from health care around the world. a preview of a new gps special that prematures tonight at 8:00 p.m. but, first, here's my take. when i was in college in the early 1980s as part of a student organization, i invited ronald reagan's defense secretary casper weinberger to give a speech on campus y where yous american colleges were hotbeds of opposition to the reagan administration, especially to defense policies. sure enough, as soon as weinberger began to speech, a group of students stood up and began to heckle. one after another they rose and chanted a single line. deterence is a lie. i was reminded of that turbulent meeting because i have been listening to these debates over iran's nuclear ambitions. it highlights a strange role reversal in today's foreign policy discourse. it used to be left searching instead for options like the nuclear freeze, and it used to be people on the right who would patiently explain the practical virtues of deterrented. the conservative thinker charles kraut haumer wrote deterrents like old age is intolerable until one considers the alternative. yet, today it is the right that has decided that deterrents is a lie. the american foundation, the american enterprise institute, all denounce containment and deterrents and would lead us, instead, on to policy paths that culminate in a preventive war. it is the right's version of the nuclear freeze. a simple solution that actually doesn't solve anything. strikes on iran would probably delay its program a few years while driving up domestic support within iran for the government in tehran and for the nuclear program. it will provide a much stronger rationale for iran to pursue nuclear weapons, having been attacked. yet, sophisticated conservatives insist that this root is preferable to deterrents. deterrents is a difficult concept to grasp. the concept of destruction produces peace. yet, the record is remarkable. great powers went to war with little regulator for hundreds of years. then came nuclear weapons, and there has not been a war between great powers since then. since 1945. the longest period of peace between great powers in human history. the united states and the soviet union have a more intense and far-reaching rivalry than almost any two great powers ever. each told the other one to destroy its way of life, and yet this rivalry did not result in war. both sides were deterred. so also with pakistan and india, which fought three wars before they had nukes and none in the 40 years since. to gain credibility with the current israeli government, presses obama has gone along with them, ruled out containment, insisted that he does not bluff, and spoken of a window of opportunity for negotiations. this might prove to be a mistake. it boxes the united states in, limits obama's options, and forces him on a path that could push the united states into an unnecessary preventive war. it would be far better for israel, the united states, the middle east, the world if tehran does not acquire such weapons, and the american effort to prevent this from happening and to put tremendous pressure on tehran is the right policy. were tehran to persist, were the regime to accept the global isolation and crippling costs that would come from that decision, then a robust policy of containment and deter ens would work towards iran as it does against stalin's soviet union, mao's china, kim jong il's north korea, and the pakistani military. let's get started. >> the brits invaded washington d.c. again this week. this occasion was much more friendly than when they did it in 1812. accompanying prime minister cameron was his chancellor, the very british title for finance minister, george ozborne. he is the man behind the cameron government's bold plan to reduce its deficits. its critics say it has plunged britain into an unnecessary recession. i sat down with george ozborne at the british embassy in washington d.c. chancellor, thanks for doing this again. >> my pleasure. it's good to be back. >> you have to present a budget next week, and there are many people not just in the labour party who say you need to cut back on the austerity so to speak, that the british program of cutting government spending has resulted in very weak economic growth. do you think you need to and will you relax some of the spending cuts that you have put in place? >> well, normally budgets are secret, but it won't be any secret if i say to you, no, we're not going to do that. we are going to stick with the deficit reduction plan that i set out almost two years ago. britain had an 11% budget deficit two years ago. the plan we've put in place is bringing that deficit down and borrowing is coming down. even with it we still have one of the highest budget deficits in the world, and we've got to keep up the pace in order to provide the stability of the british economy needs and the low interest rates the british economy needs to allow the roer to take hold. i think it would be a big mistake if britain backed off the credibilities and entered the international markets. >> do you know that there are people very serious, economic commentators like martin wolf who say you had no trouble borrowing money going into your government, and that by cutting government spending, you have actually reduced economic growth, which in turn has led to lower tax revenues, which in turn has led to a worse deficit projection than you might have had. many people look at it as a test case of too much austerity too soon. >> i don't agree with that analysis. i would say we had to earn our credibility in international markets. we became the -- we have the same market interest rates as italy and spain. you can see what's happened to those countries. actually, a little bit better in the last few weekends e weeks, but nevertheless, market interest rates markedly higher than the united kingdom has. the idea that somehow britain could have got away with not having a credible plan to deal with this deficit, not attacking at 11% budget deficit, i think it's fanciful, and i actually the proof is in the puddinging. we've had a remarkable degree of stability. we've had lower interest rates compared to many of our european neighbors, and if you think of the economic shocks that the european continent has suffered over the last nine months to a year, i think britain, through its credible plan, has helped to isolate itself from that. >> do you think that means that the united states should move to greater austerity measures now? >> well, look, first of all, the united states has more freedom to maneuver because it's a reserve currency, but also, i think actually if you look at the debate in the united states, there's a question of when people are going to deal with the deficit, but the question of whether to deal with the deficit has actually been answered. i think sometimes the differences between the profile of deficit reduction between the u.k. and the u.s. are overstated. you look at the profile. it's not that dissimilar. there are some differences. we have different political systems and what you are capable of doing at different times. of course, i think all countries know that they've got to deal with that question of the rest and what the markets have which is how are you going to pay your way. >> one thing you've said in interviews leading up to your budget is that you will not put in place any tax cuts that are not paid for. i take it by that you mean that you do not buy the supply side argument that if you were to just cut taxes, it will unleash growth, which will then pay for itself. >> i am actually in that sense more with margaret thatcher than ronald reagan. margaret thatcher was more you have to make the books balanced. reaganan was more, let's borrow and cut taxes. he was the american president. she was the british prime minister. different economies. and i'm a conservative who believes that lower taxes create more efficient economies and allow wealth to be and income and enterprise to be promoted, but i think in the context of having public finances that are unsustainable, you've got to do something about that, and you can't just assume you cut taxes and the money pays for itself. >> what is your principle concern in terms of the obstacles to a general global recovery, but also, of course, the british one? >> well, i guess the oil price would be if i had to name one thing at the moment. i mean, i don't think the risks in the euro zone have entirely dissipated due to the action of the european central bank, but they are much less than they were a couple of months ago. i would look at that oil price the moments. i'm concerned about that because you saw actually the end of 2010, early 2011 how that knocked the stuffing out of the global recovery. high oil price. and that is something that would certainly be on my radar as a cause for concern. >> george ozborne, pleasure to have you on. thank you. >> and we will be right back. coming up on "gps" another george, george clooney. >> we said what happens if like -- when you google earth my house, why can't we do that to, you know, to war criminals? okay, team! after age 40, we can start losing muscle -- 8% every 10 years. wow. wow. but you can help fight muscle loss with exercise and ensure muscle health. i've got revigor. what's revigor? it's the amino acid metabolite, hmb to help rebuild muscle and strength naturally lost over time. [ female announcer ] ensure muscle health has revigor and protein to help protect, preserve, and promote muscle health. keeps you from getting soft. [ major nutrition ] ensure. nutrition in charge! ♪ oh, my maltipoo's depressed. but my affordable prius c means i can pay for his acupuncture. whew. i love my pooch. oh no! my homemade sushi... turned p-ushi! use estimated 53 mpg to find a gluten-free alternative. look, this means i'm a chef. [ male announcer ] be a winner with the all-new prius c from toyota. ♪ lemon burst, blackberry harvest, pina colada... i can't imagine where she is... orange creme... [ grocery store pa ] clean up in aisle eight. found her! [ female announcer ] yoplait original. 25 flavors for you to love. my next guest is according to former senator alan simpson, the most powerful man in america today. no, he is not the american president, but if he were to run for that position, simpson says, his platform would be no taxes under any situation, even if your country goes to hell. i'm talking about grover norquist, the author of the taxpayer protection pledge, which seeks to oppose any net tax increases. it has been signed by 95% of republican congressmen and all but one of the original 2012 republican presidential candidates. grover norquist joins me now. >> good to be with you. >> so let me ask you -- >> sure. >> -- about the history of the last 20 or 30 years, and ask you whether you feel some responsibility for this. here's how i see it. the republican party under ronald reagan, subsequently under gingrich, which confronting george bush senior, has pushed aggressively for cutting tacks, no new taxes, many of the kinds of things you have argued for. it has been unable for whatever reason under republican majorities, under democratic majorities, under divided or shared government to cut spending, so what we have had is the kind of perfect expression of what the american people seem to want, which is low taxes, but lots of government services, and there's only one way to square that circle, which is to borrow lots of money, which says what we've done for the last 30 years. aren't you to blame for that? >> no. it is to tremendous will he raise taxes as high as spending has gone. if this is the left's analysis of how to fix the problem. no. here's -- >> sent that -- let me ask you, you can characterize it as left or right, but if you raise taxes to -- to meet what expenditures you want to make, at least you don't have a debt bomb. at least you don't have a debt crisis. at least you don't have a financial collapse. at least you don't face the prospect of becoming another greece. in other words, i don't like high taxes, but the question is if you want lots of government surfaces, you have two options. you can either high tacks or borrow the money. >> the american people clearly don't want high levels. sxwro congressmen and senators are surrounded by spending interests who push them on for higher levels of spending, and try to push them for higher levels of taxes. when you poll the american people, do you want more government services at a higher cost or fewer government services at a lower cost, 2-1, and that is almost unchanged as you go -- >> in the abstract. >> when gu to a specific program they like -- >> are they willing to pay additional tacks for it? the answer is no. >> do you want cuts in it, they say no. >> if taxes go down, you can get that. the disconnect is when you send people who promise to cut spending and taxes and send them to washington and they are surrounded. i run a taxpayer group, the most powerful guy in d.c. nonsense. there are buildings with thousands of people all lobbying for more spending and higher levels of spending and more government commitments and there are a handful, a handful, of groups that fight for less spending. how do we even the score? that's what the pledge has begun to do. we make visible the candidate who says i'm going to washington and not raising tacks. and then people know exactly what he or she committed to because it's in writing. it's short. it's simple. not no net tax increase. >> let's talk about one way you can perform tacks, which i'm assuming you agree work but i was distressed to see your reaction at simpson boles. most people understand how these things called tax expenditures and the tax code, these are essentially lots of individual tax -- tax credits where the government is basically making special deals for people lowering taxes for one industry for one group and in some cases -- and the idea was to basically get rid of all the -- to take away these special tax breaks that people get, and you opposed it. now, what i'm surprised by is, first of all, this is terrible in temz of tax policy to be having the government decide all these special benefits for people. secondly, this is precisely what encourages the kind of corruption of the tax code that you rightly oppose. >> you are misstating my position. simpson boles is an outline. it's an essay. it was never put into legislative form because it's -- because you can't, okay? because it's -- again -- >> that's just general principles. >> right. however, one of the general principles was about a $2 trillion tax increase. the only one thing they were clear about is they were raising taxes to -- paul ryan says $2 trillion over the decade. the heritage foundation says $3 trillion over the decade. they were trying to retend it was tax reform. they damaged tax reform. we will get tax reform when and only when the american people are convinced it doesn't hide a tax increase. that's why the pledge makes tax reform in 1986 possible. makes tax reform now possible. >> to be fair to simpson-boles, it was tax reform, and it raised more revenues. let me ask you this, we are taxing now at 14% of gdp. >> thanks to the recession. >> we're spending at 23% of gdp. are you telling me you believe you can get all -- you can close that gap entirely by cutting spending, that is by taking something in the range of 7% or 8% of gdp? that is cutting $800 billion out of government spending every year. >> you can do two things. you'll reduce spending, and you have stronger economic growth. this is one of the weakest recoveries. >> you get as a practical matter -- you can't wish -- this is, again, a wish, not a plan. i would like stronger xlek growth too, but your fiscal situation has to be -- >> you can't -- you undo the regulatory burdens that obama has both put in and threatened to put in. you get rid of obama care. >> this is all rhetoric. do you have a plan as a practical matter? look, clinton raised taxes and cut growth. bush had the biggest tax cuts in a generation, and he got the weakest growth in 30 years. what i'm saying is as a matter of practical planning for the fiscal future of the united states, you u your answer can't be we'll have stronger growth. if you grow at 6%, we don't need to do anything. everything is solved. right? i can't wish for that. you have a plan we're listing. >> we know if you reduce capital gains tax, you get more growth. if we go to full expensing for business investment, we'll get more investment. we need to have an immigration policy that brings both talent and numbers to the country. we need to have the territorial tax system so the trillion dollars that's overseas can come back here and create jobs and opportunities here. as well making the country stronger. snoo here are some things you could do if you could wave a magic wand. >> we take corporate and individual rates down to 40%. 25 doesn't make you internationally competitive. while the european average is 25 and most americans work for firms that pay at the individual level, not at the corporate one, so you have to bring them both. obama wants to take the individual, small business tax to 44%, and the corporate rate, he says, down to 28%. that really damages the businesses and doesn't make us competitive. have you to take us both down to 20 because corporate and state and local taxes -- to compete with europe we have to be at 20 nationally so we're at 25 to compete. >> you don't think that bringing taxes down that much, at least in the short run will mean that you will lose substantial revenue? >> i think a number of things at once. we're going to have a republican house after this next election. we'll have a republican senate after this next election. 23 democrats, ten republicans out. the democrats, half of them are in very vulnerable seats. two of the republicans might lose. you will have a republican house and senate. the question is you can have a republican president. that's not rhetoric. that's the plan. >> final question, do you trust that mitt romney is a candidate who will be in favor of the agenda you have for the party sf. >> two things. he has made the commitment both four years ago and this year that he will oppose and veto any net tax increase. he is for tax reform. he is against tax increases. two, he has endorsed the outlines of paul ryan's plan. paul ryan's plan reduces obama's overspending by $6 trillion. >> i am asking, do you trust mitt romney? >> for two reasons. one, i trust him because i have talked to him about it, and i trust him because he has made the comments, and secondly, the republicans are now in a position where they will govern from the house and the senate in the same way that the democrats did for 16 years. the next republican president will work with the republicans in the house and senate, which is why you know what the plan will be. it will be something that looks very much like the ryan plan. >> grover norquist, good to have you on. >> good to be with you. >> and we will be back. >> right now our gas prices go up as the president said in his press conference, because when the chinese aren't getting their 6% from the sudan, they're getting it from somewhere else, and that raises the price for all of us. en. the way i always made it for you. one more thing.... those pj's you like, i bought you five new pairs. love you. did you see the hockey game last night? [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. i'm here to unleash my inner cowboy. instead i got heartburn. [ horse neighs ] hold up partner. prilosec isn't for fast relief. try alka-seltzer. it kills heartburn fast. yeehaw! the key is to have a good strategy. the same goes for my retirement. with the plan my financial advisor and i put together, a quick check and i know my retirement is on course. [ male announcer ] with wells fargo a