up with the increase in airline travel. "washington journal" is next. ♪ >> good morning -- host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." the president is back from lisbon and the nato summit. we will talk about his role on the international stage later in the program. first, the national that and how it continues to dominate the headlines. what would you sacrifice for the national deficit? for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. you can also e-mail us, journal@c-span.org. we are on twitter, twitter.com/c-spanwj.

your asking what you would sacrifice to cut the deficit. "the wall street journal, "the new york times, "the washington post," are all asking these kinds of questions. yesterday "the new york times" followed up on their effort to ask readers what they would do to cut the debt. this is following up -- these were the answer is picked .y the reader's the piece says that twitter users skew young, so one of the

questions was reluctance to raise the eligibility age for social security. jumping down to look at this graphic for what people have tweeted in, 6900 twitter users posted solutions to the puzzle. for all of them, reducing the military to pre-iraq war size. also, reducing social security benefits for those with high incomes.

reducing nuclear arsenal and space spending as well as canceling or delaying some of the weapons programs. when it comes to increasing taxes, the number one was allowing the bush tax cuts to expire for $250,000 plus income. responding that that is the best way to start chipping away at the deficit. what would you cut? what would you sacrificed in your life? let's go to david. caller: thank you to c-span and the tea party patriots. i think that all of these lobbyists that we have with this legislative branch of government, what about cutting 10% or 20% from them across the board of their salaries. there are so many of them.

we have 1000 households in itel and eight of them make over 50,000 per year. host: what would you sacrifice? do you think that cutting those lobbyists would make an impact on your life? caller: they are not looking out for our interests in the first place. we had a process that -- a protest about the plant they put here with the illegal workers. if it was not for the people paying attention, what would happen bamako host: what would you -- what would happen? host: what would you sacrifice in your life? caller: i did not waste credit card that, i did not purchase a $250,000 house, i purchased a $50,000 house. host: we could push up the age

for social security benefits, we could raise taxes. would you do any of that? caller: there is a lot of fraud in those situations. government authority ethics to clean up the system. if they cleaned up the system i think that many of these problems would go away. host: let's go to marjorie, republican from michigan. caller: believe it or not, right now i live on $10,034 per year. i am completely disabled. i am not quite sure how to do something about it. i consider myself a republican but things that we can do with the tax brackets that republicans can actually do,

take people making $250,000 per year, small businesses, they really do put our workers back to work. if we start taxing them, it is not a good thing. host: you see a place where people can make sacrifices? caller: there are places where you say -- how much can i eat this week? $25 per week for food. there are things that we are all going to have to do. medicare, medicaid. i know that we have already taken a hit for food stamps. host: are you concerned about social service programs getting cut in the effort to tighten belts? caller: i am because of my health problems.

and they put me on a medication that caused a parkinsons-like disease and i have to live with that for the rest of my life because that's what they offered. we have all been making sacrifices for a long time. the things that i see that i take issue with, if we could change the tax bracket the small business owners, the people that make $500,000 per year, $750,000 per year, this is personal income we are talking about. host: let's take a look at "of the washington journal."

.et's go to miami good morning. caller: i believe that the tax for the rich, you know, how can i put this? i am sorry. i am so nervous. you know, the middle class is getting poor. i am living on $7,200 per year. i am saying make the rich folks pay the higher taxes.

host: are there areas where you are willing to sacrifice? caller: i am selling crazy today, sorry. host: you are not. we appreciate your call. caller: you know what, i believe in the lobbyists as well. i think we should get rid of the people in congress. they are the millionaires. the average senators wealth is like $2 million. representatives, they are at just about $1 million. where are they getting that money from host: -- from? host: let's go to twitter -- host: the question this morning is what you would sacrifice. do you see a shift in overseas

policy as a sacrifice that you would be willing to make as an american? let's go to edward on the independent line. caller: good morning. host: what would you sacrifice? caller: i would not sacrifice anything. this unemployment stuff that pays people for not working, they ought to put every one of those able-bodied men to work. they should not get it without working for it. host: back to "the new york times" where they have this graphic that shows what people think should be cut to help with the budget woes. referred to tax increases, like allowing the bush tax cuts to expire, and a millionaire's tax on income, 91% supported that.

76% supported a return to the estate tax that the clinton era level. 75% social security and payroll tax applied to income of $106,000. those 604 users showed options like reducing the military, reducing social security benefits for those with high income. 91% talked about taxing medicare growth in the year 2013. a cut in pay of civilian medical workers by 5%. 62% said use an alternate measure for inflation for social security. they also talk about cutting

foreign aid in half, cutting aid to the states by 5%. to omaha, justin is a republican caller. caller: personally, i am a disabled american veteran. i received a disability from the department of treasury. the only debt that i have is a student loan to. i will live of my disability. the other point i want to make is specific to my state. people need to get involved with that the government. americans would sacrifice whatever you less than two, -- whenever you ask them to. there were court house kickbacks

in lies state that led to the catastrophic health-care bill. we are not the welfare country, but if we do not change our ways, we are going to be. if the government drags us too far, people will have just had enough. host: john writes for this from twitter -- host: you can go to twitter.com/c-spanwj to post your own comments. we have a look at the political cartoons of the week, this one comes from steve kelly. as you can see, it is a reporter questioning people on who to tax for the deficit. respondents all say somebody else. the newscaster says -- with at the government deeply in debt, a consensus emerges on whose taxes should be increased.

leela, democratic line. good morning. hello? let's go to dallas where roger joins us on the independent line. caller: hello. i would cut everything. i would cut every government scanning program equally across the board by the same amount. that would include the defense budget, food stamps, producing everything by the same amount. hello? host: do you think it would make a difference in your life? would you feel that sacrifice? what federal programs and do you take advantage of? caller: i do not want to get too personal, but i think that every american is on social security or retirement. or is protected by the defense budget. uses some services.

everyone is affected by the government one way or another. host: everyone takes a hit? republican line, kan., do you agree with roger? cut everything across the board? caller: i think that the debt commission has shown really which direction that we need to go. they talk about medicare, medicaid, the fence. those are where the big ticket items are. my wife and i have social security benefits and on medicare. i think that we recognize that there are cuts coming. the problem is trying to get the country behind something like that. it is always someone else. my wife and i are middle-class. one of the things we have learned over time is that class and he does not do was any good.

we just got back from a vacation in that i remember at dinner one night one of the guests talk about the fat cats destroying the middle-class. i ask them -- really? i asked them what cuts they consider themselves. they said middle class. i said that you are having state on a cruise ship in the middle of the ocean. i said, talk about fat cats, putting that on a sliding scale, to these people in bangladesh you are a fat cat. so am i.. how will we do this? something of at the proportions will happen to the country when someone tries to make these cuts. probably a lot of it will be legitimate. there has been a lot of craft. but that is beside the point. what do we have to do? we have to do something. host of san francisco,

democratic line. good morning -- host: san francisco, democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, there are too many misconceptions out there about social security. what i would like to see is the corporate loopholes closed. let the bush tax cuts run out. stop giving tax benefits to corporations that are outsourcing. if they begin benefits for staying in this country, they could provide jobs for americans. host: let's take a look apple "the washington post -- let's take a look at "the washington post" story today.

host: what would you sacrifice to cut the debt? let's go to james in harpers ferry. what do you think? caller: thank you for taking my call. my biggest concern is taking

anything away from people on social security right now. if you cut the of foreign aid and the billions of dollars that each state has to pay to illegal aliens, and also these illegal aliens are getting 700,000 social security disability payments that we are paying for. host: i understand where you are going with what you are saying, but what would you actually sacrifice? i am guessing that you are not an illegal worker. caller: i would give up anything to save my country. but if the politicians do not stop giving it away, i cannot put enough in to plug the hole. host: are you concerned about social security benefits be made available for you? caller: i would raise my taxes

if it would save my country, but if they keep giving it away, it will not help. the president gives $500 million to some country in africa. george bush and his daughter did the same thing. how do they get this money that is supposed to go to our people? host: let's look at "the washington post" story again. host: so, some contradiction as to how much military spending to be cut. if we look them as social

security and how it could be dealt with -- is proving to be the most emotional issue. over the next 65 years -- host: let's go to arkansas where mary joins us. caller: i believe that we on social security are already sacrificing. they should not make us sacrifice anymore. host: what about these wealthier americans? caller: the more wealthy ones? the more wealthy ones belloc's

those of us -- the more wealthy ones? we are not getting raises every year. host: we have a comment on twitter -- democratic go to a caller in pennsylvania. caller: but would not want to do that, but the problem is what we need to do is let the people in congress and the house of representatives to pay for their own insurance. we cannot continue to support the states. we need to shift the tax base. 10% to the states to live in. 2% to your city. an extra 2% into social security. that would make social security

solvent for a long time. and we need to cut back on foreign aid. if we do that we will find that we can do much better. honestly, we cannot expect those jobs to come up. when we bring the jobs against our own technology, we need to create new jobs in this country. if we do that and stop pointing fingers and winding, we will get this country back on track. host: this e-mail -- host: let's go to new orleans. caller: i find this question to

be disingenuous and conditioning for the populace. as our government in lead with the biggest sea used that have ever walked the face of the ves h -- the biggest thie on the face of the earth, you are asking us to give something up when they need to give back the trillions of dollars they have stolen from us. the military-industrial complex, wall street, and the croats in our government that are no better than rubber-stamp for these maniac fithieves. host: taking a look at what states are wrestling with, this comes to us from "the wall street journal."

host: jumping into the story to look at how he is instituting budget tightening -- host: that is what is happening in one state. new york, where edward is on the republican line.

caller: would like to suggest, amongst other things, that the legislators go back to the declaration of independence and the constitution. there is an indication where all people that serve as elected officials, when they leave office they leave with nothing. they do not take with them all of the perks and all of the insurance and retirement benefits. it would stop a good many of these 35 year people in the government. get them out. also, reduce the number of programs. not what they do, just reduce the number of offices. for example, in your social --

where you give people benefits? consolidate all of the offices into one. instead of having food stamps and um, and on. host: you mentioned that you were 80. do you think you could have gotten by over the last decade with less and benefits? reduced medicare? reduced social security payments? caller: why should i do it? like the previous gentleman before me said, there are a whole bunch of crooks in there. get rid of those beggars. all that i can look at is the number of people in their only to fetter their own nest and let the rest of us take the leading. host: this is from twitter --

host: power question for you this morning is -- what would you sacrifice -- host: our question this morning is -- what would you sacrifice? host: let's go to kentucky. lee, democratic line. caller: you have asked a question about what people will sacrifice. very few people are telling you. i would sacrifice the social security that they give me. i would also have my taxes

raised. we have to give up money if we want to give up -- get out of the problem we are in. this is what i would sacrifice. i am 72. nobody wants to answer the question. nobody wants to cut their stuff. it always has to be someone else. i would go with social security. part of my retirement, like annual raises -- vnu will raise that i get. i would go with this. host: what would it take for americans across the board to make sacrifices? what would politicians need to say? caller: i believe that they would have to convince the people that the only way that we are going to get out of this problem is by everybody

sacrificing. not just one or two. this, medicaid and medicare. i am eligible to take it. i do not have it other than that first portion when i signed up. i have, where i retired from, i continue to pay it. it is about the same or a little bit more. it has gone up over the last 10 years or so. i continue to use my own. blue cross, blue shield. perhaps i should not use a company like that. but that is what i use. host: thank you for sharing. let's look at other stories in the news right now. this is from "the washington post."

host: also in the news right now, from "the new york times" --

roanoke,'s go to virginia. he is gone. let's go to connecticut, good morning. caller: i am not sure that we should give up anything in this

country. however, i know that many government workers have created jobs and they do not pay social security. looking at the government, we should cut back wherever we can cut back. so many people are not really performing their job. we should lay those people off. that is number one that we should look at. then foreign aid. if we do not cut back somewhere, somehow, this country is not going to be able to help us. host: do you feel those cuts in your own life? caller: i am retired and of fixed-income.

cutting my social security, pretty hard time to exist. host: let's take a look at other news stories. "the new york times" and an attempt to stem the crisis. host: that is what is happening

in ireland, where they are facing their own blooming budget crisis. in fact, not even looming, it is on them right now. let's go to fayetteville, north carolina. hello, kenneth. caller: hello, i am a retired army vet. my situation right now would not allow me to sacrifice anything. it occurs to me that every time that we get into a situation, people are always asked to sacrifice. why not have the congress sacrifice? these are people that are well- to-do people. they do not sacrifice anything. host: how would they sacrifice? of pay cuts? less robust insurance plan? caller: they should waive their

pay. most of these people can get by without getting paid to do their job. host: with that have the side effect of discouraging regular americans from running for office? caller: it should not. they are doing a public service. it is ridiculous. most of them do not need the money. the president is rich. the vice president, he is well- off. why not have them give up their pay? if they be by example, maybe the people will follow. host: let's look at the op-ed piece in "the new york times" today. the health insurance lobby secretly gave $86 million last year.

to sterling,o virginia. hello, patty.

caller: by m a federal government worker. i wanted to -- i am a federal government worker. i wanted to set the record straight, we do pay social security taxes. i would be willing to contribute, taking it out in september, i would let that continue. i wanted to comment on the person who said that the president and vice president should give up their salary. they make very minimal salaries for what they do for this country. i think that the target keeps going back to this discussion about how much money people have made off of this financial disaster. the people that made the most money, they helped to cause it.

the upper income brackets, raising it passed $250,000 for a family living in new york city is not that much. it is personal income, not people running a small business. it is not people's actual reinvestment in the small business that gets taxed. that is another thing that people are very misguided on. host: minneapolis, republican line. richard, what would you sacrifice? caller: i would cut my social security and some of these city politicians, stamping themselves on to the unions, they are giving them big raises every year. at least 2% just so that they

can get back into office. barbara johnson in minneapolis used her personal budget to amass $500,000 to get her hair cut. the mayor promoted all of these drinking fountains and roads, spending money wildly while the average person does not get a 2% raise like they do. getting $8,000 per year and leeching off the taxpayers -- getting $80,000 per year in leeching off the taxpayers. host: from "the new york times" --

host: also, looking at the formation of the new government in iraq -- host: moving on to look at another international story when it comes to voting, the crisis and the focus on the election. there is so much going on there, of the election on sunday might be -- so much going on there --

host: those are some of the international issues going on in the news when it comes to voting. alexander, jackson, wyoming. independent line. good morning, alexander. caller: thank you for taking my phone call. i am 20 years old. the younger generation in the elections. i just want to say that i think that the growth of government is exponential. it has gotten huge. everything needs to be cut back. host: ok. let's go to charleston, south carolina. cheryl joins us. host: thank you for -- caller:

thank you for having me. as far as the bush taxes, everything should just expired. host: even the taxes for the middle class americans belloc's -- americans -? caller: everyone. my point is there was something in the news a couple of months ago about belle, california, and city officials being paid more than the president. i find it ironic that that was the city that was talked about during that time. if those city officials are getting that money, imagine how many more states are doing it

to. i think that a lot of our taxpayer money is going to them as well. at a let's take a look piece from " mute -- from "usa today." host: that comes to us from

congressman pence of indiana. walter, independent line. good morning. what would you sacrifice for the deficit? caller: i have got a question. why not have a flat tax? you understand? a flat tax, everyone pays a certain percentage. host: that is what you would like to see? caller: and a free trade act. host: ok. taking a look at one more this morning from "the new york times" in the of that section. -- in the op ed section.

host: if you want to watch the archival footage that we have of president kennedy, you can go to the c-span viewer video library. that was in 1963. this piece talks about the experience of the writer as a secret service team member traveling to dallas when he heard the explosive noises. host: so, he talks about his personal experience the day that president kennedy was killed. iowa, joining us on the independent line, nathan. how would you sacrifice in your life? caller: that is difficult.

i am on social security right now with my mother. i do not know, we do not get that much money for regular stuff. as a country as a whole, we should focus more on the federal reserve. it is not really a part of the government as a whole, it is actually a private company. not enough americans know that. we should focus perhaps on experimenting with internal money supplies of the united states and the world. host: do you see other places in the country that should sacrifice? caller: what was that? host: do you see other places in the country that others should sacrifice? money sent overseas?

military spending? caller: you know how people shop at wal-mart and many of those products are from china and overseas places? i think that we could easily create jobs like building toys for children, stuff like that, that people could make stuff doing easily. host: thank you for your calls. coming up next, we'll talk about the struggle for survival in side of the white house with author for republicans, 202-737- 0001. -- with author richard wolffe. we will be right back. ♪ ♪

>> from barack obama to george washington, learn more about the nation's presidents online at the c-span video library. biographies, interviews, historical perspectives, and more. washington, your way. the sec reports that with a growing popularity of wireless devices, demand for the wireless spectrum will be 30 times higher in three years. he talks about their plan to free the spectrum and what happens if they fail. tonight on "the communicator's." >> "washington journal" continues. host: richard wolffe joins us, the author of "survival." you set up a dynamic between the

people that you call revivalists and survivalists. who is in each camper? -- camp? host: -- guest: looking at it now, particularly at the start of the year, i wanted to look at the messes that they were in and how they got out. campaigns are a means to an end. you make a list of promises, you get to washington, then you kind of undo them. in this case it is a 21 monthlong journey. it was not just the process, it was where they forged their identity. transitioning from campaigning to governing was much more of a challenge than it has been four previous presidents and white

houses -- more a challenge than previousen fourrevior presidents and white house's. this idea of being a transformer, that c-span pledge, televising of debates. it became emblematic of how they wanted a transparent approach. revivalists are on that side of it. survivalists are on the washington side, saying do what it takes to get washington done. make the deals you have to make, grease the wheels, that is how it works in washington. that battle between the ideas has been happening in the white house for the last two years. host: does it happen in the mind of the president as well?

guest: exactly. how pragmatic and realistic he is, but revivalists call him a mp sir. -- appeaser. a few weeks before the former clinton chief of staff had this dispute with campaign folks, that they talked about getting lobbyists out of the administration, but then they said they wanted to work around it. then they said that the candidate meant it. that it was true. what happened? they held the line but there were a couple of exceptions. host: we are talking about rohm emmanuel, survivalist. how many of them will carry over? guest: it is important that the

replacement for rohm emmanuel is the leader of the survivalists. a congressional liaison, with people like larry summers on the economic team. some of them have left or are on their way out. the most interesting character that was not part of the coming in white house, getting other people involved in communication, like dan piper or david axelrod, shifting from campaigning to governing. what they did not understand was that technically the other side have a soft campaign. they were transitioning into this washington mode. they expected republicans to come with it? but it never happened. host: what about this notion of getting through the campaign and then having a couple of years

instituting legislation and changing the culture? what does it tell you? guest: they thought they would have a window, maybe a few months, maybe a year. but there was no window. not in washington. every administration, it seems to actually get much worse and more exaggerated. the culture, especially with the technology and the media and the influence of cable, the influence of all of these things together means that people on capitol hill making it much harder for a long-term policy.

host: the numbers to call, for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. you talk about how emotional president obama was in the health-care bill, something that many journalists did not really pickup on. he was viewed as a stomach president. how emotional was he? did you get a glimpse of that? photographers have a strange sense of what is going on. what i noticed was that there were very few moments when this president as a candidate showed emotions that he could not control. i have always been very aware of them. even after his grandmother died

, he actually spoke about her and gave a stump speech and started to cry than. -- then. this is a moment, as the vice president was introducing him, where the vice-president was his normal and hyperbolic self. everything was literally the greatest ever. it was all very excessive. i think that people were very focused on him. next to him, the president was released groveling. his face was all contorted. it was extremely striking. just in case i did not get it right, but would check with his

senior staff. he was released troubling to hold it together. he has such a polished performance, it makes you wonder that when the mask comes off, what is really going on? that is what took me to the critical nature of health care and why he had risked so much. it was the memory of his mother and her experience with terminal cancer, struggling with insurance, almost every single case besides that campaigning for health care, almost every piece of this legislature was campaign -- tailored for people in her situation. that was a focal point for him precisely because of the experience of his mother. host: you wrote in your book that "obama it is giving up his most emotional moments in his

political career into his personal life." guest: right. that. asked him about it is striking as well, but his senior aides were trying to tell him not to do a thing because it would cost him politically, he would talk about his mother. which is why he wanted to risk so much. revivalists really refers to him digging themselves out of a whole 10 months ago when people said that health care was dead. host: you are talking about one year into his presidency. guest: we are all showing pictures of 1 million people on

the mall in saying that he had 78% approval, now look at him. having lost the senate race, the start of my time line here, it ended up as two months. starting out as the ted kennedy's seat. that shock and surprise of the republican victory where everyone said that the president was doomed and finished. it reminded me of several points through the primary where people declared him to be over, finished, and dead. two months later, he gets health care done. a dramatic turnaround. i wanted to see how he did it. how they responded to that kind of pressure in failure. what do they talk about now? everyone says that the president is finished, that he is gone and that there is nothing else that

he can do. we will see. at some point, you do not know. he will cling to the edge of the cliff. hillary clinton thought that he was finished. when sarah palin was nominated, democrats said that he was finished. .

independent voters want to see a change in the way washington works. and the compromises that really mattered, that nancy maybe was referring to, are the things like transparency . the backroom deals, signing earmarks into law. those were things that said to especially independent voters maybe this guy wasn't straight with you. and that's where it comes down in terms of the bad compromises they made to washington's way.

they were unnecessary. they didn't actually give them much. when it comes out to the public option, it is what's addressing. i hear this from progressives all over this president never talked about public option. he didn't even agree with the individual mandate as something he was going to support. and that's actually now law. no serious democrat suggested that there should be a government plan. not since the clinton's effort in the early 1990's. and the way -- as i describe in the book, the way the public option took on the life of its own was a real barrier to getting health care done. recount a scene where chuck grassley, the only -- has a final confrontation with the president, or rather the president confronts him. they say, listen, senator grassley, this is your plan, this is essentially the policy that you've advocated all of these years. if we give you everything you want, can you still support it?

and he said, well, no. but he asked for something in return. he says, mr. president, if you go out publicly and say no public option, then i'm with you. and the president couldn't do it. even though there was never going to be a public option, he couldn't say no public option because he would disappoint people like nancy so taking it off the table meant meant that everyone's political options would have been constricted. so the public option was a distortion. nobody seriously advocated it. not john edwards, not hillary clinton in the primaries. and i would argue that it actually cost the white house politically. maybe chuck grassley would never have been there. but it distorted the debate. host: let's hear from patty in minneapolis. republican line. caller: good morning. i'm one of the few people that watch msnbc. you know, it sounds like the same thing here. that they do all day long on msnbc, praising president obama, making excuses. oh, he's got the two camps, and

one's telling him to do this and the other is telling him to do that. the guy can't make a decision for one thing. he's never won anything. and you folks didn't do your job when he was running to back him. and all his communist, socialist friends, terrorists, got a who wrote the book about wish they had done more even in the light of 9/11. the other thing i want to say is, why don't you talk about all the czars, van jones, why don't you talk about that? your first clue with premeditate people have when he said he wasn't going to take public donations, when he reneged on that. he says, no, no, he's not going to go with the government funding for the election. that was your first clue he was a big phony. host: you have a lot of points. let's get a response. guest: i'm surprised she can be that uninformed after watching

msnbc all day. you need to check the dictionary. if you ever have known a communist or socialist or even a terrorist, you'd know that that's just ridiculous. so you made a lot of points -- you suggest that i'm making excuses. i can tell you there are plenty of people in the white house who have not been happy about what's been in the book. we just talked right now about how the president awas conflicted. the interesting thing, there's no question that he had this different decision making process from president bush. however, if you look at what has motivated people in this last election, it's not a lack of doing things. it's that he's done so much. so can you challenge whether or not he makes decisions quickly enough, but -- weird for a

terrorist, patty, he has this health care legislation through . and credit card reform, financial regulatory reform, $800 billion of recovery money. that's not someone who doesn't make decisions. you may think he's done too much. you may think he has taken too throng get to his policy positions. but the question about whether he has had any experience, we've used lots of different models for presidents over the years. president bush was a managing director of a baseball team. does that make him a great executive? that wasn't the model people were looking for then either. host: during the campaign -- of course all sides in political campaigns use rhetoric. but sarah palin, the v.p. take on the republican side, talked with the president paling around with terrorists after the president won the elections, sarah palin criticized him as having death panels as part of the health care bill. was the obama team surprised by

how much traction buzz phrases have gotten even if they have not actually been legitimate parts of the obama campaign? >> right. and they shouldn't have been. because in the campaign this was not unusual. remember, there was all of the rumors that he was a muslim, and they spent an extraordinary amount of effort and time thinking about how to deal with that, putting up websites, doing targeted ads online to try and marginalize this kind of stuff. to say we know we can't stop it, but we can at least make seem to the extreme because that's what it is so they put up the birth certificate and everything else. in terms of now, their attitude was, well this stuff will take care of itself. isn't it obvious? and it wasn't obvious. and in the current media, technological environment, things can go viral extremely quickly. so death panel talk goes from a facebook posting to something that pops out of the mouth of a senator or congressman. and it's played all day long on

cable. a different environment, would they had been far less nimble dealing with than during the campaign. host: our line from missouri. hi, brent. caller: good morning. thank you for not -- richard, i've not read your most recent book, but i can't wait to based on the subject matter you've been talk about today. guest: thank you. caller: pretty much a long check list, i'm sure. i'll throw out as many as i can. the primary thing is the debate between the revivalists guest: survivalists. caller: whatever you want to call them. and now with so many people like rahm and others leaving and others coming in, do you see that maybe him coming back

and getting exclusively a little more on the revivalist point of now that he's lt the house, etc.? and if could you also address -- as someone that voted for him, first democratic president i've ever voted for, and still supporting vigorously to this day, i was utterly befuddled leading up to four months before the mid-term elections as to why did he not -- you made an excellent point just a moment ago about how it wasn't that he hasn't done anything, it's that he's done an astonishing amount in two years or less compared to as many presidents as i can remember back to 1980, perhaps earlier.

the places that a million jobs are saved just by not legislate g.m. go under -- host: talking about that p.r. campaign. guest: yes. it's interesting. he's done a huge amount. the basic assumption is the people would understand this stuff. they came to see how a lot of these things got mench the together. -- merged together. people thought that the recovery act was confused with the top bailouts, the wall streets. and that it self, was also confused with the carmakers' bailout. they've got to spend the next two years unpacking all of this stuff. because they have done this huge amount. and it didn't tell its own story. one of the problems they've had with the recovery act is that it did so much, they said politically -- and, again, -- politically it would have been much more sense dwroible break it up. you had tax cuts, infrastructure pieces of it. then you deal with the state

budgets and teexers' jobs and everything else. -- teachers' jobs and everything else. they couldn't do it like that because it would have taken too much time, or at least that's what their economic and political advice was at the time. in retrospect, it's hard to tell a single story when you've got everything lumped in there. now that the g.m. has had its successful public offering, part of the money has been -- tarp money has been substantially paid back. the carmakers aren track, at least in terms of obama, they're on track. there is a story. but they have to go out and do that. campaigning, revivalalist spirit, it's something that would naturally happen as they gear up for election time. but campaign does force them to tell the story about what they've done in a way that you just don't when you're governing, when you're trying to do deals with members of congress. if you are worried about how each vote will play -- if you are trying to get a small

circle of republicans instead of a broad section ofment in -- independent voters on your side, then you're very cautious about what you say. you don't want to exclude any options. i don't want to say something in case that triggers a bad response in the vote you're trying to get. that's the essential dynamic they've had. and moving into campaigning, talking to a broader base, especially independent voters, not just republican members of congress that allows them to tell the story much more vigorously in the revivalist sort of spirit. host: richard wolffe. let's go to faye in chicago, democratic caller. welcome. caller: thank you so much. i'm so glad to be on c-span. i've been trying forever. i'm so pleased that richard is on. i'm a little bit nervous. i can't believe that the survivalists -- revivalists --

i'm not a revivalist. think -- i'm now a revivalist i think it was a natural progression because over the summer i wanted the health care debate to be over because i got so sick of hearing susan collins, chuck grassley, olympia snowe just keep going over and over and over. i just wanted to get it done. want it to be so over. and now at this juncture, i'm more of a revivalist in the regards that i want to see more of the essence of what the president campaigns on. as a support ofer and tremendous supporter of -- as a supporter of the president, i want to see if he can get back to those principles and put that out there. i think we'll be better off. guest: that's a great point. think everyone wanted health care over.

it was sort of like the pennsylvania primary. if they just did one more thing and just gave one more compromise, they'd reach their goal. but along the way every single compromise made it that much harder for them to cling ton what they stood for in the first place. it was one more deal after another deal with ben nelson in nebraska and louisiana with senator dran drew. -- landrieu. so it was a sort of desperate letterch to the finish line. en that killed people terms behalf it stood for, about what they could talk about. you know, it's interesting, people wanting him to get back to the reform, changed spirit of 2008. i don't think it's just a question for democrats wanting to be more popular here. here's a guy who campaigned saying that he was going to approach these problems, these massive problems the country faces, in an honest and grown-up way. when you come to tax cuts and

the deficit, he's got an opportunity there to say if we're going to have an honest discussion for people on the left and the right, then we've got to deal with everything. that's a real opportunity. one thing we all know, congress cannot actually deal with is a big debate in a grown-up way. look at how people reacted to the deficit pro polesals. social security, we can't touch that. he has an opportunity to say, come on, we've got to be real, honest and serious here. host: are there lessons learned that trying to work across party lines does not work for this white house? when you talk about their effort to try to bring some republicans onboard, getting shut down, things not quite work out, what is the takeaway? does that still leave room for compromise in working across the aisle? guest: it depends where you draw the line. they have worked extensively on the recovery act across party lines with republican governors. many of whom the vice president pointed in and out my book, many of whom are going to be rung for president.

-- running for president. so when you see governor barber out there against the president's economic plans and policies, you've got to remember that they've also been very happy to take recovery act, the administration's money, the people's money through the administration -- they've been taking that money to prop up their own budget. which republicans are you reaching out for? and what do independents think out of all of this? there's some interesting polling that show independents and democrats in general want to see compromise, want to see people reaching out across party lines. republicans in general don't. that's a very interesting dynamic. so see where the president comes out. if he's just trying to reach out to republicans and congress, i think we've got ample evidence to say he's not going to get anywhere in the next couple of years. but if he's saying to independent voters, i'd like some republican ideas, i embrace them, can i work with republicans when they work with me, that's a very different proposition. host: we'll cover the 2008

campaigns from the obama camp's perspective. he's with "newsweek" and an msnbc commentator. we're talking about his new book, "revival." let's hear from jeff, republican in florida. good morning. caller: good morning. please allow know make a few points here with this gentleman. first and foremost, sir, the hope and change that obama talked about was never really clearly defined. during that time it was all about just get rid of bush. many republicans felt the same way. so he really did not define specifically what it is that hope and change was. it was pretty much a fixation of individuals' imagination. the main issue dealing with this country at that time was the economy. it was almost like having a car that needed a paint job, maybe new tires and all of a sudden the motor falls out and blows up on the car. that's what folks wanted him to deal with motor that blew up which was the economy and the housing market at the time. now, the tarp and the bailout and all of those different things were something that they

did that does not impact the people. the stock market could be at 15,000, the average person that's not -- does not partake in that. yeah, maybe perhaps retirement. so the president has done a lot of different things. but all the things did he was not things that needed to be done at the time. thank you. host: a response? guest: it's an interesting point. the economy was the central point in the general election. that's true. but this president talked about a number of different things. health care, foreign policy. it was a very long campaign. you couldn't get by 21 months by just talking about hope and change. how does it affect real people that the financial market didn't, in fact, continue its collapse? well, you know, a lot of banks collapsing even more than they had then would have affected the real economy much, much more than we even thought. so you take the stock market, the stock market doesn't directly affect jobs, but it does affect everyone's 401k's, everyone's employers because employers largely in the market

in one way or another, whether they are listed themselves or the trading listed kches. and the stock market has gone from a low of, what, 6,000, 7,000 in march of 2009 to about 11,000 now. that's a huge change. and it's a signal that confidence has come back at least in the financial market. if you don't have the financial market, if you don't have a financial sector, we don't have a functioning economy. so the expectations, quite rightly, are high in terms of where unemployment should come down. but in dealing with the economy, number one, he spent $800 billion on the recovery act that as i point out in "revival" is as much as president bush spent in iraq and afghanistan combined. fact that people think that it had no impact is it self, curious. it tells you how badly this white house, this president, this administration has spoken about its own record. but you can't spend $800

billion and have nothing to show for it. there are teachers who have jobs. there's money that's gone into people's paychecks. again, come back to vice president biden who told me he's the guy who passed with selling the recovery act and managing it. he said people didn't know they were getting a tax cut. they thought they were getting a pay raise from their employer. if the vice president, the man tasked with selling this stuff says we did a terrible job of telling people what happened to this money, a third of that $800 billion was that tax cut that people didn't know where it was coming from, that's a giant mistake. host: can it be corrected? guest: they've got two years. host: as far as p.r. is it too late to rewrite the public perception of the stimulus? guest: it is extremely hard. can you tell a story through repetition is in the clearest model for them is george bush in 2004. there were no weapons of mass destruction in iraq. iraq was spiraling into a civil war.

the economy was actually slowing down. and yet they won a big victory in 2004. as an incumbent president, admittedly they had a weak opponent. who knows what opponent the president will face in 2012. but through discipline, through repetitions, through coming up -- even in a disastrous situation that iraq was in 2004, a sitting president managed to barrel through it. not easy. not easy at all. but can it be done? he's got two years to talk about health care and the economy. it's not going to be any different. host: let's go to ty in kentucky, independent caller. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. the part that i have to make and a question that i have is what i see what happened with this election in 2010, was that it seemed to me the political ross yes, sir now is fought and won over the television now. and a lot of people are getting their information or misinformation from the shows, the people who do not support

the president or support the president whether he's right or wrong. and me as an independent voter, that's where i got turned off. i'm not someone who gets my information from the television. i believe in the old-fashioned political process of nonging on my door, how is it affecting my local neighborhood? i live very close to cincinnati, ohio, so that major city's policies breed right over to my city. so i'm very active in both states' elections. but what i saw in the grassroots was what people needed and wanted. that's not what was presented through the media. so people who get their information solely from the media, they're not being informed properly. guest: that's why c-span's important. one thing again, back to 2004, people found that vorte contact, face-to-face contact, at the grassroots was really important. that was the skill of the 2010 campaign. in 2010 they found that in

states where they had a machine, democrats could actually help themselves. and many people in many districts didn't have that. so the door-to-door direct information is a very effective way for campaigns to operate. host: ty was just talking about the power of the media, these new shows, cable shows. you're a commentator on msnbc. how much do you think about that as you go in to work at msnbc and talk on the shows? there is this idea that a couple of callers have brought up now that it's a very powerful medium. and the message really affects people's view points. guest: it is powerful. there's no question. i try and deal with it by rooting my analysis on what i say in reporting. so that's one way you deal with it, to try and ground things. rather than saying, you know what, we're just going to have a competition to sort of enrage and inflame people if it's a race to the extremes, it's not helpful for anyone. it's not in keeping with what i

want to do as a journalist or what i think these cable networks should be doing either. having said that, i think the real influence is what goes over your shoulder here. what happens there in terms of what they're watching. that has been the big shift. they are focusing much more on these cable shows, and those debates, rather than a sort of broader audience. rather than even newspapers or anything else. things people congress used to care about has shifted over time so if their competition is to appear on those shows, i think you see the whole public debate shifting to the extreme that are more sensation over the approach. that's what's shocking. the people that get on cable tv over there now are of the most extreme voices. they used to be the least flngsal. but because of that projection on tv, they're becoming more influential. so i don't know that that's helpful to anyone to debate. host: let's hear from nelson,

democratic caller in st. louis, missouri. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. host: you're welcome. caller: first, let me ask you, who really does create jobs in america? when you have a national election, they blame the president. i've notice -- i've noticed in missouri people blame the democrats all the way down to the local politicians get blamed. another thing, john mccain had 58 million people vote for him where obama had 66 million i think the republicans did a better job of keeping their people engaged. i didn't hear a lot of people like yourself coming out over the last two years talking about some of the successes of the obama administration where you would see john mccain out almost every other month on those sunday tv shows. guest: i've been criticized for a lot but being quiet is not one of them.

you make a serious point. who creates jobs? it's clear, private employers create jobs. and one of the extraordinary things about this recovery is the big corporations are sitting on giant piles of cash. they're very cautious, still, about spending that money. i think this is a classic point in a recovery where there needs to be some extra confidence. that's why the stock market numbers are important, because there is a sign of confidence, of investors' confidence, and what these corporaons are likely to do. if they see investors putting money in, the numbers going um, then they tend to feel freer about spending their own money. and how do they spend snn they buy equipment and they hire people. this is not unusual given the scale of the collapse, the recession, and the length of an expected recovery. but presidents do get blamed for unemployment just as they get disproportionate credit for low unemployment.

that's just a fact of life. you can't vote out c.e.o. you can vote out politicians. it's very interesting looking at this mid-term election because, yes, people voted out democrats, but the republican standing has also been extremely low. people are unhappy with politics across the board. they're also unhappy with employers across the board. but they can't do much about that. host: sticking with the economy for a moment, the director of the white house economic council, you paint him as a very divisive figure in the white house. guest: yeah. by the way, this is -- among my reporting of people in the economic team, the team that he was supposed to run. a very interesting dynamic there. he told the president, at least in his own account when i interviewed him for "revival," he said i'm not a good manager, if you're lookinging for a good manager i'm not your guy. but i can run an honest policy process. well, he turned out to be a bad manager. it's true. but he also, in the view of the

people working with him, turned out not to run an honest policy process. he wanted the job as treasury secretary. but, again, according to rahm emanuel, who i interviewed several times for this book -- tim geithner, the current treasury secretary, played hardball. geithner said i've got a good job as the head of the new york federal reserve. if i don't get treasury serget, i'm staying in new york. -- secretary, i'm staying in new york. and they felt at that time that they really needed both of these guys, that it would be reassuring for the markets, send a good signal to have people with experience. remember, whatever the debate now, at the time nobody knew where the bottom was, how many banks would collapse. so having confidence in these two people was very important. so geithner gets the job that smors wants. smors has a job that's ill suited for. and the tensions between the people on his steam

extraordinary. the turf wars got so petty, so intense, that people couldn't function anymore. that did directly impact -- we talked about the communications, what stories they could tell. how can you tell people what your combheck policy is -- economic policy is if your economic team doesn't agree? they couldn't agree on the volcker rule to limit the activity of the wall street firms because larry somers blocked it for one reason or another. he was deeply skeptical about lending to small businesses. he's been a roadblock along the way. and the fackshussness of that -- fractiousness of that debate has been remarkable it really does come down to the president, too. this was not a secret inside the white house it may have been a secret to the rest of us, but that's why i tell the story in "revival." host: let's hear from the

republican in san diego. caller: hello mr. wolffe. guest: hello. caller: how are you today? guest: i'm good, thank you. caller: i used to watch the fox news, but now i watch msnbc because fox news -- guest: congratulations. it's a good choice. caller: they distort the truth. guest: i agree. caller: my question is, why isn't the republican party getting onboard? they want -- [inaudible] the problem as i see, they say we're going to do this, that, this but when you come down to the last two years, they didn't do nothing. they're worrying about the election in 2012. people need jobs now. it's just like the three young guns. get in office and say we're going to do this, do this. all they want to do is say, no.

no, no. guest: you know, it's going to be an interesting dynamic watching that play out. expectations are vee high -- very high, especially for the grassroots, the republican level, that they can stop the spending, stop tax raises, you know, bring down the president. and, of course, in the broader election, especially independent voters, are looking to them to do something about the economy. if it gets, as we all expect to gridlock position very quickly, we'll see how the enthusiasm shapes up. they're going to have to make compromises. one of the first votes they're going to have to take is on raising the debt ceiling. there are a lot of grassroots, tea party folks who want a no vote on that. a no vote on that would send this country into a tailspin in terms of the financial market because it would suggest this country will debate on its debt. you know that really would make the last crisis meltdown look like the tea party. host: one last quick question.

as you mentioned, you chronicle a pert in the whide between when scott brown won election, through the signing of the health care bill so -- and then the diss, as you call it, the moment of victory with the health care bill. right now you've mentioned we're in another dip here. we're seeing the white house in another trying time. would what would be a sign to you that they are once again having a revival that the obama team is pulling back up? will it be getting legislation through congress, will it be polls among the american public? guest: polls don't mean a whole lot two years out from an election what really matters is can they reclaim that reformist spirit? and at this moment can the president do one of his signature moves, which is to call out the sort of political gimmicks? one of the ways he signaled he was a different kind of politician was to say to people through the election, you know, they want to talk about a gas tax holiday, it's a gimmick. it's not really going to affect the cost 6 gasoline -- of

gasoline very much. people are not being honest with you or straight with you. i'm the kind of the grown-up in the room here. i'm the one in the middle against these extremes. he has an opportunity to do that now so let's see how well he positions himself, how well he tells his own story. if he's just another washington politician, i'm frayed we're going to have four -- after 2006, 2008, and 2009, 2012 looks like it's going to be the same kind of thing. people are going to want more change. if he is the incumbent president saying steady as she goes, we're going to be in trouble. host: richard wolffe, thanks for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: next, we'll talk about the demilitariesation of europe. first a update. >> it's 8:34 a.m. eastern time. more on airport security screening. john pistol, head of the transportation security administration, speaking earlier on nbc's "today" says that federal officials

understand the delicate balance between safety and privacy, adding that those getting body searches represent, in his words, a very small percent of the 34 million people who have flown since the new policy went into effect. politico reports that a former bush administration official has created a 527 committee for a likely bid to become the next chairman of the republican national committee. papers filed last friday creating the maria for chairman committee will allow to raise and spend money to take over the party. a formal announcement is likely soon after thanksgiving. the money laundering trial for former house majority leader tom delay is entering its final stages. prosecutors and defense attorneys are expressing confidence as they prepare their final arguments. the jury could get the case later today. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio.

>> reports that the growing popularity of wireless devices, demand for wireless spectrum will be over 30 times higher just a few years from now. lawrence strickling talks about his department's plan to free up wireless spectrum and what happens if they fail. "the communicators" tonight on c-span2. >> every weekend on c-span3, experience "american history tv" starting saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern, 48 hours of people and events telling the american stories. hear historic speeches by national leaders and eyewitness accounts of events that shaped our nation. visits museums, historical sights, and college campuses as top history proffersors and leading historians -- history professors and historians delve into america's past. "american history tv" on c-span2 c-span. -- on c-span3. host: gary schmidt is the director of the advanced

strategic studies. thank you for being with us. the president has just returned from the nato meeting over the weekend in lisbon. what came out of that, that stuck out to you? guest: well, generally i would say that it's probably been the president's most successful summit. think he's had some rough times in recent trips. but lisbon summit produced quite a few positives. the first one is the alliance agreed to a new strategic concept. the last one was in 1999. it needed to be updated. and they did so. it's quite an ambitious document. the second thing is the alliance agreed for a policy towards afghanistan out of transition towards afghan government taking over for security in 2014. there is an agreement on missile defense for europe and nato. and there was progress made vis-a-vis nato-russian

relations. so all in all i think the president deserves praise for a very successful summit. host: what were you looking to see come out of the strategic concept. there was a piece last month called the "demiliterizatoin." what were you hoping to see? guest: what i saw was a document that's quite visionary. first wathe recommitment to making sure that we defend our allied members vis-a-vis the continent. so the article 5 element of the treaty was revived. that helps with relations with some of our eastern, central european allies. the second thing is, however, which i thought was important, is that the concept went oust its way to suggest -- out of its way to suggest that security relations depends upon nato being active globally. that is, protecting the commons, be it at sea or cyberspace, and wanting us to

talk about intervening in areas outside of the continental europe itself. so all in all it was quite -- it's much more of a global nato today than it was 15, 20 years ago. host: you wrote in "the wall street journal" editorial a month ago, given the potential size of the british drawdown in the crisis many european countries face, it is possible that by this time next year not a single nato ally will be spending over 2% of its g.d.p. on defense. guest: this is the dark horse in the discussion which is that the nato's future concept is quite visionary, but carrying it out requires resources, will . and right now both seem to be lacking with our partners. britain's decision on defense cuts, i think, though less than people anticipated. so i think in fact, britain

will remain above the 2% along with greece's next year. but by the end of the obama administration it's quite possible that none of the nato allies will have reached this 2% g.d.p. mark, set back in 2002, at a previous nato summit, there was a gentleman's agreement that each of the nato members would try to sustain at least spending 2% of g.d.p. on defense. so that was supposed to be the floor. that's now become the ceiling. so, again, the strategic concept is a fine document. but, again it takes resources to carry these things out. host: is it a reflection that nato just isn't as big of a priority in some of those countries? or does it come down to the dollar sense of it all, or in the case of the euros? guest: i think there are two things, really, largely at play. one, the truth is, the strategic environment vis-a-vis the continent has changed dramatically. the russians might be seeing --

seeming to be a threat but for the most part they're not. so there's less interest in nato because there's less of an overwhelming threat that they face. the second thing, and just as important, is the decision, policy decisions, that they'd like to spend more on domestic programs than they would on defense. so, for example, when the british are talking about reducing their defense expenditures, they've also said that they won't cut money that goes into their national health service. that's a choice. that's a choice allies are making consistently. and, of course, again the reality is that if they want to have nato be relevant and be able to carry out many of these responsibility that they're talking about it still requires dollars. they just haven't squared that circle yet. host: gary schmitt, director of the advanced strategic studies. we're talking about the de

militaryization in europe. host: a story, turning a happy hour into a happy alliance. president medvedev has called the weekend nato summit an historic event. nato's new strategic concept stressed the alliance is no threat to russia. moscow has agreed to expand its logistical export. nato and russia have exchanged offers of collaboration on missile defense which they have decided to explore. talk us through what the russians have brought to the table here and how missile defense has shaped up to be such a point of contention as well as potential breakthroughs here. guest: well, i think -- again, i think the lisbon summit really was a plus for the president.

and can'ting argued otherwise that -- can't be argued otherwise that it was a plus vis-a-vis russia. the russians have decided that they're going to be less of an obstacle when it comes to theater missile defense, vis-a-vis iran. they haven't actually agreed to be involved in the program. they've agreed to talk about it. so there's still probably a fair amount of wheeling and dealing that has to be done to bring the russians if at all possible, into the system. but it's a breakthrough. in the past, particularly when russian leadership was under putin, they were absolutely diametrically opposed to any kind of missile defense that might interfere with their ability to maintain their strategic deterrence. technically that's just not the case. but it did allow putin to throw his weight around. and to medvedev's credit, they

decided to play along much more agreeably. host: let's hear from john calling from us jacksonville, florida, on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have more like a comment than a question. i wanted to know what is your thoughts about nato shipping -- shifting its focus away from europe and moving more towards asia, accepting nations like india and japan? >> that's a very good point. one of the interesting things in the strategic concept i think that sort of got passed over in much of the commentary is there's a great deal of emphasis on nato's partnering relations with other countries outside its members. and by that they mean the partnerships principle my with australia, japan, south korea and potentially in the future india. so i think you put your finger on it. there's actually desire on the part -- well, there's an

understanding on the part of nato that if it wants to have a safe and secure relationship, so much can happen in the rest of the world that can impact on that. so it's important to work with other democratic allies around the globe. so i think the strategic concept, the fact that it raises and points it in the right direction. host: looking at an image of the nato countries here, 28 countries are members. the two most recent to join albania and croatia. that took place in april of 2009. how relevant is nato on the world stage? guest: well, again, it's less relevant because we don't face a threat like the soviet union anymore. on the other hand, when you're thinking about the kinds of threats that in fact, the western world faces, be it security, proliferation, be it instability in key parts of the world like the middle east, you want allies who can contribute

to help you make sure that those insecurities -- or those security threats don't grow and become more problematic. so nato properly understood not only to protect the continent of europe and our members but it's also the leverage. there are capacities to help us manage somewhat growing instability in key parts of the world. so it's not as critical as it used to be. but it's still very important. and if i could just expand on that for a second, you often hear -- and i've done it myself. people complain, for example, with nato's lack of troop levels, lack of combat commitment in afghanistan. but it's a little bit misleading. there are reasons to complain about some of the allies and how they've handled themselves in afghanistan. but the other part of this is that, you know, our allies have

added 30,000, 40,000 troops and basically held afghanistan together from 2003 until we were able to readjust and add more troops in the past year. so the alliance wasn't strategically decisive there. it's extremely important. and we certainly needed those 30,000 to 40,000 troops. host: let's take a look at comments that admiral mullen, chairman of the joint chief of staff, made yesterday on this very topic, nato forces and the war in afghanistan. >> we really from my perspective, fought afghanistan for years from an economy, of course, standpoint. and i have said for a long time that we didn't have enough forces in. -- there. we didn't have enough u.s. forces and we didn't have enough nato forces. that was, from my perspective, because we were heavily focused on iraq. and i was literally looking at the resources that were headed in both directions.

so as we have changed the strategy, focused, and gotten the resources right over the course of the last year, this is first time we really are where we need to be it -- to be. >> would you agree with the premise that some nato forces did not perform in the way you expected them to perform in terms of combat? >> i've come at that time from a different point of view. we've worked with our nato forces, our nato partners, over many years now. in fact, as we have increased forces over the course of the last year, they have also added an additional 10,000 forces. so while it was under resource sort of across the board, i think now we have the resources and the unity in nato that we just didn't have before. host: admiral mike mullin on "state of the union" yesterday. what was your reaction? guest: well, i think this reinforces the point i just made which is the troop levels from our nato partners actually

made it possible to hold on to afghanistan while we were in iraq. so in that sense the alliance is absolutely critical. one can complain about, you know, whether or not some of the troops, allied troops, are doing as much as they possibly could. but, again, in the absence of those troops it's doubtful that we'd even be where we are today in afghanistan. the second thing i would say is that despite of all the complaints and the worries about the alliance in afghanistan and the worries about whether we would be able to withstand the mission, the fact that at the lisbon summit there was a commitment to maintaining the alliance leadership in afghanistan until at least 2014. it's really a sign of the melt of nato's larger strategic vision. again it doesn't get away from the problems of under resourcing, but, again, the alliance didn't bail and run,

staying put. host: let's hear from daniel, republican in mississippi. good morning. daniel, good morning. caller: a quesion for the gentleman. i'm just more worried about having a -- [inaudible] we need more military forces. we need a stronger force. we have some crazy nuts out there. i'm just letting the gentleman know i'm strongly opposed to lesser military. guest: yeah. i mean, you're right to raise this issue. there are calls, obviously, because of our country's fiscal condition to cut back on defense. but we should remember that, for example, as large a military as we have, particularly our ground forces,

we're using about 100,000 national guard and reserves every year to supplement our active duty forces in both iraq and afghanistan which gives you a sense of just how hard pressed those forces are. and, plus we're asking the professional military to rotate in and out of these places at a rate that's far greater than was ever anticipated. they've done a remarkable job of sustaining themselves. but, nefrls, this is a really -- 234e6r8s, this is a really hard task. and thinking of cutting back at this particular time, again, we're probably 100,000 men and women short of what we need given lingt fact that that's how many reserves we use every year. so talking about further cuts is problematic. host: are there countries reliant on contractors? guest: less. there are a few. mostly because what happened after the cold wars, we cut back the military to such an

extent and thought it would be cheap tore hire contractors to do a -- cheaper to hire contractors for a lot of things like joe liftics -- logistics and security, we're now discovering that those cutbacks mean we're even more dependent on contractors. since the united states is the force that's the most deployable, it's going to use the most contractors. other nations use some, but not nearly to the same extent. host: let's take a look at the numbers, troops in afghanistan. this comes from reuters. the u.s. over 100,000 troops, great britain 9,500, jeremy, 4,600, france, 3,500, italy, 3,000, canada 2,900. guest: yup. we're a big country. no, there's no question that europe doesn't get as much for the money it spends on defense. for example, the germans, to their credit, even as they cut back on defense spending are redesigning their forces to increase the capacity to send troops abroad from about 7,000

to about 14,000. so there's been this long recognition that europe spends a considerable amount of money on defense, it's just that they have a lot of overhead. they tend to not be deployable and the like. and they also just don't spend enough. host: let's go to los angeles, independent line. caller: yes. good morning. host: good morning. caller: i have a comment orp a question. -- or a question. europe as united politically, united economically. what do you think that while they decide, hey, we want our own military mite and become a totally independent entity on the world stage? if that happens, will they say, united states, you are no longer welcome in europe because you're in europe because of nato? guest: well, i think we're pretty far away from a united europe. i think you're seeing them

struggling even right now to keep the euro, their currency, together. so i think that's going to be a distraction for a considerable amount of time. they've taken smaller and smaller -- they've taken steps to try to pull themselves together to act as a unit. but they're just, you know, fundamental facts that berlin, paris, london, each of those powers really still wants to be an actor on the world stage by themselves. so i don't think that we're going to see a united europe anytime soon. and even if we did, there's a lot that draws us together with europe, the fact that we're democracies, that we share a lot of the same principles. and for all the disagreements, there's pretty much a consensus about what the threats we both face. host: "the new york times" reports on the two-day lisbon

summit and says that mr. obama was able to lead on a world stage in a way he's not been able to do lately at home. did he so with public and private assistance from european and russian counterparts, many of whom who called the summit meeting historic. acutely aware of his problems at home, most resistance to the new start nuclear arms treaty with russia. the other leaders seemed to go out of their way to buoy mr. obama. jumping down it says in the end the more common diplomatic was flipped. instead of foreign leaders taking advantage of a weakened counterpart, they rallied to his aid for their own interests as much as mr. obama's given the economic and military stakes. so interesting dynamic there? the others rallying? guest: yeah. but it's one that we've seen in the past. 7 i -- i remember back in the 1990's when president clinton's political situation was not good either.

there was considerable worries coming out of europe. the lack of a weakened president would lack in the weakened leadership and trans-atlantic relations. they understood that the united states really had to be the leader of trans-atlantic relations or security measures to move forward. this was, of course, all about the balkans. so europe kind of flips when it sees a weakened u.s. president it tends to rally around him because it understands the necessities of the american leadership, precisely as we were talking about in terms of resources and capacity. at the same time, once an american president becomes strong, they complain about that, too. so people forget that, for example, well before george bush became president and europe decided they didn't like his policies, they were calling the united states a hyper power. and that was the end of the clinton administration. so, begin gsh again, these things go in psych sflingds -- cycles. it's important that european

partners still understand the american leadership matters. but, again if we exercise that leadership, you can be certain they'll be complaining about it, too. host: the story goes ton say the european leaders gave mr. obama ammunition in his senate battle for the new start treaty. he collected series of statements from european leaders from germany to the former soviet bloc nation who's remain deeply suspicious of russia and weary of mr. obama's reset policy for warmer relations with russia. how significant is the start treaty with nato and what nato is doing? guest: i think the voices of support for the start treaty are actually less about the start treaty than the need to move beyond the start treaty to address the really important issue for allied partners, which is the imbalance in tactical nuclear weapons on the continent. russia has a very large arsenal that still exists, and our arsenal is very small in europe.

their view is that until start is ratified and gotten out of the way that the united states can begin to negotiate with the russians about this imbalance on tactical nuclear weapons. so i'm sure they want the start treaty to pass. i'm pretty confident in fact, it will pass. but the reason is they have a danchend i can't. -- agenda. host: gary schmitt is our guest. let's hear from j.w. call from houston on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. hello. host: hello. caller: a comment and then a question. as i personally look across the geographical landscape of the world, it seems like the indigenous people of all of the countries on those continents are resisting this merging, blurring of borders, and allowing nato to come in and say we're going to protect you. because they're waking up. they've had their pensions stolen. they're having their futures

stolen. and so my question is, sir, how are you going to continue to spin and push this north american union and to continue because the american people are waking up. look at t.s.a. they're finally understanding that this really is slowly phasing in. so if i was a nato troop, i not want to have to come to this country. i would want to be a part of the new renaissance as to where we are led by the future of innovation instead of more war mongering and more of this, you know, the bogeyman's under the bed. guest: well, unfortunately there are boogeyman under the bed. they happen to be inomalia, afghanistan, pakistan. i think this issue of whether or not nato is welcomed in these parts of the world -- well, there's two responses. a lot of partnership programs of nato engages in or are at the request of these other governments, central asia and

elsewhere. so it's not the case that nato is knockdown their door, insisting upon being there. there's a lot of request for help that the nato is responsing. and then there is the sheer fact that there are real threats. piracy and off the coast of somalia, a nato mission there protecting the shipping lanes that so much of both the american and european and, frankly, asian commerce passes through. so it's having to deal with a real problem and it's doing so i think responsibly. .

there was the problem of having

to control of the nuclear technology once the soviet union fell apart. all in all, both the west and moscow have done a decent job of containing. we have not really seen and mass of material escaped from russia. partially that is because the u.s. support an immense amount of money in an effort to contain and secure those materials. that has been a positive. i would say it is less likely that -- i mean, the terrorist do want to get dirty bonds if they can. the real problem that we're facing is the problem with north korea and iran. if north korea becomes an unstable states, you can imagine the rest of the country's in the region will want to become nuclear capable. for once that happens it is a far more dangerous world. tt isr guest gary schmid

here talking about nato and the militants are rationed -- the demilitarization of europe. the numbers are on the screen. we have a comment from twitter. you can send your comments by twitter. the we are also taking e-mails. take the next caller. ron from memphis, tennessee. caller: i'm appalled that europe would be decreasing its budget. it seems that the one world and

nobody wants to mention is china. china's aggressiveness is expanding in accordance with their economic might, which is obviously growing. can you comment on that? guest: you raise an excellent point. it is one that the u.s. i think has been slow to respond to when it comes to the chinese military buildup. while everybody else in the world from the 1990's to the recent decades have been decreasing their defense budget, the chinese have been increasing theirs by double digits. they have a long way to go, but nevertheless, it is fair to say that even the china watchers are surprised by how quickly the militarization has to increase their capabilities in the region. so much so that it has increased

our task in dealing with the military conflict there. it is a military issue and it is frankly, one that has budgetary implications. aircraft carriers are increasingly vulnerable to chinese missiles. we will have to rethink what kind of weapon systems and planes to buy. this is a real problem. it is one that is becoming more and more apparent and one that will become increasingly more a part of the national debate here. host: houston, texas, stu, republican. caller: how you view, the future of turkey within the nato alliance with its present government? guest: you got me. turkey certainly has begun to

think of itself as much more of an independent actor. it certainly has a different kind of agenda, or a least one that it would like to pursue, that is sometimes at odds with the u.s. and its other transatlantic allies. i would say this is somewhat expected. once turkey became more democratic and you have a certain generational change their, you require to have a different kind of turkey to deal with. i'm not sure we've done a particularly good job understanding that. the turks themselves have been somewhat difficult to deal with the past few years. i would compare it to the difficulties in dealing with france in the 1960's and 1970's when they opted out of the nato military side and paris was not particularly easy to deal with for those decades.

i think that is the kind of situation we will be dealing with. it will take a lot more engaged in an effort. it slows down the decision making process and that is not a good thing, but it is just a reality. sam, let's hear from texas, independent line, good morning. caller: i questioned the nature of nato. are you there? host: we are. caller: well, good. i just question the basic mission of nato. i understand the united states defense budget is seven times -- no, is greater than the next seven countries in defense spending. it would seem to me that it is time for the u.s. to look at europe and say, you boys should

be able to take care of yourself as. -- of yourselves. it is hard for me to understand what the u.s. gains from nato and why we are still supporting all of these other countries. guest: you raise a good question and in the article i wrote i did raise this issue. it is increasingly problematic to say that we have to maintain our defense budget to the level that it is and at the same time, our kila -- key allies are s.tting their spiri i would say you are right, the strategic rationale has become unclear. the but russia did invade georgia two years ago, so there is something of a problem on their border that we care about. the second thing that i think is

most important is that we are not looking for nato or our allies to be equal partners. we're hoping to get assistance from them for some of these other tasks that we face, what they're dealing with counter- terrorism or terrorism or organs of mass destruction proliferation, whether -- or weapons of mass destruction proliferation of a weather dealing with piracy or afghanistan. it is not the case that the allies have done a plus work in afghanistan, but they have done necessary work. there were close to 5000 german troops in the north of afghanistan. those are 5000 troops we would have could have to come up with. -- we would have had to come up with. we still require help and assistance from our allies. host: gary schmitt is our

guest. let's go to james in lansing, mich.. democratic collar. caller: i have a question. it appears the republicans and iers are cuttingar things and that the same time they want to have a strong government and country that stands up to countries like russia and china. how you have both at the same time? guest: that is a good question and i'm not sure there is a coherent view among tea party members about what is to have a strong government. but let's assume that you have described it accurately. i think one answer would be that the u.s. government has certain

priorities, certain constitutional priorities above other things and one of them is national defense. having a strong defense is probably from their point of view and my point of view probably more important than spending through the education department, which is an important task, but not a priority under the constitution. more limited government probably means drawing down on domestic programs. they're quite willing to spend on defense because they believe a stronger united states is a more peaceful united states. host: and our last caller tapped into something that is happening on the twitter feed right now about the tea party's role when it comes to defending the united states overseas.

gary schmitt wrote in his piece last month -- cyber security does not fit within nato's main mission. how are they stacking up? guest: for example, and the cyber security, there is a commitment for nato to try to become a much more integrated system by which we tried to help both our allies and they help us prevent the cyber attacks that we are all quite familiar with. nato, again, is taking on a new problem, a new threat and trying to do so in a responsible way. again, i come back to that fine, but it costs money. when you are cutting defense

resources, there is only so much you can do. host: jeffrey in connecticut, good morning. caller: my father was in world war ii prisoner of war. all my question is, is you see any difference between our end pre-world war ii -- between now and pre-world war ii? they are just repeating themselves again, especially with the rise of islam and muslims inside europe. i was wondering if you thought this was just a repeat of the past.

guest: that is an interesting question. we got so used to, at my age, thinking about foreign policies through the lens of the soviet union. there are situations, for example, in the united kingdom where they have a very large muslim population, most of them decent, abiding -- law-abiding produces since. -- british citizens. but some of them are radicalized and it is a threat that the police and security forces in britain have to deal with. similarly, we are dealing with the rise of several new powers in india and china, which makes

the world look a little more like the world in the 1890's's and the world of through world war one. china is a rising power and it is throwing its weight around. it is easier in some ways to know that the soviets were a threat. it is more to to go to define exactly how the chinese are a problem. host: in an earlier threat to come this person on twitter says. is there any discussion about the u.s. stepping back its role in carrying so much of the way? guest: probably end of their is concerned about that happening.

when you are at war, like we were, and have been, you still have to fulfill those tasks. i think we use to many contractors. but the quid pro quo for that is increasing the number of active duty forces. there is no easy solution. host: gary schmitt with the american enterprise institute. coming up, we will talk about the future of airline travel with michael korda from the faa. but first -- michael huerta from the faa. but first a news update. >> the economiceconomists now eh

of 2.7% this year, up slightly from the previous forecast of 2.6% -- some 2.6%. insurers must spend money on medical care or give rebates to the answers. as many as 9 million people could get rebates averaging over $160. it is part of the new health care law. in a new released today by the energy department's assistant inspector general says anergy a -- energy aides driving trucks sometimes got drug last year. -- drunk last year. ms. burris says her office

reviewed 16 related incidents last year. she says it "indicates a potential vulnerability." there are nearly 600 federal agents who ship nuclear-weapons, components, materials across the -- across the u.s. >> b.c.c. reports with the -- of the fcc reports that the demand for wireless who will be large in just a few years from now. the slide on the communicators on c-span2. every weekend on c-span348 hours of people and events telling the american story. here historic speeches by national leaders, and i win this events that shaped our nation.

-- and eyewitness accounts of events that shaped our nation. american history tv, all weekend, every weekend, on c- span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: michael huerta is the deputy administrator with the federal aviation a ministration. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: we want to hear about the next gen system. what is that? guest: it is the next generation of a system that will guide airplanes through the country. but we have been working on a radar system that was developed in the middle of the last century. what the next gen provides is satellite based, and that gives us a much more precise picture of what is going on in the air space. that will greatly increase the

efficiency of the system and reduce delays for travelers. host: is it already been put in place around the country? guest: yes it is. host: let's talk about where and how that has been in your judgment. guest: for the last 16 years we have had automatic dependent broadcast. this gives pilots and controllers a very precise view of the area. there was first deployed in alaska where mountainous terrain did not lend itself well to radar coverage. also in new mico. it has given us a very clear view of airspace. it has also been deployed in louisville and philadelphia and by 2013 it will be deployed nationwide. host: you talk about the technology and how just 15 years ago gps was considered to be

revolutionary an hour this, and for everyone to have them. has the faa kept up with technology? does it go in leaps? is it a study in incremental transition? or does it have to go in these big bounce? guest: it does have to go in these big bounce to a certain extent. we have a very high standard with respect to safety. it is not a system where we can try out new technology as it is coming into maturity. we need to be convinced that whatever we deployed in our system is mature technology and can maintain the high safety standard we have. in addition, it is a large and complex system. we need to consider not only how to deploy a given area, but howard interfaces with the existing systems that might be in place to ensure that we have a seamless transition and we maintain high levels of safety.

host: how old are these systems in place now? guest: it is a system of systems and it has been deployed over time. the radar technology has been around since the middle of the last century. systems have been refreshed and they have been developed, but it is based on an old technology platform. this is a quantum leap for us as we applied satellite technology. host: and as you said, by 2013 we expect 1.4 billion gallons a fuel will be saved by increasing efficiency. guest: there are two index -- impact of that. the cost to the system, but if you are earning less fuel, you are gripping reducing the garden for open trade -- grely reducing the carbon footprint.

host: what is your advice to travelers this holiday season? guest: thanksgiving weekend is always the busiest of the entire year and is concentrated over a short period of time. my advice would be to get to the airport early and make sure you have familiarize yourself with the tsa web site and new screening guidelines. make sure that you pack appropriately and be a bit patient. it is a concentrated time but we want everyone to have a safe on thanksgiving. host: a boycott fdot ordaz -- a boycott of the imaging machines is called for at 68 airports.

guest: tsa has a very tough job, which is, how they balance the very real concerns we have in this country about security against the desire to allow travelers to move freely throughout the system? they're doing a great job in trying to find the appropriate balance. i would encourage a everyone to recognize that the screening methods they have put in place are designed to address the threats that they have. we heard from president obama over the weekend. he is challenging everyone to look at ways that we can do it better. that we can make it less interested and that we can ensure the public in trouble to read -- freely throughout the system. -- can travel freely throughout the system. host: let's go to the phone lines. you are on with michael korda. -- michael huerta.

caller: obama has been trying very hard and he is doing great. i'm wondering, do the republicans have a plan? i'm not sure what is going on with that. host: are you speaking about faa issues in particular? caller: exactly, yes. host: is your question about what republicans would do differently than the president? caller: yes. guest: in both houses there is a great deal of concern and a great deal of interest in modernizing our traffic control system. and at the same time, ensuring what we need to ensure a safe aviation system. host: jim, independent caller in maryland. could morning. caller: was an air traffic controller for 36 years. i have been retired for 22. it was a long time ago.

but i have two questions. one, i do not do much traveling, so all of this bruhaha about inspection really does not affect me. i think it is difficult to address. but this other thing about this new system with the satellite being the primary acquisition source of positioning and, probably, communication, but what is the redundancy factor? how do you back up the possible failure of a satellite, or something like a tremendous solar flare incident?

host: let's leave it there. guest: that is a really good question and one of the reasons we have been moving at this at a very deliberate pace. as i talked about earlier, we have a very high standard of safety that we need to hit. as we migrate to new technology, we need to make sure that we have the redundancies in place to make sure that the system can operate under any of a wide variety of things that could go wrong. we have all had experience with technology failures and what we need to ensure is that as we transition to any new technology platform, that it is appropriately backed up and redundant. host: michael in baltimore, md., the morning. caller: i have two questions as well, but they are not very complex questions. one, -- you might have answered this already.

when you see us using cell phones on airplanes, if you see us using cell phones on airplanes it? and yet the thing is, you know how you have to have all of your little bottles of lotion in a plastic bag and recently i did not have them in a plastic bag and it was rejected. they went through them and found that they were lotions and stuff and they took them and threw them away. but my question is, if i had them in a bag, what i have been able to keep it? help me understand how hiding it in a bag or not having it in a bag -- how having it in a bag or not having it in a bag made the flight safer. guest: you just need to check the tsa web site and see what the requirement is. there may have been said that about the size of the bottles by you had.

there are strict limits on liquids and gels that you can carry with you on a flight. just double check with the tsa web site and make sure that you handle it in the appropriate way. i have bad bottles thrown out as well. i know how truck -- how frustrating that is, particularly when you get to the other hand and you have to turnaround. just make sure that you follow all of the of corporate guidelines as defined by the tsa. on the question of the flight, there are concerns about -- by a lot of travelers that they would like to stay in touch. we have no plans to change any of that right now. in fact, a lot of the flyers enjoy the solitude the can be used on an airplane. but in the near future, i would not plan on using your cell phone on a flight.

host: let's go to a comment from twitter. guest: i think tsa does a good job of trying to keep their passengers with their baggage. something that is going on with screening might take something away from that. again, it is just a matter and when an and knowing what the tsa guidelines are and making sure that you are packing in a way that can insure efficient screening. host: michael kordhuerta oversees the next gen traffic

control modernization program, which is our topic today. let's go to pittsburgh, pa., keith on the independent line. caller: i have more of a statement that i have a question. i believe travel is not a first amendment right and if people do not want to go through the scanners than they should not fly. guest: thank you. host: when you talk about the faa, what is the relationship between air-traffic control? what is the dynamic and hierarchy there? guest: the faa is unique among federal agencies because it has such a large operating unit to it. the largest part of our operation is air traffic control, the network as well as the controllers that work day in

and day out to ensure the skies are safe. it is a big part of what we do, but not the only thing we do. we are also a regulator of safety and we provide support around the country to ensure that airports have the resources they need to serve the flying public. it is a complex mission. i love being at the faa because it is so operationally focused. " day in and day out is different. host: john is calling from washington on the republicans line. caller: good morning. i have a question about the naked picture machine. i know that is supposedly not what it is. the fourth amendment of the constitution supposedly protects us against unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant sworn under oath. no one has ever sworn in ward underwrote about me for anything and i'm trying to figure out --

sworn a warrant under oath about me for anything and i'm trying to figure of why they are either taking pictures or groping all over my body. it is an unreasonable siege and server -- , search and seizure. host: it is the tsa making these roles, but what is the faa's relationship with the tsa? guest: tsa does have exclusive jurisdiction in deciding how security measures will be implemented across the aviation system. we are aware of what tsa decisions are and what our sponsors need to implement them throughout the country. as the president said over the weekend, we understand that a lot of people are extremely

frustrated and he has challenged the tsa and the department of homeland security to continue to find ways that would improve this screening experience for customers. host: let's hear from his seat, democratic caller in ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. i think the president is doing a good job and he is trying hard. he has all lot on his plate. my question is, what plans do republicans have to make a change? it is confusing for me. guest: we have had a great deal of bipartisan support for the aviation system and we will continue to work closely with the democrats and republicans. the president has been a great champion for transportation and

the faa. host: i think messi manage to get on twice there this morning. honlet's go on to frank. caller: the searches and pat downs at the airport are unnecessary, at best. statistically, the chance of becoming a victim of a terrorist attack is equal to winning the lottery twice in a row. more people die from falling down stairs and then they do from terrorist attacks. their grievance -- the reasons given for this terror the

government official story apart. host: we want to focus on the next gen aspect of this. guest: the department of homeland security antaeus they aren't working hard to try to find their -- bought department of homeland security and tsa are working hard to try to find the right balance. to scott ingo florida, republican, welcome. caller: my question is with the nextran system.

i'm actually a pilot and i think the next gen system is great. when are you going to have the weather aspect and the traffic activated with the system? or will that just go along of the same time. -- at the same time. another question is, with the smaller airports, it seems that there is pressure to close them or reduce them, like in venice, fla., where they are trying to shut it down. what is the faa trying to do to prevent that? guest: first, in talking about the deployment of the next gen, but we are looking at a time table that goes through -- from now through 2025 and beyond. we were looking at a whole list of recommendations working with the faa that identified a number of near-term improvements that

can be made to the system between now and 2018. we have been working hard to try to -- is a balance of technologies across the whole system. earlier, i talked about the automatic independent surveillance system. our goal is to have that deployed by 2013. that will provide greater coverage across the entire system. as it relates to the weather, we are they have some aspects of the weather that we are taking advantage of that has provided pilots with much improved capacity throughout the entire system. there will be data, activities -- the ravi datacom activities. turning to general aviation, general aviation is of great interest to the faa and we want to do more to make sure that the

general flier has the access to the system. the vast majority of the individual operations in our ertraffic system day in and day out are general aviation flyers. we need to make sure that the system can accommodate not only the needs of the commercial pilot but the general aviation community. we are trying to find ways to work with and a, a general aviation. it plays out in different ways -- to accommodate general aviation. it plays out in different ways and many of the decisions are local. host: what does next gen actually look like when it comes to parliament in pockets and what air traffic controllers see on their control boards? is there any change? guest: there is. pilots in the cockpits, there

are a couple of things they would see. adsb give them a clear view in the cockpit and what is around them. the datacoms are also interesting. today, when profits and controllers exchange data, it is done by a voice. it is read out to a pilot and the private reads back. that takes time and that introduces the possibility of error. when you have it running through the system it remains the same and you have much more consistent and precise information. when you think about radar, what you are seeing is a system that is refreshing about every 10 to 12 seconds. you are seeing points of time through the system. in the next gen world, what you are seeing is a real time look

at the system. it is much more precise. it is a much sharper view of what is going on and that enables us to make the system more efficient. host: next call on the democrats line. hi, there. caller: my question is involving unmanned aerial vehicles. i was wondering if the next gen had any private uses for that or for business use, or if there are and the faa restrictions on its use. the will those be lifted or changed? guest: the whole idea of a manned aircraft -- an unmanned aircraft is something o interest to the faa. it is not specifically a nextran proposal, but the thing about -- a next gen proposal, but the concern about unmanned aircraft in the system is that when you

are in a mixed environment of a manned and unmanned aircraft, that you continue to operate it safely. when you are in an unmanned aircraft, where you do not have is the ability to see and avoid from the cockpit. the pilot is at a moment -- a remote station. and there are concerns that have shown up throughout the system about latency, the delay between in putting commands and .he aircraft respondeing and also, if there is a loss of link. if you lose the aircraft, what will it be designed to do? we're working with the department of homeland security on the whole with the aircraft industry because we recognize that these are part of the aviation system in the future. we need to ensure that when they operate within the national airspace system that they do so safely.

host: tom in virginia beach, good morning. caller: you might be a political appointee, or did you come up through the ranks? and the second question, your comment about the tsa, i appreciate the fact that the tsa is involved in security. is there any time when the tsa says, wait a minute, you are coming out with an idea that is not practical for the general aviation side. what kind of input does the faa have regarding their input -- their interaction with the tsa that way? guest: i have spent my entire career in transportation. i am a presidential appointee and was confirmed by the senate. but i worked with the department of transportation in the 1990's and have been around the transportation industry and aviation is a street for all of my career. as it relates to the tsa, yes,

we have a close working relationship with the transportation of administration and we do talk about what is being planned. but again, it is their call as to what is necessary for the aviation system pose a safety and security. and we work with them in carrying out that system. host: do they ever say that something is not going to be realistic for the pilots or the fleet? guest: we do talk with them about how all this plays itself out in a real-world situation. i think is a very good and very professional relationship that we have with them. host: monte writes on twitter -- guest: the icao is a an

international organization that focuses on global aviation. we are very active members of icao and they just completed their assembly that takes place every three years in montreal. we talk about things like, what -- where is the industry going? and we talk about concerns that affect the global aviation industry, and what are the longer-term issues that we need to be concerned about, such as environment and continued operations of the system. it is a very close relationship that we have with icao. host: we are talking about a news article that deals with holiday travel. does the faa work with the military to free up airspace? guest: we do. host: how does that work? guest: human recognize it, but

there are blocks of air space that are used for military training and so that the defense department can do their job. we have had an agreement with the defense department to open some of the airspace during peak travel times. there will be large segments of the military aerospace made available to the commercial system so that we can take more flights through the military airspace during the busy holiday period. that just gives umoreptions. at this time of year you can have whether that will develop in the aviation system. there are a lot more flights and people moving through the system. that gives -- it gives pilots more options and so that delays are minimized and so that people can get home and see their loved ones. host: this is carl from

washington d.c. caller: you have been talking with the department of homeland security and the department of defense on next gen. i'm wondering, how much are you working with the industry itself, like the airlines on this kind of work? guest: is very close work. i think earlier, i mentioned that we work with an industry task force last year to identify the industry's perspective on, as we roll out next gen, what are the things that we can do to ensure that industry is able to take advantage of the benefits of it. more recently, we have formed a nextran advisory committee made up of industry stakeholders to advise the faa on what we call the business of next gen. what are the things that we need to think about as we roll it out nationwide? and how does the industry, the airlines, the other users of the

system, how do they need to react, or what are they concerned about and would like to see us do as we move to this system? it is a close working relationship and sometimes, when you are in this consultative processes, it seems like they take longer, but you have a much better results at the end. host: in this article is written that the concept of nextran is sometimes like putting a man on the moon. is this fact -- that big of a moment for aviation in this country? guest: i think it is. it does not have the wowereit value -- it does not have the wow value of walter cronkite and the first man on the moon. if you think about hamas we started with bonfires and then it moved to flights and our

radar. now we are going to satellite navigation. it just opens up so much more in the way of the efficiency, ensuring that a safe system becomes even safer. there are so many benefits for improving the environment of footprint of aviation. there's a lot wrap up in next gen. we probably will not have one day when we flipped a switch and everything is wonderful. five, 10, 15 years from now, the aviation system is going to be very different from what you see today. host: do you see the future being overly dependent on technology and there is a risk that some of the aviators will lose their skill as far as the ability to judge and feel and guide the aircraft? guest: some people talk about whether we are to technology

dependent. the technology is a way of life for us. we are very dependent on technology in the average home. he have more computer technology in the average home than the early space missions probably to the advantage of. at the same time, we are ensuring that the aviators are well trained and have the skills necessary to operate within the system. we want to make sure that aviator not become so dependent upon the technology that the plane flies itself. they still need to know how to fly the aircraft. we want to make sure that the training mechanisms are in place to make sure that they maintain those skills. host: the next question is from twitter. guest: the air traffic controllers are the lion's share of our work force. i would not characterize it as a who has power.

from our standpoint, maintaining a good cooperative relationship with the air traffic work force is extremely important. when you have highly motivated work force that work well with the agency, we work much better at ensuring a safe air traffic control system. in terms of the people that we hire, we coatroom a pretty rigorous selection process -- we go through a pretty rigorous selection process. we want to make sure that we have the very best people to carry out an extremely important function. host: the next caller is from boston, joseph. caller: what type of hardware will we be relying on for the next 30, 40, 100 years with the system? guest: in terms of hardware and software, a lot of is highly

specialized for the traffic control system. a lot of the stuff that we use is very specific to the aviation system. we have a wide variety of vendors across the old technology spectrum. we want to insure that we are not completely dependent on any single vendor or any single technological platform, if you will. but we are using industry best practices and as much as possible, whenever the standard procedures are for the deployment of the system. we want to be sure that we have competition and a robust platform that can grow over the years. host: issues come up from human rights groups about being stuck on runways or a backup of flights. you mention in your recent speech that you have

collaborated on projects and delays on the runway -- collaborated on push backs and delays on the runway. our target is to have six to 10 aircraft waiting on the runway for takeoff. when we have to fly a -- a flight in the other direction, there are fewer aircraft to move. is this part of the next gen project? guest: that was a project at kennedy airport in new york. the impetus for the project was that kennedy needed to do in -- a major construction on the so- called pay runway, one of the major runways in the airport. one of the challenges we have been working with the port authority and the airlines that operate from kennedy airport, as well as with our workforce was, how do we manage this loss of capacity in the system?

the combination of technology and operational procedures where we put in place a reservation system, where airlines can manage in a real time, collaborative fashion, when they expect to push back, and if a specific slot can be assigned. rather than taxing back -- taxiing back and waiting, people were able to know what time of their window was for the runway. you would expect a decrease in -- you would not expect a decrease in delays, but actually, delays were increased -- decreased. it was highly successful in canada has made it a standard of operations there. host: is something you're likely to see with nextran?

guest: oh, yes. the principles are not just technology, not just the black box, but what you can do on the technology -- on the example side. host: next call, go ahead. caller: why in the world aren't we take in more advantage -- taking more of vantage of the highly trained ex military that have basically been in this business? and the second question that i have is, when did the tsa become the transportation safety administration from the transportation security administration? guest: the tsa was created following 9/11 by the department

of homeland security. their function is the security of the aviation system. in terms of hiring at its military, a lot of the controllers that come into the aviation system are, in fact, the ex-military. i think there is a great relationship that we have. it is a place that they can to and you -- can continue to use their skills at that they obtained. it is fair to say that the faa looks to a pool of retiring military as a great place, to wire. host: when we talk about -- as a great place to hire. host: when we talk about next gen, what are we talking about as far as getting money to meet these goals? guest: genscher, let's talk about authorization first.

the faa, like any federal program, needs to be authorized by the congress every few years. we have been without a permanent authorization for quite awhile. we're on our 16th extension right now. that is a bit of a challenge because it does not provide a longer-term view of where the program is going in the future. everyone is concerned about that, not only the faa, but industry and a lot of members of congress are concerned about what can be done. there is some talk about what might be able to be done during the lame-duck session. but we certainly hope so, but that remains to be seen. congress recognizes that making this investment now is a way to enter the system can operate more efciently -- as a way to ensure the system can operate more efficiently downward.

-- down the road. we have had a lot of support. in our current fiscal year budget, something over a billion dollars is dedicated to the next gen program. but it is something that is very much needed and i think is a very good investment for the american taxpayer. host: you mentioned that the busiest travel days are coming up. guest: yes. host: what are the busiest days and how does the faa deal with that huge of a bump up in the travelling public? guest: the good news is the thanksgiving falls on the same day every year. it is always on the last thursday of november. christmases on december 25 and new year's -- christmas is on

december 25 and years is on the 31st. you can probably expect that thanksgiving day will be the busiest day of the year. it will pick up tomorrow and wednesday. wednesday will be a very busy day. thursday and friday, you should expect better airports will be crowded. people will be heading on to see family. make sure that you check the tsa web site to know that -- what the security procedures are. check with the faa.gov to see what any delays are. be patient and have a great time. things will slow down a little bit in december and then ramp up again for the second half of december for theig holiday december for theig holiday rush a