Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20101212

"the hill newspaper" has a preview of this white house summit meeting as it's being called. looking at the future of u.s. economy and manufacturing. among those invited to the media executives from google, sisko, facebook, dow chemical and they have been invited to blair house to discuss reform. saying cash held by companies is at its highest levels in 50 years. and this is a look at what's being called the next economy. thanks very much for being with us. caller: i'm happy to. host: i want to begin looking at the economy. but let's focus on this publication and some of the inclusions that you and your colleagues take with regard to manufacturing. are we on an upswing? are we still dealing with the rust belt snarea? what's happening? guest: we're dealing with a lot of things, and it's different in different parts of the country. manufacturing has been improving in the last few months. but that is improving slowly. i think one of the big take aways that we keep coming back to again and again and again is just the importance of how manufacturing is changing. that we're not going to make a low end, cheap commodity manufacturing like t-shirts anymore. american manufacturing has a future that's pretty much tied to advanced manufacturing, and invasion. can we make things that literally can't be made anywhere else? host: bruce stokes went to puttler, pennsylvania, an area known for its still making capability. what's been changing there? guest: i think the big thing that's been changing across pennsylvania, across this country is this idea the american dream is for the worker who grew up believing he could go to a factory without a college degree, provide for his family. provide a middle class life style. we're finding more and more across pennsylvania, across ohio, where i used to work, that's a harder and harder dream for most americans to see. host: one of the obvious conclusions from the piece is the importance of education in training the work force. the importance of community colleges, to feed into those manufacturing jobs. and one sentence from what you're calling bruce stokes wrote is that to come pet in an increasingly competitive world, even traditional manufactures must operate on the technical frontier. can you elaborate on that point? guest: yes, actually that's a great point. we had an event down in raleigh, north carolina where we were talking about that. some manufactures down there. the point of that is americans, you can't expect that even if you're a traditional manufacturer, that you can keep using your old processes. what's going to make us competitive is to do things cheaper, better, faster. one of the panelists was telling me the great story about way back in the day between the fords and toyota. for years and years ford did not change the way it made the taurus and had the same amount of time to manufacture taurus and the same amount of money and man hours that it took to do that while a toyota corollo was doing the same thing. the camry rocketted ahead. continuing even as the taurus fell off the map. host: first of all you point out that over 11 million people now make things in the united states. the lowest number since world war ii. however, the u.s. still hosts the mightiest manufacturing economy producing 21% of all goods used globally compared to japan. a distant second at 13% and china ranking third at 12% chfments may surprise a number of people. guest: this is what's maddening. they have a very strong industry. their output is enormous. like you said, the problem for the worker is the reason we've done so well is in part because we've done such a great job of getting people out of the manufacturing sector. they're the biggest cost. and so, these invasions -- but the actual jobs we have, it's a paradox for the american factory worker. host: i want to bring it back to your piece called go tell it to the mountain. no one heralded the tax cut agreement between president obama and congressional republicans as an economic savior. but plenty say it is one thing that could accelerate the lummering return. elaborate if you will. >> what we do in the piece, which i think is very important here is kind of take -- [inaudible] we're not great but we're getting a little bit better. that's why we call it a lumbering. i know a lot of people got thrown by the last unemployment, but we are growing a little bit. things are coming back. corporate america is ready to start investing again, maybe start hiring again at a much bigger pace. but the sense among economists that they could still use a little bit more juice, particularly on the consumers side. you still have companies who just aren't sure how strong their sales are going to be next year. so you could provide a big demand boost which would create an upward cycle, and get some growth that is strong enough that it really creates jobs. right now we're on track for growth, somewhere between two and a half and three points of product next year. that's probably not strong enough to really add a lot of jobs. and so, what we're looking at is maybe there would be, if the deal goes through and it has a lot of things that would increase demand. you could bump that, and that's where you start creating jobs. host: jim, thank you very much for getting up early on this sunday and sharing with the audience. thanks very much. guest: thank you. host: and our questions specifically with regard to manufacturing, what's next in the manufacturing sector? and could this help pull us out of the current recession? jerry is joining us from columbus, ohio on our line from independents. good morning, welcome to "washington journal." caller: good morning, steve. i think this problem is that these jobs have been shipped overseas. today the average worker has no more purchasing power than he had 40 years ago, and that's a fact. i wish you folks on c-span would focus on that. not only that, look, i was born in the 1920's, i'm an old bone. i never was in the yunel, but the problem today is that only 8% of the private sector is unionized, but 70% of the workers would like to be. there's a problem i wish c-span would address. what do i care? i'm in my 80's, steve. but we're not addressing the thing. and these corporations are sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars, and they're not investing it. and one other thing if i may -- host: sure. caller: the american society of civil engineers, which my brother in law is a civil engineer. he's my age, we went to school together. but, they estimated two and a half years ago that it would take $10 trillion to spend on the infrastructure. and i know you know what the infrastructure is, bridges, roads, overpasses. over the next five years to bring the infrastructure rating of the united states to a d minus. and steve, please see if you can't address that to where's that money going to come from? nobody wants to spend more taxes. my brother and i give 10% of our social security if everybody would sacrifice to the same way. but thank you very much steve, you do a great job. caller: $2 trillion, that is the figure that remains on the sidelines by u.s. businesses. one of the reasons why on wednesday at blair house the president will be hosting a summit with a number of business leaders. also the hill story pointing out that the u.s. chamber of commerce is supporting the president's initiative to keep the bush era tax cuts at its current level for the next two years. you can read more online by going to thehill.com. charlie is joining us, fort wayne, republican line. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i would say the economy is only bound to get worse with the democrats wanting to raise taxes on people who make over $250,000, which is going to sock it to a lot of small business. and they don't know about this health care, what it's all going to be about. and you see that all the people who were pushing to get this health care is getting exceptions from the government. i say it's going to get a lot worse. guest: thank you very much. let me go back to the piece in the journal. as we look at the u.s. economy and particular manufacturing, he writes that most economists say that the agreement, this tax agreement would give consumer demand a jolt, largely through a payroll tax cut. and extended unemployment benefits. jane is joining us from springfield, ohio. democrats line, good morning jane. caller: good morning. president obama has been, sense before he was elected, promoting a green energy manufacturing. a whole new industry of manufacturing jobs in the green energy. and for some reason we're not allowed to spend money to develop that manufacturing industry. it makes me wonder if republicans don't want it back in the united states. that would have created millions and millions and millions of manufacturing jobs building that. and, more permanent jobs to maintain them. and they're stopping it. everything he tries to do, to create manufacturing in the united states is totally blocked. and it's not just democrats that want manufacturing jobs. everybody from every party wants manufacturing jobs back in the united states. host: jane,ing things for the call. bob has this comment from twitter page. you can join the conversation online. mark is joining us from new york. our focus this morning, the economy and manufacturing. what's next, good morning, mark. caller: good morning. nice to be with you. with the manufacturing, we have so many manufacturing jobs going overseas that most of them, all of the lower paying, lower skilled jobs. and for years they've been pushing higher education skills, go to school, we'll put you to school. but there are people that just aren't ready to go to school. in their teens and their early 20's. i didn't wake up until i was about 28. by that time, by the time the kids reach 28 now, they're lost in life. there are no manufacturing, there is no manufacturing base where a low skilled worker with get a job. host: one of the points we talked with jim is that these work ers who move into manufacturing sector have got to have training and technology, computer, software in order to operate the equipment. caller: that's what i was just saying. they don't have this training because they -- they're kids. some kids are just not ready to learn at an early age. they don't wake up until their 20 and find out they can't get a job. host: so how do we address that mark? caller: how do we address that? we get companies to stay in the united states. you have to get some of the companies that moved out of the states to come back. if it's done by tax equaling the wages that they're not paying their overseas workers, compared to ours? that might be something. but like with england, england has a tax system where it's an end user tax. they don't tax anything until somebody buys it. and if it comes here, the companies over there aren't paying any tax at all! and we pay our tax on it. host: so you think a value added tax would work in the u.s.? caller: i spent two and a half years in england. i don't like the added value tax. host: this is from our twitter page -- ron bronstein writing about this, he says overall the u.s. still imports minnesota than exports. and the list of products formerly made in america remain daunting. opinion point shows that the public is increasingly sour on free trade, but the familiar narratives of decline and retreat before a tide of low cost imports doesn't cap sure the full ledger of america's place in the global economy. more cities are benefiting that rising tide of foreign sales than most americans recognize often in their cities themselves. access the already central to the prosperity in many places where protectionism is often a winning political argument. next is dave joining us from michigan. good morning, dave. caller: good morning. the united states already has a successful model, and that's the time period between 1945 and 1975. if you look at that period of time, what did we have? we had common sense trade. in other words we had trade tariffs. we also had financial regulations in place. we had a strong middle class that was growing. all we need to do is look at that period of time and emulate it. there has been a systemic dismanhattanning of these regulations in the trade tariffs that have led us to where we are today. but we have a sufficient model. and i do blame the republicans, reagannomics and the trickle down for bringing us where we are today. host: thanks for the call. nearly nine hours on the senate floor with an independent from vermont. he caucuses with the democrats. the story in "the new york times." twitter sensation in the senate. a marathon riff against the obama's administration to continue to tax policies of george w. bush stired twitter users to a roar of over eight plause hours, putting his name atop the social networks trending topics by friday night. it garnered even more attention then when he was elected. and considered the first senator to identify himself as a socialist. you can watch the speech available on our website, as is all of our programming. ivan joining us from ohio. what's next for the u.s. economy, particularly manufacturing, ivan? caller: good morning. see, i'm on social security. i think if they would give people more than $250, we would go out and spend money. and the economy would get better. host: that's your point? caller: yeah. host: ok, thanks for the call. kim has a story also in "the new york times." a race to capture a bounty from shipping. points out that the panama canal connected the atlantic and pacific ocean is undergoing a $5.25 billion expansion. scheduled to be completed in august of 2014. 100 years to the day after it was opened. in what was long considered a speed bump, the canal is too small to accommodate a class of super ships that came back on the scene. and came into heavy use, when china became a powerful export ore. mike is joining us from hyde park, new york. good morning. welcome to "washington journal." actually, we'll go to janet next in minnesota. good morning to you janet. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, please. caller: yes, i'm calling to say i think what that guy was trying to say earlier is that it's not that the children, what did he call open up like he said early until they're 20's or something? i think it's more like -- it's like me. i had trouble learning in school and the only way i could learn was like to be showed how to do something. it was difficult for me to learn from books because i couldn't -- i kept mixing up words and also, what do you call it? couldn't keep stuff in my mind long enough to pass like the exams in stuff. so, i'm thinking that's what he's talking about. some kids just have learn differently and i think they have to be shown what to do. because i can do anything if you show me how to do it. and that's how i learn. host: that's one of the points from the national journal. in order to compete in the global market place, it's not the task we often saw in the 40's or 50's or 60's, but the ability to operate equipment that makes us myrrh productive than other countries. caller: so i think they're going to have no other choice because of these type of people, but to bring some type of manufacturing back to the united states. i just think they have to for people that can't learn otherwise. host: when you can ship those jobs overseas at a lower cost? companies do that. caller: well, we're the united states and i don't think that's appropriate that they be doing that. host: ok. thank you very much for that call. inside one of the key players in shaping u.s. tragedy in afghanistan remains hospital today, richard holbrook is in a hospital in washington, d.c. he is in intensive care. only blocks away, senior national security advisors meeting yesterday to assess a major internal assessment. the president will review on monday with release to the public scheduled later in the week. he collapsed on friday after the state department. family and members of the state department staff remained at the hospital awaiting word on his condition. in a statement the president said he had spoken to holbrooke's wife and told her he was praying for him. richard holbrooke suffered an operation in a tear in the aorta. it bends and moves down through the chest in the abdomen. surgical tear is possible, writes the washington post, however serious complications can arise from interruptions in the blood flow. richard holbrooke remains in critical condition at george washington university hospital here in washington, d.c. bob is joining us from mountain home, arkansas. good morning, welcome. caller: yes, sir, thank you for taking my call. host: certainly. caller: i'm a manufacturer, and my frustration level is extremely high now. host: what do you produce, bob? caller: we're in the car business actually. we manufacture car parts, actually bodies and chasies for hot rod cars. it's extremely hard to find employees with a good work ethic. you can't base your company on one or two employees. but i have more people interested in collecting unemployment insurance than working. host: how many employees do you have? caller: i have 12. but i have an employee who doesn't show up for a week, still able to collect unemployment. and i had to deal -- we dealt with all those issues. when i deal with the government, it's a hindrance. i feel like the government's an enemy. an unemployment's not free. my rates have gone up this year. incredittable. i'm paid until i catch up. i'm paying 6.9% of my pal roll to unemployment until that balance is caught up again. it's the condition if governments, if it makes you not want to manufacture. host: bob, thanks for the call. thanks for sharing your story with us. caller: thank you. host: we're talking about u.s. manufacturing, and the economy, what's next. the cover story from this publication is called the next economy. it's a joint project with the national journal. and atlantic magazine. back to the future, is there a second act for u.s. manufacturing? gary duncan has this comment on our twitter page saying 1945 to 1975 is a flawed model. it took decades for countries to rebuild after the destruction of world war ii. and they had to use u.s. products. next is belinda from corning, new york or on line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i just heard the gentleman talking about unemployment and feeling that his employees want to stay on unemployment rather than going back to work? well, my husband was on unemployment and he was applying to positions, and he has a masters degree. but we were finding that the jobs that he was applying for when he put down how much he needed to make in order for us to keep our home, you know, he would never be recalled to come back for a second interview, or it just took a long time to get a job. finally the factory here started hiring. and the factory actually was making a lot more than what he can make with a masters degree outside of the factory. so now he's working for the factory. and which, thank god. but we never, you know we struggled and we didn't want to stay on unemployment. plus we have a child with a disability and when my attention -- i only work part time and i have to a lot of times take off from work to deal with his disability. but we don't receive any disability checks or anything like that, you know? he just gets medicaid to help us with the expenses and stuff. i see that -- my question is that if we -- we tend to buy a lot of stuff that's outside the united states, and it doesn't seem like a fair trade. and i just feel like i would be willing to pay a little bit more if it was made in the u.s.a. i'm trying to find stuff that's made in the u.s.a. to help, you know, promote our pride and our country. and i just feel like it's unfair that so many of these jobs are being shipped out when people need a fair wage to live on. host: do you shop at a wal-mart where they have a lot of foreign made products there? caller: yeah, i know. i don't buy any clothing from wal-mart. i just don't. i try to buy stuff now, like second-hand stuff. really. you know? i've come to the point where i'm not buying anything new. host: linda, thanks for the call. let me go back to afghanistan. the story on the website today, the headline, an inescapeable conclusion on afghanistan. the story by gordon lubold who writes it may come as soon as this next week. commanders on the ground have already reached their own conclusion. a quote from major general john campbell, we're going to need more time. we'll be hearing more on afghanistan later this week as the president gets his assessment from his national security team. they've been meeting over the weekend while richard holbrooke remains at george washington university hospital after suffering major heart surgery more than 20 hours friday and saturday. back to your calls, patty is joining us from seattle, washington. good morning. caller: hello? host: yes, good morning patty. caller: i need to know, growing up my father and my mother had five kids. and they worked their butts off. they really worked their butts off. my father took every job. he traveled from one end to the state to other states. and now the welfare thing, they're gambling with their money. they're selling their food stamps, you know? and i really have a hard problem with that when i see my parents, my father had an eighth grade education, my mom graduated. but my dad, they trained him on the job. and he was management. they don't do that anymore. people learn by doing. and that's how the jobs should be is learn by doing. host: patty, thanks for the call. in the "pennsylvania post" funeral services yesterday for elizabeth edwards. no words are good enough. a picture of the former senate and former presidential candidate. elizabeth edwards was recalled as an idealistic law students who challenged professors. a political sage who offered advice at every turn and comforted her family even as she was dying of breast cancer. another take on elizabeth edwards from "the new york times" this morning, jan hoffman. through many eyes, who was your elizabeth edwards? the goddess of frumpy wives and older mothers the cancer patient who would not be defined by her disease? the noble, betrayed wife. the political operative, who covered up her husband's infidelity could have cost the democratic party a presidency? a modern joe? we cover it live here on c-span. here's a portion of what the daughter, 28 years old, of elizabeth edwards said about her mother. . >> today i have the honor of st. c'mon, i really loved you more. >> that was the services yesterday for alleged that that were to die this last week at 61 years old. host: back to your calls and the u.s. economy. we ask you what's next? is there a second act for u.s. manufacturing? david is joining us from lime grove, calif., good morning. caller: good morning, i was just thinking that a lot of the l aws that facilitate -- the previous caller said, you have welfare and the people who are gambling their money. there is a lot of people who survive basically from the same super fund and their higher pay than people on welfare. i think that basically they should restructure how they distribute that money, not just for welfare. there are many people in prison because they cannot comprehend instead of going out and committing crimes that they can work or apply for welfare. host: blumberg's businessweek is looking at a trade deal as a long and winding road. the trade deal between the u.s. and south korea is getting support from the u.s. chamber of commerce. you can read more by checking this out on the bloomberg website. florida, what is next for u.s. manufacturing? caller: time to go back to protectionism. we get rich people that leave the country, they get tax breaks for leaving the country, it puts our workers out of work, they close the factories. it is ridiculous. whenever you can't find a job, they want to start you to death. host: hallmark is joining us on the republican line from iowa. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we sure can. caller: i agree with the woman from washington. the welfare system is hurting the manufacturing. there is a lot of people who checked their hours and don't want to work many hours because they don't want to get over the cost of were the welfare will not make them money. we also need to look at corporations and the government needs to get us corporations a tax break to bring up the lower end of the pay scale. host: thank you for the call. from our twitter page -- the u.s. does still have a peek strong u.s. manufacturing industry. it concerns me how much of this is defense-related. this e-mail, and saying i have been buying stuff for christmas made in the u.s.a. even though you have to pay 20% more on the product is better and will last longer. it is time for all americans to invest in domestic-made products in the united states. that is steep, from kentucky. mike is joining us from fort wayne, indiana. caller: i owned two companies. americans are just two-faced. i have people come into my company, just yesterday, and they want to beat you down. i can get this cheaper on the internet, i can get this cheaper on the internet. host: what do you do? caller: i have a motorcycle company and a graphics company. i had a guy coming yesterday for a spark plug. i have the spark plugs in my hand. i came out and he said he would wait. i asked him why he would wait. he pulled his cell phone out. he said i push this button right here and they will be on my porch to mark -- tomorrow. i will save $2.27. i looked at him and i asked them where he will eat his lunch during his lunch break at work. he said yes. i asked him how he would feel if you did not have a lunch break at work. i told him he is taking away my livelihood because you can order it on the internet which will be drop shipped from a manufacturer. you are cutting the middleman out. people coming here every day and complain there are no jobs. government is doing this and republicans are doing that. who cares what they are doing? do what you need to do. go to work, help support your neighbor, my grandparents are who i look at. my parents were part of the problem. my grandparents -- my grandfather or go down to local store and he ate at the local restaurant. they went to work every day. i am 33 years old. i have had a job since i was 12. i have never been unemployed for more than one day. i will pay a couple bucks extra to keep people working very i understand that if that guy bought from may, he might work at a local restaurant down the road and i might eat there. if i don't have money to eat there, i cannot support him. these people are all gimme, gimee, gimme. i do work with charity at schools. the kids are dumb. host: thank you for your call at your comment. another e-mail from one of our viewers from wisconsin. it is no secret that president bush was no friend of american manufacturing. people should remember that much of the anti-manufacturing climate was exacerbated under president clinton. nafta, favored nation trading status for china, the gatt agreement. those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. until government regulation, high corporate tax rates, and collective bargaining are ended, manufacturing will not come back. this reviewer says free market rules. what is next for u.s. manufacturing and the economy? we go to oxford, connecticut, republican line. caller: good morning. you must get tired of people warning about corporations not paying taxes. when people learn that corporations do not pay taxes, maybe they will understand that we should eliminate the corporate taxes. corporations don't pay taxes. they collected them from the stockholders, their employees, and their customers. if we eliminate all corporate taxes, they would not move to ireland to be evaded taxes. they would pay their employees more money and their stockholders more money. they would pay their chief executive more money and once these people got more money, they would have to pay taxes. either way, we would get the taxes. it is a whole lot easier for politicians to get up and demagogue about taxing g.e. instead of joe six-pack. manufacturing would blossom. we would be a star again. that is all i have to say. host: thank you for the call. this is a forum for you to express' your comments on manufacturing and the economy. there is an agreement with senate republicans with president obama. this is an article about some conservatives not wanting to raise the estate tax. this is another instance of letting the emanate -- enemy of the good. the estate tax will reset to 55% if there is no agreement. there is no barrier for republicans to cut the stake -- estate tax in the future. that is from the weekly standard in favor of the agreement. is causing much consternation among liberal democrats. we heard from senator bernie sanders who spoke about him -- bets on the senate floor for an excess of about eight hours. redding, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: i wish i could say it is a good morning. the company i work for and i was involved in transportation -- i arranged freight contract. for trucking. we haul nationwide. we called machines and custom metals. --nd large oversized parts. how was business? i am working to keep it going. caller: we used to hqaul a tremendous amount of machinery all over the u.s. and canada. that business is off. the plants that are going out of business, anybody that needs a machine does not bother if they can help it to buy new perry they will buy a late model machine that originally cost $2 million or $3 million after the liquidation of a plant. some of these machines are going down to mexico and some are being exported the surviving companies that need equipment, most of them are not buying at new. it is a pitiful situation. we have seen our freight rates continually drop. at time when all costs are going up. if this keeps up, this will result in hemorrhaging. we are supposed to collect a fee each time the fuel goes up significantly for manufacturers. some just refuse to pay it. we wind up having to eat that. especially the large ones. we had one company on this last one or clients worshiping 25 loads per day. the company refused to pay the surcharge. that amounts to our profit on blood. they pay their bills very problem. -- promptly. they can demand in the marketplace. host: thank you for the call. let me go back to appoint a bad bruise stokes made. the butler county economy has long counted on precision tools. companies here have successfully adapted using flexible manufacturing techniques that marry computers with a workforce. redford, mich., what is next with u.s. manufacturing? caller: thank you for cspan and good morning to everyone. i just want to say that one thing i have noticed -- i work in the company that manufactures heavy engines. we are doing pretty good now. we are getting back on our feet. there has been a big cycle in this kind of business. people want to replace engines in trucks. we are kind of good so i am optimistic. the one thing i wanted to say is i believe that people interested in this subject should take time and read at least some of the book in doug brinkley's about the history of this ford company. it is amazing exactly what the manufacturing industry did for world war ii. i am a firm believer that if it wasn't for the genius people that we had running the businesses at that time, there was a good chance the war would have been dramatically different. it is really quite stunning how fast they could get things done and how to efficiently they could get things done. that is basically all i wanted to say and i hope everyone has a good day. host: one final point for my florida residents think foreign countries will keep lowering their corporate tax rates if we lower hours. only terrace can stop exports. --tariffs can stop exports. the legislative session will wrap up just before christmas senator carl levin is the chair of the armed services committee. we talked about the defense authorization act which is part of a "don't ask, don't tell debate. >> we did not get 60 votes to proceed. the reason is -- i will read you one letter -- one line from the letter that the democrats' side. we will not agree to invoke cloture which means to proceed on a motion to proceed with any legislative item until the senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting the taxpayers. in other words, they took the position -- you have to ask mitch mcconnell and 41 other republicans why is it that they decided nothing would pass the senate until we resolve the issue over taxes in the next funding bill. it was a tactic on their part, obviously, to get something done that they felt was more important than the defense of this country which is the particular version of tax cuts. they want to force that resolution which they hope will and they used that to achieve that goal. host: our conversation with senator carl levin is coming up after "washington journal." we go live t the phone. week.walk through the what do you expect in the senate? there are a number of key issues that could potentially, if they reach the senate floor. guest: on monday, you will have a vote on the tax-cut package that was unveiled last week which is controversial. it is controversial on the democratic side. there are possibly a few deck -- republicans who might vote against it. once that vote happens on monday, that is a test of both of you have a final vote later in the week, probably on tuesday, sending it to the house. what happens with the rest of the we could very well depend on how that tax cut bill is perceived by the house. will the house ultimately cave or will they try to amend it or cut a deal on other bills before they actually tet -- pass the tax package? will nancy pelosi hold it at her desk as a bargaining chip for the rest of the session? there are various scenarios that could happen. keep in mind that the other big bill that must pass this week -- the tax cut bill sort of has to pass by the end of the year or else tax cuts expire. the other bill that has to pass this week is the continuing resolution to keep the government running. it will either be a continuing resolution which keeps programs running at last year's levels or you have an on the bus which is bound to larger. -- which is much larger and includes earmarks and there will be hundreds of more pages of legislation and that is being put together by the senate appropriations -- the senate appropriations chairman. if they cut a deal on that, you could see potentially that being the place where house democrats get some of the things they want on this tax cut bill. it is an interesting interplay potentially between these two must passed bills. host: where does this leave the start treaty? guest: the start treaty is the caboose at the end of the line. it is the thing that members in both parties want to get done very republicans say that we are running out of time. democrats acknowledge that they are running out of time but they say that they can stay until they get it done. if the tax cuts and on the bus are not resolved at the end of this week, harry reid could say congratulations, we are staying until christmas because you guys are demanding more time for the start treaty. there are several other democratic priorities that have been delayed week in and week out prius of them have been over the tax-cut issue. carl levin mentions the "don't ask, don't"tell issue which may be brought up as a stand-alone votes. that will have the same problem as the tax cut issue. it probably has 60 votes if the tax-cut issue has been resolved because there have been additional republican senators who have indicated they will support it if it was resolved. you have that dream act which is almost certainly not going to pass the senate. that is a big campaign promise for harry reid. host: joe lieberman is trying to figure out a way to get that back to the senate floor this week. guest: that will come back to the floor as a campaign promise that harry reid made. will he get the 60 votes to bring it to the floor? nobody i know expects them to get anywhere close to 60 votes. that would give about 2 million immigrant students and soldiers a pathway to citizenshi, potentially. that is a big democratic priority which passed last week in the house. it is not likely to pass this year but it is something the democrats believe is an important political item for them going into the next elections, potentially with hispanic voters. startou've got this treaty hanging out there and that is interesting. you need 67 votes for that. you have people like john mccain who potentially want to vote for this thing. you also have international relations. 20 years ago, this probably would not be that contentious an issue. the previous start treaty is passed fairly easily the cold war is over. this treaty does not dramatically change our levels of nuclear weapons. it is a relatively modest cuts. it is interesting how it has become this bargaining chip at the end of the session. host: this is a good way to be watching c-span on the legislative sessions per steven dennis, thanks for being with us. let's look at some of the issues and decimating the sunday morning programs. >> topics on the sunday shows today include the tax cut agreement between the president and congressional republicans. , peace in the middle east, war in afghanistan, and 2012 presidential politics. we begin with meet the press "welcomes austin cools the, chairman of the economic advisers. also michael bloomberg and democratic congressman weiner. at 1:00, david axelrod, the prime minister of the palestinian authority, the former israeli foreign minister, and a former british prime minister gordon brown. fox news sunday with chris wallace at 2:00 has the incoming chairman of the budget committee and incoming ranking member of that committee, chris van hollen. also an interview with supreme court justice stephen briar. at 3:00 p.m., state of the union, an appearance by white house presidential adviser david axelrod and two other democrats. finally, at 4:00, face the nation has david axelrod, democratic congressman jerry nadler, and former vermont governor howard dean. these shows are brought to as a public service by the networks airs begin at arire- noon. listen to them all on cspan radio at 90.1 in the washington, d.c. area and sat/alliedxm radio. -- or satellite xm/radio. >> in london, a student riot. q &a expense to two programs each day. tonight, the former member of parliament and now writes for the times of london. q &a this weekend at 8:00, on c- span. >> judged porteous is only the fourth the judge to be convicted and remove. watch the senate trial and a final vote on line at the cspan video library. search, watch, and share any time all free. it is washington your way. "washington journal" continues. host: our washington roundtable. good morning. an advance onet something you wrote about last week. about the health care bill and what is happening in the commonwealth of virginia. guest: there are a number of lawsuits that have been filed challenging the individual mandate in the health-care law. that is the requirement that individuals must purchase health insurance. that is being challenged by the state of virginia. ken cucinelli says he is expecting a ruling on that case monday. people have been hopeful that it will be a ruling against the individual mandate based on the initial procedural rule by the judge. host: let me read to you in the new york times editorial with regard to health care. there are details and specifics but generally this conclusion, medicare, medicaid will have found that for more than 20% of all federal spending, higher than social security unless there are big changes by 2035. federal health care spending and an aging population is projected to account for almost 40% of the budget. your comment? guest: i think that is the problem we have been dealing with. everyone says health care is our biggest problem and that is why the democrats tackled it last year. if you look at what the congressional budget office says, their projects on the new health care law, it depends on what congress does british they can show discipline and act and continues some of the measures in the health care bill, they say you can lower the cost or keep them from advancing as quickly. the job is not done. host: about what is happening state-by-state? guest: the big question now is whether the individual mandate is overturned by the courts which obviously will have to appeal to the supreme court. what happens to the rest of all law? -- rest of the law? there is the sever ability clause which addresses inflation. unless there is an element of the bill that says if this gets struck down by the court, the bills still stands intact. that was not in the final health care bill. some people say that means that the court could simply overturn the whole law if they overturned a mandate section. with that said, if the mandate gets overturned because it is so central to the functioning of the law think the whole thing could unravel any way regardless of whether the courts decide to overturn the law. host: this is about the tax deal. you say that if "don't ask, don't tell" do not pass, it might be worth passing best. guest: i think it is a good deal for the president. liberal reaction has been not looking at the big picture. what the president got out of this was a fiscal stimulus on the tax side that is needed with the economic recovery stagnating. is it priced too high? maybe critics in congress have had a long time. democrats refused to take a vote on the preferred democratic policy of keeping the middle class tax breaks and ending the ones favoring the wealthy. they could not get their act together and it forced the president to make a deal and i think he did all right. some callers pointed out earlier that the republicans have been holding up other legislation until this is resolved. . . >> yes, i think the one thing that as always happens when you have a divided government, people see compromise as weakness. this system is set up to promote compromise. it is an ethical thing to do where no one is a dictator we would be at each other's throats all the time and be in a state of constant paralysis if once power is divided there is no compromise. guest: well, i think it's interesting that if you see the difference between how bill clinton used to portray compromises and the way president obama has, i think that when clinton had a compromise, he have sort of owned up to the compromise and promoted it as this great thing and took it as his own. where as, it was kind of odd the way president obama struck the compromise because he struck the compromise and then instead of doing what normally presidents do when you have to bite the bullet and compromise, you know, you go out there and you say that you appreciated working with the coming together with the other sides and striking out a deal, and you sort of take ownership of the deal. but what i felt that obama did is he said, you know, he started going into republicans are hostage takers and i was forced into that because they were holding unemployment hostage so i had no choice to do this. and i thought that's not the best salesmanship. guest: >> i'm going to disagree. i think this talk about triangulation. that's a term made up. but you are right that what clinton did is he would emprace these deals and i think that's what the base got angry with him towards the end of his presidency. i think obama is making a smart move here. she not going to flip flop and then say the upper income tax cuts that the republican priority are his favorite thing. he is going to be honest. he made a deal to get some things done. to get a lot of fiscal stimulus he wouldn't have gotten otherwise in the face of an alternative which was probably dead loked, tax us going up and then a republican congress coming back and making a deal that benefits republicans more than democrats. so i think she doing business and being upfront about it with the american people and i think that gives him more points for honesty than clinton got in his term with the reputation that he had and also with the back and forth. if obama is clear about what his priorities are that benefits him. >> i think the problem is that now he has the worst of both words in a sense. he is still getting the backlash from the left but he doesn't get any credit from the center for being a post partisan president. >> i think it's too soon to say whether he will get credit. we have to see if it will get votes. >> you can join the conversation on line or send us an e-mail. one side note about president clinton's appearance on friday. we talked about it yesterday. but his point is, what happened here has to my knowledge never happened. >> really, he a walked out of a room and had a former president speak. does anyone that president obama isn't the chief executive in it's silly. it's wandering around the edges. what the president gets judged on is what he does not who speaks last at the podium. >> the fact that we're talking about bill clinton instead of obama, the substance of obama's tax deal and so forth is evidence. >> shall we talk about the evidence of the problem? >> i'm just saying given especially the history of obama and the clintons. the spector of having bill clinton take over the presidential podium is sure to sort of dominate everything and bring up all these sort of questions. >> i won't talk about it if you won't. >> we're going to bring it up and our viewers will bring it up as well. >> the "washington post" should obama make up with the left? and opinions we'll read. robert from arkansas. good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. i think we have a lot on our plates. but a comment, the insurance proposal mandatory was put in by the insurance companies. and the problem that we have or i have is the public option was to work like a public utility. you didn't have to buy it but it would be available. and that is the way we build our infrastructure or electrical grids, our roads, our suers. and he completely, the president completely sold us out on the public option. but my primary point is, this will not recover unless we look at global standards for global economy. you know, it's amazing that we have these federal standards on companies in the united states and we allow that same company to go to a country like communist china, produce that product, and bring it back. the olympics were held in china and they were very successful. and no one complained about the fairness of it. but yet, we talk about free markets. well, of course if you eliminate all standards, then it's going to be produced. it will appear to be cheaper. but in the long run it's going to sell out your whole base. host: tim. guest: well, a lot of people share your concern on china and they're taking a harder line than previous administrations. the president has this plan to extend exports, dubble them in five years. we'll see if that works. but i think you're right. people are feeling that way across the country. one of the top reasons people cite. and i think one place where the congress might make some headway, talking about getting rid of the tax breaks for companies sending jobs overseas. and part of comprehensive tax reform, they want to start getting rid of those. maybe that's someplace both parties can work together. host: charlie from oklahoma. welcome to the washington journal. caller: thank you very much for hearing me. i believe that a big problem we've got is china controls the value of the yen against the dollar. if we would put a tariff on the things coming in from china, we use that to pay down the national debt, this might be a good solution for two of our problems. what do you think about that? >> well, i think that tariffs are never a good idea, and i think the problem is if you put a lot of tariffs on chinese imports, that because americans get a lot of their products from china that that increases is the costs for the average american. and so especially when you have a situation when it's a bad economy, if you slap tariffs on imports, and the price of imports go up, then it's the equivalent in the decline of wages because each dollar can purchase less goods. i think that the problem that tim had spoken about getting tough on china, and i think the problem was that if you look at the reason why china has this leverage, it's that spending is out of control in the united states. and we have a massive national debt. and when you have massive national debt you have to issue treasury bonds in order to pay off. then you -- china is a large purchaser of u.s. debt. and as long as china is holding trillions of dollars of u.s. debt, the united states doesn't have much leverage over them. host: one of our viewers saying joined by martin frost, mathu and tony among those expressing their advise to the president. she refers to the congressional black caucus that we have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests. guest: i think that's exactly right. and i think that "washington post" feature basically comes out and says that the problem here isn't really substance. it's symbolism and working tot. the negotiations we saw with this past week was the president recognizing that the main obstacles of getting anything done is the filibuster in the senate. so you talk to senate republicans who control that. house democrats were not happy but on the whole agree with the president about everything. so this rupture is not going to be permanent but it's going to take efforts from the white house to include them and work together but i don't think it's a permanent rupture or really a big fight going forward. host: tim, philip, walter joining us from baltimore. good morning. caller: union electrician just recently returned to work because i feel that as i called, and this is a true story. as i called last week to report for my unemployment, i'm told that the takers were not allowing my unemployment to continue. but fortunately for me, as with a few other unions in america, we have a rotating employment schedule. to your american spectator. they are hostage taker. the business men are economic terrorists. they are on your right wing. i need you to support them not attack the compromise that i agree totally with your colleague there. it was a good compromise. if the democrats, and i ask your colleague, on the left, if the democrats had enough guts to put the tax issues up before november, brother, do usual they would have lost the house? wouldn't that have exposed those terrorists, those hostage takers earlier? and there's to yo brother there's no way in he will that you can defend that right wing terrorist organization called the chamber of commerce or wall street the welfare of the bank is no different than the welfare of the corporate interest that is you support totally in your spectator magazine. and i just want to say that if you cut the government down to nothing, who are going to pay for the infrastructure? who is going to pay for the police, the schools? i mean, you guys on the right have lost your mind. there's a racist connent in your rejection of obama and i can respect that. as a black man i've dealt with it all my life. host: thanks for the call. we'll get a comment first from fill lip. guest: i find how interesting how during the bush administration one of the complaints was how the rhetoric of the right was too inflammatory. and now people are going around calling republicans who have aa disagreement over tax policy terrorists and hostage takers. so i think that that is inflammatory rhetoric. so it's hard to respond in a civilized manner to that sort of talk. host: tim. guest: rhetoric aside, i think it is a reality that the senate republicans said the only thing we will work on and coming first is getting tax cuts for the wealthy and the caller makes a really good point that the dynamics would have been different had they took a vote on the issue before the election. i think it would have made things harder for the republicans. would the democrats keep the house? probably not. i think it maybe would have changed some things on the margin but it would have been better policy. we saw them try and take votes on just middle class tax cuts. the house passed it but it was phil but buster in the senate. >> host: tom has this comment. i let's go through just some of the numbers. if this tax agreement is worked out between the president and senate republicans is passed by congress this week, if you make between half million to $1 million a year your tax savings will be $25,000. basically you have to pass that much more if the taxes were lifted but as they stay in place you will save $25,000 in taxes. for those making between 200 and 500,000, a savings of $11,000. if you're between $100,000 to $200,000, it's a savings of $6,000 in taxes. and it goes down. this does not include, by the way, the payroll tax from 6.2 to 4.2 what we pay in social security. >> i think that if you include the pay roll tax, then the numbers at the lower level would go up because that's something that's paid disproportionately by people who make under around $106,000 i think is the cut yauch. but the important thing that you have to say is how much in taxes do all those different groups pay. and it's very easy for people to talk about what large tax cut in aggregate dollar figures. people who are wealthier getting. however, you have to look at how much taxes they're paying. and people have all this talk about, oh, well the rich have to pay their fair share and you hear all sorts of rhetoric from people on the left people are calling it a bailout for the wealthy. i think there's two things you have to take into account. one is that it's hard to call something a bonus payment or a bailout for the wealthy when it's their money in the first place. that's number one. number two is you have to look at the distribution of how, what's a large percentage of the actual taxes the wealthy pay. and a very small portion of the country pays a large majority of the country's taxes. so they're paying more taxes. so of course any time that you have a tax cut it's going to -- the wealthy pay more so they're going to get more of a tax savings. guest: we can't forget that also the wealthy make a disproportionate amount of the income. we have a disproportionate amount and we also have the lowest federal taxes on the wealthy in our history at a time when we have ballooning deficits. so we really need to think, do the weltsiest americans need to be panicing about a p 3% tax increase. the president was suggesting a tax break for everyone so that all the income paid up to $250,000 you had have a tax break. the argument was over people who make more than $250,000, which is the top 3% of people in america. do they deserve a special tax break separately or tasme advantage of the one that everyone gets? i think with the deficits so high they don't really needs that. and i think people do too. it was the most popular option in public opinion. i do want to disagree with the last caller. yes, it does blow up the deficit and the fact that republicans were running on a plan to reduce the deficit and pass tax cuts that don't need and aren't paid for is funny. but this is going to have important effects on the economy. they're buying into the thoughts of john cane, the liberal economist who has been such a so criticized on the right lately. but the tax cuts that the president is putting, particularly the payroll, that's going to have a positive effect on the economic recovery. host: tim, graduate of georgetown university, contributing writer for the american prospect. his work has been seen in the new republic, in the nation magazine, american lawyer and washington city paper. philip kline, a graduate across town at george washington university. one of our comments from our viewers saying, i was caught in the middle this week. i understand that bernie sanders anger but i also see the reality and the genius of the tax deal. james is joining us from greenville, north carolina. our democrat's line. caller: thank you for taking my call. this thing about giving this 2% tax cut. but with the loop holes that takes it down. with the tax cut that makes them pay zero taxes for ten years. they don't need another tax cut. but i agree that's a pretty good compromise. the only thing, the problem with the compromise is that you left the unemployment out. if you're going to worry about 2 million people, what about 5 million already lost the unemployment? what about those folks? you know, the thing is that the problem is greed at the top. we'll never get anything solved if we continue to think that the wealth is going to trickle down to hit the people at the bottom. that has not worked for ten years. host: your comment. guest: well, i think that, again, i think that you get back to you talk about sort of giving the wealthy money and speaking as if it's sort of a give-away for the wealthy and it's problematic because it presumes that somehow ultimately everything is the property of the state to begin with. and basically, it's the state's money to divvy up how they see fit. yet if they may decide to give more money to the wealthy as if it's not the wealthy's money in the first place. host: frank from pennsylvania. good morning to you, frank. caller: good morning. i'm wondering if it's all right to be a republican that's a capitalist. i think the present health care is killing industry. and companies that leave this country just can't afford to pay for health care. i can remember when ge employed 200,000 people in this country. they probably employ 50 or 60 now. if they brought 50,000 jobs back the cost of health care would bankrupt them. it's not corporate taxes. tithes cost of health care. small business in this country cannot afford health care. it's obese. it should go. they pay their executives $100 million retirements. 2030 in the last year. and this is put on the back of industry. and jobs will not come back until these companies can afford to come back. host: are there jobs in pennsylvania? frank? he hung up. we were talking earlier about manufacturing jobs and the huge transition most notably in pennsylvania and ohio which is part of that rust belt area which is seeing the loss of jobs but also new jobs being created with those workers who have the skills necessary to operate the manufacturing equipment. do you want to comment to his earlier point about being a capitalist republican? guest: i think that's fine. i support him. i'm a capitalist myself. i think just on your point about health care and business nisses, i think everyone agreed that one of the major problems we had were companies spending so much money on managing health care for their employees and providing their share of the insurance payments. and people disagree about the outcome of the bill but i think it does a lot to help businesses especially small ones lower those costs, and hopefully it's a long-term plan. it's going to be a good decade before we see if it really works the way it's sposed to. but i'm optimistic that the framework to do just that, to reduce the burdens on businesses large and small and make the industry more competitive. host: susan has this comment. guest: i think that's the essential point. and that's why, it's disturbing to me when people talk about the cost of tax cuts. now, it's true that from a budgetry standpoint, if there's lower revenue going into the government and you don't cut spending that that's going to have an effect on the deficit. but the reason why i have a problem saying that it's somehow costs or to equate cutting taxes with government spending is that there's a huge distinction between allowing people to keep more of their own earned income and the government taking people's money and divvying it up as they see fit. because for the average individual -- guest: it's not like these are people from mars coming in to this -- to have this discussion. guest: if an individual is able to keep more of their money. it's not a cost to that person, it's a savings. so i think it's problematic to talk about it as a cost to government because it's not government's money in the first place. guest: one, it's important to remember how we got started talking about the bush tax cuts and why we're talking about them now. because when they were passed they couldn't find a way to pay for them. it was a huge hole and they just said we'll sunset it in ten years. it has been a real cost. any conservative would agree that any government obligation unpaid for is just taxes in the future. so it wasn't really a tax cut. it was just pushing it down the road because it wasn't paid for. on the separate issue of tax expenditures, there's no difference between a spending earmark and a taxing earmark. if you give someone a subdi, it's the same thing. so we need to look at tax expenditures in the tax code as a problem. thear growing faster than entitlements. it's growing faster than medicare, faster than defense budget. so we can't turn a blind eye to loopholes in the tax cuts or pretend they're good for the economy and expect to continue in any kind of fashion or see any kind of economic growth. guest: i agree that the best way to change is we have to have fundamental tax reform and that you have to have a situation where we broaden the base, you get rid of a lot of deductions. there's no reason why somebody should be able to deduct the mortgage interest payments on a second house. there's a lot of problems with the tax code and a lot of times politicians because it's easier to justify a tax credit than some spend willing just call something a tax credit and do what they want with spending. the problem i have with that is that essentially what it is is it's the same as spending in the sense that government is telling people that you can get a tax break if you spend the money the way we think is socially valuable way to spend the money. and i think a better way to do it would be to get rid of all these deductions and have a broader base with a lower rate. with that said, that's not on the table right now. so i would still prefer lower rates. host: it's part of our sunday roundtable. from our twitter page, a rather robust conversation on taxes and the economy. well, speaking of taxes and the debate on capitol hill, the "new york times," as the ground shifts biden plays a bigger role. the esense of the story, comment? guest: well, i think it shows one, what a useful defender what a vice president biden has been. people wondered what kind of role he would play and it's been, i think they're doing their jobs. i think the president expects members of congress to hold them accountable to pull them in the direction and i think members of congress need to realize that the president is trying to get things done and he has got to make compromises. ultimately, i think it's incumbent to say what a stronger action would have been, calling for leadership is sort of an empty call unless you say what that leadership is. so that's i think the situation now. host: and from our twitter page, brian says we'll go to maria in arlington, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to throw out a few quotes from f.d.r. the test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. here is my principle. taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. that is the only american principle. we continue to recognize the greater ability of some to earn more than others. but we do assert that the ambition of the individual to obtain for him a proper security is an ambition to be preferred to the appetite for great wealth and great power. and i totally agree with bernie sanders and i think if anyone missed his eight-hour presentation on friday the tax cut filibuster i urge everybody to watch it. the idea of giving $100,000 on average in tax breaks to people who make $1 million or more is totally insane. host: thanks. and by the way, his eight hours plus available on our website. part of the c-span video library, c-span.org, click it on and you'll be able to watch it. guest: you make a good point there. and we've been going back and forth. the problem is not necessarily recognizing that this is people's own income. i think the problem is, especially for people on the left and people in the middle see this too that this tax code is not progressive enough in that it doesn't take a fair share from everyone. the rich still are disproportionately benefiting. you look at warren buffet who says, look, my secretary pays a higher tax rate than i do. and that's a real problem. and bill gates has come out and said this. there are a lot of wealthy people saying this is not fair right now. so i think fud a discussion about making the tax code fairers, and this is what we were getting into, that would be welcomed and you would see less sort of talk of bailing out the wealthy and more talk about paying our fair share to get the government to do what we want it to do. host: the president took questions at the white house and critical of his own party who did not go along with him. we talked with senator levin on friday. it airs after the washington journal and the agreement worked out between the white house and senate republicans, one of the questions that we posed to senator 11. >> i'm not satisfied with the presidential push. i believe that he should use the bullly pull pilt to say something like this on taxes. this is the thing i believe in as president go through the list of things he believes in. i don't believe in tax cuts for upper bracket people or that a state tax bon ansa for the rich that some people want and i'm going to fight those. and the way that i think the president needs to fight them is to say that he is going to use the, all of the power he has of a bully pul pit to urge the senate to stay in, right up to new year's. and if the republicans at the end of december want to continue to filibuster a tax bill, which is aimed at helping middle income people instead of upper income people, that is something which they will have to take on their own heads. that's the problem, is that i don't see that kind of a willingness to fight that hard where he will take that kind of a position. and that's what's necessary. host: senator carl leven is the chair of the armed services committee. going back to the scheduling point because the senate is supposed to wrap up business by the end of the week although technically they could stay until the end of december, the dream act, of course the tax a greemt to be worked on. how likely is that? guest: people act as if the senate adjourning next friday is set in stone. but clearly last we're we were in the senate was in session until christmas to get health care passed. and i think that you could see the same sort of thing. if there's a chance that harry reid thinks that you might be able to pass don't ask don't tell. and when we're talking about obama and liberals, i think that that's one thing that if they have votes and theoretically the votes exist to repeal don't ask don't tell, i think that that would be something that they could probably get, a victory that they could give to liberals. that when obama was running for reelection, he could say, look, i passed a health care bill and we repealed don't ask don't tell. so we're sort of making progress. but i think that it's very important to feel like liberals got some sort of victory before republicans take control of the house. host: again, the tax debate in earnest on our twitter page. ann has this comment. our last call is bill from atlanta. our line for democrats. welcome to the washington journal. caller: thank you. good morning. thanks for taking my call. the problem is that when the democrats controlled both houses they chose to separate. and we're not going to support this president. now, we want to start with the republicans and it's sad that a lot of democrats are now turning to republicans. it's sad that we're sitting here holding america hostage and we want to, the rich want to keep getting richer and the poor getting poorer. there's no middle class. it's sad that we're sitting here having fill lip talking about fiscal responsibility and how president obama is a socialist. tim, you've got your work cut out for you. you keep fighting for the people. i've i have a whole lot of colleagues unemployed. republicans, the rich fat cats have to hold the economy hostage so they can get their tax breaks. they don't need it. how much is enough. host: thanks for the call. guest: well, i think the point you're making reflects how a lot of americans feel. and i think why the filibuster registered with people. to me the most powerful part was talking about unemployment. and there's one job opening for every five workers right now. and not about just an economic toll but that's a real moral toll on people that hurts the fabric of our country. so we really need to do something about that. and that's why, for instance, extending unemployment benefits for 13 months is a part of this deal. i just want to step back to one thing that bill just said and note, if they do pass don't ask, don't tell repeal in the senate, that's just not a gift to liberals. that's for the massive support for repealing that for the country makes you think that the filibuster against repealing it is going to go down in history like strom thur monday's fill busters against the civil rights act. it's amazing how such a broad swath think it's time to get rid of this policy. i do think, and the fact that the greatest hope it will pass right now comes from senators jo lieberman and susan collins are not to the far left or right, shows what an important thing this is to the middle of the country. host: and the last point, the editorial in the weekly comment. good deal, the agreement between the president and the senate republicans. guest: i think that's something we haven't spoken that much about is the spending side of the ledger. and i agree that republicans have been pitful at the spending side of the ledger. and i agree with tim that unless that basically we can't have everything imperttute. and basically i think that all the stuff that we were talking about, about taxes and the bush tax cut is really a prosm aye fight for a much larger fight. and that's basically what do we see as the role of government. and i think that we need to have a national conversation on this because basically what we see the massive growth of entitlements they can't be sustained at current tax levels. so my view is, i think that spending should be brought in line with tax revenues and liberals think that, no, people should pay more so that we could sustain more spending on social programs. and i think that basically we have to decide, as a society, do we want a welfare state where people get quote unquote free health care and so forth? do we want to go in the direction of europe with very high tax rates and very high spending? or do we want to scale back and sort of change in a more market centered direction, a more market centered approach to health care to bring spending down. so, but i think there's clear ideological differences between what government should do and if people decide that, yes, we want government to be involved in a lot of things, then, yes, we're going to have to raise taxes or else it's going to lead to complete fiscal collapse. but i would rather argue for getting spending in line with tax rates so that you keep tax rates low it could lead to a better economy. host: final point. guest: well, i'm going to suggest maybe that's not the right debate. i think there's a third debate with the bipartisan policy fiscal commission which says we meet in the middle. we get tax reform that raises more re new. we cut spending. we find a way to have a government that does what we want it to do and get rid of the waste. that means cutting defense spending. that means cutting programs that aren't working. but we need a revenue system that raises what we need and makes the program the social safety net the last two years have shown we need. and make sure it's strong in the future without bankrupting us. that's what we learned in the past month. host: gentlemen, thanks for joibing us on this sunday. please come back again. robin wright is going to be joining us in a couple minutes to talk about relations with iran. she has put together this on iran, power politics and u.s. policy. coming up later, we'll turn our attention to a climate change discussion going on in mexico, what it means for the u.s. and other indstramized nations. first arks look at some of the events at this past week from cartoonists from around the country. >> for more than 15 years robin wright writes for the l.a. times. you put together this book, a lot of different points of view, the power, politics, economy, and policy towards iran. what are some of your conclusions? guest: i think we try to bring together a cross section of analysts from think tanks, former weapons inspectors, and the top iran official in six administrations to reflect on the different aspects of what do we do about iran, what's going on inside iran. i think some of the conclusions are that over the past 18 months particularly, iran has become increasingly militerized in order to push back on a very vibrant opposition movement. that it is, as we all know, medling in neighboring countries such as iraq and afghanistan. but also, hezbollah in lebanon is increasingly trying to exert its presence, also reaching out to places like venezuela and bolivia. some of the unlikely allies. countries in africa as well. iran sees itself as leading a movement that is not just in the islamic world but in the developing world as well. host: more recently the roots of our relation dating back to the shah in the 1979, 444 days of americans held hostage, the carter administration dealing with that and every administration since trying to come to terms with iran, trying to negotiate. but you call it a con on drum. guest: it is because we have conflicting interests at this particular junk sure. we just renewed the effort at diplomacy with talks last week in geneva between the world six major powers and iran. and of course the primary source of discussion is over iran's controversial nuclear program. and the sense that in the next couple of years, it could cross a threshhold in terms of its capability. not necessarily making a bomb but having the capability if it wanted it. but at the same time, the outside powers are concerned about this, the internal situation. and the opposition that is for the first time showing itself in public ways. and it's going after the same things that the united states wants to see more freedom of the press, fair and accountable elections, participation by both men and women in the political system. and so it's trying to deal with iran in the nuclear program and keep it contained without liegetmiesing it in a way that will then pull the rug out from underneath the opposition. host: let me take three areas. the shipping lanes that pass through iran and its potential impact on the world's oil supply. guest: well, iran is a very important strategic property. it's the 18th largest country in the world and it borders the three most volatile other regions, the middle east, the caucuses and south asia. and but it also has control over, as you point out, the shipping lanes through the straits of hormutsdz. and if it wanted to. it could try to cut off access to ships. i think it would be very difficult because the u.s. navy is also there in large numbers and iran knows it would pay a price for that. plus its economy is based on the export of ile oil too. host: militarily the largest army in the middle east. guest: the largest. it doesn't have the strongest capability because of israel but it has the largest in terms of numbers and one of the largest arsenals. and some of it is with the help of north korea domestically made. they've gotten technology they've purchased from the pakistanis but most importantly north korea and they are developing a missile capability particularly that could hit europe. host: and point number three. how do you blend islam and democracy? guest: well, iran was always the great or the first experiment in how do you blend islam and democracy. and that's the challenge we face throughout the islamic world. this is the last block of countries to hold out against the democratic tide that has swept the rest of the world. and iran has a ven near of democracy and then it has elections and everyone votes from the male and female from the age of 18. but it's also a very limited democracy because all candidates are vetted by a group called the consul of guardians. whether their cred dentials are islamic enough, whether they meet the kind of standard for candidates. there were 42 women who registered to run for the presidential contest last year in june 2009, they were all disqualified by the council of guardians. but at the same time, there has been such female activism inside iran that the group had to acknowledge that women had the right to run. so that was an important threshhold. but we see that the regime, because of the accusations of fraud and vote rigging in the last election, which put mr. ahmadinajed back in power, this has become a very contentious point and led to the largest show of people power in the region in modern times. host: if you had an honest discussion of a cross section of iranians, how would they view president acminjad? >> we make a terrible mistake in the west trying to characterize or lump them together in the stereo types. clearly he is a very controversial leader not only among the opposition but also from even many conservatives in parliament who has challenged some of his decisions. he has been involved in some gross economic mismanagement which mazz made has made life much tougher for the average iranian to make ends meet. so he is controversial. it's the economy stupid, the same kind of issues we face in the united states. so those are the thing that is concern i think the average iranian more than anything else . host: our guest is robin wright. she has traveled to more than 140 countries. she is the editor of the iran primer. she has also been the author of jihad against the jihad. >> no. that's a book that's coming up. we changed the title. rock the cazzba. and it's going to come out just before the tenth anniversary of 9/11. host: so from this and your recommendations, if you can give recommendations to the united nations and the obama administration? guest: there are six chapters on u.s. policy and the various options. engagement, containment, sanctions, the military option. and it's really interesting that the wide variety of views that are captured in this book, no one believes that the military option is one that is attractive, feasible, we know less about iran's nuclear program today than we knew about iraq's nuclear program on the eve of the invasion. there are deep suspicions. but it's about its interest in developing a nuclear weapon but it's largely by deduction. what facilities do they have? what have they not been willing to talk to the united nations about, the weapons inspectors? scientists that are off limits. so i think that one thing that's striking in terms of u.s. policy is that going to war with iran would be far more complicated than either afghanistan or iraq. and that we don't know enough about its program to assure that a military strike would actually do anything more than set iran back by a year or two. host: our topic is iran and our relations with that country our guest is robin wright. if you want to get more information on the iran primer, part of the institute of peace on its website, which is where our guest is affiliated with. michael from maine. good morning. caller: good morning. my question, well, my comment is i guess i wonder what makes the united states think they can go around the world and police everybody? you know, and why would we believe, like mass destruction over there in the war, the first war we got into with saddam where we went in there on false pretense, and now here they are going after iran on basically the same thing because they make a nuclear power and this. what's it our business? guest: it's an interesting question. and one of the historic fact oids is that all the way back to the ford administration, the united states has agreed that iran had a legitimate need to develop a nuclear energy program, a peaceful program. iran claims that's all that it's doing. but there is enough doubt among u.n. weapons inspectors and the fact that iran has not come clean about its 18-year secret program that there is concern that iran is working on developing its own nuclear weapons capability. in terms of the role of the united states, the reality is that in the post cold war world, washington is the most powerful capital in the world. and iran also has a greater interest in dealing with the united states in part for that very reason than it does with any other country. host: next, john from fairfax, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to thank you, steve, for all the work you do for the portion of the radio. host: thank you for listening. caller: i listen to that. and i recommend listening to c-span rather than watching on tv. you can get more done. but as far as iran goes, this is one of the oldest, wisest cultures in the world, pesha. -- persia. and we took away their opportunity for democracy when we killed a democratically elected leader and installed a police state. iran has every right in the world to have a defensive weapon. iran is just saying we don't want to -- if you're going to -- we are willing to fight back if you mess with us too much. it's like don't mess with texas. you know? let them be a proud country and integrate them into society and give the people the right. host: john, stay on the line because as you were making your comment jim also had tweeted in this point as well, which is along the lines you said. john, your thoughts about that and we'll get you to respond to jim's thought caller: absolutely. america has tried to control the world. we took out saddam because he wanted to price his oil in euros. he would not cow down to american power. and so we killed americans to kill him. it's crazy. host: thank you, john. guest: a number of different points. he talks about the very strong persian nationalism. to understand iranians, think of the most shaufnistic texan you'ver met and add 5,000 years. there's a sense of national identity. and iran is a -- it think it can do it again. in terms of the united states, yes, both united states and britain played a pivotal role in 1953 in forcing the epped of a democratically ellene elected government and bringing the shah who fled to roam back to the country. iran tried to open up its political system and have a democracy or greater political participation. and after since 1953 there has been this real bitterness about the u.s. role. most americans don't know about it but every iranian does. and that of course has put the united states in a negative category in the eyes of many iranians. host: two headlines from the "washington post" this past tuesday and wednesday, major powers and iran hold constructive talks. but the headline on wednesday, little progress seen as the talks with iran come to an end. what's the story? >> well, i think the important thing is that for the first time in 14 months the iranians came to the negotiating table and they met with the world six major powers who are leading an effort to try to force iran to be honest about its program, to give access and to cooperate, to find a compromise. the negative side of the story is that very little was accomplished. we're still engaged in a process. and in many ways, we're further away than we were in october 2009, the last time we met, because then there was a deal on the table that would have started in a tangible way cooperation between the two sides. now there's not even a deal on the table. they're just talking oobd talking and it looks a little bit like the dragged out peace process between the arabs and israel. there is a clock ticking. looming in the background is israel and its fear of iran adds an capess tential threat if it should develop a nuclear weapon. but for the time being one of the things that's important is that iran lives in a neighborhood where five of the nine nuclear powers reside, and it feels quite vulnerable. iraq used repeatedly chemical weapons against iran during its eight-year war, the bloodiest modern middle east conflict so iran feels very vulnerable. despite its intense hateful rhetoric about places like israel, iran also knows that if it should opt to use a nuclear weapon, that it would pay an enormous price and face a nuclear response. so for the moment if it has what many people suspect, it would probably be as a deterrent capability more than an intent to use it. host: our guest is a graduate from the university, she works for the united states institute of peace. ken is joining us from florida. welcome to the conversation, ken. caller: thank you and gorne. ms. wright, in response to your last comment, if i may read some comments from what bar bra slaven once called a moderate who indicated that his calculus was that if he laufpkd or iranians launched an attack against israel with nuclear weapons they would kill 5 million jews and if the israelis did retaliate by bombing iran, there would be probably somewhere in the vicinity of 20 million muslims killed. but after all there are 500 million muslims. so his calculus was that it would be a small sacrifice. also, the president never mind israel threatened america and europe. his comments were, and i quote, our missiles are now ready to strike at their civilization and as soon as the instructions arrive from the leader, we will launch our missiles at their cities and installations. end quote. is the associated press 40. 2004. what i would like to point out, as much as we arm our policemen, we do not arm our krnls. and the essential condition is that ack man din jad, who has destroyed the economy of iran and is according to these wickie leaks that came out, most of the sunni muslim nations around iran would be more than happy to see the united states or for that matter israel destroy the nuclear facilities in iran. host: i'm going to stop you there. you put a number of issues on the table. thanks for calling. we'll get a response from robin. guest: i think on the military issue, no military strike is going to be simple in part because we don't know a lot about where iran's facilities are. some of the them are believed to be deep underground. but it's not simple because we have significant military deployments in both iraq and afghanistan. and u.s. troops there could be vulnerable to counter strikse. and so any military operation, particularly by the united states, would have to go after more than just the nuclear facilities. and that then becomes to look like a widespread war, not just a response to its nuclear program. host: on that point, would china support, would china provide support to iran in the case of u.s. military action in that country? one of our questions from a viewer on twit sner guest: you know, we're talking about real hypotheticals here and it depends on what circumstances the u.s. might engage. so far the military option is left on the table but the administration has repeatedly said it wants a diplomatic solution. china is iran's very important trade partner now and it also buys 12% of its oil resources come from iran. and so this is an important relationship. china and russia to a certain degree as well have also blocked tougher sanctions at the united nations. but whether china would come to iran's military aid i suspect is doubtful. host: back to your calls. michael from north carolina with robin wright of the u.s. institute of peace. we're focusing on iran and its role not only in the region but globally. . . ♪ caller: has most iranians -- i knew some when i attended the university of colorado in 1979 when they shah fell and they were very pro-american. most of them came from the aristocracy they were sons and daughters of military. we really have no leverage in terms of negotiations. diplomacy, in my mind and i am just a keyboard diplomat, we have no leverage economically or militarily to get iran, to get, then a job to do what he wants -- what we want him to do. to get mahmoud ahmadinejad to do what we want him to do. are these negotiations, are these talks really just theater, diplomatic theatre? we have no political or economic leverage to do what we want them to do? guest: that is a good question. the important fact in the negotiation is that there are so many other countries involved. the european union in particular has enormous leverage over iran because several of its member states like germany and france, italy have a very significant business relationships. bilateral sanctions by the united states have almost no impact, the europeans have significant impact. they passed their own tough sanctions this summer and this has had an important effect on the iran business community. there is a new experiment that the united states is trying. the former -- is a form of sanctions but it is not related to nuclear programs. in the aftermath of 9/11, there were new international banking laws passed in part to make sure that money was not laundered to get to extremist groups. the treasury department has launched an effort by stuart levy to get international banks not to do business with iran because it is not complying with these new banking standards. there are over 100 banks around the world including places like china that are no longer doing any business with iran. this makes it very difficult for tehran to acquire the kind of raw materials it needs for the industry to send exports out and get letters of credit. it is those kinds of restrictions which have actually had far more impact than the classic formulation of sanctions. host: a couple of quick e-mails -- countries in the middle east will never change. history has told us desperate we need to stop policing the world. look what happened to the soviet union. these wars will destroy us economically guest: i share some of that concern in terms of economics. we are in serious economic trouble in part because we use some of our resources to pay for those wars. we are in tremendous desperate i share that concern. in terms of policing the world, the reality is we are the major power in the world and we're the one that everyone turns to at the end of the day. the iranians actually what -- want relations renewed among the people are . if the regime engages with the united states, they think it would change the iranian pariah status. host: we were talking earlier about former president jimmy carter another, your says the roots of the iranian problem is not the jimmy carter. the iranian president was assassinated in the early 1950's. guest: was not assassinated but he was forced from powerthe hsah had fled to rome --the shah had fled to rome. it was a c.i.a.-orchestrated movement. it led to demonstrations on the street that forced him from power and allowed the shah to return. that is something that resonates with the iranians. it is still commemorated today. host: when the meetings resume with a red in january, what is the goal? guest: iran has the right to enrich uranium under the non- proliferation tree. they argue they are not violating international law or any treaty. they do have a leg to stand on per they lied about a military program for 18 years and has not provided adequate answers about what they were doing and where they were doing it and allowing full access to both scientists and facilities. this is the core issue that will be discussed. the concern is that the two sides are coming to this negotiating effort from totally different perspectives. the iranians are saying that they want to talk about a nuclear-free region. which means israel as well. the united states and its allies are going in and they want to talk just about the iranian program. host: next call is joy from portland, oregon. caller: this week, there is a lot of information about our debt. i was listening to cnbc and erin burnett said our sanctions are not serious. we have actually sold our treasury to borrow money from iran. they are one country along with audi arabia and other estimations in the middle east. iran is one of them so we are not only borrowing money from iran to pay our debts but now they will have to borrow from the united states wealth, they had funds and the wall street people. we have to borrow that money in order to pay our debt. we have to pay for these tax cuts for the wealthy. host: did you watch the documentary on cnbc? caller: yes, we have interests there. host: is it kish island which could be a source of -- it could be a pipeline for economic revival with the united states in iran? thank you for calling in. guest: i did not see the documentary. we are not borrowing money from iran. we cannot. we do not do business with iran. an interesting thing is that every transaction that involves u.s. dollars, for example the selling of oil in u.s. dollars, has to go through a u.s. bank. that is because it is a transaction involving dollars. it is called a u-turn and the united states has recently prohibited sex of iran's -- thanks for iran's doing this. we deal with humanitarian goods, medical supplies, and educational materials. those are the things that are exempted from sanctions. host: our twitter page -- what are we really trying to accomplish? that is getting more dista since the cold war? . guest: tensions are arguably greater between iran and the united states. the obama administration has decided that they are prepared to renew relations with iran but under certain conditions. s cooperation iran' with the united nations on their nuclear program. this is a quantum change. we have gone through periods of tension were neither side has wanted to deal with each other. even the bush administration toyed with the idea of opening eight u.s. interest section. --a u.s. interest section. host: charlotte, n.c., good morning. caller: good morning and thank you cspan and good morning, robin. i think the real issue this comes down to her regarding national rate -- natural resources. under the disguise of imposing democracy, how does this country justified demanding a country to be defenseless so that we can in turn go in there and privatize their oil fields and take control of the strait of hormuz. i think this is what the agenda is and to lead bp's back in there when they were in there in the 1950's and were ex spelled out of iran because they were pillaging their natural resources and running off with the profits. how you demand a country to be defenseless with that agenda in mind? guest: iran is far from defense list. it has a sophisticated missile program. they have an enormous military parad y have the revolutionary guards and the military. they have a very strong ability to defend itself not from a power like the united states but it can wreak havoc in the region. the issue of oil is interesting. much of america's interest in the middle east ultimately does relate to the fact that we have a dependency to fuel our industries and automobiles and homes with oil products. for that reason, the united states will be in the region militarily regardless of what happens with iran for a long time to come. we have a major naval presence in the persian gulf. there are about 50,000 troops in iraq and more in afghanistan. we have quite a strong presence in that region in part because of our own economic self- interest. host: our conversation with robin wright. she has put together a book with other people to look at iran. ms. wright talks about other as meddling with iran. doesn't she see the united states meddling as well? the u.s. needs to return to being a signing city on the halle berry we need to lead by example guest: the iranians feel vulnerable because there are so many troops on both of its borders, afghanistan and iraq. in 2003, there were as a diplomatic overture by the iranians because they feared they might be next. needless to say, we are in afghanistan because of 9/11 and the fact that the taliban hosted al-qaida and made it into a base for extremist activity all over the world. iraq you can debate forever. i had reservations before we went in there because i thought we did not know enough about what they had. clearly, there are many in the region who are angered and frustrated or opposed to the u.s. military presence in the region. until we develop alternative energy sources, the reality is we will be there for a long time, places like saudi arabia will be dependent on the united states in the event of anything happening as a significant threat to the royal family. host: nuclear power plants and electric cars would boost our economy by freeing us from a dependence on mideast oil, says another viewer. guest: alternative energy as a way to combat extremism. we want to bring up a generation that understands the broader ideals and the kind of standards that have been adopted internationally in terms of what is appropriate with human rights and political participation and social justice. host: are there any backdoor negotiations with iran like north korea? guest: for many years, there were track two efforts and those are important in terms of helping iranians and americans get to know each other again for the first time. it involved things like wrestling competitions and other sporting events. there were exchanges between film makers and science tests. but those have pretty much ceased under -- under mahmoud ahmadinejad. they prolonging iran-iraq war was very taxing. use up openings that began when presidents rafsanjani. since mahmoud ahmadinejad was elected, iran has cracked down on his domestic policy as well as it -- as well as its relation with the outside world. this is arguably the hardest time for diplomacy but also the most important time because of around's nuclear possibilities. host: michigan, republican line, good morning. caller: and spent time in the region, there is a capacity but i have not paid attention to the blockade in the straits of hormuz. and do we have the capacity now -- i know we can do the blockade but can we actually protect the saudi oilfields? downsizing back in the 1970's, we had over 300 surface warfare on the east coast alone, ships, and now i understand we are less than half. it becomes to a blockade, can we protect the saudi oil? guest: one of the important policy options is containment. containment can mean many different things. can mean trying to prevent through sanctions around's and access to certain kinds of technology. containment in a bigger form can mean the deployment of ships so the u.s. interdicts andy ship that might be bringing in controversy military equipment. that is much tougher. that will be costly and open ended. it may be what we end up doing. short of a military strike. most presidents have tried to do in different forms since the end of the hostage ordeal in 1981, because we have not been able to deal with iran, we have tried to contain the scope of its intervention in the region, its acquisition of certain types of technology and its exports. we have not done that well with containment so far. a new containment would involve far, far more. that is at a time when we are already fighting two wars. it would bring its own costs. host: where does the funding comes from for your institute? guest: the usip was congressional mandated and gets some of its funds from the government. i don't know what percentage. maybe all of it. i am simply a fellow regional specialist. at but the institutions. they both of government ties. host: your focus includes iran, southeast asia -- this program is carried live on the bbc channel. we welcome your participation. caller: hello, i wanted to ask -- can you hear me? host: we sure can. caller: i wanted to ask, what is your opinion of the bush administration -- the obama administration's handling of the iran situation? how has the strategy worked so far? is it working? i want to quickly quote a recent article in the economist which states that the bush security team gives the president credit for strengthening sanctions -- host: i think we lost his connection. guest: i get it. the obama administration, its policy toward iran has two simultaneous tracks. one is to continue pressure on iran to try to get it to cooperate and that the same time it is engaging. no one likes to talk about carrots and sticks. that is what the bush administration tried. that is a continuation of that, basically. there is already talk that if iran does not come to the table in january for substantive talks, that there will be a beginning discussion about additional sanctions on iran. this is a way of saying that we want to engage and resolve these problems but we also don't want an open-ended process for fear that iranians are engaging in a kind of diplomatic dodge ball. host: last call from virginia beach, good morning. caller: thank you for cspan. an israeli strike is not really realistic if you look at the distance from israel and the avenues they have to take to conduct a strike, take into account the air defense and all these other complexities and refueling. look at where it is. it does not seem right. iraq would have to be part of the avenue and saudi arabia would have to be part of the avenue. what is the chance of it the israelis striking any part of iran? "something went wrong? what if something went wrong? guest: first of all, the obama administration has been talking often to israel about iran and trying to urge it to give the u.s. effort, the international effort, more time, not to move in the next few months or in the spring if there is talk in washington. any kind of -- any kind of military operation for israel would be difficult. they can refuel their bombers in the air. some of these issues about range may not be as relevant as one might anticipate. i am not a military specialist but i am told israel has the capability if it wants to, to strike military say -- militarily on some of the iranian nuclear plants but for how long and how much? with the united states be blamed for it anyway whether it is american equipment or israel is our strong ally. will we carry culpability? will we bear the brunt of a possible response? the israelis are very serious about their concern about iran's nuclear capabilities. they are serious when they talk about military option being alive on their table. i don't anticipate we are likely to see that in the next year. host: make a back to your book. -- let me go back to your book. no nation can ill afford to ignore iran and iran internally views its nuclear program as a symbol of greatness. guest: they also viewed as an issue of sovereignty. they view this as the outside world trying to control its ability to fuel its peaceful nuclear reactors and they don't think that's a legitimate right. the world does not do that with any other country that has nuclear energy. iran is a country that cannot be ignored because of simple things like its demographics. it has a strategic location. it is so close to so many areas. in the three areas around iran, the middle east because of their involvement with groups involvementhamas or hezbollah, or in south asia or in afghanistan or in the caucuses on less iran is a full-time player host: robin wright, thank you for being with us. what is next with climate change? negotiations wrapped up in cancun, mexico which is our next topic. we will check out the latest on the sunday morning prague -- programs. >> topics on the sunday shows today include a tax cut agreement between president obama and congressional republicans. , peace in the middle east, the war in afghanistan, and 2012 presidential politics. we begin at noon with meet the press. they will have austin ghouls be, michael bloomberg, and democratic congressman anthony weiner. at 1:00 it is abc's "this week." david axelrod will be a guest, the prime minister of the palestinian authority, the former israeli foreign minister, and former british prime minister gordon brown. fox news sunday will be at 2:00 p.m. eastern time. the guest will be paul ryan and the incoming ranking member chris van hollen. also an interview with supreme court justice stephen briar. at 3:00 p.m., it is state of the union with david axelrod, and two democrats. senate majority whip dick durbin and a former director of national intelligence will be guests. at 4:00 p.m. on face the nation, the guests will be white house adviser david axelrod, jerry nadler, and former vermont governor howard dean perry the five network tv talk shows are brought to as a public-service by the network and c-span. those re-airs begin at noon. listen to and all on cspan radio ads 90.1 radio in the washington area for satellite/xm radio. >> this weekend>noah feldman on fdr's supreme court appointees. the man who began their tenure as friends and ended up as scorpions year. find a complete schedule at book-tv.org. ♪ >> in london, riots over higher tuitions, program cuts, and politicians debate the debt crisis in england. this month q &a expands into two programs. a former member of parliament will be tonight at 8:00. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our topic is climate change and the environment. we have an environmental reporter with politico. guest: good morning. host: talks just wrapped up in cancun, mexico and who sat at the table and what was the agenda? guest: they were talking about the future of the planet to try to figure out where the policy should go. they wrapped up late friday, early saturday morning after one of a long marathon talks. it was a modest deal. they agreed to keep negotiations going forward. they punted on some of the most controversial questions of whether a treaty should be extended lights the kioto protocol. they also punted on what the biggest countries would have to deal with. they did deal with some of the low hanging fruit. they are starting to set up a fund for $100 billion which will help countries less advanced in terms of their energy infrastructure to get them up to speed. host: me summarize one point -- instead of a globalized agreement among countries, there seems to be a go-it-alone approach by some countries. how would that work and what impact will that have? guest: the kyoto process was ratified by the senate back in 1992. it sets up the united nations framework convention on climate change. they run the negotiations from year to year. that process has been questioned for a long time that it can actually reach a big deal like ktoto which was 13 years ago. it was never ratified by the united states. there is talk of trying to have the united states and china were together or the united states and india. the united states process is clunky and requires consensus which can cause problems. the bolivian led the opposition encamped around charging that there was racism and conspiracy and can slow the process down. these agreements are starting to come from the united states with specific states working with the european union. countries are going forward with environmental policies. the other argument is that the u.n. for a market is necessary to go forward. some of these countries might not be directly engaged in these bilateral talks and they may need some sort of forum. host: another issue is the cost for these changes especially for poor countries. you pointed out that hillary clinton says the u.s. would help the developing nations with assistance. are we doing so? guest: are just getting started. there was a short-term fast start fund that was created at the copenhagen negotiations last year. that is a $30 billion fund where the united states, japan, the european union have been giving money. the united states has been funding this at a small level, $1.7 billion. we have a question what will happen in this current fiscal year. some of these bills have been stuck on capitol hill. it is a little money in the short term but there is a $100 billion amount that the united states would like to offer tens of billions of dollars but that bill is dead and there is no chance of that coming out back in the next two years. the long-term financing is a question. where will that money come from? the u.s. is talking about public-private partnerships. they want to find other work -- other avenues to come up with this money host: the united states adjusts to a changed political dynamic in washington bridge guest: the republicans are coming into the house and we will probably see hearings next year on each of these big environmental regulations. this week, the epa pulled back and the timing of putting up two regulations, one dealing with air pollution and one dealing with industrial boilers which are heavily contested. republicans are questioning the cost and what they will do to the economy. the epa pullback not putting them out right away the. a guest for extension for a couple of months. the obama administration may compete -- may complete these rules next year. host: our guest is from the competitive enterprise institute. guest: thank you for having me. host: conclusion on the meetings in cancun, mexico and where the discussion is heading next? guest: i think it is winding down. i don't think there will be a successor to the kyoto protocol that has blinded and mandatory targets and timetables. i think there may be -- they may be able to cobble together an agreement to keep kyoto goins about the transfer of funds from the developing -- from the rich world to the developing world continues through some of these mechanisms. i think the whole that is winding down as the global warming scare as peaked and is to block -- declining very rapidly. host: are saying that we are not dealing with global warming? guest: the kyoto protocol has not dealt much with global warming. i think it will continue. it has momentum and there is a lot of money involved. these people will keep going to the motions for a long time but i don't think they will actually do anything. guest: would you say that the process -- you have a big sigh into the community that is pushing to try ratchet down emissions. the complaint in cancun was that we were not doing enough. will there be some sort of international agreement? guest: i don't see much progress toward that. for the scientists, i think you have scientific bodies in these various countries that were pushing it, but these are official bodies fully funded by the government that support these things. as these governments change and no longer supported these policies, these bodies will quickly change their tune. i don't really see much pressure for moving to cut global emissions. globally missions will keep going up rapidly for the next 30 or 40 years, certainly. the developing world will start catching up in terms of -- in terms of electricity use with the developed world. that argument has already been lost by the alarmists. guest: we're talking with myron ebell. host: in response to growing frustration, the u.n. climate negotiations are not producing real world results. individual nations are cobbling together patchwork solutions to preserve forests, produce clean energy, and scrub pollution from the air. guest: there may be some half- hearted efforts to do that in some countries. largely, the lid on emissions will be done by lack of economic growth in places like the european union and the united states. china gets 80% of its electricity from coal and for every megawatts of wind power that they are adding, they are adding hundreds of megawatts of coal fire power. by a expect that these kind of piecemeal efforts are highly moralistic. they are designed to show that we are better than other people but they will have virtually nothing to do with global emissions. host: he is a policy director, thank you for being with us. back to your phone calls. norwalk, conn., good morning. caller: i have two ideas that don't take a rocket scientists. congress take too long to pass laws that they cannot decide in two weeks, let president obama step in and the veto. there should be two laws -- a law restricting any more blastoffs into it i want to know if there are any studies done were global warming escalated. the second idea is no more drivers in fast food places. they contribute greatly to our global warming problem. people should stop being lazy and walk in and it will help the environment and you will get exercise. how you feel about this? guest: there are not too many regulations in place about fast food to stop americans from enjoying their big macs. i am not aware of any studies tying space travel into global warming. the epa regulations are moving forward. we will start seeing them on power plants and big industrial facilities next year. automobile regulations moved forward this year. they will be contested by industry and republicans in congress and we will see court battles in the next couple of years. host: we appreciate your phone calls. you can also send us an e-mail, journal@cspan.org. you can also twitter us. "people are more worried about jobs, feeding a family, and plane surviving -- forget global warming." guest: absolutely the economic argument is one that brings the senate climate bill to a standstill. the democrats were pushing this as an economic driver for green jobs. they want to win the united states of fossil fuels. that bill passed as unemployment move that 10% or higher buried it ground to a halt in the senate because of moderate democrats. the president decided to switch its focus to health care rather than the climate bill earlier this year. that debate of the economy and the environment is one that has been going on for decades and continues. the democrats will argue that the industrial warnings that the cost of regulations are too high and have often not been true once the regulations have been written. there was an agreement where you have power plant regulations put in place by congress and industry warned they would cost a bit of money and ultimately, they use day capand trade system that was quite economical. host: our guest covers environmental and energy issues. we are talking about the climate meeting that took place in canada and mexico that wrapped up friday. albany, ore., good morning. caller: thank you for the opportunity to speak. i am an atmospheric scientist and have been for the last 35 years. it seems to me that we in the science field are still not being heard. it is kind of amazing to me. i don't work for the government but the world is not hearing what we said and has not heard it for 30 years. it is pretty amazing it seemed to me that now the natural world is on the run. am i correct that is the message from cancun? the world's and a short-term strategy to use all energy as soon as possible guest: the ad as the driver for these negotiations. things are happening environmentally now and they are saying we are facing the brunt of this now throat changing weather patterns and more extreme hurricanes. projections are to be seen over the next several decades, they claim, but the atmosphere concentration of gases and there is a connection with industrial output. what is driving the epa, they decided earlier and at the end of the bush administration that the regulations were warranted. there is strong support for what is happening as we will see on capitol hill. there will be intense discussions and debates over climate change in the house. republicans want to start investigating some of the controversies that have appeared over the last year. we are headed to another year of scientific debate in the house of representatives. host: you talk about the individual approach in individual nations. what about individual states, most notably california, which seems to have some of the toughest environmental regulations in the country. does it work? you also have cars sold in california that have different economic requirements. guest: they have a unique place as having an independent authority to go ahead of the federal government and drive innovation. when they moved the catalytic converter for, the rest of the country caught up with them. you started to see cars built to california specifications california at signed a law about for five years ago known as ad- 32 requiring california to reduce its emissions and several western states have tried to move with that. california voters rejected a law for oil companies. california has been in negotiations with other countries, the european union, to create its carbon market and link it with that european market. there will be opportunities where companies in california don't want to make the reduction they have to and they will confront offset where they can fund projects and they are trying to create a market with the vision of the united states. the united states wanted to link up with australia, europe, and japan. you have california and the northeastern states have a cap and the trade program. you are seeing this patchwork which was done and design during the bush administration. you saw these states popping up in pushing through their policies to embarrass the bush administration to move forward with federal policy. when obama came in, they thought this would happen but it subsided. these policies remain in effect but they are under pressure from conservatives to pull them back. it is an interesting tug-of-war that continues. host: what happens to the ozone hole? guest: that has been largely repaired through international united nations negotiations back into play in the early 1990's. it was signed by president george h. w. bush and ratified by the senate. the problem has largely been debated -- ben abated through forcing the pollutants from power plants or industrial practices being ratcheted down. that issue has subsided. host: our guest writes for politico. you can get more information on their website. middletown, new york, good morning. caller: how can we fix ourselves? [inaudible] [unintelligible] it was said that the climate to- gate was all a scam. they said relocating populism by force was a scam. i also watched wtaer wars. . appreciate cspan darie guest: al gore is not liked by the climate skeptics out there. the climate dating was a controversy that raged last year around the time of copenhagen. it showed scientists in their natural state talking amongst themselves and they leak some e- mails that came out recently. it was a series of investigations to look at the comments made by the scientists and ultimately, they were exonerate it. they were having candid conversations and were not trying to track the ball but they used words in the scientific community that might be misconstrued by the laymen and the general public. host: the conversation took place in cancun, mexico, were some experts locked out of the discussion? guest: the security guards slowed negotiations -- negotiators down from participating. the negotiations are happening in multiple rooms simultaneously and people are dispatched by the un to work on its paws of the individual issues. in the chaos, and it can wean people out. the mexicans were credited with pulling off a good conference, from what i've heard. there were a couple of standing ovations for the mexican hosts on the final night because of the transparency that they pushed forward. it is not an easy thing to pull off when you have 190 countries with different points of view trying to get on the same page, working under a consensus formula. in cancun, the bolivian were the ones complaining about access to the floor. whatever the negotiations earlier in the week. -- they walked out of the negotiations earlier in the week. this was trying to rebuild trust in the u.n. process. that was heard by copenhagen. there were 120 world leaders there. security was very tight at that conference last year. many people were not allowed to come into the building. in cancun, without the president's, there was nowhere near the level of copenhagen security. there was more freedom to move around. mexico is seen as a developing country and maybe they had a firmer leg to stand on. there is definitely a north/south divide. the last couple of talks have taken place in europe or maybe there has been antagonism toward the host country. host: 200 negotiators in mexico to talk about climate change. mo more is with us -- patrick moore is on the telephone. what happens next as negotiations and in mexico? guest: they say they reached an agreement in cancun. i think basically they agreed they could not reach an agreement. it was all very nice and it is a beautiful place. everybody comes and stays in $500 rooms at cordis resorts in cancun. -- and gorgeous resorts and can count. no agreements were actually reached or even made and certainly no binding legal agreements occurred there. i personally don't think it is possible for 190 countries, some of which are very poor, they have different patterns of energy use. it is impossible to come up with a single formula that will satisfy everybody. i really do believe that the kyoto process -- the founding country japan is pulling out. i believe the kyoto process should wind down and we should go about a different approach to reducing our fossil fuel emissions. host: part of that approach focuses on what china is doing or not doing on a bilateral basis. the u.s. might negotiate with china on emissions release, what can be done? guest: china will never agree to reduce its carbon emissions as long as they are on a path to beat the u.s.. the u.s. says they will not reduce unless china well? ill. china wants to achieve equality in per-capita initiations. emissions. that is why this will never happen. as long as we are driving cars that need guess, people will produce gas. the canadian oil, this is demonstrated that peak oil is not coming sen. all but shale gas around the world, it will change the game instantly. we need to talk about how we can change technology and electric cars and put heat pumps and building so that you don't need fossil fuel to run these things. more importantly is to switch to non-fossil electricity production. that is why i am so strong supporter of nuclear energy. host: is there a middle ground? can both sides come together? guest: the group of 20, the highest emitters which have convened during the bush administration and have continued, there are 20 countries involved and the amount to over 75% of total emissions in the world. there is a chance there that they can start to figure out how to work together. it really is about changing technology. it is not about top down orders about cap and trade and carbon tax and all that. that is fine but if you are still burning oil, the emissions are still just as high. we have to figure out how to move our technology off oil and coal and gas in an orderly fashion. i don't believe the climate catastrophe is coming. i think it would be good if our economies could reduce fossil fuels for a whole bunch of reasons, air pollution, energy security, there are better things to do with fossil fuels. we should conserve them for the future. we will never do it in the kyoto process. host: the clean energy coalition, thank you for joining us. ask your guest, scientists and meteorologist our thoughts on global warming. who has the best data? guest: there is a longstanding dispute between climatologists and meteorologist. s. you have this steep t dividethishe itcc is a body of scientists that are not just climatologist but the whole range from engineers. it is public health officials. they are looking at models in countless ways of looking at the research is much broader context than just looking at weather patterns specifically. i don't know if i want to put my foot on one side or the other. host: greenwood, arkansas, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a retired air force meteorologist brad let me tell you that global warming is real and is caused by co2 emissions and methane emissions. they are increasing rapidly. i think the latest devaluation was 3.8 parts per million of co2. there is more to global warming than the temperature. there is an increase in evaporation from the oceans which brings in more moisture when you get a low pressure center, causes more precipitation, that is why we have more floods in blizzards, stronger and more intense tornadoes, or kens and that sort of thing. -- hurricanes and that sort of thing. last summer was the warmest on record, i heard, in the united states. it is warm in one place in the world and called in another. people think there is no global warming, it is cooler than normal. we take the overall average earth temperature and it is going up every year. i have a solution to global warming. side solar and wind and electric cars. on the moon there are copious amounts of helium 3 and that is easily used for nuclear fusion and nuclear fusion is the ultimate energy solution. there is virtually no radiation. host: thank-you he sounds like a real expert. guest: he said it better than i could host: does the conference -- will the conference be held in toronto, canada? guest: last year was copenhagen and that was called in this year was in cancun they are moving from continent to continent. it has been and hot and cold, bridget climates. -- it has been in hot and cold climates. very few people got to the beach while they were in can gude these last two weeks. host: thank you very much for being with us. in case you missed it, some washington humor last night on nbc's "saturday night live." >> i know that many of you are unhappy especially tax cuts for those who make $250,000 or more per year. this white house had no choice. republican leaders insisted on tax cuts for the wealthy and they had decided to hold us hostag, literally. they held as hostage for about three days. bound, gagged, blindfolded, in a dark room somewhere outside washington. [laughter] it was a terrifying experience, hard to put into words. i don't think i will ever get over it, really. [laughter] here is something else -- the stockholm syndrome where hostas come to identify and agree with their captors, that is a real phenomenon [laughter] ] it really is. i learned that for myself and on the fourth day, i suddenly decided that i kind of agreed with the republican philosophy of trickle-down economics. that is why the tax cuts for the wealthy are the best part of the [laughter] bill] you watch, i predict the rich will use the extra money to go create jobs. millions and millions of jobs. it is like rush said on his

Related Keywords

Arkansas ,United States ,Middletown ,California ,Australia ,Washington City ,District Of Columbia ,Kish Island ,Hormozgan ,Iran ,Connecticut ,Charlotte ,North Carolina ,Mexico ,Tehran ,Iowa ,Blair House ,Butler County ,Pennsylvania ,Canada ,Japan ,Portland ,Oregon ,Germany ,Copenhagen ,Køavn ,Denmark ,Afghanistan ,Bolivia ,Indiana ,Virginia ,Kyoto ,Toronto ,Ontario ,Michigan ,Pakistan ,London ,City Of ,United Kingdom ,Iraq ,George Washington University Hospital ,Saudi Arabia ,North Korea ,Prague ,Praha ,Hlavníesto ,Czech Republic ,Capitol Hill ,France ,Arlington ,Texas ,Vermont ,Greenville ,China ,Minnesota ,Russia ,Washington ,India ,Rome ,Lazio ,Italy ,Stockholm ,Sweden ,Springfield ,Ohio ,Panama Canal ,Florida ,Ireland ,South Korea ,Georgetown University ,Redding ,New York ,Kentucky ,Columbus ,Wisconsin ,Lebanon ,Seattle ,Oklahoma ,Maine ,Fort Wayne ,Israel ,Hyde Park ,Colorado ,Geneva ,Genè ,Switzerland ,Venezuela ,Americans ,Mexicans ,America ,Saudi ,Mexican ,Texan ,Iranians ,Iranian ,Israelis ,Bolivian ,British ,Israeli ,American ,Canadian ,Chinese ,Britain ,Soviet ,Pakistanis ,Palestinian ,Persia ,Steven Dennis ,Philip Kline ,John Campbell ,Richard Holbrook ,Elizabeth Edwards ,Jan Hoffman ,Richard Holbrooke ,Nancy Pelosi ,David Axelrod Jerry Nadler ,Sunni Muslim ,Pacific Ocean ,George H W Bush ,Stephen Briar ,Michael Bloomberg ,Gordon Brown ,David Axelrod ,Chris Van Hollen ,Ron Bronstein ,Patrick Moore ,Al Gore ,Erin Burnett ,John Mccain ,Paul Ryan ,Bernie Sanders ,Blumberg Businessweek ,Susan Collins ,Jo Lieberman ,Dick Durbin ,Halle Berry ,Jerry Nadler ,Gary Duncan ,Joe Lieberman ,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ,Tim Philip ,Harry Reid ,Jimmy Carter ,Carl Levin ,Doug Brinkley ,George W Bush ,Mitch Mcconnell ,Anthony Weiner ,Cspan Darien ,Hillary Clinton ,Robin Wright ,