and we'll talk to freedom works president matt kibbe later. then danny markey on u.s.-pakistan relations following the nato strikes that killed pakistani soldiers over the weekend.♪ host: the house and senate are back in session this week with spending battles dominating the agenda until november 15, when the current funding bill for the government expires. they have set up a showdown over whether or not to extend the payroll tax holiday for american workers. a vote is expected as early as friday. good morning on this tuesday morning, november 29, 2011. we will talk about a legislative

agenda later. first your take on a candidate's personal life. does it matter? the numbers are on the screen. here is the "atlantic constitution-journal." ginger white says that she has had an affair, and herman cain went on television to deny the affair. "washington post" this morning, this is their headline. they say this, in an interview, ginger white offered details of a 13-year affair with a cane, with repeated calls and text messages from the a number she said belonged to the

presidential contender. her name was passed on to reporters by someone you knew of the relationship. more from the "washington post." in national polls, but for the first allegations were published four weeks ago, some polls showed him leading the republican race. ginger white is in the fox news

interview yesterday. >> pretty simple. it was not complicated. how what does not like to see you again. you are very beautiful to me. and i would love for us to continue this. host: that was ginger white, the person saying that they had had this 13-year affair. herman cain win on the air ahead the news to said that it was not true. >> in trying to help a friend not having a job and this sort of thing, that is all that there is to the relationship. i do not know what is going to be playing in the story. it is someone who is supposed to be a friend, but obviously -- >> i am asking you an awkward question, but was this an affair? >> no, it was not.

nope. >> we want to hear from all of you this morning. does it matter when you go to a vote in the primary or iowa or in the caucus or in the general lection, did you care about the candidate's personal life? tom from detroit, what you think? caller: whether someone had an affair or whatever you want to call it, this question, he had the same charges leveled against him. it seems like if herman cain were president, then the president would impeach him for lying about his affairs. -- than the democrats would impeach him for lying about his affairs. i voted for clinton twice, but i have to tell you, so many accusations against him, it is hard to avoid thinking about them.

and he is a smart guy, smarter than i am. it is just a pet that it state of politics. nothing gets done in a pa -- pathetic state of politics. nothing gets done in washington. host: not -- you said that you voted for clinton twice. did those scandals change how we view candidates and their private lives? caller: monica lewinsky was not the beginning of his affairs. there was paula jones, and then kathleen willie, someone whose husband had just died. host: does any of that matter to you? caller: as to why i voted for him? no, it did not. and if i was a republican, it

would not pertain. i voted for john mccain twice, and the first time i've voted for john mccain, and i will tell you pike -- the first time i wrote voted for him was in the 2000 primary and then in the 2008 primary election. he sat in some holes on the ground in vietnam and did not give anyone information other than his name, rank, and serial number. i thought that was character. we need people with good character running this country. host: but the personal life u.s. but illustrative of character? caller: it is, it is, but we live in a demented society. sex is overplayed for what it is. no, i wish politicians would not get caught with their pants

down. it would make for a much better society. host: are you a conservative democrat? caller: definitely a conservative democrat. host: another caller is on the air. i have pushed the wrong button. are you there? we can hear you now. caller: i'm a tool and die maker in the suburbs of detroit. i do not think eight candidate's personal life does matter. basically their job is to run the government in an efficient manner. i think it is just smoke and mirrors that the 24-hour media cycle froze up and everyone is titillated by sex and sex. i do not want anyone in my bedroom running my government. i do not have to sleep with any of these people.

i saw the retirement speech for bonding frank -- for barney frank and he was slammed for his sexual orientation. but i thought he was great in government and his personal life does not matter. he was for cutting the military, which i would agree with. but he is being run out by the supreme court decision that allows corporations to speak as i was. i do not have billions of dollars to spain. -- to spend. i do not think that your personal life does matter. host: what about the poll numbers that we just shared with you? the latest cnn international poll, a showing herman cain before the sexual harassment charges were made, he was neck- and-neck with mitt romney for first place. now he has dropped to third place. caller: you know what? i was baptized a mormon and have

not been to church. i would not vote for mitt romney or any other mormon and that is speaking as a mormon, just because -- i do not know. that is a personal thing. herman cain, i would not trust him to run a burger joint, let alone a country with your finger on the nuclear button. his personal life does not matter to me. he is an idiot. host: you do not like his economic policies. caller: i am not thinking that he is smart enough to run the country. host: herman cain said that he did not plan to representative -- to drop out of the race, but that his wife would have the final say. kathleen is next. caller: personal life does not -- does matter. how can you separate the two? you are a human being. some of your personal life will

spill over into your public life. how you carry yourself and your personal life will extend to how you carry yourself in private -- in public life. someone that says that it does not matter is just fooling themselves. you want someone with high integrity. how can you do that when a man that is supposed to be truthful and dedicated to his wife can go around and cheat on her and lie to her? a liar is a liar, no matter what. host: a republican from atlanta, georgia, byron, what you think? caller: thank you for taking my call. i think when we are involved in extramarital relationships, i think sometimes that our ability to be out in public, and you

know, allowing the public to trust us, it is one of those cases where if this is true, sometimes man that are in a position of power, so they speak, or a position of leadership sometimes run across situations that they really have to show themselves as leaders. mccain -- you know, if he has some of the things that we need to run america, focusing on things that we have not thought about or that we need to think about doing in order to make this economy work for everybody in america, then coming in now, but you have to have moral standards and a way of doing things in order to make that happen for america. host: as a republican, were you favoring herman cain and to you started hearing about these

sexual harassment allegations and then this woman saying she had an affair? caller: it is tough because right now it is just allegations. i feel that if you have already chosen a candidate for america, then you are in limbo about it, but you really want to know and wait until this process takes place. host: what about newt gingrich? some have been critical of him because of his personal life, being married three times. caller: again, that is another person in a place of leadership. can newt redeem himself? i do not know. i believe in giving a second chance. i believe that putting a person in this situation began that perhaps if he is in question of how his moral character, you

know, he is going to be in character about everything. small area of your life, it will some time have the tendency to how you conduct yourself in public. host: the hill newspaper has a headline about barney frank retiring. he is blaming rest districting. there is the massachusetts democrat in his own words yesternight. >> i have been ambivalent about running, not because i do not continue to think the job is important, but because there are other things out like to do in my life before my career is over. host: also the roll call newspaper this morning as the battle to replace frank as the top democrat on the house financial services committee could be contentious. pictures of carolyn maloney, the second and line in seniority, after representative

maxine waters, below her. who would take over after he retires? maxine waters facing an ethics question around some of her conduct. some expecting that to be a contentious battle. let's go to arizona and ,ken is an independent. caller: i think herman cain has so much common sense, i do not think he would spend the time and money to run for president if these things would come up in his past. it does not make sense to me. i think the man is qualified. he has never been a big politician. we need someone with more common sense in the white house. host: so you do not believe it and if it were true, would it matter to you? caller: look at bill clinton.

he had those women in arkansas. then the democrats twisted the loss to squeeze out of it. anyway, like i say, he has so much common sense that he would not spend the time and money to run a deep thought something would come up about his past. host: a democrat in new york, your thoughts. caller: i think herman cain and rick perry are just up to hot air. they are not to speed on some many issues of the day. in many ways they seem to be so one qualified. several of these republicans. i have never voted anything except democrat except -- since the 1970's. i might vote for huntsman if he were a serious candidate and could get the nomination. when you look at the woman who has recently come forward, and i

do not know why huntsman is not more popular. i do not understand why the republican party does not get that democrats like me would vote for john huntsman, now that he is coming out against the too big to fail. but a woman coming out against herman cain is reserved and direct and she seems so honest. and when you see herman cain with walt pulitzer -- the blitzer interview, he seems so slippery. and when he is asked specifically about having sex with this woman, he says no, no, no. you can hear herman cain almost accidentally admitting that he had an affair with this woman. host: what do you mean? caller: i have only seen the club once on another network.

i can remember how he worded himself, but he almost came out with it. he is denying in a very unimpressive way. host: if you want to send us your comments or thoughts on this question to twitter, cspanwj is our handle their. here is one. you can also send us an e-mail. here is our e-mail address. or post your comments on our facebook page. athens, georgia and common melvyn is a republican. caller: i agree with one of the previous callers that you have to have integrity. it is best to get all of this mess out of the way now, before

you become president. so if you do not have the integrity now, what can we expect when you become president? i also agree with one of the previous callers that jon huntsman has lived his life beyond for approach but people do not respect that. host: argue favoring jon huntsman? caller: yes, i am. host: what you think about mitt romney or newt gingrich? caller: he has flip flopped too much. newt gingrich has not had a good lie either as far as his faithfulness is concerned. i would not vote for him. host: newt gingrich was in south carolina yesterday, melvin, and he was saying that he was not perfect but he was better than romney. he said he was the candidate for

the conservative friend of jewels and the person that can get elected in the general. what do you think? caller: he may be conservative but what about his integrity? host: so if it was mitt romney or newt gingrich, it would come down too integrity? caller: neither one. host: on the issue of flip- floping, here is the newspaper. a new web ad out from the dnc. >> comes the story of two man trapped in one body. met versus met. >> i will protect preserve a woman's right to choose. >> the next right step is to see roe v. wade overturned.

didn't we put together and exchange and the president is copying that idea. i am glad to hear that. >> obamacare is bad news. >> cn off at the democratic national committee. host: the latest ad put out by the dnc, trying to area across the country. an independent in oregon, we're talking about a candidate's personal life. does it matter to you? caller: yes, it is very important. integrity and honesty is very important. if the candidate cannot be honest about his life, nobody is perfect, but if you were not going to help people, what is your intention of running? host: cincinnati, democratic caller, what do you think? caller: i think it comes down to integrity and honor.

it is on the small scale in your everyday life, and if you are lying and have a deceptive nature, why would i trust u.s. president of united states with all of these other people hoping that you succeed, that you will not take some those qualities from a smaller scale on to the larger scale? i do believe that your personal life does matter. we live in a society where people can try to lie to themselves all they want, but the fact of the matter, when sarah palin was running, nobody is perfect but look how much \ that she got -- backlash that she got because it was the mother of an unwed daughter? people do not want teen pregnancies. they want people to be married and have kids in wedlock. they do not want to force. people can say that it does not matter but yes, it does.

it plays across the media and everyone -- they are not saying that people make mistakes. glad that is not me. and just one more quick thing. you just play a thatmitt s gotmitt had. -- you just played that mitt vs. mitt ad. when it comes to abortion, the woman is the only one that has to decide if i have to go ahead and terminate this pregnancy or adopt the baby, whether open adoption are close to adoption, or am i going to raise the child? host: i am going to leave it there. on this back-and-forth, the newspaper says this. for many gop voters in early primary states, hesitation about

romney comes back to one thing, their perception that he is routinely molded his views to see that pruett -- the political mode, with ambition has overriding principle. some other headlines. breaking news from the associated press, american airlines and american eagle company's filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. and then the front page of the washington post, ordering a trial on this case. they called to limited that charges are true. that is on the front pages of the "washington post." and then in egypt, people turning out in droves for the historic elections there. they are eager to shift from military rule. also up front page story about the situation in pakistan and afghanistan. here is the kick you washington

post. -- the "washington post. we will talk about this in the last hour of our "washington journal." what does this mean for relations with pakistan gm now? some reports about the situation in europe. the result is a credit squeeze from companies, heading for another slump. the situation in the eurozone prompted a projection that the united states economy would grow at a 2% rate down from a forecast of 3.1% growth in may.

front page of the "financial times" this morning. an appeal to germany from poland to save the eurozone. germany is the only country that can save the euro zone from a crisis about possible assault -- apocalyptic proportions. and that president obama also needs to weigh in on the situation, saying that the u.s. stands ready to do its part to help. that is in "usa today" this morning. pennsylvania, sally is a republican. what are your thoughts on a candidate's personal life? does it matter? caller: when i first heard the wonder to coming up, i thought, oh, boy, this is just political. but then, when i keep hearing

all of this going on, and all of this coming out, it is almost like, yes, this is true. now if he would have stepped up to the plate and said, i have done things in my past that i am certainly not proud of, and that probably would have stopped it. but it has not in a cave more and more coming out, so not only is he a cheat, but he is a liar. so we could not afford to have him for our president. the other thing i want to say is that when i heard mr. frank was retiring, that is the best news i've heard coming out of washington, d.c. host: coming back to that question, were you thinking about voting for herman cain in the primary? caller: i did. i was listening to all the

different things they were talking about, the different debates, and he is a very intelligent man. but now, when i hear that he is a cheat and a liar, no, i would never vote for him. host: who now tops your list? caller: i think mr. huntsman is very good. i believe that he is a very intelligent man. a lot going for him. i like him. host: what about newt gingrich or mitt romney, who seemed to be ahead of in the polls? caller: they would never get my vote. i might consider him. host: what is holding her back? caller: he has not had alike past either. -- a lily white passed by there. three times married, what is

wrong here? you could see the second time, but the third time, what is going on here with this man? host: here is an e-mail from a viewer. it is the media that exploits these events and yes, the personal life does matter. arthur, a democratic caller, what you think? caller: in this instance, i do not feel like personal life should matter all that much. it is supposed to be personal. i think that these people had a problem with this and they should have done it 13 years ago. the person that should be most concerned would be his wife. she has the final say. thanks. host: john, an independent from maine. caller: all politicians lie. in politics, you have to be a

realist, not an idealist. this woman, i do not know who she is, it sounds like she is looking for 15 minutes of fame or something like that. host: so it does not matter to you. caller: no, i was in the hiring position at one time. when the person gave their resume, it looked fancy. i would tell them, never mind his resume, show me what you can do. and that is the most important thing, competency. host: you are an independent voter, you vote for republicans and democrats in the past? caller: yes. host: which republican candidate could you vote for? caller: newt gingrich is very competent. i had been thinking he knew where all the bodies were buried. and herman cain knew the

financial part of this country. the past two presidents we have had, obama and bush, they were too young. they should never have been in office at all. host: so gingrich versus obama, you but gingrich? caller: yes, because of his competency. no politician ever tells the truth. if you look back at thomas jefferson, ok, and a big scandal with andrew jackson, he was accused of adultery, and then the media itself, the yellow press. it is now the electronic press. they did that with slandering annie oakley, they called her a drug addict. she was in ohio with her husband, they got into a car accident, and some woman up in new york state who had a similar name to her.

he got into all the newspapers. versusmitt romney barack obama, who would you vote for? caller: i would not voted all. go to syracuse, new york. caller: i think that moral character does have a big play on who you vote for. there is no integrity anywhere in politics anymore. you have newt gingrich, the only speaker of the house who was forced to resign due to ethics. on've got mitt romney abortion, and i disagreed that the woman is the only one who decides to carry that baby. like the man has no emotional

part of the decision at all. we -- our country is having problems right now. host: who are you going to vote for? caller: i m.a. ron paul supporter, but i also like jon huntsman. ron paul had been married to the same woman, and he is of good character. a lot of people do not agree with his anti-war stand, but this war is getting us nowhere. we're going into countries without declaring war. it is a mess. that has a lot to do with moral character itself as a country. we are going in and trying to change these countries, and it is just unbelievable what we're doing. host: in other news, the "new york times" article about cameras in the supreme court. he says it is a nice idea but

still not likely. the day after the announcement that the supreme court would take up the health care law, brian lamb wrote to chief justice roberts with a modest request, we believe that the public interest is best served -- a column goes on to say that there will probably be just 50 seats available to the public for the arguments of the health care case. people will probably wait in the cold for two nights are long for.

-- or longer. mr. lamb said they'd heard one objection was the sound bite. they do not like it that people can sound bite them. they would carry the entire argument but others might use exurbs. justice can bird compiled opt-in examples of the past year. she drew this conclusion -- from the foregoing samples, you may better understand why the court does not permit oral argument any time soon. we also let you know about the payroll tax debate that is happening in congress this week. senate democrats have set up a showdown over the issue that happens this week.

of those expected as early as friday. the bill would reduce the payroll tax paid by half, to 3.1% of wages. those taxes were reduced to 4.2% this year. that loss is expected to its -- would expire at the end of the year -- that law would expire if the end of the year. the bill would also reduce the social security payroll tax paid by employers on the first $5 million of taxable payroll. this proposal was part of president obama's jobs program that previously failed in the senate. republicans have been lukewarm in extending the payroll tax holiday, arguing that it would not stimulate the economy. they're particularly displeased with the senate proposal to pay for it.

that is the debate in the senate and house also likely to take it up soon. mike is a democrat in harrisburg, pennsylvania. lifea candidate's personal matter to you? caller: my comment was that i am amazed that the amount of money that the republican candidates are spending on failed runs for the presidency, such as newt gingrich, running again, santorum, running again, ron paul, mitt romney, running again. why don't they put their money into a charity of some sort where people would benefit from it? again, it shows the 1% that has money to fret away on a point

was campaigns going nowhere. host: a republican from scottsdale, arizona. caller: that last caller wants to talk money. remember when barack obama signed a contract with john mccain to take public money? and then he backed out at it, talking flip-flops. morals have a lot to do with it. and that is why i am a mitt romney supporter. he is squeaky clean. they cannot find anything on his personal life. he saved the salt lake olympics. he was governor of a very, very, very liberal state. he had to go along with a lot of that, but he did veto an abortion bill. that shows where he is on abortion. i am really get tired of newt gingrich and his wife. you want a whole or in the white house?

they were having an affair and we were paying for with our federal tax polish -- fat -- federal tax dollars. this man has committed adultery twice, and now he is a born again catholic. morals need to mean something. host: the concerted to catholicism -- he converted to catholicism when he married his current wife. another article. this is an issue we will be talking about tomorrow on the "washington journal" as part of our spotlight on magazines. a recent look at a weekly magazine article, this one written by michael hirsh. you can go to our website and read the article, called the "left behinds".

we encourage you to read the article and call, tweed, an e- mail to more. judy, an independent, go ahead. caller: i believe that the press has a lot to do with what comes out. when bill clinton was running, all of his moral shenanigans with women while he was governor came out, and he was elected regardless of those things that came out. i think it's clear to make your choice to go after the women are to go after the candidate. host: that is from north carolina. let me run through some more headlines. this is from the "wall street

journal." sparks from the battery pack, gm working to reassure consumers to avoid a potential gaffe. cyber monday, online sales up 15%. and then, here are two headlines from two different headlines. the same headline. the rich get richer. some connecticut and nancy years -- financiers who won the latest power ball payout. they will split $100 million. and then some of you will see --

if your initiative in visiting the washington scene soon, the capital is getting ready for christmas. they had tied down the branches of a 65-foot white fur from california national forest that will be the official capitol christmas tree. it was arriving at the capitol yesterday. a crane was needed to get it into place after a three-week trip that took it on a tour of california and then across the country to calla -- to washington. it will be lit on a december 6 ceremony. we're talking about the candidate's personal life and whether read matters when you go to vote. georgia, what do you think? caller: to a certain point, i do agree that it does matter. i also believe that a person's personal life is a personal life. it is something they have to deal with god about.

as far as being in the white house, look at all the presidents we of at all the way back to kennedy. kennedy was a good president. how many women did he have? that is what i'm talking about. he was a good president. my opinion on herman cain is that he is not a politician. i am tired of politics in washington and all over, because that is what has got us in this mess. put businessmen in who know how they make money, no matter run businesses, that is why i am voting for him. i do not care what the press says or anybody else says. i believe him above mitt, and i cannot think of the name now. host: newt gingrich? caller: yes, now him, i do not trust because he is getting all this money from people while he

is doing favors for certain companies or whatever. he is getting these money and all of these kids. quality of interest in somebody when he hits the white house? -- what we have an interest in somebody when he hits the white house? host: raleigh, north carolina, your next. caller: i think it does matter and the key to it is, does the candidate may family values and the issue? if they do, then their personal life is fair game. if they are not of holding -- of holding what they are professing to be for felt pretty for family values, then that is their game. and when someone comes forward like this accuser, i think it is completely irrational but the press will pick up on that

story. -- i think it is completely rational that the president picked up on a store. it also strikes to a person's judgment. if they do not have good judgment, then i think there is something we need to know for someone responsible for running the country. host: so in your opinion, did that apply to bill clinton back in the day? did you vote for him? caller: i did vote for him. i think we saw how his attitude that the rules do not really apply to him came to fruition when he lied to the country about whether or not he was involved in an affair. i also think that in the case with malia pinsky -- monica lewinsky, as well as herman

cain's sexual harassment issues, it goes to how to dispersant use or abuse their position of power. -- how did this person use or abuse their personal -- their position of power. should it be the only thing that decides how you vote, no. but there are other factors that can be considered. their character, which certainly republicans have been big about character and family baggage. i do not see how can profess those kind of things and claimed that moral superiority and not be prepared to deal with questions in your personal life. host: all try to get and two more callers here. caller: why is it so important for these politicians to listen to their dirty laundry, and someone is playing it -- living

a clean life and then they turn around and do these scams. no one is doing anything about it. they are not doing nothing. you get people studying to be lawyers and they are laughing about it. host: david, a republican in miami, florida, your last. caller: two candidates come to mind. you have charlie rangel, 11 counts of corruption. chairman of the ways and means commission, gets 11 per you got marion barry, the mayor of washington, d.c., caught smoking crack with a prostitution on camera, goes to prison, comes out, gets reelected. one question -- the tea party for was a lot of people. it was for herman cain, sarah

palin, and who is occupy wall street for. tell me what candidate do they support? host: we will leave it there. and we will be talking with one of the tea party groups in about 45 minutes about the tea party agenda. but up next, a discussion on social security and medicare. we will be right back. ♪ >> let me be very clear. i want either be a lobbyist for a historian, i promise you on both. there is no way i would be a lobbyist. i will miss this job and i have some twinges of regret when the new congress has signed up. but i will tell him you this, and you will laugh, but one of

the advantage to me of not running for office is that i do not have to pretend to be nice to people i do not like. [laughter] some of you may not think i have been good at it, but i have been trying. and the notion of being nice to people i would not like would be ridiculous. i would not be a lobbyist. i do not intend to practice law, although i might show a pro bono for gay-rights. my intention would be a combination of teaching and lecturing. >> after 16 terms in the house of representatives, barney frank will step down at the end of next year. watches retirement announcement as well as 1000 other appearances on the c-span network, online, archive, and searchable. it is washington your way. >> within 90 days of my

inauguration, every american soldier and every american president will be out of the john gall and out of their cells and back home in america where they belong. >> his pledge to the 1972 democratic convention came nearly a decade after being one of the first senators to speak out publicly against the vietnam war. the senator from south dakota suffered a landslide defeat to president nixon, but his ground- breaking campaign changed american politics and the democratic party. george mcgovern is featured this week on the "of the contenders." from south dakota, live friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back this morning with max richtman talking about preserving social security and medicare. the group that you had a. i want to show these pieces that came out over the weekend.

reining in medicare costs. it says that although the so- called super committee was not able to reach a deal, there are members of both parties that believe that there should be some compromise on medicare. and the panel -- it should offer a fixed amount of money to each beneficiary to buy coverage from competing private plans whose benefits would be tightly regulated by the government. some democrats say that if there were enough protections for consumers, it might work. it is called premium support. what you think of this idea? guest: i think that people and the district in new york told us what america thinks about that. it is a bad idea. in the special election in upstate new york, the buffalo area, the democratic candidate

won to a large extent, i think, because she opposed to this idea. this is the rhine and planned. premium support. r is theyan plan that was pretty much panned that you wish -- it is the ryan plan that was pretty much panned a few months ago. it means that they will pay more each year because the amount will not be adjusted to keep up with health care inflation. greta, we have medicare because private insurance simply did not work. it did not cover seniors. they do not want to cover seniors. it is not a money-making proposition. we do not need to go back in time to a situation where seniors cannot afford and cannot buy health insurance. host: it's a quest rationed goes

through now that the deficit committee did not come up with it -- sequestration goes through now that the deficit committee did not come up with the deal, what cuts to use seat? guest: for seniors, medicare would be cut by 2%. on the provider side, that as hospitals, nursing, skilled nursing facilities, doctors, and those are pretty traumatic cut state -- pretty dramatic cuts. not on beneficiaries, as terms but there will be cuts on providers. that will have a dramatic impact on access. so we are very leery about those cuts. other pieces of sequestration

that are problematic. low-income housing assistance. very important to seniors, especially in the winter. that would be cut dramatically, about $250 million. the meals on wheels, there are a lot of problems with that. but the failure of the super committee, i do not consider it a failure. they did not fail the american people. failure would have been cutting programs for middle-class americans and for seniors while protecting the wealthy. that did not happen. host: if they had come to some sort of deal, reforms to those programs would have been on the table. guest: absolutely. one of the most frustrating things about watching this debate was how many time

officials and our government, including the president of the united states,, -- including the head the office of management budget, saying that social security was not a problem. it was not the problem and yet it was the focus of so much attention in the negotiations. we tried to get the message across that this program did not cause the program and should not be used as a bargaining chip in negotiating for deficit reduction plans. host: given that they did not reach a deal, will your group be ok with this $123 billion of cuts in medicare? are you willing to accept a sequestration? guest: we may not have a choice. the president said he would veto any attempt to repeal a

sequestration unless there is a comparable package of deficit reduction put forward that amounts to $1.2 trillion in cuts over 10 years. we will be watching it very carefully. there will be a lot of negotiations. this is not the end. the "failure" of the super committee is not the end. there is the whole budget process to work through. but i want to say one thing about our effort. i am so proud of the national committee to preserve social security & medicare, 3.5 million members and supporters. dedicated staff and the other groups that we partner within our campaign to get through the bubble of the super committee trying to live them over the last three months. we penetrated that bubble. host: you are part of those ads that many seniors saw that we

have a big vote and a big say in 2012. guest: we had a campaign slogan that resonated, hands-off, no cuts. we hear in the paid media, earned media, broadcast, all of the sunday talk show for weeks, and we had a field organization that was involved in at least 120 events around the country. many targeted toward districts and states that were represented by members of the super committee. we delivered 65,000 petitions to the congress saying hands-off, no cuts, no social security in medicare and medicaid. generated almost 80,000 phone calls to members of congress. i used to work on capitol hill and one of the first members i work for would say when he

walked in, what are we hearing? so they heard, i think, our message. host: how much money did you spend on that? guest: $2 million, a lot of money for us. host: any reforms that you would agree to? guest: reforms to social security will probably happen. we are not opposed to ever- changing anything to social security. that would not make sense. it is a dynamic program. it has changed over time and it is not the same program from 1935. there have been a number of major changes. the last time social security was changed in a comprehensive way was in 1983, the social security amendments that dealt with a lot of changes, including the benefits and the financing. but that was done for the sake

of social security. not to solve some problems that social security did not create. social security is sound and a bill to pay everybody every penny they are entitled to. that is the trusties saying, until the year 2036. then there is a shortfall of a little over 20%. that needs to be dealt with. we did not need to fix that problem by thanksgiving. but we do not want to wait until the december 2036, but we did not need to address it by thanksgiving. we need to look at all long- range problems and we would like to be part of that process. host: let me remind the viewers of this piece, going cash- earlier than expected. under the strain of a recession that caused revenue to plummet,

benefits outstrip revenues for the first time. there will be a projected $46 billion added to the nation's budget problems. replacing cash lost 2 01-year payroll tax holiday will require an additional $105 billion. if the payroll tax break is expanded next year, so social security will need an extra $267 billion to pay promised benefits. guest: i remember her article and i took grid exception to it and wrote to the "washington post." they did not read my analysis but she is absolutely wrong about social security being cash-. yes, the money they came in with the payroll tax because of the recession and high unemployment, did not cover all of the benefits that needed to be paid. but there is interest on this

also security trust fund bonds. it is not cash negative. even in this awful economic time, the program added money -- added money to its trust fund because it received $2.6 trillion that will grow another $1 trillion in the next 10 years or so. i am sorry she presented the case the way she did. i think it was very misleading. host: the treasury has to sell those bonds. if investors are weary of congress, the government of the united states, being able to deal with the situation -- that is, if they do not tackle social security and medicare, that the united states will suffer another downgrade and investors will run away. guest: i am not here defending

our debt or deficit. there's no question something needs to be done with our debt and deficit. social security, again, is not the problem. host: how do you do it without tackling medicare, medicaid, and social security? guest: first of all, you do it for the sake of the program. you do not do it in a crisis atmosphere. you do not do it with the deadline of thanksgiving to change and reform these major programs. that's not the right way to do it in the first place. it was done in a very thoughtful way in the early 1980's with the greenspan commission, headed by alan greenspan, bob dole, senator moynihan, and a lot of people from various political persuasions got together in a

thoughtful way that dealt with the financing and the benefits and put the program in a sound wave. we're talking about 2036 as a solvency date. back then, it was four or five months. that was really a crisis. i do not want to get to that point. we did not need to solve these enormous issues, complicated issues, by thanksgiving. host: let's get to phone calls. bob, a republican in ohio, go ahead. caller: yeah, i think the tax break on social security is a big mistake. they are talking about having to do something to fix it. the way i look at it, it has been butchered over the years. taking it out of there just to make another stimulus is ridiculous. host: you're talking about the payroll tax holiday. you oppose that.

caller: totally. that money is for social security. using that to prop up something else is just another way of putting up the bank. host: max richtman, do you agree? guest: i think bob is dead right. the diversion of the social security payroll tax is an enormous problem. he mentioned the difficulties of social security and that this money would have to be paid back, so why in the world are we now even contemplating taking another $100 billion to $200 billion out of this program that will have to be paid back? that's an enormous mistake. the reason social security had such strong, universal support is because it is paid for.

it is an earned program. i wish we would stop talking about social security as an entitlement did when you think of it that way, it is almost as if a retiree receives social security because the retiree exists. the retiree paid for it. host: we will go to rochester, michigan. paul, democratic caller. you are next. good morning. caller: thank you for your organization. i support you total the. i have a problem in that every republican that i know seems to be sort of against social security. thatto undo fdr's programs have saved my mother, -- saved, i am a retired air vietnam veteran. i do not understand how these younger people, many of them are

buying the lie that social security is socialism. i think it's one of the greatest things that has ever occurred in our country. host: this e-mail. guest: i know one of the media outlets in washington referred to -- not our campaign, but that approach as "thuggery." i do not know who grover norquist represents. we represent 3.5 million seniors. most of them are seniors. they are voters. we did a poll, a very thoughtful poll conducted by a democratic pollster and a republican pollster. there is almost across-the-board opposition -- there is

opposition by people of all political stripes. clear majorities oppose cutting social security and medicare to address the deficit. what we are representing, i think, it is the view of the american people, the majority of the american people. that is what democracy is all about. host: richard, an independent in new york, you are next. caller: yes. thank you for taking my call. i want to let mr. richtman know that the $2.7 trillion that they have in the trust fund is money stolen from the system and you have no intention of repaying that $2.7 trillion. that is shown by the fact that you are going to raise the age and lower the benefits.

the $2.7 trillion is not going to be repaid. the only thing that shows that it will -- they're having to pay out the cash quicker than they thought. host: max richtman? guest: well, let me just say that everybody who has ever been entitled to social security benefits has received them on time in full. this program has a pretty good record. i think it is up to us, the caller, the national committee to preserve social security and medicare, the media, to explain this program accurately. it is an earned benefit. i think politicians need to understand that this is a program that people paid for. it is not welfare. they will feel the pressure to make sure this money is repaid -- every penny that has ever been put in the trust fund,

including last year when there was not enough revenue coming in and the payroll tax has been available. we are determined, as the second-largest senior group in the country, to make sure that continues. host: the senate is expected to vote as early as friday on whether or not to extend the payroll tax holiday and lower it to 3.1%. that's the debate happening in the senate this week. let me go back to medicare. here is an e-mail from a viewer. guest: i think the affordable care act that has been in place for a short time has many provisions to hold down the cost of medicare. we should not, i think -- we should not be cutting medicare by another half of $1 trillion when a lot of the cost savings in the affordable care act have

not even been put in place. i think we need to see how that plays out. there are ways to cut back on the cost of medicare. having beneficiaries pay more out of their pockets and receive less from social security -- that is a mistake. host: according to the congressional budget office, the projection for medicare and medicaid -- medicare is the light green color. medicaid is the dark green color. this is the line for 2010. you can see where it goes from there. if congress were to come to some sort of deal on medicare and the coming weeks or months and they were to put forward a premium support deal like we talked about, is your organization

prepared to spend another $2 million to try to influence congress to stop them from doing some sort of deal? guest: i do not know if we would spend $2 million. that's a lot of money for us. we would definitely do everything within our power to oppose premium support or voucher-izing the program. i think the voices of the american people were heard loud and clear in the last three months. i am hoping that members of congress will heed the warnings that were issued by our group and other groups. just a comment on your chart. yes, it is accurate, i did not look at it carefully, but the cost of these programs are skyrocketing. but problem is not medicare and medicaid.

the problem is health care costs. the affordable care act took a big step. more needs to be done, not by squeezing the middle class and seniors, but by controlling health-care costs overall. that would be the more sensible approach. maybe i should have mentioned that to the previous caller. host: bonnie, a republican in maryland. good morning. you are on the air. caller: i have a question. i have asked my senators. please do not cut me off. i was in a wreck in 2007. a drunk driver hit me. after two years of fighting it, i got medicaid. i get less than $600 per month now. once i turned 65, they put me on medicare. now i pay $97 per month for medicare. i pay a copayment on all my prescriptions. i have a tumor.

before i went on medicare, it paid for my glasses. i called for new ones and guess what? medicare does not pay for glasses. before you turn 65 -- what about medicaid? it pays for everything. that is where it should be cut, not the seniors. you go to a nursing home and you see these people with no teeth. they cannot see because it does not pay for the glasses. seniors are stuck in the corner. they are no use to the country. they cannot work for nothing. big deal. we just keep raising medicare. do not give them no more social security. you have to fight for it for two years before you can get it. host: we will leave its there. max richtman? issuesthat's a lot of from one caller.

medicaid is a program that is very important to seniors. it is not just the poor. 62% of medicaid expenditures are devoted to nursing home and long-term care. that is primarily seniors and the disabled. i know our members are beginning to understand that medicaid is not just a program for the poor, but it is a program for those people who will become for when they spend an average of $75,000 in a nursing home and end up having to count on medicaid. she made a good point about what medicare doesn't cover. it does not cover glasses. it does not cover hearing aids. it does not cover dental. these things are so important to the quality of life in the

health of human beings. even in these tight budget times for all these programs, including medicare, we have begun a project to look at how we can expand the program. i know it may sound ridiculous to some, but it is important to think about how we can expand the program to cover a hearing, dental, vision, and things that are so crucial. we have created a foundation, the national committee foundation, that is committed to raising these issues so that at some point the congress can respond. host: andrew, democrat caller, middletown, new jersey. caller: yes. good morning. guest: good morning. caller: yes, the one thing i want to point out is that nobody in washington and nobody in the mainstream media is focusing on

-- congress and the reagan white house decided to move the social security trust fund, which was never meant to be part of the treasury. they did this to cover up the huge amount of money reagan was spending on defense. now we run deficits. let's look at who the real culprits were. it's not the people who contributed into this trust fund. it is the people that we collected that stole the money from the seniors and all the people that paid into this for generations. my father died at 57. he never collected it. let's put the truth out here. as far as medicare goes, let's go after the hospitals and doctors that are stealing the

money from the american people. thank you. host: max richtman, let's take the last point about doctors. guest: somebody earlier asked about reforming medicare. i think we go a long ways towards saving money and reforming the program and the right way if physician reimbursement were based more on quality and out comes, not on the volumes, which i think the caller was talking about. that's where you end up having a lot of expenses for unnecessary tests and possibly procedures. the reimbursement, if they change took place -- if a change took place, i think we would save some money. he made a couple of good points. host: a republican in dayton, ohio. caller: yes, good morning. i would like to say one thing real quick in regards to the

earlier caller who suggested we take a lot of money for medicaid. the gentleman there said 60% of people on medicaid are not the poor. i would have to argue with that. medicaid has a limit of income. for instance, i cannot own anything beyond a certain worth. if i do, then i'm not eligible for medicaid. i'm in a rental property that has not been worked on for 70 years. i scraped the bottle of -- the bottom of the barrel every day of my life. in regards to medicare, my medicine averages over $7,000 per month. how in the world -- this is a

life-saving medication. world how in am i going to be able to survive this with these giant cuts? host: max richtman? guest: maybe i was not clear on my explanation of who is covered by medicaid. yes, it is income-based. my point was that seniors and the disabled become poor when they are in nursing homes. they receive medicaid benefits when they still have assets. they have an alternative. they have spent their money, their resources for their long- term care. when they are poor, they rely on medicaid. that is why it is important to seniors, to the disabled, and to maintain a program that is viable. aller?independent coll caller: good morning.

what legislators did you work for? where does your group gets its funding? i've paid into social security since 1955. i have paid into medicare since it existed. i have never used the medicare. this is the situation i have. i have an increasing cost of everything. my income without medicare is $1,300 per month. with medicare, it's under $1,200 per month. i have dropped medicare. i have never used it. i have paid for it. i'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. i know there are a lot of programs that do not deal directly with funding. i know i have paid for them for many years.

if you would be kind enough to answer my questions, i would appreciate it. my kids are paying social security and it looks like they will never be able to get it. . guest: the members of congress i work for -- congressman yates, who has passed away. senator john welter of montana. as far as the funding of the national committee, we are supported by our members. all of the money that i mentioned that we spend on this vigorous campaign was out of the contributions of our members. the average contribution is $12

per year. we do not receive any government money. we do not receive any foundation money or corporate money. that is good for us. we represent our members. we do not have a color of a complex. we are true to our members. we do not have any conflicts. host: max richtman. the website is -- houston, texas, democratic caller. go ahead. caller: u2 went on tour and made $800 million in one year. the republicans are trying to take -- leave those guys alone. they do not want to take money

from them and give it to medical research or teachers or any of the social programs. excess. excess inhave communism. you cannot have accesexcess in capitalism. host: max richtman? guest: i think the message that resonated in the congress in the last three months and particularly the members of the super committee dealt with what the caller talked about. fairness. this whole super committee was about fairness. is it important to cut vital benefits for people who are counting on them to survive and protect the wealthiest in our country? that's not fair.

look at occupy wall street and the various protests around the country. people are getting to the point where they expect their representatives to treat the american people, all of us, with fairness. i think he raises a very good point. host: encino, california, independent caller. caller: i believe in truth, facts, and results. i want to discuss the myth or the outright lie about social security. am i the only one who watches the discovery channel and the learning channel? i watched a show about a few years ago about longevity. it showed the debt started in the 1940's and spiked around 1965 and dramatically dropped as a trickle into the 1970's.

the show ended with the guy saying that people living in the 1970's -- all of my relatives died in the 1960's. most people i know died in the 1960's. i can count all of the people in the 1970's in one hand. i want to discuss this myth, lie, about people living longer. when you look at the numbers, i do not think that's a true statement. guest: i can assure you you are not the only one watching the discovery channel or learning channel. i watch it. you are not alone in that regard. there are so many myths about social security that there's no money, that it is bankrupt, that it is broke. all myths.

there is some truth to the fact that life span for americans has increased since the social security was enacted. i think that's a good thing. but the important thing we're looking at the age for receiving benefits is, how long can people work? the age for receiving benefits was raised in the early 1980's. i will be 66 before i get benefits. in another few years, the age for everyone will be 67. how much longer can people w ork? we can maybe do this for a long time. i hope so. working in a packing house in the midwest or an auto plant, you cannot work for much longer

than that. the important thing is, i think -- well, two things. we can solve social security by raising the age of retirement to 90. that would not make any sense. it would not make any sense to raise it beyond what it is now. the man mentioned that most of the people he knew did not live into their 70's. this is social insurance. the myth is that it is an investment program. that's not the point. fica is the federal insurance contribution act. it is insurance for families. 38% of social security benefits go to non-retired workers. these people that the caller mentioned were eligible for disability benefits, survivor benefits.

if you are 27 years old and have a spouse and two children, you have almost half of $1 million in life insurance and disability insurance if something happens. a lot of people do not know that our appreciate that until something that does happen. it is another myth that needs to be dispelled about social security. it is not an investment plan. that's why we opposed privatization so strongly a few years ago and continue to do so. it is an insurance plan. host: i want to get your thoughts on new gingrich's recent comments in an interview he gave to the new hampshire and leader union. >> everybody who wanted to could choose a personal social security savings account. you would build it up over your working lifetime.

if you wanted to work part-time at 14 or 16, you put in. the easiest model is you are allowed to put your half of the social security tax into your own savings account. the other half goes into assisting in the current system. and turns out half -- two or three times more money. host: max richtman? guest: if you are for destroying social security, i would say vote for speaker gingrich. that's what his plan would do. take a lot of money into the program. talk about. . -- talk about shortfalls. this program is insurance. it's not about what you get when you retype your -- it's not about what you get when you

retire. it's about insurance for your families, for your children. to focus just on the return and to forget about the social insurance nature of the program or dismiss it, as he seems to do, is a huge mistake. host: a republican of illinois. caller: i have a comment and a question. i've never heard the news media or anyone ask the congressman or senators how much it cost us to keep them up there. are they going to cut entitlements? thank you. guest: i do not know all of the benefits members of congress receive. i know they're part of the social security program. that happened some years ago. they pay into it, just like a buddy of -- just like everybody else.

like some workers, they have pensions. a lot of americans do not have the kinds of pensions we used to have an rely more on social security. host: last phone call. chris, a democrat in hollywood, california. caller: good morning. a value-added tax would solve everything. host: max richtman? guest: i could not comment on that. i do not know if it would solve everything. i wish something would solve everything. host: max richtman, president and ceo of the national committee to preserve social security and medicare. thank you. guest: thank you for inviting me. host: in 45 minutes, we'll turn our attention to u.s.-pakistan relations following the news of the nato air strike that killed pakistani soldiers. we will talk about the fallout from that. next, we'll turn our attention to the upcoming spending battles with freedomworks president and

ceo, matt kibbe. >> it is 8:30 a.m. eastern time. preliminary u.s. military reports find that nato forces may have been lured into attacking friendly pakistani border post in a calculated maneuver by the taliban. it killed 24 pakistani soldiers in an apparent case of mistaken identity. meanwhile, in remarks earlier today, a pakistani general says the military believes the nato attack was "a deliberate act of aggression." he said the pakistani army is debating whether to cooperate with the united states investigation into saturday's incident on the afghan-pakistan border. meanwhile, in afghanistan, karzai says the top commander of u.s. and nato troops has ordered a retraining following recent

deaths of afghan civilians. he says he received a letter from u.s. general john allen. on november 23, six children and adults were killed in a nato air strike in southern afghanistan. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the newly designed c- span.org website has 11 video choices, making it easy for you to watch today's events. it's also easier for you to get our schedule, so you can quickly scroll through all the program schedule on the c-span networks and receive e-mail alerts when your programs are scheduled to air. there's a section to access our most popular series and programs, like "washington journal" and open " the contenders." you can quickly find where to watch our three networks on cable or satellite networks across the country.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with matt kibbe, president and ceo of freedomworks. here is the headline in "the washington times" this morning. tea partyers split over gingrich. guest: you have to strip away some of the emotion. the first problem is i.n.s. to the extent that it is about economics, we would like to see it so that people come in legally in people, and who want to work. how you do that is a very sticky question. host: but you agree with how he

would do that, providing some sort of what his opponents say is amnesty for those who are already here? guest: you have to incentivize people to obey the law. that's what we're all struggling with. you have the question of border security. you have the problem of the 12 million people for our be here illegally -- people who are already here illegally. that is outside of freedomwork'' mission. you have to look at the incentives. host: to be clear, freedomworks , on the economics of gingrich's comments, support the idea. guest: he has been in the same position as we are regarding a guest worker program. that is really what he is talking about.

host: national journal had this question recently. "can newt gingrich pass tea party muster?" guest: he has been around a long time. he was in congress for 20 years. he has written so much and said so much. in that sense, he is the anti obama. everyone knows his stance, even when he has been inconsistent. the tea party has heartburn on where he has been in the past on global warming and supporting tarp. if you look at where he is today, you would have to say that some of the stances he is

taking today and the clear economic positions he is taking are attractive. it's a conundrum for the tea party. host: freedomworks? guest: we're trying to measure all the candidates based on 10 issues. you have two gingrichs. all the republican candidates are now talking the tea party talk. the question is authenticity. i think that's what the primaries are for. there's a desperate look for someone other than mitt romney. host: why? guest: anybody but it romney. he has a fundamental problem on health care. the american people do not like the idea of the federal government forcing you to buy a product simply because you breath.

mitt romney refuses to this of you -- refuses to disavow romney-care. we have never endorsed a candidate for president. if we found the right one, we would. we are in no hurry to do that. we are constantly pulling our members about where they are on these issues. they consistently say, "please stay out of the primaries. . host: what will you do during this 2012 primary season? guest: the big opportunity for tea partiers is the u.s. senate. to thery advantageous tea party organization.

if you look at states like florida and ohio, those happen to be the states that president obama needs to win to be a two term president. in a lot of ways, tea partiers are organizing in places where we can both work senate races and the presidential cycle. host: have you endorsed any senate candidate so far? guest: absolutely. we are trying to unseat hatch in utah. more importantly, we are looking at primaries, like in texas. we think cruz is the next rubio. are more involved with the primaries. host: let me show viewers how much you are spending. you created a super pac this

time. guest: we had an affiliated pac. we had a hard time communicating with not just remembers, but the broader tea party community. a super pac does not have that. the model is to solicit small donors from across the country. i think will will raise a lot of 2$25 checks, not unlike president obama did. host: compared to what you spent in 2010, about $688,000 -- $563 ,000 in 2010. how much do you think you will spend in the end? guest: upwards of $10 million. it really depends on our ability

to raise the small checks from a lot of people. our pac is different. we do not give money to candidates. it's designed to be a support center. if you do not want to hire a lawyer and you do not want to set up your own pac, that's what we are trying to do. the one thing that the tea party that nobody else has is a standing army of activists. usually campaigns spend most of their money building that community. we have that community. the question now is how we mobilize. guest: matt kibbe, our campaign 2012 bus is visiting columbia college. we will try to incorporate nine college students who will be participating in the program from the bus via skype. it's a private liberal arts college for women.

we want to give a special thanks to time warner cable for sponsoring today's visit. we will begin with our first student at columbia college. go ahead. guest: good morning. in a sophomore at columbia college and i am studying political science in spanish. the tea party debt commission -- if we repeal obamacare, how long will it take? host: repealing obamacarolwood be as quick as getting it through the congress -- appealing obamacare would be as quick as getting it through the congress.

it has not been implemented. unwinding all of the bureaucratic structures that we think will further undermine the cost and quality of health care -- if we do that now, it could happen quickly. host: a democrat in birmingham, alabama. guest: moving the goal post and moving from one issue to the next. [inaudible] and the issues around health- care, just like the previous caller said. if you repeal obamacare, how much longer and how much money will it take for you to put something in place that will allow for coverage of the millions of americans, even more who do not have insurance? guest: my organization does not oppose a reduction in the payroll tax. the bigger question on social security and medicare is, what

is the structural reform that would allow young people to have a retirement, to have a health care system? the numbers do not add up. the bigger question is health care. i think the key is to get a third party is out of the way between patients and doctors. because of a lot of government regulations, because of mandates that go back to the 1930's, there's always a middleman. the problem with obamacare, it goes one step further. not only will there be a middle man, but it will be the government that will dictate whether or not you get the services that you need. they key is to empower individuals, that they have their own catastrophic health care plans, that they have their own savings, so they can decide what programs and services work best for them. everybody's needs are different. whether it is an hmo or

obamacare, it's not the way we need to be in the future. host: the senate is expected to vote as early as friday on extending another payroll tax holiday and even making it -- giving americans more money in their paychecks, reducing it to 3.1%. freedomworks is behind the idea? guest: this is all complicated. there was a package of tax cuts. now you have all the bush tax rates about to expire. president obama supports the temporary payroll tax cut. what i like to see is fundamental reform of payroll taxes. it is a huge transfer of wealth from young working people to older, wealthier americans. that's not sustainable in the future. simply doing that is bad tax policy. you do not change incentives for people to work if you are cutting the tax on people to

invest. i say, let's go for fundamental tax reform. let's latin rates across the board. let's get rid of the locals, exceptions -- let's get rid of the loopholes and exceptions. rhetorically, the president has embraced some of that. host: if the payroll tax cut is extended, does freedomworks use some of that super pac money to go after republicans who voted for it? guest: i do not think we would ever oppose a tax cut, even if it is temporary. i'm not sure it's good tax policy. host: even if it is not paid for? guest: they have not paid for anything nine years. that's something all americans should be outraged about. we could talk about the super committee. i wish they could do something on the spending side, because every tax policy that is proposed today is usually offset with another tax increase.

that undermines any growth potential. host: you would extend this, but it would be paid for it by taxing those who make over $1 million. guest: i think that's a bad idea. host: at columbia college, aboard the campaign bus, go ahead. caller: the media has generally been praising the occupy movement, but not so much the tea party. guest: i think it's really frustrating, the double standard between tea partiers, who have come to my knowledge, never been arrested. they've never broken a window. they've never trust public property or private property. the occupiers, even though there is some common ground and a lot

of sympathy -- the way they conduct themselves, i think, undermines their own position. i think americans are distancing themselves from that. in an odd way, this is a blessing for tea partiers. all of the things that were falsely brought up, the accusations about are bad behavior, were not true. people are now seeing what's happening at occupy an understanding that this is the inevitable result when people do not respect each other, when they do not respect individual freedom, and when they do not respect property rights. guest: good morning. newt gingrich and mitch mcconnell, [inaudible] how is he going to get the jobs

back? why is everybody worried about social security? they need to be worried about the jobs in this country. host: let's freedomworks talk let's' -- freedomworks let's talk --'s -- let's talk about freedomworks' jobs. guest: there are only so many ways you can raise money you do not have. the federal reserve is monetizing the debt. they are printing money and expanding credit. that stealing from every dollar you have in your pocket. half of the problem has to be rightsizing the size of government. the other half is getting rid of the disincentives to create jobs. i think that gives to reining in out of control agencies like the epa. you have to do both. you have to rights as the

government and grow the economy. that is how you balance the budget. host: there are more spending battles to come be on this debate on whether to expand the payroll tax holiday. which boats are you monitoring that are the most important for you that you say this is a wora big vote. guest: i would like to see the super committee keep their commitments. host: sequestration? guest: yes. frankly, there's not enough to kick the can down the road. the other thing people need to watch -- host: you support president obama's decision to veto anything that would alter defense cuts or anything like that? guest: they need to accept the cuts they already agreed to. it was not a good idea for

republicans to agree to the process. we opposed the process. i do not think there should be any sacred cows. defense should be on the table and so should everything else. now that they have agreed to the process, it strikes me that republicans need to own it. the other thing to watch is the budget debate in 2012. senate democrats have not passed a budget resolution in going on three years now. we do not know what the priorities are. president obama offered two budgets. he backed away from his own budget submission. republicans have been the only adult in the room in that sense. paul ryan has introduced a road map. there's no way to get the budget priorities unless the democrats participate. host: our c-span bus at columbia college. go ahead, allie.

guest: -- caller: i am from denver, colorado. what are your views on a new burden to taxpayers? guest: it's very frustrating to tea partiers. we pay the permits and the fees. even when local governments tried to stop us from protesting at the local level, freedomworks raise the money to do the march on washington. now the occupiers are held to a different standard. they do not get the permits. because of the destructive behavior, it's putting a huge burden on local governments. i think those in the occupy movement should be asked to pay the cost that they are imposing on the rest of us. host: anne, democrat caller in

greensboro, n.c. caller: some of the same things that have been said about the affordable health care act -- it is not obamacare -- was said about medicare. republicans have never cared about the average worker. when the average american family wakes up, they're going to be shocked to learn that there's an even bigger income gap between the wealthy and there will not be the middle class. the republicans have pulled so many people to vote for them and go along with what they are saying. guest: if you look at government involvement in health care, it's contrary to that. the more the government spends on health care, the higher the costs get. that has a disproportionate effect on people that can least afford coverage. i would point out one glaring

contradiction in obamacare. i call it that. the huge transfer of wealth from younger, more healthy, less wealthy people to older, less healthy, more wealthy people. to me, that's fundamentally un american. it does not make any sense. if you get away from a one size fits all program, i think you get to better health care results, lower prices, and a fundamentally fair system for everybody. host: we will talk to another student at columbia college. go ahead. caller: hi. i'm a senior at columbia college. as occupy movement protesters

tried to bring about economic policy, some people believe the payroll tax cuts are an answer to their prayers. what other things need to take place to bring about economic equality? guest: let's talk about the payroll tax cut. it's important to understand what the system is. democrats, for years, have argued that reforming social security by allowing young people to take a portion of their payroll taxes and put it in a personal account fundamentally undermined a system. now the democrats are saying that we can afford to take revenue streams out of social security and medicare and temporarily transfer them back to workers. i think a better model, a more fundamentally economically sound model, would be to allow younger workers to save their payroll taxes for retirement, for health care, for the things that they need.

that is the way that minimum- wage workers could accumulate wealth for themselves and their families. as the money goes into payroll taxes, as it goes into the black coal of the social security trust fund, -- the balck hole of the social security trust fund, they never get the american dream. to kevin, ago republican in california. you are on the air with max richtman -- you're on the air with matt kibbe of freedomworks. guescaller: what you feel aboute wars abroad? guest: freedomworks does not take a position on foreign policy. i would say this. there's a lot of money being spent in a lot of places across the world. at some point, that is not sustainable. we cannot continue to spend so

much money we do not have. if we do not do something about defense spending, that's the ultimate undermining of american security. that will bring down our economy. that will bring down our ability to defend ourselves. host: next at columbia college. go ahead. caller: i am a senior at columbia college. the south carolina gov. removed and -- issued an order to remove occupy [inaudible] how does the tea party -- guest: what we did and what we do when tea partiers protest, we follow the rules. we get the permits. we do what we need to do to comply with the law.

sometimes, from my point of view, that's not always fair, but that's how we do things. it's not ever appropriate -- there's a big difference between peacefully a cymbeline and -- peacefully assembling. host: a lot of people on twitter are questioning whether or not you have a leading horse in the presidential primary. there must be somebody that freedomworks thinks is on top right now? guest: the one candidate that has consistently drawn a significant support in the republican primary is ron paul. nobody ever talks about him. he has been consistently at 10%, even higher at times. the problem we've had right now, you have had all the spikes. you had the anti-romney guy of

the week, of the month, but we have not had a primary yet. where do you stand on issues? we are aware of where the candidates stand on the issues. the other question, do you know how to organize a national campaign so you can win? that's the purpose of the primaries. i think everybody is looking for that candidate. there is no leader. you could go down the list and talk about the various people that we like philosophically, but no one has emerged as that clear leader. host: newt gingrich has not passed the second test as far as you are concerned. guest: no. host: resources, ability, ground game to win a primary. guest: the second leg of his campaign. it collapsed once already. one thing he is good at is online organization. he understands new media. in this decentralized world of

politics, it's about your ability to connect. he might be able to do that. why would i pre-judging that? host: this tweet from jim hines. guest: interestingly enough, the two front runners are the establishment candidates. mitt romney is clearly the candidate of choice for those that i would call the republican establishment. the republican party has a long history of choosing the next guy in line. that's how we got bob dole and john mccain. contrary to conventional wisdom, it turns out to be a bad strategy to win the presidency. newt gingrich, you could hardly argue he is not part of the establishment, but the problem for tea partiers is -- our freshmen that were elected in 2010, a lot of tea party rock

stars, but they are too young to run for president. they have the humility, unlike president obama, to know that they are not ready to be president. guest: everybody talks about mark rubio. i think there is too much evidence -- and this is on the v.p. bob dole chose jack kemp. that did not work out for him. john mccain chose sarah palin. host: cape cod, massachusetts. caller: good morning. i am a strong supporter of freedomworks. i would like to hear mr. kibbe's

response. let someone on who was an advocate for social security. i see $2.6 trillioni in debt. one in 19 americans -- received law firms who make a living getting people on to these programs. i do not believe the system is softened. -- is solvent. guest: you are right. look at both programs combined. there is over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. this is scandalous that the government does not put that $100 trillion on the books.

federal employes have -- to move from right defined benefit to a defined contribution, where you have more control over the money that you earn and how it is managed as you move towards retirement, and how you spend it in retirement. you have to get young people off of those unfunded liabilities. the democrats will demagogue that. everybody knows that the current system is bankrupt. how do we protect current seniors? host: back to our bus in south carolina and talk to monica. caller: good morning.

with the way the movement is moving to the nation and presented by the media, how do think it will influence voters? guest: i have been surprised how joe biden and president obama and nancy pelosi have embraced occupy wall street. i have the knowledge that i agree with them on crony capitalism. i do think there is something broken with the financial system. the answer is not more government. they have embraced the offensive bad behavior. i have talked about the violence. there have been murders and yapes in these occup enclaves. host: has that been proven?

guest: there is clearly a problem of violence in occupy camps. we documented this in one of our videos -- blatant anti-semitism. when we had real or perceived problems in our community, we kick people out -- we kicked people out. host: freedomworks has spent how much on these videos? guest: probably $20,000 in total. host: 1 not focus on government -- why not focus on government? guest: i think they are related. iers could be defined

by what unites us all. we believe you should not hurt other people and you should not take care stuff. if you look how occupy functions, to take a set of disparate demands, a sense of entitlements. they know something is wrong. they feel somebody owes them something. that is a different place then we would take our government. is the government the election, or is more support for individuals and their ability to work and save for themselves, their ability to make choices about their own health care -- that is a debate we will have.

it is respect for individuals. it is the first rule of civil conduct. from that comes a respect for property rights. 's stuff, e somebody stuf you are hurting the person. host: we asked our viewers if the candidate's personal life matters to them. there was news that a woman came out in georgia that said she had an affair with herman cain. he has denied that. does it matter to freedomworks? guest: it is beyond our scope. republicans tend to care more about the personal conduct of their candidates than democrats.

how are they going to govern? if the personal conduct respects -- reflects on that, it matters. caller: for 40 years, state lotteries were supposed to curb the costs for medicare, medicaid and the uninsured from a to z. i think they have been double dipping. taxes went up. we say we're broke. could you address that -- lottery money from states. there were supposed to help with that kind of stuff. guest: here's the problem with giving the state government or federal government more revenue. they almost never spend it on

what they're supposed to spend it on. in los states, there is revenue that was earmarked for certain things -- in most states. it goes into a general fund. the more you feed government, the more government ratchets up. the founders understood that the politics of special interests, bed the gathering -- feathering, always drives up the cost of government. host: lindsay johnson from columbia college. caller: i am a senior. in the debates, i feel that candidates discussing complicated wall street questions like health care.

many times these candidates -- how best to make a decision in light of these facts and to be an informed voter. guest: i agree with you completely i found the preponderance of the republican debates have not shed much light on where the candidates stand. there was a session that jim demint hosted that allow the candidates to answer questions in a longer format. there was something similar to that in iowa a couple of weeks ago. you can watch those online. candidates talk about how their believes affect their philosophy. caller: good morning.

i have a few questions for you. i read an article that said people that have 401(k) plans, after their 30 years, they end up paying 20% in bank fees and handling fees. so basically they are left with 702%. if it goes to the banks, how much money would that take out of somebody who has very little money coming in any way with these kind of handling fees would takeover. that is a serious question to me, privatization. i'm interested in where people get the money from.

tell me the percentage of millionaires and corporations -- what % of your money came from millionaires and corporations? guest: we raise our money from a very broad community of donors. we have about 42,000 individual donors. i'm not dependent on any individual donor for my funding. i'm not aware of any particular regulations involving 401(k)'s. when you draw those funds, they are a pretext dollars. -- pre- taxed dollars. a question about privatization versus the current system is whether or not you have more confidence in the government's ability to keep its commitments or your own ability to diversify a portfolio and to protect your

own assets, not with one particular bank believes spread that across a lot of different places. i would rather trust myself then a future generation of politicians that are not bound by some promise that was made on the campaign trail. host: backdoor campaign bus -- back to our campaign bus. caller: how does it compare to the tea party in terms of longevity? guest: i think the tea party movement is a leaderless movement. guys like then jones and george -- van jones and george soros, there are deep-pocketed leadership that comes from occupy.l

look at the way they function. they met in the door to a bank lobby -- deutsche bank lobby. we expect each other. when we come together, it is on a volunteer basis. it is value for value. you cannot have it leadership movement unless you have those values in a community. that's why occupy is falling apart. host: john in baltimore. caller: good morning. i have two questions. the first one has to do with social security. i served 20 years in the

military from 1971 until the first gulf war. i was diagnosed with ptsd. i did not file for social zacarias disability until 2005 because of symptoms got worse -- i did not file for social security because my symptoms did not get worse. host: we're running out of time here. caller: how is -- am i going to be affected negatively when it comes to my benefits for the-- ity as far as there's a difference in the word benefit and entitlement. guest: the reforms on social security to not involve the program you're talking about.

we're talking about the retirement portion of social security. host: 1 last didn't at columbia college. caller: hi. my question is the usage about political parties. there's a tendency to distract the government's. . do you agree? guest: that is how our system functions. both parties are becoming less relevant in the conversation. there is a democratization that is empowered individuals for the internet and through multiple sources of information. we do not need republican party to tell us what to think anymore. that is true with democrats as well. host: let me thank our students at columbia college.

there are around 1500 students attending. special thanks for preparing them this morning with their questions and time warner cable who hosted today's's visit. a big thanks to everybody and to matt kibbe. coming up, u.s.-pakistan relations. but first a news update. >> dozens of korean students have stormed the british embassy in tehran. they smashed windows and raised an iranian flag. they chanted, "death to england." england is imposing new sanctions on iran over its nuclear program. our ratings could store meet

british agency as they did to the u.s. mission in 1979, it was warned -- iranians could storm. a fiscal union with binding commitments. to regain market trust. chancellor merkel acknowledges this will not be easy because not all of the 27 member states are enthusiastic about it. president obama meets with the prime minister of the netherlands to talk about trade between the two countries as well as the current situation in the eurozone. the leaders will talk about the upcoming nato summit in chicago. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> i look why the country does well or doesn't.

these are two crucial values. do you believe the future can be different from the present? these are not universal. we have an exaggerated sense of how much control we have. >> your questions for david brooks. he will take your calls, e- mails, and tweets on a variety of subjects. his books include "bobos in paradise." david brooks on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we're back with dan markey. we're talking about u.s.- pakistan relations. we are learning that pakistan

general said the military believes the nato attack that killed 24 troops was "a deliberate act of aggression and that pakistan will be boycotting an upcoming meeting in germany to protest the deadly weekend attack." guest: this is bad news. this whole thing is pretty tragic. it is surprising that the pakistanis would go to the length to say that it was deliberate. this is not surprising that they are boycotting this upcoming conference or they are saying they are boycotting this conference because they believe that gives them greater leverage in the relationship with the united states and with afghanistan. they perceive showing up after

an event like this would make them look week to their domestic audience and to the rest of the military. they believe they cannot show up and look like they are kowtowing to the americans who are bending to them. they are angry they've not gotten a formal apology from washington. host: will they get one? guest: i don't think so. we do not tend to apologize until we have figured out what exactly happened and we have decided we were in the wrong. host: what is the fallout from this latest incident? guest: so far you have the border closed and about 40% of native supplies, non-lethal supplies, go through the border.

host: for u.s. troops, nato troops. is a lot. 40% host: what about the larger diplomatic relationships? guest: we have been on a downward slide for the past year and you see that punctuated by a number of crises. there was the bin laden raid. pakistanis think back to the american cia contractor that killed two people in the ensuing problem and the streake, raymond davis, and they see that as another crisis that was not handled well.

there was the wikileaks release of damaging statements, from pakistan's military leadership that made them look bad. this was kind of a manageable level, not especially good, down to a real crisis level. you did not see a lot of signs that this will pick up in the near future. host: "the washington post" this morning as the timeline. it goes to the events you just talked about. what could pakistan do next as part of a response that they see to an intentional act by the united states? guest: they say they will -- they have demanded the united

states remove its drones that fly from an air base inside a pakistan. these are the drones that reportedly used to attack terrorists who are based on border but inside of pakistan. a delegation was sent to islam a abad. apparently the uae is leasing that base and subleasing it to the united states. they are planning a front game. my understanding is that the cia maintains those drones are essential in going after terrorists including al qaeda in pakistan. host: the lead in a "the wall street journal." they write this --

"the u.s. would have no choice but to build closer ties with india." guest: this is true. pakistan does not have good options. but they have played the weaker of the two parties in the relationship with the united states for years now. he extent to which pakistan's weakness is also a threat to the united states. if this was russia during the cold war and wrote at the start, we could afford to treat it.

we should respond accordingly. if we do leave them to fend for themselves, then there's the potential there will be destabilized. this is a country of nearly 200 million people. by midcentury, it will be the fourth largest country in the world. it is a country with a fast- growing nuclear arsenal. it is a country that has the potential to fall even further into extremism, terrorism, which makes it a very dangerous place potentially because of its weakness as much as its strength. host: let me be clear. "the wall street journal" ends

by writing this. guest: i wish we did say we were at the bottom. it often looks that way. it has looked that way over the past year. there happen points in this relationship where did rupture. we had almost no working relationship with the pakistanis during the 1990's because we put sanctions on pakistan. it did not improve their behavior. it probably made things worse. it doesn't mean we will not get their. host: an editorial in "the new york times." this is their lead.

host: what questions will be answered? guest: both sides could be left they could get to the bottom of it. what did happen? why did the united states forces continue to strike this pakistani outpost even after the word had come back through the chain of command that this was it pakistan outpost, that they should stop? there is a question of whether this was a simple communications breakdown, or if the forces believed that the pakistanis at the base or assisting and working directly with the taliban. having talked with a number of

u.s. military officers, many of them are convinced that on multiple occasions, they have experienced a situation where they believe the pakistanis were at fault. it is quite possible that was the case. lately there have been other theories that perhaps the taliban or taking advantage of a difficult situation and confusing u.s. forces by taking shelter near the pakistani base and both sides got confused in the firefight. host: it sounds like there was a 10-minute window that investigators will be looking at. here is a quotation at the end of the "the new york times" article. maybe.well,

that may be an overstatement. they may not have known who was firing at them. there have been other incidents that the taliban essential it took over a pakistani military post. the pakistanis who were based there had fled. at that point, forces cannot be sure who was fired at them even if the flag looks like a pakistani flight. there's a lot of room for confusion for 810-minute window -- for a 10-minute window. host: we have a tweet. guest: they could send forces and an infiltrated across the line and retreated back to the base, where they would draw fire on the pakistani base. host: is practiced on an alley

of the united states-- is pakistan an ally of the united states? guest: yes and no. in many ways, we have different interests in the region then pakistan has. in many ways we are allies. the pakistani military and intelligence, they are in a fight against terrorist groups that are trying to kill them, and which would be dangerous if they succeeded. so we have some allies and we have some adversaries. host: what the fallout for the united states when this was a nato air attacks? guest: it is essentially u.s. forces. it is perceive to be u.s. forces. they are under u.s. command.

host: we have a democrat from georgia. caller: good morning. just get along? why can america come home, bring all the soldiers home from every country? get out of those countries and please come home. host: let's take them. at point. guest: i do not think the obama administration will argue with that. they are trying to bring forces home. the attempt to bring down forces -- they suggest it will bring them down to about something under 20,000 by 2014.

that is lower than where they are now, up their 80,000, 90,000. reinforces home right now has the potential to leave that place such a mess that you might come to a regret it. nobody wants to see another resurgence of a group like al qaeda and nobody wants to see a return to the civil war that afghanistan suffered during much of the 1990's. a quick draw out might be good for u.s. forces would probably leave a mess that we are somebody else would have to clean up. host: "the wall street journal" this morning.

u.s. assistance to afghanistan has been climbing. the request could reach $20 billion. a simple message. to not abandoned us like the russians did -- do not abandon us. this was the conference that pakistan plans not to attend in fallout from these nato strikes. guest: pakistan is sending a message. if they are not part of the process, they have the potential to spoil the future of afghanistan. they are using that as leverage with us, with the afghans. to have a successful afghanistan, you need a minimal

buy-in from their neighbors. pakistan is not happy and they're showing that by not showing up at the meeting. host: we have some numbers. total aid reaching about $17 billion. we're talking about $20 billion for pakistan. guest: that is all lot of money -- that is a lot of money. something over half of it, about $14 billion, has been spent on military-related things, at least. a lot of that money falls in the

category of what they call a coalition support funds, which have considered to be reimbursements during that to period.-year they come at a cost. some of that money is meant to reimburse for that. we can say that it has not been successful. host: matt smith has a twist on that on twitter. guest: there's a certain historical truth to that. today's taliban are the successor organizations of the mujahedin and the saudis and the pakistanis. there's been a lot of water under the bridge and the united

states pulled support away from these groups, during which they became even more radical. we were absent during that 10- year period. there was a birth that the united states was a part of, but there was an adolescence much of which the united states was absent from. host: an independent from south carolina. you're on the air. caller: i was wondering if the gentleman can speak any regional languages. if youdering what -- have any comments on the patrols on nuclear-weapons in conventional western media that

is up for grabs that militants might one day grabbed ahold of it. do we have to be afraid because some militants are running that? i'm wondering if you can comment on that ridiculous propaganda line. guest: sure. i don't speak regional languages except for english. pakistan and india use english as their official language. government officials operate in english are all very articulate in capitand capable of holding s in english. host: what is your background in this area? guest: i started off in an academic setting. i was teaching at princeton university in the politics department. i came to the state department and was teaching a u.s.-- i was

teaching u.s. foreign policy. the was it many think tank -- a mini-think tank. i picked up pakistan, india, and the rest of the region. i was there for about four years. then came to the council on foreign relations. that's my basic background. in terms of the nuclear issue, the caller raises a good question. there was an article in ""the atlantic" a couple weeks ago and it kind of gave a standard litany of all the reasons why we should be scared of pakistan's nuclear arsenal and all the concerns which should have.

some of them are overblown. they have a significant interest in protecting their arsenal. they want to protected from india. they perceived in it is a threat to pakistan and that india would try to neutralize pakistan's nuclear capability. they believe the united states would try to neutralize their nuclear capability. somehow rolled back their program -- somehow roll back their program. they put a lot of effort into doing that. they have succeeded in ways that make it difficult to get access and would make it nearly impossible for the united states or india to shut it down and difficult for the terrorist

organizations to get their hands on that. pakistan remains a tumultuous place. it is facing a crisis after crisis. we have seen the sensitive places and people where people have been attacked. you have al qaeda and the world's fastest-growing nuclear program in the same country and you have clear problems of political and domestic instability. it is not quite as bad as some of the news articles have made it out. the united states could somehow get a better working relationship with the military and the people of pakistan moving forward. host: rob in pittsburgh.

caller: this is akin to a juvenile backpedaled ave, -- a do not that got a hold of a gun. you have to bribe them to stay in a cristheir good graces. guest: it has been frustrating. u.s. officials based in pakistan often described it in ways that aren't all that dissimilar from the ways you described. there is a cultural barrier to some degree. we don't always speak in some way eve. it may not be easy to understand what the other side wants. in afghanistan, the united states and pakistan do want

stability at some basic level. neither country wants to see them unravel. pakistan wants to maintain and influence. given the choice between a destabilized afghanistan or a stable afghanistan that pakistan has no influence in, pakistanis, many of them which use the unstable afghanistan that they have more control over. the united states wants to see a stable afghanistan because they are worried about international terrorism. they did not want to see the regent engage in a proxy civil war -- they do not want to see the region engaged in a proxy civil war.

we're not necessarily working at cross purposes but in important ways we are. this is something more significant than a family squabble. i think that they have been upset with a version of afghanistan. they have not liked hamid karzai from the start. they believe he was a relatively weak among leaders inside afghanistan. they did not seem as the true leader inside afghanistan. they believe he was surrounded by members of the former number alliance -- northern alliance. there's indian support and iranian support.

they see them as the ones running afghanistan as long as hamid karzai is in place. they have felts hamid karzai dominated afghanistan was not in their interest. they have been pushing to see a greater influence. that looks like print big parts of the taliban back again -- that looks like bringing big parts of the taliban back ain. host: we have this story.

guest: this is a troubling story. the haqqani network -- up in front of congress it was stated that the haqqani network was an arm of the pakistanis intelligence service. to read a story to which they are able to increase steadily, to terrorize and assassinate, to target the pillars of whatever authority and structure the united states is trying to leave in place as it tries to draw down from afghanistan, this is an incredibly frustrating. it shows the extent to which this remains a very tough fight.

we may be on a timeline where president obama was to get our forces out by 2014. this may be too aggressive of a timeline. host: with a tweet -- we have a tweet from cspanjnky. guest: this is part of a larger argument about whether we continue to attack terrorists like al qaeda members, the taliban with a much lighter footprint. could we leave 10,000 or fewer u.s. forces including special forces, cia on the ground in afghanistan with drones and airpower and toward many of the groups that are most troubling to us without having a heavy military footprint nearing

100,000? most military officials suggest that this is too difficult for us. that smaller footprint would be under constant attack. you would also leave a broader instability that would make it difficult to get allies to tell you who the bad guys are and to help it moves around the country and conduct counter terrorist operations. there probably is a number well short of 100,000 or the united states could continue to conduct operations, but it is probably beyond the light footprint that is being suggested. host: we have about 10 minutes left with daniel markey. diesel, florida. -- gainesville. caller: the attack along with

the national army. according to the reports i have received, the attack lasted between 46 hours -- between four and six hours. the army unit under attack had radioed to the regional headquarters that they were under attack. apparel brigade had completed an operation from january of this year and ended on the last day of october. they had cleared up that region significantly. the u.s. general was in their earlier two weeks ago. they had pinpointed the gps

coordinate's where the posts are. everybody know which posts they had. it is our fault that we went there and attack them. guest: itma may be. i agree with your characterization of everything you said, that this is the way that the pakistanis have shared the information publicly. probably the vast majority of it is true. i have no reason to doubt that. there are two things decorative reduced the culpability of the united states. if they made a terrible mistakes. i wouldn't put it past our forces despite their capabilities to make a mistake and to continue making mistakes for a considerable period of

time if the fire fight got especially incensed. this is possible. the idea that they would have known that this is precisely what this was, an outpost that was marked and shared with them and have always information but they thought it had been overrun by taliban forces or others and there were responding to fire that they were taken under the assumption there were taking it from enemy forces. this is also possible. i do not think we know all the much here in washington about what happened. the facts will come out. i have a strong doubt that the u.s. military or naval forces would have undertaken this operation having been ordered to do so from senior military officials. i have significant doubts that

senior u.s. commanders woke up and decided they needed to attack pakistani outposts on purpose. that strains my sense of likelihood. but many other things could have happened and many other people could have been at fault. i do hope that some sort of investigation begins to clear this up. host: let's talk about pakistan's economy. about 187 million.

host: what does that mean for pakistan in that region and its role that a place? guest: to look at the numbers is useful but it may understate the severity of the economic crisis that pakistan is in. the median age is 22. something like 60% of the population is under the age of 24. will continue for the next 30 years -- that will continue. seoul you'll have a huge number -- host: unemployed? guest: they will be educated.

most are being poorly educated. they are not presented with great opportunities, unlike many of their counterparts in india who do have a growing economy they can participate in, high skill jobs are available to them. pakistan, and none of that is especially true. they vote with their feet. they leave behind a country that doesn't have a special good prospects at the moment for its economy. there's one bright spot. pakistanis and indians are under talks to improve the trade. india will be granted most favored nation status which

would open up sectors to trade that have been closed until now. is the kind of thing -- they would become enmeshed in an economy that's growing very rapidly. if pakistan could participate in that, then they have a chance of providing employment to these young pakistanis. 50% unemployment is probably a vast understatement of the degree of underemployment and unemployment in the country. many pakistanis depend on the employment of a single member of their family to provide income to them. many of those members are working outside the country. millions of pakistanis are sending back money to the country, is central to the economy right now. that is not a stable way to build an economy at home.

it is more of a band-aid solution. host: beaver falls, pennsylvania. caller: hello. host: thank you for waiting. about awe're talking sick relationship. if you are in a personal relationship that is sick, it is either all-out war or one of you gets out. i'm going to extrapolate this a little bit. these people have to work out their problems. india, pakistan, everybody. they have to work out their own problems. they are not doing it. we have to get out of this mess. we have to go home and let these people take care of their own problems.

host: we have a tweet. guest: we cannot live with them and cannot live without them. there are any strategic location in the world that will becoming increasingly important over time because the border india, china , a rising global economy and global power, and they're not far from the arab middle east. this is a place where we try to disentangle ourselves from in the past. if we think back to pre-9/11, we had next to no relationship with pakistan. we got back into this part of the world because of the tragedy of 9/11.

we have been trying to find solutions. the question is not, ca wn we leave it alone? no. can we do better at a lesser level of input, less troops, les attention?ss we have been frustrated no matter what we've done. the problem is not just us. it is also them. i do not think pulling away solve the problem. are we going to invade pakistan? this is a difficult country to run.

we have the experiences of iraq and afghanistan. this a lot to be a relationship we sort out with the people of afghanistan and hopefully more as partners than as adversaries. host: we have a tweet. guest: yeah. the iran story is quite interesting. there has been times where iranians were worried that the united states was using our wars in afghanistan and bairaq to encircle them. i don't think many in tehran would believe that. our poor relations has opened a potential relationship between

iran and pakistan. i don't see that as a significant problem. host: thank you for talking to our viewers. guest: thank you. host: that does it for this edition of "washington journal." tomorrow, spotlight on magazines. we will see you tomorrow. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] cable satellite corp. 2011]