-- but the may get neither. >> it is so fluid. it is december 12. they want to leave december 18, saturday. they could probably go as late as the 22nd or the 23rd. at best, they have 11 days or 12 days. you look at what happened on thursday on the floor. one minute, it seemed like we were ping-pong in between the dream that, the immigration bill, don't ask/don't tell, the firefighters bill, the tax cuts -- every journalist knows, and in the closing days of any legislative session, state, local, national, you have to be ready for anything. tax cuts are obviously the party. they will close -- they will vote closer to 3:00 p.m. on monday. the 30-hour clock starts ticking. york looking at a tuesday- wednesday vote and then the floodgates open. i would not predict anything right now. >> even though the chairman was

pessimistic and i do not see that much time, i have also seen them pull a lot of rabbits out of the head, especially in the waning days of the session. >> you asked about tax cuts. what did you hear from him? >> i was struck by his displeasure, shall we say, with president obama. although, it is not a difficult quote to obtain foreign journalists these days. obtain for journalists these days. he dislikes so much, but he also knows there are parts that will help the state. what will you do? we will see. >> thank you for being on "

newsmakers." >> thank you. >> in london, students rioted over higher tuitions and residents worry about program health and politicians debate the debt crisis. this month, q&a expands to two programs this weekend with interviews from london. tonight, matthew paris who now writes for "the times of london." >> this week, on prime minister's questions, david cameron talks about concerns over increases in university tuition and support for school sports programs. and he talks about the transition of troops out of afghanistan. "prime minister's questions" is tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> former president bill clinton

spoke with reporters at the white house friday in defense of the tax cuts agreement between president obama and congressional republicans. he also urged the senate to ratify the start whipple treaty. this appearance happened shortly after a private meeting in the oval office. it is about 35 minutes. >> hello, everybody. >> obviously, there's a big debate going on this week. agreementlk about the we have struck to provide billions of dollars in tailored tax cuts that can immediately

help rejuvenate the economy as well as tax cuts for middle- class families, unemployment insurance for folks who desperately need it, credits for college, credits for child care, these credits are so important to make sure we keep this recovery moving. i just had a terrific meeting with the former president, president bill clinton, and we just happened to have this as a topic of conversation. i thought, given the fact that he presided over as good an economy we have seen in our lifetimes, it might be useful for him to share some of his thoughts. i will let him speak very briefly. i action have to go over and do just one more christmas party. he may decide he may want to take some questions. i am sure -- i just wanted to

make sure you heard from him directly. >> thank you very much, mr. president. first of all, i feel awkward being here and now you will leave me here all by myself. [laughter] but we just say a couple of things. first of all, i still spend about an hour a day studying this economy. i am not running for anything. i do not have a political agenda. i tried to figure out what to do. i have reviewed this agreement that the president reached with republican leaders. and i want to make full disclosure. i make quite a bit of money now. the position that the republicans have urged will personally benefit me. and i would not support it. i do not think that my tax cut is the most economically efficient way to get the economy going again. but i do not want to be in the

dark about the fact that i will receive the continuation of the tax rates. however, the agreement, taken as a whole, is the best bipartisan agreement we can reach to help the largest number of americans and to maximize the chances that the economic recovery will accelerate and create more jobs. and to minimize the chances it will slip back, which is what has happened in other financial collapses, like what japan faced and something we have to avoid in america. what was said that? first of all, clearly, the extension of unemployment, which gives people a percentage of the income they were previously making, that money will be spent and it will bolster the economy for the next couple of years.

secondly, the conversion of a make-work tax credit that the president passed before, which went to 95% of the american people, converting that into $100,000,000,000.-year relief is the single most effective tax cut you can do to support economic activity. this will actually create a fair number of jobs. i expect it to lower the unemployment rate and keep us going. thirdly, something i have not seen in their reports, this agreement will really help america over the long term because it continues the credit for manufacturing jobs related to energy coming into america. in the last two years, there

have been 30 high-powered battery factory is opening up in america. it takes 20% of the world share of that. it could be 40% by 2014. this is a good thing, bringing manufacturing back to america, because it is a huge multiplier for bringing jobs. in my opinion, this is a good bill. i hope that my fellow democrats will support it. for agreeing to include things that were important to be president. there is never a perfect bipartisan bill in the eyes of a partisan. we all see this differently. i believe this will be a significant net plus for the country. i think people are breathing a sigh of relief that you are agreeing on something. do not minimize the impact of the on the planet release our

working families or the payroll tax --unemployment relief for working families or the payroll tax relief. we need to get the $2 trillion that banks have in reserves in the economy again. we need to get the money from corporate treasuries out into the economy again. you know how i feel. i think the people who benefit most should pay most. that has always been my position. but not for class warfare reasons but for rebuilding the middle class in america. we have the distribution of authority we now in the congress. i think this is a much better agreement that would be -- that would be reached if we waited for january. it will have a much more positive impact on the economy. i would like to say one other

thing on another subject just to be recorded on the record. they do not need my support on this. we had some good republican support and the first president bush. i think the start -- s.t.a.r.t. agreement is important to our national security prison it is not a radical agreement. we agreed in principle on this same reduction. there was no way he could get it through the russian system in his second term. so we did not proceed because it cannot be ratified there. i am not sure the senate would have ratified it then. i think they will now if there is enough encouragement. the cooperation we will get from the russians and the signal that will be sent to the world on non-proliferation while all

these other things are going on to threaten -- to increase non- proliferation -- these weapons are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and expensive to secure the material that goes into making the weapons. this is something that is profoundly important. it should be beyond party. they worked hard and i hope it will be ratified. >> a lot of democrats on capitol hill say this is a bad deal. president obama could have gotten more. what is your message to them? >> my message is, i do not believe that is true. in january, they will be in the majority.

this will dramatically reduce their incentive to extend unemployment benefits, to support the conversion for more tax credits. i read all the economic studies. every single unbiased economic studies says the best thing you can do it your point to take a tax cut passed to grow the economy is to give a payroll tax cut. hong kong had a stimulus. they gave almost 10% of the low income working people two months free rent in public housing. in most important thing that they did was payroll tax relief. all of the people who study this believe it is the most important thing. i do not believe they can get a

better deal by waiting. this is what nobody is talking about it is important. i do a lot of this energy work. these tax credits have made us competitive again. i did not see a single story that credited senator harry reid's election with the fact that three weeks before the election, two new plants were announced in nevada. thousands of people are making wind turbines. both companies are owned by chinese interests. they said they are here because we decided to compete with them in the future and gave them tax credits. i do not believe there is a better deal out there. >> you mentioned the republican congress taking office in january. what was your advice to

president obama today about how to deal with the congress and the opposition party? >> i have a general rule. whenever he asked me about and whenever i say should become public only if he decides to make it public. he can say whatever he wants publicly. >> here is what i will say. i have been keeping the first lady waiting for about 30 minutes. i am going to take off. >> i do not want to make her mad. please go. >> mr. president, is there anything else that can be done in your opinion to loosen up the credit markets that have been so tight. if people cannot get their hands on capital, how can they beat the entrepreneur is they want today. this is something the republicans have thought all along. what is the next step? >> let me run through the numbers again. we are not talking about high

risk. that is what the financial regulation bill tries to stop. it charges the by to regulators -- we know they need to have more leverage than the traditional community banks. let's start with the community banks. if they loaned money conservatively, they can loan chilly -- lone $10 for every dollar they have in the bank. if they have mortgage issues are resolved, most of the mortgage debt has been unloaded to fannie mae or freddie mac or has vanished. what i believe is going on it is, first of all, the business community is not coming forward

as aggressively in the small business community. the small business incentives -- there are measures to get the small businesses to give loan guarantees. it appears to me that the community banks are somewhat uncertain about how the financial reform bill, which i supported, applies to them and what because of compliance might be. the two things that bill did was to require federal regulators to monitor every month, the big banks, and required them to set aside a certain amount of capital. that bill said that if this happens again, the shareholders and executives have to eat it. there are other things

regarding credit cards to deal with. it is really important just to do an aggressive 100% information drench. i would do it bank by bank by bank so that everyone knows what they have to do, how much it costs, and how quickly this can be resolved. then it is important that the community banks and the people who might borrow from them understand where the small businesses of america are, where the manufacturers are with the various loan guarantees and credits and deductions that are available under these laws. we too often assume that when a lot passes, people know it has passed, what is in it, and how it applies to them. that may not be true in this case because there has been so much debate about it. there was a debate that

occurred in the context of a campaign rather than in the context of, let me tell you how this works and how you can get a loan. that is what needs to be done over the next three months. the money is there to get this country out of this mess. i also believe the same thing of big companies. we should analyze the situation of every company that has $1 billion in cash. we should ask them to be honest about what it would take to get them back into the investing business. these companies clearly have a preference for reinvesting in america or they would have put his money somewhere else already. it is an amazing thing, 1.8 trillion dollars -- $1.80 trillion in corporate cash. those are the things we have to

do now. i cannot answer your question. the bankers i talk to in arkansas and in small places that i visit around where i live in new york say they know they need to ramp up the activity. they say they have to get the green light about how they are going to comply with the loss. he might be able to use your program to do it. he might be able to bring some bankers on and work through this thing work -- work through this for people. but some democrats are saying the president did not -- >> some democrats are saying the president did not go in and fight hard enough. some are saying he should be a one-term president. has he damaged his credibility? has he let tea party down? >> i do not think so. i respectfully disagree about

that. a lot of them are hurting now. i get it. i did 133 events for them. i believe congress in the last three years did a far better job than the american people thought they did. i went to extraordinary efforts to try to explain what i thought had been done and the things i thought were most favorable to them. results are what they are. the numbers will only get worse in january in terms of negotiating. the president -- if we had 5% growth and unemployment was dropping like a rock, you could have a mexican standoff and say, it will be you and not me who the voters will hold responsible. that is not the circumstance we

face. the united states had suffered a severe financial collapse. these things take longer to get over than normal recessions. we must first make sure we keep getting over it. we do not want to slip back down. in order to make it happen over the long run -- i was asked a question. we have to go beyond direct investments whether they are stimulus projects or tax cuts -- to private growth. i personally believe this is a good deal and the best he could have gotten under the circumstances. i disagree. >> you made a number of effective calls for the health care plans.

have you been asked to make any calls for the democratic members on behalf of the health-care program? there are comparisons being made between the 1994 collection and the 2010 election. do you think they are analogous situations? >> all of you will be under enormous pressure to develop a story line. there are some parallels and some that are different. i will let you do that. i am out of politics except to say i care about my country. i want to get this economy going again. i believe it is necessary for these parties to work together. for example, the story line is how well we work with the republicans. we play political kabuki or a year. we had to government shutdowns. we cannot afford that now. people did not feel it in 1994.

we cannot afford that. we have got to pull together and both sides are going to have to eat some things they do not like. we cannot afford to have the kind of impact we had last time over a long period of time. we do not want to slip back into a recession. we have to keep this thing going and accelerate its base. this is the best available option. as soon as the election was over, i took a foundation trip to asia. i just got back from the west coast doing mike bennet with out there meeting people who support -- doing my annual trip to sea people who support my foundation. >> i get the feeling you are happier to be here, and giving advice than govern.

>> i had quite a good time govern. i am happy to be here. when the bullets are fired are unlikely to hit me unless they are ricochet --i am glad to be here. i think the president made a good decision. i want my country to do well. after the 1994 elections, i said the american people have put us both in the same boat. we are either going to grow or sink. i want us to row. i had a long talk with the prime minister today.

he has done a remarkable job of being a loyal prime minister and not being involved in the political and polyol -- imbrolio that is going on. he at some outsiders to come in who are incredibly technology -- incredibly knowledgeable. we are going to have our commission meeting next week. we may move it to the dominican republic. the best thing we can do for the people of haiti is to prove that the donors are committed to the long-term reconstruction process. whoever gets elected president,

the best thing they can do -- everything understands they had to have this election under enormously difficult circumstances. even getting identification cards was difficult. what i can say is it was a calm day. they will try to get a recount that will have support across the political spectrum. $70 billion were released. we will be hiring more people immediately. we are born to improve -- going to approve a lot more projects. >> do you think your appearance here today will help sway votes among house democrats? the reason i ask is the courts

--as it is because a lot of them are ansy about the president because of triangulation. >> i told president obama that he should read a lecture that franklin roosevelt game in 1926 before he was the vice president and nominee and before he came down with polio. he discussed the dilemma of the progressive movement in american politics. i have an enormous amount of respect for the democrats in the house. i have already told you that i regret so many of them law. some of our best people lost. i get where they are coming from. i can only tell you that my economic analysis is that given the alternatives i can imagine

becoming law, this is the best economic results for america. i think it is enormous relief for america to think that both parties might vote for something that they can both agree on. there is no way you can have a compromise without having something in the bill you do not like. i do not know if i can influence anybody. some of the places where i campaigned the people one -- people won and some places i went and campaigned the people lost. the difference between now and when i became president when we immediately went after the deficit is quite simple.

when i became president, it was after 12 years in which the a collective debt of the country had risen from $1 trillion to $4 trillion. it was the first time in american history where we were ever running structural deficits of any size. we were having to pay too much money. it was costing us a lot to borrow money in the public sector. we were taking 14 cents of every dollar on the debt at the time. and it was crowding out the opportunity of the private sector to borrow money and raising their cost. that sparked the recession that we had in the early 1990's. what happened this time was

totally different. this time there was a collapse of a financial system, which took interest rates to 0%. there is a lot of alarm now. people say that interest rates went up on bonds and in debt in the last couple of days. and they said, is it because the increasing the deficit in the short term? is it because of the economy growing? that does not bother me. we have to get out of deflation. the biggest problem we have right now is deflation. i am a depression-era kid. i do not like deficits ever, really. we had four surpluses when i was president. that is what i like. i like balanced budgets and surpluses, when you have growth. but if i were in office, i would've done what the president has done. you have to first put the brakes on a contracting economy. then you have to somehow hold it together until growth resumes.

when growth resumes, you have to have interest rates higher than 0%. if they get too high, you will be alarmed, but you should be encouraged that interest rates are beginning to creep up again. it is the sign of a healthy economy, and the idea that there would be competition for money. i believe that we will have to take aggressive and disciplined action to eliminate the structural deficit again. it was a mistake to go back to structural deficits. i think if america were out of debt on a normal basis, and we did not have to borrow money from our major trading partners, we would have more economic freedom and economic security. i want to see what comes out of this, but i expect to support some very vigorous actions to eliminate the deficit and get us back on balance. one more and i have to got to get out of here. >> beyond this pending tax deal,

there are enormous issues of importance still unfinished. this is still a very dividing country. you think the american people want a president to compromise with the opposing party? is that a message that you think democrats are going to have to except? >> yes, but i also believe is a message republicans are. after except. keep in mind that the really interesting thing was, a lot of the hardcore conservatives think the republicans gave too much. reid charles krauthammer's column in the post today. he is a brilliant man and he pointed out that they got the divisive tax cuts, but most of them were targeted to middle- class working people. that is what the payroll tax cut is. that the unemployment benefits were extended, which some of them did not want to do, and that the american people, by two to one, support them both.

there are some conservatives who do not believe in the economic theory i just advanced to you, who believe that the president and democrats got out of this -- got more out of this than the republicans did. i think that is healthy, because everybody has got to give a little. yes, i think the one thing has -- that always happens when you have divided government is that people no longer see principled compromise as weakness. this system was set up to promote principled compromise. it is an ethical thing to do. in a democracy where no one is a dictator, we would all be at each other's throats all the time and we would be in a state of constant paralysis if once power is divided, there is no compromise. >> what is the political fight worth having? >> it is worth fighting against

the repeal of the health care law. i can give you ought to row or five things off the top of my head that i think should be done to improve it. it is worth a ferocious fight to avoid repeal of the student loan reform, which i believe is the best chance we have got to take america back to number one from number nine in the percent of adults in the world with four- year college degrees. it's worth fighting against the repeal of the financial reform and the assurance it gives is that there will not be another meltdown, and if we do, there will not be another bailout. i presume the republicans want to fight those too, since they ran on that. and it will be able to have these differences. but this holds the promise that after the fights are over, we will be able to find principled compromises on those areas as well. and to me, that is worth doing.

but first, the economy first. we cannot go back into a recession. we have to keep crawling out of this mess we are in. and this is a good for step, both on the substantive merits and on the psychological relief it gives to the american people in general, and the small business people and community bankers and others who can start doing things that will help get better in particular. thank you. [laughter] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> now look at the week ahead for congress in the future of tax-cut legislation. from today's "washington journal." our washington roundtable. good morning. an advance onet something you wrote about last week. about the health care bill and what is happening in the commonwealth of virginia. guest: there are a number of lawsuits that have been filed challenging the iividual mandate in the health-care law. that is the requirement that individuals must purchase health insurance. that is being challenged by the statof virginia. ken cucinelli says he is expecting a ruling on that case monday.

people have been hopeful that it will be a ruling against the individual mandate based on the initial procedural rule by the judge. host: let me read to you in the new york times editorial with regard to health care. there are details and specifics but generally this conclusion, medicare, medicaid wl have found that for more than 20% of all federalpending, higher than social security unless there are big changes by 2035. federal health care spending and an aging population is projected to account for almost 40% of the budget. your cment?

guest: i think that is the problem we have been dealing with. everyone says health ce is our biggest problem and that is why the demrats tackled it last year. if you look at what the congressional budget office says, their projects on the new health care law, it depends on what congress does british they can show discipline and act and continues some of the measures in the health care bill, they say you can lower the cost or keep them from advancing as quickly. the job is not done. host: about what is happening state-by-state? guest: the big question now is whether the individual mandate is overturned by the courts which obviously will have to appeal to the supreme court. what happens to the rest of all law? -- rest of the law? there is the sever ability clause which addresses inflation. unless there is an element of the bill that says if this gets

struck down by the court, the bills still stands intact. that was not in the final health care bill. some people say th means that the court could simply overturn the whollaw if they overturned a mandate section. with that said, if the mandate gets overturned because it is so central to the functioning of the law think the whole thing could unravel any way regardless of whether the courts decide to overturn the law. host: this is about the tax deal. you say that if "don't ask, don't tell" do not pass, it might be worth passing best. guest: i think it is a good deal for the president. liberal reaction has been not looking at the big picture. what the president got out of

this was a fiscal stimulus on the tax side that is needed with the economic recovery stagnating. is it priced too high? maybe critics in congress have had a long time. democrats refused to take a vote on the preferred democratic policy of keeping the middle class tax breaks and ending the ones favoring the wealthy. they could n get their act together and it forced the president to make a deal and i think he did all right. some callers pointed out earlier that the republicans have been holding up other legislation until this is resolved. . .

host: if bill clinton was president -- he writes a couple of things. it certainly looked as if barack obama had outsourced his presidency to bill clinton. first he cut a deal with republicans on tax cuts, and he literally turned over the white house lectern to his predecessor. equally revealing an astonishing, mr. clinton's performance reinforce the impression of political deja vu, in the sense that once again a democratic president hobbled by midterm elections was pivoting to the center at the expense of his own supporters. here is what bill clinton said late friday afternoon. >> yes, i think the one thing that has always happens when you have divided government is that people no longer see principled compromise as weakness. this system was set up to promote principled compromise.

it is the ethical thing to do. in a democracy where no one is a dictator, we would all be at each other's throats all the time and we would be in a state of confidence paralysis -- constant paralysis. guest: i think that if you see the difference between how bill clinton is to betray compromises and the way president obama has, i think that clinton had a compromise and he would own up to the compromise and promoted as this great thing and took it as his own. it was odd the way president obama struck a compromise, because he struck a compromise and then instead of doing what normally what presidents do when you have to bite the bullet in compromise, if you go out there and say, you appreciated working

with the -- coming together with the other side and striking a deal, and you take ownership of the deal. is he said, you know, he started going into republicans are hostage takers and i was forced intthat because they were holding unemployment hostage so i had no choice to do this. and i thought that's not the best salesmanship. guest: >> i'm going to disagree. i think this talk about triangulation. that's a term made up. but you are right that what clinton did is he would emprace these deals and i think that's what the base got angry with him towards the end of his presidency. i think obama is making a smart move here. she not going to flip flop and then say the upper income tax cuts that the republican priority are his favorite thing. he is going to be honest. he made a deal to get some things done. to get a lot of fiscal stimulus he wouldn't hav gotten otherwise in the face of an

alternative which was probably dead loked, tax us going up and then a republican congress coming back and making a deal that benefits republicans more than democrats. so i think s doing business and being upfront about it with the american people and i think that gives him more points for honesty than clinton got in his term with the reputation that he had and also with the back and forth. if obama is clear about what his priorities are that benefits him. >> i think the problem is that now he has the worst of both words in a sen. he is still getting the backlash from the left but he doesn't get any credit from the center for being a post partisan president. >> i think it's too soon to say whether he will get credit. we have to see if it will get votes. >> you can join the conversation on line or send us an e-mail. one side note about president clinton's appearance on friday. we talked about it yesterday.

but his point is, what happened here has to my knowledge never happened. >> really, he a walked out of a room and had a former president speak. does anyone that president obama isn't the chief executive in it's silly. it's wandering around the edges. what the president gets judged on is what he does not who speaks last at the podium.

>> the fact that we're talking about bill clinton instead of obama, the substance of obama's tax deal and so forth is evidence. >> shall we talk about the evidence of the problem? >> i'm just saying given especially the history of obama d the clintons. the spector of having bill clinton take over the presidential podium is sure to sort of dominate everything and bring up all these sort of questions. >> i won't talk about it if you won't. >> we're going to bring it up and our viewers will bring it ups well. >>he "washington post" should obama make up with the left? and opinions we'll read. robert from arkansas. go morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morni. i think we have a lot on our plates. but a comment, the insurance proposal mandatory was put in

by the insurance companies. and the problem that we have or i have is the public option was to work like a public utility. you didn't have to buy it but it would be available. and that is the way we build our infrastructure or electrical grids, our roads, our suers. and he completely, the president completely sold us out on the public option. but my primary point is, this ll not recover unless we look at global standards for global economy. you know, it's amazing that we have these federal standards on companies in the united states and we allow that same company to go to a countryike communist china, produce that product, and bring it back. the olympics were held in china and ty were very successful. and no one complained about the fairness of it. but yet, we talk about free

markets. well, of course if you eliminate all standards, then it's going to be produced. it will appear to be cheaper. but in the long run it's going to sell out your whole base. host: tim. guest: well, a lot of people share your concern on china and they're taking a harder line than previous administrations. the president has this plan to extend exports, dubble them in five years. we'll see if that works. but i think you're right. people are feeling that way across the country. one of the top reasons people cite. and i think one place where the congress might make some headway, talking about getting rid of the tax breaks for compans sending jobs overseas. and part of comprehensive tax reform, they want to start getting rid of those.

maybe that's someplace both parties can work together. host: charlie from oklahoma. welcome to the washington journal. caller: thank you very much for hearing me. i believe that a big problem we've got is china controls the value of the yen against the dollar. if we would put a tariff on the things coming in from china, we use that to pay down the national debt, this might be a good solution for two of our problems. what do you think about that? >> well, i think that tariffs are never a good idea, and i think the problem is if you put a lot of tariffs on chinese imports, that because americans get a lot of their products from china that that increases is the costs for the average american. and so especially when you have

a situation when it's a bad economy, if you slap tariffs on imports, and the price of imports go up, then it's the equivalent in the decline of wages because each dollar can purchaseess goods. i think that the problem that tim had spoken about getting tough on china, and i think the problem was that if you look at the reason why china has this leverage, it's that spending is out of control in the united states. and we have a massive national debt. and when you have massive national debt you have to issue treasury bonds in order to pay off. then you -- china is a large purchaser of u.s. debt. and as long as china is holding trillions of dollars of u.s. debt, the united states doesn't have mh leverage over them. host: one of our viewers saying

joined by martin frost, mat and tony among those expressing their advise to the president. she refers to the cgressional black caucus that we have no permanenfriends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests. guest: i think that's exactly right. and i think that "washington post" feature basically comes out and says that the problem here isn't really substance. it's symbolism and working tot. the negotiations we saw with this past week was the president recognizing that the main obstacles of getting anything done is the filibuster in the senate. so you talk to senate republicans who control that.

house democrats were not happy but on the whole agree with the president about everything. so this rupture is not going to be permanent but it's going to take efforts from the white house to include them and work together but i don't thi it's a permanent rupture or really a big fight going forward. host: tim, philip, walter joining us from baltimore. good morning. caller: union electrician just recently returned to work because i feel that as i called, and this is a true story. as i called last week to report for my unemployment, i'm told that the takers were not allowing my unemployment to continue. but fortunately for me, as with a few other unions in america, we have a rotating employment schedule. to your american spectator. they are hostage taker. the business men are economic terrorists. they are on your right wing.

i need you to support them not attack the compromise that i agree totally with your colleague there. it was a good compromise. if the democrats, and i ask your colleague, on the left, if the democrats had enough guts to put the tax issues up before november, brother, do usual they would have lost the house? wouldn't that have exposed those terrorists, those hostage takers earlier? and there's to yo brother there's no way in he will that you can defend that right wing terrorist organization called the chamber of commerce or wall street the welfare of the bank is no different than the welfare of the corporate interest that is you support totally in your spectator magazine. and i just want to say that if you cut the government down to nothing, who are going to pay for the infrastructure? who is going to pay for the police, the schools? i mean, you guys on the right have lost your mind. there's a racist connent in

your rejection of obama and i can respect that. as a black man i've dealt with it all my life. host: thanks for the call. we'll get a comment first from fill lip. guest: i find how interesting how during the bush administration one of the compints was h the rhetoric of the right was too inflammatory. and now people are going around calling republicans who have aa disagreement over tax policy terrorists and hoageakers. so i think that that is inflammatory rhetoric. so it's hard to respond in a civilized manner to that sort of talk. host: tim. guest: rhetoric aside, i think it is a reality that the senate republicans said the only thing we will work on and coming first is getti tax cuts for the wealthy and the caller makes a really good point that the dynamics would have been different had they took a vote on the issue before the election.

i think it would have made things harder for the republicans. would the democrats keep the house? probably not. i think it maybe would have changed some things on the margin but it would have been better policy. we saw them try and take votes on just middle class tax cuts. the house passed it but it was phil butuster in the senate. >> host: tom has this comment. i let's go through just some of the numbers. if this tax agreement is worked out between the president and senate republicans is passed by congress this week, if you make between half million to $1 million a year your tax savings will be $25,000. basically you have to pass that much more if the taxes were lifted but as they stay in place you will sa $25,000 in taxes. for those making between 200

and 500,000, a savings of $11,000. if you're between $100,000 to $200,000, it's a savings of $6,000 in taxes. and it goes down. this does not include, by the y, the proll tax from 6.2 to 4.2 what we pay in social security. >> i think that if you include the pay roll tax, then the numbers at the lower level would go up because that's something that's paid disproportionately by people who make under around $106,000 i think is the cut ych. but the important thing that you have to say is how much in taxes do all those different groups pay. and it's very easy for people to talk about what large tax cut in aggregate dollar

figures. people who are wealthier getting. however, you have to look at how much taxes they're paying. and people have all this talk about, oh, well the rich have to pay their fair share and you hear all sorts of rhetoric from people on the left people are calling it a bailout for the wealthy. i think there's two things you have to take into account. one is that it's hard to call something a bonusayment or a bailout for the wealthy when it's their money in the first place. that's number one. number two is you have to look at the distribution of how, what's a large percentage of the actual taxes the wealthy pay. and a very small portion of the country pays a large majority of the country's taxes. so they're paying more taxes. so of course any time that you have a tax cut it's going to -- the weahy pay more so they're going to get more of a tax savings. guest: we can't forget that also the wealthy make a

disproportionate amount of the income. we have a disproportionate amount and we also have the lowest federal taxes on the wealthy in our history at a time when we have ballooning deficits. so we really need to think, do the weltsiest americans need to be panicing about a p 3% tax increase. the president was suggesting a tax break for everyone so that all the income paid up to $250,000 you had have a tax break. the argument was over people who make more than $250,000, which is the top 3% of people in america. do they deserve a special tax break separately or tasme advantage of the one that everyone gets? i think with the deficits so high they don't really needs that. and i think people do too. it was the most popular option in public opinion. i do want to disagree with the last caller. yes, it does blow up the deficit and the fact that republicans were running on a

plan to reduce the deficit and pass tax cuts that don't need and aren't paid for is funny. but this isoing to have important effects on the economy. they're buying into the thoughts of john can the liberal economist who has been such a so criticized on the right lately. but the tax cuts that the president is putting, particularly the payroll, that's going to have a positive effect on the economic recovery. host: tim, graduate of georgetown university, contributing writer for the american prospect. his work has been seen in the new republic, in the nation magazine, american lawyer and washington city paper. philip kline, a graduate across town at george washington university. one of our comments from our viewers saying, i was caught in the middle this week. i understand that bernie sanders anger but i alsoee the reality and the genius of the tax deal.

james is joining u from greenville, north carolina. our mocrat's line. caller: thank you for taking my call. this thing about giving this 2% tax cut. but with the loop holes that takes it down. with the tax cut that makes them pay zero taxes for ten years. they don't need another tax cut. but i agree that's a pretty good compromise. the only thing, the problem with the compromise is that you left the unemployment out. if you're going to worry about 2 million people, what about 5 million already lost the unemployment? what about those folks? you know, the thing is that the problem is greed at the top. we'll never get anything solved if we continue to think that the wealth is going to trickle down to hit the people at the

bottom. that has not worked for ten years. host: your comment. guest: well, i think that, again, i think that you get back to you talk about sort of giving the wealthy money and speaking as if it's sort of a give-away for the wealthy and it's problematic because it presumes that somehow ultimately everything is the property of the state to begin with. and basically, it's the state's money to divvy up how they see fit. yet if they may decide to give more money to the wealthy as if it's not the wealthy's money in the first place. host: ank from pennsylvania. good morning to you, frank. caller: good morning. i'm wondering if it's all right to be a republican that's a capitalist. i think the present health care is killing industry. and companies that leave this

country just can't afford to pay for health care. i can remember when ge employed 200,000 people in this country. they probably employ 50 or 60 now. if they brought 50,000 jobs back the cost of health care would bankrupt them. it's not corporate taxes. tithes cost of health care. small business in this country cannot afford health care. it's obese. it should go. they pay their executives $100 million retirements. 2030 in the last year. and this is put on the back of industry. and jobs will not come back until these companies can afford to come back. host: are there jobs in pennsylvania? frank? he hung up. we were talkingarlier about manufacturing jobs and the huge transition most notably in pennsylvania and ohio which is

part of that rust belt area which is seeing the loss of jobs but also new jobs being created with those workers who have the skills necessary to operate the manufacturing equipment. do you want to comment to his earlier point about being a capitalist republican? guest: i think that's fine. i support him. i'm a capitalist myself. i think just oyour point about health care andusiness nisses, i think everyone agreed that one of the major problems we had were companies spending so much money on managing health care for their employees and providing their share of the insurance payments. and people disagree about the outcome of the bill but i think it does a lot to help businesses especially small ones lower those costs, and hopefully it's a long-term plan. it's going to be a good decade before we see if it really works the way it's sposed to. but i'm optimistic that the framework to do just that, to reduce the burdens on businesses large and small and make the industry more

competitive. host: susan has this comment. guest: i think that's the essential point. and that's why, it's disturbing to me when people talk about the cost ofax cuts. now, it's true that from a budgetry standpoint, if there's lower revenue going into the government and you don't cut spending that that's going to have an effect on the deficit. but the reason why i have a problem saying that it's somehow costs or to equate tting taxes with government spending is that there's a huge distinction between allowing people to keep more of their own earned income and the government taking people's money and divvying it up as they see fit. because for the average individual --

guest: it's not like these are people from mars coming in to this -- to have this discussion. guest: if an individual is able to keep more of their money. it's not a cost to that person, it's a savings. so i think it's problematic to talk about it as a cost to government because it's not government's money in the first place. guest: one, it's important to remember how we got started talking about the bush tax cuts and why we're talking about them now. because when they were passed they couldn't find a way to pay for them. it was a huge hole and they just said we'll sunset it in ten years. it has been a real cost. any conservative would agree that any government obligation unpaid for is just taxes in the future. so it wasn't really a tax cut. it was just pushing it down the road because it wasn't paid for. on the separate issue of tax expenditures, there's no difference between a spending earmark and a taxing earmark. if you give someone a subdi, it's the same thing.

so we need to look atax expenditures in the tax code as a problem. thear growingaster than entitlements. it's growing faster than medicare, faster than defense budget. so we can't turn a blindye to loopholes in the tax cuts or pretend they're good for the economy and expect to continue in any kind of fashion or see any kind of economic growth. guest: i agree that the best way to change is we have to have fundamental tax reform and that you have to have a situation where we broaden the base, you get rid of a lot of deductions. there's no reason why somebody should be able to deduct the mortgage interest payments on a second house. there's a lot of problems with the tax code and a lot of times politicians because it's easier to justify a tax credit than some spend willing just call something a tax redit and do what they want with spending. the problem i have with that is that essentially what it is is it's the same as spending in the sense that government is telling people that you can get

a tax break if you spend the money the way we think is socially valuable way to spend the money. and i think a better way to do it would be to get rid of all these deductions and have a broader base with a lower rate. with that said, that's not on the table right now. so i would still prefer lower rates. host: it's part of our sunday roundtable. from our twitter page, a rather robust conversation on taxes and the economy. well, speaking of taxes and the debate on capitol hill, the "nework times," as the ground shifts biden plays a bigger role. the esense of the story,

comment? guest: well, i think it shows one, what a useful defender what a vice president biden has been. people wondered what kind of role he would play and it's been, i think they're doing their jobs. i think the president expects members of congress to hold them accountable to pull them in the direction and i think members of congress need to realize that the president is trying to get things done and he has got to make compromises. ultimately, i think it's incumbent to say what a stronger action would have

been, calling for leadership is sort of an empty call unless you say what that leadership is. so that's i think the situation now. host: and from our twitter page, brian says we'll go to maria in arlinon, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to throw out a few quotes from f.d.r. the test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. here is my principle. taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. that is the only american principle. we continue to recognize the greater ability of some to earn more than others. but we do assert that the ambition of the individual to obtain for him a proper

security is an ambition to be preferred to the appetite for great wealth and great power. and i totally agree with bernie saers and i think if anyone missed his eight-hour presentation on friday the tax cut filibuster i urge everybody to watch it. the idea of giving $100,000 on average in tax breaks to people who make $1 million or more is totally insane. host: thanks. and by the way, his eight hours plus available on our website. part of the c-span video library, c-span.org, click it on and you'll be able to watch it. guest: you make a good point there. and we've been going back and forth. the problem is not necessarily recognizing that this is people's own income. i think the problem is, especially for people on the left and people in the middle see this too that this tax code

is not progressive enough in that it doesn't take a fair share from everyone. the rich still are disproportionately benefiting. you look at warren buffet who says, look, my secretary pays a higher tax rate than i do. and that's a real problem. and bill gates has come out and said this. there are a lot of wealthy people saying this is not fair right now. so i think fud a discussion about making the tax code fairers, and this is what we were getting into, that would be welcomed and you would see less sort of talk of bailing out the wealthy and more talk about paying our fair share to get the government to do what we want it to do. host: the president took questions at the white house and critical of his own party who did not go along with him. we talked with senator levin on friday. it airs after the washington journal and the agreement worked out between the white house and senate republicans, one of the questions that we posed to senator 11. >> i'm not satisfied with the

presidential push. i believe that he should use the bullly pull pilt to say something like this on taxes. this is the thing i believe in as president go through the list of things he believes in. i don't believe in tax cuts for upper bracket people or that a state tax bon ansa for the rich that some people want and i'm going to fight those. and the way that i think the president needs to fight them is to say that he is going to use the, all of the power he has of a bully pul pit to urge the senate to stay in, right up to new year's. and if the republicans at the end of december want to continue to filibuster a tax bill, which is aimed at helping middle income people inste of upper income people, that is something which they will have to take on their own heads.

that's the problem, is that i don't see that kind of a willingness to fight that hard where he will take that kind of a position. and that's what's necessary. host: senator carl leven is the chair of the armed services committee. going back to the scheduling point because the senate is supposed to wrap up business by the end of the week although technically they could stay until the end of december, the dream act, of course the tax a greemt to be worked on. how likely is that? guest: people act as if the senate adjouing next friday is set in stone. but clearly last we're we were in the senate was in session until christmas to get health care passed. and i think that you could see the same sort of thing. if there's a chance that harry

reid thinks that you might be able to pass don't ask don't tell. and when we're talking about obama and liberals, i think that that's one thinghat if they have votes and theoretically the votes exist to repeal don't ask don't tell, i think that that would be something that they could probably get, a victory that they could give to liberals. that when obama was running for reelection, he could say, look, i passed a health care bill and we repealed don't ask don't tell. so we're sort of making progress. but i think that it's very important to feel like liberals got some sort of victory before republicans take control of the house. host: again, the tax debate in earnest on our twitter page. ann has this comment. our last call is bill from

atlanta. our line for democrats. welcome to the washington journal. caller: thank you. good morning. thanks for taking my call. the problem is that when the democrats controlled both houses they chose to separate. and we're not going to support this president. now, we want to start with the republicans and it's sad that a lot of democrats are now turning to republicans. 's sad that we're sitting here holding america hostage and we want to, the rich want to keep getting richer and the poor getting poorer. there's no middle class. it's sad that we're sitting here having fill lip talking about fiscal responsibility and how president obama is a socialist. tim, you've got your work cut out for you. you keep fighting for the people. i've i have a whole lot of colleagues unemployed.

republicans, the rich fat cats have to hold the economy hostage so they can get their tax breaks. they don't need it. how much is enough. host: thanks for the call. guest: well, i think the point you're making reflects h a lot of americans feel. and i think why the filibuster registered with people. to me the most powerful part was talking about unemployment. and there's one job opening for every five workers right now. and not about just an economic toll but that's a real moral toll on people that hurts the fabric of our country. so we really need to do something about that. and that's why, for instance, extending unemployment benefits for 13 months is a part of this deal. i just want to step back to one thing that bill just said and note, if they do pass don't ask, don't tell repeal in the senate, that's just not a gift

to liberals. that's for the massive support for repealing that for the country makes you think that the ilibuster against repealing it is going to go down in history like strom thur monday's fill busters against the civil rights act. it's amazing how such a broad swath think it's time to get rid of this policy. i do think, and the fact that the greatest hope it will pass right nocomes from senators jo lieberman and susan collins are not to the far left or right, shows what an important thing this is to the middle of the country. host: and the last point, the editorial in the weekly comment. good deal, the agreement between the president and the senate republicans. guest: i think that's something we haven't spoken that much about is the spending side of the ledger.

and i agree that republicans have been pitful at the spending side of the ledger. and i agree with tim that unless that basically we can't have everything ierttute. and basically i think that all the stuff that we were talking about, about taxes and the bush tax cut is really a prosm aye fight for a much larger fight. and that's basically what do we see as the role of government. and i think that we need to have a national conversation on this because basically what we see the massive growth of entitlements they can't be sustained at current tax levels. so my view is, i think that spending should be brought in line with tax revenues and liberals think that, no, people should pay more so that we could sustain more spending on social programs. and i think that basically we have to decide, as a society, do we want a welfare state where people get quote unquote

free health care and so forth? do we want to go in the direction of europe with very high tax rates and very high spending? or do we want to scale back and sort of change in a more market centered direction, a more market centered approach to health care to bring spending down. so, but i think there's clear ideological differences between what government should do and if people decide that, yes, we want government to be involved in a lot of things, then, yes, we're going to have to raise taxes or else it's going to lead to complete fiscal collapse. but i would rather argue for getting spending in line with tax rates so that you keep tax rates low it could lead to a better economy. host: final point. guest: well, i'm going to suggest maybe that's not the right debate. i think there's a third debate with the bipartisan policy fiscal commission which says we meet in the middle. we get tax reform that raises

more re new. we cut spending. we find a way to have a government that does what we want it to do and get rid of the waste. that means cutting defense spending. that means cutting programs that aren't working. but we need a revenue system that raises what we need and makes the program the socl safety net the last two years have shown we need. and make sure it's strong in the future without bankrupting us. that'shat we learned in the past month. host: thank you for joining us. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," robert nichols talks about financial issues, including the proposed tax deal and the democratic opposition to it. efforts to bar the use of

funding to transferred yet monday detainees into the united states for prostitution. and john gannon. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> middle and high school students, as you work on your documentary's for studentcam, here are a few tips from our judges. >> i am looking for you, the student. i want to see you in your personality. that helps make your video stand out from all the rest. >> what i like to see most is a real investment and care in the topic you're telling us about. be sure to be interested in what you're telling us. if you are not interested in which you are presenting, chances are we were not. >> the requirement and using c- span video. the videos where people have

looked to the c-span content and said let elements make the most sense for telling this story i am trying to tell. >> for all the rules, including deadlines, prize information, and how the upload, the two studentcam.org. >> find great holiday gifts for the c-span and in your life. it is all available online at c- span.org/shop. >> now a brief look at the future of u.s. manufacturing. from today's "washington journal." cash held by companies is at its highest levels in 50 years. and this is a look at what's being called the next economy. thanks very much for being with us. caller: i'm happy to.

host: i want to begin looking at the economy. but let's focus on this publication and some of the inclusions that you and your colleagues take with regard to manufacturing. are we on an upswing? are we still dealing with the rust belt snarea? what's happening? guest: we're dealing with a lot of things, and it's different in different parts of the country. manufacturing has been improving in the last few months. but that is improving slowly. i think one of the big take aways that we keep coming back to again and again and again is just the importance of how manufacturing is changing. that we're not going to make a low end, cheap commodity manufacturing like t-shirts anymore. american manufacturing has a future that's pretty much tied to advanced manufacturing, and invasion. can we make things that literally can't be made anywhere else? host: bruce stokes went to

puttler, pennsylvania, an area known for its still making capability. what's been changing there? guest: i think the big thing that's been changing across pennsylvania, across this country is this idea the american dream is for the worker who grew up believing he could go to a factory without a college degree, provide for his family. provide a middle class life style. we're finding more and more across pennsylvania, across ohio, where i used to work, that's a harder and harder dream for most americans to see. host: one of the obvious conclusions from the piece is the importance of education in training the work force. the importance of community colleges, to feed into those manufacturing jobs. and one sentence from what you're calling bruce stokes wrote is that to come pet in an increasingly competitive world, even traditional manufactures

must operate on the technical frontier. can you elaborate on that point? guest: yes, actually that's a great point. we had an event down in raleigh, north carolina where we were talking about that. some manufactures down there. the point of that is americans, you can't expect that even if you're a traditional manufacturer, that you can keep using your old processes. what's going to make us competitive is to do things cheaper, better, faster. one of the panelists was telling me the great story about way back in the day between the fords and toyota. for years and years ford did not change the way it made the taurus and had the same amount of time to manufacture taurus and the same amount of money and man hours that it took to do that while a toyota corollo was

doing the same thing. the camry rocketted ahead. continuing even as the taurus fell off the map. host: first of all you point out that over 11 million people now make things in the united states. the lowest number since world war ii. however, the u.s. still hosts the mightiest manufacturing economy producing 21% of all goods used globally compared to japan. a distant second at 13% and china ranking third at 12% chfments may surprise a number of people. guest: this is what's maddening. they have a very strong industry. their output is enormous. like you said, the problem for the worker is the reason we've done so well is in part because we've done such a great job of getting people out of the manufacturing sector. they're the biggest cost.

and so, these invasions -- but the actual jobs we have, it's a paradox for the american factory worker. host: i want to bring it back to your piece called go tell it to the mountain. no one heralded the tax cut agreement between president obama and congressional republicans as an economic savior. but plenty say it is one thing that could accelerate the lummering return. elaborate if you will. >> what we do in the piece, which i think is very important here is kind of take -- [inaudible] we're not great but we're getting a little bit better. that's why we call it a lumbering. i know a lot of people got

thrown by the last unemployment, but we are growing a little bit. things are coming back. corporate america is ready to start investing again, maybe start hiring again at a much bigger pace. but the sense among economists that they could still use a little bit more juice, particularly on the consumers side. you still have companies who just aren't sure how strong their sales are going to be next year. so you could provide a big demand boost which would create an upward cycle, and get some growth that is strong enough that it really creates jobs. right now we're on track for growth, somewhere between two and a half and three points of product next year. that's probably not strong enough to really add a lot of jobs. and so, what we're looking at is maybe there would be, if the

deal goes through and it has a lot of things that host: jim tankersley, thank you for sharing your spouse -- your perspective. guest: guess. >> find great holiday gifts for the c-span and in your life. from books to dvd is, umbrellas, and more. it is all available online at c- span.org/shop. >> next, matthew parris of the times of london. then prime minister david camerons takes questions from the british house of commons. after that, the parliament debate on tuition increases. >> this month,