getting the opportunity to talk to you. [applause] >> thank you so much.u re we cannot do without you and i am with rolled our next speaker is a scholar anda author and and manager fritter florissant joke gainp and one it has a strategy

firm based in washington d.c. and is best known for her advocacy and analysis of health care issues come income security, education and civic and gays ran and. >> black entertainment tv and alan jazeera. dr. more latest book is called the political action handbook and how to guide for the hip-hop yes. called a hard hitting step-by-step analysis of what it takes to become politically active for ago put them to provide strategic leadership for nonprofit organizations like the alliance for accent is ac

shushan but she serves on the board at the national committee to preserve social security and medicare. [applause] . .a member of the delta sigma theta sorority. please welcome maya rocymore. [applause] >> moore terry. i appreciate the invitation, and i am especially thrilled to be here before the national organization of women. [inaudible] for women. excuse me. i want to follow-up with sara and sending olga and sonya and

also patricia schroeder for her leadership. [applause] for laying down the foundation we all stand on. and so it is that when i was in graduate school i actually taught in the women's studies department in addition to being a political science student. so i taught multiculturalism, women in politics, and through that process, i became an activist if you would come and there was a group of us who were really engaged in really standing up. we organized take back to the -- take back the night marches and we got various people to come on campus to talk to us about women's issues. we even organize our own protest

movement, okay? so one day we heard a woman had been assaulted in a frat house off-campus so we were sitting together in the room talking about the injustice of it all and how the women's assault issues are taken over by universities that don't want to acknowledge violence against women on campus is etc, violence in general but especially against women and to take matters into our own hands and we actually coordinated a commander of operation. we decided to meet -- we developed the plan and got our cardboard boxes and cut out a little letter and get that today and in the morning and some was postponed one corner to another post on the other, they were watching out for the cops and we got our stencils and we snockered up to the frat house

and we stenciled on the wall of the garage "a great disk lives here." [cheering] [applause] -- "a rapist lives here." in the past three years or so, i have been having fantasies about doing a commando operation on the capitol. [applause] and you know how the shrink-wrap buses that have a sign on them i have a fantasy of coming to the capitol and shrink wrapping it and putting a sign across it that says misogynist work here. [applause] [cheering] now what do i mean by that? how many of you have heard of paul ryan? is anybody from wisconsin in here? all right.

this is pretty cool. he recently introduced in the house and the senate considered a bill focused on the wrong and plan and the ryan plan said listen, we are facing as a nation a budget crisis and guess what, we can't afford -- we can't afford -- jr saying let's raise taxes on the wealthy who can afford to pay their fair share of what's going on in this country where are they paying their fair share in terms of making us the alleviating budgetary problems we are facing? instead of doing that, he said let us redo -- in fact that us eliminate medicare as we know it. let us create a black grant program for medicaid and let us, for all older people let's give them a voucher, about $13,000 where they can go and try to

find medical care. i don't know about you, but let's 65 or older you have heart disease, you might have any number a provider in this country who's going to provide you with all the medicare that you need come all the medical care you need for $13,000. but what they are doing is basically trying to de construct and actually destroy the social safety net, the social infrastructure system as we know it, and that is unacceptable. [applause] that is unacceptable. there's been bills introduced introduced recently by prominent republicans in the house to go back to the old proposal of partially privatizing the social security program.

when the women here medicare, social security, medicaid, women in general are not hearing these are gender issues. these are gender issues. why is that the case? when you are looking at the older age population guess who lives longer, ladies. that means we are represented disproportionately a moment of those dependent on medicare programs. when it comes to women and their children who are low-income guess who's disproportionately represented in that, ladies. women who are the caretakers and primary caretakers of the children, so medicaid is a woman's issue. when it comes to social security, it is a women's issue and this is why. social security is an old age

problem, it's a disability program and it's a survivor program. now i already told you that when men are disproportionately among those who are older age because we live longer periods of the retirement benefits under social security are incredibly, incredibly important to us. disability the net or important to us as well. the survivor benefits, because we are often left with children and another breadwinner dies leaving us with children to take care of social security providing life insurance benefits to our dependent children, and our households actually benefit disproportionately from that. in fact, when you look at social security across the board, women and their children are a majority of those receiving social security benefits. but when you hear that they want to privatize or cut social security in any way, know that it's a direct threat to hugh? women. okay. why isn't it ironic that women

are not responsible, certainly, for taking our economy over the cliff but there were not any women who were the head of the universe or the international companies that kind of did what they did to the housing market and also do what they did in terms of all these strata evidence and everything else but when it comes to having to pay for it is it not an acceptable the first thing that you're going after the programs important to the women in their families to be i think it is unacceptable. and so we also have another situation going on. not only is it the assault on the social insurance programs that person's important to our families, it's also the cuts they're talking about to the feeding program. it's the assault on unions. many of them are provisions disproportionately represented by women like teachers. it certainly also -- i want to expand the notion of the public goods by looking at even asking you to pay attention to what's

happening in the public education and certainly the squeeze placed on the families in terms of rising food and gas prices. now, it's also ironic that we know the wages have been stagnating for the middle class and the rest of america for quite some time that the rich have been getting richer and the wages for the rest of us have been stagnating, okay? it's ironic that stagnation has happened as the women have become a larger portion of the work force and of course if you are a conspiracy theorist what was the quote, you know it probably is. they are out to get you. if there is a conspiracy in this i certainly think that that is not coincidental. we know about the feminization of poverty but we also see the feminist u.s. economy. so what do you do when all of the economic forces are lined

against your success and well-being? when the people in power currently are seeking to destroy the things that have made the country so great for the past century what do we do as a country? the title of the session is beyond the war on a whim and a feminist vision for a just society and i would like to pause at several things. one is something you absolutely already know, and that is that we have to have and have to strengthen our agenda and it is an economic and social justice agenda. so one of the tenants of that agenda, one of them is when you are talking about tax cuts we have to say no. it is a zero sum game. [applause] that policy should be part of a

feminist agenda. when they are talking about taxes, giving tax breaks to the wealthy know that it's a zero sum game because as soon as you allow the break they will turn around and say we need to take it from somewhere else and that's where the threat to the program rely on come from so we have to have an expanded notion of economic justice the requires wealthy corporations and individuals to pay their fair and we need to take a stand on that. [applause] and you know, -- [applause] they say americans coming in the coming year aspirational, if you're poor, middle class, you ought to be wealthy one day, so we don't really have the guts as an american society to really go after the wealthy. we don't believe in class

warfare. i want to tell you this, if you're losing your home, if you can't pay your bills, if you have no food on your table, if you have no clothes to wear, then you certainly believe -- and if you know that the policies are in place to go after everything that would support you but then protect those who have everything in this world that something is wrong and we have to step up and do something about it. [applause] we need to put pressure on corporations, we need to operate not only as voters but also shareholders putting pressure on corporations to go after excessive executive compensation. we need to have enlightened leadership. no of course i know that with a series and literature that women bring a different type of leadership.

i would beg to differ. it depends. i've worked for women who have been wonderful leaders and i've worked for leaders to act like men. so when we talk about the enlightened leadership, first we are talking about both men and women. that they have to be enlightened to understand the importance of gender dynamics, but we also can give a path to making sure that women in our leadership can keep and maintain the notion of a public good and that we operationalize that how we interact with each other and certainly lead our organizations. the last thing i want to say because my time is up and i have a whole lot to say that the economic and social justice and a practice political party engagement, so that means that it's never time to sit down just as soon as you win one battle

the next battle begins. you either have to strengthen and protect what you have already won or you have to expand the agenda to go after other pieces of the agenda that hasn't yet risen to the top of the public profile. and so with that, that means that warriors like yourself, like ourselves can never rest. we have to keep going and that also means we have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interest. [applause] and so with no disrespect to the president of the united states of america, i supported him and i will support him in the next election given the lack of other options, but we absolutely have to maintain and hold their feet to the fire to do the right thing. [applause] and that does not mean being polite, that doesn't mean being polite. sometimes it means speaking the truth to power, sometimes it

means stepping up saying what do you think? sometimes it means calling and instantly saying you need to do the right thing. the reason i'm worried about that right now is because president obama has just stepped into this debate of and the debt ceiling. the republicans want to take the country over a cliff yet again and they want to do it by basically destroying the full faith and credit of the u.s. currency of the dollar by basically making us desalt. the president stepped up to the party and is going to directly into the negotiation. we know the president likes to be liked. and we also know that he's very sensitive to criticism for the other side and also leads to him actually getting enrolled in any negotiations we serve in the form. so i would argue that we are at a moment here. social security is under threat,

medicare is under threat, medicaid is under threat, a union bargaining is under threat. you name it we are at 80 moment we need to a rise or fall and that means we need our leaders to be strong but it is going to take you to make these leaders stay strong and that means holding the democrats to the fire and that also means being in the face of the republicans. thank you. [applause] [cheering] [applause]

>> i've heard maya rocymore speak before and she does not disappoint. thank you so much. for your words. [cheering] >> i think that sam bennett has already had to leave but definitely her name is maya rokeymoore. gough longline to sheshouldrun.org. [applause] i am absolutely thrilled to introduce next a woman who has opened so many doors for so many women. we have a point of personal privilege, yes, marion.

[inaudible] >> my name is marion weather.com indianapolis, indiana. next to me is stephanie of washington, d.c.. this year stephanie and i both became breast cancer survivors. on behalf of stephanie and i and other breast cancer survivors in the room and now across the country and across the world we want to thank patricia schroeder for saving our lives. [applause] >> my name is stephanie and i'm

surviving breast cancer. some two months ago i was diagnosed with stage 1 breast cancer but because of the stellar work of this woman before you, i and thousands of other women have a new lease on life. in 1993i believe in addition to various other pieces of astounding legislation, patricia schroeder was the driving force behind the women's health equity act, and also, i hope i get this long name right, the cervical and breast cancer mortality prevention act. who got it out. the determination of these two bills and other things patricia schroeder did have in fact made it presented its breast cancer

and cervical cancer screenings available to hundreds of women who have limited financial resources and in fact most astoundingly directed the dramatic change in the way that the national institutes of health did research on women because of course historical the they had done research on women's disease such as breast cancer and many others including the high incidence of lung cancer to my older sister among the women who never smoked. who did they do that research on? it was men and they were researching women's diseases on the mn. thank you. knute testing has been developed such as the test which i just had a mere 4,000-dollar tested but, you know actually it's a kind of good company that does that. anyway, so -- [laughter] we are here. thank you.

>> i cannot think of a better introduction for congresswoman patricia schroeder than that. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. my goodness. that was very moving. i also want thank albany for scheduling that wonderful vote

right here. [applause] to [cheering] what we have to remember is you keep working and sometimes it works. i also want to apologize to the woman over here the sheriff for an hour now and my sticker won't stay. >> i'm sorry i meant equal rights amendment. my sticker will stay on. >> we almost didn't have her come. she said she couldn't. i said what the heck you're on the agenda, and she said that engagement was changed. any we come here i am. anyway, thank you. equal rights will ever come to florida, but us help. [applause] >> i have this terrible problem

i made a mistake and i moved from colorado to florida to years ago and then i discovered what kind of a government we have down here. [laughter] you may notice i do have my pink uterus but then on and for those of you -- [applause] those of you who don't know, i was totally flattened when the speaker of the house told an assembly scott randolph from orlando, where i live, what he did is he sat on the floor of the legislature and he said i have told my wife that if she really wants to be saved in this state on reproductive health she should incorporate her uterus because republicans never go after corporations. >> he should be disciplined for using the uterus word on the

floor. some people on the floor are you wearing uterus buttons. but it only further is what this wonderful woman says about the war on women that is going on in the house none of this that is going on and legislatures of around this country and they are trying to push us back as far as they can and if they can get as economically dependent that's what this is all about. they really want to pull us back in and get us back in there. the whole group of will lead the male has to be the dog had. you know that whole thing. it just scares me but they are all over the place and they are on the hill. they are part of that family group, remember? and so it is a real concerning thing that this is happening. and i also want to underline

what she's saying because i think many of the democrats that we know and love are suffering from the sun from. [applause] this is america. we send them trying to explain but she did it again, a $20 million funded campaign already against all these democrats including the president, it goes forever until they get it all and they are getting close to getting it all. but the good thing is then they have the money for the people and that is what we've really got to talk about tonight. [applause]

there's so many things i want to say. we now have the splint slips and i can go on and on and i want to thank all of you who have worked for the equal rights movement and have rocks thrown at us and have been called everything we can, and then we get to stand there and watch urning for those open doors the pro-life people hockey mom and wonder what in the world we were doing. now, i got into trouble with the press because someone said what do you think of sarah palin? [laughter] and i said well, about the same as i thought as phyllis schlafly and others like her. [applause] but i said the one thing we know is when you were to push open

the doors you don't get to control who runs through. we are opening the for everyone. and they've really shown their ill manners. they've never stopped and said think you nor have they tried to open the door for one more person, so we kind of know who they are and we have the right to point out. and there is some good news that came out of that. think about this. if we can get more women running and we ever hear any of those cultural or years of their attacking working moms, you can put in there not because they aren't defending little sarah. they're all out defending her working as a cultural war your. they also kept talking about how she was being harmed by six is

on which i thought was hysterical. i loved watching those conservative commentators talking about sex is on and poor little sarah. period is really that is quite interesting. and the other thing i thought was quite interesting is they were talking about the daughter's pregnancy as a challenge. really? they did have to do a little twisting as they tried to get from that but i must say the rest of it is total badness. we have about women out there that, well, i don't know what they are, but you're absolutely right, we have to look at the leaders that are standing for the right values and there are many people my wonderful friend, god love her, gerry ferraro.

she lost because the red next i'm not going to vote for her because she's a woman. it's the guys are going to let them in the club or what was going on because the guys were not going to let them but invariably they went over and said i'm happy to hear you say that because i had said that they would have said i was a sexist. and i think my gosh, aren't be proud of ourselves how we stand together here and i do think that is one of the problems we have to learn to stand together so much more we have in the past [applause] now, here is the amazing thing. we women are the sleeping giant in this country, we really are. if you look at the obama election in 2008, she carried

the man 49-48%. over one sliver. among women it was 56. you have 56% of the women and lost 43%. what happened in 2010? we stayed home. we heard about health care and about part stupak remember that wonderful family member, and we heard a lot of our space friends one more time say to women you've got to take one for the team. it is a team they never let us play on until it is time to take one and then it's okay you can come off the bench now you're going to take one for the team. wait a minute. i wanted to play on the team before i had to take one for the team. [applause] >> and women were just so

doggone angry about it that they just didn't bother and it was hard to go out. but look what happens. and i am telling you we cannot let that happen again. and we cannot let the perfect the enemy of just getting by. now, what i think we really have to do is leave here and i will commit to have everybody go outside and find women that you can really work on and make sure to get to the polls. i will tell you something about this state that made me cry. i literally was out registering people in the state, and the third time this happened i was just devastated. the first time i thought somebody is a little nuts. the second time i thought hmm, that did it. what happened is i would not and

say you should register. it's important. honey, you're not from here are you? i said no, you can tell from my axson and not from florida but i live here now and blah blah blah. she said if you were from here you would know it makes no difference because the account our votes -- they don't count our votes in florida. [laughter] [applause] you know, there's a lot of people thinking that. so we've got to get out and they are doing everything they can to take the votes away from us. they really are. i could go on and on to the i know we are looking at the line of sight. but my answer to stupak and these people talking about don't fund planned parenthood or contraceptive, people have to get a special rider they can buy their own writer for that. we won't have it in health care. okay then let's put men's viagra, the vasectomy, the macho

men who won't wear helmets of a motorcycle, let's get them a little better for that, too, show them equal rights. [applause] i'm going to quit because i could go on for four hours but just remember if your dreams are not big enough and they scare you, then they are not big enough to beat the dreams of dhaka to scare you and we have to dream about when we are really on the team and when we are really on the team we may take one for the team occasionally. only when it is our turn. but if they are not letting us on the team we can't take it anymore, and the fact that this is really serious, this whole thing about social security, about health care, all of this could come unraveled, and these dharma courts the decision and all was that, these are all impacting women and children and all of the cuts are women and

children that is not the america that i am a part of. so, when in, people were going to tell you ten reasons they are mad they don't want to go vote, just tell them get mad and go vote. but the real reason to go vote, or you will not believe how bad your next time. thank you for everything you've been doing. thank you. thank you. [applause] [cheering] cheering]

"washington journal" continues. host: this is david keating, executive director of the club for growth, which is what? guest: it's a group advocating policies that help create economic growth, things like limited government, economic freedom, low taxes, free trade, low inflation. host: you probably saw we've been having a pretty robust discussion with the audience this morning about the state of the american dream. how would you assess it?

guest: i would say a lot of people think things are looking like a nightmare for their family. host: what do you think? guest: look, i think there are a lot of positives in this country. i don't think, for all the flaws we have, we're the greatest country in the world. we have a great mix of people who have come to this country. almost everyone that's here has come voluntarily, and i think that's the one thing that gives us real strength. we have a good rule of law generally in the united states. we have pretty sound government overall compared to the rest of the world, so there are a huge number of positives here. and we have a lot more freedom than around the world. so i think the real pluses of america are the people, the freedoms that we have, and the ability to innovate, and that's what has made america great for so long. host: as you know, washington is tied up in knots this summer over the looming debt ceiling deadline. guest: right. host: i saw that article from "usa today." one of many you see raising the

question of what would happen if we reached the debt ceiling and no deal is reached. would you talk about how significant this debt ceiling question is and why or why not. guest: actually, i think it's quite a puzzling question. it's probably the most important legislative issue this congress will face during the two years. it will probably set up the debate about which direction the country wants to go in in the 2012 elections. so i think it's going to be really fundamental. the basic question is, are we going to continue on the path that we're on. everyone recognizes there are a couple of key problems. one is our economy is not growing fast enough, so we need to pursue policies to expand the economy. and second, all the budget projections by the c.b.o. outside experts show that we have past programs that are unsustainable in the long run, and if we don't do something

about this, the country eventually will weaned up in a situation like greece, where we won't be able to afford the debts that we're racking up. it's a very important question. they're not going to solve everything as part of this debt ceiling debate, but they can set up some parameters to put the country in the right direction or not. host: we've heard a number of people make the observation that, on one level, the entire conversation in washington has changed, that people are beginning to think seriously about how much government, the country can afford, etc., a way to cut rather than looking for programs to expand. do you believe that there has been a change in tone in the city? guest: it's actually remarkable in many, many ways. you have the discussion really now today is, how much government spending can be cut, how much should it be limited, the growth of government. these are discussions that have not been seen in the past. a few weeks ago, the senate, by

a large bipartisan vote, voted to end the subsidy for ethanol and allow ethanol to be imported without a special tax on it. that was an unprecedented vote. even the aarp has recognized publicly that changes need to be made to social security in the future. so these are -- they're kind of like preshocks for a political earthquake. clearly there's going to be a change in direction. but i don't think anyone knows the answer to how it's going to turn out. host: we will open up our phone lines, and you can also reach us by to witter and by email as the conversation proceeds with david keating. we'd like your questions or comments for him. we'll go to phone calls in just a couple of minutes. you heard a number of people call us during the last segment, concerned about the ex-ploy -- exportation of american jobs overeast. i wonder what your opinion is about free trade deals and what role they have played in

bolstering the economy or exporting jobs. guest: there's no doubt that free trade is something that has bolstered the economy here in the u.s. one way of looking at this, to make it easier to understand, is that the united states, one of the geniuses of the constitution and the founding fathers, when they designed the new united states of america was that we would have a free trade inside the united states. so new york couldn't put on special tariffs or import quotas for products shipped from, say, virginia, and vice versa. so we've had a free trade zone here in the united states for the entire time of our country, and it's one of the things that's made our country great. the people in each state are able to do what they do best, and when everyone's able to do what they can do best and most sufficiently, everyone's going to be better off. now, that doesn't mean every person at every time is going to be better off, but as a whole, as a nation, indeed, as a world economy, we're all

going to be richer for it. host: with regard to negotiations about the budget and debt ceiling, our first guest suggested that senate republicans are beginning to signal that there is some opening for discussion of tax increases in various individual programs, not so much looking at overall increases in the marginal rate, but finding ways to increase taxes -- say, for example, the corporate jet tax. do you have a line in the sand about taxes? guest: well, look, we think that the key is to get tax rates down, and that is one of the keys to economic growth. we have a tax code where, whenever you mack a major decision, whether an individual or a company, you would be foolish if you didn't consider the tax consequences. . instead of maximizing the best investment to get the highest return on your money, people sit around and figure, well, what will the tax code get me

in addition to what i might get from the investment? so we spend a lot of time figuring out how the benefits of the tax code instead of what makes sense economically. so the extent we can watch the tax rates and lower some of these tax codes, we can get more economic growth. that's the solution for the long run. you have to look at countries -- the countries doing well are the ones that can afford the programs that a lot of supporters and congress might want. if we don't have the economic growth, we're going to be fighting over a smaller pie rather than something where everyone's benefiting in the country. host: before we go to calls, i want to talk about the attitude in washington changing. when congress comes back, the defense appropriations will be on the table. first of all, this is "washington post" this morning, pentagon costs are rising quickly. healthcare expense have outpaced those elsewhere. the c.b.o. projected on

thursday that higher costs for weapons systems and healthcare will increase the pentagon budget by $40 billion over the next five years, at a time when president obama and many lawmakers are looking to cut military spending. that's item one. item two, this morning in the opinion page of the "wall street journal," the whole top half of the page, donald rumsfeld, the peril of deep defense cuts is his piece, and he argues why all those suggesting that earmarks are a potential target among others. then in the "washington times" today, winslow wheeler, we've had him on our program before, defense appropriations, pork and gimmicks as usual. democrats and republicans alike pretend that austerity is the new rule. here's what he writes, it's a $649 billion bill close to another post-world war ii high, pretending reform and frugality, members of the house appropriations committee, democrats and republicans alike, have packed the bill with pork and gimmicks. the bill would spend $17

billion more than last year, but the house is calling it a cut because it's less than the original request president obama sent to congress in february. what's your reaction to all that? guest: well, i would not be surprised if there's plenty of pork in the defense appropriations bill. i mean, that's been a grand tradition for many years. i remember even ted kennedy, who was generally an opponent of defense spending, as long as the bomber was in part made in massachusetts, he was for that bomber. that's something politics as usual hasn't changed in all departments of washington, and the defense budget is one where you've seen ear marks historically. >> getting back to the earlier conversation, people are beginning to talk about cuts, but they're still safe? guest: well, look, i think part of this is, the committee realizes the big fight's going going to be over the debt ceiling limit. that's where the hard negotiations are going to be put out.

and then they will probably be given a new number, and they'll have to revisit that bill that they've worked on in committee and meet the new number. so if that's what happens, it's probably a good thing. host: so first things first. guest: look, here's what each department or each function of government is going to be getting, and then work out what you think you can get, the most bang for the buck, so to speak. host: let's get to calls for you. we're going to begin with a call from los angeles. michelle is a democrat there. you're on for david keating of the club for growth. caller: given that you made the comments about the republican candidate mitt romney has developed an unshakable reputation as a flip-flop per uses federal powers to coerce taxpayers, and tim pawlenty is hard to pin down, who do you

like? guest: well, what the club for we haveohas been doing, published a series of white papers on many of the presidential candidates, all of those that have declared publicly that they ought are going to be running for office. the club has a political action committee. we have not made a decision about which candidates to endorse and we may not endorse any candidate for president. we have made three endorsement already for u.s. senate candidates. jeff blake in arizona. in the house, steve king for representative in iowa. we are going to analyze all of the presidential candidates. there may be some that we will declare, and if we do we will publish a white paper on them,

too. a republican of michigan -- that will make him the third sitting member of the house tossing his hat into the ring. he opted not to run for a third term last year. do you have any early reactions to his entry? guest: we plan to publish a white paper on his record and i do not think it is going to be all that complementary. we think it is great that people are putting their hat into the ring and giving voters a choice. we look forward to what his platform is in running a presidential campaign. host: what do you think the main theme of the presidential election will be? guest: what we are going to do to help grow the economy. two, we have an unsustainable budget for the future, so what

is going to be done with that? so this is something that will be decided in the 2012 election. the control over the house and senate is going to be up for grabs. part of the debate should be should we solve these problems with massively higher taxes? you cannot pay for all of these programs by taxing the top 1% or 2%. or are we going to limit the growth and try to make the economy grow? host: next up, ketith is a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. on this tsa -- doesn't anybody realize we have enough law enforcement agencies from all of the state's that have local

police, state police, county police? these officers and these ex military -- they should put the tsa out of business because we have enough people in the united states because these law enforcement agencies when one gets on a plane, they are authorized to carry weapons. they are trained in them. when they get on the plane, they can give them rubber bullets. when they get off the plane, they could be given their lead bullets back. it is an intrusion on the american people privacy. that would be a good place to start. host: thank you. cutting the government by cutting the tsa. i do not know how much

we spend on the tsa. the question is probably how best can it be done and at the lowest cost as well? whether it is the current tsa or we have the airports or the airlines do it, i do not know but i suspect we could probably make some deficiencies there, too. host: ted is an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i think the jobs in the usa were cut because of jobs and wages. these are rich corporations and individuals do not like to pay decent wages and taxes, so they moved to china, japan, taiwan, wherever, korea. they are greedy and they are

getting rich. the people that are left are still on employment. i think we need to put a moratorium on those boats that last year with taxes and wages because this country runs on taxes and wages. if we put a moratorium on them to not let them send their goods and services back here and pay for, you know? then the government can help people that really need it, the ones that are drawing unemployment and the ones who know how to create these things and do it. let them create the jobs. they are taxpayers and they believe in good wages. let's quit handing it out to wall street, the banks, and the top 2%. just everything with the oil companies and the subsidies and

the places that they do not need to go. everybody knows what is wrong. all it is is a bunch of stiff- necked republicans and democrats that do not want to do what is right. guest: there is a lot there. i would start by saying i would agree that there are tax policies making it more difficult for our companies and our workers to be competitive in the international market. one of the things we can do is lower the tax rates that are corporations have to pay in the united states and we can be more competitive overseas. a lot of our companies are operating not only here in the united states but also overseas. when they make a profit overseas, they have to pay an additional tax on those profits. so the companies have an incentive to keep the profits that they have made overseas rather than bring it back to the united states.

i think if we lowered that tax, a lot of these companies would like to invest that money in the united states. recommendingcomment the rule that is put on these other countries. that would start a trade war. if you are not going to take products from our country, we are not going to take products from your country. we export a lot from the united states. we make some of the finest aircraft in the world. many airlines are using boeing equipment. i would not be surprised if you would see other countries not allowing boeing equipment to be sold in their countries or buy u.s. agricultural products. caterpillar manufactures a lot of earth moving equipment and construction equipment that is

very popular around the world. a trade war is something like many wars, everyone is going to it.ud up poorer because of host: let's listen to senator harry reid talk about the budget negotiations. >> why have we done this? why have we pointed out these individual tax breaks,? you add them together, they are worth tens of billions of dollars. iso appreciate my colleagues going down to the floor and laying out to the american public what we are talking about. guest: that is something i said earlier in the program. we have a tax code that is inefficient. host: so you agree with him.

guest: what he wants to do is collect the money so they can spend more. these tax breaks are making our tax laws very inefficient and complicated. " we need to do is spur economic growth in this country. get rid of the tax breaks, lower the tax rates so people are not making decisions based on what the tax code says it. host: the next telephone call comes from cleveland. loretta is a democrat. caller: mr. david keating, i want to change the conversation and bring it back on shore. my topic this morning is the deal, the bribe, the agreement, the pact, call it what you want, that the republicans in congress have made with grover

norquitz. taxes pay for the cost of government. this deal, agreement, whatever it is, that the republicans signed with norquitz, -- my question to you is the oath that congress signed -- is it to the people or norquitz? is this illegal? there should be an investigation on him. republicans say they are against a bailout, but they are for tax cuts and they fail to realize that tax cuts are mini bailouts. all of those bailouts -- $4 billion for the oil companies,

$3.50 trillion went for jobs under the bush administration, and we did not get jobs. we got outsourced. i want to know when are the republicans going to be responsible for what they are doing to the country. thank you. guest: i think the original dge by n was this pleg grover norquist. like many groups, there are tons of groups out there that circulate pledges. basically, it says that both republicans and democrats to sign it to say they will not vote to raise income tax rates, nor will they vote to reduce income taxes and credits unless those reductions are offset by

tax rate deductions. that is the pledge that he asked candidates to sign eight. other groups circulate other pledges on social security, abortion, the environment. these things are a part of the candidate's platform when they run, and the voters decide whether they want to send these people to congress or not. i do not see anything illegal about the pledges. grover has not agree to give money to their campaign if they sign it. i believe his organization does not even have a political action committee. i think the pledges are entirely legal and is something that is a part of politics. host: you might be interested in an op ed from the governor of massachusetts. the headline is --

mike on twitter wants to go back to the debate -- guest: there is no evidence of that. i would point to the prosperity of the united states. we have had a free trade zone, and everyone accepts it is a good idea. certain states were seen as having certain advantages over others. another thing that i'd like to point out to people is we are all best at doing something, either individually or as a country or as a corporation. we would not want to pass a law that says only bananas could be grown in minnesota. bananas can be grown in minnesota but they cannot be

grown very efficiently or cheaply. that is a simple example. yes, we could grow bananas and minnesota, but we do not want to do that because we would all be poorer because of its. host: this message also from twitter -- guest: yeah, i think that was something i said earlier. it would help the economy grow faster. i think that is one of the keys to solving our budget problem and is actually crucial. one way to grow the economy is to get the tax rate down. corporations would make investments based on how they can grow jobs instead of balancing the tax considerations. host: of maryland, you are up

next to my duty is a republican critic caller: good morning. i love c-span as always. i am very concerned because i think we are being led by charlatans and magicians. there was an article in the washington post this morning about bank fraud. every day, every day, repeated the, we read about fraud in afghanistan, iraq, pakistan, and now the congress wants us, after giving away our jobs, not fair trade, free trade agreements -- now they want to go back and give them away with korea. i cannot believe the direction that this country has gone in. we keep talking about corporate tax rates. that is the key word. "rate."

they are not paying 35%. they are paying 4%, 6%, 9%, and i am making up the difference. the irs is after a relative of mine who lost their job. they owe them $5,000. karzei and his brother have walked off with billions of dollars and our congress cannot seem to stop it. guest: well, there is a lot there. obviously, a lot of these countries, and it is very disappointing to see fraud and hopefully over time it will go down, i do not want to make any excuses for it because there are no excuses for that activity. a lot of these countries do not have the same developed a rule of law that we have over here. even in our country, there have

been instances of fraud and bribery and things like that. there were huge problems in its new jersey and in the past. in illinois, rod blagojevich is it going off to jail unless he wins his appeal. clearly, fraud is something that goes with politics and government. hopefully, we can cut it to the most extent possible. you also said something about the trade agreements. here in the united states, we did not impose any import restrictions on products from the central american free-trade agreement countries. and no import quotas or tariffs. at that agreement, those countries to lower their taxes or any restrictions they had on

u.s. products. it was a total win for the united states. the same thing for the columbia free trade agreement. we have no import taxes. this trade agreement would make it easier for u.s. products to be shipped. host: jimmy on twitter asks -- guest: well, i think tim pawlenty got it right when he said we should have a goal in the 45% growth. i do not think we can make their goal every year but it is a good goal to have. let's have everyone come up with the best ideas we can to get our economy growing as fast as we can. what was the second part of the question? host: about energy costs.

guest: energy costs will impact our competitiveness around the world. if we could figure out a way to provide energy more efficiently in the united states, that would give us an advantage over other countries. host: next up is fort worth, a democrat. caller: your comparison of trade agreements between the states and the trade agreements between other countries does not make an ounce of sense because we live in the united states and what these companies have done it is at last the united states and then come back to us using cheaper labor. how in the world is that fair? it is just frustrating to me to see that you are sitting there talking about how good freed

trade is for us when 300 million of us cannot buy anything in this country for our households made in the united states or very rarely. he would have to search for days just to find a coffee pot. how do you justify comparing the two things between the states and other countries? besides that, this thing is just frustrating to me. how people like you can sit there and talk like this. the only trade agreements that we have made it that made any sense was nafta, between north america, canada, mexico, and south america in our own time zone. the rest of it does not make any

kind of sense. guest: at the time, nafta was very controversial. the same arguments were made. there was an argument that all of the american jobs were going to go to mexico. it turned out not to be the case at all. joanne believes that nafta has been a good thing, and it has been, not only to the u.s. but the other countries that have signed onto it. earlier when you talk about a free trade zone for the entire unit states, that was something that had some controversy at the time and a certain states were seen as having advantages over the others. it worked. we had a free-trade zone in the united states. we have a free trade zone with canada and mexico. it is going to work for all of us if we have free trade zones

with other countries as well. that is not to say that there will not be problems. there will be dislocations as adjustments are made, but over the long run, it is going to make us richer in the united states and people richer all over the world. people trying to make a living in other countries, i think it is good that they get out of poverty as well. the final point i would make is if we start this trade war and decide that we are not going to take products from other countries, we are going to massively and not only to lose jobs from exports closed off but prices will soar in the united states. it will be hard to secure these other products that are made overseas and we will see sharply higher prices. host: i want to tell you about our guest as we wrap up our time

with him. prior to his position as the executive director of the club for growth, he was a senior executive in washington director. he served on the national commission of a restructuring of the irs. how did you get so interested in tax policy as a career? guest: that is a good question. i guess a came partly through my studies in college and after college. i spent a lot of time reading up on economics. i really do believe that economic freedom is a key component of freedom. and the national taxpayers union was a place that i had got a lot of attention for working for rights and lower taxes. i thought it would be a great place to work. it was very interesting. i was able to do a lot of things there and with supporters on

capitol hill. i also remember working on other things such as passage of the taxpayers' bill of rights, adding indexing to the reagan tax cuts in 1981, and that has made a huge difference over time. in the debate of how taxes will be handled by congress. it has been very interesting. host: a twitter user asks this question -- guest: well, actually, they are not the lowest in 60 years. after 1986, there was a bipartisan tax reform act with the income tax rate was 28%. today, the top rates are in the high 30's for income tax alone. the rates are close to 40%. if you count taxes at the state

and local level, in many places, it is higher than that. if you look at when the country has grown and done particularly well, it is when we have lower tax rates. host: michael is an independent. good morning. caller: there are a couple of things isee go on. that is our constitution -- if washington and jefferson were alive today with abraham lincoln and the assault of the mess we were in, what with a really say? and they would be shocked why we are in this in the first place. guest: i agree. we have not talked about this this morning, but one of the items up for debate on this debt ceiling is the idea of a balanced budget amendment. thomas jefferson wrote about a

single amendment that he would like to add to the constitution, and that was a balanced budget amendment because he thought it was important to secure the financial security of the country in the future. i think he was right. interestingly, a lot of the states have adopted restrictions on its debts or deficits. while some states are in bad shape financially, some of them have a weaker balanced budget rules, by and large, the state finances are on sounder footing than the finances at the federal level. what is the difference? do we have a better quality of politicians at the state level? i think some of them would argue that we do. i do not think we have much of a difference. barack obama used to serve in the illinois legislature. the difference is we have a different set of rules at the

state level and we have no limits at the national level. so i think it makes sense to have a balanced budget requirement. i think thomas jefferson would of said, "see? i told you so." caller: i think the whole thing it stems from democrat jealousy of almost everybody that makes it in america because we all know democrats are leeches that sock on the rest of us. people who earned their money work for it and people like obama say you did not earn this money, it is my money. we always hear this jealousy about corporations and rich people from democrats because they are such losers. they cannot seem to run a corporation. we just saw the economic collapse.

they are all crooks just like obama and clinton. guest: i cannot agree with a lot of those sentiments. there are many people who run businesses that are democrats as well as republicans. i do not think people's political outlooks has anything to do with how they can run a business. i think there is too much focus among too many democrats about class warfare. i do not think it does our country any good to pretend we can solve our problems by raising taxes on the highest 1% or 2% earners in the country. there is not enough money there to balance the budget in the long run. it cannot happen. they are trying to mislead the country about this. if you raise taxes very, very high on those productive workers, that is going to have an impact as well and have an

impact on prices. if you raise taxes on successful doctors and physicians, what do you think they are going to do customer they are going to try to raise the amount that they charge. there is no free lunch with this tax policy issue. if we raise taxes on the rich, i suppose they will raise their prices or something else. it is just a way for politicians to hide the burden of what they are doing. i think it is pretty clear. host: melvin is a democrat. caller: first of all, it seems like every morning between the second and third segment preaches republican talking points. jim was talking about democrats

and putting money into successful businesses. basically, they are paying less taxes than other people who are working for them in lower positions. secondly, this gentleman was talking about the irs and the tax policy. most billionaires are paying the same percentage of taxes than a person making and $37,000 a year. most of them are not paying anything. when you have these individuals on, you need to have somebody on that can prove or come up with paperwork to prove their points rather than throwing out this information. thank you. guest: i would be happy to post

something on our website, and you can look later today, about the percentage of taxes paid by the top 5%, top 2% of the public compared to the rest. most people, especially if they have families, if they are earning $30,000 a year, they are not paying any income taxes at all. it is hard to pay less than 0%. so, go onto our website, and we will point to some of the evidence about how much the rich are paying in income taxes. host: the last call for david keating is from florida, a republican there. good morning, calvin. caller: thank you for taking my

call. all of us in the united states who want to support this country do not want to buy eight any goods except american. i am surprised by all the cars that i see. we could propose our own prohibition for all of these goods coming in by doing that. the second point i would like to make is in this country we need to show our representatives publicly funded their campaigns to get elected because the more they are funded by corporations, the mrore they are in the pocket of those corporations. we speak a lot about freedoms in this country, and we need to

protect those freedoms. there are other freedoms that we seem to forget. even as a republican, i have to say i agree with ron paul because he seems to think that you can have a freedom without responsibility. to give an example, if the things we can do everything we want, why doesn't he drive down the wrong side of the road? host: we are going to stop at that point. americans buying american. guest: it is a free country. a lot of companies to advertise that their products are american-made. if people think it is important, the information is available. many products have where the product was manufactured. public funding of campaigns, he suggested -- personally, i think

that is a bad idea and i would not support it. i understand people who do support it and i understand their arguments. i do not think it will be something that will happen anytime soon. i think the point that people need to take responsibility for their actions -- i hope that is something that everybody can agree with. host: how do you think the next couple of weeks are going to play out? guest: i really do not know. it is a very difficult political problem to solve. you have the house of representatives controlled by one party, fairly conservative, and then in the senate, you have a split almost evenly between the two parties. did you have the white house controlled by a democrat. how'd you get these three political actors to get there?

how do cobble together the votes in the house and senate for something that helps the country? i h hope that can be >> "washington journal" continues. host: our next guest on this friday morning, july 1, is blanche lincoln who served in the senate from 1999 until 2011 and is now in washington and a d.c. -- in washington, d.c. guesfirst we used to this advertisement. it is the american dream dead? how would you answer that question? guest: absolutely not. i have seen the good and the bad. you know, i remember, as i do almost every day, but certainly right now as we celebrate the

fourth of july, for whatever faults is that people may find with our country, it is still the greatest place and the greatest country that we could be blessed with to live in. it is our responsibility. host: what makes it the greatest place? guest: of the fact that we can come together and talk about what the best ways to make our nation great. we got ourselves tied in knots right now but if we continue to remind ourselves how blessed we are to be here, hopefully, we begin to come together and realize that members of the senate or the house did not come here or should not have come here with the idea that they are going to create a work of art or solve the problem overnight. it is a work in progress, and there is a lot to do right now. we have to buckle down and do that. there are some things that you

have to give in on to create a conglomeration of ideas to move forward. we have become so focused on this in the gratification of solving the problem overnight. host: how do you see the next few weeks playing out? his description of the interest among the players at the negotiating table suggested he does not know. do you? guest: i do not think anybody knows what is going to happen. i join the american people in trying to reinforce the congress . allowing our nation to default is not an option. we have watched other countries that are at the brink of that. it is one thing to think of greece in this situation, but when you think of our nation at

that breaking point, it is just unconscionable. it is not just the consequences for us as americans but for the global economy. host: what we do say to the members about the negotiations right now? guest: i would say, first and foremost, this is a critical question at a critical time. be willing to work in a bipartisan way. it is interesting because i think we realize the value of working in a bipartisan way. we are joined by other congressmen, democrats and republicans. bill has been a democrat and republican. nonetheless, working together and realize that you have to take steps and have the checks and balances -- dealing with the deficit is going to take tough

choices. it is going to be a balance of things. we cannot do it all with revenues or tax expenditures. you have got to look for that balance. that is what i would be encouraging my colleagues to do, to look for that balance. put some benchmarks, some targets that you have to meet with consequences. host: what with the message before the gop? what would the message be for the gop? guest: i have certainly voted for my share of tax cuts because i believe in them. at the time when we had a surplus. just as a former chairman greenspan mentioned, we are in a different time right now. it is the complete opposite in

terms of the surpluses that we had in that time when we were able to give people those tax cuts, we also had not been through 9/11 or had the extreme expenditures and our military spending. you have to look at where we are at the time to solve the problem. we did that in 1993 when i was in the house. it is just like a doctor who sees a patient. every patient is different. host: a couple of specifics -- the president has argued for a while now to roll back the tax cuts that were inaugurated during the bush years. looking back on your voting record, you have passed different things at different times. what is your opinion about the bush tax cuts? guest: well, as the last of four children, my father said we were all very independent-minded.

i do not know what you have to stay with the same remedy for whatever time it was. we are in a different time. let's look at what we need right now to grow our economy and to grow jobs. we need to make good, sound investments. coming out of the election from the last cycle, people were frustrated out there. they were mostly frustrated with the fact that congress and washington -- they are just not productive. the lack of productivity up here. making investments in infrastructure, long-term investments that we know will grow the economy and help us get out of the hole that we are in in terms of job creation. host: water some examples? guest: the faa reauthorization would be great. no child left behind.

we are almost five years overdue. these are good, solid investment in infrastructure that not only would create immediate jobs but would also create jobs in the long term. most people have a gps in their car. you get on the plane traveling commercially, there is a striking number of air travel where they don't have that. there are so many things there that would help us in terms of manufacturing, investment in infrastructure. whether it is the faa, the highway bill, education, the farm bill. multitude of different things. the trade agreement. i know you talked about that earlier. i was very supportive of a trade agreement. opening up trade with other

countries -- we are in a global economy now. i very much supported fair trade. we have got to work on the economy. host: you mentioned agriculture. did the senate make a recommendation on the ethanol subsidies? guest: i have to believe that we are never going to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil and moving to the kind of volume of renewable fuel if we do not allow everybody an equal chance. we put all of our eggs early on in the basket of corn-based ethanol. it needs to be -- and cellulose ethanol and biofuel. you cannot grow those industries

and those technologies if they cannot be cost competitive. do we need ethanol? yes, we do, and we need to make sure we support it in a way that is reasonable and balanced. host: let me get to one other big topic and then we will start taking calls. that is the medicare debate. what do you think of paul ryan's medicare plan? guest: i think there are too few big steps and not enough baby steps. i think it is critical for us. i was willing to vote on the medicare part d which a handful of our democrats did that with president bush because i could not imagine a health-care program for seniors without prescription drugs being integrated into it. was it perfect? no. did it take the necessary steps to get us started on that

discussion and debate and the evolution of a senior health care plan that had prescription drugs? yes, it did. i think that is how we have to approach medicare. a baby girl born today as a 50% chance or better of living to 100 my husband's grandmother passed away a couple of years ago one a week shy of 112 living in her own home. these are the things that we are dealing with. people are living longer. i was very engaged with care coordination, wellness, how we coordinate care for our seniors in order to make sure not only are they getting the appropriate care but getting it in the setting that they want and having the quality of life that they want as well. medicare is an issue that, coming together, we can work to make better. host: from georgia, a

republican. you are on with blanche lincoln. caller: great show. only in america could somebody of limited ability, an independent auditor for fortune 500 companies, and along the way, i was threatened about every way a person can be because i covered large sums of money for my client. in 2006, i want to go ask my bankers some questions that frightened me to death. in testimony before the financial crisis, the vice president of citibank admitted that their bank in 2007, 60% of the loans were known to be bad. in 2008, it grew to 80%. weeks later, the ceo's said

citigroup was too interconnected and too big to fail, implying that we would have to bail them out again. isn't this a declaration that americans are now in slaved to criminals customer that is my first question. the second question relates to your role in regulations just before you left. the stock market -- the financial accounting standards board changed the rules saying that toxic assets were no longer toxic and were only temporarily impaired. were -- theye wory found out there was not a market for them. this stems back to the modernization act in which congress gave the banking industry's exemptions from the state gambling laws and also

insurance regulations. doesn't this mean our money is on the same footing as bad gambling debts in an attempt to cheat and lie our way to prosperity? host: a complicated question. guest: i think first and foremost it is important to recognize that from the cma we have discovered there was a 600 trillion dollar market place that was acting out there with no transparency or oversight. we had no idea that there was that the volume of activity in those he didn't markets until we began to see the problems that existed -- hidden markets until we began to see the problems that existed. we put together a bill to ensure those tools would go through more of the kind of transparency and oversights that is used in the stock market. i thought that was necessary and

i think is going to continue to be necessary. i think others believe it is important for us to do that. that is what we have been doing. untangling all of that is not something that is going to happen instantaneously. you are exactly right that we were allowing some of those financial institutions to operate using some of those risk-management tools in a way that was unheard of. i think we have made a good step with the derivatives portion that we did in the financial regulatory reform bill to begin to unwind that and put into place the oversight, recognizing that risk management is an essential for businesses to be able to operate and be competitive. we have other countries now that are interested in what we did because they realize they are going to have to do something. you have seen in u.s. banks recently that have invested in some of these risky tools

overseas, and unfortunately, have met the same kind of problem that date met before. we now have in place the tools. provided we can give the sec the resources that they need to be able to do their job, we now have in place rules that will prevent that from happening in our country. i applaud the gentleman for doing a great job on his own, and not only understanding what is going on today, but using the tools and skills of the basics in terms of accounting to realize that as complicated as things may get, you still have to go to those basic accounting rules to understand what comes in and what goes out to make sure everyone is being held accountable. host: the next question comes from san francisco. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to say the debt talks -- they probably will

continue to stall. the person that you had on earlier -- no one mentioned -- no one who called in recognize the fact that it was an entity set up as a pac. another thingm, too, is this country as far as if it is dead, this country -- if you look at what happened with germany and hitler and the propaganda machine that was out there, that is what is here in america. we have been propagandized and misinformed. most of us will not take the time to understand what is really going on with america and

with our leaders that pretend to say that they are all trying to work together. no one is working together with president obama. he has been over backwards to the demise of his own faith to try to work with the republican party, and they have drawn lines in the sand and have said absolutely not. host: thanks for your call. guest: first of all, hopefully all of us as americans as we celebrate the fourth of july are going to work together. i think that is what has to happen on capitol hill. i was always a bipartisan member and enjoy working with both my republican and democrat colleagues. we are in a crucial situation right now with the debt ceiling and the issues of the fall before us. we have to realize that it is not an option and we have to put together a plan that recognizes

you cannot do it all by cutting the ing or, you know, expectations and the revenue raising. we have to make sure we come together with a plan that uses all the tools and our toolbox. host: from colorado -- guest: well, i think some of it we saw coming, but also some of it happened -- if we can remember, 9/11 was not something that we predicted. military spending and some of those instances. there are a lot of things that

are unpredictable. again, i go back to the responsibility that congress has and one of the things that i was always frustrated with is there are the day-to-day housekeeping tools that we have to do. those are basically, you know, the kind of infrastructure investments that we have to be making that we have not been doing on a regular basis. all of those things need to be done, and they are a big part of making sure that we can keep the economy churning. trade agreements that have been sitting on the table forever. those are the kinds of things that we need to be moving along. those are the day-to-day laundry that we have to do. we also have to focus in on how we can deal with the circumstances that we could have not predicted. she is right. i voted for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget

and multiple things that i thought would pull us back to dealing with whatever it was the mundane for the exception. we have to keep working towards that. host: this is a good follow up from a viewer -- guest: no. and i do not know if health care was what cost me my seat. i got hit from both sides because i dared to challenge both sides. that was ok. i felt blessed to be able to serve my country. it was a great opportunity. that does not mean i give up just because i am not there anymore. it does not mean i stop preaching about the partisanship that is necessary.

that is one of the reasons why i ended up at the firm and a bipartisan circumstance, working with somebody like former majority leader bob dole and my other colleagues from the house. i find that everyone of those individuals came to the congress with the idea of solving problems and working in a bipartisan way. that is been my attitude all along. i will try to solve the problems in a way that is realistic. one day at a time, one step at the time, recognizing that we are in special circumstances that we find ourselves in. host: do you see yourself running for an elected office in the future? guest: i think it is a great opportunity for everyone. i knew i would not do it

forever. as i said, much of the reason that i was sent home was because i challenge to both sides to really come together and a vote for the solutions that move us forward. i do not regret that at all. host: chicago, joe, an independent. good morning. caller: my question is about something that i have not heard discussed and i am wondering why not. why could we not provide very focused tax breaks for companies that add jobs rather than cutting taxes would increase jobs? and possibly even increase taxes for companies that do not add jobs or actually cut jobs? guest: great question. one of the bills i introduced before i left and had worked on for a little bit of time was not only the research and

development tax credit, which is really critical in our nation, where we do an awful lot of research and development and, with great ideas, but i went the next step and offered the tax credit for those companies that not only did research and development but used the research and development to create jobs here in this country. they put that to the next step, whether it was manufacturing, services, technologies or whatever, and manufacture the product or provided that service in this country, then they got an additional tax credit. you are exactly right. sometimes we create the ideas or the technology and it gets many factored were sent overseas or something else. it is a great opportunity. host: for former senator blanche lincoln, oregon, john, republican. caller: how are you doing this morning? michael is in relation to the real-estate market. -- might call is in relation to

the real-estate market modification, 22 words normally, but you might have something that is less, clear with the 22- word scripture, and that is in isiah. she promised god she would rule for strickling 1000 years. -- strictly 1000 years. those angels have a gender in the back of the bible -- host: john, you started with the real estate market. what is the connection? caller: it is in is very clear in our owner, king james. host: ok, we will let that stand as a comment. he as an interpretation that we stand at a moment in history based on biblical meetings. good morning.

caller: i don't even know where to start. i started out with a question and i'm completely someplace else. i think mrs. lincoln and did lose her seat over health care, and her voting in congress represented that she did go more with the republicans then she did with the democrats and that is why she was voted out. i just don't understand how she can sit there so stoically and stair into the camera. you ask her question earlier about the bush tax cuts, and she went around and around and around, and you didn't have her answer the question. i would like to have her answer the question about it should be implemented now -- out if she thinks it should be implemented now. of course she is not going to answer, and i would like that answer. guest: sure. what i said to susan was why do we have to say whether or not we will use the bush tax cuts? why don't we come up with a new

tax regime? we certainly need corporate tax reform, but we can look at multiple ways of how we construct our tax system in more jobs-creating an opportunistic way for the american family. you won't find anyone on capitol hill who fought harder for the fundability of the tax credit for low-income families. senators now and i worked diligently on that for years in a bipartisan -- senators now and i worked diligently on that for years in a bipartisan way. there are single women raising children on less than $14,000 a year. they are working and raising kids and deserve to have the tax code work for them just as the tax code works for other people. but i just don't understand why we have to say we are either going to accept the bush tax cuts as they were.

why not use the different times we are in right now? we are not operating in a surplus as we did when president bush proposed his tax cuts. we are operating in a totally different time. come up with the types of tax initiatives that we know are going to meet with the needs and demands of today at a better way -- that's all i was saying. i don't think we have to be wed to former policies. we have to look at how policies affect the time and circumstances we find ourselves in now. host: to reset is and -- teresa is a democrat you're in columbia, ohio. caller: i would like to know why it everybody that comes on, they always cover each other's butts when it comes to congress. they know exactly what happens and where all the money has gone. when the bush administration was in office, right off the bat,

when junior got in office, $3 trillion was missing. disappeared. why don't they just say the truth, what really happened to the money and why they are stealing from the american people, because all the secret faculties and they have built that they don't want you to know about. everybody can understand everything that is going on if they would just do the research. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: response? guest: i just think the most important thing we have before us right now is that we live in a great nation, and it is our responsibility to do everything we can to strengthen it and make it stronger and more productive. i worked hard at in congress. democrats and republicans in congress today are working hard to do that. they may have different opinions. the most critical thing is that they come together in a bipartisan way to recognize the

circumstances we find ourselves in and look for the solutions, and, again, put themselves to the test in those solutions. host: a viewer tweets -- you have to be careful about a national sales tax. it can be extremely regressive for the different levels of income, and certainly the circumstances that working families find themselves in today. the cost of living obviously -- if you are in the top .0%, in a foot brad, a sales tax on that is not as cumbersome c-span.org -- a loaf of bread it, a sales tax on that is not as cumbersome on you. host: we have about five, six minutes left with former senator blanche lincoln of arkansas.

tulsa, margie, a republican. caller: good morning. first of all, my reason for calling is that i have been listening all morning to everybody that is on. i just get real upset with all of the negative rhetoric, rich against poor. i was poor, raised a very poor person in arkansas, oldest in a large family. we worked our way out of it. i am not rich, but i'm comfortable. i like hearing all of this. i think it is tearing our country -- i don't like hearing all of this. that is tearing our country apart, demagoguing the rich. most of the people i know who have money and have worked hard for it. my husband and i worked hard for 8. we are not rich, but we really what we spend. words setke the bad

against republicans by democrats, democrats against -- we are all americans. and i think we need to remember that on this fourth of july. i am in my seventies, but i am still smart. we are studying the president's this summer. we are now up to fdr, during the period that i was born. you know, we have had these problems throughout our history. we have had presidents who have almost taken us down, then we get another one that people got smart, they'd vote for somebody, that will bring us back again. i think is what we all have to remember, stick with our country. there is an american dream. some people don't have it because they want to depend on someone else to take care of them all the time. i don't like what some people said to you this morning.

i think you are very smart, i think you have been -- i have watched you, and watched you, as you said, " with republicans and the with democrats for what you thought was right. i appreciate you being on this morning and letting me talk to you. guest: thanks, margie. thanks for being a good american and reminding us -- host: she is not giving her home-schooled granddaughter time off. a report card on how americans are doing with history will begin in about 10 minutes. raymond is a democrat. caller: i am also an independent. i vote both ways, i vote on the person. all the news on all the channels, i have never heard the perks that the big c e l's --

ceo's receive, or the golden numbers when they retire out. they are receiving millions in retirement, and that has been reported. but they don't cover the major medical for the whole family while they worked at the company, dental and health care. they have a company credit card is a use for meals, gas, trips, even maintenance. they have cars that are either lease or given to them. even at what is not covered by warranty is covered by these credit cards. they can buy it later and sell it for profit. the company maintenance departments are painting these

people's houses, doing their roofs, yard work, plumbing, electrical, brickwork. they pay for their vacations -- host: i'm going to jump in. wrap it up. what is your concern? caller: we lose it as millions of dollars of tax -- host: ok, going to stop you right there. guest: well, one of the things we did it in the last congress is that we cannot control what corporations want to pay out in salaries to their executives or anybody. that is not something that congress is intended to do. but what we did do is we were able to bring down and limit a lot of that tax deductions for some of those benefits. we definitely saw that particularly in the health-care bill and some of the other efforts that we made, to ensure that they can still pay the

bonuses and executive compensation, but the tax liability that had been exempt before was no longer exempt over a certain level. there has been some good initiatives there taken that have been intended to kind of rain in some of that abuse or some of that excess that has been occurring. but you are good to notice that, raymond. host: reacto to mike murphy's tweet. guest: i don't blame him at all. going back to the question of the woman who wondered why i was -- she thought i was tap dancing a round of the bush tax cuts. i voted for it when we had a surplus. it is time to look at how we reform our tax code, particularly our corporate tax code. there is a great opportunity to change the way our corporations do business in the global

economy. and to make sure that we see the benefit in our countries third job creation and investment in our economy. for personal taxes, we can look at that as well. but i don't see why we have to be wedded to things that happened 10 or 15 years ago and continue to either continue those or pull back on them as opposed to looking at how we change to meet the needs of today. host: tennessee, vicki, republican. caller: good morning. i have watched c-span for a number of years. i have finally become totally , severely disabled for much of the disease, but i have worked all my life will ask what my doctors wanted me to work. i always believed i never taking, but trying to make it on your own. believe me, there are people who

i think are born in poverty that cannot pull themselves out that we should help to a degree. but there are people who want to cry out there, "give me, give me, give me." , is not passing anything goes back to the bush days when -- congress not passing anything goes back to the bush days when pelosi stood on tv -- i am choosing her, there were other people, mr. reid, dodd, but nancy pelosi in particular, stood on television and said "we are not going to help anything for mr. bush," or pass anything that bush had to say. i think this is a payback from the republicans and from the people. the people wanted the republicans in because the democrats were not going to do

anything. now we are in a stalemate to where no one is going to pass anything that obama wants. i think it they are all going to bring us down. plus, many economists have said because of the recession, who should have taken the first cut in their pay? it should at in congress. instead, they are getting pay raises. i mean, i agree wholeheartedly with the economists. you start of the top and give an example to your people. but congress has not. and to go all the way back to nafta that clinton -- he did not have a war during his years, but he put in nafta, and that started the economy going in the different direction. i'm not saying that there aren't jobs in the country and workers needed, but we didn't do anything about our borders

because it was too good for the economy to get low wages and votes for what the democrats and republicans -- for both the democrats and republicans. they disregarded it and let them steamroll in -- host: i am almost out of time and you are giving us a lot of complex issues here. naphtha -- nafta -- assessment of it and whether it is good for the economy. guest: i think it has been good for the economy. we were at a point where we had to engage with the global economy. it has been good in terms of exports, agricultural exports. we have to continue to engage in the world economy. free trade agreements like colombia, where they can ship goods into our country without any duties with the weather and yet we still remain in a position where anything going ism our country into there'irs

not duty-free. i want to complement a lady from tennessee, though, because i appreciate her tenacity and hard work crew as the mother of twin 15-year-old boys who are starting to look for summer jobs, it is important to set examples. he set the example hard work and what it means, and you have been respectful -- you set the example of hard work and what it means and you have been respectful to those who are not able to do that. i appreciate that. but we cannot -- some of what you said about democrats and republicans and the way that they flip-flop and argue in the congress -- it isn't any good to build yourself up by pulling someone else down. it is only through hard work and being able to focus on the the things that have to get salt and being willing to work with other people -- have to get salt and being willing to work with other people to solve those problems.

i think what the lady from tennessee has done with her life is a good recipe for what we have here, to lift ourselves up and be part of the solution and not part of the problem. host: i'm to get a final call in, because it is from little rock. guest: 0, good. caller: thank you for your service. guest: thank you, jack. caller: plato opined that once people figured out how to vote themselves benefits, they would lead to the collapse of the government. what blame to you cast in terms of the situation we find ourselves in? ever since the baby boom generation became a voting bloc, they have reduced their tax and put an increase to their benefits -- reduce their tax inputs and increased their benefits. it seems like you're beautiful twin boys will be in a bad

situation, not because of congress, but because of congress' reaction to the public. what you think about that? guest: to some degree you are right. it is easy to get into a cell with most of what is it mean for me as opposed to what is in the -- for a s -- into a selfish mode of what is it mean for me as opposed to what does it mean for future generations. as a young single woman in the house, i wanted to help build something and strengthen our country. now as a parent i wanted even more so, and i have tried hard in the senate to work at how to solve those problems for future generations. the decisions we take here -- i don't anymore -- the members of the house and senate take are going to have long-lasting ramifications for future generations. it is absolutely essential that

we all, whether it is members of congress or those of us voting, i understand that it is one step at a time that we solve these problems. if we don't stay focused on it, if we are not willing to look at the future and think about others and see it as a collected body of americans as opposed to have and have-nots, or what do i get out of it, it is possible we lose this precious gift of the nation that we have. i hope this weekend and on the fourth of july that -- this gentle man, jack will remember that there are tons of parades and lots of opportunities to get out and reminders of how blessed we are to live in this great country, but the responsibility that each one of us have to make a decision at the voting booth, making sure we send people to washington that are going to make tough choices but are going to do so in a forward-thinking

why not just about what it means to their immediate circumstances. host: the senate majority leader announced that the fourth of july break for the senate has been canceled in the hopes of continuing to work on an agreement for the debt ceiling debate. i want to t