comfortable with it. i will say, then i've said to president karzai, that we have arrangements like this with countries all around the world and nowhere do we have any kind of security agreement with a country without immunity for our troops. you know, that's how i as commander in chief can make sure that our folks are protected in carrying out very difficult missions. and so, i think president karzai understands that. i don't want to get ahead of ourselves in terms of the negotiation that is are still remaining on the bilateral security agreement but i think it's fair to say from my perspective, at least, it will not be possible for us to have any kind of u.s. troop presence post 2014 without assurances that our men and women who are operating there are in some way subject to the jurisdiction of

another country. >> well, sir, the bilateral security agreement is in mind for the interests of both countries. we understand that the issue of immunity is of very specific importance for the united states. as was for us the issue of sovereignty and detentions and the continued presence of international forces in afghan villages and the very conduct of the war itself. with those issues resolved, as we did today, part of it, the rest was done earlier, i can go to the afghan people and argue for immunity for u.s. troops in afghanistan in a way that afghan

sovereignty will not be compromised, in a way that afghan law will not be compromised, in a way that the provisions that we arrive at through talks will give the united states the satisfaction of what it seeks and will also provide the afghan people the benefits that they are seeking through this partnership and the subsequent agreement. >> do you have any sense of how many troops you would be willing -- >> that's not for us to decide. it's issue for the united states. numbers are not going to make a difference to the situation in afghanistan. it's the broader relationship that will make a difference to afghanistan and beyond in the region. the specifics of numbers are issues the military will decide and afghanistan will have no particular concern when we are talking of numbers and how

they're deployed. afghan press? english speaking press? >> i am correspondent for araianna division, kabul, afghanistan. i prefer to ask my question to my own language. [ speaking foreign language ] >> translator: what kind of policy will you have?

>> the mission will be fundamentally different. just to repeat, our main reason should we have troops in afghanistan post 2014 at the invitation of the afghan government will be to make sure that we are training, assisting and advising afghan security forces who have now taken the lead for and are responsible for security throughout afghanistan. and an interest that the united states has, the very reason that we went to afghanistan in the first place and that is to make sure that al qaeda and its affiliates cannot launch an attack against the united states or other countries from afghan soil. we believe that we can achieve that mission in a way that's very different from the very active presence that we have had

in afghanistan over the last 11 years. president karzai has emphasized the strains that u.s. troop presences in afghan villages, for example, have created. well, that's not going to be a strain that exists if there is a follow-up operation because that will not be our responsibility. that will be a responsibility of the afghan national security forces to maintain peace and order and stability in afghan villages, in afghan territory. so, i think, you know, although, obviously, we are still two years away, i can say with assurance that this is a very different mission and a very different task and a very different footprint for the u.s. if we're able to come to an appropriate agreement. and with respect to pakistan's

and safe havens there, afghanistan and the united states and pakistan all have an interest in reducing the threat of extremism in some of these border regions between afghanistan and pakistan. and that's going to require more than simply military actions. that's really going to require political and diplomatic work between afghanistan and pakistan and the united states, obviously, will have an interest in facilitating and participating in cooperation between the two sovereign countries. but as president karzai i think has indicated, it's very hard to imagine a stability and peace in the region if pakistan and afghanistan don't come to some basic agreement and understanding about the threat of extremism to both countries

and both governments. and both capitals. and i think you are starting to see a greater awareness of that on the part of the pakistani government. [ speaking foreign language ] >> translator: the question that you have made about -- we talked about this issue of -- in detail today. about the prisoners, about the detention centers. all of these will transfer to the afghan sovereignty. and the u.s. forces will pull out from villages, will go to the bases and the afghan sovereignty will be restored. and after 2014, we are working

on it on this relations. this relation will have a different nature and will have -- will be based on different principles. it will resemble probably to turkey or germany. we are studying these relationship and we are -- we will do that. >> thank you, mr. president. as you contemplate the end of this war, can you say as commander in chief that the huge human and financial costs that this has entailed can be just y justified given the fact that the afghanistan that the world will leave behind is somewhat diminished from the visions of reconstruction and democracy that were kind of prevalent at the beginning of the war? president karzai, many independent studies have criticized afghanistan for corruption and poor governments. do you stand by your assertion

last month that much of this is due to the influence of foreigners and are you completely committed to stepping down as president after the elections next year? >> i want us to remember why we went to afghanistan. we went in to afghanistan because 3,000 americans were viciously murdered by a terrorist organization that was operating openly and at the invitation of those who were then ruling afghanistan. it was absolutely the right thing to do for us to go after that organization, to go after the host government that had aided and abetted or at least allowed for these attacks to take place. and because of the heroic work

of our men and women in uniform, and because of the cooperation and sacrifices of afghans who had also been brutalized by that then host government, we achieved our central goal, which is or have come very close to achieving our central goal which is to deca pass tate al qaeda and dismantle them. everything that we have done over the last ten years, from the perspective of the u.s. national security interests have been focused on that aim. and, you know, at the end of this conflict, we are going to be able to say that the sacrifices that were made by those men and women in uniform has brought about the goal that we sought.

now, what we also recognized very early on was that it was in our national security interest to have a stable, sovereign afghanistan that was a responsible international actor that was in partnership with us and that that required afghanistan to have its own security capacity and to be on a path that was more likely to achieve prosperity and peace for its own people and i think president karzai would be the first to acknowledge afghanistan still has work to do to accomplish those goals. but there's no doubt that the possibility of peace and prosperity in afghanistan today is higher than before we went in. and that is also in part because of the sacrifices that the american people have made during

this long conflict. so, you know, i think that having we achieved everything that some might have imagined us achieving in the best of scenarios? probably not. you know? there's a human enterprise, you know, you fall short of the ideal. did we achieve our central goal? and have we been able, i think, to shape a strong relationship with a responsible afghan government that is willing to cooperate with us to make sure that it is not a launching pad for future attacks against the united states? we have achieved that goal. we are in the process of achieving that goal. and for that, i think we have to thank our extraordinary military, intelligence and

diplomatic teams, as well as the cooperation of the afghan government and the afghan people. >> sir, on the question of corruption, whether it has a foreign element to it, if i have correctly u correctly understood your question, there is corruption in afghanistan. there is corruption in afghan government. that we are fighting against. employing various means and methods. we have succeeded in certain ways. but if your question is whether we are satisfied, of course not. and on the corruption that is foreign in origin, but occurring in afghanistan, i have been very clear and explicit and i don't

think that afghanistan can see less corruption unless there's cooperation between us and our international partners on correcting some of the methods or reputations of delivery of assistance to afghanistan without cooperation and without recognition of the problems. on elections, for me, the greatest of my achievements eventually seen by the afghan people will be a proper, well-organized, interference-free election in which the afghan people can elect their next president. and certainly, i would be a retired president and very

happily retired president. >> last question. >> from afghanistan. my question is to you, mr. president. afghan women fears that they would be the real victim of reconciliation process in afghanistan. what assurances you can give them that they will not suffer because of that process. thank you. >> well, the united states has been very clear that any peace process, any reconciliation process must be afghan led. it is not for the united states to determine what the terms of this peace will be. but what we have also been very clear about is that from our perspective, it is not possible to reconcile without the taliban

renouncing terrorism, without them recognizing the afghan constitution and recognizing that if there are changes that they want to make to how the afghan government operates, then there is an orderly constitutional process to do that and that you can't resort to violence. the afghan constitution protects the rights of afghan women. and the united states strongly believes that afghanistan cannot succeed unless it gives opportunity to its women. we believe that about every country in the world. and so, you know, we will continue to voice very strongly

support for the afghan constitution, protection of minorities, its protection of women and we think that a failure to provide that protection, not only will make reconciliation impossible to achieve, but also, would make afghan -- afghanistan's long-term development impossible to achieve. you know? the single best indicator or one of the single best indicators of a country's prosperity around the world is how does it treat its women? does it educate that half of the population? does it give them opportunity? when it does, you unleash the power of everyone, not just some. and i think there was great wisdom in afghanistan ratifying a constitution that recognized

that. that should be part of the legacy of these last ten years. >> indeed. >> okay? >> thank you. >> thank you very much, everybody. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> hi, everyone. i'm tamron hall. following breaking news. president obama and afghan president hamid karzai wrapping up the joint news conference after a series of meetings at the white house. they focused on the u.s. role in afghanistan beyond next year and one of the key announcements we just heard, afghan forces will take the lead of providing security throughout the country this spring and u.s. forces will move to what the president referred to as a support role for training and support. joining me, david sanger for "the new york times" and author of "confront and conceal." also with us, nbc's atiya bowi. thank you both for joiningo us.

the president saying that it's time to accelerate the u.s. role, shifting to a support role as a result of achievements and i guess goals reached in afghanistan. >> that's true. they did announce that today but that's something that's been discussed behind the scenes in afghanistan for sometime now with the nato commanders in kabul. they have said for sometime that by mid-2013, it does seem they brought it back a bit to spring of 2013 wanting all of afghanistan transitioned in to afghan hands, giving the americans and the international forces in the country a support role, in the background, basically that means that the afghans will be the ones on the ground. they will be the ones that will be fighting the insurgency in afghanistan and when they need help that's when they call the forces to help them. so this news is big in the sense of it's only a couple of months before what they've been talking about but we have to see if afghanistan's really going to be ready for it. we have seen nato casualties

dropping in the last year in 2012 but we have seen afghan forces, their casualties and deaths rising drastically. >> david, the president says he's still getting recommendations of the pentagon and military commanders on the ground regarding the troop levels after 2014. he says that would come at a separate announcement. much is written and said about the selection or nomination of chuck hagel and john kerry as part of the president's circle in determining what to do with afghanistan or with the troop levels in afghanistan moving ahead. >> that's right, tamron. and i think that the pressure on the president internally within his own administration to keep those numbers very low will be fairly considerable. last year, we were led to believe that there would be remaining force post-2014 of 10,000 to 15,000. i think today you should probably look at a 3,000 to 6,000 force. but what i thought was interesting about the press

conference, tamron, was that while the president described the role of those forces in very narrow terms, continuing the training and doing a counter terrorism operation when needed against al qaeda remnants, what he didn't say was what's the main purpose of having those forces remain in afghanistan? i think it's two fold. one of them is to keep the taliban which will certainly come back in the rural areas and has ready from taking over kabul and so it's sort of a trip wire for that, the way the american forces in korea have been for 50 years to ward off north korea. but secondly, that force in afghanistan is there to deal with con tin gin sys in pakistan. of course, the president couldn't say that but if, you know, pakistan is a country with 100-plus nuclear weapons, very large insurgency, not just al qaeda, but the pakistani

taliban, if they got a hold of a weapon and a scare a few years ago that they might have, the u.s. wants to have forces very close by. >> david, with that said, what do you make of i guess the line floated out this week that we could possible see zero numbers of troops, some zero there after 2014, prior to, obviously, hamid karzai coming to the white house? >> i heard those numbers and white house officials talked about those numbers. >> they said everything was on the table, at least that was the official line. >> that's right. that's a way of saying to the afghans, if you can't work out the immunity issue and came up in the news conference, then it could be zero as it was in iraq. but frankly, because of the pakistan problem, i think that president obama would be extremely hesitant to have no forces even at bagram air force base which is the big base that the u.s. uses there. they want that access in to

pakistan. they obviously used it for the bin laden raid. mentioned a big scare in 2009 when they feared that the pakistani taliban might have gotten a hold of elements of a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb. fortunately, that turned out to be a false alarm but, boy, they really wanted to have forces then there. >> right. >> if it looked like pakistan would collapse, they want to forces. >> you interviewed hamid karzai blaming the united states for its -- the instability in the country, blaming the u.s. and some of its allies promoting lawlessness in afghanistan by what he referred to as spreading corruption in his country. what stood out to you regarding his remarks? he was asked about the corruption and as david pointed out as well as the strategic alliance in protecting any u.s. troops to remain in that country. >> well, during that interview, i asked president karzai if he would give the americans immunity as they want and he said he leaves that up to the

afghan people, that he would bring it in to a vote. not necessarily an electoral vote but talk to the afghans and advisers to see how they want to proceed. president karzai for sometime now said that america and the international community has been far more involved in the corruption in afghanistan, they have basically been the seed that let the corruption grow within his own government. he hasn't denied the fact that his own government's corrupt and possibly some of his family members and saying that that corruption came from the international community and he did mention that instability as you just talked about but he says that's in certain parts of afghanistan and because of contractors, the military reached out to the contractors, that in itself has brought instability, that they have trained afghan that is are not part of the afghan security forces and they have become part of militias in the country and cause just as much instability post-2014 than any taliban groups within the country. >> thank you. david sanger, i really

appreciate you sticking around with us, as well. again, the president saying starting this spring, u.s. troops moving to assisting and advising role and then announcing in the coming months the role or the presence of u.s. troops in afghanistan post-2014. coming up, the cdc warns the flu is widespread, now 47 states likely a state you are in right now and there are some concerns about the flu vaccine and supplies. plus, they're calling it wtf or what the fica? for many, today's the first paycheck of the year and causing sticker shock because of that fiscal deal reached by congress and the president. and the other big breaking story right now, vice president joe biden talking with video game representatives about gun control, the last meeting before delivering the president his recommendations on tuesday. but the headline today is the nra's reaction or post-reaction to the meeting held with vice president joe biden.

will the white house attempt to go around the nra to get legislation on the table? michael and mia are keeping an eye on their inventory. they're always ready for customers who order seed bombs from their company visual lingu lingual. strong relationships with suppliers helps them maintain a balanced inventory.

what can we do with a brand new year, and a room that needs refreshing? we can work with a new collection of carpet that proves durable can be softer than ever. we can get for less and spread that softness even further. turns out, we can do even more than we thought we could. because this is the year of doing. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot.

roll out the new year with free whole home basic carpet installation on three rooms or more. coming up, details on what some call the white house's strategy to go around the nra, perhaps to get tougher gun legislation on the table. we'll have the latest on vice president joe biden's meeting going on right now with members of the entertainment community, video game community. more on what's on the table and what the vice president could provide to the president on tuesday. cer ] the rhythm of life. [ whistle blowing ] where do you hear that beat? campbell's healthy request soup lets you hear it... in your heart. [ basketball bouncing ] heart healthy. great taste. mmm... [ male announcer ] sounds good. it's amazing what soup can do.

plays a key role throughout our lives. one a day women's 50+ is a complete multivitamin designed for women's health concerns as we age. it has 7 antioxidants to support cell health. one a day 50+.

woman: we're helping joplin, missouri, come back from a devastating tornado. man: and now we're helping the east coast recover from hurricane sandy. we're a leading global insurance company, based right here in america. we've repaid every dollar america lent us. everything, plus a profit of more than $22 billion. for the american people. thank you, america. helping people recover and rebuild -- that's what we do. now let's bring on tomorrow. as mentioned, we are following developing news regarding vice president joe biden. he is going to sit down or right now sitting down with video game industry members as he wraps up several days of meetings on gun violence. and the headline, nbc news has learned that an assault weapons ban and background checks will be in the final set of proposals biden is expected to deliver to

the president on tuesday despite reports to the contrary. now what remains to be seen is whether the vice president has better luck with the gaming industry than yesterday with members of the nra and the nra president david keen blasted mr. biden and the administration when he appeared on the "today" show this morning. >> we have a profound disagreement with this administration, first of all, on what would make that difference. i don't think there's a welcome of concern about dealing with the problem. i think there's a very different view as to what the problem is and how to solve it. >> keene's comments follow the statement of the nra immediately after the meeting yesterday. quote, we were disapointed how much the meeting had to do with keeping the children safe but an agenda to attack the second amendment. >> i think we can do a great deal without in any way imposing on or impinging on the rights of the second amendment. >> that was the vice president before the meeting started.

joining me now, nia-malaki h henderson and keith boynekin. are you surprise fwid reaction post meeting and even going in to the meeting from the nra at this point? >> no. the reaction seems to be typical. they don't want to address any sort of issue to do with gun control and so they want to point the finger at the media culture, the video games. anything mental health, anything else except possibly guns. the one thing that might be causing gun violence. i don't think that there's a way to really -- the white house to deal with the nra. smart to bring them to the table but tough go around them. >> nia, i want to play what david keene said when he was asked about any possible compromise here. >> is this a classic case of the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object when it comes

to the nra and the administration over this? is there simply no area for compromise and if not where does it leave the american people? >> well, i think, matt, that what we have got are very different views about what needs to be done to prevent the kind of tragedy that took place in newtown. >> obviously, that was not an answer to the question specifically, nia, but you have a political article saying the president is now trying an end run around the nra by rallying groups, churches, medical organizations, retailers and rotary clubs to build support for new gun regulation. what do we make of the strategy if that's accurate? >> it's a smart strategy, familiar to the president. it's how he won our re-election the first time and the second go around. he's very good at lobbying public support and giving the appearance that the momentum is on his side. i think still, though, the real question is the gop house. there are 233 gop members of the house, a lot of those folks are

from the south and district that is don't back this president. i think only five represent districts that backed this president. so that real sli the immovable force and some ways that's akin to the nra. i think key to this is whether or not they can peel off some republicans in suburban districts. again, looking at 2014 and whether or not this is an issue on the ballot. those folks will be scared, i'm sure, of the primary. >> keith, it was asked yesterday would the president do something incremental or a bold move and interesting that andrea mitchell, i believe, the first to report this that nbc learned that the assault weapons ban and background checks will be part of the final set of proposals. some expected there to be more focus on mental health first and then put in an assault weapons ban for the very reasons that nia-malai nia-malika pointed out. >> with that reporting true, it sounds like a comprehensive approach, also talking about

high capacity magazine clips banned and also include something about mental health. also do something about the issue of violence and the media and the video games and so forth. but this is not a one size fits all slugs but takes the elements together to make something happen. >> putting that together to the point, does that get the immovable object if those are the gop republicans in the house, do they then move over to an any legislation supporting it? >> no, it doesn't. >> at the very mention of clips and guns you have lost them, right? >> right. but american people support legislation and majority of nra members support some restrictions, as well. nobody's talking about the right to take own a gun. talking about a restriction, this is what started the whole idea about, you know, why should people have machine guns in the first place in 1930s.

we had to have some sort of ban on what kind of weapons you can actually own and if the nra not willing to entertain, the president doesn't have a choice but to talk directly to the american people who do understand. >> and to what keith is saying, nia, look at this latest poll, quinnipiac poll of virginia voters. 58% support a ban. 39% oppose a ban there. keith has said it. the vice president has said it. members of the nra who are democrats have said no one is trying to take away your guns. we have had guest who is are part of organizations who are advocates of a gun control legislation saying, listen, i own a gun. i don't want to take guns from people. but we need some kind of, you know, law on the books, specifically about these assault weapons. you have got stanley mcchrystal, the list goes on and on and to say to nra members not choosing to accept it, this is not taking your guns, i don't even know

where to go at this point. i can't name another individual that would be higher esteemed than perhaps stanley mcchrystal saying these are not the guns to be in the hands of every day citizens. >> right. i don't know that those are the targets, people with extreme views on gun control, the idea that the government is waiting to confiscate their guns and knock on the doors and take away the right to self protection and ownership. i think it's -- this debate i think it's changed in the sense that we are having this debate. it's been almost two decades since there's been a high-level discussion of banning assault weapons. but the problem i think still remains it's the same people who are having the same sort of debate. there's a camp on the left that has a certain opinion and a camp on a right with the certain opinion and haven't seen republicans coming out to say different than what they have been saying all along and the nra has not said anything different. you have had some moderate

democrats, people like joe manchin come out and say, listen, this is a time we put everything on the table but even they have back pedaled to a certain degree so it is, i mean, that is very hard road that i think this president has. >> what would be their motivation then, for example, when the nra claims that they have seen an increase in their roles by thousands of people who are now joining the nra and inspired by what they see as this battle ahead? what would then motivate someone like a joe manchin who say everything's on the table but maybe not when it comes to specific guns? i believe that heitcamp said it's extreme ideas. >> that's the folks the president has to talk to. i had an idea to go to these people's districts, that is something that you have seen him do when he was trying to get money passed around the stimulus package and among -- about infrastructure. that's something i think he will

have to do. take the fight to the folks who might be movable. this idea that we should continue, you know, to have a conversation with folks on the fringes, i don't think that's going to move the ball either way and i also don't think that necessarily public opinion is one thing but i think when the rubber meets the road, really, the conversations are in these folks' districts. >> even if the president loses on this issue, it's important to fight the issue because the american public is behind him on this issue. maybe a few more thousand nra members coming out in support recently but this is a country with 300 million people. why listen to a few thousand members of the nra unwilling opposed to listening to the hundreds of millions of american who is want some sort of reasonable limitation or rules about who should own a weapon and how they own them? >> keith, nia-malika, thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll have a question. do you believe the president will make that move? thank you both. deadly flu outbreak sweeping

the country is now at epidemic levels orks officials at the center for disease control and 47 states, take a look at this map. now reporting widespread flu activity. that's up from 41 last week. more than 3,700 people hospitalized for the flu since october. and sadly, 20 children have died. and the flu scare is now causing a run on vaccines with reports of shortages. joining me now, deputy director of the richmond, virginia, health department. thank you for your time. let's address the issues of possible shortage of vaccine. i have seen conflicting reports of enough for people to need to be vaccinated s. that the case? >> the information we are getting, tamron, availability of flu vaccine is not a concern. here locally in richmond and the state of virginia we have seen levels of vaccine in adequate supply. >> how busy has your office been as i pointed out, 47 states

reporting widespread through activity. >> very busy. i work at the richmond city health department and both in the health department and the hospitals we have seen significant increases in the number of patient who is are reporting with flu-like illness. >> were you surprised by this? many people believe we would not have a severe flu season and here we are and you start to see the reports of children, healthy children. there was a kid, 18-year-old, 19-year-old in texas who within days passed away as a result of the flu and we have seen small children here, as well. >> well, having just recently lived through the h1 n1 epidemic, i wouldn't say i'm surprised. we have increased flu activity compared to last couple of years but flu is unpredictable. you know, it's important to note that while we're seeing increased flu activity now, there are things that folks can be doing to prevent and getting your vaccine is at the top of

that list. >> remind us of what else is on the list. >> well, the cdc recommends that every individual 6 months and older should be getting vaccine but there are other precautions to take like good hand washing, if you develop a fever or a cold, cough, sore throat, stay home from school or work and out of hospitals and nursing homes and other places where people who are more susceptible to the flu might be staying. >> things we have heard before and bear reminding. thank you, doctor, for your time. >> my pleasure. still ahead, wtf, and it stands for what the fica? payroll sticker shock tied to the fiscal cliff deal. looking at the paycheck today, you might be stunned. i've always had to keep my eye on her... but, i didn't always watch out for myself.

with so much noise about health care... i tuned it all out. with unitedhealthcare, i get information that matters... my individual health profile. not random statistics. they even reward me for addressing my health risks. so i'm doing fine... but she's still going to give me a heart attack. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.

welcome back. for many people, today's the first payday of the year but the checks are lighter than usual. the american taxpayer relief act that helped the country avoid the worst of the fiscal cliff did not include an extension of the payroll tax holiday so the fica tax going up to 6.2%. so just how much is that for the average worker? joining me now with details, cnbc's eamon javers. i went on social media and couldn't believe how many people are talking about this. sticker shock and ticked a few folks off. >> yeah. absolutely. tamron, it can be a real mit to the wallet. the temporary payroll tax cut as you say enacted under president obama died at the end of 2012 which means that everyone in the country sees a bigger tax wyatt out of the paychecks this year. take a look at these numbers. for a single person making $60,000 a year paid biweekly, gross income in a paycheck is

$2,307.69. subtract federal withholding taxes, medicare and state taxes and then look at fica. that's the fee to help pay for social security. this person would have paid $96.93 in december. but now look at that same person's new paycheck in january. gross pay the same and the medicare and state taxes but fica taxes up to $143.08. that's a hit to the wag let, grocery money or a tank of gas every two weeks, real money for real people in this tough economy. >> to your point, real money to real people and i think people didn't realize it. this deal reached at the 11th hour. the middle of the night it seems always with congress to come up with something and then they get the paycheck. take a look at it and don't quite get what happened there to them. >> right. i mean, you have to look at every line item on the paycheck to see what happened to you.

republicans and democrats passed this thing two years ago as a stimulus measure to boost the economy and then they let it expire. neither side really wanted to defend it and neither side wanted to take the payroll stream from social security so they just kind of didn't fight over it and didn't make a lot of headlines and why a lot of people probably not noticing that this thing snuck up on them. >> and funds social security and medicare? >> yeah. this goes in to social security, fica directly. medicare is separate on your paycheck and seeing here money that otherwise would have been used to fund social security that they decided to lower that tax in order to give people a little bit more money in the wallet in the course of the recession. that was designed as one of the stimulus measures but now that they take that away, it hits people and plan for it and the overall economy. we'll see less cash out there circulating and that's overall bad for everybody. it's a little bit of a hit for everybody in the country. >> thank you very much. greatly appreciate you joining us. >> you bet. politico says the white

house has a game plan coming to gun control. and end run around the nra rallying churches, retailers and medical organizations to support new gun laws. if that doesn't work, will the white house give up on an assault weapons ban? that is our "news nation" gut check. what do you think on this friday? join us any time you want because we're on facebook. go to facebook.com/newsnation. what's today's dare? fight dryness. roughness. breakage. all 5 signs of damage with pantene. amazing pro-v formulas fight signs of damage for healthier, stronger, shinier hair. dare to take the pantene 5 signs challenge today. i took the dare. will you? pantene. daily moisture renewal. hair so healthy it shines. pantene. daily moisture renewal.

[ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk. nothing. are you stealing our daughter's school supplies and taking them to work? no, i was just looking for my stapler and my... this thing. i save money by using fedex ground and buy my own supplies. that's a great idea. i'm going to go... we got clients in today. [ male announcer ] save on ground shipping at fedex office.

south carolina's first gentleman is reporting for duty. governor nikki haley's husband michael deploying to afghanistan with his army national guard unit. the family said good-bye to the captain yesterday after a month of training in the u.s., he'll be stationed in afghanistan's helmand province for a yearlong

tour. paul ryan is not giving up on the white house dreams. listen to what he said. the congressman not ruled out running for president in 2016. he said, i've decided not to decide. i've learned that whatever you do you're going to be criticized so you should do what you think is right. finally, there's good news for the golden state. yesterday california's governor brown delivered a budget that doesn't have a deficit. that's a first for the state in six years. those are the things we just thought you should know. time now for the "news nation" gut check. looks like an assaulted weapon ban and universal background checks will be in the final set of proposals made by vice president joe biden. that's the word today. that's what senior administration officials are telling nbc's andrea mitchell but that's after a contentious meeting with the nra yesterday and the nra president as defiant as you might say as ever.

>> i do not think that there's going to be a ban on so-called assault weapons passed by the congress. >> according to the memo obtained by "the new york times" the brady campaign will push strongly for background checks as a top priority. do you think the white house will give up on an assault weapons ban? go to facebook.com/newsnation to cast that vote and take a look about yesterday's question. 24% of you say, yes. that does it for this friday edition of "news nation." thank you. see you on monday. catch us every weekday 2:00 p.m. eastern time. our facebook page up and running all the time and my twitter account. "the cycle" is up next. dead ba, need a tow or lock your keys in the car, geico's emergency roadside assistance is there 24/7. oh dear, i got a flat tire. hmmm. uh... yeah,

can you find a take where it's a bit more dramatic on that last line, yeah? yeah i got it right here. someone help me!!! i have a flat tire!!! well it's good... good for me. what do you think? geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

the blissful pause just before that rich sweetness touches your lips. the delightful discovery, the mid-sweetening realization that you have the house all to yourself. well, almost. the sweet reward, making a delicious choice that's also a smart choice. splenda no-calorie sweetener. with the original sugar-like taste you love and trust. splenda makes the moment yours. i'm toure on a friday. going behind the headlines.