democrat. then never too late to talk vp stakes in election 2012. with dana dash and jeff zeleny "the new york times." i'm candy crowley, and this is "state of the union." a new cnn/orc poll shows president obama's job approval rating is over 50% for the first time since last june, but americans are worried about rising gas prices, and in an election year, when americans worry, politicians act. the president wants congress to end tax breaks for big oil. >> it's time they got by without more help from taxpayers, who are already having a tough enough time paying the bills and filling up their gas tank. >> it will never get by congressional republicans. joining me now from louisville, kentucky, senate republican leader mitch mcconnell. thank you for joining us. senator, i want to talk to you about gas prices. i know that you have suggested that this seems like a weird political move for the president to be making, that you don't think it will be popular. and i want to show our viewers a recent cnn/orc poll, and it's about who do you blame for these gas prices? oil companies, 55%, foreign countries 34%, the situation in iran 28%. here's what i want to ask you about. president obama's policies, 24% blame him for the rising gas prices. but 21%, just 3% fewer, blame republicans. this does not look like a clear-cut case of a political blunder. a lot of people blame republicans. >> well, why don't we just look at the facts, regardless of how polls reflect what people feel about the oil industry, which is not at all surprising. the congressional research service, which is not a polling operation, but analyzes objectively legislation, says if you raise taxes on oil production, the price of the gas at the pump goes even higher. so, this is an absurd suggestion when you've got $4 gasoline. what the president ought to be doing is approving the keystone pipeline. this is this massive private sector project that will bring energy down from our friendly neighbor, canada, to the united states. he's blocking it. what he ought to do is increase public production down here. land within the federal jurisdiction, the production is down 14%. he points, however, to increased production that he had nothing to do with. it's up 96% on state-owned land and private land. the president simply is standing in the way of increasing domestic production. the american people know that it's absurd for the most energy-rich country in the world to be locking up such a huge percentage of its resources. >> but, senator, just in terms of the fairness issue, which, as you know, is very important to americans and to politicians, one hopes, the oil companies are making record profits, and yet taxpayers are paying for these loopholes for oil companies, which are basically tax breaks. so just on the face of it, sir, it certainly does seem to a lot of americans that people who are making record profits shouldn't be taking taxes that we're paying on april 15th to get their tax breaks. >> well, you know, in all due respect, you're using the democratic talking points, and it's all quite interesting -- >> i used the republican ones for a democrat. so -- >> all right. all right. let me make the point again in case anybody missed it. the issue is the price of gas at the pump. if you raise taxes on the producers of gasoline, you drive the prices even higher. does anyone think we need higher gas prices when they're already at $4 a gallon? i mean, this is not the way to lower the price of gas at the pump. this is not so much about a diversion, about discussion of fairness. we do need to reform the whole tax code. we're in favor of that. it's been 25 years since we actually reformed the tax code. as of today, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. as of april 1st, the highest corporate tax rate in the world. some people may think, gee, that's great. all that does is make our companies uncompetitive. and even the president himself has said we need to get a corporate tax rate down. at the same time, he's trying to selectively raise taxes on some corporations, and to do that would drive the price of gas at the pump even higher. this is a terrible idea. >> let me move you to the economy in general and something that you said to me at the end of january when we last spoke. >> candy, there's no mistaking we are living in the obama economy. >> the obama economy, to an increasing number of americans, is looking pretty good. gdp is up, gross domestic product is up, unemployment is down, the housing still remains a problem, but we've seen record activity on wall street. as we move into september, does this not make it a lot more difficult for you-all to run on obama-nomics or whatever you want to call it? doesn't it make it difficult for republicans to say the economy is not working, when, in fact, it does seem to be at this point? >> i certainly hope we are seeing signs of recovery. we see a modest recovery apparently under way. what we do have is 8.3% unemployment. what we have is an increase in the national debt of 43% under this president. our national debt is the size of our economy. that is not a prescription for a healthy economy long term. almost no one is predicting that we're going to get back to what most americans consider sort of normal unemployment rate of around 5.5% any time in the foreseeable future. so, yes, we're encouraged by the fact that the economy seems to be gaining some momentum. >> and we're not on the cliff anymore, correct? i mean, we're not on the cliff that everyone thought we were on. >> is that good enough? we're used to having a vibrant, robust economy. more and more businesses tell me this is not any longer the best place in the world to do business. we're driving jobs overseas because of too much government, too much taxation, regulation. look, this is not an administration that is friendly to those people who create jobs and make the economy grow for all of us. so, yeah, i think the economy is still going to be an issue in the fall. we're certainly pleased that there's some signs of growth. >> let me ask you what you think of mitt romney. >> i think he's going to be an excellent candidate, and i think the chances are overwhelming that he will be our nominee. it seems to me that we're in the final phases of wrapping up this nomination. most of the members of the senate republican conference are either supporting him, or they have the view that i do, that it's time to turn our attention to the fall campaign and begin to make the case against the president of the united states. >> so why not endorse him? >> look, the people of wisconsin are going to speak tuesday and the district of columbia and maryland. i have not felt they needed any advice from me as to what to do, but i think it's absolutely apparent that it's in the best interests of our party at this particular point to get behind the person who is obviously going to be our nominee and to begin to make the case against the president of the united states. >> but wouldn't the endorsement of the republican leader in the senate move you toward your goal, which is it's time to make our case against the president and wrap up this primary? i guess that's why i'm a little confused. >> you know, the kentucky primary is in late may. i'm not sure the voters of wisconsin or the district of maryland need any advice from me, but it is clear that we are moving toward having a nominee. i think he will be an outstanding nominee. i think he can win the election. >> and let me ask you one final thing by playing something that congressman paul ryan had to say about the military and their budget proposal. >> we don't think the generals are giving us their true advice. we don't think the generals believe that their budget is really the right budget. >> do you agree with the congressman? >> i think we have to take the generals' word as they give it to us. there has clearly been dissent within the pentagon about the administration's recommendations for steep defense cuts. i know there's been a big debate within the pentagon. we hear about it. we're aware of it. we're going to move in the direction of making sure that america still is number one in the world in defense, and the defense sequester, which i expect congressman ryan was referring to, is something that many of us are looking at as something that could put us in a position to no longer be number one. >> okay. senate republican leader mitch mcconnell, thank you for your time this morning. >> thank you. congressman paul ryan says his budget plan will bring down the nation's debt, but it also could give democrats ammunition in the fall. >> he sold it to all of his republican colleagues by telling them there's a new way to talk about what they're going to do without getting hurt politically. the american people, though, especially us, where we are in our lives, we're not about to be fooled. i think -- i have more faith in the american people than i think our republican colleagues do. 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. joining me now from his home state of wisconsin is congressman paul ryan. good morning, congressman. since you are there and you have just recently endorsed mitt romney, what's going to happen in the primary tuesday night? >> i think he's going to win wisconsin. he's taking nothing for granted. he's barnstorming the state. did town hall meetings yesterday, doing town hall meetings today and the next couple of days. i feel pretty good about it. it's always a close race here in wisconsin, whether it's the general election or the primary election. >> if mitt romney beats rick santorum, his primary rival right now in wisconsin, he won't have the requisite numbers of 1,144 delegates, but is it, for all intents and purposes, over if wisconsin goes for romney? >> i think so. i think rick would need something like 82% of the rest of the delegates. that's just not going to happen. if mitt wins wisconsin, and they also have maryland and d.c. the same day, if he gets a big delegate count, which i think he'll get, we believe as conservatives we should coalesce around our nominee and focus on the task at hand, which is the fall election, and not drag this thing out, which becomes counterproductive. >> let me talk to you about -- you know, this is now the time we all join in our favorite parlor game and talk about the number two on a romney ticket should he, in fact, clinch this down the line. i know you said, of course, you would listen to an offer or any kind of discussion about it, but let me ask you more generally. usually, the number two on the ticket helps balance out the number one. it sort of fills in the gaps. what kind of number two do you think mitt romney needs? what does he need balancing out for? or of? >> whatever he thinks helps him win the fall and helps him govern afterwards. >> what do you think helps him win the fall? >> honestly, i don't know if it's the geography thing. there are a lot of conventional wisdom. what i think matters is, is he putting together the right kind of team to take the right kind of referenda to the country, to offer the country the choice of two futures, and is he getting somebody who's ready for the job and can help him govern and deliver upon the reforms in which he's going to campaign on this fall? i have no clue who that's going to be, who that person is and where they come from. i don't see the point of speculating on all of that. we have jobs to do where we are. i have jobs to do as a budget chairperson. i'm focused on that. let's get this primary taking care of. then everybody can worry and speculate on the rest of this. >> would you for instance -- let me try one more time. would you, for instance, go for someone who is seen as a little more working class. we know that, when president obama was a candidate and he was selecting a number two, they felt there was a certain kind of -- he seemed a bit removed from people. they wanted someone who really spoke to blue collar workers. does mitt romney need that as well in the number two? >> i'm really not the political pundit type, candy. i'm very much of a policy person. i'm focused on doing my job. it's just not my forte to get in that speculation. i'm busy trying to do my job. right now my job is congressman for the first congressional district in wisconsin and his budget chairperson trying to prevent a debt crisis from sinking our economy and destroying our children's future. that's what i'm focused on. i'm really not the right guy to ask about those things. >> let me talk to you about something you are an expert on, and that is the budget process and the budget. you unveiled -- republicans unveiled this budget. i want to speak to you about something that congressman steven osarette, i know you know him, he's a republican from ohio. here's what he said about the budget process. "i'm tired of passing bills in the house, watching them die in the senate, and pretending that counts as success. americans want us to work together like adults, pass a budget with bipartisan support in both houses, and have it signed into law. a partisan budget is not the way to go." a partisan budget would be your budget, as he describes it. why did you put out a budget that surely you knew would only pass with republican voters in the house and would never pass muster in the senate? >> it's not going to pass much in the senate because the senate is not going to budget. harry reid already announced, before we brought our budget out, he's not going to do a budget this year like he hasn't done the last two years. he hasn't passed a budget in 1,000 days even though the budget law says we have to do it every year. >> but why not put something out that democrats can grab onto? >> well, we think we did put things in here we thought they could grab on to. the medicare reforms and tax reforms grabs the bipartisan consensus that democrats in the past have gravitated toward. what we're showing in the budget is we believe the seeds of a bipartisan compromise are there in this budget. the problem we have, candy, are the democratic leaders -- senator reid, president obama -- they're not part of this consensus. they're out in left field, not being part of this dialogue, which is occurring between republicans and democrats. my point is we need new leadership. new leadership in the senate and in the white house to realize this emerging bipartisan consensus and how best to preempt a debt crisis which will sink our economy and destroy our children's future. so we're advancing these ideas. and the other point is we think we should lead with solutions. we think we should say, if there's a problem coming like a debt crisis, what is our specific plan for addressing this debt crisis? and dealing with the drivers of our debt. i love steve latourette, i'm a big fan of erskine bowles and alan simpson, but that budget didn't deal with our debt. it didn't deal with medicare and medicaid, and as a result, we still have a debt crisis. i think we should put solutions that actually fix the problem and that's what our budget tends to do. >> you also, in the middle of the unveiling of the budget, criticized the military, essentially kind of accused them of lying about what they really needed. you wanted to put more money into the military than what they said they needed. i want to read you what the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said in "the wall street journal," general martin dempsey. "there's a difference between having someone say they don't believe what you said versus calling us collectively liars. my response is i stand by my testimony. this was very much a strategy-driven process to which we mapped the budget." the military is a little offended by your words. >> i really misspoke, to be candid, candy. i didn't mean to make that kind of impression. i was clumsy in describing the point i was trying to make. the point i was trying to make -- and general dempsey and i spoke after that. i wanted to give that point to him, which is that's not what i was attempting to say. what i was attempting to say is president obama put out his budget number for the pentagon first, $500 million cut, and then they began the strategy review to meet that number. we think it should be the other way around, what is the best strategy for our military, so we have a strategy-driven budget? our review was we should cut $300 billion from the pentagon budget over the next ten years instead of the $500 billion. the difference, we believe, is getting savings and efficiency out of the pentagon versus hollowing out our military, short changing our navy and air force, stretching our guard and reserves too fast. we believe what we got from the white house is a budget-driven strategy, not a strategy-driven budget. i did not mean to impugn the u.s. military, and i apologized on that front. >> have you apologized to him? >> yeah, i called him to tell him that. >> and just as to state business. your governor, scott walker, is up for a recall because of some of the ideas that he put in in budgeting for the state of wisconsin. if he loses that recall, it will look very much, and certainly it will be translated as a repudiation of conservatism and efforts to cut the budget. would you buy into that analysis? >> i do. i think it's a momentum-causing event, one way or the other. i don't think scott's going to lose the recall, by the way, but it will cause the momentum here in wisconsin that you discussed. what will happen is politicians will no longer be courageous if this is what happens to them. they will no longer take on the drivers of their debt, the root cause of state or federal problems if this is what you get. what scott did is i'm going to reform the budget in structural ways if he got elected, then he got elected, then he did it. i talked to a school district superintendent the other day who saved $1.6 million just by allowing open bidding on health insurance instead of having the union plan, which was required, a monopoly plan in collective bargaining. she put new reforms in her school district that gets teachers in the classroom and reforms education systems. i think as people in wisconsin realize these reforms are working really well, i think he's going to be vindicated. >> we'll talk to you again in june after the recall vote. thank you so much, congressman ryan, appreciate your time. secretary of state hillary clinton says this is an urgent moment for syria. >> the travel bans, the visa bans, the kind of direct, personal sanctions are beginning to really wake people up. whwheeee! ! whwheeee!! whwheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! ahah h heaeadsds u up. whwheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! evevererytythihingng y youou l , nonow w momobibilele.. dodownwnloloadad t thehe n nep totodaday.y. twenty-five thousand mornings, give or take, is all we humans get. we spend them on treadmills. we spend them in traffic. and if we get lucky, really lucky, it dawns on us to go spend them in a world where a simple sunrise can still be magic. twenty-five thousand mornings. make sure some of them are pure michigan. your trip begins at michigan.org. secretary of state hillary clinton spoke with jill dougherty about what is being done to ratchet up the pressure on the al assad regime. >> we hear a lot from the inside that these sanctions are happening in a timely watch the reserves of the country are being drawn down, marketplaces are not as full of goodz as they once were. this does take time. we are well aware time is being by, people are being killed, absolutely horrific what is happening but the istanbul meeting today was quite consequential in terms of the outcomes. really increasing the enforcement of sanctions is one of the best. >> ahead, i will