good evening, everyone. i'm erin burnett. "outfront" tonight, the big scare. with just four days in the congress high tails it out of washingt washington, there was plenty of talk about the looming consequences of the looming fiscal cliff. we're talking about tax cuts expiring for everyone automatically, payroll taxes going up, emergency unemployment benefits ending and, of course, the $1.2 trillion in so-called sequestration cuts. about half of that sum is going to come from defense. >> the obligation of the commander in chief is to act like the commander in chief, and that would be to prevent these cuts, which in the words of his own secretary of defense, would devastate our national security. >> interesting, acting like a commander in chief, because a lot of the previous commanders in chief have done a lot more than barack obama may be about to do. we've certainly been here before. former president ronald reagan during his second term cut defense spending by about 10%. the cold war was winding down. those cuts continued under former president george h.w. bush, about 18% in cuts. and then former president clinton. clinton did start to increase defense spending during his term but it still ended lower than where it was when he took office. another thing that stands out to me about this chart is defense spending. you're looking at real terms defense spending is higher now than it was in the cold war or even during vietnam. it looks like it was higher during world war ii although there were extraneous spending items then. that's not an entirely fair comparison. but the chart is courtesy of the center for american progress and the department of defense. so when you look at that, you have to ask the question, do the claims of national security disaster add up when it comes to the sequestration? i asked that question to someone who should know the answers. wes bush, the ceo of northrup grumman. >> sequestration could have a devastating impact on our overall economic condition. you mentioned 2 million jobs lost. that could raise the unemployment rate on a national level about 9%. we're talking about both defense and non-defense jobs. sequestration impacts both elements of the budget. so the two million jobs span much more than just the defense side of it. >> so help me understand because i've heard that argument and it makes sense. but then i look at some other numbers and it doesn't make sense. for example, the cuts, in terms of real terms, the cuts that the defense department already agreed to and then the sequestration on top of that would only be about 11%, in real terms. ronald reagan cut defense by 10% in his second term. george h.w. bush cut it. so this is right in line with those. that seems to make sense. >> yes, when you're talking about percentages, always matter where you're starting from. i think it's more instructive to actually look at the dollars being cut. if you look at the total between defense and nondefense, it would represent a reduction of over $100 billion in the coming fiscal year. and that's really the number you have to focus on that translates into the economic impact that we're talking about. so a structure today, this would be a precipitous set of cuts that would happen very quickly, would happen without the benefit of strategic thinking on how they would be applied. >> right. >> and to do that at a time when our nation continues to face an array of security issues around the globe, that demand our attention, demand our presence. demand our military capability, really does not make any sense. >> so are you saying, then, that on a percentage basis, that these cuts would be fair, but your problem is the way they're going about it? they're going on every line item. so they're cutting everything, as opposed to maybe cutting some things that really should go and keeping other things? >> what we're talking about here is another $500 billion in cuts. if we're talking about those two added together, i would not say that that would be an appropriate level of cut. >> but that's where i get the 11%. >> something that was important for the nation -- >> right, but that's what i'm trying to understand, because getting those two together is where i get the 11%. hold on -- on real terms, which is about the same as ronald reagan did. so -- >> no, from the total size of the cut, this magnitude would -- relative to the array of issues that our department of defense is addressing around the globe, i believe be unprecedented. if you look at what secretary panetta has said, he's been very clear that the department's ability to meet its requirements, to really execute its mission would be fundamentally impaired by this magnitude of cut. and by that, we're talking about the second $500 billion. >> but then -- let me just get your answer to this. in 2008, we had nearly 188,000 men and women serving on the ground, troops on the ground in iraq and afghanistan. now in 2012, we only have 67,500 and we're going to have even fewer. as we have fewer people actually serving in war, we would appear to need fewer tools for them to use in those wars, right, not more? >> yeah, this isn't just a matter of quantity. if you look at the capital investment in the nation's infrastructure, to support our military over this last decade, we've had to bias the investment toward the conflicts we've been addressing. so there really has been a reduced amount of investment to support the force structure. >> how many people will you have to lay off at the beginning of next year due to the sequestration specifically? >> it's hard to tell exactly today. that's part of the challenge that we're all dealing with with sequestration. the law that was implemented specifies a percentage cut and has some description of how that gets applied. we've sought guidance from the federal government to be more clear about how sequestration would actually be implemented. the federal government itself is having difficulty coming up with that guidance because of the nature of the law. >> i want to bring in john avlon now. what's interesting is he said that we didn't have an overall number for how many people they'd have to lay off, even though he stood by the industry lobbying association's number of two million for the overall industry. i thought they would have more specifics to make their point. >> that was not all about specifics, that interview. where you stand is a matter of where you sit. the head of this business is not going to want defense spending to be cut at all. but it's stunning to see him not have an answer. when you raised historical comparisons and made the point that we have been here before, the republican presidents have cut defense spending. in fact, even before that chart, go back to eisenhower, nixon, when we have fewer wars, we spend less on defense. and defense contractors aren't going to like that. that's not news to anybody. >> a lot of the numbers, too -- it's frustrating, he says the cuts are big. that's because we were projected to have large increases in defense spending. so a lot of what's going away is what was ratcheted in before you get to a cut. >> this is what lobbyists always cry about. they're judging against projected spending. if you cut that, they consider it a cut outright. what boggles my mind isn't just people like him. i understand his self-interest is in keeping defense spending at unprecedented levels. we note, historically, these cuts are not unprecedented. what boggles my mind are members of congress who talk about reducing deficits. and after the super committee, couldn't make a deal, and all of a sudden these cuts are real, they run extreming in screaming in the opposite direction. they don't like the pain it causes. any cuts can be said to reduce economic growth. but if you're serious about it, you deal with it, not just demagogue it. and this boggles my mind. >> what now are your odds of -- there's the whole debate going on of pre or post-election. i'm sort of in the post election camp. are you more optimistic? >> i would love to be. let's say these folks want to avoid the pain of sequester. there's a way to do it. make a deal, cut spending, reform entitlements, raise revenue. this was never anyone's first choice. it was always supposed to be painful. >> right. >> now the fact that it's coming, in maybe that will focus people's minds. >> john avlon, thank you very much. a plea for reason and accountability. there's a little of it out there. still "outfront," mitt romney is talking about his taxes, but talk is not action. and penn state university may be on the verge of a huge blow to its already crippled football program. and then, she wrote an article about the glamorous life of asma al assad, the wife of the syrian dictator, as the syrian regime began cracking down on its people. now the reporter telling the behind-the-scenes story of what she says really what happened when the first lady of hell, as she called her, duped her. i see pride. you know, i have done something worthwhile. when i earned my doctorate through university of phoenix, that pride, that was on my face. i am jocelyn taylor. i'm committed to making a difference in people's lives, and i am a phoenix. visit phoenix.edu to find the program that's right for you. enroll now. do you have any idea where you're going ? wherever the wind takes me. this is so off course. nature can surprise you sometimes... next time, you drive. next time, signal your turn. ...that's why we got a subaru. love wherever the road takes you. energy is being produced to power our lives. while energy development comes with some risk, north america's natural gas producers are committed to safely and responsibly providing generations of cleaner-burning energy for our country, drilling thousands of feet below fresh water sources within self-contained well systems. and, using state-of-the-art monitoring technologies, rigorous practices help ensure our operations are safe and clean for our communities and the environment. we're america's natural gas. anyone have occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas, bloating? yeah. one phillips' colon health probiotic cap each day helps defend against these digestive issues with three strains of good bacteria. approved! [ female announcer ] live the regular life. phillips'. [ female announcer ] live the regular life. mid grade dark roast forest fresh full tank brain freeze cake donettes rolling hot dogs g of ice anti-freeze wash and dry diesel self-serve fix a flat jumper cables 5% cashback signup for 5% cashback at gas stations through september. it pays to discover. would you mind if to be i go ahead of you?omer. instead we had someone go ahead of him and win fifty thousand dollars. congratulations you are our one millionth customer. people don't like to miss out on money that should have been theirs. that's why at ally we have the raise your rate 2-year cd. you can get a one-time rate increase if our two-year rate goes up. if your bank makes you miss out, you need an ally. ally bank. no nonsense. just people sense. now our second story "outfront," mitt romney dodging questions about his taxes again, in an interview with abc news. >> there was one year when you paid about a 13.9% tax rate. can we clear this up by asking you a simple yes or no question? was there ever any year when you paid lower than the 13.9%? >> i haven't calculated that. i'm happy to go back and look. but my view is, i have paid all the taxes required by law. >> you say you would go back and look. you would look for us? >> i haven't looked at the tax rate paid year by year. i know that i pay a very substantial amount of taxes. and every year since the beginning of my career so far i can recall. >> we're betting that mitt romney is aware of whether he paid 13.9% or less in some years. roland martin joins me along with alice stewart. alice, there's something else that mitt romney said during that interview. he said, quote, from time to time i've been audited, i think as happens to other citizens as well. and the accounting firm which prepares my taxes has done a very thorough and complete job paying taxes as legally due. this seems to -- it confuses me even more. he's been audited, which proves the point we've been making for a while. he's never done anything wrong or remotely shady in his taxes. why won't he release the returns? >> why should he? he's 100% acted in compliance with the law. he's produced the last two years of his tax information. he has never broken the law in this regard. why should he? if he does release two more years, the media and the obama campaign is going to want him to release ten or 20. this is nothing more than a pathetic distraction from the obama campaign who would rather talk about something that the average person is not concerned about, than what people are concerned about, which is the obama administration's record for the past three and a half years, which is not good. >> roland, one thing i have to say, i think the right question was asked. people would care if he paid less than 13.9%. there have been reports out there, which we're not going to know whether they're true or not, unless he tells us, because of losing investment inco in 2009 may have paid no taxes that year, zero. >> this is hilarious. this is the guy who tells us he loves his father and he wants to emulate his father. wasn't it his father who set the standard for releasing taxes? now he wants to roll that back. here's the whole deal. republicans were trying to get mitt romney to release his taxes back in march so this would not be an issue. what he has just done is handed the obama campaign a bat to bash him upside his head like in "the untouchables." they're going to run ads showing conservatives saying, he should release his taxes. so romney, what are you doing? you're not going to win this argument. your daddy set the standard. follow your daddy. >> i mean, alice, does seem if he has nothing to hide, why not do it? to be fair, the standard has changed. like it or not, most people now who run for president are releasing six to 12, in some cases, 20 years of taxes. >> his daddy started it. >> that's fair, his father did start it. why not, alice? if you've got nothing to hide, take the 20,000 pages, have fun. >> he's done everything the law has required him to do. i can assure you, i've traveled across this country on the campaign trail. not one single person has asked any questions about the income tax return of any of my candidates. i can assure you when we have 23 million americans out of work, we have an abysmal gdp at 1.5%, we have unemployment above 8% for the past 41 months, that is what people are concerned about, who is going to get in there and turn those numbers around. >> real quick, erin. >> hold on. alice hogan gidley, who worked on the campaign with you said he thought that mitt romney should release the taxes. >> that's the point i was going to bring up. >> the point is, mitt romney has released everything that he has required by law that he has to do. what he's doing, smartly enough, is heading on the campaign trail, talking about what people want to hear about. the average person is concerned about jobs and the economy. the latest gallup poll says they want their presidents to focus on health care, the economy, doing away with corruption in government, the education and social security. those are the issues that people are talking about. i don't know why we're wasting time sitting here talking about something when the average person is not concerned about that. >> alice, don't give me the gop talking point. your former boss who you were working for said during the campaign, mitt, release your taxes. so i'm sure during the santorum campaign, you guys used that as a talking point. please don't give a gop talking point. you know as a political pro, romney is hurting himself because he's giving the impression, i have something to hide. this is why you do this four months ago. he's only hurting himself. >> he's released everything by law he's required to do. and he's doing what we need to be doing at this stage of the game. what we're doing, we're now 99 days out from this election. people are concerned about what are your policies, what are your views, what are your positions on the key issues, which is turning the economy around and creating jobs. that's what he's doing. that's why right now, the poll numbers show he's neck and neck with the president. and for a sitting president to be neck and neck at this stage of the game is not a good place to be. >> i want to turn the conversation before we go to something else. and i'm sure you all can talk for quite a while about. this is the democrats saying they're going to include gay marriage as a platform in their official party platform at the convention, in north carolina. it's a gutsy move. roland, why are they choosing to do it? >> easy. >> this could cost a couple of states. >> keep in mind, it was president barack obama early in the year who was not supportive of this being included in the platform. once he came out and announced that he was supporting same-sex marriage, that changed the whole ball game. i wouldn't be surprised if you polled folks nationally that probably thought it was already in the platform for the democratic party. >> alice, final word. will this galvanize voters for the gop or a non-issue now? >> if the gay marriage issue wants to take on the traditional marriage folks, game on. i think they're in for a tough battle. the fact of the matter is they may galvanize their base, but this election will be decided by the independents. those folks are results oriented. they want someone who will produce results in the presidency. >> thanks very much to both of you. we appreciate it. next "outfront," the court battle between titans. the two biggest phone makers on the planet. and a new milestone in the miraculous recovery of aimee copeland, the young woman who battled flesh eating bacteria. a big milestone and her father is going to tell you about it "outfront." i'm barack obama and i approve this message. [romney singing]: oh beautiful, for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain, for purple mountains majesty, above the fruited plain, america, america, god shed his grace on thee, and crowned thy good, with brotherhood... fore! no matter what small business you are in, managing expenses seems to... get in the way. not anymore. ink, the small business card from chase introduces jot an on-the-go expense app made exclusively for ink customers. custom categorize your expenses anywhere. save time and get back to what you love. the latest innovation. only for ink customers. learn more at chase.com/ink battle of the titans. it doesn't get better than this. a battle between the biggest and sexiest tech companies on earth. we'll let you decide which is which. this is the battle between samsung and apple. there is no david in this story. there are billions of dollars at stake and you might end up losing your phone, too. this matters. jury selection has begun in the patent fight between apple and samsung. basically, apple wants samsung to pay $2.5 billion to apple in sales, damages and lost profits for supposedly violating its patents. the intellectual property being fought over includes things like the tap to zoom and scrolling functions you're accustomed to. but one of the biggest issues is design. take a look at this. apple says that after the iphone came out, samsung started copying its design. this is in the apple legal brief. they say this is what you were doing before, samsung. look at your little phones. they look like blackberries. then here came the iphone. and now look at the samsung devices. apple says, doesn't that look familiar? and look at the time line. this is an interesting image. this is for the ipad. again, apple is saying, this is what samsung's product