everybody that has the money to buy these people making our laws -- are senate in our congress -- until we stop these people, no matter how good the plan is that the president puts in, it is not going to get through. let me say one thing. three months ago, oil was below $30 a barrel. they were still charging over $2 a barrel. they asked what was going on, and the oil company said we like all profits at $2 a barrel and -- at $2 a gallon, and we are going to keep it there. host: next call, the morning. caller: i tend to be conservative, but after attending from my elderly grandmother on medicare, competition has absolutely no place in health care in any sense of the word.

when somebody is killed, it is extortion, is what a poet -- when somebody is ill, it is extortion. it clearly does not work. when you are really sick, you cannot really go around and try to shop for the best test. you have got a lot of other things on your mind. you do not feel well. people work that comes in is just mind-numbing. -- the paperwork that comes in is just mind-numbing. it is a totally different ball of wax from what we involved in this country. it has absolutely no place, in my opinion. doctors should know what they're doing until proved otherwise, with democrats and republicans making decisions. overall, that would work. host: we will leave it there. .

host: our guest reports for political. thank you for your time this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: we are going to take a break and then talk about the supplemental bill. seeing resistance from both sides of the ideal. our guest jane hamsher author of the blogg "firedoglake"

she will get her input on the health-care debate taking place in washington. later on in the program, "alternet" -- neil macfarquhar will get his input that is coming up. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> this morning, a house subcommittee takes up the issue

of insurance oversight. live coverage beginning at 10:00 eastern on c-span3. the senate, it -- commerce committee later on at 2:30 on c- span3. those hearings will be live at c-span.org. >> discover an unfamiliar sight of our nation's first president as we are live from george washington's mount vernon estate. join our 3 our conversation sunday to like it, live on in depth. >> how is c-span funded? >> i have no clue. and >> i would say donations. advertisement for a product.

>> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private initiative, no government mandate, no government money. >> there will be a debate today looking at the war supplemental bill. what is the debate behind it? >guest: when barack obama was in direct for the g-20 a while back, she promised $800 billion in aid to the -- he promised $800 billion to the imf.

they could say they were voting for the war, but in order to do that, the republicans decided they were not going to vote for it, and they are not, at least that is what they have said now, that meant that the progressive members of the congress, had to vote against their conscience. you are going to see that battle today. you are going to see progress is to know that if they vote on this, they could take their boats up conscious and it would still pass. -- and their vote of a conscious and it would still pass. host: you mentioned that the republicans' most likely will hold together. will the progressives hold together do you think? guest: that is a good question. i think there was a mixup yesterday. some of the republicans were thinking of cutting a deal with

rahm emanuel in order to help them pass it. in progress is like dennis is a rigid are going to have trouble passing this in their communities. abel said they made a pledge to not vote for anything that had troop withdrawals in it. they just do not want to do this. i think they are right, because if they do that, that means they were hypocrites all those years. i personally think that is wrong. i think they think it is wrong, and i hope we -- and hopefully that is what we will find that today. host: our guest jane hamsher will be with us for the next hour. call in with your questions and comments. e-mail us at c-span.org.

as far as the imf is concerned, talk about the has and seek to support this. -- hesitancy to support this. guest: we are being told that we cannot bailout california because we do not have the money. people are not being treated for breast cancer because we do not have the money. how do we justify an $800 billion loan to basically bail out of european banks out of the same situation that american banks were in? this is the same imf deal we have always had. republicans in progress is still the same way about this. it is bad. it is not a good bill. it is wasteful. let's talk about the imf and talk about this money, and why it needs to be a priority for us

to back an $800 billion loans and banks to the european banks. host: let's talk about what people who go to your blog are talking about right now g. guest: they are pretty much talking about the same thing. they are starting to say they are getting nervous because republicans are saying they're going to target them if they vote for this. they thought if they had a cover of the war funding, they would be able to say they were just voting for the war. i think they could pay a real prize in 2010. readers on might blog are concerned about that, too. host: talk about your blog

"firedoglake. guest: we have been engaged in this debate that has really not been caught up in the media. we have been talking about the white house energy. they are absolutely committed to this. rahm emanuel is wheeling and dealing on this. why do they need this? why do they need any hundred billion dollar bailout of european banks? i am not convinced that they do. host: do they need this to pass politically? guest: i am not convinced that they do. let's pass these bills on the sleek, debate them on their own merits, and then see where with -- see where they come out. host: let's go to a caller from new hampshire. caller: i was wondering if you

knew how much money was being installed for private contractors like blackrock? guest: i do not know if it is broken out in quite that way. the money is going to the imf. the imf operates behind a veil of secrecy. there was a letter signed by 41 members of congress saying we want to know more about this. they want to make sure the money is going into court countries and not just disappearing into european banks. -- they want to make sure the money is going into poor countries. host: from alexander, virginia. tony is on the republican line. gcaller: good morning. thank you c-span.

i have a question. i think bailing out the american banks was ridiculous, much less the european banks. that aside, there is a bill in congress, with i understand, a bipartisan bruce -- bipartisan support to make the books of the federal reserve transparent. that is to publish the audit of the federal reserve. obviously these kinds of decisions of the federal reserve had a huge role in these macro economic national decisions. do you know where that bill stands? guest: as a matter of fact, i do. it has 224 votes. 217 is the majority. originally it was house resolution 12 07 -- 1207.

at the time, alan gracin a republican from florida was on this bill also. and now there is 222. we have been active in keeping a total on the books. and-- total on the votes. we're seeing more democrats to lot more transparency and an end to these bailouts. there is nothing that you said that i do not disagree with. i am pretty progressive. host: one of the aspects i have been reading about is the detainee potus. -- detainee photographs. guest: these are gone. it came on the radar when barney frank called me and said this is in the bill, and even people

like me who want to vote for this bill will not vote for it. i think it was in there so that progress is would feel like they got something. in fact, that was what happens. president obama wrote a letter and said do not include the photographs. host: monet, missouri. and caller: first, i have a request of c-span, when the debate on the imf -- attached amendment was in the senate, and requesting that you pull up comments about that. jeff craigs explained this very well to his counterparts in the senate.

host: what did he say? caller: the united states has never lost one penny on loans to the imf. the imf needs money to loan to developing countries. basically this is electronic money. it is not printing u.s. paper money and sending it to the imf. the european banks are not involved in this whatsoever. so i think c-span should start giving iq test to commentators to see if they have one. guest: i will tell you that i think you have a couple of the details wrong. number one, it is a loan to the imf. they are counting that it will

be about $5 billion. if the loans go bad, you go bad. you have to pay the full value of the loan. they usually loan through banks, and in this particular situation and as in most imf situations, they are recourse loans. they countries have to pay them back. -- the countries have to pay them back. and the countries have to decide what they are going to do in terms of being offering -- in terms of offering social services. if you read the schock doctrine, it makes it very easy to understand. the problem is that they do this behind a veil of lack of transparency. they will not release documents. maxine waters is saying she

wants to see the documents. she once the parliament to be able to vote on this. if you do not think that we're going to be on the line for that $108 billion, i think i have to disagree with you there. that is what happens when you guarantee a loan. if it goes bad, if the countries are unstable, if they cannot pay them and they are supposed to, are we going to eat it? that has to be the way things work. host: what to the visitors to your site think about current discussions about the current policy and i rack? -- in iraq? is this still at the forefront? guest: president obama was elected with a very strong favorable outcome of ending the war. i think most of the polling that

has been done so as it has really dropped down -- shows it has really dropped down. we are still over there. we have trooped a civilization -- acceleration in afghanistan. we can see iran is still a hot bed. it is still a problem. i think people would like it to be high year on their radar. -- higher on tehe radar. we have stopped wars in the past by stopping funding them. in 2007, members of the house signed a commitment saying that they would actually never vote for any war funding that did not include troop withdrawal.

rep the governor said what is the exit strategy that brings men and women home? until someone is the end credits -- until someone gives me a credible answer, the answer is no. this makes it look bad for all of us who wanted to use this for a way to end the war. i think people are very concerned about where he is going with this. host: we're going to hear from mary. ancaller: good morning. people are saying that you never hear from us again if you do not vote for more money. i think it is cruel. i think it is inhumane what we're doing. if this is a man i voted for, i want my vote back.

we need to get out of this crap, you know? i do not know. we are tired of all of these oil wars. we're using the middle east as a great big gas station. that is really all you have to say. thank you for your time. guest: i did read that. it was quoted in several places. the white house was telling democratic freshmen that if they did not vote for this, they would never hear from them again. i think things like that have actually given progressive members of congress some solidarity and that situation. they should not be under attack like that. i know that so far the only one to come out and say that he will vote for this is jim cooper of tennessee. it is going to be a real problem for him because he is very proud of the fact that he will not add

any earmarks in 2009. he is a fiscal responsibility who thinks we need to cut social security benefits. suddenly he is voting for this pork-ridden bill, and he will have to explain how "squares this because of the fact that he will not get much -- will not get funding for hospitals and national that -- in nashville that will get shut down. host: anthony on the republican line. caller: have squared is --- 0 is she doing? host: we're going to leave it at that and ask questions to our guests. caller: jane hamsher, how are

you doing? who is going to have the problems with the republicans not voting for this or the democrats voting for the imf or not voting for the mf? -- imf? i thought my party was strong on war spending. i am a moderate now. i was born in 1942. i have voted for republicans in all of my years, except in 2008 i voted for president obama. there is no war going on in afghanistan very seriously. -- there is a war going on in afghanistan very seriously. we have to look at this in a positive way as an attack on our

soil. that is where i am confused. who is going to win this progressive corp., if that is what you want to call it, democrats or republicans? -- who is going to win this progressive war? guest: progresses will tell you that they do not like the money being held hostage. when supplemental passed the house the first time, it passed with only 60 votes boating -- voting nay. it is the imf that is the problem. it is the conservative democrats that will have a problem with it more than republicans. host: we're going to are independent line. you are on a list jane hamsher author of the blog

"firedoglake." caller: i am a progressive in south carolina. that is a rare item around here. i am a southerner. they backed -- south carolina backs the republican party. with that said, i am really disturbed that obama is not pushing more for getting out of iraq. rahm emanuel when he was appointed, at the second in command, i had real reservations about that. i was afraid that that would not be good for getting out of iraq, but anyway i am against this funding. i think one of the reasons we're

talking about iraq war, is when you see any footage of their -- over there? you do not see the suffering of the families and putting up with this type of stuff. i think that is one of the reasons. i would like your comments on this. i think one of the waste -- ways , i think i know how to solve the problem and that is to cut off the funding to israel. guest: thank you so much for keeping the faith and being progressive in an area that is not easy to be progressive in. there is a lot of concern that the war is not as front and center as it needs to be. a lot of that is because of a

lot of the anti-war people are not as front and center of of this. a lot of the people that we've counted on during the bush administration had disappeared. someone like me who has none -- not done a lot of anti-bwar activism, i feel like i need to to get the word out. i do not think there will be any problem in passing this in the senate. the senate passed this before. senator joe lieberman said that if they were not -- if they severed the detainee photograph provision that he would hold this hostage. now we know what it takes to stop the senate. ai imagine that that will be

something they can negotiate. host: democrats line is next. are you there? let's go on to new bern, north carolina. caller: i crossed over and voted for obama. obama said he would not have the money in the supplementaries like bush did, but he is doing the same thing. this is like vietnam, the democrats did not protest the war in 1969. they protested the war went the democrat was in. the same thing is going on now. this is ludicrous keeping these wars going on for close to a decade now. people need to stop this war. thank you. guest: that is a good point. this is not a liberal, democratic thing.

there are many people who are objecting this. this is damaging for a lot of reasons. your comments about democrats not protesting when the democrats is an office, i wish it was not true, but i have to agree with you. caller: it has to be in a dismal day to be a progressive eight in america. -- it has to be a dismal day to be a progressive in america. and it has to be a really bad day -- i would not say to be a democrat, that to be a progressive it has to be a bad day. your own party shut down and will keep their mouth shut to preserve the new world order.

guest: i am not sure that i accept the premise that progressives have control. it is an interesting idea. i think maybe if you struggled you could see a few progressive senators. that does not comprise a majority. host: what comprises being a progressive other than a democrat? guest: there is a progressive caucus in the house. you are a member and you are aligned with it. you put your name to it. host: as far as principles are concerned? guest: part of the reason there is not a lot of cohesiveness is that they have not come together and decide -- decided what they stand for. host: virginia,d