it is not fair that a ceo salary is going up exponentially. the average american salary is in real terms the same as it was 30 years ago. in terms of health care implementation -- i have to respectfully disagree. have it.oons will now healthople who had insurance, there are a lot of parents who are happy out there. average americans wanted the solution. i am upping to hearing the

affordable care act is not perfect. we have to address the problems with it but not scrap it as some folks in congress have called for. dos is something that people want. they want support for health care. columns is the in "the washington post." this is what he said. president's thoughts on deservenequality thoughts [inaudible] was an odd wallow in presidential has arisen. he believes the deck is been stacked against individuals. those are his words, "it is

rooted and the nagging sense that no matter how hard they work the deck is stacked against them. must be we educated to believe that they live in a country that is unfair. for many americans they do feel like the deck is stacked against them. we see that in surveys of what people think. i think the job of the nation's leaders to ensure that one of the things that makes america great is the sense of mobility. i am the daughter of immigrants and i would benefit from that sense of coming and working hard and being able to provide to your children something better than you have which means we collegesake sure -- getting unaffordable for families. we need to make sure that the ability to go to college if they

choose to do that, the ability to get a good job and help support their families again, if you look at the stagnation of wages and people's inability to make ends meet. it is something that is appropriate for the president and our other leaders to tackle in an aggressive way. >> one more paragraph from dan henniger's column. host: it is done to distract from obamacare but it is believed. this president has a dark, reductionist view of the u.s. system in place 200 years before he graduated high school in 1979. guest: there is no basis for that. what the president called for calling fore was

hope and a renewed effort to help the vast majority of americans by ensuring they have accessto health care and to education and training so they can advance. he called for something that is an important priority which is greater investment in preschool. he was calling for investing in our people and that is positive, not negative. he rightly pointed out that instead of putting our focus on helping corporations and those at the top end of the economic spectrum, that we need to do more to help those who are struggling to make ends meet and struggling to get better. struggling to advance in the economy. host: that speech can be watched at c-span.org. howard, republican line.

caller: good morning. i am just about worn out. lived3 years old and have through [inaudible] was barry goldwater's. i have lived through the great society. the war on poverty. also the being with $17 trillion in debt are you the one question isould like to ask this lady that she has said in the past that she would -- the recent past this morning. we have to concentrate on job creation. what i think she means is we need a shovel-ready jobs that have some shovels available. she wants to stimulate the job

market by adding more debt. giving industry the opportunity to expand. this is the key issue. she was -- wants higher taxes, i turned loose. i want them to have the ability to move this economy like have done forever. i would ask her one more small question. what has government ever produced to create a profit to generate a better living standard for this country? host: we got your point. are referring to the recovery act which was effect if in helping jumpstart

our economy when we were at a low point in the recession. i think there's lots of ways that we can support creation and industry in creating those jobs. for example, raising the minimum wage. that would lead to job creation. if you have more money to spend, you could create consumer demand. we expect that the corporate world would be responsive to that. we are not advocating tax increases. we are talking about having a tax system that is more fair to the average american. there are a lot of loopholes. for example, we have a corporate loophole that supports executives in the corporate world. that money would be better spent with tax reductions for middle income families. people would create consumer demand. host: by the way, this just came out.

harry reid's statement from this morning. he is not feeling well. as a precaution, he has decided to go to the hospital. everything is normal. he is resting and feeling better. doctors have asked that he remain in the hospital for observation. he will not be working today. that is a statement that could affect what will happen with the schedule that we talked about earlier this morning. keep your eye on the senate for the next day or days. greg in sioux falls, republican. he e-mails in. the way he sees things, we spend $3500 a year and bring home $2900 per year. if you add nine zeros, you have to wonder who the idiot was who gave this money away.

guest: we have put forth ideas for reform. we could reduce spending. we put forth a plan that would reduce government spending by $400 billion in terms of cuts to medicare. that would be cuts that are targeted at what we think are unnecessary expenditures. without cutting benefits to recipients. i would just urge the person e- mailing to take a look at the website. we do have a lot of ideas in terms of how to spend money

effectively. host: here is a twitter-er who is responding to the last caller from california. he says, caller, you are old enough to know that it is not the governments job to produce a profit. the next call comes from scott in deep river, minnesota. democrat. caller: hi. i am from deer river, minnesota. i think you are doing a good thing here. a lot of progressive ideas. we have the majority leader and the president speaking on a lot of these issues that you are proposing right now. i also think that, as far as myself, it is very difficult to get much done. the last few callers -- the last caller was 73 years old. democratic. thinks that the democrats put up programs and do not realize that

is the stimulus to. without that going out to the communities, like small communities, it would be very devastating if privatization of social security or volunteers for medicare. these are the things that progressive stands for. these also stimulate the economy. even though many progressive ideas do not get out, i think that the mere fact that we have a president and a majority leader -- a lot of things that would have been enacted do not get enacted. i think that is progress in and of itself.

host: thank you. guest: thank you for those comments. i do agree. i share your frustration about things not getting done. i hope that will change. perhaps this will help to create the momentum. there are a lot of ideas that are good for the country and good for people in this country. they do have bipartisan support. i would point to immigration reform is one of those. the bill has not been perfect from any vantage point. the senate did produce a bipartisan bill that had leadership on both sides of the aisle. that should be able to move forward. i also hope that there are a lot of ideas around in the long- term. investing in education for children.

that is no investment for which there is good data that every dollar we invest gets seven dollars back. that is something that many governors at the state level have embraced. i share the frustrations and the lack of progress. i do think there is reason to believe that future progress is possible. host: and a tweet -- if we want higher wages, we need more workers. that will raise prices for the poor. another says that inequality is the greatest moral issue of our day. even the pope agrees. another economic comment -- three comments via twitter. we have an e-mail as well. i read that the difficulties stem from loss of manufacturing jobs. guest: i agree that we need to

invest in manufacturing. i do think that there is reason to believe that we can bring back jobs. they have been taken out of the country and brought in. that is important thing to focus on. in terms of the other comment, the point about minimum wage is good. we're not asking for to be raised. we are asking for parity. it is a fairly balanced initiative. there is recent polling that shows that most americans agree with that. it is the right thing to do and it will increase consumer demand and help to stimulate the economy. host: correlation tweets in -- progress is curing cancer and putting a man on mars. nothing to do with taxes.

guest: i think i would say they curing cancer and putting men on mars costs money. it is not that i think that we should unfairly tax the rich, but our current tax code is an equitable. we should bring more balance to it. rather than giving corporate ceos deductions for their corporate jets, we should be investing in things like research and development that could lead to curing cancer or putting a man on mars. that is a rational choice for us to make. host: a call from farmington, new mexico. republican line. caller: this is fantastic. i have been wanting to talk to a progressive for a very long time. i do not think we get a conversation going. i would never have known until a couple of years ago. you were interviewing a gal

named ebony. she had written a book called "the forgotten man." i remember hillary saying she wanted to be known as a progressive. the progressives back then were card-carrying members of the communist party. this obama -- telling you that he had a stimulus plan. he admitted to it. he said it. the jobs were not as ready as he thought they would be. every time the government tries to get in the business of manufacturing jobs, whether with minimum wage -- might as well be $15 per hour.

if someone is not putting out a product or service that is worth $10 per hour, he will not hire that person. you end up not having jobs. you have congress sold on your program. even though it is egalitarian to raise the minimum wage, they will not create jobs with it. the reason you'll not is because employers will not hire somebody who is not making them a profit. unless they are trained to do something. host: hang on. let's have carmel martin respond. guest: i guess i would say as a progressive that i am not a communist. i believe strongly in a democratic government. in terms of minimum wage, i think there is good evidence that when we have raised minimum wage in the past, states are doing it. it does not lead to reduction in jobs.

it does increase consumer demand. i think that it is a good strategy for helping the average american. it also helps to build the economy. i think there are other things that we should be doing to help promote the economy. that includes research and development and the building of infrastructure. i think that it is time -- there is room for debate, but we have not had that debate. the focus has been exclusively on spending cuts. congress will help us get past that and have a healthy debate about what are the best ways to support the economy. host: response to that. caller: i would prefer the guest to use numbers and statistics. they are available to anybody.

when you raise the minimum wage, you reduce unemployment. people cannot afford to hire people at minimum wage. it is called the invisible effect. you cannot see somebody who did not get a job. the employer could not pay them the amount of money that you want them to pay. there is nobody saying i did not get that job because you raised the minimum wage to high. that is what happened. host: thank you. we will leave it there. any final comments? >> good afternoon, everybody. say, the mostthey wonderful press conference -- it is the most wonderful press conference of the year. i am eager to take your questions. i want to say a few words about our economy.

in 2013, our businesses created another 2 million jobs. adding up to more than 8 million. just over the past 45 months. this morning, we learned that over the summer the economy grew at its strongest pace in nearly two years. the unemployment rate has steadily fallen to its lowest point in five years. our tax code is fair. our fiscal situation is firmer. with deficits that are now less than half of what they were when i took office. for the first time in two decades we now produce more oil here at home than we buy from the rest of the world. all of the -- our all of the above strategy for new american energy means lower energy costs. the affordable care act has helped keep health care costs growing at their slowest rate in 50 years. combined that means bigger paychecks for middle-class families and bigger savings for businesses looking to invest and hire in america.

for all the challenges we have had, and all the challenges that we have been working on diligently in dealing with both the aca and the website these past couple of months, more than half a million americans have --n enrolled in health care healthcare.gov. more than 15,000 americans are enrolling every single day. and the federal website, tens of thousands are enrolling every single day. since october 1, or than one million where kids have selected new health insurance plans for the federal and state market places. millions of americans despite the problems with the website ar byoised to be covered affordable insurance come new year's day. this holiday season there are mothers and not -- and fathers

and entrepreneurs that have someone -- or something new to celebrate. when miss fortune strikes, hardship no longer has to. into an economy that is stronger than we started. more americans are finding work and experiencing the pride of a paycheck. businesses are positioned for new growth and new jobs. 2014mly believe that in can be a breakthrough year for america. outlined in detail earlier this month we all know there's a lot more that we are going to have to do to restore opportunity and broad-based growth for every american. that will require some action. it is a good start that earlier this week for the first time in years of parties in both houses of congress came together to pass a budget. some of the damage in sequester cut that created headwinds for the economy.

it clears the path for businesses and for investments that we need to strengthen our middle class like education and scientific research. it means the american will not be exposed to the threat of another reckless shut down every few months. that is a good thing. it is probably too early to oflare an outbreak bipartisanship but it is fair to say that we are not condemned to endless gridlock. there are areas where we can work together. i believe that work should begin with something republicans in congress should have done before leaving town this weekend that is restoring the temporary insurance that helps folks make ends meet when they are looking for a job. because congress did not act, more than one million of their constituents will lose a vital economic lifeline at christmas time. job seekerst of without income and all. i think we are a better country than that. we do not abandon

each other when times are tough. keep in mind unemployment and insurance goes to folks who are actively looking for work. the mom who needs help feeding her kids when she said that -- sent out resumes or the dad who needs help paying rent while earning skills he needs for that new job. when congress comes back to work , their first order of business should be making this right. a bipartisan group is working on a three-month extension of this insurance. they should pass it. i will sign it right away. me repeat. 2014 needs to be a year of action. we have work to do to create more good jobs and help more merit concern the skills and education they need to do those jobs and to make sure that those jobs offer the wages and benefits that let families build a little bit of financial security. we still have the task of brokenng the fix on our

immigration system. we have to build on the progress we have painstakingly made over these last five years with respect to the economy and offer the middle class and all those that are looking to join the middle class a better opportunity, and that is going to be were i focus all my efforts in the year ahead. saying justude by as we are strengthening our position at home, we are also standing up for our interests around the world. this year, we have demonstrated that was clear-i'd principled diplomacy we can pursue new paths to a world that is more secure. the future where air does not build a nuclear weapon. by the end of next year the war in afghanistan will be over just as we have ended our war in iraq. we will continue to bring our troops home and as always, we will remain vigilant to protect our homeland and our personnel overseas from terrorist attacks.

a lot of our minimum and in uniform are still overseas and a lot of them are still spending their christmas for way from their family and friends. in some cases it is still in harms way. i want to close by saying to them and their families back home, we want to thank you. united inry stands supporting you. and being grateful for your service and sacrifice. we will keep you in our thoughts and in our prayers during this season of hope. before i wish you a merry christmas and to all a good night, i will take some questions. list of who is naughty and nice and we will see who made it. [laughter] julie must be nice. >> thank you. despite all the data points that you cited in your opening statement, when you look back at this year, very little of the demented agenda you outlined in your inaugural address and state of the union -- health-care

rollout had huge problems. your ratings are a new historic lows. [inaudible] gotta tell you, julie, that is not how i think about it. i have been in office for close to five years. i was running for president for two years before that. for those of you who have covered me during that time, i have had ups and downs. i think this room has probably recorded at least 15 near death experiences. and what i have been focused on each and every day is, are we moving the ball in helping the families havee, more opportunity at a little if ifecurity to feel as

they work hard, they can get ahead. year, i look at this past there are areas where there have been some frustrations were i wish congress had moved more aggressively. background checks in the wake of a new something that i continue to believe was a mistake. but then i look at because of the debate that occurred, all they work that has been done at state levels to increase gun safety and make sure we do not see tragedies like that happen again. there's a lot of focus on legislative activity at the congressional level. even when congress does not move on things they should move on there are a bunch of things that we're still doing. we -- do not always get attention for it but the connect ed program that we announced.

have capacity in every classroom in america. it will make a huge difference for kids all across the country and for teachers. the manufacturing hub that we set up in youngstown is something i talked about during the state of the union. it will create innovation and connect universities, manufacturers, job training, to help create and read -- a renaissance, build a renaissance we're seeing in manufacturing. when it comes to energy this year is going to be the first year in a long time where we are producing more oil and natural gas. here in this country then we are importing. that is a big deal. i understand the point that you're getting at, juli, which initiativest of our in congress have not moved

forward as rapidly as i would like. i completely understand that. which means that i'm going to keep at it. and if you look at for example immigration reform, probably the biggest thing that i wanted to get done this year, we saw progress, it passed the senate .ith a strong bipartisan vote there are indications that even though i did not get completed this year, that there is a commitment on the part of the speaker to try to move forward legislation early next year. the facts it didn't hit the timeline i prefer is frustrating but it's not something i brood a lot about. >> it's not just your legislative agenda. when you talk to americans, they seem to have lost confidence in you, trust in you, your credibility has taken a hit, the health care law was a big part of that. do you understand that those -- the public has changed in some way their view of you?

>> julie, i guess what i'm saying is if you're measuring this by polls, my polls have gone up and down a lot through the course of my career. if i was interested in polling, i won't have run for president. i was polling at 70% when i was in the u.s. senate. i took this job to deliver for the american people, and i knew and will continue to know that there are going to be ups and downs. you're right, the health care website problems were a source of great frustration in the last press conference that i adequately discussed my frustrations on those. on the other hand, since that time i now have a couple million people, maybe more, who are going to have health care on january 1. and that is a big deal. that's why i ran for this office. as long as i've got an opportunity every single day to make sure that in ways large and

small i'm creating greater opportunity for people, more kids are able to go to school, get the education he they need, more families are able to stabilize their finances, the housing market is continuing to improve, people feel like their wages maybe are inching up a little bit. if those things are happening, i'll take it. i said before, i have run my last political race. at this point my goal every single day is just to make sure that i can look back and say we are delivering something. not everything, because this is a long haul. >> thank you, mr. president. one of the most significant events of this year was the revelation of the surveillance of the national security agency. as you review how to reign in the national security agency --

rein in the national security agency, a federal judge said for example the government has single instance where the n.s.a. -- are you convinced the collection of that data is useful to the national security to continue? a i'll talk more broadly then talk specifically about the program you're referring to. as you know the independent panel that i put together came back with a series of recommendations, 46 in total, i had an extensive meeting with them down in the situation room to review all the recommendations that they have made. i want to thank them publicly because i think they did an excellent job and took my charge very seriously. i told them i want you to look from top to bottom at what we're doing and evaluate whether or not the current structures that we have and the current programs

hat we have are properly addressing both our continuing need to keep ourself secure and prevent terrorist attacks or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or other threats to the homeland, and are we also making sure that we are taking seriously the rule of law and our concerns about privacy and civil liberties. what we are doing now is evaluating all the recommendations that have been made. over the next several weeks i'm going to assess based on conversations not just with the intelligence community but others in government and outside of government how we might apply and incorporate their recommendations. and i'm going to make a pretty defenive statement about all of this in january where i'll be able to say here are the recommendations that we think

makes sense. here are ones that we think are promising but still need to be refined further. here's how it relates to the rk we are doing not just internally but also in partnership with other countries. and -- i'm taking this very seriously because i think, as i have said before, this needed to be had. one specific program, the 215 program, is the bulk collection of phone numbers and exchanges that have taken place. that has probably gotten the most attention, at least with respect to domestic audiences. what i have said in the past continues to be the case, which executing n.s.a. in this program believed based on experience from 9/11 that it was important for us to be able to

track if there was a phone number of a known terrorist outside of the united states calling into the united states where that call might have gone. and that having that data in one place and retained for a certain period of time allowed them to be confident in pursuing various investigations of terrorist threats. and i think it's important to note that in all the he reviews of this program that have been done, in fact there have not been actual instances where it's been alleged that the n.s.a. in some ways acted inappropriately in the use of this data, but what is also clear is from the public debate people are concerned about the prospect, the possibility of abuse. that's what the judge in the district court suggested. and although his opinion

obviously differs from rulings on the fisa court, we are taking those into account. the question we are going to have to ask is, can we accomplish the same goals that this program is intended to accomplish in ways that give the public more confidence that, in fact, the n.s.a. is doing what it's supposed to be doing? i have confidence in the fact that the n.s.a. is not engaging in necessaryic -- domestic surveillance or snooping around, but i also recognize that as technologies change, people can start running algorithms yisms and ograms to map out -- programs that map out all the information in our telephones and computers we may have to refine further to give people more confidence. i'll work very hard on doing that. we have to provide more confidence to the international community. in some ways what has been more challenging is the fact that we

do have a lot of laws and checks and balances and safeguards and audits when it comes to making sure that the n.s.a. and other intelligence agencies are not spying on americans. we have had less legal constraint in terms of what we are doing internationally, but i think part of what's been interesting about this whole exercise is recognizing that in a virtual world some of these boundaries don't matter anymore. and just because we can do something doesn't mean we necessarily should, and the values that we've got as americans are one that is we have to be willing to apply beyond our borders i think perhaps more systematically than we have done in the past. ed henry. >> thank you, mr. president. i want to follow-up on that because -- merry christmas, by the way. >> merry christmas. >> when edward snoweden first

started leaking the -- snowden first started leaking the information, you told the american people you already reformed them. my team evaluated them. we scrubbed them. we expanded some of the oversight. you also said we may have to he rebalance some. there may be changes. you concluded, you can complain about big brother and how this potential program run amuck, when you look at the actual details, i think we have struck the right balance. that was six months ago. the judge is saying no. your own panel is saying no. even your own panel. the changes have to be made. my question is, were you wrong then because you were not fully read in not just on these programs but on other programs, outside of the ones you just talked about, where we were potentially listening in on the german leaders, brazilian leaders, and others that suggest there were abuses, number one? and number two, if you weren't fully read in on these programs, is it enough for example, what julie was getting at, was this

question of credibility with the american people, just like health care, you like your plan you can keep it. on surveillance you looked the american people in the eye six months ago and said we've got the right balance. six months later you're saying maybe not. >> hold on a second. i think it's important to note that when it comes to the right balance on surveillance, these are a series of judgment calls we are making every single day because we have a whole bunch of folks whose job it is to make sure that the american people are protected. and that's a hard job. because if something slips then the question that's coming from you the next day at the press conference, mr. president, why didn't you catch that? why the intelligence people allow that to slip? isn't there a we could have found out -- >> strike the right balance. >> the point is not that my assessment of the 215 program has changed in terms of technically how it works, what is absolutely clear to me is

that given the public debate that's taken place and disclosure that's taken place over the last several months, that this is only going to work if the american people have confidence and trust. now, part of the challenge is is that because of the manner in which these disclosures took place in dribs and drabs, oftentimes shaded in a particular way, and because some of the constraints that we have had in terms of declassifying information and getting it out here, that that trust in how many safeguards exist and how these programs are run, has been diminished. so what's going to be important is to build that back up. and i take that into account in weighing how we structure these programs. let me be very specific on the 215 program. it is possible, for example, that some of the same information that the intelligence community feels is

required to keep people safe can be obtained by having the private phone companies keep these records longer and to create some mechanism where he -- an n be accessed in a effective fashion. that might cost more. there might need to be different checks on how those requests are made. there may be technological solutions that have to be found to do that. and the question that we are asking ourselves now is, does that make sense not only because of the fact that there are concerns about potential abuse down the road with the data being kept by government rather than private companies, but also does it make sense to do it

because people right now are concerned that maybe their phone calls are being listened to, even if they're not? we have to factor that in. my point is is that the environment has changed in ways that i think require us to take that into account. but the analysis that i have been doing throughout has always en periodically looking at what we are doing and asking ourselves, are we doing this in the right way? are we making sure that we are keeping the american people safe, number one. are we also being true to our civil liberties and privacy and values? >> i understand. it's a tough job. god forbid there is another terror attack. every one of us will be second-guessing you and it's extremely difficult to be in the oval office. you put it on your back. my question is, do you have any personal regrets. you're not addressing the fact the public statement you made, your director of national

intelligence, got a question from a democrat, not a are republican, about whether some of this was going on. he he denied t doesn't that undermine the public trust? >> you're conflating first of all me and mr. clapper -- >> is he doing the job? > what i'm saying is this is that yes, these are tough problems. that i am glad to have the privilege of tackling. your initial question was whether the statement that i made six months ago are ones that i don't stand by. what i'm saying is is that the statements i made then are entirely consistent with the statements that i make now, which is that we believed that we had scrubbed these programs and struck an appropriate balance. and there had not been evidence and there continues not to be evidence that the particular program had been abused in how it was used. it was a useful tool working with other tools of the

intelligence community to ensure that if we have a thread on a potential terrorist threat that that can be followed effectively. what i have also said, though, is in light of the disclosures that have taken place, it is clear that whatever benefits the configuration of this particular ogram may have, may be outweighed by the concerns that people have on its potential abuse. if that's the case, there may be another way of skinning the cat. so we just keep on going at this stuff and saying can we do this better, can we do this more effectively? i think the panel's recommendations are consistent with that. so if you had a chance to read the overall recommendations, what they were very clear about is, we need this intelligence. we can't unilaterally disarm. there are ways we can do it

potentially that gives people greater assurance that there are checks and balances, there is sufficient oversight, sufficient transparency, programs like 215 could be redesigned in way that is give you the same information when you need it without creating these potentials for abuse, and that's exactly what he we should be doing is to evaluate all these things in a very clear, specific way. and moving forward on changes. that's what i intend to do. >> you have no regrets. >> john croft. >> thank you, mr. president. it's been a tough year. you may not want to call it the worst year of your presidency, but it's clearly been a tough year. the polls have gone up and down but they are on a low point right now. what i'm asking you, you acknowledged the difficulties with the health care rollout. when you look back and you look at the decisions that you have made and what you did, what you didn't do for you personally what do you think has been your biggest mistake? >> with respect to health care

specifically or just general? >> the whole thing. doubt that e's no when it came to the health care rollout even though i was meeting every other week or every three weeks with folks and emphasizing how important it was that consumers had a good experience, an easy experience in getting the information they need and knowing what the choices and options were for them, to be able to get high quality, affordable health care. the fact is it didn't happen in the first month. first six weeks in a way that was at all acceptable. since i'm in charge obviously we screwed it up. part of it as i have said before had to do with how i.t. procurement generally is done

and almost predates this year. part of it obviously has to do there were t that not clear enough lines of authority in terms of who was in charge of technology and cracking the whip on the whole bunch of contractors. so there were a whole bunch of things that we have been taking a look at and i'm going to be making appropriate adjustments once we get through this year and we have gotten through the initial surge of people who have been signing up. but having said all that, the bottom line also is that we've got several million people are going to have health care that works. it's not that i don't engage in a lot of self-reflex here -- self-reflection here, i promise i beat myself up even worse than you or ed henry does, on any given day, but i've also got to wake up in the morning and make

sure that i do better the next day. and that we keep moving forward. and when i look at the landscape for next year, what i say to myself is, we're poised to do really good things. the economy is stronger than it has been in a very long time. our next challenge is to make sure everybody benefits from that, not just a few folks. and there's still too many people who haven't seen a raise and are still feeling financially insecure. we can get immigration reform done. we've got a concept that has bipartisan support. let's see if we can break through the politics on this. i think that hopefully folks have learned their lesson in terms of brinksmanship coming out of the government shutdown. there have been times where i thought about were there other ways i could have prevented that

-- those three, four weeks that hampered the economy and hurt individual families or not getting a paycheck during that time? absolutely, but i also think that in some ways given the pattern that we have been going through with house republicans for a while, we might have needed just a little bit of a bracing sort of recognition that this is not what the american people think is acceptable. they want us to try to solve problems. and be practical even if we can't get everything done. the end of the year is always a good time to reflect and see what you can do better next year. that's how i intend to approach it. i'm sure that i will have even better ideas after a couple of days of sleep and sun. >> thank you, mr. president.

on the debt ceiling your treasury secretary has estimated that the u.s. government will lose its ability to pay its bills come late february or early march. house budget committee chairman, paul ryan, said the republicans are going to decide what it is they can accomplish on this debt limit fight. willing to negotiate with house republicans on the debt ceiling. >> you know the answer to this question. not only are we going to negotiate -- we are not going to negotiate for congress to pay bills that it's accrued. i want to emphasize the positive as we enter into this holiday season. i think congressman ryan and senator murray did a good job in trying to narrow the differences and actually pass a budget that i can sign. it's not everything that i would like, obviously. it buys back part of these across-the-board cuts, the so-called see quester, but not

all of -- sequester, but not all of them, we are still underfunding research, we are still underfunding education, we are still underfunding transportation and other initiatives that would create jobs right now, but it was an honest conversation. they operated in good faith. and given how far apart the parties have been on fiscal issues, they should take pride in what they did. i actually called them after they struck the deal and i said congratulations and i hope that creates a good pattern for next year. where we work on at least the things we agree to even if we agree to disagree on some of the other big-ticket items. i think immigration potentially falls in that category where let's -- here's an area where we've got bipartisan agreement. there are a few differences here and there, but the truth of the matter is that the senate bill has the main components of

comprehensive immigration reform hat would boost our economy, give us an opportunity to attract more investment and high-skilled workers who are doing great things in places like silicon valley and around the country. so let's go and get that done. now, i can't imagine that having seen this possible daylight breaking when it comes to cooperation in congress that folks are thinking actually about plunging us back into the kinds of bringsmanship and governance by crisis that has done us -- brinksmanship and governance by crisis that has done us so much harm over the past few years. to repeat the debt ceiling is raised simply to pay bills that we have already accrued. it is not something that is a

negotiating tool. it's not leveraged the responsibility of congress. it's part of doing their job. i expect them to do their job, although i'm happy to talk to them about any of the issues they actually want to get done. if congressman ryan's interested in tax reform, let's go. i've got some proposals on it. if he's interested in any issue out there, i'm willing to have a constructive conversation of the sort that he we just had in resolving the budget issues, but i've got to assume folks aren't crazy enough to start that thing all over again. >> quickly on a more personal note, what is your new year's resolution? >> my new year's resolution is to be nicer to the white house press core -- corps. bsolutely. >> thank you.

greg leggett, the head of the n.s.a. task force on edward snowden, he was told quote we are having a conversation about granting edward snowden, to what degree were you pleased he floated this trial balloon. what do you say to americans, sir, after possibly being alerted to john leon's decision earlier this week reading the panel recommendations, believe edward snowden set in motion something that is proper and just in this country about the scope of surveillance and should not be considered by this government a criminal? >> i've got to be careful here, major, because mr. snowden is under indictment. , s been charged with crimes and that's the province of the attorney general and ultimately a judge and jury. i can't weigh in specifically on this case at this point.

i'll make -- i'll try to see if i can get at the spirit of the question even if i can't talk about the specifics. i said before and i believe that this is an important conversation that we needed to have. i have also said before that the way in which these disclosures happen have been damaging to the united states and damaging to our intelligence capabilities. and i think that there was a way for us to have this conversation without that damage. i'll give you just one specific example. the fact of the matter is that the united states for all our awards is -- warts is a country that abides by rule of law, that cares deeply about prifecy, that cares about civil liberties, that cares about our we have ion, and

country who actually do the things that mr. snowden said he's worried about very explicitly, engaging in surveillance of their own citizens, targeting political dissidents, targeting and suppressing the press. who somehow are able to sit on the sidelines and act as if it's the united states that has problems when it comes to surveillance and intelligence operations. and that's a pretty distorted view of what's going on out there. and think that as important as necessary as this debate has been, it is also important to keep in mind that this has done

unnecessary damage to u.s. intelligence capabilities and u.s. diplomacy. but i will leave it up to the courts and the attorney general to weigh in publicly on the specifics of mr. snoweden's case. >> if i could follow up, mr. leg it is-s setting this -- leggitt is setting in motion -- if there was ever gg to be a conversation on amnesty or plea-bargain. >> i think that's true, major. i guess what i'm saying is -- >> you would never consider it? >> what i'm saying is there is a difference between mr. leggitt saying something and the president of the united states saying something. >> thank you, mr. president. merry christmas and happy new year. you talk about the issues of health care and the website rollout, but there have been other issues, misinformation about people keeping their

policies, extended deadlines, postponements, we have a new waiver that h.h.s. announced last night. how do you expect americans to have confidence and certainty in this law if you keep changing it? this one here, this new waiver last night, you could argue you might as well have delayed the mandate. >> that's not true because what we are talking about is a very specific population that received cancellation notices from insurance companies. the majority of them are either keeping their old plan because the grandfather clause has been extended further, or they are finding a better deal in the marketplace with better insurance for cheaper costs, but there may still be a subset, a significantly smaller subset than some of the numbers that have been advertised, that are still looking for options or still concerned about what they are going to be doing next year.

and we just wanted to make sure that the hardship provision that was already existing in the law would also potentially apply to somebody who had problems during this transition period. so that's the specifics of this latest change. that is the specifics of this latest change your making the broader point that i think is think in a big project like this that what we are constantly doing is looking at it that this is working the way it is supposed to and if there are adjustments that can be made to smooth out the transition. we should make them. they do not go to the court of the law. first of all the court of the law is for the 85% of the population, all they have been care,g pre-preventive better consumer protections, the ability to keep their kids on

their insurance plans until thousand dollar or $500 discounts on medicare. 85% of the population, whether they know it or not over the last three years, have benefited from a whole set of the provisions of the law. by the way, if you were to be repealed, you would be taking away all those benefits from full to already -- folks who are already enjoying them. you have the sub portion of the population who either don't have health insurance or sign signed onto the vigil markets. that is still millions of people . what are we doing -- what we are doing is creating some tax credits to help them afford it. the basic structure of that law is working, despite all the problems. despite the website problems, despite domestic problems, despite all that, it is working.

i gave, you do not have to take my word for it, you have a people werellion going to have health insurance. despite the fact that it was lost despite what desperate website.with the yet you still had 2 million people who signed up, or more. then, is thats the demand is there, and as i said before the product is good. now, in putting something like this together, there are going to be all kinds of problems that crop up. some of which may be have been unanticipated, and we want to respond to them in a commonsense way. we are going to continue to try to do that. that does not deed gate the fact

-- negate the fact that a year from now, or two years from now we will look back and be able to say even more people have more health insurance than they did before. that is not a bad thing. that is a good thing. iat is part of the reason why pushed so hard to get this law done in the first place. before, this is a messy process, and i think would people say that -- what i say that people think it is real fact that isn't the it is so messy some indication that there are more fundamental problems the law -- with the law? when you try to do something this big affecting this many people, it is going to be hard. in every instance, whether to social security, medicare, the prescription drug plan under president bush, there has not

been an instance where you try to really have an impact on the american people lost lives and well-being, particularly in the health care reit over you do not end up having some of these challenges. the question is going to be, ultimately, do we make good decisions trying to help as many people as possible in as efficient as a way out as possible? that is what we're doing. >> with 72 hours to go to this change must are people buying a junk policy that you are trying to people away from? of all in mind, first that the majority of folks are going to have different options. ans is essentially additional net in case folks might have slipped through the cracks. we do not have position on those numbers mode but we expect them to be a relatively small number because these are folks who want

insurance, and the vast majority of them have adoptions. a state like north carolina the overwhelming majority have just cut their own plans. the ones that they had previously -- kept their own plans. we continue to think that it makes sense that as we transition to a system in which ensured standards are higher, people do not have unpleasant surprises because they thought they had assurances -- insurance until they meet a limit. we know they owe several thousand dollars for a hospital stay. as we transition to higher standards, and better insurance, that we also address the folks who get caught in that transition and the unintended consequences. that was hoping that was grandfathered into the law. it did not catch enough people. we learned from that, and we're

trying not to repeat those mistakes. thank you mr. president. what was the message you're trying to send with not only today the people to the delegation -- me attendinghat the x, particularly at a time when we have all of these other things that people are talking about his would be tough. although i love with -- would love to do it. all the going to a lot of games post-presidency. the delegation speaks for itself. yet about sending america's, outstanding athlete. you people who who will represent us extraordinarily well. that we have folks like

billie jean king who themselves have been world-class athletes that everybody acknowledges for the excellence but also for the character, you also happen to be lgbt community, you should take that for what it's worth. when it comes to the limits, we do not make the sting tunes on the basis of sexual orientation. we judge people on how they court, andth on the off the court. on the field, and off the field. that is a value that i think is at the heart of not just america that also american sports. i'm going to roll down these last few real quickly. house, hef the white deserves a question.

the best seen as large-scale overhaul of the tax your methodat does or detritus say about the hope for the tax code in the second term? be ax baucus is going to great messaging to china, and i hope for a swift confirmation. bothpe is that if democrats and republicans and the house and the senate are serious about tax reform that it is not going to depend on one guy, and is going to depend on all of us working together. ready, willing, and iner to engage both parties a conversation about how we can do both by the tax code to make it fairer and work to create more jobs and do right by middle-class americans. thank you.

mele kalikimaka. looking back at the year, i would like to ask you about your reaction to the group , when they said the lie of the year was you saying if you like your health care you can keep it. the fallout from that seems to be democrats a little rambunctious and independent of you. most clearly in the debate over the iranian sanctions. they reid had expedited iranian sanctions bill for january, and you have been trying to get them to lay off sanctions. >> you're stringing a bunch of things along here. hone in on a question.

[laughter] out thebout i separate iran question from the health care question? thate health or question care question, i have answered several times, the bottom line continuee are going to to work every single day to make sure that implementation of the health care law and the website and all elements of it, including the grandfather clause work better every civil day. pressaid in previous conferences, we're going to make mistakes, and were going to have intentions have

been clear throughout. i just want to help as many people as possible feel secure, and make sure that they do not go broke. we're going to keep on doing that. there is the resolution to a problem that has been a challenge for american national security for over a decade. that is giving iran -- getting in a very viable fashion to not pursue a nuclear weapon. , and inhe first halt some cases some rollback of iran's nuclear capabilities, the first time that we have seen that in almost a decade.

which have a structure in we can have a very serious conversation to see if it is possible for iran to get right with the international community to giveifiable fashion, us all confidence that any peaceful nuclear program that they have is not going to be weapon iced in a way that threatens us or our allies in the region including israel. as i've said before, and i will repeat, it is very important for us to test whether that is possible. guarantee, it is a but because the alternative is possibly us having to engage in some sort of outlet -- conflict to resolve the problem.

i've been very clear from the start, i mean what i say. it is my goal to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but i would rather do it diplomatically. i'm keeping all options on the table, but if i can do diplomatically, that is how we should do it. i would think that that would be the preferences of everybody up on capitol hill, because that is the province of the market people. -- preference of the american people. we lose nothing through negotiation because there are provisions in place. we will have more insight into the wrong pots nuclear program program of thear next six months than we did previously. we will know if they are violating the terms of the agreement. they are not accelerating their stockpile of interest uranium, they have to reduce their stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

ironically, if we did not have time in which we are testing whether or not we can get a copper has a solution to this problem, they would be advancing even further on their nuclear program. in light of all that, what i've said to members of congress, democrats and republicans, there's no need for new sanctions. not yet. says -- comes back and iran comes back and says we cannot give u.s. arts is that we -- not going to weapons is assurances that we are not going to weapon eyes, if they do not address the capabilities we know capacity fordress weapons, it is not going to be hard for us to turn the dials back, strengthened sanctions even further. i will work with members of congress to put even more

pressure on iran. there's no reason to do it right now. surprised thatt there has been some talk from some members of congress about make theions that politics of trying to look tough on iran that are often good when you run for office, or if you're in office. as president of the united states right now, who has been responsible over the last four years, with the help of congress, with putting together a comprehensive sanctions regime that was designed to put pressure on them, what i'm saying to them what i said to the international community, and what i've said to the american people, let's test it. now is the time to try to see if we can get this thing done. and i've heard some logic that

says well this to president, -- well, mr. president, we think it is really useful to have this club hanging over iran pothead. -- iran's head/ . in a ron resulting losing billions of dollars in lost oil fields. it is not as if we're letting up on that. arguments that well, this way you can be assured, and the iranians will know that if these fail, new and harsher sanctions will be put in place. that thethink radiant have any doubt that they would be willing to pass more sanctions and legislation. we could do that in a day, on a dime.

if we are serious about negotiations, we have to create an atmosphere in which iran is willing to move in ways that they are uncomfortable with. -- in contrast with their ideology and rhetoric. to a do not help them get position where we can actually inolve this, by engaging this kind of action. ok, everybody. i think i'm going to take one more question. >> thank you. one of your longtime advisers is leaving the white house, and some others are coming in. as you reshape her team, how does that change the dynamic here, and how does that impact what you think you got a couple is going forward? one who is living --

leaving me./ that will be a, significant loss. he will still be in town, and hopefully i will be able to consult with him on an ongoing basis. i think that the fact that john is coming it will be terrific. him been trying to get in here for quite some time. that time he was still feeling that he wanted to develop other organizations. john is a great strategist. he is as good as anybody on the mystic policy -- domestic policy, and i think you will be a huge boost to us. he will give us more bandwidth to deal with more issues. i suspect that we may have additional announcements in the new year.

there is a natural turnover that takes place. people get tired, people get worn out. sometimes you need fresh legs. but, what i can tell you is that tireless, have now is and shares my values. the things i have repeated in this conference, which is we get this incredible privilege for a pretty short time, and as much as we can for as many people as we can, to help them live better lives. and, that is what drives them. the sacrifice of being away from their families, soccer games, birthdays, some of them will be working over christmas on christmas -- issues like iran. the fact that they make those kinds of sacrifices, i always

fatal for. -- i am always thankful for. if they need a break after four or five years, i completely understand. have a great holiday, everybody. i appreciate you. happy new year. >> president obama finishing up what should be his last news conference at 2013, spending about an hour going over a number of issues including an essay surveillance, the health care law, even the winter

olympics of what he 14. here on c-span we will open up phone lines to hear what you thought. we will get to your phone calls in just a moment. just a reminder, we're looking at your comment on facebook .com/cspan. check twitter, we will those as well. we'll show all of this to you getting at prime time at 8 p.m. eastern. bill says that the president should have done a town hall, the press are not real people they are entertainers. how can americans have faith in the life you keep giving waivers and changing it? geraldine in delaware on our

democrats line. >> i thought that he was as -- as, i very thorough very thorough and knowledgeable. i have a serious problem with the press calling him a liar. they let that roll off their lips so easily. could it have been a misunderstanding? why don't you ask the question, sir, where were you wrong, where did it go wrong, and not a liar. >> barney on our independent line. independent, i am an old-fashioned undergrad who is been displaced -- democrats was been displaced. been pleased to hear about the deal made on the

budget. i'm very happy to hear that the resident appears to have an open mind but the snowden and nsa issue. now -- inge he appears have been anti-this president since this beginning -- >> you have been anti-this president? >> yes sir. for a change, though, he seems to be a leader for all of us and not just the far left. i am impressed with what he actually said in this discussion today. and what he has performed thus far in the last month or so with respect to the budget and the nsa and the iran too. hopefully he will continue with this. hopefully you will stay out of local stuff like that thing with trayvon martin. no comments from our president

on that, because he is about individual things. i hope we will exercise this leadership for all the citizens, that he appears to have done in the last month. disenfranchised democrat, i feel much more confident. >> he had a number of prompt -- questions about the portal care act, focusing on some news from the white house late yesterday. the headline from the iraq -- from the new york times -- the white house said on thursday night. that, a senator the newde island, deadline to get covered by obamacare is 12/31.

let's go to our republican line, lenny is in london, texas. what did you think? samethink it's just the dance and different song. i'm not sure why the american people cannot see through this president. the insurance is just horrible. nobody is getting to save money, it is costing everybody money. i lost my insurance, and i went $464 a month to $800. i can't find anything cheaper. he keeps changing it from and i cannot know if i can get insurance because i do not know if i -- it will change tomorrow. he is a very good talker am has done nothing. are cost-of-ks living, he should be run out of office.

any congressman who attacked our vets, they should be run out of office. our vets should be left alone. >> youngstown, ohio, joe on the democrats line. what did you hear? opportunity -- the gentleman who gets left he should be taking time to think about any president in his possession. the as a whole lot of responsibility, give them a whole lot of respect, and i hope instead of criticizing what party we belong to, try to make this country something we can all be out of. i appreciate your time, and i wish everybody a merry christmas and a happy new year. fishing upt obama his news conference, and he and the first family the late --

this afternoon will leave for hawaii. , or a $500 antal $3500 dollars a day. luther on the independent line. >> how are you doing, sir? the iranian sanction thing, i think the president is right that we already have sanctions on iran of and have been there for a long time. we have finally gotten to a point where we can negotiate with them, and to put more sanctions, if they can come together on a par agreement, we arty have -- already have. why do they not work together on those types of issues? o'er the new job bill that the president put out there?

i am a disabled that, and i had issues with paying my rent this month because i have not got a check, and i need some help. all these agencies out there, all of these organizations who get money for vets, the military needs help. whothese people out here are happy, this christmas, who have given money to the organization, most of it is not going to help vets. the iranian situation, the iranian sanction, they were not hard of the final defense bill that the president signed at the white house earlier today. also, the white house announcing that the president is naming senator max baucus as his nominee to be the abbasid china -- ambassador to china. statement released a

saying that the u.s. china relationship is one of the world possible important bilateral relationships. it's been hard, my goal will be to further strengthen it diplomatic and economic ties to join our two nations. >> republican line. thanks for taking my call. i have learned to part everything rock obama says because he deliberately, repeatedly, mislead the american public whenever he can. he misled the american people about the extent of the nsa surveillance. and now he says that is a dialogue we should have about reining in vienna say script -- reining in the nsa. now he says we are going to find theseto give bailouts to

people. and now he is deliberately and repeatedly misleading the american people about the real goal of his relationship with iran. what is he is pursuing now the brought -- rod is the normalization of iran as a nuclear satate. does is -- and congress takes legal action that threatens is a arty will he stop doing that. hashtag on twitter is tweets,. , .

darlene is in columbus, ohio, on our democrats line. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak. one thing i wanted to say regarding the affordable health care act, any system i have been -- i have been a technology consultant for 25 years, every system requires a lot of work. when you're in dealing with contractors you're not always going to get what you're paying for. unfortunately, that is what has happened. that left president obama looking bad in that sense, but when it was deployed it was not working. sanctions against iran, i think that they are there, and i think intever we can do here enforce those

sanctions, the issue should be laid at rest and bring our soldiers home. as a relates to this nsa issue of surveillance, it is not just nsa, it is all of the agencies. it is nsa, cia, dod. they need to look more into that, i was hoping to hear more about those issues from the president then just only on the nsa. when you're talking about surveillance and our own senate appropriations budget allowing for testing and evaluation of technology for wars that don't exist, and allowing those testing and evaluations on citizens in our country, that is what needs to be talked about. the surveillance issue of a phone or in e-mail is quite small when you consider testing and evaluation on citizens. that right there needs to be the president pot next agenda when he returned from a very well warranted vacation. >> during his news conference,

the president did address that the presidential panel came back , 46 organizations, and he says he will address the issue in some sortcoming up in january. here is paul, who was on the republican line. >> thank you. once again,t questionets asked a he rambles on for five to 10 minutes and you can barely pick up the part where he answers the question. the main thing i called about with the situation with the president continuingly talking and telling us, how wonderful unemployment situation is. if this employment is going on, why can't some of the unemployment benefits be cut? >> he started calling on

congress to cut those insurance benefits, but the house and senate have finished work for the year, and heading off the link -- for the christmas recess. aboutrepeal is accountability. some headlines from the news conference -- let's get one more call in.

dan is in columbia, south carolina. >> how are you? the main thing i have to point out, being an independent, i do not fault of either side. country backt this to understanding what the duty of the federal government is as given in the constitution. areybody talks about they owed this order ode that. the only goal of the creation of the federal government was to protect the individual rights of the citizens of the united states. due to create a nice place to live. it is not fair to make it easy for you to have health care, that is up to the people. people need to be personally responsible and stay care of their own problems. until we as a country can figure out how to take care of ourselves, we cannot actually hold a contract with each other. how can someone be empowered for

what i make when the reason they not be able to afford their health care insurance is because they may have made poor decisions. there are people in this country that think that the government owes them something, and the truth of the matter, the president is stepping out of line left and right, throwing ging theate, chan law, and the congress is just standing there. to democrats are just going support him. no one is thinking for themselves, and that is why the country is going to hell in a handbasket. >> thank you for all of your calls. the conversation continues online. one more reminder am the we will show you all of the president

positives conference at 8:00 p.m. journalm our washington nussle.with james host: joining us now is former congressman, former omb director james nussle to talk about the issues facing congress and the administration. what do you do today? guest: i serve on some boards and i am a independent consultant. i get to pick and choose issues i think are important and that i like. that is why i focus on fiscal issues. i have always been drawn to that. you and i probably both grew up in the time where it was understood that in washington you always try to follow the money. i came out here to follow the money and i am still trying to follow the money. host: you served as budget committee chair.

do you miss being up there? guest: i do, but i do not miss it to the point where i would go back. i served 16 years in the house and a couple as budget director in the white house. i loved it. what a fascinating experience. a great opportunity to serve. people say that and it is kind of a cliché. you miss the people. i do miss the people and i miss it more, particularly today, the ability to solve problems, to come together. that seems to be missing. even when you talk to some of my former colleagues, they are very frustrated by the way the tone

has changed here on capitol hill. host: when was the last time you talked to john boehner? guest: 10 days ago i was in his office. i am on the national board of the down syndrome society. we were talking about the able at, which allows people with down syndrome -- the able act. we have over 300 cosponsors, bipartisan, in the house. 60 senators have signed onto this bill, that slightly changes the law to allow people to earn a little bit more than the $2000 cap that has been there more than a day. we might get something passed that is a bipartisan solution that everybody seems to agree with. it is a tax bill. we have to find the vehicle to get it through. that was the last time i talked to john. host: how do you think he is doing? guest: it is great to see him in that role. those who know him well and came in with him and grew up with him

in public service knew he would be good at his job. but i do not envy it. there are times when he would say the same thing. trying to herd those different cats and various opinions and get them to go in one particular direction seems to be harder today than ever before. host: op-ed today in the new york times. john boehner's betrayal. the goals of groups like ours are goals that congressional republicans want to espouse. less spending, lower taxes. those who demand such things today from elected officials face unfounded attacks. the budget deal congress came up with is the betrayal of the conservatives who fueled the

republicans' midterm shellacking of democrats. guest: i would term it differently. it is interesting that she would characterize the tea party that way. when i came in, i was considered a conservative. we were all conservatives. we were small government conservatives. we were not anti-government conservatives. we knew there was a role for government. we thought they could spend the money more wisely and if you reduced taxes there could be economic growth and there needed to be a safety net for people who could not help themselves. we believe in those things, but there were better ways to accomplish them. there is a new faction against government. government of all kinds is bad and there is a hatred toward it. that is different -- that is

difficult to manage. if you do not believe in government at all, nothing else on capitol hill is right. it is not small government as much as it is antigovernment, at least for constituents. host: if you were in congress today, would you be a member of the tea party caucus? guest: probably not. i would think that on this last budget agreement, i am someone who could very easily be critical of that. is it a good deal? is it the best way to manage our federal government? is it the best way to budget for the federal government of course not.

no one should celebrate this agreement as a major breakthrough that is going to bend the curve of our debts or spur economic growth. is it good news that finally someone like paul ryan and patty murray could get together in a room and work something out even though it is 20% of the budget in its entirety and it is only for a short term? is it good news? of course it is good news. neither side got everything they wanted. what we got is constituents and citizens talking. that is a good step forward. host: what do you think about the extra congressional process this budget had to go through? guest: i do not like the extra congressional process this budget had to go through. normal assumes there is some normality to it at some point. it has not gone through the

normal process since i was there. it is good news that is going through any process. before capitol hill or members of congress can consider reforming the budget process, they should consider using the one that is there. 40% in the house and almost the same in the senate have never >> gone through the regular budget process. they have not even seen it. they have not seen what we call regular order on capitol hill. he already to go and reform the process. it is like saying that hammer is broken. why don't you try it before you say, i need a new toolbox? host: james nussle served in congress 16 years, from 2001 until 2007 and then moved on to the white house.

he is from iowa. undergrad at luther college. law degree in des moines. he is our guest for the next 40 minutes or so. the numbers are up on the screen. david, you are the first caller. you are calling from mississippi. please go ahead with your comments for former congressman james nussle. caller: i want to know why we can send so much money overseas and we cannot protect people right here in america who are suffering? why is it always a problem when it comes to helping the poor, but we can send money overseas to people we do not know and for things we have no idea about?

guest: that is a great question. it is always a balancing act trying to determine the priorities in the budget. how much goes to programs that help people who cannot help themselves or people who are poor or between jobs and balancing the priorities of our foreign policy. trying to ensure that we are safe and that our interests around the world are protected. and that we have influence in areas that are important. i think the one misnomer i would say is that -- i would suggest is that we do not spend that much when compared to the overall budget on foreign-policy types of programs. you would see much more in the programs that do help or try and help the poor and people between jobs. people who are unemployed or cannot help themselves. as we were talking moments ago, people with disabilities. i am not suggesting they are perfect. in fact, i think congress is looking and the president has

brought this up -- trying to look at programs that help people who are disadvantaged and who have income disparities -- income discrepancies and inequalities as well as from the republicans on capitol hill wanting to look at welfare programs. seeing if there is not a better way to make sure those dollars are directed to people who need them. that is not even close to the amount of money that is spent on foreign programs. you could argue there are too much, but they are still nothing compared to what we spend for those in the safety net. host: moses from oakland, california, independent line. caller: good morning. i am a longtime watcher, first time caller. i have been watching this program for at least 24 years. ever since i was 25 in the first gulf war. i have been paying attention.

come to find out -- why do we spend all this money on the military? we should spend about 100 times more than anybody. we have got money to waste like that that we don't have any money for here. come on, be real. host: thank you. guest: no question we spent a lot of money on military and national defense. what i try to focus on is how much is wasted. there has not ever been a clean audit of our defense program, of the department of defense or the pentagon. it is not just -- if i may be so bold -- it is not just the total amount, but it is, once that is decided by congress and the president based on their priorities, once it is decided, is that money wasted? i remember a hearing when i was budget chairman, we got a report where the navy was missing i believe three ships.

they did an inventory and counted the ships. they could not find three of them. that is a problem. in major proportion, if you cannot find three ships you have built. it is those kinds of things, in addition to the total amount, that frustrate people. that money is wasted and could go to more important programs in the defense budget or it could be saved and go to the debt or just not taxed at all. host: jim nussle, some twitter followers reacting to your comments about the budget. va_texan. jim is in bed with the big taxers. way to go, jim. a pragmatist, not some limbaugh ideologue. guest: wow. i am glad no one is asking me to comment on miley cyrus or "duck dynasty."

host: i may ask -- guest: please don't. i do not know how to twerk, i have only seen "duck dynasty" once. we are trying to see the whole budget act without all the tools in the toolbox. i am not for increasing taxes. i also know that if you take the tax code off the table and you say we are not going to talk about it, you are suggesting that you like the tax code the way it is. it is the most ridiculous, underperforming code you could imagine for raising revenue for the federal government. no matter where you come down on how the money should be spent or how it is spent or whatever. it is those kinds of things. if you open your toolbox, open the entire toolbox and look at

all the tools, do not try to do it with one arm tied behind your back. host: lydia, texas, republican line. caller: good morning. i have a question. i want to know where you stand on the reduction of the pensions for our veterans, including injured in action. another thing is -- i have been reading about the agreement that the obama administration is enacting with afghanistan. i hear the taliban is up in arms about this and they are going to boycott the elections come april. why are we still sending our kids down there? the agreement is going to keep us there for another 10 years. i would like to know where you stand on that. guest: a great question. i am not sure i can answer the second part of your question.

i think that is something the white house is going to have to address. it is going to address it one way or the other. just because the resources are there, this budget only applies for the next two years. i would not get too excited about believing that this is what is going to be happening in the 10th year. my guess is that all of these priorities will change, even after the next election. as congress goes through a reprioritizing. as far as your first issue goes. we have -- congress has overpromised and will underdeliver, period. they have promised more on social security and health care, war on pensions than they can afford. if you look at -- lindsey graham from south carolina did a pretty good special order on this in the senate. he described how the pensions

are different when they were first instituted for the military back in the 1980's versus how they impact the military today. just before the all volunteer army and military, it was a different system than it is today. there have been some unintended consequences. nobody wants to undervalue our, veterans and our combat veterans and people that have lost limbs and time with families. we have to make sure we can afford promises we have made. right now, congress is determined that those promises are something they cannot afford. host: emails in. finally a republican that speaks the truth about the tea party. republicans being antigovernment. very refreshing.

would you be able to speak that way if you were still in government? guest: i am not sure i could do it and get elected in my district for the nomination. that is a good point. i do council candidates from time to time who come and see me and ask how would you handle it? i think there is a difficulty right now, because of the way districts are drawn. this is true for the liberals and the democrats as well as conservatives. they have to appeal to their extremes just to get a nomination in these districts that have now more appreciated their extremes the way they have been drawn and gerrymandered in some instances. it becomes difficult to come out here and -- a dirty word -- compromise. not getting the full loaf is

disdained. you cannot get half a loaf or 3/4 a loaf. i will give you an example. i support and gave my commitment to the constitution. remember, the constitution itself, that precious document was a product of compromise. the declaration of independence was a product of compromise. they did not come down from the mountaintop in a tablet. it came down through compromise, sweat, even wars to get us to the point where we are today. we have to relearn that word. listening, understanding what the other side and the other person wants. if we are going to get back to self-government in an effective way. host: we like to put our guest'' twitter handles on the screen.

your page is protected. why? guest: i do not know. probably because i do not know what i am doing. i will unprotect it, i will have to ask my wife how. host: tweeting in. every politician who comes on admits waste, yet nothing changes. guest: it is not fair to say nothing changes. it is so overwhelming. if a process is broken -- the budget process, when it was adopted in 1974, was meant to be an annual process. so that the appropriators could go through with a fine tooth comb. so that we could, through reconciliation, look at all the entitlements or automatic

spending programs and pull out the weeds so they do not overwhelm the garden. right now, they are overwhelming the garden. congress has not utilized reconciliation to reform it on a case-by-case, annual basis. the waste is out of control. the reforms are desperately needed. it looks desperate -- the process congress is going through. he is right, we all talk about it. the process is not utilized appropriately and the leadership is not there to utilize the process. host: walter from spartanburg, south carolina. democrat. caller: thank you. good morning, c-span, good morning, jim. a couple comments. i was reading "rolling stone," some of the best investigative journalism on the planet. they said the top five banks and oil companies own about $536

trillion that pay our debts over 1,000 times. when you are in office, we had the largest downfall of the economy on our planet. in 2001, donald rumsfeld said the pentagon had lost $2.3 trillion. nobody wants to say anything about that. we have the tea party people and their cause. i saw a woman carrying a sign that said keep your government's hands off my medicare. where do you stand on the tea party people? how can we fix the budget? host: we have talked about that a little bit, we will get mr. nussle to comment. guest: they are part of the process. it is great people want to be

part of the political process and part of the policy process. they have an opinion. even if they were not part of any organization, they would still hold that opinion. whether it is disrespecting the tea party or the democratic party, it is silly. what needs to happen is a better understanding and a clear understanding of how all of those interests can be utilized in order to come up with a solution. not having a solution. not having an agreement or a decision. no decision is a rotten decision. as we have seen in washington.

for those who are worried about waste, if you do not come to a decision, you cannot root out waste. whether in the pentagon or whatever program you believe is wasteful, you cannot get at it if you are not going through a budget process and an appropriations process and a process to reform the entitlements. i understand how the extremes on both sides have an opinion. i understand how the extremes on both sides have an opinion. but they have to be brought into the decision-making. they have to be part of moving forward if we are going to get the whole system working again. started an -- are why tea party started. guest: i am one of those a status and guys. -- i am one of those east that was meant -- i am one of those establishment guys. host: