"washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: president obama leaves moscow for rome. afterward he heads to laquila, italy to attend a summit. here in washington the joint chief of staff delivers remarks about how to best accomplish objectives in the middle east at the national press club. the conference begins today at the omni shoreham hotel and among the names there will be kathleen sebelius. good morning. today is wednesday, july 8. we will talk about oil

speculation coming under fire for the first half of the program. both here, it in britain, and also in france. here are the numbers. if you want to send us in e-mail the address is journal@ cspan.org, and you can also send us a message by twitter. here is the front page with the headline concerning oil speculators been under fire. the right the policy makers on both sides of the atlantic launched an effort to crack down on what they called speculation in oil markets.

it emphasizes concerns that a sharp rise in oil prices could worsen the global economic downturn. in washington the commodity futures trading commission, the main u.s. futures market regulator, said it is considering tougher regulation of oil futures markets. the proposed rules which drew immediate criticism from traders would seek to curb the influence of speculative investor such as hedge funds and investment banks by limiting how much money any single triggered a bet on anyone, of the tea -- on any one commodity at a time. we want to hear what you think about that. more from the lead article in "the wall street journal," this morning -- the move comes at a time when the hotly debated idea that the tube of investors are

driving up prices is gaining credence, and political momentum is building to stop them. also, the article near it says that oil market analysts question the added that the content of its investment has pushed up prices. they attribute the current volatility too uncertain prospects for economic recovery. and they claim that the long- term rise to a surge in demand from china, india, and developing countries is also part of it. the next call comes from baltimore, md.. caller: yes, when it comes to oil -- i will make this comment in two additional comments regarding tuesday. if you follow below market every day you will see that every time the oil prices rise you tend to

get a positive growth in the markets -- it is quite interesting that most of the time when americans are suffering because of an increase in gas prices that is when the stock market does well. it is amazing the way that the stock market works when it comes to the free market economy. was he spent among most of those do send twitter, so some of the times the people who work on the show -- i don't know, maybe they're not so good with twitter. some of them do not use the twitter. it would be nice if everyone can use twitter. host: thank you, we are trying to encourage everyone to use twitter. it is one more way to get your thoughts across to our audience. back to the phones on the line for republicans from mississippi. caller: i'm originally from

colorado by way of iowa. i have lived all over in including in washington, d.c. and i feel that they should outlaw all speculation on oil. it may not be practical or may go against a lot of people, but i think it is so crucial, especially at this time with the prices having gone up clear over $4. it seems almost criminal to have people holding back the supply so that they can drive up the price again when it hurts a lot of people in the economy. host: how would you go about trying to control the fluctuations in the oil market? caller: well, i am not an economist at all. i would have to say i do not really understand it. do you mean the fluctuations due

to opec, and so forth? host: is that were used to the fluctuations coming from? caller: i'm not sure. yes, probably. also, i am of the opinion that speculation is a large part of it, that drives it up. host: we have a graph year from "the wall street journal." sharp increases in oil prices have drawn attention to bets by traders from elsa the oil industry that prices will rise. you can see how those numbers are bouncing up and down. the article also goes on to say that in congress there is growing consensus that investors may be distorting prices. a recent report from the senate

permanent subcommittee on investigations blamed speculators for driving up wheat prices in recommended that the cftc in force position limits on index traders. back to the phones from monroe, mich. on the line for independents. caller: it is interesting that this story would come out the day after the pope called for a new world economic order yesterday, but i would say that speculation is gambling. oil is a commodity just like the dollar. i do not think that you can regulate gambling. we all need to entertain the idea like the book said the oil is not necessarily profitable, but it is just a theory. they are finding oil in all parts of the world where people never knew would be. there is always more oil than they ever thought was there

before whenever they tap it. you have people controlling the earth's resources and it is really getting of control. this whole idea of a new world order is coming to fruition and it is getting pretty scary. host: this message comes by twitter. back to the phones. sacramento, calif. on the line for republicans. caller: yes, i definitely think the republicans think that there needs to be more regulation regarding speculation, especially in the oil futures market cents oil plays a vital part in the global economy. regarding other futures, i do not know, but oil is so vital.

people tend to react to oil prices more than other commodities since they see it every day at the gas pump. i would be against putting extra regulations for instance like for people who, thinking like the airline industry for they try to hedge, the by future contracts to hedge -- potential spikes. certain core industries where they depend on energy, like the airline industry, i think there should not be any restrictions on them. but on other people who are just speculating, i do think there needs to be. host: more from this article.

next up is nashville on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, america. my theory is that most of these speculators are in the market and cannot do anything with the oil they're trying to buy. what should be done is the oil market should be open to those who can refine it, and those are the people who should be bidding on the oil. people who cannot receive the oil should not be bidding on the oil. it does not make any sense. it is just driving the market higher and higher. it does not make sense. host: thank you hold on, before you go, let me get your response to this article and a "the financial times"

rather explain a little about the markets and say that the role of financial investors in commodities markets has been under scrutiny since last year when some lawmakers blamed speculative demand by hedge funds, pension funds, and other institutional investors who invest through index funds. is this what you are getting at? caller: this is exactly what i'm talking about. if you want to have them speckling in the market have them do it on the other end, after the refined. for the airlines, have them by blocks of gas that is already refined. but on the front and it has to go to the refiners first. if you cannot refine it you should not be bidding on it. host: inverness, florida on the line for independents. caller: the gentleman from tennessee just about took my thunder. i think that you said january 8

-- it is july. host: i am sorry, it is july 8. thanks for the correction. what you think about this question on regulating or curbing speculation ducks caller: the bottom line is that if we get into this efficiency, fueled cars, and the president has light of these economical ways to cut down on oil a lot of this garbage going on now, we would not have a problem with it. as powerful as russia is when they lose money on their oil, it kind of brings them down to a smaller level where they do not have the power. that controls everything basically in this world almost -- the oil and glut. i think that they should be done where we get efficiency and we depend least on oil.

a lot of this stuff going on i don't think we will have trouble with. host: so, charlie, do you see a connection between a just- completed summit between president obama and president medvedev and now this calling for regulation of oil speculation? caller: yes, i do. he has only been in office for six months. give the guy a break. he is trying everything. you cannot speak to these guys from other countries and tell them what you want, how they should live, what they should do -- i think the kid has a good idea and they thini think we she him a ride. we did not just get in this fall. what did bush do for eight years about the economy and energy? nothing, nothing. so, i think that he has the right attitude and we should all stand behind him and give the kid a break. host: the headline in said,

rising oil pricing as risk to global recovery. they write that nicolas sarkozy and gordon brown will urge the g-8 to endorse proposals to make the oil futures market more transparent. there are fears that speculation is increasing volatility. we will have more about what the french president and u.k. prime minister have to say in "the wall street journal." new haven, conn. on the line for republicans, go ahead. caller: good morning, i want to say i think we're making a big deal out of it. if we can't just crackdown on those to make unauthorized deals such best steve perkins who made $10 million without being authorized with his company, we will be all right. we do not need another federal agency trying to regulate

another department. i think we have enough stuff going on right now with the stimulus package and with other things going down in this country. we do not need the government to step in with other agencies. host: you sound like you have experience in the oil market. caller: well, i do a lot of reading. i am not an oil person. i just love to read. as any other american right now i'm feeling the hit of the oil going up sometimes and oil going down. here in connecticut their return to past 30¢ on top of the oil, a tax. it is extremely concerning about that. you see, the government, the best thing they do is they overreact on any situation. if they can just slow down and

observe the situation and does to get the people who are doing the wrong things, we would be all right. host: thanks for your call. this is the off-id this morning. oil prices need government supervision. -- this is the op-ed by nicolas sarkozy and gordon brown. it's as the windfalls by it brief oil prices are offset by the consequences of planning strategies difficulties. virginia, on the line for democrats, go ahead. caller: well, there is no shortage on the planet. it is just agreed. host: how do you mean that it is a distribution problem?

caller: greed, you'll always have a problem as long as greed exist. number two, but dirty fuel oil costs more than diesel or a certain type of gasoline. this holiday they reduced the press but you cannot get the mileage. 380 miles without putting any gas in now -- this last time i went 300 miles. you cannot go as far with it. but i got diesel oil to put my furnace which is better than #two 30 fuel oil. the next time around i will have to pay the high price of the number to dirty fuel oil. it takes moneless money to make birdie no. 2 fuel oil than to make high techs gasoline. the diesel is less now because

that was wrong -- the first few presses we had. the diesel fuel was cheaper. -- the first few oil prices we had. host: what kind of business are you in? caller: i am retired. i work for the d.c. national guard. host: the fluctuation of the oil prices does not necessarily affect your business, right? caller: no, but it affects the way you live. the price of food, the price of fast food -- it was $4 per gallon, but we are right back where we started. when it gets down to $60 per barrel of a thing else should come down. host: this morning, the u.s.- russian summit ends with mixed results is the sub-head from "the washington street journal." obama says that the american is

tough, smart, and shrewd. also, "the financial times" has this leading editorial. both sides need to rebuild relations on common interests. the commitment of both to reduce their nuclear warheads and launch vehicles by a third in a new treaty is very welcome. perhaps the could have been more ambitious, but it should lay the foundation for further progress. also, regarding the trip to russia, michael gershon rights, obama is iceberg. this actually has to do with the economy, but he says that the jobs report last week opened a long gash beneath the water line of president obama's legislative agenda. back to the phones. fort myers, fla. on the line for

independents. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. my answer to the oil speculation problem, above all, is everyone watche cramer, and he will tell you how it is done. if everyone who does not take actual delivery increase their margin requirements. they are only required to put up to% right now. those who do not take actual delivery should up the margin to 60% or 70%. they would have to eat this horrible loss if they get trapped. this would slow down the speculation. but the thing working against us is the fact that these people are some of the biggest lobby firms in washington and they control the congressman. they will not allow the regulations because it is such a

puppet. the hedge funds' use their money, drive up the contracts, in the futures contracts in the upcoming months. they keep driving them higher and higher because the hedge funds never have to take possession of a contract of oil. those people were forced to take a higher margin requirements it was certainly should down speculation. they are only putting 10% down to contract the oil right now. that is my answer to what should be done. of course, we have to watch and see how they will do nothing because they are all paid off. host: west virginia, on the line for republicans. caller: yes, i higher margin requirements would drive the cost of more, would it not? i heard donald trump talking on fox news and he said that the speculators were chump change. those were his words. he said he had friends in opec

who witnessed other members of opec actually laughing at americans, calling us stupid for paying the prices we pay for a barrel of oil. host: let me get your response to this message from twitter. he calls the oil speculators nothing by gangsters. what do you think? caller: i think they put up their own capital. i am not an economist, but it seems they put up their own capital, take risks, and are willing to. if you are willing to do that, i think we should be able to do what we want an america. let me say one more thing. i do not know enough about it to pontificate here, but donald trump said that the cost of a barrel of oil, got over $30 per

barrel than we were in serious trouble and it has been like that for decades. it seems like we have been in trouble for a long time. these guys in opec are just squeezing us. host: more from "the philadelphia inquirer" -- allies fear u.s. just shifts caliban problem -- taliban problem. taliban fighters and their commanders have escaped the marines big offensive in afghanistan and moved in areas to west and north, prompting fears that the u.s. effort has just moved the taliban problem elsewhere, say afghan officials. this is how it is reported it and "the new york times" this morning -- allied officers concerned by lack of afghan forces. "what i need is more afghans,"

said the brigadier-general who accompanied the top american commanders in afghanistan during a visit with troops of the patrol base here on monday. general nicholson and others say that the long-term success of the abortion hinges on the performance of the afghan security forces which will have to take over eventually from the american troops. bryan, texas on the line for independents. caller: good morning. the crackdown is long overdue. these guys are just exploiting a government financial system. back when i was a college student eyes of the history of banking and until there was a government system with government regulation, every state you went to the head worthless currency and sooner or later someone ran away and stole the money.

they only have a system to speculate and exploit public money -- not only are the speculators just parasites the consumer -- on the consumer, but they get the prices for the big oil companies. the big oil companies make a windfall from these jack up prices. it is not just the speculators. they are just doing the dirty work for the big oil companies. the arabs have nothing to do with it. it is convenient to blame them because of the racism, but it is these guys in our country who are like the guys on wall street. these oil speculator suggest messing us over, too. host: how big a part of the economy is the oil business in bryan, texas? caller: the only reason why

alaska, louisiana, and texas are not begging for federal money is because they have a natural gas and oil and it keeps hundreds of thousands of people busy. otherwise there would be unemployed in we would be in dire straits like california and states like that. host: banks. more from the op-ed from sarkozy and gordon brown. they write that they are committed to the ongoing dialogue between producers and consumers. saudi arabia and opec have expressed interest in this also. producers and consumers are closer now than at any time in the past 30 years to recognizing the huge common interest in giving clear and stable signals to long-term investment. cleveland, ohio on the line for democrats. caller: i think that the crackdown on the oil speculation and the focus on the

oil markets is actually a red herring. the commodity which most people find price resistance to and have objection to is the spot price of petroleum gasoline at their local gas station. this markets, if you look at the diversity in oil prices around the country, these markets are often subsidized by the government. petroleum prices vary greatly all over the globe and in our own country. the spot price at the pump has little to do in correlation to the price paid per barrel of oil. it is just speculation by big oil companies, them colluding in price fixing. it has been shown time and time again how four competing companies on the same corner can have the same price. they have a false companies who

act as wholesalers delivering to reach those who are all owned under vertically-integrated company who refine and market. the prize you see on the international market for a barrel of oil does not relate to what is sold for gasoline. for you to the spot price of gasoline varying as widely as we see the volatility on the oil market. it is a red herring. host: this article about health care. the ap rights that the white house and congressional democratic leaders struggled to build momentum yesterday. it is in the face of concerns about the pace of bipartisan talks in the senate. it is also due to the apprehension among moderate house democrats. you can follow this process on c-span3 as we continue coverage on the bill in front of the senate health committee. today, gao says federal

buildings lac secured. investigators for congress's government become a bill the office say they succeeded in each of 10 attempts in april and may to enter federal office buildings with a hidden liquid explosive. inside investigators assembled the bombs and your them in a briefcase and more freely around several floors. a copy of the statement was provided to "usa today." wisconsin, good morning. caller: good morning, last fall there was a hearing with representative stupek and di ngall on the cftc. the conclusion after the hearing was that the fellows

playing with computers and speculating could not play. the only ones who could play on the market with those who could take delivery of the oil. since those playing with computers do not have huge farms where they can store the oil it would eliminate this speculation. host: milwaukee, wisconsin you get the last word this morning. caller: two quick items. i would like to discuss why the government has gone after the 50 wall street bankers who still legally over $1 trillion and each got millions back in 2008 and the government has done nothing about this illegal activity thanks to lobbyists. in regards to the oil speculation, i used to trade at the world trade center and at

the chicago options market. i'm familiar with this problem. it is caused by speculators. if you want to lower gas prices all you have to do is raise the marginal rise to 50% or 60% and it would blow the guys out of the market. i was in the futures pits in chicago and new york and i know how the game is played. host: why did you get out of the trading business? caller: i took a bad loss back in 1982 and was forced out. host: as a result of that speculation? caller: the other item, sir, we found out when i was dating back in 1978 until 1981 that we knew then that there was over 2500 years of natural gas supply in this country. why isn't that report released? as a trader we know that information. none of that has ever been released.

we do not even need oil. we could use just natural gas. host: we will take a short break and when we return we will talk with scott talbot to discuss a proposal by the obama administration to further regulate financial-services companies. ♪ >> the u.s. government.

>> private benefactors. >> i do not know, some of it is government raised? >> it is not public funding. >> probably donations. >> from me, from my tax dollars. >> 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative. no government mandate, no government money. host: the financial services round table is here to talk to us about oversight of the financial-services industry. earlier this year, last month, the obama administration introduced reform hoping to create an organization called the consumer financial protection agency. tell us what that position is in creating this and why the financial-services roundtable opposes it. guest: this is an unparalleled

expansion of government power, the creation would be the sole purpose to focus on consumer products and strip all existing federal regulators of their power to review them. it would consolidated into one independent agency with five boards of directors approved by the senate and appointed by the president. it would review rules, and force violations against the financial services industry. first of all, this crisis has piloted the number of problems with our regulatory structure. we are obviously for consumer protection. what is the most effective way to do that? we believe that is not the most effective way. it could end up harming consumers, reducing innovation and competition. host: the administration says

what they are trying to do is streamline the process and make it easier for consumers to get the protection they need in these markets. guest: it goes in the opposite direction. it does not preempt state law, but encourages states to go further than what the agency creates. there could be 50 different regimes which would cause confusion. it could increase costs. you have financial-services operating in 50 different states and there will have to have 50 different disclosures. we think that moves in the opposite direction of streamlining. host: our discussion of the oversight of financial service industries, and our guest is scott talbott. you can e-mail us and twitter as well.

if not this process by the administration and the creation of the cfpa, how would the round table remedy this? guest: week are not for any regulation. we don't separate the entity from the product. our proposal would be to strengthen the department at the existing regulators of that one regulator has the oversight over both the institution and product. they are inextricably linked. by keeping them together you give one person all the information. rather than to the regulators with only half the intermission. host: give me an example of a product and an institution. guest: credit cards and

mortgages. it is unclear how many products would actually be under its jurisdiction. any bank would be subject to the agency's authority. host: tell us more about the financial services round table? guest: we represent the 100 largest firms in the country. most members currently operate in all 50 states or are about to. the concept of uniform regulation is crucial for profit. it makes it easier for consumers to understand them better we are for making them simpler. everything you receive when you are buying a home, we would love to make that simpler and favor that and would love to have a

one-page summary, but it is prohibited by regulators, so we feel the proposal would reduce those exposures by letting each they do their own proposal. host: the subcommittee will have a hearing later this morning on this to examine the administration's proposal to create this new agency. what do you hope to see coming out of this hearing? guest: we would like to see the concerns about the breadth and depth of the proposal and the negative effects on consumers. we have a statement we will file for the record laying out our concern many of which i have addressed here this morning. host: our first call comes from bedford, texas on the line for democrats. caller: scott, please tell me what you mean when you say that consumers will have less choice,

or will have less opportunity if these changes and restrictions are put into place. explain, directly how we as consumers will have less choice and be less served by these restrictions. because if i may say so, when i hear that the people who are fighting the administration so hard are the people who just say no -- that is what i am hearing from you. unfortunately, you just aren't talking, but i am hoping that all through your presentation that all we hear is not just no, no, no. we need it our financial system overhaul. there needs to be no debate about that. guest: first of all, we are for reform and for closing predatory

gaps in modernizing the system to prevent this kind of crisis happening again and we are obviously for consumer protection. what i mean it is that we fear that consumers will have it your trusses is that the agency is charged with creating plain vanilla products. there will have one product in a mortgage, a 30-year fixed mortgage, or standard credit card and there will be no other products allowed without the risk of litigation or threats or having consumer sign a release saying that they were offered the basic product and did not want it. that there will create, will have a chilling effect, a wet blanket on creating new products. it could take us back to the 1950's when all we had was the 30-year mortgages. off right now we have a number of different mortgage products. that works for most americans. the home ownership rate in america is 70%. under this new agency might only have one product, or one or two products to choose from without

litigation and risk. this proposal could reduce consumer choice, that is what we mean. host: the hearing in front of the house energy and commerce subcommittee will be fed live in can be seen on our website beginning at 10:00 a.m. this morning. welcome, on the line for independents. caller: yes, i have been on the line before and as i said before, everything you are looking at in this country, ok, and what is happening, is absolutely spiritual. i understand what you're speaking about with regulations, but you must know who america is and to great britain is. we are the house of israel, one of the two tribes of jacob whose name was changed to israel. host: what does this have to do with the financial-services

industry? we will move onto charleston, south carolina and joe on the line for republicans. caller: one of the first things that franklin delano roosevelt did up of the great depression was to install glass-stegall and i hear you talking nothing about that, divesting these brokerages from banks for by this whole process really occurred where toxic assets were mixed with fdic investments. i do not talk about that. that should be the centerpiece of all re-regulation. how can you not even talk about that? isn't that a very important part of what is happening and where this all stemmed from? guest: day, the act was a prohibition on mixing banking insurance and securities. -- no, it was a provision.

the solution is not to repeal that act but to modernize the regulatory system to take into account the new innovation, and products that resulted from eliminating those barriers. we want to move forward, not backwards. let's do it in a most effective way and not go backwards. host: our guest is the senior vice president for footage affairs at the where he manages advocacy efforts. back to the phones and new jersey on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, gentlemen. with all the creativity that our markets were capable of because of glass-stegall, then that create the credit swap derivatives that no one understood, even though the creators? the event that caused a global

crisis we are in now? it seems we have short-term memory in this country along with our short history. my father lived through the first great republican depression which was also caused by it out of control, short sales, and speculation, and everything that has caused the situation now. regulations were put in and fdr did a lot to straighten out the problem and it seems like little by little it was taken away. we are living through the same history now. i do not understand why regulation is a dirty word. if there is nothing to hide then you had nothing. host: use only do have experience on wall street. caller: yes, my husband is a broker, mortgaged-backed securities. guest: id is an interesting question. there are many sources of the problem we are in.

it is an over-reliance on real- estate prices. everyone bet that the prices of homes would go up. when the prices dropped all the underline that crumbled. credit default swaps, the problem is that some did not understand them, and there was no one overseeing every aspect of the industry. we do want to create a systemic risk regulator to oversee all institutions and look for trends that would threaten the system. we think the fed should have that role. they would have picked up on credit default swaps and the risks they pose to the entire system. this all has to be coordinated globally. we are for creating the systemic risk regulator. we want to move forward or limit

the negative affects. there will be future recessions in the normal boom and bust cycle. the key is to put them into place to allow for the free flow of capital. host: you see that the financial services round table and those of like mind would rather have this is what to believe under the arm of the fed rather than the cfta? guest: that is correct. we think that having one regulator is more effective. we agree with many of the aspects but think that the separate cfpa is not the best way to go. host: good morning. caller: sir, i have a couple of questions for you. what good does it do to continue to create all these regulations if they are not enforced? if they are, they are enforced on some but not others.

we were told when this president got elected that there would be transparency and a few reported something to the attorney- general or whomever it would get paneled. what good does it do to create regulation if it will not be enforced? guest: we believed in enforcement and transparency. we believe is should be enforced by the fed or the pri banking regulator, or the attorney general, and we also believe in transparency, believe you should be able to understand your product and have a clear understanding of why you're getting into. there is a shared responsibility between the industry and consumer. we are in favor of all those concepts. we are not in favor of undoing 145 years of banking law and taking enforcement of to the state level. we want to leave it at the federal level. we think it benefits consumers

and the industry. host: this message from california on twitter. guest: modernization means to enhance the regulatory system, take into account all the changes since glass-stegall and close silos and handle the disorderly the solution of banks like lehman brothers or bear stearns. our system has moved beyond the regulators. we need to modernize the regulatory system to close the gaps. host: the line for republicans calling from alexandria, virginia. welcome to the program. caller: first of all, i like to agree with the last few callers talking about the glass-stegall in the derivatives market. my question is, why is the

president's working group, and why are people now turn to give more power to the fed when there were the ones in charge and were controlling all lot of these free flow of money and helping to destroy the economy? many working with the federal reserve are working with major banks into cycling from one entity to the other. the fed is really just an extension of wall street banks. that is my main concern. it seems like more power to the fed is like a call coming from the administration that is very disconcerting. guest: the administration's proposal would strip the fed of some authority and put it into this new agency. we are in favor of the fed because if you go back past the last year or two and look at the fed's track record they have protected financial services, the economy, the consumer. in the last several months they have made a number of changes to

strengthen the regulation of the products. they are very proactive. additionally, the fed is independent from a truly independent. they have access to the money supply. but allows them to set monetary policy. they have both the carrot and the sec. host: robert in reading, pennsylvania. caller: until you get to the place where you can restore honor, honesty, and and the corruption in government, they can pass all the regulations and words that sound so good. it is strictly an empty promise. we need honesty and people that truly tell the truth and act in the interest of all people. until we get honesty back in government -- and we're not the

only ones. it is around the road. it is almost a global problem right now that the government's rigid is around the world. the governments have not been honest with people. all are intertwined and have received money from the people, most of the senators, enough to keep control of this is to ration -- they were all intertwined in this mess. -- enough to keep control of this situation. until it changes, how can you solve it? host: do you think that the situation, the solution is stronger enforcement? john is gone. guest: everyone is working hard to restore confidence in the system. restore confidence in the financial institutions, and to strengthen the economy for the benefit of all consumers. that is a united cool. it is important to strengthen

the u.s. economy. host: with tougher enforcement and more dogged transparency and still more confidence and people dealing with these financial- services? guest: it depends. you can over-regulate and stifle creativity and innovation, you can over-in force to where people are frozen in inaction. you have to strike the right balance. it depends how that is structured. we are not against enforcement. there are a number of factors outside the system who are now gone. they have just disappeared. we would love to be able to go back and in force violations against them. host: give me an example of a product or service that may not be available today were there more regulation for enforcement that stifles the creativity you are talking about.

guest: the subprime mortgages are the hotbed issue. that product would probably still be available because the bulk of subprime mortgages worked and that those homeowners are paying their mortgages on time. the key would have been to enforce a common standard of ability to repay. you cannot make a loan unless the consumer has a demonstrated ability to repay it. subprime mortgages have a place, but the application may not have occurred. certain homeowners might not have gotten a home if they could not demonstrate an ability to pay. host: the lines for the, the mine. caller: i listened to some want to give up the federal reserve which was my point. i do not understand what this man is defending them because if you look back to the beginning they have done nothing but

destroy this country. anything on the surface that looks like it will help us -- they are only helping themselves. they are a cartel of international bankers who does not care about our country. barry goldwater tried to warn about the evils of the fed. the banks run washington now. there is nothing good about the federal reserve. they need to be disbanded. the american people need to rise up against them. they are printing more money that is worthless. our dollar is worthless because they keep printing and printing and handing it out and giving it to everyone to make the feel- good policy go on. in the long run they are destroying the country. we need to get rid of them. host: scott, your response? guest: the federal reserve plays an interval and crucial role in the economy and monitor system. they have done a number of good things. they have the right

balance between consumer and product. i do not know what you would do without them. host: here is a message from twitter concerning bills on auditing the fed. guest: i am not aware of the bills. as far as auditing the fed the congress us the ability to talk to chairman ben bernanke. he gives regular testimony before both the house and senate. host: schenectady, new york on the line for republicans. caller: my question is, how long has mr. talbott been working in financial services? it is important that we have honesty and integrity. but has he been there from the beginning? and all of these things have been happening? and is he a lobbyist for the

financial-services? guest: i have been working for the financial services round table for nearly 16 years. i am a registered lobbyist. we're working hard to get our views out there on the best way to address the system. we believe a strong industry benefits all. host: our last call comes from maryland on the line for democrats. caller: yes, i am listening to this guy talk about if you enforce regulations we will not have choices. the product, they bundle of resources people had a right to

make into something called derivatives. now they are going against enforcing a regulation and it has kept people from becoming involved in 110% mortgages and no money down. here we are back to the same old position. it seems like they think we never learn. they operate on the basis of fear. if you do not go along with those you will not have the choices. host: thanks for your call. guest: we are not arguing against 110 percent on mortgages, but we are arguing for clear principle to help set consumer protection standards. for example, we've argued in support of, do not lend the money to consumer for they have not demonstrated the ability to pay such as lighter loans.

those practices would be ended. -- we're against liar loans. there are a number of reforms that we are arguing in favor of to strengthen consumers' and markets. host: scott, thank you for being on the program this morning. guest: appreciate it. host: let me tell you more about what is coming up. we will talk about the stimulus package from two different aspects. first, the possibility of a second stimulus. our guest will be veronique of george mason university, and then we will talk with governor ed rendell of maryland from the state's point of view. we will finish with a discussion about the upcoming confirmation hearings of sonia sotomayor

with a member of the senate judiciary committee. now here is a news update from c-span rita. >> it is just before 8:00 a.m. eastern. president obama has arrived in the earthquake- affected town in italy. he is joining fellow world leaders for talks on threats to global security, including climate change and world hunger. there is word that south korean intelligence believes north korea is behind a cyber attack affecting south korean and u.s. web sites, including the u.s. treasury department and the secret service, federal trade commission, and the transportation department. u.s. officials are not releasing details. the swiss justice ministry says it's law prevents wealth management firm ubs from handing over client intermission to u.s. authorities. they face a court hearing in

miami after refusing to disclose data on 52,000 americans, holders of secret swiss bank accounts to u.s. tax authorities. on wall street, u.s. stock futures are slightly higher this morning and the uptick in features means wall street might rebound from yesterday's drop. . . >> the u.s. government? >> private funding.

>> i think it is government- raised? >> donations? >> from my tax dollars. >> 30 years ago, america's cable companies greeted c-span as a public service. host: veronique de rugy. joe biden said that people misread how bad the economy was and members of the administration said we may need a second stimulus package in order to get the economy going. your thoughts? guest: good morning. it is surprising they are already talking about a second stimulus when they have only spent 10% of the previous stimulus bill. i am a little surprised. how can they assess whether this

stimulus worked? i do not think it will work, but if there is only 10% of the money spent, why rush to spend more? especially considering unemployment is still going up. it seems people are really worried that taxes are going to be going up and maybe inflation is going to hit them hard as a consequence, they are not spending. they are sending another signal that we will send -- spend more money, and that means massive taxes in the future. that will not make them relax. it is a terrible idea. i would also like to point out, i am surprised the vice- president biden would say that

they misjudged the economy. when they were trying to rush the stimulus bill to congress, we were told that this was as bad as the great depression. if it is worse now, does that mean that we are worse than the great depression? i remember during the great depression, unemployment was 25%, not 9.4%. host: articles talk about rising unemployment, a lack of a recovery. they said the president took time from his trip in moscow to defend his stimulus package, arguing it was the right medicine at the right time. do you sense that the president and vice president are sending mixed signals, that they are not on the right page -- same page

when delivering this package? guest: they are trying to defend a policy for something that had never worked. they are trying to convince the public on something that has been tried over and over again -- in the great depression, during the war, in japan. it has never worked, historic plea. let us talk about the great depression. -- historically. we were able to get out of the great depression because roosevelt spent a lot of money, but studies have shown that it was not spending but monetary policy. they are in a very difficult situation. that is why we are seeing the

differences between their messages. host: our guest is the veronique de rugy, a senior research fellow at george mason university. we want to get you involved in the conversation. democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. our first phone call comes from tallahassee, florida. on the republican line. caller: good morning. we absolutely do not need a second stimulus. we never needed the first one. history is repeating itself. it did not work with fdr, and

that is what took so long for their recovery. spending trillions of dollars for the country, on health care -- i guess have universal health care mean that we will be taking care of everyone. it is slavery for us and our children. i think people need to keep the hard earned money they made, make their own choices, they will spend the money and bring the economy back. i am telling everyone, no more of, money. i do not want to work three jobs. -- no more of my money. guest: i agree with you. republicans, when they were in

power, i wish there were more fiscally conservative. right now is the time to try a different approach to care in this recession. one of the things we are committing about this debate is the fact that every week president obama and his team are coming up with new regulatory reforms, new programs, and are injecting a massive amount of insecurity into the economy. one solution is to become more fiscally responsible and create a regulatory environment that is predictable. this is what people need to be able to operate a business. it is time to try something else. and the american public seems to be catching on to this idea. they were against t.a.r.p. support for the stimulus was not

overwhelming. right now people are complaining, they do not want to see the government taking over their life. i hope the congress and the president will start listening. host: what about those who say that if we stop spending joblessness will increase? guest: it is still increasing as we are spending. president bush exploded the federal budget. in the last six months, the amount of money spent has been increased and the job rate is increasing. the problem is, where is the money coming from? it is not falling from the sky. it is either coming from consumers' pockets, which means they do not have money to spend

themselves -- which means they are taking money and redistributing in. or we are creating money. in the long run, that will create inflation. i think that is something that the public is worried about. host: baltimore, maryland. go ahead. caller: only 10% of the money that has been spent in the stimulus -- but every time you turn on the television or radio, republicans are blocking this end that. -- this and that. the money is not going to where it needs to go. i see a lot of in-fighting

blocking what the stimulus money is supposed to do. guest: what republicans are trying to block now is not the stimulus money, the way the money is being spent. what they are trying to block is that additional spending. it is mind blowing, that despite the deficit we have to come in the amount of spending we have, -- the deficit we have, the amount of spending we have, -- i was upside with bush and the republican congress for spending all that money -- about the other thing we need to remember is if the money is not being

spent, it is a sign that the administration is not fulfilling its promises. we were told the reason we needed such a big stimulus, such a massive amount of money was because we needed to inject into the economy. what is happening? the republicans are not blocking that. host: according to this chart from the "washington post" it is closer to 14% of the stimulus that has been spent. they show a gradual progression from february through june. the administration says at this rate and they are on pace to save or create 600,000 jobs over the next 100 days. what is your response to that?

guest: i think this was a brilliant strategy from the obama administration which went on to say we are going to create jobs. then they said, we are going to save jobs -- which is impossible to measure. they are not going to be measuring the job that will be destroyed as a consequence of the jobs that they are creating. the government cannot create productive jobs sure, the government can hire someone to dig a hole, hire someone else to fill it up, but that does not create economic growth. you are creating two jobs, but you need to take that money from somewhere. let us not forget the money that will be taken from the middle man.

the person in charge of tracking the money has already told us that they were really not able to track it properly until they get more data. like every other government spending, they also said we can expect 7% waste, which would mean $55 billion in this case. host: we are talking about the stimulus package and whether or not a second is needed with the veronique de rugy. our next phone call comes from larry in kingston, north carolina. caller: i think the money should go directly to job creation. in the stimulus package we gave a lot of good money to the banks, and then to the contractors to hire people. you have a lot of middle men in

there. when it comes to creating a job for someone like me, there is nothing in there. i hear you say that we are spending all this money but this is to invest in our future. i would rather tell our kids that we built you a bridge and a new school, improve the infrastructure, rather than telling them that we spent the money on a war in iraq. we need to look at our military industrial complex also. we have a lot of money to spend. let me say just one more thing. on oil, though oil that is here belongs to the american people. why are they selling the oil in the ground to other countries?

they are making all kinds of money and holding it until the price goes up. guest: war spending is not likely to go down quickly, first, because it is a big interest group, and second, president obama is doubling the troops in afghanistan. i think we can say goodbye to that idea. i think it is very hard to create jobs directly. i understand what you are saying and the idea of the middle man is a powerful one. one thing that i would stress it is in order to pay jobs, to create jobs, on one side of the economy, the need to take the money from somewhere. that needs to be in the form of taxes or printing money, which would have devastating effects.

if you printed enough money -- and we have certainly seen the fed balance sheet explode -- it will create inflation, and then everyone loses. it is time to think about creating jobs by creating the environment where firms actually want to hire people. one way to do this, and it would cost money, is to cut the payroll tax. if you want businesses to hire people, lower the cost of hiring people. the best way to do that is to cut the payroll tax. i do not know why we cannot do this. there is no middle man there. they will have an incentive to keep the employees they have now because they are less expensive, and hire more people. host: we have this message on

twitter -- guest: actually, there were two spending stimulus from president bush. when you pass tax credits, you end up sending checks, not really cutting rates. that does not create jobs. it is only spending. permed may see a blip in the consumer goods because people are spending, but they know it is just the result of the stimulus check. so there are not going to build factories or hire people because they know that once the money is gone, it is over. however, cutting rates has been

good for the economy. unfortunately, the effects of cutting rates were overwhelmed by all the bad policy -- increase in regulation, increase in spending. unfortunately, we have not yet seen the full facts. host: next phone call. caller: good morning. every time i apply for a job, i am turned down. if someone has a college degree or diploma, we are told to live within our means. i am sitting here watching everyone go down. down south all of these businesses are going out of business.

they are not staying in business. you need to take a step back and think about what you are doing. you are killing the little man. i do not believe in global warming. i do not believe in all of this politician stuff because everyone is saying this and that. people are asking me to borrow money. how do i live? you are keeping all of the money in the budget but you have nothing to show for it. i am just asking president obama to step back. he can change the world. i believe we have a president who is going down the right path that he needs to think about things. right now we are making

everyone die, pass away, rob banks. it is on every news channel every day. i just want to know why everyone -- why we cannot get the people to stand up and insist on america. i am going to go to my chevrolet dealership and stand up and say, how come the president cannot support them? we are number one. instead, you have a stimulus package. that is the bottom line, you are going to lay everyone off. host: are you working right now?

caller: i have a few jobs right now. i have a diploma. i went to stanford. now nobody wants to give me a job. host: we are going to leave it there. caller: i think it is key to -- guest: i think it is key to give employers an incentive to hire and to keep the employees they have now. one of the terrible reforms that president obama is talking about is increasing taxes on hiring people. everyone who makes above to hunt and $50,000. the thing that is clear, -- $250,000. the thing that is clear, for a

small business, that is not very much, and their talks will go up. that means the cost of business will go up and people may even lose their job. it is time to take new steps to understand why people are unabl to hire. we need to decrease the cost of employment. spending is not going to do it. host: on may 12, you wrote, when president barack obama signed the stimulus bill, he promised the american people transparency and efficient spending, yet contrary to those promises there was nothing in the bill to guarantee the money would not be wasted. in fact, even the president promised to have a searchable online version of the spending bill has proven to be little more than talk. the result will be billions of

dollars traveled at beautification projects, parks, and street lamps. i would better transparency from the administration get the project moving faster? guest: transparency is important, but only if there is accountability. if you do not have transparency, you cannot have accountability. the reason i wrote the article was because the administration promised that if we gave them the money, we would know how they spend it. we will show you. he promised us. as soon as he got the money, it turned out, in the bill, there were no specifics about how they would attract this money. we knew this promise would remain unfulfilled. then we were told there would

not be any data on this web site until october. all of this spending was to happen until october. we also mentioned that $55 billion would be wasted because this is how government works. when i wrote the article with my colleague, one of the things that we did is say, listen, if you cannot track and the money, it is a nightmare scenario. we took what we heard about the shovel-ready project and said there is $1 million allocated -- $1 billion allocated and we matched that with these projects.

you could buy 2727 restroom projects, 30 lampposts -- 27 restaurants run just, 30 lampposts -- restrooms, 30 lampposts -- host: i have the list here. 79 athletic fields. 77 sidewalks and street fighting. -- lighting. guest: we had really no way of knowing where the money is spent right now. host: let us go back to the phones. chicago, illinois.

caller: good morning. first of all, 10% of the stimulus money has been spent. she is coming off with this fake outrage that nothing is working. 10%. then she attacks transparency. i wonder if she has looked at recovery.gov. all you have to do is go to the website -- i am on right now -- and you can see reports from the secretary general. you are getting on the television putting on this right wing span. you are talking about fdr. he did not get us out of the depression. obviously, you have not written -- read anything on history. it is easy for you to get on

television and speak this dishonesty. this is what contributes to the major problems in the u.s. because there cannot be a true, honest debate. c-span, when you bring these right-wingers on here, you need to have someone immediately across the table to challenge. you do not have them come on here and speak these untruths. callerguest: first, i work for e merc cato institute at george mason and we are nonpartisan. my facts about the great depression, i get them from reading academic articles, and in particular, reading the work of christina romer, president obama's own chairman of council of economic advisers, and she

has shown very effectively that what got us out of the depression was not spending that monetary policy. there is a lot of literature showing that the spending in the war did not get us out of the depression. even paul krugman, the most recent nobel prize winner, has acknowledged spending in the great depression is not what got us out of the depression. so i had actually read a lot of articles. i think i am pretty well informed. as for recovery.gov, the data that you see is not actually tracking the money. there is a competing website called recovery.org, and they are a private business who

tracks the money. they have been doing this for 10 years. they had even offered their help to the obama administration. it seems, like every other administration before, wants to reinvent the way they do it. on recovery.gov, it is not the actual data. also, and they do not track the money until it is actually spent. i agree with you, it is important to be very well informed. i would recommend that you read christina romer, who is an

expert of the great depression. host: some of the items that you have written regarding the stimulus is "why the stimulus will not work" and "do stimulus packages work?" our last call is gone. we are done for this particular segment. thank you for being on the program. we are going to take a short break. when we come back, stimulus oversight and its disbursement in the state with pennsylvania gov. ed rendell.

>> robert mcnamara and died on monday at the age of 83. this sunday we will agree air his book tv program when he discussed his book "in retrospect." he was defense secretary during the kennedy and johnson administrations. that is this coming saturday, 6:00 eastern. >> the u.s. government? >> private investors. >> i think some of it is government-raised. >> probably donations.

>> probably from my tax dollars. >> america's cable companies created c-span as a public service. host: we are talking about stimulus oversight when gov. ed rendell of pennsylvania. what systems are in place to track the use of stimulus funds in pennsylvania? guest: in various number of systems. we have adopted many federal tracking measures the gao to us to, but we also have our own methods. we believe in total transparency. here's one example. we were to receive $1 billion for transportation and infrastructure. on our website we have every contract -- we have 242

contracts. you can go on the website to see what contracts have been issued in your town, who awarded the bid, who the subcontractor is, how much money is being spent in your region, how much money is being spent statewide, how many people have been hired. there is as close to total transparency as weekend. some of the programs that we developed, we actually had discussions with our citizens. -- transparency as we can. we wanted to have citizen input. we spend $30,000 a year on whether reservation. thanks to the stimulus, we have quite a bit of money to spend.

we have to develop a new method of doing that and we solicited input from advocacy groups, nonprofit, business groups, and from individuals. we have conversations on the website and transparency is good. a former business ceo is our accounting partner. we have a board made up of four members chosen by our legislative delegation. we had the head of the afl-cio, head of commerce, and head of the united way. all of those people together oversee every dollar that we spend. host: are talking about oversight when gov. ed rendell. if you want to give us a call, democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001.

independents, 202-628-0205. you can send us an e-mail or bettetwitter. how is a need the term and in deciding which projects get the money, and where the money goes? guest: for the transportation money, and went out over the regular formula that federal and state dollars debt spend. that means the metropolitan and rural organizations were told that they were told how much they had to spend based on our normal formula. they selected the projects in their area. these 242 projects were also elected locally. that is the way it is.

we are getting $99 million for energy projects. that is the criteria developed by the department of environmental protection. host: next phone call from michigan. go ahead. caller: good morning, governor. yesterday, i was looking at a news articles, and i saw where the gao recently published a report that the way to track stimulus money to the state -- let us say it is not as good as it should be. there is really no way to track

it, and michigan was mentioned as an example. that concerns me as far as how this money will be tracked. the previous guest was talking about the 7% waste built into this. have you heard about that gao report, first of all, and if not, could you make yourself aware of it? guest: you may have heard pennsylvania has received high marks from the gao for the way that we are tracking in making our spending transparent. it varies state-by-state. the gao gives us rules on how we are to do it. i think the key to this is total

transparency. the public, and each state, and across the nation, has a right to see how their money is being spent. i would urge you to go on pa recovery.com and you will be able to see where the money is going, how many contracts have been honored, etc. i think we are doing a pretty good job. i think the gao has rules and guidelines, and it is an ongoing process. the first front of stimulus money came in on march 12. that was less than four months ago. i love reading these articles -- there was one in "politico" and "washington post" -- where people were complaining that

spending was not coming quickly enough. we have led construction projects in the past few months. we have spent the up. -- sped that up. if we started to do things much quicker, critics would say that we are going to fast, there are problems here. no one wants to create jobs more than i do, but i want to make sure that we do it right, and i do not think there needs to be 7% waste. the administration and congress gave us less than 1% on administrative costs. we are only allowed to spend one-half of 1% on that. everything else needs to go to the projects. host: henderson, nevada. john on the republican line.

caller: this cap and trade, which would cripple the economy and government -- we are in a recession already. to compound that, and they want to handle medicare program to us as well that will over-taxed us. what is the point of this when it will not do us any good? -- overtaxe us. guest: look, health care is killing all of us now -- not literally, but financially. business is, statewide care -- businesses, state when care, health care costs have risen by

10%. businesses cannot keep up. the chamber of commerce, not a partisan organization, has said we need to do something about health care. they told the president to do something about health care costs. we need to find a way to give access to the millions of americans without health care, and two, those who have health care but does not provide adequate benefits. we have also got to find a way to reduce health-care costs. electronic record-keeping will help us save millions a year, for example. competition reduces cost. that is why the president wants this public auction. his theory is competition will cause the private care organizations to reduce their prices. do not be too quick to think that all this will do is add to

the financial burden. if it is done correctly, it will dramatically reduce the financial burden on the americans, american businesses, and give everyone health care. there are a lot of people who are not covered right now and they are struggling. host: you are here to testify at a house oversight hearing on spending. you are on a panel with martin o'malley and massachusetts gov. duval patrick. what are you going to tell the committee about spending? guest: on oversight, we are going to tell them in is a work in progress, but i know that gao has done a great job so far. many of us have received high marks and we will receive the level of high oversight that we have.

there will be republicans and democrats at the hearing. i went out of my way to make sure that we had republican impact. we have two out of the four federal folks have chosen by the pennsylvania delegation. two more were chosen in the pennsylvania legislator. i wanted it to be bipartisan and raised important questions, and again, the past transparent as possible. massachusetts and maryland have done a great job, which is why the chairman invited us. what i'm going to try to do it is debugged this idea that the stimulus has not worked because not enough of the money has been spent. one reason i explained, we want to do with with a level of care, and two, the short term goals that the administration had made, have been met.

right now pennsylvania are getting benefits. almost 1 million families are getting food stamp benefits. that makes a difference. 3.7 million families are getting a tax cut. 40,000 families are getting poor health benefits. the second thing they want to do is give aid to hard-hit states. -- cobra health benefits. without this benefit from the government, we would be in the same state as california. as i said, right now, 141 projects are beginning as we

speak. host: next phone call. caller: good morning. happy belated fourth of july. i wanted to say what a great job and the governors are doing, for the most part. they are not terrified by transparency. they welcome it with open arms and embrace clean-air, stimulating the stimulus package, and burning every drop of that to the american people. -- bringing every drop of that to the american people. i wanted to point that out. other countries are commendable. you cannot just commend the fact that they have stimulus

packages, too. some governors are experiencing hardship. our hearts go out to governor jindal. how come some people are struggling? guest: there are different parts of the stimulus package. every government needs to make their own decisions, but this is the time when everyone needs help. there is a lot of suffering out there. i think it is incumbent upon us to reach out and help. people say that the government wants to take federal money and spend that money and that will actually contribute to unemployment. i say, sure, but what do i tell to the persothe person who cannb

and has to feed a family? i think right now we need to do everything we can to help the american people who are struggling. host: indianapolis. and jeffrey on the independent line. caller: i have been following your career. you have done a pretty good job for the people in the commonwealth of pennsylvania. it is amazing how you see all of these right wingers attacking the stimulus plan. these are the people who hailed ronald reagan. his tax plan was passed in august of 1981. by june 1983, unemployment was still 10.3%. we need to give the stimulus plan some time to work.

instead of people running around attacking this plan, and the man and a failure, we need to give it some time to work. ronald reagan was given time when his tax plan was passed in 1981. by the way, back then, the democrats controlled the house and senate. right now we do not see any reaching across the aisle from the republican side trying to help obama because they feel this is not their way, then they are not even going to participate. guest: i think you made a great point. i think president obama, in fashioning the stimulus, actually tried to reach out to the other side. there are $375 billion of tax cuts, the republican mantra. i think he should have put more

money into jobs. the point that you make is terrific. ronald recon cost recovery plan took a long time to work. -- ronald reagan's recovery plan took a long time to work. it was not until the latter part of 93 right before his reelection year that the economy started to improve. economic signs were better, but they were not that great. his points are out of the of the right. the first amount of money that pennsylvania got was march 12. i want people to listen carefully. that was less than four months ago. for us to have competitive bidding, rank the bids, aboard

the bids, give companies time to create jobs, get orders into the factories -- a fact that we have been able to do so well, we are working on 131 projects -- that is a testament to the way the stimulus program was put together. but gosh, give it some time. you are absolutely right. host: is there money in the pipeline now to save the job layoffs that are being written about? guest: let's be clear. without the money that went into the state -- someone to medicate, some for corrections, education -- if it was not for that, we would have to have laid off thousands of police, teachers, school personnel, state workers, municipal workers. the layoffs just in government

agencies would have been in the thousands. i think we are going to reduce that now. i hate to lay off anybody, but it is comparatively good news thanks to the stimulus. host: back to the phone calls. and until, va. -- annandale, virginia. caller: on the stimulus plan, we have so many problems with infrastructure, not only in pennsylvania, but across america. a lot of architects, engineers are not being included in the discussion. they have the capacity to have an overview of the situation.

looking at rebuilding the levees in new orleans, -- i think there was a bridge collapse in indianapolis. we are having some serious problems that we need to look at. we need a bipartisan standpoint. we need to dig in the and solve these problems. guest: that is an excellent point. i commend president obama for having the guts to do the stimulus plan. if i could change anything, i might have put more money into infrastructure, less money in tax cuts. every billion dollars spent in infrastructure produces at least 20,000 to 25,000 jobs.

you are right. we should be doing that. the two biggest areas of job loss or construction and manufacturing in my state. stimulus infrastructure the nose at infrastructure and manufacturing. host: next phone call. caller: good morning. i would like you to talk to me about the stimulus having a board that can override independent inspector general reports. if the inspector general chooses to make a report about waste and fraud, this board can make them jump through political hoops. of course, mr. obama just fire in the inspector general who

made a report on fraud. guest: again, i would have to plead ignorance on what you are saying. generally, i agree. inspector general's should have the freedom to make reports. an agency for state has a bad report, and they should have the opportunity to rebut it. if we get a bad report on our department of labor, we should have an opportunity to respond. perhaps they do not understand the issues. perhaps he got some preliminary reports that were not correct compared to this final day of the project. at least the public has the opportunity to see that this course. -- discourse.

then the public can decide. host: if you go to pa.recovery.gov, you will see some of these numbers. $2.2 billion for education. $1.5 billion in education. job training and relief, $1 million. energy independence, 455 million. guest: the $4 billion for medicaid relief, that is spread out over three years. some of it is front loaded, like transportation, but some of it is spread out. host: next phone call. on the democrat line, josie. caller: mr. rendell, i am a

former philadelphia and. i know you so well. it is great to speak to you. thank you for space -- to c-span for giving me this opportunity. i have a question about health care. we have medicare and we also have supplemental insurance. i have written letters to everyone in washington, i think. medicare paid 80% of the medical bill that me and my husband incurred. our supplemental paid 20%. we pay the government more money to pay the 80% -- excuse me, i have had mixed up. -- that mixed up.

i pay the government, they pick up the 80%, and we do not pay them as much as we pay for the 20% that is picked up by the supplemental. this is crazy. why do we have to pay our supplemental insurance so much more than the government? guest: that is an interesting question. the problem is, the medicare program -- it is not bankrupt, but it is facing financial challenges. there has to be some level of cocaine. even in medicaid, there needs to be some level of co pay that the individual needs to come up with. i believe that the is that 80% gives older americans' basic health care coverage. 20% supplemental is if you want

to increase your coverage, expand coverage to get certain procedures covered. if you raise medicare to take care of 100%, people have to pay more taxes. we are a tax averse country, there is no question about that. sometimes i think we are tax averse to our detriment. we need to invest in transportation, education, human capital, job training. the interesting thing is, investing in health care can actually reduced cost -- reduce cost in the short term and long term. host: next phone call from illinois. tom on the republican line. caller: i am glad to come to you, governor, but when you said that we are tax-averse to our own detriment --

i am paying almost seven -- 70% of what i make in terms of taxes and fees. we are just a wash and all types of taxes and fees. my question is, you made a comment about ronald reagan's program. his program was based upon tax cuts. so was jfk. his program was based on tax cuts. it gives power to the people. i think the democrats want to make everyone dependent on the government. when you make people depended, they do not know what to do. it just boggles my mind. why didn't everyone from the

governors, senators, why did they not take a salary cut? guest: in pennsylvania, everyone who works directly for me, we have forgone 3% increases this year and last year. essentially, we have taken a 6% tax cut. i cannot speak much about illinois taxes, but you would find that americans pay far less in taxes of their overall income compared to most countries. in european countries, the gas tax is well over $1. we pay a fraction of that. so we are not as overtaxed as people think. i do not want people to be dependent on the government. i cannot speak for other democrats, but i want to enable the private sector to do the

things it needs to do, but there are some responsibilities that are still the basic responsibility of government basic safety, education, providing health care for those who cannot afford it. we are responsible for building your infrastructure, no question. transportation, waste water systems. i that the people in cedar rapids hoped that there was a tax increase to build better levees. sometimes spending and raising revenue is important and necessary. we should do it as a last resort, but we should be willing to do it when it is a good purpose. the taxpayer has the right to demand that there is no waste, fraud, and that the programs are carried out and effectively and efficiently. host: thank you for being on the program. in a few minutes, a discussion with senator ben cardin about

the sonia sotomayor nomination. first, an update. >> more on the g8 summit. the chinese president canceled plans to attend a summit in italy and flew home early today following reports that riots are spreading through the capital of the far western region. the story goes on to say that his withdrawal was reported by state media and signals the government's growing concern about the unrest. meanwhile, the city's communist party leader promised those behind the 156 killings would be executed. turning to capitol hill, dick durbin and harry reid will be asking the 60-member democratic caucus to stick together on procedural votes that would allow the chamber to begin or end debate on legislation. in response, evan bayh says that

most democrats to vote their conscience. they did not come here to be told how to vote. the associated press citing a gao report that said investigators were able to smuggle a bomb making materials past security in 10 federal buildings. once inside, they made explosive devices and carried them around inside. for security reasons, the location of the buildings was not reported. karl rove was deposed yesterday by attorneys by the house judiciary committee. according to john conyers, this was part of their probe into the firing of nine u.s. attorneys during the bush administration. finally, "the hill" reports that the district may and a bike sharing program. the chief administrative office spent $23,000 to lease and maintain 30 bicycles beginning last july.

eight months later, they had been used by less than 3% of the house staff. host: senator ben cardin, democrat of maryland, is a member of the judiciary committee, and will be questioning sonia sotomayor when they begin the confirmation hearings. you wrote about your meeting with the judge. tell us about the meeting, and what did you ask her specifically? guest: i was impressed with her frankness, telling me about her background, how she reaches decisions. she is an impressive nominee with a strong background as a prosecutor, trial court, appellate court judge. i asked her about her passions about the constitution, her impression of the constitution as it relates to women's issues,

consumer issues, and then i asked her about pro bono issues. making sure that we have access for everyone. she said that that was one of her passions, so it was a good meeting ho. host: you said that you want the next supreme court justice to have a clear stand for civil rights. do you believe she does? guest: yes, i do. i am looking for the constitution to protect us against the abuses of government, and the supreme court is the last resort to make sure that those protections are a living document to protect each one of us from the abuses of the legislator, president, and to protect us on fundamental issues. host: we will be talking with you for the next half hour about

the sonia sotomayor nomination. if you want to get involved, democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. if you want to send us an e- mail, the journal@c-span.org. here is what senator mcconnell had to say about the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor. >> dismissing the firefighter claims, she did not even set a precedent. moreover, she joined the opinion of the second circuit issued in a case, saying it was difficult. the way that judge sotomayor handled the important legal issues in the case was peculiar,

to say the least. it makes one wonder why her treatment of these weighty issues difference so markedly from the way that every other court has treated them and whether her legal judgment was unduly affected by her personal or political beliefs. host: your response? guest: i could not disagree more. what she was doing was following the precedent, the law, and doing what was expected in terms of falling legal precedent. that is what we expect judges to do. -- following legal precedent. it was a close decision. the supreme court reversed 5-4. these are close issues. the intermediate court was following legal precedent, and that is what she should have

done. host: "the new york times" - one of the themes of the process -- write one of the themes of the process could be racial and ethnic preferences. guest: we will certainly find out how she makes her decisions. the constitution is a living document. we have seen the evolution of protections to protect us against the abuses of government. the original constitution did not envision our life today. i attended baltimore public schools when they were segregated. i was denied the opportunity to be educated in a diverse environment. brown vs. board of education changed our lives forever. so the supreme court does change our life.

we want them to understand that those people are there to carry out the law, not make them. host: our first phone call comes from pasadena, md.. caller: good morning, senator. good to speak with you. could i ask you a question? i was wondering if you would support the equal rights amendment, if someone were to bring it up again, perhaps like senator mikulski? guest: in the past i have co- sponsored those amendments. there are different strategies in terms of advancing rights, and that was an issue that was popular, still an issue that has merit, but i think we need to talk about advancing the rights of women as effectively as possible. right now in the confirmation process, that is one of the

questions i will be asking. host: next phone call also from maryland, baltimore. john on the republican line. caller: i wanted to talk about some of the organizations that miss sotomayor may be involved in. la rasa, potentially a racist organization. i know a sticking point with the judge judge alito's confirmatios his participation in a man's organization. it is unfortunate that you are being partisan, senator pardon. his legislation, i believe, bankrolled newspapers in the area.

-- senator cardin. i would just hope that you look at her background and be fair. if she is part of organizations with a racist agenda, what is going to stop her from having that in her heart? guest: first of all, i need to respond to your personal attack. i protected newspapers from getting federal funds. i wanted them to be independent. churches are nonprofits. i hope no one is accusing churches -- the government of funding our churches. as far as her background, it is a background that brings diversity to the court. that is a positive. i remember when burger marshall was under consideration. -- thurgood marshall was under consideration. look at her record, what she has been able to do as a trial court

judge, appellate judge, prosecutor, and you will find someone who has the passion to protect everyone's rights. she renders her decisions based on the facts of the case. that is the kind of justice we want. host: park hill, oklahoma. caller: good morning. i am one of those disabled veterans. on memorial day, i visited my father and son's grave. i was urging people not to serve in the military because right now the government is not worth the sacrifice. one of the reasons i did that was because of that one remark

you just made. the constitution is a living document. the constitution is not a living document. humans have not changed in the history of mankind. technically, we have gotten more advanced, but everything else -- we are power corrupts, selfish -- everything else is the same. trying to make it into a living document is not correct. here is an example. sonia sotomayor really belongs to a left-wing organization. all of a sudden, she is ok. i am put off by this idea of public health, public safety. there are terrorists in the country.

the government has imprisoned the citizens with regulation, finds, fees. where does it end? guest: first, i think our country is different than 233 years ago. we need to reflect the current condition of our country. i want to take exception with the premise of your call. during the fourth of july recess, i was in belarus, a repressed country where people do not have the right to free press. i brought back an american who was imprisoned for reasons we do not know. we were able to make a plea for his release. i think we all should be thankful that we live in the country that promotes freedom, welcomes us to express our views, and has the protection to protect individual rights. host: we have this article from

google yesterday talking about the nra, talking about its influence with republicans and conservative democrats in the senate. the right in the letter to senators, christopher cox, and the group's director, said tonus it -- sonia sotomayor had been dismissive of the second amendment. your thoughts? guest: again, she was following the court decision. that is what an appellate judge should do. following the decision of the court. there was recently in decisions affecting the people of the district in which the supreme court said that it did not apply to people in the state. there have been thereviews written -- there have been other views written by

barry conservative judges that -- by a very conservative judges that come to the same conclusion. host: next phone call. caller: i would like to know if the senator does not feel this latino lady is coming into this totally opposite plans and what she should be. she should be coming in with an open heart and open mind to all americans. i live in a heavy latino area. this gets down to something that we really care about. do you think she can overcome her background and really judged fairly on the public? host: do you believe that

anything she believes rep -- that she brings from her background will keeper from rendering a fair judgment? caller: yes, i see many things. even her statement about latina women compared to white men, etc. as i said, this is a constant source of antagonism in my area. guest: that is a fair question. this is what the confirmation hearings will go into. these are the question that we will ask. i can tell you, looking at judge sotomayor's background, looking at her decisions as a trial court judge, appellate court judge, you see a judge who has responded to protecting the rights of all citizens. she has been very mainstream in her opinions. she has been able to bring a consensus on the second circuit. she has shown a passion to

respect the rights of all. i must tell you, having diversity on the supreme court is a positive. it gives more confidence to the american people that the decisions of the supreme court will reflect on a country. -- on our country. i think her background can help her reach that level of credibility with the american people. host: next phone call from new york. democratic line. caller: i wanted to take exception to you saying about our country promoting democracy. for $500 i can get a high definition camcorder. in order to get basic c-span, i have to have a premium box.

theoretically, some of those channels should be free. what i really called about, judge sotomayor, we know that with this ritchie case she was just following precedent. the reality is, right-wing justices came up with the wrong decision, in that perspective. if they continue to listen to rush limbaugh, sean hannity, mark levin, they will guarantee that the black and latino votes will go democratic. i would like to hear your thoughts. guest: in regards to your comments about cable, we allow the free market to operate, but

we did not say it is perfect. i appreciate your comments. there is a balanced in terms of what is appropriate for the government to. i agree with you. you take a look at this person's record, look at her decisions as a judge. you find a person that has reflected mainstream now used in america that have followed legal precedent. to believe the role of a judge is to interpret the law, not make law. that is what we are looking for. host: this morning in "usa today" -- senators will make speeches and then try their darndest to coax an unguarded comment from her. sotomayor knows better and will decline. nevertheless, it may be worth

watching. it may be your last chance to see this historic nomination. after your statements, what do you think we will learn about judge to understand it -- judge sonia sotomayor that the american people do not already know? guest: she will be talking to the american public. there will be all lot of unfair comments made about her background. -- there was a lot of unfair comments made about her background. this is her chance to respond. i think she but take that opportunity to talk about her background, to discuss how she used her experiences to arrive at the right decision. how she has done that as a prosecutor, circuit court judge, appellate court judge, and i think we will get to know her as a person.

host: next phone call from massachusetts. go ahead, chuck. caller: as an independent i do not go for either party, but i tend to notice the republican criticism has a tone of nastiness to a iit, even with sa sotomayor. even with michael jackson, the way they trashed jesse jackson. as much as you disagree, you seem to do it in a classier weight. for that reason, i intend to be more democratic than republican. guest: i appreciate you calling in. there are different views about

how the confirmation process moves forward, but we know that this will be an open process where good question will be asked. i hope members of the senate understand our responsibility here. we are talking about the supreme court. we are talking about a lifetime appointment. we should take a look at this from an objective point of view, allow judge sonia sotomayor to have her day. we need to look at her record and judge her on that. she has a very impressive record. host: next phone call from missouri. as we do this, here is a look at some of the people on the senate judiciary committee. go ahead. caller: the president said he wanted he wanted had a great

nomination. i think democrats will be able to push her through, no matter what happens. watching all these committees, i see a side of politics where they have no mind of their own the. they marched to the same drumbeat. someone needs to be free thinking. they are all scared of their own position. they do not care about the country they represent. guest: i disagree with that. me and my colleagues care very much about the nation. that is why we went into public service. i do not question the motives of any senator or congressman her. i think they are trying to do the right thing. -- congress member.

this is a very important responsibility and we want to do what is right for the american people. this is how the process works. we have separation of powers. at times, they have held us accountable, the president accountable. this is part of checks and balances. host: has patrick leahy called the democrats together to come up with a strategy for the questioning? is it more up to the individual? guest: you are going to be disappointed to know that we have not had such meetings. there were a lot of opinions and articles that needed to be read. i have a summary book a couple hundred pages long, and then i will come up with questions. i have taken an interest on civil rights issues.

i intend to question her on civil rights. i have an interest in pro bono. i tend -- i intend to ask her about that. i think members have expressed a desire to talk with sonia sotomayor, but there was no coordinated effort. host: next phone call, md., on the democratic one. caller: -- line. caller: it seems like there are an onslaught of phone calls against the supreme court nominee. i would just like to contrast that with this call. i am a maryland constituent. i support you. i favor obama's choice of

supreme court nominee. it is his only chance -- so far, and perhaps his only chance -- to nominate someone for the court. guest: thank you. i must point out, and judge sotomayor has an impressive background. look at her recent history. it is hard to find someone with more experience as a prosecutor, as a trial court judge, which means she has handled cases of first impression, as an appellate judge has written many opinions that we have the chance to look at. she brings a wealth of experience into the position. i compliment president obama for the manner in which he made his first nomination to the supreme court.

host: this will be the first time that you are on the judiciary committee when they have a supreme court nominee. have you spoken to other members who have been through this process before to anticipate what will be happening? guest: i have, and it is truly a unique opportunity. it already has been very time consuming in terms of a lot of reading material. next week will be very busy for us on the committee. we look forward to it. host: next phone call from fort washington, maryland. caller: unfortunately, i am opposite to the last caller. i am opposed to her being involved with la raza, which advocates for illegal immigration. it makes no sense.

they break the law and come to our country illegally, regardless of the reason. by the way, latinos and blacks had different struggles in america. we are here, and they invaded. clarence thomas has never been considered, by the black community, to be a black man. sonia sotomayor advocate that immigrants bring the law. how can you be a judge and interpret the law when you are advocating a relationship with an organization that is breaking the law? it makes no sense. i have tried to speak with you several times on behalf of the blacks here in prince george's county. we are not getting very much representation. you are a liberal democrat. i am an independent because of how we are all thinking.

guest: first of all, please feel free to come by our town hall meetings. we have them all the time. i would just disagree with you. look at her record. .

and moving forward with prosecution against child pornographers. she is the mainstream in the american judiciary. i think we have confidence that she will rule in following the law. host: senator ben cardin, thank you for being on the program. we are going to take a short break. when we come back, more of "washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> robert mcnamara died on monday at the age of 93. this saturday, "book tv" 3 errors in his program from 1995 when he discusses his book, "in

retrospect." he was defense secretary during the kennedy and johnson administrations. that is this coming saturday, 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> how is c-span funded? >> the u.s. government. >> private benefactors. >> i don't know. some government. >> it is not public. >> donations? >> i would say my tax dollars. >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative. no government mandate, no government money. >> "washington journal" continues. host: open phones here for the last half hour. gives you a chance to weigh in on some of the items we talked about during the program or something you may have seen in your local newspaper earlier today.

you can also send us an e-mail or a twitter. we would like to read those as well. page threeb of "usa today" this morning, the g8 gathers in a city rocked by earthquake. it brings visibility to a region. their home for three days is l'aquila where nearly 300 people died and more than 50,000 were left homeless after an earthquake. the prime minister moved the group of eight there to showcase its plight, among the topics they will be focusing on in their discussions over the next day or two -- climate change, trade, and development aid. we also have this from the associated press.

the group of eight leaders are emphasizing the need to press on with government measures to stimulate the economy while also studying ways to wind up those strategies. that's according to a draft statement on the first day of their annual summit wednesday in l'aquila. on wednesday they emphasize the economic situation remains uncertain and pledge to take the necessary steps to return the global economy to strength, including stimulus, both individually and together. let's go to the phones. brooklyn is the first call on the line for democrats. what is on your mind? caller: good morning. i'm trying to figure out why is it so difficult for the good old boy -- why they don't want this lady on the supreme court? they know their time has run out and it is time for men to

stand up and stop being so bashful in thinking that they have to be the way they have been. it is time to straighten up and man up and do the right thing -- the governors, senators, every one of them should be castrated. thank you very much. have a nice day. host: croft and, maryland. on the line for republicans. caller: a comment about rep cardin. he is not objective. he voted for it illegal aliens having drivers licenses in maryland's until 2015 -- drivers licenses in maryland until 2015. i lost my entire business because i refused to hire illegal aliens. that is the only comment i would like to make. host: do you think if it had not been for him he would still have your business? caller: absolutely.

we have an influx of illegal aliens who have taken all of the construction and landscaping. unless i hire an illegal alien -- host: you don't have enough people? caller: i refuse to hire illegal aliens. when people tell me there is no way i can verify they are illegal, mr. cardin advocated and voted for illegal aliens getting drivers' licenses until 2015. this is undercutting the americans. host: on "role kahl," harry reid tuesday strongly urged finance chairman max baucus to drop a proposal to tax health benefits and stop chasing republican votes on a massive health care reform bill. harry reid, whose leadership is considered crucial if president obama is to deliver on his promise of enacting health care

reform this year, offered the directive through an intermediary after consulting but senate democratic leaders at tuesday morning's rally scheduled meeting. max baucus met with finance ranking member chuck grassley on tuesday afternoon to relay the information. washington continued to see more of the marked up, that will be live on c-span3 beginning at 10:00 a.m. beard back on the phones, ill., philip on the line for independence. caller: good morning. i have three comments. my first comment is when you had the lady on, and she said that during the depression the unemployment rate was at 25% and right now it is at 9%. i think it has been 15 years, they changed the way in --

figure out what the unemployment rate was. i am not sure how they did it, but they changed it so it showed less of an unknown -- unemployment rate than what it really is. only through propaganda reasons the government did that. it sounds better for them. they have more people working, and that is beside the point. my next point -- there is going to be three. my next point it is at this point, when we have 20 million americans out of jobs, we are still immigrating 100,000 up to 140,000 immigrants into the united states in month. that is 140,000 jobs needed for these people, or they are going to be coming off of the state bowl -- you know, for food and lodging and stuff like that. it makes it kind of insane when you are importing help when there is no work for the americans.

my last point is, i would like to know why these politicians are flying all over the world right now, like mayor ray nagin from new orleans when he got sequestered in the hotel room because they were afraid he was carrying swine flu. why is he in china? he said, because of jobs. why? to ship more jobs over to china, red china, a communist country? host cut you really think he went to china to ship jobs out of louisiana? caller: he said he went there for jobs. what is china going to do four jobs for our country? they are not going to bring their manufacturing over here to the united states. if anything, we will ship jobs over there for cheaper labor, slave labor. host: i would suggest you send an e-mail to the mayor.

michigan, on our line for democrats. good morning, welcome to "washington journal." caller: i have two comments. senator cardin said that we are lucky we live in a country that allows us free-speech. apparently senator is not familiar with the constitution of the united states. the citizenry -- seven -- the citizens on the government and the constitution gives us the right to free speech, every citizen is born with that right. it is not something the government can give or take away. the reason why the founders said it the government stopped working we have the right to overthrow it, to bear arms. capt. trade, yesterday we hear a lot of senators -- cap and trade, is today we heard a lot of senators talking about in spain, what a leader they are with green technology and why we have to emulate them.

the fact is that spain, germany, france, and other european countries are abandoning captain trade because they realize it was a scam and the only reason why those countries were not completely stripped of jobs is because they have laws that distance -- this incentivize jobs and they impose a tariff that discourages importations. they protect their workers. but their economy has been decimated. their small farms and businesses have been decimated by bit taxes and fees imposed upon them, the increased costs to keep their homes. poor people are suffering. our government isn't paying attention or caring about the realities. they are attempting to a pole -- impose the same problems. host: 1 the front page of "the washington times," it two articles, jurors view the tape of jefferson taking briefcases,

former representative william jefferson. the article says that prosecutors say the july 30, 2005, payment was a bribe facilitated by mr. jefferson and intended for the vice president of nigeria. in exchange for the money, american companies hoped to obtain contracts to provide telecommunications services and equipment to that country. also on the front page this morning, is a real loosens its grip in the west bank. palestinians travel easily. he writes israeli checkpoints around the second largest city in the west bank and once notorious as a den of militant activity -- the wait time for palestinians has been reduced from several hours to a few minutes. the article goes on to say, is really officers say that the number of checkpoints staffed by them has been cut in half. back to the phones, westwood, new jersey. on the line for republicans. caller: very interesting

morning. i thoroughly agree with that, what i consider, very intelligent young lady that called in from michigan. i, too, pay very close attention to what senator ben cardin was saying. scary. he seemed to think that the constitution should reflect current conditions. i agree empathy is good. justice blackmun had empathy for convicted criminals. a lot of people have empathy for criminals, very little empathy for victims of the criminals. he was against the death penalty for criminals, but he helped pass a law that tortured, tortured and killed innocent babies, justice blackmun said that every execution lessons of all. we have been lessened 50 million times as little girls and boys are tortured and killed with

taxpayer money. isn't that sad? host: let me ask you this. what you are saying the constitution should be interpreted today as it was written more than 200 years ago? caller: absolutely, yes, especially article 10. article 10 is the most important thing. here is where we made the big mistake. it is interesting, july 4, they have terrific programs on. life was first, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. these have now been taken away by enormous government which was the opposite of what our founding fathers properly wanted us to do. we need freedom, freedom is the call, and that has been taken away from us, especially now. including all of the things that we do to buy votes.

host: thank you. we will leave it there. betty on the line for independent out of lakeland, ga.. caller: of my comment is about justice sotomayor. it is really interesting to me -- and i listen to a lot of political programs -- very interesting to me that people talk about all mens clubs, like justice alito belongs to, but when it comes like a club -- comes to a club like la raza, they are called racist. host: @ thank you for your comments. alice on the line for democrats. caller: thanks for taking my call. i was listening to senator cardin. it is nice to hear someone with

a little compassion speaking once in a while. but you showed a clip of senator mcconnell's remarks regarding judge sotomayor. from mitch mcconnell. i am originally from kentucky but i'm not an admirer of mitch mcconnell at all. i would like to ask senator mcconnell or someone, were they concerned about people making -- prejudging the case when they voted for justice scalia, thomas, robert, and alito? host: what do you think? caller: i know they were, but

they are grossly pious -- they know how they are going to vote. i can watch the decisions and the cases and i know exactly how those four will vote. host: let me ask you this -- realistically speaking, do you think there are any senators, either on the judiciary committee or in the senate as a whole, that have not already made up their mind as to how they will vote on the nomination of judge sotomayor? caller: of that may be true. -- that may be true. host: out will anybody have their minds changed? caller: i think so, yes. but i will say this, too, we have southern democrats in the senate and the congress who vote more republican than they do democratic. and they talk about us having a

60-seat majority and it is a veto-proof. no, it is not. host: we will leave it there. in "the washington times" as well as other papers, they chronicle the oath of office being taken by senator al franken, democrat of minnesota. he was sworn in yesterday. the picture, you can see him being sworn in by vice president biden. it says in the article that mr. l franken cast his first vote against a spending cut favored by president obama. he was one of 51 senators who voted against the measure, sponsored by republican senator john mccain of arizona that would have eliminated a $6 million grant program for bus companies. back to the phones. springfield, virginia. samuel on the line for republicans. caller: i wanted to give a couple of statistics about the health care plan obama is proposing. i work in the industry.

a quick note, they are terrified of what is coming down the pike. it will probably be a $1 trillion plan for the next 10 years and according to the congressional budget office only about $16 million of the 46 million uninsured will be insured. we are told that is an improvement. a quick profile of some of the uninsured -- 10 million are illegal immigrants. you can walk in any emergency room, whether california or virginia, and most of the population is illegal immigrants. health care, education costs, the 16.4% of 25% of the california budget deficit. another 9 million have household incomes of above $75,000. it is crazy, when you look at the actual statistics, 12 million uninsured americans are eligible for medicaid and ask- chip and have not signed up. go ahead, i am sorry.

host: what is the solution, in your opinion? audit cut their needs to be more free market, not less -- caller: there needs to be more free market, not less. the reason is that insurers, they are required to cover pre- existing conditions, certain hospitals and doctors, and federal and state governments have required the providers to care for them without reimbursement. the cost of not go away. when somebody files for bankruptcy or default, the money goes back into the system, it does not just the way. host: in "the baltimore sun the tiered food safety fix. the obama administration took the first that scored modernizing the system for protecting the food supply tuesday by announcing new regulations to curb the spread of salmonella in eggs and naming a new food watchdog at the fda. following up on president barack obama's pledged to improve a

chronically underfunded and understaffed system that has repeatedly failed to control outbreaks of food borne illnesses, the fda for the first time will regulate how most eggs are produced on farms around the country. sheila on our line for independents from washington, d.c. caller: i would like to make a three short statements. in reference to the supreme court, i think that we need to have our leaders to be open- minded and that we need a divorce court -- diverse courts. we need to reflect all the people, not just some. secondly, i have been so surprised at how individuals are trying to stop ensuring -- let's say most -- of the country in

reference to health care. and i think that we do need a public government program. we need to insure others. last, but not least, i have been flipping back and for the various channels. i watched all of the information, all of the programs as it related to michael jackson, and i was amazed -- especially with fox news -- i have never seen such an attack on such a wonderful man. and i was taught that once you are found not guilty, you are not guilty, and i think it's a horrible and terrible thing what they are doing. simply horrible. but you never hear the positive things, how much he gave to charity. he was in the guinness book of records, gave the most to charity as a pop star. nobody ever talks about the good things. and i personally saw him go to a

hospital -- host: what did you think about the speech given by texas them cracked sheila jackson lee, the only member of congress to speak -- taxes democrat sheila jackson lee. caller: i thought it was beautiful. it brought tears to my eyes. i was so pleased. i was very, very proud of her, that she stood up. because it appears to me that people are sort of afraid, because they are not understanding most geniuses -- let's be real -- are sort of peace centric -- eccentric, but they do wonderful things. i was just pleased with the entire service. host: david on the line for democrats, out of potomac, maryland. caller: i would like to comment

on how health care should be reformed. we need a single payer system. host: why is that? caller: because private health insurance companies take a tremendous amount of overhead and administrative costs and paperwork out of the system. and the salaries of their executives are obscene. we have to tax businesses, all businesses, what business is commonly pay in taxes. we have to tax all individuals, what individuals who pay into the system pay. and we have to make sure that everybody is covered and not treat health care as a commodity. host: our next call comes from pat on our line for republicans out of jacksonville, florida.

caller: i think you made a wise comments when he said perhaps every single person on that judiciary committee already cast their vote in their minds. i don't think anything will be changed. host: i was just asking a question. what do you think? caller: the white house -- if there was a rabbit considered a democratic of a they would vote for it. you had a caller calling and about senator carton because she said you always have to take the latino movement and go back to the civil rights movement -- talking about senator ben cardin. i am with him 101st -- with her 100 percent. the senator, when he ran against michael steele, in that campaign the operative went to jail because they stole michael steele's credit card numbers, social security numbers. it is disgraceful. his son had to drop out of

college. so, how can he -- he is talking about the constitution. i do not want him particularly in to bring the constitution. host: in a section of this morning's "the washington post," it's a warning about disaster housing. u.s. authorities remain on able to provide emergency housing after large-scale catastrophes and must do more to prepare survivors for permanent relocation. the department of homeland security inspector general is expected to tell a house panel today nearly four years after hurricane katrina destroyed or damaged 300,000 homes on the gulf coast and left billions of dollars of waste and that diaspora that followed, federal homeland security officials could have a repeat scenario if another storm struck a major coastal city for a high magnitude earthquake hit populous and centers in california or the midwest --

midwest, according to prepared testimony from inspector general scanner. philadelphia, good morning. caller: a couple of responses ago about the health care system. i truly believe that we really do need to reform our health- care system. go ahead. host: how would we reform it? caller: i know the single payer or the public option -- to me, it is a great idea. i have been to the military and i traveled to europe and it seemed to work beautiful and you cannot fall into the propaganda. it is 46 million people who don't have health insurance and people say i don't want to pay for somebody else's health care. when do americans come to decisions like that? what if our police forces were private sector and you had different companies to protect us? people need to think and care

for their faults and maybe we all benefit. that is all i want to say. host: in "the baltimore sun the tiered -- in "the baltimore sun ," an indian american actor is taking a break from hollywood to vote -- worked as an associate director in the office of public liaison, with a focus of connecting president barack obama with the asian american and pacific islander communities as well as the arts groups. you can read more about that in a "the baltimore sun" as well as other newspapers in news stands. will the borough, n.c., on our line for democrats -- goldsboro. hello? caller: i would like to speak to you concerning health care.

our health care benefits, private carriers, they are good when a person is working but they are unemployed or someone tries to carry insurance that way, it gets so expensive that it is unaffordable. i know a case where one person -- $1,000 due to pre-existing conditions. who could afford to pay that when you are unemployed? host: are you employed or unemployed? caller: i am retired. host: how is your health care situation? caller: it is fine. host: what does it cost you per month? caller: