>> we'll take your questions and comments. after that, a house hearing on homeless youth and housing assistance. in a discussion on the economic challenges facing young adults. later, a look at the impact of religion on politics and the 2012 presidential campaign. ♪ host: congress approved in the president signed at two-month payroll tax cut extension on friday appeared your paychecks will remain the same for the next two months. with that, president left for hawaii and congress has left town as well. we want to get your take on everything politics and policy. we begin with a top political videos of 2011. we want to know about the

influence. telephone numbers are on the screen. if you want to weigh in on this topic but do not want to call, you can send us an e-mail, or go to our twitter page, and you can post your comments and questions on facebook. youtube did a list of the top political videos of 2011. topping that list at #one which drew 18.3 million viewers is a six genoa rationed high one about being raised by two mother is. >> being a student at the university of iowa, being critics same-sex marriage comes

out a lot. can gaze even raise kids? the conversation gets quiet because people do not have an answer. and then i raised my head and say that i was raised by a gay couple and i am doing pretty well. i am actually an eagle scout. ion and operate my own small business. if i were your son, mr. chairman, i believe i would make you very proud. my family really is not so different from yours. host: more from the political story about the top 10 political videos. president barack obama speech to the white house correspondents' dinner was second on the list. all republican presidential candidate rick perry's criticizing gays in the military was the third most watched campaign commercial. it released its list on tuesday.

-- from january to mid-december 2011. we want to share your number 10 on a less. it is up portion of a republican senatorial committee and at. >> today we celebrate a president that brought americans together. >> kill the bill. >> celebrating our independence. >> we want to be one of your best customers. >> a president with the courage to tell us, we will not rest, i will not rest. who consults with key decision

makers. >> i have not spoken to him directly. >> who tackle the great challenges of our generation. >> i think kansas has more firepower. host: that was no. 10. we want to know, political videos influence your thinking? a democrat is first. caller: i do not think that political videos make a difference at all. we need to pay attention to our elected officials up there in congress. big money has taken over completely. it seems to me that why would a congressman take a job for $175,000 a year when they are a millionaire? it does not make much sense why that would tactic -- take a cut in pay. there are a lot of unemployed people out there that needed job and would work hard for $175,000, would show up every day even through the christmas holidays and work on our issues

at hand. host: when you're watching television and it goes to a commercial that is a campaign ad, do you listen to it? do you tune it out? what do you do? caller: i would watch it but i do not think it would influence me that much. what influences me more is the way that they've vote on things, the way they piled things into these things that are not even connected the last bill with our unemployment and everything, they are putting a pipeline on there? why can we vote on everything individually? host: are you watching the floor debates in the house and the senate when it comes to big bills? caller: yes, and i do not to understand how they can put in all these other issues that do not have any contact with the

issues at hand. host: that influences herald more. a republican in missouri, what you think? caller: good morning and i am going to vote for whoever spends the last -- the least amount of money on their campaign. citizens united, and the one before that that is even more pertinent to the discussion, by the supreme court, the supreme court has become a corrupt institution. i say that because you look at the way clarence thomas left his wife and filed the taxes and then said, oh, well, i just forgot about it. if you went to the supreme court and use that as a defense, they would hand you your butt. the system is totally broken totally corrupt. i do not know what to do. we need to get multiple parties

in this election process. host: here in the news, we learned yesterday that donald trump is no longer a republican. he said that he changed his registration to unaffiliated. here is msnbc -- breaking with the independent bid. according to abc news, trump was working with a group of americans elect. it has already made it on the ballot in several states including california. caller: i am very familiar with that and i follow the story. i and deep into history and the political system. i think donald trump is a total joke. i do not think that he could get enough people to get behind him. you have to be a really -- to get behind donald trump. he broke three casinos. how do you lose money on a

casino? host: we're going down a road we do not want to go down. let's stick to the topic. you said that you and others are following the americans elect group. that made it on to the ballot in several groups. the ceo will be on our show this monday. you can call in with your questions and comments to that group. let's go next to an independent in miami, florida. go ahead, kelly. caller: thank you for taking my call. is this on the videos? host: right. today influence heard in -- today influence her thinking? caller they have a lot of impact. a lot people share these videos and i have a great impact on the public. one that has really struck me was when president obama was

calling out donald trump at the correspondents' dinner. that was extremely powerful. it showed the american people what a small player donald trump is in this world. and his berating the president over the birther issue and all the insanity that the far right is involved and, he just really called him out and showed -- this is the day before osama bin laden -- host: and at that point down on trump was considering a bid on the presidency. caller: that shot him down in one day and put him right out of the news cycle. he was a laughing stock. and now he has back. and now he is back with his debate that never happened. and now he is trying to mount of

third-party bid. host: all right. if he and others who have a lot of money, calais, where dole flood the airwaves -- kelly, if they were the flood the airwaves, would that have an impact on people? caller: it would in that a lot of the american public, alike have faith in the people that i see online talking, he could have an effect on it. but he could never be a serious candidate. he would never get into a position, not with any commercial. the american people are not so stupid as to elect coming up no, some reality show host, a terrible businessman who's actually, if you look at his history, has had multiple bankruptcies, has screwed his

investors on every turn. host: let me ask you about the bar of ads against newt gingrich. you in florida have not seen them but iowa voters had been bombarded with negative ads from the other gop candidates against newt gingrich in that state. and you have seen them come out as well in news conferences. you have seen the coverage. what did you think about newt gingrich's did when he was on his way up? and has all of this criticism that you have heard influence your thinking of him? caller: i knew all the things that they were saying about him already. and quite frankly, he is a corporatist just like all the gop candidates. they are all corporate tests and autocrats.

the same people that roosevelt and wallace were fighting against back in the 1930's. host: kelly mentioned the white house correspondents' dinner. one of the other moments that made number two on the list, you to stop political video list, when president obama joked about the birth certificate. >> tonight for the first time i am releasing my official birth of video. [laughter] [applause] no one hasyou, seen this footage in 50 years. not even me. but let's take a look.

♪ [disney's "circle of light" playing] host: he liked the moment where he criticized, truck who was in the audience that night. if you want to watch the entire white house correspondents' dinner, it is in the c-span video library. you can watch the whole thing. on your screen is the political story -- this is the youtube web site with a top political videos of 2011. we will show you a couple more here as we continue to get your take on whether or not political videos influence your thinking? arthur, a republican in hawaii.

what is your comment about this? does it include your thinking? caller: well, it kind of depends. i have an old lesson i was taught a long time ago. the truth has always been and will always be the opposite of a life. -- lie. i think people are smart. host: and what about that? caller: i just think that regardless of what the video says, or even what an individual says, everybody can always get the truth. it is always the opposite of a lie, whether it is a political video or the president, or anybody. regardless of political affiliation or whatever. i am going to have faith that people truly are smart and know

that the truth is and has always been the opposite of a life. -- lie. host: from our twitter page. and republican in scottsdale, ariz., has influenced your thinking? caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i have a different take on it. political videos are for dummies. how do you like that? it is so sad. if people are not in form, all of these people who watch comedy satire like jon stewart, think that that is actually good information. what i would like to do is talk about harold, who commented about the $175,000 jobs and in

regards to the congress, when the senate, when harry reid will not pass or not bring up any votes for all the bills that the house has passed, i think that is a tragedy of this year. host: we will be talking about 112th congress of a year in review coming up and about half an hour. call in then with your questions and comments about what they accomplished. speaking of the payroll tax extension debate that just concluded yesterday with house republicans agreeing to the senate two-month deal and president obama signing it before leaving for a white, here is the "atlantic journal- constitution." social security payments will stay at 4.2%, the rate it was dropped to last year instead of going back up to 6.2%.

that avoids a cut in take-home pay for $20 a week for an average worker making $50,000 a year. if you have been out of work six months or more, you will still be eligible for federal benefits. your mortgage, it will cost an extra $17 a month on a $200,000 loan. it is a short-term tax credit extension paid by a 0.1 percentage point increase on new federal it back home loans. if you are covered under medicare, your doctor will not face up 27% cut in reimbursement for that program. that is what the tax extension means to you. here is that democratic caller in idaho. tell me with the name of your town. do in -- do they influential thinking?

caller: we are in northeastern idaho, about three hours away from salt lake city. we really do not get a ton of political ads. they do not consider as part of the united states, i do not think, because we do not get a lot of it. but it does not affect how i feel for how all lot of people that i note in the area field. and the reason why is because their actions is what we look at. if they cannot agree in congress, why would we want them running our country? in a lot of people in my area that i have spoke with are saying get rid of all of them. start afresh. but then some of blue-collar workers, instead of these people that have spent their entire careers in politics, because

they're not doing their jobs. i had an out of work since january 2009. no, what do you do? everything goes to the big huge cities. i am in a town of 60,000 people. there are no jobs. host: we will leave it there. joining us on the phone is the sam goldfarb -- is andrew kaczynski, whose hobby has made an impact on the 2012 presidential campaign. you might have seen his work with some footage that has been same on mitt romney, also won ron paul, and let's just began with why you do this and how much time have you spent researching not only our archives but other video websites as well? guest: great to be on the program. a huge fan of c-span.

part of the reason i actually do this is because i want to give people a different view of the candidate that they usually do not get to see. i want to show people how the candidates have evolved in changed in their different positions over the years. if you are a candidate that said something, whether it be 2007, 2002, for 1994, i think people have a right to see how your views have all that since that time. host: what triggered you to start looking in our archive specifically? caller -- guest:, i first saw this on television because i lived in new york city and where anthony wiener was going on. i put together a hilarious video of the democratic candidate with this awkward dance and music

festival in brooklyn. i put that on line in september and i remember a guy like 30,000 views in two days. along with the research was doing on different candidates, i happen to find c-span on youtube, and i realized that c- span must have come -- must have some kind of archives. i realized that hundreds of thousands of hours of footage that has taken place over the years in politics, you have been archiving. this would be a great assets in doing what i do. host: a lot of hours a political coverage in our archives. for those who are intrigued listening to your right now, you can go to the website and go to the video library. you can see a tab at the top. give our viewers some tips, i

guess, and how you go about efficiently digging through the archives? guest: sometimes i will just go watching for entertainment purposes. it is obviously -- i am sure a lot of viewers find politics entertaining. i watched archive footage related to the candidates. you just click on the candidate's name or any politician's name, really, and it will show you every single archive it video of them from whenever they got started in politics to where they are now. and it will list what they were talking about. with ron paul recently, he had that interview on cnn where he stormed off after they were badgering him about the controversy on newsletter that was put out in his name. i went back and decided to look at couple of old oil ron paul

interviews. the one that i struggle with, the first to second video of watched, a 1995 interview where he did on "washington journal" about how he put out this newsletter and it made waves over the past couple of days in the political scene because people realized they ron paul obviously took enough pride in this newsletter that he put out to boast about it and how did on c-span in 1995. it really gave people that perspective i was talking about. it showed them how the past influenced the present. host: we want to show our viewers what you duck out. >> i also put out a political type of business investment will newsletter, covering all of these areas.

and it covered what is going on in washington and financial events, and especially some of the monetary events, since i have been especially interested in the monetary policy, on the banking committee and still interested in that subject. this newsletter dealt with that. it has to do with the value of the dollar, the pros and cons of the gold standard, and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending that our government seems to continue to do. host: andrew kaczynski, how many kids did that video get on your website? guest: it probably got -- 75,000 use in the past three days. host: where are you putting your videos, on youtube? guest: i manage a youtube channel.

kaczynski1, spelled like the unabomber. you can see mostly related to 2012 candidates, and on different topics. host: are you digging up this sort of material on certain people? or are you doing it in an unbiased way across the board? guest: i like to do it in an unbiased way. i show people across the board. i really focus on every major candidate in 2012. if i have not focused on some of the other candidates like bachmann are santorum, it is because i am working with the front runners. i get most of my ideas on things to research in the news. it is easier to focus on the

people who are leading in the polls. i look it everyone on the left and the right, in the middle. whatever your political views are, if you are a relevant person, in the political world today, i feel as if a statement you made in the past on an issue could have influence on what you say today. i will probably go out and do some research and see what i can find. host: be you think the political videos influence people? guest: kuehl way that they influence people is that it really shows them -- the way that it influences people as it should really shows them what that can that it believes. you can see if they were saying something out of their core and back -- core convictions or for political convenience.

i think that they show people just how that candidate's different opinions of -- influence what they think to date. host: this is garnered you a lot of attention and a job, i hear. guest: i am going to be joining ben smith at buzzfeed. buzzfeed is a website that brings together all the content around the web that is really hot and current on the web. it shows you what is popular on the web at any time. the reason i decided to go is that i thought they are very big on the viral things. then smith is obviously the best and brightest when it comes to political blogging and

reporting. buzzfeed is the best when it comes to the best social content on the web. since my videos break news and go viral, i thought that would be a natural fit for me. host: are you still at school? guest: i am. i go to st. john's university in queens. i will graduate in july and i look forward to doing this full- time and continuing to do what i do and show people these different views of the candidates. host: andrew kaczynski, thank you for coming on this morning. coming back to you in your take on this. you just heard from andrew kaczynski and the work he does to bring up all political video. mike in alabama, does that influence you? caller: yes, it does. i think the political views is what the presidential candidate wants people to believe will

happen. i just think that a person that is running to a certain degree wants that belief in themselves that they can carry out their actions. something on wanted to make a comment about is that whoever is elected, they should think about our future kids and more training. i think it is good that we have students in college getting a bachelor's degree, but our country has a lot of kids that do not have the education, more like our forefathers. the new generation is dropping out of school early. if you had more vocational training, for students to get out of school early, and to not have a job or the education, sub that is what my thinking is. host: let me go back to your original comments about the campaign ads. what about the campaign ads put

out by the candidates themselves with a positive message about who they are, trying to define themselves rather than having their opponent do it for them? do you think they are influential? caller: to a certain degree, i think they are. however, cost and the money that is being spent for the campaigns, it should be different. it should be more justifiable. you understand what i'm saying. host: yes, let's hear from will, an independent in maryland. caller i think that they are a waste of money. the attack ads, none of the candidates are worth voting for. i would rather see positive ads where they tell their positions and stop -- you really get sick of it after being inundated for a few weeks. host: is a positive that

something you will stop and listen to? -- positive ad something that you will stop and listen to? caller: that rather than sound bites that are taken and news that bash the opponent over the head with. you are not really getting any knowledge. a lot of people probably believe that stuff. host: coming in at no. 7 is the rick perry had, proven leadership, about change needed to come to washington. >> a great country requires a better direction. a renewed nation. needs a new president. ♪ the last great hope of mankind. it is time to get america

working again. we don't need a president to apologize for america. i believe in america. i believe in a purpose and promise. i believe for better days have not yet been reached. i believe this is reserved for the generations to come. host: we will keep taking your comments about political videos, but let me show you some news in the papers this morning. "new york times" front page. the justice department blocking a new south carolina law.

and then in other news this morning, this is the kit you york times" also, about the payroll tax extension. lessons learned, or a sign of things to come? the question remains of what will happen next year when the republicans have a chance to speak back to their speaker. there is no mute button in the caucus room. it does not help that mr. boehner cannot rely on his deputies. eric cantor is more closely aligned with the conservative members of the house and he differs with mr. boehner on how to proceed on the payroll tax.

also, the story about the pipeline which was included in that two-month deal. politics stamp out yet it seems likely to endure. the obama administration confirmed that it will require quick decision on the proposed keystone xl oil pipeline from western canada to the gulf coast. it will probably lead to cancellation of the project. but it says that it is likely that the state department officials and industry officials say that there is nothing that will prevent the operator from submitting a new application to build a similar project. that is indeed "new york times" if your interested. "wall street journal" this morning. and in foreign relations news, the financial times about that blast in syria killing 44.

it tore through the building of security agencies engaged in a crackdown of the pro-democracy movement. fears that the conflict is entering a bloodier phase. "washington post" about the new leader in north korea. there are risks in leaders still developing. so look at the newest leader in north korea. we have about 10 minutes left here. getting your take on political videos and whether or not the influence of thinking. john is a republican in ohio. caller: happy holidays to everybody. host: good morning. caller: i live in a state where the ads are just pounding.

no, they do not influence me. look, the republicans, the policy game is how can i show the next man up? everyone knows that some are honest and a lot of them are not. and the candidates that we have on my side, none of them are no good. michele bachmann is not going to win. mitt romney is not going to win because you can tell, mitt romney, he looks like a president but he just wants it so bad, but he is not going to beat obama. everyone in america knows this. the ads that they come up with and they go way back to the past whenever 1990's, if we all went back to our high school and college years and everything, we would all be in bad situations. demands don't do nothing. it is about to king get the job done and who can get us out of this -- do not get me wrong. i like obama.

i think he is like a professor for me. but i do not see none of these people beating him in 2012. the only people going all-out, i love my brothers and sisters from the south, but they're mostly people from the southern states. i will be doing this hour he is doing that. still we have just at that time, everyone has to come together on both sides, democrats, republicans, independents, federalist -- i know people that are claiming that they are from the whig party going way back. host: we will leave it there. tomorrow we will take more of your comments and phone calls asking you about your political hero. we did a poll of this on our facebook page. we have some results for you here.

ron paul tops the list with 759 people. and then we have thomas jefferson coming in second with 87 people. and john f. kennedy with 72 people. so let us know who your favorite political hero is either on facebook or call in tomorrow or send us the tweet tomorrow with your thoughts. also, more on political news, let me show you the "wall street journal" this morning what the election 2012 page. african-americans are the key for obama and the democrats. the last two years have seen a big slide in president obama approval rating, but one group has held fast -- african- americans. his approval rating among blacks was 92%. that may hold a special meaning for virginia and north carolina, battleground states with large african-american populations. strong support from minority

central counties was central to mr. obama's wins in virginia and north carolina in 2008 and figures to be even more important to his success as support among other groups and registration advantages for democrats the road. -- erode. other reports on rick perry farrell in to get on the ballot in virginia. an independent next. benjamin -- there you go. massachusetts, what do you think? caller: i do think that political videos influence my thinking. i voted for obama and believe in change for this program. for the nasa programs and for everything as far as technology goes. in for our children's children, and for the country to get together and to empower our

technology and to start selling more. i just hope that we lead the way in that era, and i hope we really buckle down in congress and the senate and work together with whoever wins, whatever election and whatever house seats and in congress. host: a democratic caller, what about you? caller: good morning, greta. yes, it does, it makes me cautious, i should say. these politicians have 15 seconds of or a minute and they pay a lot of money to do one issue, time after time, for a sound bite. i think the american people hear a sound bite sound after sound -- time after time after time, they start believing the sound

bite. a case in point -- a gentle and ran for senate here. -- it tillman ran for senate here. he came on saying that he wanted to support jesse helms every day, almost every minute. he had a commercial. and nobody knew that this gentleman here was a paraplegic until after he was elected. and the only line that he said during his campaign was, send me up to help jesse helms. i just could not believe at that point in time that the more that we hear somebody and get the packaging on these videos, i do not believe the north carolinian is would have voted for him if they saw the whole package.

host: an e-mail from felix. a democratic caller in virginia, what do you think? are you with us? i have to push the button. we can hear you. caller: i think that videos can have an influence on your opinion, on your candidate. just an example of the previous caller, andrew, i have not heard anything about ron paul. had it not been for the video and is going to the youtube and taking that to the media, i really would not have known and now my opinion is that he is a racist. i am a democrat and will support barack obama. i think the ads that these candidates are spending are outrageous. i think the law should be

changed, that money cannot be used to influence a candidate. but i do think that they influence people's thoughts and thinking. host: from kentucky. caller: of wanted to agree with your previous caller. the political videos totally influence people. obviously with as much money that pours into advertising in the media. host: you do not think the candidates would be spending this money if it did not work. caller: absolutely, totally. one case an example here in kentucky. i came up from miami to visit during the holidays. the candidacy between rand paul and the attorney general of kentucky. i cannot remember his name right now. but rand paul won the senate. they were running -- the attorney general ran so many

negative ads and it backfired. he painted a picture about rand paul in college being some sort of pagan anti-christian in college, brought up some really dug deep and it backfired. and he lost the race. host: remember the ad put out by herman cain with his chief of staff smoking? what do you think? caller: obviously, maybe they were appealing to the smokers are may be appealing to some, i do not know, it was almost like a protest, who kippers, all public smoking ban. host: did contribute to the

persona that herman cain was trying to put across? caller: how much impact, i cannot say but that is what they were going for. host: anti-establishment caller around exactly in his portrayal of being a non-politician. host: that made no. 9. let me show you a little bit of that. >> since january i have been the privilege of being chief of staff herman cain and the chief operating officer of friends of herman cain. tomorrow is one day closer to the white house. i really believe that herman cain will put united back in the united states of america. if i did not believe that, i would not be here. we run a campaign like no one has ever seen. but in america has never seen a candidate like herman cain. we need you to get involved because together we can do this.

we can take this country back. ♪ i am america ♪e voice, united we stand ♪ host: that was no. 9 at the top 10 political videos put together by june 2. 50 million people look at those top 10 videos. last make is, our last phone call on this. caller: i would say that the influence some people's thinking, but what influences most people on the republican or democratic candidate is the msnbc's of fox news is that play constantly all day every day. that is what people are watching, the tag team back and forth between candidates. you will see a commercial pop it -- pop up but there is not

news on the news channels. that is where people are getting through their heads. host: thank you very much. we are going to put a bow on the last legislative year, the 112th congress in review. we will be right back. ♪ >> with the iowa caucuses and new hampshire primary next month, the contenders looks back at 14 men who ran for president and lost but a long-lasting impact on american politics.

tonight, house smith followed by wendell willkie. next week, the series continues starting monday with thomas e. dewey. the contenders, every night at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> this holiday weekend, three days of book tv. here are the prime-time programs. a moscow correspondent on the failed coupe that led to the resignation of mikhail gorbachev. revisiting the americas, the year after christopher columbus's arrival. edmund morris on teddy roosevelt. a news editor for marketplace on the bestsellers of 2011 monday at 7:00 p.m. tom brokaw. the full book tv schedule is online. this weekend on c-span, sunday,

christmas morning, michelle obama welcomes military families to see the white house holiday decorations at 10:30 a.m. eastern. later, alberto gonzalez on his experiences in the george w. bush white house at 1:40 a.m. eastern. on his new books and efforts to reform lobbying s 6:30 p.m. eastern. monday, the dedication of the martin luther king jr. memorial. at 7:00 p.m. eastern, a google executive chairman on global telecommunications. for the complete schedule, go to c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we're back with sam goldfarb, a staff writer congressional quarterly. the 112th congress, taking a

look back at the legislative year. sam goldfarb, what were the big stories of the 112th? guest: the big story by far was the gop majority in the house. they dictated events for all but the last month or so. they were driving to cut spending and for some on the right, maybe they did not go far enough, but basically that is what the year was all about. trying to shrink the size of government, they did that with the threat of a government shutdown at the beginning of the year, then the debt limit debate, and then during the super committee, and it was just in the last month for so when attention shifted to jobs and trying to pass these stimulative measures like the payroll tax cut. host: the washington post is put together a look at the bills that this congress was able to pass and the last year.

this was run through november 30. the house passed 326 bills. the fewest in 10 non-election years. the senate approved 368 measures, the u.s. since 1995. if you look at previous years, in 2009, the house approved 970 bills, the senate 478. back in 2007, the house approved a little over 1100 bills and the senate, 621. what does this say about 100 tell congress -- the 112th congress? guest: for speaker john boehner and the republicans, he said that he wanted to pass fewer bills. this was a gold. so it represents something that they wanted to do. they did not want to pass meaningless bills. when you're talking about hundreds and thousands of bills,

commemorations for an event and naming post offices, he cut that out. it also represents divided government. not a lot of bills would become law because he had that democrats and the senate and the republicans in the house. they would not agree on a lot of things. host: eric cantor, the majority leader in the house, back in december 2010 said that the republicans were going to take over and put out a memo saying what you're going to talk about. the goal is to stress quality over quantity. i intend to lengthen the time for consideration of bills in order to improve quality and deliver results. he goes on to say gone of a congratulatory resolutions, post office names. so that was the gold. -- goal. guest: so they look at those

numbers and say good. others see the dysfunction of congress. host: the latest gallup poll was from december 19, the congressional approval rating, and it is stated this consistently, a 11% approving of the job that congress is doing. 86% disapprove. so the lack of legislation, does it correlate with the approval numbers? guest: i am not sure it has to do with whether they passed 500 bills or more. host: we can ask our viewers about this. guest: but generally because with the divided government, there was a lot of bickering and people tend not to like that. and the economy is bad, so the combination with people in congress yelling at it people -- each other constantly, it does not make for great approval

rating. host: let me throw at you know -- a few more numbers. a look back at this legislative year, and we want to get your thoughts and comments and questions. sam goldfarb is joining us. and the debate, one of the laws was the one that president obama signed yesterday, that two-month extension of the payroll tax cut after the house republicans agreed to go along with what the senate had done. let me show our viewers and analysis piece written in the "washington post." it says that some house republicans say that they feel sold out by their counterparts in the senate.

what does that mean for the debates going forward? guest: it has been a year marked by partisanship, by people yelling at each other, and it just came to a bizarre and in the last couple weeks. instead of just democrats and republicans yelling at each other, the senate republicans were criticizing the house republicans, and vice versa. and house republicans forced john boehner to reject the senate compromise that would extend the payroll tax cut for a couple of months. but then allowing to political pressure, boehner had to ultimately accept a compromise. and the rank-and-file

republicans in the house are not happy about that. on the other hand, the senate republicans are not happy with them. they will probably close ranks pretty quickly, i would imagine, but it shows -- it throws an additional uncertainty into the mix. host: let's show our viewers about the decision to vote by unanimous consent. >> sometimes it is hard to do the right thing, and sometimes it is politically difficult to do the right thing. but what everybody called for a one-year extension, when everybody wanted a full year of extended unemployment benefits, we are here fighting for the right thing. it might not have been the smartest thing politically, but i will tell you what, i think our members waged a good fight. we were able to come to an agreement and fix what came out

of the senate. host: and your phone calls. a democrat in nashville, tenn., what do you think of the 112 constant -- congress? caller: i think they are constitutionally in that. what we just heard from boehner was toppled the coup, much like rumsfeld -- gobbletygook, rumsfeld. they voted on that and pass that bill. there is another one where timothy geithner came on and was interviewed about the debt ceiling, and pointed out the 14th amendment, section 4, or congress is not supposed to question the debt that congress

has passed in bills. and look that old thing. this congress does not even understand the constitution. and thank you for your time. and please do some writing to this effect. host: tommy, are you still there? i think we lost him. sam goldfarb, what did he -- what did you hear? guest: in new this stuff. the republicans had pass some bizarre bills, which read that no matter what the senate does, it becomes law. but the senate had to pass it to become law. maybe the constitution at the end of the day is what the lawmakers were trying to do. and house republicans when they came into power, they were respecting the constitution and they put in some claws into the

house rules and that every bill that was introduced had to have a section describing its constitutional justification. they came into congress taking that caller's concerns in the mine and tried to do something about it. but then they did some bizarre things. host: for is a tweet from one of our viewers. joe, an independent in missouri, your next. caller: merry christmas to america. i hope we can get politicians in there that are not career politicians and will help the people of this country. the young fellow made a statement of while ago that said they had stopped all this frivolous speaking. just last week a republican congressman from texas, he gets

on there when they are talking about the payroll tax and everything that means something to the american people, and he is telling some college football player and he spends his time talking about baylor university, and this football player. that is really meaningful and really helpful to the american people. the john doe citizen out there. host: you were probably listening to morning speeches when the house comes in for about a first hour, sometimes. they let members of congress come to the floor and give five- minute general speeches. typically they are focused on something from their district, where they talk about that. but once they get to debate on a certain legislative issue, then they move on from there. guest: in the house, they do. on the senate, they are large sections of time where they are

not doing anything. journalists have observed this and that is the thing for people in washington. we take it as the normal course of business. people are talking about issues of work is going on behind the scenes. people are talking in back rooms and on the floor,, people are talking about football games. host: speaking on by the scenes, when news broke that house republicans would go ahead with the two-month peril tax extension, it was reported that john boehner was doing another conference call with his rank- and-file members. had you heard what he told those members and what they said back to him about the vote? guest: they did not say anything because he did not let them. and that was an interesting development. one the senate passed that two- month extension, he had a

conference call and people were saying, this is terrible, i hated. it was all this pressure that he could not dictate events and control the caucus. i think it was on thursday. he had a very brief conference call saying this is what we're doing. it is the best thing to do. and that is why some people are unhappy about that. on the other hand, boehner was being criticized for being a weak leader. so he turned that around. host: john, a republican in florida, go ahead. caller: talking about the accomplishments of congress, i don't think that should be seen by the number of bills signed into law. they do not always benefit the people. we've had endless debates between the house and the senate

and the white house. nothing really gets done. i think it is all a distraction. it is presented with the illusion that we still have a representative form of government, when in actuality america has moved into the realm of corporate fascism. the people of lost control of this government probably 100 years ago. with the exception of a handful of representatives, most of those in d.c. are bought and paid for with those with real power, determining the future of our country. host: he made a comment about tax debate within the past year. what is the future like? guest: a lot of debate about a couple different things. raising taxes, increasing revenues -- democrats were saying yes to that, republicans were saying no. and then there was talk about tax reform.

cleaning up the system, making it simpler, and that got more momentum than it had in the past, but as the caller pointed out, nothing happened. so taxes were not raised, there was not any tax reform or any bill introduced that could accomplish that goal. so a lot of debate, i write about taxes and i was writing a lot of stories, but no actual law was introduced. host: the debate over the payroll tax cut will continue when lawmakers return in january. the house appointed negotiators and the senate will as well. this week, we're joined by chris van hollen, one of the negotiators. he will be with us sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.. and i want to show you what he had to say when we sat down with him yesterday about common ground. >> now begin the work of trying

to extend all of those items beyond the two months, for the full year. we're going to have to find those areas of common ground. there remains significant differences between the two parties which is why it is important to put this two-month extension in place while we work out those other areas. i think that we should look to cut a lot of the loopholes out of the corporate tax code. the republicans had put forward ideas to increase medicare premiums for seniors. so there is going to be a big discussion as to the best way to move forward on these issues. host: this week. chris van hollen, democrat of maryland, the top member -- top democratic member on the budget committee. 10 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern this sunday on c-span. caller: good morning. i do not think we have lost

control. [unintelligible] there are a lot of people that turned the election process into like a gambling thing. they want to vote for winners. i remember when al gore was going to different states and a lot of people were for ralph nader, but then they are like, we do not want to waste our code. so they're like, if you do not vote for a republican or democrat, they think they're going to waste a vote, even if they like other politicians. and that is very bad we need to start limiting the terms of some of the politicians. there to say what people like to hear. and the system was made is a cross between the republican democracy, because people did not know what they need. if they know what they want, but

sometimes a long run, it is not good and that is why we're supposed to have officials to make the best decisions for us and our country. host: misty from austin, texas. here is carry on our twitter website. let's hear necks from chris, a democratic caller from washington, new york. caller: only candidate ron paul was brought ending the drug war. and imagine that parameters of that congressional the would be until we remove the quarter of a million dollar per kilo of hard drugs and come to guerrilla nibis should canad be legalized especially in cancer research. the congress has been petitioned for decades on this, sometimes in cities, and there has been a

conspiracy of silence on this issue. possibly -- reagan made it a national security issue in the 1980's. and with black cops in the c e a -- the cia blowing banks on wall street. host: we will leave it there. however, a lot of comments on the show about some viewers and those on twitter st., where are the jobs? let's talk about jobs legislation this past year. guest: one reason why president obama's approval rating went down was that he was talking a lot about health care reform and people wanted to hear things about jobs. maybe people do not know exactly what congress should do to

create jobs, but they want to hear that congress is trying to do something. so maybe there is a parallel where the approval rating for congress was so low because they were talking about reducing the deficit and people wanted to hear about jobs. and you saw this late in the year, democrats talking about traditional stimulus measures, and republicans were talking about cutting regulations. there was the keystone of oil pipeline that they want in, -- that it wanted president obama to sign off on. you heard them talk about jobs toward the end of the year. of course, there lawmakers and tried to sprinkle in talk of jobs throughout the year, but their focus was on cutting spending. they might have turned off some people. host: from twitter.

and we heard a lot from republicans because the senate never passed a budget. guest: right, so passing a budget is an optional part of the budget progress, oddly enough. there are other ways to agree on spending levels for the fiscal year in which they did do. what they actually did do was in the debt limit agreement, as crazy as that debate was, at the end of it, they actually set spending caps for the next 10 years. what you saw was a hard number. republicans and democrats were able to agree on spending for the next fiscal year. there was no real threat of a government shutdown and i was actually a big improvement earlier in the year when the government shutdown was a real possibility because people did not know what the budget would look like. host: a republican from

louisiana, go ahead. caller: to start with, there is no payroll tax. there is no way that you can tax social security. social security is an insurance. so how are you going to tax and insurance? what it is, i do not know why, it is just in another obama illusion to get your mind of the things. host: you look at a reduction in contributions to social security? caller: it is just the pavement. you're going to pay more or less into social security. host: sam goldfarb, talk about how this is paid for to keep your payroll tax deduction at four. -- 4.2%.

how does it pay it back? guest: there is a social security trust fund that the social security taxes go into. the general fund is where there -- the rest of the money goes into. they have transferred money from the general fund making sure that the social security trust fund is whole. and the replenish the general fund by raising fees that fannie mae and freddie mac charge. host: it will work out to be $17 in new fees for fannie and freddie. caller: i would like to talk today about our governorship here in ohio. he has put us down at the bottom of the barrel. when he first got elected, he barely got in with the votes.

[unintelligible] and he has made all of the bills the first week he was in there, he privatizes everything, and everything is done so far is unconstitutional, people are not trying to keep people from voting. host: we're focusing on here in washington, a year in review of the 112th congress. let me show you the "new york times" this morning.

has this become an issue this past year? the signing statement by the president when they do pass legislation? guest: not as much as under president bush. president bush was famous for doing that, congress will pass a law and he would essentially right little nuts and a march in and say, well, not quite. i am not willing to do that. this raises that issue again with president obama. i do not think prior to this it was actually used that often. host: a republican in florida, you are on next. caller: good morning. i do not think that this year's congress could have ended in more of an ugly and shockingly bad note.

let's back up a little bit. president obama made a speech about the payroll tax extension and he said he was not going to accept anything less than a year and he was not going to let congress do an off ramp, no temporary extension. what happened? they did both. before president obama could say where are you going, the senate said they were going home. it goes to the house and the house basically, they are staying with president obama's professed stand to have it done for a year. host: sam goldfarb. guest: the caller makes a good point. two months for a payroll tax cut is not a lot. it is a typical congressional stop-gap measure so when house

republicans will hold it against the gop, they thought they might have an argument that would resonate with the public. people just wanted them to pass it and they did. and now we're going to have to continue having this argument in the weeks ahead. host: from twitter. that is something that congressman chris van hollen talked about as well. what is the likelihood of tax reform? guest: probably not great. but the chairman of the ways and means committee which is in control of tax policy has already introduced a draft for one small piece of tax reform, and has semi-promised more to

come. but even if the proposals are put for next year, it will be a significant step forward. we do not expect any bills to be passed. but that george w. bush era of tax cuts are scheduled to increase or to galway at the end of next year. so that provides a deadline for people to try to come to some sort of agreement on tax policy. that is one thing that drives the debate for about tax reform. host: indianapolis, an independent caller. caller: i just had a couple of observations. the democrats are much better off playing this game than that republicans are. by refusing to engage, refusing to set up their own budget, that forced the republicans to engage on spending in strange

and politically damaging ways. the only way they could engage the democrats on spending was the debt ceiling for the continuing resolution, which made them look bad. by avoiding putting up a real budget, the president's budget did not get any votes from his own party in the senate, and forced the republicans to look silly. and the second point is that the democrats have managed to convince the people of the united states that the bush tax cuts were all for the wealthy, when in fact 80% of the money for the bush tax cuts actually went to people do with less -- with the people who made less than $250,000. host: that debate will come up again with tax cuts set to expire in december 2012. guest: if you think this december was difficult, next

december will be the craziest month that anyone has ever seen. yet the bush tax cuts expiring, you might have a debt limit, there are these automatic spending cuts for the speaker, across the board, that are also supposed to kick and because of the debt limit law. congress will have to deal with all of those issues at the same time. each one of these issues could represent crisis moments and they have to do it all of the same time. it is unclear how they have to manage it. host: there were some an expected moments on the house floor. if you tune into our coverage on the house floor, then use of gabrielle giffords come to the floor during that debt ceiling debate. and it surprised a lot of folks and she cast her vote, something that we were covering, of

course, and continued to cover the house floor when they are in session and the senate floor dan, a democratic caller in boston. the 112th congress in review, go ahead. caller: campaign finance is that the root of the problem of our political system. we will probably have another billion dollar campaign on our hands. and people in this country are not represented. most people are not millionaires. all the candidates are millionaires. most people are not lawyers or doctors are bankers. all of our politicians are. why it's so hard? why can we not restructure our political system to get three months to run for conch -- for office, that is it. just simplify it so that every man is represented by congress. host: silver springs, md., chris, a republican. caller: happy holidays.

to me, the senate and the president are lazy and irresponsible because they only passed the two-month extension. they could have worked harder. and the senate has not formulated a budget in three years or more. thear as i'm concerned, democrats to control the congress, the economic problems have only been exacerbated when obama became president. and being from maryland, my representative is not helping the people of all. host: chris talked about the budget again. we're coming up on another budget year. what happens in february? guest: president obama will begin by submitting his budget request. he could be bold and include proposals for tax reform and the like. it will probably look a lot like his budget request from

previous years. then congressman paul ryan will put forward his budget. and then we will -- then democrats will probably put forward some sort of proposals, and whether they get it on the senate floor is a different question. at the same time, appropriators will have to start working on their individual spending bills on the business of funding the government and harry reid said that having the budget process work in a normal and expedient fashion is one of his goals. we will see how that turns out. host: looking at the numbers for the past legislative years, they passed a few more than the house. take a look at those numbers and

then sam goldfarb, tell us what you think those numbers will be in 2012. heading into an election year. guest: less, probably. host: all lot less? guest: i do not know. caller: i was just trying to comment on basically the unsustainable way that our country is conducting its fiscal policies. and what your comments might be on how to correct this problem that we are currently on. host: what do you mean, chris? caller: the hon sustainability of our financial goals -- on sustainability of our financial goals. just -- i am sorry.

host: that's ok. let's take a look back at how many different times we discussed the debt and the deficit, and the different committees, independent and congressional ones, let's take a look at it. guest: there is the bowles- simpson president to report last year that put forth a comprehensive proposal for reducing that deficit. a lot of people have criticized president obama for not endorsing the proposal wholeheartedly. there is also the gang of six proposal, a group of senators, democrats and republicans, who worked for a long time and they thought that they would come out with a proposal tomorrow, and then it was pushed off. they finally came out with a broad alkaline. it looked a lot like bowles- simpson. any time that a bipartisan group comes together, they basically

come up with a broadly similar plan that involves some cuts to entitlement programs like medicare and medicaid. it includes tax reform as we have been discussing, that raises revenue in the range of $1 trillion. you think maybe if they keep on coming up with the same results, we could pass a bill that looks like that. but there is actually -- all of those bills have lots of reasons why they would be politically unpopular and they are not actually. if you are actually do tax reform, it might raise more concerns than the broad idea of tax reform. host: sam goldfarb, thank you for being here on this holiday weekend. coming up in 45 minutes, we'll take a look at the military troops around the world. where they are. we will discuss that in our last

hour of the "washington journal." we just looked at the 112th congress. now we look forward to the political environment in 2012 with juan williams of fox news. we will be right back. ♪ >> so i am here arguing in favor of higher taxes on wealthy. i'm one of the wealthiest 1%. >> would you be willing to donate to the apartment of the treasury? >> individually? nope.

individually on very felon topically active. >> right here i have the detonation page. all you have to do is put in your credit card number. >> that is not going to help anybody. did you do not want to donate to the government? >> i want our class to be -- you are being silly. >> i am a video journalists. i would say that what we're doing is almost like citizen journalism, which is basically when an individual who does not have that much training in journalism has the tools of modern technology to capture a live event. they do not have a background in journalism. >> michele fields shares her work with the daily call our. >> michele bachmann is there, understand, and she is thinking about running for president. which is weird because i hear she was born in canada.

[laughter] yes, michelle, this is how it starts. [laughter] >> so amazing to be in washington, d.c., all of these history in all of this amazing buildings, and yet here we are at the hilton. [laughter] the red carpet outside was amazing. who are you wearing? what does it matter, i'm going into the hilton. >> with more than 9 million views, c-span coverage of the white house correspondents' dinner are ranked among you to paul -- youtube's top political videos of 2011. watch them at the video library. >> "washington journal" continues. host: and we're back with juan williams, looking ahead to the political environment of 2012. let's start with congress first before we start talking about the campaign.

we showed the latest approval ratings for the congress. 11%. according to gallup. they approve of the job congress is doing. after this payroll tax debate that just ended yesterday, what do you think that means heading into 2012? guest: two ways to look at it, greta, and when you a party scene. the white house and the democrats can run against the congress and say it is a do nothing congress, out of touch with the american people. locked into playing politics, polarization, gridlock. just not in sync with what america is trying to do at time of recovery, economic recovery and trying to keep it going. the question is -- once the republicans have a candidate, does that candidate also then carry the same brand as the

republicans in congress, or is that candidate an independent entity in the minds of voters? republican strategists are counting on him being an independent entity. and that candidate can make the case against president obama and forced the contest down a very narrow path, a referendum on the incumbent. and they said the problem is not that congress has bad approval numbers, but president obama's approval numbers. he has had. he is up to about 49%. it is not great. it is not terrible. he could win with that. if he goes back down to where he has been, if it is a referendum on the president, he could lose. >> was in game changer for congress in the 2012 election

for democrats possibly taking back the house and senate -- keeping the senate but taking back the house? guest: taking back the house is difficult because there was such a waiver in 2010. i anticipate democrats will make gains. i am in touch with lots of people who are in the game of accounting and the game of strategy, and it is generally thought that republicans will hold on to the house. i think gains for democrats will increase, but they would need 25 seats, and that is a lot. some seats are in swing districts that i think the democrats could recapture, but on average, if you look, people are saying it is about 15 or 20 seats democrats might recapture. the likelihood of the senate has been a story in the last few weeks. people are talking about the eddy of the democrats could hold on to the senate.

host: when we sat down with our newsmakers guest, he was hesitant to say that the payroll tax debate was a game changer. he said it will depend on the economy and jobs. guest: that is true. we are talking in the immediate aftermath of what has happened in the last days, and if the election was today, it would be very bad news for republicans. but the election is not today. in that context, what you were talking about with your previous guest comes into play. this was a two-month payroll tax extension, and they have other issues right there, and in this morning's papers, you will see that a number of the tea party freshmen are very angry at their

own leadership because they feel that they should have fought on this issue, and they will expect an even stronger fight coming forward when it comes to payroll tax. lots of things that were viewed as extraneous to the need to pass a payroll tax in order to keep the economic recovery moving forward. if that becomes another example of what we have seen played out, another example of brinksmanship forcing the issue at the last moment, nothing getting done, people screaming at each other, we get damage in that fight. this fight, i think republicans got damage, even by their own assessment. moving forward, i'm not sure who gets damaged. some say a pox on all of you. you do not know how to get things done in washington. you behave like children. you do not know how to compromise. husband and wife, father and son, mother and daughter, everybody has to compromise.

tea party freshmen are of a mind to say they can the washington to create change, and they will not play the game as usual. that has resonance earlier in this time of great political dissatisfaction in the country, but at the same time, people understand that if you do not get something done in washington, the country would be even in more dire circumstances. people do want something to get done. >> that mantra starting to wear a little bit on the public. these tea party freshmen who were saying to the leadership, "we are tired of the sap of two- month deal." -- "we are tired of this type of two-month deal." guest: the problem is hypocrisy. they were supportive of the idea initially of using social security. we have had a payroll tax before. that argument, which you are

hearing now resonate on the campaign trail in iowa, is coming from conservative republicans, but the second thing to say is that if you do not believe in the payroll tax, then say it. but they brought in things like the canadian pipeline. they brought in the issue of how you pay for it, and refuses to allow surtaxes on millionaires, and that gets back to their anti-tax pledge. at that point, this is not about the payroll tax or getting the economy moving forward. it is about you and your ideology and politics. >> -- host: you touched on this a little bit, but the gop candidates did talk a lot about this debate on capitol hill. most of them really want to -- after the house republicans said they would not agree with the

deal, most of them were not on the record saying one way or the other, except for former speaker newt gingrich. how do you think it plays out for them? specifically, does it help or hurt one candidate? >> i think we are seeing it with michele bachmann and rick santorum, former senator, current members of congress from minnesota bachmann, who said and tried to make the argument in those terms. why i highlighted that is they are trying to appeal to that same tea party segment of the republican electorate, and trying to say they represent a radical change and they're the ones coming in saying they have to do something about spending, the entitlement culture, taxes, and they will take a hard stand, and you will see major cuts. they are trying to turn this on its head so it is not damaging to the republican and tea

parties. these are people standing for you, and here's why, and especially for senior voters. these are people who are endangering social security by continuing to dig into the so- called lock box instead of finding other ways to fund any kind of payroll tax cut. they were suggesting this tax cuts be done through spending cuts rather than any tax increases. >> speaking of iowa, how do you think that race is shaping up? who comes out ahead? >> a month ago, i thought it was right -- with romney's investment in more ads and more time, i thought he was issuing. now, it looks like he would go into the state and put more money into it. money that so far has come from a surprising source, ron paul. he is all over the airwaves, and we are in the time now in between when there are no more

debates, and it looks like ron paul has been gaining momentum. you had a little more scrutiny over articles that were published in this newsletter is that had racist content in the. i do not know how that is affecting him, but in the most recent polls, he looks to have momentum going forward. newt gingrich had tremendous momentum, and it has fallen off. there is a story that i think will be reported in terms of american political history, by the way. that story is the onslaught of criticism that newt gingrich has experience in the last three weeks. it has been shock and awe of the republican establishment going after their own. he will cost the ticket, has too much baggage, is to unpredictable. clear violation of that old ronald reagan 11th commandment. it looks to me like he has

peaked, but the question is when there is no real campaign game changer like a debate, does he have momentum enough to get him across the finish line? newt gingrich, as primary challenger, at least as it looks to me, would not be having that momentum and would be thwarted in his last hopes that will go toward south carolina. the ultimate firewall will be florida. newt gingrich does not have a tremendous amount of momentum going in there. actually looks like there's a clear path for mitt romney. host: let's get to phone calls.

bob, a democrat in minnesota. go ahead. caller: i know i heard a republican candidate saying that their number one goal was to make obama a one-term president. i strongly believe that that is next year's goal as well for a republican. i will take mine -- my answer offline. host: mitch mcconnell did say that. on the face of it, i thought was a purely political statement for a man who is a government leader and should be about providing good government no matter what the politics. mitch mcconnell's retorts to me is, "that is what every republican thinks." every republican wants to win the white house, and he is just being up front about it. i think the case can be made that especially for the leadership on the hill, that at some point after the election,

you are about a good governance, leadership, taking important stands that lead america to a better place. it is just about politics, it looks kind of frank -- of rank. the idea that you would try to block everything the president puts forward, that you are constantly putting no votes on every piece of legislation the president has proposed an constant opposition that led to this polarization and gridlock, i think given the numbers offered earlier about congress -- i might add that numbers for congressional republicans are far lower than they are four democrats and even farther lower than the are for the president -- i think that mitch mcconnell attitude is something that allows the president and democrats to say that these people do not want to work with them or government and all they care about is pure politics. host: december 17, you wrote for

foxnews.com-- are there other issues you see he has the advantage on? guest: i think he has the advantage on foreign policy. polls show that on the issue of terrorism, more have trust in president obama than they do on republicans. which is a reverse because normally republicans are seen as the ones better on national- security issues in general, but if you look at president obama's success, not only in terms of the death of osama bin laden, but looking at what is happening in libya, what is happening with the drones, it has been a pretty impressive record. it is hard to say he has not done a good job. i know there are those who say that the withdrawal of the troops from iraq has been precipitous, and especially given what has been going on in iraq in the last few days.

but if you again go to the opinion polls, it is overwhelming, the american people are of a mind that the united states should not be in the business of nation-building at this juncture, so i do not think he would suffer much consequences. there will be a lot of criticism about from his republican opponents in the general election, but i do not think it is a negative for him. you ask what else he has going into the election. the principal one is 1 karl rove just wrote about in the "wall street journal" this week in which he said the president's speech in kansas, in which he talked about this being a nation with too much economic inequality, and started to pick up the themes of occupy wall street -- i think he will present himself as a champion of the middle class. in the situation we have been discussing this morning, the extension of the payroll tax cut, you can see democrats are in a better position to say that

they care about the working men and women and the middle class, and they will not allow that tax increase, and they will say that the very rich in society should pay more taxes. if you look at the numbers, more than 2/3 of americans think millionaires should pay more taxes, so that is again an asset. host: disadvantages for president obama? guest: the economy is a huge disadvantage because most americans think is handling has been so bad and they do not feel confident he knows what he is doing. that is the number one issue any reason he is vulnerable. his job approval numbers have bumped up recently, but if you look at his personal approval ratings, they are well over 50%. people like him and the family and all that. the real problem is the economy. i think his numbers are in the 30's in terms of americans who have confidence in his abilities to handle the economy at this

point. caller: good morning. yes, i was kind of confused. my main question is mr. obama may be the most wonderful guy in the whole wide world, but do we really want another four years of this wrangling? i do not really understand. i have worked in businesses to where the manager was the nicest guy in the world, but he really was not very effective. he was removed and everybody squawked and moaned, but what is better for business is better for business. host: in your mind, is the solution to have a republican white house and republican- controlled white house? caller: i am air republican, but on the other hand, you're so a paycheck away from being a

democrat. -- i am 8 paycheck away from being a democrat. if he gets reelected, republicans will at least keep a filibuster control, and we go through another four years of this. guest: that is an interesting line of argument. most often, when you hear is to some extent, they like divided government. they like the checks and balances, that there is no one group pushing everything through, and we saw a little bit of that when president obama and democrats had control of both the senate and house. the consequence was that 2010 wave and even struggles over major legislation, which the president was not so much battling with republicans as he was with conservative democrats.

i am not sure that dan is in line with most americans who seem to like some division of power with both sides keeping an eye on each other. the interesting thing is that, as i said earlier, and i think this is the reason so many people think, especially around here in washington, there is a chance for a third-party candidate this time -- is that people just disgusted with both parties. "usa today" had a story about the growing number of independents in this country. the question is -- how do they think? what do they want? especially the newcomers, people leaving the democratic and republican party. dan seems to think if it was all of one mind in washington, at least there would be forward motion. i am not sure independent voters feel that way, but i think most voters do not feel like dan and most want some kind of balance

between the parties so things do not get out of control. >> there is a group of americans, and select independent non-partisan group trying to get a third candidate in the 2012 race. they are on the ballot in several states. we learned yesterday donald trump is no longer a republican. he says he is unaffiliated, and he has reached out to this group. let me show you a tweed. "what evidence do you have that doing something in d.c. which increases the debt is helping the economy?" guest: i'm not sure i understand. by taxing the payroll -- first of all, as it has been passed, it is supposed to be paid for by increased fees on mortgage loans and the like, but that is just for this two months.

if we increase the debt, the thinking is that even if it does that, it puts more money into the pockets of consumers who, i think, are 70% of the u.s. economy. everybody is hoping for a good holiday season, get out and last-minute shopping and all that. if that is able to be sustained, people think what is a very gradual economic recovery could continue. if it is not sustained, consumers decide they are $40 down in the paycheck every time and not secure about the economy given what is going on in europe, given the continuing uncertainty about some of the banks and their performance, then that means the economic recovery would stall. the question is, given the negative association with the stimulus spending, where is it that we can, as an american people, agreed to invest at this moment? president obama, again, is part

of the argument that he stands for the middle class, has been pushing congress on this jobs bill. it is an interesting piece of legislation because the american people support the individual parts of it. the overall effort gets little stimulus, and republicans had been opposed to it. the idea is that if you spend some money on the payroll tax cut, it helps to sustain the recovery as opposed to taking the $40 out of the paycheck and making people possibly more economically insecure and encouraging people to not spend, which would not be good news for our economy. host: independent in misery. thanks for waiting. -- independent in missouri. caller: as i understand it, 85%

of the people in this country do not believe the country is going in the right direction, so i do not understand the pompous attitude of the democrats. host: -- guest: 1 present bush left, it was about the same, that americans did not think the country was going in the right direction. when president obama was elected, there was a great deal of enthusiasm, but still, it was in the neighborhood of 60%, and now, it is back up. as you rightly say, about 80% of americans do not think the country is headed in the right direction. when you ask people why they feel that way, they say things like they did not believe their kids can get a good education, they do not believe the kids can afford a house, they did not like the direction of the economy -- the list goes on. the trust in leadership -- if you ask people about leadership on wall street, in the churches, in the schools, and in

washington, people do not have much trust in leadership, but that is across the board. it is not falling just on any single house or republican or democrat. people still think things are not going in the right direction for america at this moment. host: juan williams joining us. talking about the political environment headed into 2012. jim hines on twitter wants to know this -- guest: it is an interesting question. initially, i thought ron paul was doing well, to say these were set -- these were newsletters published under his name but he had not written or read the content and did not approve of it. but then, subsequently, i read he was interviewed back in the

mid-1990's and tried to defend some of these comments. essentially, he took ownership of them and was clearly aware of the content like saying, "all black men in washington, d.c., are criminals" or if you have ever been mugged by a black, you will see how fast they are -- stuff that is really unpleasant. the question becomes -- is he responsible or not responsible? did he know or not know? it sounds like he is caught in a contradiction where he said one thing back in the 1990's and is saying another thing today, and i do not think it helped him to have walked off of cnn. too much passion and anger, and he did not want to do with the issue -- it is this issue, and he needs to get out in front of it.

i think the answer for every politician in every crisis is to be clear and to be straight and to have a consistent story. so far, the story has not been consistent. that adds to the energy. no polls indicate it is having a negative impact. i do not know the impact it might have on him, especially among young people, who are such big fans of ron paul, love his ideas, see him as the true radicals, the true person who would shake up and change washington. what if those young people lose faith in ron paul? i think he would fall off a cliff in terms of the polls. host: huffingtonpost.com has video found in our archives talking about this back in 1990, and they also have a story of

how ron paul's newsletter got back in the news. they talked about the role of the national review, putting it out there. other newspapers have dug up past comments ron paul has made to newspapers, etc., about these, so if you are interested, huffingtonpost.com. democratic caller, go ahead. caller: was the house republicans are doing is called economic treason. that is clear to anybody that watched that fiasco that happened last week. when you look at the best interests of your country -- when you work against the best interests of your country, it is treason. you can dress it up. you can spend it around, but that is treason. they destroyed every job initiative this president tried

to enact. what is that called? that is called treason. host: we get your point. want to respond? guest: treason -- that is heavy. i hesitate to endorse that, but my sense is that the underlying point he is making is right. that it would have damaged the economy not to go forward. i think that is why republicans in the senate and serious conservatives said to members of the house, "this is not good for the republican party, and it is not good for america." i think that the american people and republicans and democrats and voters will see this, and that is why it is not good for the party. they were trying to say, "do not do it, and do not get locked in in a way that is self- destructive. i have heard people describe it as a blind alley, going over a cliff, all the rest. it was pretty clear this was not a successful strategy.

i think it was potentially damaging to the economy. again, we will come back to this. in two months, we will be back on the brink again, but treason is such a strong word. i think we have enough strong, weighted language around washington. everybody pointing fingers and calling names. i would hope there would be some way to say to the elected officials that there are larger issues at stake than simply politics and making president obama into a double, but at some point, people want you to use the fact that you are in office and your time in office to lead the country to a better place. host: 1 twitter user has a different take on it.

do you think perhaps they have set a precedent now? >> i think he is right. if you are asking about -- you can get the majority of the american people to raise taxes on people who make more than $250,000 and certainly people who make more than $1 million, but if you get below that, support absolutely is diminished. it is less than a majority by five. that is a case, he is right. you cannot have a general tax increase in a time when there are difficult economic currents flowing. yes, i think democrats have ceded that point in the midst of this recession. by the way, also, bill clinton has said that clearly, and i think barack obama before he was president said as much as well. it may not be new, but i think it is clear that you are right. host: republican in tennessee,

you are on the air. caller: good morning and merry christmas to both of you. i want to say how much i respect and admire juan as a reporter. i think he is a very honest, admiral -- admirable and respectable man. only bad thing i can say about him at all is i think some of his views are naive. other than that, i really like him. there really is the social security trust fund. there has not been for decades. it is really just a word game to fund social security. it is just a shell game, and i think that the deal with the country not being satisfied with congress -- almost every

representative and senator in their respective areas -- their electorate have a high opinion of them, except for a select few that will be voted out of office -- host: let's take that point. guest: what he said, that last point has been historically true. it is starting to ship. we are seeing that people are now willing to say that they are willing to throw their own member of congress out. that is a big difference because what he said has been the rule. "i do not like congress, but i like my congressman or woman." that is not as clear now in this political environment. we might be back to another way the election. we saw a wave election in 2006 when democrats took control of the hill. 2008 was when obama took

control. 2010 was tea party freshman. because they are willing to throw out even people they have been familiar with. host: speaker boehnership heading into this year -- guest: it is interesting. as his leadership has been at play the last few weeks -- the analogy i use is it a shakespearean to what was going on between the speaker and majority leader. we know there is an intense relationship going back to the debt ceiling debate of last summer, but mitch mcconnell, the republican leader in the senate, as well as harry reid, a democratic leader in the senate, thought they had a deal. boehner could not deliver republican votes. if he makes a deal he cannot

deliver, what does that mean about it -- what does that say about his leadership? something is off. then you have members saying, "we are not pleased with the leadership." they feel they caved in to president obama and democrats, undermining the sense that john boehner has control of his troops. and cantor, who is much more in sync with the rebellious tea party leadership -- if he were to supplant as leader, would he be able to appeal to moderate republicans, or would it become simply some kind of weird action and pushed the tea party further off the political stream? host: is his speakership in jeopardy? guest: i think that is to be determined, but i do not think there is a way to get around the idea that this is a very vulnerable speaker.

what has happened over the last few days is just -- the question is -- how do you have a leader who cannot deliver the votes? clearly, party discipline has broken down. host: if you look at the news conferences that were held between last saturday and yesterday, you saw house gop leadership standing behind the speaker, talking about their opposition to this deal. when it came to the end of the week, there was the speaker by himself. guest: what did they say? a picture is worth a thousand words. it is becoming a big problem. to me, it is what is going on behind the scenes. clearly, there is a fissure between establishment republicans in washington and tea party republicans. tea party republicans remain convinced that they are here to advance change and a radical

agenda and not do business as usual in washington. establishment republicans are of a mind -- "yes, we understand and are in sympathy with this, but we understand that you have to retain power and lead, and you cannot alienate the middle of the road swing voters." especially people are paying only scant attention and aware of how the economy but effective, and if we are negatively affected them, we are damaging the entire republican brand. you see that split in iowa. it is romney the establishment republican? you see all the anti- establishment republicans bubbling up. and ron paul may be the ultimate anti-establishment, anti-romney candidate. we will see how that plays out. i think that is what has come to washington. it is interesting that people

like mitch mcconnell are on the establishment side. i think boehner in his heart is on the establishment side. the storm troops are the anti- gop establishment. host: virginia, independent color. caller: yes. i realize that we have no public money available for infrastructure. we have an abundance of private money available for infrastructure. since we are interested in jobs, why did we not jump on this pipeline like a duck on a june bug? in addition to that, our interstate highway system was planned 60 years ago. it is out of date and falling down in certain places.

why not make that toll roads, at least temporarily until things improve and the states can afford to pay off the toll roads? guest: let's take them one at a time. in terms of the toll roads, that would be regressive taxation, and i think a lot of businesses, especially small businesses, people that use those highways every day, would say they were being taxed, and i'm not sure that would play well with many people, but especially working people. not only small business people trying to get to work, they would say essentially what you have done essentially giving people with money access to better roads and highways and punishing people who are just trying to make their way every day. you had an interesting point about public money versus private money and why don't we tap into private money?

the example you used was the canadian keystone pipeline project. you would not know sometimes the way people talk at the moment, but in alaska with a republican governor, there was opposition based on the idea that this pipeline, which uses this very difficult kind of said card that has to be processed to produce the oil, would pollute the offer -- the aquifer in that part of the country, so there were tremendous legitimate environmental concerns. they said they would move the pipeline in order to do that and that it would not do that damage, and canadians are putting tremendous pressure, and republicans are putting tremendous pressure in terms of jobs that would be produced by the project. i think there is more and more momentum for this pipeline. you see the republican governor

in alaska and others on board to get the pipeline done. the opposition now has come down to environmentalists who say that we are in hock to oil and people are using the economic crisis as justification for this project that they say will not produce as many jobs as promoters say. that is the argument. but if you are asking me about public opinion, i will tell you, public opinion is with you. i do not know about june bugs in december, but yes, we could jump on this one. make it happen. host: a piece on the pipeline, that the obama administration confirmed this week that a provision in the payroll tax cut extension would probably lead to cancellation of the project, but they note that state department officials and industry analysts say there's nothing preventing another company from submitting a new application to build a similar

project. guest: right. what it says in the legislation is the president has 60 days to come up with a decision, and it has to be based on the national interest, i think is the exact language. he has the ability to say that this is a bad decision, given the environmental concerns, and is not in the national interest. that would reward environmentalists, who are a key component of his democratic base. i think it will also give ammunition to people who say he is out of touch with the nation's need for jobs and is playing politics. so that is a very tricky calculation that the president and president's advisers have to make. again, it is not clear how it will play out. host: democratic caller, jacksonville, florida. caller: about that keystone

pipeline issue, it seems to me that americans would sacrifice anything for a job. will they work for any amount of money, no matter how small it is? i heard we were going to be competitive with china. that means we will get paid less than we would normally have to live by. also, about the caller that talked about the treasonous methods of the republicans -- you know, i do not want to use "trees and" either, but the largest impact i have seen with the republican congress happen when they did a bad debt ceiling debate when they should not have been a debate. i do not know that there has ever been a debate about the debt ceiling, and all it did was put a spotlight in the world and

just made our standing in the world that much worse. guest: i think it was moody's that reduced the credit rating right afterwards. it definitely lose and consumer confidence at a bad time. i do not know about the treason, though. i think people are just playing hard-line politics, and they are people who have strongly held beliefs that in terms of the spiraling amount of debt in the country and the tremendous spending in this country on entitlement that something has to be done. i do not think there is a question about that, but if you tell them as concerned americans, you have to say there is no basis for concern, that we should be engaged in a serious discussion about how we cut entitlements in the united states, but both political parties seem afraid to be the first to go, the first to say,

"here is my idea, exactly what i would cut." it had a negative impact in terms of senior voters. all of them have been afraid to join hands and say, "here is what we need to do in terms of spending cuts." if you were to give the tea party freshman the benefit of the doubt, you have to say, "here are people insisting we make some serious inroads into cutting the amount of federal spending at a time when spending is out of control. host: i need to correct something i said earlier on the story of ron paul and the controversy over these newsletters, how it got back into the news on huffington post. national review is actually the new republic, their role in getting this back into the news.

caller: good morning. many of the issues we are discussing are very important. it appears to me that until we do something that will actually lessen the corruption factor in our united states congress, it penalized by the revolving door, the primary process by the two parties, campaign finance -- a great example, which was the citizens united decision -- until we do something to solve these problems, anything that comes out of the united states congress is more than likely not going to help the american people. guest: let me ask you -- given that the supreme court of the united states -- they are the ones that put citizens united in place -- how do you solve this problem? right now, there is a critical moment in terms of the campaign

finance role because we are seeing new parameters at play. a lot of people in politics do not know what the rules are. they are having to ask for rulings about exactly how it works. it is clear there is an influx of anonymous money into the structure because of a supreme court ruling. are not know where you go to solve the problem. you cannot ask politicians to solve it. they are all going to let someone else make that decision. that someone else has always been the supreme court. the supreme court at this moment said it is a matter of free speech. anybody can give money. in some cases, they can get it anonymously. caller: that is the problem exactly. and each hurdle loop that keeps the corruption going, and it has to be broken. guest: the other part is the

kind of gerrymandering. as we look at the congressional redistricting that is taking place -- still not done, by the way, in many places. again, i think the politicians play it to retain power. even in a big wave year like we saw a 2010, the majority of these guys and women come back. they are all about holding on to power and playing politics with it. through my eyes, i just see it as the way the game is played at this point. when you talk about how we achieve real change, how we shape the structure, that is what you're so interested in. that is why i asked where you would see the solution coming from. host: i want to get your take on the "wall street journal," the poll showing although obama's approval rating falling in general, the african-american support for him has held fast and 92%. in 2008, this was a big factor

in his election when you look at swing states like virginia and north carolina. guest: a bigger factor this time around. the news about the argument over voter suppression and all that, that comes into play because republicans are not going to spend any money on the black vote. question is -- will they spend money on the hispanic vote? they are saying -- what we have seen on immigration and republicans on the campaign trail, the kind of entity, talking about electrified fences and all that -- that has not won minivans for republicans among hispanics, and there has been discontent with mitt romney on the immigration issue among hispanics. the question then becomes -- two republicans spend any money on any minority group? at what point do they simply say

they will try to rouse the base, which is an older, wider base, to come out and vote, but they have no interest in the minority vote in the country? that has become very problematic, very divisive, especially with an african american income it. based is going to be part of the picture. host: it is a question juan williams poses in a piece from fox is on december 1. diane, republican, you are last. go ahead. caller: good morning. long time the work. -- long time viewer. it has been no christmas present listening to the program. ever since i turned it on, it has been a bashed republican day. just an overall brief overview

of congress, republicans won by a majority because they vowed not to raise the people's taxes. they really believe in cutting spending, but the democrats wanted to increase taxes as a way to address the debt. this past week, the payroll tax cuts, the democrats saying, "we want to decrease your tax cuts." that was the republican mantra. i believe democrats can be so hypocritical at times the sometimes i yell at the tv, but i'm glad i got through today, and i wish everyone a beautiful holiday. host: your thoughts. guest: i think we went over this earlier. someone called in saying democrats have lost the argument about raising taxes in a time of economic uncertainty. i think that is right. what as i said earlier, when it comes to the higher echelon,

people making more than $1 million, the american people say yes, but a general tax hike is not going to work. what you picked up in terms of the tone this morning is what we started out with. greta read a poll that said congress' standing right now is 11%. most of that blame falls on republicans. it is damaging to republicans, and i think that is why you saw establishment republicans say, "we are hurting ourselves. we have to get in line." this is a moment for introspection and worry among republicans and even among republicans in iowa who have to wonder how this will impact them. host: we will leave it there. happy holidays. when we come back, we will be taking a look at where the troops are around the world. we will be right back.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this weekend, three days of american history tv. later today at 7:00 p.m. eastern, visit the congressional cemetery on american artifacts, and at 8:00, lectures in history. american prosperity in the 1950's and 1960's. sunday evening, meet the white house chefs dating back to the carteret ministration appeared monday, highlights of c-span coverage of the 70th anniversary of the japanese attack on pearl

harbor. and the history of native american military service. experience american history tv all weekend every weekend on c- span3. >> midland high school students, we want you to tell us what part of the constitution has a meeting to you and why. let us now in a documentary and get it to c-span by january 20, 2012. that is less than a month away. for your chance to win a grand prize of $5,000. there's $50,000 in total prices. c-span closing video documentary competition is open to students grades 6 and 12. for details, go online to studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with a fellow at the institute for policy studies, who wrote a book. we are talking about u.s. deployments around the world as

we withdraw troops from iraq. what is the u.s. military footprint like to around the world? guest: it is enormous. i'm glad you said withdrawing troops and not withdrawn the troops or the left strips because this quite a bit of leftovers we're not hearing as much about, as we should. there are over 1000 u.s. bases around the world. it is amazing. we are talking to hundred billion dollars the u.s. spends around one, and a thick most people would agree, they do not keep us safer. they make people angry in the local areas, destroy the environment, dismiss rights of women. it is a hugely problematic thing. it leads to people around the world being really resentful of the u.s. one of the consequences of that is we get attacked. the question is very fundamental. if we look just at iraq right now, what we are seeing is that

president obama did implement the letter of the law, the agreement that has been orchestrated by president bush that said that all the u.s. troops and all the pentagon paid contractors had to be out by the end of this year, and that has indeed happened, but we are leaving behind thousands -- it looks like right now, it will be about 15,000 security personnel who are not u.s. troops. they are u.s. contractors. they are not paid by the pentagon. they are paid by the state department. we have this technical compliance with the requirement that pentagon paid contractors get out, but in practice, we are still leaving behind a huge military component, which includes people who were involved at only in things like training, but also special forces, special operations, their secret bases assumed by the cia, fbi, and other u.s.

agencies, and then the embassy of the building. embassies are good. we should have diplomacy rather than war in my view, but this embassy will be the biggest in the world. if you step back from that and ask why that would be -- iraq is not that big a country -- we do not do that much trade with them -- why do we need the biggest u.s. embassy in the world if we will not be continuing some kind of secret military and intelligence work there? the embassy is supposed to have 5000 people. of those, only about 1000 would- be diplomats. another 4000 with the security people for those diplomats. that is not even counting the 15,000 or so u.s. contractors who will be paid by the state department and scattered around iraq to do all these other not quite known things. host: if you look at a map of the u.s. military footprint

around the world, the countries in red is where most of our military members are. the u.s. military has at least one active duty military member station in 150 countries. 36 countries host deployments of more than 50 troops. 23 countries have more -- more than 250 u.s. troops. 12 countries have more than 1000 pure large numbers of troops also serve on each continent around the globe. what are the responsibilities of troops the serve on bases in foreign countries? >> in some countries like -- say, in germany, which has one of the largest u.s. bases around the world -- one of those bases is a medical base for u.s. service people that might be injured in iraq or afghanistan, and they have the most advanced medical care and they're available. that is a very specific role that they play. in other bases, they are clearly

listening posts. spy bases, not to put too fine a term on it. these are for spying, or launching potential attacks later. in the middle east, much of them are aimed at encircling iran, for instance. making sure that nothing happens in iran that we do not know about, and putting in place the possibility that there could be a host of escalations of pressure on iran, up to and including the possibility of military action. all of that is under way with the existing bases we see. the notion that these are basis to keep us safe sort of flies in the face of the fact that other countries have far more safety, and there are people that believe they are more safe than we do. countries like denmark or sweden are countries that are much more safe with there are people and who do not feel the

need to have bases scattered around the world. host: has there been an effort to decrease our footprint in the countries we were in in world war ii? guest: there really has not been. outside the war zone, iraq, afghanistan, kuwait, the areas actually active military engagement going on, the largest concentration of u.s. forces outside the u.s. are in germany or japan. those are left over world war ii deployments, and they were central in the rebuilding of europe, rebuilding of japan in the image and the interests of the u.s. the question should come up now -- what good are they in terms of security? we hear a lot for example about the new africa command, which has yet to be moved into africa.

it is still based in germany because no african country with the exception of liberia want to accept the offer. other than the liberian president, no head of state in africa was prepared to except the new u.s. headquarters there, but we are hearing more about how it is designed to do work on 80/aids, health care, education, and aid operation. you want to come back and say it is right that the u.s. should be transferring technology and helping african countries that we have helped to impoverished to rebuild. but why is the military doing that? that is not right. the easy answer is the military is the only u.s. agency that has any money. the state department has been stripped of money. there's not a lot of trust in this agencies because they have been so militarized, so what do we do? i think we need a wholesale revaluation of how to go about

turning on foreign policy away from the military and into one based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights. host: we are talking about u.s. military deployment around the world. we have lines set aside for u.s. military members. we want to hear from you. 202-628-0184. scott is in the military at fort benning. go ahead. caller: a question i had about one of the first points about the reason we are attacked by terrorism, i guess, is what you are essentially referring to, but attack because of our military presence around the world. that is actually not the reason they are attacking us, but more because of who we are and the values that we embrace. i would challenge anyone who would say that one of the reasons we are attacked is because of our presence around

the world, specifically because numerous countries are not asking us to leave because we do provide security to countries, as you mentioned. norway, denmark, places like that are actually more secure, security experts believe, because of our presence abroad, and that is why they do not need the increased military presence, because of the effect we have in that region. host: thanks. you raise important points. i would a couple of points. al qaeda itself put forward a very clear view that the reason they were attacking the u.s. was first and foremost the presence of our troops on what they said was their holy soil in saudi arabia. they limited to u.s. policy according the u.s. occupation of palestinian land and link it to

other issues but they never said that they hid as for free of. that was something that president bush said and tried to convince us. i don't think it is true. on the question of countries in europe that you mentioned, i think what is interesting to look at is the movement that has grown up throughout europe since the 1980's against the stationing of u.s., particularly nuclear weapons, in europe. it is our nuclear on bella supporting and protecting people in europe but people in europe launched a huge movement against that, particularly launched against the cruise missile being stationed in gear and other movements as well that have put enough pressure on those governments across europe that most of them, not all, most of them no longer allow u.s. military weapons of certain types to be stationed on their territory and their own people have said that they are not make us safer. they are making us less safe. host: tweet --

here is another story from "the washington post's" -- --

guest: i think that the droned issue is one of the most important facing us right now. the war in afghanistan has been extended beyond afghanistan to pakistan and it is going on in somalia and yemen and countries surrounding that area. the use of drones is a very dangerous development because it takes away the human factor. it takes away the sense that we are actually at war. it is not about us. we hear constantly that drugs are a good way to fight or because you don't have as many casualties. that leaves at one critical word -- we don't have as many u.s. casualties. it means more casualties on the ground in these countries. it means that a drawn pilot is probably not even in the fear of war. -- it means that drone pilot is

probably not even in the theatre of war. he is looking at a video screen that looks like a video game, the same kind of game that the u.s. military uses in their recruitment centers to entice young people to get engaged in these incredible, for a video games. it looks just like a video game except at the other end of the world, 8,000 miles away, there is a real person who is the target, it is not just some pop- up game on a video screen. the pilot a shooting things down till to him on the basis of what a drone , rightly or wrongly identifies and then goes home to dinner. to my way of thinking, that is a much more dangerous way of waging war because it takes away the sense of accountability. you have none of your people at risk. means you will be much more willing to use massive force. host: here is a tweet --

bill in pennsylvania, a democrat, go ahead. caller: repress mess, i would like -- merry christmas. the light to agree with you. we are stretched far to sen. each of these bases have to have a commander which cost quite a bit of money. i would like to swing over to because of the war in the last 10 years, our money resources have shrunk so much. we had to cancel the aaa vehicle and the joint tactical vehicles are in jeopardy, the main battle tank is in jeopardy. all of these programs add to our industrial base. we need that to protect our country.

a stronger industrial base = jobs and at this point, that is what we need our jobs. we need a strong military and those are my comments. host: 04 we get a response and before you go, are you former military? caller: i work for a defense contractor. host: i'm interested in the point you made about the commander having -- about the space had a commander. caller: has to be a lot of dollars when you end up all the bases. i think those need to be put into the harbor because our next generation of fighting vehicles are in jeopardy or already canceled. we have to be ready to protect our soldiers and protect our country. guest: he raises some important

portions. on the rebuilding of our infrastructure, he is right. i think we need a different kind of infrastructure, one that is grounded in the needs of the planet, one that is neat -- grounded in the need for green jobs. we certainly need jobs and the military's role today is the least effective way of providing those jobs. one young soldier today in afghanistan costs $1 million. that is not because the soldier is making a lot of money. half of them qualify for food stamps. it is because of the cost of waging war in a country like that to get in food, water, air conditioning. the u.s. spends $20 billion per year and air-conditioning in afghanistan. if we look at the cost of one soldier, $1 million per year, if we bring home that soldier, we could find her or him a job, a good middle-class $50,000 per

year with that of its job, for her and 19 more, we would find 20 jobs for the cost of keeping one soldier in afghanistan which i would argue is not making a safer, is not keeping afghans say for and is putting us all at greater risk. host: this is from "the wall street journal"-- ray in the military, colorado springs, go ahead, sir. caller: i just got back from iraq two and a half weeks ago. i spent two years their total. i would have to agree with most of those points one of my jobs

and a daily basis was to interview people from all over the world. the country is definitely not say for it we're not better off because we were there in the first place. on a daily basis, soldiers, sailors, and koreans talk about what is going on. we talk about being separated from our families and we talk about that these things don't matter at the end of the day. we defend our country at all costs the when you are multiple deployments when 80% of the people are roger are getting divorced left and right, it weighs a new heavily. become physically and mentally tired and that is what we are seeing now. when i see the candidates talk about iran and a possible threat they have against united states, most of us shake your head.

-- most of us shake our heads. we have nuclear weapons and that is the last thing we are worried about most people are worried about the economy. one comes to u.s. policy overseas, it seems like sometimes when i talk to some people who are old school, we forget. we allow the foreign policy to be different than the things we do ourselves on a daily basis. if i were to go to a town over from my town because i think there is someone mistreating their family, no one would authorize me to do so. if i were to kick in that door and rescue their family, people would think i was a lunatic. we allowed through foreign policy to do that every single day. we have to bring it down and the government should not be allowed to do anything different than you and i do. guest: thank you and i am glad your home safe from iraq. i think your perceptions are

very powerful. i work with iraq veterans against the war for almost all young, not a high ranking veterans who have come home with exactly your assessment of how this war is not making us safer. they are working to ended sooner rather than later. i think the question of what we are leaving behind in iraq is a terrible one when we look at the situation there and the level of violence rising again and the level of sectarianism that the u.s. governing system that we impose with our occupation has led to this level of rising sectarianism. it is tragic for the people of iraq who had already faced 12 years of crippling sanctions that had killed somewhere over 1 million people. we remember the famous statement by event u.s. ambassador madeleine albright became -- before she became secretary of state when she said and ask about the 500,000

children that had died as a result of sanctions orchestrated by the u.s. she said we think the price is worth it. i don't think she thinks that anymore. i think most iraqis never thought that the perceptions of veterans like you who have seen it close up remain very important. i appreciate you speaking out caller: republican from utah -- caller: thank you for your comments and your service, ray. i appreciate the forum you have this morning. the budget of the military has not been kept for a long time. wouldn't you think they could take a little bit of a cap?

we can't take anybody's but in the world. we have more equipment and if we are forced to we have more heart than anybody. is it really worth it? i've got some doctors that are growing up fast -- about some daughters that are growing up fast. they will not have as good a life as we did. guest: thank you for your call. you raise exactly the most crucial question which is the military budget. the military budget this year officially is about $660 billion. that is not counting the cost of the war in afghanistan and pakistan, the drone war in yemen and if it continues in libya and if it continues in iraq. all that is on top of the offical military budget. the institute for policy studies issued a new report called we are not broke. the u.s. budget lists where easy

cuts could come back could lead to the ability to pay for jobs, education, rebuilding the infrastructure, to pay for health care, all the things we are told we cannot afford because we don't have money. we have plenty of money but we need to tax the rich who are not paying their fair share, a tax the corporations who avoid paying their taxes, some of the biggest ones not only don't pay taxes but did huge buildup of the -- huge billion dollar refunds by using the tax loopholes and to slash the military budget in half would still -- which would still keep us safe. there are many things we could do people would take a look at that report of our website . the fact that this is now republicans talking about how we need to cut the military budget is a sign of how out of touch everybody in congress seems to be that everyone wants to cut the military budget.

everybody wants to attack the rich and the corporation and ever wants to have cleaner job possibilities and yet we are not hearing these proposals. host: pennsylvania, you are on the air. caller: our you doing? -- how are you doing? what do you think of that u.s. forces in japan? guest: i think there is an awful lot of people in japan particularly in oaken out or not happy the u.s. forces are there. there is no military reason for them to be there. the people in japan have been fighting against the expansion of u.s. bases in okinawa in particular. there's talk of moving it to a beautiful part tested part of oak and now -- a beautiful part of okinawa.

i'm sorry, that's in korea. it is costing our economy with more than we can afford. it is not what people in south korea or japan want and i think those bases should be shut down. host: do you have a comment? caller: you are right when it comes to open allokinawa. in regards to geopolitically -- nuclear ballistic missile defense and things of that nature and regards to containment of china as well as the korean peninsula, especially the situation going on with the death of kim jong il recently -- how you can enter people who claim that as a necessary reason for us to leave japan? guest: i don't think having

tens of thousands of u.s. troops stationed in japan, i don't think that keeps us safer. i don't think china is some sort of raging dangerous place that needs to be contained. i think we need to build a relationship with china recognizes that the u.s. and china are global economic powers. both are global strategic powers and both have regional interests as well as national interests and international interest. we need to treat china in that way, as a serious competing power but not treated as something that must be contained militarily. i think that escalate the military situation. what china decided it needed to contain the u.s. military and began to send hundreds of thousands of troops in canada and mexico? we would see that as threatening, not as something

that would keep the world safer but as something that is very dangerous and something that must be stopped. many in china you are deployments there the same way. the same is true for iran where there is this effort to surround iran militarily. it is the same with north korea. we don't know what will happen with the new leadership in north korea. hopefully, it will lead to a better life for people there. there is no indication one way or the other yet but i don't think escalating a u.s. military presence surrounding it does anything other than support the hardest of the hard-liners in that regime who want to be able to point to what the u.s. is doing as a rationale that gives legitimacy to what they are doing to their own people host: the map that we are showing shows the military footprints around the world. the areas that are in red, china, japan, germany, those are

where we have the most active duty personnel. our guest talked about china and that country is in a pale yellow color because we have 51-250 active-duty military personnel in that country. democrat in pennsylvania, go ahead caller: yes, this time of year is supposed to be the peace time of year. i really enjoy hearing what you have to say. i think we should make war illegal internationally. my son was in the army and when we went to see him graduate from basic training, he was so different, we did not know him. we went up to a soldier and asked if he knew our son. soldiers said to, dad, mom. it was him and we didn't know

it. this -- they pump up these young kids and we thought would be the peacetime army. then there was the war in nicaragua and the first gulf war. we thought we had solved that back in the 1960's and war is not something we do. it is not good behavior. but if you are in an international agency -- we say world trade but it is ironic that we are trying to spy on china and the drones are horrible. think of one -- think if one came over your house. what about george bush when they declared the first gulf war. host: we've got your comments. we will get in jo, an independent, in alexandria, virginia. caller: thank you for taking my

call. my issue is about the veterans returning and the fact that there are potentials for jobs for these returning veterans. i am sort of wondering -- what is the latest right now in terms of putting those veterans back to work? guest: let me respond to the previous comment. thank you for telling us that the extraordinary story of your son in the military. another organization, military families speak out, is made up of family members who are facing exactly that kind of challenge. one of the things we have to realize and it goes directly to the point about jobs for returning veterans, there is a great deal of false claims by the military that people joining the supposedly all volunteer military which is really a draft of poverty and lack of opportunity and lack of

options and lack of jobs is what makes people join the military more than anything else. in that situation, people are being told they will learn a skill that they can then use to get a job. we are finding that the skills they learn in the military are not applicable. the skills they have are not where there are jobs available. while the veterans administration is working harder, there are some of efforts to get jobs for veterans, is clearly not enough. the new gi bill is not enough. we are paying enormous amounts of money, $1 million per year, to keep one young soldier in afghanistan instead of using that money to provide job training and the beginning of massive public works jobs programs like the new deal. we need a new new deal to take into account all these new soldiers coming back who need jobs. we need to get them out of the military and into a real job or they will be part of a new

economy. host: here is american hero on twitter --- fort meade, maryland, good morning. caller: i am in concurrence with you 100%. i have been in japan and in honduras and somalia. you are correct would you relate that to the military soldiers in japan which are wasted. the only things american soldiers are doing in japan is organizing parties and sharing alcohol parties. these are basically every night. i don't say anything being done necessarily for the defense of the united states nor do i see any thing for americans. host: let's hear from ronald, a republican in san antonio. caller: merry christmas.

the role of the u.s. military is to fight and win wars. i feel we should put our u.s. military on our own borders and protect america first. i call the boots and bullets on the borders. in the 1980's, i protected the east-west german border better than we protect our own borders. we need to protect our homeland. guest: sending troops around the world does not keep our country safer. i don't think keeping our troops on the border is wise either. i think the military should be stationed at home to protect this country. host: democratic caller from baltimore -- caller: i would like to go back to 1981 when the reagan administration seriously militarize u.s. foreign aid. the military is now conducting

pseudo-military aid missions all over the world. we need to replace that operation with one of cooperation. we have to cooperate with countries and become interdependent rather than imperious. guest: you raise a fundamental question about what is our condition in the world? what is our role in the world? are we the colossus of rome standing above everybody else and saying international law does not apply to us but we will go to war against other countries claiming their violations or will we be one country among many having that kind of cooperation? i don't think it was ronald reagan for the first time to militarize foreign aid. that had gone back even to vietnam where we saw "aid" missions in vietnam that were part of the war effort. when i was at the pentagon about a year-and-a-half ago discussing with them the problems and

afghanistan and why only getting out of afghanistan would be the possibility of dealing with those problems -- one of the issues we discussed is why is the pentagon having some as trouble recruiting people to work on their humanitarian projects. i was not sure they were serious. it seemed obvious and i said your job as the pentagon is to kill people and break things when told to by the civilian leadership. why would any humanitarian aid worker his job is to pick up the pieces after you kill people and break things, why would they want to work under that umbrella? of course it cannot be done by the pentagon. has to be separate. we have to get out of the business of deciding the military to be our aid and this area around the world. host: this is from twitter -- independent, a cambridge, mass., you are next. caller: there has never been a

war fought in this country. america has always fought wars and other countries but one. you have a war in iraq and the same time you decide to [inaudible] there are two countries in the world and go to war with america and that is china and russia and neither one wants to have war. host: are running out of time and that will be our last phone call. guest: what is the goal of our wars? is it for oil? is it for resources? is it for stability? is it for giving us a presence in potentially volatile parts of the world? it is too often all of those things. it is not about self-defense. it is not about humanitarian concerns. it is not about human rights. host: we have to leave it there but thank you for joining us. happy holidays. tomorrow we will be here at 7:00

a.m. eastern time. we will have a republican pollster with us and a professor at johns hopkins university on international studies talking about the future of iraq and we will end the show with jeffrey crouch, an american university assistant professor and author of a book about a presidential pardon. thank you all for watching today. we will end the show would season's greeting from both the president and republican mike pence in their weekly radio address is. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> giving of ourselves and service to others is what the season is all about. that is what christmas is all about it reminds us that part of what it means to love god is to love one another, to be our brother's keeper and our sisters keeper. that belief is not just at the center of our christian faith. it is shared by americans of all faiths and backgrounds. that is why so many of his

volunteer our time to help those most in need especially are hungry and homeless. what ever you believe, wherever you are from, let's remember the spirit of service that connects us all to this season as america. each of us can serve our communities and our country not just today but every day. >> from our family to yours, merry christmas. >> merry christmas, happy holidays, happy new year everybody. >> this holiday season, let's make a special effort to come alongside these families and their time of need and support local charities as they provide for the need to cross our communities. let's make a point to personally reach out to the neighbor or friend who needs a helping hand, a kind greeting or an invitation. it might be just the gift that someone needed most. let's not forget those who serve in uniform at home and a. it was during another christmas season in 1776 that a bold general led his weary army general led his weary army across the dela