those are the technical name, failure to deliver. the government was very, when he or we got in@@ h kevin: or kevin: billion fake shares. people were getting merrill lynch and goldman sachs statements saying they had stock they never really had. that's just the tip. no one knows how big the rest of it is. it's probably a multiple between -- beltways or 15 times the size. what the f.c.c.'s response was they -- they stonewalled, they slammed the door. i -- i have a website called deppcapture.com which explores my fight with wall street.

it's basically investigative journalism directed at wall street. and because we became convinced the f.c.c. was something called a capture regulator. convinced they were a captured regulator when a regulator forgets to protect mainstream from industry and they think about the million dollars a year jobs waiting for them to be a good boy. people used to think i was crazy talking about that but with the last year it's an obvious truth that, the fcc forgot to do its job. i'm a fan of the new people that have come in and the internet taxation point, you made an interesting point. the truth is, that if somebody orders from us in madison, wisconsin. what's supposed to have happen is they have a duty to collect

that tax on themselves and turn it into a county or the tax jurisdiction. turns out almost nobody ever does that. but the proper way for if the states want this revenue they have the legal right to turn to their own constituents saying you have to give us a report of how much you bought on-line and give us a check for six percent. they don't want to face the people that are their actual, the people that have the actual tax liabilities. >> california? patrick burn. carol, independent line. >> good morning i'm honored to speak with patrick. he's been working so hard on naked short selling. i've been gravely concerned about this in our country. i think it's in a ruins. all of the markets. what can we as stockholder, what

can we as small, really nobodys in the united states do about this problem? it's very concerning? >> well, carol, first of all thank you for your kind comments. the truth of it is, nothing. there's nothing you can do. this is the perfect crime. most people don't know. it's economists have a phrase called the problem of dispersed cost and concentration benefits. these folks figured out how to drain tens and hundreds of billions and maybe more, maybe one or two trillion out of the system. out of your saving as count and everybody else's and most people never even understood this was going on. now that it's broken through, and that gave them the clout to come and hire lobbyists. they're extremely powerful here

in town. i fight with them all the time. as soon as i leave the manage hedge funds lobby is sending people in pulling other way. there's very little you can do. sorry to say it's the perfect crime and it clearsly. there's been re importance it was around the collapse of bare and lehman bros.. people will find if time this is intertwined in this entire crisis. not saying it's the whole crisis and there were clearly problems but people figured out how to take fire insurance on somebody's house and then go burn it down. maybe it would have burned down any way but it's wound, the in crowd or the smart money on wall street all understands this is part of all the issues your reading about. in fact what's really funny is last summer the,f fcc wall strt

came for protection against the crime who's existence they denied and the,fcc granted them a 30 day emergency order to protect the center of our financial system from the crime they all said wasn't going on. so, we're saying the thing that they gave them which is called pre bar requirement they ought to give to all publically traded companies in america. so, what can you do? the best you can do and i have learned this makes a difference. write your congressional representatives and senators. there's a site called congress merge.com making it easy to write represents and tell them you support pre borrow. there's a bill from ted in delaware that he's getting prepared to do a bill that the

demand of this certain technical thing. >> does over stock.com pay federal corporate taxes? how are they calculated. is it based on sales volume and isn't that taxation? >> not volume but they're based on income. and like - we've actually been for about three years now- a nice positive cash flow and it's accelerating but we have all start ups, sort of a start up here where you lose money and amazon lost 3 point 9 million i think as it got going. we've turned profitable and we have nice cash flow but the first thing you do is you get to fill in the pothole you built in the earlier days before you have to start paying tax. >> couple of policy things going on in d.c.. obama wants to expand broadband in the united states. how's that impact your business?

>> well, first i should say if we're talking about obama. i like him and i this is great we have a president, intelligence, educated and with a judy house temprement but i disagree on some of the policies. this is america, i can do that. this whole stimulus packet we can go into but this little angle. the people getting that money it's quite questionable whether they even want it and two companies have announced they're spending 17 billion each. the private sector is doing 35 billion dollars of what obama is doing with 7 billion dollars. i think that's more of a political pin to stick in the wall than actually going to contribute. >> how behavorial are the adds on google that hold information and target you with certain

searchs? >> we use that kind of technology and i actually don't understand and would be happy to hear from a listener, what would be so offensive about that. when you walk into nordstrom the guy knows you and remembers you and says i remember those shoes you were looking at this other guy came in it may seem like when you go to google and see adds relevant to what you search for gives you a big brother feel. there's no big but there it's computer matching electrons trying personalize the experience. some people like it and i would have t hear why. >> mississippi. democrats line. >> i'm a huge on-line shopper. mostly through amazon. never tried your website but i think it or i will. sounds good. about this thing, i don't really pay attention to the taxes.

i order on-line because the inventor is so deep. stuff i can't find anywhere else. so, i don't know how the tax thing will effect you that much, however, as an argument against the person that called up and said, you know the ups guys are using roads and so forth. you can counter argument with that saying that, well when you pay the shipping and handling and in directly all that money comes through other taxes. employee taxes and so forth. thanks for the great topic. >> thank you all, rick, i want you as my lawyer. good response. georgia. bob on the republican line. >> hi. my question is that if you sell an item for $100 and i as a small business person in my area sell it. you charge hundred dollars on the credit card. i charge 107 dollars. you have a 7 dollar advantage

over me in prices. >> yes. >> that's my question. where do you say that's fair? >> well, that 7 dollars is you're paying as your paying state in return for the services your taking from the state. you've got a store front that's police protected road and roads your employees are driving on. employees with children in school so you're getting all these services from the local state. i would say those are income prabl or greater by the services like giving a package to fedex delivering to a customer down the street from you. a tax isn't just some mandate from god. the price is the name of why the government charges you for it's services. well, your demanding many more services from your government than i am. why would it be fair for me to

pay the same amount for the same amount as you pay for the services that i don't actually use? >> on the subject of behavorial ads the problem is it's usually done without knowledge of the user. permission should be required. >> i think that's fair. allow or don't. we started something with face book where you came to over stock and if you're a face book user it popped up a message and said would you like us to tell your friends what you bought on face book, and you had to check yes. and then we had this deal with face book and it went out and the friends see you just bought a new pair of skis. you had to on face book as i recall you actually had to on ttpt out. offer there they assumed yes and

there was quite an outcry and as soon as the happening occurred you have to deliberately allow it in both places and so there are nuances like that that have to be determined of what people think is fair, but i think that writers solution is great. if you can, opt in and if you do, as you surf the net your google results will be smarter. msn responses will be smarter. when you come to over stock and you go to the "new york times" you'll see products related to what your looking in over stock. only if you opt in. >> washington. independent line? >> they should use the tax thing between i don't know start the biggest companies because they got money. and then when they use all this

stuff and then they don't use the tax thingy. they're ripping the state off and not getting states not getting their priority because obama wants to know exactly what's doing on with that company and he doesn't know unless we pay taxes and then we need questionnaires on all the people. - because there's good and bad and the streets need to be done. it all costs money if we use that for an option of how paying back bills and then volunteer the times paying off the back balance. there's a lot of homeless people and there's a lot of low income people that can't really pay off their back bills because we can't afford it. >> well, how would it help, if somebody starts taxing your internet purchases so when you

buy that hundred dollar item you spend $107. the government gets 7 and then can use the 7 to come back and pay off your bill. i don't see other than the friction cost of it all going through the government and creating programs that don't go away and is such, i don't see how that helps. it's taxing you more. and you have to always ask, what is the value of what it is you're getting from government? i'd say people might look around and say i'm not sure we're getting full value for as much as we're spending on government. >> let me - quick. go ahead. >> we spend as a country. a total federal state and local expenditures on kindergarten through 12th gr grade education. 600 billion dollars on 50 million children. that's 12 thousand dollars per child.

if you take the total government it's $12,000 per child. are we really getting -- that should be a mini harvard education, in my mind. in d.c., it's $17,000. i don't think the answer of well, what we have to do is get more tax, throw more money into that system strikes me as a nonstarter. how about we start figuring out why aren't we getting $12,000 of education for each child that is in school? >> our guest founded 19 schools internationally. why did you do that? >> well, i'm a bachelor. i don't really have much to do with my -- society has rewarded me far in excess of any actual talent or merit. i use my money to go build schools overseas. i have got a wonderful partner from the n.g.o. community. a guy who grew cynical like i did over the years about some of the things we saw overseas in the n.g.o. world.

he and his wife go out and build schools. schools. many are schools for just girls. some are both have wonderful business model as attached so it's a school and or fan age and they raise boiler check ins and they sell a crop and that supports the schools on-going. there's actually about 21 now and 10 to 12 thousand children in them. cross afghanistan, in the pal and africa. we're starting to move to latin america up and i name them all dorothy burn after my mom. >> republican line? >> thanks for taking my call. mr. burn, thank you so much for being on the forefront of naked shorting an and greatest ponzi scheme this nation has seen. you've been doing a fantastic job and those of us that have been following it have been

following you as well. my question - >> thank you. >> sure. my question is on the books, there have been um... there have been rules and regulations that were able to stop the naked shorting and we know that someone has been asleep at the switch but what's on our minds is, do you see the loopholes being closed and the you know the reigning in of naked shorting as you will? >> well, thank you for your really generous comments, dan. my thoughts are, well it has been quite a struggle and when americans understand as they are getting an understanding of this issue. i think it's going to turn out to be the biggest financial crime of all-time. it may be a trillion dollars was lewded out of the savings of

america. at least there's enough data in the tens of buildings or hundreds of billions. the loopholes we've fought and we've spent millions of dollars trying educate people in congress about these loopholes. one of them, like i say is the bernie madoff exception. the truth is we've had progress since about september of last year tightening loopholes but there are others and bad guys keep shifting activity. there's one thing that cut as cross all of them. it's called, i won't go in the technical detail bus it's called pre borrow. if we're the pre borrow which is what they did for the banks. it would fix the american marketplace and rid them of this problem. very fine economist here in town. robert shapiro.

harvard economist. clinton's under secretary. one of the most respectable economists i've met. just a wonderful fellow and he's recently done a study and the study says, all their arguments against doing this are go knee. they're just, wall street is blowing blue smoke and mirrors to keep anyone from -dc from understanding the pre bar requirement. secondly, so it wouldn't actually have the bad cons >> tomorrow on "washington journal," michael ettlinger and john lott discuss the obama administration spending policy.

>> "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this week on c-span's "newsmakers," senate minority whip jon kyl discusses some of the issues on the senate agenda including health care and preparing for the confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor. >> i was reading last night -- there is a lot of reading involved here. i was reading some very troubling things last night about her views toward international law. in effect saying that you can interpret the united states constitution by looking to see what public opinion is in europe. well, public opinion in europe has nothing whatsoever to do with what our constitution means. if that's really her point of view, that's very troubling. i mean, i would -- i could not

vote for a judge who believed that. she said it on several occasions. i'm going to have to ask her what do you mean by that? when people talk about a filibuster, understand that republicans probably couldn't filibuster this nomination on our own. there aren't enough of us. so even if we wanted to. by the way, none of us are talking about filibuster. it's all in response to questions from the media, which are fair questions, but we're not proposing this. as you point out, it would be very difficult for us to pull off anyway unless some democrats joined in. >> sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> nor nonfiction books and authors through the weekend on cable-satellite public affairs network's "book tv ." tomorrow, joel rosenberg takes you inside the revolution. how the followers of jihad, jefferson, and jesus are battling to dominate the middle east and transform the world. followed by a look at what's next for the economy.

steven moore, peter tanis and arthur laffer on taxes and the end of prosperity. and later, foreclosure nation. a real estate attorney on the housing crunch and where it's headed. on "after words," how do you run for congress with $7,000 and your sixth grade students managing the campaign? tierney cahill give it a shot in "ms. cahill for congress ." look for our schedules online at booktv.org. >> in his weekly online address, president obama proposed $313 billion in savings to pay for his health care initiative and include reducing government spending on prescription drugs and cutting reimbursements to hospitals that treat uninsured patients. he is followed by indiana representative mike pence, chair of the republican conference, who talks about his party's energy plan that calls

for more oil and gas drilling and investments in alternative and renewable energy sources. >> when it comes to the cost of health care, this much is clear. the status quo is unsustainable for families, businesses, and government. america spends nearly 50% more per person on health care than any other country. health care premiums have doubled over the last decade. deductibles and out-of-pocket costs have skyrocketed. many with pre-existing conditions are denied coverage. more and more, americans are being priced out of the care they need. these costs are also hurting business. as some big businesses are at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign counterparts and some small businesses are forced to cut benefits, drop coverage, or even lay off

workers. meanwhile, medicare and medicaid pose one of the greatest threats to our federal deficit and could leave our children with a mountain of debt that they cannot pay. we cannot continue down this path. i don't accept a future where americans forgo health care because they can't pay for it and more and more families go without coverage at all. i don't accept a future where american business is hurt and our government goes broke. we have a responsibility to act and to act now. that's why i'm working with congress to pass reform that lowers costs, improves quality and coverage and protects consumer health care choices. i know some question whether we can afford to act this year, but the unmistakable truth is it would be irresponsible to not act. we can't keep shifting a growing burden of future generations. with each passing year, health care costs consume a larger share of our nation's spending and contribute to yawning deficits that we can't control. so let me be clear. health care reform is not part

of the problem when it comes to our fiscal future. it's a fundamental part of the solution. real reform will mean reductions in our long-term budget. i made a firm commitment that health care reform will not add to the federal deficit over the next decade. to meet that commitment, my administration has already identified how to pay for the historic $635 billion down payment on reform detailed in our budget. this includes over $300 billion that we will save through changes like reducing medicare overpayments to private insurers and rooting out waste and medicare and medicaid. however, any honest accounting must prepare for the fact that health care reform will require additional costs in the short term in order to reduce spending in the long term. so today i'm announcing an additional $313 billion in savings that will rein in unnecessary spending and increase efficiency and the equal of care.

savings that will ensure that we have nearly $950 billion set aside to offset the costs of health care reform over the next 10 years. these savings will come from commonsense changes. for example, if more americans are insured, we can cut payments that help hospitals treat patients without health insurance. if the dug makers pay their fair share, we can cut government spending on prescription drugs. if doctors have incentive to provide the best care instead of more care, we can help americans avoid the unnecessary hospital stays, treatments, and tests that drive up costs. for more details about these and other savings, you can visit our website, www.whitehouse.gov. these savings underscore the fact that securing quality, affordable health care for the american people is tied to directly insisting upon fiscal responsibility, and these savings are rooted in the same principle that must guide our broader approach to reform. we will fix what's broken while

building upon what works. if you like your plan and your doctor, you can keep them. the only changes that you will see are lower costs and better health care. for too long, we have stood by while our health care system is frayed at the seams. while there has been excuse after excuse to delay reform, the price of care has gone up for individuals, for business, and for the government. this time must be different. this is the moment when we must reform health care so we can build a new foundation for our economy to grow, for our people to thrive, and for our country to pursue a responsible and sustainable path. thanks. >> i'm indiana congressman mike pence. across the country, gas prices and home utility bills are on the rise again. during these difficult economic times, higher energy prices impose a great hardship on families struggling to make ends meet. unfortunately, the democrat majority in congress is embracing a national energy tax

that will lead to even higher energy prices and massive job losses for the american people. president obama even admitted that under his energy plan, utility rates would, quote, necessarily skyrocket. if the democrats' cap and trade bill were to become law, estimates suggest that the average american family would face up to $4,300 a year in extra energy costs and anywhere from between 1.8 and seven million american jobs could be lost. that's a heavy price to pay for a plan that will do very little to clean up our environment. since manufacturers will probably ship their plants and their pollution to countries with less stringent environmental safeguards. this national energy tax amounts to an economic declaration of war on america's families, small businesses, and family farms. the american people know we can do better. this past week, house republicans introduced the american energy act. it's an all of the above energy plan that offers energy independence, more jobs, and a

cleaner environment without imposing a national energy tax. the republican energy plan calls for more domestic exploration for oil and natural gas, a renewed commitment to clean, emissions free nuclear energy, investments in renewable and alternative energy technologies, and incentives to spur greater conservation among individuals and businesses. the american energy act is the comprehensive energy solution this country desperately needs to achieve energy independence, create good jobs, and help our environment. during these difficult times, the american people don't want a national energy tax out of washington, d.c. we want a 21st century answer to our nation's energy needs. the all of the above strategy of the american energy act is that answer. for more information about the american mirg act, log onto gop.gov. i'm mike pence. thanks for listening.