Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

President Obama's White House Briefing

Aired April 05, 2011 - 13:59   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

RANDI KAYE, CNN ANCHOR: And we want to show you a couple of live pictures here.

On your screen, take a look, we are waiting for two live events here. One is the White House briefing. We know that the president met with some congressional leaders to talk about the budget deal, some lawmakers to try and strike a budget deal. We're waiting for Jay Carney to speak at the White House Briefing Room. He said earlier there has been some progress.

On the other side of your screen, we're waiting for House Speaker John Boehner to make some comments, probably regarding the budget. His office had released a statement saying that while there was a good discussion, no agreement was reached. He is one of the people who met at the White House. Boehner told Mr. Obama that House Republicans will not be put in a box and be forced to chose between two options that are bad for the country.

So we will continue to watch both of these live pictures and these two live events. We are on top of that, and we will bring both of them to you as soon as we can.

Meanwhile, we are now less than three-and-a-half days from the first federal government shutdown in more than 15 years. That's if nothing comes of the urgent talks at the White House and Congress. And the latest in a series of stop-gap bills expires at midnight Friday.

So what, you say? Well, government operations deemed essential would continue, but national parks and museums would likely close. U.S. troops might not get paid. Your tax returns and those all- important refunds might get held up. And a million or so nonessential federal workers would be sent home.

All right. So here's the deadline. Take a look.

I might point out, we're now more than six months into the fiscal year without a single appropriations bill passed. It's also worth noting that the House has a 72-hour rule between the posting of legislation online and the first possible vote.

So, to act by Friday, the deadline there on that calendar, April 8th. Members actually need to act today. Republicans offered a one- week spending extension at a cost of $12 billion in immediate cuts, but the White House supposedly refused. All right. So much for this year. Congress needs to get cracking on fiscal 2012, which starts October 1st, and the new Republican chairman of the House Budget Panel has done that. Congressman Paul Ryan today unveiled what he calls the path to prosperity.

All right. Let's get to the White House Briefing Room here, where President Obama is speaking.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As many of you know, this morning I had a meeting with Speaker Boehner, Leader Reid, as well as the two appropriations chairs, Inouye and Rogers, to discuss the situation with last year's budget. And I wanted to give you and, more importantly, the American people an update on where we are.

From the outset, my goal has been to significantly cut our domestic spending, but at the same time make sure we're making key investments in things like education, infrastructure, innovation, the things that are going to help us win the future. And over the course of the last several months, we have identified areas where we can make substantial cuts. In fact, what we've been able to do is to present to the House Republicans a budget framework that would cut the same amount of spending as Speaker Boehner and Chairman Rogers originally proposed, their original proposal for how much would be cut. And several weeks ago there were discussions between the White House and Speaker Boehner's office in which we said, let's start negotiating off of that number, $73 billion.

We are now closer than we have ever been to getting an agreement. There's no reason why we should not get an agreement.

As I said before, we have now matched the number that the Speaker originally sought. The only question is whether politics or ideology are going to get in the way of preventing a government shutdown.

Now, what does this potentially meaning for the American people? At a time when the economy is just beginning to grow, where we are just starting to see a pickup in employment, the last thing we need is a disruption that's caused by a government shutdown, not to mention all the people who depend on government services. Whether you're a veteran, or you're somebody who is trying to get a passport, or you're planning to visit one of the national monuments, or you're a business leader who is trying to get a small business loan, you don't want delays, you don't want disruptions just because of usual politics in Washington.

So, what I said to the Speaker today, and what I said to Leader Reid, and what I have said to the two appropriations chairs is that, myself, Joe Biden, my team, we are prepared to meet for as long as possible to get this resolved. My understanding is that there is going to be a meeting between Speaker Boehner and Harry Reid this afternoon at 4:00. The Speaker apparently didn't want our team involved in that discussion. That's fine. If they can sort it out, then we have got more than enough to do. If they can't sort it out, then I want them back here tomorrow.

But it would be inexcusable for us to not be able to take care of last year's business -- keep in mind we're dealing with a budget that could have gotten done three months ago, could have gotten done two months ago, could have gotten done last month -- when we are this close simply because of politics. And we are prepared to put whatever resources are required in terms of time and energy to get this done, but that's what the American people expect.

They don't like these games. And we don't have time for them.

There's some things that we can't control. We can't control earthquakes. We can't control tsunamis. We can't control uprisings on the other side of the world. What we can control is our capacity to have a reasoned, fair conversation between the parties and get the business of the American people done, and that is what I expect.

So, again, I want to reiterate, my understanding is the Speaker and Leader Reid are going to have a meeting at 4:00. If that issue does not get revolver resolved, and we don't start seeing progress, I want a meeting again tomorrow here at the White House. I will invite the same folks that we invited today. And if that doesn't work, we will invite them again the day after that.

And I will have my entire team available to work through the details of getting a deal done. But right now, there's no reason why we should not get this done. And we have got more than enough to do than to be spending our time going back and forth quibbling around the edges on something this important to the American people.

All right. With that, I'm going to take a couple questions.

Matt (ph).

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

If it came down to it, would you approve of a short-term spending bill to avoid a government shutdown? And more broadly, as the American people are watching this, do you think that this is a test of your leadership? Do you think the American people are expecting you to make sure that this deal happens?

OBAMA: Let me take each question separately.

On the issue of a short-term extension, we have already done that twice. We did it once for two weeks. Then we did another one for three weeks. That is not a way to run a government.

I can't have our agencies making plans based on two-week budgets. I can't have the Defense Department, I can't have the State Department, I can't have our various agencies on food safety, and making sure that our water is clean, and making sure that our airports are functioning, I can't have them based on decisions at two-week-at- a-time budgets. So I have been very clear that the last time we had an extension, it was to give the parties time to go ahead and get something done. We are now at the point where there is no excuse to extend this further.

If over the next 24 to 48 hours a deal is done, and we just can't get the paperwork through Congress quick enough, and they want to do a clean extension for two or three days in order to go ahead and complete a deal, then that's something that we could support. But what we're not going to do is to once again, put off something that should have gotten done several months ago.

Now, with respect to the second question, I think that what the American people expect from me is the same thing that they expect from every member of Congress, and that is that we're looking out for the interests of the American people and not trying to score political points. I think what they're looking at from me is the same thing that they're looking from Speaker Boehner and Harry Reid and everybody else, and that is, is that we act like grownups. And when we are in negotiations like this, that everybody gives a little bit, compromises a little bit, in order to do the people's business.

And I just want to set the context for this now. Again, I'm going to repeat, Speaker Boehner, Chairman Rogers, the Republican appropriations chairman, their original budget proposed $73 billion in cuts. We have now agreed to $73 billion worth of cuts. What they are now saying is, well, we're not sure that every single one of the cuts that you've made are ones that we agreed to. We'd rather have these cuts rather than that cut.

That's not the basis for shutting down the government. We should be able to come up with a compromise in which nobody gets 100 percent on what they want, but the American people get the peace of mind in knowing that folks here in Washington are actually thinking about them, because they're going through a whole lot of struggles right now.

They're worrying about gas prices, and that's what they want us worrying about. They're worrying about jobs, and that's what we should be focused on. They're worrying about everything happening in the Middle East, what does that mean for them. And that's certainly what I'm spending my time worrying about. And I shouldn't have to oversee a process in which Congress deals with last year's budget where we only have six months left, especially when both parties have agreed that we need to make substantial cuts and we're more or less at the same number.

All right?

Julianne (ph).

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

Who should the American people blame if there is a government shutdown? And also, I was wondering if you could respond to the budget plant that the House Republicans built (ph)? OBAMA: I don't think the American people are interested in blaming somebody. They want people to fix problems and offer solutions. They are not interested in finger-pointing, and neither am I. What I want to do is to get the business of the American people done.

Now, we'll have time to have a long discussion about next year's budget, as well as the long-term debt and deficit issues, where we are going to have to have some very tough negotiations. And there are going to be I think very sharply contrasting visions in terms of where we should move the country.

That's a legitimate debate to have. By the way, part of the reason that debate is going to be important is because that's where 88 percent of the budget is.

What we're spending weeks and weeks and weeks arguing about is actually only 12 percent of the budget. And it's not going to significant dent the deficit or the debt.

So, I'm looking forward to having that conversation, but right now we have got some business in front of us that needs to be done. And that is making sure that we are cutting spending in a significant way, but we are doing it with a scalpel, instead of a machete, to make sure we can still make investments in education, we can still make investments in infrastructure, we can still make investments that put the American people back to work and build our economy for the long term. So --

QUESTION: Mr. President, thank you.

What else does the White House have to offer to make sure that a deal happens by Friday? And separately, could you tell us a little bit about your meeting with Mr. Peres?

OBAMA: Well, look, we've got -- we are happy to listen to any additional reasonable proposals. But I want to repeat what I just said.

We are now at the figure that was Speaker Boehner's original proposal. All right? Now, Speaker Boehner originally called for $73 billion worth of cuts, members of his caucus insisted on making it $100 billion.

What we've said is we're willing to go to $73 billion. The composition of those cuts, where they come from, those are all appropriate subjects of negotiation. But by any standard, these would be reasonable cuts.

In fact, if we made these cuts, they would be, in absolute terms, the largest cuts in domestic discretionary spending in history. And in relative terms, they would be the largest cuts as a percentage of GDP since 1982.

So I don't think anybody is suggesting somehow that we haven't been serious about this process. As I said, there can be some negotiations about composition. What we can't be doing is using last year's budget process to have arguments about abortion, to have arguments about the Environmental Protection Agency, to try to use this budget negotiation as a vehicle for every ideological or political difference between the two parties. That's what the legislature is for, is to have those arguments, but not stuff it all into one budget bill.

And look, you know, I think the American people recognize that we are in some pretty unsettled times right now. Certainly businesses recognize that. Families recognize it.

We don't have time for games. We don't have time for trying to score political points or maneuvering or positioning. Not on this.

As I said, when it comes to long-term debt and deficit, there is going to be a real debate about, you know, how do we make sure that we have a social safety net for the American people. When folks have a tough time, how do we make sure that we're investing in the future? And how do we pay for it?

And that is a legitimate debate to have. But right now, what we're talking about is six months remaining on the 2011 budget.

We have already hit a figure that, by any standard, would be historic in terms of cuts. And what we can't do is have a "my way or the highway" approach to this problem.

We can have a "my way or the highway" approach to this problem, because if we start applying that approach, where I have got to get 110 percent of everything I want, or else I'm going to shut down the government, we're not going to get anything done this year. And the American people are going to be the ones that suffer.

Most of the members of Congress, they've got enough of a cushion that they can probably put up with a government shutdown. But there are a lot of people out there who can't.

If you're a small business right now and you're counting on a small business loan that may make a difference as to whether or not you can keep that business going, and you find out that you can't process it for three or four weeks, or five weeks or six weeks, because of some bickering in Washington, you know, what does that say about our priorities? It doesn't make sense.

I'm going to take one last question.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) anything about your meeting today.

OBAMA: Well, President Peres is, I think, an extraordinary statesman. We had an extensive discussion about what's happened in the Middle East. I think he and I both share a belief that this is both a challenge and an opportunity, that with the winds of change blowing through the Arab world, it's more urgent than ever that we try to seize the opportunity to create a peaceful solution between the Palestinians and the Israelis. And he had some very interesting ideas around those issues.

He also recognizes the fact that in a country like Egypt, not only do we need to be nurturing democracy, but we also have to make sure that economic opportunity is growing there. And so we explored some ideas about how we can provide some help and make sure that young people there see a brighter future. And that's something that Secretary Clinton, during her trip in Egypt, spoke extensively about, and we'll probably be rolling out some additional plans on that front.

Last question.

QUESTION: Mr. President, Speaker Boehner says it's not just the specifics of what you guys want to cut and not cut, but that your cuts, the ones you have put on the table, are smoke and mirrors.

How do you answer that?

OBAMA: Well, here's -- I'll let Jay or Jack Lew or others get into all the details, but here is sort of a thumbnail of what's happened.

The vast majority of the cuts that have been put forward, just as was true in the Republican budget, are direct cuts out of domestic discretionary spending. There are some cuts that we have proposed that have to do with mandatory spending.

These are real cuts. For example, Pell grant. What we've said is instead of being able to finance year-round Pell grants so that you can get a Pell grant for summer school as well, we're going to have to cut that out. It's a little too expensive. And we want to make sure that we preserve the levels for those young people, or not so young people, who are going to school full time during the year.

And the way they are categorized means that those are called mandatory spending cuts, as opposed to discretionary spending cuts, but they are still cuts. They are still reducing the size of government. They're still getting rid of those things that we don't need in order to pay for the things that we do need. And I think that if you ask the budget analysts out there, independent budget analysts, including the CBO, about the composition of what we have proposed versus what was in, you know, the House bill that passed a while back, HR-1, you know, this is consistent with those basic principles.

So, this notion that somehow we are offering smoke and mirrors, try to tell that to the Democrats out there, because part of what we have done is we've been willing to cut programs that we care deeply about, that are really important. But we recognize that give the fiscal situation that we're in, everybody has got to make some sacrifices. Everybody's got to take a haircut.

And we've been willing to do that. But what we're not willing to do is to go out there and say we're going to cut another 60,000 Head Start slots. We're not going to be willing to go out there and say that we're going to be cutting medical research.

We're not going to cut those things that we think are absolutely vital to the growth of the American economy and putting people back to work. And that means we've got to make some choices.

And that is not just true for us, that's true for the Republicans as well. Nobody gets 100 percent of what they want. And we have more than met the Republicans halfway at this point.

OK. Thank you very much, everybody.

KAYE: You have been listening to President Obama in the White House Briefing Room there, taking reporters' questions and making a few comments about the budget and a possible government shutdown, speaking there for about 19 minutes.

He said it would be inexcusable to not avoid a shutdown simply because of political reasons. He said they're closer than ever to getting an agreement, that they have now matched the number that Speaker Boehner originally sought, which is $73 billion.

We have Jim Acosta and Brianna Keilar, both standing by for us in Washington, as we wait for House Speaker John Boehner to make some comments.

Jim, let's start with you. The president saying the "my way or the highway" approach to the problem is not going to work.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right.

KAYE: What struck you from his comments there today?

ACOSTA: Well, he appears to be saying game on, Randi. I mean, over the next couple of days, we're going to be watching basically the theatrics of a high-stakes budget showdown in Washington, the likes of which we haven't seen --

KAYE: Jim -- let me interrupt you there, Jim. We want to get to John Boehner speaking. We'll get back to you.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), HOUSE SPEAKER: There was no agreement reached, and so those conversations will continue.

We have made clear that we're fighting for the largest spending cuts possible, and we're talking about real spending cuts here, no smoke and mirrors. We've also made clear that there was never an agreement of $33 billion, that we're going to continue to fight for, again, the largest cuts possible.

Now, we're not going to allow the Senate nor the White House to put us in a box where we have to make a choice between two bad options, of cutting a bad deal this week in order to keep the government open, or allow the government to shut down due to Senate inaction. And so, yesterday, we did introduce a bill that would keep the government open. It has $12 billion worth of reductions in it that remains an option for us if we'd like.

I said many times throughout this process that we're trying to cut spending so that we can create a better environment for job creators to create jobs in America. This is an important step that we face today in order to get real cuts.

The White House is proposing cuts that are far beyond the things that we would imagine. And so we want to get an agreement and we want to keep the government open.

And with that, I'll be happy to answer a couple off questions.

QUESTION: Speaker Boehner, you said you don't want to be put in a box with a bad deal in terms of taking a bad deal or having to shut down the White House with this $12 billion temporary one as a non- starter. For the American people watching right now, what is a fair deal for John Boehner and the House Republicans? What is a fair deal? What constitutes a fair deal?

BOEHNER: We want the largest spending cuts that are possible, and we're going to continue to fight for those.

QUESTION: Speaker Boehner, if it's not $33 billion, what is the number that you can accept? And when he says --

BOEHNER: I will do my negotiating with the Senate and the White House.

QUESTION: Mr. Speaker, (INAUDIBLE) short-term deal to get us through the week if the deal -- and work beyond this $12 billion (INAUDIBLE)?

BOEHNER: Listen, our goal is to keep the government open. You have heard me say for the last three months that we have no interest in the government shutting down. But we are interested in cutting spending here in Washington, D.C.

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. And we believe that cutting spending will in fact help us create jobs in America.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BOEHNER: We will continue to assess where we are in the next few hours and the next few days.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) you sound like Obama saying that you're going to be coming back tomorrow and the next day and the next day until you get this thing hammered out. Is that in fact --

BOEHNER: The conversations will continue.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BOEHNER: We will continue to insist that the policy riders passed in HR-1 are on the table. It's just as import to many of our members as the spending cuts, themselves.

One more question. (CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Did Democrats bring any sort of proposal to the table? Did President Obama bring any sort of proposal today to discuss?

BOEHNER: They'd like to insist that $33 is the top number and want to use smoke and mirrors in order to get there. That is not acceptable to our members, and we will not agree to it. And we did not agree to it. We're going to continue to fight for the largest cuts possible, including the policy riders that we passed in HR-1.

Thank you, all.

KAYE: And that was House Speaker John Boehner speaking as well from Washington, saying he wants real cuts and that Washington has a spending problem.

Let's get right to our Brianna Keilar, who was there at that press conference.

Brianna, tell us, what's the latest from there?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You know, what we're watching right now is a battle for the message as both sides, Democrats and Republicans, Democrats in the White House, and Republicans, saying they don't want for there to be a government shutdown, but also both sides, Randi, making proposals that the other side won't accept. And right now we're hearing from Democratic and Republican leaders in acknowledgement that this government shutdown is increasingly likely. And both of them blaming each other.

Republicans have proposed a stop-gap one-week measure to continue funding the government beyond Friday night. This would allow one more week of funding the government. But here is really the hitch that Democrats can't get past -- they're proposing $12 billion in cuts, Randi. That is actually six times the amount of cuts by week that both sides had agreed to before.

So, you have Democrats saying this is really just a partisan move to appeal to the Tea Party, and then you have Republicans saying, you know what? Actually, this is the White House that won't agree to this, and because they are saying no to this possibility, they're the ones that are really paving the way towards a government shutdown -- Randi.

KAYE: Thank you, Brianna.

And I want to bring in our Jim Acosta as well.

Jim, the president said today that the American people aren't looking to blame anyone, but there are still sticking points, no doubt about that.

Can you help us understand exactly what the problem is at this point? ACOSTA: Well, the problem at this point is that they can't agree to a deal on this current budget that has been basically put off to the sidelines for the last several months now. And you've had the Congress and the White House pass these continuing resolutions for months.

And a few things that struck me in the president's comments earlier, he said that the Speaker of the House and the House and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, will be meeting at 4:00 this afternoon, and that they did not want -- or that Speaker Boehner did not want the White House involved. So, apparently, the Speaker feels that the White House involvement at this point is not helping, and so essentially what we're going to be seeing this afternoon is a budget negotiation going on between the Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader. And the president said that those two leaders will continue to meet with each other, he will continue to call on them to meet with each other and come back to the White House starting tomorrow if they can't reach a deal.

And one thing that also struck me in the president's comments is that he did not rule out this idea of a continuing resolution. While the Democrats don't like the idea of passing another one of these continuing resolutions, the president was pressed on that during that briefing that you just heard a few moments ago, and he stopped short of ruling it out.

So there is still time to avert this shutdown at Friday at midnight if the president and both sides of Congress decide to do so. But make no mistake, we are seeing something that we have not seen in a long time, and that is all sides in Washington basically heading towards a shutdown with the clock ticking -- Randi.

KAYE: Certainly.

And Jim, let's bring back in Brianna here.

Brianna, you have a little more information on some specifics actually on the sticking points.

KEILAR: Well, just to break down, we're talking about numbers here, of course, in terms of spending cuts, and you hear a lot of the discussion around that. But we're also talking about hot-button social issues.

In terms of spending cuts, House Republicans want $61 billion in spending cuts. You keep hearing President Obama talking about, hey, we're willing to go to $33 billion, and that is obviously not enough for Republicans. But the other issue here -- and you heard Speaker Boehner refer to this -- what he called policy riders. That is kind of a wonky term, but what we're talking about is those hot-button social issues that some conservative Republicans also want. They want provisions in this, Randi, that would defend President Obama's signature health care reform plan and also Planned Parenthood. Obvious things the Democrats would not want to swallow, that they say are deal breakers. Speaker Boehner said those continue to be on the table and are also still part of the negotiations, Randi. KAYE: Well, it is interesting to know that there are still so many sticking points here how this will shake out. We will continue to watch it as the two of you will, and we will continue to keep the viewers up to date on that as well as the deadline looms this Friday, April 8th.

All right. Thank you, both.

Moving on from Washington now, just who was Malcolm X? We will tell you about a new book out today that challenges many of the popular and scholarly characterizations of the black nationalist leader. That's just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: Today marks the publication of a new book on the life of Malcolm X. The few who have seen it say it is full of new and in some cases, startling, insights. The book is "Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention." The author? The late Columbia University professor Manning Marable, On Friday, Marable died in a New York hospital from medical problems he believed he had overcome.

"The New York Times" says the book challenges both popular and scholarly portrayals of the black nationalist leader. Joining us now to talk about this new book is Georgetown University professor Michael Eric Dyson.

Thanks for being with us, Michael. But first, who is the real Malcolm X, do you think? And does this book truly redefine him?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Yes. Thank you for having me, Randi, in memory, of course, of the great Manning Marable.

The reality is this book does help us redefine him and help us get closer to the reality of who Malcolm X is. What Manning Marable has managed to do in this book is to both object to the uncritical hapeography (ph) of artful and art and advocates on one hand, but he also deal with those who dismiss Malcolm X without any kind of critical engagement.

This book helps give us a new meaning of Malcolm X. One who was not represented in autobiography, Manning Marable said the autobiography is more Alex Haley's book than it was Malcolm X's book. There were three important chapters that were left out, that that was Malcolm's evolving political and social ideology. We begin to see Malcolm as a much more complicated figure within the politics of African-American culture. Much earlier than he publicly talked about it, he gave up on the belief of whites as blue-eyed devils and he was a much more humanistic man who was interested in the international and global struggle for human rights, and not just the black freedom struggle here at home.

So, the Malcolm X we see in this book is much more complicated, much more nuanced, but I think ultimately, much more powerful human being with whom we can identify. KAYE: I want to ask about the one assertion that's made in the book that the FBI and New York City police had advance knowledge of his assassination in 1965, but actually allowed it happen and then purposely bungled the investigation. What are your thoughts on that?

DYSON: Well, look, this is what, 1965? Look at what happened with Martin Luther King Jr. when the FBI that we know knew in advance of many credible threats to Martin Luther King Jr. but refused to warn Dr. King of those threats and refused to intervene. So, why is it impossible for us to believe that with Malcolm X, even more loathed by the same group of law enforcement officials than Martin Luther King Jr. was, would be warned about his impending death?

So, that assertion makes a lot of sense to me. Manning Marable was a careful scholar who didn't make assertions without empirical evidence or at least without reasonable belief that the ideas he put forth were rooted in truth.

KAYE: And how do you think that this book and all of this new insight will be received? How do you think it should be received?

DYSON: Well, I think that it should be received with open hearts and with glad minds and open minds. The reality is that, look, we don't want to just romantically embrace a figure who has become an icon larger than life. We want to embrace a human being who is flesh and blood.

Did he have flaws? Of course he did. Did he have limitations? Yes. But was he able overcome to obstacles and surmount these impediments to become one of the legendary figure of the 20th century who, by the way, Manning Marable, calls the greatest figure produced in black America in the 20th century?

So, those who are opposing Manning Marable's revelations about some of the unsavory characteristics of Malcolm X's life missed the broader picture, that this is a human being of flesh and blood who was able to embody nonetheless the most valuable principles of African- American freedom struggle in the 20th century. And I think that this book should be widely read and heralded as the definitive autobiography on Malcolm X for many years to come.

KAYE: Well, we appreciate you chatting about that with us. Professor Michael Eric Dyson. Thank you so much for this interesting conversation.

DYSON: Thank you for having me.

KAYE: Well, it could be a script in a sci-fi thriller, but the situation is real. Debris from an old satellite is heading straight for the international space station. We will take you through what might happen, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: The severe storms that pummeled much of the South Monday night left at least eight people dead across three states. And Chad Myers is here to give us the very latest on those. They seem to still be moving around?

(WEATHER REPORT)

KAYE: There is also another serious situation happening very far from the radar here at the international space station. And what is going on?

CHAD MYERS, AMS METEROLOGIST: That is the Soyez space capsule. That right there is the international space station, ISS for short. 167 feet long, 357 feet - that's about a football field if you do all the way across from side to side - about a football field.

There is a six-feet piece of junk flying through space, because the Chinese blew up a weather satellite three-and-a-half years ago. They blew it up to see if they could blow up satellites, and they were successful. They go, wait a minute! There's 2,000 pieces of junk out there right now, and this piece of junk is flying towards the ISS.

At 3:00, they will know -- NASA will know -- and so will the Soviets -- Russians of course, if they have to move all of these guys and one woman, into this little pod.

KAYE: OK, so they have a plan.

MYERS: That is the Soyez escape pod. It's the lifeboat. They get in, they get out and then they actually go all the way back down and land on the ground. Let's hope that the ISS doesn't blow up today.

KAYE: Yes, let's hope not. OK, well, we will come back if it does. OK?

MYERS: All right.

KAYE: All right, Chad. Thank you.

MYERS: Sure.

KAYE: Meanwhile a major overhaul for Medicare and Medicaid. That is just part of a new Republican budget plan. There is plenty more in there that could impact your finances. We will break it all down for you, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: Welcome back. While both parties bicker over the 2011 budget, House Republicans unveiled their 2012 budget this morning, calling for deep cuts to spending.

So, let's take a closer look at the plan in our "Big Breakdown." All right. There we go. Let's start with this one. It calls for a total of $6.2 trillion in cuts. While many critical programs would be impacted, the GOP plan pretty much leaves defense spending and Social Security alone. And there you will see this one, one of the cornerstones of the Republican proposal is repealing the president's health care law. It would also end corporate bailouts and insure that the government won't get involved in bailouts in the future.

The plan takes aim at high profile and politically risky targets, like overhauling Medicare. The government would provide vouchers to seniors to get government-approved private health care plans going.

Then there is Medicaid for lower-income families. The government would supply block grants to states to cover those health care costs.

And on the tax front, the plan reduces the individual and corporate tax rate, dropping it from a high of 35 percent to 25 percent. It would also keep the Bush-era tax cuts in place until all tax reforms are in place.

Now, here are a few of the other interesting nuggets in the cost- cutting budget, put forth by the House Republicans. If you take a look, they would institute a federal worker attrition plan. That means that the government could one new employee for every three that retire or leaves their job. The plan also freezes federal pay until the year 2015.

There would be also time limits and work requirements put in place for the SNAP program. That's the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. Well, it replaced food stamps, you may recall. States would also face limits of how many people they could enroll in that program.

And finally, the plan would reduce fixed payments to farmers. As you can see, the proposal points to record-breaking earnings for farmers are says that they should share more of the burden on crop insurance.

A controversial budget plan in Arizona. They are planning to charge people who have packed on just a few extra pounds. Is the government overreaching? Our Stream Team weighs in, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: Governors across the country have been getting creative with their cost-cutting suggestions. In Arizona, Governor Jan Brewer is pushing a plan to tax smokers and people who are obese. She is taking aim at childless Medicaid recipients. They pay $50 a year if they smoke, $50 if they are obese and don't work with a doctor to lose weight. The same goes for people with chronic diseases like diabetes. If they don't manage the illness, $50. Brewer thinks she can save state half a billion dollars by doing this. But is this going too far?

We are putting the question to our Stream Team today. Should the government charge be able to charge you if you are overweight or if you smoke? Joining me now is Kirsten Cinema, Democrat in the Arizona house. And Michael Tanner a senior fellow in the Cato Institute in Washington.

Kirsten, let's start with you. Good idea or bad idea?

KIRSTEN CINEMA (D), ARIZONA STATE REPRESENTATIVE: Well, this is a really bad idea. For example, my own grandmother has diabetes, and it runs in my family. Now, she was a woman who lost her husband at a young age, raised tee kids and lived on a fixed income once she retired. She shouldn't be punished or have to pay a fine because she has diabetes. She works hard to take care of her diabetes, but if her doctor decides he does not like what she is doing, she could be charged this money and she just can't afford it. That is not fair.

KAYE: And Michael, do you think this is fair? Do you think this is wise choice by the governor?

MICHAEL TANNER, SENIOR FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE: I am surprised this is even controversial. All we are suggesting is that people with bad lifestyle choices have to bear some of the responsibility and some of the cost for those choices.

The only alternative would be for all of us to pay for other people's bad decisions or to have the nanny state somehow come in and regulate lifestyle for all of us. Unless we want the government to tell us what to eat and how to live, I think that we have to be willing to accept the cost of the decisions we make.

KAYE: I should probably point out that Arizona wouldn't be the first to do something like this. Alabama charges state workers 25 bucks a month if they smoke or if they are obese and don't manage it. And actually the Centers for Disease Control says Alabama has gone from the second-most obese state to the seventh-most obese since enacting this law.

So, Kirsten, I know that you said you would vote against the plan, mostly because of proposed Medicaid enrollment cuts, but are you saying that a modified plan might be OK?

CINEMA: Well, I think it's important to note that Michael is talking about individuals who have a lot of choice in the matter. But we know that there are individuals with thyroid diseases or people who are severely disabled who don't have the ability to control their weight, for instance, and this could lead to them unfairly punished. So, we have to make a real distinction between those who are making bad choices and those people like my grandma who are doing their best, but aren't perhaps not meeting all of the doctor's requirements.

(CROSSTALK)

KAYE: Yes. Finish.

CINEMA: And it is important to note that Arizona would be the first state in the country to do this with its Medicaid population. No other state has even considered this with Medicaid. And that's a grave concern, because many of these individuals have various serious health issues they may be beyond their control.

KAYE: I just want ant to ask Michael quickly, how do you enforce something like this? What do you do, send them to a weigh station somewhere? I mean, how do you keep track on who you should fine?

TANNER: Well, I'm not sure if they can make it work in practice. But in theory, all we are talking about is people bearing the cost of their own decisions. We know that a large portion of the health care is due to lifestyle. People who overeat and become obese. People who smoke. People who drink too much. And there are at lot of decisions that people make that add to the cost of health care for all of us, and asking them to bear some small portion of the cost themselves is not a big deal.

And we can certainly find ways to exempt people whose problem is not due to any lifestyle decision, but for people who choose to eat too much, why should I pay for it? Why shouldn't they?

KAYE: Kirsten, 20 seconds final word.

CINEMA: Well, you know, Michael makes an important point. He said in theory this should work. And that works when you're at the Cato Institute. But I'm in a state senator, and I work in real life. We actually have to implement this. And it just won't be fair to people like my grandma.

KAYE: All right. We'll have to leave it there. Kirsten, Michael, appreciate your time. Thank you.

CINEMA: Thank you.

KAYE: And we want to know what you think about this proposed tax. So, join the conservation on our blog, CNN.com/ali. You can also post on Ali's Facebook and Twitter pages. A lot of the folks want to comment on this.

You can post on my Facebook and Twitter page as well. We'd love to know what you think of this proposed tax.

Quite a scene in Toronto. Coming up in my "XYZ," I will talk about the point that these women are trying to make.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: Time now for my "XYZ."

And today we go to Toronto for what organizers call a "slut walk." And yes, the pictures say it all. The women marching around in fishnets and stilettos, hundreds of them in all, self-proclaimed sluts. Marching through the streets of downtown Toronto.

Now, before you make a judgment, here's what you need to know. A couple of months back, a police officer in Toronto spoke at a safety forum at the York University's Osgood Hall Law School. The officer, Michael Sanguinetti, told the class that, quote, "Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order to not be victimized." Yes, he really said that. He actually suggested that women could avoid sexual assault by not dressing provocatively or slutty.

So, these women are sending him a message: that is not how it works. That it has nothing to do with what they wear. Sure, the officer apologized to the university, and he was disciplined internally, but he's still on the job. His department was quick to condemn his comments and explain that is not what the officers are taught about sexual assault.

In a statement sent to the Slut Walk organizers and media last Friday, the chief Bill Blair said that the remarks, quote, "place the blame upon victims, and that is not where the blame should ever be blamed." But or but the organizers made it clear Sunday that they are not satisfied with the response. Organizers want police to restructure training and education and improve public outreach programs with an emphasis on rape myths. Organizers also invited police to come speak at the Slut Walk. They declined. Shocker.

And by the way, if you feel strongly about this issue, there are more slut walks planned in other cities, including Vancouver, Ottawa, and Boston. So, pack your fishnet stockings and let your voices be heard.

CNN NEWSROOM continues right now with Brooke Baldwin.

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Randi Kaye, thank you.