virginia. hi, mike. >> caller: hey there. representative, sir, i kind of like the ryan budget proposal but i really don't think that even the ryan budget proposal faces up to the reality of what's happened to the dollar, because of the debt driven up by the obama administration. the debt was driven up so far so fast that it is now beyond the ability of the economy to create enough new wealth against which taxes could be laid at reason the rates to give the government the money it needs to manage the debt it's incurred. >> congressman king? >> my response, i would agree to some extent, the ryan budget doesn't solve this problem quickly enough in my opinion. is bold and strong. it's the boldest and strongest out there, and i give paul ryan credit for envisioning this several years ago, putting these pieces together and then taking

a leadership role to present two budgets in a row to at least get us to balance. the president's budget doesn't get us to balance. i would be stronger. sigh ported the budget's committee budget and that's gets us to budget in less than ten years. that's a better start, i think. a number of things we need to do, as a lot of currency in circulation right now devaluing the dollar, as you said. rye thi i think that policy needs changeded. i think mitt romney would change that policy with his appointment. top follow along on that, a balanced budget that caps gdp. 18% i would go. i would want to see that as a mandate for the next president of the united states to push the congress to pass that kind of a balanced budget amendment out of the house and send to the state for ratification. that's the only way we can get to a point to get this country back on the fiscal track again. >> next call, buffalo, new york, debbie, independent line. >> caller: how you doing this morning? >> good morning, debbie. >> caller: i have two questions.

one has to do with the import export bank owned by the clintons. you people just gave them $140 billion and you're complaining about jpmorgan and $2 billion? >> so what about the ex and imbank? >> i voted against the export/import bank because of some of the things i think were in the tone of your message, debbie. we have to start making decisions about what this federal government has to do versus what the government might have chose ton do in better economic times. along the way, the house of representatives has seen a growing core of constitutional and fiskcal conservatives lookig for places to put up a vote and send a message say weg can get along without some of the heavy expenses we have. i agree the $2 billion isn't a big chunk out of jpmorgan but worth looking at, what kind of

decisions did they make? the sec looked into that. it looks like justice is looking into it. i didn't see justice look into the meltdown in 2008, and many of the decisions that were made there, cost real americans pension plans billions and billions of dollars. i'd like to see justice look into that as well. thank you. >> this tweet from mark. why is congress so cowardly? you have a terrible approval rating. go bold. maybe you'll get lucky. >> actually, i like that. and herman cain yesterday said, i have a four-letter word for you all to follow and it's b-o-l-d. i would agree with has. that. we have not laid out a bright enough line. i wanted to draw a bright line and shut off all funding to enforce obama care at the beginning of the last congress. a major fight we had, a struggle from within. i wasn't successful in that. but i do think we need to be bold and draw bright line.

i'm seeing a core of leadership in the senate, they sit down, provide solutions and roll them out. i'm hopeful question stlap kind of bold leadership emerge in the house. we're short-term election every two years. it changes psychology a little bit and the new people that came in didn't get the traction from the beginning th ing thaning th they might. we'll see what the next election brings. >> representative king, an article in politico, of course, we can't find it right now. the house gop is planning a strategy, if, when and if the supreme court decides the health care. has that become common talk in your conference? >> it's not quite common talk. there's a little discussion out there's and a little bit has been feathered out through the media, and so i'm watching this thing with a very watchful and careful eye. i've taken the position for more than two years now that the one thing we must do is do a 100% repeal of obama care, and if the

supreme court should find it constitutional, that's very clear, the election then will be more about obama care than. would have been otherwise. if they find it unconstitutional and throw it all out, we still must refeel or a re-elected obama could make a couple appointments to the supreme court and they would relitigate and. would still be on the books and begin to implement obama careca ta that stage. it's critical. there might be people in the house that would repeal what they would call the most egregious aspects of obama care, cleave some aspects that seem to have support. my position is very strong is, lie fight that. i want all pulled out by the roots. any redeeming qualities to obama care, republicans and democrats can agree on that and put it back in, but the simplest way it pull it all out by the roots. if we don't do that, we'll end up with a confusing message are and confused health care policy and there are a number of things to do in the aftermath. i agree with what's come from

leadership. i've been arguing also 2.5 years. republicans shouldn't sgee a formerly smoke-filled room and put together a great big health care policy tolls replace obama care, when and if that sthim come. we need bring individual components of the health care replacement out in ways the american people can understand it, they can see clearly what they're getting and see the impact. for example, starting with selling insurance across state lines would be the thing i'd like to do first. pass that as a stand-alone. put it on the next president's desk and give it time 20 work. bring the next one. we can put together a list of four, five, six, ten, good health care reforms that sustain the great system we've had in america and send them one at a time at a level the american people support them and timing they can digest them. they're tired of big pieces of 2700 pieces of ledge slax and it's not good for our country when you pack it into one bill. >> davenport, iowa. robert on the democrats line. that's not your district? >> he's a neighbor.

>> all right. go ahead, robert. >> caller: good morning. i represent the union and the reason why i know we will soon have major depression is, you all are missing the point when you talk about everyone should pay their fair share. what really must happen is the people that are making the jobs, et cetera, have to pay people enough to make enough -- make enough to pay their bills. that's what the whole economy is about. how do you distribute scarce resources when the 1% gets all the money, they sit on the money. it become as problem for the other people. for a simple example, on cnn this weekend they were showing veterans coming back from afghanistan and from iraq. their jobs over there, while they were there fighting, allow the their families, to allow their families to take care, et cetera. once they come back, for example, they show them working

70, 80 hours a week and still coming up like $600 short. >> all right, robert. we're going to get a comment from congressman king. >> well, thank you very much. i think we have a different view on this economy. you can have a managed economy that is managed by, say, central command by the government, by the federal government that seeks to go in and tweak all the things we see as injustices or inequities, or you can revert to it free enterprise system articulated so well in wealth of nations by adam smith that lays out a powerful case for how this economy manages itself by supply and demand, and if you have people that are making too much money if they establish too large a market share, one of the things that other entrepreneurs can do, start a business to compete with them if they're making too much profit. it takes time but there's an evolution that goes on within the economic system in the united states. and this supply and demand piece on labor is the same case. this will adjust itself and if

we don't believe that competition sets price, creates jobs and creates wealth, it's not a zero sum game. not a shrinking pie. it's a pie we need to be growing with our own productivity in this country with aun tra pral newers that create the jobs. i think there's a point missed by democrats and republicans, and that's this point of both sides say, jobs, jobs, jobs. well, we want those, but companies, entrepreneurs, businesses, not just those there today, but those inspired to start businesses tomorrow or next decade have to have an opportunity for profit so that that's what they pay wages out of. i want a growing, dough dynamic free economy, it takes a while to be activated. >> s.b. e-mails in, congressman, from whiting, new jersey, i agree government spending must be reduced down to a sustainable level, but where were the conservative republicans during the last bush administration? how do you feel about unfunded government mandates? >> well, it depends on the

unfunded government mandate, i think you could take them apart and probably every member of congress is voted for one or another along the way. so they become pet project, but i think the bush administration spent too much money. i voted against some. railed against most. the difference is, if i could go back through that era and make one change in george bush's approach, provided we were going to go into iraq and afghanistan, and i think he would do the same thing. he didn't ask america to tighten our belts. he didn't say, we are at war. we have to pay for this war tightening our belts and not expand government, slow spending so this doesn't impact us. we got a little overboard, but it was the september 11th attacks that hit our financial center that set up all of our security tsa. put us into two wars. spiral that economic economy down and spending up so those lines went the opposite direction. but even still in the middle of the iraq war, and around 2006 or

'07 we came within $160 billion of balancing our budget. now we're looking at an annual deficit, obama's, $1.33 trillion. a big difference between the obama administration and the bush administration. about tenfold the debt that's been created on an annual basis, but it still to would have been better to tighten our belt back then and i agree with that. >> fiona says, if people understand the numbers better they would see there is no way to fix the problem without addressing entitlements, and joy says, 36% of the money that the federal government receives is from fica taxes. this is or should be designated for social security and medicare. is this money being sent to the government from all privately employed persons? >> yes. well, i disagree with the decision to advance the payroll

tax holiday. the 2% payroll tax holiday, because it broke that longstanding, i think perpetual agreement that employers and employees would each contribute 50% into the payroll tax and suspend 2% from the employees' side and continue to require the employer to make that contribution set it up to be a political tool and for political votes late other than. we've had one vote since then. and it's created, also, a $209 billion hole in the social security trust fund. that's the result of the payroll tax holiday. the question then becomes, do you want to get a few more dollars in your pay czecheck nod find out your social security will run out sooner. we need to address this. that's entirely correct and do it by a long-term vision. by making these reforms going into that. when george bush offer add proposal to reform social security. an effort to shut it down.

more driven by politics and less by economics. i seem to remember those days when democrats and republicans sat down and made decisions on what was better, best for the country. came to a compromise. did a long-term fix on social security, a long-term fix on medicare and here we sit today with a political impasse because this congress is more polarize than i can recall, and we get into political solutions instead of economic solutions. i hope we can change that with this next election. >> next call for congressman king comes from clinton, michigan. edward, republican line. good morning. >> caller: hello, representative king. >> good morning. >> caller: i have to admit, i always enjoy listening to you speak. you speak so calmly, and so logically. >> thank you. >> caller: i went and was looking in the beginning when you were talking about the fair tax, basically, and there's a lot of opposition to it. my heartfelt belief is the united states is -- is broke and going to go further broke.

and if the -- what would be your feelings if they implemented the fair tax, but kept a, say, 3% to 5% income tax and make it a constitutional amendment that the income tax is strictly for bringing down the deficit, paying down the deficit, and the sales tax is just for running the necessities of government? i'll take my answer off the phone. thank you. >> okay. well, thank you, edward. i would be uneasy about going there partly because i've not considered or studied it or seen what the economic impact would bei want to apolish the irs and the federal income tax code and put an end to all estate tax, personal income tax, corporate income tax, and interest and dividend and capital gains tax. what really, the philosophy that

i bring to this is this, and i maybe the only one that talks about it this way, but tax is a punishment. you tax, you get less of according to reagan. yet the federal government has the first lien on all productivity in america. if you have earnings and investment, uncle sam stands there with his hand out to tax it. he gets his share, you get to keep your share. i want to the see people earn, save and ind vest all they can, create more and more wealth and that wealth creates moorpd more jobs. meanwhile, then, let's put the tax over on the consumption side. a i think we can solve it without having to come forward and hold the irs in place. part of the inceptive is, i don't want the irs in my life. i want the freedom to be able to make my own decisions and we consume so much of our creativity and productivity in america sitting around with a room full of tax lawyers deciding which business venture works bet out of tax delay or avoidance rather than figuring mu to produce more way marketing

valley he and abroad. that's for the idea and i will think about it. >> yesterday senator barbara boxer was on the msnbc morning show talking about the debt ceiling as a political tool. i want to get your reaction. >> why do you think they're bringing the debt limit back? >> because they want to create a crisis so people say, oh, my goodness. maybe fb we change everything, things will be better, and, you know, maybe we need a different president. >> you think they're playing, doing this to try to help mitt romney? >> i think they're doing it to hurt the democrats. to say that the democrats are in control of the senate and we're not doing the right thing, when the facts show otherwise. their work to hurt this president and their desire to see him lose meant that we had to suffer a downgrade. a downgrade of our bonds, and the way they're approaching the future is, they're willing to take another downgrade. well, i'm not willing to do that. we should stop it now. >> well, my reaction to that is,

peter that, you know, it's been part of the verbiage we heard during the debate last august 4th when the debt ceiling deadline came. the great fear the sky is falling. we're going into default. their definition was a -- america didn't pay its bills. we're drawing in about two of everies 3ds back then and have the resources to pay the bills for a period of time going out. i said, don't increase the debt limit. i wanted to freeze that. i voted against increasing the debt limit because i wanted to force a debate on what america needs to do to get this economic problem fixed. as long as we increase the debt limit and we live in fear that somehow we're going to lose our bond rating it will go down. they stead would go down if we didn't. the bond rating went down anyway. i don't think those two things are necessarily tied together. i think our bond rating improves, we go back to aaa if we show question balance the budget and have the discipline. we haven't stheen at this point and it's going to take another

election to get the to point to demonstrate fink fiscal responsibility in this united states congress. we're leaving this now for live coverage of today's white house briefing. great. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here. i know that i alone did not draw this substantial crowd. which is why i will immediately introduce and turn over the briefing to tom donilon, the president's national security adviser, as you know, the united states is hosting the g-8 and nato summits. the g-8 and camp david. napt oh in chica nato in chicago and tom is here to give a preview of those summits as we've done in the past with visitors to the briefing, if you -- he'll make comments to open. he'll take your questions on related subjects, and then tom will depart and i'll remain to

take questions on other matters. with that, i give you tom donilon. >> thank you, jay. appreciate the opportunity to come by. i wanted to take a few minutes today, and i'll give a couple of comments at the top and then take a few minutes to give you all perspective on yupt coming summits. g-8 at camp david and nato summit in chicago and be glad to take questions. good to see you all this afternoon. thanks for coming out. the first thing i wanted to say is that i've been reflecting on where we've come the last 3.5 years. the initial summits that the president attended in 2009 saw the global economy in free-fall. momentum in afghanistan had shifted to the taliban. al qaeda was entrenched in a safe haven and america's alliances had frayed. today i think it's fair to say, and we can discuss this in any

detail that want, that we've made significant progress on each of these issues. the u.s. economy is growing. al qaeda leadership devastated and we've put in place a responsibility plan to wind count war in afghanistan. meanwhile, a top priority of this administration from the outset, our alliance has never been stronger. the next several days the aim is to build on this progress and we'll do soap at camp david in chicago. and the two summits really do underscore our embodiment of american leadership on a range of global challenges in advancing several overarching u.s. interests, making the international architecture work effectively in the transformation of the world. secondly, aligning core alliances and three advancing our strategy in to end the war in afghanistan in a responsible fashion. as result of this engagement and the bilateral and multilateral levels over the course of the administration we're leading and i think we'll see real progress

on the goals i just talk and. let me talk about what we'll be doing. the first meeting will be the g-8 meeting begin friday evening at camp david. as a lot of you know, i like to think historically about these things, and did a little research on camp david. it's always risky to do this with mark milner tler in the ro the risk of being corrected immediately. first, i want it talk about why the president chose camp david for this meeting. first, the g-8 meeting will be the largest gathering ever to stay at camp david. in fact, the first time more than two heads of state at camp david. camp david hosted over 50 different heads of state in the seven-year history as well as various retreats and critical meetings. again, only two summits held at camp david. the camp david accords in 1978, where president carter hosted prime minister begin and

egyptian president anwar sadat, and the middle east peace summit in 2000 between israeli prime minister barak and hosted by president clinton. the summit is intended toish small and intimate and the president made a conscience decision to host the meeting at camp david for this reason. each said of state or government will have his or her own cabin and have an opportunity to meet informically in the margins of the meeting and take full advance of the grounds at camp david. the meetings will occur around the dining room table of the lower cabin. i think this is consistent with the history and purpose of the g-8 meetings. it really isn't a back to basic ace proech, if you will. the meetings have origins in the 1970s with the united states hosting informal meeting with financial officials from the major developed economies. in 1975, a president barely started -- invited heads of

state and government frp from these, france, for a summit to discuss the oil crisis and economic recovery. since then they've become rather large gatherings with infrastructure and all kinds of support staff and long communique, and the president wanted to pull away from that and really get back to basics. really get back to the intent which is to have the leaders of the developed economies in the world being able to talk about face-to-face in intimate session the issues facing us. that's what undergerirds the president's decision to have it at camp david. a flavor what it would be like up there. let me talk about the meeting itself and objectives for the g-8 meeting. obviously, now i'll go through, maybe the best way to do it, go through the agenda, how it will unfold during the course of the meetings. on friday evening, they'll be a leaders dinner at camp david. prior to that, by the way, i

should mention that president milan will have this first meeting with president obama here at the white house, friday morning. i think it's around 11:00 friday morning. the president looks forward to meeting with president elan and his team nap meeting with the president will be followed by a lunch over at blair house that secretary clinton is hosting for president elan and his delegation. again, to beginning our relationship with him and continue our work with an important ally, france. i can talk about that meeting again in some detail, if you'd like to do that. as i said, the schedule begins on friday evening with a working dinner for the leaders only. the topic for this dinner will be regional and political issues. i expect that the following issues to come up and, again, leaders will raise other issues during the course of it. they'll clearly be a discussion about iran. and we expect to the a vance in

the international con sense ins around the p-5 plus one approach crazying the nuclear issue and the theme will be international unity, i think which has ban hallmark of this project, as well as the -- previewing, our expectations for the may 23rd second round of meetings with the iranians. the iranians and p-5 plus 1 in baghdad, iraq. that will about point of discussion on friday evening. this has been a top priority for this administration. as you all know, we've had a multivariable intensive approach from the first days we came into office. this approach has began with offers for engagement. they were not met with a response from the iranians's we proceeded then to again a multiple variant pressure campaign, frankly, that included a lot of elements including sanctions. the unprecedented international sanctions campaign we put in place i think has resulted in the iranians coming to the table.

each member of the g-8 is a core member of the sanctions effort. each member has been absolutely essential to really putting in place what has been an extraordinarily effective and i think most people wom say surprisingly effective sanctions effort. they'll also be pressing the iranians to take advantage of the diplomaticers putting forward and the pressure on iranians to demonstrate continued good faith coming out of istanbul and a willingness to engage in concrete ways with the p-5 plus 1 on addressing the iranian nuclear program. the message will be the iranians should seize this opportunity. and while this goes on in parallel, the sanctions pressure effort will continue led by the united states and the others who will be at the table on friday evening. we also expect that they will, the leaders will discuss north korea.

discuss burma and you saw, the announcement today by secretary clinton with respect to our easing of investment sanctions in burma. then remarkable progress in burma and the leaders will want to engage on this i think on friday evening. burma is at the start of a long but promising path towards democracy. as you know, the president's made this a top priority. again, we can talk about this in any detail that want. and i think also a discussion on syria at the meeting on friday evening and, again, leaders can bring up whatever other issues they want. that's the focus. the focus will be security issues friday evening. the next morning, the focus will turn to the economy. and, of course, the global economy especially the economic situation in the eurozone are going to be the top of of the agenda. this is the first opportunity for the leaders of the major developed economies to meet face

to face since president elan's election in france and the political events in greece. this, of course, also will be the first g-8 meeting for the prime minister of italy and prime minister noda of japan. and obviously, this comes at a very delicate time with respect to the european economy, the eurozone economy. let me say a couple things about this. one, the united states welcomes the evolving discussion and debate in europe about the imperative for jobs and growth. two, the united states has an extraordinarily significant stake in the outcome of the economic discussions in europe and the steps that are taken in europe. this is european union as whole, of course, the largest trading partner of the united states. and it three. the president looks forward to leading a discussion among the leaders about the imperative of

having a comprehensive approach to manage the crisis and get on a sustainable path towards recovery in europe and obviously this is a key part of the discussions up at camp david. the other areas, and i won't go into much detail as others. i'll list them. you can ask questions about them. after the discussion during the course of the morning on the global economy focusing again on europe, they'll be separate see sequential sessions, if you will, devotesed to the following topics. energy and climate. food security and as you know the president will tomorrow deliver a very important speech on a critical initiative he's had in place here that will make a real difference in the lives of people in africa. and we'll have at the -- they'll be at camp david a working lunch on food security attended by four african heads of state from tanzania, ghana, and ethiopia. so energy and climate, food