tv Washington Journal CSPAN November 30, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EST
>> some of÷v the headlines this morning include "obama declared a two-year freeze on federal pay." the deficit, the federal debt, and a federal employee pay freeze. we have a line for independence and those of you thought are federal employees. -- that are federal employees. "the new york times" front-page
newspaper "obama demands a two- year freeze on federal pay." sam youngman is the white house correspondents joining us on the phone. thank you for being with us. let's begin first with the meeting that will take place today at the white house. the first with john boehner, senator mcconnell and his counterparts on the democratic side. what is on the agenda with regards to the pay freeze in the debt? >> robert gibbs made it clear that the top priority is talking about the economy and taxes. all lot of people are speculating that the paper used was away for the president to get the jump on the way -- the pay freeze was a way for the
president to get a jump proving he is serious about the budget. >> let's look at the numbers in terms of federal employees. and 2009 the average salary is just over 74,000 for a federal worker compared to close to 62,000 in 2005. there are 4.4 million government employees. the pay freeze would include 2.2 million employees. >> of the white house is saying you have to start somewhere. you have to show you are serious about reining in spending if you want to cut down the deficit. what this has done is really infuriates the president's liberal allies, including the labor unions who say the president has and barelunfairlyd
the federal workers as a whipping boy. >> obama calling for a new way forward with the gop and the 112th congress. this is at the same time the president's that commission will come forth with its debt recommendations. we are likely to get a sneak preview later this afternoon and a meeting scheduled tomorrow at the white house, but there have been some headlines that the debt commission idea is dead on arrival. what are you hearing? >> some of the ideas were just that, dead on arrival. for years we talk about social security reform being the third rail of american politics. this exhibition is a third rail in a lightning storm hitting in the back from holding a toaster. some of these are not politically palatable, talking
about cutting social security benefits, raising the retirement age. clearly this will go a long way toward cutting the deficit, but at the same time, it would be political suicide for anyone in this town. the president is saying this will start a serious conversation dothat is long overdue. host: part of that conversation can be found in "the washington post." john bana and mcconnell will be weaving -- john boehner and mitch mcconnell will be meeting with the president appeared i. guest: as far as the lame duck session, i feel the president signaled almost immediately after the election that he was willing to move toward the republican decision on tax cuts.
robert gibbs said yesterday the president remains unconvinced that we can find $700 billion to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, but i do bank the democrats are moving closer to the republican decision on ending the bush era tax cuts. i do not know what the president's bargaining chips are. the pay freeze was not done as some part of a grand bargain with the republican. i am curious to assume what the president brings to the table that he will can see on. -- that he will conceed on. host: what do you then they will say following this one hour meeting at the white house and the roosevelt room? guest: the president says there will have a good, frank discussion. i think that republicans will go
in with a clear agenda. it was a mr. president, the spending days are over. you'll save you want to get serious about cutting spending, show me where. -- the president will say if you want to get serious about cutting spending, show me where. i do not think it will be for the politically dangerous parts. host: sam youngman their rights fowho writes for "the hill" joining us this morning. thank you. there is a front-page story on "the new york times." want to read a couple of lines before we get to your phone calls.
everyone wants to give the unionet the unions out of every, but it was not for the unions, the middle class would have nothing. also, at this to not ask, do not tell -- if i am in the service and the enemy is shooting at me and the person next to me said what their orientation is, i do not care what they are as long as they kill the enemy. host: the recommendations being released later today. if you are a federal employee, we want to hear from you especially on the announcement put forth by the president. if you are one of the 2 million federal workers thawould likely be impacted by this pay freeze, during the conversation online pierre ye.
-- you can also join the conversation online. we will go to san next in minnesota. -- sam. caller: i used to be a democratic activist when i . i left the party after realize there was really no difference between them and the republicans. and i voted for a third party rigid party candidates like they always do. you do not go and announced a freeze on federal salary without getting something in return. what are you getting in return for its? usa i am willing to offer this advice get something that is worthwhile, like an agreement on the taxes.
-- you say i am willing to offer this advice if i get something that is worthwhile, like an agreement on the taxes. and i am sorry to say that, -- i am confident that i made the right decision. host: thank you for calling in. host: back to your calls. terry joining us from fort worth, texas. good morning. caller: good morning.
they are bringing up a lot of things about cutting the budget, but the point is they are not bringing up a lot of the things that are the biggest problem. people have paid into social security all of these years. i paid into it 38 years myself. and they want to tell me they're going to try to extend mind, but not one time that i heard the politicians, the ones that get the greatest benefits and all of the federal and the county and the city and all of these other public officials that it great benefits, a great benefits, if you add olive that up it will far exceed the debt that we have a. the the thing about it is, we spend all of thesis money bailing out the states because the pensions are in trouble and not one time has anyone brought that up. host: there is one example in
new york where the incoming governor will be facing in terms of pension and ste employees. let me go back toolhouso "the nk times." on friday a temporary measure providing money for governor government operations will run out. mark is a federal employee joining us from damascus, md., a suburb of washington, d.c. where do you work? caller: i work for the department of state. host: your reaction to his announcement yesterday? caller: i am all for it. i have spent basically my entire life in service of my country. and there has to be a start
somewhere, and a lot of people in the federal government make a good salary. i didn't pay freeze -- i think a pay freeze will not crash federal employes of the next couple of years. everybody working together to try to fix what is wrong with this country. we are a great nation, we do great things. we just need to stop arguing and work together to try to figure out how to make it better, because when it is good, everyone reaps the benefits. when it is bad, everyone has to pitch in and help and make sacrifices to try to fix it. we have that responsibility. host: if you were to get a pay raise, how much more money worud it mean for you? caller: not a lot.
if people would tighten their bets and learn to live without it -- their belts and learn to live without it, you would not even notice it is gone. host: the average federal employee earning just over 74,000 per year in 2009. monte saying federal employees are used as a scapegoat. one friend the company gets $23 billion per year in aid. john painter, the speaker to be, and mitch mcconnell, i can't -- a chance to receive the voters. -- john boehner the speaker to be, and mitch mcconnell, a chance to hede the voters.
this coming in advance of the meeting that will take place at the white house, set to take place and last one hour. we will hear from the president and what is known as the stakeout area just outside of the west wing of the white house. we will cover that as well. mike from virginia on the democrats' line. caller: how you get bipartisan when the other party's main thing is to get the president out of office? how will they be bipartisan? the other thing is they will get the president out of office if
he decides not to cut the budgets using pbush's taxes andd stuff. give me a break. if he does not sign off on that the thing, i am not voting for democrats. i am not going to vote at all. thank you. host: the year to year deficit is in excess of over one trillion dollars. if you add up the total cumulative debt, it is currently at 13.7 trillion dollars. joseph is joining us on the independent line from pennsylvania. good morning. your reaction to the president freezing any pay raise for federal employees. caller: i think it is a pretty good idea. it is a first step in the right direction. and i am a local government employee and have not gotten a raise in three years. it does hurt, but if it is
necessary, you have to do it. i would like to emphasize certain things. people in america do not understand that our problems here are not connected to the problems in europe. america's problem started with greed, corruption, and mismanagement. europe and lack of regulation. in europe it was over regulation. it is just ironic that the collapse of the same time. i believe we have the power within us to pull ourselves out of this. as fdr said, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. we need to crack down on illegal drugs. host: thank you for the call. on the twitter page, we will find a way to save -- spend the savings. look at this money we are not spending.
details from this story by paul west. maryland doeers likely to be hiy the pay freeze. local economists and a freeze would hurt the state's recovery and could foreshadow a federal job cuts. there are 41,000 at fort meade. 17,842 at the national institutes of health, and 13,000 at the social security office. military personnel at some different a pay freeze, although steny hoyer saying that military employees should also have the same pay freeze that civilian workers have offered. that story from "the hellhill" newspaper.
caller: i am all for the pay freeze. i think it is appropriate. i think they should look at the number of contractors employed by the federal government and the pay they receive. in some cases there is a lot of disparity. that is all. thank you. have a good day. host: front page of "usa today." here is more from the president's comments on the eisenhower executive office next to the white house yesterday morning. >> i did not reach this decision easily. this is not just a line item on the federal ledger, these are people's lives. they are doctors and nurses that cared for veterans, is to search for better treatments and years, men and women who care for our national parks and secure our borders in skies. americans receive -- to see that
the social security checks get out on time. they are patriots who love their country and often made many sacrifices to serve their country. in these challenging times we want the best and brightest to join and make a difference, but these are also times where all of us are called on to make sacrifices, and i am asking civil servants to do what they have always done, play their part. host: if you want to watch the entire statement, it is on our website. front-page of "the washington post." one of the comments made is the president's proposal comes just before the fiscal commission is set to issue a final report tomorrow on how to stanch the deficit spending.
with health insurance premiums set to jump 7.2% on average next year and the federal transit subsidy to be cut to in half by december 31, the plan would amount to a pickup for many workers. we have this from our website, federal pay freeze and no earmarks is a start, but a beginning. next state employees. caller: good morning, steve. federal pay freeze. of course all of the federal employees are sank suree sayingr freeze our pay. i remember on c-span during the same time that the average salary in michigan has dropped
by about $15,000. i would say that any federal worker would be happy with the pay freeze right now. they're holding on to the gains they have made over the last five years. as far as the deficit, i am a republican, but i have to say that they do not speak for republicans when they say that every american deserves a tax cut. a guide that is making more than half a million dollars should not be getting a tax cut. -- a guy that is making more than half a million dollars should not be getting a tax cut. the fact republicans continue to harp on that, it is ridiculous. my last point is the bipartisan debt commission that the president put in place, at the sky sathis guys sam said they ae dead on arrival, they are not
dead on arrival. we have to look at social security. we have to look raising the age. everyone knows it. the ship is sinking. throw the cargo over when the ship is sinking. host: the question is whether the president this congress would go along with the recommendations. caller: thank you. host: thank you. john boehner issuing this statement.
meanwhile, joe davidson has this from the federal page of "the washington post." you can read more by checking it out on page b3 of "the washington post." democrats' line is next. caller: this is lips service all over again from the president and the new republican congress coming in. the old boys are still there. these new guys coming in do not have any idea what is going on. john boehner and the rest of old group is what put the country in this mess. they went out the door, now
they're back again. if those guys are really serious about what they're talking about the deficit, let them take a two year freeze improved to the american people that they are really serious by letting them start this thing off and take a pay freeze and we will see how real this thing really is. if anyone can go back and pull up the billions of dollars of the defense contractors wasted in iraq and afghanistan, the money that was stolen by these people is phenomenal. the president will stand here and said he has a hard time dealing with this, he is making it easy to deal with because he should have started this off by telling the republican party you want this country to freeze, you had the majority of the house, you start with a freeze. host: thank you for the call.
from our twitter page, another view work says why all of this news scrapping on when the elderly social security has been frozen for two years now? as president of the american federation of government employees, she is so upset you think he was talking about are republican rights of joe davidson. -- write joe davison. dson. next is a mark, a federal employee from maryland.
good morning. caller: the pay freeze is not a big deal to most federal workers. i am a scientist at the national institute of health. 10 years ago i moved from the university and the only thing the university could offer to keep me there was a higher salary so i took a salary cut to come here because they have a lot more resources, both intellectually and in terms of equipment and facilities so i can make more progress on the problems we're working on. host: thank you for the call. the next call is andy joining us from connecticut. your reaction to the president's announcement yesterday. caller: mike concern is the politics, and there does not seem to be any lack of it. half the callers are still blaming republicans or democrats
for the woes in our country. yesterday i read an article in the local paper from our representative from aarp blasting the president's reduction panel planned t to cut medicare. it seems to me that the deficit reduction panel gives the recommendations to congress, we will have more of what appear on your program, which is a lot of partisan politics. we will have labor unions complain about pay cuts, people that work for the defense industry complaining about cuts in defense. i was wondering what you think will happen with the recommendations when they make it to congress? thank you very much. caller: the great part about this program is to get the last day, not us. -- you get the last say, not us.
the headline in "the washington post." host: a story we will be watching as that happens. if it does happen on camera, we will have that live on c-span. greg joining us from union, missouri on the republican line. caller: hiding the freeze is great. the american people need to realize that the biggest deficit will be the health care plan that we do not know anything about and prices are going up. -- i think the freez is great. the other thing we have to look at is the position our country is in.
inflation is on its way. george soros is making the moves for us. have a great day, america. democrats, look out. host: front page of "usa today." the senate will remain in democratic hands. no change to the president. gene joining us from mississippi. what you do for the federal government? caller: my husband works for the u.s. postal service. he hasn't be been employed therr
15 years and only makes $50,000 per year. i am against the cost of living cuts. i would also like to say that people keep harping on the medicare. we have paid into medicare our entire life, just like everyone else in the system has. they want to cut that, but not one word is ever said about the entitlements to medicaid, and all of these young people who are having children out of wedlock that we are paying for, which is totally wrong. i think it is just ridiculous what is going on in the united states, and i also think that our president should cut back on some of his expenses, and outrageous trips that he and his wife is making. it is absolutely ridiculous. he needs to be the first one by
starting the cutbacks by staying home. host: thank you. we appreciate the call. from mike in colorado. this from competition, does the trees include obama? it does as a matter when the president first took office, he implemented a freeze on all of the white house workers that incluwork for him, including himself. caller: i think the pay cuts for the federal employees is a good idea. if you look around the world, there are federal employes in europe that are taking 15% pay cuts, and they're just asking
for a freeze for two years, so i think that is more than fair. in the past five years there have been large increases in federal employee hiring, while at the same time the private sector has been shrinking. you have a situation right there if that is not sustainable. you are racking up large deficits. there are a lot of areas of government which should take a closer look at such as the usda farm subsidies that run about 5 billion per year and perhaps some of the 700 odd military bases are all over the world. i think japan is a great example. i am 50 years old and my entire lifetime we have had 50,000 military employees in japan. that seems wasteful to me. i think we should look at all evidence to reduce the budget. host: thank you for the call. john has this from the twitter
page. it is time to bring in the machete. steven solers was defeated back in 1952. he passed away in washington, d.c., area. he was suffering from throat cancer. the obituary saying the brooklyn democrat who challenge dictators and colleagues alike with a hard-riding style passed away november 29 at george washington university hospital. until his election defeat, he amassed a former middle record -- formidable predatoarecord. passing away at the age of 70.
terry is grinning as on the republican line from westerly, rhode island. good morning. caller: mike question has to deal with the federal police that are unionized. if they're under contract and under a pay freeze, will they get their money back in two years? also, those on the steps system. how will this be present as well? -- will this be frozen as well/ host: the story from "the washington post." she has other in advance of the meeting that will take place today. a closed-door session with congressional leaders set to begin at 10:30 this morning. it has no fixed agenda.
instead the participants will gather in the roosevelt room for what may amount to a bit of a lame-duck theater in east side attempting to appear simultaneous and resolute. it probably will not take long to find out how things went. the president will make a statement to reporters afterward and lawmakers are certain to flock to the cameras as well. our cameras will be at the white house to cover this as well. carolyn joining us on the independent line from chicago. the morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. i would like c-span to do a program on why the non-profit sector has not been put in the mix for the deficit reduction. the federal reduction, yes, perhaps the federal employees can take a reduction, but it
pales to the amount of the endowments that universities and foundations have that are not taxed at all. it appears the government keeps on coming back to the working people, and yet the $35 billion endowment from harvard, maybe they could only tax that about 5 billion. the university of chartreuse wchicago may be only 10 billion. it seems to me the only thing not put in the reduction is revision of the non-profit sector. to understand what i am speaking about? -- do you understand what i am speaking about? host: thank you for the call. the headline from "the washingtoll street journal."
next phone call from linda. caller: it is my first time calling. it quoted some salary figures. i am a retired fbi employee for up to 37 years. i am living on less than 30,000 per year. it is closer to about 26,500. people who think the federal employees are living high on the halls are misinformed -- high on the hog farm misinformed. i have been living paycheck to paycheck. love c-span and love the show. host: thank you for this call. hillary clinton in a frantic spin cycle on the revelations, tehe wikileaks that took place
over the weekend. the lead story on the evening newscast last night. pete hoekstra is the leading republican on the intelligence committee. he will be joining us in a few minutes. he will talk about what can be done to get any criminal activity on this story. and next call from new york. good morning. caller: i knew what i wanted to say, but i have waited so long i got so nervous. host: why are you nervous? caller: i know what i want to say. i think it is all right to freeze federal workers. i worked in obeya bank for 32 ys
and never got that money. one thing that bothers me is the congressman who did such big pensions. most of them are millionaires to start with, and we are getting so many ex-presidents and they are all millionairess. why do they need these large pensions? i do not think they should raise -- give tax breaks to high-income people. host: we have an e-mail from stuart rudmaleadmendman. caller: you know that health bill estelis helping a lot of people. i have a health care through my employer, and these poor people
come in and sometimes they do not even see them. they have to say you have to go deer. they're good to them. why would anyone be against the health care? i have it, why shouldn't the other people have it? host: are you still nervous? caller: not right now. host: are you going to call back again? caller: i have a lot to say, but when i get on the phone i get nervous. host: write it down and do not be a stranger. call back any time. where is your by the way? -- where are you by the way? caller: not far from canada. host: think you'ank you.
from chris and tennessee. i am all for the federal pay freeze but i am sure people will find a way to criticize it, saying it does not cut enough. next is karen joining us from orlando, fla., on the independent line. good morning. acaller: it seems like a false debate. i would like to drag you guys outside of the box a bit and talking about the federal reserve and all of the money they are printing out of nothing. first of all, it is not federal, they have no reserves. why can we print our own money without debt attached to it and probably a lot of these problems would be avoided? host: one of the lead agenda and items as the meeting takes place in a couple of hours at the white house. lloyd joining us from berkeley,
calif. on the democrats' line. caller: i am from cedar rapids, iowa, but happen to be in berkeley. the republicans are such -- what do i want to say, two-faced. when the republicans are in deficit moat matter, if they cut taxes and spend like mad. high st. they're probably wanted to go pick the wrong way. -- i think they're probably wanting to go the wrong way. host: bank deal. -- thank you.
caller: republicans seem to turn him into spending like mad and cut taxes. they did not seem to be conservative at all. thank you. host: the front page of "the washington times" this morning. dennis lane has this -- one christmas note, this wyoming fur tree will be lit by a nifty posnancy pelosi next week. we will cover that as the season gets under way. we sat dead yesterday with an douglas brinkley about his new
book. during the conversation, douglas brinkley asked jimmy carter his eyes that he would get to president obama as he prepares to deal with the bipartisan congress. here is an expert at oildthat wl air this weekend. >> what should president obama do at this point? should he find a way to deal with congress? if you were president and this political climate, when a card which you play? >-- what card would you play? >> i think what he is likely to do is to be much more determined, much more likely to stick with what needs to be done, and stop trying to induce a very few republicans to support his decision. he has said that he will not permit an extension of the
george w. bush tax breaks for people at our very rich. then i think he should do that. what he said he will do. and maybe have one vote in the senate. that is what he said he was going to do in the campaign. that 10 only, and not permit any possibility of extending the tax reductions for the very whirich people. if he does things like that, i think he will have a good bit of success. it was only when he used a very well known technique, reconciliation, that he was able to get health care bill passed. that is plain talk. i think most of the democrats
say they will do better in 2012. i think you will. -- he will. >>washed "clause washington jo" continues. host: pete hoekstra joining us. thank you. what tools are in the federal to box to go after those who are linked to the wikileaks? guest: i think you need to start with who got into the database? first go after them. we may be able to go after them for treason or espionage. that is where you start. the further you go down behalf to obtain comment the food chais
tools they have. host: was "the new york times" please possible or irresponsible and publishing the information? guest: the one thing you can say is their inconsistent. when similar materials were week regarding climate change they made the decision not to publish. these materials were obtained illegally. they were transferred to us. they decided not to publish them. in this case, personal, diplomatic cables, materials that were obtained illegally they decided to move forward with them. today up to this point, they have made the decision to publish the materials that have been leaked or that they have been published have been put out
there in a responsible manner in terms of not leaking specific names and individuals in certain cases that might jeopardize their safety. overall, its media gets this material, they will printed and published it. -- if media gets this material, they will print it and publish it. host: they said it will get out anyway, we wanted to take the responsible route. guest: i think the responsibility comes back on the federal government. how did we allow the database to be created that held all of this information in one place? had 500,000 plus people that have access to it? it was an accident waiting to happen. i think there is probably
multiple weeks into the system. this is only one example. it was just a flawed structure, an accident waiting to happen. host: if convicted of with those responsible please the death penalty? guest: if they are convicted under trees and, i believe the death penalty would apply. host: would you support that? guest: i am a pro-lifer republican. i have been opposed to the death penalty may entire life. in this particular case, you lock up a person, the people that are responsible and throw away the key. host: one of the number of editorials that we will go through in the next 45 minutes, but he writes about the founder of wikileaks.
will be debated over and over. they have the materials and will publish it. printed as responsibly as you can. -- print it as responsibly as you can. the other thing is jane harman and i have argued together against the executive branch for years. jane harman was my colleague and the ranking democrat. we keep way too many things secret in the federal government. we over classified material. one thing that occurred to me on sunday when the leaks started coming out. i was in yemen earlier this year. i got there. the ambassador and other people
said congressman, welcome to yemen, we cannot share information and data with you. this is the first time oe in 10 years that this has ever happened to me. there were not going to brief me on the material and data that they have responsibility to brief me on. in the tables -- there is a cable dated january 3 of this year, and there is an outline of all of the materials with the type of step they should have a brief me on but they refuse to brief me on from the ambassador back to the state department. it is made available to 500,000 people who have access to that database, but they would not share it with congress. i would have never seen that material or data if wikileaks opera had not made that public. over classification of information. the bush administration did the
same thing. host: we read an excerpt in a moment. also, a reminder of your phone calls. send us an e-mail or join the conversation online. "the washington post" this morning. guest: washington post' is absolutely right. host: how you do that? guest: you are just march. after 9/11 the federal government was criticized
because they had stovepipes of information. they said we have to focus on information sharing. the d.n.i. has talked about the constant tension between sharing information and giving information to people only for the need to know. this does not even come close to that tension. allowing a 22-year-old in baghdad to have access to the conversation of general petraeus and the president of yemen is absolutely crazy. you can create boxes of information and say this information is available to this group of people. you did not dump it all into one place and say everyone has access to all of this. there are other stories out there about people similar to this private first class in baghdad. just going through all of these cables, no need to know. it does not help them do their job.
it just makes for interesting reading. they're just going to this and talking about it. it was ineffective, inefficient, and from my standpoint lazy management of national security issues by creating this huge database and letting everyone have access to its. then it allows people to say, we are sharing the information, and now you have to share the information appropriately and spirit to the people who are responsible for making decisions. and now we will never be able to say we did not share the information. the issue is doing this appropriately and privately. host: to you think he is solely responsible for the leak -- do you think he is solely responsible for the lee?
guest: i am sure there are others involved than just private manning. there is speculation that there may be cable's regarding the negotiations on the start treaty. that would be a great interest to the russians. when you create this honeypots of information, and people were using it inappropriately. you will go through there and finds that there should have been labeled top-secret that people were dumping this into the system because it was easy. but with this honeypots of information i would wager and guess that there were other people who were reading the information that should not. i have to believe the russian, chinese and other governments targeted the system. when you have a system at least -- that has at least 500,000 target points, i do not think it is that difficult for the chinese are russians to
piggyback on one of access points or to create an acceptance point that allows them to get into the system. i think the system has probably been compromised multiple times. host: our conversation is with pete hoekstra. his district includes holland, mich., and cadillac, mich.. . joining us from lansing, michigan. welcome to the program. -- gay iry is joining us from lansing, michigan. caller: i think many of the policies that we have had the government take, as well as our defense and our expenditures, that they have hurt our nation far more than these leaks. we have actually weaken our country through some of our policies and our kinds of trade
policies that we have had have really hurt our country, far more than these wikileaks that have happened. guest: no disagreement with me on that. i think the whole thing for a free-trade, some of the free- trade policies from my perspective has clearly hurt the country and clearly had a dramatic impact in your state and my state, the state of michigan. it is not about free trade, it is about fair trade. make sure you get our workers of level platform to compete with workers around the world. the question is not about which one is worse, the question is about focusing on all of the things necessary to keep america strong, which includes trade policy, be appropriate for an policies, and the appropriate defense strategies. . .
this case, make it like a download. guest: we have put a lot of focus on wikileaks over the past week, but how do we look of the environment to see why this was available, and by this was -- why this was under classified. the person that leaked this probably was just come through this and said, a lot of this stuff should be public information. i might agree with that person. it does not then give that person the right to make all of it public. if we went after this classification issue and me more information available generally to the american people and kept secret but we needed to keep secret, it would make our jobs easier.
host: the latest information focusing primarily on the state department. secretary clinton weighing in on the impact is having on her drop as the nation's chief diplomat. >> i am aware some may mistakenly applaud those responsible, so i want to set the record straight. there is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people, and there is nothing great about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations on which our common security depends. there have been examples in history in which the official conduct has been made public in the name of exposing wrongdoing
or misdeeds. this is not one of those cases. in contrast, what is being put on display in this cache of documents is the fact that american diplomats are doing the work we expect them to do. they are helping to identify and prevent conflict before they start, they are working hard every day to solve serious practical problems, to secure dangerous materials, to fight international crime, to assist him in rights defenders, to restore our alliances, to ensure global economic security. this is the role america place in the world. this is the role our diplomats play in serving america. host: pete hoekstra, your reaction to her response, and your reaction to her tone? guest: i think it was right.
a lot of this is about making public policy and taking it from erie, discussions, and making its policy, which means that you will be in discussions with counterparts overseas. we hope the end product is good, but we all recognize the process of negotiations of these types of things typically make it ugly, and it gets to be personal. what these leaks and cables demonstrate, we have heard all the time in congress, it is about making the sausage. it is not pretty, but in the end, hopefully, you get a great piece of sausage. host: another editorial from "the wall street journal."
identify that there needs to be additional work done with our allies overseas, and then the president should get involved. that is a calculation that will be made as we go through the process. the state department, the obama administration, they are the only ones that know that -- what has been leaked, the contents, and where we could be in two weeks as more of this material becomes public. these documents represent only 1% of the documents that he has. host: linda from washington state. republican line. welcome to the conversation. caller: i would like to give my appreciation to representative hoekstra for his years of service. i appreciate his stance in congress on many issues.
what would he have us do with his time left in office? also, with republican control of the house, what changes would he make to make sure that this does not happen again? caller: thank you. -- guest: thank you. i think what we need to do is look at the systems in the department of defense, find out how we put together a system like this. we have some of the brightest people working in the intelligence community. these people are really smart. were they not involved in this process? they could have designed a system that could have given the information to the people who needed it, and then put up a security firewall to make it difficult for people who were not authorized to get access to these materials. we have to find out how we got into this mess before we can fix
it. i have no doubt, people in the intelligence community can design these systems much more effectively than what we have. the bottom line is, we have a shooting war going on in afghanistan, pakistan, threats coming from yemen, but the other type of war that is starting to develop is the war in cyberspace. we know that the chinese have gone after the networks. even at the pentagon. we need to be prepared to fight offensively as well as the offensively, putting up the balls in the government and private sector, if we are going to be successful. host: the documents released over the past few days, 1500
documents were classified secret. the most discussed country was a iraq with more than 15,000 cables. the most frequent subjects was the state department. guest: and that is a lot of data. host: vicky from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: i believe this is a problem with integrity. when will the dialogue shift from cover up to replacement of diplomats and the policies they are pushing on behalf of the american nation? some of their policies are totally foreign to what this country was actually built on. i would appreciate an answer. guest: what you are looking at
are the policy that our ambassadors are pushing, directed by the secretary of state, directed by the president through the secretary of state. if they are anti-american from your perspective, your argument is with the president and secretary of state, not with an ambassador overseas. they carry out the direction as given to them by the administration in power. host: if you listen to the conservative commentators, criticism over the way eric holder commented on the way that this administration was not doing enough to go after julian assange, that they should go after him. guest: i am not sure the tools are in the toolbox to go after him. as you have seen, there are a
lot of legal minds who are trying to find a way to go after this individual and to prosecute him and they have not come up with a clear way to do it. this may be a different kind of area, cyberspace. do we need modifications of criminal law to create ways consistent with our values that allowed us to go after someone like this? host: if found guilty of providing illegal information to him, could he be sent to jail, but then nothing would happen to julian assange? guest: the difference is, he is the person that went into the
database, down loaded it against federal law, and gave it to someone else. host: baltimore. democrat's line. you are on with pete hoekstra. caller: good morning. we americans are very intelligent people. we need to know the truth. i am glad to see these leaks. our foreign policy is disasters. it is a leftover from the corrupt bush administration. i am embarrassed how we are conducting foreign policy. it is not what our enemies are going to do with this information, it is our so- called friends. we invite dignitaries to our embassy and then we surreptitiously collect their dna.
how can we be trusted around the globe if this is how we behave? guest: this is diplomacy that was carried out under the bush administration, now, some of the policy objectives may have been modified under this administration, but how diplomacy was conducted has been pretty consistent under the bush should ministration, under the obama administration, and i would think that you would find the same types of actions in the clinton administration. a couple of points. i would agree with you, more of this information should have been public. this is where you get into the over classification, where we
keep information away from the people and, chris. some of the stuff in these cables, i do not believe, should have ever been published. -- from the people and congress. host: another editorial from "the new york times" talks about classified state department cables. this conclusion from "the washington times" --
guest: it is kind of the same thing when the iraq, afghan documents came out. it was a big yawner. are we surprised in these cables that there is gossip? no, it happens all the time. is there dealmaking to move for public policy? now, we are not surprised. are we surprised that our allies may say something in private but another in public? no, we are not surprised. are we concerned saudi arabia is concerned about iran? no. host: with all this information out there, the current situation in iran, north korea, as someone
who has seen intelligence, debated with members of the administration, what worries you the most? guest: what worries me the most is the breakdown in trust. people will look at this and say, once again, the u.s. government has the inability to keep secret what they told us would be in secret. their experts will take a look at this and say this was not a spectacular espionage case where someone was really good and stole the secrets. they are going to look at this and say this is just sloppy and lazy. it breaks the trust level, and it also creates questions about the confidence of how we handle this information. host: based on "nightline" which
she watched -- maya, republican line. blue hills, michigan. caller: good morning. personally, i am waiting for the next wikileaks series. they are in regards to banking and wall street. i am disappointed with the congress because they have not investigated thoroughly the ratings agencies. they were the people that were responsible for this horrible situation our country is in. not only the country, but the world. we have wall street selling different credit packages all
over the world. wall street is back in business now. they are making millions and billions. no one is looking at them. there are people in the ratings agencies, standard and poor's, moody's, they are being prosecuted. it is the hidden story of the financial crisis. i think wikileaks is serving a wonderful service to the american populace. i, for one, am disgusted at what is happening in washington. it is business as usual in wall street. people are starving, people are losing their homes, and we are worried about what one person said in the state department.
stop spending billions of dollars on war and pay attention to our country. our country is falling apart and we are worried about putting in roads in afghanistan. caller: she raises a lot of -- guest: she raises a lot of ballot points. bake government, big institutions at the government, state level, big business, they have lost the support of american people. when information like this is released, what people sometimes see is a private world that is very different from the public world, and that is troubling to folks. they may be seeing it here, when these documents supposedly come out on the banking and financial
sector. government, business leaders have a responsibility to the people they serve. it is about building integrity. that trust has been lost in america. host: do you know which bank is the target of wikileaks? some have speculated goldman sachs. guest: i do not know. host: a comment from our twitter page. and a related note, this e-mail -- guest: they bring up a great
point. let's say people believe that they are a credible organization, and these things are accurate. what is to stop them from dumping in three, four, 300 documents that could be totally inaccurate, and that they may have developed themselves to embarrass the u.s., or to drive a specific point. it is a good point that he makes. you cannot look at wikileaks and say this is an independent arbiter who is doing the public good. they have an agenda. the document they release, how they release them, will drive their agenda. this is not all about transparency, letting the american people and everyone around the world have all the data. i am not sure that they are
doctored, but i am sure that they are focusing on the things that drive their political agenda. host: "the washington times" focusing on one subject in the wikileaks. in a memo from the secretary of state at the time, john negroponte writes a letter to the armenian president -- first reaction to that? guest: it is not a surprise. even during the war in iraq, there was a lot of evidence that there was harbor from iran making its way to iraq, killing american troops. host: secondly, any state department official writing an e-mail, sending a memo, will
that change because of wikileaks, what they say in the memo? guest: i am sure it has changed already. people are looking at it and say, and may not write anything. in five years, this may be public. sure, it is going to change. host: frank, long beach, california. you are on with pete hoekstra. caller: good morning. i would just like to say, i am a 69-year-old marine corps veteran. with the stuff that we found out was made up in vietnam, the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction in iraq, the
people releasing this information are heroes. i would like to know how we can get him the presidential medal of freedom. man is a patriot. he is the one who is telling us what is going on in the world. -- this man is a patriot. you all in congress have not been doing a good job keeping the american people informed. one more thing, for the republican members. where is my socialism? you said if we had medicare, we would get socialism. i called my congressmen, senators. where is my socialism? guest: this is one where i was just beg to to agree. as much as i believe some of
this information should have never been a classified in the first place, allowing, for example, first class manning, he has to go through a judicial process, but giving him a medal of honor for leaking classical -- classified documents, to determine for himself what information should be made public -- no, that is not the oath he took when he entered service. this guy, if convicted, clearly broke the law and should be convicted. host: a comment from james on twitter -- from "the new york times" -- the editorial points out that the obama administration should
be embarrassed -- host: did you know about this? guest: i did not. after meeting with world leaders, i was never briefed beforehand or debriefed after by the cia, what i perceive to " intelligence" that i gathered. i think the intelligence community understood there was a role for spies, and a role for congress. asking diplomats to collect information, i think, -- i think it crosses the line. apparently, this policy was
conducted under the bush and obama administration's. i think it jeopardize as the role of diplomats. host: muammar al-qaddafi and people with him, personal revelations. i will not go into details. can you confirm that? guest: i cannot. host: why is he associated with this ukrainian nurse? guest: perhaps it gives insight into his personal life, trying to assess who he is as an individual, what his vulnerabilities may be. just getting an overall profile of him. that is why that kind of information is collected. host: we are talking to pete hoekstra of michigan. david is with us from texas.
republican line. caller: congressman hoekstra, i appreciate what you have been able to say. you have been very confident in everything you have said. i cannot imagine any of business, small or large, that would have this sloppy security that would allow this to happen. i wanted to ask you, that person asking for socialized medicine, i hope we never get socialized medicine. i just watched a friend of mine died from cancer. he was being treated through the va hospitals. one of the problems that he had was chemotherapy, he had no
appetite. he asked his doctors -- not for medical marijuana -- but for some synthetic. the va does not offer this drug. not three days later to icy another congressman being interviewed -- do i see another congressman being interviewed talking about the war on drugs being successful, never to legalize marijuana, we have an alternative -- host: i will stop you there. you put the issue on the table. we will get a response. guest: clearly, we want to provide great care for our veterans. you all have kept us safe. i do not know the specifics as
to why the va may have not been able to run your friend with the services that he needs. in this case, i would suggest, call your congressman. perhaps they can get help for your friend who needs medical attention we all have case workers who work on those types of issues. host: stephen hadley, someone on twitter commenting on him. guest: you have to define what spying is. do they respond with a cable, saying this is our assessment of this person, or whatever? some may call that spying. are you going to have a diplomat trying to plant a bug, those types of things? i sure hope not.
it is kind of like, what is spying, and what is not? host: chris, calling from jacksonville, florida. caller: thank you for taking my call. congressman hoekstra, i want to commend you for taking our calls. my point here is, why is it that we always seem to be reacting to the problems in government? if you look at the system, people call for medicare issues, and things like that. but there are a lot of things
that need to be fixed in the system. these are the things that should be focused on, not reaction to when things happen. guest: he is exactly right. i came out of the business world. in the business world, you always want to be meeting. i work for a company that was a leader in its industry, from an innovative standpoint, and that was how we continue to be successful. when we started to react to the marketplace, we were not successful. the way the founding fathers designed the system, it is not to be leading edge. the need to get the majority of congress to approve it, and then the president signed off on it. historically, government has been reactionary.
in the private sector, it is all about speed. in the private sector -- public sector, it is all about process. host: you are leaving congress after this year. president bush has been called a united. president obama wants to bring parties together. yet, there still seems to be a polarizing divide. what can be done to fix it? guest: no. 1, the tone is set by the president and congressional leaders need to respond to that. you cannot listen to only the speaker of the house. the president sets the tone. two people who were characterized as partisan actually did a lot in terms of
getting policy done. that was bill clinton and newt gingrich. many people think of that as a partisan time. bill clinton was a master at building relationships on the hill, he was very personable, and focused on getting things done. even then they are viewed as being partisan, they were able to work together. we got tax cuts through, welfare reform, and we got four years of balanced budgets. yes, there are lots of things that i did not like about president clinton, but on a policy standpoint, he set a tone and tenor, in private, and in public, that allowed us to get things done. republicans and democrats responded and we were able to have a productive six years.
host: final question. does president obama have the same skills? guest: today, he has not demonstrated it, but bill clinton did not either in his first few years in office. he clearly developed those skills. i hope that we can see the same from this president and the incoming congress. host: pete hoekstra, thank you for your time. come back again. "foreign policy" magazine out with its top 100 thinkers. susan glasser will be joining us later in the program. first, brad sherman here to talk about the bush era tax cuts. congress continues work today, perhaps through christmas break, to work on a number of
issues. first, a news update. >> eric cantor, the no. 2 house republican, in remarks earlier, says that republicans do not think tax rates should go up. the comments coming just hours after meeting with the president. the obama administration opposes continuing tax cuts for individuals making over $250,000 a year. "political" reports that the next four people hoping to become the chairman of the energy commerce committee will make their speeches this afternoon. a final decision is expected sometime this week. new data from the ntsb -- national traffic highway administration showed that a number of individuals involved
in crashes had traces of drugs. you can hear that hearing later on on c-span. >> i am the education program specialist at c-span. each year, we conduct our studentcam did you documentary contest. the competition asks students to think critically about issues affecting our nation. this year's theme is, washington, d.c., through our lens. we want to know how government policy has shake your life. the goal is for you to develop and research your topic, provide different points of view, and include c-span footage supports your theme. for more information, you can visit our website or e-mail us any questions you have.
we cannot wait to see what you can do. host: we are joined by congressman brad sherman, a democrat from california. a member of the house financial services committee. let's talk about some of the issues in the lame-duck session. some want to keep the bush tax cuts. what is going to happen? guest: the one thing nobody is talking about is the obama tax cuts. if we implement the whole republican platform -- of course, they do not want to raise taxes on anyone. if we implement everything they are talking about, taxes would go up for 55 million americans. no one is talking about the tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill which we passed
in 2009. taxes are going up. we are fighting about 1% of the taxpayers output. that is what all the fire was about. if you were watching fox news, you would think that is the only issue, but for most americans, the obama tax cuts are more importanthan the bush tax cuts. host: so let's get beyond the talking point and ask you, at the end of the day, will there be an agreement between this white house and republicans, and what when this agreement look like? guest: i have no idea if there will be an agreement. there are so many ways to play it. what we have seen in the past is
total dysfunction and nothing being packs. -- being passed. that is what we see in the estate tax. for the states of people who died january 1 of this year, we do not know what the law is. those need to be kept open. we had to pass it and the state law tax by january 1, 2010. host: could you see a proposal that would kick the can down the road for another two years, and then deal with them in 2013? guest: i do not think democrats are going to treat those under $250,000, over to order $50,000 -- perhaps we would draw the line at half a million --
between the two. the middle-class will not get anything that the very rich do not receive. that is what the republicans say. the democrats will try to break that linkage. host: you say it is good that the federal reserve has gone out and bought long-term bonds. yet, lots of criticism when the president was in asia, particularly from angela merkel of germany, david cameron, saying that it is bad policy. guest: these are countries that run trade surpluses that, in american jobs.ake when china says this is unfair currency in relation, it is more plausible. but the main reason for the policy is not to give us some
fighting edge against the unfair trading policies of others. -- it is morelaughable. it is more about doing it in a way that does not increase the national debt and money supply. when you should look for our policy that can get us moving that are reversible. this is ultimately a reversible policy. you can buy these bonds now, get the economy moving, and when we have to worry about inflation -- and i look forward to that day -- you can sell these bonds and reduce the money supply. host: you talk about the commission recommendations. we do not have the specifics yet. but you say this plan is not workable. why? guest: really, there are two plans. one that the chairman released
and we will see if the commission can get a plan together with 14 votes. host: and 14 members need to be in agreement. guest: right. i wanted to endorse the proposal. here was the commission that was going to give up shared sacrifice, austerity on the road to a balanced budget, but instead, they have huge giveaways to big corporations. to say that we are going to hit the middle-class so hard, we have a reputation for austerity, and then sneak in provisions that provides massive reductions for corporations, would not be good. they snuck it in there and put
it in codeword, but they want to go to the absolute maximum in terms of tax incentives for offshore jobs. if the shuts down a factory in the u.s. and moves onshore, they will never pay taxes on that foreign based center. you have this deficit commission. people who want to reduce the deficit should endorse it, but if you actually read it and see what is inside, it is austerity for the middle class, incentives for offshore and american jobs. host: the president yesterday calling for 2 million federal employees. it could save as much as $5 billion in the next five years. is an employee freeze a good idea? guest: i think it is a good
idea. we have frozen our pay in congress. you hate to turn to people that we all rely on and take away cost of living increase, but at the same time, inflation has been modest. there has been testimony that actual inflation rate is three quarters of a percent less than the actual calculated rate. if it was part of austerity across the board, shared sacrifice, then federal employees should be included. host: why not reduce the number of federal employees? guest: we have reduced the number of federal employees in the past 15 years. i am referring to non-uniformed. obviously, the military has increased somewhat.
host: steny hoyer also believe that uniformed members shoul deal with a pay freeze. guest: during the war, that is difficult. i do not think we will see a freeze for our uniformed military. host: we are talking with brad sherman of california. we are talking about the lame duck session. we will also touch on the start treaty and wikileaks. first, phone call from bowie, maryland. caller: i was thinking. they have not had an increase for almost two years down. the majority of federal employees agree with the paradpy freeze. however, john boehner is going to get a $35,000 increase. and those pushing for the bush
tax cuts to stay in place, they are all millionaires. president bush, he gave us two tax cuts in the stimulus plan, and that was fine. the so-called bush tax cuts for the middle class, that amounted to nothing. $100 a month? in is just not fair.s peopl the republicans have duped all of these people who voted them into office. this new representative from maryland, the first thing he says when he gets into office is, when does my health care
kick in? yet, he ran against obamacare. guest: if i could comment on that -- i think you said bush when you meant obama. the stimulus bill contained tax cuts that are more important for americans than the bush tax cuts. those tax cuts expire at the end of the year. when you look at a plan to balance the budget, we ought to have liberal policies now, that is to say, expand the money supply, expand demand over the years, but at the same time, have a long-term plan to reduce the deficit. i generally agree with you. one thing i want to point out is
not all taxes on businesses have the same effect on business productivity, employment. a corporate income tax should, in theory, not affect their behavior at all. they want to make as much money as they can, regardless of how much money they have to give the government. in contrast, if you have a tax on boards, that might change our behavior. republican-led to confuse things. any changes on business will affect business behavior. some do, some do not. you have to look at the individual tax. host: let me get your reaction to the comments this morning from john boehner. he and mitch mcconnell wrote in
a "the washington post" -- guest: what is interesting is, those republican leaders are primarily interested in those at the top end of the scandal. in their plan, taxes would go up. if we did everything mcconnell wanted, taxes would go up for the best -- for the majority of americans. they do not focus on the tax cut of $800 for every family because
their focus is on who they can give and $80,000 tax cut at the top end. for them to write taxes should not go up at the end of the year, while conversing a program to raise taxes on the majority of americans, shows they do not focus on tax cuts that focus on american, working families. host: derek from maryland. you are on with the congressman from california. caller: good morning. i am 31, unmarried, no kids. people talk about the jobs going to other countries. we do not really want those jobs.
a lot of them are technologies that we, as americans, have mastered, we have had them for 50 years. even regular gasoline engines, we have been doing that since the model t. we need new technology. our hope our focus is on developing these new technologies, especially energy technology. there is no reason why a solar panel should not be on every roof in the country. we need to change the way we use energy. and that is a bigger part of security. we talk about military security all the time, but economic security is just as important.
we need new, innovative industries. host: thank you. guest: in the long term, i think you are right. the situation today is, we need jobs in the textile and auto industry. i do not think we have reached a point where we can give of all the jobs that existed in the industries of 30, 40 years ago and deploy the americans and technologies that are developed this century. the fact is, americans do want jobs, if they pay well. there are a lot of jobs in construction that are some of the most difficult and dangerous jobs, but there are a lot of people who want them because they pay $40 an hour. there are a lot of people who want unionized automobile jobs.
we want to create a situation where we can export. china floods us with their exports and act to prohibit our export to their country. they have free access to our markets, but when we tried to sell to them, they will not buy the airplanes from the u.s. unless the u.s. builds an airplane factory in our country. so we are in a circumstance where the only way to export is to export jobs. we do not comment because wall street sees that as profitable. they see the real way to make money is to sell things for dollars and pay the workers pennies. the only way to do that is for low income in china. there is a constant discussion of how we need to keep working with current trade policies. if we do not change our trade policies, we are going to see
another collapse that will be greater than the one we faced in 2008. host: a quick reminder, our conversation with brad sherman, a congressman from california. a statement in emailon twitter - guest: we need to match tariffs. when we say the move to favored nation status, we saw them change their laws in tariffs. in china, businesses and consumers do not just have to obey the written laws. what matters are the unwritten laws. those laws are, do not buy american.
they are told not to buy anything, unless parts are made in china. when equipment is needed, and their companies are told, buy the german equipment, not american. they are smart enough to demand a fair trade with china. we are suckers to our own belief that all countries are like ours. if china changes its law, we have done something major. china is not a country where the written law controls people's behavior. host: another tweet -- guest: hardly. in our day-to-day life, the debtor is weaker than the creditor. in international finance, especially sovereign government finance, the debtor is more powerful than a creditor.
we do not pay china, what do they do? often, it is thereditor that has to beg the debtor to pay. the fact is, we have the most voluble thing, we have a market. china is dependent on that market. our market should not be open to them, unless their market is really open to us. that is not the case. they have a controlled economy. i think we wanted to be fooled. washington and wall street sees huge profits from this offshore in -- off-shoring. they say that it is a fair trade agreement, but is obey fair trade agreement if there were equal rules on both sides. congress takes a look
at a trade policy. will you vote for it? guest: i need to see it as a huge package. if we're going to give tax cuts for the wealthy, freezes for those working for the government, i would be less inclined to go along with it. host: that is peter's point from calicut city, maryland. he says in an e-mail -- guest: i tend to agree. host: will there be a vote this year or next year? guest: various tax proposals will come up, but whether they are adapted to the law, i do not know. host: cameron is awake early in seattle, washington. good morning. caller: i wanted to comment. i got on almost two years to the day.
steve, i think you were the commentator. [inaudible] they separated banks from wall street. now wall street is part of the banking system. who is leaving? host: i am going to jump in because the connection is not clear. the tart bailout that was proposed by hank paulson, he said he was going to buy troubled assets.
t.a.r.p. was a break of the social contract we have in this country and the adoption of a policy that there are some on wall street too big to fail, some two -- some to well- connected to fail. that is why i voted against the wall street bailout. the new bill we passed, on balance diminishes the power of the executive branch to bail on wall street. it does not eliminate it, but moves in that direction. it appears back some of the devices that were used aside t.a.r.p. i think it reduces the likelihood that we will ever see bailouts in the future.
most important is an amendment that authorizes the regulators to break up any entity that is too big to fail. if they use that power, we will never again see too big to fail, be held hostage by companies who took risks for their profit and said that we have to bail them out. how that works depends on the regulators. if we can break up those institutions that are over $150 billion in size, we can protect us from the situation we faced in 2008, where people on wall street would say, you cannot let us go down, we will drag you with us. host: when do you think the house will wrap up? guest: my guess is right at the beginning of school, christmas vation. winter vacation. probably the 17th of december.
host: we have a twitter question that came up on the pay freeze for federal employees -- guest: federal government employees are not as robust as those in state government. again, i will have to look at the situation, but there is not the same kind of protection, same kind of right to strike. host: bill from sheffield, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for letting the average citizen voice their opinion. i have some short comments. i keep hearing people say that they are sacrificing. what bothers me is every republican plan that i see involves sacrifice from average americans, no sacrifice for the
wealthy. what are the wealthy not sacrificing like everyone else? the second, i would like to make, why not let the tax cuts expire for the very wealthy, use that money and give it to the poor and middle-class for a bigger tax cut? this would not only help the people that need it the most because people would go out and spend that money. . .
they are able to sneak in without much notice from the arrest and one-quarter gain in net income tax. and a 12% cut in the taxes faced by those at the high end. when uc the republican plan today -- when you see the republican plan today, their focus is on spending $100 billion off to find tax cuts in the upper hall one% to 1.5%.
that it takes effect when the unemployment rate is reduced. then we can tell investors around the world that we have a long-term plan for the deficit and it will go into effect when the unemployment rate drops below 5% or 6%. host: there is an article in the "washington post" about the white house briefing. we heard from secretary of state clinton and from eric holder and the public -- anbut the presidet did not speak publicly.
here is the exchange yesterday in the white house briefing room with secretary robert give this. -- robert gibbs. >> one of the problems is that there was not enough of sharing of information, are you suggesting that in a free society if you have a bad act in some place that these things are simply going to happen? that you simply cannot stop it from happening? >> two things, chip. first of all, obviously, regardless of the walls that you set up there will certainly be occasions in which people do not take their oath to their country seriously about protecting the access that they have or the information that they are given and the information is highly sensitive and highly classified.
i think that has been true for the history of our country. the responsibility of our administration and that every administration has, though, is to put in a legitimate safeguards -- put in place legitimate safeguards to make sure that the access that is provided is warranted based on your ability to get that information. and once your ability to take that information off of a website and copy it, or copy it thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of times. host: congressman chairman, that was the essence of the discussion at the white house and capitol hill. did the administration tried to downplay this, and have they succeeded? guest: of course they are born to try to downplay it. they have not succeeded. they have succeeded in making this more of a 95 rather than 100. the only time will tell.
it is a very important development and it is part of a series. we saw releases in july and october and now late november. this will hurt us in a number of ways. first, it is going to -- the content itself is going to embarrass us and provide our enemies with insights as to how we operate. then, in terms of confidentiality, who is going to trust us with a secret in the future? who is going to say anything to us that they do not want to see in the "new york times" or in the "manchester guardian?" and it will make communication more difficult within our government. the right now, you e-mail everything to everybody and you expect it is top secret. the top-secret means it could be on the front page. and finally, our international image. and we are viewed as the world's only schubert -- superpower and
it makes us look like the super power that cannot shoot straight. the ranking member of the intelligence committee points out, you've got perhaps 3 million people with a security clearance that allows them to peruse these documents. and yet, when congress asked they the on wikilinks now. you have an executive branch that shares information to broadly within the administration and not with congress. you notice we have stovepipe be where they were not sharing information with for -- from agency to agency. they went overboard and i have a private first class with information on just in regard to their own company, but rather, downloading hundreds of thousands of documents.
the one thing that makes this difference from even 10 years ago -- if we would have had five russian spies and go into the cia in the 60's and led the mudlinger around the files, they might not finding interesting. -- let them rummaged around in the files, they might not find anything interesting. but now, someone can rummage around and walk out of the building with a quarter million documents. most of them are relevant and most of them will hurt us. but with one quarter million documents -- most of them are irrelevant and most of them will not hurt us. but with one quarter million documents, there is going to be something in there that can hurt us. host: tiffany joining us from austin, texas. caller: i have a quick point going back to the tax cut. sari to change the subject again. host: that's ok too -- that's
ok. we are dealing with all kinds of issues. caller: i'm curious why democrats have not learned a lesson in regard to tax cuts. the extension of the tax cut is exactly what republicans ran against, which contributes to the deficit. member to come on what i have read -- no. 2, what i have read is that it is contributing to our economy. for better or worse, the press is wrapped up in this wikilinks thing. guest: as far as getting the message out, people in my own area, -- the san prendo valley, -- the stanford mandell valley, we got -- san fernando valley,
we got some of which is listed here. any time we do anything to deal with the deficit, if we do it the hour, that produces economic activity now. in general, we need efficient and reversible ways to pump up the economy now to have a plan for austerity in order to pay for the entitlements that are just around the corner. in fact, though, both parties are just fighting the battles that they tend to fight and not looking at this proposal to say how much stimulus are we getting versus how much are we increasing the deficit. what is the plan we can show investors today but can go into effect when the unemployment rate goes down so that we can have some relief that we will be able to pay our debts in the future? the fights tend to be on a few
hot button issues and they dominate the press. the one issue dominating the press now is the upper part of the bush tax cuts. as i have tried to point out here today with steve, nobody is talking about something even more important to most american families, and that is the obama tax cuts, the $800 that went into effect for 2009 and 2010. host: among his committee assignments, the house judiciary committee. he was just reelected in the california, sherman oaks area. next up is a call from grandy in citrus heights, california. the response caller: to the woman who called earlier -- how caller:, the response to the woman who called earlier and said she was responding saying that it was just $100 a month,
i'm thinking, but as my cable bill. congressman com, in this electin some are being pretty honest and usain that something of that size and scope -- and saying that something of that size and scope should not have been passed. i am still really energized. the other campe, it was, it was the messaging and we did not do enough about jobs. i agree that we did not do enough, but was not everything that it was about. which camp are you in and our democrats ready to get something done here in the future? frankly, the people that i see
remaining behind are the ones with decliners -- blinders on and they just want to continue falling nancy pelosi. i do not know what you think that is going to get you. host: thanks for the call. guest: i may not be in the camp that you want me in and i do not know if i'm entirely in any camp. obama ran on the health care bill. people who voted for obama who did not know he was going to push a health-care bill fairly similar to what he adopted -- he wanted a public option has died. -- as did bi. i do not think people decided to years later that they hated the health care bill. what they've decided david was the 9.6% unemployment.
-- what they've decided they hated with a 9.6 percent unemployment. it was political malpractice to make that statement and it turned out to be economic not practice as well. i voted for the stimulus, but i thought it would keep the unemployment under 8%. when you set the bar at 8% and you have 9.6%, then you have failed to clear your own bar. we talked about it -- andan economy summer that was not happening. this is a car that was not been -- that was being driven into a ditch and we should not -- this is not a car that was being driven into a ditch and we should not give the keys back to the person driving.
the fact is, is the car is driven into a ditch and you cannot get their cars out in 18 months, something is wrong. the car was not driven into a ditch, though. it was driven into the grand canyon. if the president had told people at the beginning of the administration that we were in free fall, that it was going to take years, that we're going to face the economic problems that are being faced, the country would be more forgiving than we are now. but when a picture is painted that is just a car in a ditch and we will get it out and the unemployment will be below 8%, and none of that is true. people did not compare us to the republicans. they compared as to the standards that the president's economic advisers had said and those failed. host: call from washington on
the democrats line. caller: what good did the too big to fail and the corporate structure, what good are they presently doing for the american people? the bankers are hoarding the money. the corporations are, you know, -- they have no alliance to the american worker. they are hiring people overseas. why should the people of america support the corporate structure? i think the corporate structure is in for a lot of trouble. guest: i tend to agree with you, but i put the blame on washington as much or more than
wall street. because the business community is -- i mean, they often lull before very bad policies, but they respond in a logical way -- they often lobby for very bad policies, but they respond in a logical way to what exists. come up with a responsible bill. instead, we have allowed here in washington entities to get so big that they are able to threaten the entire economy and demand bailouts. as to 40 monday, -- as to accordinhoardin gg money, theret enough demand in the community because there is not enough local product.
as to offshore in jobsing jobs,y are able to do that because we in washington have created a system in which that is probable. and if -- profitable. and of course, lobbying has crossed that. we lose at well over a -- has caused that. we lose well over 1 million jobs. we are constantly told the free trade is wonderful without examining the fact that what we have now is a cancerous version of free trade, not real free trade. host: final question. 60 democrats will be leaving the house this year. you always starting with a new speaker in january. what will be the tone in congress? guest: afraid washington is dysfunctional chiefly because of the filibuster in the senate.
in the house, i think the republicans will pass most of their agenda. but what we do not see is a pressure to compromise and we have a primary system in most states -- my state has moved in a different direction. it is hard to win a republican primary if you have compromised with democrats. look what happened with my castle in delaware. -- mike castle in delaware. i do not think we will see that compromises that we need. and often, the super compromised in order to defeat a filibuster. i will not be surprised if we go right to the presence of the defaulting on our debt or shutting down huge chunks of government next year. host: do you think that will happen? guest: think we will go to the presidency, but not go over.
you will see headlines, "government shutdown threatened" with in the next 12 months. host: hersman brad sherman from california's 27th -- congressman brad sherman from california's 27 congressional districts. the cover of "foreign policy" has some of the top global leaders of 2010. leading the list, warren buffett and bill gates. susan glasser, the editor in chief of foreign policy will be joining us in just a couple of minutes to talk about this story and her interviews for the publication. but first an update. >> it is 9:23 a.m. eastern time. steny hoyer says president obama has moved to freeze the pay of federal employees and it should also be extended to military personnel.
it would create savings that bad in, in his words, "-- that bad, in his words, "an element of fairness." congressman pence in remarks last night at the detroit economic club says he has not yet decided whether he will run for the presidency in 2012. politico says that house democrats ratified speaker nancy pelosi's choices to nominate steve of ryland and we slaughter. lawmakers hoping to change will have to wait for the next congress to change that goal. a record number of foreclosures are expected to push prices down even further through next year.
cleveland recorded the largest decline, where prices dropped 3% from a month earlier. prices in san francisco and los angeles, which had been increasing, both fell from august and july. the only two areas that posted gains were las vegas and washington d.c. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> find great holiday and gives for the c-span fan in your life and our c-span store. books and cds and mugs and more. it is all available online. >> every weekend on c-span3 experience in american history tv starting at 8:00 a.m. on saturday. here historic speeches by national leaders and eyewitness accounts of events that shaped our nation. visit museums, historical sites and college campuses. top history professors and the
historians delve into america's past. american history tv all weekend, every weekend on c-span3. host: we want to welcome susan glasser, the average -- editor- in-chief of "form paulison" magazine -- a "foreign policy" magazine. you begin saying 2010 is a critical year for thinkers. how so? guest: it is a good time to have good ideas and new ideas out the world from the last couple of years. the urgency is there to have big thoughts about a world in financial crisis. it has also been a key year for the rise in the multi-party world. that is happening whether or not president obama wanted to.
it is a different world and is fast changing. host: we look at the list, and leading it, two billionaires, warren buffett and bill gates. why do they get the top spot? guest: it is an encore -- unconventional choice. the world is struggling to come to terms with the financial crises. you look at international institutions and the other world crises. they are not necessarily build for the 21st century. in come these two billionaires' who have a radical idea to get not only themselves, but as many as the viet -- as many other baliles -- other billionaires' as they can to give away as much as they can. the gates foundation is set up to bring business sector innovation to the traditionally
stayed areas of traditionally government areas. it has helped to revolutionize how we solve social problems aroundhe world. pawn and robert duczoelich, they share this space directly. guest: over the last two years you have seen a fairly skillful management and navigation of some crises that could have threatened even more disruption to the world with politics and economy. host: president obama, number three, and charting a course through criticism. and he has been getting a lot of criticism since the election. guest: i think it is too early
to say what president obama's record on foreign policy will be remembered by. as much as he is clearly facing the storm at sea is right now, there is no question that some of his decisions may well prove out in the long term to be very different than they look right now host: let's look at the top- 10 list. we have gone through the first three. rounding out the top-10 list, angela, merkel -- angela merkel. let's talk about those picks. guest: terms of turkey and brazil " we have talked about theestif ul.a new erarise o th is wh it los like and i not nessarily going to be comfoable for the u.s. or these are people in turkey and brazil that have been our longtime allies, butot necessarily the closest of allies and we played a very
assertive new role in the international stage. these two teamed u remember, earlier this year to try to make a deal withran or the traditional powers, the u.s. and other members of the security council, have failed. it came out very similar to what the u.s. itself was proposing, to take out the ron's how low enriched uranium fuel from the country. what was the response? president obama said it was absolutely unacceptable. this deal did not meet our expectations. americans were furious with the turks and brazilians. there was a sense that it was, hey, guys, this is our job. i think we really start to get a sense with a pick like this of what the future is going to look like internationally. host: you sat down with the
turkish foreign minister. one of the questions that you ask is -- i'm sorry, brazil. one of the things you talk about is negotiating power. can you explain? guest: first, what does brazil have to do with iran and the middle east? you get a sense that this is a confident power that does not want to just be the leader of latin america or south america. it sees its world -- its role on the world stage. number two, they're punching above their weight class arguably internationally by approaching things as a negotiating power, a trading power. they have invested and how a lot in -- they have invested a lot in trading. other nations are pulling back. they're putting more people on the ground in africa. china is now the largest trade
relationship with brazil, supplanting its long-term relationship with the united states. but interestingly, brazil was also -- as was said memorably in this interview -- can you think of another country that has to neighbors and has not had a war in 140 years? that is another part of brazil, too, that they are eager to project on the world stage. host: of the questions of brazil's foreign minister is describing a south power power. but what is that? guest: i think they understand that they will never compete with the u.s., or even bigger regional players in terms of military expenditures or "hard power" if you will. the way they will xl is through negotiating and finding a seat at the table. -- the way they will excel is
through negotiating and finding a seat at the table. it gives you a platform that you might not have had 50 years ago. susan host: glasser is the editor-in-chief of "foreign policy" magazine. the story is the top 100 global thinkers of 2010. number eight is general david patraeus, in part because he took a demotion gues. guest: that is right. he was already in charge of centcom, the day to day operations, but he was not in charge. when he was asked to take charge because of the comments made by the man in charge. host: defense secretary robert gates, who was put forth a plan
of this 100 has to do with -- maybe one fifth of this 100 has to do with thinking of the global issues. you have politicians and thinkers who are determined to impose a new age of austerity on fiscal systems, whether in the u.s. or europe. that is number one, surprisingly. number two, there are a lot of big ideas and even good ideas that are bubbling up out there that do not necessarily make the
front page news every day, but are important in the longer term about how we think of big ideas, about how we think of reinventing energy independence in the urals and -- in the u.s. and elsewhere. a lot of it has to do with how we're going to crack problems like global poverty. i think we have a lot of people on this list during constructive, very real things in terms of how to crack global problems that you do not always read about on the front page. host: we talked to congressman brad sherman who said that is essentially congress is dysfunctional right now. can these great ideas and result in tangible results? at least here in washington d.c. and the rest of the country? guest: i think that is a great question because one part of the exercise that i found striking in trying to come up with this in the first place is that there is a real gap between the washington conversation and the
conversation happening in the world in thinking about global problems. will that match back up, number- one? and number two, i think there is also a big gap between one we say end and ellicott -- you know, and of illegally -- analytically what we understand is going to happen, and number two, are the institutions capable and are they enough to plug into them to deal with these good ideas legislatively or executive branch-wise when we stumble upon them? host: our guest is susan glasser who spent many years with "washington post" and has recently been named editor in chief of the "foreign policy."
the numbers are on the screen. send an e-mail or join us at twitter. the first call is from south carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. sunday, i watched a program with warren buffett and bill gates and his wife was on. there were talking about how they have been able to get other billionaires' to join their chorus. one thing that i thought was interesting that warren buffett had said is that he commented on the fact about the taxes and that the republicans want to give to the rich. he said, they did not need the money. there is no reason to give millionaire's money. they are trying to give away money, not have the government increase money for them to have more money.
i just wish c-span and would get one of them on to really talk about the issues, as far as the huge gap between the middle class and the rich, how much money they have made over the years when bush gave all the taxes to the rich. it is so interesting. i just wish you would show some of the things that bill gates and warren buffett had to say about these tax increases and how washington is so dysfunctional in getting been set together for the middle class and poor people. host: have an open invitation to come on any time. we would love have them. guest: i saw that and warren buffett was his class a folksy self. he talked about what he does just in his office about what taxes are the aid. it was striking.
he said that he paid the lowest amount of anyone as a percentage of his income, and anyone in his office that works for him. host: this is a side bar question. where was this photograph taken of bill gates and warren buffett? guest: isn't that a great photograph? it was in a diner in buffett's home town. it cut -- it captures the folksy nature of warren buffett, who is not only a brilliant investor and thinker about the world, but he is very much a down-home guy. he and gates, forged this wonderful partnership that is what, to me that picture signals. they're working together in a very unique way. host: warren buffett worth about $47 billion and bill gates with about $54 billion. there are just about 1000 millionaires in the world. 40 have signed up to their
proposal. guest: that is a serious cash. bill gates had a meeting this summer to talk about aids. he actually pledged more money than the entire european commission did, or the government of norway. they are some substantial actors in philanthropy and different -- and there are differences than his darkly -- that the letter b has been historically been used. host: -- and there are differences in the wake of philanthropy has historically been used. host: next call is anthony from connecticut. caller: those meetings, typically what comes out of them is silent about what goes on in there. i was wondering if this young lady has and it can to say about what goes on there. typically, if things are
silenced, you can usually find some nefarious activities going on. guest: i note is an assassination to people because it is a secret organization. i tend to be skeptical of conspiracy theories like that. look at the wikilinks issue. we are coming into a world where it will be difficult to have secret. roubini, i believe he has said some the likely 40% reduction. we got some responders and we ask them the question and we got a significant minority, about 37% of our global thinkers, felt
there was a risk of a double-dip recession. host: at the national press club yesterday, stephen chu, no. 14 on your list, he indicated that the u.s. is falling behind china in energy. guest: yes, he indicated that we need a new spot that moment. i think that was a very important speech. -- a new sputnik moment. i think that was a very important speech. he indicated that we need to be doing all we can on research, on creating an economy with a cleaner and cleaner energy focus. whether that will happen, i don't know. in some key ways china is already very far ahead in that front. host: no. 21 on the list, heads of google, there on the list because? guest: it was very striking in
china when googled stepped into the realm of politics that it has tried seriously to avoid. it is -- and there is an antitrust case against google. we will see where that goes. how tools like google and facebook are shaping the new world economy. it will increasingly become political players. and number host: 19 on the list, texas congressman ron paul. his son is taking the seat in kentucky. you call him the thinking man's t party. why? guest: the tea party and would recommend -- represents in american politics has had an effect. we chose congressman paul as someone who was out in front of the ideas that were shaping the tea party. clearly, there were going to be some conflicts when it comes to
the international initiative. does the tea party have initiatives? his version verses a more traditional republican orientation, which is to say, let's support the military efforts already on going in afghanistan and iraq. you could even see that being a fault line in the tea party over the next couple of years. again, what is striking is the positions that once lived as recently as a couple of years ago, we are out liars -- that were out fliers in the republican party have come to be seen in congressman paul. host: this is the cover story in "foreign policy" magazine. here is the list of top-10 thinkers. we're joined by jim in tennessee.
caller: if we bomb iran, it will not stop them. iran cannot use a bomb anyway. they would be destroyed. al qaeda said they are going to keep nukes -- take nukes to our wide open borders. shouldn't we be more worried about that then iran? if they do, israel will probably lose our support. it will be too much to take. guest: i'm not sure what the question was in there, but i think it has -- it is fair to say that iran has become a preoccupation. this first round of wikilinks that has come upon has seemed to have mano-focus on iran. -- mono-focused on iran.
is it a distraction, as this caller suggests? i think that will become an increasing question. top global thinkers are worried about the possible threat from iran and it obtaining nuclear weapons, and also worried about the preoccupation that the world has with this irani ian issue. when asked about the influence on world events this year, the number-one person that many people said was mahmoud ahmadinejad. hu jintao of china was after him. host: i want to ask about turkey because of its geopolitical significance and its foreign minister was no. 7
on your list. can you elaborate on what he was writing about in the role that turkey is going to play with iran and with europe and the rest of the region? guest: think you are seen the re-emergence of turkey as a global power. that has not been the case since the oden days. -- the ottoman days. that has been a research -- that has been powered by the resurgence of the turkish economy. they also have this foreign minister with a big idea about turkey's role in the world. he preaches the notion of "strategic depth. that was his theory as an academic for a crossroads between east and west, between the middle east and europe. some people even call that neo- ottoman. but it is true that turkey is
active in countries that have not been active in the early in 100 years. the balkans, for example, in the middle east where they did not play a role up until just a couple of years ago. turkey has been a strong allied dating from the cold war days, of the united states, and that is an increasingly significant relationship with attention. some of these cables that have come out have had some very striking and negative things to say in private by american diplomats about the turks. i wonder what that is going to do to the relationship. for example, the minister, after one meeting with the u.s. ambassador, came back and said that turkey has rose was ambitious -- rolls-royce ambitions, but only rover
capability. trailing on this list, but vladimir putin is no. 3, and nicholas sarkozy is never to -- or at two references, i should said. guest: both putin and sarkozy fell down this year, interestingly. i think we have seen this in russia in general. they, too, have pulled back from the world stage in recent years. you do not see them talking about how to reinvent the world post-crisis as we have seen other countries. we are talking about brazil, and not about russia, with its great resources and traditions.
two decades after the collapse of the soviet union, there is not a russian on our list this year. host: pat is the next caller from kentucky. good morning, pat. caller: i think gold is $1,300 an ounce now. and ken has found the largest platinum -- kenya has found a large pot of deposit in the world. it is about $2,600 an ounce. if you contrast the economic system in the past in the united states verses what it is today. -- today, washington and lincoln printed paper dollars to pay for
the revolution and the civil war. roosevelt did the same thing during world war ii. of course, we were on a gold standard then. host: your point, pat, so we can get to the question? caller: in africa, in kenya, they have this large deposit of platinum. you make atomic bombs and space ships and everything else with platinum because it the material itself is so hard. they've got the resources. it is tipping the scale of the economic system of the world because of the gold standard vs. the platinum standard. i'm going to host: stop you there. did you want to stop -- host: i'm going to stop you there. did you want to respond to his point? i also want to ask about ben bernanke. guest: i'm not sure what he was
getting at, but i think that these things matter far more than we recognize. whether it is the presence of china in africa looking for the power to get its resources, it has a component for this base. host: you read that 2009 was tough for the economy in 2010 could be even tougher. hong guest: there are questions on capitol hill about his leadership. or a sense buthe recovery did nt play out the way american leadership had hoped. i think bernanke is in hot chilseat for a host of ideas abt how we are going to steer the economy through the crisis.
people who are much smarter than me are increasingly asking when we have reached the limits of that system, of a central bank steering the global economy. does the system work anymore? host: among the comments of 2010, the quiet death of democracy -- the quiet death of democracy in sub-sahara africa. guestthese voices are from whom? guest: these are global voices. we ask them to tell us what they think the most reported stories of 2010 are.
host: another comment, the corruption of the afghan puppet gathering. paul is joining us from indianapolis. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm interested in finding out the idea -- where the idea comes from the united states has a responsibility to defend people that do not carry their own weight. i'm thinking is not just want -- ron paul, but of all people, barney frank, who think we can cut the defense budget in half if no longer accept the responsibility of defending the you -- the eu, who are never reluctant to tell us how much smarter and richer they are then we are. i spent 25 years as an auditor in the department of defense, and i can tell you that mr. frank's number is right on.
we spend at least half of our defense budget maintaining the resources necessary to keep our promises to nato. if we are no longer responsible for risking nuclear war for the sake of france, germany, and poland, we could reduce our defense budget considerably. guest: i think we are likely to hear more about that in the coming years. why is the u.s. still so heavily invested in the security framework of europe when they are no longer the central threat to the united states? we are seeing an end of the post-cold war era. we are seeing institutions built in the aftermath of world war ii stretched to potentially their breaking point. there is an effort to produce a nato-strategic framework to address some of what the caller is talking about, but i think this will be a real tension in coming years. if our major security issues lie
elsewhere, how much defense of europe is necessary? you mentioned it in your article the most reade -- must read a book is? guest: the book by the chicago business professor, an analysis of the global financial crisis. he has been -- in a heated debate this year with a pundit from the "new york times" about the crisis and what we should do about it next. i was interested to see so many of their of the thinkers on the list were recommending -- of the other sinkers on the list were recommending this book. host: we have laptops, kendalki, ipads.
what is the most mentioned gadget? guest: we asked people on this list and it is the ipad. host: next call is gayle in florida. caller: my idea was on economics. we are always doing stimulus packages. what if we did something like, raise the interest rate or the yield on the united states savings bonds to something profitable. that we keep investing in our money back into the country. the second thing is, i'm sure would like to see those companies that have modernized. i would like to see them educate the others. host: any comment?
guest: i think that the statement is reflective of the way, perhaps, a lot of americans feel about things. there has been a huge debate this year between michael bloomberg and the so-called leader of the ground 0 mosque. i think that controversy has been very instructive, as you have seen come on line beneath the veneer of american acceptance of religions and different backgrounds is a real backlash that we have fully not -- not fully come to terms with. one man who was disturbed by this controversy over the ground 0 mosque said, you know, this moscow buildyo