>> fox news is an experience, it is love and hate. >> from the washington journalism and media conference, aspiring high school journalists on ethics, the world of opinion, and commentary a >> tomorrow on "washington journal" a preview of president obama's bus tour highlighting jobs. the former assistant treasury secretary outlines republican proposals for job creation and economic growth. and our series on the fbi begins on the work of the tactical operations unit. "washington journal", live at 7:00 on c-span. >> watch more video of the candidates, see what reporters are saying, and track the latest campaign contributions

with c-span's latest website for campaign 2012. it was to navigate the landscape with twitter feeds, can't it biographies and the latest polling data and links to c-span media partners in the primary and caucus states. >> this week on "newsmakers" senator bernie sanders, and defendant from remark -- independent from vermont joins us from that state. -- independent from vermont. >> 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 grand bargain, meaning bipartisan agreement on taxes and spending cuts. but since the names have come out, mostly hardliners from republicans and policy lt. from

democrats, the mood has shifted back to maybe this is just another round of deadlock. is this a breakthrough moment or more of the same? >> i look at it a little bit differently. the way i see it is in the last three negotiations 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 the republicans won all three of those negotiations hands down. i 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. the republicans, i believe, have to do with the overwhelming majority of the american people want in every poll we have seen. that is you have to have shared sacrifice, you have to have the

wealthiest people in this country who are doing phenomenally well and their effective tax rate is at its lowest in decades, large corporations making billions in profits, sometimes paying nothing in taxes, they have got to contribute to deficit reduction. if they choose not to do that, and i think almost all the republicans on this committee have made their pledge to grover norquist, i'm not sure what kind of progress you are going to have. >> let me ask you about the democratic side. of the six democrats that have been named, which one might give you pause that they could deal with the other side and who do you have confidence in? >> i certainly know of the three folks in the senate and they're all smart people and i know the house folks as well. i would simply hope that the democrats hang together and demand fairness and demand

policies that help us create the kinds of jobs we desperately need in this economy. but we cannot continue to surrender to the republicans to say yes, we have a deficit problem, but we do not want the wealthiest people, billionaires' and billionaires', to contribute one penny more common toward want large corporations to contribute. it has to come completely out of the backs of working families, the sick and children. the democrats have to say that's not the case. that's not what the american people want. i hope the democrats hold fault -- hold firm and for a change the republicans do some yielding. >> if the republicans were willing to give on taxes and do some of the things they're talking about, would you be willing to see reductions in social security, a care and medicaid. >> i think there are ways you can move toward deficit reduction, but i don't think you have to hit those three programs. i think there are other

programs i would prefer not to be cut, but many have to be cut across the board. i will tell you this -- we have tripled funding for defense since 1997. we are spending $160 billion a year fighting the wars in iraq and afghanistan. we as many weapons systems out there designed to fight the old cold war and not international terrorism. i happen to believe we can make significant cuts in military spending as part of deficit reduction while still retaining our strong military presence. there are other programs in agriculture and across the board that i think you can cut. but i don't know how you cut medicaid when you have 50 million people today without health insurance. i don't know what to do it out medicaid. medicare, you can make some changes and i would be open to that. for example, we don't negotiate drug prices.

i think there are a lot of savings to be made in medicare as we did what we did with the va in negotiations with the drug companies. improvements can be made, but the idea some have floated about raising the eligibility level to 67 is in st.. what do you do if you -- is in st.. what do you do if you're 66 and you have cancer? it's a death sentence. i cannot support that. >> as much as you say they're republicans are entrenched in their no new taxes position, a colleague of mine spoke with dave camp yesterday, the chairman of the house ways and means committee, he says everything is on the table as far as tax policy. a tea party favorites said yesterday's that's there are indefensible tax breaks that need to be looked at. is there room for some sort of symbolic tax break closures in this negotiation >> i would

certainly hope so. i'm glad to hear these guys say that, but i fear the end of the day -- i may be wrong, and i hope they are sincere about that -- but as you well know, the devil is in the details. what many of these guys believe then, which i do not, is a 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 everyone lives happily ever after. i happen not to believe in the trickle-down economic theory. i think it benefits upper-income people. we know that there are large, multinational corporations that make billions in profits to pay sometimes nothing in taxes. we know we are losing about $100 billion a year to the wealthy and large corporations stashing their money in the cayman islands and bermuda and other tax havens. if the republicans are willing to look at those areas to raise revenue for our country, i would

be delighted and hope that that happens. >> if this super committee doesn't come up with an agreement, there's a trigger that keeps an where automatic spending cuts kick in. -- an automatic trigger kicks in. many say that would be cutting too deeply, but perhaps you see it differently. i wonder if you might prefer the trigger to be enacted rather than roll the dice with what ever this so-called super committee comes up with. >> its not a question of rolling the dice. what i prefer sequestration over a bad deal the cut social security and medicaid it wreaks havoc with programs that people desperately need, i would prefer that. on the other hand, if the committee can come up with a fair and responsible package and call for shared sacrifice, that protect the needs of ordinary

people, i would support that. one of the things are really concerned about. the media talks about a trillion here and trillion there, but we don't talk about what these cuts mean to people in the real world. about theing possibility of massive cuts in child care and head start when we have a child care disaster. we're talking about massive cuts in college grants when people can afford to send their kids to college. we're talking about decimating the environmental protection agency's one we're trying to combat global warming. we're talking about cuts in nutrition programs would we see an increase in hunger among children and the elderly. what are we really talking about? we're in the midst of a horrible recession and people are hurting. if you start cutting all of these programs, there's going to be pain and there is going to be death. i think we have to make sure that doesn't happen. >> what did you think of the democratic senate appointments to the super committee?

"harry reid has made some better choices? i think i heard you say you would like to serve on the committee yourself. >> i know them all quite well. all of them are very smart and experienced and knowledgeable. my guess is there will be a lot of discussion between committee members at the caucus. i don't think they're going to be out there on their elders -- on their own and come up with a package. i hope at the end of the day, they will be able to accomplish a will be able to get the republicans to finally understand what our country has the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider and those folks on top have to contribute to deficit reduction. i hope very much they stay

strong on that. >> in one of the papers this week, they labeled max baucus as a centrist. would you call him a centrist and if so, what does that mean to you in these negotiations for the super committee? >> if you are asking me if i would have appointed three different people, i probably would have. max baucus is chairman of the finance committee and he's a fairly smart guy. for the right reasons, he was on the bulls-simpson commission and voted against it which i think was the right thing. i think it is wrong to think these guys would be living in a world of their own. patty murray is the chair of the senate democrats on the committee. she is part of leadership in backing key will feel lot of discussion taking place between the caucus and those three folks. >> we had the bowles -some support which would increase tax revenue in the gang of six

revenue sort of built on that with similar proposals. now you have president obama making the case recently on a daily basis that would be to compromise and have a balanced package. in his mind, a balanced package means cuts in entitlements and increases in tax revenues. is the president fundamentally wrong that that's where the middle is and where the compromise should be? >> i think most americans believe that in fact the president and the democrats have compromised far too much and of the republicans have given virtually nothing. you can correct me if i'm wrong. john boehner said after this package was passed that he got 90% of what he wanted. paul ryan said he got 75% of what he wanted. i did not hear any democrats talking about what they got. they did not get anything. the democrats of compromise,

but let me get back to president obama. when president obama ran for office, what he said his vote for me, not john mccain, because among other reasons, john mccain wants to cut your social security benefits. what the president understands and his administration has said, social security has not contributed one penny to our deficit. it can pass every benefits for the next several years and it has a surplus. why would and god's name anybody including the president talk about cutting social security when, if all we have to do is lift the cap on people making $250,000 or more, we could solve the problem for 75 years? if the president wants to do that, he's going back on a campaign promise and doing something which the republicans always wanted to do. it is what bush talked about. that's a mistake. asked about compromise, sure, everybody has got to compromise.

but when you have the richest people in this country doing phenomenally well in corporate profits but lehigh. wall street back to where they were before the cost this recession, there has to be a lot of give on that side before you tell the elderly, sick and children who are hurting today that they've got to give more. >> back in december of last year, you made a remarkable speech lasting 8 1/2 hours, talking about these very topics. are you more or less frustrated now than you were then? have things gotten better or worse? >> i think if you read the book that came out of that speech, i say this a bit sadly, but i predicted pretty much what happened -- pretty much in december, the debate in december, the republicans were saying we will not extend unemployment benefits to

significant numbers of people who are about to lose them. what ended up happening is the president surrendered on whether or not we would extend the bush tax breaks for the wealthy and also, even lowered the tax rates on estate taxes for the top 0.3%. if we had in december was a democratic president, democratic senate and a democratic house, if you could not when under those political circumstances, how in god's name are we going to win when at right wing republicans are controlling the house? that's exactly what happened and the democrats 7 caving in ever since. most people understand that. where we are right now with optimism or pessimism, the american people have to stand up all over this country and say

no, you are not going to cut social security. let's be clear that this cpi, you go out and tell seniors today, say there are folks in washington who thinks york: today which you have not received in the last two years despite the fact your prescription drug costs and health-care costs have risen, they think that is too generous. 65, they want to take back $560 that you ever gotten when you're 85, thousand dollars. see how seniors feel about that. >> this division between democrats and republicans is so deeply entrenched, can we expect it to carry on into the election campaign? can americans expect many more months of this sort of confrontation because both parties seem intent on hashing this out making the election a

referendum on their positions. is that your expectation? >> the truth is you have very different philosophies. needless to say i strongly, strongly, strongly disagree with the republican ideology which is designed in my view to protect the wealthiest people and the largest corporations and is designed to take away many of the program's working families have fought for for the last 80 years, i do respect of their willingness to stand up and fight. they said we will not support new taxes for millionaires and billionaires and large corporations. and do you know what? they have kept their word. i did it a disaster for the country, but they have to be complemented. contrast that to democrats, including the president who said when i run for office, this is what i'm telling you but i've changed my mind. i think you have philosophical

differences. i think tripled -- adding trickle-down economic and everybody in america understands something fundamentally wrong when we have infrastructure collapsing and we are not putting people to work rebuilding it while we could create millions of good paying jobs. everyone understands we could make huge progress transforming our energy system into sustainable energy and not spend $350 billion a year importing oil. most people understand our trade policies which have resulted in shut down after shutdown of american plants -- 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 do not a year-end -- did not agree with me. go out on main street and ask people how they feel about the current trade policies and what they have done for the american economy, where companies have

transferred millions of jobs to china and other third world countries. we need to be talking about that. >> in the background, there are these huge economic and financial plans taking place. the downgrade of the american credit for the first time, a gigantic swings 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? >> what people need to be discussing as a nation is where do we want to go? i strongly disagree with the republicans, but they have been consistent. the american people are going to have to decide as soon as possible whether they really do believe tax breaks for billionaires' and cuts in social security and medicare and medicaid and a trade policy

which cost millions of jobs is really what we can do as a nation and survive economically. i would agree we are in the midst of a great debate and these are issues that have to be discussed. >> you are one of a number prominent progressives that have offered this critique from the left of president obama. but when president obama's advisers are asked about this and whether they are concerned into real action, whether they're based voters will be there for them, they point to polling that says his support among the most liberal voters is still very strong. his support among democrats and self identified liberals -- they say this critique you are offering is not felt broadly and that for the most part, people are happy -- people in the left are happy. how do you respond to that? >> one of the problems is what

do we mean by a liberal. i'm not a liberal. i'm a progressive. there's a big difference between being a progressive and being a liberal. the average working class person, the average senior citizen is probably not a liberal. but they are are people who in many cases are struggling right now very hard, trying to survive. if you go off to the average senior or average working-class person, and you say to them, the president told you he was not going to cut social security, but now he's thinking about doing it or rethinking about -- the -- raising the eligibility age to 67. what do you think? my guess is they would say we're not happy with that. we think it's a bad idea. they are not liberal. on the other hand -- i'm not here to be at the president. these are tough times. when he came into office, we

were losing 700,000 jobs a month. i'm not here to beat up a president. the president and his people are making a big mistake if they think at the grass-roots level there are not -- there are not people who are angry and disillusioned. they would be making a mistake. as the president of a good job and gay-rights? or lessee has. maybe you could have done more. he has appointed two women to the supreme court and a lot of women are very proud of that and i'm very proud of that. but if you ask people on economic issues, has eased up to wall street? in my view, be the crux of wall street and i use that word advisedly, whose illegal behavior whose greed and recklessness put us into this terrible recession and they are doing just great. do you think the average american thinks the president has to up to wall street in the way he should have? i think probably not.

>> you are calling on a grass- roots movement and calling on americans to stand up. we refer to your eight and half hour speech, is there something coming down the road, trade legislation or something where you say my going to stand for a, i'm going to back to the floor and filibuster again? >> i don't know on going to be filibustering again, but you'll be hearing my voice well leave a couple of issues. number one, it's 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 to the president that the negotiations that are taking place right now with regard to deficit-reduction be fair. that this committee not, but they proposal continues to go after the most vulnerable people in this country. that's issue number one. the trade issue is enormous.

that's not something that is discussed in the corporate media because there's a general consensus that corporate media likes and center -- unfettered free trade. but if you go to grassroots america, when you ask if prominent normal trade relations with china has worked for the middle-class and working-class of this country, they would say it has not. that's another issue i will be active on. >> usage you're not here to beat up on president obama, but -- you said you are not here to be done about president obama, but you have talked about a primary challenge and have spoken approvingly of it. who'd you have in mind and what do you think that might accomplish? >> i don't know of anybody, but i'm sure there are serious and smart people out there who could do it. here's the point -- do i think it the end of the day that barack obama is going to be the democratic candidate for that region for president in 2012, i

do. do i believe it's a good idea for our democracy and for the democratic party, and i speak as 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 today on social security, medicare. i think it's important that discussion take place because i fear very much, going back to what liberals may think, i don't know, maybe that polling is right. but i do a radio show every week and over a million people hear it almost in every state of the country. those are working class, progressive people and there's a lot of disillusionment. they want a president to stand up for the middle-class, working class of this country and they want him to take on big money interests in a way he has not done up to this point. >> as we talk on this friday afternoon, we are learning a divided u.s. appeals court in atlanta will a key provision of

last year's federal health-care overhaul law is unconstitutional, citing the big group of 26 states that have challenged the law. the ruling marks the obama had penetration's biggest defeat today in the battle over health care law and the decisions directly conflicts with that ruling issued in june by federal appeals court in cincinnati. what is your reaction? >> my answer is we have a judicial system that's very poor -- that is very political. yet democratic judges will rule is unconstitutional and you have republican justices that will rule otherwise. i voted for health care reform. i think it did good things, but i don't think it did as much as it should. i believe in a medicare for all single payer system that would be effective for all people. >> thank you for being on. we appreciate it. >> thank you very much. >> let me turn to our reporters here.

what did you hear from the senator and the prospects for this super committee, all of the members have been named and they're going to start with their work. >> he is clearly frustrated with the way the white house has been handling this deficit confrontation over the last year or so. the line we get from democrats and bernie sanders, an independent, seems to be to hold the line and try to protect medicare and medicaid and these giant social programs that are so important to progresses and democrats. he did seem to be open to the idea that there might be some promise for symbolic tax reform to come out of this process, but, there is a pessimistic outlook. >> what i took from this is most of the debate around whole

deficit-reduction question has been the assumption that democrats are willing to compromise and republicans are not. democrats, led by president obama, said we're putting entitlements on the table. somewhat reluctantly, nancy pelosi of harry reid have gone along with that. of course, republicans have not. what he is basically saying is that's not how it is going to be. i'm speaking for the left-wing of the democratic party and not willing to make as compromises. whether his view will prevail at the end of the day, i am not predicting that. chances are that this would come up with a balanced deal, that probably would go through, but what he's trying to do, and this is the role he typically plays in congress, is to provide some countervailing pressure from the left to say, don't take my compromise for granted. i'm not ready to cut social

security benefit or raise the rate -- raise the age of eligibility for medicare. those of the -- those are things president obama says he is straight up willing to do. >> he seems to be comfortable with the way the super committee is going to work and that he repeatedly says they will be talking to the caucus, to the leadership, that patty murray is part of leadership and the so- called super committee is going to be operating differently than we saw the gang of six doing behind-the-scenes, not talking to other people. >> that was abundantly clear when the names started coming out this week. many of these people were drawn from second-tier leadership of both sides. it is pretty clear they will be having their marching orders from the highest levels of leadership in congress and will not be one of these freelance deals like the gang of six was where there are often a private room. room.