tv Washington This Week CSPAN August 19, 2012 2:00pm-4:21pm EDT
the net effect of all that is if we have sequestration beginning in january, it's very likely the army national guard would lose an additional 20,000 men and women. in addition to the yen's strength productions, it's reasonable to assume sequestration goes into effect in january, national guard title 32 funding account would also be reduced. the negative impact of such title 32 reductions on homeland defense and defense board of civil authorities would be immediate, both in terms of training and operational missions. over the last decade, some of which was described by steve a few moments ago, there's been a shift in dod policy.
steve and i were intimately involved in that shift in policy, police in a far greater reliance on the national guard for the execution of domestic military missions. while that policy shift has correctly emphasize the role of the national guard here and home, it has also tied the domestic mission of the national guard more directly to the variables of d.o.t. funding, including sequestration. let me take a moment to explore some history now, if i may, to give perhaps a more practical understanding of that shift in policy. if my memory serves me correctly, and i believe it does, in 1992 during hurricane
andrew, when it was necessary for the military to provide support to civil authorities because of the magnitude of the destruction that occurred and the aftermath, the majority of the force that responded to provide assistance to civilian authorities came out of our active component. a great deal of that came out of the 82nd airborne. a smaller portion of that force came out of the national guard. if i remember the ratios correctly, and i believe i do, roughly 70% or slightly less of the force that responded to hurricane andrew in 1992 came out of the active component with slightly more than 30% coming out of the reserve component. but the benchmark was roughly with an emphasis on the active
component participation in the defense support of civil authorities discommission. that policy of using primarily active component forces changed radically in the aftermath of september 11 and in response to the requirements associated with domestic preparedness. i was nominated to become the first assistant secretary of defense in 2003. i met with the senate armed services commission in his office, senator john warner, distinguished gentleman. he wished me well in my new job and we talked about a few other things of a personal nature. he reminded me that we should not use the zero defunding to support discommissions executed entitled 32 status. -- we should not use dod funding. he said ou don't her warfighting money and use it for civil support missions domestically
executed. -- our warfighting money. i thought that was probably a pretty good advice. my view of the subject changed considerably once we experienced the operational requirements of hurricane katrina. the national guard can function increase statuses. it can be in 10 states status. that is traditional. the national guard forces and states tennis are under the authority of state law. they're under the command and control of the governor of that individual state. they are funded by the state to execute those missions. state's status. federal status is kind of the opposite end of the spectrum.
when the army guard or the air guard are brought into the title 10 federal status, the army guard becomes part of the department of the army and air guard becomes a part of the department of the air force. they are fully integrated into the active component of and are subject to federal law and are under command-and-control of the president of the united states. the funding comes from the department of defense. and there's a middle ground between those two and has become important middle ground, title 32 status. in title 32, the funding for title 32 status comes from the department of defense. the law that applies is generally not federal law, but command and control remains vested in the hands of the governor of that individual state. so it really is the best of both worlds from the vantage point of the state. the training, equipment, the funding comes from the department of defense of command-and-control. is not with the president. title 32 status, national guard forces are not covered by 1878 statute that forbids the use of military personnel for law enforcement-related activities. under command-and-control of the governor in title 32, the national guard may be used for law enforcement-related functions. during operation liberty shield, which was the term we had in 2003 in the federal interagency to describe are prepared this domestically for any repercussions associated with a possible war that we thought might take place with
iraq. surely prior to the commencement of ground operations in iraz, operation liberty shield provided for certain enhanced protections here at home because we were uncertain as to what action iraq might take or could take within the u.s. in response to a combat action in iraq itself. just before we went to war in iraq my very good friend and former colleague in the house, pennsylvania, tom ridge, initiated operation liberty shield. he called upon the governors of the individual states to provide protection for their critical infrastructure, utilize in the national guard. i got a phone call from the governor of the state of
arizona, who is today the secretary of the department of homeland security. governor nepal tonneau was very creative. she had the distinction of being prematurely right. -- janet napolitano. she wanted to use the national guard to protect critical infrastructure within her state and she argued persuasively that because this was a terrorist threats from outside the united states if it was a threat really to the nation and not to the state of arizona and the funding for that title 32 mission should in fact the federal in character and that the state and state funds and state status should not be protecting infrastructure against our international adversaries. that was not policy at that time. i had to tell her, to my regret, but she cannot do that. she was not happy about it and i was not happy as the messenger and a couple had to communicate that guidance, but that was the policy. that has since changed. let me tell you how it has changed and then we move to steve for his comments. hurricane katrina occurred in august of 2005. two months before hurricane katrina, the new strategy for a homeland defense and civil support was written. when i began my talk a few minutes ago i mentioned the ratio, 70-30 in terms of the military assistance provided during hurricane andrew in 1992. we changed that in the strategy. it made no sense to us in a post 9/11 world that we would continue to use active-duty
military forces for these domestic missions when we had ample strength and structure in the national guard for these domestic missions. why should we use the 82nd airborne for civil support missions when the 82nd airborne was trained and equipped for overseas warfighting and we had superbly trained national guardsmen who could execute domestic missions without impairing our ability to project power overseas? that was the rationale of our strategy until we broke into the strategy -- and i personally wrote the languages that said henceforth the department of defense would have a focused reliance upon reserve component capabilities predominately the national guard for our domestic missions. that was a direct reversal of the policy that had been in place during hurricane andrew. we did not realize just two months later during hurricane katrina that policy would be. put into be when hurricane katrina occurred august 29, 2005, most of the force, 70% --
70% of the military response to hurricane katrina, 50,000 national guardsmen, came out of the reserve component and 3% came out of the active component. a change in policy and i think a good one. an amendment was passed by congress subsequently. that amendment allowed national guard forces to protect critical infrastructure in a way in which we previously would have relied upon rapid reaction forces from the active-duty army and active duty marine corps. that mission transition to correctly to the national guard. that would mean the national guard forces in title 32 would defend critical infrastructure. it also meant that secretary janet napolitano was right. the policy finally caught up with her vision on that subject. we were henceforth able to use national guard forces in title 324 critical infrastructure protection. secondary i will mention and then i will move to a
conclusion. i realize i pushed the limits of my time, steve. steve blum, through his personal leadership, build, expanded, and in some cases initiated cases initiated see burn response capability that was unprecedented. that capability was located within the national guard. the national guard recognized that in the 21st century our adversaries accommodation states and terrorists, for now have the capacity to acquire incredibly destructive weapons, weapons that can be miniaturized and easily transported, that could conceivably cause great numbers of casualties within our own country. we were extremely vulnerable to that type of asymmetric chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, high explosive attack within the borders of our nation. the national guard under steve's personal leadership step up and said we can do something about that. under the leadership of the national guard, 17 enhanced response force packages were created. 57 civil support teams were established. ultimately, and a little later, homeland response forces got all established in title 32 status within the national guard. because of dod's increased reliance on the national guard for domestic military missions, critical infrastructure protection, any reduction entitled 32 funding will ...
min national guard under his personal leadership stepped up to the plate and said we could do something about that. under the leadership of the national guard, 17 enhanced response force packages were created. 57 civil support teams were established. ultimately, and in a later era, town homeland response forces were established in title 32 status within the national guard. because of the dod's increased reliance on the national guard, critical infrastructure protection, any reduction in title 32 funding would directly impact on the safety of the american people here and home. cuts would reduce the national guard ability to protect critical infrastructure from terrorist attacks, would diminish the national guard ability to respond to vote
major disasters whether natural or man-made. let me close with a quotation from craig moe tenleytown, steve's successor as chief of the national guard bureau. speaking in may, when talking about the impact of sequestration on the domestic military missions of the national guard, critical infrastructure, disaster response under very challenging circumstances, the general mckinley, stepped down as the chief said the following, "we find ourselves obviously in the midst of constrained budgets and depositions. no doubt we must all curbs spending, but not at the expense of our security. that's why i must tell you that sequestration would allow the force, would follow the for substantially and devastate our national security -- -- would hollow th force. the national guard is already facing difficult budget cuts, cuts that impact equipment and
personnel. further reductions would significantly limit the guard's ability to function as an operational force, a decrease its overall credibility, and reduce the department's capacity to protect a homeland and respond to emergencies. if sequestration is imposed under the provisions of the budget control act of 2011 and in january the d.o.t. experience is an immediate cut of $55 billion, none of the bill are power projection capability is produced overseas, our domestic security will be placed at risk because of inadequate national guard title 32 funding. that means 20,000 fewer national guardsmen with less equipment, less prepared to execute their domestic emissions. that is the ultimate impact of
sequestration upon the national guard. >> thanks, paul. that is and unintended but perfect segue to what i want to talk about. first, thanks, because i think you laid out a very good umbrella and background approach to what we are really facing here. this is a serious time, no question about it. the nation does not possess infinite resources, limitless resources. we really aren't everyday becoming more aware of how finite those resources really are and really why we have to be better stewards of those resources than we have been in the recent past or even in generations. -- we really every day becoming more aware. this is not a bogyman that does
not really exist or a threat that's not out there. this is the reality that we are facing. the national guard is not an organization with substantial discretionary budget money. it is a bare bones, underfunded organization historically, because it was a originally intended to beat it strategic reserve for so long, for 60-70 years, that was to be a deterrent force against a threat that is no longer out there. commission of the guard is still the same, but its utilization as an operational force in rotations overseas is well known to most of us in the audience. if not, the u.s. military has not done anything in the last 15 years overseas without significant dependence on the national guard, so that we could expand the capacity and capability theour active forces and reduce the stress on our active duty force and an all
volunteer force of professionals, professional airmen and professional soldiers, so we could expand that and actually serve when necessary or at least reinforce the forces in the field or expand the forces in the field or capability is required to utilize in the national guard. so this is no longer a national guard that sits around and waits for world war iii and is not used in the meantime, so you can afford to underresource it in terms of equipment, not trained to be ready, let it stay dormant in a somewhat less than ready posture.
it has to be ready on a moment's notice. that is for overseas missions. for domestic missions, for usage in the united states at the command and control of the governors that are the commanders in chief of the army and air national guard when they are in the service of the state rather than in the service of the nation -- when they are in the service of the nation, they fall under the normal chain of command with the secretary of defense and the president and they are entitled 10 status and are in distinguishable. the good news is the training now is uniform, the standards are uniform, so everybody is trained in the same schools with the same standards and has
the same enlistment criteria, same selection criteria to become a member, and to remain a member, so that their performance is absolutely identical to the active duty force when it is called into service of the nation. what most people don't realize is that the national guard is called into the service of the governor's each and every day. i did not realize how much that was the case until i was lucky enough to be appointed chief of the national guard bureau by secretary donald rumsfeld under president bush back in 2003. for the five and a half years i have the honor of being the chief of the national guard bureau before i went to be the deputy at u.s. northern command i kept a record of how many states call out the national guard on any given day and the daily average was 17 states had their guard called out on some
level -- some as few as a few people with a truck and water trailer going to an area where a municipality might need water where a well was contaminated or the border purification system -was purification system -- water purification. the aftermath of christina in 2005, we have the largest, fastest, military response to a domestic disaster, natural disaster, not only in the history of our country but in the history of the world. -- the aftermath of hurricane katrina. guam, puerto rico, district of columbia, and every state of the 50 states send their national guard. they were asked to comment not ordered -- asked to come and not order. they drove and pull together in record time over labor day weekend. it happened on a labor day
weekend. in less than six days we generated 60,000 citizens soldiers from members of code in this country with exactly the right capabilities and sometimes in excess capacity, because frankly we did not know exactly what we needed down there, but we guest pretty right and we really restore the faith of the american citizens, particularly the citizens of louisiana and mississippi, in the fact that their government would not respond when the local situation was overwhelmed. we were operating seamlessly with active-duty soldiers that came in later from northcom that were ordered in by the president. shoulder to shoulder, side-by-
side, in distinguishable to the people that were receiving help. they saw the active-duty forces and national guard forces actually operating in a seamless fashion to save american lives. 17,443 american lives were saved by national guardsmen in the aftermath of hurricane katrina. that was a small city that would have been lost had we not intervened. 70,000 u.s. citizens removed from an area of uncomfortable, suffering and misery to be able to reestablish their lives in new places or at least be taken out of the misery and suffering and maybe even ultimately disease or death if they would have remained in that area. today, if you check, it's almost invisible to everybody. if you really peel back who is responding to the fires in washington this morning, washington state, it's the national bar. who is responding to the
drought relief or anything that happens that above and beyond the normal ability of the local and state governments to handle, the national guard comes in. one of the good things that happened to the guard, frankly, was the decision to use the guard as a part of the operational force, because not only are they value added on the battlefield overseas when they bring civilian skills to these complex environments like afghanistan and iraq, but when they come home from that they are far better citizen soldiers and citizens airmen with contemporary, real world combat experience they can apply, the same command and control, logistics, planning, and reaction, and highly disciplined response to anything we would require them back at home. so we now have probably the very best force of citizen
soldiers this nation has ever been blessed to have. it is an all volunteer force. how did you tape people that you have asked go overseas 3 or four goore's, walk away from their family and their jobs as long as two years, 18 months, six months on the short side, repeatedly over the last decade, whether it is to appear at an airport on no notice because we did not have tsa at the time and we need to secure the airport zappos 9/11. whether it was to guard the skies pose 9/11 or critical infrastructure. whether it was to expand the capability of governors to protect critical infrastructure in the last 10 years. whether it was to put boots on the ground in places like afghanistan and kuwait, the
horn of africa, iraq, and 34 other countries where the guard has been asked to serve. and they did a superb job in the balkans, close of zero, bosnia, all at the same time. -- in kosovo. katrina hit with no notice. 50 cows and national guardsmen from every state and territory responded. at the time we have the high water mark for the deployment overseas. we were literally surging in the army to allow the u.s. army to step the army into their current configuration. we stepped up and took that rotations of the u.s. army to take a pause in the war and reorganize and refitted to their combat brigades. some of you may remember that. so you take that and take the last 10 years of what we have asked them to do. and now you have this specter of sequestration hovering over
an organization that is under sourced, is pure muscle and bone, has very little discretionary, has no big accounts like intelligence or research and development, underfunded for equipping themselves, are trying to come out of a whole that was dug in 1947, and now tell them get ready because you are going to be part of an across-the-board cuts. if you are overweight and have access pounds and you want to lose 18 pounds, there's. a way you can there's. this is a couple ways you can do it. you can change your diet and exercise and become lighter and
better and maybe even more attractive. as attractive. or you could cut your head off and lose 18 pounds immediately. but i don't think that is the preferred way for weight loss. this sequestration is much like that. when i look at the audience and i seen who is represented and where you come from and hopefully where you go back to and take some benefit of our discussion today, i would like you to consider two things, and then i will turn it over to the moderator. the most successful businesses in the world today size their full-time work force that get full benefits, retirement, entitlements, health insurance, pension plans, matching 401k plan, all that kind of thing, they size that for their smallest, steady state, business day. they size their part-time
force, trained, medic professionals, salesman, distributors, transporters, retailers, wholesalers, all of them. they size that for their most optimistic market demand. and then they adjust that and let the market drive that. and they make a profit internationally in a very challenging economic time even today because of that model. the companies that are failing today are those that are failing to make those kinds of adjustments and are hanging onto an older industrial age model that predates the 21st century. they are finding it very uncomfortable and very unprofitable and are kind of melting away like an ice cube. that is one thing i want you to think about. when you are talking about a
sizing of the active component and the reserve components, particularly when the reserve component is not the same reserve component that it was 10 or 15 or 20 years ago. it is a much different reserve component. is an interval, interdependent and not interoperable piece of the entire service and joint force that fights and protect our country here at home and overseas and has great utility that reduces the burden on the active force to respond domestically to a significant degree. so anytime you diminish that force, you are actually raising the probability you'll have to dip into the already too busy actor forced to do something that they are really not comfortable doing or they want to do, nor are there really trained or resource to do, nor do they have the local
knowledge, political, geographical, social, and otherwise, that the citizen shoulders who come from that area have. not to mention it will have to live in that state afterwards. so how they deliver their capability and capacity will be quite different than someone was 18 years old and came into active duty and learned how to fire their weapons and do their military jobs and then are transplanted into an area and culture they're not familiar with and then are going to leave. the degree of acceptance and respect is intangible and is something that should not be ignored. the second thing is everyone of you lives someplace. very few of you in this room live anywhere that has a 100% full time professionally trained and paid firefighting force to protect you. anybody that lives in a place called a county does not have a apparatus. but none of you sleep at night and stay up worrying that if
your house catches on fire that the fire department is not going to show up on time and they're not going to come with sufficient people and training to save your structure, your life, and your loved ones and pets that. you that. so how do they do it? they do it with either a mix of but a few full-time professionals to keep the equipment ready and keep the communications and alert system ready. they depend on citizen fireman, volunteer firemen who stop whatever they are doing, get out of their own comfortable bed in the middle of the night if necessary, walked off their jobs if necessary in civilian life to respond to either a danger or alert system or just sirens in some small towns. and itthey go and when they show up nobody asked them if they
are part-time or full-time. anybody ever ask that question? when they come, they have gear that makes them all look like a fireman. nobody comes on an old firetruck that barely runs. fire equipment. but-- hand-me-down. but butthe community saves on the huge but expense of having to pay full-time firefighters. so they rely heavily on citizen volunteer firefighters. i suggest that in a time where our nation is facing finite resources and a significant risk, a way to buy down the risk is not to do the real jerk reaction the pentagon has already announced.
ifsequestration is coming, we this way. that's like hitting your knee with a rubber hammer and it flipped as a reflex action. the pentagon and the system has reacted to budget cuts like that this way for so long that it's response. to people who are from the think tanks and from the hill and from organizations with in this arena, that maybe it's time to look at how people do that our newhouse profits matched their active full-time force with their part-time force. we look in an area because you're going to get this is not a business, this is the military and in the military we are about saving lives.
let me tell you, if you want to talk about an organization that response on no notice, or lives hang in the balance every day, and is the fire fighting community in our country. they are putting their lives on a line to respond online, on target, to ensure that you survive and your structure house survives. i'm thinking maybe we put away some of the old paradigms' and start looking at some new paradigms' as to how we are going to apply precious resources that we are going to be providing to the taxpayers. butclearly this will allow us to buy down some risk. the "sequestration is obviously not the answer. sequestration will gut the national guard. it will exist.
blueit will survive, but it will be in under equipped, less trained. lulait will have less money. you will find how painful this bit will be because when they start closing 600 armories and shutting down 1800 construction projects that are on the books, you are going to find that these armories are in congressional districts that. people that. you will find that it will literally kill off small businesses that are dependent on and have waited for and competed but for and have been awarded this contract that will no longer be there to build an army, build an annex, build a- facility, builder readiness center, refurbish some older things that have not been looked at in 40 years. you will find that even if you start this, it's not going to be easy to recover from.
the unintended consequence is that a building project in a state has state-matching funds ottawa in varying percentages. into it putthose funds have to be voted by the legislature. the states are also cash for right now. they are strapped right now. if they have a chance to take back that money through the cancellation of the project, they will. your probability of scene that money again in less than 10 years is pretty remote. if it's a renovation project, you really will be delaying that indefinitely. if it's an expansion project, you probably have lost it. you will find out how much that's going to matter because the citizens of the community, the citizens of that the code, that congressional districts will make their feelings fell to representatives. and it will be personal. this is an unintended
consequence of sequestration. sequestration is one -- you don't make threats you're not going to carry through. totainly, if you're going carry through with this, you have to wonder, this is not just a shot in the foot. you may as well cross your feet and catch both feet, because of the unintended consequence of sequestration is walking back the most superb force that this but country has fielded in its history, military force, and walking it back 30 years to 40 years back to the hollow force. as i look at the landscape internationally right now, a this, a benign landscape -- this is not a benign landscape. we used to talk about hot spots that could be problematic
quickly and there were only a few of them. virtually anywhere you look right now there are some real issues, real tough problems out there that could cause us to do things with our military that we do not foresee, nor do we desire. but aand that does not mention the weather patterns, earthquakes, any of the natural disasters that occur, not to mention that the chlorine tanker does not have to fall off or railroad track because of a terrorist. it could be because our infrastructure is decaying. it could be because of human error. but the effect is a release of chlorine in an urban area will be unbelievably painful. if that or anything like that were to occur, the requirement for the guard to respond would
be absolutely one of the first things that would have to happen. a guard under even minor sequestration, under minor cuts, would been slower in its response and it might be two or three states responding rather than one state. in my people of all your hours it getting there or a few daysif a loved one has a heart ambulances show up to your house in response to that call. satisfied. you're not going to feel like you are well served. what you expect is the ambulance would be there on time to save his life.
butif they are going to show up late, they may as well send the report mortuary unit, because they're not going to save your loved one. voteso time delay really translates into lives lost. domestically, you are going to get one chance to do this. i've said this over and over and i will say it one more time. this will be the last thing i steve. we took faluja more than once. in afghanistan and iraq and in almost every military operations be have had places and towns that we took it and they took the whowe retook it and they retook it. that works overseas in a combat zone. you are not going to get to redo in cincinnati or on losing
d.c. promote or wherever you come from, wherever your hometown is. they are not going to tolerate the american military not being but able to respond properly and on time here in the united states it. we saw that in spades in 2005 in hurricane katrina. we came that close from the u.s. military swinging and missing on louisiana and mississippi. we were lucky to recover that. it will shake the confidence of the nation and for any administration when the american military cannot properly respond and home. read secretary paul mchale's
paper. read this and think about what i just said. you will not be very comfortable when you read this. the trouble with this paper is it's true and it's factual and accurate. thanks. >> sequestration is an irrational and irresponsible approach to national security policy. when most of us walk in here this morning we knew intuitively that a cut of $500 billion over the next 10 years, a cut potential in january of $55 billion would inevitably impact on the department of defense ability to project power overseas. i don't think it was as obvious when we walked into the room that sequestration would have a devastating impact on our security here at home. because of changes, the changes but in policy, over the last 10 years, the protection of
critical infrastructure in the united states against a terrorist attack has been primarily assigned to the it status. that would be subject to any reductions imposed by sequestration's. all ofover the last 10 years, because of good changes in policy, the primary reliance for disaster response has been tasked to the national guard in title 32 status. that changed during katrina when steve and i walked down to the deputy secretary's office and troops encouraged him to approve the title 32 status for those 50,000 national guardsmen who had deployed in response to hurricane katrina. that had never been done before in u.s. history. to the great credit of the deputy secretary, he proved that. now we used title 32 pretty but response. that would be subject to any reduction caused by sequestration.
we must recognize that our domestic security would be similarly impacted. >> i have a couple questions are listed at the beginning, but you guys have answered all of them. i don't know if i want to beat a horse or not. anyone have a question? here. i wonder if you could drill down a little on border security? if you could explain the guard's presence on the southwest border and how sequestration might affect their mission? >> i have a little trepidation
because i am not absolutely current in terms of the existing status of national guard forces on the border. but i am pretty sure that i have a grasp on that. with the risk that maybe i answer your question. i have the responsibility for jumpstart. that was the initial deployment of national guard forces along the southwest border. we have roughly 6000 national guardsmen deployed over a two- border. we spent a lot of time together, steve and i, discussing the rules of the use of force and everything and what status the national guard would have during that order of deployment. my recollection is became to the conclusion the guard would be entitled 32 status. that's the middle ground where gubernatorial command and control would be exercised over those forces but dod funding would pay for those forces.
it hasin general answer to your question, the type of funding used to pay for the national guard forces, traditionally along the southwest border, would be adversely impacted by sequestration. >> a think that is an accurate answer. just to give you a little bit more, the unintended consequence would be -- dod would be faced with less money than it would normally have to do that but mission. eightit was painful to dod to do it when we were better- resourced. but it createit created frankly great thank you to -- great angst. where were told to pay the bill and transfer the money to the national guard.
awhileso they had to reduce the number or defer it or not do it at all. it created some unscheduled reprogramming. it created angst that was not seen because everybody tries to stay professional. but it hurt the relations between the army and the army guard because the army, who was under funded at the time, had to give more money to do a mission via that they did not see as important and frankly felt that the border patrol or department paid for it. but that decision was made at far higher levels than even the department of defense. in answer to your question directly, sequestration might hit mean that we couldn't do it at honest with you. or, worse, we would do it on
the cheap and it would probably not it and be effective. wouldso then you're really wasting your money because she did not quite put enough of the right hit capability and capacity in there because you're trying to do it basically based on a $-- a dollar sign rather than on the requirement cost. that is what i find so absurd about the sequestration peace because it is not attached to upset stomach abilities or risk that the military is supposed to put their resources against. >> this is an important footnote. in that paper that i just prepared, one of the points i a emphasizes that the cultural aversion within the department
of defense, with regard to the domestic mission of the military, including those of the national guard -- dod is heroic and has predicted our nation over many decades. but in the 21st century, september 11 being the prime example, asymmetric attacks employing weapons of mass destruction must be seen as part of that national security landscape and the protection of our cities and our people here at home must be seen in a larger context of national security and the role of the department of defense. frankly, at dod, there are some folks who are steeped in the traditional power projection who circumstances. what can you do if you can fight effectively in baghdad that you cannot protect brooklyn. -- you cannot defend brooklyn? our adversaries are likely to employ it asymmetric attacks using ever more powerful weapons
for decades to come. and that recognition has not really been inculcated in the warrior the close of the department of the defense. so when sequestration hits and -- and missions need to be chosen responsibly, the missions that are most likely to be pushed aside are those in the domestic arena. at least within the department direction. we have made considerable progress since 9/11, but what i spelled out in a monograph is that we return to the status quo ante -- the status quo empty. i am worried that sequestration will hit domestic missions including critical infrastructure protection and the burn response-- and seaborne response disproportionately.
but but>> as of last week, the and de administration in formed do that. butbut the across-the-board cuts gone from 8.5% to approximately 11.3%, do you see potentially a hollow force to develop for the national guard to revert to a strategic reserve? >> the unintended consequence of what you just said, if you think about it, means that the only place you can get your savings is equipment, operations and maintenance, and that is critical, tempo and training and education. even if you keep the people, you really reduced their capacity pitt and capability in
that the will be less trained. the will be far less equipped and the equipment they have will be far less maintained than what we currently have. butin the 21st century, what makes us the greatest military in the world is not that we are the biggest, not the mass numbers. we don't send mass, a human wave against an objective. we have highly trained a of professionals that are superbly trained and educated in the use of the equipment that we give a who them and we give them the best state of their equipment that science and technology can deliver and it is highly maintained so it is reliable and effective on the battlefield. so everything that i just said -- and they are highly motivated volunteers. so you take highly motivated
volunteers and you start giving them less equipment than they are used to, poorly maintained equipment, and start reducing the training that they have become accustomed to, how highly motivated will they remain? butor do we have less members, less quality force and a less capable force? the answer to all of those questions is yes. that is not the intent, but that will be the impact of sequestration appeared >> is it morally responsible to keep the opera -- put them in operational jeopardy? that is really the net effect of that approach, which has the benefit of perhaps retaining 20,000 national guardsmen who would otherwise be cut, but then denied to them, as a result of reductions and operations
and equipment, the training, the capability they need to go forward and execute theirthat is hardly a solution. i had to the house of -- the called off of the house floor to tell me that i should vote on a bill. i said to the president, sir, you don't know what will happen in the senate and neither do why. i can only consider what is in front of me right now. after it comes back from the senate, i will be happy to support it. and i did. we would hope that we can protect the 29,000 national otherwise be cut. but it is the height of irresponsibility to shift those hit funding cuts. we're talking about domestic missions. getwe have to make sure that when we send those men and women in uniform for word that they have the equipment that they
need to execute their mission. and that it is easy enough to protect the personnel. it is a lot harder to ensure that they have the training and they deserve. >> if you think back to chernobyl, the courage of those root people was enormous. the commitment was enormous. the casualty rate was horrific. they all died within 30 days, most, some a few months later. and the reason was that they were not trained and few had the resources they needed. there responded, but they paid an awful price for that. we owe our young men and women much more than that. >> where would you take money out of the pentagon? it they a>> if it comes in a
part of the question in timing? for instance, i believe that, once we come to irresponsible resolution of our combat but operations, is inevitable that we will see a drawdown of the force. i would support that. historically, we have drawn down the force after major combat. we have done that in the context of very poor judgment. we have not been very good at intelligently drawing down the force. when you atbut when u.s. were would you cut coming the aftermath, that might be 2014 and it might be later than that,
that we have essentially completed the drawdown from afghanistan. we should look at a very overall size of the force. we have not done that. and unless we have very significant civilian oversight come including congressional intervention, what we're likely to see is a disproportionate cut in reserve component when coming in fact, i think the drawdown should be primarily in the active component, maintaining a robust capability, but a drawdown in the active component while realizing a cost effective nature of the reserve component. we ought to retain a very strong operational reserve and draw and hot down the enormous personal cost associated with an active component force that was correctly sized for ongoing combat operations, but is probably too large for a peacetime or a relative peace time environment.
secondly, without going into details, there are in number of weapons that i think are highly questionable and we ought to take a hard look at some of those systems that are enormously expensive. but the reality is that something like 70% of the defense budget consists of personnel costs. a drawdown in the active component would make sense in the aftermath of the conclusion -- not during a conflict, but at the conclusion of a conflict in order to right size a forced during peacetime environment. >> natalie that makes -- not only would that make sense in which he is talking about, but in a business model for firefighters and municipalities where they decide to go across the country with great success, but frankly what he just described, and expansion -- an expansion of citizenship and
only a small percentage of them serve, we don't want a candor that turns into america's foreign legion. -- a cadre that turns into america's foreign legion. butwhen the guard reserve cents a unit from you name it, small bit town whatever state you're from, whatever county or from, that is your home town team going. that whole town deploys with them. that whole town tracks that unit and its record and what is going on with that unit the entire time it is gone. that whole town now has skin in the game or equity in what we're doing and seeks to better understand why we -- why they were sent, why is the pew and
be in church on sunday or at the synagogue on saturday or at the mosque on friday. -- on friday? itmy neighbor, why isn't he here? my neighbor, why isn't he here? why is he serving? or in the classroom or the business place were fellow farmer or educator, whatever this person might be, a doctor or nurse electrician, it doesn't matter. there is a whole area business in every social gathering, at every dinner table. these people now have neighbors that have equity in this america. in other words, when you call- up the national guard, you call out america. the only people they know that went with the local vendors in,
say, fayed bill, not carolina and it will have an economic -- fayetteville, north carolina and it will have an economic impact. when you call up the guard, you do in fact call out america and that is a very powerful message to send to our adversaries. and on some of these stability and operations, peacekeeping operations, more complex operations that we have been involved in in the last 15 years to 20 years -- when the people in that country coming to you and find out that this man here in the blue shirt and tie that i am looking at is wearing an american flag and the informal one of the services uniforms and realized that he has a job and a family and this is not all he does and he doesn't have to do it, he volunteered to do this, it says more about what is right about our country than our
state department and our finest ambassadors and foreign service officers could ever say. and that is an intangible that you don't want to lose. and that is an intangible, frankly, a trained full-time professional soldier, sailor, airman, or marine has a lesser message. when i go back, i'm going back to my farm. you have a farm? why are you here? i chose to be here. i am here to help you with your problem. and when i am done, i am going back. that is a very different message then and occupier or a mercenary in the eyes of the local people, that you are a personal -- a professional mercenary rather than a citizen soldier. it is a very powerful tool. we should want to optimize.
the constraints on the budget, hopefully, could have a very positive outcome. if you're going to maintain a volunteer force, you have to have the backing of the american public and the decision-influences, the coaches, the teachers, the parents, the neighbors, the employers -- all of that has to be feeding that system if it will be successful, particularly if it has to grow much larger than it has in the past. the way we are able to bring that up, our capability last 20 years has been the guard and reserve. it is a far better value for the american taxpayer because you are paying them exactly what you would pay an active duty force when you need them. but when you don't need them, they are out earning their own living, paying their own taxes, raising their own family,
building their own communities, building our country. and they are getting civilian- acquired skills so that, when they do get called by their nation nor their governor to respond, they will be much more capable and have a much greater capacity to respond than they would otherwise. >> it is worth pausing to recognize -- there is a terrific subtext your question. your question is where would you make the hard choices? making hard choices is the antithesis of sequestration. sequestration is arithmetic. it is multiplication. it is irrational. and it is a breach of trust your men and women in service. it is a way to avoid hard choices. i am fairly sure that my views would differ from others.
but it is an abdication of leadership and responsibility and ultimately democracy if we fail to make those choices. if we resort to sequestration and apply an across-the-board cut, that is a failure of leadership, a failure of government and which ought to be ashamed of ourselves. -- and we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. we can baker vigorously and have majority rule at the end of the day. but making hard choices is what the business of government on a good day is all about. applying arithmetic is irresponsible. >> we will get this gentleman right here. you too will be the last two. >> with in the dod strategy, you talked about responsibility -- the reverse ability clause which impacts us tremendously how is that even functionable
even in light of sequestration? how can you implement that? >> i am not sure you can. >> it cannot. [laughter] we have gone pretty far down the road in anticipating in irresponsible way what sequestration would mean in a responsible way what sequestration -- we have gone pretty far down the road in anticipating in a responsible way what sequestration would mean. when we move to a question of reverse ability as a matter of strategy, that is frankly too far out in the darkness to define the challenge with any degree of regularity.
all we know is that the national guard now plays a vitally important role in terms of our domestic security. that role has changed considerably and in general moved in a positive direction over the last 10 years. the reality of asymmetric warfare, weapons of mass destruction, terrorist adversaries and nation states to execute these kinds of attacks prompted policy that moved the national guard to the forefront in terms of the safety of american citizens here at home. most of those missions would be executed intel 32. title 32 is federal funding that is received through the department of defense. and sequestration would cut that funding. so the impact on domestic missions is inevitable and i think unacceptable. >> politico. this may be a good question to
wrap things up with. what do you see as the solution? this all depends upon whether congress can come up with a deficit reduction plan, which is a whole other can of worms. i know there is uncertainty with sequestration, but how do you see this playing out? them kicking the can down the road? or sequestration actually does happen? i know it is a crystal ball question, but i would like to see what you guys think will happen. >> is going to happen or should happen? i'll answer that. i launched into my boys got description of the legislative process in the were the democracy and i talked about some of the men and women have
known in the congress of the united states who are truly courageous, or willing to make hard choices -- who are willing to make hard choices and you know that this is more important than the continuing progress of their political careers. and when the people spoke to stop laughing, i press that point. there are good men and women on both sides of the aisle. i am a democrat. i take a fairly conservative approach to security policy. the exhibit of branch of government can strongly influence and inform policy choices that will be made and the power of the purse is in the congress. the budgetary decisions that
have to be made and it is the duty of the executive branch to provide the kind of leadership for our country and in providing recommendations, budget recommendations, to the budget -- to the congress of the united states. if you cannot make our decisions, get out of congress. it may mean that a large number people leave the congress. but this is too important. we're not talking about secondary issues. we're talking about the security of the american people in their own homes. 3000 people died on our own soil. and in our own airspace as a result of the attacks of september 11. 3000 people dead. that type of attack was not an occurrence. it was a case study. and asymmetric warfare in the
21st century. so we only to sober kilobit, -- we all need to sober up a little bit, a lot in some cases. to make hard choices, debate fiercely and sincerely, and then count the votes. we can no longer duck these issues because what is at stake is not a political career. it is the security of the american people here at home. and the images of september 11 should be burned into our memory, not as a matter of fear mongering, but as a sobering recognition of what warfare looks like when it comes to our own soil. and these issues have to be debated. budgetary constraints have to be made. and responsible judgment has to be made in kind -- in coordination with the executive branch can we decide to draw down the forest research and degree in a way that makes sense that will provide continuing defense to our nation.
i am still enough of a boy's got to believe that good men and women on both sides of the aisle in the legislative -- boy scout to believe that good men and women on both sides of the aisle in the legislative branch can do this. this generation is capable of making the same tough choices. >> ladies and gentlemen, the reason we put this panel together was that a lot of people understand sequestration if they live in fayetteville, n.c., san diego, calif., places where there are large defense facilities. but my concern is that there are a lot of folks in this country that don't understand that, if not done with some degree of nuance and sense, these cuts will affect every single state and territory in america and a adversely in their ability to deal with the local issues, the
1617 states today that have guardsmen called out or, god forbid those events that are describing here in our capacity to respond to them in a knee -- as a nation. the guard is a huge part of that. sequestration is cutting off the fat guys head when the bad guy really needs orthoscopic surgery on his bad knee and a counselor. we need procurements and that kind of thing, not just lopping off a chunk of the body. that is a poor way to do it. and the guard come in this case, whether we like it or not, the guard will be adversely affected by that. this is an awareness and education session. i would ask you to join me in
thanking our panelists. there have been very eloquent. [applause] and we thank c-span and abc radio for joining us and we appreciate you all being here at the heritage. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] group >> mitt romney and his vice presidential running mate will hold a town hall meeting tomorrow in new hampshire. this is mitt romney's 100 town hall since running for president and the first time paul ryan has been in new hampshire since 2010. our coverage begins at 10:35 a.m. eastern europhere on c- span. >> every four years the rnc adopt a platform. it is the official statement of the party's position on the issue. they draft recommendations by approval for delegates. let coverage begins tomorrow at
2:30 p.m. eastern. we will have that on c-span. >> tonight, washington post columnist walter pincus talks about his extravagant spending overseas and his criticism of the defense department. >> they have a facility which is about 40 people. it has separate rooms for everybody. if you spend $4 million on an elementary school, it would raise a question. >> more on walter pincus tonight at 8:00. >> with the medicare debate front and center, we will continue this conversation this morning social security and
medicare. first off, do you think what we are seeing now is a debate we will see through november or is this attention just a short-term reaction to paul ryan joining the ticket? guest: good morning. i think we will see this throughout the election. the polls are showing that unemployment and jobs are still on top issues for folks. people are really concerned about medicare. this is a great opportunity for people to learn about the system and also what is ahead for them and what these plans that are being proposed really mean. >> tell us about your organization. the national community -- committee to preserve social security and medicare. caller: we were started by fdr's son. our whole mission is to protect benefits for our members, seniors, and everything we do is focused on protecting benefits. and strengthening the system.
we have over 3.5 million members int -- and supporters from all over the country. we are a non-partisan organization. we have about -- have for democrats. 25% are independents and 25% are republicans. our hope is to educate and we have a great website that breaks down the information for folks to understand. these are complex programs. www.ncpssm.org. www.ncpssm.org. host: talk about the health care -- medicare proposals we are hearing so much about and what your groups insist the right way to preserve medicare.
guest: first, i want to talk about the proposal that is being put out there by the romney-ryan campaign. this is a very -- this is not a modest change. it is a radical departure from what we have in medicare right now. there is a lot of rhetoric going around. we want people to be educated and understand the issues. first of all, this plan would and traditional medicare, privatize the system, and it turned seniors over to deal with insurance companies. we hear a lot about choice, but it would hurt choice in that it would make it harder for seniors to choose their own doctors. also, it rolls back important benefits that are already in the law, such as it would increase cost sharing, preventive benefits, and raise prescription drug costs. we do not think it is a good idea. host: what you think a president obama's plan that he has talked about?
guest: he seems to be very interested in protecting these programs. seniors rely on them. they are lifelines. i think something that a lot of people do not realize is that most seniors are not wealthy. they rely on medicare and social security -- to live. we want to make sure they are strong for all generations. host: respond to the criticisms about president obama's plan for medicare. in this week's "weekly standard" they lay out the same standards ryan was putting forward. he says obamacare will be a fiscal nightmare and a disaster for public --
guest: there have been a lot of advertisements about that. it is semantics. some people say that there are cuts. some say there are savings. the president has not cut benefits through the affordable care act. in my opinion, the thing we did we are seeing a lot of talk about that from conservatives because we know that people like the traditional medicare system. polls show that republicans, democrats, and independence watch the programs -- want the programs to stay as they are. what happens when you start learning about the details of
what though ryan-romney plan is -- people do not like it. there is a lot of rhetoric. all i would say to folks out there is you do not have to believe me, but look at the organizations who have been working to protect these benefits for many years. do not listen to the politicians. organizations like the national committee, the center for medicare advocacy, the center for medicare rights, go on their website in learned the issues and make your decision. host: if you want to join in on the conversation with brenda sulick of the national committee to preserve social security, give us a call on the republican line at 202-737-0002. democrats' line, 202-737-0001. independents line, 202-628-0205. we will talk about romney and ryan releasing their own advertisements about cuts that they say the president's plan makes medicare -- i want to play you an ad going after romney and ryan on medicare. [video clip] >> i am barack obama and i approve this message.
>> mitt romney is attacking obama on medicare. aarp says it strengthens benefits. the ryan plan would undermine these and could lead to higher costs for seniors. experts say ryan's voucher plan could raise future retirees cost more than $6,000. get the facts. host: i want to read some more from that "weekly standard" article. host: talk a little bit about this.
>> the comments you just read -- guest: the comment you just read do not sound true to me. this independent payment advisory board is a group of people that would be appointed to help provide ideas for a lowering medicare spending. what happens is it is not a done deal. after they submit recommendations, congress has the opportunity to look at them, change them, make other options. if they do not, the decision goes into place from the ipac. there is a lot of misinformation out there. this group cannot ration benefits, increased premiums for seniors -- there is a lot of information out there. this is a board that is like a backstop to help keep medicare costs within reason.
host: ari getting comments on this topic today on twitter -- guest: good morning. first, i would say that is a false claim. if you look at the law, it did not take -- affordable care i did not take 1 cent out of a guaranteed medicare benefits. what it did is it put into place some different ways to strengthen the program. we have seen it has strengthened the program by about 8 years by doing some things that are smarter in terms
of making health care more efficient such as coordinating care. especially seniors may have several doctors. they are taking a lot of medication. having somebody to coordinate that so we do not duplicate efforts into things that may hurt the person and cost more money. host: let us get some calls. eugene is waiting on the republican line from jackson, michigan this morning. thank you for calling. caller: yes, sir. michigan. thank you for taking my call. just a couple of comments about social security and medicare and in 2010 and 2011, there was no cost of living. that money has taken away $6 billion per year from social security forever. they say there are 10,000 people joining social security from the baby boomers. by 2025, that will cease. the baby boomers will be --
after that, they will be going away. there will be 10,000 less per day on social security. by 2030, there will be 15,000 less on social security. if it is privatized, where is the money coming from to pay the people that run privatization? leave it like it is. it is good. if they did not steal from social security, there would be no problem with it. by 2030, there will be no problem with it. thank you very much. guest: thank you. i appreciate your comment because i think the caller is exactly right. the baby boomers will not be here forever. the way the system works is the trust funds for social security are being spent down in a way -- we knew they were coming. changes were made in the 1980's
to accommodate for this. the system is doing what it had planned to do. if the system is privatized, it could be very scary for seniors. you could run out of money. social security provides a guaranteed benefit that you cannot tell live. we agree. we think the programs should stay as they are. they might need modest changes, but we do not need to destroy them. host: i want to mention this headline from "the associated press." host: talk of little bit about this social security deal and whether this is a fact of life for people that the deal is not as good as it once was. guest: i think social security is a good deal for current generations and future generations.
it is social insurance. some people will need the benefits. some people will not. what a lot of people forgetting is that social security is really a family-based program. it is not just retirement benefits. it has a benefit for survivors. it has benefits if you are on disability. i have several friends whose parents have died when they were young and if it was not for the benefits helping them, i do not know how they would have gone along. we have to think about all of the pieces of the program. host: we will go to beverly on the independent line from north carolina. thank you for calling. caller: hello. i agree with the young lady who is sitting there.
the republicans -- all they have to do is look at all of this money that is coming in to their program. billionaires' do not help little people. obama is trying to get the fraud out of medicare. that is where it this 700 something billion dollars is coming from. if you are going to a hospital and you see the lights that are often for no reason, people using telephones for no reason -- we are paying for that. that is fraud. as far as romney and his running mate are concerned, they ran on one promise in now that they see that things are not working right, they are dumping -- jumping the gun. they are totally dishonest. i would never vote for them.
thank you. guest: thank you for your comment. i want to add that you are right. one of the areas when they talk about these cuts to obamacare, this comes from savings. it is a greater focus on waste fraud and abuse since the law has been in place -- i have seen estimates between five and $10 billion that have been recovered to the system for medicare. overpayments to insurance companies is another area that bilal looks at. i agree. thank you for your comment. host: we are talking about paul ryan's visit in florida yesterday at a retirement community. i want to play more from that and then get your reaction. [video clip] >> our plan does not affect the benefits for people who are in or near retirement. [applause] it is a promise that was made and it must be kept.
in order to make sure we can guarantee that promised for my mother's generation and the baby boomers who are retiring, we must reform it for my generation. save it for this generation, reformate for my generation so it does not go bankrupt when we want to retire. [applause] the good news is, there are bipartisan solutions to do this. the plan we support originated in the clinton commission's plan to save medicare in the 1990's. it is a bipartisan plan in congress today. it is a plan that says do not changed benefits for people 55 and above and for those of us who are younger, when we become eligible for medicare, we get a choice of guaranteed coverage of chintz. guaranteed affordability, including traditional medicare.
we get to pick the plan for us. when we retire. that means all those providers -- we do not have to beg for the mercy of 15 bureaucrats to get health care. host: i want to get your thoughts on that. guest: i have many comments. there were in number of claims made. first, we keep hearing that the ryan budget will not affect people 55 and older. it is for people younger than that. first of all, that is false. look at what the plan would do -- it would roll back changes that are in the law right now for people who are getting preventive benefits, they do not have to be the co-pays and are getting free well as visits and it lowers prescription drug costs. also, when we keep about the idea of choice, it is really benefits the insurance companies. there may be more insurance companies, but seniors will have less choice with their doctors.
i want to say one more thing about bipartisan claims. there was one democrat, senator widened -- wyden who worked with ryan on his first plan. i do not know of any other democrats that have signed onto the plan and now in the next version of the ryan plan, even senator wyden says that is too many cuts. i keep hearing that but i think when you think about 435 people in congress and one who looked at an older plan -- that does not sound that bipartisan. host: what about his claims that it stemmed from the clinton era? guest: there has been talk about premium support for 15 years. again, the bottom line is it has not gone through or gotten very far because what it does is it spends traditional medicare, privatizes the system, and leads people to deal with insurers. people do not want that. host: a comment on twitter --
host: michael is waiting on the democratic line from pennsylvania. good morning, michael. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. instead of changing medicare as we know it and as we like it, why don't we raise the cap on social security and then use a percentage of that to shore up medicare? thank you for taking my call. guest: thank you for calling. that is a proposal our organization look set as a positive. we look at that in terms of helping make social security solvent for a longer time. with medicare, there are other things that we can do to strengthen the program and improved benefits for the beneficiaries without destroying the program and
turning it around. there is a number of things. we have already seen that by providing health care delivery and smarter ways, that helps. we could allow the government to negotiate for part b prices for medicare. the bottom line with all of this and we talk about the ryan plan is that it does not get to the real core problem of what the rising cost are. there are more seniors coming into the system. it does not address that the real problem is rising health- care costs. in dealing with insurers. ryan's plan does not do anything to address that. it just cuts benefits. host: we want to talk about this as a campaign issue and look at some information put out by a pfizer family foundation.
73% describe medicare as very important or extremely important to their vote. future retirees with fixed payments for purchasing private coverage -- ryan's proposals turned the program -- is providing retirees fixed payments or traditional medicare arguing that having seniors manage their own health care will help bring down costs. republicans accused the obama administration of cutting $716 billion to pay for obamacare. talk about this on the campaign trail and what you have seen. guest: what i have seen from the polls is that when it comes to medicare and social security, the american public does not want these benefits changed. that is why i think when you are talking to your elected officials or researching information, look at what the different options really say. the ryan plan privatizes medicare.
i think people do not want that. we have a population where we need to keep our middle class. we want people to get to the middle class and stay there. medicare and social security were put into place because the private insurance market did not work. they did not want folks with a lot of chronic conditions and before the programs were put in place, we had 35% of older adults in poverty and 50% did not have health insurance. we do not want to go back to that. guest: paul ryan -- host: paul ryan is -- was in florida yesterday. thank you for calling in, john. caller: hello. i wanted to mention when social security first began, it was originally intended for poor and elderly, not as a retirement system. at the time, there was 16 workers for every one person
collectively. as we all know, it will go down in a couple of years. i guess it is 3 to 1 right now. it is not sustainable. it is the same thing for medicare. when they sold it, they said it would cost a certain amount of dollars. we know that it costs -- that costs have increased over the years. it is not sustainable. the liberal you have up there -- god, bless you, but the bottom line is we have to do something about this. if we do not face it now, it will collapse. thank you. guest: thank you very much. thank you for the complement. god bless you. i would have to disagree with you.
we do want to make sure these programs are solvent for the future for all generations. look at social security. it is not in crisis. it is not going bankrupt like he might read about. when you look at the trustees' report, nothing -- if nothing is done, after 2033, it can pay 75% of benefits. we do not want cuts but with modest adjustment, we could easily resolve the issue. it is a matter of priorities in our country. host: do you think social security should be a top issue this year or you are saying it is not part of the fiscal crisis we are approaching? guest: i do not think social security or medicare should be part of the deficit reduction debate. these are important programs. we need time to look at the issues and get real solutions that do not heard people and not do something that is rash that
will possibly put some people in poverty. host: let us go to wisconsin. democratic line. thank you for calling. caller: hello. good morning. i am on your side. people do not understand i worked in health care. when i call older people and get them registered for appointments, they are concerned about insurance. they're concerned about medicare. me being a cancer survivor, i thank god for the obama plan. i would not be today and i want people to realize when you have older people that want to cancel their appointments because they are not sure that they are covered or do not have enough coverage, we need to do some things to find ways -- medicare needs to stay right now. for future generations -- whatever weeks we need to make, we can make them. we can do everything. thank you. guest: i agree with your comment. seniors are worried. that is why our organization really is trying to educate people.
people can make up their own decisions, go to our website and other organizations. this is what we have been doing for many years. not just in an election year. look at the data and make your decision from there. i do not like when i hear that there is information that is scaring seniors unnecessarily. host: you talk about educating yourself on this issue. president obama trying to educate folks on his medicare plan. here is more from that. [video clip] >> my plan cracks down on fraud and waste and insurance companies subsidies. [applause] their plan make seniors pay more so they can get another tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. my plan is our extended the life of medicare by nearly a decade. [applause] their plan would put medicare on track to be ended as we know it. it would be an entirely
different plant. a plan in which you could not count on health care because it would have to be coming out of your pockets. that is the real difference between our plans on medicare. host: again, we are with brenda sulick of the national committee to preserve social security and medicare. on twitter -- guest: i have heard that before. people do talk about that. i look at a lot of the research and right now, we do not see that happening. there are a lot of people and medicare as a big market. most doctors seem to be taking medicare clients. host: we will go to the
independent line from tallahassee, florida. thank you for calling. caller: good morning. if you look at the past performance of both parties, i think you can kind of see the liberal policies have not worked. it seems to me that it is time to change. you cannot spend more money than you make. we have been giving money away. the other thing is, i thought medicare was a trust fund. i do not know how they can take money out of a cut -- trust fund without the american people agreeing to do that. they seem to just take money whenever they choose and that does not seem right to me. the other thing is, your guest seems to be a little bit biased
for these liberals. i do not know why, but i think that we need to look at the facts. we need to choose the person that will do the best job for us. host: you said your group is not as partisan. do you want to address his concerns? guest: we are nonpartisan. we hear from members and supporters from all different parties. the one thing we all agree on is that we want to keep these programs from for future generations. i think i have to disagree with you in terms of the fact that these programs are not working. social security and medicare are the most successful programs we have in our country. they have been responsible for getting a lot of people out of poverty. people that insurance companies did not want to serve in the past. seniors tend to have multiple chronic illnesses and they cost the system a lot of money. with medicare, you have a guaranteed benefit. you do not have to worry about that. with private insurance, that is
a different mandate. they are a business. they need to make sure that they are making a profit. that could mean that they will want to have healthier people go in their system and that will help the -- will not help the people who really need help. host: we have questions about funding. take us through that and how it gets taken away from medicare. >> -- guest: there are two trust funds. the health insurance, and that is forepart day and then there is another trust fund which is the supplemental medical insurance fund. that covers part the end d -- part b and d. folks get a small percentage taken out of their check to pay for future benefits. we have a board of trustees who
make projections and recommendations about where the system is going in and people just do not take money out willy-nilly. it is looked at by the trustees and recommendations are made. i want to mention that there needs to be strengthening in medicare, but the system has been extended 8 years and that the system can pay a poll benefits -- full benefits and after that, it can pay hospitals and other providers 87%. we do not want any cuts. these programs are not in bad shape that you hear about. we do not need to destroy it. host: since you talk about funding for medicare and you are the national committee to preserve social security and medicare, can you talk about social security?
guest: social security is a trust fund and it can pay paul benefits and a -- full benefits until 2033. then after that, if we do nothing, it still pays 75% of all benefits. we are not talking about a system that is bankrupt. it is not in crisis. we do have an area that we need to fill overtime to make this program 100% for everybody. nobody wants benefit cuts. there are many ways that can be done. one person mentioned possibly raising the cap. after that $110,000, you get taxed on your social security. we could raise that and that would help resolve a big part of the problem.
host: what did you do before your current job guest: i would have worked in the 18 field for 20 years. i worked for the alzheimer's association, the aarp, i did research at the institute on aging at portland state university. this is an area that i have spent my career in and i believe the national committee is really looking out for faults and that is one of the reasons i went there. host: we will go to james from new york. thank you for calling. caller: hello. good morning. i have a question about social security and medicare. right now, i am receiving social security and medicar a, b, and d. i have epilepsy, which affects 27 million americans presently. i am on vimthe, which is
accepted by medicare. they will not pay for most medication because it is prescription. out of my social security, i am on tier one. i pay $208 a month for my medication. after i fall into a doughnut hole with the insurance company, i have to pay $600.99 for a month's supply. that seems to be too much for an individual like myself to control my seizures. i do not know what to do. i have tried the insurance companies do you have -- do you have any recommendations?
guest: a lot of people are in similar situations. they have high drug costs. luckily, through the affordable care act, the doughnut hole will be closed by 2020. in your case, i would need more information and specifics, but what i suggest is that you can go on to our website. we have a wonderful resource called asked mary jane. she is a person who works for social security. you can write in to our website and we can research for you. our aim is to help educate people and help them when we can. give us a try. www.ncpssm.org. host: the website is on the screen. we will go to the republican line from new castle pennsylvania. thank you for calling this morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.
i am listening to you and i am very upset. you are telling me and the rest of the country that we will have the choice of doctors with obamacare. i go to doctors in pittsburgh. my daughter had a stroke. we have doctors here in newcastle. 82%, and do not tell me this is a fact because i know, 82% of the doctors are giving up their practice because they do not want to deal with obamacare. host: where you getting that number? caller: we will have our choice, all right. my daughter had to wait for five months to get an appointment in pittsburgh. five months. what if you were going to die within five months? that is what will happen with obamacare. host: let us give brenda sulick a chance to answer. guest: i am sorry i upset you
with my comments but i am not familiar with your statistics. that is really frustrating under any health plan. sometimes, it takes longer for a doctors appointment. i would say that under obamacare, one of the things it does for people that really are sick is it prevents insurance companies not taking -- not turning away for pre-existing conditions. before that, you would be lucky to get an insurance plan or you would pay a high premium. i am sorry my answers are frustrating, but i cannot agree with you. host: let us go to new jersey. independent line.
go ahead. caller: good morning. the senator from vermont is the only politician i have ever heard come out and specifically say that if the cap was raised from $110,000, $250,000 per year, it would solve the problem. are there any other politicians that you could tell us who are also in agreement with senator sanders? guest: good morning. none are coming to mind, but i am sure there are. senator sanders has been an advocate for this issue. he is also one who has tried to get members of congress to not include social security, medicare, and medicaid in the deficit debate. again, raising the cap is one way that can help the solvency of the system. i do not have any specific answers, but i hope more people think about that. host: on twitter --
guest: exactly. we do have that. we have a mixed system right now. we have traditional medicare, 75% of older adults that are on medicare are on traditional medicare. 25% of seniors have chosen medicare advantage plans. these are plants that are run by insurance companies. folks do have choices in that area if that is what they would like. host: we have a couple of minutes left with brenda sulick. we will go to phil on the independent line from somerville, south carolina. caller: good morning. how are you? you are not going to like listening to me. guest: that is ok. caller: it seems like the one thing you are leaving out is the part about romney and ryan
eating children. your non-partisan perspective is really something to behold. your connections with the non- partisan aarp -- we are spending ourselves into oblivion in this country. for years and years, we have been borrowing more money than we are taking in. it has got to stop. if you had been on the line with me a couple of minutes ago, you would have heard my grandchild. we are putting that child into deeper and deeper debt all the time. people like yourself, all you care about is continuing the status quo as it is now and you do not have any regard for what will happen 20, 30, 40 years down the road. host: we will give brenda sulick a chance to respond. guest: i am sorry you feel that way.
i am very concerned about these issues. i have spent my career working on them. i think there are ways to fix these issues and resolve them. nobody is saying status quo, but we are saying let us not destroy these programs and use radical solutions that could hurt people. i think americans would like to see fairness. we would like to see everybody pay their fair share in taxes. i think it is a country where if you have done well, that means paying your fair share of taxes. we all need to take individual responsibility, but these programs are safety net programs. sometimes things happen, even when you do the best you can, and they need to be there for folks when they are in trouble. host: we will try to fit in dave from sarasota. caller: i am a member of the national committee social
security medicare. i would like to say that i would like them to stop -- starts affecting low income people. not have to be taxed. host: your final thoughts? guest: those questions will take longer to answer. contact our office. we are there to help our members as a resource. write in to ask mary jane. we would also like to hear suggestions from folks. we're always open to that. please contact us. we will keep your issues and considerations in mind. thank you very much. host: brenda sulick from social
security, thank you for joining us. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" bill kristol on the latest developments in the presidential race. then a look at the u.s. tax system with andrea campbell who remarked that america is under attack. then sophia nelson will talk about her work at an african- american community. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. >> "washington journal" media series will continue. nson,ll talk to guy be amanda terkel on wednesday.
"washington journal" the serious this week on c-span. >> mitt romney and his vice- presidential running mate will hold a town hall meeting tomorrow in new hampshire. this is mitt romney's 100 town hall since running for president in the first time paul ryan has been here since 2010. our live coverage begins tomorrow morning at 10:35 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> tonight, walter pincus talks about his various jobs as a journalist, his views on extravagant u.s. spending overseas, and his criticism of the budget department priorities. >> it was about 40 people.
they had it for everybody. he spent $4 million on an elementary school, that someone would ask questions. >> more with walter pincus tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> the independent institute held its alcohol, tobacco and firearms party at a sporting club in colorado. they aim to train activists in educate policymakers about personal liberties and economic freedom. this is one hour. >> can i grab your attention, please? all right. all right. settle down. s later.f boo
>> i thought we explain what the alcohol, tobacco and firearms party is all about for them. the alcohol, firearms party was a great brainstorm we had at the independence institute over a decade ago when we saw what was happening with the growing nanny state. when we saw that the perks of adulthood starting slipping from us bit by bit and piece by piece. we figured we need to do something not just to rally around the perks of adulthood but actually celebrate the perks of adulthood. what better way to celebrate drinking, smoking and shooting than drinking, smoking and shooting. sadly the lawyers don't want us to do that in that ponder but we're organize on that.
not just about people who watch and eat your beans and eat transfat. it's about people who are so very intolerant they want to get government to live the way they want you to live. yet, the very tolerant of people with different lifestyle as we should be but if your lifestyle is to smoke a cigarette, we don't tolerate but you. if your lifestyle is to have someone of your same sex at your life partner, that we tolerate and we should. all i'm saying that it's america. having a drink, having a smoke, eating a nice fatty donut, drinking a big slurpee or
whatever your lifestyle decision should not be perverse and government should not be there to take it away but protect your right to do so. i can't tell you how exciting it is to come out here at the kiowa creek sporting club. what hacksaw less so very much is to see the right having fun. if i could encourage you this afternoon, grab the alcohol beverage of your choice, of
course some margaritas from coyote, the official margarita. kick back and remember, every time you're having a good time and smoking a cigarette, there's a liberal that loses a little part of her own heart. to talk about the freedoms that we enjoy and the freedoms we want to protect. freedom is not allowing people to do things that you approve of. freedom is about protecting people's rights to do things you find disfastful. let me introduce dave kope who is our research director at the independent institute, our second amendment expert, researcher and extraordinaire. ladies and gentlemen, sir dave kope.
>> thank you. what i like to talk about today is two things that come together. one is what's wrong with michael bloomberg and the second is what's wrong with john caljera. michael bloomberg is the head of this foe grassroots organization called mayors against illegal guns. which is by finances by far the economic center of the gun control movement in this country today, very wealthy and lots of lobby in d.c. and state capital around the company. they have 12 people who got
their name off this list, mayors against illegal guns who said i never signed up for this or you told me it was this group against illegal guns. there's really not too many people for illegal guns. i said it was okay but it turned out you're just against guns general. there's also 19 mayors members of mayors against illegal guns who now have left office because of a felony conviction or because they were under indictment or because chargesser were pending and they had to resign. you figure those 19 criminals in mayors against illegal guns, mean that michael bloomberg's organization has a much higher crime rate than to people who have permits to carry handguns for lawful possession. i take in the interest of truth in advertising the proper way to
refer to this group is illegal mayors against guns. i would say on the other hand, they have one important service, there's a lot of people who wonder is there an afterlife and how would you ever know for sure. one mayor who was in this group and generally signed up for, passed away. yet, afterwards, mayors against illegal guns was distributing and lobbying on the anti-gun issue signed by this now deceased mayor. if there's any doubt, doesn't that prove there's an afterlife? probably this mayor enjoyed it. what we see out of michael bloomberg and his crowd consistently and their attempts
to exploit the recent murders in aurora and wisconsin and really everyday is this undifferentiated hostility toward people who own guns. you know there is rather hypocritical. on the other hand, if you can get entire new york city police security detail carrying machines to accompany you every second, that's okay because he is personally owning a gun of protection. they put out these terrible malicious libels against people like when they say the only reason that a person would own an a.r.15 rifle is because they want to be a mass murdered. what a horrible thing to say about the millions of americans who have made the a.r.15 today
the most popular best selling rifle in america. what a malicious falls -- falsehood about our police who frequently carry a.r.15 in their squad car. neither of these americans regular civilian who use a.r.15s for target shooting, for home defense, for hunting. knowing the police have doubts those firearms because they want to harm a lot of people. they have those firearms for legitimate purposes. what we do at the independence institute in our legal work in the briefs we file, is almost always, we filed jointly with police organizations with a huge coalition of police
organizations and the supreme court. we filed heller and mcdonald just last week in willard versus gallagher in the circuit court of appeals. it was filed not only for independent institute but for two major organizations which train law enforcement in firearms use. these are the policemen who are the firearm trainers for all the rest of the police. what we consistently say with the police is there's one key principle, one is guns in the wrong handses are very dangerous and we need strong laws to try to keep guns out of the right hands. when they get into the wrong hands and punish misuse and put them away so they can't endanger somebody. at the same time, guns in the right hands protect public safety, they help protect
civilians and we also need strong laws to make sure that there are guns in the right hands, to protect the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase, own, use and carry firearms. 40 years ago, there were virtually no gun laws almost in colorado and most of united states of any sort the reason there's a gun debate in this country have finally settled down after four decades as it it has in colorado and especially after who we went through in columbine. we come to a colorado consensus and a national consensus based on common sense and we have added a lot of laws to strengthen, time to keep guns out of the wrong hands and we added a lot laws to protect the rights of law-abiding people.
the colorado's right to carry law was written by the county sheriff of colorado. it ensures that a law-abiding adult who passes a fingerprint-based background check and a safety training class can obtain a handgun for protection. at the independence institute we worked on this issue for nearly decade to make it become a law. what a difference it's already made. you know what happened in december of 2007 when an evil doer went into the sanctuariry of the new life church. they came in there intent and mass murder and because of the county sheriffs of colorado and because of our right to carry
gun -- she stopped the killer, said she saved over 100 lives that day. we are going to -- we want laws like that everywhere in the country. we have them in 48 states. maryland is come soon and it's essential that the protection of the rights to bare arms be protected nationally. one of the things we're going to be promoting very much at the independence institute is stronger laws on mental health. there's lots of ways government spending can be cut. starting with corporate welfare, which is illegal in four different clauses of our colorado constitution. we shouldn't be doing it illegally. one ever the things we want to really promote from here on in including the next legislature
is better funding for mental health services. not only sensational crimes like in aurora but a lot of this homicides that happened that never get -- who are committed by people who are seriously mentally ill. there are no bets for them now and no support system. we want to take money out of the hands of corporate welfare and special interest and put it into the community interest for a strong mental health in colorado. you know what's wrong with michael bloomberg on this issue. let me tell you what's wrong with john calgera. when he referred to our alcohol,
tobacco firearm as the perks to adulthood. that's fine to characterize alcohol and tobacco on those terms. one place in western australia, there was a study done in western australia who were in prison, convicted of crime. one group and of these criminals had both groups -- both of the criminals had guns. one group of the imprisoned criminals had misused guns a crime. the second group, these were people in prison for committing felonies and they had guns but they had never misused a gun against a human being. what was the difference between the two? it's the ones never misused a gun against a person who had
been taught about guns by an older authority figure such as a father or uncle and they learned about shooting sports and treating guns with a responsibility and saw them as something you use to shoot some game and not something you use to try to harm an innocent person. another study in rochester, new york, they did a longitudinal study meaning over time and tried to find the 16-year-old who were most likely to become juvenile delinquent. if you want to study crime, you only got so many people you can study. you focus on the male. they tracked them over the years. the youth who are 16 illegally owned a gun. maybe they bought a handgun from somebody on the streets, had in the future years, a very high rate of being arrested for
serious crimes including gun crime. the youth who at 16 legally owned a gun, said they had a shotgun that their parents given them and they went hunting with their dad or rifle shooting with their uncle, they had essentially no crime rate of any type. how young people are socialized about guns is hugely important in future outcome. contrary to this positive socialization, some of the young people in western australia and in rochester had, is the tremendous negative socialization that comes through too much of our media. particularly television entertainment and movies. the people who produce these horrible pornographic situation of violence, will tell you that doesn't effect people and it has
no influence on people. if you say, what you see has no effect on what people ever do. isn't it kind of odd that they sell advertising. what a waste of money that must be because apparently something you watch these effect. how strange it is these movies and tv shows sell product placement. what people see on tv and the movies never have any effect on them. likewise, the reason that now with the culture war against smoking, you not suppose to show characters smoking in a movie that young people going to. that does seem like what people see does have an effect. now, hollywood will say, we're going to make sure when a 15-year-old goes to a movie, he will never see someone lighting up a cigarette.
he will see this mass violence and gun misuse. i don't think it's accurate to say that never has an effect on any one. we're not for censureship but we are for counterprogram. that's what ntfa is about. hoping that all of you go out and spread that circle of introducing your friends, your co-workers and neighbors especially some young people you know to the responsible shooting sport, which is you know is a culture of safety, of responsibility, of self-control, self-discipline and really so many things that exemplify exactly what's right about america. one ever the things we're handing out -- [applause].
from our friends at the nra, since 1871 america oldest civil rights organization they've been teaching people about shooting safety and responsibility with a special focus on young people ever since in 1971. there's a lot of material you can take. one of those, i especially recommend is the nra qualification program. it's about the size of a magazine and it shows you how you can on your own whether you like air guns or sporting clays or .22 caliber rifle or revolvers, courses of target shooting you can go through and earn yourself these cool little patches and medals as you work your way up to efficiency. everybody can do it. on this issue, we are not only
on the pro-choice side, we are on the pro-life side as well. what we do everyday at the independence institute is to fight for those lifesaving values of safety, responsibility and american constitutional right and we're not just protecting those right insist colorado, in the long term, we are making sure those rights are protected nationally as we did in the mcdonald case and second amendment right to arm. we look forward to the day even people in the pressed parts of the united states under the sweltering heel of michael bloomberg will regain their right to smoke a cigarette or a cigar to drink a big gulp of soda and to own and carry a handgun for lawful protection in new york because it is a civil right of every american. thank
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on