[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: 19 of the senate's 47 republicans, 40%, voted against the bill yesterday. the president quickly signed into law because it passed anyway. attention now turns to the next chapter in the buzz it -- in the budget battle, the so-called super committee created under this deal. democrats are threatening a

hardline on social security and medicare. the leaders have two weeks to name their picks to the joint panel, and meanwhile other questions are being raised about how the panel will operate. will it be behind closed doors to avoid politics, or open so the public can participate in the meetings? we will get your take on this issue this morning on this wednesday, august 3, 2011. should the super committee hold public meetings? if you're a republican, dial 202-624-1115. -64-ou're a democrat, 202 1111 john wonderlich is on the phone with us. how do you read the provisions as far as how the joint committee operates? guest: so far the requirements that just passed that got signed into law say very little about how the new joint committee will operate.

the sunlight foundation is launching a campaign today, and we're pushing congress to make sure that this joint committee operates openly, because they have been given an extraordinary amount of power to choose how the debt will be reduced. host: so right now as it is written, they do not have to have public meetings, but the story in the "huffington post," there is no report -- there is no requirement that the report go online. guest: that is correct. if the committee approves it, there is no action after that. it cannot be amended or blocked. the house and senate have to give it an up-or-down vote.

host: the chairperson of the committee will be able to set their own rules for the committee. they could say we will operate in the public view? guest: that is right. the first step is to have a single open meeting where they set the rules, so they are completely within their power to say that rule one, all our meetings are going to be open, and when we make our recommendations, we will have a chance to see that for 72 hours before they vote on it. host: the rules were updated under speaker john boehner to say that committees should have video, transparency of their committee hearings. what about those rules? don't they apply? guest: those rules have been getting better in each reason congress, and the rules adopted by speaker boehner are going in

the right direction, but they apply to standing committees. what we have to do is have separate requirements for joint committees, or have the joint committee adopt new rules to guarantee it operates transparently. host: what about the argument, though -- and we have heard it from past bipartisan groups that have gotten together -- who have said you have to operate in private, because operating in the public, you're open to attack and you cannot have the two sides come together? guest: this is a body that has extraordinary power and responsibility that is going to be coming up with recommendations that go straight to the floor of the house, straight to the senate. whatever they come up with, we should understand where the provisions come from and where the 12 members of the joint committee stand on everything they come up with. so it would be unacceptable for

these recommendations to just arrived from nowhere, much like the bill that just passed -- to just arrive from nowhere, much like the bill that just passed. this bill was signed unacceptably fast. host: what are you hearing from your sources about whether or not there is enough interest from the public and pressure from the public to have this out in the open? guest: we have written about it on sunlightfoundation.com, we are launching a campaign today, sending a letter to speaker boehner and the rest of both chambers of congress. we have seen an outcry of support from both -- we have seen an outcry of support from the public. host: john wonderlich with sunlight foundation, thanks for

your time. let me give you another side of the argument. when we had senator tom coburn on this program on "washington journal," in the middle of the gang of six negotiations, he was one of those six. he talked about why the group was operating behind closed doors, in private. guest: you cannot negotiate these things in the press. it is difficult to take somebody like dick durbin and tom coburn, who are at the ends of both spectrum's, and negotiate, make hard decisions and hard compromises, because anybody that is against what you're doing will be critical of it. we are not there yet, so any comment on what and how we are doing is inappropriate, and also handicaps' the ability to come to something that will really help our country. host: we want to get your take on this bridge to the super committee hold public meetings,

or is it better for them to be able to come to a deal in private? daniel is a republican from wilmington, delaware. caller: i definitely agree with the first person. it should be out in the public. remember the stimulus that was not out in the open and the health care bill, and look what we got from that. i think it is terrible. i have to agree with -- i have burn.sagree with mr. cockbu thank you. host: not concerns about how -- you're not concerned about how the public responds to it when it is out in the media, in front of cameras? caller: this is supposed to be the most transparent presidency ever, and it has totally been the opposite of that. i'm not afraid of the demonization of what is going on anyway.

host: let me ask you about your interest in these debt talks that have been going on over the last month. did you have enough interest that you sought out the legislation, the final bill -- the final deal that was put on line on monday? were you that interested? caller: i did not seek it out on line. i watched c-span. i gave up on all the news organizations because i like to hear it from you guys rather than the politicians themselves. i was very involved in the debt thing, the crisis, they wanted to call it. when i saw 75% of america wanted a balanced budget amendment and the democrats just waved that off, i don't understand that. host: let's hear from dorothy, a democrat in baltimore. your thoughts? caller: i think the meetings should be held publicly. most of us feel that way.

we need to know what is happening because we need to know what they said they were going to do, what is good for the come. -- what is good for the country. it is the people that they are going to be making these policies on, and we do need to know what it is. behind closed doors, like social security and medicare -- like the gentleman who said -- like the gentleman who was on before me, he talked about the health care bill. the health-care bill has not even gone into effect. host: let me ask you about the super committee. they have until november 23 to act, a much shorter time frame than the deficit commission that was put together by the president. if they have that short a time to come together and they hold these meetings and air their thoughts, do you have any concerns that things fall apart

because they do not have enough time to get together if it is out in the public? caller: no, is what they debate. they can debate things that they can cut without hurting the economy, the middle class, and the poor, it will be good. if government is so huge -- and maybe it is huge -- there must be thousands of things they can find to cut. i'm sure they can. they only speak about a few things, but there has to be a lot of things they can cut. host: budget analysts say you have to go after entitlements because those are the programs that cost the most and are growing the most. there's a story on the front page of the paper today saying that medicare and medicaid, the cost of that, keeps growing. here is the front page of "usa today come out saying medicare and medicaid were 10% in the

second quarter, grew 10% in the second quarter. if they start talking about how they're going to cut medicare and medicaid in order to tackle the nation's deficit, what is your reaction to the super committee? do you still like the idea? caller: there is a solution to this. they're not trying to find solutions. the solution would be to add more people into the pools. that would be a simple solution. the elderly would get their care, the disabled, and the poor. i'm only 56. i only use a few hundred dollars a month medical care a year. sometimes none at all. that is what i'm saying. if they added us in -- this is the policy the democrats should put on the table. add us in.

host: let's go to byron from tennessee. caller: i a member of the tea party bradley county, and we discussed this. my representative is chuck fleischmann. i hope they are listening. i do not trust the government, and that is the just -- that is just the way it is. thank you. host: the your group last night agree that they wanted it to the public? caller: yes, ma'am, they sure do. everything needs to be open. we are intelligent people and we can make our own decisions. host: if they start talking about increasing taxes, do you like the idea of a super committee? caller: well, the super committee, if they put it out in the open that we can understand what they're saying -- they need

to, when they form these committees, they need to quit using language that the common people do not understand. it needs to be in plain english where you can understand exactly what they're saying. you should not have to dig through 10,000 pages of a document to understand exactly what they are talking about. host: if you were watching a public hearing from this super committee, and one of your republican lawmakers started talking about his rationale for compromising on this issue of raising taxes, and he gave you a good reason, would you be open to that? caller: yes, i sure would. in fact, i would contact all by representatives on this debt bill that they were talking about. host: and what would you say? caller: i told them i disapproved of it. chuck fleischman was the only one who stood up for it, as far

as i'm concerned. host: here is the "new york times" article this morning. "it would be sent to congress for a take it or leave it vote, no changes allowed. mosteduces congress' fundamental power of the purse to and undemocratic and un transparent hurdle. the trigger mechanism is another fundamentally anti-democratic gimmick designed to take legislative choices out of the hands of elected legislators. it is based on the premise that lawmakers cannot be trusted to make hard choices on their own. history makes clear that such triggers cannot be trusted.

the graham-rudman-hollings -- the gramm-rudman-hollings budget law of 1985 had ferocious automatic cuts, which congress turned out not to like." you are on the air. we're waiting for your thoughts. what do you think? caller: i wish you would rephrase that because i was not really paying attention. host: should the super committee hold public meetings? caller: i believe they should, but first of all, we should not have a super committee. our country is not a democracy, it is a republic. we should not have the super committee to begin with, in my opinion. host: ok, you think all lawmakers should be involved? caller: yes, our founding fathers founded it this way for a reason, for balance of powers.

of course, i believe there is too much power given over to -- our executive branch is trying to take too much of the power and not even relying on congress. host: alice, from quincy, florida. you're on the air. you have to turn the television now. i will put you on hold. fred, independent, austin, texas. caller: i agree with the previous caller. i think we should run the country to the founding father'' intentions. the super committee would be acting in defiance of the people, which would hope to be represented by their representatives in congress. host: we posted this question on

our facebook page as well. here are some of the comments we're getting -- "the super committee should not exist." "super committee should not even exist. seems unconstitutional to me." if you want to post your comment on facebook, facebook.com\c span. barry, democratic caller. mary, the president is headed your way today. caller: happy birthday, mr. president. a couple of things, so please be patient with me. the super committee is probably needed because both parties -- if we look at the money -- there

was a caller the other morning that stated when c-span has on a guest, they should list the money, the contributors to that person. we look at the money that is involved with all of the politicians, and you look at the polls. for instance, the health care reform. over 800 hours on c-span. i do not know whether these people are saying everything was done behind closed doors. you guys have over 800 hours on your c-span health care coverage. i digress. i apologize. host: when you look at how the debt deal came together, that was between the top leaders, and it was done behind closed doors. the public did not know what they had come together on until it came out on sunday, late sunday. caller: i understand that.

when they were saying they were holding american hostage -- well, you know, who knows what the final answer would be on that, whether or not we defaulted or not? you cannot prove that. however, why we could not come to an agreement, why this happened, why the faa law, the flaw that says -- that ray lahood says was a flaw -- they go on vacation, we are still in a slump. you had a public option poll. the majority of americans wanted that. the majority of americans wanted tax increases. the poll after poll after poll showed we wanted tax increases or do polls closed. nothing was touched. so why didn't that happen? why are the american people, the

polls showing what the american people wanted? why was that ignored? host: more on the back story of the super committee and how it was created. this from "the hill" newspaper. "harry reid, john boehner, nancy pelosi, which mcconnell will each make three selections to what is being called the super committee. harry reid to a line in the sand tuesday by declaring that if the committee did not agree to raise additional tax revenues, a broader deficit reduction package would not pass the senate. it would trigger up to $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts, divided evenly between programs." the caller mentioned this whole faa reauthorization bill, the

4000 workers that have been furloughed. we will talk about that in our last hour of the "washington journal." greenwood, south carolina. caller: i have two words -- "term limits." when it comes to the budget deficit, you were talking about you were talking about -- people getting into social security for disability, even if it was just a bogus claim, or illegal immigrants being on the medicaid rolls. some 20 years later, those people are expanding into that group, creating a higher need. the democrats stand back and say what is happening? i think it is the the party people. this is almost comical to stand back and create that, and then stand there and blame someone

else. blaming a lack of revenues when people are paying, what, 2% for fica 20 or 30 years ago, and now we're paying 8%? these taxes have gone up because the democrats keep adding to these programs. host: we know where you are in taxes. should we have the super committee and should they hold public meetings? caller: it is terrible to have the super committee because congress should have these meetings and they will not. they are afraid to lay it on the line, and they should make these decisions. we have had committee after committee. still, these committees have -- obama created one himself, and it did not take any of the proposals. this will create another level of bureaucracy that these politicians are afraid of making tough decisions, and they just keep taking it down the road. host: the breakdown of the senate vote yesterday, which

includes a super committee. 28 republicans voted yes, democrats, 45 voted yes. kirsten gillibrand, berkeley of oregon, ben nelson of nebraska, all voted no. . "the washington times," they have a list of republicans who voted no. 40% of that party voted no. we take a closer look at the names of those who decided against the debt ceiling deal. let's go to edward, it independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. the meetings should be public. it has to be public. host: would you watch, edward? caller: yes, i would. when you put these politicians

on the camera, they have to tell the truth. they have to at least try to conduct themselves in a more civil manner. host: many would argue the opposite, that when you put a camera on the politician, that is when they start talking politics and the two sides would not be able to come together. caller: perhaps that is true, but maybe people who are sick of that will not reelect them and get them off of office. if i may make a comment? the super committee should be made up of economists, not politicians. we are worried about the economy, then get the expert economists to chart a path. the way politicians are behaving

over the last few months, we need people who are experts in their field making decisions, not politicians. host: politico has the story about lawmakers eyeing the super committee. "if you are someone who fancy themselves a vice presidential candidate or reformer, jumping on this committee can be seen as an import way to build your bona fides or entitlement reform." yesterday we got reports from "the hill" that senator john warner of virginia wants to be on this new super committee. he was, of course, part of the gang of six, and many of you know. he is interested in being part of this new super committee. a democratic caller, in youngstown, ohio, ann. caller: the previous caller talked about economists being on

the committee. i do think public hearings would be good, and they should make it time specific, like a month or so, and not waste a whole lot of time on that. most economists believe that we need both tax increases and cuts, and they are just going to have to deal with it because we just cannot have -- they need to look at everything, not just one little piece, you know. if everybody gave a little bit, they could raise my taxes $100 and i'm not going to start. they need beans testing, too. as far as medical -- they need means testing, too. as far as medical is concerned, they need means testing for

social security. host: a couple of emails from viewers. "open meetings only produce posturing and outsiders interfere." "this is a classic situation that has been cited by the high court and was a primary debate related to the founding of c- span, even. in a perfect world it would all be public, but this world is a school and so we all have to be practical. if the hearings are public, nothing will get done. barbara, from east point, michigan. caller: good morning. the super committee i do not believe is constitutional. i think what it does, instead of coming right out and -- i think what it does, it gives president obama dictatorial power, or any president after him. if the other members do not

agree, the vote goes to the president and he has the ultimate decision, which is unconstitutional in every way possible. that is getting rid of all the responsibilities. it is just wrong in every way, shape, or form. host: here is how the economy reacted yesterday to the news of the debt deal passing and the president signing it into law. this is the "daily news." "good job, guys!" and then "the wall street journal" has this had lied. "economic fears hit global markets." "the concern about investors, slowing economies will make it that much harder to whittle down

the debt levels. a string of economic reports, including a decline in consumer spending tuesday as investors rethinking a strong second-half rebound. that is the headlines on the economy in the newspaper this morning. one more for you, the "money" section of "usa today." "they still have not said whether or not they will downgrade the u.s. rating." we'll hear from chris, from lakewood, georgia, independent caller. caller: good morning. the counties, cities, states, have public concerns. the people would have a vote on

en's salaries. there ought to be an amendment because the public has a right to say so. number two, the constitution talks about people having two terms in congress. host: joanne, democrat in cleveland, ohio, your thoughts. caller: washington is acting like big business. they want to govern by committee. we elected a congress to represent us. since we do not have any say in this, the committee is going to happen but the committee should be -- but the meetings should be public. i also think the politicians and their benefits, like the previous caller said -- whatever they decide, it does not affect them. let's give them the same benefits, the normal benefits of

medicare and coverage that the rest of the citizens have. then perhaps they would be wiser in their choices when they come to cut and change medicare and social security programs. host: terry, republican, in cornell, new york. you are on the air. caller: i think we ought to put it down to the state government that decides what we spend. let the people have a vote. we can get to our state government before we can get to our senators in congress. we have our own school board. let the people vote on the budget. host: so you want the super committee to come up with a framework and that meant the -- and then let the public vote? caller: yes, vote on a budget

every november, just like we do for president, for congress. the people ought to take it back. host: grace, an independent from long beach, new york. caller: this committee, we had one before and everybody decided they did not like it and they walked out. i think is ridiculous. i think it needs to be aired. i think the people need to be in on it, not just the congressmen, because they say they know what the people want, but they do not know what the people want. we agree, we need to be taxed more. we do not mind it. i do not know, i just think it is all a game. and i think it is a foolish game, because only the port is going to get hurt by all these cuts. thank you -- only the poor is going to get hurt by all these

cuts. thank you. host: this is a few inside the courtroom, happening now in egypt. we will be showing that to you. go to c-span.org to find out when we will air it with translation. there are protesters outside the courtroom, and this is from earlier today, when mubarak was brought to the court in a stretcher. it says the ailing 83-year-old hosni bark -- hosni mubarak was laying on a hospital bed inside of a mesh cage. go to c-span.org for more information. let's go to charles, democratic caller from marietta, georgia. what do you think about the super committee? should it be out in the public?

caller: it definitely should not the public. host: why not? caller: it will be proven that it is dysfunctional. host: that the government is dysfunctional? caller: no, that you cannot get a large group of people together to argue successfully. keep the committee confidential. host: what about when they're done with their final report? is that something you would be interested in, having a public hearing of the final report and what is in it? caller: yes, i definitely think it has to the public at some point in time. but to have a minute-by-been it -- minute-by-minute, nothing

would ever get done. host: many turn their attention to jobs. the story in "usa today" says, "on the president's list is an extension of unemployment benefits, passage of free trade agreement with south korea, colombia, and create an infrastructure bank. most likely to win congressional approval in the fall, the trade deal, despite a positive from organized labor they have been delayed over trade adjustment assistance for displaced workers. patent legislation has been passed in the house and senate, but the two versions must be reconciled. opponents such as state -- such as senate democratic leader harry reid says it could create up to two and 7000 jobs, through business -- though business groups doubt it.

the infrastructure bank is a long shot for the fall." several opinion pieces in the paper today -- paul brian -- paul ryan writes this. "where is your budget, mr. president?" then you have in "the washington post," written by tim geithner. below that, lawrence summers rights, "the real need is growth." he is talking about the economy overall, if you're interested in those two. surely, republican, bellevue, .entucky call caller: think you for answering my call. i'm terribly upset about the behavior in congress. i really feel that the issue should have been separated.

i see no cause for the republican party trying to group a number of things together for passage. what i'm concerned about is the lack of information on the money trail that supports and funds the tea party. it is unbelievable when one goes into the research how this is an international move, as well as a national move, among companies trying to privatize america. the issues that we have, the primary issue, i feel, is the lack of jobs. if we look into the issues, you will see how these large companies here in america are offshoring the job market, which is increasing the amount of expenditures that each state has, which means it goes back to

the government expenses. host: shirley, we're talking about the super committee and whether it should hold public hearings. john from arkansas. caller: good morning. i am amazed about the quality of callers calling this morning. right now, according to my calculations, it's over 80% of people wanting the hearings of this committee to the public. what i see as a failure of leadership on both sides -- what i see is a failure of leadership on both sides, and all i see is posturing. i am a loyal listener, and i have been biding my teeth for a month to get the opportunity to call in -- i have been biding my teeth for eight months to get the opportunity to call in. this is a total failure by both parties. there is no leadership. they're posturing for the 2012 election cycle. you just read that report off a

newspaper about the posturing for 2012. there is a failure of leadership, and we are paying these people, what, $170,000 a year? what i would like to see rather than this committee is a committee to strip 20% of the pay from all incumbents. i would not vote for an incumbent. this is the third straight month i have called in with the same comment. we need to break up the two- party system and have term limits. that is the only way we will get our country back. host: john, thanks for waiting the 30 days. here's a tweet from the viewer -- from a viewer. "congress wrote the law, they know where the new polls are. super committee can avoid any real hurdles." and on the return of gaby giffords to vote on the debt

ceiling -- "giffords is undergoing three types of rehabilitation, occupational therapy, cognitive therapy including reading and working. she still struggles to communicate, a limitation that sometimes leaves her frustrated. but they said they do not doubt her cognitive abilities and her confidence that she understood the debt issue when she voted on monday. many people who are shot in the had never survive, let alone read their abilities. they credit her recovery so far how the bullet traveled through her brain, the top notch medical care. they say the next year could bring further improvement. the fact that giffords clearly was acknowledging other people, responding to their body language and reacting with her own facial expressions, indicates she retained higher thinking ability, making her

aware of her surroundings and what she was doing. the congresswoman has not decided she -- if she will run for reelection or for the senate, as some in your district would like her to do." here is a story in "politico," that if she were to decide to run for reelection, she already has several hundred thousand dollars in her coffers. kathy, democratic caller. good morning. caller: about this commission -- already, it is pretty much tainted, because mitch mcconnell already said he is between the creep paul ryan, the creep eric kantor. they already said they are not going to put anybody on their -- on there -- it has to be total, total the attacks.

host: on the other side, democrats are drawing a hard line on social security and medicare. caller: well, yeah, because they are looking out for us out here in the real land. those creeps, eric kantor, mitch mcconnell -- can you imagine the lobbying that is going on with this committee be made up? host: we got your point, cathy. let's try to do so without name calling. from the "los angeles times," a picture of somali refugees attempting to get aid in that country. here is the story. "u.s. relaxes rules for troops in somalia. the department of -- easing

restrictions on humanitarian aid groups so they will not be penalized if they inadvertently help al qaeda-linked militants battling for power in the country." we are covering the senate foreign relations subcommittee hearing on african affairs, and they will look at the drought and famine in the horn of africa. new york, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i keep hearing about both the democrats and republicans talking about shared responsibility in this economic downturn. i would like to know why the congress and the senate has not share the responsibility. why don't they take a vacation with 5% or 6% of their salaries until this crisis is over? host: from the news leader website, "look at the group's

led by joe biden. that group broke apart over demands on taxes." and cuts to medicare providers like skilled nursing facilities and home health-care providers. another savings option would be to use a smaller inflation adjustment when calculating social security cost-of-living adjustments and federal retirement benefits. the new debt and budget pact also should jumpstart capitol hill's moribund appropriations process, which has been hung up because until now there has not been agreed about how much to cut." should the super committee be held in public? caller: yes, it should be in

public. the public needs to realize what the super committee is. it is a way for the people in congress to get reelected, citing the super committee as forcing through these cut. they did not do it, these super committee did it. they are trying to shirk their responsibility of running our government, laying it in the hands of the super committee. host: donald, a democrat from massachusetts. thanks for calling in. we will return to the debt deal and what it means for the pentagon's budget, coming up at 8:30 eastern time. but up next, we turn our attention to politics and how super committee may turn out. we will talk with mike glover with the associated press in iowa, and james pindell with

wmur-tv. we will be back with them in just a minute. >> 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. zero. >> these are the stakes. to make a world in which all of god's children can live, or to go into the dark. we must either love each other, or we must die. >> vote for president johnson on november 3. >> this weekend we will look at the history of political campaign ads. also, former homicide detectives

james love fell on the day jack ruby killed the man under his protection, lee harvey oswald. "american history tv," on c- span3. following a series of tweets remarking the capital looks beautiful tonight, and turn on c-span now, arizona representative gabrielle giffords returned to the house to vote on raising the nation's debt ceiling. >> throughout america, there's not a name that stirs more love, war aberration, more respect, -- more admiration, more respect, then the name of gaby giffords. thank you. >> watch more online at the c-

span video library. this weekend on "booktv," john farrell on the life and times of clarence darrow, "attorney for the damned." and live, sunday at noon eastern, three hours of your calls and questions. "in depth" with ann coulter. >> that figure that is removing the veil of ignorance from human understanding, that is an american invention. >> if you missed c-span's latest documentary "the library of congress," there is a preview on

c-span's youtube channel. it is free. watch the entire library of congress documentary and hundreds of other timely videos online, youtube.com/cspan. "washington journal" continues. host: our topic for the next 45 minutes, how the debt deal will play out in that election. joining us, mike glover, a senior reporter with the associated press. and james pindell, with wmur- tv. let me start with mike glover. how is it playing in iowa? guest: most of them, you're right, have come out against it. it plays, depending on where you are looking in the political spectrum. you have to remember, these people are not running an electorate, they are running in

the very activist wing of the republican party, and the very activist wing of the republican party does not like the deal. all of the republican candidates are running against the debt deal, and that sells pretty well with the wings of the republican party that will show on caucus night. host: and it shows up well with iowa conservatives? caller: yes, the iowa conservative -- the iowa conservatives are more conservative than the mainstream republican party. host: and in new hampshire? caller: i am coming to you that does not -- i am coming to you from a state that does not have a state tax. obviously the independent voters can vote in the primary.

people are not really engaged -- for those presidential candidates, except for -- jon huntsman has been in the state all week and has supported the plan. everyone else has not. when they're not supporting it, they say they need a deal, but we just need a different, more conservative deal. that is the thing, right down the center before the political mainstream is. host: huntsman is one of the top tier candidates that came out and said i think this debt deal is a good one. does that hurt him in new hampshire? guest: he has to find a way to stand out. he is finding a way to stand out

and say he was for it. when the freeze is he kept repeating here in new hampshire about the deal was the -- one of the ways he kept repeating -- one of the words he kept repeating here in new hampshire about the deal was the word quote reasonable," versus of quote ideological -- vs. "ideological." host: how does that compare with what he said in iowa? caller: it was the same thing, to do what we can to accomplish what we are trying to accomplish. the problem is that the base of the republican party in this state is not interested in reasonable solutions. they are interested in a fairly hard core ideological solution to things, and that is not what they are after. i do not think it sells very well here, i do not think it goes over very well here, and i do not think it works with the elements driving the republican party in this state.

host: michele bachmann and ron paul voted against it. michele bachmann, out with a new ad about the debt deal. here it is. >> i will not vote to increase the debt ceiling. it goes completely contrary to common sense and how i grew up in iowa. so here is congress, watching these people borrow more money that they do not have so that my children can be further in debt it. we have to deal with the economic reality, and i have the will and the courage to see this through. i am michele bachmann, and i approve this message. host: mike glover, how is she doing in ohio -- in iowa? caller: she is doing well. michele bachmann and mitt romney are tied for the lead.

michele bachmann spent almost nothing here. but she is almost tied with him for the lead among republicans, and she has touched off a sense of excitement amongst conservative elements of the republican party. she is doing quite well. i do not know how you can explain it in rational terms. she engenders a sense of enthusiasm, of spunk, whatever. she had a lot of republicans excited, and she is near the top of the field and all the polls i have seen. host: mitt romney is still doing well in iowa, despite having a low profile. from what we are reading, a low- profile across the country. but there has been talked about him not being able to do that well in iowa, yet he is still at the top. guest: he is still right near the top of the polls. all that is based on the millions of dollars he spent in the last election cycle campaigning in iowa. he is very well known, has high

name identification. he has kind of put a lot of moderate republicans -- he is seen as a moderate republican who can challenge barack obama. michele bachmann is almost tied with him, having spent very little and done almost nothing here. host: what about new hampshire? how is michele bachmann doing there? guest: the more interesting question is who is in second? that has fluctuated. pulling back into february, different folks have had that slot, for rudy giuliani to ron paul, even, trump at one point. right now on it -- right now

michele bachmann is in second place. she is around 12%, 13%. after that, we go into single digits. michele bachmann -- host: go ahead, james. guest: michele bachmann has been sort of day howard dean type figure. can she pulled together the full howard dean type infrastructure? howard dean was a prodigious fund-raiser, was able to have a huge infrastructure in this state that allowed him to continue to be a player after a disappointing finish in iowa. michele bachmann, frankly, does not have that infrastructure here. clearly her focus right now has been on it -- host: 90 show you this quote from john huntsman, from fox news, trying to explain what he meant when he said that michele

bachmann makes good copy, "i wish we could all be that photogenic." what do you make of that? guest: i do not think this is getting a lot of play. had john huntsman been in second place or in first place, average everyday voters would know more about this quote then they really do. host: if you want to participate in this conversation, we set aside a specific number. does what jon huntsman said hurt voters in iowa? caller: iowa is a funny state. it is one of two states in the nation that has never said a

woman to congress' war -- to congress or had a woman as governor. it will be fascinating to see how that plays out among republican voters because republican voters tend to be those who have built that gender -- filled that gender gap. i think one of the lessons to be learned is it is all about political organization. i think michele bachmann has generated a lot of interest, a lot of enthusiasm amongst the republican base. however, i think one of the things she has not done to date yet is she has not put together the type of organization that drives those people to the caucus next winter. she has to do that. she has crossed the first hurdle. she has built the enthusiasm,

the interest among the republican base. now she has to put together the kind of organization to deliver those people to the caucus next winter. host: here is "politico" with their story out of iowa. tim pawlenty today released the names of 29 iowa county chairs to underscore his ground game in advance of the ames straw poll. the list suggests a level of organization that should result in pawlenty holding his own at ames, despite low balling of expectations by his team." guest: the need to do well there. they have based their campaign on doing well in iowa. if they do not do well in the straw poll, their campaigns will be on fragile ground.

they will bring a lot of interest, interest, and focus on the straw poll. we'll see if they can turn those people all. if they do not, their campaigns will be in danger. host: what should viewers be watching over the next month, in the fall, in new hampshire? guest: guest: who will be the challenger to mitt romney? the magic is the last -- next leader of the free world has to talk to people in town meetings, answer questions on taxes, what to do about their kid that is in afghanistan or iraq? that magical moment has not happened in any of these early primary states. as the campaign matures, we

could see more of these magical moments between a candidate and a real voter that will shake up the narrative. you mentioned before, raising money and profile, mitt romney will not be participating. he is on vacation this week. host: does the straw poll have an impact on new hampshire? >> it doe? guest: it does in terms of setting the field. in terms of ideology, it really does not. it does lead to a slow, late july and august. some of the candidates are spending all of their time in iowa. some are not the dissipating in iowa as much and focusing more on new hampshire. host: we will go to henry a

democratic caller in iowa first. caller: my question is for mr. james pindell and the other gentleman. i heard the comment that iowa and new hampshire are everyday people. i really do not know anyone that lives in these two states. they hold these primaries and everybody is held hostage by what these people in states nobody lives in thanks. host: mike glover, i will go to you first. guest: because life is not fair. iowa and new hampshire have been first for a long time. candidates have to talk to people. if the first date was california, if you did not have $50 million, you could not run the campaign.

in iowa and new hampshire you could go door-to-door, talk to real people, and get your campaign off of the ground. it is a system that is worked pretty well for a long time. it has helped nominate a number of people that have gone on to be successful. host: here are the key dates in the 2012 election -- august 13, the iowa republican straw poll. if host: here is a story that was published on fox news --

early arizona primary could shake up the calendar. it's as if the governor of arizona, jan board, if she has her way could move the primary up to january. james pindell, what is it looking like for the primary calendar? guest: times are you spend all the time explain the states because it is probably not going to happen. the arizona governor has the capability to move the primary to whenever she wants, but she has to do it with 150 days notice. she would have to make up her mind by a september. new hampshire and iowa will begin the process. they are much more nimble. iowa has a republican chair. it is a nimble process. four years ago, we did not decide when the new hampshire primary would be until the

thanksgiving holiday. these two states will start off the process. what day? i do not know. host: when will that be decided? guest: again, much later, probably late-fall. iowa before new hampshire. thus that -- secretary of state is the last person. it is his duty. it is the state law. we have the first primary in the country. he is duty-bound by law. he usually makes his mind up sometime in the fall. host: will go to ellen, a republican in houston, texas. itler: let's not get twisted. mitt romney has zero chance of winning. neither does bachmann. neither did she hold any weight in any sort of throwback to

republican ideas. ron paul is a year should be talking about, and at the very least you should consider rick perry as a threat. let's get this weekend in houston. we have the prayer weekend and the fasting, and all of the stuff. this is posturing. if you are worried about the tea party, he is more scary than anything you can think about. let's go, ron paul. host: ron block -- mike glover, ron paul, chances in iowa? guest: he is much stronger than the previous times. i guess you could call him sort of a naysayer to what is going on in politics right now. that seems to be selling pretty well among tea party folks and those kinds of folks.

he is running third last i checked, which is much better than he has done before. he is a serious candidate and will run pretty well. he have something that is very important in iowa which has caucuses that require a level of commitment, he has very, very loyal, committed supporters. he might not have as many as someone else, but the supporters he has are very committed, in twos, and committed to showing up next winter. host: this is from james. host: if you look to paul will -- if you look at "the " this morning --his mornin his schedule to spend two days campaigning in iowa and will

hold fund-raisers. host: he has amassed an monetary advantage and kept his lead, but the potential competition from the governor of texas are likely to change the contours of the race. it might be the strongest challenge yet to mitt romney's front-runner status. guest: i did not think anybody has a wrap up. the thrust of that is pretty good. mitt romney is probably a front- runner. in that is what the polls tell us. -- that is what the polls tell

us. rick perry comes in as the governor of texas with a very, very large support among right- wing angelico and christians. he is a very -- evangelical christians. he has hired staffers in iowa. he has a staff on the ground. i think it is not a settled deal. one of the things we do least well in our business is we do not really do well and deciding how somebody is going to revolve as a candidate, roh into the role. rick perry, on the face, is all you need to have to be a republican candidate. as he moves into the race, will he rolled into that role and become an effective presidential candidate? by all accounts, he probably can, but let's see.

host: was go to new hampshire, grace, a democratic caller. caller: yes. are allshire people are original people from new hampshire. if we do not ask questions like boxers or briefs we ask questions of what the corporate tax rate should be. that give this a clue about how one form they are, and that they're not as informed as we are. host: james pindell? guest: that is true. 70% of the state was born somewhere else. they have all of the population boom along the southern tier of the state, largely in the boston, manchester market. it is interesting to comes to

town hall meetings. why do iowa and new hampshire began the process? no state would be perfect, but one thing these states doo-doo do is they allow for a marketplace of ideas -- do do is they allow for a marketplace of ideas. you really have these town hall meetings in new hampshire and iowa where you get to see how candidates react under pressure and have honest debate. that is something that adds to the process before going to bigger states. host: i want to get your thoughts on rick perry and new hampshire. here's a story out of the eight teeth that says the texas governor has organized a prayer, a seven-hour cursed and atonement. it's a sincere scheduled the event he has become the most talked-about almost-candidate in

the presidential field, but with only a thousand rsvp's for a stadium that seats 80,000 people, the event has become potential risk. guest: i read that this morning. probablyry would be - the biggest threats to mitt romney. every couple of months we talk about somebody else that could enter the race. now, we are obviously talking about rick perry. rick perry and sarah palin are the only two candidates that would seriously shake this place up. rick perry has a natural advantage. he has arguably the top political strategist in the state, and in the country, his

right-hand man, david carney. he would be a major player if he were to become a candidate, not just in iowa, where he would find natural constituencies, but even here, in new hampshire. host: maria, an independent in new jersey. caller: do you think ron paul is the only candidate that is potentially a nationalist? he is against the trade agreement's death of put up of $311 billion deficit every year. with the illegal immigration year -- issue, i would like to see all of the candidates address these and protect us. also, what governor rick perry's job performance, a lot of times what the let the department of labor accounts for a job could be a lot less

than the job they had previously. i wish we could have honest numbers. host: mike glover, what do you make of her comments about how ron paul views the issue is and how that might play god? guest: ron paul taps into -- might play out. guest: ron paul taps into a lot of frustration that a lot of people in this country face, things that are out of their control. they see that things are going in a direction they do not like, and ron paul taps into the frustration. they see a world situation that is not going in a direction they like, an economy that is not going where they wanted to go, their jobs are not always there for them, and ron paul taps very effectively into that frustration by saying i am matt s. heck, and i am not willing to

take it anymore. that accounts for a lot of his success. he is third in most of the polling i have seen, so he has been effective. host: why not if you are ron paul, run as a third party candidate? here is a story in n "the usa today." it's as history says no, but if the debt crisis further alienates voters, all bets are off. guest: i did not think he will the republican nomination. i think mitt romney, rick perry are the front-runners, michele bachmann is playing into that. if he does not get the republican nomination, i do not think there is any doubt at all he will run as a third-party candidate.

i think that is a likely scenario. if i were him, that would be a good way to go. host: james pindell, other any candidates that are in the race or not in the race that could make it viable third-party run? guest: michael bloomberg is a big figure. he clearly has the money, the credibility, and he has been talking about running and being this independent voice. he and arnold schwarzenegger at one. declared they would leave the republican party to be this independent voice. besides him, and there could be scenarios where that could work, i could not see how anyone could be this credible voice. people are disgusted with politics and washington, but i just do not know how long the sentiment about is the titular

moment, the debt ceiling, will really provide an opportunity. i think there is a stream of populism that goes under- reported that could be grabbed up on. there is populism against some sort of elite. however you define that a lead, whether it is the folks in washington, or the educated elite, there is an economic populism that is sitting there that any candidate could find highly successful. host: there is donald trump possibly starting with a third- party bid as well. eric, a republican in west virginia. caller: i am a member of the tea party, i am 72 years old, and i did not consider myself a terrorist or extremists. i worked hard all my life. i think we are at a crossroads

where we are either going to be a socialist country or a free enterprise country. i'm just hoping it does not go to the left. i liked rick perry because, well, statistics speak for themselves. he has created a i think of all the jobs that have been created, he is treated 40% of them, and for the woman that says there menial jobs, in this time, but job is a job. host: texas is doing well with jobs. here is a "pittsburgh post- gazette" page. 45% approved of the handling of his job for the president. combine that with what you heard from the caller about rick perry and his job performance.

guest: the president faces a big challenge. he is head to steer the nation through two or three significant crisis eased. one was the one we went through. is that in a tough calls that are not popular. -- he has had to make tough calls that are not popular. having said all of that, i have to tell you it is very, very difficult to get a sitting president who is paying attention to his politics, and this president is paying attention to his politics. his poll numbers are down right now, however look at the money, the organization. i think we will have a competitive campaign. host: what is his organization might in the midwest and iowa for 2012, and how is the debt deal playing with democrats in that state? guest: democrats, right now, the biggest problem that barack obama faces -- you have to go back to the night he won

election in chicago, and a million people let were gathered, cheering, shouting, talking about hope. are they as confused as they were back then? his problem is not -- enthused as they were back then? his problem is not with his base. are they excited enough to turn out, or are they disappointed and not likely to show what? -- show poup? host: debbie, a democrat. go ahead. caller: i have an issue with james pindell. are you telling the people that property taxes start at $5,000 to $10,000 for an ordinary house? we are over-taxed, are you

telling them that? and mitt romney, why do you tel about the big dig, the collapse, and the woman that was equipment, ashoty big did that went on for ever, and there was a woman that was killed. host: debra referring to when mitt romney was the governor of massachusetts. go ahead, james pindell. guest: my point is that we do not have an income tax because taxes the fine politics. all we are left with is the property tax. there have been efforts to overturn that. there have been efforts to have an income tax. the most serious debate was in 1998 during the education funding crisis. in the big dig, of course mitt romney did not begin the big dig

process. he was governor. there was some shoddy equipment. people had been fired. there were lawsuits. he did oversee debt. he did not oversee the entire project. host: steve, ill., democratic line. caller: i want to just let you know. i'm going to be voting for president obama. host: you think the deal helps the president? caller: yes, i do. host: mike, dover, ohio. caller: i would like to welcome everyone from dover, ohio. i fail to understand why iowa has a big importance as been the

first caucus or whatever. my understanding is they have a straw poll, a caucus, and a primary later. the straw poll and the caucus are strictly people that have been paid to show up. they are given transportation and whatever. host: mike glover, a little clarification there? guest: the straw poll is an event where candidates do bus people to the straw poll to vote for them. they pass out tickets. so, it is a competition. who can turn out people to show off at a particular place, at a particular night, to vote for a particular candidate? the reason i like is first is because history, tradition, by what is a place where you have to come and talk to real people. you have to go out and campaign.

you cannot just throw a bunch of money at things. it is a flawed process, obviously, but it is a process over time that has proven you have candidates best to come out and deal with real people, and i think -- that have to come out and deal with real people, and i think that is an important thing to have been a political campaign. host: john is a republican in woodland, texas. caller: i like to comment on rick perry. i do not think you understand how farmers and ranchers paid rick perry. he spent $140 billion to build a highway that would have bypassed every major city in texas. it would have taken millions of acres of farmland and ranch land

to build it, and it was defeated. kay bailey hutchison came out against it. he need to start telling the facts about rick perry. i do not see ron paul elected either because he has extreme views on illegal drugs. host: andrew a republican in new hampshire. you have to turn the television down peter, a democratic caller. peter, good morning? all right, one last call for peter, four bright, california, a democrat line? all right. we will try to give back to you, peter. let me show our viewers the latest fund-raising numbers from the most recent reporting. mitt romney -- 12.7 $2 million.

h a james pindell, what to those funding numbers tell you? guest: it shows you mitt romney has more money than the other candidates. it is something rick perry can offer. he has a significant nation- wide fund-raising base. the second thing you notice is that not only -- i did not think you have barack obama's number on there, but he raises more than all the republican candidates combined. he has not been able to raise a lot of money, but nonetheless he comes in with significant financial advantages. we talk about him being the

first billion dollar candidate. money will be an issue. he electability is an issue. when we talk about where these positions talk -- line up with the tea party or the conservative base of the republican party, the reality is that in new hampshire three out of four republicans say the most important thing is a person that can beat barack obama. the ability to raise money and electability will be a huge factor. host: mike glover, the president travels to chicago today on his 50th birthday for a fund-raiser. when you look at the republican numbers, newt gingrich, about $300,000 is what he has raised so far. what does that say about the likelihood he can stay in this race? guest: it says a lot. if you look at all the republican numbers, if you look of the total amount of money they have raised, it is about half of what they raised during

the last election cycle. they have a money problem, especially going against a president who does not have the money problem. i'm sorry, but in american politics money matters and barack obama is going to have a significant financial edge, probably two-to-one. if you look at the amount of money than newt gingrich has raised against total financial picture, he has $1 million in debt. he has significant problems. in fort a democrat myers, florida. go ahead. caller: there was so much ulta -- uniformity in the gop did got my suspicions of, and then i found a website, and i was amazed that so many gop state legislators were directly

influenced by american corporations. i think the gop is actually playing directly, and it is not even my thought, but receiving bills directly. host: those are michael's thoughts in fort myers, florida. let me end by asking you about the straw poll, michael glover? guest: we will be watching for who turns out the most people. we assume the people who put the mouse organization into what are people like tim pawlenty and rick santorum, people that are betting on lot on the straw poll. they have not done well in traditional polling. if they do not do very well, it could be very tough for them. i think we will see the first willing of the field with that straw poll.

host: james pindell, as mitt romney steps up his efforts in new hampshire, will you go to the small gatherings where the candidates go to small parties and shake hands, and what will you listen for? guest: i looked at the reaction on people's faces. are they engaged, laughing about this guy's answer over here? mitt romney will begin small forms monday night. you get a sense from the crowd sizes. there is an ability to draw interest and the able to -- and be able to draw people into hear the message. we might have a willing of the field. expect to see television advertisements and more activity. host: james pindell and mike glover, thank you both very much.

guest: thank you. host: look for our coverage of the straw poll. coming up, we'll look at the federal aviation administration and the stalled in congress over its reauthorization, but first a look of spending cuts and its impact on the pentagon budget. >> checking on the headlines, the white house releases a new strategy to counter the violent extremism, pledging the government's support of local communities to come up with a solution specific to their own problems. though the obama administration says al qaeda presents the largest threat, it generally addresses amount extremism in all forms. one day after the president sign the debt ceiling law, a chinese rating agency said the deal does not change the fact that u.s. debt growth has out-paced its

economy and fiscal revenue, and the company has downgraded the rating of the united states. sources say the move is not likely to he said u.s. borrowing. moody's says the u.s. will retain its highest bond rating, but with a negative outlook. on wall street, u.s. stock futures are rising. investors received reports on june factory orders and a reading of growth. dow futures are up 33. those are some of the latest headlines and c-span radio. >> with titles like "slender and," and kolter has something to say. -- ann coulter has something to sit. you're watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs.

every morning it is "washington journal." whweekdays watch live coverage of the house of representatives. on the weekends to conceal our signature to an interview programs -- on saturdays, "the communicator's cloak off and on "newsmakers."makers, it is all searchable on our video library. c-span, washington coming your way, a public service created by america's cable companies. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with gordon adams, the former white house social -- associate budget director. our topic is spending cuts and the debate in the debt ceiling deal that would put the pentagon

's budget on the chopping block. initially, it is about three and a $50 billion to four to billion dollars debt to -- 350 billion to $400 billion that could be cut. the numbers can fluctuate. if the super committee does not come to an agreement, it is $1.2 trillion split. where is their fat to trim. where do you suspect they will come up with kuatz? -- cuts? guest: nobody knows where the figure will come from. the white house says may be as much as $350 billion in defense. that is consistent with what the

president asked for in april. he asked for $400 million -- $400 billion over 12 years. $350 billion is not really a cut. you can find that, and still increase defense sector rate of inflation. you could actually do that, and keep the pentagon's buying power. so, the first cut is not really a cut in the defense budget. if they go to the super committee, and the super committee fails because it only hit a pentagon if it fails, then you are quite correct -- the pentagon is in for probably $500 billion or $600 billion worth of reductions over the next 10 years. interestingly, if you put that together with the three and $50 billion they are already in for,

it comes to almost exactly 4 defense the gang of six proposed last week. there are plenty of political figures that have said it is quite possible for the pentagon to absorb the cuts and still have a vital defense. it will take good management. host: the bipartisan the commission put this together -- half the number of joint strike fighters, -- host: what is the f-35 joint strike fighter? guest: when you cut the defense budget, and this is not the first time we have done that, we have done it four time since the end of the second world war,

once after a career, once after vietnam, once after the cold war, and we are in our fourth bill down, and it usually happens because people get concerned about debt. when it goes down, there are tried and true things to do. one thing is bring down the size of the force. we have done that every time since korea, vietnam, the cold war, and will probably do that again. so, to mean that down, and doing one of those recommendations which is we are not likely to go to war in europe any time soon, so we can slim down forces in europe. you can do that by trimming the forces, and cutting the size is important because when you bring down the size of the force, you actually need to buy less equipment, do less training. your budget is heavily-driven by the size of the force. the second thing that typically

happens, and we went through this in the 1990's when i was of the office of management and budget is you look at procurement programs. that is where your f-35 comes in. why do we not need, isn't performing well? you use those standards. what are necessary to the mission? there are a number of programs subject to scrutiny. f-35 is one of them. host: why is that? guest: it is the next joint fighter. we plan to buy some more over 2300. one of the typical ways when you are slowing down the budget and defense his say let's by 2100, or 1900, and by the more slowly. those will save the money in the defense budget. they may do that because

particularly in the case of the air force may have a new, high- price fighter that has come on line, the f-22, and in the navy and marine corps they use something called the f-18, of which there is a new generation in production now. if you want to do something in terms of performance, you buy the existing aircraft instead of the next generation. that is just one example. the air force wants to start a production program in about five years time for a new long range bomber. we have a number of very old but much-refurbished b-52's. we could postpone the decision to build a new long-range bomber. if you go through the inventory programs and say what can i slow down, you will make a series of

decisions that allow you to do that. secretary gates before he left made some of those decisions. secretary leon panetta will have to make more of those decisions in the future. the other thing they need to worry about is the defense infrastructure, the back office, the people that are not really a point of combat. what do you do about that? it is really expensive. the pentagon has an overhead of 42%, which means 42% supplies the back office, buying the stuff they use, the computer, the technology, the desks, the shares, -- the chairs, the grass-cutting. 42% is really heavy for everyone in the private sector, probably about twice the average rate. it is grown a lot in the last 10 years because the whole budget has grown. we doubled the defense budget

in the last 10 years. a lot of that is an overhead and people. it is time to think about discipline, and admiral mullen has said we have lost our discipline in the pentagon. cuts are probably the most useful form of discipline in the pentagon. host: former defense secretary gates said we could find $400 billion. then you heard from general dempsey who testified that they were struggling to find $400 billion, and if they cut more you're putting us at risk. you'll affect the budget of the pentagon when you served under the clinton administration. how difficult is it to find ways to find money, and why is their difficulty? do you think it is easy to find, and there are places to cut? guest: there are plenty of places to cut. i have never known the head of

the department in any part of the federal government then voluntarily said sure, cut my budget. the reality is that cuts on the order that we are talking about, even the big ones, those amounts to 15% of the projected resources the defense department wants to have in the next 10 years that is not a end of western civilization as we know it. in the time i was there before and after i was in the office of management and budget, actual spending in defense went down 36% in constant dollars. now, that is more than twice of the rate we are talking about, and that is real spending. the military force the ended up in 1998, when we started taking back up, was the same military force that if president bush sent into iraq and sit down saddam hussein as if they were a

speed bump. properly managed, you can find ways to get the efficiencies we are talking about. you can bring down the structure, the hardware programs, cut the infrastructure simply by saying less money for this area, and you have to tackle the third rail of pay and benefits. host: if you were to cut the pentagon's budget $800 billion or $9 billion, how does that line with other country's million dollars? we today have the only military in the world that can sell globally, flight globally, deploy troops globally. it is the only military that has global infrastructure, logistics, communications, transportation. it is the only military. it is a globally-dominant force. the chinese spend one seventh of what we spend on the military today.

10 years and now, properly managed, there is no reason all of them should not remain should. nobody is playing catch-up ball with us any speed that worries us. we are secure and we have a globally-dominant force. host: john kyl disagrees. here is what he had to say. >> these cuts were not the result of careful planning and analysis. they were arbitrary percentages thrown out in negotiations, totally not connected to the actual defense requirements. worse, the cuts that would be triggered if the committee recommendations failed were intentionally designed to be so large, so unimaginable, so irresponsible, that congress would be incentivize to approve the recommendations. the phrase "armageddon" was used to characterize this scheme. host: gordon adams?

guest: this is political rhetoric. we can do it in a manageable and reasonable way without it being armageddon. i do not expect armageddon i would expect, say, $500 billion over 10 years. we're talking about something like 8% or 9% of currently- reflected defense budgets. as been done before and we're still globally dominant. what we are looking at is caught in the political stance of washington with a lot of rhetoric surrounding the choices that people want to make and do not want to make, and reasonable people will compromise. they always compromise one we are doing budgets at the level of the top line. there is not cuts be done

analytically. host: larry, a democratic caller in tennessee. caller: if they want to cut military and government spending, why don't they do away with all government programs, and protect the rich, so they can get their tax breaks, and big businesses, so they can ship our jobs overseas? host: chalk, a republican in oregon. caller: i was wondering which president he served under, and if he is a democrat or a republican, and i wrote these down. sometimes on the phone it is hard to keep your train of thought. anyway, one comment, and this has to do with the budget negotiations, i cannot figure rao while all of these things have to be done behind -- why

all of these things have to be done behind closed doors, and why the media does not question these politicians and negotiate behind closed doors. i've understand national security, however the budget seems a little different than that and it always has to be behind closed doors and it is always done at the last minute. host: we ask about the super committee and whether they should hold public hearings, but do you suspect there could be some national security reasons for the super committee not to discuss what they would want to cut and what they might not want to cut? guest: iraq other suspect they want to cut and not -- i rather suspect they will cut and not cut in the private. i feel a little bit like the french police officer in "costs above the."

-- "casablanc." this is all about politics. this is typical washington, deciding we will live through this year, and we will get through it. it is the only semi-. number you have in this agreement, and we will really decide where we want to go with this agreement when we get to the first tuesday in november, 2012, which would be the election. when we find out who owns the senate, the house, the white house, the terrain will shift and a lot of the decisions will be renegotiated and remade. for the caller, i served for five years at the office of management and budget in the clinton administration. that is where i worked. host: mrs. "the washington times" this morning.

in fiscal 2012, the cap would be roughly $5 billion then current year spending. host: some analysts predict the state department and homeland security will be dealt to protect pentagon spending. -- gouged to protect pentagon spending guest: i think it is likely because the department of defense has a large political constituency that supports it, and driven to people that strongly believe in supporting major funding for national defense, contractors and communities were bases and production is located. they have an asset the state department does not have, which is the base of support and political and the structure in the congress. although one does not know what happened behind a less set of

closed doors, it seems to be likely that in exchange for votes from defense secured -- conservatives in the republican party, there probably was some kind of understanding that defense was not going to pay debt -$5 billion price tag if they do not kn. for every dollar that is added for defense, something has to be wet summer house. it could be 10 or $15 billion. host: here is a story from "roll call on security budgets, this is

"the washington times." -- host: that puts more pressure on the non- defense portion. tim, , independent caller in maine. you're on the phone with gordon adams. caller: i want to talk about nato. bob gates said america's pain 90% of the cost of nato. this is an old argument. i can remember in the 1950's when my father complained his tax money was paying for the security of europe. it is time for europe to start paying for their own security.

guest: that is a tough question. during the cold war, it was possible to say that everybody across the pond agreed upon what the major security threat to the united states was -- it was the soviet union and the warsaw pact. they were as much of a threat to the europeans as it was to the united states. the consensus in nato was pretty strong that everybody had to put their shoulder to the oil, and even then there was a nine about who was paying their fair share. we defined at that point the security of europe as being essentially the front edge of american security -- an enemy force that took over western europe was not in the interest of u.s. national security. everyone included in the assumption that the united states would be the heavy burden carrier, although it is worth saying the germans, the french, but the british, the italians in

particular have a substantial forces. with the end of the cold war, it is less clear that everyone shares the same view about what the challenges we face in the world really are. the europeans are facing their own kind of fiscal crisis with an aging population, social service benefits, high immigration costs that they have to face with moslem immigration into western europe. there are a lot of reasons the europeans are cutting back in their own defense expenditures. we can choose whether we want to spend additional funding and defense. we probably spent 2/3 of nato expenditures. we can choose whether or not we choose to do that. one of the recommendations we made was similar to the one that is being discussed from the simpson bowls commission, which

is to reduce the number of -- bowles-simpson commission, which is to reduce the number of american troops in europe. it is a tougher argument to go to the europeans and say here is the way we define global threats and challenges, and now we want you to agree with us 100% and boost your military spending to fit. not every european country agrees all of those challenges, so it is a more difficult exercise to carry out. host: all code usa today" breaks down our forces -- "usa today" breaks down our forces -- host: that is our topic this morning, spending cuts and the

impact the debt deal will have on the pentagon budget. michael, a republican in austin, texas. you're on the air with gordon adams. caller: i cannot believe i made it through. i have been watching c-span for several years pep i have called in half of a dozen times. i'm curious about specifically, mr. gordon, military, a retired benefits. my father has been fighting cancer for 3 years. he is in remission, thing goodness. he spent over 20 years in active duty military and civil service, and i, myself, am an .riginal gulf war veteran i have served my time in their reserves as well, and i think it

is deplorable to even think that these bureaucrats are even thinking about military retiree cuts. host: let me throw up these numbers for you from "usa today to tel." caller: well, ok. i understand that cuts need to be made. sacrifice has to come from a majority of the country. but, you know, on the flip side coin, you lookyou

to the rich not sacrificing anything. ulta tom and joe -- you want cuts? dollar thatist d comes into washington, why not tax every lobbyist dollar at 50%? look at campaign contributions. and those small percentage tarriffs on imports. tackle waste and abuse. if you want to talk about a new tax bracket, why did obama said $250,000, why not raise

that to $1 million? guest: this is a good illustration of how hard it is to tackle this issue. there are three issues, compensation, the health-care system, and the retirement system. the quadrennial review is almost too complicated to say, and it is the standard dod analysis, and they have recommended reforms four years in benefits. they generally do not go through -- generally, benefits have been increased over the last 20 years, in large part because people are effective and well- organized to lobby. it is important to understand the difference between these and the rest of the economy. right now, because of pay increases over the last 20

years, your average so there is paid about 11% of a comparable private sector person. this is scaled for age and education. that says we have succeeded in accomplishing the equalization of pay and the compensation side. he might be time to look for a system that looks at retain the people we want. in the health-care area, the data you are using is accurate heard the tri care system is available to people that are not old enough to medicare, who are -- maybe fully employed. the average premium paid in the private sector is more than 10 times that high. it is a huge gap between the private sector and what is paid in the tri care system for retirees that are not on medicare. we have a retirement system for

the military right now which says before you serve 20 years, you get nothing. after you have served 20 years, you get everything. that is not a very logical system. any reform that is done to that system has to grandfather the people that have that expectation in their system and not cut back on those back on those people. but for new entrants in the military, it seems reasonable to say, you ought to best pension at five years, like the rest of the government. then you have a choice about whether you want to stay or go and then draw a pension. it reasonably ought to be a pension you can draw when you reached the age of 57, like federal workers. from my view, if you could go there, you ought to grandfather everyone under the current system, because there is no point in trying to roll people

back from the benefits they now have. host: the nomination for deputy defense secretary, senate nominations expected to be smooth. that person has worked behind the scenes on the pentagon bureaucracy. the pentagon faces cuts up to $1 trillion. guest: i think it is a good appointment. i know him. he is a smart former physicist. he understands the technical and science side of the business. he has worked on the policy side of the pentagon. he has worked on acquisition side. he is now moving into managerial responsibility, which the pentagon strongly needs. the secretary is a good guy but cannot manage the building

internally every day. he will make the policy calls. carter will do the management side. it is a good team. host: an e-mail -- brian in frederick county, maryland. you are next. caller: i am sick and tired of people talking about cutting my benefits. i certification. but i was in the desert, there were no republicans or tea party years on my back. i should not have to pay the same as some wall street by or somebody who never even bothered to serve. cut my benefits of these wall street guys are prospering is ridiculous. i am sick and tired of it. what do you have to say about that, sir? host: before you go, what branch

did you serve in? caller: air force retired. senior master sgt. host: what were you responsible for? caller: i am a laboratory manager by trade. we had to set up tents, -- see, i did 23 years, so i was in all the involvements. it is not fair to hear people come after me. i am not getting much anyhow, and i am getting whacked with taxes on my retirement. there is plenty of money out there. all you need to do is put a one- cent tax for wall street transactions. host: what did you think about things like the f-35? should that be on the table? caller: we need to keep our defense strong. what i am saying is we need to

expand the tax base. people are talking about it but nobody wants to do it. host: on the f-35, here are some numbers from "usa today." gordon adams? guest: the bottom line here -- you have an illustration of how hard this is. the issue that was raised in the negotiations it, and are still being raised, which is, right now, the debt agreement does not provide much of anything in terms of revenues. there is a strong constituency in the republican party and in the country that says, do not raise taxes. we could solve two-thirds of the projected debt problems if we simply did not extend the bush tax cuts. if we did that, which expired at

the end of the year, we would solve two-thirds of the problem and we would do what the caller is calling for. a higher level of taxation on people who are not being touched right now. host: sascha tweets in -- guest: i cannot imagine anybody else that i would rather have involved in a bill down at the pentagon. he was my boss for 18 months at omb, and then when he moved over to become chief of staff, he was still my boss because half of our business was being done out of his office. he is a guy that those national security issues, defense budgeting issues, has the ear of the president and congress, where he is respected. if you need somebody in charge of the bill down, he is a good

one. host: another e-mail -- guest: r&d is the level of effort. you do what you can do with the money. once you're in the hardware program, you have to buy it, so you get what you wanted to buy. research and development is one of those areas where less effort means less research being done. but at the level of $85 billion a year, our r&d budget alone in the pentagon is larger than the entire defense budget than any other country in the world, except china. host: colleen. independent, chapel hill, tennessee. caller: my husband was an

infantryman in vietnam. he recently lost a friend to to agent orange poisoning. there were two books that i had seen on c-span. this is my question. why can there be a ruling of some sort, that if you are on a certain committee, that you are not allowed to take money away from lobbyists? but us say ways and means, defense. you should i be allowed to take money from a defense contractor. guest: by taking money from, i assume campaign contributions. the problem is, the supreme court has ridden the and it rigorously argued for decisions

that cover a 20-year time span or more than any restrictions on campaign contributions are a violation of free-speech. so the only restriction is the size, where we have limitations on the size of a contribution to a candidate. but not on the fact that they can make campaign contributions. the supreme court has continually expanded access of campaign contributions to members of congress in their election races, and have been unwilling to put restrictions on it. i agree with the caller. one of the most corrupting influences in the political process in congress is the impact of campaign contributions from industries to members in areas where the members sit on committees that affect the interests of those industries. it is very corrupting of the american political system. host: randy in syracuse, new york.

caller: good morning. my question is about our involvement in libya. president obama said it would be a better -- a matter of days, not weeks. it seems like our goals there are quite murky. what are our national interests there? guest: i can tell you what they say. beyond that, not much more. the president, when he said it would be quick -- remember president bush saying mission accomplished. every president that gets that nation into a conflict has to learn the phrase that the general staff once said. no military plan survives first contact with the enemy. almost every plan disintegrates on site when they get into the battlefield. clearly, again, in libya, that

is true. it has taken a lot longer than predicted and it is not clear where the outcome will be. president obama is learning that hard lesson the same way that every other president before him has. the decision to go there, i believe, was largely influenced by two things. one is the sense in the administration that the libyan people were facing a very dire threat of direct attacke by ther own government. the other thing was -- and this distinguishes it from syria, in a real way. it is a nation and led by a leader who was kind of a pariah in the arab world. not a lot of countries would come to his defense, if they went after him, in the guise of protecting the libyan people.

the fact that there is not much appetite in this the administration for putting more boots on the ground in the middle east constraints for the activities that the u.s. can engage in. so putting those constraints on it has limited the speed at which anything can be accomplished. host: a tweet -- guest: i think a distinction needs to be made here. pay rates in the private sector, for people who are contracting services to the department of defense are inevitably higher than pay rates for people doing similar work in the government. that is certainly true. moreover, we have expanded the services contract thing -- and i want to make a difference between those who service and those who manufacture or

research things for the government. i am talking about the people who provide food services in bagram, security in iraq. i am sad to say, already, the investigation into the special organizer will show lots of disorganization. i think we will be looking at some years of investigations, court cases, brought charges, all sorts of things that happened in wartime pretty regularly. i am very sympathetic with the undertone of what the caller is suggesting, which is there is something not quite right of having all these soldiers doing things at pay rates that do not match. and not coming under the supervision that a federal employee would come under.

host: gordon adams, former white house budget director for security from 1993 to 1997. we are going to try to get a couple more phone calls in. dan from new jersey. caller: i have been trying to get through four years. thank god for c-span. america has been off-track since world war ii. you do not need an overblown military. nato is obsolete. that was started in 1949. it was the start of the military alliance. in the mediterranean, i hear --

i hear we are trying to get the chinese out of libya. we are killing a civilian with nato. host: ok, we will end it there. burt in pittsburgh. guest: i do not necessarily predict caller: -- caller: i do not disagree with cutting military overhead, but i did some analysis from 1960, 1965, converted the cost of those dollars. while the military is bloated from that standpoint, the percentage, compare the cost of dollars, military went down about 70% while the rest of the government grew about 300%.

my point is, not to cut military overhead. i think we need to get rid of the baseline, which is about 8%, and all the cuts in the future. well, i would like to buy a mercedes but i'm only going to buy a shabby -- chevy. guest: first point is fundamentally a question about roles and missions, american forward engagement. in a dilemma that the secretary will face as the budget comes down, and we are in a build down, what do we do and what do we not do? the vice chair is of the joint chiefs staff's testified to the joint services committee. we can absorb this over 10 years, but anything beyond that,

we have to take a hard look. and they are right. bring it on. it is time to have a serious look at where the military fits in, what kind of military we need, and how much we are asking the military to do. from my own perspective, the first mission that should be on the table is really the peace enforcement, counterinsurgency, nation-building, nation partner capacity building, where we have done that infrastructure are mostly over the past 10 years. we have to take a good look at whether or not that is really appropriate, really inappropriate use of military force. that is a law under discussion and congress will -- that is an issue that congress will face. the bottom-line reality is that in the last 10 years, we have

doubled the defense budget in constant dollars. compared to any other point in american history since the end of the second world war, we are now spending more on defense than we have any year since the second world war ended, whether in peacetime or wartime. higher than wartime career, vietnam, higher than the peak spending of reagan in the 1980's. we were able to assure ourselves in constant dollars with an adequate defense at about $150 billion a year less than what we are currently spending. host: gordon adams, thank you. turning our attention to this story, congress adjourned about funding to faa -- without funding to faa. that is our next topic. first, a news update from c-span

radio. >> the government will borrow $72 billion in debt auction next week now that congress has raised the nation's borrowing limit. the treasury will sell three- year note, 10-year notes and 30- year bonds to raise the money. one-third of it will go to repay debts due august 15. and in plummet report today shows job growth stalling and layoffs rising to a 16-month high. june's private payrolls have been revised down to an increase of one hard 45,000 from the previously reported 157,000. this adds fuel to the argument that the slowdown story is here in the u.s.. the debt negotiations appeared to have had an effect on president obama's campaign war chest. his reelection campaign expects to raise tens of millions of dollars less this summer than it did last spring because the debt talks forced the administration

and his fund-raisers to cancel 10 fund-raisers or postpone them. the president will continue on the trail tonight when he travels to chicago to attend two fund-raising events. he will also be celebrating his birthday. he turns 50 on thursday. >> 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0. >> these are the stakes. to build a world in which all of the children can live. we must either all love each other, or we must die. >> look for president johnson on

november 3. >> this weekend, we look at the history of political campaign ads. and former homicide detective james levell. and former speechwriter for president nixon reveal how they were crafted. get the complete we can schedule at c-span.org/history. >> the c-span networks. we provide coverage of public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. find our content a time through c-span's video library. and we take a c-span on the road with our local content vehicle. it is washington, your way. the c-span that works. now available in more than 100 million homes.

host: we are back with fond johnson, a correspondent with "the national journal -- fawn johnson, corresponded with "the national journal." why is there reauthorization of the faa? >> like anything, you need and now that allows the government to go forward and allow money as it needs to. in this case, we are talking about aviation, which is heavily regulated, for a reason. you want to make sure everyone is a flying safely. that is part of the natural workings of the transportation department. there is nothing unusual about it. this particular bill has been it expired since 2007. it may not be on that special, but it has been languishing out there for awhile. host: how many times has it been reauthorize, why these short-

term solutions? guest: the actual authorization for faa did expire in 2007. since then, they have been doing a series of stopgap temporary funding bills. they would go on for six months or a year. as time has gone on, those numbers have gotten shorter and shorter as members of congress get closer to a longer-term deal. they can keep the airport running, aviation running, aircraft control without too much trouble, but what they are trying to do is fix some of the ways the formulas are set for the way people are paid, but some dates in place for upgrading of -- aircraft control systems, they try to take things that may have been out of date from the last bill and updating it. that is what has been missing, but the planes are still flying, air-traffic is still

operating. that is why it has not gotten as much attention as perhaps it should. host: so how do we get to this point? how long have we been stalled? about 12 days. it was july 23 when they instituted the partial shutdown of the faa because lawmakers were unable to come to an agreement about how to extend funding. we are talking about six-week extensions. they were not able to come to an agreement. i say partial shutdown because the air traffic controllers -- people considered essential for safety, are paid out of the general fund in the transportation department. there are other have a staff, engineers, researchers, people who approved grants, airport

inspectors, they are all on furlough, or are not being paid. airport inspectors are working but they are not being paid. host: how many of them in the faa? caller: about for a guest: -- guest: about 4000. now that congress is out, it could go out for another everywhere weeks. about 1000 of those in the washington, d.c. area. there are estimates floating around but we do not really know how many other people in the private sector that have been laid off. construction-related jobs that were funded through faa grants that have to be halted. i have seen as high as 100,000. there are numbers of floating all over the place. 70,000 sounds about right. we know there are hundreds of

projects that are being halted. stop work has been put on 200 projects. at the not include projects that had already started. host: what are the sticking points on this? guest: the thing that drove it to a halt the couple of weeks ago was a provision -- there was a temporary extension that the house passed. they included another piece of the bill that would have cut subsidies to rural airports. this is something not lawmakers generally agree, those subsidies which had been in place to keep airports in montana or nebraska alive, so that people could apply. the program has grown, so they are tried to sit -- scale it back. the house included a provision to cut back some of those airports. but they did not do it in consultation with the senate,

which irritated people. it is important to keep in mind, when this happened, this is the same day that house speaker john boehner walked out on the negotiations with obama on the debt ceiling. it was an intense time on capitol hill. i think there is a lot of tension that might not be affecting the actual debate, but certainly, there is not a lot of trust. they were not able to come to an agreement. host: republicans on the house side want to cut funding. guest: and on the senate side. they just have not come up with an agreement how to do it. what particularly irritated the senate was, the chairman of the house transportation committee had included this rural subsidy provision in the house bill, and he said, i am doing this because we are stalled on the bigger bill and i want to get something done piece by piece.

his intentions were good, but it looked like a giant chip on the shoulder of his counterparts in the senate, the chairman of the commerce committee. it would cut funding for airports in his state. the senate actually agreed to some of those cuts already, including rockefeller. mica added on a few other airports. one of them is in nevada. again, he sort of did it on his own, without the typical, chordal back-and-forth that happens in congress. and it just made people mad. host: let us show the viewers what president obama had to say on this yesterday. >> there is another stalemate in congress right now involving our aviation industry, which has

stalled the airport construction projects around the country. and put the jobs of tens of thousands of construction workers and others at risk because of politics it is another washington-inflicted wound on america, and congress needs to break that impasse now. hopefully, before the senate adjourns, so the people can get back to work. so these are some of the things that we could be doing right now. there is no reason for congress not to send me those bills so that i can sign into law right away as soon as they get back from recess. ret, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i wonder if you can pull up the numbers on this issue. senator rockefeller mention the

biggest thing holding up this between house and senate is that somebody in the house is supposed to be influenced by the head of delta air lines. delta is the only major airline that is not union. they are trying to figure out a way to get the house to keep their unions non-union. i also saw someone on tv last night -- and i am very ill. please be patient with me. he said we are losing $25 million a day in tax revenues from business shutdowns. he also said many faa workers are working right now, on a voluntary basis. host: fawn johnson touched on

that issue earlier. let us talk about the human issue. guest: the reason i did not talk about this in the beginning is, this is not part of the six-week bill that we were talking about earlier that would keep these people on staff. but it is the elephant in the room, in terms of ongoing negotiations. delta is one of the airline's that is not unionized -- airlines that is not unionized. the way that aviation employees are allowed to unionize changed a few years ago. it is something that has been in the works for some time, but it was an obama administration change. the people who would count in the vote would be the people who actually cast the vote. prior to that decision, everybody who did not vote in the election, you were counted as no-votes, which made it

difficult for airline workers to unionize. now is easier. the broader context of this is, you want to talk about how to stall a bill that has always been bipartisan in certain labor issues, and that is what happened. this is an arguable point, but republicans think the obama administration overstepped their bounds when they changed the rules, so they want to put it back to the way it was before. they put a provision in the big five-year faa bill. the obama administration immediately put a veto threat on that. when you are talking about the broadness of negotiations, you have basically two immovable positions. john mica and other republicans in the house saying that i will not approve anything that makes it more difficult for these workers to unionize. then you have the administration on the other side reddening

veto. it is hard to know where they will come to agreement on that. members of congress said that bute hawould be an agreement, somebody will have to give. it is true, that is the elephant in the room, and it has got members angry. what i find interesting is, there is no reason for them not to be extending the funding temporarily, as is happening, because that was not part of the negotiations to begin with. it has just gotten difficult to talk to one another. host: part of a peace in the "the new york times" op ed -- tx. ardel. go ahead.

caller: the lady that just called sort of took my thunder away. i do not know why you did not bring that up first. that is the main reason why the faa has not been approved. republicans want to kill unions. that is their attitude. they do not care about the safety of people flying. they do not care about these new airport that need to be built. they do not care about having air traffic controllers falling asleep in their fields because they do not have enough people. and i may republican. all they care about is their agenda of busting unions. i would not be surprised if your guest was a republican. i am a reagan republican. host: let me jump in. she explained why she did not bring it up at the top. there are two legislative vehicle to resolve this issue. one is a short-term stop-gap

measure which the union questions is not part of, and then there is the five-year reauthorization of the faa. we just had not gotten there yet. move on to richmond, virginia. janet. independent. caller: i feel the same way as the previous caller. that should have been discussed first. what i am really not understanding is, i listened to the tea party when they were on the capital, with all of their signs -- i want to take my country backed. . i want the government off of my back. they saw it as the government telling you know what to do. when you get a job and is up to the individual whether or not

they want to join a union, why should the government tell me whether or not my vote is going to count? host: that is your opinion, cspanjunkie tweets this -- moving onto bonnie, a republican. caller: what i believe is happening here is we have passed a health care bill come and it is going to shut everything down. it does not matter what we need. i disagree with the president passing this bill. this health care is costing us trillions of dollars. host: you believe this is fallout from the health-care debate. this is the recent story from fawn johnson --

guest: i have been impressed with the last several callers on this show expressing their frustration, because it is a frustration that i feel as well. it is interesting to watch this train wreck over something that is very much unrelated to aviation, labor. i sympathize with the callers who wonder why we're not talking about labor first, and we're talking about rural airport, subsidies. it is hard to know how to make the situation makes sense in any rational way. the dispute was just about which airports would get your amounts of dollars and how we would be able to go forward on this process. but almost immediately, it digressed into this labor fight. it has become a fight that is bordering on irrational, in my opinion.

host: mark, democratic caller. atlanta, georgia. caller: republicans are trying to force democrats to accept concessions that they would not normally be able to in a legislative process. republicans want to overturn a national mediation board rule that was approved last year that allows airline and rare load it employees to form a union by a simple majority. the republicans do not like that. they want to go back to the old rules, where workers who did not vote would be counted as no. so what did the republicans do? they hijacked the faa. guest: it is interesting that you say that. that is the exact terminology that steny hoyer said yesterday after the house adjourned. the house has the right to do this, but they left town without

changing the faa bill. that left the senate with little options. there were several hours or the majority leader harry reid was tried to get members to just try to pass the bill. nobody liked it, but they thought it was a better option than letting the shutdown last for another six weeks. it was another concession he was making, and he was just not able to do it in the end. it may well be some of the other issues going on with the debt ceiling. people are tired of feeling like they are conceding over and over again. in this case, i am not sure the actual concessions would have been all that much. the house and senate have agreed to some of these cuts but there is too much ill will there. host: jeff, an independent in eureka, california. caller: i was wondering how a congressman mica was targeting

democrats? guest: there is blame to go around here. you know when something is not working when you immediately hear people setting up to blame the other party is something goes wrong. one of the things that john mica is frustrated about is, the house passed the bill, the senate passed, they tried to negotiate, but they have not been able to get very far with the senate. i think there is blame to go all around. one of the points republicans have been making to me repeatedly -- and they have a legitimate point -- two years ago when the democrats control the white house and house and senate, they were not able to do this. to lay it on republicans now is a bit disingenuous. i think both parties are to blame. host: 10, a republican. kentucky.

-- tim, a republican . caller: government, to a certain extent is like companies. union or nonunion. it regardless -- irregardless, you have it a piece of equipment. you have to find a way to have it fixed. the government is a lot like that. you cannot skimp on security, faa, pentagon, military. the same way with supplies, entitlements. the entitlement programs are not the same thing. people paid into those. host: let's talk about the stalling of the faa. $30 million in lost taxes

because of this impasse. guest: that is the correct estimate. $200 million or so per week that we are losing in taxes. ray lahood has tossed around a few numbers. could be as high as a couple billion dollars. and that is just revenue coming in. that does not include the kind of growth that could come with construction projects going forward. the other thing i wanted to make clear, there are some faa employees who are working without pay. last i checked, there were only about 40. it is not a huge number, but they're using their own credit cards to pay for hotel rooms. that is a lot to ask of them. this is something that ray lahood has said over and over again. the safety of the flying public will not be compromised because

of this. air traffic controllers continue to go to work. the equipment, at a certain point, does need to be upgraded. if this does go far much longer, there will be problems, but this will not cause a problem for the flying public. it may cause some problems for families who are out of work, they have marked as to pay, college, other things. it is a huge loss for the government. it is not clear whether or not they will be able to recoup it. the finance committee chairman, max baucus, sent a letter to the administration saying it was not their intention to include a group of the tax dollars lost on this shutdown. that means that that money, $1 billion or so, could be gone forever. that is no small thing in this

environment. host: joining us is transportation secretary ray lahood. if i could ask you about as bigger reauthorization bill. fawn johnson was just explain to our viewers, this is the big sticking point. union of language. do you see a way to compromise, and if so, how? >> there are a lot of issues that need to be resolved on the larger bill. it is not just a union issue. there are probably 10 other items that need to be resolved. certainly, the nmb, national media and reporters -- mediation board, is a sticking point. central air service is another one. that is a service that provides money to smaller airports to entice airlines to fly in and

out of their airports. but there are other items, too. this could have been easily resolved. this is the most unfortunate situation i have seen in a long time in washington as a result of one or two people who were just really not willing to compromise. they wanted their way. as a result of them wanting their way, 70,000 construction workers are idle in construction projects around america at airports, 4000 faa employees are not receiving, and have not been receiving paychecks for more than 10 days. host: these one or two people include members of your own party that have insisted on money for rural airports. one of them being harry reid. >> actually, if you look at the statement that senator reid gave yesterday, he said clearly he

would vote for an extension even though the republicans in the house included an airport in his state. he said, i care about that but i care more about the faa employees. senator reid stood up and put aside his own agenda, his own state, his own ego, for the benefit of 4000 faa employees, 70,000 construction workers. senator reid stood tall for getting a compromise when others would not do that. host: but is there blame to go around? >> i said there is plenty of blame to go around. of course there is blame to go around. the blame rests with people who are so stubborn, so stuck on their own agenda that they do not care about 4000 federal employees, 70,000 construction workers. that includes republicans in the house that were not willing to compromise.

host: i am sitting here with fawn johnson from "the national journal." guest: you have said yesterday on the press call, there were a couple of senators that had when senator reid was tried to get his party to agree to it. my understanding is republicans in the senate were not blocking that. so there must have been difficulty on the democratic side. >> that is simply not true. senator coburn objected to a unanimous request. we heard other republicans say that they would object if anybody stood up asking for unanimous consent. senator kay bailey hutchison stood tall in saying that she was willing to pass the house bill. where the republican that objected? yes.

look at what happened on the senate floor yesterday. host: is there any way that this gets resolved before congress returns in september? >> the answer is no. it takes an act of congress, and they have gone on vacation they have turned a blind eye to 4000 federal employees and 70,000 construction workers right in the middle of construction season. this is the time when construction workers can work. this is their season. they have been shunned by congress, who have gone on their vacation, while their jobs have been vacated. host: what is the impact? will your transportation agency be running the numbers on the economic impact? >> we know what the economic impact is. there are millions of dollars of construction projects vacated.

these jobs are not going on. 70,000 construction workers. that is thousands of dollars of taxes not being collected because the people are not being paid. billions of dollars of taxes not being collected as a result of the fact that the taxes on a passenger ticket are not being collected. so for all of this topic in washington by politicians about creating jobs, because of their inaction, they just laid off 70,000 construction workers, 4000 faa employees. that is not how i think about creating jobs, by having people leave the job site. for all the talk about debt and deficit, because of their inaction, millions of dollars are not being collected. host: i know you said this will need to be an act of congress.

as secretary, what will you be doing over the next couple of weeks? >> what i'm doing here with you. talking about the lack of compromise. hopefully, being able to persuade them when they come back to take action quickly. guest: what i was curious about, senator rockefeller had floated the idea that it is possible, even though both houses had gone home -- they are in pro forma sessions, not technically in recess. in theory, by unanimous consent, they could pass one or the other bill, if their leader agrees. >> we were told by the speaker of the house of that could not happen. you needed unanimous consent from both houses. host: thank you for being with us, transportation secretary ray lahood. next phone call.

caller: thank you for my call. first-time caller. since the john boehner released congress about funding this, i think it is time for the president to demand that congress stay in session until the faa bill was approved. that is the only way congress can get anything done. they need to be put under complete pressure. guest: there was no talk of that. i am sure the president but not to have more control over the but yous than he has, are right. of all the options that had been floated -- and there were a lot of them -- that was not one of them. you just for the transportation secretary. he has been working the phones in the capital ever since this shutdown started, and even before, to try to get members to not go home until this was resolved.

ultimately, it did not work. host: joe is a republican in miami, florida. caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate your non-partisan tone on this issue. two questions. the bill was stalled in the senate, was it not? who had the power to keep senators there, to force a vote? guest: that would be majority leader harry reid. but keep in mind, power is relative. he can say the senate is going to be in session, but that does not mean he can compel senators to be there. there are stories back in history of congress of sergeant at arms physically hauling

members onto the floor to vote, but ultimately, particularly in the senate, there is a lot of agreement that it needs to happen in order to make the system function. he had pretty much exhausted his own members, and republicans as well, with the debt ceiling crisis. host: did you have a follow-up? caller: yes, and thank you again for your tone. going forward, if you have to take a bet, what happens when the senate goes back into session? is this bill going to wind up back in congress? what is going to happen? guest: as i wrote a couple of weeks ago, this is really a canary in the coal mine. this is not a bad analogy i've been using i have been impressed

by the callers on this show. when is happening in the short term is not a whole lot. i would expect there be some sort of resolution on a short- term extension, simply because i cannot think the treasury can afford to lose a billion dollars every month or so in tax revenue. i would be surprised to see a longer-term faa bill completed this year. transportation -- secretary lahood is correct. there are a number of issues the need to be resolved. my guess is there will be more short-term extensions. i cannot imagine -- although i have been wrong before, that

they will let the shutdown continue much beyond the september. host: if you want to read her reporting, go to national journal -- nationaljournal.com caller: i have one question on the collecting of the tax. is it the airlines? is this money not afforded to the irs? why do we need 4000 faa employees to collect the tax? what is the problem with collecting the tax? the treasury is in charge of collecting the tax.

the faa is collecting it. it is true, when you buy an airline ticket right now, it does not include a federal tax. it is 7.5% as the base and there is an additional 3% for every take off. that is not being added to the tickets right now. according to the irs, passengers who purchase tickets prior to july 23 before the shutdown began are entitled to a refund of that money, if there are flying during this particular shot down. the only problem is is not clear how they are going to get that refund. there are some airlines that are doing that. i believe delta is one of them. making refunds for their passengers. other airlines saying the irs is responsible for the refund. it is more complicated than i would have imagined when i first started looking into it. that is how -- there are a lot

of people try to figure this out. you can find out whether you are entitled to a refund of that money by going to the website of the airline. if they are not willing to do it, the irs also has a form for you to fill out. host: herald in south carolina. caller: yes, ma'am, i have one comment and question for the guest. my comment is -- well, but off the beaten path here. i hear all this screaming about this crisis out in the other states about airlines -- what we're talking about here, but i do not see any movement on the gulf oil drilling situation. my question is for the guests are, i would like for her to explain to me -- the one part

about this disagreement is about the small airports, driving people to larger ports, them getting subsidized for nominal amounts or something like that. is that a part of this problem? ok. my other question -- i know obama changed the rules as far as unionization. it beuldn't they make mandatory for everybody, if it works for delta, or whenever firm, make it mandatory for them to vote? host: we will leave it there. yes, that is an issue holding up, particularly the temporary funding. the thing to to understand here is there is a formula here that

they used to subsidize airports that are out in the middle of a -- in the middle of nowhere, for example. everyone agrees that is a good idea. it is just that the program had grown a little bit more than it should and needs to be scaled back. they have just not come up to an agreement about how that should happen. if you put them in a room for half an hour, i am sure they could figure it out. when it comes to the labor issue, this gets more complicated. the aviation and rail workers are actually governed by a different law than the rest of the workers in the country. the old rule as it was -- and a lot of people say that this is not there. anybody who did not vote in the elections -- any election would be counted as a no-vote.

why people say that is unfair, as members of congress have pointed out, including republicans, none of them would be in office if that was the case. so the obama administration changed it to be just like every other union election that takes place. the only problem is, the way that unions work in this country and every other country is, it is voluntary to compel employees to vote in elections. it would be far and above the constitutionality of this country. so they are not able to do that. the debate swirls around, why should aviation workers be treated differently when it comes to unionization? the problem has been something that -- the administration thought that they had the power thought that they had the power