Meet the Press   |  October 20, 2013

3: Examining aftermath of shutdown

A Meet the Press roundtable analyzes the outcome of the shutdown and debt ceiling debate and what lies ahead for future conflicts.

Share This:

This content comes from Closed Captioning that was broadcast along with this program.

>>> meet the press is back with our political roundtable. here this morning, e.j. dionne , david brooks , maria bartiromo and andrea mitchell .

>> the president is back. he'll try to talk about health care tomorrow and rolling out all the glitches of obama care. 476,000 applications have been submitted to get care, but there are still a lot of problems to deal with. e.j. dionne , we talk about whether the conservetors are getti giving up the fight. jim demint rights, obama care and its falgz have been front and center in the national debate. its disastrous launch was spotlighted by our defund struggle. it will be highlighted in the next few years.

>> i think these glitches, or bigger than glitches, would have gotten a lot more attention if they hadn't tried to shut down the government. i also hope this leads to a very large look at how government a kwi -- acquires i.t. let's fix our i.t. system. senator soochumer said it right. are these fixable problems? i think these are fixable problems. is there interest in obama care? there is interest in obama care. if you look at states where this is working, kentucky is notable. they're working on getting that state signed up. it's working. if kentucky can work, other states in the national system can work.

>> but, you know, one of the things the president is going to announce that they have rolling out is that you can apply by telephone. you don't have -- you can work around this on-line problem. the problem with that is that this is very complicated stuff. the reason for doing it on line is you need to shop around. and there are so many different options depending on your category. i think that the president is justifiably upset. they don't really have a fix. they can say all they want, that this shows a lot of people are interested. but they've got a very short window here, a couple of months. and if they don't get the 7 million people, including a large number of healthy people, this system will not work. they need the healthy people to be enrolled in order for the economics of it to work.

>> some of the problems that have been reported, you've got difficulty creating accounts. that's been a basic one. unable to kpir tcompare the plans, as you say, trouble confirming applicant identities, on and on.

>> why is the obama presidency so bad at it? they have consultants they hired at the campaign, and they were just consultants, private businesses. they were built to do this. the government is not built to do this. the agencies tried to get the consultants, they're just not trained as an institution to do this.

>> beyond the glitches there are other issues and that has had implications with the goal we're supposed to have, and that is job creation . businesses have changed their plans as a result of obama care. we are becoming something of a part-time employment country. we're seeing some groups moved off of health care from business because business is complaining that it's too expensive. so the goal is growth, getting back to goal, from an economic standpoint. getting back to growth and job creation . we're not there yet. businesses are still sitting on cash and not creating jobs.

>> we were moving toward a part-time economy sadly long before obama care came on the scene. it's not clear at all that obama care is a big push in this direction. on david's point, on i.t., a lot of this was private i.t., and i think the issue is about how government acquires i.t. versus the flexibility the campaign had. we need to give government the freedom to do this right and not have rules to make it hard.

>> it was unlike a private industry . they were quarterbacking all the 92 agencies. all the conservative programs, they have exchanges. they have exactly this kind of program, so if this website messes up, republicans should not be ecstatic because this is part of their own plan.

>> he should not be bragging about anything. jim demint and the heritage have been completely discredited among republicans . or hatch criticizing them. they will not have the power.

>> this gets back to the question of winners and losers after this week. we'll get to the president and whether he's won, if he's won anything, as some people believe he has. here was "the week" magazine way graphic cover. self h sel self-inflicted wounds depicting hatch and boehner. will they get back on track

>> i think they will. you don't learn a lesson by getting kicked twice by a mule. does it matter what mitch mcconnell and john boehner say

>> yes. because a lot of people in the republican party know if they do this again, in 2016 they'll suffer. you talk about obama 's leadership. why did he win this he dealt with the republican party that he has to deal with, not the republican party that he wish existed. he sent the signal and now republicans know that if they want to deal, they have to start somewhere closer to the center, not on the far right.

>> i can't believe mitch mcconnell is one of the winners, that he helped to craft the final agreement, that he was the intermediary that the white house was actually working with.

>> what about the other side of this, which is if the president is seen as winning tlar, there are a lot of conservatives, and i'm not talking about the leadership, i'm talking about the senate, the mike leeves, and he said, look, it's a fraction of the republican party . we've got to dig in and not deal with this guy at all.

>> some of these people, dwight eyisenhower had a phrase and he proves there is some way they should be. incrediby self-destructive. the question is will the republican party have a civil war over the nature of the party? i think we're seeing rumblings of that. the tea party has a side. they have a political movement , they ever a think tank , they have a donor base. the other side, the republicans want to be able to compete in california, in new york, along the east coast , and illinois. they don't have a side. they have american crossroads, a pack, they have a cocktail party . they actually need some fundraising efforts, some grassroots organizations to match the tea party or else the tea party will take ted cruz the face of the republican party a force in the business community but a force to be reckoned with?

>> i don't think anyone won here. i think the american people are so disgusted at the inability to get anything done. i think the president has to win back the trust of the american people , because we can't have these crises every month. whether he is the face of the republican party , i doubt it. but everyone is a loser in this. it's too frustrating. we can't move forward.

>> i think the country lost because this should never have happened. but i think the country was clear about who was responsible for this. if you look at the nbc poll, the tea party , for example, at its peak in 2010 , 44% of americans had positive feelings. it's down to 21%. and obviously the republican party 's ratings collapsed. this sends a message. you would think republicans might learn from that.

>> let me introduce, andrea, some of the criticism i've read about the president. to paraphrase the new york times on friday, he writes, okay, if the vision is that he won, what is it that he's actually won? has he changed the dynamic of negotiating in town? the criticism is, look, he's great at running against someone or something, in this case, the party. when is he going to demonstrate that he can bring along converse to his side and actually get something done?

>> it started with the first meeting of the budget conferees and it ends supposedly on february 15 . both sides seem to want some relief from the sequester and i think that's where the running room is if they can come up with some creative ways to finance that, whether it's to bac tobacco or gasoline.

>> he has 40 republicans that have never been with him. how does he siphon it off to get people to go with him? he's never figured out how to do that. i think there is an opportunity now with immigration. either republicans decide we have to change and you got a big substance win, or they decide they're going to destroy themselves and you have a political win.

>> isn't that better than medicare ? for democrats, medicare cuts raises lots of problems politically, policywise. but e.j., do republicans in a mid-term election year also want to propose the medicare cuts?

>> you're precisely right. i agree on going toward immigration. i think there is at least some potential there. but i think the medicaid -- the republicans don't want to be the leaders in cutting medicare because they have a very old constituency compared to the democrats, oddly, particularly in the tea party . the president -- a lot of times when people say the president should lead, what they want him to do is adopt republican positions and then push for those. that's not leadership, that's ka capitulation. i think we should stop talking about the grand bargain and try to have normal leadership in the next few months.

>> i want you to do something, maria. we talk about accomplishments in the administration, a second term agenda. part of that agenda we're seeing play out realtime with big news about jp morgan . a huge settlement, 13 billion, with a b, in an attempt to settle all the civil litigation that responds to whether they sold subprime loans into the marketplace to fannie and freddie. but this goes to a larger point, which is this reckoning for wall street that's finally happening that a lot of liberals have been cheering for.

>> yeah, i think that reckoning continues. this is worse than people expected. a lot of people thought it was 11 billion, it ended up at 13. also very important here is the fact they did not do away with the possibility of criminality.

>> this is jp morgan . this is jamie diamond, the ceo, who is viewed frankly as one of the most responsible players in the whole subprime mess did not need federal bailout money with the leader, did things the government wanted him to do in buying washington mutual and bear stearns , and yet they become a big target.

>> this has been one of the repercussions of the financial crisis , and that is the pendulum swinging a little far in terms of regulation. this is the cost on business, and this is one of the reasons the business sits on cash because they worry about what's sitting around the corner. as far as jp morgan is concerned, this will be large with the potential of opening civil lawsuits. certainly the regulation bite has become a lot bigger, and that has been a regulation for business and that has been big for business in terms of more people.

>>> hillary clinton has come back in politics in a big way. does this mean she's laying the groundwork for 2016 we like to read a lot of the tea leaves here. we're going to talk about it with our roundtablewhen we come back in just a moment.