yesterday in the iowa straw poll. the entire event is posted on our website at c-span.org. rick perry is entering the race. all of that is available on- line. tomorrow, our guests will talk about the president as he begins a three-day bus tour. we will hear about republican proposals for job creation from the former assistant treasury secretary for economic policy. all this week, our look inside the fbi. tomorrow we will talk to the author of "secrets of the fbi." on tuesday, we will continue with counter-terrorism. on friday, we will have crime labs and forensics. thank you for joining us. enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great week ahead. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> next, "newsmakers" with earnings sanders. remarks by the chairman of freddie mac after that. host: this week on "newsmakers" rep bernie sanders 20 is from vermont. and two reporters to help us with questions. first question -- >> before all the names for the

super committee came out, it felt like there was a moment in washington where people felt like this committee might be able to achieve some sort of bargain, a bipartisan agreement on taxes and spending cuts. since the names have come out, mostly hard-liners from the republicans and raped -- and democrats, the mood has shifted back to maybe this is another round of deadlock. what do you think? guest: i look at a little bit differently. in the last three negotiations that we had going back to december in terms of tax extensions, in terms of when the republicans in april threatened to shut down the government and the recent debt ceiling issue, i think republicans kind of won all three of those negotiations hands down. i think most people consider that to be the case. my view is that right now what

the democrats have to do is remain strong, protect social security, medicare, and medicaid and the republicans have to do what the overwhelming majority of the american people what in every -- once in every poll we have seen very you have to have shared sacrifice, you have to have the wealthiest people in this country who are doing phenomenally well and their tax rate is the lowest in decades, large corporations who in many cases are making billions in profits, sometimes pay nothing in taxes -- they have to contribute to deficit reduction. if they choose not to do that, and i think almost all of the republicans on this committee have made their pledge to grover norquist, i am not quite sure what kind of progress you will have. host: blood me ask you about the democratic side -- let me ask you about the democratic side. which one might give you pause that they could deal with the

other side and who do you have confidence with? guest: i know the three folks in the senate. they are all smart and strong people. i know the house folks as well. i would simply hope that the democrats hang together and they demand fairness and they demand policies that help us create the kind of jobs that we desperately need in this economy. we cannot continue to surrender to the republicans who say we have a deficit problem but we don't want the wealthiest people in this country, millionaires and billionaires, to contribute one penny more nor do we want large corporations to contribute. it has to come completely on the backs of the poor and the children. that is not what the american people want. i would hope the democrats hold firm and maybe the republic -- republicans will do some yielding >> and if the

republicans were willing to yield on taxes, would you be willing to see reductions in social security, medicare, and medicaid? guest: i think there are ways you can move toward deficit reduction but i don't think you have to hit those three programs. there are other programs that i would prefer not to seek out what may have to be cut. across the board. we have tripled funding for defense since 1997. we're now spending about $160 billion per year, still fighting the wars in iraq and afghanistan. we have many weapons systems out there that were designed to fight the old cold war and not international terrorism. i happen to believe we can make very significant cuts in military spending as part of deficit reduction while still retaining our military -- are strong military presence there are programs in agriculture and

across the board you can cut. i don't know how you cut medicaid when you have 50 million people today without health insurance. i don't know what you do about medicare. you can make some changes without reducing benefits and i would be open to that. right now, we don't negotiate drug prices. i think there is a lot of savings to be made in medicare if we did what we do with the va. there are improvements that can be made but the idea that some have floated the eligible to a level to 67 is basically in same period what do you do if you are 66? what you are low income and have cancer? that is a death sentence. i could not support that. >> as much as you say the republicans are entrenched in no new taxes, dave camp said everything is on the table

including tax policy. pat twomey who is a tea party favorite said there are indefensible tax breaks that need to be looked at. is there room for some sort of may be symbolic tax break closures in this negotiation? guest: i would certainly hope so. i'm glad to hear some of these guys saying that. i fear at the end of the day, and i may be wrong, and i hope they are sincere about that, but as you well know, the devil is in the details. many of these guys believe is -- in trickle-down economics, if you lower tax rates for large corporations which is what they want to do, that somehow magically we create millions of jobs and everybody lives happily ever after. i happen not to believe in the trickle-down economic theory. i think the benefits upper income people. if they are open -- we know that there are large multinational

corporations who make billions in profits who pay sometimes nothing in taxes. we know we are losing about $100 billion per year to the wealthy and large corporations stashing their money in the cayman islands and bermudas and other tax havens. if republicans are willing to look at those areas to raise revenue for our country, i would be very delighted and i certainly hope that happens. >> the of the super committee does not come up with an agreement, there is a trigger that kicks in were some automatic spending cuts kick in, about $1 trillion and half of that would be from the fans. a lot of defense hawks say that would cut too deeply. i wonder if you might prefer the trigger to be enacted rather than roll the dice with what ever this bipartisan super committee comes up with. guest: if you ended up with a

bad deal that cut social security, medicare, and medicaid and wreaked havoc with programs that working families desperately need, i would prefer the trigger. if the committee could come up with a package that was fair and responsible that call for shared sacrifice and protected the needs of ordinary people, i would support that. one of the things i have been really concerned about -- the media talks about $1 trillion here and there, we don't talk about what these cuts mean to people in the real world. we're talking about the possibility of massive cuts in child care and head start at a time when we have a child care disaster. we are talking about massive cuts in college grants when people cannot afford to send their kids to college. we're talking about decimating be intact -- environmental profession -- environmental protection agency. we're talking of cutting nutrition programs. i think we have to add flesh and

blood. we are in the midst of a horrendous recession. people are hurting. if you start cutting all of these programs, there will be paying and will be death. i think we have to make sure that does not happen. >> what do you think of the democratic senate appointments to the super committee? could harry reid have made some better choices? i thought you said earlier in the week you said you would like to serve on the committee. guest: i know them quite well and they're very smart and experienced and knowledgeable. my guess is that there will be a lot of discussions between the committee members and the caucus. i don't think they will be out there all on their own and come up with a package. i think there will be discussion. as i said earlier, i hope at the end of the day that what they will be able to accomplish is to

get the republicans finally to understand that when our country today as the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country and that gap between the very rich and everybody else is growing wider that those fox on top will have to contribute to deficit reduction. i hope they stay strong on that. >> in one of the papers this week, they labeled max baucus a centrist. would you call him a centrist? what does that mean to you in these negotiations? guest: if you're asking me what i have appointed -- would i haven't with three different people, i would have. max baucus is chairman of the finance committee and he is a smart guy. for the right reasons, he was on the simpson balls commission. he voted against it which is the right to vote. i think is wrong to think these guys will be living in a world of their own. patty murray is the chair of the senate democrats.

she is part of leadership. i think you will see a lot of discussion taking place between the caucus and those three people. >> we had the bulls-simpson report. -- we had the bowles-simpson proposal and the gang of six proposal which was similar and now you have president obama making the case recently on a daily basis that we need to compromise and have a balanced package. his idea of a balanced package is cuts in entitlements and increases in tax revenues. is the president fundamentally wrong that that is where the middle ages? guest: i think most americans believe that in fact the president and the democrats have compromised far too much and the republicans have given virtually

nothing. i think john boehner said that after this deficit reduction package was passed, he got 98% of what he wanted. i did not hear any democrats boasting about what they got. they did not get anything. i think the record the last half year is the democrats have compromised. let me get back to president obama. when he ran for office, he said a vote for me, not john mccain, because among other reasons john mccain wants to cut your social security benefits. what the president understands and has said and his administration has said is social security has not contributed one penny to our deficit. social security trust fund is a $2.60 trillion surplus. why would anybody including the president talk about cutting social security when all we have to do is lift the cap on people making $250,000 or more and we

could solve the problem for 75 years? if the president wants to do that, he is going back on a campaign promise and is doing something the republicans have always wanted to do, that bush talked about. i'd think that is a mistake. everybody has got to compromise. when you have the richest people in this country doing phenomenally well, corporate profits are phenomenally high, wall street is back to where they were before they caused this recession, there has to be a whole lot of give on this -- that side before you take the elderly and sick and children who are hurting today and have them give more. >> in december of last year, you made a remarkable speech lasting 8.5 hours talking about these very topics. you were more or less frustrated now? the bookf you read

became of that speech, you will find that i kind of predicted pretty much what would happen. what i said in december is the debate in december, the republicans were saying that we will not extend unemployment benefits to significant numbers of people about to lose their jobs. what ended up happening is the president surrendered on whether or not we would extend the bush tax breaks for the wealthy and even lowered the tax rates on estate taxes for the top 3/10 of 1%. i said that if you had a democratic president, senate, and a democratic house, if you could not win under those political circumstances, how in god's name can we win when

rookie right wing republicans are controlling the house? unfortunately, that is exactly what happened and the democrats have been caving in cents. most people understand that. where we are now is the american people have to stand up all over this country and set no, you're not going to cut social security. the so-called chain cpi - you go out and tell seniors that there are folks in washington that think you cola today that you have not received in five years when your health costs have risen, they think that is generous. , they want toow take back $560. at 85uld've gotten $1,000 and c have seniors feel about that.

>> this division on fiscal policy between republicans and democrats is so deeply entrenched. can we expect this to carry on through the election campaign? can americans expect many more months of this sort of confrontation? both parties seem intent on hashing this out right into the campaign and making the election almost a referendum on their position. is that your expectation? guest: you have very, very different philosophies. needless to say, i strongly disagree with the republican ideology which is designed to protect the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations and is designed to take away many of the programs that working families have fought for for the last 80 years, i have to say that i do respect their willingness to stand up and fight. they said that we will not support one nickel of new taxes

for millionaires and billionaires and from large corporations. they have kept their word. i think it is a disaster for the country but they have to be complemented. i contrast that to some democrats including the president who ran for office under one idea but then changed their mind. i think you have a philosophical differences. i think trickle-down economic theory cuts into cells security, medicare, medicaid and infrastructure. everybody in america understands that there is something fundamentally wrong when we have an infrastructure that is collapsing and not putting people back to work building that when we could create millions of good paying jobs and everyone understands we can make progress transforming our energy system enter energy efficiency and not spend $350 billion per year importing oil. most people understand that our trade policies which have resulted in shut down after a shutdown of american plans.

we have lost 50,000 factories in the last 10 years, millions of good paying jobs. my friends on "the wall street journal" editorial page don't agree with me. go out and made and ask people how they feel about the current trade policies and -- go out on main street and ask people how they feel about the current trade policies. we have millions of jobs that were transferred to china and other countries. >> in the background, there are huge financial events taking place. standard and poor's downgraded the u.s. credit rating for the first time in history and gigantic swings in the stock market that are chasing investors out of the market. is there a possibility these events could overtake the political discussion in washington and jolt people out of their partisan positions? guest: what people need to be discussing as a nation is where

we want to go. i strongly disagree with the republicans but they have been consistent about their beliefs. the american people have to decide as soon as possible whether they really do believe the tax breaks for billionaires and cuts in social security and medicare and medicaid and a trade policy which costs up -- cost us millions of jobs is what we can do as a nation and survive economically. i would agree with you that we are in the midst of a great debate. these are issues that have to be discussed. >> you are one of a number of prominent politicians who offered criticism of president obama. adviserspresident's are asked about this, they point that his support is still very

strong. they say the critique your offering is really not fell broadly. they say for the most part that people are happy on the left of the presses -- president's performance. guest: one of the problems is what we mean by a liberal? i'm not a liberal. i never have been. i am a progressive. there is a very big difference between being a progressive and a liberal. the average working-class person in this country, the average senior citizen is probably not a liberal. they are people who in many cases are struggling now very hard, trying to survive. if you go up to the average senior or the average working- class person and you say to them that the president told you he was not going to cut social security but now he is thinking about doing that or thinking

about raising the eligibility age for medicare to 67, what do you think? my guess is that they will say we are not happy with that. they think that is a bad idea. they are not liberal. on the other hand, the president has done a reasonably good job -- i am not here to beat up the president. these are tough times when it came into the office we were losing 70,000 jobs per month. i'm not here to beat up on the president but the president and his people are making a big mistake if they think at the grass-roots level there are not a lot of working-class people or the bulk of people in this country who are not angry and frustrated and disillusioned. i think they're making a mistake. the president has done a good job one day rights. maybe he could have done more. has he done a good job on women's rights? he appointed women to the supreme court and many women are proud of that and i am proud of that. if you ask people on economic issues, as he stood up to wall

street? in my view, there are crooks on wall street and i use that word advisedly, of whose illegal behavior and greed and recklessness put us into this terrible recession and now they are doing just great. do you think the average american that the president has stood up to wall street in the way that he should have? i think probably not. >> your calling on the grass roots movement and americans to stand up. in your 8.5 hour speech that you gave, is there something coming down the road in legislation that you are looking at and you say you will not stand for it and go back to the floor and filibuster again? >> [laughter] i don't know that i will filibuster again but you will hear my voice very loudly on a couple of issues. it is very important that ordinary americans stand up right now in every one of our 50 states and say to the congress

and the super committee and the president that the negotiations that are taking place right now with regard to deficit reduction the fair. the need to say this committee should not come up with a proposal that continues to go after some of the most vulnerable people in this country. and the trade issue i think is enormous. it is not something that is discussed very much in the corporate media because there is a general consensus that corporate media likes unfettered free trade. if you go to grassroots america and as people n whetherafta and other trade relations have worked for the middle-class and working-class of this country, they will tell you it hasn't. that is another issue i will be pretty active on. >> you said you are not here to beat up on president obama but you have talked about a primary challenge to president obama. you have spoken approvingly of this and who do have in mind for

that challenge? what you think that might accomplish? anybody inn't have mind. i'm sure there are serious and smart people out there who can do it. if you're asking me if i think that barack obama is going to be the democratic candidate for president in 2012, i do. do i believe it is a good idea for our democracy and the democratic party -- and it's because an independent -- that people start asking the president some hard questions about why he said one thing during his previous campaign and is doing another thing today on social security, medicare? it is important that that discussion takes place. i fear very much -- going back to what liberals may think -- i don't know, maybe they are right but i can tell you, i do a radio show every week with a million people listening and those are working-class people, progressive people. there is a lot of dissolution.

they want the president to stand up for the middle class, for the working class of this country and they want him to take a big money interests in a way he has not done to this point. >> as we talk on this friday afternoon, we are learning that a divided u.s. appeals court in atlanta ruled that a key provision of last year's federal health-care overhaul law is unconstitutional, siding with a group of 26 days the challenge to below the 2-1 ruling marks the biggest defeat in a multi from legal battle over the health care law and the decision directly conflicts with the ruling issued in june by a federal appeals court in cincinnati. what is your reaction? guest: we have a judicial system that is very political. you have democratic judges and they will rule that this provision is constitutional and where you have republican judges, they will rule otherwise. i voted for health care reform and i think it did some good

things. i don't think it went as far as it should. i believe it may medicare single payer program that can provide universal health care to all people guest. >> we are out of time and thank you for being with us. let me turn to our reporters. what did you hear from the senator and the prospects for the super committee that all the members have been named and they will start their work->> it is frustrated with the way of the front white house has been handling the debt confrontation over the last year or so. a line we get from democrats and dirty sanders, an independent, seems to be to hold the line. and to try to protect medicare and medicaid and social security. these are important to progressives and democrats.

he seemed to be open to the idea that there might be some promise for some symbolic tax reform to come out of this process but there is a pessimistic outlook on that. >> what i took from this is most of the debate around this whole deficit reduction question has been that the assumption that democrats are willing to compromise and republicans are not. democrats led by president obama have said we are putting entitlements on the table. nancy pelosi and harry reid of gone along with that reluctantly. republicans have not. he says that that is not how it will he says he is speaking up for the left wing of the democratic party and he is now willing to make those compromises. whether his view will prevail at the end of the day, i'm not predicting that. chances are, if this committee

comes up with a balanced deal with taxes and entitlements, i think that will go through. the role that he plays in the congress is to provide some countervailing pressure from all left -- from the left. he is not ready to raise the eligibility on social security. host: are you comfortable with the way the super committee will work? he repeatedly says they will be talking to the caucus and to the leadership. this super committee will be operating differently than what we saw the gang of six doing. there were not talking to other people about it. >> i think that was abundantly clear when the names started coming up this way. many o