it is available on television, radio, online and on social media networking site and find our content any time through our video library and we take cspan on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicle, bringing our resources to your community. it is washington your way, available in more than 1 million homes created by cable and provided as a public service. >> this morning, molly hooper has the latest on congress. then, frank gaffney discusses his opposition to the start treaty that the senate is currently debating. later, national journal economics correspondent jim tankersley talks about how the tax bill might impact consumers and the overall economy. "washington journal" is next. . .

richard: other people talking about how funding will be done over congress and big ticket items. you have a chance to weigh in on that. the battle over spending has bee gun. pick the line that best represents you and start calling in. emails are welcome as well host: here is the headlines i was talking about this morning.

the death of the spending bill was a set back for the white house.

host: so there it is. specifically when it comes to spending and the spending bill, this is the editors of the wall street journal. they say as for the demise of the $1.1 trillion spending bill, do you believe in miracles? the credit goes to senate leader making the political stakes. the gop senators who change their mind watching for the discovery of the physical principle. there you go. the idea of what is happening. number also be on the screen as you watch this. if you want to participate on ip

put this morning. host: no stranger to these issues, ron paul. here is what he had to say. >> i want the markets to regulates to allow the fed to regulate the congress. the housing bubble came from too much credit and from all the mandates saying you must have taken these loans. under these circumstances that banks have to make certain loans that are risky.

>> you think regulators should be pulling become i don't think the financial chair services subcommittee. let's go to your calls over spending issues good morning. thank you for holding on. i've been on hold a little while here. i keep hearing so many things

about the taxes and tax breaks. it's $75,000 a year or up to $110,000 gets this tax break. over $200,000 gets this tax break. i'm a cook. i was a chemist in school. i haven't heard anybody talk about the people who do the work and don't get paid anything. we work, we sweat, we bleed. >> what should that mean for the next congress coming in as they take on money from taxpayers.

>> i appreciate taxpayers. i really do -- the tax breaks they are giving me host: paul on the republican li line. there's some that are worthwhile and need to be done. you have your ones that you really don't need. like turtle crossings in florida. what are they going to do? there's a lot of these bills that are just ridiculous. as far as the economy is going anyways, we have a bigger problem here in the public sector than we do there in washington than in unions. we can't lift everybody up.

i think with the legacies and everything else. let's be honest. bus driver, i was making $18 an hour. somebody making $9 an hour is walking to work. it is out of kilter with the unions they don't want to touch

this or that. but you know what, for the country, i'd give back. >> i have a few issues here. caller: one is how roger has been in on this. second, the bush tax cuts did not create jobs like he was supposed to. there was a surplus that came in. unemployment was double the amount. i don't agree with the way that the tax cuts was handled. the top 2% of theed population got the best tax cuts. overall tax has been hurt.

i haven't had a raise in four years. the company i work for, most of the nurses don't even have health insurance. i don't think the top 2% create jobs the way they say they do

not going to change anything. they are going to cut and continue to take care of their people that put them in office anybody who goes to washington, they get sucked in. in a year, they are like the rest of them. if you make between that and a million or take in $200,000 to $500,000 a year that's some of the analysis.

as you are looking at that. those savings will continue on. jo i wish that there would be an amendment brought up by the constitution in the house. every bill has to be read by congressmen and senators i believe if that was the case, more of our senators and congressmen would be able to understand what's going on the

economy is in the tanks host: as far as the earmarks are concerned. the number is more than three. the average number of earmarks per page in the spending bill. caller: good morning. the tae party stopped the spending bill. we lit up the senate switch

board. the conservative people and tae party members who everybody chooses to attack are the people who say enough is enough. they are the ones saying if you don't pay taxes, you don't have a right to get money back. we are saying pay your own bills, take care of your own actions. leave me alone. the tax cut was not a tax cut. everybody that pays attention knows that host: now you have a lot of these tae party elected candidates coming into office next year. what will happen to them? caller: i know what will happen. the pressure will stay on them.

i'm not going to way. if they vote against my best interest, which is not spending my money. leave me alone and let me make a living. i've been self employed for 19 years. i do not draw unemployment. anybody that can sat on their rear end and draw unemploy mroment is a disgrace for this koirpt. when you can sit n your tale three years and not go hunt a job, you need to get out of here host: the associate press this morning. the unexpected tax bill.

social security recipients austin, texas. go ahead.

caller: you got $1,000 for child cost credit. we have 350 million americans if you gave 1 million to every american wake up. how stupid could this be. 350 million votes. we'll ge millionaires and we can

pay taxes. caller: i'm calling about the politicians the foreclosure statements all the rating agencies to allow the bonds they kept selling. i can't remember what it is called. all the banks, the hedge fund manager. everybody keeps talking about fanly may and all of that they

had nothing to do with greece and other things the same hedge fund manager i'm tired of nobody speaking up about what have happened. i'm not a democrat, republican or independent host: you are calling on the democrat line. caller: well you don't have a line for me host: when you take all that no account tae partiers came in.

they are going to get all the laws passed. nobody is thinking about all the fact host: we'll leave it there running a small business.

never mind the tax extras we get. if we are bidding a job and i'm looking at employees i can't afford to try to pay $10. there for, there's no way i can bid projects for money. more than the tax percentage drops. if i can't afford to hire people. i can't bid the job. there's no tax for that.

the house made one gesture to government spending. the 1.9% lawmakers. level proposed earlier this year. p

>> you never hear anybody talking about talking about the poor people. it is always middle class and up. that's because middle class people, poor people like myself and many others wouldn't have a job. i think giving them a tax break is a great thing

host: on the democrat line. caller: good morning. the senate white house proposed a bill >> i wondered if you heard anything about this bill. thank you. >> josh, the republican line. >> we could force the deficit if we forced all the n -- and j -- out of this -- host: excuse. we won't allow that on this show. i apologize to our viewers for

that. caller: i watched the debate. the whole thing. the length of time and they yanked it. we watched the debate. then they got up there and talked about how a lot of them put the earmarks up there. half a billion. i don't get that at all. how is that going to help you. i appreciate it.

happy holidays host: i appreciate it. we invite you to use a tool we call c-span library if you want to hear claire's thoughts, you just type in her name there as

you look at it, what do you think about the spending in the new year in congress? caller: i don't like the spending host: what don't you like about it specifically? caller: i know my husband here is a teamster. we have been cut 15% then they took a week's vacation from him. if we could huge et congress like that. they make well more than we do

here we don't get help with anything. i really think they need to cut spending from themselves. they get their whole spending paid for for their whole life. my concern is we do not have a spending problem. the country is revenue starved. president clinton left us with a surplus. i don't even agree with president obama's tax cuts. we can't afford middle class, upper class or overs. revenues should be raised

somehow. the balance is out everywhere. we can't afford host: would you advocate with spending cuts at all?

caller: r caller: efficiency in all departments. we do not have a spending cut problem per se. we have the spending now. $1.5 trillion in cash and all. we all spend it there. then it talks about the 20th amendment. p

caller: thank you for your format. calling from sacramento, california. when the obama administration ran. there hasn't been enough public work jobs at all. too much regulation, laws on the construction site.

we have greater technology it takes too long to process. when you have a change order, it takes 30-60 days to get the change over we have to get people back working on the country. look there. they have billions on wall street.

it is a false appearance. not working. if we can't produce and build or help the infa structure, what good is this country. you watch that little debt domenici out there we could never catch it. that would take sdz 1 million. i don't have $1 milwaukee.

caller: for that last caller. because of the few conservatives, williams got the trade bills of high-trade jobs. along with those trillions of lost tax revenues which is why the debt is dpelting so big, social security is so short. they keep extending unemployment benefits. the government needs to take care of their deal they are economic traders to this country. we need people to trade with this money host: separate from spending.

christine. i have two things i want to bring up if possible. the first thing is remove the debt in general. they were planning on not approving the extension in the office. it must be approved to raise the debt ceiling when that happens

to us, it will force the entire world's market. you've heard this talked about by television stakes around the world if that happens to us, it is going to force the entire world into depression. it's an ignorant thing spoken about i feel like the people in our country are not aware like they should be >> off twitter, chris says, we

haven't raised spending but we have reduced revenues florida. tom on the republican line. >> no one ever talks about foreign aid. giving money away like it is water so caller: how do we give that away. we are supposed to be there for big people host: on the front page. sarah lee, there's the example

of cash rich emerging marketing

caller: good morning. i need to ask you a question. all this spending going on. to send money over to other countries. they sent a lot of money to pakistan to help them. and lowering the rate. it seems like all these educated people there in washington that have big sdee degrees. going on everybodied communion. they can't figure out what makes it work. go back to the morals of americans. i fought for our country. i'm a disabled vietnam vet host: keep going, sir.

caller: i think it is very wrong where people have to strief. people don't have the money to buy a set of dishes or money for their children. why can't they get together froe vieding to increase the maximum

grant with a new congress arising in january they could see this reduced. long island, new york on the republican line. jeff. caller: how are you doing? host: fine. thank you. caller: i don't know. this whole economy is becoming a joke if i had a deficit like that, i'd be in jail. until people wake up.

all these countries aren't helping anyone. you do have a right to fail host: north carolina. they get this country back in order like myself being out of work why didn't they help somebody i can't even borrow

money from my mother for anything else got no money to buy the kids no christmas at all. they say unemployment rates are dropping. you go on line to look >> what kind of work did you do before you lost your job? caller: construction you go apply for a job. he says i want someone current right now. who will leave their job to go for another job in the chance of

getting lated off host: jackson, florida. caller: we have plenty of plans to deal with the deficit he gave some pretty good ideas. we could be able to keep more money in our pocket. artists are sending more money instead of sending them. if more people kept more money in their pocket, they are going to spend it on earmarks. maybe we could get this economy

going again. from the various other legislation to put more money back to spined it host: what do you think should be the reaction as the republicans take over the house everybody wants to get things done and get reelected. shifting to get everything done of that nature. that was the first start. people can get off unemployment and get real jobs and healthcare

do you think you'll see more comprimises you got a lot of people out there on the other issues. i think you'll see a lot of agreement. the most significant think you've read this morning is the article being acquired back in

the 1980s from the information age to the industrial age that's where a lot of our manufacturing jobs disappeared and went overseas. this congress thing is like a deversion it is so ridiculous. i can't believe we are even talking about it this just isn't the good old usa. this is by nature a dictatorship

host: off of twitter saying congress should not raise those stakes again. caller: i'm really dishardened with where our country is going. i bacco bama. trying to make people's lives better it's sick that the

republicans seem to feel that 2% of our country are entitled. the best education, the best quality of life, the best material things. the best places to live. it's very dishardening that we can't get past color, economic stated tuesday. it is a sad day in american. we'll talk about the debate. we'll talk about the actions in the house. the correspondent.

talking about the actions this week and we outlook to the next congress this year. we'll be right back. flu

>>i think the prime minister has a great deal of power. it has a great deal of power and can get most of this done. interviews from london q&a this weekend on c-span. saturday and sunday. this sunday on c-span in her first televised interview her adjustment to the court and her relationship with chief justice. sunday at 6:30 and 9:30 p.m.

washington journal continues there's been all this talk that the speaker to be bainer weren't on the bill signing. what they will do back with that. this three-day extension gives them a chance to find how they keep the senate running after tuesday. they are concerned that

democrats want to use ten funding levels in 2010. that's one of the reasons why the leaders weren't at the houston. >> what is the magic about the 2008 number? the big ticket spending items republicans want to go back to thepre tim luis levels host: as far as looking to next year. talk about the make up. what that means particularly

about the spending issues that is a good question. he is going to have some issues there's the issue of raising the debt feeling a lot of the tae party becomers don't support for our standing with all the monitory and fiscal poll ti basically, it's going to cause a lost disruks. it already has. in terms of spending already house republicans have met the

appropriate operations being in the past it will be ways to try to cut spending. it will be interesting and entertaining. i would love to be a fly on the wall. the dumping of the bill on that. in that continuing deresolution

he is concerned that the senators might try to slip that in one member described it to me as a drug addiction. to make sure that people had enough time to call in. house republicans were just shocked there in the midst of the tax debate. i mentioned to steve king that

reid pulled the bill. they were shocked host: our guest until 8:0 to talk about actions this week going to next call us. ♪ ♪ caller: nancy wasn't a big fan of this bill or how it was handled. also the democrats held maybe

the 9-1-1 veteran's bill looking at the picture i noticed a few things that was more because he was working with harry reid. he was involved with all of those talks the ways and means committee was there. that was interesting to me. of all the people there. i sort of did an undertake.

so funny. this is what a white house aid who was involved this does not even play into this. it's more everybody going on emotion i think pelosi wasn't happy with the way it was handled and the way they were cut out. the first call for you comes from thomas in connecticut. . .

caller: we don't need an agriculture department or a labor department or a commerce department because what good are they? they are just lobbying groups for the interests that they serve. that is my comment and i would

like response, a brief response on each one of possible, you very much. guest: you are asking what will happen next year with spending. i think you will hear quite a few new republicans coming in with the same criticism of foreign spending, of the funding the departments, which they feel are part of the big bureaucracy. in terms of the agriculture department, the farm bill is coming up in 2012 which as many farmers worried because this is where republicans can actually make the most changes if they are serious. that is why it will be so interesting to see what programs the republicans want to cut and how the tea party for these energized conservatives as michelle bachmann refers to them, the constitutional conservatives, how they feel about the cuts that republicans are proposing.

it is not just sort of cutting some of the nassau or something else. some of these republicans and even john boehner back in the day want to get rid of the education department. here comes the other wrinkle to that. if you don't have earmarks that go to fund education-related projects in district, who will decide, aside from the big bureaucracy, where to spend that money? republicans have this delicate balancing act to navigate next year because, again, you will have many calls for cutting this funding from these kind of departments. you also don't have the earmarks to get the grants back to your district. i can't wait. host: you don't see serious efforts to stop funding npr and the education department? guest: i think with this new

class, we will see things like that. they are serious. they are not just talking about cutting random programs. they are going in for the most impact. house republicans just released guidance to democrats for next year on these changes they want to make to the rules, the house rules package. one of them is that you must cite the constitutional authority, chapter and verse. about the agriculture department, where is the agriculture department and the constitution? that is something they will want to seize on and really hit hard. will have really taken up in the senate? probably not. but it is probably something that you will see a few -- enough members to warrant a

bunch of tv cameras at press conferences. host: new york, we go to the democrats aligned. >caller: i want to talk about the possible attempt to talk -- to pass the dream act. i don't know if it is politically responsible because the recession is so bad right now that many republican voters would be incensed of the idea of giving an estate to these so- called, what ever they call them. i am not sure of democrats should go for it right now especially considering there is a lot of anger around the country. do you think it will pass or not? guest: is this the 9/11 bill?

it sounded like that. that is a good question. republicans are wary of money that would go to fund possibly illegal immigrants who could have been part of the first responding team. as to whether it will pass, it is hard to say at this point. i think that right now they just need to get through the sdream act vote. host: i know a vote on cloture today is happening. will it happen? >> we expect it to happen. guest: i am not sure. right now, there are a few things going on. number one, frustration with the fact that it is december 18 and

they will not pass a health care a lot. last year they were here to do that. these are things that could have been taken care of a long time ago. republicans are getting frustrated and threatening to withhold support or to filibuster some of these items not because they are opposed to them but more on principle because what are we voting on this now when we could have done it before? the dream act seems up in the air. don't ask, don't tell, later today, seems like it might have a better chance. that would be a big victory for democrats. also, you have the start treaty out there. host: there is anger over don't ask, don't tell which could go into the start treaty debate. guest: exactly, that is part of it. john mccain is very upset about the fact that the senate is taking all these other votes.

these are controversial issues in the 11th hour. democrats are about to leave town. and to lose power. he is not very happy. if he can get enough fellow republicans on board to say to protest of this, it might have nothing to do with the legislation, more so with the process. host: minnesota, our guest is molly hooper, our republican line, go ahead. caller: thank you for cspan. my question is regarding the spending and, of course, republicans, especially tea party-backed candidates who are bucking against the raising of the debt ceiling. my question comes down to the spending and the actual cuts. i am not quite sure that

congress or the senate actually got the message that i think the majority, whether you are democrat or republican, we are willing, able, and understand the cuts that need to happen. i just don't understand why, if we have the guts in the public to take these cuts, why can they not in congress and the senate actually get down to the nitty gritty and do some cuts that have to happen? i am a disabled -- i am on social security. i have a hard time making it every month. i, along with many other people i have discussed this in with -- within church, we are all willing to make cuts and take the cuts for the better of our country. guest: that is a good point. a handful of conservatives, a staunch conservatives in the house agree with what of the

reasons why they voted against that tax bill that just passed. they say that we can start up this new congress on the wrong foot even if we get the tax benefits that the republicans did not think were possible six months ago. is it worth the price of starting a new congress having spent -- having added to deficit spending to the tune of $858 billion? without paying for it. quite a few conservatives have been criticizing the republicans the 139 who voted for the tax bill because they did decide to do that, to spend money that was not paid for. again, we will see a lot of movement on this issue with the

new rate elected republicans which will happen january 5. host: will we see a new work structure when it comes to how the house operates? will there be longer days? guest: this is the benefit may be for republicans having been out of power for four years and coming back to power. they know what it is like to be at the mercy of the majority. they also know -- they also have had the experience of running the house calendar. yes, there will probably be figure -- fewer days in washington but the way the days will be structured will be a lot easier for members of congress and also c-span viewers because we will have a committee hearings in the morning that are not interrupted by the trade votes will happen after 1:00. you have all morning to have the committee hearings. we will probably see four days on, four days off in increments

of two weeks. we will see a two week stretch of members in d.c. and one week out of d.c. and one week in and one week out. they will work the first week of august. that will be interesting, too. most members have almost six weeks off in august. eric cantor, who will be in charge because he will be the majority leader in charge of the house schedule, says that we will not to for this target end date of mid-october. he will set the target date for october 8. the one thing that is so frustrating -- it seems to be portrayed that when members go home for recess, they are having a good time. they might be but that is because they are meeting with people. they are busy when they are

home. they are campaigning and fundraising and doing district duties. they have to represent their people and take care of the issues on the ground. this will add more certainty to their schedules so when they make their -- when they plan to give a speech at an enrollment ceremony or the local lions club, they can show up and make it. that is sitting well both with republicans and democrats. host: tennessee, independent line, go ahead caller: let me say this, i am pressed for time. from my point of view, the congress or some of the people in congress don't really listen to the people. it seems that they only make

decisions that only a select few have the time and ability to negotiate on. all these earmarks, you are making the debt bigger and the only thing they are afraid of is bankruptcy. it can be more catastrophic. when a normal family has bankruptcy, it is the ultimate way to get rid of all the debt and start over by new. why are we so afraid to lead a new congress and the people negotiate on possible solutions instead of hoarding? it is all -- instead of worrying? -- instead of hurrying? guest: that is a great question. as you can see it with the senate, they did listen to the people because the people lit up

the call boards and mcconnell has been given credit for -- and mitch mcconnell has been growing -- given credit for the on the bus. the dirty little secret is that he has $112 million in your march that he would not get. -- in your marks that he would not death. -- in earmarks that he would not get rid of. next year, people will be a more responsive to their constituents. john boehner has made an effort to break things down. no more on the bus spending. they will actually pass individual appropriations bills. i would say 12 but normally that is the case because they lost several departments and agencies to gather. i don't think that will happen. he wants to focus on spending

for one agency at a time. there are a few things that are more transparent, or at least this is the promise that has been made. for journalists, as well as obviously voters, that is a great thing. then we can -- we don't have to wear ourselves out trying to go through 10,000 pages of bills to figure out what is in it. i think you will feel more transparency next year. host: there is a story in ""the wall street journal," about funding certain mechanisms about funding of health care bill operates. how will that change next year? guest: the house republicans will not approve it. they will not put money into those programs. because the house republicans will block spending -- they can't technically originate in the senate, per the

constitution, it will be very difficult for that to happen. house republicans will stick with in the first few few weeks, maybe the first few weeks, will see a major effort to repeal the health care bill. it will be symbolic because i can't imagine harry reid taking that up in the senate. they will go forward and the house will move to repeal the entire lot. the way they can implement -- implement that is by not funding those provisions. if you don't have money, how do you operate? host: what about the health law as a whole? guest: i am not sure. there are lawsuits that are working their way through the courts. i don't know the timing of when one of the lawsuit would end up in the supreme court.

until you actually have the funding to make sure that you have the irs agents making sure that everyone has health care, i don't know how you implement that or enforce it. it is a very good question, one that people want the answer to. i just don't know. i am not sure. host: house republicans used the virginia decision this weekend there is a pending one in florida. guest: they love the decision that came out of the courts in virginia. you will not have to convince senate republicans not to fund this party will not have to convince them to repeal this. basically, it will be a matter of how obama tries to get the money into these programs. honestly, i really don't know. i am not sure. it will be fascinating to watch. host: california, thank you for

waiting on our democrats line, go ahead. caller: good morning. what is your background? i want to ask what state you're from and what college you went to. i will listen to that after i get off the line. marks ed to mention earnm and you talked about that. senator kyl was at the signing of a document yesterday. harry reid, on thursday night, said the senate would stay there until it passed the start treaty. he looks in a quandary when i look at him and nancy pelosi probably just wants to pack up and go home belfast. real fast.

say they are funding the social security trust fund, you hear that the social security trust fund is bankrupt. if that was part of that bill, that is a good question also. guest: ok, my background -- i worked at congressional quarterly for about one year before i started working at the hell covering house republicans. prior to that, i was an off-air reporter -- producer for fox news channel one floor below. based on capitol hill, i cover the house and the senate and i went to university of california-berkeley and i am a history major. in terms of the social security trust fund -- that is the argument that many republicans,

the conservative republicans were making. there is not necessarily a trust fund. you have someone like michelle bachmann who is the darling of the tea party who voted against this bill saying that the provision regarding the tax credit -- the payroll tax credit would be detrimental because she believes that president obama will have to act for a tax increase to make up for the money that they lose by lowering the rates for the payroll tax. that is kind of over my head a little bit because i am not an expert in tax law. i know it is a concern for many conservative republicans. it is one of the reasons why they voted against the bill. that is what i understand host: cell lorton, ore., republican line,. caller: thank you for taking my

call. my country is broke. because we do not have a large enough private work force manufacturing and selling something to the world at large and a profit to pay the taxes to pay the operational expenses of government and the giveaway programs they want to do. they have been borrowing on the giveaway programs since 1936 and now my country's credit card is gone until we put a product -- the private sector to work, manufacturing the needs of the world at a profit that will pay the taxes for operating my country. i thank you for listening. guest: that is another issue that people will be talking about next year, the trade law.

i was talking to fat esmccoter tter and he mccoter represents the major car companies. he said after world war two, the united states felt that they wanted to help germany and japan rebuild. they entered into all these trade deals that were not necessarily the most beneficial for american manufacturers. now, we are at a point where trying to renegotiate these trade deals has become very difficult but it is something that the republicans want to focus on, free trade deals, because they believe it would spur manufacturing in the u.s. which obviously, as the caller said, is a concern. you want your country producing things so you can sell and get

the taxes. that will be an issue that the republicans deal with. i think that is something on -- that the ways and means committees will be dealing with a lot. one of the first hearings of the ways and means subcommittee is ron kirk and he has not been up to capitol hill since he took the office. we will see more of an emphasis on job creation, manufacturing, and talking to the people who are actually in smoke -- implementing those policies. we will finally see those people's before congress next year. that will be refreshing because we can get their point of view. that is something they are working on a host: we have about five minutes with our desperate are democrats aligned, go ahead. caller: how're you this morning?

guest: i'm fine, how are you? caller: i'm fine. this budget -- we are in desperate we have two wars, one in iraq and one of afghanistan and the american people don't like that. we are losing innocent lives over there. how much money are we spending over there? you and everybody knows that afghanistan, it does not make any debra's if we stay there until 2013. when it leaves, it will go back the same way. these people have been fighting for centuries and anybody who wants to strap something to their body and blow somebody up will do it no matter what. they can't be stopped. but, there is no place we can't go in a heartbeat in the world if we are needed. iraq and afghanistan, we are not needed. when we bring them boys home, quit getting them killed, and balance this budget? our congress is about to be a

bunch of republicans who started this. why don't they finish it? that is my question? guest: and it is a good question. it is a very good question. interestingly, republicans who tend to be h defenseawks, they have been talking about making cuts to the defense department. right now, the situation in afghanistan and iraq, not so much in iraq but more so in afghanistan, as been of great concern to members of congress. i think we will see -- basically, any time you have a majority party that is of the opposite party of the administration, you see greater talks across the aisle and i think that they are definitely working on what to do about

afghanistan. nobody is happy with what is going on. host: the house said it passed one of its $60 billion for the war is guest:. yes, the problem is when you have troops over there, you can't just not fund them. this is from the republican perspective. in terms of the actual policies, when you bring people home, where did they go next? the review situation, i think there'll be more discussion across the aisle. host: west virginia, republican laws caller: i am concerned about the dream act. if this is passed and these people are made legal citizens, can they not turn around and bring in their kinfolk?

they may have a stepbrother in mexico. can't they bring those people here and make them citizens, too? it is a never-ending thing as far as i can see. it is nice to see someone come from berkeley, california that can talk with common sense. thank you. guest: well, thanks. in terms of the dream act -- it is a good question. it is a concern i have heard among conservative republicans. but, i think the way the dramatic structure, it is not that simple. i think the dream act -- it is not as easy to become a citizen as it is being portrayed in the media. , at least the media i have been watching. it is obviously a hot-button

issue and one that i don't think republicans will necessarily let die next year. there are many people concerned about it. it is interesting because when i was talking to an outgoing member from florida from cuba, he is one of the only republicans who has been involved in these negotiations on the dream act. he said that behind the scenes, john boehner has been helpful. he is not pessimistic about this issue might go away. in terms of whether it makes it easier for a stepbrother from mexico or where ever to come in, having not read it but talking to lawmakers, i think it would be more difficult. host: has there been anything from lisa murkowski on the senate bill but supporting the

don't ask, don't tell-guest: i heard they might but they are part of that group that would be frustrated about the procedure, the process in which the senate is voting on this. i am not positive host: roswell, ga., independent line. caller: maybe you can explain to the american public more in detail -- for the past seven years, george bush was blamed for quite a bit of the deficit. can you explant who has been in control for the last seven years in congress? the next question is, on the tax gap, eight years of bush, we are looking at about $3 trillion that when un collected. how could this help our country if we went to a fair tax system that was consumer base to?

ed? i think you know the oil in the middle east is important israel and the pro-palestinian groups have rallied around the middle east. once the oil stopped flowing, if israel was to retaliate by conventional means, would stop the oil? take they don't i first part of that about the congress. democrats have been in control of congress for the past four years. when bush was president, a lot of the money spent on afghanistan and iraq were supplemental so they were not part of the budget. when democrats took over, they concluded that spending as part of the budget which made it appear as if democrats increase the budget by billions of dollars when in fact, the money had already been spent on the

republican congress. it was now included in the overall budget document. the fair tax is a great question. i don't know enough about it. israel, i am staying to host: earned. -- i am tun statinged. hooper, thankt:molly you. and about 45 minutes, we will talk about details of the tax cut will block that has been signed, particularly how it has the facts -- how will affect the consumer. , and next, we'll have a discussion about the start treaty that will be debated in the senate. that work is starting today and you can see senate coverage starting today at 9:00 on c- span. frank gaffney will be our guest and you have that discussion after we take a look at the week's news from

political cartoons. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> "washington journal" host: our guest is frank gaffney. the start treaty, as far as your perspective, what should happen with this tree? guest: at the very least, the senate should postpone consideration of this treaty until next year when it has an opportunity to to do the kind of comprehensive hearings and review and debate, informed especially by the actual negotiating record of this treaty.

since we know for certain that there is, at the very least, a distinct disagreement between the united states and russia about its implications for missile defense which is what we saw in the senate yesterday. that is a matter of considerable concern and should be not just the senators but all of us at a time when the threat of ballistic missile attack against the united states and its allies is growing exponentially including most recently, we just learned venezuela will allow iran to based missiles of longer range and its soil. we have no defense against those threats at the moment. that is just one example of the kind of thing, it seems to me, the senate can't possibly do due diligence, its constitutional responsibility in the remaining days of this lame duck session. if the senate, in its wisdom,

the majority leader specifically, if they decide to push it to a vote at this time, the senators have no choice but to voted down. host: one of the arguments i have been hearing on this topic guest: it is an interesting an illustrative example of how the senate foreign relations committee tends to handle these things. i believe there were 12 hearings, something on the order of 20 witnesses, exactly two were critical of the treaty. if you think that is a balanced set of hearings or that is likely to give rise to a fair understanding of what this treaty is all about, then you will want to rubber-stamp this tree. it's like me, you think the senators and the country are entitled to a more rigorous and inform the valuation of the treaty, let's face it, the proponents say it is modest. the critics think it has serious

problems to it. i don't think that was really the take away from the hearings that the foreign relations committee provides. for the senate now to be basically told that you have to take it or leave it, there is not time for more debate, there is not more time for additional hearings are input, you have to just rubber-stamp this, i think that is bad government and not really consistent with the framers view of the constitutional role of the senate in the treaty-making process. host: what are the questions that lead to a more expansive debate on this? guest: let's start with missile defense. the president and his team are insisting this treaty will have no impact on our missile defense plants. for starters, that raises the question as to what our plans are. i would suggest that especially when you have developments like

the venezuela-iran business, our plans may need to change. this treaty and a number of respects limits our ability to make the sorts of changes. if you think about it strictly in the sense of plans, that is one thing. if you think about it as limiting our options, there is no question that the russians intend to do that. they said explicitly that if we make any quantitative or qualitative improvement ♪ calles in our missile defenses,y will regard that as grounds from which drive from the treaty. at the very least, we need to know whether that is a reasonable understanding of the treaty and in the absence of the negotiating record, we're left with nothing more than the administration's say so on this. to be candid, i think there say so is not that good especially since we have learned in the past two or three weeks, they

have all the other set of negotiations under way that they never told the senate about, that they have denied were under way. it really raises questions as to whether verification should apply in host: another argument by senator john kerry was being able to see what is there. here is a bit of what he had to say. >> he asked a question," how do trust russia?" that is precisely why this treaty is so important. the treaty is not built on trust. no one taught us that more than the most famous words from ronald reagan, "trust, but verify." we don't have verification today. we are sitting here with no verification. we are in a fourth position of

"trust." the sooner we get the treaty ratified, the sooner we provide a foundation underneath the important question which is that if you can't trust them, you have to have verification. the point is that you build a relationship even in the worst of times so that your country, our country is more stable and more protected. during the worst of the soviet union, during the worst years of confrontation, we still built up a series of treaties in -- and arms agreements and various other agreements in order to try to tampen down the chance for hostility. our hope is that we can do that as soon as possible here. guest: i am struck by this representation. on the one hand, the president

himself is responsible for them not being any verification in place. he let it lapse one year ago. it never seemed to be a problem or at least a crisis until the rubber-stamp congress or senate was in prospect as perhaps the only chance the president has to get this treaty ratified. it is suddenly a crisis and we have to have it. this conflict with the idea that we severed relations with the russians which is another major theme of why we need to do this. it is getting us there help on iran and other things. i haven't seen all -- a whole lot of help there. beyond that, even the treaties proponents noted that it is modest. one of the things that is particularly modest relative to some of the treaties we have had in the past with the russians and before that the soviet union, are the verification arrangements. they are very limited. what it gives rise to is a

potemkin village effect. catherine the great was diluted by her subset -- subordinates into thinking that all was well with the people of russia because they showed her this marvelous village they created for the purpose of and pressing her. i anticipate we will get something like that. scoop jackson used to say when you have these kind of verification arrangements, very limited and controlled by the russians, you are basically seeing what they want you to see. he likened it to the analogy of the drug dropped his watch in the dark, looking for it under the light because the light is better there. you will not see what is in the dark. you will not see what the russians don't want you to see. we know for an absolute fact that the russians and before

them the soviets have cheated on every treaty they have been involved with with us. although this is not a problem in its own right, these limitations and the control the russians will exercise, we also know that we can be perfectly confident that they will perform according to past practice and cheat. host: if you want to ask questions the phone numbers are on your screen. the first call is from howard are republican line, marietta, california. caller: good morning. thank you very much for being there. i think you just made some news. it was the fact that venezuela and iran are working on some

kind of missile agreement. this could turn into another cuban missile crisis. venezuela is a helluva lot better than cuba. let me ask this question -- it seems that most of the debate in the senate about this agreement is the preamble to the agreement. there seems to be some misunderstanding among republicans and democrats about exactly what the preamble represents. and also how the russians have raised it to create the image that we have to combine our offensive and defensive weapons basically together and the russians will take advantage of that. there has been talk about new missile silos being built and using the old silos and

restrictions of the new silos and putting conventional warheads on ballistic missiles and the russians have a problem with that. i barely have a working knowledge of the debate going on. there seems to be a request on the -- from the republicans to get the transcripts of the negotiations that the president and his negotiators used to determine exactly what was said and who said it. guest: your question is evidence you have been seriously trying to follow this and i commend you. i wish more of our countrymen were being exposed as you have been to the kind of information

that they need to have. frankly, the senate needs to have this to make informed decisions. the business about venezuela and iran is relatively recent news. the fact that it has not appeared more prominently in the press or for that matter in the debate today is troubling. it is one of the examples of the kinds of threats that are developing very this all wikileaks business is underscored about how dangerous the world is. we are approaching this new start treaty with preamble language which clearly links offensive and de force of -- defense of forces in a way that says they are find now, the interrelationship does not undermine strategic stability, but very explicitly indicates that that could be a problem in the future and the russians have said they believe it will be if we make any quantitative or qualitative change.

they have gone on to say that they will withdraw from the treaty. if you have an obama administration that has been as hostile to missile defense, they have cut billions of dollars from our program. they have council deployments in europe. it has made no secret that their plans are very limited indeed. hence, the line in the testimony you have heard that this treaty won't interfere with our plans. when you have that combined with the russians very insistent position that there be no changes, i think it constitutes effectively a veto on missile defense. i should say that in the treaty, there are a number of provisions that do as you have indicated, interfere with our ability to put missile defenses in place where we currently have offensive missiles. in closing, this question of whether there is a fundamental disagreement between the united states and the russians or not or whether the united states

government has effectively said to the russians that they are right and we will not do anything that will make you unhappy with respect a missile defense, this is precisely why we need to see the negotiating record or the senators do and i am happy to hear that the newest senator, mark kirk from illinois has been assisting with the administration. he cannot basically make an informed vote on this tree without studying a bad record. i hope he will stick to that. every senator should be expected to have the opportunity to review that record in order to make informed decisions about a treaty that is deeply problematic. host: had you factor in that senators like senator lugar support the stacks guest: there are senators that supports this on either side. you have a whole host of other people who have lent their names to this thing. my personal experts and

government and i worked in the reagan administration a long time ago, and have been watching these things very closely. the more exulted the position of individuals, cabinet officers, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, even commanders of strategic command, let alone united states senators are very busy people. their personal familiarity with details of agreements like this, let alone how they came to pass, let alone some of the implied it not explores the problems with them, is very limited. they rely on other people to tell them what has gone on here and whether it is a problem. as an example, i would be willing to bet that all of these secretaries of state who have sent letters in and testify, i bet none of them has taken a briefing on so on -- on the defects of history.

they have relied entirely on the government's position and their presentation. that is what the senate is being served up because it is not being given an opportunity to take any other information aboard. i used to work in the senate, too. i worked for senator jackson and senator tower. distinguished senators are spinning in their graves because the constitution of the united states says that the senate's role as being a quality control mechanism on treaties -- i think the framers may well have had a treaty like this in mind in the broader sense -- they would be horrified that in a lame-duck session -- there were no lame duck sessions back in the day -- there were certainly no reason to believe that the senate, which is opposed to a vote on a 2/3 majority basis, that is the kind of high threshold the framers had in mind for a treaty-making -- are

being forced to accede to a range as that denied them the ability for them to do their constitutional duty. i think the american people should be furious about this. host: when it left the foreign relations committee, there were only four nays? guest: that is true. that was a stack the deck in terms of the hearings. we have factories that have not had any critics of all. every single one of the members of the senate foreign relations committee voted to have treaties reported. what do you expect if they are not given a full, balanced information to make judgments? it is hardly surprising that you get these kind of lopsided votes. the membership of that committee is somewhat better than it used to bait. the membership is basically

fairly left-leaning. this has been historically a problem. it is unfortunate that it is reinforced by the way the chairman of the committee, sometimes the ranking member as well, have run the committee. host: new mexico, are democrats blind. think youreally don't have much of any credibility given year history of support for the iraq invasion, didn't you trying to get people to believe that saddam hussein was involved in 9/11 and even the oklahoma city bombing. you are one of the neo conservatives who is bankrupting this country, trying to support a worldwide empire. i find that you have absolute zero credibility.

guest: i have always regarded ad hominem attacks as reinforcing my point that we need to have more debate about things like this treaty. i would have the to the debate on another occasion the points you raised. my fear is that far from having an american empire, we are at the press as of moving back into a position of somewhat isolationist view that will not only greatly intensify the dangers this country is facing, but cost is vastly more than being prepared as ronald reagan used to say using the philosophy of restraint to avoid the sorts of wars that we have entered into historically. i fundamentally disagree with you. host: republican line, arizona.

caller: i had spent the day listening to the senate debate as assaultsii treaty and your remarks were very one-sided you may as well have been one of the republican senators talking. you failed to mention bad virtually all the joint chiefs of staff all agree that the treaty should be passed and passed now. the last was the general who had a -- who was a career expert on nuclear weaponry. he gave his blessing to the treaty. a number of well-known people as well. the republicans disagreed with it. overall, the arguments presented by the republicans on the

preamble that they interpreted as inhibiting the united states from developing star wars enter- ballistic systems if the need would arise in the future. that is not an agreement and it is contrary to what the negotiators negotiated when they negotiated the treaty with the russians. the russians found no objection to an antiballistic missile system that was already in place and working. characterizing the russians as not being able to trust them and they lie -- i know you want to say dirty communist but you cannot call them that any more. guest: i think i touched on the

fact that a number of eminences in the and out of office like the joint chiefs of staff have endorsed this treaty. i stand by my earlier position which is that i think the further you get away from actually firsthand experience with these issues, the more you tend to rely on other people. especially when you are concerned with other issues having to do with the military. i think this is the kind of thing which is the sorts of issues that should be the subject of much more balanced set of hearings and much more fulsome debate in the senate and before there is a ratification vote. ve indeed saidave envi

that they are happy to have nothing more than a very limited, quite modest, and largely irrelevant missile defense capability to the sorts of threats that are now beginning to develop. it is indeed iran and venezuela, have they put missiles capable of reaching the united states in venezuela, we do not have defenses against those in place at the moment. i think the russians would almost certainly regard putting that in place as evidence of the kind of quantitative or qualitative improvement they say will cause them to withdraw from the treaty. if they have grounds for doing that, we need to know that now. without negotiating record, we won't know that. while we focused on missile boat -- missile defense, there are a number of other problems that i would think the joint chiefs of staff would be concerned about. for example, there is a 10-1

advantage on the russian side right now in terms of what our tactical nuclear weapons. anyone that is hit with one of these tactical nuclear weapons will not know any difference between that and strategic nuclear weapons. our allies are a threat from these and vladimir putin is as dangerous as the communists were in their day. he harkens back to that. i think he lusts to restore a productive soviet union. he is moving tactical nuclear weapons closer to our allies in a transparent effort to intimidate them. this is at the same time we seem to be weakening our strategic position. this is for the betterment of russia's strategic interest and the detriment of hours.

these are the sorts of things that we can debate here longer if we had a chance. we shall certainly see it debated fully before there is a vote in the united states senate on this tree and that can't happen if, as currently is the case, the administration and the senate leadership on the democratic side, at least, is determined to try to drive this thing into a very near term votes after a very truncated debate. i think it is irresponsible and could be quite reckless. host: are the votes there? guest: i don't think they are there this minute. the boat is not being taken this minute. my sense is that a number of senators are increasingly upset at the way this lame duck session is being run and the extent to which legislation clearly would pass in the next session. i think it probably wouldn't

pass if there were proper debate on including the so-called " don't ask, don't tell" legislation and the dream act are being jammed through. that reinforces the point i am making which this is no way to run a railroad. if you try to railroad the united states senate, they cannot do their job as the world's greatest delivered to body. . .

i mean, the political of the start treaty -- first negotiating by a republican president shows how far you guys have gone over the last how many years? so, i mean, the ability to being able to verify how many hydrogen bombs the other nation on the planet has had the greatest number of hydrogen bombs has, this successful, you know, going there to russia and investigating and having -- this is -- you have politicized this and turned this into a political negotiating chip to me as an

independent, it's just, i mean, nauseating and again, how you can say that this is, that you are behaving in a way which is putting nation over political party. i mean, i just want to thank you because you're living proof of why a third party candidate is a viable alternative. >> we'll leave it there. guest: and i have to say, i personally as a men who worked for democrats and republicans feel strongly that this should be non-partisan. i'd like to think that this should be beyond politics. we should not be in a situation which a democratic control ed congress is not trying to force the ratification of a treaty that when the senate is reconstituted in january would almost certainly require

improvements be made to the treaty, not because of partisanship but because it is deflect activity. there are serious deficiencies to it. we will not know how many. we will not know where they are. we will not be able to count them. we will not have as modern as arsenal are they. they will have, i believe, a veto over our missile defenses. there is not a genuine reset in relations. if the president of the united states of america see this treaty and i can assure you its approval by the senate should that happen as validation of his belief that the united states needs to set an example of denuclear san diego for the rest

of the world. denuclear rising the united states whether it's through dramatic arms cuts like he's proposing here or more worrying to me, quite frankly is through the atrophying of our arsenal that he and, again, this is not a partisan defense, george bush and bill clinton before him and george herbert walker bush before them all allowed it to happen. the atrophying of our arsenal. do you know that we have weapons today that are on average 30 years old? that's our arsenal. they've not been tested realistically for over 18 years. there has been no modernization of these weapons for about 15 years.

>> we need to have a viable safe effective and reliable nuclear deterrent. the president has said he thinks we may see it for the foreseeable future. he's not providing for it. that's troubling. the senate has not been given an opportunity to properly evaluate that by being jammed up against christmas in what i think is a very partisan effort and your criticism is miss placed and finding fault with me about this. host: off of twitter. a viewer asked -- guest: i think the chinese are under no illusion that we are deliberately con strange the compatibilities of our missile defense so as not to be able to counter their growing missile

threat. this treaty does nothing, nothing, to minimize the threat that china is going to pose in the future. it does nothing to deal with the north korean or the iranian or syrian or pakistani nuclear threats. we are looking in short as a construct that says let's go back to that old cold war sort of paradigm with two super pours and we'll just fixate on those when it's a very different world and one of my concerns i have to tell you is the kinds of cuts that are -- with the russians again, would be an invitation to the chinese to accelerate the build-up of their nuclear program and i think establish themselves unmistakably as a superpower which i think will probably translate into a more

aggressive china and one that is a bigger problem for all of us. host: forth laud, dale. democrats line. caller: i have a short state. i would like to know who funded organization. my statement is people like -- in this world is what cause so much conflicts. -- all over the world. you know? [inaudible] and a build-up -- that the world is going, you know? host: we'll leave it there. guest: my organization is funded by charitable contradictions -- contribution, mostly from individuals. it's something i hope those of you who think what i'm saying is actually sensible will think about supporting, particularly before the end of the year.

again, attacks against me don't alter the facts or the merits of the case i'm making, i believe, and though extent that the american people are exposed to these facts, i think most of them, certainly not all, but most of them will find it deeply troubling that we're at the cusp of getting into a treaty that again, will leave the other people with a treaty thousands more nuclear weapons than we have and that the ranking republican on the intelligence committee in the senate has said unverifiable, that's the case, that we'll in fact give the russians the grounds for believing they can have a veto over missile defense that rewards the russians for behavior that i think objectively is not reset in the sense of being reliable partners with us. they are arming, you talk about the world being -- going wacko, it is an important respects

becoming more dangerous in part because the russians are arming virtually every bad guy no the teeth. these are the sorts of things that i believe should inform decisions whether this treaty should be undertaken. let's just say for the purpose of discussion that the senate should evaluate these sorts of questions carefully. if they can't do it properly in this lame duck session, they shouldn't be asked to vote on it in this lame duck session. and i hope there will be at least 34 senator who is feel that way and that we'll ensure this treaty gets the full deliberation and consideration and yes, improvements that it really requires to keep it from being a start to surrender, which i think it may will become if we're not careful. host: a reduction to strategic warheads to 1550. it would limit both nations to no more than 700 delivery vehicles.

-- warsaw, indiana. ken on the republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i've got a couple of questions and a couple of comments and this is certainly not a political side of things. i have a data to -- if the russian negotiators knew that the united states senate needed to ratify this treaty, then they must have known that there would be questions raised and amendments made to the treaty. last night i watched without hesitation, all of the debate and i have a couple of comments. the preamble to this treaty apparently is a big sticking point with many of the senators on the republican side. senator graham made a very good point last night and indicated

that if the preamble was supposedly not really an important part of the treaty, but yet, if the preable de -- preamble was to be changed from favor of the united states that the russians would walk away are the treaty and close the door and be done with it and we wouldn't have a treaty. host: weave have to -- we'll have to leave it there. guest: it's one of the inis and sis that's the proponents are making. the reason that the preamble has received so much attention is it is quite explicit that there's a linkage there between the offensive forces and the defensive forces. the administration is now saying and senator kerry and other supporters are saying that it's just language. as my friend andy mccarthy, one of the brilliant observers of political life and national security i think in the country today said in the fourth of

december the administration also has an internal inconsistency because they've attached enormous importance in the health care debate which was, you may remember, the thing they were jamming through in the lame duck session the last time. this is the kind of standard operating procedure that i think brought us a defective health care bill but in the course of that debate, they said the pretty wellable of the constitution which declares that it is the obligation is the basis upon they've built this edifice of health care program for the government either preambles are binding or they're not. and if they're not, then changing it to make it clear that we don't believe the current version of that preamble which will restrict missile defense because the russians have insisted that it will is a

reason for this treaty not to be supported. it was not changed from the senate yesterday. it's another reason of why i hope at least 34 senators will say to the president this treaty is not ready for primetime. we will not support it. we will take a look at it next year. host: jeff, from independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. my name is jeff. i want to thank mr. gaffney for service to the country. i consider him a patriot. guest: thank you. caller: and i spent 20 years in the united states army. i'm a retired drill sergeant. and my concern is that i don't know a lot about the stark treaty and i know it's an important treaty but i concern is just like mr. gaffney said they're trying to run the church. why can't as a country with democratic principle actually, you know, debate the issue

rather than trying to ram it down our throat before a deadline when they could have done this quite some long time ago? so it just -- you know, i used to be a republican. i went independent republican. i'm so confused now. i don't know where to go because principle are being left to whatever people are dropping their principle just to politicize every event that comes up in our country. it's absolutely ridiculous. host: thanks, caller. guest: jeff, thank you for your service. i would say that as you've indicated, we are in a position where we should not allow this thing to be rammed through. 11 of the newly elected senators have formerly asked the leadership of the senate not to ram this through, to give them an opportunity. since this treaty will be implemented on their watch to say whether it in fact masses

muster. the reason why this treaty was not brought to the senate for action before now, let's be clear is because i believe the administration calculated it could get it through if it did in fact jam it up against christmas. and, you know, the old adage, you want it bad, you get it bad is going to apply it here as well. newt gingrich has written a powerful letter saying if you know going into a contract or a treaty in this case, that the two parties have at the very least a fundamental disagreement about what the contract says, you have an obligation to sort that out before you sign the contract. it's malpractice for lawyers to do otherwise and i think it's malpractice for the senate to do otherwise. we've got plenty of time. the kinds of verification concerns or monitoring issues that we're hearing so much about now which have been with us for the past year can be lived with into next year if need be but

it's too important to get this right. to have the senate do that and that's calculatedly what's going on here. host: manhattan, new york, you're the last caller for frank gaffney. guest: thank god the man final lie li stopped talking. mr. gaffney, you sound like a frustrated individual, ok? you sound like all you want to do is get rid of obama. the bottom line is to anybody and everybody, the treaty is not a new treaty. this has been done since reagan. so the thing is, all they want is obama not to be able to do this stark treaty so you can look back and you're worrying about christmas vacation? that takes away all your credibility right there using christmas as an excuse as to why these guys who get paid should not be working for who? the united states. so yes, we do need a treaty

because we need peace, mister. peace in the world. host: we'll leave it there. guest: i think historically, we've seen that when the united states airs by demonstrating weakness or being perceived as weak at the very least, it doesn't con deuce to peace. it brings us war. this treaty is not ronald reagan's treaty. william clark and former counselor to the president and a host of others who have very, very intimate knowledge of nuclear weapons issues dating back to the reagan administration have said this treaty should not be considered in this session and urge that it not be precisely because it does not in fact conform the legacy of ronald reagan in a meaningful way. yes, it's all about arms control

but there's been very defective arms treaty and there's been somewhat better ones and i'm afraid this falls in the defective category. in closing, i'm not bringing christmas into this. harry reid is and it's a cynical thing to be using the fact that members understandably want to be home with their family for christmas. yes, they get paid and it's an important job they do. but they are people and they would like to be home for christmas. it's a scandal, sir. it is a travesty and it is i'm afraid con deucing to real dirninge the country that christmas and the holidays are being used as a means of for closing the sort of debate we should have to establish whether this treaty is in fact going to con deuce to peace as we all hope it would or make things more dangerous for america. host: frank gaffney with the center for security policy, thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: we're going to hear from jim tankersley. he's going to talk to you about

the new tax cut law and what it means for you, they consumer. if you have questions about it, that will be your chance to call and talk with him. before we do that, we want to play you a little bit of televised interview we did with supreme court with sell lean kay again. -- celine kay again. -- kagan. she will tell you what she became an attorney. >> i think i became a lawyer for all the wrong reasons. i was a law school dean and i used to tell people all the time, don't go to law school just because you don't know what else to do. but the truth was that's why i went to law school because i wasn't sure what i wanted to do and i believed all these things about keeping your options open and being a degree that you could use for anything and i wasn't at all sure that i wanted to practice law when i started law school. but i thought well, you know,

what could be wrong with having a law degree and deciding it? and when i got into law school, what i was amazed to find was that i absolutely loved law school and studying law. in the way that i don't think that i had loved any other part of my academic experience. i had always been a good student but i hadn't ever felt that kind of just passion for a subject matter. so i liked thinking about law. i liked -- i liked that law was something which was both an intellectual challenge and puzzle but also had very real world consequences so that you could think about what you were using in order to make the world a better place, in order to make people's lives better. so i found it endlessly interesting and challenging and, you know, in the end, i think i went to law school for the wrong reasons but i was very glad i got there. >> "washington journal" continues. host: and jim tankersley joins

us from national journal. if i'm a consumer looking at what happened yesterday at the signing, what does it mean immediately for me? guest: it means a lot of things. the most important thing is your taxes don't go up next year. whether you're a middle class american or a wealthy american. no one's income tax rates go up. but there's other benefits too for workers, you have your social security contribution is cut by the government, your payroll tax. so you're be paying less than that depending on how much of a break you get there. and then of course the third thing as an unemployed american would look at it is unemployment insurance has been extended for another 13 months. working americans get a pay cut. unemployed americans get additional benefits for more than a year and everyone keeps their taxes from going up. host: the rates will stay the same as far as the next two years are concerned than what we've seen over the past? guest: absolutely. bush tax cuts they're called. the rates put in place in 2001

and 2003 are extended for two more years. host: and with the unemployment insurance benefit, you said it goes for another 13 months. guest: yes. host: and so tell little bit -- so it means that whoever's getting assistance every month, that means no stopping. no persons could be added on to the roll. guest: estimated seven million americans who will be eligible now or have exhausted their eligibility for unemployment benefit who will not lose their benefits now because of this extension. host: so the remainder of our time for this morning is going to be for you, the folks at home who want to ask about the signing of the tax cut law or -- yesterday, and to more specifically find out what it means for you. so if you have other questions, here's your chance to do so. it is --

>> what other things that -- we've talked so much about this over the last couple of weeks. maybe some things that haven't come though forefront that would be interest for the folks at home to know about. guest: sure. there are little tax cut changes. if you have a child in college, there's a college tuition credit. $2,500 credit that continues. there is the child tax credit in general, $1,000 per child that continues. and if you happen to have a stake the ethanol company, this is a good thing for you because the ethanol tax break is continued as well. host: one of the things that has been discussed over the years and you could see some of the information that we put on the screen there, just gives you a little bit of a bullet point idea of what's going on. but one of the things that's been talked about was this a.m.t. thing. seems like this kicksed down the line as far as doing permanently

about it but it's always done on temporary basis. can you expand on that? guest: sure. it's a patch. it's not like they've gone ahead and fixed the growing hole. the problem is is that every year, they number of people who would be forced to pay the alternative minimum tax which is a different way of calculating taxes, every year, that number of folks who have to pay it grows. and congress every year takes some emergency action to keep the number from growing and so that's included in this deal too. and i think that's going to be a big -- that's one of the big drivers. we may see some fundamental tax reform over the next few years. host: how do i know if i'm going to be hit under a.m.t. or not guest: that's a great question and i would refer you to an accountant. host: [laughter] guest: the problem is there's an income threshold for it and as inflation continues to go up, people continue to burst through that income threshold who really, the tax was never designed for.

so the idea is that now they'll be shielded again from having to actually pay it. host: and if i understand it correctly, the a.m.t. was designed for whom at the very beginning? it probably wasn't the average person. guest: yeah. it's for wealthier taxpayers finding ways to avoid paying taxes. the a.m.t. was an idea to force them to pay their fair share and it was never imagined as middle class alternative minimum tax. host: so we have calls lined up for you. but did want to let you know that on -- in the senate side today, they came in at 9:00. there's work currently being done on the dream act. that and don't ask don't tell today. let's take 30 seconds or so to see what's happening in the senate and then we will continue on with our session. the presiding officer: the senator used 14 minutes. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that now the senator from oregon be recognized for 3 minutes and then i be recognized for 6

minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i would like to have you amend that to include me to have ten minutes following your remarks. mr. levin: mr. president, i would request that. the presiding officer: without host: again, key preel votes on the dream act will take place and on the military's don't ask don't tell policy. we started at 9:00. you can don't watch on c-span 2 if you're interested from watching there. but houston, texas you are up first. patty on the democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call and i'm so glad i got in. i would like to ask you gentlemen straight up here. for eight years, i mean, what did the tax cut for the rich, you know, if you pay more tax, you will have more money for the

federal government. i don't understand this. and i'm understanding why is it that you know, if the poor have lost so many jobs and everything, and, you know, the rich -- but if the poor have their jobs and i'm glad they have this. they can't extend it because they can extend their jobs. [inaudible] ever since bush got in, the wall and everything. and if the poor have the job, they're going to buy the rich people's material because all -- like the -- like wal-mart. you know, they are going to working now after everybody's rich and they won't have nobody to work to then to buy it. if they have a job, they're going to buy it. host: ok. we'll leave it there. guest: so i think the question is what are the tax cuts for the

wealthy do for the economy over the last 10 years and what would extending them do for the economy now? the answer tends to vary depending on whether you come at from it a more liberal or conservative side. conservatives have argued that the tax cut, they money from those that goes into the hands of the wealthy then turns into job creation that people who make more money create more jobs, which then puts more people to work. democrats, more liberals they shall president argued this in his campaign said that the facts are minimal and that it's not worth the money to the federal deficit to extend those tax cuts. what the congressional budget offense found in an analysis of the bush tax cuts was that there would be some small stimulative effect of extending those cut it was, the next two years both for the wealthy and for the middle class but that benefit would be counteracted down the line by the extended -- the increased deficit that would be added to

the country's mounting debts. and so short stimulus from in the cuts, long-term problems from the deficit, their additions to the deficit. host: off of twitter -- guest: yeah, well, what will happen is that for 13 more months, the current system stays in place and people who will be -- folks will be now be able to stay on their roll. the federally funneled portion of this -- it's a lot of money and this is one of the arguments to go back to the c.b.o., they argue that this is one of the better stimly you can put into the economy because this puts money into the hands of people who will extend it. if you're annoyed, you're very unlikely to save your unemployment benefits. you're going to save it. host: off of twitter --

guest: that's an important provision of this bill. the estate tax doesn't exist but it was scheduled to come back at the levels before all the bush tax cuts went into place at the start of next year. the compromise that the president and republicans have reached and one of the things that has made democrats most upset about this tax deal is that the estate tax will come back but at a fairly low level. it will be 35% tax with exemptions of $5 million for individuals, $10 million for families the first $10 million you will inherit are exempt from taxation. .

host: states fell, n.c., on our republican line. caller: god bless america. people who are 60-61 years old, how will taxes be paid into social security? will we get less monthly income when we retire at 62? guest: this will not affect any

type of social security benefits. that is what is explicitly what the bill says pretty general treasury will back the social security fund. down the line, of course, that money comes from a large pot and it adds to the mounting federal debt problems which could affect social security. to be very clear, for anyone looking to retire soon, this payroll tax cut will not affect your benefit. host: on our independent line, jasper, alabama. go ahead and turn off the television. caller: i have one question. what about the people on disability? will they get a $250 check this year or not? guest: i don't know that

disability -- i don't know if disability was covered under the deal. i wish i had an answer for you, i'm sorry. host: lexington, kentucky, republican line. caller: hello, i am wondering the effect on senior citizen and other type of subsidized housing. thank you. guest: can you be more specific? caller: it was in the bill and i heard it once on the floor. somebody was saying that there might be a fact. is there a change in the amount that is designated toward senior citizen housing or other types of subsidized housing? guest: what i know about this is there is a continuation of energy efficiency that affects different types of housing

including a federally- subsidized ones. that may be what was being discussed on the floor. that is a continuation of benefits for energy-efficiency retrofits for housing. guest: the earned income tax credit is a tax credit to help lower income americans. these are very working-class americans and it will continue to fund a large outlay from the government for essentially a tax credit ended is refundable so people who don't even pay -- who do not have federal tax liabilities are able to receive money back from a cash transfer from the government to the working class even if you don't have federal tax liabilities. that is extended by this deal host: new york, thank you for waiting. caller: i would like to give a hug to jim tankersley.

he said the super rich, in the long run, tax cuts for the very, very super rich don't create jobs. let me give you a statistic that he did not get rive. a report was released by the government in october that set in 2009, the top 100 earners averaged $91 million in income. that is not assets or net worth. that was their annual salary in 2009. i'm reading this out of "newsday, it quintupled, more than quintupled on average to an average $590 million. -- $519 million. one year salary.

those people do not need a tax cut. if it caused the creation of jobs, they have been getting this cut for 10 years. we have lost jobs. did not create a single job. that will bother me. these people get a tax cut at $590 million income, that is not right. the extension was two years. only one year for unemployment. the 99ers - who had to only pay for 99 weeks. host: we will let him tackle what he can. guest: i always accept dogs. hugs. the congressional budget office said there is some benefit to

gdp which would translate into some additional jobs for extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. the congressional research service which is a nonpartisan research body in washington calculated on the last 10 years of the bush tax cuts and found that either they had done nothing to boost the economy because if you look at the economic growth the last 10 years, it was minimal compared to other ticket -- decades come or if they boosted the economy and kept things from being much worse but that was almost impossible to tell based on the data. it is like the argument over the economic stimulus pret. the democrats argue that kept things from getting worse. the republicans said it help to the american economy not suffer worse than it did. many democrats and liberal

economists would say that what happened is that the bush tax cuts did not spur economic growth and. host: sun city, arizona, republican line. caller: don't cut the of. 15% capital gains tax is only a long-term dairy you have to hold a stock for one year or more. if i do the research and invest and take the chance of a loss, i think i am entitled to that. the poor only produce one thing -- more awards for the state. obama said he will cut the capital gains tax for businesses. business don't make capital gains. they make profits. the 2% of the wealthy that everybody is crying about actually do something. 10% of the people who are gay want to change the whole society. when you have your cg graphics,

it would be nice to put whether the person is republican, democrat, or independent not just where they are from. host: go back to the capital gains issue. guest: 50% is an extension of what had been the law. -- 15% is an extension of what had been block. if that rate had gone up, you would have seen real changes in the way people do the stock market and the stock market could have suffered. you would have seen the start of mergers and acquisition activity because people would not to pay these huge capital gains taxes. there is concern that that would have led to less job creation in the economy. to be fair, there has been concern about every change in the taxation rates across all class is that could affect this economy. the economy is very fragile and the concern is tremendous across the board. host: memphis, tenn., democrats

line, good morning. caller: i am a retired disabled or railroad worker and a veteran. i pay only $39 taxes. we get raised every year. this railroad is owned by the canadians and they are hiring everything. we have not got a race for the last two years. will these tax cuts mean we won't get a raise, too? guest: i am not sure. it will be up to individual companies to decide what they do about raises. i know inflation has been stagnant -- stagnant for the last year. there's a problem with wages and they are not rising very costs of rising and there is a worry about deflationary. . i am not sure if you will get a

raise and i'm not sure if the rest of the country will get raises but many unions have to negotiate wage concessions. it is a fragile economy. until we start seeing much stronger growth, we will probably not see the income growth and employment growth that everyone is hoping for. host: there is a story today that 13. for taxpayers may be getting a tax bill because they were making too much under the pay tax credit. can you tell us about that program? guest: making work pay is the program that the president tried in the stimulus to get money on the noticed into the paychecks of working-class americans, 95% of americans. under this tax deal, that is being replaced by this payroll tax cut. that is in part because there is concession among the obama economists that maybe it did not have the stimulus to the fact he

wanted. people did not notice they were getting it and i did not have the political impact. a majority of americans thought their taxes went up under obama even though the majority of american taxes have gone down under obama. for political and economic reasons, they are taking out that tax credit from this deal and replacing it with a payroll tax cut which is easier for people to understand, i think. host: independent line, go ahead. caller: i'd like to talk about the payroll tax. this is a tax that the people that make over $106,000 this year will stop paying, i think. i figure should be more of a fair tax. middle income people pay this tax their entire life. i think they should take the cap off and make everybody pay under earned income their entire life, thank you.

guest: that is an interesting point that you will probably see more debate about in the coming couple of years as a country starts to shift into a serious congressional discussion about what to do with the budget deficit. it is part of a package of proposals that various groups have suggested could be used to shore up the solvency of social security down the line. the idea that everyone continues to pay payroll taxes regardless of income. you add more money to social security trust fund very the counter argument is that people who make that much money tend not to rely much on social security benefits. it is one of the ideas out there along with raising the retirement age and changing the formulas of how benefits are calculated that are being raised as we start to think about how do we close this budget deficit that we have that will get worse down the line and which could be a serious drag on growth that is only exacerbated by this tax

deal. host: the $2,500 college tax credit? guest: this is a tax credit that if you have someone in college, you can't take credit for their books, tuition. this was in the stimulus and will be continued in the bill. host: and the kids? ? guest: that was still the $1,000. caller: can you hear me? good morning. you hear all these people talking about the super rich don't need tax relief. it is not even a tax cut. is the same thing. -- it is the same thing. when the congressman yesterday said that people like wal-mart and the campbell's soup co. and all these big-time names don't need this. how many people do these people

employed? ? why they think like that. i am as poor as anything. i was in a bad car accident at a young age. i am disabled and i broke my neck. i still don't understand how these people think like this. i don't know. i will leave it at that, thank you. guest: there are two competing economic theories at work. what is the idea that no matter how people are, you give them more money, it will create jobs. other people are not spending on the economy. right now in the economy, we are seeing a vacuum of demand. we are just not saying the consumer spending we need to create jobs. how'd you get that?

do you get that by giving businesses more certainty and your regulations as the republicans have argued to they can employ more people? will they spend more money? or do you try to get more money in the hands of consumers. the argument is that the poor and middle class would have more incentive to spend and would pump that money back into the economy. that is a fair question. host: new york, democrats line, good morning. caller: my question is about the possibility of a stimulus for the people on disability, social security disability and elderly people. we did not get a raise last year and we will not get a raise this year. is there anything that can be done for us who really need it? we don't seem to be getting anything. guest: i think you are fork -- referring to the cost of living

in social security. it has been so low it as not trigger the automatic increase. there are movements in congress to try to spend extra to send a bonus or a raise, if you will, to social security recipients. i don't frankly know what the prospects are of that happening in the next congress. republicans will control the house that want to cut spending as opposed to increase spending. the trade-off is that some economists argue that inflation bears and more highly on senior citizens. cathey might need a raise to keep up with their costs. more conservative economists have said that costs are not going up that much so it does not make sense to spend more money. it will be a political argument

in the next congress. host: how does that help me if i bought new equipment as a business? guest: if it is in the expensing provision, the president has been pushing for this but this is a republican idea and it could be quite stilted. they want to allow businesses to take tax credits now for buying new equipment and investing in things to accelerate investment corporate america is sitting on close to $2 trillion dollars. it freed up for investment and hiring could provoke a massive private stimulus to the economy. to the extent this could unleash some of that money, this accelerated expensing provision, that could be a big boon to the economy. host: this goes to 50% in 2012? guest: it is trying to pack is in now instead of over the next two years host: san diego, our

republican line, good morning. caller: i can't tell you how much i love the rich and i will tell you why. san diego has many extra wealthy people. i have several friends who create jobs. oran't pay for landscaping have a house cleaning in a smaller way. the big way is these were very wealthy people built a huge center in the poorest section of our county. it is for kids. it is beautiful. think of all the construction people that were paid had of those donations. children's hospital is the same. these people have millions of dollars and they do some good with it. in big and small ways. thank you very much, gentlemen i am not wealthy.

bless their hearts. i hope they are always with us, thank you. definition, one's $22,000 per year is not rich and the financial sense. you make a good point about charitable donations. this is one of the things that we can see emerges as a flash point when we talk about the deficit which will be the next big political fight over the economy now that we are done with this tax cut deal. there is a move to reform the tax law, to reduce everyone's rights and end up removing the deductions for charitable donations. that could have a major impact on the sort of public goodwill projects you were discussing. this will be part of the debate moving forward and it will be interesting to watch. there are trade-offs involved with getting rid of tax credits that induce sociable behavior

host: also homeownership and kids? guest: exactly. host: fla., independent line. caller: good morning. god bless america and merry christmas, cspan. all those that voted for this supposedly extending tax cuts should be voted out of office. we had a historic election on november 2. the people sent a message very clearly to congress, to our government, and to the nation -- stop spending, no new taxes, reduce the size of government, create opportunity for small business. this does not of that. debt.creates a desperap

double taxation on wealth and money earned on the estate tax. government does not create wealth, it, the state -- it confiscates well. that is what they are doing. let's get rid of that estate tax totally. more businesses and estates were lost to the irs through the estate tax then was lost during the great depression. check it out. host: you put a lot out there. guest: you mentioned some competing messages of the american public sent to the congress. most political analysts would agree that the american public wants lower spending, lower taxes, and lower deficits. if you put all three of those together, you don't necessarily make that ledger balance. if you keep reducing taxes, even if you spend a little bit less

or a lot less but if you spend less, you have to cut entitlement benefits which both parties have been very cautious about doing, if you do those things, you still have a big deficit problem. the more you reduce taxes, the more the deficit goes up. you probably can't just compensate by reducing discretionary spending. you cannot, you will have to touch entitlements. the other factor is the economy. if the economy is not growing, the deficit will grow. what they are trying to do in congress is to spur more growth to get the economy back on track so they can address the big deficit problem. everyone in washington as chalk this up as an issue that voters care about. host: new york, new york, democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. i am wondering what is the

effect on the economy with this trickle-down? host: keep going caller: i wondered about the economy and how this trickle-down will have an effect? with [inaudible] host: you are here is feedback from the television. go ahead . caller: this trojan horse trickle-down economy had an effect from ronald reagan's term in office. bill clinton came in and fixed it and then you had the bushes and now you have the regulation. and the crash. we're now going back to trickle- down. how will that work? guest: i don't think you are

getting any more trickle-down than you had in the last decade. all this does is extend a whole bunch of things, tax cuts that were done 7-10 years ago. what you also have seen over the last few years is an attempt at keynesian economics. that is big government spending during a recession to launch consumption and pull the country out of a depression. this package combines both. it is looking to do keynesian stimulus with unemployment benefits, tax cuts across the board for payroll, and some of the trickle-down theory with tax cuts for the wealthiest people. host: the president talked about how we can do this now but in two years, we will have this fight again. what you see in two years to

reverse this extension? guest: this is the big political question of the next election cycle. both sides think they have a winner. the republicans think they have trekked obama to play on their turf for the 2012 election. he will have to run against these tax cuts which will expire again. they think they have a good they want lower taxes per the president believes the american people will say the economy is doing better and that people will want the tax cuts to expire. he thinks that people will want him to have this fight. it probably depends on who is the winner on that and who sends the message best. the president consistently makes the case and the american public, given the choice is, would prefer to keep the middle

class tax cut and let the ones for the wealthy expiry. if he brings it that way, he probably wins the argument. if you for a modest tax cuts for everybody or nobody, the republicans win that argument. if they can send a bad message than the president over the next two years on a binary choice, they could win. that's what make this an interesting battle. it has begun now the president has signed into law for both sides to claim the high road. host: alabama, republican line,. caller: you are talking about taxes. many people don't realize that the united states now leads in the highest taxes in the world. about the rich people -- why do we have to tax them more than anybody else?

another thing -- when 43% of the workers in this country get a tax credit, they get all the money paid to tax is back and they get another check for $1,000 more for what? they got their money back that they paid in taxes. they are not entitled for more money. from the other taxpayers. guest: i think you are referencing the corporate tax rate. yes, japan's scheduled corporate tax cut will leave the united states as having the highest corporate tax -- tax rate in the world. we have among the highest tax collections in the world. most businesses don't end up paying anywhere near the top tax rate. rate.