tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN November 24, 2009 10:00am-1:00pm EST
one of the reasons why it is likely that general mcchrystal colonel eikenberry will be side by side is "the two u.s. and would present a united front." it could also showcase some tense moments as lawmakers probed the differences between the two. they participated through teleconference while secretary clinton and secretary clinton attended in person. joy is joining us from prescott, arizona. good morning. caller: i have one statement to say. i know it is not hard for obama to want to kill other muslims because i'm not sure he is a christian. i did not say we need to send more troops to afghanistan because the pakistanis are stepping up and with both of us working together, i think we can come to a conclusion over there. then we will not have to worry
about anymore terror attacks. thank you. host: thank you and thanks to all of you for your calls and comments. of course, we will have the prime minister from india here at the white house for a news conference this morning and the state dinner tonight, 6:00 on the west coast. tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. here on the washington -- on the "washington journal" we can continue the conversation. enjoy the rest of your day. . .
>> we will take you live to the white house for the joint news conference with president obama and the indian prime minister. later, a look at the global food shortage. >> thanksgiving day, at 10:00 eastern bill clinton is on hand to present steven spielberg with an award. from the jfk library and museum, nick burns on terrorism and nuclear weapons. at 5:00, ludicrous on mentoring. things getting day on c-span. -- the thanksgiving day on c- span.
thursday night and that 8:00, we revealed the supreme court in vivid detail. on friday, the white house, inside the most famous home in america. our visit shows the grand public places as well as those rarely seen as basis. saturday, the capital. the history, art, and architecture of one of america's most symbolic structures. three memorable night spir ands. ts. the your own copy. order online at c-span.org /store. >> now a discussion on the 2010 congressional elections and what lies ahead for the 2012
presidential race. we will hear from six panelists. this is one hour 15 minutes. >> i -- i like to give everyone an insight into what is going on here. i give credit to julia reed who deck of this quote for book she wrote which is an excellent book. she is quoting from 1877. "the city has been buried under taxes and fraud and mal
administration. when i write about it as i intend to do soon, no one will believe i am telling the truth. it is better to live here in sackcloth and ashes than to own the entire state of ohio." [laughter] my apologies to ohio. he sums up the way -- we are not going anywhere. i will turn it over to the panel but i have to say a few words about charlie. charlie is a native of shreveport, louisiana. one of the real treasures that louisiana has. it sounds redundant to the people from washington. people here or who may be listening on c-span, he is the authority in the world on
elections and congressional elections. he has been doing it longer than anyone. he is not only respected in the political community, his integrity is unquestioned and he is one of the best people that we have in our community. we're proud that charlie is a proud son of our state. we relish in his successes. i hope his prediction that we get wiped out in 2010 proves wrong. he has a history of being right over a long time. i will turn this over to my dear friend, charlie, and ask him to introduce what is going to be difficult because we have a distinguished panel here. are you coming up? i am going to introduce -- this is always a good thing. 4 get your boss. -- forget your boss.
the provost, who is a really big deal, is going to come up and say a few words. i apologize and please do not cut my pay. >> thank you and good morning. >> it has been a real pleasure working here. working with the bipartisan policy center. why and facilitating your visit with us here. we have been looking forward to having you and we're excited you were here.
let me take a moment to see a few words about students. we do not see a lot of students in the room this morning. before noon, students are not around very much. they come out as the sun gets higher in the sky. we will see more of them later. i want to say a word about our students. they speak -- their actions speak directly to the themes of this gathering. we used to hear a lot when we look at college generations a few years ago. we heard about the me generation. there were a lot of analysis and critique of the selfishness of young adults in american society. what we're witnessing here and universities and colleges, it is the lead generation. these are a remarkable group of young people who are committed and interested in public service, community engagement, and social progress.
i do not care what ever labels you use for a period is about being present and engaged with others for social betterment. some of you know, the president of the universe they spoke with you yesterday. tulane has been a key part of the recovery but it is students who left in the muscle of the recovery. they are engaged with the community. they support a variety of activities. we are proud of them. we also think that their actions speak to the principles and ideas that this gathering is about. one final comments. just to press the point home about our students. last year, we had 40,000 undergraduate applications here at tulane. out of that 40,000, we put out 90009500 offers of admission.
from those offers, we generated a first-year class of 1500 students. we have never had anything close to 40,000. before katrina. before was 15,000 applications. this says something about this generation. i like to think they are drawn to us because -- to to clean because of me. it is what we're doing here there interested in being part of this recovery and community. we are proud of them. i think they in their pursuit of wheatwe, they uphold the principles you are exploring. welcome and enjoy the conference. [applause]
>> it is my job to introduce charlie cook. the bipartisan center was founded by four leaders on the theory that people of good will can work through issues and , with solutions to pressing challenges. they did it as leaders of the senate. they're helping us do it now at the bipartisan policy center where we run projects on energy, climate, health care, transportation, national and homeland security c'mon the principle that we bring people from a diverse array of viewpoints together and provide them with the best research and analysis, a forum to discuss the pros and cons of issues and achieve principled bipartisan compromise, that we can help
congress and the administration do their job better. in order to get those partisans to sit down, we need to let them. that is what this panel is about. i was talking to charlie cook last night. like a lot of folks my age, i owe my career to them. as a young manager in the late 1980's and early 1990's, there were not a lot of resources to help us make decisions about races around the country. the political report was the best decision making tool we had available. waiting for that booklet with the three hole punched in it every couple weeks was frankly and pathetically the highlight of my career. if charlie was a book, he would have some blurbs on his back from people like "the new york times." bob schieffer from cbs news, the
bible of a political community. "the washington post", perhaps the best record of political races. we have been looking forward to this throughout the two days of this conference. put your hands together for charlie cook and his panel. >> i am going to go over here in the format -- the format lens itself to being over there. the reason is i can do a better job standing then seated. my wife says standing maximizes the difference -- distance between my head and my ass. thanks for the kind words the center is doing such
important work, from the history of mankind for as long as there of mankind for as long as there has been politics, people having come to washington and 1972, having started working in 1973 as an elevator operator in the senate office buildings and in turning 1974 and 75, things have changed a lot. it is not what it should be. i hope the center -- i think the center costs will do some great things. hopefully we can nudge it back to where it should be as opposed to where it has been. this conference, i am very excited about the conference. this panel is also an. i wish i had a hand in it, but i did not. it looks a lot like what i would have done. what i want to do is run through each of the people and i am going to sit down and start
throwing some open-ended questions out. then we can bring in the audience. in the world press and communications, at what is better than being a press secretary to a speaker of the house? i will tell you what speaks to me more than anything else, as a little kitten -- kid my favorite tv show was "sky king." tony blinged field was in an episode. it is the most awesome thing on the planet. that is the best. that is not what you will see in his biography. but "sky king" is not in his bio. alex costellano worked with
charlie black in the way back days, he is known as the father of the attack gadd. some of you may think is disparaging. i had one consultant tell me that i sleep better at night knowing that my clients are going negative. a central part but one of the most talented guys around. a central figure in the campaigns of romney and mccain. he coined the phrase "soccer mom." "nascar dad" -- you had "soccer mom." stan greenberg is not happy with me because i spent three years
beating republicans in 2006 through 2008. he is being nice. he is one of the finest pollsters in america today. one of the finest pollsters in the democratic party. and his democracy corps puts out some of the most terrific survey research. for us in the outside to see the very finest quality survey research and for tax reasons, you have to put it out there pretty much. you are looking over the shoulder of some of the best political lines in the business. if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery there is -- a republican think tank. you have to go around the world and talk to the world leaders that stan has pulled four.
he headed up the team that elected bill clinton to the presidency. if you were going to describe on the republican polling side sort of nordstrom's and bloomingdale's put together. so they are huge but enormously high quality and also, some of the -- when i call any of the partners there, i am getting the straight scoop. they see so much data that they are going to see something before almost anybody else because they are pulling some of places. just fabulous work. and newly married. congratulations. >>i forgot this was on c-span.
steve mcmahon. we go back. he was a central figure in the dipane campaign and the kennedy- gephardt and a political analyst. he is part -- teamed up with alex for purple strategy. working on nonpartisan efforts. steve is an enormously talented guy and worked campaigns in venezuela and nicaragua. all over the place. if you have been around
washington, you have known joe for years. he was the central figure leading that phenomenon. just an enormously talented guy. the author of "the revolution will not be televised." joe is an enormously talented guy. we have a terrific panel. what i thought i would do is throw it out to and one by one and in a nutshell, our topic is supposed to be looking forward to 2010 and 2012. i do not want to interfere in this too much so i will jump in at the tail end. let me -- but go in reverse order. starting with joe. let me spend one minute.
let me frame it and we will start with tony. you look at the midterm election, you look at history. the party in the white house almost always gets hammered. usually awash in the senate, an average of a six seat loss in the governorship. that is normal. and then you say, what about the circumstances? the greater exposure you have, the more seats and more risk you are. you cannot lose something you already got. democrats having picked up 54 seats in the elections, they go into this exposed. overexposed, i should say. with 40 democrats sitting in seats that were carried by john mccain. there are some -- is some exposure. you look at the circumstances and party identification.
democrats came off a high of the 2008 election with a 17. advantage in party identification. it is more if you use the gallup figures, it has come down a good bit. five points for september. higher in october. the party identification badedge -- democrats had double-digit leads in 2006 through to that an aide and now it is down. most of the polls do not do registered voters so it overstates democrats. things have gotten tough. the final thing is the economy. we just saw unemployment went over 10%. this is the first time unemployment has been at that point since 1983.
only once in the postwar era has unemployment been at double- digit into a midterm election, that was in -- the numbers came out in october of 1982. it looks like and whether you look at the optimistic or pessimistic projections, it looks like we will see unemployment of over 10% for 12 consecutive months. this is an enormously challenging and democrats are taking on tough and divisive issues. do the problems republicans have in terms of their damage to their brand over the last eight years, does that damage put a cap or a ceiling on how much they can capitalize on all these problems democrats have? there are some brand problems and there are some demographic problems. there are challenges the republican party is facing. we. two forces at work.
democrats having a tough election. at the same time, very clear differences from where was when tony and it gingrich and republicans were trying to take over and successfully taking over congress in 1994 were the republican brand was not damaged. they had a clear leader and a positive message. they did not have the demographic issues that republicans have today. it is two big forces, which one is more dominant? let's go down the line. everyone say what you see happening or how you see it. what do you think is important? we will bring everybody in. thank you. [applause]
>> for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. the agenda of the president and his party have pushed into the american public -- a pretty radical or bold and we're seeing the reaction to that. i do not know how it plays out. how it breaks into tributaries but we have convulse of forces, great volatility of mood. hope alliance some elements still on the other side. there is room for dramatic election in 2010 and 2012. i have always thought that the best chance of any opposition
party is the worst the governing party does. you may tactically be able to get further than you otherwise would. i think comparing this to 1994 when republicans took over the house and senate, the times were less convulsive but the republican party was better positioned. we were a better fighting machine. we had a clear leader and a doctrine we were working off of. we were coordinated. we knew what we stood for. that does not exist. the republican party is a mess but the forces are strongly and potentially with us. >> i am a structuralist so i look at a structure of an election cycle and the structure is clear. i have looked at the michigan consumer sentiment index.
it has been done every month since 1952. there has been three times in american history where we drop below 65 on their scale. this is the fourth time. i went back and said if there were three other times, how long did it take for consumer confidence to recover to get to the mid-1980s? the answer was two to four yeas. we are -- fou-- fiourour years. this is a difficult cycle in terms of what it means for democrats. this is the point about gravity. the wrong track went up again, over 50% in the poll i do with peter hart. here is an intractable law. wrong track voters do two-thirds of sevesevef the 5%.
this is the second structural problem. the third is -- what i say what i mean by that is the democrats spend a fortune trying to get voters to vote obama back to the polls. the electric shifted. they shifted in a very important way, which i seek is a real consequence for the democrat. the intensity on the republican side is through the roof. as you look at the consumer confidence, the lead of the recovery, wrong track going up,
midterms, the composition of the electric, all of those things point to a very, very difficult cycle for democrats. my last caution is there is much about the republican party that is broken and needs to be fixed. none of these forces are fixing our party for the 2012 election. just like in 1982, 1984 was horrible for the democrats, nothing about 2010 is a predictor at 2012 where the president still has a lot of structural advantages. >> i agree. how many of us were sheer for the panel -- were here yesterday for the panel? a cake, so we should say something new.
the obama administration campaigned and work so hard not to be its predecessor. we all know how the bush administration was characterized, swaggering big belt buckle, talking about issues that really the american people did not bid for central to their lives. one of the cruel ironies of faith is now a lot of americans look at the obama administration and see, what are they doing? they are talking about issues that seem important, but in sequential, whether it is creating a big government health care plan, and why aren't they talking about the? they are spending money irresponsibly, money that will come back to me. i will have to pay for.
i think the midterm elections coming up are going to be a break panel election. people are going to be empowered not buy rubber stamping what is going on, but the only powerful thing of voter can do is stand up and say slow down, stop, think. safe stop and think. a more thoughtful approach. republicans, if we do not fix some of our brand problems will probably pick up under 30 seats in the house. if we fix our brand problems, some of us think there is hope. it could be over 40. one thing we did not talk about yesterday. why did the young voters not show up for last tuesday's election?
one of them is barack obama was not on the ballot. it will come out for him but not for democrats without him. i am not sure that is the case. elections are not about candidates. they're about voters. one of the things obama did was in power a new generation of voters by telling them, you are the change we have been waiting for. this is in your hands. you can change things. change is from the bottom up. this is a campaign where people can participate. he got elected and that narrative has turned on his head. the economy is screwed. there is nothing you can do. thank heavens we are here. we're going to solve your problems. it is not young people and voters as hero. unless that narrative is
reversed, the democrats in 2010 or 2012 will not see that big flood. they will see it in 2010. >> let me respond not as a partisan. and agree with most of what has been said even in the setup to the discussion. democrats are going to lose seats. it is impossible to not lose seats in this kind of election. we agree that there are big things going on in respect to the two parties. whatever happens in 2010 is not a prediction of 2012. it could be the opposite. i think i agree with almost all of what has been said. i would accept the point on
engagement in the election. when you look at the polls, who is engaged and who is interested has an incredible impact on who takes an interview. who will go through a 25 minute survey. when you look at the change after conventions, there are more people supporting one of the candidates. it is not because one in 10 have switched their minds. democrats are more interested after their convention and republicans are more interested after their convention. eventually, it settles out. it correlates with what happens in elections. engagement matters. the intensity of opposition -- the unity of conservative republicans against barack
obama, the fact that two-thirds or three-quarters of republicans are conservative, they fear that obama is a threat to the republic produces an intensity and high turnout. they will produce high turnout of republican conservatives for the 2010 elections. it is reflected in the polls. the issue will be will democrats be engaged when they get to the end of this election. there is a lot that happens. as congress passed legislation? is the congress perceive to be making progress on issues that they were elected on? is there progress on the economy? is it moving in the right direction? >you look at some of the past of years. if you look at 1998, when we had the battle over impeachment. it was a surprise election.
democrats were expected to lose. for sure they were going to lose. conservatives were upset with president clinton's behavior. it was a reaction against the overreach of the impeachment. democrats became mobilized at the end. democrats barely lost any seats. when we look at the intensity of the conservative republicans, the nature of that divisive politics, do we get a reaction at the end where democrats defend the change they brought? i do not think we know. polls show 20 seats right now. i will leave the discussion to where we think it goes. when we polled in the battleground district's leading into 2006 and 2008, each time we showed in our polls we have 26
seats and they picked it up in two stages. it was a great surprise to us. picking up 30 seats. it looks like you can get half back. i do not see anything that says you can do this in one shot. >> i do not know of anyone said be careful what you wish for. i will star there. democrats for a long time have wished for large majorities and the way you get there is by creating a big tent. that is big enough to accommodate different democrats. one of the challenges they face now and the estimates of where the seat count is, if the election were held to their -- today are about right. it is consistent. the big dilemma in my opinion is, do you look at the elections from last tuesday where
independents -- in the elections in new jersey and virginia, they went for republicans. as a consultant, that is the canary in the coal mine. you are looking at that and say, we won independents and it generated a big majority. we have a canary in the coal mine situation if you look at these exit returns. another canary is the base. there were great hopes and great aspirations placed in president obama by people who were voting for somebody who represented an ideal. more than they were voting for a set of policy prescriptions. in the progressive community especially, the expectations were so high and in many respects, they remained high through this health care reform debate. you have problems with the base
that you saw tuesday. young people and african- americans not showing up. you have on the health care reform bill that was passed, there is a revolt among progressives because of the stupak amendment on abortion. >> there is a sense of displeasure in the progressive community because they think they are being [unintelligible] on the public option. i came to washington 25 years ago to work for ted kennedy. he talked about health care all the time. he mostly talked about expanding insurance and providing health care to every american. he did not talk about the public option but that is the focal point of debate. republicans have let democrats fight among themselves.
and the republicans are watching and progressives are staying home. independents are moving the other way. if those things do not change, it could be a very long evening for democrats in two years. i happen to think the obama administration is filled with political operatives who are aware of this. they're planning for it. what you will see is after health care reform, it will focus on getting those independents in the fold. the interesting thing will be whether the progressive community which has been disappointed continues to be disappointed and there is no one who knows that community better than joe.
or if they recognize that progress is better than no progress. democrats and a democratic majority is better than the republican majority. but they may not. i do not know if you want to address that. >> these next two elections are likely to be the most disruptive for both parties that i've seen since i have been doing this, since the 1970's. looking historically may not matter this time. everyone says that -- this will not be how history has shown it in the past. for a lot of different reasons, the panel has talked about -- you are going to see the
intensity on the democratic side and it will show in primaries. the party committees will not have the control that they have had historically. you are -- it is not a special case where there is a primary opponent to an incumbent. the progressive community is looking for candidates to run against people who voted against health care. you are seeing on the progressive side, you will see primaries against incumbents who they believe voted the wrong way. you will see them fight in the primary and shop and work it. the same thing is happening on the republican side. we saw that in new york 23.
some of the ways that played out with hoffman running as a conservative and losing, in some instance because of that fight. had there been a unified canada did on the right. iowens would not be a member of congress. you will have these massive fights in primaries on both sides. the question is, what emerges? do the republicans -- the bases can to win primaries. if they are contested. what comes out of this is the more progressive liberal candidates on the democratic side win out on these primaries. that coalition is energized because they have gotten out the because they have gotten out the
and people voting, looking at the parties and asking what is going on here? the other thing i think we will see is a lot of independent candidates. other things will emerge. there are too many people connected to have a much power. this will happen on both sides. i think it will be very disruptive. i think both parties will be shocked at what happens. i also think because of this day and could be closer to the right number. it could be 15. -- i also think stan could be closer to the right number. certainly democrats will be heard because we have more incumbents, but i think republican incumbents will go all the door and mitigate the number in a way we're not
expecting. >> we have heard from three of the brightest minds in the republican party. we have heard them give their assessments of 2010. we have seven minutes before we're supposed to go to the audience. let me ask two different questions that any or all of the republicans can do. one question for each side. for the republicans, if you were standing in front of the house republican congress or the senate republican congress, the doors closed, what advice would you give the of tm? for the democrats, if you work one-on-one with the president, what would you tell him he should do for the next year? >> i wrote a column a couple of weeks ago. i think the republican party,
and probably the democratic party, but the republican party needs to embrace the passion and energy at its heart, standing up against it is madness. standing up against it is madness. it has a finesse and a style and engagement such that it does not antagonize the senate. the idea that we're not going to be embracing all of the passion and still writing that passion to victory is beyond my 45 years in politics. that is -- do not walk away from that passion because you will not win without that and try to manage how that passion refracts to the more moderate vote. >> >> there is tactical things. we need to have a surge of
recruitment to broaden the playing field. the huge difference today is even in the worst cycles, 92% of incumbents of the troubled party still win. we won 20 plus seats. the thing about doing that tactical stuff is important. the american people are clear. they are concerned about their jobs. i read a federal reserve estimates that we could have five years of this knid of -- of this kind of unemployment. that is unprecedented. we have a coherent view of that. what would it mean to try to create a new generation of jobs? we had better be out there saying that every day. let me be slightly mean. i say obamaism is not going
to work. if it did we would be celebrating the economic miracle of europe. i say to republicans, come up with something besides a tax cut in terms of explaining how you will do it. i would tell them as i did, i was very impressed with bob mcdonald, the republican candidate for governor. president obama was coming to campaign against him. he said the president is always welcome at the commonwealth of virginia. there has to be a personal grace note that the republican caucus has lost. he is the president. he is a figure that has -- demands our respect and he is well-liked and we need to do a better job as a party to separate -- and separate the
differences of opinion about policy compared to how we speak to hiabout him as a person. there are people in our caucus who do not -- are not able to bridge that note. >> we spent time thinking about this but we will try to be concise. i would say to the republican caucus that i know lee atwater said when your opponent is busy destroying himself, do not interfere. do not think that your opponents failures and weaknesses are your success. if everyone took a step back in line you somehow step forward. believing that is a prescription for permanent minority status. people want a society that works. people want solutions and leaders to a better -- and lead
us to a better place. i would say to republicans, it is jobs and economic growth, it is all that. you do not have to compromise your principles to win the middle. we just saw that in virginia and other places where a conservative candidate did not abandon his conservative beliefs. he said, this is how we will create a better world. we talk about it in a different language. we call it to new republican. new democrats, where the new republicans? that is a brand we should developm. we want to grow the economy but we have a better way to do it. how about bottom up instead of top-down? we will have spending not by smart guys, we will let you invest in your hopes and dreams bottom-up.
we will have an open education system where parents can choose the best schools for their kids. not top down, these clothes artificial industrial systems that treats your kids like numbers. healthcare, will have a natural health care system. more organic where doctors and patients make decisions and we put those price control mechanisms down with you. with patients and doctors and not above the top with those people in washington who do not know you. there is a new republican party that will be born from this. if we do that, we will get the 40 seats. we will provide some legitimate opposition. right now, we have a ways to go. >> am i speaking to the caucus or the president? >> one-on-one upstairs, no staff. >> i would start with -- the
president gets this. nothing is more important than success. the congress passing things and doing stuff, a sense of progress. the country will not vote for a dysfunctional democrat. we do not have time for this but our coalition is not so broad. everyone has to understand when bill clinton passed his economic plan which was tax increases and deficit reduction, it was big tax increases, his approval went up. it went up when he passed nafta. they were coming together and passing things, it looked like they were effective in governing. they're not split in the same way that republicans are.
unity and success is critical. the president's -- language on the economy, every leader have worked for, when the talks with the economy, they get it wrong. bill clinton in 1994, we look in 1996 when the economy was growing and there was a narrative that talked about growth. when he tried to talk about economic success, voters said he was out of touch. you have been seeing how we saved us from the brink of economic disaster. people do not want to hear that. in their lives it is not happening. they have to have a focus on jobs. his focus has to be on jobs. the have to show credibly that they take the deficit seriously. they're concerned about spending.
they have to do real sustainable things that show they are dealing with deficit. >> i would say what i said yesterday. mr. president, you have to remind people that you inherited. they know you have to remind them. people have gotten the message that we are spending a lot of money. you can see it in the election returns. everyone is getting the message that washington is taking a bigger role in the economy. some people do not like it and some people think they got they did. everyone gets those things. what they're not getting necessarily is, he did the things to bail out wall street because he had to. we spent that money because we had to. we spend the money on health care reform and health care reform should pass the democrats and we need to take credit for it.
we spent money on health care reform because we needed to end it is the right thing to do. it will make things better for people who do not have insurance and improve things for people who do. it is the most important thing because 85% of the folks who have health insurance are happy with what they have. we will focus full-time on improving the economy and getting spending under control and reducing the deficit. health care reform will bring the deficit down $100 billion. the administration needs to say it more because it is a fiscally responsible thing they're doing that is being portrayed in another way. they may have already lost that conversation but they need to engage. the president has to find some areas where he can take a stand that progressives will applaud him for. there have been too many things where that progressive community feels like they have been sold out or ignored or not listen to too.
-- or not listened to. most people in this country are pro-choice, most people believe that health insurance plan should be available to a woman that provide abortion services. i think that's the house of representatives may have made a tactical decision to get health care reform passed. it will be a good idea to stand up on this one or a series of things like it to let them know he is still here and someone cares about them. if they do not show up in 2010, weber democrats will lose will double. -- whatever democrats will lose will double. >> jobs and the deficit. i' would get off this other stuff. it is tony's idea.
also do it visibly. you could have some kind of guaranteed investment program for the gulf coast where you literally guaranteed some kind of -- guarantee investment in ideas down here and creating jobs and rebuilding. it is a public-private thing. everybody in the country sees them doing something. the same kind of thing in michigan. we have big unemployment. what can you do? there are pockets of the country where you can create a public- private partnership. you can invested here and that would be a great place to put it. i would pick to replaces like that and i would make sure the
country understands i am serious about the deficit. we did a lot of spending. here are the steps will take because we know we have to go the other way. otherwise, some of this stuff looks disengage. people are focused on the economy and you are doing something important and energy. it may create jobs but they do not see it that way. it is a big problem. >> we have gone over on our parts. we need to go quickly to q&a from the audience. and ask >> heidi hays. you have been talking jobs, jobs, jobs. everyone is repeating it. the green jobs industry is the fastest-growing industry in the country, so why are we seeing more about that?
-- why aren't we hearing more about that? did we are on the forefront of this in louisiana, but no one can afford it to begin with. if we had more of these companies and more competition, we could afford it and there would be more jobs. >> i think it is a great idea. democrats and republicans could come together. creating any kind of job is something everyone wants to do right now. i actually think they are much better than creating construction jobs that our project jobs that go away when the project is over. if the obama administration did that, i think it would be great for them on many levels. >> spain carried out a dream job subsidy program similar to the one that the president has
proposed, and they have done this -- they have dead university studies on them and found that they lost jobs. -- they have dhuone university studies on them and found that they have lost jobs. next to the whole economy, it at least in spain, it proved to be a negative. >> for every single job, there are [inaudible] . . >> a question for bill, stan, and charlie. i tear out my hear when air wher
someone say independent. independents need to break this way. it drives me nuts. how do you define independent when you use the term? >> we do not come in the country with letters in our heads. politically we do a seven. scale and with that independents -- a seven point scale. hard independents, they are 20% of the electorate. they tend to be politically down. one segment is downscale and more likely to be women.
they did not get a lot of political information. they have no stable ideological moorings. the kind of jump from position to position in ways that would strike as as being inconsistent. they have a high distaste for both political parties. what they share in common is an anger towards both political parties. they are radically unstable. . . as you look at them in large numbers and you look of the huge data sets and you merge them, they are not one independent voter. there is the downscale independent, there is the woman independent code. overall, what they share, in my mind, are these patterns. again, we don't have any logical country could be of a country
that realigns based on what works. people are going to judge the democrats in four years, did "work"? if it does, it will get reelected. if not, we will move on. the same scale, which is self-identification. there is -- it goes to joe's point earlier, and we saw -- we saw the independent voting that took place in the new york 23rd election. i think it was a tremendous potential for third and fourth party candidates to emerge, in a rough -- ross perot. i don't think perot has gone away. ross perot announced today, if he hadn't accused the president of a conspiracy to disrupt his daughter's wing, he still got 19%, with that. but you know, if ross perot, a credible ross perot were to announce, for going into the presidential elections, i think 20% range is more than possible
for an independent candidate. very much part of the -- in that perot tendency, tends to be a little more male, tends to be white and more blue collar. the reason they're in the republicans, they're much more secular and individualistic and secular and they're -- they're uncomfortable with the more evangelical republican party, but they're libertarian and anti-government and don't like spending much. they pretty easily move. they're still out there. i think that's a good part of the pullback among independents from democrats and from the president. and winning the voters, bill clinton lost them. that's why it was possible for george bush and the republicans to become competitive again. i think those voters are very much in play in part of the history that will play out. >> i think the three words i would say, would be disengaged and mistrustful and distrustful and transient. the disengage, you know, most independents i believe don't follow. they don't love politician.
they don't follow it that closely. if they cared deeply, they would be democrats or republicans or liberals or conservatives. if they cared that much, they would have gravitated to one side or the other. there's fundamental things they mistrust about each party, which keeps them from jumping in bed with one side or the other. and the gravitation pulls the tides. here completely floating around. and with iraq and they shifted over towards democrats. they did the same thing this 2008 and then, now they're starting to sort of kind of switch back the other way. but they're just floating around in a -- it doesn't take much for them to all start moving one way or the other. i watch joe and am lex and tony on this. what is a bigger danger? a third party challenging taking off from the democrats or the more aggressive party, or a bigger danger with a liberal and
conservative party, that we saw in new york 23rd, through 2010 and 2012? who should be more nervous about a splitter group taking off in -- in something like this? the democrats or the republicans? joe, let's go this way. >> i think both parties need to be worried about this. if you look at the republican brand being around 0 now or at its low point because of the damage tone to the brand over eight years, and then -- you kind of fast forward that over the next 18 months. i mean, what we have seen in the past -- what i mean by that is the economy goes to -- to unemployment, 12% or something, and really bad stuff. and so the democratic brand again. we got the whole thing. it is ours. we got both houses. the presidency and -- and the brand is damaged quickly from all of the hope and everything to where it is. and i think there are going to be a whole lot more than 20%
thinking i can't stand the parties. it is not like i'm going to go back to those guy that is had the trashy brand 12 months ago or 18 months ago. i think there's a shot here that economic deficit, i mean, just a bunch of. you start to see people, this group that can't stand -- or questions both parties doesn't think either one of them perform well. that's where we're at. otherwise, i think it is the republicans, because -- in your own words if the economy sort of strengthening up, i think there could be an independent that on the deficit and on some of the -- the bread and butter sort of conservative money issues that emerge because the republicans fail -- have sort of failed on that message, and that can really -- you could almost see the republican party have a problem in terms of just even existing as a stong enough -- sort of what hoffman pulled off up in 23. >> and i think joe -- i think joe is right. both bearts have a lot to worry about in that respect because
the progressives are upset with the people that voted against health care reform and they're looking for primary challenge. but the conservative, as a result in new york 23 have been emboldened in many ways and theory going to be as active on the right as the progressives on the left and probably the people that have the most to fear are the incumbents, because it is -- you know, it is a democrat district, there's a progressive off shoot and that's dangerous and more likely in a democratic district, there being a third party republican candidate. because there are more democrats defending seats and you're looking at a mid term where your average is you lose 16 seats, democrats are more vulnerable. over the long time, republicans are more vulnerable. >> i don't see this as equal measure. i think -- and i think bill hinted at this. when you look at the independents there's two pieces to this. there's kind of a more affluent, more suburban and more women,
and -- that are out there, they have tended democratic over about a decade. each election they become or democratic but they're in the strong partisans. and they're more upscale, their whole range of other issues. then you have more blue collar independent and more male and angrier anti-elitists, those are different kinds of independents. and there are anti-incumbent in their -- in their -- i think the republicans would be gravely endangered by having a second independent party and split the anti-incumbent vote. they're more dangerous and the democrats face dingers in primaries. they face challenges if primaries. if you talk to people who are democrats, the view of their party is very positive. you ask republicans their view of their party, it is very nexted -- mixed. very skeptical and making it in a general election more open, i think, to a third party challenge.
in the spirit of love and bipartisan here, i am i think a lot of what my democratic brethren have said is right but the good news is half of it is amazingly remarkably wrong. that is that the -- you va never seen the republican party more united than it is right now. and it is united on one issue, really, it is deficits and spending. so all of this division, that we're seeing, is -- is i think wishful thinking. i hope you continue it. because, this is what we used to do. our failures -- you know, the otherifies' failures would be our success. that's not must have to build a party on but if that's the hope and dream for the democrats the next election and the republicans will march off the cliff again. >> you tell carrly crist that the party is unified? >> absolutely. because he's the one guy, really who stepped out of the republican mainstream, when every other republican was united against spending and
deficits, one, just when republicans are coming together, he steps out of the mainstream. it is not rubio in florida who is dividing the party, it is this other guy who basically, imagine if barack obama got up in the morning today and said, i got a great idea, george bush's tax cuts are terrific, we need more of those. what would happen to the democratic party. that's what a crist did, but -- that's the big story, that's by the way, what just won the middle, in tuesday's elections. and there's been a road test. and -- and i think if an -- in addition to that republicans can actually demonstrate a little more positive vision it'll work real well. but i think the biggest danger, we're -- republicans aren't split right now at all. >> quev had this bizarre conversation and haven't mentioned afghanistan. the -- let me tell you a sad story. a sad story. we did a small american outpost
and that outpostwas out gunned and we lost eight soldiers in one encounter. i was doing tracking after the health care speech and we this that enormously sad video of dead american soldiers being dragged through the streets and the president's approval rating dropped 12 point the in one night. the president, what i like and admire, he didn't release the photos, he's not pressed prosecution on the torture. those are things that are are unpopular. and he's a president of the united states being told by the military, mr. president, we can't defend those outposts and we need more people to do a countersurge insurgency. and i guess it these are correct and they puts 43,000 troops in, imagine the progressiveness, with the troops, if you don't advance health care. i think he'll find 10,000 and
train the army because he's politically unsustainable with his base, if he puts in 43,000 troops and prosecutes afghanistan during a water with afghanistan as president, i think he'll have a democrat primary and that we'll have a substantial split mountain democrat party, if that's what he does. and i would argue this -- for our party, and the tensions between our kind of economic votes and our religious conservatives, the fact that the energy in republican party is about spending and deficit, if we're so inept we can't take these people and make them part of a new coalition, they we oughting to nothinged. the -- this are 24% of the people in this country who say they would likely vote for a third party and they're not strong republicans or democrats. we have 13% of the country who dislike both political parties and guess what they share in common? 90% said hes government.
if we can't take a radicalized section of our country and say, by the way, there's a difference between us and the democrats, and who just bought general motors and chrysler and spent trls to bail out big companies and vote republican, that would be a colossal failure. will will lose an incumbent now and then, but guess what in a two person race, the strongest candidate usually wins. and in 2010 we'll be stronger as a function of the intensity out there and yes, we'll lose perhaps one or two people we don't expect today but in general we'll be stronger in the ballot box because of the movement that is taking place around here. >> and let me have a quick add on. foreign polls usually doesn't matter too much to american voters. and i think that -- that the administration is likely to experience a string of conspicuous foreign policy failures on the arab -- on a
palestinian israeli peace, which is a conversation that won't happen with iran, which by 2012, will either conspicuously have a nuclear weapon or an israeli attack on them. either, one, a mess for the administration. and -- on ukranian and georgia and the whole front with russia, russia is going to blatantly and ugly prove they have a atmosphere of -- sphere of influence which we have given up, which is the path the administration is going on or it confronts which will be at real challenge. if everywhere you look the foreign policy is going to be a failure, enough is conspicuous, afghanistan, where he loses either way. he'll alienate either the proprogressives or the center of the country. and so, i think that -- that could collectively reduce the admiration for his masterfulness. and as katrina did for the previous president. that could have an effect, it would be negative for the party. >> all right.
i think we have gone into overtime. so, i did want to thank the bipartisan policy center and -- tule lane university for hosting this. and this has been the spirit of friendship and civility on the panel. we hope it'll be pervasive through the rest of the political process. thank you so much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captions performed by the national captioning institute] nng
>> in about 20 minutes, president obama holds a joint news conference with indian prime minister manmohan singh. they will speak live at the white house and you can see it at 11:55 eastern on c-span. until then, the for phone calls and the stories making news from "washington journal." at twitter.com/c-spanwj. with finances already stretched, "the obama administration is expected to recommit soon at the cost of $1 million per soldier. where will the money come from? take a guess. they want an additional tax@@@@r host: we will read more from " the financial times" and
a related editorial from "the wall street journal." b1 to check in with mike allen of "politico." you are among those reporting on the speech next tuesday night from the president. what are you hearing? guest: after months of deliberation, the president is ready to not only an ounce, but explain his decision to the american people. that is going to be tough. he will be pushed from the left and from the right about what he comes up with. we are told that the speech will be tuesday, probably in prime time, so a week from today. as you mentioned at the outset, probably between the next day, we will see the president's defense secretary and others on capitol hill elaborating on the strategy. but the money question raised is a big one. the figures that you gave, budget director, peter orszag, works out to half a billion
dollars a year, half the cost -- excuse me, half a trillion dollars a year, half the cost of health care. amazing amounts of money involved. host: white house press corps indicating that the white house is or will be asking the networks for prime time next week, and indications that the speech could come from the oval office. what are you hearing? guest: we have not been told the location, but the oval office is traditionally used to make speeches that concern grave matters. during the bush addition, it was specifically reserved for matters of war -- during the bush administration, it was specifically reserved for matters of war. using that setting allows the president to a command attention that there is no distraction, no applause, note
stage setting, because you have the best stage set in the world, the oval office. host: when the president was outlining the details on his health care bill, he had a news conference. what are the pros and cons of taking that venue? guest: the news conference, as the president has discovered with the matter about the cambridge police men and others, is that you can never be sure what is going to wind up being perceived in the news. if you're just giving an address shown on c-span, you of total control over what people take away from it. similarly, you do that i capitol hill, but as we saw with the president's health care address and the average there, you never know what will command attention there. -- and the out reached their, you never know will command attention there. host: as you point out in the
playbook, the president is expected to address the nation on tuesday night, and also indicating that the follow-up on all this will be the president's national security team is staying on capitol hill. there is a lot of speculation as to when and what the general mcchrystal says this of a plea when he testifies before a number of key committees. -- says specifically when he testifies before a number of key committees. guest: we don't know what the president has decided it every external indication is that the president will be going more towards what general mcchrystal has recommended that away from it. the medium recommendation was 40,000 troops. those i talked to in the administration believe that the announcement will be 20,000 to 40,000, slightly less than 40,000, but probably in the upper half of that. no matter how you place it, that
has to be taken as an endorsement of general mcchrystal's strategy. general mcchrystal has said that if this war is properly resources, and that is pentagon seekspeak for enough troops and resources, is a chance to succeed. there is not a lot of evidence of that. that is why this will be a tough case for the president to make good people on the right will wish that he would do more. people on the left will wonder if he should not ante up more and a case where it does not look like there is obviously or arguably little chance of success of what anybody would call total or clear victory. host: the associated press -- the white house calls this "a tough sell."
how did they sell this to the american people with eight years in afghanistan and six years in iraq? guest: he is going to have to explain why afghanistan is worth a new american lives and treasure. and general mcchrystal will help him with this by being able to argue that there is a chance for success that stops short of victory. it is a tough place for the commander-in-chief to have to explain why it is important to do more even though the results are probably not going to be what we hoped there would be, certainly not on the time frame that we would hope for. the president has known for some time that he has a big explanation job to do. there has been this low wall -- this lul while he made this
month long decision. as c-span viewers have seen, he has fallen in polls, and specifically his standing on afghanistan has fallen in polls. host: mike allen, thanks for joining us this morning. appreciate your time as always. from "the washington post" this morning, "general mcchrystal and u.s. ambassador to testify on afghanistan war. a top u.s. general an ambassador in afghanistan is prepared to testify before congress as early as next week, according to the white house and other u.s. officials, giving an indication of how and when the president plans to announce his war strategy." of course, we will be covering those hearings as they happen on capitol hill, probably wednesday or thursday of next week how to pay for all of this, also with health care and the collision between the domestic agenda and foreign policy and military operations, that is the question this morning. bill is joining us from arkansas. good morning, bill, an
independent line. caller: good morning, i get to be the first color today. host: you sure do. caller: i want to implore all these tea party people that the only way to fix this government is to contact your local representative and work your way up, demanding a constitutional convention. that is the only way to fix this government. host: okay -- caller: the constitutional convention was designed so that people could have a voice. if they keep going the way they are going -- this country is already bankrupt. they are not following the constitution. the health care bill is unconstitutional. they started with the mandates. host: thanks.
we will go on to sterling, virginia. caller: i am wondering why it took him so long to impose a war tax we have had a war tax on every war since the civil war of 1%, and as soon as the war was over with, we took the tax away. we are in debt to china and other countries because we are borrowing from them to pay for the war in afghanistan and the war of choice in iraq. i want to know why the bush administration did not impose a 1% tax on everybody across the board and we would have the revenue to finance these wars, the unjust war in iraq and the war that we needed to do in afghanistan. host: thanks. we will go to nancy in green bay, wisconsin. we are asking taxes, soaking the
rich, the editorial in "the financial times." good morning, nancy. caller: good morning. i hope my voice is not shake too much. i am kind of nervous. for the lady who just called, there has never been a tax that was repealed. never. it stays, just like all taxes, whether it is a war tax or whatever. i'm going to become about our congressmen in wisconsin, david "tax monster mor" obey. he lives and breathes for more taxes for everybody. when you soak the rich, it trickles down all the way to the bottom. steve, i don't want to be too critical. you do a good job. but there was a man who called and like all those people who called on the republican line,
yesterday or the day before, and i was so angry, because he bashed and bashed the conservative party. he went on and on. these people that call up and do that, they are so ignorant. first of all, they lied. host: it is hard to prove -- caller: they never know enough to turn the tv down. host: right. caller: david obey needs to go, just like our two senators, feingold and kohl. i do not know what he is sitting in the senate for, but he is just there to occupy his seat. and like, we are going to try and fix it so that some of these people who have been in office for so long and they don't know anything but taxing, taxing,
just like the present administration right now. i will let other people have their turn. host: thank you, nancy. we will go to florida on taxes and whether we are soaking america's rich. good morning. good morning, richard. we will try one more time to hit you with us? caller: good morning. i think the easiest way not to pay for this war is to take our troops out of afghanistan. you know, if it was not one drop of oil in the middle east and the united states did not on an aid israel in the war, we never would have suffered 9/11. i do not think anybody would have heard of the name osama bin laden. if we go in there we are going to be there for years and years and years. you talk about raising taxes on
the rich to pay for this board we will be paying for it forever. thank you. host: front page of "the washington times clothes, looking at the other story in washington -- "the washington times", looking at the other store and washington, the state dinner. "while the white house is mum about who will be the invitees, word is already peaking -- leaking about who was not among the eight-listed chief on the non-attendees, top republican lawmakers. john boehner is on thanksgiving break eric cantor to not get an invitation to the dinner. the president did not invite his 2008 rifle, senator john mccain, even though mr. obama the candidate pledged a post- partisan presidency." we will have more on the dinner later this morning and we will have live coverage getting under
way at 9:00 this evening, showing you some highlights, including the toast from the tent is situated on the south lawn of the white house to house the 300 or so guests invited to dinner tonight. there is also a press conference that will happen at around 11:30 eastern time. the arrival ceremony will take place on the south lawn and move to the east room because it is raining in washington. les is joining us from detroit. welcome to the program. caller: good morning, steve. i don't have any problem with the rich being taxed for this war. over the years, people that prosper are the people who have money. and the poor people, they don't have any say so. all they do is fight the war is. but they do it in the disguise of patriotism. but you know, if you go to war,
you should pay for it. i don't see any poor folks in my neighborhood in detroit wanting to go to afghanistan. all they want is health care. if you spend money on the war, you don't have money for health care. on sunday, when i heard senator lieberman said that he will put the money up for the war and afghanistan but not for health care, that disturbed me. host: thanks. this is the question we're asking this morning. kabul, afghanistan, bombings and shootings killed 12 people in afghanistan, including four american service members and three children. "president obama on monday met again with compromises on whether to commit more troops in the fight against islamist militants. he met with advisers including
general mcchrystal, who obama appointed in may to craft a plan to defeat the taliban, and who recommended 40,000 additional service members to rest taliban militants who control provinces outside of kabul." next call is from charlotte, north carolina, which on the republican line, and the issue of taxes and health care and the war in afghanistan. is washington soaking america's rich? caller: steve, good morning. how are you? yes, and unfortunately, it is going to get worse. i swear, every time i look at the administration conducting their foreign policy and domestic policy, i think we have jimmy carter up there. i think i'm not the only one. that will come out on them on the 2010 and 2012. i and some other folks have been curious.
our government has been nationalizing purchasing large portions of our economy. i have often wondered, why didn't our administration to like it did in world war ii, when they sold more bonds, which kept it as a capitalistic investment system, instead of purchasing interest in these companies? i would much rather see us financing health care and helping other parts of our economy through selling war bonds and keeping it as a capitalist model instead of moving it towards a socialist model where we take it over under the guise of assistance, but purchasing it by the government' and then instituting tax is to generate revenue to pump back into other government systems. but that is just questions that i have myself. but i do think we are soaking the rich, and i would prefer to
see them offer some type of war bonds through the particular banks so that if we are going to finance this war, just give us a five-year, 2% return on more money or something like that. and god bless our troops. host: thanks for the call from north carolina. another editorial from "the wall street journal." "the white house says domestic politics is irrelevant to its impending afghanistan decision not the domestic politicians beg to differ. 'there ain't going to be no money for nothing if we poured into afghanistan.' he said that a war surtax is necessary if president obama does not grant general mcchrystal's request for 40,000 more troops. 'that is what happened with the vietnam war, which wiped out the
great society, what happened with the korean war, which wiped out harry truman's square deal. in each case, the costs of these was shut off our ability to pay for anything else.' well, that is what reading of 20th-century national security, but another way of putting it is that the real liberal objection to the war on terror is that it takes away from domestic spending priorities like obamacare." clyde is joining us from arcadia, florida. caller: the left never seems to get enough taxes. in this healthcare plan, there is 12 new taxes. you had a caller earlier talking about more taxes. the spanish american war -- 5% tax was put on one percent of the population and it stayed on
until recently -- i think until the clinton administration. and al gore came up with the internet tax. wilson got us into the income tax and the federal reserve. there was an engine tax during the civil war. the big central government tried to implement the income tax all way until 1961. it finally got put in by wilson. the left never gets tired of spending other people's money. we do not need taxes. what we need is jobs, and we need to cut taxes and promote small business as much as we can. host: from "usa today," this item about the pentagon completing its for a good review on january 15. "the pentagon says its review of personnel, health and other policies in light of the fort
massacre will be completed by january 15. defense secretary robert gates announced through the last week and named former pentagon officials to head it." welcome to the program. caller: i don't think they are taxing up the rich, per se. anybody who is obviously making money because of the war going on because of the stock purchases -- that is the only reason they want the board to go on, because of the stock purchases. it is sickening, because they don't want us to pay for anything of our infrastructure, because if you don't keep your infrastructure going, you end up with high inflation and that all the money in the world is not worth nothing could you have to keep money in people's pockets, or else you end up with chaos. other than that, i don't see any reason to worry about it. let's not worry about poopor
people, health care, any of that. host: let us go to this twitter, and. a couple of headlines on the economy and the value of your homes. "the miami herald" -- "home sales continued to recover," and in the midwest, chicago, "home sales surged in area." in "the atlanta journal- constitution," sales rise in the area for existing homes. but in open court -- in "the wall street journal," one in four homeowners under water. "the so-called underwater
mortgages are a roadblock to the economy because the properties are more likely to fall into a bank foreclosure and then dumped into area already saturated market. negative equity is an outstanding risk factor, according to an economist from first american core logic." charles is joining us from arkansas. the question we're asking this morning, whether or not taxes are soaking america's rich for the war in afghanistan, and whether there should be a so- called war tax. what is your take on all this? caller: mr. obey says there will be no money if we don't tax the rich? right now there is no money. we're on at $10 trillion and we are working and $20 trillion over 10 years. the rich are 1% and the people and pay 40% of the texas. 40% of you gimme gimme people
pay absolutely nothing. i have no money to speak of but i don't know wan -- but i owe no one. mr. obey and mr. obama, it is not going to work. why don't you knock on your rich neighbor's door and see what kind of response you get from them? don't ask the federal government to give it to you, don't ask mr. obey to give it to you. show some initiative yourself and knock on doors and beg for it. in the past, it has not worked and it will not work now. social security, medicaid, the post of this, everything the government has ever touched has not worked. that is why we are trillions in debt. he let business people do it,
-- if you let business people do it -- there are more clerks in the government, percentage wise, then there are works in business. you figure that one out. -- than there are crooks in business. host: congressman obey calling for a war tax, saying that a surtax is necessary if obama wants to send more troops. he opposed the vietnam war, and mindful of the funding that drained lyndon johnson's great society program -- 30 years later, he is chairman of the house appropriations committee and is adamant that the afghanistan prior could bankrupt obama's domestic agenda. dave from albany, new york, good morning.
caller: i am a first-time caller id, and i agree with a lot of what the previous caller had to say. people are not taking responsibility for their own actions. they want a handout from the government. soaking the rich is not the answer. it is educating people and doing the right things. there is a lot of opportunities out there and people are just playing the blame game. you have to take responsibility for yourself and to the right things. our senators and our people that are in charge and not managing our money right and are not educated right. host: okay, thanks for the call. also, the war in iraq and our involvement there -- a couple of related stories we want to share with you. on page a6 of "the new york times," "iraq's january election
faces near-certain to ledelay. iraq's tortuous effort to hold its parliamentary election on schedule in january collapsed monday, raising the prospect of the political and constitutional crisis next year. after two days of divisive sessions until talks, parliament is regarded a veto by one of the countries president and approved new amendments that the vice president promptly indicated he would veto as well. it deepened the crisis that had seemed result after months of wrangling over how to set up the vote." reports that were published yesterday in the london "daily telegraph." "controversial it is with officers returning from iraq the first year after the invasion were emblazoned across the front page of 'the daily telegraph'on
monday. partial transcripts that appeared in the paper suggested that strains between the two allies, though known to some degree at the time, were more severe than previously acknowledged." you are on the democrats' line? caller: yes, hi. host: do you think is soaking america's rich? caller: no, i don't rea. tax policpolicycenter.org has a charge. -- chart. currently, 35% is the highest marginal rate. if you look at the period during world war i, it goes from single digits, 70%, and then it drops down to the 20's, right before the great crash of 1929.
then you find yourself in world war ii, a top marginal rate of 94% for most of the war years. it basically settled into the 1990's -- settled into the nineties and seventies until ronald reagan, and it was 50% higher during his two terms that it is currently ticke. the 39-plus percent they were during the clinton period, a few boom era during our history, i don't think it's unreasonable. people should actually look of the numbers instead of fantasizing about what the taxes are and how unfair the are. it would get a little perspective. host: twitter comment -- and "the new york post" this
morning, a story on lou dobbs, the former cnn anchor whose abrupt departure from the struggling cable network stunned his fans, reaching out to latino groups to see if he can mend fences for a potential 20 tell white house run -- possible 2012 white house run. the state dinner, official dinner -- the prime minister of india will arrive this morning for a welcome ceremony, followed by a press conference at 11:30 eastern time, with live coverage on c-span network and c-span2. george from california, good morning. caller: good morning, steve. you look very businesslike today. i am a small corporation and
i've had good years. i have always done pretty well, but the good years were always under clinton. i wrote a check to the ira's for $124,000. -- to the irs for $124,000. if you figure that these people are getting $1,200 a month, these people living right within the same vicinity, that is about a 1440 the year. i took care of nine people. with the that money that should have gone to my son, i give it to retirees who took a vacation or went to another casino or racetrack or baseball game. i'm tired of just giving money. i understand in paying for civil maintenance, roads, everything that benefits us all. but this paying tribute to a
few, paying tribute to a few entitlees who will then in turn of the democratic and take the money i send them -- in turn of the democratic and take the money i send them and give campaign donations to the democrats, which is reverse logging, because i am republican -- the whole system is so twisted that if i could find a way of opting out and stopping my business, which, by the way, i've laid off -- business has all power and can in source, of course, led o -- lay off, invest overseas, and offshore. people ought to remember, this this signs your paycheck. -- business signs your paycheck. if i could opt out, and i am not hiring anyone else until the socialism is over, and i am not giving another dime to charity
until this is over. host: appreciate the call on the comment. a similar point of view from this twitter comment. let me go back to "the financial times," the basis of the question we're asking this morning with regards to a so- called war tax imposed by congressman david obey, and the new tax on democratic plans on health care. "it is time for democrats to recognize the limits to this approach. the government cannot balance the books on the back of this critical system. top marginal rates cannot rise this high without weakening growth, and the parties this strategy has reached a point of rapidly diminishing return -- the party's fiscal strategy has reached the point if rapidly diminishing returns. the democrats need response to
fiscal stress, let the rich pay, will not do." there is also a story in "the new york times" -- the so-called conservative checklist to measure candidates and their commitment to the gop. "in what is being dubbed as a purity test, the proposal would require the party to withhold campaign money and endorsements from candidates who do not adhere to a least seven principles on the checklist. while it is unclear whether the test will be adopted before it is put up for consideration before the republican national committee, biggest a striking example of the intensified internal debate among republicans about how best to handle pressure from conservatives to move the party more to the right and to recapture control of congress and the white house." michael from new york city, good morning. caller: one of the things in the article that was most important was talking about $1 million a
year for soldiers. the cost accountant of the military is out of control. -- cost accounting of the military is out of control. you have a deficit that you may not be able to pay. you have a military that is $700 billion a year, with another $300 billion for intel agencies. you're talking about $1 trillion a year, and that a great depression. to is the enemy? -- who is the enemy? russia is disarmed. this is what donald trump said on tv, that these people have been fighting for five dozen years. -- 5000 years. the minute you pullout, they will continue to fight. it is totally a waste of money. if you want to end the budget deficit, why do we need a
military with $700 billion of income? the cost accounting is just out of control with the military. and obama is going to wind up like john kennedy, blamed for the next 30 years for staying in afghanistan. thank you for much. happy thanksgiving. you are great host. callerhost: republican gubernatl candidate scott mcinnis and his wife as they plan on their platform for prosperity. in the 2010 midterm elections. we cannot afford lawyers to find tax loopholes for us." writing about what is next in terms of the health-care debate
-- "it would appear that one word is testing well, arrogance, which is how they repeatedly described the democratic approach. mitch mcconnell was at it again on sunday, the first day of the debate on the sweeping legislation passing by a squeaker that was needed to launch an intense series of what they have cale >> we take you live to the east room of the white house, where they are awaiting the start of a joint news conference with president obama and indian prime minister manmohan singh. he was and the white house early today, the site where the
president welcomed the indian prime minister. later today, a state dinner. this conference was scheduled to get under way about 20 minutes ago. they are running just a little bit late. the president has meetings with the speaker of the house, and nancy pelosi, vice-president biden, the sec three of defense, robert gates. news reports say that the president has finished gathering information about troop options in afghanistan and will likely announce his decision in an address to the nation next tuesday. no official word on that, but news reports today are indicating that. live coverage from the white house. awaiting president obama and the indian prime minister.
it does look like it will be at least a couple minutes before president obama and indian prime minister manmohan singh comes out for their joint news conference. in that time, we will show you a brief conversation we had this morning with a reporter from south carolina about the beginning of proposed impeachment proceedings against gov. mark sanford. here is that conversation. -- bill." john o'connor is joining us, he writes for the state newspaper in south carolina. thank you for being with us. in essence this is the first step of a possible impeachment against gov. sanford. what are you looking for today? caller: today you have a special subcommittee that is going to prepare an impeachment resolution against the governor.
it looks to charge the governor with misconduct in office before going away and not telling any of his staff, going to argentina. we also have an ongoing ethics committee investigation, most of these related to the abuse of power and use of campaign funds. we are waiting on whether or not the commission finds him guilty and what the punishment is. host: the headline in your newspaper this morning, "family vacation is questioned, as is a hunting trip to ireland." the key to this is the attorney general in south carolina. what role will he ultimately play in deciding whether or not to proceed? caller: his name is henry
mcmaster, he is a republican, like most folks in the state, and also a candidate for governor. early on there were talks that they did not like the idea of the impending governor and having a shot at the office early. he has received a copy of the ethics commission report and it was up to him to decide whether or not there would be criminal charges. if there are it could be a key step towards impeachment. there has been reluctant from lawmakers, especially house leadership for the enforcement of the evidence that we know now. most of what we know was contained in the ethics report yesterday. we have the speaker of the house saying last week that he did not see any reason for the governor
to be removed from a caucus. host: spending campaign contributions on himself are amongst the accusations, including purchasing seat upgrades with taxpayer money and potentially a total fine of $74,000. caller: yes. host: will he resign? headlines this morning said that pressure is intensifying for him to leave office. is that at all likely? caller: i do not think so. from the beginning he has said that he will not resign. these particular accusations, i would not think that he is going to resign. host: where will the case go? caller: the house judiciary is
likely to meet soon, sending the bill to the full judiciary committee. we will have the full committee deciding whether or not this is something for the full house to vote on before christmas, when lawmakers come back in january. lawmakers come back in january. they can either decide to charge the governor, impeach him, sending the resolution to the senate to decide whether or not they want to remove him and be done with it. host: while all this is happening, has the governor been visible, talking to the press? caller: he has made a show of going to work over the last couple of months, sending out e- mails showing of all the things he has done this week.
he has been very visible about getting back to work and not being a distraction. host: his wife is writing a book? caller: she has an interview with bararbara walters coming up >> we are waiting and joint news conference with president obama and prime minister usain. this is the first of several events -- prime minister singh. this is the first of several
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> now, some of the delegation and other guests arriving and being seated here in the newsroom at the white house. the joint news conference just about to get under way here. we will show it to you live. also coming up in about an hour and a half or so, in discussion on efforts being undertaken to
reduce hundred worldwide. that is live at -- to reduce hunger worldwide. that is 5 here on c-span at about 1:30 p.m. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states accompanied by his excellency, the prime minister of the republic of india. >> please, be seated. hello, everybody. i'm very pleased to welcome prime minister saying to the white house -- prime minister sayiingh to the white house. this reflects our admiration for the prime minister's leadership,
the bonds between peoples of the united states and india, and the historic opportunity we have to strengthen and broaden the partnership between our two nations. india today is a rising and responsible global power. in asia a, indian leadership is expanding prosperity and security across the region. the u.s. welcomes and encourages india's leadership role in helping to shape the rise of a stable, peaceful, and prosperous asia. beyond asia as the world's largest multiethnic democracy and as one of the world's fastest-growing economies and as a member of the g-20, india will play a pivotal role in meeting the major challenges we face today. this includes my top economic priority, creating good jobs with good wages for the american people. i believe that the relationship between the united states and india will be one of the founding partnerships of the
united -- of the 21st century. this underscores the french of that i hope will continue throughout my presidency. that is why i hope to broaden the cooperation between our two nations. mike administration's commitment can be seen through our new strategic dialogue. i am pleased that we are joined today by the cochairs of our dialogue, secretary of state clinton and foreign minister krishna. our commitment to in the -- to india can be seen from my personal partnership with prime minister singh. we work together on economic matters that -- at our g-20 summit in london and in pittsburgh and i consider him a wise leader who has helped unleash india's extraordinary economic growth. he is a man of honesty and integrity. i respect him and i trust him and i have happily accepted his gracious in defeat-invitation to
visit india next year. -- his gracious invitation to visit india next year. this discussion is the reason we have made so much progress in recent years. we have agreed to strengthen economic recovery and expand trade and investment to help both americans and indians. indian investment in america has created and sustained jobs across the u.s. the united states is india's largest trading and investment partner. there is significant bounce in our trading relationships -- balance in our trading relationships that i think is very reflective of the important route -- from work of the g-20. to sustain its momentum will create new initiatives to promote trade and investment, especially within those businesses that create most of the jobs here with in the u.s. i reaffirm to the prime minister my administration's commitment
to fully commit to the agreement that will create american exports and jobs in both countries. we agree to move forward with our agreement at the g-20 summit in pittsburgh to pursue a balanced, while ensuring that emerging countries like india have a greater voice in shaping the international financial architecture. we've made progress in confronting climate change. i commended the prime minister for his commitment to areas like green building and energy efficiency, and we agreed to a series of important new efforts, a clean energy initiatives that will create jobs and improve people's access to more affordable energy, a green partnership to reduce poverty through sustainable and equitable development, and an historic effort to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels. with just two weeks until the beginning of copenhagen, it is also essential that all countries do what is necessary to reach a strong operational agreement that will confront the threat of climate change while
serving as a stepping stone to a legally binding treaty. to that end, prime minister sing and i made important progress today. we reaffirm that an agreement in copenhagen to be comprehensive and cover all the issues under negotiation. we resolve to take significant mitigation actions that will strengthen the world's ability to, climate change. we agree to stand by these commitments with full transparency through a corporate processes as to their implementation. all of this bill on the progress we made in beijing and takes us one step closer to a successful outcome in copenhagen. but we also agreed to do an hour operation against transnational threats. the american people join our indian friends in remembering the horrific attacks in mumbai one year ago this week. to prevent future attacks we agreed that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies will work even closer, including sharing more information. we discussed my review of our policy in afghanistan and i
thank prime minister singh for the indian contributions to the afghan people. i welcome the prime minister's support for the nonproliferation agenda that i laid out in prague. and i look forward to india's participation and our nuclear security summit next year as well as in his participation as a full partner in our shared vision of a world without nuclear weapons. part of that vision is to working -- is working together to ensure that all nations, including iran and north korea, live up to their international obligations. we agreed to expand the international -- the educational exchanges that will fuel our knowledge based economies. we are exec -- expanding the fulbright program that brings so many of our students and scholars together, especially in science and technology. we're increasing ties and exchanges between our universities and community colleges as part of a new obama- singh or singh-obama initiative.
we think it is appropriately named. to advance our food this attrition, american and indian agriculture companies will cooperate to reduce hunger. not only in india were enormous strides have met been made around the world, it has much to teach. at our centers for disease control, we will partner with our county -- are indian counterparts to combat infectious diseases and promote global health. this is the concrete progress made today to create jobs and opportunity and security for our people. as a result, i believe the relationship between our two countries has never been stronger, a reminder that it will be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century. we look forward to celebrating our partnership tonight as michele and i host the prime minister and mrs. carr at the first state dinner of our
presidency -- of my presidency. it will be another opportunity to convey to the people of india as india assumes its rightful place as a global leader in the 20% three that you have in it -- have no better friend and partner than the united states of america. -- as a global leader in the 21st century that you have no better friend and partner than the united states of america. >> mr. president, distinguished ladies and gentlemen of the media, i thank from the core of my heart president obama for his very generous hospitality and for his very warm sentiments towards india and to me in particular. i am honored to be here today in this great country at the
invitation of his excellency, the president. when india and the united states meat, it is a moment to celebrate the values of democracy, pluralism, liberty, and freedom. today, we have done that and much more. in our discussions today we hear of the importance of our relationship and decided on future steps to enhance our strategic partnership. we have agreed to further intensify our trade investment and economic cooperation in a way that creates jobs and prosperity in both our two countries and to stimulate
global economic recovery. we admire the leadership that president obama has provided to stimulate and dieguide the procs that is now fully in place. we have decided to give a fresh impetus to collaboration's in te fields of education, agriculture and health. we will deepen our ongoing cooperation in the frontier areas of science and technology, nuclear power, and space. this will open new opportunities at our universities and laboratories and create human capital to meet
the global needs of the future. we have a very constructive exchange of views on strategic issues. our defense cooperation is progressing well. we agreed on the early and full implementation of our civil nuclear cooperation. our strategic corporate -- partnership should facilitate high-technology to india, the lifting of u.s. export controls on high-technology exports to india will open vast opportunities for a giant research and development efforts. it will enable the u.s. sent -- industry to benefit from the rapid economic transformation that is now under way in our country.
in a few weeks from now, the meeting of the conference of parties to the united nations framework convention on climate change will take place in copenhagen. both president obama and i have agreed on the need for a substantive and comprehensive outcome. with mitigation, adaptation, finance, and technology. we have affirmed our intention to work by laterally and with all other countries. we welcome the president's commitment to a major program for promotion of renewable energy and i drew his attention to india's own ambitious national action plan on climate change, which has eight
national missions covering both mitigation and adaptation. just as we partnered with each other in the shaping of the economic ecology, we have the opportunity today to become partners in developing the greek economy of the future. i underline -- the green economy of the future. i underline india's desire to benefit from clean and energy- efficient technologies from the united states. our partnership will continue through global efforts to combat climate change and achieve energy security. we had a detailed discussion on the important regional and global issues. we agreed that the indian-u.s.
partnership addresses of these challenges of the world we live in. the global economic crisis has come from the fact that our prosperity is interlinked. our dialogue cover the need to help an open and inclusive architecture in the pacific regions. it is important for the international community to sustain its efforts in afghanistan, to help its efforts towards being a modern state. the focused forces of terrorism in our region pose a grave threat to the entire civilized world and have to be defeated. president obama and i have decided to strengthen our
cooperation in the area of counter-terrorism. india welcomes the international interests in nuclear disarmament and non- proliferation. and we have been a consistent advocate of a world free of nuclear weapons. we will work with the united states and other countries at the nuclear security summit, which president obama is hosting next april. in our discussions today there was a meeting of minds on the future direction of our relations. i was deeply impressed by president obama's strong commitment to the india-u.s. strategic partnership and by the
breadth of his vision for peace and global prosperity. i have invited president obama to visit india. the warm welcome awaits him, his gracious wife, and his two daughters. i thank you. >> thank you very much. we will take one question each, one from an american journalist and one from an indian journalist. i will call on marra controller. -- martin moeller. >> i would like to ask you -- >> why stop now? >> perhaps you would like to set a new stage in our relationship by telling us where you stand in your decision on afghanistan. you have what we were told was your final meeting last evening.
can you tell us how many more troops you will be sending to afghanistan, how you will be paying for them and whether you will be announcing a timetable and ores exit strategy for them? -- and/or an exit strategy for them? >> mark, i've been making -- i will be making an announcement to the american people about how we intend to move forward. i will do so shortly. i think the review we have gone through has been comprehensive and extremely useful. it has brought together my key military advisers, also civilian advisers. i can tell you, as i have said before, that is in our strategic interest -- it is in our strategic interest, in our national security interest to make trebek al qaeda and its extremist allies can operate -- to make sure al qaeda and its extremist allies cannot operate effectively in those areas. we will dismantle and destroy their networks.
afghan -- afghanistan's stability is important in the process. i have also indicated that after eight years, some of those years in which we did not have either their resources or the strategy -- of the resources or the strategy to get the job done, it is my intention to finish the job. i feel very confident that when the american people hear a clear rationale for what we're doing there, and how we intend to achieve our goals that they will be supportive. now, i think it is worth mentioning since i will be with the prime minister of india, that this is not just important to the united states, but it is important to the world. the whole world, i think, has a core security interest in making sure that the kind of extremism
and violence that you have seen emanating from this region is tackled, confronted in a serious way. now, we have to do it as part of a broader international community. one of the things i will be discussing is the obligations of our international partners in this process. it is going to be very important to recognize that the afghan people ultimately are going to have to provide for their own security. we will be discussing the process whereby afghan security forces are properly trained and equipped to do the job. it is going to be important to recognize that in order for us to succeed there, you have got to have a comprehensive
strategy that includes a civilian and diplomatic efforts. i think that is a sufficient preview to last until after thanksgiving. >> [inaudible] >> after thanksgiving. [laughter] i'm sure that at that point, if there are further questions, then we will be answering them to the satisfaction not just of view, but to the satisfaction of the american people. >> would you tell india and the u.s.'s allies, especially in our region -- because there is the perception in india that the military that you gave pakistan is misused against india. it is really at the epicenter of terrorism did this issue come up in your discussions with the prime minister? and will you be pressuring
pakistan to get its act in order? and when is the nuclear treaty going to go on the road? >> well, first of all, i think that the united states and india are natural allies not just around counter-terrorism issues, but on a host of issues, as we discussed earlier. we are the world's two largest democracies. we have a range of shared values and ideals. we are both entrepreneurial society is, both multi-ethnic societies. we are societies that a leading human rights -- believe in human rights and core freedoms that are enshrined in our founding documents. one of the things that i think makes us such strong allies is the people to people contact.
it is one thing for leaders to have exchanges like this one, and it is very important, obviously. but the incredible contributions that indian americans have made to the growth of our country and the degree to which they are woven into the very fabric of our society, the fact that very few indians do not have some family member somewhere who has a connection to the united states, that kind of exchange strengthens and deepens the bonds between our two countries in april fine -- profound way. now, with respect to security issues in the region, the prime minister and dii had discussions about that extensively. we both recognize that our core rolgoal is to achieve peace and
security for all peoples in the region, not as one country or the other. one of the things that i admirer most about prime minister singh is that at his core he is a man of peace. of these the, their historic conflict between india and pakistan. it is not a place of the u.s. to try to from the outside resolve all those conflicts. on the other hand, we want to be encouraging of ways in which both india and pakistan can feel secure and focus on the development of their own countries and people. with respect to the relationship of the united states and -- between the united states and pakistan's military, i think that there have probably been times in the past in which we were so focused on just military assistance in pakistan that we do not think more broadly about how to encourage and developin e
kind of civil the security in pakistan that would affect the lives of the people every day. secretary clinton is doing a good job in trying to move forward -- where she? i thought she was around here somewhere. but anyway, she has done an excellent job in helping to focus our energies on the front as well. obviously, pakistan has an enormously important role in the security of the region by making sure that the extremist organizations that often operate out of its territories are dealt with effectively. and we have seen some progress. the pakistan -- the work that the pakistan military is doing in the swat valley and in south windsor a stand awaziristan indicate that -- in south
waziristan indicates that they can have an effect on their security interests -- internally. my hope is that we will see for the cooperation between all parties and all peoples of goodwill in the region to eradicate terrorist activity, to eradicate that kind of violent extremism that we have seen. i think that will benefit the peoples of pakistan and india and the world community as well. >> the president and myself had a very useful and productive exchange of views relating to security, peace, and counterterrorism in our regions. i am very satisfied in the outcome of the discussion with president obama. as far as the nuclear deal is concerned, the president has reaffirmed that it is the common
the toasts will start tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span. in about an hour, a discussion on the global food shortage and efforts being undertaken to reduce world hunger -- hunter worldwide. all of that live from the brookings institution at 1:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> thanksgiving day on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern, bill clinton is on hand to present steven spielberg with this year's liberty medal. also on hand, alex greenberger and others part of a panel assessing the obama presidency. nick burns and lesley dela on terrorism and nuclear weapons. at 5:00 p.m., hip-hop artist ludicrouacris annika use mentor. >> c-span's 2010 studentcam
contest is here. the top prize, $5,000. just create a five-eight minute video on one of our country's greatest strengths or a challenge the country is facing. it must incorporate c-span programming and show varying points of view. the deadline is january 20. grab a camera and get started. to go to studentcam.org for contest rules and information. >> climate health -- climate discussion continues. this is from this morning's "washington journal" and is 45 minutes. lewis morris, department of health and human services deputy inspector general. one of his responsibilities is investigating fraud in the medicare and medicaid programs. what kind of fraud are we talking about? guest: it ranges from organized criminals setting up sham medical equipment companies to regrettably some of the large fortune 500 companies in this country.
every place we look we're finding evidence of fraud. host: how pervasive? guest: it is hard to say. fraud is a crime of deception. the most effective frauds are those that go undetected. the the news is that we're using high-tech screening devices. we're using tebaldi to get a jump on these crimes faster and faster -- we are using technology to get a jump on these crimes faster and faster. host: could you go back to what you said. what kind of tools are using to investigate fraud? guest: some of it is using cutting edge technology, computer systems that are able to detect trends in billings much earlier than we used to. we also rely on good old- fashioned investigative work. we get a lot of tips from consumers. medicare patients will call us
and tell us something looks wrong. we have whistle-blowers inside the criminal schemes themselves who decide to come forward and tell us about the fraud. the government has set up a program that gives financial incentives to whistle-blowers to come forward. a lot of the big corporate schemes that we learn about our a result of insiders telling us how the crimes took place. host: do you ever do audits like the irs? guest: we do a lot of audits. about 1600 men and women across the country. we all did everything from hospital system billions. we all that the medical programs systems themselves, and then make recommendations to the administration. host: we're having a conversation about medicare and
medicaid fraud with lewis morris, department of health and human services deputy inspector general. you can see the numbers/political affiliation. please allow 30 days between recalls. mr. morris, you mention medical equipment suppliers. guest: we have discovered that medical equipment suppliers are a hot spot for fraud. it's easier for a supplier to get into our program. medicare has got to make it more difficult for the scam artist to get in. in south florida, we have seen thousands of sham companies set up. they are just storefronts. they provide no services. they build the medicare program billions in bogus claims. we have sent our auditors out.
in one instance, we looked at 1600 and about a quarter of them were bogus. we close to those down and cut down substantially on the fraud in south florida. unfortunately, the equipment suppliers are very sophisticated. they set up a new operation almost instantaneously. host: you make it sound like it is almost easy to defraud medicare and medicaid. guest: i'm afraid we make it easy. the program set up based on trust. unfortunately, the criminal element has taken advantage of the tremendous amount of money in the medicare program. one of the things we believe needs to be done is that we need to move from trusting to having people establish their credible suppliers. we have got to make it more difficult for the bad guys to get into the program and the first place. was there in, we need to do a better job of monitoring their
behavior. it is still pretty easy for those to be exploited. host: your office provided this map to us. you have some hot spot locations. why california? why houston? why detroit? guest: they were each based on data analysis. we determined to these were places where medical equipment suppliers were exploiting our program. what we have done in order to respond to these hot spots is organized strike forces of prosecutors and investigators, who are moving much quicker to identify the fraud. and then close them down. it has been very successful. we have almost 700 convictions
as a result of this. we have brought back $225 million already as a result of these efforts overall. , our strategy is working. for every dollar that is spent on fraud prevention and protection, we bring back $8 to the medicare trust fund. host: there have been some big settlements with some large drug companies. guest: you have read about these in the paper. the most recent was against pfizer. pfizer was alleged to have deceptively marketed drugs for purposes which were not approved by the fda. those actions put patients at risk, cause heart attacks, and death. in addition, allegations of kickbacks to doctors. the subsidiaries pled guilty.
we found multiple year schemes to advance the marketing of drugs for purposes which had not been approved by the fda. host: a company like pfizer or eli lilly, do they set out in their board rooms to commit fraud? guest: i do not thing we have ever had someone be as explicit as say it is a crime and i'm looking forward to committee it, but they clearly understand the parameters of the law. in the case of pfizer, they understand that the fda says you cannot market this drug for acute pain, and they went ahead and did it anyway because it increase market share in profits. i would say that executives at pfizer knew what they were doing was illegal. host: before we go to the colors, are the loaws too vagues? guest: the criminal element
those very quickly parade organized criminals have come into this arena. it's a lot safer than dealing crack cocaine. we need to have more resources devoted to focusing on this fraud problem. the laws are there. host: you have been at hhs for 25 years. the first call comes from long beach island, new jersey. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: my question relates to waste, fraud, and abuse. i see a myriad of commercials on cable television and network television every day for hours and hours for such things as mobility scooters from the
scooter store. the commercial says, "we will give you a scooter absolutely free." we end of course, we all know that the charges to the taxpayers have paid into medicare, medicaid, and disability insurance. these organizations are parasites in my mind. guest: it is a fair point. i would point out that the scooter store has entered into a settlement with the federal government to resolve allegations of false claims. first, nothing in this world is free. the medicare supplier offers to give you something at no charge to you, you should be suspicious. there are some circumstances where that is appropriate. generally speaking,
beneficiaries are obligated to pay 20% copiague. you are right. when something is offered for free, you should put up the warnings. there's a distinction between fraud, waste, and abuse. waste is being prescribed a brand-name drug with a generic name would do just fine. what is abuse? prescribing tests that are medically unnecessary but help the doctor profit. we'll have a good idea of what fraud is. there are those that are committing fraud. there are also those that are taking advantage of the system on the margins. we need to address all three. the inspector general's office is doing just that. a lot of the audits identify program vulnerabilities. host: could you give us the
details of the scooters for settlement? guest: it was based on allegations that physicians were prescribing power wheelchair's for medicare patients that did not need them. in some instances, the certificates of necessity were in no relationship to the needs of the patient. los of them were mobile. they have these jurors to be in a client -- they had these chairs sitting in a closet. host: is there a way that's doctors contribute to this fraud? guest: regrettably, yes, doctors contribute in a number of waste. perhaps the most obvious is there sunni prescriptions at the request of the patient when the doctor knows that the patient does not need it. -- perhaps the most obvious is the doctor prescribing things
too impatient with the doctor knows that the patient does not needed. and we also find that the doctors are on the payroll of these scam companies. they are getting kickbacks. we@@@@@@hh,n#aáb the vast majority of doctors care about their patients and of the jurors -- and the job they do. regrettably, some put themselves above the care of the patient. caller: between mr. morris and the last caller, everything i had to say was already said. i can tell you for a fact, i started getting medicaid some years ago and doctors have been
a major part of this corruption. you go to one doctor and they say we will have to see an ear doctor. i bought a piece of medical equipment that costs medicaid $635. if i have my own cash money, i could buy the same piece of equipment for $167. it is things like these are running up the cost of health care in america. you were right, mr. morris. we are too slow in getting laws against what is happening here. if we could be more diligent about the rules and regulations without loopholes, then we would do a good job. thank you very much. guest: medicare pays way too much for services. our audit teams and the value leaders have demonstrated this time and time again.
you can buy an oxygen concentrator for $700. medicare pays $1,700 in rentals. not only is that coming out of the trust fund, but because beneficiaries are paying a copiague, that means they're paying for two hundred dollars that he does not need to. we need to be much more responsive. there are bills right now that would allow the medicare program to stop pena as quickly as it does in fraud hot spots. under the law, medicare has to pay a claim within 30 days. they have billions of claims coming through every year. less than 3% are reviewed before payment. we need to change the system to a prevent and detect. host: tweet here.
is there anything in the house health care legislation proposal that addresses the issue of fraud? guest: there are a number of provisions in both bills that would help. they would tighten up on eligibility, make it easier to close out scams quickly, suspend payments when we believe there is evidence of fraud. at the bottom of every one of those medicare bills that they get is a number that they can call if they think there's a problem with the claim. in the same way you look at your visa or mastercard charge at the end of the month, people should be looking at those bills and making sure they got the services.
if they have a problem, they should first call the provider. the second thing they should do is call medicare. finally, if they think there is fraud, they should call the office of inspector general outline. host: ohio, you are on. we need to move on to miami. joe, republican, hi. caller: good morning. unlikely were talking about -- i like what you're talking about. i do not see any proposals. the consumers do not know how much things cost. they do not ask questions. you are talking about the generic version for the brand name drug. they do not hold the provider accountable.
i do not seek a lot of stuff happening. guest: a lot of people who have looked at the health care system observed that the person receiving the benefits are not the person paying for the benefit. the co-payments are part of that. it to pay 20% of the costs, it is more likely you will ask the doctor if there's a less expensive drug. you are right. we trust our doctors to do what is best for us. they have advanced training and expertise. it's not likely that a senior citizen will challenge her physician's decision about a drug for a therapy. the good news is that as we increase awareness, i think we will have much more of a dialogue between the patience and the physicians to ensure
they are getting only the necessary services. drakessanders tweets in. we have for this again and again on this program. is this something that is addressed in the health-care system? is this something that's the oig would like to see addressed? guest: the oig has addressed this. we will do an audit and provide specific recommendations to close down the problem. part of the problem is that there are vested interest that the white the system just the way it is. if you are a wheelchair owner, you are going to do you can to keep the status quo. congress is exploring ways to make it easier for us to change the rules in risk areas.
there's a demonstration project about to get under way that would allow more competitive bidding around medical equipment. we think that will reduce excessive charges. there are some vested interest that like things just the way they are. host: sue in naples, new york. caller: good morning. the billing -- when people get bills from health care, they cannot tell what they were building for exactly. if they could, i do not know of any other situation where you do not get an itemized bill. if people got that, they would see what they were charged for, how much it cost, and you would probably get a lot of calls on a hotline. guest: it is a good point. what we call an explanation of benefits is the way that the medicare program tells its
beneficiaries what services it has paid for. they're very difficult to read. i have helped my parents read through their medical explanations. sometimes a legitimate service looks questionable because you do not recognize the provider. you did not realize that the radiology company billed separately. you are right. we need to make sure that those bills are intelligible. we need to keep reminding people that they need to help us by looking at those bills and calling us when they think there's a problem. host: according to the centers for medicare and medicaid services, a total health expenditures in the u.s. in 2007 -- $2.2 trillion. of the total costs, medicare spending was $431 billion, 19% of that total. medicaid and schip spending, at $329 billion, to 15% of that
total. there are several estimates that say perhaps $60 billion per year is lost because of fraud. san jose, calif. caller: good morning. i have had social security disability since 2004. the first thing i noticed -- this has to do with the health care reform and medicare. in a lot of faults have had to do with medicare itself. i've seen changes with private doctors dropping all insurance companies because medicare would try to change certain prescriptions. there are -- finally found a doctor that will prescribe my medication, but through
medicare, i thought i would be getting things to help aid me get back into the community. instead, -- i am very thankful for medicare. i had an agent on the phone misinform me to tell of the animal forand will form that ken the program. people at the office here in california -- they should assign one person per person or a group of people. there's a lot of jobs stimulus that could be added. host: thank you for sharing your experience and your ideas. guest: these are great suggestions. one of the challenges you recognize is that while these might create more jobs, there's
funding required to support those jobs. one of the challenges that medicare faces is trying to keep a lean administrative machine so the money goes out in benefits and not running a bloated bureaucracy. medicare does a tremendous job at that. administrative overhead is a fraction of what private companies charge. it does mean that we do not have the luxury of caseworkers 40%. a lot of your ideas make sense. host: boca raton, chase, republican. caller: thank you. i've reported in 2000 i was working for a nursing service and they were double billing.
under the reagan administration, they had a wonderful program where they would hire retired judges from all over the country and give them a very small salary, and then hired lawyers that would come right out of college, and they would get people to come in. they knew they could walk and talk. they said we will give you 30 days to get a job, and if not, we will not be receiving any more medicaid from loss. i know people with disabilities who are working at our companions for people who are sick, and yes, they're collecting disability because i had a car accident. it really angers me. guest: you have absolutely every right to be angry. when people abuse the system in this way, is simply wrong. if you have information about
people taking advantage of the people taking advantage of the system, let -- it is also true that what appears to be a lack of a disability, you may not understand persons condition. but if you think that someone is abusing our program, please let us know about it and we will for the approach -- the information to the appropriate source. host: how many calls you get per day? guest: get hundreds of thousands of calls per year from citizens identifying problems. sometimes there kerned -- their concerns do not relate to our medicaid program. most of the calls get forwarded to medicare to look into if it is a billing problem. but we also find some very good tips that turn into criminal investigations and we pursue those. host: if somebody calls in and says