attempts to intervene in the political processes. i am sure if there's evidence of foreign intervention in the electoral process, it wouldn't take long to bring to the attention of the people. host: thank you so much for joining you go. by the way, tomorrow, it's the first monday in october. the u.s. supreme court is back in session. today is the annual mass taking place today. there are highlights coming up. four of the five new justices appointed and john park of the u.s. institution of peace. rebecca christi. thanks for being with us on this

sunday. i hope you enjoy this sunday and have a great weekend ahead. : >> on "newsmakers" this sunday

is south dakota senator john thune. thanks for being with us. >> good morning. >> join us with the questioning is major garrett an jeff of the "new york times," national political correspondent. let me begin by asking you about the budget deficit because you and others say you want to continue the bush tax cuts. two thirds of the budget is entitlement and defense spending. so where do the cuts come from? how do you reduce a $13 trillion deficit? >> it starts with clearly the big money in the budget is in entitlement programs. and that issue is going to have to be joined if we're going to get serious about getting the budget under control in the long term. i think in the near term on the discretionary side you could go back to 2008 levels. we have seen dis

level, and that saves you har a trillion dollars. and clearly social security, medicare and medicaid have got to be reformed. and i think that republicans realize that. i hope democrats do as well. and i think it's going to take bipartisan leadership in order to accomplish that. but the first thing we've got to do is get the economy going again. even though people talk about these tax rate extensions being , if you look at the cbo numbers, harmful to the deficit in the long run if we don't start growing the economy that's going to make the deficit situation even worse. so you've got to get the economy expanding again and you can't do that by raising taxes on businesses. >> you said the debate needs to be joined on entitlements. but how do you start? there are many people who are doubtful something is going to go before congress.

you said before i'll wait for others to put the specifics on the table, then we can have a debate. the country has to agree this is a big problem. who starts that? if you don't start that as the minority party who is going to start the debate? and once you do start it, on what kind of specifics? >> we've got some ideas out there. you've all seen paul ryan has put forward a very i think prescriptiontive remedy for this that has a lot of specifics in it. >> do you endorse it? >> i think there are things in there that i think need to be on the table. i'm not sure i'm going to endorse everything and over aspect of his plan. but he's got something very specific with regard to medicare and social security. i think republicans recognize that this is something we can't do alone and we are in the minority right now. there is the commission and i think we hold out hope that thereby some recommendations that come from that that can be acted on, on a bipartisan way.

my fear is the debt commission is going to come back. deficits are viewed two ways. liberals say ok we need to raise taxes. conservatives say we need to cut spending. and that's kind of the standoff we've been at. i do believe that you can't deal with these deficits absent having scrubbed your budget and figured out where you're going to cut spending, where are you going to try to reform these entitlement programs to achieve long-term savings in the budget. i don't think you can talk revenues until you do that. so does the debt commission come forward with some combination of things that ends up being a standoff or will there be things that come out and we can pick and choose in terms of entitlement reform? republicans are ready to be partners in that debate. if we get the majority back obviously we're going to have to lead it. >> you mentioned we have to grow the economy and create jobs. $700 billion is the equity cost of extending the bush tax cuts

for the wealthiest american earners. cbo said if you're going to look at the effect of what you can do with $700 billion the tax cuts is one of the least stimlative to the economy. there are other things you can do and many economists believe you can do more than just extend the tax cut. why do you believe that's the best way to create economic growth? >> most economists -- there are different views and some come from different points of view believe i think that you cannot in an economic downturn like we're in right now raise taxes on your job creators which are your small businesses. and you've seen people come forward and say that would be a mistake right now to allow these tax cuts to expire and essentially to raise taxes on small businesses. i think that right now the major issue is the economy and getting expanding and growing again. second behind that of course is cutting spending. and the best way to get the

economy expanding and growing is to keep taxes low. the worst thing you can do right now, in my view, is particularly where small businesses are concerned and according to the cb of half of all small business income is taxed at those two top rates, is to raise those and make it more difficult for small businesses who are already struggling to invest and create jobs. so we can i guess we can argue about 700 billion relative to the three or four trillion that extending tax relief is in the overall scheme of thing if you do it for everybody. but i think the worst thing ub do in terms of that $700 billion is put that tax on small businesses who we're going to rely on to create jobs. some will argue that you could spend money and stimulate the economy other ways. we've done that. we've spent $1 trillion. we don't have a lot to show for it. arguably it wasn't spent in the right ways. i would make that argument. but i think we tried the

spending side. we need to make sure we're not raising taxes on small businesses. >> as republicans begin to enter the final month of campaigning, the party has outlined a pledge to america that has a set of principles. not as many specifics as some people were hoping inside your own party. what are a few more specifics, principles, on spending? and why should voters believe that suddenly now republicans will rein in the spending without that many specifics? what else do you need to persuade voters of? >> i think that the pledge was focused on three things. it was jost creation and the economy, spending and debt and government reform. there are those who have criticized it as being not specific enough, some have criticized it as being too specific. but it struck the right balance in what we needs to be talking about in terms of governance if people choose to put us back in control of the house or the

senate or hopefully both. but i think that in terms of specifics, you know, i offered an amendment last night on the continuing resolution to reduce by 5% in the amount of spending in the continuing resolution. as i mentioned earlier, you've got discretionary spending increasing. it seems like a 5% hair cut would not be all that much. i did get 8 democrats to vote for it but it only got 48 votes in the senate. which suggests there isn't an appetite to do something that would be fairly minor, a 5% across the board cut. if you took specific programs, i'm on a bill right now to repeal the class act. that's going to be a huge budget buster long run. i think you could freeze federal hiring, in travel. there are specific areas that you could target. there are more general approaches which would be an across 2 board approach because it doesn't get into the weeds of us making those decisions. it requires agency heads to make those decisions.

but we've got to do something on the discretionary sides. we can't continue to grow at 5, 6 times the rate of inflation. and then the real money is in entitlementments and the blupt or the pledge to america in the house did not have the specifics with regard to how they're going to reform entitlements but that would create a great target for democrats to shoot at. and i think right now we realize that this election really is about their governance. it's about their stewardship of the economy, and our federal tax dollars. and we realize that if given control back we're going to have to put together a plan to deal with entitlements. >> so right now it's about firing them, not necessarily hiring. >> part of the pledge was to at least demonstrate to the american people these are the things that, these are general principles in some cases. some specifics. there are some things on job creation extending bonus

depretion appreciation, doing something, those sorts of things but for the most part general governing principles that if we're put in charge we will put to work. now, whether or not that attracts people to us remains to be seen. this election i think largely is about the democrats and the last two years of their governance and i think that's what people are reacting to. my view is, in the long term, for republicans to become a governing majority that is attractive to the american people, we also have to lay out an agenda. this was a first step in that direction. obviously a lot of speves have to follow. >> but the president says your party drove the economy into a ditch and he's trying to pull it out. >> i think, what i would say to that, and i don't disagree that the republicans contributed to where we are today. there's no question that in the -- and one of the reasons i think we got fired when we were in control here is because our supporters believed that we had lost our way. so there's plenty of blame to

go around. but you cannot divorce yourself from what's happened in the last 18 month. we borrowed $1 trillion from our children and grandchildren from a thruss bill that has nothing to add jobs in the private sector. we've got this massive health care bill which is now imposing lots of new mandates and taxes on small businesses which i hear about all the time in south dakota and across the country creating a lot of uncertainty about what comes next. you had a cap and trade bill that imposes a bill energy tax on businesses in this country. there isn't anything that i can point to that has been accomplished in the last 18 months that actually creates jobs. in most cases it kills jobs. what we're arguing is that this is the wrong direction and the things, the policies the president has employed while he can blame the previous administration if he wants to go way back to 2006 previous congresses, there is a very clear record now of their governance. and i think they have to be

accountable for that to the american people. >> quick question on the way washington or congress is leaving town. are you comfortable, senator, within the confines of the mechanics of the senate to have one of your colleagues essentially declare that if he doesn't clear legislation on an executive calendar items the senate does not move? are you comfortable with that confrontation within the way the senate has historically operated? >> i think the senate, the prerogative that any senator has in the senate because the rules of the senate is one senator can shut the place down, and they always say the only rules in the senate -- two rules, unanimous consent and exhaustion if you wear somebody down. but i guess many of my colleagues have different tactics. they use their prerogatives as senators in different ways. in the end, if the democrats want to get the votes on a piece of legislation, they can file cloture and shut off debate and stop one person from shutting the senate down. i think that i'm not going to

pass judgment on any of my colleagues with regard to the tactics that they employed to try to achieve the objectives that they want to achieve. but in order for the senate to function effectively, you have to at some point have the necessary votes to get the 60 votes to get things done. but wung thing i will say -- one thing i will say with regard to -- i'm not going to defend all the tactics that my side employs. but if you look at the tactics the other side as has employed. harry reid has failed the amendmentry 40 times than the last six majority leaders combined. you know this, and everybody knows this. >> blocking amendments. >> an amended piece of legislation and an open debate act ooltnative point of view. >> which historically is the senate. filling the tree 40 times is

capray extraordinary and i think it's a reflection of sort of the acrimony that exists in the modern senate. but also i think reflects in some ways the division that exists in the country with regard to some of these big issues as well. >> if republicans would happen to win a majority in the senate this year, do you believe that there should be an open and free election for majority leader, if you will, or do you support senator mitch mcconnell from kentucky and do you believe theashed have the role to lead the party? >> i support senator mcconnell and i think he will have broad u.s. both from members who -- support both from members who are currently here and then a lot of the new members that will be coming in. i think people recognize these have been a -- he has been a very effective leader. and a time when you are as deep in the minority and having 40

seats up until the massachusetts election, now 41, i think he has been mafferful in the way that we have been able to fight the good fight on health care and a number of other issues where clearly we're outnumbered and the democrats if they want to can run the tables. now, they have done that, too. they've governed very much with one-party rule on a lot of these issues. >> is there any risk of the party for this confrontation between senator demint and senator mcconnell? and what do you believe the new makeup of the senate will look like in terms of governing? >> i think it's going to be a different senate. we're going to have a lot of new people and a lot of people who got to the senate in many cases ran campaigns that were about a very distinct agenda. >> and i think it coin sides with what many of us who are there want to see done. these are people who got motivated to get involved because of a concern about how

fast government has grown, how big government has gotten. fung about it we've seen the -- if you think about it we've seen the most expansion of government and that is what animating a lot of this grass roots movement around the country which generated some of these candidacy for these folks. i think it bring as lot of energy. and if it will enable us to have the political wherewithal to solve these problems, which we need. right now republicans are going to have to lead with a lot of courage and boldness in order to take on some of these big issues. and what you're seeing is that movement is generating the kind of intensity that i think could be useful in the senate. but it will be a different senate. there are going to be some new faces and strong held views. we'll see how that works. >> you say that with a smile. >> i think it's a diverse country. it's a great country. and many of the candidates that

running on both sides this year are people who maybe don't have long resumes or experience in politics or government. people who come to this with very different backgrounds and life experiences but are very motivated. >> fresh eyes and sharp elbows. >> that's true. and what strikes me about it is these are people who really are concerned about the direction of the country and really motivated to do something about it. and many of them want to get here and do the right thing. >> speaking about doing something about the country. you make it clear that you are considering cunning for president in 2012 -- running for president in 2012. >> i think that obviously i've not made that decision yet and to be fair i'm working diligently to elect more senators and house members in the election because i think that's the best thing we can do to change the direction of the country. >> which will not be harmful if you run for president.

>> and i'm not ready to debate fully that issue. but i do think that in terms of the presidential landscape and what happens in 2012 will be shaped some degree by what happens in 2010. i think there will be an opening there. i think our side is looking for new reagan-esic right of center leadership, someone who can in a hopeful way inspire people to change the direction of this country. and i think if somebody were to get into that field, you know, clearly by sometime early next year you'd have to do that. and i didn't get into the whole -- i didn't answer all your questions. >> i know you didn't. >> fire in the belly is, for me, i see this and always have as in a way a responsibility the duty, my father instilled that in me. and public life is a great calling. and if you think you can make a dinchings, then you ought to be in the arena.

and if i were to decide to do that, i would do it all out. >> if the ultimate goal of the republican party after november 2 is to concentrate on president obama and make him a one-term president, if you will, what type of candidate is the best person to do that? a former governor like mitt romney who has a health care plan that other republicans will pick apart? is it a senator like yourself who has voted for a controversial aspect of bailing out some part of the government? is it sara palin who is a bit of a lightning rod? who is the best type of candidate to put forward on this? and why is it you if you make that decision? >> i think that the -- and nobody knows the answer to really who is the best candidate. i think there are strengths and weaknesses for a lot of people in the field. it's all going to come down to some things that you don't control. but getting a candidate out there who has a right of center philosophy that can articulate

that in a clear way, they can talk about what's wrong with the direction of the country today, and basically have a vision for where we ought to be going that presents contrast with where we're headed today is a candidate that can win. i think president obama is a very good politician. but the agenda that he has for the country is just wrong. and i think we have lots of people who might be able to catch fire out there and all bring different strengths, and we're all going to have votes out there that we have to defend, strikes me at least that we have a number of very strong candidates. and i'm not sure at this point what the field will look like because a lot of those people haven't announced their intention. >> defend tarp. do you think that that vote was the right vote at the time? and we have news this week that a.i.g. one of the biggest recipients may be able to pay everything back in two or three years. the taxpayer might get back slightly more than was

extended. in the main do you defend that vote and over time will it be seen as better than it currently looks? >> i hope the money gets back and the taxpayers get a return on that. i think the current score today is $66 billion is what we expected it to cost taxpayers and hopefully over time some of that will go down. i have probably been one of the firesest critics and probably biggest advocates of ending tarp since it was enacted because of how it was used. and most of us who voted for it believed at the time that it was going to be used to take the toxic assets off the balance sheets of banks, to get liquidity back in the market place and avoid a freeze in the credit markets. but when they started getting in to taking equity positions in a lot of these companies and owning car companies and owning insurance companies, that's just not a good precedent in a free market economy. so it was wrong philosophically, i hope we get

our money back. that would be great if we did. but how it was used in my view misused is what i've taken issue. >> misused by bush and obama administration? >> both administrations. the folks who eengneered it under president bush made certain pronouncements about how it was going to be used. it wasn't used that way. the obama administration expanded it and turned it in to sort of more of what i would characterize it as a political splush fund. and so it's more shed into something that was very different than what it was when many of us supported it in the first place. >> do you regret it, the original vote? >> you can always ask yourself if i knew then what i know now would i have voted differently. ostly i have grave misgivings about when it was misused. but when somebody says the economy is in a meltdown, these are all the experts both sides

of the ilse democrats and republicans, that was a very compelling argument at the time and there was a lot of fear that if we didn't take steps it could have been zastruss for the country. so in light of imminent financial meltdown, it was i felt at the time the right vote to make. >> a couple minutes left. >> if you were to have a check list of questions that you would ask yourself, e personal questions, political questions, what would they be? >> i think first and foremost any time you get into the race like that is the question the major asked earlier, is do you really want to do this. because campaigns, especially in the modern political era, the rigors of it is very, very hard. and then obviously if you were successful the jobs' going to be very hard. this is not going to be an easy time to govern because there are hard decisions ahead for whom ever the next president is. so you have to ask that fundamental question and come to that conclusion, then you

have to ask, make sure your family is on board. i wouldn't do anything that my family didn't support because i've seen too many people get into politics and it ends up recking their families because they hadn't bought into that enterprise. and i think then you have to get into some of the more practical conversations. can you raise the money. and then those are very real questions that you have to try to answer. and is there support out there and do you see a pathway with the attributes that you bring to this, to get there. so those are all things i think questions that you have to ask. >> after november 3, whatever a the numbers are, will the country understand that there is a republican party with a tea party component or a tea party with a republican party scaponebt? >> i think it will be -- component? >> i think it will be a republican party. i don't think the tea party wants to be adopted. i think they view themselves as a very independent movement. but guest: the energy that they bring is -- i think the energy

they bring is very useful. because the issues they talk about synch up and align nicely with the things that most republicans are concerned about and what republicans, if elected to the majorities of the house and senate, want to do in terms of an agenda. if we do not govern according to our principles and don't follow through on the things that we say we're going to do, i think there will be a third party in this country because i think that what people are saying is, ok, republicans, you didn't get this right. we really dislike what the democrats are doing. we're going to give you guys another chance. but if we don't govern accordingly, i think you're going to see a third party. >> in 2012? >> conceiveably. i think it's going to depend on -- but that's going to depend on the mid terms. that assumes that republicans get control of the house or the senate. >> and if they don't? >> i think it's a close call at this point. i tell people i'm scandanavian

by nature so i tend to be more of a pessimist. and i'm not life -- life is supposed to be hard and things aren't supposed to become easily. but i think you can get expectations really high. and i hope those can be met but i think you have to assume the democrats are going to fight hard. they're going to be in their districts and running campaigns and trying to get their voters out. and if they do that, these, a lot of these races are going to be close. i hope we can. i think it's a longer shot for sure in the senate. >> and if republicans do win a majority or expand their presence, is it possible for the party 20 overread that mandate -- to overread that mandate and should it be assumed that president obama is more vulnerable to winning reelection? or is that going to be a tough race no matter what? >> i think it's going to be a tough race under any circumstances. i think if republicans were to get majorities back, let's say in the house, maybe not as likely in the senate, the

expectations are going to be high for republicans when it comes to governing. and i think that where people are going to have to understand is as long as you've got a president in the white house who can veto anything that you try to get through congress and you have got a senate that can stop anything that the republican house might pass that you're going to have a lot of tension probably in governance for the next couple of years. how that bears on the 2012 election, i'm not sure. conventional wisdom would suggest, i suppose, that the president could leverage against republicans in congress and paint them as the problem and try to enhance his reelection prospects. but i would hope that the president would be willing to come and work with republicans in a constructive way and try to solve what are some of these major problems. and that is a model that he could choose to employ. that would probably enhance his reelection prospects. >> senator john thune, republican south dakota, thank you for being with us. >> nice to be with you.

thanks. >> we continue the conversation with major garrett and jeff sell ni of the "new york times." what did you learn? >> i think we learned that senator thune has done quite a bit of thinking about 2012. he has the rare luxury of really any senator in the country of either party to not have a reelection. he's on the ballot but there's not a democrat running against him. he's had a lot of time to run in 2012. and i think he's farther along in his thinking on that than i had priestly assumed. >> and for the dr -- frivesly assusmede. >> and for the first time in south dakota, he is running unopposed. so that gives him a lot of band widthth. what is he doing? going around meeting as many candidates that might come to washington as possible. and when any candidate says i'm thinking about it, i'm looking at all the various factors, taking on your questions about family, practical, and says