>> look for this and other events on ukraine later today in our programs schedule, and of course, online at www.c-span.org . in ukrainetervention was also discussed in the british parliament today. here is an exchange between prime >> i thank the prime minister about that answer. i like to ask him about the meetings coming up. the white house indicated their sanctions will be expanded and i'm sure the whole house will idea that the list f ukrainian russian officials will also be extended. circumstances in which you'll be supporting additional wider eek no, ma'am oeubg and the russian ns on federation? >> as we discussed previously european union set out clear triggers. we said that the russians did quan tact rt in a group with the ukrainian

freezes t then asset, and travel bands should follow. those have been put in place. on i believe further action that front should be taken at on /* on thursday. should be responding to the fact this have annexation. further f there is action to destabilize the ukraine further consequences follow. we need to set that out on our day in concert with european partners and put down a lear warning if there was further destableization then we a position of the orts of economic sanctions we discussed last week. given the totally totally

illegitimate actions they have taken and the g seven allies next week in the hague. that theynconceivable remain in the g8. further and decide?cally >> i think it's unthinkage to go as planned. strongly support the g seven of meeting that will take place on monday. i think it's important we move together with our allies and and i think we should be discussing whether or not to from russia permanently the g8 if further steps are taken. that's the meeting we'll have on i think that's the right way to proceed. all of prime minister's questions here on any time online at

c-span.org. >> mr. speaker, just a few weeks house voted against funding for the contras. contrafundingainst because we felt it is against a rican tradition to fund private army whose goal is to government.nother we felt it is against american radition to foster killing of civilians. we felt it is against american the tion to abandon strength of our ideas and replace them only with the our arsenal. now just a few weeks later, we contravote.cing a why? ortega went daniel to moscow. i'm not happy about any nation soviets for economic help, but that does not change contraissue. the president, our president,

freedom contras fighters. who are these contras? vast majority are men who never believed in freedom. m --ve so-called hugh maine human they'rian aid to an army perversion of morality. i have the report here and i'll you an example, four months was killed at a state owned coffee farm by the contras. wounded first. er face shattered by a grenade and deep knife wound in her side ith the unborn fetus protruding. many others were slaughtered by couldnntras. we must face this. ure there is violence on the left too, which america has

and it's decreasing. but violence on the left and ight must stop and the way to stop it is not by supporting a private brutal army who wants to overthrow a government of a iowa, but bysize of doing what america does best, egotiating a peaceful settlement with the democratic taking the lead the way to stop the violence is to upport the amendment, the gephardt amendment and the hamilton amendment and let us not have the blood of the hands and let us not escalate the involvement of central troops in america. i say vote against the michael amendment. from 35 yearsghts f house floor coverage on the facebook page. c-span 35 years ago and brought today as a public service satellitecal cable or

provider. ouse budget committee says house republicans are considering a budget plan that would change the terms of the murray budget compromise passed late last year. an event t representative also talked about ax cut reform and healthcare and infrastructure spending. is comments are about half an hour. >> they count on me for crassness. on forcase we are moving yet another of our keynote conversations and conducting my colleague and friend david graham. he's graham david a on twitter and will have a conversation on and tate of the economy budget politics with chris van a ranking member of the u.s. budget committee. them.d for

congressman thank you for being here. jump right in. there seems to be a sort of idea gelling that maybe the budget are over. this ryan murray suggests there is a day topbt. we look forward to next few months? great to f all, it's be here. i think you have a temporary truce. the budget agreement that was reached in december carries us year 2014 and fiscal year 2015. 2015 begins next october. in ou've got an agreement place to increase spending relative to those very deep for that board cuts period of time. but after that, after fiscal

back to , you're current law and current law is he sequester very deep across the board cuts again and so at some point between now and then revolve ng have to to those issues there. was a concern of course that we showdown overther the deficit but fortunately we did not and we were able to the debt ceiling without too much frenzy. there is some talk now and it's the house hat republicans, my colleague paul may be considering putting fourth a budget proposal that actually change parts of the ryan murray agreement. the case t's not because that would create unnecessary disruption. they might trylk to increase the defense spending 2015 and fiscal year reduce the non-defense number

for fiscal year 2015. i should be very clear. those numbers were very carefully negotiated. a move in here was that direction it would create unnecessary uncertainty. as of now, temporary truce, i think, and hopefully that will last. >> were you pretty luke warm on this deal. deal.id it was an perfect if something like this kind of change happened, how would that play out. look like it politically and how would the process go? >> if you had a change in the agreement? exactly. >> that would throw a monkey wrench in the process. one of the benefits of the agreement was the appropriateers, the people who make the decisions about how to and allocated funds within those limits have already been able to get to work, right? for years they've not been able to get to work because there was an agreement between democrats and republicans and house and senate as to the overall numbers. to change the agreement, you would throw all

air again.o the i should say, because i did a nk that the agreement was positive develop but far from perfect. budget attempts to address some of those issues by saying within the limits heal indicates resources, but he suggests that it would be better if republicans and democrats could come together to agree to increase investment in non-defense spending, things like research nih and other important nvestments and also increase our military readiness by $25 million in additional funds in those categories. that.t's talk about the earned income tax increase which is the greatest ossibility for bipartisan agreement. do you see your republican colleagues going along with that >> i hope so. proposal is an extension of

he idea of the earned income tax credit which i think on a ipartisan basis people agree it's been an effective tool. extend idea here is to that childless workers. right now it applies to who are working who have families and this would extend to childless workers and to most projections in budget office al would help lift substantial umbers of people out of poverty. i hope we move forward. the price tag over a ten year $78 billion. the question is always how are you going to offset that? his resident offsets it in budget by reducing certain tax and benefits in other areas. republican our colleagues would agree to that approach or not. what the question offsets are or could you imagine

acksliding on the extension itself? >> well, we'll have to see. come i hope we can idea.her and support that i'm not sure. for example, one question will be when oh if and when the house republicans put forward their going to e they include this extension. that will be the first clue as to whether or not they want to forward that idea. >> how about the minimum wage. that eight other big ticket item fair to say that's a non starter in the house? >> well, we're trying to get a minimum wage in the house, the democrats have filed petition.e trying to collect signatures to essentially pressure the speaker of the house to bring that up for a vote. we're confident if we had a vote on the minimum wage increase we would win in the house of representatives. would get a majority vote if we did the immigration

in the house. so far the speaker has not have that vote. i think the votes are there. he question in the house as with many bills is the opportunity to get a vote and let the housework its will. playing on that theme, things democratic senate colleagues sent over, unemployment insurance. this is something the democrats very important for the economy and people. not a whole lot happening in the house so far. prospects.ut the >> that's another sore spot in the house. couple of weeks we'll file one on the other bill i entioned which is the comprehensive immigration reform bill. those three issues, extension of unemployment compensation and minimum wage and immigration house shouldnk the vote on this year. they're important measures to

vote untry and people can yes or no but at least we should have a vote. compensation nt extension is not only important o the families who are struggling. we still have an economy where looking ee people are for each job, but it's also good economy.eneral a doctor indicated that if you extended unemployment insurance of this year, you would savor create about by the end of this year. are s because when people able to pay their rent, pay heir mortgage, go to the grocery store and buy goods it's good for the local economy and the national economy. if people can't make those payments it just has a negative ffect on the surrounding economies. >> we talked about these oncrete policies, on the other side of the aisle we see a lot f republicans focusing on

poverty in a new way. and mike lee in the senate are the most visibly. are they taking it more seriously? it and is g on with there some way we can agree about these things? said is that the test of whether this is serious r not will be in the house republican budget. after all, budgets are expressions of our priorities values and what we care about. in the past despite a lot of talk from some of our colleagues the confronting poverty, budgets have decimated very anti-poverty fighting efforts. we all know we can do a lot on poverty.e war you still have tens of millions poverty ans below the line and that's absolutely unacceptable.

at the if you look period from 1967 until today or data, it 2 the latest shows that the initiative that's have been taken over that period of time result in about forty million fewer americans in poverty. would be a big mistake to unwind some of the important place.es that are in we can look at reforms if the goal is to strengthen and improve those programs. last year's republican budget slashed medicaid which is health program that has the lowest cost per capita any of the health programs whether in the private market or compared to medicare essentially cut that by $800 billion over ten period. on the food and nutrition programs they proposed to cut by 1 forty billion in budget.st so this is a question of what is

your budget do, not what you say. and just -- paul ryan's friend f mine but we have very deep disagreements on these policy issues and i think they misdiagnosis the problem. his recent comments suggest that lack of motivation that people just do not want to work. of not wantingre to work. i think the problem is a lack of opportunity. and that it is's important that key issues here and provide greater opportunities for help people up and if you slash important programs that provide some basis of economic security, you're going to actually make the problem a lot better. ot >> there is this ideological disagreement about whether eople want to work and also a policy agreement. you see his report on war in

that all these problems aven't worked haven't the poverty rate hasn't fallen nearly enough and we haven't poverty. t in >> let's begin with the premise. if you look at the report it's of different policy initiatives over a period of time. ome people dispute some of the facts. but part of it is just a catalog of different programs. opening statement begins with the false premise which is that we haven't made any progress. a long wayted we got to go. but the counsel of economic exhaustive a very report in january, the 50th year of the the decoration of war on poverty. have seenfound is you a 40% reduction in poverty where we would be without these measures mut in place. that we haven't made any progress is false. if you start with it then you

these 's get rid of programs as opposed to look for ways to improve them. improve the you food and nutrition program by out of it.0 billion medicaid which is an important healthcare and also foreniors lower income families and again, on a shoestring. here are ready fairly low reimbursement rates and so to take almost a trillion dollars of that program would be the death of it. >> >> there are some things you and you mentioned the hole.ich loop republicans themselves seem a little bit less fond of this plan. any hope of this going forward?

hat is the prognosis for tax overhaul? >> the interesting thing the eople who put on their running shoes the fastest were our colleagues. credit for kemp putting a l it is harder than you think to rates in a deficit-tpraou tral manner. by eliminating certain tax benefits, tax and for years the house republican budget has said drop the tax rate rom where it is today 39% down to 25%. and we have pointed out epeatedly during these budget discussions you cannot do that

actually increasing the tax burden on middle income americans. we think the math shows that. i think dave has proved. look at his if you plan, you actually have a top of 25% tax rate, not but of 35%. and he also put a lot of in there to make deficit try to make it neutral in the first ten years. and bank tax fee in there. even with everything he tried to o most people look at this and believe it will increase yearsts in the second ten because he moves forward through various changes in sort of the accounting going from

to roth ira's which in the next ten year window. increase deficits and put a drag on economy. for putting edit something out there. >> when he gives up the gavel will this create a template or move back to where we were before. look, i think the different pieces, the components certainly things that will be in play and discussed. o, if and when we're able to ove forward on a comprehensive tax reform legislation these are ideas out there. i'm sure we have a discussion on the budget this year in the house budget committee we'll healthy discussion of some of dave's proposals as well. know, there is one area in

universe that there is at least overlapping do ce skpabl that has to primarily with corporate tax reform. president's at the proposals or dave's proposals. different there are some important principals. we would work by expanding the overlap in the way they deal with international taxation. and interestingly both proposals se some of the income captured as part of corporate tax reform transportation trust fund or our infrastructure investment and we haven't mentioned that. but i would say that that's got to be an important national priority. later this year, in fact there are already signs this is appening, there is not enough revienue to do the work that

done around the country and in september, all new rojects, all funds for projects will come to a halt if act ess doesn't get its together. there are some things congress has to do this year and in my one of them. >> infrastructure democrats have about.alking it's in every budget president obama has put forward and still movement on ot of that. what will it take for some sort change? >> well, this is something that we y as lot of us because need to come up with a long term plan for our national investment and right now as in so many other congress we're on a week to week and month to month term horizon. the key issue comes down to funding. mean, for the transportation

trust fund there. get nly two ways you can the money. instead of using the dollars into the transportation trust fund dedicated revenues tax and other dedicated replenish you don't those somehow or come up with a mechanism to expand those then you're borrowing rom the general fund there are a number of proposals to deal with this. as i said, the president's calls for specific reductions of certain corporate breaks and if our republican colleagues don't like that idea should put forward another idea of how to pay for it. group. not dave camp's proposal but so far they seem to be running away from it. sure. you mentioned doug who was here before. especially kind to democrats. n the last few months on the

affordable care act and minimum seems to rts that report that there there would be impact on employmenunemploymen. >> i want to salute the doctor because he has a tough job as the umpire who calls the balls and strikes and there will be times when one party or agree does not fully with his assessment but you've got to have somebody who has that job, right? otherwise ate total chaos. to embers of congress get make up their own projections you can imagine. s crazy as the budget process is now it would get that much worse. for example, when the doctor pointed out that the economic save him ll helped millions of jobs, republicans didn't like it.

that is some analysis democrats might not always love. but on the two issues you raised the t to point out fundamental misunderstanding and surrounded ization one of their proposals. our country as you know, if you go work for your break.er you get a tax your employer gets to provide with a tax lthcare benefit. they're not charged a tax on that benefit. with who go to work employers who provide health nsurance are getting a tax subsidized health insurance. before the affordable care act hat kind of benefit was not accessible for people who didn't go to work for an employer with a tax benefit. we have a system under the affordab care act where you can purchase your healthcare in an exchange. we have much more work to get the exchange up working fully

access the tax benefit in the exchange depending on your income. and that frees up more choices for people. to be very clear the cbo assessment with respect said that in the ut years as people have more choices, they may select not to to as many hours or select work in a particular job that hey were working because that was their only way to access healthcare. it wasn't that they were going of their jobs.t it was they now have the ability o access this tax credit elsewhere. so look -- we can talk about the minimum wage issues as well. they projected in the year 2,017 you would have 500,000 fewer jobs. they said that this year if we insurance byoyment the end of this year, we'd have

and if additional jobs you adopted immigration reform ou would see job growth that would dwarf the kind of cuts that even they projected in the minimum wage.the nd finally, the minimum wage also will benefit over 20 million americans -- i should sixteen million americans directly and millions more by being able to have more purchasing power. is just wrong that our country you can work full-time below the federal poverty line. as a country if you full-time, 40 hours a week, you should not fall below the poverty line. question.ick what kind of moral support are successor?g to your

doing a great job. as we go intothat the november election cycle, democrats would like is for us to be able to punch through on some of the specific got with that we've respect to the economy. of themple, closing some international tax breaks in order to invest in our at home.cture early education and minimum wage. policy issues i've seen suggested strong support. that ard to punch through where there is so much olarization and focus on dysfunction. but steve is doing well and e'll work hard to get the message out and turnout on elections is a huge issue as well. >> do we have any questions?

>> good morning. plumber with daniel plumber incorporated and we're a company. my question is congress doing anything to address the student debt specifically and legitimate problems that ctually wipe the debt for any kind of public service and second, is congress working to credit laws of the that were passed over the last consumer ith the high interest rates? me take the student first.estion we're up to about a trillion loan debt.tudent we're also in the economy where we want to make sure in order chance to have to the compete and get ahead they can o to college, that affordability should not be a major obstacle. so there are three areas where federal government has moved. number one, it has do with pel

grants. increased the size of pel grant payments. i s is another difference should say between the different the house ause republican budget would cut pel gram r the program. number two, work to keep down the nterest rates on subsidized federal student loans. hey were going to double to 6.8% and we were able to keep them lower. addresses the question you raised which has to do with the ability to repay. and there are a number of opportunities for people now through public service or other kinds of service that they on their reduction sort ayments and also now of safety nets fire breakers if income is below a certain

your then you can payoff student loan over a longer period of time. only a certa-- i should say one challenges here has been that even as federal support for loans has gone up so has tuition and it's difficult to ties p a system that federal student loan or grant to the question of charged by being universities. we're looking at that but it's hard. or example, some united states may be increasing their tuition to expandse they want their operation, but during the economic turn down at least with universities and colleges, because there were less resources, they therefore cut back on their contributions to their universities and in some cases had to struggle to increase their

order just to maintain current service. parts.are lots of moving we would invite anybody who has tie ea how you could federal student assistance and it's a trickyition area. in terms of the other credit sure exactly ot which ones you may be referring to. >> just to follow up the prior question. enerational note, i'm not suggesting this is a father/son chat although the visual does way. that poll o you see in the new numbers about changing attitudes in the on coming generation and

have on ct might that the composition on the house of epresentatives over the next 6-8 years? i'm sorry. udes -- >> changing social attitudes. >> and also they bleed into convictions. it's hard to predict how this will impact our politics going forward. you see a mix of people.es among young one is on a lot of the social issues. would nd to be what we sort of general eyes in saying more socially liberal. when it comes things like gay other or a number of issues like that, i think that you're going to see a continuing trend. you look at that issue as one

good example, we have seen changes to the country in a very short period i think that's driven by younger voters and the next generation. their sure how all ttitudes will shape economic policy. clearly, the coalition of young vote was important to president election in 2008. 2012 not as much energy and not as much enthusiasm 2012, but again a significant voting block. is whether those sort of voting trends among young people will continue into future. mean there's a fair amount of evidence that people tend to tick with their choices of

political parties throughout their lives on average, but i know. it's a very good question as to this will change and effect our politics going forward and a lot of people are spending time get an rt trying to answer to that question. as you know, big part of these days is trying the information available now through social media and all the other data there to get a better idea of how voters are thinking young voters but across the board. >> thank you very much. i think we're out of time. appreciate it. thank you, both. david and graham terrific job. david wanted to ask and didn't get to. so frustrated and wake up in the morning and say what would l. b.j. do? the answer is yes.

the congress.f look, i the president has been ealt a very tough hand with this congress. that's my personal view of we ent through a whole litany of issues where we were trying to get a vote in congress. f we got a vote i think we would be able to move forward. them. cannot make >> thank you all. david. you so much, >> all week on our c-span two book tv and primetime. onight technology and privacy concerns. age" he book "new digital later n author of peter w. singer, "cyber security and cyber war what everybody

8:00 a personal conversation about crisis reagan's health issues and the monica lewinsky's scandal. and at 9:30 abraham lincoln and kennedy all of whom had a child die while they served in white house and then presidents who fell ill while office.me in the that's at 8:00 eastern on c-span three. back to yesterday's atlantic conference. they talked about the republicans chances of taking control of the senate this fall sized up the field of potential candidates for 2016.ent in about me say a few words groabout

trevor. ow many of you watch steven colbert. if you don't want watch it. had grover on on many occasions but had him on one indication. said, imagine we have taken all our grandmothers -- you remember this show? a container m in underground and smother it with unless you 're -- agree to raise taxes we're going out and go ire ants after all our grandmothers. e said, would you give in and grover said, we've got memories photos e got a lot of and yahoo photos and we'll rest well. grover was in my office when i was at the new american foundation and stopped in on one and he had this big black case and out of the top of the case i just happened to see, i actually looked at, was the oath. sheet with the oath and it was signed by steven

colbert. got him to sign the oath. you can imagine i never looked case but have to the black at tarb shea case sitting in high and e for at least a day half. i didn't even tell you i had it. i just thought i would auction i would y and see what get. ithout further adieu please welcome to the stage darren with on for round two grover norquest. everybody. one of the themes in the last session was short term and long thinking. t was sort of cat scattered so we'll go from the short term to the long term for the republican party starting with dave's plan with tax reform. it for a very on long time. it does lower rates and my lot of members of the republican party have

said they cannot support raises taxes by this much. at dave's plan what do you see as the positives and negatives? he he positives are that lowers rates and begins to et incomedown our corporate tax 35% plus 5% at the state level. o we're at 40 compared to europe. their average is about 25%. t gets us down towards the 25% average. when you state and local we're still above europe. it's a step in the right direction. t's revenue neutral and not a disguised tax increase. they both said they want at dollars over a reform.n any tax that he enge is lengthens depreciation schedules. you can eliminate about a

thousand pages of the tax code f you got rid of all this 5, 7 depreciation schedules and just expense something when you spend it when anymore as youit do with labor. you u buy a machine appreciate it over years. since the senate was never going to agree and the president was sign it this was always a discussion draft and we be unhappy it isn't anything more. all over talking about the country, one of the ways people are talking about minimum wage. it's just a mandate that says have to pay people. this is an issue that some weublicans seem to be saying would be willing to pay.

benefits?u see the >> when you actually write checks to people it's not a tax credit beau spending bill so you have to say do you want to spend more money. kind of spend everything that wasn't nailed down. i don't know that there is more room there. argument that we are income and quality that either the government is fixing or wants to fix. president has been president for five years. if he wanted to do the minimum have done it in to.r 1 or 2 and didn't want the idea that this is the burning concern isn't true. he about itwanted to talk isn't true. the idea that the government could make people not poor that very well and costs a great deal of money. they don't want to talk about that. they don't want to talk about five years where pay for t was going to

jobs. clear leer you can make everyone poorer and still have equality. it but sure you want do could you make everybody poorer and more equal. it's a useful weapon against income and equality? the tax code use in that sense because i think i'd rather say if you're going money make it clear what you're doing and have a vote on it. -- we also have a problem there is a certain fraud. of step one when they want to come in and be serious about omparing who is really there and who is getting checks and some of the addresses that have multiple checks going to them, have a can begin to conversation. but until they're willing to do that, no. > what do you think about -- a lot of people talk about how frustrated they are about the back the fact that nothing can washington. you brought up in a good point in the 37 states you either have

an entirely democrat majority or republican majority at the house governor level. it allows us in a limited but compare useful way to the trajectories of these states going against each other. lessons from y that? >> absolutely. look, in washington, you have and the senate that want to go in different directions. good old k about the days about bipartisan compromise re telling you how old they are. it's true 30, 40 years ago, the get al republicans would together with the liberal democrats and they would argue. washington, in d.c. were bipartisan. nixon.wer up through reagan's time they

sorted things out and they're heading in different directions now. somebody wants to go east and somebody wants to west what would a compromise look. in the old days, they and we igger government would compromise between bigger much bigger. each would go to their corner deal but got a good we were always compromising government.er so now we have one party that wants to go less government and bigger government. and they're not going to agree. ach one can say no to the other. give you some idea. you can quantify this. effects is a fund wh sreufts eupb vests when congress is out of goes in cash when they're in session. 1.6% ock market goes up when they're in session.

when they're out of session it up 17%. 17 times better when congress is not sitting. up any you could wake morning and something bad had happened. longer has the advantage because for the last ouple of years at least since 2011 when the republicans actually held against the push tax increase and the markets were convinced that nothing bad was actually going legislatively there is no discernible difference between when congress is in of session on how the stock market moves. sense of theu some advantage of gridlock. he markets aren't paralyzed whenever congress goes in to meet. but at the state level, as were we have the opposite of gridlock. 24 states have republican republican house and senate. thanks to the marvels of

redistrictin -- the democrats we asked do you want one landslide and they said two. republicans said we want it ten. democrats got two landslides hich lasted for four years and republicans got one and lasted ten years. they chose wisely. that's true not just in washington where we tend to focus on congressional redistricting but for state legislatures it's probably more true. they wanted to make illinois and california bulletproof for democrats havehe 13 states. states.cans have 24 republicans have half the living their states. he democrats have a quarter living in their states. see 13 hose states you states democrat-controlled

states going to become as quickly r greece as they want and there are 24 becoming texas or hong kong and moving in very directions, some more rapidly than others. ut every single democrat state raised taxes and every taxes and state cut big difference. 2050 to e a project by all 50 state to abolish state income taxes. have no nine that income tax now. have carolina and kansas announced we're going to zero and they got about a quarter of the way there so far. arizona and oklahoma, we'll see more moving quickly. and then we can judge. if you can think that more government spending or higher wages make people wealthy or happy or successful

more -- the economy will be that.r then vermont can do they don't have to wait for t.gress to do if >> how about the characters in washing top of you mentioned there are benefits to gridlock. certain things that the republicans want do that require filibuster majorities. they want to lower tax rates and fix obamacare. things will be troubled by the same gridlock that troubles administration. dot trends still worry you in changes you the want made in terms of the tphaogsal government treating the national economy. we have the senate and house races in november. as you look at it it looks for republicans and the number of seats that are held that are danger. i think ate more likely than not that the republicans get the majority. not only have the majority

seats because in 2016 there are a number of seats that you worry about, illinois 1-10 but is was not necessarily solid republican territories. so you want to -- 51 isn't what you are looking for. looking what you're for. very doable. ratherse will strengthen than weaken. he r's have gotten better candidates than the d's but '10 than '12. > when we were sloppy about whether war lock would be in the senate, not being disrespectful, i would prefer to go with -- i don't now episcopalians or something and get elected. 50%.ou said greater than what percent would you give that

the senate turns republican and you are some of the factors think are behind the republican wave that is coming in november? the numberit is just of democrats who are sitting in republican states. virginia is technically a blue state. take the house this year in '14 and maybe the senate. r's?at >> the house, yes. senate 50/50. west virginia senate but we'll senate seat for sure. montana, republican congressman running for the edge of the seat. be a republican pick-up. republican.ll go so is louisiana and so is north south dakota isn't really contested and i just left one of the seven out. alaska. alaska republicans have to make sure they pick one and not have and then they get to win. those are the seven you need to

get across the finish line. but now the republicans are pulling ahead in michigan for the senate race. serious candidate in and colorado both in play. one out of three shot in those. but you add those together and starting to get over. ou worry about georgia, if the republicans nominate the warlock and -- i don't mean to be warlocks. the >> you can define warlock for the audience. our audience running witch.cided she was a which was good enough to beat sitting incumbent republican. but wasn't good enough to get across the finish line in the election in delaware. she's actually a lovely woman and probably an witch. making that up. >> all right.

2014 to 2016, it changes a little bit because on the left there is a lot of faith in the clinton machine if she does announce to be extremely formidable. who you consider the top candidates from the republican party for 2016 what p strengths are. > this field is so much '08 and '12. they weren't actually running president. what they were doing was -- there's not completely irrational. were buying a lottery ticket because maybe they would win a straw pull or a primary press would come and they get attention and then they would raise money and then campaign together and then they get a campaign anager and all the things that

that have happened two years earlier. six time around we have people who are standing on stage already or could step up on the stage and no one would laugh off and say what are you doing here. five governors and one senator. chris christie. he's had some challenges and maybe he doesn't make it. wrigrights himself he'll serious. he has the capacity to raise money and run. nd a narrative of successes in terms of reforming a deep blue state. statewalker turned a blue red. epublican house, senate, governor. they reformed the pension rule there's. reformed public sector unionization. an y year they have to have going.on to keep it you want to keep the union?

yes or no. money out take your your paycheck. they have to ask you for you. $50,000 here in wisconsin pays about a thousand dollars in due. hat was taken out of your paycheck by the school board and given to the union. you never saw it. now it sits in your pocket until union guys come and say, could we have your thousand ollars and you can say thank you, no. and oddly enough, several do. changed the ally state. pass t a concealed carry for the state. has made arepublican contribution to him when the union has tried to recall him. governor who has ever been recalled who got himself re-elected. in ybody else's went down american history. then you go down to rick perry. time.tered last you shouldn't take large quantities of pain medicine debates. i haven't had any in hours.

spoke at said, he c-pack the conference for conservatives and the press was saying, wow, he's incredibly articulate. e is when he's not taking pain medicine and successful governor for 14 years. a real narrative there. an raise a bunch of money and people in texas evidently have it. bobbie down go to in louisiana. aggressive and got school choice for 380,000 $5,000 could take a voucher to any school they want to. that right as soon as schools are available for everybody who wants to take them that. he could and may well run. eb bush was governor for eight ears and perfectly competent

governor. do that.step up and and then rand paul who starts 20, 20% base vote in all states and there i think you an opportunity as a senator he could run. other senators very difficult to senator. what did do you? i passed this bill. yeah, you and 50 other guys. mean you do that? >> but then you're just giving spaoefpz and it's fine about verybody else you're competing with gives speeches. but if you're competing with a guy who can wake up tomorrow and do something which is on president front page of newspapers and television it's compete with them. >> to review, you said christie, walker, perry, bush and paul. top three? >> no, i think the good news is

tested e guys are being for whether they have glass jaws or not and most of them have a bit and h quite christie is being run through the ringer again. it he'll be as but i think he has governed well in a difficult state. he saved $130 billion out of the state pension system and negotiated with a democratic house and assembly and senate in new jersey. sleepers, watch brownback of kansas. he could have an exciting legislative term, just as scott walker did. back in 2011. that could put him up front. other than that, i do not see a governor that has a legislator that would work with him to do the amazing backflips. look at the new kid. kansas might.

from 2014 to 2016 and the elections in the future, a call came out at the end of last week looking at trends among millennial's. it found a couple things. things that are interesting. first, they tend not to identify with labels, republican, democrat. they are mostly independent. but the gap between the number versus theor obama republican candidate in 2012 or 20 -- two dozen eight was the largest in 40 years. 60% of nonwhite millennial's said it is the responsibility of the government to provide health care. this is the most diverse generation. 71% said they want a bigger government with more services. these are not slight majorities. they are filibuster-proof majorities, albeit in a survey. does the republican party have a serious demographic disadvantage moving forward in the next 20 years? what is the best way to think

about this? >> you need to look at demographics in two different ways. democrats think of race, ethnicity, gender. because that is the way they think. there are ways to look at it, the number of self-employed people, government workers versus private sector workers. people who own $5,000 of stock are 18% more republican than democrat. health savings accounts, individual retirement accounts, getting more people into the stock market. the democrat answer is 100,000 more cops, teachers, government employees. jobou hold a government long enough, you are 30% more likely to be a democrat. these are the other demographics. it makes you lower likely to be a democrat or republican. you can add into that the other things you can change. this is why, demographic shift

-- look at the united states 25 years ago. 25 years ago homeschooling was illegal in just about every state. maybe two had it legal. today is pretty much legal in all 50 states. 2 million people homeschool, and they know perfectly well that the modern democratic party wants to take that away from them. add to that the 380,000 parents who know they have a $5,000 voucher in louisiana. the 500 thousand in indiana, 750,000 in north carolina. we are building out schools and structures to allow people the choice. they can go to a different public school, or the one they go to might be nicer to them when they walk in and say, i have $5,000 him and i want to know how you are going to treat my kid this year versus last year. they will treat you with respect, which they will not do now. you tell me. think of how you were treated

when you walk into by a car versus when you go into visit the department of motor vehicles. i do not think they will ever come back in the state for -- where school choice has been juan. -- won. just as labor didn't come back in britain into the fundamentally changed. thatcher allowed people to buy council houses. you can buy your council house, own it. people did. the bolshevik who ran against her for reelection said they would take houses away from them and be socialist. and they got wiped out. in the very areas of people who would have told you, those are labour voters. not when you are threatening my house, my kids' education. was veryago, there little concealed carry, people allowed to carry a gun on them in their purse or in their car.

today 9.3 million americans happens you'll carry permits. person who made that decision is a different human being than the one who says, we have a government, and if someone -- something goes wrong they will draw a white chalk mark around and be helpful. the person who says, i will pass on that and be in charge of myself. try and take that away from people. try and take that away. that is what democrats always get in trouble when they talk about gun control. they don't understand they are threatening something people consider important. liberty,, by expanding and that is where half the country that lives in red states are doing all these expansions sf freedom, and the democrat are going, we would not what you do have that freedom and if we get back in power in washington we will -- wisconsin we will get your dues out and take it back

to the way it was. that is not a real sales pitch. once you give people more liberty, you change the nature of who they are as voters. i think you are seeing some of that with republican openness to a discussion about drug prohibition as a federalism issue in the states. so i am not sure the challenges you mentioned continue out. we are not the same person at 40 than we were at 20. that said, i think -- i work on this personally -- the republican party needs to be much more aggressive in being pro-immigration and we need to be taking all the smart people from around the world and when they come here to get a phd, i'm not in favor of not letting them leave, but i'm in favor of encouraging them to stay, and stealing their airplane ticket home. because we want all this talent. there's a lot of people in a lot of jobs that we need more people. the reason that we are the

future and china is not because we are allowed to have kids and -- we are remembering to have kids and remembering to have immigration. >> we have time for one question. make a great. >> i am john cummings. just promotede liberty and individual responsibility. how do you feel about corporate responsibility? such as companies who through negligence or error dump chemicals into a west virginia river and declare bankruptcy? how can our economy deal with situations like that that doesn't just fall on the government to bail them out? >> well, you want to have a reasonable tort law so that people who actually pollute their neighbor's property or water pay for damage they do, just as if they were in a vehicle.

real damage can be done. so i think it is very important that we ask individuals and businesses to be responsible for real things they do. which is why tort reform, where the trial lawyers have been getting rich going after people for stuff that the guy who owned the house before them did, some of the stuff or you go after the guy with the deep pockets, again, texas passed a great number of reforms in terms of tort reform that have dropped .he cost of dental care more doctors are moving into texas. louisiana is about to pass the same collection of rules. getting tort reform so the billionaire trial lawyers who have been abusing the system and threatening people with lawsuits and getting paid to go away, that is something we need to tamp down. it is damaging the high-tech sector. being very unhelpful.

silicon valley guys are very concerned about the abuse of patent trolls and trial lawyers in that zone. let's reform that so we can focus on cases of real criminal actingy by individuals collectively inside a company. >> we have time for one more question. -- over here? 1 the guy with the beard? >> guys with beards get to go first. [laughter] you have taken it to an extreme. [applause] [laughter] >> sunshine press. i'm wondering if grover could set forth what metrics would make an economy better?

that is, what is the purpose of all these policies, whether it is tax cuts or tort reform or whatever? how do you measure that the economy is better here than there? you pointed to some states where democrats are dominant. do you look at life expectancy? education levels? how can you tell if the economy or economic policy is better or worse? >> you want to have metrics. if you don't have metrics, you end up with all sorts of problems. i talked to the budget guy when bush came into office. bush 43. i said, what metrics are you going to use? spending as percentage of gdp? total number of full-time employees of the federal government? what is the metric you're going to have to maintain the cost of -- have to contain the cost of government? he said, that would be a good idea. we should do something like

that. he never did. it wasn't on the list of things to do to measure the size of government. what are you trying to get to? the per capita gdp is one measure. to be fair, some people decide to be monks or warlocks or something, and they do not care -- are not interested in that. not like you are required to want to earn a lot of money, but most people would prefer to have more rather than less. one measure is gdp per capita. one of the things i find sad, a measure of ill health, how few people are quitting jobs and have few people are moving. in a vibrant, dynamic economy where -- a lot of people leave their jobs because there is some place else to go. a lot of people move because there is something you move towards. when you look at all the bad numbers, unemployment, people who have left the workforce, perhaps the most scary, outside of that we are not moving as much as we used to. we are not leaving jobs as

easily as we want to. you don't want people handcuffed to a job. you want people to be able to leave easily and move onto other stuff, move to a different state, if they want. generally, those are measures. the ones where- people ask, are you happy, those are useful. our friend at the american enterprise institute has done on her and a success translating into happiness. winning $1 million in a lottery does not make you happy, oddly enough. earning a certain amount of money and knowing you are and it makes you happy. sometimes the people who make a lot of money got it because of the luck of the draw, hollywood or something. they are not so sure they earned it. correlates with happiness. easier, tos probably have money is the metric. >> thank you very much. [applause]

a big thank you to grover norquist. what is our funniest guy? >> washington, d.c.'s funniest celebrity. >> grover competes every year, and wins most years. in.as drafted me >> you have until election time. >> i have gone back to see who has been the winner in the past. 'shn lovett, president obama funniest speechwriter. he impersonated arianna huffington. grover won last year for impersonating dick cheney. my strategy this year is to impersonate grover norquist. look forward to seeing you all there. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] time.k tv in prime

tonight, a look at technology and privacy concerns. at 8:00 jarret cohen and eric schmidt on "the new digital age .">> good afternoon. angwin, author of "dragnet nation." and peter w singer, who wrote "cyber security and cyber war," tonight, american history tv, a focus on the presidency. a conversation on the personal crises of u.s. presidents. ronald reagan's health issues and the monica lewinsky scandal during bill clinton's presidency. 9:30, a discussion on presidents franklin pierce, john kennedy, all of whom had a child i during -- child die during their time in office. and a look at presidents to were ill during their time in the

white house. >> mr. speaker, a few weeks ago this house voted against funding. we decided against contra funding because we felt it was against american traditions to fund a private army whose goal is to overthrow another government. we felt it is against american tradition to foster killing of civilians. we felt is a -- it is against american tradition to abandon the strength of our ideas and replace them only with the strength of our arsenal. a few weeks later, we are again facing a time to vote. why? it is because daniel ortega went to moscow. now, i am not happy about any nation turning to the soviets for economic help. but that does not change the contra issue. president,nt, our calls them freedom fighters.

who are these contras? the vast majority are former -- they never believed in freedom. to give so-called humanitarian aid to an inhumane army is a perversion of american morality. america's watch reports -- and i have the report here -- i will give you an example. pregnant wasmonths killed at a state owned coffee farm by the contras. her face was shattered by a grenade. a deep knife wound in her side, with the unborn fetus protruding. many other unarmed civilians were slaughtered by the contras. ugly, yes, but we must face this. sure, there is violence on the left as well, which america's watch says is decreasing. but violence on the left and

violence on the right must stop. and the way to stop it is not by supporting a private riddle army utal army who wants to overthrow the government of a country the size of iowa. but by doing what america does best, negotiating a peaceful settlement with the democratic nation taking the lead. the way to stop the violence is to support the amendment, the gephardt amendment, the hamilton amendment. let us not have the blood of the and lets on our hands, us not escalate the involvement of american troops in central america. i say, vote against the michael amendment. >> more highlights from 35 years of war -- house coverage on our facebook page. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and routes you today as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider.

>> today's young adults, the so-called millennial generation, having a lot of trouble getting started in life because they came of age in a very hostile economy. they are paying money into a system to support a level of event -- benefits for today's retirees that they have no real chance of getting themselves when they retire. there needs to be a rebalancing of the social contract. it is a very important and difficult challenge to this country politically, because not only is social security and medicare half of our budget, by far the biggest thing we do, it is symbolically the purest statement in public policy that as a country we are a community all in this together. these are programs that affect everybody. of these programs doesn't work. >> paul taylor on the looming generational showdown, saturday night at 10:00 eastern and sunday at 9:00 on book tv.

in a few weeks, your chance to talk with former defense secretary bing west. he will take your calls, comments and tweets on the mideast, iraq, and afghanistan. booktv, every weekend on c-span 2. also this month, join the online discussion on the new biography of stokely carmichael. look for the book tv tab. "washington journal," a look at the role of nato in the russian intervention in ukraine. we are joined by olivier know f or a discussion on the history of american presidents personally reaching out to other world leaders during a time of crisis. with janet yellen providing over her first fed meeting today, we talked with a "wall street journal" reporter.

live on c-span every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. right now, a conversation from this morning's washington journal on the fund-raising operation of a potential hillary clinton presidential campaign. host: joining us is mark halperin. senior political analyst for msnbc. thanks for joining us. guest: great to be here. thank you. host: we invite you on this morning to talk about the recent "time" magazine -- the not very quiet campaign for hillary clinton. give us background on what this is about. guest: this is one of the strangest presidential campaigns or presidential -- potential campaigns we have seen. secretary clinton has not made it clear she will run, the most people suspect she will be caught up in the momentum of this and will run. this is a super pack that has been organized by young supporters of her now being advised by older supporters of

her. doing something no super pac has ever done at the presidential level, grassroots organizing. what is normal, getting big checks from wealthy donors to pay for television advertising. to addressattempt the biggest weakness against barack obama in 2008 when she ran for president, building a grassroots organization all over the country which helps you not but ifn the nomination, you keep activists engaged you can get into the general election. what i found reporting the story is that although hillary has been publicly quiet, she is watching what they are doing, supporting what they are doing, and believes that it is helping her if she does run to address the weakness of how you have the foot soldiers that you really need to do well in a country as

large as ours. host: it is called ready for hillary. it?was behind people we know in the political world? guest: mostly not, in terms of the original organizers. a number of young people who are very dedicated. some who have worked with her in the past, a more junior level and mid level who want to see her run. it is being advised by a number of people who are more familiar to people who watched the clintons mostly. the first one i focused on was a guy named craig smith, who was someone who as a teenager met bill clinton in arkansas and has worked with the clintons and every one of the presidential campaigns, work with them in the white house, and he is now senior adviser to the super pac and is someone who the clintons have such a big orbit, but he has been with them every step of the way. they are basically trying to build a ferrari of grassroots

organizations with the super pac. they just need someone to step on the gas. he has cut all contact up with hillary and bill clinton because he wants the super pac to have no questions about it. -- peopleeople staffing a day-to-day are not very well-known, but some of the advisors, the donors, our people who are pretty big in the democratic party. a big group of people who would like to see secretary clinton run for president. host: because it is a super apc, what campaign-finance rules apply? guest: there are no limits on what people can give, but the super pac has imposed a limit. is $25,000,e limit self-imposed. one of the real powers of the the grassrootst

organizing, although that is potentially a big deal. the goal is to have millions of supporters, 5 million supporters, 2,000,000 active volunteers. that would likely dwarf anyone else taking about running for president in terms of people at their disposal. the real power here is the contributors. they do a lot of fund-raising events where they charge low-dollar offense not featuring hilly clip -- hillary clinton, ,ut people who are supportive for 2016. those small donors who can give and give again and give again if she does run for president, president obama really specialize in that in both races. it is something that no other republican, with the possible exception of rand paul, has at their disposal. --le big contributions are president obama has shown small

contributions are a big deal. raising apac is lot of money. selling merchandise, taking larger checks. they have a fundraiser coming up, featuring lobbyists. president obama drew a line and said he did not want lobbyists raising money for him or contributing money to him. this super pac is not trying deadline, although they are capping contributions. host: do we see the influence in iowa and new hampshire? guest: they did a big organizing event last week in iowa at the site of the caucus meetings at the county level. they showed up and basically tried to collect information and e-mail addresses, contact information for potential supporters. they are organizing in new hampshire. as i said, part of what they are doing is focusing on a longer-term strategy. president obama, people who watch c-span will know, one way he beat hillary clinton in 2008

after this early contest, he was organized in some of the caucus and primary states further down, where she did not have an organization. the team did not serve her well in building up structures in multiple states. -- they are organizing in all 50 states, both to preclude a nomination challenge that might threaten her, because they know the expectations, she will not just have to win delegates, but win big. like i said before, very important, having the organizations carry over to the general election. a state like missouri that normally doesn't play a large role in the nominating contest, if you build an organization -- to build the organization, you give it a test run even against token opposition in the nomination season, and then stay in touch with those people, keep them active, keep them going all the way through the general election. that is what the super pac is trying to do. there is disagreement among people about how impactful this

could be if she runs. i tend to believe that if they do it right it could be quite impactful. it is certainly better than nothing. host: mark halperin, our guest to talk about this effort, ready for hillary, part of a lead up to 2016. should she decide to run. here is a chance to asking questions about it. you can also tweet us @cspanwj. has secretary of state clinton directly or overtly reference to this group? she: she does not -- guest: does not in public. she wants to tap down the engaged speculation about whether she might run. as i said before, she said to friends that she is following what they are doing and is appreciative of it. it is also being followed by the current president, president obama, and the current first

lady. they are both interested, obviously, in who succeeds the president. michelle obama is very much concerned that president obama is -- that if he is not replaced by a democrat, his legacy could be undermined. a republican president could try to undo what the president has done, including the affordable care act. michelle obama is somebody very in touch with the grassroots. underrated not just as a political actor, but also in terms of somebody who understands the mood of the country, the mood of the party. i was told that she said to people that she hears how popular hillary clinton is, she hears how much there is interest in her campaign. so you do not hear them talking publicly about the super pac, but they are paying attention. they know how important the midterms are, the balance of his presidency and legacy. but as i said, they are both aware that organizing now is

being done for hillary clinton, and it can be done with a balance for 2014. they understand why that needs to take place. host: our first call is eric from georgia, democrats line. caller: good morning, c-span. mr. halperin, one thing is never brought up on tv. none of the pundits or analysts -- that is the base of the democratic party. the base of the democratic party is the african-american community. this is what i would like to ask you. received thema least white votes in history of any democratic president who won, 35% or something. the base of the democratic party

is the african-american community. i would like to know, what does hillary clinton lan on doing in order to mobilize african-american votes? the first time i voted was in 2008, and this is what raised up ting to a higher percentage, 66%. what does hillary clinton plan to do to court the african-american vote? i will say, thank you for the call and for participating with c-span. , whenever i come on i like to say, thank you for doing all that you will do. and the colors for -- callers for are dissipating. thank you for the call. the clintons in arkansas, when bill clinton ran for president, had great relationships at the elite level and the

grassroots with the african-american community. one of the shocks with hillary clinton in 2008, she assumed that if she ran for president she would get a large percentage of the african-american community. with ready for hillary, you see a focus on courting african-american voters, both with to submit agenda items and outreach, and also in general, as the caller suggested. without a doubt, you will see hillary clinton do that. you will also see whoever the republican nominee is, a real outreach to the african-american community. because they have been sort of shut out of that vote because the president obama's strong attachments to that community. you will see republicans try to get some of the boat back. recognizeboth parties that all americans, all communities benefit if there is a rigorous debate about ideas, rigorous competition for the votes of every group and every

individual. host: next, from tennessee, kyle, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. hillary clinton, i hope the american people are smart enough not to vote for this woman. she is not qualified. whatd the investigation, does it matter? don't caret -- they about your me, just themselves and their power. we don't need another four years of the obama administration. people like myself are hoping that for some reason or other she decides not to run, maybe sickness or death or whatever it is. guest: first of all, i could not let your last, go by without commenting on it. i don't think anyone should wish

secretary can't in any health problems or anything like that. that should not be what this is about for anybody. there is an article in the "wall street journal" about people think maybe secretary clinton would not run, in part because she has been at times a unifying figure. as a senator, at times as secretary of state, but also throughout her time in the national spotlight one of the most polarizing figures. the intensity of his voice, the focus on benghazi, those are things you see all across america, literally tens of millions of americans feel that way about hillary clinton. byalanced on the other side extraordinary enthusiasm for her among tens of millions of americans. we live in a polarizing time where whoever the democrats and republicans nominate will face tens of millions of americans who feel passionately that they should not be president. but hillary clinton brings to the table built-in history.

have put a lot of people on edge and inspired a lot of people. wherenghazi issue is one there are still unanswered questions, it is important to debate. some republicans and conservatives make the mistake in believing that if they somehow talk about benghazi that that will either intimidate secretary clinton, or if she does run will cause her to lose the white house are you as tragic as the events surrounding as thereare, as much are still unanswered questions, smarter republicans see that stopping hillary clinton if she runs would be involving more than just that one episode. host: the same article talked about her age and the grueling nature of the campaign. a tweet this morning said basically that the former secretary of state is too old to run for president. be almost asuld old as ronald reagan was when she got elected. she did have health issues

toward the end of her time as secretary. iker husband, she is incredibly energetic. but there is the reality, not that itily so much would limit what she could do in the office. for me, just thinking about, as someone who looked at what people run and do not run for president, if she does run it will be a two-year proposition office,four years in and presumably to run for reelection. that is basically the breadth of her productive professional life, given her age. it is possible some people think -- and on the human level i see the point -- maybe she doesn't want to do that. maybe after a lifetime in public service, maybe she would like to do other things. the foundation work she has started, other opportunities for travel, family. i think that age is clearly going to be a consideration for her if she decides whether to go forward. it probably will be for some voters.

but if you look at the age of leaders in other countries, if you look at the rigorous schedule she kept as secretary of state, i don't think that it is in any way a barrier or something that would be disqualifying at all if she decided she wanted to run. host: caring for massachusetts, independent line. caller: it seems to me what sums up hillary clinton for me, and for many others, back in 1995 the conference on women. of all places, in beijing, china. what a sign. it was certainly not a rebuke to china, being there, but an affirmation of how women supposedly liberated from their families can be turned into automatons in a permanent underclass. most women born of this feminist trend end up underpaid service workers. i think hillary clinton has spent her entire life serving the population control agenda

facilitiesg killing will always exist where babies can be exterminated like pests. she has blood on her hands, like waiting -- lady mcbeth. guest: i will just say again, the passionate intensity the caller feels is reflected in tens of millions of people. if she runs for president, she goes into that knowing that people exist in the country who feel very passionately about her. she has been on the issues the caller is talking about, very outspoken and eight leader. -- a leader. those who support her agenda look at the conference is one of the great moments in her entire career. the caller has a different view of it. again, it shows that the intense feelings hillary clinton inspires among her supporters and detractors. host: one of the things, if she

decided to run for president, a large backlog of being a secretary of state, senator, and first lady. all of those it looked at. arkansas, there were questions raised when her husband ran for president, when first lady. about service on corporate boards, personal investments she made. know, there have been documents released by the clinton library recently. there are more coming. there will be a lot of scrutiny. and i will say, although she did run below -- before and did get more screwed you -- get more scrutiny than most anyone, there will be new information that comes about her past if she runr president. the way the clintons have treated it, they are held to a different standard, often a higher standard. there is no doubt that if she runs, she will face the same kind of travails she went

through in national life. that is why there are people who either do not want her to run, or hope she will not run. because right now she has a life where she can disappear for up time, do all sorts of things that she runs her president and wins would be off the table for at least four yers. host: how much of an asset will her husband be if she decides to run? guest: a pretty huge asset. john and i wrote about the 2008 campaign in our book "game change," and we chronicled how president clinton, who had been a little rough, out of national politics for a while, was an asset in the first presidential campaign, but at times was a competition, -- complication, to say the least. based on his performance in 2012 for barack obama i think you would be a pretty big asset. he has gone through a general election campaign, which he had

not really done in a significant way since his reelection in 1996. he was one of the great minds we have seen in this country, in the country's history. i say that without fear of contradiction. i'm thinking he will have learned lessons about what happened last time. he is more popular now, and his the white house, particularly related to economic growth, is something a lot of americans look favorably on. as is always true with the clintons, nothing is linear, nothing is simple. certainly president clinton would provide the competitions he has in the past if she ran, but on balance there is no doubt that he would be a pretty big asset. i will say again, fundraising is such a big part of american presidential politics. president clinton would be able to help her raise money, more than any other spouse of anyone thinking of running could raise. we have seen senator rand

paul make statements about bill clinton, even going back to monica lewinsky, and we are not fully in the campaign yet. guest: senator paul has been outspoken about that, at least in one interview. ofin, it reminds some people the type of issues that would be brought back up from their past that they would have to address. it also reminds some republicans try 1998 when republicans to run up against bill clinton and brought aspects of his personal life and legal proceedings, it backfired. the clintons have had an extraordinary political -- series of political successes. some failures. waswhen bill clinton running in 1992, he would say in effect, the republicans want this election to be about my yesterdays, and i want this to be about your tomorrows.

i suspect that hillary clinton would to run, she and bill clinton when confronted by things from the past, you will hear some version of that from the clintons and their supporters. host: this is kelly from oregon. democrats line. go ahead. youer: mr. halperin, thank for defusing the vitriolic collars. you handle them very well. i would like to say, i support hillary clinton 100%. i will be proud to vote for her. i want to say, she is going to be the next president, but also given that black men were given the right to vote 70 years before any women were, i would have liked to have seen a woman get elected before a black person. 70 years is like three generations. before white men give their wives and daughters a chance to

vote. i don't know, i think we are way overdue for a woman president. i think hillary would be wonderful. i hope she decides to continue to make the world a better place. i could also see if she did not want to, that would be ok. guest: the caller's monologue is very representative of what a lot of women feel. particularly the issue of history. if you look at the other female leaders in this country in politics and business, a lot of impressive people. the glass ceiling has been broken in a lot of ways. yet, if you look at the other possible female presidents, no one comes close to hillary clinton in terms of their experience, fundraising capacity, name id, by all the measures used to say, can somebody get to that highest public office in the land? you for a lot of women, you see that. this not just the best chance

but perhaps the only chance for quite some time. that is part of why hillary clinton has built such a strong base of support even without declaring a candidacy. it's why some people around her think she will run in the end. there is almost a responsibility to go forward to try to become the first female president to break the glass ceiling. she has the opportunity to do it. i think she has her detractors, and there is no perfect candidate, as her husband used to like to say. but there is no doubt that today, there is no one more likely to be the next president of the unites states than hillary clinton. if she runs, i think she has a very strong chance to win the democratic nomination without significant opposition, which would be a huge bandage. while there are plenty of talented people in the republican party, i don't think any of them today have nearly a good chance as she does. that having been said, you look at the electoral college, there is no guarantee of an easy run for the white house.

if the republicans nominate a theous, credible person, electoral college will be close, as it was the last couple elections. just because of the divide in the country now. there is a lot of support for her particularly amongst women. a lot of men as well. but that historical first thing is a big deal and gives her the best chance to be the next president. if she decides to run. host: if she decides to run, could that be merged with the president's operation as far as the ability to reach out to voters? guest: there are other super pac's supporting her. one that supported president obama last time, the more traditional super pac, big c hecks for television ads. many of the people on ready for hillary are people who did work for president obama. the website was revamped last weekend to include tools, better

organizing tools. the obama folks involved say they are even better than president obama had because technology evolved, algorithms get more sophisticated. you see in the obama world an extraordinary level of support for her among grassroots and organizers. the most prominent people. jim messina, president obama's campaign manager in 2012, signed on to work with the other super pac, priorities usa action. one of the top political advisers, he said he's strucka how amongst donors and advocates who supported president obama, there is extraordinary enthusiasm for hillary clinton. not just support, but enthusiastic support because hillary clinton was seen as a loyal member of the team in obama's cabinet.

somebody who got integrated into obama-world after the top i -- tough fight they had for the nomination in 2008. part of why she is so formidable, people from the top to the grassroots are really for her. they like her and support her. they're looking at her as the person they would like to see run. not vice president biden. while that has left the odd man out, he is aware of the reality. as i said before. inis michelle obama, that the groups that make up the party including labor and african-americans and hispanics and younger voters, there is a lot of support for her. host: jim from franklin, georgia. republican line. caller: just a couple comments. i will let you talk after i get finished. there is one question that needs to be asked. what does it matter? what does it matter?

about theit matter supposed disappearance of all the records in the whitewater. what does it matter that she did things like insider trading. what does it matter? benghazi -- what does it matter? let's talk about the situation -- the embarrassment with the russians right now, and syria, what does it matter? things she allowed slick willy to do while he was president. and condoned. what does it matter? this country needs to ask, what does it matter? guest: that's a very sophisticated caller. using the line secretary clinton used when testifying on the deaths in benghazi. awareness on the color' is part of a lot of things from secretary clinton's past that i do think would be and should be part of the debate if she runs

again. for the good of the country and for the good of republicans who like to win the white house, the debate if she runs should not be just about those things. every candidate who runs has things from the past that get scrutinized. how they handle those things is a big deal. as i said before, quoting president clinton there are no , perfect candidates. you want a perfect candidate, hillary clinton is happy for you to vote for someone else. the main thing i take away from the call is their intensity -- tens of millions of americans feel that about her. they don't want her to be president and she would have to run knowing that. some other candidate runs and they don't start with that built-in base of intense level of disapproval. we are in a polarized time. whoever the democrats nominate, they will catch up in terms of that intense level of disapproval. she also comes with a lot of support. i'm a journalist and i think part of the response ability of people in my business is to give scrutiny to hillary clinton. i hope i have made clear -- i

think every area that the caller mentioned, i believe there is unanswered questions. democrats will do their best to say that has all been looked at before. it's old news, move on. i think if she runs, there will be more scrutiny and there should be. but the election should be about other things as well. jobs, economy, international relations. her record as secretary of state is part of that. elections should be about who is the best ideas for the future. i guarantee you that anyone who's thinking about running for president on the republican side, including jeb bush, anyone -- part of a pretty experienced political family as well -- anyone thinking of running on the republican side doesn't have a third of the experience that hillary clinton has in dealing with how you handle scrutiny of your past. so republicans who think they can either intimidate her out of the race or that she couldn't win because of problematic areas of her background aren't

sufficiently thinking through what their own candidate will go through as part of our process. host: the story in the washington times today looking at jeb bush and his potential to run. the headline -- what does he face? guest: it does loom. jeb bush is in a class by himself as a potential candidate. he's not a perfect candidate. there are people who don't like his family. he has some problems with the grassroots. the populist wing of the party on issues like immigration where he has been accommodating. i like to joke that in a time when the country is still searching for fundamental change, what says that more than a clinton-bush general election? but also that -- there is no laugh track on c-span. i always forget. you have two of the most serious people i've ever covered. if we had a jeb bush-hillary clinton general election, they

would aspire to make it not about the politics of personal destruction, but about a dignified, serious conversation about education and health care and the economy and international relations, national security. i'm not endorsing either of them or saying that they are the only two candidates who can bring this about. but i have a fairly high degree of confidence that they were there parties nominees, we would have serious and important and substantive debate in the context of general election. i'm not sure jeb bush will run. i think he has to decide whether he wants to do it personally or go through it or put his family through it. but i do think that if he runs he is the exact kind of , establishment candidate with support from large donors and elected officials and business communities. he would be the front-runner for the nomination by a lot. i think people who underestimate him do it at their peril. the one thing about jeb bush, he is really underrated. in the polarized times in which

we live, i have never met a democrat who spent serious time talking with jeb bush about the country who didn't come away thinking, i like him. i may not agree with them on every issue but i wish he would run. that is extraordinary. you don't hear that about too many people in public life today as they deal with the other party. his decision really does loom over this field. it is a much different race with jeb bush in it. host: without jeb bush, who becomes the front-runner on the republican side? guest: they don't really have one. in the modern era, that has never really been the case. analyzing how the fight would flow is impossible to do with any degree of specificity because we are in a world with different dynamics. every cycle since president reagan, there has been an early front-runner already identified at this point in the cycle who holds onto win. sometimes easily, sometimes after a big scare. that has been the pattern.

it will be the pattern again if someone can emerge. i think governor christie survives the political controversy he is going through now, he would be a big player. i think paul ryan will be a big fire if he decides to --player if he decides to run. the other person who is underrated is mike huckabee. governor kasich i might also add to the list. after that it is hard to say. you have a lot of people with strengths and weaknesses. you have a lot of people who could play for media attention or fundraising. in the early states like iowa and new hampshire, south carolina. but no one dominating. as i said before the party has , never had that. so it's difficult again that. that's why i think jeb bush is facing a fair amount of pressure and why he is intrigued because he would be able to step into that role pretty easily. particularly in fundraising right away. in a manner that no one else could do. host: up next is gary from ohio. independent line. go ahead, please.

caller: i voted for clinton twice. at that time, i was uninformed. i didn't realize that a bunch of democrat leaders and almost all of the people that were in or theof the money, other 43 people that died that were real close to the kennedys. that didn't realize arkansas was the dope center and paddled -- peddled guns and dope for years and years. bush was in there with him. this never comes out, and if i this is wrong, i would like to

know if that is wrong. host: where did you get your information on that? caller: it was a bbc show that they wouldn't let in the united states. that's where it came from. host: any thoughts? guest: i'm having a c-span acid flashback to earlier in my career. the airport and some of the other controversies the color reference were discussed -- caller referenced were discussed. the clintons have faced a career. there are things that they have both done for which they have been held accountable. i will say again the passion to , bring up things about them with little or no supporting evidence to suggest that they are immoral and should be disqualified from public service is something that hillary clinton would face if she ran. that is daunting. she has been through it all before. on the one hand, she has been battle-tested. able to handle it

based on her experience than anyone else. on the other hand why would she , want to go through it again? running for president knowing there are tens of millions of people around the country who feel passionately negative about her. host: we talk a lot about 2016, but be ready for hillary campaign, do they have any influence on the 2014 elections coming up? guest: they do. they have aspirations to be active. one of the things interesting -- interesting things going forward, what would hillary clinton herself do? who would she campaigned with and four, who would she endorse, who would she help raise money for? that, bewhere she does ready for hillary plan is to go in aggressively, help raise money for candidates she is raising money aggressively for. in other races, competitive races around the country, they hope to use this as an opportunity to build up the skills of their army. to have people who were enthusiastic about hillary clinton work on other campaigns

-- volunteer and staff -- to get political experience. so that she does run, they have people who are not just enthusiastic, but well-trained. speculation amongst people, even within the supporters of hillary clinton, say how much can the effort actually bear fruit? how much of a resource will that f hillary clinton announces she will run for president shortly after the midterms? i'm not sure what the answer is. it is better than nothing. it certainly more than anyone else has. you don't see even on the republican side among the more aggressive people -- people like ted cruz or marco rubio or rand paul -- you don't see the same level of organized efforts to say, how do we channel whatever enthusiasm exists for our potential candidacy into the practical political experience? which can then quickly be turned toward the presidential campaign.

host: here is sheldon in washington. independent line. caller: i enjoyed reading your analysis. in response to the woman who called, indicating about the black man having the right to vote 70 years prior to the women's vote -- she was incorrect. about the 70 years. the ratification of the 15th amendment was 1870 and the 19th amendment was 1920. moving right along, do you think hillary clinton was involved in -- would be hampered by the three,i fiasco o-- and commentspower's referring to ms. clinton as a monster? what is the difference between

obamacare and what hillary clinton's health-care plans would have been if it had been run to fruition? think you very much. host: thank you. guest: thank you for the math. >guest: thank you for the math. yes, yes and no. both plans involved government subsidies. president clinton and first lady clinton's plan was not quite as expensive or is ambitious. but, and it did not have the mandate this plan has. so health care is complicated. there are lots of other differences, lots of similarities, but those are the main ones. writes political analysis for time magazine. thanks for your time today. guest: thank you. great to be on. thank you for c-span. >> in a few moments,