put forward by a bipartisan senate group named the gang of six. most liberals don't like the gang of six approach because it would make cuts to social security and medicare. >> we are an anti-gang group. we are -- we're trying to suppress the growth of gangs. we think that it is not healthy for washington. most conservatives complain it doesn't cut spending enough and raises taxes too much. >> the gang of six is a five pages of sort of talking points. it's not an actual plan. >> but the president sees it as a framework for a potential -- potential -- breakthrough and perhaps because they like the other fallback options even less, the house republican leadership says it's at least worth talking about. let's begin with what happened tonight behind closed doors and how the new senate plan is changing the discussion. our chief white house correspondent jessica yellin and kate bald win are live at their posts and chrystia freeland, and the meeting with the republicans which is the most important meeting just broke up. what do we know about what's happening behind/c closed door there at the white house? >> reporter: publicly the republicans can't talk about anything else except what they're dealing with, the cap, cut and balance proposal, but the idea is how do they get moved forward, john, and they don't want to openly talk about this fallback option, the reid/mcconnell plan, because there aren't the votes for it in their party. the other proposal, the other notion that's sort of out there is an idea of taking something gang of six-like, building a ga framework that has kind of targets and cuts, caps, and spending principles in it that's pretty -- it's sort of outlined but not detailed in legislation and has a big, big dollar figure around it. so, sort of the big plan. passing that along with a debt ceiling as sort of a big theory option instead of this mcconnell/reid plan, but it's so vague, as you can tell, and nothing that i have as any sort of firm plan, just, like, something that's sort of out there in the ether, they just don't have a plan at this point, no one does, john. >> it sounds like, and some people at home are saying, my god, there they go into washington speak again. i'll try to simply phi it. they are trying to fit certain pieces together to get you to several trillion in deficit reduction and that seems to be where we are, a bunch ideas. i'll go over to the wall a little bit, because jess talks about the mcconnell plan, that would give the president the authority to raise the debt ceiling and maybe they would come up with a commission with spending cuts. that's one backup plan. another backup plan is the gang of six. and i want to bring up the gang of six yesterday we talked about that. they have some significant spending cuts. they include a trillion dollars in new tax revenues. they would make social security cuts, defense cutséçz%ñ and the, but everybody has objections. on the liberal side, kate, they say touch the social security, changes to cost of living in social security, liberals would like more taxes and they don't like the medicare and medicaid changes and they think it cuts too much out of corporate taxes. that's why liberals don't like it. and conservatives said, paul ryan said not enough details. it's just a framework. they don't like the tax hikes. they don't think it has enough spending controls on entitlements, they don't think it does significant reforms to medicare and medicaid and the list goes on, they don't like the defense cuts and they don't think it slows government growth enough. so, kate, yesterday it seemed to be maybe some momentum here. today are people saying, oh, never mind? >> reporter: it seems that the momentum, it seems the gang of six themselves, they are definitely trying to push to gain more momentum, but we noticed a marked shift today, and i guess the enthusiasm surrounding it, it seems as you just laid out very well, there is stuff for people on the left that they don't like about it, stuff for people on the right that they don't like about it, and i'm hearing more frustration among especially senators i've heard this evening, john, people saying if this is not going to be a solution to our debt ceiling problem, because it's simply as a package not going to be ready in time to vote on it ahead of this deadline, then why bring it forward now? it seems to be muddying the water and frustrating people more than working towards a solution. so, there was great enthusiasm yesterday especially among senators. there were some briefings today trying to get more people on board it seems and answering the questions that are out there, but it seems there are now more questions than answers in terms of the detail and the nitty-gritty of what is in this gang of six proposal, and i'm starting to see, me and my colleagues up here, the enthusiasm seems to be fading towards this proposal at this point. >> and so, chrystia freeland, help us understand the big picture here. a lot of people get nervous, well, the markets will get jittery, they see washington without a plan and the deadline less than two weeks away. but sometimes the chaos and confusion in washington is, i don't quite understand it,ive been here more than two decades, necessary before you get the clarity. is that where we're going or do you see it moving apart, not together? >> well, let me offer you the market perspective. i think the market perspective, john, is what the markets really want is just for the debt ceiling to be raised. at this point with august 2nd really very close, the markets i think care less about what the content of the deal is and they care more about there just being some sort of a deal. i think it's very important to appreciate from a market perspective, this is an own-goal situation. there's no external force driving this crisis. this is a "made in washington" crisis, and particular for america's foreign creditors, and they're increasingly important. that just sort of it seems absurd to the world that america could tip the u.s. and the world economy into a crisis just because american politicians felt like it. >> and so, jess, let me go back to the white house, as this all plays out and people at home are watching, how does this affect me, some economists say higher interest rates, some economists say it could cause unemployment to go up if the united states defaults, there's a disagreement about it. there's a let's have a process conversation, the president has the meetings today and now what, the congress has to work out a deal or are they due at the white house sometime definitive definitively? >> reporter: they say they will continue to talk. but may i point out that the president himself set a deadline of july 22nd as the date that he'd like a negotiation to be clear. he'd like a deal to be done. and that's two days from now. so, the fact that they continue to have these vague discussions where they're not seemingly any closer to a deal at this late date when they're still grasping for a big plan, very frustrating to some people i've spoken to today, some senior lawmakers, who are saying this is the time when they should be cutting bait and saying we cannot go for the big deal. this is when we should just be making a deal to raise the debt ceiling and put off deficit reduction for another day. >> and, chrystia, do you predict if we go past the president's deadline we'll see more market volatility? the market has been pretty patient assuming we'll get a deal. will we see more volatility if we get to the end of the week and we still don't have one? >> i think the markets are going on what i should call the king philosophy of washington, which is there's a lot of sound and fury but at the end of the day they do reach a deal. i think what would scare the markets is if we started to hear more of what we were earlier in the month, which is some people saying, look, it's okay if we don't meet the deadline. some people saying, actually, you know, the debt ceiling stuff, it doesn't matter. it's just artificial, if we do hear that, i think you'll see a real market fear. >> we'll keep on top of it and see if we get any more inside information on the meetings at the white house. thank you all. >> let's continue the coverings the with a prominent conservative who is right at the center of the debt and deficit debate, if you think the republicans need to give some on taxes, you're not a fan of grover norquist, but if you believe the house republicans should reject the proposals with taxes included, he sees things your way. is the gang of six proposal a framework of deal for grover norquist tonight, can it be? >> no. as you've been saying, it's not even written down. it's an essay. it was deliberately dropped yesterday in order to distract people from what the house representatives actually passed which was a plan which was actually written down. the president doesn't like it, the democrats don't like it, it dropped $2.5 trillion in real spending restraint, called for a balanced budget amendment with two-thirds required to raise taxes. with very serious tax caps in the future. i don't expect the president and reid to like it, but the whole thing about dropping the gang of six nonplan, nonwritten-down plan on top of it was to distract from the fact that the house has actually put something on the table and the senate has nothing. >> okay. but the house plan says no new revenues. the president wants new receive you ins. the republicans control the house. they just won it in an election fair and square, the democrats narrowly control the senate, a democratic president, and jay carney said, look, we know you won the house, republicans, but we've got divided government, you've got to give. >> the republicans need to be willing to compromise, need to accept that they won't get 100% of what they want. if this is a two-party system in a divided government, and it requires compromise and bipartisan cooperation in order for big things to get done. the same is true for democrats. >> do republicans have to give the president to get something done or are you among those who say if we get to august 2nd and they don't have a beal, so be it? >> let's remember, republicans have always made it clear they're willing to compromise. the republicans passed a budget, the ryan roadmap, a real budget, and they fleshed it out through committees which reduces -- >> the president won't sign it, and they have to move off that. >> right. >> any revenues -- >> of course, not. the president knows that. he's known it for a year. >> what happens august 2nd if we don't have a deal? >> if the president is so wedded to his left-wing ideology if he won't take something less than the $6 trillion in spending restraint and do $2 trillion or $3 trillion in spending restrai restraint, he'd rather close down the government if he doesn't get his tax increases, if he would like to have a hissy fight, the republicans put $6 trillion of spending restraint on the table and he's put nothing in writing on the table to save spending all he wants to do is talk about tax increases, that's not going to fly. he's not going to close the government over that. >> the president he won't, i'm sure of this, but if the president were to call grover norquist and the government, then, is faced with the scenario, i want to bring up the choices here, the government is faced with a scenario, it only has so much money, $172 billion, and it has to pay bills, pick, what would you pick? what would your priorities be as the government? >> of course, that's exactly the position that the president's trying to put other people in -- >> you don't think we're in this position? is it important to pay social security recipients? >> yes. >> okay. let's do that. >> okay. >> what about medicare and medicaid? >> the answer -- look, the answer to each of these things is yes, which is why i'm a supporter of raising the debt ceiling -- it's a false dichotomy. >> give the president the power or do you need spending cuts to get it? if you only get this far out of the list and we're right there, we're out of money, veterans affairs, college tuition assistance, federal salaries, tax refunds, foreign aid, we don't have the money on august 3rd. how do we avoid that? >> what republicans have been trying to tell the president for six or seven months is they would like to have significant spending reduction and they're willing to give the president significant increase in the debt ceiling. leader boehner, speaker boehner in the house said you want $2.5 trillion because obama's overspent the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion over the next year and half, if you want the $2.5 trillion increase we need the decrease over the next decade. >> if the president said i won't give it to you without new revenues, you say the house republicans should hold firm even if we get to this scenario? >> the president of the united states i do not believe is so irresponsible that he's so wedded to this idea that he wants to raise taxes on people that he's going to close down the government and while he's overspent -- i mean, the reason we're dealing with this august 2nd is he spent $800 billion on the stimulus package that failed. he added a trillion dollars to domestic discretionary spending, he tripled the number of troops in afghanistan -- >> the question, we need to close it, going into the next week or so, who blinks if everyone? >> there will be a compromise. the president will get less money than he wanted and the republicans will get fewer cuts than they wanted, but they're not ra raising anyone's taxes. and hillary clinton speaks before indian. and michele bachmann's migraines, will she be able to silence critics about her ability to be commander in chief? and smarter so you can get back to playing "angry birds." it lets you access business forms on the go, fire off e-mails with the qwerty keypad, and work securely around the world so you can get back to playing "angry birds." it's the android-powered phone that mixes business with pleasure. so let's get our work done, america, so we can all get back to playing "angry birds." the motorola expert from sprint. trouble hearing on the phone? visit sprintrelay.com. minnesota congresswoman and republican presidential candidate mishachele bachmann described more about her migraines. the letter said detailed lab work and brain scans all were normal and that letter went on to say, quote, your migraines occur infrequently and have known trigger factors of which you are aware and know how to avoid. when you do have a migraine, you are able to control it using two commonly prescribed medications. last night dr. sanjay gupta told us those medications in most cases are highly successful. >> but when i talk about treatment, it can be treated very easily, you know, miss bachmann said that 30 million people roughly in the country have these migraine headaches, it's right, and neurologists have gotten a handle on it if patients seek out treatments. >> has the congresswoman proven wrong the former aides that released the history and behind the cloak of anonymity suggesting that he cannot handle the stress of the presidency? jeff, i said anonymity twice because i think it's reprehensible, if you challenge somebody's fitness to serve you should stand up and do it publicly. but despite the way it was done, it's a legitimate question, if she has a condition in the past that caused her to miss votes, has she ended the discussion by releasing the letter and this new information? >> it seems to me she's ended the discussion, but the bigger question is how many more things like this are out there. she has a lot of former advisers and a lot of former aides. it's been widely reported and well discussed that she's had a lot of turnover in her congressional office, so clearly there are people who have worked for her in the past, who are not eager to see her have a successful presidential bid, so it seems to me that this episode is over. but going forward, i mean, i've seen her out there on the campaign a lot. she has a lot of energy. on the fourth of july i was at a parade with her. she was running so fast, photographers were having a hard time keeping up. so, i would think that this would have settled the matter. more interestingly is how her rivals responded to this today. >> let's listen to some of that, let's listen to the contrast here. i would ask the control room to listen to me so we get the order right. first the former massachusetts governor, two former governors, that's why i'm saying like this, but former massachusetts governor, mitt romney, he was asked about it, he was pretty straightforward. >> there's no question in my mind that michele bachmann's health is in no way an impediment to her serving as president. she and i have different views on issues and we'll campaign in various states and express our views, but her health should not be an issue in a campaign. i have no question in my mind. >> governor romney there. here's the somewhat different take, a little less declarative sense from the former minnesota governor tim pawlenty, my language, forgive, if mishawl bachman bachm michele bachmann is causing anyone else a headache, it would be governor pawlenty in iowa. >> i don't have enough facts to comment on it, and i would certainly defer to the judgment of the medical professional. but setting that aside, all of the candidates i think are going to have to be able to demonstrate they can do all of the job all of the time. >> what does that mean? >> if you are going to be president of the united states, you got to be able to do the job every day, all the time. there's no real time off in that job. >> i don't know the facts and i'm not going to comment, but i just commented on it. and it's very clear as you point out that tim pawlenty is very threatened by michele bachmann and i think it was a very ungracious comment for him to make about her. if as he said he doesn't know any of the facts of her migraines, why would you say something like that? unfit to serve. challenge her on the issue. challenge her on her positions. challenge her on her votes in the house, whatever. >> and yet in there, jeff, governor pawlenty makes the legitimate point, it's why a legitimate issue despite the way it was leaked, if you want to be president and get the nuclear football, you have to prove you're fit to serve and in good health. normally this comes up when somebody is closer to the nomination, you know, or when they're the nominee, they traditionally it's in your newspaper they go to the medical correspondent of "the new york times" and it's on the front page of the paper and everybody follows the coverage, they release the records, and are we in a different world, because michele bachmann if she were going this way in the polls instead of this way, i doubt it would have happened, but in the age of instant media, are candidates facing the questions a little bit earlier? >> i think they are. because the stakes are higher in the campaign. it's only july, but as you said, some of these republican rivals are shocked and surprised and frankly trying to do everything they can to compete with the congresswoman. but i mean, who knows who leaked this. who knows what their motives were. but, i mean, i think it's -- i agree with gloria that the comments from governor pawlenty were probably not as gracious as they should have been. but it fits into a narrative of what he's been trying to build in iowa. >> right. >> it sounds very similar to what he said last week and the week before when i was out with him when he's saying he's really trying to get people to focus on who has more experience for the job. so, i don't know if he'll be saying that a lot more. i would think he wouldn't. >> and the key for the congresswoman is whether you think this is a legitimate issue or not wh