OLBERMANN: Let's drill down into the numbers to some degree. I'm joined now by Jeff Madrick, senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and the author of "Age of Greed." Good to see you again, sir.
JEFF MADRICK: Good to be here, Keith.
OLBERMANN: The president followed up on the words from Thursday's speech?
MADRICK: He said he's going to pay with taxing the rich.
OLBERMANN: Yeah.
MADRICK: We're going to give middle-class and working people a tax cut. We're going to tax the rich. I'm a little surprised. I'm pleasantly surprised. I don't want to pooh-pooh this, because this is something of a turn in strategy, at least since that first Obama stimulus early in 2000. Which I think was pretty courageous, if not enough in the end. I'm pretty -- I thought we were going to be talking about some social spending cuts. I think, then, I would have started complaining about bang for the buck in these tax cuts, and I still do a little bit. I think these computer models, economic computer models we've seen, are probably a little too optimistic, talking about 2 million more jobs.
OLBERMANN: Exactly.
MADRICK: And a full-percentage-point drop in the unemployment rate, can't take those too seriously right now. But it's going to have some effect.
OLBERMANN: Mm-hmm.
MADRICK: If we get a million jobs at half a point cut in the unemployment rate, he's still running on 8.5 percent, 8.6 percent unemployment rate in November, next year, that's a pretty high rate. Nobody ever won with higher than 7.2, and that was Reagan and it came down three full percentage points before then.
OLBERMANN: Yeah, the vow to pay this through the increased taxes on the rich, have you looked into what that specifically means? Is it viable? Is it a plan, or is it just a promise?
MADRICK: Well, I think -- you know, you pointed out some of the details, and you saw the numbers yourself. It didn't add up to much. The big one is getting rid of all itemized deductions for people, couples over 250 and individuals over 200. I don't see how that passes Congress. I don't see how we get rid of the the mortgage-interest deduction for people over 250. A lot of people don't think that's a lot of money anymore. So, I think he has some trouble there, but at least he's coming out fighting. At least he's sounding like he's for the working man and not for the wealthy guy.
OLBERMANN: What does it look like, if you look at this thing in poll and we are hearing the Republicans might come down and say, okay, 50 percent of this, we can live with it, and 50 percent of this, you have to take it away and burn it and then bury it and then dig it up and burn it and bury it a second time. Where do you see him giving in, what he's proposing?
MADRICK: I think he's going to give in on -- he's going to give in on the spending side, which is where you get the most pop for the jobs.
OLBERMANN: Of course.
MADRICK: We're going to get the temporary cut in payroll taxes because Republicans kind of like that. That's up their alley. I -- they -- and the increase in that. I think we are going to get some tax credits for business; Republicans will like that. And they're going to cut way back on the infrastructure spending. They're going to denounce it probably or at least, at best, agree a little bit with it. We're not going to get all of the state and local spending we need, which could be very valuable. There may be a fight on the extension of the unemployment insurance. That would be sad. That will create jobs because it will put money in the hands of people who don't have money, and they will spend that money. That's the idea. Even the payroll tax cuts are not that effective in my view because a lot of people will spend those payroll -- will save those payroll taxes. Maybe pay down some of their mortgages or maybe pay it for the first time. So we've still got a dilemma, but at least the boxing gloves are on. At least we're out of the corner and swinging a little bit. My gosh.
OLBERMANN: Or rather, it looks like there were two fighters in the same corner just punching at air. Last point -- something the president said, he noted that while Harry Truman ran against a do-nothing Congress, the 112th Congress, this one can still do something for the American people. Is there something in there in the way of a threat or something in there in the way of an indicator, or is that just verbiage?
MADRICK: You know, I hope it's a threat.
OLBERMANN: Mm-hmm.
MADRICK: I hope he's going to say, if you don't pass this or you only pass the half of it you really like, which won't have the pop for the dollar in the job market, it's your responsibility if this economy doesn't come back and we don't put people to work. I think a lot of us have been saying he should do this.
OLBERMANN: Yes.
MADRICK: So, yeah, if it's a threat, I like it. I think it was a threat. Do I think he'll keep threatening? I'm dubious about that, and I hope he will.
OLBERMANN: And hopefully, if he does, he spells it out in very large capital letters that do not leave room for any questions, like, "Was that a threat?" We need to hear -- if it's going to be a threat, let's hear the threat. The economist Jeff Madrick, the author of "Age of Greed," from the Roosevelt Institute, as ever, great thanks, sir.
MADRICK: Good to see you.
OLBERMANN: George H.W. Bush was able to walk back at his phrase, "voodoo economics." Maybe Rick Perry can walk back the phrase "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme." Although, it probably would help him if he would stop insisting he didn't mean it, and he was right about it at the same time. That's next. This is "Countdown."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
