gun carry bill. in about 45 pence, jim mcdermott and then bob goodlatte talks about his proposed balanced budget amendment. yual levin on his cover story about the political philosophy underpinning liberalism. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: on this wednesday morning we have this question for you, should there be live tv coverage from the u.s. supreme court when it hears oral arguments in the health care case later this term? the senate set a letter to the two justices of the court asking for us to be able to provide the coverage. -- c-span sent a letter to the justices of the court asking for us to be able to provide the coverage. ishould there be light that tv

cameras at the court when they take up health care later this term? if you good for website, c- span.org, you will see a link for the letter that we sent yesterday to the justices. we will read a little bit to set up this morning. the court's decision to settle 5.5 hours in the significance of this case. we ask that the court for the reflect this particular case of significance by supplementing your end of week audio cassette policy with live tv coverage. -- by supplementing or end of week audio policy with live tv coverage. additionally, up 5.5 our

argument biggs for camera coverage come interested citizens would be understandably challenge to adequately polyol -- follow audio-only coverage of an event of this link with all of the justices in various council participants. and for these reasons we ask you and your colleagues to set aside any misgivings you have about television in the court room in general of permit cameras to televise live at this particular argument. so we'll wait word on whether we can coverage the oral argument on health care. we will get to your calls in a couple of moments. first, tony mauro. good morning. explain for us, remind us about the rules that the court currently has regarding media coverage. guest: the court currently just allows pencil press you might

say, reporters that are about to but notes and the courin the c, cameras or microphones allowed at all. they never have been, and some people think they may never be allowed, but brian lamb, i think, is moving the ball ahead, and we will see what happens on that. host: what has been the argument from the court over the years? guest: a number of arguments. one is the justices are very and amennoyimity.an amenit they believe it helps their security. they believe if they were more exposed on television they would have to have bodyguards all of the time. the other is they believe the supreme court is unlike any

other institution, unlike state courts, which just judges are elected. the supreme court views itself as a political, and not required to be as accountable in the same sense of allowing broadcast coverage of the proceedings. i have argued for many years that that argument is completely backwards. i think if anything the supreme court's unique status as an unelected branch makes it more eligible for camera coverage. it will not be really affected by the cameras in the way that politicians often are. those are the main arguments.

they also believe it cameras are allowed an oral arguments, it will somehow change the dynamics. that lawyers will grandstand, play to the cameras and not answered the justices' questions. that too, i think, is a weak argument. i have talked to many lawyers who say that within one minute of starting their arguments they forget about the cameras and focus on the task at hand, which is answering the judge's questions. host: in a case like this where our letter has gone up to the court, is there a process, or what can you tell us about the response? is the decision solely with the chief justice? guest: no, i would not say so. i think a request like this will

be taken seriously and be discussed in the entire conference. the conference is the word they discussing asourt disgustin whole, rather than the chief justice being the decision maker. i think it will take the lead or cue from the chief justice, but they will discuss it, and probably within a few weeks you will have a response. host: far there any of the current justices who have opened their window in their own way to camera coverage? any individual were marks they want to put out there? -- remakrs they want to pu out

rks they want to put out there? guest: as you might expect, it is the newer justices. believes it willaken put the supreme court and positive light. i agree with that. having watched many arguments myself, they show the world, they show spectators that the court is a very serious institution and tries to get it right. domayor has saidight your han similar things. the court allow limited television coverage of some of its proceedings, and she said it was not a problem for her to be at a televised argument, and she

thought it was a good thing. host: think you for the set up in history and context. -- thank you. here is a little bit more about one tony morrow wrote -- what tony mauro write. he writes the defiant stance of the court is born of fear of change. most of all, exceptional wisdom. the court's view of itself and unique institution it can and should resist the demands of the information age. first call this morning on this question, should there be live tv cameras at the supreme court argument, which is set for march we understand. larry on the line for democrats from tennessee. caller: power you doing? host: fine. -- how are you doing? caller: yes, it should be

televised, but how can two people stand together in this case? that is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. host: fella's more about live tv coverage. what difference would it make to you? caller: i think it would educate the public. i think it would be outstanding. i think a lot of people do not understand how the supreme court works. host: ok, larry. early morning call from los angeles. good morning, eric. thank you for being with us. caller: your global economy, jobs and deficits, that was the most excellent piece i have ever listen to and you'd come and that should be seen by everybody. the answer to your question, i do not think so. i think audio we have is perfect. we do not want this to become a

circus. quite frankly the public -- most of the public would never crossed the jargon from the lawyers. it would be quite appropriate, but you will not understand a lot of it. host: when you say circus, what you mean? mean?hat do you caller: the lawyers will utilize this. you guys are doing a great service. do not get into the industry with the viewing situation. leave it alone. host: thank you for your call. letter c.ad the stanton to the courts. it is at our web site, c- span.org.

lafayette, indiana, ryan, a republican. what do you think? caller: i believe the supreme court should not have video pictures in there. i guess i agree with the previous calller. the audio is fine. we can hear what they say. it does not impact audio if we cannot see them. what is wrong with that? host: plenty of news stories and opinion pieces on this once the letter was released yesterday. "washington post" website -- here is the "l.a. times" -- again, that thi is the "l.a.

times" -- ." there has long been resistance among several justices to having cameras in the court rooms, and it seems unlikely the justices would not make an exception for the health-care argument. he reminds us that for several years the court has allowed same day release of audiotapes of selective arguments and high- but stoppedtacases, even that practice in september of last year. now all of audio tapes for a given week oral arguments are released on friday of that week. next call from akron, ohio. robert. caller: yes, i believe it should be more transparent. you are downgrading the american people when you say they will not understand. that is the way you have to

learn by seeing it, listening to it at the moment it is being done. i believe there should be more transparency and all state government. brings up a good understanding of what is going on in the government, especially the supreme court, which seems to have no laws that govern it even, you know. i think it would be very educational and very helpful if all the transparency, including cameras and the court and everything, to see and hear and understand to see who is saying what and what their reasoning for their judgment. host: robert from akron, ohio.

to harpers ferry, va.. janet. good morning. caller: i thank you first for giving a voice to the american people. i love c-span. yes, i believe the supreme court should be open. the challenge to obama care should be unprecedented. it should be able to be reviewed by the people, of my second reason is it will bring the attention of the american people back to the constitution. i do not think that people though it, understand it, and pay attention to it. to thisin addition question of whether there should be cameras at the world health care case in the early part of next year, it will be happening in march, twitter is one way to feedback to us. our address is wj.

we're also taking comments on our facebook page. one comment is -- absolutely yes. -- no,ther one rightwrites, no, audio is more than enough. bloomington, ill., karen, a republican. good morning. caller: my answer is absolutely not. host: why? caller: we do not have enough time. and it is why now, why this case? that is not the crux of my argument. it is over principal and observation of our country over the past five decades, and the

fact that -- i saw your smile, i am that old -- that is fine, i will except that, and i was a young woman in the 1960's having just graduated from college, and i do not remember that fondly -- i beg your pardon? host: keep going, caller. caller: we have as a nation, and many people who call in are not aware of what transpires over this amount of time, but we have allowed every issue of our lives to be politicized, and the more we have done that the less we have become a symbol, respectful law-abiding nation who adheres to the constitution,

and respect one another one, whether we agree or disagree and are willing to go through lawful process verses educating and upsetting in demonizing, and that is what i believe happened with the supreme court. i think we have sufficient access to information if we do our due diligence as individuals. and we can study issues legitimately and intelligently as opposed to letting our emotions be ramped up. host: that was karen from illinois. twitter message --messag breyer was onn g. the hill several weeks ago. there was a wide-ranging discussion about the judiciary, very informative hearing that we will play over the thanksgiving

holiday, but here is a piece from the hearing of justice breyer after being asked a question about cameras in the courts. >> we are making decisions that are there to affect 309 million people that are not there. and in our minds, we to take those 309 million into account, and will that come across? and then there is the problem that justice scalia mentioned, you can make people look good or make them look bad, depending on what 30 seconds you take. it is already called a personality, and let's not make it worse. so add those up, and you say i do not know. i would like to know more. i really would. there are places that have it and do not have it. you have 100 different situations in respect to that. why can't we get some real

information not paid for by anyone that has an interest in this? some of the foundations to see what happened to attitude. what you are getting, i think, and maybe eventually it will be there is no other way to see things but a visually, and everyone is doing that and it will just seemed weird what we do now, and it will all change, but before that time i think it is a little boring but i think information is something that would make it easier, and till -- until i become reasonably convinced that will not hurt the institution, you will get a conservative reaction. host: justice breyer there. a couple of emails. to our question about whether cameras should be allowed live in the health-care argument, --s you were rigviewer writes

definitely. another viewer writes, sort of. do not reduce to the level of " american idol", "dancing with the stars" or "judge judy." caller: i want to say how much has meant to me as a senior. i think it is important to have this particular topic, because the health-care problem is one of the main things affecting our budget and everything going on right now and the decisions that are going to be made as far as what is happening with our economy. thank you so much for letting me

give my opinion. host: mildred, as it was. independent calller. -- mildred in st. louis. caller: i am definitely against it. when you cover the congress you see them playing to the cameras. they are not doing anything they are not talking about anything, so basically the audio would be this. we are a nation of soap operas or 32nd flashes and ballroom -- 30-second flashes and all.

we are getting too political like karen from illinois said. we are getting too political. if hearing is not enough, then seeing will not make it no better. like i stated, i think you do us a disservice when you put on the house and senate things when they are not reasonably talking about an issue, when they are just back and forth. we're just seeing what datthey ain't doing. we see that they are not working, they are not doing anything. that is my opinion. thank you for taking my call. host: we will do this for 20 more minutes. then we will talk to jim mcdermott about the economic affairs in the house, and also the health-care issue that is out there. syracuse, new york.

what do you think about the question of, the idea of the court possibly allowing tv cameras? hello louis? are you there? columbus,dean in ohio. dean is a democrat. you are on the air. caller: i believe camera should be in the court. -- cameras should be in the court. one, was it would be too political, and the court is becoming too political. the company currently, according to courts are facing crimes against humanity and involved with terror groups --

host: bring is over to the issues of cameras in the court for health care. caller: i am a medicare recipient here yet cos. they are the ones that have unlimited campaign contributions, which is basically you get people like that. this guy is running military operations and other countries. you need to put a check on these people. we need to see what is going on camera. host: here is what one that you says on twitter -- in addition to our main web page

where you will see the letter we sent to the chief justice yesterday, there is a separate page c-span.org /courts/camerasinthecourts. if you go to that page, you will find lots of resources. you can find the timeline of key developments in an effort toward cameras in the courts. articles on this issues and the polls we have taken in recent years, which consistently show the public does what camera coverage -- does want to camera coverage. "the las vegas review journal" writes --

one other paragraph. that is in "the las vegas review journal." xavier from texas. caller: i believe the camera should be allowed in the supreme court. host: tell us why. caller: i am i under individual, and i look at my peers and we do

not know anything that is going on in society as far as health care, and the lack of coverage is just wrong. we need to be informed. host: an earlier calller said she did not have time to watch 5.5 hours. caller: she does not have time, but she cannot speak for the rest of america. for people to be speaking on behalf of 300 million people in america and calling it a circus, i am pretty sure people who were in these situations would love to watch this and have an opinion or view on this whole topic. host: appreciate you calling. chuck grassley put out his own notes on all of this yesterday. here is the right up on it -- the write up on it --

but provide an excellent educational opportunity on a case that has the potential to have a far-reaching impact on every american. this lot is massive in size and scope. its effect is reverberating throughout america's economy. . the public has the right to hear and see the legal arguments. senator chuck grassley, a regular guest on the program. dave, a republican from missouri. caller: good morning. i do not have a strong position one way or another on whether camera should be allowed in to the supreme court, but the notion that the supreme court is

not transparent i think is ridiculous. of the three branches i think it is the most transparent. host: how so? caller: unless they changed something, it is my understanding court sessions are open to the public. reporters attend oral arguments and report their accounts in their out lips. the briefs that are filed by the parties are public, and the decisions rendered by the supreme court are rendered in the form of written opinions of decision. explaining their they are published and distributed, and they are available to anyone who cares to read them. and so i think of the three branches it is probably the most transparent hostt. host: dave from missouri. arlen specter rights that tb

could boost the ratings of the supreme court. he writes the legitimacy of our judicial system depends on public confidence. stephen, a democrat. caller: good morning. as far as i am concerned if they are hiding something, i would be able to see what is going on.

i want to hear what these people are talking about. none of these secret meetings. the only thing that needs to be secret is our military, and as far as i am concerned everything else is open for everyone to see. we are all americans. i want to see what the story is, the basis of the people but represent the story. i am tired of being shadowed by some government. it is unbelievable how we can not see the faces or see what they are talking about, who represent you? -- who represents who? host: all right. thank you for calling. a couple of other facebook comments.

oceanside, new york. joe is up now on the independent line. caller: if memory serves, and i believe it does come at the democrats had a deal with brian lamb -- i believe it does, the democrats had a deal with brian lamb to bring the cameras and. at the last minute the democrats block the deal out. they went back on the deal with brian lamb, and now the democrats are asking for cameras in the supreme court. and the democrats made it back room deals, quadrupled the cost of health care making it almost impossible and bankrupting this country.

why didn't they allow the cameras and then, and why are you reminding the american people democrats prohibited the cameras from watching the deals they made? host: tell us more about what you think of the concept. is there value there for you? caller: are you going to remind the american people that the democrats locked the cameras out? host: joe from new york. caller: thank you for your c- span work. brian lamb are originally way back when it said c-span was o.j. trial free, and we know the o.j. trial was a circus, and we know the supreme court is not a circus because we do here. i think dave from missouri stated it clearly, the supreme

court is transparent. we can hear oral arguments and find information on what happens, but it does take effort. it c-span could have robotic cameras -- are they robotic cameras now? host: we have many of them. is that an option you think would work better? caller: i think robotic cameras are less invasive. tom friedman explained that a robotic camera is there, and that is less invasive. you did not have a person, and i am thinking of even in the classroom when you have visitors in a classroom, it changes the classroom or a person behind the camera. host: 1 other viewers that if not that, at least one camera in the back looking forward. -- one other viewer said if not

that, at least one camera in the back looking for work. caller: i think with c-span handling it in a gifted way, the american people would benefit. host: we want to get an update on economic matters on the hill. joining us by phone is carry young, a staff writer for congressional quarterly. thank you for joining us. give us an update. there is a lot going on, but can you talk about the current government funding, because much of it expires this friday. where are they in the process of extending the funding? >> it looks like they're pretty much on track for the spending bills for the year. these will be spending bills for the commerce department, justice department, transportation. most of the government will still be on stopgap funding. that expires on friday, but the

measure that has the permanent funding for commerce and justice has another round of stopgap funding with it, and that will keep things running through december 16. host: what would happen after that? the session after thanksgiving for more debate negotiations? guest: it looks like they're working pretty hard behind the scenes. they have already taken a look at the bills in the other chamber. they're doing work and would like to get things wrapped up by december 16. that looks increasingly like an omnibus measure. it it all nine bills and wrap them up. senator reid has been trying to do smaller packages. he got the first one that went through pretty cleanly in the senate, all things considered. it looks for the moment but it will move through both chambers. and be done by friday. senator reid is having a lot of

trouble getting is that the package done, and that is making it increasingly likely that they will wrap everything up with one bill, and there is a good chance they can get that done by december 16. host: the deficit reduction committee has a deadline of november 23. depending on what you read, they are either moving forward or not moving forward at all. what is your perspective? guest: it is very difficult to read. my colleague who covers it very closely says there are reasons they should get it done. there would be confidence in the markets and look like congress is working to get it done, but politics plays a huge role in this. and republicans except a revenue increase? can democrats except some of the republicans will sign on for?

after all this time we're back where we were at the beginning, but there has been some activity was senator reid and speaker meeting yesterday. perhaps something still to be pulled together, but it is still up in the air. host: what is the president's pollster, the white house posture? posture?ent's guest: they have not been stepping in, at least publicly. saying leader kantcanter he was not born to give his opinion because he wanted them to finish the work. kerry young, thank you for your time this morning. another call on whether the supreme court should allow live tv coverage. c-span has sent a letter to the chief justice waiting for response from the court. it is all about the health care

argument. that is what we are asking for. it is supposed to happen in march. a democrat in virginia. good morning. caller: most definitely we should be able to see what is going on. i can understand some of the previous callers that do not think it would be necessary, but the majority of the people never went through anything, and did you do not go through anything, you do not know what is really going on. a lot of discrimination going on, a lot of unnecessary stuff that is going on, and i would obamato see how they prove care is not needed, because it is definitely lead in, because there are a lot of things going on that should not be going on.

just to give an opinion about how bad it is, ok, this has something to do with medicare and people with disabilities. it does not make any sense whatsoever that a person who applies for a disability has to wait two years to receive it social security. it does not take that long to decide what is wrong with you. it takes two years to decide what is wrong with them. host: other articles this morning. a lot more in the papers about the president and the white house. this from the bbc. the prime minister and australia and the president have agreed to host a full u.s. marine task force in the coming years. this was at a news conference today in the capital of australia. the prime minister it step --

the prime minister said 250 million marines would arrive next year. the deployment is seen as a move to counter china's growing influence. back here we read this morning that a bullet actually did hit the white house. this is an incident that was played out quite a bit in local news and then became a quick national story. david jackson writing in "usa today" that a bullet did hit the white house window and was stopped by bullet proof glass. a round of ammunition was found on white house grounds. the secret service as a bullet hit an exterior window and was stopped by ballistic glass. this has taken place since the president left for a nine-day trip. richmond, va., beverly, the morning. -- good morning. caller: i do not believe camera

should be allowed in the supreme court room. i believe audio is sufficient. i have 22 years of health-care experience myself, and that of the cameras would stifle the supreme court justices creativity process. i reading a book by katie couric, and she said she had a hard time getting established from and they told her to us practice in front of a smaller market. i do not think we should make tv journalism another requirement for supreme court justices. host: "the new york daily news" the big headline is "stay out." cops convicted protesters in the park.

"the new york post" salutes mayor bloomberg. gop senators rip iraq's p ullout plan. panetta says baghdad let us know choice. that is the defense secretary. an exchange between secretary mccain and senator panetta. senator mccain, that is just

simply not true. i guess you can believe that, and i respect your belief, but that is not true. and take of the outcome is exactly as predicted. -- >> the outcome is exactly as predicted. and >> this is about negotiating with a sovereign country, an independent country. this is about their needs. this is not about us telling them what they need to do. this is about their country making a decision as to what is necessary here. in addition to that, once they made the decision there were not going to provide any immunity'is for any level of force we would have there -- this is a country where you could very well be engaging in combat operations. you absolutely have to have immunities.

host: you can watch the whole thing at our web site, c- span.org. live coverage today over on c- span 3, house oversight and government reform committee hearing on compensation for the executives at fannie mae and freddie mac. the witnesses today are michael williams, president and ceo of fannie mae. charles alderman jr., ceo of freddie mac. last call on whether there should be live tv cameras in the supreme court for the whole car argument later this term. .eff, a democrat from caller: i want to say that i support cameras in the court room, because the supreme court has gone to the point where they believe they are superior to the other branches of government.

we have cameras in congress. we have cameras anywhere else -- everywhere else in this country. if we start getting cameras in the supreme court, maybe they will act to write instead of like the ninth circuit court of appeals in california where it has become more active listeist instead of listening to the constitution like they should. but it will probably come down to 5-4 because of the more strict constructionist will come down against it, and the other four will come down in the opposite way. so that is my opinion, but i do support cameras in the supreme court because i think it will bring them back down to reality the airkeep them up and aiin

where they think they are god. the attitude they are not accountable to the people is why we should have cameras in there. host: thank you. thank you for all of your calls. you can continue to post comments on our facebook page. we will let you know what the answer is when we get it. you can check out our web site for a lot more information, including the letter we sent to the supreme court of the page, the main page. in a couple of minutes we will talk to jim mcdermott, a democrat from washington about health care, the deficit reduction committee and other health matters. we will be right back. -- and other hill matters. ♪

>> for those who say we are rushing to issue of civil rights, i say to them we are 172 years late. for those who say that the civil rights program is an infringement on the rights, i say this, the time has arrived in america up for the democratic party to get out of the saddles of state rights and what port right way into the bright sunshine of human rights. >> hubert humphrey spoke those words nearly 20 years for championing the civil-rights bill and the wall.

the two-term mayor of minneapolis was vice-president under lyndon johnson and later ran for president in 1968 and lost. we will look at his influence on american policy on "the contenders" live friday at 8:00 eastern. c-span.org home page is now easier to use. the new design features 11 video choices making it easier to watch the events. there is a link to access the most popular programs. you can quickly find where to what our three c-span network on cable like -- cable systems or satellite across the country. >> "washington journal" continues. host: congressman jim mcdermott

is with us. first, we want to get your take on the question we just as the should there be therked viewer, be live cameras in the supreme court? guest: i am not sure i have an opinion on that. and i am not sure everyone would understand what is going on. there is nothing lost in one sense, but i do not want to turn the supreme court justices into rock stars on television. that is not the issue. i want them to be thoughtful and careful in not deeply into the cameras. and i know what happens in congress, people play to the cameras. if i had my choice, i would not have cameras. host: here is "the washington post" headline --

the white house is confidence they will succeed. what is your level of confidence? guest: 50 is the incompetents. i always thought the commerce clause gave us the right to do this. it seems to me the country has to deal with the problem of health care cost, and it is not something that can be dealt with by alabama by itself or tennessee by itself or nevada by itself or washington state or new york. it really has to be done nationwide, because it is an interstate commerce issue. all of these things are national issues, and i think it is best done at the national level. host: if the court and of striking it down next year, what does it mean? -- if the court ends up striking it down next year, what does it mean? guest: problem we ran up against

again and again is a law that says big companies can opt out of anything that is going on in the state if they are a multi- state operation. so i have thousands of employees at boeing and all these other people that were not in the program. i could never do it at the state level, and that is why i think it will go well at the federal level host. host: the congressman will be here for about 40 minutes. our guest is congressman jim mcdermott, a democrat from washington. member of the ways and means committee. what term are you in? guest: 12th. host: let's leave the health- care issue to the other big hearing in congress, the deficit committee. link this to the health-care issue and your concern. guest: let me put it in context,

because when you take 12 people who have never worked together, and many of whom dislike each other and have no trust in one another and put them in a room and say in two months you have to come out with a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit reduction package, you have set up task, which from the very outset i thought was very unlikely to occur. so what they did is that these cuts put out in the future after the election in 2013 that would reduce automatically to things like military. i think that possibility is very likely in my view. if we come up with anything serious by friday, is in my view a long shot from the very start. it is important we do it, because it is important for the

world to see that the congress can solve the problems of the united states. if we fail on friday, we will be sending a message to the world that congress cannot deal with this issue. that is the dilemma we are in. health care is up 16% of gdp. 16% of our economy. it is a big issue. if you start cutting and there, you cut 3 percent signed out of 3% out of medicare, you're cutting procedures and ordinary things that people expect. if you make those kinds of cuts, it will have a ripple effect through the entire economy. host: this deals with what we call a continuing resolution and possibly extending certain programs into december, possibly

other programs through the rest of the year. we want to remind what the joint deficit reduction committee is up to. they are looking at 1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. of the committee must vote or report by november 23, a day before thanksgiving. after that happens, if it happens, congressman vote by december 23. if there is no agreement, splits would be cut between defense and domestic spending. there is something called sequestration, because there are a number of items that will not cut across the board. they include social security, veterans benefits, medicaid, a children's health insurance program, and a plum insurance, temporary assistance for needy families, food stamps, and other low-income programs. they are protected under the arrangement. does that work for you? guest: it certainly was a smart decision on the part of the

congressman in protecting those programs, but having major cuts in health research at the national institute of help for major cuts in space exploration or major cuts and all of the domestic programs will be affected by this kind of automatic cut. it is like you close your eyes and swing and knif knife. he will make a cut in only find out after word what it really means. i think the cuts in education are the most dangerous ones, and in health research. it is our future, where we're going. if you do not keep doing the research and educating people, you are ultimately doing the future. host: your senator is co-

chairs of the committee. are you hearing anything from her that you might want to tell the viewers? guest: she looks like a woman carrying 1,000 pounds of rocks on her back. she is been very careful not to leak things. other people have talked about things. i think there is some possibility that something will come out of this this weekend. lunch moneythat my on it. the problem is this, they have to do things that hurt, and nobody wants to do things that hurt. when you go to a doctor and he tells you you have our problems, you want him to tell you what this will mean. that is what the committee is doing. it it may cut, they have to tell the american people this is what it is born to do to you, and everyone will feel the cuts.

nobody wants to do that. host: the first call is from the international line. , and from australia. -- tom from australia. caller: increase tariffs to increase work in the u.s. that its employment and increases economic growth? guest: 1 is the fence and one is terex. -- one is defense and one is tarrifs. we are withdrawing from the war in iraq. there should be savings from that. if nothing else, we should be able to make cuts there. i believe there is a lot of research and weaponry systems that are not necessary today. we will not use a lot of the things we planned and developed

in the cold war. some of those things can be cut. i think there are some real defense cuts that can be made that would not reduce the security of the united states. on the question of tarrifs, we're going the other way. i was just in hawaii with a meeting of all the countries, and we are striving -- trying to develop a trans-pacific partnership, which is a plan to bring down tariffs in the countries in the group. the idea being if you have a level playing field, we can ship things into australia and they can ship to the united states, and there is no barrier against the development or shipping of goods or services and to a country raising tarify. raising tariffs as a way that every country made their money and old days. there were tariffs on stamps and

was all theat revenue a country had. but you want to get away from them, and that is basically what we're trying to do. caller: hi, mr. mcdermott. if we had 418 boy congress people like you, our country would be a better place to live. day i am from the district. -- i am from the district. why is a poor person living in the city with $20,000 a year in a trailer park worried about obama being a socialist? guest: one of the interesting

things are difficult things about our political process is people get bombarded with these ideas that some house socialism is bad. no one thinks that the socialist seas -- socialism means dead as a society, we deal with the problem together -- socialism means that as a society, wheat and a quick profile together. we have no problem coming together on a lot of things including roads and police and fire and all kinds of things. the question has been put on the question of health care. if the president wanted program that covers everybody in the country, said in the he is a socialist. it is not working today to make every individual responsible for themselves bank as a society, we cannot let people died in the

streets. >> >> house speaker boehner and reid -- x guest: that would send " powerful guest: guest: i think there are things

we could have done. we could have dealt with all of this months ago. this is like kicking the can down the road. if it does not work, it is kicked past the next election. this is not dealing with problems. when you go to a position and you are told to do something about your blood pressure, you say next year i will worry about my blood pressure. you will have a stroke. that is why you do not pushed things down the road. host: terry, republican, good morning to you. caller: i have seen in the news that 80% of the bankruptcies and america are caused because of high medical bills. care.d national healtch

we are the only industrialized nation that does not have that. my stepfather was a state parole officer. he told me year after year. you can buy and legal drugs in the prisons from the inmates but you get much better deals from the guards. [unintelligible] i got an article from my local newspaper. young kids can get any illegal drug that they want in 15 minutes to 1 hour. cigarettes and alcohol, the can have a picture id. host: do you have a question for the congressman?

caller: why are they not talking about ending the drug war? my son had his jaw broken by a gang member and was too afraid to tell the police. host: thank you for calling. guest: i think the gentleman has a point on both issues it. the first thing he said was about medical bankruptcy's. that is what the president had to deal with this issue. the necessity of dealing with it when you see 90% of the bankruptcies -- 80% of the bankruptcies are because of people's health bills, you know that is a problem that is affecting some many americans. the issue of the drug war is a more complicated 1. i think a lot of what we have done with the drug war has not

been productive. people come out of prison with the same problems they had 15 years ago. i think a lot of it could have been dealt with if we had programs that would divert people into treatment programs as a way of dealing with the drug problem rather than putting them into a penitentiary. you could send someone to a local college. it makes much more sense to keep them out and keep involved in the economy rather than locking them up. host: you mentioned the commerce clause when we were talking about healthcare. here is a twitter message. interesting. guest: i thought about that before i came on the program. somebody will say on the television, "well, congress is going to write a law to force us

to eat broccoli." i am sent to washington by 700,000 people. i am their representative. all 435 of us represent people. if they put a law on the table saying that everybody has to eat broccoli, congress would say in my going to go home and defend that at home? the answer is no, of course not. so, the decision is you have given me the power to decide for you. you get a shot at me every two years to get rid of me. if you do not like what i have done, you should vote for the other person. that is the way a democracy works. you have to have a group that decides what is best for society and then review it every two years.

every two years, we review the congress. every six years, we turned over the u.s. senate. that is your control on us doing things that you do not like. host: let's here from new hampshire. good morning. caller: i have two suggestions that might help the u.s. deficit and the economy. the first is, a doctor has to take an exam and pass it and be certified in order to practice medicine. and a lawyer has to take an exam and pass it to practice law. and i think managers of companies of u.s. banks and members of congress and boards of trustees and so forth all should -- those types of people

who handle trillions of dollars -- should have to take an exam and pass it and be certified in order to hold their jobs. the second thing i have it is concerning student loans. when it is a problem for students to pay back. i think when they go to get a student loan, an adult should have to co-sign the loan. if the student cannot pay it, the other cosigner would have to take over the loan payments. i thank you. guest: you raised a couple of questions, first about our financial system. is amazing how many people who did not have a college education have started businesses and have been extremely successful in the world.

take bill gates. bill gates never finished a university. he started microsoft and made billions of dollars. i am not sure there is a test you can give to test the capacity to be both smart and honest. it is a question of honesty. it is the question of honesty that is troubling americans about our financial system. people were doing things they knew were wrong and did them anyway. i think that is hard to put on a test. for student loans, you cannot discharge them in bankruptcy. my sister ate her loans until she was 45 years old. a lot of people pay their -- pay for their college education far

into their lives. we have a system now that loads up students with debt. one thing i would like to see that i proposed in medicine is if you were to go to college and guarantee the country or state that you would teach or be a doctor for five years, your education ought to be freed. we do that four officers in the military. we have no problem with having officers in the military. we give them a five-year obligation for a college education and we forced them to serve five years in the military. the same thing court teachers and doctors. we would make it much easier for people to go into fields where there is not money coming back. if you want to be a teacher in this society, you really have to be dedicated. host: ralph, democrat, welcome

to the program. caller: good morning. why is it constitutional for us to have to supply all the elected officials with health care? yet it is unconstitutional to have to supply our own. guest: i am with you. i believe the last thing that is missing in our democracy, the last big thing, is the fact that we need to have health care for everyone. we have said education for everyone. we will provide roads for everyone. the one thing that we all know we are going to need at some point is healthcare. for us to say that that is your personal responsibility, it puts us back -- i remember when my grandmother was living with us

when i was a kid because she had no medicare or social security. we had to take care of her. if we want to go back to a society where we say your family has to take care of you if you do not have kids -- every time mom and dad comes through the front door, say to yourself, "i wonder if they are going to go home or stay with us." that is the way society was before we put medicare and social security in place. everyone should be free from the worry about being ill or injured, and kids should not have to worry about it either. host: "usa today" -- they are basically saying about 58 members of congress are part of that 1% group.

250 millionaires in congress. nearly $900,000, nine times the typical household. does this story of matter? guest: not really. what you want in congress are people who have done things, been educated, understand the world. i was a physician. you would not expect me to come here with 5 cents in my pocket. somebody who has been a businessman, doctor, or lawyer, it is not surprising that they have made a considerable amount of money over their lifetime. if they have been saving, they will have something to show on their financial disclosures. one of the problems that the article talks about is a lot of people who can pay their own way to buy their way into congress. i could not do that.

when i started out, i had two kids in college and i was struggling. so i needed the contributions from other people. anybody today with $5 million in their pocket is a legitimate candidate in a race. it is skewing the congress to people with a lot of money. host: we will look at the list that was put together, the richest in congress. he is worth about $448 million. $380 million. senator kerrey, senator warner, senator kohl. according to this piece, savannah, ga., margaret is a

republican. good morning. caller: i would like to know what your vote is going to be concerning giving schoolchildren dinner. and also, mr. mcdermott, aren't you the person who turned in an illicit tape on speaker gingrich? can you tell us about that so we can get the story straight? host: explant the dinner comment. guest: she is referencing some bill and about whether or not we supply school lunches and meals. i guess somebody is making a proposal for dinner. i do not know exactly. of the fact is, children who go to school, many of whom are hungry in this country who do

not have money to buy lunch, which provides free lunches for them because we know if a kid is hungry, they are not going to be able to learn. it is an important part of the educational process. it was actually started by harry truman. when they looked at all of the people who were rejected for service in the military, it had to do with nutrition. there was so much malnutrition. about 30% or rejected because of malformations and what not. it was harry truman's decision. if you want a strong army, you have to feed the children so they will be fit for the army. host: a story in "the washington post" -- an ongoing debate over usda

funding. our next call is from california, raymond, an independent, good morning. caller: i have been calling for years and i have finally got through. this is the first time. host: thank you for your effort. caller: i have a couple of questions for the congressman and a question for it c-span. congressman, could you please comment on the fact especially since you have been a physician , that if you draw the lines since congress created hmo's and made medicine for profit, that is when the cost of medicine at wind through the roof. the same thing happened with jobs in america. ever since we joined the world trade organization and had all of these treaties, all of the

jobs were sucked right out of america. i would like you to comment on that. in terms of c-span, it interests me that you always have three different numbers -- republicans, democrats, and independencnts. today, we are hearing all of the democrat-liberal point of use. the conservative will sound just as good as this congressman, but 95% of them have been around for years. why not have a forum where you have three individuals there -- a conservative, a liberal, and an independent, someone who is thinking outside the box about these situations? are their thoughts and ideas about what happened to all of the jobs here? host: your idea is to have them

on at the same time? caller: yes, why not? so you can have a real debate. everything the congressman is setting sounds great. tomorrow, you will have a republican. host: you get a shot at him every two years. is that not enough? caller: i think anyone who is elected -- who has been there since more than three years ago, they are part of the problem and need to target -- need to start taking part of the responsibility. host: thank you. guest: the way i look at it i am sent here by the seventh district. there are 700,000 people. if they decide to send me back, they have either not been paying attention at what i did and are

looking at what they did and agree with me or are willing to trust me for two more years. i do not look at this as a lifetime job. even though i have been there for 12 terms. every time you go out there, you have to face the people and answer their questions just as i am answering them here on television. i have to do that at home. i go to coffeehouses 10:00 on saturday morning and say if you have a question, i would be glad to answer. we subject ourselves to the. i think that is the way that people ought to demand that they have access to us. host: have york winning percentages changed? guest: a back in 2000, i lost about 20%. they said i was not far enough

left. there have been sometimes when people thought i was one way or the other, but i have done pretty well. host: the republican will be on the program and about 10 minutes from virginia, so you will be able to hear his viewpoints on things. the new york times -- i have a question for you in a second about all of that, but a couple of other headlines here. boehner is embracing a tax- raising plan. "it is right vs. right on tax revenues." what i wanted to ask you is two democrats on the super committee, both have said that

the democrats still have not coalesced around one deal or planned. why is that? guest: i am not a party to. these are 12 people who have been put into a room. we have had caucuses where all the democrats get together in the house and we argue about what we think there should be and we tell our members we want you to do this, this, and this. they go to the meeting and try to get that. what happens in there is unknown to all of us at this point. there is no perfect answer to this. i brought my own answer. i have an answer. if i put it on the table, i am sure the people across the table would jump down my throat as to that answer.

it is going to hurt whatever they do. if you cut programs, it is going to hurt. if you raise taxes, it is going to hurt. people are struggling with who do you hurt? don't tax you, don't tax me. tax that guy behind the tree. we are always looking for that guy behind a tree. caller: i was just wondering why people do not seem to be curious about the shortage of drugs now when the people on medicare are hitting the doughnut hole and the drug companies are supposed to be giving them a discount this year on their drugs? thanks. guest: my feeling was that the republican plan that was put in some years ago for medicare was

flawed. they should have given the secretary of health and human services the ability to negotiate lower prices. i think giving the drug companies the ability to charge whatever they want is wrong. in the veterans administration, there secretary can negotiate lower prices so you have about a 50% reduction for veterans for buying pharmaceuticals, while the millions of people on medicare do not get any reductions. by giving the pharmaceutical companies that protection, we have simply loaded onto people and it is wrong. i am opposed to it. host: mildred, a republican, welcome. caller: i think you are fantastic. i think you should run for president.

i do not agree with the people that somebody called in and said that they just put people on to tell us what we want to hear. you are the first person i have heard who makes sense when you talk. i am very pleased with cs been listening to all the different people on their. host: any questions? caller: that is about 8. he just needs to run for president. guest: thank you very much. i think i will let other people do it. host: your colleague of vermont said last week "progressives must be in the middle of this debate if they want to protect our priorities." you mentioned earlier that not too many people are sure what is going on with these 12 people.

how do you get in the middle of the debate? guest: is one of the things that i disagree with the committee and the first place. i agree with the regular order in congress. when somebody has an idea, they write a bill, put it in the committee, and then have hearings. people come in and talk about it, and the members listen to that and then they make amendments to the bill and pass it through. this issue that is going on is being done by 12 people sitting in a room with no access to me. they do not have anybody who can get into that room and listen to what is going on. i do not think that is democratic. host: there is a headline from

the washington times -- is that fair? guest: no. the president has made lots of proposals. you have to remember the guy is talking like that got up and walked away from the table. if you are negotiating with the president and he says there has to be revenue, and their response is to get up and walk out the door, you have people that are not serious about coming to a resolution. making compromise is not easy. we have all done in. if you get up and walk away from the automobile dealer, you are not going to get the card. if you walk out of a house, you are not going to get a house. you have to sit there and argue about how much this is worth.

that kind of process requires everybody to go to the table and stay at the table. the president votes last. according to the constitution, congress is supposed to write the law as the president then execute. host: go ahead, mark. caller: good morning, c-span. this is about the wealth and congress, how wealthy the people are. of the problem is when you get all of these wealthy people in congress, the mindset is to protect their wealth rather than the american people and protecting the constitution. that has become the problem. these wealthy people's mindset is only out to defend their

assets and their wealth rather than looking at what the american people need. we need low income people in congress. there are a lot of poor people that are very smart. the problem is they are unable to get anywhere. guest: you are talking about the election process. there are people who are poor who are in congress. i can think of two. one was a welfare mother. she got a divorce and had no way to live at. she was struggling on welfare. she worked and worked and worked and got a college degree and now here she is in congress. another woman -- her mother brought her from japan as an immigrant when she was 6 years old. her mother worked in the cane

fields in hawaii. she worked her way up to a lawyer and then a lieutenant governor of hawaii. now she is running for the u.s. senate. there was a woman raised planting rice in the rice paddies when she was 6 years old. high and the first one who ever got to college. my father did not get to college. my grandfather had a second grade education. it is possible in this country, the opportunity that we have. it does take a lot of work. i think you should not give up for the congress. we are going to solve america's problems. host: our guest has been congressman jim mcdermott. thank you for your time. in a moment, a discussion on the

balanced budget amendment that will get a vote in the house this week. our guest will be congressman bob goodlatte, republican from virginia. >> one day after police cleared out of the camping protesters at a park in new york city, the occupied demonstrations continue across the country. republican presidential candidate herman cain canceled a scheduled appearance at his campaign headquarters after occupy wall street protesters arrived at there. he said the campaign chose to cancel his trip because they did not want media reports of protesters and police. president obama is scheduled to visit new hampshire next week. new hampshire is considered a swing state in next year's

presidential election. italy will soon have a new premier. the economist says he has succeeded in forming a government to deal with the economic crisis there. he will be sworn in as early as this afternoon. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> for those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, i say to them we are 172 years late. [applause] for those who say, for those who say this civil rights program is an infringement on states' rights, i say the time has arrived in america for the democratic party to get out of walkhadows ofand to forthrightly into the bright

sunshine of human rights. >> he spoke those words 20 years before championing a civil rights bill into law. he was vice president under lyndon johnson and later ran president in 1968. we will look at his influence on american politics this week. live friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. the c-span.org homepage is now easier to use. it makes it easier for you to watch today's events. there is a section to access our most popular series and programs like "washington journal." we have added a handy channel finder so you can quickly find where to watch our networks across the country. at the all new c-span.org.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined now by a virginia republican congressman bob goodlatte. first, i want to get your thoughts on the question that we asked viewers. do you think that cameras should be allowed in the supreme court for the arguments that are coming up? guest: i think it would be a great experiment. we have them in a number of courtrooms around the country at the state level. i think it is time that folks got to see what happens in our courtrooms. i think it would build confidence. host: let's get into the balanced budget amendment that is coming up sooner. you are the author of several different versions. guest: two. there have been 18 versions introduced.

this is h.j. res. 2. it was introduced on the first day of this congress and is identical with a couple of small changes to the version that palacpassed the house of representatives and failed in the senate by one vote. we are having the opportunity to bring that up again to secure those 290 votes. it is definitely a steep hill to climb to get two-thirds of the members of the house. host: how close do you think we are? guest: we are close but we are not there yet. host: you are going to need 48 democrats to join you on this bill. guest: 48. host: do you have any republicans that you think are

not going to vote for this bill? h.j. res. 1, the first version of this bill, it was a little bit stricter. guest: it has 133 co-sponsors. it is my preferred a bill because it requires a super majority to balance the budget by raising taxes, and it requires a spending cap of 18% of gdp. that amendment just does not get bipartisan support. there was one democratic co- sponsor of it. therefore, the republican leadership consulted in a rather unique way in a conference both in terms of holding a special conference to hear from members and in terms of surveying the members to see which one they

preferred. overwhelmingly, the republican conference indicated they wanted h.j. res. 2 because it had a chance of passing and that it showed the kind of bipartisanship that you need to pass any constitutional amendment. it is not something that any one party can pass. we are in the process of building that consensus. there are members that would prefer tougher provisions on the conservative side and others that would prefer more moderate or liberal provisions on the liberal side. this attempts to strike a balance in the middle. host: let's talk about what is in h.j. res 2. there is no deficit spending without a 3/5 majority in congress. the president must submit a

balanced budget to congress annually, and it prohibits any bill from becoming law unless approved by the majority of congress. guest: for those who are concerned about tax increases, and certainly i am one of them, this titans of that provision a little bit. -- this tightens up that provision a little bit. it does not get anywhere near the 290 votes -- host: what a person of the other tougher provisions. guest: a spending cap, not more than 18% of gdp. there was some discussion about whether that would be 18% or 20%. they did not provide the support necessary for passage.

host: which one did you speak for? you were the author of both. guest: i thought that the best approach was to take the amendment that had the greatest chance of passage and was still a strong amendment. because it still has a supermajority to raise the debt limit and the absolute majority to raise taxes, this is a good, strong amendment and it is proven. the members overwhelmingly agreed that they wanted to try to do something rather than make a statement about the amendment that they preferred the most, knowing that that amendment has no chance of passing now simply because it does not draw bipartisan support that is necessary. host: we are talking to virginia republican bob goodlatte. give us a ring.

the numbers are there on your screen. if you are outside the united states -- yesterday, congressman, the white house issued their official statement of administration policy on h.j. res 2. i want to read you some of that.

i wanted to get your thoughts on the administration's response. guest: this is not news. the president said back in the summer when there was a discussion about the debt limit and the crisis leading to the house and senate voted overwhelmingly to require these votes on the constitution which are now going to take place. this week in the house, later in the senate. host: a different version in the senate. guest: unless the house passes a particular version. the senate has to vote on the identical version. that is part of the requirement. the present overlooked the fact that congress has only balanced its budget six times in 50

years, resulting in a 15 trillion dollar national debt. in times of crisis, the nation has rallied to do the right thing, but the problem is we have had too many years of bipartisan support for not balancing the budget and simply borrowing money and kicking the can down the road to future generations. both parties have been at fault for not having the discipline to make these tough decisions. this is not a new idea. this is not my idea. thomas jefferson raised this idea in 1798. he wished for a single amendment to the constitution, a single article upon which he would be willing to rely on the reduction of the government which he meant a prohibition on borrowing. this amendment does not go that far because we have exceptions

to address the concerns that the president raised in his point. thomas jefferson later borrowed money for the purpose of the louisiana purchase. if you have a big idea or a big need, congress should recognize that and. all other years, congress should be balancing the budget. they are simply not doing that. it is too easy to kick the can down the road to future generations. host: good morning. caller: i would just like to make a comment to these gentlemen. we will never be able to control the budget until we get the health care costs down. the only way you can do that is to go after the insurance companies and the hospital administration. there is no way these people charging these prices for these operations -- my boyfriend

passed away. his was $106,000 for an aneurysm. i am sorry, sir. . it just has to come down. you can sit there and put everything on barack obama, but until you get the costs down for medical at the hospital administration level, and your insurance companies, it is just a revolving door. we are always going to have this problem. guest: you are absolutely right. we do have a circumstance in which health care costs are growing at a very rapid rate. medicare is growing at four times the rate of inflation. it was projected that by 1990 it would cost $12 million per year. last year, it cost $524 billion.

by 2020, it is expected to approach $1 trillion. one more reason why we need a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. no one has been willing to step in and offer the kinds of changes that are needed to slow the rate of the increasing costs of programs like medicare. if it cannot be sustained unless the costs are controlled -- it cannot be sustained unless the costs are controlled. we proposed reforms of medicare. the white house has not put on the table an alternative to control that. the white house's plan which is now a law does not have sufficient controls. these are differences of opinion that have to be hammered out but instead of saying we will figure out a way to continue this year after year,

meaning borrowing more and more money, we have got to force the congress and president to find budgets that live within the means of government. this is a perfect example of why it is not happening and why one of the bond rating agencies downgraded u.s. treasuries. host: there is a lot of discussion about whether the automatic trigger will kick in. guest: it does not do very much at all to touch any of the entitlement programs which comprise 65% of the federal budget. it is all focussed on discretionary spending. quite frankly, everything in the federal government spending has to be on the table. the fact of the matter is it is not right now. host: a question from twitter --

will you cut the military budget? guest: i think everything has to be on the table. i agree with many in the military that we can have a strong national defense if we have a leaner defense structure. secretary gates made the point that there are some in the army that have 100 levels to go through in the chain of command to reach him. that is an enormous bureaucracy and i think indicates that there is definitely room for savings in defense spending. host: back to the phones with congressman bob goodlatte. keith is on the republican line from florida loud. caller: your previous guest mentioned that we can remove a person after two years in an

election cycle. it kind of made me think that we really are a republic in the united states. the super committee is split six and six. i am confused how this will happen. we are going to be relying on a democracy running this super committee. host: would you be in support of the balanced budget amendment? i think we lost an. guest: first of all, he is right. we have a representative democracy or a republic where people elect representatives to make decisions for them. this is not a process that i think should be tried over and over again, but the confrontation that took place over the summer on how to achieve deficit reduction did not go far enough, and even if they could agree on how much to cut, they could not agree on

what to cut so they put in a provision to have this panel of 12 members, six republicans, three from the house, three from the senate, six democrats, three from the house, three from the senate, and then send something to the full house and the full senate for a straight up and down vote. i hope they succeed in coming up with deductions. if they do not, sequestration will take place. that is still less than 25% of what we would need to do to balance the budget over the next 10 years. i voted for the house budget which made a further step in the right direction, cutting nearly $6 trillion over 10 years. it does not balance -- 28 years.

that is the toughest one that was offered in the congress this year. i always a vote for the toughest budget. we got about 120 votes this year. half of what we needed. i think the discipline that is necessary here is for members of congress who are elected by the people and of whom 80% support a balanced budget amendment to go home and explain why they did not balance the budget if they were required to do so in the constitution. i think that is a powerful discipline that is lacking. a great many people agree with me. 74% of democrats support a balanced budget. host: let's go to tom, an independent.

good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think i have a suggestion that would help immensely. claim of every department and the federal government. waste, fraud, and abuse is rampant. and the duplicity. clean up the department's. that would save billions. let me give you an example. in 2003, we were going to get a rebate check. months and months before it happened, every form of media, everything in formed the american public that we read -- that we were going to get a check. then we get a letter from the federal government which cost millions of dollars telling us we were going to get a check, and every citizen already knew it. after the check, about two

weeks, we received another letter telling us you should have received your check. that cost millions and millions of dollars. the duplicity. please clean up reduce social security, the waste, fraud, and abuse. clean up your own house is. host: do you think a balanced budget amendment is needed? caller: absolutely to keep it in proper order. thank you for taking my call. guest: i think he makes a very good point. there is a tremendous waste in virtually every government agency because the discipline is not there for -- and it begins with the congress and the president. the president is required to submit a budget. some years, they do not even pass a budget.

so that ethic gets passed dowon to the bureaucracy. either way, the discipline is not there and the congress to make the tough decisions because they are not required to pass the budget. caller: my comment was i believe this balanced budget amendment would be a back door way to cut entitlements which obviously you agree is a big spending along with defense. now that the baby boomers are coming into medicare, it would be easy for a congress to say we would like to increase your

social security or we are going to have to cut medicare even though you promise people 55 years or older. that is what we wanted to do but we are going to have to do it because it is in the constitution. all of these baby boomers, sorry, our hands are tied. i see this as a backdoor way for cutting entitlements for people. >> if we continue down the path we are going, more than a trillion dollar deficit totaling $15 trillion national debt accumulated over many years, the irony would be that as we had this huge debt onto the next generation and the one after that, they would have the debt burdening them causing them to have a lower standard of living and would not have the benefit of these programs. the proposals that we have made do not cut spending.

we do not cut medicare. we slow the rate of spending. the first year medicare was in effect, there was 18.5 million senior citizens. last year, there were 45 million senior citizens, and we spent $524 billion, nearly 500 times as much money. that he inflationary effect over the years is destroying the program. host: there are questions out there about what happens with a balanced budget amendment in a national emergency. this question on twitter -- guest: it is not a gop bill. it has bipartisan support.

and dozens of democrats will find out on friday if we have enough to pass it. there are a lot of different ways to balance the budget, and there are provisions in this amendment that are safeguarded against the circumstances that the tweet calls for. there are three ways that you do not balance the budget. if there is a declaration of war, if there is a military conflict because we do not want to tie the hands of any commander in chief to take action. the congress can affirmatively a vote to not balance the budget. and then the overarching safeguard, if there is a national emergency of some kind, the congress can vote by a 60% majority to not balance the

budget. that is the safeguard against congress say in every year we are not going to balance the budget this year. i would point out that even during the debt limit crisis over the summer, the final vote on that was very close to if not 60% of the members of the house and senate voting for it. so i think even in the very contentious times that the congress finds itself in right now, when there is a real emergency, members will do the right thing. in the meantime, when the economy is growing and revenues are growing, we should use that to balance the budget and pay down that debt to not transfer that to our children and grandchildren. host: let's go to a republican from westchester, pa.

caller: of the common theme i keep hearing discussed is kicking the can down the road. i think that is absolutely correct. i would like the congressman to discuss how health care costs are going to be addressed should obamacare be thrown out. guest: well, health care does need to be reformed because we are facing rising costs, and there are a lot of people who do not have the ability to afford health insurance. and they are above the poverty line so they do not qualify for medicaid. there are a number of reforms to health care that we should put into effect. one of which is we should be having a medical liability reform to cut down on the defensive medicine and the extraordinary cost of liability

insurance that providers face. we should allow people to purchase insurance across state lines so we have more companies competing with each other. in to slow the rate of growth to the rate of inflation instead of several times the rate of inflation. if we would do these things and move away from a new entitlement program, a big challenge in florida, the house has voted to overturn. if we were to overturn that, it would be a much sounder, fiscal way to approach these programs. there are things like community health centers and free clinics that meet the needs of people who don't have health insurance.

it will wind up costing far more than the predictions have indicated. host: david, you're on with congressman rob goodlatte. caller: my question is with the super committee right now. what is going to happen if congress does nothing, has no proposal about the cuts that they are going to make? who's going to be in charge of making those cuts after the triggers to replace? guest: he is referring to the legislation that was passed that set up the super committee. they have until next wednesday to cut $1.2 trillion.

if they fail, there are $1.2 trillion cuts built into the legislation already. most of it comes from domestic discretionary spending, about half. defense and homeland security spending is roughly the other half. host: there is some thought as to maybe go back and look at that trigger and see if that legislation needs to be rethought. there are articles -- this is one from "the washington post." your thoughts on going back and looking at that trigger. guest: i would have to see what alternative they were adopting. there's nothing to stop the house and senate from passing something different.

it would have to be signed by the president. the president has threatened to veto measures that move away from what has been agreed upon. i was told he would keep an open mind. we should look to see if there's a better way to put cut through is -- to put cuts through. we are borrowing -- this is $1.2 trillion over 10 years. we're on target to borrow a trillion dollars a year. this is a downpayment on what needs to be done. host: i want to bring back to the balanced budget amendment, the timing of this amendment. we have a question on twitter.

can you take us through -- we have the vote on friday. guest: if we had 290 votes, that would go to the united states senate. if they got 67 votes -- this has not been voted on in 15 years. host: you were in congress last time it got a vote. guest: neither party boarded up for a vote until this new congress with a lot of outside interest and a lot of push from the public and the heightened debt crisis and attention focused on brought back. it would then go not to the president -- he does not get to sign the bill.

it goes to the state legislators. 38 of them have to ratify. 49 out of 50 states have to live with a balanced budget requirements. with 80% public support and legislators who live by this come out those states would ratify it. they have seven years to do so. if we send it to the states, that would be the starting point for members to say, we better start moving in a concerted direction toward bringing this to a balanced budget. the amendment allows for five years after ratification to complete that process and bring it into balance. it could be 12 years, or it could be less if the states ratify more quickly. host: linda from kansas city,

missouri, democratic line. caller: hello. host: you are on with congressman goodlatte. go for it. what is your question? caller: what are wanted to address -- the policy and how it is the truth irony. host: do you have a question about the balanced budget amendment? caller: the policy was to spend like drunken sailors and complain about the deficit down the road when there was not a republican in the white house. the deficit is not the problem. the real issue is where the money is. if you want to amend the

constitution, take out the word the policiesse of we have been following, 147 multinational corporations own the world. we have to get the money out. we must have publicly financed campaigns. any congressperson who wants this government to work realizes that dialing for dollars is not the way. host: is a balanced budget amendment a step in the right direction? caller: no. steve jobs would never have left it was in for decades of research and development money that went into that industry.

we need to start creating jobs for the middle class. your party always says if 40% of our taxes are being paid by one percentage. the 1% aren't 100 times of the working person -- the 1% are working under times more than the working person. guest: they have about 20% of the income. they should pay more in terms of absolute dollars and percentage. we can talk about the share. both parties have ignored this responsibility to not borrow money from our children and grandchildren to pay for things that we're spending and using up today. that is why i think to do so important. every year i vote for the

toughest budget in the congress. those never pass. we can continue down that path. i suspect this is the path the majority in congress will follow. we're headed toward a present s -- precipice which is not unlike what is happening in europe. most people think this discipline should be put in our constitution. caller: -- host: steve from arizona. caller: i wish we more more creative. callers mentioned thinking outside the box. we need independents, creative

ways to get more money into people's pockets. that makes the economy better. ve could do away with the johob lane. that would make it easier for people to get to where they have to go. make the gas cheaper. little fixes like that would put more money in people's pockets. then you could raise taxes or do some cuts. get more money in people's pockets and get things going better. we have to be creative. it is going to be critical. maybe we have to hurt the environment to keep us from having a bankruptcy, which i think is a lot worse.

guest: government regulations are a significant problem. the house has passed a number of regulatory reform measures that we've sent to the senate in the last several weeks. host: and some still coming up. guest: more coming up this week and more coming up in december and more in the next year as well. we have to find bipartisan support to get through the united states senate. some of these bills have that 40 or 50 or more democrats joining with republicans to pass them. it will focus the mind and it will cause members of congress and presidents to be more creative in finding ways to save money and to grow the economy by

having government operate more efficiently and not piling up this huge debt. host: you talk about ordering with democrats. the last time this came up -- steny hoyer was with you. he talked about why he is against a balanced budget amendment this time around. this is from "the hill." host: "republicans took america default."ink of the fau

guest: he has been criticized by members of his own party for making that change in his position and for making this a partisan issue. in 1995, 72 democrats voted for it. there will be dozens of democrats voting for it again this time. there is disagreement on what inappropriate policy measure is. he said he does not trust republicans in the time of an emergency. i hope that at some point in the future will get his support back for a balanced budget amendment. there are many members of this party who think we should move in a different direction and are working to bring about a balanced budget amendment. host: lauer from rockville, maryland -- larry.

caller: this idea of putting it an amendment for a balanced budget -- talk about kicking the can down the road. that is the alternate -- that is the ultimate. your hand covering your self -- york handcuff -- you are handcuffing yourself. it is just like three strikes and you're out. their hands are tied. you do not want to tie your hands. if it wasn't for the money injected, if we did not bill of those firms, we would be in the 1930's depression right now. you want to talk about anarchy.

that would be a major problem. president eisenhower had the common sense to know we should not be participating in the war -- not the war but in laos and in thailand. he asked his guides how much it would cost. guest: i think he has it backwards. local governments and state governments are required to balance their budgets every year. families and businesses cannot go very far without bring their income in line with their expenditures. the idea that the government is exempt from this has tried for the past six generations and resulted in a $15 trillion national debt. the focus has to be on paying down that debt.

future generations than a of a brighter future. this will force the congress to make the tough decisions. host: what is your prediction for the vote on friday? guest: we are closed but were not there yet -- we are close. we will see if we can find the necessary votes. if we do not succeed, we will keep this issue at the front. the american electorate is with us. congress has ignored this. host: congressman, thank you. up next, a discussion on the constitution. >> consumers paid less for gas and computers last month as

overall prices dropped for the first time since june. the consumer price index dropped 0.1% in october after rising the previous month. the price of oil has hit $100 for a barrel. the treasury department said total foreign holdings of treasury debt increased 1.9% to $4.66 trillioin. n. china bought 1% more. they cut their purchases in august. the gains suggest foreign demand for u.s. debt remained strong despite debate over increasing the nation's borrowing limit. those of some of the headlines on c-span radio. >> for those who say we're

rushing this issue of civil rights, i say to them, we are 172 years late. for those who say that this bill of rights program is an infringement on states rights, i say the time has arrived in america for the democratic party to get out of the shadows and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human-rights. >> hubert humphrey spoke those words. the mayor was vice president under lyndon johnson. we will look at his influence on american politics this week on "the contenders," live friday at

8:00 p.m. eastern. >> the cspan.org homepage is now easier to use. the new design features 11 video choices, making it easier for you to watch today's events, live and recorded. there's a section on the homepage to access our most popular series and programs like "washington journal," "book tv," "american history tv," and "the contenders." and we've added a handy channel finder so you can quickly find where to watch our three c-span networks on cable or satellite systems across the country, at the all-new c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: every wednesday we feature a recent magazine piece. this week we're speaking with yuval levin to talk about a story on what is constitutional conservatism. this is a piece that appeared "national review."

the best way to start maybe with the cover photo. "in their populist nor technocrat -- neither populist technocrat." guest: this is a piece that tries to think about the ideas that are inflicted, that underline a lot of our debates. the democrats today make technocratic and populist arguments. let me talk about those words. we see a technocratic attitude on display when someone argues an important governing decision should be handed over to a panel of experts that is shielded from public opinion.

we see a lot of that in the legislative agenda of the first two years of the obama administration. in september, peter orszag made a case saying we need less democracy. if you leave the tough decisions to the congress alone, it will be a mess. he argues for handing over more decisions to panels of experts who can make technical decisions. sometime the creation of standing panels of experts. for the healthcare law, we see decisions on how to cut health- care costs. these are handed over to people who are supposed to be experts in accounting and they will make the judgments.

that is the epitome -- they should be addressed by technical experts and after the democratic system. we see people on the left making arguments that are very populist. the mass of the public should make governing decisions as directly as possible. the mass of the public is being denied its rights or desires by some kind of minority. sometime that is the minority of the wealthy. you see the president saying the wealthiest americans have to much power. we to get the mass of the public back in charge. this is an argument that is at the center of the occupy wall street movement. host: are they competing against

themselves? guest: they can make both of these arguments at the same time. it would seem that is an incoherent way to make political case. these would seem to be opposing ends of the question, who should govern in america, the many or the few? host: if you put that question in the context of history, you discover these are not necessarily contradictory impulses. they have been tied together frequently. the progressives made a much more explicit case and a much more radical case for a technocratic and populous solutions to our governing problems. they argue these held together. they argue that change is too

difficult to institute. that empowers the already powerful. they have their power protected by constitutional system that makes change a very difficult. they argue populist solutions or both ways to get around that constitutional barrier of change. host: let's bring in the constitutional conservatives. guest: we should look at the constitution. what you find, and this is the general view, they are saying that they agree. populism -- this is two sides of the same coin, an.

popular solutions are going to be problematic. neither the mandate nor the few have the right answer to our governing problems -- neither the many or the few. they set up a system that forces us to -- host: i want to read a piece that gets to the point. "experts should not govern or rather the people's representatives should govern." guest: that is an expression of the basic logic.

they say it is easy to get things wrong than to get things right. we need a system that forces us to look at a problem from a different variety of angles. will make big changes, the happen when there's a broad consensus, so it makes it through our constitutional system. host: so and peter orszag complains about gridlock, you are saying gridlock is a good thing. guest: complaints about gridlock are vastly overstated. those complaints come from whichever party is in power. it is more difficult than you would even imagine. i think gridlock is one of the wonderful elements. it helps us avoid making terrible mistakes. we make changes slowly.

when we make them too quickly, we make mistakes. i think will find that was the case with the health-care bill. host: you say we can see this system taking place in the economic system that we have. guest: when the market system works properly, it empowers neither the many over the rich. competition decides who wins and who loses. so the rules of the essence of it. you see complaints from the same two directions. an argument we hear now. the market should not be decided who wins or loses. there should be a centralized system for deciding the winners

and losers. you have a technocratic approach. when it works right, you have a system that allows competition to decide who is offering the best product in the market or the best ideas in the political system. it is a very unusual idea. there should be a system. this begins from humility about the ability of human beings to know everything. that idea is the essence of our system. the debate about whether that is right or wrong is that the center of many debates between the left and right. it cannot be too populous -- it should not be too populous. host: if you have comments about

this peace or some of the comments that mr. levin has made, give us a call the democratic line, 202-737-0001. on the republican line, 202-737- 0002. for the independents, 202-628- 0205. outside the u.s., 202-628-0184. let's give people some practical examples that you think fit into the system. when it came to mind is regulation in need of scrutiny, adding a political element to the end of the regulatory system. does this fit into your theory? guest: i think so. this has to do with the growing power of the regulatory agency. decisions that are government will have enormous implications

for the way we live are made not by our elected represent as directly but by agencies that are in part independent even from the executive. these agencies make importance complicated decisions that turn out not to be sufficient it answerable to congress. part of what congress is trying to do is to bring the largest of those decisions under some kind of control by our constitutional system. host: jerry is on the independent line from minnesota. good morning. caller: we have to get back to simplify our discussion here. i'm a constitutionalist and i believe we should give back to constitutional government. was to get back to what the framers set up -- we should get back to what the framers set up.

we have to many branches in the government, such as amtrak, planned parenthood funding, department of energy, department of education, and only zero of things the founding fathers never intended to be involved. i used to call myself a conservative. i see people like george bush and karl rove, bob dole called themselves conservatives and governing like liberals, i do not call myself a conservative. i love your comment about the regulatory problem we have in this country. the first sentence of the constitution -- we must give back to that and eliminate bureaucracies that just mentioned and give back to what the founding fathers intended for this country. host: all the federal agencies

that of come up in the past few decades, what the constitutional conservatives think? guest: their two ways to think of this -- there are two ways to think about this. the constitution permits some growth of government. it allows the president to form a cabinet. carstensz suffer right to create new cabinet departments -- congress does have the right to agree to cabinet departments. the opening words of articleone say all legislative authority is in the congress of the united states. it doesn't say congress can do everything congress does. in the last 50 years, there's been an enormous amount of delegation of legislative

authority by the congress to the executive agencies. a lot of that is done by both parties. members of congress want to avoid making difficult decisions. they want to say, we have to do this, don't come to me. those decisions are a week elect members of congress. i would say for conservatives or anybody, the should be less delegation of legislative authority to regulatory agencies and more oversight. host: you want congress making more decisions. guest: i do. our system was set up in a way that puts congress first. that is not an accident. i think our system works best

when the legislative process makes large decisions. there are such things as small decisions. too many of the decisions are fundamentally legislate decisions. those need to go back to where they belong. host: ball from columbus, georgia -- bob. thank you, mr. levin. i've been trying to find out -- tell me why the birches were left out. guest: sure. host: explain the background. guest: william f. buckley made a

concerted effort to exclude some fringe elements including the john birch society. he took them to be far too extreme. they argue almost every politician in washington was a communist agents. they argued -- people who or that parents aren't public to not belong in a political movement that wants to play serious role. he did not make that decision himself. i think people agree with him. host: there are questions about the constitution and whether it applies still today. we have a tweet from monty. guest: yeah. that is a great encapsulation of

the progressive argument. and their' voted successors are geared our constitution has not changed up with changes in the world and with changes in our country. that needs to be rethought. the needs to be a ways of getting around the restrictions on change that the constitution imposes. that is their argument against the idea that big change should be difficult to make. i would argue the constitution is by no means outdated. it is grounded in timeless principles, and especially in the idea that human beings are always going to be imperforate governors of themselves. there has to be a system in place to think through large decisions. that has not changed by any means.

the government does more than they used to do. host: herald from new jersey. -- harold. caller: i cannot agree more. what are we going to do to help our beloved country? we must kill or repeal a bad bill. that is far more important than passing a good bill. we are in big trouble. this administration has tried to destroy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. the judiciary, who back in 1973, they took away our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that was a violation of our

constitution, our founding principles. the supreme court pass new legislation. how can we pass new legislation? the supreme court had no right to pass new legislation. host: how does the supreme court fit into the argument you're making here? it is mostly based on congress. guest: that is true. it is about the underlying view in congress as much as it is about the word and text of the cconstitution. this is but a lot more authority and hands of the supreme court. the government does more than the framers thought the national government should do has put complicated questions in the hands of the supreme court. thee come to argue that final arbiter of the meeting of

the constitution is always the supreme court. there are many instances when that is true. it is empowered to -- the decisions of the court need to be final. the president stands out there and swears a note to uphold the constitution. he needs an understanding of the constitution and a sense of what the responsibility of what the president and of the court are. too often we see people shirking that responsibility. president george bush said a sign it became feingold law that he thought parts about law or a constitutional. but he signed it anyway because he thought the supreme court would figure it out.

that is shirking responsibility. all branches have to take seriously this. host: tell us about your background. guest: i was a member of the domestic policy staff in the white house. i worked on a variety of domestic issues. i was in the bush administration. now i work at a washington think "nk and i'm the editor of national affairs." host: and a contributing editor to "national review." a democrat.chigan, caller: i have to to different areas of comments. -- i have two different areas of

comments. the overflow of money in campaigns. carper money. -- corporate money. we're veering away from a democracy toward a plutocracy, where money -- you don't see it on c-span. i would like him to comment on the effect of money in politics. the gridlock in the senate. the senate cannot pass bills without 60 -- a super majority. we're now $15 trillion in debt and it is getting worse. we have the super committee.

i think we have a problem in the senate, which is inaction. there's no debate in the senate anymore. host: you seem to indicate that inaction is a good thing. guest: there has been a problem of inaction in the senate. it has been an unwillingness to move major legislation. they have wanted things to begin in the house. the senate has not passed a budget. that is true. no budget has failed to get 60 votes. that is a conscious decision by the senate leadership. host: a question about campaign finance. guest: he talked about anonymous money. i think the solution to the money in politics problem would be a system of transparency.

funding of all campaigns being visible to all. every campaign donations should be public. host: super pacs have to report. guest: everything should be public. i think that's spending might i campaigns is one way in which citizens have a say in government. it is a lot of individual citizens. if you start playing with the rules, people will always find a way. i think starting to mess around -- we should make everything visible to everyone. that is not the case today. host: let's go back to a story. i want to understand how the tea

party fits into this debate. is a populist movement? -- is it a populist movement? guest: the tea party is a populist movement. it is populist in its tone. the substance of what it argues for is not what an american populist usually argues for. it argues for limited government. it doesn't even argue for middle class tax cuts. it argues for restraints on governments. it began with concerns about the bailout and as progress into concerns about the budget in general. it argues for less inflation. it grounds itself in the language and terms of the constitution in a way that is

unusual for an american populist movements. what is most important is the substance. conservatives need to remember and focus the constitutionalism and a recovery of the constitutional system rather than on the populist tone and the populist methods of the tea party movement. they can be dangerous. they can point away from the constitutional system towards a kind of resentment, a resentment which is not the right answer to the problems we have seen. host: not to give a year ending, you say the left have been more technocratic.

guest: exactly. host: i want to go to the phones. for worth, texas. -- fort worth, texas. caller: i look forward to reading your article. arguments would have been valid during the bush administration. i started paying attention to the presidential candidate ron paul. "the national review" has written some about him.

he appears to be gaining in the polls. it seems like the media is attempting to stifle his message. that could be described as more from a base in the constitution. do you believe this is because of an anti constitutional agenda? guest: i wouldn't call ron paul a fringe candidate. he has been a prominent voice in our public debates for many years. he is a libertarian. i would differ with the notion that ron paul is a constitutionalist candidate in this race. he talks more about the constitution than other candidates tend to. he emphasizes the limited nature of the congress. he emphasizes it to the exclusion to the fact of the

constitutional -- where should the reach of the federal government extend and where should it not? the limits set ron paul wants to place on the power of the president and power of congress are based in a view of car wreck that is not exactly the view of the framers of the constitution. it is much more limited view. if you leave things to market, everything will work well on its own. that is not the view of the constitution and not the view of the catalyst system. markets do need to be regulated. those realms are limited. it has to set up the rules, not decide winners and losers. ron paul goes further than i would in articulating limits on the reach of congress and the

reach of the president. host: is there a constitutional conservative in the field right now? guest: i think there are more than a few. most of the republican candidates fall into this general description. without endorsing and picking and choosing, i would say the fact that the left for most of the 20th-century and most of the century so far has taken the view that we need to overcome the limitations imposed by the constitution has meant to write has become a defender of the constitution. most of the candidates in various ways expressed views that i would describe as articulate a defense of the system of rules that we have. the system of limitations on the power of any particular party

within our public life to exercise its governing power directly. you hear that from newt gingrich, mitt romney, rick perry. there are some differences within the proper bounds of the constitution about how much government should do. their permissible under the system that was set up -- they are permissible. host: do you want to say who was the best -- guest: it is not clear. those become more clear when you govern. there romney has a concern for the constitutional system -- mitt romney has a concern. that is an important facet of the constitutional conservative. newt gingrich when he was

speaker did much the same. they have all in different ways shown it. i do not know to be easy to rank them. host: berlin, new jersey. caller: in regard to the supreme court -- they care about the corporation. the gridlock is reason why we were downgraded. why is it the conservatives when they do not get their way, they want to amend it and change it? thank you. guest: i think it should not be a question about whether the supreme court cares about the public or corporations. i think the supreme court should care about the constitution. that's their job.

the question of amendments -- the constitution contains an amendment process. there have been times in our history when we decided to amend the constitution. it has always taken a long time. i think that's an improper way to make large decisions when we believe our system of government needs to be adjusted, rather than to amend the constitution by simply violating the system that it sets up and delegating powers to a group of experts that is not empowered by voters. it seems a better way to change our system when we need to change our system, which happens rarely. host: we had a discussion about the balanced budget amendment.

guest: it will have a majority to pass the balanced budget amendment, we will not needed. congress has not done its job in recent years. that is also a point made by the last caller, and i agree with that. the reason we have the deficit that we do, congress and the present has spent more than we have taken in -- congress and the president has spent more than we have taken in. the governors -- we would have to pass it to the congress and the state. the issue does pass a balanced budget -- they should just pass a balanced budget. host: the obama administration, yesterday saying we do not need to amend the constitution for

the 28 time. requires us to move beyond politics as usual and find bipartisan common ground to restore us. guest: that is an instance where i agree with the administration. it would be nice if they proposed a balanced budgets, which they have not done. the budget they propose would increase the deficit and the debt. i would be reticent to amend the constitution for a specific policy constraint. the rich is a level that is public excessive for the constitution -- that reaches a level that is excessive for the constitution. if we could do, we should just pass a balanced budgets. host: craig from florida.

good morning. are you there? i think we lost craig. mitchell from chicago, illinois. caller: am i on? i have a quick question. the 1970 court case was mentioned by caller. conservatism which speaks of restricted rights and how that goes with the ninth amendment. guest: the case you're talking about is roe v. wade, which is often held up by the supreme court. the court decided by combining the furthest fringes of some of the constitutional rights by prior courts, they found a

right to privacy to be understood as a right -- row v. wade was about abortion. that is an example of in formally amending the constitution, a critic right that is not in the constitution, in my opinion. as far as help relates to the limits on the constitutional system by the ninth and 10th amendments, they say rights or assumed to be relegated to the states and the people. i think the roe v. wade is an example of what those were intended for. the question of abortion can be a question for government to decide. there are things that are national questions and those are enumerated in the constitution, in describing the powers of

congress. the 10th amendment exerts that the rights that are not enumerated are assumed to reside either with states or with the people. the abortion issue is one where i think it should go back to the states. host: ellen from colorado. good morning. we have about a minute left. caller: i used to be a conservative. i have moved over to be an independent. republicans have signed up under grover norquist. i am not in favor of the united states moving into a dictatorship. i wanted to quickly comment on the issue of roe versus wade was not about abortion.

it was about a woman's right to choose. nothing in roe v. wade that mentions the word "abortion." there were many issues -- pieces of legislation that were presented at the time that were never passed by the supreme court -- host: we will give mr. levin a chance to respond. guest: it discuss the abortion procedure. it's not a matter of choice in general. to the question about grover norquist -- it has been interesting to watch how he is become so prominent in criticism of conservatives. he has a pledge or any office seeker of as holder consign to say there will not raise the

net tax rate on the american people. politicians stick to that because they believe voters want them to. not because they have signed with blood 8 grover norquist petition. the actual incidence of republicans is also understated. we have seen republicans on the supercommittee offer a proposal. presumably the leadership in both parties agree with them. what they want a return is reform. democrats are not willing to do that. there's no grover norquist on the left. it is easier to understand politics if you think about what politicians do what they do. they put their reviews into they put their reviews into words into a