secret talks happen all the time, and 99% of them fail. but we are rooting for the 1% chance that these finally succeed. because america needs a grand bargain to prevent our debt rising to twice the size of our economy and to prevent a recession really, really soon. today fed chief ben bernanke, the man who has twisted and turned to get interest rates to zero to try to help this country said now congress must act. >> i urge congress to come to agreement on that well in advance so as not to push us to the 12th hour. if no action were taken and the fiscal cliff were to kick in in its full size, i think it would be very likely that the economy would begin to contract. >> contract means get smaller. it means recession. and people talk a whole lot about this fiscal cliff, but sometimes, you know, it kind of blurs together. so what exactly are we talking about? to be honest, this cliff is like we're on the top of mt. everest staring down a 29,000-foot crevasse. at the end of this year the bush tax cuts will expire and tax rates will go up. if you pay 10% now, you'll pay 15%. if you pay 35%, you'll pay nearly 40%. at the same time, payroll taxes will go up on everybody. six million americans will lose unemployment insurance. and the so-called sequestration cuts, the $1.2 trillion to cuts in services and defense, they start too. if congress doesn't make a deal, the economy will go back into recession. as our economic strike team member jim biaco reminded us, the debt ceiling has to pass congress on that date too. so the secret talks include some of the patriots that want to do a deal like republican tom coburn and democrat mark warner who have been telling me for a while that they're working on a deal. but there need to be a lot more elected leaders who understand the urgency of this moment and are willing to compromise. chris van hollen of maryland is the top democrat on the house budget committee. he joins me tonight. good to see you, sir. the fed chairman was pleading with you guys today. he really was pleading. are you all still counting on some level the fed could bail congress out, do something else, some more quantitative easing so the congress doesn't have to act this summer? >> no, we're not counting on that, erin. ben bernanke is exactly right, congress should get its act together, needs to get its act together to prevent the fiscal cliff, which would hurt the economy, and also come up with a long-term plan to reduce the deficit. so we also deal with that long-term issue. there are bipartisan models for how to do this that have been put forward by groups like the simpson-bowles group. i think that's a good framework. so the path toward getting there is clear. the political will, unfortunately, has not been there. >> and it has seemed to come down very explicitly to this issue in the near term, and obviously this is a piece of the grand bargain, but to this issue of the bush tax cuts and whether they go away for everyone -- stay for everyone or only stay for some people and go away for the wealthier, who would receive a tax increase. now, this is a crucial issue. some of the people on the other side of the debate from you, on the tea party, the ones who don't want to raise taxes at all and have made this a religion have started to compromise. two of the most ardent tea party members, mike lee and rand paul just in the past two days have both said this, and here they are. >> intellectually, though, and this is an important intellectual point, you're all right with some people, all in they may end up paying more than they pay now but you get a simpler tax code and a simpler rate but they could pay more, some people. >> absolutely. absolutely. >> are you also open to a system where by eliminating loopholes, some people would ending up paying more in taxes after the reform than they do before? >> yes. and what we need is a flatter, simpler, fairer tax system. >> why isn't that enough? why can't you guys do a deal if they're saying that on one side? why can't you do a deal? >> erin, if what they're talking about is really a change in the tax code in a way recommended like bipartisan groups and simpson-bowles which not just simplifies it by reducing the rate and expanding the base but would also generate real new revenue which would be matched by cuts, certainly we could do something. i would welcome those senators actually -- >> hold on, because obviously you're what saying there, you got to the heart of it. what do you mean if you say if i cut the rate and eliminate loopholes, a lot of people in this country, and i'm talking about the wealthy, will pay more. you're saying that's not enough. you want additional new revenue? >> no, i'm saying if you cut the rate and broaden the base in a way that generates additional revenue and maintains the progressivity which is what simpson-bowles and other groups proposed, that would be an important way forward. i do not believe our republican colleagues have put that in the table. i can certainly tell you in the house that is not the case because that is a strict violation of the so-called grover norquist pledge which has been signed by 98% of the house republicans. so i have not seen -- >> but he has said to me and to others that if you simply the tax system and get rid of loopholes that the wealthier would pay more. now, he thinks we shouldn't get more revenue which is different than some of the other guys, but he's still for the wealthier paying more. >> the issue is taking a balanced approach to deficit reduction, which means combining cuts with additional revenue. that's what simpson-bowles did. that was their framework. if that's what the republicans in the senate are proposing, it would be great to see their plan. i have never seen a proposal put forward by republicans in either the house or the senate that does that at all. so i would welcome that. if they said that to you on the show and they mean it and want to follow through, i'm happy to call them tomorrow to find out if that's what they meant. >> well, let me talk about something that -- i mean they're obviously talking specifically about closing loopholes. i think it's clear what they're saying, which i think is different than you're saying additional revenues. but there's something just, you know, existentially important here. if you tax people in this country who make over a million dollars at 100%, you get 700 billion, and then you can't tax them again. the debt burden is $15.6 trillion. if you increase taxes on the middle class at 8%, you get more than taxing the wealthy 100%. if we can't be honest about the math here, how can we have an honest conversation about raising taxes on any specific group? >> well, the math you just pointed to is why we need to do a combination. a combination of revenue increases by eliminating a lot of these tax loopholes, and maintaining progressivity, but also cuts. remember, that as part of the budget control act, we've already cut a trillion dollars over the next ten years. what we need to do is find additional cuts and the revenue piece. erin, again, i welcome the statements that were made on your show. i really hope that what they are agreeing to do is violate the so-called grover norquist pledge, which would be absolutely necessary to putting together a balanced approach. that's what we need to do. >> just to make sure i understand where you're coming from, to try to see if there's really common ground, when you say additional revenue, would you be saying, look, we keep a tax rate where we have two levels or three levels, progressive, but close loopholes so the wealthier end up paying more. i'm not looking for additional new taxes that i'm going to introduce on anybody. is that a place that you would compromise? >> well, there could be additional taxes with respect to folks who were at the higher end under that proposal. if you look at simpson-bowles, depending on where your deductions are, you would see additional revenue. for example, under the buffett rule, which the president has proposed, you would generate additional revenue from people over a million dollars. if you also look at some of the international corporate tax loopholes, you can also generate additional revenue. that's part of the president's budget proposal that he submitted to congress that's also part of the house democratic alternative budget. >> the buffett rule, isn't it ridiculous to add new rules when it looks like you're avoiding the problem. i'm not saying you, but in general congress. instead of reforming the system, go throw this tax at this person, that person, this person and that person, instead of just fix it and then see how much money you need? >> well, i think the buffett rule can be incorporated into a larger tax reform piece. at its root, the buffett rule simply says folks making over a million dollars should be paying the same effective rate as other americans who are usually working for those folks. >> but you can get that if you simplified the rate and eliminated loopholes. >> you can do it in part but the buffett rule is a back stop that says even after all those deductions, it's just simply fair, to make sure the folks at the high end of paying a similar effective rate. but look, to get to your overall point, i think it's very important that we work together to avoid the fiscal cliff. one way to do that would be to extend the middle class tax cuts immediately, in fact for 99% of the american people, and replace the sequester with a balanced approach to deficit reduction. what's not helpful are the kind of comments that you heard when you were here in washington from speaker boehner who was threatening that the united states will not meet its financial obligations unless we adopt the kind of austerity measures that we've seen in europe that have been a failure. that is the wrong approach. it undermines confidence and then will slow down the economy when you generate that kind of uncertainty. >> all right. sir, thank you very much. appreciate it. representative chris van hollen. here is a show that is rooting that we don't have any more back stops. solve the real problem. no more buffett rules, this, that, come on. still outfront, 2,000 players join a lawsuit against the nfl. is america's true pastime about to be sacked? and tensions in greece spilling out physically on a morning talk show. this is really some video. and former president, bill clinton, spoke to wolf blitzer, and he was on defense. >> i did 40 events for him. 40 in the election. skips ] hi, i'm new ensure clear. clear, huh? my nutritional standards are high. i'm not juice or fancy water, i'm different. i've got nine grams of protein. twist my lid. that's three times more than me! twenty-one vitamins and minerals and zero fat! hmmm. you'll bring a lot to the party. [ all ] yay! [ female announcer ] new ensure clear. nine grams protein. zero fat. twenty-one vitamins and minerals. in blueberry/pomegranate and peach. refreshing nutrition in charge! there are a lot of warning lights and sounds vying for your attention. so we invented a warning.. you can feel. introducing the all new cadillac xts, available with the patented safety alert seat. when there is danger you might not see, you're warned by a pulse in the seat. it's technology you won't find in a mercedes e-class. the all new cadillac xts has arrived. and it's bringing the future forward. mine was earned off vietnam in 1968. over the south pacific in 1943. i got mine in iraq, 2003. usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation. because it offers a superior level of protection, and because usaa's commitment to serve the military, veterans and their families is without equal. begin your legacy, get an auto insurance quote. usaa. we know what it means to serve. our second story outfront. president clinton is sorry. he said it many times. he's very sorry. after going off message from president barack obama. and most of his party by saying that congress should extend the bush era tax cuts for everyone temporarily. now he says, hold on, hold on, hold on, i didn't have my facts straight. >> i'm very sorry about what happened yesterday. it was -- i thought something had to be done on the fiscal cliff before the election. apparently nothing has to be done until the first of the year. so i think he should just stick with his position and then negotiate with the republicans. >> it was very artful. by the way, he didn't say i didn't mean what i said, he just said i didn't mean what i said in november. john avlon is here, michael waldman and margaret hoover. great to have you all with us. michael, let me start with you. what's he doing? i mean, i have to say this. bill clinton knows that the bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year, not on election day so i don't buy this i didn't know the date. >> here's the thing. with him, whenever he says, you get all these people saying aha, he's so machivellian, he sees all chess moves down the board, this is all to elect hillary in 2022. sometimes he just says what's on the top of his mind and afterwards everybody has to explain what he meant. i think he feels that there can't be a precipitous counter pro-cyclical withdrawal of funds from the economy, that there needs to be a deal. he's used to -- as he said, he's a little rusty. he's used to saying what he thinks. but as a matter of negotiation, he held firm in his negotiations with the republicans on the very same issues that president obama is now saying he's going to hold firm on. so i think that there's a difference between sort of saying what you think as ultimate policy and sticking to your guns on negotiation. i'm sure he knows that and i'm sure he's been reminded of it in the last 24 hours probably too. >> maybe true. but still, john avlon, what he said was i think they should be extended for everyone. by the way, for anyone who wasn't aware, president obama said he would veto that, absolutely not. >> right. i think he was playing a little bit off the cuff real politic. he said, look, they're going to kick the can to the next guy, everybody knows let's get real. what we're pushing for to avoid the fiscal cliff is that grand bargain. look, bill clinton, he luxuriates being an ex-president but the problem is it's an election season and he's one of the most effective advocates for the democratic ticket and president obama. when he gets a little over his skis, he gets a call from chicago and says you've got to fix this, this is a problem for us. >> margaret, from the republican voice, how much of a victory was his initial statement? kind of the cover-up is always confusing. but everyone will remember what he said, he supports extending them. >> he does and that's not the only thing he said. he also talked about private equity quite favorably and he also talked about mitt romney meeting the threshold of qualification for president. all of those things create, frankly, a bit of weakness on president obama's part. what he needs to do if he can't -- to the extent he can't run on his economic record is at least create doubt in the populous that president romney isn't qualified to be president so all of these things put together have actually undercut, i think, president clinton's -- i'm sorry, president obama's major argument for weakening mitt romney. >> i do think it's rather risky for the republicans to rely on bill clinton as their validater on economic arguments. he makes arguments on why a more progressive tax code makes sense, why fiscal discipline makes sense, long-term entitlement reform. there's very little daylight between his position and president obama. throw him in that briar patch. >> as long as he doesn't get in his own way. as long as he doesn't get in his own way and get in the principal's way, which is what he's done here which is why we're talking about him in the first place. you know it better than anyone, you were his speechwriter for seven years. >> when he starts ad-libbing, you're like oh, gosh. >> people are like why did you put that in the speech? >> you've got to love the irony of history when republicans are using bill clinton as a character witness. that's good stuff. >> if he's 16 chess pieces away, let him do it and then say try to impeach me and we'll get them. a family outraged over a verdict in their daughter's death doesn't add up. and later soldiers using bath salts. dr. drew is on the show. i'm an expert on softball. and tea parties. i'll have more awkward conversations than i'm equipped for because i'm raising two girls on my own. i'll worry about the economy more than a few times before they're grown. but it's for them, so i've found a way. who matters most to you says the most about you. massmutual is owned by our policyholders so they matter most to us. massmutual. we'll help you get there. woman: what do you mean, homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods? [ heart rate increases ] man: a few inches of water caused all this? [ heart rate increases ] woman #2: but i don't even live near the water. what you don't know about flood insurance may shock you -- including the fact that a preferred risk policy starts as low as $129 a year. for an agent, call the number that appears on your screen. our third story outfront, a community just outside buffalo, new york, reeling from a stunning verdict. a prominent doctor was driving drunk and texting late one night. he killed an 18-year-old girl while on his way home and he never stopped. he was charged with five felony counts, including second-degree manslaughter. but he's walking away with what amounts to a slap on the wrist and could serve less than a year in prison. now the girl's family is seeking justice in a civil trial. deb feyerick is out front with the story. >> reporter: it happened here. 18-year-old alex rice on her way home from work at a local pizza place. in the dark crouched on her skateboard, she was rounding the corner when a bmw came up behind striking the teen, throwing her some 50 feet. her neck breaking on impact, leaving her parents shattered. >> it's because she was an awesome human being. she was kindness personified. >> reporter: the driver, dr. james corasanti kept on driving. he just left the country club where he had been drinking during a martini golf night. the doctor admitted hitting something but thought it was likely a deer. >> there was very little damage other than cosmetic damage to an aluminum hood. it was reasonable that the doctor did not know that he had hit a person. >> reporter: at trial, prosecutors produced the crumpled hood of the bmw telling the jury the doctor had been texting and leaving the scene after hitting alex rice. the doctor was legally drunk five hours after the fatal accident. the doctor's lawyers argued drinking or not, no one could have seen alex in the dark. the verdict? >> it honestly feels like she's been hit and run all over again. >> reporter: not guilty on all counts. >> i was blindsided beyond blindsided. >> reporter: an outraged community accused the doctor of buying his freedom. >> i don't know if money bought a verdict. money bought doubt on the police version of what happened. >> reporter: jurors have received death threats, as have the doctor's lawyers who stand by their case. >> we're glad there wasn't a second tragedy by having this doctor get convicted for something that now we know the people could not prove. >> reporter: the verdict has left a bitter taste in a community that stands firmly behind alex's parents. >> that warms my heart to know that people care, but it doesn't make it any easier to get through the day. >> it's an unbelievable story. and i know, deb, that the family is going back to court to try to do a civil case. >> that's exactly right. >> do they expect a different outcome? what could happen there? >> it's a different burden of proof. in the criminal trial they ha