byron york will join us in a bit. i want to put this in perspective. 85 billion in a budget of $3.8 trillion. a debt of 16 plus trillion. this week, warning of a fiscal trap, last week more concern with golf traps. >> playing with mr. president was pretty cool. he's a wonderful person to be around and we won. he's an avid golfer and so am i. so we went out there and we had a great round of golf with ron and jim and it was a good day. >> a good day. but to herman cain, not exactly good optics. what do you think? >> neil, i think that it is an insult to the american people. the main reason the president is playing golf with respect to the sequestration thing, he does not care. he even said in 2011 that it wasn't going to happen. he has enough time with congress being in recess, he goes and plays golf, to play the blame game. to build a public case. neil, we do not have a leader in the white house. we have a politician in the white house who is more concerned about his public image because it has worked in the past. now,

and byron york joins us, good evening, byron. >> good evening. >> and we are aapproaching this march 1st date and let me get something straight about sequestration. and when we hit march 1st, sequestration goes into effect and we're talking about not spending as much as we thought we would. >> and it's not a cut in government spending, not as if government spending is going down like that. it's going up. it's going up a little less quickly and a little less high than it would have without sequestration. >> why in the world are people talking about things like pink slips for employees? it seems if we're fnot cutting. why would anyone lose a job and our readiness be at risk in terms of the military? we were right where we were. >> well, there shouldn't be a lot of federal employees who do lose a job. there's talk about furloughs, and for example, the defense department, civilian employees, being furloughed for 22 days in the next six months which basically means they wouldn't work on friday for the next six months. but in terms of people losing their jobs, you're talking about projecti

byron york continues the effect of the argument is to make obama seem reasonable. after all, the president certainly agrees with boehner that the cuts threaten national security and jobs. the difference is obama wants to avoid them. could the gop message on the sequester be anymore self-defeating. it made rush limbaugh uncharacteristically humble today. he had to admit there is something even he doesn't understand. >> boehner, echoing obama, in "the wall street journal," in answer to a question, the republicans support the sequester. they're on record as supporting it, even though it is obama's idea. they support it. it is the only way we're going to get budget cuts. the question is why would republicans support something that does what boehner says it is going to do? threatens u.s. national security? thousands of jobs could be lost. boehner is calling the cuts deep, when they're not. no, i do not have an explanation. i don't think that there is a reasonable explanation. i don't understand it. don't have an answer for you. it is too simple to chalk this up to incom

is the wrong time for president obama to scrap his jobs council, but the washington examiner's byron york said it wasn't worth saving at all. byron coming from high home town of san francisco, hope that makes you a 9ers fan temporarily. >> i am through sunday. >> what's the deal with the jobs council. why is it no big deal that the president got rid of it? >> it was always a big nothing. there's no doubt about it. president obama has often been under criticism throughout his time in office for putting other issues before jobs and the exee, and in his first term it was obama care or cap and trade. now you hear about gun control and immigration, and creating a jobs council was a way to show that he was actively involved and compared approximat about t. >> do you think speaker boehner is wrong for coming out and criticizing the president for getting rid of the jobs council? is that a wrong move by the speaker of the house? >> i think he's correct. this never accomplished anything. he found this version of the, the president did. it met a few times in 2011, it never met at all in 2012, and it

joining me, byron york, from the washington examiner. good morning, great to see glue good morning. >> do you think these are scare tactics or do you think the white house is trying to get congress to get its act together and prevent this march 1st automatic cut? >> there's no doubt the white house is putting out a lot of worst says scenarios, churning out interviews and fact sheets and press releases, each day outlining town official things. the president will go down to virginia on tuesday to a naval installation to try to dramatic advertise the cuts there. -- dramatize the cuts there. they said people would be waiting 90 additional minutes to get on planes, delays at airports. the park service putting out warnings, things will be closed, beaches will be closed. the redwoods might be damaged in the national parks in california. all sorts of stuff. republicans are skeptical about some of this. they think it's called a washington monument strategy, used for many decades in budget fights. you take the most revered, highest symbol of gover

for example, byron york, of the conservative washington examiner, he wrote the effects of boehner's argue make it seem reasonable in come parson. the difference is that obama wants to avoid them. this is in the washington examiner. a conservative paper. >> yeah, exactly right. i read the speaker's op erksz d in the journal. it was quite a disz aster for him. the sequester is something that has to be avoided at all costs. and both you and i agree on that. and then the second half says here are all the reasons why we'll refuse to compromise with the president on it. you can't say this is a disaster for the nation u being an elected public official who presumably comes to washington not to generate disasters and self-inflicted wounds, but to actually solve problems that americans know have to close the steel. and i think this is going to play very badly for republicans because, again, in the public consciousness, it's recognized that one side is willing to compromise and one side is stone walling. >> u no, on the other hand, rand paul insists that the cuts aren't deep enough. listen to rand

the byron york has been sorting through this. what do you think? we're headed to something on friday. what will it be? >> we didn't hear anything new from the house g.o.p. leadership. they're not going to change position. they say they've already passed plans to avoid the sequester. they have. they did it last summer and again last december but the president threatened to veto it when they passed it last year. that's a total nonstarter as far as the white house is concerned. so as i listen to them, i didn't see any intention of moving away from their position of letting the sequester take place march 1. >> what did you think of speaker boehner's argument, the first chance to verbally respond, besides what he's written in press releases, that there's greater damage and risk to the economy letting business as usual persist, paraphrasing, but not addressing this than quickly agreeing. >> there's a conflict a problem with boehner's position, a lot of republicans are saying the sequesters cuts are terrible. they're the worst case scenario and we want to

conservative journalist byron york responding to the op-ed noting that boehner has uncomfortable positionding why would boehner adopt the democratic description of the cut as deep when it affects small part of the federal spending? democrats are having their own problems coordinating their message, as the white house tries to push back on this probably attack. >> it was his proposal. i thought it was a bad idea. the president got it and he signed in law. he didn't have to sign it in to law. for a year, from august 2011 through the end of last year, the president did nothing to stop it. >> democrat max baucus chair of the senate finance committee told a local station back home the president bears some responsibility to fix this. >> the white house recommended it frankly. back if august of 2011. so now we are feeling the effects of it. i don't want to say the president solely is to blame. he is not. >> there is no sign of a deal. some officials say it's fait accompli that the cuts will kick in, or a couple weeks before they come together. >> bret: ed henry live on the north lawn. thanks. he

our panel, byron york. a.b. stoddard. associate editor of the hill. columnist charles krauthammer. we start the jo joyois panel. >> be careful. we are spending so much money. >> you waisted $60,000 by the preamble. >> the republicans decided this is going to happen. it's in the law. they are not going to change it. we know the effects won't be felt. furloughs require 30-day notice so they won't happen until the first of april. then we are going to see how they make the case. >> bret: a.b., i want the read things telling ed henry, that they acknowledge the pain or perceived pain will not kick in immediately. they acknowledge that tonight. saying it may take days or months before they feel the changes. they see the end game as the fiscal cliff and republicans will eventually raise taxes and close the loopholes. >> yeah. that is the calculation of both sides. he will get republicans to come in and support new taxes. the republicans believe president obama will go past march 1 and tell us to look up to the sky. it will call any week now. i am not so sure of either scenario. the preside

byron york, is chief political correspondent at the "washington examiner". gentlemen, good to see you both. rick, you first. you worked at a number of administrations. odd that the president himself would be so hands off while one of our consulates was under attack? >> yeah, very odd. i think it's, mitt romney was right. it really was a weak response from the president. he was off in vegas at a fund-raiser. the simple fact is, they took a couple pictures in the oval office where secretary panetta was briefing the president. but the president was hands off. the other thing we learned, secretary clinton was hand off. these employees that were under attack were state department employees. where was secretary clinton? she didn't know about the 9/11 cables coming in from ambassador stevens? now she we find out she wasn't even talking to her colleagues. this is more than just a lack of coordination. this is a lack of leadership. and it's no wonder secretary panetta didn't know what leadership was or who was in charge. rick: byron, so the president was initially br

national security, thousands of jobs and more, and then byron york, from "the washington examiner" he put out a piece basically saying could the gop message on the sequester be any more self-defeating. he goes on to say about john boehner, instead he describes it as being a threat to national security, jobs he nevertheless supports it's not an argument likely to persuade millions of americans. how did john boehner get into such a corner? >> i think the whole republican party has gotten into a corner by letting the president off the hook. here's a president almost a spending addict, the debt has gone up dram lick. what nobody is talking about is we are taking this credit card and pasting it to the next gen wrags, which is unconscionable. there's always been a promise from one generation to the next we would leave america better and stronger. instead we're kicking the can down the road and telling them good luck. i think it's outrageous. why aren't peopleal home saying we just need a balanced-budget amendment. >> if you talk about that, john, with the fact that we're leaving america wor

jon: for more let's bring in byron york chief political correspondent for the "washington examiner" and fox news contributor. the ways of the senate can be confusing, byron but looks like the senators that voted to block the nomination to this point might not necessarily vote against the nomination when they come back in session? >> you're right. the hagel filibuster which started on thursday did not survive the sunday shows and the reason is because republicans were never united on this they were very divided on this. there were very few republicans who actually support the hagel many no nation. there were others who opposed hagel but oppose filibustering him. then there were those who wanted to filibuster hague dwell on the merits. there were couple more like lindsey graham and john mccain who didn't want to filibuster on the merits but filibuster as a way to pester the obama administration to release more information about benghazi. there were all these different reasons and they didn't have any votes to spare. there were only 41 votes to uphold a filibuster. it pretty much fell apar

. >> you saw this, in the byron york column, patty, that basically said, what are you doing? with the president's words? that these are drastic, this is too much, this isn't the right way to do it? >> you know, i'm with you. i don't get it. there seems to be a lot of blame going around. frankly, there is a lot of blame to go around, but we are where we are. i'm going to quote my favorite secretary of state, what difference does it make? we are here. what are we going to do about it? i want to switch topics, calf rove defending himself on this whole what he's up to. i'm told we don't have it. he was sort of trying to answer his critics, who were saying enough of karl rove. we do have a problem on the right, too many organizations run by consultants more concerned with their fees and profits than advancing their cause. rove has been defending himself saying i don't make money on this. that is true, he is not making money on american crossroads, but he is becoming the point person for the right to be up on. >> he's gotten so much criticism from rush limbaugh, which underscores h

washington political correspondent byron york joins us, i thought that medicaid was not supposed to bellegal immigrants? >> that's true. people in the country illegally are not eligible for medicaid, but they're eligible for something called emergency medicaid. you know, in this country, for many years since 1980's, congress has passed laws that require hospitals to treat people in emergency rooms, to treat people who show up and need treatment. they are not allowed to turn them away because they don't have insurance and they're not allowed to turn them away because they're not in the country legally. >> and they're not allowed to ask. >> exactly, not allowed to ask. so if a woman comes, she's in labor and she take care of her and they find out through the process of asking for information and stuff that she's there illegally, but they treat her. so, that's what happens. and some states are more generous than others in the kind of treatment that they will give out, and under this emergency medicaid. and as a matter of fact, that 2 billion dollars that you mentioned, a large, large part

ahead of that, buyo byron york. if therapy going to protest, they're at the wrong place. the president, unless he changes his mind, was the guy who was against the keystone pipeline from the beginning. >> well, i think they're worried that he will change his mind. he's been with them so far, but a decision has to be made, and the president never said i'm never no way going to build this pipeline. he said that there were environmental concerns and that he was putting the decision off until after the 2012 election. one of the big concerns, for example, was the routing of the pipeline through nebraska which was over some very critical water tables. now it's been rerouted. the governor of nebraska now approves of it, so the problem is these environmentalists are extremely worried that the president's attentions are divided on this. at the same time they were having this protest, the afl-cio and the american trol pe troat m institute were having a conference call about launching a propipeline campaign called we can't wait. there are two very important groups, environmentalists

the "washington examiner's" byron york writes the effect of boehner's argument is to make obama seem reasonable in comparison. i'm sorry, mr. york, but didn't you read mr. boehner's editorial? he said he wanted democrats to get serious about the sequester cuts. in fact he said it twice. which frankly for him is well below par. >> replace the president's sequester, we need our democrat colleagues to get serious. >> get serious. >> get serious. >> get serious. >> get serious. >> yes, let's serious. i'm joined by kristen welker who's live at the white house. kristen, these cuts are no laughing matter, but how does the white house get house republicans to agree to additional revenue? what are you hearing? >> reporter: well, martin, i'm not sure that they're going to be able to in terms of strategy. we've seen president obama taking his case to the american people. you saw him do that yesterday in that clip that you aired with the president joined by first responders making the case that their jobs could be at risk if the sequester kicks in. of course today he's granting interviews to loc

. >> byron york.re's trickling news out obama may have reached out to either speaker boehner or mitch mcconnell to have the first discussions really since the new year. anything new on that? >> i think there will be outreach but i don't think just judging the physics of the republican caucus there's much upside for them cutting a deal before the sequester goes in to effect cutting a deal before they have basically banked the cuts and then if they cut a deal the day after, the week after the sequester, the leadership can say we have the cuts. just looking for more rational way of aportioning the cuts. if they do the deal beforehand, they'll see significant outrage from the base already upset of them caving in january. there will be talks. a slim chance they cut a deal before next friday but the body language right now is both people willing to go over the mini cliff and then come to the table shortly afterwards. >> but even if, you know, publicly or privately i should say president obama thinks he's go

and other work our friend byron york a great reporter looking at a rutgers university study, people are furious, larry elder. they are furious at the absence of jobs and basically a third of the housed holds in this country, about a third, think that either a family member, a relative like a cousin, friends, a third, i believe it's actually 38%, know somebody that's unemployed. that is incredible, larry. no larry elder. all right. he may not be plugged in i'll ask the same question of kevin williamson sitting right next to me. a third. actually i believe the number is 38% know somebody either in the direct family or like a near cousin that's been out of work. it's incredible. >> i think if you're casting the net that wide for 'cause inches and uncles i'm surprised the number is not more like 80%. there are a lot of people out of work out there. you're seeing obama's poll numbers come down. i think that's because he's a politician who needs a foil. perhaps the country he looked pretty good compared with mitt romney. but the country doesn't look good compared to where the country should b

my pal byron york wrote a great column about this today in the "washington examiner."gan brittany because you're talking about hardcore blue-collar union workers who desperately need the job. hundreds and hundreds of thousands of them lost their jobs. on the other side you've got the hardcore greenies and i'm sorry, but you've got the -- >> hollywood. >> -- the hardcore hollywood liberal lefties. what is this all -- is obama going to dare bash the hollywood lefties and do something sensible for a change by okaying keystone? >> well, i'll tell you one thing. i think he's much more likely to be forgiven by hollywood than he is by the unions. so inevitably, i believe that something will happen that he will appease the unions because he can't afford not to. >> you think it's going to go the union way. that's very interesting. >> i think it might. because the fact is hollywood, like i said, they're very forgiving. they love him. they do. no matter what he does, they love him. so i'm inclined to believe that i think the unions have got more muscle here. even though the union

byron york is chief correspondent at the washington examiner. you can either laugh or try.c it's unbelievable. >> they have a troubled history. the law requires the president submit a budget the first monday in february. that was yesterday. it didn't happen. it hasn't happened in a number of years. in fact the senate democrats have not wanted to pass a budget for a number of years. the last one they passed was 2009. the on ones who wanted to hold votes on them were republicans who were trying to embarrass the democrats. the votes have been 99-0 and 97-0. this time the senate democrats say they are going to put together a budget. so when the president gets around to sending it perhaps lit mean more. martha: jay carney says the problem isn't in the white house. it's that house republicans submit partisan budget that will never pass. >> the house has passed the so-called ryan budget after paul ryan and that has gone into where in the senate. but you have got to start somewhere and the president. proposal is generally thought to be that place. when carney was asked about this y

byron york, chief political correspondent, washington examiner. how are you doing this morning. >> doing great, bill. bill: i will read you numbers. tell me if this is true or hyperbole, fact or just talk out of washington. 70,000 children tropped from head start. is that about to happen. >> look, we don't know exactly what is going to happen. i was talking to douglas holtz-eakin, a former head of the congressional budget office, talking for a piece i'm writing today. he said, look this will be the biggest thing since y2k in a few months we'll look back and say this is what everybody was so upset about? this is no big deal. on the other hand the president and administration are suggesting that the world will end. bill: i've got more. >> okay. bill: 600,000 woman and young children will be cut from a major nutrition program. fda says furloughs result in 2100 fewer inspections of food plants. >> seems unlikely things will happen like that. first thing to remember, they're not going to be actual cuts in federal spending. the rate of increase in feder

there's a report this morning from byron york who said they're hearing yes, the president will say jobng about any more. >> this is a more nuts and bolts speech than the inaugural pitch? >> it can be. >> historically people spell out more of their mission? >> yes. so the inaugural address would be much more philosophical. this will be much more okay, here's the plan, and here's the way that we're going to get there. that's not how ever president does a speech. we'll have to see. if the reports are true that this will be a much more progressive type speech that president obama gives. this is the vision i see for our country. this is why i think we need higher taxes, whatever he's going to say. he's going to have a pretty hard -- a pretty high bar to clear to convince people that you don't also have to do reductions in spending. not just trimming around the edges. we actually -- we really need to deal with the root of the problem, enentitlements which can be dealt with. >> you missed our big west min minster dog report. >> i was hoping you were changing topics. >> we are. stick around fo