>> production assistance for "inside washington" was provided by allbritton communications and "politico," reporting on the legislative, executive, and political arena. >> this new law is a fiscal house of cards and it is a health care house of cards. >> if you love your insurance company and you want them to succeed, by all means. >> this week on "inside washington," the debate over health care -- >> obamacare. >> obamacare. >> did it we already have that one? a state visit for the president of china, or let's make a deal." >> we want to sell you airplanes, cars, software.

>> democrat kent conrad and independent jolie rubén pack it in. and we mark the 30th -- lieberman packet in trade and we mark the 30th anniversary of ronald reagan's inauguration in the 50th of the john f. kennedy's. >> ask not what your country can do it for you, ask what do you could do for your country. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> in the last campaign, house republicans have promised to repeal the 2010 health care reform law. this week they voted to do just that. >> we said we would have a straight up or down vote to repeal this health-care law, and that is precisely what we're doing tay. we all the gimmicks a whole lot of sense to debate a bill that thankfully will go -- we don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to debate a bill that will likely be vetoed by the

president. >> paul ryan of wisconsin, chris van hollen of maryland. you did it makes it passed the senate, it will not survive the president's veto. what is the point, charles? >> you make a promise, you keep a promise. the republicans ran on repeal of health-ce anthey intend to do it. they cannot do it now, but they are setting a marker to make it an essential issue in the 2012 campaign. that is why it had to be done. >> nina? >> well, they did have to do it, although i don't think they want to do it, because if they get rid of this bill, they get rid of things that people like. >> colby? >> it was a cosmetic move, achieved the goal of playing to base. the more important step will come next monday pick the bill apart in piscivorous ways. there will be an interesting and important debate. >> mark?

>> next up is outlawing and double parking and chatting during movie theater figures. they kept their word. now we will see what they want to talk about legislating. >> where does it go? >> you obviously have not seen the republican plan. the burdens imposed upon anybody, and no new taxes. brilliant plan, a comprehensive, just has not been eated. i can tell you any element that will be part of the republican plans, and there will be a republican plan -- tort reform, abolishing the insane malpractice system that everyone knows is a drain on the system. that was not touched and the 2000 pages of the democratic health care bill. >> they keep talking about -- they have soft pedal that since tucson. it is not up killing any more. >> job crunching. >> job destroying.

the point is that they hate the mandat that is the only thing about the bill that they truly hate. the mandate is what makes possible all the goodies and the bill that everybody says they are for, including the republicans, which is you don't discriminate on the basis of or previous condition, you don't have -- you cannot do that unless you have a mechanism to pay for it. the mechanism was originally come up with buy it then- republican senate leader bob dole, a mandate. >>emocrats claimed that if you repeal this will raise the deficit by $230 billion. >> well, you are going to hear a lot of talk about that. it turns about what the cbo suggests is going to happen. there was a time when the cdo did speak on the subject of the cost of the healthcare plan, and my learned friend said this was

great, so abusive about what the cbo had to say. -- so effusive about what the cbo abizaid i thought he was going to run off with the director of the cbo. now is just written off as people who do as they're told. >> are learned friend charles scott hammer -- charles krauthammer. >> on the contrary, my dear friend, i will explain every number by the cbo and claimed the decrats have tthere will reduce the deficit by two to $30 billion. -- to what $30 billion. i will give you any 20 seconds how they explain how that works. the health care bill of the democrats increases and spending by 5 would've $40 billion and then increases taxes by $770

billion. do the math. that is how you get the deficit reduction. if you think a country drowning in debt reduces the deficit by increasing spending by half a trillion and taxes by 3/4 of the joint, you are on the road to ruin. >> there will be a quiz by the end of this show. >> you asked a question about job-killing, job-crunching. it is based on a study from 2009 by the national federation of independent businesses. before there was any b bl john, any legislation, based on their premises which turned out to be false. don't take my word for act, take the lead fact, able to price--- take politifact, a pulitzer prize-winning side that found this totally false. >> while we are fussing about that here, the states are going down the drain. there is a story in "the new

york times" on friday suggesting that members of time is are looking at the possibility of states declaring bankruptcy. >> know. -- no. >> i hope not. just think about the implications of that. what happens to the bondholders? what happens to the people depending on the fl faith and credit of the state? >> we had new york city and the feds bail it out. there is no president in no position for bailing out states. but the point colby raises its key trade when you talk about cutting $150 billion from -- is key. when you talk about $150 billion from spending, which the republicans are currently doing. >> the bondholders who purchased gm or ford, ociti like trenton or whatever, could get

screwed. the only reason they cannot is because they are under the constitution sovereign. the only way that states with these huge deficits, which are structural and absolutely unsolvable, in soluble, is to actually have a mechanism that is the equivalent of bankruptcy. they have to be able to break or redo the pension obligations, which are destroying them. >> can you imagine congress voting to bail out california? >> the only alternative -- >> a political decision that states will have to make. >> to be continued. this is one of my pet peeves here. a visit from the president of china. what is in it for us? president obama held a formal state dinner for chinese president hu jintao. very, very fancy. general douglas macarthur is rolling in his grave. colby, who got what out of this

deal? >> both sides got something to it is a recognition of what china is and the world today. i this is 28 talk radio show or somebody like rush limbaugh -- to a talk radio show where somebody like rush limbaugh was talking 1950's cold war rhetoric. china has opened up to a bill market economy -- real market economy. the time i see is not the time i sought last year in -- china i see is not the time i saw lt year in beijing and shanghai. this is a vibrant economy, top of the game in foreign exchange, a tremendous influence throughout the world. the united states is right to entertain the president on a state visit. >> but they don't fight fair. i could mention currency gmanipulation, the theft of american intellectual property, just n ned to examples. how tufton be with them,

charles? -- tought can you be with them, charles? >>hy de have to give them a state visit? this is a rare honor. no canada, new britain, japan, close allies in the world. it is a very high honor, and the chinese grave the prestige and recogngnion that comes with that. you might ask yourself, what exactly did the u.s. receive in return? anything on trade? anything on currency? anything on the theft of intellectual property? and it's done on north korea? anything on iran? the answer is no, no, no, no, no. >> good questions, nina. [>> first of all, having a fancy dinner for somebody and filling their craving for recognition and it is an actual -- can get is an actual leverage with north koreans.

>> what is the evidence? >> when you are dealing with china, i don't think you know this did not anytime soon. i don't think it is noble. -- it is noble. -- knowable. >> investments coming into the night is it? that is not job change. >> there is no question that the chinese do not fight fair. when microsoft the colleges that one out of 10 elements of their product that goes to china at is not paid for, and that the chinese government is one of the major malefactors of this whole thing, of course it doesn't. but there are other realities. china holds $1 trillion in u.s. bonds. one was the last time you talk with a banker? -- wn wathe last time yo got tough wh your banker? that is one part of it. the other reality is that china is anxiety-ridden country right

now. it is uncertain of himself. you can see it by its actions in the region. it has alienated korea, south korea, alienated japan, crossed with india. all of a sudden, these countries and this region are interested in the united states playing a larger role. >> that is not a sign of anxiety. that is a sign of aggressiveness of a rising power asserting itself, as it has in the south china sea -- >> military buildup. >> claiming areas where the philippines are against the claims of all the other places in the region. it tests a stealth aircraft while our secretary of state is on the ground in china as a way of demonstrating that it is going to challenge us and rival as in the western pacific. that is a rising power.

>> that in and of itself is reason to give china a lot of attention. we ruled the skies. up until that still the aircraft materialized, there was no question that the united states ruled the skies. now we have to think about where we are going to go with this relationship. but you don't work on this problem by turning back. >> whose alternative to a state dinner is turning your back? >> elevating them to a level where it does nobelong -- >> i am elevating it to the level where the chinese appreciate and treated as a tribe and demonstration of equality with the united states -- a triumph and the assertion of equality with the united states. >> we don't even know really what is going on in china politically internally. we are about to change the leadership -- apparently, that test of their stealth was a surprise the hu --

>> to who? >> to hu -- who's on first. i couldn't -- >> i knew it would go there. >> the relationship was afraid during president obama's visit there. the visit with the dalai lama upset them. this is a relationship that is perfectly. -- prickly. >> investment in iraq, africa, using its economic clout. >> president obama was ready to sign an order on jobs and competitiveness, and it would be led by gm at ceo jeffrey immelt. this would replace the board headed by paul volcker to the mission is to find new ways of growth. what is the back door on this? >> the back store is that the

president got shellacked in november and has done an astonishing turn to become business-frieny ana centristall in two months. you see a bump in the polls to see how smart politically is it began with the tax-cut deal, dissing his left, and welcoming the hannity, trying to get friendly with the business -- welcome the head of ge, trying to get friendly with business. he is smart and the way he is approaching it. >> the american economy has arrived in large part based on its consumer buying. that has hit a wall. we have to find out another way to make jobs and make money for people. if we don't do that, the consumer economy will not only hit the wall, it will fizzle. >> it is jeffrey immelt going to

be able to figure that out? >> no, no one expects this advisory committee to get us out of the trough. it is symbolic, representing the president taking note of the importance of the private sector in this recovery. but thactions aren't gog to be with an advisory committee that has no power at all. >> the president's rating in the nbc poll is up to 54, a significant jump could damage and what charles did, the tax deal -- they mentioned what charles did, the tax deal, but they also mentioned don't ask don't tell at the start treaty with the russians. most of all, the tucson speech, where he did connect emotionally with the american people. the substitution of jeffrey immelt or paul volcker in the galaxy of stars and this administration is significant symbolically and substantively. it is not reassuring to those

who think we ought to be tougher on those who precipitated wall street -- this crisis. >> a word on the passing of sargent shriver this week. head of the peace corps, a vice presidential candidate, ambassador to france, headstart, legal services, special olympics. the family said, but what sergeant shriver made the girl -- a more -- "sar to try to make the world -- sargent shriver made the world a better place." >> i did not know him, but i've been reading about him. he is the consummate christian. he went to mass every day and he carried out the best instructions of the bible, about peace, alleviate poverty. mark did work for him at one point. >> i work fo him every day in

1970 when he was the vice- presidential nominee -- 1972 when he was the price of the edge of nominee. -- vice presidential nominee. nina is right. enormous talent, at enormous energy to remembering the forgotten. i never in all my years, 11 presidential campaigns, i've never seen any public figure with a more loving, natural, one of our relationship with his own children -- wonderful relationship with his own children and wife and sargent shriver. what he sought outside was exactly what you saw inside. >> john kennedy said don't ask what the country and of you, ask what you can do for your country did so t tdriver answered that question. >> good man who headed the peace corps, which represents the best of a realistic idealism of the kennedy years. >> the u.s. senate in 2012.

>> i've decided it's time to turn the page to a new chapter. i will not be a candidate for reelection to a fifth term to the united states senate in 2012. that was not an easy decision for me to make. i loved serving in the senate. i felt good about what i accomplished. >> and that is senator joe lieberman. he ran last time as an independent. democratic senator kent conrad is not going to run again. a bunch of other senate democrats fighting tough reelection fights in 2012. any thoughts on what the next senate is going to look like? >> right now looks good for# the republicans. but obviously, two years is a lifetime in politics. every democrat up in 2006 -- 20121 in 2006, a great democratic year. republicans to survive and 2006 are pretty strong. you have a lot of states that

are purple that turned red since then. pennsylvania, ohio, florida, go right through the list. michigan even. >> numbers are terrible for democrats. >> lieberman and conrad have been around for a long time. >> democrats keep a connecticut, and north dakota -- after 2012 is unlikely there will be any democrat. >> you have this institution. what does it cost you to lose the institutional memory? >> anytime you lose it cost you something. but it seems that with each election cycle, we get people who are more at the edges of left and right at less likely to compromise, which we all because we are old think is a good idea.

there are people who do not think it is a good idea. >> i think joe lieberman is separate and apart from the other changes taking place. here you have somebody who is truly an independent, independent figure, leaving the senate. i disagree with a lot of things he has done. but the fact of the matter is he was not a partisan ideologue. he pursued an agenda that was based on his own feelings and standards and values, i have to also say, joined with eleanor holmes norton in saying, joe lieberman, notwithstanding the other things he did, waa good friend of the the district of columbia legislatively. >> lieberman is probably the last of debris that began with

truman and kennedy and scoop djackson and to extend pat moynihan who were the classic cold war liberals, liberal stance on domestic issues -- lieberman is the one who helped to get don't ask don't tell passed in the lame-duck session -- and yet he was a firm believer in a strong defense, a believer in the war in iraq. when all his democratic coeagues wn in the weeds and hid in the dark days, he stood and supported the surge in 2006, which ultimately brought us a measure of success in iraq. i think he was a man princip led in what he believed a domestic and foreign affairs, and he will be missed. >> let let's get one thing very candid about joe lieberman. he did something no one has done in politics since barry goldwater ran in 1964. he broke with his party endorsed the other party's candidate.

not only that, he appeared at the convention. scoop jackson never did that. pat moynihan and never did that. he not only did it, he was seeking the vice presidential nomination of the republican party. he may himself a man without a party and he could not win a primary. >> i am not -- i understand your point that this was a self- serving decision on his part i think it was a matter of sticking up for his friend. >> but it is interesting when you talk about how bipartisan of the thing is that you attack a guy -- >> i'm not saying -- >> so what? he was an american. >> did not deny his american citizenship? wonderful american, admirable american, lovable american, but

he ceased to be a democrat for out. >> and that to you is damning. we're talking about a matter of principle and that is different. >> when they endorsed barry goldwater and civil rights -- >> you argue principle, i am arguing time. we're running out of it ronald reagan took office 30 years ago this week, and john kennedy 50 years ago. >> the torch has been passed to a new generation of americans. >> 50 years ago, john f. kennedy challenged the country with the phrase "ask not what your country can do for you." 30 years ago, the great communicator ronald reagan sworn in as president barack obama as said that is not what the government is too big or small, but whether it works. >> i have been reading the kennedy inaugural speech, and it

is more poetry than political rhetoric. >> ted sororsen. >> when you look to the original notes, the stuff in kennedy's handwriting is is. the inaugural speech is different from the state of the union, which is it coming up. that is tough to make poetry. >> who remembers the state of the union address? >> i remember most of them. >> do you? >> no. the iranian thing that bush talked about in iraq. -- uranium thing that bush talked about and directed the times are dierent. you caot cpare the two. >> kennedy's speech memorably pledged america to bear any burden to ensure the success of liberty. it is ironic that joe lieberman, the last of those democrats and that tradition, is retiring exactly on the 50th anniversary

of that declaration. >> mark? >> kennedy's speech talks about sacrifice. that is a word that has been missing from the lexicon, since the certainly -- certainly sends 30 years ago with ronald reagan. >> we hear that a lot did not enough calls for sacrifice. what politician is willing to say -- >> when obama asked for a sacrifice and the state of the union, it cut back on entitlements. let's see. >> last word. see you next week. for a transcript of this broadcast, log on to insidewashington.tv.