we do not want to extend beyond the debt limiteriod or default and want spendin spending limitn place or we'll have a real that of a financial crisis. >> charlie: what do you think cantor would think of eang of six. >> one of the issues the gang of six is dealing with it's been a senate centric process and the house has not been involved. there is i think an opportunity for all of us to come together in the next few days and take a hard look at it and see what can being worked into the debt limit discussion. i've attended a few of the briefings but the house members have not had the opportunity. >> charlie: tell me what your optomism tells u and your pessimism tells you at this moment. >> have you to be optimis optim because the altnative is unthinkable that we'd fall into the post-limit period and default on obligation and this would be financial market response and if intest rates were to go up by a point or two it would affect everybody that's got a car loan or student lone or mortgage. it's obviously going to hurt smallbusinesses trying to create jobs and need to get credit. you h

they're both the result of his spectacularly failed keynesian gamble, spendin spending that la stagnant economy with high and chronic unemployment and a stag staggering debt burden." and that's the problem, mr. president. a staggering debt burden that requires us to increase our debt ceiling and republicans are saying, in order to stop this cycle of more promises and more spending, we've got to apply some accountability, some common sense and good judgment, and that means, first and foremost, stop the spending. i would note, as i said before, that under president obama, annual spending has gone up by $1.2 trillion each of the years. the deficit by peds 1.4 trillion. and i ask again, do you notice any correlation there? that's the problem. and i know my democratic colleagues love to complain about president bush, but i would note that in the year 2007, which was a year before the recession, the deficit under president bush was just $161 billion. a tenth of what the deficit is today. so, mr. president, my colleagues and i all need to focus on the issue before us, which is to begin to redu

and i think that the debate between the republicans and the mocrats over closing down some of those spendin that are built into the tax code is a mistake. >> loo raising taxes by itself is not good for the economy in the short term. it can help with the deficit. but the question is the magnitude, right? and i think we've learned in recent years that e magnitude of the economic effect of tax increases is smaller than is often claimed. and so we have a huge deficit, we're not raising taxes for fun, we're raising taxes because the alternative to no tax increase is really radical changes to medicare and social security. >> rose: we conclude this evening with professor lawrence tribe of the harrd law scho. he is a constitutional law professoand has initiated a suit against the veterans affairs department in order to sere housing for homeless veterans in los angeles. >> we're suing the government to make facilities available for these vets who... i mean, they are so freaked out that they can't take a bus across town without thinking that this there's going to be an i.e.d. so they have to be taken

it must include thoughtful contraintconstraints on spendin. the 12-member commission will be a key to that effort, and i say to my friend, the republican leader, i appreciate his wrapping his arms around this and being such a cheerleader for this idea. it is a good idea. it is an idea that congress itself can solve the problem. it would be a joint committee that would move forward and thrldz bthere would be a triggef they didn't resolve this, then something else would happen. and based on past experiences, i think there would be tremendous incentive not to let that certain thing happen when the trigger kicked in. so senator mcconnell and i agree that the commission owns the responsibility to set this country on the path to fiscal responsibility. the joint committee -- there are no constraints. they can look at any program we have in government, any program, any that has the ability to look at -- it has the ability to look at everything. the commission will assure that we undertake that responsibility. when i thought of this idea about the comm

an interesting analogy is to look at this is to say if we froze spendin som pn fple could understandhaoffe if we didn't spend any more money next year than we oncent this year and dd it for ten years, washington would count that as a $9.5 trillion cut. why? because we are going to add $9.5 trillion to the doppt over the ne the ten years so when ty tell you they going to cut a trillion dollars it is from prreprosed iideareases in the debt. it isn't meaningfuean >> seasu i want to put a highlight on this because you have now signed on to the coect house. >> right. >icalt tthat w: a simple understandsoole plan. for example next year we are going to spend correct me ai 23m wrong anywhere between 7.5 and 8% more, the federal government government will tha3 correct? >> right. year after. >> going up at 7% a year. >> seasuo cu or lar a year fors far as the eye can see as we know. >> correct. how much we spent in 2011. you are saying freeze it and you support this. >> gretchen: freeze it or cut it by 1% which is a small amount. but freeze every year for six ould haars and then every yeart it

when washington says it's going to cut spendin it's untruthful with the american public. because both the boehner bill and the reid bill increase discretionary spending over the next 10 years by one of them 30 billion and the other $832 billion. how is it that we can with a straight face in this body talk about a cut when in fact we're going to -- and c.b.o. says we're going to actually increase the spending in the discretionary accounts over the next 10 years nearly a trillion dollars. and you've heard the debate in the house, in the senate of a sput. and of course, that goes to what the heart of the probl is in our country. is words get twisted around to the advantage of the politicians, but to the disadvange of the american citizens. we are in trouble financially. most people agree with that. we have programs that are in difficult straits. as a matter of fact, they're broke. they're not just in dficult stits. here's the ones that are broke. medicare part a trust fund, worst case scenario, this year, 2016. that's the fund that solves and ys for hospitalizations for our

you have to get spendin down to coincide with that number. otherwise, we continue to add debt. if that continues to escalate like the cgressional budget office is predicting, we will not be able to help anybody. host: bruce cook started citizens for restoring america's financial future, promoting the one-cent solution. let's go to patrick on our republican line in florida. caller: ronald reagan tripled the national debt. one thing i would like to point out is that fdic went from 40,000 to 250,000 over the last 50 years, also-induced financial blowups. one other thing -- i do not know if you follow it -- the state of florida basically let the prescription drug dealers, the pill mills, get all our citizens addicted. now they want federal medicaid programs to get them off the drugs. please talk about fdic. it has gone from $40,000 to 000250,000 -- $250,000 per account. guest: with the one-cent solution, we are providing a process for congress to act. they are spending $3.60 trillion. that would be minus $36 billion. they would have to determine where to make those cuts. we have hi

in one part of the legislation, they say the spending cap would take spendin spending from 24.1f g.d.p. to 19.9%. that's in one part of the bill before us. in another part of the bill -- constitutional amendment -- they say, the spending cap would be 18% of g.d.p. so i don't know who cooked this up, but you'd think they'd have at least gotten on the same page as to what is the limitation on spending. what does it mean if you have a balanced budget amendment with a cap of 18% of g.d.p.? well, mr. president, here's what it means. and, by the way, the constitutional provision would certainly trump the conflicting provision that's in this legislation. so the cap would not be 19% of g.d.p. the cap would b would not be 19. what would it be? it would be 18% of g.d.p. if you fund just social security, defense, and other nonhealth spending and interest on the debt, you're at 18% of g.d.p. there's not a dime left for medicare. there's not a dime left for medicaid. is that really what they intended? it must be, because that's what it says. so medicare is finished. medicaid is finished. anybody th

. ♪ spendin' money we don't have ♪ ♪ that's the name of the game >> the guy behind the video, he is joiningn. so you are the one person we all wanted to talk to today. everybody is talking about your rap, and you are a comedian but you are good with the lyrics, too. tell us why you decided to rap about raising the debt ceiling? >> well, a good friend of mine over at reason tv is a video producer and director, and we teamed up before -- actually last month i rewrote the hokey pokey and made it about the tsa and pauld it the pokey pokey, and we had fun and thought maybe we should do one about the debt ceiling. >> are you a political guy and following the debate? >> we are following it, and it has saturated the airwaves, with the nfl lockout ending we pay attention to things that matter a little more. >> what do you think about it? do you believe that we should raise the debt ceiling or is it an easy hook? do you have a real opinion about it? >> we did not set out to make the video too preachy. when you watch it's the republicans calling the democrats crazy and the democrats calling the republ

in one part of the legislation, they say the spending cap would take spendin spending from 24.1f g.d.p. to 19.9%. that's in one part of the bill before us. in another part of the bill -- constitutional amendment -- they say, the spending cap would be 18% of g.d.p. so i don't know who cooked this up, but you'd think they'd have at least gotten on the same page as to what is the limitation on spending. what does it mean if you have a balanced budget amendment with a cap of 18% of g.d.p.? well, mr. president, here's what it means. and, by the way, the constitutional provision would certainly trump the conflicting provision that's in this legislation. so the cap would not be 19% of g.d.p. the cap would b would not be 19. what would it be? it would be 18% of g.d.p. if you fund just social security, defense, and other nonhealth spending and interest on the debt, you're at 18% of g.d.p. there's not a dime left for medicare. there's not a dime left for medicaid. is that really what they intended? it must be, because that's what it says. so medicare is finished. medicaid is finished. anybody th

took office we got higher unemployment 18%. 2.1 million more people unemployed than when he took spendin office. we have a 35% higher debt.the no we saw spending go up in the last two years alone with all te nondefense discretionary spending by 24%.re econo the number of people receiving food stamps is up bynd 40%. b all the data come all the tools by which we can measure economi. progress and growth demonstrate the policies putchange in placel this administration have been ad complete failure.spending, c so what we need, mr. president,a is a change in policies that s starts by cappingolutio federale spending for cutting federal spending in cabin in the near of term and putting in place a long-term solution a balanced s budget amendments like so many states have inta teplace, like e senator from kansas mentioned. t they cannot spend money they do notin have. in terms of our survey by the of small businesses who responded to the survey said they are not going to higher this year. 12% said they're going to cut jobs.cernedbout what' half of the small businesses listed economic uncertainty i

reduce spendin and increase revenue. get the economy going. back the foreign policy. afghanistan, the recent decision regarding the troops, conn carroll, how you see how that will play out? guest: wow. let me switch to afghanistan. they will start drawing down troops, 10,000 by the end of this year. it depends on what happens on the ground. i say that but it is not really true. if you look at theate by which he will drive down the rest of the troops come in september 2012, that is not a date created by the military or by the reality of the fighting in afghanistan. that is a purely political date. it is dictated by politics in this country. what happens in afghanistan is irrelevant. the only thing that matters is what obama appeals will be best for his reelection campaign. guest: when it comes down to the commander in chief, he is the one that dictates orders for the military. we have been in afghanistan for almost a decade and next year will be over a decade. when it comes down to it, if president obama says that we need to be out of there now

they'll pay in their lives for what we're spendin spending -- g today. some of those things will benefit them but some won't. things we will consume they will pay for. that's not fair. and if we're going to deal with this debt, there is only one rational way to do it. about a year and a half ago, majority leader harry reid appointed me to the bowles-simpson deficit commission. it was president obama's commission. we met for ten months. we came up with a conclusion, 18 members, 11 of us voted for it, and what we said is if we're going to reduce this debt in a meaningful way over the next ten years, we need to put everything, everything on the table. everything. that's painful. it means putting on the table things that i fought for as a member of the house and senate and believe in and still do, but we got to take a look at them. is there a way to save money? is there a way to economize? is there a way to president the burden of responsibility and sacrifice so that it's fair in america? now, there are some who say, no, we're not going to put everything on

in one part of the legislation, they say the spending cap would take spendin spending from 24.1f g.d.p. to 19.9%. that's in one part of the bill before us. in another part of the bill -- constitutional amendment -- they say, the spending cap would be 18% of g.d.p. so i don't know who cooked this up, but you'd think they'd have at least gotten on the same page as to what is the limitation on spending. what does it mean if you have a balanced budget amendment with a cap of 18% of g.d.p.? well, mr. president, here's what it means. and, by the way, the constitutional provision would certainly trump the conflicting provision that's in this legislation. so the cap would not be 19% of g.d.p. the cap would b would not be 19. what would it be? it would be 18% of g.d.p. if you fund just social security, defense, and other nonhealth spending and interest on the debt, you're at 18% of g.d.p. there's not a dime left for medicare. there's not a dime left for medicaid. is that really what they intended? it must be, because that's what it says. so medicare is finished. medicaid is finished. anybody th

in one part of the legislation, they say the spending cap would take spendin spending from 24.1f g.d.p. to 19.9%. that's in one part of the bill before us. in another part of the bill -- constitutional amendment -- they say, the spending cap would be 18% of g.d.p. so i don't know who cooked this up, but you'd think they'd have at least gotten on the same page as to what is the limitation on spending. what does it mean if you have a balanced budget amendment with a cap of 18% of g.d.p.? well, mr. president, here's what it means. and, by the way, the constitutional provision would certainly trump the conflicting provision that's in this legislation. so the cap would not be 19% of g.d.p. the cap would b would not be 19. what would it be? it would be 18% of g.d.p. if you fund just social security, defense, and other nonhealth spending and interest on the debt, you're at 18% of g.d.p. there's not a dime left for medicare. there's not a dime left for medicaid. is that really what they intended? it must be, because that's what it says. so medicare is finished. medicaid is finished. anybody th

and it's all the evidence we need that they are afraid of the bill coming due on all of tha their spendin. they understand that their hard left base will not accept structural changes under any circumstances. but they also understand that the american people will not stomach for a minute the tax increases that will be necessary in the absence of such reforms. this is a difficult position to be in. so rather than deal with the facts, they traffic in object few scaismghts this morning i-- --they traffic in obfuscation. this morning i heard that removing some of tax breaks for energy companies would fix or deficit crisis. getting rid of those tax breaks would raise $21 billion over the next ten years. yet this fiscal year alone in 2011 we will have a projected budget deficit of about $1.5 trillion to $1.6 trillion. so where is the rest of the money going to come from? last week i came under fire for stating what i think to be a relatively noncontroversial fact: here res what i said. in 200951% of americans had zero or negative income tax liability. here's what that means. in 2009 only 49%, a

things in motion in such a way that will solve the underlying problem, will create permanent strumple spendin-- permanent structural m within the united states congress. i want to close by responding to an argument made by tim knee geithner, the secretary of the united states treasury. the argument he made was to the effect that we in congress are essentially mere surplus when it comes to the debt limit increase. he made the argument that ace understand it -- that as i understand it, section 4 authorizes the executive branch, programs the treasury serkts perhaps just the president, to somehow raise the debt limit without consulting congress, without an act of congress in place. that argument is not accurate. that argument is based on an improper reading of the 14th amendment. the language to which he refers reads in pertinent part as follows, "the validity of the public debt of the united states authorized by law shall not be questioned." adopted in the immediate aftermath of the civil war, this provision simply acknowledges the fact that we can't ignore our debt obligations, that when intere