again and again, reaching his goal of 100 jumps in one day. that is a new record in minnesota, the old record was just 60 jumps. >> kelly: how much gas did that cost? >> julie: i don't know, man i can stretch a story like nobody's business, "fox news sunday" starts now. >> chris: robbing reform in trouble with a new warning will increase government spend, not cut it and the president's top domestic priority -- can it be saved? we'll ask, two key players, peter orszag, the white house budget director. and, republican senator judd gregg, who is a leader critic. then... >> the eagles has landed. >> chris: 40 years since man first walked on the moon. we'll mark the anniversary of the apollo 11 mission with former astronaut, buzz aldrin the second man to step on the lunar surface, buzz aldrin only on fox news sunday. plus were the supreme court confirmation hearings like a seinfeld episode, about nothing? our sunday panel tells us, how judge sotomayor talked a lot but revealed little. and, we'll remember legendary anchorman, walter cronkite. all, right now, on fox news sunday. >> chris: and hello again from fox news in washington, a tough week for health care reform, there are new questions about the cost, and moderate democrats have raised new objections to proposed taxes to pay for it, we are joined by president obama's budget chief, peter orszag, welcome to fox news sunday. >> good to be here. >> chris: president obama says health care reform must bring down spending and not add to the deficit but douglas elmendorf, the head of the nonpartisan congressional budget office says the plans the democrats are now considering would do neither and here's what he said this week about controlling costs. let's watch. >> we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that will be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount and the contrary the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs. >> chris: you had elmendorf's job until last december and he says federal spending on health care in the democratic plans would be unsustainable. >> well, let's look at the facts here. president said, yesterday, he will not sign a bill that expands the deficit. look at the report that came out from the congressional budget office, on friday night. with regard to the house legislation, once you take into accounts the -- maintaining current payments for medicare doctors, doctors under medicare, that bill is deficit neutral, third pointed is, the legislation does not in the clue some important things that we'd like to put in place, with regard to the fiscal trajectory after the first decade, for example we have a proposal for an independent commission, made up of doctors, to help bring down costs over the long term. >> chris: okay, when you were the head of the cbo, politicians said you were wrong, and he says it is unsustainable. are youation the bills in their current forms the president will not sign. >> no. the president said the bill has to be deficit neutral, if you look at the cbo score, that came out on friday night and again take off the table maintaining current payment rates for physicians under medicare, that bill is deficit neutral. >> chris: wait, there is this caveat and in fact what the cbo said on friday is that the bill the house is now considering and rushing to pass in fact would add $240 billion to the deficit, by 2019. and, now, there is talk as you say, a dispute about medicare payments to doctors, that is not in the legislation. >> no, the medicare -- payments to physicians is in the legislation, and that is the only reason that the bill shows a deficit. once you take that part out, the bill is deficit neutral. >> chris: that is what i'm saying but this reform you are talk understanding about, the cut in payments is not in the bill. >> the bill prevents that cutten payments but no one ever thought you would have a 20% reduction in medicare in reimbursement rates for doctors. that was going to happen, regardless and it so happens, they added that to this piece of legislation, but that is sort of already baked into our fiscal trajectory and we're looking at what is happening with regard to new policy and with regard to new policy it is deficit neutral over the first decade and there are additional steps that are necessary to make it even better than that, over the long term, and, i think the single most important thing is the proposal we have for an independent commission, to help bring down costs over the long term. >> chris: which is also not in the legislation. >> not yet. >> chris: let's talk about taxes, the house would raise a half a trillion dollars, to help pay for its health care program by imposing a sur tax on top earners and as a result combined with other obama tax policy and local taxes, 39 of the 50 states would have tax rates over 50%, and i want to you look at this: the don't rate in denmark is 60% and it would be over 57% in oregon, almost 57% in new york and california. and, that is higher than sweden and belgium. and is the president prepared to say that it is unacceptable to raise taxes that high. >> well, first, you were adding in state and local taxes in those calculations. >> chris: that is what people have to pay. >> secondly, that affects a very mall percentage of the population, 1 or 2% and let's talk about the bill itself. again, we have insisted the bill be deficit-neutral and put on the table a revenue proposal, we think is better that would limit the rate at which you could itemize deductions and the -- >> no one is considering that, mr. orszag. >> i think it is still in play in some modified form and -- >> is the president prepared to say that that kind of a surtax that would make top tax rates 58, 56% is off the table. >> no. what we have said is this bill has to be deficit neutral and we think there are better ways of obtaining additional revenue and we have to let this legislative process play out. >> chris: you say it would only hit a small number of people. in fact, according to studies, 2/3 of small business profits would be hit by those taxes, and i want to look at what christina romer, the head of the president's council of economic advisors, said a couple of years ago when she was a private economist, tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output. mr. orszag, wouldn't raising taxes that much on small business profits be a job killer. >> no, i don't know where you got your 2/3 number from, the vast majority -- >> the federation of independent businesses. >> would not be affected. i would be happy to refer you -- >> not 2/3 of businesses, 2/3 of profits. >> i understand. and again, what we are trying to do here, is a fiscally responsible health reform, i have actually run a small business and i would be happy to speak to folks about this. the most -- >> you have to pay 57%. >> the most important thing for small businesses is getting the economy back on its feet. that -- the key driver of small business activity, is demand for their product and that is what we are trying to do, getting the economy back on its feet which is far more important than other factors. >> chris: let's do a lightning round, quick questions and answers on the key issues on health care reform, the head of the cbo says one good way and effective way to cut costs, is to tax health care benefits at some point. some level. but the head of the senate fans committee, democrat, max baucus says the white house has already ruled that out. is that true. >> it is something the president doesn't favor. >> chris: and is that because the big unions don't want taxing of their health care benefits which they have gotten the u.a.w., police unions, firefighters. >> no, i think it is also because he is concerned about the impact that -- on employer-sponsored insurance, on the coverage you already have. >> chris: the president says no ration of health care costs, but you have mention a couple of times, he wants this commission of doctors, and medical experts, to oversee medical practices, in the end, aren't they going to be telling private and public insurers what treatments are allowed and what treatments aren't. >> this is the biggest canard that is floated tlutingd this debate. the fact of the matter is, right now, politicians and insurance companies are making decisions. we're saying we want doctors to be making decisions. and i think that will lead to a higher quality, lower cost system of -- over time you, but when you say they are making decisions they would be saying, you can have this stretreatment can't have that treatment. >> are politicians and insurance companies rationing care currently? there is no set of decisions the commission would have that is not currently resting with either members of congress or insurance companies. >> chris: they would be rationing care. >> no. because i don't think we are rationing care today, and, similarly they would not be in the future. what they would be duke is setting reimbursement rates -- doing is setting reimbursement rates an moving towards a higher quality system. >> chris: are you prepared to say in a government public funded taxpayer funded public health insurance plan, that no taxpayer money will pay for aabortions. >> i think that will wind up being part of the debate and i'm not prepared to say that now and it is one of the questions playing out in the debate. >> chris: you're not prepared to rule that out. >> not prepared to rule that out, will the hos in a senate meet the president's deadline and pass separate health care measures before they go on august recess. >> that is the goals. >> chris: and what do you think the chances. >> i think this chances are high. >> chris: let's turn to the economy, when congress passed the $787 billion stimulus, the white house said that it would keep unemployment a little over, at a top, 8% and now as you well no, 9.5% and i want to put up projections, this week from the federal reserve and forecast it may hit 10.1%, in the fourth quarter of this year, and will still be 9.5 to 9.8% the end of next year, do you agree with those numbers, and, why were all of you in the white house so wrong. >> look, if you look back, last december, or so, everyone, almost everyone, thought the economy was not as weak as it actually was and you cannot go from job losses of 700,000 a month which is what was happening in the months leading up to january, to job growth, like that. in, you know, just instantly it will take time to work our way out of this, and the situation in december and january was worse than most people thought. >> chris: but you passed the stimulus in february and knew how bad -- and the president kept saying it was a catastrophe. >> and it was worse than people thought. look back at the majority of the blue chip forecasts and the other forks including from the federal reserve, late last year, which is what we were basing our projections on at the time, they were all somewhat too optimistic because the economy was weaker at that time, than anyone anticipated. what we are trying to do is focus on how we can -- and also, remember, that sense of free-fall, minus 6%, on gdp growth, that is attenuate and there is more that needs to be done, but we're not -- we're not in the same position we were then. >> chris: quickly the 30 seconds left. the fed says 9.5 to 9.8% of the end of 2010. >> it will take time to work our way out of this. >> chris: you will not dispute those numbers. >> i will not dispute those numbers,szag we have to leave it there, become again, sir, for a republican view, now, we turn to senator jed greg, who joins us from new hampshire, welcome back to "fox news sunday" into thanks, chris, thanks for having me on. >> chris: i want you to react to what you heard from peter orszag and he says what the president ends up signing will not add to the deficit and, two, will cut health care costs. >> well, he disagrees obviously with the cbo director on the second point and the issue of -- whether the deficit, will anybody determination how much they are willing to raise taxes and the real question is and the nail was hit on the head by mr. elmendorf, this head of cbo and appointed by the democratic leadership of the house and the senate, and he said that this bill as proposed, or the bills as proposed, would significantly aggravate the health care cost situation that the cost of health care would go up significantly, and that it would raise significantly the burden on the federal government, as to what it had to pay and as a very practical matter did nothing in the out years to contain the rate of growth of health care costs, those were pretty damning words to be honest with you, and, they should make a -- us step back and pause and look at what is going forward in the congress and say, how can we do this better and there are ways to do this better. >> chris: i want to follow-up on a couple more points, that mr. orszag said. he -- not endorsing it, defended the house idea of a surtax on top earners and basically ruled out any tax on health care benefits. >> well, i'm not sure he ruled it out. i think, in fact he did the opposite. in alert that he sent to myself, and senator conrad, chairman of the budget committee. senator conrad, chairman of the budget committee, i'm not and the letter said there are two ways to address health care in a a substantive way to address reform and reduce the out rate of growth in the out years and the first is to control the deduct ability on high end cost plans and if you have a plan worth $17,000 a year, the amount it exceeds 17,000, and goes up to 20,000 let's say would not be deductible and first it creates revenue and second it reduces overutilization that and second thing he said had to be done is you have to change the way we reimburse for health care especially in the medicare arena, where you reward quality and not just simply people doing procedures. and said if you do those two things you can get significant out year restraints on costs, regrettably neither proposal now pending in the congress do either of those things. >> chris: also also, mr. orszag left wide open the possibility the public health plan will give taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. that is going to create a lot of heartburn on continued hill, won't it? >> well, of course it does, the abortion issue always does and you know, i mean, no matter what your views are on abortion you shouldn't ask people to use tax dollars if they think it taking -- using their tax dollars for that purpose be and so, hopefully, that issue, can be addressed. and i would hate to see the health care debate go down over that issue. we do really need health care reform, and, it has to be substantive and has to bend that out year cost curve and we have to have a system that covers everyone. so, hopefully we will not get ourselves wrapped around the wheel of abortion in this debate. >> chris: all right. you say that we do need health care reform but the fact is, senator, that in every vote, that has been taken, in the various committees and in both the house and senate, every republican has voted unanimously against health care reform. is your party really -- >> because it is not reform! that is because it's not reform, chris. >> chris: if i may ask are you saying the currently system with 47 million people uninsured, and with health care costs running way above inflation, is better for the country? >> no, that is not acceptedable and, in fact, in the senate at least there are three major health care proposals from republicans and i have one and there is a bipartisan one and which would get where we need to go which is cover everybody and bend the out year costs of health care, without going down the road of the massive expansion of the government role in health care, and the massive increase in costs, which are proposed in the two bills voted on. and remember the two bills that have been voted on so far are the kennedy bill, coming out of the health committee which i serve on and yes. it was a party line vote because that is your basic old-fashioned expand the government, take over the system, approach, and the house bill, even worse, and, basically, both of those bills lead to putting the bureaucracy between you and your doctor and i believe they lead to delay in rationing in -- and rationing in the end. >> chris: you say you would like to see the 40-plus million, arguments about specifically how many there are, but the 40-plus million uninsured get coverage, under your idea, how would they get it? how would the government help them get it? and how would you pay for it? >> well, first it is not a monolithic group, 20 million of those folks earn more than $75,000 and basically are young people who opt to spend their money on something other than health care insurance. and, we would cover those folks, we'd require them to buy health care policies, for catastrophic events, and they would have to self-insure under that but would not be a burden to the system if they contract aid serious disease or were seriously injured in the accident and the balance of the folks, 27 million are also non home jean nus and are a group of different people and illegal immigrants make up a big section and they could be covered by medicaid already or s chip and what we'd do is incentivize those folks to purchase health care in the private sector, giving them plans to choose from -- >> how much will that cost. >> it is going to cost money. that is going to cost money and the way we pay for it is by limiting the deductibles of high end health insurance premium plans and we pay for it. and we do cover everyone, and we put in place a replacement of the reimbursement system so we reimburse doctors on the basis of quality, and, outcomes rather than e the basis of the number of procedures and the problem we have in this debate is we have locked into our position here, it is unfortunate, and the president is saying, anybody disagrees with him is wrong an other people say, anybody that agrees with net is wrong and that's not the case, we can solve the problem if we'd simply maybe listen to what the cbo proposed and proceed on a plan of addressing the problem, rather than addressing the politics. >> chris: you say that you believe that something, that is your word, "something" will pass this year and why do you believe that? >> because the president made it his number one priority and the democrats have super majorities in both the house and senate and therefore have the capacity, and the political capability of passing something. >> chris: and, do you think what will end up passing is basically the president's plan, or do you think there is enough moderate democratic and moderate republican votes against it, particularly in the senate that you can block the president's plan and force him to go some of the way and the direction that you are talking about? >> well, this irony, chris is this president doesn't have a a plan. the only two plans are the kennedy plan and this house plan and the president has thrown out where his lines are drawn in the sand, unfortunately he's drawing a -- hopefully has not drawn a line and i was interested to see peter orszag maybe it's not as hard line as people say on the issue of deductibles and of insurance. but, clearly, the president -- goals of -- the president set out i agree with. you know, cover everybody, and begined the out year cost curve and make sure if you have your own insurance and like it you get to keep it and those goals are things which i'm 100% for as this is republican caucus and the senate and we think, you get there not by moving towards a system that essentially nationalizes health care and creates massive ex--- expansion to the size of government but a more practical approach giving people more choices in the mark and changing the payment system to the health care community to encourage better utilization. >> chris: senator, thank you. thanks for joining you, please come back, sir. >> pleasure, thanks. >> chris: up next, the apollo 11 mission to the moon, 40 years later. we'll look back at that defining moment with buzz aldrin. part of the team that first set foot the lunar surface. stay tuned. they said it would never last. but it's been two months, and you're still going strong. glade lasting impressions. two fragrances alternate to keep things... fresh and exciting day after day. - and not just for 30 days. - ( inhales deeply, sighs ) but for 60. it's the longest-lasting plugins ever. get freshness that won't fade away for 60 days. ahhh! with plugins lasting impressions. and yes, it's glade. s.c. johnson, a family company. to being able to manage your diabetes properly. it's very important for me to uh check my blood sugar before i go on stage. being on when i'm feeling low can be like a rollercoaster. it does at times feel like my body is telling me to do one thing... and, my mind, my heart is telling me to do something else. managing my highs and lows is super important. with my contour meter i can personalize my high/lo settings so it really does micromanage where my blood sugar needs to be. i'm nick jonas and never slowing down is my simple win. both cost the same. but only the new pringles super stack can makes everything pop. the choice is yours. one hundred these, or one hundred pringles. same cost, but a lot more fun. everything pops with the new pringles super stack can. ♪ this old heart ♪ gonna take them away [ quacks ] >> on july 16th, 1969, three american astronauts, neil armstrong, buzz aldrin and michael collins, began a rendezvous with history. >> good luck and godspeed. ignition sequence starts... >> chris: their rocket roared into space and headed for the moon. four days later, the lunar module named the eagle touched down on the sea of tranquility. >> houston, the eagle has landed. >> chris: man was on the moon. >> one small step for man... one giant leap for mankind. >> chris: like explorers before am the they planted their flag on the loon mar surface. >> got the flaupg and you can see this stars and stripes. >> chris: on this 40th anniversary, of apollo 11 we are honored to have with us the man who was holding that american flag. buzz all aldrin and buzz, welcome. >> that was a proud moment, to be a military person and to salute that flag, on the surface of the moon. >> chris: i would think. i want to take care of sad business first, as you know, walter cronkite passed away, friday night. what are your thoughts about him as a man and also, as someone, who i think you would agree, helped sell the space program, to the american people. >> absolutely he was the strongest supporter. there were other people, different networks. roy neil, jules bergman and they've all passed away but walter was the strongest and a persistent one from the beginning, supported all things the astronauts have done, and scholarship, foundation, and all of the hall of fame and things of that nature but, of course, i think, on this occasion, he's best remembered for being a little speechless, with his glasses up on his forehead, and mopping his brow and millions of people saw that, a lot of people, and we didn't. we didn't see that, until we got back on the carrier and were on the carrier and they showed us this reaction of the crew -- to the crew to the people cheering, and i just had an impulse to tap neil hone shoulder and say, hey, neil, look up there, we missed the whole thing! >> let's go back to 40 years ago, tomorrow. what has stayed with you? what do you remember most about your 21-and-a-half hours on the moon. >> what i want to remember most is the glance between neil and myself, with the engine shut off, just those seconds after we touched down. because we had just completed the most critical door-opening for exploration in all of humanity. we came along and just -- at just the right time, the three of us, all born in 1930, and to be given such a marvelous opportunity, and, for me to accompany one of the best test pilots that ever has come along and demonstrated the x-15 and, i couldn't ask for a better commander. >> chris: when you first set of aed foot on the moon you famously called it magnificent des relation. >> yes. >> chris: take us to the lunar surface, how can it be magnificent and desolate at the same time. >> the comedians, sometimes like for me to describe the comedy, as an absurtidy thrown into an oral situation and treat it as if nothing else happened. like, when we were cleared for lift off. i said, roger, houston we're number one on the runway and you got two of them, right there in one sentence and magnificence, is the achievement of humanity, to be able to get there and for us to be a part of that, to carry that out. but, the scene was so desolate, so totally lifeless. it probably hadn't changed much in a hundred thousand years. the sun goes over, 14 dashs and gets hotter than... and it gets colder -- it's not a hospitable place, you have to really have a very compelling reason to invest in human habitation. >> chris: we'll talk about the future in a moment but you want to talk about your new book, which you call "magnificent des relation" and which, quite frankly you talk openly about a tough time you had when you returned from the moon. alcohol, depression, divorce, and, you weren't the only one, there were a number of apollo astronauts who had tough times. was it that at age 39 you knew you had already reached the summit of your life. >> i don't think so. i certainly hoped not. but, the steps after that i -- that came to me, i had want to transition back into the military i came from and the best way to do that would have been after 11 years as commandant and cadets at the air force kadz daily and i was there when it first opened up and i was not a trained test pilot by sort of design, i wanted to be more of an analyst, and a deep thinker looking into the future, as a technology person, how can we do things better, rather than just a precise operator, recorder of what is happening to machines right now. >> chris: why do you think you had a tough time and you say in the book from the age of 45 to 55, that you were essentially nonfunctional. into yes. yes. at a very crucial transition, point and it really started a little bit earlier than that. 40, 42. when i was trying to transition from a very structured career west point, at the age of 17, very structured, goal-oriented and get in the air force and immediately i'm in the korean war, and that is impressive, but is respond, shot down two airplanes and came back and trained people, was at the air force academy and then, i'm -- ran into my good friend from west point, ed white, and the fighter squadron in germany and he rotated back and we eventually went on alert with nuclear weapons, and that is a sobering thing for a guy in his 20s. >> chris: how did you turn things around from the terrible down period? >> i got help. and i opened up. it just seemed to me, an appropriate thing to do, to discuss this and -- in an op-ed piece in the l.a. times as a result of that, i was on the board of directors, national association or mental health and we proceeded with the book, and then i was national chairman for mental health. it's not what i set out as a son of an aviator, pioneering -- aviation family to be associated with mental health. it was not an encouraging situation in my life, to go back to the air force and see that that didn't work out and then i'm -- from the frying pan into the fire, sort of, with an unstructured life and not knowing what to do yet. and -- >> but the fact is, you didn't. >> but i got into escapism, addiction, and i certainly inherited that, my mother committed suicide a year before i went to the moon and her father committed suicide before i was born. as an army chaplain, and it -- i could see that the structure and the unstructure was not -- with not knowing exactly what to do, for me to decide what to do, was kind of tearing my life apart and in a way, the way of salvation, the way of recovery, was by getting someone else to tell me what to do. >> chris: we have a few minutes left and i want to talk about the future of the space program because i know you want to talk about it. we haven't been back to the moon since 1972. nasa has focused on the shuttle and what you call low earth orbit. was that a mistake and did we take a wrong turn. >> no, we advanced technology and space capabilities so much in order to challenge our nation, and beat the soviets and we succeeded in doing that. and, and the soviet union came apart sooner than anybody thought. now, what did we do, we wanted to consolidate what we hand done and we wanted to develop reusable transportation, and laboratory to go to. that is two things and well, we -- in our process, to do that, we were maybe a little overconfidently, shuttle didn't live up to expectations, didn't fly once a week, ever. nine people, was the maximum we could put in, cost more than the saturn 5. >> chris: looking forward, you say what we should do is not go back to the moon, what the current nasa plan is, you say, that 20 years, the 60th anniversary we ought to be landing on mars, with all of the problems out there and the same question, that guys like you were asked in the 60s why spend the money. >> that is a little optimistic by the 60th, by the 50th we should con if you remember a pathway to take now, that doesn't abandon the moon and puts us in an experience leadership position with other nations, to form an international lunar economic development. >> chris: why the ultimate goal of mars. >> because it's much more suitable to earthlings, much more habitable, and possibly the source of life, it could have been the source of our life in our planet and it is much easier to approach once you get there, it has a moon that goes around, very close, every 7 hours, and from that location, we can control things on the surface, and that can be, by the 50th anniversary, our confirmation of the pathway, we commit to people there and as we learn more, commit to people on the surface and it is progressive and exciting to do and is a pathway that does not ignore the moon, it is a -- an affordable pathway right now, if we decide to make a change. and i think we should make a change. >> chris: buzz aldrin, thank you so much for being here today. you are an american hero, and it is an honor, honor to share this weekend with you, sir. >> thank you, chris, you did well in inheriting your father's capabilities, and, roger should be proud! >> chris: thank you thank you very much. coming up, health care reform in trouble, our sunday panel, discusses a tough week for the president's plan, when we come right back. 4l [ woman 1 ] last year i had a 180 average. then i had a fracture... and missed the rest of the season. [ woman 2 ] i love taking my grandchild out, but a fracture... kept me home for weeks. [ female announcer ] if you have post-menopausal osteoporosis, you could be at risk of breaking a bone. 1 out of 2 women over 50 will have an osteoporosis-related fracture in their lifetime. you may be at risk call 1-800-316-4953 to find out more in this free information kit. in it, you'll see the difference between the inside of a strong bone and the inside of an osteoporotic bone, weakened and prone to fracture. you'll find ways to help reverse bone loss, and ways to help prevent fractures. call 1-800-316-4953 and learn how to help maintain strong bones and read about a treatment option for post-menopausal osteoporosis. there's even a discussion guide to use when you talk to your doctor. [ woman 4 ] if i'm at risk, i want to know more now! [ female announcer ] call today for your free information kit and learn how you can help prevent fractures. >> president barack obama: we will reform health care. it will hand this year. i'm absolutely convinced of that. >> the president and democrats insist we must rush the plan through. why? because more mention nor about it the more they oppose it. >> chris: president obama and republican senator jon kyl at odds about the need for each house of congress to pass health care reform in the next three weeks and it is time for our sunday newspaper, bill kristol of the weekly standard, mara liasson of national public radio, syndicated columnist, charles krauthammer and juan williams also from national public radio. and so bill, let's talk about where we are, the cbo this week, basically and i think they scored a direct hit, on the president's reform plan said, basically it is not going to cut spending and it is going to increase, not be revenue-neutral on the deficit, and peter orszag disputed both and where are we in this debate. >> i think the obama administration, democrats' plan is in trouble and it was interesting, president obama said in the clip you showed, it will happen this year and i guess he means legislation will be passeded and none of the legislation goes into effect until 2013 and the health care reforms don't go into effect for four years and the president says it has to be passed by the end of the session in july and boy august and has to be passed this year and it us unbelievable to me to say that. the stimulus package was an emergency -- foolish package, but in principle, an emergency injection of stimulus into the economy, and it was reasonable to say, do it now and what is this case for doing it this year and what is the case apart from pure political momentum because he thinks he's a popular new president doing it this year. >> chris: let's go back to where we are in the debate between the cbo which said this week and a lot of republicans an moderate democrats, took note it will not bend the curve of health care spending either publicly or privately and late friday saying it's not deficit neutral and adds a quarter of a trillion dollars to the d. >> i think this is a big problem and means the white house is in danger of losing the narrative on health care reform. offered over the past couple of months the president has been out there saying we're not just going to expand coverage, we're going to pend the cost curve down and have something that is deficit neutral and now has the only two bills in town, at this moment, are ones that don't do that. and, it is exactly playing into the criticisms from republicans. the ways to do that, are politically painful ways, over you cap the tax deduct ability of employer pride provided health care benefits in a asked peter orszag. >> chris: despite what was said, maybe he didn't rule it out but indicated the president doesn't want to go that way. >> and that is one way to address the is calculating costs of health care, because you won't have people subsidizing the overuse of health care, or, this idea that somebody has to say, no, and now the president has come out with this, wants the commission, that is going to be made up of doctors, sure there will be doctors on the commission and they will tell the 88-year-old woman with cancer, no we will not pay for your hip replacement and somebody has to say no. >> chris: and orszag says that is not rationing. >> it is a more rational form of rationing and what happens now is somebody says no, maybe the health insurer and instead a commission will say no and there is a hope, the president has that we'll be able to do those comparative effectiveness studies and learn how to provide better health care at lower costs but that will take many, many years to put in place. >> chris: charles, where are we. >> what happened this weak is the emperor's new clothes moment and that is obama argued since the beginning when he made his address to the joint session of congress, that the rationale for health care reform, it was a necessity because our spending on health care is excessive and 2.5 trillion a year is going to destroy our economy and he's right about that and then, he says, therefore i'm introducing a reform, which, as we now learn, the cbo has told us, openly, is going to increase our costs, rather than decrease our costs and totally under cuts and contradicts the central rationale of his plan, and, of course, it was always out there. it was obvious if you are going to increase health care provisions, with a huge universal new entitlement of universal care, of course, it will increase costs, but now you can hide it in the rhetoric but you can't anymore after what we heard from the correctional budget office. and revenue neutrality is a red herring, even if you achieve that. it leaves us on the course we were on originally, obama said originally is ruining our economy. and, to achieve revenue neutrality, the house is insisting on huge taxes on investors and small business which means that you cannot go to the well on that. and, you have used up a source of revenue that would otherwise help cure our deficits and it will i think exploited the entire fiscal rationale of the plan. >> it is a terrible week for president obama on the central feature of his domestic policy plan health care and i say that in terms of reporting talking to conservative democrats on the hill who want something to happen, the american people want something to happen, the republicans are guilty of absolutely being, you know, absent without permission, on the central -- one of this central issues of our time, forget the republicans, because they are not playing. so here come the democrats, and conservative democrats are saying, the cost is so prohibitive we think we'll have a tough time selling this to our voters in 2010 and political kale, mr. obama we don't know that we can vote for this and president obama's response is to say, come out on friday, after the cbo report from mr. elmendorf and say doiptd bet against us on health care we have a ways to go and need to do it now and response to what you are hearing from republicans about, well, wait a second the timeframe needn't be so attenuated that in fact, you know, why don't we have this debated going forward, there is a tremendous urgency and families in country have seen the health insurance premiums double answer 1999 and this is case the american economy and hear from the white house, bill, the american economy is suffering, big corporations cannot control their health care costs we have major hospitals, rural hospitals on danger of collapse, because of the high costs of health care. >> chris: would the bill solve the problem. >> no, because -- the point is -- >> that is a good -- >> no, it's not, it's not this pointed at this point. because, the point is, if you have to get the work done, and they want to get this work done now, before the political season kicks in, for 2010. >> chris: you say the bills don't solve the problem. >> no one is saying it solves it in its currents form, chris, what they are saying is we have the opportunity to work on it now, before politics becomes so large that it would block -- >> it already happened. look, what i thought was significant on friday, the president did not repeat his call to have both houses pass bills by august and usually he does and he said hurry up and there are six senators, signed alert saying we need more time and republicans and democratic senators, and i think the -- it raises questions about the white house's legislative strategy which was to have hands off, above the fray, lay down our principles and let congress write these bills and this was the unclinton strategy, just whatever clinton did, let's do the opposite and i think the president, i think is going to have to step in earlier than he hoped and -- >> getting late to be early. >> he wanted to come in in october in the conference committee and fix things like on the stimulus. and i think he'll have to come in earlier and kind of rescue this and get it back onto the narrative track. >> chris: final word, bill kristol you said all along they will not get a health care bill this year, correct. >> correct. and good for the country, too. absolutely. >> chris: and today... you would say what. >> they will not get a health care bill, mr. orszag, when you pinned him on the cbo, congressional budget office estimate this will increase the deficit, he said, well, that is just because of the -- they are removing the planned reduction in medicare reimbursement for doctors and that is not fair to count that and the reason that provision is in the legislation, is it was -- the way to get the ama to support it and the president says on one hand the doctors support it and the ama support it but ignore the provision in there that got the ama to to support it. a cynical as well as a bad bill. >> chris: panel we have to take break, when we come back, judge sotomayor's performance in her confirmation hearing, did she make the grade by what she didn't say? and, we'll get our panel's thoughts on the death of a broadcast legend. imagine... one scooter or power chair that could improve your mobility and your life. one medicare benefit that, with private insurance, may entitle you to pay little to nothing to own it. one company that can make it all happen... your power chair will be paid in full. the scooter store. hi i'm dan weston. we're experts at getting you the scooter or power chair you need. in fact, if we pre-qualify you for medicare reimbursement and medicare denies your claim, we'll give you your new power chair or scooter free. i didn't pay a penny out of pocket for my power chair. with help from the scooter store, medicare and my insurance covered it all. call the scooter store for free information today. call the number on your screen for free information. into. >> judges can't rely on what is in their heart, they don't determine the law. congress makes the law. the job of a judge is to apply the law. >> i listen to you today, i think i'm link to judge roberts, a strict constructionist here. >> chris: lindsey graham expression his confusion how to reconcile what judge sotomayor said this week with what she said the past 15 years and we're back with bill, mara, charles an juan and mara, i think so it's fair to say during her testimony, sotomayor contradicted a lot of what she has said in speeches over more than a decade, on the role of race, and gender, in judging, about impartiality, and did we misunderstand here or did she engage in what one senator called a confirmation conversion. >> look i think she did exactly what other supreme court nominees have done, say very little and be cautious, and kind of repute idea any of the rough edges, and if you are conservative, sound more centrist and if you are liberal sound more centrist. i think that she did nothing that would hurt her, she is sailing easily to confirmation, and i think the real question is, if it was going to lay the groundwork for next time who is in better shape and i have to say liberals were disappointed and repudiated the obama standard for judging and you heard that in the clip, obama said e h-the reason he voted against roberts and alito is because of what was in their heart, the 5% not just about qualifications, he repudiated that and repudiated empathy and reversed her remarks about a wise latina and i think she sound aid lot more like a strict constructionist and doesn't give liberals a lot of baseline to go on. >> chris: charles it raises the question to me and i spent hours here with fox news watching the hearings and the same question i had, quite frankly as mara says, during the alito and the roberts hearings, avenue these become a waste of time, that these nominees have become so well prepped and tightly script and so prepared, if any continued various comes up, i can't talk about that, it will be before the court, they don't really tell the viewers or senators what kind of justice they'll be. >> it is a waste of time and isn't even an entertaining show. ever since robert boring spoke the truth in answering his questions, about his philosophy and was denied a seat on the court, everybody understood it is kabuki and i thought that she -- this nominee, really, pushed the envelope of disingenuousness and it was a helluva performance, as mara said, repudiated the standard of em paetd and repudiated her statements about a wise latina, and implying that whereas she said a latina makes a superior judgment, to a white guy she actually meant equal and said it apparently, six times and she had it published once. and, then, when she said that she will be guided by the law, she's a person who says, that the law is indistinct and a matter of experience and interpretation, and who makes the law? she does on the court. her performance was absolutely incredible in the sense that it was not believable, but will get her on the court. >> chris: and yet, for all of the questions and you and i were part of the fox news coverage and we sat there all those hours and hours and hours, juan, i think we goat would agree republicans went pretty easy on her. during the confirmation hearings which raises the question in my mind, in the end, did president obama box them in the by picking the first hispanic justice for the court? >> i think he did. and i think you will see in the final votes and i think senators, republican senators from area states with large hispanic populations will vote for her confirmation. for just the reason that you have described and she will not only be the first hispanic, she'll be the third woman to sit on the court and i think it also speaks to the independent voters and the large percentage of women who are independents but let me differ with you first and say i think republicans did a pretty good job, especially the early going, of attacking judge sotomayor and making her into some kind of quota queen, who is extremely race conscious and practicing identity politics and to the point, if a white man said what you said about being a better judge on the basis of race the whited man would be disqualified and will white men get a fair shake when they come before you as a plaintiff or defendant and the final pointed here is, i thought that the not only was president obama a subject of discussion and debate during the confirmational hearings but also the roberts court as it stands now. strict constructionist, mar remark not really, what senator feinstein said was, you use chief justice roberts said you would do the law and look at the press dents you overturned. >> chris: i will not let you answer, we have a couple minutes left and i don't want to let this day go, without talking about walter cronkite. who passed away friday night. almost 30 years, after he left the anchor desk, bill, why do you think it is -- it still means so much to people. i have been shocked by the coverage and i talked to members of the family and they are, quite frankly astonished. >> well, i think for our generation, huge viewership of the three major evening news shows, really two, i guess most of the '60s, chronronkite and hy and brinkley, i didn't. >> you knew him better and should probably talk more about him than i and one forgets about rapid the decline of network news was, at one point 90% of households with tvs on at the dinner hour washed network shows and now it is 39% and cable news eclipsed the role of network news. >> chris: mara. >> look what happened to the news begins since he retired is extraordinary. and she was a giant and we grew up with him and he was the last representative of when there was this voice of god, you know, somebody who was universally credible, who everybody believed, giving the news, and that just doesn't happen anymore, for better and for worse. and, that, i think is why his passing even 30 years after he left, his anchor desk is so significant. >> i think the major impact was not so much evening news as it was on the great events, the national events that -- the kennedy assassination and the moon shot in which, in a sense, a huge continental country becomes a village, everybody is in the state of that -- watching it at the same time and feeling it together and led by a man like cronkite and think those are the ones that imprinted him in our consciousness, and left that huge mark. >> trustworthy, he was trustworthy, and credible and didn't pander to the audience, didn't go for celebrities, he didn't make himself the story. he really said, this is about the news and i think people now as we watch the way that news programs go with all of the personalities and the hairdos and the like... and all of the razzle dazzle, we say, gosh, walter cronkite really was about the news and he was a real news man and we'll all honor that. >> chris: well, let me say as somebody who did have the great good fortune to know him, growing up, and through this later years, he was a great professional and he was a great man, and the country was very luck toy have him in that seat, during those tumultuous years, thank you, panel, and don't forget check out the latest edition of panel plus where our group continues the discussion on our web site, foxnews.com/fns and we'll be right back. crest whitestrips has created a revolutionary strip that sticks to your teeth so well you can even drink water with it on. new crest whitestrips advanced seal. get a dramatically whiter smile while you do just about anything. satisfaction guaranteed. the dodge chrysler and jeep summer clearance is here, and it's the best time to get some of the best deals. get in now and get the chrysler town & country with a generous cash allowance, or 0% financing for 60 months. the trail rated jeep grand cherokee also comes with a cash allowance or 0% financing for 60 months. or choose a hard working all new dodge ram truck with a cash allowance that's tough to beat. all with our best in the business lifetime powertrain warranty. so hurry come see the deals we've built for you at the dodge chrysler and jeep summer clearance. both cost the same. but only the new pringles super stack can makes everything pop. same cost, but a lot more fun. everything pops with the new pringles super stack can. >> before we go a quick reminder about our new blog. the wallace watch. you can find out more about our show, these special features, and give us your input. find us at fox news sunday.com. and that's it for today. have a great week and we'll see you next fox news