This is a rush transcript from "Your World," August 22, 2012. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
NEIL CAVUTO, HOST OF "YOUR WORLD": Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto.
And read them and now creep. The Congressional Budget Office today projecting the federal deficit will hit $1.1 trillion this year. That would make it four years in a row that government red ink has topped $1 trillion, all this as the national debt now quickly closes in on $16 trillion smackers.
So with debt soaring, why are some saying bringing up the issue of the debt commission itself and its recommendations during the presidential debates would cheapen that debate?
One of those Democrats is New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler.
Congressman, good to see you.
REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.: Good to be here.
CAVUTO: I'm glad you are here, sir, because I didn't understand why you would have a concern bringing up the debt commission and/or its recommendation?
NADLER: We don't have a concern with that. That’s not the concern.
If you read the letter, or for that matter the press release, the concern is that four senators sent a letter to the debate commission saying set up a debate just on the Simpson-Bowles commission report, the assumption being that the Simpson-Bowles commission is the right thing to do and how courageous are the two candidates in agreeing with how much of it.
What I objected to, what the three of us objected to was that assumption. Maybe the Simpson-Bowles commission is the right thing. Maybe it's not. I don't agree with it, but that's not the point.
We should set -- if you want to set up a robust debate on the debt, how to deal with it, Simpson-Bowles is one suggestion. There are a lot of others on the table. Fine.
CAVUTO: But the Simpson-Bowles was the commission the president appointed. So just throw it out there as a question.
NADLER: But the commission never agreed on Simpson-Bowles.
NADLER: But that's not the point. Simpson-Bowles is one set of suggestions. If you want to ask what people think about that or why they agree or disagree, by all means, but do not limit it to that, because --
CAVUTO: But you're not against then bringing it up?
NADLER: No, certainly not.
CAVUTO: So, in the debates, if a panelist wants to say what do you think of the recommendations --
CAVUTO: -- of the commission, you're OK with that?
CAVUTO: You're not -- the rap was that there was a concern not to bring this up.
NADLER: The rap was very wrong. And we told everyone who said that it was wrong.
My concern is that you shouldn't bias the debate by essentially setting it up and saying we're assuming that the Simpson-Bowles is the right thing. How much do you agree with it, the two candidates? Want to ask, what do you think of the Simpson-Bowles commission, how much do you agree or disagree, fine. You should also ask about other suggestions.
CAVUTO: No doubt. But there's only one commission. There's only one debt commission.
NADLER: But there are a lot of other proposals.
CAVUTO: I understand, but there is only one debt commission.
NADLER: But so what? That commission agreed on nothing.
CAVUTO: We spent close to $100 million on that.
NADLER: And that was wasted.
CAVUTO: So you think the whole commission was a waste of time?
NADLER: Absolutely. That commission was wasted.
CAVUTO: Why, just because they came with ideas you don't like?
NADLER: No, they didn't come with ideas. They didn't agree on any ideas.