tv Washington Journal CSPAN January 25, 2011 7:00am-9:59am EST
back for legislative business at noon. today's agenda includes a bill that would lead to federal spending cutbacks to 2008 levels. >> after a look at the headlines, we will talk to republican freshman representative mick mulvaney from south carolina. he did read it -- defeated budget committee chairman john spratt. at 8:30, diana degette of colorado. and we will focus on the president's state of the union speech with "the national journal's" major garrett. "washington journal" is next. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
host: president obama will deliver his state of the union, laying out his vision for the country and plans to deal with unemployment and health care and the war in afghanistan. c-span's live coverage begins this morning with "washington journal." evening coverage begins at 8:30 p.m. eastern time. then the republican response from the house budget committee chairman paul ryan of wisconsin. c-span2 will simulcast the speech and offer live reaction from members of congress. you can also watch the president's address live on c- span.org, listen to it on c-span radio and on your iphone as well with the c-span radio app. you beat -- we begin with your thoughts. does the state of the union matter to you? will you watch? what are you listening for? the numbers are on your screen. here is "the new york post" this morning.
what would you be listening for? kansas city, missouri. joe is a democrat. good morning. caller: i think i will probably watch about the first half-hour. it is usually a bunch of empty promises. i just watch it for the entertainment, the democrats and republicans. host: what do you mean about -- by entertainment? caller: the juggling of the seeds -- seats, where everybody has to sit next to somebody of a different party. host: this morning a lot about members of congress crossing the aisle to sit with their counterparts. i think we lost him. this is the world news this section of "the financial times" this morning. they say this --
is according to charlie cook, a pollster. many are saying that tonight's speech is the beginning of the president's 2012 reelection bid. caller: good morning. i just saw where the host just read the constitutional passage where it says that the president should give the state of the union speech every year.
where in the constitution doesn't say the republicans have to give a response or the opposing party? since they are all about constitutional and sticking to the constitution, where in the competition does as they have to give a response? host: debra, from what i read in wikipedia, the tradition started around the 1960's. will you be watching the response? caller: yes, i will. host: what will you be listening for from paul ryan? caller: some common sense may be, but i don't see it. i don't see where the republicans are willing to put themselves in a position where they actually look for common ground. most of the time it is their grounds or no ground. host: in the past when we had a republican president should the democrats have forgo having their own response?
caller: in the past, no parent -- know. but just recently they are talking about the constitutionality of everything that should be done. they changed the rules in the house. they are speaking to this. so, if they are going to stick to that, then why are they getting a response? where does it say they have to give a response? host: michelle bachmann of minnesota, the favorite of the tea party, according to "to the financial times" this morning has been tentatively positioning herself for 2010. she will be giving her own speech. will you be watching? caller: no, i will not. i think she is going to deliver it online. by and not planning to watch that. i did not see where that would -- i am not planning to watch that. i do not see where that would benefit me. host: speaking of the tea party. the freedomworks group seeks to
oust jeffrey immelt. shreveport, louisiana. caroline, republican line. caller: i will not be watching. i think he will say tonight whatever he thinks the american people want to hear. it is what he will do, not what he says. because he says many things and has done what he wants to do. host: have you watched passed the state of the union addresses? caller: yes, i have. host: what do you think the republican addresses? caller: again, they say what
they think the american people want to hear. it is what they do, not what they say. this president is great at what he says but he does not do that. he is america's worst enemy, i think. host: according to reuters, the speech may spur a fight over the pace of budget cuts. he specifically vowed to defend education programs for major cuts. that is reuters. let's go to sarasota, florida. democratic line. caller: good morning, how are you doing? host: i think the state of the union matters, but i will -- i was watching the news last night and he is not going to deliver anything on the immigration issue. it seems like not even the president or congress cares either way.
enforcing the borders and doing something about the people already here. it is kind of sad because the know how many people will be watching the state of the union that are illegal? it is sad to know the president is not going to say anything about the topic. host: are you going to watch tonight? caller: to be honest, no, because that is a solution that matters to our community and if he is not going to say anything about that, why. host: here is a side of the state of the union speech you do not get to see on television --
hanover, maryland. republican line. does the state of union matter? caller: good morning. i think it will be interesting to see what promises he is going to make that he will be measured against. a lot of citizens are looking at. unfortunately, my schedule will keep me from watching it but with c-span did these things with a look at and do you look up and you later. but i agree with the lady that called an earlier, that said the particular things he says are
not as important as what he does. it will be important from the standpoint of looking at what he park -- promises and actually keeps. i think it is all politicians way of making their commitments prior to reelection time. host: you are calling on the republican line. will you listen to paul ryan's response? caller: i am. this is kind of the important thing, as a naturalized citizen, looking forward to the election coming up. i am going to be paying attention closely to what he is promising and all of the other people's opinions, comments, just to keep informed. host: what do you make of this story in politico yesterday. chris christie turned down response.
shawn, democratic line. does it matter? caller: i will be watching the president intent late. i will be paying attention to ryan's speech. but i did not believe i will be watching michelle bachmann. the tea party is trying to get two bytes of the apple. they have to decide whether they are republicans or split off, t for tea party or i as independents. host: why do it -- are you watching her response? caller: i did not think she has anything well to say. host: the tea party is in the paper this morning talking about cuts. they want republicans to go farther than they announced they will on spending cuts. as a democrat, you think there needs to be cuts made? caller: i think we can find
cuts. i thing we also need to open up military spending. it is demint -- the devastating the social domestic issues. i am not finding the right path with the republicans. that is the reason why we have a democratic president today and we should be following him. host: michigan. connie is a republican. caller: i would just like to say that i think as a republican, we need to watch the president of the united states and not just call him barack obama. he is above leader of the land. -- he is the leader of the land. we need to respect the office of the president. yes, i will be watching. also i will be looking for paul ryan's comments afterwards.
pardon me? host: you will be listening to paul i am's words? what do you want to hear from him? caller: i want to hear they are going to cut spending and how the cutting of the spending will cut down e deficit, and i really want to hear from the president about setting the course towards jobs. host: on cutting spending, are you familiar with paul ryan's roadmap? do you think he should talk about that? caller: i think he should but i think he should tie it into the president's speech and they need to be cohesive on that fact and work together because we are all americans. host: we are going to have coverage of the president's address and paul ryan's response from the budget committee's room. after the speech we will have live reaction from members of
congress in statuary hall up on capitol hill. the article we read a little bit ago, questioning whether there were memorable lines from a state of the union addresses. we will show you a couple of moments from past speeches. here is clinton. >> we know, and we have worked to give the american people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in washington. and we have to give the american people one that lives within its means. [applause] the era of big government is over. [applause] but we cannot go back to the time when our citizens were left to fend for themselves.
[applause] instead, we must go forward as one america, one nation working together to meet the challenges we face together. self reliance and teamwork are not opposing virtues. we must have both. [applause] host: president clinton, his 1996 state of the union address. we are asking all of you about tonight's speech. does it matter? we have howard mortman, communications director here at c-span. talking about the role of social media. what role will all of this play and what types of technology are available? >> you would just do guest: you were selling the clit -- president clip from 15
years ago and one thing that was not there that is new is social media. so much news and information and opinion is being spread through social media -- facebook and twitter -- it gives a complete picture of the state of the union and how everyone is reacting. you will see something new this year. members of congress are allowed to tweet from the floor. they can bring their personal biases on the floor and file their opinions and thoughts on the speech. and reporters likewise will be actively watching this speech and reacting immediately. c-span, what we are trying to do as part of our education of what is happening on the floor of the congress tonight, will have a page devoted that people can go
to and folks can go to our main site, a link to a special page we have on our website, c- span.org/sotu, state of the union. on that page we are aggregating, pulling together tweets from members of congress. people can see in real time live as senators and congressmen react to the speech, actually before and after the speech and during. a kind of like a stock ticker squirreling of members of . ngress' tweets you can check out what reporters are saying from the floor. we will have reporters such as political, "the hill" and "roll call."
host: what is the goal? guest: one is to basically bring for the c-span audience a real look inside news developing, opinions developing, as the speech is going on. second is to hear from the audience. we will also have on our facebook page, facebook.com/c- span, you can post your own comments. we will have the video of their, -- up there and the republican response. it is really a two-way conversation. the educational value, how institutional faults are reacting, and giving the opportunity to have voice is
heard. host: those that are tweeters, did you expect it will increase? is there an uptick in those that tweet? guest: the short answer is yes. for a practical reason, people can bring their iphones and blackberrys on the floor, so for technical reasons you will see a lot more members of congress tweeting tonight. the big picture, members of congress, particularly the freshman class, many of them inc. shows -- social media into their campaign and they will take the technology with them. i think of the big picture, moving beyond the state of the union, you will see members of congress incorporating facebook and twitter much more in their
communication every day. as part of our coverage of c- span, of congress, how washington works, we are trying to capture as much of the conversation as we can. host: howard mortman from c- span, thank you. go to c-span.org. that will bring you to our website for the state of the union address where you can follow along and teet messages -- tweet messages and we will have paul ryan. does the state of the union matter? caller: i am going to be watching tonight the state of the union. but my question is this. we are a country of intelligent people but i can't understand that why is there an age group of white people in that age group of 50 showing so much ignorance of some of that is what i can't understand. host: myrtle beach, south
carolina. caller: i will not be watching this speech because it will just be another empty promise. i want to explain why. when he was running for reelection, he promised to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs. i do not know you got this but i caught this on a local channel -- thursday, january 20, gm announced $540 million plans a building in mexico to produce a thousand jobs. they will make -- make low output engines, emissions. this president personally backed gm, gave them our money to keep them from going under and this is how, under the command of people he put in gm -- he ran the other ceo's out -- they are going to invest in mexico and you say this guy is serious?
why don't you bring that up in your program, gm's announcement building a plant for 1000 jobs in mexico. this is the craziest than i have heard. host: let me get your reaction to something else. here is "the financial times" front page -- imf sees stimulus fuelling u.s. growth but at a cost. i and and saying that it is working but it comes at a cost for deficits. this is "the financial times" analysis. and then also is the business section of "the new york times." caution, not euphoria, over the recovery -- over the recovery. bloomberg reported on a survey by the national association of business economists where the
outlook will rise for employment, saying that they plan on hiring in 2011. caller: well, that is strictly an contradiction with what they came out with on thursday. the idle said the engine plants in michigan -- i have a cousin who worked for ford -- it was on the national news and the main news on myrtle beach. nobody else has talked about it. it is like never heard of it. i wish you would look up and bring it up. why is gm investing in 1000 jobs in mexico when the sky is going to talk tonight about we are going to produce jobs? -- when this guy is going to talk tonight about we are going to produce jobs? guest: no more spending for competitiveness, you do not want to hear about that tonight? caller: i want to hear about how he bankrolled gm and now they are going to build, or let's
say, finance 1000 jobs in mexico. the president should be leading on this and chastising gm. host: front page of "usa today." who are america's jobless? 81% come out of work or actively looking. 62% have not received benefits. 60% will have to settle for a job and don't want. 49% predict they will not find one in the next four weeks. 40% manage to pay bills, but with difficulty. connecticut -- terry on the republican line. does it matter? caller: how are you? what i like to say is, yes, it is our duty as american citizens to be aware of what is going on, and the state of the union will address many contentious issues confronting this country -- i hope -- and also we hope he speaks on a bipartisan manner
because we need a much more robust by the bipartisan tone to get people to come together. the other thing i wish he would address is a stronger stance on terrorism because it is absolutely vital not only to this country's security but all over the world. i do applaud president obama of the good things he has done to help of the american people -- even though i am a republican. i do think this man does things out of compassion. on that note, i will say goodbye. host: real fast, i want to get your reaction to news about whether or not supreme court justices will show up. remember the moment in the last date of the union when president obama talked about the supreme court's decision about citizens united and jet -- democrats jumped up and cheered and there was criticism of the president for bringing that up. some of the justices said they did not appreciate that. some have called the state of
the union address a pep rally and they don't want to attend. what do you think was a month, " i would hope that they would show up to show the what do you think about that? caller: i would hope that they would show up not just to acquiesce to everything the president says, but i think out of respect they should. i am hoping they will. it -- host: that was terry from connecticut. here is james crawford's peace -- will the supreme court justices return to the state of the union? in it she talks about who will show up and who won't. you can take justice alito off the list because he has a longstanding teaching engagement and hawaii. we can scratch off scalia and thomas from the guest list -- h a he said it is a juvenile
spectacle. anthony kennedy seems to like the palm been circumstances but the not like the president's shot last year -- he wrote the decision. what about the four liberals? ruth bader ginsburg, steven briar, sonia sotomayor and elena kagan? firstill be kagan's chance as a new justice. if kennedy stays home and the four liberals decide to go, what this chief justice roberts do? does not get wide justices go to the state of the union in the first place? he criticized the and then for having degenerated into a political pep rally. as -- may decide to buy the bullet. he has to consider it -- consider the reputation of the court and how it is perceived. with four liberals going and no conservatives, it could be interpreted as a political statement, that could be especially start this year when
lawmakers are bucking the tradition to sit together in peace and harmony. a breakdown of who will be sitting together. here is "usa today." lawmakers mixed and mingled. joe lieberman and john mccain, darrell issa and ed towns, joe wilson -- who yelled out "you lie" at the 2000 address plans to sit with susan davis, a democrat from california. conn. you are on the air, kenneth. what do you think, does it matter? caller: it matters. host: why? caller: i am registered as a democrat, but i listen to that
television and i see how sometimes, you know, c-span has taught me a lot since i have been watching it. i have grown in the knowledge of what goes on in the various parties and this, that, and the other. i am going to watch because i am living proof of what the president is doing. i am unemployed, and i have to say people will watch c-span -- you have to have cable to get it. cable costs. you have a phone, that costs. dark,n the midst of the doing ok -- but the mere fact that are calling in, they have a phone. most of the folks that i consider down and out don't have television or phones and are struggling to eat. so all the stuff i hear on here -- people who call in our so blessed because they have the ability to watch television, they have a phone and that kind of stuff.
no matter who is in there, they can only do so much because it has to be passed by this and that, and his opposition and that opposition. but as far as i am concerned, he is doing fine by me. heat is one of the people who stresses education for a change. -- he is one of the people who stresses education for a change. he is living proof the factory is the president. >> iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward america and support terror. the iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. this is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousand of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. this is a regime that agreed to international inspections, then kicked out of the inspectors.
this is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. states like these and their terrorist allies constitute an act of evil, harming to threaten the peace of the world. host: that was president bush in 2002. the silver spring, maryland. joyce, a republican line. talking about whether or not the state of the union matters. caller: it definitely matters. i happen to be part of a parent's movement during the bush administration when we were trying to do something to stop illegal drug use by children, and president bush actually included that statement, a message about that in the state of the union and allow us to proceed. now we have over 4000 high schools in the country that are doing drug-testing and improving the situation. it but what i want to hear from this president is what is he going to help us do about the illegal drug issue in the
country? we really know that the recent shooter in the arizona was a long time marijuana user. two of our most well known researchers -- one living in maryland, dr. robert dupont and another doctor issued a statement clearly linking drug use and violence to schizophrenia and this young man. probably if he had been drug tested in about a sixth or seventh grade, which is when it starts, that might have been prevented. we want this president to speak out loud and clear -- a, marijuana is not medicine. it has been proven over and over again by two supreme court cases. and we need to hear from him. host: warren, michigan. mike, and independent. caller: i think the state of the in in matters and it matters a lot but the lady who called
about medical marijuana. we had it approved in michigan so we can stop the criminal organizations from getting rich off of illegal drugs. that lady who just called is an idiot. let me just say something about the state of the union and the republicans. we are supposed to believe that somehow these people after eight years of abuse -- you just listened to bush tell these lies about iraq -- that somehow we are supposed to believe we reelected these people? something happened during this election that was not right. we did it turn out. madison wright -- heights was busy all day and get it showed a depression in the democratic vote. somehow, someway our votes were stolen in the 2010 election. host: laura on the state of the union address -- will lorin montgomery writes in "the state of the union --
the headline in "the baltimore sun," gop scrapping over budget cuts. the majority leader noted monday that paul ryan is giving the official republican response. the republican line. caller: yes, ma'am. i would like to know why the president has not thought of charging the chinese the taxes, where they send the stuff here? i think within two to four years we could be debt free if you make them pay the taxes that we pay. host: for lauderdale, florida. francis, democratic line.
caller: thank you. i always watch the state of the union, but this year i am contemplating not because i am very disappointed in obama. he has lost his credibility with me. for example, when he went to tucson and gave this beautiful speech about how it is important to love each other and to work to help each other, and also banned -- then when the chinese president came he said something similar, he talked about the universality of all human rights. but then he has become of the abortion president -- in the abortion president. giving tax money to foreign population control groups that practice and promote abortion. money to embryonic stem cell
research that kills the human embryo an advocate supporting planned parenthood to the tune of $335 million of our tax money. that is the largest abortion provider in the nation, and in the world. he is just not credible when he talks about life and human dignity and he does these things to the most bullish durable growth and our society. -- vulnerable group in our society. it's got a list of obesity with michele obama -- cheap officer of xerox july host: a list of who will be sitting with michelle obama. the chief officer of xerox. also sitting in the box this evening will be dr. peter reid
of tucson, arizona, one of the doctors treating gabrielle giffords. if you have been following her progress you probably saw many hospital briefings with him included here in c-span. oklahoma. glen on the independent line. caller: i probably will not to watch the speech tonight. i want to go back on one thing the gentleman said a while ago about the american car companies shipping jobs out of the country. one problem also with the american car companies, probably about 50% of the parts and our american cars are not made in the united states -- in our american cars are not made in the united states. another thing is, i believe the speech that he is going to be giving tonight is more of a reelection speech than substance
of where the country is going. he leaned to the left prior to the recent election. if he is reelected, i believe he will go back to the left, knowing he will not be able to run for a third term. to me, he showed which way he was going in the first two years. i think going back to the middle is just a ploy. host: in other news, "chicago tribune" frontpage. rahm emanuel scrambles to get back on the ballot. it says here --
carl on the republican line. caller: this lady who called in a while ago saying she bought the supreme court justices should show respect for the president by showing up. well, respect goes two ways. he totally disrespectful the supreme court justices in the last state of the union. and he will also tell us that he created a million jobs last year, but what he won't tell you is 80% of those jobs were filled by illegal immigrants. host: where do you get that data? ye caller: i heard on tv the other day that all of the jobs were being created and the ratio of illegal immigrants finding work compared to american citizens, and it came out to probably 80%, 80/20.
that is where i have got it from. i seen it on television. i seen it on fox news, where you will not see that kind of reporting on, well, c-span or cnn or anywhere else like that. host: in other news this morning, this is an image of that is across the front page of many of the newspapers this morning. russia airport last kills 35. no claim of responsibility. suicide attack near moscow hits high-profile target. a story in many of the papers. rockville, maryland. caller: technically it is mandated by the constitution. however, we live in a modern time whereas most elements of the constitution in my perspective is nothing more than a colonial relic. this so-called state of the union it is a charade of histrionics, a political pimp
fest. most of us and america with an inkling of division knows of this country is in serious problem, series fiscal health and moral decline. one thing you need to do is focus on the truth of the matter. the president, whoever he or she is can sit down in a series of fireside chats and talked of the american people to let them know what is constitutionally necessary. secondly, rum emanuel, the fact that he is going to be mayor of chicago makes me sick -- from a man will. not since the election of the late harold washington that i adore, have we had black candidates and up to beat chicago mayor without intervention of the pan but jesse jackson. host: next on call. it ahead. caller: i hope the president's speech of jobs -- speaks of job creation.
but echo the prior caller that he has no credibility on the issue, his policies versus his rhetoric. two examples, we know health care, the bird and it puts on potential employers is a disincentive afford job growth. the other, the one that has not fully happened yet but happens in front of us as we watch, the epa slowly taking over big segments of the economy. for example, if i am a builder and i want to build an apartment complex were employed labor or buy materials, and i have to have co2 permits? the epa seeking to put co2 permitting on all segments of the economy is a disincentive, it is a regulatory roadblock to job creation. to the fact that the president's put to the jeep and the guy jeffrey in malta is as a job czar, that is the chilling
>> tonight, president obama delivers the state of the union address to a joint session of congress. c-span's live coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern, followed by the speech at 9:00 and then the republican response from house budget committee chairman paul ryan of wisconsin, plus your phone calls and the reaction. use our website for enhanced coverage, to see tweets from members of congress, congressional reporters and add
your own and also add your own comments on our facebook page. >> do you solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic? >> the senate returns, including a new class of freshmen senators. learn more about them on line and follow their floor appearances with c-span's congressional chronicle. track daily time lines, read transcripts of every house and senate session and an archive of every member. a congressional chronicle at c- span.org/congress. >> the c-span networks. we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books and american history. all available to you on television, radio, on line, and social media networking sites. find our content anytime through c-span's video library.
and we take c-span on the road with our digital bus, bring in resources to your community. washington your way, the c-span network. now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: representative mick mulvaney is our guest, republican of south carolina, freshman member. the topic tonight of deficit is likely to come up in the state of the union address. republicans in the house put forth the resolution to bring spending back to 2000 levels. but that go far enough? guest: no, but it is a good start. it was good watching the debate, going back and forth. but i think a lot of us -- when you saw last week that the republican study committee released its bill, wanted to send a message that it was a good start but not enough.
host: how far do the republicans need to build -- to go? guest: the book also is non- defense tuesday -- discretionary spending to 2006 levels and leave it there until 2021. i have graphs to show why it is important. that is our proposal at this time. host: robert rubin writes in "the financial times" -- america must cut the deficit but not in haste. he is calling for a series this the program with two critical components -- a strong initial phase of deficit reduction should be enacted now to take effect in two to three years. to reduce deficits to a level where the ratio begins to decline.
he is saying we can't afford to do it right now and the markets will not like a. -- it. what they call, drastic cuts. it guest: a lot of good concepts. you read it very quickly. but talking about the debt to gdp ratio, deficit to gdp ratio. i disagree with the concept we can't afford to do it right now. in fact, we can't afford to wait. we talked about the level of deficits, we talked about the exposure in the country has to interest rate shocks. $14 trillion of debt. last year we spent about $250 billion in interest payments. relatively small portion of the budget because we only paying about 2% interest in the money we borrowed. the historical average, it is 6%. we get to an average in the next year or two, and talking about interest payments alone that could approach the trillion
dollars. host: what is your reaction to the republican study committee proposal, that say most are non-security discretionary spending woods -- which makes up only 15% of the $3.80 trillion federal budget. guest: they are correct in a vacuum. the bill we introduced does only address non-military -- excuse me, trying to speak too early. non-military discretionary spending. it does not mean it is the last bite of the apple. there will be additional bills that deal with military spending, there will be additional consideration of entitlements. it will be something we spend the next two years on. just because the first bill we introduced as not deal with the issue does not mean we are ignoring it.
host: what do we do with medicare? guest: it is a good question, and we don't know. the reason why we started it, -- this, it seems to be the low hanging fruit. going back to 2006, we are saying we are being fiscally responsible, but not starting the government. -- starving the government. then it is more complicated talking about defense spending. but we started here because it is the best place to start. host: paul ryan put out a road map for america last year. do you endorsed the idea to put forth on medicare and social security? guest: some. i challenged him a little bit on our retreat about some of the components of the social security privatization fund. there is indication that the road map would guarantee people at least a return of their principal. i have a certain difficulty in terms of the moral hazard it
creates. i think there is a lot more work to them. they will not sit here and solve social security in the first three weeks, but there are some good ideas. the deficit reduction commission that came out. they are probably the two leading works that we got so far. paul has done a tremendous amount of work on the last several years on his road map, the fiscal commission did work. let us go to the two bodies and say this looks like a good idea and see if we can't find some things that actually work. host: you mentioned medicare, and i bring it up because there are stories in the paper today, "the hill" frontpage about paul ryan. budget ax man ryan is the dems' new villain. of what to get republicans on the record about his roadmap.
-- they want to get republicans on the record. guest: if you saw them on the programs, saying what you want to cut, what you want to cut -- looking for specific answers. that is why i signed on to the study committee bill because it does list specific cuts. democrats would love to have a say we will cut this, and focus on the benefits of that particular project. somebody has to go first and i am glad paul has gone first and said here is my roadmap. the republican study committee has said these of the things we are going to cut. democrats are more than welcome to bring in their alternatives but to just sit there and say it does not work, it does not work, but not contribute much to the debate. host: on medicare they argue they do have an alternative, president obama's health care law. under that law they are trying to tackle the medicare entitlement program and bring the cost of that down, along with the cost of health care. what is your alternative?
guest: let's stop and take a look that. i do not think anyone now, with the benefit of nine months of hindsight, really believes the healthcare bill will bring down the long-term costs of healthcare. what you probably saw and i saw as individuals is health care premiums actually went up as a result of the health care bill. a blue cross/blue shield, i think blue shield in california, nonprofit home their rates about 50% last week -- raised their rates about 50% last week. if the democrats plan to fix medicare was health care, then it is back to the drawing board. host: what are some of your thoughts on medicare? guest: one of the things -- what have we done? we prioritize the spending cuts in terms of the easiest first and hardest last because we have to do something right away, to get a chance to look at why immediate cuts are still important. we started with non-military
discretionary spending because we have the most control over right now -- we have to funded this year. when you look to entitlement, they are on autopilots. you have to pass permanent law to change that. much more difficult to do. obviously a much bigger piece of the pie. in thomas spending plus debt will be about 55% of the budget expenditures. -- entitlement spending plus debt. senator jim demint offered during the last election cycle, is to go to a -- system. a tremendous way of engaging the private sector to help us fix medicare, giving people more control. one of the biggest difficulties -- and i hope this is relatively well accepted in washington -- is part of the difficult with health care, is people don't know how much things cost. we have a disconnect for people
buying things and they don't know what it cost, then it's expensive. if you think health care it is expensive now, just wait it is -- until it is free. host: a former reagan economic adviser -- wrote in "forbes" magazine about the vouchers in medicare. the amounts are considerably less than estimated medicare spending per enrollee in 2022. so there is a sharp cut. furthermore, they will only be indexed to have the historical rate of price inflation of medical care. the inflation-adjusted voucher amount would fall. to cover the short call beneficiaries will either have to pay out of their own pocket for medicare or private -- by private insurance over and above. guest: what you just read is why we are doing that one later. may i?
i would like to show you this. i don't know where you want to put this. coming back to the original comments, is we can't afford to do anything right now. this is from the budget committee, from mr. ryan and his staff, and it shows the debt ratios, the ratios of our debt to overall gdp. the high was doing -- during our lifetime, at the end of world war ii. you see the trend under the current policies the administration offered. literally what we call a tidal wave of debt. we have to do something right now to help end the kerb -- curve. this is the republican study committee proposal that mr. jordan and mr. garrett came up with. at the very least, what we are going to try to do right away this year is to bend occurred when it comes to non-defense
discretionary spending -- then the curve. we could pass that particular piece of legislation. >> you already have the votes? guest: we have the ability. we are very close again -- 89 members wrote letters to speaker it boehner -- speaker banner saying the cuts were not enough. i do not know how many co- sponsors. but we are very close. keeping in mind acting republican study committee makes up about two-thirds of the republican conference right now -- keeping in mind that the republican study committee makes up about two-thirds. to think we can walk across the street this week and have any chance of medicare reform is a joke. so we have to focus on what we can do. some people call it low hanging fruit. it is part of the message that we will be serious this bill is a good first that. host: what role are you plank
in our proceedings on this alternative put forth by the republican committee? guest: the floor proceedings are interesting to me, as a freshman. in south carolina, floor proceedings were an important place to shape thought, shape debate, and the outcome. what i am learning is the floor here is more perfunctory. the real place to get things done is in the offices and meetings beforehand. we are trying to rally as many fresh and as we can. host: how many do you have? guest: i do not remember. of the 89 members who signed that letter yesterday, the majority of them were freshmen. we are having a difficult time, as freshmen, even caucusing, because there are so many of us. we are trying to build support
behind this. encouragingly, leadership is looking to us. leadership does not really know the freshmen. the freshmen do not know leadership. and the freshmen do not really know each other because it is such a large group. host: you are not meeting with each other? guest: we are meeting in groups, but it is unusual to have this many freshmen come in at one time. we are trying to send a message to leadership as much as we can, meeting with them one on one, getting to work on legislation. what we heard in the retreat was that our pledge to america was not enough. we are going to be near $1 trillion in deficits. there's not much support for
that among freshman congressman. host: what bridge, virginia. you are on the air. -- woodbridge, virginia. caller: i run callewonder if you remember 2002, where we had eight years of surplus, as well, we had over 800,000 federal employees? guest: he is right. there are a lot of us who are here as a direct result of what you described. i got in in 2006 in direct response to what we saw as the shortcomings in our own party. one of the most disappointing
things i have been through, as a politician, was how poorly the republican majority and the white house handled spending issues and growth in government. you can blame them if you want to. we are here to fix that and make sure the republican party does a better job controlling spending. host: don is a republican in florida. you are on the air. guest: good morning. let me hit minute button. -- mute button. caller: i have two things about visual aids. i called in a few months ago and passed the moderator if he could get a name display, for you
moderators to put on your desk, so that when we collin, we can say good morning. -- when we call in, we can say good morning. i think it is something that we can do for you moderators who do such a great drought. host: thank you. i do not want to spend too much time on that, and the congressman is here with his time. do you have a question? caller: any time the committee meets, i think it would be helpful for them to have on wall a 60 inch television or so with the u.s. national debt clock displayed. guest: if you are interested in graphs, this is going to be a really good two years to be
watching the budget committee. mr. ryan is very good at articulating a situation we are in with perhaps. many of the ones that you have seen here are ones that his office provided. if you are a visual guy, this is going to be a good two years for you to watch the budget committee. host: when will the budget committee meet, have you met, what is the near term schedule? guest: i thought it was curious if the democrats did not give us their members until after the vote on health care, which was a wake-up call of the hard knuckle politics that people play here. we have democratic members now. we will be meeting later today, and i think we are conducting hearings this afternoon regarding health care on the budget. host: lots of newspapers this morning talking about paul ryan's response.
he is giving the official response to the state of the union. michelle bachman will also be giving her own response online as the head of the tea party caucus. will you be watching one or the other, both? guest: that is the first i have heard michelle will be doing that. i will be watching paul. it is important to your what leadership has to say. it is, to a certain point -- if he cannot say it, do not do it. if you cannot even say the words in a speech, perhaps you are not as serious as people think. it will be interesting to hear what the president says about spending and how that measures up with what mr. ryan has said. host: are you a supporter of the tea party? guest: i like a lot of what
they're doing but i have not had a chance to sign up for their caucus. it is a good group of folks. we could do a whole segment on with the tea party is. host: are you concerned that michelle bachman is taking too much attention away from paul ryan? guest: no, there is so much attention to go around. i think mr. ryan will do a good job explaining where we are. i do not think we will be ready for some of the measures that i think are necessary, until the country understands where we are and the risks we face. i hate to keep on doing this -- people ask me all the time, how long before we turn into greece and ireland, portugal? we have done some research in my office about the level of debt and deficit to gdp.
the truth is, we are pretty close already. this graph shows the percentage of debt to gdp. we are right there with portugal. icelandic is pointed in the right direction, but we are not. -- is planned -- iceland is pointed in the right direction, but we are not. host: next phone call on the independent line. baltimore, maryland. caller: good morning. congressman, it is a pleasure to speak to you. i have a question this morning. but i am only 58, i spent over 20 years in the army.
army pensions are not that much. i barely make 19 dozen dollars a year. -- $19,000 a year. i started drive from social security last year. my concern is, when they are talking about cutting the deficit, kill that negatively affect people like me -- will that negatively affect people like me, who are not technically seniors, but we cannot work, we depend on social security and medicare? all of us paid into it. guest: if we had more time, we could talk about the fiscal condition we are in. the message i tried to get across is, i think it is much worse than people realize. the only way we can build the will to make the changes necessary is everyone has to
participate in the cuts. no one would be exempt from the cuts. we introduced a bill yesterday on discretionary nonmilitary. there will be discussions about cutting military budgets. there will be discussions about cutting entitlements. everyone has to participate, simply because the problem is so large. if you sit down and quantify the difficulties we have in the three major entitlements, medicare, medicaid, social security, medicaid is the smallest of the three, the one that will cost us the least amount of difficulty. medicare is the major exposure, medicaid is someplace in between. by the way, we will have some important reforms this year with medicaid in terms of how much strength we attached to the states. host: democratic line, elmer.
cincinnati, ohio. caller: good morning. i want to ask the congressman, do you take insurance from the american people? does he take all the perks that they get? i have heard everybody talks about cuts. i have never heard one republicans say anything about cutting their salary, cutting .heir parkerks guest: it is a great question. it is one of those things that you read on the internet. i cannot believe congress gets this -- insurancesaisame health as everyone else here gets. i get the same private insurance
to all federal workers get. we hear a lot about the perks in terms of pensions, retirement programs. they are not what i read about the internet -- read about on the internet. we have invested 1.5% a year over six years, you can never get over 80. essentially, you would have to live here for over 80 years in order to get 100% of the perks. at one time, you said he did not see as cutting our salaries, but you did the knowledge we cut our allowances by 5% this year. it is not a lot of money but we did want to lead by example. everyone has to participate in these cuts, if we are going to make serious inroads into the deficit, which absolutely has to
be done. host: will house republicans tackle medicare reform this year? guest: we will be looking to leadership to see if that is the road they take. you are going to hear from the 87 freshmen. we are talking about more than $100 billion. we will be pushing the leadership to do more than what they pledged. host: would you like to see reform for medicaid this year? guest: i would love to see it. it sends the message of what the republican party stands for. the caller made an excellent point about what happened between 2002 and 2006, the republican party lost their
brand. i think a real serious discussion about medicare reform would help us to reestablish that. host: next phone call from maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. two things i wanted to bring up. i called john boehner's office over the holidays and told him about the idea that i had of making the government money. it would not cost the taxpayers a dime. then they referred me to the representatives in my state. i tried to contact their representatives in my state but i got no response. i had a good idea to make the government money, and it has to do with immigration issues.
secondly, most americans do not want to read bills, they did not wanted send too much money to other nations. guest: it used to be, especially the republican party, was firm in not getting involved in nation-building. when we talk about military cuts, inevitably -- we keep coming back to the question. the problem is so large. we are getting close to 400% of our gdp. a simply unsustainable path to be on. when you look at military budgets, nation building could be a place where we could look like. -- looki have not had the abilio that yet on foreign policy. i hope to do that in the next
two years. certainly, this is a great opportunity for us to look at our priorities in the military. where we in the business of protecting americans, our interests overseas? how can we make sure that we are safe at home? host: here is an e-mail from had jim reynolds. guest: i do not know if you have that first breath. that tidal wave that comes under the first spending. what they suggest is classic keynesian economics theory. without going into the details,
essentially, his theory is, if you take government spending away, part of the economy will go down. many, like myself, reject that. when the government is spending money, it is really just moving it around. when government spending goes up, spending in the private sector goes down. i really believe cutting spending will lead to more private money in the private sector, and that will help the economy. the only component of our economy right now that has any health to it is the private sector. we hear about all the cash that businesses have that they are not investing because they are
not comfortable with the environment. that is where our growth will come from. the government is strained beyond its limits. cutting spending will allow us to leave more money or is helping right now. host: hyattsville, maryland. rowland, you are on there. caller: a few years ago, republicans were in control. you talk about health care. republicans have never wanted to do anything about health care. what obama is doing is leadership. that is what a real man does. guest: the previous caller made
the same point. you will not hear me defend the epublican party from 20020 to 2006. the tea party is a reaction of what happened in that time. we are not asking for things to go back to how things were run. you are right, we did a lousy job of running things. on obamacare, i have to respectfully disagree with you. i do not think more government control of the system is going to lower the cost of anything. i remember during some of the town hall meetings, people would ask, you said obamacare was going to lower the cost of health care. can you give me one example of one that has ever happened in history of the country? the answer was, well, no, but it will be different.
well, it is not going to be different. your premiums will go up and it will be more difficult to manage our fiscal affairs. host: in "the wall street journal" they ask what happens after reform. guest: 83 percent reduction is better them and we are seeing now, -- of 3% reduction is better than what we are seeing now.
what works in the insurance industry? white insurance works, car insurance, homeowners' insurance. you can look at the cost curves of those several things over the past couple of years, and they are in control. they are growing slower than inflation. you buy it with your own money. if your window breaks on your car, you make a decision on whether to pay for a out of pocket or declaimed in to insurance. it is a private system. none of that applies to health care. i have private health care just like everyone else. all we know is what our co pay anis.
if a doctor asks us to have a procedure, the last thing that we are wondering is how much it costs. if you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it is free. host: cspanjunkie tweets in -- as a former operator of restaurants, you have a business background. what regulations do you think the administration needs to ease up on, as the president announced he will be signing an executive order looking and regulation? guest: i thought it was a tremendous message. the president admitting that overly burdensome regulatory environments are bad for business is a tremendous addition on his part. we have been saying it on our side of the eye out for a long
time. it was great to hear the president say that. the next question is what kind of activities follow that. here is a perfect example. under the healthcare bill, there are new requirements regarding disclosures on prepared food. fiat used to run a restaurant. -- i used to run a restaurant. we would have to wonder what the world a book like if we had to meet the -- would look like if we had to meet the regulations. we could not sell our food because the details that we had to provide were too much too physically fit on the menu boards. that is just one thing where regulation has run amok. i think you see it on products havehere warning laborlabels
consumed the entire product. host: another tweet -- guest: i find it hard to see how that is a federal takeover. we buy other types of insurance across state lines. we purchase homeowners insurance across state lines -- actually, i think homeowners is different. we do purchase other types of insurance across state lines. what we are talking about here is, health insurance has always been treated differently, it gets an antitrust exemption. it was a result of something that happened during world war ii. it was offered as a perk.
it came into existence in an unusual circumstance. maybe we need to go back and allow it to operate without the overly burdensome hand of government. i do not think that violates state rights. host: lynn is in tulsa, oklahoma. republican line. caller: i became disabled in 1999 and had insurance to the company i worked for, which happens to be the second-largest oil company in the u.s. when obamacare passed, they put me on medicare for my insurance. now i'm having problems with my doctors taking medicare. i was not allowed to keep by regular insurance -- my regular
intervals when they switched me -- insurance when they switched me. this health care bill, it boggles my mind when we have a congressperson saying we have to pass it before we find out what is in it. now there are a lot of people in my condition that are being dumped onto medicare, which is more of a bird in on government -- burdened of government. i wonder if you could answer why this is being allowed. guest: it goes back to one of the things you heard the president say on the debate over health care. if you like the debate -- if you like the coverage you have, you get to keep it. unfortunately, like many americans, you have learned that is not the case.
i have seen studies that show as many as half of american to get their insurance through work may lose it because of obamacare. why would that be? if the fine for not covering for your employers is less than if you cover them. it is an easy financial calculation to what companies will do. you mentioned a few minutes ago the republican plan forcing 3 million people out of their current coverage. that number pales in comparison to what will happen with obamacare. that did not at coverage to all the people we were told it would. in fact, too many people like you who were kicked off of their coverage because of this. host: the bill that goes into
effect in 2014 will require insurance companies to have coverage -- they will not be able to discriminate, etc. -- and more people will have coverage. guest: they are required to do so, but if they do not, the penalty is $2,400 a month. would you pay the fine or spend $7,500 a year to cover people? host: as a business owner? guest: i have spoken to business owners. they say, i will not be the first. but i will be the second period as soon as my competitor does .hat, -- i will be the second as soon as my competitor does that, i will have to adjust. host: next phone call.
caller: your guest is a very smart, unassuming man. i wonder where his south carolina accent is? our health-care trust exemption should be taken away. second of all, when i voted for , he was talking about all this cash offshore that need to be brought back to the u.s. i wonder if you could investigate that and bring it back to the u.s.? third, on sunday, in "the new york times" business section, three doses of sanity for health care reform. i would appreciate if your staff could read that so that you can fix this health care situation. there is a professor who came up with a perfect blueprint to fix this so called obamacare.
please look it up. host: before you respond, we should let everyone know, you represent south carolina, defeated the former budget committee chairman john spratt. guest: the accent, it depends on when you catch me in the day. health care, i will look at that. what caught my attention was the money offshore. one thing we talked about earlier was what portion of our economy is the healthiest? right now, it is private business. they do have money offshore, and the reason is because we penalize them to bring it back. what disappointed me was the level of rhetoric we heard last year for companies. caterpillar is an american company that makes great products that are difficult to
ship. when the open plants in southeast asia to grow their business, this administration would penalize them for shipping jobs overseas. if we do anything in the next two years, it is to change the rhetoric that government uses. let's have honest and reasonable discussions. we can disagree without being disagreeable. let's talk about reasonable ways to fix the economy and stop blaming people. host: during the state of the union, where will you sit? guest: i will be sitting with my fellow freshmen. i sat with the democrats in the senate, it is fine, but where somebody sits pales in comparison to how they vote. i will be sitting with my fellow south carolinians.
host: thank you for being here. coming up next, danny death -- diana degette will be here. >> of the other injured makes remarks on "the early show" and says the administration believes we need investment in education. adding to the president's state of the union address, she adds winning in america. john mccain says the government is going to have to make painful changes in order to bring the budget under control. senator mccain went on to say the fundamental difference people will see tonight is that president obama wants to spend money and republicans want to cut spending. more changes come into the white house. carol browner, the president's
energy and environmental adviser, plans to leave the white house in the next couple of weeks. her departure comes amid other staffing changes, including a new chief of staff, william daley, and jeffrey in not as top economic adviser. -- immelt as top economic adviser. when michelle bachman announced justice alito would be attending, some had thought she had venture too far into politics. however, it was less of a political talk and less of an intellectual discussion, reading jan schakowsky to remark, it was actually pretty dry. >> you are watching c-span. bringing you politics and public
affairs every morning on "wash. journal." weekdays, watch live coverage of the house. weeknights, congressional hearings and policy forms. on the weekends, you can see our signature programs. on saturdays, "the communicator's." you can also watch our programming any time on c- span.org, and it is all searchable on our media library. c-span, a service created by america's cable companies. host: congresswoman degette, thank you for being here. let's begin with where we left with congressman mulvaney, cuts. the president is expected to talk about cuts.
where would you agree to spending cuts? guest: i think president obama will focus on getting our joblessness rate down. as i look at cuts -- and i am a preponderant of thinking we need to reduce the deficit. what i want to make sure of is we are not cutting jobs at the same time we are trying to balance the budget. what the republican budget committee and others have suggested would be so draconian, it would cost thousands and thousands of jobs and spike up the jobless rate again. host: why is that? if we returned to these levels of spending, 30% of government agencies would be
cut. if we took it down to the 2006 level, which is what paul ryan's proposal has said, it would mean $2.30 trillion from our budget in the next few years. you would pretty much have to the department of education, stop highway and other transportation projects that are already being built and fire those workers. you would have to reduce aid to the states. what we should do is look hard at the president's bipartisan commission, who looked to see the adjustments they are talking about to end of the programs, but nothing can be off the table. you have to look at the military budget to see if there are unnecessary expenditures on weapon systems that we can
catch, and we also have to look at agricultural subsidies. we cannot just take wide swaths of the economy and just eliminate it. we need to keep jobs in this fragile economy. host: where is the line in the sand when it comes to spending cuts? guest: like i said, everything needs to be on the table. the line, to me, is when you make draconian cuts that increase unemployment again. if you start cutting programs that cause states to lay off thousands of workers, that is unacceptable. host: here is a piece in "the washington post" --
guest: i think it is all a matter of degree. you could say, we're just going to have draconian budget cuts because deficit spending is our only concern. or you can say, deficit spending is a serious problem and have to start getting the budget in control, but if we have draconian cuts, for only some
programs, you lose a credibility contest we need a balanced approach. host: what would be the strategy for house democrats in trying to stop republicans -- their piece by piece strategy for repairing this health-care law? guest: here is the problem with their attempt to repair her care. it is becoming more popular with the american public. -- health care. the parts that have already started, coverage for kids up to 26, no pre-existing conditions exclusions for children, senior citizens can now get prescription drugs in the doughnut hole. there are a lot of things already taking a fact. as the health care bill phases
in, more americans understand what it means for them and they do not want to repeal it. we are seeing that in the pauling's since the end of the year. -- pollings since the end of the year. if we only keep those programs and repeal the rest of health care, they will become so prohibitive, that we will not be able to pay for it. the republicans had a vote last week, the symbolic vote, to repeal the health care. the cbo said it would cost $230 billion to do that. it will be costly if the republicans only want to keep some parts and not others. frankly, the public is becoming more supportive of the bill as they see it working. host: republicans say the health care law does and will prohibit companies from hiring, that more
jobs will be lost. what data do you point to to argue the opposite? guest: i have seen a number of studies which show there will not be a huge job gain or job loss. i listened to your last guest. he forgot to mention that the bill gives tax credits to individuals below certain income to purchase insurance. it also gives tax credits to provide insurances to to their employees. most people i talk to are trying to buy insurance for their employees. they cannot afford it now, but if they got a tax credit, they would. again, if people understand they can get help for buying
insurance, they will want to do that. host: jonathan is a republican in baltimore. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about energy. donald trump has a really good idea. there are 12 board members on the opec accord. -- board. these guys control the price of a barrel of oil. by the end of the summer, they may bring that price up to $150 a barrel. he had a good point. china is controlling their prices, bringing their prices down. he said he would tax their
products coming into the u.s. and make american prices godown by comparison to china's the prices. when we ship our products over to japan and other countries, they put tariffs on our products, but when they send their products to the u.s., it just goes through. guest: let me talk about energy policy. part of the problem we have in this country is our strong dependence on foreign oil. we are at the mercy of opec and other foreign producers and their price setting. one thing we have to do is try to become as independent as we can from for oil, develop domestic sources of energy, like natural gas, but also alternative sources of energy,
like wind and solar. that will give us more control over our energy future. with respect to tariffs, one thing that we are concerned about is fairness in our overseas exports and imports. that is one thing we can work on on a bipartisan basis on. host: robert is a democrat in hot springs, arkansas. caller: that last republican on your program, he mentioned the entitlement cuts they were going to make, everything on the board. what they plan on doing is blaming all of this lack of job recovery on democrats. it is the democrats' fault. one more thing he said, his premium went up because of obamacare.
health care started going up for me since 2002, and ever since. guest: let me take your second point cut first. it is ironic when the republicans talk about how health care went up because of obamacare, but that has not even started to go into effect until right now. a lot of insurance companies -- in fact, my insurance commissioner in colorado is looking closely at the increases because they are not resulting from this legislation. they are resulting from what happened before. with respect to domestic spending cuts, i agree with you, you cannot just take one sector of the economy if you are trying to balance the budget. these draconian cuts they are talking about making in the recovery act money, transportation money, one of my transportation managers in colo.
said he is about halfway through a highway project. these cuts go through, they would have to halt production. it would lose jobs and it would be a terrible waste of money and would put the project years behind. host: we are speaking to michael in michigan. what is the name of your town? caller: lot gillis. i just wanted to comment on what she said about jobs. republicans are going to make cuts and she is concerned about thousands of jobs being lost. those thousands of jobs are government jobs. the american people are not worried about government jobs. host: how about that?
the argument from republicans is a lot of the growth has been government jobs. guest: some of them are government jobs, but many of them are in the private sector. for example, aid that we sent to states, which was critical after the recession, a lot of states, like mine, have a balanced budget amendment, so they cannot go into debt. they were scheduled to have huge cuts. the government employees they would be laying off our people like teachers, police officers, firefighters, people like that. in addition, a lot of the private jobs are lost. private contractors who are repaving roads, doing repairs to schools. it is not just a bunch of
workers sitting in offices in washington, d.c. it is thousands of firefighters and teachers across the country. host: rick is an independent. you are on the line. caller: i have two points to make. first, on health care, the administration claimed for two years, for it to work, everyone had to be on it. there was a man in the legislation. the problem is, the administration is giving waivers to thousands of employers who employ thousands of people. obviously, that is not going to work. on energy, quickly -- and this ownfrom the government's agency. the price of gasoline is probably going to hit $4 in the summer. we have formations, according to
the energy administration, alt to $500 billion of oil. it would cost 16 billion -- $16 of barrel to produce. we also have oil shale in ohio which contains natural gas. also, the gulf of mexico may contain up to 15 billion barrels. another is a region in the gulf of mexico where we can drill deep. host: what is your point? do you have a question? caller: congress needs to start looking at this now and not wait until the price of gas slows the economy down. guest: with respect to the
requirements that people have on insurance, that is in the bill and it is important for everyone to have insurance. otherwise, it would be so costly for people who are elderly, with pre-existing conditions, and they could not afford it. i am not aware of any waivers given to large firms, other than they are self-insured and they are guaranteeing their employees. with respect to domestic oil and gas development, i completely agree with you that we need to do that. you will be happy to know, congress is aggressively looking at development, not just of natural deposits of oil and natural gas, but also alternative sources of energy. i would make one caution. as we do this drilling, we need
to do it in a safe way. health andpeople's employment can be threatened. we saw that with the bp explosion. not only were people killed and it was a terrible environmental disaster, but thousands of businesses and workers along the gulf coast were put out of work and are still having repercussions from that. with respect to natural gas in the marcella shale, there has been a lot of evidence from the hydraulic fracturing process they are using a of natural gas. we just need to make sure we are doing it in a safe way. host: you are serving your eighth term in congress. here is a tweet --
are you concerned of the house cbo being perceived -- both republicans and democrats have been critical of them when they do not come up with what they agree with. guest: the best indication that the cbo is non-partisan is sometimes i agree with them, sometimes i do not. they said, we do not believe republicans on the cost of appealing health care. they really do strive, in a broadway, to be non-partisan. they call it like they see them. they are certainly not influenced by politics. frankly, sometimes it drives politicians crazy. host: next phone call from boston.
caller: i have a question and comment about the budget. from what i understand, the money that is already in the budget cannot be taken out. for instance, the money for the forced to program, how can you take that money out? you cannot take that money out and put it to reducing the debt. it seems to me, all this talk about cutting, these programs and everything, you cannot cut money that has already been allocated. can you explain to me where the money is coming from? i am going to hang up and turn my television up. guest: what they are talking about is the budget for next year. and if money has already been appropriated for past years, then that money will be spent.
what the republican leadership is now doing is trying to develop a budget for next year. under that budget, they want a 30% cut of domestic spending, would be a drastic cut of over $1 trillion in the next seven months. that is where you would see programs be eliminated or cut altogether. host: charles in gettysburg, pennsylvania. republican line. caller: i have three points. the first, the congresswoman brought up draconian cuts. i would like to make this point. these cuts are not as severe and harsh as they would be if we do not get our fiscal house in order. if we lose the u.s. dollar as the world currency -- right now, it is our one saving grace that
is keeping us from from what we are it -- allowing us to keep on doing what we're doing. guest: i agree with you. whatever we do, we need to keep our solvency as a country. the question is really between, do we do thoughtful, comprehensive copps, or draconian short-term cuts that will cost jobs? i think we should look at the budget -- the president and bipartisan budget panel -- to look at how we can make comprehensive choices. we would be looking at both domestic spending, but within domestic spending, we would look at the military budget to see where we are wasting money. we could look at agricultural subsidies to see, can we reduce those? most of those are going to large agribusiness and not too small family farmers.
instead of picking and choosing people who would lose out, we can say, what is a comprehensive approach? i agree, we need to balance our budget and get our fiscal house in order, but we need to do it in a way that it does not cause a second jolt to our economy, job loss, and increased unemployment. host: where will you be sitting tonight at the state of the union? guest: at the guidance of my senior senator, who came up with the idea that we should be sitting together, -- we have decided -- there are seven in the house, three democrats, three republicans, and our junior democrat will also be there. mike coffman, one of our
republican from colorado won the toss, and he chose to sit on the democratic side. we are trying very hard here to be bipartisan and even bicameral. host: who came up with the idea to flip the coin? guest: i am a senior member of the colo. senior delegation. i was trying to think up a way to decide. we did that right on the floor. host: will you be tweeting from the floor during the speech? guest: perhaps i will. host: here is a story from "the washington post" --
guest: i think the president has stood up pretty firmly for health care, for the other job- creating plans. i think we will hear that tonight. frankly, everyone can agree the top issue facing our country right now is how do we get this stubbornly high unemployment rate down, and how can we create jobs? within that framework, the president will articulate democratic ideals. host: let's go to asheville, north carolina. caller: i have raised five children, the oldest of mine is 42. i only had insurance one-third of the time. modest income. over that time, i had two children with special issues. one was autistic. i had monthly payments to my hospitals. right now, i am fighting my irs
for something that happened last year. i was told i did not pay taxes from 2008. in march, i sent them copies of my checks, the same thing in september. 12 months later, it is still not resolved and it is an error on their part. with 16,000 employees of the irs dealing with health care, and of the people i spoke to, i asked them, god forbid if you ever have to control health care. guest: first of all, you should call your local congressperson. i do not know who that is, but they will have a case worker on staff that may be able to help you with your irs issues. i know i have someone really great in denver that helps my
constituents when they have issues. with respect to the irs employees handling health care, i think that as we move towards implementation of this bill, we have to look at every way we can to streamline the situation one thing that needs to be fixed, which we agree on, is that 1099 problem where employers are being asked to send 10992 employees to get health care benefits. we think that is wrong and needs to be repealed. i do not know how we got in in the senate. it is way too burdensome on small businesses to have to issue -- host: the revenue figure is 19 billion that that is expected to bring in. guest: we what the figure out another way to bring the revenue
in. they're very burdensome to small businesses. host: colorado. good morning. caller: i would like to know how come the oil companies get big bonuses every time you turn around and they make so much money, and they do not care about the american people, and some cannot even make job descriptions. they did not do nothing about it to bring down the prices. we know they're brainwashing people. there is no such thing as oil shortage. it is all or the ship our oil overseas for a higher price and buy their stuff. i know there is no such thing as an oil shortage. never has been. guest: it goes to the point i
made earlier about energy development, which is the foreign based oil companies. we do not have any real control over the prices that they charge or the profits they make as long as we are dependent on oil. it is an unequal relationship, which is why we need to look at development of domestic energy sources and alternative energy sources. we need to be aggressive about that, but we need to make sure we're doing it in a way that is environmentally sound and protect jobs. host: michigan, good morning. caller: i disservice to look into domestic. so far we have had the president not of any production, and we still have not had an war opened up.
we finally get the development of oil coming up out of the ground. i worked in oklahoma when you found oil you put it in the ground and pointed out. it will be even longer. you're talking about health care. i have watched it every year for two years, c-span 1 and 2. i know eventually with this obama care it will make sure we will have universal health care eventually. little by little obama care insurance companies. guest: let me talk about that, because actually the insurance companies support the development of the national
health-care plan, because it is a market-base system. in other words -- many of us thought we should have a public option that people could have as of alternative, but the final bill did not pass that. it is based on people buying insurance policies and there are stay-based exchanges that insurance companies can choose to join. why would they do that? they will be able to enroll many more insurance is under these exchanges. if it works, and we all hope it works -- the democrats at least in the white house. it is a completely market-base system that originally came from a republican idea many years ago. host: 4 lauderdale, welcome to the conversation.
caller: people keep talking about federal jobs and people not concerned about them. people should be concerned if they're worried about getting their social security and medicare. secondly, gsa, they have over 1 million contracts that they give up to the private industry for doing government work. all of those people, and we're talking about over 1 million contracts and how many people in 14 trillion dollars -- how many people with that deal with? talking about insurance over the state line. even when you sell insurance are the state line, the insurance company still regulates. secondly, you have to have someone to monitor the payments. no one in idaho will sell anyone at an insurance policy in new york at idaho costs because it would not be valid.
host: let's get a response. guest: thank you for bringing that up. this is one of the things that is easy tod say and sounds good. right now insurance companies can sell insurance across state lines, but if they do, they have to comply with the loss of the state where they are selling insurance. most it up past insurance laws that say things like insurance companies have to cover cancer screening. insurance companies have to cover well child visits, because in the past insurance companies have not done that as part of the basic coverage. what republicans are saying when they say they want insurance companies to be able to sell insurance across state lines, what they mean is they think an insurance company could incorporate in the state that has the lowest requirement so they would have to pay for pap
smears or can sprostate cancer screening. so they would not be able to get the kinds of health care that their states have determined everyone should have. that would not be a good solution because number one, it might cost very little, but you get very little health care, and number two, you would not get good oversight by the state insurance commissioners. so i agree that people should be able to sell insurance across state lines, but only if they meet the minimal standards of that state. host: here is another health care deadlines for you -- host: what do they should be done about this? guest: i think if there is fraud
in the system, we should absolutely see that out and eradicate this. frankly, i have always heard it -- i have been in congress for some years, and on the oversight subcommittee people always say let's balance the budget by eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse. unfortunately fraud, waste, and it uses only a small percentage of the monies in the system. i think we should seek that out and eliminate it, but it will not solve all of our problems. host: we captured a record 4 billion from pharmaceutical companies, nursing homes, and others providing care that defrauded federal programs. guest: and ensure we could even mor -- and i am sure we could get even more money. host: linda on the republican line.
caller: i have a question and comment. other than creating government jobs, i do not see how this health care bill will create jobs for anyone. more and more doctors are leaving the system, because the cost is too high and being required to do things they cannot afford to do. i disagree with the last calller about buying insurance across state lines. i buy my car insurance from a company in florida and the prices are very competitive and the coverage is very competitive. i really respectfully disagree that this health care law will be good. it will force some companies to drop people because the premiums are already going up. it has not even gone into effect yet. host: let's take issue of doctors not seeing medicare/medicaid patients. guest: part of the reason is
they're afraid reimbursements will go down. this was created in 1997 in the budget, and it is an issue about how reimburses doctors under medicare. it is a problem we will have to deal with in a long-term basis. it is very costly to try and fix it, which is why we have only been fixing it on a year by year basis. actually in the health-care bill, because we're going to insurer so many more millions of americans, they are going to need doctors, nurses, medical care. in the legislation we put some of the money that we spent towards redroot medical education, in this together giving incentives for primary- care physicians and other kinds of caretakers who are going to work in underserved communities for people who need health care.
look at trying to balance the budget and revamp medicare and medicaid, we cannot pick one thing out of it. this idea of giving people vouchers would totally turn medicare on its head the way we have structured it so far, and i am not sure it would be something that would be popular with the medicare recipients or with the physicians, so i think you will have to have our broader discussion about how much money that would really save and would it give senior citizens the quality of medical treatment they need? if that kind of a system the incentivizes doctors from participating you will have an even worse problem than you have now of doctors leaving medicare altogether in seniors not being able to find physicians to treat their serious illnesses. host: green bay, wisconsin.
caller: i would like to go back to the energy problem. just a quick question about party is rallying around taxes for businesses that would go towards cleaner energy. maybe that would kill two birds with one stone with the energy problem and also with the national debt. guest: part of the energy bill that we passed in the house last year that never passed the senate was to give robust energy tax credit for development of alternative energy sources. we do have some tax credits in place right now. those will be phased out unless we renew them, and i think that would be a great way to incentivize development of clean energy. in colorado in many places in the west we have a really robust alternative energy community, and people who are
developing this. this would obviously be a big job creator for domestic jobs and would also help transition away from foreign oil. we think those kinds of tax credits create jobs and help create industries right here in the u.s. host: mark, independent, go ahead. are you there? we will have to move on. maryland. john on the republicans line. good morning. caller: i have an idea. why don't we build a refinery owned by the american people that would cost the american people a little bit of money up front. we have more oil right here in the united states than any other country in the world from what i am told. secondly, the solar panels and the wind alternative fuel measures do not run my car, my
trucks, equipment. in thirdly, what i have been told is it would take nine years to build a refinery and that we should only sell this fuel that we make as an american company, only sell it to american companies right here in the united states. what you think about that? guest: we actually do have some refineries in the u.s. that could be brought on line pretty quickly for a variety of reasons they have not been operating or not operating at full capacity. some of that is because of the supply and demand issues. they want to increase profits. this is something my subcommittee should have hearings on. i and the ranking democrat on the oversight and investigations
subcommittee of the energy and commerce committee. i think that would be good to have some hearings on about why we are not getting more oil produced by these refineries. but i would also say in terms of alternative fuels, you are right, most heavy equipment and automobiles in this country are not fuelled by natural gas and other types of domestically- produced tools, but that is beginning to change. -- domestically-produced fuels, but that is beginning to change. i think we will see more and more of the economy move in that direction. host: health care questioned 10903.0 guest: in the bill what we
realize this is most americans who do not have health insurance are actually working. poor americans can get on to medicaid. senior citizens can get on to medicare, but the citizens to really struggle to pay for health insurance are the people that make around $30,000 to $60,000 in this country. what we said is we will get tax credits to people who are in that income group so they can be assisted in paying insurance premiums. that will help them become injured and get better health care and then they will not have to go to the emergency room when they get sick, which puts an additional burden on everyone in this country. host: calller from alabama you are on the air. caller: the question i have is i understand social security does not add to the deficit.
am i correct? host: social security does not add to the deficit? guest: i do not think so. caller: why are we concerned with cutting social key securi security? guest: it is set up so that people who work would pay into the trust fund and then they would be given benefits when they retire. for many years this work great and we had a big surplus in the social security trust fund. now what is beginning to happen as the baby boomers start to retire is the trust fund is being depleted. we still have funds to pay benefits for current recipients, but in some number of years, and the date varies around 20 years, 30 years, some people say earlier, then the
trust fund will be completed and more people -- at that point more money will be paid out to the baby boomers that a retired and is in the trust fund. when people talk about reforming social security for the most part what they're talking about is not for recipients. no one would reduce benefits or increase retirement age for career recipients, but what we are concerned about is for younger workers who are paying into the system right now. we want to make sure they will be able to have social security available for them when they retire. any adjustments people are talking about making are targeted at the younger group of workers. my personal opinion is you should not just pick one thing or another. if your corn to reform it, it makes little fixes for the younger workers. -- if you are going to reform its, make little fixes for the
younger workers. host: thank you for watching. thank you for being here. we're going to talk more about the state of the union address with major garrett. first a news update from c-span radio. >> an update on tonight's state of the union address. political reports that jeff plans to save an empty seat for gabrielle giffords. the tucson shootings are expected to be one of the focuses this evening. meanwhile, the first lady's the trauma include the geomet chief at the arizona medical center and the parents of nine- year-old girl that was killed. the russian minister says
retribution is inevitable for the attacks. russian news agencies that reported his comments did not say whether he specified what kind of retribution or against him. no claims of responsibility have been made for the attack that killed 35 people and injured 180. house foreign affairs committee chairman rep have introduced a bill to pressure the united nations to change the way it operates. she is promising investigations into possible corruption and mismanagement. in a statement earlier she said the fact that the u.s. continues to contribute billions of taxpayer dollars every year to an unaccountable unreformed un is no laughing matter. the united nations is the largest single contributor -- the u.s. is the largest single contributor to the united nation and responsible for 22% of the regular operating budget. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> tonight president obama
delivers the state of the union address to a joint session of congress. c-span live coverage begins at 8:00 eastern with our preview program followed by the president's speech at 9:00 and then the republican response from paul ryan of wisconsin and your phone calls and reaction live on c-span. c-span radio and c-span.org. you can also add your own comments to our facebook page while you watch our live streaming video and see reaction from members of congress following the president's address live on c-span to. -- cspan2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we're back with major garrett. cheap white house correspondent for fox news. now congressional correspondent
with national journal. here is his story this morning. what should be worse be looking for tonight? -- what should viewers be looking for tonight? guest: it will probably be the most watched speech that the country will see this year. this is his stage to reset the course of his administration and the way he talks about public policy and his agenda after the midterm elections in which democrats lost control of the house and up toward significant losses in the united states senate. the president is clearly retooling his team and message and his agenda going forward. what people would hear tonight is the way the president tries to adapt to the new political reality. the underlying fact is he pass a tremendous amount of
legislation with the 111th congress. some of which republicans would like to get rid of. the president will in no way give ground on that. even though much of the tone will be about reconciliation and moving forward and working together, the underlying reality is much of what the president accomplish he will defend and republicans will try to unravel and that will be a big part of the story after the state of the union. host: there are reports that he will move to the center in this speech. specifically what words should listen to that indicate he is moving to the center? guest: i hesitate always to try to leave the witness. americans are enormously adept at deciding what the rhetoric is that they're looking for and whether or not any president hits the mark. i am reminded of a very long state of the union address that bill clinton gave that received
almost universal criticism among their reporting class in washington. only to find out six months later the american people love that speech. host: are you talking about the 1995 speech? guest: it went on for at least an hour and a half. many people in washington thought it was far too detailed. if that it was a laundry list. that was excessive policies -- that it was excessive policy discussion. all of the wise men and women look down their nose at it. yet the american people to it.ed bearbervery favorably so i am was hesitant to be the one to say look for this and that. the american people know what they want to hear and know what they're looking for. george bush could talk about
reconciliation and 2007 and moving the country together, but we all knew the country was divided. iraq, afghanistan, his economic policies. you can say a lot of things and build as many floors and as you want, the but the american people are the ultimate ones that will decide. host: here is a little color for people -- here is a colorful message for people. it took a record 181 minutes. how long is too long? guest: by every typical investor of the metric, it was
too long. i remember being a part of the pile on group. everyone was heaping criticism on top of the speech. yet the american people watch, listen, because they wanted to see how the president would respond to a moment after a defeat. one of the most important parts of being president is not always winning. one of the most important parts of the presidency is how you respond to defeat, how you respond to a setback, a national crisis, because everyone knows and america you will not always get what you want. but when you are the president and you do not get what you want, you still have to leave. you have to either speaker how to change, adapt your political momentum. that is one thing people will pay closer attention to tonight than they did maybe last year. i would expect the ratings to be pretty high, and the american ofple want to stake stock
the president. host: what are you hearing about who was riding the president's speech, how long it might be? guest: i do not normally cover the obama white house the president is always extremely involved in the development of big speeches. the big speeches he edits by hand and sends back numerous drafts, works through them, not up until the last minute but closer to the last minute and some are comfortable with.
he feels only -- he feels calm about the ability to say the words and say the words the way he wants to. what he focuses on is the exact wording. he is an accomplished writer. he knows how to turn a phrase. he takes the part of the speech development process very seriously. host: our coverage begins today. we will have live coverage tonight at 8:00 eastern time. we will begin with the pre- speech coverage taking your comments and calls. at 9:00 eastern time on c-span and c-span to we will cover the president's address. also we will cover the republican response by paul ryan, republican of wisconsin. we will talk more about that as well. on c-span2 we will have live reaction from members of congress. the look on the republican line,
the first phone call. go ahead. caller: i do not think this been -- the speech tonight means anything because he keeps saying he's going to be transparent and has not been transparent. he wants everyone to think he is moved to the center but he will stay to the left where he came from and where he is planning on staying. guest: that is a classic example of what i was talking about. philip has not entirely made up his mind, but mostly made up his mind about this presidency. there is no way to look at the last few years and are regarded as a time of active government involvement in the economy and regulation.
the president believes those things are necessary and staunchly defends them and has achieved more in two years than most presidents have in two years. nearly as much as lyndon johnson, it may be amaybe more. some americans have responded favorably to that. independents are not sure. and some have clearly pulled back. i would say those that are republicans, like philip, are skeptical of president obama coming in and that many of the worst fears have been realized. the look will not be persuaded by in a rhetorical ships to the center. some americans very well might be. host: arizona, you're on the air. caller: i have to say it is time in.put single payer back en the president is doing an
awesome job and needs credit, and we need to go further. put single payer back in. host: a linda, have you ever voted for a republican? we lost her. she was calling on the independent line, but universal coverage is something that liberal democrats talk a lot about. guest: if you look at the polling data on the question of repeal, there is a certain percentage somewhere around 30% of those that say they are dissatisfied with the law that wanted to go further. not everyone that falls and the dissatisfied category wants it removed or shrunken. they want it expanded. they want a single payer. the president knows that. i will tell linda it is a legislative reality, house
republicans are never going to propose, pass, or even consider for a moment single payer. democrats to not have the vote to pull that across the finish line in the senate. single payer for the short and the term is a non-starter. host: what do democrats want to hear? guest: what the democrats want to hear and probably what they will hear is less about health care and much more about jobs. the democrats believe that is largely a settled issue. politically it is quite clearly settled law until republicans are successful one way or another changing it. until that occurs, it is settled law. implement it, but do not spend a lot of time on health care. i predict the president will say you're taking your vote in law of the land and have fought and argued about this, i believe it is the right thing.
but i would say if there is more than 10% of his speech devoted to health care i will be shocked. host: major garrett writes about health care on the republican side in the house. oscar, democratic line in richmond, virginia. in morning. you are on the air, sir. -- good morning. caller: until the present as a speech tonight, we should stop speculating what he's going to say, but the first realization that must be understood is that bin laden won the war. he and 21 other people destroyed
america. the whole premise of what is happening now, he said he would destroy the capitalist system and expose the hypocrisy. he has done that. i give you the tea party. that is the whole problem we have to discuss tonight as far as the state of the union. we have to come to the other or in 2012 this whole game is over. host: you want to hear about national security? caller: absolutely. guest: part of the state of the american union is the defense posture. every president addresses it. i would imagine that would be a significant part of the president's speech in that he will talk about what has happened in iraq. he will talk, i am sure, about the july deadline to brinwithdrw
forces from afghanistan. he may not be specific about that, but will clearly address that. there is some that would like to hear him explain what is going on guantanamo. -- on with guantanamo. there is no resolution of that issue, and there's certainly no closure with the president. host: i wanted to show the front page of "the lost angeles times." you have paul ryan giving the official response to republicans, but then you have michele bachman who has started caucus giving her
own address. guest: michelle laughlin is a fascinating figure in american politics. -- michelle bachman. she had to spend $11.6 million to raise the 13 million, so many may be saying how you do that? you spend a lot of money on direct mail and odorless and a lot of money with people on the phone trying to raise money for you. she has a very high turn rate in other words. it is not as a people pour money into her campaign coffers, she has to pull it out of them. it is costly to do that. by onemillion raised w member of the house gives her political heft but you cannot ignore. but she is not a fulcrum in the house republican conference. she just is not. she thought for a couple of weeks for running for the house
congress chairmanship position. it was made clear that if she did, she would probably get less than 20% of the votes, so she quietly folded that tent. she is a visible figure, but not particularly a leader. she can set rhetorical boundaries but does not dry policy. the decision will be made by speaker banner, erick kanter, kevin mccarthy, paul ryan. -- speaker boehner. caller: i am 54 and have been a registered republican all my life, but i did vote for obama in this last presidential election, so i can go either way. with respect to major garrett, i hope he is wrong, and i think the majority of the american
public hope he is wrong in his analysis of how the state of the union speech is going to go where president obama is going to defend everything that the democrats have done and not give on anything and republicans are plan to argue that everything they have done so far is bad and why it needs to be changed. i think the midterm elections for the american public sick and tired of congress not doing anything. we want to see them do something. the last date of the unions we have seen we have voicing the republicans stand up and cheer and sit down, and this democrats stand up depending on what point was being said. i think the american people want to see everyone stand up and support and talk about vigorous debate. our ideologies are totally different, but we want to see something done. host: we get your point.
major? guest: on the biggest accomplishments of the last congress, 100 a love of 11th congress, the president is going to defend. he will not retreat on those issues. in two of those instances, house republicans have made it abundantly clear they want to stop the implementation of the law. we use over a year it's to try to accomplish that. that is a reality. there are many other americans and especially the exit polling data that the message was not get along, the message was stop. many americans thought enough has been done in the past two years and wanted to take a
break. they wanted to slow things down. the house republican majority has air brakes on what had been the trajectory of the obama presidency. i was all over the country with canada obama and i heard him say it once, i heard him say 1000 times, he would never under any circumstances extend the tax cuts for the wealthy. midterm elections, the reality is he has not the votes. the economy is still staggering. he makes a fundamental decision that completely repudiates a campaign promise because of an election. that is air brakes and a new direction. that is what happens when people vote. this is not a universal truth, but a partial truth, people are probably sleeping in a bit.
it is a day that works longer into the evening. there is legislative business on the floor today, so members will be getting ready for that. because we do not have a partisan alignment, the mix seating arrangement, there might be less competition for those seats along the aisle where the president comes in. members will start getting their five hours before the speech to park and hold the seat. that guarantees them national television time, but because there will be a lot of emphasis on crowd reaction shots of lawmaker sitting together in the ming going inco mangling a partisan politicians, i think there will be a lot more cut shot. -- and the mingling and cominginling of partisan
politicians, i think there will be a lot more cut shots. host: mark on the independent line. caller: you miss me on the last speaker, so i had to rearrange my questioning. as far as the state of the union goes, i would like to see him address and try to defend the health-care law. there is a whole lot that is wrong with it. i would also like to see him address the u.s. energy policy. coal and natural gas built this country, and we will need it for the next 50 years, so why not go ahead and take the oil out of the ground and the coal out of the ground and gas out of the ground in become major exporters of this? the royalties they would get would make billions of dollars for this country if they would
just addressed the energy problem. host: we will leave it there. major garrett. guest: the president is a staunch advocate of grain economy and green jobs. -- of a green economy in green jobs. it is investments and technological advancements and mechanical infrastructure to help green jobs and help the manufacture of either turbines or other solar panels or other devices that can be exported. one problem with that is that china is well ahead of us on that score. before the president went to upstate new york, i saw there was a company that had been moving along very well on the green jobs front but then saw the cost rise and they moved the infecin tire factory to china.
-- entire factory to china. that is a harsh reality of the dollars and cents of green technology. i am sure the president will address this. the president is not nearly as big a fan as oil exploration as he was before the gulf oil spill. host: if you are curious about it will state -- be sitting in the box with michelle obama. the white house put out a list and it includes david hernandez -- the white house put out a list yesterday and it includes david hernandez and dr. peter reed, the director of the trauma center in arizona.
mark kelly declined the invitation to stay in houston where gabrielle giffords is continuing with her care there. new york on the line. caller: the president completely avoided -- that is the major difference between him and roosevelt went to the slums with eleanor and reached out. we cannot go down our own road, the most direct route to the airport. he wavoided it. the people that will pay for other people surgery, because now we have to buy a certain amount of insurance -- i am so sick about hearing about the emergency room. suv.subsidizing someone's
he literally sped 120 miles per hour. he had to make a huge ring outside the city. none of my students said a word about the president being here. guest: two separate issues of course. the local reaction to a presidential visit. i have covered many. they're always destructive. -- disruptive. the picture was about the turbines and jeff and meimmelt. everything else was either third or fourth in the pecking order. the president got what he wanted out of the pictures and the day of emphasizing jobs summit technology, and investment and growth. on health care, this will be a debate we will continue to have, because the reform measure passed by the house sits now in the senate. republicans will bring it up
eventually. dick durbin conceded it will probably come up as an amendment. robin brings up an issue that lies at the heart of this health-care debate. what do americans value more? coverage or cost? if you value coverage, then you want everyone covered and you hope that lower cost. republicans say no, if you lower costs, over time you will decrease coverage. what are we prepared to live with and live without when it comes to insurance coverage? that is really at the heart of the debate. host: 10 minutes left. george from richmond, virginia. caller: i listen to you every morning before i go to work and you have democrats and republicans on your program, and everyone criticizes the
president and the deficit, but i have seen no one come up with the planned for how to get this economy moving on both sides. all they do is bicker back and forth. i would like to see the president make a statement to get programs going into the economy moving. host: he here is a headline about what the president will say on getting the economy going. the headline in the new york times -- guest: if you are republican, you might ask yourself why does the president pitch for infrastructure with the first emulous? what was the son of an hundred $52 billion about -- what was the $752 billion about? the answer we got is the projects take too long to get off the ground.
now the white house believes whatever time they take to get off the ground, they need to be funded. i have often felt the white house, regardless of what you thought about the underlying economics of the stimulus had a messaging problem in that the principal achievement of the stimulus was to rescue and prevent greater harm, but they never talked about it that way. they built up a higher degree of expectation and they certainly had bars in grasping the unemployment rate will go down, but it went nowhere near the original projections. if they characterize it more as the rescue effort to save us from far worse conditions they might find themselves in a more politically advantageous position than they find themselves in now. host: the next two are about creating jobs. guest: that is certainly his
characterization of that. republicans will decide what degree investment constitutes more spending of obama find that they are ready oppose or if they meeting of thee a mines. there will be a highway bill. we will have infrastructure spending, so the question is how much and where? the natural gasoline tax has not been increase in many years. it is falling behind. house republicans have made it clear they will not be in favor of any tax increase of any kind, so that could be a point that is heavily debated and argued about. host: charleston, west virginia, on the independent line. caller: i have a couple of things i would like to ask about. host: can ask you to make it one
because we're running out of time? caller: i will go to health care. i was going to last about epa and what they're doing to us and west virginia. i would like to ask about what he thinks about the individual mandate for buying insurance. i am 78-years-old, and i can barely afford to make my medical payment, but this tells me i have to buy insurance on top of that, i would like to know -- there is a $2,000 fine if you do not buy -- i would like to know what they're want to do to me if i do not buy the thing? guest: my understanding of the law is yet nothing to worry about. you are covered by medicare, and it is your principal mechanism for obtaining health care coverage. you have the option, and you have always had the option of buying a supplementary insurance
policy on top of medicare, but that is your choice. the individual mandate does not apply to those who are covered by medicare. inst: let's go to ron michigan. caller: i want to make a couple of quick remarks about what obama should say tonight. number one, i learned last night that the gun that was killed to shoot the congresswomen was o'cloca glock gun. people from the company said on the board. he should talk about gun control. the next thing is the supreme court justice went to a private meeting with michelle bachman. nothing was said about that.
i think that citizens united ruling is extremely important and that we -- the supreme court are not accountable to us people. do you remember the speech last year? thank god obama mention citizens united and the leader shook his head no. you can call her back if you disagree with me. host: we will leave it there. there'll be a lot of eyes on which justice is show up in which do not. guest: will justice roberts be there? i have some but said they doubt it. if justice roberts the show up, he can do so with the knowledge that now democrats after having gone through the midterm elections have decided that they
may in fact move toward some of the independent expenditures operations that were legalized and citizens united. they unilaterally disarm on that front because the democratic party took a stand that this is wrong, but now it appears it will be some what affirmative for the next election cycle that it will go down that road. justice roberts could sit there with assault satisfied look on his face. satisfied look- is f on his face. i think you are right about gun- control. indications from the white house are the answer is no. robert gibbs has been very reluctant to describe anything that is under investigation, but many people will want to hear,
especially members sitting with the first lady. there will be an atmospheric overhang of the entire state of the union dealing with that crime, dealing with that assault, and the president may or may not have a policy response. "the new york times" this morning. we know that justice coleco will not be there because he has a longstanding agreement for speaking in hawaii. for we know that just as briar will not be there -- guest: justice breyer will be there.
host: we have also heard -- jim crawford wrote a piece yesterday on cbs news saying it is a question or not whether justice kennedy shows up. guest: this meeting with michelle bachman is much less than it originally sounded. it was just about the constitution. all the members of congress said it was a nice way to hear from the supreme court justice to talk about the law and constitution. it did not have a political aspect to it at all, at least as we have learned from the members. host: robert burns writes about it in "the washington post" calling it fascinating. new jersey, go ahead. caller: i will make it short.
and we tighten our belts. we do very well. we take vitamin supplements and eat three meals a day. it does not seem like much, but sometimes we eat -- host: i am running out of time. i need you to get to your point. caller: we are making it. our blood types are clean. our bodies are clean. we a clean clothes and a clean apartment. we are making it