tv Washington This Week CSPAN December 15, 2013 7:00pm-8:01pm EST
important to understand their , every single day to deal with these things within around households. love the people we talked to had not just one job, but sometimes to to -- two jobs, that they have to save money to get a house or apartment. there is a lot of things that young people are dealing with your day have to take politics seriously, but it is just one part of their lives. for young people who have been engaged, they need to be empowered and challenged to do so from both republicans as well as democrats. they will do it, but i think what young people are saying is there are a lot of things imported in their lives, and you want to have a conversation about obamacare, affordable care act, or anything else, let's have it on their terms as well. that is why we asked questions
about not just traditional media but social media as well. host: on social media, part of the poll revealed that facebook users showed a slight decline across the board. what are we to glean from that? guest: young people have been on facebook for several years now, and we see a number of other social platforms increase. it is important to know that still well over 80% or so of this generation are engaged in facebook in some way or another but it is not the only pathway to connect with young people. my advice is -- we can see through your program here, a number of young people on twitter. that platform is growing, especially as a way to have conversations and dialogue and interactions with folks that they can respect and want to have conversations with. we also see increases in other social platforms such as instagram and pinterest and a snapchat and others. it is important -- young people let others know that they are
available through conversation but through a lot of social platforms, not just telephones or polls. host: let's go back to our phones. make sure you mute your television or your radio. caller: yes, i am calling because i had a question, and i have a comment. i would like to ask the gentleman -- what statistics or how many people does he call to get these polls to get these numbers? also, i am 70 years old, i have been all over the u.s. and i have traveled halfway around the world, and i have never encountered one person, black or white, that is said -- has never been polled or be asked a question to take it all. where does he get his numbers from and how does the poll because there is so much information -- misinformation out there. host: quickly, john della volpe, if you want to recap for laura.
guest: 2000 young people part is participate in the survey, so every question, the margin of error is less than 3%. most do not have landline telephones, so we worked through the knowledge panel and essentially what that means is we identify people based on where they live, based on their address, and after we indicate a random sample based on address, we provide access to internet if they do not have it to conduct the survey online. if they do have the internet, we send them an e-mail invitation to all of our polling is done randomly, but connected through the internet because so many young people do not have landline telephones and do not really want to talk to us at the clock it might perhaps. host: -- at 6:00 at night perhaps. host: john della volpe has experienced polling with presidential and congregational polling as well.
fort lauderdale, good morning to melvin. caller: how many kids responded to the fact that they stay on their parents policy through pony six? -- 26? also, when he talked with the number of people who would not be voting in the 2014 elections that is typical of young people. they very seldom vote in congressional, off year elections. with respect to the second caller indicating that the government was going to control their health plan -- that is the type of information that you all need to correct. it is strictly a private insurance program that the obamacare or affordable care act is promoting. it has nothing to do with the government. that is something that is not even in existence now and do something to do with conducting
procedures that they should not do, and the problems on that. so there is a lot of misinformation. people need to actually read up and find out exactly how the program works because another thing, you have information, people giving out that information. host: we appreciate you calling about that information, melvin. john della volpe on his other comments, the poll methodology. guest: one question was related to opinions of young people on their parents' system. we did not delve too deeply and that question, but young people, do they have health insurance and were they have a from, we found out that overall 70% of young people indicate that they had some sort of parents -- of coverage. 22% said they had not. by the way, anyone can go to our website to look at all the questions in detail, and through
that we will indicate the number who have it through their parents, versus the employer, etc. on the one entered on the other hand, he is right, unfortunately we have far fewer young people but is big in the midterm elections than the general elections. currently about 34% of young people say they will participate in the midterm elections. we ask one year in advance. we will probably be discounting a number based on turnout models. you will see that in the presidential election, you had a decrease in anticipation between 2008 and 2012 overall. participation was high in the states that were targeted by the romney and obama campaigns, but for the other states, we sell -- saw participation among all
young people decrease across the board, some states below 50%. for dissipation is not very high regardless of which way you look at it. -- anticipation is not very high regardless of which way you look at it. host: the "l.a. times" talking about getting young invincible to sign up being the key to success for obamacare, so california starting them with an education effort. they write -- host: as a pollster yourself,
how much do you think the white house polled this group are found out from this group nationwide what the likelihood of them signing up for health care was before even passing the law, before even introducing the law? guest: that is a question i do not know. i'm not privy to the extent to which the white house polled on issues related to this. i know there was a lot of public opinion data that over the course of the last several years indicated that young people were the heart and soul of the obama movement. again, in 2008, 56% had voted for him. 60% in 2012. it is fair to assume that democrats and generally probably assume that young people would always be with this white house, and what we saw was two very different generations. we saw the older generation, not
pleased with sticking with them to a larger extent than young people under the age of 25. it is not a national set of data that we can look at. in the virginia governor's race a few weeks ago, the republican, ken cuccinelli, actually one out won outright the 18 to 24 vote against terri mccullough. -- mcauliffe. one of the reasons with the relatively high percentage of votes of the libertarian candidate got. i think it is a mistake for any party to take any set for granted, specifically democrats. host: a tweet -- our millennial cannot afford an apartment or a car -- how can we afford health insurance? debbie is on the line from albuquerque. go ahead. caller: i'm listening to you and
a lot of people locally do not understand stats. i do. are you a mathematician? guest: i'm sorry? caller: are you a mathematician? guest: i am a a look opinion researcher. i work with -- caller: but you are not a mathematician. so a 3% margin of error, that is a large number and you know it. if you look at the gsf, which is a larger sampling base, the sampling base you are using is too small. you are not skewing the questions enough to get an accurate picture and you are not taking account the hypothesis. so the idea that your polling 2000 people, changing the question twice, that is it, and if you understand stats, you know what the gsf -- it is 50,000 people. it is a more accurate reading on is that we what is going on. so your polling is not accurate. you know it is not accurate. 2000 people that is a pure 316 million live in a country. did you take 40 out of every 50 states? host: all right, debbie, we will give john della volpe a chance
to respond. thank you for your call. guest: thank you, and i do not think we need to get into the debate about the accuracy of our polling, but we already -- i believe the largest survey on the longest-running survey on this generation, just young people, 18-29-year-olds, every fall, 3000 in the spring, this is the 24th time we have done is good i'm not familiar with -- we have done this. i'm not familiar with any other organization that calls this group of people. typically between 800-1000 people which has a much larger margin of ever. certainly -- of error. certainly our poll is accurate. you can see that and the other research polls as well. host: the next question you should ask is if you do not like the affordable care act, what kind of health care system should we have? did you consider asking that?
guest: i think we will. it is difficult because we only have a certain number of questions to ask every single semester. this semester working with 40 or so students, we wanted to touch about health care but obviously privacy and budget issues and no sort of things. i'm sure our students will work over the next couple of months, develop another series of health-care-related questions to understand a little bit more deeply some of the underlying concerns with the kind of program and whether the negative responses based on communication, marketing, or some of the underlying factors within the law itself. host: to auburn, new york, david, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question for john. how are you doing today, john? guest: i am fine, how are you? caller: good, thank you. i have one question that i've not heard anybody ask yet, and
i'm going to leave it quick question and take it off the air. when the president said numerous times that if you like your doctor, you can keep it, and a few like your health care, you can keep it, period, isn't this one of the biggest cases of consumer fraud this country has ever seen? i will take my answer off the air. thank you. guest: -- host: in terms of the time of your poll, john, did you ask about that question, but that comment from the president? guest: no, we do not have the opportunity to do that. host: i have an e-mail from larry in kentucky who says young people pay more for auto insurance because they are sicker drivers. why do we need to pay more for health insurance, too? it should be that the old people pay and pay their share. larry says he is 60 years old. to bill in athens, ohio.
go-ahead for john della volpe. caller: i am a registered republican, but i voted for the president -- emphasize he is the president -- because of the choice that john mccain made, but also, after all the years when i paid health insurance for my employees, when i sold the business, my wife and i both with pre-existing conditions could not by health insurance -- buy health insurance. that is a scary thing because ultimately i had some really serious sicknesses after i got health insurance on medicare. i could have lost everything that we work for all our lives. the thing i don't understand is there are 48 million people without health insurance.
we tend to look at 48 and six zeros without counting them. how long would it take to count to 48 million? and these are all human beings. when you go to the doctor, the first thing they say is i want to see your health insurance. i spent my life in marketing, and i know that it is possible to come up with any answer you want in a poll on the and then the media, who i also had a connection with, take that and and that really makes people feel -- want to believe in one or another thing. host: alright, bill, you get the last word. john della volpe, it is pretty clear that the health-care issue will be an issue going into 2014
in your neck set of questions on the pole. -- next set of questions on the poll. what will be the next set of questions that harvard will explore? guest: the next will be in april, so we will give an indication of how people signed up, what the benefits are, etc. i'm sure we will look more deeply that. we will talk in spring about ideology and political attitudes generally across the spectrum of issues from progressive to conservatives to libertarian. we will dig more deeply into the ideologies as well. it is a process with undergraduates on campus here at that makes his poll special, it is not just a professional set of questions come it is really working with undergraduates to see what they think of -- questions, it is really working with undergraduates to see what they think. host: our c-span viewers and listeners can follow you on
twitter and read the latest at iop.harvard.edu, the institute of politics. john della volpe is their polling director. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. >> on the next washington hanson willistine talk about the conservative agenda heading into the midterm elections. lubricant news reporter will talk about the latest with that -- bloomberg news reporter will talk about the latest and the health-care law. medicare part d. foundo but a recent study . we'll take your calls and e- mails and tweets. host: sydney freedberg is a deputy editor.
joining us to talk about the defense bill. as 2013 winds down, you have a couple parallel tracks going on, the budget agreement between the house and senate and also getting that defense authorization bill, that programs and policy bill for the pentagon done. where does it stand? guest: the whole process is sort of jammed together like an accordion. those of you who have seen "saving private ryan" will remember how the young guy, the translator spent the whole time trying to figure out what the word foobar means -- what the word fubar means. it is very appropriate because it is beyond all recognition. the one process that number doesn't matter and is working nobody cares seems to be the part that is riding to the
rescue. host: which is? guest: which is the budget committees. regular order which we have had for years at which is in the law and what is supposed to happen is the budget committee makes a budget which is telling all the committees how much they have to spend. the authorizes pass their authorization acts which sets all caps sorts of things like rules on military assault, but they also say how much each program is authorized to spend. then there is the appropriations committee that actually appropriates the money. that is within the constitution. you have to appropriate the funds. in theory, the authorizes say will spendx, but we y.
always things get past in tight sequence. until this year, there hasn't been a budget agreed upon between the house and senate for who knows how long. the fed hasn't even bothered to pass a budget let alone come over to the house and make an agreement. host: considering the agreement and counting on the senate to pass this, what is i mean for the pentagon in terms of the money, strictly the money? guest: is a big deal for the whole government because we are heading for a shutdown any. full sequester which is $1 trillion over 10 years. sequester's not really a technical term but we will all it that. after that falls on the pentagon. if the pentagon agrees that they need to come down, that it is also over, but the way the budget control act and sequestration works is that they
take -- what the bill does is round that out. you still get at the end of the 10-year period. the same 500 billion dollars cut in defense, but the pentagon gets back 20 billion this year. host: you mean that would've been cut under the sequester guest: yes. first, they don't like the full 500 billion dollar cut. the president's request is for smaller cut. i'm sure there are generals and admiral's that don't want to be cut at all. the head of the army was a first that i heard was doing this. defense, chuck
hagel and all the other top brass picked this up. we slowed us down, give us time to implement. you slam it all and is so fast, we're going to have to find short-term things like cutting trading. trading is important for troops. host: the numbers for fiscal 2014, the budget for that pentagon cap the to 520 billion. for 2015, they capped at $521 billion. it has been $512 billion under the sequester. in terms of policy, the defense authorization bill is the one that sets programs and policies. one of those is the military sexual assault policy. there was a lot of heated debate on that in the senate. what happened with that in terms of an issue? is it likely to be included in this authorization?
guest: yes. it is a compromise. gilibrand in the senate and others who have been pushing hard for a radical overhaul are not happy and they will bring up legislation again this year. the commander of the military unit has authority to decide whether to bring charges -- in any case, whether someone was absent without leave or punched their sergeant in the face or raped someone -- and then there was a court-martial process which was very rigorous. it is actually very well structured system, but then the commander can say, i overrule the court-martial of the criminal does is limit the commander's power to stop prosecutions when they are being recommended by a military
prosecutor. use certain other protections to the victim or alleged victim. it doesn't get rid of that power to overcharge the backend, but that is what gillibrand and company are not worried about. why should the unit's commander throw out a court verdict? the traditional military answer is that the guy is responsible. men can sometimes be victims also but they are generally the initiator. that person or that commander has final authority and final responsibility for the life-and- death issue of his unit in ready to form an combat. therefore he has to be able to put a court-
martial verdict in the context of the whole units performance. an authority cannot be undermined by people from outside coming in and tying up the commander's hands. host: our guest is sydney freedberg. now with breaking defense and a deputy editor with raking defense area we're talking about defense department funding. you can join us by phone. what is breaking defense? guest: we were aol defense until the spring. aol spun us off and sold us to a different company called raking -- breaking media of new york.
it only does trade publications. aol has a huge content media empire. we are now renamed and rebranded as breaking defense. it is all the same contributors. it is a website that is all about defense, obviously. it is very focused on the not -- beltway around washington dc and a little beyond. people in congress, people in the think tanks and lobbying groups. people in the defense industry. people in the policy levels of the military. who deal with legislative affairs.
host: one of the headlines, the national defense authorization act, what does it mean? guest: 451 years, the congress is managed to pass the defense authorization bill. it was a three-step budget. it hasn't happened until three years until now. the authorization bill and then the appropriators who actually signed the checks. most committees completely failed to pass an authorization bill year after year. basically, authorized a program. defense authorizes. this year the process is broken down, so dysfunctional that there has been real doubt that
will pass. the senate has not asked its version. -- passed its version. normally what happens is each chamber passes its version, goes to conference and gets compromise. this year, the senate has not gotten to it. senator levin and chairman mckeon, republicans in the house and democrats in the senate, even though the senate actually has a bill that is flowing on but has not been voted on by the full senate, they actually came up with a compromise version with the un-passed senate bill and the house passed. the house has passed it. it is back to the senate, and the senate will probably pass it next week but a lot of people,
especially republicans in the minority, say, wait a minute, we will not vote on amendments? the answer from the democrats is, no, this is the deal we made in the house. there is no time to amend it. host: we have calls waiting for you. tom is in connecticut. democrats line. caller: i think we have to cut down that pentagon budget way down. in connecticut, we have three major programs. building engines for the new f 35, and we have helicopters. they want to build a new helicopter. right now, the class of the world and absolutely the best.
class built 15 years ago. better than anything. plus, they were built by soviets who do not exist anymore. why are we spending billions upon billions for new tax subs when we already passed the best in the world? now, we have spent one of the greatest appropriations for new jet fighters. we already have the best in the world practically. why do we need one that is better? the chinese do not have anything like it and north koreans do not have anything like it. iranians, nobody has it. host: why do we have this? guest: the problem is the pace. ironically, the hardest thing to cut and get savings from is weapons programs. those are contracts that get
locked in. long lead times. if i contract with a gun corporation this year, you will probably not start construction next year. you may not get the money until a couple years from now. that stuff moves slowly. military personnel, their salaries, you cannot just kick people out of the military. you cannot have a mass layoff. that is a betrayal of trust. that has been banned. you're not allowed under the sequester. so if you are having to find money in a hurry, you have to cut training and pilots do not get to fly, troop do not get to do major wargames they need to prepare them for combat, ships do not get to sail, etc. the weapons programs in the near-term are the safest thing. in the long-term, after this lag is dealt with, you can cut them
a lot. then, of course, the effect is happening not now what we are technologically way ahead of people. it is happening 10 years from now. host: is that the typical timeframe for development implementation of any weapon system? guest: it could take multiple decades. the joint strike fighter he is referring to was originally conceived in the early 1990's. even things being built right now, the f35 and the submarine and and the helicopters, we do not have a new helicopter yet. that is very tentative. we are building in some cases from the 1970's and the 1980's still. if you do not keep building those today and next are and next year, by the end of 10
years, you are hurting. meantime, people like china are investing massively, especially in submarines. they are worried about the western pacific, so they can invest in cheaper submarines and do not need the range to get there. that is why we go for nuclear submarines. host: let's go to our caller. caller: i'm a little confused. how do we justify this? i see our guest is trying to explain this long-term. infrastructure that we need and contracts and all that stuff. at the end of the day, in this day and age, for recent technology and things like that, i think some of the equipment we build now is actually not necessary. i do not know why we tax as much tanks as much as we do.
antiquated helicopters, we are already the best in the world. we have more than enough equipment. a lot of the equipment old, just a jobs program? let's call it what it is. on the one hand, a complaint about welfare or about unemployment benefits, but no one ever talks about defense and that is where our money goes. host: some of these programs are clearly important to individual members of congress. guest: oh, yes. speaking of tanks, the n1 tank is no doubt the best tank for conventional warfare ever, except that it -- except that it burns too much gas. and the army has said, we do not need anymore, but congress keeps saying, if you stop reduction, the tank plant goes out of business.
they say they have a plan to keep it alive. it is the only tank plant in the country. congress, the people from ohio, putting money back in. there is political engineering in defense programs and they make sure they have subcontractors in as many districts as possible. the case of tanks, i love tanks. as a little boy, i had all sorts of cool tanks. i am not entirely unbiased. but, the vehicles we have billed -- built to fight the soviets. a lot of armor on the front and not so much on the side or rear. certainly not underneath. soviets were coming from the front. yes, there were land mines, but they were our landmines and we knew where they were and we were
behind them. iraq and afghanistan, it is the bad guys using the landmines. they are blowing us up from underneath all the time. these roadside bombs. there are some that have flipped a 71 ton main battle tank. that is the heaviest thing they have got. what the troops ride around in, humvees, basically no longer combat worthy, the heavy trucks. the heaviest thing looks like a tank but is not technically a tank. a bunch of guys in the back. a big target. a bunch of troops in the back of that. i talked to military commanders who said, i could not send these things down the road because if the big and sophisticated bombs went off, they would kill everybody. host: what is the biggest lesson we learned going forward from iraq and afghanistan in terms of what equipment we will use in future engagements?
guest: it is easy to say, if you have guerrilla warfare, what you need is a lot of foot troops and not much else. we made that mistake in the early years of vietnam. tanks turned out to be useful. canadians actually sent heavy tanks to afghanistan of all places. not to the mountains, but the deserts in the south, where the taliban has their stronghold. the b-2's stealth bomber has not been necessary in afghanistan, we have had supersonic bombers, which have long range, penetrating the soviet union, they have a lot of gas, they do lazy circles over afghanistan and when somebody on the ground called them up using all the new digital communications we have, they say ok, we have a guidance system, we plug in the
coordinates, and boom. we just dropped a bomb on these guys we did not even see. a bomb designed to carry nukes in the soviet union. a lot of the high technology actually applies to even guerrilla warfare. we are not sure that is the only thing we will face in the future. let's all pray to god we will never have a war with china. it is not likely. chinese have more of a chip on their shoulder about the usual evil western powers. we did horrible things to them in the 19th century. the japanese did horrible things to them in the 20th century. they do not like the japanese. they are doing scary things over the disputed islands with the japanese. around the world, there are groups that are not countries or big countries, like his paula -- hezbollah and lebanon. they have gotten pretty
sophisticated weapons. in the case of hezbollah, from iran. a guided missile that hit an israeli ship. they had antitank missiles that were blowing up israeli tanks. host: we have callers waiting again in hamilton, montana. good morning. independent line. caller: good morning. when these wars are over and everything, you watch multinational companies come in and divide up the spoils. i want to get down to the meat of the bone. as american taxpayers, we pay for vets in the hospital. you want to go see something
really sad go see the veterans hospitals. guest: i have been. caller: when it is all over, you watch these multinational corporations divide up spoils. those people making $40 billion a quarter and still taking subsidies and they can barely stand up, they should be paying for the care of our veterans. guest: let me talk about the company. it was going to be iraq and we were going to take it up quickly and the oil industry would come back to life and they will be able to fund their own reconstruction. a, that has been very slow to happen because people kept blowing it up. b, also, american companies are not winning those oil contracts. european companies, russians and
chinese, are geting the bids. american oil execs are not making money off of the iraqi war. nobody is making any money except the heroin dealers. there is nothing else they have to sell. 40 years ago before the soviets invaded and all the civil wars they had, they were pretty good at exporting dates. there is no multinational corporation interested in invading a country for dates. there are companies that make money off war. absolutely. most businesses are like, please do not invade anybody this week. it creates uncertainty. we cannot plan. the price of oil goes up and that means the cost of oil companies make money, but every other major company takes a hit. host: a headline says the budget deal, a boon to the pentagon, so why would veterans not be happy? guest: two commented bill. the veterans administration, now called the department of
veterans affairs, is a completely separate department and bill and budget from the pentagon and the department of defense. veterans benefits have been pretty well protected from all these cuts. people do not want to cut veterans. although, they have had problems for years because more people were signing up than they had money to take care of. they say, if you are pretty healthy and you have health care from your employer, we cannot let you win and we have to get this guy with no legs first or this guy who has been on the street first. the military primarily takes care of its troops and its families. but you serve 20 years in the military, you get to retire after 20 years. and you get a significant pension. congress has overtime increased the health care benefits for those people. health care has gotten really expensive. this is a good health care deal.
premiums have not gone up in over a decade. host: are those the tri-care benefits? guest: yes. exactly. army, air force, and navy/marine corps. it is basically the military's hmo and ppo. congress has kept expanding those benefits. there is good reason. but, health care costs are going up fast for all employers and not just the defense department. pension liabilities are a huge deal for all employers, not just the defense department. because of the politics, when the pentagon says, please allow us to raise the monthly fee on our insurance program, or, please allow us to reduce retirement benefits for people now coming in, there are very powerful lobbies and it has to
historically hit a brick wall. in the budget deal that just passed, behind closed doors, away from these lobbying groups, there actually is some flexibility for the military to go after the health care costs and retiree benefits. some. host: in the budget deal in the defense authorization bill just passed this past week and debated on the house floor, the chairman of the armed services committee actually said in that debate that the full sequestration process was the biggest threat to national defense. here is some of what he had to say. guest: i spoke with the chief of our army last week and he said, in 2008, the budget for the u.s. army was $250 billion. this year, it is $150 billion. for people to say we are really not cutting, we are just slowing the growth rate, we are cutting. the thing that has been most
effective is our readiness. that is what causes lives to be lost. our troops are not getting sufficiently trained before they go to afghanistan, before they go into harm's way. this budget will help, as i talked to general dempsey yesterday, this will help them get back on our feet in readiness. host: was readiness a real issue? guest: 75% of what the chairman just said was true. the troops actually in afghanistan, next in line to go to afghanistan, have been getting all the money they need for training. with less money for training, that means everyone else takes a deeper hit to make those guys whole. the chief of staff of the u.s. army said there are only two
brigades out of 40 plus in the army that are fully ready for any contingency and crisis outside of afghanistan. the guys going to afghanistan are ok. the guys not on that treadmill and more have gotten off the treadmill as the war has gotten smaller, our way underfunded and they are basically brigades trained not going to afghanistan. the global response force, airdrop anywhere in the world, the brigade in the south korea, which is always supposed to be ready to fight tonight, and then two other per gates they will not identify for security reasons, that are basically fully ready to go anywhere, which is not a lot. host: what is the size of a typical brigade? guest: 3000-4000. you are usually talking about 5000.
host: fighting troops are 3000 to 4000. guest: the number of people are in tanks and fire at -- artillery, foot soldiers, riflemen, only a fraction of that. host: as we go to our caller in baltimore, nat is on our democrat line. the proposed spending for 2014 with the military budget being 17% of the president posses proposed budget. good morning. go ahead. caller: thanks for c-span. it's a pleasure to listen to somebody who actually has studied what is going on. i am a former director of science and technology for navy development. i would like to make a couple of comments. as far as what we're spending our money on, we have systems of no value in our era. the v22 is worthless. it was so bad that it was not
used for getting osama bin laden, and for a presidential helicopter, he turned it down. he delegated it to the press corps. developing a new helicopter for him. literal combat ship is literally useless. it cannot work if iran uses its boats. all of those programs could be cut seriously except for the item you mentioned, namely continued employment, which, if you take the 22, they have a contract in every state of the union, and puerto rico and anyplace else, they get a lot of congressional support. host: he laid out several programs there. guest: the v 22 aircraft and the combat ship are both really controversial. the marine corps is absolutely passionate and has pushed ahead through decades of criticism. quite a few deaths in testing.
there was one crash that killed 19 people because it was full of young marines. a combat ship, the navy is pretty committed to, and they are pushing it through. frankly, there is language in this authorization bill that is pretty harsh on the combat ship, but it is too late. the navy has already contacted a bunch of things and is committed to it and they say, look, this is a smaller and cheaper and more flexible ship. it is one half to one third of the cost of the mainstay of the fleet. the carrier is $5 billion and up. they are getting the price down to $400 million, which, for a ship, that is kind of decent. it had huge problems early on but the cost is down. the navy says, this will not be
a thing that stings in two wars in china and goes toe to toe with all their missiles and subs and ships. but, it is a great support ship. it has plug-and-play modules. you plug in the mineclearing module, it clears mines. plug in the antisubmarine module, still in development, and, you can actually hunt submarines, and drop death charges on them, and you plug in and i surface warfare module, and it is supposed to be able to deal with the swarms you mentioned and we had extra guns on it and rockets and things. it supposedly shows them all down. they have a version of that out there and the shares are now sailing around. it is not the full version. does not have a longer range missiles they were going to
have to work on that. they are still working on that. currently, and this is a ship very new and had huge problems, the navy is saying, if you want us to be able to concentrate our big combat ships in the pacific, and still hand or debt handle our lesser missions, you have got to have these things. lots of little ships. host: arlington, tennessee, joe, good morning, independent line. caller: hello. i would like to talk about how good tri-care is. i have it for life. i want to know what part your guest is from. host: so you are not happy with it? caller: no. they need preapproval for supply -- prescriped drugs. host: some of the proposed changes for tri-care?
guest: the fees are very low, but most is an hmo structure, so you will need pre-authorizations like any hmo. it will be a huge pain. they will sometimes deny you things you need because they think they know better. caller: good morning. it is great to hear somebody who knows what they're talking about when it comes to defense. it is hard to find anyone. i am a retired military, tri- care for life, needless to say. i was a vietnam veteran. guest: god bless you. it was an especially hard time to serve. caller: i am just one in many. without tri-care for life, folks like me, and many more, we are going to go on the raw and --
wrong end of the stick. the veterans administration, they are trying. they really are. they are just so overloaded. i do not think they will ever get on top of it. what worries me the most is these kids come on out of the desert, as i referred to them, they are 25 and 26 years old and are coming out of the desert and they are in bad shape here they will come home, and they will find unemployment. the next thing you know, we are mixed up in alcohol and drugs etc., divorce, and all of that. they have nowhere to go. they will be able to take some of them. us tri-care for life guys are staying out of the veterans administration. we should as much as we can. that will free up a lot of spaces for these kids to come home and be taking care of so we do not lose them. the park in washington, d.c., i
will never forget that. i went by there and there were veterans laying where steam comes up, there must be some type of heating system or something. they were staying warm. i do not want to see my veterans lay around like that. host: i appreciate your comments, thanks. guest: separate budgets and separate bills. if you are a young guy who goes to iraq and afghanistan and does a year or six months there, and you get out after four years, or eight years, or 12 years, were 16 or 19 years and 364 days, you are not eligible for military retirement. you are eligible for v.a. care. the veterans administration -- the department of veterans affairs, it is not an entitlement program, unlike medicare and medicaid and social security. that is not an automatic check that goes to you based on the formula.
they only get so much money per year that congress votes on every year. they actually run out of space. they run out of doctors time. they do triage. tri-care for life, there is only so much money, the pentagon gets to run that one. what they are trying to do, they are trying to raise the fees, which have not increased since the 1990's, but the target is really, because you can retire from the military at 40 or 50, which was set up back when, and it is hard. physically, after 20 years of jumping out of airplanes, your knees may not be up to that anymore. maybe you should retire, if you have been a clerk for 20 years, maybe you could go longer. but, most of those guys go on and get another job.
they have another career and other health-care coverage. what we are saying, understand the guys who do not have other health-care coverage, we have got them. we will not screw them over. but, some of the guys go on to be defense executives who make a couple hundred grand a year, have really good health care, we will increase your fees, really. not people like our callers, but the focus is on those retirees who have come out and done really well. when we have to have sympathy for the homeless vets and the guys who came out with real psychological problems, most vets do come out and they are capable members of society, psychologically, they had a bad experience, but they are ok and they can get jobs and they can do well. to dispel the myth, all of that -- vets are messed up and cannot
function, that is not true of 90%. host: the headline here says senator graham threatens to block that defense bill. what is he looking for? guest: republicans like mr. graham, who i have great respect for, are really unhappy about it. because it did not go through the normal process in the senate, they are basically being presented with the bill, saying, take it or leave it. the house has passed it. there is no time for you guys to make amendments. take it or leave it because there is no time to renegotiate with the house. a lot of republicans are saying, wait a minute, people have hundreds of amendments cued up. one that is particularly sensitive is more sanctions on iran, which is probably trying to build a nuclear bomb. they deny it but come on. why would they need a nuclear program and enrich stuff beyond
what nuclear reactors need anyway. the administration is saying, hold on, we are negotiating with these guys right now. our carrot is easing up on the sanctions. we will dial it back from 10 to 9 to 8, and if they do not keep the deal, we turn it back to 10. a lot say, lock it at 10 or turn it up to 11. host: sydney freedberg, thank you for being with us this morning. >> on the next "washington journal," christina hansen will talk about the concert of agenda heading into the midterm elections. bloomberg news reporter what about the latest with a health
care law included the most recent enrollment numbers. after that, a look at a medicare part d. he will talk about a recent study that found ways and the program to dispense and namebrand drugs. whitaker calls and tweets. ."ve on "washington journal >> c-span, we bring public of their event directly to you putting you into the room at congressional hearings, white house events and briefings and conferences and offering complete a couple that gavel to gavel coverage of the house as a public service of private industry. created by the cable industry 34 years ago and funded by your local tv or satellite provider. you can watch us in hd. "> tonight on c-span, "q&a:
with author margaret macmillan, followed by prime minister's questions. that it discussion on the budget deal that passed the house and the senate. ♪ >> this week on "q&a," historian and author margaret macmillan discusses her latest to store: narrative entitled "the war that ended peace -- the road to 1914. " >> margaret macmillan, author of "the war that ended peace -- the road to 1914." i want to jump ahead in your book to june 20 8, 1914. what happened? the archduke franz ferdinand and