tv Today in Washington CSPAN July 6, 2009 10:00am-12:00pm EDT
insurance, nor making people eligible for insurance under medicaid if they are here illegally and undocumented. host: congressman henry waxman, the book is "the waxman report: how congress really works." thank you for joining us. guest: i hope you will read this and get a different insight and point of view about congress. i think there are a lot of good stories and hear about how we were able to get legislation through, almost in all cases on a bipartisan basis, and invariably in a way that was even more successful than we anticipated. it can be done. government can be an and poor in force for good in people's lives. host: bad is it for today's "washington journal." back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. .
>> former defense secretary robert mcnamara died today. according to his wife, he was 93. his wife told the associated press he died this morning at 5:30 and he had been in failing health for some time. he served as secretary of defense during the vietnam war. under president kennedy and johnson. on this first day of the moscow summit with president obama and russian president medvedev, we look at missile defense, nuclear weapons and disarmament.
the group hosting the event. our live coverage of 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. and a review of u.s. supreme court term by lawyers to argue some of the high-profile cases including the fire fighters reverse discrimination case, live at 3:00 p.m. on c-span. president obama's moscow trip today includes a private meeting with russian president medvedev followed by a joint news conference in dinner with president and mrs. medvedev. wednesday, president obama travels to italy for the g-8 summit through friday at the vatican in rome. saturday, he flies to africa for a visit to the capital. for more about the russian summit, a portion of today's "washington journal."
host: we are joined by helle dale of the heritage institute. we are talking about america- russia relations. what do you think the president needs to accomplish on the trip? >> he needs to establish himself as a world leader with a vision, seriousness, and with a right set of priorities the russian government. he is also going to africa. so he has a wide-ranging agenda. i am concerned that his undead that is not necessarily the agenda that i have. he is going to talk about arms control with the russians. they want a new treaty. i do not know if that is what the world needs right now.
host: explain the treaty. guest: it outlines the type of weapon that can be held by certain countries, essentially, nuclear powers in the world. that is not the case anymore. we are not in a bipolar world with two world powers. in essence, we are in a world with multiple nuclear players. there are also countries that are aspiring. that is not something that can be resolved with a treaty. host: we are talking with hello dale on u.s.-russia relations. -- helen dell on u.s.-russia relations. we want to take your phone
calls. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. i want to read you something from the "wall street journal" talking about vladimir putin. they say, "bill clinton and george bush also pursued a strategy to little effect. set aside in the dime store psychoanalysis and returned to american interests. this relationship is based on infection that the russians can offer us something in terms of indulgence." guest: i think that is a pretty accurate analysis. our policy has not done us a lot of good recently. russia could contribute on the
international scene if it did some of the things that president obama wanted them to do, like pressuring the iranians to give up their nuclear program. there is no chance that the russians will be doing this. they are part of the problem with iran. they continue to block security council sanctions that would pressure the iranians. the russians have sold a lot of equipment to the iranians. they are one of the major suppliers. if the russians were to do something that was constructive, that would be a contribution, but it is not very likely that they will do that. host: how significant are their oil interests? guest: russia is one of the bigger producers in the world. they have huge natural gas
resources. they are not dependent on iranian oil. many countries that they are friends with, of course, are dependent on iran. if iran were to cut off its exported oil -- which is unlikely, because their economy depends on it -- there would be a problem. however, iran would collapse as a country. russia is a big player in the energy field. host: president obama will be meeting with president medvedev and prime minister putin. there has been a lot of discussion about who is really in charge. what is the dynamic of the two, and in your opinion, who is in charge? guest: i think it is pretty clear by the mayor putin is in charge. he found a way to become --
remain politically engaged by becoming prime minister. is not a very comfortable set up for mr. medvedev, but at least mr. obama is giving him the courtesy to meet with him. tomorrow, with mr. putin. so she is taking his bets, meeting with both of them. host: let us hear from the callers. on the independent line, carmen from indiana. caller: i see we had the heritage foundation again. all of these people from the think tank -- the think tanks, what they do this so thoughtful for america. when i think about what they do for america, i get so
frustrated and disgusted. i cannot the way you keep letting these eric h. foundation people back on. they are the ones that started nafta. now they want to get involved with russia. everything they do is to exploit resources of other countries and they also put a tax on american people. you are the ones that put us into this massive debt. imf at c-span for letting these people back on -- i am mad at c- span for letting these people back on. host: can you explain what the heritage foundation is to our viewers? guest: absolutely. we are an independent research institution. we cover politics with a conservative point of view resting on three part market
principles, limited government, strong family values, strong defense. those are the things that lay the foundation for the work that we do. but we are a research institution in public policy issues and advocate solutions that we think our creative. we cannot accept government money. we are funded exclusively by private donors. so there are a lot of people who seem to appreciate what we do and like to be engaged by donating to the foundation. we do not force solutions on anyone. we present research that politicians, or anyone else who is interested, can take a look at. host: we should also said just -- say that we are going to have a representative from a
liberal think tank later on today. next phone call. caller: good morning. as far as the cold war is concerned, in a way, it did not really depend. march and were finding the mujahedin. under the current conditions, how much is russia doing to jeopardize americans in the middle east, afghanistan, lebanon, iraq, and possibly north korea? guest: has the cold war ended -- in some ways, i think it has remained the same. it has ended in the sense that the world does not look the same.
when europe was divided, when there was the iron curtain -- and as i said before, before the nuclear standoff -- that is a bit in the past. however, some issues remain, like north korea. there missile program is still thriving and they have their own ambitions. we talked about iran. russia has ambitions to reestablish its influence in its former empire. when now they are holding massive military exercises on the border with georgia, a country that they invaded during the olympics. unfortunately, i do not think president obama is for to make that a priority in his leadership.
on the american side, president obama has decided that the cold war is over and will operate on a different level. it is a bit of a strange disconnect. one side is pretty hard line, the other side sort of pretending that he's serious issues are not going on. host: what is u.s.-russia policy in terms of what is happening in afghanistan right now? guest: russia tried to persuade the government of canada extend from resupplying of our troops in afghanistan. that was about a year ago. it did not entirely succeed, and that russia suggested that they use a russian resupply route to
reach their troops in afghanistan. of course, supplies would be critical for our troops. so we are sort of hostage when it comes to russian goodwill. we need them to let us through. we had good connections with former soviet states in terms of resupplying, but it is a contentious issue with the u.s. and russia. right now those relations are good. host: more speculation about u.s.-russia relations, quoting a russian analyst, what happens when you push the reset but therbut not on a computer? the screen goes dark, and then comes back on again. next phone call. caller: good morning.
in 1995, russia and the u.s. were holding simulated disaster drills. do you think this could be reignited and used as a tool against terrorism? if you see two big powers working together, maybe others will see us and say, we can work together. guest: i do not see a problem with having common disaster drills. despite our differences, the u.s. and russia work together. in fact, both participate in the nato organization. the u.s. is a founding member. russia is a part of the nato-
russia council which was created to reach out to russia. if girls were deemed to be a benefit, and i do not think anyone has a problem -- and girls were deemed to be a benefit, -- drills were to be a benefit, i do not think anyone would have a problem. >> russia needs worldwide will prices to be high to build on their economy. the biggest natural gas producers are also russia and iran. let us say they would like to have a relationship in terms of fixing natural gas prices. they have suffered a
catastrophic economic blow as a result of dropping energy prices. host: do you agree with that? guest: that is a pretty interesting observation. the russian economy has suffered pretty badly. energy prices have declined. in the aftermath of the fall of the soviet union, their economy collapsed and was rebuilt on energy resources. that is an interesting of starvation that could have some merit. host: next phone call from indiana. caller: good morning. i was listening to everyone earlier and i was interested
about the cold war being over. my concern for the american people is, they say russia is our friend and ally. how come we are not always working together? guest: we are working together on some levels. obviously, there are still some differences between these two nations. the u.s. is a superpower, russia is a former superpower, one would argue. in terms of terrorism, we work together, on the international level, we cooperate with trade. but there are still major differences, and we should not ignore those. my concern with president obama's visit but russia is he
has revisited certain things on the agenda that were left to go years ago. -- left years ago. many democrats believe this is a just can't. president obama has decided that this will be his first issue. there are political rights in russia which have been curtailed severely under vladimir putin. there have been human rights, legal structures which are in decline. the free press basically does not exist anymore.
even broadcasts from voice of america, radio-free europe, are being blocked by the government. there is no more free media, certainly on the electronic level. there are many things that we should be addressing, not the least of which come and georgia. -- least of which, georgia. you also have ukraine, imposing high energy costs on them. they are using all sorts of tools to regain control. those are the sorts of things we should be talking about. host: what is the state of dead russian economy? guest: -- state of the russian economy? guest: they were riding high on
energy prices. right now they are suffering, just as any other energy- exporting country. host: do they depend solely on oil? guest: and natural gas. they expect -- export that mirror and abroad, into europe. -- near and abroad coming into europe. russia is such a rich country. they have vast resources. they have everything that you could wish for. but because of their political system, their history, the way the government has been run for over a century, it has not produced a society that has really benefit from all of the
blessings it has. it also has great agricultural land. there is magnificent potential there which is being frittered away. host: next phone call from las vegas. caller: good morning. i am a fan of the heritage foundation. i am sorry about that other person. do you feel president obama is naive to think that russia is going to abandon their nuclear weapons? guest: i wonder myself. this is an issue that most people were not focused on. when you look at domestic
policy, here in the united states, president obama is not particularly naive. i think in their administration has shown themselves to be adept in forming the political scenario. they have pushed major changes in the american society, american governance. i do not think the administration is naive. on the international scene, it may appear that way. psychoanalysis is not my specialty, but i get the feeling that mr. obama would want to avoid an international turbulent scene. he would rather deal with domestic issues. he does deal with international
leaders, but he does not want confrontation. also, he has a pretty high opinion of his own diplomatic abilities, to put it nicely. i think he feels like because of who he is, he can interact with people around the world when the others could not. in some ways, that is true. but i do not think the world is going to change outside our borders because he is president. those changes will come at some point. for the moment, she just wants to play nice. whether or not the world wants to play the same, we will find out. host: what is your opinion on how world leaders and you president obama? guest: he has very high ratings.
in russia, and they are not extremely high, because they selook at people in power from a position of strength. some people on the right heahave called this the american apology, when he is outside the borders. he often talked about mistakes of the past, and that does not express power. russia looks for power. his approval ratings in russia are only 23%, perhaps the lowest in the world. i think they look at him as america's gorbachev.
that is interesting because we, in the west, the appreciated him for bringing down the soviet union, reaching down a hand -- out a hand. from our point of view, it was a blessing. from the russian point of view, it was a disaster. internally, in the u.s., because of the domestic implosion, it will bring the united states to different level, as a country. i think they are evaluating his strengths and weaknesses, and are seeing more weaknesses at the moment. host: next phone call from goose
creek, south carolina. caller: good morning. the heritage foundation does not just issued information. they push their agenda. you always talk about everyone in the middle east have been nuclear weapons, except israel. if i was a country next to them, why would i not want to be armed with nuclear weapons? most of the time, israel has been the aggressor. guest: i would like to respond to two points. first of all, the project of the new american century does not exist anymore. it was a project that the american enterprise institute, not the heritage foundation --
which is not to say that it was a bad thing. i know some of the people who produced that study. as far as israel is concerned, yes, it is widely known that israel may have nuclear capability. however, they have been surrounded by enemies since the date of its founding, and have not been the aggressor. they have been attacked by their neighbors in two wars, the second of which established its current borders including the west bank and gaza strip. israel has had to defend its existence almost from the day that it was created after world war ii as a refuge for the jewish people after the
extermination was attempted by the germans. israel has plenty of reasons to want to defend itself. it has not used its nuclear weapons, nor is it likely to, unless it's in existence is threatened. -- existence is threatened. do not forget, iran, through its government and president ahmadinejad, has repeatedly said that is real should not exist as a nation. if that was you, if that was your home, wouldn't you want to establish some defensive parameters?
if we could establish diplomatic relations, i am sure israel would look at the world in another way, but right now i do not think israel is the problem. he ran is a far bigger problem. -- iran is a far bigger problem. host: there was an article citing a former russian foreign minister talking about their relationship with iran. he said, the green president is an enemy of america, which is great from an@@@@$dd embarrassing speech in geneva as the human rights commission, i mean, it's so embarrassing that people walked out of the auditorium as he was speaking
and holding kind of a collapsed after that. i do not think the causes russia to many sleepless nights. again, russian interests and american interests are not always the same and he is a troublemaker. host: ok, fairfax, virginia. i have heard about secret banking operations. our lifestyle has been hijacked by people like you, you neocons. i wonder how much people like you support someone like ron
paul. host: let us go to the "financial times" where there is an article about disarmament. they talk about a key element of the meeting today when they come to an understanding on the starke pact which you referred to earlier. they will want to finalize an agreement by the end of the year when the pact expires when they will move to putting limits on the number of nuclear warheads they can possess, bringing the maximum to around 1500. is this a good agreement for the u.s.? guest: i do not think necessarily that it will be. i should preface that by saying the obama administration has not even done a review of its own nuclear strategy. at this point, president obama,
in my view, is turning things on its head by saying that we are going to negotiate with the russian before negotiating what our strategy will be. that is a chicken and the egg in the wrong order. i think it is premature. there is no need to rush. russia and the u.s. are not in a nuclear standoff. in fact, the problem with this type of approach to international relations, to nuclear disarmament, is that president obama has suggested that he would put on the table the missile defense project that
is currently under way. i wanted to bring some attention to that. the u.s. has negotiated with poland and the czech republic about anti-missile installation. there is a radar planned to be installed by the czech republic and 10 missile interceptors on polish soil. those agreements were difficult to reach under the bush administration. alaska and california also have missile interceptors. this european side of would help us protect from incoming missiles from "rove nations." in is a world where many players in the world have aspirations for nuclear and missile technology. this is a protective measure.
the russians are aware of that but they have insisted that the u.s. give up that project, in exchange for a new starke agreement. that is a bad deal for us. i am hoping people will pay attention to that. it is giving up something for nothing. host: matt on the independent line. caller: only 5% of the world population cannot dictate what the rest of the world should do. how many wars has america been involved in in the last 20 years? people get information from all
over, not just the united states. we are just a small percentage. we might be the most powerful, but you have to listen to other people. it is not only in your own interest. host: dennis from sacramento. caller: i have been disappointed with c-span has lately. you did a wonderful job. he did not even give that ron paul supporter a chance to ask their questions. i do not support him, please do not cut me off. the problem with a new american century is the problem that got us into iraq. our middle east policy has been a failure for the past 10 years. every day, c-span has another right-wing pundits from aei or
the heritage foundation, and you never fall off from someone from a liberal think tank. host: actually, tomorrow we will. caller: but the representation is far more on the right wing. at least with fox news, with rush limbaugh, we know what we are getting. with c-span, is in serious when you have been doing. i do not remember these questions being asked when president bush was in office. i want fair representation on the television. host: next phone call. guest: could i just address the previous caller?
the heritage foundation does not support any individual candidate. i want to stress that. we are and individual research institution. we did not support ron paul, nor john mccain, nor anyone else. to say that the project center of america got us into the war in the middle east is ridiculous. that was a small project that advocated a point of to you. -- of view. this sort of conspiracy mongering is quite unproductive. host: coming up, and just 10 from the independent line, walnut creek, california.
caller: good morning. how are you? we are still talking about obama and russia? host: yes, do you have a question? caller: first of all, nice earrings. i wanted to comment on how russia and obama are going to do with the north korean situation together. guest: good question. i do not know if they are. there is a contact group of six nations that have tried to negotiate with north korea, which include china, south korea, japan, and russia.
we have tried to negotiate with the north koreans about stopping their nuclear program with little success. the north koreans have their own very singleminded agenda, which they seem to be pursuing, regardless of what anyone else does. we have been engaging in these talks for years now. i do not think that we can say in the u.s. and russia will be able to do much. even under the bush administration, which took a harder line, there was not much progress made in terms of containing their ambitions. host: next phone call on the democratic line. caller: i have a bit of a complex statement, and then i
have a question. to me, our heritage, history, and most of us were born since world war ii and only know of it through history. but i do remember this. near the conclusion, franklin roosevelt' -- to the heritage foundation hates -- men with world leaders -- met with world leaders and decided on how to end the war in europe. that included russia having its opportunity to fight from the east, while we've got from the west with england. of course, rose about prevailed. -- roosevelt prevailed. the way that we won against japan was with the cooperation of russia. we have a history of working with russia initially to build
the american century. i have a bit of an analogy to the last eight years of how foreign policy was conducted under george bush. george h. w. bush was able to build a large coalition to liberate kuwait. george w. bush was unable to build a coalition to invade iraq, so we started to make fun of the french. host: do you have a question? caller: yes, i do. we used to say politics and at the water's edge, today we have so much criticism of our president trying to repair the damage that george debut bush had with cowboy -- george w.
bush had with cowboy diplomacy. but we lived in such a global world now, we cannot have it both ways. guest: there was a lot in there. a couple of points that i should respond to. in world war ii, i do not believe that it was up to churchill and roosevelt to start the two front war. the soviet union, at that point, was not a particularly appealing partner, but they were available, which is why churchill and fdr agreed to the
alliance. almost as soon as it happened, the soviet union prime large chunks of central and eastern europe, and refused to leave after the war. that created the iron curtain which separated europe into two portions. one which was free, that was under u.s. and british power, and then left after the war. whereas, in eastern and central europe, all they got one of soviet oppression which they took decades to come out from. to say russia was a partner in building the post world war is, and i am afraid, absolutely
wrong. president obama made some similar points in berlin during his speech in front of the victory monument in berlin. he said all of these nations have come together to conduct the berlin airlift. that occurred because the soviet union did not allow supplies to reach berlin from the west. this is some thinking that is not really in tune with his to me. -- with history. in terms of the iraq, yes the first president bush did a good job of dealing with the invasion with kuwait. that was an admirable effort. i would say, under george w. bush, we also had a coalition with over 40 nations participating in the initial military action and occupation.
that number has almost disappeared and the u.s. is pulling up of iraq itself. to say that there was no coalition is wrong. in fact, many of those countries that were helped to liberate in europe stood witith the u.s. whn thank you for joining us. >> this is the first of the moscow summit with president obama and russian president medvedev to. the trip today includes a private meeting with russian president followed by a joint news conference and dinner with president and mrs. medvedev. on wednesday, president obama travels to italy for the g-h summit with events through friday also at the vatican and
in rome. on saturday, the president flies off to africa for a visit to the capital. now, some of today's headlines and more telephone calls on today's "washington journal." money. host: we are back and we want to hear from you. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. in other news today, on the front page of the "new york times" -- the instability of oil and gas prices is puzzling analysts who fear the jeopard -- the recovery. it is also humbling businesses and consumers who are already hurting me -- from the recession. let us go to our first caller on
the independent line from orlando. caller: good morning. thank god for c-span. please give me the opportunity to say something about the civil war. i am 72 years old. the defense minister of israel asked two questions in an interview which were never shown on tv. the first question was how it is it possible for israel to say that they were attacked by arab countries, when during the first hours of the war, 90% of [unintelligible] he smiled and said they threatened to attack us. the second question was, when would it is real withdrawal from the 1967 occupied territories?
he said when all arab countries decide not to attack israel and recognize them. that happened in 2001 with george bush. he spoke to the king of saudi arabia and asked him to do that. israel denied and said that they wanted 3% of the land. host: do you have a question? caller: no, i wanted to correct that person from before. host: next phone call.
caller: your guest is an example that c-span has a duty to identify the affiliation, groups of these organizations which these people are members of. the heritage foundation. she only gave a partial truth about the fact that they do not represent or support any one political candidate. the fact is, they cannot because they are a nonprofit organization the and there are cards -- organization. deep in their archives you'll find out that they are a southern baptist organization which has certain biases for the middle east and for the way that things go in the middle east between specific countries. therefore, their agenda would be
known, if you could give an identifier tag under their organization name. for example, when the roots of the organization are. host: thank you. michael from safety harbor, florida. caller: good morning. addressing the last caller. she was pretty wrong. first, let us hope that obama is like gorbachev. things to him, they ended the possibility of nuclear annihilation. it took a leader with as much insight -- everyone gives ronald reagan the credit, but it would not have happened without gorbachev. secondly, they talked about the artwork coalitions, that people went along with our country. countries like palau?
they were not the traditional powerhouse countries that would support us to take care oa despot. thirdly, and this is my last point -- look at the project for the new american century. these were individuals who were promoting the imperialistic wars throughout the world. let us look at who the neocons were. paul wolfowitz, dick cheney, paul fife. these are people that you could go back a couple years before the iraq war started, and they had on their website the desire to go to iraq for all of the reasons. all of this information was
available. then after the war, they claimed it was for weapons of mass destruction. they hijacked the country and took us to war and it is just they're just came to go to world and become a world imperialists. hopefully come up about my can erase some of this. -- hopefully, obama i can erase some of this. host: an article today talking about building the presidential library four-door debut bush. one of the items, saddam hussein's pistol. it was found in the spider hall when he was discovered in 2001. four of the troops presented the pistol to mr. bush.
he considers this a pretty significant item that reminds him of his time in office. next phone call. caller: in a time when rebel democrats have gained the ascendancy, a group like the herd on the debt -- heritage foundation is n in ministration and freedom of information request and information out there. i think heritage is doing good. you know, when the bush administration, when the republicans had control i think, the liberal watchdog organizations were doing good. i appreciate the lady had to say
this morning. the more debate you get from both sides that is honest, i think it's all good. host: good morning. caller: from the media and, they did not do diligence to bush and now they are not doing diligence. a question is, where a separate propaganda from news fax? we have the same story when hundred 80 degrees difference, but no one says one is falling and one isn't. you almost have to hold your hands of the year and say who is telling the truth and who isn't? that is all i have to say. host: an independent line, new york. caller: i have a couple of points, one would be we have an
observation that c-span may be becoming a little out of balance, but that is for the waters to decide. a question on one thing would be, why was jimmy carter's a bad economy -- that was a question i had there, the other point i wanted to bring up and i am not really comfortable with this because i do not like pointing fingers at anyone, is when we have heritage foundation on, we don't know they're coming on until they are there. tomorrow, we know we have the liberals. someone from the think-tank coming on, we have the michael savage callers flooding the lines tomorrow to rip this little to pieces? that really seems to be an issue right there. you went through this with michael savage before. now that you have given up that we are having liberals tomorrow, those lines will be flooded.
thank you. host: an independent line, baltimore. caller: the question you need to answer is the gentleman asked about the seven-day war and you didn't even feel like it matters to you to answer that question. the man took his time off to ask a question. is it possible that maybe in the next hour, or in next week, answer questions of the then sit down and knocked? just answer questions please. is this possible? host: on the democratic line, austin, atlanta, georgia. caller: i am calling in response to the heritage foundation.
they are in extremely far right think tank where i attended the university in washington, d.c. is interesting to see how the debate continues to muddle in the center right. if you look at polling numbers, most of the country is in the center-left. hopefully, tomorrow we will get a more balanced view. we continue to see this in the media with iran. there was so much coverage of the protests, rigged elections. in honduras there was recently a coup. we had very little coverage of that. in fact, npr recently had a segment featuring all supporters of the coup.
there is definitely a bias, here in america. i know that people are yearning for a more balanced perspective. . it is pathetic. i am a vietnam veteran and i caught of it, but i am not proud of this country anymore. now we're going to give up all our nukes and for them in the ocean and everyone else can do the same. that is nuts. host: we start with the front
no one was talking >> we are at 9.5% right now. the truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy that we inherited. it is now our responsibility. the second question becomes, did the economic package that we put into place, including the recovery act, it is it the right package given the circumstances we are in? we believe is the right package. we miss read how bad the economy was. we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package. >> we are joined by david
drucker. tell us about this stimulus package? >> congress is a little skittish. it has to do with the amount of money that the first package costs, near one trillion dollars. on top of that you have another trillion dollars over the next decade that the congress is looking to spend on health reform. you have money for various things that are still being spent that add greatly to the debt. i bring that up to that when you bring all these added together, democrats and republicans are getting weary of piling on another round of spending. even among democrats, i think you will have trouble finding a lot of support for another stimulus package. then you have the political problem.
the minute that the administration and democratic leaders, if they were to go to a second stimulus package it would be an acknowledgment that the first round of stimulus did not work in their view. that is how it would be spun by the opposition. i don't think democrats want to go there yet. in watching joe biden's interview with the this week, i bet an entire month's salary that will end up as a 30-second ad, repeated and repeated, and it will be played in senate races that they got it wrong. >> how much political pressure members are hearing back home on the issues of spending and deficits? >> according to the polls that we have seen recently, the voters are getting increasingly wary of the deficit and its
spending. deficit spending is always something that the minority party hates, and the majority party never has a problem. americans generally want the economy to be strong. the more debt you pile up, the more of the perception is that it would cause long-term economic problems. you have people that are more wary than usual with the levels that are projected at this point. everything would change if the economy turned around. if there is 4% unemployment, you could probably deficit spend until the end of time. nobody would think twice about it. when people are out of work, then they see a government that appears to be running out of money to spend, that that
becomes a political liability. host: let's hear from our viewers up from virginia. caller: good morning. i am going to say it is a good idea. i think the stimulus will help a lot. i think there will have been far more people out of work. opposition says how can you tell? if you look at over the past several months, the jobs were lost, there will be a steady decline. let's give it a little bit of time, and be patient. it is better to do something then a do nothing. let's talk about the iraq war. if that was put on budget, that would hamper the republicans.
the republicans cannot talk about president obama as a stimulus at this moment. they have to get a chance. just like they wanted us to give a chance, the war in iraq. just give yourself an opportunity. anyway, america just hang in there. otherwise we will be double, and god bless you guys. host: steve, on the independent line. caller: i could be better. i live in a suburb outside detroit. i voted for obama, but it is a waste of time voting because nothing ever changes. the corporate as the media. they only tell us what they want to hear. the people in power with money -- basically, the call all the shots. there is no way that all these manufacturing jobs could have gone overseas without the help of crooked politicians.
it is just about greed. they say that unemployment is like nine%, 10%. but on some of these politicians go down the river near detroit and take a look on both sides of the street. try 25%. host: what do you do for a living? caller: you know what? i was laid off in 2006, lost my job to canada because they have national health care. i have not worked in three years. i just graduated medical school through my tra benefits and start my ex-turn shiernship tod. but my credit has been run, i've lost everything through unemployment. how have to pay taxes on my own implementing go but everything that i watch on tv, everything i hear from these candidates --
everything here's just a lie. try living in our shoes over. to be honest, i don't think anything will change until people get out into the street and just start civil disobedience host: on the democratic plan we have daniel, from massachusetts. are you? caller: doing well. i want to make a couple points. i listen to c-span a lot. lots of people call in about economics and have no clue about how economics works. it is frustrating to listen. if you even read the most elementary textbooks on topic it will take six months before the stimulus will have any effect. we have this dishonest conversation about -- is not working now? it itoo bad. it does not do the country will toot not talk about actual issues. it would be nice if he could get economists on to explain of the
various, not advocate for a theory. just explain what people are doing and try to inform the public a little better because it is very sad to listen to the kind of conversations. host: along those lines, to date on the opinion page from "the washington post" -- economists out to lunch. one intriguing subplots of the crisis is the failure of most to predicted. we have the most spectacular economic and financial crisis in decades possibly since the great depression, and the one group that spends most of its waking hours basically missed it. a few can lead to many claim some foresight, but they are a handful. let's go to our next call.
on the republican line. caller: good morning. what this last caller was talking about with economics -- i was thinking about this, how we are spending money continuously that we do not have. there is no back to the money. when obama was talking about change -- and i will not say who voted for in the past election, but i do not think either of them had a very clear idea as to what money we would spend, regardless. the change everyone was so excited about, i don't think that is coming across to many
people. most conservatives, whatever people have a sound idea as to where money comes from and where it is spent, it is just appalling to see how it is spent. for someone to think that we need to give it another six months, or whatever that ludicrous statement was, we're not going to see it returned. if we keep doing as we doing and the military budget is out of control, and we are still borrowing from our friends of the red china, i don't think there is much in the future unless we change something drastically. host: let's go to john on the independent line from bellevue, new jersey. caller: hello? yes, i am here. host: what are your thoughts on
the stimulus package? caller: i did not believe the first stimulus package really helped. we still have american families and people down and out. i think it will call for a second stimulus, but it must go to the american people. probably in the form of some type of check or something like that, but it will take for the american people to feel relief, not corporations. that is my opinion on the matter. i hope that he does the second one whereby the people will benefit from it rather than the corporations. we all know the ditch and dodge taxes as a this, so why should we help them? help the people who are suffering, help those who voted you in there. if this is not done i would urge heavily for the people to remember this. host: ok, let's hear from john boehner of ohio. >> the way to help the economy grow is to help small
businesses and american families keep more of what they earn because at the end of the day they are the ones to get the economy going again. this was supposed to be about jobs, jobs. it turned into nothing more than spending, spending. in ohio the infrastructure dollars that arrived months ago -- there has not been a contract left to my knowledge. the fact is i don't believe it will create jobs. the president said earlier this year we will not see unemployment above 8% if we pass this bill. the real question is, where are the jobs? you cannot spend $800 billion of taxpayer money and not create jobs when you said that is with the goal was. the president said unemployment would not get above 8%. we said early this year that the plan with the work. our plan cost half as much and
according to the same economists would have created twice as many jobs. host: let's go to steve on the republican line from vermont. caller: good morning, i am on disability/security in watching this national health care plan. what a lot of people do not understand is that when i go to the doctors i have a co-pay. i have two hands that need surgery and they're not getting it because of a co-pay i have and i have a federal health care. so, to me people go that way, did you will wait in line for six years for an operation so you can go back to work. as far as the stimulus package for jobs -- ok, they are all infrastructure. they are temp jobs. when the building is done, the job is gone. bill clinton did this when he passed nafta. i worked for multi-million dollar corporation that got out
by mobil oil corporation which does not exist anymore. we do not need temporary jobs. we need real jobs. you take the baby boomers generation which will be retiring, you give them each $1 million to retire. instead of giving it to the barack obama buddies in the banks and such. they retire, they free of jobs for in the people. we go back to work, stop by and products and the whole world economy goes back up. if you put the biggest purchases in the world, the americans out of work -- we don't buy anything, the world goes broke. host: all right, let's go to "the wall street journal" were the right that congress shifts into high gear to tackle a full agenda. according to senator harry reid
he says "this will be one of the most challenging periods in the legislative session." the spokesman says that with a little bit of cooperation they can get all of their work done. republicans said they have objected to the democrats initiatives because they involve massive spending with little benefit. our guest, david, joins us. what you think about the five- week stretch? week stretch? guest: we go live now to the kremlin in moscow, where president obama is holding a joint news conference with russian president medvedev. >> [applause]
about the russian federation, senior deputy of the united states of america, william burns are signing an agreement between the government of the federation and the government of the -- of america on transit of weapons, military property and military personnel to the territory of the russian federation, concerning the participation of the u.s. in
during the visit by the u.s. president, barack obama, to the russian federation, also a joint communique regarding issues of abm, has been signed and a joint communique by both presidents on cooperation in the nuclear area and a joint statement on afghanistan, as well as a presidential plan of action. a decision has been made to set up by u.s. russian presidential commission on development and cooperation.
dear ladies engineman, distinguished members of the press, we have just completed our negotiations, myself and the president of the united states, the first visit by the u.s. president, barack obama, and it has been a very busy visit. first we demonstrated that we were able to touch upon virtually all of the agenda.
our agenda was quite large. i would like to say from the beginning that it was very useful and very open business like a conversation. this has been the kind of summit that both this country had high expectations for, and the united states of america was expecting a summit that the future of both countries was the boss -- depending on. i also, once again would like to emphasize indeed the first meeting -- the first day of our negotiations was a personal meeting and a -- on a personal level and our enhanced meeting with a lot of participants were sincere and opened and that is very poor. we agreed that we will -- the
participants were sincere and open and that is very good. there are a number of issues that have accumulated over the past few years are impressive. we were able to have both the issues resolved and the desire, given the positions that we adhere to and will continue to adhere to, that they are constructed in a business-like manner. we have been able to achieve mutually beneficial results. each of our countries understand this in our own way, but understand both its role and responsibility in the world. especially at a period of time when the level of globalization has reached the scale and scope
that frequently decisions that we make impact the overall situation. we bear special responsibility for everything that is happening on our planet. we have a lot of points of contact. we have a lot of common interests, and global, economic, and other perspectives are things that we share. the work that we are doing requires both mutual respect and good will and honest taking into account of the other's position. we have also arrived at the conclusion that the russian u.s.
relationship or rather the level the relationship is at falls short of a potential and falls short of the capacity of both of our -- countries. the relationship we have falls short of the requirement and needs of the current time. unless our relationship progresses on scientific, cultural, research and economic relations, unless our relationship progresses, we will not be able to build a highway into the 21st century. we have spent quite a few hours in a specific way talking about various issues. we also -- i am grateful to my colleague, the president of the united states, for understand the principles that we are setting forth, and accordingly,
we are paying attention to the proposal. in a matter of hours, we cannot take care of the entire backlog of problems. we have agreed that we will continue -- keep moving and make decisions that it will take for the relationship to continue to progress. we have discussed specific matters, i would like to share some of them with you. we have covered complex issues such as the middle east. we have agreed to keep working together, given the plans that we have discussed in anticipation of a number of events. we discussed the possibility of holding a moscow-based conference on middle east issues. we have also covered a very important one issue where our
action is important. in the absence of a joint effort in this area of afghanistan, it is unlikely that successes will be achieved in this area. that explains why this is a joint area. also in the humanitarian areas is also things have to be done. we will be working in these areas. it will be the result of our organizations, we have agreed on the most important item, the strategic defensive weapons, the basic element of the shared security.
our delegations have worked in a very productive way in this area. they have achieved a reasonable compromise solutions. we would like to thank everybody who participated. we have both achieved the -- how we need to keep going in the future, but also we have reached the basic level which will allow cooperation in this area. the same and we have just signed with my colleague, it says that our countries can have between 511 hundred delivery -- and between 500 warheads.
these are the new parameters, which we will now carry on our dialogue and in which we are hoping to achieve the final agreement, which will be incorporated into the new doctrine. we have also agreed that the defensive capabilities of both countries should be viewed together. we have a joint statement on antimissile defenses, to important documents considering we still have differences. we are able to come up with a joint statement which has been approved. we have discussed nuclear cooperation, the most important thing is we will continue operation in all these areas a great deal depends on what happens in this area.
we have signed a statement on the transit to afghanistan. we have decided to set up a presidential commission on cooperation, which will coordinate the relationships between various government agencies of the russian federation and the united states of america in all areas including the area of the economy. as far as military, the executive heads of the general chiefs of staff will be engaging in that. soon all these documents will be published. i would like to say that my view of all of this is this is a --
an important first ustep. if both of our countries are beneficiaries, then everyone will stand to engage as well. i would like to specifically emphasized that my country would like to achieve a level of cooperation with the united states that well be truly worthy of the 21st century that will ensure peace and stability that is in our interest. we are thankful for our colleagues for the work they have been able to jointly perform. a great deal of solutions to issues depends on the joint leadership between the federation of russia and the united states of america. >> good afternoon. i would like to think president
medvedev and the russian people for their hospitality. michele and i and our children are pleased to be here in moscow and be here so early in my administration. we distinct -- concluded a very important meeting as the president just indicated. the president and i agreed that and the united states has suffered. we resolved to reset u.s.- russian relations, so we can cooperate more fully in areas of common interest. today, after less than six months of collaboration, we have done exactly that by taking steps forward on a range of issues, while paving the way for progress for the future. i think it is notable that we address the top priorities, these are not second-tier issues. there are fundamental to the security and prosperity of both countries.
first, we take an important step forward to increase nuclear -- this starts with the reduction of our own nuclear arsenals. the u.s. and russia must lead by example. that is what we are doing here today. we have signed a joint understanding for a treaty that will reduce our nuclear warheads by up to one-third of our current limitations. this legally binding treaty will be completed this year. we also agreed on a joint statement on nuclear security cooperation that will help us achieve the goal of security, progress we can build upon later this week at the g-a summit. this is an important step forward. as we keep our commitment and so we must ensure that other
nations keep theirs. to that end, we had discussions about no. 3 and iran. north korea has abandoned its own commitment and violated their national law. that is why i am pleased that russia joined us in advancing a security council resolution that called for strong steps to block north korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. iran poses a serious challenge because of its failure to live up to obligations. it is not just a problem for the united states. it raises the prospects of a nuclear arms race in the middle east, which would endanger global security and could also pose a threat that is far reaching. i am pleased that we agreed on a joint statement on cooperation about missile threats of the 21st century including those posed by iran and north korea. we have taken important steps
forward to strengthen our security for greater cooperation. the president and i agreed on the needs to be -- the threats from al qaeda. thanks to admiral mullen and his russian counterpart, we have agreed to resume military to military cooperation between the united states and russia. this provides a framework for improve cooperation and interoperable only between our armed forces so we can better address the threats that we face from terrorism. we have also agreed to restore a joint commission on prisoners of war missing in action, which allow our governments to cooperate in our commitment to
our missing servicemen and women. we have taken important steps for to broaden our cooperation on a full range of issues that affect the security and prosperity of our people. the president and i are creating a u.s.-russian bilateral commission to serve as a new foundation for cooperation. too often, the u.s. and russia only communicate in a narrow range of issues. this commission will include working groups on developing the economy, in the energy and environment, nuclear energy and security, arms control and international security, defense and foreign-policy and counterterrorism, preventing and handling emergencies, a civil society, technology, basic health and education. this work will be coordinated by secretary clinton, she will travel to russia this fall to carry this forward.
one example of this corporation is a new memorandum of understanding and health. we have learned with the recent virus h1n1, a risk anywhere can pose a risk to everywhere. i am pleased that russia has taken the important step of lifting the restriction on imports of u.s. livestock. the cost of these restrictions to american businesses $1.3 billion. we have made important progress. i will not pretend that the u.s. and russia agree on every issue. as the president included, we have had frank discussions in areas where we still disagree. we had a frank discussion on georgia, and i reiterated my firm belief that georgia's
sovereignty must be respected. even as we work through our disagreement on that georgia's borders, we agree that no one has an interest in renewed military conflict. we must be a candidate trying to resolve conflicts peacefully. the president and i are committed to leaving behind the rivalry of the past. we have made meaningful progress through deeds and words for a more constructive u.s.-russian relationship will look like in the 21st century. tomorrow i look forward to broadening this effort. i believe that all of us have an interest in the future in which the united states and russia partner on behalf of our security and prosperity. i once again want to thank
president medvedev and his entire team for being such wonderful hosts and working so effectively with our team. thank you. >> dear colleagues, to questions from each side are to be asked. please make sure you introduce yourself and make sure that you indicate whom you are asking the question. >> thank you and good evening. president obama, i would like to ask you about the issue of trust after this. of rocky relationships, but also with the agreements that you just laid out today. having spent time with the president, do you feel like you have full trust in him? have you settled in your mind
who is really in charge here in russia? president medvedev or prime minister putin? president medvedev, the russian people have some hard feelings about america. i am wondering what you think president obama can do to try to change this. >> first of all, this is now my second link fleet meeting -- lengthy meetings with president medvedev. throughout our interactions, i found him to be straightforward, professional, he is clear about the interests of the russian people. but he is also interested in finding now but the interest of the united states are.
we have found, i think an ability to work together effectively. yes, i trust president medvedev to not only listen and to negotiate constructively, but also to follow through on the agreements that are contained here today. i am very appreciative, not only in the manner in which he dealt with me, but also how our teams work together. if you think about the short timeframe from our meeting in london to today, what we have essentially accomplished, all the goals that we set in london. these are not in substantial agreement. i think it is a good time for progress in the future. tomorrow, i will be having breakfast with prime minister putin. i have not met him before and i
am looking forward to that meeting. my understanding is that president medvedev is the president, and mr. putin is the prime minister. they allocate power in accordance with russia as a formal government in the same way that we allocate power in the united states. my interest is in dealing directly with my counterpart, the president, but also to reach out to prime minister putin, and all other influential sectors of russian society, so that i can get a full picture of the needs of the russian people, and the concerns of the russian people. president medvedev and prime minister putin are working effectively together and our interest is dealing with the russian government as a whole in order to achieve the improve
bilateral relationship that i think can be accomplished. >> first of all, i would like to thank president obama for the words he has just said regarding the spirit and the degree of openness between the two of us. i have talked about it, and i am happy to talk about it again. personal relationships are not the most important thing, but without it, it should be harmonious. i am hoping that my colleague are similar in the same vein. as far as the russian sentiments regarding the americans, that is a normal feeling a french it.
-- french ship -- friendship. obviously when problems arise, it impacts the perspective of the people who are watching and following the political process. it is something that is unavoidable. so to better the relationship between the two nations, we are cognizant and aware of difficult periods of time when our country's soft complex issues, issues involving maintenance and restoration of peace globally. i am referring to the post world war ii era. we have also had complicated areas in our relationships. a great deal depends on our
relationship. depending on how far we will be able to move forward, how much in making our relationship more adequate in terms of concentration and the degree we will -- we will be able to do it. given the fact that people have always felt sympathy like the other people, historical. >> i have a question for both presidents. u.s. and russia are the largest nuclear power. within the framework on the agreement on cooperation on the weapons has been in existence for decades. will our countries be able to
maintain the situation regarding nonproliferation, giving the fact that the situation has deteriorated recently worldwide? thank you. >> the non-proliferation issue is the most important issue because the u.s. and russia. the bulk of responsibility in this area. our country is now -- our countries now have the bulk of the nuclear potential. it is difficult for me to disagree with you. the situation globally has changed for the worse than not the better. that has to do with the emergence of new nuclear players, many of whom have not even applied for membership in the nuclear club. they're doing it openly or
preparing for it secretly. this is not making an improvement in the global reputation. for obvious reasons, there are regions in the world where the mere presence of nuclear weapons is capable of creating lots of problems. it is on these avenues that we must work as closely as possible with our american partners. these regions are now -- no. it is clear to everybody that depending on the situation in the middle east and the korean peninsula, the overall climate depends on it. it is our shared responsibility for something that we have to do surly. based on our conversation and based on my negotiations with
the president, we are prepared to engage in that effort as well. >> i think president medvedev said it well. this is an urgent issue. and one in which the united states and russia have to take leadership. it is very difficult for us to exert that leadership unless we are showing ourselves willing to deal with our own nuclear stockpiles in a more rational way. that is why this agreement is so important. i am hopeful that we can reduce our nuclear arsenals by as much as one-third, and hopefully move beyond that in subsequent agreements and treaties. the critical issue that president medvedev identified is the fact that we are seeing a
piece of potential proliferation that we have not seen in quite some time. he mention two areas, and the middle east, there is deep concern about iran's nuclear capability. not simply because of one country wanting nuclear weapons, but the fact that if iran obtained nuclear weapons, it is almost certain that other countries in the region would then decide to pursue their own programs. we would then see a nuclear arms race in perhaps the most volatile part of the world. in the korean peninsula, they are in pursuit of nuclear weapons. and all of these cases as you see more proliferation of nuclear weapons, the possibility
of not only these actors targeting populations with nuclear weapons, but the possibility that those weapons will fall into the hands of non hist actors poses and extraordinary threat to both russia and united states. i am pleased and the progress that we have made so far. the fact that we have a joint threat assessment in terms of what ballistic missile capabilities and nuclear weapons pose to our country's. we will be conducting a review of that and making assessments of the four ways that the u.s. and russia can cooperate more effectively. we are continuing to pursue the cooperation that already exist between russia and the u.s..
structuring a new, reinvigorated, non- proliferation without having the capacity to weapon is that nuclear capacity will be very important. we have suggested a global nuclear security summit that we intend to host next year. eidos -- i discussed with the president the possibility that in a substance -- subsequent summit could be hosted by russia, where we bring all of the countries together from all the world to start making progress on this issue. >> these positions over u.s.
missile shield have contributed to the deterioration of u.s.- russian relations in recent years. it does not seem that you gentlemen have resolve that issue either. president obama, you have said clearly that you would not accept about linkage between the missile systems and arms control talks. president medvedev have said that these issues must have been linked. are either of you willing to compromise on the issue? could this be an obstacle to reaching an agreement? president obama, can you give us the chinese crackdown on writing and unrest that have killed more than 140 people? >> with respect to the china
situation, i have been traveling all night and in meetings all day, so i have not been fully briefed. i don't want to comment until i see the information. i assure you that our team will get a statement to as soon as i have been able to do that. on missile defense, we have agreed that we will continue to discuss this critical issue. that is part of the joint statement that we sign. i also believe that it is entirely legitimate for our discussions to talk not only about offensive weapons system, but also defensive weapons systems. part of what got us through the cold war was a sufficient sense of parity and deterrence capability that both sides,
during those very difficult times understood that a first strike and an attempt to use nuclear weapons in a -- military weight against the other could result in a very heavy price. any discussion of nuclear strategies and security has to include a defensive as well as offensive capabilities. the difference that we have had has been on the specifics of a missile defense system that the united states used as a priority not to deal with russia, but to deal with a missile coming in from iran or north korea or some other state.
it is important for the united states and its allies to have the capacity to prevent such a strike. there is no scenario from our perspective in which this missile defense system would provide any defense against the mighty russian arsenal. in that sense, we have not thought it is a program to link discussions of a missile defense system designed to deal with an entirely different -- different threat unrelated to the capabilities that russia possesses. having said that, president medvedev has been very clear that this is a point of deep concern and sensitivity to the russian government. i suspect when i speak with prime minister putin tomorrow, he was at the same thing.
-- he will stay the same thing. we would like to work with russia to advance a system that insures that a stray missile, whether one or 10 or a handful of missiles coming from a third source, that we have the capability to prevent those from doing damage. i think we can arrive at those kinds of understandings, but it will take some hard work. it requires breaking down longstanding suspicions. with respect to the particular configuration that was proposed several years ago, as you know, we are undergoing a thorough review of whether it works or not, what has been proposed. that review should be completed by the end of the summer.
i indicated to the president that as soon as the review is complete, we will provide the russian government our assessment of how we think we should proceed. that will be the subject of extensive negotiations. ultimately, i think more progress will be made on some of the issues that i discussed earlier, nonproliferation, being able to attract -- detracted ballistic missiles coming from other sources. we are building deeper cooperation on those fronts, i think more effectively we will be able to resolve this issue. i believe that over time, we will end up seeing that the u.s. russian positions on these issues can be reconciled, and that we have a mutual interest in protecting both of our
populations from the kinds of dangers that weapons proliferation is posing today. >> i will just add a couple of words on this subject. anti-missile defenses the position of the third position area is fairly complicated item for our discussion. i would like to draw your attention to what the president has just mentioned and something that i would also like to mention. our joint defense in this is the first to enter a linkage between defensive and offensive weapons. this is a step forward. only relatively recently, we had was just different