level of spending. it simply has to end. i m encouraged by what i ve heard at least said by the incoming republican leadership of the house, about what they will do beyond encouraged, i also believe strongly, that the facts are overwhelming. that we re going to have to deal with this, whether because of active positive leadership or whether because simply we can no longer ignore what is staring utts in the face. tucker: top five federal expenditures are entitlements, medicare, medicaid, social security. no one says that. you have interviewed everybody. do you know anybody in office striving to be in office, national level, who is willing to even talk about taking on say medicare spending? not a soul. the bowles-simpson commission is proof of what happens when even attempting to touch the
about how we are using our precious resources in this country? and how are we going to assure prosperity, not only in the next few years for americans but for the next few generations discussion is not even underway. and it goes critically to the heart of the issue before us. what role will government play in our society? can we sustain this level of engagement on the part of the federal government in our society? the answer is no. tucker: do you think most americans understand that? i do, absolutely. i was amused with your notice of the liberal perspective right now which is a patronizing judgment. american voter s intellect and character that. is the reason that they have been rejected in the most recent election and i think running a perilous course not only in terms of the consequences of their leadership, economically and
the world a safer place when the u.s. gets rid of its own nuclear weapons? isn t a strong well armed america the key to harmony in this world? of course but not in the ideology of the obama administration. they really believe that it is america s nuclear capability that is the problem, not the source of strategic stability. i think they do believe, very wrongly, but they do believe, if we reduce our nuclear capabilities, other countries will say, hey look at that, why done we reduce our nuclear capabilities too. tucker: in a gesture of kindness and goodwill toward men? solidarity, exactly. there s a 1970s flavor to this exercise. as you look out as someone well informed across the international landscape, does russia strike you as the imminent threat to our national security? no, that s the most fundamental flaw in this treaty.
if you are looking at hot spots that strikes me as a greater threat to this country than russia, no? it is certainly a much greater threat than our own nuclear capabilities. as far as i m concerned, how many warheads russia has at this point is less relevant than what our broad capabilities are, because of the range of threats that we could face from proliferation, from states like pakistan and the rising threat of others that i mentioned before. what we need is flexibility going forward. that s why the whole array of former officials the administration had testifying to how good this treaty was fundamentally, irrelevant. because it is a different worm. different array of threats we face global delay we need to protect against tuck in the end, does this hamper our tucker: in the end does this hamper our ability to defend ourselves, help or hurt the united states or is it neutral? i think it hurts the united states it pulls back
the world a safer place when the u.s. gets rid of its own nuclear weapons? isn t a strong well armed america the key to harmony in this world? of course but not in the ideology of the obama administration. they really believe that it is america s nuclear capability that is the problem, not the source of strategic stability. i think they do believe, very wrongly, but they do believe, if we reduce our nuclear capabilities, other countries will say, hey look at that, why done we reduce our nuclear capabilities too. tucker: in a gesture of kindness and goodwill toward men? solidarity, exactly. there s a 1970s flavor to this exercise. as you look out as someone well informed across the international landscape, does russia strike you as the imminent threat to our national security? no, that s the most fundamental flaw in this treaty.