30 other conservative leaders, which is just about everybody in the fiscal conservative movement, which said we need to look at reducing pentagon spending, and look at defense spending. somebody had said you cannot possibly cut anything out of the defense budget, including the $100 billion per year we spent to occupy afghanistan, a country with a gdp of about $14 billion. i am not sure how we do that, but we do. is that something we intend to do for the next 50 years? $100 billion occupying this country? we are occupying iraq. how long do we intend to do that? at some point, one presumes that amount of resources can be saved out of the budget. the other question you up to look at is, what is the best non-partisans successes in reining in government spending, congressman sharp, democrat, indiana, a republican in texas, they came up with the base reduction realignment. originally, the army said, here are the 20 silliest defense structures in the united states. courts set up to keep boston being invaded from raiding ships. it does did not make any sense anymore. immediately, senators and congressmen in those congressional districts went and traded their boats to defend the wasteful spending on an unnecessary basis for subsidies and other destructive spending. we made negative progress on behalf of waste. they said, the commission will come up with what bases to close. there have been perhaps seven of those, largely successful, once in awhile, someone stepped in and fiddled with it. bush number two stepped in and fiddled with it. i think it is unfortunate. it was done for political purposes. we can avoid politicizing those. that kind of approach was one that was successful when it dealt with not spending additional resources. that can save billions of dollars out of defense. how much defense do we need? that is something we need to look at. if you take it off the table, it is not as defense waste. if you say that has to continue, then people who want to spend money on non-defense spending will hold hostage that wasteful spending. you only get wasteful spending on defense if we get wasteful spending on this program over here. every dollar the pentagon spends cost you two dollars because it is matched by additional spending elsewhere. [laughter] if you care about a serious national defense, you need to be very serious about stripping out waste. we have $600 hammers underlining the case for a natural defense. i am all for keeping an eye on the canadiens. we need a strong national defense to make sure -- that said, we ought not be wasting money anywhere. someone without their sacred cows has to recognize other sacred cows, and nothing gets done. >> we should be aware of the russian phenomenon. the country tried to compete on the basis of defense. it brought it economically internally. i do not like governments with ideologies, like with china. they do not have a fiduciary responsibility. them having this much debt for our country is not good. >> one of the most exciting things coming out of the commissions is a potential for an agreement here on serious reduction in waste in the military. i know a lot of people on my side of the aisle who agree with your remarks. >> if you go to ron paul's website and see some of these speeches, he is very strong on that. >> there's another piece to this. i joined with a group called right on crime. they are right of center activists. we look at the criminal justice system, look at successes from texas, from texas, on how many people want to be in prison. people should be in treated in prison because you're scared at them, -- scared of them, not because you are mad at them. it is expensive to put people in prison. the prison guards union is an expensive union. the cost of putting people in prison is quite high. we need to look at other ways to be serious about crime. i came into politics as an anti- communists. i was very concerned about foreign policy and crime. that does not mean we should be fula set -- foolish and waste money. the legitimate function of government ought to be done with reasonable price and focus on how much they cost. the legitimate functions of government ought to be left to other countries to mess around with. it is not just defense. it is the question of incarceration and the criminal justice system as to how we can effectively have less crime to the extent that people can be rehabilitated, and that we do it at the lowest possible, reasonable cost. >> let's hear from you. back here. we will have a microphone. >> thank you. my name is jeff. i am an independent consultant. i want to talk a little bit about the disconnect lisa mentioned. she mentioned it in the context of social security, which has never can -- contributed a single penny to the deficit. later, today, i believe, just up the street, the president will sign a tax bill, which will be the biggest deficit increase of his administration. i have hardly heard that mentioned that all during this panel. there seems to be a particular disconnect with the members of the deficit commission. there were "representatives who met for months and months, and talk about deficit. now, the majority of them voted for this tax bill, which drastically increases the deficit. i want to know, how do you have plans to kind of bridge that gap between discussions about the deficit and enacting it into policy? >> for my part, i am actually -- i am opposed to that deal. i am very concerned that this is supposed to be a one-year payroll tax holiday, and after that, it reverts to the former level. the trust fund is supposed to be credited. that is unprecedented. i worry whether the democrats in congress and whether obama will stand behind that deal, and say, okay, we bring this tax back, rather than having a permanently lower social security tax, in which you double the long-term shortfall. i am concerned about that. as far as the deficit, i am 0 concerned about the deficit. we have 9.8% unemployment. the reality is if we found the waste, fraud, and abuse come and cut its budget, he would be cutting the economy. no mechanism will bring that into the private sector demand at the moment. there are stories about crowding out interest rates. i am not troubled by the deficit. i will point out that i think the deficit hawks have been disingenuous on this. they're using this economic collapse as a cudgel for beating back programs like social security and medicare, that many of us to value highly. the reality, the debt we incur right now is not a burden on our children. it is coming at the expense of great from employment. in fact, there's no reason why the federal reserve cannot buy the debt, as it is doing, and hold it indefinitely. that means each year, you have the federal reserve board all of the debt, getting interest from the treasury, at the end of the year, it pays it back. they pay back $77 billion last year. there is no reason why we cannot do that when we have to worry about inflation becoming a problem, hopefully not too far in the future. if we need a precedent for this, japan's central bank opened amounts of debt equal to its gdp. that would be about $16 trillion in the united states. they don't have a problem with inflation. >> i think washington makes its best decisions when there is a crisis. we are about to create 1. my senses when we get there, we will see deficit reduction of some sort, whether it is a trigger that was somewhat proposed in the whole simpson plan, where we begin a process where you don't make a plan, things began to happen. the senate orin house, it will happen. >> what is the deadline? >> the second quarter. >> if we have deficit hawks who worry about the deficit -- i think we have had a lot of blame on both sides. part of it has to do with the fact that it is a long-term deficit issue being different from the short-term issue. what do we do in the short run? we think we should stimulate demand. look historically at what happened when we stimulated demand by running deficits. they got followed by times where we started to run surpluses or we reduced the debt quite drastically. it was due to the fact there was discretionary spending that did not have automatic growth in it. the long-term issue is unique in our history. we have a spending curve largely due to the growth in health care, and this rapid growth in number of retired people. the way we have structured some of our retirement programs, the spending curbs is growing faster than the economy. it never comes around. you have got to get to the long- term issue to get the budget in order. where the rubber hits the road is for the first time in u.s. history, in 2009, we were at a point where when congress walked in the door, every dollar of revenue have been spent. we had cut taxes enough and loud this automatic growth to grow enough that the automatic spending, the entitlements, including interest on the debt, was in excess of the revenues. every decision congress made on the discretionary side, to anything it wanted to expand to deal with the deficit, to deal with the recession, had to come out of financing additional deficit. to confuse the long-term and short-term messes up our ability to figure out how to solve these problems. the debt commission has the right focus. it is mainly on the long-term. none of them came back for doing anything in the first year or two at all. their focus was trying to get at this long-term problem, which is very serious. the problem is, because it is long-term, it has been allowed to get so bad, and it has weakened the case of the people who do think we need short-term stimulus. they dodged the long-term issue. by doing that, the debt constantly grows. it is putting additional pressure on the system to solve the long-term problem by doing short-term fixes. it reduces our ability to have stimulus by dodging this long- term issue. >> i have three comments to try to provoke you in throwing things back at me. first comment is, general agreement in the first part of the discussion that you have to talk about fiscal policy, not about budget deficits. we ought to be talking about how to create a gross economy that can compete in a very competitive world, with the appropriate-sized government, tax rates, tax system, appropriately designed programs, appropriate investments, in order the united states is the most competitive country in the world come at a time when there are lot of other competitive -- competitors who also have other advantages in place. that discussion we rarely have. what should our overall fiscal policy be? i fundamentally disagree with all of you in that you then proceeded to take off the table anything you cared about as one of the tools to create that this policy. in each case, if there's going to be a so-called cut, that must be reinvested in my thing. we saw this with the health care bill. many of the items that used to be on the table for deficit reduction went to pay for the vast expansion of our health care system. similarly, social security advocates will say it needs to be reinvested in social security. grover would say it has to be reinvested in bringing down the tax rate. everyone takes off the table the biggest things where you could actually have an impact on fiscal policy. >> let me just say -- the only one i took off the table was investment in investment in children. >> the one thing you learn is there is somebody who loves it all. all of it has flaws. you sit through these reviews. there is someone who loves every piece of the budget, every piece of the tax code has a flaw. every piece of the regulatory system has a flaw. the third point, and this is more admonishment to a fellow democrat, when you reject the markets as a tool for allocating resources, understand what you're doing is appointing washington, our little budget office, the congress, and our regulators, to then do that allocation. when i sit and think about having a national health budget, for example, and we are going to determine whether or not we have enough doctors in sioux falls, south dakota, based on somebody here making that determination, it causes me a great deal of difficulty, because it cannot be done. it is the best way, ultimately, to undermine the authority and prospect of government to ask the government to do something that it nor any other big entity can do. i don't understand how many of our big corporations are able to function with 150,000 employees worldwide. the idea that government can make these decisions is hard to believe. in the health care area in particular, it is so close to people's hearts. i never quite understood why health is more important than food. none of us believe there should be a government farm. none of us believe we should get -- have a government store. there is a system of assistance through vouchers, cold food stamps. if you apply that to health care, we think this bind the government has its own hospitals, its own distribution system, and vouchers there would be a horrible thing. health is somehow different than food. the last point i take on this is the viewpoint about the difference in cost. it turns out we do have some competition in health care. not a lot, but some. it can cost you have as much to get treated for the same disease with the same outcome if you go to rochester, minnesota, as opposed to miami, florida. competition even in this horrible system we have got in health care -- expecting that we really can allocate in an economy like this and do it right really sets itself up to fail, regardless of your philosophy. can it be done? in my experience, when the government was somewhat smaller, and mind you, but it was balanced, is that it cannot be done. we don't have enough people. if we did, it would make a lot of mistakes. that would undermine the authorities and reputation of the government to the extent it could do it. >> i feel somewhat admonish. let me pull pullout, the government already does do a lot of these things. they decide how many people going to meant school. we restrict the number of people in med school. during the clinton and ministrations the number of people brought into the country was cut in half for medical school. i do not imagine micromanaging the health care in this country, but i do envision -- i would love to get rid of patents on prescription drugs and medical equipment. no one should ever be looking at paying $1 million for treatment for your prescription drugs. we set up the question the wrong way. we will get the wrong answer. mind you, -- my view is not one the necessary to "reject necessarily requires more government intervention -- my view is not one that necessarily requires more government intervention. i understand we are lending the money from the trust fund, but under a law that goes back to social security. i would be opposed to cutting social security. if we did cut it, we would say, we should not be taxing people and using it to fund the pentagon. i don't think that is very honest. the last point, again, i was not saying that in jest when talking about europe. it is not my ideal way of forming a health care system. if you have vouchers, it would produce savings. i see no harm in it. sarah palin as saying everyone's grandmother is dying because they don't have health care. people have the option to go to canada, to england, to these places, and put money in their pocket. i think it would give us better perspective about the world. i do not know how many hospitals there are on the canadian side taking in americans coming across the border. >> i direct the economic policy department. the question is for you. there is a handy chart on all of our chairs. it represents a kind of work that has been done over the last 12 to 18 months. they came up with ideas on how to tackle a national problem. to every -- everyone of them has taxes on the table in some form. most of them in some significant form. yet, one has to sign the pledge to make it to the republican primary. it is getting back to the point that the door is closed for discussion about any one of these options once you sign that pledge. my question to you is how in the world can and elected representative give this issue to someone else? that is what republicans do these days. this chart suggest that they cannot be. how do you square that circle? how do you take the pledge seriously trying to square that circle? >> it is a commitment. somehow it was pulled back. he was replaced by a senator who promised the voters of ohio he would not vote for a tax increase. this is a commitment that is misunderstood by the voters and citizens of the state of the senators and congressmen who represent that state. take a look at states like new jersey or the governor is not raising taxes. they took $10 billion. some states say taxes are going down and they can negotiate. i think what is most exciting is not washington, d.c., which will be under gridlock for the next two years -- there will be a disagreement about what direction the government should go in. we have 21 states with republican governors and republican legislators. they are not going to raise taxes. pennsylvania, ohio, wisconsin, texas, florida, south carolina, and georgia. we have some states with democratic governors -- california, illinois, and massachusetts. it is very constructive for people to take a look at those states that are open to tax increases and those states where elected officials say they are not going to raise taxes. that is the difference in the approach. it you have a problem with spending, raising taxes does not solve the problem. you are an enabler, -- taxes off the table are the only time we get spending restraints. it is one of the things that is misunderstood. from 1993 you that the clinton tax increase which passed with only democratic votes. from 1993 until three weeks into the obama administration when he raised taxes on people who earn more than $250,000 a year -- that 16 year. without tax increases. that is the longest time without tax increases. it also had a collapse of the clinton spending plan. they did not spend as much as they planned to bid for the republicans took over the house and senate. >> is that not the point? we did borrow during that time -- we had a surplus when it was over. we went to the decade of george bush and the big deficits under george bush. we had the collapse of the financial market. that turned us back to the era where we only deal with one side of the equation. that is not an answer. you need a plan on both sides of the equation. that there is a spending problem, that should be dealt with. that does not mean we will never again raise revenue. >> i did not at the time and i do not now associate myself with plan. spending >> i do not want to avoid -- divide the government that way. big giveaway between the tax cuts in the spending increases is the other side of the balance sheet. we have gone to a government that has operated since 1997 with spending increases for entitlements and interest on the debt. it has been defense increases and tax cuts. that does not balance the sheet. politically, the dilemma is that what we are into at this point in time is going to the public and asking them to give up something. that includes the middle class. we have not been there for 13 or 14 years. it will be a fundamental problem. it will include taxes. i think the tax you collect is not from the public. by reducing spending or reducing the taxes you have to collect to support that spending, the fact that we spent $30,000 now every $10,000 to be paid by our children does not mean it is not a tax. we -- if you want to cut long running spending, you have to cut taxes. >> i want to thank the aspen institute. >> next, president obama assigns the tax cut and jobless benefits bill into law and then house minority leader john bennett talks about the agenda of the 112th congress and live at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on "washington journal." >> the united states via richard nixon today on radio. >> we are bound to something important issue in the administration of criminal justice and that is whether the president can withhold material evidence from the corporate there is an assertion that that evidence involved confidential communication them listen to the argument on cspan radio at 90.1. >> i can only sort of get people to consider the words of daniel l. berg that we have a serious case here where the obama administration is trying to create new law through changing the interpretation of existing law. >> at the justice department considers the legal case and congress with its options, see what journalists, lawmakers, and founder julian assange said about wikileaks online on the cspan video library. search, watch, a share, washington your way. >> as the tax cuts -- at the tax cut and unemployment benefits bill signing, president obama said should be a future model for other issues. the bill passed the house last night to its 77-148. it extends all bush-you're a tax cut for two years and extend unemployment benefits for one year. it includes a new 2% tax cut for all americans. this is about 15 minutes. is about 15 minutes. is about 15 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the vice president of united states. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you all very, very much. please, be seated. ladies and gentlemen, i was going to say this is a big deal but it is an important deal. [laughter] i can no longer say big deal. [laughter] thank god, my mother was not around. the 18th century statesman edmund burke once said," all government, indeed, every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every project act is founded on compromise and harter. -- harter. and barter." this is both sides coming together to act on behalf of the american people at the time they need it most. i want to begin by applauding senator mitch mcconnell and the other republican leaders who, like their democratic counterparts here today, were willing to take issue with some of their own party and do what was necessary in order to move the country forward. that is what the american people expect of all of us, especially in these times. that is what we have done here. it means accepting some things we don't like in order to get the job done for americans as needs to be done we are put in office to protect and rebuild the middle class. throughout the process, we are working with two principles in mind -- grow the economy and support working-class families and that is what we fought hard to do. i stand here today to say that our fight has paid off. most economists, many of whom are in this room, would tell you this plan will grow our economy in the next year. it will help millions of families keep their jobs if they have one and keep their unemployment benefits if they don't. it will keep their tax relief and keep their kids in school as well. this will keep our economic recovery moving in the right direction, providing an immediate economic jolt and giving more than 150 million americans held or they need it most, in their paychecks. in their wallets. i believe it was the right thing to do. this is an example of what can happen when you have a president who knows what needs to be done and acts tenaciously to make sure it happens. the president wholeheartedly committed to serving the middle class. that is what happens when you have a president who knows in his gut that the middle class as the backbone of the american people and a full economic recovery will only happen if the middle class have support they need in order to succeed. ladies and gentlemen, the president of united states, barack obama. [applause] >> thank you everybody. thank you. thank you so much. thank you very much. thank you everybody. please, please, have a seat. good afternoon, everybody. before i get started, i want to acknowledge some of the expert repeople who did some extraordinary work in a short period time. i will start with somebody who has been a champion for the middle-class but has also been an extraordinary partner on every important an initiative in this administration, my friend joe biden, the vice president. [applause] i want to acknowledge and thank senator mitch mcconnell and the rest of the republican leadership in the senate. dave camp republican in the house for their willingness as joe indicated to do what was right for the country even though it caused occasional political discomfort. i especially want to thank the folks who are here, dick durbin, max baucus, danny davis, allyson schwartz, bob andrews, part of a broader team that worked diligently in the house and the senate on the democratic side to make this happen. we have a bunch of other members of congress who are here as well as activists and economists and business leaders, people who generally recognized at this critical juncture that we got to think about what is best to grow the economy and what is best to put people back to work. we are here with some good news for the american people this holiday season by a wide bipartisan margin, both houses of congress have now passed a package of tax relief that will protect the middle class, that will grow our economy, and will create jobs for the american people. not only do i want to thank all the leaders here today but i want to thank mayors and governors from across the country who could not be here today. and all work together to get this done. first and foremost, the legislation i am about to sign is a substantial victory for middle-class families across the country. they are the ones hit hardest by the recession we have endured. they are the ones who need relief right now. that is what is at the heart of this bill. this bipartisan effort was prompted by the fact that tax rates for every american were poised to automatically increase on january 1. if that had come to pass, the average middle-class family would have had to pay an extra $3,000 in taxes next year. that would not have been just a blow to families, it would have been a blow to our economy just as we are climbing out of a devastating recession. i refuse to let that happen. because we acted, it will not happen. not only will middle-class americans avoid a tax increase, but tens of millions of americans will start the new year off right by opening their first pay check to see that it is actually larger than the one day get right now. over the course of 2011, 155 million workers will receive tax relief from the new payroll tax cut included in this bill, about $1,000 for the average family. this is real money that will make a real difference in people's lives. i would not have signed this bill if it did not include other extensions of relief that were also set to expire. it is relieved that will help families cover the bills, parents raise their children, students pay for college, and business owners to take the reins of the recovery and propel this economy forward. as soon as i sign this legislation, 2 million americans looking for work lost their jobs through no fault of their own, can know with certainty that they will not lose their emergency unemployment insurance at the end of this month. over the past few weeks, 600,000 americans have been cut off from that lifeline but with my signature, states can move quickly to reinstate their benefits. we expect that in almost all states, they will get them in time for christmas. 8 million college students who would otherwise would have faced a tuition hike as soon as next semester kohl will instead continue to have access to a $2,500 tax credit to afford their studies. 12 million families with 24 million children will benefit from extensions of the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit and when combined with a payroll tax cut, 2 million american families who otherwise would have lived in poverty next year will instead be lifted out of it. [applause] and millions of on trend towards who have been waiting to invest in their business will receive new tax incentives to help them expand, buy new equipment, or make up rates. that will free up other money to hire new workers. putting more money in the pockets of families most likely to spend it, helping businesses invest and grow, that is how we will spark demand. we will spur hiring and strengthen our economy in the new year. now, candidly speaking, there are some elements of this legislation that i don't like. there are some elements that members of my party don't like. there are some elements that republicans here today don't like. that is the nature of compromise. yielding on something each of us cares about to move forward on what all this care about. right now, what all this care about is growing the american economy and creating jobs for the american people. taken as a whole, that is what this package of tax relief will do. it is a good deal for the american people. this is progress and that is what they sent us here to achieve. there will be moments, i am certain, over the next couple of years in which the holiday spirit will not be as abundant as it is today. [laughter] moreover, we have to make some difficult choices ahead when it comes to tackling the deficit. in some ways this was easier than some of the tougher choices we will have to make next year. there will be times when we won't agree and we will have to work for those times together. the fact is, i don't believe that either party has cornered the market on good ideas. i want to draw on the best thinking from both sides. wherever we can, whenever we can, it makes sense for our country's success and our children's future to work with people in both parties who are willing to come to the table for the hard work of moving our economy and our country forward. what happened with this economic package was a good example. a bipartisan group made up of the senators balk as and kyl and representatives van hollen and kent sat down with secretary gunnar and the director jack liu to begin negotiations in good faith. leaders like nancy pelosi, john boehner, harry reid, and mitch and other members who are here together worked to bring this bill across the finish line. the final product proves that when we can put aside partisanship and put aside what is good for some of us in favor of what is good for all of us, we can get a lot done. if we can keep doing it, we can keep that spirit. i am hopeful that we will not just reinvigorate the american economy and the work force, i am also hopeful that we might refresh the american people's faith in the capability of their leaders and to govern in challenging times. the leaf and the capacity of their institutions in this town to deliver in a rapidly changing world. most of all confidence that our best days as a nation are still ahead of us. to all of you who worked so diligently on this issue, thank you very much to those on my staff who were working night and day on the senate and house staff and both parties working so hard, we are very grateful to you. with that, let me sign this bill to make sure that people will see a bigger paycheck come january. [applause] [applause] >> there we go. [applause] [no audio] >> thank you, everybody. [applause] [applause] [inaudible] [no audio] [no audio] >> happy birthday. >> happy birthday. [no audio] >> thank you, everybody. [applause] >> house minority leader john banner vows to push for a bill next year that would fund the government at 2008 levels. he praised the senate for dropping efforts thursday to pass a package of spending bills known as the omnibus. the incoming house speaker also talks about the republican majority's agenda for the 112th congress. this is about 10 minutes. >> american spoke out in the omnibus bill got scratched. yesterday was the anniversary of the boston tea party. this is a new thought for washington but you might be surprised what you can accomplish when you listen to the american people. it is not enough, however, to hold the line on spending. we need to cut spending. that is what the american people want. it is what our economy needs. there is still many in washington who believe otherwise. they believe government spending is what spurs our economy and creates prosperity. beginning on january 5, the american people will watch their congress do something differently. , at least in one house. beginning in january, the house will become the outpost in washington for the american people and their desire for a smaller, less costly, and more accountable government. the president's agenda may be the agenda of washington, but beginning january 5, the agenda of this house will be the agenda of the american people the people's priorities will be our priorities. we have laid the groundwork for action and in the 45 days since the election, under leadership of our transition committee ourgreg walton and others, we have banned earmarks, a raised to have cameras installed in the rules committee, we have reduced the size of committees so they can work more effectively and do a better job of oversight. we have also instituted reforms like cut as you go which makes it harder to increase spending in washington. these reforms have put this in a position to start immediately in january on the challenges that the american people are demanding that we address. it starts with a pledge to america and it will start with jobs. congress has acted to stop all of the tax hikes that were scheduled to go into effect january 1. it is a good first step but let's be clear -- if we actually want to help our economy get back on track and began creating jobs, we need to end the job- killing spending binge, we need to cut spending significantly, and we need to provide more certainty to small businesses around america. doing this will require tough choices. we will start first by cutting our own budget. it will be one of our first votes. we will then turn our attention to the rest of the federal budget and the job-killing policies that are denying economic growth and opportunity for the american people including killing of the job- killing health care law. we cannot borrow and spend our way to prosperity. the american people know that. i think the government's failure to recognize this has led to the uprising we saw over the last year that helped create a new majority in the house. we are ready to get to work. we are ready to be held accountable. as i said before, if we don't do what the american people are demanding, they will throw us out of here in a heartbeat. not quite yet. questions? >> on the earmarks, were there other issues on the omnibus bill? >> i think the spending levels were totally out of control. nice christmas shirt. [laughter] >> on the question of spending, the tax bill will add about $400 billion to the 2011 budget. we have 681 in non-defense spending. it would be less with homeland security and va taken out where can you cut to compensate for this? >> if we want to close the deficit hole that we have in washington, d.c. with the budget, we need to cut spending and we need to have a healthy economy. is growing jobs in our country with more people taking care of themselves, their families, and back on the tax rolls. you cannot have a growing economy if you're going to raise taxes on the very people we expect to invest in our economy. >> you voted for the tax bill last night but what you say to conservative critics like sarah palin who called it a lousy deal? >> there were members that did not think the agreement on the tax bill was a good one. i have to tell you that from where i stand, our first goal was to stop the big tax hike that was coming on january 1. i made it clear going back over the summer, that stopping all the tax hikes was one of our main priorities for this lame- duck session. while there was an agreement, considering that the democrats control the house, the senate, and the white house, i thought on balance, it was worthy of my vote. >> you have talked about getting spending levels back. . >> do you know something about that i don't? >> i am assuming. you put talked about getting spending down to 2008 levels. where would those cuts come from? >> the house will certainly work its will when it comes to how we will cut spending. i will tell you that we're going to cut spending. >> when speaker hastert was leading the house republicans was that he would not bring up legislation if he did not have a majority. will you go with that same rule? >> i will run the house my way. i will work with members on both sides of the aisle to decide what to come to the floor and which should not come to the floor. i do not think we need to set up a -- hard rules and hard walls that get in the way of doing the will of the american people. if we are open to each other and we are willing to listen to the american people, we will have a good debate every day and a healthy outcome. >> you said that president obama will do washington's business and you will do the people's business. what is the difference? >> president obama makes the -- makes up the agenda for washington but the american people will set our agenda in terms of what we do here in the house. >> is this the last time that a compromise like this will happen? >> we will take it one day at a time. >> any discussions with the president or the white house to think this is a template for future compromise? >> i was glad that we could come to an agreement on stopping all the tax hikes. no one can predict what next month or next year will look like other than i have told the president the same thing i have told him over the past two years. i will always be up front with him, honest with him, and fair. i have also told the president that the american people have spoken. it is time for washington to listen. >> is there any reason why you did not take to the floor last night to support the tax compromise? >> no particular reason, i did not think i had to get in the wake them uy. >> more democrats voted for the tax bill that republicans last night. >> are you aware there are more democrats than republicans in the house? good try. >> nancy pelosi said a hard line against the bill. >> she took a hard line against the bill? i don't think so. the speaker took a hard line against the bill, there would not have been 138 or more democrats who voted for the bill. just look at the vote last night. it was a strong bipartisan vote in favor of the bill. because you saw all in all week that indicated the american people were in favor of stopping all the tax hikes. >> what about the two-year deal on the taxes? will you try to permanently killed the death tax or change the tax code? >> if we are serious about getting the economy moving again, we have to end all the uncertainty coming out of washington. that uncertainty has created, when you have a temporary tax provisions, two years is better than a tax hike on january 1 but it will not end the uncertainty. that is why we believe that making the tax cuts permanent -- let's make get the law of the land because it is the law of the land. it will end some of the uncertainties of people can make decisions about how to invest in business and the economy. >> when this expires, will the 2008 levels the the levels that house republicans introduced? ? >> i don't know what happened today, tomorrow, or sunday in terms of how we keep the government funded. i can tell you that all you have to do is go to the pledge to america and we outline pretty quickly and clearly that we believe that spending in 2008 levels is more than sufficient amount of money to run the government. >> [inaudible] >> we would like to do it as soon as possible. i outlined in august or september there are two things we want to accomplish. we want to stop all of the tax hikes for at least the next two years and secondly, we should have a funding bill through september 30 at 2008 levels before the stimulus and before that bail outs and other nonsense that has gone on. >> will you pass 12 separate appropriations bills? >> that would be our goal. i do not believe that having 2000-page bills on the house floor serves anyone's best interests. not the house, not for the members, and certainly not for the american people. we will have the time to do it. we could have done all the spending bills in an appropriate way if, in fact, there had been a budget agreement. let's go back to the fact that there was no budget this year. there was no effort to pass any of the 12 appropriation bills in either house. this is not the way the american people expect their government to be run. >> republicans succeeded in bringing down the ottoman this this week, is there any concern -- on the bus this week, is there a concern that republicans are not committed to the year marks? >> i am the leader of house republicans and good lord willing, i will be the speaker of the house and my attention will be on the house. the house has banned the practice of your marks. to many americans, they are a symptom of a broken washing ton. we will not have them. what happens throughout the rest of the town will be left to them. i would hope that they would listen to the american people and follow the example we will set in the house. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> next, live, your calls and comments on "washington journal ." then campaign spending in the 2010 elections and then a report by the national institute on drug abuse on teen drug use. >> the cspan networks providing coverage of politics, non-