>> much of the town's attention was focused capitol hill this week, in between endless holiday parties. first things first.

the congress was concerned with how to come up with money to keep the government running. that is rather important. and the deal that president obama made with republicans to extend bush tax cuts for another couple of years. the deal past, but house democrats were its toughest critics. >> the motion is adopted. >> it gives away $120 billion to the super rich. >> this is so irresponsible it contradicts everything that democrats have been fighting for for generations. >> this bill will kill our children with very little input or benefit at the moment. >> still, it passed. 139 democrats voted yes, 138 republicans voted yes. at last, mark, bipartisanship. is it good for the country? >> it is a tough thing for the president to ask members of congress to vote for a tax cut. bite-the-bullet, a vote for a

tax cut. is it good for the country? 139,000 families will collect $26 billion in state inheritance taxes as a result of it. it is a bonanza for the country. >> charles, is this good for the country? >> sounds like he does not like it. but i don't either. if you think adding $1 trillion to the deficit at a time when we are drowning in debt is a good idea, i don't think so. >> nina? >> i guess i think it is good for the country because i actually really worried about the depths of the recession and a very slow recovery. in the long run, being this profligate is not good for the country. and undoing a tax cut is one of the most difficult things. it will be very difficult for president obama to do that. if it works the way it is

supposed to and boost the economy a bit, let's see in a couple of years with anybody wants to do anything about the deficit. >> evan, democrats and republicans on the same page. are you pleased? >> as a mushy centrist, yes. [laughter] but it is like watching an alcoholic take one more drink before he quits. it is worthwhile if it is leading to something. if president obama comes out of the state of the union and says we will get serious about tax reform or the deficit, if it is a precursor to something, it is ok. if it is just one more pathetic attempt to put money into the economy at the expense of our grandchildren, it is a bad thing. >> that is what makes it so pernicious. it is coming a month after an election that supposedly is sending a message about fiscal responsibility, desk, expenditure spending, all of that. it came three days after the announcement of a deal -- the

deficit commission appeared to have spoken for a national consensus, left, right, and center, about attacking the major issues, including entitlements. for that reason, it is disspiriting, because it may show that all that stuff that happened in november was for show, and in the end, when you have to act that you simply spend an extra trillion dollars when in doubt. >> there is no national consensus. if you look at the "washington post"-abc news poll this week, an overwhelming majority wants to do something about the deficit, and then you ask them, would you be willing to raise the retirement age, cut social security benefits, medicare, all whole bunch of things, defense, the answer is always know. a big majority. it is a very schizophrenic public opinion, and one that leads to is shifting majorities

in the congress a lot, because the moment you say it to get serious about the deficit, programs get cut. >> what was going on up the, mark? >> the president reservoir of good will and trust and confidence in the democratic house caucus is depleted. it is dangerously low. it was not simply the product that determined opposition. it was the process through which it was done, and as one member said to me, "boy, this white house billy drives us off bargain." [laughter] >> obama has been at about trying to play with the other kid in the sandbox the last two years. he has got some successes, but the issue now is, come january, will he separate himself from the mess and be a leader, and

tried to do something -- >> members of congress are arguing about how to come up money for the government, trying to decide if gay americans have as much right to be shot in combat as anybody else, they are trying to decide whether it makes any sense to put a lid on the nuclear-weapons. "wall street journal" says the 111th congress is the worst in modern history. do you agree, mark? >> no, the achievements were significant and they will outlive this congress. there were betsy and courageous votes cast. >> gutsy encourages people went down because of those boats. >> over all, it is a dysfunctional mess and the public knows it. the future of the country depends on presidential leadership that separates itself and tries to find a way to educate the public to make congress do something big. >> gallup, 13% of the american people approve of congress.

>> i wonder who the 13 are. probably relatives of members of congress. no, it is one of the worst in history, had saddled the country with obamacare, which will take a generation to i do, increased the debt. it's also interesting, with this omnibus bill that harry reid was trying to palm off and in the end it was so outrageous that he had to withdraw. 2000 pages of spending that he presented on tuesday and demanded an answer by saturday, when the government is going to shut down. that was away for the 111th, which is now out of business, to control what is going to happen next year. what the republicans and reasonable democrats what is a continuing resolution which would allow the government to go another couple of weeks and allowing the legitimate progress to decide what will

decide deck -- what will happen next year. >> the bill had lots of little gimmicks that republicans put in and it was so noxious that by the time it was exposed to the light of day, republicans said, "i will vote against the bill, even though i put that in." >> that is right, it was hypocrisy on the part of people who had written the bill, the republicans who had put in these special pleadings, pork barrel legislation. once they were asked about it, "oh, my god, i have got to vote against it." as far as legitimacy is concerned, this is the funding for this fiscal year, and nobody less significant than bob gates has requested it fort sustaining united states defense. the secretary of defense, i think that is a legitimate voice. >> the first congress in years

that has not passed a budget. that is incredibly irresponsible, and white we ended up with this train wreck at the fed -- why we ended up with this train wreck at the end of the year. >> according to the latest "wall street journal"-nbc news poll, the president's approval rating is at 45%, pretty good next congress. >> and his ratings of better than republican ratings, but they're not reelect-happy. >> better than clinton's at this point. >> but to say anything now but will happen in two years is foolhardy. i want to say one thing about the budget that did not get passed, the omnibus bill. we talked a lot about passing tax cuts because we have to know what kind of tax cuts we have to put these agencies, including the defense department, don't know how much they've got and

for what. and i was at a christmas party for the department of justice and people were really worried about this. law enforcement people don't know exactly what kind of money they can spend for what. >> democrats have controlled the house and senate and the white house for a year and did not pass a single appropriations bill. whose fault is that? >> i am not laying blame, i am just saying -- >> charles is laying blame and there is enough to go around. i want to point out about the congressional job rating. its purpose is to make every president look good. and to make the united nations look effective. [laughter] that is really the purpose it serves. >> just to make a serious for one second, there is a narrow

opportunity -- the country really hates congress, and they don't like obama that much, but they don't mind him that much. he has the comparative advantage where he can come forward and say, "i want to get serious, but i need your help." and to get a mandate to make congress to do something. >> you are a sweet pollyanna. >> can i endorse evan's utopianism? >> you are not a pollyanna. >> william galston, a great social scientist from the clinton administration, has proposed, and he is right, that obama ought to in the state of the yen and raise tax reform -- union embrace tax reform. paul ryan in the house is the guy who thinks large on this. if you could have him and the president, the way you had bill bradley and ronald reagan, get together on tax reform in 1986,

you could have a breakthrough. these are people who, in principle, are smart enough and principled enough to do it, if the -- >> charles is not only pollyanna, he is revisionist tax reform began with bill bradley in 1978, with calls for 1/3 tax cuts across the board. he was a scholar about it. he wrote a book in 1982. he introduced bradley- gephardt added that support all the way through 1984, when ronald reagan did not have an issue to run on, and in 1985, rostenkowski and packwood wrote it -- no, we are going to write a tax reform bill -- [unintelligible] in one year, with a president

running for reelection, you are unrealistic. he says he wants to have a conversation about it. >> here's the thing, he can play a small ball and do little things to get himself reelected. or he can go for the big stuff and actually serve the country. >> is it unconstitutional to force americans to buy >> health insurance > you have to stay within the boundaries of the constitution, and there is no power of the congress the president to order you and i to buy any product. >> that is ken cuccinelli, the attorney-general or virginia, who brought the challenge against obamacare. a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional to require americans to buy health insurance. why is it constitutional to require them to buy automobile insurance but not health insurance? >> the argument is that you do not have to own a car. we have 100 years of law that would suggest that the government can have this kind

of program that involves the national economy. everybody is eventually -- >> commerce clause. >> everybody eventually have to have health insurance. we just don't want them to buy it on the way to the hospital. the counter argument is that you cannot force people to do a negative, in essence. if you don't want to do something, you cannot force them. now, there are lots of things they forced people to do, and that is what the argument is about. >> if you take away the mandate, what happens to the idea that you cannot be denied health insurance because of pre- existing conditions? >> you cannot afford it, and the oddity i that it pushed the government towards the public option. >> there is no way, without requiring purchase, that you can have pre-existing conditions, any of the other benefits.

>> it is like the essential column. the whole trouble collapses without it. don't legal experts at the end of the day think that the supreme court is going to uphold the law? >> this court is so much more conservative than any court in about 60 years, so nobody is 100% sure what the court will do. if you look on the conservative legal blogs, it is interesting how many of those folks actually think it is constitutional. >> there are two conflicting principles if you are conservative on this, and that is why is so unclear how the courts will come out. on the one hand, it is the conservative idea that the courts ought to respect the independence and autonomy of the political branches and not overturned it, and not to legislate off of the bench, which is what conservatives are always railing against. that would imply that you uphold the law. on the other hand, if you allow the individual mandate, which essentially is requiring a

person to enter into a private contract with insurance company, and you say that that is ok under the commerce clause, then it becomes inconceivable that there is anything that the government cannot force you into under the commerce clause. that would be an expansion of it to the point where you belong to have a government, limited government of enumerated powers. the second principle will probably drop the first, but it is not >> a >. -- not a guarantee. >> instead of the government, and you'll get a lot of government. >> as a grateful graduate of american public schools, i would like to point out to mr. cuccinelli, the attorney general of virginia, it is not "you and i" to do something, is "you and

me," because it is the object. please, mr. cuccinelli, don't foul up the language as well as the law of the country. [laughter] >> good that you are focusing on the essentials, mark. >> it is essential to be able to speak and communicate with each other, and i know that you know that. >> nobody does it better. >> this administration, i think it is fair to remind us all, inherited an extraordinarily difficult situation. there was no clearly defined mission. today we have a very different story to tell. >> the secretary of state is talking about afghanistan and pakistan to the president says we are on track to achieving goals in afghanistan. according to the latest abc news-"washington post" paul, a majority of people think is not worth fighting. evan, is this going to be

president obama's. not? >> -- vietnam? >> it is heading in that direction. there is progress, but it is fragile progress. if you withdraw troops, it could break. it is going to be obama versus the defense establishment, because they don't want to withdraw the troops. the public will say, hey, let's start getting out, and the military will say, we cannot get out. >> the secretary of itstate says we have a different story to tell that the bush administration. >> it is basically that we should have done this when we invaded afghanistan and not done iraq. that is the essence of it. i am struck, whenever i hear experts talk about this, the different ways that they can wait every factor. you hear the point that evan just made, and on the contrary, someone would say that if you

don't set a withdrawal time, the pakistanis will rely on us forever and ever commit enough to do something about it. on every single thing there is a yin and yang. i confess i don't know the right answer and there may not be one. >> we are in the 10th year of this war, longer combined that world war i and world war ii put together. nobody, including richard holbrooke, who lost this week, care about a national the e and immersed himself totally, -- cared about a passionately and immersed himself totally, to tell us what it will look like in 2011, or 2014, where the appeared to be pushing it back to pit the disagreement is not only between intelligence of the united states and the defense department -- the defense department argues for 100,000 troops, almost three times as

many as were there when president obama took office -- >> here is the thing about it -- we were just talking about obama meeting to step up on domestic policy. it is the same issue with a foreign policy. he has had to ask himself, will stand up against my own defense establishment? the national security state is a powerful thing. in his first term, he went along with them. you what our troops for afghanistan, ok, i will give them to you. now people have to stand up and ask and sell the basic question -- now he will have to stand up and ask himself a basic question, will i stand up to the defense establishment, or to a risky thing and really start pulling out? >> alexander the great, the british, the russians -- what does barack obama and the defense establishment have to offer is that they did not? >> if you are pessimistic, you

think karzai and corruption and unreliable pakistanis. if you think in the shorter run, the tactical level, i believe the administration when it says they are making progress, meaning they are expanding the circle of the territory in the pashtun areas in the south and kandahar, where we are in control and not the taliban. the taliban, remember, have an approval level of about 6%, and nancy pelosi levels. the reason people support them is not ideology. it is fear. it makes it easier. if it is ideology, you have to change people's ideas. if it is fear, you have to provide protection, as happened in the surge in iraq. if you can do that, you can expand the area under control. in the long run, is karzai the guy who can handle it? that is where the real issues are. >> richard holbrooke, 40-year

career. remarkable career. >> remarkable career. just one thing i object to, mentioning nancy pelosi and the same sentence with the taliban. i think that is a cheap shot, and beneath the panelist -- >> let me specify, nancy pelosi is not a terrorist, in case it was unclear. >> that was the message of rush limbaugh yesterday, calling her one on national radio. i did not want to put you in the same category of the echo chamber. >> i would not normally say you lack a sense of humor. >> i don't see the humor. let me talk about richard holbrooke for a second. richard holbrooke was larger than life. first of all, he loved the press. he loved what was written in, was always trying to influence it and shape it. he was the original spinner. this is a man who made a lot of

money in the private sector, but his vocation and mission and passion was public service. he looked upon the time he was making money in new york as an interruption. let me point out one thing, the dayton accords -- he did in dayton, ohio, and that was his decision, and was brilliant. to bring people to dayton, ohio, not paris or geneva, but to achieve a breakthrough, and they did. >> "time" magazine names the person of the year ended is not the wikileaker. >> there were obviously serious attempts to take down the content by taking us down as an organization, taking me down as an individual. >> that is julian assange, who has been released on bail. he was under arrest and being held in london, possible extradition on assault charges in sweden.

and the justice department get to him? >> the fbi act requires it to show that he intended it -- espionage act requires it to show that he intended to hurt the united states. he could argue that he intended to help united states by releasing documents. >> he did not leak chinese secret russian secrets. >> but it needs to be whether he intended to hurt the united states. >> that is why they are doing these investigations into the guy who gave them the documents, was he spurring them on, whether he was conspiring to leak, whether he intended to harm, not just foster transparency. >> "time" magazine looked at him as the possible person of the year but they picked mark zuckerberg instead. >> "time" picked hitler in 1939.

i'm not comparing hitler and mark zuckerberg, lest mark interprets what i'm saying. i think the choice of mark zuckerberg is right. nobody has had as much impact as facebook, which is changing the nature of friendships. >> i thought the most positive contribution was the chilean miners. i wish they had been persons of the year. the effort a human spirit, showed a sense of cooperation, determination. it was just marvelous. >> that is the last word. we will see you next week. for a transcript of this broadcast, log on to insidewashington.tv.