tv Washington Journal CSPAN December 13, 2009 7:00am-10:00am EST
caller: this year will absolutely go down as a historical year. let's omit the fact that we elected the first african-american president. it will go down with the same ranks of dr. king and the march on washington initially, the initiative march on washington in, what, 1963? so this will definitely be a historical year. all the things that our
president has encountered coming into office, i think he has done a remarkable job trying to meet those challenges and bring the country around to some sustainable success this year. so i think this year will absolutely go down as a historical year, given all the context of the things he had to deal with as the first african-american president. >> thanks for the call. on the republican line we'll listen to greg joining us from union, missouri. greg, are you with us? we'll go on to gilbert joining us from alabama. good morning. caller: i feel that this will notñi only be remembered as a historical year, but i feel this will be the tipping point of the world. three things that point in that direction is the war in afghanistan and the war in iraq.
the rising unemployment and the copenhagen climate meeting. if these are not handled professionally, it will change the whole direction of the world. and i'm looking forward to these three issues being addressed not only by the administration in america but by other world leaders. ju mention copenhagen. this from the "the new york times" this morning. one of the many photographs of the demonstrations around the capital city of denmark, an area known as capital square where demonstrations took place. thousands marching in copenhagen calling for action. the president calling there for the first couple days of the meeting. also what is called a congressional delegation, and our news makers guests will be in attendance for the final days of the copenhagen summit. we'll have more on that in a couple moments. first, joining us from richmond,
virginia. historic year? caller: i don't know about historic. i'm a u.s. veteran of the navy. i'm also an african-american. wanted to elect a president, i wanted to vote for mccain, but i couldn't because i'm a convicteó felon, or wlaffer. i got caught carrying a gun in detroit because of a situation i was going through. i cannot believe the spending the congress is trying to appropriate and what the president is pushing with -- when we're in a deficit, and we're trying to push health reform when every american has a chance to take care of their health and lifestyle by finding employment. every american has that freedom.
it's like a never ending story with this president. i wish mccain would have gotten voted in. like i sarksde i couldn't vote or whatever, and i wish that would change about convicted felons, because everyone who commits a crime is not a bad person, perçó say, but it was te that i learned a lesson, but like i said, i was a u.s. veteran. i fought for this country. i am not too happy with barack obama, per say. host: looking at headlines, with friends like these, u.s. help depends on a nation deeply suspicious of american intentions. this year saying 2009 will be remembered as the year the american people stood up and put pressure on washington.
next is bob joining us from chicago. good morning. caller: good morning. [unintelligible] caller: rush limbaugh is one of the most racist people in america to a black president. only in america could that happen. what is astonishing is that george bush, i felt comfortable during the iraq war, and then for him to keep -- when he had a son that trashed this country, is really astonishing. i appreciate being able to say this on c-span.
i tell you why there is going to be a whole lot of good that comes out of obama's administration, no matter what people do or say or lie. host: there was an election in houston for mayor, and if you go to the houston chronicle web site, more details. annise parker wins houston race for mayor, which means she will be the first openly gay mayor in houston. the former attorney was attempting to become the city's second elected black mayor. a lot of anti-gay rhetoric, but apparently annise parker is the apparent winner. more from the houston chronicle dot com. caller from ohio.
caller: i think we've reached the tipping point. we may well stee what the civil war could not do, the undoing of this country from a fiscal standpoint. and i suspect that texas will be the first to withdraw from this union, bissed on the fact it was a republican who came in and has the only legal right apparently to withdraw from the union. if that happens, you will see the demice of the -- demiesñr o the united states. you cannot snub your nose at god for -- or the constitution. you cannot spend your way out of a resession when you don't have
the money. we have borrowed on credit cards tot maximum, and this may well be the year of the tipping point. i think we got what we asked for, and i think we're going to probably be very sorry in the future, and certainly our children and our grandchildren will be sorry. host: if you just joined us, we're reading from "the washington post" outlook section. "the year is over, but is it history?" he writes. it turns out there is plenty of competition in the "big years" department. there is a well worn genre, producing books such as "1776" and "paris 1919." he goes on to say an era, no doubt, and a story well told, but was it a year when the world as we know it began to take form , as one of the authors assert?
good morning, welcome to the ram on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. it is a historic year, but i feel it is a yearçóñi where evee is feeling that what they voted for and what they got were two different things. host: how so? caller: i think when barack obama ran for president he convinced the public that he was going to cut taxes and he was going to be fiscally conservative and he was going to get everyone out of the war. but i think what was really going on is g.e. and other conglomerates own the media, and they were putting their candidate in place that they thought was going to be spending big government money on contracts, and the unions are supporting him because they want the contracts to be signed so that they can have the
government money paid, their paychecks that are way overblown and their compensation packages that are out of whack with private industry. so really i think the crooks are in charge at this point and our country is suffering because of it. i think socialism has taken over. host: thanks for the call. as we said earlier, congressman joe barton is our guest on c-span's "newsmakers" program. it airs at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. for our west coast viewers. in it he raises doubts about global warming and whether or not it is occurring in the u.s. here is an excerpt. >> there are just as many data sets showing temperatures going down as they are going up. when you get into it, what is average temperature? some of the data sets are taking
surface temperature. some are taking temperature in the mid atmosphere, and some are taking temperature data in the upper atmosphere. those don't agree. so when the scientific community begins to choose which data set, which input, and how they come up with the definition of average, if they are doing that in a way simply so that it supports a conclusion that they have already arrived at, i think the public needs to know about that. you know, when you say that the last decade is the warmest on record, there appear to be very good data sets that say the temperature has gone down eight years in a row, and maybe as many as 12 years in a row. how do you reconcile that? i don't have the answer to that. but the answer is not to just assume that the alarmists are right and take these draconian
steps they want us to take. host: joe barton our guest on "newsmakers" and he is expected to join nancy pelosi in a trip. the white house flying overto denmark for to friday one day of meetings to deal with climate change. the entire program on "news makers." back to the discussion we were talking about. was 2009 a historic dwrear? how will the historians regard 2009 one, two, three decades hence? various writers speculating on the most important year ever, and the contenders are i illuminating, including the year 5 b.c., also the year guttenberg invented moveable printing. finally, 1944 and 1945 which
featured the bretton woods conference, the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki and the beginning of the cold war stalemate. >> compared to those events that you just cited were more world changing than just historic. i think it will be historic. if i could respond quickly to a couple callers that said this is a tipping point for america and we're headed toward destruction and i guess you would call them deficit hawks 10 or 11 months into the obama administration. i would just remind them that ronald reagan trippled the deficit and george bush added several trillion to the deficit, and i find it interesting that we have finally reached the destruction of the country 11 months into the obama administration. the reason i think 2009 is historic, first of all, obama's
inauguration, of course. we have begun withdrawing from iraq i think that will be historic, however that turns out. the economic recovery package, surely, was on a historic scale. i can remember watching the news hour and seeing 2-3 economists use the word "depression" about the situation that we were facing. and it was on that day that i really became triedent. it seems that we got through it. it looks like we will pass financial reregulation. the biggest deal since maybe glass-speegl passed. one quick housekeeping thing, if i could shortly. to the pete sons in texas who called in and wished everyone a merry christmas, merry christmas back at you, folks. you really are sweet people, and i enjoy hearing from you. host: thank you.
and also happy chanukah. written an editorial written by bill kristol is called "a nobel war speech" and the photograph includes barack obama and teddy roosevelt. jimmy carter receiving it after he left office. michael joining us from redway, california. was it a historic year? >> yes, it was. historically it was the year that the one world order offered up a candidate who was hope not only for the black people but for the rest of the american people. hope is dying with this man. i think america needs to get
their eyes on what the real problem is. the real problem is corporate america, wall street, and our bligses. what do you think, sir? host: thank you, sir. a look at the book 1959, the year that changed everything, and now 1959, the year everything changed. good morning, jim. caller: i experienced a happy year this year. i think it was a great year. i never thought i could see the day where a black man would be inaugurated president of the united states. however, it was also a bad year. we legalized crime in this country. i was an ex-banker in connecticut, and back then we were honest people.
even though we had a tragedy, this is an old movie that's happening that worked out in the banks. we used to close down banks and we formed what was called the resolution trust, and now we give money to the crooks back then we had candidating. a thousand bankers went to jail. i don't see one banker going to jail. these were out and out frauds. i think that will go down as a very black mark against the united states that it actually gave money to brooks crooks. -- to crooks. host: they are called the om bus spending bill, but in essence, it is one of the major spending packages that the senate needs to have to send it to law. but it is outlined this morning
in wimes -- wimeswimes -- "the washington times." here are the details from andrew taylor in "the washington times." "the democrats passed a bill that rewards most agencies with a generous budget boost. the $1.1 trillion measure combines much of the year's unfinished budget work -- only a $626 billion pentagon spending measure would remain -- into a 1,000-plus page spending bill that would give education department the -- would give the education department, the state department, the department of health and human services and others increases far exceeding inflation." joe lieberman had to walk three miles because saturday is the sabbat thsm, and he does not drive on saturday.
also to provide enough time for robert bird to also make it to the senate floor. the store -- story inside "the washington times." go ahead, deny, you are next. caller: this is historic because it is a black president. but, you know, they have short memories. they forgotñrñi george bush bant the country. he left over trillion dwhrar debt. two warred -- wars. this president is saving us from depression, but nobody give him credit. the republicans, all they are doing is fighting for 2010. everybody knows it is a game. they are fighting for 2010. they are not going to say yes to anything. they say no, no. that's all. they try to break this
president. republicans, shame on them. thank you, c-span. caller: good morning. i have a girlfriend who was black and white both. all she did was cry, who do i belong to, years and years ago. let me tell you,, you have stepped fomplt you made people proud, you made the lord proud because you accepted what no one else could do, and thank you, because it is a beginning. we're pulling together as human beings, and i am very proud, and so is god and so is jesus. host: thank you. 4r 2009, is it a historic year? from twit tesm r, "the way the year is ending, it is only historic in the way that histor"
the senate meets again. david clange writing "democrats assembled a six-bill omnibus spending package that strongly reflects the number of priorities set by the obama administration and most of the democratic caucus. the leaders decided to leave one of the remaining spending bills out of the omnibus. senator john mccain yesterday on the senate floor going after democrats on spending and the deficit. >> isn't that remarkable? a 12% increase in spending when people are out of jobs, out of their homes, they cannot afford
we have approved about $4 billion of it. so here we are with a deficit of $1.4 trillion, a debt of 12 trillion, unemployment at 10%, nearly 900,000 families lost their homes in 2008, and it is every indication that the aggregate number for 2009 will be worse. with all this we continue to spend and spend and spend, and every time we pass an appropriations bill, it would increase spending and load it with earmarks, we are robbing future generations of americans of theirable to attain the american dream. host: "spend, spend, spend, and
the seniors are disabled and damned." helen joining us from california. caller: 2009 has been wup of the best years i have experienced. the united states has had a historic year of -- has had a history of slavery, and finally we elected a president of color. i think that is wufment i think has a big step toward a better future. unfortunately, obama is stillñr pretty much the same old stuff. i believed he was going to get us out of war, and i believe he escalated it. i think what people will look at when they look at 2009 they won't look at the election of obama being a watershed year, but more they will look at the tea party movement, this grassroots movement.
it is going to be a momentous year in our history. finally people are rebelling against the elitist, power elitists in washington, d.c. we are no longer going to accept that a few people in our country know what's best to -- best for everyone. i think that is what will mark 2009 as a historic year. i think also what will go down as a footnote in history is the global warming theories and and -- host: thanks for the call. tune into our conversation with joe barton about that issue. a historical note from "the washington post" we wanted to share with you. this is reporting of paul caine who has been on this program many times. "increasingly common for the house and senate since the house
and senate -- since the health care debate has consumed the legislative calendar and has left little time to consider the key items. aside from thanksgiving weekend, the senate has now worked three straight weekeds. the usual decore yum of the suits and ties gave way." the senate will be back -- back to a more normal schedule when the senate is out. joe, you get the last word. caller: i kind of concur a little bit with what the lady just said about elitism and those things being a problem in this country. i have think that capital -- getting back to this year, the capital is it -- is not the main source of power in this country, anymore. if it ever was. power from the people.
when you have somebody who can buy a shower curtain for $18,000 and you have a guy on a construction line making $2.50 an hour, which is below minimum wage, but minimum wage, you might be able to get by, i don't know. and then you have house wives, nurses, all these people in the country, and all these people working for low wages and laid off, you know, the power is in the people in this country, not the capital. not the grassroots dollar. you don't need that golden ring. host: some call it the brass ring, but we know what you mean. caller: i'm sorry. host: no, i only know that because what you see on the merry go bround round. before my time, i suppose and
your time too. a couple other quick headlines we want to share with you. first from the "detroit free press." "rising from the wreckage, a determined michigan auto industry enters a new age. "also "the new york times" pointing out that the u.s. has begun talks with russia and a united nations arms control study about strengthening internet security and limiting use of cyberspace. there is a related story and more on those five men from alexandria, virginia. a figure believed to have aided those five virginia men who allegedly tried to join al qaeda
saying they would unhelp them unravel a growing network of terrorist recruiters who scour the internet for radicalized young men." there are 12 zeros in a trillion. we'll find out what that means. first, a look at topics on sunday morning programs. with that, bobbi jackson. >> topics on sunday morning shows will include the economy as well as health care and afghanistan. the guests on nbc's "meet the press" hosted by david gregory will be christina roemer, chair of the council of the president's economic council of advisors, allen greensman, grandholm, and former presidential candidate mitt romney. abc "this week" george steff no luss will talk with sommers and
house republican whip eric cantor. the guests on fox news sunday hosted by chris wallace include clare mccatskill, also oklahoma republican senator james inhoff and massachusetts democratic senator ed markey on "face the nation," connecticut independent senator joseph lism eberman and rockefeller from west virginia and nebraska's ben nelson. and cnn's state of the union will include lauren so maniers, director of the national economic council, virginia democratic senator mark warner, and south dakota republican john stone. you can listen to all five of the sunday morning talk shows starting at noon eastern on c-span radio at 90.1 f.m., nationwide on channel 132, xm, and on the web at c-span.org,
c-spanradio.org. >> michael faunroy wrote "republicans and the black vote." he is our guest tonight on c-span's "q & a." >> this week on "the communicateors," an insider's perspective with ralph de la vega. monday at 8:00 p.m. on c-span2. host: we want to welcome the president of the committee congress for a responsible budget. guest: thank you. host: the budget is approaching $it trillion. -- approaching $2 trillion.
what does that mean? guest: there is no question we will need to borrow money to get our way out of it. we have less money going into the government and we're spending more as a result of the recession. what it also reflects is that the government right now has no plan to stop borrowing. we keep lifting these debt ceilings to allow the government to borrow more. we probably should be thinking about how to combine that with some way to change plans. that's one of the discussions going on in the house and senate. there are a lot of people worried about the ongoing level of borrowing, and they would like to connect this vote with some kind of mechanism to change course. host: a couple points, china, in particular, which has about a trillion dollars -- we owe china about a trillion dollars, and we saw earlier this year when president obama was not as
critical as he should have been for human rights in china. is that a result of the connection with china? guest: there is no separating economy with human rights issues. we are dependent on foreign kns countries. that's not entirely a bad thing. what that has allowed people to do is increst more in the u.s. and grow our economy, but it has now become unbalanced. borrowing from abroad, when returns of the borrowing have gone overseas, and our foreign policy is not as free as it used to be. so there are concerns that we aren't as critical on human rights as we ought to have been. also on the chinese kirns currency, there has been opinions that the curnsy will float more, but we were hesitant to say that we should be relaxing your currency because we are worried what creditors will say to us. we need them to show up when we auction treasuries.
we don't want to be as vulnerable as other countries. we want to borrow less and have more flexibility on our own. host: if you wonder what 12 trillion looks like, you can go online, and this is it the u.s. national debt bloc clock which is updated on a regular basis. what does this mean. two different -- the debt caps, what it has borrowed from u.s. citizens and companies from abroad and also from itself, because we borrow from things like the social security trust fund, and also just what the government borrowed from the public market. that one affects the economy
more, and that is probably what we focused -- but when we are borrowing as much as we are, the bottom line did we want to spend a loot and we don't want to pay for it. that means that the next generation does. host: let me show you what "the new york times" writes. a series of editorals. the editorial says that a trillion for health care is a lot of money, but it needs to be put in perspective. extending bush era tax cuts for the wealthy would cost $4 trillion over the next decade and the medicare prescription drug benefits is expected to cost at least $700 billion over
the next decade. unlike health care reform it became law with no off-setting cuts and little provision to payor it. -- to pay for it. guest: i take the points they make and see them the opposite way. there are a lot of policies we are extending and not paying for. those include the bush era tax cuts, they also include the fixes to medicare re-investment for health care. we are going forward with extending those policies and not paying them. they add trillions trillions of dollars to the debt. the point i draw from this means not that we shouldn't worry about health care's effect on the budget or we shouldn't expect it to reduce the deficit, we have to, because health care is the number one problem contributing to the fiscal imbalances of the country, and we have to use health care to bring tone down costs and deficits. but it also points out to me that the plan to go forward with extending the p deficits and not paying for them just no longer
make sense. right now we are borrowing at an unsustainable level. we have to rethink all areas of our budget and think about how to off-set these things. host: we woke up with this full-page ad by the pete peterson foundation. "80% deficit and debt." guest: i didn't know this ad was coming. this shows something we all have known was coming which shows a shift in public sentiment. you can hear it from the call-in people on your show, and certainly the media's interest in this topic just talking to people. fiscal problems facing this country are now something people understand and realize have to be he will vated to a top tier issue. the other thing this ad is pointing out is one of the ways
to deal with the problem is by creating a bipartisan commission. this is something commissioners con crad rad and gregg in the senate and cooper credit been pushing for years. i really thought we didn't necessarily need a commission. congress should just do its job in terms of fixing policies. unfortunately, if we don't move on this we will risk a huge fiscal crisis. we need to stabilize the debt as a share of the economy. for instance, that would be a wise goal to pick. it would create a space where republicans and democrats who too often spend their time fighting could work together on this important issue. i think this is a important way to do this.
host: and part of the ad from the pete peterson foundation, nothedebtfacts.com. this is what the site looks like as we are joined from bill in hartford, connecticut. caller: kind of a different way to quantify a trillion dollars. my teacher used to say, if you stack a dollar bill as high as the empire state building, and that's a million dollars. now if we could just get the government to print a million bill and stack those up as high as the empire state building, we'd have a trillion dollars. guest: we would also have widespread inflation.
a couple years ago we -- if someone said we would have a deficit of a trillion, i never would have believed it. we have crossed a thresh hold. i think that has woken a lot of people up. a trillion dollars is a mark we didn't think we would be hitting any time soon. we would be borrowing more than that a year. we are about to surpass $12 trillion in debt, and the warning signs are everywhere. what we had in china to what we saw in due -- dubai and warnings that we can't maintain our economy if we don't take steps to change the path. we are taxing too little and spending too much. again, not something i was worried about during the downturn. even this year i think deficit
cuts are appropriate as the economy recovers, but we need a plan in place to get us out of this fiscal disaster. a compligs is a really good idea. certainly picking a goal to get the debt under control is critical. host: craig says w w. added $5 trillion. guest: there is no one that should be seen as part of the problem. neither one is a fiscaly responsible party. unfortunately what we see is the party that's out of power kind of talks about things that are irresponsible not because they are so concerned about budget debt as it is a good way to stop the policies of the other party. and the reason is, this is hard. it is hard to say to voters i am going to reduce government spending or raise taxes even though that is what -- clearly what the government budget says
we have to do. they are promising et voters more things, tax cuts and spending increases, and yet the bush cuts are very detrimental to fiscal policy. the policy we have now is looking forward, even once we get out of the recession, the obama policies would actually make things worse and not better. so i am bipartisan in my criticism that both parties need to come together, figure out the really tough choices to get us out of this unsustainable path of borrowing. host: bob mcdobbled -- headline "cane to force tough choices. virginia forced to have a balanced page. so he's looking at tough choices," for the republican governor, and yet on the federal level, we continue to raise the debt limit. explain the differences between
virginia, new jersey, most other states, and what we see here in washington. many guest: right. most states have policies where they balance their budget on a regular basis. that's one of the reasons that we give money to the states. when they are unable to borrow, you want a little flexibility. that is why at the federal level, we don't have an annual balanced budget requirement, because what you really want is flexibility, where your government is borrowing during the downturns, or bad times, and saving when the money is good. so when the budget is good, we should be running government surpluses. in is no annual restriction at the federal level. unfortunately many of us are starting to think that it has been so abused in the way we are borrowing during the downturn. right now the federal government has more flexibility to stalte states.
most have to balance their budgets on a regular basis, and that means they have to confront tough budgetary proposals more closely. host: channel 132 on xm. our guest is maya mcguiness. dirk emory is tweeting in this comment. "americans are taxed too much. it is spending, spending, spending. congress needs to learn no." and "would a return to the capital gains tax be a solution to the debt, and would it be able to be accomplished?" guest: two totally different questions. i'll take the first one first. if you look at the budget, the growth in spending has to do with the budget more than revenues. both spending and revenues are over the long-term projected to be above historical levels.
that doesn't mean we're going to be able to solve all of this by reducing spending. even those kind of the biggest advocates of small government can't really lay out a specific path to get us back down to where you could close the budget deficit all on the spending side. i think it would be great for people to put out plans to do that so we can look at the trade-off. but one of the problems we have is the aging of society. that means a lot more people are going to be collecting social security, medicare, the two largest government programs, and those having to serve the senior population. so it is likely the government is going to grow as a share of the economy. the other big driver is health care costs are growing faster than the economy. unless we find a way to slow down growth, that is going to push government spending as well as individual spending on health care. the reform bills we're looking at in the senate and house will make some progress on that, but not nearly enough to close the gap. so that means we can cut spending as much as congress is
willing to. it is still unlikely we will be able to close that gap without raising teak as well. what i think the best thing to do would be for members of congress to start getting specific. show what tax tax increases they are willing to take. then we can have a balanced discussion about the two trade-offs, which way to go, and how to craft a balanced plan. in the end, the think the biggest problem is on the spending side more than on the tax side. i think tax increases and spending reductions are going to have to be part of the solution. the second question had to do with capital gains tax. and i am personally of two minds there. one raising that tax cut up to 28%, would that fix the problem? not even close. i think it is going to take a long time for the country to get use today just how big this problem is over the medium and long-term because we still have politicians trying to minimize it because they are not eager to spell out what is involved. raising capital gains would help some, but i take issue with the
fact that you don't want to tax at high levels the things you want more of. i am more incleist kleined to look it at tax increases of things we want less of, whether that is some kind of a consumption tax, i've always liked a progressive consumption tax, that taxes spending, and also my important form of tax, a new form of energy tax. i think it is important for the country to look at taxing carbon. it could help the energy dependence if done right and it could raise revenues. i am concerned about cap and trade and give all the revenues back. we need to use new revenue streams to help close the fiscal gap. an increase in capital gains wouldn't be my preference and it wouldn't be enough. host: 234r is a war tax -- there is a war tax being proposed.
guest: i found that to be an interesting discussion. it is offered somewhat cynically . many of the people who want a war tax are offering it because they don't want to have a war. those who are ramping up efforts in afghanistan want to tax. i have no position of what we should be doing in afghanistan, i don't think of myself as a defense expert, but if we need to go forward, we should do so. i do think we should talk about ways to pay for it. all wars we have paid afor in the past through tax increases. i am happy to do this through tax increases or spending reductions. but we have been borrowing 100% of these war costs since it began. it is no longer a surprise to us. we know every year there will be costs, and a dollar borrowed is a dollar borrowed. it doesn't matter if you are
borrowing it for the war or something else, we are dependent on borrowing at a dangerous level now. you need to develop a plan to get out of that dangerous level of borrowing, and the way to offset the cost of the war would be progress in the right direction. i am sad the people pushing it don't want to see it happen, and the people opposing it -- it is not a very honest discussion right now. host: our guest is the president for a committee for a responsible federal budget. she is a graduate of the j.f.k. school earning her masters in public pom. and john tweeted in this comment, "maya, you have the worst job in america." caller: it is -- i have two frustrations. one -- i have no voice.
i have called congress to try to stop the spending, stop the madness, and yet it seems we buy and purchase and fund superfluous things, tantamount to a swimming pool when you can't make your house payment. you know, how can we stop the madness as common citizens? how can we put a stop to it? host: how would you put a stop to it? caller: it's a line-item thing, and do we need it? is it necessary? is this pursuedent for our economy given the circumstances? what are we doing to the citizens? do we need a fund to saving the snapping turtles in michigan? it has to be a grassroots line-by-line, and lob --
lobbyists. you have to draw lines. they have to be hard lines. the american people have to be told, this is not the way it used to be. this is not life as it was. the second question would be, truly and realistcally, what are the ramifications for what we are doing if we don't pull back? guest: i take seriously your point about going through the budget line-by-line, and the office of management and budget right now is looking at ways to evaluate programs and the performance of programs, and i am eager and optimistic that we're going to get very serious on the details in the budget. i think you are right about things about earmarks and things about rock 'n' roll museums. all of those things need to be scrubbed out of the budget, but not because of the ultimate amount of savings we are going
to get from them is so huge, because it's really not. we're talking about millions and occasionly billions of programs, and there is no question that is a whole lot of money, but when we are talking about deficits of trillions, it is barely going to make a dent. the reason it is important to scrub those things from the budget is you need credibility. people need to understand that the government is taking care of our funds, you know, seriously, and understanding i'd rather keep that dollar, you would rather keep that dollar, there are all important public needs, but we want to make sure the trustees of our taxpayers are doing that well. once we have that scrubbing and people are saying it is going to be about shared sacrifice, you cannot avoid the discussion that has to pivot where the real savings in the budget are. these are not things people are willing to give up. they are social security, they are medicare, they are many of the mandatory programs in the government, agricultural farm
subsidies, which many think make sense to scrub from the budget, except the people dependent upon them. everything in the budget will have to be on the table. but the biggest area are the government-run public pension and health care programs. when you start talking about those things, the discussion gets a little more heated and a little more sensitive, and a little more directly relating to many people's livehoods when you are talking about turtle fences. the turtle fences aren't going to fix the problem on their own, but they are important on credibility. host: you can join our discussion online at at which timer.com at c-span. -- at twitter.com. we have a comment, "i say why are the top 1% only paying 40% of all taxes? they make 95% of all money, so let them pay 95% of all taxes."
caller: every time i'm on, in about five seconds i'm cut off. i hope i can speak just a little bit this morning. host: the forum is yours. caller: you have made so many good points. i'm an independent. i can't touch on all of them.ñi as an independent, i think the extreme partisan fight in this country is going to take us right down the drain. but i do like to see equity. i don't like to see one party picked on. with this debt figuring now, a gentleman called me and reminded %9qu5z had a $5 trillion debt, he ran it up $5 trillion. at any rate, he hit the -- he
raised the debt ceiling twice, and you know i didn't hear any big discussion on c-span or anything. the democra+; were trying to gt him to put the war on budget. he said that was impossible. and of course use the plus for all of those tax cuts. you know, those things have to be paid for. then there's the prescription drug bill that we pay the pharmaceuticals, giving them about $800 billion over the next decade. in other words, i would like to see credit and full responsibility where it is placed where it is due and not just always say, well, both parties do it, both parties do it. one thing about the republicans, they always manage to leave us a big deficit. and now this democratic president seems to be getting -- everything all of a sudden is terrible. i do want to say one thing, all
of us please remember that the children are listening. the children are watching, and listening. we are wondering about all of the violence among children nowadays, and they are listening. our government is so horrible. we are the government. you know, i think when you continually come on with these negative things, oh, the democrats are horrible, the republicans are mean-spirited -- but to talk about our public officials and our government to put us down the way we do when we put our own selves down, what do you expect other people to think? .
looking at how to focus on the debt. and a call to action in a bipartisan manner to make sure that that does not continue to grow. that is something that this commission will focus on in very heavily. i cannot over emphasize the need for to be bipartisan. host: we will cover it live on c-span and estimate online at c- span.org. among the participants will be a member of the former cbo -- director. guest: yes, i think it is one of the important issues, that the people who make it up have run in past administrations. the federal reserve board, budget committees -- they are the budget gurus of the country
in the come together with a six- step plan to focus on moving and coming up with a plan to stabilize the debt. i think it will be an important thing and get the conversation we know needs to happen moving here in washington and. throughout the and host: maya, thanks, as always for joining this. please come back again. we'll come back in just a moment with our sunday roundtable discussion. in our it 9:00 p.m. hour we will ask you think people magazine should select as a person of the year. congressman joe barton, republican of texas, a ranking member on the house energy and commerce committee -- we will ask him what he thinks causes global warming. here's an excerpt. >> the shortage would be god. i think it is a natural cycle. i do not believe that mankind is
a dominant influence. at least on the overall climate. i do admit that the co2 crease in the last 150 errors is a result of the industrial revolution. there's no question the level of co2 has gone up in a time. -- in that time period. but once you get beyond that this theory that somehow man- made co2 and its, causing the earth to warm it rapidly increasing rate off, that is beyond dispute -- that is not shown. it is one of the problems that the climatologists to believe in global warming are having. they and get their models and data sets to prove their theory. they are getting more shrill opposition. we are open-minded but you have to show us the facts. i would say we are in a natural cycle.
it appears the earth is in a slight cooling period for the next 30-50 years. the co2 concentrations going up don't seem to be doing what the iccp model say they should. host: of gore and the president warned that that analogy is unreal. the question was asked, why is the polar ice cap disappearing? where's it coming from if not man-made pollution? guest: i'm not an presidenimpreh gore's credentials as a scientist. i'm impressed with his credentials as the politician and with his entrepreneurial skill. but i am not impressed with his
academic credibility. a lot of what is in his movie turned out to be false. in terms of the polar situation there more blooglaciers that are growing that are shrinking. host: it airs this morning at 10:00 a.m., and there's again at 6:00 p.m.. our sunday roundtable, executive director and author, things for joining us. and matt, the editorial page editor. let me begin looking back on the president's speech on wednesday.
norm, let me begin with you. guest: seems the more that barack obama goes in the centrist direction the more he becomes willing and able and even eager to escalate the war in of guinness stan, the more that centrist penance like david broder enthused. unfortunately, obama is damaging his base within the democratic party. whether you talk about abandonment of the public option, escalation in a canister and, rigid escalation in afghanistan, you have a problem in the obama party.
it will matter. republicans were cheerleading the warlike speech in oslo. they will have the ninth cell of next year. the base will matter within the democratic party. host: what did you think? guest: rather than war-like i would characterize this as perhaps the best speech that the president has given since his inauguration speech. that is principally because he acknowledged something that we among the conservative pun docracy have been looking for -- as you said, norman, is because you recognize that there is indeed number one, evil in the world, and number two, recognition in the fact that for the last 60 years it has been the u.s. that has been the principal guarantee of stability and progress on things such as human rights. host: let me share an excerpt
from the president's speech from oslo on thursday as he talked about the line getting a lot of attention -- the so-called just wars. >> i do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. what i do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly. it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just or and the imperatives of a just peace. we must begin by acknowledging a hard truth. we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. there will be times when nations, acting individually or in concert, will find the use of
force not only necessary, but morally justified. host: you wrote that eloquence in oslo cannot change the realities of war. how so? guest: talking about a just war and sunbury area that does not change what the political or closet-theoretical justification's are brought to bear on it just war. for those who experience it is a just war, more expenditure, more expenditure of badly needed funds to the u.s. treasury that could be going to have carrot, housing, education. as in afghanistan which is terribly impoverish, it is suffering under the twin shadows of war. and also enormous impoverishment. i found it disturbing that the head of the nobel committee introduced president obama with the statement, dr. king's dream
has come true. that is a rewriting of history. dr. king denounced what he called "the madness of militarism." rather than challenge that madness, unfortunately, and i say that as a former delegate to the obama nomination in the democratic convention, obama is endorsing that militarism today. host: yesterday there was a demonstration outside the white house, some of those calling mr. obama's and nobel speech propulsive. but political impact if any does this have? guest: i think it has immense potential for political and that. it will be particularly interesting to watch as the glove, the democratic party base faces the same problem that the right does -- to watch as the left faces the same trouble as the right. we could see another ralph nader
or another french lefringe left. those do not make it in america. so there will be some very pressed for the people on the left. guest: there are some places democrats can go. one is much deeper into our own party. one month ago although the national press did not really notice, we got passed through the statewide executive committee resolution called "end the u.s. war and occupation in afghanistan." it is a call for withdrawal of u.s. troops. obama is doing a 180 , the largest state democratic party has called for. dennis kucinich stated in the "new york times" peace the
recall of an indictment which was done in recognition of what happened during the vietnam war. when the executive branch ran roughshod. this is a crucial test next month. will the leadership on the hill the talks about its reservations concerning an escalation, regardless of who, çóñiwould thy step up to the play to put some teeth behind their misgivings? so far no one in the administration will. host: you say barack obama and the democratic congress are feeling of public frustration with the explosion of authoritarian centralized government? guest: did i miss anything? i think that is exactly katrina. nowhere better illustrated than what we're seeing with the healthcare debate. the senate is apparently preparing to pass what is
undoubtedly the biggest expansion of federal power. certainly in modern history. this will have an incredible impact on daily lives of all americans. ñithey will not begin tax. -- not be good and tax. -- not be good impacts. at a certain point, for sure she will be vented and printed in about one year at the polls. i think we will see a big change in congress. host: we were talking about the deficit and the overall debt abridging $12 to win. it approaches nearly $2 trillion this week. guest: received the worst of both worlds when the white house and the speaker and majority leader harry reid are leaving
the party on the hill and in the white house in a direction that keeps splitting the difference with republicans. republicans will never be satisfied anyway. these are right wing forces opposing the new deal since it began a. there is a pattern here whether in afghanistan, where leaders of opposition way in the buckle -- and then buckled, or with health-care. if there is any change in any positive direction -- but we see now and abandonment of the public option, cave in to the insurance industry. yet months ago speaker pelosi's announced says no big never mind who months ago said it was essential. harry reid says the same. this is opening the democratic
party to inevitable tax. we're not even getting the new deal kind of program we need. such as guaranteed. health care for guaranteed this is a travesty. we're giving the insurance industry huge subsidies. the medicare proposal floated in the senate -- now we find out the premiums for just one individual between 55-64 each person could be paying $7,600. this is not a social compact that guarantees health care. it perpetuates the idea or reality of healthcare apartheid. host: good afternoon to our viewers are watching us on the bbc parliament channel. we also welcome your calls. you can also send us a comment by twitter or by our e-mail address.
let me share with you what mitch mcconnell said yesterday off the senate floor and where the healthcare debate is and is going. >> we saw two weeks ago in a gallup poll that there was a 9% more americans opposed then supporting. we saw a 40% more opposing in another poll. now in the cnn will we see 61% opposed. the argument i your friends on the other side making, they are employing their members to make history. many things may draw history have been mistakes. if this bill were passed in face of overwhelming opposition, having failed to achieve the goal of holding down health care costs, it would be viewed as a historic mistake.
guest: i still enjoy these kinds of conversations where you get to the fundamental issues separating left and right. norman talks about a social compact as if we did not have one prior to franklin roosevelt when fact we did. it is called the constitution. it includes the 10th amendment which says all power is not specifically given did not given specifically to the federal government are given to the people. the healthcare bill is a nuclear bomb for that. secondly, i am fascinated when i hear people like norman say, the frame progressive policies as positive. it is not positive, norman, to give the american people less freedom. this country is about freedom. you guys on the left keep taking it away from us.
guest: it is not really positive to have children in emergency rooms right now around the country will die without health care. is not positive to have 45 million people in the country without any health insurance whatsoever. we heard that argument against social security and unemployment insurance. medicare and medicaid. about the 10th amendment and states reserving rights. but in one of fact we take for granted now some of the things people fought for against what fdr called the economics royalists of the day. it is not really a matter of left versus right, per se. a good thing about c-span is weakened talk about more than two sides to an argument. the republican party can strongly hew to a line that i believe opposes all the social
progress measures we revere, and the obama administration which keeps splitting the difference, corporatizing and militarizing policies. you have progressive voices say we will always oppose republicans, but we will fight like hell against this obama administration when it pursues policies detrimental to people's well-being. host: let we put one more issue on the table. 40% staff cuts over the next couple of weeks. some question of whether the times will stay in business. that is your competitors. what will happen? guest: i wish that i knew. i am a former "washington times" reported. frankly, i hope it survives. i do not know that it will. host: why? guest: 40% staff cut.
my understanding is they have given notice to all the employees of the potential of being terminated. which is not encouraging. host: let's get on calls the mechanic joining us from indianapolis. caller: good morning. the like to make a comment about president obama's speech the other day, and just a lot of things i hear about the evil people who we call the hottest seat -- jihadists, islamic radicals. the question i would ask, why would they attacked our so- called way of living 50-100 years ago? guest: that is an interesting question and i'm not sure that they were not doing that 50-100 years ago. we just did not see it manifested so directly are
manifestly as we did on 9/11 when more than 3000 americans died. guest: you know, if you look of the bombing raids in afghanistan, the u.s. has quadrupled its monthly bombing runs in terms of actual warheads dropped. that is experienced by terror as many there. we say that we are the good people and they should know. we can quote president obama say that there is evil in the world. but frankly the little girl i met in kabul loss one of her arms due to the bombing raid by the u.s. in helman one year ago might be excused for believing that the government dropped the bomb on her neighborhood -- that has a bit of evil in its. especially since she at age seven will live the rest of her life with only one hour. rather than get on our high scores, we might try to apply a
single standard of human right. host: let me read to you what "the weekly standard" has this morning. "peace is generally good in itself but never the highest good unless it comes as the handmade of righteousness. and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice." those are the words of teddy roosevelt as he expected the nobel peace prize on. guest: he helped concoct rationale for the invasion of iraq. this is standard boilerplate stuff. you can flash that more than four decades in washington. we heard the same kind of rhetoric from those trying to justify the escalation of war in vietnam. when you hear the lyndon johnson tapes on the phones such as
those aired on bill moyer's show a couple weeks ago you hear leaders on the hill saying privately, even pleading with the president not simply to get carried away with the militarism. as one leader from the appropriations committee pleads with the president now -- yet there's something in this repeated compulsion, president bent on war who insists, no, we are the smart guys, the best and brightest. we will do a ride. host: norm solomon, the author of "or made easy." and this ismark, a reporter. caller: good morning. i want to talk about the fact that when president obama was
running, running for office, he said that he felt the war in afghanistan was the right war to fight. he made it very clear. he really got in and listen to what everyone had to say. he made the decision he thought best for the country around how we face afghanistan. i think if we look carefully at what he has done, he is not just sending troops over there to fight, but to do the social things neglected to the bush administration. guest: thanks for your comment. more than 90% of money spent is
for military operation. only a few pennies per dollar is by any stretch for humanitarian assistance. i'm glad you brought it up. i was an obama supporter against john mccain. i was glad obama 1 november a year ago. he has broken many promises. he has broken a promise for habeas corpus in civil liberty. one year ago he said that a public option is crucial. now it has disappeared and he does not really care. he has not broken really bad promise which was to focus more resources on afghanistan. he could have and he has chosen not to. host: disappointed in the president? guest: very disappointed. i did not have extremely high expectations, but my dearly low
these petitions have not been met. i was reading many forces to help get him host: collected do both of the tweet? guest: absolutely, a little bit. that is absolutely not true. there have been at least 14 republican alternative proposals. the problem is, harry reid and barack obama and nancy pelosi made a decision at the outset to ignore public and. that is exactly why we continually hear this idea. host: david is joining us for nashville. caller: good morning. mr. solomon, you and i are living in very different worlds. the last time i checked the democrats had 60 votes in the
senate and the overwhelming majority in the house. republicans, all we can do is play four-cornered defense. we have not had control of congress sent 2006. what over gotten? we have gone from 4.4% unemployment up to something like 17.5%. i am over 60 years old and i have never seen the economy in such disarray. it is because a democrat. they are going to vote for democrats because it does not matter. host: here is a twitter from john. guest: well, under fdr the new deal was to announce the socialist all the time. the economy went into a tailspin
under the administration of george w. bush. the official rate of just around 10% right now does masked the deeper and wider unemployment. i would say that we are now looking at a situation where the stimulus package from the obama administration as has been ward by others to be inadequate. there has been a bailout of wall street, not relief for main street or for homeowners under water. what we need is a progressive populism that really can negate the charges coming from the right that some of the democratic party is elitist. guest: we have had progressive policies in this country since, actually before the new deal beginning with president wilson. particularly in the last 30 years when the federal government took over officially, responsibility for maintaining the initial growth, we have seen
what happens with big government. you get big problems and is the ability to take care of them over time. now we see the fruits of too much government. guest: the real feel that trickle-down economics under president reagan during the 1980's was somehow progressive policy? guest: the federal government in the 1980's as now officially assumed the responsibility for maintaining economic growth. from the perspective, yes. ronald reagan took a different policy approach. it does not change the reality that the government has responsibility. host: tim joins us from austin, texas. caller: thanks to the uk audience about the iraq war policy. concerning the is really a tie
with the war. there is an excellent piece from a couple of years ago about the israel lobby. guest: well, i think a single standard of human rights helps people to avoid getting lost. it is a reliable compass. otherwise people get sort of jerk around and drawn into various eddies and hurricanes of ideologies and nationalism and theology. if you look at the question of human right, palestinians have lived in their land occupied now for more than four years in gaza and the west bank. a siege on gaza withholding basic health care and other resources. if we use a single yardstick of human rights than i think we should be critical of the israeli government particularly because taxpayers are helping to subsidize it.
guest: the problem with this perspective is this -- everyone agrees there should be a standard of human rights which is the maximum amount of freedom. the problem is, people like norm on the left never want to say this far in a further. people with hitler would not respect any single code of human rights. neither do they with us plo. the problem is, you have to make a decision at some point that you will not go any further. as far as the little girl you met in canada or who lost her arm, there were millions and millions of little girls who lost lives because the west did not stop hitler early enough. that is the issue that separates the left and the red. you want the rights without being willing to defend them. guest: as individual rights, but the right to not be bound is fundamental matter who pays the bills. host: michael indiana "the new
york post" -- a photograph of president nixon with mau. he writes that is surely a hopeful sign that president obama had the courage to recognize the historical achievements. it would be better if he would follow their examined to win their peace in our time through strength. he said that even offered double crude weapons and established on the night before greeting his peace prize. something you put together for your buck -- war made easy -- and then it you" this senator who served from 1945 until 1969. he began as a republican and became a democrat. this is from the interview of cbs. >> the sole responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy. >> could not be more wrong. it could not make a more unsound
legal staff and then the when you just made. this is a promulgation of an old fallacy that foreign policy belongs to the president. that is nonsense. it belongs to the american people. >> where does the president fit in? >> under our constitution of the present is is an administrator of the people's foreign-policy. i plead the american people be given the fact. >> the american people cannot formulate and execute foreign policy. >> you are a man of little faith. i have complete faith in the ability of the american people to follow the facts if you give them. we're not giving them the facts. host: first reaction frommark tapscott. guest: i'm surprised.
the journalist actually asked tough follow-up questions which we hardly see any more. he did not notice the two most recent democrats. former vice president al gore and former president jimmy carter. guest: the clip from 1964 is a voice that really casts into sharp relief the failures of leadership on capitol hill now. you look at senators who were supposedly raising questions about the president's policies for afghanistan and their relatively weak voice is. really, what he was raising in that interview resonates today. article one, section 8 of the u.s. constitution says it is up to the congress to decide whether the u.s. goes to war and stays there. that is through the power of purse and appropriations process.
the resolution to be invoked next month on in capitol hill in the house by congressman dennis kucinich and several others really raises and sharpens that question. i think that while he is no longer with morris, will be there in spirit as this resolution comes to the floor. host: will joins us from london. caller: thank you for receiving michael. i have two questions. the first is [unintelligible] with the advent of new technology we can find out any piece of information or news development in minutes. and comments about president
is it necessary to enter into black operations? host: with a couple of issues on the table we will get a response. guest: the caller raises a very interesting questions. we're just beginning to sort out, even to realize much less supply, the possibilities presented to governments through the internet. this is a different world in a fundamental sense. the call lawyerspoint about the conflict between on the one hand, because we are in democracy versus the practical reality that you cannot conduct of covert military operation by definition in the open -- that cannot be solved. it takes privet leadership to figure out with the answers are.
host: let me get your reaction to this piece this morning in "the washington post." the headline concerns the terraced recruiters leveraging theweb. developers point to the dangers of the dangers and extensive network of using the on-line network for recruitment. guest: it is really fascinating that there is a tendency to swing in one direction or the red. either the internet is going to make us all democratic participants in governance, or it is a source of subversion and
evil that must be jon ash -- be challenged. the capacity to communicate is fraught with positive opportunities, and also people can do what they have tried to without the internet in previous centuries. that is sometimes to plan to destroy. it always is a hazard to have the first amendment functional. but as thomas jefferson and many others said, we are much better off with it again without it to. host: a question for you, mark, and the essence of the story is that after years of delay, those familiar with talks say the obama and mr. shen realizes more nations have been developing cyber weapons. there are talks between the u.s. and russia to control the
strength of the internet and limit military use of cyber space. guest: as president ronald reagan said, of course you can talk to them. you trust, but you verify. if you cannot verify, don't talk to them. this is encouraging as a development, but let's not kid ourselves. the russians are going as the chinese already are, and i'm sure every other major nation, seeking every possible means they can on the cyber front and every other front to protect their self-interests. host: miami, on the line for democrats. caller: c-span is a good mechanism to deal with issues. we have never had this before.
mark, what is happening is coming home to roost. sins of our fathers. there was never a plan in the republican party to incorporate the type of socialism, socialistic, social conservative mentality. it was already in the democratic party the democrats got mad. did not have their way, pulled out, it influenced some officials of the republican party. therefore now, 40 years later, they are dominating. what happens is we don't give- and-take in the republican party. the socialist-type republicans. but the fiscal republicans basically do share the frustrations of what has happened with bush.
it has led them to want tomorrow's go for change. this is what obama is doing. my point is, and all you said coming never said anything about yes, -- we are saying no. that is the easy way out if you do not agree, to just say no. guest: there are number of threads there. the political descendants of dixiecrats are largely the republican party on capitol hill. if you go back 10, 15 years right after the 1994 takeover of congress by republicans few from the key leaders in committee chairs were southern whites whose base was overwhelmingly the dixiecrat voters. the was migration through the successful use of the so-called southern strategy by richard nixon in to the republican
party. now i think we have the opportunity to refrain this entire debate. i don't think it is necessarily a republican/democrat debate. he needs to be a more profound question of who we are as a society. health care, are we responsible to each other? priorities that create full employment. are we responsible to create that? or do we simply draw to the market as republicans would do entirely? or as obama would be largely? on that note, i think we need a jobs program. mark, you mentioned earlier the terrible, rising unemployment rate. the jobs stimulus package passed is now creating jobs at a cost of of boards of $200,000 per job. it is funneled into a corporate version of trickle-down job creation. if you have something like the works progress administration that fdr launched, you can create jobs through federal jobs
programs at a much lower cost. and with much greater effect. host: along those lines, mark, you say that the conservatives offer nothing but fear -- that is what is said to you. guest: i have to respond about no atrm said about the do cigarettes. the 1964 civil rights bill would not have been passed without republican support, particularly that of the then-senate minority leader. it is robert byrd, a democratic senator from west virginia who was a former ku clucks klan leader. it was democrats who maintained segregation to route the south. it is democrats today who are trying to impose a new form of segregation through speech codes and he crimes that single out people and silence them because of their views. guest: briefly, the cigarettes
migrated into the republican party precisely because of passage of the 1964 civil rights act as lyndon johnson said, there goes the south for a generation. he was absolutely right. cold water carried only a few states. all of them in the deep south. he opposed civil rights legislation. with very few exceptions -- dirkson was willing to stick out his neck for civil-rights against the state's rights argument. host: norm solomon with the institute for public accuracy. mark tapscott is the editorial page editor for "the washington examiner." caller: thank you very much. this is an honor and privilege. mr. tapscott, did you think it was dereliction of duty not to have every mp battalion and
ordinance disposal unit on standby when we went into iraq? also, did you think the president did not show enough care to be concerned, to read the newspaper? host: gary, you need to explain your question. the way we can get an appropriate response. caller: the question is, did he think it was dereliction of duty not to have every mp the time when we went into iraq? and ordinance disposal unit on standby, or alert so that we could deal with what obviously we were going to have to deal with? a lot of men lost their lives because we just very the explosives and ordinance. to make hay ied out of an
artillery shell all you need is a hole-digger. guest: i'm not sure of the specific situation the caller is referring to with regard to the open days of the 2003 invasion of iraq. i would point out that most of the ied's now and for the last several years had been produced in iran. and ship into iraq. specifically to kill american soldier. does not the products of leftover ordnance from u.s. actions. they are designed specifically in iran to kill americans. host: you are sparking a lot of conversation online on twitter. we will listen to greg from new york city. caller: i love the debate we're having here.
mr. solomon, i love your intentions and intelligence. mr. tapscott, i find you are skirting any solid question with any value towards the american public. i have three questions for you. first, the beginning of the u.s. when the boat came over and basically was welcomed by the natives of there in new england. and talked how to live on this land. yet the result of that kind this was turned back them with murder and mayhem. the country moves toward. you brought up barry goldwater and want brown points for the civil-rights movement. the white democrats did not want to pass it down south. we wanted to do it. as a kid in 1964 i remember, eight years old and barry goldwater's speed all the racist
haiti can. i hear many conservative, right- wing republicans always want to: barry goldwater, yet you never go back to his change of heart. the same meeting with mr. kkk byrd that we know from west virginia and his thought process. if we get to be one, a few mr.tapscott listen to mr. solomon a little more and get away from the no and try to get a little more to the yes, . can't mr. solomon, a want to applaud you for your intelligence and intentions. host: we will stop you there to let the harvard debate continue. guest: this was your brother,
right? if guest: not literally, anyway. guest: where do i start? i commend the caller for his passion. it is too bad we don't have more for american politics today. i would simply say that the caller obviously has a the conventional wisdom of american academia today which is that somehow these evil europeans came to america and took over and murdered and killed for 300 years. that is a total misreading of american, western history. people who have that perspective are not generally open to contrary opinions. i commend the gentleman for his passion. host: coming from james, i
thought that the "haters" took sunday off. caller: good morning. only to quickly comment on health care issue. i am for reform, but i tell you what i. if i were watching across the parking lot and is on became up to the my flesh -- i would think that i could get these things are down. the democrat would walk up to zombie and demand healthcare. that is how prophetic the left is. the road to hell is paved with good intentions. i do agree that we need to get out of afghanistan. there's no logical reason that our men and women should be dying in the mountains fighting men who have fought and triggers
for 1000 years. no matter where the interest come from. our problem from terrorism is in saudi arabia, in the culture of is on. i want to tell c-span thank you for this debate. this is the kind of debate that in joy. intelligent men on both sides of the aisle debating the issues. guest: a couple quick thoughts. i would recommend "the people's history of the united states." the racism and brutality is reality, part of history. the selling of the u.s., what became the u.s. by europeans brought with it beginning with christopher columbus tremendous slaughter of native people. we urge other countries to confront their histories and we may as well do that as well. on health care issue, i happen to think it is a human rights.
we may not like or empathize with some people. still, it is a human right as should be education. if someone's house of business were burning down, with the look of their insurance card to decide whether to send the fire department first? people's bodies are sometimes on fire with disease and illness. if we do not believe it to be a public trust are human right, then we have not yet ascended to a sense of human responsibility and social compact to each other. host: let -- back to the president's speech in oslo. the president tried to address history in terms of the evil we have faced in this country and around the world. >> another is nothing week, nothing passive, nothing naive in the greed and lives of gandhi and dr. king, but as the head of state sworn to protect and my
nation, i cannot be guided alone by their principals. i face the world as it is an cannot be idle in the face of threats to american people. big mistake, evil does exist in the world. and non-violence movement cannot have halted hillers armies. negotiants cannot convince al qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. to say that force may sometimes be necessary it is not a call to cynicism. it is a recognition of history. the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. host: mark? guest: this is a very commendable recognition of reality. people in positions like the president must make decisions based on the way the world is not simply the way that we wish was. guest: it was a slick rhetorical
maneuver by the president to not come to terms with what martin luther king spoke for and live for. and you might say died for. fortunately, particularly in the democratic party base, so many people understand more profound messages from martin luther king, including the essential task to oppose what they call the madness of militarism that obama i am afraid is trying to negate the history very much alive for us in terms of dr. king's legacy/ . host: another caller from britain. caller: good morning. my question is for mr. solomon. first of all, i want to echo the same thing the previous caller said about your level of intelligence. i think you are very intelligent and it is fun listening to you. do you think president obama's
speech at oslo was carefully crafted a? carefully crafted to appease the republican base for some reason? it seems to me that he said a number of things he does not truly believe. am i wrong? by the way, i do agree with you on health care. it is right for everyone. it is a basic human right. if it does not get past, america is in trouble. guest: it is a quixotic and not for a full effort to understand what a president believes at the bottom of his heart. we need to look at his actual policy. lyndon johnson gave an eloquent , progressive and doggerel address and proceeded to escalate the war that caused a few million deaths in vietnam
and destroyed the hopes of a great society and his own domestic program. i think that barack obama has shown himself despite his protesting too much that he believes there's not a pearl between afghanistan and vietnam, -- not a parallel between them, i think he has set a course of destructive policy in escalation. it is most profoundly destructive for those there and here. it is guaranteed to split the democratic party. host: many of those are tweeting about the back-and-forth about these issues. along those lines on a domestic issue ,joe says ed health care was the right, then how would the government have the power to regulate? guest: that is the problem with the approach taken by the
democratic party. if you tell everyone in society that they have an unlimited right to all the health care they could possibly consume, you guaranteeing that there will be rationing. many million people will not get the care they need because there is not an infinite supply. there must be a mechanism one way or another. either bureaucrats or free- market to allocate the available healthcare resources. frankly, in the experience of the world, the freedom way of doing that is free markets. the way to have a government rationing is bureaucracy. guest: we have a rationing now. corporate rationing. the first question when you get to an emergency room is where is your insurance card? guest: exactly, right. guest: if you want to have a society where there is a
hierarchy, then you have a good non-system. i wish democrats on capitol i shall were pursuing a goal of health care for all. i think there has been an abdication of the possibility. guest: don't forget, big insurance, big business, big pharmacy's supports obamacare. guest: we see that with a bill which is quite good so that canadian drugs could come over the border. it is disturbing that the obama what else is trying to prevent access to canadian drugs because of the deal cut. . .
guest: guthrie song. host: good morning caller. caller: there is a legislation called the free choice act, i lost my job in april, and the company had to follow along with the trickle effect so that specific members could not work and totally shut down production. yeah, labor unions are job killers. which is one way to make money and to repeal the free choice act. host: thanks for will call. norm. guest: yeah, these are the folks that got the workweek and overtime, the bill that you mentioned, the employee free choice act, president obama said he would support when campaigning last year and in
contrast with president clinton that went against nafta and obama has not lifted a finger for the employee free choice act. and i think again it shows why so many republicans have reason to be somewhat in contempt of what is not being done. host: this question about americans pay half their income to provide health care for third world? guest: the deeper question is what is our priorities and what to we want to do as a society. host: joe is joining us this morning. caller: thank you, god bless c-span. the health debate is affecting
a large part of the economy, and prior they looked at the senators and 85 to 90 voting. the way politics is so bitter, if they ran through on party lines, that would make the politics worse. i think they need 85 people or it's worse. democrats and republicans both have good ideas. guest: i fundamentally agree with that assessment in this respect, when you have a situation where the majority is insisting upon another expansion of government, you will have a strong reaction from those of us who want less government and more freedom. and as long as that's the basis narrative of this politics, we will have this situation. guest: a lot of narrative injected by president clinton that big government is over,
and that's a çrhetorical ascension and the big guns were lotted for big government. guest: actually that was not an ascesion by the government but the americans. host: we have robert joining us, good morning. please go ahead. caller: yes, sir, i am a 75-year-old african-american from mississippi and i am also a vietnam veteran, i]i have a problem with the way that thew3
republicans go around and say they are the moral authority onç civil rights. i mean in mississippi, i am sure that the gentleman on the right he cannot imagine america being in the 40's and the 50's in mississippi about civil rights. i think we should straight -- straighten up our own act before we go to vietnam and afghanistan and iraq before we talk about somebody's civil rights. and that's all i have to say. guest: first i want to thank caller for his service in vietnam, you can never be appreciated enough. and i did grow up in a
segregated society and went to a segregated school in the 50's, and i came to a conclusion early in my life that this country had to have a civil rights revolution, if you will. precisely because government was getting so much bigger and the violations of civil rights are initiated or protected by the government. that we had to the civil rights resolution of 1974 to reduce the power of the government. host: a look back at 2009, carlos says that the year is over, but was it history. was it a historical year of how we look at 1959 or 1865, at the end of the civil war, would you put it in context? 1776 or 1919? guest: my sense that the united
states and a lot of the world were traumatized by eight years of the george bush administration and the obama administration, and the nobel peace prize is a standard to the military center that obama has shown himself to be. and that's why we are, it's a tipping point. it didn't have to be this way, that could have been an asserted, nondogmatic aggressiveness pursued by the obama administration. obama is not pursuing an aggressive policy. this year is a tipping back to a center policy that has a lot in the negative sense of terms of effects, domestically and ç foreign and that's going to be
an issue in a year or two ahead. guest: 2009 has been a transitional year, i wrote a column saying that if president obama would make him a symbol of what is wrong with the government, which is too much government, he would be a one-term president. and everyone that has happened in my view is that he's on a one-term strategy. host: before we let you go, this network and this town, the subject of political humor last night on "saturday night live." >> senators held a press conference earlier today to criticize the media's excessive coverage of tiger woods' extra
martial affairs. >> good evening, i am senator john edwards and senator from north carolina. the three of us are here today because there is something very wrong going in this country. and we can't keep silent about it. in the last two weeks our media has participated in an orgy of tiger woods and his extramartial affairs. the coverage has overshadowed the coverage of our extramartial affairs. >> like tiger woods, we have abused our vows and violated the public's trust. it's a big deal but the media doesn't care less. >> where is the coverage?
>> where is the outrage? >> we are still in office. >> i had a love child. host: your response? guest: i swear the fella like sanford sounded just like jimmy carter. host: that deserves no comment. thank you gentlemen for being with us. what we talked the last hour will mirror on the sunday programs, bobbie jackson from c-span radio. >> the programs on radio will include the economy and afghanistan. the guests on "meet the press" will be christine roamer, former chairman allen greenspan, k÷qand former
massachusetts çgovebn>i)ñkfáf' vxdçç and onççççw3çt( fox news s by chris wallace çwill have republicans from new hampshire ó and oklahoma. on "face the nation" from cbs. you will hear host with mitch mcconnell, and joseph lieberman, with ben nelson from nebraska. and on "state of the union" you will hear democratic senator warren, you can listen to all five sunday morning talk shows
their person of the year. we will to see who the magazine should select.ç the çnumbers to call are on yo screen.xdç we welcome our listeners on c-span radio and on w3çmyw3su' 130. the magazine will announce its selection in a çseries of interviews, beginning on we@gesday, and "time magazine" is out on thursday so in advance of that, the decision has been made. but who do you think should be the important of year? you can send in your twitter comment at twitter.com/cspanwj or an e-mail to the journalc-span.org. host: who do you think that they select?
caller: sarah palin. host: why? caller: she's made support of transferring into serious discussions, she could be the next president. host: stan is next, who should they select? caller: it should be bob schultz for putting together the problems of 2009 and w3tryi to çdo something çóabout it. host: thanks t(xdççófor okñrth can go to time website for those they include, and they list the iran protesters for a candidate, senator snow, qapple steve jobs, qççxdand timoth g
is one on the list.çç chris is joining us.çt-çxdç caller: yeah, is this c-span? host: yes, who should be the time's person of the year? caller: jesse wú ventura.çlpç host: why xdoko[çt(t(is that? caller: because he's one ttçço few people with enough guts. he is out there challenging the attack. host: we have michael joining us. caller: good morning, i think ron paul should be the man, he stands up for the constitution. host: thanks, ron paul was on our show just about a week ago,
on c-span.org talking about the fed and his unhappiness with ben bernanke. the senate is in session today with a final vote on the spending bill and then back to the health care. we have robert joining us from new jersey. robert, if you turn the volume down on your television set, we will hear you better. who should be the time's person of the year? robert? i will hang up. good morning where are you phoning from? caller: canyon lake, texas. host: who should be the person of the year? caller: hi, i didn't know i was going to be on this fast. i think that president bush should be the person of the year. and i will tell you why, he's put up with the lying cowards
for the eight years and put with up obama and his people accusing him of murdering babies and like the black progressive that murdered black babies his entire life and of those who cried in. host: we will go to david from north carolina. good morning. caller: yes, how are you. host: who should be times person of the year? caller: mr. madock, because he showed the american people how easy it is to take their money and do whatever he want to do with it. host: si -- svana is next. caller: good morning, i believe that obama should be person.
-- person of the year. all of my life i have never seen a president come into office with all the challenges he faces. and to handle it with such dignity and not lash out or get angry at anybody, but to try to bring people together. that's why i think he should be the person of the year. host: michele is next from tampa, florida. when you pick up "time magazine," who should be on the cover? caller: definitely tim geithner. host: why is that? caller: he was able to cheat on his taxes and then get office. host: he wasn't elected but we understand your point. phil, who should it be?
caller: yeah, i am surprised it's not obama. host: well, he's on the list. let me go through again, if you want to go to time.com, among the candidates, fed chairman, bernanke, obama, and geithner. caller: i like bernanke, as a team they have rescued this country so well. host: one twitter comment, lillie ledbetter should be the person. of earning equal pay for equal work. we have dennis joining us. caller: yes, it should be barack obama, i have seen him
since eisenhower, and this is the best president i have seen in my lifetime. no one else has the skills or the talents he come on to this scene at this time. no question it should be barack obama. host: thank you for the call, next is gary from st. louis. caller: yeah, i think it definitely be glenn beck, he brought out the wrong people and shows from the president, and no one can dispute him. as far as i am concerned he's doing more for this country than the president or any other administration. host: thank you, next we have sam. caller: i don't agree with that gentleman with glenn beck, he's disinforming the country, and
god help with someone with that echo chamber. i am a muslim and it should definitely be ron paul. i applaud your network because it has some gumption to stay true to the principles. for ron paul, he understands foreign policy and understands the nature of the relationship between intervening in =ññ countries and occupying them. but unfortunately he's regarded as a bit of a nut job with the news media, but i applause you and your staff for having him in your studio. host: we love having him and always welcome. caller: i appreciate that, but i was disappointed as you cut off an earlier caller for the
journalalists that wanted to elaborate his point of the nature of his israeli nature. host: you know why, because it's a :icaller that frequents the network, we want to have a wide variety of opinions and a chance are others to weigh in. next is karen. caller: i would like to nominate nasa scientist, gavin schmidt, that's on realclimate.org answering all the e-mails on climate change. he's tirelessly answering every question, that's gavin schmidt from nasa. host: we want to review what is happening in the state capitol
as moving from tim mccain to bob mcdonald, and with the move from keep cuts for commonwealth presidents next year. and a related story in new jersey, corzine and christie still at war as the government elect looks to block some moves from corzine. duke is joining us, "time magazine," person of the year, who should it be, duke? caller: first let me give you the worse person of the year, and that's barack obama, the worse president ever, not even close. now the best person of the year who tells it like it is, you ain't going to like this, but it's going to be rush limbaugh. he's the man. don't forget it. host: thanks for the call, duke.
speaking of president obama, one viewer saying that the president left with the hug -- huge mess is not done yet. from the times, google is making a move with the smart phone to rival apple with the smart phone, and steve jobs is being considered as "time magazine" person of the year. we have fred joining us from the independent line. caller: yes, i think it should be president barack obama, and the historic thing he's brought about being an african-american president, has to be the greatest thing in the history of america.
host: one other person like duke said that rush limbaugh should be the person of the year. and beck's pinocchio and we have lee joining us. going to new york, ray on the republican line. caller: hey, i agree with one of the previous callers, george w. bush to be the person of the year. because in the past year the democrats have w7[blamed him repeatedly over and over.ñr to him and there is çónothing ok they will take çresponsibility for. host: ok, thanks for will call. we showed this headline, çon t front page of the "washington times", çmore koon afghanistan the left xdççóççisç rankle
comments. next caller, who should be mst person of year? caller: i think it should be scully that is more universally liked. host: thanks for the call, the senate voted 60-34 on the spending bill, but in order to end the republican filibuster, democrats had to hold the vote for 50 minutes for senator robert byrd and for senate
lieberman to walk over. next caller? caller: sidney shien who stood up as a warmonger, and stood up for the war caused by 9/11. host: from the weekly standard, called the quack health care. we have lee joining us. caller: yeah, i think it should be a three way tie, the republican party and rush limbaugh and the insurance industry, of how they have lied to the american public concerning health care and getting national health care. they have totally mislead this country. host: one debate is making health care available for those
65 to 74, it's an issue we will cover next on "washington journal." we have anthony. caller: yes, i would like to nominate senator mckinney that is the only person to u!bring a civilians and i would like to nominate her. host: next is greg. caller: good morning, george w. bush, he's the man, and he fought through some tough times like 9/11 but not barack obama.ç host: çthere is a drop to low levels by banks, and the çóbank that once had home loans
freely, and many are effectively locked out. and the scarsity has not only hurt homeowners but brought repercussions at a time for improvement hinting at recovery after a recession. thank you for your comments and this the be available in "time magazine" on thursday. next we will look at how insurance for those 65 to 74 how it would work. and first we look back at the past events of the week from cartoonists.
>> political commentary, michael frau -- fauntroy, our guest tonight on c-span's "q & a." >> this week on the communicators, more on the wireless industry and a perspective from at&t mobility. "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome maria freese, he's a policy director to conserve social security and medicare. good morning.
guest: thank you for inviting us. host: what is where you are reaction from senator reid, to allow those age 64 to buy into medicare, those could potentially do so. guest: as you said, we don't know much about it. there are proposals to allow buy-ins to medicare for decades. we have done some analysis and the ultimate impact is how medicare is structured. what we hear it's not to impact medicare, they will create a separate risk pool for the people that buy-in. and i assume that most of the congressional leaders that have expressed concerns about the medical plan and i assume this
buy-in won't use the regular purchasing system in the medicare program. they will have to have something different. neither the cost piece or the payment piece will cross over into the existing medicare program. we are not expecting it to have impact on the program itself. host: but among the criticism that you have heard is that doctors and hospitals that typically get 60 to 70% on the dollar are worried this could spread to those 65 to 74 and this could have harm on who the physicians treat. guest: that's why i assume this is not how the program will work, they will have some other way to provide to the providers.
even the plan çat the house w not a reimbursement rate, and i can't imagine they would go back to a medicare restrictive rate. it would be another mechanism, you shouldn't have that problem with providers out in the rural areas where senators and congress has been concerned about that problem. host: does this have merit? guest: from our standpoint, we believe it's wonderful. the national committee represents 3 million people nationwide, mostly seniors and from all walks of life. and one thing they have in common is emytheir passion for social security and medicare. we think it's a wonderful program, it's not perfect, but bout medicare most seniors wouldn't have coverage at all.
allowing some people to have experience with the program we think can only be a good thing for medicare. as long as it's designed that you don't have to worry about who is purchasing into this pool. there is no way to know how sick these people are. host: why have medicare at all, to have a public option or government sponsor, why not make it available for everyone and keep it simple? guest: we don't have a problem with that, but you are not starting with a blank slate, you are starting with a health care system with significant involvement in the insurance industry. and they are woven in the fabric of life in the united states, and as much public concern raised by the discussion of whether or not the government is controlling the system that is now included in both of those bills.
there is no way to get a majority public support of scrapping the system completely and starting medicare for all. host: but when you hear that medicare is going broke, what do you say? guest: we obviously have concern before the medicare program, but you have remember it's a health care program and it's more efficient and grows more slowly overall than health care generally, but it's the same system, we use the same hospitals and same bandaids they use in the population. so when those can -- costs go up, they drive up also. unless you can get control over health care gross system wide, you will have a problem in the
economy and for the seniors. people tend to focus on the government cost associated with medicare, it's an individual problem with seniors. they are currently ymspending roughly $3 out of their social security check and that's to go up currently to 50 cents on the dollar. so it's not affordable for individuals or the government to have medicare growing the way it is. but it's not because there is a problem with medicare. you have to get control over the whole system or you end up with providers that won't take medicare patient. you think that the problem is bad now, you drive the rates lower that is proposed with these proposals by some senators, you will have serious access problems in a few short years. that's why as an organization we are intrigued and supported the idea of including medicare
in this bill. than just targeting medicare and that program, this is an effort to slow it system wide. host: some background on our guest, maria freese is a graduate from georgetown university, here in washington, d.c., spending 20 years on capitol hill and working with congressmen, who funds the national committee? guest: that is entirely member supported. we don't take any money from outside organizations or get supported by doctors or insurance companies. we are entirely supported by our 3 million plus members that send us $12 a year to represent them here in washington, dc.
host: we have tom joining us. caller: thank you, i am 53 years old and i took care of my mom and dad, they got sicked i don't have a job, i am disabled and taking care of property tax, what little i got and what it takes to eat and get by. how am i going to pay for health care, this 1500 a year they are talking about us, us being fined because we don't have money to pay for this. what little times i go to the doctor, i pay cash for it, and i pay dearly for it, but why do we need more government in our life? guest: if you are low income there are significant subsidies includes in the house and senate of this version of legislation. so the cost of the insurance
will be much, much significantly reduced. and you will have coverage. right now it sounds like you are fortunate in not having extraordinary medical expenses. if you did, it would be really hard to keep paying those expenses out of pocket. particularly since it's hard to plan for them, you never know when you will get really sick. this would give you coverage and subsidize that coverage to a large extent. host: would medicare gain from the enrollment from young people that are healthier? guest: they won't enroll in medicare but it helps the system if you have people with coverage through their lifetime. there are studies that have shown that people within the last ohdecade of medicare
eligibility, in their mid to late 50's, if they lose their coverage, they cost the medicare system significantly more in the first five years than the people that have insurance in that last decade. so it makes a difference if you have people that are healthy their entire lives and those things associated with insurance coverage. host: joyce is joining us from california. caller: hello, this one point of obamacare has nothing, nothing to do with the health care of our american people. it has everything to do with obamacare wanting to take power and control over this country and all of our lives. second point i want to make, i am 78 years old and fortunately
very healthy. but i have a retiree plan that i worked 40 years of my life for. i made sure that i have a medicare plan, fortunately it's a retiree plan, i am luck. -- lucky. this obamacare will take it away from me, and i won't have this plan that i worked my life for, and to give it to the people that chose not to work as hard as i did. and third, my father i am spending five years of what they did to him in toronto, canada, he went up to visit and he was 89 and ended up in an emergency room, and he was delivered with a simple hematoma that was bleeding in the head, and he was deliveried( late at night and they allow
andúçthey put him in a corner where all of my phone calls, all night. no one knew where he was. that hematoma kept on bleeding where he ended up nothing but the next morning a comatose human vegetable. as his daughter i had to put him to sleep. that's universal care in canada. host: joyce, when did this take place? caller: five years ago. i am with the legal communities and the so-called college of physicians and surgeons. and their appeal board. all they do is decide to refer to my dear father who was -- they refer to him as a demented old man that did not survive. i put my father on the plane
three days before, but he had a headache and i have a consultant here in california. i sent the records to him, ç' was delivered under four dozes of morphine. host: joyce, see your response. guest: first i am sorry about your loss and what happened to your father. and i congratulate to you for your good health that you said you have. the first issue is the issue of control. you can question whether or not the health care bills that are currently being considered by congress are actually where the president had initially started when he proposed health care in the campaign. but in fact the administration has been working closely with them to find middle ground. there is no government control
in these plans, and currently those decisions are being made by insurance companies. it's not as that all decisions get made by doctors and patients. the insurance industry has a great deal to do with how it's covered and paid and if you can buy a policy. people start out with the assumption that the control is the doctors and patients, and the insurance companies have control. your retiree plan, i am thrilled you have that plan, and there are incentives to sure that employers don't dump those plans. they historically have been limiting and curtailing it for decades. they do more cost shifting, in the last five years we have seen a dramatic increase in cost shifting.
these bills are an effort to maintain that system and if you can reduce the cost, there is more incentive. host: they expect the latest plan to be out later this week, any speculation or prediction? guest: well, i would be surprised if there were a lot of big surprises. usually there is back and forth that çhappens between the members as they design these proposals. you don't get a final scoring until they work out all the interactions. but you have some expectation that you will end f'pup with a reasonably balanced bill, the big çissue for c.e.o.is whethe it will help with the costs and what those "a -look like. i would be surprised if some
number comes back and they have to go back to the drawing board. but i have been surprised before. host: george from slidell, louisiana. caller: thank you, good morning for taking me call. my question is from all what i am hearing, it's going to take a long time for this buy-in to medicare to even come into effect. and what happens in the interim? i am 58 and i was laid off after being employed most of my life. i have had to go into my 401 k plan, i haven't been able to find a job. and that's stupid. what happens to the people that fall through the cracks? guest: well, there are a lot of people that are falling through the cracks today. and i think depending on which
pieces the ultimate bill picks up from, the house bill i believe had an insurance pool, people without insurance roughly age range could purchase into. many medicaid changes will be phased in quickly. if you are low income you may w% get assistance that way more quickly than if nothing happens at all. that's another thing, if this bill goes down is doesn't get signed into law. my expectation is it will be a long time before you look at major health care reform. so things won't get better for those without coverage or to improve. host: michael is twittering this question.
guest: medicare pays providers less and that's why it grows in cost more slowly than in the private sector. roughly it pays the hospital 70% and doctors about 80%. and clearly the providers have decided that differential is acceptable to them. for the most part seniors don't report accident problems, you are not talking about major problems with seniors being able to see doctors of their choice or going to the hospital of their choice. so the differential that exists in the current system is one that the system has adapted to. that's why we are so determined to have these changes done in the context of health refarm. -- reform. that differential says that the difference between what the
sectors pay should be close to the same. and it does end up, the medicare program is easier for them to deal with. prior to the administration you had rules to follow and it was a much more administratively program to work with. and it was worth to take less money because they made up with it not having the costs with the private companies. host: if you are listening to c-span radio here in washington, xm 132, our guest is maria freese, our topic expanding medicare. the proposal put forward last week and the process spoke of this week. next caller. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call, because i ñspeech but to free í
i am not entitled to a forum for it. with that said, i have a right to gun ownership but i am not entitled to be issued one. therefore i may have a right to health care and that's not equated to entitlement and that's a line that is blurred grossly by the people to the left. host: thank you, allen, more of a comment, not a question. guest: yes. host: going to marilyn in billings, montana. caller: good morning, i am on medicare and so is my husband, he's on the medicare advantage, which they are going to strip from him. my question is how in god's name with medicare with next to in the sewer are they going to
add 55 years old to 64 on to this medicare program that will be in the worse of health. it will be like the hawaii insurance for kids in hawaii. people that could afford to have their children insured under their employment, took the kids off of their employment insurance and put them on the freebie and the program sunk. they had to pull it. i just need to know how they are going to take 55 and some billion away from medicare, and add all of these people on there and think it will function. and as for glenn beck, those who are bad mouthing them, they are hard core democrats, and i used to be democrat. their aim is to get us and they are doing a good job.
host: marilyn thank you for the call, and that was a spill-over for the person of the year, and to her earlier point. guest: sure i will try to answer, she had many elements that are actually very important for seniors to know. we have spent a lot of our time walking to our members and seniors. there is a lot of misinformation about this bill and they are concerned and rightfully so. many are so dependent on the medicare program and if something were to happen to it, they would be in bad shape. we would not support a bill that we thought would hurt the medicare program. so to take the pieces individually. as i mentioned earlier, this buy-in, the folks going to be
buying in are not buying into the medicare program as we understand it today. they will have their own risk pool, that means if they are sicker than the overall medicare population, they will divide their costs in their own sub-population of those under 65. and their premiums and costs will be based on their own health problems. this will not have a spill over to medicare because the premiums and cost will be set on a different level of experience based on the health of the population in there. host: i want to go back to a point that was outlined in thew wall street journal, they report that /m%last year the m clinic lost 840 million dollars
and where did they come up with that number and does this snowball? >> i don't know where they came up with that number, and i cannot imagine that the providers, hospitals and other providers are in the business of providing health care and making other money. they would not be taking medicare patients today if they were on a regular basis losing significant amounts of money every time they saw a medicare patient. there is clearly a value they get out of the medicare system that allows them to continue providing coverage. so you know, i am not sure why that would appear different in the mayo clinic as opposed to any other provider. and again as for the buy-in, their costs will be set at their experience and therefore there shouldn't be any impact or spillover into the existing
medicare program. host: for maria freese, sandy is joining from hollywood, florida. caller: hi, thank you for taking my call. i wonder why you are not considering people retiring early, from 55 to 64 retiring because now they can afford their medical coverage because these people are not paying into the medicare, how does that work? guest: that's a consideration and at the fact there could be a spillover into the program. at this point when you look at the overall program, and that's another reason why we are interested in what cbo says this week. but the overall program, now the life expectancy of the part "a" trust fund that is financed by people that are working, is
expected to almost double its solvency as a result of the health care bills in the house and science. -- senate. whatever the numbers and how they shake out, the overall impact of the numbers are good, because you got another five years of solvency out of the medicare fund that is to pay benefits of coverage for about another seven years. after that it will only have enough to pay half of the seniors health i]care cost. getting that extended by another five or more years is a good outcome for seniors. because one way or another that can't be allowed to continue, it has to be fixed. host: how do you think that congress will react to this democratic proposal? guest: so far there is more
favorable reaction than i expected. which leads me to believe it will be a very segregated program, and that makes me believe they won't use the standard reimbursement rates or you wouldn't have a favorable buzz about it. again we don't know the details. host: we will learn more, and maria freese, çthe policy director for social security and medicare. we will have you come back and talk about social security next time.t( guest: would be happy to. host: we continue coverage, tomorrow our guest will preview the president as he meets for the third time this year with c.e.o.'s of large banks. and john taylor will join us on how to refinance the mortgages. and matthew levitt