simpson bowles was the president's creation, nothing happened. on the panel, a lot of excellent ideas, very similar to simpson bowles. he is a very capable person to talk about. i am puzzled by what he is doing . what he is proposing is a 10% surtax on joint filers who make 75,000 dollars. in the banking space, to take a trillion dollars of lending out of the economy over the next 10 years doesn't make any sense. all of these other panels and debates that we have had in a bipartisan way had made some excellent recommendations. this one is a nonstarter, at least both parties appear to say that is the case. i wish we would have a serious debate about entitlements. that is what is bankrupting the country and getting red of all the deductions and exemptions and credits that provide no economic value to the country. >> do you think that this proposal by congressman camp, if you say it is dead on arrival, why did he do it? >> well, he is leaving office and maybe it is a legacy statement. he is a very thoughtful person. i am puzzled by why he did not br

no more simpson/bowles. we're going down, meet down the middle. we're going to have a marriage of right and left. pretty clearly identification with the progressive wing of his party. pretty clear statement of clear-cut, old democratic principles. >> absolutely. and you said it in your intro. midterm elections are simply about getting out the base. this is not politics of trying to persuade the other side that you'll work with them. no. president obama has got to get the base of the democratic party to do what they don't normally do, which is turn out in large numbers in a midterm. to do that, he has to strip away all the compromise stuff. he has to strip away all the stuff that irritated the democratic base over the last five years and he is now giving them exactly what they want, a hard line on social security. and more importantly, he is using the s words, spending. the mother's milk of states. he is going to the governors and did so today, i want to spend money on infrastructure job training, things democrats particularly at the state level lo

simpson/bowles had a goal of 4 trillion. we can get that additional 1 trillion by passing comprehensive immigration reform which is stalled in the house of representatives. what the president is saying in his budget we need to get america back to work. we need to make sure that the people who get up every day go to work and work hard can make it. they are living paycheck to paycheck. we've got to be more sensitive to the fact that more americans working, paying taxes is going to expand our economy and reduce our deficit. >> we'll have to leave it there, to be continued, and the budget doesn't even come out until a week from tuesday. senator durbin, senator ayotte, thank you both for joining us today. >> thank you, chris. >> we wanted to ask the obama administration about the crisis in ukraine but they decided to put national security adviser susan rice on one show in his first sunday appearance since 2012 when she blamed the berngzy terror attack on reaction from an anti-islamic video. perhaps susan rice didn't want to answe

we've told you about the simpson bowles attacks taking place in some of these races, but bottom line,litical system in washington is designed to kill big legislation now. it is not designed to get big things done. that's it for this edition of the daily rundown. coming up next on msnbc, chris jansing. we'll see you tomorrow. captain obvious: i'm in a hotel. and a hotel is the perfect place to talk to you about hotels. all-you-can-eat is a hotel policy that allows you to eat all that you can. the hotel gym is short for gymnasium. the hotel pool is usually filled with water. and the best dot com for booking hotels, is hotels.com. it's on the internet, but you probably knew that. or maybe not, i don't really know you. bellman: welcome back, captain obvious. captain obvious: yes i am. all those words are spelled correctly. i love this body and what it's capable of. no matter what size. but i'll be honest, this version feels really good. my body, like my life, is a work in progress. but i'm getting there with weight watchers. the new simple start plan made it so easy for me to start losing

no more simpson/bowles. we're going down, meet down the middle. we're going to have a marriage of right and left. pretty clearly identification with the progressive wing of his party. clear-cut old democratic principles. >> absolutely. and you said it in your intro. midterm elections are simply about getting out the base. this is not politics of trying to persuade the other side that you'll work with them. no. president obama has got to get the base of the democratic party to do what they don't normally do, which is turn out in large numbers in a midterm. to do that, he has to strip away all the compromise stuff. he has to strip away all the stuff that irritated the democratic base over the last five years and he is now giving them exactly what they want, a hard line on social security. and more importantly, he is using the s words, spending. the mother's milk of states. he is going to the governors and did so today, i want to spend money on infrastructure job training, things democrats particularly at the state level love. >> let's talk about the

they tried with the attempt of simpson-bowles. it became a political ping-pong. neil: you are right. if you cannot bring people to the table not taking seriously the economy deulting on debt. to ruin crit rating. neil: we are retaking the can down the road hoping to redress leader but this will hurt e credi rating this ll hurt to the reputation not shutting the govern down when it is open for business. that is opinion snet they cannot get any regulation doesn'tenate that has nothingto do with the data. we talk past each her. [laughter] >> they need to get to the table. >> g the mass down. thleen sebelius says she has no idea where we got the ca dummy mes 7 billion number the standar that is being held to the white house. food could be so stupr taif or say something so outrageous to utter that figure? have a good idea. i will give you a hint. it was t secretary it was t secretary herself. [ male announcer ] these days, a small business can save by sharing. like carpoo... polly wants to know if we can pick her up. yeah, we can make room. yeah. [ male announcer ] ..

they tried with the attempt of simpson-bowles. it became a political ping-pong. neil: you are right. if you cannot bring people to the table not taking seriously the economy defaulting on debt. to ruin credit rating. neil: we are retaking the can down th road hoping to redress leader but this will hurt the credit rating this will hurt to the reputation not shutting the government down wn it is open for business. that is myopinion spinet they cannot get any regulation doesn't sete that has nothing to do with the data. we talk past each other. [laughter] >> they need to get to the table. >> get the mass down. kathleen sebelius says she has no idea where we got the card dummy mes 7 billion numberer the standard that is being held to the white house. food could be so stupid or taif or sayomething so outrageous to utter that figure? we have a good idea. i will give you a hint. it was the secretary hers [ female announcer ] who are we we are thinkers. the job jugglers. the up all-nhts. and the ones who turn idea intoction. we've made our passions our life's work. we st

house and the senate, of course, was an election year and he talked about immigration reform and simpson bowlsy to do that that was then and now we are here. rather than thinking how we going to work together it is as though he had declared war. >> he has declared war. just not just on congress but the american people. when he talks abouting congress he talks about bypassing congress and the american will and the fact that he showed up and voted. what we see is we have got some 40 jobs bill sitting on harry reid's desk. he needs to pick up the phone and call harry reid and say why don't you take some of those. >> it's sort of interesting. he has done this -- if you look at the numbers. he has 168 executive orders. they have come in all shapes and sizes. 168 in the six years that evan president so far. the bush administration at this time in the second term he had 224 which actually 56 more executive orders. the clinton administration before that at this time had 276, 108. so actually he is on the low end. of course, what you are doing with executive orders is significant. yet for some reason h

he's following along what the diminishing panel i was on and obviously the simpson bowles panel.me together and recommended fundamental tax reform with growth. we lowered to 27 and got rid of reductions and credits. what he's done is not similar. to go after the lending side of the equation in over ten years and take nearly a trillion of lending out of the economy. how does that help anybody? >> they're looking for revenues. as a follow up on that, you've got i think something of a g hall against banks coming in this administration. we don't have time to go into that. you've got stiff capital requirements but also stiff liquidity requirements. that's a new thing. is that or are those policies putting a crunch on lending? has it stopped the kind of lending we might have normally seen? >> today unlike some cases before '08 you've got to have assets to borrow money. that's a good thing. there's more capital and equity in the united states. it's an industry. we want to make loans, but obviously the economy is very slow. there are a lot of people uncertain because of regulatory burden

. ♪ >> the goal that was identified by simpson-bowles waso reduce the deficit as a percentage of gdpbut what our budget projection shows is that over the course of the next ten years or in ten years the percentage will actually be below 2%, so wve made substantial progress in reducing the deficit. neil: well, i'm relieved. all in this time i thought, you know, the debt was ballooning out of control, and $18 trillion. no nee to worry. i guess alan simpson can just calm down, the debt co-chair joins us now on the phone. senator, what do can you make of that? you can take a chill pill. [laughter] >> it does make you chuckle. i mean, in my line of work it's like that old poem out of the night that covers me black is a pip from pole to pole. [laughter] anyway, honestly, u know, when he drops away from what he did in the last proposal which was the chain cpi -- no, he's dropped that. neil: that's right. and now t come up with this babble is just babble. i mean, it's just not lip service, it's the whole jaw. neil: you ow, senator, it would be like me saying on jupiter i'd be is svelte, and

. >> the goal that was identified by simpson-bowles was to reduce the deficit as a percentage of gdp3%. but what our budget projection shows is that over the course of the next ten years or in ten years the percentage will actually be below 2%, so we've made substantial proess in recing the deficit. neil: well, i'm relieved. all in this time i thought, you know, the debt was ballooning out of control, and $18 trillion. no need to worry. i guess alan simpson can just calm down, the debt co-chair joins us now on the phone. senator, what do can you make of that? you can take a chill pill. [laughter] >> it does make you chuckle. i mean, in my line of work it's like that old poem out of the night that covers me black is a pip from pole to pole. [laughter] anyway, honestly, you know, when he drops away from whate did in the last proposal which was the chain cpi -- now,, he's dropped that. neil: that's right. and now to come up with this babble is just babble. i mean, it's just not lip service, it's the whole jaw. neil: you know, senator, it would be like me saying on juter i'd be is svelte

. ♪ see what's new at projectluna.com >> the goal that was identified by simpson-bowles was to reduces a percentage of gdp to below 3%. but what our budget projection shows is that over the course of the next ten years or in ten years the percentage will actually be below 2%, so we've made substantial progress in reducing the deficit. neil: well, i'm relieved. all in this time i thought, you know, the debt was ballooning out of control, and $18 trillion. no need to worry. i guess alan simpson can just calm down, the debt co-chair joins us now on the phone. senator, what do can you make of that? you can take a chill pill. [laughter] >> it does make you chuckle. i mean, in my line of work it's like that old poem out of the night that covers me black is a pip from pole to pole. [laughter] anyway, honestly, you know, when he drops away from what he did in the last proposal which was the chain cpi -- now,, he's dropped that. neil: that's right. and now to come up with this babble is just babble. i mean, it's just not lip service, it's the whole jaw. neil: you know, senator, it would be lik

. >> do you remember the simpson bowls proposal? >> i do. >> is yours less radical than that?t was, you know, pretty radical in the sense that it did change things terrifically. >> well, we used sort of their structure we said not what comes out of code but lower rates and see what goes back in. what we are trying to do is have a public debate about these tradeoffs. look, you are right there. are tradeoffs to lower rates and change some of the provisions people have. but, look, 95% of individuals under our plan will not be itemizing. so a lot of these individual measures aren't going to matter. we actually lower their income rates. as i said, the average family is going to see higher income. so, this is really an important thing to do. and to address. >> do you think it likely speaker boehner is going to bring your proposal to the floor for a vote ultimately? >> we have had a lot of good support already just on the first day. look, this is going to be about engaging people and members of congress and other policy makers to say we need to move forward. this is a draft plan. it'

simpson/bowles. >> who made the decision the day the president was inaugurated that they would do nousiness with him and their number ambition would be to destroy his presidency. who was that guy? was that mitch mcconnell? wasn't that the same guy? >> i think it was rush limbaugh also. >> the very same guy who said if he had only cooperated with us. >> absolutely. >> part of the problem is the president is not hitting them with the sort of things you're talking about. he steps back and says well, we've created x million job years. >> i tried to talk him into being me. i'm sure he is watching. do it like i do it. >> it's not just this president. the democrats seem to play by these marquee of queensbury rules. >> no, they play defense. >> exactly. if you're explaining in politics, you're losing. why are they not going on the offense and saying these guys drove us into the ditch. they want to drive us back into the ditch. >> it was the bush economy. it was the bush economy that he walked into. the economy was in free-for-all. and we should be calling this the long slump rather than anyt

camp's plan, simpson-bowles, talked about reducing overall rates yet we never get it.cause of all the lobbyists that, like a more complex tax code becauseethey get their special interests in. how, does the congressman think there will ever, that will ever change, that we'll ever get rid of lobbyists that stand in the way of what all americans want? >> well, chairman, david asman just asked, very in a very frustrate the manner, it seems as though we have tax reform proposes come up year after year and he says all the lobbyists tend to kill it. when will we get tax reform? when will this happen? when will it change? >> we haven't had a detailepropg time. i think one of the reasons it was so important to do a comprehensive, detailed bill because it actually shows and you can get the analysis, we never had, what we call a dynamic analysis that shows economic growth, job creation, wages, increasing. so that's why it was important to do this i think as people have a chance to take a look at this and evaluate, you know are the tradeoffs worth it? is it better to have a simple

$23 billion is more than double the amount of agricultural cuts recommended by the bipartisan simpson-bowles commission. and this is a reform bill that contains the greatest reforms to agricultural programs in decades. we have finally ended direct payment subsidies which are given to farmers even in good times. instead we move to a responsible risk management approach that only gives farmers assistance when they experience a loss. this farm bill is focused on the future, not the past. this bill is taking a critical step toward changing the paradigm of agriculture and the broad range of agricultural production in this country. and this bill has the support of over 370 groups and counting from all parts of the country and ideological backgrounds. that's because as we wrote this bill, we worked hard to find common ground, to develop a bill that works for every kind of agriculture production in every region of our country. we worked hard and together, and i want to thank my ranking member, the distinguished senior senator from mississippi for his leadership and partnership in this effort. we hav

stopped far short of the elimination of cola requirements for retirees under the age of 62 that the simpson-bowles commission recommended. certainly our veterans deserve the utmost respect and generous retirement pay. however, it's been reported regardless of age members of our armed services could easily in some instances receive retirement and health benefits for 40 years or more. some of my colleagues have suggested that failing to support measures to repeal the cola reduction is tantament to turning our back on veterans. this is untrue. this is a mischaracterization of the issue at hand, we all know that that. the military is at a crossroads, fast growing benefits are threatening to displace investments in readiness of our armed services. so i would encourage my colleagues to take a hard look at the fiscal mess we face before we vote to roll back one of the few few deficit reduction measures that the president and congress has agreed to. our fiscal situation is serious. we cannot ignore that forever. this problem will continue to get worse. yes, we ought to be reforming entitlement programs so

the panel that i was on, and simpson bowles, better known to the general public, we all recommended dramaticction rates and elimination of most exemptions, deductions, and credits. that is the only way you solve the problem. if you go at it piecemeal, whether a bank tax on mortgage interest eduction, you never get it resolved. the reality is you want to balance the budget and get the debt in line with where it ought to be. you are going to have to do very dramatic things. i am glad that conversation is starting. you are known as one of the most courageous talkers in the midwest. you went to battle with catholic priests over different topics that you represent the fatcats, no question. you represent the fatcats. how do you get big banking back in sync with mainstream, told the, oklahoma? >> i am one who -- i am kind of un-american first. -- i am kind of an american first person. we have a balance of payments surplus so we all can cover to that. to the american -- average person is a small bank. if you have a caterpillar headquarters, big banks will help them internationally. and the smaller a

the only way we got something like bowles-simpson, small group of us said is we would not vote on any long-term extension of the debt without the commission to come back with a plan. to me, budget reform -- we shouldtrue these things up. the decision to spend should be linked to the authority to borrow, separating them really makes no earthly sense. i hope that would force everyone to put the two together. what will we spend? what will be taxed? what will we borrow and put them together? that would be a fundamental reform that maybe people could agree on. >> before the civil war, we did that. the ways and means committee and the appropriations reunified and that was the place you could coordinate spending and revenue and so on. all we have to do is persuade the congress to merge the appropriations committee with ways and means and we will have the problem solved. >> anyone else here? got one from joe here. >> in terms of the irrationality of our debt limit, does anyone recall that in the budget that was submitted in february of 2000, at the end of the clinton when we were running surp

many of us held out hope in december, 2010, when the simpson-bowles bipartisan fiscal commission got together and made some bipartisan recommendations for doing exactly that. unfortunately, they were ignored by the president. he demanded in exchange for the so-called grand bargain, he wanted $1 trillion more in revenue, more taxes. well, imagine what a body slam that would have been to the american economy. the american economy is still so weak that if unemployment is at an historic high, particularly compared to other recoveries following recessions, but a trillion dollars of additional taxes would have been cat strosk in terms of the people looking for work and not being able to find work. but since the president took office in 2009, our national debt has increased by $6.6 trillion, and it's now larger than our entire economy. i wonder who the president thinks will have to pay that back. well, probably not our generation. we won't be around, but this generation will be around, and they will be left holding the bag as a result of our irresponsibility and unwillingness to deal with t

should work in a bipartisan fashion to examine the proposals, the goal that was identified by simpson bowles was to reduce the deficit as a percentage of gdp to below three percent. what our budget projection shows that over the course of the next 10 years the percentage will actually be below two percent. we have made substantial progress. towelcome opportunities cooperate further and reduce the deficit further. the president believes it is important that we spent some time focusing on what kind of policies that we can put in place. >> that was a portion of today's briefing at the white house. you can see the entire event any time at c-span.org. here is a look at our primetime schedules. journalists discuss the edward snowden story and the future of their possession. c-span two, authors of books that i've written on political ideologies. tv.ican history theythors of books that have written on political ideologies. >> we will talk to two u.s. senators about the personal lives and their careers. >> i grew up in a very small catholic community. we were all in the same classroom. there is a sma

house and senate to heed the warnings of the president's own fiscal commission, also known as the simpson-bowles commission, which clearly noted how our economy and hardworking taxpayers would suffer under the mountain of debt washington was racking up. my position sun changed. i remain as committed as ever to grappling with our debt, to making the tough decisions to reform, improve, strengthen, and protect our entitlement programs and most importantly, getting this economy back on track. so hardworking taxpayers start seing their pay-go up and those in need of a job can find one. in fact, that work is under way at the ways and means committee where we've posted for public comment bipartisan proposals to reform medicare and social security so that they're viable for seniors and taxpayers, not only today but well into the future. regrettably, over the last three years, democrats have hardened their position. the president, senate democrats and house democrats, will not even entertain a discussion, let alone a negotiation over what reforms we can make along with a debt limit increase. they've beco

appointed a commission to advance proposals for reducing the deficit, the goal that was identified by simpson bowles was as a percentage of gdp to below 3%. but what the projection shows in the course of the next ten years or in ten years, the percentage would actually be below 2% so it made substantial progress. we welcome the opportunity to cooperate further and reduce the deficit further come up with the president alsat thepresident als important that we start spending some time focusing on the policies we can put in place to expand economic opportunity for americans. >> i grew up in a very small catholic community. when i was growing up, the two classes about whether it was first in the second or third and fourth were all in the same classroom, and at that time, there was a small group of girls. there was a mary beth, and marianne and mary jo and then there was mary katherine. my parents never called me mary. my name is kathy. but my best friend was kathy and associated cited in third grade that she would rename me. she was a voracious reader and had already read hundreds of books and heidi was

so we had the simpson bowles commission, and domenici-rivlin task force and we looked at this double phenomenon and bipartisan needs were saying we don't to have austerity in the short run, we should be careful about that. maybe even need more stimulus, but the long run picture is scary, it needs equipment reform that will slow the growth, especially of the health care spending, and give us tax reform that might raise some more revenue with a more sensible tax code. so that was the standard prescription at that time for a really nervous making situation. so what's happened? well, the deficits come down -- defendant's come down a little >> fast. fiscal drag. but we haven't had a catastrophe. we have an economy still growing at reasonable rates, which i think is proof of the most -- resilience of the u.s. economy when you throw a lot of austerity at it and ridiculous behavior on the part of policymakers, fiscal cliffs, close down the government, threaten to default on the debt, the political system did everything it could to derange derange the economy, but it didn't work. so we are on

the only way we got bowles-simpson is a group of us said we would not vote for any long-term extension and plus a commission was put in place to come back with a plan. so i find myself a little torn here. because i know the only way they got something like bowles-simpson was because of a group of us, a small group of us said that we would not vote in any long-term ex-tension of the debt without a commission. to come back with a plan. so we had the decision to spend that should be linked to the authority to borrow and separating it makes no earthly sense. i believe that would force everyone to put the two together. and put them together and that would be a fundamental reform that maybe people could agree on. >> that is something that we have done and that is to say that the ways and means committee was unified. it's all we have to do is persuade the congress to merge the appropriate and we will have the problem solved. >> anyone else here? >> in terms of the irrationality of a debt limit, does anyone recall that in the budget that was submitted in february of 2000 at the end of the clin

it's similar to what bowles-simpson was saying back in 2010.i'm curious as to, walk us through the overview of how much progress was made on deficit reduction in these four years from 2010 to what seems to be now a lull in the budgetary wa wars. >> so on your first question, it it traditionally takes us about a month to produce estimates of the president's budget. it that time frame varies depending on what the policy proposals are, how familiar or unfamiliar the arduous. and often can vary depending on some underlying data. so use a lot of data that comes up with the president's budget separate from his proposals, but david is very important updating our baseline were. we won't make any precise predictions but in the past about a month. i can't speak directly to what bowles-simpson and their colleagues were saying a few years ago. certainly there have been some changes in federal policy since, over the last few years that have narrowed the deficits. as we project them, for example, and in particular the caps on discretionary funding. there's a

remember the deficit the president impaneled a blue ribbon commission called the simpson bowls commission> i forgot all about it. >> the answer most people have the answer the president explained at the time was higher taxes but also cuts to entitlements. which are spinning out of control as we know. surprise surprise if you at home believed him, you shouldn't have. because the 2015 budget has been leaked, parts of it anyway. the president's budget and there are no efforts to restrain entitlement spending whatsoever. >> specifically, cuts to social security cost of living increases which the president said the white house said we put that on the table as a gesture of god will because then republicans would come back on the other side and close those tax loopholes for the rich and we would come togetherring in this bipartisan grand agreement. the white house saying the republicans coming forward with no. we have had the tax increases. setting this up accurately. we had the tax increases a lot of them and we have not seen any cuts to entitlement snrs the white house admitting that was just

house and senate to heed the warnings of the president's own fiscal commission, also known as the simpson-bowles commission, which clearly noted how our economy and hardworking taxpayers would suffer under the mountain of debt washington was racking up. my position sun changed. i remain as committed as ever to grappling with our debt, to making the tough decisions to reform, improve, strengthen, and protect our entitlement programs and most importantly, getting this economy back on track. so hardworking taxpayers start seing their pay-go up and those in need of a job can find one. in fact, that work is under way at the ways and means committee where we've posted for public comment bipartisan proposals to reform medicare and social security so that they're viable for seniors and taxpayers, not only today but well into the future. regrettably, over the last three years, democrats have hardened their position. the president, senate democrats and house democrats, will not even entertain a discussion, let alone a negotiation over what reforms we can make along with a debt limit increase. they've beco

i don't -- i can't speak directly to what bowles- simpson were saying a few years ago. certainly there have been changes over the last federal years that have narrow deficits as we project them. for example, in particular the tax on discretionary funding. there have also been changes in policy that have narrowed or widen deficits to spending -- depending on -- the tax cuts worsened to the deficits, but allowing some of those cuts to expire narrowed the deficit relative to what other people referred to as the current policy baseline. it is very hard to keep track. and we have not tried to keep track formally of all the changes in policy over the last few years. i think the most important for commerce to understand is at this point in time, what are the choices and constraints it faces going forward? as you said, we reported and will report on deficit reduction and update that of congress wanted 25 years from now to have a debt to gdp ratio of about where it is now, than it would need to reduce deficits over the next decade by $2 trillion. and continue the deficit reducti

that is very similar to what bowl simpson sang back in 2010. an overview of how much progress was made and that's set reduction in the four years from 2010 to what seems to be a budget will -- lull. us aboutally it takes a month to produce estimates of the president's budget, but the time frame varies depending on what the policy proposals are. also vary depending on the release of underlying data. separate from proposals that very important in a plating -- updating proposals. i cannot be directly to what they were saying a few years ago. certainly, there have been changes in federal policy in the past few years that have narrowed episodes. -- deficits. particularly caps on discretionary funding. also, changes in policy that have euro deficits depending on the starting point. taxextension of most of the cuts worsened the deficits relative to the current law. but allowing some of them to expire narrowed the deficit compared to what other people referred to as current policy baseline. barry hard to keep track and we have not tried to keep track f

it's very similar to what bowles-simpson was saying in 2010. i'm curious, walk us through the overview of how much progress was made on deficit reduction in these four years from 2010 to what seems to be now a lull in the budgetary woes. >> on your first question it takes us about a month to produce estimates of the president's equation but that timeframe berries depending on what the policy proposals are and how familiar or unfamiliar they are to us and can also vary depending on the release of underlying data so we use a lot of data that comes out with a budget separate from his proposals but updating or baseline work so we won't make any precise predictions but in the past about a month. i can't speak directly to what old simpson and her colleagues were saying a few years ago. certainly there've been changes in federal policy over the last two years that have narrowed deficits as we project them for example and particularly caps on discretionary funding. there've also been changes in policy depending on the starting points of extension to mo

in 2005, nine years ago, "the simpsons" predicted the outcome of the super bowl, denver 19, seahawksyou agree with that? >> denver has a good chance because of peyton. i'm going with omaha, omaha! get over here. watch him, watch him. right there, right there. omaha! >> you're here in new york to do a standup gig for the all-day foundation. tell me what that is about. >> adrian peterson all-day foundation that deals with at-risk kids. he's doing -- we're doing two shows tonight. so it's going to be great. he's a great guy and my foundation pretty much is his foundation. >> it's great to see you. you have a new movie out this summer. also the standup dates, go to christucker.com. come again. >> thank you. >> that's all for us tonight. see you back here on monday night with all the fallout of what should be a special day on sunday. >>> jay leno! >> america's late night leader. going out on top. >> thank you. >> the journey. from comedy club kid to the throne of king johnny. >> the young man's name is jay leno. >> the rivalry -- >> i love letterman. he's great. nip hat my heels. make me

. >> one of my favorite simpsons moments. the super bowlories. when peyton manning, i believe, was last in the super bowl against the new orleans saints in it would 20 10, my grandmother was 88 years old. had always been a football fan. grandma, we don't know exactly why, became a big peyton manning fan in her last couple years. and so she called around on super sunday and said she wanted to put $100 on the colts in that game. they did not win. i don't think anyone collected from grandma. from a player's stand point, asa motivational tool, the point spread is there. there's an awareness of it. is it something you hear from the fans? if you guys didn't cover the spread but won the game would giants fans tell you, that late touchdown, that meaningless field goal as time expired. >> you will have people slip up and say, you bums, you won the game but you didn't cover the spread. and they are angry because they had money invested in the game. but for us as players we play and could careless what the final score is. we have to win by one point.