angeles mayor antonio villaraigosa. >> that's why we're here today. because l.a. is not waiting on washington. i'm candy crowley, and this is "state of the union." on his way out of town friday, president obama called the two chairs of the super committee from air force one to tell them they needed to make a debt deal -- soon. that is not breaking news to panel members who have been spinning their wheels for nearly three months. >> we are not giving up hope until midnight on the 23rd. >> but wall street may have given up hope. according to cnbc, half of the investors polled by citigroup don't expect the committee to reach a deal in time. co-chair jeb hensarling joins me here in washington on his first sunday interview since being appointed to the committee. i want to show you one more poll here of people, do you expect that the committee will reach its goal? and this is a george washington university battleground poll and politico. yes, 21%. no, 69%. so, you going to get this done? >> well, candy, i think it is important to note that the committee has both a goal and a duty and in many respects the duty is more important than the goal. the duty is to put forth legislation that actually addresses our long-term structural debt. the president himself has said that the drivers of our debt are medica medicare, medicaid and health care. nothing else comes close. so to me what we really have to focus on is that duty, and that is to find programs -- find a way to reform medicare and medicaid and our health care programs to get good retirement security and health security for our seniors at a cost that doesn't bankrupt or children. >> you want structural change in those programs. >> frankly, if we don't find structural change, we will fail in our duty. now let me focus on our goal. we have a goal of reaching $1.5 trillion of deficit reduction over ten years, but it is important to note that if that goal, for some reason, we fail in that goal, under law, there is still a $1.2 trillion of deficit reduction that will take place, albeit -- >> there's lots of people trying to get around that saying it is too much, particularly the defense side, to do across the board cuts. >> it is not exactly across the board. frankly it affects disproportionately national defense in a way that even the secretary of defense says will hollow out the national defense. >> are you willing to do that. >> well, hear me out. what i'm willing to do is be committed to ensuring that at least america gets that $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction that congress would have 13 months to do it in a smarter fashion. but again what we have to focus on is that we have entitlement spending programs that are simultaneously disserving their beneficiaries are forms of rationing and driving the country bankrupt. and unless we deal with that, frankly, we will fail. >> but you can't -- you can't restructure social security, medicare, medicaid in ten days. you can't do it. people have been trying to restructure -- list the details of it. you may say, okay, committees, you restructure social security and get this much out of it. can you do that, you can give goals to committees but you can't restructure those things in ten days. >> well, candy, a number of plans have already been on the table. i mean republicans put forth a plan in our house budget -- which by the way would have reduced the deficit by almost $5 trillion over what the president was proposing. now democrats have rejected that plan. but there is a plan of legislative language that the congressional budget office says will actually strengthen and save medicare. well, democrats rejected that. so we have gone to the democrats and said, okay, if you don't like our plan, at least put a plan on the table. and if you don't, here's a bipartisan plan we would be willing to negotiate around, that is the riv lynn h demin chi medicare plan. details would have to be worked out, it would have to be through a two-step process. but this is a two-part plan, under head of the omb by president clinton, that would also include a provision for future seniors to stay in traditional fee-for-service medicare but use the power of patient choice and competition to save and strengthen the program. so we put that on the table as well. >> you do not sound like a man who believes you're going to get a deal in ten days. >> i wouldn't say that. listen, it's been a roller coaster ride. i will say this -- i respect my democrat colleagues. i have an excellent working relationship with senator patty murray. we haven't given up hope. but if this was easy, the president of the united states and the speaker of the house would have gotten it done themselves. >> what about the revenue side? i know there's now -- what's on the table inside that committee in terms of revenue from the republican side? be they tax increases -- first, give me that figure. like in terms of actual tax increases, which democrats have said, look, you got to put some skin here in the game. how much are you all -- how far are you all willing to go in terms of tax increases? >> first, candy, unfortunately it is not my skin. it is the skin of the american people. tax is already going up by me measurement, nominal terms, real terms as part of the president's health care plan, expiration of tax relief. and so we believe that, frankly, increasing tax revenues could hurt the economy but within the context of the bipartisan negotiation with democrats, clearly they are a reality. so we put a half a trillion dollars of revenues on the table. some of that fees. but 250 of it is what most people call static tax revenue. but that is in the context, candy, of bringing down marginal rates of tax reform, fundamental tax reform to make the tax code fair, simpler, more competitive to create jobs. so whatever damage would be done by $250 billion of new taxes, we think would be offset by a system that would help create jobs and as we're dealing with the debt crisis we don't want to make the jobs crisis even worse. so that's what has been put on the table. >> but it's something democrats have rejected, as you know, it's not enough, that it's just a token amount. it brings me back to this feeling that is widely felt, that this committee is not going to be able to do that. and the net result is going to be you're going to shake the world markets. a lot of people think there would be another downgrade in the u.s. creditworthiness from someone other than s&p which has already downgraded the u.s. credit. is that something this committee, a burden this committee is willing to take on if you don't reach an agreement? >> well, first, candy, i hope i'm never in washington to where i consider $250 billion the american people's money, a token. >> i'm sorry, as compared to the spending cuts, it's pretty token, you would have to admit. >> well, frankly, there are no real spending cuts on the table. let's make sure we are using the language like the american people do. all we are talking about here is slowing the rate of growth. all of these programs, by an large, are going to continue to grow, but at a pace that would become more sustainable. again as i said earlier, yes, we will fail unless we fundamentally do structural reform to what president obama himself has called the main drivers of our debt -- medicare, medicaid and health care. they cannot grow two, three, and four times the rate of the economy. so here's my point -- if at some point america doesn't take care of it, if we don't take care of it now, yes, we're on borrowed time. we're kicking the can down the road and that's why we should not confuse our duty to do structural reform that not only ensures that my parents -- my dad's 84, my mom's 79 -- that medicaid's preserved for them, but it is preserved for my children who are 8 and 9 years old. that is the challenge. >> but you are talking tax reform, you are talking structural changes in medicare, social security, medicaid. those are things that you will have to kick down the road in some sense. there's talk now that you're going to have some kind of fall-back position on the committee where you would agree to a revenue level, but then send it to these various committees, to the tax committees, rewrite the tax code with these tack already things in mind. is that a possibility? >> candy, indeed, yes, there could be a two-step process that would hopefully give us pro-growth tax reform, which by the way, every other bipartisan effort that has said that some revenues have to be raised in this method. that is again broaden the base. historically this is how we both produce jobs and more revenues for the government. so republicans, we want more revenues, we just want to raise it by growing the economy. second of all, again, unless you actually solve the problem, let's not kick the can down the road. let's solve the problem. and if democrats don't like the plan that we had in our house republican budget, why don't we gather around a bipartisan plan and negotiate around the rivlin-domenici plan and not impose forms of rationing we're starting to see on our seniors now through the independent payment advisory board that president obama put in his health care bill. >> thank you for coming in. up next, two senators who urged the super committee to "go big" if their deficit reduction agreement. when you have diabetes... your doctor will say get smart about your weight. that's why there's new glucerna hunger smart shakes. they have carb steady, with carbs that digest slowly to help minimize blood sugar spikes. [ male announcer ] new glucerna hunger smart. a smart way to help manage hunger and diabetes. that is better than today. since 1894, ameriprise financial has been working hard for their clients' futures. never taking a bailout. helping generations achieve dreams. buy homes. put their kids through college. retire how they want to. ameriprise. the strength of america's largest financial planning company. the heart of 10,000 advisors working with you, one-to-one. together, for your future. ♪ i want healthy skin for life. [ female announcer ] don't just moisturize, improve the health of your skin with aveeno daily moisturizing lotion. the natural oatmeal formula goes beyond 24-hour moisture. it's clinically proven to improve your skin's health in one day, with significant improvement in 2 weeks. for healthy, beautiful skin that lasts. i found a moisturizer for life. [ female announcer ] aveeno daily moisturizing lotion. and for healthy, beautiful hair, try nourish plus haircare. only from aveeno. joining me from his home state of oklahoma, republican senator tom coburn. and here in washington, democratic senator mark warner of virginia. both are members of the gang of six. gentlemen, thank you both. first to you, senator coburn. that gang of six actually seemed to get along fairly well. we always thought they looked kind of close to some kind of debt reduction, the gang of six, three republicans, three democrats in the senate, looking for a debt solution. with that in mind, can you look at what's going on in the super committee and tell me what your level of confidence is that they're going to get something done where you all couldn't quite get it done? >> oh, i think they will. i think as the time pressure builds and they get towards a deadline, i think they'll get something done. the question is will they do enough if they only do the $1.2 trillion, we're going to have to start over as soon as that's passed and find another $3 trillion or $4 trillion just to buy us years to work out our problems. >> senator warner, if my memory is correct, i believe senator coburn had like an $8 trillion package where he thought he could reduce $8 trillion. what is your level of confidence here that they're going to get something done? i didn't think congressman hensarling sounded at all optimistic. >> listen, i'm hopeful. we're trying to root them on. we've got 45 senators now. tom and i have helped organize this group, bipartisan senators, 100 members of the house saying if they will step up and be bold, we got their back, we'll try to give them that cover. as tom has indicated, we really need to be shooting for more like a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. if there's one thing we've seen from the last few months in europe, it is when you take these incremental steps, the market comes back and burns you time and again. at some point we're going to have to face that same kind of abyss that the greeks face, now the italians are facing and i believe we need to get ahead of it. frankly, if the super committee doesn't come up with a result, i go back to our gang of six. that had $4 trillion of deficit reduction. it had balance. maybe that ought to get a vote if the super committee can't produce. >> after a committee produces a product, of course the entire senate and entire house has to pass it. i want to play you something grover norquist, a very influence republican, he passed around a so-called no tax increase pledge on capitol hill which got quite a bit of republican takers. here's something he had to say last sunday. >> there's not going to be a tax increase. part of the reason is the democrats have decided they're going to blow this process up in order to blame the republicans for nothing happening. >> so let me ask you first, senator coburn. norquist says flatly there is not going to be a tax increase. in your opinion, can there be a deal if there's no tax increase anywhere? >> well, i go back to what chairman bernanke said. we're not going to have the big deficits in the future because people aren't going to loan us the money. if there were 60 tom coburns in the senate there wouldn't be a tax increase. but to get where we need to be as a country, there's going to be required some compromise. you can call something a tax increase or call it a revenue increase. most of us would rather see revenue increases by reforming the tax code. but i tell you, there's just as much pressure on the other side when you see the commercials on television from aarp saying you can't touch medicare. well, i want to tell you, we're going to touch medicare because there's no way we can borrow the money five years from now to run medicare the way it is today. so the question really is, will politicians do what is best for the country or best for their party and their position? and hopefully we'll start looking to do what is best for our country. >> senator warner, we have heard a lot about this from both sides lately. we've had the president suggest republicans totally don't want an agreement, they want do what's best for this country. they're only interested in politic and defeating him. we have norquist here saying, listen, democrats have decided they're going to blow this process up so that the republicans can be blamed. we're certainly in an election cycle but isn't that what really is holding this up, is everybody trying to get a political advantage? >> well, i do think there's a lot of back-and-forth. that's why tom and i and the group of us who spent a year working on this, we decided to check our republican and democratic hats and put our country first and we had to make those kind of compromises. i think that's what the vast majority of americans want us to get. there's going to need to be revenues i believe through tax reform. there needs to be entitlement reform so there is really a medicare, medicaid, social security program 20, 30, 40 years from now. that's going to take some changes. and what frustrates i think a lot of us is, we've got to be willing to probably make some folks mad on both ends of the political extreme and you'll know this super committee's getting close if you hear folks on both ends of the political extreme scream being the loudest because that will show that there's actually movement being made. >> senator coburn, i guess what frustrates so many americans when they look at this is that you and senator warner and your colleagues, for our colleagues, republicans and democrats on this committee, worked for a year-and-a-half and couldn't come up with anything. and yet i know you all got along -- >> we did come up with something, candy. i'll let tom answer this, but we had a product. >> but you had a product you couldn't sell. right? >> we had a product that we had 40 senators say we will support that. that's more than anything else that's been put out on the table. >> but you need 60, senator coburn, in the senate. >> well, i think the important thing is, had you put together what we had, 2.7 to 1 entitlement reform and spending reductions with revenue increases, that's the sweet spot that i think you could move people in the house and the senate to. the question is, will you do what's best for the country. you know, candy, we have $30 billion a year in indirect payments, credits, subsidies and government programs for people that are grossing $1 million or more a year. we ought to be getting rid of that. that's $300 billion over the next ten years. why wouldn't we do that? most people can come together and do that so the question comes, what is the motive? you alluded to it. is it political or is it the country? the fact is, if you go back and look two years ago at what they were writing about greece, it is exactly what they're writing about us today. and if in fact we don't make these very difficult decisions that calls on every american to come and contribute to solving the problem, then we're going to be in very serious trouble and it will come very quickly. we can fix our problems but we require leadership from the president and the leaders of the house and the senate and saying we're going to do this and we have not seen that, on both sides of the aisle. that's what's so disappointing. >> picking up on what senator coburn just said, this is from alice rivlin, who as you know, former cbo but was also on the national commission on fiscal responsibility. she's said in the "new york times" wednesday, "i fear the president is missing a huge opportunity for leadership at a crucial moment. president could greatly enhance the chances of such a bargain by getting visibly involved. it is not only the right thing to do, it is his only chance of getting his jobs program. has the president -- we have not seen the president a's fingerprints at all on the debt commission, not much on his jobs program, though he's been out campaigning. he's now with ten days left gone overseas to attend to his commander in chief duties and leader of the free world and all of that, but should he be more involved? >> i think we saw the president and the speaker try to weigh in at the end of the debt debacle in early august. it didn't end up producing a result. >> right. >> and we saw the president come forward saying he would support the gang of six. i do think with this president, whatever he comes up with, there's going to be a series of folks that will reject that categorically just out of hand. so we've tried this congressional process. i think we need to let that play itself out. we want to be there to support it. we want that super committee to be successful but if they're not successful we think that the simpson-bowles approach, that ought to get a vote as well. >> senator warner, senator coburn, i have to end it here but thank you both so much for coming in. two debates in the span of just four days. how did the republican presidential candidates fare? we will ask a key party official, the rnc chairman, next. they offer me one-on-one guidance to help me choose my investments. not just with my savings plan here at work. they help me with all of my financial goals. looking good, irene. thanks to fidelity, i can stay on top of my financial future, huh? good one. why, thank you. whether it's saving for retirement, college, or anything else, contact a fidelity investment professional today. [ male announcer