tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC February 14, 2012 1:00am-2:00am PST
rachel maddow, ezra, good to have you with us. >> good to see you ed, thank you. >> thank you for sticking around at home. we begin with a big day on the annual political calendar. no day -- today is budget day. president obama introduced his budget at a speech in northern virginia. >> we're releasing the details of the budget. don't worry, i will not read it to you. it's long and a lot of numbers. but the main idea in the budget is this, at a time when our economy is growing and create be jobs at a faster clip we have to do everything in our power to keep on it track. >> i will also not read you the budget i would kind of like to. because i'm super excited.
i love budget day, i love budget day because i love budgets, love them. not just because i have an unusual and what some may say is an unhealthy fixation on charts and tables and graphs, but to be clear i do, i love budgets they force to us make trade-offs to decide what is important, to be honest what we are willing to sacrifice to get it. the budget is as honest as the government ever is with itself and the people. what is a a feral government, what does it do? ask a politician, get rambling answer freedom and personal responsibility reagan. ask the budget you'll get the right answer. look what we spent in 2011. what the government is buying, we're not looking at interest on the debt here. 43% of our spending went to medicare, medicaid and social security. another 25% went to the military, defense. 68%, almost three-quarters went to insurance or defense.
that is what the federal government is now. it is an insurance conglomerate with a large standing military. the budget can cut through the rhetoric, tell us what politicians are doing or trying to do. that is what this budget will do, may not pass the house or senate but will tell us what president obama plans to do in the country, his vision. then we can compare it with mitt romney's budget to see what he wants to do. in fact we can particularly do that on taxes because at cpac on friday, romney said this. >> i will finally balance the american budget. >> yay! that sounds like rhetoric, right? that is another line. that is an important line from romney, that is like a rosetta stone to his platform. we know how much money he will raise, we can see what will have to happen to the rest of the budget to make it balance. here is a hint, not pretty. before we get in that and i do apologize for this, we'll have to dive in the numbers more.
taxes are usually measured as a percentage of gross domestic product, a percentage of the size of the economy. if your economy produces ten bucks worth of stuff and tax five dollars, taxes are 50% of gdp. in 2011, tax revenues were 15.4% of gdp. to give you an idea how low it is before the financial crisis you had to go back to 1950 to find a year when taxes were that low. in 1950, there was no medicare, there was no medicaid, there wasn't a hawaii as one of the 50 states of the united states. for comparison sake, taxes under reagan were 18.2% of gdp. think about that next time obama is taxing the economy to death. taxes under obama are low are than they were under reagan, not even close. taxes are so low right now obama the bush tax cuts brought them there, and because of the recession.
but as the economy recovers, takes will come back, too. budget experts say get back to 17.9% of gdp if we keep the bush tax cuts and let the economy come back. if that happens our deficits will be huge. huge. so we have to do something. but mitt romney and president obama have very very very different ideas as to what to do and who should pay for it. obama's budget wants to raise taxes on the rich by $1.5 trillion. taxes rise to 19.2% of gdp. romney wants to cut taxes further, would extend the bush tax cuts and reduce taxes on the rich. taxes would fall to about 17% of gdp. but what is interesting in these two plan is is who would pay. the tax policy center is a great group of non-partisan budget people that look at it in more detail than i can stand. blink because they haven't seen the sunlight forever, and give us great estimates how much different groups of people would pay under the plans.
they looked at obama and romney's plans. turns out very different groups of people would pay. if you are eye in the bottom 20% of the income distribution, in obama's plan you pay federal tax rate of 1.8%. under romney's plan, double that, 3.4%. that is the poorest group. in the middle, a lot closer, 15.2% under obama's plan, 15.6% under romney's plan. if you're in the top 1% as both romney and obama are, the difference becomes huge. under obama's plan, 36.3%. under romney's plan, 25.9. to get that out of percents and in dollars, your taxes will be $160,000 lower than under obama. $160,000. tax cuts of that size cost a lot of money. trillions of dollars. romney is promised he won't pay for that by cutting defense. he promise the he won't raise taxes elsewhere. to make the numbers work to make
the taxes and spending balance out he will have to cut almost twice as deep in spending as paul ryan's budget does. he will have to cut every single domestic program including social security, medicare and medicaid all of them by 36%. 36%. you know who relies on domestic programs like those? seniors and the poor. think all the seniors voting republican want a 36% cut to social security and medicare in order to pay for romney's tax cuts for the wealthy? i sort of doubt it. the budget doesn't show us where the two parties disagree, shows us where they do agree. taxes are lower under both obama and romney than if we let the bush tax cuts expire and turned to clinton era rates. taxes near 20.4% of gkp. you wouldn't know that from the admiration democrats use when they talk about clinton's poll or the horror about obama's tax ideas, both par is the are closer to bush than clinton. taxes are also lower in both plans than the simpson-bowles
proposal and lower in the senate gang of six proposal, revenues of 19.9%. taxes in both these plans, are frankly historically pretty low. but then that is why budgets are useful. they help us keep the two parties honest. joining us is peter orszag, currently vice chairman of global banking at citigroup. >> great to be here. >> you've done this work, you've sat in the oval office, if you sat down there and the president said we need to get spending to 17% of gdp, could you do it? >> virtually impossible. in 2020 or so spending is projected to be 25% of the economy, to get it down to 17% of the economy, is beyond -- you can make the numbers work but would require such massive reductions, especially if you're
leaving defense untouched, i am becomes implausible. >> you've called for all the bush tax cuts to expire in a bloomberg column, the obama administration has not gone that far. under their proposal where the revenue numbers are higher, do you think in the long run you can fund the government at that level, that is a plausible revenue base? >> i think unfortunately not. i think both sides are locking in revenue bases that are inadequate for what the government needs to run on. at least though the administration's budget is proposing a revenue increase of about a percent of gdp, romney, as you mentioned going in another direction. i don't see how the numbers work under the romney budget. >> we have still one of the interesting things about the budget it's a first budget after the debt ceiling deal. one of the big things figuring out who make discretionary spending work with the big new discretionary spending caps that got passed in august. now you were looking you were telling me about a table that made you worried you thought we
might hit the debt ceiling before the eye election. you -- you want to explain that? >> by the time next year we will be backing in a dramatic period. table 62 in the analytical perspective, for anyone who maybes it through that volume, shows at the end of september, even assuming relatively good growth under the administration's projections, the debt that would be subject to that limit would stand at 16.3 trillion dollars, only relative to 16.4 trillion for the limited self, we would be bumping up against the constraint. by january back in the soup at exactly the same time that the tax cuts are expiring and the large sequestered cuts are coming online. this is going to be drama, much larger than what happened last summer. >> the largest budget drama. >> if you were excited by the budget, wait until january you'll have a great time. >> one of the things i worry about you called for the bush
tax cuts to expire, we have the other things hitting, the president in the comments said the key element of the budget is protecting the recovery, not doing anything that could be contractionary, if the bush tax cuts expire, if we have a debt ceiling problem, that would be a really big drag on the economy in 2013. enough possibly to derail the recovery, how do you play those against each other? that seems to me to be the other side of the republican leverage against the democrats. >> first i agree it would be far too large, we don't want that kind of fiscal austerity too soon. we want more stimulus now coupled with deficit reduction takes effect over time. but what i think would make a lot of sense is to be tying that upfront stimulus like a much-expanded payroll tax holiday to unemployment rate or share of the population working so it's in effect as long as the economy is weak you don't have to worry about things going away when the economy is weak.
>> what happens if romney gets elected or frankly any other republicans, one of the things that is odd about the moment all these are expiring they all expire in the lame duck. you could actually imagine everything happening when the senate is going to change hands in three weeks, when the house is going to change hands and white house changes hands. every single branch of the government could be in turmoil at that exact moment. i don't know how you handle that, you kick the can down the road? >> in that scenario it's extremely likely you don't legislate during the lame duck gets kicked to next year and circumstances that you were suggesting, that new administration is going to have a huge mess on its hands right during the honeymoon period when you're trying -- at the beginning when you want to be proactive along whatever you're trying to get done you have to clean up this mess of those three things that are being left behind. it's not going to be pleasant. >> that would be if obama is
reelected the second time the beginning of the term is the biggest mess he'll face in the entire term. >> whoever is president this time next year will face an intricate dance navigate that. >> peter orszag, thank you so much. >> good to be you. >> comparing president obama and mitt romney's budget is useful and fun to do. but assume mitt romney will be the republican presidential nominee, right? what if he's not? the likelihood of that possibility the whole brokered convention thing plus the in explicable birth control and religion, all that coming up. when i inspect homes, i can't be in an allergy fog.
still ahead historian newt >> okay, this right here is a county by county map of the state of michigan. michigan is made up of 83 counties in total, which is a lot of counties. this one is oakland county. home to troy, michigan, home to the chrysler museum. known as automation alley because of the technology sector there. when it comes to presidential politics, oakland county is doing what republicans across the state of michigan were expected to be doing right now. oakland county is supporting mitt romney for president. mitt romney is from michigan. his dad was the governor there. oakland county is for him.
that should be good news for mitt romney, right? the bad news? oakland county appears to be the only county in the entire state of michigan that is for romney. the polling from public policy polling released their latest poll out of michigan today finds not only is mitt romney now losing his home state to rick santorum by 15 points, 15 points, but "rick santorum is ahead of mitt romney every where in michigan except oakland county" that's it. oakland county, home of the chrysler mumuseum. they are the only ones behind him in michigan. the rest of mr. romney's home state is going for rick santorum. i am on record over and over and over and over and over again saying mitt romney has this race locked down, saying no way anybody but romney had the slightest chance and i have been steadfast. i ignored it, newt gingrich laughed, i dismissed rick santorum when he won iowa. now for the first time you can tell i can tell a plausible
story in which rick santorum might be the republican nominee for president in 2012. rick santorum is now grabbed the lead over mitt romney in two new polls out of romney's home state of michigan. also leap frogged mitt romney in a pair of national polls that were released today. if you look at the states that have vote sod far, santorum has won just as many states as mitt romney has and santorum's rise in the polls perfectly coincides with the central argument of mitt romney's candidacy beginning to fall apart. mitt romney is supposed to be the guy who can beat president obama. the uber-electable republican, that makes up for his short comings, you don't have to love the guy, he can win, you support him. look how he's doing among in thes. a month ago, mitt romney was beating president obama in independents by 10 points. now he's losing that group to president obama by 9 point margin.
mitt romney is hemorrhaging support among independents. today, the influential magazine "the national review" publish an editorial calling for newt gingrich to drop out of the race. writing "the proper course for newt gingrich now is to endorse santorum and exit" when you look at the republican race right now, there are all sorts of preconceived notions that we all bring to it. deep in our hearts i thought i knew in my heart mitt romney was inevitable. thought i knew the republican party would never in a million years nominate rick santorum, a guy who lost his senate race in pennsylvania by 7000%. i thought that was true, no chance, and yet, if you come at this with fresh eyes, forget everything you know about the campaign, what you see is rick santorum looks like thegy right now with the best chance of winning. am i willing to say he is the guy with the best chance of winning? not yet. but the numbers show what the
numbers show. can't deny them. joining us now is e.j. dionne, a good friend, thank you for being here. >> happy budget day, ezra, good to see you so cheerful. >> it's not been as happy a budget day for mitt romney. so here's my question for you is what we're seeing here is it rick santorum doing something right or is it mitt romney doing something wrong or both? >> both. i think is the answer. i think the worst number to come out today for mitt romney was in that pew poll, mitt romney's argument as you said in the intro is that he's electable and a lot of conservatives weren't sure what mitt romney believes, many of them would be willing to take a flyer on him if they thought he was the only guy who could beat president obama in the pew poll, obama has an 8 point lead over romney and 10 point lead over santorum. not even the margin of error,
when you compare to gingrich and he was the main competitor, romney could make a strong case he was stronger than gingrich. i think what happened is on each side, the romney side, santorum side, romney has been very awkward to the point where when he uses a phrase like he governed in a severely conservative way, that is a story for days, we're talking about the word "severely" and he just does not seem comfortable. rick santorum knows what he believes and looks comfortable saying it. and i think it's that contrast that is helping rick santorum right now. >> what i thought amazing about severely conservative, mitt romney's only deviation from the script. he went off his script for one comment, and it was a gaffe. there was a joke in a new york times magazine profile of mitt romney's campaign or mitt romney i guess, when they said some of his campaign staffers from 2008 used to say that we want to fire
our speech writer, a guy on the fourth floor, his name is mitt. there is a bit of that in this campaign. he has not been -- he has been a disciplined campaigner but not been a mistake-free one. he made a fair number of mistakes. that wasn't expected. i thought the whole thing with romney he would never sway from the message and run the campaign like a corporate campaign. has that been a surprise to you? >> it hasn't been a complete surprise to me that in the spontaneous moments when you really can't script the candidate, he has been off. he was really off in the period when bain capital was under discussion, and he just really hates talking about money and it's in those times when he has shown himself out of touch with ordinary people, just can't understand or give the impression he can't understand the way average people live. and again, i think that is key to those numbers among
independents, and it's striking, obama in the pew poll is beating him in every region of the country except the south. he has a big lead in the midwest, the president does, if the republicans who made a lot of gains in the midwest in 2010 can't dent obama in the midwest it's hard to see how they can win and romney does not seem to be making it there at all. >> real quick, because there was a sort of hilarious national review editorial calling for gingrich to drop out, it does put them against each other. is he to run on take revenge for mitt romney for the negative ads. does gingrich drop and does he endorse santorum? >> i think gingrich is like the old song when you were a kid "this is the song that never ends just goes on and on" i don't think he wants -- >> my friend, yes. newt doesn't want to drop out. i think he will wait until the next debate on the 22nd and try
to do debate magic that left him during florida. but beyond that, i don't know what he will do but i don't see him ever dropping out. >> he will be in there come november, 2012. washington post columnist e.j. dionne, thank you for joining me tonight. >> good to see you, ezra. there are certain combinations that get tossed around with certainty, but not much understanding. like digital platform or good sushi. one combo it is brokered convention. all the rage to talk about but few folks seem clear what it is. we'll clear up the meaning and actual chances for it, next. >>.
i don't think that it would be a negative for the party, a brokered convention and people who start screaming that a brokered convention is the worst thing that could happen to the gop, they have an agenda. they have their own personal or political reasons, their own candidate who they would like to see protected away from a brokered convention so anybody who starts say can't allow that to happen, that is part of competition, that is part of the process and may happen. >> the words "brokered convention" strike joy in the hearts of the beltway pundits of which i guess i'm one. it happens when no nominee gathered enough delegates to secure the nomination. often multiple times on multiple
ballots before arriving at a nominee. if you were among us geeks and you think brokered convention, you thought 1948, or 1952, when adlai stevenson had to be convinced to join the race at the convention to win the mom i -- nomination. party power brokers chewed on big cigars, speaking in language to pick the nominee. 1968 all the chaos, when hubert humphrey was the nominee after a series of speeches at the convention by fellow democrats. they emerged battered and bruise, he lost to richard nixon. people's votes at the primary process had to be the way their nominees were selected. they weren't going to wheel and deal behind closed doors. republican followed suit a few
years later. since then, no cigar smoke, no wise guys in back rooms. the 1976 race came close with ronald reagan taking the fight against gerald ford all the way to the convention. but then ford squeaked by, clinched the nomination before losing to jimmy carter. a brokered convention is a much more elusive animal. the various candidates have to attract delegate thes because they are bound by state rules to vote for a specific candidate based on showing in a primary caucus or convention, that has to fail first. if it did fail, if the ballot dead locked, these delegates could be released from those rules if the contest drags on and on at the convention. but it gets more complicated. plus states have their own rules. alabama can unbind their
delegates from the candy da who won the popular vote if two thirds of them agree to do that. mississippi delegates don't have to vote for the winner of the popular vote if the candy day releases them to vote for someone else. a committee member said the truth is our rules are set up so the delegates are all independent. brokered convention not impossible but improbable republicans could stage one. that would it accomplish. when people think about a brokered convention, a white knight scenario, chris christie jumps in or sarah palin or jeb bush. think what that would mean for any of those -- think what they would be taking on. existing candidates, mitt romney, rick santorum, gingrich, ron paul would fight like the devil. the party would be fractured. american people would see the gop in a state of collapse.
if a new entrant won the nomination the convention is at the end of august. this new candidate would have two months to raise money, get organized on the ground, run ads, hire staff, learn the issues, introduce themselves to voters, get on the ground in swing states, come up with a policy program, and unite the party while taking on the obama campaign, that is a suicide mission. everyone respects stevenson, but not many politicians, especially republicans, want to actually be him. ♪ round, round, get around, i get around ♪ [ female announcer ] new and improved swiffer dusters with dust lock adhesive
the obama administration crossed a dangerous line. >> this action by the obama administration is an attack. >> outrageous assault. >> this is the kind of coercion we can expect. >> in imposing the requirement the federal government has drifted beyond the constitutional boundaries. >> once upon a time, meaning last week, republicans were doing battle with the obama administration over birth control. the scale of the fight was enormous. perhaps you noticed all over the tv every night, every day.
but the policy that was being fought over was sort of small. last week the birth control fight was about a new rule that would have required employers, including religiously affiliated employers, to include coverage for contraception in health plans. the republicans argument was access to birth control for small group of women. they were arguing some employers like hospitals and universities associated with the catholic church should not be required to provide health insurance that covers birth control. it was a narrow call for a special exception for a small group of employers and largely succeeded. the president came out friday and said okay, fine, if you're a religious organization don't want to provide contraception, you don't have to pay for it but all your employers get access through their health insurance but if they work for religious organization that doesn't want to pay for it, the insurance company gets stuck with the bill. republicans say catholic groups
should not be faced for birth control. instead of declare victory they broadened the fight. turns out they don't want religiously affiliated employers to deny access to birth control. they want all employers to be able to deny women access to birth control. >> i think this will continue to be part of the debate unless the president totally changes his position. >> this issue will not go away until the administration simply backs down. >> he did the classic obama retreat. all right. and what i mean by that it wasn't a retreat at all. >> there is no compromise. >> it's not a compromise, he doubled down. >> if we have to try to overcome the president's opposition by legislation, of course i would support it and intend to support it. >> wherever republicans thought their position last week in their argument about the catholic church and affiliated organizations, the widening of the battle pits them against women who want contraception
covered by health insurance. that will be received as very good news at the white house. last week a poll from the public religion research institute found that 55% of all americans think all employers should have to provide employees to cover con da tra accept shun at no cost. better yet for the obama administration the idea polled 60% among young women -- women and young voters. first, the obama administration is trying to see to it that their health plans cover contraception. second the republicans are trying to make it possible for their boss, someone they may not like or ever even met, to decide whether they get access to birth control at all. joining us now, jan schakowski, democrat from illinois, thank you for talking with us tonight. >> thank you so much, ezra. >> were you surprised at after the president changed the rules the catholic universities and
hospitals didn't have to pay for the coverage, republicans said all employers get the exception? >> i think it's a colossal miscalculation on their part. 57% of catholic voters thought it was a good idea, only 29% of catholic voters opposed that. and this is birth control, and i think if these republicans, mainly republican men because now even some of the republican women senators are changing their mind or coming out in favor of this policy, if they want to bring that on as a political issue, i say do, bring it on. because virtually 100% of americans not only embrace the idea of birth control but actually use birth control. there is an incredible mistake. >> your point about the republicans and we should say
senator susan collins and olympia snowe have broken with the line because the politics of this the way it is playing in the different coalitions, appears to have reversed in the last week. a week alg you were seeing splits across the democratic coalition now the republican one. aside from collins and snowe, in the house are you seeing any movement of similar frictions? >> well, first of all let me tell you that even before the compromise, the majority of americans were in favor of organizations, you called them religious organizations but we're not talking about churches, houses of worship. we're talking about hospitals, charities, universities, that are catholic affiliate order religious affiliated, but their employers that employ janitors and ordererlies and nurse and those individuals ought to have access to contra shin was always majority view.
quite frankly what we saw were some of the men talking about how this was about religious freedom, when in fact it is not about religious freedom. this is about access to contraception. i think the white house, the resident, came up with an absolutely brilliant compromise and it is accepted by the catholic hospital association, by catholic charities and now there is just the republicans and the bishops who are saying no to it. >> and then, how do the politics of this play out going forward? there was a report a few weeks ago by third way, what they argued that the independents who broke for the president in 2008 were overwhelmingly young female and in many way secular and this has -- this has been the third major event this year that has put but control and reproductive service, the issue to defund planned parenthood, then the komen effort, a couple weeks ago, now this, with the
president and democrats in general attempting to reactivate the voters in 2012 it seems like the movement that is so skeptical of birth control has done it for them. >> i think you're right. and in fact i was looking at the number on catholic independent voters against 56%, so that is men and women, believe this is the right policy. i think they are treading into very politically dangerous waters, if they want to take on these issues that are so important to women and as you say, young people. the issue of contraception, any controversy about birth control is done. this is the year 2012 and i think a lot of particularly young voters are absolutely astonished this would be controversial and so i think that they have actually helped us, if they want to double down
on this issue, and say that this is immorale. the debate is over, people want access to birth control. >> illinois congress woman jan schakowski, thank you for joining us tonight. >> thank you, ezra. after this, on the last word, lawrence o'donnell looks back on the remarkable leg gag see of whitney houston with his guest, al sharpton. you won't want to miss that. here? newt gingrich on facebook. his current status, as always, he's awesome! stick around.
what seems like a big win for the democrats may actually be a tricky smart maneuver by the republicans to box them in before the elections. i will explain, next. what's left behind? [ female announcer ] purifying facial cleanser from neutrogena® naturals. removes 99% of dirt and toxins without dyes, parabens or harsh sulfates. so skin feels pure and healthy. [ female announcer ] from neutrogena® naturals.
the strangest thing happened in washington today. republicans in congress gave democrats something they wanted. house republicans said they would get out of the way on extending the payroll tax cut for the many millions of americans who work for a living. it has been set to expire at the end of the month. leaders of the house majority say they will no longer insist that the money for the payroll tax cut come south of someone's hide. the two sides can't come to a deal, they will drop the demand for cuts at all and allow the spending to go forward without -- allow the tax cut without being offset by spending cuts elsewhere. you can see this two ways. the first is republicans are caving. ya yay democrats. that is interpretation a.
republicans caving. interpretation b, democrats look out, it's a trap! so which is it? a victory for democrats or a plot by republicans? the argument for interpretation b goes like this. payroll tax cut negotiations are not just about the payroll tax cut. also about extending unemployment insurance benefits and preventing a massive cut to medicare, that for reasons frankly too inane and complex, the unemployment insurance benefits are hugely important to both the economy and unemployed. economic forecasters say we could lose as half a point of growth if they are allowed to expire. medicare fix is important for seniors. both were tied to the payroll tax cut negotiations. neither is in the clean payroll tax bill republicans are now offering democrats. so that is interpretation b. republicans are not caving.
they took the wrong hostage, they have taking the medicare hostage instead. if democrats come back to the table, they no longer have the leverage of the payroll tax cut because republicans are on record saying they want to extend it. i asked brad, the communication director whether the answer was a or b, he wouldn't say. the republican position he said is that "unless there is a deal, we'll move forward to insure no worker faces a tax hike" make of that what you will. so on the one hand, maybe republicans caved on the payroll tax cut. on the other hand maybe republicans have an awesome plan or both hands. maybe democrats have a counter strategy. joining us is brian beutler for talking points memo. we enjoined your coverage, thank you for coming on the show. >> thanks for having me on, ezra. >> you reported on the democrats counter plan, they say this might be republicans might have negotiating strategy but they have a way to combat that,
explain that a little bit. >> sure. the way this works is if they can't reach a deal, and i think democrats are perfectly happy to take this unpaid for payroll tax cut. the house will pass it. they have to get a majority or super majority to pass it and send it off to the senate. senate democrats think what we can do is we can take those other two items that you were talking about, the dot fix and unemployment insurance and tack those on. those two items coast about $60 billion over ten years. they think they have other cuts to find ft budget that republicans will agree to and then present it on the senate floor that extends all three bupt only pays for the latter two thinking to send is back over to the house and if john boehner and eric cantor want to pick fight all over again and fight over the cuts that the senate passes, they can do that.
then they're asking for trouble that way. >> the idea basically is republicans send the payroll tax cut deal and democrats put the unemployment insurance benefits and patches on they have a replay of the fight they were going to have anyway. are you going to let a tax cut expire simply in order to stop unemployment insurance benefits and to stop grandma's doctor getting driven out of medicare? >> it puts senate republicans of saying do we want to risk this whole thing by quibbling over how to pay for those other two items. if they do, i suppose it could. democrats could pass the payroll tax cut. that's $100 billion. there are powerful constituents that want the dox fix passed. if republicans want to see we'll pass this if you aagree to partisan budget cuts, they're going to get an earful from doctors and seniors who really want to make sure that those physician reimbursement rates
don't go down. no legislator with 8.5% unemployment wants to see -- wants to be held to account for letting these extended benefits lapse. i think the democrats have a strong hand. i think they win out here and the democrats did score a big victory today. >> you have a good sense of the pulse on the hill. if you take the other interpretation, they look at this and say it's an election year and we kantd be held responsible, there's this dream people in the white house have they call the 96 scenario in which mitt romney isn't doing that well, and eric cantor and john boehner become worried because president obama is doing well and congress's approval ratings are in the toilet. they begin to come to the table on big things. they're better off making deals when clinton was on his way to winning then we continue a strategy of relentless obstructionism. do you see the germ of that here? do you think this is extendible
to other issues for a one offer related to the unique res nance of payroll tax or the poor job the republicans did framing their position back in december? >> i guess it remains to be seen. this is the last really big issue where there's a deadline where something about to expire if they don't act now, something bad will happen to a lot of voters. that won't happen again. this 96 scenario the white house envisions would require the republicans to volunteer to come to the table to reverse the last year of their legislating and say, all right. we'll find pay fors and tax increases that the democrats want to accomplish these goals that president obama has that only make it more likely he's going to win. i don't see them embracing that dynamic. i rather imagine them trying to find much more modest areas of agreement that don't require them to compromise any of the principles they laid out when they came to power.
nothing near the scale of $100 billion payroll tax cut is going to happen. all the big stuff that really is on the horizon is going to be determined by the outcome of the election. republicans won't make that election margin bigger for barack obama. >> brian, thank you for coming on the show. it's good to see you. >> thanks, ezra. >> next up, newt gingrich's fabulous career on facebook. p.s., we're not sending a friend request.oi on my feet and exactly where i needed more support. then, i got my number. my tired, achy feet affected my whole life. until i found my number. i tried the free dr. scholl's foot mapping center. in two minutes, i got my foot map and custom number. i'm a 440. that matched up to the dr. scholl's custom fit orthotic inserts with the right support and cushioning i need. i am a believer. i'm a believer! i'm a believer. go to drscholls.com to find your closest walmart with a foot mapping center.
but don't just listen to me. listen to these happy progressive customers. i plugged in snapshot, and 30 days later, i was saving big on car insurance. i was worried it would be hard to install. but it's really easy. the better i drive, the more i save. i wish our company had something this cool. yeah. you're not... filming this, are you? aw! camera shy. snapshot from progressive. plug into the savings you deserve with snapshot from progressive. this afternoon newt gingrich posted an astounding status update on his facebook page because he's super digital and down with the kids. he said i'm proud to use the facebook time line to show important events in my life. that's a great idea. people can get to know newt and see how he became the man he is. starting in 2012, here the cpac
peach last week, one from chuck norris, and one from herman cain. might having back to 2011 there's newt's daughters talking about their dad. lots of debate clips. there's an announcement made he's running for president. back to 2000, he got married to calista in 1999, left the house of representatives and left his job as speaker of the house. there's a contract of america '94. i've seen enough of this. he seems to have left some stuff out. he's such a busy guy. maybe i can help. let's see here. let's go back to 2009 and stick this in. newt gingrich on a health reform conference call talking up the individual mandate. we believe there should be -- we have a clip, i think. >> we believe that there should be must carry, everybody should have health insurance or if if you're an absolute libertarian, we would allow you to post a bond but we would not allow
people to be free riders failing to insure themselves and showing up at the emergency room with no means of payment. >> let's get that in. another thing to stick in 2009. gingrich's political action committee revokes its entrepreneur year awards for two adult entertainment companies. we'll put that on. let's go actually here to '08. let's ad newt gingrich sitting on a couch with nancy pelosi to demand action on climate change. that should be in there. why isn't that in there? >> back in 2000 he got married. let's add the wife number two and add in the beginning of his aaffair with his current wife back to 1993. i'll scroll over there here. in '97 he left out he was the first speaker of the house to be disciplined for wrongdoing. that's a record. we need to do some work. s in going to take me all night. i have a whole other marriage to