even though they send all the jobs overseas. but nobody talks about if the men have to pay child support, the woman might not, you know, have to be going on food stamps. i do not understand why the first lady has not taken up that. where the kids hungry? it drives me nuts. nobody wants to talk about any men issues. host: thank you for the call. let's take the two issues most prominent with your former bosses. first of all, the let's move campaign. how did that come about? i am sure there was a lot of competition for a lot of issues. guest: mrs. obama chose this issue because this is something that she had experienced in her own family. how to make sure your kids are eating right and getting enough

exercise and paying attention to the things that matter at that stage in their life. she knew there was a obesity epidemic in the country. she felt like she could have an impact on that. she has done -- the garden was the first part of this and it was a little piece that captured the world's imagination. it stands as the symbol for the overall initiative. since then, there have been pieces of legislation, changes in the supermarkets, changes in how companies manufacture their foods and what they sell to kids, how the market to kids. all these efforts are part of a larger initiative. host: for laura bush with literacy? guest: something you care about, something you have experienced in your own life. you use the platform to raise an issue.

we talked about literacy and education, supporting reform, education reform. no child left behind. what she saw on the campaign trail in 2000, as a librarian and teacher, she visited schools and libraries all over the country. she saw the sad state of some of our school libraries and help updated -- outdated some of the books were. she greeted a foundation that was managed separately of the white house -- created a foundation that was managed separately from the white house. it is still in existence. during katrina when so many school libraries were destroyed. that foundation gave grants of more than $25 million to $30 million to rebuild those libraries.

host: when the obamas leave the white house, do you think the garden wall remain? guest: i hope so. i image that any first lady that comes will respect her legacy. host: there is a garden at the white house attributed to jackie kennedy. guest: all along jackson place, you can see from the north side of the white house, these are historic homes. some of our former secretaries of state lived there. they were slated for removal during the kennedy administration. she cared about historic preservation and she appealed to a number of wealthy americans to establish an endowment. they just celebrated the 50th year. it does enormously important

work. she raised the level of protecting our patrimony. it is a living museum to who we are as a democracy. host: early in her term, nancy reagan did not have a cause back in 1983. she then embraced the just say no campaign. lessons? guest: people do expect you to do something with the role. find something that is meaningful. pay attention to the national conversation because you are going to be a part of it. what you choose to do will have an impact on what people choose to talk about. host: a little-known fact about michelle obama? guest: little known fact? she's a mean tennis player. she can get out on the court and compete. host: laura bush? guest: she is very funny. she's a very humorous person.

one of the best examples of that is her willingness to get out there at the correspondents' dinner in 2005 and do this speech. she really has quite a sense of humor. and can laugh wildly. she's a lot of fun to be around. host: you know that we have that video ready. let's go to that in 2005. this is first lady laura bush as he took the podium away from her husband, the president of the united states. >> i am married to the president of the united states. here is our typical evening. 9:00, mr. excitement is sound asleep. i am watching "desperate housewives." [applause] with lynn cheney.

[laughter] ladies and gentlemen, i am a desperate housewife. host: what is the story? how did that come about? this week is the week of the white house correspondents' dinner. we'll have live coverage saturday evening. jimmy kimmel as the headliner. but what happened? guest: mrs. bush was supposed to deliver the remarks at the radio and tv correspondents dinner that year. but it was the same time that pope john paul ii had died. and so we all went to rome for the delegation for the funeral. and so it was really the president's idea. he said, well, laura, why don't you be this one, do the white house correspondents dinner. and she was game. she said okay. the funniest part of that, practicing for the speech, there was a line about barbara bush as a mother in law.

somewhat like don corly yone. -- corliggone. that was a funny moment for me. host: do you want to watch the event? all of the dinners are available on our website, c-span.org. a few more minutes of your phone calls. grace is on the phone from montgomery county, maryland. good morning, grace. carol: good morning. i wanted to talk about the hillary rod a.m. clinton comment. i think she was taken out of context. she was talking about the choices that women have. a lot of women do not have the financial choice to stay at home. that is the point she was trying to make. a lot of women, their paycheck represents almost half of the

income of the family. if they were to stay home and permanently, it would affect the standard of living. women all over america have to make this choice. it's not and easy one to make. and have kids. emergencies, your child is sick, school closes up early for the day. so it's not and easy thing. and most men would choose not to do it. ann romney did have the choice, and that is great for her. but let's not miss that point. because for millions of american women, the financial choice just does not exist. that is the comment i wanted to make. guest: that is why this conversation will continue. it is exactly one of the things someone should choose to vote on -- or not vote on. these are the issues that are most important to people. the financial situation of their families, these are the exact issues people should be

voting on. host: the five myths -- women go together, female voters favor female candidate, women vote based on women's issues, a candidate's wife can deliver women's votes, and then decide elections. -- men decide elections. guest: i do not know if i agree with four or five of those. i think women vote on a wide variety of issues. this debate about the economy and people's concerns about their future. i do not think women vote only for women. i'm not sure if a candidate spouse delivers spouse. we do not vote for a candidate spouse. but they have and impact as and

important surrogate. guest: the spouse can have an important role. when i was working for tipper, to discuss the fact that she had been treated for depression.

.

the abbasid of that -- opposite of that was the budget control act. it was thrown together in a moment of crisis and was kind of my its single moment of being a united states senator. we did an enormous disservice to this country or any creepy economic activity. we flew up to something earlier. did did you read the bill? we have no choices. there had been preliminary work. we set of downstream and thence that were living -- events that were living to rue because you're trying to get it right. this committee could action come up with a project that could serve as a template for our colleagues in both the house and the senate. i echo some of the comments my colleagues have made. three or four last points. i know we want to speak.

i think it is important to remember as we have had this debate, we still are in this time of extraordinary time. every 100 basis points increase at $1.30 trillion to the debt. if we end up running against the time frame with the bond market no longer think we are the least ugly girl -- how do i rephrase that? the cleanest dirty shirt. much better way to rephrase that. we could be in a heap of trouble. if there was one thing i keep drilling down on, it is federal

spending on our g.d.p.. revenues 50's term. it seems to me that the only time the budget balance in the last 70 years maybe when revenue and spending have been between 19 and 21%. you have to cut spending in generate additional revenues. i hope as we go forward on this discussion the three things i would hope that we would work gone beyond moving of this frame and updating it, one would be and i give enormous credit to senator crepo on this is that if we were able to put together a long-term plan, you have to have a real enforcement mechanism. as the economy recovers, there is no way to waive those budget point of order.

i would offer the very good work that we put in on about as tight a straitjacket as you can imagine. and not even sure lindsey gramm to get 67 votes on those items. i disagree with the president on the idea that we are going to deal on the revenue side that we can solve this problem with only getting more revenues from the very top. i need to step up in a more responsible way.

i think there is something wrong with 47% of americans did not pay any federal income taxes. there needs to be an amount of folks beyond some level of poverty to be paying in so that we all have skin in the game. in terms of supporting our national defense in this crisis, we have got to have a tax reform system that will have more americans have this again in the game. i know this is an area we have spent a lot of time on. i think simpson-bowles did some great work. there's more to be done. we have to be a little more open to ideas that are a bit more controversial. the one thing that simpson- bowles had been none of the subsequent other plans include it, i guess because it was too radioactive.

i am still all in. it would include a fix on social security as well. there is no blame here other than blaming the doctors that we are living too long. a lot of this is just about math. i commend the chairman and the ranking member. i hope they will leave this in a way that to become a productive discussion. one of the great of this budget committee rolled up its sleeve and we did not have to be called a gang and we might have a framework of how we get this potential national tragedy off our backs? >> thank you.

let me start by saying i respect the work that you and senator crepo and senator warren did. you have done so with some political risk. yet you are not the budget committee. you cannot have the ability to do that. we had 12 earlier. it is a new majority. we expedite it. this comes out of the committee. this is what we ought to be doing. i think senator baggage made the case as well as anybody i

have heard about why it is important to have a budget. he is not here to defend himself. i think he is saying that they provide some of the the budget discipline that is necessary on discretionary spending. he also talked about the need for a long-term blueprint for the future. over 60% of the budget this year is mandatory spending and interest on the debt. it is hard to say that it is a plan that gets at our problem. it has to be the fastest part of the mandatory side. everything i've heard today, and i heard everyone argued.

i urge the chairman to move this. i like your comprehensive presentation this afternoon. i think he laid out the problem well. i think senator sessions did the same thing. i think you agreed with the problem. we should have this debate. we should have the amendment process here and take it to the floor.

i like the tax reform proposals. it is a step in the right direction. the say this is about $2.40 trillion. like simpson-bowles, a think it does not get to the new costs that have incurred because of our health care legislation that will cost trillions more over the next 10 years. we see higher numbers of seems like every other week. senator white house talked about that. his concern that we're not really getting at the core issue.

i think we ought to use this as a starting five for the committee in godhead and market up. all we needed was 12 votes. people talked about how this could be political. it is always political. ultimately, we would have to vote. some thousand of us americans are retiring a day now and moving into social security and medicare, systems heading toward it bankruptcy if we do not make these reforms. it is time to act. we have this confluence of sequestration.

there is this debt limit again. the secretary of defense has called this catastrophic. the budget committee is providing some fiscal direction here. this is such a critical time. the house did do its job. there has been talk about that. some criticized the house budget. this is their right to do. they should acknowledge that they actually an voted on it. they had several budget proposals. the cover the political spectrum. if we would do the same, we would have the blueprint. we missed the deadline on april 1.

for our committee, april 15 for the full house. that does mean that we have already missed our statutory deadlines. that is ok. we can still move forward. it is time for us to do it. roomed to be sure there's to do this. we thing about the impact on the economy. some folks have made the point that we cannot cut much not because if we do it will slow the economic recovery. it is a weak recovery. i would argue the opposite. it is all the more reason to do it to add certainty and unpredictability. this is one of the few ways economists agree with a summit economic growth. there are things that i wish we

can and should do on things that did not have to do is spending caps. this is primarily on the entitlement reform. winning the fiscal blueprint. i think the budget could be a first step. let us have the debate here. let's see if we can find 12 votes and challenge the senate to stop abdicating its responsibility. >> thank you. i felt badly about coming so late. we just had a hearing on global trade opportunities. this is why i have been late coming. with respect to my sense of

where we are, and it is pretty clear to me that what we have to find our big solutions for a big economic challenges. the history of all of those kinds of approaches, a big solutions for big challenges means you have to come up with a bipartisan approach. when we achieve meaningful pro- growth tax reform, you had a republican president fighting for it, working with colleagues. only a talking about preserving the social safety net, president johnson championed it and pushed it through with a huge bipartisan majority in 1965. we have to concrete examples of major solutions for the ages that were achieved in a bipartisan fashion.

it is a huge opportunity consummated by president johnson in 1965. but have a pretty clear bipartisan approach. there is a reason why this is the way to go. they are tackling this in a strictly partisan way. the managed to drive it through the congress and get it signed into law. there is the senses that can ensure you can keep it. this is dry on a particular partisan achievements. my sense is that we have some very big opportunities. i want to outline a couple of them briefly.

i am pleased that the senator talked about it. we have talked about this. we have an understanding of what needs to be down. you have to go in there and close out a huge array of the special interest loopholes and use the same the polls to hold everything down. when we did this in 1986, we created 6.3 million new jobs within two years. i am not going to say that every one of these jobs came about through tax reform. it certainly did not hurt in terms of setting the climate for growth. since 1986, we have had a host of commissions that said the

same thing. the commission was put together by george w. bush essentially proposed an updated version of what we have done in 1986. the volcker commission proposed this. bowles-simpson, we sat in this room. we looked at all we have been talking about. we muster the political will to do its. we have a president where we have actually done at that helped create 6.3 million new jobs within two years. the attractive way to proceed. with respect to medicare, the challenge is to protect the medicare guaranteed. this is what it is all about. i've always seen this program as sacred ground.

we're not going to have the funds to ensure that this medicare guarantee is protected. i think we have an opportunity to come together. i am attracted to the preen support. it is something that has not been rejected. medicare vouchers are rejected because they're like coupons. this is clearly not acceptable. premium support which originated with democrats and now has been picked up by both democrats and repel bookends -- and republicans is something different. it is a way to ensure it choice. i might vouchers that do not keep up with medical costs, a

senior specific contribution under medicare is geared to the actual health costs they incur. this is not a coupon. it is buried in relation to the actual cost that a senior highs in a given area. if we do it that way, i think we have a chance to ensure for all tyne the vitality of traditional medicare predict all-time the vitality of traditional medicare. -- if we do it that way, i think we have a chance to insure for all time the vitality of traditional medicare. you will have a choice much as seniors have today in communities like my own were more than 50% are already

tousing these various kinds of alternatives. that is a little bit of what is in front of us. it is clear this is all about seizing the moment. maybe we're not going to get it all done tomorrow or the next toomey. >> i'm disappointed with where we are and what i'm hearing. i correctly observe that we need a long-term budget plan. i for many people we keep that. republicans have offered this

plan. with the exception of the chairman, that democrats are unwilling to vote.

there is no avoiding it. the house passed a plan. you can argue all you like and disagree and that is all fine and fair. they laid out a vision. it is a plan that would put this on a sustainable fiscal path. from my point a year, an elected member of congress is not have much credibility they're not willing to offer an alternative. it is unacceptable. for either party to simply say will we are opposed that bill we will not suggest anything in the alternative. that is why give you a lot of credit for laying out a plan. i cannot believe that we are in an environment and a situation where our democratic colleagues are simply afraid to cast a vote. they are afraid to tell us whether the even support this plan. i do not think that is the case

on our side. several of us have drafted our on plants. i put an enormous amount of energy and work in producing a comprehensive budget resolution. this reflects the thinking of many of my republican colleagues and many democratic ideas. and sure it has a lot of flaws. it is a vision that it does to a balanced budget. i think we ought to be debating it, amending it. we've voted last year. almost all my republican colleagues voted for it. i understand the opposition. where was the alternative. i cannot believe that someone would suggest to the american people that they ought to not

feel an obligation to lay out a plan that solves the biggest plan. we are illustrating just how frustrating this is not to have a counter pots that should be in negotiating counterpart but is one that is able to take a stand. for instance, one of the things i think is important is that we can reach a balance. it is not easy to the that. we could have a reasonable argument of of water that is necessary.

some people do not think that is necessary. i happen to think it is a worthwhile goal. we ought to do that. we will never know if we do not have people willing to say here is a different idea. and the other side. >> on tax reform, i think there is a lot of common ground at least on principle. i think there is with the chairman. i have a pretty detailed parameter that my budget will lay out for the jurisdiction that would call the pro-growth reform that has been called for by a bipartisan conditions. we could have a very robust discussion for exactly how we should do that and whether that is the right thing to do. on medicare, my budget calls for the implementation after 10

years of the bipartisan plan that senator widen just discussed. i think it is a very constructive idea that puts us on a long-term solution for medicare. not the only one. it is this solution. it works. i suggested in the budget that folks, or on medicare now and his income is less than $85,000 would have no change whatsoever. if your income is over $85,000, i suggest we implement president obama's suggestion for those affluent seniors to pay more in terms of their contribution to their medicare benefits, and if your income is above $150,000 as a retiree, you're pretty wealthy. for those votes, i suggest they contribute even more than the president has contributed. i do not know if there is an

agreement on the other side and i never will of people are not willing to take a stand. that is what is so frustrating. we have been willing to offer ideas and proposals. it is very hard, i hear people say i hope you'll come together and reach an agreement and do this bipartisan agreement. but once i will not tell us what they are for, it is hard to find out where the common ground is. i just want to say i am extremely disappointed. i think we're here today witnessing a profound opportunity. we will work out the common ground so we can have a long- term solution that we all know we need. i am very disappointed. >> senate term berkeley -- senator merkely is recognized.

>> thank you very much. this is a statement of values that lays out a guide were we as a country are going over the years to come. we need to think long and hard and things that will determine our path. will we spend money building nation abroad or home? will we be investing in education and ever structure here in america? will we be giving bonus benefits to billionaires or will we be caring for our veterans? will we be investing in the clean energy research that will help us and our addiction on foreign oil. will we invest in stem technology?

will be funded agencies that crackdown on or a speculation? will refund the agencies that keep our air and water clean or not? will refund the agencies that enforce our trade laws are not? we have to be responsible for the answers we get. it is very important to understand how we came into the current sea of red ink, wars and iraq and afghanistan share our tax cuts. there unpaid for. on top of that, financial sectors. the result is predatory loans served. a multi trillion dollar insurance industry going by the

fancy name of swaps and derivatives. it sprang up from nothing. it did so without the oversights. all these things traded the biggest meltdown since the great depression. based on decisions that were made here. members around this table participated. how do we read bill? that is the question of a budget. do we do so on the backs of working people? the very same folks who are oppressed by the predatory loans? who are oppressed by the collapse of the home prices? who are oppressed by the loss of jobs and by the destruction of their retirement account? are these the folks that deregulated the home mortgage?

are these the folks who failed to pay attention to the unregulated swaps and derivatives. are these the folks who are involved in the securities industry? i do not think so. here are some better ideas. how about the end the war in afghanistan and split the proceeds $120 billion a year. a third to investing in education. how about we and some huge special interest programs in the tax code that waste taxpayer dollars? a have run on the senate a few weeks ago. the cost billions of dollars a year. their powerful big oil

companies. i was very fascinated by those the said we cannot close a one tax loophole unless the close them all. folks realize that they were not at all prepared to take on the tass of closing those tax loopholes. how about we eliminate the $175 billion in defense that robert gates cannot contribute one bit? at the end our addiction to foreign oil ducts have always been those increase wealth and jobs in america? how about we recognize that we are systematically undermining the security on the failure to invest in and for structure and education?

europe is 75% of the gdp. we're spending too% and having a -- 2% and having a debate on the house plan that cuts 35% on the upper structure spending. -- on the infrastructure spending. this will not take this forward to a strong economy in the future. this is 5 million jobs the ordinary families and i have. often jobs with benefits. how about we rebuild the manufacturing economy so there will be a middle class in

america? if we do not make things here we will not have a middle-class. these are the types of issues that are embedded in the decisions that we make around a budget. that is a task before this committee. i thank you for calling us to this table to deliberate these incredibly important issues for the future of our nation. thank you. >> senator johnson is recognized. >> thank you. it is always fun going toward the end. you have to remain somewhat flexible. i will try to not repeat what some of my colleagues have said. i am sympathetic with your predicament. i know you do understand the problem. i know you have worked hard. i appreciate it and number of the hearings that have been educational. this is a political process here. it is our obligation to perform, persuade, and when the

argument. the american people deserve a choice. they cannot make that choice of one side refuses to put it on the table, if one side refuses to vote on what they are for. there are a number of words. this is their responsibility i take seriously. it is a responsibility of this committee to pass a budget resolution by april 1. the united states senate can pass on by april 15. did i say august 1 that i meant april 1. that is their responsibility. we should take it seriously. i should have been voting and back in march. this is what the house did.

they subject themselves to be accountable to the american people. we refuse to do this in the senate. we should be embarrassed. the american people deserve far better. we need to provide some leadership in this country. americans hunger for leadership. it is getting done. they have yet propose anything to save social security, by the year 200035 will have a deficit of six trillion dollars. we have heard last year's budget was zero to 97 in the senate. not one member of the

president's own party and voted for it. the american people need to understand what an abdication of responsibility and leadership that is. how can make a choice? they do not know what the other side is for. the other side wants to take over 1/6 of our economy. i guess they are ok with government outweighing 24% of gdp. i guess there can with $1.40 trillion deficit the last four years. during this president's term we will spend $14.40 trillion. the total deficit will be 5.3.

that is what we are borrowing. the american people deserve far better. the president's budget lost 414. he will add dollars to our debt. that is fundamental listed the problem. i enjoy charts. i just want to talk about three very significant additional risks that could explode the deficit even further. first of all, growth. if we miss the growth target by one term, at the cbs a week at $3.10 trillion tarnation steps are the next 10 years. i hear is my one chart i will

impose on me. that is what the borrowing cost has been pared from 1970-1999, which had an average borrowing cost of 5.3%. the last three years we have been barring at an unrealistically low 1.5%. our debt gdp ratio is about 60%. we are far more creditworthy. now we're over 100 term. that is about a 4% gap from historic. this of the '60s are much discretionary spending. that is a significant risk. if you weeks ago we debated the health care lot in the supreme court.

the soap that is overturned. that represents a civilian deficit risk and no one is acknowledging. once obamacare action kicks in starting in 2016, for the next 10 years we will spend $2.40 trillion on that program. it to be paid for by taxes, fees and penalties. we have not enacted the sgr fix. we realize that or reduce access. what makes anybody believe will reduce medical are -- medicare dollars. this represents the deficit gap or $1.60 trillion.

is that what happened next i'm not even mentioning the cost when tens of millions of employers that brought this. this made them eligible for huge subsidies and exchanges. what is that going to cost? we have various medvedev problems. i appreciate your opening presentation lange of the case. it does not scratch the surface. we have even greater risks. we have one side in washington. it refuses take a vote and tell

the american people what their solution is. until that side does that and this president leaves or until we have a president who's willing to lead, we will not fix this problem. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you for your leadership of this committee in putting this plan in front of us. i apologize for my late arrival. when i am home in delaware, people ask me about our deficits. it is something that matters deeply to the average american. they are used to having to balance their budget. they expect our government will do the same. i could give a long speech recounting how we got year irresponsible and assigning blame and delivering the campaign speech. we're finding a way to balance

the budget every year to deal with record deficits to rein in spending and making difficult decisions. our national debt had over $15 trillion which took us a decade to put our way into. this will take us a while to work our way out of. i think we all agree are excessive debts heard our competitiveness and our country. i think we all agree it is a ticking time bomb that needs to be addressed. we have budget caps that give the appropriation committee guidance for this year. we need a plan. rather than having in other partisan wish list presented

that we can fight over, i am pleased you put forward a tough, balanced, rob plan that gets us down the road toward the real decisions we have to make. debts and deficits are not a new development. the all time you have served in the senate, it has been a real challenge. i think only for federal budget have been balanced in the past four years. the path of least resistance has been to keep revenue slow in services high. i think we are reckoning where we have to. it is my hope that this committee and its members will be serious. whatever bipartisan compromise is ultimately reach, it to be difficult. we will need an unfortunate mechanism. this of the $4 trillion over the target.

they advocated that i saw repeatedly folks to join me. regardless of which party in view, i think all of us can agree that we have to find a way forward that is thought of this rate our safety net that asks for broadly shared sacrifices that does not jeopardize the fragile sacrifice and retains long supported programs. i am pleased be put on a table and long-term plan that takes him all the different areas where we need to make changes that it use revenue growth through tax reform and reduces pentagon spending and begins to deal with our most difficult deficit and debt drivers. i was pleased that this

commission presented their plan. i was happy to join the 45 senators to publicly support a long-term deficit reduction plan that is balanced in its approach. there are things in this plan that i really dislike. i think these are bad policies. i think it would cost me less harm to programs, people, and sectors of our society that an advocate for an care charlotte about. i like to see a final plan to prioritize education and energy, many of the things the other senator spoke proudly about. we are reaching a tough plan that would allow was for the end of this calendar year to cast the votes leaning to cast

to change the path for the country. >> thank you. but if next, " q&a." major-general john toolan has an update on afghanistan. nearly 20,000 u.s. marines are stationed. live coverage, hosted by the atlantic council begins today at 10:15 eastern on c-span. >> one of the things i remember

this because my office never overlooked the plaza, there was a day care center. some of the children were killed some injured. that left a lasting impression, of course, when they were silenced. my son posy friend in high school was working. her father was a good friend of mine. i had three different messages when i got home. first, want to know what he could find out about his daughter. the third message was when he was crying. >> watch our local content of vehicles next stop. exploring the history and literary culture of oklahoma booktv.c-span's

this week on "q & a", douglas wissing discusses his latest book, "funding the enemy: how u.s. taxpayers bankroll the taliban." >> douglas wissing, you have a quote in your book about afghanistan were you say they were not telling the american public that they called the press briefings "feeding the chickens." >> the american people to get scraps of information. it is different from the on- the-ground reality that you found. the soldiers would tell you the truth. truth.