, a member of the ways and means committee, will look at the budget and the deficit. and we will be joined by yochi dreazen, senior national security correspondent for " national journal" to discuss nuclear energy programs in the lease countries. -- middle east countries. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: it was a clean sweep for rick santorum last night. winning minnesota, missouri, and colorado caucuses, giving the former pennsylvania senator a second win in his campaign. keeping with politics, the obama campaign yesterday reversed itself on super pacs, encouraging wealthy democratic donors to keep pace with the gop super pacs. the white house is considering its options on the controversial birth control with a. on the military front, cnn reporting the pentagon is weighing its military options in

syria. good morning this wednesday morning, february 8. let's get to the question for all of you. california's ninth circuit struck down proposition 8, california's band in same-sex marriage. in a 2-1 ruling the court said it violated the constitution. we turn to all of you to get your take on same-sex marriage. are you for or against it. send us an e-mail or send your comments or questions to our twitter page. and our facebook page -- we will get to all of your thoughts in a minute but i want to go back to the 2012 race for the white house and the caucuses last night.

tim alberta is joining us. let's go right to the specific states and talk about colorado. what happened in that state and why was rick santorum able to win? guest: i think it was interesting in colorado. this was a state where mitt romney was seen as the prohibitive favorite. his campaign scheduled his only appearance at the night in what was supposed to be a victory rally in colorado last night. he won over 60% of the vote in 2008 and campaign that they're a little bit and purchase the media time on the radio. he was definitely seen as a favor. but when you see the caucus contests, they are normally driven by the most conservative voters and that was a huge boon for rick santorum last night. to give rick santorum a lot of credit. when the other candidates were in florida and nevada, santorum was spending time in these other states, and i think that you

saw, again, that rick santorum has a lot of appeal among the conservative base and also the conservative base continues to struggle with mitt romney as their standard bearer. those things kind of coalesced and rick santorum merged with a surprising win. mitt romney was seen as the prohibitive favorite. host: minnesota, mitt romney comes in third. rick santorum takes it with 45%. ron paul, second, 27%. mitt romney, 17, and the former speaker with a 11%. guest: again, mitt romney one minnesota in 2008. certainly, everything you read from the local papers in minnesota over the last week, saying those caucuses like colorado are driven by the conservative grassroots types, and mitt romney was not expected to win minnesota. but when you look at the

margins, really the story is not that mitt romney lost but rather that he lost by a lot and rick santorum really ran away with the race. it is rather remarkable. mitt romney, one of his top server gets in the campaign, is the former governor of minnesota, tim pawlenty. he was out there saying it will be closed. a lot of guys bunch together at the top. he was doing everything in his power to lower expectations by saying it is probably going to be a close race. but, in fact, it was not closed. governor of romney lost in a landslide. these contests are driven by the most conservative voters but these are the voters mitt romney needs to energize at some point and he seems to be unable to do that. host: moving to missouri, where newt gingrich was not on the ballots but rick santorum has 55% and mitt romney has 25%.

overall, are these states in a general election -- i know these are caucuses with conservative voters -- but in a general election, what does it say about rick santorum's win in states that have been some times purple or swing states? guest: that has been a big part of his message and campaign is that he has won election time after time in a state like pennsylvania, a traditional swing state, and in recent history has trended much more democratic. he is a guy that could go into the key swing states like ohio, missouri, and even michigan, and he can compete against president obama. i think rick santorum was a big victory in missouri was -- i think it comes with an asterisk because it was not a real primary, kind of a glorified view the contest, a glorified stronghold, in a sense that missouri's delegates will be doled out later.

but i think there is something to the fact that rick santorum has been aching for a one on one shot with mitt romney and that is what he essentially got in missouri. speaker gingrich was not on the ballots in missouri. rick santorum, you saw him kind of get some ribbing from the media a week ago when he left florida and went to missouri. people said, why would you be in missouri? they are not awarding delegates. they were kind of mocking him for that. but i think you have to give rick santorum a lot of credit. he saw an opportunity, at least in the media narrative, to go head-to-head with mitt romney and he beat him by 30-plus points. i think for rick santorum in terms of momentum, it is a major win. he can go out and say, listen, i took on mitt romney, i won. that will help him raise money and help his message that he is the conservative alternative that can not only beat mitt

romney but also president obama in november. host: it brings us to our facebook question that we asked last night. can he win the republican nomination? 109 people said yes and 109 people said no. when it comes to, as he said, money, maybe it will give him a boost. but does he have the organization, the infrastructure, that mitt romney has in place to continue all the way and win the nomination? host: -- guest: no one has the infrastructure and organization of mitt romney, any of his rivals on the republican side with knowledge that. i think what governor romney has working in his favor is when you take a long view of the primary calendar, that he kind of has this series of fire walls set up. his campaign that not expect to win i will than -- iowa, but

they had new hampshire. these three contests that we saw, it is important to remember that even as recently as 24 hours ago these were viewed as an unemployment -- unimportant beauty contests. so while it is certainly important for rick santorum in terms of momentum and fund- raising and kind of the media narrative that he is gaining and positioning himself as the conservative alternative to mitt romney, moving forward, the two really big contest in february and the end of the month of very friendly to mitt romney. arizona, where there is a sizable mormon population and governor romney has a pretty good apparatus, and also michigan, the same day, where he was born and raised, and he won that state in 2008. so, i think for rick santorum, you will see him with a lot of time and energy and really run a

shoestring traditional campaign. but you are also going to see rick santorum focus on super tuesday states, especially states like ohio, where rick santorum kind of things his blue-collar appeal, the grandson of coal miners, that could play well in michigan as well as ohio. i think you will see him put emphasis on those dates. but in terms of organization, moving forward, it is difficult for any candidate to compete against the ground in terms of money and organization. but rick santorum certainly will get a big fund-raising boost out of last night. that is his best hope. host: 10 alberta, thank you for your time this morning -- tim alberta. back to your question for all of you -- same-sex marriage, for or against? here is the headline in "the baltimore sun" this morning. we want to know from all of you.

anthony is a republican from colorado springs. caller: thank you for giving a chance to answer this, because whenever we did survey we are just asked whether we are for or against gay marriage. and the problem i have is that it is called marriage. a marriage is between a man and a woman, so i say i am against it being gay marriage. but in fact, i am not against them having equal rights at all. i just wished they would not use the word marriage. call it anything else. host: civil union? caller: well, that would be fine but i find some gays do not like it because they did not feel they are getting all the rights they should get. i want every american to have every right that they should

have. but i just think that -- they took over the word gay and then taking over the word marriage and a lot of people find it marriage a traditional word. and i just think that if they would change it to something else, get have every single right. and i don't want just one state where, like rosa o'donnell could move back to florida and never say she was married in california. she does not have to go through a divorce, like i do. host: you are in support of a federal, unified law. caller: i think it is very important. host: you are calling on the republican line. have you changed your mind on the issue over time? caller: actually i have known gays for a long time of my life and i never put them down or found them disgusting or anything like that.

it was not a matter of changing my mind. it was a matter of finding a legal way. and i do believe in legal rights for everybody. host: let me bounce this off of you. this is newt gingrich's statement on the california court's decision saying "federal judges are substantive and their own political views for the constitutional rights of the people to make judgments about the definition of marriage." and rick santorum and mitt romney also are against the ninth circuit court decision, talking about the judiciary making a political decision. we will review what they had to say as well. what do you make of that?

caller: in a way, i agree with him because you are forcing something down the throats of people already in california. they took an election and said they did not want it. and now it is like, we do not care what you want. we want this. as far as the politicians are concerned, i really don't think that they find gays disgusting or any part of that. i think they object to the marriage part. host: i understand. let's go to chuck. he is a democrat from west virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call. i watch "washington journal" every single morning. i have been involved in the gay community and west virginia for 20 years so i have been following this case very carefully and i am very supportive of this. proposition 8 was not a mandate.

it passed only by about 4%. it was a very close vote. and also, more importantly, it is not the role of judges and courts to uphold the will of the people. it is up to judges and courts to uphold the constitution. and what they found out in this very narrow ruling was that proposition 8 basically treated gay and straight couples differently, and that is the reason why it is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. but i think ultimately it will have to go to the supreme court because you cannot have a patchwork of 50 different marriage laws across the country because most of the legal benefits and protections of marriage, from the federal government. they did not come from the state. a lot of it has to do with social security and tax law and inheritance rights, and of course, immigration. so, there has to be a single

federal definition of marriage. and i think when this gets to the supreme court, ultimately they are going to find that there is simply no constitutional justification for denying law abiding tax paying gay couples in the exact benefits and protections straight couples have taken for granted. host: are you disappointed with president obama's stance? caller: i think he is taking a very safe stance. i think once he gets reelected he might take a stronger stance in favor of marriage equality for gay couples. but i think he made it clear he wants gay and straight couples to be treated equally without necessarily crossing that line and supporting gay marriage. but he does want them to be treated equally. and that is what the constitution stipulates. and another thing -- the defense

of marriage act. the one thing about the defense of marriage act is that it violates the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. for instance, you can have a straight couple fly off to las vegas for a drunken weekend and get married by an elvis impersonator and that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states. but if you have a gay couple legally married in iowa, they become unmarried when they crossed state lines. host: let me show you what the white house said yesterday. the press secretary was asked about the issue. [video clip] >> i do not have a comment on litigation in general, and in this litigation to which we are not a party. beyond that, i can say that the president has long opposed

divisive efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples. host: the previous the caller mentioned the patchwork look of the states and how they have ruled on same-sex marriage. here is a map in "the wall street journal" this morning. the greens states are those who issue marriage licenses, state laws for same-sex couples. the blue recognizes marriages and other states. the orange, equivalent of state level spousal rights. a yellow color, some statewide spousal rights in those states. the load that is an opinion on allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally -- below that is an opinion on allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. going back to 1996 -- the blue line of the people who opposed it over the years.

the green line is those who have favored it over the years. now 46% hold say they are in favor of it. next to it is a side story. "the wall street journal" says california voters favor same-sex marriage by 51% to 42% margin -- that was in "the wall street journal" this morning. richard is an independent from new york. caller: my thoughts are the supreme court or the appellate court are not the writers of the dictionary. i have no objection to the concept of civil union. but marriage is basically

defined as a combination of ingredients. you can marry onions and garlic. you can marry beef and pork. it is very difficult to marry onions and onions. it is just not part of the definition of the word. i think all of the previous commentators -- i agree with all of the previous commentators that you had on that of the civil rights of individuals should be recognized, and i find no objection to a definition of marriage on a federal level in terms of civil unions. and if we redefine all of marriage as a civil unions, then everybody would be happy and you could not complain that the

civil rights of anybody were being abrogated and at the same time, all of the tax and social security advantages would then be settled and nobody could complain. simply calling homosexual marriage as marriage completely distorts reality. host: if others like you are interested in this legal definition of marriage, the senator, we covered the ninth circuit court hearing on this issue back in december of 2010, and that is where ted olson, one of the lawyers who represent at couples who challenged proposition 8, and republican, he teamed up with a democrat and his adversary in the election case of bushehr versus board to bring the challenge. there it is on the strain, if you go -- there is on the

screen if you go to c-span.org. we will continue talking about all of this, getting your thoughts and your take about same-sex marriage. are you for or against it? let me show you what rick santorum had to say in response to the court's decision. he said "we need to have a president willing to stand up to the judiciary -- mitt romney also weighed in in a statement, and he said this -- ivan, a democrat from massachusetts. caller: in 2003 we had a ruling by the u.s. supreme court, in

that case basically said that in america the gay is now legal and no longer a crime. i think it is funny gays had to wait until 2003 to become legal. at that time, justice aliyah, one of the most conservative on the court, he remarked now we are going to have to give these people full marriage rights because of the equal protection clause under the constitution. and he was very chagrined that it was the reality of what that decision meant. what we are seeing is the fruition of that. in 2004, my state that a supreme court in massachusetts agreed with justice scalia and said, you are right, we have to give under the equal protection clause and our state, contusion -- state constitution, to make same-sex marriage legal. it is a civil marriage. it has nothing to do with

churches. it is just a civil marriage and it has everything to do with legal rights and protections. i have friends in my neighborhood who are married and they adopted two children. one of them is a former marine. why should the kids on that street not have the same benefits as the kids right across the street from them? it is just no more complicated than that. it is about economic fairness. the religious aspect is overblown. here in massachusetts -- we have had a seven years and nobody notices it. it is no big deal. it is just fairness and decency. when you say this is my husband, this is my wife, there is nothing that can replace that. it means something. everyone in america should be equality -- entitled to equality. host: i will read more from "the wall street journal" about the ruling, but first, our facebook poll. 38 people said that they are for

same-sex marriage and 17 people so far as saying that they are against same-sex marriage. so, you can post whether you are for or against, your thoughts on our website. here is a tweet -- so, if you want to send your .com, c- to twitter spanwj is our handle. here is more about the ruling --

the issue has a history in california that stretches back to 1977.

writing for the majority, the judge based his ruling on a precedent from supreme court justice kennedy.

republican from new castle, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. you know, i just want to say this. and i hope all lot of people are listening. because, you know, this is wrong. you hear people say, you know, it is sad because this is a sickness. it is not a sickness, it is sin. god's word says that two people leave their mother and father and they become one and they go and multiplied. these people cannot multiplied. they are going against god's word. and the states that approve this will no longer receive god's blessings. this is all wrong. host: what about separation of church and state? caller: in a what? we shall never -- should never be separated from church and state. god is ultimately in control. you see what is happening in the elections. god is in control.

he will have the final word. and that no these people -- and there are a lot of good ones, do not get me wrong, there are a lot of good gay and lesbians and i feel bad for them. they are in the wrong direction. they need to pray because this is all wrong. host: independent from rockville, maryland. caller: i think this shows the tussle between these rights. there is the real religious fears about granting rights but it is not a problem of real religious sphere. it is a situation of genetics. and the constitution promises nondiscrimination and equal rights. marriage, like the caller a couple of calls back said it is not really religious marriage. marriage just means kind of like a union between two people. and people have to stop fearing and stop being led by politicians using this for their own agenda, which is what i

believe mr. gingrich and santorum are doing, and realize it is just giving rights that people really should have been given along time ago. i see nothing wrong. host: stored. a democrat from connecticut. -- stuart. caller: i just want to comment from a religious point of view. host: we are listening. caller: ok. i tried to make this as short as i can. issues like condescends of use and abortion are not to be found -- contraceptive use of abortion and not to be found in thie koran and -- but hamas said

quality, it comes from a section that indicates -- but homosexuality, it comes from a section from leviticus, where you cannot have sex with your father or brother or your son, just some examples, and of course, the reverse is true for a male. and those relationships, which are today barred by criminal statutes in hebrew are called a word which means sin. is calledhomosexual while l something that is translated as an abomination. while the situation does not call for harm or discrimination

towards people who are , tosexual, the government pass a laws to give the same status is a way to promote and encourage the behavior. it would be the same thing like allowing you to marry your brother. host: we got your point. in some other news, we want to update you on the situation in syria. cnn is reporting the pentagon is weighing its military options. the white house spokesman said yesterday there are no immediate plans to arm the opposition. you also heard the news yesterday that senator john mccain was saying we should be considering how to help the syrians military. here is cbsnews.com this morning.

heard the news yesterday that russia had sent its representative to syria. here is the headline -- so, that is the story coming out of syria from yesterday. i also want to let you know what we are covering on c-span today. on capitol hill, cybersecurity and private sector hearing before a house subcommittee. live at 9:30 a.m. eastern time on c-span 3. and the senate is looking at a comprehensive cybersecurity bill and house is looking at passing smaller -- a smaller, limited bill. we will talk about it on sunday in the last hour of "washington journal" with a cybersecurity expert. lincoln, california. grant is a republican.

caller: i am an independent republican. marriages between a man and woman. the people in california of all faiths and background have spoken twice the saying that marriages between a man and a woman. -- marriage is between a man and woman. as far as the definition federally, a man and woman is to be together, the same as the bible. the values espoused by people who are wrong to not make it right. as far as i am concerned, it has nothing to do about people being fearful -- it is the principle because gays cannot have children and it is the way it is. host: colorado, as you get your thoughts, here is a map in a "the baltimore sun" showing same-sex marriage laws in states. a darker blue is where it is illegal. a lighter below, domestic partnerships and civil unions

are made legal in those days -- the lighter blue. caller: as conservative independents, they need to put a young conservative in office rather than older. george bush i lost and then bob dole lost -- although there was the ross perot factor. we need to put a younger guy in office. i can say it because i am an old guy and i can be prejudiced against those older guys. i like newt gingrich but i think we need a younger guy in office. host: on the domestic front, "the washington post" continues its series looking at efarmarks -- looking at fearmarks -- looking at earmarks.

you can take a look at that in "the washington post" to take a closer look at several members, republicans and democrats, examining both sides of capitol hill. deborah is a democrat from connecticut. same-sex marriage, are you for or against it? caller: you are talking about gay marriage, right? yeah, no, i am against it

because marriages between a man and a woman. and marriage is supposed to be to protect the kids into -- and for the purpose of having kids and gay people cannot, and when they are able to have kids and protect the kids and then they can get married. until then, i do not see it. host: independent line -- john from indiana. caller: i just wanted to make a comment regarding words and the definitions. originally the definition of someone who could vote was a white male property owner and we also the fine people, prichard police slaves, as 3/5 of people -- defined to people, and as far

as slaves, 3/5 of people. people getting hung up about marriage has always been between a man and a woman. it i guess the futility of that particular argument. host: the front page of "the new york times" -- it says even some catholic institutions have sound and vocal opposition to the law, a recent poll was the obama officials were pointed to, show the majority of catholics favor

the new rule. that is in "the new york times" this morning and and other newspapers. and a story about iraq in the newspapers this morning. here is "the new york times" version. the u.s. plans to cut its staff by half at the u.s. embassy. that is "the new york times" story this morning. it maryland -- maryland, phil is

a democrat. caller: i think it is about time. i wanted to comment on the obama contraception bill. i think that offering people in the private religious sector an option -- their ability to have contraception if that is what they believe, i think that encroaches on religious beliefs. it is not like they are saying the only option you put down for an employee that you have to get a bill -- or a plan that offers you contraception. these organizations cannot function without people -- not necessarily associated with the religion. the issue of marriage -- every single marriage in america is civil anyway. i agree about the rhetoric,

holding on to terms. at this is really about equality and full equality and i think it is about time we put this behind us. host: on the republican line, thomas from north carolina. caller: good morning. i am against same-sex marriage. i am a christian and proud of it. the bible says it is an abomination. and the gentleman from connecticut who was speaking of leviticus -- he needs to read the first chapter of romans beverly and see what it says about homosexuality -- sorely and see -- thoroughly and see what it says about homosexuality. people cannot read the bible anyway -- but look what happened to sodom and gomorrah. host: richard, independent. caller: i think an earlier

caller alluded to this. if you are looking at this logically -- and i know a lot of same-sex marriage supporters just go ballistic and get live- in when they hear comparisons to polygamy for consenting incestuous relationships, but i would like for someone to explain, especially since science has shown that there is usually an objection to the assessed was religion jobs due to science, birth defects -- incestuous relationships due to science. no greater risks for women over 40 having children. and as far as polygamous relationships, it has largely been legal objections to making marriage laws very difficult and complex. host: here is u.s. rates -- "usa today."

their editorial-page but their viewpoint. -- with their viewpoint. owners have been gridlock how to come up with $1.20 trillion. -- congress has been gridlock. mitt romney rights -- writes this -- also, in other news on 2012

politics, the opinion pages this morning weighing in on president obama's decision to reverse himself on super pacs, calling for democratic donors to start contributing to keep up with republican super pacs. "the new york times" says "another campaign for sale." and "the wall street journal" weighing in against the president.

no wonder americans are cynical about politics. back to your phone calls -- one more thing. donald trump rising in the the commenter resection of "the washington times." -- commentary section of "the washington times." and a side story, a quick one about donald trump. he is ready to turn the old post office here in washington into a luxury hotel. it has been a target of officials looking to sell or lease underused buildings.

democrat from georgia. for or against? caller: i am against. i want to allude to something a german said a couple of calls ago about sodom and umar. christians and jews alike are very much aware of what happened in sodom and gomorrah. i am against and, the lord is against it, and he is not going to apologize for what happened in a solemn and gomorrah and if the united states is not careful we will go down the same way. thank you. host: coming up next we will talk to two members of congress -- a democrat and republican -- in 45 minutes. democratic congressman from new jersey bill pascrell will join us about social security payroll tax cut extension. there is another stalemate on capitol hill over that. and we have been covering the conferees negotiating that deal. they met again yesterday and we have been covering it. if your interested, go to but what said.

up next, mac thornberry from texas. talking about the pentagon's budget. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> when i first read the book i also thought this must be an american story. this is about the country that worships self-reliance and individual -- individualism, the legacy of thorough and emerson but we are laggards. a much more common in european nations, especially in scandinavia, and even more common in japan. >> in "going solo" and look at the growing trend of american adults choosing to live alone and what it means for the

country. saturday night at 10:00 a.m. eastern grid also this weekend, sunday at 3:00, the second cousin of former secretary of state condoleezza rise on her work to reduce gang violence in l.a. and to start a dialogue between leaders and police. and georgetown university's bonnie morris on her one-woman play and book of the same name "revenge of the women's studies professor." this weekend on c-span2. >> the most and pour in point on who should run and the conservative leader is, we cannot tell them -- but i think it would be better if like a month before the election would announce who would be running for president. the media's obsessive desire to know who is your leader -- is that michael steele, rush limbaugh, glenn beck, sarah palin? they want to tell us to our leader is so big and ferociously fixate on that person and destroy him or her.

>> this year's conservative political action conference begins thursday and c-span will cover the events through the weekend. watch past speakers online at the c-span video library. all archive and searchable at c- span.org/video library. host: -- >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining me is congressman mac thornberry, republican from texas, vice-chairman of armed services committee. i want to begin what the situation in syria. cnn is saying the pentagon is weighing its military options. senator john mccain saying we should look at it. would you come down? guest: it is not clear to me. we need to be a little more clear and then we are now. what difference our military involvement would mean and what sort of military involvement we are willing to do.

we found working with our allies, there was some level of military involvement we were comfortable with in libya. it went on a lot longer and it was a lot harder than expected. the syrian regime is even more difficult. and obviously incredibly brutal, willing to kill however many people it takes in order to hold onto power. and we know they have chemical and biological weapons. so, there are some different dimensions here that i think we ought to be careful about. but nobody can dispute the brutality of his people. and the disappointment with russia and china sticking up for them, i think we all feel. host: what needs to happen next? guest: we do not have good options. there has been talk about helping provide some resistance -- assistance to the resistance movement inside syria. on the other hand, they are not an organized group that is working together. and they're all sorts of actions

and so forth. and you also have to be very careful in that area about the domino effect of what you do. so, you destabilize the syria -- what does it do to let the non, what does it do to jordan? do you have a big refugee flow into turkey or iraq? there are consequences you have to think through. i don't think any of us should be too cavalier saying we should go get that guy. despite the we feel about the brutality and the horrible shelling and telling of their own people, but that does not automatically mean that we drop a few bombs and think we can solve a problem that way. host: would have bolivia model work? guest: that is what i am saying. i think it is more complex and a domino effect is infinitely more complex when you are in that part of the middle east. i think we have to be careful. host: let me go to the pentagon budget. i know sequestration could

happen, likely to happen. cuts from the pentagon budget. and then the 2013 budget as looking like this. 525 billion, down six from 2012 -- i just want to focus on the army to begin with. what the army chief of staff told reporters in late january. he is ok with the situation, reducing troops in the army. i want to get your reaction. [video clip] >> the thought process is we

would still boost ability but on a much smaller scale and rely more on other partners to assist us. so, we know we have a lot of uncertainty out there. if, in fact, we end up having to do enlarged scales stability operation, we will depend on our ability to reversed and expand which should be highly dependent on the reserve promote -- component initially an order for them to help us meet the initial requirements, which should then by us time to look at expanding the army again. that is the thought process. i feel comfortable with that strategy. host: are you comfortable with it? guest: i worry about it. if you take it together, the proposal is to cut 100,000 from the army and marine corps, which is basically our ground component. basically what general odierno said it is it means we will not be the to do long-term stability operations in the future on the order of iraq or

afghanistan. and if we get into one of the situations, we will have to do is call a lot of the guard and reserve 2 billion and in that way reverse the cuts in personnel -- reserve to fill in and in that would reverse the cuts. i do not think anyone can say with certainty that we will not have another iraq, afghanistan- type operation in the future. we do not know what we are going to face and that is why we need a military to deal with all sorts of contingencies. the other point is, once you lose 100,000 people, you cannot snap your fingers and get them back. the company has a lot invested in their training, education, and experience. so, the administration has talked a lot about irreversibility, that if we cut too much, we can reverse it. you cannot do that with people because you cannot just throw them and get them back. so, i more about the increased risk we take with those size of cuts.

host: in the peace in "usa ," it quotes odierno, saying it is quick to build up your troops, your force in a crisis situation, saying troops can be trained relatively quickly and reduction in rank relatively easily reversed. guest: i do not agree with that. what general odierno says is we can bring up some people from the guard and reserve to augment our active duty force and if you got the right kind of people with the right skills, you can do that. but in the bigger sense, when you are cutting 100,000 people, you cannot just say, okay, here are 100,000 americans and we will put them through six weeks of boot camp and teach them to shoot and now we have a soldier. what we expect our military to do these days is much more complex and that requires much more training and experience. it is different than wars in the

past, where you just send them to boot camp and they are ready to go. host: talking to the vice- chairman of the house armed services committee about the pentagon budget. if you are a republican -- we will get to your phone calls and questions in just a minute. but "the washington post" has this headline we want you to respond to. "proposed pentagon cuts a test for many lawmakers." argue a defense hawk for a deficit hawk? guest: i do not think it has to be a choice. for example, i am both. of the first job of the federal government is to defend the country. so, if i am going to spend a dollar on the government's -- of the government's money, i will spend it on this and first. but i recognize, as the military leaders do, that we cannot continue to pile up the incredible record the debt and be 8 strong, viable country.

my answer is we have to put different priorities on spending. we have to do less of some things in order to have the strongest military in the world. and that means reforms, entitlements, and cuts in other spending. it and also making sure -- and also making sure we get a dollar of value for every dollar we spend in defense. not saying there is no waste in defense. we automatically -- and not that we have to do automatically everything we are doing. but if i am going to air on one side, it would be on a strong defense because it is essential. host: name a weapons system you would cut back on? guest: cutting back -- you mention the 35. a part of the key of some of the weapons systems is when they are ready to go into production. and one of the challenges we face is it is taking us way too long to acquire systems, and

when we stretch it out even further, they become even more expensive to buy. so, i am not sure, for example, exactly how many f-35 fighters we need. i think it is a legitimate point of the administration and congress need to work together on. but i also believe that if we believe we need a certain number and we just take longer to buy them, it will cost more to purchase them because we are losing some of the efficiencies of the production. some of the questions, i think congress will have to listen to when the of what -- but it comes out. host: is it a budget gimmick both sides? you buy it and spread it out? guest: you are absolutely right, both sides do it. just to help a little in this year's budget, we pushed some to next year and a net cost to the taxpayer is more. host: a republican from st. louis, missouri. you are up first. go ahead.

you're on the air. caller: good morning. i was wondering, representative, is there any serious discussion given toward transferring or actually adding health care costs to active duty members did not hanging health care or prescriptions? host: you know what, morgan? i apologize. you are breaking up. it is really difficult to hear the question guest: health care for active duty. host: and prescription drug costs. guest: i got fragments of that. this administration and the previous administration has made suggestions on how to deal with the growth in military health care costs. in just a step back for a second, one of the biggest factors in overall government budget is healthcare. and that is true for the military, to, if you look at the

growth in budgets over the past decade or so. a huge amount of what the pentagon spends more money on it is health care just like the rest of society. so, i do think that is one of the areas congress and the administration has to look at to see how we can get more out of the money taxpayers spend. now, my view is that you did not change the rules on active duty and retired people. if the government says it is going to do something, the government needs to keep its word. for younger people who are coming into the military, there needs to be some adjustment on copiague, adjustable, and so forth -- you tell them up front. we may well have to do that. but you did not change the rules after somebody has signed up, given a 20 years, and served the country. host: if you host: if you do that and tell them those premiums will be more

expensive, how many years out do you finally see those savings? is it enough time? guest: you see fewer savings if it is in the future rather than cutting things right now. that is true. on the other hand, you have to consider what the consequences are. what does that do to the ability to recruit and retain the top quality folks that we need? there are domino effect when you start fooling with pay and benefits in the military. host: we are talking about the future of the defense budget. the president is expected to release the request on monday. we want to get your thoughts and comments about the future of the pentagon budget.

from pittsburgh, go ahead. caller: i am a ron paul supporter. i would like to know when the ship came from being the department of defense to the department of offense. guest: i think the answer is in order to defend a country, we cannot just build a big wall around the united states and assume that we are going to be saved. 9/11 proved that does not work. people came here from various parts of the world and attacked and killed 3000 americans. those same folks are looking to get their hands on weapons that could kill even more americans and are very committed to that. so, i think the bottom line is in order to protect the country, in order to protect american lives, we cannot just hunker down here at home.

we have to look overseas at where those threats come from. that is what has been going on in afghanistan. that is why the basic goal of making sure afghanistan does not revert to a base from which terrorists can attack us is the basic goal. general petraeus said that very thing last week in a meeting when i asked him that question. host: a democratic collar. caller: yes, i was in the navy. your greatest defense in the war department is your diplomatic officers. these are the people who keep us off the front lines. we are killing machines. when you send us in, diplomacy is over. we are not trying to talk about peace or settle communities.

we are killing machines. when you send us in, that means your job is done. we don't need politicians who always use the military first as its first act of diplomacy. you did that with iraq and u send us and looking for saddam hussein and weapons of mass destruction. when it came to the conclusion that these items were not the objectives of the principles in washington, d.c., not sitting out there in that hot desert, you betrayed us. your first object is to have diplomacy. guest: first, i appreciate your service to the country and all of those who have served at. i do not think any of us can say that often enough. i agree that diplomacy is our first line of defense.

the country has a number of tools of national influence to try to help protect the country. i agree that using the military should not be the first tool that is used. diplomacy, economics, a whole variety of things should be used. we should make better use of those tools. but i disagree that when we do need to use the military, that it is either all or nothing. i know this is a frustration of a lot of folks that served in the military, because we train our folks to be very lethal and effective. what we are doing in afghanistan and other places all around the world is helping to train and to prepare these host nation security forces by providing for their own defense.

the answer in afghanistan is getting the afghan security forces to be able to at least provide enough security to keep al qaeda and the taliban out. that is a little more of a nuanced military mission then just go all out and kill everything that moves. that makes for some complicated situations. one of the reasons why i have been impressed by the folks who serve our nation in iraq, afghanistan, and other places is because they are able to do that and make those judgments and help to understand the local culture and help those local security forces become more effective in providing for their own defense so our people can come home. that is the goal. host: here is an e-mail from one of our viewers who echoes that last caller.

guest: i think that is exactly right. it was a tremendous morale boost for syria to have russia and china veto the resolution in the u.n. i suggest they are having those frank discussions. the administration's big deal was to reset relations with russia. i do think that what should be done -- that is what should be done and i do not agree that you just send in the military to solve syria. there are other instruments of diplomacy, and you better understand the consequences. host: what would make you say yes we need to get involved in syria? guest: i am not very good at "what if."

i think we need to continue to talk to our allies and the region. -- allies in the region. they have the most at stake and would suffer the most consequences if things start to destabilize. it could have an effect on us as well as our friends. host: if you were on twitter says -- -- eight the work on twitter says -- -- a viewer on twitter says -- caller: i agree with ron paul 110%. when we defend our country, go to congress, get a declaration of war, go win it, and get home. look at what happened with vietnam. we gained nothing. we let them alone for several years and we ended up doing

business with them. these politics are so phony. they ought to make a debt clock on a wall. it should show how much money we are spending rather than protecting our military for defense spending guest: i agree completely with the idea that is in our constitution that before military troops are committed, congress needs to approve. it does not have to be labeled declaration of war as it was with japan. it can be the authorization of the use of military force. so, in september 2001, congress passed an authorization to use military force against those who were responsible for the attacks of 9/11 and those who harbored them. i have been one of the advocates who have said we ought to update

that so congress continues to adjust that authorization for the use of force in the way that al qaeda has evolved so the last few attacks against this country have emanated really from yemen. so we ought to update the language to reflect that al qaeda has moved beyond the attacks of 9/11 and had a number of other attempted attacks against the united states. i agree that congress needs to be involved. on the other hand, in a world where we have weapons of mass destruction, instantaneous communication, transnational groups, the idea that we can either go all out in a world war ii - like military venture or stay home behind walls does not fit the times that we live in. host: this tweet for you --

guest: i do not want to stay any longer than is necessary. i also do not want to leave too early before the afghans can provide for their own security. i think it is very fair to say that we did not have the right priorities in the beginning or put the right and this is on building up the afghan security forces when we were involved. i think that is absolutely true. i also know that it was from that area that the attacks emanated that killed 3000 americans on 9/11 and there were people committed to killing as many americans as they possibly can. if they have a safe haven, they will be much more dangerous in the future. so our goal is to get the afghans where they can provide for their own security, and then i am ready to leave the next day. host: "the new york times" has

this story -- guest: what i am struck by is and maybe we did not think through that massive and thus the presence to begin with and maybe we are being a little hasty to say we will cut in half. those seem like very drastic swings to meet. i also think we left iraq a little bit too early. to have all of the military folks out by a deadline and keep and advisory presence has resulted in increase in the killings there. what i strongly feel is we cannot let the sacrifice of too many in iraq and afghanistan go

for nothing by leaving so early that all they have sacrificed for just goes away. that would be bad for the country and it would not honor their memory. host: steve is a democrat in chicago. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to give a great thing to do to the men and women who have dedicated their lives to allow me to have freedom and liberty. i take care of my own little brother who is a disabled veteran. i would also like to say all of those who are injured, wounded, and those who take care of our liberty, jesus loves you. you can turn to him when you have been turned into a killing machine. you can turn to jesus and he will forgive you and show you how non-aggressive, passive

resistance is the only hope for mankind. guest: i certainly agree with the sentiments, the respect for the people who serve this nation. when you see them out in the field -- sunday, i was out on the u.s.s. enterprise, and to see the professionalism of these 20-year olds running and nuclear reactor that powers the ship and taking off the jets on the deck of the carrier, it is incredible. i do not think though that in the world in which we live the united states can just take a passive view to things or else we will see incredible death and destruction. in my view, the first job of the federal government is to defend

the country. the threats that are coming against the country include terrorism but are also now devolving into cyber security challenges -- devolving into cyber security challenges as well as -- evolving into cyber security challenges as well as other threats. i think we are safer when we are strong. when we are weak, we invite aggression against us. we need to remember that every time we have weakened defense in the past, it has invited aggression and we have come to regret it. caller: good morning, sir. can you hear me? host: we can. caller: good morning, sir. i am going to bring it back to the topic at hand, the defense

budget. i just spent the last 15 years and eight months in the air force and just recently retired. i am 100% disability with the va and everything. i have listened to a lot of callers on here and i have not heard one talk about the real subject. one, we are talking about the reduction in force. we have built up the total force overall going into iraq and afghanistan. i was in the precursor to the buildup. seven tours in the middle east. people do not seem to understand diplomacy is there. i've seen it. i've seen it when it fails.

i just came on the tail-end of bill clinton cutting the total force structure. the more that we go along here, in the realm that i know, aircraft. whenever you have aircraft that are not capable because they are 1960's aircraft, 1970's aircraft, and they are not maintained by the top mainters world -- parts on not cheap. that is the thing. guest: again, thank you for your service, 15 years to the country. i think you make two important

point. diplomacy can be more effective when we have a strong military. it helps the other tools of national influence be more effective including diplomacy. you are also right on the age of the aircraft's. some of the b-52's that we still fly are as old as i am, and that is pretty old. as a whole variety of aircraft among other things, it is necessary to replace them. that does not have been cheap. we have an acquisition process that makes it too expensive and too long to buy aircraft and ships and things. the point is we have to have the top military in the world and that requires aircraft ships and other things. host: some areas to spend more are for unmanned aerial drones and submarine capabilities.

why is it necessary to spend more in these areas? tell us about the future -- guest: i think it reflects the future of the world in which we live in. cyber is the easiest example. we are all familiar how dependent the country is on cyber security. it has no geographic bounds. yet there are people every day who reach in to our computers and steal intellectual property. when they do, they are stealing jobs. sometimes they are stealing military blueprints. the point is they are stealing things now, and the danger is they could come in and full with an electricity grid or a water treatment plant or a chemical

plant and have real human consequences in the future. that is part of the reason why our national security will involve cyber security in a way that is consistent with our values. that is just one example of the way the world and military are changing. host: that is the headline in "the washington post." the i.g. found shortcomings in the plan. more than a third of utility companies that got federal funding from incomplete strategies to prevent an attack. guest: this is a great example. we all think it makes sense to have the internet connected to electricity so that you can move power around and know who is using what and make it more efficient. the more connections you have to

the power grid and the internet, the more potential vulnerabilities you have. you have a convenient on one hand and increased vulnerability on the other. i think that is what we are facing throughout our society. it will not be the military's job alone to protect us in cyberspace. that is one of the reasons why i think you see the house, the senate, and the president coming together and saying we have to do something on cyber security this year, and i hope we do. host: do you think something will pass? guest: yes, i do. you have this agreement across their political spectrum. i do not think we will solve all the problems of cyber security. there are some things that there will be agreement on. we ought to do that and solve more problems in the future. host: back to the defense

budget, here is an e-mail. guest: there is some truth and that. i think you have seen other countries -- truth in that. i think you have seen other countries cut defense and note that the united states will be the strongest power. the problem is if the united states cut our defense budget, who is there to pick up the slack? probably china. maybe some other countries that we would not feel as good about. so there are responsibilities that go with world leadership. the united states benefit tremendously from having trade around the world and not having terrorism and other things.

as tony blair told a joint session of congress after 9/11, part of that responsibility falls on our shoulders. we have to meet 8. host: bill is an independent from chicago. caller: i disagree with what you said at the beginning on the show. you said we cannot maintain a wall. with the humongous amount of money and personnel that this country spend, these people were doing their jobs properly, the people who got in here and got a hold of those airplanes would have never have been. one of the other main reasons that we have these problems is because of the crimes and the mistakes that the military and foreign policy have committed since world war ii. that is causing a lot of these

problems. we have more forces and more money than all the rest of the world put together right now. you say we cannot keep men in there because it costs too much, start the draft again. guest: i do not think we will ever go back to a draft. it is such a different world. we cannot take them from down on the farm and put them through boot camp and then send them out in the world. the folks that we have serving in the military today are so smart, so capable, that in order to deal with the challenges and the equipment and the weapons that we have, we have to and we are getting the best and brightest of the country. that is why we have to spend more than other countries to

recruit and retain that high- quality individual. i do not think that we should have it any other way. i think the united states has been a tremendous force for good during the 20th century. if you look at the improvements in standard of living, not only here but around the world, they have been incredible largely because the united states has been that force for good that has resisted evil whether it was not seized or al qaeda and helped maintain free trade and other things that have improved economies around the world. living standards throughout the world have benefited from the united states. i do not think we ought to take all of that responsibility on our shoulders forever but i disagree when anybody suggest that there have been criminal or

a negative consequences of u.s. leadership since world war ii. host: you are up next for the congressman. caller: thank you for your leadership and service. at a time when it is supreme leader may already have a nuclear weapon, why does the obama administration constantly talk about we might have to deal with it? why not make the assumption that iran has the ability to strike with a nuclear device? why does he insist on cutting at the time when israel is such a high degree of risk? guest: you are right that this is one of the most dangerous situations in the world. where iran either has or could surely have a nuclear weapon and has openly said that they will

attack israel with everything that they have. it causes an enormous increases with the neighbors around iran. i think you have hit on another key area of the world that is fraught with danger and another reason why we have to be careful of cutting back too much because something could happen very quickly where we would regret the cuts. we hope it does not happen. but it is a very dangerous world on a number of fronts. host: in our last hour on the show, we are taking a look at a recent magazine piece of persian gulf states separate from iran that are working on their nuclear power. the question posed is will they

make peaceful programs for nuclear energy or will they respond in kind to iran? guest: we should all have concerns. whether or not iran were to use in nuclear weapon against israel which is one of the worst nightmare scenarios that any of us could imagine, just the fact that they are pursuing it so aggressively, it causes other countries to worry. you get this escalating arms race of nuclear weapons in the most volatile region of the world. it should be a matter of very great concern. host: do you trust that the uae is a peaceful program? guest: if i were in their shoes, i would keep some options open. because whether you are saudi arabia or some of the other nations, a nuclear armed iran is

not something i would want to live with in my neighborhood. we just saw iran assisting with instability inside saudi arabia, inside bahrain, by whipping up shiites to cause difficulties in this country's. if i were they, i would think about keeping options open. host: let's go to jackson who is a republican in arizona. caller: thank you very much. i am really enjoying the conversation. number one, your guest said if we cut back the military, we will not be able to -- i do not think that is necessarily a bad thing. may be having too big of a military for politicians is having a credit card.

maybe if we did not have that war of choice in iraq. number two, focusing on the defense does not work because look at 9/11. it is very arguable where the -- third of all, my worst nightmare is the situation is not someone attacking israel. if you look at the history of israel, they knew they were going to have to fight all of their neighbors and beat them into oblivion until they accepted israel's. they are getting exactly what they expected. host: i want to take the first point of two wars and congress using defense like a credit card. guest: the two major regional

contingencies were a sizing constructs that was used to say, ok, if we were to have an event in the middle east and something happened in east asia at the same time, could we deal with it? what would be required to deal with this situation? i do not think we should be locked into that either. it was an artificial sort of measure to try to figure out the things we would require. i do think we need to look at what is happening in the world today and what are some likely scenarios. i think it is more likely that there could be more smaller sorts of events that we could be involved in. the point is that no one of us can predict the future. all of these things are artificial.

a book a few years ago that was written it said america's ability to predict the next war is dismal. we never get it right in predicting the sort of military conflict that we will be involved in next. we have to have the flexibility but also the strength to deal with the unknown. i think that is what we are trying to get toward. host: on twitter -- how dependent is it on defense and defense contracts? guest: it is certainly not the most important factor in my district. agriculture is. in my district, we have won air force training base and one defense contractor. so, there are people who work there. they contributes substantially to the country's defense, and i

am proud of that. bought it is not an essential part of the district until the economy. this comes up fairly often these days. i do not think we should spend any money on defense in order to create jobs, but i also think we ought to have our eyes wide open and understand that the money we spend on defense does create jobs. when defense is cut, it will have some consequences to those people who work in the industrial base. we ought to understand the consequences of what we do. host: thank you very much for being here. up next, we turn our attention. this headline in "the new york times" -- up next, we will talk to bill pascrell, member of the ways and means committee. >> republican presidential

candidate rick santorum speaking earlier on cnn says a "republican conservatives are beginning to get it." he also commented on mitt romney, saying he had a great career in the private sector, but we are not running for ceo for the country. meanwhile, mitt romney's political director says it even senator john mccain lost 19 states on his way to the presidential nomination. despite losses in colorado, minnesota, and misery, mitt romney remains the front-runner in the delegates. today on capitol hill, the senate is not in session. a retreat is being held. president obama expected to attend that meeting. the house comes into session on 10:00 a.m. one of the items on the agenda at deals with insider-trading.

the republican bill also would prohibit federal officials from receiving special access to an initial public offerings due to their positions. that provision would aim at nancy pelosi whose husband participated in a visa ipo around the same time when congress was considering a bill for credit card fees. democrats say majority leader eric cantor wrote the bill without seeking the minority party's the use. live house coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern time, you can watch it on c-span television. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. > they knew america where freedom is made for all. [applause]

i mean a new america which attacks the ancient idea that men can solve their differences by killing each other. [applause] >> as candidates campaign for president, we look back at 40 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our web sites to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> the profits of the radical liberal left continue to offer only one solution to the problems in which confront us. they tell us again and again and again that we should spend our way out of trouble and into a better tomorrow. >> c-span.org/thecontenders.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with congressmen bill pascrell, member of the ways and means committee. we read the headline before we went to break. extending the payroll tax cut for 10 more months -- do you think this will happen? guest: this seems to be a playback of december. that almost turned out to be a real disaster. we extended the payroll tax for two months. now we need to extend it for another 10 months plus the unemployment benefits as well as what we call the doc fix. as they say in the house. to make sure doctors are not dropping folks off their list of

patients. so we have a lot of work to do. if we do not do it in two weeks, then that payroll tax is going to revert back to what it was. this is serious business. we are talking about 6.2% down to 4.2. the president last year had an interesting idea that i thought was worth exploring. that was to bring that payroll tax cut to employers. it would cost a lot more money. we thought we came up with the idea for how to pay for it. we are not going to go back to the eight years of the previous administration where we did not pay for anything. host: can we afford continuing this payroll tax cut holiday? this is from "the new york post" --

guest: we cannot afford a recession that put a lot of people out of work and are still out of work. long-term unemployment is devastating. we never had this long term unemployment in the last 40 or 50 years. when the president raised his hand in january 2009, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. that is a very difficult situation to be put in. i support him. he had to deal with this mess. we have seen an increase in

employment, in private sector jobs. i think we are going in the right direction. why would we want to at this time just when we are getting a hold on things to bring that payroll tax cut and wipe it off the record? why would we want to shrink unemployment benefits for those people who have long term unemployment? we have to look at the context of the situation. sometimes, the government has to step up to the plate. we cannot create jobs out of the skype. -- out of the sky. take my area in jersey. that payroll tax will mean in 2012 1400 more dollars in terms

of being able to spend it. that is our major problem right now, people not spending. or they are holding up because they are anxious. in another county, it is $1,050. that is a big savings. it may not be for those people paying 12% or 13% on their income tax, but it is a big saving for most american people. host: should it be extended beyond the year? guest: i would do a two-year doc fix. i would move towards -- and pay for it as i said. we have different ideas than republicans for how to pay for it, but we should be able to come together. host: where do you compromise? republicans have proposed $70

billion in cuts including a one- year pay freeze for federal workers, raising medicare premiums on some people, and a proposal that would allow the government to claw back subsidies for the purchase of health insurance. guest: we have the means testing in terms of the payroll tax and social security. we tax up to $107,000. that will change in 2012. that will go to $110,000. you will be taxed up until then. the rest of your income is not taxed in terms of the very programs that republicans cut. i do not accept that at all. i think we can find other ways to make sure that we pay for these tax cuts, the doc fix so doctors do not drop their

medicare patients which i support 100%, and the unemployment, extending that over another 10 months which would mean it would be part of the 99-week cycle. kind of complicated, but people have been unemployed for a long time now. we are just getting back on our feet. i think when you see the average new jersian, the average is probably going to be saving $870. that is money in your pocket. i would rather us do that by the way the than the 2010 recovery act, deal with the payroll tax. most people did not get a tax cut in 2009. host: we are going to take your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets. we also want to welcome some

students this morning. over the next 45 minutes, we will have nine government and history students participating in the program. to school was founded in 1899, and there are over 1100 students that attend. we want to thank the teacher who prepared the student for the program this morning. congressman, you are a former history teacher. guest: straight up my alley. host: our first student, go ahead. caller: -- against offsetting the tax cut by increasing taxes. have been talkinge about raising taxes. this president has not raised any taxes. we have had tax cut across the board. we have had business tax cuts.

i think this administration in the final analysis will have been seen as being business- friendly. we have some problems that need to be ironed out, but we are on track to get people back to work. that is the main thing. we need to reduce our deficit. i would say to you, just find out for yourself how the bush tax cuts for 2001 and 2003 contributed to the deficit. as we move toward 2020, he will see it is a bigger proportion of the deficit -- you will see it is a bigger proportion of the deficit as the years go on. we need to have deficit reduction. i think there is an easy way to do it.

i think we can come to some compromises here if both sides see what the other is trying to get. we are trying to make american stronger. host: jenny, tell us what great you are in. caller: i am a senior in high school. if both democrats and republicans agree on an congressn, why can't pass the extension without dragging the middle-class into the politics? guest: that is a good question. i do not have an easy answer. politics take over. the extremes of each side want to do it this way or that way and they do not want to compromise. the question is how do you pay for these things.

how do you pay for the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment benefits at a time when there is long term unemployment? how do you pay for making sure that doctors are compensating for seeing their patients? look, the middle class always carries the burden. since i have been here for 15 years, i have tried, sometimes successfully and not successfully, to lessen the burden of the middle class and the working job force. host: "the hill" reported this morning that dave camp is telling speaker john boehner and majority leader harry reid to "cool their rhetoric on this issue." on twitter --

guest: i think when you asked the question before, we want this to be extended 10 more months. beon't expect that i will voting in the future. who knows what the economy is going to look like eight months from now? look, people are hurting right now. we have to do something right now. you can wish it away. you can have no jobs progra pro. -- job programs. host: thank you for waiting, howard. caller: good morning. i am doing well. i live in california. the state of confusion. what do you suggest i do with my

shovel and the shovel-ready? i tell you what. i will withdraw the question. understanding that we are spending $10 billion a day, that the president is going to give us a budget of over $3 trillion, and that we have listened to the democrat philosophy since i would say the 1960's when goldwater said to the nation "the only answer that progressives have is to spend, spend, spend." guest: with all due respect, you have a selective memory of history. because the last administration, and i supported some of the

things myself, we had eight years of putting this country into deeper and deeper debt. not paying for either war. trans of dollars tied up in the two wars. and not paying for the reform of the drug prescription bill. never paid for that e there. when you do not pay for anything over an eight-year period of time, it is going to have an effect. do not preach to me about getting the deficit down when the last administration during two terms did the opposite of what you are suggesting. we have a deficit problem. we have a debt problem. i think that equally as important is how the middle class has suffered and the burden has been on their shoulders.

now we need to do something about that. that is just as important as reducing the deficit, or as republicans had in the first term of president bush, "don't worry about the deficit because things will work out." it did not work out. host: back to our students in arkansas. go ahead. caller: good morning. are some members of congress worried about losing their jobs and supporting the payroll tax cut? guest: i am supporting it the best i can. i supported freezing our pays for over three years. i think some government workers are being treated unfairly. some of the entry-level positions. i think they are a scapegoat. let me tell you this. while we are increasing private

sector jobs right now, it is the best thing that has happened over the past four or five years. very, very interesting when you look at these numbers, when you watch them. because the jobs do not fall out of the sky. the jobs are created by private industry, private business. what we have lost is almost 750,000 public sector jobs because of the squeeze on local government and state governments and the federal government not getting in enough votes to help those states, putting the burden on the local taxpayer. this is the result, i think, of a no-bashan policy of the other side. policy of theion other side.

help the people who need the help. this is a middle-class problem and a working poor problem. we are talking about the common good. not just the good for me and my state and my town or me as a congressman. i will do what i have to do and let folks decide whether i am worthy for reelection or not. host: another student from arkansas, go ahead. caller: good morning. republicans and democrats are for a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut. how would this affect the federal funding for college students? there are so many who are dependent on scholarships for higher education. guest: great question. i personally support the pell grants and all of the things to reduce the cost of going to

school. it is having an effect on how much money is available in terms of student loans. that is an investment in their future. i think it is very critical and important. i would support a two-year extension of the doc fix so those doctors do not drop their medicare patients. i would be open for a compromise for one year. i think that is one of the areas where we could compromise. but they wait until crisis time, the 11th hour to patch the problem rather than fix it. we do that in our tax policy. the average minimum tax. it is a perfect example of how we got caught behind the wheel when we reduced taxes in 2001 and 2003.

we force people into new categories that they were never intended. so, we need to be very careful not only in the short term but in the long term. host: back to twitter, joe says -- guest: we need to reduce costs and spending. at the same time, try to take care of americans that are vulnerable. there is no easy way to do that. that is why you need to have a give-and-take situation. host: besides the pentagon, which programs would you cut? guest: i would look into oil subsidies. that is not a big portion of what we need to do. but we are sending a message out as to what our priorities are. it is a message to the middle- class that why should folks get this subsidy when they are

making huge profits every quarter? does it make sense to me? no. does it make sense to most middle-class people or democrats or republicans? no. this is something that you see when you look at the population and the polling that is pretty consistent that we could look at and changed. host: lisa is a democratic collar. caller: good morning. i am unemployed. i have been unemployed for a year now. i just want to say that the payroll tax credits and unemployment is very important to me because this is how i pay my bills. i was considered middle-class before i got laid off. i was a homeowner, foreclosed home, now in an apartment.

if unemployment ends, i will be homeless. i have high blood pressure and no medicine. what is important to me is not to be homeless. for this extension with unemployment, it will keep me in my apartment. guest: i am going to vote for it and i am supporting it. i support unemployment benefit, but i want the person who is out of work, if they are capable, and i assume that you are and other people are, to be looking for a job or getting into a tech program or training to provide you for the future. i am glad you brought up your own personal experience. you are a face to those numbers. thank you for telling us your story. i hope you get a job. i hope you are looking in the

right places. if you are not looking for a job or if you are a phony in saying that you are looking for a job, i would throw a book you first of all. but i do not think that is the case of. long-term unemployment is one of our biggest, biggest problems. when we see those jobs open up, i wish you the best of luck. host: billy is at another student. what grade are you in? caller: i am in 11th grade. what spending cuts are being considered? guest: first of all, i think there was reform for entitlements and medicare and social security and health care act.

one-third of the health care act was devoted to medicare. how do we cut costs? so i am not afraid to look at any issue. put everything on the table. i will never ever agree to change in the guaranteed benefit factor of medicare. i think this has worked since the 1960's. it is working now. we need to bolster the trust fund. the payroll tax cut, some of that money goes to social security. social security is immune from being negatively affected by those cuts because the general fund to be used to bolster social security -- social security is secured now until 2037. that is a fact. medicare, probably 15 to 17 years or less than that.

we have to do something first for medicare before we talk about social security. all these things impact one another and create anxieties'. no question about it. generations 40 or 50 years from now, how are they going to look at these benefits and entitlements? i think we need to lower the cost of health care in order to really address medicare problems. host: an independent caller from north carolina. go ahead. caller: yes, sir. my question is pretty simple. i wonder if it is even possible to put institutions like the institution of motor vehicles, the registry, homeland security, the patriot act -- put all of that up to a cost-benefit analysis.

we cannot be the leader of the free world if we are at the leader in prison. guest: motor vehicles basically stay operated. the government stays out of it. i think the cost analysis of any government program, regardless of what level, is overdue. i think how the obama and administration, over the first three years, has done a pretty good job in getting agencies to heal and abide by a budget process. and to make sure that money is not being spent that was not authorized. i think this was a major problem. in the future, the next two or three years, what is happening in the federal government with there is spending without authorization and sometimes

without any appropriations. host: back to our students in jonesboro, arkansas. go ahead. caller: i was wondering, how you feel about potential cuts? -- cuts to education? guest: i oppose them. that does not mean you and i should not be concerned about where the funds go. i think we need to all be concerned about that. the problem with in this budget deficit that we have, god knows how much money wasted in defense. god knows how much money wasted even in education. we to get where were in a 1997 with president bill clinton. if we balanced the budget and took care of the middle class where people were creating private-sector jobs.

teaching, to me. a lot of teachers have been laid off. a lot of police officers have been laid off. a lot of firefighters have been laid off. they are underpersoned right now in many states of the union. this has dire consequences. host: the president will unveil his budget request on monday. have you been happy with the budgets he has proposed in years past? would you expect on monday? guest: when you look at what he has proposed, when you look at what the majority has proposed and the minority has proposed, i think that the president has been good on budget. when you cut the potential increases in programs, you could be doing more damage. we have to take out these cuts,

but they need to be cuts. we need to come back to base line spending. we need to come back to budgets that not only are going to be important this year, but there are consequences for the former -- the latter years. that is why i brought it up this morning. the tax cuts and their impact on our budget over the next 10 years. the tax cuts were made back in 2001 and 2003. they sounded good and make you feel good. but they had deep consequences in how we are going to put budgets together in the future. many of them are shocking consequences. host: in this report the president is expected to put forth a proposal to cut spending on medicare and $72 billion on medicaid. would you support that? guest: i supported the government -- the president's recommendation of cutting

programs. what are these democrats doing? they are talking about cutting medicare. no, we were not cutting the essential benefits of medicare or the guaranteed benefits. all we were cutting was an appropriate that cost much more than medicare. i think it was the right thing to do. host: let's go to kentucky. sam on the republican line, thank you for waiting. caller: in a registered republican and i am ashamed -- i am a registered republican and i am ashamed to say i am a republican. i live in the mitch mcconnell district in kentucky. mitch takes all of the taxes and gives it to the bigger cities. we are doing without schools and everything. you know, it is ashamed and appalling that the man sits up there and runs his job about

making our president 81 term president. i want somebody to get rid of that man. it is a shame in this country. it is a 260 mile square. it is appalling that the republicans -- newt gingrich was going to come down here before he got kicked out. all these people that run these coal mines down here, they get it on the backs of the poor people. they're trying to make a decent living and there's no representation. guest: starting with your last point, unions have been blamed for everything. you know that. i am glad to hear that. hopefully you have a party change cards a you can change over. but more importantly, to your issues. i remember when i came in

january and i remember the speaker of the house was and you remember the speaker of the house was. at that time, they were bashing the president because of spending. he was the first president in 32 years to balance the budget three years in a row. i remember mr. newt gingrich. i wanted to find out what he was getting for his district in the budget itself. and i found out he was getting more money than probably anybody else in congress and the united states. if it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander. everybody is responsible for this deficit. everybody is responsible, in some manner, shape, or form, in kicking the working poor. you are absolutely right. i am trying, in my capacity, to do what i can to work for the

middle class and to work for the working poor primarily. that is my objective to do that. i hope i can adjust myself in accomplishing something. but i have to do something about it. i cannot just talk about it and hope about it. you have to work for the middle class every day. stand up and fight. host: we have nine government and history students aboard our campaign 2012 bus. pat neal cynne is up next, go ahead. caller: if congress does not pass this payroll tax cut, how that affect the working and lower middle class's? guest: i think it will be devastating. they will receive in this cut over the next 10-month period that affects the gross domestic product.

that affects many, many jobs. just in that area. you are on target. it does not take a mental genius, and i am certainly not one. it does not take a mental genius to figure out that when you put dollars in middle-class hands and working poor hands, they spend it. it gets the economy moving more and it creates jobs. we are not trying to cut the federal tax just for the sake of saying we cut taxes. we are in dire straits right now. people need our help. we can't extend it to a point and then move on to what has to be done in terms of advancements in education and health care, etc. host: on our line for democrats, jane in new jersey. caller: good morning. you mentioned the amt tax. i am fortunate enough to be

paying it to compensate for the millionaires and billionaires who should be paying it but do not. the reason i was capable of being as financially successful as i am is that i drop in an environment, a culture, where morals and critical thought were present. where work that comes from the bone of your back or the strength of your brain was appreciated and respected. it no longer is. when i started in the work force, i was hearing voices from the president -- who was running for the present at the time, that greece was good. there is no such thing as fraud and the market would correct itself. where is our moral compass? where is the ability for critical thought? this is not the time to practice austerity. there is a huge difference between spending money and investing money.

guest: i think you said it better than i did. the point of the matter is that we are in tough times. you should be rewarded. we have increased productivity in the united states of america. but we treat them as saying you cannot even organize. 0. we're going to put every hurdle in your way if you try to organize. things have changed. when you talk about getting back to values, you better make sure we're talking about the same values. when i talk about bodies, that is what i am talking about. and you are correct. he is wrong when he suggested in, what i thought was a failure, the idea that it should be considered in the congress of the united states that millionaires and billionaires paid -- percent of their income taxes. if somebody does not pay the property taxes on your street, don't you think that increases

the burden on you paying your property taxes? how many homes have we foreclosed over the past four or five years? how many people have come out of their homes? these things all have consequences. if you think the government should stand back -- and i do not think you do. if the government should stand back and let the market take care of its place, then you are googly eyed. we are here because we did not govern ourselves. we did not govern ourselves. we let it run street -- we let wall street run away with the house. we found reasons to protect our buddies and friends on wall street. there are good people, but they should not be allowed to take the train and go wherever they want. you are suffering from that. you are right. host: we're going to get all

eight students. our last one, go ahead. caller: the recent republican approval with the ad featuring clint eastwood, does the auto industry affect the turnout of and the economy? guest: absolutely. now we are at record pace making cars in america. that is part of making it in america. wouldn't you be happy to buy something that was made in america rather than everything you buy made in, wherever? i want things made in america. it is pretty tough when those things affect the security of the notices are made in wherever instead of making it right here in the united states.

manufacturing jobs that have a decent wage -- isn't it interesting? it is leading the way, more so than the past 45 years, to get us out of the tough situation that we are in. that is the great question. that was a great leading question. your whole class has a great question. i want to be back in the class after listening to you guys. i loved it. host: we want to thank them. that was our last call their from jonesboro high school. their social studies teacher prepared the students today. and of course, communications help us set up our campaign 2012 bus. stopping along many places along the way across the country. am going to get in one last phone call for you. carl, an independent from springfield, new jersey. >> how are you today? guest: i was reading about your

primary. what you think of that? caller: it did not account for anything. a comment on social security. i had a couple of comments. and this having to pay for social security tax holiday, what ever you want to call it. the social security trust fund has about $2 trillion in assets. so, extending the payroll tax cuts does not add to the total debt. guest: that is correct. caller: that consists of the debt to the public and the trust funds. it changes the category that treasury, in order to have the cash, but it reduces their debt to the trust funds. total debt does not increase as

a result of the payroll tax cuts. guest: 10 i just add one thing to what you just said? -- can i just add one thing to what you just said? you're absolutely correct. you have to compensate if it does add debt to the general fund. we would prefer not to do this. in other words, a payroll tax cut is something that you are going to utilize when there is a serious financial problem. we do not ordinarily do this. caller: one thing i do not understand is these guys from washington get on and talk about spending and etc., etc. but they never talk about revenues. nobody ever shows the big decrease in revenues. host: let's take that point. running out of time. guest: he is absolutely right.

i am afraid to talk about taxes, fees. it puts money in people's pockets. that is good. we have to be careful when we do raise taxes. but taxes do not do any good if you are out of work or just making ends meet. this is the lowest. of federal taxes we have had in 50 years. anyone who blames the president of united states for anything dealing with tax increases does not know what they are talking about. when they try to make the health care bill -- your tax increases, no. but the health care bill is is to try to provide a fair solution for people being not covered, -- not covered enough, they have cherry pick it, whatever the case may be.

everybody has to be in on this. if you want to be in, you should pay somewhat of a penalty. the government will help you with subsidies if you go all-in. host: bill pascrell, thank you. guest: thank you. going toing up, we're turn to a peace in -- we will be back to discuss that. >> it is 9:17 a.m. eastern. more from rick santorum earlier on cnn. the former pennsylvania senator is referring to his rival mitt romney, "he often just his positions." mr. santorum says that he is the

best equipped to take on president obama. turning to defense apartment -- department issues, the u.s. and japan are announcing a compromise that they hope will break a stalemate to opposition for the military presence on okinawa. some 10,000 troops will remain on the island. meanwhile, the general of the joint chiefs of staff is traveling to egypt this week to me to his counterpart with the top egyptian leader. the general says the visit is a long planned and not specifically designed to press cairo to drop the charges against the non-profit workers, including the transportation secretary. if the dispute is not resolved by the time he visits, the subject will likely come up in the talks. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> my friends, they knew america

where freedom is made for all without regards to race or economic conditions. [applause] i need a new america with the ancient idea that men can solve their differences by killing each other. [applause] >> as presley -- as candidates run for president this year, we look at people who ran and lost. they had a lasting impact on politics. >> the politics of the radical liberal left offer one solution to the problems which confront us. they tell us again and again, we should spend our way out of

troubles and spend our way into a better tomorrow. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. washington journal continues. host: every wednesday in our last hour on "washington journal" we look at a peace. this is about prison gulf states and nuclear energy. you right there is a choice that they are facing. do they make peaceful programs? focused on just having nuclear energy to meet their demands? or do they respond in kind to iran? guest: the answer right now for the program that exists is this is kind of a gold standard for civilian programs.

s find every protocol for transparency. the u.s. government backs it. think about the program in iran. the whole world is saying, this has to stop. the u.s. is actively supporting it. it is sort of fascinating the way the probe -- the world is treating it. that program is peaceful. if it tried to get a nuclear weapon, you'll see dominoes start to fall. and then you have this kind of nightmare scenario. to thee're talking congressman who is the vice chairman of the committee earlier, he said that if i were a neighbor of iran, i would keep my options open. it is very interesting. if you talk to saudi arabia, one of its neighbors, it is very interesting. we often look at iran from here.

but the saudi government, they see it as a direct threat to themselves. they see it as a hostile country that threatens the gulf states regularly. if they get a weapon, they have to get one. host: let's give the history of them pursuing nuclear energy, nuclear power. how did we get to this point where we are at now? guest: that is a great question. it is actually been a pretty big reversal. the scientists who ran the nuclear weapons, he sort of bought this weird, futuristic city. he had bank accounts and apartments. he had the ability to sell and smuggle nuclear weapons. there were a lot of people in the u.s. to remember that and do not trust them. there's opposition in congress

for that reason. they say it is a hub for this nuclear smuggling network. how can we trust them. host: when was this announced? guest: in the last weeks of the bush administration. it did not have to go through congress. host: but the bushel administration signed off and said go ahead, build these nuclear reactors? guest: and then the obama guys said -- the bush administration -- the obama administration review it and it is full speed ahead. they are concerned about the past history. they had more controls and what exports and what is allowed to come in. now, it is very interesting. congress as well, the people who raise those concerns are strongly behind the program. host: tell us about the nuclear facility. how are they checking off all of

the boxes by the international community to say, it is peaceful, go ahead. guest: a few things. they signed the uiaa, the nuclear watchdog. they signed them all. the former head of their nuclear program. u.n. officials coming pretty regularly. it means that the nuclear sites, you have all these weird folks. what is interesting, when you got there it is just flat terrain. they're hoping to begin construction this summer of the actual reactor. when you go there, you see a red flag which is exactly the reactors can go. iran is only about 100 miles away. there's this big red flag or the reactor will be.

host: you have been there. you have been there with this facility. why does the -- why they need this to begin with? guest: it is for two reasons. their energy consumption is skyrocketing. devi's vanity projects like the indoor ski club. they need energy. right now they import a lot of gasping. -- a lot of gas. with oil prices, as we know, there are at record highs. that is the reason for going forward, how easy is it to go from a so-called civilian program were your discipline energy to a so-called nuclear weapon? guest: it is a big step. yet to build a processing facility which could be spotted

by neighbors and satellites. they could do it. it is not impossible. they have some amount of uranium in their country. they have a nuclear infrastructure which none of their neighbors have. there are -- they are several steps above their neighbors. host: what is a dirty bomb? guest: it is an explosive. it takes radioactive material and blows it up. we think about a nightmare or the whole city is flat. it is not that. host: is that a threat when uae is getting nuclear energy? guest: they could try to get a nuclear bomb and pass materials onto somebody else. host: what safeguards are put in

place? guest: the addis its monitor pretty closely. they've already agreed not to on their borders. you have a constant watch dog presence of their program which is something you do not have or the iranian program. host: if the united states is in favor of the persian gulf states trading this university -- because, we're helping them. we are adversaries of iran. guest: that is the question going for. given every kind of assurance that you can. the big question is saudi arabia. and the one hand, they are a u.s. ally. on the other hand, there's a lot of mistrust. they already face hypocrisies about israel. host: sean is a democrat in

pennsylvania. you are up first. caller: in a second time caller. i have a comment and question. since we have over 100 years of oil left in our reserves, why can't we pull our troops back and secure our border -- and secure our borders? and then at the persian gulf were about themselves. and my question is -- host: i think we got your question. guest: that is a good question. republicans and democrats are making the same point. they're saying the iraq war costas trillions of dollars and lost american lives. we to pull our people back and save money. that said, the persian gulf is a source of oil. there's also a lot of natural gas. the feeling is that our economy depends on that oil,

unfortunately. because we depend on it so much, we cannot just withdraw from that part of the world. host: what is the states of iran's royal bank industry? guest: it is not thriving. it is coming to a halt. not just the eu, but japan and korea. we are seeing their oil sales beginning to come down. to a historic low. this has hit the heart of iran. host: in "the washington times quoted -- times." guest: you have the people on the street who may love them and support them because they do not know anything else. then you have this educated

class. you could alienate that class. you might see that government fall. that is with the iranian government is saying. you do this, we do not like it. host: let's go to tony next. democratic line, california. caller: my question was do you think diplomacy is better than just going over there with bombs? and right now, in the election year, do you think diplomacy is better right now instead of going over there to just -- you know, to bomb israel -- i mean, not israel, but iran. for what they are doing. keep it local right now until the election is over with and then we can come back to the table on the issue. host: your question comes as we're here from cnn reporting that the pentagon is weighing its military options in syria as

well. this whole question of what our military does next. guest: it is kind of a shift. use of the iraq war was winding down only a few months ago. now there is not just a possibility of a new military strike, you are seeing the israelis, it is sort of this drum beat toward some kind of military operation. the hard part, the reason why there is skepticism about the plaza, is it has not worked. there has been years of effort to try to get something to the table. is has not worked. the economic as you indicate, hit their oil sector. by late spring, early summer, they'll have the ability to move some of their facilities over grounds of a can of the scene from a -- from the air. we feel there's a window of

about five months that is closing. this is just an open discussion of a timeline for a new war. host: here is a tweet. guest: that is something you hear in the gulf as well. you this question with the iranians. we have not tried to do that with the saudis. the feeling there is that this is a country that threatens other countries. they threaten israel. they have a sort of taken themselves out of the normal confines of the country. as a result, the u.s. can come in and say to the, you have to change your behavior or else. host: total nuclear weapon in the tour across all the countries. about 11,000 in the united

states, following that with 8500. rick, a republican in new york. go ahead. caller: i was not sure about this young fellow on the show. i did not use a member of foreign relations. i have been following this whole thing about the president of iran saying he's going to wipe israel off the map. i would be more trusting of ron paul's agenda to bring the troops home. iran is not a suicidal mission. we have to be more worried about another -- host: what about iran motivations? their agenda? guest: i feel very old these days. that is a question of iranian behavior. this is a country that has never started a war. basically, with u.s. backing.

there is a feeling that i have to agree with that it is not a suicidal country. if a trade weapon against the u.s., it would cease to exist because of retaliation. nobody would be willing to take the risk of nuclear attack. it is not such a fear that it would use a weapon knowing they would cease to exist as a response, but that they would have this umbrella of comfort where countries just would not be prepared to fight. host: beyond the uae, where else are people in the -- eyeing? guest: saudi arabia. kuwait. they both talked openly about it. host: but nobody has signed off on that? guest: correct.

egypt in some ways is the furthest along. turkey has talked about it. pretty much, every country in the region has indicated to us. with the saudis it has not just been rumors, but some believe that saudis in the 1980's tried to purchase a fully operational nuclear weapon or build a nuclear program. the feeling is if iran is now clear, though the natural place for the saudis to go. try to buy weapons or nuclear system. host: let's go to alexander, an independent in philadelphia. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i had a few questions. i will try to put it altogether. i urge you speaking about more middle east weapons -- about more weapons in the middle east would be a disaster. in my pick, it will be good. it will force ever want to sit

down and focus on diplomacy like with russia and the u.s.. like you said, there's an increasing -- about going to a war with iran. also from american intelligence, no doubt about it. my question is, right now we are fragmented and broke. we have -- we are trying to finish to wars are now. the u.s. is being called to step up. host: you broke up there a little bit. let's take the first part of his comment. guest: this idea that it would be a deterrent is the best case scenario. yet other nuclear states as a counterweight and things kind of settled. the worst case and there, given the history of the middle east, is that you have this very

destabilizing country where one country does a terror attack of some sort. you could get lost. he does have this inherent destabilization of government. egypt felt very quickly. gaddafi fell. libya. yemen fell. tunisian fell. countries are so fragile and governments change so quickly. you to sit back and allow this process to unfold. the: can't we appeal to iranian people? guest: president obama, whenever one has things -- whenever the them, has tried that. -- what ever everyone thinks of him, has tried that. he has the program to pull back all the sanctions and make it easier for the middle class.

it has not worked. in large part because the power rests completely with the clerics. host: what about irans ability to affect the oil markets across the world and really impact the prison gulf states need for oil? interesting's an difference in how the gulf states sees iran and israel does. israel does not see it as an existential threat. they see is a real possibility that iran might use a weapon. the gulf states, they have a sort of more mosaic kind of pocketbook. their feeling is they have some of oil, salt on the way for iran to make our money is with the supply. so they say to sell less. if iran has a nuclear weapon, it

is much easier. it can dictate what a neighborhood does. host: the implications of that? guest: if the saudis exported less. if they go along with a, you see oil prices spike and they are already high. it is a -- this fragile economic recovery we have to be knocked off the rails. host: democratic column. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i feel very concerned that our finances have been so depleted periods i do not know -- have been so depleted. i do not know how much more we can print. our military is depleted. they need to have a rest. i do not see why the going to war or bombing somebody is even being considered as an option. guest: it is interesting from

the unscientific sample of these callers. nobody thinks this is a good idea. maybe diplomacy should be given. the military is exhausted, as she indicated. the second question about the military, this would be bombing from the air. whether that stays on the air strikes or some point involve ground troops is a good question. a bombing campaign the cost tens of billions of dollars, that is a good question. nobody is talking to another a rack-style war. host: we have a tweet here, too. guest: gaddafi is seen in the region as a cautionary tale. the u.s. said to abandon it and he did not. he was welcomed back slowly.

the uprising began. they took part in an operation to get rid of him. it is not irrational how they see the u.s. we cannot do anything to try to disrupt it. pakistan has eight nuclear weapon, we do not disrupted. it is not unreasonable for them to think that if they get a nuclear weapon, they are safe. host: pakistan has about 90 to 110 in their inventory. , a's go to pennsylvania republican. caller: this is only my personal opinion. the scientist they assassinated, regardless of who did it. my question is that maybe some or all are stalling. i believe we could have speeded iit up a lot faster.

how come they never tried to develop the hydrogen bomb? guest: on the first question, there is no evidence that iran is trying to stall. all the evidence is that they are accelerating. this new facility, near one of the holiest cities, uncovered by the u.s. and admitted to by the iranians. a very high level. very close to a nuclear weapon. all the evidence is that it is full speed ahead to them. the second question they have embalm and a nuclear bomb -- a nuclear bomb is much more powerful. a hydrogen bomb is kind of an older technology. a nuclear bomb is much more powerful. host: we're talking about persian gulf states and nuclear energy. go ahead. caller: i am just curious why we

are not advancing reactor studies. as a more dbase source of power. you can get energy out of it. it is more prevalent than i iranian. -- then uranium. there is a curved going on. i'm not sure about the studies. it is give and take on each side. when you look at those first water supplies in the himalayas for example, they know that their water is running out, everything is shrinking. you have 1 billion people looking for fresh water. now, let's pump it up a notch. let's say that china supplies iran with a refinery that makes

ethanol out of their natural gas supply. the line is drawn from iran to pakistan to india. you have to take this bite out of the energy that people need. guest: i will fully admit that some of the size of the question is that i have never heard of before. why can't we help iran in some ways develop a different kind of technology? unfortunate, it is unstable. -- unfortunately, it is unstable. everything comes to an end. as long as it is a billing, transparent, peaceful, -- civilian, transparent, peaceful.

whether it is irrational, with the that is what a question -- a weapon, those options. host: what is the role of those oil markets, etc.? guest: they are collectively terrorized by this. iran could say to them to stop selling. all these organizations would have to go along with it. welding is all these countries have. if they sell it less -- oil is all these countries have. if they sell less, it is detrimental to them. caller: what with the u.s. say if iran was two months away from a nuclear weapon? guest: in some ways the question may be better asked what would israel do?

you have this amazing dynamic where they are openly saying it will bomb iran. i think you'll first see a strike on the weather based enrichment facility. it is when the most public bunkers. it is easy leato get to. you might see a bombing near the holy city. you have these three facilities that would be main targets. the question is, militarily it is hard to do. it is a long flight. advanced radar system. it to be a tough challenge for israel to go that route. host: this is an e-mail from a viewer.

guest: there is a lot of stuff in there that is correct. there are a couple of things i would question. iraq has nothing to gain. in fact, it is the opposite. the prime minister was becoming more and more a dictator. reports of being beaten and politicians being killed or arrested. iraq is not a democracy. this question of if the arab spring will lead to democracy, what we are saying unfortunate is that the hopes of last year are not being realized. libya, it is not clear what will happen with syria. this notion, which is an optimistic one, that we been led to believe, that you do not need war and that there will no

longer be a threat to us, unfortunately the evidence points more and more in the opposite direction. host: another e-mail here. guest: to the last point, there is no proof. the notion that they would use them immediately, i agree. there is no proof. for the first part, this is not neo-conservative republicans. if anything, the bush a administration had a less hard edged support than president obama. unlike with the iraq war where you had the u.s. and to a degree, israel, and some countries saying iraq had wmd's, this is the whole world. this is the eu, this is asia.

the other difference is that iran says so. they're open to inspectors. to a degree, they have publicize what they can do. they have shown their cores. it is not the u.s. say they have weapons and then say they do not. here, it is iran sank it is not necessarily a weapons program, but we have a very advanced nuclear program. host: which big countries are resisting this action against iran, or even questioning iran? guest: it is kind of the same block in the united nations. it is russia, it is china. these are countries that do a lot of business with iran. they sell oil. they sell weaponry. they buy natural gas. they build iranian infrastructure. they do not want to see that

toppled. the other issue is russia and china. it scares them. they do not want the u.s. to one basic, stopping to are doing. the look at this in the same with a look at syria and libya. it is an unfair kind of american-led interference into a sovereign country. host: what about south korea and its nuclear weapon ambition? guest: succory is interesting because they're the one building the plant. -- south korea is interesting because they are the ones building the plant. there is this implicit belief that if north korea threatens these weapons, the u.s. would respond on south korea's behalf. host: michigan, democratic caller, go ahead. caller: young man, i know you have more education than i have.

you know, this propaganda that you spread, iran is not going to attack israel. they know they would get blown up. you got people here. you do not have proof of going out here. host: our guest did say earlier that there is no evidence that iran would necessarily attack israel or the united states. in fact, he said that twice, i believe. guest: i do not want to discredit this notion that the u.s. economy is hurting and that people are suffering. fear, lack of insurance. it is a good question whether this is a good use of our resources. this is a concern of every color

of every political background -- of every political background. at least in the callers today, you are hearing the interesting thing. host: a republican in richmond, virginia. you are up next. caller: i have to say a few things. first off, you can forget about -- i heard the guy said why don't you develop a hydrogen bomb? iran is trying to save itself. once these governments topple, they are looking at the death

penalty. no question about that. when you develop the type of bomb, which is basically a fission bomb, it is the easiest way to have a weapon because we had bombs in world war two -- in world war ii. the first bomb is pure uranium. the next bomb came from uranium that had been decreated in a reactor. people do not want a war. also, the government and iran, that israel needs us if they attacked them.

i am not worried. host: we are running out of time here. i want to ask you a question about high iran wants to be seen by the rest of the world which is how these persian gulf states would like to be seen by the rest of the world. you have a situation where the country has offered to be the ground zero for caliban talks in trying to negotiate peace. what they want to be seen as? guest: they are heavily involved in libya which is one of the first places in the military world in the first gulf war. you have these gulf states saying that, we are not just pushovers. we cannot be bullied. in iran, they want to be seen as the dominant power. they see it as their heritage.

that a crowd, long history. -- a proud, long history. they want to be seen among equals. they want to be seen as a superpower. host: david, an independent scholar. go ahead. caller: i would like to make this quick see you can actually understand it. i was wondering, why are we even talking about iran having a nuclear weapon? i mean, we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world. no country has ever had sanctions against russia, china, france, or any of the other countries. guest: that is a question that's not just in the gulf but in many other countries, in pakistan, north korea. we have these weapons. we are a massive country. we have a massive military. nobody's really threatening the

united states, russia, china. the other answer, and it may not be satisfied, is the u.s. has never threatened to use a weapon. iran has. you have this side issue of being too big to threaten. host: next phone call. we have a few minutes left here with our guest. the pursuit of nuclear weapons and whether or not that is happening in persian gulf countries beyond iran. democratic hawk, go ahead. caller: have a question about why the president will bring the keystone pipe down because many the oil. host: i did not is that what he was saying, so let's move on. go ahead. caller: i just turned on this tv and i'm totally off the wall. stop using iran as a scapegoat just to start up another war. if we do not seem to be happy in this country unless we are

conjuring up another war. would you please go back to that hank williams song, mind your own business. i do not know if you are familiar with it. just listen to it. host: all right. that is our common. steve in scottsdale, arizona. caller: i was under the impression that iran was saying they do want to wipe israel off of the face of the planet. they do want to wipe off the what thethey do want to wan u.s. of the face of the planet. guest: they have not talked about the u.s. in that way. but if they hit the u.s., we will retaliate. both israel, you are correct. they do not often make the statements about israel. the with a huge -- but when they

talk about a country as a cancer that will not last, that is a threat that is kind of linked to the other. host: a couple more phone calls if we have time, waiting for the house to come in. west virginia. robert, you have to turn that television down. let me put you on hold. anne,, an independent. caller: i would like to suggest your audience go to the website race for iran. they are both experts on this topic. i think he to have them on as well. your last three guests have all been really, suddenly -- subtely promoting an attack on

iran. iran has a right to rich uranium. there is no hard evidence to back up that they are reaching out beyond the levels that they are legally able. host: ok. i want you to listen to yochi dreazen answer here. are you promoting an attack on iran? guest: no. i have outlined why iran as a rational country would want a weapon. i certainly do not feel like i have in any way been saying that war is a good idea or easy to do. that is not what i think should be the case. i am surprised that that is the inclusion of the caller. host: going for, what is to watch here with the persian gulf states? guest: the first thing to watch is what happens in spring and