here is a forbes article about how the bush era tax code -- cut could impact you and their expiring. and says there were two laws that were passed when george w. bush with the president -- one in 2001 and one was in 2003. those tax cuts will expire december 31. they affect earned income, long- term capital gains, dividends, and also expanded the child tax credit and made dozens of other changes and adjustments to the tax code. the 2001 bush tax law created six tax rate brackets. 10, 15, 25, 33, 35, based on income levels. if no extension is passed than the pre-2001 tax rates will go back into effect starting in tax year 2011. the 10% bracket would disappear

and those taxpayers would move to the 15% bracket. all incomes below $44,000 a year. other tax rates would increase to 30 -- 20%, 31, and 36%. and so on. what are your expectations? do you want democrats to compromise with republicans? the president intent -- indicated on his interview that aired on sunday that he would be open to compromise on the issue. republicans talk about a two- year extension of the bush era tax cuts. and then look at the issue two years down the road. what do you want? hamilton, ohio. willie is a democrat joining us to talk about this. go ahead. caller: i am an obama fan dar. i think he does a good job generally. i believe he keeps screwing up by trying to negotiate with the

republicans. on this issue right here, he should stick by his guns and not negotiate one bit. and i love c-span. host: that was willie, a democrat in hamilton, ohio. talking about what should happen during the lame-duck session on the bush-era tax cuts, likely to be the number-one issue. the big decision they make when they return next week. republicans have said that they would like to extend them for two years, and president obama has called for two different votes on this. as you know, president obama initially proposed in his budget that he would let the bush era tax cuts expire for those making more than $250,000. so he has suggested maybe to have two separate votes -- one on that issue of letting the next fire for the wealthiest americans and the other on extending them for those that

make less than $250,000. the republicans have called that decoupling, and they don't like that idea. what do you think? maryland. victoria on the republican line. caller: there are tax cuts, but not george bush's tax cuts and they will be obama's tax increases if they expire. host: all right. this is "the new york times" this morning with the headline. democrats find perfect timing elusive. it looks back on this tax cut debate.

this issue comes back to the forefront next week. texas, lee is an independent. what your expectations? caller: i want to ask you a question. you were on yesterday. why are you there today? host: just a matter of scheduling. caller: i know it. but i have been watching 28 years. host: ok. caller: and, greta, there are a lot of complaints. 11 people will live around me and our c-span junkies and they don't like you, greys, and he . they don't like you, greta and i will send a copy to mr.

lamb -- and what is that lady's name? host: susan. ok. washington, d.c.. jamie on the democratic line. talking about expectations the bush tax cuts. caller: i believe they should keep in place for the next two years and then decide what they wanted it from now. right now our economy is still in a fragile state, regardless of what anybody says. everyone is promising additional tax cuts. the reality is that will not happen. we can't have additional tax cuts. why not keep these in place and then just wait and see where the economy is and then make a decision at that point? there will not be additional tax cuts. for anybody waiting for more tax cuts, it will not happen. host: you are a democrat and you are thinking that democrats to compromise and just extend them for everybody for two years? caller: at this point i believe we need to extend them. i look at it like, if you take this type of benefit away from the wealthy, they decide to move

because they have the money to move and they decide to move out of the country. now you are losing taxable income you cut it had. we are at the point where we need as much taxable income as we can get right now. we are at such a deficit. our economy is still fragile, regardless of what anybody says. we need what we can get at this point. it is not about who deserves it and who doesn't. that is how i feel. host: not just income taxes affected. the child tax credit will expire at the end of 2010 as well. the bush tax error cuts doubled back from $500 to 1000 per child. it would revert back to $500 for the tax year 2011. on capital gains, the maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividend's were also reduced to 15% with lower income filers facing 0%

tax rate. the sunset provision would move the rate back to a maximum of 20% and qualified dividend's would resume being taxed at the regular rate of the filer as high as 39.6%. orlando, florida. james is a republican. expectations the bush era tax cuts? caller: i will be the one that takes the crazy view i have not heard anyone else take. when george bush was president he put forth the first $2 trillion budget in 2002 and the first $3 trillion in 2008. obama just put forward three. dollars trillion next year and i assume the next one is $4 trillion. we have $13.70 trillion debt growing every day. these tax cuts come up to $4 trillion over the next 10 years. $700 billion is for people making over $250,000. that is the one did not want to talk about.

but $3.30 trillion is for people making less than $250,000. my view is that we need to put the tax rate back where it was before bush cut it, work on cutting spending and then we can go back to looking at tax cuts down the road once we get our spending under control. you can't have a $4 trillion budget and $4 trillion tax-cut and expect this country to grow. we will just get into a deeper hole. host: you still there? really for you as a republican, a combination of both cutting spending and increasing taxes? caller: at this time. we look at tax cuts later but we have to get the debt under control. imagine you are in a household, and your debt is out of control, you need to cut spending but you have to figure out a way to raise revenue. host: what about the argument of during the time of economic

contraction, to increase taxes right now would just mean less tax revenues coming in because there -- the economy would not grow? caller: the economy is not growing because we eliminated the tariffs back in the 1980's and we can't compete with these foreign companies that -- countries that have basically slave labor. imagine you are a company and trying to deal with how much it costs to hire an american versus how much it would cost to hire a mexican or indonesian, or someone like that, it is not a real hard choice. no one is talking about bad, either, except maybe donald trump. the terrorists had been there for 200 years when the united states -- tar =iffs have been theirs at 421 years when the nine states was founded. host: go ahead, tom.

caller: i think the republicans and spent the last two years doing absolutely nothing to help the american people. for political reasons. and i think it is time obama got political with them and just let these things expire. they would to the middle class. host: what do you think would be the outcome, though, for independents and other conservative-type folks who don't want to see these expire, middle-class americans? caller: well, i kind of agree with the guy who was just on there. a bush himself set these up to only last 10 years. so, maybe we should let them expire. and if the republicans want to live with that, it would be better for the economy if we

had the taxes, money coming in. host: ok. miami, florida. robert, democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning, ma'am. how are you doing? i just wanted to tell you this. i read it dr. greenspan, and he said it was a bad idea. david stockman -- i believe he was a former budget director with bush who said it was a bad idea and i approved -- agree what the caller take callers before suggesting, we have these huge deficits and want to add $700 billion. $3 trillion in 10 years if we want to make a permanent 10 years. i think it is ridiculous. however, if you are going to say you want to extend the bush taxes, for everybody to be on the same page and on record with the american people saying, look, this is how much it will

add to the deficit. let's not make a partisan. everybody needs to stand in front of the american people -- president obama, cantor, mitch mcconnell, boehner, look in the camera and say, look, this is, it is going to cost, and to the deficit. when these things happen, it is always this person blaze that person. if we are going to extend them put everybody on record. then we can have a discussion. host: you think the leaders here in d.c. should ask the american people should make sacrifice when it comes to tackling the deficit? caller: you are going to have to. again, you have somebody like dr. greenspan, who was the person who advocated for the bush tax cuts. you have david stockman. look, we don't have the revenue

covering these things. 70% of our budget goes toward the title -- entitlements and the military. unless someone is going to come up with an idea to point to some of the revenue that will offset this money, they will have to address it. if it is not going to happen and we will extend a portion of your two, everybody on the record, in front of the american be bought and say on tv on record. don't be hiding behind everything else. just say it in front of the american people. host: we got up of the. let's go to joe. caller: greta, you do a great job on c-span. love c-span. we've got to have the tax cuts. we must have the tax cuts. i have been invested in the stock market for 40 years and you see it rise lately and i think it is because the anticipation of the tax cuts. but like the other republican caller said, we've got to cut spending. and we've got a congressman tom graves who will lead the fight not only for the tax cuts,

greta, but the spending cuts. so i really fired up. and i would like to say the great steve more from "the wall street journal" is coming to atlanta this weekend to talk about how george it can be the most economically competitive state in the country. we are really excited. colonel ross carbone and i are going to atlanta to meet with steve. host: what about the tax cuts, though? he made the point about investing in stocks. are you watching the capital gains issue? caller: we got to keep the capital gains low. to be globally competitive. i think china is at 0, a lot of countries are at 0. we have to give people an incentive to invest their money and the only way to do that is to keep taxes low. i am predicting a great boom in the stock market. i think the republicans are given to cut spending and keep the taxes low. so i am the most fired up and happy as i have been in my entire life. host: new jersey. gene, independent line.

caller: i think that this is an absolute perfect issue for the fact that the republicans are able to put a good spin on everything. i am a c-span junkie. i watched the news -- macneil lehrer and c-span, sensible moves, all the time. i did not -- did not know until recently that the tax cuts for the wealthy, their first $250,000, and just like everyone else, will be exempt from any tax increase. furthermore, it is not actually a tax increase. that is the way the republicans are spinning its. it was a tax cut for bush but they are making it sound like the poor folks who have a lot of money are going to have to pay out more in taxes, but they will

get a tax increase. that is just not true. and all of us out here are really very, very hurting, and an issue that has not been brought up at all is the property taxes, which, in new jersey, have doubled and tripled in the past 10 or 15 years. the last of a man who is investing in the stock market, that is nice for him, but there are three women losing their homes, older women, on my road, due to high property taxes. host: let me get your reaction to the front page of "the philadelphia inquirer or" about your governor chris christie. as attorney general billed customers for a luxury hotels and repeatedly failed to follow trouble regulations.

caller: well, it doesn't surprise me. gov. christie is very loud and likes to throw his weight around, pun intended. although he does say some interesting things, like with the property tax reform, it is just not through. -- true. he is blaming teachers, whereas in new jersey our level -- and, like the state school board, for example, we have regionalization in our school but we had a superintendent with 800 children with the business manager and principal and each school. these are jobs that are $150,000 each, plus 25% benefit package. host: gov. christie has been talking a lot and making decisions as governor of new jersey about spending, cutting

things here and there, saying we can't afford this and we will not go ahead with certain projects. what you think this headline does to that argument? caller: i think it is making clear to everyone, like as said, that he speaks a good game but personally clearly he is not doing that. he is going after the teachers but it is the administrators who are costing us so much. pandering in the exact same way republicans. host: we will leave it there. spending and what to cut next will be part of this tax cut debate as well when lawmakers return for the lame-duck session. we are asking all of you what are your expectations for the bush era tax guides. about maneuvering, if you opinion pieces in the paper. bob herbert rights "the impossible dream." he writes that on sunday's "need

the press" jim demint says he is not in favor of cutting benefits to senior citizens. then eugene robinson in "the washington post" says the white house has caught in a critical -- incredible break. he says --

that said eugene robinson paucities this morning. "the wall street journal" -- the republicans may gain upper hand in the senate when it comes to maneuvering. referring to the fact that democrats still have the majority but 23 democrats are up for reelection and will likely balk their party on many issues. then he goes on to talk about -- naming those up for reelection.

then he says the republican leader looks at this and things may see both for his side. but christine o'donnell in delaware and sharron angle of nevada lost their senate bids -- so, we are talking about your expectations for the bush tax cuts. what is next when they return. there is another piece in "the

philadelphia enquirer" this morning that said the real negotiations will not be between the congress and white house but it will be between john boehner, presumptive speaker of the house, and harry reid, majority leader of the senate, but those two will have to do most of the negotiating. jane, democratic line. go ahead. caller: people who make over $250,000 received the bush tax cuts, the bank bailout, $600 billion from the fed, and they are hoarding to point to five -- $2.25 trillion. i suggest that they hold it over, bush tax cuts, over the wealthy heads until they provide jobs. if they want it, provide jobs. host: ok. next on call, ralph on the republican line in florida. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span.

i originally called to refute the gentleman from florida who said, let's just have more taxes and cut spending. well, the minute you get any money to convert, they are going to spend it. i agree with cutting spending. i lived in michigan all of my life and just move to florida because i lost my house due to the exorbitant taxes. this is just a sad situation. host: is that a dog or a bird? in the background. caller: that is a large, large bird. host: miami, florida. at the wellhead. good morning, howard, what your expectations? caller: my expectation is low. i have no idea what these people are going to do. the real problem is that -- in

my considered opinion -- there should not be confusion over the facts in this country. because there is so much confusion we get the kind of results we see over the last election. talking about the bush tax cuts. one of the callers called this a why she did not understand everybody was going to get a tax cut except for the wealthy who were only going to be cut on their taxes on income over $250,000. there is no reason at this point that that there should be any confusion at all about what the actual tax cuts are. and the fact that there is confusion is the media. it should be very easy for the media to explain the concept but yet it has failed to do so. it has failed to do so. there is no reason for it. that is how we get the results we get, because there is confusion about the facts. the media reports that sarah

palin says there are death panels and health care legislation. the report that senator harry reid says they are no death panels the end of life counseling but the media does not say, and by the way, sarah palin is lying on this one. they don't tell you that in the same time frame. two weeks later or four weeks later, some of fact checker comes out with an article somewhere buried in the newspaper that might address that point but it is irrelevant already. host: all right, we will leave it there, however. we have an e-mail from a viewer saying -- another e-mail from a viewer who says -- finally, another e-mail, from jamestown, north carolina.

we are talking to all of you this morning about whether or not the bush era tax cuts should expire, should there be compromise. what you expect? patty, democratic line. houston, texas. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. the fellow who loses his house in michigan and everything. that was the reason why. we were doing fine would present it was in there. everybody to pay. when you cut on the rich -- they need to wake up. some people is asleep, i believe. i'm a senior citizen. i worked all my life. i'll -- now i am a senior

citizen and here in houston, texas, i found out, talk about cutting medicaid from the poor people and cutting a lot of stuff for the poor people and the reach -- rich people getting their tax cuts. host: gov. rick perry out with his new book. it would cover an event yesterday in a town where he was talking about his book. did you are interested in listening to him in his own words or watching it, go to c- span.org. about president obama's over -- overseas trip. china and russia joined germany in scolding the united states. obama defends move as pro- growth. that is the federal reserve move last week to provide $600 billion in quantitative easing. it says the prospects of the fed flooding to the financial system with money drives gold above $49 an ounce monday. often bought as protection against inflation, settled at a

record.

this is "the washington post." breakdown of the most expensive races and much it cost per voter. on the issue of outside groups, political reports that president obama said the white house has given a green light to big donors to set up similar outside groups to what republicans did this past election cycle to counter gop effort in 2012. also political reports that darrell i said, incoming chairman of the oversight committee in the house, plans to hundreds of hearings. that is the headline in "politico" on this.

this is the politics section of "the washington times" this morning. pete sessions, currently nrcc chief, decides to stay on. opening the way for kevin mccarthy to become the majority whip for the republicans. below that is a story about maine's woman be a snow being the next tea party target. that is political this morning. james, democratic line. expectations for the bush era tax cuts. go ahead. caller: i was calling about the tax cuts. the poor down here in kentucky and the middle class, they are having a rough enough as it is but now the wealthy people, that is what is wrong with this country now, they got too rich. there is the rich and filled their rich.

-- filthy rich. and those people would have paid more taxes. if i had a million dollars or billion dollars, i would love to pay more taxes and stuff. when is it going to be enough? it seems like they cannot get enough money. then they expect the government to create jobs. maybe that is what obama wants to do. maybe he ought to go down to michigan and crank up a bunch of factories and put some people to work. if the big corporations are not going to do it, who is going to do it? it is like they are holding a gun on him baird and if he expends of those taxes for the rich, he is a one-term president. because the poor did not even come out and vote this time. that is the reason jack conway did not get elected in kentucky, because the poor stayed home.

you know, that is the biggest problem. the poor put him in there and the first start. we thought he was going to help us. i am a disabled coal miner down here, and i did not get no raise on social security the last year and eight going to get one this year. and we are having to buy pills and stuff like this, you know, and it's rough. i dislike to say, i don't think -- i think the rich, and i was rich, i would pay more. i even heard them on tv saying, tax me because i am rich. host: we will leave it there. republican. john in port charlotte, florida. go ahead. caller: good morning, greta. i don't mind seeing you two days in a row. anyway. to taxes. progressives and the republicans know that if you decrease taxes,

that you will increase revenues to the government. reagan proved that. so, the tax is really -- taxes is a vehicle by which the government controls the people. that is the main reason. you go back to the 1920 depression, 25% unemployment. cutting government spending by 20% to 30%, the same with the taxes, and that depression lasted about a year and a half. that is what we need to do now -- cut government spending across the board, 20% to 30%, and the same with taxes. host: what about the argument from economists saying you don't get there, that you will not get real deficit reduction if you just cut spending, that you have to raise taxes at the same time? caller: the raising taxes is a keynesian believed that has proven not to work. in these economic times, you cannot raise taxes on people. it is not going to spur any growth whatsoever.

host: queens, new york. daniel is a democrat. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. first off, i would like to say that i am long-term in -- i think unemployment benefits should be priority number one. what you can do for both republicans and democrats is tie into an amendment into one of the unemployment benefits things that would be brought to the floor. you could tie in it to it, for example, america of want to work planned, it should be brought out of the finance committee and voted on the floor. and with that bill you can tie into, as an amendment, the tax cuts. that is a win-win situation for both republicans and democrats. host: a couple more headlines. of the front page of "the

washington post." u.s. tightening air cargo security. if below that is another headline on health care this morning. new gop governors will steer the health-care law.

georgia, ivy, independent line. expectations the bush era tax cuts. caller: that fellow from texas was just a sour grapes. and don't pay attention to the folks that don't like you. hey, we went to war nine years ago, almost to the day. and the tax cuts that were passed back in 2001 were passed predicated on the assumption from 2000 onward, that there could never be any setbacks. so they took some of what was supposed to be that access the government has been bringing in and sent it back to the people. but since we went to war, the only thing we were told to do

was to go shop. and it seems to me that responsibility called on us to live up to our commitments and actually pay for what we had taken on. and i am a disabled vet. this week, five marines died in afghanistan in one battalion. we need to make sure that we pay our debts. and the 99 percent that are not involved in these wars need to step up and take on our responsibility, just as the one person has taken on theirs. host: all right. front page of "the new york times" has a story about don't ask, don't tell. repeal faces a struggle.

front page of "the new york times" if your interested. baton rouge, louisiana. john on the republican line. caller: i have the perfect solution for this tax cut thing. if you just make the democrats pay the taxes and everybody else who wants the tax cut, they don't have to pay, no, they can get the tax cut. you would want to those democrat -- democrats squirm, i tell you. and that would solve the whole solution. all you have to do is just tell democrats, go ahead and pay your taxes -- if you want to pay them

taxes, you pay them. but everybody else who wants a tax cut, let them get their tax cut. host: that was bob, republican from baton rouge, louisiana. of next, we will turn our attention to what is ahead for democrats in view of last week's losses. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] mammal with most election results final and the winners prepared to govern, and view the

c-span video library to see what the winners said on the campaign and the more than 140 debates. search, watch, and share any time. all free. it is washington your way. estimatescams competition is in full swing -- c this year swing -- am. washington, d.c., through my lands. up load your video by the deadline of january 28 to win a grand prize of $5,000. for the rules and how to unload your video, go to studentcam.org. >> every weekend on c-span 3, experience american history tv. starting saturday at 8:00 eastern, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. here historic speeches by national leaders and i witness accounts of events that shaped our nation. visit museums, historical sites and college campuses, as top

professors and leading historians build into a mere composite past. american history tv, all weekend, every weekend, on c- span 3. >> would call washington journal" continues. host: jonathan cowan is president of third way. what is third with? guest: a centrist think tank in washington. a staff of about 35. we work on national security, economic, cultural, domestic policy, and clean energy issues. it's given what has happened to democrats last week. they lost majority in the house. going forward, the big question is who is their leader in the house. nancy pelosi says she is running for minority leader. sounds like she has the votes. what does third way think of the idea? guest: it looks like what will happen based on this morning's papers is most likely everyone -- pelosi, steady glow -- steady

hoyer, clyburn, will drop down and not -- and knocked. what is crucial is not dot but whether the democratic party has heard the mission -- the message loud and clear. host: de think they have? guest: it remains to be seen. the election is a week old or something like that. we will find out not just in a lame duck session but what we will find out in the next year. from our perspective in the third way, the message is resounding an incredibly clear is, voters want a party -- either or both political parties -- to move to and govern from the center. we believe this election, this historic sweep of seats in which democrats lost as many seats in the house as they have lost in 50 or 60 years, that historic sweep really is about the fact that voters did not perceive

them in the center enough. host: here is the headline in "the new york times." blamed the blue dogs. for democratic losses don't add up. -- the blame the blue dogs th eory doesn't add up. people sang that they block the president's agenda and because of them democrats lost the house. guest: it is an absurd argument. to say that moderate democrats and conservative democrats cost the house of the majority, the democrats the majority in the house, is an absurd argument on its face. in 2006 and in 2008, chuck schumer and rahm emanuel went about building a democratic majority, getting back to house and senate. a basically every single seat that democrats picked up in 2006

and 2008 in the more difficult purple and red districts in the state, those are gone now. the so, the argument that somehow democrats can purge themselves, only had a small, liberal caucus, don't need moderate and blue dogs, if that mindset takes hold, what it means is democrats will be a long-term minority party for decades to come. host: if you don't want the mind set to take hold, why not have a more moderate thinking type person likes any hoyer as your minority leader for the party rather than -- or keep schuler? guest: i just think in washington you deal with political reality. the boats are done. it is already lined up. it is going to most likely be pelosi, hoyer, clyburn. in the end, here is the core question. does nancy pelosi -- nancy pelosi, hoyer, jim clyburn, the rest of the caucus, did the

recognize the need to have a robust big tent on the democratic side that includes a lot of moderates or blue dogs or do they want to be a much more smaller, liberal caucus that for decades is in the mind -- minority except when republicans mess up so badly that democrats actually get back house. if you look back to the 20 centric, what you can see clearly is there was natch -- never naturally occurring liberal majority. when democrats held power, unbroken for 75 years, it was because they built a big tent coalition, southern conservative, often racist democrats, and more northern liberal democrats. that coalition may not have been perfect but in the and it gave democrat and long string of unbroken power and ability to do significant things. the great society, social security, the new deal. if democrats want to regain power and hold it for any period of time, we are going to have to real -- they are going to lead to realize they need a big tent party.

and they need to make sure that their agenda, what they are proposing, is in the center, appeals to moderate, and actually fits with the times. host: hot in feel about the bush tax cuts? guest: what the president has outlined is where most middle- class voters are, is make sure my taxes don't go up. obama promised in the campaign that they would not let the taxes of middle income americans go up. if they can call to the promise, that is what most middle income americans care about. there will certainly be some who feel we should not lower taxes or repeal the tax cut on wealthier americans. most likely they will end up with a compromise in which they keep most or all of the tax cuts in place for at least a year or two until we are fully out of the recession. i think the ultimately many of the tax cuts that go to upper income americans, a large portion will go away. but more importantly, once we get past the immediate tax

debate, the crucial thing we believe democrats have to do here at home -- not thinking national security -- is shift from being a party that is about expanding the entitlement state and social safety net to a party focused on economic growth. democrats spent most of the last century attempting to build up a robust social safety net so that when you fell, there was a net to catch you. that is incredibly important. social security, medicare, medicaid, you can go down the list. those are super important things americans would not want to give up. however, the next century, we cannot take economic growth for granted and the democrats want to build a long-term majority and have the majority be valuable in governing, to really govern in a way that is relevant, they will have to be the party of economic growth. host: what is the first test for democrats? there are lots of headlines about the first test for republicans. what is the first test for democrats? guest: the number one will not be the bush tax cuts for what

happens in the lame-duck. the number one test will be in when the president's fiscal commission comes out either with a unanimous report or take a minority report, the key question for democrats is going to be are they going to rally around that call for serious deficit reduction and entitlement reform. the measure of whether democrats are seriously intending to be a governing majority -- not just for the short term but the long run -- is are they going to get serious about deficit reduction and entitlement reform. host: paul ryan, incoming budget chairman, indicated there is some compromise on that. possibly raising of age -- and i don't want to speak for him. i will try to find article. guest: we are real fans of paul ryan. not everything in his plan is perfect but what he has done it is extraordinary in both parties, including the right. what ryan has said is we can't

just as republicans talk a good date -- what ryan has said is a can just as republicans talk a good game but have to put plans on the table. host: this piece ran in "the financial times" last week. i believe we can begin to make modest changes like slowing the growth of benefits for the wealthiest earners or indexing eligibility age for longevity. never present a viable alternative for unsustainable status quo and they can be delivered by making no changes for those aged 55 and older who currently receive social security and medicaid. -- medicare. you don't impact of those seniors now, but future generations. guest: he is right. let me say a couple of things but first of all, the matter what we do for social security, it will not affect people 55 or 60. we will not change in the game when they are nearing retirement age. but think about this. by 2013, over 65% of all the money the federal government spends is going to go to entitlement.

social security, medicare, and interest on the debt. basically, entitlements and interest on the debt. that percentage of our budget being taken up by consumption, not by investments in our future, that is completely unsustainable. so, the real test for the obama administration, democrats in the senate and the minority in the house will be, can they actually come together with serious minded people like paul ryan and forge some kind of bipartisan agreement on deficit-reduction and entitlement reform did we should be clear that there are a lot of liberals and liberal democrats who do not think we should touch entitlements. they formed a coalition saying we are opposed to any entitlement cuts. that is a sign of a movement and a political party that is not serious about governing. host: republicans pretty much said the same thing on "meet the press." guest: paul ryan right now is one of the only republican who has shown himself to be deeply thoughtful and actually willing to put serious proposals on the

table. it is just as much a test of the new republican majority -- yes, you could put a ban on earmarks but those are small dollar amounts. the big test for boehner, mitch mcconnell, and eric kcanter is whether they can take all nine paws plan and turn it into a governing document in an attempt to forge a compromise. host: are you optimistic about senate majority leader harry reid when during his 111th congress he did not give any indication, according to some articles this morning, of wanting to compromise with republicans. guest: we happen to be huge fans of harry reid. i think he did a fantastic job of the last congress. if you look at what he actually got done in a senate where you have to get 60 votes to get anything done, it is actually quite extraordinary. he got things done in historic proportions. i think it is an unfair rap that he did not try to be partisan.

one great example would to the media obsessed about four months which is, senator reid encouraged, supported, and allowed senator max baucus to negotiate with the senator grassley over a health care bill for close to nine months, if memory serves. so it is, the -- the only just cannot get to a bipartisan deal. but i do think harry reid has been very clear after this election that he recognizes the imperative for bipartisanship is even greater now that democrats hold fewer seats. he is a principled guy but a pragmatist. i did what you will see in the next two years is boehner, reid, and obama administration striving mightily to find common ground. democrat line from milton, west virginia. caller: i talked to democrats around here. i know there are a lot of blue dogs here. but the biggest thing that we saw, we need our democrats with

more backbone. a when they go into conference -- when they go into conference to debate these bills, you don't give up on the public option before you even go into conference. the public option in january was 79% approval. they took it off the table before they went into conference. these are the issues. just like on the financial regulations. they took the hardest part of the financial regulations out before they went into conference -- host: hang on the line because i wanted jonathan cowan to respond to you and then you try man. it is interesting. here is a democrat saying, as we talk about, liberals gave ground and they should not have. why do you believe that the public option was a bad idea? guest: i understand lori's point of you and i have heard widely and i respected. whether she classifies herself

or not, she is a liberal. if you believe deeply that public option was crucial to health care, you are a liberal because what we got in the health-care bill was the first time ever universal health care. we got hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies for people who don't have health care and major reforms of the health-care industry. now, i happen to think and third way things that was a substantial historic achievement. there are some like lorton said was should have on what to a public option. a couple of things. let's not lose the forest for the trees. it was a historic piece of legislation and folks like lowry should believe in it. secondly, the votes were not there for a public option. you could not get a public option out of the senate. it was not possible. third, if you ask many moderate and blue dog democrats who campaigned this cycle and lost their seats probably in places like where lori is from, but then tell you, i cannot defend the public option. you can cite numbers 79% popular. and literally could not defend

it. it sounds like government run health care. i can't defend it. don't ask me to defend it. caller: number one, they took off the table before they went to conference. i can understand them negotiating it out. but they took off before. number two, it would have been a part of a choice for people like us who want to stick it to the insurance companies because they have been sticking it to us for years. we could have chosen the public option. and irregardless of whether it was in there are not, we wanted of the negotiations from the best down and instead they took it out before they negotiate. .

host: jonathan cowan is part of third way. he is from the center instead of from the far left. south bend, indiana. john, independent line. go ahead. caller: first of all, i'd like to thank c-span and "washington journal" and also jonathan for joining you this morning. i have two questions. one regarding tax cuts. i feel the biggest argument against them is that it's going to hurt business and most likely small businesses. if the democrats and republicans could agree to extend these tax cuts for everyone for two years and then take that two years to work toward creating a small business tax bracket that's separate from individual taxes and then raise the taxes for those making $250,000 or more that argument would go away. secondly, the health care bill i think was absolutely amazing

what they were able to accomplish in decades and decades since they've done anything about it. and now i think that the republicans taking the majority in the house that perhaps now we can do the other half. that is finding the efficiencies and cutting the costs in health care. it doesn't make sense that something in a hospital costs $100 when you can get them $40 somewhere else. cutting down administrative costs, that's what republicans are good at, finding efficiencies. those two things republicans can do. host: independent voter, have you -- that means you voted for republicans this time around? caller: i actually -- on the national and congress i voted for republicans. mike donnelly was able to continue on. in terms of local elections, i did vote for some republicans

and every election i vote for some republicans and some democrats. i'm really a per candidate per issue kind of thing. host: and how did you vote on the presidential ticket? caller: i voted for barack obama and mike donnelly and worked on john kerry's presidency in 2004. host: and you're leaning more towards republicans? caller: i'm still sticking with the democrats. i think they have a better notion about where the country should be going. but at the same time i'm also a centrist and i don't think it's a good thing to have one party in charge for too long anyway. guest: before responding to john's specific policy points. john is the caller that actually flipped this election. barack obama overwhelmingly won independence in 2008 and democrats got crushed on the independence something like

55-39. so john's -- in fact, going in the field right now to the poll that we'll look at voters just like john who voted for obama but either stayed at home or flipped away and voted for the republican. john is the key for both parties for actually having a governing majority. on his two policy points, really interesting idea on small business carveout. i am going to talk to my team about that and see how that would align. he's right, there are small business owners who file in effect and pay individual tax rates and it's a concern to them. that's always been a concern. second is he's dead on about health care which is what democrats should be pushing republicans on and what republicans should come to the table with is, ok, instead of repealing health care, what we should be doing is fixing health care so that we instill the strongest cost containment

possible. we began in the last health care bill to lay the foundations for serious cost containment but that job is maybe at best halfway done. the next best thing if the democrats are concerned about health care is to join with republicans and put in measures that john is advocating. host: go ahead, teresa. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: republicans and independents almost ran to the ballot box to vote out the progressive, socialist agenda that the democrats keep pushing down the people's throat that they do not want. you talked the public option. it would have been 10 times worse if you allowed the public option. we do not want the democrats and obama's socialist agenda. we cannot convince you that we do not want it. you have laid it in the republicans' hand the redistricting and what we're going to have to do is we are

going to have to redistrict these socialist democrats out of washington. and i'd like to have your comment on that. host: well, let me start -- guest: well, let me start by saying, teresa, i'm not a socialist. never have been, never will be. i disagree with your characterization, as most democrats as socialists. however, i think you're spot on that there are a lot of voters, both republicans and many independents that are concerned about the size of government and role of government and government spending. your voices were heard very loudly and clearly this election cycle. i think the question you pose is an excellent one and that is, can -- they can win over our previous caller, john. the question is can democrats govern from the center? host: the problem withed too's democrats is 30 years ago they

would have been considered republicans. guest: well, that might be true. it's a fairly ahistorical tweet, as it were, since in fact many of the major pieces of legislation that got passed in the 21st century were passed with liberal republican support. so, yes, ideologies, you know, shift within the two parties over 100-year period. there were some very liberal, particularly in the northeast, republicans who frankly would now be democrats. and we'd be thrilled to have them in the democratic party. again, the tweet really goes to what's now becoming very conventional wisdom among the left in washington and in the blogosphere, we can be a small party, we can purge ourselves with moderates and blue dogs. we couldn't need them. if we go further left that's our salvation, and it is wrong. all the data shows it's wrong. it's wrong on principle.

it will be the long-term demise of the party. host: we show the exit polls here. it's jobs, jobs, jobs, foreclosures and underwater mortgage next. not bush tax cuts. guest: i do agree with that tweeter. the bush tax cuts really were not -- there's no indications they were a serious issue in this election. what were the major issues in the election were people who were very frustrated about the economy, deeply concerned what they perceived as too much government, too much big government and didn't like things like the health care plan. but the bush tax cuts i don't think became a major issue in almost any race. host: karen in cleveland, ohio, democratic line. you're on the line with jonathan cowan. hello. go ahead. caller: hello. good morning. host: good morning. caller: i'd like to comment his idea that democrats need to have a bigger tent. our problem is we do have a

bigger tent. you can't even get one or two of them to budge, to compromise with us. and we have a whole bunch of people up there that have all kinds of different ideas and can't stick together. if we could have stuck together we could have passed a public option because that's what we wanted. 75% of the country wanted that. that's what they're supposed to do for us. we pay them. they're supposed to do what we want. even if they don't think it's right or they could go. we're the people. we said that's what we want. they didn't even fight for us. they didn't even go in there with the public option in their pocket. they took it off completely, immediately. also, corruption is our problem. the money that we spent, the money that we as american taxpayers pay into the system for that we will have an umbrella or a parachute or a soft falling place when we get

older, when we get ill, when something happens to us, that's what that money is for. it's not for all the other things that they spend it on. corruption is a huge problem in washington and that's what we should be addressing and that's what obama said he'd try to address. he can't do that with a large tent of the democratic party because they have all different ideas. host: isn't that the nature of being in the majority, that your members peel off? when you're in the minority it's easier to stick together? guest: first off, you're calling from my hometown. i hear your point but there's absolutely no way to get a governing majority if you are a democrat unless we have a big tent. the numbers don't exist. there are not enough voters in the country, karen, who think about things the way you do.

whether you're right or you're wrong, it doesn't matter. there aren't enough voters who look at the world in the liberal way that you do who can comprise a democratic majority. second is, i really, as i encouraged the other caller, as a democrat you should take a lot of pride in what we did in health care. the public option is one piece of policy. it's not the be all end all. it only would have affected six million people. but as a democrat who voted for barack obama, and it sounds like you must have, you got done with obama and pelosi and reid historic things. the largest change in health care since medicare and medicaid. as a big tent party in the last two years we got huge things done. the big tent is the only way we're actually going to be able to govern. host: jonathan cowan is from

third way. texas. jim on the republican line. go ahead. caller: yes. thank you. i'm a republican although i did give my vote for president obama. i'm going to touch on three subjects and then really just one question. i feel what they're calling obamacare, if it's anything like the care that i receive through the veterans administration, i assure you there will be rationing and huge delay. it took me eight months to see a specialist. whereas in the private it maybe would have taken me two or three weeks. and people talk about the two wars. we really have a third war that's been going on for a long time. that's a war against drugs that disproportionately affects minorities and the poor. and the third issue is it seems

to be the parties are pinning themselves, as i said so, rich against the poor. and i hear a lot of people call talking about how republicans are driving companies to outsource and move overseas. what are these tax incentives that are causing companies to move offshore? if you could answer that. thank you. guest: great. thank you. your first point about obamacare, so-called obamacare, it can't be that the last two couple callers were upset there wasn't enough government and another caller saying it's too much government. here's the truth. the obama health care plan left in place the private insurance system in the united states. so it's very likely, tim, if there are changes to your

health insurance, they're fairly modest changes. you're not going to have something with long lines and delays. that's not going to happen. your second point, war on drugs. really interesting. it shows you kind of the ideological confusion of a republican caller saying we should be -- we shouldn't wage such a war on drugs. it's a more libry tarian issue. i don't think that will change much in the next congress. and the last question -- tax breaks. we would really agree with you the kind of economic populism many on the left preach. we think it's bad policy and bad politics. there are some tax incentives that do encourage companies to go overseas but they're not a major issue. the real concern we should have is -- what are we doing to ensure that american companies can compete effectively overseas which generates more

american jobs and more income for more american companies? the playing field isn't what it was 30, 40 years ago. if we're going to have good jobs for people we have to make sure we're internationally competitive. host: next call, north carolina, cheryl, independent line. caller: good morning. my concern is that we are still paying insurance companies. we need health care. the amount of money, just the money that's being wasted on the insurance company interests we could have clinics set up all over the country in all these empty strip malls that have been destroyed through the economy. and we could employ people who are worthy of employment. instead of these people who are extorting money. insurance is extortion. it is legal extortion. and now that we have scrooge in the house controlling things and we have a supreme court that has caved in through the

interest of the corporations, we need somebody that will support obama's efforts to take care of the people. host: jonathan cowan. guest: i happen to be not have the same point of view that you do about insurance companies. i think a lot of insurance companies take very good care of their -- the people that they insure. there are clearly some abuses as there are in any industry. but if you look at the health care bill, what we did was huge and it ended up -- so for someone like you, cheryl, you got significantly more protections from the health care bill vis-a-vis your insurance company. you have reforms in place, for example, that you can't be denied if you have a pre-existing condition, that you can keep someone who is a child until the age of 26. i can go down the list. the health care bill was really

good for someone like you, cheryl, in making sure there was no abuse. host: nor topic from a tweeter. would a moderate democratic party majority support worker rights? example, the employee free choice act. guest: had did not come up in the previous congress. right now it's a moot issue. as an organization we have not endorsed the employee free choice act. we do believe in unions and support unions and have worked with many of them on health care and other things. but i just don't think the employee free choice act will come up with the republicans controlling the house. host: democratic line in chicago. good morning, carl. caller: mr. cowan, i want to make two points and point out how terribly wrong you are. first off, you don't seem to

understand that -- you don't seem to understand the reality of where we are today and that is it doesn't matter about being in the middle. they've demonized even moderate democrats. they're all liberal. like all the blue dogs, they weren't liberal. republicans convinced the public, blue dogs are not. come time to vote, you're liberal. you got to go. second point i want to make is that over 30 years we have as democrats, especially with bill clinton and stuff -- i like clinton, but the democrats have moved to the center and they've been paying the cost. we had 30 years basically of a conservative economic policy. they had dick stockton on "60

minutes" a week or so ago. what he said, over the past 30 years most of america's wealth has shifted primarily to the very top. host: ok. let's take that point. guest: so, carl, i just -- i don't agree that it doesn't matter if you're in the center or you're perceived as a moderate democrat, you're just seen as a liberal. that's how republicans would try to portray us. if you talk to the 60 or so democrats that lost their seat, many of them will tell you they had -- they tried to govern as moderates but they got saddled with a larger perception because of health care and other -- the stimulus bill that they just couldn't defend themselves on. bill clinton proved very clearly that a democrat can govern from the center and from that place promote economic growth that actually is a rising tide that lifts all boats. clinton is the model where the democratic party needs to be long runned. obama campaigned as not as a

liberal. if we return to that he can have a very successful next two years. host: bill clinton was part of a dividing government back in the 1990's and so we are going to be talking about that issue in our last 45 minutes this morning about divided government, how it works and what can get done. who was successful at it and who weapt? talking about that coming -- and who wasn't? talk about that coming up. before we get to the last phone call for jonathan cowan, where should democrats compromise when it comes to spending cuts? republicans have said that they would like to cut in the first year $100 billion, finding different ways to do that. should democrats agree to that? guest: democrats are going to need to agree to spending cuts with the deficit the size as it is. discretionary domestic spending where most of that $100 billion, whether we end up at

40 or 60 or 80, that's not the core points. the democrats need to work with the republicans to get reform in place, including social security and health care. that's where the money is. host: dale, republican line. i am going to have to ask you to make it quick. caller: ok. yes, ma'am. quick. host: go ahead. caller: this guest here, he knows what he's talking about. but he has a party that he can't hurt right now. and let me tell everyone out there something. nancy pelosi has had money strings for the last four years. i'm not getting my social security increased the last two times all you democrats -- this is the democrats that's not giving me my cost of living raise. host: i'm sorry, dale, to cut you off short. not raising the entitled. -- entitlement. guest: i think they're probably

going to try to fix that. if not in the lame-duck session, in the next congress, it's not a sustainable situation. people need a cost of living increase. host: all right. jonathan cowan, president of third way. for more information go to their website, thirdway.org. thanks for being with us. guest: my pleasure. host: and the long-term impact, fred barnes is our guest. we want to get you an update on some of the contested races on last tuesday's elections. reid is on the hotline. let's begin with the house races. what is still out there? >> well, we got a number of house races out there. seven races that have yet to be called. start with california's 11th district where jerry mcnerney is fighting for his vote. it may throw this race to his opponent. it's going to be a very close race, though. out in kentucky, one of the races that we were watching,

sort of our bell weather congress test, congressman bill chandler against andy bar. there will be a recount in that race. andy barr wants a recount. ben chandler is up by a fewer than a thousand votes. and congressman gerry connolly out in virginia and the washington, d.c., suburbs has won as well as rick larson from washington state. both of those races are now over after republican candidates conceded. out in california's 20th district, congressman jim costa in a very tight contest against a first-time candidate named adam. the republican candidate leads by 145 votes at the moment. but there are still 50,000 absentee ballots left to be counted. the fresno area doesn't count their ballots fast. it looks like jim costa will be safe in the long term.

turn then to illinois' eighth congressional scrict. start to get bad news for democrats. melissa bean, sort of off-the-radar campaign. not a lot of people expected her to be challenged this coming year or in the 2010 mid terms. now she trails our opponent, joe walsh, by a couple hundred votes. if melissa bean does not take the lead, the republican ballots will come in later this month from other more republican parts of that district. that's going to be real bad news for her if she can't take the lead today, she's probably not coming back to washington, d.c. over on long island, new york's first congressional district, congressman tim bishop, after a little bit of a snaffue by local voting officials, they inversed some numbers. he went from leading by 4,000 votes by trailing by about 400 votes. they're probably going to go to a hand count there. 392 votes is the margin that randy, a businessman, leads congressman tim bishop on the

eastern end of long island. in new york's 25th district, congressman dan maffei is down by 684 votes to his rival. he's going to need a significant margin in the absentee ballots to make that up. he's starting to tell people he need more than the 54% he want in specific strong holds to hold on to his seat. not a lot of people consider dan maffei a terribly vulnerable democrat. then finally in texas' 27th district. the corpus christi area. congressman solomon ortiz trailing by just a few hundred votes to farenhold. i think that's how you say his name. the margin is 792 votes. i expect a recount there. it was a really bad night on tuesday to be solomon ortiz. his son, who was a texas state

representative, also lost his seat. host: that was the house races. a lot of people know we don't know about the alaska senate race and the minnesota governor's race. quickly, can you give us an update on those as far as when we might know the outcome of who won? >> well, the minnesota's governor's race is looking clear. it looks like the former senator will hold on there. but given minnesota's district i wouldn't be surprised if this thing goes to court and we get another recount situation. in alaska they're starting to count those write-in ballots. the write-in candidate has a big lead over republican congress -- republican joe miller but we have to make sure those write-in votes are for lisa murkowski and the voter intent is clear. so until those votes are counted over the next couple of weeks, there is a chance a lot of them can be disqualified. murkowski has about a 13,000-vote margin. she has to hold on to those and make sure those ballots are not disqualified so she can stay in

the senate. host: thank you for the update. >> thank you. host: joining us at the table is fred barnes. you wrote a piece in "the wall street journal," democrats can't blame the economy. making the argument that this is a realignment for republicans and this will have a long-term impact down the road. why do you believe that? guest: well, i'm not sure how long the impact will be but it certainly is a reversal of the last two elections in a stark way. you could argue that the people shifted the most independents are quite fickle. voted democratic in 2006 and 2008. republicans now, they have one benefit. they're in line with what the public wants. the public wants smaller government. the majority has rebelled against the spending policies of the obama administration. and the public wants smaller government and less spending. they want to reduce the deficit. they want to bring down the national debt and republicans are in line with that.

but they've got my one concern about republicans is whether they can sustain this or not. if you remember back in the 1990's -- i remember it, anyway, after the big republican landslide of 1994, republicans were very good on spending the next couple of years. it then diminished in the 21st century. by 2006 and 2008, of course, they were being accused of spending way too much. so we'll see. host: your piece got some reaction online when you wrote this on november 2. media matters, fred barnes ignores polling really, really well saying this was about the economy. the number one issue is the economy was by far the biggest issue and that's what impacted independents to swing and others to swing toward republicans. they also said that according to the recent kaiser health tracking poll, the health care reform isn't drawing voters not

upcoming november elections either. that it wasn't the health care reform bill, as you argued in your piece. guest: i think every other poll on health care shows that it was an issue. it was -- it particularly agered independents. look, when independents first moved away from democrats, it was in april of 2009, not this year, not in the runup to the election on november 2. it was a long time ago. it was spending and the health care bill. in other words, first it was spending in the spring and then in the summer, so-called health care summer of 2009. that's when independents abandoned democrats and moved to the republican side. and we saw it manifested in the virginia and new jersey governors' races. we saw it in the election of scott brown in january earlier this year and stayed that way all the way through the election last week. host: according to exit polls, independents and republicans said, ok, republicans, we're going to give you another

chance. but if you mess this up again, as you alluded to, we're going to vote you out again. are you concerned at all there's not a change in leadership when you have somebody like john boehner who is a presumptive speaker of the house, and he was back in power in the early 1990's as well? guest: well, i happen to think that john boehner has learned the lessons from both his experience in the tom delay era just a few years ago that he's going to have to do something about spending. he's going to have to do something about the way the house of representatives operates. and republicans are getting a second chance and won't be a third chance. so they have to do it now and they have -- there were a lot of conservatives in the parties they need to satisfy. certainly the tea party people that decided to throw in with republicans now. if you remember last year, there was a lot of speculation that the tea party might form their own party. if they had it certainly would

have drawn votes away from republicans. right now they're in with republicans. they're going to have to be at least satisfied. so i think john boehner understands this. i know eric cantor does. it will be number two. i think kevin mccarthy does. but most of all, the person who understands it the best is paul ryan who will be chairman of the house budget committee and he'll write the republican budget. host: on this issue of spending and tackling the deficit, the president deficit commission comes out with their report in december. should republicans, like you said, paul ryan, compromise on tackling this deficit and look at the idea of increasing taxes in order -- and combined with cutting spending in order to get at the deficit problem? guest: well, i don't know exactly what paul ryan's going to do with tom coburn, also a big spending cutter, who is also on that committee -- that commission. i think it would depend on the

ratio. spending cuts to tax increases. if it's 1-1 i think the republicans will vote against it. if it's 3-1 spending cuts to tax increases i think they might go for it. this is a recommendation. remember, this is just a recommendation of a commission. it's not actually something that congress has to adopt or will adopt. host: first phone call here for fred barnes. lithia springs, georgia. caller: it's l-i-t-h-i-a, like lithium springs, georgia. i'm a republican. host: you have to turn the volume down. florida. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. and by the way, mr. barnes, we followed you through the years and you were up on it. i only wanted to mainly point out that and think you may

concur that i think the party of no aligned themselves -- you have the various aspects and component of the republican parties, the neocons, you have the conservatives in general, then, you have the religious rights who basically infiltrated by way of the dixicrats. by saying no, now you have the house. will they be able to get anything done and why the backbone of the independents were not strong enough to stay consistent and give the chance that was needed because there was some good legislation going down and the president did give tax relief and breaks? i think there are aparticular lakes. i need you to kind of concur on some and point out what you

think down the road may happen. host: all right. guest: well, they don't call them independents for nothing and they proved to be quite fickle, as you were pointing out. they certainly voted in a sizeable majority for democrats in 2006 and 2008, including for president obama. but a majority of independents, there's one huge issue for them and that's if you want to combine it in one issue, and i think you can, that's the spending and the deficit and the national debt and the size of government. and when it comes to that, when there was such a surge in spending and the national debt and deficit and so on, that's when they turned away from president obama. now, they might like him more on other things, although they didn't on the health care bill, but there was so much of what they didn't like early on. didn't like the stimulus. they didn't care for the health care bill.

they might have liked president obama otherwise. they turned away. the fact is they're expecting a lot out of republicans. look, if they could switch so dramatically between 2008 and 2010 they could switch back pretty dramatically between 2010 and 2012 and vote for president obama, assuming that he -- the economy gets better and he per sues different policies in the next -- pursues different policies in the next couple of years and run for re-election. i assume he is. he'll let him decide that. host: what do they need to do to prove that they can govern? guest: two issues are important to them. one is spending cuts. the large he shall issue of spending cuts. and the size of government and the deficit and debt. that's one. and the other is health care. and there are two specific pledges in their pledge to

america. one, of course, we're going to cut $100 billion out of the budget the first year and the second is we're going to have a vote to repeal president obama's health care bill. so they have to do both. whether they can -- look, there's no expectation that they're going to -- that congress is going to repeal the health care bill. i think there's probably not much chance it can get through the senate. certainly if if did so it would be vetoed by president obama. when they draft the budget i think they'll get some democratic support, particularly in the senate, of senators who were up in 2012, and they can send that to the president. we'll see what he does. the budget reduces spending a lot more than he wants to. host: one writes today in a piece, boehner and senate minority leader have set their sights much too low. they talk about controlling government spending and slashing the deficit but they have no plans to accomplish

these goals, none in specific detail, at least. they won't say how they will cut ordeal with entitlements. guest: we'll find out when they take over. have more senators, 47 now, and we'll find out. i think gene robinson is a little bit impatient. i'm impatient, too. but they want to know. this is why paul ryan is such an important guy who understands the budget i think better than almost anybody in washington and that he's going to draft a budget that obviously is one that the rest of the house republicans are going to have to agree to. he's not going to have some far out budget. that won't work. host: let's go to mary in lithia springs, georgia. caller: thank you. thank you for c-span for having your sessions. ok. number one. what's next for the democrats? fickle independents, tea party

crazies, relingous rights, those are not the i shall -- religious rights, those are not the issues. the issues is we have too many issues. a major one is non-american influence in the spending finances in this country and sending $10 million a day to pakistan, to harbor terrorists. health care and tax cuts are not going to solve the issues that are -- what we were voting for. host: ok. fred barnes. guest: i'm not sure what the question was. host: comment on her commentary, i guess. guest: i will. particularly the point about pakistan, which was a fair point, you know. in sending money to pakistan, a country that's almost out of control and has a huge islamic radical element there, it's a tradeoff. and the tradeoff is that we're going to support the government

there, we're hoping to get their help against al qaeda and the taliban and we have to some extent, and that outweighs what might happen if we pull out. and al qaeda and the taliban that might take over the country with nuclear weapons and we don't want that. you can raise questions and there are legitimate questions about this policy toward pakistan but i think it's in bipartisan support. it was one for the bush administration and obama administration because they think for all the problems of supporting pakistan it will be worse if we didn't. i think it's as simple as that. host: fred barnes is executive edityor for "weekly standard." have you read about -- guest: there are not a lot of

surprises there i covered president bush pretty closely. and presidential memoirs are usually -- i haven't read the book either. i don't mean to criticize it. it's normally not the best place to look for -- the best assessment of how a president did. but i'll have to wait and read this one. i like the way that matt lauer did it. picked out decision points. and i think one is more important than all the others and that, of course, was his decision in favor of the surge in iraq. a decision made in early 2007 which changed the course of the war in iraq which -- and he'll probably be remembered for what happened in iraq and afghanistan, success or failure , and iraq looks like it's headed toward success with great difficulty, that's what he's going to be judged by. host: last night matt lauer was

asked about that issue and the mission impossible banner. i want to show the -- sorry -- "mission accomplished" banner. >> it sent a very strong banner. >> no question it's a mistake. >> your words were used against you over and over again. >> that happens when you're president. and if i had to do it over again, which you don't get to do when you're president, you know, get going, men and women. great mission. or something. i don't know what it is but -- host: fred barnes, what do you think about his thoughts looking back on that banner and having that up? guest: i think he was very wise to say it was a mistake. it was used against him. it was probably a mistake for him to fly in the way he did on a jet plane as i did, on that aircraft carrier, as i recall. and it was, as we know, then,

of course, one reason it was a mistake is the mission hadn't been accomplished by then. so, look, i think political leaders from the president on down don't realize how much it's appreciated by people when they admit mistakes and they rarely do but when they do -- of course, president bush is no longer president, and i do have to say that people at the white house defended that sign there and that whole episode right through the end of president bush's administration. but it's nice to hear him say it was a mistake because it so manifestly was. host: he talks about waterboarding and that comes out before the interview. what do you make of him? guest: of course, the treatment of al qaeda prisoners have become a huge issue. i happen to think waterboarding is wrong thing.

lives were saved. i think it's defensible. i'm glad to hear that the decision was made by the president himself. host: and matt lauer asked about the legality. >> the lawyers said it was legal. it doesn't -- it's not in the anti--- you have to trust the people around you and i do. host: back to the phone calls and we ask about what's next with the republican geopolitical realignment. steven on the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning, fred. guest: hi.

caller: i'm one of those independents that got swayed right and i voted for obama. i had the pleasure of talking to david stockman and i agree with him that i don't want to paraphrase his words but tax cuts is just another keynesian economic move to forgo. i can understand why they would do another tax cut to put it on the credit card but as far as spending money. we spent $14 billion to protect our troops from i.e.d.'s and german shepards won in the end. i want to put a plug in for ted kennedy jr. versus joe lieberman. i think that would be a good race for our state. and i'm very -- i'm -- i'm very concerned that the g.o.p.'s take my votes seriously. i know they got deconstructed

by the tea party movement, but it's all about the economy with my vote. i'm extremely worried about the -- even paul crodman's projections for 2025 are very concerning to me. i want to talk about the g.o.p. alignment and where they should go from here. guest: well, in the first place, if you agree with david stockman you're probably not going to agree with what they want to do and that is maintain the bush tax cuts and not let them expire at the end of this year and that means all the tax cuts from the wealthy all the way down to those who pay practically pay no tax. i heard david stockman, former budget director under president reagan, at least in reagan's first term, the things that those tax cuts have to be allowed to lapse. republicans don't agree with that. i don't agree with it either. i think it would be harmful to

the economy and ultimately to the generation of revenues if you did raise taxes on everyone or even the top brackets. it would be economically counterproductive and i think it would be a mistake to do that. the first thing we have to do in america is get the economy moving again and that means, look, the recession ended in june of 2009 officially but the economy's dragged along since then. we know the job creation has been -- has been very meager. it's not even up to the level that we'll cover the people just entering the economy. look, if you're going to raise taxes, if that happens if you let the bush tax cuts expire, then that's not going to help boost the economy at all and certainly not going to help on job creation. and that's what's important. host: new poll out today, front page of "usa today," i want to get your read on this. split on how to govern. they found that 49% choose congressional republicans. 41% obama but also about how

they should govern. republicans are more than twice as likely as democrats to say it's more important for political leaders to stick their beliefs even if little gets done. how do you read that? guest: well, if they stick to their beliefs, if republicans do, then a lot will get done, or at least they'll try to get it done if they stick to their beliefs, they'll cut spending, they'll reduce the size of government, they'll get the bush tax cuts fully to be continued for two or three or four years. whatever they can find an agreement with with the president. and democrats. so a lot will happen. if you -- for instance, if they have to agree with democrats and president obama then they could get a lot done but they wouldn't be sticking to their principles. look, republicans ran on principles. if you see the 22-page pledge to america, i mentioned earlier, they have a couple of specific things. mainly it outlines their principles and their principles are to have lower taxes and less spending and a smaller government. if they're doing the opposite they're going to get in real

trouble. host: those independents that you talk about will swing back towards democrats because they will not like republicans are sticking so much to their beliefs. the polls say 49% say it's more important to get things done. guest: i'm not sure what they mean by that. independents swung to republicans because of the issue of spending and the issue of health care. are republican going to be successful on repealing the health care bill? no. but they can be successful in getting a lot of spending cuts through, i think. host: connecticut. democratic line. you're next. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span and thank you for taking my call. i'm very concerned about all of the stuff the republicans are talking about, cutting spending, cutting back government. this is going directly contrary to what we're hearing from economists about the role of government in a recession. and i don't hear very many

people talk about this directly. let's say the republicans' dream comes true, they cut way back on government spending, they cut way back on all this stuff and the country winds up in a depression, i haven't heard people talk about this possibility. and we go back to bush when he was bailing out -- when he was bailing out bear stearns, i guess it was, and i guess all this and boehner was pleading with republicans back then to support those bailouts. host: fred barnes. guest: democrats, including then senator obama, voted for tarp and the big bailout as well. and a lot of candidates this year ran who had not been in congress back then ran against bailouts. i suspect a good number of them would have supported in the crisis back in the fall of 2008. but, look, economists are divided. you have some more liberal economists who want to spend more. they think that's the answer.

spending more money by the federal government and that will get us out of the first recession and then a weak economy. now, it hasn't worked. that's for sure. i mean, the economy is just crawling along the bottom. what ronald reagan did, if you recall, was to cut taxes. cut taxes across the board, income taxes. it had a huge impact. this is what john f. kennedy did. his tax cuts that were passed under lyndon johnson. that's what calvin coolidge did. it's what countries did all over the world. the record is, and a couple of harvard economists looked into this, about 30 examples around the world, what worked? was it the government spending more to boost the economy or did tax cuts work? and in almost every case tax cuts worked, not more spending. i think we need less government and tax cuts that will spur -- offer incentives and spur

economic growth and job creation. that's what's worked in the past. host: republican line, fort smith, arkansas. good morning. caller: good morning. what is the chance of republican reforming the health care bill? the democrats should have stepped down the american people's throat that it's going to cost more than anticipated on. guest: well, that's certainly true. but, look, republicans want to repeal it. they are going to have a vote on repealing it. a lot of difficulty getting that through the senate which after all voted for the health care bill before and democrats are still in charge in the senate and president obama. it's his health care bill. you know he said in his press conference last week that he -- maybe they could tweak it a little, but repeal it, that's not something he's being to go along with. if you talk to republicans they'll tell you one thing, they cannot really repeal and then replace the health care bill until they won control all

of congress and, two, the white house in particular. they'll have to elect a president in 2012 and then there will be a chance of repealing it. i would say it's going to be an uphill fight. if they do have a republican president they'll be able to change it a good deal anyway. host: it sounds like a lot of action could be on the state level. "the washington post" reports this morning that new g.o.p. governors will steer this health care law saying that the states are given a lot of leeway when it comes to administering many key provisions. guest: that's exactly right, gretta. what governors can do in about, oh, half a dozen or more republicans elected as governors said they'll slow it down, they were against it, they were not going to help speed it along. it's supposed to come online, the health care bill, in 2014. states need to set up the state exchanges through which health insurance will be sold. and they can -- and they can make it difficult for president obama and -- in doing the

things to help implement that bill. you know, half a dozen of these governors have said they will do that. host: and also the federally funded expansion of medicaid. a lot of states will have control over that aspect of the bill as well. new orleans, henry on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just got a viewpoint take. i think the war on drugs have been lost. i think people who are on drugs need to be helped and we can create more jobs for people here and take the people that are attacking these people and locking them in prisons, costing us so much money to keep people in jail. we have more people in jail more than anybody in the world. it's time to start locking up some of these politicians that are breaking the law left and right. host: fred barnes. guest: i'm all for locking up politicians that are breaking the law and we could probably use more of that. the war on drugs, you know, i

think the only thing worse than this war on drugs is decriminalization or giving up on the war on drugs. i'm not willing to risk legalizing marijuana or even more hard drugs in this country because i think it would lead to a situation that would be worse, that would be much more widespread drug use. i can see that the war on drugs is not -- has not worked all that well. and if you talk to people about mexico they say the demand for illegal drugs in the united states is what has fueled these huge criminal cartels in mexico that have reduced that country to in some parts the start of a civil war. again, like supporting pakistan. it's a tradeoff. and the tradeoff here in my view, anyway, and there are lots of people who disagree with me, including a good number of conservatives who think that the war on drugs is

so -- has been so unsuccessful that in their view we need to get rid of it and try legalization. it would be better and particularly better for mexico as well. host: fred barnes is executive editor of "weekly standard." go to their website, weeklystandard.com, for more information. we'll go to dennis. caller: yes, mr. barnes, good morning to you. i watched you on various talk shows throughout the last 30 years. guest: that makes both of us. caller: yeah. i as a democrat am not discouraged by what happened a week ago. in fact, i have an address inco@democratz.com. i am going to disrupt my friends of the democratic

party. i have decided that any liberal who wants to get a $10 minimum wage or more start calling up when these corporations in ohio -- you know, that's where boehner has power -- and also call smuckers, the people that make peanut butter and jams and say to these two company c.e.o.'s, we're not going to buy your products until boehner gets a $10 minimum wage passed. we're going to disrupt the marketplace. corporations have taken over the legislative process and citizens of a liberal persuasion, we're going to sock it to them by disappearing. host: ok. we'll leave it there. guest: i get the point. i think you're wrong on this one. i'm against any minimum wage because what it does is reduce jobs. particularly at the entry level. and companies, anytime you raise the wage, and

particularly if you did it to $10, what would be the first thing they do? they'll reduce their number of employees. they'll hire fewer entry-level employees. and that's what happens. it particularly hurts minority youth who don't get hired. they'll have to say i'm against your plan trying to force smuckers and wendy's to raise their lowest wage to $10 an employee and i think it would be -- basically i don't think that whole idea of a minimum wage, and yours in particular, is particularly counterproductive. host: john on the independent line. you're on the air. caller: hi, fred. guest: hi. caller: i have to say i'm a republican because i can't say i'm a democrat. i'm moderate. i'm almost like right down the middle. guest: ok. caller: i'm watching these things going on and, you know, it's hard to put it all in words in 20 seconds here but my thought is, you know, john boehner, he would be my last

choice for this job. i like eric cantor. there's a bunch of them out like like michele bachmann. i wouldn't want her to be my senator but i think she's great. so, anyway. you know, on health care, i can't believe that, you know, they're trying to tell us that it's going to get cheaper and, of course, it's already going up and, of course -- if they had just dealt with immigration they wouldn't be dealing with health care. i mean, that's the way i see it. that's a personal opinion, probably. don't you see it -- i watched it for years and i think you're great. guest: thank you. caller: tell me your real personal opinion on john boehner. guest: look, i think john boehner -- you hear things about john boehner. he's not well-known. i have been told, anyway, by a number of republicans who dealt with him over the years and, look, you're going to have trouble believing this, beneath

his partisan republican is the heart of a real reformer. look, we're going to find out. the reason he's moving up to speaker, everybody moves up a notch. eric cantor moves from whip up to majority leader and congressman kevin mccarthy, who has been the deputy whip, will move up to whip. and michele bachmann, the number four job -- host: isn't that how the establishment works? guest: ok, that's the way the establishment works. host: what about anti-establishment and especially the tea party folks that they wanted things to be mixed up a little bit, so should michele bachmann and rand paul get leadership position? guest: well, i don't know. republicans can't just rely in their leadership role and in their leadership councils people that have been there 10, 20 years.

. question but a couple of calls

ago about economist saying how detrimental it would be for the united states down to pull back spending all of a sudden. your answer was a typical political answer. there are conservatives, economists, and liberal economists. but they did not have a gun in this political fiasco. i would like to mention that the person appointed under a republican president, i believe, comptroller had said that cutting spending as well as raising taxes is the only way we will get out of the deficit that we are in and on the pathway to

correcting our whole deabt. guest: you have characterized david walker's view. that is what he is for. in the short run, we could cut spending and we could cut taxes, or at least not raise them. i do not think republicans are proposing new tax cuts in the near future. they do want to continue the bush tax cuts. if they are allowed to lapse, it would be harmful to the economy. as the president said last week when the new jobs numbers came out, we need private sector jobs. we need more.

155,000 or something like that is a big improvement, but it is not nearly enough. still not cover the new people, the younger people coming into the economy. we need investors and people who are going to create incentives to do that, to create more growth and more jobs. you are not going to do that if you have a big tax increase. host: kentucky on the independent line. caller: there is a major difference between economics and mathematics. i do not know if people who call this program can discern that. you have so many variable theories floating around. mathematics is an absolute science. i know something about mathematics. i have taught it for 27 years.

what they do is they form an artificial perimeter and the do all their equations inside the wall of the perimeter. it is an unclear picture. they take a series of variables and they make a series of projections. in mathematics, a projection is a guess. it doesn't matter so much when you're dealing with low-budget items. when you're dealing with trillions of dollars, you can forget about scoring this bill. guest: it comes down to someone economic projections are mere guesswork. they are often wrong. projections on how much some bill will cost. somebody pointed out that when

medicare first started, the projection was that by 1990, it would increase from $3 billion to $12 billion. it turned out to be &107 billion. -- $107 billion. host: we are with fred barnes "weekly standard." caller: i am against tax cuts and i'm against corporate welfare. i don't think any of the tax cuts should be passed. i do not believe in trickle- down economics. i don't believe you can give it to the corporations and they will give it to us.

there is money sitting on the sidelines. we are scared out here. the economy is bad. do not need spending. we don't the people who come on and talk real fast who contradict themselves. guest: are you referring to me? caller: yes, sir. we need people who will tell us the truth. guest: i agree with that. most of the people i talked to favored spending cuts and tax cuts. they are in favor of smaller government. maybe i misunderstood you. you had a little bit of a different take. the economy is in trouble in lots of places, particularly california. next to nevada, california has the highest unemployment rate in the country.

california did not used to be in this situation. people of california would set political trends for the country. now, the once it said have not been good ones, that is for sure. host: greg from florida. caller: good morning, mr. barnes. increased reagan deficits massively? could you answer that first? guest: he did -- deficits did increase, but the economy increase. as the economy grew -- the economy grew incredibly. and then jobs group. the economy grew at a fast rate under president clinton, and we got to a balanced budget. we need to have that kind of

experience again. bt did go down. there were a couple of years when there was a surplus. caller: you talk about the deficit -- or the economy growing with the deficit. that deficit never goes away. it becomes part of the national debt. every republican has increased the national debt. republicans talk about the de bt and the rally around the cause. i am a youngster. guest: what you're making is a fair point. host: michigan, sharon, independent line. caller: i am a first-time caller. i have two questions.

would the one -- you say that in order to grow the economy you have to grow the debt. i have heard nothing but the republicans talking about the debt left for our children. this has nothing to do with -- it has to do with home owners losing their homes. i would like to know what you think of a proposal that would force mortgage companies to have a 50-50 mortgage plant where 50% of the mortgage payments went to principle and not all of the money to interest. 50% to interest, a 50% to the principle on people's homes so that they would be able to stay in their homes, gain more equity

in their homes quicker, and pay them off quicker, thereby solidifying the home basis. guest: you can do that by having a shorter loan. my house in virginia, i had a 15-year loan. that means you pay off the principal much sooner than if the was a 30-year loan. but did you want to require banks to do that? i am not sure. i don't think we want to tell banks to do that. it would make it harder for an awful lot of people to buy a home the people who would be buying them would be the upper crust who could afford the loaned where they are paying off the principal in the shorter period of time. it sounds nice, but i would not be for that.

the housing industry would go nuts. host: lake mills, wisconsin. caller: hello. i keep hearing the democrats say we have to fund the tax cuts if we make them permanent for everyone. funded wheny be production ramps up? guest: if the bush tax cuts are extended, nothing would change. all the tax rates would stay the same, rather than refer to what they were before they were passed in 2001 and 2003. the problem is not that they will not create any new incentives for people to invest and promote economic growth and job creation.

the tax on dividends would go from t 15to 39.6%, and the tax on individual incomes would go up. that would be counterproductive in times of high unemployment. i think it would be a mistake. i am for reducing the capital gains tax are now, but the republicans are not calling for that. they want to keep all the bush tax cuts. host: bob in the bronx, new york. caller: i have a question and a statement. where was the tea party won the bush administration was running up the debt like drunken sailors? please bring aunt sarah palin.

she is the gift that keeps on giving for the democrats. guest: sarah palin has something that other politicians do not have. she is a star. she could be more of a conservative and a divisive force them democrats and some republicans like, but she is sort of a magnetic figure. whatever she does, it is always going to be covered by the media. she holds no office right now. if you do not like her, she is still going to be around. the other question -- where were the tea party people earlier? it might have been nice to have them around earlier when the deficit was going up and so was the national debt. this huge surge in 2009 of

increased spending and dead and the -- and the debt and that is what prompted them. they tend to be conservative people. when spending surged as much as it did and government grew, that is what prompted them. i would have liked to have seen them earlier. they hit the streets and began the spars just last week. host: fred barnes, thank you. first we have a news update from c-span radio. >> an update on iraq this morning. the united states is open to the idea of keeping troops in iraq if the iraqi government asks for it. the u.s. are standby for such a

request once the country ends a political deadlock and forms a new government. paul volcker is speaking overseas this morning. he said he sees limited increases in economic activity for the next year or more. he also offers little encouragement about unemployment, calling it the basic problem which he suspects will decline. he made the remarks at a meeting of the international financial forum in beijing. republicans are preparing to become the majority party in the house. freshman lawmakers are likely to be added to the leadership roles. the group is meeting for the second time this morning and will hear about lessons learned from the 1994 transition from former aides and dick armey.

a group of democratic house chairmen say steny hoyer should second the democrat's in command in the next congress. it has been divorced -- supported by barney frank. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the c-span network provide coverage of american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, and on social media networking sites. find our contact -- content any time. we bring our resources to your community. it is washington your way. the c-span networks, now available in more than 100

million homes. >> landmark supreme court cases on c-span radio. >> there is nothing in the u.s. constitution concerning contraception or abortion. >> roe vs. wade is still considered one of the most controversial decisions. listen to the argument at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio, nation wide on the xm channel 132. >> "washington journal" continues. host: stephen wayne is here to talk about presidents and divided governments. guest: it works the same as the regular government other than the fact that it is slower and

more contentious. we have had experience with divided governments. in 1968, the democrats lost their majority. of the 42 years of government we have had, 28 have been with divided government. at least -- the other party that doesn't control the white house controls one or both of the other houses. but the key to divided government is willingness to compromise. that is the big question we face today. we have never had a government has divided with the party as ideological as we seem to have today. even during the clinton-gingrich era, the senate was a sort of moderating force. today, what we do not have left in congress are moderates,

people who might vote one light on one issue and one white on another issue. the key will be compromised and we have to see if both sides are willing to do it. host: there was a piece written over the weekend. the dynamic is reversed. both parties are responsible for governing. they have a stake in success. the track policy toward the center, allowed moderates to feel represented instead of ignored. host: what are your thoughts on that? guest: that is nice if it works. there has to be a need for legislation agreement by both parties that we want to legislate on this particular

topic. we have had a fair number of achievements under divided governments. during the george herbert walker bush administration, a major cost-cutting proposal was passed in 1990 that contributed in large part to the budget surplus during the clinton years. clinton had a republican congress for six of his eight years, and he accepted on the third try republican bill that ended welfare as we knew it and obviously that has worked because we have kept the welfare rolls fairly low. president two bush in president two years face a democratic congress, and there was legislation passed during that time. a lot of it related to national security. it is possible to legislate with divided government.

the key is whether -- divided government works. then we get centrist policy and would get incremental legislation. if the fighting government does not work, then we get stalemate. host: we will talk more about past presidents. this is what president obama had to say this past week about the idea of reaching across the table." >> you don't have a close relationship with mitch mcconnell and congressman boehner. what do you think of these guys? >> both john and mitch are smart and capable. they have been able to organize the republican caucus very effectively. opposition to a lot of things which tried to do two over do two years and that takes real

political skill. i believe they want the best for the country just like i do, just like democrats do. so my assumption is that we're going to be able to work to get a permit when we have had conversations here is the white house and capitol hill, they have been cordial. >> it's just in the newspaper -- >> during election season, the rhetoric flies. and i have been guilty of that. it is not just them. this is an example -- you ask me earlier what are reflect on. i reflect on the fact that part of my promise to the american people when i was elected was to maintain the kind of tone that says we can disagree without being disagreeable. there have been times when i have slipped on that commitment.

host: prof. wayne is our guest. you heard the president talked about tone. guest: i think the president is right. republicans would probably agree we do lack the stability that we had in the past. there is not the camaraderie that existed. i think the success of the tea party in removing republican nominees and in beating the democrats in the election shows that the candidates are going to be a very, very oriented toward the people who elected them. again, we have to ask ourselves, is there a basis for compromise? the basis is going to have to be on rather narrow legislation within fairly broad parameters and we could compromise.

when the senate minority leader, mitch mcconnell, says our number-one priority is to make sure barack obama's is not in the white house in 1213, then that does that sound like a lot of compromise. host: think back on past divided government situations where -- you said is more ideological and partisan today. think back to similar situations where both sides were playing to their base and you had an unsuccessful divided government. guest: the best example was during 1995 and 1996, where president clinton vetoed twice if republican reconciliation bill that would have funded the government, and the government closed twice. we were at basically a stalemated situation. it was really robert dole who

worked with clinton to find a way out of this. the house republicans under newt gingrich at the time finally backed off. the president has one advantage, his bully pulpit. president obama did not use it as successfully as he used the campaign podium in 20008. he has speaking skills and he can use that. a lot of this is the kind of politics that matters in washington. what matters to most people is the state of their lives, the state of the economy, whether they think the future will be better than the present. in the last two elections, we have seen people who are angry because their state of affairs

is not very good. host: former president clinton talked about what americans expect after republicans won that election and took over control of the chambers. >> if we agree on nothing else tonight, we must agree that the american people voted for change in 1992 and in 1994. [applause] as i looked out at you, i know how some of you must have felt in 1992. [laughter] but -- [applause] i -- i must say that in both years, we did not hear america singing. we heard america shouting. and now all of us, republicans

and democrats alike, must say we hear you. we will work together to earn the jobs you have given us. host: former president clinton at his state of the union address speech. you can watch all that at our website, c-span.org. you were shaking your head when you were listening to that speech. guest: i think we are in the same situation today. the economy is bad. the people who control the white house are to blame, and people are angry. you do not get angry at yourself when you lose a job. you get angry at your employer. we direct anger toward government because there is no other place to effectively direct it.

if we're mad at government, we can change the people in it and that might get us somewhere. it was all about the state of affairs and the economy, rather than about these guys or those guys are something else. the conditions are good, people tend to be more civil. host: rich is joining us from california. you are on the air. caller: good morning, mr. wayne. as far as -- three quick things. as far as the partisanship between the president and the house and senate that has been going on for years, and i can't put a thumb on when it does work from clinton to push to obama. the democrats have always taxed and spent -- from clinton to

bush to obama. the public gets sick about the badgering and the decide to switch parties. the democrats' tax and spend. it got to be too bad. what i'm scared about -- the last segment was about what the republicans are going to do. i have a concern about inflation. look at gold and silver and how they have been inflated. interest rates could go up. real estate -- we have a lot of problems in this country if we can just repair the bridges between the republicans, democrats, independents, and to parties and become one nation under god, i think it will help over the long run.

i am in california in the motion picture business. arnold schwarzenegger did zero for us. jerry brown -- i hope he brings work back to the state. people should support the motion picture business. guest: we cannot agree on what to do. to republicans believe in leaving the capital system of low with little interference by government. president bush did support the bailout. president obama bought into that after the election. you are concerned about inflation. that concern would be directed at the policy of the federal reserve system. they announced it will buy $600 billion of government

securities, which will weaken the dollar and lead to some inflation. they said, do not worry. we'll check inflation, too. we had a deeper and wider recession that we had -- you have to go back to the great depression. people did not know exactly what to do to get out of that. getting out of it will take a lot more time. we as americans have been blessed with so many good things, particularly since the end of world war ii. we are not the most patient people in the world. host: we have a tweet hear from a few are. -- from 8 you were -- from a viewer. guest: that person is writers --

right. the spending cycle has continued because of the economic downturn. in the clinton administration, clinton barely got through congress went al gore cast the tie-breaking vote. the cut through the deficit reduction bill, which produced a surplus from 1995, 1996, and 1997. but the cost of building up our national security after 9/11, combined with the bailout and the stimulus program, we have spent an awful lot of money. it is true. in an economic sense, there is no comparison. in a political sense, however, i think there is a comparison. host: let's look at help president clinton talked.

this is from his 1996 state of the union speech. >> there is broad bipartisan agreement that permit deficit spending must come to an end. [applause] i compliment the republican leadership and the membership for the energy and determination you have brought to this to balance the budget. [applause] and i think the democrats for passing the largest deficit reduction plan in history in 1993, which has already cut the deficit nearly in half in three years host:. your reaction to how he was talking to both sides of the aisle. guest: to get people to cooperate, you have to give them some praise for their positions

and be willing to meet them halfway. the rhetoric president obama use in the campaign is the right rhetoric and one that can resume. it takes both sides to agree to move into the center. i think from my point of view, the obama administration felt it had no choice but to increase spending to the economy and president obama over a 10-week period believed he had no choice but to send an additional 30,000 troops to afghanistan that the costs of probably several billion dollars per month. those are the expenses and there isn't a division on the afghanistan situation. there was a division on what government should do in fact --

with the great drop in the economy. reducing taxes to people -- so people have money. spending money would create more jobs. it did preserve jobs. it has not created that many jobs. host: mr. obama talked about how he should discuss the economic issues with republicans. >> congressman boehner is the next speaker of the house, most likely. he has offered you a compromise back in september. he suggested extending the tax breaks for the wealthiest 4 two more years and rolling back discretionary spending to levels before the bailout in 2008. is that something you could live with? >> when we start getting specific like that, there is a basis for a conversation. host: what you think about that?

guest: he did not reject that. president obama has been careful to state parties but not too detailed policy. he leaves that to the contras. the democrats have to do something about the tax bill -- he leaves that to the congress. president from a partisan point of view would be in a stronger position to do it now rather than wait for the next congress to comment. what they are going to have to do is they are going to have to compromise on that top bracket. the extent it for two years and extend the tax cuts personally, and at the same time cut back on expenditures but cutting back on expenditures sounds easier than it actually is. but the exit polls closed in the 2010 election. a plurality of people who were asked the primary function of

the government should be to create jobs. to create jobs, you spend money. the government is spending too much money. we want their cake and eat it too. we want to reduce expenditures and we want to create jobs. the private sector is not doing that fast enough pe. host: joke in massachusetts on the independent line. caller: president bush's book just came out. they were talking about torturing. he said damn right. my question was about how republican presidents, even reagan or nixon, they do it out of moral beliefs.

when did you something, they attacked it and stick with it. democratic presidents always seen at the end like there are more willing to compromise on something. host: is that historically true? guest: i cannot answer that. richard nixon did a lot of compromising with the democrats in his first four years. the first environmental bill was passed during the nixon administration. the epa was established. ronald reagan got support of southern democrats to pass his tax cuts and the buildup of the military's current bill clinton was not able to work with newt gingrich on budget issues. i think it's sort of depends. in general, he would say that republicans have taken a tougher stand and have resorted to the use of force or the threat of

force, i should say, more than the democrats do in foreign affairs. but saying that, we had the boards in bosnia and kosovo under -- we have the wars in bosnia and kosovo under clinton. it is hard for me to say who does what. most presidents, regardless of what they say, have to be pragmatists and a half to make their policy adjust to the situation that they are faced with at that point in time. i think there is one thing for all of us to remember. our constitution was designed to make it difficult to change policy, designed to prevent quick in heavy response to any one problem. you needed a majority in the house or the senate. now you need 60 votes in the

senate. the president has to support it, and it needs to meet muster by the courts. caller: i have three things i want to talk about. jobs have left this country. we now know what it means because everything we buy was made in china. manufacturing jobs are gone. we need somebody to create jobs. president bush -- what happened to the money that the iraqis had? the republicans are making a great mistake if they think this

election gives them the right to do as they please. host: let's ends on that point. this is a mandate on the democratic agenda and republicans can do what they like. guest: it takes 60 votes in the senate. no party is close to that after 2012. you will have -- you have a democratic president who will veto a bill that he thought was not a favorable bill. president obama has only the code two -- has only vetoed two bills. i did not think the republicans can impose their agenda. i would like to bring up a topic. i think sometimes everybody plays to the tv. when the to fight and the news

is broadcast, the people who kill the loudest get the most coverage. we do lack civility in our political discourse. that is in part because what the news media does is focused on the people who are yelling the most or demonstrating the most part criticizing the most because it makes good theater host:. host: tom a desolate road a piece and "the washington post" this weekend. instead of having these twice- weekly party caucus lunches where they come out and talk to the camera about what they discussed, but he calls them pep rallies, instead, there should be a joint caucus meeting once a week. guest: i do not think one

meeting once a week is going to produce much. part of the problem -- there are several reasons for the fact that congress is so cantankerous. part of the reason has to do now with most members of congress when they are elected, they moved to washington and go back to their districts on several weekends. now they lived at home and they legislate three days a week, tuesday, wednesday, and thursday, three weeks a month. so the do not know -- so they do not know one another as well. you have to scream louder on the news and the more strident in that way to get the coverage. what we need to do is find common ground. both sides have to make the same sort of appeal. people do need to say, we have to do something.

what president obama will do should be to point to problems and say, how would you deal with that? and take the policies and see where there is overlap and then moved incrementally rather than this big legislative package, to thousand pages on health care. see if you can work that through. that is the only way to do with with dividing governments. caller: hello. good morning. i just want to thank you so much for c-span. my question is this. i hear this rhetoric about a divided government, divided government. we have -- this country has always been a two-party country. like aegis said, there has to be some kind of medium -- like you just said, there has to be some

kind of common ground. when you have the newspapers and the televisions drumming, pushing that division and encouraging that position, -- i read a book once ", in search of excellence," think tanks -- there has to be someone for everybody to get along and just do it. i do not believe the government is divided. the map is mostly red. guest: maybe we should do is lock the doors of the house and senate and see if they can legislate. if one side prevails it physically. there's one thing. we have always had a two-party system. we have had a minority and

majority party. since the franc -- since franklin roosevelt became president, the democrats were the majority party from 1932 until 1968. then there were the karate part for a few years. by the 19 80's, our party's or rough parity. 36% of the people who responded to the exit polls said they were republicans. 36% said they were democrats. our parties are but even today in terms of their ability to control. we have a number of people who are annoyed at the poorest and who are saying, i am not a republican, i am not a democrat, i am an independent. with independence, there is much more volatility in voting behavior. the situation becomes more important in the long run. host: georgia.

caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate c-span. how can you expect a two these parties to come -- how can you expect these two parties to come together? i think the republicans need to remember that they do not just represent themselves. they represent their constituencies and they are hurting in their states just like in all other states. guest: there is some basis for agreement. we need to create jobs more quickly. maybe they could find a compromise on how to do that. both sides agree we cannot agree spending at this level. we cannot have a national debt that is $13.5 trillion.

both sides could agree that sometimes there needs to be a little more oversight where people have abused the system in one way or another. the best way to proceed is to find the areas of agreement and move on that basis. what that does is eliminate a number of other major issues such as immigration and changing immigration policy, where the republicans and democrats are miles apart. it also means is: to be hard to get environmental legislation passed because the cost of the policy is pretty high and republicans might oppose that. there are some things we can agree on -- energy policy and to stimulate new energy production. go through those areas. if you can build up a place

where republicans and democrats can work together, then maybe you can tackle the hard issues. in all likelihood, they will not be tackled until after the 2012 election. the cost for the republican nomination has already started for the republican nomination has already started. they are getting ready to run .er is it is a two-year process. we cannot tackle the big emergencies until they become emergencies. host: we have a tweet. independent line. caller: hello, professor. i wanted to talk about propaganda in the last few

years. i watched fox news and they were talking about a $20 million a day vacation and it just was not so. it seems like in the last two years, they have taken the proper data on fox news and they have dwindled it down so it appeals to the lowest possible intelligence level. then they have made slogans' and parroted them nonstop until it goes into people's brains. i consider the fox news channel to be the -- it is an extreme -- is part of the republican party. they try to present everything they say as facts even though it is not. guest: uni grew up in an age of broadcast journalism or abc,

cbs, and nbc provided the news in 30 minutes a night and needed to be fairly centrists. prior to television news, the newspapers or highly partisan and people subscribe to papers that have their own particular political perspective. now with table, we have this niche television news. if you're a liberal, you watch msn bebc. if you're conservative, you watch fox news or cnn. people watched news that presents information like they think. there is no such thing as truly objective journalism. some people think a certain facts are important and other people think other facts are important. our history, with the exception of the 1960's, 97's, and 90

80's, has been a history of confrontation and partisan politics. that is how we have debated. that is how the constitution was ratified. some people like madison and hamilton wrote essays in support of thit. i think truth will prevail. the real problem is speed. you don't have a news cycle. it is a 24-hour cycle. when something gets on the internet and goes around, it is newsworthy whether it is true or not. when woodward and bernstein were reported on watergate, they have to check it out with two independent sources before it was published. caller: 21 in the morning, c- span. thank you -- thank you.

good morning, c-span. we are a country with the world's best government and the will of the world's worst rhetoric. there is a big difference. i have some facts about our debt. jimmy carter left office and our national debt was on $1 trillion. guest: that is correct. caller: after 20 years, our national debt went from less than $1 trillion to $13 trillion. clinton had a surplus. for republicans to say they are for less spending and lower taxes, the facts, if people

would only learn them, is the fact that they are the ones that have caused the majority of this $13 trillion debt. host guest: it is true the debt skyrocketed. the only time the size of government shrunk was during the clinton years in the second term when they reduced the civil service work force by more than 400,000 government workers. i think you make a valid point. dick cheney made a point when the debt went up and he said reagan taught us that deficits don't matter. i think deficits do matter. i did not think either party has taken that seriously.

the real question is, how do you cut spending but still provide the services that people demand? when you ask the average person if the government is spending too much, they say yes. they say, education, transportation, infrastructure, on national defense, and people say they are spending the right amount are not enough. there is ambiguity in public opinion. that ambiguity is reflected in an big u.s. policy, by both sides. host: woodstock, virginia. caller: thank you to the professor for his knowledge and sharing that with us. historically, my family goes back to the revolution. i had relatives on both sides in

the civil war. we do not seem to have enough focus on learning from history, both positive and negative moves. previous caller mentioned the debt when president carter left office occurred he warned us about foreign oil. he encouraged us to speak out -- alternativet energy. very few spending bills. under president bush 41, he said our economy demands we raise revenues. under bush 43, we rent the debt up tremendously. why are we not learned from the past? the professor mentioned the great depression and did not go into the actions taken.

the far left and far right are fighting over issues. most of us in the middle -- most of america lives in the middle, slightly on one side or the other of the line. we pay most of the taxes and do most of the fighting and dying. most of the manufacturing jobs in the shenandoah valley are gone. what will take for people to get real? mr. peterson was on a news broadcast this morning talking about how our debt is a national security issue. host: we have to leave it there. guest: i agree with you. let me tell you what it will take for us to find agreement. we do have to understand our past a little bit better and a little bit more clearly and see the reasons for the growth of government and who has benefited and who has not benefited. most of us live in the middle, a little to the left or right.

most of us would be described as moderates. one thing we know about local parsons is the turnout and the vote. they have great loyalty to their party. what it would take for the moderate middle to be energized and to push for moderate-central project centers policy. congress over represents the extremes on both political parties. the democrats are more liberal than the average democrat in the country and much more liberal than the general electorate. the republicans are much more conservative. so that is what obama was trying to do in his campaign, and he did it successfully in his campaign. he got people out there to vote. he could not get them to support specific policies of his administration. you got to get people are rows. the people who are aroused by

the people who feel most strongly on the people most ideologically on both sides of the party host:. host: stephen wayne is a government professor at georgetown university's "washington journal. ♪ ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the national oil