thank you very much. the lunch reception will be held on the second level in the george m. yeager conference center up the spiral staircase. thank you so much for coming. >> on c-span2 tonight, two-term oklahoma senator tom coburn talks about his book, "the debt bomb." followed by the role of religion and social conservatives in politics. and later, a discussion on the future of print journalism. ..

what he said was o.k. quote i can race for my chickens were and he took it all the way to the supreme court and lost that battle. >> host: why do you recount that story? >> guest: because it is a great example of the powers and why do we find ourselves in the place we are in now?

how do we get here? what do we do about it and what are the ramifications? what the only way for the government to make something expensive is for the government to make it affordable. and all you have to do is look at the programs. what were the average inflationary costs of health care and before wheat created medicare and medicaid? dram the same as every other aspect of our inflation. there was no differential between the health care cost now that we have a government program what has happened is health care costs are two or sometimes three times the rate of the average inflation in the economy so what you did as number one you have a supreme court ruling that it was in the best interest of the country to take away the liberties of individuals. the congress had gone outside of the power which lists very specifically with the congress

can do, and yet the supreme court held up the abandonment of the nm trade powers and also the trump and of the tenth amendment >> host: why when it comes to the commerce clause you use that with the supreme court wrote justice in her testimony in you reprint that testimony coming your back-and-forth with of what elena kagan. what was the question you asked about fruits and vegetables? >> guest: the question i ask is can the government told you and mandate to you how many fruits and vegetables to eat in a day. and it really a rises will where is the role for the government in terms of our lives in? can the commerce clause be viewed so wisely as what was

done and children versus the united states. can that be interpreted so wisely that we could eventually get to the point that we could mandate what we are doing? we are doing it right now because the rules from the united states of her fan of agriculture to the schools in terms of what they will feed in the school lunch program. we are having an uprising across the country because of the rejection of the government was saying here's where you have to eat. here's what's available. so the point is one been heat. when the government goes beyond the level of which the present exercise of government i am not against government but i recognize there's limitations in terms of what the government can do but the limitations is based on what we can do well. and as you look at what we are giving matter of fact the debt

bomb exposes that come and the oversight that we've done over the last eight years shows we are not doing it well and the idea is to raise that question in the consciousness of the readers of the dhaka. what the founders say about the general welfare rolls? they describe it if you read the federalist papers a very, very limited commerce clause involvement of the federal government come a very, very limited expos day of what the general welfare calls would be we've taken those terms and markedly expanded them beyond what our founders intended, and the result of that has been a dimunation of our liberties and freedoms. if you go to school and you are by and school lunches and the usda out of washington is telling you what you can eat and when you can't eat rather than

your parents and local school board, i would say an amount of freedom of the parents and also of the children and the school administration have been taking away the move to washington. kosko wouldn't it be good to have less of the city? >> guest: everyone is for less obesity but do you think we can mandate less of the city by government regulation? what that does is it more the idea that there's personal responsibility and personal accountability. the compassion later on in the segment the whole assumption is that can you have freedom and growth of freedom and liberty without personal responsibility and personal accounting undermining and so there is a balance there coming and my opinion having lived almost 65 years and seeing what my freedom and my responsibility was when i

was a young man versus what we've transferred to the federal government i think it's very, very dangerous for the ultimate freedom of our country, and history would put that forward as if you look back on the history of the republic. the same thing is happening to us as has happened to every other republican as the government has grown, the freedom has become diminished. >> host: you write the government today is so massive that it's impossible for any one member of congress to know everything. members have become highly dependent on staff and lobbyists and interests who are all too eager to label their obedience and ignorance of security deliver cause the interest groups takes. >> guest: our motivations actually expand a little bit. our motivations are too often as the members of congress is held dewey please those people who will enable us to stay here.

it's looking at the next election to a greater and a stronger point than looking at your oath of office looking at the country in the long term regardless of how it affects your political career. >> host: is careerism in your view a form of corruption? >> guest: i don't think it's corruption and it is natural human nature. the people of congress are great people by and far well intentioned. they love our country. they want what is best for the country provided they can still have a say so you get the natural tension of i do what's best for the country even though

it hurts my political career and those very courageous people will do that routinely. when your desire is for position and power and the original desire was well-intentioned and well meaning and you can't use and rationalize that position against standing outside of that looking if i was not partisan, if i was not in political position what would be the best position for the country and they get conflicted wine because our desire for position and power or political career. so i'm not critical. i think public schools -- public-service is a wonderful

thing that we have transitioned to often especially in the senate to people that have very limited exposure to the real world outside of the political realm, and that is very different than what we had in the first 100 years in the country's history. most of the people had broad ranges of experience in the private sector. and in other areas of life and they brought that information experience, wisdom, gray-haired to solve the wisdoms and problems of the country to get and that is more limited now. i hardly will ever vote for somebody that's a career politician. you know, and the reason is as a physician camano human nature. i see it. i see both the positives and the negatives, but i also have gotten to see as a senator and i

saw some as a member of congress because i wrote on this and in the breach for trust hell that gets intersected and undermined and ultimately not in the best interest of taxpayers to be >> host: you wrote this when you're elected in 1994, the so-called new gingrich revolution the. going into congress in 1994 what was your enthusiasm level and what was your thought process? >> guest: i thought we were going to fix and address the problems of our country. i thought we believed what we believed, what we campaigned on and i was awakened to the fact that, you know, that's what we said, but as soon as we became a majority, we decided staying in power was more important than doing what we promised. and so consequently, and you saw after 96 what you saw was my

party pretty well abandoned spending restraint or after 97 essentially the budget deal of 97 abandoned spending restraint, and one of the reasons that we are in trouble today has to do with republicans speaking one thing and doing the other. >> host: how long before you were disillusioned? >> guest: even in the house? >> guest: >> host: yes. >> guest: probably two years. i saw hands of it. i saw people starting to shift. how do we stay here, how do we enhance our majority in other words my thought is this, it is wonderfully okay to lose an election if you do it based on principle and sticking to the core values that you promised

your voters he would do. >> host: in breach of trust how washington's urges outsiders and insiders, you write ten things congress doesn't want you to know about what does business. number one, the appropriations committee staff knows more about the content of spending bills than he elected representatives serving on that committee. number two, congress routinely used as emergency spending measures to permanently increase spending. number three, members are routinely bribed for votes by being given total control over millions of dollars to be used for their pet projects. do you want to address any of those first three? >> guest: well, let's address the third one first. if you have a transportation bill and they want your vote on the transportation bill what they will do this call you up and say where do you want to spend this 40 or 60 or

$80 million. so here you as a member of congress can go and political the benefit either your weak areas i say and look up this road i built for your town or this bridge i put over the water for you all. in other words, i can use the power of the purse to enhance my own standing personally. and when that was offered to become a first of all take the court of it and i put it out. >> host: and the was a phone call from the transportation committee schuster at a time. >> guest: i put it down because there is no way i know where the next stop light ought to be in oklahoma. there's no way i know what the number one priority is and so when the same thing happened in the senate of long after i came to the senate by director of the money that was transferred to me via think it was $80 million to go to the state department of transportation director who is from oklahoma who has the

responsibility of making the priorities and working with oklahoma legislature. but it is interesting other than the interstate system and the areas where we truly have commerce. local roads and oklahoma, local bridges and oklahoma held we ever get it to where the federal government was deciding what our priorities are going to be in those areas? actually that is a great example of how we have transferred power from citizens to washington and we consume a portion of it and come back but then we will tell you where you will spend the money rather than the citizens of the state of oklahoma deciding where their tax money will be spent. so again i would tell you, transportation costs a whole lot more to build a mile of highway today because we've tried to make it available and it's become expensive because we have added all of these rules and

regulations, all of these requirements. you know, a large portion, about 18% of the federal highway budget doesn't go to build the first bridge highway or road committee goes for enhancement. it's not something the people of oklahoma necessarily want. they could do that if they want to but we mandate the percentage you have to spend on something other than that from the gas tax from putting gas in your car. to me that is ludicrous. those are nice things but, you know, the debt bomb is about was getting ready to happen to our country. why it's getting ready to happen and what the possible solutions to get out of it are. here is a great example of how we got in trouble in the first place because what our founders believed was that we were to have a very limited central government, and i absolutely believe that we should have a limited central government, it should be authoritative in terms of the area that we gave it

responsibility but beyond that, what you do is you totally devonish all these laboratories of experimentation and all these regional differences when you take it and pull that power away and send it in washington what you are doing is markedly diminishing the liberties and freedoms of the people outside of washington. >> host: is that money attempting? >> guest: not for me. look, when i ran for the senate one of my campaign themes is i'm not bringing home anything to oklahoma. and the reason is there is no money here. anything we send you home we are stealing from your children today. i mean, remember out of the $3.6 trillion last year was spent, 1.2 trillion of it we borrowed from our children. we didn't borrow it from the chinese, we borrowed it from the people who will ultimately pay it back so is attempting to

spend money and enhance yourself? i'm sure it is, but the point is to me it is a moral wrong to steal it from the next generation because what you're really doing is stealing their opportunity to be free. and if you look in the context of history that's how every other republican died. we are doing the same things that every other republic experienced before they collapsed. the whole reason for the debt bomb, the reason i wrote this is that people can understand where we are and how we got there and what the solutions are. we go through back in black and we list 9 trillion. we've got to the gao to outline for us a duplication of the federal government. they've gone through two-thirds of that now. the last report will come and may of this year. they've already identified 200 areas where we have multiple

programs doing exactly the same thing with no oversight by congress, no metrics to see if it's working and that comes close to $200 billion a year in wasted money, wasted money that is not enhancing what it was intended to do or not facilitating what was intended to do. >> host: you have duplication and federal programs, science, technology, engineering and mathematics education programs. there are 209 of those. surface transportation 100 plus, teacher quality come 82 programs, economic development 88, transportation assistance, the epa financial literacy, 56 different programs, job training 47 different job training programs, homelessness prevention and assistance, 20 programs, food for the hungry 18, and disaster response preparedness 17 friend programs.

>> guest: it's not just outlandish that we have that many programs. what is also outlandish is we don't know if they are working because when they are passed there's nothing that says you have to have a metric to see if it is accomplishing the goal and the biggest defect of the congress since i've been here is the total lack of oversight of most of the programs. >> host: kube recounts a story about taking an amendment to the senate floor to get rid of some of these duplication -- duplicative programs. what happened? >> guest: well, we have had one for $2 million passed all the rest have failed. >> host: why? >> guest: because all of these programs have constituencies. by the way, we found another 50 to programs for job training for the disabled so we actually have 106 job-training programs or 100

- that we spend $24 billion a year and we've pretty well demonstrated most in oklahoma. we studied the mahlon oklahoma. i had my field reps say how are these working in oklahoma? what we pretty well figured out as the federal programs don't work the lunsford out side of the federal government and the states run themselves do work. so you know, the question is if there is a role for the federal government and job training shouldn't it be efficient, shouldn't it be effective and should congress be looking to see how it works? shouldn't we have metrics on it and should we have 57 different progress or 47 different programs that cost $19 billion a year? should we know if we are getting value for our money and so what happens in congress is if you question that, the first thing people will do is you don't want people to get a job to training in other words you get demonized so i've pretty much gotten used

to being demonized. there isn't something i won't take on if i don't think it is appropriate for us to look at. but most people won't do that because they don't want to get labeled saying i don't want to help people with job training. i don't want to be accused of not solving the problem, so therefore, cover my eyes, ears and mouth and let it continue. ask yourself this, thomas jefferson said there is no role for the federal government and education. if we want one we need to pass an amendment to the constitution to do it. now he was for changing the constitution to get a role for education but he said how is it that we have all of these teacher training programs run by the federal government costing a million dollars a year run out of washington to train teachers who are actually a local and community and state

responsibility? how do we get there? and by the way, does anybody know if they are actually improving teacher training? actually improving the skills of our teachers? so there are two questions. one is what is the constitutional role of the federal government and number two if there is a legitimate role or even if there isn't, you are spending money, shouldn't you know? shouldn't we when we pass this say here are the metrics that we are going to measure whether or not teachers are effective or whether the teacher training programs are effective? >> host: this month on our book tv in that program, senator tom coburn who was also a medical doctor anna m. author he wrote the debt bomb this past year, breach of trust cannot in 2003 and he's also the author of several different long formed reports including this one back in black which came out in july of 2011.

he will be our guest the next two and a half hours we will put the numbers on the screen if you would like to dial and join our conversation 202-58-5380 if you live in east and central time zone 585-3881 for those of you in the mountain and pacific time zones, and of course you can reach us through e-mail come at rhetoric and facebook you can make comments on the social media platforms. booktv@c-span.org is our e-mail address and our twitter handle is@book tv. finally on facebook, facebook.com/book tv you will see it posted right there on the home page and you can add a comment and we will get to as many of those as possible. back to breach of trust, senator coburn. >> guest: by the way it is coming back in paperback this january. >> host: just in time for christmas or the new year. back to ten things congress doesn't want you to know about

how it does business. member for, powerful members of congress and state non-competitive seats often hold fund-raisers outside their districts to increase their leverage over other members. number five, congress spends more than 100 billion every year on well over 200 programs that are not authorized by law, and number six, congress routinely grades the social security trust fund to cover general revenue shortfalls. >> guest: if you look at the appropriation bills which have not been done the last two years because of the political dynamic that's going on and you go in and say we are appropriating x amount of money and then you look at how many programs, it's actually up to three injured $50 billion now of programs that are funded that are not authorized by the congress, which tells you that there is an imbalance in congress how to be

appropriate funds for a program that we haven't said we should be spending money on? and it tells you the power of the appropriations committee and the power of the poor or the benefit of what's going back to the states of what's most important. is it most important to look good in oklahoma by the amount of money that i can direct or is it more important to think in the long term what is the health of our country going to be in the long run and how do we make those tough decisions and politically it puts you on the losing side of every argument based on the force up here. but you have to work hard to explain yourself and your state. >> host: number seven members of congress frequently do not have the opportunity to read the bills they are voting on. number eight, one of the more secret and anti-democratic ways in which congress spends is directing money in report language that only members of

the committee to vote on or amend. number nine, each year congress spend countless hours preparing and debating a budget resolution it has no intention of keeping and finally, number ten, congress circumvents its own budget limits and avoids public scrutiny by exploiting its own arcane budget procedures. >> guest: with those are all true. >> host: the budget resolution, we are about to begin that season and february. is it a waste of time? >> guest: no come and look, right now we have a $3.65 trillion spending. the big criticism of the last two years congress is grid blind. every week? how we authorize spending $6.5 trillion? we are spending money that we don't have on things that are

not absolutely necessary to be the that's what we are gridlocked over, and we are gridlocked over that so that we can make ourselves look good to our constituencies. so there is no gridlock when it comes to spending your kid's future in washington. we wouldn't have spent 3.6 trillion as we have had a budget last year. but we did a continuing resolution that passed which means it's bipartisan, it passed the republican house and democratic sen and the president signed it yet we are of $2 trillion we didn't have of which i would contend 600 billion was we stand, literally did no benefit directly for the citizens of this country other than those that took the money to administer or develop or give out the program. succumbing you know, you could look with rwanda and just say every program stand up that's

actually effective -- they've done their job and they turn a blind eye and they say it's hard to oversight and besides i'm going to get criticisms when i do, so therefore let it go. so it goes back. and now we are in that last year $350 billion worth of programs. we are appropriated money that had either never been authorized by congress, or the authorization has lapsed. so it means the authorizing committees in congress are not working because if we are going to appropriate money for other is authorized or not, why not just have an authorized appropriating committees and put them all into one so we totally ignore our own rules. >> host: how much fear is there among the members of

congress of their constituents of criticisms of not being reelected? >> guest: i think it runs the gamut, but i think you need to look at me be a larger perspective. i was a businessman long before i was a physician, built a business. i became a physician as an older individual once i was known as grand paul and my medical school class and practiced for 25 years my goal was to be a physician. i wasn't at the rest of my thought he was other than my reputation with my physicians and my patience. if you put it in context it depends on what the goal of the house member of the house of representatives or the center is to be difficult is to fix the problems in the country to create at least a good future

for the next generations that follow us as we have had come and if that goal is above your personal of getting an office that has no variety, power and position, that you are going to define because you are going to keep that year in perspective. it's the position or the notoriety and the secondary goal that helped you get to that goal is to secure the future, what happens is how you value your position on certain policies changes. that is not in pure, that's not terrible, that is just human nature. succumb i make the point in the debt bomb if you are ever going to solve this problem, if we are ever going to secure a liberty and the freedoms for our kids

and our grandkids come and you've got to quit sending career politicians. >> host: did you get any hostile reaction from your colleagues on the debt bomb or the breach of trust? >> guest: i did some on breach of trust. i don't think that my colleagues have read the debt bomb but i am sitting here talking to you about this and i made speeches in my own caucus and i do that on the floor. i know kate to take the consternation of criticism of my colleagues i actually think our country is in trouble we are bankrupt. there's a great article. if you take generally accepted accounting principles the same thing c-span has to operate under, the same thing every other businesses to operate most county governments operate under wheat right now have $88 trillion of things we have to pay for but we have no idea where we are going to get the money over the next 70,000 years

88 trillion. that's about 1.05 trillion more bills coming due than what we have over the next 75 years. if you didn't grow the government or the economy at all why would we put ourselves in a position? so the fact is that federal reserve has increased its balance sheet and other birds excreted $2 trillion worth of funding money. the printed $2 trillion worth of funding money and that haven of that is going to fall on the middle class and the very poor in this country. and it's going to defeat what both parties say they want. yet we don't have the courage today to make the tough choices even if it means we lose our seats to secure the future of this country. we put ourselves first instead

of the country first. it's not hard if any american citizen at the read back and black go to our website and read it, there is a lot of common sense ways to save money. this is a great example in the federal government this year we are going to spend $64 billion on i.t. projects that 64 billion. the gao says at least half of that will be wasted. in other words it will never get completed never do what it's supposed to do. you want to cancel this. we said this two years ago we ought to cancel this because it is never going to work. here's how inefficient the government is. this last week, the air force canceled it finally comes into another $100 million for the canceled it they pay the settlement fee to cancel that of

$8 million but two things didn't happen. the person that was responsible for that contract didn't get fired and was until accountable and the company that didn't provide the service didn't get sued to get our money back, the taxpayers of the country. nobody runs their household that way. most state governments don't operate that way. but we are totally incompetent when it comes to spending america's taxpayers money we would least $32 billion a year on the i.t. programs that don't work for the federal government that 60% for the one to take out. and that is government-wide. why would we do that where is the leadership in congress to say we are going to get this stopped we will have a special subcommittee to say look at this, look at the bad actors and we are going to demand the people that make those decisions

get fired and the companies that are not performing pay the money back. none of that happens so you can be fraught the federal government if you can do it with impunity and that's because members of congress are basically not willing or inexperienced to not know that you ought to be able to hold people accountable for what they say they are going to do, whether it is a federal employee, a procurement employees or the company that's providing it and that is an example that happened this week. >> guest: my father started the business for farming products, and i started the plastic lens and interocular lenses.

what is it 69 in the summer of 2008 to host code as the company still exist? >> guest: it was sold and parts of it have been some portions of it still exist. >> host: how old were you when you went to medical school? >> guest: 32. >> host: what occurred to you to go to medical school at 32? >> guest: i really kind of had it down when the business was sold i was working for other people that build a pretty good size business and profitable and so that the interest of our people who didn't have an interest in the business but one of the profits only rather than a product and the price and the service. and you practiced for 25 years are you still? >> guest: this is the first year i've not practice. >> host: are you retired officially or chose not to practice? >> guest: i couldn't afford to

continue to pay the malpractice insurance and as a senator can to build or offset the contest. >> host: as a senator deutsch are not allowed to earn an income as a doctor. do you plan on going back? >> guest: it depends how far back by emi continuing to medical education. >> host: where did you grow up? >> guest: casper wyoming and grew up in tesco depue >> host: in your father built a business. what did your mother do? >> guest: my mother raised four kids. i married and i have a lovely wife, my high school sweetheart and three daughters, three son-in-law's and seven grandchildren. >> host: does your wife lived

back in muskogee or travel with you? >> guest: she lives in muskogee read and i go home every weekend i commute the one thing i said i would do this is an exceptional weekend that i've stayed here for the show i need that both emotionally and mentally to get back into perspective of what people outside of washington think. to me there is a dearth of common sense or is a wave of common sense, and i can go back home. i will go to a barbecue place. my place barbecue and oklahoma and get all sorts of advice for people walking in the overhauls or wherever it is i can learn a lot by being home to get >> host: in breach of trust you write wherever members of congress go it seems everyone is reminding us that we are at the center of the universe. the typical meeting with

constituents or business groups begin with them showering praise at the feet of their representative. >> guest: if you want something what is the best way to do it? sugar or sour? but it's -- i guess i would say it's important in life when you get your strokes and if you get your strokes from your job or from other people you are going to have a tough time in life because you are going to make some critical mistakes. i get mine from my face and my family and i think my face especially allows me -- am i face allows me to stand stronger when i'm attacked because i really think about and really pray about and try to think long

term. i'm not running again ever for political office. when i ran for the senate i said i want serve more than two terms. it was a tough decision for me to do this a second six years. so, you know, to me i don't have to face the voters. so i can speak pretty well plame but the question ought to be asked why can't use the play and if you are meeting the voters facing the voters? where is the courage and character which is what i think is really lacking largest in the elected leaders across a great portion of the country in terms of those character traits that will better resolve and secure our future? >> host: you talk about your face. are you christian? >> guest: ibm. >> host: when it comes to being a senator in congress have you ever had a lapse where you've gone and for that?

>> guest: sure. look, it's easy to fall prey. that's the struggle of all of our lives isn't it? we put ourselves first or somebody else first. the essence of a well lived life is what you do for other people and not what you do for yourself. you are and bring to be measured on how you gained. you are measured on how you how other people game and so it is easy to fall into that deceitful trout. what i actually found in life is my most contended moments is when i'm getting my life away to somebody else rather than building up my own life. >> host: final question before we go to calls. >> guest: it is the idea that people work continually to try

to achieve the level of being in the center in the know making the critical decisions. and what do you do to get their? it's kind of like c. s. lewis said peeling an onion. first you take the wrapper off of the onion and then you peel every layer and when you've got the last layer what do you have? there's nothing left. it's taking every layer of and so it is a false pursuit probably the paradox is if you don't pursue the inner ring and you pursue given your life to other people that you are going to be in the interim. >> host: senator tom coburn as a guest on and on booktv. tom you are the first caller.

>> caller: i work in social security as a claims representative. i see that there is so much we can do. i think we should go back to 1935. we can't support these people. we can't support people having four wives, people better 65 having kids. we can't support people deciding at 66 going from the widows to retirement go back to 1935. >> caller: if you raise the age you will have construction

workers, people who do manual labor the are going to apply for the stability as 62 and raise the rates. >> host: i apologize i thought we had finished with you. senator coburn do you believe the social security age should be raised. the social security age should be raised but you can do what he's worried about the guys that do forced heavy manual labor you can create a category in there that qualifies them not for disability but it raises some great questions and actually she has a great idea if you go back to the qualifications on social security that were set in 1935, remember retirement was at 65. average life expectancy was 64. and this is a great example. it's a little bit critical, but it shows you what the politics

have done and what we have done through the years is added benefits to social security without adding a tax stream to pay for it. and i will give you a couple of examples. today the people that are on social security, and not talking disability come i'm not talking ssi and by not talking survivors and talking social security will collect $21 trillion more in real dollars that they put in more than they put in and that is going to grow that's just social security if you look at social security disability more than 17 people in this country today are collecting social security disability there's not many people in oklahoma that i ask that actually believe one of

every 17 people in this country. so what happened. how we have more than 17 people in this country on disability? s. con. res.'s problem. they failed oversight come and so during the last four years we've added more people to social security disability than we've created in more jobs. most people don't realize that. and it's my belief that some 30% of those are not truly disabled according to them all. so, we have all of these problems, and i feel that you are -- your callers suggestion to go back and look at what our commitment was in 1935 and try to compare it to what our commitments for today and how do we do that. the people that were get social security are great people. the problem is that the judge is hardly ever listened to. somebody going to disability has already been denied twice by

professionals at the social security administration. and then what we have is judges who actually probably a third of the tying don't do the correct work and follow the guidelines that are set out for them to it by talking administrative law judges and so we have seen this ballooning disability payment which by the way medicare disability trust fund will be out of money in two years, at the end of 2014, totally out of money which means everybody that is truly disabled will be getting their reduction in the amount of their payments every month. on your salary over the next 18 years were scheduled to go to $198,000 in other words that will be taxed up to $198,000 we

will probably eventually have to go higher than that. but when we do that, that means those that are paying those higher amounts are actually getting paid out more. so, we have to figure out a way to fund that. we get excess money up until 2010 and social security. the government wrote an iou and then we turned around and said rather than save that money, we turned around and spent eight because johnson created the unified budget so we no longer had that fire wall. and so all of a sudden now, we go to planned 6 trillion to social security that we are going to have to go borrow for social security which is around 2030 the regular social security program. >> host: matthew posts on the face page senator coburn, three questions. one of his social security and other social and insurance programs like medicare and

medicaid infringe on personal responsibility? number two, cbo reports that federal health spending will dominate mandatory spending by the mid 2013 s. we will go with those questions. there's been a lot of psychological and sociological research on this. if you think somebody else will take care of you and your government saying we will, then you are less likely to plan or prepare for that. and cbo is right. that is why the coming tsunami of my generation, which i will hit 65 in march and there's replete 5 million this next year that become eligible for medicare and the next year 3.5 million become eligible for social security because that was in the tip o'neill ronald reagan

fax that's why that demographics are so important when you have health care costs rising. so it is a hard question. but the government has done has undermined our personal responsibility because if i can pay a flat fee at the beginning of the year for monthly to where i have no other payment on my health care, if i on medicare and i don't have to worry about it most of the time i am going to do that. but what does that do to the consumption or over consumption of health care? a lot of your listeners will be offended at this but when we study it, we know it's true if you are a medicare patient and you don't have a supplemental policy and have the exact same diseases at as one that does come exactly the same outcomes except the ones with supplemental policies consume 23% more medicare dollars, what

does that tell us? what that tells us is if we know we are not paying any more for something, then we tend to over consumed. we will be less frugal if you are telling me i can go to the mall this afternoon after we finish. by my christmas presents on your credit card will ids frugal with your credit card as i would with mind? the answer is human nature and the studies will show you know, it's not. what we have to do? there is a second thing that i think is important. when we undermine personal responsibilities of individuals, we actually oftentimes don't help them, we actually hurt them because what we do is we put a glass ceiling on the ability for them. i have this young a constituent

in tulsa oklahoma who is a young african-american male whose mother's boyfriend hit him when he was i can't remember a teenager in the british neck and he became a quadriplegic and he's worked very hard the rest of his life but he was caught in the straub. he works for one of the oil companies in tulsa. if he got a raise, because he's quadriplegic and he's single he has to have help. if he got a raise he would lose medicaid help for his health care, and by talking if you're quadraplegic you do need somebody to help you at night in the mornings, etc.. what is our program? our program is if you get to the next point you lose it all. rather than have a program that tapers off your benefit as you rise in your income. so we don't have that anywhere in the country where we can meaningfully encourage people to

grow and achieve what they can and yet we have to take off on disability. if we are certain now we lose the disability. maybe you can lose a portion of it and continue to expand your horizons and the accomplishments to where you could eventually get off of it we have someone in oklahoma by the name of jason price who works with our disabled, and over the last several years has had 4,000 people he's put to work that were truly disabled, and about 1800 of them right now are totally off disability but he's doing is allowing them to accomplish things rather than putting a ceiling in that says you can't do this but he is a state program pity he has nothing to do with federal program. and so, the tragedy, and that's why interested in talking about the tragedy of american compassion, the tragedy is that

people do not achieve what they possibly could they put a limit on what they can do because they've participated in something rather than be a helping hand we have become the supplier and said once you do this we are no longer your supplier. >> host: next call from senator coburn comes from shock in casper wyoming. >> caller: i'm from the city of your birth. i respect you, senator as a true legislature of you use the floor on your positions as effectively and that is why i would like to get your opinion of the future of the republican party and the conservative movement. i'm very interested in the idea of returning to what in the 1970's and 80's was called feed pressure conservatism. pro-life and federalism in a way that people will stop being so

focused on the federal government solving so many problems and focus on solving those problems locally kind of what you were talking about earlier about the issues being decided out of washington, and that makes the conservatives on populist and a different kind of way than the words we typically use it is populace because the government would then again be up for people because people would realize the government trusts them to solve their own problems. but the department is doing on the prevented from fully being a sagebrush conservative party and the other profession to the question i have is you mentioned in a press conference for the deficit-reduction plan. is there a way that you can also write a budget that could be published in a similar format? thank you. >> guest: let me answer the question on the budget first. people have taken what is in the back in black. the senator mike lee, ron paul

have done in essentially the same thing. nine to $10 trillion. so, yes it can be done. since i got on the budget committee, i've chosen not to do that but you could implement what is am back in black and negotiate off of that and you could actually go a long way toward solving the problems and by the way it is a trillion dollars worth of revenue increases. as we said that out there for a year-and-a-half. so it's possible that we see the revenue actually across-the-board the way that it should be rather than the hill and sometimes dimond hill and getting a leg up on those others in the system. you know, i am not a big party guide. i made freedom and liberty%. i've made my share of mistakes as a senator in terms of some of my votes. but i think the founding principles ought to be what we ought to be increasing. and history tells us that republics don't survive when you

no longer have the character traits and the personal responsibility that is necessary for that. so, you could have a sagebrush conservative populist movement, but it would have to be increased across the country that says we would like to have some of our freedom back and with that we would take on more responsibilities. but i'm not sure people went to bed after this next election thinking that we were more divided country than the senate defeat the center of right country that we may be past the point where all the republics by when people learn that they can vote for themselves things from the treasury then the fiscal calamity happens, and ultimately the republic crashes. i am not saying that is going to happen to us but i think it is certainly a threat and if you look at our budget deficits and a look at the risk for the debt

that we have, i think that is why i wrote the debt bomb i wanted people to see what was really going to happen to us and what's really going to happen to us is the decimation of the middle class and for the very poor in this country they are going to be lessened as a consequence of us not living within our means. >> host: senator coburn you say you are not much of a party guy. jesse zero kurt tweets to you how can republicans learn again how to effectively message from the contract with america? >> guest: one of my comments after the key election is people don't care what you think until they know that you care. and i don't think that republicans articulated what they were for and what was important and what was at stake.

i actually -- my belief is we are going to have to suffer some of the consequences of our poor governing over both the republican and the democratic administrations. and when those consequences start happening and i think they've been happening in the last two years and they are quite be much worse in the next to, that people will either a weekend or give up. i have worries about what will happen to us when things change in this country in terms of unwinding of civil discourse. ..

>> host: you put content but on some criteria. give her leave only after personal investigations of each case. if only immediately necessary articles, give what if we susceptible to abuse, give only in small quantities in proportion to immediate need unless it might be procured by labor. except in the cases of sickness. give it the right moment that it is needed. the choir of each beneficiary, discontinue relieving also manifest a purpose who depend on assistance. then you write if the american

people practice these principles in their own families and communities and neighborhoods and require government to do the same, we would solve our debt crisis. >> yes, we would. >> guest: it is important that when we go to help somebody, that we don't just help their immediate need. that we give them the courage and the confidence and support to help themselves. my contention is too often in our parts of compassion, our well-meaning ms. we have lost a lot of the ability to allow people to help themselves. senator jeff sessions just put out, i think in october, the

senate budget committee looked at all the programs and what the average family beneficiary was on all the social welfare programs. it is around $50,000 per year. her family. well, think about that. that is greater than the cap of the average family income in the united states. so we now move those. this is not to deny anyone who really needs our help, but what we have now done is we have a safety net that is equal to the average per capita income in this country. and so what that does is it takes away any incentive to better yourself in terms of the benefit. that is significant. very significant in terms of motivations and people bettering themselves and people reaching higher.

that is a worrisome statistic. >> host: shannon from portland oregon. >> caller: hello, thank you, senator coburn for being here. >> i am a young democrat. we have crossed this bridge before. although we were not quite as great of a situation. [inaudible] going back to what we did, and doing large-scale infrastructure projects, getting people back to work so that we can start pay down the debt. >> guest: i don't think there is anything wrong with that. but you can't do both.

much of what it means is a large component of labor, compared to what we have today. if you think of building roads and bridges, i wouldn't race that if we did that to where we could do it. it was set by the federal government on what was important to them. there is a big difference in costs living in this country. so what you, and we never take that into consideration, except in medicare payment fees, we don't take that into consideration in terms of any other products. so i would not reject that at all.

>> host: abraham from tennessee. please go ahead with your comments for senator coburn. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a fan of the jack welsh principals for congress. members of every election only keep the tempers and deducted. my question to you, senator, do you consider yourself a 10% of being productive in congress, and can you elaborate on what specifically you have done to reduce our government deficit. >> guest: yes, i would be happy to. >> host: that quote is directly from "the debt bomb." >> guest: yes, nobody in the senate or congress has done more than i have or my staff cuts. when i was a majority member and a committee chair, we did more oversight in those two years

than the rest of the entire senate bid in terms of looking at where the problems are. my contention is that the american people know, you would fire 90% of us. you may even fire 100% of us. but the fact is there are large amounts of your future and your children's future is being wasted everyday because we won't do the hard work of identifying waste and then changing the programs and putting metrics on it so that they actually accomplish something. we have so many cuts that nobody in america would feel except for the people who are directly getting the money on administering the programs. i would invite you to look at all the oversight. we want to eliminate waste and duplication and fraud.

look at those and then ask yourself why the other 90 senators haven't done the same thing. the problem is i can have a debate on the floor and there could be two or three senators there, but the rest of the senators don't know why. and the staff will look at it because they are still trying to figure out how to get it at the state level rather than for the country. >> host: here are some of senator coburn's books, "subsidies of the rich and famous", "money for nothing, oklahoma waste report: exposing washington's wasteful spending habits in our own backyard", that was a 600 page report. did you think about publishing that in book form? >> guest: i do that with federal money. and people can get it on the website. there is $9 trillion.

there are tax increases and revenue enhancements and $7 trillion worth of spending reductions, which would put us in 10 years to balance the budget and after 10 years, pay off our debt. >> host: when you talk about tax increase increases, and revenue enhancement, what you say about that? >> guest: if you look at what we put out in subsidies for the rich and famous, it creates benefits in the tax codes that benefit themselves. it benefits the average person. so we outlined 29 billion per

year. it looks like those under 200,000 get the majority of it. but when you look at the average household income. if you look at the average american, everybody above that takes about 85%. that is where the more well-to-do american. who will support that? well, we can't have home-building without direction. what most people don't realize that in canada you get and no mortgage interest deduction. there is none. a higher homeownership day than

we do. so we have the deduction for the benefit of homeowners or was it for the benefit of home builders? or was it for the benefit of the very wealthy? we have asked those questions and what we are talking about before we just say that we must have a mortgage interest deduction. what you see is those making one and a half or two times what the average person in this country makes. >> host: according to senator coburn in 2006 and 2009, in 2007, taxpayer costs to the treasury of mortgage interest adopted by minors, $8.6 billion. in 2009, $4.4 billion was the

cost to the treasury. 143,000, 441 millionaires and mortgage interest deduction. we have to ask everyone a fair tax code and should we treat everyone the same. i would tell you that we shared. >> host: gambling losses deducted by minors. $4.1 billion for the average amount of gambling losses deducted for billionaire. $504,000.783. >> guest: why should we deduct on a game of chance? i mean, here is a way to get

10 million, $15 billion per year. we start being honest and transparent with what we are doing with the taxpayer. i don't think we ought to raise rates. i think we ought to have mendicant adjustments with what we do to the tax codes. because we have legislated to the benefit. i was recently attacked because i ran after the ethanol blend. you know, the states attacked me. but the fact is we were paying large oil companies fortysomething cents per gallon to blend ethanol into gasoline that they had to do by law anyhow. so we saved $6 billion per year and 36% of my republican colleagues said that we shouldn't pay.

so by the way, all the debate in washington that violates the grove or more quest protection pledge. because you took away a tax break without giving an additional tax breaks for miles. we ought to do is give a break to our kids. >> host: next call from betty in washington. you have been very patient. >> caller: thank you, senator senator coburn. i have to comment thread one on social security. i have a brother who has children under the age of 18 years old and he received $1200 a month in social security. i about dropped when i heard that because he and his wife might need that money i never even knew that older americans who had children were allowed to

get social security for those children. i was floored. the other comment was if the consumer has the money in the game as far as health care, remember i think i overused by medical insurance. as soon as it went $25, i woke up and thought, okay, i don't want to pay this much just to go in for a cold or something. and i will sit it out and deal with it. and it is amazing how human nature works that way. >> guest: i think you are right on. you make it easy for me to not be responsible and most of the time i'm going to choose the path not to be responsible. but there is a legitimate position that we as americans ought to say. for our fellow citizens, if you

are sick, and you are in trouble, there should not be a way for you to lose your home and lose your life savings. if we are going to have true in government and health care, we ought to have at the indemnification where no one loses their lives because of the health issue. we ought to ensure the maximum amount you are ever going to pay rather than the minimum amount. >> host: this e-mail, i am always puzzled about intelligent people, such as senator coburn, often confuse this with the budget deficit. the only connection i know between the federal budget is the treasury bond in which the funds are invested. if the government were to default on its obligation, then

the deficit would be lowered by not having to repay those as well as those debts to all others such as myself. other than that absurd scenario, what connection do we have and why do politicians conflate the two? >> guest: that is a good criticism. >> if you look at washington in the early '80s, they fix social security. they fixed it. it is supposed to be fixed. in less than 20 years, benefits for social security based on the demographics and the taxes and everything else are going to decline. so if you're 45 years old now, you probably would welcome us so that your benefit doesn't go down between now and then. the second reason is because this government, our country is

buying $100 million a month. -- excuse me, or printing a hundred billion dollars, depending on this. the only way we wanted those bonds is to get our budget and control. we are never going to make it and that is another point i would like to make in this show. we are never going to make it there. it's never going to happen. the point is that we have to pay back the $2.6 trillion. would we get the money to do that if we are not solving these other problems over here on the non-social security budget? so let's just say we default tomorrow on $2.6 trillion? blaster we had to put into the fund about $70 billion of

borrowed money and we have reduced the bond payments and indebtedness by about 70%. either way, it costs the same amount. one for interest on the other for inflation. we will eventually have to pay that money back. so i would go back to what i said earlier. politicians have continued the benefits without increasing the payments. so all you have to do is look at the trustees report. paying in more than the people collected in social security. so they are both tied together because ultimately the government is responsible for that. because it will never happen.

because too many people in this country have relied upon and planned for a certain amount of dollars. politicians will never say, sorry, you just can't have that. and this is the danger of where we are. the worst trap in the world is inflation. it will kill the middle income and lower income in this country. it also hurt the poor. what is happening is that we print or create money and ultimately that will create inflation. what that says if you own a home today, the purchasing power of the home ultimately will be left in the purchasing power of your ira or your 401k or your savings

account will be less because the dollars will be worth less. it is a tax increase and everyone in america. including the very wealthy. but they are the ones that will not markedly change their standard of living. so we should not be computers. we are in deep trouble right now, and if we don't put a plan in the next 18 months that eliminates $46 trillion, you will see another debt downgrade. even if we get an agreement. the dynamics of inflation that is coming and demographics that we can't change is going to overwhelm the system. you can read the social security trustees report and it will scare you to death.

because the money just will not be there. >> host: the next call for senator coburn. georgian virginia. good afternoon. paco i don't think most americans realize that if you were a german founder, you would be both as a state politician or lieutenant governor and as a u.s. senator. they have a very different approach to the federal government than we do. but maybe it is time to consider repealing the 17th amendment and restoring state legislatures. i was curious about your reaction. >> host: tell us about your book that is self published. >> caller: yes, it is gridlock, and it is self published. like the senator says, the people are trying to do the best for the country, but the system has gone out of whack. and we kind of need a

constitution 4.0 to reset things. >> guest: thank you for calling in. well, the one problem i would have with that is most of the legislature -- state legislature around the country have become as partisan in terms of their positions as the federal government has. and the other thing is in oklahoma, we don't have any long-standing members any longer. i'm agnostic as to whether we should do that or not. i think the number one key to having a senator ought to be.

>> host: we have a tweet for you, senator. which issue have you been most demonized for? one have your husband tried to do the right thing? >> guest: when i wanted accountability on the funds coming out of new york where the funds for katrina. and the civil rights crimes were actually worked with a guy who is trying to do that, and i blocked it until i could make it effective. those words hurt. but those words, they are not true. so if you feel good about yourself, trying to do the right thing all the big tax network

people came up to me and said that we have clear oversight. i have had several areas like that. but i'm kind of used to doing it and i'm pretty careful. i think every penny we spend on to be spent. so i don't mind taking questions to try to figure out where we will spend the money and whether or not it will be spent effectively and whether we will be able to have the transparency to see whether it is fair and effective. >> host: this is tom coburn's final term. how many times did you serve in the house? we have built from california.

>> caller: is a privilege to talk to you, senator coburn. you're one of my very few heroes >> you are one of the few that really run the place correctly. and there should be abstracts from this interview and at some point having said that, two things. your latest book, "the debt bomb", you talk about the careerists. you talk about the people who understand what is going on. and the people who don't understand what is going on, they don't get it. what you are really inferring is campaign contributions for

changing the tax code. and that is the only reason for having a corporate tax or any business tax. but when you have your proposal, you abandon what you championed in the fair tax cuts solve so many problems. why did you give up on that. >> guest: maybe i didn't give up. the quality and taxing, there is undoubtedly the best way that will save this and it will markedly expand our exports because we are not competitive and we incorporate taxes into our products and everyone else will compete in the world with

this. and there is great criticism of the book. >> host: from our facebook page, chris makes this comment. fiscal cliff media coverage is absurd. you people are grown adults, get something done. i couldn't get something done in my job, i would probably be terminated by now. enough, already, do stuff for all americans, not just your party or the other party. >> guest: the only criticism i would have of that comment is we are not the ones who are in the negotiating room. there are a limited number of people that are in there. here's what we want. we have to reform medicare. it is this demographic shift and

here is what we have to have. i mean, how many people realize that? in 11 years, in terms of dollars and people and most people don't realize that. and i would say, we don't care if we lose an election, we want to save the country and here is what we believe in. here is what we are willing to do. take it. >> host: you are part of the gang of six and other solving committees. like simpson-bowles, does that affect the? >> guest: we wouldn't be here today if we had not taken the simpson-bowles framework.

i voted to move it so we would have the debate. had we had the debate and put something on the floor, we would have seen something passed. we are not allowing the legislative process work. there are 25 bills that have come out of the house that will not see the light of day in the senate for political reasons and not because they don't address your problems. what we still have is people playing politics. in the barn is moving down. what i see is politics is trumping policy all around. one of my pet peeves is the lack of leadership to think in the long term about what the real problems are.

it is going to be the democrat and republican congresses and all of them are going to be terribly concerned because of us failing to do what we need to do. >> host: we have an hour and a half left in our program and we will continue in just a moment. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> host: senator coburn is coming up on our "after words" program. doctor marty mccarry will be interviewed. have you indicated you are currently reading a book? >> guest: i read it before it was published i think it is phenomenal to uncover and expose the lack of transparency requested. not all problems are easily solved, but being transparent about it and being accountable and outcomes are critical to solving not only some of our health care dollar problems, but also some of our health care quality problems.

>> host: if someone had asked you how much is it going to cost me, could you give her a price to deliver a baby? what would you have said? >> guest: it would depend on what year it was. but i believe they went to the hospital, and said, here is the total package. health care is very interesting for us. because we actually, if we clear everything away, we do not have real insurance in this country. insurance means that you spread your wrist among hundreds of other people, hoping that what you pay is enough to cover everybody. and if you look at returns for insurance companies and health

insurance, what we have done is create the work that doesn't benefit anybody, but we have not truly indemnified any risks. because as soon as you have a claim, what happens is your interest rates go up. you still have a risk that is the same. so if we are going to have insurance, that means you really have to spread the risk and we have to figure out how to do that. then we ought to take a lot of what we can learn in terms of spreading indemnification around. >> host: here's a little bit from "the debt bomb" about two of your friends are in the news i now. on saturday, july 30, 2011, two days before the debt limit

deadline, i had dinner with john boehner and saxby chambliss who had been close friends since early together in the house. i shared my concerns with the speaker and he asked how i would get to a better outcome. i could not give him a good answer and i had argued that a default triggered by refusing to lift the debt ceiling really would be the best outcome we could stick together and weather the storm. i was convinced that the deficit had become so severe that our national credit rating would be downgraded and our economy would continue to flounder. the shock therapy of a default could be the thing that awaken congress. unless we can stick together, it made little sense to mount a common cause emission and delay the vote. >> guest: first of all, ask yourself the question when was

the last time that the deck limit was not increased. so do we have a debt limit in this country? we essentially do not. so we have never acted responsibly with waste in government. here is the debt limit we will run into. this is what "the debt bomb" is all about. there will come a time in the near future where people will not want to lose money because their expectation of our ability to pay it back will be such that we will see interest rates go crazy. that is not all that far away. you cannot ben bernanke telling me there is no inflation. most americans know that isn't true if they are buying milk or

groceries or gasoline or runs. you can have a central banker saying that there is no inflation and not not a problem. everyone that is holding the rest of the bonds and then buying mortgages with that money, at some point in time they will say the concept will come where they are not going to cash in. why do you think the chinese government dropped 150-dollar and $10 billion of our debt? because they don't have any confidence in what we are doing of one of the american people to see what is going to happen to us when the debt bomb explodes.

the consequences, the very consequences of not actually acting responsible now, to me will be can actually do and therefore, it will come at the dim emission of everybody else in this country and the debt bomb is coming. the way we are behaving in washington just this week, we are still playing games over the fiscal cliff and we shouldn't do this kind of deal, we should create the confidence in the world that we are going to manage our problem and we will downsize our government so we have a future. because the opposite of not downsizing and not making the hard choices, the option of that is a failure in the future.

we talked about power in the middle east. we think that that? well, because we have lost our economic knowledge and we are losing our military model. and we won't have the money to continue to be a force for good in the world because we will not live within our means. so the question is how do we defuse this. still maintaining what we need to do to help the people that really need help in this country. but actually get together and work and solve the problem rather than play the political game. i mean, we just finished and it is absolutely not getting what is going on in washington. from both the president and republicans and democrats. everyone is ignoring the real problem.

the fiscal cliff is nothing compared to what is going to happen if we don't defuse this debt bomb. >> host: you write that our entire government and system depend on people buying our debt. when that stops, the party is over. what would you like to see done with the disco cliff? should we let the sequestration have been? >> guest: it is the career politicians answer to not being responsible about what happens. if you cut everything across the board, it is not your fault that the program got cut. what it means is washington runs around trying to figure out how not to make a decision so it will not affect their political career. it is crazy to cut the programs

the same as that programs well, that is what this is. what it tells you is how incompetent congress is today. why would we continue to have programs running that are not effective, yet we do to the tune of $600 billion why would we have $100 billion per year for fraud? those are three independently publish things. $100 billion stone, and we are worried about the loss and we haven't fixed it and we have and i'm confident that obscene terms of it adjusting it? why would we do that? it is my contention because every time they run up against it, we increase it. we ought to take time out.

this government is twice the size it was 11 years ago. there are a lot of great things that the government does that are not within this, but the first thing, before we touch either of those things, let's get rid of the stuff that hasn't worked. and say to american people that we have actually lived the last 30 years in this country off the next 30. all of us. all of us are going to have to participate in pain to get out of this hope. i had this experience. tri-care for retired military was put in i-295. everybody before that, when they were recruited into the military, they were told that you can have health care on a space available basis at a military hospital.

i have not heard that from hardly anyone who has written to me. it has been health care and i know what was promised. since 1995, we have barely started the premium for that health care increase. so for a family of four, you get your whole health care for the year with no deductible and no co-pay for $565 per year. that has not been increased since 1995 and health care has doubled since then, perhaps more than that. so i had a retired captain challenge me by saying we need to increase the co-pay. he spent 20 years in the air force, you are collecting an air force retirement and you only pay for $175. don't you think you ought to help because they? you are now getting a benefit

that was never guaranteed to you. and you don't want to increase. if that will be our attitude, our country is over. we ought to have the leadership that says we have made mistakes, republicans and democrats, we have played the political game, the bill is not due, there is no credit card we can get and pay for the interest on the other credit cards that we have. it is now time to make the hard choices and i am going to leave to make those hard choices and i want you to follow us because here's what going to happen. today we are at historically low interest rates we have 16.4 children of debt. our historical averages just shy

of 6%. you are you're talking an additional $640 billion per year in interest. we are going to have to be paying a premium to what we have paid in the past. so if we got 12%, on $16 trillion, that is $2 trillion per year. where is that going to come from? so the default is coming. so do we default or keep our obligations and make the hard choices? with the federal reserve has set up is to inflate our way out of it, and taxing our way out of it

rather than trimming the size of government. >> host: to go back to "the debt bomb", where you had dinner with senator chambliss who has come out and has have said that we could see tax increases, speaker boehner has spoken about a grand plan. have you talked to these guys about these things? >> i think they are flabbergasted right now with the offer from the administration. you say, okay, here is $800 billion. and then you have it thrown politically -- it may work politically. it is past time for politics in our country. it is a time when we are really in trouble. do we have problems that we can solve? yes. is every problem in front of a solvable? is not solvable if our goal is to play politics rather than solve the problem.

so when you have the speaker put this out and say, okay, let's figure out the rest of the stuff, can we get to around $4 trillion. and then played hardball that we have seen. i don't think it is great for a country. in many help drive a little bit more. but it is really pulling people together. that is what real leadership is. i think we are seeing way too much of the driving of people apart. >> host: senator tom coburn will be with us for another hour and 10 minutes.

at booktv@c-span.org is her e-mail address. our twitter is apple tv good afternoon, sir. >> caller: i have sent a few things to your staff. i wanted to talk about bacteria phases and did you study those in medical school. >> guest: i have. we can increase this by

$30 billion per year producing the cba costco for 2%, which will reduce that. there are lawsuits flying around, some people went to a county fair and got e. coli and etc. and officials there, we have crv. >> guest: i think there are a lot of things we are not doing.

there is a recent article out it would save even more than this. talking about the actual function in diabetes, rather than being glucose intolerant in excess of sodium and many people are dying. tons of money, and hundreds of billions of dollars in health care. we spend 17% of our gdp, about $2.6 trillion on health care. and a third of that is not helping anybody. so i will ask my staff for the information that you have sent on monday to do an inquiry as to that. >> host: we have drawn from port st. lucie florida. >> caller: yes, i have two questions. you might have answered this already. will he run for president?

>> no, i will not. >> guest: no, i will not. >> caller: that is too bad because you do speak honestly. you mentioned something a few minutes ago to guarding how the budget has doubled. conservatives just can't seem to be able to do a ross perot presentation. i think many will grab this better because we are visual. if you show his stock over the last election, i think people would get it. when you are talking verbally and you are throwing a whole bunch of numbers, it is so much more difficult to follow along. that is why i think ross perot was successful when he ran. because we could see it on the screen, everyone made fun of him, but it was effective.

>> guest: i think that is a legitimate criticism. i think it is really to legitimate criticism. you know, it is very flattering to have people say that, but you have to look at your skill set and you also have to look at your age and your health. i have been through three bouts with cancer. and i actually would like to spend time with my grandkids and my wife. more so in the future. i think there will be people with greater skill set than me to fill that job post not just before that call, there were other people who wanted to say the same thing, please run for president. adel from florida says, how do

you feel about the christian evangelical reading as the republican party. i think they have caused disgust with the republicans. and have turned off many americans who would otherwise be more receptive to conservatism. >> guest: i think they are an important part of the republican party. i think how you speak about your values is really important. i can have a value that is different than yours. i do not have to condemn your values. i think the idea of motives rather than heart are two different things and i think people who are different for me and my faith in terms of how they see things, whether it's abortion issues order sexual

orientation issues or whatever it is, our country needs time to contribute, just like they are not going to agree with me on 80% of what i believe. but that doesn't make them bad. it doesn't make them bad and it doesn't make me right. this whole idea of looking at things in perspective. i do not believe that we will win the abortion issue, and i am pro-life in this country. not until our hearts are soft enough to convince someone else's heart of a different position. so i think how you approach those issues are very important i have delivered and my grandmother was a product of a rape. i actually have a very unique perspective. i really do not think that my

wife should've been taken away because my grandmother should have had an abortion. you know you can see how there is a perspective there. does that mean someone who disagrees with me is wrong or there are areas where i am wrong? now. but the point is too often in our country on social issues, we don't sit down and talk with people. we talk past each other and don't try to get to know the individuals to understand where they are. we do not change anyone's minds by saying that you are wrong. i have never changed anyone's mind in that fashion. to change someone's mind is to ask why someone believes that. so you are not going to change that. >> host: from "the debt bomb."

it does don't apologize for trying to form coalitions of unlikely allies. again, i would rather work with democrats in our government than communists and the chinese government who will one day force our hand if we don't do this work on our own. >> guest: dick and i have different viewpoints. we are bleeding heart liberals and i am pretty hard-core conservative. but we actually have -- we have talked to each other at a real level and we can actually work things out. because we have gotten to know each other and we have gone past any doubts of our motivation. we know that we come from different perspectives.

motive is important. but it derails the ability to work together. so you have to get to know somebody and trust them. and i think we have we have grown, dick durbin eye, we have gone to where we can trust each other. we are both going to keep that. >> host: next call. >> caller: yes, how are you doing. it is a pleasure to talk with you. i recently had hip surgery 43 years ago.

>> i spend a lot of time watching for bargains. i have to say you should pass this bill, make everyone pay for sure. ..

>> when the low income americans decide to work, the new income is taxed at incredibly high effective rates because when they make money, they lose benefits. instead of being reward the to transition from welfare to work, the government punishes the working poor and gives the fruit of their labor to the others, that is hardly economic. >> guest: i mean, it makes no common sense. if you want to motivate somebody to move from this position to another, you need a transition with the programs, which none of them do. i mean, why? heretofor we've been able to afford a system like that, we can't. >> host: an e-mail that says "as a medical doctor, you must know the administrative costs for medicare is 3% and the

administrative cost of insurance companies is 25% plus or minus a little. why do republicans oppose medicare, and have you read "healing america: a global quest for better issue cheaper, and fairer health health care" by t? >> guest: i have not read that book. first of all, talk about the real statistics. medicare quotes 3% because that's 3% to spend on administration. that doesn't count the 14% fraud that's there. the average private insurance economy company that has less than 3% fraud, and it's not 25%, but close to 16 and 17%. when you look at on a net-net basis, medicare, the cost of administration and the cost of everything associated with it, which is shifted to the provider in medicare, which is not shifted necessarily in the private sector and private

insurance. there's not a great deal of difference between the two, and so they have sorted their costs. we don't count fraud in the costs of medicare, so it's -- you can play games with numbers all you want. what i know is is this medicare system we have today underminds the ability to create pressure on the provider to be responsible with the money. there's no penalty if i'm not. you come into many as a doctor, there's nothing that zings me if i don't spend the money wisely, and there's nothing that zings you if you don't spend that money wisely so we have an uncontrolled spend the money in light of the system in oklahoma and several other states, where says order a bunch more tests. there's three studies out there. all within the last three years that show 550 to $850 billion a

year in what we spend in health care costs that's absolutely nothing to get somebody well and nothing to prevent them from getting sick. any time -- private and public sector combined, but, we're missing the bump. if you stop for a minute and think we buy health care in the country whether it's through the government or through private sector, totally different than we buy anything else. we make somebody else pay for it. unless you're one of the unfortunates that don't have coverage anywhere, and so the reason my opposition to the affordable care act was we're expanding the system that's broken now where a third of the dollars don't help people get well or keep you from getting sick, and so we ought to ask the question why is it we have this inflation in health care, that we have a waste in health care that we don't have anywhere

else, and it's because we're not allowing market forces to help us do that. can recreate a system where the truly dependent have a safety net, and yet we drive some of this 5 # 50 billion to 850 billion out of it. i think we can, but we're not going to as long as we all think somebody else is paying the bill for my health care. >> host: who would you like to see to run for president for the republicans in 2016 #? >> guest: gosh, i have not even thought about that. i think that's the last thing to think about right now. i think we ought to be asking how do we force the people in power today get us out of the jam pa we're -- that we're in. >> host: david, las vegas, good afternoon. >> caller: good afternoon. senator coburn, first of all, thank you so much for your service in the senate. my question is right now, my

wife, since 20 # 11, december, she had multiple strokes that put her into a coma. this is in regards to medicare or medicaid. in order for her to get medicare, she has to be either 65 or be disabled for two years. my question is, you know, i want to encourage you not to raise the eligibility because we're getting nowhere. you know, i've been unemployed since march of 2010, and, you know, it's really hard. as far as therapy goes, she can't, you know, she can't get therapy because she doesn't meet certain requirements or anything as well as the service. right now, she's in a nursing home, and he's only 49 years old. what do we do? >> caller: why in the world would we have a program that

here's somebody who's young, had a stroke, obviously disabled, and why would they have to go through long periods of time to get disability, and then once they are disabled with something that's probably going to have limited progression back, and i don't know the details, but at that type of age with multiple strokes, usually you have limited progression in terms of return to full function, why would -- why would you have to wait two years to get medicare help with that? why is that our government policy? in other words, what brilliant person said two years is the right amount of time? can we trust people who work in the government to make good decisions? i would tell you, yes, we can, if we give them guidance to be compassionate and frugal at the same time. i understand why you don't want the ages to go up, but the reason you don't want that is because you can't get what she should be getting right now. your wife, if, in fact, she's truly disabled, shouldn't have

to wait to get help with medicare, and that's the problem. that's why we have to -- where do you get these crazy ideas, and why people who were labeled disabled who are no longer disabled and are collecting it, why are they still collecting a date check and medicare when they have returned to function, and, yet, we're still paying. those are the questions -- that's call ineffective government,, and that's the point i make in the book. we don't do this very well or efficiently or effectively, and that should mean that we ought to have somebody, and as i looked at this disability thing, it's painted a lot of criticism because i actually believe anybody who is truly disabled we ought to help, but i really think that one out of five people who have gotten this disability truly are not disabled because under the law is that if there's not a job in the economy that they can do, and i want to help -- you know, it goes back to the book "the

tragedy of american compassion," how do you help people help themselves and not undermine who they are? i'd love for you to send me a note on your wife's condition, and where you are on her disability, and maybe we can try to help move that forward. >> host: in either breach of trust, you read all the mail that comes into the office? >> guest: the constituent mail from oklahoma. i don't read the mail from outside oklahoma. along time ago, the one thing i know is people want to be heard, and if they take the time to send you an e-mail or a letter, and as long as it's not laced with profanity and not just purely, you know, what i say is inappropriate, then i want to have an original answer back of what i think about that. now, for big states, that's hard

to do. oklahoma has less than 4 million people in it so i can keep up with 500 to a thousand letters a week or e-mails, especially when they are exactly the same topic. i can do that, but i think it's important for me to know what oklahomans think, and i think it's important for me to be reminded what oklahomans think rather than washington thinks r and that's why i go home. the other thing, what i've instructed my legislative correspondents to do under good supervision is you research every question, and so what happens is as i read the proposed answer and the question, i learn. i mean, i'm learning things about the government every day as i read my answers back to the constituents, and i get a to retain that, and i get knowledge.

knowledge. my biggest frustration is i know what i've uncovered and seen, most members of congress don't know it. if they really knew it, we'd do something about it, but they don't, and how do you get their attention. one of the changes i'd make on the senate if i were a majority leader, no debate unless there's attendance on the floor and never let committee hearings be held at the same time anything's going on on the floor, and i would require four hours of attendance on the floor to hear debate so you have real debate with real input about what's really going on because senators don't take the time to read as they should. everybody's pulling at a senator, and if we influence them on what the details are, i think we could accomplish more. we'd learn from each other betterment i mean, i'll share this example, an example of

working with chuck schumer last week. we had the defense authorization bill, and there's an area that i'm really bent over hard on which is we have veterans who come home from iraq and afghanistan, and they've either had closed head trama or lost ability for a short period of time to maybe manage their affairs. we have, through executive order taken away their ability to own a gun, and not a gun -- just a gun to go hunting with, and nowhere have they been adjudicated by the courts to a degree that they should lose their second amendment rights. we had a social worker and a psychologist do that. in work r through this, we had tough stuff on the floor. i think we ought to figure out a way to do this on people who are not dangerous to themselves or

anybody else. i had a way to roll chuck schumer last week, but i actually listened to him and said what are your real concerns? i chose not to roll it. i could have. i had a procedural way to win my amendment and do it, but i listened to him, and that's what's really not going on much on the floor. what's going to happen is his and my staff will work out his concerns and try to work it out and so we don't have a debate on the floor. i was ready to fire, and i didn't. what i hope i've done is build, you know, a relationship with schumer, but also solve the problem. >> host: we have about 45 minutes left in this month's "in-depth," our ghost, senator tom coburn, a lot what the senator learned from research and constituents and listens are contained in the reports that

are available on his website including subsidies of the rich and famous, back in black, and a report on waste in oklahoma, in your home state as well, and one area of that is sidewalks only of federal bureaucrat could love. do you get criticism back home for these reports on waste in oklahoma? >> guest: oh, sometimes i do, especially if it's the people who are getting the money for the programs that i described as ineffective or not effective, but, you know, that's my job is -- my job is to call it as i see it, and it's okay to get criticism at home. >> host: like sidewalks to nowhere? >> guest: in the stimulus, we wasted a couple hundred billion dollars of the stimulus money on stuff that was absolutely total priorities. i mean, we -- we just did because we tried to do it too fast and ineffectively, but here's a panel where we had sidewalk reform out, built them

again, and, of course, they go nowhere, go to a ditch in a town that doesn't have hardly anybody in it. it's right to be critical of that. you know? i should be criticized if i'm not critical, and i always try -- when we do a report, i always try to look at what oak's doing with it. you know, i'll tell you, 50% of the time oklahoma's doing a lot better than other states on a lot of these issues, but nobody likes to be criticized when you point out waste. they can, you know, the defenders of the squirrels, this department of everything report that we had, and we have a squirrel, a fake squirrel to see how a rattlesnake reacted to it. we already know that. we knew the answers. we're spending $30 million on pottery classes in morocco when we know we can't get the clay we use there to america. all this stuff, you have to stand back and say if we spend

money we don't have on this type of thing, who is in control up here? who is making those decisions? why are they continuing to make those decisions? why is it the defense department's going to spend over a couple million dollars to figure out how to make better rolled up beef jerky? why? i mean, most of the troops like what's out there right now, and why was it worth that kind of money? have a contest, see if you can figure out a way to do this, we don't pay you a thing, but if you do it well, we'll buy it from you in the future. why research? we spend money doing things that they may be okay to do, but not in the time when you have trillion dollar deficit, and we continue to do it. whether it's conferences, all this video conferences around the country with all government offices, and then we spend -- we spent $16 billion over the last

nine years, think out there. people at the conferences, when, in fact, we -- they will not have education, never going to get a college education, not a well paying job, why continue to spend money on that when that's what the outcome is? why waste money on things that are not absolutely critical right now when we steal a standard of living from our kids and grand kids. i don't get it. >> daniel from ipse, you're on c-span. >> caller: good afternoon, gentlemen, thank you for taking your sunday afternoon to come and get in-depth with us about your views and just other questions from the public. last week, senator rand paul stated the republican party would be a dinosaur if something would not change radically

within want conservative move. what needs to be done, and, yes, i know it's hard to talk about because we have strong beliefs, what needs to be done with the young republicans in america to energize not only the republican party, but the rest of the conservative movement along with the outskirts of moderate and liberals to kind of come together for the future of not only stubborn economic policies, but a military strategy to lead positively within the borders was united states? thank you. >> guest: nobody accused me of being a strategist, so i apologize for the response, but i think principles matter. i think leadership matters. what you have to say either you believe in limited government, or you don't. history shows that governments that stay very limited survive

long periods of time, and governments that grow big don't. as governments grow big, freedom abates. liberties are lost, and so the question is is can we as americans cheat history, and what do we need to do that? i'm not so sure it's important that we think just in terms of the republican vernacular. i think we ought to think about our founders' veer vernacular, t they were trying to accomplish and how they were trying to do it, and if you really read what they said and, you know, i know there's some manipulation with some of that, but if you just read the federalist papers, i mean, it's awfully insightful in terms of what their intent was. i think what we have to do is reembrace a limited government and have a true conservatism, not a cheap conservatism.

remember, the republican party is associated with george bush when they where are controlled for that period of his presidency. grew the government massively. that was, quote, conservatives doing that. that's -- that's prewar. they were doing that, i would tell you what we have to do is really find our values and ask for leadership along those values that is if you're not willing to stand on principles, then there's not much future. >> host: art nelson tweets, aren't term limits security for the thiefdom politics we have? fiscal cliff arguments are juvenile in terms of all the waste. >> guest: i agree.

i believe in term limits. i served in the house, went home, had no intention to run for the senate, and i can imagine how great my life would have been had i not, and my wife reminds me of that whenever i'm complaining about my job, and term limits is only going to work if you term limit it and then asked the populist to have people send people here who have experience outside the political realm. there really is a lot to say if you have real world experience, and if you go through and do biographies in the senate and you look at what's there, and even me now, i have now had 14 years of experience at the federal government. that's probably too much. it's probably too much, but i

brought a business career and medical career, accounting degree, you know, production management, and i brought a different mix to my position, so i think what we ought to do is recruit people to run for office that actually know what they are talking about rather than knowing a lot about politics and how to get elected. >> host: another tweet, "who in 2012 are your top five senators, and who are your top five representatives?" >> guest: oh, gosh, i need to think about that one a little. >> host: if you want to think about it, and we'll come back to it, how does that sound? so you're not on the spot there. >> host: john from north carolina, go ahead with a question or comment for the senator. >> caller: yes, hi, thank you for having me. i have a question for you. i was reading an article in the "washington post" regarding medical cost, an they have, for

example, an end deckmy in the u.s. costs $13,000, but in germmy, it's 3100. now, you would think, well, it's government run so it's sub subsidized, but they spend 11.5% of gdp, and we spend 17.5%. how do you explain the discrepancy? that's my question. >> guest: that's a great question. they have a somewhat controlled system over there which i have, no doubt, has good outcomes, german fidelity in quality and engineering expectations. we don't have real competition. if you read, you're going to find out, and often one of the times we have physicians with

great reputations who all the doctors know go to the worst doctor. the question is about having transparency on what you get. third thing is they don't have the torque system we have, which is tremendously expensive. you know, there was absorbed costs of that. they don't have that. they don't have the hoops and rules and regulations that we have. there is a lot to be said about what the germans do and how they do it, but what we want to apply is same proclivity for being frugal as they create a government program in our lack of being frugal in any government program that we have. >> host: two e-mails, semirelated. this is from m palace, "thanks

senator for your service and straight talk, i live in west africa where i hear increasing concern about illness linked to an unhealthy diet, mainly the consumption of processed foods. what percentage of the u.s. population do you reckon eats mostly processed foods, and how important is this factor in the country's state of health and health care costs? now, a related question to that is this e-mail that came in, "your statement that federal government should have no say about our personal consumption choices, eat your vegetables, was the same argument used by tobacco companies complaining about federal government regulations in the campaign against smoking. do you agree with the tobacco companies?" >> guest: two aspects to the tobacco companies. one, they were dishonest about the effect of the product. in terms of almost a libertarian point of view, if you are stupid

enough to do it, you deserve to reap it. let's go back to the other question. there are great studies right now saying if you have a vegan diet or a vegetarian diet, and you don't is juvenile diabetes, you will not get high blood pressure or diabetes, so that's the question if vegan and veg tearon don't eat processed food, and what's the culprit there? the culprit is sodium. if you look at all the processed foods is we have this ton and ton of sodium, and in the cell, there's a pump called the sodium and it's not that the cell doesn't take the glucose, but the american diet is about 16 part sodium to one part potassium. what it should be is about

six-tenths part sodium to one part potassium. in processed foods, you get 20 times as much sodium as a normal diet should, so when you do fast foods, when you eat processed foods from the grocery store, you're getting a load of sodium that ultimately is going to give you diabetes -- or at least metabolic syndrome or syndrome x which the doctors no about which is one of the things why we have so much more than the rest of the world, so if, in fact, we would educate, i'm not saying -- i believe people get to eat what they want, market what you want as long as you're not hurting people. the appointment is is what we have not done is get out and talk about what the real effects are. now, the usda mandates -- what they were doing is underfeeding in terms of total caloryings. they serve a ton of processed foods, serving less, but what they should be doing is saying, we're going to go, you know, if the government's going to get

involved in this, we're going to make a difference. make them do a vegan diet. how we learn is people who had gastric bypass don't develop diabetes because they can't -- we know diet is immensely important. personal sacrifice, self-discipline, hard work, and the other things. as we undermind the qualities and give them, we are reaping all sorts of negative benefits, and one of them is tremendous, massive amounts of diabetes,

heart disease, hypertension. >> host: you had three different cancer bouts? how serious, what type, if you don't mind sharing? >> guest: two out of three serious. one malignant mall gnome ma as a young man, very fortunate, didn't have a great odd there, and i was fortunate to survive that. colin cancer, ten years ago this may, and then colin cancer. >> host: diet related? >> guest: no yet, genetic and diet related. it's one of the cancers that because we have good early screening or can have, that we really made great strides in terms of screening and developing, and whereas you take pan cree --

pancreas, so there's a significant spread of the disease before it's diagnosed, but, look, the one thing that americans should be proud of, we're going to spend about between 26 and 32 billion, i can't remember where the number is at the nih this year. we are on the cusp of such great breakthroughs because we are now doing translational research and molecular research rather than diseased-based research. why that's important to people should be because when we learn the function of the cell here, it has cross applications across all the diseases. we're now down to the genetic levels of how things are translated in a cell, what the communicators and proteins and carbohydrates are and how that impacts disease, and so then we take that information that they are now learning and look at all

the diseases, and the tendencies then by congress to push down a disease, do this, do this, and fix this, fix lung cancer, fix colin cancer, fix this, and the answer to it, really, the nation should be grateful, we have frap sis coal lips who did -- francis collins who did all the work on the human genome. if you all remember, he's the guy, and he's leading this with grants, spending money we shouldn't be spending money on, but overall, they are doing a grand job, and we're going to see cures for diabetes. we're going to see cures for diseases. we're going to get to the cure on breast cancer. we're going to get there. we'll see such light at the end of the tunnel at the end of the year it'll be phenomenal because

we have a greater understanding of how things work at the cell level, and then that, all that, once we understand that one cell, of course, we apply it to all the others. that's where the great work's done today, and i'm really proud of what they are doing at nih. >> host: 30 minutes left in this month's "in-depth," with senator tom coburn. >> caller: thank you very much for your service, your greatly admired by myself and my family. >> guest: thank you. >> host: lived -- i'd like to ask a question that in the presidential campaign there's the issues of how many people were on food stamps, ect., and i had a real life experience about whether the gentleman that comes in while i have coffee every morning, and we basically -- that has $5200 on his food stamp card, and it, obviously, just accrues every month, and every month, and he doesn't spend that money on food. what i ask is with the technology, why isn't the

government looking at that and saying, this card can never be worth more than $300 or $500 or whatever the amount should be? >> guest: there's a lot of questions. we could do that. where's the oversight of congress looking at the programs and such? they have in the last six years decreased the fraud in it somewhat, but i'm sure the fraud is up now that there's a massive expansion. those are common sense questions that members of congress don't hear from the constituents and don't apply to the hearing and don't dig it. if you call my oversight staff, if i was your senator from montana, and you called that, that would be one of the first letters, how do we handle this? what's going on here? here's the thing to think about, we talked about sodium and processed foods, and there's no question we want to help people who can't get healthy -- can't get food enough to subside on, but why don't we use universal product codes to say this is what you can buy and what you

can't. you can't buy pop and potato chips, both totally loaded with sodium, but we want you buying is other products that are healthy for you that won't cause disease. both of those two do. so, you know, we ought to ask the bigger questions, and then what we'll see is we'll see more prudence in terms of how much we need to spend, and the food stamps help people better rather than worse. >> host: senator, where do you write? where do you write your books? where do you write your reports, in dwrr office, at home? >> guest: at home, not in my office. what we do, is we sit down and say, where are the areas? we already set next year's area of study out for two more years. what are we going to oversight and look at and do? the actual reports here are not written by me, my staff actually writes them. they'll go through four, five it rations. they'll come to me, go through

two or three more after that in terms of raising the question with the american people, but i have been blessed with wonderful staff, great people, john hart who helps essentially put my words into something i'm -- i'm not a great writer, i admit it, but i have great common sense ideas, and what i want to do is effectively commune kite it, i put it down, and it's changed to something that flows better and sounds better. i -- mostly at home, and i write and travel eight hours, so i get a lot of time to do a lot of scratching and thinking and reading, which is very helpful and also just kind of depressurizing from what i see up here versus what i see in the rest of the country. >> host: debt bomb came out in 20 # 12, breach of trust came out in 2003, and let's go back

to bob's tweet, top five senators, top five representatives. >> guest: well, i have a whrot of personal friends in the senate joe lieberman, one of the greatest senators i've met because he's one of the best listeners i've ever met. he's never in a hurry to push you aside, willing to listen, won't necessarily agree with you, but really is, and i think he's truly focused on the country. i don't think there's much partisanship. i think he's thinking about the country. i think he's a real statesman. i really have a lot of admiration for diane feinstein. i disagree more with her than joe, but she's a good listener, my chairman op intelligence committee. i think she will listen and try

to make a judgment each and every time rather than blindly say no, that's a republican idea. i think those are good qualities. my -- one of my great friends, and we think about things, and i love jim demint's courage on where he stands, where he thinks we need to go. i don't always agree with him, but i think he'll go down in history redirecting us back to limited government. i think he has a lot of courage that way. so, you know, i have admiration for a lot of aspects for a lot of people in the senate. i see -- on those mentioned, they think long term, not short term, and i think that's a real problem for us in the senate.

we need to think about what the outcome is ten years from now and not our political careers. >> host: in "breach of trust," you walk through, first of all, the 1997 coo attempt against speaker gingrich, and you mentioned friends there, caisic, and sue -- >> guest: sue, a wonderful lady, she's leaving congress, she's a lame ducker right now, a stellar individual with a rudder, knows what to believe, willing to stand on principle, regardless of what it costs her, great service. john was fun to deal with. really interesting. his while serving with him, his wife got pregnant with twins, and i was still practicing. i got the update from him about how twins were progressing, so, you know, i think there's a lot. the coo was about not being true

to what you say it was not about being angry, but here's the team i came to sign up for, and want team's leadership now is not moving what they recruited on, and, you know, if you don't trust people to do what they say, you're not going to follow them. we just have come to a point in time where we saw that the politics was more important to the leadership than the principle. >> host: what is the current relationship with -- >> guest: you know, it's interesting, the observation on dick army, as soon as he anownls he was not running again, in other words, was not going to run for the congress again, go look at the voting record, he came back. you know, once you're in leadership your job changes and how is it important?

for the life of me, i think you can be this a leadership and enjoy the core principles. i think you see that exposed by mitch mcconnell today with what he said. you know, here's where we are. here's why i think we need to be. we need to solve these things. i think you can do both. i don't think you necessarily have -- it was interesting for me to see dick's voting pattern change, come around to who he really was and recruited me to the house was among those that did to run for the house anyway. newt gingrich, friendly, -- >> host: i had another question, but i forget. we'll go to an e-mail, better than what i would have asked. a facebook comment from mark, "senator coburn, please address the recent increase in the number of filibusters and the majority leader's comments about

his number one -- minority leader's comments about the number one priority of making the president a one term president." >> guest: any time a minority leader states that, you create an issue to distract you from then on. i think it was unt fortunate it was sed. most don't understand what's going on in the senate, and let me take a minute to describe it. what did our founders intend by creating a bicameral legislature? if you go and read the history is they wanted the house of representatives to be very attuned and responsive to the people. they. ed the senate to do two things -- make sure there was never an overwhelming ma majoriy where minority rights were not respected or heard. they didn't have to win, but they had to be heard, and number

two, they wanted long enough terms so people were less likely to bend to popular will and more likely to bend to thought and long term thinking and sound reasoning. what happened in the senate since 2006 is that the senate became politicized to a point, and it's a political body, but it's become using the rules of the senate to not have to make the decisions that we should. we had two years of no budgets or appropriation bills. what's that about? about not casting votes. the senate will not be of any value if there's no minority rights. you might as well not have it. it won't do any good. just have a parliamentary system where the president controls the

process. what was unique and one of the things, a stabilizing factor for the society, and a lot of people don't realize, is the fact that when the senate functions the way it should or is allowed to by the majority leader, the pressure of the minority position gets let off the kettle, so if they can express views, all the sudden, you don't have this pressure built where you just totally divided. i think what's happened over the last three to five years is -- is the reason there's more filibusters is because there's no amendment process. if, in fact, you come to the floor and say id to -- we are doing just the opposite now with the defense bill. the leader put it out there. we said try it. put it out there. we didn't have a motion to

proceed, probably not going to have to do cloture on it. we may finish it before then. the fact is he let the process work, and people don't feel pressured. here's the question i have for you, your questioner. because i'm from oklahoma and a republican, should oklahoma's view point, up like the house, not count? i mean, oklahoma's viewpoint because they are a majority counts in the house, but while in the minority in the house, it didn't count at all, but the senate was designed so the minority always gets their say. they don't always win, but they always -- that was to be the vessel that allowed the pressure to go off, and so i understand that with everybody out there, the campaign's made the problem is the filibuster. the problem's not the filibuster, but the inability of

the minority to have amendments on bills. when the majority leader does not allow, brings a bill to the floor, there's no amendments, i'll pick the only two amendments, what you think, how you want to modify it, when vast majority of the bills have come to the floor have not been through committee, but there's another view point where we do thing, most not through committee, but comes to the floor because of an idea written in an office, that's not the senate. anyone critical of republicans on filibuster, read the history of the senate. robert byrd would turn over in the grave if we his we change the rules of the senate by breaking the rules. he would never do it. he was the protecter of the senate, and now that he's gone, you know, and what was -- when the republicans were thinking about doing this, they didn't do it because they knew it would ruin the senate. it will. so consequently, not only will

we have budgetary fights, but the senate will not function. you are totally unwinding the senate into another house of representatives issue and the history of the senate, as a liberty body, will be gone. with one vote in january. because it sets in motion a chain reaction that will create a reaction over here when we do that, it creates another reaction over here, and it will down, fall down to the lowest common denominator of the house of representatives where the rule committee is dominated by the majority. that's it, it's over. >> host: roger in new mexico, few minutes left on "indidn't." >> caller: i'll be quick. the senator reminds me of my grandparents in oklahoma. they live by the rule of two wrongs don't make a right, and i think that's a very good solid rule to live by.

okay. i remember reading in a book called "after shock" about two dangers that are facing america, and the one of them is, is relates to your debt situation, the book, "debt bomb," saying that the only thing supporting the u.s. dollar is the fact it's the world's reserve currency. the day that's gone, that's the day the dollar is gone; it becomes worthless paper. would you care to comment about that? >> guest: i think you're accurate in the assessment of that. one is is you heard some discussions this pages summer of the chinese and others thinking about creating another reserve currency or using currency denominated in the juan to be

traded. it's critical. we underminded this after going after the gold standard, and them, of course, as we printed money, we've -- through the last four years, we've actually made that quite worse. i would go back to the other point, you know, one thing that is an oklahoma value, if the only way you can actually change somebody is to love them, and when you forgive somebody, this idea of two wrongs don't make a right, what you do is set somebody free. this is appny christianson said it in 1993. the person you set free is you. you don't carry to the next level this, i got to get even, if, in fact, you've done that, and personal relationships, human relationships are the key of how the senate should function, and they have been severely damaged over the past

six years. >> host: senator coburn, in "back in black" you write that this -- the staff writes, "this report provides a plan to put the u.s. back in black by identifying 9 trillion, with a " t," in specific savings to be achieved in the next decade, the result of a thorough review of every federal department, agency, and mission. it does not rely on gimmicks. the late senator warren rudman, he had done oral histories with the university of california, and in that oral history, he said, this is in the "boston globe," that the american people sound great on deficit and debt reduction, but when it comes to actually getting rid of a program or reducing the debt, everybody, overall, essentially is weak. >> guest: i agree. i think that's true because

every program has a constituency or an author or a creator, and some of them have been around here long enough that they've been the creator of the program, built the constituency, even though it's ineffective, they want to protect it because it's either perm pride, authorship, or money going into a district, so the -- here's where we are, and that's why i think it's important people realize what's getting ready to happen to us. we don't have the luxury of that behavior anymore, and the more we continue to behave that way, the later we'll respond. this is nothing compared to what's going to happen. you think 2 million people losing their job's a big deal? you know, if this debt bomb goes off, you'll see 20 # million people lose their jobs. you'll see 16% inflation.

you'll seal tax revenues go down. you'll see all the pension plans in the country go belly up what you're counting on is not there, the home is not worth anything, your retime r tiermt is -- retirement is not worth anything. who survives is the very wealthy. there's a crash of major pore -- proportions because we, those of us responsible have not fulfilled our duty of sacrificing our political views of what's right for country. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: hi, senator. >> guest: hell lee. >> caller: i actually had a question and comment. the first question is do you find out the two members in fact oklahoma delegation who asked those sidewalks to nowhere? i guess we cannot compare our economy to greece because the

only thing that the greeks have really are beaches, and they make -- they don't contribute to the world economy like we do. >> guest: here's how you compare to their economy is their economy, they were living off borrowed money, and there came a time, no matter where the economy produces, it still produces a $40 million year, 40-50 billion, i may have the number wrong, but what they produce wouldn't meet the needs of servicing their debt. what's happened? confidence in their ability to repay went down. the price of their debt went -- interest costs went way up. they've gone through now two and a half, three years of prosperity with complaints. i'm not trying to compare with it. i'm trying to compare what's going to happen to us, but we

can deny it saying it's not going to happen to us, but it's. said, everything continues until it doesn't. that's what's going to happen to us. you know, it was -- admiral mullens, two years ago, when he said the greatest threat to our nation suspect any foreign threat, it's not al-qaeda, it's not the chinese, it's not the russians. it's our debt. when the head of our joint chiefs of staff recognizes that the greatest threat to our freedom is our debt, he didn't speak in military term, and i think we -- we can no longer be in denial. there's going to be people out there who are in denial. you can't be in denial, and the ultimate proof will be when the debt bomb goes off, and so, john, i'm not saying the earth is ending, but i'm saying we have problems ahead of us that if we act now makes it better

for those who depend on us in the country than if we ignore it. >> host: first call from oklahoma, hi, maryland. >> caller: hi. i have not planned op calling in until i heard you saided military should pay for their medical. i will tell you, in 1980 was told his medical care would be cared for the rest of his life, and i know when i was a child i remember hearing that. we never talk about it because we didn't -- by that time we knew that it wouldn't happen anyway because they would be lying. my husband had parkinsons, thank you to -- his two tours in

vietnam. military, who already made this sacrifice, everybody in the military has made a sacrifice, even those for two years, but those with more than two years made sacrifices, and though you made a sacrifice, it's not compared to what the military has made by joining the military. they are the ones who keep this country safe, and so i don't understand -- >> host: let get a response from senator coburn. >> guest: you can debate what a recruiter said, and the contract says they can have health care on a space available basis. say they did. my point is not since 1995 has there been app increase in the cost of that for our retired military, which i think everybody's going to have to sacrifice, an i think they should have to as well. that's not undermining the sacrifice or not being appreciative of the sacrifice. we have all the way from grocery stores to health care benefits,

retirement benefits, and i think we've done better and doing better every year in terms of how we support that, but to say there shouldn't be an increase ever as long as you live in association with your health care, the country can't afford it, it's not going to happen, and we have to get used to the idea we have to give up something, including those who make 470 # ,000 a year like me. >> host: the final call, hi, maxine. >> caller: hi, i live in oklahoma, i'm 86 years old, live alone, i have medicare, but i also carry my self a good medical policy, and i'm happy with that. i see people everywhere i go that have never worked but a year, and they sit at home drawing in on their medicaid and medicare that the government is giving to them. that's where i think we should

begin is call out those that are undeserving and give them less or something, but not a full benefit. i spent quite a few dollars at the doctor recently, and i always question on the cost and talk to them about the cost before i have a test, even though i have -- >> guest: good for you. >> caller: i have a good plan, but i question the doctors because i'm 86, like i say, and you have to watch what things happen in the world around you. >> host: thank. do you know where colbert is? >> guest: trying to think. sounds like -- i'm not sure i do. ii think it goes back to the bok

"the tragedy of american compassion," and what is raised in the book is how do you get people to motivate, enhance, and better themselves rather than become dependent? creating dependency and undermining self-reliance hurts people, doesn't help them. helping people who need help and not creating depends sigh is a great way to be compassionate. we can do it the right way, the question is when we go to do it, like i said earlier, if you want to make it affordable, make something expensive have the government make it affordable because we're not effective at what we do and we end up in the name of doing good with pure intentions undermining our future, and that's what we've done on many of the programs. >> host: senator coburn, is there a third book coming? >> guest: maybe, but probably nothing about politics. >> host: what's it going to be about? >> guest: in the medical career and what i've seen, one of the ways i think americans are handicap today are through

anxiety, worry, and fear, and so i'm going to probably -- i'm doing that line of writing on that because i think it -- we allow that to capture us too much, and i think that we have too many positive things to look forward to that we could use help with on that. i saw it in the medical practice, i see it here. >> host: "breach of trues: how washington turns outsiders into insiders" came out in 2003, and "the debt bomb" came out in 2012. several reports, long form, 600-page reports "back in black," "subsidies of the rich and famous" are available on the senator's welcomes as well. senator coburn, doctor and senator, we appreciate you being on this edition of booktv's "in-depth".

..