you would have $1.2 trillion worth of time which when this agreement was devised back in august, democrats would hope last through the next election. the rate at by the economy is growing and how we're spending but that was the or plan. so it will be a few months no matter what. >> as we heard from max baucus saying these are bills already accrued. it does get to the larger debt we have seen over the last two decades in the xap dating backing to ross perot on the soaringfation's debt and deficit, the impact on the nation's finances and some republicans claiming the u.s. is going to end up like greece. i know that becomes a talking point and not maybe reality but it does kind of summarize where this debate is now heading. >> i think by having this vote, it was in many swas symbolic because this agreement extension for this time was basically arrived in august when mitch

mcconnell had masterminded this great legislative feat where republicans could vote against raising the debt ceiling but yet effectively raise it. on the floor today, you saw a senators who came and spoke the case for deficit reduction but in a balanced way. you saw senator dick durbin who is involved in the very defunct -- although everyone tries to -- three democrats and three republicans who tried to structure a deficit reduction package that included both spending cuts and revenues. you're seeing -- taxes are always a big deal. they're a bigger deal in election years. you're seeing a really interesting debate right now both inside the capital because every agreement they've come to today as been cuts only. on the campaign trail, you look to see what he importance people are putting on mitt romney's personal taxes, interesting to see how that interplays with

what people think about the policies. all of these things are coming into focus and today was just one of many examples i think you'll see in the next few months where people will talk not only the necessity for reduction but how we achieve it. >> let me ask you from your colleague humberto sanchez with the lead at this hour, roll call.com, senate republicans not really united on nominations. he points out there remains significant debate within the senate republican leadership how to deal with some of the recess appointments and nominations the president is putting forth. based on what you're reporting on capitol hill, what's happening? >> another interesting issue you see depending on who is in power in the white house and who is in control in the senate. one of the things that the president had talked about in his state of the union was coming up with the so-called nuclear option which would mean any judicial or public service

phenomenon knee that came before the senate but couldn't get 60 votes would then 90 days come up for a straight up or down vote. flash back to 2005 when barack obama was a senate decried the nuclear option that would it would be terrible politics and there was a reason the safe gaufrds were put in place. >> the senate doesn't like to change quickly, if at all. so you have a lot of people hole rel very averse to change and you have a very recent incident really marked by richard cordray getting an pint 0ed to consumer protection bureau create. so they took what they didn't like about the agency and used that as this qualifying reason not to approve the nominee. the controversy comes whether or not richard core cray was technically a recess appointment because the senate was in pro forma sessions. every few days for the past several years, the senate has gathered in to make sure recess

appointments couldn't be made. harry reid was the one who came up with this whole system of pro forma sessions to avoid recess appointments but he and george bush was president had basically had an agreement bush wouldn't recess appoint, but with that agreement came acceptances of a bunch of his nominees in regular session. i think you're seeing a lot of debate now, one based on precedent and people hop reply upset obviously that the consumer protection bureau. but also whether or not this is constructive because right now you have a president who has a dysfunctional congress. if republicans start blocking even noncontroversial district judge nominees, they'll be able to paint that case clearer. if they want to the block certain nominees they might be able to do that, but i think it's a question of discretion and how effective it will be for them politically.

at this point, it would be most a little political move. >> let me ask you about maybe a groundhog day moment because the payroll tax to date is back center stage, not getting a lot of headlines right now because the conferees are working out through the issues. democrats saying let's raise taxes on the wealthy. republicans saying no to any new tax increase. the payroll tax agreement expires at the end of next month, an extra day because of it being a leap year. where do things stand and will congress meet the deadline. >> wait, congress is engaged in a groundhog day like moment? when has this happened before? you know what, there's been one official meeting out of conference committee. they were engaged in talks mostly with their own party over recess and the christmas break. and i think you're right to say that a lot of the same issues still exist. how exactly you achieve the kind of number you need to pay for

extending all these programs the rest of the year. there are issues because pay forces were so discussed last time around ta got buried. the extreme differences in employment insurance benefits. the house approved a one-year extension of payroll and employment benefits. a 40-week difference in the amount of weeks they would like to authorize unemployment benefits to be distributed. which is obviously something that's not very popular with democrats. they also implemented reforms that would enable toxadminister drug tests before going up on -- or to make someone who doesn't have a high school diploma make progress towards a ged. there are a lot of the changes there. clearly there's going to be a lot of work. i think both parties would like it to get done quick hadly. you're going to have presidents' day recess, other things you have to move off the docket. this is something they don't have a lot of time to do. it would be politically

difficult for both parties if it became another drawn out debate. >> essentially we can call you every week for the next five weeks on this debate. >> if you would like to, i would be here. hopefully we'll have some interesting and new things to discuss although i can't make a promise i can't keep. >> meredith shiner, one of our rels here on washington today program. thanks as always for being with us into thanks for having me again. >> her work is available online at roll call.com. from the las vegas sun, the president part of a three-day five-state tour. he is in vegas tonight pushing out for what the sun is calling an all of the above energy strategy, highlighting a record that would boost domestic energy production he says has been copping unincreasing attack from republicans. the president using the visit to announce a new oil and natural gas lease sale in the central gulf of mexico. he talked about the creation of natural gas corridor everywhere long beach, california, to salt lick city he said it will allow vehicles to fuel up along the highway and encourage companies

like u.p.s. to transition to clean energy fleet to transport some of the goods. u.p.s. was the backdrop for the president's remarks in las vegas. is he going to wrap up his tour tomorrow in many detroit. he was also in arizona. we'll read more about what happened in arizona yesterday and the follow-up from the white house today. but here is more from the president earlier in the day in las vegas. >> we do not begrudge success in america. we aspire to it. we want everybody to succeed. we want everybody to be rich. we want everybody to be working hard, making their way, creating new products, creating new services. creating jobs. that's the american way. we don't shy away from financial success. we don't apologize for it. but what we do say is, when this nation has done so much for us, shouldn't we be thinking about the country as a whole? when americans talk about folks

like me paying their fair share of taxes, it's not because they envoy the rich. just yesterday, bill gates said he agrees with me that most -- that americans who can afford it should pay their fair share. bill gates does not envy the rich, i promise you. he doesn't envy wealthy people. this has nothing to do with envy and it has everything to do with math. we've got to make choices. americans understand if i get a tax break i don't need, and a tax break the country can't afford, then one of two things are going to happen. either it's going to add to our deficit, all right, or somebody else is going to have to make up the difference. seniors suddenly going to have to start paying more for med kir or a student paying more for their student loan or a family trying to get by, they're going to have to do with less. and what's not right.

that's not who we are. each of us is only here because somebody somewhere felt a responsibility to each other and to our country and helped to create all this incredible opportunity that we call the united states of america. now it's our turn to be responsible and it's our turn to leave an america that is built to last for the next generation. that's our job and we can do it. we can do it. we can do it! and i know we can do it because i've seen in states like nevada and with people like you that i meet all across this country, you understand the history of this country. generations of measuamericans wg together look can out for each other. living by the idea that we rise or fall together. those are the values we have to return to.

you know, i mentioned praise for our military at the state of the union. and the incredible work that they do and the reason our military is so good, the reason why they're so admired is because you know, it's not like everybody in the military agrees on everything. you've got democrats in the military. you've got republicans in the military. you've got folks hog are conservative or liberal, different races, different religions, different backgrounds. but they figure out how to focus on the mission. they figure out how to do their job. and that sense of common purpose is what we're going to need to build an economy that lasts. and if we work together in common purpose, we can fwhald economy and we can meet the challenges of our times and we'll remind the entire world once again just why it is the

united states is the greatest country on earth. thank you, everybody. god bless you. and god bless the united states of america. ♪ thank you. >> the president at a u.p.s. facility in the las vegas in which he talked about taxes, energy and the u.s. economy. twox side notes. first of all from the las vegas sun, the president who arrived an in las vegas late wednesday afternoon was greeted by the pair at mccarron airport. he stayed at the lmn hotel. the las vegas sun pointing out when he arrived he ordered 12 pizzas from don demarcus pizzeria and bar. you can read more by logging on to las vegas sun.com. yesterday we read to you from a pool report as the president lanned in phoenix, arizona and his conversation with governor jan brewer. it received a lot of attention overnight, one of the lead stories this morning on a number of programs including the "today" show. jay carney in what is called a

gaggle as he spoke to reporters on board air force one responded to many soft stories. on governor jan brewer, the press secretary saying "i'm glad you guys are focused on the important things. she handed him a letter which she described as an invitation to have a meeting. the president said he would be glad to meet with her. he noted at their last meeting was reportedly different in governor brewer's book. he's focused on the issue of immigration which is why under his administration we have more boots on the ground and fewer illegal crossings. some of this is political theater says jay carney. to some degree the president noted when her book came out it got a lot of attention. her description of that meeting did not reflect what happened in the meeting in the oval office and she described, governor brewer describing the meeting as cordial to reporters. again, you'll probably get more on this tonight and tomorrow. the white house responding to

some of the reports it was a testy or frostiy conversation on the tarmac between the governor of arizona and the president as he landed yesterday to campaign on his -- to campaign on his state of the union address on to focus on jobs in the economy at a speech in phoenix, arizona. this it is washington today on c-span radio. the pentagon outlining a plan today that slows the growth of military spending including the cutting the size of the army and marine corps, retiring a number of older planes. it is drawing some criticism from republicans. it will likely come up in the debate tonight between the four republican candidates. the changes announced today by leon panetta as he was joined by general dempsey it's in total cutting about $887 billion from defense spending. here's more everywhere today's event at the pentagon. >> one thing i was hoping you could better help me understand, you talk about hard choices and accepting some measure of risk but you also point out the ground forces will still be

higher than ach nevin, there will still be aircraft carriers roughly at the same level. given that, what is the risk and where are the hard choices? >> want me to do it? >> yes, sir, please. >> look, the risks come with the fact that you know, we will have a smaller force. as we said, it's larger than we had prior to 9/11. but obviously, it will be a smaller force and when is you have a smaller force, there are risks associateded with that in terms of our capability to respond. we think we've dealt with those risks because the combination of the forces we have in place and the ability if we have to to mobilize quickly will give us the capability to deal with any threat. but nevertheless, there's a risk there. there's a risk, frankly, in you know the technological area. we're depending a great deal on being at the technological edge

of the future as i've said. i think we even have to leap forward if we're going to deal with the kind of challenges we're going to face. we've got to be smart enough it, creative enough tough be able to leap forward. can we do that and develop the kind of technology we're going to need to confront the future? i'm confident we can, but there are risks associated with that. so -- the risks we're going to be facing obviously come with some of the areas where you know, we've had to reduce the budget. but what we've done is top try to develop the kind of agility and capability so that we can respond to the threats that we're going to face in the 21st century. and i think -- i think this is the force for the future. you know, are the risks going to be associated with it? you bet. can we deal with those risks and make them acceptable, you bet. >> if i could just elaborate in

30 seconds, the greater risk would be had we decided that we would just wish away any particular capability or any particular form of conflict. so say we're just never going to do that. so what you're expressing is the recognition that we are retaining our full spectrum capability than we didn't take any risk with that. >> we have time for one more yes. almost secretary, in terms of security challenges and security threats, what is worrying you most in particular for the next 12 months? >> that's a setup. look, the one thing we had to do obviously in developing the strategy and the one thing that frankly distinguishes this from past drawdowns, as i've said before, is that in past

drawdowns usually we, you know, we've come to the end of a particular threat. that we confronted and we could move on. the reality is that as we draw down from iraq and afghanistan, we still face a number of very important threats in the world. obviously, we're continuing to fight a war in afghanistan. we continue face the threat of terrorism as successful as we've been in confronting that. we continue to see that much challenge, whether it's in the fatah or whether it's in yemen or somalia and elsewhere. so we're going to have to continue to confront the threat of terrorism. but we see the threats coming from iran. and a nuclear capable iran represents a threat to us and to the world.

weapons of mass destruction, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are a concern. north korea is a concern. because they too are developing a nuclear capability. add to that the turmoil in the middle east that we have to confront. add to that the whole threat and the potential for cyberwarfare. you can see the vast array of threats that we have to confront with a force that we've designed here. so it's all of those that are my concern for the future. >> the comments of defense secretary leon panetta joined by martin dempsey who is the chair of the joint chiefs of staff outlining on proposed budget cuts by the military. let's break it down. the army would shrink from its current peak of 570,000 troops to about 490,000 within the next five years. the marines would decline by

about 20,000 marine corps officersen an enlisted men and women to about 182,000. panetta saying the administration will ask congress for a total of $225 billion to run the pentagon in 2013. how much i've cutback is it? about $6 billion less than the current budget. read more on all of this buying on to sites writing about this including "the washington post" and "the new york times." this is washington today on c-span radio. at the state department today, hillary clinton meeting with members of the state department to talk about a number of issues. including her warning for iraq not to "blow this opportunity." she called on iraq to take this opportunity as the state department oversees a lot of the operations now that the military is out of baghdad and elsewhere in iraq to move ahead with its democratic movement. she also made some political news saying she is ready to step off the high wire act of politics and to step down after serving as the first lady, senator from new york and now

secretary of state. she again reiterated