just two hours ago, casey anthony learned how much more time she will have to spen behind bars.re live from orlando with anthony's sentence for lying to investigators. good morning. >> reporter: good morning, tori. yeah, casey an hoeny was back in -- anthony was back in court this morning. looking quite different. she had her hair down. spee -- she was smiling. when judge perry handed down the anyone for those four misdemeanors for lying to the list -- down the sentence for those hour misdemeanors for lying to the investigators here's what -- her mood shifted. >> i will sentence you to one year in the orange county jail, imposing a $1,000 fine on each count, all four counts, to run consecutively, giving i credit for the time you've previously served. >> reporter: we know that that time served has been 1,043 hours. the judge is sitting with the attorneys from both the prosecution and the defense and also with the advisement from the department of corrections. they will try to figure out how much aisle she's already served, any good time off for good behavior and hope to know at w

kpÑ of time spen. basically today said all of those resources were spent because you lied. i believe when the final bill comes in it will top quarter million dollars. she is going to have a judgment against her. whether or not they get it, who knows. >> greta: i bet it is going to be higher. the minute she tries to make money on a book that judgment is going to seize that money and go to the florida taxpayers, as it should. >> whether she was involved in a homicide or not of her daughter or some freak accident, i'm with hammer, it is blood money and should go to a missing children's fund if she gets any money. >> greta: the taxpayers paid for this the county. [ talking over each other ] >> there's a lawsuit she has out there. -- [ talking over each other ] >> you are right this would be blood money, no doubt about it. i think she should not be allowed to state. we were chasing universal studios, all over the place. law enforcement was all over the place also. >> greta: pay for ted's expenses. [ laughin

i find members who you might call at tea party, they're concerned about the fiscal spen spending of the country. so you work through does this have government spend less, does this give more opportunity. you listen to what their concerns are and you show them whether it's in the bill or not. >>dy ever buy a car from you? >> never bought a car from me. >> this is just a fascinating snippet of a great show, called taking the hill inside congress. brian williams exclusive behind the scenes look at what it's like in day on capitol hill. it airs sunday night at 7:00 right here on nbc bay area. >>> very insightful. still ahead tonight, a concert for the less than the cost of lunch? we'll tell you the catch. >>> also pot for your mooch. yes, marijuana, the west coast lab working on a way to make marijuana treatment an option for your pet fp. >>> and good evening, some of you are cool, and others pretty hot. campbell and south san jose, 92 degrees. livermore 87. orn ght we have the cngooli on or winds ousnghiver toward the east bay andnge are talking thunderstorms if you're heade way. we'll zoo

they don't want to cut spen spendsing. this is all talk.e tea party is doing, it's a citizen army of pressure forcing politicians to do something they don't naturally want to do, which is cut the deficit and cut the debt. >> agree. >> if we don't do something big, if we don't do something bold and something real, unlike what happened with fiscal '11 debates, we will not get out of what looks like a real sovereign debt crisis for our country. >> i want to quote david brooks. quoted over the pst few years. this is david brooks from "the new york times." the republican party has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical governing alternative. if you ask them to raise taxes an inch to cut government spending by a foot, they'll say no. to members of this, tax levels are everything. members have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixsatioation. if you were offered for revenue increases of some kind, would you say no because you don't want revenue increases? >> i would love

spending in domestic programs, in defense programs, in entitlement programs, and we need to take on spen spending in the tax code. spending on certain tax breaks and deductions for the wealthiest of americans. this will require both parties to get out of our comfort zones and both parties to agree on real compromise. i'm ready to do that. i believe there are enough people in each party that are willing to do that. >> boehner and the republicans will never get out of the comfort zones when it comes to taxing the rich. the speaker drew his line in the sand. the legislation the president has asked for cannot pass the house as i've stated repeated, the american people simply won't stand for it. once again, boehner has no clue what the hell he's talking about. two-thirds of the american people are with the president of the united states when it comes to raising taxes on americans that make over $250,000 a year. a pugh polls says they want to increase taxes over people that have that number. let's get the scorecard out for a moment. republicans have burned the president on the stimulus repeate

we've done it on our side, our friends have done it, we should always couple it with spen regular straint and reform. that's what we're doing in this measure this majority has enacted a budget, my friend has taken a lot of flak for that budget, but i'm proud to be associated with it, body has, or will twice raise the debt ceiling and as for the president's plan whear about, i'd just like to see it. just once. i haven't seen anything or heard anything like this since richard nixon had a secret plan to end the war. the president must have a secret plan because it's not on paper, it's not been scored, it's not been publicly presented to anybody. to act like -- and by the way, one last thing on that, if speaker reid -- excuse me, an additional minute? mr. ryan: yield an additional minute mr. cole: if the leader's plan scores at $2.2 trillion, i guess we have a $4 trillion defici we have $3 trillion and we don't count the extra trillion which is automatic becausehe wars are ending. i think we ought to up ours, we have a $4 trillion plan, ought to give the majorityleader the credit for that, fo

that was revenue neutral -- and by that, i mean that doesn't generate more revenue for washington to spen spend -- but if we were to lower the rates on people and businesses in this country and broaden the tax base, our economy would grow and expand dramatically and we'd see i think even more revenue generated for the federal government and certainly more jobs created, which is what everybody in this country wants to see. we should not, however, madam president, simply be increasing taxes to pay for an ever-increasing spending for programs that aren't sustainab sustainable. this year, federal government spending will comprise 24.3% of our nation's entire economic output, so almost a quarter of every dollar spent in this country will be spent by the federal government. now, that doesn't take into consideration spending by state and local governments, but it's 18% more than our historical average. historically in this country, we've spent about 20.6% of our entire economy on the federal government. today, this year, 24.3%. we're almost at a quarter out of every dollar being spent by our --

spen during ronald reagan's defense eight years spending averaged 22.1% ofg. gdp. that is precisely what ourget spending equals in the budget h framework i outlineder here today. mr. president, we include every part of the federal budget including the defense budget. fiscomm just as the fiscal commission did and as every other birtisan bipartisan deficit reduction plan has included, we look to defense spending because no part of the budget can be off the of table in terms of aay deficit-reduction plan. separ i did say separately social curity security would deal with separately because social security need not be, should not be part of a deficit reduction plan. savings in social security oughturpose to be for the purpose of ing th expanding the solvency of social security.f but in terms of the spending that is considered on budget, b the defense has to be included in any savings. 19. look what's happened since 1997. a spending onnd defense and the war is gone from to under $54 billion a year to 688 billion a year. it is a key reason spending has fisca explodedl. be

dollars to reduce energy prices for all americans, the department of energy has instead decided to spen your hard-earned taxpayer dollars toward creating and maintaining this website. the website is not the only website of its kind. there are orrs just like it. the office of energy and efficiency and renewable energy maintains a kids saving energy website. this website has videos with tinkerbell telling children how to use energy-saving light bulbs and quizzes asking children how many kilowatt hours an average u.s. home uses each month. while i have no problem with tinkerbell, i'm a huge supporter of disney, i do have a problem with wasteful government spending and that's where the problem lies. in this tight economy, congress must prioritize funding and these websites are a blatant misuse of taxpayer money. i recently asked secretary chu the department of energy spent to maintain and operate these website but the secretary refused to proside the amount. in today's economy, congress and the department of energy should be squarely focused on reducing our national deficit, encouraging job

dreier: i haven't spen yet and i appreciate the applause of my colleagues on the other side. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman withdraw his reservation? mr. dreier: i would like to withdraw and claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit. mr. speaker, this doesn't prioritize social security, it doesn't prioritize medicare, it doesn't prioritize veterans, doesn't propose one item that would cut spending. all it does is engage in class warfare and increase taxes. vote against the motion to recommit. quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i rise today to speak about the looming august 2 deadline for raising the debt ceiling and making reforms or budget cuts at least that would allow us to show that we are not going to have business as usual in washington but that we are going to raise the debt ceiling with the reforms that are necessary. despite the differences in this body, we are all here to share three concerns. first, we do know at this point, because of the time that it has taken us to cobble together

the least economical, least efficient way to spen money is to turn it over to the federal government. look at how little good the $862 billion stimulus did. unemployment went up. every dollar that can be kept in the private sector will do much more to protect -- create jobs and keep prices down. the ones who will benefit from more money in the private sector will be middle and lower income working people. if this wasn't true, the soviet union and cuba would have been heaven on earth. it is not about protected billionaires, not in the least. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina. -- the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: i'd like to associate my colleague -- myself with my colleague from tennessee, i agree with everything he said. why is our debt ceiling too high, we are leaving the tab for future generations to pick up. the only way out is reducing spending since at least 40 cents of every tchar we're spending is added dire

enough people who are concerned enough in this country about not raising it, the abrupt halt this spen spending that tht could create chaos. so recognizing that reality, we've taken the bull by the horns and we're willing to do the difficult thing. we're saying in order for us to raise the debt limit we have to be willing to set 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