hoeven joins us. bernie's senator, sanders. after that, a discussion on executive orders. david abshire will look at the way executive orders have changed throughout u.s. history. >> failure cannot be an option. the whole rest of the world is watching. ♪ ♪ host: good morning. it is thursday, november 17, 2011. that was the virginia senator yesterday, part of a bipartisan and bicameral group of legislators urging the debt panel to find a compromise and go big. the clock is ticking to the deadline on november 23. signs of stalemate all around. in some places, people are

suggesting that sequestration may not be the worst option. that is what people talk to you about this morning. we will show you pro and con arguments on whether or not failure is a viable option, or whether or not you would see that as a failure of washington -- concerns about the markets. those are some of the comments people concerned about the compromise are making. here are the numbers. thursday morning to you. let me begin with a headline in pittsburgh. the conference organized by steny lawyer, but attended by conservative and progressive senators, all urging for the debt panel to go big. here is the story.

a more pessimistic headline in "the baltimore sun" this morning. a couple more articles as we start. that is "the wall street journal" today. it leads this way. finally, this. this is "the washington post" today. the story by laura montgomery and paul cakane. our question for you this

morning, are some people looking at sequestration as a viable option, a viable outcome? let me show you two pieces of argument from this in the editorial pages. this is "usa today." this is bob beckel's column. by contrast, "the washington post" opinion pages, "succeeding by failing." we're asking your thoughts on

this. our phone lines are open. you can also send us a message on twitter. we will get to your comments in a couple of moments. on the line with us is one of "the hill" staff reporters. people have been hearing the arguments and know the deadline is november 23. what i wanted to get from you are some of the mechanics. the way the legislation was structured, how far in advance to members have to have a look at what would be proposed? guest: everyone says monday is the real deadline, under the rules of the committee. it needs 48 hours. everyone says this weekend will be the last big push and monday would be a time when we see a public document. host: if they are close but not there, does the legislation allows them to extend?

guest: no, it really does not. they could produce something after the 23rd, but it would not enjoy the fast track privileges the super committee has. it would face a filibuster in the senate, for example. host: about the failure to reach a deal in the process of sequestration beginning, would you walk us through exactly what the law says about sequestration, how it would work, and when it would take place? guest: right. they have built this in. the sequestration does not start to take place until 2013. the law basically says it sets up discretionary spending limits between now and over the course of the next decade. it lowers those by another $1 trillion total. half the cuts have to come from the defense side. that's $600 billion over 10 years. that really has republicans

upset and also the pentagon, because they say it would be devastating. the other half comes from the non-defense side. it specifies the 2% cut, medicare provider payments -- up to that. that is supposed to the liberals motivated to do a deal. host: in other words, the paint implied would push people to compromise. let me ask you how congress works. one item in one of the opinion pieces today says that an all the congress cannot impose its laws on new ones. in other words, a new congress that would be sitting in 2013 would not be bound by sequestration. guest: sure. congress can go ahead and change though law -- change the law. that's why some people want the balanced budget agreement that will come to the house floor, to

make it more difficult for congress to reverse budget control measures that are put in place. the interesting thing was last friday. president obama made it very clear that he would veto attempts to remove the sequestration. at least through obama's term, and presumably he is reelected, he's going to force the defense cuts. he's trying to force the super committee to come to a deal. host: i want to put a graphic on the screen. it's the list of exempt items from sequestration. under the law, they have some things that would not be touched in sequestration. social security, veterans' benefits, medicaid, children's health insurance program, unemployment insurance, food stamps, temporary assistance for needy families, and a cut in medicare is kept under sequestration at 2%. guest: that's right.

part of the negotiation in august. that's why people say, in the end, jack lew gave the democrats a strong hand. he managed to protect a lot of liberal priorities, such as those listed there. at the same time, the bush tax cuts to expire at the end of next year. in the final analysis, ill looks like democrats have the upper hand in the stocks. that's what is shaping this. host: a progressive columnist for "the washington post" -- beginning to say sequestration would not be that bad. it's coming from that side of the aisle. guest: leon panetta, secretary of defense, has made plain that he does not think the defense cuts are viable and that they would hurt the u.s., our

security. there's a sense the democrats are bluffing. certainly, the liberal base is pretty comfortable with this level of defense cuts. host: thank you very much for setting the stage for us, erik wasson at "the hill." thank you for your time. let's get to your telephone calls, e-mails, facebook comments, and tweets. lots of ways to get involved. let's begin with a call on the line. is sequestration or failure of the debt panel a viable option? this is a call from ohio. go ahead. caller: i am a democrat and i am kind of a moderate. i think the american people are pretty upset about the extremes, even in moderate democrats,

republicans. the fact that everyone is being paid by somebody to get their agendas through. i think the american people are just tired of it. my opinion is -- just throw them all out, whether they are democrats or republicans. there's no moderate that's going to put these two opposing views together. they are all millionaires -- democrats and republicans. you know, taking all this money from lobbyists. i think american people are just sick of this. host: what are you thinking about the elections next year with regard to this? caller: you know, the republicans do not seem to have very intelligent candidates. i think it's just upsetting.

everyone who wants the average joe to run for congress -- personally, i want someone who is brighter than me, quicker than me, you know. i do not want some average joe in congress. host: thank you for your call. next is curtis on the air, an independent. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want people that are independent thinkers, and not beholden to the party of the democrats or republicans. no, susan, sequestration is not an option. what it tells the world and tell our country that we have people that cannot work together in washington, d.c. this is the problem. this is the problem nationwide. all members are beholden to the party, the party ideology, and what happens from there.

they were put in there to do a job and they are paid a nice, handsome salary to do a job. get it done. this is a prime call to find independent people who actually want to do what's best for the american people. we have to work together. we have to stay strong. otherwise, we are on the verge of the rise and fall of the roman empire. host: thank you. let me go back to the opinion page of "the washington post." an argument that sequestration is not a bad thing. "succeeding by failing" is the headline of this piece. "the power in future negotiations would shift towards those seeking a balance between cuts and taxes."

host: jurors will also writes about the committee and the deadline. the high cost of more. here's some of what he writes. "the law establishing the committee requires any proposal to be published in legislative language 48 hours before

november 23." "ignore loose talk about draconian spending cuts." and other words, spending continues to go up with or without the sequestered. back to your telephone calls. next one is college park, maryland. a democrat on the air. good morning. caller: good morning. my opinion is that it's about time the two parties get

together and do their job that they have been elected to do. they are supposed to do their work, but they areit is about tt seriously and do something for america. the american. save the country from what is going on now. due to their stupidity, most of them are democratic, looking for their own benefit only. they are doing nothing. and we are working hard and pinching pennies. it is about time that they start thinking for america, not for the multimillionaire's and

corporations that are paying them to do what they want. instead of doing something good for the country. they are not doing and and it is about time they do. they have the best health benefits available. their social security and everything, we have to cut it off. it is too much. host: the story in "the financial times." we are asking you about whether or not that that committee's failure to reach an agreement could be a viable option with the sequester provision that would be triggered in 2013.

next call is from alcott city, maryland. danielle. caller: i always find it laughable if it was not so disheartening that the republicans almost pushed this country to the brink of default, caused a ratings downgrade because of this whole process with raising the debt ceiling this summer. now i find it laughable that they want to do away with the sequestration process. the u.s. is becoming a laughingstock to the world. we are a shadow of what we used to be. it is all because congress lacks the political will to do what is in the interest of the country. host: a tweet. this is rashad in chicago. republican. caller: a lot of people are

blaming republicans when they are doing what they were put up there to do, which is refusing to spend the money. i do not understand. host: from "the washington post ." we are going to show you some stories about that offer from panel members. let's listen to a call from riverview, florida. jennifer.

caller: good morning. this is not going to work. i agree with some of the callers before. republicans will just continue to block anything that comes in through democrats. frankly, i am disappointed that the democrats -- i am not seeing them in the media, like i am seeing republicans. they are just talking about ridiculous things. honestly, i am getting sick of them. i see this country going into a dictatorship these people were put in office to do certain things. they are not doing what they were put in office to do, so they should be terminated. just like any working citizen. if you are not doing your job, you are fired. if you continue to not do your job, you are terminated. i do not know why these people

continue to be in office. they are not doing what they were put in office to do. one thing i notice with republicans is, some of them will be -- they say they plan on fixing things when there is no plan. i can see this country going into dictatorship because we should not be paying them to sit on their behinds, claiming that they are going to help, but they are not doing anything. if anything, they are making matters worse. host: thank you. from facebook --

let's listen to another voice from yesterday's bipartisan coalition urging the super committee to go big. this is saxby chambliss, a republican senator from georgia. >> i am proud here to say that we have your pratt, super committee. we support you, we look forward to whatever course you take to make sure that we do the right thing for the american people as well as to continue to show that america leads the financial pre- market, and we are going to be there to back you to make sure that leadership continues . host: here is a voice from the other side. from "the wall street journal" --

host: silver spring, maryland. independent. caller: i changed to an independent because i do not like the gang fight in washington.

democrats and republicans are fighting against each other and the american people are sitting back -- wow. i like what the one caller said about dictatorship. we need to take a strong look about the government. it is happening now. the american people do not have the right to speak about what is going on in washington. you cannot go to congress meetings, you cannot speak there. i believe that is unconstitutional. right now, a lot of people are not working. i am working at a temp agency. i am a college educated, i work hard. i am a section 8 president. i have the american dream in my soul, but there are no jobs for me. -- section 8 president. there are a lot of people out here working hard at mcdonald's,

try to make ends meet. -- section 8 resident. these people are going home to their rich homes, their pools, they are not affected by the economy. we are, the american people. we may have to do some drastic changes to let them know we are not going to tolerate their fighting anymore. the need to come together and we are going to make a stand as american people. most of those young kids on wall street, they are fighting against wall street. they are changing history, and i admire that. i believe in protest. and we, as american people, need to write-in our votes and vote for a tree or something. host: thank you.

we appreciate your comments. that cholera toxin not occupy wall street. today is scheduled to be a big day, where they will be taking to the new york subways and moving around the city. a view from denver. "the denver post." $6 million is the figure requested by police, citing the cost for police. this lead editorial in "the washington post."

we are talking about the debt panel, whether or not an impasse, which would trigger the sequestration process, is a viable option. olympia, washington. good morning to mike. republican. caller: i would just like to speak to the voters in general about a way to look at things. i just heard on bloomberg tv that basically this thing is going to be decided by the voters in the next election

because they probably will not been able to reach agreement until they see what the voters want i would let the voters out there to take a piece of paper and draw a box on the right side of the paper and label it government sector. then draw another box on the left side and label it private sector. you have only got so much money to go around, so if the private sector gets bigger, the government sector needs to get smaller. if the government sector gets bigger, the private sector has to get smaller. you may think there are a lot of private sector out there, but let's say any licensed private business is getting all its income from taxpayer dollars and the people employed in the air come in. their salaries are coming from taxpayer dollars.

we need to switch private into government. do not think the private sector is as big as it is. host: so your bottom line on this is what? caller: if we want to move away from socialism, we need to have a healthy private sector, which means the government schechter has got to shrink -- sector has got to shrink. host: thank you. south carolina. you are on. caller: people want the super committee to go big. i think they should go ahead and come out of their room -- behind closed doors -- they need to set them in their seats and come up with the right solution for these problems. it should not be six people making this decision.

host: from "the washington times." we showed you earlier the reporting that john mccain was looking to shield the congress from sequester cuts.

host: back to the phone calls. marietta, and georgia. alan. caller: good morning. i do not call often but i'm always pulled back to watching c-span on my computer in the morning. on an editorial note, i have noticed c-span is napping to answering phone calls to your show. host: we do not do anything different than we always used to, where they are calling from and make sure they are able to express their thoughts. caller: about a month ago i called and i was cut off five times in a row, which was surprising that i got in. the moderator did not like my comments. host: all of my colleagues are

like me. we give you a chance to express your opinion. caller: my opinion is the super committee was never designed to reach any resolution. impasse was the goal. the goal was to get them -- to increase the deficit and push the can down the road. the politicians we have our experts at never reaching a resolution because that is their job, to collect as much money as they can, about $14,000 a month from the public, and then my advice consulting jobs thereafter, become washington lobbyists. their job is to delay and obfuscate. it is practically impossible to get rid of them because they gerrymander the districts to the point where it would take a huge amount of money to displace an incumbent. c-span, i think, is part of the

problem. you do not ask hard questions from our political guests. the reason you do not ask these difficult questions is you need access to the politicians. if he started to ask questions and quarter the politicians with some of their lunacy, they would not come on your show, so you are blind to play softball with them so that you can just have access. host: that is alan's theory about how c-span works, which does not jibe with what i have seen. here's is a tweet. we mentioned earlier a proposal that mentioned $300 million in tax hikes.

related to that in "the new york times." this is about eric cantor.

back to the telephone calls. st. petersburg, florida. tom is a democrat. caller: i actually agree with the article you had of their about -- up there about the deficit committee failing and then they will tinker with the automatic cuts and then water them down so much that, in the end, nothing will happen. that is my fear. what i hope happens is when they

fail, that will galvanize everyone, like all of these callers saying that we are sick and tired of the people cannot work together we sent them to washington and nothing is getting done. host: thank you for your call. the los angeles -- "the los angeles times." from "the hartford courant." from "and the chicago tribune." from detroit, a speech televised on the detroit stations yesterday from a year bing.

from "boston globe," we showed this earlier, and the panel urged to go high. next call from california. independent. good morning. caller: i would just like to say the most extreme threat to the sovereignty of the united states of america is the united states federal government. these people are nothing more than a pack of lying, thieving, greedy peace. they have done nothing but grease their pockets for the last 40 years with special interest money. we have congressmen and senators that are worth $200 million. that is absolutely -- john

mccain has six custom mansions. there are people losing their homes and these people cannot get it together. i am sorry. i am a decorated but disabled vietnam veteran. i am absolutely ashamed that i went and fought in a war and risk my life, almost lost my life, for a country and government that are nothing but a bunch of spoiled, and worthless, selfish bums. host: we will have two senators at the table this morning. senator john hoeven of north dakota. one of the top energy producers in the country has just a 3.5% unemployment rate. and bernie sanders will also be

here. senator sanders is holding a rally today to protest any cuts in social security, medicare, and medicaid. we will talk to them about their thoughts of this deficit reduction process. a tweet. next telephone call is from lynn in connecticut. caller: good morning. i think this commission was never designed to succeed. it was designed to fail. the people who are calling your show need to look at the history of what has been going on. just a short-term history. the democrats came in in 2009 with a deficit. they had complete control of all

branches of the government for two years and proceeded to wrap up the deficit. we just passed a national debt of $15 trillion yesterday. it is on track to balloon past that in two areas we have never seen. -- put into areas we have never seen. and they are happy to keep on spending until this country implodes. the senate is still controlled by the democrats. they have not passed a budget in a couple of years. they do not want to pass a budget because they do not want to be held a responsible. it is just like a couple where one is a spendthrift and the other is frugal. you cannot stop them. they keep on spending and spending until everything is ruined. there is not enough money to

satisfy them. until we get a change in government and go back to the constitutional principles, we are in deep doo-doo. host: a facebook comment. telephone call from dallas. catherine, a democrat. caller: good morning. i called a while back and stated -- can you hear me?

i stated a while back, when everyone wanted the democrats out and wanted republicans, and it was something that keith walgren -- olbermann said before they kicked off the show. he made one heck of a speech. he said, if you do not vote in your own best interest, you will live to read it. that was a comment about the death. -- regret it. now, about the debt. like everyone has said, the super committee was designed to fail. i told you before when i called in, america is going to fall. everyone looked at me crazy. just like you have in italy, those other countries, that is what you will see. any country who does not care for the least of their people --

and the democrats have no backbone, and i am a democrat. they had control. they could have put a debt ceiling in place, could have supported obama. that is why all the blue dogs got kicked out. now the rest of the democrats are going to get kicked out. american people, if republicans is what you want, you will live to regret it. host: on twitter -- next call is from newport, ky. glenn is an independent. what are your thoughts? caller: i get tired of all the rhetoric that you see on tv, here on the radios. -- hear on the radius. it seems, to me, democrats had

control of the senate and house of representatives. nancy pelosi would not allow certain things to come to the floor. now we have reid that will not allow a vote on anything that is put forward. i am just tired of the the rhetoric. -- all the rhetoric. my arms are up in the air. the way they are treating seniors, those on social security. it does not seem like it balances out. harry reid will not let anything come to the floor as far as the budget. i think cutting the military is the wrong thing to do. the things that our service members need at the v.a., the

heroes of our country, they will have things cut also when they do this. i do not think they needed this. they should sit down and put their politics behind them and say, what is best for this country? what is best for the citizens of the united states of america, which is the greatest country in the world. host: here is a related story. all of us using smartphones and digital devices.

host: next telephone call is from tony, joplin, md. caller: thank you for taking my call. a small part in eliminating the debt, i do not know if anybody proposed or campaign to have the american people by of the treasury bonds instead of china or other foreign countries. the interest rates than other form people that buy the treasury bonds, the interest on this. why don't we, as americans, by up that china debt and have americans invest in the treasury

bonds? the investment would go right back into the american economy. i am not a banker or anything, but it seems to me, that would be a way to back up the bonds. host: revise the old war campaigns of buying bonds. caller: it makes sense. americans investing in america. have americans by of the debt. host: let's take a quick tour of some front pages. "the new york times." this is a story suggesting the divisions in the republicans are helping democratic candidates.

host: from "the wall street journal." a couple of stories here. european institutions resort to risky swaps to generate liquidities. just a couple of minutes left. we're going to go to a call from burlington, vermont. this is sylvia, a democrat. caller: i had read or heard recently that the u.s. is not broke. there is plenty of money in this

country. it is just that we are not tapping it. the other thing that really gripes me. where did we get this ideology that you cannot raise taxes? all of the republican presidents raised taxes when it was necessary. the only people that are complaining about raising taxes are the republicans. and that is because they signed this weird, weird paper or something from grover norquist. who is grover norquist? he is the bully in the classroom. how come grown up millionaire senators and congressmen are afraid of this little bully, so that not one of them will raise taxes when it is needed? most of us, i am quite sure,

would not mind paying a little more if it would help our country. host: thank you. one of her two senators, bernie sanders, will be our guest. but first, senator john hoeven. we will be continuing this conversation about america's debt and deficit situation. we will be right back. >> when obama was given the

first budget and there were some 7000 earmarks in it, his first instinct was to veto that budget. he was told by his lobbyists from capitol hill, there is no way you can do that. you cannot cut these ties with democrats. had he done that, he would have been the tea party. had he signaled his fundamental desire to change the system, change the way washington works, he could of continued to rally the reform movement that now brings out all over the world because of its frustration with the current way that democracy does not function. >> harvard law professor lawrence lessing on "q&a." >> to those who say my friends, to those who say we are rushing this issue of civil rights, i say to them we are 172 years

late. to those who say that this civil rights program is an infringement on civil rights, i say this -- the time has arrived in america for the democratic party to get out of the shadows of states' rights and allow -- march forthrightly into the sunshine of human rights. >> hubert humphrey spoke those words before championing the 1964 civil rights bill into law. the longtime senator was vice- president under the and in johnson and later ran for president in 1968 and lost. we will look at his influence on american politics on "the contenders." friday, 8:00 p.m. eastern. host: senator john hoeven,

republican from north dakota. he is in his first term. he spent 10 years as the governor of north dakota, came to politics as a banker. he was the president and ceo of the bank of north dakota and before that, a vice president of another bank. i will ask you the question we have been asking our viewers this morning about the super committee. is a failure, sequestration, a viable option? guest: it is not. they need to come to agreement. we are incurred jim, everywhere we can, to come to agreement. we think it needs to include tax reform, entitlement reform, finding savings, putting us on track with the deficit and debt. that is how we have been approaching it ever since we put the budget control agreement in place.

host: newspapers are suggesting a major split in your party about the issue of revenue raising mechanisms inside any agreement. at this point, are you willing to consider any tax increases? guest: in general, closing loopholes, reforming the tax code, lowering rates, would create a pro-growth climate. and revenues come from economic growth. there is broad agreement on that. beyond that approach, in terms of how we do tax reform, and what is included, there are a lot of ideas. but again, we want to see the select committee put something forward, and then let's take a look at it to see if it is something we can get broad- based agreement on. host: so, to transmit what you said, performing taxes is on the table, but coming out of this --

for example, letting the bush tax cuts expire, increasing aaxes for the wealthy, is not non-starter for you? guest: we will have to see what is in it. for example, next year we have the expiration of the bush tax cuts. what do we do about that, alternative minimum tax? there are a lot of things to work on here. that is why our message to the super committee is, let's find a way to reduce the deficit and see if we can get that broad- based approval in congress. host: recognizing where we are, did you think the super committee was a good idea in the first place? guest: i would have liked to see us get it done directly in congress. obviously, we took a first of with the $1 trillion reduction. we would like to get to $4 trillion in reductions -- in

savings -- which is some combination of what i said before. i would like to see congress do it. we are for to do everything we can to work with them. host: you are a member of the appropriations committee. a number of individual government departments still not funded. a deadline tomorrow for something called minibuses, small collections for these bills. will there be an agreement reached to fund the government? guest: i think so. we did pass three of the appropriation bills put together. there are 12 appropriation bills. on 11 of them we have moved through the appropriation committee. so we are doing our job. we needed to move on the floor. we are voting on a conference report. the house has it today and we hope that they can pass it and get it to us.

that would be three of the 12th. then they would be packaged with a continuing resolution that would be taking us to december and then we would use that money to pass the other appropriation bills. we have moved them through the committee. they need to move on the floor now. host: he spent 10 years as governor of your state. the mood around the country is dark. what do you feel about being in this city now with all the frustration? how are your voters feeling? host: i served as -- guest: i served as governor for 10 years. i always said we needed to create a good economic climate. when i started in north dakota, we were not growing, we were not gaining population. i believe it was because we were not creating enough jobs and opportunity. that comes from private sector investment. the role of government is to

create that regulatory climate that encourages private investment, gets a job creation going. what i'm saying is, that is exactly what this country needs to do. being here, it is like when i was governor. we have to create that environment that encourages private investment. we have more than 9% unemployment. we have to make it easy to do business in this country again to create the climate to encourage private investment and put people back to work . host: your state has a beneficial will reserve. when you look at europe right now, enormous frustration about the states doing well, supporting those that are not, could you see something happening similar in the u.s., where the help the economy get

frustrated about having to help states not doing so well? guest: look, states are sovereign entities in their own right as part of the united states of america. they have the ability to balance their budgets to put policies and laws in two plays that growth and development in their states. that is what they need to do. we worked very hard to build that pro-business climate. we are growing not just in oil and gas, but all types of energy. renewable oils as well. also in manufacturing, high- tech. asgrenoble's -- renewables well. host: let's get to the calls. you can also send us an e-mail or twitter. canada is said to be looking for

other partners on the keystone pipeline. does this provide an opportunity for your home state? i actually met with the ceo of transcanada, the company building the pipeline. we offered optional routes for them. the keystone pipeline runs through north dakota, down to the gulf coast. we offered them some alternative routes, if it helped them to meet these environmental issues. what they have done now is, they have an agreement within the state of nebraska for an alternative route, and they are working to move ahead on that basis. this is a huge job creator. you are talking about almost 900 dozen barrels of oil a day that would come down into our refineries, one that we did not have to take from the middle

east. and we would be putting our product into the pipeline, light sweet crude. huge job creator, help to grow the economy, create revenues for the states, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. host: can you as wage the environmental concerns? guest: we have to offer up problem-solving, which is why we have dealt with this issue in nebraska. we have alternative routes, both through nebraska and we have also tried to facilitate in our state as well. host: a question from a viewer. guest: well, with a variety of economic programs. the bank of north dakota

functioned very much like the sba at the federal law all. most states have federal economic agencies already they just cannot call them banks. again, the role of government is to encourage and support business growth and development and job creation. so states do it in a variety of ways. in our case, we call that the bank of north dakota because it is part of our history. the role is to support the financial network, much like the sba does at the federal level, helping with job creation in that manner. host: chris wants to follow up on the pipeline matter. guest: certainly, canada has refineries, too, but that is part of the benefit. canadian crude comes into the u.s. i understand canada is a foreign

country, but they are a friendly country, dependable ally, compared to countries like venezuela or the middle east. when that oil comes into our country, the opportunity for us to find it here, that means economic activity and job creation in our country as we expand those refineries. we are talking about 20,000 construction jobs to build the pipeline. we are talking about potentially 200,000 jobs for this project because of the economic activity and refinery expansion that occurs with it. we need to get people back to work. host: further question on this topic. guest: this is 900,000 barrels of oil a day that would come into the united states. if we do not do this project,

canada will build a pipeline to the west coast of canada, and this will go to places like china. so, again, a chance to create economic activity and reduce our dependence on the middle east and other terror that pose a problem for us. i understand there have been environmental concerns, but we are about doing things the right way and doing them well. we have offered alternatives. this is a project we need to find to do with issues and move forward. host: onto the phone calls. robin in frederick, maryland. caller: i want to say i fully support the super committee and the auto debt reduction program. these issues are so complex, so many opinions on any sign of any singular point, he will not win the battle trench by trench. you need across-the-board cuts and then start discussing from

there any tradeoffs, adjustments there, too. i also think you need to increase revenues through taxes. you need to eliminate some of the unfair deductions that the super rich can take care of, but equally important, everybody needs to pay something. there should be no lower floor where nobody pays. it is unconscionable to have 48% of the voting population paying nothing. it is obviously a much lower percentage, but everybody needs skin in the game. host: quite a few details. let's begin with the last. should our tax code be structured so that everybody pays something? guest: that is the idea behind tax reform. let's get a fair, a simplified system. when we say fair, everybody within some ability to pay tax. obviously, we have a progressive system for a reason.

it is designed to help low- income, which we have to do. the idea with the simpler, fairer system, you create a pro- growth system where your revenue comes from economic growth. that is what we have seen in north dakota. we have got to get back to the pro-growth environment, a country that makes it easy to do business and create jobs. host: the first part of his comments, suggesting that sequestration is not that bad if we cut across the board. guest: to truly get on top of the deficit and debt, we will have to have tax reform, the entitlement reform, we have to find savings and make reductions in federal expenditures. it is all of these things to solve a problem. host: two comments. one on e-mail and one on twitter

-- guest: any agreement will have to be bipartisan. the joint select committee should be looking at things like the deficit reduction committee ideas, the gang of six, some symbols. all of them have brought forward ideas that the joint committee needs to be working on. -- since and-bolts -- simpson- nowbowles. i have a good track record of

not raising taxes but building a pro-growth environment. from a legal tax and regulatory standpoint, my approach has always been to foster job creation and economic activity by making easy to do business. people can look at my history. host: does grover norquist have to much power in this town in his anti-tax pledge? i hear referred to all the time. guest: whether you are republican or democrat, you bring your own philosophy and beliefs on how garment works best to serve the people of this great country. -- government works best to serve the people of this country. i have my own ideas and people can look at that and decide accordingly. host: mark is a democrat in san francisco. caller: good morning. i am concerned about the pipeline.

i just saw something on tv that said oil prices would go up because of the possible re- routing of the pipeline. if you say that if we do not allow it to go down through the states to texas, they will go over to the west coast, there is a part of the country there that will not allow it to go through their property to begin with. what is the difference? it is going to go on the market, no matter what. the other thing is, if we allow that dirty parts and oil -- tar sands oil, it will pollute the air that much more.

i do not know how much we can take. does anyone care about the pollution that is happening? i will take my comment offline. guest: with any of these projects, we want to make sure they are done right and well, and with good environmental stewardship. that will all be produced in canada, in this case, alberta either way. the question is is it better to get our oil from countries like canada, or have canada send it off to countries like china, and we are more dependent on the middle east and venezuela? this creates a real opportunity for jobs and investment in our country. to your point, any project we do have to be done with good environmental stewardship. it is about doing things right and well. those requirements are in place, whether siding for a pipeline or

emissions for refineries. those environmental standards remain in effect, and they will have to meet our standards. host: next is a call from indiana. richard. caller: i have called once before. i am so nervous. i remember, as a child, hearing people argue over the league of nations. one of my pastorate elders' father was part of that group. he helped to foster that issue.

he said, you have to stay with what you believe. what about you? don't you believe in this league of nations? how can you not stand against it? he said, i have to vote the party line. i believe this is the issue today. congress is not fighting. they cannot just compromise. i have principles, i will argue, and i will compromise, but i have principles and i will not step off of that. host: having principles and a bottom line. guest: all of us, republicans and democrats, bring a set of principles to the job, on behalf of the people of this great

country. you are right also when you say we have to work in a bipartisan way to come up with solutions to help us move forward. obviously, that is exactly what we're trying to do when we say to the committee, come up with ideas and a plan and get to work. we have the responsibility to get this done for the people of this great country. that means reducing the deficit and debt for us and for our future generations. host: hanover mass. -- hanover, mass.. christina. caller: i live in massachusetts, was a democrat for many years. now i am an independent. when i call my congressman for help with an issue with social security disability, because for some reason my work history was deleted from social security.

all of the congressmen said the same thing. it is a conflict of interest for them to help me. who did they work for if it is a conflict of interest? i cannot get anyone to help me. also, all the government is doing is dividing us as people. you want us to fight each other and not a great, just like you guys. this will end up being two countries. what are you going to do when we get fed up and say, all right, let's just have two countries? guest: as far as when you call your congressman, senator, if you have gotten a response that it is a conflict of interest, i do not understand that. the role of them and their staff is to help you and their constituents. as far as two countries, the

split in terms of differences of opinion, certainly, i understand that is going on, and we need to find ways to come together to work in a bipartisan way on on the challenges we face today, whether it is the debt and deficit, education, energy. all of these issues. we have to find ways to bring people together and work together. host: bernie sanders will be at the table in 15 minutes. he is holding a rally today. do you believe that we must make changes to these major programs or is it possible to achieve targets without it? guest: we need to make sure that the programs are there for our seniors, not only now, but for the long run. when we talk about entitlements, there is an opportunity to not only make the

program solvent for those seniors who are on medicare, social security, people that are close to those programs, but at the same time, we have young people who will be coming into those programs. that offers an opportunity to make reforms on a bipartisan basis, so that when the young people come into these programs, they are there for them. when you look at the younger demographic and say we're going to make changes that apply to younger folks, they say please do, because then i know the program will be there for me when i get there. at the same time, we want to continue the programs as we have them, because they are depending on them, and make sure they are solvent. host: let me read through a couple of weeks. -- tweets.

guest: they are going to have to meet stringent environmental requirements and you have not only the federal regulatory and others that look at this project on the epa, but also the individual states, and the company would be responsible both for safety standards in the pipeline in for any cleanup, should any event occur. host: here is another. exports earned tax free. fuel will never reach u.s. drivers' tank. host: the money from the experts are earned tax-free. guest: this project will generate something like 600 million in state and local taxes

because of the state and local taxes that apply to it. i am not sure of the pacific -- specific email he is referring to, that this will pay substantial. . himes, this will be our last call. guest: the estimates are that construction jobs right away will be 20,000 jobs, and with the secondary impacts' with refinery expansion and that sort of thing it could be 100,000- 200,000 jobs. host: 12 more minutes left with our guest, john hoeven. caller: good morning. a couple of things about the pipeline.

and who is making this deal for the actual pipeline, and -- i had heard my husband's company that he works for is the one making the pipes for the pipeline, but also when the oil starts flowing, the oil will be put on to the market and sold as a market crisis. are we just pumping for royal for somebody and throwing it out there and still be screwed up the gas pump? -- pumping oil for somebody and throwing it out there and still be screwed up the gas pump? the job creators are nothing more than a selfish, greedy order that are not doing a danged thing to create jobs and you know it. first, in regard to

her husband works at a steel mill or factory, there will be a tremendous amount of hype that goes into the project. the construction cost is $7 billion that goes to job creation. obviously this is going to take a lot of pipe, and that means jobs right there. as far as the product that will be sold, increasing supply is how we not only have a more dependable supply of energy in this country, but also helps reduce cost. more supply helps reduce the cost to consumers. this would be sold on the markets in the united states come and hopefully additional supply would help reduce costs. again, i believe job creation comes from private investment, and government creates an environment that encourages the private investment, and the people of this country, not me

as a republican, but the people of this country are the ones who create the jobs. host: this by e-mail -- guest: 1 is a comprehensive energy policy. in north dakota we build a comprehensive energy power -- a policy called empower north dakota. we're the fourth largest oil- producing state in the country. we will soon be third. we do not just produce energy from oil and gas, but from renewable fuels as well. we actually reduced the tax burden in our state. we reduced property tax and income tax, which not only help to small businesses and companies that and people in the state, but has attracted a lot of companies and business to

our state, and now we are rolling state with a growing population. we're also very aggressive in exports. we work with the companies that export product overseas, and we're one of the best dish- growing states in terms of international trade in the country. there are three examples, but all apply to the federal level. host: how can we really tackled the deficit and reduce spending until we bring all of all budget items on budget? we need to know where we're spending to know where it needs to be cut. guest: i agree. i think she is right. we have to look at all of that, and that is very important. host: the next call is from little elm, texas. this is from thomas. caller: i will tell you one thing a lot of people do not

know, they are in the total dark. many people have been fired already because they said something about the pipes themselves. this oil is post be coming through the pipes. they are supposed to be under very high pressure. every time they try to weld the pipe, the pipe will split. i can just imagine what will happen when the oil comes down through the pipe. let me tell you something else, you senators are sitting up there, and especially you, sir. you have not been around long enough, but i will tell you if you do not get back to tariffs and get rid of the wto, i do not care what kind of program or how many times you tax the people to death, this country is not going nowhere. you can smile all you want to come up but i will tell you something, all you have to do is look at people out there in

all these cities. let me tell you something else, the next time you will not be smiling, you will be crying because when the bullets start flying from the people out there, then all hell will break brlose. if you do not cut the cap on the terrace and stop all the trade coming in from china -- i regret -- wrote to a senator, and he told me and said it texas would lose 400,000 jobs. i wrote back in reply to him and said it these for a hundred jobs f these 400,000 jobs would mean only one thing, and you just told me, china controls the jobs. look what is in the stores. take all the chinese goods out of the stores and see what you

have left. thank you. ost: guest: tariffs. there is a tremendous number of pipelines that exist in this country right now that move crude product and refined product all over the nation. that is already the case. one thing you touched on is this project will create a lot of jobs for welders that would like to have a job. i believe our country can out compete in the country in the nation -- in the world. our country can now compete any country in the world, and i want to make sure i give our people a chance to work so that we can export product and make products and this country for our consumers, rather than importing it from china or somewhere else. that means creating a good business climate, and i know our people will do a great job. i have tremendous confidence in

the people of this country. guestcaller: thank you. instead of having a pipeline under the ground, which probably has a chance of leaking at some point along the line in age from, is there any thought to given to him back to your right here in north dakota? guest: we do have a refinery right there near bismarck, and that refinery is being expanded now. i met with the ceo who, and we can continue to expand and grow refineries in the united states and create jobs, but we have to have the product coming in. and of course producing it in our country.

even when we produce it in our country, we still have to pipe the product to the refineries, and then moved the finished product to where the consumers can finish it. and where it is it for than trying to move it over the road. it's about doing things right and well, but we have to build the infrastructure so that people have that the energy they need. host: dana beach, fla., is next. democratic calller on the air. caller: god bless america. i am a disgruntled democrat. i want to know why you are not on the republican ticket for president? i know a president when i see one. you are a leader, amazing. i hope to see you as president one day. we need leadership in this country, and certainly you have the qualities. guest: thank you very much.

the other comment is this, i run into people every day and person, on the phone, just like you that -- that is why i truly appreciate the opportunity to serve the great people of this country. thank you. we have real challenges. i am committed to working on them. every day i've run into wonderful people like you. thank you. -- every day i run into a wonderful people like you. caller: i have a quick question. i keep hearing republicans and democrats talking about the need to cut social security. things that would harm the most honorable and our society. i recently talked to an economist to said that is all bull. he said all you would need to do is make social security just like medicare. all income would be taxed. he said if you did that one

simple thing, it would save social security for the next 100 years, yet i never hear any politicians talk about that. why is that? guest: when it comes to entitlement reform, there are ways to come together in a bipartisan way and make changes for the future so when young people come into the system is there and solvent and for people that are on medicare, we make sure the benefits continue and programs remain strong for them now. i think these are the buy orders -- bipartisan reforms we're looking at. do host: as we close, let's look to the week ahead. what you see it looking like? guest: we talked about wanting earlier, and that is i believe we will pass a continuing

resolution, which is funding for the government that will extend out probably into december. then we are very much looking forward to the joint set -- joint select committee and we need to go to work on the recommendations. host: it requires 48 hours. that means a monday deadline really. guest: it was introduced on monday. it is a 72-hour requirement, which means they can vote on it today. host: i am talking about the super committee. >guest: it will make its recommendations on november 23, and we have december 23 to act on it. that is what will set up under the budget control act. host: you are confident this will play out and then a proposal to vote on it? guest: i think we have to keep

working to get the job done. host: thank you for

\ >> they are promoting the rehabilitation of more than 130,000 developments. government loans are the focus of a hearing this morning where steven chu is scheduled to testify. the house committee investigating a federal loan to solar panel maker solyndra. they say the loan was subjected to "proper rigorous scrutiny and a healthy debate" before approved in 2009. you can hear live coverage of that hearing on the 10:00 a.m.

eastern on c-span radio. >> for those who say, my friends, for those who say we are raising the issue of civil rights, i say to them -- we are 172 years too late. for those whose say -- for those who say that this civil rights program is an infringement on states' rights, i say this -- the time has arrived in america for the democratic party and to get out of the shadows of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the great sunshine of human rights. >> hubert humphrey spoke those words 20 years before championing the 1964 civil rights bill into law. the two-term mayor of minneapolis was vice-president under lyndon johnson and later ran for president and lost.

we look at has influence on american politics on the c-span series "the contenders." live from st. paul friday, 8:00 p.m. eastern. c-span.org is now easier to use. it features a 11 video choices making it easier for you to watch the day's events, live and recorded. you can access our most popular series like "washington journal," "american history tv," and you can quickly find where to watch our three network on cable or satellite systems across the country. on the all new c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we welcome senator bernie sanders back to the table this morning. we will ask you the same question. is failure by the super committed to reach a deal which

would engender these cuts a bad option? guest: it depends on the deal that is reached. it could be better than the alternative. i hope any alternative reached, and i hope they do with the american people want them to do. that would be to do deficit reduction in a way that is fair and responsible. the american people do not want to see cuts in social security, medicare, and medicaid. the american people are very aware that at this point in our history, poverty is increasing in the wealthiest people and corporations are doing phenomenally well. many of the people i talked to say we should do deficit reduction. you have to ask the wealthiest people in this country who has the lowest tax rate in decades to start paying their fair share. you have to and these outrageous corporate loopholes by which a

large probable corporations pay nothing in taxes. sometimes they actually get rebates by the irs. we are losing billions of dollars because they are stashing their money in the cayman islands and other tax havens to avoid paying taxes. my hope is that the super committee will do with the american people want them to do, serious deficit reduction, but not on the backs of the middle class and the working, the elderly and the sick. host: her is the press release for your event at 10:00. on the senator's standards leading recipients to say, "hands-off are benefits." the simpson-bowles commission says it was not sustainable with the growth of the older population. the cbo says they project with

the aging population and rising cost of health care and that it will cut spending on mandatory health care programs to grow from 10% of gdp up to 16% but if no current laws are changed. guest: let's look at it another way. the omb and the social security administration both tell us that right now social security has a surplus of $2.50 trillion. social security can pay out every benefit voted to every eligible american for the next 25 years. social security has not contributed one nickel to the deficit. i find it very disingenuous that people who talk about social security in the context of deficit, it is funded by the payroll tax, not the u.s. treasury. social security has been an

extraordinarily successful program and i think some of our right wing friends went to detroit because they admit the government cannot do anything. 50% of the elderly people live in poverty. while the number is too high, it is lower. social security for the last 70 years has paid out every nickel zero down to every eligible american. no beneficiary has ever received a letter saying, "sorry. the stock market went down." it is a cost-effective program and administer it right well for a small amount of money. i do everything that i can to preserve it. host: vermont public radio in this story suggests that your opposition to entitlement reform puts you at odds with senator leaby and welch that is part of

the bipartisan group urging them to support a much larger deficit plan with a balanced approach. guest: they're both good friends of mine. on many issues affecting the state of vermont, we are together. on this, we disagree. here is the problem have. i believe that the agreement struck between republicans and democrats at that point, when the question was whether to extend unemployment benefits or not, i thought that was a very bad agreement. this was when the democrats controlled everything. it extended the bush tax cuts for the rich, which i thought was terrible. and it lowered taxes in terms of the estate tax. i thought that was a bad deal. in april, an agreement was reached when republicans

threatened to shut down the government in which government -- the democratic government made a bad agreement. and where we are right now, as you know, is the result that republicans said in the first time of the history of united states, we do not want airbills. we want to endanger the entire world's financial system, and that was just outrageous gamesmanship. i thought the president should have used the 14th amendment to say it is my constitutional amendment to pay the bills. i'm going to pay social security and i will pay the benefits the veterans are entitled to. you can take me to court. i think the president would have one. what that agreement did come as you know, is that it chopped $1.50 trillion in cuts to all kinds of important programs for working people and that it said that we would establish a super committee.

after all of this stuff come on the richest people in this country it that are doing phenomenally well are asked to pay not one penny. so far, all the cuts have come from working families and middle class. i do not have a crystal ball, so i cannot tell you what the super committee will end up with, if anything. the burden will be placed on working families, the elderly, in turn to social security, medicare, and medicaid. host: the phone numbers are on the screen. you can send us an e-mail and tweet at #cspanwj. here is a tweet.

guest: in terms of social security, i would introduce legislation that everyone agrees. the studies have shown. it will keep it solvent not for 25 years, but for 75. what we do is, right now millionaire contribute the same about the money into the trust fund in taxes as the someone who makes $106,000. if you lift the cap and you start at $250,000, you will keep social security solvent and allow that to pay out every benefit for the next 75 years. that is a reform i believe in. i believe we have nine co- sponsors. in terms of medicare, it is not just medicare or medicaid reform, but health care reform. today, in america, we're the only industrialized country that does not guarantee health care to all of our people. 50 million people have no health

insurance. tens of millions more are under- insured, and we spend twice as much per capita as any other nation and our outcomes are not necessarily better. i am an advocate of a medicare for all single-payer program which i think is the way to go you want cost-effective universal health care. host: the supreme court announced their review of the national health care law this week. by 25 hours of oral argument in march and here is a story from "the washington post."

guest: needless to say, i disagree with overturning the law. again, we have 50 million people with no health insurance. if we cannot expand medicaid for tens of millions more, we throw children off of health insurance, working people of health insurance. and harvard university a couple of years ago, they did a study that found, incredibly, 45,000 americans die every single year because they do not get to a doctor on time. they are so sick that their situation is terminal. that is not what america is supposed be about. i believe very strongly that healthcare is a right. i believe we should learn from many other countries, canada, the european countries, and come up with an approach that says everyone in america has health care. when we do that, we can provide it in a much more cost-effective

way rather than worrying about the profits of the insurance companies or the waist belt bureaucratic administrative system we have right now. host: an independent from waldorf, md., for senator standards -- sanders. wantser: this gentleman bigger federal government. it needs to be gutted. it has become the nightmare of our founding fathers. every state should take care of its own people in its own system. medical care should be under a national guard system where we create our own and for each system in every state. less federal government is good. our second problem is in port- exported. if you look at the charts, it shows we have more exports -- and more imports coming in than exports going out. that is sold in america, it should be made in america. this has become the nightmare that our founding fathers

always thought it would not be. guest: i disagree with you in one sense and agree in another. you were looking at a guy who has voted against virtually every so-called "free trade agreement." this same we can compete against anyone in the world. you know what? not true. not against someone making $1 an hour. the reality is, in terms of unfettered free trade, in the last 10 years alone, 50,000 factories in this country have shut down. millions of american workers have lost a good paying manufacturing jobs. they have gone to china and other low-paying countries. in terms of his first question, obviously we disagree. the problem is not big government or small government. it is cost-effective government. talk to the average veteran out

there. ask them how they feel about the veterans administration and health care that they get. you know what they will tell you? it is a pretty good system. they are proud to walk in and get good, quality health care because they have fulfilled their responsibilities to the people in this country and we are providing them the benefits that they earned. talk to people on social security, medicare, medicaid. talk to the kids out there getting pell grants to enable them to be able to go to college. are there government programs which are wasteful? you bet there are. we recently did a study that shows -- what was it? 37 of the top 100 defense contractors were involved in fraud. they were either found guilty of fraud or reached a settlement after charges were brought against them. the top three paid fines in

hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. do we need to make the federal government more cost-effective and more responsive to people? absolutely. but to simply say let's get rid of social security, medicare, and medicaid -- the senator does not agree with that. host: democrat from virginia. good morning. caller: i hate to say this, because i am for obama, but the point is what needs to be done so that the republicans will stop acting like little come crying children. from the mayor on up to the president, you do not need to get paid. you do not need a salary. you do not need everything your getting. how can they know what it is all about when they are living in luxury? they need to know what real people are going through. they do not know or do not want to know, you know? this is and what needs to be done.

not only that, but social security, medicare, and all that, and needs to be cut in half. i had to wait four years for my social security disability. for some reason, when i asked for help, when i finally got through, i had to go to a budgeting class. why would i have to go to a budget class but i did not have any money? do you understand? you need to dig deep and see what these people -- what are they really doing with this money? you need to understand that it is very hard to even get approved sometimes. i did not even get half of my house note and i had to go to a budget class? guest: what the caller is saying is a very important point. i think there's a lot more pain out there than people on capitol

hill recognize. unemployment, the papers telesat is 9%. the reality is that it is 16% if you include those people who have given up looking for work and those people working part time when they want to work full-time. i talked to older workers who have now lost their good jobs and are working jobs at much lower wages. some older workers may never have another job in their lives. their plans, their hopes for retirement, completely-. we had a couple of town meetings in vermont where we met with college students. this young lady gets up there with tears streaming down her eyes. she was the first in her family to graduate college and she has a huge debt. she did not know how she is going to pay off. there is a lot of pain out there, and before people talk

about social security, medicare, medicaid, health programs, they might want to listen to what is going on in the real world. host: the new numbers have come in. the number of people applying for unemployment benefits fell, a sign that lay off is easing and hiring may pick up. weekly applications dropped by 5002 seasonally adjusted 388,000, the first decline in five weeks. comments? guest: when we look at real unemployment, it is about 25 million people who are unemployed or underemployed.

also, deborah made this point, and we look at what is happening to the middle class, it is not just unemployment. median family income has declined by $3,000. people are angry. sometimes they lashed out at the government. they are angry because, in many cases, they are working longer hours for lower wages and when they look to the future and what will happen to their kids, they are really distraught and believe that maybe, in the first time of the modern history of america, their kids will have a lower standard of living than they do. host: a tweet. guest: "killed"is not the right word. for the first time, we got it right. to get the audit, we had to make

some compromises. it is the gentleman thinks it should not have compromised, and this was a result of dodd-frank in the financial emergency years. it is the first time the fed has never been audited. it showed us that during the wall street collapse, the fed, in a revolving door fashion, went down $16 trillion to every financial institution in this country. many large corporations, individual millionaires, and central banks all over the world including in the middle east. getting that audit was a real eye opener for many people in this country, do not think we killed anything. i think what we did was made significant progress. the other thing we did in that bill was to get a gao looked at

conflict of interest within the fed. right now, i am working with a number of leading economists to come up with legislation that would reform the fed. right now, i have many, many problems with the structure of the fed. i think they represent wall street and not working families. it has not been anywhere near aggressive as it should be in trying to deal with the unemployment crisis. host: senator bernie sanders of vermont is our guest. good morning, on the republican line. caller: i have to take an exception with your views on social security being solvent. granted, know that the social security checks have continued to go out, but a few months ago, i watched president obama on tv and this was back in the debt ceiling crisis. he said, "if we do not raise the

debt ceiling, i cannot guarantee these checks will go out on time." if social security is in such great ship, why was it critical that we raise the debt ceiling limit in order for those social security checks to continue to go out? also, my second point, then i will take my answer off line, is that we are in such a debt crisis in this country right now. you talk about being better managed by the government or whatever. it took us 230 years or so to rack up $10 trillion in debt. since september 2008, according to the u.s. treasury, to the current time, we have added an additional $5 trillion to that debt. that is only debt that they are admitting to. you and i both know, because i

work in the financial-services industry, that the actual debt, as far as unfunded liabilities and things like that, will be many, many times that. then you start talking about credit derivatives and it goes way, way beyond anyone's imagination. we have two choices. we can either get our debt under control and start reducing the size of government because government is the cause of debt. they are the monster that continues to consume money. host: i think we get your point. guest: the caller is certainly right. the deficit has exploded. when clinton left office, as i think many people will remember, but the country was running a surplus. the projection was that the surplus would continue as long as the eye could see. that was the projection. what happened? under bush, we want to war in afghanistan.

we went to war in iraq. for the first time in the history of this country, we forgot to pay for the wars. when you run up the cost of trillions of dollars in war and you forget to pay for the, you know what? that adds to the deficit. again, for the first time, we go to war and not pay for it, but then you decide that you're going to give huge tax breaks to much of it going to the wealthiest people in this country, and that also adds to the deficit. we provided tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country, about $700 billion over a 10-year time and then we passed the medicare part d program and we forgot to pay for that either. we let them negotiate for prescription drug prices, so you add up all those things and you know what? the caller is right.

given that reality, you do not decide that now the deficit is so high that you're going to deal with it by cutting social security, medicare, medicaid, educational, environmental programs. all throughout that time in the middle class was shaking, the people on top of these large corporations were doing phenomenally well. i believe, in order to get our house in order, we need to and the absurdity of having the 400 wealthiest people in this country owning more wealth than the bottom 150 million. we have to and the absurdity of of the wealthiest people doing phenomenally well while experiencing the lowest respected real tax rates in decades. next is a question off of twitter. great question, scott.

what history has shown us is that social security, it is a retirement program. if you want to go out and get rich, you will not do it with social security. you may lose your shirt doing this with wall street. the function of social security is to make sure when an american retires they get the benefits to which they are entitled to. that has been held true for 76 years. every nickel coated to every eligible american has been paid. -- every nickel owed has been paid. when you have tens of millions of senior citizens who have nothing to live on, what you think will happen? old people dying in the streets with no health care, no housing?

or else the housing -- the government will have to come up with in a program. social security is an insurance program. host: independent from petersburg, virginia. caller: there are already people dying in the streets that are homeless. they found a man in the woods in places like year because they do not have money for medicine. i wanted to ask him about -- there are things that they are not even talking about. money for people in low-income housing and? do not get a wrong. i think everyone needs help. the charge for the rent is astronomical. i am sure if you want to do some testing, you will find a lot of

people in congress to get a lot of money from real estate like that. $1,200 for a two-bedroom apartment? who does that money go to? the rent is too high, like somebody said before. street, if they want to raise money, they keep the price of oil so high, we cannot afford to buy gas. guest: i think we have an affordable housing crisis in this country. section 8, which is what you were referring to, does a lot of good. but let's not kid ourselves. in many ways, the rents are high and landlords and doing very well. in terms of wall street, i hope we never forget we are in this terrible recession, the worst economic downturn since the great depression, because of the greed and recklessness and

illegal behavior on wall street. bob is also talking about speculation and oil prices, an issue that i have worked on. there is very good reason to believe that one of the reasons we see spike in oil prices has less to do with supply and demand. in many ways, we have more supply now and less demand than we did several years ago when prices were lower, but has a lot to do with wall street speculation and oil futures market. a report on legislation on that to put pressure on the commodity futures trading commission, but we have a long way to go. host: the price went back up to $100 a barrel again, and domestic production is at an all-time high. what is the relationship? guest: wall street will tell you it is supply and demand. i the the evidence is clear that is not necessarily the case. what we learned recently is some

80% of our ownership of stock on the oil futures markets is controlled by wall street. you would think that the oil futures market would be dominant by the airlines, trucking companies, fuel dealers, but the reality is, it is controlled by speculators whose job is to make a profit by speculating. i think a tax on net transactions on wall street, that brings money into the government, that is a progressive way to go. we can put a damper on speculation. host: next phone call from bella vista, arkansas. charles. caller: 3 points. i am 78 years old. all the money i put back into social security i received back in five years. people have been paying me.

i did not put it all in. i got it back in five years and i'm one of the fortunate people. when this country is $15 trillion in debt, if we do not cut drastically, now, we are going to be in a lot of trouble. we borrow 40 cents on the dollar. if china says no more money, we are going to take a 40% cut, not just a 20% cut that they should do now. all of you people up there will not do the cutting because you want the votes. the reason we are in debt is because you people wanted a vote. you will make statements, like you have been doing this morning, about the rich people being no good and worthless -- guest: i do not think i

indicated those words. i said the richest people in this country are becoming much wealthier, that we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income on earth. and that gap is growing wider. caller: why use the rich people against the poor people? guest: of auto you why. i do not agree with you, how we got to this deficit crisis. after president clinton left office, we had a surplus. the evidence is clear. when you fight two wars at and the cost in trillions of dollars, and you do not pay for it, you are going to run up the deficit. that is using a credit card and not paying it back. when you give huge tax breaks, much of them going to the wealthiest people in the country, with no offset, you run a deficit. when you have a medicare part b prescription drug program and do

not pay for that, you run up the deficit. and then when you have a terrible recession when working people lose their job, less revenue comes into the government, that adds to the problem. those are the causes of the deficit. you go forward in addressing those problems in a responsible way, protecting the middle class, protecting working families, asking the wealthy and large corporations to start paying their fair share of taxes, and by the way, taking a hard look at military spending, which has tripled since 1997. host: a fall off on twitter -- follow-up on twitter -- guest: absolutely. there are many government programs that are wasteful that we can make substantial cuts without hurting the beneficiaries or the goals we are trying to achieve. certainly, in terms of defense

spending, we have to ask ourselves a couple of questions. is it really necessary the united states now spends more money on defense than the rest of the world combined? second of all, the d a zero just did a study which showed us -- diego -- gao just did a study which showed us that many agencies are not running as efficiently as they could. yes, i believe that certain parts could be cut. host: people are gathering in new york near zucotti park to market two months since the occupy wall street movement began. what do you think of the occupy wall street movement? guest: i think the occupy wall street movement has touched a nerve in this country. i thing they are focused on two

issues, where we are now hear more discussion as a result of their efforts, then we have heard in the past. the first issue is all street itself and the reality that the greed and illegal behavior on wall street has caused this recession, which has led to millions of people losing their job, has led to the taxpayers of this country bailing out wall street, and today you find wall street doing very well. ceo's spurning huge compensation packages, while the people back home are suffering. people are saying it is not right, what happened? furthermore, in terms of wall street, with the occupy wall street people are talking about, is the concentration of ownership in the country. if you can believe this, you have the six largest financial institutions, who have assets equivalent to 65% of the gdp of

the united states of america. over $9 trillion controlled by six financial institutions. three of the four of the largest of we bailed out because they were too big to fail, and now are bigger than before we bailed them out. we have to deal with those issues now. the second issue, i credit them for raising attention and focus, the growing inequality of wealth and income in america. host: next is bell city, virginia. james. caller: i wanted to know where the senator has been, why he has not run for president? he is too sharp. he should have been president years ago. and how come c-span cannot make

a commercial with everything he has said to weaken the american people up? senator, why haven't you run for president? guest: that is very kind. i am proud to be the longest serving independent in the history of the congress. proud to represent the state of vermont. i will be running for reelection for that position, but thank you. host: a nice segue into the election. some news outlets say that you have not yet thrown your endorsement behind the president. what do you think of the campaign, when will you make a decision on when you will be supporting the president? guest: it is a sad moment in history when you have one of our major parties, the republican party, which used to be a center party, dissolve into a right- wing extremist party. and i say that not without any joy.

many viewers may remember, my predecessor, jim jeffords, a lifelong republican. he finally said, it is not that i am leaving the republican party. the republican party has left me. they moved their report to the right. the democratic party, i am afraid, which used to be a center-left party, identified with lower income people, needs of kids, they have become a more conservative party and are now a centrist party. democrats are dominated by money coming in. a right-wing party heavily influenced by right-wing extremists, and also by a lot of corporate money. i think both of those parties have forgotten what is going on in the real world out there, the kind of suffering that is going on. the kind of incredible power that a small number of wealthy individuals have in this

country over both economic and political process. i supported barack obama when he ran the first time. i expect i will support him for reelection. but-what this president, who i personally like very much, who is an extraordinarily smart guy, to do what he did in his campaign, to stand up for working families, tell the american people he is prepared to take on the powerful big money interests, that he has a vision for new energy systems in america. he is on the side of ordinary americans. i want him to be clear on that. if he does that, he will win the election in a landslide, and i will be proud to support him. host: do you include mitt romney in your description of right- wing extremists? guest: no, i would say he probably falls into more of an

old-fashioned republican. host: what will you be basing your reelection on? guest: my record. we have built a number of health benefits, providing dental care, mental health, we have done well expanding veterans care. we have opened up a new community outreach clinic in the northern part of our state and we have improved the existed -- existing facilities. proud of the fact we have brought a lot of money into vermont to move forward on energy efficiency. we are leading the country in terms of energy efficiency. we are moving aggressively in terms of solar, wind. i have been a part of that process. we have worked a lot on child care, which is a problem in vermont. and we have made some improvements there as well. i am proud of the record we have established. host: vermont topos unemployment

rate is 5%. significantly lower than the national average. what is the reason why vermont is doing better? guest: we are not a bubble economy. never have been. we have agriculture, manufacturing, which has been hurt all over the country. we have tourism, which is important. i know a lot of people have read about the flooding in vermont. we are rebuilding quickly. come to vermont, is a beautiful state. we have not put all our eggs in one nest and we are and diversified economy, so we do not go up and down. host: i wanted to ask this because this guy has treated it several times -- tweeted it several times --

guest: after bush, when we went to war. when president clinton left office, there was a surplus. there is no dispute over that. host: alex is an independent in salem, michigan. caller: senator, you say that there was a surplus in social security. in fact, 2 million i know you's in government, so there is -- iou's in government, so there is no saving. guest: if you take that argument, this country has a $14 trillion debt, and all the bonds that people hold our just iou's. yes, the government has barred from social security, as it should have. but the argument that it is just an iou -- well, all of our debt

is an iou. i do not think that is a strong argument. host: what do you expect the next week to be like in the city? guest: i think the focus will be on the super committee. people will be anxious to know what will be accomplished? i hope they can reach an agreement, but i hope it is an agreement that does not come down and force reductions on the backs of the middle-class and working families. there are ways to do deficit reduction that are fair. i hope the committee reaches the conclusion. host: thank you for being at the table. we are going to take a break. we will be speaking with david abshire, who runs the center for the study of the president and congress on executive orders. there is often criticism on the use of executive power. we will get a primer from him on

how presidents used executive orders, and how that has changed in modern times. >> demonstrators are gathering near new york's zucotti park to mark two months since the occupy wall street movement began. police are telling them to stay on the sidewalks as they marched toward the new york stock exchange. about 500 protesters were met by a line of police with riot gear one block from wall street. also having an effect on wall street, the debt crisis in europe, where the new italy prime minister mario monti, says that what you're does in the next few weeks will determine the fate of liro -- the euro. his priorities include lowering italy's ratio of debt to gdp, which now stands at 120%. with application dropping to a

seven-month low, builders are reporting a brown on slightly fewer homes last month, but building permits rose 11%, spurred by an increase in apartment permits, which reached its highest level in three years. >> there is a store that i was told from inside the administration, that when obama was given the first budget and there were some 7000 earmarks and it, his first instinct was to veto the budget. he was told by his lobbyists that there was no way you can do that. you cannot cut the ties with democrats. had he vetoed that, he would have been the team party. had he signaled his fundamental desire to change the system and the way washington works, he would have continued to rally the reform movement that number is out all over the world because of its frustration with occurred with that democracy

does not function. harvar>> harvard law professor lawrence lessing, sunday on "q&a." >> we are 172 years late. to those who say that this civil rights program is an infringement on states' rights, i say this. the time has arrived in america for the democratic party to get out of the shadows of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights. >> hubert humphrey spoke those words 20 years ago before championing the civil-rights bill into law. the mayor of annapolis and

longtime senator was vice- president under lyndon johnson and later ran for president in 1968 and lost. we will let his impact on politics this week on "the contenders." friday, 8:00 p.m. eastern. host: our final guest on this thursday morning is david abshire, president for the center of the presidency and congress. he goes by the title of ambassador because he served as ambassador to nato and has a long history of service in this town. the co-founder of the center for strategic and international studies. he still serves as vice chairman of the board of that organization. he has been on the baker- hamilton iraq study group.

he was on the advisory board of the naval war college. has also been chairman of the board for international broadcasting. many positions here in washington. now he is making an effort to help us understand how the congress and executive branch function. we brought him here today to talk about the executive orders. here is a headline of recent ilk. first of all, what is an executive order? guest: it first came about through george washington. he was a superb executive of mount vernon estate, where i serve for a number of years. he learned how to be a decisive executive. the founding fathers in the various papers called for energy in the executive. he sent out immediately, in setting of the executive branch, by giving orders that each branch that he set up what

report daily on the requirements. people forget this, but he was an extremely good executive. perhaps the best as president. he learned it running the most successful business. everyone else was going broke. person was going broke. he rotated crops, he knew how to get things done the president established the propeexecutive branch. host: what areas of governance can they cover? guest: they can cover all areas. if you look at the progression, in times of crisis, they picked up. if i could just take my favorite president, abraham lincoln. when he came in, and the republic was falling apart, buchanan was against secession.

said he had no power to prevent it. abraham lincoln moved in decisively and seized the railroads, marshaled troops, telegraphs, and readied us for more. and then under roosevelt, the more complicated the situation became. host: we are talking about use of executive orders by a president. used to be in the legislative process. they are accused of going to run congress by using executive orders. we would like to engage in a debate with you think this is an effective tool. the president has begun using them as of late. also, if you have questions of history, all that is on the table with our discussion with

ambassador abshire. let me ask about how much teeth executive orders, in fact, can have. guest: when truman seized steel, the supreme court declared it unconstitutional. but normally, they can have very decisive power to get things done. as obama put it recently, we cannot wait, we have a crisis. the same was true for wilson and the other presidents. we set up checks and balances to preserve the republic. but if you read the federalist papers, you need enough energy in an executive in a manage -- in a time of crisis to act. host: you mention some of these.

theodore roosevelt created five national parks. how has president obama been using executive orders? guest: he has stepped up recently, under the line, we cannot wait, and moved on proprietary drugs. he has done in the executive branch on cutting out waste, fraud, and abuse. and of course, and the intervention in libya, which was peculiar. i was ambassador to nato.

you wanted to keep nato and the arab world up front. we were in their playing into tha decisive role. host: we created this chart that looks at total orders by presidential terms, starting with president reagan. here is reagan i and ii, bush i and ii. it looks like in the second term, the start issuing orders more, which seems counterintuitive. guest: rodham writing came in, a fine president, but there was a malaise. he acted very decisively to show he could get the country moving

in america. that is why he issued so many. it is interesting that clinton was a very decisive president. of course, he did a bit after a couple of years, moved to the center, accomplished great things. two dynamic presidencies. host: if you were to look at the numbers and how they were distributed, do you find that presidents start issuing executive orders the closer to their re-election they get? in other words, frustration of not getting things done and having to face the voters? guest: i think it depends. reelection was not that much in doubt.

president obama, maybe because of the economy, certainly congress. i think, to show energy in the executive, it shows that the president can act. host: a call on executive orders from oklahoma city. caller: good morning, i am a democrat. isfar as filibusters' co, it not in the constitution. when and what branch started using the filibuster? has any congress ever used a filibuster to deny a president, like this congress has, when it comes to president obama? also, sometimes they have to use executive order when you have the leader of the republican party that says his number one

job is to make sure that this president is a one-term president. if you do not have congress working with you, what can you do? that is what this congress has done since president obama has been in office. please answer all three of those questions. guest: i think you are using a filibuster in a broader sense, not liberal filibuster, in the senate. filibuster in the senate, giving a piece of legislation somebody is trying to block. maybe reading the constitution or a portion of shakespeare or something. when you end up with stalemates -- we went through a period of parts of the construction. i agree with your thoughts, when you have a president fort hood

that way. -- thwarted that wway. i will say, when president obama came into office, he came in from the left, then he said he had to rule from the center. that did not work in a lot of ways because of the breakdown of the congress, and so forth. he would send things to the hill and they did not like it. national security, he did directly, and those were very successful. so as he gets closer to his reelection, his original design was not working, -- and also he has to regain part of his base. so that is the reason, under the mantra, we cannot wait, he has come in with a range of executive orders. and they are in very different

areas, areas that it is hard to be against. practical things that need to be done. host: i want to read something i found on the internet from a blogger on executive orders. guest: well, i think we are on the reef of self destruction, maybe for a set of different reasons, but we are at a

crossroads. all of our pistons, which give the power of this nation, school, health care -- when you compare to the rest of the world, we have lost exceptional capabilities in those areas. we have to regain that. otherwise, like rome, we will go into decline. we are in a crisis. i gave a speech on grand strategy. they said, there is no uniting force, like in the cold war, world war ii. there is, but it is coming from different directions, and it is the decline or renewal of america. host: congress seems to be deadlocked over many policy issues. it is inappropriate for the

president to increase his use of executive orders? guest: in order to save the republic, and people can argue whether some of his measures are right or wrong, but the ideal situation is for republican and democratic leaders to decide the country goes first, more important than the next election. if we can do that, we can save the republic. host: next phone call is from arkansas. mason is an independent. caller: i wonder if you might be a will to explain the best you can on television the difference between a presidential directive and an executive order. and also, one of those was used in the past to make internment camps. you have to wonder, will they be used like that again? can we do something to make sure that a president cannot go, i

just want to keep these people in a camp to keep them safe. is there something we can do to limit that? guest: the presidential directive is more when you are refining the approach. the executive order tends to be on a new initiative. now, any use of power can be abusive power. that is innate. that depends on the wisdom of the president. now, the internment camps were against the japanese, which were so horrendous in retrospect. that was a great president. they went about it in the wrong way. that is generally conceded today. so i would say there is an

enlightenment that occurs from history and the state that is reflected in the body of politics. that safeguard against what you appropriately worry about, that there can be abuse of power. the greater the crisis, the more decisive it has to be, the power to get out of it, and that increases presidential power. but there is no question the increase of power is always subject to abuse. part of this depends on the greatness of presidents. we have been blessed with some truly great presidents. host: who would they be? guest: george washington was a model. he was sacrificial. he learned, group, turned down power. that is why they gave him so much power. they knew he would turn it down.

the only reason they thought was because it gave their chief executive so much power. abraham lincoln was out of this world. a man for ages in his wisdom. he was a genius. he built the national academy, built the smithsonian, the railroads, looked beyond the war. he was so good, some of the determined to eliminate him. the two roosevelts, who had great abilities in different ways, were very talented in projecting. then when you get into the cold war presidents, i think truman -- particularly, some of the

recent books have given him his due, which is great. eisenhower was not eisenhower because he was not very charismatic. he was sort of laid-back, but he set out a strategy for the cold war where he put the deficit management central with all of the investment in science, education. host: this viewer sends by tw itter -- guest: i go back to the federalist papers interpreting it, energy in the executive. if you do not have energy along with wisdom, that has to be going in the right direction. we have had andrew johnson,

grant, who we were disappointed in. my latest book is "a call to greatness." we need president to rise to greatness. sometimes they do. but i think you get that when you study history. lincoln strutted his history. washington. today, people do not study their history. host: brad is a democrat from maryland. go ahead. caller: the congress has not even given the president a chance to pass a bill to see what it can even do. i am kind of confused because i thought the president was supposed to make the decision and the house is supposed to capitalize on it.

guest: well, he, -- maybe she, one of these days -- you do have to reach across the aisle. lyndon johnson, in the voting rights act, he did that go to big meetings with members of congress. it would pocket over and do a deal. -- talk it over and do a deal. he said, may be republican leader will be willing to sacrifice. hat was the way they werould accomplish it. in the marshall plan, truman

sent to marshall, you go up with the republican leader, get his ideas, and what ever they are, you incorporate them. now, obama, and one great moment that was reached, who is not accustomed to this one on one stuff, he is a law professor, -- when he and speaker boehner meet in private and to a grand -- do a grand bargain, but it is not resolved -- but that is how you try things. we have senators working across the aisle. we talk to other people privately. what they say they're willing to do privately is different.

there is a potential. we have got some good people in congress. off on the record, that is the way you do things. host: burlington, ky. stewart. caller: your opinion with the federalist papers aside -- and i disagree about the energy of a president -- i have always interpret that -- interpreted that as working with congress. but where in the constitution do you find a 44 the president to create a lot and bypass congress? i have never read that anywhere. i am trying to figure out where the president would get his constitutional authority to bypass congress. guest: i am a man of

cooperation, compromise. the latest book i wrote was on washington and clay, the great compromises with lincoln. but you want to compromise to get on higher ground, and not dumb down things. when the republic is in trouble. the basis of executive orders goes back to the founding of the republic. it is widely used under different presidents, has helped to preserve the republic. roosevelt, there was question about whether what he was doing was constitutional. he saw hitler coming, and the isolation would not let him act, so he had to do certain things to prepare for the conflict that was coming. and it was doing those things along that enabled the defeat of hitler.

there is this ballots -- balance. the founders knew about the duke of marlborough who had exceeded his power, got into a land war .ay also sa washington was someone who used power wisely. i have held three or four positions in the executive branch. every success i have had has been working across party lines in private and getting on higher ground. that is what i am for. i am saying, in crisis, you have got to have the energy in the executive. part of that energy, you are right, is finding people in congress that will cooperate and get on higher ground. host: here is a similar point of

view from a tweet -- guest: well, long ago, in 1959, i had worked bipartisan for many years. i do not see these kinds of lists that i have got, where you have a shortage of drugs, he wants to hire veterans. the 1% that has been following the war that the public has not been. i fought in korea. when he moved to get them jobs,

to me, that is not special interest. host: next phone call from illinois. james is an independent. caller: how much president -- power does the president have to get money out of politics, such as limiting lobbies or political action committees, forcing a cap on political war chests? thank you very much. guest: this president by past, others have. john mccain, the great reformer originally. the system that is developed is a bad system. you look at the money going into this, that is being raised, the good it could do, those corporate contributions. i am with you on that.

what we are doing, at my center, we are trying to look at the next 10 years and how you get back to the mountain top, how you turn around this decline. even if you get both sides to agree to do the right thing, you have got to reform the process, because the process is broken. the ratings of both parties in congress have gone down to about 8%. this is a wake-up call. we have got a system that is broken. that is why you need another teddy roosevelt that comes in to reform. host: gold beach, oregon. john is a democrat. caller: since the taxpayers have put so much of our revenue into the banking system during the

collapse, i was wondering, early in the administration, i had hoped the president would use an executive order to help with mortgage foreclosures. would that be an improper use of power, given there is so much at stake? you mentioned the collapse of the system. guest: absolutely, and he had done that to a degree. the management of this financial crisis -- let me just say. if you compare the period between roosevelt and hoover, where, for months, we turn recession into depression through a lack of cooperation, it is amazing that the george w. bush administration and obama administration, bernanke, in my judgment, they saved us from moving into depression. people can argue on t.a.r.p.

i think those things had to be done. the whole thing of stimulating the economy, we worked very much for infrastructure spending. obama, on his third day in office, quoted from some of the eisenhower studies, drawing funds for security, expanded commerce, helped to empower the country commercially. it was a sustainable model because you had a trust fund. that is permanent. i am for cutting, but you have to cut and invest. if you just cut, plan to go out

of business. you have to invest in the future. half the growth of the country comes from investment, research and development, engineers, education, so forth. host: here is a chart that your organization produced about lyndon johnson. and this tweet question -- guest: eisenhower did it. of course, he moved troops to desegregate. people forget that. abraham lincoln set out to do was completed with a republican president. he did not go to congress for that action. host: can you think of any during the johnson

administration when the bill passed? guest: in the johnson administration, what stands out is, johnson had come to the presidency as majority leader. he had this uncanny ability to work with members of congress. to me, the tragedy of lyndon johnson, on the domestic, he was so brilliant, but got it wrong in a war of attrition under the auspices of west and more land. he is crafting these coalitions with these republicans. it was a master class. that is why we felt obama should do that, which he tried with boehner, but back then, you did have more of an ability of the

leaders of congress to take the party with them. today, on the republican side, that is open to question. --t: a view forom an e-mail guest: i agree on the last statement, not the first part, because of the way that you have to avoid that decline. we have a choice. we have a high road and a low road. if i fall this administration, there is not a long-range narrative on the way that people can join in over 10 years.

that is strategic leadership. that is needed to reconstruct a consensus of how you avoid the decline of rome, the british empire, or other countries. host: historical discussion about use of executive orders. bloomer, wisconsin. dave is a republican. caller: good morning. somebody called in and asked where there was a constitutional item that would allow the president to use an executive order to by congress. i do not think he answered the question. guest: the constitution does not circumscribe the power of the

executive action. it does on declaring war. the irony of that, we have had five declared wars, about 130 undeclared actions. so the executive orders really began because this big, tall guy, bigger than everyone else, that move into the presidency, a good executive, he was the one that formed the executive branch, treated the departments. he did all of this by his own orders. -- created the departments. your question relates to, at what point did those orders exceed the intent of the presidency?

that is of a gray area. the constitution, it has been said, is set up for situations of contention -- the struggle for power. and that is all right. other survivor of the country, if it is in danger, you are much better with a stronger and let executive. host: if the people that founded this country, who wrote the documents, the use of this very infrequently. when did this change? what should we take away from the fact that those who wrote the document did not use it that much? guest: washington, in his farewell address, avoided

foreign entanglements. it came about when we began to be involved in foreign situations the war of 1812, which was dumb, counterproductive. then we get into the civil war. lincoln had to move strongly. of course, the opposite of that was buchanan. then you get into world war i. it goes up, increasing certain war powers, but it was not over people. then that gets extended later to include that. it is the involvement globally

and internationally, and also economically, not complicated this republic of america, originally avoiding foreign entanglements. host: another tweet -- guest: it was a power play of the shakespeare that prepared the history of america to wear, strangely enough, what washington had thought, we became the power that saved the world from hitler and saved the world from a communist dictatorship. host: next call is orange, virginia. down in presidential country. bob is a democrat. what is your question?

guest: great territory down there. host: please go ahead or we will have to move on. next is cleveland, ohio. jim is an independent. caller: hello, mr. abshire. your assertion that the federalist papers called for energetic executive, i disagree with that. i think you espousing hamilton's view, and madison. most of the other half of the federalist papers disagree with that. we have to remember hamilton was a monarchist. if he had his way, we would have a king. how do you think the government would be if we had -- if we were under madison, the things he wanted?

guest: that is a good question, and you are right. there is a difference in the madisonian papers and hamilton papers. the president when with hamilton because we were headed for depression and had to take over the credit of the state's. madison, who had a brilliant mind, and brought so much, was not a very able president. he was much better as a legislature, writer, a thinker, and and it is interesting that a very mistaken war was the war of 1812, where the white house burned, and we were victorious only on sea. jackson won a big battle, but it was after the war was over.

and then, his party -- and he was a part of this -- did an amazing u-turn and cook over the agenda. -- took over the agenda. what he wrote was a balance of power that was needed. but when he was executive, i do not think he did the job. host: last call. villages, florida. gregory. caller: good morning. there was a ruling by the supreme court in truman's time on executive orders. placing all steel mills in the country under federal control. that was an invalid because it tended to make law rather than to clarify our act to further a law put forth by congress in the

constitution. in other words, it did set some limits on what could be done with an executive order. guest: i am glad you brought that up. absolutely there are limits on the executive order. i am not for government by executive orders. if you read my writings, i am developing consensus. i am saying, if you start with the first case of washington, when you have certain things you have to do, you have got to have a president that acts. the constitution left a lot of power with the president. it did not defined it because they figured every president would be as sacrificial and as good as george washington. of course, they were wrong. nevertheless, that was the origin. host: what is