you ask. the question is what can each side give to get us where we need to be. >> but now you are really just talking about kicking the can again. >> i'm about rising above and rising above calls for compromise. >> i think harold is prepared. >> you are a simpson-bowles guy. >> the challenge is the president has drawn a line in the sand saying i want a pound of flesh period. don't get me a number. don't say a combination of spending cuts and a combination of discretionary of entitlement cuts and some tax increases. he's saying there's only one number. there's only one number. you got to give me that number. don't give me that number, the rest doesn't work. the problem is -- >> the country voted for him whether we like it or not. i like it

i think there are going to be democrats will who want simpson-bowles. some would disagree but the question to me is if the republicans are willing to take simpson-bowles, will democrats will take it. >> can the president sell-- >> schieffer: if they do simpson-bowles, republicans in the house will have to disavow the pledge they took not to raise taxes that they all took. >> they have a little escape route-- the escape route could be tax reform. the rate doesn't change but you remove a lot of deduction so you get some revenue and it gives you a rhetorical way out to say we never raised rates. >> the challenge is, you can't do tax reform in the next two months and the tax rates expire december 31. so how do you get to a koms program-- >> you can extend it. the "washington post" pointed out you can keep tax rates exactly where they are, limit deductions to $50,000 and you would raise as much as you would raise by increasing rates on the wealthy. that would be a fair compromise, as long as it's accompanied by entitlement reform. >> schieffer: it would mean

we do know obama included -- he said nice things about simpson- bowles. there are some spending restraints. not a single one of those ideas was put into obama's budget, not one. we know he is not for any of that. when republicans offered to put them into subsequent savings from the budget control act, the democrats all objected. they are officially against every saving -- every saving discussed in simpson-bowles. so, when they spent nine months discussing simpson-bowles, a $5 trillion tax increase and hint at tax reform and spending reform, and when they finally went into the room to see what they came up with, they did not have legislative language which it of taken two weeks and then -- done by staffers. a pilot typewritten -- pile of typewritten pages that the says "all work and no play makes jack a bellboy" if you watch the movie. nothing in nine months. it is not real. people say this imaginary agreement that is not written down -- massive tax increases, a little on spending, simpson- bowles is a distraction from the fact that the two parties fundame

less than simpson-bowles. his overall plan. >> maybe his negotiating position would be enhanced if we went over the cliff. >> i do not think we want to go over the cliff. we are trying to avoid going over the cliff. the real issue is whether our republican colleagues are willing to make those tough decisions before january 1, or whether they will only face those decisions after january 1. the president laid out a clear plan not just since the election but before the election for how to get there. when i say that speaker banner has set the right tone but the jury is still out on the substance of this proposal, let us see the substance. the president has been transparent. let us see what the speaker is proposing because if it does not hit those targets, then we are not going to accomplish our goal of long-term deficit reduction with inappropriate revenue component. it would be really bad if we just kicked the can down the road here again. between what happens in the next six weeks and what happens over the follo

alan simpson and erskine bowles are next on this special "rise above" edition of the "closing bell." >>> coming up, fixing the fiscal mess. alan simpson and erskine bowles sit down with maria on the eve of the critical meeting between the president and congressional leaders. could their plan be the key to stopping america from going over the fiscal cliff? this exclusive event is next right here on this special edition of the "closing bell." iy stock screener, you can try strategies from independent experts and see what criteria they use. such as a 5% yield on dividend-paying stocks. then you can customize the strategies and narrow down to exactly those stocks you want to follow. i'm mark allen of fidelity investments. the expert strategies feature is one more innovative reason serious investors are choosing fidelity. now get 200 free trades when you open an account. >>> all right. welcome back. we have a hot show for you today. we are getting down to the brass tax on the fiscal cliff tomorrow. president obama and congressional leaders meet face to face with the clock ticking to new ye

simpson bowles is the way forward. they didn't raise tax rates they eliminated deductions. all but two. interest on your home with a cap and charitable deductions and they had 25% corporate rates. they took that $1 trillion and they put some of it on the debt and some of it on the buy down rates. that is what i think will wind up doing and we'll come together on the spending cuts. i'm optimistic after hearing john boehner today that revenue would be on the table in the form of simpson bowles. if you look at the polls. a lot of them do support raising taxes on the wealthiest americans. he said he wouldn't support it. harry r are eid said he would insist on those taxes being raised. the gang of six. three republicans and three democrats simpson bowles rejected higher tax rates and raised revenue by eliminating deductions and creating economic growth. >> did that get you where you need to be on deficit reduction? >> absolutely it does. there is $1 trillion out there every year that we give away through the tax code. take that $1 trillion back and apply some of it through the d

mainly through the good work of erskine bowles and alan simpson. but hard work that was put into this bite 18 members, evenly divided among house and senate, democrats and republicans. the 11th of us voted for the final work product, and then i was invited to join the gang of six to try to continue the conversation from simpson-bowles. it expanded to the gang of eight and the conversation continues as well. it's been going on for to the use. -- for two years. it was an effort to set across the table, very conservative senators, to really talk through not just the reality but the political reality of the deficit which i think we have to be more sensitive to if we are looking for an honest solution. along the way, some of my friends on the left, the progressive community came to visit. i recall one in particular. a labour leader who said what is a nice progressive like you doing in a place like that? why are you hanging around with those people? you just know that they are up to no good and they aren't going to do the things that you have been electe

simpson-bowles is not as specific as people think it is. outside chance that republicans and democrats look at this. they're just exhausted and disgusted by the idea of going through it again, and they kind of say, ugh, i don't like everything in here, but let's do this, pass it, and get it done. first they need to get simpson-bowles into real legislative action, which is what the gang of eight is working on. >>> today storm worried people along the east coast digging out from a nor'easter just ten days after hurricane sandy. the storm's gusting winds, the rains, the record setting snow already piled onto the misery of much of the northeast. new jersey governor chris christie is beginning a news conference on that cleanup. we're going to keep our eyes on what he is having to say. at this hour, the nor'easter is lashing parts of new england, so further north than new jersey. although the storm has passed in some areas. we have the weather channel's meteorologist maria larosa, who is live in scituate, mass. >> reporter: i want to you see behi

because simpson/bowles says i'm going to cut the overall rate. so rates actually went down. >> they did, but where they started was where you start the baseline. what youuild into your base. where that additional -- basically $1 trillion swing is, which is not only the rates, but also allowing capital gains and dividends to go back up slightly, to go ahead and go back to the old rules around estate tax. when we talk about rates, that's also code for a series of changes that were part of the so-called bush tax cuts that would take us back to the clinton era. we can still bring them down and simpson/bowles demonstrated that. but where we started the discussion was in effect, with some of that money in the bank. and as someone who has looked at this every which way, and we've got to make entitlement changes, i think we need to start with that so-called old baseline to get the deal done. >> so start at 39.6% and you might move it down? you might go back up, move it down -- >> simpson/bowles has showed you can move it down. i don't think you can move

>> the simpson bowles plan has two revenue components. one is they assume in their baseline, in their starting point, that you will get the same amount of revenue you would achieve if you allowed the top rate to go back to clinton era levels, a little over 39%. on top of that, they generate about a trillion dollars through tax reform. so what we've said is if you want to hit the deficit reduction targets of simpson bowles, you need to be able to get the amount of revenue that's assumed in their deficit numbers. and that is much closer to the president's proposal of 1.6 trillion. in fact, the president's $1.6 trillion revenue is less than the total amount of revenue that simpson bowles assumes as part of their package. and the president achieves that through a combination of having the rate go up, but also through a tax reform proposal. his proposal, the president's, would limit the value of deductions for high income earners to 28%. >> let's talk about the tax hike that may be in play at this point. do you think that president obama recei

we'll talk with simpson-bowles coming up on the "closing bell."ant to improve our schools... ... what should we invest in? maybe new buildings? what about updated equipment? they can help, but recent research shows... ... nothing transforms schools like investing in advanced teacher education. let's build a strong foundation. let's invest in our teachers so they can inspire our students. let's solve this. since ameriprise financial was founded back in 1894, they've been committed to putting clients first. helping generations through tough times. good times. never taking a bailout. there when you need them. helping millions of americans over the centuries. the strength of a global financial leader. the heart of a one-to-one relationship. together for your future. ♪ >>> welcome back. we are 46 days away from the fiscal cliff. we are counting down. but we are just hours away from a different deadline that's got many people pretty nervous. kayla is explaining the story. over to you. >> maria, this is hostess brands. the maker of twinkies, wonder bread

the final question is why is it simpson-bowles and not bowles- simpson? >> i will take the latter first. the reason is not bowles- simpson is the acronym for that is not appropriate. [laughter] simpson-bowles means son of a bitch, so it makes no difference. this council and others, it is to back these guys up who have the guts to do this. no one knows politics better than you. we have worked together for years. there is a political price. these groups will begin to circle. we will raise more bucks to be right there at their backs until our backs cave in. if the tipping point comes and we go over the cliff, the people in america who are looking around when they go to borrow money to send their kid to community college and it has gone up 2% interest rates, they will say, who did this? what a jerk allow this to happen? they will say, you were the rigid one who would never do anything and we will take it out on you. i hope it does happen. i think the guys who have the guts to go big or go home, we will protect them. being any thoughtful american, that is where

but simpson-bowles numbers their starting point assumes the revenue you get from raising the rates to the higher income level. but they do not proposal to do it that way. >>neil: i just want to be clear. >>guest: there are two issues. one is having a balanced land with enough revenue to get us to $4 trillion in deficit reduction. it is hard to do that with just $1 trillion. >>neil: i understand. we can sort out the details of the other components but it sounds like central to the democratic negotiations here will be you look at a rate hike for the wealthy. in other words, the rates for the rich go back to clinton levels and limit their deductions. >>guest: in terms of the rates, it is a question of math. the president is saying to speaker boehner, look, the tone, the mood, is good but let's see your plan. the president's plan has been on the table. we saying to speaker boehner, here is what we need in revenue as part of a balanced plan. we think you get there by reagans the rates to the clinton era levels. we will look at it, we think the way to do it is to have the rate return for hi

think however simpson-bowles is a great proposal.rtive of it and i think is the blueprint we ne to follow. we cannot all agree on erything. >> i have to make evenadmit iis tough waiting. >> the d deficit situation is the central issue facing this country. the only way to fix it is througugh a balanced approach. people are going to c come the table initially with their very strong opinions, but we have to wowork together and come up with a compromise where everyone compromises. that is what the country needs. john delaney, a man with four daughters and a wife at home, probably used to having to make compromise. thank you. we will be back with some ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] combine the pnc cashbuilder viscredit card with a qualifying pnc performance select checking account and earn 75% % more than cards earning 1% cash back on almost everything. >> and thanks for joining us for "washington business report." be sure to tune in next week for our post-t-election program. you have options for how to connect with us. we hope to see you

simpson bowles.tart talking about new solutions. >> that was his commission. he was up for re-election. maybe it wasn't the greatest time to do system of those things. he should start talking about right now. simpson bowles. the fiscal cliff, that's something we've got to fix. >> do you know that in simpson bowles, they tax investment income as regular income? >> fine. >> as long as you're having an all-in debate with all of the components. >> just please get me back there. >> not necessarily, but it doesn't mean that you come to the table and you don't compromise. >> they don't go up, jared. they don't go up. they go down. >> closing the loopholes. >> of course they go up. they raise revenue. >> rise above. not rise rates. >> they raise revenue and cut spending. >> they've got to do both. they have to clean up the tax code. they're not revenue neutral. >> they're going to be with us for the rest of hour. ♪ [ female announcer ] today, it's not just about who lives in the white house, it's about who l

so by the simpson-bowles plan we would have the next balanced budget in 2035. you know, thing that's a little far out for me, if we're really serious about paying for the things we want and need. and so a think he could do is educate people about the existing tax codes. here are two facts. the tax gap, that is to say the amount of money we don't collect which is due and owing according to a brookings study is $400 billion a year. >> that's essentially tax cheating of various kinds. >> of various kinds. $400 billion we're not collecting now. now, according to art laugher and his group who studied how much it costs our society to administer the current tax system, it costs us $431 billion a year to administer this system. you know, so on its face it say s almost a monkey could figure out beater way to collect the revenue for the things we need and want than fixing the existing tax system. i think would be great if the president of the united states said we should reason together about an effective system that fairly collects the revenue we need and we probably ou

what they are doing is -- simpson-bowles was theoretical. it really never was flushed out in terms of language, and did not do enough in the entitlement side. so there is a document that would actually put dates in requirements and say, by the way, you're going to be faced with simpson-bowles plus. the problem is that's what this question was. >> my first job in washington was working for a magazine called the congressional quarterly. unlike a kid, i went out and studied all the rules until somebody took me aside and said there is only one rule that you need to know. and i said what is that? and they said congress can do whatever it wants to do. and i can't force that. >> they all require budgets every year. budget resolutions. they haven't done. to make it work, it's not a guarantee. that's i think it's important in the lame-duck session to actually adopt spending cuts and do some stuff. >> yes. >> the second thing is, the sequester his death. that is why no one would want to accept that in a single shot. i think the next time around, it ha

i really go back to simpson- bowles. put everything on the table -- i repeat -- everything on the table. not only taxes and revenue, but spending cuts and entitlement reform. let me speak about each. first, revenue. so many people in the business community and outside have talked about simpson-bowles and how much of the guideline in what we are engaged in. it relied on revenue for 40% of the deficit reduction over a 10- year period of time. it is understandable when you read the report, as i went through it this morning, why they say this. if you look back to the last year, when we had a balanced budget under president william jarvis and clinton, you'll find at that point in time, the revenues reflected 19.6% of gdp in spending was 19.6% of gdp. where are we today? but at the estimates. yesterday, warren buffett said 16.5% and it is coming in as revenue and i have heard lower. spending, it is somewhere on the range of 22%-24%. to me, that is the reality of what is happening. a decline in revenue and an increase in spendi

when we think of bowles and mr. simpsonting is, you know, who put that commission together? the president. we all keep talking about it like, you know, that was part of the campaign, you know, that was a centerpiece. seemed like everybody was onboard. becky, truly -- isn't it apparent why the president didn't do it? the deal is crazy. he doesn't want to can you spend. >> $1.6 trillion was not the number that surprised me. it is the $400 billion in spending cuts that surprised me. i don't know how you get to anything, anywhere close to 1 to 3 with those numbers as a starting point. honestly, what surprise meese morning anything, rick, i know the things get played out publicly in politics. to me this seems like the type of situation where you have a much more difficult time trying to get your base to come around to some -- >> wait a minute. when is the next election, becky? >> two years. >> okay. why does he need to pump up his base and go on the road? he won. what is this for? what is this trying to do? >> if people come aro

did you see this about simpson-bowles, huge new effort, campaign to fix the debt founded by simpson and in its drive to mobilize corporate and grassroots support for congress to make tough choices on this. can we get them on? they raised 35 million since july. >> and dave cote is the leader of this group. they'll be ramping it up. they already have 80 s&p 500 ceos. i think we should open the platform. >> you know how to reach them. >> i'll e-mail dave right now. >> good. >>> the looming fiscal cliff in the u.s. not the only threat on the horizon. our next guest says -- you guys want to keep talking? >> you shouldn't get distracted from that. you're a pro. go ahead. >> just keep going, okay, i just want to make sure. >> wouldn't you like to get simpson and bowles? >> we can get them, absolutely should. let's just get to him, mark grant, got a lot of things on the fiscal cliff specifically in europe. mark great to see you this morning. >> good to see you all, as always. >> walk us through the permutations. what is about to happen in your estimation? >> three fiscal cliffs in the world we'