Plus, the future of the Republican Party is a hot topic as both sides start plotting the 2016 campaign. Our political roundtable features two former capitol hill insiders, Newt Gingrich and lawrence odonnell. Plus, three journalists on the story. The looming fiscal cliff 22 days away. Is it stalemate or compromise . Well go inside the negotiations with two top leaders in just a moment, but i want to start with the ongoing crisis in syria where the Assad Government is engaged in a brutal cracktown on its own people. And this week something significant happened. The president signalled a big potential shift in u. S. Involvement there. Heres what he said. I want to make it absolutely clear to assad and those under his command, the world is watching. The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences, and you will be held accountable. Nbc chief Foreign CorrespondentRichard Engel is in syria to bring us the very latest on what is of course a developing story. Richard . Reporter david, despite increasing criticism and warnings, the government of Bashir Al Assad is revving up the campaign against the opposition. This area was bombed last night. Regarding chemical weapons, commanders we have spoken to are very concerned that the government could use chemical weapons. They are completely not prepared for that eventuality. They dont have gas masks. They dont have medicine. Theres no Early Warning system here. They have appealed for some kind of training, but so far on the ground there is nothing that could protect them from any kind of deadly chemical weapon that could be used. They are also, rebel commanders we have spoken to, not very encouraged by what they are hearing from president obama. They dont think that these kind of warnings of unspecified consequences will make any difference on the ground. They say the white house and president obama has warned the government not to attack civilians, yet civilians have been attacked. They have warned the Syrian Government not to use disproportionate force, yet clearly disproportionate force has been and is being used in this conflict 21 months on, 40,000plus dead. Now, in terms of what will happen next, its hard to know on the ground here. The rebels are clearly making advances. The north of this country feels like an independent state. Aside from attacking from the air, there are not any syrian troops in this area at all, but the rebels still dont have enough power to deliver a knockout blow. Most of the fighting is focused on the two big cities, aleppo and damascus. But as of now, they havent been able to take either one of them. David . Richard engel, thank you very much. For more on this developing story, i want to go to the atlantics jeffrey goldberg, also a columnist for bloomberg view, and helene cooper. Welcome to both of you. Jeffrey, you covered this region extensively and have for years. You heard what the president has said and what richard has said. Why this red line . Something the United States never did in iraq, for instance, when hussein used chemical weapons, but were doing it here. Big shift maybe . Well, only if you believe that its really a red line. Syrian opposition is probably correct to doubt whether the administration would do something if they use chemical weapons on their people. After all, they have been killing thousands of people every month, the Assad Government, using regular old conventional weapons. So its not entirely clear to me that this would trigger an automatic response. There is no real Obama Doctrine here except for passivity, im afraid to say. Helene, if we do get assad out, the United States, other allies, what then . Well, thats the big thats part of the reason why the Obama Administration has done in the views of many so little toward getting president assad out, and thats because they are just really afraid. Syria looks syria would be so much worse. You saw the breakup of iraq after the United States invasion in 2003. Syria would be that times 10. And theres a lot of worry about what are you going to do with that . You have a worry about the slaughter of the allies in the mountains. You have to worry about just this whole breakup and who would govern this region that is so, so this country that is so critical for the whole region. But i do think, though, that chemical weapons would be sort of that i think for the Obama Administration, thats a line that they would have trouble defending their passivity so far if assad crossed. Thats a hard one. Its hard for me to imagine them not doing anything. But given that they havent really done very much over the past 21 months, and they havent done very much at all, its not implausible that they would not do the claritive thing of invading or stopping the use of chemical weapons. Its very little solace that now they are being bombed with chemical weapons, president obama will do something on their behalf. And its also the understanding that president obama wont do anything before the red line. So the Syrian Government can keep on murdering its people using conventional weapons and theyll get away with it. Obama just said im not going to invade or do anything. I do want to touch on egypt as well, which has had significant developments, and also begs the question of what the government is prepared to do with morsi in egypt. Tougher one. Morsi has seemingly backed down from his absolutist stance, but he is getting what he wants. And, you know, all this begs the question, you know, is morsi really just mubarak with a beard . And is the administration getting into bed with the guy they are going to regret getting into bed with later . That said, you know, the opposition is fractured, and these guys, the muslim brotherhood, have played a positive role in the last israelihamas war. So the administration is really flummoxed by this a little bit. Certainly its an issue that i think the administration has been spending a lot of time on, and will be in the second term. Helene, well see you in a few minutes with the roundtable. Jeffrey, thank you so much. Joining me now, assistant majority leader dick durbin of illinois, and California Republican congressman kevin mccarthy. Welcome to you both. Ill get to some of the Foreign Policy questions later, but i want to talk about whats been top of mind for both of you, and that is the fiscal cliff deadline that congress faces. The reality is, if you hear it from the outside, these public statements from both sides, it doesnt sound very good. Heres Speaker Boehner and the president talking at the end of the week. When it comes to the fiscal cliff, this threatening of our economy and threatening jobs, the white house has wasted another week. The president has adopted a deliberate strategy to slow walk our economy right to the edge of the fiscal cliff. Were going to have to see the rates on the top 2 go up. And were not going to be able to get a deal without it. So heres my sense, congressman mccarthy. Why in the minds of republicans arent they processing it this way . Look, president , well give you what you want on rates. Let them go up. But we have to get something in return. Big cuts in the Medicare Program, and were willing to make a deal. Is that essentially the thinking of Speaker Boehner at this point . The president wants the rates to go up, that doesnt solve the problem and we dont want to be back here in another year or 10 years answering the same question. But right after the election, we sent a plan to the president where we gave revenues but looking for spending cuts. And he took three weeks to come back to us. He has gone on still on the campaign trail, still working through. But you have to understand, republicans have not waited to solve this problem and sat back. In the summer, we passed a bill that froze the rates, and passed it. It sat in the senate. We believe we want to solve this problem. We think this is our moment. This is our time. Is the moment does it come down to this, where you would say, look, well give you higher marginal tax rates if we get something significant on spending, medicare, in return . It doesnt solve the problem. If the president is asking for higher ratings, he is asking for more revenue. Most economists agree the best way to get that is through closing special loopholes. And when you close those, it makes a fair tax process. So people invest on the return, not invest based upon what the irs says. Senator durbin, the opening position, as i sort of gleaned it from being on capitol hill and reporting this week, is what i just said. Do you see it that way . I can tell you that congressman mccarthy is going to struggle with the numbers just as mitt romney did in the debates. They dont add up. If you dont increase tax rates on the highest 2 of income earners you cannot generate enough revenue to have meaningful deficit reduction. And unfortunately, the changes in the tax code, which the republicans say they want to turn to, will start increasing taxes and cutting Tax Deductions for the middle class americans. Senator, can i stop you on that point . I think thats significant. What you just said is what the president has said, is that we cant get enough revenue to solve the problem unless the rates go up. But wait a minute. Last summer, in july of 2011, this is what he said about how to get to 1. 2 trillion in revenue. Listen. What we said was, give us 1. 2 trillion in additional revenues. Which could be accomplished without hiking taxes tax rates, but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions, and engaging in a tax reform process that could have lowered rates generally, while broadening the base. So if that was true then, senator, why cant he just do Tax Deductions . Republicans say they would agree to that, and not focus so much on raising the top rates . David, we have set a target of cutting 4 trillion out of the deficit over the next 10 years. 4 trillion. To reach that, the president said he needs 1. 6 trillion in revenues, which is the same percentage of revenue as the simpsonbowles commission. In fact, its a little lower. You cant reach 1. 6 unless you put the upper rate for the highest income americans on the table. And include tax reform. The reason why the republicans have stuck with 800 billion is it really is their goal in this. But it doesnt reach the 4 trillion deficit reduction. Congressman, what do you say about that . Let me tell you what the republican goal is, is to solve the problem, economic problem. And look, the numbers dont lie. We are two months into this fiscal year. We already have a 292 billion deficit. But in those two months, revenues have increased by 10 . 30 billion. You only get 31 billion in the first year when you raise those two rates. But you know what the problem is . We increased spending by 16 , 87 billion. This is more about a spending problem, not a taxing problem. And thats the problem with washington. First of all, congressman, you threw out a number there, there are a lot of numbers that can confuse people. You talk about 31 billion. The reality is, over 10 years, based on documents i have seen from republicans, raising the top rates would get you over 400 billion in new revenue. So that is a fact that both sides agree on. David, in two months of this new fiscal year, you have 10 billion in revenue but 16 increase in spending. It is a spending problem. And the president wants to increase taxes to continue the spending. He proposed a plan that put a new spend list in that added more than just the top two rates worth in the first year. Thats the problem with washington. And i want to get to the spending and the entitlement question in just a moment, but i want to stay on tax rates for one minute. Congressman, there are members of your own party who are saying privately, some publicly, just fold on the tax rates so that conservatives can get a better deal. Just this week on morning joe on msnbc, here is tom coburn, republican conservative from oklahoma, and this is what he had to say. Personally, i know we have to raise revenue. I dont really care which way we do it. Actually, i would rather see the rates go up than do the other way because it gives us greater chance to change the tax code. If you close tax loopholes, you have a fairer process. Those listening today, they dont have a lobbyist or some attorney or some highpriced accountant or special interest out there. That is a more efficient way and a fairer way. And it also makes you invest your money not based on what the irs says but based upon an economy. And it will grow the economy stronger. More taxpayers, more workers produces more revenue. I want to talk about spending, senator durbin. A challenge for you, based on a speech that you gave a couple of weeks ago here to progressives, you said the following about entitlement cuts. And ill put it on the screen. This was in your prepared remarks which you stuck by. Progressives should be willing to talk about ways to ensure the longterm viability of medicare and medicaid, but those conversations should not be part of a plan to avert the fiscal cliff. Why not, is my question. You said in that speech there is absolutely savings to be derived from the Medicare Program and trimming it back. Why shouldnt it be front and center in a specified way beyond what the president is proposing, which is about 350 billion over 10 years in cuts . David, medicare will run out of money in 12 years. We know that we have to do something to make sure that we take an approach that doesnt voucherize it or take the approach of the paul ryan budget, but keep this a sound program and a solvent program. I just dont think we can do it in a matter of days here before the end of the year. That was my point. We need to address that in a thoughtful way, through the committee structure, after the first of the year. But the point i want to get to is this. We have already cut more than 1 trillion in spending as part of deficit reduction. We now need to put revenue on the table. The American People spoke on this issue in the election. Id say to Speaker Boehner and congressman mccarthy, listen to what the American People said in the election. Listen to the fact that two out of three americans believe that the wealthiest should pay a little more, and listen to your own caucus. When you have people like conservative republican senators like tom coburn, kay granger, tom cole, speaking up and saying, this is the right thing to do, for goodness sakes, lets get it done. Congressman . Id ask the senator, just do the math. If you go to a small familyowned business in bakersfield, california, that hires my friends, hires my neighbors, with the new tax rate they pay 37 , 39 . California, add another 13. 8 . Is it fair that any american pays more than half of their income into taxes . And thats before sales tax. Thats more than paying for the cable tax. Just watching this show. Is that fair . Should we make it a more efficient, Accountable Government . The spending is the issue, senator. May i respond . The president proposed a plan that you didnt even vote for. May i respond . 97 of american businesses are exempt from any tax increase because of the proposal by the president to protect people making less than 250,000 a year. 98 of all americans are going to be exempt from paying any higher taxes. If and only if Speaker Boehner will pass the bill that we sent him in july to protect middle income families, you want to protect the people in bakersfield, i want to protect the people in chicago and springfield. Senator, one point about medicare. You say you want to put off this discussion until later. But bottom line, should the medicare eligibility age go up . Should there be means testing to get at the benefits side, if you want to shore this program up, because 12 years as you say before it runs out of money . I do believe there should be means testing. And those of us with higher income in retirement should pay more. That could be part of the solution. But when you talk about raising the medicare eligibility age, theres one key question. What happens to the early retiree . What about that gap in coverage between workplace and medicare . How will they be covered . I listened to republicans say we cant wait to repeal obama care, and the insurance exchanges. Well, where does a person turn if they are 65 years of age and the medicare eligibility age is 67 . They have two years there where they may not have the best of health. They need accessible, Affordable Medical insurance during that period. Congressman, is there a deal by january 1 . And if there are tax increases as part of a deal, on tax rates, is there a republican civil war thats going to start . The president says he wants tax rate because he wants revenue. Republicans already offered him the revenue. The president also says he wants a balanced approach. That means 2 1 2 to 3 times as many spending cuts as there are two revenue. We have spent all of this time talking about revenue. But as we watched, our government continued to spend more. This is really about spending. You listen to the senator right there, he doesnt want to move on spending. And thats the core of the problem. I dont think republicans or americans want to raise any taxes just to continue the spending in washington. They want a more efficient, more effective, and more accountable. What were saying here is we need to do exactly what Ronald Reagan did with tip oneill. Show the leadership to get in the room and make the changes. Same as bill clinton did with Newt Gingrich. Get in the room and make the changes that are needed to make this. Look, we faced bigger problems before, and we have been able to overcome them. I believe we can do this one more time. Senator, the politics of this are also quite interesting and also part of the calculation. The treasury secretary saying, sure, absolutely, the president will go over the cliff if thats what it takes. Whe