hello again and happy father's day from fox news in washington. we are going to if he cuss on the extraordinary series of disclosures in recent weeks of highly sensitive secrets in the u.s. war on terror. in a few minutes we will talk with the former head of the cia and chair of the senate hom homeland security committee. first, david plouffe senior advisor to the president is here to talk about the leaks and much more. welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> thanks for having me. >> chris: start with the disclosure of top secrets and what the president said about that mean in days ago. here it is. >> the notion that my white house would purposely release classified national security information is offensive. >> chris: but, of course, the president can declassify any information, any classified information that he wants. simple question. did the president or any other top official declassify any of the information that appeared in these articles? >> well, the president was very clear about this, chris, in that interview that he has zero tolerance for this kind of national security leak. there has now been by the attorney general two united states attorneys appointed to investigate this. no one more than the president relies on this information to make good decisions and keep the country safe. i believe the person who wrote the book in question said that no one in the white house provided the information. >> chris: he has not said that. david sanger said he talked to top white house officials. he said it wasn't leaks. he in fact said he did talk to people in the white house. >> for the book, he is a prominent national security reporter writing about the important issues facing the country. there will be a thorough investigation and the attorney general has spoken to u this ad two u.s. attorneys will look under every rock here and we out to await the results of that investigation. >> chris: you didn't answer my direct question. did the president or any other top official declassify any of the information that appeared in the articles? >> no, listen, the president and his national security team, first of all, these are the folks who have waged a relentless and effective effort against al-qaeda and its lead r leadership and decimated most of the top leadership including bin laden. the national security information is so critical for a president and his administration making the right decisions nobody takes it more seriously than the president of the united states. >> chris: forgive me, sir,, it is a yes or no, yes. did the president declassify any of the information. >> of course, he didn't. >> did not. >> no. >> chris: the cia had a double agent inside al-qaeda in yemen who foiled a new bomb plot. the president personally approves a kill list and the u.s. launched a cyber attack against iran's nuclear program. here are some of the people quoted in the article. national security advisor tom donnelley. former white house chief of staff bill daly. members of the president's national security team in meetings with him in the situation room. and the president has no idea who divulged these secrets? >> listen, leaders in our administration, of course, they are going to talk about the president's strategic approach to keeping this country safe. or foreign policy. but to suggest somehow that the people that he relies on for advice every day would leak information like this is absolutely wrong. it is highly objectionable. >> chris: , sir,, they did. i'm not saying it it is done lan or daly but there are people quoted by the reporters and say they are members of the national security team that was in the situation room. >> you are putting up pictures suggesting somehow that they did something untoward. >> i said they are quoted in the articles but specifically with the quotes about the details it says members of the national security team. >> well, listen, i see the capitol behind you right now. part of what is going on here are the republicans in congress are pretty clear at the beginning of the year what did they say one of the core strategic priorityies was? was to engage in investigations to damage this president politically. republicans in congress talked openly about this. you have a situation where an investigation has been announ e announced by two united states tears including an appointee of president bush. we will let the investigation proceed rather than turning into into a game of distraction because what we really need to focus on here is continue to fight against al-qaeda and continue the progress we made and turn our attention as for e forcefully as we can to the economy and creating jobs. what you are seeing in wall there was an amazing article the other day i believe it it was in the "wall street journal" where the republicans in congress openly saying we are not going to do anything until the election on the economy because we want to help mitt romney. that is amazing with an economy that needs help and middle class struggling that is amazing. i believe you will see these distractions coming from republicans in congress. >> chris: you think these are distractions? >> an investigation has been announced. let's let that proceed rather than suggest. >> chris: back in the valerie p plame investigation in 2003 president bush ordered any of the administration who knew anything about the outing of valerie plame to come forward. has president obama made any sort of -- >> you have two united states attorneys appointed by the attorney general of the united states who will look thoroughly into this and -- >> chris: has the president ordered his staff to come forward? >> obviously everyone is going to participate in the investigation. >> chris: let me ask you when you say everyone is going to participate in the investigation. welcome in the valerie plame case president bush agreed to and sat down for thorough interrogation by federal prosecutors. will president obama sit down to be interrogated by prosecutors in this case? >> listen, chris, i'm not going to get into that right now. the question is this investigation should be treated seriously. this is -- >> chris: why not say yes if he is asked he will participate? >> i'm not running the investigation, okay. we have career law enforcement professionals and prosecutors who are going to look into th s this. the president and his administration want the investigation to be as thorough as possible. >> chris: will the president cooperate including -- >> i'm not going to answer his particular involvement right now, chris. the point is everyone in our administration and problems for the agencies as well, of course, is going to cooperate with the investigation. >> chris: the white house says it there is no need for an independent prosecutor. you mentioned two u.s. attorn y attorneys appointed by attorney general eric holder to look at that. back in 2006 in the case of senator abram move senator obama said a special counsel will ensure the public's confidence in the investigation and prosecution and help to restore its faith in our government. if a special prosecutor was necessary in the abram off case why not an independent prosecutor in the case of our top national secrets? attorney general has made a decision about the best way to proceed here. two united states attorneys, one bush appointee who will have the ability to thoroughly look at this. >> chris: why not an independent prosecutor to as senator obama said ensure the public's confidence in the investigation? >> i think most americans would think two united states attorneys looking into this with thoroughness. >> senator obama didn't think so back in 2006. >> that was a different case, chris. >> chris: a more serious case, sir. >> therthere is an investigatin proceeding. let the investigation happen and let the facts come out. >> chris: let's move on to something else. the president announced a new immigration policy this week to stop deporting illegals who have been brought into this country as children and who have good records, no criminal records, law abiding. here is what mr. obama said last year about not having the poured concreter to do exactly this. take a look. -- not having the power to do exactly this. take a look. >> some people want me to bypass congress and change the laws on my own. and that is not how your democracy functions. that is not how our constitution is written. >> chris: question, what has changed from last year other than the fact that the president now needs hispanic voters to get reelected? >> nothing has changed. the president can't change the law on his own. this is not a permanent fix. this was prosecutorial discretion announced by the department of homeland securi y security. not a change in the law. this is going to allow our law enforcement agencies to focus on deporting criminals. that is up 80% by the way. we need to focus on the real threat here. people endangering our communities, not people study studying in school working ha d hard. you have people who are here, brought here many cases very young ages by parents studying in our schools and working in our businesses and want to serve our military. this allows them to apply just for a two year period for work authorization. there is one way to fix this permanently only one way and that is for congress to pass the dream act which is something that unfortunately governor romney said he he would veto if he becomes president. this is very, very important that this is a two year period. so that people can apply. it allows our enforcement officials to focus on criminals those that really pose a threat that ought to be the focus he e here. but the only about permanent way to fix the immigration system and provide relief for dream act eligible populations is for congress to act. >> chris: you mentioned governor romney. i don't want to get into the differences we willle get into the economy in a minute. specifically for hispanic vot r voters do you think there is a clear choice between obama and romney. >> i think there is a clear choice on every voter. >> i'm asking you on the hispanic population. >> hispanic voters support the healthcare bill. in immigration, yes, this is a president who has tried to get immigration reform done in a comprehensive way. we came close to getting the dream act done. we are a nation of laws but also a nation of immigrants and people who want to staff our labs and start our businesses and serve their country ought to be able to do that. governor romney said he would veto the dream act and said the 11 million people ought to just go home and self-deport. this is someone you will not be able to trust. the important choice that the president talked about in ohio. president romney if he was elected is not going to fix the immigration system. he has been clear about that. you watch republican debate after republican debate many of them on your network where governor romney was clear he would veto the dream act. clear not just for the hispanic community but for the american people at large. >> chris: the president gave an economic speech in ohio in which he called for targeted investments in energy and education and state workers, first responders and teachers and tax hikes for the wealthy but there was forgive me nothing new. is that the president's agenda for the next four years, pass the jobs plan that i have been pushing for over the last 12 months, and that will fix the economy? >> what the president laid out is a clear choice facing the american people. and the contrast could not be clearer. a president who believes we need to grow the chi by putting the middle -- grow the economy by putting the middle class first and reducing the deficit in a fair and balanced way and invest in things like innovation and research. >> governor romney's approach. fitting he is with john boehner today because he will rubber stamp the congressional aagai . give huge tax cuts for the wealthy. they believe the economy works best from the top down. governor romney wouldn't reduce the deficit. every independent economist that looked at his plan says he would add to the diving for cover sit and allow infrastructure to deer toor rate more. this is not a recipe for growing the economy. that is the stark choice. >> chris: is the president's agenda because i did not hear anything new in ohio. is the president's agenda for the next four years more of the same? >> what is is what this country needs to do which is reduce the deficit in the right way. fair and balanced way. >> chris: i like the fact that you keep saying fair and balanceed. >> it is the right way. this president signed into law by the way almost $2 trillion in spending cuts. we have to focus on what is g going to grow the economy for the middle class and that is o going to be continuing to focus on the manufacturing. >> chris: but you would agree there is no new agenda beyond what he has been pushing for the last year. >> this is the direction he thinks the country needs to go. let's look at the other direction, chris. it failed miserably. when governor romney led massachusetts number one in debt in the country. think about that. added debt. for all his talk about government for every private sector job created in massachusetts by governor romney six public sector jobs. this is someone who h his state was 47th in job creation and he wants to stay with the same policies that led to the great recession that caused such a huge harm to our businesses and our economy and people in the country. the choice is clear here. the choice is clear. >> chris: a couple of minutes left and i want to get to a couple of campaign questions. you were the obama campaign manager in 2008. i asked about whether there is anything new because you are take hits right now you the cam feign from notable democrats like james carville and bill clinton saying you need to stop talking about the progress we made and start talking about a new agenda. how things in the next four years going to be different than in the last four. >> president obama appeared with -- president clinton said clearly we are beginning to grow again and make progress. president clinton is someone who knows something about reducing the deficit and crea creating jobs and he has been very clear. he thinks mitt romney would be a disaster for this country. the other democrats are paying attention to what the president is saying which is every day not just in what he says but in what h he he does. he understands the economy is not as strong as what it needs to be. this didn't happen overnight. there is a lot of people throughout hurting. we are making progress and we need to make a lot more. that is very clear. >> chris: you said just a few months ago the trajectory of the economy is going well. fewer and fewer jobs each of the last four months. gdp growth 1.6%. the lowest in the year of jobs created. >> compared to where we were in the recession we had over 4 million jobs created the last 26 months. we have had private sector. >> chris: but you had three and a half years to fix it. >> a deep hole caused by the same policies mitt romney wants to go back to it. we just went through a recession. remarkably what mitt romney and the congressional republicans want to do is say hey, i guess that worked out well. let's go back to the same policies and let wall street write their own rules and give huge tax cuts to people like mitt romney and paid for by raising taxes on working americans and making it harder for people to go to education. not believing in the new energy future and not rehe building this country. this is a tough recession. we are making slow and steady progress. nobody is satisfied with it. the president most of all knows we have to recover more quickly and create jobs more quickly. the choice here is one of are we going to continue and move forward or go back to the same policies that causeed the recession. >> chris: i got it. >> it is important. nothing more important than this, chris. >> chris: any chance you will leave the white house and go back to chicago and run the campaign? >> the campaign is being run brilliantly by jim messina and david axelrod. our campaign is at its core. millions volunteering to elect this president. teachers retirees, students is. compare that to mitt romney whose entire campaign seems to be on the backs of the big super pacs and billionaires t y trying to purchase the white house. a terrible thing for our country. >> he raised $16 million more in the last month than you did and those were small limited contributors. they weren't the big super pa s pacs. the romney campaign and rnc raised $76 million and you raised $60 million. >> our campaign. >> chris: what about that? >> first of all, romney won't even release who raises his money. >> chris: you are not answering the question, sir. >> they had a good month raising money. >> chris: but limited contributions. those wer weren't $10 million contributions. >> we have a lot more grass roots volunteers in ohio, virginia, north carolina. the most active entity right now on the campaign is not governor romney's it is the super pacs. >> i got to let the panel have time to talk. always a pleasure to talk to you. enjoy it. happy father's day. go watch the u.s. open. thanks for coming in as always. up next more on the national security leaks. we will ask the top senator on homeland security and former director of the cia how much damage has been done. >> chris: we continue our examination now of the recent disclosure of top u.s. secrets with two of the nation's lea leading experts on national security. joe leiberman is chairman of the senate homeland security committee and general michael hayden is former director of the cia. gentlemen, welcome back. >> good morning. >> thank you. >> as you look at this extraordinary series of leaks everything from the double agent inside al-qaeda in, yes, yemen to the dehe tails about the u.s. and israeli joint cyber campaign against iraq, let me start with you senator lieberman, how much damage has been done to the national security? >> in my opinion, an enormous amount. in the case of the cyber attack on iran if the articles are true this is the first confirmation of that. some methods of how it was carried out were telegraphed to the iranians. i think there is a danger it may legitimat legit legitimatir terrorist counter attack on us because we did it if the case of the underwear bomb from the arabian peninsula. the leaks jeopardize that operation. potentially put the individual who courageously infiltrated aq in the arabian peninsula in danger and his family. will discourage people in foreign intelligence services from cooperating with us in the few auteur. finally in the case of osama bin laden kill, the fact that we leaked the story that a doctor was retained to carry out a vaccination program or dry to get dna from people in bin laden's compound led the pakistanis to the doctor and he has now been convicted and sentenced to 33 years in jail. who is going to cooperate with us next time as a result of that? these leaks compromise the security of every american. >> chris: i want to pick up on what senator lieberman said. are some of these leaks giving away what is known and sources and methods the holy grail of intelligence and especially in the case of the alleged u.s. israeli cyber attack against iran does it invite retaliation by the mull las in tehran? >> i think so. to reiterate a point the senator made, these don't have to be true to be harmful. you take -- >> chris: that is the computer virus that allegedly we used against the iranians. >> that is taunting the irani n iranians. imagine this my counter part when i was director of the cia, i can just picture him now g going to the supreme leader and saying you know those things we discussed a year or two ago, mr. supreme leader and you told me to put on the back burner i think it is time to resurrect the ideas. sort of legitimates an iranian response whether the story is true or false. >> chris: general, in the cyber warfare story that appeared on the front page of the new york times you are quoted assay as y saying this. this is the first attack of a major nature in which a cyber attack was used to effect physical destruction. don't you at least indirectly confirm the leak? >> i was quite clear. it is accepted and puck lic puc knowledge that it happened. whoever did it crossed a policy barrier made a decision that in a time of peace one could use a cyber weapon to effect physical destruction on what another nation could only describe as their own critical infrastructure. >> chris: but you this no way confirmed that the u.s. was involved. >> not at all. >> chris: as discuss with david plouffe, some of the people quoted not saying they gave up the secrets, the former white house chief of staff and quoted as specifically giving out some of this members of the national security team with him in meetings in the situation room. question for you, senator lieberman, do you have any thoughts about who was leaking the stories and why? >> i don't have any thoughts about who was leaking the stories but we ought to try to find out and that is what the investigation and the justice department ought to do. there is nothing new here about leaks in washington. this happened during the clinton, bush and earlier obama administration and bob woodru f woodruff's books for instance. the recent series of leaks are the worse in the a long time. people think there is no accountability if you leak. and we have to change that. i think we to change the law that is applied here. the last person to be convicted of a crime for leaking to the media was more than 25 years ago. we are are still using a 1917 espionage act that requires some showing of intent, a knowledge that it leak would harm the security of the united states. but chris, if you -- it seems to me the law ought to say simply if you disclose without authority classified information you have committed a crime because for information to be classified there was a judgment made that i its disc disclosure would cause damage in the case of top secret information which a lot of this was. it would cause exceptionally grave damage to the security of the united states. so this is something that has to be found out. one last point. david singer says in the -- >> chris: he was the fellow who wrote the new york times piece. >> and he has writ and book on the subject. >> he says that his writing is based on conversations with high ranking officials in the u.s. government and other governments who don't want to be identified because the information they shared is highly classified and relates to some ongoing operations. well, that is an acknowledgement of a crime in my opinion. and that is why the justice department ought to get to the bottom of this. >> chris: let me follow with you on this general hayden because you have been in the situation room. how closely held is this kind of information? we are talking about sources and methods and talking about agents that we had in those countries. we are talking about major campaign against iran. how closely held is the information and do people just leave the room and go out on their own and leak this kind of information? >> well, they shouldn't certa n certainly. and this is very closely held information. without commenting on whether the stories are true or false if you follow the story line that david lays out this would have been a covert action. covert action requires the personal involvement of the president. his percent that will approval. there are few things in the american government as closely protected as covert actions a e are. after all the word covert has some meaning or at least it is supposed to. >> chris: do you think it was political? it was an effort to shine the president's record on foreign policy? >> and the stuck net leak and the sanger article i'm reluctant to pass judgment. i will believe what david san sanger said this wasn't in any way a press release. he picked it up in bits and pieces through very good repo t reporting. that doesn't indicate that some of that reporting didn't come from sources who were privy to the information. >> chris: senator lieberman let me ask you some of the same questions that i asked david plouffe. do you think the president should as george w. bush did order his entire staff, any one that knows about the leaks come forward? >> i do. the president made clear in the statement that you played earlier that he was outraged that anybody would think that anybody in his white house was leaking classified information. i think the next step is to ask all of them to come forward and just the way you said. >> chris: do you think he should agree as president bush did to sit down with federal prosecutors for interrogation? >> that is up to him. look, we are in a situation where i think the administration ought to do everything it can to eliminate any appearance that people in the administration leaked this highly classified information for political or other personal purposes and i leave it to the president's attorneys but if i were advising him i would say he shu should sit down and talo the investigators. >> chris: back in 2003 you said we needed a special prosecutor in the valerie p boulevard ame case. given the extent of these leaks and top administration offici l officials have been quoted as being the sources does there need to be a special prosecut r prosecutor? >> i have been thinking about this sips the leaks came out and i reached the conclusion which is that we do need a special counsel and we need a special counsel because the special counsel avoids any appearance of conflict of interest. special counsels, independent counsels before them were created for a situation exactly like this where people might reach a conclusion that investigators, u.s. attorneys even working for the attorney general who was appointed by the president cannot independently and without bias investigate high officials of their own government. >> chris: you are saying the u.s. attorney's that have been appointed by general holder or attorney general holder not enough, special prosecutor? >> not enough. and, of course, in the case -- i have no reason to distrust or disrespect either of these u.s. attorneys. but here we have one gentleman who gave a contribution to president obama. no matter what he concludes people are going to say it was biased. here is the big difference between a regular u.s. attorney and a special counsel. the special counsel is not under the day-to-day super vision of the attorney general. he is really much more independent. and i think that is what fran frankly i think attorney general holder would do the administration and himself a five per he appointed special counsels in this case because it would remove any appearance that anybody in the administration was trying to block a full-scale investigation and protect anybody in the administration who may have leaked. >> chris: we have leave it there. thank you both for coming in today to discuss these matters of vital national security. thank you. up next, the president goes around congress to make a major change in immigration policy. our sunday group breaks it down when we come right back. they are americans in their hearts, in their minds in every single way but one. on paper. >> we. wanting him to address the issue of securing our borders and it do this in my opinion it just backdoor am necessarity a. >> chris: president obama explaining his decision to stop deporting some young illegal immigrants brought into the country by their parents which didn't convince arizona governor jan brewer. time for the sunday panel. well, here is a quick outline of the president's policy as he announced it on friday. the administration will stop deporting illegals between the ages of 16-30 to qualify they must be in the u.s. at least five years. no criminal history. have gone to high school or sevenned in the military and get renewable two year work permits. bill, what do you think of the policy and the fact that the president went around congress and did this by executive action? >> i think it is a sensible policy. i think it would be better if that were the law of the land and i think the president is pushing the edges of the limits of prosecutorial discretion in saying we are not going to enforce a law in order to leave these people in the country but i think it is the right thing to do actually. >> chris: we will talk pol pols in a minute. joe, what do you think of the policy? >> i think it is the right one. this is about who we are going after. they deported 400,000 people last year. let's go after criminals and people violent and a threat to the community and not put any focus on students, people see seeking an education who are here because their parents brought them here and see the themselves as americans. that is what makes this a sen e sensible policy until we can get a permanent one in place. >> chris: karl in the bush white house you pushed comprehensive immigration reform. give thereby is a dead lock over that is this it a good first step. >> first of all, i appreciate president obama continuing the bush era policies of priority prioritizing investigations and removals of criminal aliens. we examined these questions significantly during the bush years and concluded we had no statutory authority to offer in essence a blanket exemption from deportation without a change in the law. and this is what troubles me. this makes -- if the president felt so keenly about this, he has had three years to get something done on it and i don't think he has statutory authority to do this in a blanket way. >> chris: even under the guise of prosecutorial discretion? >> discretion was meant to be on an individual basis. there is no ability in the through basically say we are o going to treat whole groups of people not individuals but groups of people in this case people between the ages of 16 and 13 as being exempt from the provisions of the law so i think he is on shaky grounds. up wish he had gone to the congress. he would have had my suspicion is a very strong positive vote by congress on this. mostly democrats but some republicans and. >> chris: he tried the dream act. >> the dream act is significa t significantly different than this. this is a relatively narrow and compassionate policy. look, we can argue all day long about the individual merits of it. i mean for example somebody who comes here at the age of 16 is in many countries from which they might come is considered an adult who has a thought about i'm coming, not the thr three-year-old dragged here by their parents with no knowledge of com comeing here. a virtual adult maybe coming here to go to work or find a job. better this is dealt with inside a congressional environment with the congress and the president working together and i believe he will have real problems sustaining this because there is no statutory authority to grant an exemption for a whole group. >> chris: juan, policy? >> i remember when karl rove and george w. bush tried to get immigration policies, immigration reform passed through you this congress and couldn't do it and why couldn't they do it? because of a group of republicans and talk show hosts made it impossible. i think that republicans, you know, president bush understood the importance of immigration reform to this country. president obama went before the congress and tried to get it pass. he got 55 votes in the senate, chris. 55 a votes. but republican filibuster sto stopped it. what we have seen is all the complaints about we need immigration reform from the likes of jan brewer it is being stopped at the national level by a small group of republicans who distorted the marketplace on this idea. the steps the president took is something i think he should have take and long time ago. >> chris: let's turn to the politics because hispanics are big voting block in key states like florida and colorado and nevada. you can see the percentage of the voters that are hispanic in those states. they were upset with president obama because he had not enac enacted as much of their agenda as they wanted. does this action win him the enthusiastic support of hispanic voters in november? >> i think he he already has a big lead here but this helps solidify it. i think this is a big step for the administration and the campaign in the sense that it makes -- it articulates moving forward. this is a policy where the president again is trying to move the country forward. move immigration reform forward and at this -- on this issue romney is behind george bush. bush was more of a reformer than romney is on this issue. it really starts to articulate what the obama campaign strategy of what moving forward not just on this but on the economy and on other issues versus romney who wants to take the country in the past. that is the argument they are making. i think that helps them do th t that. >> chris: i want to pick up with you karl. david plouffe. he said romney opposed the dream act and would veto it. he he hammered rick perry about giving in state tuition to illegals who want to go to college. what does romney do as a counter to this to try to win back voters? >> i want to thank my two colleagues for being so complimentary of the bush yea s years. i wish you were no more compl complimentary of the bush yea s years. juan blames the failure of comprehensive immigration reform on republican republic n barack obama after saying he would support comprehensive immigration reform voted for every single union amendment. we have a contrast between the statements that you depicted romney a assaying and a guy who said this is a big priority for me in 2008 and i will make this a big priority as soon as i get elected and who has done nothing. he appeared at the three amigos summit in august of 2009 with harper and cal da rhone and had been criticiz criticizeed for f action and said we are drafting a bill and we will have it introduced and brought up for action by the end of the year and he never introduced the bill. we have a choice between a guy clearly playing politics and guy who has vie views that aret popular in some elements of the hispanic community. no matter what it will be overridden by jobs and the economy which is a bigger iss e issue. >> chris: 30 seconds left bill. put pressure on romney to sign on to marco rubio's idea of a modified dream act. >> this is the antirubio enis enishtive by the administrati n administration. senator marco rubio is about to introduce his version of a dream act. it would have been closer to what president obama announced than the actual dream act. it got saled. not every republican was onboard. the romney campaign has been cautious about it 86 think this is a big problem for criminal be lem for romney and he needs to take the lead on this. say let's pass this in come the the next two month. >> chris: when we come back, the president and mitt romney make big speeches on the economy but does either have a plan to put americans back to work? [ male announcer ] what if you had thermal night-vision goggles, like in a special ops mission? you'd spot movement, gather intelligence with minimal collateral damage. but rather than neutralizing enemies in their sleep, you'd be targeting stocks to trade. well, that's what trade architect's heat maps do. they make you a trading assassin. trade architect. td ameritrade's empowering, web-based trading platform. trade commission-free for 60 days, and we'll throw in up to $600 when you open an account. this is about your jobs. and your pay checks. and your children's future. there is no excuse for congress to stand by and do nothing while so many families are struggling. >> last time around as you recall his campaign slogan was hope and change. now, i think he would like to change it to hoping to change the subject. >> chris: president obama and mitt romney continuing their debate over the economy but both are leaving a lot of questions unanswered about what they would actually do over the next four years. we are back with the panel. we heard about the economy from both the president and from mitt romney frankly as i mentioned this to david plouffe not a lot of new ideas from either. can they both stick with the basic philosophical disagreement about the size and role of government. is that enough to run on between now and november? >> enough for most of that ti e time. you are right. president obama's problem is if he has something specific embodied in the five proposeals he laid out last september that really don't if they were enough to change the narrative in his direction they would have changed it long before. romney has a different problem. a speech on entitlements and tax reform but he needs to give more sum and substance. the good news for him is there is plenty of time to do that. right now people are looking for the general arc in the narrative. the independent voters and swing voters in particular will want a lot more meat before it is over. >> chris: some notable democr t democrats say president obama needs to stop talking about the progress we made and deliver a more forward looking agenda. fair to say that mitt romney isn't explaining what tax loopholes he will close to pay for the lowered tax rates isn't saying specifically what programs they will cut. do they both need to put more beef on the agenda. >> i think they are wrong about what the president needs to do. >> chris: you think carville is wrong? >> they are starting to articulate this is about romn y romney. does romney have really any policies that differ from the bush policies. the policies that failed the country and this is the argument they want to make in terms of there was a reason people went to obama in the first place. a reason they wanted reform. >> chris: joe in 2010 that was the argument that the president made. he said they drove us into the denver and we don't want to give them the keys to the car back and they don't want to drive and he took a shellacki g shellacking. >> now, this is about the future. we have been working on things and reform thing, things. are we going to have energy broad reform or are we going to rely on fossil fuels. are we going to create more jobs through investment and infrastructure and education et cetera or are you going to go for this guy from bain capital who wants more tax cuts from the rich and do the things that got us into this mess. i think that is what this forward path thing is about and i think the president's campaign is starting to articulate that in a powerful way. he has had a bad month and he has i think they really are g t getting to the message that could win this election. >> chris: bill? >> i have to agree with that in a sense. there will be a debate about the two paths forward. i think president obama fairly effectively began to lay that out last week. the speech was 54 minutes long. everybody said there was nothing newton. i didn't watch it so i didn't suffer through the 54 minutes. he has a narrative. doesn't convince me. i do agree with karl are that mitt romney needs to lay out his path forward more com comprehensively. i'm not sure he can wait that long. the attack in 2010 the attack just gone back to the bush policies didn't work because people wanted the republican house to stop barack obama from doing any more damage. you can't elect mitt romney entirely to stop barack obama from doing more damage. one good effect would be to stop barack obama from doing more damage. i think mitt romney has to have a forward looking vision. otherwise i'm nervous about how the race plays out. >> chris: juan? >> all the -- they say he has to put more meat on the bone. the president framing the alternative and saying clearly if you ask mitt romney about what are your ideas for making this economy take off, mr. mr. romney, he says more tax cuts, personal tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, oil drailining and gas exploration, especially the xl pipeline which produces 6,000 jobs for two years. that is not going to turn around the american jobs scene. these are his ideas and then you say how are you going to pay for the tax cuts? he doesn't lay it out and say here is exactly the programs that i would cut. instead he embraces the paul ryan plan and that puts in play fears that many people have that he would disassemble medicare and medicaid. this is dangerous stuff and i think if the president pursues that aggressively he has a chance to create and define mitt romney early and not make this a referendum on barack obama's performance but make it a contest in which people say you know what the alternative is unacceptable. >> chris: karl i'm worried you are shaking your head so vigorously it is going to shake off. >> romney is not laying out a plan or laid out a plan that is similar to the house republican budget. make up your mind. romney laid out a frame work for tax reform. not tax cuts. he said i want to lore the ra e rates and pay for it by getting rid of deductions and unnecessary preferences in the law. >> what is the bush tax law? he wants to make it permanent. >> what he wants to do is pass tax reform. pay atex attention. you you sound like obama. i'm he giving you an honest presentation of what he is proposing. >> and you are so honest in s y saying he is all about deficit reduction when doesn't say exactly. >> yes, he has. yes, he has. juan up your mind. he endorsed that terrible house budget which reduces the deficit according to the congressional budget office. >> no, it doesn't. it doesn't reduce anything. >> yes, it does. >> karl, where i would make c t cuts in it order to -- >> yes, i does. it says it will slow the future grade of medicare spending from $450 billion a year. >> i read it my friend. happy to send you a copy. i will get autographed by paul ryan. >> chris: thank you, panel. >> you see, that -- move that up. this is bly we inven why why id panel plus. we promise we will post the video before noon eastern team. follow us on twitter @ fox news sunday. up next, our power player of the week. >>. >> chris: a lot of people in washington talk about being above politics but we may have found the one man and one agency that really are. here is our power player of the week. >> like an umpire we are not routing for either team we are trying to call the balls and strikes. >> he is director of the congressional budget office. stubbornly non-partisan agency that tells congress the financial effects of policies it is considering. they score every bill pated by committee. what is scoring? >> in this piece of legislation would increase the federal deficit by a certain number of things. you are basically saying. >> chris: you pass this bill and this with what is it's going to cost? >> yes. >> it can have big implications. >> to begin this discussion. >> chris: in 1993 when he was a staffer, they gave this analysis of clinton health care reform. >> it would cost more than the administration estimated. >> chris: it ended up hurting the bill's prospects. >> i think it did hurt the bill's prospects but the mantra is we don't care about the political implications of what we do. >> chris: case in pointed, obamacare, the cbo says it will reduce the deficit $130 billion over ten years. critics say that assumes cuts in medicare congress will never pass. he says that doesn't matter. >> it's not our place to say we don't believe you actually mean this pieces of legislation but we will tell them what will happen with the legislation they give us. >> chris: we try tried get him to weigh in on current issues. >> chris: how do you feel about the fact that the senate has not passed a budget in three years? >> i don't think its our role. the fact there hasn't been a budget resolution in several years ask a symptom of this underlying inability to agree on what the budget should be. >> chris: what about tax megeddon, the trillions that kick in at the end of the year? >> we think that situation would lead to a recession in this country in the first half of next year. >> chris: his parents were a computer programmer and math teacher and he inherited their analytic approach to the world. >> chris: is it true when you were court your wife you invited her to the baseball game because if there was a lull in the conversation you could watch the baseball game. >> i did think baseball games was a good opportunity because one could sit and talk with something else has been going on. >> chris: you have been called geek with guts. how do you plead? >> i think cbo is a group of geeks with guts. what we do is do our analysis and let the chips fall where they may. >> chris: he says the big decision americans must make now is what to do about taxes and entitlements. longer we put that off the further we travel down the path of europe. that is it for today. dads enjoy your day. have a great week. we'll see you next fox news sunday.

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Nevada , North Carolina , Iran , Florida , Indiana , Washington , District Of Columbia , Denver , Colorado , Pakistan , Arizona , Iraq , Israel , Massachusetts , Tehran , Ohio , Yemen , Chicago , Illinois , Rhone , Americans , Iranian , Pakistanis , Israeli , American , Iranians , Marco Rubio , Pacs , David Sanger , Romney , Bob Woodruff , George Bush , Joe Lieberman , Michael Hayden , Rick Perry , Valerie Plame , Tom Donnelley , Jim Messina , David Axelrod , Chris Wallace , David Plouffe , Barack Obama , George W Bush , John Boehner , James Carville , Paul Ryan ,