>> in reading those speeches, i was struck by something you had said. you said, this nation is experiencing a crisis of opportunity. >> right. >> tell me what you meant by that. >> we are missing the opportunity to take advantage of our skill sets, of our strengths we focus on our weaknesses. we fight over those. there is massive gridlock, really unprecedented gridlock. yet, this is the most extraordinary country in the world. this country is so much better when you hear the director general of the imf talk about the places in the world. the united states should not be in any category remotely close to a problem country. we have everything necessary, abundant natural resources, the

most innovative country in the world, most creative, work labor law that is unique in the developed world, a big place full of chances to expand, the history of productivity, all this stuff has been cast aside temporarily. we are moping around like we are france, with all due respect. [applause] the french have a lot of great things going on. i don't want to be disrespectful. they have a lot of interesting things, but we are not france for crying out loud. we are not seizing the moment. were not aspiring to be young and dynamic again. if we fix a few big substantive things, we could be american again. >> so which things? >> you want them in order of importance? >> your choice. >> i will give you five. i would say in energy policy

based on american innovation and north american resources, all in. we should be energy secure with mexico, canada, and the united states within five years. if we aspire to that, we can do it. a regulatory system based on a 21st century economy, not they 19th or 20th century. we are putting old, complicated rules on top of old, complicated rules, creating more complexity than perhaps any developed country in the world. we have lost our dynamic nature. i've asked this question of a lot of people who have made it. could you do what you have done, particularly if you talk to entrepreneurs, starting over now? a lot of people admit they couldn't because the barriers to be successful today are much more deeper and more complex.

figuring out a way to transform how we create walls around every aspect of human endeavor in a 21st century way is one of the great challenges. simplifying the tax code. if you want a world where left-handed albanian tax credits norm, come to america. we have the most complicated tax code. rather than eliminating his many deductions is possible to let freedom ring. that would be the third thing. the fourth thing is immigration reform, because it is something that is unique and special to this country. if we would create an economically driven immigration system where we control our borders and we moved away from family reunification being the

sole driver of how people come to this country -- 75% to 80% come to family petitioning -- and we dramatically expanded economic immigrants, which we have the capability of doing, and that's not necessarily an ideological partisan issue, we could create in america -- and a lot of other issues ago along with this -- we could create a country that would have the first 300,000 draft picks. we would be like -- aren't you an owner, may be trying to be the owner of a football team? you could be the equivalent of fred smith being the owner of a football team. you could pick who you would want to come to this country. they would come. they would create economic vitality the likes of which we have never seen.

this is the extraordinary country. it is a missed opportunity to not do that. finally, we need radical transformation on how we educate the next generation. it is not working. reform is important, but transformation should be the bigger argument. we are not even close. this is a place where i am completely frustrated. those five big things get us to a point where we started doing some of those, then we could actually do the other big hangs, which is not going to happen anytime soon, which is entitlement reform, which we desperately need as well. no developed country in the world has been able to achieve this. if we do it, we will be young, dynamic, and emerging again, rather than a developed country -- we will be the first country in the world that will be a bric . we will have to change the

acronym. we will have to replace the r. that would be the first time in history that that would happen. i think it will be the means by which we see whitening income for the middle class again. we will be much less pessimistic about what the future looks like. >> you talked about immigration and education, the reality is that the roadblocks to comp rehensive immigration reform in this town for the last year has been your party in the house. where's the gap? >> you don't think when the president of the united states uses powers he may or may not have but clearly knows that it will be more than provocative to use executive order powers to try to deal with immigration, that that's not provocative or a deterrent?

>> but the problem came from the preceding year, not now. >> i would argue that there is enough blame to go on both sides. we have missed opportunities on our side to shift the focus away from the argument on controlling the border to how do we shift an economically driven immigration system. that is the missed opportunity for republicans. i think that there is no trust anymore that the executive will enforce the laws. it is a shame. this is the easier thing of the five things i mentioned. it is the one that is least complex, where there is less political discord, in my opinion. it's a huge shame, because it's also the easiest way to get to sustained economic growth, which is what we desperately need. hopefully, the republicans rather than have their heads

explode with the president's executive action, which i think are -- i'm not a lawyer, so i can't say they're unconstitutional, let's call them extraconstitutional -- they are stretch way beyond what the executive authority by any other president has been used to the idea that reagan did it, my dad did it, they did it on a much smaller scale and with the consent of congress. there's a lot of differences. this lack of trust makes it harder for the happen. it is shame. >> is your problem with what the president did the substance of what he is proposed to do or the way he has proposed to do it? >> he didn't permanently change things. he doesn't have anywhere near

that authority. deferral of the execution of the law for a couple of years. these people are still in limbo. what we need to do is get to some certainty for people, 11 million people that are here, 5 million of which he dealt with. we need to find a way to give them legal status and moved to a system that is more economically driven. the system we have today -- we are the only country in the world that has spouse, minor children, adult sibling, and adult parents as the definition of family. every other country has spouse and minor children, that i'm aware of. i think that's true. if you narrowed it, which is what canada has -- if we could emulate the canada model, which is economically driven, 13-15% of their immigrants come through family petition.

75% come for economic purposes based on economic need. canada is sophisticated enough to know whether -- where there shortages of labor are. what a radical innovation to be able to know that. i imagine we could probably figure that out with people in this room alone in the united states. if we had the same system, we narrowed family petition and dramatically expanded, calling aspirational class, people who could come here and make an immediate impact on our economy, guess what? we would grow at a higher sustained rate. i don't know why a liberal, republican, democrat would be opposed to that. >> let's talk about education for a minute. people in this room have raised education a lot as a barrier to economic growth. you thought about this more than most people have. in your estimation, where did the u.s. education system go off the tracks? what's the way to get it back?

>> i think we haven't evolved away from local school district's being the governing model. i'm not suggesting getting rid of them. i'm suggesting getting rid of the monopolistic nature of them. it puts the economic interest of the adults in the system, which in many communities is the largest employer. for those that don't live in washington or new york. if you go to tennessee or texas or florida, outside of the bigger urban areas, the number one employer is the school district. it has a big economic interest rather than focusing on how you customize the learning experiences so this diverse group of kids gain the power of knowledge. that is the problem. the problem is the governance model is designed for the adults rather than the children. and reforming it on the edges isn't going to change that.

i have lost my patience on this, to be honest with you. i don't see the change necessary to get to model that we could get to. if we started from scratch, we wouldn't have this system. we wouldn't have unionized, politicized, government-run monopolies as the means by which children learn. we would have something that would be child centered, customized for their needs and we would use technology, not just for vendors to sell computers to school districts, which is a great business if you can get it, but at the core of learning. learn at your own pace, at your own time. time is the variable and learning is the constant rather than 180 days with the little butt in the seat being the means by which the school system is funded whether you learn or not. the constant is time and where the variability is whether you learn. that is a radical, you know, departure from where we are and there is no place in the country

that has come close to achieving that. that is what we need to strive for and now we have this weird coalition that is protecting the status quo for different reasons. an alliance that is quite powerful politically that doesn't agree on anything other than we shouldn't be able to dramatically change how we educate kids. i think there is a path that starts with high standards but doesn't end there. starts with that and empowers parents to make decisions for their children. argues for the learning experience to be completely customized. digital learning can occur. which requires a big change in how we collectively bargain because god forbid if the content is provided by someone in seattle for a student in miami. all sorts of changes that require big-time fights politically and there is not a lot of people on the frontlines right now. >> you know, speaking of big-time fights politically, you

have been willing to engage on two of those on this front. one involves common core standards, and the second involves testing. you have continued to argue both those things are part of the answer here. >> sure. well, common core standards or higher standards so if a state wants to be honest and say that their standards are 10th grade level and they need to raise them so that, you know, look, here is the deal -- you all know this because you are concerned about it in your states where you work, where your employers work, a third of of our kids maybe, 40% at best, and that is only because i'm going to be politi-facted, 40% at best are college or career ready. we spend more per student than any other country in the world other than two or three, maybe four at the best, and we have those results. in the video beforehand, general dempsey talked about 25% pass

rate. that is not just because of the tests. that is also because of obesity and too many tattoos, to be honest with you, on visible body parts for people that are trying to get into the military. but the pass rate for high school level tests to join the military is 35% or 40% at best and these are abysmal numbers. this is horrific numbers, yet there is no one marching in the streets and saying the end is near because of this. but the fact is the end is near if we can't fix this. if we just cast off large numbers of young people saying well, it is their family circumstances, it is poverty, we validate this, we encourage it. we actually, you know, make it more real that it is going to happen more often. and it is a tragedy that i think we should not accept. so high standards is part of this. and how do you -- if you don't measure you really don't care.

nonmeasurement is the great way to make sure that it doesn't matter that kids can be cast aside. and so, the unions oppose, you know, joe klein is a friend of mine, the former chancellor of the new york schools said republicans oppose national standards, i guess even though these aren't national standard, the common core standards and democrats oppose -- actually republicans oppose national and democrats oppose standard. so there is a coalition that wants to keep what we have even though people cannot defend the results that we have. we have to figure out a way to create a new coalition. perhaps more radicalized and with a greater sense of urgency to get to a better place. all of the other things that are doable aren't going to solve a problem of big social strains that will happen with the have and have nots coming because

children haven't gained the power of knowledge. >> let me shift to the washington scene for a second here. we all gather here at a time of fairly significant change in the way that this capital is going to work. what do you advise the new republican majority in congress to make their agenda? what ought to be on their list of to-do's, and frankly, not to do's? >> not to do is to focus a lot of energy on things that are not -- that are just going to create, make a statement, make a point. i think the republicans have gained the majority and increased the majority in the house. we don't have to make a point anymore as republicans. we have to show that we can in an adult-like way govern, lead. whether the president signs up for what the republicans in congress offer up is up to him. it shouldn't be too much of a

worry for the republican leadership in congress. they should lead. they should take the things that are possible to achieve, they should try to forge consensus with democrats in the congress and they should start passing bills. there were 360 or 370 bills that passed the house that never got a hearing. not one hearing in the senate in this last or the soon to end congressional cycle. it is unprecedented. it never happened before that i'm aware of in american history where democracy was shut down in the senate. now, i think republicans need to go back to regular order way to allow for bills to be heard, to encourage amendments on the floor, to allow for the debate to take place, to get back to the point where we are starting to complain that the senate is a deliberative body again. because right now, no one could claim that. i mean no one could literally -- i mean they do nothing.

showing the adult centered kind of leadership where you start dealing with -- even if it is not the huge big things which require presidential action, but it could be the xl pipeline. it could be accelerating on energy, accelerating the leasing of federal lands and waters for exploration. it could be consideration of the lifting of the ban on exports of crude at the appropriate time when we don't have the refining capacity to take on the light crude that is fast being produced in our country. it could be accelerating the permitting process for lng plants to use the tool to create a better balance of payment situation, more economic activity for the billions of dollars invested in the jobs created in our own country and deal with the problem of russia as it relates to its blackmail potential over europe because of

natural gas. there are a lot of things that republicans can do, and i don't think we should worry so much about how the president will react. my guess is he will engage. if he doesn't, fine, that is his prerogative. republicans need to show they are for a bunch of of things and there is a lot of tough to be done. whether it is on internet protocol or net neutrality or patent protection or tort reform. there is a lot of things that republicans i think have the ability to garner 60 votes in the senate on. healthcare reform. not just to repeal obama care, but replace it with something that fits the 21st century workforce that we now have. this should be a time of incredible possibility for republicans to be able to show what they believe in. >> you were obviously a two-term governor. you were a chief executive and dealt with lots of different legislative combinations.

what is your advice to each part of this dysfunctional relationship in washington? president, on one hand, and to the congress on the other, on how to get beyond what everybody agrees has been an unsatisfactory dynamic? >> i think the president has the upper hand here because the presidency is occupied by one person and the president could change the culture almost immediately if that was his wish. it would require sucking it up a little bit. i mean it would require, you know -- it is hard because the way i'm sure he views it is that everything that i propose, everything that i believe in the republicans oppose and so i will react to that. but he has the upper hand because it is one person that could do it. and the presidency still matters in the country. so whether he does it or not, i'm certainly no expert.

i think the leadership of the congress is on the right path based on my conversations with them to focus on things that can be done and do them. a budget. first time in five or six years. that sounds like a really radical idea, but i think they will pass a budget. they will actually go to committee. they will talk about priorities. and they will go through the regular order way during the next year, which will be quite hopeful that we get back to a place where people can have different views and they sort those things out through the process where a budget is created and hopefully with less deficit going forward and the president can respond to that. and if he engages i think it will help his legacy, to be honest with you, but if he doesn't it sets the stage for a 2016 election which is going to be different elections which is you republicans are a party of no and we are for progress. you can't say that if you are just opposed to any action that the congress takes. i think it is a huge

responsibility and a great opportunity for republicans to show what it looks like if conservative leadership gets back into washington. >> okay. you did it, you said 2016, so -- [laughter] >> as you know, i will have to turn in my white house correspondents' association card if i don't ask you this question. what do you think about 2016 and yourself? >> oh, me personally? >> yes. >> oh. 2016 is like any other year. >> kind of like any other year. >> so i'm thinking about running for president, and i will make up my mind in short order. not that far out into the future. i don't know the exact timeline. it is the same decision-making process that i always had which is can i do it in a way -- do i have the skills to do it in a way that tries to lift people's spirits and not get sucked into the vortex. that sounds easy, easy to say,

harder to do. do i have those skills? and i have to really do a lot of soul searching to really make that determination. and perhaps more important, can i do it where the sacrifice for my family is tolerable. every person that runs for office at any level, it is a big sacrifice because it is a pretty ugly business right now. i'm not saying oh, woe is me here and don't get me wrong, but there is a level at which i would never subjugate my family because that is my organizing principle. that is my life. i'm sorting that out. i don't know if i would be a good candidate or a bad one. i know, i kind of know how a republican can win, whether it is me or somebody else. and it has to be much more uplifting, much more positive, much more willing to, you know, to be practical now in a washington world, lose the primary to win the general

without violating your principles. not an easy a task, to be honest with you. >> a question that kind of reverberated through the last couple of republican nominating cycles are the things that you need to do to win a republican nomination contrary to what you need to do to win the general election. >> frankly, no one really knows that because it hasn't been tried recently, so. my personal opinion is mitt romney would be -- would have been and would be a great president right now. i honestly believe that. i think he is a problem solver. his life experience was designed to -- here is a problem, let's go fix it. put aside the idelogical differences. how do we go from point a to point b to fix it. i can imagine lots of power point presentations and going from point a to point b and fixing things and that would be healthy right now because our

government isn't working in a 21st century way. put aside democrat, republican idelogical. it is just not woking at the level that you would expect and it is because we never transformed how government works for people. every one of your businesses is radically different than it was two years ago, much less five years ago. yet if you walk into the halls of government today in washington, it looks kind of like 1975. and it has got to -- we got to figure out a way to get to the point of beginning to fix this stuff. and so i think you have to take that risk. >> let me ask you one last question, and then i want to open it up to these good folks for questions. but does your gut tell you that 2016 election regardless of

whether you are involved or not, is it about the domestic situation in the u.s. or is it going to ultimately be more about u.s. role in world? >> six months ago i would have said it might be a continuation of the focus on domestic issues because they are big and they are challenging. but i think there is a growing awareness that we can't withdraw from the world, that there is an unraveling taking place and it impacts our -- not just our security interests but our economic interests as well. i think foreign policy and maybe a reevaluation of what the role of the united states is in the world will become important and there are competing forces in both parties to deal with this. i would argue that an engaged america is better for america than a disengaged america. i would argue that a president needs to speak few words but those words need to be -- they need to resonate. they need to be real. they need to be taken to the bank by friends and foe alike. i would argue that we need to

rebuild our military and intelligence capabilities. not so much intelligence capabilities but persuade people that the intelligence capabilities we have keep us safe and they are important and they are not a violation of civil liberties but a means by which we can be free from the jihadist attacks that are happening and will happen at a greater pace if we continue to retrench. i would argue that free trade is important because people that trade together and become interdependent in a positive way economically are less likely to create friction diplomatically or militarily. there is a lot of discussion that needs to be had about what is the proper role for america, and i would argue that the traditional role that democrats and republican presidents alike have had since world war ii which is an invigorated american leadership is the proper role for our country. and i think that probably could

become a bigger issue. >> let me see who out there has a question they want to ask. right there and if you could wait for the microphone, that would be great. >> thank you, governor bush, for your thoughts. trend lines, governor bush, just to go back to the point you touched on, trend lines today seem to suggest a time of extraordinary opportunities across all vectors of human enterprise. headlines suggest one of conflict. i think as you point out american leadership is going to be pivotal to whether through cooperation we are able to capitalize on the trendlines or whether we will give way or succumb to the headlines -- one of conflict. question or rather i would be interested in your thoughts on can american leadership rise to

that occasion? >> absolutely we can. i mean we have done it time and time again. i think the key to this to make a -- you know, to get to a point where foreign policy where america's leadership in the world is accepted by a great majority of americans is that we are growing economically here first. i mean if you ask the former head of the joint chiefs of staff or the current one what the great threat for america is, they would say the budget deficit and the lack of economic opportunity for people. it is not that we are incapable of, you know, defending the sea lanes in southeast asia, which we have the capability of doing. we still have a, you know, military superiority that is while under challenge, certainly second to none. so if we started to grow again economically where instead of having declines in median income, which we had the first

time i think in american history where we had a recession where we have had a decline in median income, instead of having that we had rising median income where the middle class was more optimistic about their children's future and their future, i think there would be not just an acceptance but an embrace of a more active engaged american foreign policy and that would do the world a whole lot of good. because but for us, who? who? who has the capability of providing security and stability in places that are being disrupted by all sorts of changes, cultural, religious, technological. the world is being, you know, disrupted, some in good ways and some in really bad ways and we are but for us there is no source of stability that allows that transformation to take place in a peaceful way. so my hope is that people are much more optimistic about our

role in the world because their life is getting better and that sustains a foreign policy that is more naturally suited for the united states which is today, still, the only super power in the world. and if we act accordingly, i think we create a more prosperous world and a more secure world. >> right there. >> governor bush, you know, lately in the news some of the -- some from the democratic side have started to question the focus of the political capital after the 2008 election. in other words, where are the democrats focused their agenda right after this election. >> yes. >> and you brought up five areas that i guess there were things like energy and regulation and immigration and tax and education. well, if political realities, political viscosity limited you to one or two, what would you focus on? >> well, i mean the two easiest things -- can we do it like so

that you are successful and then you can create a climate where you could be more successful? can i change the question to do that? it doesn't work that way where you are just not going to -- you can't ignore these issues that -- all of which need to be fixed. but i would say the two big things that would be the quickest way to jump start investment in our own country that creates higher wage jobs rather than lower wage jobs over a sustained period of time is an energy policy that celebrates this incredible revolution that has taken place that is something that should be marching bands for rather than concern about, which is the energy renaissance in our own country. and the innovation being applied each and every day to make it even more beneficial. getting out of the way of that and encouraging it to happen at a faster pace and immigration reform which is something that

if we could give people confidence we could control our border and shift from a broken immigration system to one that allowed us to have first 250,000 or 300,000 first round draft picks. the other issues become easier to fix because we are growing and it is not based on, you know, trying to divvy up a smaller pie. those are the two things that are less politically, believe it or not, wouldn't appear that way if you read the news. but those are the less challenging issues that allow us to get in a place to deal with the bigger issues. in the interim there are possibilities of dealing with some issues on a smaller scale and i think that is what the republicans in congress will do. my guess is that there will be efforts to reform corporate taxes, for example. and might deal with the worldwide income challenge and reversion absurdity. if we are going to have an

inversion absurdity, ought to be the other way around. out to be that foreign companies are buying u.s. businesses to relocate here. we should be beneficiary of the absurdity rather than suffering from it. it could create the chance to bring back $2 trillion in cash. many companies in this room i'm sure have cash overseas where your shareholders would punish you. might be that four year life expectancy might go to three bassed on shortsided policies. if you could move to a strategy that allowed us to bring back some of that money at a fixed rate, perhaps you reduce the deficit and create an infrastructure fund that republicans and democrats would like and batch it with pension fund money and create half a trillion dollars of infrastructure moneys that could build. now i'm just talking out loud here so this is blue sky stuff so whoever is going to tweet this or whatever, please caveat

this. if you had $500 billion and created 50 projects of national importance of infrastructure, don't you think that would lift the spirits of america? where bottlenecks would be resolved. broadband could be brought to every school instead of taxing people on their cell phones, which is the proposal in front of the f.c.c. i believe right now. there are ways to solve problems in a bipartisan way and get to a point where the complexity of our tax code doesn't retard economic investment in our country. that should be done already. that should have been done, you know, three years ago. my guess is if the president wants to engage, that is something that the republicans and he could agree on. >> i think we have time for one last question. right here.

>> governor, maybe just a comment or two on the united states and china and how you see this playing out and what that relationship could evolve to. >> it could evolve to a really ugly place, particularly if we pull back kind of in a permanent fashion. the threat of that is there and we should be cognizant of it. it also could yield economic benefits if we are fully engaged across the board. i thought that hank paulson's efforts to create and i think the obama administration has continued this, to create constant dialogue dialogue by sector, private sector as well as government, secretary to secretary kind of arrangements where the misunderstandings are lessened is hugely important.

i traveled a lot to china. and my last trip was last year. i didn't go -- actually, i didn't go this year, i went last year. and every meeting i had on that trip, i believe it was, or maybe it was the second-to-last trip, it was right after the summit between the chinese president and president obama in palm springs which by reading the "wall street journal" -- which is my newspaper of record. >> didn't pay him to say that. >> looked like it was a pretty good summit and worked out good to me. i don't know. i mean generally there seemed to be good dialogue. every person that i met brought up the fact that mrs. obama wasn't at the summit. it made no news here because frankly, you know, i -- i was thinking well, she is a mom. her children are in the white house for crying out loud. it is pretty hard. maybe she had to do what we did for our kids in 7th or 8th

grade, probably had to do the science project with them. there was normal motherly things that she had to do and that is the american way. the chinese viewed it as an insult to their very glamourous first lady. it is very, when you have such big cultural differences and if you have had experience in china you know this much better than me, you have to be completely immersed, completely engaged to eliminate the stupid things from creating problems because there is going to be big things that are going to create problems that they will disagree with our actions and we will disagree with them. and i think that ought to be the first effort is to have full comprehensive engagement. you can't ignore china as it moves, you know, as it emerges as a world power. and then the the second thing i would say is that if you reach that point where there is a level of trust that is high, and

i'm not an expert to know where we stand today in that regard, then we ought to encourage china to take a leadership role in helping solve global problems. that everything on their foreign policy can't be about simply their economic interests. they need to play a constructive role in a lot of different ways that today they don't feel compelled to do. so, but i know for a fact retrenching will create misunderstandings that are going to create huge economic hardships for both sides and perhaps as china grows militarily and asserts itself in the region, you know, something far worse than that. >> governor bush, we are out of time. we have to honor our commitment to get you get back home. this conversation and the one earlier helped set up the conversations tomorrow and appreciate very much your being here and we are grateful for you

to helping us get launched this way. >> thanks for the invite. >> thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> wednesday, a look at nuclear arms control efforts. the under secretary of state for arms control and international security speaks at the brookings is decision live at 10:00 eastern here on c-span. in november, the environmental protection agency announced a proposal to strengthen air-quality standards for ground-level ozone. wednesday, a senate environment and public works subcommittee holds a hearing focusing on air-quality regulations. that will be live at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span.

q&a, author on katie have which on what she perceives as hypocrisy of liberals on their war on women rhetoric. >> ted kennedy? idea will go back to the for this from the 2012 dnc convention where they were showing this tribute video because he had passed away and portraying him as a women's rights champion when he left a young woman to drown in his car as he tried to save his own behind. she would have probably survived. you can't do an entire video claiming to be preaching and fighting about the war on women and glorify someone like that while not including that part of his life in a video about his women's rights record. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern

and pacific on c-span's "q&a." we are airing one program from each year starting december 22 at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> brad and dallas woodhouse our political operatives on opposite sides of the political spectrum. they talked about their documentary on "washington journal." this is 45 minutes. >> washington journal continues. a moment, we will introduce you to brad and dallas woodhouse. their new film, " woodhouse divided." ♪

[applause] >> i always hope we are divided about it. i don't hope we ever agree on that. hope we are divided about it. i don't hope we ever agree on that. >> we will send him a message today. hands off my health care. hands off my health care. thank you. >> these lies, we're going to pass it. if the american will do not like it -- the momentum has moved toward the president in the past week. there and iss out going to lose. money offe a lot of of their misguided ideology. >> that is it, you're just making stuff up.

>> lisa and i are having our own event because of obama'sailing agenda. -- obama''s failing agenda -- o bama's failing agenda. ♪ host: woodhousedivided.com is the website. who introduced you to brad woodhouse and dallas woodhouse. what was this film all about? guest: it is interesting.

when it started out, i did not know it would be a known. it was supposed to be a short, for youtube. then brian miller, who directed and shot the film and produced and edited the film, saw a story there about, you know, our political divisions in america. and he did it really based around the health-care law and the fighting past the affordable care act, which my side one. but dallas was fighting in north carolina, so it had a political element to it, but also an element of, these are the types of divisions that you see in families. divisions in your state and counties in america. it was kind of a microcosm of the political battles he had seen in washington and around the country. host: what is carolina rising? guest: a nonprofit political group i started to sort of help the conservatives and

republicans in north carolina who may come into power and sort of tell their story in north carolina. the film goes through a lot of the time that iran the north hairline a chapter of americans for prosperity. , it goes through a lot of the time when i did that. i spent the early part of my career as a television reporter. in north carolina. -- moviemaker, brian milker ,yan miller -- brian miller when i went into the television news business, we became very good friends. we have children the same age. with him on some projects when i was at americans for prosperity and he came up with this idea. at first, he did not know what he was going to do with it. he ended up following me around the north airline it in washington and over the course of three years, as we fought the

health-care issue, and what is interesting about the movie, it is about an hour and 10 minutes long, it is not really a story of just grabbed and dallas veryouse, who have different clinical ideas. i make my living in north carolina fighting on the right side of the aisle. her brother makes his living in washington trying to destroy the country for the left side of the aisle. [laughter] so we are little different. but it is not really the story of our family. i would make the contention that it is the story of our family and the conversations they have around the thanksgiving tables, and the conversations they will have with their extended families and christmas and hanukkah coming up in the next couple of weeks. talking about the very real discussions family have about dividing politics in our nation. host: we have a clip of what it is like at thanksgiving in your

house, but what was it like rowing up? growing up, we did not take political sides growing up. our parents -- guest: he was significantly older than me. were: our parents interested in following the news and politics, but they do not force us what to believe. i was older than dallas and went to college, and we were not all that close when we were children. we actually got a lot closer when we got older and he moved in with me. he paid rent for a few years, and that is when we got closer. he left the news business and went into politics, my mouth hit the floor because i just had no idea that he was going to be a right wing republican wingnut. guest: i do not know about that. i am a product of the reagan resolution -- revolution. washington,e up to

your brain gets poisoned, as we see constantly by people who, peer. guest: present company excepted, right? woodhouse, dallas woodhouse. they are brothers. "woodhouse divided." let's see what your thanksgiving was like a few years ago. >> dallas, i see a lot of good pictures of you from your bus tour earlier this year. what smart asked comment are you going to make now? ass comment are you going to make now? >> after you lose, we win and we pass it and it gets in law, will you keep your job? >> shut up.

8-5, democrats. 8-5 against it. you cannot even keep your own stay together. 8-5. ♪ >> the woodhouse man yell at each other. men yell at each other. guest: it is funny, you see that clip, and brad was right that they were able to shove the health-care bill down the throats of the unwilling american people. how has that worked out for you? it has not worked very good for the country. i don't think so. >> we had the votes in congress, and we passed and the republicans run the senate now, run the house, and that is what our democratic process is. a bitgree with you quite

on the success of the health-care law. on thiser people coming show and predicting that the health-care law would crash the economy. >> eu in the video said that the people would love it. has that worked out? you believe the american people love it. guest: i believe the people who have gotten it -- guest: [inaudible] there are polls that show people have gotten it, people have signed up and they are receiving health care through the exchanges, they do love it and i will show you these polls. think of this there is a lightning -- on the building. someone is going to get struck. young ande pretty they have not been bitten by the bug. important thing to know is we do set the stuff aside. brad will be in raleigh in a few days for christmas.

intol welcome his children my home and whether he comes or not is an open question. and: you come in near family members say, oh god, they are here and add it again? guest: we have a very boisterous family. whether it is about politics or about some discussion of athletics or sports, we are going to have a boisterous conversation. fan ofis not a big having arguments about politics. it is not just us. my wife is the chief of staff to a republican member of congress. i -- they gang up on me when they have the opportunity. guest: at least i do not have to sleep with her. that is a good thing. but no, i think, what i hope

people get out of the movie, and it is free, you can watch it , is that, look, i believe in political division. i think it is good. we have had an election here recently. brad did not talk to me after that. it did not go his way. we smacked him around in north carolina. eat his candidate. beat is a good thing -- his candidate. which is a good thing. we fund the government, getting something done in this lame duck session i expect needs to get done. other things, we disagree on. we need -- we need political division. that is ok. >> you are right. you did not agree with the president. we can disagree without

being disagreeable. having the economy humming, how i -- having unemployment below -- host: how did that work out? host: i am also concerned --guest: i am also concerned the country out of recession, got a below 6% which your party left out of control, is below 3% of gdp, 11% when bush was in office, look. we can argue about why the midterms turned out the way they did. the republicans ran on nothing. guest: what did democrats run on? what did your candidates run on? what did your candidates run on, brad? ran on hatred of the

president. you saw this. a press conference in kentucky. "you're the majority, what are you going to do?" " we are going to restore regular order." that was his agenda. not say anything about jobs or health care, fixing it, doing something different. he said we're going to restore regular order. you are in not say anything abot jobs or health care, fixing chal hill and your party will have to have an agenda. host: brad woodhouse and dallas woodhouse. yes, they are brothers, and they are polar opposites. we will get to your calls. joining us from new jersey, good morning. caller: good morning. gentlemen, you need to stop what dallas,oing and you, you represent a part of the republicanhost: party, a frencht

is so loud mouth, that what you -- people who make sense. right now, what you have to do to get to the people, they start they have awakened the -- ed host: do you want to respond? guest: look, i was on the forefront of the tea party movement. the modern-day republican party, i think it is a movement out of love, love for country. it really started overspending and health care. we have fought about since the beginning of our republic. much. isis something our -- it

something we will fight over, so long after brad and i are ashes to ashes, dust to dust. guest: is something we will fight over, tt protesting when president bush was expanding medicare. guest: a lot of people process and over that. guest: when he spent trillions of dollars on a war in iraq he started under false the tenses -- look. guest: [indiscernible] the tea party was a creation of the insurance company, [indiscernible] guest: timeout. timeout. guest: that is crazy. why do you insult -- guest: i am not insulting him. is, theirsaying

history is not spontaneous. spontaneously, when people start casey showed up in raleigh, to get on bus and go to washington dc. he set up invitations and paid people. .ll types of people i am not saying they did not believe what they are protesting, but suggested some popular uprising that had nothing to do with what the -- it depends on the question. u.s. to go to sign up and they overwhelmingly supported it. we're just going to get people to sign up and be more more popular. that is the attitude of the obama administration and democrats and we have seen how that works output it. host: let's go to joy in north carolina. you are right, i am from

down south, and i'm your mother. i disagree that all families are like ours. i don't know many families that are fighting at thanksgiving. glad that this thanksgiving was the year you two were supposed to go to your in-laws, and i am hoping you will have some of this out of your system when you come here for christmas. i would really like a peaceful christmas. i love you both. this was not planned. she called in on a normal line. but did -- but since you did call him, what was it like to raise the two voice? boys?: -- easy.: it has not been and i love politics.

their dad and i both love politics and we follow the entire country. i know that we have to take responsibility for them. they're both very passionate about what they believe in, and i love that about them. but i hope they get this out of this is in today on the program. host: are you a democrat or republican? i am a registered democrat, many years ago. but i have at times but my ticket. i am concerned for the party that will expand medicaid. i have an autistic grandson who sol expand health care,

those are, i guess i am more of a one issue person right now my life. i have such concern for my autistic grandson. host: we are glad to hear from you. james from fort worth, texas. democrats line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. good morning, c-span. dallas, hope you let me speak without rudely interrupting like you do with your brother. the republican party spent the last 40 years converting the american middle-class income into executive compensation and investor payouts. currently exists with two factions. in stateather was politics for a long time and i grew up and attended the 1951 republican national convention. i pay attention to it. , theere is the thing

republican party currently is composed of wall street sorry, butand i am the tea party is a reaction to white backlash reaction to the election of our first black resident. it started with him with signs with bones in his nose. guest: i think those comments are undignified and what i will the biggest negative gottion the president has is on the health-care law and so has the president. host: the house divided on the affordable care act? >> dallas, i see a lot of good pictures of you from your bus tour earlier this year. comment aret ass you going to make now? all, after you lose,

we win and we pass it and it gets signed into law, do you get to keep your job? we should point out that was the same clip we just pointed out moments ago. let's go to greensburg, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for the opportunity. i do not know any republicans so this will give me a good opportunity. i have always wanted to ask, what is it in a prison's mind or in their heart that makes them begrudge another human being having access to health care? don't think anybody begrudge is somebody having access to health care. what i will say is there are medicaidhat people on do not ask -- necessarily access health care. in some cases, they access are

and what i would say, we have taken a situation here with the health-care law and in a lot of cases, the vast majority of people were happy with what they had and we made their situation worse. i got a get in here. all questions to from callers have been to you. that is factually not true. absolutely, we're getting the savings. medicare inflation has gone down. the premiums for most americans have gone down. seniors have access -- guest: keep their plans? guest: yes. guest: oh come on. guest: one of the biggest lies was always cancellations, some people lost

people loss plans, but they got better plan. host: let me jump in. we'll come back to this. here's more from the film. [video clip] >> we are here to represent you represent yourself -- every member of the united states of the senate this bill we want killed. when i stand up in front of a big crowd, it is exciting. you have a lot of people to you -- you can star for a rock minute. thank you for coming today. we're going to send a message today -- hands off my health care. >> he's a rabble-rouser.

he inflames people's passions. he's just on the wrong side of the issue. those tea partiers really got all those people -- they talking about? -- that is harry reid right? "woodhouse the film divided." guest: what you thought was pure unadulterated politics.

the republican governor of massachusetts passed a healthcare law almost identical to what the president passed. there were republicans in the that and the senate other healthcare laws, then, a democrat got elected and proposed health care law. he said let's take the health exists ce system as it in the build on it, expanded, but keep it in the private market. and republicans -- they can lead a democratic president went on an issue. guest: i will stand with my brother buddy, a senator who says that the democrats made a big mistake. to another go

carolina.om north caller: let's talk about carolina rising. they did away with the earned income tax credit. the only people in north carolina rising are the wealthy. guest: thank you to the caller:. caller on correct the a couple of facts. over the past couple of years, number of tax a reform. to pay everyone's taxes them. we started four years ago when tax for anybody who goes and buys anything, we the sales tax.

we cut the iincome tax for everybody. the reality is, you cannot cut taxes for people who do not pay them. nature of -- then, we did a major tax reform. people for years have talked tax reform -- it was hilarious to me in the last election that we had were kay to talk d the nerve reform, her opponent had passed one of the tax or form.e of a lower the tax rate for everybody. guest: he did. he provided a huge tax windfall to the wealthiest in north carolina. went after medicaid -- very similar to what republicans --

guest: that's a lie. guest: let me say this -- bunch of issues in an election in north carolina for be the laws that won't same when governor mccoury is up. the governor is one of the least popular governors. guest: he is in fine shape. truth of this -- one second -- is so ax reform the rate , you lower -- north carolina republicans,

did it ng the governor anyway. it was a tough road, and it will be rewarded for. host: will you ever run for political office? guest: i don't believe so. if you does, i will run his campaign. chance.not a host: republican line. are you with us? on to vermont. on ler: i want to comment dallas's attitude, it seems typical of republicans. brad was saying, tthat the republicans will not vote for their own ideas because

they do not want democrats taking credit for it. guest: brad has appointed some of the health care law had looked at -- the individual mandate. you think the entire republican party has to accept it? i don't think so. you made him the nominee passed the nt, he bill. guest: yyou have to remember the president did not even run on his own bill. guest: when you get to washington, you have been congress to deal with. guest: are you saying the president is only for an individual mandate?

guest: i'm not saying -- you are only against the health care bill because the democrats propose that. that bill, at the time, you were against it because the democrats propose that. that bill could've been introduced by republicans. the truth is, republicans do not want to reform healthcare, they want to take it back to where it was when insurance companies called all the shots. not against the health care bill, i'm free market. i'm not a republican, maybe i am e voted republican, but i free market. film is called "woodhouse divided."

good morning. guest: good morning. qualify my e to i have n, i am a vegan, veterans benefits. you come from, and the southern states, lead the all the negatives in healthcare, finance, and others. is very easy, it appeals to a majority white crowd which is going extinct. guest: i am certainly not antigovernment. thank you for your service.

we commend, especially this holiday season, all the members of the military who have given so much for us. it is a shame that the present united states has not stood up law and order. guest: that is one of the most irresponsible comments i've ever make -- to say this president has not stood up for law enforcement or for troops. guest: i said -- guest: what you're saying is completely undignified. guest: has he stood up and said that people should be responsible? bbut anyways, the caller -- guest: you want to talk about party protests -- gunshots get me - don't even started.

guest: i just want to say, the am not to the caller i antigovernment. a strong have military. making people pay for people to show up at the emergency room is also not the way to do it, dallas. your putting the gun to taxpayers had either way. is so is the free market good then how come the healthcare industry is going to make people? guest: we did not have a free market system. you were not able to buy healthcare across state lines. we were not able to have true health care savings accounts. we could have had a more free market system, and i continue to support that.

host: let's go to the next caller: from georgia. in northern ive georgia, 6 miles from from north 12 miles carolina. to my three children were born in north carolina. guest: you're in god's country out there? caller: yes. i've lived in north carolina. what i wanted to say, the in son republicans whine this area is because of fox news. no one has said that. news has evidently use

subliminal advertising. so ave friends that are brainwashed, tthey used to be intelligent people. but, the reason people vote fox blican is because of foxnews says that the democrats will take away their guns. people in this area want to go out and hunt. in st: in our senate race north carolina -- and i think states bates in other were undignified -- but, in a rth carolina, we had

substantive debate on education funding, other issues. a serious debate. good for state. host: this tweet, poor brad, he to t really love his brother keep from reaching across the table and slapping him. guest: i would not do that. do love dallas dearly. host: but this is how you interact when you talk politics? guest: yes. host: let's go back to the film. available online at woodhousedivided.com. [video clip]

has ou know the momentum moved forward in the past week. people see this leadership on display. >> i've always tried to take an interest in his personal career. somebody out there will do what he does, so he might as well do it and make a lot of money off of it. is, the democrats have been very good to him. host: from the film, we will go to dallas woodhouse. of my brother.oud the easter o to bunny role at the white house. he gets to have cocktails with joe biden. he's been on air force one. i am proud of him.

i disagree with his ideology, but he's done it great deal. there's a picture of him with president obama and my mother's house. was in one person obama raleigh, president obama commented on how good my brother was in the dnc. whatever your ideology, that means a lot to your family. and you know, i disagree with president's politics -- i think he's a good man, but i disagree with his politics. of the hope you get out can disagree you vehemently, and we do, but then we get together and go out and play football with the kids. we have a lot of conversations on one phone, we hang up another, but that we pick it up and call again. about these to talk things. that is up -- one thing

about is -- we had extended family that say do not talk about this, do not about that -- but why? guest: i do not know what we would talk about if we didn't talk about -- and look, the whole family to some extent or the ked in politics government. our parents started out in in the tic politics back late 1950's. had their wedding reception in the governor's mansion in north carolina. it's to say, it is in our blood. think it reflects what some other families go through, but it is an extreme case. melissa from o to raleigh, north carolina.

caller: maybe i should confess that i worked in the same retired as fore i dallas. guest: melissa, how are you? caller: i watched when she did. he's getting a bad rap here. he never paid anyone to go to washington. i was one of those people that read that health care bill, and was s really sad about what in it. i said at the time to dallas, nobody who voted for that would understand it. that e do not understand it is -- in the first 30 pages it says that according to this blog, and this regulation --

there is not one democrat who voted for it that understood what they were reading. guest: i do not believe that is true. i think that principles of healthcare reform are fairly simple. we went to get rid of discrimination on pre-existing conditions. we expanded the ability for people to get health insurance by eliminating gender discrimination. i do not think it is a complicated. no matter what politics are -- a divided country -- if anything the president does gets above 50%, i would be surprised. the health care law is working. there is not any dispute, it is down cost -- we had 10 million more people to have

health insurance now. what do you want? dallas is right about one a radical -- a radical conservative, radical republican. the traditional republican view so be it. you can live on the street. guest: i have never said that. guest: every insurance policy in the world, in this country, is regulated. they regulate auto insurance. should be regulated in a way that lowers cost? my god, what a horrible thing.

host: at what point do the work of brian miller become a film? guest: i'm not sure. they may have decided from the a little , i was blindsided. people were attending strategy meetings, and making web videos. dallas was leaving these boisterous rallies on capitol hill? just kept coming. i thought, my god, again? then finally i realized, this is not going to be a 10 minute for you to, it will be a documentary. i want to say about brian, he he t the entire thing, edited it, he asked the questions. i think there are very few things of this quality that have been done by one person. none of it eally

to it's important understand, we never set out to make a movie. this is what we did. me, raising my kids. meaning, having to deal with brother at thanksgiving. and the camera picked it up. host: i would ask you to reverse roles and be very serious. what advice would you give the democrats moving ahead in the next congress? guest: obviously i would change some phases. it is hard for me to believe keep some faces like harry reid, nancy pelosi the same. way to ed to find a present some credible ideas on

work conomy that they can with the republicans on. have to the republicans show, and present some things that they can send to the president. -- my side is very as large of anything -- comprehensive immigration, reform, nsive tax anything comprehensive. it depends on several things to happen, and we do not believe that the government can do big things. you have to send one bill at a time, one part at a time. that's what the republicans do, and the democrats should join them. host: let's go to our last call. caller: good morning. i just have a couple comments. brad has been tight mahogany obama care is, and how is working so well.

why has so great, obama delayed the mandate for the last couple of years? just do it.you my second comment is, remember nancy pelosi's comment, we have in order to bill know what is in the bill. say this -- the present and hhs has the authority to implement the law. look, you saw last year, there was some real problems with the website. they fixed those. this is what dallas would tell you, it is a big law. the implementation has been good, the mandate will come in. i think the law will continue to strengthen. you can look, people are -- burning up the

phone lines to enroll. i would give ice to republicans is satisfied their hatred for the president. they get 70% of the vote, they are drawn to the very extremely , conservative -- this hatred for the present is what the leaders and of having to deal with. this with u will see mcconnell, finding some accommodation where they can with the president, then they get pulled back by the caucus. grow a pair, and of being pulled

by your caucus by these elements that are completely to your president. the president has repeatedly -- was trying to make a big dealing with debt, walked away from because there were so many people in the caucus that have sheer hatred for the present. they say, you cannot compromise with the president. you cannot govern that way. host: final question for you, of your did you get out system? guest: you can never get this of your system. i hope people watch the film. it's a great film to watch in the holiday season. guest: we will have these discussions around the dinner table.

guest: we will have these questions in the rest home while we are looking for tea, nurse, help me. >> next, former senators kerrey danforth discuss congress, the federal budget and the 2016 presidential elections. kentuckyrks by congressman massey on international and domestic surveillance. conversation on countering violent extreme indiana the scuffs around the world. 7:00 a.m.ive at eastern on "washington journal" a look at early childhood education. jeb bush's potential presidential run. and the prevalence of brain the united tumors in states.

>> on the next "washington american the federation of teachers discusses the white house's push for early education. then matt lewis talks about jeb bush's announcement that he's a 2016 bid,loring and what he needs to do to get through a republican primary. that, david arons of the national brain tumor society prevalence of brain cancer in the u.s., plus your commentsls, facebook and tweets. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. programsre some of the you'll find in weekend on the c-span networks. saturday night at 9:30 on c-span, actor seth rogue an humorsing politics and with liz winstead at the harvard institute of politics. at 8:00 on q and a, author and town hall.com

editor on what she perceives as liberals ony of their war on women rhetoric. at 10:00 on after words, the top universities are in education.rk and sunday morning just before lafayette, visits west lafayette, indiana to interview several of the city's tour its literary sites. c-span 3 saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on the civil war, a historian talks about the of irish american soldier, patrick clayburn, and his role the confederate army. and sunday afternoon at 4:00 on a 1974erica, investigative piece by san kron tv on the history of police brutality in neighboring oakland. our completely television

schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. us, or send us a tweet. c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> tuesday former senators bob danforth john discussed congress, the federal budget and the 2016 presidential elections. 20 years ago, both senators were members of a bipartisan examining entitlements and tax reform. this event hosted by the bipartisan policy center is an hour and 10 minutes.

the bipartisan policy center was senateshed by former majority leaders in 2007. senator bob dole, george mitchell, tom daschle and the late howard baker. in theoughout their time senate and in congress they worked tirelessly to find a solution to the challenges that confronted the country. this through what we call what i think of as reasoned negotiations and respectable dialogue. thethat's the, if you like, rain for this organization that they established and that's why theave joined here at bipartisan policy center this thernoon, to look back on 20th anniversary of the bipartisan commission on tax reform, but

more importantly to look forward issuesthis could, these upcoming 2016 presidential elections and the new congress coming in. joined this afternoon by two very distinguished public senator bob kerrey danforth.r jack both worked with those senate majority leaders i mentioned earlier who founded this place. president clinton established bipartisan commission on entitlement and tax reform by an in november of 1993. kerrey and vice chairman danforth took on the outulean task of carrying the executive order and they were joined by 10 other united senators, two who are thel serving the majority,

current majority leader, harry reid, anded that cochran, 10 congressmen, the last one who is house,tiring from the john dingell, and 12 members of public. minici was on that commission, but in the end the reachsion could not consensus. its final report was a compilation of competing proposals. but the two cochairmens advanced have to sayld and i rather brave proposal toticularly as it letted social security, and featured raising the retirement age, if can believe it to 70. cutting social security payroll redirectede money interest mandatory private accounts, and adopting price indexing, among other changes. although the group was not able to any policy

recommendations, the commission considered by us old budgeteers to be a milestone on putting on the policy agenda the future of the nait's entitlement that challenging few is still very much with us today, as we will discuss later. i could also make the argument it's even more difficult today was 20 years ago. i'm going to now turn this over to my friend and fellow colleague, bob bixby, who i have these vineyard for many years. served her at the policy center on the debt reduction i can say didat reach consensus in 2010, but none of them were elected at that time. and bob is currently the executive director of the coalition where he has been since its founding in 1992. i can again like to point

duel of theartisan late former senator tsongas of and late senator warren rudman, joined with pete peterson. you.b, i turn it over to >> thank you, bill, and it's always a pleasure to be here at bipartisan policy center. us today.for hosting twoill noted, 20 years ago, respected united states senators, jack danforth and bob appointed by president clinton to chair a commission on entitlement and tax reform. during the course of their deliberations they produced a currenthat declareed budget trends are unsustainable made findings

about the nature of the problem and the issues that policy makers would need to address in fine solutions. it really was a remarkable respects.two the 30 of the 32 members commission agreed on the seven findings. the problem, and those seven findings essentially had thened the nature of problem in the intervening years since. is second remarkable thing that all of those findings, unfortunately, are still valid. was looking through them earlier this year, i thought, you could release these today and it would still be valid. was the idea that i and jack kerrey danforth if they would like to do that, because after five elections, 10 congressional elections and at least four other bipartisan commissions, there were probably

fiscalseven, those policies are still unsustainable reasons that the commission established. so before we head into yet another presidential election and another congressional cycle or before somebody comes up with a bipartisanfor commission, we thought it would be a good idea to look at the again to help explain why current policy is still unsustainable. why it matters for the nation's future and why it's an important ahead to 2016,ng presidential candidates, to take up. the findings, i won't go interest them in great detail, the report and i'm going to skip over the slides so we'll have a little more time the senators. but basically they addressed the gap betweene the government spending and revenues, that's kind of

elementary. but they also talked about the need to improve savings in the nation, to help grow the economy, they talked about the need aaddress rising health care costs can. about the need to address the demographic trends in this country, and they recommended that we adopt the medicarecurity and trustees call to action to make the revenues and the spending in key programs come more into line. so that they're sustainable for the long term. i just want to note that with deficit coming down right now, and it is coming down, it's tbe for people toking for that a lowering deficit still debt. you with a rising so it's easy for the public, the media, candidates, to lose track that we do still have a problem that needs to be i hope we can talk a little about that in the q and a. now i am going to

yield the floor, as they say, in senate, to our distinguished guest speakers, bob kerrey and jack danforth who together served more than 30 years in the united states senate. and served as governor for bob general forttorney dack january forth in their home states. so so i will yield the floor for may consume.as you >> great. jackgreat to be with again. and let me try to be relatively brief. been on the center for 13 years to be's still difficult relatively brief. but the most important question people to askan and answer is do, we have a problem. because if you don't think problem, particularly the candidates, and especially to ask theneeds

candidates, is there a problem here? because if you don't think of it why propose any solution to it. one of the challenges that we i happen to think if we do have a big prask that it's a it wasn'tc problem, caused by liberals or conservatives. it's demographics. the baby boom generation to draw down the claims they've got on medicare and social security. a day or something like that are moving in the rankses of eligibility, and law they're entitled to these benefits that are specified. you wait the more dwawlt it is to solve the problem. again, it's not a problem that created by left or right, it's a problem that we simply promised more than current laws is able to keep. do anythingon't

today, at some point if you think young people are getting today, it's going to get worse, because at some point benefits for cut race taxes higher. politicaln the a environment such as today, even minor adjustments can be difficult. most people in the press will say, well, what's the problem, thatng that anybody proposes a solution to the problem is going to be criticized for that solution. alan and i introduced legislation in '95 and i remember quite well, it's actually called norp am retirement page, so the press went out and talked to people to old.5 years that was five years ago, didn't not retirements age any longer, it's the eligibility for normal benefits. no requirement that somebody has to retire. is the point that i'm making

that it's much easier to be a cosponsor of the do nothing plan. consequences for being a co-response so of the do-nothing plan. comes to see you you're making changes in benefits, and you have a liberal solution and a conservative solution. curet's not like finding a for cancer, there's only 30 or 40 things you can do. there around very many selectionings can you make. but no selections is neaks the public and the agents of the public and members the begin to say to this is who are not solving this problem, why are you sponsoring do nothing plan? why are you sponsoring something that's going to relate -- my cohort vote 80% of his vote. so if you're trying to get the and you look at vote. under 30, they don

that, it give a speech biggest problem we have going the sickle is the one we had in 394 and '95. teen left getfar heft off the look because it's the do nothing plan, as to questions of why are something.ng this will make the flight even worse. i'm done. >> ditto. been 20 years since our report. just had sandwiches downstairs and a budge of us, spirited discussion the following point. say that nothing

in been done on the budget 20 years? and there were those who said, literally true, was some little thing has been done. my position is nothing has been done much. the nothing has been done. >> it's a bipartisan policy, senator. renegotiated that. also the fourth some symbols this month and nothing has been done. did not realize, as bob said, that there have been six or seven other commission reports salaries. and nothing has been done, and i think that the lesson of this is commission reports no

matter how matter they are, kaish us,y evidence hey don do very much. the mostan have can rememberse, i after our report came out we had colored charts, unbelievable graphs. demonstrating where we're heading, and social security, medicare, to the spending, so on. i could remember presenting thought, doing a good job of protecting the case, to a of people, older people with to just viewed it the disbrief. they didn't want to believe it. fair toink that it's say that neither politicses nor want to step that

something has to be done that's serious with regard to the en tightments and in some way we've got to increase revenue. runup to the 2012 presidential election, there was ,his famous debate in iowa eight presidential as pir ants askedn the stage and were the question, would you accept a with 10 times real spending real spending kits, for every there are of tax increase. if you would not accept that would be you like your hand. eight raised their right hands. aey would not accept such deal. that is another way of saying rise your right has been take a if you elect me with

the i'm not going to do anything of the with the problem debt. because you can put together a the debt. deal with arrangement of an table.the the piece recently in politico ghost ofcalled the somp son bowles, and it was about how politically the boston recommendations have been used against people who supported them. thethey take some pieces of recommendations and they run commercials. with aead of dealing while problem of what to do with totality, there's a clever, clever politicians, clever tactic. piece.ake some little

so my opponent is in favor of increasing the retirement age, or reducing the mortgage interest deduction, and that's the commercial. about 10ay that in seconds. in a commercial. devastatingitically wantsthat what the public to movie is that you don't have the hard problems and particularly you don't are to deal with medicare and social security. because we can cut paste in the budget. check writing programs which are the en toolts mit are not totally inefficient. so what they point to and what the case, the average citizen, like the people san sass city that

day, the hope is that there are of wasteful things and you cut back on those eliminate, and, they all have hurt stories. very popular political my to tell these stories. you hear about something why frogs have warts or something like that, and they say cut that. and they believe that'sing about to take care of the problem. is that 10 years from now entitlements plus debt willn the revenue.1% of federal 15 years from now, 100% of revenue. what's that mean? the means that if government were totally efficient, if there is not one of waste in the

not enough there is discretionary programs to pay for the rest of government. it can't be done. wasteful spending argument just doesn't hold water. what does happen is, and it's happening now, is that if you don want to touch the entitlement programs, what happens is that there is a put on anything that pertains to investment in the country, like research, federally funded research, like infrastructure, like education, anything that would produce future growth gets squeezed in order to pay out more and more particularly money elderly people. need isthat what we

sort of a relentless pursuit of the question of what to do about the national debt. with anction ex-presidential election. pursuit, indless mean putting candidates on the spot and keeping them on the spot. andan asking them questions followup questions and followup followup and more questions, on just what they intend to do. do they intend to do anything at all. what is their answer. to educate ourselves in advance and i'm talking media.lly to the about two of the basic facts of this. what is a reasonable answer, isn't a reasonable answer. and keep the candidates on that and maybe organize for forums on that

specific issue, what to do about the debt. what to do about the en tightments, what to do about taxes. challengers's said, say say this at election time. challengers love to have to have they love political debates. what do political debates now?ally mean the normal debate now in you ask the what's your position on, say, social security, and you've got two and a half answer.to and then a minute and a half they will talk for two and a half minutes. or they will get over the issue of waste.

don't do anything. it is a frogs and warts deal we have to address. any politician could talk around any subject for two and a half minutes. anybody. when they talk about debates, you know what lincoln douglas was? lincoln douglas was a series of seven debates. each lasted three hours. on a single subject. but to do about the extension of slavery. that was the subject. 21 hours these two candidates debated this one issue. i don't think that will happen on the issue of entitlements.

something like it has to. otherwise the next election will be what every election has been. frivolous. >> i want to get a question. with didn't introduce you at the beginning. she has the campaign to fix the debt. we will be hearing from maya. you mentioned that debate in iowa. they would reject a 10-1 deal. the have some advice for the regarding candidate?