and the emerging role of community banks. washington journal is next. . .

host: tell us about the progress that was made on monday and what the senate may or may not be doing. guest: the house energy and commerce committee was able to pass the house democrats' version of health reform bill. they have been having a bit of trouble all along the way with some of the more conservative democrats, but they were able to make some deals and the house should take it up when they return from recess. the senate finance committee is working on a bipartisan health care bill right now and they will be working on this all week. i do not expect to see a final bill from them this week. aba proposal or something like that, but nothing complete. they have sent us a deadline of the 15th. probably after the recess. host: what about the fact that

they were able to move forward before the recess? was that vital? guest: there was a deadline set by the president for the house to pass something before they left for the recess. it was significant in that they were able to get it out of committee with some of their members. it was important for them to pass something out with progress, and they were not able to meet it. host: what enable them to move forward >> they negotiated for a couple of weeks -- guest: negotiated -- forward. guest: they negotiated for a couple of weeks. the full house does not vote before the recess. there was a conservative public plant in this bill, and now medicare will negotiate with the government rather than setting

it based on medicare. that was something that was important to the blue dogs. they do not get paid as much for medicare as in some of the other areas. host: you can join the conversation by giving us a call, our guest is anna edney. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. you can also send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. our c-span address on twitter is twitter.com/c-spanwj. the fact that the senate finance committee does not look to get a whole lot on this week, is that going to be a significant blow against progress for the democrats? or are they finding that they can continue to work on finding a bipartisan compromise? guest: it could be considered by

some as failure, but those watching closely have realized for a while but they were going to do this in their spare time. so, people on the hill have been expecting that they would do this in their own way. host: how different is what they are working with? we do not know the details, but have different does it look to be from what is coming out of other committees? guest: it will be very different from what comes out of other committees. from what we expect to see in it, a sort of public auction for insurance as a middle ground where it would be an insurance cooperative. those that participate with old and operate it. in a sense, these could be regional or national.

it is hard for the lower level democrats to accept a full public option and hold the insurance companies accountable. we are expecting something a little more turned down. host: politico is reporting that senator john rockefeller has gone public with his case against cooperatives, which is viewed as a compromise between republicans and democrats. is that something that will stymie the discussion, the fact that he is coming up against that? guest: he is not part of the six that are negotiating the bill. it could cause some issues in the markup of that committee. he is on that committee. there are a few others that

support a public auction, like him, rather than the cooperative. it will still have to be merged with other senate committees that pass something, as well as the house. host: what is the game plan as they go back to their home districts guest: the ones that are not sure what we are reforming, or they have pretty good health care already, members want to bring them on board. i think that the message going out to the constituents being sold over the recess is that we do not want to take care of the government with insurance or anything else. we just want to regulate it

better and serve you better. they will be trying to bring those people into the fold. host: our first call this morning is a democratic call from youngstown, ohio. caller: how are you this morning? host: fine, thank you. caller: i am in favor of the public auction. once we find out what these insurance companies have been doing for quite some time now, we are in for a very rude awakening. part of the problem is that they are using a spread the risk model to get money, where they put insurers helping people on one side, and on healthy people on the other side. along with the profits, anytime they want to make more profits they either throw more unhealthy people off or they increase the

number of healthy people on the other end. i think that the insurers have had a free ride for a long time. it is time to end it. i am with nancy pelosi, i am glad that she has spoken up in a vocal kind of way against these insurers. just the fact that they are in the middle of the legislative mix is reason to go after them as well. host: there is a piece today in "the washington post" reviewing what is going on. it says "although nancy pelosi won a significant victory last week, setting up a floor debate after labor day, conservative democrats were able to negotiate a weakening of the position, suggesting that the public auction is growing increasingly vulnerable even

after consensus. does the -- consensus." does the public auction even have a shot? guest: i think that it does. maybe not the public option that they wanted to start with, but i think it is still a viable option. a few changes here and there can be made to make more moderate members comfortable. host: the next caller is judy, republican line. she is calling from washington state. let's see if we can get her on the line. let's hold off and go to ted, independent line, california. caller: hello. i worked for a major health information company for a number of years. one of the big problems with government run health care is something called drg's, diagnostic related groups. we actually had software called

a gamer. you ran this program to group drg's properly to get the maximum pay back from the insurance companies. one of the biggest problems that we have with that software, there was no common critical record. it was something we had to do over and over again. it worked group that had been trying for 16 years -- a work group that had been trying for 16 years to work across all boundaries. that is all that i have to say. host: let's take a look at what

congressman charlie rangel talked about on the sunday morning talk shows with regards to health care. guest: i am not worried at all. the president told the senate and house that we should have his numbers in terms of them falling. i am really surprised at jim being seven-about this problem that all americans recognize face this nation. there is not any adult american that does not have a horror story of what has happened to them under this troubled system. republicans, jim, they had nothing in terms of responding to this very serious issue. for him to say that we have a singer -- that we have a single payer plan, it means he is not aware of the plan in the house, not working with the republicans in the senate. i cannot think of anything other than a fiscal crisis that

warrants a more bipartisan attack on a fiscal problem. i am looking forward to having one bill in there. fortunately there are more positive republicans in the senate. host: that was congressman rangel from -- "fox news sunday." how hard are they going to hit the message home to their constituents? how much are they going to be playing by the set of rules? will they have a cheat sheet on main topics? guest: certainly they have been briefed on talking points to take home. one of the gentleman mentioned there, republicans and some of the talking points the they have, like single payer, trying to convince people that the government's is creating a single payer option.

the democrats keep saying they do not have a plan other than to maintain. there will be an event with democrats and republicans, holding certain things in town hall, things like that, with constituents. host: it was seen that a delay for the august recess was detrimental to the democrats, may be a benefit to the republicans. is it still that way? guest: i think that the republicans do. the tough part without having something concrete, without the democrats passing something or seeing a bill, president obama or when anyone else speaks, they do not have a plan to sell.

they have ideas, but nothing on paper. people are not sure what health reform is going to mean, for insurance reform. host: democratic line, tennessee. rich, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? i was calling to say that i am a registered nurse. going back to the old days in health care, before it became a big business, i saw a progression over time from having house bills that were -- hospitals that were run by the churches or universities, or by local communities.

at that point in time, health care was more affordable. the health-care profession was considered self sacrifice. there were probably about two dozen drug companies. now they have all been consolidated. i remember the first for-profit hospital in the united states. there was a lot of skepticism. it started in louisville, k kentucky. it was around 1982. host: how have these things that have changed over time, what does it mean for health care reform? caller: there are two big problems that i do not hear addressed in all of the hearings. probably because of a lot of the influence from pharmaceutical

companies. the fact that health care has moved from something that was a charitable operation or a teaching circumstance to one that is for profit. i have seen costs increased tremendously over the years. host: fenty for your comments. guest: i am not familiar with the hospital situation. i know that chuck grassley is looking into this nonprofit versus for-profit bill. there is an investigation. i know that it is something they are looking at. host: how strong is a lobbying effort going to be over the next month or more? they can hit congressman and senators in their home states, there can be a national campaign, what should we be

looking for? guest: it will be ramping up, particularly because while there are no bills, there are more ideas on what could be in their. you have some of the democrats in leadership and the house getting behind the insurance company bill, things where they will want to fight back over the recess in ways that they have not before because most senate people have been on board. now that they are seeing that maybe they are going to get harder than they thought, i think that there will be some campaigns that are a bit more negative than we have seen so far. host: there was a key from "the new york times" this morning, talking about how the $133 million in lobbying expenditures "in the second quarter of 2009 alone, more than any sector by far, hardly sounds like to change that mr. obama or

his supporters had in mind." it goes on to talk about the fact that the president did not come to congress with a tailor the bill, leaving a lot of wiggle room for the bill -- congress where they tailor a bill, leaving a lot of wiggle room for the bill in the end. are we going to see more decisions? guest: there have been a lot already. they are supportive, but they are at the same time steering towards a certain bill. particularly the bipartisan finance bill. hospitals would like to see something more moderate along those lines. they were supportive of a bipartisan effort where nothing was passed out so far. they continue growing. host: many of us remember that

from 1993, when president clinton was trying to get health care through. are we going to see, do you think, or is there any indication that there will be a specific ad campaign that will be affected? the return of harry and louise? guest: they are back on the opposite time this time -- back on the opposite side this time. it could be effective. people could switch their opinions. working closely with groups like families usa, who would like to see legislation that includes a public auction. democrats are hoping for these big reforms. host: patricia is on the republican line calling from dallas, texas. good morning. caller: hello. the public auction is never going to work because the government is too big. look at cash for clunkers, they ran out of money in one week. do you want the government running your health insurance

when they cannot even run cash for clunkers? you have to go through red tape after red tape to get it done. that is what happened with the government run insurance. in fact, the insurance companies competed against each other. democrats always have to have something. i think that it is ridiculous. i am happy with my insurance, i would like to keep it. none of these senators are congress that have read the bill -- none of them have read the bill. obama says that he has not read the bill. he has no clue what he is doing. i think that it is the wrong way

to go. guest: that has been the argument from a lot of republicans. do you really want the government dealing with your health insurance? do you want them responsible for your coverage when there are so many programs bogged down in red tape? cash for clunkers, running out of money. democrats on the other side, they are saying that they would not be taking everyone's insurance. a fall back rather than a safety net. host: there is a piece today about health care legislation, separating the minutes from the facts. what do you see as the key things being misinterpreted by the american public? a couple of things from the article, they talk about the end of life guidance, directives, things like that.

guest: that has certainly been an issue. rationing of health care, things like that. people have been talking about when you are very old, or you have one year to live, is it cost-effective to allow for that? so much money is spent in the last year of life. so, when you talk about government health care, will the government make the decision to ration health care? something that has been a big issue? democrats have been fighting against it. host: anything else come to your mind that you are seeing played with in the frederick m. guest: offhand, i think that rationing -- rhetoric? guest: offhand, i think that rationing is the big one.

there is the congressional budget office, going over the numbers, saying that it would not crowd out the private insurance companies. many people believe that eventually this would lead to a single payer system run by the government. host: our guest is anna edney, a health care reporter for "congress daily." baltimore, good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for c-span. i would like to comment on the fact that no one is talking about where the money comes from in these insurance companies. they are run by wall street and hedge funds. wall street in hedge funds are the ones making the decisions about what happens in our health care. whether it be rational or any other value that might come up. why did the american people

understand that we have a choice between wall street and the government? this young lady needs to do her research on the history of health care in america. the previous caller hit the nail on the head when he said that wall street has taken over our health care, taking away from the people and giving it to the dollar profits. now we have a mess. and thank you, sis and. guest: as -- thank you, c-span. guest: it has not been in a huge issue for health reform so far, it has ballooned in the background. i think that it is something that could crop up, especially when the finance bill comes out. host: ted, calling on the democratic line from clinton, maryland. caller: good morning? can you hear me? host: yes, weekend.

-- we can. caller: un this lady keep repeating the fact that the government -- you and this lady keep repeating the fact that the government ran out of money for cash for clunkers, but that does not mean that it was not successful. the larger issue is that the american people are being used and misused by the press and public authority. we have a health care bill in this country of $10.50 trillion per year. 30% goes to the insurance companies. that is $770 billion. that money could be used to help the president with health care. we have a government run health care program called medicare. it will not be helped one way or the other called -- by single payer plans. stop being fooled by republicans

in the news media. these people have a vested interest in putting your money in their pockets. guest: he makes a good point about their already being a government health care program. medicare and so many people love their medicare and the coverage that they get through medicare. there was a story recently going around about a town hall that was held where a gentleman said keep your hands off my medicare, government, but government is the one running medicare. there has certainly been a success to that program. host: let's take a look at what white house adviser, larry summers, said yesterday on "face the nation." >> you do not see another round of tax increases? >> let's understand the president, he put in place as part of the stimulus bill, as

part of the economic recovery act, a measure that he campaigned on. tax cuts, reducing taxes by $800 for working families. that is where the focus is. we are going to keep working to strengthen the foundation. there is a lot that can happen, but the priority right now, it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out no matter what. when a president has been completely clear -- what the president has been completely clear on, he will not pursue in -- pursue any of his plans in ways that will hurt middle-class families. that is something that will not happen. host: how is the bottom line

affecting the debate over health care? guest of these health care bills that are being negotiated are roughly around $1 trillion. there have been many options that have been looked at to try and fund it. a lot of it is coming from cuts in medicare. there will be a need to raise revenue. the house is looking at a millionaire's tax. they are trying to encroach on the president's promise not to tax the middle class. the senate finance committee was seriously weighing taxing employer benefits, they have switched their tack a bit too taxing insurance companies. some argue could also be passed

on to the middle-class. it is a sticky situation to keep the president's promise. host: charles, republican line. caller: good morning. we are trillions in debt and they are going to spend this money for 14 million illegals? for people that do not want insurance? people that are self-insured? where do they get the audacity that they can put our children in debt and our grandchildren in debt? it is ridiculous. he talks about cash for clunkers being successful? where does he get the audacity that we can take money from the government's, taking it from somebody to make it possible so that he can buy a car -- from the government, taking it from somebody to make it possible so that he can buy a car. i think if you had better start reading thomas show walter and

dave hansen. it is ridiculous that we are going so far in debt. one out of 100 people will be insured because of this. that does not make any sense. guest: that has certainly been a part of the debate. spending $1 trillion, that is something that lawmakers who are coming up with this are hoping to offset with cuts or revenue raises, not adding to the federal deficit. it is something that the president' said, health reform s needed because we are spending so much unnecessary money on health care and insurance. so, it has been a tough sell for him lately. it was something that he tied together with health reform,

that it was needed for the economy. host: j.r. from crystal river, the morning. caller: this young lady, i would like you to talk about the drug program. there are a lot of people that are calling, they are ignorant. they do not read the paper. i do not have a lot of details, but they just shoot their mouth off. i am over 65. i paid between $2.50 and $6 for the drugs i am taking. when i get my prescription, on the top of the prescription, the bag that it comes in, it tells you exactly how much the drug is. it could be from $150 to $200. i am paying up to $6?

these people outside, if they are listening to this program, tell me who is paying the difference. guest: that has been in issue as well -- that has been an issue as well, private insurers arguing that they have to pay a higher rate for certain services and things like that, where they have to make up the difference. as far as a part b plan, i have not heard much of a complaint about the same thing, where they make up the difference for medicare paying a lower rate. so, i am not exactly positive if someone is making up the difference or how that exactly works. host: next, the democratic line,

new jersey. caller: good morning. i think that the gentleman from florida was right. for the last three decades, this nation has been responding to misinformation and ignorance, as well as the fear on what they heard when the celluloid cowboy rode into the white house, telling us is most terrible nightmare -- i am from the government and i am here to help. he was government. the government is not the problem. the problem is that people came into high positions of government and did everything that they could to destroy the working people. unless you are a trust fund baby, you are so deeply and

adversely affected by our current health care program. ronald reagan, some of these democrats, cutting taxes, creating more taxes, sending jobs overseas. they are destroying unions and representation for the working people. they are so busy trying to make ends meet, working from paycheck to paycheck, they do not have time to find out the facts. guest: i think that there are a lot of middle class out there who may be paying a lot more. many of these states do not quite realize it, because the employer is picking up the insurance. that is what the argument that democrats are going to be making over the recess, that the government wants to lower your

costs. they want to make this kind of argument that there are a lot of, i guess the way that health care plans are taxed right now, the wealthier are getting a better benefit. they will make that argument, that the government is trying to lower your costs. that it might not be evident right now, but they are trying. host: how much can things change by the end of the august recess? what will be a sign that the debate has shifted? guest: lawmakers will be hearing from their constituents. that might be one thing that the white house was worried about, going to recess without an actual bill. there could be certain things

that their constituents are saying that they would want to change in these bills, try to finesse a little bit. i think that when they return, it will be interesting to see something come out of finance based on what they heard from home. guest: can things relate -- host: can things with the change in the senate finance committee? guest: i think they are well on their way. they have details that need deal worked out. it will not be a co-op any longer. this would be the only bipartisan bill coming out of the house. host: anna edney is a health care reporter for "capitol hill

daily." we will be right back. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. ♪ >> starting tuesday, the full senate debates the nomination of sonia sotomayor as a supreme court justice. watch it live on c-span 2. starting in the fall, the supreme court. david cohen is an executive with comcast. tonight, his take on the new s.c. -- the new fcc and the future of broad brand in america. that is tonight on." >> how is c-span funded? >> i have no clue.

>> government plan? >> advertising. >> public money? >> taxes? >> 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: our question for the rest of the hour is when do you expect economic recovery? obama aides say that recovery is going to be slow. they gave upbeat assessments on sunday, predicting an imminent start to the recovery, slow and arduous compared to previous rebounds. american households have lost about $14 trillion, more than the collective earnings in all sources of income last year.

never before have american families felt that kind of blow to their wealth. the timing could not have been worse. it is just before the advanced population of baby boomers reach retirement age." larry summers did talk about this over the weekend. six months ago, when the president took office, "we were talking about whether the present -- whether this recession would become a depression. " what signs are you looking for? for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. our e-mail address is journal@c- span.org. we are on twitter, that addresses twitter.com/c-spanwj -- address is twitter.com/c- spanwj. more articles from earlier today on where congress is

going. from "the washington times," it talks about how larry summers would not rule out a little crass -- middle-class tax increase on sunday. tonight we're also made the talk-show circuit on sunday -- timothy geithner also made the talk-show circuit on sunday, talking about plans that he and his advisers have ruled out. let's take a look at what he said over the weekend. >> well, i'd think that you are right to say that the broad consensus of private forecasters are looking at broad growth in the second part of the year. you need growth before business starts creating jobs again. that is what we will be focused on doing. >> should americans expect that more jobs will be created? >> what you will see first is

growth turning positive. then you will see the pace of job loss slow. it has already slowed significantly, it will do so further. most private forecasters, let's use their judgment, suggest that you will see unemployment coming down in the second half of next year. host: what are the chances that we will see speculation later in the year? >> something that we are very focused on. focused on private spending, business is taking a chance on the american economy, but investments to work, rebuilding their employment base. that will be the ultimate test for recovery. the important thing to us is to make sure that we are sticking with it and making sure that that confidence in the private recovery in place. host: that was secretary timothy geithner on abc. the peace in "the washington post" continues on with what he was talking about.

"they simultaneously tried to remind americans of how bad conditions were at the beginning of the year, saying that the stimulus package is part of the reason that things looking better now. six months ago the economy was in a nosedive. people were talking about the possibility of another depression. none of that is the situation right now. do you see this as a sign that the economy has turned around? if not, when do you expect the economic recovery to take place? allen, west palm beach florida. good morning. caller: i actually got a job last week, so things are looking up. host: let me ask you, how long were you looking for a job? caller: i have my own business.

i sell machines that are used in the industry, making maps for computer-controlled machines. i have not sold a new one in years. i have been selling used machines. i could not do that now. i got a job at a fabrication company. what i wanted to fall about was the health insurance to chelation -- what i wanted to call about was the health insurance situation. taking it, splitting up with districts, hospitals and doctors, therapy. if you took the problem out, the insurance carrier, which is the back of the operation. i went to a doctor with a herniated disk. it just got worse and worse. my pain was tenfold. i had to go to an orthopedic

surgeon and i told him something you are not supposed to say to get by mri. i got it, then i got my operation. that money was spent for six months torturing me. it was ridiculous. if you took the problem out, the carrier, because they take the money and do what they want with it, replacing it with a nonprofit entity -- it cannot the government run either. it has to be nonprofit. host: thank you, alan. democratic line, california. barbara? caller: yes, i think that many of these problems with consumer confidence are the media. i was watching this young lady. people were saying different things to her. instead of stating the facts, she was saying yes, this side says this, the other side says this. we do not get any information other than what the democrats

and republicans are saying. host: i think that the tough thing is that republicans and democrats are each trying to get messages out there and reporters are reporting on that. caller: but we already know that. we need them tells the facts. to the republicans say that this guy is read, i do not need a reporter for me to say that republicans say that this guy is red. i need a reporter to give me real facts. different people are saying different things. we need the media to suss out the facts. that is so important. it would go a long way to the public knowing what is going on. keeper are paying their bills. they are struggling to get -- people are paying their bills. they are struggling to get their kids through college. all we get our sound bite.

-- all that we get our sound bites. -- are sound bites. host: west virginia, bill. caller: one thing that i am sure. what got us into this is those miserable, ms. begot republicans that have ruined the economy. -- ms. be gotten -- miss b gotten -- misbegotten republicans that have ruined the economy. host: rick, good morning. caller: cash for clunkers was smoke and mirrors. it will show an increase in automobile sales, then it will show a downturn after the quarter. as long as they keep putting out

those programs, it is like putting a band-aid on an amputated arm. as far as republicans go, i do not think that they are responsible for all of this. it goes back to the clinton era. they opened up free trade, allowing jaws to go overseas. we need to go back to being an industrial company -- a country where we are a manufacturing base -- being an industrial country where we are in manufacturing base. host: christina roemer, "it will be a while before we seek employment going up. according to the national employment law project, unemployment will increase before the end of the year.

an extension of these benefits would absolutely be on the table." bob is calling on the democratic line. duluth, minnesota. hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. my comments this morning, when george bush sr. was in, we had an economic downturn. clinton slowly turned it around. i agree with the last republican caller, we need to get back manufacturing. we need to manufacture of goods in this country. more money going out and coming in, that will not work. things will be changing as far as the recovery does. obama himself said that it takes a long time to turn around a big

ship. one of the biggest mistakes that we made was when we bailed out aig. we should have given that money directly to the banks. they should have been underwriting these loans. they should have had money reserve for that. all that we did was pay these people for a service they did not render. thank you. host: thank you for the call. another piece from "the wall street journal," "towns, cities, counties, $21.4 million spent on lobbyist between april and june, up from the first quarter of the year, in line with spending levels of 2008. they are doing that to seek stimulus money. the municipal governments is seeking to curb lobbyists' activities, register lobbyists were only allowed to submit in writing about competitively awarded stimulus money. until recently, local government

officials were not subjected to this rule. the white house changed the ban by water -- widening it. " are you seeing any changes in your area? we have a comment on twitter this morning, "i have noticed people vacationing in the traveling, restaurants pact, lines at the gas stations. the economy is fine now." was signs are you seeing in your committee -- community? we have and drew from louisiana. independent line. hello. please turn down your tv or radio. caller: hello? host: hello. please turn down your television or radio. caller: the economy, and want to hear about the t. boone pickens plan. -- i want to hear about the t.

boone pickens plan. the health-care debate has taken over. once i hear that these contracts have been awarded and they start to break ground on the wind corridor, that will be a sign that the economy is picking up. that will create stimulus for a lot of industries in america. that is my comment. host: on the republican line, walter from indiana. caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate it. the economy is based on what we are seeing on wall street. it is ridiculous. saying that stocks are going up because we have cut workers, that that is a good sign? america, you had better be prepared. get your food and rations and things to protect yourself. this country is falling apart. it breaks my heart to say it. when you have a system built on

not having money and printing it, a system where you import all of your foreign goods from china and japan and korea and everything else -- california's bankrupt. wake up, we are falling apart. this system is going to break us. how do we go on? think of it this way, in 1960 we had the gold standard with the number one educational system in the world. since then, we have fallen to the 16th educationally. we borrow from china. do you know what the mantra is going to be? we are going have to be taught how to say yes, master, in chinese. america needs to stop spending money. stop it. cut programs. it will be painful. but we cannot purchase a television made in america.

are we kidding ourselves? we have to stop worrying about the woods in alaska and start worrying about being the entrepreneurial giant. i have a bad feeling that we are going to fall apart. do you know what will happen? someday we will wake up and be a new country with a new flag, but we will be okay because we will go back to the basics that made us great. thank you for your time and patience. have a great day. host: in "usa today," "stimulus cash lifts states, localities." is this significant in your community? frank is on the democratic line. good morning. caller: what happened is that the middle class, they turned their heads the other way. history tells, from the silver

lot days to the present -- silver law days to the present, they accept the garbage coming out of the various presidents that have gotten us into this mess. when franklin delano roosevelt said the town of, there were those that never accepted the fact that they lost the civil war. reaping what you sow. the only way is to give dialogue between the congress and a return, as some of them are going back home, and allow the middle-class to step back to the plate and do what they always do. they settle for what is being told to them. then we will go back and we will

have the various things that we need. focusing on the goods, but we will suffer. we have been reaping what we sell. odds are that it will get worse. to add a spiritual connotation, the spiritual side of life is that we are going to suffer. not only in this country, but at home because it will, in time. we are headed in that direction, but it will be bitter and it will be sweet. there is going to be a lot of negativity. to get back on track, we have got to support this president and give him a chance to work this situation out. we gave bush and reagan a chance, clinton included, every one of them, we gave them a chance. the middle class should be ashamed of themselves. allow their children, watching and observing, they do not like what their parents are doing. they know that this is not the way to go.

host: thank you for your call. we have a comment from twitter. "the economy will never be the same. we've lost millions of unskilled jobs, what are we going to replace them with"? patty, good morning. what do you think of the economic recovery? caller: it is not being felt here. i think that a lot of it has to do with the jobs going overseas, but also health care. people have to realize that a lot of the things that we pay for now, we did not worry about them 25 years ago. we have a full generation of people without health care in their 20s. it can be aggravating when you hear about senators going out there and yelling havel we are going to let older people die, but young people are suffering. a lot of young people in this

generation cannot afford to go to college. they do not have that option. it it's really aggravating with the rhetoric. i think that republicans are going to be careful. you have a younger generation feeling completely betrayed. they feel that there is nothing there for them. they have already lost the hispanic vote, they are going to lose the youth vote as well. thank you. host: gloria, republican line, san diego, california. what is your take on the signs of economic recovery? caller: it depends on what you are dealing with, ok? some people are doing just fine. you can see that there is a segment of the population not doing well. for the most part i would say that the parking lots are full when you drive by the mall.

business as usual for some. when you find out it is difficult, some people got oover their heads. they drew out all of their equity and decided to let houses old and out. they take their cars, which are relatively new -- we are surprised at the choices that people make. everybody wants it now. i do not feel that the economic recovery is going to be coming in with a big push. it has not in the past. it seems to me that the public is ignorant about how strong they are as voters. when you have a congressman or senator that, after 20 years, it

gets into the same line, there is something wrong. this business of going from one crisis to another, first it was the mortgage crisis bringing estelle -- bringing us down. then there was the gas crisis bringing us down. now it is the health crisis. people that do not know, who have not been educated in health insurance, when they test people for selling life insurance and health insurance, what they put people through it is on the individual to do their investigating and to know exactly what kind of product is that they are purchasing. host: democratic line, alabama. caller: midmorning. how are you?

host: fine, thank you. caller: we need to stop being so pessimistic. there was a gentleman calling from indiana. let's not be so pessimistic. if these republicans would stop trying to obstruct everything, everything that they are trying to do in the congress and senate, maybe we can get something done. together we stand, united we stand, and divided we fall. president obama, people are saying that he is not doing good. but we are all in this together. i am unemployed. but we are able to make it. you have to cut out the things that work going before this happened. jobs are coming back. we have always been strong.

we need to stop blaming one another, take responsibility for what we do, stop being against everything. cash for clunkers, we have dealers saying that this is working. what did republicans say? it is government run. so what? government has to step in sometimes. america, get up. stop complaining. .

guest: she has been generalized into affirming the system of racial action in this system today, whereby the law practices based solely on race. given often to people that are not in the position to compete in the places they are accepted. as evidenced by academic performance of affirmative action. in the case of professor gates, he was arrested by white police officers under circumstances where it wasn't improper rest, i agree with him there. but he attributed it to racism, and then there was no good reason to do that. he drew wild claims about america being a racist and a class this country.

he said that there had not been structural changes in america and the the only people that live in a post racial world in -- are in the white house. i think that it is not responsible for a man of his stature to speak out why. host: you are saying to these individuals have extrapolated from their own experience. are you seeing a trend? guest: the similarities that they have in common is race, the extent to which affirmative action will help these situations. in her case, her advocacy of affirmative action and racial preference, in this case it was a complaint about america being

pervasively racist. host: let's look at this piece from "the national journal" that you gave. "sonia sotomayor, an ideal candidate for the classic affirmative action the crusading candidates based their preferences on, an extraordinarily promising student of all races. you say that she was an ideal candidate, high achieving. host: by her account, she says that she was an affirmative action baby. in the sense that she got into princeton, despite her for s.a.t. scores. lower than most people would accept. she had gone to a good high school. she was the valedictorian. she was a person seizing on

opportunities. if you were an admissions officer back then, there was every reason to think that she might have some trouble at first with the people from fenty prep schools, she is a good bet to catch up. and she did. host: booking a professor gates -- looking at professor gates, he said there was power than nothing to fix. guest: we are speaking of his dismissal of the election of the first black president as insignificant without telling you anything about race in america. he claims that the police officer is stereotyping him.

none of this can be quantified by the police officer. an awful lot of white people have been arrested under similar circumstances and treated worse. therefore, the quick assumption that it is because of right -- because of race is not warranted. host: "callous white people have been arrested for mouthing off to cops. i happen -- countless white people have been arrested for mouthing off the cops. i happen to be one of them." is that true? guest: i came on the scene of a race riot when i was a reporter in 1970's. i did not know what was going on. i heard an angry bark to get back.

it was a police officer yelling at me. before i realized it, in the middle of this riot, i responded in a wise mouth way, kind of smart ass. he and his partner grabbed me. next thing you know, i was in a cell. that, by the way, was an unconstitutional arrest. professor gates also suffered an unconstitutional rest. this half of lots of people. if you want a conversation with the full arresting people for being roof, let's have that conversation. do not make it about race. host: with an african-american man, with figures of authority

there has been a tendency for black men to feel like they are being racially profiled. do you see professor gates potentially having a different opinion? guest: that is a fair statement. there has been a long, lamentable history of racism towards blacks that has persisted in law enforcement more than in some areas for a variety of complicated reasons. professor gates, as far as i know, has not had a long history of being personally victimized. when he is speaking with great authority to black people all over america, as well as white people, he should be careful of what he says. exaggerated claims of racism are a big problem in this country, they divert attention away from racial problems. by and large they are not stamping out white racism.

there are problems that will not be solved by doing that. host: like what? guest: bad education, bad work habits, all the things that commonly plagued black america. there is a new book from the pennsylvania law professor, they will not be solved by attacking white racism. they will not be solved by the rest of professor gates. they will be sold more by self- help and perhaps through some well-intentioned government programs. there is a legacy of longtime white discrimination, but not related to persistent discrimination. host: democratic line, san diego, california. caller: good morning. host: welcome. caller: good morning. how are you?

host: goodman, thanks. caller: ok. host: please, go ahead. and you are with stewart taylor. caller: thank you. mr. taylor, it is 5 in the morning here. it is not true, racism is alive and well. i am so happy. i prayed that judge ito the solent -- that judge sotomayor made it. she will be so helpful to the system. she is a good woman. that is a good human being. i know that i am a victim of racism, in 64 years old. my husband worked for a company for 36 years when he was terminated. we continued. my husband died 18 days after the trial.

. the judge told me himself, that company is so big and conservative, my husband would never have won the lawsuit. when it came to me after he passed away, the verdict came down on the eighth of june. he died on the 26 of june. not for here, it is even more than that. host: we are sorry for your loss. thank you for your call. guest: i do not doubt that some racism persists, but if i heard you correctly, he was not terminated on account of his race. and although some people warned that he would not win a lawsuit on account of race, he did win a lawsuit. i am not sure that i see the racism. host: we have a comment from

twitter. "if you were in congress, would you vote no based on your perception of supporting affirmative action? a litmus test"? guest: a tough question when it comes to sonia sotomayor. she has led an admirable life illegit -- admirable life. she is clearly capable. she has great experience, they need trial judge experience. in many ways i think that she is an outstanding appointment. there are some matters in which i have ideological disagreements with her. i have my doubts about the candor of her testimony. how much difference can be given to a president on a choice that i would not have made? it is clear that president obama gave no difference at all to the

great qualities in the nominees that he voted against. he said that he liked their ideology, thumbs down. not sure how much deference i would give in this case. host: good morning, california. caller: i have a few comments. i wanted to get in before this hour, i was watching this show before -- host: lets keep the topic to the one hand. do you have one on this? caller: my comment on the confirmation of sonia sotomayor, if i was lindsay gramm -- i am originally from south carolina -- i would be like him. in my opinion, and i watched a lot of these questions -- i have

problems with this statement that she made about white males. about being qualified and everything. [inaudible] [unintelligible] host: kloska call. -- we lost the call. north carolina, good morning. caller: on the issue of judge sotomayor being appointed, it was a good thing. i am so glad that obama appointed someone that represents the interests of the people, all of the american people. i think the reason that bush put clarence thomas up there is because black people are only 12% of the population.

if you look at that, we should maybe have only one person on the supreme court. putting a person up there like clarence thomas, he did not really represent us. a shrewd move. . guest: i think it realized in court they might get the charges thrown up, that it was an unconstitutional arrest. you should not be arrested, and i think the first amendment protect you from being arrested

for mouthing off it -- to a police officer, if that is all you did. mike complained, is professor gays attributing the arrest to racism. when in fact lots of lots of people -- lots and lots of people of all races have been arrested under similar circumstances. host: what can we as a country learn from this? it is not just from comments they have made and their experiences. they could be in a bubble. it is obviously spent is so greatly. it is a huge part of the american dialogue right now. >guest: we have learned once again that this is a very raw nerve, and this is a deep hurt especially among black americans. i think the danger of overlearning a lesson is assuming that because racism was once pervasive, it is still pervasive, assuming that because

the condition of black americans, poverty, and so forth, is still pretty bad compared to white americans, and that the reason for that is the persistence of racism. i think we need to learn that there are racial problems that do not really have racial solutions. host: an associated press story in "usa today" where a professor gates says, "the national debate over racial profiling sparked by his arrest show that issues of class and race still run profoundly deep in the united states." host: they certainly do. the president is certainly right about that. you can see by the firestorm over his remarks -- host: the president's remarks? guest: yes. a lot of white people were upset. when you read the president's transcript, it is not like -- is

not unlike what i said. he said he did not know that race was a cause, that it was a stupid arrest, but when the president speaks, it echoes. i think his choice of words, "stupid," and the inevitable out-of-context quotation, i think a lot of people read that it was races -- i think a lot of people read that the president said it was racist. host: on the democrats' line, kay is calling from michigan. caller: i think the press should be careful about how they choose their words. not only that, they should do some investigation before they start mouthing off about something they know absolutely nothing about. i have heard nothing about this man being in his home when he was arrested, committed no crime. the officer lied about the 91

call. he lied about the dispatch call. he falsified the police report, and nothing has been said about any of that. the only thing we hear is the president should choose his words. the president was a young black man, and how do you know he was not profiles himself? he had a visceral reaction to what happened to a fellow black man of his. we hear nothing about it in the mainstream media. guest: i think we have heard a lot about it in the mainstream media. the caller does not apparently like what i have said about it. we know an awful lot about president obama. he has been under the microscope for a long time. his life has been dissected from top to bottom. he has written two books about his life.

as far as i know, there's not a single example of discrimination against mr obama in his entire life. obviously there are wackos out there who attacked him in racist ways, but i do not think the obama story supports the collar's generalizations. also, i think it -- the c aller's generalizations. i have heard there was something inaccurate in the police report about whether the first -caller mentioned race when she reported there was maybe a breaking going on. with the original caller, i do not think there has been any proof of any significant misstatement by sergeant crowley. i do think it was an illegal arrest, and the fact that it was

at the professor's home probably does make it worse than the illegal arrest that i experienced. host: from woodbridge, virginia, scott is on the republican line. caller: good morning. it seems we have a lot of people calling in and talking about how racism is alive and well. but every time anyone points out an incident to reinforce that, it always seems that it is either a hoax or an erroneous statement made by someone, or in fact it is just a stretch. in my own personal experience, i have experienced it, at least twice, three times i am pretty sure of come on my end, and yet i know many others in my situation that have experienced it as well, and yet it gets lost over because they are white. because we were discriminated

against, it is no big deal. that is how it is. host: well, i think the word "always" was used. i happen to have written a book about the duke-lacrosse rape fraud. a bunch of duke lacrosse players come all ye, were accused of raping a black stripper. the charges were false. the evidence became apparent fairly quickly. the great number of people, many academics, many professors, many of them professors of african- american studies rushed to judgment against the lacrosse players and formed a mob that was going to presume their guilt and was indifferent to any evidence that --

a lot of people jumped -- were just dying to believe that because it fed their narrative about race being -- racism being written in america today. . in particular about their treatment by the justice system.

there has been a great deal of mr. justice of black people. no doubt it persists for some people and sometimes. the evidence of harper's is and it is probably varies from place to place, from time to time, and can be argued. i have written about the cracks in the drug laws. they are putting in prison and a lot of people who do not belong in prison for and longtime. in disproportionate number of people are black. those are very serious problems. let us be careful before we attribute of a bid to racism. the rates of violent crime of black americans are about as high as my crime rate as the imprisonment rates are. those drug laws are widely racist sales. those were supported by many members of the congressional

black caucus. it was thought that crack was mooning the inner cities and that we would have to hit it with long prison terms. it turned out not to be such a good idea. it has had bad racial attacks. host: on the independent line, richard from louisiana. caller: my understanding of miss sotomayor, i feel like she was taken out of context. i do not think anything was wrong with what president obama said. some time ago i was picked up on a speeding charge. i was a minor -- it was a minor incident. i went to court and the judge threw the book at me. when it was all done, it cost of

over $800. he threw me in jail with a chain of rapists and murderers, and folks of all sorts, and i had to think to myself, what did i do to deserve this, a speeding ticket? i don i would just pay $1 fine. incidentally, when i got there, and taylor wanted to know if i had an american flag tattooed to my head. and i am a white man. i agree with the last caller. guest: the arrest sounds outrageous. i do not understand how it is rate -- racist if it is a white man. was a black police officer?

does he believe in was reverse racism? unfortunately, this type of thing is all too common. power corrupts absolutely, and police had a lot of power. i think we should not attribute all of these instances to racism,, ever. host: stuart taylor, his peace appears in the latest addition. we will be back with the senator from nebraska.

>> that comes into work today at 2:00 and will resume debate on the $124.5 billion agriculture spending bill for fiscal year 2010. they could also take up until friday passed by the house which adds $2 billion to the cash for clunkers program. tuesday the senate is expected to discuss consideration of sonia sotomayor to the supreme court. heinz said coverage on c-span2. starting tuesday, the full senate debate the nomination of sonia sotomayor. watch live on c-span2. or the homes to america's highest court. the supreme court. david cohen is an executive with america's cable providers.

his take on the future of broadband in america. >> i have no clue. >> maybe the government grants? >> public money? >> america's cable companies created teased and as a public business. no government mandate, and of government money. host: senator mike johanns of nebraska, thank you for being with us. everyone right now, the dialogue is about health care. what do you want to see with health care? where do you think we are at now? caller: guest: it is a mess right,

but regardless of the spin that is put on it. some of the things are very obvious. there are need for reform in the insurance industry. we should be injuring pre this thing conditions. we should be giving small companies and associations the ability to pull together. that would expand the base in terms the number of people and he could get better rates. we should be emphasizing tort reform. that will help. i am not sure that is the answer to everything, that will help -- but that will help in terms the need less expenses. in terms of wellness, if you want to make a difference over their life, get on top of obesity issues when they are

young. another thing we have to do in terms of health care reform, we often hear about this 47 million that is not in shepherd. the reality is, 20% of the population qualifies for an existing program. it could be schip, medicaid, but for whatever reason, they are not involved. having been a governor, when we first came to office, we rolled out our children's program. we worked on that very aggressively. we wanted to reach out to qualified to be on the program. reality is, because it costs money, i can do not get enrolled. when we debate in that earlier, statistics indicated you have 50% of kids in some states that qualify, should be enrolled, but

they are not. again, if you focus on how to fix these problems, you come up with a health care plan that makes sense. host: could you give us some concrete examples of what you would like to see incorporated in a health care bill? what can you actually do? guest: some of the things i have mentioned already. i think we need to focus on this population that is not insured. you need to aggressively go up there and get the state to sign them up, so that they have the protection that the government provides for them. medicate co pay is a program, once they are enrolled, it covers so much and does so much good. for whatever reason, it is not

happening. i also believe it makes sense for them next love of population that is struggling to afford health care, too literally by down the cost, maybe of private insurance premiums, company, deductible, and that when you can keep the private industry. millions of people do not want to lose their private insurance. yet, you are addressing the sure -the issue that so many people talk about it. then this idea about letting small businesses pulled together. even across state lines, i think that would be resisted. the reality is, in the industry, it makes sense. if you expand the base of the

insurer, that will bring down costs. about 75% of what we spend on health care unit goes to chronic conditions, debbie, heart disease. that comes about because people literally have such problems in our country with weight, lack of exercise. if we could somehow give people incentive to work on those issues, legal have a healthier population. then you will also have a better health-care costs. many of us a shot at safeway grocery stores. they have done some remarkable things. we spoke to their ceo, and they are emphasizing wellness. they have been able to flat line the increases in their health care costs. that is remarkable when everyone

is having so much dramatic increases. host: our guest is mike johanns from nebraska. call in with your questions and comments. democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. mike, on the republican line, from phoenix, arizona. caller: i am on state insurance right now. i have pretty much everything paid for but i get low-quality doctors which have to repeat certain procedures such as a spinal tap. i have had three so far and three years. -- in three years.

i have not been able to work for three years and i have not been able to get food stamps. this insurance that the government will be offering everybody, it drives away in the smaller insurance companies and puts them out of business. so the government will be taking on everyone's insurance. all the other countries in the world that have a government insurance, they say do not do this, it is bad. guest: he raises some excellent points. he is just hitting the nail on the head. no question, as you move into an arena where in -- is government-

run, what will happen is you will crush down the rates that are paid for in medicare services. i think that is obvious. the government went on the house side would cut $500 billion from medicare. but it does not pay its own way now. if you start losing people from the private insurance area, which is where this difference is made up, then that population trends and more people move to the government- run health care plan, which will happen. companies could decide it is cheaper to put people on the government plan. in our country, we do not have the power to prevent that. what he points out is right. more and more people on a government plan and quality of

care is going to go south. it simply is. i do not know what plans he might be on. he sounded like medicare, but he sounded younger. one of the things i saw with medicare as governor is, reimbursement rates are so low, and they are not taking the patients. another thing that some thing people have not thought about, we have a lot of world, critical access hospitals. if you push down the rate on a 25-bed hospital, they would go out of business because they do not have the flexibility of a larger center. if you reimburse them last for medicare, or their medicaid patients, they cannot survive.

then healthcare would disappear from that area. you would have doctors my age -- i am married, 60 years old -- and they look at this and say i do not want to work for the government. if they have the financial ability, they will do something else in their life. it would be very difficult to replace that doctor. they would not be replaced, as a matter of fact. host: let us talk about the confirmation of sonia sotomayor. where do you stand on that? guest: i already indicated a would not support her a week ago. when i met with her, i was impressed. i have said that publicly. her confirmation hearing was not a good performance, in my opinion.

i think her responses were the day's end. when she was pressed on difficult issues, it seems that she was trying to move all around. it concerned me. then, of course, these comments that she has made in the speeches. it has been a number of times. it raises the issue of fairness. to me, and the most important characteristic of a judge is that blind fairness. rich, i, porn guy, it does not matter. -- rich guy, poor guy, it does not matter. unless there is a bombshell, and i do not think there is, it appears she has plenty of both to be confirmed. those were my concerns. host: do you think we will have

debate and discussion on the floor? guest: i think on the broader issues. this has been a very respectful process. this was not like clarence thomas. i think the questions have been tough but fair. and it has not been personal. i do think that you are likely to see a debate on the broader issues. what is the role of the judge? what is there about this and that the issue? does that removed the blindfold of justice? host: and julie on the independent line. richmond, va. caller: i watched the hearings, and i am watching this, and i want to ask a question about these appointed czars.

we need to fix medicare first. before they take it anymore, they are born to take our health care away. right now i am on medicare. i have another insurance and they give me the right to go and have my test. i do not have to pay for them. i can go to an exercise class. they already give me all of this. the third thing. i know what they are doing about this october. after october, the democrats fixed it so that they only need 51 votes to pass. the czars is bothering me a lot. thank you. guest: you raised two interesting issues. czars.

and on up presidents have used special envoys. this president seems to have taken into a new level. the problem is they operate beyond the ability of congress. that oversight, i think, is enormously important for and democracy. you raise an important issue, fixing medicare. you are right. this is a system that has served our senior citizens very well. the reality is, nancy pelosi, president obama's plan, cut medicare. it literally cut medicare by $500 billion. instead of taking that money to stabilize the system that is quickly going insolvent, it takes the money away from medicare and put it into this in

government-run health care plan. in my judgment, that is enormously unfair to citizens. i have a resolution. i am hopeful to vote on it. it is an amendment that says, if you generate medicare savings, that note -- money needs to stay with medicare. we need to fix medicare. it also says, we are not going to pass unfunded mandates on the state. one of the things lost in the state, and it is not seen anything you read, is that medicare costs will be put on the state literally to the tune of $130.5 billion a year. in my own state it would be $186 million a year. can you imagine california with all of its struggles, in five

years we say to them you get to pick up a portion of this cost? it would be devastating. the result of that is you have to cut somewhere else. that is when good things like education get cut. what do you do? do you cut education to get more funding into the medicare program? the government has put a mandate on you. it would be devastating to states and states would not be able to some sort of this. so not only will they have to cut programs, they will have to raise taxes. host: let us talk about cash for clunkers. helping americans get rid of their old cars. "politico" report today that jim demint said the role of the government is not to run the used car business. i think this is a great example

of the stupidity coming from washington. where are you on that program? guest: looking back at my voting, there was a point of order that was raised. i supported that point of order. the philosophy of cash for clunkers is basically if you and sent people and enough, they will buy something. it is a valid point to say, why not cash for refrigerators, something else? this was going to be a $1 billion program. now it is projected to be $3 billion. what if that money runs out by september? what do you do then? there will be a good debate on this. and i'm going to take a close look at it, but i have to tell you, philosophically, you wonder where this is headed.

i have not made a final decision on how i will vote. i will try to stay open to the debate, but i am very concerned. host: we have scott on the democrat line. caller: there are so many things that you have said today that are wrong you talked about judge sotomayor not being honest, not entering foley. we had three bush judges who came here and said that they would not change standing law, but we have seen it done dozens of times. that is another issue. on health insurance and coverage, that is what i want to talk about. when it comes to insurance, the cheapest and best policy is single payer.

there is so much that we hear about how bad the canadian system is. you have to wait for this procedure, you have to wait for that procedure. you are good at nitpicking. you could not pick a chicken coop and it would be spotless. it is amazing. the canadian health care system, when you take canadian taxes -- you say that they are taxed too high. with their taxes, they have health care included. no company has to compete with another company or country when it comes to health care. we have lost millions of jobs because american companies, since the 1980's, have not been able to compete with countries that provide a single payer health care. in canada, single payer costs

less, about half of the cost per resident. i do not know what you consider to be good health care, but in canada, your life expectancy at birth is 81.16 years. here in the united states it is 70.14 years. guest: you take a position for single payer for from in-run health plan that is very much in the minority. i do not know of a lot of people who are enthusiastic about single payer because that is the classic government system. the government decides what tests you should get. clearly, there is a bureaucrat between you and your doctor. i could not disagree more with your analysis that somehow this is going to bring about better health care for our sins --

citizens. i have been through london so many times through the years. going to trade negotiations to other parts of the world, picking up a newspaper reading about the news waiting for my flight. it seems like there was always a meltdown crisis on health care. in our country, citizens will not be accepting of that. the other thing i would point out, even though people say to me and do everything you can to get insurance rates down, try to do the kinds of things that will help, i want to tell you that they say i am happy with the coverage that i am getting from my insurance company. polling shows that. i think there are some important things that we need to do to our

system. there are some things that will bend the cost curve, but you need to look at what people are looking -- doing at their -- what people are doing in their lives, prevented issues. if we can do that, we will see a positive impact. not only for the person but for the cost they pay. what scott is talking about is a 100% government takeover. i do not know how many people support that. host: next phone call, alex, from the fund michigan. -- flint, michigan. caller: i am retired and i am a senior. i have to take a lot of pay cuts. we all need to bite the bullet

and share the load financially. how come we cannot have the same health care program that he has? guest: i believe in that. that is a starting point for the debate. when i talk about looking for citizens who did not qualify for medicare, or do not qualify for medicaid, is there anything that we can do to buy a quality health care plan for them and buy down the cost of the premiums, deductibles, and base it on the same health care plan that is available to members of congress? this is also interesting. if we are going to put people on a government plan, then senators like myself and house members have to agree that they are going to go on a government plan, too. if it is good enough for the citizens, it should be good

enough for us. that was brought up in the health committee but democrats defeated it. it is so good for people, they make the argument, the need to get on this plan, but unanimously, they voted against putting us on that plan. that is not right. i agree with you. if we can provide a plan by buying down the cost of health insurance premiums, let's explore that option. it will be much cheaper, but do not forget the other things that we need to do, emphasis on wellness programs. let us allow small businesses to pool together. let them buy health care plans across state lines. all of that need to be part of the package. host: you were the secretary of agriculture under president bush

for almost three years? then you took your senate seat. let us talk about the agriculture bill in the senate. where do you stand on it? guest: there was a big increase in spending, but the obama administration has really ramped up spending. oftentimes people look at eric walter and think about programs for the farmers. there is a piece of that, but the reality is a large portion of the budget goes to nutrition programs. we operate the food stamp program which is a huge food safety net for citizens across the country. i think now 30 million people qualify for food stamps. we look at that overall budget, and again, most people look at it can say, why would we be spending that much money on farm

programs? the reality is, a very small percentage actually goes to the farm programs. many people do not know that one of my employees is smokey the bear. it is a very perverse -- it goes back to abraham lincoln, the usda. over time as programs were developed, they were added to the budget. host: let's get the george on the republican line from all i know. -- let's get george on the republican line, from ohio. guest: the question i -- caller: the question i had --

social security, medicare, and everything else. i think it is 2014 where it is supposed to be close to getting -- running out of money. there is going to be a 20% reduction in benefits. you also want 5 million from social security, which will be penalized on. in death, it will be more than 25%. what have they done as far as replacing the millions of dollars that they have taken from social security, to put in internal government fund? guest: you raise such an excellent point. instead of a big social security trust fund out there, it would be idle used --ious.

do not throw something at your tv when i tell you this, but the democrat health care plan is designed to take more money from medicare, to the tune of $500 billion in cuts. they will reduce what hospitals and doctors are reimbursed. . guest: my resolution is designed to say no way. if i can ever get this to a

vote, my amendment says clearly that if you save any money from medicare, it has to stay in the plan to extend the life. there is a study that says it will extend the life of the medicare program. if you are talking about medicaid, you cannot foist these unfunded mandates on states that are already struggling with budgets that have hit an awful standpoint. there are states out there that cannot balance the budget. host: let's get in one last call. mike is on the democrats' line from san antonio, texas. caller: what if you took all of the huge profits, bonuses, all the money made by the insurance companies, and put it into a fund to pay for health care? what do you think would happen? thank you. guest: it is interesting. the latest killing is the insurance companies. -- the latest villain is the

insurance companies. all the sudden last week, we got a new villain. that is the health care companies. i checked with the cross/blue shield in nebraska. over the last few years, they have lost money. they are dealing with the same health care inflation we are dealing with. the equipment and science is better. there is a much more that we can do today than we used to be able to do with health care. we're not doing anything to keep the costs are reasonable. you are seeing higher costs. it does get reflected in terms of higher premiums. they are going to face tighter margins just like they are in our state. here is what i would say to the gentleman. look, there are many things that we need to do. i am not at all opposed to the reforms necessary to bring about a better health-care system, including health insurance. we should be covering.

-existing conditions. we should have pools that can get insurance across state lines. we should allow small businesses to join together to bid for health insurance. all of those things make a tremendous amount of sense. there is one last point i want to make. this is critical. talk to any hospital or doctor out there. they cannot operate on the medicare and medicaid reimbursement rates. they cannot stay in business. they make up the difference through private insurance. we all pay more for private insurance. if you really want to reform something and bring down the cost of your insurance plan, you would tell the federal government to start reimbursing at the level. these plans do not do that. they are going to drop the reimbursement rates by $500 billion. if you crush the private insurance industry and it starts

going out of business or decrease in who they will ensure and more people have gone on the government plan, you will have a very serious access problem. the real problem that you have is this small hospitals out there in rural america cannot operate. they do not have the private insurance cushion that helps to pay for the losses they sustain on medicaid reimbursement rates and medicare reimbursement rates. instead of fixing that, the plan put out by the house exacerbates the problem. it makes it worse. it is a mess. host: thank you for being with us this morning. mike johanns is the freshman senator from nebraska. here is an update from c-span radio. >> at a rally this morning, president obama will make

reports on a bill giving veterans educational benefits. the dea began to shooting -- the veterans administration began disturbing payments to schools. in the next decade, $78 billion is expected to be paid out. you can hear the president's remarks live at 11:00 a.m. eastern. stocks are up following the best july in 20 years. the dow features aren't up 103. the nasdaq is up 23. an automobile news, the german government says it sees encouraging signs of progress on the future of the automaker ope l. the new board of gm is considered to consider their future at a meeting starting later today. there is more news on the automobile settlement. the associated press says attorneys were paid millions of dollars over a lawsuit stemming from the ford explorer rollover accidents of the 1990's. but consumers just got discount coupons towards the purchase of new fordsd.

out of 1 million consumers taking part in the lawsuit, just a few dozen people used the coupons. on the first day of his new job, the nato secretary general says the alliance needs more international help in afghanistan to win the peace. this follows the call last week for more troops by the u.s. general in charge of operations. a bomb exploded today on a crowded street near a big market injuring 30 people and critically wounding a district police chief. he was the main target of the attack. the supreme leader of iran has formally endorsed president ahmadinejad for a second term. at the ceremony today, he also called the june presidential election a golden page in the political history of iran. afterwards, president ahmadinejad gave the supreme leader a kiss on the shoulder. fire and rescue officials in miami say people have been hurt

and injured aboard a continental airlines flight that hit turbulence. the flight made an emergency landing in miami. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we will take your calls on any topic that you choose to be relevant. the telephone numbers are on your screen. we will take your tweets over twitter. coming up later up in the hour, steve verdier will be talking with us about small banks and how their role is playing out as work is done on banking reform. are they siding with the larger banks or with consumer advocacy

groups? for now, we have open phones. let's take a look at some of the major papers and headlines. "stimulus cash lists state localities." we have a story about how the stimulus funds are helping states to reverse spending declines. it has pushed state expenditures up by 4.8% in the quarter. it says that federal cash is now the no. 1 revenue source for state and local governments, surpassing sales and property taxes. the stimulus spending dollars are at work heading to home communities. in afghanistan, there is a battle to win the confidence of the locals. the taliban strongholds test the marines security plan. there is other news in the newspapers relating to afghanistan and other military- related stories. 18 years after the downing in

iraq, the remains are found. this is the story of a man shot down in january of 1991. his remains have been recovered. that was in part because the rockies -- the rockies -- the rockies helped to lead the u.s. to his remains. we will take your calls this hour on the open telephone lines. we have tonya calling from west virginia. caller: good morning. a lot of people received the vote for white women did. no group of people have profited from affirmative action. if they ever destroy affirmative action, white women will be at the greatest loss for it.

there are black police officers suing white police officers in philadelphia for discrimination for going on the internet and making racist comments. two towns are stopping blacks and spanish people. the district attorney was on it. one share of was given the money for his secretaries. it was hundreds of thousands of dollars. for those who do not remember ruby ridge, it is unconstitutional to go into a man's house and arrest him. i agree with dan rather. too few corporations are run the media. the media has lost its way between entertainment and

journalism. it really is a shame that nobody research's anything anymore. they get off on these 1 words and distort everything you say. host: leonard is on the republican line from california. good morning. caller: i could not hear you. host: you are with us. what is your comment? caller: in reference to the last caller, i am kind of in step with her about the stuff that you do not hear from the media. my comment concerns, i watch a lot of the c-span house sessions. there are so many investigations going on. most of them are republicans, but you never hear about what happened to them.

the former governor of illinois, charlie rangel, his tax problems. he was all over tv on sunday. i just found out he got his thing corrected or what ever. you do not ever hear anything about it on the news media. you do not hear about what happened about the tax impropriety. some people go to jail for said activities. a lot of stuff gets covered up. in reference to what she was saying, the news media has deserted us. more people should watch c-span. instead of complaining, they should get in front of the tv and watch the house live sessions. then they could get an education as to what is going on in this country and how the democrats are power driving. you have some very intelligent

republicans in the congress. they are not the party of no. they are the party of know. that is all i have to say. host: this story is about hurricane katrina. it is a three-part series. the "washington times" team spent time in new orleans recording some of the least understood consequences of hurricane katrina, a silent epidemic of mental illness. it talks about how the mental illness tempest is still raging in people's minds. would you consider this to be a side effect of the storm? we go to mary from tulsa, oklahoma. good morning. welcome.

caller: i have been listening to these republicans criticizing the democrats' plan. yet i have heard nothing of their plan. they keep saying they have a plan. i would like to know what the plan is. i would also like to know why they ir plan was not brought forward during the years when we had a republican president. that is all that i wanted to ask. host: we have a call on the independent line from asheville, north carolina. caller: americans are informed. i am proud of them. i want to speak on what a person from texas said. a comment was made to me in the military from a black man. he explained the ladder of success to me. actually, white women are on the bottom of the link. white women had never climbed

above the black woman. he explained to me that white women were on the bottom. then comes the black man and everything above it. every other race and gender above it. host: we have sue on the republicans line from california. caller: i want america to know that on the health care plan on approximately page 15, the title is open " preserving private health care. of the congress is not reading it. the president is saying you can keep your own health care plan. between 70% and 80% of people want to keep their plan. he is lying to you. congress is lying to you. that particular section says that within one year of the bill becoming law, private health care companies will no longer be able to sell new policies.

as an american citizen, you will not be allowed to go forward and by a private health-care policy. it is a bald faced lie. now we have cornyn saying that it is 1000 pages, how can we read this? i paid them to read this. i.t. let them to go there and read this. if the bill is too long, shorten it and pass it the way you are supposed to pass things. host: a comment on twitter. let's go to the democrats' line where terry is calling from fort wayne, indiana. caller: the senator was talking about government-sponsored health care. that is what he is on. he is on government sponsored health care. i am battling cancer right now. my insurance company and my

doctor says it depends on what the insurance company says what he can do. i have somebody between me and my doctor. do i want somebody between me and my doctor that is there to only make money? do i want somebody there that will want my vote? with the cash for clunkers, finally did something for the little guy. i am waiting for it. i will buy a brand-new car as soon as i get the money. i still say that this senator has government sponsored health care. host: look at some world news in a book a wall street journal" today. -- let's look at some world news in "the wall street journal" today.

it also says the combating roadside bombs has emerged as one of the major challenges facing the u.s. and its allies. such attacks have spiked this year. south korea surges towards recovery. the recovery from the economic downturn is one of the fastest in asia. it has accelerated over the last two months. there is a recovery happening in south carolina. new jersey forces hunt for militants. the government forces were hunting for members of a radical sect after heavy fighting left at least 700 people dead. let's go to kevin on the independent line. he is calling from utica, new york. good morning, kevin.

caller: i just wanted to say that i was once a democrat and once a republican. now i am an independent. those in washington do not understand us. they do not care to understand as. the taxpayer is the only one paying. if cap and trade goes up, they automatically taxed the middle class. they say to talk to your congressman. several little old ladies went to california to talk to dianne feinstein. she had them arrested. people in the country need to understand that this is not about republicans or democrats. if you live in this country and you have had your shots and you speak our language and have a green card and do things the american way, we are happy to have you and call you family.

if you do not do things right, we do not want you here. we need to understand that is about the constitution. it is about the american people. we pay them to do our business. they don't want is to read something that they make up that no one in the country can understand. they cannot understand it. host: the next call is from south carolina. caller: i have a comment about all this democrat and republican staff. this goes all the way back to clinton and before. they started with what they called an fmla act. it allowed the american factories to fire disabled workers. once we became disabled after 35 years of service to these companies, we were thrown out to

medicare. nine times out of 10 on medicare, you could not buy a medigap policy because you are ill. they disqualified you because of breathing problems, cancers. all of that comes before aids. this is a problem. it goes very far back. ted kennedy, the clintons, let's keep on going. host: chris is on the democrat'' line from connecticut. caller: we have a dumbed down population in the united states. it has been downed down by the media. it is intentional. we have a country that is pushing towards socialism. sonia sotomayor, her 12-year tenure on the board of directors of the puerto rican

defense fund, she pushed for abortion. abortion, same-sex marriage, and homosexuality is a population reduction program. the leaders to run the world consider us to the cattle. they want to reduce the population. 30% of the abortions are four african-americans. they make a small portion of the population. they spend 16 times more on marketing dollars in minority neighborhoods than they do in white, affluent neighborhoods. the reality is that these are population reduction programs and a push towards global socialism. obama is a trader towards his race. he does not care about african- americans. he cares about socialism and global fascism. it is a push towards the elimination of basic freedoms

that the constitution and the bill of rights provides. there is a population that is intentionally dumbed down in an attempt to take over the entire world. it started off in frankfurt, germany. that's cool pushed communism and marxism. they believed that if you could feminize the society, you could take it over. that is what obama pushes for. that is what these senators and congressmen could prosecute if they wanted to. but to millions of dollars from the banks and voted to deregulate them. host: let's go to a call from augusta, georgia. caller: i would like to talk about unemployment. in the last 60 days, my town has been inundated with illegal immigrants. they have taken probably 95% of the work. i know at least 20 small

businesses that have closed up. the government has to do something. i had government health insurance 60 days ago. now i have lost most of my work. i have had to cancel our insurance. it is pitiful. i have lived here all of my life. somebody comes in and within 60 days, they take everything i have worked for. this is getting out of control. these people need to do something. thank you. host: we will be back in a moment with steve verdier from the independent community bankers association. we will be talking about small banks. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> the house is on august recess. if the senate has work left. they will resume debate on the agriculture spending bill for fiscal year 2010. they could also take a bill passed by the house on friday. it adds $2 billion to cash for clunkers. on tuesday, the senate is expected to begin consideration of the nomination of sonia sotomayor. the final confirmation vote will be later this week. live coverage is on c-span-2. >> on senate, a full senate debates the nomination of sonia sotomayor for supreme court justice. watched l live. this fall, take a tour of the supreme court.

david cohen is an executive with comcast. get his take on the s.e.c. and the future of broadcasting in america. -- get his take on the fcc and the future of broadcasting in america. >> how is c-span funded? >> maybe government grants. >> donations? >> public money. >> my taxes? >> america's cable companies created sees them as a public service. it is a private business initiatives with no government mandate or government money. >> "washington journal" continues. host: steve verdier, welcome. tell us about your organization and its mission. guest: represent almost 5000 community banks in virtually every state and community in the

country. the mission of our association is to represent them here in washington in congress and the agencies. we also provide them services. we do group buying in many areas like credit cards, mortgages, and many other things that we offer our members. we help them politically and economically. a community bank is not a technical term. it is more a focus on the local ownership and decision making. oftentimes, the regulators will say that if you are under $1 billion in assets, that is a community bank. for some purposes, it may be even higher amounts. it is really the local focus, ownership, and decision-making that is critical to being called a community bank. host: has the role of those banks changed or evolved over

the last decade? when we talk about banks, we often think of the big national banks. how is your role different? guest: our role is to make sure that people think more about just the big banks and wall street banks. the role of the community banks is to provide local credit to local businesses and people for household needs and mortgage loans. we have really stepped up our mortgage lending in the past decade or so. that has become more of a factor. frankly, i wish more people had gone to their community banks for mortgages rather than others. they would gotten a better product and would not have a lot of the problems we have today. host: how have community banks been affected by that? has it been dragged into your work? obviously, it has changed everything in the banking industry.

guest: we're having a severe recession. that is the kind of thing that is damaging to community banks and small businesses of all kinds. there is that affect. -- there is that effect. we did have some bank failures. it is also the psychological effect. to some extent, it has been good. people have differentiated between the community banks and the big national banks. people will say that we are the good guys. it is kind of nice to be the good guys. it is our job to turn that good feeling into actual legislative change. that is my job and the job of the rest of the people in the group here in washington. host: its talk about the proposed consumer financial protection agency. tell us what it would do and how would affect you. the regulatory board would be

appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. they would work with state regulators. guest: it could have beneficial effects for community banks and customers. they are very concerned. the community bankers are very worried about anything that says we're going to put new regulation on you. they are quite upset and concerned about that. we are hoping and working with the chairman of the banking committee's so that instead this being a negative for the community banks, the agency will be directed to cover the year to four unregulated people like mortgage brokers and others who did not have bank examiners coming in on a yearly basis. if the agency can focus on the unregulated, that would go a long way towards assuaging the concerns of the community banks. i think it would also be beneficial to the consumers.

host: the agency would do other things including educating consumers about finance, monitor banking industry practices. do those things sound good to you? guest: we hope the focus would be on the unregulated folks in terms of supervision. the agency would have a broad rule-making authority. the rules that they write would apply to everyone. we are hoping that our bank regulators who do a pretty good job in the consumer complaints area will continue with that practice and that the new agency examiners could go out into other areas weren't they have not seen an examiner. they should get to know them. host: this pieces from last tuesday.

he writes that while the country's biggest banks to take in much of the blame, the fate of the obama administration's efforts to overhaul regulation of the financial industry could rest in the hands of small local banks. most of them oppose the creation of an agency. have you found yourself at the center of this? are the bigger banks looking to ally with you while the consumer protection groups are also looking for your ear? guest: we've certainly heard from the larger banks. i wish the consumer groups would reach out to as more. i think we would have some common ground. they should be concerned about the regulation of the systemic risk institutions. we would like to improve the already good obama administration plan in that

area. we think the consumer groups should join with us in toughening the regulations of the largest institutions and the regulations and supervision of the non-regulated folks. we would love to work with the consumer groups on that area. i am concerned that they might put us in the same peoplapod as the big banks. we are working with the chairman of the committees. that is very welcome on that score. the big banks are going to have to fend for themselves. host: let's take a call from shirley on the democrats' line from selma. caller: good morning. when the money went out to the banks, i think it was the first

$350 billion -- did the banks use it to land to the small businesses and so forth -- did the banks use it to lend to the small businesses and so forth or did they give it to family and friends? i want to ask the host something. we get a lot of commercials about how c-span is funded. i guess it has been a year or so ago when i tried to find a connection with rupert murdoch or what ever, if he put any

money into it. probably about two weeks ago, i heard brian say to someone he was interviewing -- he said to him that his father gave the first dollar to c-span. is there anywhere that i can check on this? i have tried several times. i cannot even find the board of directors anymore. host: i recommend going to the website, c-span.org we run notices letting you know that c-span it is a creation of the cable networks. let's go to the guest.

guest: that is an excellent question about the money that was appropriated in the last administration and congress. i cannot speak for the big players. but i can tell you that our community banks, the ones that did get the money, did make the loans into the communities. we have checked with them. that is why they applied for the money when they did apply. we have a pretty good record on that score. host: the president has said that the agency would have the power to set standards and allow companies to compete with innovative products. consumers will be provided information that is simple, transparent, and accurate. you will be able to compare products and see what is best for you. do you see a way that can be tailored in a way that your group is amenable to? guest: that is pretty much the weaken many banks already operate. if the rules are crafted so that they are consistent with the

practices we already fall, i think we are in good shape. in that statement, there is imbedded in the notion that institutions should be forced to offer a plain vanilla products to customers in addition to the other products. chairman barney frank has basically taken the mandate to offer particular products off the table. there may be some disclosure to a consumer to say that this is the kind of loan that we think is best for you, but out in the marketplace, you may find a 30- year fixed-rate loan. we do not think it fits your circumstances well, but it is out there. that kind of disclosure is something we could probably live with. i think the important thing is to make the disclosures simple enough so that consumers are helped by them and not confused by them. that is a bit of a danger. host: dennis is calling from clayton, ohio, on the democrat'' line.

caller: would like to change the subject of a little bit here. i would like to ask the speaker to comment on a national story that has come out in the last couple of days. it concerns key bank and the employees. i currently have accounts at key bank. i am about ready to cancel them. they have fired an employee for doing something that was a little reckless but heroic. he took a low life and caught him and kept them from robbing the key bank branch that he worked out. the bank system has fired him. i understand the reason they fired him. he put himself and possibly others at risk. but they were at risk with a man walked in the front door. i think some other sort of disciplinary action should have been done to man, but to lose his job and make him unemployed like the life that tried to rob

the bank, i think that is wrong. key bank could have used the opportunity for something more positive. i think the banking system in this country needs some positive stories and not all negative stories. guest: that is certainly a tough situation. i was not aware of it. bank robberies are something that the banks do have to develop procedures to follow for the safety of the employees, customers, and all the rest. not knowing the specific circumstances, i cannot comment on that case or the personnel policies of key bank. my guess is that being a large institution, it has policies that say if you do x, you are fired. in this case, maybe the employee did the x thing and under the mandatory policies, he is fired. the question is whether those

are the best polity it sees -- the question is whether those of the best policies or if they need to change that. host: more on the consumer protection agency, the proposed body. it would have the authority to alter a longtime practices like clauses that automatically send all disputes to arbitrators rather than to the courts. the new agency could ban or limit such clauses if they are shown to tilt against consumer'' interests. the agency would be the dominant federal consumer protection. guest: in terms of the arbitration, we've checked with our members. that is not the kind of clause that we typically have in our community bank contracts. we're probably less concerned about that. in terms of the broader question about dictating products, it would have a broad mandate to

limit product offerings. i think congress is going to have to work through that to make sure that it is not too much of the heavy hand. in terms of the real-estate closing process, we do have conflicting laws on the books. it is very hard for any lender to comply both with the truth in lending act and the real-estate settlement procedures act. many people have spent long hours trying to reconcile those. one silver lining in all of this may be that we can bring peace between respa and tila. we can hope. host: we have laura from pasadena. caller: i had a question. i cannot hear you anymore. can you hear me?

ok. i wanted to give a shout out for my bank. it is a credit union. it seems to me that your guest is saying that he is for the consumer protection agency. guest: we are for it in a form that is more focused on the unregulated side. we are for a program that is a list of different, maybe quite a bit different than not what we did then what the administration is proposing. i think there is a lot of room to work with what has been proposed. i think that program coupled with a tougher system that risk set of regulations would be very beneficial. that is where we are on that.

we have a long way to go in terms of changing the program. our discussions are extremely preliminary. host: we have a comment on which her -- twitter. you have already explained to you represent. tell us about your presence in washington. guest: we have eight lobbyists that work on capitol hill. they are registered as lobbyists. we follow all of the disclosure requirements. we have regulatory people that comment on the regulations that come out daily from the banking agencies. we are funded by our community bankers. they paid dues to our organization to do on behalf of them what they cannot do themselves. they do not have time to be going to washington and doing the work. we are kind of a group buying

program for them in the lobbying area. i think what we do is good for the bankers and their communities. they are fully disclosed according to all the rules and regulations. in fact, here i am on tv. host: some of the smaller banks are sandwiched between competing interests. do your members have more of a connection with the congressmen and senators because of the community base? do you have the better here? guest: the typical member of congress wants to know what is going on in the community. who better to tell them that the community banker who sees people coming in the door of the time? they are making loans and taking deposits from the community. we have a built-in advantage. we want to improve our connection between the members

of congress and the banker. it is great for me and my team to go and talk to members of congress about what the community bankers want, but it is much more effective if a real-life community banker gets up there and is testifying. they can fly up to washington and visit personally in the office. community bankers, this is your congressman in august. -- visit your congressman in august. host: the next call is on the democrats' line from tennessee. caller: i appreciate sees been giving the citizens of america the opportunity to voice their constitutional right of free speech. the problem we have even with the smaller community banks -- i

went to my home bank, regions. i ran into a problem there borrowing money. i asked them if they were under the umbrella of citigroup. they said they were. i said they probably got part of the stimulus package. they said they did think they got some of that. i said that meant they got a raise. they said they did get raises. i thought it should not be difficult to belong there. they said they had to look at my credit record and so forth and so on. a faint -- they found out everything was fine there. they said they would be happy to have me get so much on alone, but i had to borrow at a different interest-rate. the next thing i know, we got

another 10% interest rate on top of the going rate. i said i had been there for the last 15 or 20 years doing business with that bank. i did not understand what the customers. why the customers had to be penalized for the [no audio] guest guest: i think the message is that the customers should go to a community bank. regions is a bit big for our membership. i think he should go to a community bank and see if he can get a better deal. host: if you could go back and rewrite things, how would you change it? guest: we would have tougher regulations on the largest banks. they would be under a systemic risk regulator that we are talking about.

we would have a fund that would take care of the large holding companies, instead of the taxpayers having to pony up. back in the late 1990's, congress repealed separation between banking and investment banking. everybody thought that was the smart thing to do. everybody thought that would lead to diversification and more safety and soundness. i think we found that some of these connections have allowed institutions in one line of business to cause problems for institutions in another line of business. i think congress would be very wise to look at the obama plan and beef it up in a lot of areas so that we can learn those lessons. you need more capital, more liquidity, tougher regulation. a lot of people say that is what they want.

that is even the largest banks. but i wonder if they really want as tough regulation as the obama at administration and independent bankers would like to see. i suspect not. host: the next call is from austin, texas. caller: people like tim geithner and larry summers, in the 1990's, they helped the banking committee to lobby to remove the regulations put in place to protect consumers from the crisis we're now looking at. right after they got the deregulation accomplished, the to positions in the companies that they helped to get the deregulations four. -- they took positions in the companies that they helped to get the regulation for. they now have jobs in the government.

in the past nine months, it has taken $24 trillion and given it to the banks. they have used this money to buy up small banks like what you represent. we have yet to see anything come out. we're still in the economic crisis. we're not seeing any good. what good would it do to give these people the power and authority to put more regulations on the banks when they have demonstrated over and over again that they are actually working for the banks and doing things that may not be in the best interest of the consumer? guest: the caller sounds a lot like our community bankers. there is a lot of anchor and distrust out there. they are concerned about the same things. we are trying to focus on specific rules, new laws, new regulations, new practices that

will not be bound by the particular individuals involved. they will be so strong and specific that we will solve the problems that we obviously have in the financial system. rather than focusing on the personalities, these are the folks in office today. at this point, they are saying that we should toughen things up and that we will take them at their word. we're going to ask congress to improve on the tough proposals they have already got out there. that is going to be our proposal on that. believe me, we get an earful from our community bankers along the lines of what the caller is saying. host: we have another comment on twitter. guest: the number of failures

has been about 60 or 70. that is much more than we have had in previous years. we had a nice long stretch where there were no failures. what happened during that stretch is that the industry built up the fdic fund. that is the one part of this whole financial package that was pre-funded by the industry. we want to extend that to these large institutions. i commend the president for the balloting that -- for acknowledging that at a press conference last week. he said there should be a pre- funded systemic risk fund. i was quite pleased by that. that is an important improvement that we hope congress will make in the original treasury plan. host: we have marked on the independent line from silver springs, maryland.

caller: how are you? i would like to offer an opinion. i think it would benefit the democratic process if people would be better informed before they offer an opinion or speak on issues and not use personal experience as a reference. i know they should not use your personal references' or experiences as a gauge to make or evaluate the general social point. i know that this skews the results. it is a shame that you are not allowed to respond to that. i do thank you for your time. guest: i think the caller makes a good point. watching the democratic process and the way it works, we have

many members of congress and one president. they are all the product of their own personal experiences. we would not one particular individual's personal experience to dictate what happens in the financial world or health care. we hope that cumulatively over time, those experiences will be beneficial. we have a lot of members of congress that have community banks in their district. we bring our community banks in. they tell stories about how they operate in the community. one story may not be the complete story. but if you get hundreds and hundreds of bankers in there telling stories with hundreds of constituents, a smart member of congress would begin to see patterns. they would begin to understand it. then it obviously use that with academic studies and so forth. that is the with the democratic process works. host: the next call is on the

democrats' line. caller: 80 for taking my call. -- thank you for taking my call. with the smaller banks, are they making any attempt to work with the average customer rather than trying to pick up all of the prime customers to assist folks that are having problems in the financial area with medical bills? is that being done in your association or the small banking field? guest: our bankers are really focused on their communities in all aspects. the act requires us to do that. we obviously comply with that.

even if that act were not in existence, we would do the same thing. we try to cover everybody in the community. the community banker really does live and die by the strength of the entire community they are in. they cannot go 100 miles away and start making loans and money. they have to make the money they make within the local community. in terms of mortgage lending, we have tripled our mortgage lending from last year. we closed $7.2 in mortgages. 80% of those were refinancings. most of those were pretty conventional loans. we are out there making mortgage loans. we are also making those small loans. we are offering credit cards at a reasonable rate for those that can qualify. credit cards is pretty much the way the banks of all sizes make

loans these days. from a regulatory standpoint, it is a little easier than trying to make a $1,000 loan. they use the credit card for that. that is our approach to lending. we lend to everyone in the community that can qualify. that is an important qualifier. host: tom is on the republican line from minnesota. caller: i have got a question. i hear the word "regulatory" on a constant basis. for about the last 10 years, one of the major banks in fargo carried along with me. i went back and renewed a loan on a car loan. on that loan, i always carried a disability clause. it is just common sense. when i finally needed the insurance, i was informed that when i refinanced a loan, wells fargo auto had been sold to

another company. at the time they did my loan, that insurance was not available. it was never represented to me that this was happening. i went through numerous government agencies, including our state's attorney. i found out the only thing that i could act on was to sue the bank for an estimated $20,000. at that time, i would get a judgment that would say i could pay off the loan. i would of ended paying off the loan and get an additional $20,000 that was fraud. there's not a consumer -- there is not a group out there that could represent me in a scenario like this. these big banks do this. they show up with 10 lawyers. here is a little guy with one. he really do not stand a chance.

guest: i certainly sympathize with the caller. i think people in similar situations should be very careful, particularly if they are dealing with a large bank. they will follow whatever procedures they follow. not every single aspect of the consumer transaction is going to be covered by an existing regulation. knowing how things work in washington, if some member of the house financial-services committee has been listening to this call, the next amendment will be drafted to cover that particular problem. i laugh, but that really is how things happen all lot of times. these particular cases come up and they get dealt with. host: thank you so much for being with us. "washington journal" returns