tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News February 28, 2011 2:00am-3:00am EST
nomination. but does he have the desire to get in the race? we'll ask former governor mike huckabee. daniels and huckabee only on "fox news sunday." plus, the latest on the revolution in libya. and we'll ask our sunday group could president obama do more to topple moammar qaddafi? and our power players of the week taking on the leaders in iran by making fun of them. all right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. as states struggle with huge budget gaps and take on public workers, our first has become the new it boy of republican politics. republican governor mitch daniels of indiana is being celebrated for turning deficits into surpluses. he should be the republican nominee for president next year some say. governor daniels joins us. welcome back to "fox news
sunday." >> thank you, chris. >> chris: we need to say what's goods obligor therein you had rotator cuff surgery and not going to be ready for spring training. >> all the jokes have been made. >> chris: you are in the middle of a standoff right now with house democrats who have crossed state democrats in illinois and blocking any action in the legislature. they first said that they were fighting against a right-to-work law which is now dead. now they say they are fighting against 11 other bills on the agenda. question, are you prepared to make a deal to get those house democrats back to indiana? >> no. if they come back we'll talk about what sort of changes or amendments they might want. but, while they are subverting the democratic process, there is nothing to talk about. so, when they come back to work, we'll talk about their concern. you described it quite accurately, chris, ours is a situation very different than wisconsin. this is not about government
unions. this was a bill i did not initiate and i thought ought to really wait for a different time because i thought exactly this might happen. and it might get in the way of a very important agenda that was layed in front of the people in indiana. low tax agenda, reduce the corporate tax to attract jobs, reform education and so forth. and, yes, they ran off to illinois ostensibly over the right-to-work bill, is but as soon as they got what they wanted there, they issued an ultimatum from a hot tub over there with 10 more items. just to tell you how reactionary indiana democrats are. the first four items they want killed are president obama's race-to-the top agenda. >> chris: when unions started protesting the right-to-work law this week and house democrats took off, you said that you thought that the bill should be dropped as you just pointed out. then you added. this. >> even the smallest minority, and that's what we have heard from the last couple days, has every right to express the
strength of his views. i salute those who did. >> chris: conservative bloggers immediately hammered you, sudden you weren't tough enough. said you wanted a truce on fiscal issues. the day after you issued a much tougher statement. here it is. >> the house democrats have shown a complete contempt for the democratic process. >> chris: were you trying to reassure conservatives that you are tough enough. >> no. i was reiterating exactly what i said the first day. i was a little, i guess, careless about my pronouns. the statement i made i will make again. i was referring to the private sector protesters, the union members who came to agree with the right-to-work law. they had and they have every right to use their -- express their first amendment point of view. when i -- i was distinguishing. >> chris: you said salute them though you weren't talking about the indiana house democrats. >> no. information -- i guess i'm glad i made the mistake because it allows to us make an important distinction. it's one thing for the people in
the private sector to express their point of view as our protesters did. it's quite another for public servants, accepting a public paycheck, having lost an election to a very clear agenda to try to trash the process, run off to a different state and hide out. that's what i said on both those days was completely illegitimate. >> chris: all right. you took away, what's going on in wisconsin now. you took away public workers, collective bargaining rights by executive order six days ago the day after you were sworn into office. but now you are calling their unions the privileged elite. question. teachers, public safety officers, the privileged elite. >> across america, chris, we have had a huge inversion. there may have been a time a century ago where public employees were mistreated or vulnerable and many -- and underpaid. if that was ever a problem, we have overfixed it.
not everywhere but in many places. as you you know very well, public employees in america, most decidedly, federal employees, but everywhere, are better paid than the taxpayer who pays their salary. when you add much more generous benefits and much more generous pensions on top the gap widens. then there is near total job security. >> chris: you really would call teachers. they are public servants. would you call teachers a privileged elite. >> i was really talking about the government unions of whom their union, of course, is one. now, it is true that' teachers are paid in indiana 22% more than the taxpayer who pays their salary. the benefits raise that further. i happen to think that's a good idea. we have some of the best paid teachers in america. that's absolutely fine. in fact, one of the bills our democrats want us to kill would allow us to pay the best teachers more which is something i would really like to do. as a general phenomenon, we have a situation in which public sector unions get jill i don'tif
dollars in do do dues. -- >> chris: you have a strong record of balancing the budget in indiana. let's take a look at the record. you inherited $600 million deficit and turned it into a $370 million surplus the next year. you ended the last fiscal year with a reserve fund of $830 million. and at the cpac conference, two weeks ago, you talked about the greatest threat facing this country. >> we face an liberty each more than america has defeated before. i refer, of course, to the debt our nation has amassed for itself over decades of indulgence. it is the new red menace. this time consisting of ink. chris i have i want to do a lightning round because we have limited time quick questions and quick answers what would you do with social security.
>> bifurcate it those in the program approaching it deal the deal nothing changes. young people paying for today's retirees and tomorrow's, we want you to have something when you retire, we will need a brand new compact. i think it starts with means testing, which is to say we shouldn't send a pension check to donald trump. we should concentrate the resources on those that are going to need them the most. we should in the future raise the retirement age to catch up with the medical reality of our time. i think we should protect the benefits against inflation but not overprotect them. chris, as i said many times in the past. that's my cut at it. if somebody has got another route that gets us with assurance to the same result, i would like to hear it because i just want to see a solution to this before it destroys the america we know. >> chris: you talk about medicare 2.0. private vouchers? not a government program. >> it would be a government program but instead of top-down monstrosity that we have today, once again, i would divide the program and say to those who are
in it or who are about to be in it nothing will change for you. but i think for the young people coming up, who are going to shoulder the bill, we ought to trust them to make more of their own decisions. you could, again, concentrate the resources on the poorest people and also in this case the least healthy people. people are better off. >> chris: you would give them a private voucher so they could choose their own insurance plan? >> i would. >> chris: you even say the government should put limits on end of life care. are you talking about what sarah palin called the death panels. >> no i didn't say government should put limits on it what i'm worried about is the government making these decisions? i just stated what i think is a simple fact. i wish it wasn't. but i think it is. that we cannot afford, in an aging society, to pay for the most expensive technology every -- for every single person, regardless of income to the very, very last day.
>> chris: who makes that decision. >> at least a part of it has to be the family. and the patient himself or herself. i mean. >> chris: does the government at some point say we can't afford to give the 9-year-old the liver transplant? >> chris, i have told you i think with some specificity what i think ought to happen in social security and medicare. i just answered the question honestly. i think this problem will have to be addressed. i don't pretend to have an exact answer to this one except that auto pilot won't work. >> chris: do you think voters are ready? you talked about some things that seem to be sort of political taboo. do you think voters are ready for such strong medicine? >> i can't tell you that for sure. i have a little more confidence maybe in the american citizenry than some in politics today. i do believe that people are ready to step up -- once they have the real facts, many of these facts that you may know have not been shared honestly with the american people. and i have would give them a
little more credit than i think some of our politicians do. >> chris: you also have a record under the first budget director george w. bush 43. annual surplus for the first time in $236 billion. when you left two and a half years later, the deficit was 400 billion. you were also there when president bush launched his medicare drug benefit plan that now costs $60 billion a year. i know there was a recession. but do you think it was wise at a time when we were fighting two wars, to have two tax cuts and launch a huge new entitlement? >> well, it wasn't the recession. it was the recession, two wars, and a terrorist attack that led to a whole new category calmed homeland security. nobody was less happy than i to see the surplus going away. it would have gone away, it wouldn't have mattered who was president. you know, chris, i was proud to be part of that administration. yes, i think the original tax cuts were good and timely and
helped the economy to recover very, very quickly from that recession. but, if you want to know what i think about fiscal issues, don't look at two and a half years where i was in the supporting cast with no vote. look at six years where i was in a responsible position submitting budgets and fighting for them and, you know, there is the record that i think is most accurate. >> chris: you have also infuriated the right by calling for truce on social issues. here is what you said at cpac. >> big change requires big majorities. we will need people who never tune in to rush or glenn or laura or sean. >> chris: some conservatives say that abortion and traditional marriage shouldn't be negotiable and our next guest, mike huckabee says and is he a fan of yours, says he is disappointed that you would suggest that pro-family activists would just lie down. >> that isn't what i suggested. the truth, first of all, is only a truth if both sides agree to
stop fighting for a little while. i don't want to have an argument with anybody about this. it was a suggestion really tactically. it starts with the premise that our nation is at mortal risk. i would love to learn that i'm wrong about this, but the debt is not a threatening -- not just our economy but our entire way of life, our role in the world, maybe each our national security. now, if you share that fear, then all i'm saying is we're going to have to unify a lot of america. we have to get a lot of people together to make these changes. you asked me these tackling these problems that we're talking about, is supposed to be politically undoable. well, if we're going to do the undoable. we're going to need to gather ourselves together as a nation. and that will, by definition, mean that they have to be some folks in that coalition who do disagree about other things. >> chris: got about a minute left. where are you on running for president. >> i sure haven't decided to do
it. i haven't decided not to. i'm keeping the option open as i have been urge to. chris, i never examined to run run -- expected to run for any office. all i tried to do was try my best for four years, maybe eight, a better state, more prosperous state place i live. any thought i ever had about national issues was maybe we could set some good examples and create some successes others could look at and maybe here and there offer a constructive thought. that's still where i am. >> chris: when do you have to make a decision? have you set a time line for yourself? >> no. others keep suggests these deadlines and they keep passing. it's one of the great breaks that we have in voters that they didn't start. >> chris: some have said once it goes out of session of course it may never be in session in april. >> i will tell you i'm giving my full attention to the duty, the job i hired on for. i hope that our democrats will get out of the hot tub, will go back to work, will finish at the end of april.
and but if they don't, i will still be there and so will they, eventually. because that's my duty. if it means that deadlines pass, it does. >> chris: finally, governor, some people have suggested that you don't look presidential, barack obama is 6'1", you are 5'7", he is charismatic and forgive me some people suggest that perhaps you are not. does that matter? >> well, probably. you know, some voters i have never in the limited time that i have had i have never suggested to a voter what they should consider a valid criterion. sure, if it comes down to hide nor hair i wouldn't do very well. that's something you weigh in the balance with many other factors. >> chris: governor daniels we want to thank you so much for coming. in hope you feel better. it's always good to see you. we will be waiting to see what happens in indiana and the presidential campaign trail. >> thanks.
>> chris: by almost any measure mike huckabee is one of the top contenders for the 2012 republican nomination if, and it's a big if he decides to run. he has just written a book called "a simple government." which offers a blueprint for a possible campaign. and earlier i sat down with him. governor huckabee welcome to "fox news sunday." >> thank you very much, chris. >> mike: let's start with the big question which is, of course, you are going to run for president. you have recently sent some negative signals if i may. you have said this week you are making big money for the first time in your life and you worry
you will be completely destitute if you run and lose. you said you will only run if you have strong financial support. i don't plan to slump in a pool that has no water, sensible. and in your book you say of the game of campaigning i actually dread the process. question. should someone run for president who has so many doubts? >> i love campaigning, chris. i think i need to qualify. i don't enjoy what i would call the peripheral of it which is the part you dread. the peripheral is you spend so much of your time defending rather than actually going out and talking about issues that you think would make america a great country. now, i don't think that's going to change any time soon. but what i find interesting is if you are even half way honest when asked a question, it's sort of like the old jack webb, everything you say can and will be used against you. and i'm finding more and more that trying to give an honest answer, which is i don't know but here are the thought
processes, people interpret that and then come to a conclusion. the fact is, i'm very much considering doing it again. i think i have the advantage, not only because of poll numbers but i have been there, i done it i know what i would be walking into. a lot of people don't. >> chris: let's face it. obviously you are promoting a book and being a potential candidate is good for business in that sense. but here's the serious question which i think relating to all of this. don't the american people deserve a candidate who believes with all of his or her heart that they are the best person for the job. >> absolutely. one the reasons that i have not yet made that decision is because i'm working through that process. i think i would be an excellent president and a good candidate. but what i want to know is do i think i can carry it to the finish line? can i raise the level of money, an obscene amount of money that's going to be necessary to win the primary and then to challenge an incumbent president who going to have a billion dollars piled up just waiting on somebody to come after him.
his chris one thing you don't express any ambivalence about is your opinion of barack obama. and you say this in your book. just about everything he thinks is good for america is actually bad for our present and worse for our future. explain. >> his accumulation of debt is horrifying. he has created more debt in two years than george bush did in eight. the debt that we face, i believe, is the most serious crisis outside of the threat of terrorism, the threat of jihadism that confronts america. and we cannot we build our economy and back to work and on a job site as long as we have a president who thinks that if the federal government just keeps on spending money. we are going to be so much better off. i mean, the first rule is if you are in a whole, you quick digging, lost your job, broke, you don't go out and go on a spending spree. you start figuring out how to cut your expenses. >> chris: this week the
president decided that the defense of marriage act, which bars federal recognition of same sex marriage is unconstitutional and he directed the justice department to no longer defend doma in court. you say that could destroy the president. isn't that over the top? >> no. i will tell you why. maybe that's a hyperbole. in fact, politicians are given a little by enter bowly as talk show hosts. first of all he african american community. overwhelmingly african american support traditional marriage more than hispanics and white in the white community 56%. 65 in the hispanic. 75 in the african-american community. you have african-american church leaders like anthony evans coming out and saying of the 34,000 churches that he networks with, they are in arms about this. >> chris: he believes that it's unconstitutional. i mean you say give an honest
answer. >> let's take a look at that he said because lower court decided that a part of dome -- doma by that logic he should not implement obama care because some courts have decided it sun constitutional. it's hypocritical and dishonest because when he ran for president, chris, he said he supported traditional marriage. is he on the record. now, the question is was he dishonest then? is he dishonest now or did he change his view? and if he did, when and why? >> chris: if he did change his view, is that legitimate? >> he better explain why, that's not why he got elected. here is another thing i think he has got to explain. why is it on one hand he has been saying if this issue is addressed it should be addressed legislatively and now he is doing it not legislatively, not even judicially. judicially it would go to the supreme court. is he doing it administratively. i don't think that what he is doing is constitutional. if a president begins to decide which pieces of the law is he going to choose to support or
endorse or enforce, based on lower court decision, not because it's actually bubbled up to final adjudication, that is an unusual precedent for a president to take. >> chris: he says is he going to enforce it. he is not going to defend it in court cases. >> this is really the same thing. that he has decided that this is a part of the law he doesn't like so he not going to recognize it. i don't think a president in the executive branch can thumb his nose at a branch of government that is incomplete in its assessment of a law. >> chris: ronald reagan's 11th comeament -- comament was thou shall not speak ill will of any other republican candidate. i would think you have been breaking president reagan's 11th commandment. >> what have i done. >> chris: myth romney's plan if our goal is better care at lower cost, then we should take a lesson from romney care, which shows that socialized medicine does not work.
socialized medicine. >> that's when it is when the government runs the program. by the way, i think there is a real difference in ronald reagan saying don't speak ill of another republican and don't evaluate what another republican's proposals are. if you want to go by that let's go back four years ago and look at all the different things that i was criticized for by my fellow republicans including myth romney. the point is policy differences are legitimate if we start attacking each other on integrity and character i think that's a problem. which i haven't done. the "wall street journal's" aanalysis of the massachusetts health care bill showed that it was exactly almost a carbon copy of the state level of what obama care was at the national level it shows that costs have gone up. out of control. people are waiting longer to see a doctor. people of massachusetts are less satisfied with their health care than they were before the program went into play. >> chris: if romney care is as it is the signature issue for might romney signature cure
accomplishment as governor of massachusetts you say it's a an experiment that blew up. socialized medicine and you just had harsh words now. what does that say about his fitness for nominee for president. >> i don't think it disqualifies him. the purpose of states are always to be laboratories of government. i wrote about this in the book and i quote justice brandice from 1992. >> chris: is socialized medicine a good conservative -- >> -- it's not a good plan. he attempted something he wanted to see if it would work. his answer would be not what i really did is different. because it really isn't thatch different. i don't think he ought to try to say well, it's the same plan but they didn't implement it the right way. what did he just say? retried it. it didn't work what we thought. that's what states ought to do. i'm willing to take a risk. that's what leaders do. i don't have a problem with governor in any state taking risks, trying something bold but
if it doesn't work let's not not put it in all 50 states. >> chris: mitchell bachmann and sarah palin and others have criticized sarah palin's obesity campaign has run amuck. >> i didn't say they were all wrong. it sounds like i'm in a war with sarah palin, michele bachmann and rush limbaugh. i'm not. i'm simply saying what proposing the government can't tell you not to ease desert. what she is proposed we recognize we have a serious obesity crisis, which we do. 75% of the military eligible kids going into the army can't qualify for the physical because they are either overweight or obese and can't meet the minimum army standards. that's serious. this is no longer just a health issue, an economic issue. it is becoming an issue of national security. >> chris: we got less than two minutes less. i want to ask you two things.
two issues you you are going to face if you get back into that process all the gotchas that you say you dread. if you do run for president one of the issues you will face conservative fiscal group says you were a big tax and spender as governor of arkansas. et will's put up part of your record taxes went up touring your years of governor increase in the sales tax, increase in cigarette tax. and 3% income tax surcharge. >> the surcharge did i not support or sign and did i sign its repeal. so that's a misnorm. secondly, the half-million-dollar sales tax was because of a court ordered education case that we had to deal with. >> chris: had you another sales tax increase when you came in as governor. >> that was a 1/8 for conservation which meant that we were able to dedicate a significant portion of funds for the preservation of the natural state, which is the state's motto, national preserves. -- natural preservative it was supported by the voters. it was on the ballot. did i support it? yes. so did the voters. they voted for it i did cut 94
taxes. the largest number of tax decreases in the history of the state. and in addition to that we did some tax policy that really helped people at the bottom. we eliminated the marriage penalty. we improved the child care tax credit. we made sure that we cut the capital gains tax so that businesses could afford to keep going. that's a record that i am proud of. >> chris: are you going to decide when? >> i'm waiting to see what kind of reaction. this book is my message. this book is what i stabbed for, what i believe. i want people to say you know what? that guy has god ideas we could live with. or maybe they are going to say this guy is a crazy fool. >> chris: if the book tanks, you are out? >> if you can't sell your own message, then chances are there is not a big constituency out there. and to run for president, you have got to have people who believe in what you stand for. >> chris: going to have to leave there. you have said you going to decide by this summer, correct? >> at the have latest. its dr. chris we will be
ñnkó÷[÷[÷[÷[÷[÷[ chris >> get ready to defend libya. get ready to defend the great man-made river. get ready to defend the oil. get ready to defend dignity, independence, and glory. >> chris: that was libyan dictator moammar qaddafi rallying his supporters to fight to the bitter end. with international pressure building against the regime there are widespread support forces loyal to qaddafi continue to search unarmed protesters. for more we turn to leland vittert who is in tobruk. >> today the rebel flag was
flying over the village village. it's in the western part of the country. traditionally qaddafi country as this revolution has moved from east to west. second of all it, is a suburb of tripoli. that is where qaddafi is held up in his compound. we are talking about a village 30 miles outside of tripoli. evidently, it is surrounded not only by government forces but there is an interring of opposition forces which, according to associated press reports, are indeed well armed themselves. this is setting up a battle that could prove to be extraordinarily bloody. violence continues to increase in this civil war. the united nations have now issued sanctions against libya, saying that there are violent crackdown on civilians and qaddafi indescrim that the killing of civilians civilians y unacceptable. the united nations has now referred him to the international criminal court because of these alleged war crimes. the violence is also increasing here. that means americans are trying to get out.
most if not all have. and also, the rebels are now promising that they will fight until the very end. saying for no other reason than they simply want a chance for freedom. one young man at the hospital told me he would take 100 bullets simply for that chance. chris, back to you. >> chris: leland i have the territory reporting from libya. thanks for that time few nor sunday group. big kristol of "the weekly standard," mara liasson of "national public radio." former white house press secretary dana perino and fox news political analyst juan williams. so, bill, you heard leland just talk about no surrender. where is libya headed? is this blood bath just going to continue? >> i hope not and i think we could do more to end this quickly. qaddafi is losing ground. he has lost is the city 30 miles away near tripoli. i think we should move quickly now to enforce a no fly zone. not let qaddafi use what part of his air force is remaining to kill libyans, probably enforce a
no tank zone too so he can't use tanks and armored personnel carriers to kill people in the streets. government set up in benghazi set up for orderly transition. qaddafi is going to too lose. we can do a lot to make the civil war less bloody and make the loss much quicker. >> chris: growing criticism of the president's response. would before we get to the military option os, world leaders were calling for qaddafi to go. only yesterday that in a phone call with german chancellor angela merkel that the president finally said that qaddafi should go. other countries sent warships to evacuate their nationals we sent a ferry. is the criticism legitimate? >> i think that the criticism is legitimate up to pint. the white house says that the reason why it couldn't come out and call for qaddafi's exit until yesterday is because they were waiting for that ferry load of americans to get out of there. and that they were afraid of a hostage situation they ever
afraid how qaddafi might react. united states should have been better prepared to evacuate its people. they did get them out. the president is working hard at the united nations to get sanctions to enforce the no fly zone. and to work with allies around the world. so i think, yes, things move so fast now the white house might have been behind a bit. but they have caught up. >> chris: are you as forgiving about this? and, realistically, when you have got a dictator who is willing to fight to the death. what should we do? invade the country and enforce a no fly zone or no tank zone? should we organize a coo. >> they have more information than all of us. they are in the situation room. they have the intelligence that we don't have 00 our disposal. the white house could have been though, three days ago provided the information that mara just provided us. on background to reporters to you to a few other people to say this is why he is not coming out and saying. this not being as strong as you
you might have thought he was in egypt. give us some time. this is what we are doing. instead they only started doing background three days ago so it does look like they are playing catch up. every president has multiple audiences every time you speak. allies, people at home, your enemies and the people of libya. and think that the people of libya, they do not hear a strong enough american support this week. >> chris: two questions, juan, what can we do and two, does the president deserve more criticism for what he has failed to do so far. >> i think bill laid it out pretty well. the key here to me is international cooperation. the united states has a lot of power. we could send ships into the mediterranean to protect those oil resources. that's a growing issue in this country with gas prices spiraling at the moment what we need to do with that we need to protect the oil sources. you want to prevent any kind of genocidal action by qaddafi. i like bill's suggestions very much. i think you do it in
coordination with the international community. i don't think you want the united states intervening to the point where people say the united states is stirring the pot or qaddafi can blame the united states. it's an international effort. the second thing to say is that with regard to this blame, i just think people are nitpicking like they want to go after president obama. clearly we had 167 foreign service officers on the ground. you should protect those people. they are putting their lives on the line for the united states. we don't have any reason or the president has any reason to come out and suddenly say this is why i'm doing it. if he says that to us then qaddafi hears it at well. >> i'm not saying he should have done it his communication team could have done it and done it effectively. called people three days ago and explained it rather than playing catch up it would have helped the president. >> wouldn't have qaddafi have heard it. >> i'm talking about a communication strategy. >> chinese removed 15,000 nationals over the last week. the british and other european nations sent in warships.
take people out. we rented a ferry that sat at port for 36 or 48 hours because it couldn't make it across the choppy wawrs of the mediterranean. that's pathetic. i don't know why we did it we didn't want to look too lirlt his stick. god forbid we use a warship. use tofl move aircraft carrier in the mediterranean which i'm not sure we have done yet. the president's response was wildly overcautious. reflecting one's views that the americans should look like they are helping an arab people overthrow a dictator. you asked a couple minutes ago what do you do when a brutal dictator wants to fight to death? hasten his departure. you said the president is working on a no fly zone. there is no evidence of that. that's not in the u.n. resolution. is he still slaughtering people in the streets. >> bill, do you think it's reality that moammar qaddafi is not a rationale person is he a terrorist and sick man? do you think there is evidence historically that his response
to american military efforts has been off the board? he has gone ballistic and done things that are threat to not only his own people but to middle east stability. if you are the president of the united states, what you are suggesting would have been reckless action that was provocative to qaddafi. >> you just said is he a reckless sick man. you can't provoke such man. the message he did learn back in the reagan years i think is to be a little scared of the u.s. force. we didn't signal enough force and use enough force in the last week. having said that fine, they were slow. we got the diplomats out. now could we finally help the libyan people end this thing? >> i think you will see that. >> chris: you have no problem with the military force, no fly zones tanks in the streets take out the tanks. >> in conjunction with the united nations. it doesn't have to be the u.s. alone. we don't need to paralyze ourselves waiting for the russians and chinese to agree for it. >> chris: agree. >> bring you two together. >> is the idea -- international coordinated effort. i like the u.n. sanctions that
>> next week congress will focus on a short-term budget for the sake of our people and our economy we cannot allow gridlock to prevail. >> our goal as republicans is to make sensible reductions in the spending, create a better environment for job growth, not to shut down the government. >> chris: president obama and rob portman both hoping to avoid a government shutdown this week
but offering different solutions. and we're back now with the panel. so, the continuing resolution funding the government runs out this friday and the best, it seems, that congress can possibly come up with is a two-week extension to avoid a government shut down. house republicans who want to cut spending by $61 billion over the next seven months said fine, you want a two week extension give us the prorated amount which would be $4 billion. senate democrats said no way. then house republicans did something very smart. they identified $4 billion in cuts that obama wants next year and said we will give you the cuts. we want the cuts this year. so, question, mara, will there be a deal? will they avoid a government shut down at least for two weeks? >> oh, yeah, i think they are going to avoid a government shut down for two weeks. what both sides moved in this new proposal that the house proposal does not have any of those policy riders in it and it doesn't prorate the 61 billion. what it does it gets its 4 billion from things obama would have ended anyway as you said and also take back some earmark money.
so, senate democrats vulnerable senate democrats get to say they voted for cuts. and tea party people get to say see, we set the agenda and we're getting the government as the two sides talk. now, after two weeks or maybe at the most another three, maybe three weeks or four weeks, you can't do that anymore. you have to actually decide on what level of spending cuts you are going to agree on for the remainder of this year. and what's the number? i mean, i don't know what the number is, but i do think that if it's anything close to what john boehner originally wanted which was around $30 billion, it's going to be a victory for republicans. >> chris: well, i'm just a moderator. i do think that house republicans would agree to $30 billion in cuts, total. i mean, when they are now on record as asking for 61 billion in cuts. would more importantly, i guess, would the tea party freshman allow him to have signed on to that. >> there is no reason they should. they have the leverage right now. also, i think what senator reid
is saying has he formidable opponent in john boehner who is creative. kept the new freshman class together with him for now. you might see some more creativity from there. also, he rules differently a little bit than nancy pelosi who really had -- she had a very raucous caucus trying to pull all those people together all the time. she ruled with an iron fist. boehner as we have seen has opened up the flood gates and let people do their amendments. people feel like they have more stake in the process. i think boehner is like the tortoise, if it's the tortoise and the hare and he will come out on top at the end. >> chris: where do you think this is headed? is there going to be a shut down? i'm not talking this week but two or three weeks down the road. if there isn't, if they work out a deal is it more on the house republicans determines, bigger, more cuts or the senate democrat in president's terms smaller, less cuts? >> smaller less cuts because, you know, there is tremendous pressure in the country to reduce the size of the deficit,
spending all that, when it comes down to the brass tacks, what are you actually cutting, well, let's look at the 61 billion that you were talking about chris, you are talking about home safety, homeland security, border security talking about education spending, schools. american people are just not going to react well to that. they are just going to freak out. what are you talking about? that's draconian. this is taking a hatchet to the budget. it's not doing something that's even going to produce jobs and go to the economy and that's not juan williams talking. that's goldman sachs talking. so, when you stop. >> chris: wait. goldman sachs number, that's been somewhat discredited. >> no, it's not. no all they did is took the multiplier and said if you cut so much and there is a number that that's going to mean many less jobs. >> thank you, chris. >> chris: if that worked we would have unemployment under 8%.
>> is this draconian? -- we are going to go back to spending 2008, 2009, we remember things were horrible in those days. >> republicans will stand up to the juan williams goldman sachs nexus. they should. the big thing that happened this week is that the american public did not react as juan did. they went home this week the house republicans. they were nervous going home and the leadership was a little nervous. what are the freshman going to hear the freshmen think they want to cut government. go home and have the same experience the democrats had exactly two years ago. the public wasn't thrilled to be spending $800 billion. the tea party got launched and the rest is history. big thing that happened this week in addition to john boehner's clever maneuvering here is that the republicans went home and the dog didn't bark. citizens are not outraged. they had town meetings there was a conference call of the house republicans. >> chris: wait. because we are running out of time. is there going to be a shut down eventually or not and if there isn't and they have to make a deal whose terms will it be under. >> not shut down i don't think.
it will be a good deal for republicans. cut real spending in realtime in significant way. >> chris: let me ask you, mara, because the will conventional wisdom is fair to say whether it's right or wrong in 199 a government shut down worked to the benefit of president clinton and very much to the detriment of newt gingrich and the house republicans and that this time again that a shut down would help democrats. big differences. i went back and checked the deficit was $164 billion. it's now $1.5 trillion. >> sure. people are in a mood to cut -- they want the deficit resolved. here is the dirty little secret. what they are talking about now has nothing to do with cutting the deficit. about cutting spending for sure. the deficit is being driven by things that none of these negotiations are about. it's not about domestic nondefense discretion neamplet the things that drive the deficit are entitlements and tax cuts and that's not on the table right now. i do think it's different than '95. i still think that both sides would be hurt by a government shut down because it would like
like washington can't get its act together. what kind of jokers are ty that can't even keep the government operating. i agree there is a huge fever in the country to do something about the debt and the deficit and spending you don't have a leader out there like newt gingrich boasting how is he going to shut the government down. i think it's very, very different you have all house leadership and republican parties saying we are not going to do it. >> chris: dana, less than a minute left, i want you to go back and address juan's point what democrats are counting on. when we tell you specifically what they're going to cut, you are going to hate it. >> i think that won't work. my first day on the job as hill press steacket was the first day of the first government shut down. i remember it wevment lots of changes since then 16 years or whatever it's been. i think that the american people are not freaking out about it i think that the senate democrats who are up for election in 2012 are really hoping it doesn't work that the government doesn't
get shut down and chance to vote on spending cuts. >> chris: vulnerable democrats going to vote for republicans on this issue. don't forget to check out panel plus where our group picks right up with the discussion on our web site foxnewssunday.com and we will post the video before noon eastern time. up next, our power players of the week. pú
>> chris: as protests spread across the middle east people are taking on the dictators with every weapon they have. guns, the internet and even humor which brings to us our power players of the week. noet. >> this is a half-hour show, voice of america beams into iran each week, et tiangs on the regime by making fun of it these are the creators. >> to make people think again. mahmoud ahmadinejad says if iran wants to build a nuclear bomb, he has no fear of enemies, they have no fear of using the bomb. >> during the protests in cairo some pretended to be in tahrir square. >> they say the rulers in tehran
are easy to satarize when they condemned what happened in libya. >> they denounced the congregation towards the people and you listen to these guys, are you serious? have you not looked at yourself in the mirror? >> what do you think of mahmoud ahmadinejad? >> i don't think he is the supreme leader like the ayatollah. >> do you worry about your safety or your relatives back in iran? >> they call it the enemy. knowing their track record, it does fail you once in a while, but we have great. we're not like sacrificing their lives in the streets. >> chris: the regime tries to jam their show so people in iran can't watch it. that is how they came up with the title. >> if we ever have a chance to
gets through we're hiding up under the name of static. >> chris: they are certainly getting through, they have 30 million followers on facebook. both men left iran years ago to escape the repression. now, they enjoy being the iranian version of jon stewart's show. >> they wanted to sit in his chair. >> it was like driving a ferrari man. >> chris: but they realize there a big difference from what stewart does? >> even if he jokes and has a beef with anyone, within the american system, we deal with tyrants. we deal with people that probably want to kill you. >> chris: both men say their goal isn't revolution but they can't