as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now, you can watch us in hd. >> congressman jeb hensarling, republican of texas. part of the republican leadership team in the house of representatives. thank you for being with us. >> good morning. >> let me introduce our reporters. from "usa today" and washington bureau chief for "the washington journal." we are all interested as the debt ceiling date moves closer, what you see as the endgame for what is going on with the standoff on the budget in washington. how do you see this all coming together and ending? >> regrettably, my crystal ball is a little fuzzy. house republicans have now put one offer on the table, a second offer, a third offer, a fourth offer.

we are not through negotiating, but we are through negotiating with ourselves. regrettably, the president called congressional leaders over yesterday to tell them in person what he already told them in public, that was we refuse to negotiate. ultimately, i do not believe that is what the american people believe in in divided government. house republicans won a few simple things. we expect to negotiate under our constitution. it is congress that has the power of the purse, not the power of the rubber stamp. house republicans will negotiate in good faith. we are not going to rubber stamp necessarily what the president and senator harry reid want to do. second of all, obviously obama care is a huge, divisive factor within our nation. regrettably, for house republicans it is not going away as long as president obama is president. but we said, if obamacare is going to be imposed upon the nation it ought to be imposed equally. equal protection under the law. no special deals for big business, big labor unions. no special deals for washington

elites while working americans are having to suffer through this program. alternately, this is about tens of millions of our fellow countrymen, underemployed and unemployed in this week, tepid recovery. and trillions and trillions of debt. we are on the road to bankruptcy. people in washington say, don't rock the boat, put this off until tomorrow. we cannot put this off until tomorrow. the opportunity on the continuing resolution and the debt ceiling is to deal with improving our economy to put us on the road to fiscal solvency today. today is the time to seize the moment. >> congressman, as you pointed out, you had four bills. they rejected everyone. what is it you realistically hope to a combo should now? give us a specific proposal you think might actually work --

>> we're not sure anything is going to work if the president and harry reid refused to negotiate. in the press today, the administration said they really do not care how long the government shutdown last because "we are winning." they take a political view that this is about politics if it is not about the republic, about citizens who are suffering, i'm not sure they go to the negotiating table. if obamacare is going to be imposed upon the rest of the country, employers, big businesses should not get a one- year reprieve if their employees do not. if obamacare is good enough for working americans, it ought to be good enough for the president and the vice president, the cap, the white house, and members of congress. there should not be any special carveout. otherwise, in our budget we have a number of items. the so-called supercommittee. there are lots of ideas on the table we are willing to negotiate in order to promote economic growth, get our country back to work. and again, to do something about this explosion of debt. more debt in four years under president obama than our nation's first 200. as one economist famously said, something that is unsustainable will one day cease. we have to deal with it today. in our house republicans budget

written by congressman paul ryan we have hundreds of ideas that we are willing to negotiate in good faith but cannot negotiate a loan. >> you say you are willing to negotiate in good faith. the house passed a budget, the senate also passed a budget. why want the house negotiate that budget? >> we have conferees that are appointed, happy to talk about the budget, the cr, the debt ceiling. nobody is showing up. i find it somewhat ironic that a body that did not even bother to follow the law and ignore passing a budget for four years now all of a sudden is lecturing the house about budget matters. i find that somewhat ironic. >> congressman, i take it from what you said that the goal is no longer to defund obamacare

and no longer to delay the individual mandate. >> if i could interrupt, this is always the goal. democrats have been working on their version of a government controlled health care system, i would argue, since harry truman. certainly at least since hillary care. it is unrealistic to think that after three years the republicans are going to throw in the towel. but the law is the law. probably 95% of obamacare is what is known as automatic spending or mandatory spending. so regrettably under the law -- no, we are not going to quit fighting for this, but at this point if the president turns down these other offers, all we're saying is at least apply the law equally.

the president has already done 1100 special-interest carveouts. that should not be happening. there is a carveout for big business and labor unions. that should not be happening. there is a carveout for washington elites. why isn't the president the first to sign up for obamacare? he is not subject to it. >> i understand your frustration the senate will not accept the versions of the continuing resolutions the house passed. at least they voted on those. i am wondering why the house will not vote on a clean extension of the continuing resolution the senate has passed. >> they have voted on it.

they have table a number of these measures. it is important to note that it is house republicans who passed legislation to open our national parks. the president says no, i will veto that. house republicans have passed legislation to make sure our veterans get their benefits and the white house has threatened to veto. we have legislation to ensure the national institutes of health that is critical work for patients with cancer, including children, and now we know senator harry reid on cnn when asked why he would not open up the nih, even if you could help one child struggling with cancer, the answer is, why would i want to do that? it seems to me this is a rather cynical ploy. the white house is quoted in the papers saying they do not care how long the shutdown lasts.

it is regrettable. so we have passed bills, bill after bill to keep the government open. we have disagreed. it is our fourth offer on two provisions of obamacare. if it is good enough for working americans, it ought to be good enough for the washington elites whom opposed the bill. there is a one-year reprieve for employers. there ought to be a one-year reprieve for employees. that is a position that would be overwhelmingly supported by the american people. i think you know we are now getting 25, 30, 35 democrats in the house to say enough is enough, let's get the government back open and they are supporting these provisions in the house. >> i want to challenge you a little bit on the statement that there is a carveout for washington elites. what you are really talking about is the employer contribution that the

federal government has always made to employees of congress and members of congress. you are saying now they should no longer get simply because obama is -- >> what i'm saying, right now members of congress would have been the only people in the individual pull that were receiving an employer contribution. >> the only people -- >> if you want to try to convince the american people that somehow washington elites are getting the same deal, you can carry on that case. it is not the way i see it. there is a broader issue here. it is not just members of congress. why isn't the white house involved? why isn't the president, the vice president, the cabinet, the white house personnel. why aren't they part of obamacare? one thing the american people are cynical about is washington

elites imposing laws on others that they do not impose on themselves. i just want to be treated equally under the law. we now understand opm, i am not sure, people will have to look into it, are now putting members of congress and their and their staff into the small business exchange. last time i looked, government and congress was not a small business. i do not know they have the legal authority to do this. it is a simple issue, what the level of their compensation ought to be. i think a clear reading of the law, it is hard to figure out how you could be having an employer contribution in the individual pull. i just do not think opm has the legal authority to do that. the law has so many different special-interest provisions and sweetheart deals. so let's make it clear in the law. i do not want to lose my employer subsidy, but i do want to follow the law.

>> 15 minutes left. >> congressman, you do not have to look far beyond the government shutdown to see the next problem, that the country is close to hitting the debt ceiling. given that deadline is approaching very quickly, do you think it is now likely that both issues, the government shutdown and debt ceiling increase the white house ekes, will be resolved together? >> i would say with time on the clock, i do not know exactly when the so-called date will take place. treasury has the opportunity to manage that.

the date is whatever secretary lew claims the date will be. frankly, there may be a likelihood there. again, house republicans have a bill, hr 807, the full faith and credit act, to make sure america never defaults on its bonds. no default on sovereign debt. and the white house issued a veto threat. why would they do that? i can only imagine yet again they want to use it for leverage for their vision of government, their vision of spending. that is not going to happen. whatever passes for fiscal responsibility in this town, which is not much, that is attached to the debt ceiling. it is a very important vote. be it the budget control act, again, whatever passes for fiscal responsibility in washington dc is attached to the debt ceiling. the president says, i refuse to negotiate. ok, fine. let's at least take to fall off the table. the other day i saw something i never thought i would see in my lifetime. a president of the united states appearing to spook markets. he is asked on national television. his response was, they do not take it as seriously as they should. i have never seen that before. >> the problem financial professionals inside the administration see with the full faith and credit act is it would amount to paying off chinese bondholders but not guaranteeing

other creditors of the government get paid. and it would make people in the bond market reluctant to buy

bonds if they are under a legal cloud as to the provision might be disputed in court. there is a practical problem was not raising the debt ceiling. do you not agree? >> i do not know what could be clearer under the law than taking sovereign debt, taking our u.s. bonds out of the debt ceiling calculation. i am unaware of any legal cloud. i am aware of a veto threat. i am a where of a president of the united states who clearly wants to try to hold our sovereign debt hostage. the bond rating agencies, as i understand, moody's and one other, they get it. they understand this is about sovereign debt. the american people do not equate bonds with funding the next irs star trek video, the travel expenses for the alabama watermelon queen, pottery classes in morocco. there is something very different between a bond obligation and a budget priority. we are on a road to bankruptcy. everybody says, let's do it another day. others in the administration just want to turn off the debt ceiling boat. my guess is greece did not have a debt ceiling boat. detroit did not have a debt ceiling boat. it is like turning off the smoke alarm when the fire breaks out. >> i want to press you on that a little more. you mentioned moody's. moody's said that even if we prioritize the debt,, november 1 when we have a payment due they will not be enough receipts in the federal treasury to pay both the bondholders and social security recipients, much less veterans health care and military salaries and all of the other things you have exempted from the shutdown. would this be even worse than the shutdown? >> the full faith and credit act, in accordance with the

constitution, explicitly exempts social security. it would not be a part of the calculation. at some point we have to deal with this debt crisis. there are those who always want to put it off to the next day. i am sure there were voices in greece, in detroit, saying put it off for another day. but no, we have to do this today. i am saying this not just as a congressman, but as the father of a 10-year-old son and 11- year-old daughter. on the verge of being the first generation in america's history to leave the next generation with less freedom, fewer opportunities, and a lower standard of living. there is no economist in the land who believes her current spending trajectory is sustainable. nobody.

congressional budget office, general accountability office, private economists, even the president of the united states has said the drivers of our debt are medicare, medicaid, and health care. nothing comes close. i give him and a for candor but f for effort. what i'm hearing, let's just turn off the smoke alarm. let's cut the wire. let's take it down. no, let's begin to deal with the problem. >> that raises the question. there is a chance that what might emerge here is a return to a conversation about a big budget deal. maybe now the grand bargain people talked about a couple years ago, but something meaningful that would at least it the issues back on the table at once. is that a likely prospect? >> we cannot even get harry reid and the president of the united states to open negotiations.

my mother-in-law famously said the least you can do in life to show up. today, right now, we cannot get the president and harry reid to even show up. that is an impasse. i do not think that is a position that is acceptable, alternately, to the american people. i would hope people can come together in good faith and negotiate without compromising their principles, compromising their policies. clearly we hope there can be an element of fundamental tax reform to this. i served on the supercommittee that unfortunately did not succeed, but i will tell you this -- we came closer on a bipartisan basis to coming together on fundamental tax reform probably than any other item. the president himself has put at least a handful of very small, minimal entitlement reforms on the table. so they would at least show up to negotiate. i think there would be something to negotiate over. republicans, we are not going to sit idly by, not going to rubberstamp their plans. we are going to do something to

get people back to work and we are going to do something to get us off this road to national bankruptcy. >> i wonder if maybe your party has not had more success in this arena than you are giving yourself credit. discretionary spending has declined each of the last two years for the first time since the korean war. there has been some progress on the spending front. i am wondering if that is an argument for continuing the conversation. because you are enjoying something of a victory and may be declaring a victory for yourself. >> i am happy to declare a little bit of a victory. relative to history, i am very proud of the fact that for the first time in my lifetime the federal spending is actually decreased two years in a row. that has never happened before. that is a great thing, and i celebrated. the challenges relative to the size of the problem, it still qualifies as something close to a rounding error. the bottom line is, we need

economic growth. the lesson affordable affordable care act, we are getting mired in 1.5% to 2.5% gdp when the norm is three percent to 3.5%. i think we are capable of four percent to five percent. on the spending side, you cannot have entitlement programs that grow at five percent, six percent, seven percent per annum with economic growth at 1.5%, two percent. at some point the math does not work. i would hope the president and his people would come to the negotiating table and negotiate in good faith. the constitution gives congress the power of the purse. this is what we are supposed to do. lawmakers make laws. we are debating spending bills and borrowing money to pay for spending bills. so far all we hear from the president and senator reid as we are not negotiating. let me ask you about the politics of this. speaker boehner has floated the idea that the debt limit voters so serious that if he had to he would cross the aisle and get democratic votes to pass a debt limit increase.

you're the former chairman of the gop conference. would you support that? is this a test of speaker boehner? >> i think that story is inaccurate because i spoke to the speaker about what he said. house republicans have passed a bill that says they will never be default on the bonds, there will never be a default on sovereign debt. we encouraged senator reid and the president to take it up. it is a fact that the president has issued a veto threat. the speaker has said before, we are not going to sit here and continue to press on the accelerator on the national road the bankruptcy. again, default on sovereign debt is totally unacceptable. but we are not going to borrow more money to pay for pottery classes in morocco and the travel expenses of the alabama watermelon queen and thousands of items you can find in the budget that are not going to pass the smell test or the laugh test or the fiscal responsibility test of the american people.

so again, i hope the president and senator harry reid will be reasonable about this. but that is why we have a debt ceiling vote, to correct where we are. >> you know, the real question here, as you suggested yourself, is not spending on things like the alabama watermelon queen, but entitlements. you have suggested that the president put a few things on the table in his own budget this year that start dealing with these entitlements. is there a reasonable chance that conversation will get underway in the next few weeks? is there a trade-off to be made here where you give the democrats a little bit on spending items they care about, and in return they give you some of the things the president himself has already offered on an tiedemann spending? >> i suppose, having been a member of congress i continue to have high hopes. i have lower expectations. there is something to negotiate here.

when i was on the supercommittee, tax increases are anathema to me as a republican and conservative. i believe they are harmful to the economy. i would be willing to give up something if there would be fundamental entitlement return because that is really the great challenge. how do we get quality health care, quality retirement security, at a price that is not tank the economy and bankrupt children? the president at least

acknowledges the problem. the president proposals are not any type of structural reform. a couple small baby steps. i hope there is something to negotiate over there. again, the president and other democrats, have voted to work with us on a fairer, flatter, simpler, more competitive tax code. we cannot negotiate with a president and a senate majority leader who refused to negotiate. we are not going to negotiate with ourselves anymore. >> final short questions. >> last time you were asked about this on television you quickly change the subject. but i want to read you something. the federal reserve president of the dallas federal reserve bank, richard fisher. you may know him. >> i know him well. >> he says the white house has mishandled this terribly in the sizing this process. you agree with his assessment janet yellen would be a fine choice for federal reserve chairman?

>> i do not see a great benefit for me to comment on somebody who is yet to be formally nominated by the president. i think very highly of richard fisher. he is a great public servant. i would be happy to talk about the texas a&m football game. >> will you comment on the process? >> i think i will decline and wait until whoever they choose to nominate is nominated. i will say it appears to be a unique process the white house has chosen. >> last question, the simplest question. why not go ahead and fund the government for six or eight weeks while these broader conversations we are discussing can commence? >> i would ask them the very same question since we are offering bills that fund 98% to 99% of what they have asked for. now we are passing bills on an individual basis that would open national parks, ensure veterans

give benefits, ensure the nih continues cancer research. we have to ask them why they are voting against them. i do not think ultimately that will be a tenable position with the american people. again, we want to negotiate. if obamacare is the law of the land, let it be imposed fairly on all americans. otherwise we have to get america back to work and offbeat road to national bankruptcy. >> thank you very much for being with us. do you hear any seeds of an accord? >> frankly, not many. this whole week has been a typical example of congress not being able to agree on the things they agree on because of the things they disagree on. what we heard today was the same ping-ponging of the argument back and forth. the the ball is on the other side scored. >> he several times criticized the white house for not negotiating. what has been your view, watching how the president has been approaching this? >> it is interesting. the positions are almost reversed. the white house view is we can negotiate once you reopen the

government. your public and position is we will not reopen the government into we have negotiations about the conditions on which we reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling. between these two positions, and they are polar opposites, and there needs to be something. the view in the white house is essentially the republicans got themselves into this mess by tying obamacare into funding the government. they will have to figure out how to get themselves out of it. in that sense, congressman hensarling is right. >> they acknowledged they would not gain much ground? >> he said as long as president obama is president, it is his signature icon was meant as president, they will not get a repeal.

their initial was a repeal, than 80 funding. now they are chipping on the edges and obama has held the line on each one. there does not appear to be anything on obamacare that obama is willing to -- >> it reflects what republicans will acknowledge privately as political reality. we will not be able to defund obamacare. we will not be able to delay the individual mandate. we are now down to the fallback positions. let's make sure congressmen have to pay as much for their health care. secondly, maybe the democrats

would agree to repeal a tax being imposed on medical devices to help pay for obamacare. which would add to the deficit. those are the only two things that are realistic on the republican wish list. i am not sure they are very realistic. >> an opportunity to put obamacare on trial. the irony is we have had this rollout in the past week that has had a lot of glitches and, frankly, the shutdown has overshadowed what would have been a lot more stories about the legitimate problems with obamacare. there are a lot of legitimate problems with obamacare. just not the ones the republicans are talking about.

>> let's talk politics. he accused the democrats are taking the political view in their approach of this. what are the politics of the republicans about what is happening? >> a lot of smart republicans warned their own party that this was a political -- it has got into a position where they try to achieve an unrealistic goal, defunding obamacare, by shutting down the government, that was going to be a political loss. i also have to say that there is the danger if the white house overplays its hand. what republicans are trying to do, and what we heard congas and handsome and try to do, make the unwillingness to negotiate the issue the republicans took. there is danger that might be a problem for them. we can talk about who is right and who is wrong. to voters it is everyone in washington mess this up again. there is some danger for both parties. >> the difference between this crisis and the previous crises is that we have been through the fiscal cliff, through the budget control act, debt limit debate of 2011. the difference is obama negotiated in each one of those. got some pushback, frankly, from the democratic party, from progressives who say you are giving up too much, giving up too much spending. so that is really what is changing this dynamic. republicans push the limit because they expected obama would continue to negotiate. now he stood firm. >> the journal covers the markets. the congressmen suggested the president was intentionally trying to roil markets. >> to some extent he was. what the president said in an

interview this week was the markets are too complacent, they ought to be more worried about this than they are. his remarks i do not think the markets take the prospect seriously. they send messages -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> a number of short term bills remain to be voted on by membors. prepares at 5:00pm. both are searching for ways to resolve their differences on how government shut down. >> this is the school for the deaf. in as a teacher living dormitory here. he was a tenet in a boarding house on the property. are in her bedroom in her dormitory building. this is where grace would have across theto him

courtyard in the next building and she would have put a candle in this window here. they wouldm is where meet up and be able to sit and talk and have time together. despite him being in his 30's and her 20's. they needed to meet somewhere where they were supervised and chaperoned on campus. >> meet first lady grace coolidge. on c-span.t the clinical impact of the government shut down.

host: thanks to both of you for being with us. where is this all heading? guest: we cannot be sure. it reminds if the stories at the beginning of the civil war when both sides are absolutely certain it is going to be a very short and decisive battle. people were actually writing down and it was a party atmosphere. what followed was grueling years of four. i think there has been a lot of misinterpretation on one side or the other. it does not look like anybody is feeling particularly vulnerable at the moment. on the other hand, we have heard intimation from speaker boehner that the deadline over the debt limit is one where he does not want to reach that end is not want to see a u.s. default. the house has passed legislation, making it impossible for the u.s. to default and i think we may see a little bit more attention to that from the house, reminding the senate that if they can pass this, the first payment would be for service in fail of it to raise the debt limit. that would be impossible for the u.s. to default.

it seems like a responsible position. it might put pressure on democrats did host: that deadline is next week. could this shutdown continue for the next 10 days? guest: it could, i am not happy about that at all. the war analogy is a good one. that is what has happened here. ted cruz launched this with this pseudo-filibuster without having much of a strategy in mind. the obama administration seems to have launched obamacare without much of the strategies, underestimating the backlash against it. both of them are proceeding ahead. i look at speaker john boehner who is now the man in a middle -- a man in the middle. they're mostly democratic votes. he's pressured by his caucus not to anything without a minority of republican votes or his speakership would be in jeopardy. i was delighted when he said this is not want to go over the break of that default. -- of debt default. i know him to be a responsible leader, a man who came out of the business community and recognize the catastrophic nature of a debt default. this is just unthinkable, to take us into default. some of the members of the house still haven't gotten that through their heads. i think he is going to do the

right thing as far as the deadline goes. the question is what could this lead to? may be some real reform as far as taxes and the general that. what is going to happen, nobody really knows. guest: one of the unusual things about the shutout as opposed to previous ones -- shutdown as opposed to previous ones, it has never been the case that the president has flatly refused to negotiate with the other party. he said there is nothing to discuss, i won't talk to you. guest: anything that has obama's name attached to it is going to get a backlash from various republicans out there. guest: it seems to me the only way out of this is for both sides to lose something. both sides have to give on something. there has been talk to it has certainly been floating around washington that in exchange for the sequester caps on spending, which democrats would like, there might be some entitlement reform, which republicans would like. that kind of a deal might be possible if the president backs down from his current posture. at least the republicans are saying we are ready. they may have wandered into this posture. at least they are now saying they're willing to talk. that meeting was a bizarre little kabuki theater. he invited people to the white house.

there's nothing to negotiate and for an hour the president sat with leaders of congress and said there's nothing to negotiate. host: two different sides presented in this outlook section in "the washington post" this morning. republicans say it is now being implemented, it is a flawed law. why is this the centerpiece of the debate? guest: the law of the land only takes you so far. the bush cuts were him off the land. don't ask don't tell was a law of the land. the fact that something is law does not mean it is sacred paid up through the democratic process we can repeal and change loss. it became this effort to defund it, unwisely in my judgment, it became an issue because some republicans made it so. i think the better strategy would have been to pick out certain aspects of the law as it is being rolled out. the individual mandate, the president has unilaterally granted a one-year waiver for the employer mandate. it only makes sense to ask for the individuals to be given the same reprieve for a year and that is the kind of reforms that

republicans take to the people. andy i -- the notion that congress and numbers of the executive would be exempted from obamacare is highly unpopular with the grassroots. it if republicans made that their signature issue and said that is where they planting the flag, i think they would have had a lot more success and i think they would have had a lot more popular support. host: a looker region by region on opening week for the health exchanges, clearly a lot of issues with the website. people are still that people are still signing up guest:. -- signing up. guest: the white house believes once obamacare gets rolling -- i heard one of your caller's morning say that obamacare is going to give the government warns list searches of your home? i lost myself. it is kind of tragic in a way that people are so uninformed about it. so many things happened when medicare got started. i am old enough to remember. the thing about the rollout is that there is so much confusion.

i just read a poll that indicated more people respond favorably if you are collect obamacare. few people know what it is and a large percentage of those out there -- the response will be more favorable. i agree with them. you are making a couple of points about what is fair or not. i think most democrats wanted a simple system, just expand medicare to cover everybody. we have a much lower number of people saying it was a nonstarter even for obama. there were votes for a conservative plan created by the heritage foundation. obama adopted it for the nation and the mitt romney doesn't want to claim it. obama is convinced that republicans will want to claim it. once it's working.

host: the senate and the senate democratic leader calling the house speaker "a coward." a piece from brad knickerbocker goes this way -- with no end in sight for the government shutdown, the partisan animosity has gotten unusually that are and personal even for washington.

guest: i agree. i think the president deserves some of the blame for this. i think talk radio deserves some of the blame for this. the town has become so there are and vulgar. were you have members of the administration describing the other party as people with bombs strapped to their chests or terrorists or we will not negotiate with people holding a gun to our heads. remember in tucson, when the president give that beautiful speech about we need to raise the level of discourse? his administration is doing the exact opposite. and on the conservative side, there are talk radio hosts doing very similar kinds of things with extremely vitriolic rhetoric and i think the country is losing something very important.

host: who do you blame on talk radio? guest: michael savage, i've been misfortunate to tune into from time to time. he is hysterical. and not a pretty picture. there were others. one thing i will say -- he has been other places saying, well, the people on the right call obama a muslim or the people on the right sake obama -- the people on the right sake obama say obama is not born here. therefore anything that is said about anyone on the right is fair. these comments about calling

republicans terrorist -- that's coming from the very top. host: we want to take you back to what then speaker newt gingrich had to say to then president bill clinton. but first, speaker boehner had this to say. [video clip] >> i was at the white house the other night and listened to the president's only some 20 times what he was not going to negotiate. listened to the majority leader of the united states senate say he was not going to talk until we surrendered. than this morning i get the wall street journal out and they say we do not care how long this lasts because we are winning. this is not some damn game! the american people do not want

their government shutdown and neither do i. all we are asking for is to sit down and have a negotiation and bring fairness to the people under obamacare. it is as easy as that. host: in the weekly standard fred barnes has this piece -- "boehner in charge, how the house speaker rallied his restive troops." republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. my take on this whole situation is the president has not signed a budget since he became president, and is continuing funding resolution allows shenanigans like this to take place. that is where i blame this government shutdown on. having said that, let me add this. as somebody whose insurance companies have dropped him, i agree with senator ted cruz. in the letter they said it was because of the regulations and the affordable health care act. there were a lot of good things in the affordable health care act. but there are horrible things democrats are incomplete denial about, will not address, will not admit.

that is causing a lot of anger among the american people. guest: i don't and know what those horrible things are. it's very unfortunate. these things are not communicated. it would be better if the aca were communicated more widely and effectively early on. i think the question about the president signing a budget, we have had budgets every year. i have been dismayed that republicans have not been more specific in their budgets about dealing with entitlements, tax reform, the deficit. and national healthcare. both sides agree we have too

many uncovered people in the country. but republicans did not really engage on a debate before the mention of obamacare. and even republicans have complained about this. as a result, we have this haphazard way of governing where we put the program into operation and fix the bugs afterward. host: a comment thanking you for calling out savage talk radio. guest: can i address some of the problems we have seen with

obamacare? the rise of employers making people part-time -- guest: [indiscernible] guest: it has increased. guest: that is one of the problems obamacare is trying to fix. guest: we were told thousands of times premiums would go down by $2500 per family. premiums are going up, right? many companies are forcing employees to drop spouses from coverage. many companies are reluctant to hire because of the requirements of obamacare. we have seen the technical aspect of this law is not ready when the exchanges open up,

there was mass chaos. we have many doctors saying they are going to retire early because of obamacare. the list is very long with the problems with this law. i think, actually, in contrast to the way some republicans see this, this is the greatest possibility for the democratic hardy -- the democratic party we've seen in 25 years. there is no way barack obama can say this is the republicans' fault or george bush's fault. if it turns out to be as unpopular as i suspect it will

be, it will be a huge political liability for the democratic party. host: this is mona charen. her recent column is available at town hall.com. guest: websites are preparing the ground for the next phase of this debate. they are saying, ok, there are problems with the imitation of obamacare, which is why we really need to move toward single-payer, which is what they wanted in the first place. my point is republicans have to be ready for that with their own truly market oriented consumer oriented reform. the way health insurance has

been run in this country was never based on the consumer. it was always based on employers and insurance companies and third parties. it was terribly inefficient and terribly expensive. obamacare has doubled down on everything that was bad about our existing health care system. my view is republicans -- and some have introduced legislation to do this -- should give the tax exemption not to employers, but to individuals and let individual shop for their own coverage. it would give businesses more freedom a lot more choice. insurers would be freed from the obligation to provide bronze, silver, gold, what the government says they have to provide. host: question about equal time why is the gop fighting so hard to prevent millions of people from accessing private insurance? guest: that is not what the fight is about. the fight is the belief that this law will throw so much sand into the gears of the american economy -- and some republicans unwisely in my judgment thought they could prevent that by staging a defund showdown and they thought they could cause the other party to fault. i think that was tactically mistake. i don't think you can do that that way. reforms do happen. people say we have never changed and entitlement, but that's not true. we reformed welfare in the 1990's. that was one of the most successful pieces of legislation in my lifetime. catastrophic health insurance for the elderly. there have been other instances where laws to change, even entitlements.

you have to have the right constellation of forces. it's helpful having one of your own party in the white house who is not going to veto the legislation -- although bill clinton did pass welfare reform. at that time the republicans controlled both houses. host: clarence page. guest: this goes back to world war ii. employers offered insurance as an incentive. you mentioned medicare. medicare has changed as well. it has been changed to be improved. it was known all along it would be necessary with obamacare. and single-payer -- basically medicare is a single-payer program that preserves the private enterprise system. but somehow obamacare gets demonized as some intrusion of government into private lives. the bottom line is, as you mentioned, this is the debate now. what kind of health care system do we want? the public is now engaged. we believe the more that they are exposed to it, the more they're going to like it. as ted cruz put it, they're using the sugar of the subsidies. the subsidies are something new. guest: i would agree with that unfortunate statement. only about two percent of people who apply for these are going to be eligible for subsidies and the subsidies are going to go to

the insurance companies, not to the individual. guest: the flaws with the republican plan are held control, among other things. i imagine there will be a response from fox news.

there you go again, giving money out to people who don't deserve it. guest: if everyone got a $5,000 tax adoption to buy health insurance, companies would be competing to provide plans for $5,000 and you would have genuine competition for the consumer dollar. guest: the cost controls though. this is the thing. this is what people do when the insurance bumps up against the government subsidy. host: this is our sunday roundtable with mona charen, a former aide to former first lady nancy reagan, a former editorial assistant with the national reserve machine and a syndicated columnist. do i have that right? author of a number of books

including "youthful idiots: how liberals got it wrong in the cold war and still blame america first." and clarence page, a pulitzer prize commentator and the author of a number of books including "showing my colors: impolite essays on race and identity." guest: i have an upcoming book about the response to liberals. guest: you can interview me. [laughter] i have a show called "need to know." almost every week there is a new and. host: do you have a pop quest -- podcast? guest: i am getting used to living in the century. host: from cheryl silbert and mike mcintyre -- the headline is months in the planning -- a loose coalition of conservative activists led by the former attorney general edwin meese gathered in the capital. their push to repeal mr. obama's health-care law was going nowhere. they desperately needed a new plan. of that session, held one morning in a location of the

members is keeping secret, came a little notice from it -- blueprint to defunding obamacare." the story indicates this was long in the planning. guest: certainly the pressure of the deadline for opening up the exchanges put pressure on the other side. if we do not stop this now, the train is going to leave the station. i think that has a lot to do with the timing. guest: i agree with that. host: we could hear later this week, maybe this month the president's choices -- this is a discussion. janet yellen is the major contender to replace ben bernanke. guest: that is the traditional choice. i think the big question is why there was such -- host: summers. guest: summers, thank you. why that balloon was floated. the president was very favorable to him. it was very controversial.

he tends to set fires unintentionally just with his use of language. but yellen has so many fans out there now. i think obama would look bad if he did not go with her now. host: she is the first female head chairman.

guest: so much for the idea that the fed should be above politics. no longer. host: larry from kaiser, west virginia. mona charen. caller: yes, i would like to start from the beginning. when you vote on something without knowing what is in it, that is 100% wrong. secondly, the supreme court was making legislation. when they said it was attacks, they should send it back because

taxes should originate in the congress, not the senate. i think all laws should apply to everyone or no one. and the unions, one of the main reasons unions used to get benefits to attract good people or get people to do jobs other people would not do. you would take a job maybe cleaning sewer pipes because they give you better health benefits. if everyone gets benefits from the government, there will be no reason to join a union or no one would ever want to do these jobs that no one wants to do. it is in the union's worst interest about the government give everybody health care. if you look at when i went to work in 1958, people went to unions to get benefits.