and a man accused of beating up a priest. it looks like an open and shut case. until you look closer. let's go "outfront." ♪ good evening, everyone, i'm erin burnett. "outfront" tonight, capitol hill's dangerous game of jenga. we're going to play in a moment. let me explain. we came across a report today that, frankly, made us roll our eyes. i said the word vile out loud. here was the line. quote, congress said to delay automatic budget cuts until march. in other words, congress is now trying to get out of its self-imposed deadline of january 1st. that is when our leaders in washington either have to find ways to cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion or face automatic across-the-board spending cuts equal to that amount. now, those automatic cuts are designed to hit in the worst places. places that you would not make quick cuts to solve the spending problem. poorly designed, on purpose. bipartisan reports say those cuts could cost over 1 million american jobs. but instead of that terrible situation forcing congress to say, you know what, we're going to find a better, smarter set of cuts, we can cut this amount of money, just not from those places or in that amount. they might kick the can and let the spending go on unchecked. republican sources tell "outfront" there are talks going on right now to delay these so-called sequestration cuts. the problem is, these talks don't add up to a solution. all they do is delay making the cuts that we need, and if congress delays the sequester, that means no grand bargain on spending and entitlements in america. so here's where we get to jenga. dealing with these issues piecemeal is a lot like taking pieces out of a jenga puzzle. this is our economy, this wonderful tower, the biggest and most impressive tower in the world. it is all connected, and one bad move could destroy it. so the super committee last year made our economic base weaker. let's try that. we are on live television. i want to emphasize that. here we go. i'm shaking. i'm a nill nervous. there is the super committee. and constantly fighting over raising the debt ceiling, 11 times since 2001, last summer, the one that caused our entire country's credit rating to lose the best and most sterling credit rating in the world. i would say that was another piece we just whacked out of our tower of economic strength. there we go. all right. ooh. the truth is, our country is already on shaky ground. and we have removed so many things from our jenga tower that we're about to crash. and if you delay action on the automatic cut, saving hard work for another day, our entire country -- let's try this one -- could come tumbling -- that's us. earlier tonight, i spoke to senator pat toomey, republican on the budget committee. also a member of the super committee. and i asked him if delaying the automatic cuts would make sense. >> no, i don't. i think that would be a bad idea. you know, i voted against the debt limit increase in large part because i felt that the proposed spending reductions weren't enough. we're facing a complete fiscal disaster, and i do think we should re-program the defense cuts. i do think they land too heavily in that category. but i don't think we can just walk away from our commitment to have some modest measure of fiscal discipline. not under these circumstances. >> and, you know, representative bob mckeen, chairman of the house armed services committee was talking about those defense cuts and he said, quote, let's get together now and just say we're not mature enough to handle this. we've got to kick the can down the road now. now, i'm sure he would say, and i'm going to be talking to him soon, but he would say, look, i'm just being pragmatic here. i've got to do what i've got to do. but is this where we're going to end up? >> i certainly hope not. and we don't have to end up there. you know, the house passed the budget that would not have these kind of cuts to defense. i introduced a budget in the senate that had very broad support. when i was on the super committee, i imposed a framework that included revenue and spending reduction that is would have avoided this entire sequestration. we could still go back to any of those three. but for us to say we just can't help ourselves, we have to spend without limit, i think that's a disaster. and we just can't go there. >> when you talk about the super committee, obviously, you're frustrated with its results. so are we. and so are many americans, passionately so. i mean, it failed in its job. that's why we've got these $1.2 trillion in automatic, horribly designed cuts. >> that's right. >> do you blame yourself a little bit, though? i mean, you were in the position of power to not have us in this position? >> well, and i was the guy that reached out to the other side and said, look, even though i don't -- i think this is a spending problem, i think this is entirely a spending problem, nevertheless, if that's what it takes to get an agreement from you, i'm going to agree to put some revenue on the table. and offered a structure which would be pro growth, provide a certainty on the tax side and stronger economic growth and generate some revenue. and if only we could get an agreement on some modest spending cuts in areas that had already been vetted by both sides. i thought that we bent over backwards to accommodate the demands of our democratic friends, and they just said no way. >> so let's talk about where that money would come from. i know, obviously, they would say we didn't put enough revenue on the table. so we look at loopholes, and the math on that, i've done it, and it's sort of encouraging. you know, you've got $1.1 trillion in loopholes for fiscal year 2014. our tax revenues are 12 trillion a year. that means if you close loopholes, you get a lot more money. >> you know, the proposal i put on the table would have allowed us to take some of the -- to reduce the value of the deductions and write off some loopholes use that to lower marginal rates, but use some of it to reduce the size of our deficit. i also proposed other sources of revenue. i happen to think that it's ridiculous that we fully subsidize medicare benefits for very wealthy americans. why don't we ask them to pay a little more for their medicare benefits? i think we should. >> but this is a crucial question. you're going to close loopholes, you're saying you use some of the money to lower marginal tax rates. the question is, how much. tell me you're not on the side that you have this religion where it has to be revenue-neutral. any money you get from closing loopholes you're going to put into lowering rates. you don't believe in this revenue-neutral thing, do you? >> well, that would be much better for our economy, and that would be much better for economic growth and for job creation. but when i was on the super committee, i was willing to devote not all of it to lowering rates. some of it would be devoted to deficit reduction. not because i think it's economically necessary, but because i acknowledge that it was politically necessary in order to get the other side to agree to any kind of spending cut. and then they decided no, even that wasn't going to bring them to the table. so i was pretty discouraged. >> well, senator, where are we going to end up? i'm looking at the house. they've got about 30 days between now and the election where they're actually going to be in session. we've got the sequestration disaster looming. we've got the bush tax cuts, unemployment insurance, payroll, the debt ceiling. i could go on and on. >> right. >> and i get this terrible feeling it's going to be like jenga. and we're all going to fall apart. how is that not going to happen? >> well, i think what, frankly, the markets are doing and the reason we're in a -- this uncomfortable, relative calm right now is because, frankly, there's an anticipation that we're going to get an election outcome that resolves some of this. if governor romney is elected president, republicans will certainly take control of the senate and that environment. we can do just three big things that i think would get our economy absolutely booming again. number one, some tax certainty, make the current rates permanent if we have to. i would prefer a more pro-growth reform, but i would settle for that. reform at least one of the big entitlement programs driving one of our long-term budget problems and create a regulatory environment that's friendly for investment and business growth, rather than hostile. we did those things, i think our economy would take off and we would find it easier to resolve the remaining challenges. >> we shall see. obviously, they are still very far apart rhetorically. "outfront" next, this. >> voter i.d., which is going to allow governor romney to win the state of pennsylvania. done. >> did a republican just admit something huge? and a major announcement for one of this country's premier sports. college football is going to undergo a huge change, just happened the past hour. and we have video just released on what george zimmerman told police about his injuries the day after he killed trayvon martin. see life in the best light. [music] transitions® lenses automatically filter just the right amount of light. so you see everything the way it's meant to be seen. experience life well lit, ask for transitions adaptive lenses. trouble with a car insurance claim. [ voice of dennis ] switch to allstate. their claim service is so good, now it's guaranteed. [ normal voice ] so i can trust 'em. unlike randy. are you in good hands? in that time there've been some good days. and some difficult ones. but, through it all, we've persevered, supporting some of the biggest ideas in modern history. so why should our anniversary matter to you? because for 200 years, we've been helping ideas move from ambition to achievement. and the next great idea could be yours. ♪ and the next great idea could be yours. i'm one of six children that my mother raised by herself, and so college was a dream when i was a kid. i didn't know how i was gonna to do it, but i knew i was gonna get that opportunity one day, and that's what happened with university of phoenix. nothing can stop me now. i feel like the sky's the limit with what i can do and what i can accomplish. my name is naphtali bryant and i am a phoenix. visit phoenix.edu to find the program that's right for you. enroll now. our second story "outfront." a top republican in pennsylvania drawing criticism for touting the state's new voter i.d. law as a path to victory for republicans. >> voter i.d., which is going to allow governor romney to win the state of pennsylvania. done. >> he was speaking there to an audience of republicans. john avalon, roland martin, wryham salom are with me. going to bring it up to pennsylvania. john, this is the new law, it says all voters will be required to show photo i.d. before they vote. that is what this law is about, quoting directly from the voter i.d. law. democrats say this hurts turnout among minorities, elderly voters. republicans say it's to prevent voter fraud. >> erin, everybody wants fair voting without fraud, but this guy, the head of the republicans and pennsylvania state legislature pulled the curtain back because all of those high-minded reasons, principled reasons allegedly for passing this law, he just said, we're really about partisan gain. and about the pursuit of power. and this is why people are sick of politicians. because they use all this -- supposedly principled reasons, and it's nothing about except power and partisan gain. >> roland, this brings me to the tough issue. i think most people would say, look, you should be able to have an identification who you are and where you're from to vote. that is intimidating to some people. why and to whom? how can this law become something that is discriminatory? >> it's not just pennsylvania. it's florida, it's ohio, it's 18 states. and so many of these republican legislatures have been doing this as a result of a.l.e.c., that secret group behind a lot of these different efforts as well. the bottom line is this here. it goes beyond just saying you need an i.d. because they're even saying in the pennsylvania law you need to prove it, you need a birth certificate, with a raised seal. if you don't have that, you have got to go get one, a non-wavable fee of $10. if you want a pennsylvania photo i.d., not a driver's license, that's going to cost you $13.50. >> right. they're saying all voters have to have a photo i.d. so you're saying if you don't have one, the formal one costs $13.50. >> right. so the notion goes far beyond voter i.d. because some republican friends are saying oh, just show i.d. but it's limiting early voting days. in ohio, you can't vote three days before the election. why? because they're targeting black churches, as well. so they have come up with creative ways beyond voter i.d.s to keep people from voting all across the country. >> all right, wry ahan, what's your response? do you think that having a photo i.d. should be okay? and if you do, wouldn't you admit it should be free? >> oh, i definitely think it should be free. and, in fact, if you look at mississippi, for example, where the voter i.d. laws, quite strenuous, rigorous, free voter i.d.s will be issued to any that requested one, and if pennsylvania finds there are many people who can't afford the $13.50 they should absolutely take affirmative steps to provide the voter i.d.s for people. what i will say, when you listen to what the gentleman said in pennsylvania, you have to keep in mind that there are many republicans who believe that voter fraud benefits democrats. there are also democrats who believe that voter suppression and voter fraud benefit republicans. we don't know that. what we need is a neutral, straightforward process, in which there is a reliable way to identify whether or not you are who you say you are. and when you see there's a history of voter fraud in this country, justice john paul stevens, when he voted, as part of the majority, the 6-3 majority in the supreme court to uphold indiana's voter laws said that as well. there is an extensive and long history of voter fraud in this country and lest we forget he was one of the liberal lions of the supreme court. >> let me offer some facts. >> roland, let me throw something up. voter fraud could be widespread, i don't know. the convictions on voter fraud, four in pennsylvania since 2004. obviously, the president's victory was more than 600,000 votes in 2008. i'm not saying we know every case, but four reihan. >> roger rotnom was not the only person who ever engaged anyone sider trading. but it's very hard to identify and prosecute. there are many crimes where you don't necessarily identify the people. and we're not trying to engage in some process where we're prosecuting, intimidating, et cetera. we're just saying that going forward let's have a neutral, reliable way to be sure that people are who they say they are. we're not trying to go back and engage in recriminations about the past. >> this is a solution in search of a problem. the national republican lawyers association came out with their report showing voter fraud. about 340 cases in america over a ten-year period. if you look at -- >> how many cases -- insider trading relative to insider trading incidents? >> hold on, one second. i'm offering actual proof. >> is there no white collar crime in america not prosecuted? >> let him finish. >> there are some states where you likely have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than there are actually being voter fraud. so this is utter nonsense. >> than to be prosecuted, roland. let's be clear. >> let's pull back. >> we know there is a voter suppression using voter i.d. laws and other things like literacy tests. there are also -- >> voter fraud and literacy tests are not the same, john. >> listen to me. i'm saying we know there are cases of voter fraud and also cases of voter suppression. both of these concerns are rooted in american history, but what we've seen in our recent history is a lot of supposedly principled reasons with nothing but partisan gain to back them. this same guy, the republican head of the state legislature in pennsylvania, backed an effort to try to rejig the electoral college vote in their state to split it up. to, again, make it more likely republicans could gain electoral votes. this is about power. >> erin -- >> as nebraska and maine do. nebraska and maine are states where you want to separate it out, because it's a diverse state. and i think there is some concern about that in a variety of states. that doesn't necessarily mean there is something corrupt about it, john. >> erin, you want to hear corrupt. in ohio they actually passed a bill which the voters repealed and then overturned it. where in ohio, they said if you are a poll worker, you could -- it was voluntary for you to tell someone if approximate they were in the wrong location. if they were in the wrong polling location, you could tell them, tough. or you could choose to tell them. why would you even put that in the law? why are you banning people from voting three days before an election, because you're targeting churches who are voter en masse? it's utter nonsense and can't defend it. >> thanks to all three of you for joining us. roland martin is working on a documentary on voter suppression airing july 15th here on cnn. "outfront" next, we were told it was never about the money. it was about tradition. but there is a big move today that will change college football forever. and a man beat up a priest and was offered a plea bargain that could have saved him years in court. you're going to want to know why he chose to reject that. that's next. you see us bank on busier highways. on once empty fields. everyday you see all the ways all of us at us bank are helping grow our economy. lending more so companies and communities can expand, grow stronger and get back to work. everyday you see all of us serving you, around the country, around the corner. us bank. what happens when classroom teachers get the training... ...and support they need? schools flourish and students blossom. that's why programs like... ...the mickelson exxonmobil teachers academy... ...and astronaut sally ride's science academy are helping our educators improve student success in math and science. let's shoot for the stars. let's invest in our teachers and inspire our students. let's solve this. and our third story "outfront," a man claiming he was molested by a catholic priest in the 1970s is now on trial himself. for beating his alleged abuser. defendant will lunch turned down a plea deal putting himself at risk of spending up to four years in prison if convicted. why would you the manure looking at there taking such big risk in lynch says he wants to face his alleged abuser in court. casey weyandt is "outfront" with the story. >> reporter: mr. lunch, do you think you've accomplished what you sought out to accomplish in this case? >> no comments today. >> reporter: 44-year-old william lynch is an alleged victim of child sexual abuse by a catholic priest more than three decades ago. today, he's on trial charged with assaulting that priest, father gerald lindner. now, 68, lindner is the alleged victim of a bloody beating by lynch in 20 may 10. it was under the guise of delivering news of a family member and pummeled lindner. >> society is the victim of all this, there is a man sitting up there at los gatos who is a rapist and mow left children and allowed to go free. >> reporter: lindner once taught in los angeles, accused of but never prosecuted for abusing as many as ten children. the statute of limitations expired by the time alleged victims came forward. still, the catholic church paid millions of dollars to settle claims to lindner's accusers, including $625,000 to