to the edge of it. even fed officials would acknowledge they have gone to the edge of their authority and have stopped. the question is whether the authority should be reined in, or as the administration has suggested, giving it expanded responsibility. host: we have jackie on the line. caller: a few minutes ago he gave an explanation of an audit. it is an official examination of accounts, not anything about taking over or disposing of, or breaking up of an entity. it is to find out what is part of the company. what their actions are and what is on hand as far as currency

and assets and debts. to audit the fed, to say that it will break it up is disingenuous. we do not know who runs these entities. we don't know who is the fed. we know that alan greenspan did it and been bernanke is in there now. but you had a gentleman on last week from a petroleum company who at the end of his time on the show was known to be the president of the texas fed. we do not know who these people are or what their objectives are. they are controlling all we do in this country. they control the money, the businesses. we do not know who runs it. i think that 2 of it is not to dispose of, but to find out what is going on.

thank you. guest: i was certainly not suggesting that auditing the fed would break it up or disturb its current structure immediately, but the concern is that given that the gao is under, that congress can request such a review, that could lead to some political interference. that is the concern. on some questions the caller raised, we do know the accounts of the fed. the fed releases a balance sheet statement every thursday afternoon. we all look at it closely. it tells us how much money is in various accounts and what the fed has done with various programs. they have gone to lengths recently to provide even more information. they have not provided everything the congress has

wanted, but they have provided more. we certainly know a lot about the federal reserve governors in washington. they are government officials. as far as the reserve banks, those private institutions part of the system, that is where much of the concern is. the presidents of these banks are well-known across the country and in their districts. we followed them closely. the board may not be as well- known. with public documents you can find out about them. their role and responsibility is what congress is discussing now. the fed is audited right now by its own auditors and extra ones. there are private accounting firms hired to audit the fed. there is a review of its accounts in ne.

the question is whether this should be audited more broadly. host: we have don from mexico on the independent line. caller: good morning. one of the books written on the fed is "secrets of the temple" by geithner. are you familiar with it? guest: i am. caller: i'm surprised by the total lack of transparency. we did not even though the total amount of credit extended by the fed. bloomberg has been trying to follow it and at some point they say is something like $12.70 trillion of money extended out there. we have no idea where. the second thing, the whole issue of bear stearns. early in this crisis the american taxpayer purchased bear stearns.

that was for $29 billion. it took one year from the purchase time to discover that blackness is rock, the company that was going to dissolve -- that blackrock was going to dissolve the top six assets at bear stearns. i do not think the american people are in touch with the incredible power. when clinton came into power, my line was -- why do we even elect a president and the federal reserve has so much power? they can basically manipulate our money. they are in a tremendous position of control. there is so little transparency. i find it troubling. they are just floating around with so much power and taxpayers are just sitting there

and funding a. guest: those are several points that are part of this growing sentiment not only in the public, but also in congress concerning the fed. whether it has too much power and is transparent. the question of secrecy within the fed gets a lot more attention now because of some of the issues you mentioned. its loans to financial institutions -- we do for the most part the amount of these in the aggregate -- we know them in aggregate. the challenge is to find out who they are lending to. if you were to disclose the name of an institution the need to take an emergency loan for liquidity purposes, not because it is failing, but to keep its reserves in good shape -- the fed says if you were to disclose that it could lead ita run on

the bank and create a much bigger problem not only with big banks, but with small banks too. that has been what the fed says it is resisting this pressure for transparency here. as for s the bear stearns transaction, that is what led the fed into this criticism as to whether it has been over extended. that is where it is getting attention now. that transaction was obviously risky and done with the support of the treasury secretary. throughout the crisis the fed has been used and offered itself to carry out transactions that could not be done quickly through the normal legislative and executive processes. that is the concern now. the alternative, if you are facing a potential disaster in

markets do you want to try to draw 535 members of congress to debate for two weeks which should be done with a particular loan? and allow all the damage to the system to occur? that has been the concern all along. we only have to look back to september when the request for the $700 billion bailout program came in and the congress, the house initially voted it down before ultimately passing it. whether it was appropriate legislation is another question. weather is better to create an independent institution to make those decisions. host: thanks for being with us,

sudeep reddy. we will be right back. ♪ >> as of this year's supreme court term comes to an end here chief justice roberts talk about it. then inexperienced panel will review the decisions handed down this past year. live coverage on saturday morning at 9:00 a.m. eastern. >> july 4 weekend, discover and unfamiliar side of george washington as well live from mount vernon with this author.

join our three-hour conversation sunday, july 5 c-span2's "book tv" >> how is it is infinite? >> grants and things like that. >> may be from sponsors? >> it might get some government funding. >> viewers? >> 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative. "washington journal" continues. host: for the rest of the hour we're talking about the public auction in the health care plan. what you think about it? you can weigh in on that.

how the field of public auction in health care? you can e-mail us or you can tweet your comments. taking a look at "usa today" -- a lawmakers get generous health plans. looking at what lawmakers themselves get for their personal plans. this rector says that they are embroiled in a debate as to how to provide coverage for 46 million uninsured people. they also showed up bridge of shelled out 13% more for premiums, the study showed. lawmakers are looking at if their plan could be extended to other americans. it is the same available to all

government workers. congressional members recipe for a small fee and at military hospitals in the same is offered to the president. they get what bureaucrats get. would you like the health care plan modeled after congress received? the think it is fair they get what they get? our first call is on the democrats' line. we have had joining us from hemlock, michigan. caller: good morning. i think they should have something for the poor and for the working poor. people who are working and making money, but still cannot get any help because their

companies do not have insurance. my daughter is one of them. the company does not have insurance. i think they should get insurance. they had a piece in aarp where they said hospitals have no way of recouping their costs for the uninsured. the hospitals have to eat it. my daughter has no insurance. the company that she works for commission makes good money, but she has sugar, has its bad. they are saying in the aarp magazine -- she is paid every two weeks. they take half of her check every two weeks. host: do you think a solution could come from private

industry, or is a public auction needed? caller: i think both. host: let's go to the independent line from missouri. welcome. caller: thank you, i am in favor of a public auction. the way i feel about health care i think every person should have the opportunity to purchase health care. the american taxpayers spend a heck of a lot of money providing insurance for congressman, to the house and senate, other government employees, and so i think that every american should have the same opportunity that our lawmakers have.

i think in universal health insurance were there would be different plans are policies, a person could choose, and the premiums paid by individuals should be based on their income. for example, since people pay for government employees, if a center pay is, his premium is five% of his gross income, then everybody who wants -- what a senator pays, everyone who wants to participate in a public auction, at bthey should pay 5%f their gross income also. host: let's go to a republican line. caller: no matter what we do it

will not do any good because when you go to the hospital you have people who cannot afford. we have people who came into our country illegally who have gotten free medical. i think that is the problem. we have enough and our own country who are in need. illegals in our area are taking our jobs and will not even higher as because they can pay less or not pay at all. i have heard business people say that. we cannot afford our own people and we're helping other people who are not supposed to be here. we will lose the battle. we cannot even afford our own people. i don't see where anything will help unless we help our own first. get them working. make sure that business owners hire americans.

there is one company out here that has nine americans and 2000 illegals. when they have a road check it will not let us get out of work until the road it check is done. businesses like that -- they even worked under the same name. they all have the same name. host: let's look at what president obama recently said about health care. >> as one of those options for us to say here is a public auction that is not profit- driven, that can keep down administrative costs and that provides you good quality care for a reasonable price as one of the options for you to choose, i

think that makes sense. >> will that drive private insurance out of business? >> why it would it? if private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care, if they tell us that they are offering a good deal -- then why is it that the government which they say cannot run anything -- why is it that the government will suddenly drive them out of business? that is not logical. host: the next caller is veronica from new york. caller: thank you for taking my call. my husband was on social security disability and he has passed away since 1992. i have not had health care. i have a low salary, but i do not qualify for medicaid because i think they only allow you to make for one person less than

$7,000 per year. i am petrified that god forbid something happens to me how i would ever pay a hospital bill. i do pay my doctor. i do pay for my prescriptions, but i am petrified about the hospital. i had to go to the emergency room last year and was only there for a couple of hours in my bill was $2,600. i had to make a payment arrangement to pay them $100 per month. i own a very small home. if anything were to happen to me and i was put into the hospital the house would be taken away from me. if they could have a public auction even just for hospital care -- a public auction, that would make me sleep easier at night. i still hope they figure something out. thank you. host: on the independent line

james joins us from denver, colorado. caller: hello. yes, i would have to say that my opinion more less sides with some previous callers. i'm not quite as impassioned about the whole thing, but even i can admit that as americans we deserve more, a bit more choice than we currently have. i do not see why many more people are not stepping up to say i, am spartacus. or, i broke the dam. i think that should be and option. if we are spartacus' or we broke the dam we should step up and say it. host: thank you for your call.

we are joined from massachusetts now. caller: we have to change. we're spending 50% more than any other country. unfortunately, the uninsured -- it will not even pay for it. most countries have the sales tax. and now they have tried evaluative attacks in the last administration and are talking about a sales tax, but you have to have it. -- a body would've tax in the last administration. giving everyone $1,000 as a credit -- that is the biggest problem with big companies and -- they're going byrd. why give it to them? give it to everyone with a social security number. host: take a look at this story concerning president nixon

-- he showed ambivalence on abortion, not where do. it talks about how he weighs in on the question of abortion. it reveals he was relatively ambivalent about what the decision and the supreme court would mean about the abortion issue. also, the house is set to vote on the crime bill. that might come on friday. this article is from "the washington post," where the house rules committee unveiled the latest version of the bill. it features new items such as $7.5 billion in the green bonds for the clean energy deployment administration, a new financing agency.

so, before congress goes on its recess next week for the fourth of july it looks they're planning to tackle in the house the climate change legislation. the next call is from west virginia on the democrats' line. george, how do you feel about a public option in health care? caller: i absolutely feel we should have a public option and did we should entirely convert the system to single-payer. i have no sympathy is for these insurance companies who have squandered billions and billions of dollars in profits at the expense of the health and well- being of the american people. we have to compete every day with nations around the world who provide their citizens with free, tax-based health care.

their businesses are not burdened with this cost. our country, small business, it is thrown on to them. i am a paraplegic with a wife and two children, a pre-existing condition. i cannot get affordable care for myself. it is ridiculous. then, to try to ensure my wife and two children it is over $1,000 per month. that is for family other than myself who is relatively healthy. they go to the doctor once or twice per year. i pay $12,000, over that per year? it is absolutely ridiculous. host: what do you see as a solution? caller: it should be a tax-based system where, depending on your income you pay a percentage into a pool that is absolutely non-

profit based on care and preventive medicine and providing a service rather than a bureaucracy of insurance companies with a multitude of forms and a multitude of reasons why they cannot cover you and why you are not eligible and why you are not cost-effective and you do not fit their profit model. it is absolutely ridiculous. host: this article, insurers decry public-plan option. there are some companies that have come out making statements on this. hhip, and also blue cross blue shield say that any form of public option is a necessary to achieve any talk of reform and would have devastating consequences.

do you think that that is valid? are you concerned about that? host: our next caller is on the independent line from crystal river, florida. caller: good morning, everyone out there must be crazy thinking the government can run this program. the government cannot run the health care programs it has set up for the veterans administration will for the people on it in this country know. that is about all i have to say. host: we're joined now on the republican line from maryland. caller: i have lost my train of thought after listening to the other callers. changing the name of the government program is a total plan. that is what england did interest me you do not want a government-controlled health plan. host: with the think about a mix of public option or those who

can off into a private program? caller: we have that in maryland and it works well for me. i was self-employed for years and needed independent health insurance and it works. it should be plausible. the way that some insurance companies do things they need to be corrected. we need to fix what we have. the democratic party, the really made a coup back in the 1990's -- they have their name which people have fallen for. they are all socialists. i have moved 1,000 miles to get away from that. you do not know how free america is. stay that way. this president is changing the names. a dozen he change the name of the guantanamo bay and maybe

that would go away? i want to call him jack. jack of all trades and master of none. that is the only way that i can sleep at night. i hope his policies fail. this is the biggest joke on the american people. host: let's go to the democrats' line from chicago. caller: i think under a national health care system there would be stronger incentive to cure diseases, lower the budget, promote healthier food, and to promote healthier lifestyle to lower the budget. under capitalist budgets this is like killing the goose that laid the golden egg. if there were to find a cure for arthritis or otherwise it would cost the medical companies billions of dollars. but it would reduce the budget and free of money to go after the things. as far as the government mismanaging -- in terms of macro-managing things like the space program they have been a very good job.

without necessarily going to the private little industries and micro-managing, but it is better that the macro-manage the whole system. all in all, i think international health care system it would free up employers from the burden so they would stop outsourcing. everything about national health care is a plus. thing about the private medical industry is a negative. host: the independent line from georgia. caller: i am for it and it needs to be either a sales tax or a different kind of tax. cut social security, disability, but they have to be now. we have illegals that no matter what the employers offer we have green cards and work these is that do not take out health care insurance. they have all the gang members, drug addicts -- these people are using up our emergency rooms and clinics.