deputy editor of aviation week. thank you for watching "washington journal," we will be back tomorrow at 7 a.m. eastern time. . .

a discussion of the tea party movement. we will hear remarks and if -- from a fox news contributor. tomorrow night, former vice presidential candidate will speak at the convention. she is the keynote address. you can see your comments alive saturday at 9:00 p.m. eastern. here's a look at some of the sights and sounds taking place in nashville.

>> thank you. >> think you for coming. >> sir, can you show me what is in your gift back? >> i do not know what it is for. it has a hole in the bottom. >> we have a t-shirt. >> this will not hold any of tea. >> this is nice. do you want to keep looking? we have a fanny pack. it has a teacup arnett. that is nice. -- it has a teacup on it. this is a megaphone. >> there is not a teacup. >> there is more paperwork are how to order t-shirts. >> do you have your tickets? this comes with you when you buy

your past? >> know there is not an actual ticket. >> in that it welcomes british historian and former adviser to margaret thatcher paul johnson who is an offer of over 40 books. during our three our conversation with your phone calls with paul johnson live from london sunday at noon eastern on [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] -- >> i tried to be entertaining, informative, and relevant. >> progress of talk radio host and author of 30 books is our guest sunday night at 8:00 p.m. >> yesterday, the house arms services committee spoke out

against the president's 2011 budget proposal for the pentagon. one said, weapons procurement is underfunded in the budget and spoke about this at the heritage foundation for 45 minutes. >> we would ask everyone to make a courtesy check on their cell phones. we remind our internet yours that questions can be submitted by simply peeling us at speaker@heritage.org. we opposed the program within 24 hours on our web site. hosting our discussion this morning is a distinguished fellow in government relations here at the heritage foundation. as a former senator, he specializes in military readiness and welfare reform. one of his objectives is to raise awareness within congress and throughout the country on the importance of assuring

stable, robust funding of america's military in times of peace and war. but he served in the house for eight years. the last four were as minority leader. he represented the second district in the u.s. house for eight years from 2000 to-2007 he served in the united states senate. please join me in welcoming jim talent. >> thank you. i hope everyone has had a chance to get some coffee, a bagel, and to get ready for what i am certain is going to beat and lightning set of remarks by our guest today who as an old friend of mine as well as of the country. we came into the house of representatives together. neither one of us has aged in the least. that is the only thing you're going to hear that is not true today. america is in a difficult time.

that is the reason we do what we do in this section of the heritage foundation. i have been watching this a recently as i talk about these issues that i think america is facing greater dangers today than it ever has in my lifetime which is a fairly considerable amounts of time. one of the real, bright things to happen with the national security constellation was the ascension of our guest to the head of the house arms committee. he is a good friend, a great man, and a person whom, as you will hear today, understands these issues are a strategic level. he knows we faces the specter of risks covered from a broad number of sources is we have to be prepared with a broad spectrum of capabilities. he began political life in the late 1998 epoxy as a mere --

late 1980's. he has had an abstaining career in the house including his work on his -- on the house labor committee. he became chairman. he is doing a great job on that committee and will be a key figure in preparing the committee. ladies and gentlemen it is our pleasure to introduce to congressman buck mccee from california. [applause] >> thank you very much, jenna, for that well going. i hope you are around to speak at my funeral. -- thank you very much, jim. i hope, as jim said, we served together on the education work force committee.

when we win a majority in 1994, some of us were fairly new in congress. a lot of people got off of that committee. when the issues we had to address was [inaudible] with that he was the only one that knew anything about it. fortunately, jim was there. his expertise in labor law and helping in that area was greatly needed. he stepped up and served very strongly in that area. we hated to see him leave to go to the senate. i am glad he is here at heritage now. i think that is a great marriage. i want to think the heritage foundation for hosting me this morning and giving me the opportunity to share my views on how president obama has performed as commander in chief of the past year.

where i believe we need to push the president in days ahead. york held presence, your policy papers, your events week -- you put on helpless to do a better job. i would be remiss if i did not take a moment too good knowledge the thousands of american sons and daughters who are currently bravely serving in iraq, afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world that are doing heroic jobs and have done so for a decade. as always, they deserve our prayers, respect, and support. when it comes to protecting the american people and our values, we must begin with the end in mind. we strive for peace, security, and freedom. our people must be protected from those whose only aim is to destroy our way of life. make no mistake, americans yearn for peace. to achieve that, we must fight those who only want war.

we must ask, how to remove a tree, but said today towards our goals of tomorrow? as you consider my comments this morning, i would like to answer these questions. are we adequately equipped as a nation and as a military to handle challenges posed by radical terrorists? are our leaders equipped with the convictions necessary to properly defend america's values and america's people? in washington, we moved from one election to the next planning six months ahead. a long term planning, they usually mean, what is in it for me at the next election? unfortunately, those who wish as harm across the globe are not bound by two, four, or six year cycles.

in it -- in the defense committee, we focus on one -- on what went wrong. this fails our nation and our next generations for whom we fight. who is thinking about the war in 2015? what about the war in 2013? -- 2030? the pace of the world's technological and political changes grow exponentially each year. we cannot afford to forever play catch-up and never hope to keep up. make no mistake that our ability to keep the peace today is inextricably linked to our ability to keep pace with tomorrow. as we all know, president obama came into office promising change. he promised to change our politics. the american people have been troubled to find that instead he

is trying to change our principles. as a result, support for him is waning and the political winds are starting to glow in a different direction. more importantly, his misdirected domestic agenda has distracted from his vital role as a leader in the free world. if pushed national security into a small corner. today, americans and all people yearning to breathe free deserve leadership. we need a president who, like the president's in our history, recognizes the power of american values is greater than a military or economy. we need a leader who has the courage to fight for those values not just on the battlefield but also from the bully pulpit. time and again we have seen this administration reluctantly

assumed the role of the world's bellona democratic superpower. we must never -- the world's lone democratic superpower. we must never forget that america is great and we have the responsibility to make others great. our military is a force of good in the world. archers respond when earthquakes hit, when a tsunami said. we were called in again to go to haiti. thousands of soldiers were recalled, equipped, and on the way to haiti within three days. america leads like this time and time again for two simple reasons. first, because we can, and second, and more importantly, because we must. america remains on to the greatest economic and military

resources in the world, but we must help because america remains home to the most compassionate, giving, and selfless people in the history of the world. these are indisputable facts proven time and time again. i yearn for the days of an american president who proclaimed around the world that america is a shining city upon the hill. i fear these days have passed for now. this is certainly a change in my view, and welcome. i take issue with the decline in our country because every fiber of my being believes in this nation's greatness and also because of the impact is having around the world. increasingly concerned that the construct -- the criticism is on

what has permitted american national security policy. -- permeated policy. america should never leave alone. it must aspire to do less in acquiesce more to the will of others. in other words, we must do less with less. what i would like to do for the remainder of my remarks is to get a number of concrete examples where i think we are seeing declines and offer an alternative approach. that me start with the wars in afghanistan and iraq. there are operating from safe havens provided by the repressive taliban, planned and launched the attacks on our home land on 9/11. because of its history is across our between east and west, north and south, afghanistan controlled by the taliban would be a refuge for terrorists. it would place our sit -- our

citizens at greater risk for future attacks. in iraq, we found a country in the heart of the middle east world by a dictator who coveted weapons of mass destruction and regional domination. while the going has been tough, the broad freedom to people who had never known it, it is secure and stable iraq with peace -- in peace with its neighbors can only be an asset to the united states. like almost all republicans, i support the decision to serve and naing -- to surge in troops. i believe the additional forces in addition to giving general mcchrystal whenever he needs we can win this conflict. we must defeat the taliban which means taking all necessary steps to make sure that al

qaeda does not have a sanctuary anywhere else. this is also the president's objective. it is my fervent hope that the president's december 1st speech and the subsequent testimony of secretary gates and general mcchrystal concluded the war debates in this country. yet, the president's decision to provide 30,000 troops, which i believe is less than the commander requested, and began driving down our forces in july 2011 gives me pause to his commitment to seeing this through to victory. general mcchrystal, however, has assured me that he can live within these constraints. part of our job will be beamed to enter the pace of withdrawal is based on conditions on the ground. either we are committed to investing the resources and the time needed to win this war or we are not.

the emphasis on ending the conflict rather than winning reveals we have a reluctant were president. -- reluctance war president. he has a pretty straightforward formula he uses. he gives a major speech and travels throughout the country to rally americans behind his plan. how many times have we seen him use that strategy on domestic issues such as health care, climate change, or jobs? on afghanistan, however, he did not follow the formula of public support. he gave one speech at west point and moved on. it reelected wartime president, i fear, of states from using words -- words like "victory" and "winning" because he's more concerned with ending these conflicts. this is a strategy driven by an unchecked national security policy. so far, it has not undermined

our efforts in afghanistan. now, to the conflict in iraq. despite the then a senator obama's opposition to the war in iraq and is public doubt whether the surge would work, we have a chance in the coming year to redeploy from a secure democratic iraq capable of defending itself as an ally of the united states. the strategic significance of such an outcome is self-evident. the success of our incredible servicemen and women is indisputable. while all americans want our troops to return home as soon as possible, i fear our president to be deployment schedules may be too aggressive. bemis continue to insure the president makes decisions on troop withdrawals in iraq based on conditions of the ground. -- we must continue to ensure

his decisions are based on conditions. we must draw down forces if it means risking the security of our troops and the success of the mission. iraq and afghanistan are not the only theaters on the global war on terrorism. as the christmas day terrorist attack reminded us, al qaeda and others continue to threaten our homeland. the greatest example of the perils of a decline this policy is his mishandling of the war on it terror and the guantanamo detainees. let me share an example. the nigerian who attacked on christmas day trained in a yemen in an organization known as al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, aqap. one of them is an american-born cleric to radicalized major of hasan, the u.s. army

psychiatrist to killed at fort hood. now this organization that has ties to the foreign investor has ties to the fort hood massacre. if you'd think this would make the president revaluate his gitmo policy and he would see the perils of closing its and the risks of returning detainee's to countries already riddled with uncovered spaces and al qaeda cells. the simple truth is that relaxing our policy puts americans at risk. we can draw a bright and terrifying line between releasing those war criminals and our to our people. yet, there was the reversal of policy or even a review. it was only the results of congressional pressure that the administration announced it would stop transferring detainee's back to yemen.

it is the president's strident position that i find most alarming. on the same day the president acknowledged that his mid-ration failed to prevent the christmas day attack, he stated, "we will close the guantanamo prison which has damaged our national security interests." he also added that, "gitmo was the rationale for the formation of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula." he used the christmas day attack to justify his failed gitmo is a. this utterly, totally -- this is utterly backwards. this is a dangerous policy of playing america first which must end immediately. he chose to blame our security policies. instead of recognizing that terrorists targeted america long before guantanamo bay held enemy

combatants, he attempted to rewrite history to the benefit of our enemies and the detriment of our own people. put bluntly, the president believes that american policy was a root cause of aqap's attack on the homeland. i believe differently. i believe that america is a force for peace in the world and not a cause for strife. i believe we are the target of militant radicals and not its source. i believe we have a responsibility to defeat our enemies wherever they are not treated and released them as if they were run-of-the-mill domestic criminals. treating ksm and the co- conspirators of the 9/11 attack and prosecuting them in federal court in downtown new york reveals how misguided moralism endangers american lives and unnecessarily wastes hundreds of millions of dollars. we have a military system in

place that we worked hard on in the last reauthorization in the court room in a gitmo to handle these cases. it is time for the president to reverse his decision on trials in federal courts. whether we continue to hold detainees in gitmo or move them to gitmo north in illinois, the problem remains the same. no amount of self of flagellation will appease those who sympathize with al qaeda. the war against al qaeda is global so long as our objective is to defeat them, as it should be, the detainee problem will persist. closings gitmo only imperils our security. no more randomizing terrorists. -- no more mirandizing. no more trust in manhattan.

no more transfers to yemen. the american people need a new terrorist detainee policy. our war on terror policies are not the only casualty of the cleanest policies. -- declinist policies. challenges to the international order replacements to our national security and engaging adversaries becomes our principal endeavor. the 2010 qdr is replete with such rhetoric. whether dealing with a former adversary like russia or a present-day adversary like iran, i'm concerned that engagement has translated into weakness.

we cannot let this approach compromise our commitments to our friends and allies. for example, the so-called " russia resets"policy should not signal to reset our commitments to transatlantic security -- the so-called "russia reset." when we give up the missile to sectors before negotiating the treaty or when the president calls for a world without nuclear weapons, we not only threw away our best negotiating leverage with the russians but we also emboldened the likes of putin and other leaders who will be eager and able to fill a power void with their own projections of the influence. thus, europeans think this will only invite future russian aggression. this does not bode well for the security of emerging democracies in jordan and the ukraine.

similarly, when we engage iran and north korea diplomatically, we must do so taking into account that over 30 alleys -- allies that rely under the u.s. security umbrella. the engagement with adversaries can not indicate retreat. likewise, whatever steps the obama administration takes from stopping tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, the mess stop proliferation. this administration has spent 1 you're trying to engage iran as little to show for the effort. he spoke of growing consequences of iran last week. it remains to be seen. in my view, it is time to try something new. when the u.s. dominance is in question by don -- by adversaries or allies' security is at risk. to put it bluntly, his rigid the

administration's predisposition to engage with adversaries has not made us safer. -- to put it bluntly -- speaking softly and carrying a big stick should still be invoked. let me move to my final example. its impact on defense programs and spending. in testifying, secretary gates emphasized the need to balance the department which eventually translated into over $50 billion in program cuts. the secretary gets assured congress that his program decisions shifted the department in a different direction. like many in congress, i believe that these cuts took the department in the wrong direction. to help us understand the obama future for the pentagon, picture the following scenario. secretary gates calls for more balance by moving $60 billion over the next five years from

within the department to pay for programs supporting current operations. military personnel costs consume an increasingly large share of the investment account. a migration of the enduring cost of the pentagon and larger forces from the supplemental to the base budget occur without top line relief. finally, having to face the outstanding bill of the $60 billion to $80 billion from the current conflicts. baylor defense budget will have a focus of r & d. we can expect a dramatic decline for weapons acquisition funding from 35% of the fiscal year 2010 budget to 24% in fiscal year 2020. that is an unacceptable decrease. in my view, the balancing has

come at too high of a cost. they receive the quadrennial defense review, the qdr, which assumes the budget will be essentially flat for the next five years. this combined with the scenario i described above signals to the defense department a decline. i want to thank jim talent for serving on the independent review panel which will give us, i think, and more conservative approach to the qdr. article one, section 8 of the u.s. constitution states that congress's main job is to provide for the common defense, to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain the navy. i have been around a long time. i have seen as cut defense investments over the years under wars.

-- after roars. we cut back on defense so we will be unprepared for the next one. i have never before seen us make cuts during a war. quds to the defense investment in the midst of two wars is unacceptable. 1% real growth over the next five years is a net cut. the pressures on the defense budget i have just described warrants a higher top line. when one considers the current threats environment and some alarming gaps in our capabilities, the need for more dollars going to defense becomes critical. the qdr seems to continue the trend where military requirements seem to disappear by overstating our capabilities. take a look at the four structure requirements for fighter aircraft and ships. at some point, these decisions will catch up to us.

the fact is that we live in a world where our enemies and adversaries strive to do us harm. this reality warrants a higher top line. this credibility gap, i expect, will lead to hauling out contingency plans and could embolden adversaries. simply shifting into neutral puts america at risk. let me conclude with how this all impacts the industry. i have a business background. i cut my teeth building my family business from the ground up. that is how i learned what it takes to run a business. there were times when i was the only guy manning the store and i felt the burden of meeting payroll every month. my sense is that the president lacks a team with hands-on business experience. declining procurement accounts and drastic reductions in research and development is a recipe for losing more american jobs. underutilized industrial capacity will reduce cash to the

supply chain and could lead to another round of a defense consolidations like that of the 1990's. where will be cut this time? satellites, aircraft, shipbuilding, -- shipbuilding? this may be the most harmful impact in decline, foreign contractors. we must push for increases in defense investment. in accounts which spur innovation and american technological superiority to stem the decline. we must invest in ourselves. short-term, low risk investments that spurt innovation are the traditional realm of the private sector. the long term, high-risk investments require for our

national security are the responsibility of the government. from 1918 to today, as a percentage of gdp, has declined by 50%. -- from 1980. designed to create real american jobs. we need to enact a national defense education and investment act which would increase funding for basic defense research and maintain -- ensure we maintain our technological edge. we cannot continue to take your workforce for granted. with our technical workforce aging, we are in danger of losing our intellectual capital. we need to develop a next- generation of engineers and scientists that will insure the world's greatest innovators reside here at home. we needed to invest in american exceptional is and to stem the tide of decline.

-- exceptionalism to stem the dide of -- tide of decline. we need to invest in the sense. global stability and our prosperity rests on our ability to project power. a defense in decline portends an america in decline which is an outcome we cannot accept. this is not the type of change americans signed up for nor is a change we should believe in. instead, i believe our prosperity and security are strongest when we embrace and invest in an america that, as reagan said, "is a tall, proud city built on rocks, stronger than oceans, windswept, and god blessed."

thank you. [applause] now, if you are still awake i would be happy to take some questions. yes, sir? >> my name is john. i agree with everything you said however i think it obfuscates the real question and perhaps many of the things that are on the minds of the 1% and that is, do our potential enemies either individually or collectively still feel a sense of actual destruction? in other words, do they wake up in the morning thinking this could be my last day?

or do they look at the united states as being someone who is more interested in arguing about defense than they are in projecting power and making its risky to be against the united states? >> let me tell you that is a great concern and a great question. undoubtedly, there are people in this world who are trying to do us harm that do not sleep well at night. i think we have seen examples of some of the al qaeda and taliban leaders that we have been able to take down through efforts of some great americans. they are running. we are winning. we just need to have the will to stay and fight until we totally win. i do not think countries per sae are losing sleep.

we are not engaging in this conflict that we did in world war ii and that is one of the concerns that people have. if you go to war, go to war and to not do it halfway. -- and do not do it halfway. we have special forces, pilots flying, intelligent magic intelligence gatherers that are targeting some of these would- be killers and assassins and are taking them out. we have been fairly successful over the last few years doing that and we will continue to do so. good question. anybody else? yes? >> i am susan with reuters. >> i know you. >> you said, regarding iran,

that the president spoke of consequences last week and it remains to be seen what this means. you said, in my view is time to try something new. i would like to hear your suggestions for what new should be tried. are you talking about more sanctions? what kind? >> we have talked and talked about tougher sanctions. i think it is time to use them. we could do more than one thing at the same time. i think the government should impose tougher sanctions, but there are people over there leading a green movement that won freedom. we should be supportive of them. -- that want freedom. whether we do it as a government or encourage people to encourage a human rights ever, that should be done. the need to understand that it is totally unacceptable for them

to have nuclear weapons. as long as we are just talking about it and not really doing something, we are putting ourselves at risk. when i am saying we should do something else, we should do something and not just talk. yes? >> i am with the heritage foundation. that is probably the best rebuttal to his national security and defense policy since he was inaugurated. fabulous speech. >> well, i have several people here who wrote them. give them the credit. >> the question is, as you look from your term as the ranking member of the house arms committee, do you think there are democrats starting with rep skelton that you think if they cobbled together some sort of working coalition as the work on

the authorization bill? >> in mind time here with congress, i served on one of the most partisan committees and one of the most bipartisan committee. education is a very partisan committee and there is very little we can ever work on together. the armed services committee is very different. chairman skelton and i are in sync on so many items. in the last authorization bill we've really worked in a bipartisan way. we had meetings between the house and the senate, republicans and democrats, the big four probably had eight or 10 meetings. we really worked the way it is set up to work. i think that is probably because we understand the role we play and that is to defend this country.

i know chairmen skelton has come out in opposition to "don't ask, don't tell." i do not know how strong his opposition is in not closing guantanamo, but there are a lot things he and i really agree on. what we have to look at is what he can do within his caucus. as you know, the speaker runs that caucus with an iron fist. she is part of the left of the country and to the left of the democratic caucus. there are democrats that belief much as we do when it comes to defense of our country. there are members of the armed services committee that fall into that. there are limited in what they can really do. -- they are limited. i told skelton that i would be

chairman in the next congress and we could move forward if he was still here. yes? >> think you, congressman. i am from the department of the army. you indicated that you are may be concerned about the pace of the drawback in iraq. the question is interdependency between iraq and afghanistan from a structure perspective. we built up in afghanistan the forces that are essentially coming from iraq. our combat teams are going directly to afghanistan. that is how we are building the forces. if we slowed the draw in iraq, what kind of concerns you have with the supply of ground sources -- ground forces to work both conflicts and also have a

strategic reserve? >> the schedule calls for bringing all of the fighting forces out of iraq by august of this year. right now, it is moving along quite well. i talked to general petraeus last week in he is feeling pretty good. if there is some of flare up, like we had some severe bombs in the last week, if there is some flare-up are we going to continue? the troops are not in the cities and have been pulled back. i am hopeful that we will be able to follow that time line and have them out of there. that will leave about 35,000 to 50,000 to continue training in building up their security.

i hope that goes. i am concerned that if it flares up, will general odierno have the ability to hold back troops rather than moving them out? the troops that are going into afghanistan, some of them are already there. i was with them one of -- recently. they said we are in good shape and getting closer to where we can have members of the army, when they finish their deployment, be home for two years. by the end of this, we will be to that point. i am feeling pretty good about our ability to get the 30,000 troops into afghanistan and i am hopeful that we will be able to follow the timeline of getting troops out of iraq. i have been assured by general

conway that the marines are doing a good job in their rotation and that the army will be at that point by the end of this year. >> my name is a felix. -- is felix. i may captain of the german army. >> you sound like my governor. [laughter] that was a compliment. >> thank you. i would like to know from your view what do you think about the role of the partners of the united states, especially in western europe in this whole topic? what do you expect -- what do you expect of us to do to

support the u.s. army? what's the think about the future role of the nato and european partners? >> this is something our partners have not received adequate credit for, but i know the germans a few months ago just before i got to afghanistan in august had suffered the first casualties since world war ii and we appreciate what your doing over there to help. we have over 44 countries that are helping us. when the president committed to sending 30,000 troops and looks like we are going to get another 7000 from our nato allies. during thanksgiving we went to the net -- we went to visit some of the troops and i was not aware of what a great sacrifice many of the nations are making to be with us.

when we send 30,000 troops and we hear that some other country sends 5000 i think many of us in america understand that the country sending 5000 is sending a greater percentage of their forces than we are with our 30,000. i think that our partnership will continue to grow stronger especially if we achieve the success that i feel we need to achieve. it shows that we can work together and are doing so very well. think you and thank you for your service. thank you all for being here. i have a hearing at 10:00 a.m. on the the qdr. thank you very much. [applause] >> we want to thank congressman mckeon for that strategic speech for a we're grateful for him coming. he had a hard deadline which was

five minutes ago. as a token of our appreciation, we want to give you a heritage foundation tie. i want you to know this is a token of our appreciation. it is not a comment of your current taste in clothing. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate it. [applause] thank you.

>> all of this weekend, live coverage of the first national tea party convention from nashville. tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. eastern, a discussion on the future role that the tea party could play in the upcoming elections. after that, analysts examine how to get the party to grow and organize. in between those we will take your phone calls and comments. the convention live tomorrow on c-span. here is a look at some of the sights and sounds from the convention in national so far. -- in nashville. >> is that a medium?

>> are you here attending the convention or as a vendor? >> both. we have been to several of the functions. we are very adamant about that we, as american workers, produce in the united states. >> do you sell these in other states? >> we have five factories. it became a passion of the company. we started to go to the marches in the tea party movement. we saw a lot of imported goods which are frustrated us. >> are you involved in your own local party? >> yes. >> when you hear criticisms and concerns -- >> my feeling is that, no, it goes back to perot.

it is good to see the people believe that they need to go back to their roots, american made manufacturing and products, jobs in the head states -- in the united states and that is what we believe in and how we got involved. we did not plan on doing t- shirts until we started to see imported t-shirts. it is like the autoworker after he is done striking goes to walmart and buy stuff from china. >> can you show me your best sellers? >> they are all bestsellers. we did the convention teacher. here's one from margaret thatcher. -- we did the convention at t- shirts. and -- since several key to bringing it up, it is always a good one. -- since everyone keeps bringing its up.

and look at women lawyers and the supreme court. sandra day o'connor and others talk about the challenges they faced in the legal profession and arguments before the supreme court. that is tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. eastern. >> we know historic plea that they forgot all of that. >> this weekend, nobel prize- winning economist on the 2008 a collapse -- 2008 collapse on "book tv." >> the new cspanclassroom.org make it more useful for teachers with the most current and timely videos for use in your classroom. you can find the most watched clips organized by subject and topics. the latest in education news and the chance to connect with other cspan teachers.

sign up at the new cspanclassroom.org. >> now discussion on the political news of the week from this morning proxy washington journal which is 45 minutes. -- this morning's "washington journal." washington times," also or working with edelman public relations firm, and ttim fernholz, staff writer would "the american prospect." deficits, debt, budget, your thoughts on that. mr. blankley, you go first. guest: we are seeing a around the world of fear over the viability of bonds. a crash and the market -- a crash in the market, and agree to bonds, and it is interesting to see people -- greek bonds,

and it is interesting to see people by credit default swaps to protect that. i cannot remember the last time that normally reliable countries were in this kind of situation. there is no doubt that there is a debt and deficit threat to global economic well-being. guest: but not as big a threat to the united states well being. if you look where treasure prices are right now, the united states is running a pretty big deficit, but doing it pretty cheaply, because people trust the erican dollar. in the president's budget this week, we sought not enough focus on spending more to solve the jobs problem. host: you were critical of the president's budget when it came out. he said that last year, the budget was open and honest and did away with trickery. this year, and you said, it is full of smoke and mirrors. why? guest: last year, it was ambitious, but it recognized

things like fixing the alternative minimum tax and things like that. this year, the old-style budget fix or not there, but the rhetoric the president was using to describe it as focusing on the deficit freeze, which is not really a deficit freeze, but he is trying to do to cut the deficit, was -- he is trying to do to to cut the deficit, when it is probably not liberal enough. guest: i agree with his analysis of the budget. the question i have, which is more interesting, is has the white house lost confidence in their policy of spending, keynesian policies, or are they talking to the center -- c- span.ortacking to the center bee it is not as popular to spend

this year? problem, because it raises the question about whether people have confidence in the authenticity of what people are saying -- what the president is saying. the president has to maintain credibility at least with his own supporters. host: "politico" has story this morning that democrats are grousing that obama is tacking to the center. is he risking alienating the liberal base? guest: i think the second part of your point is right, that they are sticking with the policies but trying to sell it in a more centrist manner. the administration projects by the end of this year that unemployment will be at 9.8%, and that will have severe consequences for democrats in the midterm elections, and they are worried about it. the story this year is going to

be progressives disappointed that he has not been able to achieve what he promised may be sitting on their hands at election time, and the election team needs to be looking at doing things to energize them. host: people like paul krugman and tim fernholz are saying that you need to spend more, you need to spend more in order to help out the economic situation. why shouldn't the u.s. government be spending more, and yes, it will raise deficits in the near term, but long term, help out the economy? guest: this has been a debate that has been going on for 70 years now, since keynes suggested that the government could step in to fill the void in spending that consumers were not able to fill because of the economy. that has been the theory, and sometimes it seems to work for awhile, and sometimes it does

not. the debate goes on. the argument against that thais that the level of deficit to gdp and debt to gdp as well undercuts the currency and raises the interest rates on treasury bills, which will tend to drive out money for the private sector, undermine our ability to expand, and increases the public sector, which is not a productive part of the economy, and take that money out of the private sector, which is where growth occurs. we can debate forever and would not reach a conclusion. those are the two series. there is and it was evidence to support both. -- there is evidence to support both. we have something of a command economy and it was not just a pure deficit-spending phenomenon.

i think it is ambiguous. i come on the side of keeping public debt relatively low to gdp. host: mr. fernholz, why not tax cuts? guest: you look at what congress is proposing to do on jobs, it is a lot of tax cuts. what we are debating right now is tax cuts for small businesses. one of my favorite talking points from the american enterprise institute, a conservative think tank in washington, is to look at the fiscal stimulus last year and say that added 4% to gdp, helping to spur growth, i think that is unequivocal among most economists. and there is a long-term concern about crowding out private investment, but i think the president and his team and people in congress are cognizant of that and i think that what they are trying to do with the new bill is to make the conditions so that the private sector can grow again. guest: i think the fear is for the medium and long term it co-- medium and long term.

in the budget the president just introduced, it proposes long- term trend lines down in entitlement spending where it gets to where it is no more than 3% of gdp as long-term debt. he never gets even briefly below 3.6, or something. what this budget has is an unsustainable deficits and debt bubble. -- level. if you combine spending with a tenant policies designed to reduce spending on entitlements in a way, you might have a balanced policy. balanced policy. host: we are talking blankly and tim fernholz. -- tony blankley and tim fernholz. on entitlement spending, how do you get republicans -- a

coalition of republicans and democrats to come together on entitlement spending and tackle social security, medicare, medicaid? guest: i honestly think it will take a pretty big crisis. when you look at what happened in the last year, the president tried to tackle entitlements, with the health care reform bill, and over the last year, and last summer, with the negotiations with max baucus, they have really tried to work with republicans on this. when you look to the bill, despite what you hear about, it is a very centrist bill that maintains the private sector and the bill that bob dole proposed in 1996 and further to the right of richard nixon in the 1970's. but even if there were some place they could come together, the republicans are happy to say that we will wait until 2010 and get congress back weekend and do it our way. -- that congress back if we can and do it our way. guest: it is like the difference

between the arabs and the israelis on the west bank. the problem is, the president proposed reform on health care this year, but his reforms to expand the amount of benefits. i suspect that at some point we will have to reduce the amount of benefits by moving the initial benefit eligibility age from 67 to 70, 71, 72, because after all -- guest: for health care -- guest: i am talking about health care as well. when roosevelt set the average retirement age -- but not the life expectancy out near 80. people are help it -- we have a life expectancy now near 80 people are healthy and want to work longer. every year did you lose, the

eligibility. eventually you get to a point where you have to work until 71, 72, and you have more income coming in because people are working longer. host: would take a grass-roots movement outside of washington that specifically focuses on a social security and medicare -- could the tea party movement, for example, take that up? guest: it would have to be a very powerful movement. i agree, we would probably have to have a crisis before this is capable to coming to terms, because the issues are so easy to exploit every party to say let's been one more election and then we will deal with the issue. i've been in town for 30 years, and every cycle, one party wants to do it and the other -- guest: i think you are avoiding the real problem, which is the growth in costs. we have been spending most of

any developed country, but we are getting some of the worst outcomes. what we really need to see, and what the president has proposed, are ways to actually change the game to make health care spending less, both in the public and private sector. it is funny that you mentioned the deficit issue, because one of the things that has been a really surprising over the last year is that republicans are suddenly the defenders of medicare and medicaid, and a democratic president is proposing to expand the coverage but not the cost. guest: the two parties play do- si-doed and take advantage of the other parties. that is why we never get the solution to the problem. not to have a big debate on health care, but it is noteworthy that we have this wonderful system in canada, the premier of nova scotia coming to the united states for a heart procedure --

guest: partly canadian system -- guest: that is later down the line. .

guest: american enterprise institute. all ofç this is anti-middle of the road. they need to change some of that. thank you very much. host: we try to balance our guests. we look at the programming overall. we look at our programming across the board of our network, and i think you'll find it is sound. portland, oregon. çcaller: my concern is that the are too many people that are falling into this idea that if we just keep putting money into

this or that -- the president keeps wanting to spend more money. that whole idea about this working and the deficit will come down, it is absurd. no one in their right mind when they are doing theirç books at home thinks that way. why is the president thinking this way if he is serious about lowering the debt in this country? guest: i think there areç two things. the federal government does not like a home. they have to do things that a çfamily should not. during a recession, a family should not spend on things they do not have money to pay for. the government has to otherwise the recession will be much worse. you doç have to look at what te

president is proposing. çhe is toutingç 2.35 trillion. we're going to see the most deficit recovery come from the economic recovery. what is interesting is the bipartisan deficit-reduction commission. they think they cannot solve this problem, and they want to take the idea to a commission to gain bipartisan support. i think anytime you have this discussion, it is not saying that we need to cut taxes or spending. it is what we need the government's. guest: it epitomizes the government and the problem. i think that taps into a profound instant.

that is that the american people, overall, are dubious of washington, dubious of government. they believe that largely, people should be responsible for their own activity. if the government should not spend too much of the people put the money. people can hold two conflicting thoughts in their head at the same time. if we do. we all have conflicting views. as a political fact, the president is going against this very deep instinct. that is why the country is more of a right center country. that is a political problem in a nutshell. as far as the deficit, because i actually wrote a comment on it months ago, one, that is the job

of congress to make the decision about spending and taxing. if they do not pass it to the unelected people. it is not democratic. host: it is that not the point? guest: the point is we are a small democratic -- we are a democratic country. we do not want to be run by bureaucrats. if this congress will not do it, people will vote for the people that will. to say that we cannot function, we need to bring in a panel, we can analogizes this to the closing of the bases. this is the whole economy. this is all of our spending and all of our tax decisions being turned over to appointees. this is why both on the black and the right there is opposition. i think i quoted from "daily

cause." i was concerned they would raise taxes. they thought they would cut benefits. host: georgia, on the democratic line. caller: i appreciate you taking the call. i am on the right and on the left also. the question is -- the fact that we're talking about the economy being down, you know, there is another economy. i come in the area of helping people get their lives together. i have seen for years that in georgia, the cost the state of prisons. there -- there are a lot of guys

that are getting out of prison. there are some that just want a second chance. that part of the economy is the fact that no one is concerned about that portion. now, it seems that when everybody else has been able to be employed has lost jobs or cannot find a job, now the focus is put on the job market. what about the market of helping the little guy? the little guy that cannot dig their way out of the whole. the cult is a fascinating point. i have a friend that is a conservative republican that works in that area. if you look at history, there was a tremendous effort to care

about the whole issue of the penitentiary. it was the humane. what has happened is a high level of cynicism in the last 20 or 30 years. well-meaning people tended to think how can we help these people. in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's, society became cynical. they got forgotten. i agree with the caller. it might be time for society to pay more attention, as we used to do when we were more idealistic. host: oscar, in roanoke, virginia. caller: thank you for having me on. as we talk about republicans and democrats having problems, or getting along and building coalitions, i want to suggest

that one of the strength of these nations -- of this nation that is still there to be used is the strength of the statesman. we had people that could go and represent people. as they became successful, they became leaders. we have gotten into the era where we have backward politicians. the party puts them in like they are substituting in a football game. there is no interest and no thought to local issues. host: who are you thinking of specifically? caller: have a great clinton moves from arkansas to new york. -- hillary clinton moves from arkansas to new york. why would she go there to try to help people in new york? even if it did work, there is something inherently wrong with that.

the other is from the democratic party to running for governor again virginia. what does he know about these issues? what seems to be obvious is they have the money, and we are going to put you in there. i think the quick solution is we need to focus on local citizens. we need to teach people governance, how to get along, how to appreciate and respect other pointed views, and to understand state politics. that way they understand the mechanics of it, and why they are so upset. host: part of what you are talking about, do you think that is inherent in t thise tea

party movement? caller: i can see that in the form of people searching for something. they are passionately searching for something. i think that is what it is. i think in west virginia, how it works, that is the place where we are spending energy. guest: i think that is all great. i think there is more need for attention on the state level. i do not know that i am too concerned about politicians running in different places. i think the voters will generally decide who they want. i think it is interesting. one of the big debates in d.c. is over parliamentary procedure and the filibuster. you talked about what you think

the president of the political problem is. i do not think that is quite accurate. i think americans want from the government -- results. i think since midsummer, it was the last time that the president talem to his agenda. there are seeing promises that have not been kept. i am very curious to hear -- to make sense of that. i saw there was a filibuster that got beaten by a closer vote. last night, richard shelby put a hold on every single nominee of president obama, some two hundred officials, so that he could get to pork barrel projects in alabama. that does not seem democratic. it is something that needs to be fixed. guest: this is the classic

example of the two party thing. during the bush years, the republicans were complaining about the democrats in the senate blocking nominations. we talked about having a new gillis solution. now, the tables are turned. host: we were up for abolishing the filibuster then, too. guest: you complained about the procedure when it works against short interest. this is all conditional. there is no constitutional requirement. when i was with ronald reagan, it happened once in awhile. under bill clinton, it happened more often. under bush, even more. it has been growing. as to his first point about whether i was inaccurate in assessing the president of the problem, we will find out.

i think that liberals who support the president may be drinking a little bit of their own kool-aid. the public wants more action on their agenda. i hope the president, at a partisan level, would go ahead and give them all of the stuff that he has not adequately explained. host: this is an editorial in the financial times this morning. ççóqi]çxd ç-- at ççthis ççxdw3rate recovery comingi] reciph guest: it is usually pretty tough.

i think obama has had a decent year historical. we will see what happens in 2010. çhe may have to change his approach to things. it may be a few years before he can be remembered as a bad president. host: what do you make of the financial times having this type of editorial? guest: @ think you should be inspirational. there is always a good time for the president to inspire the citizens. that should go without saying. when i think obama has built to do is provide leadership to his own allies. he has not been specific enough. he did the opposite of what bill clinton did on health care. he came up with all of the details inside the white house and through it to the senate. he is not given on of leadership. i note centers have complained

privately and publicly. tell us what you want? tell us what you want to see us fight and die for. he did not let them come to a will. he should've given them more leadership. host: you are shaking your head. is the president, then, in jeopardy of doing the same thing when it comes to job legislation? guest: if you ask me one week ago, i would tell you that we had a much more forceful president. we saw some indication that he would give more leadership. in the last week or so, especially on a jobs bill, -- yesterday, the announcement had a lack of detail, let's say. i think people are waiting to see that. i do not think it is too late for him to provide it. we are still waiting for an example.

monday, when we see this vote, that will show us what is going on. çhost: yesterday, there was a press conference with senate democratic leadership about the job legislation. the majority whip had these comments. >> we know, as we strive to create jobs, there will unfortunately be forces that will cost us jobs. çmany state and localç governs are laying off some critical people. we are going to try to find ways to make sure those jobs are not lost. we want to make sure that neighborhoods that are currentlç protected are not disadvantaged because of the state of the economy. the bottom line is this -- this is an offering from the democratic side. we are inç viking our friends n the republican side to join us. -- we are inviting our friends on the republican side to join

us and will on these issues with urgency. we need legislation to pass that will create jobs as quickly as possible. it is the highest priority for the people in this country, as it should be for us. host: should republicans support a jobs legislation? guest: i think they should vote to reform it if they agree with that. when theç question may be -- oe of the questions may be where is the money coming from? çi could not help but be slighy unused with -- unused by saying that the state would lay off police and firemen. those are not rational. they will lay off people that are not emergency responders first. it is an exaggerated quality. the larger questionç you may be

complying is should the republicans be offering alternatives or be the party of opposition? i think they need to have some idea of how they would govern if they were given authority. they cannot be entirely negative. if they do not agree with it, there is no reason to support it. not at all. çhost: wisconsin, on the independent line. caller: good morning. i have a couple of things. i think it is time we get back to the constitution. try the 10th amendment. read it. really read it. second of all, this iraq spending that everyone is talking about -- this erratic spending that everyone is talking about -- we question liberals because of the $30

million. speaker pelosi, how about the airport -- at $175,000 for two flights a day. you are wondering why we are questioning this? host: did you question republicans when they were in control and had earmarked as well? caller: they were terrible. host: president obama has been saying lately that it marks only make up about 1% of the federal budget. while he is saying yes, we should look at your marks and make sure that they are legitimate, they only make up 1% of the federal budget. caller: look at the size of the budget. give me a figure on 1%. in washington, it seems they forget what those zeroes behind those numbers mean. how many families could survive

on what they throw away on ridiculous, idiotic problems -- projects -- things that did not create jobs. if you create a government job, what does that government job create? nothing. guest: if you look at the interstate highway system, where any of the numerous public projects, i think the federal government does create things. there is waste in the federal budget. i did not think any one will deny that. it is a very small part. the fact that that money is getting spent anyway, it does not matter if it is congress or a bureaucrat. the real problem is in the defense department. huge tax cuts, our medical system -- these are all huge problems that our congress needs to address.

one person's wasteful spending is another person did project. i think this is not a question of liberal and conservative. i think this is institutional politics. coming together is very hard. guest: there was a senatorç in town a long time ago. he brought in a project of high log -- of highlighting these boondoggles. he made a career out of it. the point is, not only is the money wasteful, it is comprehensible, you can understand the nature of washington waste when you see these programs. it implies a similar mentality when they are spelling -- when they are spending hundreds of çmillions. they do double the damage to the public's trust. i understand the numbers.

i was thinking when they were talking about a trial during -- in new york, putting aside all of the other arguments, i think of how much $200 million is. to service the waste to $1 million, it is a frame of mind the money that is creating on both sides, liberals and conservatives, and discussed. host: pa., democrats line. caller: thank you for having me. my question is concerning the health care. i was dismissed from my job. i responded to obama's website. i more or less got a form letter back. why are we not targeting specific groups that when you retire or when you are severed, let me, your health care costs

are two-thirds of your income coming in. at my age after 32.5 years of service for the company that i worked for, the health-care costs are going out of control. why are we not targeting specific groups in the health- care bill that should be for people in my situation. caller: they are. there is a rates for people who are older depending on how old they are. it will make sure insurance companies cannot charge them multiples more than younger people. the president is extending health insurance for people who are unemployed. tony was talking about the health care bill being unpopular. if you talk to people about what

is inside the bill, people support it. that is what is so big and complex. pretending complexity is a bad thing is sort of a childish approach. host: helen in kentucky. caller: good morning. i was interested when the president was talking to the republicans and he said there are ideals to -- for the bill. he did not understand why they were complaining because all of theç conference's, but that was before september. no one knows what the bill is now. he said, i have taken your ideals and i have presented them to people. no one said the work. i thought, that is great. monday he thought republicans have no ideals. t(media, he say they çare the!çparty of

nope.çç and i]mcconnell first fá çtime he said we're looking forward to working with the democrat party. and then the media said republicans are not going to work with the democrats. it has gone up to the height of know. caller: there is an awful lot of in sincere statements regarding by partisanship. i have worked on the hill. everybody knows individually when a piece of legislation is being worked by both parties together and when the majority party is doing it. you compare how medicare was processed in 1965. it had months of hearings.

it was open to 153 issues to be resolved. there were some complaints even then that some elements were moved quickly but the democrats to get it through. compare that to our this has been where the leadership of the majority party. they worked the bill in the leadership office. sometimes they cut out the committees. the committee men and women are not part of the process of drafting the legislation. one of the advantage is they tend to represent the people. caller: let's be clear here. republicans offered hundreds of amendments that were accepted. the bill has been online. people are aware of what is in it. caller: real conversations occur or they do not.

everybody who works inside that building knows which conversations are the real ones and which ones are not. you cannot ask committee members on both sides of the aisle and not just money d's are in charge but windy r's were in charge -- but when the r's were in charge. caller: ask henry reid. caller: we can debate that. host: i want to get your thoughts about the colorado and "the washington post" this morning. i apologize. i cannot find the article. it is a column in "the washington post." he says it is say misnomer. it is watered-down legislation

and has no impact whatsoever. caller: i have not seen the column. it doesn't name the parties cannot work together. the idea that anyone will sacrifice what they believed in and is best for the country out of some commitment to a concept of bipartisanship does not exist. i've not seen a meeting where people say, i disagree profoundly. so it depends what you mean by that. it is possible and we see it sometimes on a regular basis where should we spent $100 million or $50 million, you could negotiate that to w3$75 million. but if you are for or against abortion, that is not so easy. you have to work through small differences that support a general view of a policy.

there is an idea that people will give up their principles and the principles they were elected on for some abstraction. caller: you mentioned medicare in 1965. people need to recognize that there has been a stunning realignment in the parties. you conservative democrats and liberal democrats in the 1960's. was possible to build a bipartisan coalition. -- talking about civil rights or whatever in the 1960's. you have seen a winnowing where democrats are getting more liberal. that is not to say there is a spectrum. you'll not get the compromises you use to get. caller: i think that is a shrewd observation. there used to be 30, 40, 50

moderate to liberal republicans in the house. now it is down to a handful. that tends to accentuate the partisan division. host: indianapolis, jim. guest: i guess i am an independent. republicans and democrats are just opponents on a playing field. the take opposite stances. i wonder if this form of government isn't overwhelmed and outdated. congress has become overwhelmed with these issues. they did not have time to read the bills. the districts are gerrymandered to the extent the incumbents have a huge advantage. i wonder if the system isn't breaking down in front of our eyes. perhaps we need it benevolent

dictator, someone who can sort this all out. i would suggest brian. caller: they say democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the other ones. there are a lot of special issues that are problematic about the way we want our country. congress is not the most efficient way to solve problems. if you look at what they're trying to do, it is in good will. things like campaign financing and people thinking about protecting this or that, special interests, then we can have a better system of government. calleguest: i disagree with the caller. the parties are becoming further

distinguished. there are more different now than they used to be. there is a huge difference. you get a different set of policies when the democrats are trying to pass things. there are plenty of problems with the process of legislating. the idea there's not a dime's worth of difference between the portis i think is less true now. host: michigan, mary. caller: tony blankley, i will agree with you. i am older than you. i have never seen the party's more separated. i am a strong democrat. we're the party diverge so drastically is the republican party has been taken over by the neocons, the federalist society is, and they do not believe government should serve the

people. they believe government should serve corporations. there is an example of that. all you have to do is look at the supreme court ruling that is giving corporations such power. not only are they considered persons, they are considered super persons, given more share of democracy than the people have. this is the supreme court that has been appointed by neocons federalist society, a corporate- serving republicans. that is where the tea party people are totally misguided. they are blaming government for what has happened because of the influence of corporations to take our jobs out of the country, to reduce the middle class so that the rich keep getting richer, where the 1% of the nation controls 40% of the

wealth. we have no idea how badly this government is serving the people. we are not allowed to look at europe and compare where they have not been in this economic freefall we have been because they have a true social safety net. the money keeps flowing through their system because of the safety net. we go into free-fall and the republican party does not care about people at all. there are some democrats who do. that is what i have worked lifelong for the democratic party. i believe in the core values of the democratic party. host: we will leave it there. warren rudman wrote a piece this morning about campaign financeç and shared a sentiment with you

about republicans being i]perceivedç asç favoring corporations. think a looks much more like that than they ptroerot movemen. çyou have described it. çit is hostile to corporations. they didn't get special benefits. they do not think there is a big role for government to intervene. there is a strong strain of populistç wac ofçç support fr corporate america. çi think you misread the conservatives are fractionalized and elements tend

to support business. the small businesses are supported by the rank-and-çfil, sprint and big business. big business gets support because of theç influence they share in this country. i don't think the republican party should be seen as for the corporations. guest: i think you need to separate out the republican party from the conservative base. you should tell me how the tea party people are like william f. çbuckley. oklook at regulatory reform. the democrats are trying to put restraints onç the banks and tt banks cannot do the same thing that led to the crisis. they cannot sell bad loans. they want to stop having crashers like this. 2008. kuu!licans are opposing this across the board. there was a story in "the wall

qpv they said that we will fight to make sure no one can put in any restrictions on you. in return, we need your money to fight the democrats. corporations have caused trouble in the last couple of years. in the took the policies. republicans reject any and all restrictions on the banks. guest: the financial industry in manhattan disproportion waçate supported the democrats. large factors in america, whether it is financed, should have some impact on congress because that is part of the process. we call them special interests if we do not like them. çinvar malice and special-

interest. it is proper to have some communication between large sectors and the government. guest: i want people to draw their own conclusions. host: the labor department reported the latest unemployment figures. the associated press is reporting an unexpected drop to 9.7%, while employers shed 20,000 jobs. los angeles on the republican line. caller: thank you for c-span. i tell my students that the liberal media leans to the left. you have to understand that maxim. but anyway, to corroborate that the elite levelç media and this

issue about fox news. fox news offers that's they are conservative, that is irrelevant of the fact that the media starts with the times tim"new yk times." abc, nbc, cbs, npr, virtually every cable station except fox, etc.. this notion that fox news is somehow skewed because they offered the alternative contention ignores the reality that the elite liberal media really virtually carries water for the democrats at every day. guest: i hope a lot of parents send their children to your class. i do not disagree with a word

you say. i used to be a press operative in this town. if we needed to get a story in the evening, we had to get "the washington post" or "the new york times" to first caria. there was a political judgment. they took their guidance from those newspapers. it has broadened somewhat over the last 15 years. it is still in the case that the general liberal view of most of the media shapes the radio headline news is of the hours, all of that. it flows fromq the dinosaur meda perception of reality. there are few islands. fox is different. "the washington times" is different. some blogs are different.

it is undeniable it is a realistic description of the white news works. host: was from wisconsin -- liz and wisconsin. caller: i have a question of what the president is doing for the young people. we make mistakes. they become a felon and you cannot vote. i do not understand what we are segregated. nobody cares if we make mistakes. they did not cost a second chance to vote and do things. martin luther king had a dream that we would all be equal. but we're not equal. i feel like i am white but that is not right. guest: it is my view is that if you served your time, you should

be allowed to vote again. tony was talking about prison reform. the prison system and the way we talk about these issues has been skewed. it's something liberals and conservatives can come together on. barack obama has done some things about that. he has looked at minimum sentencing. i think it is an issue where we can say some movement. it would save money. california is having a hard time with finances because it is expensive to keep a lot of people in jail. guest: martin luther king said everyone should be judgedçó by e content of their character. if you committed a felony, it doesn't mean you cannot become a valuable part of society. but it is a process to getç bak

to the place that you gaveç up when you committed the foul play. i]the fact the vote is the nigh, you can become irresponsibleç - the factç that the vote isç deniedç,ñr you can becomei] a responsible citizen. we need toç have a balance we need toç have a balance w3between judgment and redempti. ti+ i]w3host: last phone call from wisconsin. xdcaller:ç hello. thank you for c-span. lit social security. i have a question. it has to do with how much of çthe debtxd isç owed from thel security surpluses of the past. can you tell me how much of a debt is owed to so security? guest: about $9 trillion. social security sales fire yel'o

the treasury. çguest: we have not exhausted e trust fund. it is in the black. guest: there is more coming in. the liabilities that have been incurred mean that over time there were be about $9 trillion of benefits owed to beneficiaries for which there is not anticipated to be revenue to support it. that is at a smaller number than with medicare. it to be above $30 trillion. there is deep debt in both. it is obligation. it is a publication for which we cannot get funding. host: are you still there?

caller: how much is owed currently? guest: zero. guest: there is not a simple way. the fund is solvent. it has taken on responsibilities it cannot afford to pay. they have to come up with $9 trillion, i think that is the number, of made-up money. if you want in number, that would be the number. check with the trustees. guest: i think that is some scare mongering. there are ways to deal with it. guest: there is the liberal view.

$9 joint is not a small sum -- $9 trillion is not a small sum. guest: we have a good 30 years of it being strong. guest: add the $9 trillion -- we want to wait until the crisis occurs. guest: i do not think we should wait to deal with social security. host: i have to jump in. tony blankley, tim fernholz, thank you. >> a live look at the capitol here today. the snow has begun to fall at the white house. we expect president obama to head to maryland to talk about job creation and small business

initiatives. this comes in the wake of releasing his budget earlier this week. çyou can see the comments livet 2:30 here on c-span. until then, more from "washington journal." are the first phond0call. caller: thank you, c-span. i think this is justl( that ita party is the grass roots and they are looking for moderates to get conservative. it is the life force that is needed for the gop. host: washington,ok d.c., willim on the independents' line. çcaller: it seems that the çcaller: it seems that the movement started with ron paul's he raised $4 million and had

other events. they were tea party. now it has been hijacked by right-wing republicans who really do not understand. they stole some of the rhetoric about printing money out of thin air. if you're for all the wars, militarism is bankrupting the country to maintain a foreign empire. they didn't get what the tea party movement is at all. if i could remove president obama, you would have to replace them with ron paul or three guiliani or mccain or fred thompson or one of the other republicans, they do not get it. for an empire does not factor in because that is the main thing that is bankrupting the country.

host: were doing it ron paul supporter? why have you been attracted to the tea party movement? caller: i did not support sarah palin, the shot handy -- sean hannity types. they do not get it. that is what is bankrupting the country. host: ok. this is a story and "the washington times" about a separate tea party affect the will be happening in north dakota later this month. they aim to tap into tea party energy. they say an outspoken conservative is the keynote speaker at that event, which will be taken place in bismarck, north dakota. that isç from "the washington times" if you want to read more

about peace. here's a piece in "the new york daily post" -- "the new york post." >> this has been catnapip in this on organizable band of rebels. it would be wrong to think they have not had any successes. they're responsible for killing the health care scheme. they sounded the alarm during a town hall meetings in august. it was after this wave barrelling that republicans woke up and answered the call. china will get broken. the dot has too much fine -- the gop has too much fine china.

they are wrenching the mantle of conservatism and making them burnt it back. we will get back to your phone calls. we will go to your phone calls there's also a commentary section on "the washington times" this morning. this time to offer a real contrast. this was written this morning by a writer who heads up gopac. it is a piece that he writes that there is five principles. no obama care. hold the unions. cologne scott brown, to give you a quick synopsis projec-- c lol

scott brown. scott brown was sworn into the senate today. he will take over the office of the late senator ted kennedy. he is getting handshakes from his new colleagues. there is this headline, team in place for gop. who belongs to the tea party is our conversation. herndon, virginia. you are a member of the tea party. caller: i heard rick sent kelan talking about the tea party. out of control spending. i answered that col. i showed up at a tea party rally here in northern virginia. -- i answered that call. it was the same day there was supposed to bit 8 tea party in downtown washington. it was canceled because they did

not have the correct permits. it is not supposed to be about getting permits. the boston tea party was about breaking stuff, destroying property, and violating the law . that is what the tea party is supposed to be about. anyone that wants to call themselves a tea party member is defying authority. that is why i call myself a tea party member, and that is why it should remain out of the purview of any kind of authority or any organization, hierarchy, that kind of thing. i would be happy to answer any questions you might have come as a grass-roots individual member of the tea party movement. i feel like i can speak for them. host: why are you attending the

convention in nashville? caller: because i am caught up and other things. i have family stuff going on. i actually drove up to boston to work on the scott brown campaign, met with a lot of people there that call themselves tea party members, and i think it was a phenomenal thing that we accomplished up there. so personally, i did not see the national thing. it was not necessarily something i've is gravitating toward. host: do you see sarah palin as the head of the tea party movement? caller: not necessarily. i think she is a vital element of it, but i do not have any strong words for you at this time about her as a leader. i am aware that she is speaking -- the species -- the tickets to the national convention were $500 or something like that? host: that is reported in the newspapers around there, around $500. caller: i do not know if that is true or not, but when i heard

that, it did not influence my decision whether or not to attend, but once i did hear about it, it made me think that is not what the tea party is about, a $500 ticket. the grassroots people -- i happen to be a registered republican, and i am still working within the republican party, but i see the tea party movements, the grass roots center of the country rising primarily up against the democrat party and the leftists that are currently occupying our bureaucracies, also totally speaking to the choir, saying, look, the republican party is primarily -- the tea party among some democrats and independents, and unlike what chris matthews said, somhe actually went -- you

know what chris matthews said, don't you? host: i am not familiar with it. caller: this program insisted there was not a single black person -- he said every single person in the tea party movement was white. we all know that is absurd. host: scott joining us in akron. your thoughts on the tea party movement? caller: well, thanks for taking my call. i think that can be summed up in three words. i think the key backers are racist, -- the teabaggers are racist, fascists. you have seen greedy people who do not want help their fellow man in terms of health care programs. there are people out there hurting. god bless keith olbermann for

running those free clinics, that helped save people. host: let's call on robert on the democratic line in south carolina. caller: i appreciate you taking my call. the tea parties a think there are two parts. you have a friendly group side of folks -- a fringe group side of folks that hate obama no matter what he tries to do for america. then you have another side that is kind of moderate that they just want to stay in power and they do not want to do the right thing for america, so they do not get with the democrats to try to do the right thing. then you have another element, the media. the media is like the moderator of a fight. but, see, the media is not interested in the truth, they are just interested in people's emotions where they make news or make money over people's bills

and what is gone on in america. that is why you never hear the media speak truth. a lot of the truce has-check stuff. -- a lot of the truth as fact- check stuff. host: joanne, in arizona. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. this tea party thing, i think that is just a bunch of republican hogwash. if they were really interested in government reducing expenditures, the federal government is the largest employer in the united states, and the average income for a government employee is $70,000 a year.

the median income for everybody else, for taxpayers who pay their salaries, is $30,000 a year. so what they would insist on is a straight government pay cut instead of these cost-of-living raises that they are giving them. know, until they stop talking republican viewpoint, i think it is just a bunch of hogwash. host: we heard from the newest republican in the senate yesterday, scott brown. he was sworn in, and after he was, he held a press conference and asked about job -- and was asked about job legislation that senate democrats unveiled yesterday. >> the last stimulus bill that not create one new job, and in some cases, the money that has been released has not been used yet.

we lost another 85,000 jobs again, give or take, last month. massachusetts has not created one new pierce, a senior staff writer with "roll call." thank you. ted on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was going to give my brief history of my version of what i think the tea parties market i was with the ron paul campaign when he was running for president. then i joined the campaign for the body and became an organizer after -- campaign for liberty and became an organ i izer when he started that movement. we coined the term tea party, or brought it back. after we started getting popular and gaining momentum, i noticed all the radio station and fox

news all around the country it kind of jumped in front of our movement and started advertising on the radio and everything. sean hannity and rush limbaugh and everybody started talking about the tea parties. that is what really grew the movement. i think it is basically kind of two main factions of the tea party, and that is -- they are all conservatives, no matter whether they are democrat or republican. i believe every one of the tea parties are conservatives. but i believe the main divide is foreign policy. you have the rush limbaugh types, the newt gingrich type people in there. they believe in an interventionist foreign policy. they believe america should be the policemen of the world, that muslim extremists are going to destroy us all. but they're not all conservatives -- but the ron

paul conservatives, we believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy. that will come down to the real split. but i do not think it will break at all. we might have ron paul run or we might have sarah palin run and they might hash out their foreign policy differences and we think everybody will put their support behind which ever one of those two we all decide on if that is what it comes down to. i'd like the guys idea earlier about keeping this just a broken-up thing, how we should not have the central leadership. when you have central leadership of something like this, you get people that are corrupt jumping in front and telling lies and not being honest. host: sarah palin wrote the other day in "the washington times," "why i am speaking at the tea party convention. some have tried to portray this movement as a commercial endeavor rather than the grass- roots uprising that it is.

those who do so don't understand the frustrations of americans to feel when they see the government mortgaging their future or in teaching in reckless spending. the spark of patriotic indignation that inspired those who fought for our independence and those who marched peacefully for some rights as ignited once again. you cannot be why such a sentiment. -- cannot buy such a sentiment, you cannot astroturf it. everybody attending the event will be a soldier in the cost. -- in the cause to i made a commitment to be there, and i am going to honor it." david, you are a member of the tea party movement. your thoughts. caller: we are having a lot of meetings all over and have a lot of defense -- events -- 9/12

project. a lot of organizations are joining and we are coming together. there has been a lot of publicity out there about certain tea party things and this and that. the best thing is is the common citizen remember during the campaign and joe the plumber? the tea parties are to the plumber. -- are joe the plumber. host: will you be listening to sarah palin speak? caller: no, but i will beat this thing over the web. i do not think she is a good presidential candidate, but there are a lot of good conservatives and the party. i think the republicans have lost a lot of conservatives because of some of the actions that the party has taken in the last election. host: you said you will participate over the internet.

how? caller: through our web site. we have forums and live blogs and webcasts, campaignforliberty.com. everybody get on there and join for free. host: sarah palin will be speaking saturday night at the convention in nashville. live coverage here on c-span. c-span radio, c-span.org. go to our website for more information about the tea party conviction and our coverage of it over the weekend lowry on the democrats' line, good morning. caller: well, hello there. the tea party people are going to take over this country. that is a fact. host: is that a good thing? caller: no, it will be very bad. they will take over the sheriffs, the congress, and this

happened one other time. but the time people can to their senses, it did a lot of damage -- by the time people came to their senses, it did a lot of damage. in the 1920's, up 5 million strong, white pith and sheets on -- white hoods and sheets on, and people could not get elected if they did not belong to this group. host: here is robert reich's piece this morning. "mad as hellers on the right hate government, mad as hellers on the left hate big business. but share a growing sense that the economic game is rigged against them. the two are united by how much they detest wall street and its bailout, and their contempt for any cozy relationship between big business and government. mad as hellers are likely to be

a formidable force in the upcoming midterm elections and beyond." brenda, what you think this morning? caller: i have been to some of the tea parties. i did not see the phone number up there. they are misunderstanding the whole movement. when we went, there were democrats, republicans, independents, who knows what else. what we are concerned about is that we see the country is going into this completely wrong direction. the people that we have elected sit there like fat cats and let the factory go to heck. the democrats will work with republicans. when they took over three years ago in congress, they said they did not have to work with republicans and they won't. the ones that are in there now are ignoring our constitution.

it is going too far to the left, to socialism, communism, fascism. fascism. our congress and our elected teve banks, the housing çmarket, and theyç ignore allf their responsibilities. it has to change. ççwe have to bring iti] back r c>9mq%quq%=9et people working i]together for the common good. not for just aç certain democrt party or republican party. çandt( we do not heat. w3the only people that iç heart from are the people who areç çw3haters. t( are the people who are haters.

host: the coverage begins tonight at 9:00 p.m. on the east coast, the national tea party convention in tennessee. we spoke to the convention- goers, and here is what he had to say. >> can you show me what is in one of those gift bags? >> i don't know what it is for. it has a hole in the bottom. it will not hold much tea. >> so that is nice. and we of got a -- have got a fanny pack, tea party nation fanny pack with a teacup on it. this i can talk to you with. megaphone.

and another teacher. ok. -- another t-shirt. ok. >> you have a ticket? >> right here. we need to keep bees with us at all times. -- key to these with us at all times. >> at tea party-corporate we will talk to her -- a key party- goer. we talked to her at the convention. -- tea partygoer. we talked to her at the convention pretty you are a key party member. what do you think? caller: a lot of the members have things they are concerned about, but what it all boils down to, one thing, and one thing is corruption, the one thing is government out of control and men and women getting us there and taking vows

to preserve, protect, and@@@@@@@ most of what they do in the capitol building has nothing to do with the constitution. i'm talking about in the white house, in thei] capital, everywhere, just thrown out, and some new people in who are statemelt who want to serve ths çnation and its people and who are not in it for the money or the power, they just want to do something good for their country like the founders did. qçwe have forgotten what the i]founders founded this country on. we are throwing godç out of the

everythingç else, and itç has gotten to the point where this country is so corrupt, i do not see it lasting if these people in power remain in power. host: steve, what is your number one issue? xdxdcaller: my number one issues peopleç talking out of both sis of their hit parade in other words, just the lies, the corruption. ç-- out of both sides of their headsç. in other words, just the lies, the corruption. ifç people would just say what they mean and ççmean what thed say. ççpresidentç obama is well sn and supposedly intelligentxdç,t he does not seem to get it. george h.ç w. bush made one brokenç promise during his çpresidency, and then lost the reelection because of it. ççthis president has broken so many promises, i cannot keep up.

host:ç doris on our line for çdemocrats, good morning. çcallurp good morning. i have a comment on the tokeaçc çbaggersç. çóbut first i would like to brig your attentionç toçç an artiy paulç krugmanç,ç "fiscalç se tactics." w3the conservatives are notw3 en economists, and all they are talking about isç budgetç deficits. there are legitimate economists who say you are trying took control theç deficit and it wil çhinder the recovery. çthe job market will justç gok down to the bottom. ççóunique to start having a legitimate economists on, talkingç about theç deficit ad çwhat should be happening now. ççhost: we haveç economists m both sides. let me read aç little bit from paul krugman's ps this morning.

ççç

not from the tea parties i am long disenchanted with the ne-yo conservative movement that has taken over the republican party, and i left the party several years ago because of that. i think what we are seeing now is in the tea party movement, people coming back to the more classical liberal mind-set of the old republican party, what liberalism used to mean, which is now been translated to conservatism. and the lady that just called and referred to teabaggers, i really find that insulting and showing the intolerance of the left. i do not know where to begin. you are referring to paul krugman, as a real economist. he is not a real economist,

first of all. he is a biased journalist. what he talks about being a scare tactic is ridiculous. it is true that a lot of the deficit is a result of the downfall of the economy lately, but most of that was because of the bailouts, that they had to spend. it was not necessary on that part of the sort of libertarian mindset. all this bailout, the companies, the nonsense, that is part of the system, that the government needs to get out of the way. host: what do you think about newt gingrich and the possibility of him running in 2012? we are showing our viewers the story where he sat down in front of the editorial board of a newspaper and said that he lays out terms for the 2012 run? caller: i have got to say, i have seen him sort of inching his way back into the limelight

over the past years, and i used to be a supporter of him. i like his fiscal policies, but i am sorry, i still feel that he was at the spearhead of the whole neocon movement of where they want to control the whole social aspect of our country, and i do not agree with that. "the orange county register." "gidget says he would need the support of a broad coalition of -- newt gingrich says you need the support of a broad coalition of republicans, democrats, an independents before he would consider a presidential bid. speaking to the editorial board, he spoke of a tripartisan movement." two authors of ronald reagan books right in -- write in

"politico.com" "his was a lifetime of thought and conviction that grew steadily into those principles that mattered both at home and abroad. he had the courage to state them and keep on seeing them for 16 years, from 1964 until 1980, and then live out his convictions as president. during the primaries, he may open appeals to democrats and independents and join his community of shared values, which laid the basis of the new political movement." independent line. we are talking about it tea party. who belongs? caller: i would like to say that teabaggers, or the tea party, were started to protest the election of the first black president. before obama got into office,

nobody had any concern about the federal deficit. we have fought two wars. george bush jr. left our country broke. now that president obama has come in and is trying to work with the people, for the people, they have a problem. if you will notice, the teabaggers all look alike. they do not represent the broad spectrum of the united states of america. host: in other headlines come here is cnnmoney.com -- "another 800,000 jobs disappear." we will talk about that later in the program when the latest numbers come out at around 8:30 a.m. eastern time. in "the wall street journal," a

full page ad from toyota. other news this morning. "the new york daily news" has an article about cash that democratic senator from new york chuck schumer has raised. "$19.3 million war chest schering off gop foes -- scaring off gop foes. he is running virtually unopposed for a third term." next call, david, a member of the tea party in florida. who belongs? caller: all kinds of people along. it's not just democrat or republican. is just people who are fed up and frustrated to be honest with you, i am so tired of hearing people call us racists or bigots or infer that we are related to

the klan in some way. it is not what it is about at all. we just fed up. we don't know what else to do. they want to call us mad as hellers? well, we are, we are mad as hell. another thing, where they all say that this is all since obama came out. i am a registered republican, and i was just as upset and angry and disgusted with the george w. bush. it is not a black-white thing or a democrat-republican thing. host: unfortunately, i have to let you go, because we are having a terrible connection there. sorry about that. bill on our line in towson, maryland, the democratic line. caller: good morning. i would like to say it that the teabaggers stayed home the

entire time during the no-bid contracts in iraq or afghanistan -- iraq war in afghanistan, where there was no congressional oversight for the hundreds of billions of dollars stolen from the u.s. treasury on a no-bid contracts, contracts that were poorly done by dick cheney's former company and everything. the moneney was stolen, and the >> just a reminder, all this weekend we will bring you live coverage of the first national tea party convention from nashville. remarks from former vice- presidential candidate sarah palin. she will bring the keynote address to the convention.

after her speech, we will take your phone calls and comments. that is tomorrow night at 9:00 eastern on c-span. here's a look at some of the sights and sounds so far from the convention in nashville. .

. >> we're going to be showing it in the ballroom at 9:00 tonight. >> we have our newsletter here.

>> this segment is brought to an part by the san antonio teat party. [unintelligible] [indistinct conversations]

that is part of the scene in washington where the tea party convention is going on in nashville this weekend. we will have lots of coverage beginning tonight at 9:00 eastern. we will have sarah palin at 9:00 tomorrow evening as well. the president will be talking about job creation initiatives and more coming up in just a few minutes. we expect him to start speaking. we will have live coverage here on c-span. we will have live coverage of the tea party convention coming up. it should be a couple of minutes for the president. we will show you some of what

hillary clinton had to say earlier today it in response to some of the political issues in northern ireland. her comments run about 10 minutes. we will show you as much as we can until the president comes out. >> good morning. today is a very positive day for northern ireland. northern ireland is taking another important step towards a full and lasting peace. political leaders have agreed on

a road map and timeline for the de- evolution of police and other powers. the accord announced today will consolidate gains made in the last decade. this is not been an easy road. there were plenty of bumps along the way. i have been in regular contact with the party during the past year, especially since my trip to belfast in october. i know that the way forward was far from clear. i really want to applaud all the parties for ultimately choosing negotiations over confrontation. in finalizing the deal, peter robinson and the team displayed the kind of leadership that the people of northern ireland deserve. i want to recognize the leadership and patient resolve of prime minister brown and keisha cowen as well as

secretary woodward and martin. they've focused on moving the process forward, forging common ground, in reaching an outcome that will keep northern ireland on the path of peace and stability. this is not the end of the journey. the process has enabled northern ireland's leaders to enact a range of needed reforms from health, to housing, to environmental safety. now they have even greater authority. with that authority comes. responsibility. they must continue to lead. -- without authority comes greater responsibility. they must continue to lead. there must be a stronger foundation, a country where neighbors can live free from fear and all people have the potential to fulfil their god- given rights. this is a dream nurtured for so long in the hearts of people across northern ireland. it is also a dream that lives far beyond its borders in countries and communities where

ethnic and religious conflicts persist. this latest success in northern ireland points the way forward, and not only for this conflict. northern ireland gives us hope that despite entrenched opposition and innumerable setbacks, diligent diplomacy and committed leadership can overcome generations of suspicion and hostility. we now join the world and looking to the leaders of northern ireland to build upon their efforts by promoting a new spirit of cooperation among all the parties. as they do, the united states will help. our economic envoy, duncan kelley, will continue to help are expand with new opportunities. in the future, declan and i will host meetings in washington to discuss further investment in northern ireland and ways to build on the agreement. i spoke very late in the evening

in northern ireland with both and congratulated and thanked them for their efforts. i spoke earlier this morning with both peter and martin and did the same. i also pledged our continuing support for their efforts. today, we salute this achievement. we recognize that a new chapter of partnership among northern ireland'politicals leadership and people can now begin. i am confident that the people of northern ireland will make the most of this moment. i want to reaffirm the commitment of the united states and my personal commitment to support them and everywhere the weekend as they continue on this very positive path into the future. i would be glad to take your questions. good morning. here comes the microphone. >> a quick reaction on the charges against the 10 americans in haiti. it is the united states studying

the idea of withholding recognition of the iraqi elections in march if the 500 sunni candidates are excluded? some of the reporters were told that was the case last night. >> first, on the 10 american citizens detained and now charged in haiti, we are providing counsellors services. we have full access to them. the american ambassador is speaking with his counterparts in the haitian government. obviously, this is a matter for the haitian judicial system. we are going to continue to provide support, as we do in every instance like this, to american citizens who have been charged. we hope that the matter can be resolved in an expeditious way. it is something that a sovereign nation is pursuing based on the

evidence is presented when the charges were announced. with respect to rot, we were heartened by the decision earlier this week -- with respect to iraq, we were heartened by the decision earlier this week to reverse the deletion of the five and names from the list on the upcoming election. we cared deeply that this election be free and fair and you would as legitimate by all of the communities within iraq and its neighbors. this is an extraordinary opportunity for the rockies to consolidate their democracy. we've not made any decisions about reacting to events that might occur within the context of the election. we were certainly heartened by the court's decision earlier. >> may i follow up on the same matter? you said no decision has been

made about how you would you the outcome of the election. are you considering the option of saying in advance that you would not accept the outcome or recognize the outcome of the election if the 500 are not counted? >> we're not actively considering any option. we're very pleased with the decision made by the iraqis themselves that opens the way for these 500 individuals to participate in the elections. we think it is inappropriate outcome. the rockies made on their own within their own legal process. -- we think it is an appropriate outcome. the iraqi s made it on their own within their own legal process. we want to make sure that nothing is done to undermine the legitimacy of the election. we see an enormous amount of political activity. that is good. iraq is now engaged in politics. people are forming coalitions, seeking votes, reaching beyond

their own communities to do so. that is exactly what we want to encourage. anything that would undermine the essential legitimacy would be a concern to us. >> the chinese foreign minister yesterday and again said that beijing thinks it is too early to be talking about sanctions on iran and that they need more time for diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation. do you feel we do need more time on the diplomatic side? how important is it that the decision is unanimous on sanctions going forward? can we move forward even if china is not on board? >> we have pursued diplomatic engagement with the iranians steadily since president obama took office. we've always had a two-track process. we hope that our colleagues and

other members across the globe recognize that because they have been involved in it. they have helped to enable the negotiations to go forward. >> we will leave the last minute of this as the president is visiting oasis mechanical contractors in maryland. he is here to talk about job creation. this is president obama with live coverage here on c-span. >> good afternoon. i appreciate the warm welcome from all the folks at the oasis. thank you so much. these guys are experts in heating and cooling systems. i am actually already familiar with hot air, i have to admit. that does not apply to the head of the small business administration was here today --

who is here today and has focused like a laser and helping small businesses to survive and thrive in the economic storm of the past few beers. we're also joined here by the owner and chef of pizzeria [unintelligible] i am little upset because they did not bring samples, but i have heard the pitch that is outstanding. we're also joined by the owner and operator of potomac little boat company in alexandria, va. these folks know, as every living soul in america does, that these have been a rough couple of years for our economy and country. it is the deepest downturn since the depression that ripped through our economy, costing more than 8 million jobs and hurting businesses large and small.

that is why we have taken some stuff and sometimes unpopular steps to break the back of the recession. today, we received additional news suggesting that we are climbing out of this huge hole that we found ourselves in. last january, almost 800,000 americans lost their jobs. today, we learned that the job losses this january or 20,000. the unemployment rate dropped below 10% for the first time since the summer. manufacturing employment grew last month for the first time in three years. that was led by increased activity in production of cars and trucks. while these numbers are positive, that are cause for hope but not celebration. far too many of our neighbors, friends, and families are still a lot of work. we cannot be satisfied when

another 20,000 have joined the ranks and millions of other americans are underemployed and picking up work again. it is encouraging that the job loss in january was a small fraction of what was a year ago and that the unemployment rate last month it went down and not up. these numbers will continue to fluctuate for months to come. these are welcome if modest signs of progress along the road to recovery. even as we take additional steps to hasten the recovery, we know there are limits to what the government can do to create jobs. the true engine of job creation will always be business. what government can do this fuel the engine by giving entrepreneurs and companies in support to expand their doors -- to open their doors and expand and hire more workers. that is what we been doing with working with the sba.

your starting with small businesses. that is where most jobs come from. over the past 15 years, small businesses have created roughly 65% of new jobs in america. these companies formed around kitchen tables with family meetings. there formed when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, when a worker decides it is time she became her own boss. it is worth remembering every once in awhile that sometimes, a small business becomes a big business and changes the world. that is why last week i proposed a new small business tax credit. it is $5,000 for every new employee that you hire. a couple of these small business owners i talked to said they would be interested in using the tax credit. this week, a proposed a new small-business lending fund. it would take $30 billion of the fund originally used to rescue the banks on wall street and use it to provide lending capital

for community banks on main street. capital one has been a lender to oasis. capital bank, excuse me. we appreciate the work you have done. the sba has increased loans and lending by 86%. we've called for legislation to increase the sba loan limits to allow us to guarantee loans of up to $5 million compared to $2 million now. today i am taking another step to support small business owners to get the capital they need to hire. i am proposing legislation that allows them to refinance their commercial real estate loans and mortgages under the sba. right now, even companies with great credit history face challenges with refinancing an

historic low rates. property values the fallen and lending has dropped. many businesses that would otherwise survive the downturn are at risk of defaulting. that will lead to even lower property values and less blending not to mention lost jobs. i am also proposing the we increase the limits sba loans used for lines of credit and working capital. that is something i know would benefit these businesses. the truth is the economy can be growing like gangbusters for years a man and it is still not easy to run a small business. it is not easy to stay ahead of competitors, keep your costs down, do right by your employees, constantly innovate, a doubt, and change the world. it is not easy keeping up with health care costs. they're very anxious to see health care reform passed where

small-business is picked up the cost of their employees. in this economy, that our job is that must harder. for much of last year, people were not buying in banks were not lending. even in the face of these obstacles and even in these tough times, all across the country, there are people that have not given up. the wake of everyday. they wake up every day and find a way to navigate the waters to fulfill obligations to families, employees, and customers. it is that determination and resolve that makes america stronger. next week, congress will start debating many of the jobs proposals i have outlined today. many of the proposals will benefit small business. many of the proposals will spur hiring.

there are additional ideas -- if there are additional ideas from either party, i am happy to consider those as well. what i hope and strongly urges that we were quickly -- that we work quickly and together to get this done. america's small businesses are counting on us. thank you very much. >> we have lots of political coverage this weekend from the first national tea party convention in nashville. starting tonight, a discussion on the tea parties in the movement around the formation. it all starts at 9:00 eastern,

plusher telephone calls as well. a reminder that this weekend will bring you the comments from sarah palin. she will be giving the keynote address at the convention. here is a look at some of the sights and sounds this weekend from the opera land hotel in nashville. -- from the opryland hotel in nashville. >> he was one of the signers of the document from georgia. i am from brunswick. >> are you active in your local to party? >> i am active of my party. >> why come to this meeting? >> we are here to unite the tea party nation and patriots and to

discourage big federal government and return to the constitutional principles which this nation was founded on. >> when this week and is done, what you hope is the result of all of these meetings? >> a focus on the 2010 and 2012 elections. we're going to make sure we're all united. we're all going to give sarah palin a kiss for her support and then we will get out into the local groups in target those who still think that [unintelligible] are necessary. we will get the ball kicked out regardless whether they're democrats, republican, or independent. we will replace them with people who believe in the constitution. that is what happens when you have large groups were several different groups want to be front and center of everything.

this is a good thing. this is uniting the tea party nation, that the party patriots. those who want to criticize can criticize. i would prefer we had this out in a field in the rain if necessary. but we will have it here. let's rejoice. let's have a good time. but to encourage the dissolution of this tyrannical government and get the mall and the -- but let's encourage the dissolution of the struggle government and kick them in the butt. >> >> sara palin speak to the group tonight. we will take your telephone calls after that. >> the former adviser to margaret thatcher is the author of over 40 books. his latest is on winston churchill. join our three-hour conversation with your telephone calls for paul johnson, live from london at noon on sunday.

>> is easy to complain about the issues and the people and politicians. to try to be entertaining, informing, and relevant in a way that offers solutions. >> the talk radio host and author of 30 books is our guest sunday night at 8:00. >> earlier this week, the transportation secretary was forced to clarify remarks he recently made about the recall of millions of toyota cars and trucks. mr. leviahood at first said that the owners should not drive them and later said that they should take them in for repairs instead. this is two hours.

we have with us mr. rail hy lahd from the secretary of transportation. welcome to the subcommittee. we're very happy to have you back again. i want to thank you for coming before us to explain the president's 2011 budget submission, the request for the department of transportation. you have been on the job for over a year. nearly your entire leadership is in place. during this time the department has taken in number successful steps to transform and modernize the transportation system, in particular the recovery act provided you with an opportunity to rebuild faltering infrastructure and lay the foundation for transform of new

initiatives to create tens of thousands of new jobs. however, this transformation has been hindered by complications that we faced last year, namely the lack of progress on the long term aviation authorizations and the highway trust fund. my understanding is that the reauthorization not reach tour is the first in developing the administration's reauthorization proposal. given the long-term impact of changes to the authorization and financing structure will have, i believe the administration must exert great leadership in this area. i will look forward to seeing the product of your tour. the president's budget as important goals. mainly, reducing the debt and

producing a good paying jobs for the american people. the subcommittee'challenges will be to produce a bill that is fiscally responsible and does not stifle the momentum created from the critically important infrastructure investments last year and that will continue to be made this year. the 2011 budget proposal before us requests a total of $78 billion roughly. i hope that is the largest difference we have. i think your testimony suggested $79 billion. we will not quibble over $1 billion. it includes a modest increase of roughly 2.5% from fiscal year 2010. the department of transportation budget request proposes significant new initiatives. i am pleased to see the

inclusion of $527 million for the livable community initiatives. transportation and housing are inexorably linked but have been treated as separate spheres 41. i look forward to hearing more about the plans to improve coordination with epa and hud and within dot agencies of federal highway and transit. i am interested to hear more details about the national infrastructure innovation and finance fund. that appears to be a hybrid between the infrastructure bank proposal from last year and the grant application program established in the recovery act. the demand for tiger grants is emphasized