from washington, "the mclaughlin group," the american original. for over two decades, the sharpest vogeo, committed to providg service to itautonsurance ctomers for over 70 years. more information on auto insurance at geico.com or 1-800-947-auto any time of the day or night. if. for such a small if i live to a hundred. if social security isn't enough.

if my heart gets broken. if she says yes. we believe if should never hold you back. if should be managed with a plan that builds on what you already have. together we can create a personal safety net, a launching pad, for all those brilliant ifs in the middle of life. you can call on our expertise and get guarantees for the if in life. after all, we're metlife. guarantees for the "if" in life. one. obama care unconstitutional? >> we know this case is really not just about health insurance, it's about liberty and about the outer boundaries of the constitutional power. >> the big win they are week, ken cuccinelli, attorney general, virginia. the big loser, barack obama, president, u.s. and federal district court judge henry hudson ruled that part of president obama's healthcare plan, now law, is

unconstitutional. that unconstitutional provision is known in bureaucratic argot as the individual mandate. the individual mandate mandates that all americans carry healthcare insurance or they get fined. that fine ranges from $750 per individual, to $2,250 per household. big money. the obama administration pinned its hopes of making health insurance obligatory on the u.s. constitution and its commerce clause. quote, the congress shall have power to regulatecommerce wi foreignationand among the several states and with the indian tribes, unquote. article 1, section 8, clause 3. mr. obama argues that the health insurance costs for the uninsured are passed on to the insured, impacting the entire national market. >> it goes beyond the power that congress has under the

commerce clause of the constitution. >> ag cuccinelli says the commerce clause has never em powered the government to force anyone to buy health insurance. and federal district court judge henry hudson agrees. he ruled that the mandate, quote, exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power, unquote. mr. obama says, no big deal. rough issues always get a rough ride. >> that's the nature of these things. when social security was passed, there were all kinds of lawsuits. when the civil rights act was passed aned, there were all kinds of lawsuits. >> question is this case now on the bullet train to the supreme court, pat? >> certainly. frankly, i think it ought to be expedited, because it's going to the supreme court, it's a critical issue. cuccinelli has latched on to this one issue, john that individual mandate requiring people to buy something that they don't want to buy, and he said this is really outside the reel volume the constitution of

the unitededtates. i think that's the strongest point. if this goes down on that point, i think the whole obamacare goes down, and i think cuccinelli stepped outside the group of other attorneys general to do this, john, and he is a former graduate, or he is a graduate of gonza gh school, hn, and the attorney general of virginia, and he's on the fast track to higher office. >> that hiring is going to be slowed down if there's uncertainty about this situation. that's going to affect tun employment rate. >> first of all, even if the supreme court strikes the employer mandate, and i think that's not at all certain, because i think there are valid arguments that purchasing a health insurance should be mandated because of the impact that it has on everybody else, if we all have to pay for the free riders, you know, that's not fair, either. so i think there are constitutional arguments on both sid. there have been two other federal judges that have upheld the mandate. so this is one judge, and judge

henry hudson happens to be a stake holder in a political consulting firm that advises candidates on how to run against healthcare reform. so he's probably got an unbiased view here, and there's another lawsuit coming up in virginia which is going to challenge it. the president is right, there's goininto be assaults on this law. the congress is going to fight it over the next two years. but as the benefits kick in, you're also going to be fighting against public opinion, which i believe isis going to overwhelmingly support this law, eventually, just like it has medicare and social security. >> those public support numbers have gone nowhere but down since the debate over obamacare began. this week a new abc news washington post poll shows that an all-time low support for obama-care at 42%. i want to mention two federal judges that upheld the mandate. however, neither one of those came out of the state-based

lawsuits. they were individual lawsuits. this judge, henry hudson, that ruled this week that it was unconstitutional came out of the first state-based lawsuit. this week we also had another round of arguments in florida. that case concerns 20 states attorneys general. the judge in that case, roger benson, has indicated that this is a huge expansion of government and expansion of congress' authority to require an american, as a basic condition of living in this country to buy a good or a service, and i have to tell you, john, it's generally not good for a president to have his centerpiece legislatatn questioned on constitutional grounds. and that's why every other major piece of social legislation, social security, civil rights, medicare spent years per company lating through the political -- percolating through the political process so that by the time voting commenced in the congress all of these issues were vetted and it had

huge bipartisan support. obama-care has had none of this. >> mortwhatare the econics of the pool being larger versus the pool being smaller, if people are compelled to buy insurance, what does that do to the pool and what does it do to the economy and what does it do to hirers? >> well, it's going to make -- if this piece of it gets ruled to be unconstitutional, it's going make the cost of healthcare for those people who are going to be covered go up dramatically because the cost will not be spread, which was the whole purpose of this thing, was to try and keep those costs down. that is going to have biggesque. first place, healthcare already has a big effect on the willingness of people to hire. when that healthcare bill did go through it really stopped a lot of people who didn't want to take on the risks and the costs of the new healthcare program. it's going to have an even greater effect at a time when employment is such a critical issue. so until this uncertainty is eliminated from the -- that equation, i think it it the's

going to adverselily affect. >> what's in the public interest? >> take it to the supreme court now. >> what's in the public interest some to get that pool bigger? get the pool bigger? in that sense, in the sense it would lower thoverall average cost of healthcare, yes. >> does it mean unnecessary mri's and other practices, unnecessary exams, multiplication of those? because the pool is bigger? you follow me? >> not necessarily. it's possible that does. we already have a system in which these healthcare expenses. >> work that into your regular question answer. exit question. in his post-election news conference president obama said he didn't want to quote, relitigate healthcare. will he get his wish, yes or no this pat buchanan. >> no, he's not going to get his wish. john, the very fact you and mort are arguing about the details, this ought to be expedited right up to the supreme court, because monica said you have the state versus the federal government. that should go straight up. >> eleanor. >> i'm in favor of the garble

process. just because you think the conservative majority is going to rule -- senate's going to get there, eleanor, why not do it now? >> why eliminate the interim steps where other people get to argue it back and forth? >> it's going there anyhow. >> everything is going to be suspended until the supreme court rules. >> i wonder why candidate barack obama did not support the mandate and hillary clinton d. his position was if you make the premiums affordable you can get enough people in the pool. this is still a private insurance market, and the insurance companies are out there, they want all this business, and nobody has come up with an answer for somebody who gets sick and can't pay it. they have their freedom to not have health insurance, but who pays the bill? >> it's a great irony that now barack obama is in the position of defending hillary clinton's position on the individual mandate. look, ultimately it is going to be decided in the supreme court. the outstanding question about

that is whether the newest member of the supreme court, elena kagan, will recuse herself because the solicitor general, she was arguing on behalf of obama-care. the way the court is now anthony kennedy would be the swing vote. if he goes with the liberals and it's 4-4, assuming kagan recuses herself, then the ruling of the lower court would stand. >> obama is not going to get his wishes. >> no way, that's just a fanciful notion. you have legislation like this which for the first time mandates people not necessarily into activity but from inactivity, and that's one of the -- it may sound like a slight difference, but it's a great difference in law. all of this is going to be litigated at the supreme court level. until then, everything is going to be suspended. that's the nature issue two coming out. >> this year i will work with congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay americans the right to serve the country they love

because of who they are. >> president obama is one step closer to achieving his goal. the repeal of the u.s. military policy of don't ask/don't tell. don't ask/don't tell mandates that homosexuals serving in the army, navy, marines or coast guard stay in the closet. don't ask, and don't tell. this week the house of representatives voted to overturn don't ask/don't tell. the policy started in 1993, 17 years ago. the head of the joint chiefs of staff says this about the policy. >> it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. >> besides admiral mullen, other top-level military brass wants to see don't ask/don't tell repealed. defense secretary robert gates himself feels the same way. secretary gates ordered a review on the policy, which began 10 months ago in march. mr. gates wants to know what

risks a repeal on the policy will pose. re is whats been concluded. quote, the risk of repeal of don't ask/don't tell to overall military effectiveness is low, unquote. but some republicans, notably arizona senator john mccain, are opposed to the repeal. they say that it would weaken rity. >> numerous military leaders tell me that don't ask/don't tell is working, and that we should not change it now. i agree. >> american citizens as a whole support repeal. over 75% of americans believe that gaze in the mili have tohi sexuality. question what are targets against repealing don't ask/don't tell? pat. >> well, the arguments against it, john, they come from folks like the commandants of the u.s. marine corps. you are trying to impose the values of fire island on paris island. these are 19-year-old marines.

they're very macho guys, many of them are christian traditionalists, and bring open homosexuals into the barracks with these guys, it will be hellish. one said, would moving homosexuals into the barracks enhance the company heysiveness and morale? i don't believe it would. why change something that is working. the marine corps is the finest unit in the world, one of them, and it works. why impose outside values. >> i'm tempted to say, wouldn't these christian traditionalists feel better if they knew who was gay as opposed to wondering if somebody was gay? society has moved on this ash great deal. you have the defense secretary, you have the chairman of the joint chiefs, you have numbers of polls throughout. i ant you, the marines are the most resistant, but even there, it's a plural tee, i think, in support of this repeal. and this repeal is coming. . if it's not done by the congress, it will be done by the courts. if it's imposed by the court,

which now are seen as somewhat illegitimate because they're so politicized, the public and everybody has a much more difficult time accepting it. so this should be legs late -- legislated, and i believe it is being legislated. >> this is the figure i have for the marine corps troops. 59.7% said repealing don't ask/don't tell would have a detrimental effect on them when deployed in combat. does that give you pause? >> i think there's plenty of evidence, polling evidence and anecdotal evidence that in the fox hole people are not worried about people's sexual orientation. >> i'm giving you -- >> why don't you read the numbers from the other military services. there are plenty of numbers -- >> rank and file? >> that support this. >> why do you think the marines take that view if the other services do no and what happens if schisms

presents a breakdown of morale and cohesion? >> i wonder when the polls were when harry truman ordered desegregation? >> we did in that peace time. >> the only opinion that matters for the polls is soldiers on the front line. it shows 60% of marines on the front lion combat say it would affect unit cohesion and combat fectiveness. there was an army poll of army soldiers on the front lines, not quite as high, but about 50% also do not favor repeal. look, the military opinion about this, the soldiers who are rank and file who are not on the front lines as well as top commanders, it's a very mixed bag in terms of opinion on this. but i think when you look at those that really matter that are going to have to deal with this on a minute by minute basis, when they are in the fox hole, by and large they oppose repeal. >> before i turn to you on this, i wantlist up there. the world speaks. >> at least 25 other cotries

allow full freedom of sexual preference in the armed forces. australia, aus tree i can't, belgium, canada, czech republic, denmark, finland, france, germany, ireland, israel, italy, lithuania, the netherlands, new zealand, norway, slovenia, south africa, spain, sweden, switzerland, united kingdom, uruguay. >> does that tell you anything beyond the fact those countries -- >> yeah, i think does it tell you. i think those countries are just as concerned about textiveness of their military as we are, and i ink clearly they have a different conclusion. and frankly i would accept the judgment of bob gates and the chief of staff, admiral mullens on these matters. i'm sure there are going to be some instances where hat deleterious effects, but i think that overall it's their judgment. >> did you see that israel was on that list? >> i sure did. >> john this is a multicultural

society, no doubt about it. but there's one culture basically e said, the firearm, and you impose one from outside on the other and you're looking for trouble. marines do very well without -- >> do you think time is on your3 side or on the side of the combat marines who -- >> i don't think time is on the side of western civillization, if you -- >> this battle may be won like a lot of the others, and i think society is going downhill. >> don't ask/don't tell policy, is it outdated, yes or no? >> i think theyoughto retain it. i don't even think they should have put that in. >> it's way outdated. pat, gay people live in lots of places other than fire island. >> there are legitimate arguments on both sides of this issue. however, the military is a wholly separate kind of institution. they are trained to fight and kill the enemy if necessary. and it's not particularly the best place for social

engineering. >> you think it should be repealed? >> i do, i really do.i. issue t labels. >> no labels is a name. the name of a bipartisan political group dedicated to compromise. political compromise. the no labels group also serves as the mouthpiece for independent voters, vote thears do not identify themselves as either democrat, nor republican. the motto of no labels is, quote, not right, not left, forward, unquote. the fledgling organization was founded by a duo of established political strategists, nancy jacobson and mark mckinnon. jacobson is a former campaign chairwoman for bill clinton. mckinnon is a republican strategist and former advisor for george w. bush. last monday jacobson and mckinnon scheduled their first summit of the no labels organization in new york city.

many political high-profilers attended including democratic senator joe manchin of west virginia, independent governor charlie crist of florida, and former representative mike castle of delaware who is by the way still a republican despite having been trounced by christine o'donnell. the no labels attendees the st capitol hill. >> question does, this organization suggest the viability of a two-party system? pat. you got that? >> look this is a group of elitists, this is not a pop los grass movement, like the tea party movement where you get millions of people out there. >> you ran for president three times, and you had the reform party, and you crashed that to the ground. we hen't hearfrom that again, right? i would think that the no labels idea would appeal to you. you want a third party in the

united states? >> the populous party would sink the republicans. they should get together. populous liberal party will sink the democrats but both of those are grass roots movement. with due respect to mr. bloomberg, he's top down all the way. >> i think this group, they're looking at the success of the tea party, and the tea party was a populist movement but it was also encouraged by a lot of corporate types, dick army, former republican leader. sought wasn't entirely grass roots. and i think they're hoping, through the internet, that they can play on the frustration of people in both parties with the political process. they have a lot of money, but it strikes me that they're probably not going to go very far. >> they're not going to go very far. they're not going to go very far, without question. this is not the populist movement, as pat said. >> but you said the same thing about the tea party. >> let me just say something about the tea party. i've looked a lot more into the

tea party. it's a much broader movement, and it's based on a very fundamental fact in this country, which is the real concern nationally over the basic fiscal direction of this country. there's a huge issue that a lot of people are worried about, and that's w issue four. feds dead, baby. >> the fed's independence is critical. the central bank needs to be able to make policy without short-term political concerns. >> the fed's independence critical? yes. the fed's conditiocritical? maybe. the federal reserve bank is almost 100 years old. it was created as the u.s. national bank. the fed has three main duties. one, manage u.s. money and u.s. credit. two, service the en credit. two, serviand financial system. three, manage the 12 regional fed banks. because the fed oversees the most powerful economy tin

world, it bears the responsibility of being the most powerful bank in the world. the fed is also the most powerful because it is totally autonomous. it answers to nobody. it reports quadrennially to congress, but it is not subject to its purse strings. the fefespends on itself what it says it needs. the fed's chairman defends his unique autonomy. >> in order to do what's best for the economy, we do all of our analysis, we do all of our policy decisions based on what we think the economy needs, not based on when the election is or what political conditions are. >> well, chairman bernanke, tell that to texas congressman ron paul. for over 30 years the libertarian republican and two- time presidential candidate has argued the fed is far too autonomous, too powerful. paul also says fed policy and freedom cause financial bubbles that bring down the economy. in two weeks congressman ron paul will be chairman ron paul.

chairman of the house subcommittee on domestic monetary policy which includes in its oversight the fed. incoming chairman paul intends to use his new position to push legislation that would for the first time coerce the fed to open its books to congress. indeed to chairman paul's domestic monetary policy subcommittee. >> it's the atrocious nature of the fact that the fed is a government unto itself. >> i think there is so much more to learn, and i'm very delighted le want to know more about that. >> question, in what ways does congress exercise power over the federal reserve? monica crowley. >> the fed is independent. the chairman of the fed does have to report, as you pointed out, everyquarter to the congress, but it is an autonomous institution. and rightfully so. >> the only one in the u.s. government? >> the only one in the u.s. government that doesn't have strict congressional oversight.

ron paul is going to be chairing this subcommittee. bernanke is going to be testifying in front of him, and that's going to be some very interesting c-span viewing. ron paul believes that the fed should be disclosing what it's doing. ron paul has gone out saying that the fed is helping to destroy the u.s. currency, the dollar, and he thinks that the currency devalue you situation is very -- potential inflation. >> if ron paul is right, when the fed was formed, a $20 gold piece and a $20 bill were worth the same. now, you need 70 $20 bills to buy one $20 gold piece. that's what's happened to the currency. the second thing is milton friedman proved and got a nobel prize for proving it was the federal reserve, not someone else that was response you believe for the great depression, the huge bubble that popped and exploded on the american economy after the roarin'20s. >> t secretary of the treasury is tim geithner. tim geithner and bernanke are the best of pals, even though

neither one of them is really -- really moves in social circles in washington, d.c. it's kind of an odd couple, but they have coupled, and they are the ones that are really engineering u.s. finance and economic policy. does that make you comfortable? >> it sure does, compared to the alternatives. tim geithner was involved with the federal reserve bank of new york, which is how he worked with bernanke. but i will say this. the federal reserve system saved this economy, it saved the financial system in the last several years. the whole banking system was frozen for various reasons, including a huge amount of bad loans. you couldn't get money into our economy through the banking system because they wouldn't make loans, simply because they didn't -- >> are you comfortable with the independents, the auto predictions. pat. >> barack obama will demand that the israelis come forward with their own peace plan now that his plan has fallen apart. >> eleanor.

>> the tea party caucus in the house has 43 members, they've elected 41 new members, and they're all going to get their hearts broken as they come up against the forces in washington, the same forces that barack obama came up against. >> the first two bills that speaker boehner will propose, hr 1 and 2, will be making all of the tax rates permanent and the repeal of obama-care. >> five seconds, mort. >> i don't believe mike bloomberg is going to run for the presidency of the united states. >> wow! boy, i hope that changes. outgoing virginia t will announce his his candidacy next year. bye-bye. vogeico, committed to providing service to

its auto insurance customers for over 70 years. more information on auto insurance at geico.com or 1-800-947-auto any time of the day or night.