think about it. if you are someone who plays by the rules and immigrates to this country legally -- we naturalize almost one million people a year. we are a nation of legal immigrants. how unfair, how much more unfair could it be for the president to issue this order and it essentially bump all of these new folks ahead of those who have been waiting patiently and trying to play by the rules and doing it the right way? i hope the president will heed the request of people like senator angus king, who said he hopes he delays this. i hope he delays it permanently. at least i hope the president would give us the adequate time to be able to work together to try to begin to build a bipartisan consensus on repairing our broken immigration system, but if he does that, it will make it much harder, not easier. >> i want to start by thanking

my colleagues in the senate for the opportunity to serve his leadership team again. i can tell you we will continue to speak directly to the american people, to strengthen the middle class. we believe the president's policies and the policies pushed by democrats in the senate have been harmful to the american people. we believe there is a better way. we will start by taking up these bills, many of which have languished on harry reid's desk, that are conducive to creating jobs and growing our economy. we will work hard to protect the american people from government overreach in so many areas where it is adding significant burdens to the economy and making it more difficult to create jobs. we will draw contrast with the democrats in areas where we believe there is a different direction, better direction for the american people, and we will talk very directly to the

american people about those differences. we hope the president and democrats will work with us. it will be up to them, the ball will be in their court. obviously, we are pleased to have the opportunity to serve as the majority in the united states senate, and we look forward to hopefully bipartisan cooperation, because we think it is in the country's best interest for us to not only get the senate working again, but for washington, d.c., and the people's government working again for the american people. >> i also want to thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to continue as the chairman of the republican policy committee. we are committed to policies that will put americans back to

work, focus on jobs, the economy, affordable energy, affordable health care. there are many bills that passed in a bipartisan way in the house significant numbers of democrats also on board. those are the things we will work to try to pass through the united states senate. we are for the message loud and clear from the voters, and that is that we have now been given an opportunity to help try to change the direction of the country. i believe that is not just an opportunity, but an obligation, and we are focused and committed to focus on the economy as well as getting people back to work, strengthening the middle class. >> joining in what my colleagues have said, there is a lot of work out there to be done. i am optimistic. we have the rules of the senate that allows us to do it, if you will just follow those rules. i'm also optimistic there are a lot of things beyond the keystone pipeline that there's

tremendous agreement on if we could just get to that work, and i believe the new majority leader is absolutely committed to see that we get this worked on. lots of legislation, as senator barrasso just said, for things that produce good jobs that take care of families in ways that families would like to be able to take care of themselves, and the president is going to engage one way or another. the last four years, not much reason for the president to engage with the senate or the congress. in the next two years, he will either have to engage the day that bill winds up on his desk. at that point, his choice is to sign it or veto it or decide to engage earlier in a way we might be able to do hard things together. i think the american people have sent a clear sign they want the government to do what the government is supposed to do and do it better than it has been doing it, and they want the government to get out of the things that they could do better

themselves. that is a challenge for this congress and president. i hope the president decides now that this is a good time, divided government, to do hard things, and we did to get those hard things out of the way so that we can see more good, private-sector jobs to provide good take-home pay for families. >> well, let's begin by reiterating what i've been telling my colleagues the last hour or so. i very much appreciate the opportunity to represent the republican conference in the 2016 campaign. i also want to congratulate dean heller for a gentlemanly, friendly campaign. we made it clear, dean and i, all along that this was a race between friends, a contest decided among friends, and we began it and ended it that way. i congratulate him on a very fine race. i also want to congratulate jerry moran and rob portman for the wonderful job they did leading this committee over the last two years. let me just say we are determined that we build on the

success we had in 2014 for the 2016 cycle. that includes protecting our 24 incumbents, increasing our majority, and making it possible to elect a republican president in 2016. the american people sent a strong message with a huge swing in the united states senate. listening to that message begins with good government of the united states senate, and so i am so pleased with the agenda that leader mcconnell set out today. the american people want us to return to regular order, to bring up issues of concern to them, to protect minority rights as they have not been protected over the last several years, and to send to the president of the united states and enact into law changes that benefit the american middle class and

american families. winning in 2016 begins with good government, with good legislation, and i'm glad to be part of this team for that reason. >> leader, will you be able to follow through with your pledge to have no government shutdown if the president goes ahead with this immigration -- [indiscernible] >> we will not be shutting the government down, threatening to default on the national debt. >> [indiscernible] >> we will not be shutting the government down. >> you mentioned health care, and i wanted to get you and anyone else to weigh in on the videos of this man, what does it tell you, anything new, and does it change the way you plan to approach obamacare? >> what he said -- i think you all have heard the definition of a washington gaff, when a

politician mistakenly tells you what he really thinks. we were subjected during the obamacare debate to a whole lot of stuff that we all knew was not true. not even close to true. and what this insider is saying confirms that they were spinning tales from beginning to end because they knew they could not tell the truth about obamacare and have a chance to pass, even with a democratic senate with 60 votes. the american people hate and detest obamacare. virtually all of us would like to see it pulled out root and branch. we understand the president is not sympathetic with that point of view, but we will be voting on these issues, both the overall obamacare issue and the various pieces of it, like the

individual mandate, the medical device tax, and trying to restore the 40-hour workweek. >> you talked about [indiscernible] by the president -- what can congress do to address this, and what can congress do next year once republicans have the majority in the senate? >> we hope the president is not going to do that because there is a lot of interest among republicans in both the house and senate in passing an immigration reform bill. i do not think there's anybody in our conference who does not think the current system is a mess, and we would like to improve it. the president has been told over and over and over again, and we are telling him again today, do not do this because his executive actions are not permanent changes. they will not necessarily be there under the next president. if he really wants to improve

the immigration system we have in this country, he is stuck with a congress that he does not like. and president reagan never had the house in eight years, clinton did not have the house or senate for six of their eight years, and they understood the american people had elected divided government. we would like for the president to recognize the reality that he has, the government that he has, not the one he wishes he had, and work with us to find a way to improve our immigration system. >> [indiscernible] >> we will let you know. thank you. >> president is currently on his china.e from a trip to

any news conference held the end the g 20 summit, he said he would not take action. president obama was asked about that scenario, saying he would take the incoming majority leader at his word, that there would be no government shutdown. on this morning's washington journal we discussed how republicans might proceed with issues like immigration and health care when they take control of the senate in january. we also looked at how the democratic agenda might move forward and how progressive groups might move. also "book tv". joining us now on our set, terry jeffrey.

the editor and chief of cnsnews.com. good morning, sir. >> good morning, pedro. thank you for having me. we'll talk ally, about what the new congress means and what it means for republicans moving forward. oftentimes at midterms elections, there are on the president -- it was very bad on president bush in 2006. clearly, the country wanted different direction. >> so you sent to the thought specifically on leadership. tell us a little bit about what you're hearing from them? the big question is hear them say -- basically, let's punt until after the elections. by doing that, the empower the lame-duck congress.

they now have the power to come back and have a significant influence on policy. so the question is, will the on ublicans insist short-term spending bills that put things into early january when a new congress can have a say? or do they go through the rest ends e fiscal year, which on september 30? and lose the real lever to have what president obama does. >> when it comes to mitch mcconnell, the headline reads the no shutdown pledge faces the first big test. >> i don't think there is an issue about the national debt. the question is whether or not the republicans put language in they for spending bill have to do -- that such a

he sident from doing what to implement an immigration bill. >> that is expected this week, for all we know. >> that is what people are reporting the president may do. -- first of all, when we think about a what should happen -- a shutdown, what should happen? >> the government would not be spending money for a few days the biggest thing is that there would be a direction for a few days. the president has demonstrated a willingness to do this. way that the congress, wwhich was elected by the american people to actually make the laws, can stop him is by using the power of the purse. if, in fact, a republican congress appropriates, they become complicit in that.

so if you are going to stop amnesty, they have to do it in the bill. any hey're going to have impact, they are going to have it in the bill. elected in a republican house of representatives. president obama has done in the past four years because john boehner's house has appropriated the money for him to do it. those are shared policies. have ionally, republicans not opposed obama. in his press conference this week, he said all options are on the table. he didn't say he wasn't going to do it, he didn't say he was going to do it. so i think -- i think that there is some movement there. i suspect that republican

a lot of re getting constituents m around the country, who want the to see them stop unilateral analysis. to have your t feedback, 202-585-3880 for democrats. 202-585-3881 for republicans. 202-585-3882 for independents. some of those reactions from people coming in, jjust to give a sense of it, says we are are here to get things done. government completely, competently, maturely -- that the governor of colorado. we are ne thing to say opposed -- from oklahoma -- but a poster things means you still have the same problem. >> two years from now when they have the presidential election,

obama care will be cemented in place. it will be a fact of life in america. it will not be reversed. they will have to make it a permanent part of american life. if they allow president obama unilaterally legalized aliens -- those residents who come will eventually be citizens. they know that. that if they send those things, they will happen. so there's some dishonesty here. the republicans on a symbolic fight so they can say that we are fighting his amnesty, we're fighting obama care, when really they are giving him an avenue to do it. so if they don't actually use can one to they have that effectively stop it, it means they, like president obama, are also doing it. >> is there a potential strategy in putting a short-term effort in place? is exactly what

senators are calling for. covenantal politico that they stuff o see them take the off the table. they are saying, okay, let's just do a funding bill at the first part of next year. all when you have an majority republican congress, deal with it. -- look, i did read the article senator said that mcconnell was standing around the people showing the approval of republicans in polling and he found out -- i think the reason people don't approve of congress -- they don't approve parties are congress -- part of it is they don't believe these guys. simple. if the republicans play the shell game where they say, hey, are really against this, but

next week we are going to give obama the money to fund it. that people are going to have and say that these guys are not telling us the truth. i think they need to take a stand. i think the other thing, the unilateral immigration reform, is to carry the debate to the country. they can win because they are right. if they were wrong, then they lose and they deserve to lose. if they are right, then you can persuade the country if you have a fight. >> our guest is the editor in chief of cnsnews.com. is terry jeffrey, who to take your calls in question. joe from indiana on the republican line, go ahead. previous here was a color that suggested that a solution to our problems in iraq is that we should reinstall another saddam hussein. bush that what george w.

tried to do? >> going back to our original question. you can expand on that as you wish. president obama did not try to reinstall saddam hussein. america had a mission to end tyranny in the world, and part of that was trying to establish a representative government in iraq. i think that was naïve. before we invaded iraq there needed to be more pretentious thought about to ctly how we were going end the war, and how we're going to make iraq stable again. about a country was majority shia -- and that was going to be difficult to put that together, let alone that emerge ments like isis. so i think that president bush's policy was unwise. i also think that president obama's policy was unwise.

december 2011, he went and said all the are taking troops out, but we are leaving a stable and sovereign iraq. i don't think he really wanted to do that. i don't think you wanted to go into 2012 without the promise to remove all the troops. we have seen the rise of isis. it affects not just the future the future of syria. we see what an evil group has arisen there in the vacuum we created. it has created, in that part of the world, a problem that will be very, very difficult to solve. generations are probably going to have to deal with it. >> you sense that the incoming congress will make it harder president to layout strategy? the will say this, president did say he wants authorization for military use. i believe in is one.

i believe the constitution makes it clear that the cannot use military force without the authorization of congress. boehner said r that the president has the authority to do that. that is wrong. there needs to be serious in congress about this. congress needs to be fully on board and fully responsible for the united states does in the middle east. regards to y in putting americans to engage in military activity. >> here we have the democrats line. >> i'm of the opinion that we are flirting with another war in the middle east. have not encompassed anything in our going into the middle east to begin with. the only thing -- we need to sit down and figure out just exactly what we can do to help. we do not need to keep talking about fighting in the middle

east. it is really nothing to do with that. who are we attacking? i don't think we even know who we are fighting against. >> she actually raises some important questions. george w. esident bush's foreign-policy run? it was wrong because the people that we elect -- they protect the liberty and prosperity of american people. it is not to change the world. the if you want to change world, you can't. i think that is what president bush's policy proved. i will give you another one. after benghazi, people were paying attention to what was happening in libya. in eastern libya, the people

to the islamic state. we -- nomar kadhafi was an evil guy. he was responsible for heinous terrorist attacks against united states. after he invaded iraq, we were able to engage in that neutralized him as a to the united states. to side with ded rebels we did not know, we can understand. power vacuum in created in we had iraq -- we had created in iraq. this is something that has not been widely reported. their report on benghazi -- one revealed in s they their -- wwas in august 2012, a the attack on benghazi, the city had this

emergency action committee before that y attacking benghazi, and that one person involved in the meeting told them about the of 10 ng medication terrorists -- including al qaeda terrorists -- terrorist camps in benghazi. within benghazi. that was a month before. so that is how policy affected invading syria. in these force regions, ultimately aare we advancing the liberty and security prosperity of people in the united states? or are we increasing the risks to us and the people over there? >> mike in louisiana, thank you for holding on. >> good morning. thank you for c-span. i think the german here you have is you guessed it right on ahead. we have a congress that talks a plays a good game, but now it is time to act. the people have spoken.

they don't want anymore executive action by the president. when you say the best way to handle this immigration amnesty we want to get -- the way to handle that is, i do not think it is through the purse. if you recall george w -- i a second term -- to pass a fetal tissue research executive order that was overturned by congress, by overriding the underlying authority that it was predicated on. they did it simply just by a vote. they did it within a couple of weeks, i believe, and there you go. the executive order was nullified. now, the people voted. congress will have close to a two thirds majority. and that would force the democrats and the republicans vote to see if they are on

the american people's side. >> i don't recall the specific problem with the that is that the speaker has to d they are going to vote appeal about care. happens is if they vvote on a bill to give obama he wants to y support obama care, then they are supporting obama care. it passes the house, it goes to sign the e, there they reconciliation process -- the republicans do not have enough vote on their own to break a filibuster. even if they were to break a filibuster, then it goes to the president. so they know that that is completely symbolic. the members of,, i guarantee they know that -- the members of congress, i guarantee you that they know that.

>> let's hear, on a republican line, ned in florida. -- the president signed the executive privilege. what he is doing is, number one, the schools are crowded. in that legal instance -- and the blacks who are already losing in the us, tthat is number two. the are taking jobs from blacks when he commits the illegals. a so a lot of people use -- in of the illegal aliens the states -- the social security administration about a year ago that

they thought there were 7 million illegal aliens actually working in the united states of america. they looked at it, and there that ertain industries tend to hire illegal aliens. there are -- there are businesses in the united states have built businesses on bringing illegal aliens into the united states and paying them wages. doubt that is happening. on that income level where you are competing with an for a job -- in fact, you may not have a job because he does. >> let's talk about the new working relationship of the senate. harry reid, in a press about ence as we, talked efforts going forward, as far as working with his republican counterparts. >> this is not get even time. not intend to run the

like the c caucus republican caucus has been run in the minority. i just told amy, wwe have a lot of bills -- bipartisan bills. list of ing to get a those soon, and we are going to republicans see want to agree to pass bipartisan bills. we are not for stalling. want to move on in the next congress with a record of a compass red. >> very simply, if there is a vote in t the democrats the senate and the president signs, it is something the president will sign. reid is y, what harry saying is give the democrats what they want and they will sign it into law. thinking like tax reform and those types of issues that they can work on, your reaction

would be? >> a lot of things they want to work together on is not good. there are all kinds of things that they never envisioned the federal government doing. the framers actually envisioned -- speaker boehner said they want to do school choice. is a enter of washington federal city. i think they should legislative bill creating total school choice in the district of columbia. leaving aside puerto rico, the d.c. schools have the lowest out of any school in the country, bbut they spent more money per person than any district in the country. approximately $20,000 educating each child in the school. the parents they

can educate their children at any school they want. when you what happens educate kids in this capital city that way, instead of having government schools. >> so you are saying that would be a model to possible use in other parts of the united states as well? >> exactly. there are communities and states were trying to try that. who hate it -- how could that be a bad thing to give the parents a choice to send their to a good school? to say of what you had to say this he had week -- >> well, she is partly right. into epublicans, going

-- the problem is not trying to nationalize the election. back in 1994, they said we're going to do this. they do not do that this time. so they do not necessarily get a specific mandate. but i think they could've done much better if they actually ran on positive things that they claim they're going to do. >> terry jeffrey is our guest. harold, go ahead, from kentucky. >> yes, mr. jeffrey. i have got irst time are you, mr. how jeffrey? >> very well, thank you. >> i would like to ask about the republican party. set up a ue that tthey got in ee before obama was resident that they

going to undo everything that obama has done? and they have a chokehold on the republican held house? >> well, the republicans, when house election in 2010 -- i mentioned earlier, has ything president obama done since 2011 has been funded by a republican house of representatives. they are both responsible. >> from new jersey, good on the democrats line. >> hi, how are you? to read a ike statement. right now an american, the country is adding 200 jobs per month. unemployment is below 6%. the us gross national product

best of the organizations. the stock market is near record high. gas and oil prices are falling. is no inflation. >> okay, you made your point. what is your question? >> all production is rapidly increasing. the deficit is rapidly declining. still e wealthy are making huge amounts of money. this defies -- the only way you can accomplish this is if you don't elect -- >> i don't think that is to. i think there are some things economy is definitely doing better. is, thankfully,

going down. there is a smaller percentage of the population exit time to work. i don't think there is anything happened in what the election. i think one of the great -- point of view -- one of about obama ings getting elected is that he was the first african-american elected, and that this country will elect an african-american. ridiculous t it is that when people elect think about -- you the historical -- south carolina was the state that seceded from the union. it was the state that was most the ened and it's hard in perpetration -- heart and is perpetration of slavery. and it went to the united states senate as republican.

i do not think there is anything racist about the selection. if anything, it shows real progress in that regard, where a southern state elected a conservative republican black senator. party influence was there those republicans coming in who were elected? >> i think people will correctly point out that a lot of the candidates elected by not republican party were tea party types. the new ngle one of republican senators that was elected promised to appeal obama care. so, they were pro-life. so, they were taking tea party not they , whether or were a "tea party candidate". >> do think those senators who ran antiparty principles,

on tea 016 -- ran party principles, coming up in 2016, how do think they will do? >> i think that you are going to see some of them run for president of the united states. yes, you will see some folks out of congress running. to see governors running, who were not in that tea party election. of o think that the values the tea party are not the people who come out to the republican primaries and caucuses. mitt romney was a liberal republican governor of massachusetts. he was a guy who invented the -- the individual mandate for healthcare. the president talks about taking that idea from romney. did a 180 omney

didn't turn -- people believe him -- but he has done the same thing in the selection. all candidates are going to towards those issues positions. the question is which ones really hold them. program, the our international community has a chance to participate. this is from manchester, united kingdom. aaron, go ahead. >> good afternoon. thank you for having me on the show. i want to ask you, now that the and blicans have the house the senate -- you have to forgive me because i can only united kingdom prospective -- i remember when the liberal democrats came into the united kingdom, and they had very good elections prior to them having to go to with one another --

they actually dipped below the mark of what they were expected to do. danger that re is a the republicans -- now that years before two presidential election -- the the next couple years? >> we don't have coalition sir, but within the , parties we have coalition's. other politicians say that their lectures conservative. in national elections, i believe it is conservative our collective issue still. of the i believe republican party, or anybody running for president, engages real fights trying to push are seen a s, and

sincere, though senators are going to like what they're doing. is good in hting politics if you are fighting for the right thing. >> let's turn with that sentiment in mind to the senate -- the incoming minority, and elizabeth warren now elected into a leadership position. her first time to the cameras at this position. she talked a little bit about her vision. >> well, i believe in what the democrats are fighting for. you know, wall street is doing very well. bringing in millions more, and families across the united states are struggling. we have to make this government work for the american people. i'm grateful to the leader, i'm grateful to the caucus for giving me a chance to be part of that fight. that is what we are all going to be here doing. every single day. >> terry jeffrey.

>> well, she is from massachusetts, from the left-wing. over emocratic leadership the years -- he came from a more conservative state. harry reid was from nevada. pass ee this phenomenon through democrats -- remember the political liabilities when harry reid was defeated. i think you see mary landrieu, the election coming up, she is in a tough place because of her party -- and people in massachusetts want to go one direction. she is trying to go in a different direction. but i think in more recent history, we are seeing a more geographical polarization of the country. some states are going to be solidly republican, more than have in the past, and some states are going to be solidly blue, more than they have in the past. from that block, it is going be harder to elect a democrat from

iowa. >> this is tom on the republican line. >> hi, i would like to ask. question. >> you are on, go ahead. a i would like to ask terry question because -- hello? >> time, go ahead and talk to listen to and don't the television. >> i would like to know, terry, you talk about policies, did bush have any policies whatsoever when we went into iraq? because most of our problems to go all the way back to the beginning. that is where it all started. do know if he had any policies at all? >> well, he had policies. his main objective was to remove saddam hussein because they believed he was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. but i do not think they thought to carefully enough the of g-term implications

removing saddam hussein, and how they were going to replace saddam hussein and the state of government. before his father remove saddam from kuwait, he decided he wasn't going on to baghdad. it, well said, if you break you fix it. of trying his problem to reestablish a stable government in iraq and how we can we do that. >> from tampa, florida on the democrats line. >> hi, terry. you doing this morning? >> very good. >> i have a few questions i would like to ask you. consulting with iraq -- starting with iraq. we're t think that what doing over there is going to help, i don't think it is going to make it worse.

my belief is that it is not about national security, it is about the koch brothers security. okay? that is the only reason we are over there. the second one would be about 114th congress. to deregulate g corporate america again so they can have a free-for-all like they did during the stock market crash. i do not believe in that. be taught a lesson because nobody to this day has to jail, been arrested. they have all fought their way out. >> okay, thank you. >> you know, it is the branch that passes regulations.

and the -- it has been a while since we had talked about obama care, but people talked about how many pages the obama care act was. the two inal version, acts -- iif you pull it up, it is a pdf and it is 907 pages. but when you pull up the pages in the federal register, it is more than 10,000 pages. it is monstrous. it is really -- those pages, by the way, in the federal register have more than 1000 words on them. this u are talking about massive thing -- and really, to be concerned. that the action is american people -- do and the newer congress do anything about it? >> i think they should have the men and testify and see how

his point of view was part of the administration. this was blatantly out there on the record. the president said it was not a tax. went into first federal courts, they started losing courts. they flipped around, and it wasn't taxed. on one opinion, he said it wasn't a tax, and on the other parts he said it was a tax. so, clearly, there is deception there. considering the magnitude of the policy, it deserves to be explored and exposed to the american people so they understand what went on. >> you mention the supreme court. case they hts on the are taking looking at subsidies. loss is one thing and they are implementing it in way -- the law says one thing and their implementing it in another way.

be the subsidy anyway -- pay the subsidy anyway. can the administration just change the law? get a mbers of congress subsidy -- is congress really a small business? the way the law was written, it did not envision members of getting up to $10,000. but the office personnel management set the regulation and said they could do it. the republicans in the house the bureaucrats and administration, they are from the same team because it serves their own interests. >> david from pennsylvania, you are on with to jeffrey. david, good morning. >> good morning, gentlemen. my question -- when does --

>> david, keep going. >> when the symbolism -- >> let me put you on hold so turn on your television. will go to randy in cincinnati, ohio. the independent line. >> good morning. i just want to say that i know lot on obama's plate, is just eems like there so much deception in the ranks going on with his decisions. it just seems like he is not good at micromanaging what is going on. hello? >> go ahead. >> i'm sorry. just thinking, you know, i just want to see more decisive leadership in washington. it doesn't matter whether your republican or democrat, you know. you have these people talking about all the things involved, but we need to leave those things out. this is one america, okay?

>> i think president obama is a decisive leader. he put through obama care. he wanted it, he pushed it, got it through using all kinds of, you know, manipulating techniques to do it. have the en was to unilateral amnesty, using executive power that he doesn't even have under the constitution. is exhibiting leadership, whether he is s doing it lawfully. so what kind of leadership is a republican congress going to show? not e had him on the show too long ago and he talked relationship with president clintton that he had during the congress. think the relationship present and n the the congress -- president and the congress?

>> i heard a little bit of the interview the other day. look, they both have to speak. the midterm election with george w. bush -- the national debt started rising up, the did things that with with consistently republican values. >> let's go to wallace. albany, georgia. the democrats line. >> yes, hi. you all talking about about care. look, obama is a person that really cares. the republicans are always people know that obama cares. about how 't talk obama cares. he shows it.

i wonder if the republicans are going to get in and show that they care, aas much as obama cares. that is all i have to say. >> i wish they would both care law and the le of constitution -- in the constitution. and if the republicans care, to stop these things president obama is trying to do. up over the e open weekend. is it here to stay, do you think? is obama care here to stay? >> i hope the republican stop it. i think they have to defunded if they're going to stop it. if they let it go for another two years, i seriously doubt it will be removed. if it is not removed, it have tially means we created socialized medicine. more and more people will be -- subsidies you talk about? it is $90,000 for a family of

four. remove that subsidy -- if you go one dollar over that poverty level, which means you are middle class person, you can have a $10,000 increase in your annual insurance premiums. so what we have done is put ourselves at the mercy of the federal government. one of the most important things in our life, health care, which involves life-and-death situations. and also, we are about to hit $18 trillion in debt. the country is headed towards bankruptcy even without obama care. the costs -- the bankruptcy will be moved closer, and america will be fundamentally changed. not just because allawi care, but because the economic crisis we have gone through. scenario, there be a then, somehow resolved? >> before obama care was in

place a year ago, there were systems in this country for taking care of people who didn't have the money to provide their own health care. first of all, we had a medicaid in place. you also had institutions around the country that provide free health care to people. and there were religious hospitals all around the country. they are not going to turn people away because they don't have the money. the mission was not about -- i don't think obama care was helping ly about people's health care. i think it was about putting the government in charge of health care. >> terry "washington journal" continues. >> joining us, adam green, the cofounder of the progressive change campaign committee. >> good morning. >> for those who do not know, tell us about the progressive change campaign committee. is about a million-member

organization to fight for democratic issues. raise 4, we are proud to over $1.5 million across the country, as well as make 4 phone calls for candidates like al franken. >> how did you do, track record wise? >> it was quite good. but there's a larger point that we have coming out of the elections, which is that democrats lost the country because there was a failure to have big ideas. big economic ideas. whereas people like al franken, 312 hours ne bite by 10 -- points this time, one by 10 points this time. they won because, for six years they were proud, progressive -- the message to president obama at large is the time to pit

bold ideas. >> elizabeth warren, now a member of leadership on the senate democratic side. >> yes, congratulations to elizabeth warren. it is really a thrill for her to be in their. she was the most popular campaigner for democrats in 2014. that is because her economic expanding social security benefits, making more affordable, reforming wall street, is popular among everyone. they saw her ability to fill beyond their wildest dreams, aand they want that was represented in the room. >> do think part of the reason is given that position is because democrats were not selling that message before -- during the election.? >> yes, absolutely. been -- d, there has this election somewhat filled in -- with somewhat filled in

with nothing. there was not an economic agenda that was worth the voters while. their ability to have control if they went to the polls. you cannot motivate people with nothing. elizabeth warren is out there with big ideas. her colleagues recognize that, aand they want her to help the situation. >> so the list of big ideas -- what is on top of that list? >> well, look, we have the republican congress right now. the worst-case scenario would be starting with the lowest common denominator ideas. that would just be horrible. to just also be that adopt -- democrats actually have a unique opportunity now, the ng the minority and in face of a residential election, with a bold d

agenda. one of the ideas is break up wall street. two, college affordability. votes for her bill this congress to, basically, really billions and billions of dollars for student debt. let's talk about free college education. let's talk about making public universities truly public. talk about things like extending social security benefits, instead of cutting them. this will change millions of people's lives. like the things employment act, which basically says that anyone who wants to work hard, the government will you jobs building bridges, working on the energy grid -- let's do that. these ideas are wildly popular, so let's talk about those ideas

opposed to smallbore ideas and predicting what members of congress will agree to next. >> was up early because obama that selling big ideas? >> yes. wanting president obama to adopt elizabeth warren's ideas. they cannot come down to one speech. small who won by very big in last time, by margins this time, they expect stick tto their streak. that is what will motivate them to vote. >> why do think president obama does not adopt or embrace those ideas? well, he has been sometimes catering to what washington dc wants. our point is that bipartisanship is fine, it just to be made straight by

partisanship, not d.c. bipartisanship. these are ideas that democrats of and went on if they choose -- win on if they choose. passed stion is, do just something washington for the sake of passing it? or is it because you have ideas that should be passed into law? it is the lowest common denominator versus big, bold ideas. >> our guest, adam green, the progressive the change campaign committee. the next alk about progressive ideas, and take your comments come as well. 202-585-3880 for democrats. 202-585-3881 for republicans. 202-585-3882 for independents. we will begin with dan in michigan, the democrats line.

to make a just want comment about an observation i made while i was watching the senate for the other day. mitch mcconnell had the floor and he asked for any questions from his colleagues. at the time, a couple people were not ready. mary landrieu said yes, i have a question. his mitch mcconnell turned back to her, until a couple republicans were ready. i cannot remember the man's name, i think he was from north -- he heads up the -- the bill for the keystone pipeline. mitch mcconnell totally let the led her, republican speak, and then left the floor with the rest of the republicans. that is an indication, to me,

that the republicans are not willing to work with the democrats. >> yes, i think there are a couple symbolic things about what he has done. people are watching mitch mcconnell, like yourself, literally. that kind ll continue of gamesmanship, aand the challenges for the democrats is to make sure that he walks the plank wwith that type of gamesmanship. let's not let him stutter over between the parties -- to just do what he will on the senate floor. if democrats -- if president obama goes forward with some of these executive actions, and republicans want to use gamesmanship in the senate to that, good, let mitch mcconnell say very clearly to latino voters that he is that with them. if elizabeth warren was to make to make college

affordable for millions of children, and mitch mcconnell that kind of games, great, do it in open and to take that position. and let the american people decide whose side they are on. >> richard is up next to the republican line from kentucky. >> that republican line is the key here. am a lifelong democrat who voted republican for the first time since 1972. a while ago number that 200,000 some jobs were created -- my son has three of those jobs. my daughter has two of them. my wife and i, we had to change our doctors. do remember that you can change your doctors if you want to? i will never, ever -- aand i am union construction worker --

i will never, ever vote democrat again. >> okay. well, first of all, i would be very interested to know your children, because them having three jobs is not what the american dream is about. if you feel let down by the party in some respects, i think a lot of people are in your boat, including democrats. i'm very curious on what you would think about raising minimum wage. in red states -- my guess is that if it were not benefit your kids directly, it would benefit your area. people in red states of america who support that idea. what i ind of stick to am saying, democrats need to offer big ideas that regular people by.

it is a change that the democratic party has left -- some of them -- bbehind. we need to remold the party, the path ink that is to success. on our l is in michigan independent line. go ahead. i'm talking about your plans to d your destroy america -- >> what is your question? government to eed control our country and destroy the whole situation of america. we need freedom. freedom for the people. all of america, for the people. agendas and communism. >> thank you. we do need freedom. so let me tell you about one of the biggest shackles for them is -- student at. there are so many -- student

debt. there are so many people who graduate college with thousands of dollars in debt. good in ho want to do the community have to take a job at a big bank to pay back the bills. there is a big brain drain in the country because of student debt. i would hope at a minimum, you would support paying less for college. that is one of the big ideas we're advocating for the democratic party. one of the things shackling us down is wall street winning over our economy. wall street basically paying workers very little, shipping jobs overseas, really kind of polluting our economy. i do not know if you feel like side of wall e street, but democrats are it is not about -- to everyday middle-class families

to have a job?om go to a e freedom to college with a choice? month, we had s jonathan cullen, and how a more can should adopt moderate agendas, may be concentrating more on tax reform and things like that. >> so, i think that the democratic party has to think on two tracks. one is, what can you do, really, over the next 9 to 12 2016 really heads up. where you can find substantive ground with republicans. that is probably not going to be on the minimum wage, it is be on tax oing to reform, trade policy, energy are places hose where there is already well-established, bipartisan ,

ground. the second piece to what democrats into think about goes to longer-term message. in 2016, if y -- democrats focus on a prosperity and agenda, there is not throwing people in life preserver, but fixing -- their prospects in 2016 and beyond will be really good. if the party sticks with the that they used -- the same economic playbook they the cycle, even though a presidential cycle is better for democrats, it is still not good enough. >> mr. green. >> so, first it is important to know what they're all about.

the majority of the third-rate board 's corporate executives and people from wall street. the lion share of their funding comes from wall street, something that we actually just this past year -- wwe got them to admits that the majority of their money is from wall street. we also got them to admit that there is no grassroots on their side. it is just a corporate funded think tank. not surprised that jahn would advocate for lower corporation tax -- john would advocate for lower corporate taxations. i would also not be surprised who he supports companies sent jobs overseas. you know, he talks about -- it that he talks

that we shouldn't throw people like preservers. it is not about throwing a preserver, it is about saving lives. to make sure we have enough pay al security benefits to for people's needs, a preserver them to live ws life. that is the choice the democratic party has to face. whose side are we on? do we side with the corporations, or do we side with millions of people? >> so the democratic party, when looking at wall street -- has that been enough in your opinion? >> no, it did not do enough. gone back to y

consumers and save the millions of dollars. there were some -- some like that.reform the banks who are too big to fail before our bigger now. they are bigger and they will fill, unless you break it off some point -- and they will off at nless we break it some point. what we need is an outcry around these ideas. the fundamental question is, side are you on? come s will be inspired to to the polls if they can affirmatively say, yes. >> this is chris from maryland. go ahead. >> yes, how you doing? >> good, thank you. my issue is that the you y has no--

see how they cater to the republicans -- and i agree with all the ideas they have set forth. of them is, unfortunately, is obama care. gives millions of americans health and life. think the last caller had lies that are not true. obama care went to the congress. a chance to had present grievances. they chose not to. >> thank you for pointing that out. a lot of e has helped people, and we wish it would've helped even more people. if you have the opportunity to,

you know, and $1000, instead in order to that earn $100, you earned that. people to buy into healthcare was wildly popular. around the time of the health there was a poll over 70% of about 60% of independents, and even 50% of republicans wanted a public option. push that into law. be pushing to through these big ideas. i saw present obama the day after the election give a what he said was -- the ok forward to hearing

public governing agenda, and i the republican governing agenda, and i will offer the democratic agenda. but i will offer -- and when you think about it, it is very scary the way things could go we hear years -- all about is present obama's ideas going up against mitch mcconnell. to encourage democrats -- and i talked to incoming members of the senate and house -- they are ready to have a spine. they're going to push the democratic party to go in that direction. what we need is a contempt of you among the party that we are big, bold tand for economic ideas. we want elizabeth warren's image. we'll be talking about victory at the polls.

>> a couple tweets to give you -- for all hear, who pays these programs that you talk about? >> let's start with the last one. right now, big oil companies get $4 billion in subsidies per year. corporations that ship jobs overseas and have tax incentives to go overseas pretty much rabbit treasury of of dollars -- rob the treasury of millions of dollars every year. the loophole is how we pay for these programs. it is not a question of, do we pay for something? the question is, who side are you on, and where are you distribute in your budget? on the agenda for, this is a really interesting question. it is one of the greats we have with the democratic party, and taking bad republican

ideas -- not fretting about them -- instead just into a rating them larger bill, stuttering over the ideas between the different parties and the different ideologies, and then tell the voters, hey, this is a democratic bill. who wanted to help insurance mandates? the biggest insurance companies wanted to help it. not people. for people were of much for the public option. if you look at the stimulus bill, for some reason stimulus has a bad name now. why does have a bad name? of ause we took hundreds and ions of dollars republican tax cuts, and call that an economic stimulus. surprise, surprise, that idea the network. that is why we cannot start with a lowest common denominator approach. we need to say we are going to take big, bold economic ideas

that are wildly popular in red, purple, and blue states. if the republicans use the majority to shut that down, then fine. we'll take that message with clarity into 2016 and we will win. on the from california independent line. go ahead. are saying what you is that you think that the democrats progressive populist agenda is the way to go. it didn't work. although, elizabeth warren coming out for -- in agreement concept of a party fail is too big is spot on. be a think if you want to viable party going forward, to get my independent vote, i think you need to pay attention to that. the way i feel is that i am getting screwed on both sides. for that is because

too big to fail is allowed to be there. agenda that you that is way, way, way too copperheads of. if you just start -- to comprehensive. just that with a financial system, everything else is start to fall into place. >> thank you, gary. >> i'll accept that as a friendly amendment. three start with the fiscal issues -- one of which was taking on the big banks. 20

popular. there are almost no no votes. you know, basically, there was a path for populists on the republican and democrat side: people like yourself think you are getting it from both sides. what you really mean is the corporations have been funding our political parties, both of them, and as a result, exporting trade deals, lowering corporate taxes and stuff like that. you want someone to fight for you. i agree. >> clive iowa, republican line, fill ip caller: i have a question for the listeners as well as the

guest the listeners, i want to give them a question to pose to progressives. the question is: what does a self-describe progressive progress toward? what is the mathematical limit that you can say, we are now progressive. we have progressed? what does that look like? what does it look like with regard to private property rights and everything else? what is the actual goal of a progre progressive? you progress toward something at least to the point to where you reach it. if not, what does that look like? thank you. >> guest: that's a great question. i respect the intellectual honesty behind that question. >> we would stop progress is a little counter-intuitive but what are some bench marks along the way that represent progress? one easy one is that somebody who works 40 hours or more a week, a full-time job should not be living in poverty. right? >> the principle behind the minimum wage. one can debate should it go up

$07,510? >> the bottom line principlen principal with progressives. i would say that people should be able to go to college and not be saddled with debt their entire life. all of their life's decisions for the next decade, two decades should not be driven by how much the college bills were. that would be a sign of progress if we reached that point. there are many ways to do it. that would be one. do workers in our economy have the ability to both get paid more overtime and be assured that their kids will be able to get paid more than they do? that used to be the case. we have regressed and not progressed. >> that's partially because ceo did are paying themselves exorbitant amounts, shipping jobs overseas and not looking for american works. these are a few bench marks of success. progressive.org is where we have these ideas. >> birmingham alabama, democrats line, larry, go ahead. caller: good morning. first of all, i have your agenda a.

a progressive agenda is the way to go. first of all, the republicans om this election, they came out with this white working class quote, unquote. black people work in america, too. the message and everything that's around, it changed their agenda on this election and called for an hour. i am going to reflect their agenda here it's their agenda and you put the conservative republicans ain your senate and it's a message. president obama, let me make a point. you all know that we have when president obama ran for office in 2008. anyone with common sense know that this man brought the economy back to full force. if you had a 401(k), it's on

solid ground right now. the republican's agenda is to keep it 1%. we are going to see it. i want all you of you voters, when everything starts going downhill, don't blame the progressive movement because we are trying to do that. host: host thanks. >> guest: everything you said is pretty spot-on. >> that's why we need to fight together. we can't just debate it. we have to keep fighting. what can you do in your community? well, you know, if a presidential candidate comes to town or if your local member of congress or the senate has a townhall meet, go and tell them that. it's amazing how doing that, just two people in a crowd will make that be the big take-away from a local event. we need you to fight for big bold ideas. we need you to actually fight for us and, you know, continue moving the economy in the right direction. i encourage you to do that. please, i invite you actively to enjoy us, progressives.org. >> you mentioned senator warren.

are you pushing her to run for president? >> in 2011, 2012, we raised over a million dollars for her campaign in small-dollar doane assess and overall were her number 1 grassroots ally. if she decides to run for president, we would be thrilled. we are not pushing her to run for president. what we are pushing is that any presidential candidate, including hillary clinton campaign on elizabeth warren's populist ideas such as extending social security, more reform of wall street and making college affordable. what we are doing is actually very soon sending our first organizers to new hampshire to organize our thousands of members on the ground and a local coalition offun youngs and progressive ofrlingsz to ensure whenever a presidential candidate comes to town to ask whether they agree with elizabeth warren on key issues. >> how much of a progressive agenda does hillary adopt? >> to predict or currently? >> currently? >> three boxes. foreign policy, social policy

and economic policy. social policy, she isb on issues of gay marriage and for a lot of people, she is fine there. foreign policy is a little bit back and forth. we will see where she comes out on some of these war and peace issues. i found poplism, president big guy, little guy, when they are going in to each other that's the big tbd. the fact she joined elizabeth warren atacam pain event this cycle and paid homage to her agenda was a step in the right direction. part of our message to hillary clinton is that words will not be enough. it matters who she appoints to the economic team. will she continued the trend of goldman sachs for our economy or people like stig lits or a paul friedman time, dean baker or others. sheila behr.

those will be concrete down payments on the. you know, economic ideas, siding with the little guy against the big guy. we will incentivize her. >> moving forward, should she become the democratic nominee, is there a sense that your organization might not endorse her if she doesn't embrace enough of those concepts that you hold on to? >> well, you know, we take the word "endorsement" very seriously. any candidate would have to basically adopt an elizabeth warren style populist agenda to get our endorsement. partly for us, the question is prior to prior to in 2012 while many others are focused, our number one prior to priorities was electing elizabeth warren. she has been a one-person game changer. she has inspired her colleagues to have more back board to use the words of one of your callers, leadership. we are on goal to advance the popular decision. we hope that hillary clinton is part of that, and we will do our part to incentivize her. >> outside from hillary clinton and elizabeth warren, anybody

else who might be running for president adopts your kind of fi philosophies going forward? does anybody stand out? >> we will see. we will see. you know, bernie sanders is probably going to run. he is a good economic populist. there has been murmurs of brian schweitzer who won in a supposedly red state, take on the corporation. bo biden, the attorney general who takes on. >> out of maryland? >> mowrey, not sure where he stands on some of these issues, but we will find out. i think having competition is probably, you know, a helpful thing or even the processing expect of competition to allow secretary clinton to contemplate where she wants to position herself, and the one thing i agree with is they said hillary clinton's decision on some of these populist issues, should she side with the populist agenda or wall street