taxes. we turned a short fall into a surplus. we acted fiscally responsible in richmond and that is what republican governors from medicine to tallahassee to albuquerque are doing right now. they are at risk of being undermined by the irresponsible policies from washington. chief among those, the passage of the federal health care bill. on like states, families, and businesses the federal government does not have to balance its budget. that unfortunate reality of leads to policies like the federal health care bill that push expenses, unfuned and unsustainable projects on to the rest of us. washington passes the law and expects us to balance the books. one year after the federal health care bill was rammed through congress in partisan vote, we now see it as more to do with expanding controlled by the federal government and action reforming our health care

system. the 2700 page legislation simply will not work. it creates a new bureaucracy and could cost us and fewer jobs and lost opportunities. the laws shifts billions on to state government. enrich requirements restrict the governor's ability to manage state programs. that is a prescription for serious problems at the state level where much of this plan must be implemented. the federal health care bill dramatically expands medicaid, which was already growing at unsustainable rates. in virginia alone, state spending on medicaid has grown by 1600% over the past 27 years. the program accounts for 21% of our entire general fund and is projected to grow another 26% between 2012 and 2016. under the federal health care

bill virginia will be forced to spend $2 billion more on medicaid between 2014 and 2022. the more spending required for medicaid entitlements, the less money available for roads schools, law enforcement and higher education. the more mandates on employers though less jobs they can create. this federal law will lead to painful decisions that will impact every american. the federal health care bill is not only a budget buster, it is also unconstitutional. virginia, like the majority of states, is challenging this legislation in court. already, a federal district court judge has ruled in or favor. including the provision that virginia citizens must purchase insurance or face a penalty is unconstitutional. courts are split. it will case that will be ultimately decided by the supreme court. but now the very same administration that was in set a

rush to pass the bill, is in no hurry to find out it is legal. the legal issues must be settled promptly by the court to create certainty and fidelity for health care providers businesses, and all americans appeared shockingly, the obama administration opposes an expedited appeal to the supreme court, performing the potential for years of costly litigation in lower courts. regardless of party, the sooner we know of the law is constitutional, the better for the american people. also, how we can all agree that we must make our health care system more affordable, accessible, and accountable. republican governors are on the front lines of this effort. we believe that the best way to do that is too rigid by repealing this burdensome and your credit bill and replacing it with innovative, free-market policies that drive down costs. we can do that by instituting we'll lawsuit reform, allowing citizens to purchase health care insurance, encouraging health

savings accounts, allowing voluntary, market-based purchasing pools and exchanges and focusing on prevention and real health maintenance. those are just a few of the ideas. we need policies that give greater freedom to citizens and employers and not overly burden states and businesses. policies that recognize what history teaches well and that is it that it the creative solutions in free market be one size fits all planned a big government. here again to your state capitols, republican governmors are leading the effort to help the private sector create jobs provide access to affordable health care, and get our economy back on track by making our state more competitive. we are asking this administration to join us in the effort. thank you for taking the time to listen to day and have a great weekend. >> on monday, president obama will deliver a speech on libya from the national defense university in wash..

she will get an update on the situation there, including the actions the u.s. has taken with allies and partners and the transition to a nato command. that is the president's speech of libya monday night at 7:30 eastern here on c-span and c- span radio. this week on "the communicators" different communications -- and perspectives on the communications deal between at&t and t-mobile. host: we will be getting several perspectives on the at&t, t- mobile deal. beginning with jeffrey silva who is a telecommunications policy analyst and robert bell aban antitrust attorney, we are also joined by david hatch of the "national journal." mr. silva what does at&t get

for its $39 billion? guest: it gest a lot more spectrum -- it gets a lot more spectrum. it gets t-mobile customers. and it accomplishes the objective of removing one national competitor from the scene. host: mr. bell, what kind of antitrust issues are raised by this deal? guest: well, this is a direct horizontal merger between two direct competitors. this raises a core issue of whether the government should allow the marketplace to move from four major competitors and a number of minor ones to a situation where we would have three nationwide competitors and several smaller ones who are present in many of the local market. historically, the department of

justice has reviewed these transactions by looking at very local markets. they are called cellular market areas. the government divides the country into 734 cellular market areas. in previous transactions, the analysis has ben on a cma basis. so you can expect a very granular review of this transaction. host: right now at&t and verizon control 80% of the cellular market. what does this deal do? how much more does at&t get? guest: i think that is a little bit exaggerated. the figures i have seen would suggest that the to have a market share closer to -- the two have a market share closer to 60%. the transaction might leave them with a share of 70% or 75%.

however, that is assuming that all of the current t-mobile subscribers go over to at&t, and that is simply not going to happen because even if this transaction is approved, one can expect there will be substantial debt regisdivestiture is required by the government and local markets were concentration would be too high. host: david hatch. guest: jeff, there has been a lot of chatter about the possibility of this deal sparking a round of industry consolidation, particularly involving sprint and verizon. what are the prospects for that? guest: i think verizon has signalled it is not interested and acquiring -- in acquiring sprint.

it is not unusual generally speaking that a major consolidation like this would spark further mergers and acquisitions because the rest of the industry and other players are really forced to react to this. and this has -- can have a catalyst-like effect on other players in the markets. it will force them to look at the business approach going forward. host: given that this deal would remove a major competitor from the marketplace what are the chances of the justice department blocking this? guest: good question. i think this is a close call. you start in this transaction with a presumption that an

increase in share that would take place here would be one that would enable the exercise of market power. so you start with a perception, at least that the transaction should be blocked. however, that is a rebuttable presumption, and there is a very careful analysis of that the government goes through in determining whether to block a transaction like this out right or to let it go through with various divestitures and conditions on it. i think in all of the past telecom mergers we have seen divestitures have been the way the government has gone. there has not been a major transaction that has been blocked out right yet. this could be the exception because the marketplace over time has become more concentrated and this is getting to the point where the

regulators may say, this is enough. host: jeffrey silva if you were sprint would you be panicking or would you be happy? guest: i would be very worried at this moment. i think they are. they have already voiced opposition to this merger. i think they will continue to make their views known because this effectively makes them the number 3 carrier a much weaker number three if this transaction is approved. guest: i have a slightly different take. you have to look at sprint differently. on one hand, i would be worried about my dealings with equipment manufacturers because there are two -- assuming this deal goes through, there would be to very

large purchasers of cell phone ths. sprint is smaller and it may not be able to get the latest kinds of smart phones to sell to its customers. however, if you are the other company that has been characterized by having an innovative, low-price strategy has left the marketplace you may pick up the allotted to customers that are price sensitive. and you may be able to pick up a lot of valuable assets from the divestitures that are going to be required by the government because verizon is much less likely to be a purchaser of those divested assets because of its strong market position. host: what are some of those divested assets? guest: the government will look at this transaction on a cma basis. in those areas where they believe concentration is too

high, they will require the divestiture of substantially all of the t-mobile assets in that area including customers. a purchaser will be able to come in and by the spectrum, the cell phone towerse and and other infrastructure and the customers. that is a real opportunity not only for sprint but for some of the smaller companies like lepaap and u.s. cellular to get bigger. guest: jeffrey silva how substantial is t-mobile's infrastructure, their cell towers? guest: they're nationwide, but like a lot of characters, there are pockets where they have not built out. if you look at a coverage map you will see that there is considerable overlap where they

and at&t have markets where they provide coverage and one can foresee a requirement for substantial divestitures under the review that is going on. host: beyond divestitures, what are some of the other possible conditions that could be applied if the deal is approved? guest: at the justice department, divestitures are typically what we -- are required. do not like to impose conduct- based remedies. it would like a clean break and to have to stay out of it, basically. however, at the fcc it is quite typical for the commission to impose a various conditions on its approval of the transfer of the licenses. and i think you could address some of the kinds of things that have been talked about in that area. guest: top the list, i would

have said data rolling. but fcc will address that shortly 0--- data roaming. there could be any number of conditions. a merger this size, any entity that is looking for regulatory relief in on ee area that is relevant to the wireless space they might look at this as an opportunity to get their issues addressed. so it could range some of the smaller carriers have raised some concerns with equipment and exclusivity deals, net neutrality, special access is out there. but more importantly because of the consumer, the impact on the consumer is going to be likely a flash point in this, one has to

wonder whether or not you might have conditions similar to the past two mergers signed off by the fcc where they had a low- cost pricing tier that perhaps in view that t-mobile is a very aggressive price competitor, that perhaps they would have to offer for some length of time. host: jeffrey silva you started talking about spectrum. how does this affect spectrum, and available spectrum? guest: it gives at&t more. and with that additional spectrum they can roll out 4g advanced wireless services. they have also committed to rolling out those services to 95% of the united states, and

that further is and the administration goal of universal broadband. in the wireless space spectrum is key to maintaining scale because of so much multimedia data that occupies so much space on the spectrum, these wireless networks that are operating right now, they were built for voice. they were not built for a lot of the internet applications and video streaming that consumers have come to expect. and so spectrum, it is the lifeblood of this industry. if you have it, then you can continue to provide all of these services that consumers are asking for that they have on their land line internet right now. host: robert bell, if you were

representing verizon what would you fly with the fcc and -- file with the fcc or the department of justice? guest: i would neutral. i do not think that this poses a threat to verizon. it does not pose a threat to their network, which is considered to be the best of the carriers. if you are verizon you are and a great position, actually, because you see your main rival, at&t faced with a lengthy and difficult regulation process that will occupy a lot of management time and attention. following that, they are going to have the difficult task of integrating of very large transaction like this and putting all of the pieces together and making the technology work, which is almost always more difficult than it

sounds initially. and even once that is accomplished assuming the transaction goes through verizon now has one less competitor and particularly it has one less competitor that is a very cost competitive and innovative. so i think if i were representing verizon my advice would be to remain neutral with respect to this transaction . host: are there any issues regarding cdma technology with this deal? guest: no, there isn't. both carriers are gsm. it is not present the same problems that a sprint/t- mobile which was rumored it does not raise the same sort of integration problems. but very true that even with the

same wireless technology platform, integration is very complicated, perhaps under appreciate it, and it is true that if integration does not go well then, in fact, verizon could be a big winner and all of this. so the integration is a key component of this, assuming the deal is approved. host: if you were advising at&t, would you have recommended this deal? guest: to go forward with it? host: yes. guest: it would have been probably on the list of options. the reason i say that is the fcc is looking at a number of initiatives to increase the supply of radio spectrum that is available to it. and at&t has been kind of a test

bed for a lot of this with the iphone and the ipad, they have seen what exponential increase and traffic can do to their networks and what it means if the traffic is blocked, slowed. so i think they looked at this as an option going for it, because the spectrum that the fcc is trying to free up, that will not be available for at least several years. so if spectrum is how you grow and deliver these services, then you would have to consider an acquisition. it is a very bold acquisition looking at all the factors in play. host: the equipment and exclusivity deals that a lot of carriers have do you see that there is a chance that these will go away with some

regulation by the fcc or doj and it is more of a wild west out there when it comes to the equipment and carrier? guest: hard to say. that is a difficult issue because it involves contractual agreements between two parties. i think there will still be a push for -- one thing you can guarantee is that, if the deal goes through and a number of national carriers is reduced from four to three that verizon and at&t for sure will gain that much more leverage in dealing with providers. host: same question, mr. bell. guest: i do not see that is an area where we will have a lot of department of justice interference with. we still are going to have a number of equipment providers and at least three national purchasers. i think that is more an area for

the fcc to be an vaultin. -- invovledlved in. host: our guests discussing a proposed at&t-t-mobile deal. jeffrey silva a policy analyst and robert bell, who practices and antitrust law. mr. hatch next questions. guest: mr. bell, how does this acquisition compared to two communications mergers earlier and a decade? the sprint-mci deal in 200 and0 and directv-ecostar. guest: directv and ecostar

would have been a monopoly. it was a fairly easy decision on the part of the department of justice to block it. the sprint deal was a long time ago, and i cannot dredge up the detail. here you have a close call because mergers like this do two things simultaneously. on one hand, they create a stronger competitor, one that has, as we have been talking about, more spectrum, a better ability to expand into new technologies better service for customers, and cost savings. on the other hand, a transaction like this has the ability to impose higher costs on consumers and to create a marketplace where you have less innovation and perhaps less quality of service. and the department of justice has to weigh those things and look very, very carefully at a transaction like this. i cannot emphasize how much --

enough how detailed the review is. these parties are going to submit literally millions of documents, and there will be databases that will be reviewed, and this will be looked at in incredible detail in order to try to figure out whether it will cause consumer price increases, as some people are certainly concerned about or whether, on balance, it is actually going to cause prices to stay the same or go down because of the efficiencies that the transaction generates. guest: last may the fcc concluded and an annual report that the wireless sector is not competitive. that is the first time and 14 years they came to that conclusion. guest: previously has said that the market was effectively competitive. when they issued their report, i believe it was commissioner coss, was very concerned about

the overall increase in concentration that has taken place over the last five or 10 years. he sort of telegraphed that the commission needs to be careful about allowing additional concentration in the wireless markets. and, you know, i think that statement alone was one of the reasons you have seen a lot of people say that this could have a very difficult time at the federal communications commission. guest: do you think the fcc's determination about competition the wireless market, will impact the agency's review? guest: i think it will. it will make the fcc star from the presumption that this is a highly concentrated market already, and additional concentration is something that has to be viewed with some skepticism. host: to both of you if this

deal goes through how significant is it? guest: it's certainly significant from at&t's perspective. will be of very significant display of what the obama administration is really going to do in the antitrust area. i think this is the biggest test the administration has had. it is the first really major purely course of the transaction. and so naturally, a lot of people are looking at it carefully. guest: i would agree with that as well. i think this will have a major impact throughout the whole mobile broadband ecosystem, and on the political end i think as has been suggested, it will be the major policy, antitrust policy challenge of the obama administration. and that will have implications of going forward, as other deals come down the pike.

host: jeffrey silva robert bell thank you for being on "the communicators". our discussion continues. we have representatives from unions up next. as we continue our look at the at&t-t-mobile proposed deal, we are joined by debbie goldman and parul desai. ms. goldman the cwa has already come out in support of this deal. why? guest: right now we are moving in the wireless industry into the next generation of wireless technology. and that is going to take both tens of billions of dollars in investment to get us there and it is going to require a lot more spectrum. right now, people are aware that on their wonderful mobile

devices that they want to stream video, get on the internet and search web pages. in many places it, that are experiencing dropped calls. there is a great need for more spectrum and a great need for the capital to invest and the next generation network. we see that this merger will enable at&t to do that. so that is good for consumers. host: how is it good for cwa? guest: it is good for workers because we are experiencing a situation where we have seen declining living standards for the working people over the past three decades. a lot of that is tied to the fact that many of our employers have seen that they want to keep unions out of the workplace not share their profitability with their working population. at&t is an exception to that.