republicans did not think they would control the congress great newt gingrich predicted it, but most people dismissed it as a newt. when they came into power, at there was a sense of all that what they had done. similar to this election. there were more republicans that that they might take the house at this time. but the magnitude of their victory this time surprised everybody. in both cases, what you have seen, it convince republicans that the public was demanding change and if they did not act on it, and they would lose the majority that they just one by such a surprising shocking margin. i think that drove out the actions of congress back in 1905, as it is driving the actions of house republicans today. it is not americans.

it is a genuine concern that they will not be able to keep up with the expectations of the public that this is put them in power. i think john boehner is a pretty effective speaker, but nobody believes that he delivered the majority. republicans were ready to follow him in any direction. they figured they would not have been in the majority without him. when he led for the shutdown of the government or the confrontation with the clinton administration, there was a great deal of confidence that the ended the day, the guy who delivered the majority for the first time in 40 years was going to win politically in this confrontation by the way, he

still believes that he won the in that confrontation. that was pretty much the attitude. you cannot really overstate the difference between newt gingrich-led congress and a john boehner-led house. >> i would like to hear a point of view from the democratic side and maybe you could talk about the role of the president. if you want to make some comparisons about the president today. big you could tell us about the democratic -- maybe you could tell us about the democratic view of having lost the house after being in power for 40 years. >> first of all, there were shellshocked. those of us who ran the campaign committee into the ground that year, saw what was happening and tried to alert the troops without screaming the sky is

falling. it only would have fallen faster. many of the members were unable to do anything about it, even in their own districts, in their own campaigns. it really was the creation of a lot of dead wood. some of them are my dear friends. people who had been there a long time and did not contain defectively for many years. it was the culmination of what lbj said when he signed the civil rights bill and the mid- 1960s. we've lost this outrage generation. it took 30 years for it to play out, but it became the republican cutting edge, winning seats in the south. there were part of the newt gingrich coalition. i know a lot of my republican friends think of him as -- when he could not become eisenhower,

he went. democrats were pretty easy targets at that point. today, that is not the case. nancy pelosi was very effective in the minority. winning the majority. democrats lost its majority for many reasons, but much of it related to events that they believe were beyond their control. maybe you could say they were off message by emphasizing health care in the face of all the joblessness, but there is no question that they are far more prepared to be in the minority now that the democrats who came back here in 1995. i mean, many of us -- i got 48% to get reelected i have never appreciated libertarianism as much as i did then. the third-party candidates were essential. today, the people this survived this waves were caught up in it

knowing there was nothing they could do. they were being pulled out to sea and they could not release slammed hard enough to mitigate that. many of them knew what was going -- but was coming. it was not a surprise. the degree, yes, but they saw the trend. tougher.ar they were not there long enough to of cotton complacent. this terribly are anxious to come back. bill clinton was very effective at seguing into the role of being that other branch of government. using his strength elevation to play off -- triangulaztion. this time, we have a different kind of president.

he is not as into doing that as some of his advisers would like him to be. his personal relationships with people on the hill make it hard for him to set them up as the target. so much of his presidency is caught up in the issue of the moment, the joblessness issue, a little bit of progress this morning will go along way. he feels that his presidency is pretty much on the line in relation to the job market and economy and the public perception thereof. i think the democrats will pick up some seats in the house. how many? i do not know. we are learning as we have known for years that everybody is for deficit reduction until you get into the details. democrats would be better off if some of the cuts were implemented. they're great in theory. when they are actually imposed,

they do not really pan out. look at the governors across the spectrum. whether you are democrats in connecticut or republican in ohio, you are in the tank. you started to do some things christie isis losing support in new jersey. people do not understand what is really involved and balancing a budget of the state level. >> bill clinton came back from his loss, but at the time, he still was pretty far down compared to work president obama is today. did that figure into -- are you more worried about your president? again he will have to park your own ways? >> democrats were so shellshocked in 1995 that there

were more dependent on the white house. it was a little bit of recrimination about the ineffectiveness in the first two years. the things that led to the demise on guns by trying to make -- by jamming that into the crime bill, which was otherwise popular and caused 40 disk -- cost 40 democrats -- cost 40 democrats to lose. >> it changed the gun issue forever. >> billing to pass a health care bill. newt gingrich would never had led to or three committees stop the health care bill from coming to the floor. he would put a task force together and a week later, there would have been a bill on the floor. and it would have passed. whether it would then enacted, at -- we have the worst of all worst trade we offended everybody who did not like the

health care bill. and then we couldn't pass the for those in loved it. i do not think anybody is blaming obama for the policies that they all work to put through. they may be unhappy about his communication and is an ability to make his case, but they are not really at odds with him on what the case was. >> i want to move a little bit more to the present. i have some comparative questions i will try to spring glen has to go forward. 80 i can turn back to janet and then to alex about where we are now -- maybe i can turn back to janet and into alex. where are we now and what are we likely to see in the next few days? it is not the 100 daymark today technically. it is the day that the cr expires, but it is coming up. >> where we are now on the is

there are all kinds of different budget dynamics at work. most of the focus is on the status of the continuing resolution, which expires next week. it has been a very interesting week and events surrounding the because it shows me how different things are than they were before this election. i always thought that when this budget debate emerged, it was kind of obvious what would happen. the republicans wanted spending at 2008 levels. democrats wanted at 2010 levels. how about we split the difference? negotiators get together in a room and leaders decide and cut a deal and they go out and selling to their members and a cassette. -- and they passed it. that does not work these days. splitting the difference is a discredited comp -- concept among the tea party republicans.

there has been some kind of an agreement -- it is not quite a deal because there is been no handshake. republicans wanted to cut $61 billion. $33 billion in cuts. john boehner, ever since the vice-president camel and so we're working towards this number, john boehner has denied there is been any kind of agreement on the number. there is this funny dance going on. there are these private negotiations going on among the appropriations committee. they also have all of these unrelated policy riders that are even more controversial and harder to spot the difference on the numbers themselves. epa policy and so forth. there are two steps of negotiations going on.

it is this alice in wonderland thing or the democrats say we have a deal on the number and republicans did they do not. this will golan on this 2-track public-private money policy in for a week. hopefully, there will not be shut down at the end of the week. i have to say -- i can usually see an event how things are going to go. i am not sure anymore twists and turns this is going to take. >> can i ask you to talk about the republican divisions? budget strategy for different parts of the congress? >> thank you for having me here. i am sorry that norm is not here. i would rather be in the audience hearing his jokes. i will avoid attempts at humor because i'm just a substitute this morning. one of the challenges and the next seven days as they try to put together a bill has to do

with the fact that there is a new dynamic from the new members. many of the brush and members of the house did not come to compromise. -- many of the freshmen members of the house did not come to compromise. they believe there is a difference between compromise and winning. a lot of members to look in your free longer time and served in the majority understand that winning and compromise are one in the same. i worked up on the hill for a number of years for someone who is known as a dealmaker, someone who could get a bill signed. i were to the chairman of the ways and means committee. one thing i learned from my experience is that if you lose, no matter how great your principles are, you are not moving the ball ahead.

we worked on a lot of deals and i saw a lot of deals to put together that ultimately involved compromise. everything that gets enacted into law has things in it that you do not like and that is how you know that you have reached your deal point. that is a new concept for some in the house. something that needs to be worked through in the next week. the house has not lost yet. they have not done anything yet, but they haven't lost yet either. there's been a couple of bills that have made it across the finish line. the attendees short-term -- there have been short term. the -- those bills are bipartisan by nature. those bills have been bipartisan within the house as well. the last cr we had -- 85

democrats came on. as they work through negotiations over the next week, they will be thinking about the fact that the last cr, bid 53 extra votes. it is all about 218 in the house and is about finding a compromise. i do not know if there is a policy up there now. would i was there, there was a concept of the majority of the majority. we did not bring bills to the floor that would not pass with the majority of the majority. i think that it's not a new concept at the time either. i certainly -- is one that is on people's mind at the moment. they do have a cushion coming into this negotiations based off the last and they will be

playing those margins. however they work to solve this negotiations between the house, the senate, and the white house, and they're going to need to depend on the democrats' majority in the senate and will need to rely on democrats and the house. going into this process, they've got them. the question is, some of these issues become non starters. it is difficult to deal with a nonstarter under this kind of time pressure. i am not surprised that a deal has not been made today. a deal is not going to be made over that weekend or monday or tuesday. i do not think i ever saw a deal that did not get made in the afternoon before everybody went home. they will keep negotiating until there is no more time to negotiate.

and then they will try to negotiate a little bit more. i didn't able get somewhere at the end of the day. >> -- i do think they will get somewhere at the end of the day. >> the think that this deal will happen? -- do you think that this deal will happen? if john boehner puts together a deal, puts it through with some democratic votes, is that going to hurt some and the caucus? is that a sign of his strength in being a deal maker? >> i was up on the hill yesterday and i spoke to two members of the republican leadership separately. i did the conversation, i said, are we going to have a shot down? one said yes, one said no. that tells to the basic answer to the question.

this is very unpredictable. i think they will avoid a shutdown. republicans really do not want to see it happen. democrats do not want to see it happen. i am not sure the democrats are quite so sure about that this time as the might of been in retrospect. i think they will manage to avoid it, but it is a close call. the politics of the majority of the majority is a very interesting on this one. john boehner seems ready to move beyond that if that is necessary to produce a majority. there is a lot of speculation about the competition between john boehner and erick kanter. i tend to think that john boehner is a very skillful speaker and he will be ok. they're working very hard with

the freshmen members, and have been for months now. meeting with them in small groups to talk about keeping their eyes on the big issue, which is going to be the fy 2012 budget. to the extent they have convinced the french and that it is the big issue, the leadership -- convinced the freshmen that it is the big issue, -- we avoided the government shut down because we're focusing on 2012. that seems to be an acceptable political construct. all that does not -- necessarily to a conclusion of what happened on the budget, which is another issue. it will get us through next week. >> same question. >> i agree. i think there is a missing of the point.

this is nothing. we have the debt limit. why are we getting into such a draw out politically potent fight over relatively small share of a very small part of the federal budget? you have to save your bullets for the real war and not the skirmish. this is a test for john boehner, but he has several more coming. he is the right guy for this because he is experienced. he has been in the majority and the majority -- he has been in the minority and majority. he is a person who can reach across the lines to the other party. he has kevin mccarthy negotiating with the blue dogs. he understands that he has to win these pipes and he has to save those members of this party

caucus who did not get it. by making sure that they can vote no, but have something happen that will keep the government from shutting down and making them all look bad. what are the democrats going to do? help cooperatives will they be? i cannot fathom that able prevents a deal from coming together. another of them will want to vote and some will probably be tempted to vote no, but probably feel they need to be part of the solution and not just present a target as the problem. when you get to the debt limit, it gets harder for the democrats to put the boats up there. that will be much harder -- the votes of their great many of these new members, they are not going to vote for what has happened in the past. this is making sure there is enough money in your checking account to cover the checks to a written.

there are a number of democrats who will say, you are in charge now. it is your ball, you carry it. i am not sure there will not be some who will be part of that solution. there'll be many who politically feel that this is john boehner's job. this is his challenge and they will not be part of making it easy for him. after all, it is never been the minorities role to help the majority. >> that is entirely right. the new republicans will say, we did not write the check. you have an excuse on both sides for not cooperating. it is a lethal combination. >> can i just say one thing? i was interested in what he was saying about putting this bite into context. in one respect, it is true. in terms of discretionary spending, at this is -- even if they do $30 billion, if five or

the republicans, i would declare victory and go home. the democrats are making their position cutting $30 billion. three months ago, paul ryan proposed that as initial starting point for the republicans' decision. it turned out to be not enough for the tea party people. when paul ryan proposed, it was a monumental armageddon. the terms of debate on discretionary spending have moved so far, that is now the democrats negotiating position. the one thing i debt limit and shut down, but republican said to meet yesterday, the differences are small. if we are going to have a shut down, we should have shut down over something really big, like entitlement reform. we should not have been shot down over $30 billion. >> republicans are already corp.

-- depriving themselves of their victory by the way they're operating. >> to make it look like a big capitulation. >> yes. >> there is another problem with the debt limit. we know that is coming, but we do not know when. there is a lot of play and we hit it and what it is. i've written that it is bullish reconstructed. it is not a good magic of obligations. -- i've written that it is foolish reconstructed. it is not a good metric of our obligation. they voted on the debt limit 10 times the last 12 years. it is a vote that nobody wants to take. it is also an issue that the tea party has grabbed onto in an incredible way.

it is an issue where it is not about $30 billion. it is about entitlement reform. those of the kinds of things that people are saying that they want. in exchange for the debt limit to vote, but we have not even begun that debate and we do not know but we will hit the limit, it is one -- it makes negotiating the dollar levels a lot easier than to talk about some of the bigger dollar, longer-term things. i think that is going to be an issue that plays out over the summer. in a very complicated way with a lot of disappointed people all around. >> it is often said that john boehner is a difficult position. in some ways, i think he is not in as a difficult position as some people say.

the strategy all along for republicans has been, we want to find lots of opportunities. we will cut spending here, we're looking at the debt limit, we're looking at next year's budget. it will be a continuing thing. for now, john boehner can go to the state party members and say, i thought for you as much as i could. the republicans are talking about land of their budget next week. -- about laying out their budget next week. we need to get this done, and will move on to the next thing. where do democrats feel that we have done and not? we're not going to give any more. what is the dynamic of the coming battles? >> i will start.

that is a big topic. it is important for the republicans to get their budget out there because it is important to find out what the democrats' response is on the entitlement question. then we will have a somewhat better idea of the real playing field. paul will say something about entitlements in the budget. we're not sure about how specific it will be. it seems very clear that nancy pelosi and the democratic caucus are going to come down on them like a ton of bricks on the entitlement issue. they are expecting that. does entitlement reform become simply a straight cut partisan issue? as somebody who really is concerned about the long-term debt, that would be a tragic

thing, not just republicans and democrats, but for the country. it eliminates the chance of entitlement reform until we had a fiscal meltdown. i am not prone to overstate things, but i really believe that. if there is in the opening at all to say, what's the down and talk about the right way to reform health care spending, let's see about retirement policy, let's make sure revenues are on the table, then there is an opening to make something happen that would be pretty big. until somebody leads and says, the have to deal with entitlements, we do not know what the playing field will be. >> it seems to be that where we have to focus right now is the senate, where we have 64 members saying they want a big

comprehensive approach. all these people trying to figure out a way to do what really needs to be done. hopefully, everybody is learning about the importance of the relatively small portion of the budget that is called discretionary spending, and will think in terms of doing something more abroad. whether you take social security, it is really about the cost of medicare and medicaid. neither party is prepared to step up to that in a fundamental way. i think republicans are most effective in attacking obama's health care proposal by saying they're cutting your medicare. of course, that is what democrats at about republican budgets during the 1990's. it was not cutting, it was

reducing the rate of increase. remember? this has become the third rail even more than social security. we cannot really have an answer to it. -- we do not really have an answer to it. we are a long way from seeing that fully implemented. i hope that something can come together in the senate. see whether there is a center in the house that would support something like that. conventional wisdom is that this cannot be done before a presidential election. i think the president would get involved if he felt that we were all getting in the boat at the same time. so that it isn't going to tip over. but that is a pretty tough thing to do. it is still something that ultimately will have to be done, or we will be reacting to a

meltdown or something that will give everybody the imperative of acting. >> i have to say, listening to these guys and about looking ahead, it makes me realize, right now, we are doing the easy stuff. is totally straight forward. the cr is like algebra. i do not think there is a lot of people up there whose skills are up to the task right now. i think it is interesting as an observer, i rarely see a climate and the seriousness and the way people are talking about entitlement reform and deficit reduction that is easy to overlook. that does not mean that anything is going to happen anytime soon.

but people are lined the groundwork for a serious effort to change was return policy. there are many obstacles in the way. when i was talking to paul ryan a couple of weeks ago, he said something that sound a little bit resigned. he said, maybe we need another election before the stuff can happen. it is clear that paul ryan is very serious about putting something out on entitlement reform. the budget resolution itself does not make any specific policy changes. it just states and intention to do something. once that is out there, attention does turn to this gang of six and the senate. most of their discussions seems to be aiming in the direction of

some mechanism for setting targets that the targets become the actual event. that sounds like these process changes that have been enacted in the past that had mixed success in reducing the deficit. there are a lot of questions and if i had to bed right now, -- if -- d to bacet right now well, i will not bet. >> i really agree with vin's comment that the outlook is serious from a fiscal perspective. members are seeing what is happening in other developed countries. members are truly concerned about fiscally on stable

outlook. -- unstable outlook. it is really about the health care spending. that is really the issue so security becomes a small problem relative to the fact of the rate of growth of health care spending is in excess of the rate of growth of anything else. it will eat us all if we cannot change that path. what that might mean, given all that, i do not think that there is the strength in congress to make the health care changes that are necessary in the near term. people have lived through this once and i do not want to live through it again. there is too much focus on this appeal and not enough preparation for the replacement. the issues are difficult. what that might mean if there is an opportunity to make progress is that there is an opportunity to take a bite out of a smaller

problem, which is the social security issue. a couple of things on that -- for the first time in the social security debate, there is an opportunity for people to look toward making improvements to the social security problem that we face rather than fixing it all together. if you look out various proposals, all the proposals solve the problem. congress never solves the problem. on a good day, they make the problem less bad. women get serious about making changes to social security system -- when we get serious about making changes to the system, that is why we start talking about incremental changes. there is an opportunity for social security to come into -- for the reform to come into the

forefront. people do not want to tackle the health care issue. the present fiscal commission -- the president of this commission, they put together a proposal to solve the problem. a number -- a number of the members that have been mentioned on the senate side were members of the fiscal commission. there has been some work of recent on social security, and the gang of six were members of that. what i think would be unfortunate to -- would be odd to leak process performed with the debt limit vote. -- link process reform with the

debt limit a vote. that avoids the process, and imposes another progress. >> do you think we are about to -- [laughter] >> in order to make -- get the deal that needs to be done, that will be part of the process. >> there goes your invitation to the wednesday meeting. >> i want to go back to the point that janet brought up. something you hear often, this notion of we can not really deal with this spending problem until after the next election. people to put that point of view forward comes from their -- come

from many different standpoints. only a reelected president obama, three of the burdens of reelection, can get this done. only a newly elected rublican president can get this done. the final version, we need to have another election in which there is an even stronger mandate for spending reductions and the last one. i do not buy any of that. we have had the election. the best we're going to have in terms of a mandate for spending reduction. i do not remember any election in which deficit, debt, and spending were as predominant an issue as in the last election. no election. we are not going to get another one of those. we did not talk specifically about cutting social security and taxes, but spending, debt, and deficit or the issue everywhere in this last election.

>> for the parties to be in charge of the government and to implement this will put you in the political wilderness for a period of time. why not do it when we have divided government, when the plane will be assessed across the spectrum? politically, both parties are better off in this environment than what they hope the next one will be. >> i want to open up to the audience. i have one last question i want to get in. that is more about the way the house works. speaker boehner was chafed under the majority. speaker boehner had an open rule which was entertaining and janet they're very late at night, as

they went to the budget in great detail. what do you make of the white house is working? the related question to that, i wanted to talk about speaker boehner. vic fazio has compared him to other democratic speakers. boehner versus gingrich and boehner versus boehner. what has he learned? >> that is a big -- that is a big question. one of the things that distinguishes john boehner -- he was a committee chairman. that is important training. it is different more than people who move up the leadership ladder not through the committee process. he was not off of the leadership

ladder, and then did what many people to whom do, he went into the committee and became a serious legislator. he came back into the leadership process, adding than a in the effective chairmanship -- an effective chairman. it is not a choice assignment for republicans. he did a good job. that affects the way he performs as speaker in a significant way, and we will see that play out as we go forward. the other thing i would say about speaker broder, newt gingrich thought of himself as the leader of the republican party. there's no question in his mind that he was the leader of the republican party. other people may have questioned that. john boehner does not think about himself that way. i think there is a genuine humility that runs through john

boehner about the position he is then and he does not view his role in politics in any where near the same way that speaker newt gingrich did. >> he was in the leadership of fell out of leadership. he has been in the room when the balance needed be imposed. [unintelligible] >> we will open it up to the audience. identify yourself at the microphone. >> speaker boehner, then minority leader, beebe speech in this room in september saying that he was going to let committee chairman had their

lead and encourage the the element of bipartisan legislation in committees. he would abandon this majority of the majority rule and bring things forward. he did so on me ge engine question, which was interested his district. ge has a big plant in the cincinnati area. it is hard for me to imagine speaker pastor or speaker pelosi to allow something to come forward that would be a large project that they wanted to see district.their largown how long is john boehner going to stick with this, and mr. brown to be a sticking point where he will say on this one we

got to get the majority and we will set it up of the rules committee so we cannot lose? >> boehner's promised to have wide open rules -- he allowed that on hr1, and a lot of his other roles have been restrained. he has already violated a promise. nobody thought he was going to do that on everything. you have to run the house. i do not think he has done it on any kind of politically sensitive question, but that is a thing to watch for. at some point, one thing that struck me as interesting as i open -- as watching the open world debate, there were hundreds of amendments. i do not see a lot of bipartisan bills coming out of committees. a lot of the votes were bipartisan. when you have a house rules committee that decides there will only be three amendments, you know those will be amendments that will go up and

down on party lines. when you say anybody can offer any amendment they want, there were a lot of interesting coalitions. it was a field day in that you got to watch shifting coalitions. you propose abolishing the nlrb, and you find out that there are a lot of republicans who do not want to do that. also, to abolish the joint strike fighter, people had been going after that for years, and it comes to a vote and when the speaker has a local interest in it, i thought that was remarkable. i kept looking around, where are the signs that john boehner is twisting on this? i did not see any. your point, you're raising a good question that i do not see. i expect at some point he is on the use the power of the rules committee to control the outcome. it does not seem like he has

yet. >> he has to at some point, michael says people have not focused on yet, allowing the kind of debate and argument and process that we saw has been an effective management tool. he has a fractious caucus. they were inflows by grass-roots conservative movement, called the tea party movement, which sent a strong message, did not cave in to your leisure. the notion of washington leadership. managing this fractious caucus is a difficult task. it has served him well to allow an open process and build coalitions, not be able to say the speaker in a heavy handed way did what most activists warned he would do and try to shut us down. at some point that will come to

an issue that requires discipline and then we will find out whether he can impose that, but up to now, it has been a fairly effective tactic in allowing him to call less -- to coalesce the republican caucus. >> that went on for a week and made an impression, so now he can close the rules process, and everybody will say remember we had an open rule on the whole budget. he defanged the argument. on the second engine, he saw where the votes were and it was a smart move to build his support among the tea party members, new members, who will now say he gave us a vote, and he did not try to use his power. he was thinking down the road

about the challenges ahead for him. [unintelligible] >> the latest cnn poll on the tea party movement is interesting. it shows the american people's favorable ratings have gone about five points to around 32%, up about 21 points to 47% unfavorable. the other thing that came out was most of those unfavorable ratings came -- the increase came from people earning under $50,000. can you speculate as to why there is a more negative attitude, and how this might play out as a factor in the 2012 elections? >> i have a hard time as a

reporter and a citizen figuring out who the tea party is. i feel guilty every time i use it in my stories when i do not know who they are. i think it is an interesting concept that has captured a whole spirit of the vote in t 20102010. as a reporter, the challenge is to figure out if he wanted to party point of view, who you talk to? there are a couple of national tea party groups, but you cannot claim that as our representative of the tea party. they happen to be people -- who have it in their name. when you get down to the level of a i was reporting a few months ago on the tea party in maine, the question of whether olympia snowe was going to get a

tea party challenge. i call one guy who has tea party on his blog, and it can get confusing. i take my cue from members of congress themselves. if they identify themselves as a said the party -- as a sympathizer of the tea party, i ask, what kind of politician is this? i will leave it at that. i do not know what to make about polls about people who i do not who they are. >> an important point, we talked about the tea party don't knowing what is this. there are hundreds of organizations. somebody told me a thousand or more organizations that call themselves the party organizations. the party patriots, tea party buddies, tea party guys run according. there will be an event taking

place in minnesota, this will be the -- tea party. in the congress itself, among the 80-plus freshman members, there may be 20 that have a connection to a key party organization in their desert. the other 60-;lus influence, but they have no connection to it. everything unpleasant happening around the country is blamed on the tea party. i think that is why the image of the tea party has gone somewhat downhill since the last election. >> also note that there are two party members who are not freshman. >> if anybody is trying to personify it, it is michelle bachmann. it has been helpful to the

democrats. the republican party has become a radical in many ways. 42% of identified republicans cannot believe obama was born in this country. that is going right to the legitimacy of the president. there is a group of people in the party who are mad as hell and not taking it anymore, and they are impacting how issues are done with here in washington and at the state led all, and it is one of the things that gives the democrats hope, and they had little three months ago. >> the observation that it is not a third party. they are operating within the republican party. it is an important dynamics obvious in the last election come on these aren't new voices that have returned, but these are republican candidates.

i do not know if that will sustain itself in the future, but at the moment we are talking about a division within the caucus versus a different party. that affects the dynamic significantly. >> care for a question. -- here for question. >> i would like to know if janet or anybody else could give us and i the idea give us an idea, could you give us an idea, the you know what we really stand for, and if so, could you inform us who think you. >> i have a clear sense of the issues that people who identify themselves as the party activists, and i talked a lot of the tea party patriots. besides the government and the level of federal spending.

my confusion is the political entity. do you see the difference? go in the back here. identify yourself. >> thank you. team carting people believe in limited government. last year, 5.5 trillion of total federal state and local spending -- if anybody would like to check that out -- you get eight trillion dollars of government treated cost last $14.5 trillion economy. my question is, 2000, two dozen sex,-- 2--6, in the senate on

average, they had 53 seats. is that complete control, and why didn't the republicans ever respond to that? >> the notion of the senate being controlled by anybody is foreign to me. it is an institution that parties have a hard time controlling when they have a majority. when the democrats had the magic number of 60, they had a hard time controlling the outcome. the talk about a party controlling the senate assumes everybody in the party vote the same way. in the senate, the majority party, there is a sense they have responsibility rather than they have more of responsibility than the minority party. the democrats have come to

appreciate themselves, especially now with the republicans controlling the house, that having a majority in the senate is far from controlling things. >> why don't we go right here. >> thank you. as we speak this morning, there is a hearing on the aarp and its non-profit status. yet at that other organizations, i am wondering, if you're concerned that this new republican majority in the house has been branded as an ideological majority, more nding thed in defudnin left than balancing the budget? >> i am concerned about that. i want to clarify.

the democrats want to say he should start spending bills of all riders. i do not go that far because republicans, if you think about from a policy standpoint, the only leverage they had is to attach something to a spending bill. they will not pass a bill to this bennett -- to this than it and at that president signed it. npr, planned parenthood. whether it is health care, educational reform, epa regulations, things they really care about that are serious policy issues, they're only ability to impact this is going to try to put some kind of amendment on a must-pass spending bill. they will not get everything they want. they can probably get something of what they want. i do not go so far as to say i think the republicans should concede to the democrats that they will pass only clean

spending bills. i'm concerned we have allowed symbolic issues to drown out in part this message that people mentioned earlier, we have not made our case for our current success. we have cut spending for the first time maybe ever, and it is a drop in the bucket compared to the big budget, but it is the first time we have done it, and that is getting lost in the argument about these emotional histories -- emotional issues, and that does worry me. >> it is helpful to the democrats by making the defudning of the left as a set apiece. their base has not been energized. maybe we would give governor walker more credit than that. the bottom line is republicans would have been better off to do across the board cuts. they are always hard to pinpoint

where the impact will be, and everybody thinks government is to be, so we can reduce it in size. when you get to specifics and talk about tremendous amounts of money, to make a point politically, you are way off message, and democrats are allayed about it. >> i totally agree. the rhetoric of the across the board cut is undeniable in this environment. you mean we cannot cut what amounts to one-tenth of 1% of the federal budget approved who will defend that given the fiscal situation? when it becomes will zero out this program, the program becomes the issue rather than the amount of the cut. >> why don't we go back here. >> there has been talk in the senate about raising revenue as well. the millionaires' tax or with reducing deductions people can take on the cat -- take on their

taxes. what difference you think that will make on the house? >> i am encouraged by the focus on tax expenditures that came out of the work, and that is where the senate is on the focus. there may be efforts to increase taxes on upper-income people, but i think we need a total or form and we need to do a lot about tax expenditure. then, i think there's bipartisan support growing for reducing rates, on individuals and corporations. it is not going to be all get and the take. there is one have to be a zero- sum game here. >> i think it put forward the only conceptual framework in which you can have a revenue increase. it has considerable heartburn for both parties. if you are a republican is a net tax increase and there's no reason why democrats would

support it if it is not a tax increase. that is major league park burn for republicans. if you are a progressive democrat, you are not -- you are bringing down marginal rates. that is the only way the republicans will support a net revenue increase in the reform -- in the framework of a tax reform. you got a difficult sell both sides of the aisle for that. it is possible i think -- ryan and the house republicans who voted against bowles-simpson -- you have the opening to do a revenue raising, kerr-current reform of the tax code.

that is contrary to basic republican economic philosophy. go right here. >> i want to go back to the question about the increase in -- tea party. the remark about michele bachmann identify with the tea party and see herself as the leader. is there a link between some of the powerful politicians like bachmann and the trap or a piece of the favorable side of the tea party?

>> my own view is it is not individuals. it is fights but on that are unpopular. i can come back to the state level. ec the popular -- you see the popularity of the governors could down as they deal with issues in the and states, and democrats are doing a good job of labeling everything as being tea party. that is not clear to me that there is any leader of the two- party. -- of the tea party. >> there is a natural factor behind the polls in the sense it is difficult to sustain an eagerness and support in any movement in any party. i was in arizona with a tea party hatred and a conference

they had organized. a number of people were marked -- remarked, the ability to keep things calling. people are working -- whoever they are, these people, they are working really hard and they are holding full-time jobs. it can get higher a after a while -- it can get tiring after a while. a lot of what happens in washington has to do with momentum. one of my biggest concerns with bowles-simpson, i was concerned we lost the momentum. there was some opportunity to grab all hold of that and run with them, and instead there was a pause. a lot of things with age, the

excitement around them can start to dissipate. that is true for policy issues as well as political issues. >> we might have time for one more question. a question right here. >> the 2010 elections, republicans said this is their last chance to make good on their promises because and the previous times they ended up with a huge loss in 2008. have the republicans lost their sense of urgency or do you still think they feel it is a race against time toward the 2012 election? >> i do not think republicans have lost urgency. part of what we talked about before, they feel a sense of the

rtc on every single bill coming up as opposed to looking at the broad budget. there is no sense of loss of urgency. the question, and i think it is still a question, is, can they come to grips with the reality of the budget as opposed to the campaign rhetoric about the budget cov? the rhetoric was not particularly helpful in terms of getting us toward the solution we want. democrats would have you believe it could be only be solved without raising taxes on upper- income people. it is not true. we are faced with the situation that we have to talk about social security, medicare, revenue, and defense, all of which are more ethical than

taxing somebody else or finding waste, fraud, and abuse. >> the sense of urgency, it takes me back to my point about their votes between now and 1995. since then, those parties have had the experience of gaining power, reading what they think is their mandate, and that being thrown out either because they misread the mandate or did not deliver on their promises. that is in part why they have a more sense of urgency. they know the electorate is volatile. there is a job of independent voters that is a big part of the tea party movement. if they do not deliver it is not clear a lot of the tea party voters will go democratic. they might just stay home. >> i am going to give one last chance to say a little wrapup of anything they did not say about the 112th congress.

a couple of last comments. >> i think i have made all my points. i am happy to yield my time. >> yeah. i guess i have, too. >> of what light -- i would like to play off the last question, we have been dancing around budget issues for so many years -- tax the rich, waste, fraud, and abuse, and we never really dealt with the problem, and it has gotten bigger and more difficult to resolve. that is why whether it is bowles-simpson or others that are out there, we finally have begun to come to some bipartisan agreement that we cannot take account -- cannot kick the can

down the road any longer. they are coming down their ideological perch. how we resolve this is yet to be determined, but at least we had people out there pushing us in that direction. i believe that politicians, and i am certainly one of them, has contributed to this attitude that the public has, which is we can do it all by cutting your pay, welfare, and foreign aid. the things that really matter in the federal budget are the tough ones, not symbolic ones, and get the public is nowhere near adequately informed about that reality. they just do not know that. it has been easier to keep them in the dark because it would have meant everybody having to give up some of that ideology. i think that is the encouraging

news. i think it is no longer a partisan agenda. it has got to be a bipartisan one or we will not give any further than we have gotten in the last 30 years. >> might it happened in this budget? >> i think now is the only time. if it does not happen now, i am deeply pessimistic. i will use my comment not the sum up what i said but to raise a totally new issue. i think as we look forward, what i think is there is an indication that we are on the hat and national-security debate in this country that we have not seen for a long, long time, and the reason i say that is i look at what i have seen from republicans that would be surprising. you had the senators on the commission talking about reductions in the defense

budget, which secretary gates, but called catastrophic. to see conservative republicans talk about that is not something we have ever seen before. haley barbour has come out, not only against libya, but questioning seriously what we are doing in afghanistan and calling for reductions in the defense budget. michele bachmann has come out against doing anything about libya. at some point we are on to have a debate about national security that we have not had before. it will have to do with intervention, it will be influenced by the costs of the military budget, and can be a good thing, but it is something we have not seen for a long time in this country. >> join me in thanking the panelists for great discussion.

[applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] by america's cable companies. "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with gail russel chaddock, theenior congressional correspondent for "the christian science monitor."

open quotes europe: a gambit," that is the headline today. guest: these are as close as any negotiations i have er seen in congress. a bad tng for my profession and a good thing for the public. host: have they been continuing over the weekend and headed into this week? who is talking? caller: -- guest: right now the appropriations committee is trying to sort out whether or not the figure of $33 billion was accurate. senate democrats said that it was. the vice-president said that it was. john bowler said he was not convinced. we will have to figure out where

the cuts come from underneath that number. that is a very difficult question. senate democrats would like to see the cuts go beyond domestic, non-defense discretionary. republicans say that we have to stick to domestic discretionary. host: let's talk about lines in the sand. house republicans, there are probably a couple of them there. where do they stand? as part of that, people here $61 billion. can you explain those numbers? guest: it will be eclipsed this week by trillion. the house republicans are releasg their budget for 2012 this week, which claims to save

more than $4 trillion. the momentum of that number could sway votes on the other side. to get to your question, $100 billion. when republicans ran to take back the house, $100 billion from what the president wanted to spend. halfway into the fiscal year, the first question was -- cut half of what we said we would. cutting $100 billion from what president obama wanted. what we arelk about actuallypending. it is really $30 billion. at tt point, house conservatives are boosted by an 87 member freshman class. you said $100 billion, we said

$60 billion, and we want to see the full cut ts year. as each month goes by there have been more cuts, even with these temporary measures, to demonstrate even $2 billion in cuts per week. so, here we are. the house pasd $61 billion. the senate passed nothing. the compromise appears to be $33 billion. but we do not know. we will see. host: said democrats are saying what? caller: interestingly, they started out from the position of saying that they had already cut $40 billion from what the president said that he wanted to spend. their position has basically been no new cuts. the fact that they are now talking enthusiastically about $31 billion is huge.

host: house republicans are saying what? you have to differ between the conservatives in the republican study committee and leadership? what do they say? caller: what a wonderful question right now. speaker boehner was asked directly about that. he had said it -- no, he is looking for the deepest cut that he can get. might i add to those considering a primary challenge to the tea party members who are not quite the party enough, they are pushing for a full promise of $61 billion up to $100 billion and more. that is what is important. and more -- it is not just a

debate. who would think that it is a rounding error, $30 billion, trivial? let's get this out of the way. t'sake what we can and move on to the next issue, t budget for 2012. host: is this a strategic move by house republicans to say paul ryan, we need to be talking about trillions so that can sway the conservative republicans? guest: i wish that i could tel you. i wish i knew that that was the plan for sure. the timing is about right. host: paul ryan and is expected to announce more of the details of his plan tomorrow, tuesday. sunday he was on the news shows talking about it, laying out medicare as the heart of his

proposal in what he wants to do with that. going forward this week, is there likely to be a seventh continuing resolution? of a stopgap measure while they negotiate something long term? guest: that would be difficult. even with the last continuing resolution, 64 house republicans are saying -- no way. the only reason that it passed then is that you had 185 democrats that supported it. everyone that i spoke to voted for that last continuing resolution, saying -- speaking of the line in the sand, i will not vote for another sho-term resolution. which is tough. we are not going to drop a bill on the floor with only three minutes to look at it.

they are not going to cook up something and dump it in your lap. they have got to go forward with this by tuesday night. host: because of the 72 hour rule, they have to put something togeer by tuesday night. it does not give the senate much time to act. guest: and that is where delaying is hard wired into the ating of the institution. one member that does not like how things are going has the power to slow things down for a couplef days. host: aides have floated the idea of breaking the 72-hour pledge, but such a move would be risky, given that the rule was

offering to the tea party activists, who accused democrats of creating deals behind closed doors. caller: we have got to give more money to the schools and the met -- less money for the wars. now they are saying that teachers cannot have unions. this is really eroding our entire system. firefighters, police, teachers, they are being looked at as if they are some kind of sucking off of the system. it is gutted. this country is completely down hill. these are the traditional jobs that have served the mide class, the barrier between the lower class and the elite class. when you take away the middle,

it was run by the corporate elites. which is fascism. we need to stop the war in the military industrial complex. guest: ery time that i talk to democrats about the bottom line in this budget, almost a first issue raised by the people is always education. that we cannot cut brigitte we cannot cut back on that funding. -- that we cannot cut back on that funding. the other thing that has really interested me, if you look at the votes in the house there are

more in the first few months of this house on important issues than in decades. the 87-member freshman class that we've tended to characterize as the tea party class or very conservative class. look at their votes. there is a surprising things. you mentioned police and fire. 30 of those freshmen voted to increase spending for police. i think 24 voted to increase spending for fire. a number of voted to support the national labor relations board. there is some surprising switch -- is not the modernist. host: maria, a democrat, washington, d.c. caller: they say they want to

save medicare and they want to create social security. we all as taxpayers pay to those funds. i feel that the war's is completely -- to use the funds to countries. g.e. does not pay taxes. once they got tons of money, -- the middle class is becoming a class like other countries. obama when send and he at least -- this country has no money. i think it is ridiculous. people are not working. you go to other countries. manufacturing -- we're

privatizing the waters and the utility and the bas needs for the humans, for everyone. host: we got your point. guest: where does were spending fit into a context that is focused on cuts? especially as we appear to have expanded into a third war, in libya. could drag on for some time -- this could drag on for some time. the main support comes from republicans. democrats that opposed the war do not have an interest in embarrassinghe president who is about to announce running for a second term. it is not the sharp test eds anti-war movement we have seen

in past wars -- is strongly bipartisan at this point. it will be difficult f point that you're making. to drastically cut defense spending, we need that to support the middle class. you're not going to see that argument. in the next two years in the run-up to this election. host: ""the wall street journal ," a front-page story. there is more details about what this will include. on taxes,, some conservatives expect a temporary tax change that will let u.s. multinationals bring home as at aas $1 trillion greatly reduced tax rate. they expect a fundamental overhaul of the tax system.

host: we will go to a republican in boston. caller: i think if you look over this past decade, both republican a democts have placed a tremendous amount of debt on the backs of old people and young people in this country. i think funding for any program, social, will be dramatically decreased not because of republicans or democrats but because of the markets. it i low on its way to collapsing. there is nothing that hurts the middle class more than the collapse of the purchasing power. there is no coincidence that a collapserom purchasing power and that wars are breaking out.

look for continue collapse of the purchasing power of the dollar. host: do you have any thoughts? guest: it is a tout -- a subtext everything going on now. what really is coming out this week is a debate you can cut on every possible line. it is not about age. the cuts in social security and medicare and medicaid, -- let me rephrase that. republicans would say it is not cuts. is reducing the rates of growth. changes in medicare and medicaid and social security. there will be a share from older people to a younger people. they have a difficult job prospects and are bearing the brunt of this.

it is a very big question. it is hard to imagine the scope of change on capitol hill right now. every previous budget cycle has involved talking about investments and growth and arguing about the point i stumbled over. an increase that is left really a cut? what we're talking about now is not that issue. there are deep cuts that affect the whole notion of what our government is and does. go backo a new deal debate. we have not had one on this lel since the 1960's. but this one is more severe. host: we have a tweet. host: after the end of this week, if there is an agreement over funding for the rest of

this fiscal year, what happens next? guest: you would think that when the main event of this event is what hpened on friday, when funding for the fiscal year runs out, will the government shut down? will the consequence they predict who will be out of work? this is an easy discussion, what to do with fiscal year spending. the hard one is coming up with the budget for 2012, which goes into entitlement spending. traditionally, these third rails of american politics. but that is not even the toughest issue. the toughest issue is what to do when the spending bumps up against the debt limit. is the issue that so many republicans ran on. "i will not raise this debt limit."

"this is as high as it will ever be." that is what i ran on. they have every incentive in the world to stick to what they said they would do. that creates a dramatic situation. this is only one of three. the second one is harder. host: ohio, an independent caller. caller: i have a comment and a question. i'm trying to fall this going on. host: join the club -- -- guest: join the club. caller: the senate is not agreeing in passing anything. i'm wondering, are they going to be able to get their act

together and pass this to move on to the next to its big steps they have to take care of? up.ill hang n host: before you do, as an independent, what does this do for you prove it was rethinking as you look to 2012 and have you may vote over this issue? caller: we have a severe problem, especially with this debbt. the only ones who seem serious are threpublicans. they are haggling over somethinthat the democratic house senate and white house should have taken care of last year. the push this problem on to the republicans of this year. it seems like everyone just keeps pointing at the republicans. i cannot see where the senate is attempting to get anything

done whatsoever. they keep pointing fingers. they peer down what republicans want. they are not saying what they are for cutting. they are not saying what they are willing to cut. host: let me get your reaction to this. this is from "the washington post." this is an editorial. you're dealing with environmental protection agency and planned parenthood. they have to a tangential relationship to a deficit- cutting. at a legitimate basis for holding the government hostage. -- not a legitimate basis for holding the government hostage.

what do you think? caller: i would like to know what compromises they have made. what are they? host: we will talk to gail about that. guest: they are letting the other side come forwardnd then the lead. that is how the majority's switched in the last two campaign cycles. republicans said no to everything that the democrats said in the last campaign cycle. democrats -- and so i think i just repeated myself. ho: vice versa. guest: are things now so serious that the president will take a

hit for not taking more leaderip on the cut side. senate democrats will take hit for not engaging republicans on foot -- on friday, they passed an unusual bill still have no fect, a symbolic attempt to make their point. the bill said if the senate does not act on our spending bill for fiscal ye 2011 by the sweet, -- by this week, our bill will have deemed to have pass. that is foolish on one level. would require the senate to agree, which was not going to happen. it was away to say, we're doing something and they are not. both sides are watching closely how the public response to th. does the public still think that cutting deficits and debt is important? is a more important than the

possibility of losing programs they value profit that is the dialogue that is going on at this point. but the waiting has to end on friday. you either agree or not. the government shuts dn or it does not. i think this one will. host: we have another twitter comment. chicago, matt, a democrat, your next. -- you are next. caller: it appears we have a race to the bottom. $30 billioncut here and $60 ,illion ko'd here and the house gop do not want to talk abo what they want to cut.

the only thing i would say as a democrats, i would say that things need to be cut. as your guest said, this a debate that we're having that we probably have not had in 40, 50 years. i would say to my conservative friends, when the government's invests money, spending money, it is not a bad thing. how do you think the highway system came here? how many jobs did the highway system creates? how many -- how much money did the government spend on putting the stuff in place to fit i can go on my pc and find out news from around the world. that did not drop out of the

sky. that was a result of investment ending. all spending is not a bad thing. that is the trouble i get when i listen to my friends on the other side. thank you for your show. it has been good. guest: 80 an important point. what is the difference between an investment andaste, fraud, and reduced profit that is what it comes down to. republicans are trying to couch their changes as, let's look were there is waste. the government accountability office came out with a report that said there is $100 billion in programs in government that could be halved, most republicans jump on that and said this is where we could get some cuts. we don't have to cut into critical investments at this point. programs waste, fraud

is another's critical investment. take a small example. speaker boehner in a speech last week defended the vouchers for d.c. it is a program that democrats got rid of. it was important to republicans to see education reform as links to choice for parents, including funds to go into a parochial school. democrats said, what is the evidence that parochial schools do better than d.c. public schools put it to kids see gains in improvements that are significantly that is a factual debate. what is the evidence of it i think you'll see that on a who range of issues. it is not enough to say it is waste, fruits -- fraud, and abuse. on the house side, you have committees that are nowocused

on a piece by piece going through government spending with lawmakers raising questions and bring in witnesses to answer that question. is it critical or is it not? host: we have a tweet from gary . host: does go to john, a republican in florida. you're next. caller: agree with what the person just tweeted in. republican stock about making cuts. we hear from the left -- republicans talk about making cuts. it is to the point where how they play the race card. we have to put more into education in this country. we rank near the bottom.

money is not the issue. look at all schools. they operate most on a shoestring budget. they produce kids that are more than prepared for the upper level education. we need across-the-board cuts, probably 20% and a flat tax. host: is that part of the discussion? guest: absolutely. republicans were tryingo figure out what the plan was. of the votes said let's cut $61 billion. but what to cut another $22 billion in across-the-board cuts. some did not support that. they did not le an across-the- board concept. they thought it was mindless. are some things more important than others. you cannot just do it with a meat cleaver.

have to do it with a scalpel. host: we have another tweetrom maverick. guest: a comter service. that is a very big issue. i remember in the 9/11 commission, one of the discoveries was the fbi did not have search capacities on their computer they have been working at this for years to improve this. computers -- that is not like high point of the government in its current form. i think you should send that letter to your member of congress and urged all of your friends to do the same. there is a great savings if the government can figure out computer technologies. host: president obama sent out an e-mail announcing he is running for reelection. at do you think any impact that

would have on this week's budget -- what do you think impact that would have on this week's budget discussion? guest: and think the president is missing on action, that he did not embrace the need to make budget cuts. his budget does not go far enough and includes trillions. is focused on the campaign suggest he will not bthere at all. for democrats, the idea that their best spokesman will be using the bully ppit to make a case for government. why we need it, what is a critical investment? that can help the kind of case they are trying to make back here. host: sandra, an independent caller. caller: what happened to $30

million that was set aside for the orphan program that they never used but they still love -- $30 million. -- $13 million. i would like to also know -- michele bachmann has a loophole in the tax were surely pays $100 a month for property -- where she only pays $100 a month for property. what ever happened to the tax break for all the rich when their houses get washed away and everything else. we continually repeat to use that funding, to give it to them, and yet, we're hurting ourselves. i watched john stossel and he was lking about that. we need to find out why. guest: i do not know the

specifics of the first case you mentioned. what was the expenditure? host: she is not with us. guest: any detail like that, getting this kind of tax break, it is not fr. let's fast-forward to a campaign ad for 2012. -- i did notatch what you said the first time. host: we will move onto a democrat in buffalo. we are with gail russell chaddock with the "christian science monitor." caller: i appreciate everything i get from watching c-span. if we follow the present cost planned for the budget, and his executive plant -- if we follow the president's plan for the budget, and just give it a chance, so the crisis that may

be lower-class people or people who are citizens and taxpayers and who would love to have an opportunity to be involved and to help create, but there stifled because of all kinds of other conditions around them that to not allow them to get there. and limited in my educational background. i am a living citizen and a taxpayer and a voter. guest: that is a nice set of issues. the question you rsed about what stifles growth, i think you'll see more specific discussion in congress that in recent memory. what appears to be supporting growth, spending more money, in fact is not. there are certain regulations that are stifling growth.

some small-business owners and entrepreneurs are asking the question, you are not hiring and you're not gwing, why? what can the government do to change that? there is nothing more respectful than a real congressional debate. one of the criticism that is made of congress is that it has not been having robust debates. there were not substantive back- and-forth so the american people can have an idea about what he's ideas do and why they're important. i think that would benefit both sides. this would be good for the president -- >> budget. there are alternatives. host: a couple more phone calls.

only, md. -- olney, maryland. caller: i am an american citizen. everybody calls in and talks about the democratic views. if they are republican or a middle of the road to independence, they talk about conservative or liberal views. weeed to talk about american views. we have increased the size by over 21 2 million people. what to these people do -- but over 200 million people. host: let's take the point, the size of the federal government. guest: one of the interesting things is how many independent contractors there are. doingf the research we're is what happened to the government -- if the government

jets down? for many -- if the government shuts down. it kind of already has. people are uncertain about what spending levels will be. contracts have been held up, in some cases, for six months. so what is the government prove it is the net worth -- remember when the government went lean and mn in previous administrations to the patent contract out the work, so that the government is not just those people. it is also the contractors who are picking up the -- they are not creating jobs in the uncertain climate. host: you were talking about the 87 republican freshmen and what we might not know about them. you're writing a piece that is coming up next week in the "christian science monitor."

guest: i was trying to give insights. i campaigned with some of them to see how the world had changed. this is not a monolith, this class. they have very diverse views, even in terms of how they would cut and span. members voted to increase spending for police and four firemen, who preserved funny in the department of education, department of energy, rather, for green programs. any time you hear something that begins the freshmen are, or even the tea party is, even the tea party is not a monolith. "war and peace."you had the leading freshman at loggerheads as to whether not he should sustain a war in libya. that would be senator rubio.

get out and really, that would be senator rand paul. host: you can go to "christian science mr. reid: mr. president, the time we have left to work on a budget agreement is extremely short. , a window which we can avoid a possible shutdown is closing quickly. it is no longer measured in months or weeks. we're now just down to a few days. in the time we have to get a long legislative process started in both houses is measured really in hours. it's clear that those sitting at

the negotiating table have different priorities. that's true of aefrpb negotiation. but -- of any negotiation. but we all should share the same goal: to keep the country running and keep the economic recovery moving forward. we all want to cut the deficit. last week we agreed upon a number on which to base our budget. $73 billion below the president's proposal. agreements remain on where we should make those cuts. we worked through the weekend to bridge that gap. we made some progress. we're not where we should be yet. there is another way in which the sides remain separated. democrats have demonstrated throughout this process that we're willing to meet in the middle. our republicans in the tea party continue to reject reality and insist instead on ideology. let me give a couple of examples. first, they refuse to recognize that h.r. 1, that is the budget the house passed, is going to happen. the tea party pushed it through the house over the objections of

some republicans and all democrats. then the senate soundly defeated -- mr. president, even all republicans didn't vote for h.r. 1 in the senate. we all know the president would never sign it into law anyway. the republican party and the tea party need to admit that democrats have proven what the country already knows, that neither party can pass a budget without the other party and neither chamber can send it to the other -- i'm sorry, neither chamber can send it to the president without the other chamber. democrats stand ready to meet the republicans halfway and the senate stands ready to meet the house halfway. we hope our partners on the other side are willing to be just as reasonable. second, tea party republicans refuse to recognize that their budget is simply an appalling proposal. they stomp their feet and call compromise a dirty word and insist on a budget that will hurt america rather than help it. it slashes programs for the sake of slashing programs. it chops zeros off the budget

for nothing more than bragging rights. the authors and advocates either completely ignore the impact of their dangerous cuts or they know the damage it will do and simply don't care. either way it's not right. their budget won't do a thing to lower unemployment. in fact, it will cost the country 700,000 jobs. that's not my estimate, mr. president. that's the estimate of the head of moody's, independent economists who worked for democrats and republicans. it hurts seniors. it slashes funding for the social security administration, which means seniors and disabled americans who count on the benefits they earn over a lifetime of hard work will have to wait for these benefits. in many cases those social security checks are seniors' only source of income. in some cases they are the only thing keeping them out of poverty. and those checks have nothing at all to do with the deficit. nothing. the republican budget will hurt

women and their families. it cuts nutritional programs for women, infants and children. this program has nothing to do, mr. president, with the deficit. this program, the w.i.c. program, women, infants and children, this is a program for the poor, the very poor that our budget makes cuts to planned parenthood. they are based on ideology, not economics. planned parent hao*t does not contribute -- does not contribute to the deficit. their budget will also hurt our veterans. there is a successful program in this country that helps homeless veterans afford housing. democrats think that our nation's veterans who are down and out, need a roof over their head and we think it's a worthy program. the republican budget nearly eliminates it. their budget will also hurt students. the tea party plan gives hundreds of thousands of

impoverished boys and girls out of head start, a program to allow them to learn to read. little preschoolkids. it cuts college students' pell grants and slashes job training programs. that's no way to recover, mr. president. an independent economist analyzed the tea party's plan and found that it will actually put the brakes on economic growth. the point of this whole exercise, our budget, is to help the economy. democrats will not stand for a budget that weakens our economy. none of the people i've just mentioned led us into the recession. punishing innocent bystanders like seniors, women, veterans and students will not lead us to recovery. this is what we mean when we say their budget is based on ideology and not reality. this is what we mean when we say the republican and tea party budget slashes irresponsibly and when they refuse to relent on

dangerous cuts, many of them have nothing to do with the deficit. that's what we mean when we say that either side -- i'm sorry. that's -- i'm sorry, mr. president. and when they refuse to relent on those dangerous cuts, many of which have nothing to do with the deficit. that's what we mean when we say the other side simply isn't being reasonable. mr. president, our national budget reflects our values and the tough choices that we make. democrats have made many tough choices because we know the sacrifices are the cost of consensus and we believe they're worth it. but we've never forgotten that what we cut is more important, is not more important than how much we cut. in addition, the many choices about what to slash and what to keep, the republican leadership has another very big choice to make. it has to decide whether it will do what the tea party wants it to do or what the country needs it to do. i'm hopeful we'll make the right choice and we can come to a timely agreement. but the bottom line is this: at the end of the day we're all on the same side.

time, however, is not onlong

n political unrest in theong middle east. >> good morning. that was a great speech by ambassador ross. we are so lucky to have him addresses every yr. since president obama came to office promising a new approach to dipmacy in the middle east, and vigorous engagement in arab-israeli peace efforts, the middle east has seen seismic changes in the way none of us could have imagined. as debate goesver -- goes on over u.s. involvement in libya, the wars in iraq and afghanistan, observers agree that the israeli-palestinian peace negotiations have not advanced in a way that the administration had hoped. and that efforts to invigorate arab-israeli negotiations have at times tested the u.s.-israeli

relationship. we are privileged to have with us this morning three experts, each with a unique first and perspective on america's middle east policy. these veterans will share their views of the challenges facing the administration and their vision to the bestay forward in theuest for an arab-israeli peace and for stability in the region. mark is vice-president and director for foreign-policy at the brookings institution and senior adviser and special envoy for middle east peace, george mitchell -- george mitchell. it as senior director of near east and south asian affairs. his department posts include two tours as u.s. ambassador to israel and service as assistant

secretary of state for near east affairs. before entering government service, he served for eight year as founding executive director of the washington institute for near east policy. he writes, many of the editorials on foreign-policy. his columns have been required reading for those interested in the inner workings of america's strategy in the middle east and u.s.-israel relations. he rorted on the middle east from jerusalem and has covered latin-american and etern european politics from bazaar isouth america and poland.

his diplomatic posts include assistant secretary of state for ternational organizations which covers the un. he is [unintelligible] democracy promotion to my human rights policy. we have a reporter who has covered these issues day in and out. he will give the floor to each of our panelists to open with a few remarks before he opens it

up to questions. i would like to thank all three of you for honoring us by taking time to be with us this morning. >> good morning. thank you. we will start with five minutes from each of the panelists and will go to responses. we will open up further. but start. >> we were up in the podium less time. it tells you how far we have come it has been a long journey and the counter productive one.

in the end, what is happening in the third world is profound and consequential for the challenges roe faces in terms of trying to achieve a two-stage solution for the israeli-palestinian nflict. we have to start with what is happening around israel. the change that is sweeping across the arab world which i am confident, no one predicted this would happen. none of my predictions have ever proven true.

i am confident there is not one arab country that will not be touched by what is happening. what is interesting if you look at it from the point of view from the impact it has on israel and an impact on peace making, the demonstrators in the street are not burning [unintelligible] and they are not raising the banner of palestine. the focus is on bringing their governments and achieving freedom and government. that does not mean that will not come around. to the palestinian issue. one should not be complent.

arab governments wanted to deflect opinion from the issues they are demonstrating by focusing on the palestinian issue. they did not have an impact on public opinion. ey have more important issues. the popular government is more responsive to the people could focus on this issue. it may take some time. in the meantime, not only our governments preoccupied with their own survivor -- survival,

the obama administration is preoccupied with dealing with the nsequences of major people. the foundation [unintelligible] we are in the midst of a quiet but fairly profound crisis in relations between the u.s. and saudi arabia. it is not about israel. we're also preoccupied with what i consider to be a slide show -- sideshow in libya. what happens in an agent will have profound consequences. and so the administration does

not have to -- the bandwidth to do with trying to promote arab- israeli [unintelligible] in this context. the potential that was out there was taking place between israel and syria is also [unintelligible] >> now that the leader of syria faces the challenge that was too long in coming, to respond to their demands for greater freedom from the tyranny of the syrian party. the consequences of this is that israelis and palestinians

probably for the first time in their existence are left to their own devices. it would be a a good thing in my view from israel's point of view if it tried to resolve conflict with the palestinians now while the rest of the arab world is not watching. while the u.s. is preoccupied. it is clear that time is not on israel's side. the clock ticking. it did not have to read yesterday's quoted near times article about the building in the -- pressure building to declare palestine the state and put israel in the position of being an occupying power under international law and subject to u.n. sanctions if united states

were ever to allow that to happen which i think it will. the pressure is clearly building. i will finish on that point. it would benefit israel to check the prospect of resolving issues between israel and the palestinians. fax thank you and is an honor to be here. i sort of feel like i am the buffer zone. these are diplomats that are far smarter and experienced and distinguished that i am and also older, i should point out. [laughter] i'm going to try to be quick.

and i will be more provocative because i like them i do not ve to worry about somebody quoting what i say. what i am going to do is focus on the obama administration's handling of the era -- arab uprising which has been effective in some way but it is planning to the weaknesses of this administration and president whh are to embrace the conventional thinking d to be too cautious in responding to big opportunities that come along. obama began with an outdated and conventional view of the middle east. and defining the arab-israeli

conflict. this was the classic american view of the region but i thought it was unfortunate. the bush administration had made the conceptual breakthrough after 9/11 in saying that the arab-israeli conflict was not central. the of problem was the stasis of autocratic regimes. the bush administration cannot pursue this to the end and it lost its nerve after a while. and understood the region differently. the obama administration started with the mistake of going back to the old philosophy. as a result, they were taken by surprise by this uprising. there are many people who was --

were saying that this was untenable. experts are trying to tell demonstration that change was inevitable. demonstration did not listen. in every country, where this change has exploded, the initial impulse seems to be to resist the idea that change is inevitable or desirable. obama was quoted as saying you cannot allow yourself to be behind the curve. hillary clinton's firs statement that obama was the last plic leader to make a statement criticizing khaddafi. the first major statement was to say that bashar assad is a

reformer. we should expect him to go ahead with reform. what worries me is the u.s. will not do enough to embrace this change and will not do enough to support the cause of change and it will slip bk into the old ways in the region. the arab-israeli issue is defined as central. i'm worried obama will be too ambitious and the middle east peace process and not ambitious enough on arab reform. the first instance of doing enough quickly is libya. obama did the right thing in deciding to intervene but he is doin at in what amounts to a penny wisand pound foolish way. he is defining -- it is essential that khaddafi not beinallowed to massacre his way.

other arab rulers will take this as an example. the administration's approach has the danger of creating a stalematstatement. by not acting against gaddafi, we are inviting the consequences we're worried about. radicalizing the opposition, giving a place for al qaeda, creating what hillary clinton herself warned could be oa big somalia. it seems to be an unrealistic attitude and it reflects what has been a trend in washington to cling to this idea that somehow, we can talk the syrian

regimend to transforming itself into breaking its alliance with a run to be cooperative and has bought to make peace with israel. the last two weeks have shown that those ideas were an illusion. we need to move on for that. there are legitimate reasons to worry about what could happen if the syrian regime were overturned. it is a messy country. any major changes likely to lead to the rise of of regime that would be left with -- led by sunnis and be less friendly to hazlet. the logical policy would be to embrace those who are bringing about change. i want to come to the arab- israeli issue.

which i think there will be a natural impulse as there seems to be at the end of every middle east crisis. for everyone to turn their attention to israel and the palestinians and saying this is the coda. we have to settle this once and for all and we see that coming in september when i think the palestinians will go to the general assembly and seek recognition. the obama administration, you could say, is engaged in a defense of diplomacy. it is under pressure from european states which are considering embracing this palestinian initiative and if they did, it would put the u.s. and israel in a difficult position. the question is, how you mage it. you manage it by the insisting there be quick progress toward the settlement between israelis and the palestinians which is some of what we'reearing. it is we heard from secretary gates when he was in tel aviv

and that is a return to an unrealistic way of thinking about the situation. it will be less likely we can move fward. where have all the same elements that impede progress before including leaders of both sides who are very reluctant to make the necessary compromises and who lack the political basis internally to make -- pushed through the big changes. now we have the additional element of enormous uncertainty of who are going to be israel's neighbors, what will be their attitude toward the peace process? will be the -- who will be the leaders in jordan year from now? during the course of that year while no one is looking, israelis and palestinians will and this conflict is wildly unrealistic. what concerns me is the

administration will focus its ambition on doing that and not enough of its ambition on taking advantage of this ermous opportunity they have >> thank you. let me begin by saying to jackson what ronald reagan once said to walter mondale. we will not use your inexperience against you. [laughter] i have two problems in following the speakers. i should be in bed drinking tea with lemon. i was ordered to come here so i am here. i agree with both of them. in almost everything they have said. i would like to put a twist on the israeli-palestinian part. i was in israel 10 days ago and the government is frozen.

trying to figure out what to do given the various pressures that are emerging. some of them, the arab revolt. jordan looks different. part of it is really politics which is as usual, difficult. as the prime minister tried to figure out what initiatives he might te diplomatically he had the same problem that aerial shot brown had which was a fractious coalition and a difficult party. more difficult because he created a new party and more of the central elements are of right wing party that it was. he had another great advantage as he thought about taking risks. that was the certainty the u.s.

had his back. you heard dennis say that u.s.- israel military cooperation is good as or better than it has been. the administration should get credit for that. it is excellent. the diplomatic cooperation is poor. we have seen events in the un we have not seen for some time including the last video. which should have been easy as pie can which was followed by a disgusting speech on the part of susan rice which adopted the view taken by those who were in favor of the resolution we beat out. it blames israel for everything. and blames the settlements for everything. what i do think is the israelis want to do something and that sounds easy. what i do not like is to see

israel sitting there fretting about the changes in the arab world, fretting about washington, fretting about new york, worried about what the palestinians will do and in a bunker doing nothing diplomatically. it is a broad consensus that they need to separate from the palestinians. ve broad. it is 90% or higher today. the question i asked is if you -- would go to separate from the paleinians? i'm talking about the west bank. the beginnings of moves that would lead toward the result that the israelis want. or are resigned to. they are going to be out of most of the west bank at someoint. the vast majority of the sellers

are going to have to move at some point. i think israel would get an enormous amount of credit if it took any steps to move toward the goal that it seeks. just one example. there is a law that says any subtle beyond the fence who wishes to move back behind the fence in green line israel or major block. the government will purchase your home as they did in gaza. there are a fair number of people in those settlements who would move back for financial reasons. we need to get past the notion that separating from the palestinians as a favor that israel does for the palestinians. it is not. it is the conclusion that most israel have reached, to put it

in one line. there will not live in peace but they can live in peace apart from the palestinians. the question is, if that is the end results, three prime ministers in a row have said it is the result they are seeking, why is it not possible to take of smallest step in that direction? no just for the diplomatic benefit that may accrue in washington or new york or london or berlin. they look for help from others but they basically acted. that is since 1948, to act to

bans its interest. the question i asked myself at this moment in the middle east -- are there not actions that israel could take, rather than waiting for the palestinians to make mistakes, waiting for the international community to do things right or wrong, but are there not steps that israel could taken its own interest? thank you. [applause] >> martin, is wildly unrealistic to expect the palestinian and israeli to go off to the side and there get some sort of agreement? >> probably. i am not sure -- that everyone here the question? is it unrealistic to expect them to go off and make a deal? quietly? in many ways, the best way for them to do it is quietly.

and they certainly have ways of doing that. martin is on the short ride from jerusalem, the prime minister's residence, but the answer is his really -- i am not suggesting that the united states focus -- i know that we have a disagreement on this. the obama administration needs to focus on what is happening in the arab world. it would be a mistake to imagine somehow we could stabilize our own situation and give voice to our values in terms of these demands for change, democratic change in the arab world, by somehow trying to resolve the israeli-palestinian conflict. but it is precisely at these moments when other than diversity, it becomes easy, not

more difficult, for israelis and palestinians without the external pressure, without having to gain washington, trying to get the united states on your side, which the israeli government is understandably preoccupied with. elliott and i for ones are in agreement. this would be a time for the israeli government to take the initiative. what i fear is that the problem with the palestinian leadership is not that they do not want to participate in a deal. they do not believe that netanyahu is serious. believe netanyahu is serious. i have at all -- they have an alternative ute. i am afraid that will lead to deterioration of the situation as israel looks to retaliate against the palestinians for the

isolation that israel is suffering. it is a question of sitting down quietly and figuring out how to do this. and if they do not soon, they will resign or he will unite with hamas, as difficult as that might be. that is the trend they are heading toward. for all these reasons, it makes sense for israel to sit down with people who want to me a deal and do it. >> i will grab the microphone back. i think he makes an excellent point. it would be a wonderful moment to go off quietly and talk to each other. the problem we have is the enormous level of distrust you have between this group of

palestinians and israeli leaders and having talked to both, the palestinian leadership and abbas have been convinced that netanyahu is someone hit they cannot work with. the best strategy is to allow the u.s. and israel to get into a fight and for him to be forced out that why which is their view of what happened in the 1990's, so there will let it happen again. they have not varied from that view and strategy. easier to go toinds it the un and other than to contemplate the idea of sitting down and having a serious discussion about the right o return. i have never seen any evidence he is prepared to do. netanyahu for his part thinks that abbas is not serious and does not want to make a deal and even if you wanted to come he could not deliver anything and it is a waste of time to talk to him. that level of distrust is so

poisonous and it makes it difficult for something like that to happen. something like what happened in the early 1990's when they went off and talk to each other productive way. elliott was suggesting something different. a reprise of what was the which was toan change that situation for the better. i feel like the israelis took the lesson and netanyahu took the lesson that doing that in gaza was a mistake. because of what happened in gaza and the cannot do the same thing. the reason they dropped the idea is that did not want to see a repeat of what happened in gaza were you have a takeover by hamas and another iranian many stayed on their border. why would they contemplate such a thing given what happened in gaza? >> that is the right question.

the idea that they will be able to negotiate a deal is not realistic. for all the obvious reasons, i do not think these are compromises. on the israeli side, the prime minister would need to get kadima in a coalition. i may be wrong with my read on kadima. the nuts years in into and of government and she is the he about being his successor, not his foreign minister and i wonder whether she would join a coalition no matter what position it took. the swer i think your question is to not move out the ids. the difference between what sharon dead in gaza and the thought that the sellers in outlying settlements whore not going to survive would move

back. you would not constrain the eye -- the ability of the idf to act, so you would not have another gaza. >> that came out in the book about condoleezza rice. sharon had that ea but cause of -- share of world sharon which is an interesting wrinkle. you talked to jackson about this administration's approa to syria and the idea that really would be replaced by a sunni elite and distance themselves from serzh -- from iran. the israelis outlined the possibilities of a post-regime syria. none of them were good. there were not happy with --

there were less happy with the prospect of what would replace it in terms of the security they have had on the heights and the relative -- the degree to which the have been able to negotiate with the regimes. what has changed since then? what would change be more salutary that was in 05? >> none of us understand what might happen in syria which makes me qualified to speak about it. as qualified as anyone else. first, i would say that one characteristic of the israeli government is they do not like change anywhere around them for whatever reason. they are too cautious in that respect, too conservative. i think it is shortsighted of israel and overly -- they're the ultimate high for realists. it is shortsighted to prefer a

dictatorship to any change whatsoever. things can go wrong. will it beorse than a dictator with iran? i do not see it. what is different is the arrival of this young arab generation that dennis ross was talking about. relatively educated,estless youth, middle-class, who won their countries to join the 21st century and become democratic, global, with free-market economies. the class exists in syria. you can find them in damascus. they are there. i -- what we do not know what happened, it is possible there would be the ones that would end up on top of any change that would happen.

>> my mind started going forward and i wasmagining the first step of a outlying settlements and there is an argument over whether there would get compensation. it would be bogged down in politics. the prime minister gave a speech a few wes ago in which he talked about the events talking -- in the middle east. how do you persuade the promised he does have agency and can advance events, no one has control over events outside their country, but he can influencevents. >> it is difficult. you have to political factors.

washington and jerusalem. there is a great deal of distrust between netanyahu and obama. there is no trust. it is unfortunate for them and us. as the prime minister thinks about wh to do -- this makes it more difficult. the u.s. could say to him, if you're thinking any corrective position, talk to us about it and let us try to get behind it and let's see what we can negotiate to support you, to help you, to stand by you, t have her back. including if the u.s. is in favor of the pposal, put pressure on someone like the leadership of kadima. to get behind it.

if i were betting, i would bet after looking the point -- at the political situation, the prime minister -- no one talks about it anymore. the idea of a major speech which was to announce the major idea seems toave been withdrawn. there is a major step to be taking. if i am betting, i will bet against it. this is a moment where bogus on the part of the israelis would be significant. i will give you another example. they can all move to aeririel ad there would be good strength in

ariel. here is an example that many of you may not like. peru and chile and argentina have recognized the palestinian state. maybe israel should recognize the palestinian state and everyone will say what does that mean? i will say what does it mean when chile recognizes the palestinian state? do they recognize syria? i do not know. israel recognized syria was there. i was reading the the most recentnd extremely persuasive

foreign ministry arguments. what happens, we're in agreement. there is no return to the '67 borders. that is not going to happen. it is a state whose borders are indeterminate and with which we have grave border disputes which should now be negotiated. i do not know how that disadvantages israel when you compare the position they may be in hansard to burn anyway. that is what i mean by thinking through. >> we have nothing urgent to do.

>> good morning. how wonderful it is that the young people are spurring the revolutions across the middle east. my concern is to look at a to try now -- after egypt right now. the young people are in the forefront of who will control agent going forward. they seem to have been marginalized. is it still realistic to look at egypt and the optimistic that egypt down the road will be a democratic, youth oriented to

use the iven state -- youth driven state? >> there is plenty of reason to be concerned. you have to look back to the iranian revolution and what happened there. you follow what is happening in egypt. there is reason for optimism. the youth and broad support they have were concerned about the way the milary and the muslim brotherhood seem to be making a common cause of their expense. they're calling for elections which would have given them little time to organize the

muslim brotherhood and the old national democratic party. they came out of the streets in force. before that, the military have listened to them and postponed the election until september. they have seen what the secular and youthful forces can do in terms of mobilizing people. they have gone back into the streets. there is an alliance being

forged. we should not assume the worst case is going to happen. european allies can help them organize politically and they want to help insure when the government iinformed. the brotherhood would not want to takehem. they would rather a new career and be formed and a failed. we have to lay the groundwork to make sure does not fail.

and touri has stopped. a lot of the entrepreneurs are in jail who were associated with the regime. capitalists [unintelligible] it will be a huge challenge. it is a scary situation but exhilarating and there is a lot of opportunity. to have the courage these young peop are showing is important. >> telling people they should reject when there are good constitutional reforms,hey had no organization and two weeks to prepare.

>> what they do not want to -- what are your thoughts about what they do what? >> there is a lot to reject. what people are saying -- it is the end of the myth of arab exceptional loss of. people are saying we do not want censorship or secret police, or political prisoners. we do not want stolen electio were corrupt governments. arabs are rejecting that and saying, we want to get rid of all that and we will have a

decent government. i think you're right in saying there more clear what their or recting them what they're for. i think it is much too soon to be pessimistic about where this will lead. it will lead to a sundowns. some countries will do better than some places it looks more than other places it will be difficult and violent. i am struck by the fact that what has gone were the state republics. the so-called republics of fear. tunisia, egypt, yemen. hopefull syria. the monarchies have a better shot and a greater degree of legitima. you have seen the ruling family is trying to stay ahead of the curve. whether they will make it or not

remains toe seen. >> another question. >> i would like to talk about libya -- i would like you to talk about libya. in particular, i have read articles raising questions and concerns about the composition with those participating, we do not have a goosense of which groups are involved, who they ar who they are beholden to. if you have anything you could share, i would appreciated. >> al qaeda does have operatives in libya. there is potential for that

force to grow considerably in the chaos that exists in libya today. a lot of libyans were trained by al qaeda in afghanistan. the relationship between the u.s. and gaddafi was built in part on cooperation against those elements. we have a common enemy, ironic to think about in those ways. there is a potential there. it is one of the reasons why the obama administration is hesitant to get into the game of army. the rebels. we have been there before wn we armed the taliban. against the soviet union and ended up having to worry about those steers coming back to be

used against america. the concern is there. it has to be monitored carefully and a prolonged situation of chaos. it will advantage of qaeda. the real question is whether it becomes possible bidder to get gaddafi out quickly in which case you have a stalemate of the opposition forces with the support of the coalition who are able to build their capabilities, train forces, and in the process, be able to control the territory and

prevent a somalia-like situation. >> let me ask a question about bahrain. how do get above the curve in which -- ia country where the u.s. has invested against creeping iranian influence and yet it is an unpopular government? >> i do worry about the situation. we could settle this in five minutes. they must move toward a constitutionalonarchy. it is clear. the system cannot be one in which all power is in the hands of the ruling party and zero in

the hands of the population. they have a real parliament that is elected. the ruling family cannot survive. moderates in the shia leadership will have a harder time with a radical elements of the community. i hope the u.s. is vigorously engaged with trying to bring all the influence we can bear on both sides for the shia groups, the government of iraq and the ayatollah and the arab side,

people like [unintelligible] it is late in the game and we could end up with a tragitraged. >> you're right. the reason for that is because saudi arabia has taken over bahrain. taken over control of what happens there on the government side. and made it clear it will not brook the kind of process leading to a constitutional monarchy that elliott has talked about. from their point of view, that will lead to share a government- bahrain. that will be for the persians. the next up is for the saudi

arabia -- up to saudi arabia. they look at what is happening and they see it as sectarian and iranian versus saudis. they are not preped to talk to about it. they have come to identifyhe u.s. as a threat to their internal surity. there rely on us for th -- wenal security and c. have a problem. they are telling the king of jordan, don't you dare. i would not be surprised if they are telling h to not given either.

syrian to thean north and egypt to the west. it is inconceivable that will not be affected. they are determined to erect a wall against the tsunami. i do not think it will work here. we should not imagine that in the part of the malaise that is most sensitive to our interests. this is going to go well. these kingdoms have to get on a path towards constitutional

monarchies. the king of morocco gave a far reaching speech two weeks ago. he is promising that process to his own people and reestablished trust. find a way to move them forward. i'm afrai>> i would like to como the idea of bold initiatives, whether it is bilateraor unilateral and put it in the context we were talking about and try and set a time line. we have been watching policies developed on the fly. earthquakes, it seems that is

time when we should be looking at the reset and evaluating and bucking up against what are the real time lines and the artificial time lines. whether it is the demographic of a clock is ticking and put in context what you see as a altic time line for assessing making major policy decisions which could have existential ramifications for israel. >> t changes will play out over a decade or two. i agree with the description of the situation. you can see that it is extremely complex.

the israelis have decided and have agreed the direction in which they wish to go. separation from the palestinians. they do not want to have a state -- if we know the goals, what can we take some steps to move toward it. th is my suggestion. >> we all know what the endgame is. we have been through this summer a times. we know what it looks like. we all know that if there is going to be an israeli- palestinian situation, there has to be a palestinian state. that state will not ben th move, it will be on the west bank. we a know that the palestinian state will be based on the lines

of june 4, 1967. is that something that will cause e demise of the jewish state? it will secure the jewish state. what is holding us up? us, not just israel. this is something we will support. we want to see it happen. it is in the best interest of the survival and there is a sense of urgency. israel is strong economically, militarily, and you can see the way the alliances have grown so

formidably. now beginning to fret. angela merkel is having a shouting match with netanyahu. let alone the relationship between barack obama and netanyahu. the writing is on the wall. i just wish that in the circumstances where we have an opportunity to do something, that we would get behind an israeli government. that decided to resolve it now. >> my headlinesould be, nobody in the middle east trusts obama. flames are lapping at saudi arabia and the economy is about to collapse. for liviu to euronext section which is about the collapse of civil rights in america. -- i leave you to the next

section which is about the collapse of civil rights in america. [laughter] [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> in a few moments, a panel of health care executives on the effect of the new health care law. in about an hour, eric holder's news conference on trials for the alleged 9/11 conspirators. >> this morning we will focus on budget negotiations with tom mccintock, a member of the budget committee.

and peter welch of vermont. he will be joined by the executive editor of "rolling stone," whose magazine recently published a story that u.s. soldiers murdered civilians in afghanistan. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> several live events to tell you about on c-span3. house republicans will issue of proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 at 10:30 a.m. eastern. at 12:15 p.m. eastern, a memorial service for david broder who died last month at the age of 81. speakers include joe biden and gwen iffel of pbs.

>> policies ban on twitter. is the fastest way to get schedule updates. you can join the conversation and tweet questions directly to our guests. it started at twitter.com/c span. >> a health care executive says that the health-care law will not improve cost. he spoke with other executives at the world health care congress. this is about an hour. >> we will get right to it. our panelists will give a few remarks to start. we will start with george

halvorson. the chairman and ceo of kaiser permanante. we also have john perlin, and mark bertolini. >> good morning. how're you doing? a great pleasure to be here at the world health congress. i am going to talk about health care reform issues and the issues we are facing in this country today. starting with the fact that health care in this country is consuming a massive amount of resources. u.s. healthcare consumes $2.7 trillion in revenue last year. the fastest-growing part of the economy. to put it in perspective by

itself, the health care economy is larger than the total economy of every other country in the world except for five. on everything that they do. to put it in a different perspective, the average premium in this country for a family is $14,000. a full-time worker who earns the minimum wage in this country makes $14,000. where the point where a full- time worker spending all their money on health care will not be able to pay their premiums next year. in another perspective, the complete sours and in the midst for a new assistant engineer in bangladesh or is $12,000. we clearly have an affordability issue and they cost issue with

american healthcare. we need health care reform in america because we need much more affordable care. what does reform look like? health care reform to be done well hast have four elements to it. one is coverage. we're the only industrialized country that does not cover everyone. we need to do that. we need to take care. there should not be 1.7 million people get infections in our hospital. we need safer and more effective care. we need half as many people dying of sepsis in hospitals. we need to fix the cost of care. i'll return to that in a second. if we have half as many as transplants, that will bring down the cost of care. we really need to improve population held. if we leave that out of the equation, we're making a huge mistake. we need to focus on achieving a portability by making health

care a lot smarter. when we look at focused on opportunities, the first that is obvious is a 75% of the cost of care come from people with chronic conditions. only 25% comes from acute conditions. and we're talking about the various cost of cancer care, that is less than 5% of the local health care dollar. if we eliminated breast cancer, we would eliminated less than 3%. diabetics consume 32% of the spend of medicare. if we look at this and an intelligent way, the opportunity is not on the high cost things but on the vast number of people in this country who have chronic conditions and utilize a lot of health care. we also need to look at who is utilizing health care.

1% of the population is about 30% of the cost. they spend a lot of money on care. and then 10% of the population is 80% of the cost. that is a huge opportunity. if we can focus on that 10% and intervene inappropriate ways and keep them moving down the care continue on, we can save a lot of money. we need to think about the systematic cancer, strategically, and not assume that we will continue spending at the same rates in the same ways and deliver care in the same way. we need to focus on better care. we also need to look at prices of health care in america. i am going to share some prices from other countries. we have the highest unit prices per care in the world, overwhelmingly higher than anyplace else, by a factor of two or three. we pay more for each piece of care than anybody in the war. if you have an office visit in

canada, the doctor gets paid $40 and if they charge $41 they lose their license to practice in canada. in the u.s., an office visit is anyway -- anywhere from $60 to $150. for a normal delivery, a doctor in canada gets paid $500. a doctor in france gets paid more than twice that. in the u.s., the number is triple and quadruple the amount that doctors get paid anywhere else in the world for the same procedure. if you look it scans and imaging fees, one of those are things in this country is that we're talking about rationing access to skins. we're paying to in three times as much per scan as anyone else in the world with the same technology and the same outcome. rationing of four repricing is an absurd strategy.

there is more than enough range in existing prices to make health care affordable if we just move prices further down the existing range. we do not have to invent new levels, we just have to get care into the right price range. the same kind of distribution, we paid two or three times as much as anyone else. hospital charges -- one of the myths is that we hospital was too much. the truth is we have fewer hospital beds per capita than anyone, fewer and missions, shorter times the state, and highest prices of anyone in the world. they are higher than the rest of the world. there is not one country in europe that charges more than $1,000 a day for a hospital stay. there is not one state in the u.s.. the averages less than $3,000.

bypass surgery is particularly interesting. critically important surgery, has a great outcome, and when you look at pricing on that surgery, most of europe is charging at a very low number. no one is going over $20,000. if you go to india, bangladesh or, turkeys, great hospitals have good outcome and they're doing it for $5,000. in the u.s., the ranges up to $150,000, and then the average is quadruple the rest of the world. same surgery, same outcome, same safety levels, different price range. when we look at drug prices, everyone knows the difference with drug prices because they are talking about it in congress. drug companies should. the surgeons and say, we only charge twice as much, they charge four times as much. we are under pricing. they could legitimately make

that point. to prices are significantly higher. if we pay in this country to prices that the dutch pay or the swiss pay for drugs, we not only could fill the doughnut all for nothing, you could give seniors $50 a month. if we paid the same fees they do in canada and with the same care and same office visit, same tests, same everything -- same hospital days, we could say we it -- we could take the percentage of gdp spent in this country from 18% to 12%. we need to start buying care by a package rather than the peace, buying it on a piecework basis, where there is a consensus to raise the fee for each piece, it makes little sense. there are multiple per first incentives built into that model.

perverse incentives building that model. it forces the market to build $500 scanners, and our people making a profit at $300.200 dollars. it will not bankrupt the market. we have put our deductibles where we hiked the difference between the $500, the $1,000, and the $2,000 can and the consumers have no reason to go to the cheaper place. the benefit package is wrong. let's pay by feet and a reasonable way. -- pay by fee any reasonable way. and i just mentioned, at kaiser permanente, the things we have done to bring down the number of

broken bones by half for seniors in all six care givers. in three of them, there is no bill that we could charge. but we are prepaid, so we get to use the resources and not have to be delivering care at the dictate of a fees. and we also need to improve health. we have a population that is increasingly overweight, increasingly inactive, chronic conditions growing every single year, and the primary driver of health care costs are chronic conditions. we need to improve the health of our population. and it can be done. healthy eating is important. we need to move in the directions of kidding us to eat better and more healthy food, but we need physical activity, and that is the sweet spot. walking is our very best hope

and our best graduate. thinking as a society about what we can do to make his population healthier, we need to look to walking as an outcome. finns, they have gone from the least healthy to the most help the european nation by doing this. it is the most accessible thing to do. you can walk anywhere. it is the most likely to succeed because it actually works and because the narrow chemicals generated by walking are pleasurable, and the neurochemical generated by dieting are not pleasurable. [laughter] and when you are swimming upstream -- upstream of neurochemical, it is not easy. walking actually prevents and manages diabetes, it prevents heart disease and stroke, it prevents and treats depression

and anxiety, it helps manage as much, it lowers the rate of a couple of cancers, and you do not have to walk for how words a day. walking all by itself creates all of these benefits, and 30 minutes a day, five days a week, it can cut the new cases of diabetes in half. we could save medicare if we could cut the cases of diabetes in half. you can see some of the data, they're really good news and the thing that makes the strategy even more doable and more practical is that the new site shows that you can do that 30 minutes in two 15's. the biochemistry of the body is better, everything is more

functional when the body wall. , if you break your day like that, you can get the benefit from walking. so we need a national agenda for walking. when their kids to walk, we need our cities to be good walking friendly. we need our work places to be walking friendly. we need to walk to meetings. it has incredible benefits and it is the only logical thing that we can do that would change population help in any big way, as a society. so i will close with -- we need affordable health care in this country. we cannot afford to be on a pace that we are on. we need to have better care. we also need to step forward and for the first time in the history of health reform in this country look at creating price- competitive care. people think that price fees are

off the table relative to any health reform agenda. people think there is some inherent legitimacy to prices. there is no inherent legitimacy to prices. i know the process. every caregiver out there knows the processor. every caregiver now has half a dozen different prices depending on the patient. there is no inherent legitimacy to prices. that should be part of the agenda. we need to make prices part of what we do to fix care. and we need pro-active prevention to reduce the need for care, because if we do not, and we continue to have the explosion of chronic conditions, that will make care of fort -- unaffordable in the future. bernanke very much. [applause] >> george, as he walks back to his seat, we would love to get the perspective from bertolini

on pending the cost curve. -- bending the cost curve. >> good morning. i have three headlines for you and i will spend a couple of minutes on each. the first is that health care reform did not happen in the industry. it was absolutely necessary. secondly, the affordable care act is a reasonably good approach creating market basis access to health care insurance, not necessarily to health care. and third and probably more important, the affordable care act is quite frankly an action- forcing event to save the industry going forward. let's talk about the first. the small group and individual markets in the united states had been an inexorable decline for the last 15 years. more employers and individuals have dropped insurance over that time. so there was no other way to win

back those markets on as we reform the them. as a matter of fact, with the underpayment to medicare and medicaid and the cost shifting going on as well as the inexorable decline of the small group and individual markets, the large group employer based market was in trouble as well. it just did not know it yet. $84 billion a year cost shifted from medicare and medicaid on the backs of employers to pay for insurance. and individuals to pay part of their premiums, more than insurance. so the market needed to be changed, and that now back in 2005 came back with the insane notion of having an individual coverage requirement and calling for it across the industry. in 2006, the came out with a plan calling -- called transforming healthcare in america. it was a blueprint given to both administrations and congresses

for the last six years. that leads as to the affordable care act. we believe it to be a good market-based approach for providing access to health insurance. it does nothing to address quality and affordability. and if you saw the news this morning on medicare and the changes on medicare, while we change the financing of health care system, unless we get the underpinning of quality and affordability, it will still be unaffordable. the cost will be shifted to americans. in this country over the last five years, more than half or almost half of the increase in health-care costs to employers has been shifted to employees for both the reduction in benefits and an increase in the premium out of pocket that they pay. employee trends are currently running at 31% year-over-year

for their health care costs in the united states. more that will continue unless we get our quality and affordability. we believe that the affordable care act must now focus on quality and affordability, and employers and insurers need to be brought together in a way in what ever you what they call it, and affordable care organization. you might have seen one aco. their loosely defined. we're still pouring through them. if you want to see some interesting video, the 1 youtube and look at the avatar videos, individuals talking to the consultants and doctors. still very ill-defined, but aetna and others are active in trying to find t