understand what's going on, on the campaign trail to a certain extent. because there are so many windows into a given campaign event. we both like to talk to real people, so we'll get out there. >> a number of questions about the debt ceiling debate. we didn't really get too much analysis about the impact. but i'm wondering, two of the candidates will be coming out after this big debate here in washington. does that give an advantage or a disadvantage or is it unclear based on the outcome? >> well, it's unclear based on the outcome certainly. the congresswoman and the congressman have both been very strong in their opposition. >> no compromise. right? >> that will appeal to many people in the base of the party. and i think what you've heard from some of the other candidates is somewhat more equivocal position. though john huntsman this week came out strongly for the

boehner plan and said it was the only plan going and that the republicans and everybody ought to get behind it. congresswoman bachmann in particular, i think, has staked out that kind of tea party position. and she'll probably benefit from that. i think the other candidates are trying to get a piece of that, but try to go more broadly. >> i think bachmann and to a certain extent paul also risk some pleasure of backlash, or could in their don't raise the ceiling at all and their positions, playing down is a potential catastrophe. because what happens if the debt raised and there is catastrophe? then will the tea party, michelle bachmann and ron paul, be marginalized and seen as extreme by the general public and the primary electorate? it remains to be seen. >> focusing on the g.o.p. because of where we are in the race.

the governor talked about barack obama's organizing of the caucuses four years ago. strong is the president overall with iowans right now? >> well, i would say reasonably but not as strong as he was in 2007 and 2008. iowa was obviously his springboard that launched him to the presidency. i think in almost all of the states where he campaigned four years ago he's in a weaker position today, largely because of the state of the economy. you know, there are disillusioned progressives around the country who were part of the obama organization, the obama re-elect committee is working very hard to bring back fold and reenergize them i think they have some confidence that over time they'll be able to get most of them going. but there are also independents who have soured on the president. and that's been very much the focus of the top advisers around the president when you watch the that he gave in primetime on monday night when he and speaker boehner went

back-to-back. he was very focused on trying to appeal to independents and to bring them to his side. but there's some evidence in some recent polling that he's got some work to do on that front. >> we're until the midst of a very interesting time and weekend and what it's effect will be on national politics. thank you for being here to question governor branstad about the upcoming iowa and g.o.p. event. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> in some of the latest developments on capitol hill, the top democrat in the senate majority leader harry reid, is tentatively endorsing a deal to raise the government's debt ceiling and cut spending. subject to approval by his party's caucus. there is a new agreement being talked about. it includes enough borrowing authority to keep the government funded into 2013. it would include an immediate hike in the debt limit with the second increase to be accompanied by trillions of dollars in future spending cuts

phased in over a decade. the senate right now is in recess. earlier there was a vote to move forward with the bill that was supported by majority leader harry reid, but that did not get enough votes to move on. and in the house members voted the reid measure do you know yesterday. and members gaveled in, in the house, for a very brief pro forma session earlier before adjourning until tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern time with legislative business at noon. we could see votes in the house -- in the senate today as well. we'll continue to bring you updates here on the c-span net works. next, our "road to the white house." our series of interviews with the 2012 presidential candidates. and michigan congressman thaddeus mccotter. he outlines his strategy for winning the g.o.p. nomination and sideses up his primary opponents etch talks about the state of the economy and the debt ceiling debate currently going on in congress. he also talks about his family and a band in they plays the guitar. this is 30 minutes.

>> representative thaddeus republican of michigan, and a presidential candidate for the republican nomination. when did you first begin to about running for president? >> i think the thought was planted during the wall street bailout when we saw how the big financial corporations were treated, and then later juxtaposed to how the auto companies were treated when they needed assistance. the dichotomy between the sectors. from detroit you have a concern from the manufacturing sector. but as an american, it was a larger question to me if there are some things in this country too big to fail, such as the banks that implies there are things that are too small to be saved. i reject that. as a republican, an american, every citizen is equally sovereign. as time went on, we continued to see the failure of the markets to respond, the failure of credit to flow down the main street. to see people suffering. i think that's what cemented it. interestingly, i think it's a

jeopardy we face. we have a tremendous opportunity here to seize the future, make sure the 21st century remains an american century. but i think that in the final analysis, if we allow ourselves to continue to lelie on big government, which is contrary to what we're seeing in every other aspect of our lives, we're going miss this opportunity. >> yet when it comes to bailouts, republicans proclaimed it is government voters with reference to g.m. and the obama administration and democrats to help the auto industry in your home state, something mitt romney said he would not have done. do you oppose your fellow republicans on this? >> i did. but economically, as was pointed out -- i would point out extrateethyly i have a common with the dictatorship named china being the manufacturing giant of the twergs 21st.

nothing good will come to us of that for our prosperity and our security. but in terms of mr. romney, i absolutely oppose allowing foam go bankrupt because it's something we have to do. as a nation, we have to produce wealth, farm, manufacturer, innovate. if we do not, we remain -- there's also the premise that having seen wall street bailed out with no restructuring and a failure to get credit back down to turn around and say to people that live in 90-foot lots that somehow their tax dollars are used to bail out people 90-foot yachts is acceptable, but they can go bankrupt for the effort, strikes me as tearing at the country that was already going through a volatile time. >> yet saying the u.s. was on the cusp of financial disaster if wall street was not bailed out. some of these too big to fail companies were not helped out. >> i agreed with president bush in the past. i think history will be kinder.

but that was one where you had options on the table. and the big straw man was if you didn't want to throw $700 billion at them and hopefully went away, somehow you were not advocating any policy. you had people such as simon johnson of the i.m.f., talking about debt for equity, swaps, people like james baker iii talking about finding the ones that were insol gent, break off their assets into a resolution like inrporation much the savings and loan crisis. the reasons this is so important, as you recall, in the 1990's when the japanese faced a similar meltdown, the u.s. advised them to do what we didn't. they ignored our advice and had a lost generation. process ofin the having a lost generation because we didn't follow our own advice in this situation. and to me that was one of the reasons that i found the entire debate so reprehensible in some ways. you knew it wasn't going to work because it had been trialed and failed in japan. >> what are your views about organized labor? and how do you differ with

fellow republicans on issues like card check. >> as i pointed out, it was a mistake. these issues should be handled primarily at the state level. you have to understand we ever to support working people in unions or not. it's an artificial distinction if you want to get this economy going. as republicans, at least in my lifetime of 45, general-x, i saw a former labor leader be what i considered the greatest president in my lifetime, ronald reagan. so when the republican party tries to improfit economy for people regardless of what type of organization they're in, that leads towards a broader based coalition for economic prosperity and security. i think if you look at it that way, it makes perfect sense. if you try to win elections by already disqualifying yourself from a large segment. electorate, especially in swing states such as iowa, michigan, elsewhere, you're going to find the reason the republican party since 1988 has only won one popular vote for the presidency,

in 2004. as you recall, 2000 was a contested election where we lost the porch larry vote but won it in the electoral college. so i think republicans have to look at how we've gone since ronald reagan has left, since george bush the father was elected, and how we can rebuild that type of coalition that helped ronald reagan win 45 of 50 states. >> the head of the michigan -- said for a republican, quote, you're pretty good on labor. why is this a dividing issue between democrats and republicans, and how this will issue play out in a g.o.p. presidential primary? >> well, for a democrat, i think mark's ok, too. [laughing] that's high praise, indeed. that's a very relative statement. there are places -- i don't look at whether you're in a union or not. look at whether or not the situation that you're advocating has merit in terms of how it's going to affect the rest of the community or the rest of the country. so to my it's an artificial distinction to a large degree. i think that that's one of the things that refs have gotten away from. ronald reagan treated everybody as if they were equal because they were. so i think the republican party

has to get back to that. if you look at where people like my father, who was a reagan democrat, a union member, voted for him, people in our community as i was growing up supported the republican party because they had a host of issues on which they agreed with us. but we start to tell people simply because you're in one organization or another, and they're no longer wanted, they will vote the other way. you will not get to the other issues on which they can and have in the past voted republican. >> which leads to the debate that we've been severing the summer over the debt limit and budget priorities. and to the issue of compromise. why is it so hard for two parties to sit down in compromise on some of these issues? >> i wouldn't use the phrase inability to compromise at this point. i think the problem is the inability of the democrats who couldn't pass the budget who refuse to compromise on things such as obama care or on the trillion dollar stimulus where they jammed it through despite not only the republican party but the majority of the electorate is that when they had the control, they spent like it was going out of style. so they're refusal to compromise

or cooperate to try to find more constructive solutions to the nation's problems at that point in time was carried over. now if they do not have a majority of the house, the republicans -- what we're seeing out of the democrats in the senate and out of the white house now is a posture not a plan. i continue to point out the bipartisan plan cut, cap and balance was a concrete plan. we were told what they didn't like. so they vote it had down in the senate. fine. where was the senate plan? now we've only recently, since leader speaker boehner and the come out withve the second plan are we seeing any type of plan, as flawed as it may be come out of the senate? we still see no definitive presidential plan, either directly advocated by him or directly advocated through the senate. so i think that it's not just a failure to compromise. it's a failure to govern. it's a failure to september responsibility of what -- accept the responsibility by what they've done. we note republicans were not great on this the republicans the majority, had the presidency. but those were periods of time

where the republican party was running up an annual deficit of $96 billion. this white house and the democratic congress had run up a monthly deficit of $111 billion. a monthly deficit. pointed tos republicans when they had control of the house in the white house. and republicans pointed to the democrats. that goes to the core issue of getting beyond the finger pointing and getting something done. >> the finger pointing when it comes as it did recently, in the president's nationally televised debate, republicans went through a very painful period of time where we had -- we had to self-assess ourselves. we were assessed by the public. many of our colleagues did not return. we learned from that very painful experience that spending in the way that we did was unacceptable, especially are to the republican party so we've will bed our lesson. the democratic party continues to talk about more taxes, more

spending. and they try to pretend that big government will help grow the economy or lead to prosperity when the opposite is the case. so what you have is one party that has learned from being put into a minority for its failure to control spending and another one that has not. >> so define your brand of politics. what is your ideology? >> i don't. i'm a republican. i don't. i'm a republican. i joined the party 1986. a friend of mine asked me to run. that's how it started. eventually i worked my way up to be a county chair. one of the things you realize is the beautiedy the republican party is a variety of views to come together, the shared principles remaining the same so you focus on the principles, you variety of opinions and difference that can lead to more constructive solutions. i've always liked that so when people ask me what are you, i'm a republican. it's up to other people. get right to call me whatever they want. sometimes it's less than flattering. >> but there's a moderation. there are conservatives,

liberals, progressives. you wouldn't give yourself any other label? >> i'm a republican. i belong to the party of lincoln and reagan. grow up in a republican family? >> no. my mother was a moderate republican. father was a truman democrat. two of the biggest experiences politically i remember growing up were the two times my father admitted he voted republican to my mother. >> what was that? >> nixon and reagan. my father died in 1984. >> why did you get involved in politics? and what led to you registering as a republican and seeking office in 1986? >> my father was a local elected official. i didn't particularly care for it my father never cared for politics. there were times he was asked to run for detroit city council. he declined to do that. he found it a less than productive pursuit. but the reality was i got involved because i saw it didn't work under jimmy carter. i saw what worked under reagan. i was inclined to be a republican based from packal persons. i also got involved because

my friends said to me why don't you join the republican party? we need precinct delegates. this was at a time when michigan was going through a caucus system. they were leading up to the 1988 caucus to make the determination between george h.b. bush, jack kemp and the robinson supporters. my friend was a jack kemp sport. got me involved in the party. much to his chagrin, i was a bush supporter. >> and in the 1990's you were involved in local politics. when did you decide to run for the house of representatives? >> that was later. that was much later. was in 2002 as owe -- post september 11. after september 11. as a state senator, you can't affect national policy. clearly this was a threat to the nation. it was of significant proportion. to anything we've seen in the past. except for pearl harbor. so to me it was a place you could make a difference in terms of the national security of the united states and in terms of protecting your community and moving it forward. as you know, we also had some of the economic challenges.

it still confronts to us this is the place where you can make a difference. >> why are so many members of the house running for president? and not one sitting u.s. senator? >> there's three of us. you have to ask the senate. i don't know. usually it is the senate that winds up doing it. so i'm not sure. i know there are a lot of people that have passed on this, not just in the senate. i think in many ways it shows a healthy respect for the political ability of the president. no one is under any illusions as to the fact that he is a very spirited campaigner, has been very successful, and has had a rapid assent to the oval office. for republicans, i think a lot of them were look at it in terms of being a difficult race and had also declined on the basis of their family, which is understandable. to me it's their decision to make. i accept why they haven't. >> yet this country has not elected a sitting u.s. house member to the presidency since james garfield. >> yes. he was the member of the house. he was also the nominee of the legislature of ohio.

he had been elected by ohio to be their senator. so he was leaving the house to be a senator when he walked in and was a dark horse named the nominee of the republican party for president. so mr. garfield had something on the ball. what we're seeing today, especially in the communication revolution is you're no longer -- we're generally bound by the district in which you are covered as a local craft, in which the media, maybe in the detroit market or smaller markets, you find yourself -- you have youtube, twitter, facebook, c-span, the ability to make your -- take your message outside of the boundaries of your district to a greater extent than ever before this is why house members, senate members, i think, have a voice heard on a far more remember regular basis. >> do you feel yourself is qualified to be president, commander in chief? >> i think you always feel qualified when you seek the office. but you have to be realistic enough to understand the office is a challenging job. i don't think there's ever been an occupant that said they were fully prepared for what happens

within the office. not only the day-to-day administration but you never know what to expect from events. the experience of the last president bush. he was going to be the -- [indiscernible] then september 11 happened. presidents face difficult challenges. a lot of them are extenuating circumstances outside their control or even outside reasonable expectations. have to be cognizant of that when you go in so there's a certain amount of humility brought in the door so you don't think you know everything and you i don't think somehow you can foresee every e vault. >> why do you want to be president? >> at this period of time it's a tremendous opportunity what we're seeing in everyone's lives, especially through the communications revolution, is if you think about a blackberry in the palm of your hand, you can communicate around the world. your laptop, you can seek sources of information. you are no longer bound by networks and newspapers. can you have more control over your own life and more ability to project your political views or your personal views to your

family, friends, community than any period of time in history. this is called self-government. yet what we see is the model ofd 20th century big government. the vertically integrated highly bureaucratized state which wants to take mover your money and more of your decision-making ability. unless you match our consumer driven self-governing economy with a citizen-driven self-governing state, what's going to happen is you're going continue to see america disappear into stagnation. big government can spend what it takes as opposed to what it makes with the fact that the bailout banks are still sitting there, getting credit now because they had not been restructured to the point where their balanced sheets are fixed. to seegoing to continue a lost generation of economic prosperity for america. i think if you can fix the big government, fix the big banks, and then what you have to do then to tax reform regulatory reform, all the energy strategies, release the

entrepreneurial and us haveness of the american people. if you do not, again, we're going to continue to be dragged down by entity that are antiquated on a 20th century model that cannot ab played to the 21st century. so i think that's one of the things. other thing, we are a country at war. we are not nearly in economic stagnation. we are a nation at war. we have men and women defending our freedom and expanding it to others in foreign fields. united states has to have a strategy not only for dealing with the conflict but for supporting freedom movements within places like iran with the green revolution or the opponents of the assad regime in syria, the terror sponsoring states can peacefully implode like the soviet union did. i also continue to think and continue to point out as people are increasingly starting to realize that the people's republic of communist china is a rival govern yansz and a threat to americans prosperity and security. it's bound upon expanding its influence not only to asia and the world but at the expense of the united states.

these are issues coming down the pike that you hear very little about in this type of presidential primary. i think it's something the voters, when you bring it to them, are very attuned to because it's something that's happening, everybody knows is happening. but very few people are talking about it. >> if you use your words, economic stagnation. >> on the way if we don't get assistance. >> the immediate economy under two administrations two different parties what would you do that hasn't been done under the bush administration which cut taxes, unemployment continued to rise, and the obama administration which spent money and yet as republicans say we haven't seen the growth promised what would do you different? >> first, can you not focus on the leaving the banks the way they are. there's a balance sheet recession. what's happening is it's not investment in consumption. to see those go up and down. you have to see the failure of credit to get down, especially small businesses to small entrepreneurs. the longer they are

recapitalizing, as you recall, after the wall street bailout, instead of buying the toxic assets, they went to right to a recapitalization program. the longer at that pace, it's going to continue to keep credit from coming down. this affects farmers, manufacturers because they are capital intensive, labor intensive. produce the product up front before they can get their accounts receive yables. that's one of the major things that has to happen. they have to be restructured. you have to quickly get recapitalization, he canities. limit the amount of leverage so they never collapse again. take the ones that are not healthy, and segment them off, raise them up, and blow off their assets and the resolution -- it's one of the things neither party even since clinton has done. they believe the financial markets will lead to prosperity for everybody. what we've seen was instead a do the-com bubble followed by a house bubble and now a government bubble. that's number one. number two, you have to start look at creating the environment here drastically to make sure it

makes sense for businesses not only to stay but to expand here in the united states. once you can fix the credit industry, go towards the lowerion flatter tax on corporations, reduce marginal income for individuals to reincentivize work and investle and get them going. what you also have to do as the bush administration and the obama administration has not, is the true regulatory reform. especially on manufacturers. when we saw the bush administration raise the cap a standards for the democratic congress, i opposed those because it would make it harder to manufacturer. you then saw unfortunately a building upon that of the obama administration with the cap and that are now being attempted to be implemented through the e.p.a. can you not have big government coming down, trying to impose these regulations on people and expect the economy to grow. so those are things right off the bat that you have to have punt mendally. you also have to get beyond what we're seeing now and allow for all the above energy strategy in the united states. we're watching inflation rise at a time -- energy is something

that goes into the cost of of everything product you have. we have seen where they talk about grocery bills going up 5%. it was a spike they hadn't seen before that high. energy goes into every single thing you purchase. every single thing you produce. especially with manufacturers and farmers. those are fixed costs that cannot be passed on to consumers so it makes them more difficult to hire, grow, invest. and it makes it more difficult for consumers to wind up being able to purchase the goods in a recessed economy. these are things that were not done, not approached. again, what do you as a president is you have to understand the president only can grow government jobs. but you have to unleash the american people. and they will respond. >> there's a lot of pent up entrepreneurial and industryiousness there. >> so how do you get that done in a divided government? >> we don't know what will follow the election. i think you can find democrats on both sides, republicans, democrats on both sides, that understand the economy has to grow. there are blue dogs, centrists.

that will depend on the outcome of the election. continue with a divided government the way it's constituted now, you're going to see that end in 2012. you may have a divided government after that. but i think the american public energies they're going to vote for whoever regardless of party that gets the fact that they're being failed at a larger institutions in this country. they actually would be people who understand the sense of that individuals feel, both republicans and democrats, that the way that the servant institutions, namely the government, which is supposed to work for you, or namely the banks which are not bigger than you are not serving you but get a sense that they are working together to serve themselves. >> where in michigan did you grow up? what was life like for you and your family? >> detroit. we moved to livonia just outside detroit when i was 7. it was a detroit background. >> brothers, sisters? >> one brother, a year younger than me. according to him, immensely more talented. >> you have seen a lot of changes in detroit over the last 30, 40 years. how has your hometown changed in

your eyes? >> well, my hometown is always my hometown so whatever the changes are, the things that we focus on are the fact that we're very resilient people. one of the things people in detroit don't like is the way the rest of the the country looks at us as if we're a sore to be ignored. we get up every day work hard. we're people who make things. we're the people who despite whatever difficulties come our way, get up, put the clothes on go to work, drive passed house that can't be sold, drive pass the shops that have closed, drive passed newspapers that tell us how bad off we are. and we try to make things better. to tryoing to continue to do that. one of the goals of the people in detroit is to continue to improve the doubters wrong. to prove the doubters wrong. we will do that. >> how do you do that in detroit, in ohio, pennsylvania, new york, illinois, a whole swath of areas that has seen plant shutdowns, home values drorntion and businesses leave? >> we have to start restructuring government to the 21st century. again, with the states you talked about, very much minor mirrors what's happened with the big government we have in

washington. so whether we have people like governor schneider and others trying to restructure government to make it more nimble, more limited and allow for more self-government within the states to make them more attractive for business, not loin to break in new startups but to allow us to keep the college kids that we educate that are still leaving us now for other states. so the laboratories of democracy are getting the concept they can't continue on. if this is 1965, the year of my birth that things have changed since then. except government hasn't. so these are the place that are going do it. what's going to change these places is the ability to diversify the economy once you fix some of the fundamental that we have talked about so that entrepreneurs and innovators and workers can come together to grow those economies and find the new jobs so that we not only i.d. here in the united states but we also produce in the united states. we can also sell them in the united states. take our products overseas for sale. these are things that right now we're not seeing. what we're seeing is a

continuation of the con superintendenttive economy. consumptive economy. in high school we were told we had seven jobs and a service sector. later we were told in college we were going to have a economy.-based and then mr. greenspan told us, we don't need to make things anymore. eventually something will take its place. that's where we're stuck. the only people who are going determine the economic future of the united states is not the president who claims he's new pill letters of prosperity, which wasn't in his job discrimination, it's the american people who in the past and in the future will continue to build and shape what has been the most successful, prosperous, and equitable economy known in human history. >> you mentioned ronald reagan. who else do you view as a political hero or -- >> i don't view politicians as heroes. model? >> i don't view them as role models. >> view them as people. you admire certain aspects of them. the best thing is is that they're human. they've had struggles. people forget about some of the things ronald reagan had to go

through. you can still like people. i like robert kennedy, harry truman. but if you're talking about people you try to emulate, you know, muse schi i like -- musically i like the beatles and the stones. so i'd be more excited meeting keith richards than meeting president obama again. >> you often quote led zeppelin on the house floor. >> i did it once. everybody was saying the camming thing on both sides. democrats's song remains the same. if i had to do it today, i could quote >> i talked about the song remains the same. i brought up some of the song titles and i try to work into the speech. >> how often do you play the guitar? >> i play all the time. i started at 11. when you are homely, you have to do something.

we used to be flying squirrels. we found out there was a rocky and the flying squirrels. >> who else became part of the band? >> it was always my brother. one band member passed away from a congenital heart ailment. a friend came back from the old days. there are people who sit in. >> have you ever written a song? >> oh yeat. -- oh yeah. >> children? what do they think about your presidential bid. i am not focused on anything but the presidency right now.

you have to devote yourself to it with no distractions. >> how do you win the nomination? what is your strategy? >> an introduction to the message to see if it resonates. we have been getting the message out where we can. we take great heart that the response have been heart -- has been warm for the message. you go forward and see if it works. if people agree with that, i believe support will follow. too many candidates are spending millions upon millions of dollars and can i get out of the single digits. the polling tells us that people are dissatisfied with the field and they are looking to hear something different. they are looking to hear something different. maybe me. maybe someone else. >> what is your pitch to iowa

and the american people? >> to make sure the banks are not going to have must be a generation of stagnation. the best days are ahead. it is a question of how quickly you get there. >> the president is also the leader on the world stage. are you prepared to do that? >> the united states has to be respected. with this administration, they have chosen to be liked rather than respected. they have wound up being need that. >> the war in iraq and afghanistan, what would you do? >> help the iraqi security forces to govern that country. in afghanistan, we have to walk -- have to watch out for a precipitous withdrawal. it would create a new harbor for terrorism and they would lose their ability to stabilize the

government. >> have you met world leaders? what has been your impression of them? >> i do not believe that is important. i look at the strategic interest of the united states and our allies and how we can mutually cooperate and mutually conflicts. >> finish this sentence. the state of the country today is what? >> an opportunity to be seized. big government and big banks have failed us. the crushing weight of the potential markets have yet to be fixed. that has helped to inhibit the ability of the american people to move forward. it is never a failure of the american people. that is not why we are having the difficulties we are having. it is the failure of governments to affect the larger institutions. for a period of time, you are

about something that is too big to fail. they already have. they continue to drag down the ability of the american people to move forward. it is a change to actual leadership and a change to bring government into the 21st century, a realization that what has happened on wall street has failed. allow the american people to six those problems and moved forward. for the republicans, everything in the world is moving toward empower you to make more and more of your own decisions. it is what the basis of the free republic is. it is the basis of voluntary community organizations. these are the things that are happening. the only concern people have is how long this point to take for the changes of the large institutions to allow the strength of the american people to move us forward. >> have you learned anything

about yourself as you begin this run for president? >> you can do that after you are done one way or another. spending time worried about yourself as part of the problem. >> not worrying? . >> you learned about the country. you learn about iowa and you learn about people in new hampshire. you learn about things that are affecting real people. that is part of the human experience. >> yet you still have to raise money to run for president. money without message gets you nowhere. message may attract money and get you somewhere. >> representative thaddeus mccotter yfrom michigan. thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> some news from capitol hill.

harry reid is reportedly ready to endorse a new deal to raise the government owes a debt ceiling and cut spending depending on approval by his party's caucus. it will allow the government to avoid default into 2013. the senate is in recess right now. the house is adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern with legislative business at noon. you can watch the house live right here on c-span and the senate on c-span 2. texas governor rick perry is a potential republican presidential candidate in 2012. on friday, he criticized president obama for the nation's debt problems and discuss gay marriage. he made this remark -- these remarks at the christian centennial institute. this is about 25 minutes.

>> i appreciate the chance to introduce a good friend. when you serve as governor, and rick perry and my terms overlapped for seven years. you get to know who the doors are and who the talkers are. -- doers are and who the talkers are. rick perry is a doer.

rick and i served with rod blagojevich and howard dean. [laughter] we also shared something in common. it has already been alluded to. when i was running that first time in a close election, i would not have been elected as governor of colorado. as the lieutenant manchin, i am a native of texas, born and mentioned, i am a native of texas, born and raised in texas. three texans were serving as governors of three different states. rick perry it myself and a man by the name of jeb bush. rick and i do have one important

difference. i was accepted into the university of texas. he had to go to texas a&m. [laughter] rick perry has built a strong and consistent record as a conservative during his 11 years as governor of texas. he is a leader in emphasizing the role of states in our federal system. he has frequently taken on the federal government also overreaching into our areas of state primacy. a strong fiscal conservative. he vetoed more than $3 billion in budgeted items and cut taxes tax rates for everybody. whether it is taking on the trial lawyers or the teachers unions, rick perry has shown himself time after time to be not afraid to use his political

capital for the good of the people. texas leads the country in terms of job growth, economic growth in no small part due to rick perry's of 11 years as the governor of the great state of texas. it is my pleasure this evening to introduce my friend, the governor of the second-best day in the union. rick perry. give him a warm colorado welcome. [applause] >> bill, thank you. bill owens, ladies and gentlemen. he was so fun to work with. well done, sir. i am proud of you. you make all of us proud of it. go with god and be safe.

thank you and god bless you. [applause] as bill said, one of the most magnificent things we do as governor is the opportunity to have young men and women like him who selflessly serve. james, i cannot tell you what a feeling of pride is as we go across afghanistan and iraq to visit those young guardsmen. it is truly -- they are magnificent in how they serve and what they do. it is good to be in the mile high city. it is always good to get up on the high ground so you can survey what is going on around you, particularly when you are headed into a conflict. conservatives already hold the

high ground of ideas that this conference provides a vantage point with dave view of the challenges that lay ahead for us -- with a view of the challenges that lay ahead for us. we have the challenge of domesticating a beast known as the federal government. [applause] my concern is not only that washington has intruded upon the rights of the states and the individuals to make decisions about our own health care, our small businesses, our mining, but that it is also abdicating one of its most basic duties, which is defending our borders. [applause] i always thought government was going to do three things really

well. deliver the mail, in force our borders, and have a boisterous military. two out of three is not bad for bureaucracy. they missed it that bad for two out of three. that one day get right. the finest men and women in the world are serving in our military. [applause] like any organism, the government has to be fed. it must be said. unfortunately, its -- it must be fed. it develops a bigger and bigger appetite. the people it is supposed to protect become its subject. the states it is supposed to serve become another name on a license plate. that is not what our founding fathers had in mind.

it created a system of government that was clearly be fined. they clearly define the responsibilities and the limits of its powers. it is best reflected in the 10th amendment to the united states constitution. powers not delegated to be united states by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved for the states respectively or to the people. that is simple. that is eloquence. it is to the point. the framers of our constitution had seen what happens when a distant, too powerful government holds sway over our nation. the carefully designed limits have been obliterated over time by bureaucrats who want more power, more resources, more say over the details of our

individual lives. our federal government has grown well beyond its intended size and purpose so that it threatens the liberty it was created to protect. we are now experiencing what happens. when a country founded on the tenants -- tenets of individual liberty as a government with no regard for that liberty. they do not know when the next regulatory issue is going to drop, when something is going to come to devour their resources. you see agencies like the epa running roughshod over states and enacting these restrictions that run counter to scientific proof and are detrimental to entire industries. you see government owning a huge percentage of land out here in the western united states.

them telling the folks next door on privately held land but they can do with their private property. you see a federal government that writes 80 million checks per month all the while piling up debt that will crush our country. they are so handcuffed in washington d.c. by the special interests, so addicted to be spending they spend their time arguing about raising the debt ceiling without -- debt ceiling instead of making cuts. the president has the nerve to go on national television, look us in the face, and he says most of us do not know what the debt ceiling is. mr. president, we know what the debt ceiling is [applause] [applause]

i think it should be called the escalator ceiling. it keeps going up all the time. budget cutters are pretty popular during campaigns. , but not when it is time to do the hard work. the reason is because people's pet causes have been cut. conservative leaders need to grow some real thick skin. voters need to send more true fiscal conservatives to washington, d.c. [applause] in 2012, we need to redouble our efforts and send even more liberals into the private sector. [applause] including the president, who would be a better commentator on a sunday morning talk show that he is the nation's chief executive. [applause]

if fact of the matter is, if we do not do that, we are going to get four more years from administration that clearly believes government is not only the answer to every need, but the most qualified to make essential decisions for every american in every area. the mix of arrogance and audacity that guides the obama of fenestration is an affront to every freedom loving the would- obama administration is an affront to every -- obama administration is an affront to every freedom loving american. whether they are pressuring companies to change their leadership as they have with some of the pharmaceutical companies, whether they are imposing epa mandates that killed jobs, it is clear that they think they know best. let me tell you something, i

disagree and i disagree strongly and vehemently. [applause] our nation was built on the shoulders of working people who reached our shores in search of religious and economic freedom. if they and the generations that followed embraced the risks and the rewards of freedom -- they helped create a nation like this earth has never seen before. we must do what we can to continue our nation's forward progress by electing genuine conservatives up and down the balance -- ballot with a singular focus on different it -- different disciplines. texas is an example of what happens when you apply those essential disciplines. they can be summed up in four simple phrases.

don't spend all of the money. [laughter] keep your taxes low. keep those regulations fair and predictable so that business owners know what to expect from one quarter to be next. we formed the legal system so that frivolous lawsuits do not paralyzed employers who are trying to create jobs. [applause] over the last decade, that is the formula we have used in the state of texas. it has produced the most powerful economy in the united states. at the same time, we have stood strong on our conservative social values as well, defending be on born with parental notification laws, upholding the traditional definition of marriage with an amendment to our state's constitution.

i said the other day that the 10th amendment frees it -- freeze new york state to define marriage as it pleases -- frees new york to define marriage as it pleases. but the traditional definitions since this governor just fine. another tradition we embrace in texas is job creation. we have crafted one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation and kept our per-capita staff under control, we have added jobs with other states have lost them left and right. across the nation last month, total payrolls decreased in 24 states. the national unemployment rate rose to 9.2%. in texas, our unemployment rate

is a full point lower than that. we added more jobs than any other state in the nation. this happened at our legislatures were putting the finishing touches on a balanced state budget. they maintain essential services without raising taxes and left more than $6 billion in our rainy day fund. [applause] in that same session we just finished, texas legislators pass tort reform -- passed tort reform. frivolous lawsuits have even less chance of strengthening job creation in the state of texas. make sure illegal voters are never canceled out by illegal ones. we issued a photo id

requirements for every voter in the state of texas. [applause] voting is one of those precious rights. it is one of the most powerful freedoms we have in this country. i think it is just fair to apply at least the same standard required to get a library card or to get on an airplane. [applause] our legislators also approved membership in the multistate health care compact to bring vital health-care decisions closer to the people instead of deep into something called obamacare that this administration is going to try to hoist up on america. texas is still an example of what our founding fathers had in mind when our nation was taking shape. i think that may be why we are in the cross hairs of this administration so much.

i think it causes them great consternation that we are being as successful as we are. i tell my folks in texas, what is it going to be? are we going to roll over? are we going to fold? i think i can say that all across america. are we going to rollover? are we going to do what americans have done for more than two centuries? that is to peacefully let's leaders that reflect their values and will restore the necessary balance. think about the 2012 elections and what is at stake. i happen to think the 2012 elections are going to be determined by the vision of the people of this country. it is up to us. it is up to us to arrest our nation's downward spiral brought on by too much deference to

special interests. it is time for us to stage another sagebrush rebellion, push back on washington. nderwayalready underda and shown by the 2010 election results. people have been working to tied the interference in state affairs. washington will not willingly give up an ounce of power that the american people will not force them to in the form. -- in reform.

when states lead the way and they compete for ideas and resources and jobs, free market principles are allowed to act. great things happen. the states are proof that the best leadership is closer to the people. if you agree, get your cell phone out in a second. i will give you the opportunity. and mint, you can take your phone out. you can take it -- young man, you can take your phone out. i want you to put in the word for word. i want you to text it to 95613. go ahead. i will give you time to do that. when you do that, i will -- you will send that to me. i will keep you informed on

restoring the crucial balance of power between the states and washington, d.c. get america back to its rightful place in the role of leadership in the world. i know i am preaching to the choir. america's greatness is not found in the size of its government. america's greatness reside in the hearts of our people. their innovative approach to solving problems. their ability to endure the toughest times. if we want to stimulate the economy, we do not need more government spending. we need to unleash the private sector, the individual assistance to put their hours in on the job and pay their taxes while doing the best to take care of their families. the coalition necessary to correct our course as a nation consists of those who understand the importance of faith and

family and freedom. [applause] that is what inspires a healthy free market and the importance of assuming personal responsibility. without each of these groups appreciating one another's importance, progress is going to be severely limited. together we must keep america moving back to pre-eminence. our values and conservative ideas are the world's greatest hope. like you, i still believe this country is special. the america i know was built on a solid foundation of spiritual strength, of individual liberty, self-determination. we must recapture that vision and begin the hard work of lighting the way for millions of americans ingested in the sea

of economic misery. let's lead them to be safe harbor of american renewal and the shores of american exceptionalism. let's anchor them in a future of good jobs and restore the notion of a government of the people, by the people, for the people. if we do not, who will? if not now, when? there is no greater goal, no more crucial time and right now to make our stand to restore our economy, our families, and our country. i know we can. god bless you and thank you for letting me come and participate. [applause]

>> governor rick perry. governor, thank you so much. >> the debt and deficit talks are still ongoing here in washington. nancy pelosi spoke to reporters about the status of the talks and a new version of the deal. she spoke for about three minutes. >> sunday night. good evening. some of you early on the way in. for much of the day, we have been meeting with the house democratic leadership. we met with the leadership of the democrat in the senate. we have been carefully reviewing what the legislation is. we are all determined that we

will not default. senior citizens will receive their social security checks. our military will be compensated in a timely fashion and the list goes on. the united states will honor its obligations. we are seeing things proceed. i have to meet with my caucus tomorrow to see how they wish to proceed. they voted yesterday to lift the debt ceiling so that we will meet our obligations. we will see how this -- this is not much different from the john brennan bill that came down. i do not know. we will have to -- from the john boehner bill that came down. i congratulate the president. he has worked hard to reconcile many views on the subject so bad weekend on a people's faith

and credit of denied his states- -- so that we can honor the full faith and credit of the united states of america. i have not seen the final product in writing. you know what it with -- you know what they say, the details are important. i will have a discussion with my caucus. >> i just got a statement from the congressional black caucus. the progressives are going to hold a press conference tomorrow. they are pressing the president to use the 14th amendment. do you sense that if you have to cobble together a coalition with republicans that this is enough to ruin this deal? >> i do not know all the particulars about what the ramifications are.

we have to avoid default. we are going to do so in a way that does not impede our economic recovery and does not harm american families. they are going to receive their social security check. this bill has a long future, nine years or 10 years. it has ramifications beyond that decade. we will have to take a look. it may not be able to support it. we will wait and see. we are open to what comes down. the stakes are high here. thank you all. >> how would you characterize the talks with senator reid today? >> we went through a lot of issues. we have not stipulated to the same numbers and facts and what is actually in the legislation.

he has a lead on me because it is a senate product. it was constructed. >> could you support a deal with all revenues? >> harry reid is reportedly ready to endorse a deal to raise the government's debt ceiling is pending approval by his party's caucus. that deal would allow the government to avoid default into 2013 along with trillions of dollars in future cuts. the house adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. they will have legislative business at noon. you can watch the house here on c-span and the senate on a c- span 2. we turn to "washington journal." kremer, that chair and co- founder of tea party express. welcome back to c-span. guest: thank you for having me.

host: i want to pick up where you just left off on fox. you said you do not want a deal, you want a solution. what solution to you think needs to happen in order to raise the debt limit and cut spending? guest: as i said on that interview, that debt ceiling issue is a symptom of a bigger problem. the problem is the enormous amount of debt that we have. that is why these credit rating agencies are threatening to downgrade our credit ratings. we need to do something so we do not find yourself in this situation down the road. this out of control spending has to stop. i think a balanced budget amendment that would force washington to live within their means would help. host: how would deal with a situation like 9/11 or the war in iraq or afghanistan are terrorism? what if there is unforeseen event that would force government to spend more money than it takes an?

guest: the legislation would have to be written to be including situations when we get like that. i am no expert on the u.s. economy so i want to put that disclaimer out there right now. but we are spending more than we're taking in and it is not sustainable. we cannot continue down this path. when you have the medicare board of trustees coming out in the month of may and releasing a report that says, if medicare is not reformed in 2024, it will be bankrupt, it is irresponsible for washington not to do anything about their when you know you are facing this problem. we need to deal with that. we need to do some entitlement reform across the board. we cannot balance the u.s. budget by cutting discretionary spending. host: i realize that this is still coming together so the information continues to evolve. but based on what we hear this morning, it is a $1.4 trillion increase in the debt limit

immediately. based on misinformation, what is your reaction? guest: why are we in this situation? because congress has failed to do their job. they continue to kick the can down the road. i do not want to be a democrat versus republican thing. this is an american thing. it was only eight months ago that the democrats control both chambers of congress and the white house, and make punted the ball. that is completely irresponsible. the american people want this problem fixed. they do not care how with this fix. they want it fixed.

they want these people to do their jobs. we want these mechanisms in place so we do not find ourselves in this situation quite sure years down the road. even 20 years down the road. we need to do something about it now. we did not get here overnight and we cannot change it overnight. it this is the plan that comes out, there again, congress should be willing to deal with the problem in front of it and they should not punt the ball. host: it was president bush that inherited a surplus from president clinton. this coming from one of our viewers. everyone guest: says where was the tea party movement when president bush was in office? it is not someone click their heels together like dorothy and the tea party was formed. there were people upset and talking about maybe it is time

for another american revolution or a boston tea party during the bush administration. that is when the out of control spending started. president bush and president obama have one common thread -- congress. and not do what they do without congress. you cannot blame it all on the president. host: you rather see the government default or pass some sort of debt limit? guest: first of all, i think that is all day. we were told it was coming in may and then we were told august 2nd, and thursday or friday, maybe there is some room for august 9 or 10th. we have enough revenue to service our debt and pay some of these entitlement programs and still have a little bit of money coming over. that comes from a bipartisan commission report released last month. i do not think that august 2nd we're going to default. it's not the threat of default but the enormous size of our debt. no, i do not think we will

default under debt -- to fall on our debt and i do not want us to. the freshman standing firm, it is not that they want to see the fall. they want to see -- deal with this massive problem. host: the me go back to the balanced budget amendment. when someone buys a home for to $1,000 a year and they cannot pay up front, they take out a 30-year long. under the balanced budget amendment, can congress take out loans to invest and understructure or can it only spend what it takes an? guest: we have to look at the overall big picture. there are going to be times -- you can only spend more than you make for so long and it catches up to you and that is what is happening right now the bank there going to be situations, i imagine, with the federal government has to take out loans and borrow money. but this has been going on for

years and years and years. and you cannot continue to do this. if we do not get our fiscal house in order, get our credit -- that our creditors will take control and do it for us. i am not sure that we want that. host: we of gone from a trillion dollar debt to $14 trillion, but is there good debt for the government? someone argues that student loans and mortgages are good debt, and bad debt would be loans for vacations or fancy cars. guest: i do not think any debt is good. it is probably a more acceptable form of debt. but again, i say that there are probably going to be instances, but the problem is when it becomes everything that you -- when you have so much debt that it is overwhelming to everything else, when you have more debt if you can pay. and that is where we find

ourselves now. host: the republican line with amy kremer, the co-founder of tea party express. caller: i think both sides to come to a compromise because if they do not, they will put this country into a big chaos. right now i amend new york, rallying my state senators and my state assemblyman to try to put letters or call up the people in the parties and try to tell them, because this country as big. i am disabled combat veteran. i am on the entitlement programs. we have put our lives out for our country and now our country has to put their cells up for us

and to get this house in order. not only on the republican side and the democratic side, but the independents sometimes are holding the country hostage and they should not be. what they should do is compromise. remember, the election is around the corner. if they make this country default, the people will be aggravated and will definitely show it at the polls. host: that is the headline from the "boston globe." guest: people are already frustrated, absolutely frustrated. this is a huge problem and as i say, is a problem that has to be dealt with. but this is the thing, americans do not want a deal, they want a solution. this is the problem. we do not want to be greece. who would of thought that the united states of america would

be on the process of bankruptcy? that is upsurge. -- that is absurd. they are more concerned with staying on the d.c. cocktail circuit in their own power and control than they are taking the right steps and making tough decisions. no one wants to make the tough decisions. it is time to man up and do the right thing for this country. host: a comment from one of our viewers. wired t party supporters so adamant against any kind of tax increase even from wealthy americans? guest: i can i give you the specific figure, but wealthy americans pay the majority of taxes already in this country. we cannot bring them, we cannot tax enough to solve this problem. you have got to cut spending.

and the bottom line is, by asking for tax increases, it is asking to spend more. it is not cutting spending. host: what if you let the bush tax cuts expired, reverting to the tax cut of the clinton era? guest: i do not believe that we need to raise taxes. he only taxes i would say they should look at our closing corporate tax loopholes, that enabled ge and other big corporations not to pay any taxes in this country. host: but even brought -- but for her norquist says that as a tax increase. guest: i do not speak for it grover norquist. but i do not believe that we should raise taxes. we do not have a revenue problem. we have a spending problem. host: devi joins us from the democrats' line. you are on the air. caller: the first thing they got

in there, put that bush tax cuts in there, and that was money was borrowed, and we are paying the interest on it. and yet they want to reduce the budget. why would they want to do that? guest: the bush tax cuts were extended during the last congress, with president obama and the democratic-controlled house and senate. it was not the tea party movement or the tea party freshman that pushed for that. but i do not think that we can bring in enough revenue by doing a tax increase. that is not our problem. the problem is spending. host: from the "atlanta journal- constitution." let me ask you about that tea party in all of this. speaker boehner, does he have control of his caucus and what role does the tea party have on

the series of votes and the laying of votes that we saw last weekend the house -- last week in the house? guest: it is the tea party movement that is driving this debate. if it were not for this movement, that would have already handed president obama a blank check and raise the debt ceiling and gone on to the next thing. it to party is forcing this debate. i feel for speaker boehner. he is in a difficult situation. he is absolutely in a difficult situation, but we have not put him there. it is prior congresses that have put in there. as i said, the people that have not been willing to make the tough decisions are the ones that have put this in the situation. i do not think you can blame this on the tea party movement. host: kathleen parker in the "washington post."

fragging is intentionally killing or wounding a superior officer. she mentions a number of people including some of your colleagues from the two-party patriots and elected officials like michele bachmann, jim jordan, and the south carolina senator jim demint. guest: they are holding the line for fiscal responsibility. they are saying that we cannot as -- continue to spend more than we make. that is the bottom line. many people are saying that. they're people across this country, when states are facing the same issues, and the same obstacles, so i do not have a problem with what they are doing. i think senator demint and michele bachmann and jim jordan are doing the right thing. they are holding the line and

saying we have to rein in spending. host: from cleveland, ohio on the independent line. caller: i have a couple of quick questions. are they planning to put a cap on raising the payments to the congressman and senators? they should be it -- they should put a cap on that so they do not get raises. the last two years they got raises, cost of living, and the social security people were denied cost-of-living raises. maybe you can answer that if you are aware of it. second of all, all of these senators and congressmen, they read the constitution when they were elected, and hopefully they took them words to heart for the american people and they will do

what is right. those are my questions and i will take your answers. host: amy kremer. guest: i don't know what cost- of-living increases are salary increases they have given themselves. i know that they have given themselves some kind of raise over the past couple of years. i realize that our seniors have not received a cost of living increase in a while. i think it is unfortunate and it absolutely should not be that way. host: from the "l.a. times." these headlines courtesy of the newsuem. drawing this back into individual households, one of our viewers -- it goes back to the issue of taxes or additional revenue. guest: they also cut their spending.

not everyone takes on a second job. the main thing is to cut the spending. host: how did you personally get involved in all of this? guest: i am a former flight attendant and i was concerned about the direction of the country. the other control spending. so i started lobbying and through twitter became acquainted with other conservatives. of the 22 of us, after rent -- rex and tele -- rick santelli at his ranch, we formed the tea party express. we are partnered with cnn to host the first presidential debate in september. we have not remain completely neutral and by project on bayh's for the purposes of the debate. -- we have remained completely neutral and unbiased for the

purposes of the debate. we're waiting after the debate and we want to see the cream rise to the top. it was at constitutional conservatives that had the ideas and solutions to fix this crisis we are and in turn this country back around from this economic collapse that we're headed towards? that is what we are waiting to decide. i think that we will see somebody, and honestly, i do not think all the players around the field yet. i do not think so. do you think so? host: from cape canaveral, florida. the republican line. caller: i want to shift the focus away from our representative government to our people. i think we have some real challenges for the electorate. i think every american should be willing to pay taxes, and we have roughly 50% that are not.

and people should be prepared to bear arms and serve their country. and every american needs to be educated about the issues that face the country and we have roughly 40% dropout rate and our high schools. if that is our electorate, you would get the problems that you have today. people vote for government that they are not willing to pay for. whether it is medicare, where senior citizens are in my family, they take out $2.50 for every dollar that they put in, when that occurs in every generation across the electorate, the problem is almost a tractable. the issues are with our own people. if we corrected are made progress on those issues, we will have better representatives and what have people willing to make sacrifices. it is easy to slam the president and speaker boehner, the majority leader, but at the end of the day, we have americans that go to the ballot

boxes that do not pay taxes, are not willing to, and have never serve their country. and we get what we ultimately vote for. host: thank you. guest: i have to say, the electorate is uneducated. there is a small percentage of people they really pay attention to what is going on. but this the first time in american history that people have been so engaged in the political process. this movement is all about education, educating people on these issues to empower them. so many times people go to the polls and vote by name recognition or the letter next to somebody's name, and that is what we need to stop. we need to get away from politics and let people vote on the issues. when someone walks into a ballot box, they should know where they stand on the issues. you should have two columns there with the issues and no candidates. that is what we need to move

towards and get away from party politics. host: a number of analysis pieces from the associated press available on-line at ap.org. people are disgusted, confidence is tanking, nothing is getting done in washington, the markets are spooked, the global reputation of the united states has lived, and this raging effort to shrink the debt may increase the debt. in the emergency deal that not -- that might not prevent the major credit -- credit agencies from downgrading the debt, that could increase the cost of borrowing for everyone. guest: i have read the same thing. we are in a pickle. there is no doubt about it. what are we going to do to get out of it? host: tampa, florida, the democrats' line, with amy kremer. caller: i heart you.

i have a very heavy right hand. i have six sentences. of leslie obama was voted in and then he disrespected the people and our loss. the progressive party is about to die. everything they have done the last 100 years will be altered. that is all that i have to say. host: did you want to respond? guest: we need to get away from party politics. we need to look at this big issue of controlling this debt. it is not about the social issues but the fiscal issues. that is what all americans are focused on right now. host: we have seen a series of change elections, 2010, the republicans win back control of

the house of representatives. are we in a series of change elections because of the economy, because of the country, or the mood of the electorate? guest: i hope so. our objective is to take back the white house and senate. i believe in most of the people involved in this movement believed that the democrats' plan is to tax and spend. that is what they want to do, tax-and-spend. we cannot go down the road. we need to rein in our spending and not raise taxes. the only way to stop that is to select a conservative congress. that is the purpose of the tea party movement, not to bring republicans to washington but to bring conservatives to washington. host: melissa says -- and at the front page of the "washington post" has the president as a player. does blame fall among all of them or is it just the president?

guest: all of them. i said at the top of the show that you cannot blame the president. and you cannot blame, obviously, this congress. you have to go back to last congress and the congress before. we did not get here overnight and we will n >> the debt and deficit hawks are still here in washington. nancy pelosi talked about the status of the talks and the new version of the deal. the democratic leader in the senate, harry reid, is ready to endorse the deal. that deal would raise the government also that ceiling and avoid a default through 2013. it would cut billions of dollars in future spending. the house is adjourned until