Skip to main content

tv   CNN Newsroom  CNN  October 10, 2013 1:00pm-2:00pm EDT

1:00 pm
now the president believes that it would be far better for the congress, and in this case the house to raise the debt ceiling for an extended period of time. as senate democrats are working on, as we speak. you know, it would be far better for the economy if we stopped this episodic brinksmanship and, you know, mothballed the so-called nuclear weapon here, threat of default for a longer duration. but is it certainly, at least an encouraging sign that, based on today's statement by the speaker, they're not listening to the debt limit and default deniers who seem to suggest against all of the accumulated wisdom of financial experts that somehow it would be okay for the united states to enter territory it had never entered before and
1:01 pm
threaten default for the first time in our history. so that's our initial response. >> will the president sign short term -- >> well, let's say this. we have seen nothing, obviously no proposal, from house republicans yet. there's no bill to look at. as i just said, the president strongly prefers a longer-term resolution so that we can get away from this periodic brinksmanship. if there's a recognition we can't default, why is there an insistence or the implication that you keep the nuclear weapon in your back pocket to threaten default in the near term? it doesn't make a lot of sense to us. having said that, you know, we'll see what the house republicans propose. we'll see what they're able to pass and consider it then. the president said the other day, in the hypothetical, he would be willing to do this because he thinks that we need to avoid default.
1:02 pm
but he's not, you know, he's been very clear, he will not pay ransom in exchange for the republicans and the house doing their job, in -- pay ransom to the tea party republicans to allow congress to do its job, which is fund government and ensure we do not default. and that position has been steady and clear throughout this period. >> why would not that same argument apply during a short-term extension of the debt ceiling where the president agrees to hole negotiations -- >> you keep adding things that we -- we haven't seen a bill yet. we haven't seen what the speaker's going to put forward. we don't know what he could pass. what the speaker said today is that he thinks there ought to be negotiations and what the other leader said is there ought to be negotiations over the budget priority and the president's been saying that all year long. house republicans rejected on 19
1:03 pm
different occasions opportunity to appoint conferrees to match the senate conferrees so they could try to reconcile the two budgets they passed. but why -- why would it be the right thing to do to keep punishing the american people in order to talk about our budget priorities? that's what they're doing by keeping the government shut down. why would it be right thing to do to continued arm to the american economy? i didn't hear a rational for why that is acceptable or okay and i don't think any of you did either. >> must the condition of extending the debt ceiling include reopening the government? >> again, you're asking me a hypothetical. we have said clearly -- >> not a hypothetical. what is your position? i'm not asking you to react to boehner. >> we have said all along they should turn on the lights and open the government, they should raise the debt ceiling.
1:04 pm
they should do both. so if they -- i think the president said the other day that if they were to send them a clean debt ceiling extension, no partisan strings attached, he would sign it. we don't know that's what we're going to get here. if the house passes, as they could right now, the bill that passed the senate to reopen the government at funding levels republicans set and celebrated, he would sign it. what -- what we haven't heard -- we've got into this mess because tea party republicans were insisting that they could use the shutdown of the government and threat of default to defund obama care or delay obama care, prevent millions of americans from getting access to affordable insurance. it was a fool's errant and the people paying the price are the hard working americans across this country who suffer when the government is shut down and who would suffer mightily if
1:05 pm
republicans who seem to think default is a game get their way. i mean, i think we have up here -- these are the elected representatives sent to washington to fulfill the responsibilities as members of congress. representative ted yoho yesterday said, someone needs to convince me why we need to raise the debt ceiling. wearen buffett, who knows a thing or two about the financial markets and the economy said, it should be like a nuclear bomb, basically two horrible to use. the head of pimco says, default would be a tragedy for america, on the other hand richard burr, republican senator says default is manageable for some time. experts say, default would lead to 14% unemployment and the worst recession since world war ii. rbc capital market says, crossing the debt ceiling would be catastrophic. senator rand paul, republican,
1:06 pm
says if you don't raise the debt ceiling we balance the budget, the world is going to end? ben bernanke chairman of the fed says default would be very, very costly to the economy. martin feldstein says the debt ceiling is a dangerous thing to play with. >> right. >> so this -- these are the voices that have been driving this crisis. and it should end. and to the extent there's an implication in what we heard from house republican leaders today that they are coming to see the light, that we need to end this crisis, this manufactured crisis, that would be a good thing. but the president's position that he's not going to pay ransom to the tea party so that congress can do its job remains what it was. >> obama care's not part of the demand, then you -- are you saying then the president can negotiate? >> jim, i'm not sure how you can reach that conclusion. the presidents not going to pay ransom. i'm saying this is how we got
1:07 pm
here. this is the logic that led to the shutdown of the government and the logic that led to us getting close to the point beyond which the treasury can no longer use borrowing authority. and it's time for rational -- a rational approach to be taken by leaders in congress towards these serious challenges, because they're -- we should -- as the president said all along, we should sit down and work out our differences, find common ground on our budget priorities. the president has been meeting with republicans, talking to republicans all year long in search of that compromise. and we should, you know, put everything on the table, the president has made that clear. it's exemplified in the budget proposal he put forward. but what we cannot do is continue to punish the american people, which is what tea party republicans are doing in the name of, you know, trying to
1:08 pm
extract partisan demands they couldn't get through the normal legislative process, whether that's an attempt to defund, repeal, delay the affordable care act or partisan demand, maybe tax breaks for millionaires or, you know, anything else they could attach for it that's just -- it's -- who benefits from that approach? the american people don't benefit and the economy doesn't benefit. and that's why the president has taken the position that he's taken. >> a republican coming to the white house this afternoon. you've said the administration isn't going to negotiate over the debt ceiling or the government shutdown. but republicans now say think have made this suggestion, offer of a short-term increase in the debt limit and if the president rejects that offer, we're back to square one. what do you expect from today's meeting if not some discussion -- >> the president has always said he's willing to talk about
1:09 pm
anything. what he will not do is pay a ransom, negotiate over their demands in exchange for congress doing its fundamental job, paying our bills, funding our government. and, yes, he looks forward to having a subset of house republicans here. our view, the reason we invited all members of congress to these meetings, it's often the case that he or others meet with leaders of the house and then find out that the decisions are being driven by other members of the house. so it might have been useful to hear from other members and for them to hear from him. be that as it may, he looks forward to meeting and looks forward to hearing more from the speaker and the other leaders about this proposal that they talked about today. what we haven't seen yet is a bill. we haven't -- what we haven't seen is whether or not any bill that they would write could pass. and you know, we'll look forward
1:10 pm
to having that discussion. the principle remains throughout, which is the american people should not be punished so that, you know, republican leaders can save face. the american people should not be -- have to see their economy harmed, economic growth slowed and job creation slowed and interest rates spike because the tea party insists on get what it could not get through normal legislative means or through the ballot box. >> yesterday you expressed disappointment that not all of the republicans -- members of the republican caucus were coming to the white house today. what do you lose from them not being here? were you hoping to see divisions in the republican party? >> no, no. as i just was saying, i think that we -- the president invited all members of congress because he believes that all of them shoulder the responsibility,
1:11 pm
invested in them when they swore -- were sworn into office to uphold their responsibilities and that includes making sure the government is open and functioning and funded, and making sure that the united states continues to pay its bills on time and maintains its full faith in credit. when it comes specifically to the house of representatives and the house republican conference, i think the president extended then i havetation to all members because we have seen it's a diverse and fractious conference and discussions with the leaders have not always -- well, it is -- has become apparent, and i think in many colleagues and you, yourself, have reported on it, a subsection of the house republican conference has been driving decision making by the house republican leadership, at least for the past several weeks, and that's in part why we have a shutdown. speaker of the house took an approach to the funding of
1:12 pm
government and passing a cr that was acceptable, though it was republican spending levels, acceptable to the democratic leader and the senate, acceptable to the democratic leader in the house, and he had to abandon that approach or chose to abandon that approach under pressure from the tea party. so in our view, it would have been useful to hear interest them as well and speak to them as well, directly. >> if a short-term debt ceiling bill comes to the president's desk, and it does not come or carry with it a continuing resolution to reopen the government, the president would at the very least sign that bill even though you haven't seen it, clean debt ceiling bill to raise the nation's debt limit? >> again, i think, as i've stated at the top, that the president believes that if there's a recognition that we cannot default, that we must ensure that we can continue to pay our bills and, therefore, the congress must raise the debt ceiling, that they ought to do it for longer than a few weeks.
1:13 pm
but if clean debt limit bill is passed he would likely sign it. again we'd have to see it. we're speaking of a bill that does not at this point exist. and it's not at all clear based on what the speaker said that's what we're going to see. the point is, they don't get anything in exchange for holding the economy hostage, they don't get anything in exchange for doing continued harm to the american people. they ought to -- they could, you know, the meeting i think would go very well indeed if, prior to arriving here, the house republicans put on the floor the continuing resolution already passed by the senate, passed it in the house, and then we would know that the government can reopen and that all of the various problems caused by the shutdown could end today. >> given the fact you might not get everything that you want here -- >> here's the thing. we're not asking for anything.
1:14 pm
we're asking for the government to be open. >> right. >> spending levels set by republicans and for congress, you know, at the behest of the tea party, not to default on the united states -- on the united states' full faith in credit for the first time in history. that's not -- we're not asking for concessions. that's just asking for congress to be responsible. >> my point is that all you may be able to get right now is the clean debt ceiling increase for the time being, to get -- >> again, i think i said the answer is, you know the president has always said he would sign a clean debt limit increase. it's preferable it be longer. what i said yesterday holds true today, short term, medium term, long term, it will always be the case when it is congress' responsibility again to ensure that our bills be paid, that he will not pay a ransom, he will not allow the tea party to hole the american people hostage in exchange for doing its job. >> we may have a scenario where the debt ceiling is raised, default is averted, but we may still be in the position of
1:15 pm
having a government shutdown ongoing. >> what would the republican rational for that be? the continued punishment of the american people and the continued harm that would do to the american economy, why? >> but -- >> why? open the government at levels set by the republicans and then let talk about our budget priorities. let's talk about solving these issues for the longer term. >> take one bite at a time here? >> jim, i've been clear in answering the question. >> can i ask a straightforward question. >> i'll come back to you, jim, john, straightforward. >> is the president willing to engage in budget negotiations with the republicans if the government is still shut down? >> i think the president's been very clear on that. if the republicans think, the tea party that is driving the republican decision making thinks, they extract concessions by punishing the american people, punishing the american economy in order to get what they want, the answer's no. the president is meeting with house republicans today.
1:16 pm
the idea this is about having a conversation, well they're having a conversation today. but they will not, whether it's obama care or tax breaks for millionaires or any other of their possible demands, they're not going to get it in exchange for funding the government at -- in a cr set by republicans. the whole point of a short-term cr, as proposed by the speaker, originally, basically a clean cr set at existing levels was to allow for time to have budget negotiation. what's the rational for refusing to do that in order to have budget negotiations in there is none. the only -- it's spite. it's -- it's deliberate harm to average folks out there, some of whom are directly affected because think can't go to work, others who are affect because they can't get a small business loan or they can't get access to services that are important to
1:17 pm
them, there's macro economic harm down the longer the government is shutdown. there's no logical rational. they're doing harm to the american people, harm to the american economy and harm to the republican party which is bad for america. we need two strong parties that can work together and not, you know, not be in a situation where one faction of one house of one branch of government is, you know, forcing shutdowns or default. >> it's a very long answer to a yes or no question. i want to be sure i have it right. the president will not engage in budget negotiations with the republicans until the government is reopened, is that his position? >> our position is clear. they ought to turn on the lights pay our bills. the president's been ready all year long. the fundamental question for republicans is, why is the price of negotiations the president's been willing to engage in all year long doing harm to the american people and doing harm
1:18 pm
to the american economy and threatening the global economy? it's preposterous. >> republicans have proposed this six-month extension because -- six-week extension, don't get excited, to give time for these budget negotiations they think will happen while the government remains shutdown. >> think about the proposition here, john. you're suggesting -- >> i'm asking you to respond. >> but again, since we've seen nothing from the republicans yet beyond a very brief press conference, we don't know what they're actually going to propose or what they may try to get passed in the house. but the suggestion, in your question, the republicans would think that we can resolve all of our significant differences over the budget and that while we work that out we should do sustained harm to the american economy and sustained harm to the american people and their
1:19 pm
rational for that would be what? >> put pressure on you guys. >> so to -- i love the crystallization here. that's right. they want to use harm -- i'm not -- obviously not suggesting this is your view, i'm saying the logic here is they would harm the american economy and people in order to extract concessions from the president and their counterparts on capitol hill. that's unsustainably bad proposition. it's bad economics, it's bad governance, and it's bad politics. >> the president would sign a clean, truly clean, six-week extension of the debt ceiling, he's going to need a clean cr before he will sit down and engage in negotiations of a longer budget. >> to continue to talk about if and buts as the speaker said done get us anywhere. we haven't seen anything from the house republicans yet. the president believes they ought to pay our bills. the president believes they
1:20 pm
ought to turn on the lights. and the president has always been willing to negotiate and work out and find common ground with republicans over our long-term budget priorities. but he's not -- again, going back to it like the assertion they're going to use punishing the american people as leverage, doing harm to the american economy as leverage, that's unacceptable to the president, he's made that clear. >> jay carney reacting to john boehner's earlier proposal. house republicans about to enter the white house for a separate meeting with the president of the united states. john boehner, earlier in the day, proposed a six-week extension, raising the debt ceiling in exchange, the government would remain shut down but a dialogue presumably would continue, a condition laid out by the house speaker and the majority whip, kevin mccarthy, that house senate conferrees would begin to discuss the budget even while the government remained partially shut down.
1:21 pm
you heard jay carney say while extending the debt ceiling for six weeks is an encouraging sign, direct quote, the president doesn't want to engage in that house/senate dialogue while the government remains partially shutdown. let's get some analysis. brianna keilar standing by, chief congressional correspondent, dana bash, chief political analyst, gloria borger. i think -- i think, brianna, he was precise there. they want -- what they call a clean piece of legislation exextending the debt ceiling and reopening the government and after all of that is approved, then they can begin the house senate conference committee report dialogue on whatever they want. but that's not exactly what i heard from kevin mccarthy, house majority whip. >> reporter: yeah, that seems to be what he's saying. it's a little confusing. what's clear, there's agreement on a six-week extension of the debt ceiling. but when it comes to funding the
1:22 pm
government, it does sort of sound like jay carney's saying they're not going to sit down for the negotiations which essentially they've agreed to have, because of this agreement on the debt ceiling for six weeks. so i do think it's unclear in that regard. but what the white house has been going for, i think, is a short-term funding bill for the government. i don't think they expected that they were going to get a long-term one. seems like they're lobbying to get a short-term funding of the government. what's sort of the, i think, confusing part is that the white house may say that a funding bill is clean, but it could also have some sort of conditions on it, maybe we've seen this in the past where perhaps there's something else, maybe a negotiation on it, but at this point i think it's not quite as clear as the debt ceiling portion of this. >> let's go to dana bash, she listened closely to what the
1:23 pm
house speaker said what kevin mccarthy, majority whip, majority leader eric cantor said, what is the official reaction of the white house, short-term extension of the debt ceiling for six weeks and the conditions that were attached to that? >> reporter: he was very -- jay carny was clearly open to the idea of this short-term debt ceiling bill to increase the debt ceiling for six weeks. where he was looked like intentionally squishy, to use a technical term on the issue of the government shutdown. we heard from republican leaders, talking to republican sources, and they made clear their position is that this whole debt ceiling idea is predicated on the fact that they will then immediately begin to sit down and talk and among the first things they will do in those bipartisan negotiations is figure out a way to reopen the government. when it comes to the government shutdown we might be in a
1:24 pm
chicken or egg situation, which is going to come first. those things have to be worked out. as jay carney was speaking, i spoke to a republican leadership source who is trying to clarify what exactly this so-called clean debt ceiling bill would be. i'm told, when looking at the actual legislative language, there is going to be one condition and that condition will be to take what are known as extraordinary measures away from the treasury secretary in order to do that the reason that they would do that, the republicans say, to make sure that the treasury department can't monkey around with that date. so make it very clear, the date would be november 22nd, that's when the country would default and that's the date that negotiators would be working up against to find a way to deal with some of the things that republicans and democrats have been talking about for a very long time, having to do with entitlements, tax reform, dealing with the debt and deficit. the extraordinary measures,
1:25 pm
taking that power away from the treasure si secretary, that i'm told would be in the legislative language. other demands would be outside. a gentleman's agreement to si down with budget conferrees and deal with the broader issues and of course as i said starting with negotiating to reopen the government. >> let's see if the administration would accept that condition of extraordinary measures being taken away from the treasury secretary, sounds like a significant concession there. gloria borger listening carefully. do you understand what's going on right now? it sounds murky, but maybe that's deliberate. >> look, it's clear that what everybody agrees on is that they -- they don't want to collide with the debt ceiling. and the white house would like it longer than six weeks, republicans are saying six weeks. i think jay carney just threw the proverbial fly in the ointment here saying, wait a minute, until we agree the government's going to open we're not going to negotiate on budget
1:26 pm
issues. and that's clearly what the president is going to say to republicans when he meets with them. it's like, okay this is a fig leaf for you, we understand that. you need to find out a way to get out of the mess we're in and willing to give you the six-week thing. but i need to fix the other part of the problem, which by the way the president will say, you created, so we need to figure out a way to open the government because we are not talking about any budget issues until this entire thing is solved. and that will fly with the hell no caucus among house republicans remains to be seen. lots of democrats don't like this idea because they think the president's actually throwing out too much of an olive branch, they don't want to go back at this and be here for thanksgiving. it is murky, wolf, but you see negotiation starting. but it's very clear the white
1:27 pm
house says, you've got to reopen the government, this is crazy. >> a long ways to go, even though jay carny said this is an encouraging sign, referring to the willingness to extend the debt ceiling for six weeks. we'll continue the breaking news coverage. the white house, they're getting ready to receive the republican congressional leadership. the president's going to be meeting with all congressional republican leaders. yesterday he met with the democratic leaders, all of the democrats in the house, i should say. chris van hollen, one of the democrats, ranking member of house budget committee, standing by live. has a hi-density core. and that means more fuel, more power, more performance than the next leading brand. new duracell quantum. trusted everywhere.
1:28 pm
i've got a big date, but my sinuses are acting up. it's time for advil cold and sinus. [ male announcer ] truth is that won't relieve all your symptoms. new alka seltzer plus-d relieves more sinus symptoms than any other behind the counter liquid gel. oh what a relief it is. than any other behind the counter liquid gel. ♪ (train horn) vo: wherever our trains go,
1:29 pm
the economy comes to life. norfolk southern. one line, infinite possibilities.
1:30 pm
welcome back. a republican offer to temporarily raise the debt ceiling might give washington the budge it needs to get out the current mess. then again maybe not. democratic congressman chris van hollen of maryland ranking member of the house budget committee joining us now. thanks for coming in. >> good to be with you, wolf. >> what's your reaction to the latest proposal from the republicans in the house, speaker boehner and the others, to go ahead and extend, raise the debt ceiling for six weeks until november 22nd? what's your reaction to that proposal? >> well, wolf, i should stress at the outset we have seen nothing in writing and the way things have been going around here in the house of representatives, things change minute to minute. i need to stress that.
1:31 pm
but number one, we believe we should immediately reopen the government. i think republicans have forgotten why they shut down the government to begin with. the speaker has in his power to have the vote and get that done today. number two, we believe we should commit to paying our bills on time for another year. as harry reid and the democrats and the senate have proposed. number three, we have been trying to sit down to negotiation on budget issues since last march. we also welcome that opportunity for a republican -- if republicans want to do that. >> two conditions i heard -- as you say nothing in writing yet, we heard the press conference from the republican leadership in the house, but dana bash, chief congressional correspondent is saying, one of the conditions for a six-week extension until november 22nd of the debt ceiling the department of the treasury, secretary of the treasury, would have to promise or commit that there wow be no, quote, extraordinary measures that would be taken after november 22nd, to play
1:32 pm
around with the debt, if you will. does that sound acceptable to you, as ranking member of the budget committee? >> well, wolf, i really have to talk to the secretary of the treasury to determine exactly what impact that would have in terms of our obligations and our ability to pay. so again, that would be one thing that we would want to take a very close look at. but i should also stress the fact that simply by extending the debt ceiling for a short period of time, you're really guaranteeing that you have a continued crisis mentality not just in washington, but the spillover from that uncertainty throughout the economy. so the president has said that obviously we want to eliminate that uncertainty. he's also said, we will do everything we can to prevent a default. i should be really clear that the position that we think is right for the country and to eliminate the uncertainty is to make sure we pay our bills on time for at least a year. >> the other thing we heard from
1:33 pm
the republicans, kevin mccarthy, majority whip of the house of representatives, a man you know, suggesting that go ahead, pass the six-week extension, raise the debt ceiling, get that out of the way, but during the next six weeks, even while government remains partially shutdown because it would presumably you launch the house senate conference committee discussions to deal with the budget issues that you, as the ranking member of the budget committee, have been dealing with, that paul ryan, chairman of your committee have been dealing with, go ahead and start. what the republicans earlier were refusing to do but at least begin right now during the next six weeks, see if you can work this out. what do you think about that? >> well, wolf what we don't understand, what republicans have not been able to make clear is why in the world you have to keep the entire government shut down while you're having a conversation? again, we've been trying to have that conversation since last march. as you well know, republicans in both the house and the senate
1:34 pm
repeatedly blocked the appointment of budget negotiators throughout the year, drove us up to this point of the government shutdown and the debt ceiling crisis, and we don't know why we shouldn't open the government. and they have not stated a very clear reason. everything we are reading is that they've sort of said we'll give up trying to kill obama care, which was their original reason for shutting down the government, so why don't we vote today to open the government, wolf? we always have wanted to talk. but why wouldn't we also open the government today? they just haven't answered that question. i haven't seen that proposal yet. they are still unwilling to have the speaker to have democracy work its will and democrats and republicans vote today to open the entire government. >> are you adamantly opposed to who what they've been trying to do republicans on the house side, pass piecemeal pieces of legislation to reopen the veterans department, national
1:35 pm
institutes of health, make sure that those troops killed in action in afghanistan families get the gratuity to pay for a funeral, come to dover air force base? are you adamantly opposed to supporting that piecemeal legislation, even while the government, as a whole, remains partially shutdown? >> wolf, we voted unanimously yesterday in the house to make sure those death benefits were provided. as you know, the administration was able to deal with that separately. but the answer to your question is, if you care about the nih -- and i happen to represent the district home to nih -- if you care about the food and drug administration or federal agencies best way to help them and the rest of the government is to vote to open it all today. this has been government by press release, right? the republicans seem shocked day by day to find out shutting down the government has been consequences and read something
1:36 pm
tht paper and say, let's reopen this or that. it will never end until we reopen the entire government. again i can't stress more strongly, i'm hearing from republicans, independents and democrats, why won't the speaker of the house allow democracy to work its will? why won't he allow the simple act of a vote to open the government, make sure we pay our bills on time and get to the negotiations we've been trying to have since last march? >> one final question before i let you go. the chairman of the budget committee, paul ryan, had the important article in the "wall street journal" yesterday, no mention of obama care in his various solutions. but is he someone that you're encouraged that you like working with, is he someone that you trust, someone that could perhaps help democrats and republicans work together to resolve this mess? >> wolf, i have a very good personal relationship with paul. we have very deep differences. we've been trying to get to the
1:37 pm
negotiating table to through the conference. between the house republican budget and the president's budget and find a midpoint between those two things. what worried me about paul ryan's article in the "wall street journal" he wanted to set up the negotiation this way, he was saying that, in order for republicans to do the right thing, the thing we should all do together, pay the country's bills on time in order to do that, we have to accept major portions of the republican budget. that's not the way it works. we should have a negotiation between the republican budget and the democratic budget and we should all do our job in making sure we pay bills on time, which this entire congress has voted for in the past. let me ask you this. if the president of the united states were to say, wolf, he was going to veto the debt ceiling, he was going to prevent the country from paying its bills on time, unless the republicans in congress voted for the president's budget proposal and the president's jobs proposal, you know that republicans would
1:38 pm
say the president had absolutely lost his mind. but that's the way think want to shape this negotiation, that in exchange for them agreeing to do what they should do anyway, pay our bills on time, we have to somehow adopt their budget. that's not going to happen. what we are absolutely prepared to do and have wanted to do is negotiate between the republican budget and their priorities for the country and the democratic budget and its priorities. let's absolutely not just find common ground but make some tough compromises to get that done for the good of the country. that's the way we should move forward. >> chris van hollen, ranking democrat on the budget committee, thanks very much for coming in. are there winners and losers in the latest stalemate? cnn's top political analysts standing by to join me. we'll discuss, when we come back.] bell's angus beef & dumplings. hearty cheeseburger. creamy thai style chicken with rice. mexican-style chicken tortilla. if you think campbell's 26 new soups sound good, imagine how they taste.
1:39 pm
m'm! m'm! good! you really love, what would you do?" ♪ [ woman ] i'd be a writer. [ man ] i'd be a baker. [ woman ] i wanna be a pie maker. [ man ] i wanna be a pilot. [ woman ] i'd be an architect. what if i told you someone could pay you and what if that person were you? ♪ when you think about it, isn't that what retirement should be, paying ourselves to do what we love? ♪
1:40 pm
at any minute... paying ourselves to do what we love? could be a victim of fraud. most people don't even know it. fraud could mean lower credit scores, higher loan rates... ...and maybe not getting the car you want. it's a problem waiting to happen. check your credit score, check your credit report, at america's number one provider of online credit reports and scores.
1:41 pm
don't take chances. go to that your mouth is under attack, from food particles and bacteria. try fixodent. it helps create a food seal defense for a clean mouth and kills bacteria for fresh breath. ♪ fixodent, and forget it. there may be or maybe not a limited breakthrough in the current stalemate in washington. let's discuss what's go on with our chief political correspondent, candy crowley, anchor of "state of the union" and senior political analyst, david gergen. david, you've heard the back and forth, speaker, the republican leadership in the house, about to go into the white house now. they may already be there for the meeting with president's you've heard the reaction from the white house from the press secretary jay carney. are we on the verge of a limited breakthrough, limited ability to
1:42 pm
raise the debt ceiling over the next six weeks? >> afraid not, wolf. it sounds good on the surface, in some respects, and jay carney said at least they're talking about raise the debt ceiling. the proposal as a wholes ace nonstarter. there's no way the white house is going to accept a short extension of the debt ceiling and then go into negotiations with the government still closed down. that's exactly what the president said he would not do. he's made it very clear from the beginning. i think we were so close to an agreement, so close to getting this resolved, and now i'm afraid we're still in a pickle here. i don't think -- i don't think there's any way the president can or will accept the proposal. >> candy, you did hear jay carney specifically say they want to discuss, they want to negotiate, but first reopen the government completely and the partial government shutdown, tend the debt ceiling and everything can be on the table. >> but the question then is, what is everything? what are they going to negotiate? once you pass the budget and
1:43 pm
once you pass the debt ceiling, the urgency is not there, as far as republicans are concerned. they feel that this is a way to get, particularly the debt ceiling, a way to start talking about how much money the country spends. i ten to agree with david, both sides are hemmed in by their initial positions it's hard to see the president saying, yes, i'll do it. we'll see more of the same, come down to the white house and talk to me but they're not negotiations. >> david what if they reached -- i don't think this is necessarily on the table -- but a six-week extension not only of the debt ceiling until november 22nd on the eve of thanksgiving but a six-week extension of the federal government and the shut down for the next six weeks and during the period over the next six weeks you have house senate conferrees working on long-term issues like entitlement spending, tax reform, stuff like
1:44 pm
that? >> that's exactly the deal, i think, that will work, wolf. i think the white house would accept that. if -- if -- the president's made it clear, look, if i -- if you reopen the government and -- i'll accept a short-term eshgs tension, we'll have a pause of six weeks and serious negotiations, we wouldn't go for a grand bargain but as paul ryan wrote yesterday in the "wall street journal" we could get certain things done and get out of the mess. i thought that's where we were going to be today. i'm disappointed the republicans are saying we'll keep the government shutdown. if they left both of those we'll get negotiators to the table. i talked to a senior house republican yesterday and they said that's a deal they can work with. >> the day's not over with. maybe they can come up with that. do you think the deal would fly, six weeks, reopen the government fully for six weeks, extend the debt ceiling for six weeks, november 22nd the deadline and
1:45 pm
negotiations on other issues begin? >> it is hard for me to believe in six weeks they can solve what they've been fighting by for six years. assume honest negotiations for six weeks, the reason they backed off from six-week extensions on both is that there may be a problem now on the other side, within the house republican caucus, about letting both of those have six-week extensions. i think that's where the problem goes, where the president's the problem when there's one problem solved and i think the house caucus there's a he problem when there's both. >> david, you worked for four presidents over the years. talk about winners and losers. are there any winners now or just a bunch of losers? >> i think it's -- i think there are almost all losers, the question is who is losing the most? with the gallup poll yesterday, 28%, the lowest level gallup reported in 21 years, you know
1:46 pm
you have to say the republican party's losing badly on this. and congress is losing badly. there's a poll, approval rating for congress 5%. 5%. you wonder about those 5%, why didn't they get the word? >> david gergen, candy crowley, thanks very much. opinions ranging from catastrophic to no big deal on what the consequences would be if the u.s. were to default on its debt. you're going to hear warnings and dismissals next. ♪ ♪
1:47 pm
so you can get out of your element. so you can explore a new frontier and a different discipline. get two times the points on travel and dining at restaurants from chase sapphire preferred. so you can be inspired by great food once again. chase sapphire preferred. so you can.
1:48 pm
1:49 pm
the deal to raise the debt ceiling not made by october 17th, how dire would the consequences really be? obviously that depends on whom you ask. strong words from the treasury secretary, jack lew in his testimony before the senate finance committee. his warning about 11th hour deals. listen to this.
1:50 pm
>> there's a snort washington, when is the last minute? you can't do that with the debt limit. if you look for the last minute and make a mistake, you've done serious damage to the u.s. economy, the world economy. it's not responsible. it's reckless. >> strong words from jack lew. moody's investor service says the obama administration may be wrong. a member mow circulated on the hill says the u.s. doesn't have to default even if the debt ceiling isn't raised by the october 17th deadline. >> i'm not part of the rating agency, so that's from a different part of my organization. in my view, if the u.s. government does not make a payment, either whether it be on u.s. treasury debt, that would certainly be a default. if it didn't make its payments on other obligations, in my view, that would be a default in
1:51 pm
anything perhaps but name, almost semantic, but either way, it would be very hard on the economy and the prescription for a very deep recession. >> so let's just be precise. you're an excellent economist. let's walk through. let's say they don't. i hope they do reach at least a temporary agreement to raise the nation's debt ceiling, but let's say they don't, come october 17th, how much flexibility is there that the treasury secretary would have to make sure that the u.s. doesn't default? >> okay, so if we're talking about default on the debt, that means the treasury not paying bond holders. then there's some debate about that. now, the treasury would say that they don't have the legal authority to do that. and, you know, even if they decided to go ahead and pay bond holders, there would be lawsuits. and if i were an investor and i thought about the legal risks involved, i would still not be buying bonds, even selling bonds, so the implication would
1:52 pm
be higher interest rates. almost regardless, interest rates are going to go higher whether bond holders get paid or not. >> am i hearing you suggest -- >> does it make sense in. >> it makes sense to me. am i hearing correctly you agree with jack lew t would be a catastrophe if congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling, even for a few weeks? >> i think that would be an unmitigated catastrophe. let's extract for a second from paying the bond holders. suppose the treasury figures out a way, gets around the legal issues and pays bond holders. what that would mean is there's less money for everyone else. come november 1st when there's a $60 million payment to social security holder, they're going to pan panic, there's going to bedlam, and it would be a
1:53 pm
catastrophe for those people and the economy. >> if you were the treasury secretary or the president of the united states and there's no deal on raising the debt ceiling by the 17th of october, and there are obligations that the u.s. federal government has. what would come first, paying off international investors who hold tea bills or whatever, whether the chinese or japanese or saudis or whatever, or maker sure that 60 million americans get their social security checks on time? >> that's a huge question, but let me answer it this way. i don't think that really matters because whether you pay one or the other, it's still going to be a catastrophe because one group is going to panic and when they start panicking, everyone is going to start panicking. it doesn't matter if it's social security recipients or bald holders. we're all going to go down if that happens. >> mark zandi, appreciate it very much. >> thank you. cyber thieves are always on the prowl. one target they're likely to try
1:54 pm
to crack, that massive database of personal information collected by obama care health exchanges. so how secure are the websites? we'll have an explanation when we come back. ♪ [ male announcer ] when we built the cadillac ats from the ground up to be the world's best sport sedan... ♪ ...people noticed. ♪ the cadillac ats -- 2013 north american car of the year. lease this cadillac ats for around $299 per month with premium care maintenance included.
1:55 pm
hearty cheeseburger. creamy thai style chicken with rice. mexican-style chicken tortilla. if you think campbell's 26 new soups sound good, imagine how they taste. m'm! m'm! good!
1:56 pm
1:57 pm
over the next few months, lots and lots of americans are expected to enroll in insurance plans under obama care. that's going to create a massive database of personal information that will include social security numbers, and health
1:58 pm
information. zain asher is joining us from new york. wrouv rr been taking a closer look at this. how secure are these health insurance websites out there right now? >> this is something critics are going to be watching. before the exchanges went live, there was a report of a data breach with utah's data breach. that helped utah see the flaws and fix them in time. firstly, the health exchanges don't actually store sensitive information. it does collect private data, but it's transferred to a data cub. a courier between the fralsh exchanges. if a hacker breached into a website, they wouldn't have much. and the exchanges have hired people to continually test the sites for flaws and vulnerabilities. think of it as you will as ethical hacking. any problems get fixed before a real hacker can actually get to it. thirdly, some state exchanges do have programs that check for
1:59 pm
malicious behavior. others block all international traffic. there are mechanisms in place so that's important to remember. we did speak to a health security expert. she says that even though there are security measures in place, state exchanges might be more of a ripe target for hackers than a federal exchange. here's why? >> they haven't had as many resources to set these things up. there's not a lot of transparency about their privacy policies and the thing about skeert is you can't tell everybody what you have done to create the system or you have created vulnerabilities because you have essentially exposed all of your plans. >> so even though it's tough to know all that they're doing to keep their users safe, there's so much heat around the exchanges that any data breach would be a major blow. lots of pressure. wolf. >> pressure is enormous indeed. zain, thanks very much. zain asher reporting for us. that does it for me this hour.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on