tv Washington Journal CSPAN January 13, 2013 7:00am-10:00am EST
hagel, the choice for defense secretary. later, someone from morgan stanley talks about his new book. "washington journal" was next. >> good morning here in washington on the sunday morning. rehearsals underway later today for the inaugural ceremony. it will officially get underway in eight days. it is sunday, january 13. the house returns this week. the senate returns after the inauguration. converse tries to figure out what to do on the issue of spending and the national debt. we want to get your comments on a proposal put forth by senate democrats to bypass congress,
allowing the president to raise the debt ceiling. it also removes the debate on section four of the 14th amendment. we will focus on all of this this sunday morning. it was a call. numbers at the bottom of your screen. we also want you to join us online on twitter and facebook or send us an e-mail. we will get your calls and comments in just a moment. our question, whether or not they residents can -- president can't bypass congress to raise the debt ceiling. she is preparing for his inaugural address. the president will seek a citizenship pass in a push as the debate over immigration continues here in washington and around the country. another headline getting a lot of attention is that the vice
president continues his recommendations on how to deal with gun violence. tuesday he will give the president has outlined. p--- his outline. ,et's go to the hill newspaper which has one of a number of stories on this sunday morning related to the debt limit. senate democrats telling the president he may need to raise the debt limit on his own. a letter sent to the president on friday advising the white house to be prepared to lift the debt ceiling without congressional approval if republicans block legislation and default is imminent. in the letter from harry reid, taking seriously warnings from republicans who said they would rather see the government shutdown then see the debt ceiling increase.
this was signed by dick durbin, chuck schumer, and sammy murray. this is called not only the height of irresponsibility. makes you think whether or not congress can be bypassed in raising the debt ceiling. from the republican address over the weekend, a new face. the new senator from nebraska. >> rather than cutting spending, the federal government added $4 billion each day to our gross national debt. this path is not sustainable. i support a more limited government that focuses on fulfilling its core duties and responsibilities. only then can we identify the national priorities worthy of taxpayer funding. the constitution clearly states
that the top hierarchy for congress is to provide for the common defense. despite this core duty, nearly $1 trillion in critical funding is slated to be dangerously cut from the defense budget over the next decade. all because some leaders in washington cannot get their priorities straight. as a member of the senate armed services committee, i am 100% committed to both reducing spending, and meeting my constitutional obligation to defend this nation. it is equally important to uphold america's promises to active duty service members and veterans. those who have risked life and limb in defense of our nation. keeping faith with these brave americans is more than hours of ability. it is our honor to do so. it is no secret that to cut spending we must find ways to
reduce the cost of social security, medicare, and medicaid. the primary drivers of our national debt. we must do so in a way that keeps our promises to america's seniors, retirees, and those nearing retirement age. that is not a point for debate. in order to save these popular programs, we must reform them. if not, they were among longer exist for future generations. -- no longer exist for future generations. >> the republican response, the newly elected member of the 113 congress. some of you are already weighing in on our face of page -- facebook page. --
from our twitter page, there is this from jim -- it is not the second amendment, it is the 14th amendment. democrats urging obama to bypass the republicans on the debt. one option for congressional democrats would involve the president invoking the 14th amendment of the constitution to declare congressional action unnecessary for raising the limit. let's read you just a portion of what the amendment states. " the validity of the public debt of the united states, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." that is
part of what this debate is all about. let's go to teresa, joining us from north las vegas nevada. the democrat line. caller: good morning. i wanted to call in support of the president and democrats. i am a progressive and in independent thinker. i do not think you should use the 14th amendment, unless it comes to a really economic crash. i am for raising the debt ceiling. i believe that we need to pay our bills. i have to pay my bills. if i do not pay my credit card bills, my credit rating goes down. my credit score goes down. and i pay more in interest in the future. i think it is very irresponsible of these tea party republicans to hold the country hostage. there are other issues that can be negotiated for spending and
raising revenues and the debt ceiling should not be a part of it. host: ok, thank you for calling. here is the editorial cartoonist of the post. the idea of minting a single coin valued at $1 trillion. using that to increase the debt limit. a number of stories saying that basically, this is not going to happen. his is what is reclined -- this -- what ezra kline writes he points out that they will not mince a trillion dollar coin. if it did, the federal reserve would not accept it. at is in important point.
the inclusion of the federal reserve is significant. the platinum coin idea to work, the fed would have to retreat it as a way to create currency. next call is bob from idaho, independent line. caller: good morning. as i was waking up, i turn on c- span. i heard the representative from nebraska making remarks. i would like to point out to her that ronald reagan thought the social security has nothing at all to do with the national debt. it is fine. it has nothing to do with the
budget at all. ronald reagan was adamant about it. when he talks about wasteful spending, talk about the 3000 checks that the republicans made a law that medicare has to pay what ever charge the pharmaceutical companies choose to charge medicare, by law. they cannot negotiate for wholesale or pharmaceutical drugs. there's wasteful spending. how about the big oil subsidies? get rid of that. host: final thought, go ahead. caller: sorry, i get a little excited. the representative misrepresented the facts. i am astounded. host: thank you for the call.
up early in idaho. again, the headline from "the , democratsost," urging obama to bypassed the congress on -- issue -- the debt issue. we have about a month before congress needs to act on it. they are putting in a few steps to delay action on the debt limit. we reached the $16.4 trillion mark. next, i call on the democrat line. caller: mitch mcconnell's proposal -- i think it is a good sign that they have no intention to work with the president. host: thank you for the call.
at this point, you can join the conversation at twitter.com/t cspanwj this from the new york times this weekend, a letter signaling an escalation of the war of words over the federal debt ceiling which has already been reached and reached by the treasury department. lawmakers saying that the bookkeeping will be exhausted. they will have to default on its debt or shut down major expenditures. this is also important because it is the same week that the president will deliver his state of the union address.
next monday is the president's inauguration. he will outline his second term agenda. on the issue of immigration, gun control, and spending likely to come during the state of the union. v is joining us on the republican online. caller: first of all, is it too much for you to read from the washington times? i know you have low information voters that cannot understand much of anything. we read from that every morning, it just does not come out on sunday. caller: you read more from the liberal rags than you do from the washington times. as far as obama is concerned, this will be an impeachable forced to deal with. unfortunately, the republicans do not have the kahunas to go
after this guy. they are no different from the democrats. as far as i am concerned, i am a ier and this guy has to be stopped. caller: we do read from all the media. that is what we try to do every morning here. now a call from florida on the democrats line. whether the president will bypass congress to raise the debt ceiling. caller: i think this raises a large issue. i am not sure the president does have the constitutional authority to do that. our government is dysfunctional right now. i heard you say that the senate would not be coming back in session until after and not duration? that is why i hate
washington d.c. so much. they ought to be meeting together. democrats and republicans, trying to get this thing resolved, instead of wherever they happen to be right now. host: stay on the phone for a minute, let me read this to you. this is from the new york post. republican pirates need to take back the people's booty. -- caller: i would agree. i had a second point. the senator from nebraska acted as though military spending is sank rose thanks -- sacred.
money going to run factors and various defense companies, why can we not investigate what is happening to that money, to? host: let me share with you the front page of the sunday " washington examiner." the headline is, hidden taxes will take a painful bite. inside is the story from that conley who friends the argument more so in the washington d.c. area. local residents will be paying uncle sam more in 2013, between the two percent increase in payroll tax and to lesser known provisions buried in the fiscal cliff deal. there is also the issue of the
health care tax, which also may hit some individuals. more details from the washington sunday examiner. the question we are focusing on is whether the president will bypass congress to raise the debt ceiling. we are getting your calls in common. buddy on the republican line. caller: good morning. it would not surprise me that he does raise the debt ceiling. the president alone spent over $1 billion last year just to himself. when does it stop? obviously he has never had a checkbook. i get a bill, i pay it. why do they just keep putting money out, putting money out, not take care of what they're doing doing, not realizing what
they're doing? host: they give for the call. this from twitter -- the focus on the 14th amendment, section four, basically says that the public debt, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions etc., shall not be questioned. caller: good morning. yes, he does have that right. in classic peanuts, she says to charlie brown, i think we have been stuck with a used year, instead of a new year. last week at the archives, they
had a documentary about the conversation with the president from 1962. president kennedy. he deals -- it was very similar to what we hear arguments now about how -- it was really excellent view. an excellent conversation. how he has to deal with the congress. and his -- this conversation with his advisers. he does not have to agree with them necessarily. getting the cost of war was not included in the debt.
rallied against it, anyway, the cost of war was not put in to our debt. that was inherited by president obama. host: if he does bypass congress, as recommended by summit -- senate democrats, what would your bottom line opinion because marn be? caller: he is doing the right thing. he is doing what the adversary is going to be -- if there was no debt, the banks would still be charging. you would have to put the money forward. even if your debt is fine. host: think you for the call. you mentioned president kennedy. there is a story this morning from the washington post, also in many papers.
this year marking the 50th anniversary of his death. that fateful day in november, 1963. robert f kennedy junior, who was convinced that the lone gunman was not solely responsible for the assassination of his uncle. this morning, another story related to this. we will see many more events marking the 50th anniversary of his assassination. some of which we will cover on c-span3. focusing on the story we are dealing with this morning. whether or not he can bypass congress to raise the debt limit. the letter was signed by senators durbin and chuck schumer. the treasury department has taken extraordinary hoosiers to
delay this until february. john boehner will push for a dollar in spending cuts for every new dollar in borrowing authority. a formula he came up with last year during the debt ceiling debate. some republicans have said that the treasury department could prioritize payment and minimize the impact of default. charles joins us from chicago, independent line. caller: good morning. a lot of studies of different financial instruments and things. a recent study i did spans from 1942-2012. the best used to judge inflation is simply an automobile. they cost $800 in 1940. a similar automobile today could you bought for $22,000. that is 2750% inflation.
after every war, we have gigantic inflation. unless we are going to take extreme austerity to put us into a massive depression, we inflate out of it, and we also live quite well. to give you an example, if i got an ice cream cone in 1940, it would cost one dollar 46 cents today. all things are a line. all we have to do after wars is inflate out of it, pay off the debt with devalued currency, and that goes for all global currencies. we should not be having a debate about the debt ceiling. i want to make one other remark. what really started to drive this into a ditch, in 2007-2008, was the housing market. we are coming out of that.
the fact that lumber has rallied 30% since july. all we needed to do with devalued the houses below the cost of construction, and it would kick right in. we could grow the greatest global economy in the entire history of this universe. host: all stop you on that point. thank you for the call from chicago. this from our twitter page -- a headline this morning, wall street done with washington's drama. the markets new attitude toward brinkmanship, wake me when it
is over. they shudder to think what congress can do to the economy. a breach of the debt ceiling would we far more damaging than a trip over the fiscal cliff. after two years of divided government, they seem to treat this crisis as a new normal. investors are no longer hanging on washington's every word in the weeks leading up to a deal. next, john from tennessee. caller: good morning. i am calling about the debt ceiling. yes, it does need to be raised. because we have to pay our bills. if the government is allowed to borrow money and set their circumstances, then why is the private business sector not allowed to do that? the federal reserve has been shut down as far as to the bankers, as far as the this man being able to borrow money. the industry in the united states needs money to operate on and and.
we need to be able to borrow money. if his mrs. are not allowed to expand and grow, how do they expect to pay the us -- these debts down the road? get these guys out of here. they do not need to be making a lifetime commitment. they have gotten old and senile and did not even know where they are. it is a shame that our government has gone this far. it is just terrible. host: thank you for the call. if you're just joining us, or listening on c-span radio, thank you for joining us. the question we are asking is whether or not you think the president can bypass congress to raise the debt ceiling. you can join the conversation by giving us a phone call.
there is a website called 1000 pennies which has been taking a closer look at spending by this president and previous presidents. here is one recent video about balancing the budget. >> the thing a lot of people do not get about the budget, it is made up of two kinds of spending. mandatory and discretionary. the only part they can change is discretionary spending. and the tory spending is set in stone. only programs make it up areas. if president obama serves two terms, by the time the next president gets into office, it will look like this. the bills on the right is mandatory. on the left is discretionary.
we can cancel the other departments and agencies. we have to feed the mandatory gorilla. if we do nothing to fix mandatory spending, the next president will have to get rid of the following departments to balance the budget. basically, whoever is president in eight years once you balancing budget, he or she would have to get rid of everything but the army and air force. president obama says he has a solution. it is to buy a baby girl up. -- baby gorilla. the health care entitlement does not have an expiration date. it just keeps growing. i am confused about how adding another entitlement program will reduce federal spending. >> put together on the web, you
can get more information on this organization as they look at the debt limit and what congress and the president have been doing over the years. now that we have reached the 61 $4 trillion mark, clacks on the democrats line, pat is on the phone. caller: i do not understand how they said we will not have any money for social security. the thing about it is if we have people working, they can go up to%. didn't they say that social security is one% of our budget? you've got to pay your bills. i think it all these people cannot work together, they need to fire them on the spot. the need to get people in there
that can do the country's business. that is the biggest business in the united states. social security is far more than one% of the budget. if you head up high and looked at the federal budget, two- thirds of it would be medicare, medicaid, social security, and defense programs. then you have discretionary spending that would account for about one quarter or less of the federal pie. that is one analogy. this is from the new york daily news --
shane joins us from tennessee, on the republican line. caller: good morning. from a business perspective on trying to fix our debt, as far as the whole country goes, is maybe not so much taxing the people were going about other things -- this and that, a business perspective, it takes one to make one. it will take money to get our country out of debt. our economy is kind of week, it is a marketing problem, i think. -- weak, it is a marketing problem, i think. we need to come up with a product that can be taxed other
than people themselves. that will pull us up. host: let me go jason, joining us from north carolina. section 4 of the constitution was written after the civil war because the union was not granted pay -- steve harrison says an hour twitter page -- the national journal has a piece available online focusing on at this and other issues that the president will be facing in his second term. the headline --
seven democratic senators in conservative states facing tough reelection bids in 2014 said that the president has already had some unpleasant stumbling blocks within his own party. and gun control, the white house is calculating that it will be exceedingly difficult to pass broad measures. that is according to the new york times. rockefeller announced his retirement on friday, making his seat vulnerable for the first time since 1959. this story is available at nationaljournal.com. emery joins us from michigan, the independent line. host: good morning. i just wanted to know, how does the american people think it is totally obama's galt we are in debt? we had things going on such as the war that caused so much
money. that -- that cost so much money. we have jets, we have so much put out to protect us. how could people be so upset, wondering if obama will be able to go through with all this. the paperwork has to go through some of the hands before it gets past anyways. if he does not get votes, how would it even pass? host: thank you. from the weekly standard, taxation without cessation. from the editorial -- i will not give you all the members, but a couple of points --
that is from the weekly standard, the editorial this morning. some other news on this sunday morning. overseas in egypt, an egyptian court has granted hosni mubarak on appeal for his life sentence. that is according to a retrial of the ousted president. mubarak was convicted and sentenced to life in june for failing to prevent the killing of some 900 protesters during the uprising in 2011 that ended his 30-year rule. today's verdict was read out by a judge. it granted the appeal of his
secretary in chief who is also serving a life time conviction on the same charges. the headline is -- over the weekend, in his weekly address, the president focus in on afghanistan which has been a huge budget item over the past 10 years. this follows friday's meeting with president karzai. >> this week, we agreed at this point afghan forces will take the lead for security across the country. our troops will shift to a support role. in the coming months, i will announce the next phase of our drawdown, and by the end of next year, america's war in afghanistan will be over. this progress has only been possible because of the heroic sacrifices of our troops and diplomats. more than half a million americans, military and civilian, had served in afghanistan. thousands have been wounded.
more than 2000 have given their lives. this remains a very difficult mission. the work ahead will not be easy. our forces are still in harm's way. make no mistake -- our path is clear, and we are moving forward. after more than a decade of war, the nation we need to rebuild is our own. we have to grow our economy and shrink our deficits. we have to create new jobs and boost family incomes. we have to fix our infrastructure and our immigration system. we have to protect our planet from the destructive effects of climate change. we need to protect our children from the horrors of gun violence. host: the president in his weekly address, touching on some of the things that will come up in his state of the union address, scheduled for next february. this point and our twitter page --
from "the new york times sunday magazine, an interview with president shimon peres of israel. let me share with you when -- one wuote -- in the end, if nothing works, the president will use military power against iran. i am sure of it. that is an interview with shimon peres, the discussion of u.s.- israeli relations and the situation in iran. that is available online as well. let's go back to your calls on the issue of congress being bypassed to raise the debt limit. the hill newspaper, a letter written by senate democrats -- they sent a letter to the president saying at if republicans in congress threatened to shut down the federal government, the
president should invoke section 4 of the 14th amendment and raise the debt ceiling by himself sean joins us from scotch plains, new jersey. caller: hello, it is john. the president can invoke the 14th amendment. there is a thing in 1941, 3102 puts the trigger on the 14th amendment. the president has it within his ability and right to do such, but additionally, under george w. bush, he invoked, he signed into law a presidential directive number 20, and there's a section in their that also assists, the helping out for making sure the economy does not falter.
additionally, there was one thing recently on the simpson show about where the president could point a $1 trillion point. he has these things within his ability to do such and bypass congress. host: this is from "the washington post," treasury department saying that the coin will not happen. caller: everybody is so concerned about us increasing debt, but the thing is, considering the treasury is so low, the percentage for borrowing, we're close to stimulus. people do not realize that we need to borrow to get jobs back at this point. the republicans want to blow off the economy as much as possible. it makes sense to borrow money
at this time in history right now. host: thank you for the call. as our client gives little bit of history. we have been talking about this $1 trillion calling on c-span. he says -- by the way, the author of those sentences was then congressman mike castle, the republican of delaware. let's go to scott joining us from hanover, pennsylvania. the republican . -- the republican line. caller: mr. obama, they say it is not his fault. he has had for years. he said he would cut the deficit
in half. they passed the deficit a year ago, about cutting this. why is it not being cut now? i have been told both sides are not getting along, but he is the president, and he needs to lead. i do not understand how there are billions of dollars across the world to different countries. i know we do that for specific reasons, but we should be using some of that money to pay our deficits off. what i do not understand is, why are we continuing to do that, to help everybody else out and we should be taking care of our own country? host: let me show you the front page of the new york times. if we can move over -- we will move it over, here it is right here, a wide shot -- will be focusing on senator hagel in a couple of minutes and looking back at some of the things he has said over his tenure in the
u.s. senate. that line from "the new york times" -- also from "the hartford courant" -- "the arizona republic repor" -- some local stories, beginning with "the chicago tribune" -- from "the detroit free press" -- the president will be sworn in. there will be to go in operations, one on sunday, general 20th, at the white
house, as determined by the u.s. constitution. but because it falls on a sunday, the public ceremony will take place on monday, and capitol hill and around the country. rehearsals continue. this is a lie view of what looks like at the u.s. capitol. the joint congressional committee and the presidential inaugural committee -- committee, holding these dress rehearsals in preparation for the 2013 inaugural ceremonies. the run-throughs will take place on the web -- the west front of the capital. let's listen in for just a moment.
from the u.s. capitol, as preparations continue for the inaugural ceremonies, a once every four year tradition in washington, d.c. reminder we will have live coverage from the white house on sunday, january 20, one week from today. our coverage will continue all day, including uninterrupted cover coverage of the parade. that will go along pennsylvania avenue. the inaugural ball will take place at the washington convention center. this is from the east front of the capital, preparations and rehearsals continue.
coming up in a couple of minutes, our look at senator chuck hagel, his nominee his not -- his nomination for secretary of defense. steve clemens of "the atlantic," ." and the author of "break out nations."- "breakout nancy callow is keeping track of all the news for us on c-span rita. good morning. >> topics include gun violence, the economy, and the war in afghanistan on today's sunday shows. all five programs were the air at noon eastern time beginning with "meet the press -- "meet the press,."
at 1:00 p.m., this week to go with jack reed of rhode island and bob corker of tennessee. also, joe manchin. at 2:00 p.m., fox's sunday, chris wallace with richard blumenthal, the connecticut democrat, and kelly ayotte, a new hampshire republican. cnn kos "state of the union" follows at 3:00 p.m.. david keene, president of the nra, and chris murphy of connecticut, and joe manchin of west virginia. at four o'clock, "face the nation" will bring john mccain and john manchin of west -- west virginia. also, stanley, crystal. -- retired general stanley
crystal. finally at 4:00 eastern, "face the nation" from cbs. you can listen to the mall and c-span rio, on a 90.1 fm in the washington, d.c. rate -- washington, d.c. area. you can also listen on your smartphone or go online to c- span.org teo .org -- cspanradio.org. >> hopkins could read the president's new unlike anybody else. he came as close as anyone to be in evidence in to what robert sherwood would call roosevelts heavily forested interior. heavily forested interior. he went to be still in the
presence of the president. went to press him. when to back off and to the joke. after he local election, wendell willkie was in his office, and they remained friends, and like you said to the president, why do you keep that man so close to you, that man being hopkins. roosevelt said, you may be in this office and they, you will understand, but he asks for nothing except to serve me. >> trusted adviser and friend to fdr, harry hopkins lived in -- in the result white house for 3 1/2 years. david roll on "the hopkins touch." [drum line]
host: the military marching parade in formation and the reversals taking place on capitol hill. all this in advance of the ceremonies that will get underway in eight days. a mild day here in washington d.c. temperatures in the mid '60s. not unlike what we sought in 1960 and 1980. the rehearsals are taking place here in washington d.c. we want to focus on the nomination of senator chuck -- chuck hagel to be the next defense secretary. we want to welcome gary schmidt, with the american enterprise institute, and steve clemens of "the atlantic" magazine. did his nomination surprise you? guest: he has been serving as the president's co-chair of the
national intelligence advisory board. by all accounts, he has been doing a good job in that capacity. he has kept himself on tape and in lobbying. -- untainted in lobbying. when you look at the transition from leon panetta, i think chuck hagel seems an obvious choice. i thought that was where the president would go early on. >> some news on the front page of the new york times -- clinton not to go republicans who called him the keys are based on what he said on iraq. he voted for the iraq war, but then turned against the conflict. the word peace are, that seems to be pretty strong. -- appeaser, that seems to be pretty strong. guest: that seems a little
strong. when you're talking about the secretary of defense, the most important thing that happened was the surge. he votes -- he voted against the surge. he called it the worst mistake since vietnam. in terms of military strategy, the surge worked and was successful. when you're talking about somebody at secretary of defense with strong views and wrong views in my opinion, there are questions senators will ask him. host: will share with you from the c-span2 library some of the statements from senator hagel and some of the movies we have conducted with him over the years. -- interviews we have conducted with him over the years. steve clements, what does his nomination signal in terms of what the president want to -- wants to achieve over the next four years? guest: two very important things. first, he wants an independent,
no-nonsense voice at the table around the president. senator hagel has had a close relationship with president obama, and i happen to know from a number of sources that the quality of conversation and the nature of their conversations is very direct, often not in agreement, and the president is not bringing on a yes man. i guess then. the second thing we need to look at -- we have been dealing with -- bringing on a yes man. the second thing we need to look at -- we have overweighted our resources in the middle east and southeast asia, and we have underweighted our presence in asia dealing with china. that shift is like moving a giant ship, spending, resources, american men and women of being deployed in two different places, as well as
strategic asset per purchasing -- strategic asset purchasing. as you bring down the budget, as marquises need to happen so that at the end of the day, the dod is providing security to the united states and the world, so that we have hopefully the same degree of security deliver. we need somebody who understands. kagel, having been a combat veteran, he came back or vietnam, i think that is very important, but this is a man that understands the nature and structure of military organization. i think that is what is really the issue and what is important -- what is important. >> he talked about that in a 2005 interview, his experience in vietnam. here is the president as he formally nominated chuck hagel to be the next defense secretary, replacing leon panetta. >> my frame reference, he said,
is geared towards the guy at the bottom who is doing the fighting and dying. with chuck, our troops will always know, just like sergeant hagel was there for his own brother, secretary hagel will be there for you. host: gary schmidt, as you hear the words of the president, how significant is that going to be in chuck hagel's thinking in terms of what he wants to do at the pentagon? guest: i think it was like changing experience for him. the real question is whether the military he served in and served in on merkley is the military we are talking about today. i think it is quite different -- that is quite different. what experiences he had were important in terms of his own valor, it does not necessarily translate into being a good secretary of defense. the institutions are vastly different. we're talking about an all volunteer force. we're talking about a much different course than the one in vietnam.
he needs to be credited with serving with valor, but that is not to be the type of experience necessary to be secretary of defense. i think steve is right -- secretary hagel -- i mean senator hagel has made quite a few statements and has a reputation for talking about foreign policy. when he was in the senate, he had a very light footprint. he came to military matters, -- i am not sure his experience totals up for him to be the right guy. host: a question with regard to what he will inherit. we have been hearing a lot from leon panetta about the concern for sequestration and these automatic spending cuts, $500 billion over the next decade, $120 billion this year unless congress acts. what does that add into what secretary hagel will have to face?
guest: some upset secretaries and generals. when you're making decisions about spending and technology and investment, these are decisions that were crafted and sorted out one year ago, and in some cases, a decade ago. the instance in which it turned on a dime is very hard. the defense department, with a lot of white house guidance, has already been planning for this, but it is a very big shock to the system. i am one that thinks that you can make substantial cuts. if you had that little automatic spending cuts, it would create deeper equivalent of a depression. it is not smart security strategy. chuck hagel will have to get in there, given what is the law. he is not making a lot. he has to implement the law. he has to deal with the command staff of the pentagon and figure out how to make those cuts judiciously and protect this bill constructor of america's security capacity. host: how substantial in terms
of cuts? aest: if you're dealing with $120 billion front and cut, that is a very substantial schock. -- shock. you cannot just -- you would be shaken off quite a bit. but me tell you what would happen -- it would be hard for this town. center joe manchin has been showing a chart, as you see -- senator joe manchin has been showing a chart, d.c. the men and women in uniform staying very flat. you see the growth in the contractors. i suspect the contract and dimensions of this will be hit very hard because that -- you will be cutting through a lot of muscle and tendons to guest: senator haggles of the
pentagon was bloated. i think that shows a lot about how it is when it comes to defense matters. the department of defense was cut $8 billion out of plans. there has been a big slack out of defense spending. he seems not to realize how serious all that is. the chairman of joint chiefs said that if this caster goes through -- if the sequester goes through the u.s. will have to rethink posture. unfortunately senator hagel does not seem to recognize there is this review going on. host: we are taking a in-depth review depthsenator hagel, the
nominee for the next defense secretary. all of our video is available for you at no cost. you can check it out on our website at c-span.org from 2006, senator hagel had this to say about the middle east. [video clip] >> the leaders of these countries and that particular region have failed the people. for their own reasons. not unlike the trouble over the years in africa. it is not america's fault. it is not the west cost fault -- the west's faults. the leaders of those peoples and those countries and those regions have failed.
have american companies taken advantage? have there been plundering and abuses? of course. squaring the responsibility of those regions of the world rests on the shoulders of their leaders. no one else. as i just catalog about three different regions, i think you see the manifestation of that. culture has something to do with that. i said earlier -- i am one who believes you cannot impose a democracy in a matter how well intentioned you are on a region of the world that baby does not want it or does not have any history or culture or aptitude -- just lay down a democracy and say, "now we will fix the problem."
the middle east will be aglow with democracy. that will be the beginning of responsible governments. it does not happen that way. culture, tradition, religion, ethnic, are all part of that. i talked about alliances. that is why alliances are important. you work within those systems. to effect change and influence change. there are some things going on in the world today that are disgusting, that are despicable, that we hate. but we have limitations as to what we can do to change that. we should always be about helping the people who want to change it. we have limitations. and great powers run into very difficult times when they do not recognize that they too have
limitations to their power. all individuals have limitations. nations must be wise enough to understand this. host: as senator chuck hagel, in his speech, and two years ago -- as you hear the words he talks about the limits of power. that echoed what the president said that in 2008 when he was running for the white house. guest: i think that is right. i think one of the conditions that president obama and his team -- a lot of demands and expectations of rumba world and a lot of challenges. america's role is not just to knock back a challenge of foes. when america's power is doubted, allies doubt their ability to stand by us in very tough times. i think one of the real
challenges is when you think strategically and ask what the roster of priorities that the united states had a focus on is, especially during the economic crisis when president obama came in -- you had rising problems with north korea -- that is what chuck hagel is saying. we do not have a magic wand. we need to essentially figure out the limitations we have. you can act in certain places and then hopefully find successes in those. that is a realistic assessment of power that i think gary schmitt and others on the neo- conservative side think the role of the united states is. they become more responsive of contributors to the international system. when you have limited power, i think it makes someone like chuck hagel very skeptical about
the ability of the united states to do that. definitely when chuck hagel and senator jack reed traveled with president obama, this is part of their discussion. host: what kind of relationship do these two men have? guest: they do get along personally. i think if you looked at the first term of the obama administration, president obama -- it was quite natural for him to pick then-senator clinton to be secretary of state and keep bob gates on as secretary of defense. i think in the second term, he is not running for re-election. he will pick somebody he is comfortable with, which is senator haggel and senator
kerry. i do think one has to ask why the president is willing to make a fight in the nomination over secretary hagel as opposed to susan rice. i think steve would agree to this, one of the things that should be done in the hearings for the nomination is give much more clarity about where this administration is going. it is all fine and good to talk about the limits of power. everybody should understand our limits to power. that can be an excuse for not exercising power. i think that debate can be useful when put on the table when talking about senator hagel. >> hear the table, gary schmitt,
the co-director for the -- and steve clemons the editor at large @ "the atlantic." we will get your comments in just a moment. i want to point out a " that is getting a lot of attention. i mentioned david miller who has a piece in this morning in "the washington news." he says this -- who would like to comment on that? i think the suggestion that senator hagel is anti- semetic, i have no idea.
what is troubling about is not necessarily the jewish lobby -- the most troubling part is the fact that he goes on to say that's "i am a u.s. senator, i am not a senator from israel." the trouble with that is the subtle suggestion that if you agree with him that -- agree with him on u.s. policies towards israel, there is a loyalty question at stake here. i think that is going to be something the senators are going ask about. host: and in "the washington post," this morning --
"by congressional standards, he believes in special u.s.- israel relationship but not one in which the united states except is really actions uncritically. and he isn't as a motion connected to israel as some of his former colleagues in congress -- such as representative john lewis or senator mark kirk -- are. but in our interview, his writings and his voting record in military aid to israel, hagel has cau--" guest: this is a complex and taboo subject. what is nice about this particular interviews he did with various leaders is that they are all online. people can go listen to the various recordings that he did. what i would tell you is that
it is a complicated issue because -- it is a question about what is the nature of the us-israel relationship? there is a debate that is more active in tel aviv and jerusalem that is in washington. president obama as former national security adviser -- president obama's former national security adviser says that today's strategy is like a new orleans levee. we are protecting israel from the storm around. essentially if you do not mitigate that store and can become quite substantial. i think chuck hagel gave a very powerful speech a couple years ago in which she said we cannot make a false choice between our rock-solid relationship with
israel but we also have relationships with other countries in the neighborhood. that can tell congress what some interest groups want to see. you how one country so tightly and you demonstrate disdain for the other. i think that is what hagel is saying was not constructive. i interviewed the former chief of naval operations in israel about some of his relationships with hagel over the years. he recounted something that i think was very interesting because there is a lot of criticism for hagel for not bandwagon in jumping and on the letters that the committee put through to encourage senators for support. there was one particular that had to do with pressuring jews inside russia, which senators signed on to calling for a huge platform.
they ask chuck why he did not do this. within a day he sent a letter to president of clinton about this exact case. he received a commitment from clinton to take certain actions. hagel was moving privately. when i talk to others about this they are upset that he did not sign on to the public letter. because of not bandwagon in and following the tried there has been some concern of independence. host: good morning, republican line. caller: not only should we worry about his anti-semitic views, he was against the french and iran. no one would say we are live -- we are winning in afghanistan.
under obama, 70% of the debt and 80% of the injuries have occurred in afghanistan. does that sound like we are winning? guest: steve used the word "tribe." talking about, "i am not the senator from israel," the problem with this language is that it's just that those with a strong strategic review -- strategic view -- i just think that is wrong. sort of painting the other side as being on thoughtful about their relationship -- i think is wrong.
when the iraq war was going poorly and senator hagel said the greatest threat united states faces is between the mountains of afghanistan and pakistan -- previously opposed the surge in afghanistan. these are issues the need to be addressed. where do we think afghanistan is going to go? why did he think at one point that afghanistan was such a strategic interest? senator hagel has made a lot of statements over the years about the middle east and central asia that i think have to be addressed. israel-u.s. relationships have
to be put into context. i think the caller started them. but the fact is not simply that it is between the u.s. and israel, there are statements the senator made on the sanctions on iran. top of the dictatorship in syria. not signing on to a resolution, asking europe to designate hezbollah as a terrorist organization. on and on. the context suggests that his views about the middle east and his use about the palestinian it-is really conflict have to be brought together with those other statements to get a bigger picture of how he thinks about the middle east.
i think it is rare that a nominee -- i do think that people often say the president should give deference to his and -- to his appointees. he has made a lot of statements in the past and implications of current policies that need to be addressed. i think the support there is pretty thin. if something goes wrong in the hearings i think he will have difficulties. host: this is from one of our viewers. "chuck hagel expresses a deep strain of midwestern skepticism and frugality above for adventures." when the talking about afghanistan on pbs, this from february -- >> we need to look at a couple of realities here.
that reality is washing over a nation possibility to continue to sustain that war. america is polling numbers are pretty clear on this. as to nations that are now our nato allies-- in the end it will be the afghanistan people that will have to decide what kind of government they want and what they want to do. the other part of this that you had not mentioned was pakistan. pakistan is the most important and critical element in this entire equation for reasons that most people understand. i think panetta and the president are right in the direction they are taking this. accelerate the time line they are taking american and nato forces out of there.
an international peace conference is probably what is going to be required here. when i see international peace conference, i think your coin that bring the iranians in this. certainly the talent and is going to have to be in this. -- certainly taliban is going to have to be in this. this is going to go on for a while. this will not be resolved with just one piece treaty. the continuation of the path that we are on now is only going to make it worse. we have a situation in pakistan where we are right on the cost of losing an ally in a very serious way. we do not want that to happen. then we become loose of all of our diplomatic moorings. we still have 90,000 troops in afghanistan. iraq is having very big difficulties.
the entire area is so combustible and dangerous. this is an example of how we have to be careful how we spread our way through this -- how we tried our way through this. -- how we tread our way throught this. guest: i think that is very important because it is now freeing up assets. countries like iran and others are looking at the fact that america will have more capacity with less tied down. we need to remember that there are a couple of factors here. if chuck hagel were to be confirmed as secretary of defense, he will follow the president's policy as stated. senate confirmation hearings are wonderful exercises. it is just like watching c-span. you can learn so much that you did not know. the questions and doubts others
have will be served at this meeting. they become a wonderful case statements and records and the way american democracy should take place. if you took chuck hagel's statements in that we need to think strategically and not actively, the you think about russia? russia is a patron of syria. we have a lot to deal with where we confront russia, where we can leverage with russia. iran -- the direction syria goes. and also turkey, which is a nato ally to the united states. you want to think beyond what is humanitarian before you send u.s. troops into direct intervention. what are the other equities america has in that region? that is the way chuck hagel generally approaches these questions.
that is the way he thinks. i largely supported respect that. host: what is senator haggles syria and thee in sudan? -- trying to put all sorts of other pressure on the south. i do not believe he supports at all injecting u.s. troops into this equation or no-fly zones. the libyan model does not apply to syria. host: we're drawing down to the life and career of chuck hagel. we are using and exits of interviews and pieces he has done over the years, all of which is available on our website at c-span of order.
-- atc-span.org. guest: ipads wanted to know that -- i just wanted to note that when the libya conflict was going on, chuck hagel said it wasn't a matter of national interest. it is a little confusing now that syria becomes the point of contention that these -- that he has backed off against any sort of strategy. syria is a hard problem. we are letting the gulf states and the others determine who is going to wind up being the leadership. in the absence of american leadership the result is going to be far worse for the united state's interest. host: joining us from minneapolis, democrats line.
patrick? sorry, we will go to ron in texas. caller: i do not see the problem with the nomination is. if you look at john kerry, he has had allegations of war crimes in vietnam and iraq. chuck hagel makes an antisemitic comments. if kerrey can be secretary of state, why not hagel for defense? guest: senator moynihan would have a phrase for that.
host: this is from an interview back in 1998 when bill clinton was in the white house. chuck hagel said, "they are representing america. they are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. and i think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay -- openly aggressively gave like mr. hormel -- to do an effective job." he has since apologized for those remarks. guest: he is not in the domestic policy division as secretary of defense. i think domestic issues, whether it be guns or abortion or gay rights, -- it is not just that ", but the way.
-- it is not just that quote by the way. all of which raises the question of why the president would want him. i think the senate committee in particular have to pay attention to -- given that record, why was the president backing susan rice? why is he so dead set on having senator hagel be secretary of defense? i think he is somebody the president really trust to re- trench the american power. there is going to be a fundamental choice made for the next four years. his nomination is just beginning of that debate. host: isn't figuring where you
want to move your political capital? do you want to fight both state and federal side simultaneously? guest: i think it would be to fights. i helped post one of the meetings. i think had been simultaneously been going on, susan rice would have deflected a lot of attention from the chuck hagel nomination. other nominations light john brennan, which is controversial in some quarters, but also john kerry are getting lost attention. -- getting less attention. i had conversations with him two years ago about my own views.
at the time we are still pursuing -- i had a discussion with hagel about "don't ask, don't tell." it had not been repealed yet. he made very clear his support about the repeal. i did talk to him about this and just want to be clear that he is saying that's it is not just a move that he is apologizing hormell. in addition, he supports lgbt families. he is gone beyond that on women's issues as well. one of the real other subjects we do not often talk about is violence towards women.
rates at the academies, rapes in the field. the senate passed an amendment as part of the national defence act giving women who were raped -- i think he is stepping forward. you will hear more about this in the hearings. i think it is important to realize that, like the president, he is a fault on many issues. this is not a move that was triggered by the nomination. the gay rights community, which i am also a part, has not done its part in my view to reach out to people like chuck hagel in advance and say, "what are four views?" we are going back and looking at votes. host: this is from a shell on
our twitter page. -- from michelle on our twitter page. any thoughts on that? guest: i am not opposed to gays in the military. that is what we are heading towards. i think the military are going to go forward. it brought up the question of an intelligence community. that has also moved ahead. it is not a question of what you are gay or not. it is a question of whether or not you can always say you are. the thinking -- i think things have changed and there's not going to be a debate at this issue. host: it is the bottom of the hour. we are looking up words and statements of chuck hagel, a former senator from nebraska.
joining us here is gary schmitt and steve clemons of "the atlantic," and the american enterprise institute. we have a call from virginia. caller: i say he is going to follow president obama's policies, not chuck hagel's policies. this is not chuck hagel's war. john mccain clearly is coming from a different time. i think we are going to start looking at the history books -- we should start looking at people who have served as opposed to these couch talkers. host: can i take a step back and
ask you about the relationship and how it has a vault between john mccain and chuck hagel? the bulls came in veterans of the vietnam war, both friends, and now the relationship has evolved. there is question as to whether john mccain support chuck hagel. guest: it has evolved. knowing senator mccain the way i do, he has always been somebody to reaches out to a variety of different folks. he has friends of the other side. i do think the differences between the two senators about barack and afghanistan and other issues -- about iraq and afghanistan and other issues --
all of those things have led to a divergence. the fact that they are no longer best buddies -- at the end of the day washington is about politics. there are opposed opinions to this key security measure. host: chuck hagel served as the chair of the atlantic council. he spoke specifically on iran and u.s. intervention in that part of the world. [video clip] >> we do have significant evidence that sanctions are working. they are working because our policies is imperfect, flawed, every policy has those. that has brought our incenses together.
the chinese are involved. the russians are involved. we have a rather significant consensus on this issue up to a point. what you have to do is reflect of the united nations vote on this as a pretty good indicator. that alone will not change the dynamics. as barbara has laid out, if you subscribe to what our task force has come up with, then are we far wiser to let this play out? aren't we far wiser to let ourselves get into another predicament because we do also know that wars have consequences? especially in the world we live today, the have unintended consequences. they have uncontrollable consequences. we live in an interconnected global community.
i think we should factor that in. last point i would make -- as to the question of what are tweet letting the iranians by time? maybe. we have to recognize that the world is about risks. you calibrate your decisions and policy-making based on that risk and analysis. is it riskier to go to war right now or is it riskier to pursue the policies that we are pursuing? policymakers have to decide that. they have to sort their way through that. and then they come to a decision. it is my analysis, and answering your question, it is far riskier to stop a war than that a war. we are the mightiest military
force on earth. the world has never seen such military power. that military power must always be tempered with a purpose. host: a couple years ago, former senator chuck hagel commented. i want to share with you what he said about iran. he says -- your reaction to what senator haggle said and what was written this morning in "the new york times?" guest: senator hagel has been
all over the map. a lot and the senator against sanctions when sanctions might have been -- sanctions needed to be there. he was opposed to them. he is now in favor of the sanctions. obviously because you like to avoid war. yes and all of the map on military options. -- he has been all over the map on military options. the senator has written about that nuclear weapons become -- states with nuclear weapons become very rational in their behavior.
he does not believe that if iran got a nuclear weapon the rest of the region would try to follow. i think there's a lot of questions to be asked about its position. on what was written, that is the typical way we proceed. i think he is very clear the president has committed itself to military options. over the last couple of years we have begun to doubt whether that commitment will be carried out. uest: i think perez's articulation about a last resort -- i did not want to speak for him. but in the case, i have paid attention to how center hagel has trained a potential military conflict. he said he is not a pacifist.
he could only support war in the last resort. if you shop the global economy as much as the world hates and the united states -- a world hates a disdains the devastates -- if you look at the other contending forces, the other consequences of the strategic shift you will get -- america should not shirk that responsibility. it will not be neat. it will not be in a defined box that he will have something like a real collision between iran bank and the nine states. we'd be very clear when the going to that's what those consequences are. host: let me just repeat what "the new york times" said. he wrote -- guest: i think he has had
conversations with the president that we have not had. this is not a president that wants to be remembered as being in a piecer -- as being an appeaser. the president will probably initiate -- host: from our twitter page, "obama knows that one of his nominees will have to go down. is hagel the designated scapegoat?" guest: i disagree. having lost susan rice. host: gary schmitt and steve clemons. good morning, democrats line. caller: i am a text that ryan
and i support chuck hagel 100%. i do not know why our leaders have to vetted by israel. they have not been rational at all. any time somebody says anything about israel, the first thing they are labeled as anti- semitic. host: this is from the hearing that took place back in 1998. the secretary of state in the clinton administration. it is a broad overview of the middle east in the effort -- in the arab world -- [video clip] >> i have just come back from a lot of the gulf states. i came back with the following set of impressions. first of all, they are very concerned about what is going on in iraq. they understand that the problems of weapons of mass
destruction and the fact that they do threaten them, that it is less visible than a cross border threat. second, they are fully convinced that this crisis has been created by saddam hussein. they are concerned about the iraqi people. which is why we support this oil for feud plan -- oil for food plan. they prefer a diplomatic route but they understand that should there be consequences some hussain will be responsible for the great consequences. i feel confident of their support. they state they have domestic audiences and that they have support for their own purposes. i think they will be helpful to
us. i think they also understand the dangers that it is not quite same situation as when saddam hussein invaded kuwait and there were six months to prepare and put together a coalition, which was primarily a u.s.-u.k. operation. >> and believe board the problem is -- >> i did not think that? >> you do not? >> no i think these are two separate issues. very difficult ones. but my own sense is that we have to deal with both of them. we have to look at our national interest. they are both very important to us. we have ties to israel that are invaluable. i think we have to work in the
middle east peace process. i think that some of them have stated those views. >> the truly believe they are linked? you do not believe there is any linkage between the middle east peace process and what is happening -- >> i prefer not to make linkage. host: from the senate committee back in 1998. based on that line of questioning, the senator saying he cannot supportchuck hagel in part because the president has sent the worst possible message to our closest militant allies and our greatest middle eastern enemies. guest: i think what you saw in senator hagel's discussion with senator albright, he cannot afford to make choices between one ally and another ally. i support that view.
i think it is very immature. we heard how unshakeable the u.s. relationship is. that may be. the fastest two solvent countries have many ways in which they see the world together. there are differences. there is a lot of pressure in this town not to talk about the differences. i think that's hagel was getting at. the earlier caller made a comment that disturbed me in the sense that israel is the vetting candidates. it is not vetting candidates. i think it is important to listen to the use of the other countries. he said he does not have a problem with the nominations. for those people trying to imagine the israeli government and tragedy's on hagel --
these comments have been positive. there are concerns that have been laid out. i do think it would be wrong to tar israel with these statements that our government leaders have not made. guest: steve is absolutely right. i would say that the clip that you ran it back to a theme that is quite problematic in hagel's career -- making is really- palestinian issues central to u.s. policy. -- making is really-palestinian issue central to u.s. policy. -- make israeli-palestinian issue central to u.s. policy.
their friendship with us has more to do with the strategic interests than with or not israel and palestine can work out their differences. also, it is not just that. if you go back and with a statement of senate hagel, two of, and, particularly during the terrorism after the clinton administration, there was a peace agreement on the table that some hagel walked away from. there were two times where secateurs hagel made comments between israel and the palestinians that disturbs people, rightfully so. -- he said that will be
determined by the rockies. he went on to say this -- "we have been funding the swart dishonestly -- this war dishonestly. congress has abdicated its responsibility in the last four years." guest: i think he is absolutely right. i think what senator haggle was looking at -- transplant yourself back three or four years ago. there was a sense the been here from our allies that the american military was overstretched. when you convey being overstretched and at the limits budget fairly and militarily with you can do, your allies would not bet on you as much as they will.
i think senator hagel was raising these questions. what did it take to make americans feel safe on september 10, 2001? we had terrorism hit the country and massive rise in spending in defense. you spent two 0.7 trillion dollars above that baseline, including inflation. that is justifiable in many ways. we're not having an honest discussion with the public. we are spending ways -- be spent a huge amount of money but america still hasn't been feeling as it. i think these are the kind of questions -- hagel made a comment that said it is not unpatriotic to ask questions of your government. this is when bush was in office.
it is patriotic to ask these questions. i think he was trying to make that same kind of point about the barack bang investment in the united states. guest: i think his criticisms were quite fair at the time. in fact, many of us made them. the answer is not one -- "let us get out and cut defense." the bush administration did not provide the military resources -- the kinds of materials and resources. i proposed back in 2003 -- there's plenty of criticism for that. the answer was to do precisely what we did. change the strategy. it worked. we are not staying with it in
afghanistan. we see how it is playing out in iraq. it is not good. come 2014, we're not going to see in afghanistan that is very stable. host: on twitter -- let us go to carl joining us from pennsylvania. republican line with gary schmitt and steve clemons. go ahead. are you with us? we will go to rome in pennsylvania. democrats line. caller: my name is jerome. i would like to say thank you for c-span.
my comment is, i think a lot of the people that would be opposing senator hagel are doing so because they cannot believe that an enlisted man in the army could rise to the post of secretary of defense. that is all i have to say. host: we touch on that early in guest:. i did not believe that is true. i do not think it prohibits year. -- it prohibits you. the idea that it translates to be a good or bad secretary of defense, i do not think the evidence is there. a barackyou're calling
the single biggest blunder in u.s. history. -- a viewer calling iraq the single biggest blunder in u.s. history. guest: the bush administration sent to few troops and, did not react sufficiently to the insurgency that was happening there. frankly the confidence of the american people -- to their credit, president bush ordered a surge. it is very clear that the change in strategy worked on the ground. the instability in iraq had gone down 100%.
the question is are we going to stay there and rebuild a rock in the long term? it also has to do with the obama's administration desire to get out. if we had stayed, would it be unstable? it is impossible to stay. -- impossible to say. host: i want to share with you this headline. it is "we are moving from a team of rebels to a band of brothers." guest: the state of the union address is going to be on the abraham lincoln's birthday. we have lots of weight to further reinforce this metaphor. -- tweet lots of ways to reinforce this metaphor.
you have four guys who worked in that committee. i think they will find lots of opportunities to disagree with one another. simply saying that -- i remember when david petraeus was testifying about afghanistan -- he was asked about strategy and where afghanistan fits inside a broader strategic objectives of the united states. he said that is not his job. his job is to achieve success and achieve our objectives. i respect gary schmitt a great deal. we have a legitimate disagreement about where the barack too or fits in strategic objectives -- where the iraq war fits in strategic objectives. i believe we were completely right to ask bin laden.
i thought the rationale for dealing with iraq was different. if you remove saddam hussein you basically create an incredible opportunity for iran and the region to grow. our decision to take out the chief storm and cap the bottle for iran was something where you get a real test for the question of values and democracy. you have a much more interest calculation about what dynamics to set up in iran. iran clearly began growing after the iraq invasion. this is a function of strategy. these are legitimate debate. it is a fair debate to have.
i just wanted to validate that. what is our responsibility to the iraqi people? setting up some semblance of democratic institution. nevertheless, if you ask yourself at the end of the day if we helped american strategic objectives or did we heard it? we need chuck hagel to say this is where, experience matters. you better be sure that it is worth it. host: from connecticut, independent line, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. chuck hagel is a hard one to pin down. i agree with the surge. he was against the surge.
secretary gates, president eisenhower, they are all caution as midwesterners. i see nothing wrong with that. my first choice would be david petraeus. i would say he had to go back into work. chuck hagel would be a good fit. i do not see chuck hagel as an easy yes or no. he is a little more complex than that. host: how many allies does chuck hagel have in the senate? guest: when i worked in the senate there was often an occasion where you see senators walk-in, saw the other senators,
walked up to them whether they are republican or democrat and started chatting in a collegial relationship. suggest there is anything wrong with this. others would keep their distance and spend more time with their staff. i gather some hagel was one of those. they are not natural senate people. it does not mean they do not have friends. but they do not have a great deal of warm ties. host: joe biden is not a senate person? guest: he grew into one. it wasbefore he had here. hagel's personal ties are
limited. in terms of republican support, i think it is nonexistent. we will see what happens in the hearings. i do not think it will be voting for him. him because of friendship. host: you can listen to all of the confirmation hearings on c- span. we're talking with steve clemons with "the atlanta." and gary schmitt of the american enterprise institute. our focus is the nomination of chuck hagel to be the next defense secretary. ann joins us from tennessee, a democrat. caller: it does not matter who president obama nominates. the republicans will get everything and everybody he puts up there. they do not know -- what anybody who knows about war or how it
feels to be in war. they can sit behind that desk and put authorizations. someone who has walked in their shoes know about war. it is time for the republicans and democrats to wake up. host: thanks for calling. gary schmitt? guest: there are senators who have walked in those shoes. senator mccain has locked in those shoes and sacrificed a great deal -- has walked in those shoes and sacrificed a great deal. i do not think that is the issue. it is not clear senator hagel, he may not get many votes from republican senators for the nomination, but there are a number of senators who lean toward more libertarian positions on foreign policy and
would probably be more supportive of the president's policies along with senator hagel's. it is not clear this division is simply republican versus democrat. host: we welcome our viewers and listeners on the bbc channel on sundays. brad joins us from london. caller: thank you for giving me the opportunity. i am not american. you can probably get that from the accident. i am and iranians. -- you can probably get that from the accident. i m and iranians. --i am iranian. we used to have neighbors that
were american. it is strange to me this obsession among the political elite about any problem between israel and iran. it must be among a thin layer of politicians because i come from a country in which 40,000 years a great majority of people have lived -- jewish people have lived. my family are not currently jews. i find it strange. there is no way the iranians would hate jews or israelis woul d hate us. part of my people live in israel.
iran has been surrounded by arab countries for the past 1400 years. host: new will give our guests a chance to respond. we will begin with steve clemons. guest: iran is a complicated neighborhood and has a long history. i have known many people who were immigrants living in the united states. this is complicated for a number of people. the broader question of whether we can get together, these are states with the objectives. in the case of iran as nuclear ambitions versus israel's security concerns, that is why these debates and discussions are so important we do not know the outcome. there is no easy answer to these questions. host: the focus on iraq will give a lot of attention during the confirmation hearings.
we want to share with you what he said in 2007 at a congressional hearing in which he reacted to the announcement of the surge in that country and what it meant for the u.s. this runs about three minutes. [video clip] >> i do not agree with that escalation. when you say as you have this morning that we need to address and helped the iraqis and pay attention to the fact iraqis are being killed, madam secretary, iraqis are killing iraqis. we are in a civil war. this is sectarian violence out of control. worse, it is intersectarian violence. to ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives to be in a civil war is wrong. it is morally wrong.
it is militarily wrong. we will not win a war of attrition in the middle east. you talk about skepticism and passes it -- and pessimism of the american people and in congress, that is not a subjective analysis. that is because we have been there almost four years. there is a reason for the skepticism and pessimism. that is based on the facts on the ground, the reality of the dynamics. i have believed the appropriate focus is not to escalate but to try to find a broader incorporation of the framework. it will have to be regional. that should not be new to
anyone. it has to be more than regional. it will have to be internationally sponsored. that will include iran and syria. when you were engaging chairman biden on this question of whether our troops will go into the iran or syria in pursuit based on what the president said last night, you cannot sit here today -- no one in our government can tell americans we will not engage the iranians and syrians cross border. some of us remember 1970. that was cambodia. our government lied to the american people and said we did not cross the border into cambodia. we did. i know something about as do some on this committee. when you set in motion the kind of policy the president is
talking about, it is very dangerous. i have to say i think this speech given last night by this president reduce the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam, if it is carried out. host: i want to share with a comment from one of our viewers. "condi looks like she could kill with those eyes." that became a defining moment in chuck hagel's career. guest: senator hagel turned out to be completely wrong. the stair from her, i do think she could have killed him. host: somebody else says he
could secure their vote on the strength of those remarks alone. guest: i think he was right. those were defining moment. it was a lightning strike and how they view the situation. gary and some of his colleagues see that as the moment that chuck hagel structurally. away from the infrastructure at the time. i used to run the nixon center in town. the nixon wing of the republican foreign-policy establishment largely applauded chuck hagel. this is not democrats versus republicans. these are views about the world and strategy which exist inside both parties. you would find it is an interesting and useful learning moment. i do think it is one of the reasons why someone of my ilk
has so much respect for senator hagel. john mccain is a true national hero, so is chuck hagel. i have been at dinners, i was the emcee at the nixon dinner paying tribute to john kyl. john mccain did the opening. this is not a war between people. we often over-emphasize these questions of division. these are real debates. this is why we are here. i think it was a problem for chuck hagel because he demonstrated independence of thought and questioning that was vital for the country. host: on want to go back to something you said and frame it in terms of what the president said.
afghanistan was a war of necessity and iraq was a war of choice. was iraq necessary? what did we accomplish? guest: we have not accomplished much. it depends on a lot of factors that are out of my control. we should not forget we did get rid of saddam hussein, a terrible tyrant to his people and a danger to the region. there is no question we're better off with him gone. then the question is how we implemented doing that. i think the bush and administration did a very poor job strain in the credibility -- straining the credibility and the american public's willingness to stay the course. the new president decided iraq was not where he wanted to put a strategic emphasis. we pulled out.
could things have been different if the surge had happened in 2003? we would probably be talking about a much different history and middle east when it comes to american interests. it is hard to say it was worth it. it is difficult to say it was a complete failure. host: this tweet says everything chuck hagel said was right. can you tell us where he was wrong? guest: he was wrong on the fundamentals. the surge did work. it was not a huge mistake. there is a tendency for senator hagel to talk about vietnam experiences and use the to think about everything else that has happened since. he is wrong. he is often the because of the iraq war, syria and iran were the key to stabilizing iraq. that was not the case. syria and iran are part of the
problems in stabilizing iraq. senator hagel is often noted for his independence in judgment, but when he is wrong, he is wrong. host: the next caller joins us from new york. good morning. caller: i was looking at the military service of mr. hagel. [no audio] [indiscernible] host: you are breaking up. we missed the first part. caller: the credentials technical have are quite impressive. i believe the president is reaching across party lines with the appointment. i think he is doing a good job. i think we should appoint this man so we can move ahead instead
of looking at the mistakes made by these people and try to learn from those mistakes and go on. why are we not reaching across partisan lines? we need to be bipartisan on middle east issues. they are very sensitive. i am concerned we need to move forward and stop the delay. congress has enough gridlock already. they need to do something. thank you. host: in an interview conducted back in 2005, chuck hagel talked about his military experience. this is from the c-span video library. [video clip] >> we are all products of our experience and environment. i have been tempered by the experience about war. what war means, the consequences, who has to fight it.
all of that experience is part of me and how i look at policy, how i look at our foreign policy and military policy, how i judge consequences, how the world sees us, their trust in our purpose in power. no question much of the questioning i have done about iraq and was tempered by the experience in vietnam. whenever i will ever do in my life -- whatever i will do in my life, those experiences shaped me, just like anyone who has gone through war. those experiences shape you very much. it makes you less inclined to jump into war. it is easy to get into war, not very easy to get out, as evidenced by the johnson tapes. you need to think through these
things. diplomacy is critically important, especially in the complicated world we live in today. i think something else is important here and a lesson we learned from vietnam. what is going to be very important for america is not to isolate ourselves in the world. we did that in vietnam. we have done that to some extent in iraq. we need friends and allies. we need institutions and structures likely formed after world war ii dealing with common challenges. terrorism is a common challenge. it is not unique to america. it will take all these relationships and intelligence sharing. the experience in vietnam has shaped me and will continue to shake me. host: that was from an interview back in 2005. you might take away from that
that we're still dealing with the aftereffects of the vietnam war 40 years later. guest: i think that is right. secretary gates said anyone who would commit to the large-scale ground troops invasion should have their head examined. i think his instincts were understandable. what is often neglected in the debate about hagel is how we finish those comments talking about intelligence. one of the interesting analogies senator hagel -- that you might make with him is don rumsfeld and the challenges he faced as defense secretary for president bush. they were looking at declining defense budgets. he began talking about the importance of applying technology and intelligence, is changing the way we achieve
security to leverage power in ways that have never been done before. y of talkingake about this. there is the vietnam question. as you look forward, what about him makes him right? he has been working with the intelligence side of national security. he has been looking at the way to change the way the nation achieves security to transform the pentagon into something different. i think it was captured nicely in the 2005 interview. guest: a couple of points. don rumsfeld was struggling with how to change the pentagon. the way he wanted to change it left us a less repressive -- less prepared for dealing with 9/11. he wanted to cut the army and was reluctant to build it up. it made it more difficult for
folks to deal with afghanistan and iraq. you want to be able to move ahead and take advantage of new technologies when it comes to military affairs. you also have to make strategic judgments about what kind of military you will need to deal with the threats we face. i want to go back to the clips. senator hagel has a selective memory about vietnam. we should remember one of the problems of vietnam was we decided to pull out precipitously and abandoned the vietnamese to the north. we cut off military aid. we stopped paying and the like. if one were to take that analogy, there is a good chance we will be doing the same thing to our partners in afghanistan over the next year. there are lessons from vietnam. let's not forget that one
either. host: let me go back to the front page story of "the new york times." republicans are calling him and appease -- an appeaser. he goes on to say the campaign is in some ways a relitigation of the old dispute. is that a fair assessment? guest: it is not. "the washington post" has come out against the nomination.
guest: it has been on both sides. guest: it is hardly in the pocket of guys like me. senator corn and is opposed -- senator cornyn is opposed. there are real questions about senator hagel's record and how that will impact security decisions moving forward. some things he is interested in will be important when his secretary. there are other things that call into question how he thinks about american leadership from the world and the use of the military that the senators will question. i think rightly so. host: another view is that the tax on senator hagel are really a tax on president obama. john is joining us on the democrats' line from pennsylvania. are you with us? caller: i certainly am.
my town is located outside of philadelphia. [indiscernible] it is close to philadelphia. thank you for permitting me to speak. thanks for c-span. this issue is fraught with a lot of anxiety. it is an explosive issue. this is bringing the lobby from behind the curtain. mr. clemons is a good spokesman for senator hagel's side. if he says the wrong thing, he could lose his position in the
community. it is astonishing to me that people have been so wrong from day one. the people have been wrong. iraq is a disaster with trillions of dollars. afghanistan is a disaster. we do not know what is going on. in syria, the christians are terrified. chuck hagel is reasonable. what did he say that has so destructive -- disrupted it all? he said the jewish lobby
intimidate people. to people knowledgeable and aware, this is not an issue. host: this is someone from the republican line. this is slowly and. go ahead. caller: thank you for the wonderful program. i have a question in terms of how the choices will respond to a basic policy idea by mr. obama of withdrawing from the world scene as a primary force. that means the united states retrenching. what are the consequences of such actions where the united states ceases to be perceived as a strong force in the world?
host: we will give you a chance to reference both of those points. guest: the administration came out with new guidance last year that this engages from the middle east with a rebalance toward asia. the problem senator hagel has not adequately addressed is if we're going to read balance in asia, that requires resources. at the same time, he is saying the pentagon budget is bloated. you cannot rebalance if you are not going to put more resources in the pacific. the cuts suggest the rebalancing will not take place. senator hagel has to address that issue in front of the senate. if they are not talking about retrenchment, then they cannot
be talking about these cuts moving forward. no fancy technologies or intelligence will get around the fact you need more ships and resources if you are going to deal with the challenges facing exist in the pacific. host: steve clemons, we will give you the final word. guest: there are a lot of threats out there. they are not just missiles and bombs. there are cyber threats. that is something the defense secretary and president will have to get their heads around. thing someone should think is that they will oversee the withdrawal from the world. we see a stronger doubling down on the commitment to keep america relevant in the world and america's ability to be the primary school for on the world stage strong.
being a superpower in the world is as much about the steep as deploying the military. you see the president's team committed to restoring the leverage and mystique on the great challenges of the day. i think senator hagel will assist in that mission the president has. host: steve clemons and gary schmitt, looking at the life and career of senator chuck hagel, the president's choice for defense secretary. thank you for being with us. we are live on pennsylvania avenue as the rehearsal continues for next week's inaugural parade. this is being conducted by the joint congressional committee on the inaugural ceremonies. the military band is making its way down pennsylvania avenue across from the canadian embassy. we will watch as the rehearsal continues eight days before the formal ceremony.
>> ♪ host: the rehearsal is along pennsylvania avenue. it is shut down today to prepare. we hope we will have mild weather next week for the visitors coming for the second inauguration of president barack obama and vice president joe biden. because january 20 falls on a sunday, there will be a swearing-in ceremony by the vice president at his residence in washington and later at noon at the white house. we will have coverage of the formal ceremonies who live all day on january 21.
a preview of the president's second term. nancy calo is keeping track of that. good morning. what do we have? >> on the talk shows, the topics include gun violence, the economy, and the war in afghanistan. all five programs reair on c- span reappeared today's guests include former secretary of state colin powell and haley barbour. also on the program and making the rounds on programs today, the west virginia senator. at 2:00, chris wallace six down with -- sits down with senators. larry pratt is the executive
director of gun owners of america. candy crowley welcomes david keene, president of the n.r.a., senator murphy, and senator joe mentioned. at 4:00, bob schieffer talks with john mccain and joe manch in. the sunday network tv talk shows are brought to you as a public service by the networks and c- span is. reairs begin at noon. you can listen to them all on c- span radio on 90.1 fm in the washington, d.c., area. you can listen on your smart
form -- smartphones or go online to c-span.org. >> if you ask how many people would describe themselves as libertarian, you might be getting between 10% and 15%. if you give people questions about different ideological things, depending on which poll you are looking at, you get up to 30% of americans calling themselves libertarian. if you ask if you are economically conservative and socially liberal, you get over half of americans saying that is what they are. just because people say these things, it does not mean they believe them. if you ask most americans if they want smaller government, they say yes. they say they want government to spend less money. if you ask them to cut a particular item, they do not want to cut anything. it is not clear they really
believe in it. i would have to say roughly as low as 10% and as high as 30%. if libertarians were political, they could be in big group of people with a shared ideologies who could have a lot of influence in politics. area various reasons, they are not organized that way right now. -- for various reasons, they are not organized that way right now. >> that is tonight at 8:00. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we intended to have ruchir sharma joining us from new york for 45 minutes. we are having some technical issues in new york. we will have him on for a full program later. we wanted to check in with him briefly to talk about the book
and explain his premise behind it. thank you for being with us. our apologies for the technical issues. we will have you on for the full 45 minutes at a later date. i want to ask you about the book itself and why you wrote it. you talk about the emerging markets and the impact on the u.s. and global economy. guest: i have been looking at these countries and investing in them for nearly two of decades now. i have also been writing about them. i was keen to share what exactly is going on in these countries, which ones are likely to rise and fail in the years ahead. what struck me as i was doing the research is that there are many things that capture the imagination of investors for a
decade, a rarely do they last for more than a decade. in the 1980's, we have paranoia about japan over taking the united states. in the 1990's, it was all about the technical -- tech buble. i think the last decade will be remembered for the rise of the bric countries. never before did we see so many countries boom simultaneously. that boom is coming to an end. the rising tide of global liquidity that lifted countries is ebbing. we have to figure out which ones will truly rise and which ones will fail. we need to do it over a reasonable time frame. the timeframe they used to analyze this is 50 or 100 years.
my point is foremost practitioners, that is not relevant. what is more relevant is a reasonable time frame of three to five years or the maximum of the decade. this book lays out a road map for which countries are likely to do well or not over the next three to five years. host: let me ask you about the chapter on china. you say as the economy has matured, the fun and games are coming to a close. many people refer to china as an emerging market that will provide a lot of growth for the western nations in the years ahead. guest: china is a victim of its own success. it has grown at double-digit pace for three decades in a row. if you look at the success stories historically such as japan, south korea, and taiwan,
all of those countries are at a similar stage of economic development. they begin to slow down materially. i think china is at a similar juncture. in the last decade, their growth rate was over 10% a year. it slowed down in 2012 to 7.5%. i suspect it has more to go over the next five years. i do not believe in a straight line forecast were you extrapolate what has happened over a decade and think it will carry on. i think china is that a major inflexion point. the growth rate is slowing. i do not think something scary will happen, but it is moving to a lower growth plane. i think that has major implications for the global economy.
for the u.s., the price of oil and other commodities is likely to be lower over the next decade compared to the increase we saw in prices over the last decade. that could be a major positive as the chinese growth rate slows down. a crash would be very negative because that reduces the export potential for many countries like the u.s. commodity prices like oil do not increase or possibly decline in the coming years. host: you say most economists tend to ignore the wars.
with the debate about u.s. involvement in afghanistan, your thoughts about that? guest: if you look at the long- term economic history, markets are not great at dealing with politics and political uncertainty. that is even more when it comes to wars and conflicts. the markets are not good at pricing that in. they completely ignore it. in the first world war, they did not since it. they were struck by the way it unfolded. if you look away conflicts have erupted in places like africa, the markets have not known how to price that in. that is a major problem that remains. on wall street, that has happened more over the last couple of decades. there has been so much
relatively little conflict historically that a lot of the political analysis has suffered because of that. dealing with a gridlock in washington and coming to terms with it, the whole issue of the afghanistan, i think this is one of those things that gets very little attention on wall street or amongst the investment community. the point i make in the book about conflicts is the fact that often when you have the end of a conflict, there is a 40% probability that within a decade it reemergence -- reemerges in the country affected. once a confliecct ends, there is
about 40% probability it starts again in the affected country. host: ruchir sharma is joining us from new york. he is the author of the book "breakout nations: in pursuit of the next economic miracles." our apology for the technical issues. we hope to have you on for a full segment to talk about the book and take calls. thank you for being with us. we want to use this opportunity to hear from you. it is an open phone segment. no agenda, no specific questions. just tell us what is on your mind. the numbers are at the bottom of the screen. you can join us on our twitter
page or send us an e-mail or on facebook. this is from "the new york times" front page. he is pointing out president obama plans to push congress to move quickly on an ambitious overhaul of the immigration system that would include a path to citizenship. this weekend, we focused on democrats urging the president to bypass republicans on the issue of the debt. one option democrats have
advocated would involve the president is invoking the 14th amendment to declare a congressional action unnecessary for raising the limit. we show you what the amendment states. let's hear from some of you on this sunday morning. caller: i am calling from chicago. i am trying to figure out why mr. durbin is giving mr. obama information on how to run the country when he cannot run the state of illinois. host: what are you specifically referring to? caller: the debt illinois is in.
i lived in what they call "crook county." i do not know why he is giving the president and vice on how to run the state. host: thanks for the call. from the cover of "the weekly standard" -- louis is joining us from the jacksonville, fla. caller: the tea party people are robbing the nation. they did not allow a contract on supplying the military.
when obama took office, the conservatives speak up. when did they think bush was doing all of this? host: the headline on the egyptian court. this story is getting some attention on this sunday morning. the court reporter please ordering a new trial. james from florida on the independent line. good morning. caller: i love c-span. thank you for it. i have never understood why in the 21st century we need political parties. i hear about disenfranchisement. i have registered as no party preferred. i feel disenfranchised because i am not in a party. why do we need the gigantic machines of the republican and democratic party running our government? host: mary joins us from pennsylvania on the democrats'
line. caller: 11 article -- i read an article concerning the chuck hagel nomination. it said governor mitt romney's father went to vietnam as a general. i think it was as a general or someone who fooled him about what was going on. he came back and said so. he was honest enough to tell the truth. he lost his political career. i do not understand why republicans are not allowed to say the truth. anytime there is talk of war if you are at all against it, your career is lost. maybe ron paul supporters can help bring back reason.
host: senate democrats say we will back the president if he raises the debt limit this is based on a letter sent by harry reid on friday. the store is available online. we asked this question earlier. john has this point on our facebook page. aac is joining us from connecticut on the independent'' line. caller: i would like to point out the fact that these liberals think -- they must be living in a fantasy. they think they heard going to
-- they are going to get rid of high-capacity semi-automatic weapons. what they are going to do is restrict the ownership of high- capacity semi-automatic weapons to criminals. those are the people that will not obey the law. that is what they are ultimately going to achieve. the way i see it is, if a criminal has a 30-round magazine and semi-automatic weapon, i want to have a 31- round magazine. that is my comment. host: thank you for the call. peggy noonan writes congressional republicans have not been able to come with an
overarching strategy on fiscal issues. many feel they are always in the dark and not clear about what their leadership is thinking how what they are about to do. this is talking about money. patricia joins us from florida on the republican line. caller: i would like to make a comment on the debt ceiling. i know we need to raise the ceiling. that is positive. it should go along with the budget. if there is no budget passed, there should be no debt ceiling agreement. republicans are going to get a blank whether there is or is not they need to get their act together and show the american people they can be a party again. quit giving in to the democrats all the time. that is my opinion. thank you for listening. host: "newsmakers" is coming up at the top of the hour. the next caller is joining us
from arkansas. welcome to the program. caller: i would like to comment on the spending and budget cuts. to me, it has become apparent the answer to that would lie in the ability to share resources. host: what kind of resources? caller: the resources already made available to municipalities, the counties, the state levels. in other words, the resources are already out there. the ability to share those resources and inventory them. host: 84 the call. -- thank you for the call. there is a lot of talk about the platinum coin.
it is not an option according to the treasury department. ezra klein says a spokesperson says neither the treasury department or federal reserve believes it should be used to facilitate the production of the platinum coin in for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit. the idea came about in 1997 during the appropriations act. the next call during open phones is peter from massachusetts on the independents' line. caller: of watched the saturday addressed by the president. -- i watched the 7-day address -- i watched the saturday address by the president. there is a lot of urgency on the
street level. we have military actions going on around the world which are completely unbalanced to what is going on. that is pretty much my comment. they are talking up a storm, but they are not coming down to the street. the regular guy is feeling like there's nothing going on. if you make a comment, the label you as against the system. that is about it. host: thank you for the call. one of our viewers is responding to the column. from "the new york times" best- seller list, here is what some of you may be reading. bill o'reilly's book are one and
three. the next call is max from north carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. one quick comment for the group. over the next several decades, the federal government has obligated itself to tens of trillions of dollars in expenditures. that is for a lot of the medicare and social security obligations. those amounts of dwarf " we're talking about now, striking $100 billion from the budget in the name of sequestration. my question for congress and the callers is, is it not unreasonable for us to talk about minor cuts when we cannot
make judgment calls as a nation on how much we're going to promise people in terms of entitlements and federal handouts? we should have a more comprehensive discussion on how much entitlements and benefits taxpayers will pay. host: politico has this story. the new attitude toward the continuing -- brinksmanship, "wake me up one is over." after nearly two years of divided government, the market seemed to treat the crisis as the new normal. investors are no longer hanging on washington's every word leading up to a deal.
"newsmakers" is at the top of the hour. noah joins us from washington, d.c. caller: mike, it is about elliott abrams -- my comment is about elliott abrams. i am disgusted with his comments labeling people as anti-semite when they questioned america's foreign policy and biased stance toward israel. the council on foreign relations have not publicly distance themselves from him or his comments. i think that is telling about this think-tank that claims to be filled with zero wise men of government -- with old wise men of government. they allowed a prominent person to say these atrocious,
completely untrue things. i think is to discredit the organization, especially elliott abrams. host: thank you for the call. this year marks the 50th anniversary of the assassination of john f. kennedy. in an interview with charlie rose, many people are looking back at the kennedy death. robert kennedy, jr., said his father during the warren report as a shoddy piece of craftsmanship adding that he did not by the lone gunman theory. the associated press published a similar story. this is from inside "the washington post." this is from the inauguration of january 20, 1977.
scenes from past inaugurations. this comes at the same time preparations continue today with a rehearsal at the west capital. ronald reagan was the first u.s. president to be sworn in on the west front. prior to that, it was on the east front. you can see the last minute work eight days before the formal inaugural ceremony in washington, d.c. mark joins us from baltimore on the republican line. caller: we in baltimore would like to comment that we appreciate your purple tie. host: there was no intent, but i know what you mean. it was quite a game last night. thank you very much. caller: i did have one comment. as a republican, i think our party needs to learn how to
distinguish the difference between entitlements such as social security and medicare which we have paid for and welfare programs. i think that is what hurt mitt romney's campaign, the inability to distinguish the. host: we will go to harmon from montana. caller: please do not cut me off like he did last time. i want to talk about a good book for people to read called the "family of secrets" by jeff baxter. it gives you insight into really runs our government. it is not us people. it is people who lie us into war and put us trillions of
dollars into debt. the profits should belong to the country we exploit. they do not have the technology to keep up with us. we go ahead and crush them. host: repeat the title of the book. caller: it is called "family of secrets." do not cut me off. host: we have to go to " newsmakers" at the top of the hour. thank you for your comments. we apologize for the technical difficulties with the author. we expect him to join us on the subsequent program. tomorrow morning, gretchen morgenson looks at new changes
in mortgage lending. steve bell will talk with us about the options for the treasury department including the discussion on the 14th amendment. evan perez will talk about the scope of the mission of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and fire arms. thank you for joining us on this sunday. enjoy the rest of your day. have a good week. "newsmakers" is next. another view from the west front of the capital as preparations continue for next week's inauguration. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]