williams columnist for the hill. this week syndicated columnist cal thomas in his latest book "what works" common sense solutions for a stronger america in it he argues that solving the country's problem starts with looking at what worked in the past is guarding politics and listening to voters. this program is about an hour. >> host: we are joined by cal thomas and his new book "what works" common sense solutions for a stronger america forward by sean hannity. that tells you a lot about this book cal. >> guest: sean is a very good friend of course and harpercollins which is publishing the book thought that he would be a very good person to write the forward. i was happy he did so. nancy pelosi was not available so i was glad to have his forward and he did a good job. >> host: this is intended for conservative bob -- breeder.

>> guest: we have serious challenges facing us want that affects everybody regardless of their political but rounder persuasion. >> host: if you have sean hannity i mean it seems to me that shone as a quite popular figure among hardline conservatives. >> guest: sure he is but we try to reach out in this book and naturally i believe conservative ideas provide the best solutions to the problems facing america that is ice in the book of the liberal comes up with an idea the works improved his health and lives up to its stated objectives i'm for it. i am for social security. i'm for medicare and all these programs created mostly in liberal democrat administrations but i just want to look at them to see if they needs to be updated for modern age and improved if they are not working we need to revise them or get rd of them. >> host: in fact the thesis of this book and i'm going to come back to the idea pieces because it's one you play within the book but the idea in this book is what works? what actually works and what we

know has worked in the past commonsense solutions that come from the past and in some sense, not only from the political realm but for you from your deep faith. >> guest: there's a verse in ecclesiastics in the old testament there says there's nothing new under the sun. everything you do has been done before. i'm not talking about living in the past. paid i'm talking about looking to the past to see what is worked up dating it as necessary in moving forward. if you go to another country for the first time you usually get a guide book or google paris france or something to find out where the best hotels are in the best restaurants places to be avoided. these are people who have gone before us to scope out the cities and to recommend the best places for us. we have the founders of our country who understood human nature at least as well as the creatures of their day and they created a constitution that established boundaries for government but unlimited life,

liberty for its citizens. i believe that it's gotten out of whack and we conceded those constitutional boundaries and that is why we have so many of the problems and challenges we have today. >> host: in previous books he had to remind readers that you were not saying disengage from public life in the public square but people get that perception given emphasis on simply focusing on the individual capacity and individual responsibility to look away from government. don't look to government to meet your needs. look to the individual and look to god. >> host: i'd. >> guest: that's where it all begins in the founders saw how we delegated from the people to the government not government overpowering us and that is why government has grown so big and dysfunctional. i don't think there's anybody including the biggest liberal who thinks everything is working well and we have to be pouring money into it and growing government ever bigger bigger

bigger. thomas sold a great writer and a friend has written and i have this card and i carry it around like abdul carries the 10th amendment in his pocket. he says much of the social history in the western world over the past three decades has evolved from placing what worked with what sounded good. our friend bob medical on fox and i couldn't co-wrote this book and did a column for "usa today" called common ground acknowledges that many of the social problems -- programs were done in good faith in london johnson administration the so-called great society but he acknowledge is now that we didn't take into consideration human nature. giving people a check and providing women with tax and they have babies out of wedlock was the only not good for them, it was an good for the country. we have moved a long way from john kennedy's inaugural admonition ask not what your country can do for you you, as we can do for your country. >> host: do you think people should remain engaged with the government and politics?

>> guest: absolutely aarp wouldn't be writing my syndicated column for the last several years but i'm saying one you should expect or out of government then it can deliver less out out of yourself than it can deliver. things like character and virtue and integrity cannot be instilled by government. those are moral and spiritual issues like table manners. you have to be taught not to interrupt adults at the table. when i was growing up not to mix your peas with their mashed potatoes and ordered to e them with an eye for a spin. you have to be taught certain things. these manners are things that have to be taught. i think personal responsibility and integrity looking out for yourself looking to government as a last resort not a first resource is what will improve in the life and improve our country. >> host: somehow i get the impression that you think liberals are people who in fact who are openly reliant on government don't have some of

these virtues that you just described, personal responsibility, wanting to work in wanting to succeed and american wanting to contribute. >> guest: i know many liberals including yourself who have these character qualities but the problem is so many of my liberal friends even though they may have those character qualities looked to government to repair what is wrong with people who don't have those character qualities. we know what the problems are. a stable family is the best guarantee of a stable home and of people being able to take care of themselves. we know this. judith wallerstein who i quote in the book did a study of the effects of divorce on children. she studied it for 25 years. we know that divorce harms children. some people survive that many of them don't. these are some of the things i explore in the book and began if it's a liberal idea and it works and promotes the general welfare that i'm for it that i don't think we have to say just because a silly rule or conservative idea we shouldn't

pay attention. >> in the book you write, you save president obama and i think you would describe him as a liberal. >> guest: no question. >> host: you say he took advantage of the human instinct for in the end greed in order to get elected? >> guest: yeah. i think the unholy trinity is envy greed and entitlement and we see this in his constant statements about income inequality is running down of large corporations and businesses to report a lot of people who themselves pay a lot of taxes instead of telling people up. calvin coolidge once said you don't improve the week by tearing down the strong. i want more people to be rich. i want our people to be independent. i want more families to be stable. all of these things i am four. who could be against that the president is out there and a lot of democrats frankly are out there constantly bashing success

penalizing success and subsidizing failure. what you penalize you get less of in what you subsidize you get more of. >> it's interesting you have a background working with the moral majority in this book you talk about joshua dubois who was at the white house says the president's spiritual advisor but also head of the office of faith in public service and i might he miss quoting the exact title. he has written a book and he talks about how the president reads daily meditations and scripture and talks about other people in washington d.c. in the federal government to do the same thing that you say to blot is off when he comes to his message because what he talks about is the idea that government should care for people who are in need as opposed to individuals. you make it seem as if he is saying while god wants us to have compassion and therefore dubois, obama and the liberals thanks oh that means government

should be compassion and you are saying no. >> guest: i'm saving government ought to be of last resort. government can become addictive like a drug relying on a government check rather than yourself. i spend a lot of time in the u.k.. the daily mail did a story a few months ago and the family three generations of people who had never worked to it than on their version of welfare public assistance. not only have they never works they didn't expect to have a job and when they were told by david cameron's administrative that they should start looking for work they were offended. that's the kind of addiction that too many people that government brings. i don't question the president's faith. that's not my business but i do think in certain areas there ought to be connection. if he reads the scriptures every day about human life and about marriage you can disagree and general on taxes and the defense

budget and still not be in danger of going to hell but i think there are certain basic things that if you are serious believer and an orthodox jewish that ought to carry over into public policy. mario cuomo for merck governor of new york caught himself in a trap where he said i accept my church's teaching when it comes to the death penalty or convicted murderers but he doesn't accept that when it comes to abortion for the innocent unborn. i find that to be an incredible inconsistency. >> host: of course many people on the writer for the death penalty even as they oppose abortion. so they are caught in this trap. >> guest: the differences when you have a convicted murderer someone who is taking the life of another person that's a whole lot different morally from an innocent unborn child who never had the chance to take a breath of life.

>> host: this conversation could go on and i think people would talk about the right of the woman. let a ask you going back to president obama is let's say the quintessential or prototype is a literal in your book your point is that while the government can be compassionate but you really don't want to be compassionate. you want to focus on what works and therefore you are talking about individuals having responsibility or i guess christian jewish or muslim or whatever their belief having a sense that they should be compassionate but it's up to the individual fdutpa government to take care of the poor. >> guest: let me go back to another book written in the early 80s that the speaker of the house handed out to everybody in congress called the tragedy of american compassion written by umar vernell lasky. he went back in history and looked at the major religious institutions, the jewish, the christian groups who care for the poor as a first

responsibility. in their caring for the poor they required some kind of response. afterwards if you were a drug addict or alcoholic you had to be in a program to get rid of your addiction. we are not going to sustain you and your bad lifestyle choices. if you are having babies out of wedlock with no husband and a father in the home we are not going to send you a check to continue to do that. we will help you with us kids because it wasn't their fault that we are not going to allow you to continue to get out of wedlock and send you a check. the whole point of the jewish and christian institutions at the time was to reform these people so they would lead a better life that would be better in the end for themselves. they have been replaced. they have retreated to the sidelines by government and it has become what i call a perversion of the 23rd psalm. the government is my keeper. i shall not want. they may a while for the shadow of poverty with government

comforting me with the ebt card. >> host: in looking at this you talk about the expansion of the entitlement society is something that is up republican refrain. as i'm reading there's no reference that we went through this horrible recession and really people call it the great recession in a reference to the great depression and as a consequence of that not only has there have been more reliance on the public safety net including entitlement that we have done things like a lot the rich. >> guest: i agree with that one. i am all for a safety net. nancy pelosi said if you give democrats the power back and we are going to drain the swamp. they got the power back and said she build a hot tub. i don't think government is the first resource. if you take a look at the recession what was the primary reason for the recession? government was spending too much. it allowed big companies like gm and others because of the union

pressure to ratchet up the benefits and entitlements that they have no hope in pain because of what the union pressure and the threats of strikes and so when you got to a point where gm lets let's take one example could no longer afford based on how many cars they were selling to pay out these benefits it crisis ensued. the same way with the treasury department. print more money, print more money never come to the point where you tell people we can do this anymore. it's like a college student who goes off to college and he or she is on the budget in the low it in the wild living in the first weekend at fraternity or sorority parties and call mom and dad with a hangover and monday in say hey a mall out of money, send more. if you do you are a fool kiss you are indulging in behavior that is not in the best interest and that is what our federal government has done for too many years. >> host: as i understand the cost of the great refresh -- recession will we had a great

housing bubble and people on wall street were engaging in high-risk maneuvers that proved to be faulty and caused wall street to implode. >> guest: lustig fannie and freddie is an example since you brought that up. why did the housing bubble occur? it's because presidents over several of administrations of both parties wanted to be able to get up and say under my administration more people on own their own homes than ever before. if you are handing out money to people with bad credit and you have income levels that cannot sustain ballooning mortgages after seven years that's the problem. too many people came to expect that they should be able to live in a nice big house when they didn't have the income to sustain it. part of this is a political problem and part of it is a moral problem and part of it is an economic problem. you are right about wall street as well.

anybody that saw the hbo film and i can't remember the name of and now that portrayed all of this everybody was living beyond their means. everybody was greedy. everybody wanted to make more money and then everybody was willing to cut whatever corners to do so. so yes this is just a left right republican democrat thing. as they used to say in world war ii where on this together and we have a certain amount of ability for what happened. >> host: 's the if you presented was initially about government overspending individuals making bad decisions and if you look at the housing market and industry and what happened there and you look at what we know happened on wall street it seems to me that you have a lot of very wealthy people and people who are acting as lone wolves and individuals. i'm out for myself. i will get the charity that i want to make a lot of money. a lot of that self obsessed behavior hurt the country. >> hurt the country because the

government buildout aig i would have let them collapse. it's not just indulging in subsidizing the poor. it's indulging in subsidizing the rich. >> i don't see that in this book >> i say this in my cones and drink at aig failure. in the last interview one of the last interviews the president george w. bush did with me before he left office he said at least i stuck to my principles. i said but what about bailing out aig? how is that sticking to your principles. if failure is a great teacher. i have failed a lot and i've learned a lot from failure. i was fired and i went to the unemployment office for a couple of weeks to get an unemployment check failures a great teacher for those who learn from it and

the best thing that could've happened to wall street and gm in my view is for them to have failed and to restructure under the bankruptcy law and to reestablish themselves. >> host: you understand that when wall street implodes you are impacting pensions and 401(k)s, the entire financial structure of america. it would have been cratered. people in the congress the bush of administrations good republicans as well as the obama administration were told we are in a financial calamity. we have american people have to come together to resolve it. >> guest: on the lefty of the trial lawyers in the groups to send lots of money to democratic politicians. on the right republicans, you have wall street and you have big corporations to send a lot of money to politicians. when the objective is to only get reelected as is so often is with 97% re-election rate when

that's the objective instead of doing the business of the people you are going to have dysfunctional nonworking government. i have become a political environmentalists. i believe in recycling trash and politicians for the same reason because each left in one place too long leads to a foul smell. you come here with the highest motives in beth's ethics it doesn't take long to get corrupted. get them out before they catch it. >> host: i think is a pair of americans agree and there was a wall street journal poll that's a 54% of americans throw all the bums out. that's not the reality. you do speak about term limits in this book "what works" sub five and when it comes to the basis of the financial structure and the government taxes what you say is what has worked is always low taxes because according to cal thomas what happens is that if you lower

taxes it results in more receipts for the government. in fact the government gets more money. what about the contrary point which would be that well taxes are pretty low right now under the obama administration. taxes were low under the clinton administration and the bush administration. >> guest: and the reagan administration. it's not just the taxes. suspending. that is what has gotten us out of whack here. even when the republicans are office and they hold all three branches of government is spending continues to increase. maybe a little less than when the democrats are in office but let's go back to woodrow wilson in world war i. right after world war i the taxes were finally cut and we have the "roaring 20's." there were other problems that led to the great depression and i understand that of course but coming out of that we get to 1960 john kennedy in his famous

detroit economic club speech about cutting taxes. there was a rush of new revenue because people were taking their money out of safe havens in bringing it back into the marketplace. as they say the book we have trillions of dollars sitting on the sidelines now. yes the stock market is at an all-time high especially for the hard-core unemployed and those looking for jobs for many months continue to be without work. people who won't work. we saw a slight uptick in the unemployment rate because more people are starting to look for work again and a slightly increased level of optimism. again calvin coolidge ,-com,-com ma i want people to be taxed less so they have more and when we have more money to spend we will spend it or invested and that is what creates jobs. reagan knew this and bush 43 new this inbuilt into the wind to speak to houston's -- houston businessman after tax

increase said you probably think i raise your taxes too much. so to why. there is a case of having it both ways. >> host: what's interesting in listening to this obviously you will remember that under clinton we actually had not only the same tax rates we have now and in fact they were a little higher but we had a surplus. >> we had a surplus because democrats led by the president were cutting defense and cutting spending on some of what most people would agree particularly in the age of terrorism and now the rise of china and iran's nuclear program. the president has announced he wants to cut the military and putin and others are getting this message that the united states is not the will much less the wherewithal to stand against tyrants around the world. when you maintain a certain level of revenue yeah you're going to get a budget surplus and that is what is happening in the states. i have a chapter in the book on what's happening in the states.

we have indiana and louisiana. at georgia and a lot of states out there who are doing fantastic jobs many of them with balanced budgets. the state constitutions require it but also because of their policies. in the end the star state of the country send people checks when they have enough money. this is an amazing thing to me. they say well we don't need all this money. the federal government the word goes out at the end of the fiscal year and a few have been spent at all spend it all because your budget may be cut next year but in the end they send you a check. what a remarkable thing. >> that brings us to another topic that you suggest in "what works" sub by then you've quote rush limbaugh with regard to big government is terrible and "the federalist papers and all the rest but then you have to somehow explain to me how is it that you can say social security

and medicare and these things that are seniors rely on is a good thing and clearly you you're a big fan of defense spending and that is of course guess what the founding fathers were not about international use of our military. >> guest: thomas jefferson would find that difficult. he sent them to the barbary coast. >> host: in their initial precept was we have nothing to do with it. >> guest: horse there is still a strain of that today but let's talk about defense. this may surprise you that i agree on this. there are a lot of weapons systems in planes and ships that the military has said they don't want and don't need and yet because those things are built in the district of so-and-so they are built anyway because it makes him or her look good and creates more jobs. this is the wasteful spending and talking about in this post post -- both left and right.

i think what we need is something akin to the grace commission during the reagan administration was to write commissioned the realignment and closing commission during the clinton administration. former members of congress no current elected politicians can come in into a complete audit of government from top to bottom. every agency of government as a piece of legislation or a charter that created it. has a purpose purpose. it's not fulfilling that purpose or not doing it within a reasonable budget should be cut or eliminated. let's take head start. this came in with the highest motivation. do you know and i didn't but there are three head start, early head start and hence has start and regular head start. why do we have the other two? the first one wasn't working. yuv of the third one? because the psychoand wasn't working. dr. mulhouse from the heritage foundation has done another -- a wonderful book on this. he found that by the time a

child goes through one of these head start programs all of the benefits that might have accrued in the first two years of his or her life are gone. "usa today" had a recent lead editorial which said head start up best is mediocre. what i'm saying is if it doesn't work or if it's something like social security which was never intended to be the kind of program today. it was intended to be a safety net of insurance programs that we have added all these bells and whistles onto it a huge christmas tree to mix a metaphor. this is why it has become dysfunctional and we are going broke. the initial idea was a good one that politicians have added all this stuff on it to make it dysfunctional. >> host: this brings us to an interesting chapter in a book about education. basically you are saying they are always talking about these people who know too little who rely on religion, evangelicals

do nothing know nothing voters and the like and cal thomas comes out in "what works" and says why do you send kids to these big-name schools stanford and the like? you say smart parents even if they are called do nothing shouldn't be sending their kids to those schools. >> with look at the recent debate continuing returning governor andrew cuomo of new york in the new york city mayor bill de blazio over charter schools. we know during his campaign for mayor mayor de blazio said he's going to basic way and charter schools and he has this major rivalry with the woman name moskowitz who is a big proponent of it. andrew cuomo in his speech a few days ago a remarkable speech. if you had shown me the words and didn't tell me who said that i would have said it would have been delivered by a conservative republican. he said we spend more money in new york state per-capita than

anywhere in the country on public education if he said we are number 32 in the nation in terms of achievement in math and reading and essentials that everybody would be are required to make anything out of your life. he is saying we have to have a school choice in this area. what i'm saying in the book and i'm going beyond the university some of my liberal friends are against choice when it comes to public schools and especially for poor and minority children. we have a reversal of george wallace standing in the schoolhouse door to keep african-americans out more than 50 years ago. we now have people standing in the schoolhouse door of the poor schools to keep children and am we all know a good education is the ticket to a child's success in competition whether it's package delivery restaurants improves everyone. all i'm saying is let's have choice in education. let's let parents decide which school public private religious is best for their kids and let's

also tell parents if you don't buy your kids to have their faith in the real history in this country under mine don't send to colleges and universities that do that. >> host: that is why you are saying don't send your kids to the best colleges in america? the best colleges in terms of the competitive marketplace where you see people with money in it and it's a send them to stanford and harvard but you are saying don't send them because you believe those schools challenge some of the precepts of religious faith? >> guest: notch his religious faith but the history of our own country. i just heard on the talk radio station this woman called in for a public school child getting some kind of indoctrination about the pilgrims and the early colonists that somehow the native americans worby colic people who were at peace with themselves and each other in

these horrible white europeans invaded and gave them syphilis and and stole their corn and killed them off in all of this other stuff. this is the kind of stuff that is being taught increasingly in a government school system. most parents don't hear about it. it's not always in the textbooks although it is in some. i think we are living in an education model created in the 19th century. i'm all for diversity. this was supposed to be the great melting pot. you have people with different backgrounds and religions in the race. i'm not opposed to that idea. i think it's a good thing however what are they being taught and if it violates the faith in the values and beliefs of the significant number of people who are paying through their taxes for this they have to be able to have the choice of sending their child to another school public-private religious that reflects those views. i believe that's going to improve the public schools is like anything else -- host

coaches for a second let's take a moment here and say he means challenging orthodoxies is that having those children learn how to think critically? >> guest: they need to think critically. i'm not thinking critically all the time. i'm exposed to all kinds of ideas that only in the newspaper that i write but the billboards i see all the time but look you have a child you have to train them properly. you have to get him to the point where they can make a critical decision. you have to have a foundation a belief and purpose for living and it might just here to get an education to make money to buy stuff? is that going to make me happy or to any to spiritual and moral dimension to budgets that? i think that's what's missing. >> host: harvard is not a government school. >> guest: i'm talking about public schools. harvard, dartmouth yale and princeton were founded on biblical principles some of them

a trained preachers in some trained missionaries. all of that is gone. i remember them saying nathan puzey when he was president of harvard a century ago said the least that should be expected of the harvard graduate is that he learned to pronounce the name of god without embarrassment. >> host: it will take a short break and you right back with cal thomas and his new book "what works" common sense solutions for a stronger america. >> host: we are back with cal thomas the author of a new book called "what works" common sense solutions for a stronger america cal at the end of your book you write let's have and i'm quoting here the equivalent of testimony

where we can start showcasing people who once lived in poverty now self-sufficient because they embrace the conservative and historically sound principles of kansas. kansas. inspiration followed a motivation. first explain. kansas? >> guest: i made a speech reproduced in the book for the kansas chamber of commerce 18 months or so ago and they think sam brownback former senator from kansas now governor of the state has created some tremendous business-friendly programs they are years ago north carolina and florida and many are realizing that this becomes

an inhibitor to prosperity. now i do say and i firmly believe and i've applied it in my own life inspiration followed by motivation and followed by perspiration improves and the like. the whole testimony is meant to convey the attitude i once was blind but now i see. i grew up poor but now i'm the ceo. it's been carson has been in the news a lot lately the former pediatric neurosurgeon at johns hopkins have perfect example of how people can overcome dire circumstances. grew up in inner-city detroit. most people know the story or they can look it up. we don't tell the stories in america. america is a storytelling nation. >> host: in the book what you do if is you have an entire section of people who would give this testimony. you tell their stories.

rather than have me pick out one or two white iq is the author picked out one or two until the story. >> guest: i talk about johnny erickson who is a quadriplegic who had an accident at 17 yourself swimming and struggled with despair and the meaning of life, taught herself to paint by sticking a paint russian her teeth and has created wonderful things, worked with handicapped people was behind americans with disabilities act and has been an inspiration to millions including people who don't have physical challenges. there are a couple of african people in there who grew up in horrible circumstances that you couldn't imagine if you are writing a work of fiction and yet they manage to overcome and come to america where they saw opportunity in navair independent and drawstring. been carson is a great story but the point of the stories and paul harvey used to do them on his radio program called the rest of the story.

let me tell you about somebody and how they overcame. we will to you how they overcame we are going to tell you. i go back and tell the story of 60 minutes leslie stahl some years ago. a harlem housing project in new york all minorities led by minority hard-core unemployed people who never had a job or for hamburger flippers working for minimum wage. they tell taught people how to dress for a job interview and look at it respective employer. stuff that we take for granted. they followed an african-american woman into a job interview. she went in and applied all the things she learned preachy came out and she was in tears not because she was rejected but because she got the job. for the first time in her life she felt that she had value. nobody told you this before. you are black and female and lived in the ghetto. your life is going to be lousy. that is the message to someone

they get. saying if we can have more inspiration and more people telling how they overcame then i think we are going to inspire people. america has always been a storytelling nation. >> host: do you think that's it.from the fact that there is growing inequality in terms of income in earning in our country that when you look at the harsh realities that the top 1% from the occupy movement the top 1% has taken and a disproportionate widely disproportionate share of increases in wealth in the country over the last 10 years. the consequence has been a declining middle class increasing numbers of people in poverty and when you hold up exceptional people and say this person did it and you can do it too that's fine that runs counter to what we see as larger structural issues in society.

>> guest: president obama and the democrats have been talking a lot about inequality and i wrote a column a few weeks weeks ago which i stated i had that deep dark secret that i have hidden from public view for many years. it was embarrassing for me to go public with it but i felt it was necessary for me to do so. i said i suffer from income inequality. there are always people that make more money than i've let you know something? it doesn't affect me. the fact that you make $2 i make 1 dollar doesn't mean that you only 50 cents. i come to you to find out how you made the $2. income is and fix for everybody for life. if there's only one bowl of food at the dinner table and i take more than you that might be unfair because it might not be satisfying your hunger but afraid give your your recipe or asked the cook to bring you more food so you can make the recipe for your own good that's fair. the fact that holtrop nick's more than i do has nothing to do with my income level.

i used to interview as a young reporter wealthy and successful people. what is your philosophy of life? i might want to be like you someday but the attitude is if you make more than me is not fair so i can drag it down but that does not build me up. are the poor people better off because of higher taxes? are they getting a direct check if donald trump or ted turner or you army pays more taxes? they are not improving their lives. i'm saying for three years i got this government welfare check in now and ceo of my company. you never hear that. >> host: i'm saying to you have a situation where the question is maximizing opportunity for all. when you look at the realities of the income distribution in the country now they are so wildly out of proportion in terms of who is gaining wealth and opportunity even in terms of the schools that you are scoring. the children that get to go tend to be the children of the rich. if you look at wall street the

paper turns her on wall street. it sounds as if you were being indifferent to people who are struggling to get themselves out for poverty and onto a letter of upward mobility. >> guest: when i was in the army i made $99 a month that i was working at armed forces radio. we took the subway. it was 10 cents and go into 15 cents. people screamed and yelled about how the poor would be able to afford this. i never envied people. i said i can improve my life and i'm going to be better someday. i was 37 years old and made $25,000 a year and still struggling taking public transportation to work. we had one car. >> host: the way you are talking sounds like you are celebraticelebrati ng individual virtue. >> guest: that is what america's all about. >> host: even when somebody is ripping off the system you say ignore that. >> guest: i didn't say that.

you will see that i said that i didn't think aig in some of these other should have been bailed out. i think they should've been allowed to fail. the people responsible for the recession should have paid the biggest price not the investors and employees. if they didn't go to jail and a lot of them should have because they could afford fancy lawyers they should've been forced to pay back some of the people they injured. >> host: but if they have no money and would collapse the entire economic system and if you roll back the tape i said that. if you don't focus on the idea of what needs -- what the american people can do to correct the faults and the position in the book is correcting human mistakes is a groups game. you are not going to do it. >> guest: government cannot force me to stay married to my

wife and have honesty and integrity in my and professional life. those are moral and virtual issues that come from another place. government can impose certain penalties if i break certain laws but it can't force me to be moral and virtuous. not that i am, i'm just saying. i'm saying, let me use this analogy. there was a catholic named bishop fulton sheen years ago who stood up at the 1979 national prayer breakfast in washington and asked a question. how do we define a football field? by its boundaries he said. we have exceeded our boundaries in every area morally relationally sexually economically and we wonder why we have these problems. huge numbers of insurable stds so many babies born out of wedlock and enormous abortion rate a special among minority americans. over 80% of black babies in america are aborted.

jesse jackson said. >> host: that's not true by the way. 80% of the abortions in new york city are among minority blacks hispanics and asians that you should also note 70% of the population is minority. it's not as wildly disproportionate. >> guest: the point is we are chipping in life at all levels and when you have something like hillarycare and not obama karen sarah palin talked about death panels and was widely ridiculed but this is what is happening in britain. i'm about to make a point here. there's a chapter in my book called hoover versus karen this may surprise you. i'm all for government spending more money to find cures. if we could find a cure but to alzheimer's disease which is a huge affliction of the baby

boomers as they are retiring you were going to save a whole lot of money from having to treat people with alzheimer's and so many other diseases. i'm for investing as much money as possible in finding cures for these things. as i started to say about the nhs in great britain you're seeing people on panels. you can call them whatever you like denying people care and surgery to cut the cost too much or they are too old or they are not contributing enough to the government coffers. that i believe is what is coming here and the reason is coming years because life life has been cheapened at one level and now the challenge is going to be at the other level the elderly the infirm and the unwanted. it's coming. >> host: one of the heroes that you cite in your book is none other than john calvin thomas. your story is for you an example of this virtue. explain. >> guest: i was very fortunate. i had two parents who stayed married.

i had a brother who died a year and a half ago. he had down syndrome when he was born in 1950. children like that were institutionalized and not expected to live beyond their 20s. my parents said we are not going to do that. he lived live to be 60. that was an example of compassion that i carry with me to this day. my compassion is not just about giving a handout. it's about giving a handout. i'm not going to tell you of the people i work with or done for people because that would sound self-serving. you will be surprise a lot of the things i do for people monetarily and relationally and other things but the goal is to help them improve their lives and become independent and functioning individuals not just to say there is a guy with a sign that the sign of the road. i will give him a few bucks tax-free money so he can do whatever he wants with it.

you roll down the window and save hey. they don't say they will work for food. it's easier to get the money than to do the rest but i do think we have redefined compassion and while i was fortunate to grow up in a two-parent home i work very hard. when i flunked out of college my first year my father called me in and said i'm happy to support you all these years but if you go back you will pay your own way. was that cruel? know because when i paid my own way i got serious in my grades came up because i paid my own way. that taught me a great lesson and that is why a safe failure is a wonderful thing. if you learn from it but if you except the idea of victim hood. one of the quotes from roger ailes on "fox news" speaking at the horatio alger society. if you think of yourself as a

victim you will always be a victim but if you think of yourself as a success eventually you will be one and i love that attitude. >> host: in your story you talk about having been turned down by many newspapers as you desire to write a column but then here comes one editor who says at the "l.a. times" let's give them a chance. this guy met tom johnson when he was in the lyndon johnson did administration him as a copy boy at nbc. i found him to be an engaging young man and hope that he would find the same in me. years later i wrote a column as a lark. i'd written this book called burning about censorship from the left. i wrote a column and i sent it off to what i thought would be the least likely newspaper to print at "the new york times" and the printed it. it's framed on my wall as a historical document.

i wrote another one of the "washington post" printed that. what's going on here? i contacted the syndicates and my background was broadcasting. they'll turn me down. tom was the publisher at the "l.a. times" and i called him up and i said tom i think there's a dearth of commentary particularly in the social and cultural issues to get peoples attention more than the economics. he said he may be right. the next time you come to l.a. but me know when that will set you up with their syndicate people. i went out and met with him and the more i could fulfill would say offered me a chance to two cones a week -- two cones a week. i don't know how many papers they have but it was among the top syndicated cones in america. i never took no is an answer or rejection as the final word. there is an old song that harper cook sings, it's not where you start, it's where you finish. >> host: in fact you mention and "what works" that johnson is

a liberal. >> guest: he's a liberal democrat but committed to diversity and pluralism. my life change because of him. he's an honest and wonderful man. i had dinner with him recently in atlanta he and his wife and they are discreet people. this is what has happened one. i mentioned this in the book. nobody knows anybody anymore in washington especially. we are all labeled liberal conservative. yes i do it. all types of groups african-american latino women men straight whatever it is. we are all identified by labels and nobody gets to know each other. it's like bob eklund i have become close personal friends. i know but his family life and his kids his desires and his frustrations and he knows about mine. we look beyond the labels that there's a lot of money and political power and keeping us divided. solutions to problems hurts fund-raising. i have to fund-raiser years ago

at my naïveté how come you never send out a positive letter about what you are doing positive with peoples donations. we are no longer the united states of america. we are the divided state of groups and that is what is harming us on many levels. >> host: this book is in fact directed at one of those which is the hard right. >> guest: i hope not. i have many liberal friends who are authors and columnists. i pay attention to what they are saying and in the book i grant and say that's a liberal idea if it's living up to its established reason for being being its charge or its authorized legislation i'm for it. it's doing the people good in promoting the general welfare i'm for it. government is good if it functions within its boundaries but we have exceeded those boundaries and that is what government is dysfunctional. >> host: the book is part of a

niche argument of a fragmented america that you meant you have a forward by sean hannity any quote rush limbaugh extensively. these are people that are cited in the book and there are no liberal ideas including social security which you say your like or medicare. >> guest: well this is a counter argument to much of the problem we are facing. if i thought governmengovernmen t was working well, if i thought it was functioning well in promoting welfare if i thought the tenth of meant was being looked at that sub rights specifically devoted to the government will read the reserve for the states and people if i believe that i would not have written a book. this is a counter argument to what the left is saying about government is the solution to our problems. if you'd tune into jon stossel's excellent show on saturday night he is a libertarian and goes

further than i do basijis constructs these government programs and the attitude that people turn to government first. it's like a religious cult. no matter the proof for this belief is incorrect physical proof people continue to believe it. government has replaced god. we used to turn to god and now we turn to government and we wonder why it's not working. >> host: you say liberals are the ones that turn to government and you hear obama saying we have to do more in terms of holding up family and individual responsibility. >> guest: i'm all for that to talk to his chief. >> host: in other words the niche audience it seems is a conservative hard right and maybe as you experience evangelical audience. >> guest: i don't see myself as hard right. again we are using labels. frank rich who wrote brilliant

cones for "the new york times." did i agree with everything? of course not but that does not mean his skills and ability. he is one of my favorite columnists of all time. i read two things every day my bible and "the new york times" so i know what each side is doing. i have friends on all sides but this is a counter argument. it's like medicine. it doesn't taste good and you might not like it but it's good for you. read the book understand the arguments pick it apart if you think i'm wrong but give me the evidence of why it's wrong. tell me why three head start programs are producing what they should. tell me why there were 40 different letter c. programs in the federal government that overlap or counter one another. why do we have that? why is there so much duplication of federal government programs when none of them seemed to be working in producing desirable results? that is why i want another grace commission of bratton commissioned. one of the things i mentioned on

the lecture circuit is let's take the abstinence in education. we will teach kids they have to be fortunes until they get married. that's a noble goal however the program is working so that's not working get rid of it. that's a conservatconservat ive evangelical program. >> host: as i say that's not in the book. i'm saying the finger is pointed at the larose. >> guest: they are the party of government and they have been added a lot longer. conservatives want to put government back within its boundaries. it's like a river carried in its boundaries is wonderful for sailing and fishing and swimming or whatever but when there is a flood it destroys property and sometimes lives. >> host: when we think about solutions in looking back to traditiontradition s and traditional america and looking to god and in and evangelical senses god directing us all every moment almost predestination if you will a question then becomes how does

cal thomas think about the rising number of minorities in america or now we see more and more muslims in america. in the book it doesn't seem like you have a very welcoming -- to the muslim community. >> guest: look, this is a nation that began on the issue of religious freedom. those who came from england did not want to have a state church. i want the government to show -- tell me where to worship or if to worship so i'm all for that. i think if you're going to be part of america and to come from another religious background you have to be part of that pluralism. you can make your case in the public square for your belief system but i don't think you can impose all of that through government and that includes my point of view my worldview the christian worldview on everybody who does not re-with it. i think these things are one out

in the marketplace. dr. king and ralph abernathy and others. i went to the a dream speech. i was a copy boy at nbc and it changed my thinking when it came to race. i didn't know many african-american people accept for the maids that my parents employed. if i didn't know any as a fellow human being so i think i'm all for muslims in the country, and nonbelievers and the rest but i think there's a great fear particularly among radical islam that there are certain people who want to infiltrate us and undermine us. i think we saw that 9/11. these guys took the training in florida and other places on how to fly airplanes. they were discriminated against. they were given the same lessons that everybody else would be given. we have to be careful and clearly the rattle coolest wants

us to come out of back on top by their imams that their god wants people that don't believe as they do dead. i'm all for for people evidently having complete freedom that don't agree with my religious or political worldview but i found increasingly be a lot of the extremist don't and they have responsibilities to speak up and isolate those people who feel that way. >> host: in fact in the book does this kind of discouraged you about what islam especially muslims in america are of two so the question is how would you deal with this? >> guest: i think the government has a primary responsibility and from what we know they are dealing with some of it. they're monitoring some of the radical mosques. tony blair tried to deport those who were preaching hate from some of the mosques and not just hate but insurrection wanted to bring down the british government and felt that their god commanded them to do so. he tried to deport especially those connected with the extremist who went out and kill

people who have these subway bombings in britain 77. but he was constrained by their version of the aclu and it came to the point where he was unable to deport any of them. we want everybody to come to america under the law in an orderly fashion but we used to have people the irish and the poles and germans who assimilated. they wanted their children to learn english. they loved their history and they want us to learn it. now we are all hyphenated americans. she said i'm not an african-american. i'm an american. she gets it. that's exactly right that we are all hyphenatehyphenated now. where parts of soap groups and that's the kind of thing that is harming our country. >> host: when it comes to the civil rights movement and the touch on it in terms of the description -- distinction of the different

reference of the different eras bud selig knowledge that if you go back to the founders who embrace slavery in the constitution you look at most of the history of the country where legal segregation was the law you say well that is wrong but change was needed. in most other areas you don't embrace change and you don't embrace the idea of us working as a community to improve the quality of all of our lives and the nation. >> guest: let me touch on one thing you said about the founders. not all of us were for slavery but like mr. lincoln said 100 years later, almost 100 years later if it required preserving slavery to save the union he was in favor of preserving slavery. it's emancipation would preserve the union he would be for emancipation did the founders as you know from studying history juan for a moment and this wasn't the only issue. there was the power of the states and how much right --.

>> host: i'm just saying -- >> guest: dr. king and so did lincoln refer back to those founding documents particularly the greatest phrase ever read about human freedom. all men are created equally and endowed by their creator. the interested rights in order to be protected from government had to be put outside of the reach of government and dr. king appeal to that and lincoln appealed to that carried you are absolutely right. ..

>> guest: this was wrong morally that plaque people were entitle to the same rights at lunch counters restrooms, jobs, housing, whatever it is, not because the government would give it to them or should, but because they enjoyed the same endowed inalienable rights as every other human being. >> host: you understand government had to enforce -- >> guest: government had to enforce, that's true. >> host: government was an important instrument. >> guest: it was. i'm not saying, again, juan, i don't want to be misunderstood here. not throwing the baby art with the bath water, there is a reason for government.

government needs to restrain sinful people who will not be constrained from within by a higher power. that's the purpose of government. government is a bib byically established institution, but it has limitations. founders wanted government restrained within boundaryings so the people would be unlimited. that's why the preamble starts "we the people" not "you the government." >> host: thank you for coming in it's called "what works common sense solution for a stronger america" and you notice on the cover, cal has a ground hog over the left shoulder because he thinks we keep ignoring the comps solutions that our forefathers gave us. >> guest: repeating everything like on the movie "ground hog day." thank you. >> host: thank you for joining us on "after words." glrks next, booktv attended a

reception for cal thomas at the heritage foundation in washington, d.c.. he's celebrating 30 years as a syndicated columnist, signing books and chatted with guests. [inaudible conversations] >> hey, my favorite guy so far, three of them, way to go. who is this for, or just sign it? >> ford and kay. >> thank you. well, how very nice. that's the way to headache points. where do they live? >> springfield, virginia. >> oh, yeah, down the road a bit. >> my girlfriend's from there. >> you'll bring her around. >> way about this one? >> pat and wayne. >> w-a-y-n-e? >> yes, sir. tell me what you do? >> i work in the didn't, a