So they are right now at this moment putting together 10,000 at a time pink slips to send into the mail, that are going to start hitting in Virginia, in North Carolina, in Florida and New Hampshire in September and October.
And I think in the end people are going to say as these notices start coming through, and this jobs argument starts to resonate in the fall, they're going to look to him as the commander in chief and say, why aren't you doing something about this?
TAPPER: And, Grover, you'd deviated from the party orthodoxy, the Republican Party orthodox a bit by saying that there is room for defense cuts.
NORQUIST: Yes, look, defense spending is not magic.
just because it's defense doesn't mean you shouldn't question it and you shouldn't figure out how to spend it more effectively and more efficiently and, yes, there are way to save money and we ought to look at those.
Neil Barofsky: I think it's really important to remember how we got here, because sometimes when I listen to the different parties argue it, they like to blame each other for this and for not resolving this.
this is something that Republican House voted for, the Democratic controlled Senate voted for and the president voted for. And you know, this is really a symptom of the brokenness in Washington.
And now, when the president blames one side and Congress blames the other side, I mean, there's a reason why there's a lot of cynicism out here about the process and about the real ability of the government to ever get their arms around this. We're just not have another six months, another 12 months of taking down -- the can down the road. And while I agree --
Neil Barofsky: -- you know, while I agree -- and I hate to sound like a broken record -- we can't have massive spending cuts on defense or otherwise at this point in our economic recovery. And we are going to have to relook at this. We have to do so in a way that doesn't invite this constant can-kicking and this constant cynicism.
TAPPER: So Congressman, I just want to be -- I want to hear from you, because you were on the super committee. What happened?
VAN HOLLEN: Well, (inaudible) --
VAN HOLLEN: The fundamental problem, in my view, was that our Republican colleagues were unwilling to take the kind of balanced approach required by groups like Simpson-Bowles, the bipartisan groups, that say you need to -- you need to fix this issue by a combination of cutting spending but also raising revenue. Grover Norquist: Taxes.
VAN HOLLEN: Raising taxes.
TAPPER: Senator --
TAPPER: -- before you tell me your version of what happened, would you accept $10 in spending cuts (inaudible) $1 in tax increases for $10 in spending cuts?
TOOMEY: I -- it depends on an awful lot of things.
If you will agree to actually fix the problem, which is the design of at least one but preferably three of the entitlement programs, then even though we don't think we should have to, and it's not optimal, we'd be willing to put some revenue on the table because it's so important that we fix this problem.
TAPPER: So the Democrats wouldn't agree --