the framers, i worked with the framers, the framers were friends of mine. trust me, the framers would have thought this. at i think the answer, of course, would be -- first of all, if madison came back and said can we have an input to mandate for health insurance, his head would've been what is health insurance? he wouldn't have known what to say. but beyond that i think he would have refused to say what his intention was. madison was very reticent. he did not believe the intention of the framers should govern. beyond that if he did say i think he would say shut up, grandma, we've got problems to solve now. because his opinion is very important. i'm a great madison fan, but our opinions are important, too. that's what living in a democratic country with a constitution means. >> my question may be more difficult to frame. and that is, what you are saying is, at least to my is, it's what i believe how everything you said about the bible, et cetera. and i live in california. i live in los angeles where i i have a bottle of people who also agree with me, but it

but, as the framers said, that is not an airtight guarantee. t's hope we can get back to a time of goodwill. >> the last few weeks have been trying on those institutions. congressman rush holt from new jersey, thank you so much for joining us. now onto the u.s. detention facility at guantÁnamo bay where "rt" sent a correspondent to cover the latest out of the prison that has now been indefinitely detaining terror suspects for over a decade. here is her first report. >> after a few months of paperwork to get cleared to visit the base, from fort lauderdale in florida a short hour and a half light, one largely cap under wraps with no indications of it. the minute we landed, we are greeted by escort to stay with us every step of our trip, the special guantÁnamo joint task force mediating print one of them, sergeant rebecca wood, far from the stereotypical face you might imagine, as we soon learned, the first of many surprises. >> this is a break in my career. people i work with everyday, they share the same idea. they are all very proud to be here.

and that meaning we express in a term such as what the framers intended. hat original intent is our national da vinci code. or to put it another way, i am trying on the 16 years i lived in the pacific northwest. original intent is to the constitution with sasquatch is to the cascade mountains. eagerly believed in, obsessively sought, relatively seldom actually seen. i teach constitutional law for a living. a lot of people ask me, they come to me with concerns about one cause or another and they ask what did the framers intend? they don't like my answer because my answer is they intended to write the words do not cause and have us interpret them. that just doesn't seem right. it doesn't sit well. to a lot of americans, the worst in the parchment seemed less important than what the framers were thing and when they wrote them. we knew those. our present-day constitutional difficulties would vanish. the best-selling novelists, william martin wrote a dan brown style thriller of sites called the last constitution. the last constitution is about a draft of the con

you know going all the way back to james madison in the framers of our constitution you know they put in checks and balances in divided powers. they made it clear however that a self-governing country depends on the goodwill of the of the people and the governmental mechanism a self-governing country works only if you believe it does and i certainly hope that there are no fun there's no fundamental damage to the willingness of people to govern themselves that there's no fundamental damage to the american cherished belief that we can govern ourselves there's no regulations or rules or parliamentary procedure that can guarantee it certainly our constitution provides some very good checks and balances against unbridled power and concentrated power. but it but it has the framers said that's not an airtight guarantee and certainly there is hope we can get back to a time of goodwill but in the last few weeks i've been sort of trying all there's a satish and congressman rush holt from new jersey thank you so much for joining us thank you now on to the u.s. detention facility at guantanamo ba

the framers specifically created the district of columbia, because they don't want our nation's capitolbe subservient to a specific state. >> shouldn't there be no residents then living in d.c. if that is the case. >> first of all the proposal for statehood shrinks the size. and then the surrounding neighborhoods become the 51st state. but virginia no one says that the citizens of virginia shouldn't participate in the government. the central government was weak, but it is strong now, and most federal workers don't even work in dc. so we can have statehood and still provide for the business of the federal government. >> in the case of d.c. there is a conflict that says if d.c. [ inaudible ] and the principal of federalism, and the larger issue at steak is that of federalism. so hours are divided between state governments and the federal government, so you don't want to allow one state to control the actions of the federal government. this was a concern that the founders addressed specifically in the 1780s. they had a situation where the congress had to flee the city because soldiers marc

constitution, the house of representatives is the most important branch, according to the feeling of the framersause they represented the people. they call it the people's house. but the white house seems to think that he's an imperial president. he is a monarch. he doesn't need to talk to those peasants over there in congress and he'll just do what he wants to do. we'll see what happens. the obamacare insurance exchanges were rolled out on tuesday, but there were some snags. i think that is an understatement. but john jessup has more from our cbn news bureau in washington. >> reporter: pat, it was a bumpy first day for the president's new health law.

the senate didn't turn over -- by the way, that's the way the framers planned it. that's why there are six-year terms here, so public passions in one electoral cycle don't entirely change the government. and then there was another election in 2012. in that election, in which the affordable care act was a major factor, democrats gained seats in the house, gained seats in the senate, and the president, whose name is attached to this bill, won by 5 million votes. in my election in maine, in every debate -- and goodness knows there were probably over 20 of them -- my republican opponent started the debate by saying, i want to repeal the affordable care act. that was the whole mission. and i defended it, not in every detail, because i think it needs to be fixed. but i defended it, and i won that election. and here i am. mr. romney said, i will repeal obamacare on day one. but he lost. but here we are, madam president, in effect trying to effect wait that agenda, that -- effectuate that agenda, that policy position through an alternative process that skills around those a

were a mix minds on that but even the framers that supported it said well this is to keep the legislature in check from doing something that the people haven't authorized in the constitution but the people have spoken here for forty years voters have consistently supported limits on campaign contributions congress has passed it twice to republican presidents have signed laws implementing these aggregate limits george w. bush and gerald ford and the people have ratified those elections so for the supreme court to come in and say you don't have the right as voters. to decide that your government is corrupt is way overstepping their are we had an energetic abraham lincoln f.d.r. moment where the executive and the legislative branches should get together and use that power given them an article three section two i think all options have to be on the table if the court said something like we're going to legalize bank robbery so long as the thieves take your money from your bank account and spend it on political speech we wouldn't tolerate that for a minute that the president would tell the f.b

to his predecessors was it the intent of the framers of the constitution?> you very good question. in general holmes is not what would be called an original west. he believes in the evolving constitution and the people who wrote the constitution and could not have the imagine to the being bay brought forth so i don't think in general he was driven by the obsession with what the founding generation would have thought. remember he is not as a way from the founding generation born 1841 potentially having no members are met members there might have been less of a sense that we have to get in touch with holmes may have thought he was very well in touch because it was not too far past but that said there is one aspect where he does rely a the but -- a little bit of history when holmes writes that this is the theory of the constitution he has to contend with the fact in 1798 the country passed the sedition act under which people were prosecuted nearly for criticizing the government in what he does in the opinion is that was repudiated by jefferson when he took off

the framers were influenced by more than one philosophical tradition, they were influenced by the law can of natural ash the lock-in of natural rights tradition, the british constitution, the rights to englishmen as articulated by work -- by burke, the scottish enlightenment. and to a lesser degree, the natural law tradition of -- my question to you is, when interpreting the constitution, since the framers were influenced by several different and occasionally conflicting traditions, how do you resolve the differences in what role -- the differences between the assessing they in original meaning of the constitution? like justice clarence thomas, i take the view that the declaration of independence has relevance to the interpretation of the constitution. i know that is a controversial issue that many of my colleagues would exclude the declaration as not having anything to do with interpreting any of the bill of rights or whatever. descriptionom the in the declaration, some of which i quoted, that these are principles that have recognizable parentage. passages from those the story aced o

eight hundred were you people the working the framers a stablished you know competing institutions co-equal branches it's not a dictatorship it's not a monarchy and so people in other parts of the world probably aren't used to the fact that the lead the head of state just can't dictate what the rest of the country does republicans are going to be hurt because conservatives gave republicans the majority in the house john boehner has his gavel because of the tea party and because of conservatives and if he betrayed her loses sponsibility at such as such an economy to not allow it to go this far to get to default where it would and you heard from the rest of her i guess i hate to interrupt you but there was going to be no default the way they were there was going to be no default treasury officials communicated to congress last week that they are working on plans to pay the debts as they come the federal government receives two hundred fifty billion dollars in revenues every month there was going to be no default this was just something very reaction to that from some of our other guests anyon

and the framers of the constitution gave us a system that was supposed to produce honorable compromise after honest debate. because nobody has got the whole truth. nobody is right all the time. and the more complex problems are, the more you need people to work together. >> wise words from the president who weathered the last shutdown, bill clinton, what about you and your money? i'm back with suze orman, who is mad as hell, as we all are. >> and i'm going to tell everybody about it. >> and the people who have been on the show have really suffered because really they had no provision with the shutdown or the loss of income. can you plan for that, whatever your income may be? >> well, if we had not been just coming out of the one of the most major devastations to the united states, 2008, 2009 and so forth, maybe there would have been time to plan for this. but piers, they're out of work, through no fault of their own. we totally shrank, they didn't have time to put together an emergency fund because they used the money trying to get a job. >> what about the rest of people, who may not b

the framers were influenced by more than one philosophical tradition but the natural rights tradition by the historical british institution, the right the of englishmen as articulated the scottish enlightment, but also a lesser degree the natural law tradition of acquiring. the question to you is when interpreting the institution since the framers were influenced by different and conflicting traditions how do you resolve differences, and what role does the differences between traditions play in assessing the original meaning of the constitution? >> well like i take the view that the declaration of independence has relevance to the interpretation of the constitution, and that's the view that many of my colleagues exclude the declaration as not having anything to do with the interpreting any of the bill of rights or whatever. i take it the declarations, some of which i quoted, these are principles that have recognizable heritage. i derive from those passages the view based on natural law heritage but as mentioned in remarks there's natural law or natural rights, and i think the rights t

then the timber framers installed a series of decorative trusses over the great room before the roof was completely closed in. that was cool. after that we were ready for the rough-ins to begin with the heating crew and the plumbers getting things going inside. and then most recently we had a chance to visit the quarry in wisconsin where we got all the stone that the masons have been putting up arothe house. and they've done a great job on this stone veneer going up around on the back of the house. they've also made good progress on the twin-fireplaces that we have in the great room and the side porch. the masons are just about done with the fireplace so i want show you what they're gonna put on top of the flue before it gets carried up there. this is the chimney pot and they've been using these for hundreds of years to help keep out rain. help improve drafting the fires down below, make it look really nice. of course anything on top of a chimney is going to have to withstand all kinds of weather. that's where copper makes a lot of sense. as far as the style goes this is a chess moti

and the framers of the constitution gave us a system that was supposed to produce honorable compromise after honest debate. because nobody has got the whole truth. nobody is right all the time. and the more complex problems are, the more you need people to work together. >> wise words from the president who weathered the last shutdown, bill clinton, what about you and your money? i'm back with suze orman, who is mad as hell, as we all are. >> and i'm going to tell everybody about it. >> and the people who have been on the show have really suffered because really they had no provision with the shutdown or the loss of income. can you plan for that, whatever your income may be? >> well, if we had not been just most major devastations to the united states, 2008, 2009 and so forth, maybe there would have been time to plan for this. but piers, they're out of work, through no fault of their own. we totally shrank, they didn't have time to put together an emergency fund because they used the money trying to get a job. >> what about the rest of people, who may not be high income, a reasonably m

he talked about the fact that the framers of the constitution and the founders of the country have been building this up for 200 years, his inference there during that speech, wolf, was that the tea party was tearing a lot of that down. here's little bit more of what the president had to say. >> you don't look a particular policy, a particular president, then argue for your position. go out and win an election. push to change it. don't break it. don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. that's not being faithful to what this country's about. . >> so it's safe to say, wolf, we expect the white house press secretary jay carney to be asked about this during the brief within the hour. he's going to be asked about this change in tone from the president. he sounded like he was trying to aim for bipartisanship last night, but it sounded like more of a lecture earlier this morning, wolf. >> he was, as i said, tough. he had a lot to relay and certainly did. jim, stand by. let's go to capitol hill. chief congressional correspondent, dana bash, is getting reaction to wha

the framers were influenced by more than one philosophical tradition. they were influenced by the natural rights tradition, by historical british tradition and the rights of englishmen as articulated by burke but also blackstone and the scottish enlightenment natural law tradition and to a lesser degree the natural law tradition of aquinas. my question to you is interpreting the constitution since the framers were influenced by several different and occasionally conflicting traditions how do you resolve the differences and what role do the differences between the traditions play in assessing the original meaning of the constitution? >> well, like justice clarence thomas, i take the view that the declaration of independence has relevance to the interpretation of the constitution. i know that is a controversial issue and many of my colleagues would exclude the declaration as not having anything to do with interpreting any of the bill of rights or whatever. and i take it from the description declarations some of which i quoted that these are principles that

systemic discussion, it's in the atlantic, filed by the constitution accountability center saying the framersal lawmakers, but the corruption of the legislative process itself as a whole. >> and i have no doubt that jamil, our digital editor, will get his piece up right away, but let me ask, from an aclu perspective, though, because this does get framed as a speech question, does aclu say, i hear you, i hear you on corruption, but krupgcorruption's part of t free speech, we have a right in our country? >> no, we don't say that and the aclu did not take a position on this case, although we support reasonable contribution limits, but i think a couple of things seem reasonably clear to me. one is, i think it's very unlikely that the court is going to uphold the aggregate limits, at least as applied to individual candidates. secondly, i think it's equally clear the court understands very little about the mechanics of how elections are financed, and number three, this is not a court that's inclined to show deference to congress that presumably understands those mechanics better. but i think at the

i don't think that's the way the framers of the constitution intended the government to run.re absolutely right. it is not technically illegal, but it is not ethical in my book. it is not the way people ought to address and conduct themselves when they are running the government of the united states. >> you and olympia snowe should come back. that's all i can say. because every time i get an acting congressman or legislator on the air, i seem to go nowhere with them. thank you so much, mr. secretary. good to see you again. >> thanks, ashleigh. >>> and the film is terrific too. i will repeat that. make sure you go out and take a look at that "inequality for all" by the former secretary of labor, robert reich. >>> with the federal government shut down, you may not be surprised that congress has an approval rating of, are you ready, 10%. 10%. with all that dysfunction, and much of the blame aimed at the gop this time around, anyway, could this be the end of the republican party as you know it. might there be some changes in the ranks? and does it all come down to these two words

. >> that's the way the framers wanted it to work and that's what's within the constitution they wroteat people don't understand, the constitution constitutes two parts to every law. enacting the law and then paying the bills to enforce the law. if congress decides to enact a law in 2010 but then discovers in 2013 it's too expensive to enforce or we're not ready to enforce it, or the law is not what we thought it was, so we don't want to pay for it now, congress has every right and every opportunity in the constitution to decide not to pay for the law. that's what the constitution prescribes. so when the republicans and the house of representatives say we know obama care is already the law, we just don't want to pay for it, they are on solid, historical constitutional ground when they do that. and when the president mocks sem s them saying you don't want to pay for bills incurred guess what? they haven't incurred bills yet and there's no bills to pay. they have every right to take that position. >> so as you say, judge, if the republicans rear looking at this law by looking at the fund

the tea party wing of the republican party says go back to what the framers wanted. ise, incremental. that's how you move the country, incrementally. >> i don't think peel are reading the federalist papers right now. >> you don't think so -- >> but if they did -- i want i think they're listening to other voices at this point and reading other things. i think there's both ideological difference. i think this government shutdown was largely as issue of tactics. the republican party is pretty united on the issue of affordable care act, we know that, but the consequence of shutting down the government has been, you know, has been terrible for the republican party on this. they're going to have to pay the price on that. on immigration, there are differences there they're going to have to hash out. >> immigration seems deader today in the house than before the shut join, if that's possible i want i think it depends on how you look at your fate going forward. >> it would by a way to moderate the brand. how many house republicans think that way is a big question, but leadersh

the framers thought of this. he said it might be a good thing to have minorities have additional power above a quorum. he said these are outweighed by the opposite. the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed the minority rule. the power would be transferred to the minority. lincoln put it much more... equally. if they will not ask u.s., the government must cease. there is no other way to determine this on one side or the other. i understand the opposition. i do not understand not wanting people to have health insurance. i think the speaker is a good man. i understand the need to win something in this weird atmosphere where everybody has to win or lose. they gave it their best shot. it did not work. let's have a clean vote so people know we still know how to govern. i want to negotiate. i want to solve problems but not at the expense of this institution. not at the expense of the constitution. not at the experience of the american people. >> winning the shut down debate, not how long it will las

they go back to the framers of our constitution. spying has been around forever and it is a valuable commodity to this country. there is no reason it should be curtailed because of what i call tors.rs -- trai question for you --the fisa court. is it nothing more than a rubber stamp? could you explain the role in the process and if you believe the rubberstamp phrasing is correct? shame that more people do not know about the fisa court. it has a significant impact. these are all judges in their own right. they are selected by the chief justice of the supreme court to sit on the fisa court for a. of years -- period of years. justice be able to appoint all of these himself? i would like to see that changed. i think 10 out of the 11 fisa court judges were appointed by gop presidents. are they a rubberstamp? i don't think so. it has been characterized that way because they have approved so many government applications. what you don't see and that is when the government exit application for a warrant or an application and the fisa sends th

this not what the framers had in mind. years to refight this battle on this very strong position of constitutional principle regardless of what may happen economically, whether he can stay that way to the very end is a big question. >> joy. >> eamon, go ahead. >> let me lay out exactly what's at stake here. it's sort of the united states has this very unique position in the global economy. we are the world's reserve currency. the united states has huge advantages every since world war ii of being the reserve currency of the world. we were able to borrow at much cheaper prices, finance deficits at much lower rates we would otherwise be because we have this confidence of the world. everyone knows if you buy treasury debt, it's an ironclad guarantee you're going to get your money back. it's the default in any crisis financially. what do people around the world do? they buy treasuries. they trust the united states government. what a default would do is call that trust into question. what it would do is damage the unique positio

i'm sure the framers of the constitution did not consider that would be done by one party, and you knowhing -- just one fine point, steve. if that is the way the game is played, no law on the books is safe. quong can fund or not fund anything it wants to in the budget. you can disagree with the priority of not wanding to fund some parts, but this is the prerogative of the house, you work it out. this is something that's very legitimate. congress is funding things they want to fund and defunding things they don't. the power of the purse read is the constitution. it that wir the way we and our government would operate, then what -- we would have showdown after showdown. you name it, there would be extortion -- >> i mean, this health care law is not ready -- why not delay it for a year. bob, it's not ready for primetime. you know that. >>> hold on for a second. >> that's not the issue. >>> i don't think it will happen, but if there were this debt ceiling. who get paid first? steve? >> well, that's a deemsday scenario, but i believe the creditors do, because the u.s. constitution guarantees

holmes and/or his contemporaries or predecessors on the court influenced by the original intent of the framers of the constitution? >> very good question. in general, holmes was not what one would call today an originalist. holmes believed very much in an evolving constitution, and that the people who wrote the constitution could not have imagined the being that they had brought forth. and so i don't think in general he, you know, he was driven by a kind of, you know, obsession with what the founding generation would have thought. remember, too, that holmes is not as far away from the founding generation as we are having been born in 1841 and, you know, potentially having known members of the founding generation or met members of the founding generation there might have been less of a sense of, oh, this sort of distant past that we have to get in touch with. holmes might have thought that he was very well in touch with that past because it wasn't too far past. that said, there is an aspect of his decision in which he does rely a little bit on early developments in our history. when holmes writ

. >> i submit to you that these two documents were signed on the knees of the framers. ese two documents are devine revelation from god. and yet our precedent has the call to tell us that this is not a christian nation. this was formed, the united states of america was formed to honor the word of god. >> and he had this to say about the president of the united states. >> if you have heard him recite the pledge, he skips "under god." never says those two words. "under god." >> so the president according to cruz sr. never says the word "under god" in reciting the pledge of allegiance. in the fact-based world where there is things like videotape, we know it's not true. now, listen here to a 180 difference between nonsense and reality. >> we pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. and to the republic for which it stands. one nation. under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god -- >> one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> we have been and always wil

the framers of the constitution understood this when they decreed there would be no religious test for federal office and the authors of the bill of rights understood it when they said congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion which meant that they would be no national religion but it also meant among other things that states could maintain their established church as the commonwealth of massachusetts maintained an established church until 1833. americans have learned from early times not only to cope with to prosper as a nation with a cultural diversity but that diversity has also led to severe strains and in one case to a repressive the -- [inaudible] the first of my search was the mass movement of the scotch-irish from northern ireland and scotland in the dozen years before the mac and revolution. they started coming over in numbers in 1713 but there was a real rush, a real surge after the treaty of paris ended the seven years war known in north america as the french and indian war of 1763. unlike earlier colonial settlers they did not come over primarily be

you're not supposed to have big bills these comprehensive bills are actually against the intent of the framers these are in appropriations bills we're talking about these aren't your typical appropriations bills that money is going to go to their regular order about appropriations when republicans are doing funding just specific agencies the parts that has nothing to do with regular order that hasn't been the way this is ever operated as far as funding all government that we have to go to sort through the budget and then there are twelve appropriations bills the democratic senate approved a budget but never went ahead with the twelve a proliferation of ask your question and so the whole on the twelve appropriation bills where the house and the senate would meet and because the senate didn't approve it's twelve appropriations bills there was no way to have conference one two one one two one the senate just basically presented this big giant bill and said do. with it and so every time paul ryan in the house tried to deal with them on individual twelve appropriations bills the democrats blocked t

disfunction is neil said, we already have long overdue for -- the for law and lots of things that is even the framers of the law knew even when time was passed. that need to be fixed and work together -- relatively quickly. it has been politically feasible. you're looking ahead with all kinds of things that can go wrong in the next year or two. you know, thicks that didn't get calculated just right. i think the biggest probably being how individual mandate going to be? are people going buy the health insurance or not. what will the second year look like? how does that turn back to -- that can happen in the current. >> not this congress. >> and i think the thing that has surprised me is the speed of change. , you know, usually things happen pretty slowly in the health care industry, and what i'm seeing in the private sector new investors investing in a company that raised $100 million to go out and do some very innovative things in the health plan states. there are massive investments, innovations, new companies, and the speed is just i've never seen this kind of speed in our industry before. are ther

[laughter] >> it was built on the framers and love. it was quite beautiful. [laughter] >> it's on youtube. >> yes. cato records everything. so the issue is what the american people feel about this. and i think the obamacare law inadvertently awakened a sleeping giant among the american populace. people have this natural yearning for the constitution which we saw. thousands of people turn up from nowhere spontaneously on capitol hill to march against the federal law. this was remarkable. and although we don't really see much of the tea party now, i would say it's dormant, slumbering perhaps, this can be with reawakened at the right moment. we know it's lurking within the american people. and this might be the most important lesson going forward that we here at the cato institute and elsewhere should keep fighting and keep talking about the constitution, keep talking about liberty and keep talking about the federalism structure we have and make sure that discussion's ongoing. because when something big comes along like obamacare, we have the foundation, we have

speaker, this is not the republic the framers intended. when they created congress and when the people approved the 17th amendment appointing themselves the electors of the senate, they wanted to ensure government was accountable to the people it serves. the more we undermine campaign finance laws, the further we get -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. davis: thank you. mr. speaker, this shut down has affected more than just the government. we all need to understand that. yesterday i learned that a veteran-owned small business in my district who contracts with the navy has had to furlough its workers. because they are not federal employees, they won't be receiving back pay when the government resumes full operations. lost pay will have a terrible impact on these employees and their families, but their absence is also seriously af

of thiswhat the framers legislation wanted and what the president really wanted. that is one thing. price being charged -- we hoped in the marketplace the plans are competing with price and quality. in fact, the premiums being offered in these exchanges so thanre around 20% less what the congressional budget office projected they would be. why is that? we know that competition works. having transparency works. these plans are competing for large numbers of uninsured americans. they want to be in there and they are being very aggressive about getting good prices and offering good prices. that is effective. some of the insurers came back and said can we lower them because they saw what the competition is offering. that is the market we need to bring -- we need to bring costs down. part that isn't working perfectly is customer experience. i am proud of what my former colleagues have done. this is unprecedented. it is very hard. the experts have said this kind of effort would tax the best minds. it is tough. some of the challenging news -- the third thing that is working so far in the w

the time before the constitution that provoked the framers to write the constitution was a time when government did not work. we're in a similar time. that is why what we're doing here today is such an important and very heavy responsibility. the importance of doing something. the best thing we can do for the economy is to show the american people we can do it. that week and work together and find a solution. two thirds of the economy is driven by consumer spending. confidence is instilled by the government being at least modestly functional. which it has not been recently. does not have to be a comprehensive solution. real,s need to be significant. at least needs to take us through september 30, two thousand 14. my second wind is the fiscal situation is serious. -- september 30, 2014. doodling a bitp about what would happen if interest rates went from two percent-four percent on that which is not at all unexpected in terms of public debt. if that is the case, $17 trillion debt, four percent would be 680 billion dollars per year, which exceeds the defense budget and intelligence budg