let's get back to our conversation with erskin bowles. i always like having you on, i feel there can be a meeting of the minds, i view you as an old democrat, not a new one so much. >> i am at all difficult. >> i will tell you what i mean by that, in light of what happened with the fed and what we're doing, where we are with the fed. it becomes more important. because we seem to be locked in this notion until we get to 6% unemployment, we continue get the fed of 3 or 4%. i see these things in the future that are head winds to that. the things we seem to be focusing on the obama administration, immigration, we want to that, climate change, i don't know, i think that will be a negative for joshs. when we try to do obamacare in 2014, we are seeing effects there. it's almost like they punted on the job creation side of things because they believe they can't get anything through congress, they can't do infrastructure. they can't do another stimulus package. it's almost like they think, since we can't do it, we will focus on these other things.

bowles and alan simpson followed the principle that you should get rid of a lot of the exemptions and credits and deductions and loopholes that both individuals and corporations benefit from. lower theuld actually rate if you wanted to and still get more revenue in, or dial up need, whatever you need to make it all work. i do not actually think revenue -- i do not think tax reform should be revenue neutral. >> a quick factual point. the $1.3nly 10% of trillion tax expenditure we forgo is from the corporate side. i think is -- it is the issue of fairness people raise. >> annabel fisher. i will direct my question initially to bob but first to preface it as a trivia question best for all of you up there or maybe in the audience -- what country in the world has the most billionaires? the united states. i personally am tired of hearing these talking points. of insultedd sort the people in the midwest and other parts of -- that they are not aware and engaged. >> i don't think i said it. >> we don't care about knowing about the budget. to bob -- i was very involved in the concorde coalition

it's another one of those things when we s my naivete erskin bowles and to do a reform unless there's tax increase. and the republicans say we're doing a tax increase unless there's an entitlement reform. businessman you're going, gee, this is pretty logical. son of a gun, this thing is going to work. here we sit. so is it a deal along the lines a likely e describing outcome. bond market intervene and create the crisis environment that you're describing that causes a lurch towards a revolution. what's the outcome at this stage? >> oh, it's tough to know. because as you guys know better markets are nd unpredictab unpredictable. it's interesting, again, to show the difference between business and politics. we have these conversations, we need to do this thoughtfully, way a great he country does. they say what happened? you know, ten-year notes go to 7%. home mortgage is a ten and auto loan is a 13. have aow you're going to main street problem and you're it.ng to feel their question would be, well, when does that happen? what have an idea of corner, what year that happens. well, they'll

of concern to you, our friend, my friend for 20 years, erskine bowles, clear around the country, alan simpson, here last week, rang the bell on concerns related to the dax -- bedecked -- the debt. compounding problem when it comes to interest payments on the debt. do you believe when interest rates rise over coming years and the spending trajectory we are towards the close of the decade that interest rates along with annual deficits push america's dad to unsustainable levels perhaps close to whatebt to uns perhaps close to what we are seeing across europe. i would say to my grandchildren, it is for my kids, it is for me. the urgency seems to be gone. mr. obama never mentioned it. the big elephant in the room that has never been there as a focal point. and the interest requirements are going to be compounded this entire issue. how would you like to address that as we look ahead to perceive the outcomes that might achieve the same results. >> the cbo and the omb when they do deficit projections assume interest rates are going to rise and give the economy recovers interest rates should r

you know, most of the proposals from bipartisan groups like domenici-rivlin and erskine bowles and alan simpson did follow this principle that you should get rid of a lot of the exemptions and credits and deductions and loopholes that both individuals and corporations went fit from -- benefit from. and you could actually lower the rate if you wanted to and still get more revenue in. or, you know, dial up rates that you need, whatever you need to make it all work. so, you know, no be, i don't actually -- i don't think that revenue, i don't think that tax reform be should be revenue neutral. >> just a quick factual point. i think this is correct that i think only 10% of that, you know, 1.3 trillion tax expenditures that we forgo is from the corporate side. >> yeah. most of it's individual. [inaudible conversations] >> yeah. ma'am in the striped dress on the aisle. >> i think it's an issue of fairness people raise. >> thank you. annabell fisher, i'm going to direct my question initially to bob. first, i want to preface it by saying as a trivia question for all of you up there maybe in the

itself well ok let me switch to another earlier today former white house chief of staff erskine bowles talked about reforming the tax code and here is what happened. we can bring down the corporate tax rate the corporations will have more money available to invest and invest in this country to create jobs over here it will make us more competitive it will keep companies headquartered here in the us rather than see them going on countries we need ok what do you think well you and i had this discussion about apple what about a few weeks ago but the problem is not that the corporate tax rates too high the problem is that if you too few corporations are paying their taxes we have let about maybe a third at best corporations paying their taxes and i'm also slowing the rate and you dishonestly make that apple is actually playing by the rules here it is the law that they're playing but it is the law but if you're going to change the law and you lower corporate tax rates we need to make sure that every corporation pays them i'm all for lowering it to obama's rate of twenty eight percent or som

itself well ok let me switch to another earlier today former white house chief of staff erskine bowles talked about reforming the tax code and here is what happened. we can bring down the corporate tax rate the corporations will have more money available to invest and invest in this country to create jobs over here it will make us more competitive it will keep companies headquartered here in the us rather than see them going out countries we need to ok what do you think well you and i had this discussion about apple what about a few weeks ago but the problem is not that the corporate tax rates too high the problem is that if you too few corporations are paying their taxes we have let about maybe a third at best corporations paying their taxes i'll call slowing the rate and you do long as they make that apple is actually playing by the rules here it is the law that they're playing but it is the law but if you're going to change the law and you lower corporate tax rates we need to make sure that every corporation pays them i'm all for lowering it to obama's rate of twenty eight percent o

bowles to a deficit commission ran to the left again in two thousand and twelve and since then he's been negotiating in secret the transpacific partnership and other trade deals that are very much pro corporate he has offered to cut social security he's repeated the deficit rhetoric of the right etc etc etc but he's also emphasized his what he calls his evolving positions on gay marriage and and women's issues and so on so as a result even though he's far to the right of the democratic base on economic issues he still enjoys eighty five percent support among registered democrats so that's the playbook that's the clinton playbook and if somebody about doesn't call them on it i think that's how we're going to see the continued wealth inequity and corporatization of america you know i would submit that these economic policies whether it's rahm emanuel's or bill clinton's or for that matter barack obama's are to the right certainly to the right of dwight eisenhower who in one thousand fifty six ran for reelection in the fact that he had added more than a million people to the union role