Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20101104

rout leaders are strategizing on what is next. this morning, we want to hear from you about your expectations for these leaders pretty fun numbers are on your screen and you can e-mail us at c-span.org for a twe aet, cspanwj. let's begin with the front "page of usa today." compromise or conflict. do you want your elected leaders to compromise or do you expect gridlock. aboutsaid, we don't know house races that have not been called out there. you can follow along on our website come c-span.org. we still are aggregating the election results. we have a map you can go through and fighting out where it all stands. there are two independents that will likely continue caucusing with the democrats for it on the two as tennis and races in washington state, patty murray has a slightly 30 ishee hold on, she would colchis with the democrats bring their majority to 53. in alaska, it is likely that the republicans would win that race whether it is a joke miller or lee said mark caskey. -- joe miller or lisa murkowski has the right and. in.e how are you doing? we know what happened when obama first took office. he had a, that was so bad from george bush. [inaudible] we, as american people, have put that the republicans back in charge and you know what? we will get what we deserve. they are the ones who started this mess. they created this mess. although n say iso, no, no. we know what is going on in this society. we see what is happening. if the republicans have the money to create the jobs, they don't want to create jobs, they want obama to fail. that is sad. we are going to have some hard times in this economy. host: that was a democrat from san diego. republican from san diego, go ahead. caller: even a gridlock occurs, i think that will be good because what was happening with the obama administration and the democratic dominance in congress is they were rubber-stamp anything that obama was shoving towards congress. what they were doing, the democrats and obama, is they were reacting out of desperation. dominance in congress or in the assembly is going to shut that engine down, and it will make them more introspective, more thoughtful about passing more legislation that requires more money and putting as more into debt. and i really don't care if gridlock occurs. i think we are just heading towards destruction, and i think they need to start thinking that you cannot recover this economy -- in all fairness to obama, not one politician, no one, can recover this economy because the damage is so severe. it has been going on for so long, and it started actually with the clinton administration. but the key point is its politicians sound economic theory and research, only to make themselves look good in the eyes of the voter that caused this economic -- i am going to call it for what it is. it is another great depression. these people, our politicians, they need to stop trying to apply quick fixes, quantitative easing, stop listening to ben bernanke because i do not think he is the best adviser in this situation. and third, let the invisible hand of the market start taking control instead of having the politicians in control. >> coming up at 8:00 a.m. eastern time, we will be talking about what the federal reserve right now -- yesterday, $600 billion in asset purchases. quantitative easing is what is called. we will talk about what they are trying to do to stimulate the economy, coming up then. you said that gridlock in government is not such a bad thing, but then you talked about the economic situation. are you ok with republicans and democrats coming together on some major piece of legislation to address the economy, both sides making some compromise? >> no, i am not, because both sides are the ones that drove us into it, and is the quantitative easing -- there is an economic strategy in which central banks have the power to create something out of nothing. meaning that the money they are buying the treasury bonds from the banks with in exchange -- and in exchange the central bank is giving the money. this money does not exist. it is just paper money. the politicians believe the banks will then start lending and stimulating the economy. the banks are not going to lend this money because this money does not exist to land. this is just another fantasy created by politicians, fronted by economists like ben bernanke. >> we will talk more about it coming up at 8:00 a.m. eastern time. for the first hour this morning, we want to know what you expect this morning going forward from the election. the leaders of both parties were holding news conferences yesterday, talking about what they're thinking and how they are answering the call from the electorate on tuesday. house leader -- republican leader john boehner, who is expected to be the speaker of the house, yesterday held a news conference. here is what he had to say on the idea of compromising, working with the white house. >> last night the president was kind enough to call me. we discussed working together on the american people's priorities creating jobs. we hope that he will continue to be working with us on those priorities. but, as i said last night of the new majority here in congress will be the voice of the american people, and i think we clearly expressed that last night. we are going to continue and renew our efforts for a smaller, less costly, and more accountable government here in washington, d.c. host: president obama at 1:00 yesterday responded to what happened on election day, and also talked about working with republicans. here is what he had to say. >> that is why i am eager to hear good ideas, wherever they come from, whoever proposes them. that is why i believe it is important to have an honest and civil debate about the choices that we face. that is why i want to engage both democrats and republicans in serious conversations about where we are going as a nation. with so much at stake, what the american people do not want from us, especially here in washington, is to spend the next two years fighting the political battles of the last two. we just had a tough election, and we will have another in 2012. i'm not so naive to think that everybody will put politics aside until then, but i do hope to make progress on the very serious problems facing us right now. and that will require all of us, including me come to work harder at building consensus. host: president obama and presumably the next speaker of the house, john boehner, talking about working with each other. and mr. mcconnell yesterday said in "usa today," that he suggested the parties could work together on the $1.30 trillion budget deficit. a bipartisan commission is scheduled to release recommendations december 1 on possible spending tax -- spending cuts and tax increases and changes to entitlement programs. by the way, mr. mcconnell will be speaking at the heritage foundation later today at 11:00 a.m. eastern time. according to the national journal, he will be delivering a speech and reiterating why making president obama at a one- term president is the gop's top priority. from prepared remarks, he said, "if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the house spending bills, and the bailout, and cut the size of government, the only way to do all these things is to put someone in the white house who will not veto any of these things. we will be covering mr. macdonald -- mr. mcconnell's speech today live at 11:00 a.m. on c-span and c-span.org. to district heights, maryland. john, democratic line. go ahead. caller: it is amazing, after listening to the president yesterday, and listening to john boehner and hearing senator orrin hatch -- it's amazing how they are continuing the same lies that they told before the election. the president stood there yesterday and said what the government did was not a policy, it was an emergency when it dealt with the banks and it dealt with the automobiles. all those things he had to deal with as far as spending the american taxpayers' money was not policy but emergencies. that is the only thing that kept this nation from really going down the drain. and here they are right back with these same lines again. but what i would like to expect, which we will not get, is accountability and integrity. because no one is speaking of how the country got to the condition that it is in and who is accountable for it. nobody wants to look back and bring somebody up front. i mean, so me, personally, when i heard the leading republicans coming back with these same lines after the president made it very plain to the american people that the spending that he had to do was not policy but emergencies, and the republicans wanted to stop the extension of unemployment. it is amazing how these people have been misled to vote against their own best interests because of a certain element out there that just twists everything adlai's at about everything, and get them all emotionally -- and lies about everything, and gets them all the bush worked up. it is sad what is going to happen in the next two years. it is sad because when you have an ambition to stop the president, that means you are not going to try to do the people's business. that is what i'm looking for, absolutely nothing. host: more from "usa today," with specifics about what president obama said will be compromised on -- earmarked and spending bills and the promotion of electric cars, tax cuts for the wealthy. he says compromise is possible in that area as well. newt gingrich, speaker of the house in 1994 when the republicans took over congress then, says obama is not in a position to dictate policy. arlington, virginia, michael on the independent line. caller: hi. good morning. what i expect going forward is, i hope republicans can come to the table with ideas, something other than tax cuts to stimulate the economy. i hope that they can eventually get to the point to working with the president, to come up with good ideas in the economy and other areas. to me, i'm pretty pessimistic on that notion because if you're number one goal is to make the president a one-term elected president, then how committed are you to solving these problems? you are only committed to your political future. so that kind of rubs me the wrong way, and i just hope that the american people know what they have done by giving the republicans the house. host: michael, you are an independent, though. and you voted for republicans in the past? caller: in some cases i have, but my position now is that i want to see what is best for the economy, and i have not heard any single good idea come from the republican party in years. host: what about on continuing on with the bush tax cuts, giving them a two-year extension for those that are wealthy, or eight two-year extension across the board and then deal with it later? is there a compromise on that? caller: then what is going to happen after two years? will there be another extension? the tax cuts for the wealthy -- i understand it is astronomical, so at this point i believe that is not feasible. what have the tax cuts done now? host: "the financial times" says this this morning on this issue. the lame duck session and how they address the bush tax cuts -- "the election results have made it likely that more democrats, some of whom were peeling away from the party line before the polls, will make the biggest concessions and negotiations. this means they could either agree to temporary extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy or to lifting the threshold to a higher figure. he pledged to craft a solution that first of all does no harm and prevents taxes from going up for middle-class americans. however, democrats still will force two separate votes, one on tax cuts and another on extending relief for the wealthy. in a strategy dubbed the coupling, acted -- apt to be raised by republicans, which is more palatable to them, but apt to be resisted by republicans. republicans could still digging their heels and opposed it." charlotte on the republican line from georgia, go ahead. caller: are you there? my personal opinion about this whole thing is every election -- it took our country a long time to get in the condition that we are in. it was not an overnight thing, and people are yelling because obama has not done this -- he has only been in office for two years, for christ's sake give the man a chance. as far as the election goes, i have not heard anything coming from either side. the need to quit blaming each other, quit trying to take power. both of these houses what the power. the power to do what? because neither one of them is doing anything upset fighting each other. let's take off the gloves, take off the knives, but the dow come and work together. this country needs those people in power to work together to solve what our problems are. host: so you do not think this was a referendum on president obama? caller: you know something, president obama, when he was first elected, there were a lot of people in the press that were disrespectful to the band. people were saying he is not a u.s. citizen and all this other kind of crap. and i do not hear too many reporters out there stating what a person has to do in order to become president, the hoops that they have to jump through in order to prove who they are and that they have the right to run. host: that issue came up yesterday at the news conferences were both republicans and democrats talked about whether this was a referendum on the obama administration. haley barber talked about this issue. >> evened governors' races, this election was a referendum on obama's policies and the policies of the obama administration, pelosi-reid, and i would say a lot of democratic governors would agree with this -- going forward, governors believe that we can work with the congress to try to set things in a better direction. the voters yesterday voted against excessive spending, piling-up deficits, trillions of dollars of new debt being loaded on our children and grandchildren. a huge tax increase right around the corner in january. and a government-run health care system. we governors, because olives -- almost all of us have to have a balanced budget, we have to cut spending. host: governor haley barbour yesterday talking, the chairman rda.he our d >> i am doing a whole lot of reflecting, and i think there are going to be areas of policy where we are going to have to do a better job. i think that over the last two years, we have had to make tough decisions, but decisions that were right in terms of moving the country forward in an emergency situation, where we had the risk of slipping into a second-grade depression. but what is absolutely true is that with all that stuff coming at folks fast and furious, a recovery package, what we had to do with respect to the banks, what we had to do with respect to the auto companies, i think people started looking at all this, and it felt as if the government was getting much more intrusive into people's lives than they were accustomed to. maybe this is the agenda as opposed to the merit -- as opposed to an emergency. everybody understood the danger. we thought it was necessary, but i am sympathetic to folks who looked at it and said this is looking like potential over reach. host: you have heard from president obama and republican leaders talking about what this election means, but we want to hear from you. what does this mean going forward? tim, independent line. caller: i have got to say that this is the best political show in the country. after saying that, i have an idea for congress and the president. 1960's,the 1950's and one of the political hot buttons was the american taxpayers paying for the security of europe and japan. and here we are, 60 years later, doing the same thing. here is my proposal. sell to the european union for $2 trillion. do the same thing for all those other countries until -- for $2 trillion. that is $6 trillion. and then the money that we would save over 8 period of 10 years by doing that would be another $4 trillion. so there is $10 trillion we to say about our national debt . host: lin, a democrat -- to my land, republican, you're on. caller: the democrats do not get it. we want to stop the spending and have jobs. i heard yesterday said that republicans are the party of no. they are not the party of no. the democrats are the party of no because they're the ones who did the back room deals that would not let the republicans in. i get so sick and tired of the democrats calling in and bashing republicans. don't they care that we have all this spending to lead on our children? why can't we take the money that has not been used from the stimulus and put it back where it belongs so that we do not have to pay? host: but on this issue of the deficit and leaving it to american children and grandchildren, people who have calculated these numbers say is not just spending, you are going to have to raise taxes in order to get a big enough bite out of the deficit. caller: well, that was their problem. by him bailing out all of the automakers -- i know a person who had been dealership in michigan, and he did not want to give that up, but he was forced to. when we are forced to -- just like this health care i love what my health care is. i do not need the government in my face telling me that i cannot have my own health care, and that is what the president wide about. he said many, many times, you can keep your own health care. he said that, and all the people listening to this program and the americans know that. he lies through his teeth. if he thinks that he is going to work with republicans like he said, he is not. he is not a leader. he should not even be in that white house. it is not that he is black or anything like that, it is just the fact that he has a lack of experience. he has no how on how to run this country. host: health care is sure to be one of the issues that comes up. this is from "the new york times." , republicans will try to go about reforming it, repealing it. many have said it will be difficult to repeal the law, up -- but what republicans might try to do is not fun provisions in the law and in the house. also, next to that story, a scale back as possible in the financial overhaul law, that republicans may take some of the provisions back on that as well. in "the financial times," it says that in the lame duck session they will also offer other tests of fiscal policy, including debate on whether the government should make a to a good $50 payment to retired workers to account for the lack of cost-of-living adjustments social security next year and the extension of unemployment benefits expiring at the end of november. overall, it will set the stage for the release in december of the bipartisan commission on fiscal responsibility's recommendations. other challenges will follow early in the new congress with republicans likely to push through the more than $100 billion in spending cuts they pledged during the campaign. they may be rebuffed by congressional democrats, and administration officials concerned that the economy still need government support or at least insist that any fiscal retrenchment be delayed. as that debate unfolds, there could be a slow debt -- a showdown over the need to raise the debt ceiling in order to fund the government, which republicans may tied to their spending proposal. in a worst-case scenario, of political gridlock, this could result in a 1990's style shut down. stephen, democratic line in kentucky. go ahead, stephen. caller: i do not think there is going to be much change as far as what is happening now. i think that the president has tried to implement policies to save american jobs, with gm and chrysler. i am a democrat, but donald trump made a statement that you have to create things, and we are not creating any thing here in america. until they bring the jobs back from china, there are not going to be no jobs. host: at rouge, louisiana, claudia, republican line. good morning. caller: everyone has said that we're talking about what we are going to do, and they are just walking and talking. you can help all the -- if you cannot help the people that accomplish what the republicans in the bush administration destroyed for eight years -- they have been talking and walking and we need some action. we need to sit down and listen. how did you vote? caller: i an not registered in kansas so i just moved here. unfortunate. i am curious how the republicans and tea party are going to be voting on new passages of bills when they are financed by corporations that may be are not for the best interest of the middle-class. host: coming up that 8:30 a.m. eastern time, we will talk to dick armey, former republican leader, member of congress, was around for the 1994 revolution and he is now with freedom works, which has backed tea party candidates. we will be talking to him later on about that. let's go to dee on the republican line from birmingham, alabama. caller: i think we made history for obama becoming president, but look at what he has to walk into? he did not walk into a nice place where he can work and do the things, all the promises he made. but he was trying to get there and i think people were just not working with him. anything that president obama would do, it would always be on the news. we saw this coming, when we had no matter who was an office, nobody saying anything. by the time president obama died in, he has to do all of this in two years. i think he has done a great job of trying to help the american people. what president do you know would sit down and write letters and help a person who is about to lose their home or stay up and try to help everybody. host: what does it mean going forward? caller: i don't know because it seems like to me, the republicans, they are more for themselves and this seems like they don't want to work with him and that has been the problem all along. everybody needs to work together as a whole. not because you are republican, not because you are democrats, not because you are black, not because your wife and not because you are tea party. because we need him. on the alaska and washington said a racist. "usa today" is saying that in alaska they are formulating a plan to count the right in boats. not a recount. it will begin next week and it is likely to take a couple of weeks. in washington state that says senator patty murray is holding its small lead over republican general -- challenges dino rossi but hundreds of thousands of ballots are met -- left to be counted. the could be up to 1 million left to count and 14,000 votes separate the two candidates. on the governors' races, the front page of "the hartford currants" on the front page of the newseum. democrat daniel molloy was declared the winner of the top election official but it is not over. republican tom foley not only refused goods -- to can see wednesday, but he claimed victory. in chicago, another governor's race and that is undecided. it is in illinois. brady's hope fading. challenger bill brady publicly claimed to the hope that he could overcome democratic gov. pat quinn's narrow lead but top republicans privately expressed doubt about the math. also, "the chicago sun-times" has a picture of alexia giannoulias who lost his bid to take over president obama's senate seat. he and mark kirk, senator elect, sat down for a beer. jacksonville, florida. first of on the democratic plan. what do you expect a weak forward? caller: ok, first of all, we need to get to a point where we are not divided. a house divided will not stand. we need to leave the past where it is out. right now we can't do anything about the past. the thing about it is because we cannot do anything about the past -- i think that the parties to me to come together. i do think it is a good thing that we have a republican house and we have a democratic senate because it is going to make them work together. if they don't work together, it is not going to work, and the name blame will not be on the republicans, it will be on both, the republicans and democrats. no one is going to be booked to say, the republicans did this, and no one will be able to say the democrats did this. the only way we are going to move forward is we must come together. we must come together. if we don't come together -- all the other nations are looking at this. all the other nations are looking at this but the thing about it is, shoot, if they can't control their whole -- own house, what makes you think they can set policies in our house or set the agenda for our house and other nations. we are supposed to be the no. 1 continent around. host: anthony from washington, d.c. your thoughts on expectations going forward. caller: i would like to say -- start with my overall grade for obama is c. i think particularly talking about the bush tax cuts, because i think that is going to be the first real test of the new congress, even though it will be the old congress that is in. my frustration with the white house has been that the policies they have done, they have not reached out to come up with creative policies that are democratic in nature and increased it -- and republican ideas. for instance, regarding the bush tax cuts. personally i would like to see them all expire because we need to get our house in order. but i think there are some creative ideas that do exist in the republican platform. whether talking about a payroll tax or temporary cut in corporate taxes or something more creative. that has been a real frustration is that has not been real creativity coming out with plans that will push this economy forward out of this white house. host: a few pieces for you i want to point out this morning if you are interested in reading. here are senator profiles and "usa today," looking at the new face is coming up to the senate in january. richard blumenthal in connecticut, chris coons and delaware, marco rubio in florida. that is "usa today" with senator profiles but also "the wall street journal" looks at the freshman class in washington with several different candidates and house members, etcetera. if you are interested in reading that, that is an "the wall street journal." the washington post has a special 2010 election cycle piece this morning. they have one section looking at who will wield the gavel. looking at republicans likely in the house that will -- committee chairmanships when it changes hands. arkansas, charles, republican line, go ahead. caller: i believe it was lynn who called in and stipulated about the taxes and spending. believe me, tax cuts work. it has been proven. spending does not work. to get out of this whole we have to take about a 10% decrease to all federal employees, to all people that receive federal money is -- that includes me, that is retired, 10% across the board until we get this debt out of here and we quit spending, period. as far as the gimme gimme people, they have to learn basically if they can go to work, go to work. you can't take money away from people who create jobs. and all these people will call in and blame bush and blame obama -- bush had, since 2007, he had the democrats, they controlled the senate and the congress. and bush went along with everything they wanted to spend. he went along everything prior to a time republicans took control. the dems and along with this president, spent money like crazy, three times more than bush did. bush spent two times more than all the previous presidents. host: speaking of president bush, he is out with his memoir, coming out tuesday of next week. a couple of pieces in the paper. "the washington post" says in the story in the memoir, he approved water boarding. he makes clear he personally approved the use of that technique. and then "the new york times" in the arts section, it has of the review of the former president's book as well, if you are interested in reading that. dallas, carl, independent line. you are next. caller: as far as the question of what do i expect going forward, total gridlock. what i wish for is a different question. i really wish -- i know i am dreaming -- i wish what we could do is recognize that we have become so divided and some polarized by political philosophy that there is no real middle ground on which to compromise. rather than beating our heads against the wall and fighting each other, i wish they would get together and explore ways that they can de -- centralized power to the states. allow people to vote with their feet. allow states to determine on a more local level what political philosophies they choose to live under and make our states become miniature labs to see which philosophy works. maybe then we can come back together united under a policy that works. i really was that would happen. host: are you an independent? have you voted for both parties? caller: i got so frustrated this past election that i voted straight libertarian. host: how did you vote in the governor's race? caller: i voted libertarian. rick perry, i cannot stand. host: and bill white, the former mayor of houston question of caller: i can't stand him, either. neither one i think are being honest with the people. rick perry is coming out with a book conveniently arranged to release next week in which he finally says, we need to do something about entitlements. rick, it would have been nice if you would have run on that platform. just to make it an issue that's out in front of the public during election time. host: president obama yesterday talked about the issue of relating to americans. it was also addressed by the republicans as well. let me show you what the president had to say. >> when you are in this place, it is hard not to seem removed. and one of the challenges that we've got to think about is how the white meet my responsibilities here in the white house which require a lot of hours and a lot of work, but still have that opportunity to engage with the american people on a day-to-day basis. and to give them confidence i am listening to them. those letters that i read every night, some of them break my heart. some of them from not -- provide me encouragement and inspiration. it is hard, i think, for people to get a sense of how is he taking in this information. so, i think there are more things we can do to make sure that i am getting out of here. host: the republican leader in the senate mitch mcconnell yesterday talked-about future business and the senate given the house gains by republicans. here is what he had to say. >> it was the first-ever in the direction of changing what we have been doing in washington. there are two opportunities for that change to occur. our friends on the other side can change now and work with us to address the issues that are important to the american people, that we all understood. or, further change obviously could happen in 2012. but in the meantime we were sent here to work on the people's business. and over in the senate where the majority is not enough in any event, and it takes 60 votes, it is clear we have to have some kind of bipartisan agreement and hopefully that will be on the issues of spending and debt, which is what the american people are asking us to address. in other words -- we will see -- but i anticipate a enough democrats to come in our direction on spending and that so we can actually make progress for the american people. host: we are getting your reaction to what the republican leaders have to say about business going forward. what do you expect? wisconsin, democratic line. it did you hear the minority leader saying he expects democrats to work with them on the issue of spending and debt. what do you been? caller: i think they should try to work with democrats on some of the things that they want. i just want to make a comment about is this is a referendum on president obama. i think this election was a referendum on who's got the most money and who can buy out to what party. and the republicans got in because they were bought out by big business and that is what the bottom line is. big business wants to run this country. the health care, they will stop the health care. why? because the insurance companies don't want it. host: of the federal page of "the washington post" of the issue of money they have a piece about the self funded candidates. they said meg whitman, who wanted to be governor of california but lost her bid, spent about $175 million of her own money, $57 for each of the roughly 3 million votes she won. those and not isolated cases. they calculate out of 58 candidates that use 500,000 of more of their own money in federal races in 2010, fewer than one out of five won. eight of the top-10 lost but only gop senate challenger ron johnson of wisconsin, about 8.2 million, and house candidates scott rigell from virginia. back to your phone calls about what you'd expect from washington. chad on the republican line in washington. caller: getting back on target of the things i would like to see happen. the first point is the one has to remember these are your representatives. get on the email, get on the phone. get the information to your representative. that is what you elected. some what you want. you have to take care of the bush tax cuts but either create a new threshold, make a million dollars, whatever it is, come to an agreement and get it done, get it passed. come up with a way -- just like talking about meg whitman. money is senseless to her. a million dollars is like a penny for you and i. find a way to tax the old sturbridge where the money is no object. drop "don't ask, don't tell." those of us in the military, less than 1 percent, we join it for a reason. we joined for a cause. we all warriors. there to fight. we don't need to reflect current society. leave it alone right now. dropping. social security, set the record now. , with a date -- 1970 and older, you cannot retire for an additional seven years. pick a date. so those of us in our foreign policy and under can realize, okay, i have to work and all i am 70. got it, let's move on. host: paul ryan writes a piece in the papers this morning about that issue of what they need to do on taxes and social security, and addressing the deficit. we will try to find that for you. first, if you go to washingtonpost.com, the political cartoonist did a sketch of the election and it included a little bit of "washington journal." here it is. host: but does the still steadily in connection 2010 but this much we know, when the ones and 12 congress convenes in the capital on january 3, 2011, there will be nearly 100 new members and the freshman class. about 70 of them republican. at this point, no one has stepped forward to challenge john boehner for his speakership and harry reid will be returning as majority leader, at least for now. a notable losses from the democrats include committee chairs james oberstar -- host: austin, texas. vivian, a democratic white it would you expect a windfall? caller: i do not think too much. i expect gridlock. but i want to thank president obama for putting in two supreme court justices that voted against corporate personhood. and i would like to find martin luther king and the followers of martin luther king for giving this nation a backbone and share with us out to protest ourself out of a war. i brought two republicans with me to vote democrat this year. one of them that remembers the of $4 gas and one of them was father was union. i think that is a personal best for me. much outdon't expect of republicans. the juggernaut has one -- 1. -- won. the one thing i do love is that we purge of some blue dogs, who were republicans acted like they were democrat. we purge some out of the vote ranks. that is the best thing that happened this thing. maybe we can purge some more next time. i don't care if we go down to five members as long as none of them are blue dogs. obama, you have been acting kind of like a blue dog yourself. if you think that people want you to move to the center, you have been in the center all along and that is how you got where you are. people behind you are not behind you to keep up this war. host: "roll call" as the election by the numbers. 22 seats held by blue dog democrats slipped to republican. representative john dingell has been elected 27 terms. newly elected senators who were former house members, six. former house members are expected to serve in the senate, 49. set of siblings serving in 111 congress, four, in 112, two. a consent of losses by illinois democrat dan seals for the house of representatives, three. you could go through this list. a price of a lot for britta be set at a place an alloy called by representative elect bobby shilling, $17.50. more about the election yesterday. polls found a surge in conservative voters. exit polls showed a surge of voters identified themselves as conservatives. a nationally elected the electorate was more conservative than 2006 by nine percentage points and more so bad 2008 by seven percentage points. and more from the exit polls. also some exit poll results show there was a stronger showing for the tea party among older voters. 47% of those 60 or older said they supported tea party and only 26% ages 18 to 29 say they support the movement. more for you this morning on the election. both parties got a boost from latinos. that is less story in "the wall street journal's." as ben of voters turned out for republicans in the west but it says that -- hispanic voters turned out for republicans of the west but also in florida, etc., other states that elected republicans to office. here is "usa today" -- gop engineers historic shift in state capitals. gop candidates picked up about 650 democrat-held seats, the most in nearly a half a century. republicans now control more legislative seats than any time since 1928. what does that mean? it could have an impact on redistricting. a topic we will talk about coming up. harlem, new york. juanita on the independent line. caller: good morning, c-span2. thank you for taking my call. i don't expect anything until we get the nafta bill unsigned. we have to unsign that bill to bring jobs. nobody is making money off of that bill accepted bill clinton. he has sweatshops in haiti. he is making a mint. we have to unsign this bill and bring jobs back to america. we make everything. we have the capability. there are going to be new jobs with his green -- and we create new jobs. that is what making progress is all about. but we have to bring back worked to the american people. host: you can join in this conversation if you e-mail us. here is an e-mail -- tweet,want to send us a go to twitter.com, c-spanwj. alaska senator listen rakowski is confident. -- lisa murkowski is, compared she is poised and feels good. an interview thursday on nbc's "today" show. caller: give me a little time, please. i was going to say nothing is on to get done. the reason being is that this lady, i don't know where she is from, hollering that obama was on experienced and stop. like the other lady said it, we got rid of all of the blue dog democrats because they really wasn't democrats. i also know when george bush was in there, the republicans, i don't know what went down, it went, one thing i would give them credit, they will stick together. the democrats, this is a message from us to you. you fight for what you believe in. and president obama, don't you bowed down. if you are going to be a one time, it you better stand what you believe. if you have to put the bidault, bidault. that's -- if you have to put the veto, veto. when the democrats were against the war because we knew it was a lot -- like, all the white people called them unpatriotic but they were telling the truth. what we are saying is stand up for what you believe that and if it means the country shut down, shut it down. host: more numbers from election 2010. 376 years of democratic experience toss that parrot -- tossed out. "also likelybies close out after one term. if mr. obama is going to connect with voters he must confront the economic crisis emotionally as well as intellectually. he will need to focus not only on optimal policies but also on pithy message is. it does no good to have a great product and no one buys it. tea partiers are putting on their gloves. susan on the republican line. what do you expect? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i expect the congress to grow up and act like adults and work together to solve the problems of america. first of all, i would like to see them start working on the deficit by cutting spending for programs that are not necessary. there is a lot of wasteful spending going on with money going to multiple -- multiple funding for specific programs. that needs to be addressed. also they need to go ahead and take care of medicare fraud. they need to systematically defund of the health-care system -- obama health care -- and go back to the drawing board and come back with a bipartisan program that the american people can live with. they need to cut funding for reduced pay -- pay role of government employees and they need is a bit about the pension plan because that is what is bankrupting the state of the illinois. host: you may be interested -- paul ryan, who is going to become the budget chairman, he writes today in "the financial times" saying this -- how the republicans can fulfill their pledge. i believe we can begin to the modest changes, slowing the growth of benefits for wealthiest earners or indexing eligibility age for longevity. a viable alternative to the unsustainable status quo and they to be delivered by making no changes for those aged 55 and older who currently receive social security and medicare. that is paul ryan giving specifics on what to do on the deficit when it comes to entitlement programs. it is in "but financial times closed book this morning. pensacola, florida, on the independent line. caller: what i expect and what i hope to see exactly some gridlock. i did so far what we have seen is the dilution of what america really stands for. i have a couple of points about some of the things you said earlier. in relating to the ability to reduce the deficit by reducing taxes and cutting spending, it doesn't seem like they want to even try it first. they expect to have some sort of 100% plan. the easiest thing is if you personally wanted to reduce your spending, or you're out goes, you would have to reduce spending. you can't increase taxes. you can't force c-span to pay you more. logic has to show that by reducing the taxes -- it showed in the past that people will spend more. if you go to the store and introduce the price, you have the potential or initiative to buy more. i think that is a straw man people throughout. here is my suggestion -- the next time you have someone call up and have a problem with people reducing taxes, i am willing to set up a fun for anybody who wants to descend extra taxes, they can send the money from there. i never hear anybody say that they are willing to spend more. you ask them personally, and they are not. they want everybody to do it. host: we have a few minutes left to talk about what you expect going forward. i wanted to show you the current house speaker nancy pelosi. she did not come out of do a news conference but she did sit down for an interview with diane sawyer to talk -- and she talked about her future. >> what ever you going to do next? >> first of all, today i am talking to my members who courageously fought the fight, carried the banner and took the tough votes. that is what i am doing the day, and when i implore the end of doing that i will start thinking about what i will do next. but it was never about me. >> the president said it was sad. for you, sad, bruising? >> it is sad in terms of my colleagues who will to be coming back. for me, i am a professional. >> you didn't feel -- >> i felt before my colleagues, and i felt it for the american people because i do believe there is a distinction. >> we all have to talk to ourselves in the bullets when it feels bruised. >> let me tell you, when i get time for that, i will call you and i will let you know how it feels. because, first of all, i have not had a moment alone to think about myself. it is about how our caucus goes forward to continue our fight. >> the odds you will stay? >> in our caucus we always do things by consensus and when we have that consensus, we will have some announcement today. >> you feel you would have support to be the minority leader? >> as i said, i don't want to speak for my caucus at this time. >> what is the best thing about john boehner? >> well, i hope john boehner will be the speaker in a way that he leads. i hope he is not held back -- you have a convoy theory that the whole congress will go as low as the slowest to ship. american people waiting for jobs cannot have that convoy ferried. -- c.. . host: harry reid, who won his election bid tuesday, sat down for a radio interview and talked about governing going forward. here is what he had to say? >> republicans must take response ability to solve the problems of ordinary americans. simply saying no as they have this past congress, we have to procedurally -- it will not bring jobs back or help families to make ends meet. no is not the answer. it has to be a yes, combined yes, something we work at. consensus is yes. time for politics is over. elections are completed. so it is time to get back to work to get the country out of the economic ditch we are in. host: that was harry reid yesterday in a radio interview talking about governing going forward. we will continue our conversation about election 2010 at about 8:30. in 30 minutes, dick armey, part of the 1994 republican revolution and now with freedom works will talk about how the tea party candidates did, coming up. but first, we want to talk about this headline. fed fires $600 billion stimulus shot. an ap economics reporter will be with us. we will be right back. >> changes need to occur in congress. it is only going to occur if the people of our country really began to get involved in the political system and come over here and make changes that are necessary. >> that was john boehner at a roundtable in 1990. you can learn more about the presumptive speaker in the house through his own words in over 800 appearances, on line at the c-span video library. it is washington your way. >> it is harmless is a one -- if one is making a star out of britney spears or cher, but if one takes the notion of stardom in the national security grounds, lives are stake. americans after awhile it wise that the stars and the wizards and the best and brightest really might not be what they are cracked up to be. but in that fateful amount of time, texas and mayhem can come to rain. >> henry kissinger, robert mcnamara, donald rumsfeld, just a few of the foreign-policy leaders critiqued by author derica liebert on q&a. >> this week and on the c-span 3's american history tv, we will show some of the art created by japanese americans during their time in world war ii internment camps and also talk about the first televised presidential debate on its 50th anniversary and look at the increasing political and economic freedom of women in the early american republic. american history -- , all weekend, every weekend, on c- span 3. >> "washington from" continues. host: we showed this headline before the break, the fed fires a $600 billion stimulus shot. why? guest: the fed says the reason why it is acting is because unemployment right now is at 9.6%, and the economy is just stuck in this slow-growth rut. it is growing too slowly to bring down the unemployment rate. so when the fed looks ahead, it sees the unemployment rate around 9%, stretching into next year. so, unemployment is way too high and that will be a drag on the economy if people are worried about jobs and they are not going to get the pay raises from there and lawyers because the job market is so weak, they are not going to be spending. that means the economy is going to continue to be stopped in this slow growth abroad. so the fed is jumping in with this bold program and they are hoping cheaper loans will spur people to get out there and spend. host: how does this quantitative easing, as it is called, bring down unemployment? guest: ok, here is the hope. the hope is that, if the fed goes in and buys these treasury bonds, that will push down rates -- host: what are treasury bonds? guest: of the treasury department each week conduct these auctions and it says we need some money to run the government. so if you will loan us your money, so china goes and and if they buy a bond, it is and i know you. so china and other investors if uncle sam's money, and an uncle sam will have to pay an interest rate later on. so it is a loan, and the government does this to finance its deficits and debt and keep the government ruling. so the federal reserve is going to go in and buy bonds, $600 billion worth of treasury bonds of different directions. the hope is this, that buying those bonds will lower rates on mortgages and corporate debt that is tied to the bonds that the fed is buying. so you ask, how is this affecting unemployment? the hope is that if people take out loans and say i'm going to go now and buy a car because i can get cheaper financing, i will buy a house because i can get cheaper financing, or appliances or what not, that this will spur more sales for businesses. and if businesses see their sales rise and improve and they start seeing economic activity throughout the economy gets stronger, they are going to say, well, maybe i feel more comfortable hiring workers. perhaps i feel more comfortable going out and expanding operations. you know, at expanding factories or warehouses or whatnot, or building up inventories if the stockpiles look good. all that activity could mean that the companies will hire, and if they do so, the unemployment rate would slowly go down. host: so is the fed printing money to do this? guest: in fact, the fed has what is called its balance sheet, and its balance sheet is $2.30 trillion right now, and that is all the securities that it has on its books. so the fed can -- it is all the electronics that says we are going to buy these bonds host: 7 $5 billion about, a month? guest: correct. so that balance sheet will expand. it is at $2.30 trillion right now. so it will be roughly $2.9 trillion by the middle of next year by the time they complete this program. so that is where the money comes from. that is also a concern, that by putting all this money in the economy later on, it can create inflation. that is one of the concerns. host: there's also concern that a weaker dollar will come up. why is that a concern? guest: that is a concern because when the fed is pumping all this money in, it is basically diluting the value of the dollar. but now that could be a good thing because a cheaper dollar does help u.s. exports. it makes them more attractive to foreign buyers. it pushes down the price. that is good for jobs in the united states. jobs that are tied to the making of exports. that is a big business in the united states, so that is good for jobs. here is the fear -- that if the dollar starts to just plunge in value, you could have almost a , and otherensue countries will be trying to devalue their currencies because it helps their exports on foreign markets. you have a currency war, you have chaos, and when things get out of control, that is not good for anyone. it is not good for the average american, it is not good for local investors. host: we are talking to jeannine aversa of the associated press about this decision by the fed to purchase $600 billion in assets, called quantitative easing. we want to get to your phone calls, get your thoughts and opinions on this. what does it mean for you? what is the impact on the consumer? democratic one, columbia, maryland. caller: hi. i am calling because i'm very upset about what is going on as far as the fact that we are not building any thing, and i do not understand. there are so many projects that need to be done, and i am just wondering, when is somebody going to say let's just do this? let's start building things. when are we going to get back where we were? host: isn't that what the fed is doing, that this spurs invested by corporations, and manufacturers, to start building things? guest: that is right. your right. the fed is trying to get at this problem. right now companies are sitting on a near record of $1.8 trillion in cash, and they are not using that money to hire a lot of people or to really build things. so what will break this? companies need to feel more confident in the economy and where the economy is heading, and they need to feel more confident in the american consumer, people like you, that you are going to go out and spend some money and buy things. and it's hard because ordinary people are feeling nervous as well. so the fed also has to break through the nervousness, the caution that ordinary americans feel as well as corporate executives. host: ben bernanke writes about this today in "the washington post." chicago, independent line, david, your next four jeannine of versa. caller: i want to break up an issue on the other side of the coin, and that is whether we tighten up the supply and get people back to work, right now we are bringing in a lot -- 75,000, 100,000 foreign guest workers every month in the economy. this prevents american citizens from getting jobs, good-paying jobs, to have money in their pockets to spend and drive the consumer economy, which is 70% of the gdp. i do not know why congress is not tackling this. as a tech worker, but right now between 15% and 20% of the tech workers in this country are from foreign countries. it drives down wages and lessons demand. we have to look at the guest worker issue on the other side of the economy. guest: well, that is something that congress would have to deal with and review, and the administration as well. that is at the purview of the federal reserve. the federal reserve has letters that are aimed at affecting the overall economic-levers -- letters that are aimed at affecting the overall american economy. cheaper loans cannot force a company to hire someone, which is one of the risks in this entire gambled that the fed is making. host: and this is not the first time that the fed has tried quantitative easing. did it work the first time? guest: the first time, the quantitative easing worked according to the fed and lots of other experts all there. here is what was happening. the first quantitative easing program was much bigger. it was $1.7 trillion. the one we have now is at $600 billion. but at the time when the fed launched the $1.7 trillion program, the economy was in dire straits. it was during the height of the financial crisis, and the economy was in a deep recession. at that point, there were spikes in interest rates, so by the fed coming in, it really did drive down rates and bring relief across the board. the fed's program was really credited with helping the crippled housing market, which is a key part of the economy, and its problems led us into the recession. so the issue now is that the fed has a smaller program, and the economy, even though it is week, it is in much better shape than it was during the financial crisis of the recession. so no one expects that this program is going to pack as much punch as the original. host: dayton, ohio, becky on the democratic line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i draw a pension from the v.a. my husband was in the military. last year they did not receive a pay raise. they said that the cost of living had not gone up. so, i mean, if a person like me on a fixed income -- and i am sure there are other people in the same situation -- you know, they are listening from -- living from paycheck to paycheck, month to month -- how are we supposed to put any kind of money back into the system if we do not have any extra money to spend to begin with? guest: that is a good question, and that is something that the fed understands. because by the fed taking this action and driving down rates for borrowers, it also realizes that means that rates for people like you -- savers, folks on fixed incomes -- you are going to get meager returns. if you are living paycheck to paycheck and you are not seeing your investment in come through savings products grow, you are kind of -- your budget is kind of in a bind or can be in a bind. so that is one of the difficulties, and it is a trade- off. the fed has to weigh the pros and cons, and in this case it feels like the way to go is to try to get the borrowers to come back to life and spend more, even if it means that sabres will be hurt in the process. host: an e-mail from a viewer who says, "do you have a logical explanation as to why this government has to borrow money instead of printing its own? if the fed can do it, the government can do it, to." guest: every government across the world, or many of them, conducts auctions as the treasury department does, to raise money to cover its bills. so what the treasury department does is not unusual compared to other countries. and what the fed does in its powers is not ultimately unusual compared to other central banks. host: how does the fed have the authority to do what it is doing? guest: the federal reserve was created by congress in the early part of the last century, and it was created in 1913 and started operations in 1914. one of the reasons that we started it out is that these bank panics were any number of economic shocks in the comic or causing banks to fail just reeked havoc -- just read havoc on the economy and individual people. the federal reserve is independent, it is not funded through taxpayer money. the fed operating budget comes from mostly interest income it makes of its big portfolio of treasury securities. host: let's go to mount royal, new jersey. richard on the republican line, go ahead. caller: i am curious to know why, from what i heard, it has been five years with the trade deficit in china. i think it all ties together with the budget, with borrowing money. it seems to be like we're just digging a deeper hole to get a cheaper price. i just do not think it is going to work the way it is going. why can't we forced china into playing by the rules? guest: richard, that is one of the issues that the obama administration and past administrations have been actively engaged in, and congress as well. in so much of the united state'' relationship with china -- these are two global powerhouses -- there is an interconnection, a relationship between the two countries that are like a coke tendency -- a code dependency, but at the same time there is a competitive one -- trade. the united states government, the administration and congress, has been prodding china to basically let its currency rise in value. the administration and critics believe that china has been keeping its currency at an artificially low rate. what does that mean to you? what does it mean to americans? the argument is that it means that it makes it harder for u.s. companies that sell goods to china to sell them because it puts our -- it makes our goods higher priced, more expensive to foreign buyers. so this whole issue that revolves around the currency levels is something that the administration is actively engaged in. host: we are talking about the fed pause purchase in $600 billion in assets. the front page of "the wall street journal" as well as "the financial times." stafford, virginia, independent line. caller: i would just like to make some corrections in in the guest's comments relative to the creation of the fed. the fed was created when congress was out of session, and many of the people in congress or not there to vote. it is not federally funded, and is controlled by the top 10 banks in the country, and it lends money to the federal government based on what rate is. relative to quantitative easing, i will reference george carlin and his comments about every time that you want to make something softer or not so hard to deal with, you add a syllable. quantitative easing i believe falls into that category. the american people need to understand why the fed has a knee-jerk reaction at every level and continues to not manage its affairs in the best interest of the american people. host: is that correct, how she explained the fed? guest: i believe we are both saying the same thing in that it is an independent agency, not funded through taxpayer dollars. it is funded through operations, mostly the interest income off its investment that it makes on its portfolio, mostly treasury securities. yes, the federal reserve chairman is appointed by the president of the united states and must be concerned -- and must be confirmed by congress. the governors at the federal reserve in washington are also appointed by the president and must be confirmed by the senate. however, other members of the fed's policy-making team, which sets interest rates and makes decisions on quantitative easing, the size of the program for instance is the $600 billion program yesterday -- the group of people that are involved in that decision includes ben bernanke, the fed chairman, the fed governors in washington, all of whom are appointed by the president and approved by the senate. but also you have president of federal reserve banks around the country that are picked not by the president of the united states and not confirmed by the senate, but rather by local business people in their areas. that is very important because that gives the fed representation of not just inside washington but also outside washington. host: madison, nebraska. steve on the republican line. go ahead. caller: i am just wondering -- how is this supposed to instill confidence to business to start spending money? to me it seems like a last- ditch effort. what are the percentages of this actually succeeding, and where do we go from here if it does not succeed? host: steve, just at what you are saying, from "the new york times," the plan depends on banks first to loosen up purse strings. guest: steve, you are right, and this is why it is a gamble. just because this plan can make loans even cheaper does not mean that people are going to go out and take that. many people right now, many americans, are focusing on putting money into their savings accounts, trimming their debt, and watching their spending. that's because they have learned some lessons after having survived a very deep recession. with unemployment high, people are being a little cautious. by the same token, as you mentioned, businesses are sitting on cash and they are not confident. how does this instill confidence? this is part of the problem. the fed on the one hand is saying we are here doing all we can to try to get this economy jolted back to a healthy growth path. at the same token, it realizes it cannot magically change people's feelings about where things stand. host: our next phone call comes from eugene, oregon. martin on the democratic line. martin, you probably know this -- the governor's race in that state has been called. john kitzhaber wins that race. caller: i think this is a long- term problem, starting with former president george h. w. bush's new world order, where he wanted to level the playing field and we had the most to lose. our jobs are being exported out of the country. i just wonder what sort of hope we can find to bring jobs back. host: jeannine aversa, what is happening on capitol hill, or what could be happening on capitol hill to address that issue? guest: that is a good question. the bush-era tax cuts that expire at the end of this year, decisions have to be made on that pier there is a feeling amongst some economists that if the bush-era tax cuts are not extended, the economy could be in trouble because tax rates tax bills for virtually everyone will go up and the economy could suffer as a result. there are various pieces out there -- extending unemployment benefits that are due to expire for millions of americans at the end of november. that is something that is out there. business tax credits are out there. whether the lame-duck congress, which convenes on november 15 can get anything done, i do not know. then there will be a new congress elected. that will convene in january. there are many issues before them, but whether there is the political will, divided between a house now that will be controlled by republicans, at a senate that will be controlled still by democrats, a white house where president obama is a democrat -- whether all of these bodies can get together and make things happen is one of the unknowns. host: questions why president obama retained the same people at the treasury that got us into our current mess. that is a tweet. next call, good morning. caller: to think the american people and businesses have basically lost trust in the american federal government. why would they lose trust? well, they are upside-down in their mortgages or have lost equity in their house, and the congress wants them to believe this just happened. congress was complicit in creating the subprime mortgage problem. and they know that. until they establish trust back in the federal government, we are not going to be able to move this thing forward. and businesses -- they are uncertain right now. what is the federal government going to do to them and their tax structure? i do not believe the fed through this action is going to create that mind-set or correct that mind set. guest: those are interesting points, and you are correct. i mean, the fed cannot waive some magic wand and make people take all their worries away. you are correct that businesses have lots of things on their minds. they have feelings of uncertainty that cause them to delay business decisions because they want to have a better sense of how policy will play out in washington, or not, for that matter. so it just shows how complicated it is for the federal reserve, because not only is it taking this action, but it is also trying to break through these kinds of confidence issues that americans and businesses have, and also realizing as well that in washington there are also questions about what a new congress will do or will not do, given that there is a sense that debt is very high and they do not want to add to it. host: a couple of more phone calls here for jeannine of versa. bob in petersburg, virginia. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to understand how pumping billions of more money into the economy will help blue- collar workers. there is no money in blue-collar workers' pockets because the jobs have been shipped overseas. now that the republicans have taken back over, of course everything has been shut up. they cannot even afford to buy the gas to look for jobs. whatever money they put into the system is just going to go back into the hands of the richest people in the country. i would like for people to explain to me how pumping money in is going to help. host: how does it hit consumers? guest: again, the hope is that people like you will go out and take advantage of cheaper loans and go out and buy something, and that if enough people do, that will help sales at companies around the country, and in companies will be more inclined to hire more workers at factories other companies there is also this hope as well that by having the value of the dollar decline in an orderly fashion through the fed house action, that it will help sales of u.s. exports abroad, because it will make those products cheaper for foreign buyers. and that definitely, if that increase the appetite for foreign investors to buy our goods, these manufacturers are going to have to hire additional workers to work at factory floors. host: retweet -- "uncertainty creates uncertainty. companies do not trust the fed, the congress, and obama." you are on the air. caller: good morning, and i appreciate c-span. i wanted to ask a question regarding -- i am curious about the decision by the fed to do this quantitative easing. when not last week? host: is politics involved? guest: the question, david. the fed set out its meeting scheduled in advance, so last year we knew exactly which days the fed would be meeting. they are almost the same every year, so this meeting, the fed meets eight times a year for its regularly scheduled meetings, and this one was on the agenda. it was scheduled well in advance. so in terms of the timing, there is usually a meeting in november. there will be another one in december. they are six or seven weeks a papart. it is already set in stone. in terms of the fed's action, why did it take action yesterday versus waiting for the december meeting, or why did it not act at its last meeting in september? the way the economy is heading, it is getting weaker, losing momentum. we need to step up and do something. so he gave the signals and he had to get all of his people on board to do it, and they had to hammer out the details of what exactly they were going to do. so it took time, and part of that is why it happened yesterday at not in september. you might ask, why did the fed not wait until its next meeting in december? there is a feeling among policy makers that they realize that the economy is losing momentum and there are really no other options right now. congress will not step in and provide another major stimulus. there is not the political will or appetite to do so, and the fed feels like it has to use whatever tools it can use to try to help the economy recover. host: jeannine aversa of the associated press, thank you for talking to our viewers this morning. coming up, we will turn our attention to campaign 2010. dick armey of freedomworks will join us. he is also part of the republican revolution in 1994. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> it is 8:34 a.m. eastern time. following tuesday's elections, some have yet to be decided. in alaska, counting the write-in ballots will not continue until november 10. in the senate race in washington state between patty murray and steve rossi, one-third of the votes will be counted over the next two weeks. with the u.s. house headed for republican control, "the hill" reports that darrell west of the brookings institution says that republicans will likely ask the administration not to shred or delete any relevant documents that could be requested in a congressional probe. mr. west went on to say that a formal request could happen right away. because republicans want to make sure the documentary record is preserved so that they may have something to investigate. turning to the threat of terrorism -- france's interior minister says today that one of the two mail bombs last week that was defused was defused 17 minutes before it was set to diexplode. meanwhile, the u.s. military wants to significantly increase aid to yemen next year, proposing as much as $250 million to help the country battle al qaeda-linked extremist spirit the increase in funding was recommended before last week's failed now bobbitt, but u.s. officials believe they were linked to the -- last week's failed bombings. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> this weekend on "book tv pumped up jonah kohlberg, best- selling author and editor at large -- journal goldberg, best- selling author and editor at large of "national review." sunday at noon eastern on c- 2's booktv. >> always calls this a bible- reading statutes for there's nothing voluntary about the bible reading. >> this week, part 2 of abington school district vs. edward schempp. saturday at 6:00 p.m. on c-span radio. nationwide on xm channel 132 and online at c-span radio.org. "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with dick armey of freedomworks, part of the tea party movement. "our latest tea party candidates let down republicans at the final hurdle." "tuesday night was in some respects a failure. never has the house of representatives changed hands without the senate following suit, and the tea party movement should take the lion's share of the blade. the republicans fell at least four seats short of taking the senate. there were responsible for the book cost of at least three senate seats that were essentially there for the taking. guest: i got a kick out of that story. what i found interesting is the financial times placed right above that story two perfectly ideal establishment candidates in california, very well-known successful businesswoman, funding their own campaigns. they lost, too. writedn't they "outrageously well-founded moderates led down in california." nobody lives everything they put up to the fact of the matter is, 55 elected members of the house of representatives and 12 new part of the tea party contract with america. marco rubio -- it would probably be me, because i do not think charlie crist could have beaten me. the fact of the matter is, these folks got out there to change america, take it back, make the government conform to their commitment and requirement for constitutionally limited small government. they define this election and i put that down as one of the more amusing stories i have read about the campaign. host: a republican of south carolina says candidates matter, and it depends on what type of candidate you run in each state. for carly fiorina, it was more of an uphill battle for her. republicans could have taken more seats away from democrats but he says it was a good night for republicans, but it could have been a better one. we left some on the table. guest: if i were lindsey gramm and i was concerned about the loss of the seed in delaware, -- if i were lindsey graham, i would have said with all of your standing and all of your credentials and your $3 million, why did you lose to this woman who is hardly known? the fact of the matter is, they had their best course from their stable in the race. they backed their horse and the horse lost. if somebody let down the republican party in delaware, it was their favorite son nominee, not the woman who won the primary fair and square, became their nominee, and found that they turned their back on. host: wednesday graham goes on to say that we do not have a snowball's chance to win the white house. if you think delaware was a wake-up call for republicans, then we have a shot in the long term. guest: i think delaware was a wake-up call for the republican party. if you're going to have an open primary, then have an open primary. those of you who think of yourself as the in crowd within the republican party that got your hands on the letters within the republican party, had a favorite-son candidate like charlie crist, who was endorsed by everybody, including lindsey graham. if you have that favorite son, that favored daughter, that person, then you bring your horse across the line. but if your horse loses to somebody else, somebody that you are saying -- they whined for months. my party -- my problem with the tea party backed candidates, if they lose, they will not turn around and the support of our nominee. in every instance where a republican primary candidate lost the race and then turned and supported the democrats or refused to support the republicans or ran as a third party -- in every instance, it was the establishment party's favorite candidate. so if anybody let down the republican party, it was those people who said,, we have a right to have an open primary and we will see it through to the general elections only if our pet project is the winner. but if somebody comes and upsets our favorite in the primary, we are walking away and washing our hands of them. host: does that apply in the general election of alaska? guest: one thing i will give senator be some rakowski -- when she decided that having lost party's primary for her party's nomination, and therefore i will run as a write-in candidate, she sought it through. but what wednesday -- but what lindsay graham would say is we need republicans in the final analysis. fine, then stand behind your party's nominee. they did not do it in nevada, and they did not do it in delaware. murkowski put her own fate in her own hands, in respect of of the republican party of alaska. she won as a write-in party candidate. host: so should minority leader mitch mcconnell and presumably the next bigger of the house, john boehner, a compromise with democrats? guest: i think what you need to do is understand -- first of all, do not get into the trap we got into in 1994 and 1995. this is not the question of dueling mandates. the democrats have said the american people gave us a mandate and we are going to do what they wanted if they do not like it, they can take it anyway. now, if the republicans say we got a mandate and we are going to do what we want, they will run into the same problem. what they got is a new set of directives from the voting people of america. your group of hired hands, we appreciate that you have this great opportunity. we welcome the opportunity to call you the honorable mr. congressman and be deferential to you, but the fact of the matter is this nation needs a serious public policy reset, and from big government control and domination and spending into financial oblivion to fiscal restraint, responsibility, and governmental respect for the will and the right of constituencies to be free. host: how the republicans can fill their pledge. he said specifically i believe we can make changes like slowing the growth of benefits for the wealthiest earners and index the eligibility age to longevity. these ideas represent a viable alternative to the unsustainable status quo, and they can be delivered while making no other changes for those aged 55 and older who currently receive social security and medicare. do you support that idea? guest: what i like about paul ryan is that he is secretive figure and i am very excited about him being the budget chairman. here is what bothers me. every american citizen today, if i have a new grandbaby, that poor little child gets a social security number before she leaves the hospital. as soon as she gets a job, the government forces her to take some portion of her earnings and put it into the most badly mismanaged savings retirement program in the history of the world. what paul ryan seems to be saying in this article is that he joins the chorus of voices that says having forced everybody in voluntarily to go into the government program, they can be subject to the wednesday of politicians. and if indeed we politicians cannot meet our obligations, let us be free to choose who among you will sacrifice your life savings and not get a return on that. host: so it sounds like you do not support that. guest: it does not sound very responsible to me. what if your private retirement program said to you, we appreciate you put your money with us all these years but we are not going to give you your annuity. the government would sue them. i will give paul ryan a better option. why doesn't he say to every young working man and woman in america, you are free to choose to forsake your social security benefits. you be free to choose. it is a much better thing. if i choose to not subscribe to a government program, then i and exercising my liberty. if in fact the government says we were hahappy to take your money for all your working years, and because you were prudent enough to do something yourself in your retirement years, we are saying to you, you don't get any of your money back. host: that sounds like a fundamental difference with paul ryan. guest: is a very big difference with paul ryan. who will be in charge of my life savings, the or politicians? host: should they oppose paul ryan as budget chairman? guest: no, they should not oppose paul ryan. he is one of the brightest people -- host: but you disagree with him. guest: we are not in agreement on everything. he has a right to be wrong about some things. he is right about most things. in the end, what you're saying realistically, we must come to terms with the fact that some people will get their retirement benefits and some will not. you are saying i put myself now on the side of big government, and let somebody in washington decide that this guy at 409 hemingway street gets his benefits and the guy at 408 does not. paul ryan knows this. every american young person -- yourself, if given the choice to drop out of social security tomorrow, you would do it that quick because you know by the time you're 65, they will have taken your life savings all your life and give you nothing back. host: let's move on. do the tea party candidates deserve to have a spokesman within the leadership ranks? michelle bachman wants to be the -- should somebody like rand paul getty leadership position in the senate? guest: you go before the members of your caucus and present your case. i did it eight times and i did it successfully eight times. it was not always easy. let those people in that body, in accordance with the rules of the body, select from those who compete. in the case of michelle bachman, i believe she wants to run in opposition to jeb hensley. he has been one of the most reliable opponents to big government, unnecessary spending programs -- tarp, stimulus, a banking regulation. he understood the issues and has spoken with them with great -- spoken on them with great thoroughness in the house. no one could ever say that he is not a small government conservative. let them make their case in front of their colleagues about which of the two of us will serve the functions of this office with the greater degree of efficiency and fairness. nobody is entitled to a leadership post. it is an honor and privilege and the duty extended to you by the discretionary choice of your colleague. host: dick armey is are desperate rick on the democratic line in california, you're up first. caller: i went up to see the only president in the last 70 years to balance the budget and pay down the national debt, in your tea party were there with all kinds of signs, yelling all kinds of horrible things about him. so is this really about a balanced budget and national debt? why are they complaining about clinton. it has nothing to do with national debt. it has everything to do with the democrats being in the white house, and they are still mad at clinton. sorry about that socialist comment, randy. guest: i do not know what it is you are referring to. in the political discourse -- and remember, all political discourse is just one step shy of brain death, in respect of of what partisan discourse it comes from. i was there. the one thing i will always admire it and appreciate about president clinton is when we worked on budget matters, for all the eight years i worked with the president and during his entire presidency, he personally sat at the table and worked through the negotiations with the members from the house and the senate and the white house. we negotiated our way to a balanced budget. now, when the negotiations closed, we had the president saying i and i alone got you to a balanced budget, or his advocates said that. the republicans set by and i alone got you to a balanced budget. the fact of the matter was it was rigorous, detailed, long- term strenuous negotiations over a long period of time between the leaders of both parties and the leaders of both the legislative branch and the executive branch, the office of management and budget, secretary, treasury, citing these meetings. there were substantive discussions that took place over a long period of time, and we got to a balanced budget. we are very pleased about that. but i am no more willing to concede that it was president clinton who got us there all by himself than he would be willing to concede that it was dick armey that got us there all by himself. we did it together. i bet you a dollar up against a doughnut that president clinton would say the same peri. host: in january, they will have to vote on whether or not to continue running the government or shut down the government. they have to raise the debt ceiling or the government shuts down. you remember in 1994 what happened. do you recommend that the tea party candidates stick to principles and do not shut the government down? guest: first of all, raising the debt ceiling is unpopular for everybody. host: do you have to do it? guest: it has to be done. i understand that for there is not a person alive that does not understand it. but the fact is, it is a regrettable thing. you're sitting there saying, especially the new members, had you been more fiscally responsible in the past 10 years, five years, four years, three years, last year, we would not be here today facing the need to do desperate and i resent that i have to vote to raise the -- to do this. and i resent that i have to vote to raise the debt ceiling. i understand this has to be done, but if in fact you are going to get me to vote for it, let me have you tell me, just as you would do with your irresponsible son or daughter if they ran their college bills up through the roof, you are not going to do it again. you will show some restraint in the future. you will have some sense of trade off between this government program and the obligations you already have in place that you just cannot add another program because you think it would look pretty walking when you cannot afford the programs you already have got out there. how about a little discipline? host: on the republican line in thornton, colorado. caller: mr. armey, thank you so much for being available here. this is a different question of where you left off, but out here in the republican desert of metro denver, we have had a tea party candidate at the governor's level where there was a divisive party, and now we have a democratic governor. what do you suggest be our remedy for off-year elections in not gathering dust in gathering not just the conservative perspective -- ingathering not just the conservative perspective, but -- guest: this is the problem that you have always. you had in colorado the same situation. you basically had three candidates on the ballot, two of whom split their ballot, leading to one person that neither one of them agreed with. in florida you had a situation where charlie crist said i'm going to run as an independent, and as an independent he looked more like a democrat than he did a republican. in the end in florida, marco rubio did. in the final analysis, if you are the candidate and if you are, in respect about the circumstances, i think you take a look at marco rubio he said it is not fair that the lord god almighty dealt me hand, i have to win my race in respect of who else is in that race. that means i may have to double up on my efforts. i may have to consolidate my efforts. the fact of the matter is, given the nature of politics, as joe miller is discovering in alaska right now -- if there is another horse in the race, it's not like the only person i have to do is out run the baird -- no, i have to outrun the bear and you too. host: kevin, in new jersey. teacup just a commentary from a 37-year-old -- caller: just a commentary from a 37-year-old hospital worker, an independent democrat. the whole team party movement and the republican party, they are trying to separate themselves from the neocon- cheney crowd. to the average person my age, i think i am a pretty well educated knowledgeable person. the way it is reviewed, -- the way it is viewed, they look like religious nuts. i work in a critical care unit and i know the problems of health care top to bottom. i work where people are ventilated on life-support and everything like that. what i see a lot of the republican party doing is really kind of putting religion out there and all this stuff. it is really, really negative, and it turns my crowd of ticket. -- it turns my crowd off to it. guest: understand something. this grass roots movement known as the tea party movement holds no allegiance or very much affection to either political party. they are just as bitterly disappointed in the republicans as they are the democrats. and they have been severely criticized by the evangelicals and america. i happen to be an evangelical. they have stayed so focused on economic issues -- finance, budgets, taxes, and so forth -- and did not address a lot of the social issues. so all of a sudden, in all the best characterization's of these fine people that you have seen in the popular press, this is the last one that i would have thought that somebody would have gotten, that you say they look like a bunch of religious not. there really is interesting to me. that is very curious. it shows me something about the degree to which real, ordinary folks just like your neighbors, and i bet you a nickel that somebody in the church yugo, the hospital you work, or somebody in your family is active in the movement. and you go, joe and grace, they are not nuts. they are part of that. i assure you that they are not a bunch of religious nuts. they are probably about as normal as you are, and they are focused on economic issues of jobs, taxes, spending. their biggest concern in the world is the potential insolvency of america before the world. host: what's next for the tea party movement? specifically when it comes for the 2012 presidential election? guest: first you have to understand that this party is not about politics in the religious observances. these folks are more concerned with policy. they really believe they can work with their new-found champions on the kindness to help them pass good legislation .hrough the congress coul they are interested in assisting the movement of good legislation. now, it is true that they understand the power of their involvement in the electoral process to the advancement of their ideas, and they are looking at the candidates, principally at the white house level, and at the senate level, because they are acutely aware of the fact that we have another one/third to look at in the next election cycle they will have some of their favorite senate projects. let me remind you, the first people who fell to the tea party movement were republicans in primaries, not democrats and the general. host: is that what happens in 2012? are tea partyers looking at olympia snowe in maine? guest: you will have to talk to the folks in maine. if i were olympia snowe, and i said, gee, i am out next time -- up next time, i need to look at what would be a very important faction of votes with in my state and see what i can do to address this. host: is it a warning to people like olympia snowe? guest: again, understand, these parts have advocacy in the heart -- these folks at at a to see in their heart and mind. they love america, the love of the constitution. it is sheer genius. you swore an oath to protect the constitution. we are saying to keep your oath. it has to do with it will be exercised restraint in spending, will you have some sense of discretion in spending here and there, will you respect my personal liberty? host: let's hear from our republican, ron in new york. caller: mr. armey, i would like to tell someone that -- i am part of the tea party, and i think we ought to get rid of the department of the environmental agency. i am a truck driver and i've been a truck driver for 50 years and i have seen gary, indiana, a full as soon as they moved in, -- fold as soon as they moved in. environmental advocacy is killing our labor force. why don't they get rid of those people and let those people go and do their job? i can see safety and see some environmentalists -- it has gone wacko. they are shutting down all of our factories -- host: ok, we got your point. guest: one of the things i've been saying for years, and i used to say it as a professor to students, most of life's great lessons were taught to you by little bromides given to you by your mother and grandmother. you can have too much of a good thing. that is sort of what we have from epa. maybe we have too much epa discretion across the country. they have taken a little bit of -- a little bit of knowledge goes a long way. i cannot think of anybody in america that has taken more abuse than congressman joe barton from texas, who has consistently insisted that the environmental protection agency used good science, and they treat him like some kind of hate monger who despises the environment. to avoid the dilemma at your mama talked about, a little bit of knowledge being a harmful thing, if we spend so much of taxpayer money on environmental interest, would it be a bicycle that we have the best science possible? -- wouldn't it be advisable that we of the best science possible? why is it bad for joe barton to insist that the epa used good science? and this and our rental -- this environmental fantasy movement is so afraid of truth. just be smart about doing what is necessary and maybe we will not be losing jobs. host: democratic line, bill from washington state. caller: this is just a quick side bar. you were mentioning the constitution, and i thought was kind of a point, because putting the constitution -- congress is supposed to make war, and they have not done that since december 8, 1941. how do you feel about the blue dog democrats that went down? democratic't the party and republican party have their conservative wings and liberal wings? host: mr. armey. guest: the blue dog democrats have been in a dilemma for a long time. they are sort of a square peg in a round hole. usually square pegs in round holes get whittled down. but the blue dog problems came first and foremost in the fact that they are so aggressively rejected within the democrat party. there is very little tolerance for people who don't buy into the assertively progressive party line of the democrat party. i would say that my friend cheet texas -- your problems began with neglect by democrats, who never liked you much anyway. and the republican party basically -- voters look at them and say, look, chet edwards is a democrat attending to be a republican. why don't we just vote for the guy who is really running as a republican? nobody is entitled to a seat in congress. you get in the race, is open competition, and you get thousands of people who you don't know who make a selection based on how they perceive your credentials and performance. chet maybe could have overcome the prejudices and neglect of his own party and the appearance of a misfit with the voters at large in the waco area. he carried it off and got away with that bag for a number of years. host: sarah palin has a video with her take on what the election meant. >> across the country, everyday americans are standing up and they are speaking out, and based on what i have seen, there is more than enough reason to in america.h we're going to get back to the time tested truth that made this country great. they have enabled us to weather tough times before, and they will see us through the challenges we face today. i am confident and i am hopeful, because this is our movement. this is our moment. this is our morning in america. [applause] we are going to stand up and we are going to speak out, and it may take some grenades going -- some renegades going rogue to get us there, it may take pokes shaking it up to get there. [applause] we have got to do this together. host: mr. armey, your reaction? guest: it is amusing, because i'm fascinated. i have never met sarah palin myself, but i am fascinated by the appeal she has to this movement. i personally think the reason is, first of all, this is an authentic movement that has, frankly, gotten very little respect. as an attack, assault, -- it has been attacked, assault, mocked might just about every big shot in america, on both sides of the aisle. but they are so aware of their authenticity, their sincerity, and it hurts a little bit -- i am really who i am and i wish you could have the decency to portray me as i am, instead of this caricature if you keep putting on tv. they identify with sarah palin and her authenticity. did you see the play on words about "we made some of us have to go rogue." it was not the democrats saying she was going rogue that day for that brand. it was the republicans. a bunch of smart alec young political operatives thought they had the right to tell this candidate, being the candidate for vice-president -- these young yale graduates have the right to tell them what to say, and damned if she did not go rogue and say what she had to say. i'm smart enough to be my own person and say what i have to say -- they call it going rogue, we call it being real. host: who is a more viable presidential candidate, sarah palin or marco rubio? guest: the voters have to decide that. marco rubio is so excited about the privilege and the duty that has been given him, being senator of florida. i have left the politicians for years. i have seen people and their first race for city council and they start planning their presidential race. marco rubio said, look, the people of florida give me a good opportunity and trust and i am staying focused on that. i thought that was extremely mature on his part. he exhibits a level of maturity and responsibility and that one does not often find any people who seek public office. i'm really excited about him. host: independent line. jack, you are on the air. caller: thank you. i would like to ask you how you doing,- how phil gramm's and his life. he created the enron scam with kenny boy. host: care to respond? guest: you are kind of a non- kind person and i feel bad for the people who have to live with you every day. phil gramm is a wonderful person and his wife as well. they are both, i understand, quite happy in private life. if you had a chance to sit down with them and talk about their happiness, one of the things that would say that one of things that is so wonderful about being of three citizen in private life is that i don't have to listen to barbs from people who got a mean, nasty attitude i bet they are enjoying the fact that they did not watch the show this morning. host: we will go to the republican line, wyoming. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have watched for years the stock market going up and down. and social security being talked about. it is going to be insolvent. i am getting close to the age when i am going to be looking adt it, hopefully 10 years. i am really concerned that we need to do something so that we do not give it to the pirates out there on wall street what do we do to make sure they are more honest with our money? guest: well, i mean -- i don't know, it it sounds like you are about 60 years old. take a look of the money you put into social security during all your working years, and how it grew or did not grow, the return, the level of annuity benefits you get when you are 65, and compare that with what you would have done having put the same amount of money into the stock market or an annuity program there. now, having done that, recognize that that money that you have put into your private savings account and is now due to you in your old age, at your choice, when you want to start a new peace and flopped -- start annuities and flow money back to you, is a matter of contract law. at the age of 60 today, here is what i would be worried about -- five years from now, if i am 65 and i go to apply for social security and they asked me to report on the other private savings and other sources of retirement income and they see that, indeed, i have done well at taking care of myself in addition to social security, they are very likely to tell you, "i'm sorry, but you are not getting your retirement back." the same government would prosecute the private enterprise a firm that holds your 401k, but they did that, and is very likely today to do that to you. watch the next five years and see where you got the best return on your investment, in the private sector, where you saved and grew, or the public sector, where you grew at a government that was so audacious to just tell you that we don't want to give you your money back. host: mr. armey, we are all out of time. thanks for joining us on "washington journal." coming up, we will turn to changes in medicare. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> jobless numbers reported this hour from the labor department show the number of people seeking benefits jumped sharply last week after two straight weeks of declines. the initial age adjusted to 470,000 for the week ending october 30. wall street analysts expected a smaller rise. the labor department says productivity grew at an annual rate in the third quarter. a rebound from a decline in the second quarter. labor costs also fell in the quarter. even with the gain in productivity, the efficiency of u.s. workers is growing at a weaker pace than last year. economists see that as an encouraging sign that companies will have to step up their hiring. following the two state elections, house republicans are rolling out a website that they say will keep americans informed about their work. republican leader john boehner says it will provide the american people a forum "to talk to us, so that we can listen to it every da -- listen to them every day." also today, house republican and john boehner releases a new leadership document that he calls "pillars of the new majority," a compilation of speeches that he dedicates to his former chief of staff, who passed away this year. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. videos year's studentcam documentary competition is in full swing. your documentary should include more than one point of view, along with c-span programming. upload your video before the deadline of january 20 for your chance at the grand prize of $5,000. there is $50,000 in total prices. the competition is open to middle and high school students. for all the rules, go online, studentcam.org. >> the c-span and works. we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. it is available to you on television, radio, on-line, and social media networking sites. find our content any time on the c-span video library. we take c-span on the road with our best, bringing resources to your community. it is washington your way. the c-span network, available in more than 100 million homes. created byte cable, provided as a public service. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us this marilyn tavenner, the principal deputy administrator for the centers of medicare and medicaid services. we're talking about open enrollment for medicare and what is coming up next. i just wanted to begin with the cuts to medicare, because seniors and voters heard a lot about that during the campaign, and political ads, etc., that the new health-care law cut of $500 billion from medicare. is that true? guest: no, that is not true. what is important for people to realize is that medicare benefits are guaranteed benefits. there has not been a reduction in benefits. there are cost savings in the affordable care act, and those cost savings came through things such as reduction in fraud and abuse. there is a large amount of money that is lost to the trust funds -- that is, fraud and abuse money. we are trying to stop them from abusing the system. those are some of the savings. the other sittings are some inefficiencies we seek in the system. there is not a loss and a benefit to medicare recipients, and that is important. host: but there is, as peter orszag writes in his op-ed piece in "the new york times," that included hundreds of billions of dollars "worth of cuts in payments to providers. at a low rent payments without also reducing the quantity of services only makes it harder for patients to find a doctor or hospital to treat them." guest: the cuts in the system to providers -- yesterday afternoon we announced what is called competitive bidding in durable medical equipment. durable medical equipment is things such as wheelchairs and other items that are high items for fraud and abuse. we were able to save almost 30% in nine markets and provide the same quality of services. those are the types of cuts to providers that we are interested, that don't impact service or availability of service, but where there has been either fraud or abuse. host: ok, but our seniors reporting to you that their doctors will no longer see them? guest: in isolated parts of the country seniors may have trouble getting to the doctor. but close to 98% of positions -- close to 98% of physicians still accept medicare patients. there are hundreds of millions of dollars in scholarship support, so that we are able to grow the primary care workforce and specialists, because we are an aging society and we need more physicians. host: does the center for medicare and medicaid have the authority to make changes to health providers with the paperwork or other challenges they are seeing from the new law? what changes are you looking at making? guest: that is a great point. there is a piece in the affordable care act that refers to administration, which has to do with everything from the amount of paperwork that physicians and hospitals must complete, but also in the previous bills, there is considerable hundreds of billions of dollars related to technology. we can move from a paper system, and manually intensive system, to an electronic system, and collect money automatically in and pall mall committed system. -- in an all committed system trips -- amalgamted system. host: open enrollment, what does that mean? guest: open enrollment begins november 15 and extends until december 31. it is the time of year where, first of all, each medicare beneficiary receives the medicare & you handbook. it is received at the house, and they have the opportunity to review the handbook and look at what i call it check up on their benefits. this is the time of year where they can look at what they want to do in terms of a drug plans, the medicare they would like to stay in, the traditional, or whether they would like to be in a medicare advantage plan, what type of medicines they may need, what type of drug plans supports them the most there are several ways they can do this. they can start with the handbook, and if they need extra help, there is the family they can talk to. my mother is a medicare beneficiary, and she called me last night, and she is looking at me to help her along with that. she is 85 years old, and smarter than i am, but she still -- i am a nurse by back out, so she thinks that with my nursing background, i might be able to provide more information. host: this is a lotformation foo understand. i guest: it is a beginning. it allows you to get to your area of the country and the plans that are available to you. we have three other ways that we can help medicare beneficiaries. we at the 1-800 medicare number. this is a toll-free number, and it is staffed 24 hours a day. anytime a medicare beneficiary has a question, they can call that number. i have been to call centers throughout the united states and i had sat in those call centers and even tried to help individuals on the call, and i was amazed by the talent of our staff, because they could answer a specific questions about drug plans and everything else. if you prefer the internet, there is the medicare internet site. there are also partners we have throughout the country. we have health insurance plans that help. there is the ability to talk to someone in prison, in individual council, -- internet -- talk to someone in person, and individual council, internet, the book. host: if you have questions about medicare, what you have heard on the campaign trail about medicare cuts and medicare, the advantage program, you can call in about that. there are about 47 million people on medicare? it is about 15% of the population. what happens next because of this new health-care law? what a change is coming up that seniors and others to get benefits need to know about? guest: there are three types of improvements in the affordable care act, the new law, that help seniors. the process to do with what i call the additional benefit -- the first half to do with what i call the additional benefit. there is a big emphasis on helping people with preventive care. there is a quizzical that is part of your medicare plan that is free to you as a medicare beneficiary. and copays and deductibles on prevented screenings, such as mammography, colonoscopy, where we are trying to encourage individuals to make sure they are up-to-date on preventive care and remove financial obstacles that may have created a problem in that area. there is also the drug rebate program. if you fell into the so-called donut hole in 2010, he would receive a check for $250 --. you -- you would receive a check for $250. beginning in 2011, the so-called cloture of the dono -- closure of the donut hole. over the next 10 years, that will be eliminated. there will be a discount on drugs that seniors are having to pay for on their own. host: what is happening to the medicare advantage program? guest: despite what you have heard, it is alive and well. they are projecting a 5% increase in growth over the next year. they're always plans that exit the market and new plans that enter the market. 95% of the medicare and manage plans -- medicare advantage plans are there, but there are certain parts of the country word they will be lost and people need to sign up for new plans. there are less than 100,000 people who will not have access to past and we will work individually in those areas as well. host: new jersey, go ahead. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my phone call. i am having trouble currently -- i have a medicare and i have across -- blue cross insurance, and they raise my rate in the middle of the contract year 60%. i tried to call aarp and see what the price would be to switch insurance, and they said that because i had been on for six months, they would not even give me a price. i have no idea were to go now, and i need advice as far as -- i thought i read in the book that if you take the drug program d, you cannot get gap insurance or something like that, which was confusing to me. guest: i am glad to see that you have a book. hopefully you look at the new book in the mail, or may have it already. i would start there, but it sounds like your issues are pretty complicated. call 1-800-medicare, and they are not able to help you, we can connect you with an individual specialist in the area at that and go through your benefits and your physical health and what your needs may be. you may qualify for extra help, and you can go to a social -- go to the social security administration to see if there are other benefits. i would start with the 1-800 number. host: cincinnati. caller: i just lost my job due to the competitive bidding that has been done for the durable medical equipment companies. you are talking about fraud and abuse and all this within the industry. the company i had worked with for over four years, they were above board and gave great -- gives great patient care. i was a person working in two and half counties, one office. the company had things real lean. this is ultimately going to be hurting patients in this field. companies are scrambling, not just our company, but other companies are scrambling to make cutbacks. it is just going to end up hurting, ultimately, the patient. the care is not going to be getting there. guest: where are you located? host: sorry, i did not realize you wanted to talk to him. he was in cincinnati, ohio. guest: the competitive bidding that he is speaking to, we are starting with nine markets. it is a pilot. we will be doing evaluation for the types of concerns that he brought up. we have a strong bids by a lot providers, so there should not be interruption of service. host: tennessee, go ahead. caller: well, i am just wondering why i cannot seem to get my prescription. what is it, part d? guest: yes, ma'am. caller: i cannot get in touch with anybody and find out why i am not getting that. guest: have you tried the 1-800- medicare number? caller: i have tried and tried and tried, and it is automated, and i cannot seem to get past that. guest: if that does not work, you can try your local social services office. but it is unusual that you cannot get through to the 1-800 number. if that does not work, and tennessee you can go to your department on aging and they can help you, the social security administration, or your local county social service worker. you should be able to qualify for some type of part d coverage. all individuals can. sometimes there is payment involved. sometimes, depending on your income level, you can get extra help from the medicare program. try your social services office or the administration on aging that would be the first place to start. host: let's move on to augusta, south carolina, james on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am in the federal government retirement program with blue cross blue shield, and also have original medicare. i have seen the new manual that i can take an option in medicare advantage and also have a supplemental across the shield coverage -- blue cross blue shield coverage. i don't understand, the advantage in changing or staying where i am. typet: you are exactly the of person we are hoping to reach. you got several options. depending on your physical health and the types of medication you are taking, you should explore all of those options. it sounds complicated, but i would recommend is that you dial the 1-800-medicare number and they can connect you with an individual specialists. also, during the open enrollment period, from november 15 to december 31, in your area that there should be so-- sometimes aarp sponsors them, sometimes social services, but there should be seminars with counselors to help you. if there are not, we can get you a counselor. if you need counseling, that is what this time of year is all about. host: marilyn tavenner is the principal administrator for the center for medicare and medicaid services. phoenix, arizona, democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, i wonder why not enough emphasis is being put on the fact that medicare advantage is only being dropped -- they only stop paying subsidies to the health care companies. nobody has really emphasized that throughout this whole time, with the new health care coverage. and just wondering why that has been. guest: medicare advantage -- i think there has been a lot of confusion about what happened with the medicare advantage plan. this year, there were no changes in payment to the medicare advantage plan. it was flat. what we have seen is that the medicare advantage plans continue to grow and they continue to offer good wraparound coverage for individuals who like these types of plans frequently, there is elimination of copays, and sometimes it includes a physical. the plans are still strong. you make a good point, that there has been a lot of concern, but what we've seen is that the plans are growing at a premium charges to medicare beneficiaries have either been flat or sometimes overall down 1%. there are certain markets where that is not always true, but if you look at the country overall, we have actually seen a growth in plans and a decrease in cost to medicare consumers, and that is what we are all about. host: mississippi, republican line. caller: my concern is with the electronic medical records that you spoke of, and how much savings is that projected to have, and will there ever be a day or medicare beneficiaries will be required to have some sort of medical -- some sort of electronic medical format whereby they would reduce the duplication of medical records and beneficiaries would save money, because it gets expensive when you try to get your own medical records. i will hang up and listen to you answer that question. guest: well, it is a great question. i don't have the savings number in front of me, but we as medicare cms is not going to pursue medical health records. we have the ability on our website to get basic information about beneficiary payments. i encourage you to use that. it is a mechanism called the blue button. it can give you information about your claims history. we will probably prove that a little bit over time. we see the teacher -- of your -- we see the future of your personal health records being with you and your position did the money going i -- being with you and your physician. over time, these will all be connected. if you want your personal health record, you will access it through your physician's office. there are many offices today that have that, the ability to make appointments online, for you to be able to look at your laboratory and x-ray results online. most patients find that very beneficial. host: how is medicare finance? gu -- how is medicare financed? guest: a trust fund, a lot of government funding. medicare part d is handled through premiums. it is a combination of government funding and premium payments. host: brooklyn, joseph, independent line. caller: medicare was one of the most successful single payer systems. you hear over and over that single payer as a whole -- if the government was to pay for insurance for everybody, it would be seven times cheaper than what every american pays. considering that insurance companies have just completely ripped off and scandalize the american public for years, i don't understand why that was never an option. one of the lobbies of insurance even allowed to be at the table -- why are the lobbies of insurance even allowed to get the table in these discussions? guest: i think a single payer system, if we go back to the debate of last year, was an option, just not an option that was overwhelmingly supported. what we've done in the affordable care act is to improve access to over 33 million individuals who are without insurance. we are trying to use a combination of public and private options to make sure everybody is covered, because we believe, as you stated, until all individuals are covered and have access to care, it is difficult to slow the curve in the increase in costs. thank you for that question. host: on the republican line, audrey in new york. caller: good morning. here is my beef with medicare. i appreciate all the help i have gotten in the past. however, when we lived in florida, many, many doctors were dropping their practices because they could no longer stay open because of the low medicare reimbursement rate. this is happening in the northeast, and it is only a matter of time before many hundreds of more doctors and clinics are going to be closing. the rate of reimbursement that medicare puts out is so low that they cannot afford to have these practices any longer. .ost: ok, let's get a response guest: it is a great question, and you have seen the debate over the past two months over sgr, and it is something that the president and many members of congress have supported, a fixed position payment levels. that will have to be done over the next couple of months. we are all concerned about physician payments, particularly primary care and other specialties, where we predict shortages and we want to make sure that there is adequate reimbursement. in the health care bill, there is targeted improvement to a physician payments through medicare and medicaid, and in our health technology bill, there is also the ability for physicians to make individual bonuses and increases in payments by the adoption of medical records. we share your concerns, and we have made sure that they -- that we have made the changes in the affordable care act, as in some other bills. we will be continuing to monitor that. we are urging congress as well to find a permanent fix to the physician payment issue. host: how will you get doctors to not do as many procedures or to give as many tests as they are, of health care? -- which tends to drive up the costs of health care? guest: you bring up an important part of the affordable care act, the incentives of paying for health care. today we tend to do it by the volume they produce. obviously, a lot of it is high- quality, good volume, and the argument is that some of it may not be necessary based on medical protocols and other things. there is also value-based payments, where we will be moving from not just paying on the number of procedures, but paying on how -- what the medical outcomes are alike, allowing physicians and hospitals and other members of the health care community the option to approached care in a more holistic manner. laurie ins go to tallahassee, florida, democratic line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a concern regarding disability. i was determined disabled because of a malignant tumor and that was in may 2010. i would like to know, what would i be eligible for medicare -- when what i'd be eligible for medicare? but i also receive a booklet -- what i also receive a book or pamphlet? it would be two years, i am told, that i would be eligible for medicare. guest: that determination does vary and is made by the social security administration. there is a 1-800 social security number that can help you determine when you are eligible. when you are eligible, you would receive the full benefits and the booklet and the same type of assistance that we're talking about this morning. host: north dakota, republican line. colleen, you are on the air. caller: thank you, marilyn , for taking my call. i am on a disability, so i need to wear these -- they reduce the swelling when you read them. other thing is, seven years ago i was in the hospital, and they pay for these, they are like a $500. i don't understand that now, seven years later, they are shocked i need new ones, but they are not paid for and i have -- they are shot and i need new ones but they are not paid for and i have to pay for them out of my own pocket. guest: colleen, we would -- again, if you would try 1-800- medicare, we have trained folks, including the ability to talk about if you could qualify to have the benefit comfort. that would be the place to start. there is obviously an appeal process with medicare if, for some reason, that is not covered. it can take it to a level of medical appeal process to see if you can get that covered. host: a question from one of our twitter audience folks asking about medicaid -- guest: medicaid is income- qualified. it varies by state. it depends on the state you live in, but you would work with your state medicaid office to determine if you qualify, or you can go to your local social services department, and they can help you with an application to determine if you qualify. if you do, the costs are minimal. there is usually only a small bouquet or deductible, and again, that varies by state -- only a small copay are deductible, and again, that varies by state. host: independent line, you are on the air with marilyn tavenner. caller: if you don't sign up for medicare when you turn 65, even though you are employed, yes, and you have your own insurance, why is there a penalty? guest: i am not aware of a penalty. there are certain times of the year you can sign up. there are times of enrollment, but he may enter a waiting period -- you may enter a waiting period. host: let's go to it indianapolis, june on the republican line. caller: i have a question since i fell into the system. i retired from the university and had my medical coverage there, and i told them i did not need to sign up for medicare because of my private insurance, and they said, "you have to, you do not have a choice." it is like a ponzi scheme. how benevolent our government is towards the medical insurance companies. in indiana, $120 million salary per year. when i moved here, i was turned down by most of the doctors that had been recommended to me. having worked in the medical field, i am a very fussy about who i go to, even in my old age. i have a lot of curiosity about our system. it seems to be a bit corrupt. thank you. guest: thank you. host: did you want to respond? guest: only that it is true, when you turn 65, medicare becomes your primary entrance -- primary insurance, and then there is the wraparound insurance. host: holly, you are on the air. caller: i don't know if it was c-span or some other place -- i am on medicare and i get a supplementary. i heard that the reason i am paying as much as i am per month for medicare is that i am having to pay for medicare advantage. i am not in love with that if that is true. the next thing i want to ask is, you know, we're talking about medicare, and the republicans are talking about taking it away from us and putting it on a private system. how can you imagine me -- first of all, being old age is a pre- existing condition, really, but can you imagine someone like me with a pre-existing condition going on the open market and trying to buy insurance? guest: no, and the good news is you don't have to. the handbook will help people understand that you have a choice to stay with the original traditional medicare or to move to a medicare advantage plan. that is true for all medicare beneficiaries. those benefits are guaranteed. you can stay with your original plan or you can do the advantage plan, but it is not forced situation. host: but it fell, north carolina, margaret on the republican line. -- fayetteville, north carolina, margaret on the republican line. caller: i am on social security, and i paid into medicare, and it comes automatically out of my social security check. then i have an advantage plan. this year i got the paperwork and books for the advantage plan. my medicine has changed completely. it went up by at $60 a month. my premium, part d, i think, doctors, whatever -- it dropped by $9. all of my co pay -- you keep saying call 1-800 social security. if you ought not tried getting ahold of that number -- if you haven't tried getting ahold of that number, it is all automatic . unless you have awful day, and i still work part-time -- have a full day, and i still work part- time, but unless you have a full day trying to get these people on the payroll, you cannot get information. if you cannot get to a local office, or run around, like you telling us to do -- host: ok. guest: the 1-800-medicare number, not the social security number, or right now, the 1-800 medicare number, you should not be waiting all day. hopefully you should get through pretty quickly. you out of the type of person who should take a look, if you are seeing a change in your premiums, particularly in your part d, now is the time to change plans, and he would want to work with someone with that medicare, or an individual person, which might be difficult if you are working. but this the time, between november 15 and december 31. i encourage you to look at your handbook, what is available in your area and how much it would cost. the same thing is true with the medicare a bandage plan. the change, this the time of the -- you to do that. -- if you need to make a change, this the time of year to do that. host: next call. you are on the ever -- on the air. caller: does medicare cover dental and vision? guest: it depends on the type of plastic you are in. some of them do. if that is -- to pass on the type of plan you are in. some of then to, if that is important to you, you should look in your book. there are many passkeys available. -- plans available. host: why are there many plans available in florida? guest: the demand. host: tom, you are on. caller: i am a senior, i am on social security. i have been paying into medicare since its inception. i've been paying into it since i turned 65. now i have a health care plans the that seems to -- a health care plan that seems to have higher costs, mandatory things. that money comes out of what i have to live on. at this point i have discontinued medicare. i cannot afford it. i don't know if i'm the only person around, but i would like to give you the input and get your thoughts on it. i have about $300, $400 a month to live on. i cannot afford medicare. guest: ok, well, your medicare premiums each year, your part b premium, which covers the position in payment, for 75% of seniors, that does not change from year to year. unless you are in high-income bracket, which it does not sound like you are, you should not be seeing a change in that premium. that should be the same. what should be helpful to you is that you no longer have to pay some of the copays and deductibles under physical and are prevented screenings, -- which i would -- on your physical and preventive screenings, which i would encourage everyone to get. you should not be seeing a change in your payments. host: rita in long island, new york. good morning. caller: 1 question is personal for myself. i'm a registered nurse, i am employed, and my primary coverage is for my employer and secondary is through medicare. workctually home from today and able to see your show, because i have an appointment with my local social security office because i am not able to get answered many questions. medicare is not seeming to understand. i was advanced to a further level after some time, i made a few phone calls. number one, i think there needs to be more indication by specific personnel to answer questions. the booklet is also confusing. just to let you know also, on another level, i am a nurse involved in patient improvement in discharge planning. like your mother, i had somebody who called me the other day to ask about the medicare program should enroll in, the prescription plan and the medicare advantage plan. truthfully, i am at a loss. i don't understand it at all. guest: it is issuing, with my -- it is interesting, with my mom, she is on medicare part d, and she wants to change the plan because she understands there is the chance to get lower copays. a trained individual walked me through every single one of her medications and what the copaiba be and helped me to select the plan. i encourage individuals to take advantage of that. again, it takes awhile, because a patient can be on six or eight medications, and she is very healthy. by the way, congratulations to you and your transplant -- on your transplant in your care. you had a complicated case, and i understand what it would be confusing to you. host: a couple more phone calls. dennis, good morning. caller: good to get through for change again, and is the perfect person to talk to. i am a disabled individual. i was injured as a passenger in a car accident many years ago, serious spinal injuries, surgeries, plates, screws, you name it, factractures. and i have been a chronic pain patients ever since. i wanted to take a quick step back on this one-800-medicare number. want more than -- on more than one occasion i have tried to report things, and to say that the people i spoke to did not care is the biggest understatement i could make. they wanted me to jump through more hoops and make more phone calls to tell them that they might be being ripped off -- they just did not want to hear it. that needs more training. there is so much fraud is unbelievable. guest: you bring up a great point, something i should have mentioned earlier. a lot of the affordable care act strengthens protections against fraud and abuse. whom aree out there medicare beneficiaries, there a lot of on calls -- phone calls, services, and you should never give your social security number or medicare number out to anyone unless it is a trusted source, a physician or member of your family. there is a significant amount of money dedicated to things that you described. we will be enhancing our ability to take calls and investigate cases of fraud. second, we are changing from what we call pay and chase, where we pay individuals and chase after the money. it needs to be strengthened. you may have seen some of the andy griffith ads about fraud. we're trying to get education out. we also have se

Related Keywords

Arkansas , United States , Alabama , Nevada , Chad , Arlington , Texas , Brooklyn , New York , Alaska , China , Delaware , California , San Diego , Washington , District Of Columbia , Connecticut , Arizona , District Heights , Maryland , South Carolina , Indianapolis , Indiana , Wyoming , Chicago , Illinois , Haiti , Japan , Kentucky , Florida , Virginia , Georgia , Wisconsin , Oregon , Cincinnati , Ohio , Michigan , Mississippi , Sturbridge , Maine , Tennessee , New Jersey , Nebraska , Petersburg , Sankt Peterburg , Russia , Colorado , Capitol Hill , Phoenix , Houston , Kansas , North Dakota , Dallas , Yemen , France , Americans , America , American , Marco Rubio , Phil Gramm , Lindsay Graham , Jeb Hensley , Tom Foley , Henry Kissinger , Nancy Pelosi , Chris Coons , Peter Orszag , George Bush , George H W Bush , Charlie Crist , Diane Sawyer , Michelle Bachman , Patty Murray , Rick Perry , Ron Johnson , Dino Rossi , Joe Miller , Ben Bernanke , Olympia Snowe , Pat Quinn , Haley Barbour , Obama Bush , Al Qaeda , Joe Barton , John Boehner , Andy Griffith , Marilyn Tavenner , Newt Gingrich , George Carlin , Paul Ryan , Bidault , Jonah Kohlberg , Meg Whitman , John Kitzhaber , James Oberstar , Martin Luther King , John Dingell , Chet Edwards , Metro Denver , Robert Mcnamara , Lindsey Gramm , Harry Reid , Lindsey Graham , Daniel Molloy , Sarah Palin , Steve Rossi , Mitch Mcconnell , Dick Armey , Scott Rigell , Paul Getty , Lisa Murkowski , Richard Blumenthal , Donald Rumsfeld ,