The Obama Administration and the Prime Minister. Today, whether the Budget Committee can come together, we will have more details. Before they gavel in we want you to weigh in on this debate in washington. In the face of National Security threats from isis and others around the globe, should the pentagon budget be increased . The numbers are on the screen. You can also send us a tweet you can go to facebook, and also send us an email. The phone lines are open. Before we get to your thoughts, molly otoole from defense one joins us to talk about this. Gop hawks want to use defense for funds to skirt this. What does each chamber want to do and what has the president opposed . Proposed . Guest the house and senate have very different approaches. The house released their proposal on tuesday. These are nonbinding medical agreement, but any russian of but are an expression of priority. The house proposed 523 billion for defense, which adheres to the level set in fiscal year 2015 and the budget control act but they essentially make up the shortfall between their amount and what the white house requested for defense by adding to the overseas Contingency Operation funding or oco, which is not beholden to those caps. That is what they make up the difference. There was a lot of disagreement. In fact, last night they could not even finished the market for their measure. The mark up for their measure. Oco can be used for emergencies and its considered war funding. They are using it as g to get around the caps. Using it as a strategy to get around the caps. It also says in that 94 billion that they request for oco that 20 billion has to be spent elsewhere to not add to the deficit. The hawks are concerned that those office offsets will not be able to be found, the threatening the budget that they considered so important. The senate release theres yesterday and theres adheres to the over all caps of the 523 billion, the caps the set with the 2011 budget control act. But it also grants the 58 billion for oco. It pretty much matches the white house request when it comes to defense spending. They actually included language in their budget that says 60 votes are required in order for the senate to add to the oco fund at all. The hawks in the senate are very concerned that spending will not increase. The white house recommended 560 1 billion discretionary funding and 58 billion for oco. Obviously, oco is not beholden to the caps, but the 50 58 billion the 58 billion was to force the house into the budget. They are both essentially skirting the fund and not addressing the issue like there directed to do. Host under the budget cap act of 2011 which resulted in sequestration, where does the budget command come in compared to previous years . Is it at the same levels of 2011 . Where is it in terms of recent years, and what is the military saying about this level under sequestration . Guest the military, i mean, obviously for the last couple of years, the military, all of the top officials have come to fail over and over and said haldane come to the hill over and over and said how dangerous sequestration is. They have readiness levels that will be impacted. They cannot pursue modernization that is necessary at this time. But because in 2013 there was an agreement that came to grant them some relief from sequestration cuts, which are very blunt acrosstheboard cuts , so when those went into place in the Defense Department did not get to begin choose where those cuts hit. Did not get to pick and choose where those cuts hit. Acrosstheboard, that is referred to sequestration. If those coming back into Place Congress will try to pass some of those level set back in 2011. The pentagon has an added urgency to lift sequestration caps off not only because they come back into place, but because relief is going to be over and because relief is going to be over, but because it affects the security climate across the world. Isis, boko wrong, and even ebola suggest of the time to begin train. They need to be able to think longterm. Host how to the deficit hawks that wing of the party, how are they responding to what the military is saying . Guest despite the added urgency this year, theyve have been making this argument on the hill for years now. And despite there being a pretty broad level of support in both parties and in both chambers for lifting the sequestration caps and spending more money on defense, there is a gap between the rhetoric and the political reality. Some of the fiscal hawks have even suggested that we do need to make sure the defense spending is a priority. But they are not willing to pursue what could be pretty tough solutions in order to lift the sequestration caps and give the pentagon that flexibility again. Host molly otoole, explain for the viewers before we let you go, this overseas Contingency Operation fund. Where did it come from the echoed is the history of this fund where did it come from . What is the history of this fund . Guest it has been around for over a decade and it was created to allow for unexpected to the cheese unexpected contingencies. It is our wartime fund. In many ways, it ballooned in the past decade to cover the wars in iraq and afghanistan. The thinking several years ago especially when president obama came into office, was that the fund would drop back down as we withdrew from a rock and from afghanistan from iraq and afghanistan. And some of the wartime funding would be folded back into the base budget for defense. Many members have come of congress have presented as being a slush fund, but now it is being seen as a Necessary Evil and something that is very difficult to do away with. The pentagon says it is absolutely necessary in order for them to applicability to deal with all of these foreignpolicy crises. That is the history of the oco funding, this unfettered war chest that is not beholden to those budget caps. Host and that is molly otoole was defense one. Thank you so much. Lets turn to all of you. Ted in new york, independent caller. Should the budget for defense be increased . Caller good morning. We are not going to spend money on the first things. But the question now, security. When you say security, it is going to be a cyber war. Its going to cost a lot of money. I dont understand why the pentagon needs to buy modernization. Such war is over. In the coming age, its going to be cyber war. And this will not cost that much money because every region has to put money to fight terrorism. There is no reason to put too much money on defense and then hurt education and infrastructure and all those things. I dont support this spending. We should freeze it, in fact. Host ok, you dont think that Building Navy ships, big infrastructure is not necessary anymore. Caller not at all. Building a giant ship is not going to help us. We should be smart. We should cut it, but we should really focus on technology. That time is over. Host wayne, chicago, democrat. What do you think you what do you think . Caller my thinking is this is nothing but for the military contractors. We are thrown under the bus to finance these multibilliondollar corporations. Its ridiculous. That is it. Host ok, wayne as a democrat supposedly if the republicans try to go over the caps that have been sent under the budget control of 2011, if they tried to go over that with defense spending, then every dollar for defense, another dollar for domestic spending. Should we go for . Go for it . Oh, we lost him. Loretta, go ahead. Caller i do believe there is never enough spent on defense. That goes for the cities and townships with the police. We need more police to keep us safe from the muslims the was loans from the hoodlums. There are a lot of terminals in the world and we got to be defended. I do believe never enough is spent on defense. And educating ignorant people is not going to get it. Theyre going to be robbers and crooks whether they are educated or not. Host ok, loretta, we will take a look at what the defense secretary said yesterday to end yesterday testifying on capitol hill and warning about the dangers of sequestration. [video clip] Ashton Carter our nation will be less secure. As you have said, sequestration threatens will be threatening the size and capability of our war fleet, and ultimately the lives of our men and women in uniform will stop and the in uniform. And the joint chiefs has said the same. And the great tragedy is that this corrosive damage to our National Security is not a result of our objective factors logic and reason, instead it is purely the fallout of political gridlock. Host the defense secretary on capitol hill yesterday talking about the pentagons budget and the dangers of not increasing the pentagons budget. Lawmakers under the budget control act of 2011 were forced to put in place what has been called sequestration here in washington. Now the republicans, some in congress, want to bust those caps and give the pentagon more money, but there are the hawks in congress saying, no way no way, we cannot do that. We need to stick to what we have agreed to. David, republican, go ahead. Caller i just want to comment that we have spent 12 years and is worn they could not even train the army. Now they train our troops in probably 12 weeks. I just understand. Host all right, david. We will go to joe, maryland independent. Good morning. Caller good morning. I think defense should be completely independent of other priorities and i believe spending on defense is necessary. We are in a situation with global issues that are all over the place and we need to make sure that we do not weaken ourselves. We will face a serious problem in the near to distant future. And im surprised that the president appears not to notice or take it recently. Its almost as if he believes he can say, we are going to have peace, and it will appear. That does not appear to be the case. Host the president did want to put more money in his overseas defund overseas contingency fund, this warchest. He proposed 51 billion. Some republicans in the house are saying the pentagon needs more like 94 billion in this warchest fund. They put 94 billion in that, but they want to keep the pentagons budget under the cap. Caller right, i dont think thats going to be possible. They will have to resolve the issues with the sequester and they will have to do it civilly. Which is one of the reasons i am an independent, because it doesnt appear that either party can do that anymore. They are both on either side of the net and theyre not going to do it. They have to make a solution. Host all right, joe. Rick in louisville, ohio independent. Caller its the same old thing. Bush and cheney were elected and the conservatives started this insanity of using oil for trickle down economics. And its the state of texas that is doing this. The state of texas has started the last five wars. Now youre talking about increasing defense spending. We know for a fact that george bush, again, the state of texas start an illegal war, and then they manipulate the will prices to 120 per barrel. We go over there and we slaughter these innocent people to steal their oil, and now you have terrorism. In fact, the other part of this literally controlling our radio and tv through time warner. And the other aspect of this is just what youve seen yesterday with israel, the jews and the radical wing of israel is running israel. You have the south here in this country and the east coast jews and bush and cheney hello . Host rick, why would you say all the jews on the east coast . That is a generalization. Caller the juice in this country come from connecticut and new york. Host that is a ridiculous thing to say that they are controlling what the Bush Administration did. Lets go back to security. Should the budget for the pentagon be increased after that is the question for all of us. Randy forbes, a republican for virginia, somebody advocating for more money for the pentagon. His questioning for the defense secretary about the increasing of the money. [video clip] senator forbes representative forbes what really took me back is what you said about the president s position. His position is that he would do away with sequestration not just for spending on defense, but everything else. What you are telling me is as secretary of defense, you would be prepared to support of each other that would end up with a crisis for National Defense and be devastating for National Defense unless the president can also get a lot of the funding you need for epa, irs, and all of the other nondefense items that he has proposed in the budget. Is that your position . Secretary carter what we need for defense are two things. We need stability and mr. Forbes i dont mean to cut you off, but i only have two minutes. You are coming here and saying that unless the president gets full quit full sequestration taking off the limits he has on epa, irs and other nondefense matters, you would rather have a crisis it comes to National Defense funding. Secretary carter no. Mr. Forbes then would you support sequestration that would have to do with defense spending only . Secretary carter no, i would not. We need relief from sequestration across the board. Every other manager of the government mr. Forbes you are not managing other agencies in the government. You are saying that you would be in defense in defense of a crisis for defense spending and leslie get funding for all of these other programs unless we get funding from a visa programs across the country. Host allowing the lifting of those defense spending caps because of defense spending on other things. That is the topic. Robert, go ahead. Caller hello, i was just going to say that the whole thing about military spending, the people on the right, the radicals want to say that they want to eliminate the threat that the president has done a horrible job or whatever. All you have to do is bring the warships home, bring the soldiers home, stop protecting the rest of the world and see what happens. Bring them home for two or three years. Stop the military spending. Let them fight it out between themselves. Light we have to be in the middle of every fight all over these countries . Why do we have to be in the middle of every fight all over the countrys . Host ok, robert. Nic, what you think . Caller i think National Defense should be increased. Without National Security, we cannot have Economic Security at home. Economic security at home could not exist without National Security abroad, even if the navy is out showing the flag protecting the waterways of the world and just being strong and supporting our allies. Many people do not understand that without National Security abroad and protecting and leaving this world, president obama is the commander and leaving this world, president obama is the cam and are in chief. And leading this world, president obama is the commanderinchief. Host here is something from bloomberg business. That is the director of the audit the pentagon coalition, the group that has several advocates, including ralph nader and grover norquist. And a story from the Washington Times yesterday, a piece and a warning to congress about the impact of sequestration. Now congress is debating. Should they lift the caps on sequestration and put more money in the pot for the pentagon . Michael in tucson, arizona democrat. What do you think . Caller credit, good morning to you. I dont think they should greta, good morning to you. I dont think they should lift those caps at all. The reason is, for one, they are not auditing any. And number two where is this military spending going anyway . I think they should live look sequestration on everything else, lift the sechrist on everything else, but as far as the military goes, leave it there. And the caller about three dollars ago, he kept talking about how the jews got us into the war in iraq. He is correct. It was Benjamin Netanyahu who came to congress in 2003 and commence the congress to go along with the Bush Administration about weapons of mass destruction and being collected connected to 9 11. Host ok, michael, we got your point. I dont want to go too far down this road. Chris, go ahead. Caller yes, i got i agree with his tie who just got through talking. I appreciate you putting me on by the way. Congress is doing just fine and they are wanting to give to the 1 ors. They are rich enough, dont you think . Host all right, rick. From waldorf, what is your name . Caller this is brent. I just want to say sequestration is not a viable option. We are more engaged in the world than at any other time and sequestration is not viable. And the ranks of the military suffer. If they are looking for cuts the military has unfortunately had to take the brunt of sequestration and i dont think we have addressed the largest spending in our government, which is entitlement. More cuts could be made to entitlements with regard to balancing the budget. Host what you do for a living . Caller im in the military. Host you are seeing it first hand. What are you seeing . Caller multiple deployments overseas and many are saying we are not engaged and its morbid technological war for the future. Well, thats not the case. A more technological war for the future. Well, thats not the case. We are engaged and trying to change the mindset, while americans are being beheaded. And you have an aggressive russian government pretty much asserting itself in europe. These things are of National Security important and have to be addressed. And its not like the rest of civilian Government Agencies, as far as being audited, the military and the department of defense is not saying because we are adjusting and being asked to do things that are far beyond what these other agencies and organizations are asked to do that is why we have an oco fund, which started back in the day when it was the global war on terror, and it has been changed to the northeast Contingency Operation. We are not just dealing with the global war on terrorism. We have other contingentcies we are engaged with, for example, ukraine, and the counterinsurgency operation and whatnot. Host ok. Kathleen, good morning to you. Caller the last guy seemed really reasonable. You are objecting to other colors, but the last guy that called was tal