host: good morning. it's friday, march 8, 2013. one of the longest filibusters in senate history, kentucky republican rand paul. the senate yesterday voted to confirm president obama's nominee john brennan as cia director. federal law-enforcement officials revealed yesterday they took into custody al qaeda operatives and osama bin laden's son-in-law suleyman obligates. and the white house has undertaken a new charm offensive aimed at winning over rank-and-

file congressional republicans for a potential grand economic bargain. that's where we begin with you this morning. your thoughts on the new effort of engagement by president obama and hear how optimistic you are that a deficit deal can be reached. give us a call -- 202-585-3883, if you are outside the united states. you can catch up with us on twitter, facebook, or e-mail us. a very good friday morning to you. i want to take you to some of the headlines about what is being called a charm offensive by president obama.

this from the wall street journal this morning -- and from the washington post -- and from the new york times -- there you have a picture from wednesday night at the jefferson hotel in washington, d.c., where senators including tom coburn and saxby chambliss and joined the president for dinner that the president paid for where the deficit reduction issues came up. here's a story from bloomberg --

the story goes on to say the overtures skipped over mitch mcconnell of kentucky and house speaker john boehner. both oppose raising taxes as

part of any deal. $1.20 trillion in spending cuts mandated over the next nine years and short-term government funding set to expire on march 27, lawmakers said the coming weeks could provide a chance for long-term deficit reduction bargains that have eluded congress and obama. and to talk more about the story, i want to bring in one of the riders of that article. lisa, thanks for waking up with us. guest: thanks for having me. host: tells about the strategy behind a charm offensive. guest: the president is doing things he has never done, which is invite republicans to dinner outside the white house. earlier this week he had a dinner with nearly a dozen senate republicans. yesterday, he had congressman paul ryan to the white house for lunch. next week he's headed to the bill to sit down with senate republicans and later house

republicans. this is a big shift for the president, who has taken a lot of criticism for being aloof and not really engaging with members across the aisle or even with his own members in congress. basically, the white house asked to make efforts to block the sequester that was automatic across-the-board budget cuts. it failed to work. a white house and republican leaders cannot can deal to do that. so now the president is trying something else, which is trying to build bridges with members across the aisle, in hopes of dividing and conquering, getting rank-and-file republicans to agree to a deal that may be the leadership has been reluctant to agree to. host: is it working? guest: it's early to tell. the white house has acknowledged the limitations of the strategy. there are still a lot of big differences specifically when it comes to raising revenue or taxes.

obama would like to see increased revenue past parts of any deal. republicans say they have already done that in their efforts to stop the country from going over the fiscal cliff at the beginning of the year and they are not raising any more taxes unless it's part of a tax overhaul that deals -- that lowers rates as part of that. so there are still pretty major differences. the white house spokesman jay carney yesterday said that we know this is still going to be a long shot, that the differences are still pretty intense. is too early to say. i'm not sure anyone is expressing great confidence. but republicans on the hill that said this is a really good place to start and they welcomed the president's overtures. host: you brought up jay carney is a response yesterday. he was asked whether he should a been reaching out to members sooner. i want to play a clip of jay carney yesterday.

[video clip] >> again and again, this president has moved towards republicans in trying to find common ground in these negotiations. as you have seen him say and is evidenced by the meetings he has been having, he remains interested in that. he believes that when he hears, republicans say that they are interested in finding that common ground, that they believe it's possible to marry entitlement reforms that produce savings with tax reforms that produce savings and achieve deficit reduction. he wants to have that conversation and that's what he's doing. host: lisa is still with us. where did it change in strategy comes from? is it attributed to someone specifically at the white house? guest: [indiscernible] democrats and officials assumed

that republicans would never be able to swallow the defense cuts that were part of the sequester deal, that they would never sllow -- allow those cuts to happen. it was a little bit of a shift in the republican caucus where they broke their traditional opposition. many particularly younger house republicans, new members, those that came in with a lot of tea party support, they said that they did not like the way sequestration has been implemented but they would like more specificity in the across- the-board cuts. that is a bit of a surprise to the white house, which expected the republican caucus would never allow this to happen. part of the change stems from a miscalculation and from the

simple fact that efforts to avert this just is not --just did not work, the strategy of going to republican districts, it did not seem to deter republicans from allowing this to go into action. republicans think they agreed to increase tax cut as part of the fiscal cliff deal and they felt the president was pushing them to do something they already did. that he was asking for too much. host: the reaction from democrats to this charm offensive for rank-and-file republicans? guest: democrats will not say they don't want the president meeting with republicans. publicly, they said it's a good thing. i think that many particularly on the hill are sceptical anything will come out of it. host: thanks for joining us. guest:. thanks for having: host: we are taking your calls

and e-mails and tweets on this subject in our first 45 minutes this morning. if you, it's already on facebook -- i will take a few calls. rob from new york, new york, on the democratic line. your take on what is being called a charm offensive by president obama?

caller: it's not going to work, no matter what president obama does. the republicans want to destroy him. the bottom line is without getting into a campaign finance reform, the way that elected officials get their hands on money in from all the wealthy corporations and wealthy individuals who persuade them and influence them to get legislation that benefits them, where we have mitt romney paying 13% taxes. i paid over 30% and i don't even make 50 cows and dollars per year. mitt romney's is a worth $200 million. -- i don't even make $50,000.

if we don't resolve the way elected officials get their hands on campaign money, we will be the hatfield against the mccloys, we will be black against white, middle-class against poor. host: the headline from the washington post -- from san diego, california,

roberta. what is your take on president obama bypassing republican leaders in congress and going to the rank-and-file members? you think it's a good strategy? caller: i don't really trust the man to do much of anything that is good for the american citizens. first, i am an american. i vote republican, but i never voted republican or any party my whole life. i always have believed when we vote, we should vote american. we have never in my lifetime had the president that does what he does, divides the people, divide them among rich and poor and white and black and men and women, any where there is to divide the nation, he has done that from the white house. he spends money worse than anybody. it costs $180,000 per hour to

fly air force one and he is in that airplane every time i see him go back and forth from the white house. i would say a three hour flight and half a million dollars, but then that means you fly back, so it's $1 million every time he gets in the plane. there's something wrong with a man that does not seem to get that he spends more money out here than anybody else does. host: tweets --

taking your calls and comments and tweets all morning. the president's efforts have gotten pretty good reviews so far from some of the republicans that were at the dinner we mentioned on wednesday night. this from the washington post story -- also, john boehner responded to the president'reasons efforts. i want to play a little of it. [video clip] >> the president is reaching out to republican senators. >> i know. we went through zero months of campaign style events all over the country -- we went through months of camping style events.

it was interesting that this week we have gone 180. after being in office four years, he is actually going to sit down and talk to members. i think it is a hopeful sign. i'm hopeful something will come out of it. but if the president continues to insist on tax hikes, i don't think we will get very far. if the president does not believe we have a spending problem, i don't know if we will get very far. but i am optimistic. host: that was house speaker john boehner yesterday. now do mark from alabama on our independent line. good morning. caller: barack obama is too conservative. these to the right of center and is courting the republicans too much. he needs to go back. the man is conservative. i don't know why people pinkie is some kind of socialist. far from it. he always does everything he can to appease the republicans.

he has no backbone. the man is a jellyfish. the rich people's greed has destroyed the country for the working man. america sucks nowadays. host: the editorial in the wall street journal --

that the editorial this morning in the wall street journal. sandy is on the democratic line from columbus, ohio. good morning. caller: i was calling in for a brief comment on the so-called all of a sudden that these kind of catering to the republicans. he has reached out to them for some time. what he is fighting for that i don't think the american people understand is that we are already at the bottom. the seniors, the unemployed, the working man, and poor. and the cuts that the republicans want you to do, they cannot stand right now. taxesve always had pay p and we may have to pay a little

more at some time in the future. but at this time with the state of the country, you are putting it on the backs of poor people panic and not stand any more right now with food prices, gas, and so forth. the direction he's going by trying to close the loopholes for the rich is they have made a lot of money. wall street, everybody is way up. it's not middle or halfway ground. the way he's going is the correct way to go. we know that we are eventually going to have to pay a little more. but right now, what can we do? host: i want to go to rose from massachusetts on the independent line. considering the efforts by the president this week, how optimistic are you that this grand bargain that has been talked about on deficit spending will be reached? caller: i am hopeful, very hopeful. i back president obama 100%.

i am on social security. he has to increase the medicare cost to the recipients by %, i would not mind, because my medicare premiums have stayed the same for 12 years since i first got on it. everything else has gone up. host: there's room for entitlement reform? caller: yes, there is. most certainly. there are people that cannot afford it. it goes according to your income. when your income goes up -- the percentage this year was not

much, but when you first got on medicare, you started paying $80 and it is 20 years later and you are still paying the same $80, something's got to give. host: thanks for calling. i want to point out the story from the new york times --

minority leader nancy pelosi in the house told reporters yesterday she believes it is important for the president to get to know members of congress and vice versa. [video clip] >> what you make of this new overture from the white house towards republicans? has it produced results? >> i hope so. they seem to be pleased. they talked about immigration and that limits. it's always good. as one who has been a leader in the congress for a while, it's always important to understand the motivation of members and

what possibilities are in terms of courage. and so, i think it is important that they all get to know which other better. host: wesley from sacramento, california, on the democratic line. your take on the president's charm offensive and how important is it for him to have this personal one-on-one time with members of congress? caller: it's very important for him to have such a dialogue and reach out to the republicans. but i am a little pessimistic about the returns of his efforts. the lady from san diego called the club about the travels of the president. we forget that george bush put america on a credit card, all of which obama inherited. -- george bush put two wars on a

credit card. we have mitch mcconnell and these other clowns in there who's said their number one job is to make sure obama was a one- term president. they failed in their efforts. the beat goes on. obama is my man. i'm a retired marine. i hope that he prevails. thank you. host: a few other headlines -- here's a picture of the president joined by a group including vice president joe biden, lawmakers, and members of women's organizations, and the violence against women act on thursday. he said this victory shows that when the american people make their voices heard, washington listens. that's what mr. obama said in that ceremony. i also want to go to the front

page of the wall street journal, bin laden' kin nabbed -- you can read more about that in

a number of papers this morning. one other headlined, un council puts more sanctions on north korea. this is from the front page of the new york times -- we will get into those sanctions in the next segment of the washington journal this morning when we look at foreign relations issues in the united states. for the next 20 minutes we are staying focused on obama's, offensive and its impact on deficit talks. on twitter --

kate from scottsdale, arizona, on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a first-time caller, and thank you, c-span. you know the phrase, damned if you do, damned if you don't, it resonates in this country louder than ever before. we have a president who was thwarted from the first day he entered office by this republican party. i am not in favor of a party. i am in favor of the attempts and trying. john boehner in his arrogance just in the clip you just showed, he cannot do anything without being insulted,

denigrated, disrespected. no president is perfect, but i have never seen -- i did not vote for a long time because i was so sick of what this country -- who we are given four options as a president. we have a man who is trying to communicate to us as a people,. will everybody be pleased? no, but we have to come together and not allow our public figures to insult us as americans by asso disrespectful to west -- by being so disrespectful to us by not allowing them to work together corporate tivoli. for john boehner? stand up there and talk in the way he did about the president after meeting with the republican party -- the reason he does not work with them is because they don't work with him. host: now to the republican line with marty from michigan.

give us your take on how republicans have tried to work with president. caller: thanks for taking my call. i really appreciate your guy's network. moving the goalposts, moving the football, this is ridiculous. this is not a football game. this is people's lives. they moved the football. i see john mccain, with a picture of snoopy and they're moving the football with charlie brown. this is crazy. the republicans don't work with the democrats. they did not work with bush. we went to war. but the democrats voted to go to war, too. the country is at 122 trillion dollars of unfunded debt.

$885 billion in medicaid, social security its 16 billion. $100 trillion in the debt. we only bring into $0.40 trillion in gross revenue -- $2.4 trillion. we need to get together as a people. i agree with the lady who called the last time to say that the president is being insulted. i've been called a racist because i don't want to see a government that lives outside its means and i don't want to see the country spending my daughter's future away. host: on twitter -- a few other headlines this morning --

rand paul, the kentucky senator, has gotten some good headlines from his filibuster on the senate floor. here it is from the baltimore sun, the lead editorial this morning -- also, this from the "washington times this morning at -- all the talk about rand paul has increased speculation about whether he will be weighing a 2016 presidential bid. this from "politico" --

back to the subject of the president's charm offensive and optimism about coming to a deal on the debt, and edgar has been waiting from beaumont, texas, on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i think the president is doing a good job. he has tried and tried and tried again to try to talk to the republicans to set a deal. he has even tried to compromise with them when he passed to the health care bill. the only reason why they passed it was he had to give them what they're asking for. time and time again, the

president tried to come up with things to get us out of the deficit we are in, by creating jobs and he put a plan to the republicans about working on the roads and bridges and they voted that down. wille got a president who go along with the republicans when they come up with suggestions on doing things. if he puts it on the table, they voted down. you've got mitch mcconnell, when the president first got elected, he said that he was going to make sure he would be a one-term president. with all this discussion, he is still holding his peace and still trying to get along with the republicans. host: on twitter --

the paul ryan of the house budget committee. he sat down for lunch yesterday with president obama along with chris van hollen, a leading democrat on that committee. on twitter -- ronald is up next from philadelphia, pennsylvania, on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. the president is doing an excellent job. he's one of the best presidents in my lifetime. the republicans got what they wanted. wanted sequestered. they got cuts with no revenue. they should be happy. as far as the country being divided, one group against the slaves, one group against the indians, one group against this and another against that. i don't know why anyone says that he's the one who divided the country. people have been walking around

with blinders for their whole lifetime. host: we have about 10 minutes left in this segment. still taking your calls on the president's tactics this week to engage with republicans. i want to hear how optimistic you are on whether a grand bargain might be reached soon or within the next couple weeks or months before the next big fiscal deadline. a few other headlines --

that was from the washington post. democratic senator carl levin will not seek reelection, announced yesterday. the announced thursday he will not seek reelection in 2014, saying he wanted to focus on the nation's challenges and not on politics. this is from the washington post. the 78-year-old has held his seat since 1979 and and was chairman of the armed services committee and and does not face a close election in decades. he becomes the seventh senator to announce his retirement so far this year, including senator jim demint, a republican of south carolina, who resigned in january. the others are senator saxby chambliss, republican of georgia, and the democrat from new jersey. and the republican from nebraska. tom harkin, a democrat from iowa. and john rockefeller a, a

democrat from west virginia. also, a story from the new york times -- that report will be coming out around 8:30. we will bring you those numbers here when they are released. i want to go to herb from orchard park, new york, on the democratic line. your take on the president's charm offensive and how optimistic are you that some grand bargain is going to be reached? caller: none of us were a fly on the wall at the meeting that obama had with many of the republican senators and other people from congress. but if we had a truly

progressive president, he would embrace entitled to perform and not run away from it as the democrats have done. in my opinion, the president in three simple steps could make social security and medicare fiscally sound. social security, all he would have to do is ask congress to lift the income cap on social security, the actuarial specialists say that would make social security without any other changes fiscally sound until 2070. host: run through the other steps. caller: now i'm jumping on medicare. open up medicare for everybody at low wages.

within a short time that would make a private insurance, that is not nearly as efficient, go the way, of the dodo bird. no. 3 on medicare, i removed the law that forbids medicare from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies to lower drug prices. host: you might be interested after the show today at 10:00 a.m. on c-span. we will be showing a discussion looking apple the implementation by the states of the affordable health care law. that discussion will hear from state officials and health care advocates on the health care law medicaid expansion provision. we will also be talking about medicaid expansion in the stakes in a later segment this morning on the washington journal. -- in the states.

george jim haslett, new jersey, independent line. caller: i wish him the best of luck trying to get the republicans to move at all. they are stuck in a pact altogether. you have to get around the leadership of the republicans. this whole idea that we bought into that everybody could take as much as they possibly get, the disparity between incomes is so great and everything is for sale. the government is for sale, justice is for sale. we sold it all out. we sold ourselves out. it's the oldest story in history. why nobody can see it, destined to collapse under an agreed. -- under greed. republicans are slitting their own throats by playing this

killer game and to heck with everybody else. it's mindboggling. host: one other story that's making browns in the papers is the white house decision to end visitor tours. here's the editorial from the "washington times" --

that the editorial from the washington times this morning. on the same subject, from the national review online, canceling white house tours saves less than the cost of one of obama's vacations.

that story from the national review online. one more call on president obama's, offensive to a congressional rank-and-file republicans. ike from walnut, california, democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i've been listening to c-span for years. the president is doing what american voters have asked him to do. we say we want the country to move on. we are looking at it as the united states of america and not as politicians are looking at. those who just got elected, those leaders are bogus and fictitious when they say i went into my community and this is what we are seeing. no. the american people have said what we want our president to do

antaeus acting on that. the as long as john boehner and eric cantor and john mccain, they are not leaders, they are party parasites trying to live off us by saying they are doing what we want. we need to expose them for what they are. host: you mentioned john mccain. he was one of the senate republicans who was at the dinner with the president on wednesday. that does it for our first segment this morning. if up next, the latest diplomatic challenges facing the united states with blake hounshell of foreign policy magazine. later, medicaid expansion and funding and the pros and cons for state governors across the country. we will be right back. >> ♪

[video clip] >> one of the things that and early american wife was taught to do, she supported her husband's career usually through entertaining. solly was -- dolly was socially adept and politically savvy, so she could structure entertainment in such a way that she could lobby for her husband under the guise of entertaining. she also thought it was very important to create a setting in the white house almost like a stage for the performance of her husband and the conduct of politics and diplomacy. >> for slaby dolly madison. we follow our journey from a young quaker would go into the woman history remembers, the wife of the third u.s. president, james madison. -- first lady dolly madison.

we will take your phone calls and tweets. >> the u.s. patent and trademark office is one of the few federal agencies that actually is designated to exist in the constitution. patents and trademarks are a fairly modern invention. the first patents were royal grants given to inventors for monopolies on their inventions. they were popular in england and continental europe. but the constitution takes it one step further. this is for useful inventions. and from the beginning, novelty was a key aspect of the patent office's role. >> you will notice every one of the models has a little tag with it. each tag is tied on by red ribbon. this little piece of red ribbon

is one of the's originations of the phrase "red tape. and government red tape" it's hard to tell if this was originally red ribbon on each of these. it was not until the tag was tied on and the patent was approved that you would cut through all the red tape. originally, patent models were required to show the operation of an item. so each one of these models works in the way that a full- scale version would work. >> this weekend on american history tv, the national inventors hall of fame museum, sunday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> washington journal continues. host: 4 look at some of the latest developments in the world of u.s. foreign policy, we are joined by the managing editor of foreign policy magazine, blake

hounshell. we start in northeast asia where north korea this week has threatened to undertake a pre- emptive nuclear strike on the united states and south korea. what prompted that and how seriously does the u.s. needs to take tit? guest: i have a one year-old kid about to have his first birthday. i look at this as north korea dropping its food of the trade. when my kid is done with dinner and it's something he does not like, he drops it off the trade. they don't like the u.n. sanctions and they are saying that we will throw our food. yesterday they said that they were going to launch a pre- emptive strike against the united states and its interests. as far as we know, north korea

does not have the capability to do that. they cannot put miniaturized nuclear weapons on missiles. they are calling for attention. they want the united states to come to the table and offer some concessions and they want to embarrass the new south korean government that just took power. host: you talk about the u.n. sanctions that have been levied against north korea. i want to play a little of the u.s. ambassador to the un susan rice announcing the sanctions and explaining a little about what they are. [video clip] >> first, resolution 20-94 imposes tough new financial sanctions. when north korea tries to move money to pay for its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, countries must now block those transfers, even if the money is being carried in suitcases full of " cash -- bulk csh. north korean banks will find it

much harder to launder money for their nuclear program. today's resolution also imposes new travel restrictions. if, for example, a north korean agent is caught making arms deals or selling nuclear technology, countries will be required to expel that agent. countries must also now prevent the travel of people working for designated companies involved in the nuclear and missile programs. host: blake hounshell. we hear a lot about sanctions over the years with north korea. what is different about these and will they work? guest: a north korea watcher with the peterson institute here in washington said yesterday that he does not spring these sanctions are going to have much of an effect at all 1 north korea's behavior. it is already one of the most sanctioned countries in the

world is not the most sanctioned. i am surprised that some of the loopholes were not closed already. north korea is extremely isolated. it has been able -- it is an incredible story that it has been able to get this far, given how closely the country is watched. i don't expect to see much of an effect on north korea's behavior or its nuclear program. a lot of north korea watchers are saying this whole strategy of ignoring north korea and then adding new sanctions every time it issues a provocation dust is not working. the obama administration needs to come up with a new diplomatic strategy, whether it's working more closely with china or whether it's coming to the table and talking to north korea and telling the north korean directly what we think of them and what we are prepared to do. host: we are taking your calls this morning on a variety of foreign policy issues we will get into in this segment, from

north korea to venezuela to the capture of the son-in-law of osama bin laden. give us a call. staying on north korea for a second, some optimism out there in reports that china might be coming around to help with this round of sanctions. here's the story from usa today -- guest: that was very interesting. chris hill, used to be the u.s. envoy to the six party nuclear talks, i believe the city should not pay attention to the words of the resolution but rather the music's. the music is that china is finally coming on board with a strategy of pressure. that is new.

china's bottom line is china does not want to see unrest on the korean peninsula. they have worries about the border with north korea, about contraband activities going on, about refugees streaming across the border. they don't want the north korean state to collapse, because they are worried about the april- american -- a pro-american unified and north korea. so they will do what they have to do to stay in the good graces of the international community and to pressure north korea. the bottom line is they will not let that country collapsed. host: the relationship between china and north korea's kim john thune, he's been in there for about a year now? guest: yes, after his father died. historically, the relationship with china and north korea is like tea.

the chinese have been trying to get the north koreans to behave for years. they brought kim jong un on numerous trips to china and they show him factories and they tell him this is how you need to reform your economy. the north koreans have not listened. they constantly issue provocations. it's not good for business. and the business of china right now is business. host: taking your calls on foreign-policy issues. up first, grand junction, colorado, on the democratic line is cat. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am a fan of obama. nobody does anything exactly right. when you are fighting your own country as well as having to fight foreign wars, it gets to be pretty hard.

i think he has handled it in a very courageous and very gentlemanly way. i have never seen a speech being given when he was on his way getting in office where they showed a picture of a man with a sign strapped around his waist [indiscernible] i don't think we would of seen that before any other president. host: how about north korea being a tree pena nation to deal with, on an international level? caller: i think obama is doing the best he can, considering he is being forced into making decisions and he's got a lot of people telling him what to do and he has a tremendous bag of rocks on his back. he's doing the best he can do

under the circumstances. host: blake hounshell, how is the president being rated on the international level specifically to north korea? guest: when it comes to north korea, the results of this administration's policies, would call strategic patientce, just are not good. north korea just lost another nuclear test, the program seems to be improving. they threatened to conduct missile tests, which would be another provocative action. north korea is definitely the land of no good options. i am not saying there are easy choices here. if you look at the results of what the policy of basically ignoring north korea for the last four years has caused, it's not impressive. i think it's time for some more creative, innovative approaches. we have on our website in article of a former north korea

negotiators to assess why not a point dennis rodman the special envoy to north korea and maybe he can break through to these guys and get something accomplished? host: paul is on our independent line from enterprise, alabama. caller: good morning, gentlemen. everybody knows that north korea is in no position to be throwing its weight around in this manner. it is the biggest negative motivator in the world. everybody also knows that they are a proxy of china. thank goodness that china agreed to the sanctions. more important to me, as governments spar, the citizenry suffers. i would like to know, do you

have any specific means that we can actually reach citizenry of north korea. everybody has sent propaganda there and here, and build animosity that does not need to exist. thank you. guest: that the great question. as closed as a side as north korea is, over the last decade or so, it has opened up a little. the most recent thing that happened is foreigners are now allowed to have 3-d cell phone coverage. hundreds of thousands of north koreans have cell phone. they are limited and i'm sure they're being monitored very closely. but there are a lot of north korean is specially that live along the border area with china that can pickup reception and 3- d signals from china. there's a lot of smuggling,

cross border trade that goes on. contraband dvd's from south korea, that sort of thing. if there are tons of north korean refugees who live in northeast china who go back and forth smuggling. that is to start hitting newly into the west to start getting into north korea -- to start getting into north korea so that the united states can get into that close country. host: a question on twitter. the american media is under the illusion that north korea is a dictatorship. it is run by a cadre of seniors, not a boy. guest: we do not know too many great level of detail how they use in north korean are done. we are reading tea leaves.

from what we do know, kim jong , hisuncle and his aunt aunt been kim jong il's sister, are still very powerful. what has happened over the last year or so since he came to power is, he has tried to become not just take figurehead, but also someone who is powerful in his own right. some analysts will say that these kinds of provocative actions like the nuclear tests and threatening united states and south korea are designed to consolidate kim jong un's control over the military. that is called the right analysis. jamaica, new york on the democratic line. caller: i have been following

the north korea issue for years. my father was in the korean war. a war with that country would be catastrophic. are we prepared to deal with the worst case scenario? you are saying we should try other ways to deal with north korea. we have imposed all of the sanctions we can possibly imagine. are we prepared to take that final step? if not, should we go for a meeting with this country to try to resolve the matter and stop pretending as though we are ready to take the final step? guest: that is a great question. the white house said yesterday that the united states was still capable of dealing with a thing of the north koreans still at

us. i heard one person make the joke that probably there is one u.s. submarine of the coast of north korea that could wipe out the capital with one missile. i do not think we are worried. if we can down to that, we would be able to handle it. it would not be something that anybody would want our welcome. the united states is prepared for this. they have had decades to watch north korean and prepare for anything they throw at us. the thing people worry about with north korea are the thousands of artillery pointed at the south korean capital of seoul. north korea.

-- periodically threatens to turn south korean into a sea of fire. they are kimball of that. let's try diplomacy. -- they are capable of that. if not solve this problem, let's put it back into a manageable box. host: the capture of osama bin laden's son-in-law. here he is, a spokesman from al qaeda with his father law on the picture of the wall street journal. how big of a blow is this to al qaeda? is a more symbolic than anything else? guest: i have heard this addai before suggests that it is probably not a huge blow -- this guy suggest that it is probably not a huge blow. some say he should not be tried in the united states.

that is also -- already proven to be controversial. some folks on capitol hill say, let's send them to guantanamo. the real debate is going to be over what the united states does with this guy. he is more of a propagandist. he is not planning attacks. he probably does not have that much to tell us about plots that are in the works or other operas that are out there. the interesting thing about him is that he spent time in iran and there are senior al qaeda leaders who have been living in iran for years and terrorism watchers have been watching them filter out into other arab countries over the last few months. that is one reason why this guy was picked up. iran tipped him out and he ended up in turkey. ucla picked him up in jordan.

host: -- the cia pick him up in jordan. the u.s. is in close ties with the jordan intelligence conference. they are the most competent in the arab world. they helped us pick him up. host: colonial heights, virginia on the independent line. caller: i wanted to talk about foreign policy for a minute. senator paul in kentucky did a great thing standing up for all americans' civil liberties. this should call much attention to senator paul and his father, dr. ron paul. his -- the foreign policy needs to be reexamined and not cut

down by the media in general. they had valley -- have valid points about the problems we are facing. the reason why we are in these countries, these wars will never end. he welfare will never end and the destruction of the family unit will never end. we need to get serious about this. only when our real liberty in this country is challenge will we then stop being so divided and come together as one. host: he brings of senator rand paul, the filibuster he was part of on the senate floor. it was about be drawn use. what were the implications for drone use on foreign soil? guest: that was an interesting moment. it seems the politics of

terrorism have really changed the united states. we saw rand paul is support not only from the republican caucus and the leadership of the republican party, but also from people on the left like ron wyden, a democratic senator who is an advocate of civil liberties. the specific points and rand paul was raising were probably questionable. i do not think anybody really thought united states will -- would launch drones strikes against you sitting in a cafe. that is a little bit of paranoia. john mccain athletes spoke to that. the real question about the -- john mccain aptly spoke to that. we can go after these guys in yemen, somalia, the border of pakistan. jonas have cost civilian

casualties -- drones have caused civilian casualties. we are dealing with governments that have not been transparent with their own people about what they are doing. we have a military that is privately telling the u.s., go ahead and drone these guys. publicly in the press they are saying, we do not know anything about this. it is terrible that this is happening. that undermines the policy and gets everyone upset. host: with the son-in-law of osama bin laden in jail, do we have any of the hundreds of service we have in u.s. prisons escaped or released? guest: prisons have been released from guantanamo bay. there is the release process

that happens. the government makes a determination on whether they think these guys are safe to release and what did they negotiate with their own countries to incarcerate them they are. the scary thing that has happened putting really with yemen and saudi arabia is you have these former once among detainees that have been sent back to those countries. there was a famous prison break were a bunch of guys tunneled out and it seems like there was some kind of complicity on the part of the government. a lot of these guantanamo guys went into a "rehabilitation program." their minds have been changed and they renounce terrorism supposedly. some went on to the leaders of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, the most dangerous of these al qaeda franchises.

host: we are talking with blake hounsell, foreign policy magazine's managing editor. before that, he studied -- he was with the center for development studies in cairo. what did you study their? -- there? guest: i worked on civil liberties issues. it was great when i went back for the revolution in 2011. host: we have a caller on the democratic line from new jersey. caller: i appreciate what you did as far as going to iran. i am a domestic violence person. president obama is doing what he

can after bush screwed up. can you understand that? host: any views on foreign policy issues? caller: absolutely. he would not be elected to another term if people did not feel he was doing the right thing. host: are you particularly concerned about human rights issues? caller: of course i am. i have lost friends in them. i not know what to say, yes. i do feel he is doing the right thing. he is only doing it because he has got to take over the leftovers from president bush. host: blake hounsell, top kill a

little bit about president thought -- george w. bush. does he still linger over foreign policy? guest: the consensus in washington is overwhelmingly that the iraq war was a huge mistake. a cost well over $1 trillion and a lot more in terms of lives and injuries. people lost limbs and their livelihoods have been destroyed. it was a costly intervention. the white house will tell you they have spent the last four years digging out of the fuld the bush administration left for them. now you have a -- digging out of the whole -- hole the bush and administration left for them. one country as aligning

themselves unconscionably closely with iran, an adversary -- uncomfortably closely with the -- with iran, an adversary of the united states. host: talk about u.s. relations with the venezuela in the wake of the death of hugo chávez. guest: was the anti-imperialists venezuelan policy all about hugo chávez or was it about the things he said on the world stage? his successor seems to be simpatico and in the same ideology that chavez had. there will be an election in the last few days. the opposition might pull out a victory. he big question is, is venezuela going to impose the initiatives?

will they still aligned themselves with regimes like syria, iran, rogue states around the world. when will they try to reach a normal relationship with the united states? the united states import billions of barrels of oil from venezuela, even to allow the hugo chávez tenure. they are hypocritical. host: let's go to peter from frederick, maryland. caller: thanks for c-span. i see a venezuelan and north korea that have real problems. the statement they represent is the failure of communism in the product possible sense.

-- broadest possible sense. chavez used the military to build himself a personal fortune of $2 billion. north korea has painted itself into a corner. its communist economy allows solely on the military to get anything done. it is a failure of communism. thanks again for c-span. guest: it is really interesting. there is this debate about what chavez did for the poor in venezuela. people on the left say he did a lot of great things. people on the right say he destroyed venezuela's economy and institutions. eventually, everyone will pay the price for what he did. if oil prices were not at $90 a barrel, venezuela would be in a

big heap of trouble and you would see the system come crashing down. the kinds of things chavez did like export western businesses and try to put price controls in place at the grocery stores -- those are the kinds of things that never seemed to work and always come back to bite countryside venezuela. it is the poor countries that will eventually suffer. host: you bring up hugo chávez. medura has accused members of the united states of poisoning in chavez. talk about this accusation. guest: we talked to former cia members about those allegations. obviously, it is ridiculous. host: what did he actually died of? guest: he died of cancer.

we were told that if you want to assassinate a world leader, you will not try to give him cancer. there are easier and faster ways to do it. not that the united states does that sort of thing. cancer is an uncertain tool. host: here is an article from the guardian from yesterday. madura disguises pragmatism of a deal maker. the question is whether he sets the tone for the next administration or if it is the opening salvo of an election campaign after a long-term leader dominated the nation's politics. that is some optimism that once he gets past the election he might be more of a deal maker or someone the united states can work with more. guest: i do not really buy that

analysis. this guy just came out and accused the united states of killing hugo chávez and kicking out two u.s. diplomats. he does not seem to be pragmatic to me. maybe it's just ramping up anti-american -- maybe he is just ramping up anti-american sentiment. host: stark bill, -- a caller from mississippi on the independent line. caller: the united states does some of the largest war games with south korean on the border of north korea. the resolution in the united nations are not sanctions. they are suggestions. there are no enforcement mechanisms in those so-called sanctions. as far as this divan -- guys

they captured -- guest: talk about the war games she brings up. i appreciate the caller bringing up the north korean view. the united states does war games with the south koreans. these are things the military does to be ready in case of a conflict. it is not meant to start a conflict. it is meant to prevent one by showing north korea that we are prepared. there are a lot of logistical things the united states needs to work out with the south korean military. i am doleful this kind of show of force will convince the -- i am fuld follow this kind of show of force will commence the north -- i am hopeful that this kind of show of force will convince the north koreans that this is not the way to go.

host: on march 11, the united states-south korean military drills will move into full-scale phases to declare he truce in ballot. guest: the north koreans have threatened to cancel the armistice multiple times since the end of the korean war in 1953. this is not the first time they have threatened to do this. it is not a good thing that they are doing this. i would not take it 100% seriously. host: from four lotto dear florida -- from florida on the new democratic line. calm -- caller: in -- the 19 people with

the box cut as proof you do not have to start a whole military war with united states to bring them to their knees. they had 19 individuals with box cutters that got us into two wars and been granted the country over 10 years. it used to be the great white man with the military would dictate what people a going to do. they are trying to find other ways to get individuals to come in and create havoc. it does not take a major war to bring the united states to its knees. it comes down to 19 men with box cutters. guest: that is an excellent point about the reaction to

9/11. i think we agree on more than you realize. we need to be tough with the north korean. we also need to come to the table and try to negotiate with them and try to persuade them to talk to read the course they are on is the wrong course. the administration has been leery of dealing with the north koreans. there was a deal that happened last year that fell apart quickly. that has made them skittish about talking to the north koreans once again. what are the other options? the cycle of provocation and priming never seems to attend. it is time for something different. host: on twitter, we are approaching a point with the united states will have to distinguish its position --

china will have to distinguish its position on north korea. guest: china will never be 100% clear or transparent about what their policies are. they like to do things behind doors rather than zero bleak statements. -- rather than weak statements. the chattering class has had it with the north koreans and think it is an embarrassment. maybe there are people in the leadership in north korea who think it is an embarrassment that can be useful from time to time. host: from pennsylvania on the republican line, good morning. caller: i would like to ask what kind of deal was made under the table to change china's mike? this is a country that never liked us -- change china's mind. ?

i noticed more and more -- i saved these labels from different places. it seems like china has increase. what happened to china that they all of the sudden change their mind? these are people who never liked us. we could never talked to them and now all of the sudden they like us. if we may deal with them and all of the sudden the american people are going to say no more china trades and then we say okay, we cannot trade anymore with you. then what is going to happen? test is going to turn on us again. i cannot believe china is as good as they are claiming they are now. guest: i do not think we should be naive about china's motivations. they are rational in their foreign policy. they make decisions based on

their interests and not on their ideology. they are doing this shift on north korean for their own reasons. they think north korean is becoming a problem and they told the north koreans do not testing nuclear weapon and they went ahead and did it. the chinese have to follow through with the consequences of north korean's actions. that is what is happening. i do not think china has developed a great love for u.s. foreign-policy. they are doing it for their own reasons. host: new secretary of state john kerry back up linkedin nation to of this week. the headline from the herald -- wrapped up a 10 nation tour this week. why is this to our been

described -- tour been described as bumpy? would you agree with that? guest: i do nothing that is fair. he made news in germany when he said americans have the right to be stupid. i thinkkerry was -- think kerry was spot on. there was an incident early in the trip where we were not sure the syrian opposition would come to the meeting. they did make it half -- make it and we were able to have a meeting of the mines. -- meeting of the minds. meeting with ordinary people in these countries. he has he been called to

wnterviews which are a combination of townhomes and interviews. there is a difference in style. i would not describe the trip as bumpy. host: what are the expectations ahead of this trip by president obama to israel. this is his first official visit to israel. guest: yes. he went as a senator. there has been shattered four years that he has not gone to israel because he hates is real and that sort of thing. he is primarily going to show the israeli people and the voters here in the united states that he does not have any sort of problem with israel. he wants to reset relations with prime minister benjamin netanyahu. here is not going to be any sort of major high-profile push to make middle east peace between the israelis and the

palestinians. this is a public-relations diplomacy kind of trip, not our diplomacy of trying to make some sort of deal. host: michael from kentucky is next on the independent lines. good morning. host: -- caller: good morning. japan is in the area of north korean. they are our allies in this -- at this point in time. is there anyway they could get godzilla to go in there and crush north korean? host: we will go to jim from maryland on the democratic line. caller: secretary of state john kerry made an appointment to the director of policy planning.

what do you think about that appointment's? -- what do you think about the appointment? how does that reflect our foreign policy style? guest: i do not know much about him personally. he has historical ties to kerry. the policy planning director job is an interesting one. a few months ago, the foreign policy department convened a meeting and we had a discussion about the job from administration to administration. person said to us, the only thing that matters to be an effective policy planning director is, do whatever the secretary of state says. that is probably what you can expect from this guy.

his predecessor was a smart, young guy who has gone to work for vice president biden's office. he was the rear -- he was the rare policy planning director who went everywhere with clinton. he was a powerful figure despite being young. the new guy has a lot of big shoes to fill. i am sure he will do it in his own unique way. host: one more call from louisiana on the republican line. you are on with blake hounsell from foreign policy magazine. caller: good morning. let me take this tv off. this is a comment. i think you have a blind eye to what is going on in the united states.

obama is weakening our nation. he has taken god out, guns out. he is trying to take our rights out, first, second amendment. you seem to be more worried about what is happening abroad. i know that is your field. if he weakens our nation, we will not be in good shape. host: if you want to talk about the impact on u.s. domestic policy. guest: there are obviously a lot of strong you points above the administration's stance on gun control -- hugh points on the administration's stance on gun control -- viewpoints on gun control and many are not happy about how the administration has handled civil liberties issues.

as a father, after tragedies like newtown, we have to get this problem under control. ising away people's guns putting in constitutional rules that can prevent teacher -- future tragedies. host: blake hounsell is the managing editor of foreign policy magazine. thanks for joining us this morning. the jobs numbers were just released. the united states added to under 36,000 jobs in february. that puts the unemployment rate at 7.7%. up next, we will discuss medicaid expansion and funding. later, our america by the numbers series and your daily commute to work.

>> navy seal, the alamo, our environment. panels and discussions from this year's tucson festival of books starting saturday at 2:00 eastern. at 430, -- 4:30 p.m., what animals can teach us about health and healing. and then a panel on social security. part of book tv live this weekend on c-span x.

-- cspan 2. >> i believe the united states has many fantastic qualities. many people have the possibility of pulling themselves up by the bootstraps. every year, that is less and less and less probable. but the united states, especially in its foreign policy, is not the great nation. it is an interventionist state. it is extremely aggressive militarily. we mess with other people's politics in ways i cannot imagine americans tolerating. imagine if some country invaded us and bring their system of government the way we did in iraq. can you imagine sitting here and thinking that is ok? somehow, in this country we have a myth that people are thrilled when we invade them. that is in same period 99% of

the time, we create new enemies. >> she has made a career as an advocate for world peace. more with nobel prize winner jo dy williams on c-span's "q & a." . >> washington journal continues. host: states are deciding whether or not to expand medicaid coverage. a paper has been released cautioning states about that expansion. charles blahous is here. start by explaining with this expansion of medicaid came from. guest: this dates back to the passage of health care reform in 2010. as a lot of your listeners know, one of the provisions was to

spend health care coverage throughout the country. lawmakers chose medicaid as the primary vehicle to expand coverage to previously uninsured poor people below the poverty line. in that original legislation, it was said that the states had to do it. later the supreme court came along and said, federal government cannot compel states. host: the one part of the law that was struck down. guest: that is right. states are in a position where they can exercise the option to expand medication or not -- medicaid or not. the government cannot make them do it by taking away their medicaid funding.

some are expanding health benefits in their own states financed by other people. that is a huge, positive lore for states, the possibility to get -- lure for states, the possibility of getting coverage for uninsured citizens. the federal government is promising to pick up more because than states with, the states would pick up some of the costs down the line. this would come at a time when states are wrestling with budget shortfalls. you have this positive incentive to increase health coverage in their own states. but the negative incentive that is going to cause in their budgets. host: the states are already making their decisions on this expansion. this is a map from the advisory

board of states that have decided not to participate in medicaid expansion and those who said they were. 24 states have said they earned participating. four states are leaning toward participating. three are leaning toward not participating in five are in the undecided column. when you think some of the states are going to fall that are undecided on this? guest: it has been a gratifying thing to watch. this paper was in the words for some time. for me, it was gratified because -- this paper was in the works for some time. you have ardent supporters of the health-care reform law saying this is a no-brainer. all states should expand medicaid. then you have the concerns on

the other side for opponents of the health care reform law looking at it from the standpoint of state budget exposure. for them, it seems like a no- brainer that they should not do it. you have to consider both factors. because they have to consider both factors, is a close call for a lot of states for a lot of reasons. we should be expecting a great diversity of decisions by states. we are seeing states making different decisions because they have different budget circumstances, different democrat 6 and they are making -- demographics. host: we are talking with charles blahous. give us an wing on the democratic line, 202-737-0002, republicans 202-737-0001 and independents 202-628-0205,

. how much money will the federal government put into this program to help the expansion over the next 10 years or so and how much of the tab will the government pick up? guest: states are wrestling with huge cost increases in medicaid. one important -- important number is 24%. that is the percentage of most state budgets going to medicaid. there will be an increase of one to 50% from 2010 to 2020. the problem states face, even though the federal government is promising to pick up the majority of the cost is that states will pick up some additional costs and they will have to do it when they are already wrestling with huge cost increases.

parts of the reason for this is costs were held artificially low by the stimulus law. states are having to budget for picking up higher medicaid costs in general, a higher percentage of medicaid costs. what the federal government has promised to do is pick up 100% of the cost of the expansion population of the first three years. that would taper down to 90% in the out years. it is important to understand that does not mean the states will only face 10% of the costs associated with expansion. they would face a higher amount. the reason for that is the phenomenon of the woodwork effect. the outreach process in which people who are already eligible for medicaid can sign up for medicaid coverage. these people would not be

covered under the new, general federal assistance rates that were passed in 2010. they would be covered at the old rates. the states would have to pick up over 40% of the cost of covering these people. states are looking at covering 20% of the cost of expansion overall. this would be substantial additional pressure for state budgets. host: become a commission on medicare tried to put some numbers on these costs in terms -- the commission on medicare tried to put some numbers on these costs. it would be $76 billion. federal medicaid spending would increase to about $952 billion. do you agree with those numbers? guest: those are the numbers i have in my paper. it is not surprising. that lays it out quite well. the federal government will have enormous additional costs

because of expansion. state costs will be much less, but there will be additional costs facing the states. host: an additional increase in folks using medicaid is about 21.3 million people. a 41% increase compared to projected levels without the affordable care act. that is according to the kaiser commission on medicaid and uninsured numbers. i want to get some questions on this from the viewers. steven is on the democratic line. good morning. caller: i am calling to say it is a great time to expand medicaid with the dow been above 14,000 and with a lot of our enemies being either dead or in jail. now is the time to expand our borders. social security needs to be expanded. people have been suffering enough on these programs. it is time to strike while the

iron is hot. do you know what i am saying? guest: the caller has articulated one compelling side of this argument. the potential to expand health benefits within individual states is a houston lawyer for the states, especially when you consider the fact that the federal government is promising to pick up a majority of the costs. on the other side of it, you have the fact that the state budgets are already under considerable pressure and they would have to face costs on this pressure. the federal government is going to have to scale back its scheduled medicaid costs over the next decade and beyond. if you follow the budget discussions, you know that federal spending is rising at an unsustainable rates. it is rising faster than the underlying economy can support. most of that long-term growth is

due to increases in the various entitlement programs. half of it is a terrible to projected cost increases in medicaid and health exchanges under the health reform law. host: this is something the nonpartisan budget office has weighed in on? guest: yes, they tracked projected spending as a share of the economy over the long term. if you read the analysis, you will find that the entirety of that cost growth of the federal government relative to the size of the supporting economy is a charitable to medicare and medicaid, the new health entitlement under the 2010 reform law, and social security. for that reason, every time there has been a serious, bipartisan budget discussion in washington, people on both sides realize the federal government

will have to scale back its projected medicaid costs. we do not know if it will be shifted to states. host: you are arguing that states should not rely on the money being there? guest: i did not consider myself making an argument. i thought this was a obvious point. i do not think it would be controversial at all. there has never been an issue in the budget where people both -- on both sides of the aisle did not say we need to cut the budget. states would clearly not been doing their due diligence if they did not recognize that there will be additional cutbacks from the federal financing commitment. they would factor that into their calculations. host: john from misery on the republican line. good morning. go ahead.

caller: i do not understand there are so many people from 30-40 on medicaid. they are such a drain on our society. i am retired. i worked 14 years. i earn social security and medicare. but they have so many young people in this area, about 40,000 people in this economy -- this county and there are so many of them on medicaid. why earned those -- why don't those people work? they come up with these diseases and aches and pains and they put them on medicaid and food stamps and welfare. you see them in stores and they use their food stamps to buy cigarettes. with their food stamp card, they can get $20 that.

cigarettes and alcohol and stuff like that. host: john from missouri, one of the states that has decided it is participating in the medicaid expansion. i will give you a chance to respond. guest: historically, who is on medicaid has been a function of stand as put in place by the federal government. there are populations that all states have to cover to participate in medicaid. they include people like pregnant women, children of certain ages and certain levels of economic need. there has also been a set of optional coverage populations. states in practice our covering different proportions of their population because there are the best there is a certain amount of optionality.

states say, can we get a waiver to cover this population? you see, historically, the great differences in the number of people each state decides to put under medicaid. one of the things i take from that is that this demonstrates that the subjective value judgment of the benefits of health coverage versus additional costs is a value judgment made differently around the country. different states weight these considerations in different ways. that is why we should expect different responses to the 2010 health reform law. host: explain what a public trustee in tales? -- entails. guest: this particular paper was not written in my capacity as a trustee. we are responsible for overseeing the financial

projections of the health of the social security and medicare fund. since 1983, there have been two public trustees from every -- from each party who buses with the integrity and object in of the projections. i was nominated by president obama and confirmed by the senate, as was my counterpart. host: talk about your day job at george mason university. guest: i take on an independent research projects. last year, i did a study of the fiscal consequences of the affordable care act. i put out a number of papers on social security financing. i am of the vuiew -- view the

social security is in more trouble than most people realize. i ride on the financial condition of the federal government and entitlement programs -- rights and financial conditions of the federal government and entitled when programs. -- entitlement programs. they share space with george mason in the george mason building and there is an affiliation with the university. the center is an independent entity. host: from baltimore, maryland on the intended line. good morning. caller: the question from the senior citizen is ssi. can you comment on diets -- on that to help him understand the requirements so they can achieve -- received ssi. my question is on medicaid

expansion. i am injured and possibly disabled from and on the job incident. one final question to you please if you can handle it. what is the payroll contribution limit? i think it is $160,000. if you know that, please share that. and also for that senior citizen, there are people who need support. i would thank you to explain ssi to him. host: the caller, walter from maryland, one of the states that is participating in the medicaid expansion. guest: some programs i am more or less an expert on them than others. ssi eligibility is established by the federal criteria. it is a need space program.

it is administered by the social security a administration, but is not part of social security itself. it is a different federal programs that the social security administration happens to that minister. disability is part of the -- that the social security administration' happens to administer. if there isn't action soon to reform the disability program, it will be insolvent by 2016. it is a pressing issue that the federal government will have to deal with. the payroll tax cap. the historical basis for social security finance has been a payroll tax that has been applied up to a cap. the reason this path exists is because the design of social security was to provide -- provide income protection in

retirement. since your benefits are proportional to your tax contribution, higher income people did not need the additional benefits. there was no need to take more money from them and paid them additional benefits. the current cap is about 113,000. it is a cap that is adjusted each year. it goes up automatically each year according to the national average wage index. the caller mentioned it was around 106,000. it is now at 113,000. you expected to rise a little each year. host: next is oklahoma on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am on social security disability. i am 68 years old. i cannot find a doctor, dr. all i can find is b.o.'s.

all they want to do is give me a pill and i do not take pills. it is a hardship on me because i am raising a great granddaughter. when you have a pain in your body cannot get rid of and all the doctor wants to do is put a pill down your throats, something is wrong. i do not know what to do about it. guest: that is a set of questions that high -- that i and many people wish we had the answer to. every patient has a different patients -- preference in the degree to which they want to receive pharmaceuticals. that is a whole set of issues between physicians and their patience. there is a broader issue of general access to medical care. this is of great concern, particularly for beneficiaries of federal programs. we know that those on medicaid sometimes struggled to find

adequate access to health coverage simply because reimbursement rates for providers are low enough that it risch 6 the number of physicians willing to serve the medicare the would-three strikes -- restricts the number of physicians serving the medicare population. the effect of these restraints and whether they will cause a reduction in the number of physicians willing to serve medicaid patients, i do not pretend to be expert enough to know the answer to that question. it is certainly something that people argue about on both sides, what if there is going to be a worsening problem with access to medicare. host: as we talk about this potential expansion of medicaid and the decision they are making, there are some groups are doing for states to accept the expansion. the families usa group is one of

them. they put out a paper talking about financial costs and benefits and talking about some of the benefits them would come from expansion from -- four states. many states provide care for the uninsured and these programs cost money. if the state chooses to expand medicaid, most of the individuals will have coverage and this could generate a variety of savings. the have an opinion? guest: i have heard that argument and i have read it in a number of places. i do not think the data generally supports that. they do not support the idea that states are going to save money by covering these individuals whom are on medicaid will it into those who are uninsured. the cost of care for the uninsured is to shift its among a large number of entities. states are one, the federal government is one.

the vast majority of current costs of caring for the uninsured is financed already by entities other than the states. secondly, you have to recognize that it tends to be a difference in the amount of health services purchased by people within the are uninsured or insured. there are projections as to how much individual health service consumption will increase if they go from being uninsured to being issued. many people believe it will increase by a fair amount. in order for states to come out ahead financially, you have to have a long-term federal assistance rate of 92%. under the 2010 law, the federal support will not be anything close to that. you have the federal government closing -- promising a 90% support rates down the line. they will cover 90% of the costs they will cover 90% of the costs of those who