guest: the koppers have a long history here in the u.s. and they can be in different forms. they can be owned by the members themselves and they use their strength as a group to purchase goods or services and the cooperatives of that would be formed across the united states would act in the very same way as they do today. i informed rural illinois and we are very familiar with cooperatives as individuals come together as groups. americans think of themselves as the rugged individualists, but actually, we join groups all the time. and the cooperatives give the power of groups to the individual. i think that it can bring competition to the health care sector. we need greater competition.

but we need greater choices for individuals. and that is what i think cooperative's done correctly will do. a cartel, on the other hand, is controlled by the suppliers and their monopolistic -- and they are monopolistic and they do not serve to enhance competition. cartels killed competition. we ought to be careful about the real language that is being used. kecoughtahost: it sounds like ot co-op, a federally run toward, is not something you are in favor of. guest: correct, that is simply relabeling the government. that is going in the wrong direction. that is where the words in all of this health care debate are so important. you cannot simply just relabel something. specifics matter.

the cooperatives themselves, again, the very idea is that it is owned and governmengoverned e members themselves, not some outside group. host: you have a piece at the heritage foundation where you were facing off -- or your a senior fellow -- tell us about mutual insurance companies, how they are different from co-ops and what we are not seeing that in the health care system. guest: cooperatives can't have different versions themselves. you can be a purchasing -- corporate can have different versions themselves. you can be a purchasing cooperative or, for example, mutual of omaha, that is out it was begun. the product itself is also owned

by the members versus a purchasing cooperative where they have come together as purchasers. you think of aarp, people who join local discount stores where they have gotten together, but they are purchasing from someone else. host: conservatives like yourself do not like the co-op plan. or at least among the criticisms. can you elaborate? guest: we have not releasing it, but again, when you hear of a cooperative, meaning only one, jr. of government funding it, working under -- you hear of government funding it, working under a government in from water. -- a government operation, that is of concern to us. cooperatives can get bigger on their own if that is what the members choose. but i think we have a very important distinction to make.

all too often in the health-care debate things are starting to be imposed from -- to look like they're going to be imposed from the top down, whether it is starting out with the single payer and now we have moved to the government plan and now we have moved to a cooperative. those are all things that come from the top down. americans, though, we believe that power comes from the bottom up. it comes from the individuals making their own decisions, making their own choices. we think that is what will bring true competition to the health- care sector as well. now, other things need to be done. tensley saying, yes, let let cooperatives exist -- simply saying, yes, let's let cooperatives exist, we need to make other changes as well. for example, only the federal government can change the tax code. the federal cap -- tax code to discriminate against individuals today.

if you buy your health insurance through your employer, you receive a tax break. but if you're buying it as an individual on the individual market, you do not receive that. but first, let's let people keep their own money, which will make it more affordable to individuals and families. the tax code needs to be changed as well, in addition to allowing the cooperatives exist -- to exist. host: our guest is dennis smith from the heritage foundation. you can give is a call at republicans:(202) 737-0001 democrats:(202) 737-0002 independents: (202) 628-0205 and you can also send us a message by twitter we are at c- span w.j..

guest: exactly, and if government regulation comes into play -- and regulation, actually, often times works to thwart competition rather than stimulate competition. we often see that regulations are the projections of the status quo rather than britney in new competitors. -- are the protections of the status quo rather than renew in new competitors. think of all the different ways that individuals associated and get different choices. maybe the cooperative is offered through your church group. maybe it is through the knights of columbus. maybe it is to the chamber of commerce.

it is through your softball league. again, americans join all sorts of things. we are joiners. let's let the individual join as groups. the cooperatives can get larger overtime if that is what the membership wants to do but i think that we're missing a very important point, that the competition is what will bring down costs for individuals and for families, not some giant conglomerate that the federal government will use to kill competition. when that happens, prices go up. host: our first call this morning is from bill on the democrat line in st. augustine, florida. good morning, bill. caller: good morning, folks. before i talk about

cooperatives, let me address the gentleman. he kept using the word "we, we americans." how about the 10 million americans that voted for barack obama above and beyond john mccain? do we account? ç-- and do we count? let me get to call whaco-ops. the public plan -- everybody says it takes 60 votes to pass it. it does not take 60 votes. it takes 50 votes. what happens in the senate, it takes 60 votes to shut off session. i guarantee the day the public option comes up, you will see

the vice president' in the senae chair and you might even see ted kennedy role in their in a hospital bed with the doctor biocide and an ivy in his arm. -- by his side and then i-v in his arm. the public option is alive and well. it will be in the bill and the president will sign it sometime in october and you will probably have a heart attack, sir. guest: well, if i may, in terms of the dynamics of the senate -- and the senate rules, obviously, our unique and that is why there is discussion about reconciliation. but i am also reminded of central -- senator daniel

patrick moynihan, when he was in the senate used to talk about real reform, authentic reform has to be bipartisan -- bipartisan and has to have overwhelming support in the senate. something that squeaks by by a margin of one or two votes could be passed that way, but it will not endure. that, i think, would be unfortunate to go to is specifically partisan approach -- a specifically partisan approach that might last until the next election, but if we want true authentic reform, and we do, there are a number of things about the current health- care system, the health insurance system that need to be fixed, they can be fixed. but we do not need the federal government during the world upside down for the -- turning the world upside down for the american people to get the kind of reform that we need.

host: from brooklyn, new york on the independent line, cheryl is the next caller. good morning, cheryl. caller: i am trying to figure out his argument sounds different from when they were speaking about back in the '80s going from the regular insurance company -- are remember i have blue cross blue shield and they said, we are now going to go to hmos. it is going to be cheaper, more affordable, better for you. therefore, what they did to my deductible is like $300 -- i remember -- and my deductible with the blue cross blue shield when to let $3,000. i have no choice but to switch to the hmo. as soon as i switched, my services were limited. with blue cross blue shield it was 80/20. i paid 20% and take a 80%. with this co-op, the argument is

that it is going to be better, but it is not. you'll still have insurance companies in charge of insurance. who is regulating them? who is keeping them under control? that is my confusion. guest: i think the idea that is missing is that individuals gave up control to the outside entity. in a cooperative, it is the members themselves that make the decisions and the cooperative is owned by the individuals. let me give you an example. i recently visited the tennessee farm bureau. their cooperative has been in existence for more than 50 years. as a cooperative, their members purchased different types of health plans. their members can purchase

dental insurance as a supplemental. they can also purchase long-term health insurance. they can purchase a high deductible hsh's. members still have choices within the type of coverage that they want. like i said, iç think it is the individual decisions brought together -- you know, if you think about a river is made up of the individual drops of rain. the decisions made by individuals come together and that is what changes the landscape. host: if co-ops get started, there is a concern that they may not have enough involvement to make them effective, which is why some of the democrats are saying we would consider a gah plan if it was large enough. if it were overseen by -- a co- op plan if it was large enough.

if it were overseen by the government, large enough in scale. guest: some of these clubs, they were not giants overnight. they grew over time. the argument that it has to be 500,000 people before it even gets started, that is an actuary's argument. that is not an argument for a businessman or families that are trying to provide for themselves. why would we wait as well? membership will grow rapidly, i believe, if you formed a cooperative spirit but let's get them started and see what they can do on their own. host: our guest dennis smith is now a senior fellow and -- at the heritage foundation. prior to that, he directed the center for medicaid and state operations. our next caller is on the republican line, martin from new jersey. hi, margaremartin.

caller: no one talks about how we can increase competition. there are more than 1400 insurance companies in the united states. but people in one state cannot buy insurance in another state. guest: i agree that bringing greater competition is a large part of the solution. in the rest of our economy that is what we think about bringing down the cost of something is competition. if cooperatives are formed, they can be formed up the local level. they can grow on a statewide basis. they can become regional. i agree with the caller.

part of insurance reform should be the ability to buy insurance across state lines. in today's internet society where we have -- let's use the energy of information technology to be able to compare prices. we see the price every day on the stock market exchange. we can see the price of a commodity, a bushel of corn. why can we see the price of health plans? -- why can't we see the price of health plans? a health plan could come out and this would be the price of 10,000 lives. if we get 20,000 lives, the price goes down by 5%. it is the idea of giving the individual the power of the group and the group together, health plans and will want to

compete for their business. host: from winston-salem, n.c., johnny joins us on the democrats' line. caller: i do not know why c- span has put the "wall street journal" on there, so why you are there. u.n. rupert murdoch are these right-wing nuts and you keep the right wing nuts on the tv. this guy is a big joke. he is talking about 10,000 lives, like people are commodities. we're out of cattle. -- we are not cattle. if we are human beings and should be provided a service at reasonable cost and it is not happening. he is not offering an option. he is just making of stuff, telling one lie after another. guest: well, if i may respond,

forming a group is what insurance is all about. i mean, fundamentally, that is what insurance does. if you have insurance through your employer, you have joined a group. çthe health plan that your employer has selected, or if they give you a variety of options, the health plans are looking at you as a group, not as an individual. which again, is another advantage in forming cooperatives. when you are buying insurance by yourself, that is where you get the medical underwriting. that is where you get -- where the insurance company does exclusions for pre-existing conditions, etc. what i am saying is as individuals, if we can join

together as a group, then we have the advantage of those group dynamics. then, i believe, health care plans will want to compete for our business as members of that cooperative. host: there are health care cooperative in minneapolis and seattle. do you see those as working and could they work in other parts of the country? guest: i think they are slightly different than what i am talking about because if i think if you look at seattle, it is not owned, if you would, by the members. and what i'm suggesting and what my colleagues have suggested is, being owned and governed by the members is a very key point. host: our next caller is chris on the independent line, from port charlotte, florida, good morning, chris. caller: good morning. i would like to talk to you a bit about the competition that

you have been referring to. it has been well established that there are some 1300, 1400 medical insurance companies now. i do not know any other industry that has a that much competition already in existence and yet, they cannot bring the cost down. it seems absolutely ridiculous to think that they now are going to do it by themselves. if you look at the car manufacturers, how many car manufacturers are there in the country? well, if you're out -- allow the import, the foreign manufacturers and distributors now in the country, we only now probably have 10. and they form their own type of competition that keeps the rates down. the other thing i would like to talk about is the public option.

i think we do need the public option and that is to reinforce the competition issue. i do not know that we need 1400 medical insurance companies. that is unreasonable, i think. but the public option, we have a very -- a varied delivery system right now. i have been taking care of my mother for five years and she is on medicare and i think it works remarkably well what does need to be fine-tuned, prounced, -- perhaps, are the payment schedules for the physicians and those types of fees. and i think it needs to have an oversight, a national commissioner much like what most, if not all of the states have.

someone who will coordinate and make sure everyone is paving the way they should be being. host: let's get a response from our guest. guest: you said there are already 1400 health plans and if a government health plan were brought in and there is truly a level -- level playing field, then what is the point in having 1401? the administration and congressional leadership have said, if the government health plan -- there has to be a level playing field. otherwise, the government health plan will eat up the competition, which is what we think will truly happen if it comes interest -- into existence. the government health plan that is backed by the taxpayer, of course, has tremendous advantages over private health plans that are at risk and they must get all of their resources

from the people who join it. if there is truly a level playing field, which is why it congressional leadership has promised, then the point is back to yours -- was the point in simply having 1401? ç-- what is the point in simply having 1401? but the reality is, the competition we need to have because you cannot buy insurance products over state lines. you do not have the tax advantage as an individual that you do if you have got an employer sponsored health insurance. there have to be a few changes, but those changes will have a dramatic impact on the market. host: there is a piece today by michael levitt, former secretary of health and human services during the bush administration, who you served under. this is in the "wall street journal."

he writes, the democrats are insisting that their version of a co-op would not be government- run health care, but i ran medicare and medicaid and i know this is not true. when washington provides money, and pays the bills, government controls health care. do you agree? guest: i certainly do agree. again, you of examples of government-run health care. i ran medicaid for seven years, i ran a state medicaid program before that. when government altman the house a budget, it has to live within that budget. -- when government ultimately has a budget, it has to live within that budget. you often find that kerridge is restricted because -- again, but -- that care is restricted because, again, the previous caller mentioned that medicaid pays 20%-25% less.

30% of all medicaid business are to an emergency room or an outpatient hospital department. people on medicaid have access to specialists at half the rate of people in the private sector. >> once again, betty on the conversation, calling on the republicans lined from alexandria, virginia. caller: i have had this question for weeks and i want to understand why we do not eliminate employer-sponsored insurance and co-ops, just like you are talking about, so that insurance companies have to compete for each american policies -- each american policy. i think it would increase competition. if you put laws into effect that would deny pre-existing

conditions, then i do not see why the government would need control other than that. guest: employer-sponsored health insurance in many respects is the model of why it works because you have individuals who come together as a group to purchase coverage. that is less expensive than it is going out there and buying it on your own. so, you have the protection of the group. we know that there are still employers that do not offer health insurance as a benefit to their employees. small businesses, retail business where there is a very high turnover just are not able to offer affordable products to their employees. but the idea that when you form a group to get purchasing power -- that, one, you form a group to get purchasing power, but the health plans realize that they do not carry as much risk as

adverse selection drew adverse selection happens when someone who is already sick then tries to go to market to buy it. again, let's remember what the entire concept of insurance is about. it is about protection from an unforeseen financial catastrophe. you cannot buy homeowner's insurance when your cat -- when your house has caught fire. you cannot call of the agency and to say, would you now give me homeowners insurance? on the other hand, our car insurance -- we do not purchase car insurance to change the oil and rotate the tires. insurance is supposed to be for an unforeseen catastrophic event. it gives you a financial protection and gives you access to health care itself. when we keep in mind what insurance is suppose to be and replicate in many respects the

positive things that employer- sponsored gives, which is protection of the individual for the group and competition from health plans themselves. çhost: democrats, including howard dean, have said that a co-op is just a toothless substitute for a public plan. he said, cobbs would be very weak and many would not have the 500,000 members that insurance companies think are necessary and that insurance companies would be licking their lips. and yet, you see it differently. guest: i think true cooperatives will work because we have seen them work. again, tenn. farm bureau is doing pretty well for its members. they cover about 180,000 lives. not 500,000 lives. as i said previously these were built -- built over time.

but we should not be taking this top-down approach saying, we have got to have this -- they're looking at it as from the top trying to leverage the market. but i think that the true power is giving individuals choices and letting them decide where their dollars go. that is what true competition means and that is what will really bring down the costs. host: let's get one more caller in talking to dennis smith. don is on the line from south carolina. caller: i have to agree with the first caller, there has got to be a public plan. the obama administration has tried to be bipartisan. the republicans have responded with false statements. some of their people are carrying guns to the town meetings. it is kind of a joke.

without the public option at least being offered, reform will not have been and we need reform -- will not happen and we need reform to happen. i take care of my mom. she is on medicaid. it is a good system. i do not really understand what is going on. i will tell you this also -- we do not need the republicans to get this passed. and any democrat who voted against this, i am not going to support. i will support whoever runs in the primary against them to include my own state congressman, which is -- right now, i cannot think of his name -- spratt. if he votes against this, i will vote against two runs in him -- runs against him in the primary. guest: going back to the

government plan, i think there is -- there are fundamental and critical questions that we do not know the answer to. is the government plan going to be fee-for-service? is it going to be a giant hmo? we have no idea at this point. the legislation does not say what is going to be. the legislation gives great power over to the secretary of hhs to decide things like that. i think there is a lot of rhetoric around labels. we need to get to the substance of the matter to understand what we're talking about. again, i think people's views would shift considerably if we are saying, well, the government plan is actually going to be one giant hmo and you are not going to have -- and you're going to have the choice to join the hmo if you want the coverage. i think the bill unnecessarily

and unfortunately restricts americans choices as to how they will be able to use their subsidies, for example. and would deny them access to products like a just a -- blye hsa's, which are one of the fastest growing insurance products because, again, the individual is in control and truly participate in the decision making about who they seek care from, etc. what we ought to be giving them is the transparency, giving them the information about prices. we do not post prices on the internet. we should be, but we got -- but we are not. i think there are still very fundamental question that are still answer -- still very fundamental questions that are still unanswered by the government.

and cooperatives turn into a cartel, then we have failed and ultimately this kind of reform will not last very long. host: dennis smith, thank you for being with us this morning. çdennis smith is the senior fellow at the heritage foundation. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> "washington *" columnist johnny devaughn on the "weed man." he is interviewed by the fender of the national organization for the reform of marijuana laws. the saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2's book tv. >> frank mankiewicz, campaign

manager for george mcgovern sunday night on c-span on q&a. >> this fall, and to the home to america's highest court from the grand public places to those only accessible to the nine justices, the supreme court come in the first sunday in october on c-span. >> sporkin -- "washington journal" continues. host: for the rest of the are we have a question for you, will the health care passed this year? let's take a look at what president obama had to say about this yesterday. >> i guarantee you, joe, we're going to get health care reform up. i know there are a lot of people out there who have been hammering and folks in the press are following every little twist and turn of the legislative process. passing a big bill like this is always messi.

-- messy. fdr was called a socialist when he passed social security. j.f.k. and lyndon johnson, they were both accused of a government health care when they passed medicare. this is the process we go through, because understandably, the american people have a long tradition of being suspicious of government until the government actually does something that helps them and they do not want anyone messing with it when it gets set up. i am confident we will get it done. host: president obama speaking yesterday about his expectations for a health-care bill passing congress this year. he was taking questions on a radio show of michael small cottage out of philadelphia. but look of this piece in open court usa today" talking about how the president guarantee the it will win approval and it tore up of the reduced it rising

costs, protect insurance uses and provide affordable coverage to the uninsured without adding to the deficit. what you think about its chances and is there a model that you see it taking? do you expect to see the public plans to buy, or view think something like cops, as we are just talking about -- something like coops, as we were just talking about, will take effect? our first call is from maryland. caller: thank you for taking my call. first, i do believe we will get a health care bill passed this year. i just wanted to say something about your last guest from the heritage foundation. i mean, this is a right-wing organization, always have been and always will be. and the fight over health care is a political one because, you

know, all the republicans that say no -- please excuse me, i'm a little nervous -- they realize that if this passes republicans will be out on the boondocks for many generations if this passes. the republican party will be reduced to almost a non-factor in this country. it was demonstrated very clearly by the american people in the last election what direction they want america to go. health care is the argument, but the politics of it is the republicans realize that of any

bill is passed of any substance, politically, they are finished. and that is all i wanted to say. çhost: on the democrats' line, sylvia is calling from miami, florida. caller: good morning, i wanted to make a point about your guest on the heritage foundation and the analogy with the house burning down, that is not when you get insurance. insurance is just a means to an end. the final product is health care. if your house burns down, one, the fire department comes back again if it burns down again to put out the fire. and that is the moral responsibility that we have, whether it is fires or health insurance, for all citizens. and more people in the pool, the lower the risk for every individual.

i just totally disagree with his analogy. thank you for taking my call. host: on the independent line, jacky, from ohio. caller: the gentleman from the heritage foundation for about two things. he forgot to tell you that the employer-supplied healthcare' programs have increased in the last two years some 16%. what is going to keep that from continuing? these big programs or these big co-ops that the employers to use -- that the employers' use have not brought down the price of insurance. in fact, it has gone up several times. i think as long as we have people like c-span who bring the heritage foundation and the "wall street journal" to the

foure with a lot of misinformation, you are going to not have health care passed with a good public option and it is too bad because what you have is a fallacy, one that employer -- one, that employer programs are not going to continue rising in price. host: we have a comment on twitter. you can send your comments to us by twitter. you can also e-mail us at journal@c-span.org. will health care passed this year? we want to know what you say on that. democrats:(202) 737-0002

republicans:(202) 737-0001 independents: (202) 628-0205 in the wall street -- "wall street journal" obama fall's gop in health debate. this is looking and recent conversations about health care and talking about was going on on the republican side as well. and there is, of course, the question of where democrats are going on this. house speaker nancy pelosi waiting on the debate this week as well, stressing the same point thursday as president obama had. she told a news conference in san francisco, there is no way i can pass a bill in the house without a public option, so she

is going a step further than president obama did yesterday. let's go to the republicans line, calling from jackson, florida. good morning, sammy. caller: good morning, and thank you for taking my call. thank goodness these callers do not reflect the majority of the country. i am one of the 85% of people that are satisfied with our insurance and we do not like not likeoption. it is just another -- we do not

like this public plan. it is just another takeover.% obama talking about the republicans blocking it, look, there are 60 democrats controlling the senate. they can pass anything they want. they control the house. they can get it done tomorrow if they wanted to, but the democrats are blocking it. their own party is blocking it. they know it is no good. the majority of the people if they pass it, they will be voted out in the next election. they want -- there will not be a democratic party anymore. if they tried that option, they

better not try it. if they do, they will be history. host: on the democrats' line from fayetteville, ark., we have gone calling in. good morning, don. caller: good morning, i think we will have to pass some sort of public plan. right now, the way i look at it is, say you get a job when you are 20 years old or 16 years old and you work until you are 62, you are paying insurance the whole time. those insurance companies are making big profits. i am 56 and have been working all my life. i have been pretty healthy and i never use my insurance. i had union insurance and i worked for the union and for non-union companies. now i'm starting to worry about being sick. i'm not doing as much physical work anymore. i'm self-employed a lot of the time.

eventually, i am just going to end up on medicaid or medicare, what ever option i have. all those years i paid into insurance companies so they could make millions of dollars, that money could have gone to medicare, medicaid and then medicare and medicaid would not be going bankrupt or be in the red. i think that socialized medicine makes sense for everybody, for everybody. my wife just had a liver transplant and we have insurance that was catastrophic insurance. she goes for a liver transplants and the bill comes out to be $500,000. at that point, the insurance company says, we do not pay for liver transplants -- you know,

in the fine print. we have the $500,000 bill and my wife calls and 3 tons of phone calls -- i mean, she is recovering from a liver transplant. she finds out what medicare and medicaid pay for the operations that she has had and it turns out that they pay half of what we would have to pay personally. an insurance company don't spas, a hospital charges us double -- to dump us, a hospital charges as double. she finally through negotiation got it down to $250,000. they almost got us under. host: thanks for contributing, don. but go to georgia. caller: i think we all want each other to be healthy, democrats and republicans, but of the same

time i have a young man, 23 years old, and this last election was my first time ever paying attention to politics. i used to look at myself as a democrat, but i feel -- and a lot of other people -- we do not necessarily want the government to be in every aspect of our lives. but we all do need to be treated. i'm from massachusetts originally, and i have heard that massachusetts is looking -- being looked at as the model. i guess their plan has been in place for three years and their budget actually has jumped 42% over what was projected. 42% over whatever obama is proposing, you know, on top of what we are already paying for. in the last three years, massachusetts has paid $500

billion more money than theyç d the three years before they put in their plan. i think we definitely need to figure something out, but how about the government just release all restrictions on all of the insurance companies so that we as individuals, we can pick -- you know, in georgia and i can pick a company in oregon or someone in organ can pick a company in massachusetts so that insurance companies would have no choice but to be flexible and allow more people to buy their policies because now they have thousands of insurance policies and they can pick from all across the country. they would have no choice but to lower their prices because the competition would be too great. if we just allow state by state, to only allow five or six insurance companies, that is one

consider rewriting. host: the local aarp takes heat over a held a stand, from the "wall street journal." it is building a flood of calls from worried seniors and battling rumors about president barack obama as helped push, which it supports. also in the peace, a r p concedes that 60,000 members have resigned over the health care push.

brett is on the republicans line from charleston, west virginia. hi, greta, good morning. caller: i would like to echo the sentiment of the last caller from georgia. he makes an excellent point and kind of stole my thunder. we do not need more government to solve this problem. we need less government. also, the problem before about the democrat callers calling in on the republican line, i wish they would stick with their own line and make this more balance. we need to practice defensive medicine, which is a sizable chunk of the health care costs that we are paying right now. we need to make health insurance affordable and available for purchase state by state, across state lines. we need to make it available my car insurance, home insurance, life insurance, and we need to

keep government out of it. the main reason for this is a principal reason. this country was not founded so that millions of americans could be dependent upon the federal government for their livelihoods. this country was based on principles like individual liberty and self-reliant. -- self-reliance. when you hand over your liberty to be felt -- to the federal government in exchange for at best mediocre health insurance or mediocre income, you are surrendering your individual liberties. and quite frankly, too many people died in wars throughout the years for us to say, ok, take our liberties and take us from cradle to grave we need tickets -- we need to seriously consider the founding principles of this country. host: and in the "new york times" president obama said he

would love to have republicans engaged, but expressed doubt that a bipartisan compromise could be reached because he suspected the party leadership was intent on defeating his signature domestic priority. however, president obama did make some calls this week and one of the fault he talked to was a republican. mr. obama talked to devote negotiators, mr. conrad and senator olympia snowe, republican of maine. she is still seen by administration officials and senate democrats at a possible ally on health care legislation even if other republicans are unwilling to back the bill. let's go to bill on the democrats' line, calling from illinois. good morning. ñicaller: good morning, there ae

a couple of things that have not been addressed concerning health care that really concern me. number one, i think it should be about your program, first of all. 27% of the uninsured are 27 and under. i do not think that they realize that by the time they reach 37, if they are 27 today, one person working will be supporting close to 20 people who are retired. that is going to be a tremendous cost factor. also, there is a concern -- you know, they say that illegal immigrants are not going to be offered this program. but they still are not turned down for medical care, so somebody is paying for it. and the last point i would like to make is, if the politicians

had not borrowed money or your marked money away from social security and welfare, we would have had such a surplus we could have put everybody on medicare. by the time obama leaves on his second term in office, the debt will be phenomenal to cover all of these people that we want to put on the medical. sure, people need medical, and i agree with that, but i think it should be a voucher program. i have a lot of bodies that are 27, 26, and they are driving $50,000 a pickups and suvs, but they do not carry health insurance. that is why i think a voucher program based on income would be a best solution. host: let's look at the "washington post" and the story

looks at the senate health care negotiators who are still working on the finance committee version of the bill. that work is still being done even as the recess goes on. do you think that will yield a bill that might be able to get through congress? that is our question for you this morning. our next caller is doing -- julie on the independent line from richmond, virginia. caller: good morning, i feel exactly like the last three callers. they have got it down pat.

when obama gets on tv like yesterday, he forgets that we are of year. we have not run away just because he was elected president. the way we feel in our hearts, the way we love our country, it has not gone away. we are conservatives at heart. it does not change just because another president comes in. and he does not have our right to get up and talk about was the way he talks about us. when he was running for office, he said he could be our president, too. he has not been tried, not ones to be our president since he was put in office. he talks about us like we are some kind of little animals that can be destroyed. we are not. we are human beings. and we still love our country. just like we always have and we always will. and he needs to accept that, too. host: on the republican line,

joseph is calling from greensburg -- greensboro, north carolina. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i am registered as a republican and has -- and have always voted republican, but during this last election i voted for obama. the short answer to your general question is, yes, i think the reform bill will go through sinton because of the democratic majority. it is unfortunate that is how it is going to go, but that is what i see. if i can take a moment to debunks the myths, 45 years old and have the misfortune of having disability, so i am on medicare. i would like to point out that while i was employed with a large credit card company here in greensboro, n.c. i was perata of health care insurance for a premium. i have the option of turning it have the option of going private.

and it was more cost-effective for me to accept my employer's insurance. likewise, now that i'm on social security disability, i also have the option -- i do not have to accept medicare. i pay a premium based on my income, but i do not have to. i could go to the private sector if i wish. it is simply more cost-effective for me to take the medicare option, which has an affordable premium based on my income. the myth i would like to the bone is the public option that the president and the democratic congress is trying to offer is just that, it is just an option. it is the idea that somehow people who are already happy with current medical insurance will be denied the ability to continue this -- will be denied. the ability to continue this is completely wrong. and lastly, the death panel -- anybody who has had experience

with a dying person whether they are on medicare, medicaid, hospice or a private insurance company, understands. unfortunately, people do not seem to be aware of this. but there is a medical professional who takes the family off to the side and says, your loved one is incurable. these are what the options are. and the best option would seem to be to make them comfortable, to give them pain relief medication, and what you think? -- what do you think? obama's biggest crime here is that he seems to be giving us much more information than we seem to be able to handle about our insurance works. read your own insurance policy, folks. ask your insurance agent. there is very little difference. . .

>> host: on the independent line from texas, we have jay calling in. >> hi, how are you? >> host: fine, thank you. >> i have one comment. the people that say they like this bill and just to take one thing they say that you get to keep your health insurance. i'll make a challenge to them, i defy any of these people that spout that way. tell me what page that's on in this bill.

they haven't read the bill because if they had, they would come away shaking their head going, my god, what are they trying to do to us. >> host: which bill are you referring to? >> i'm referring to the house bill. everybody says if you want to keep your insurance, you can keep it. show, tell me in the bill what page that is on that says that and i guarantee you you'll come away flabbergasted, because it is not in there. there are 40 things you have to do to keep your health insurance and the stars have to be aligned with the sun and the moon and everything else. just you can tell they haven't read the bill if they can't tell you -- >> host: democrats say that you can keep your health insurance, it is in there. >> beg your pardon. >> host: democrats say it is in there, you can keep your health insurance.

>> they say it is in there, what page is it on? they can't do that because they haven't read the bill. >> host: thanks for your calls. coming up on "washington journal," paul lite on the obama administration and more on the book. we'll be right back. >> this morning college and career readiness, the conference will examine efforts to prepare students for life after high school graduation. it is hosted by the education testing company, act. live coverage at 8:45 on cspan 2.

>> years as press secretary, campaign manager for governor and the time walter cronkite was considered. this fall enter the home to america's highest court from the grand public places to those only accessible by the nine justices, the supreme court coming the first sunday in october on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. >> host: our guest is paul lite, professor at new york university. good morning. >> good morning. >> host: thank you for being with us. you have tracked the obama administration, their changeover in power and how things are going, give us a sense of how the public is feeling about president obama right now.

>> well, it has been a bad 100 days for the obama administration. pretty upbeat and lots of things happening the first 100 days. really rolling forward with the stimulus package and so forth, but the second 100 days have been tough. his approval ratings are down. there's bitter, emerging fight over healthcare, obviously. i think that in many ways he's given too much power to the house and the senate. too much hour to nancy pelosi, speaker of of the house, and harry reid, the senate majority leader, to push legislation forward. he hasn't exerted the powers of the presidency really to push this debate forward on a plan that he favors. he's quite equivocal on healthcare from week to week. do we require a government

option? do we not? he's flip-flopped on that issue. this is a pretty tough time for him and unless he comes out of the august recess focused again, i think it's going to be a very difficult september through the end of the year. >> recently quoted in a piece in "the hill," written by sam youngman, analysis has been disaster for obama. you say that capitol has spent a bit at a time on a piece of legislation. light said, eventually it runs out. >> well, you know, lyndon johnson came into office huge congressional majority, just great political capital after lumping barry goldwater in the 1954 election. he had a large number of bills that had already been drafted

that he had embraced as his own and he pushed and pushed for that first six months. he was saying all along that everyday you spend your political capital you got to move it or lose it and get it done. and the longer you sit out there without firm legislation for congress to consider, the more you skwaquander your capital. nancy pelosi and harry reid are great individuals, they are not great legislative movers. we're ready stuck on capitol hill with the obama agenda and president obama has a very limited stock of political capital. he's using it up at high rates. pelosi and reid are using up his political capital. it is giving your checkbook to your neighbor and basically saying, go ahead and get me some home improvements and it is

hurting obama right now and it is looking like a pretty tough fall. >> host: in that piece in "the hill" you mentioned one reason obama spent so much political capital is aside from the ambitious agenda, he allowed congress to set the tone of for example, healthcare reform. >> well, you know, you come in and the senate was the great incubator of policy ideas, they were chunking bills out regularly and the president could come in and like shopping at a department store, could pick and choose a handful of priorities and really press forward. that is what obama did with the "serve america" act, a significant piece of legislation that has been forgotten in this kind of early history of his admin stragsz. he picked it up and it it had been co-sponsored by kennedy and hatch. it was ready to go and he jammed it through.

perfect example of how past presidents have extended their political capital. but then he let the house design stimulus package laden with pork. a lot of vulnerability to fraud and abuse. the stories are already starting to come out and he's let the house and the senate develop the energy package and now healthcare and it's recipe for disaster. the president has to use that bully pulpit for more than exhorting the president to act. the president needs a substantial proposal to submit to congress and cannot waffle back and forth publicly. there is a time for negotiation, private negotiation with congress and there is a time for public conversation with the american public. and we've got those confused right now and i think the american public is quite confused and that is why many

attacks are ringing true to the american public because they don't know what president obama really stands for here. >> host: what is your impression of what we've been seeing at healthcare town halls throughout the country? >> oh, they are really not useful conversations. i don't know how much is scripted. people are terrified. even president obama is talking about not getting insurance and government bureaucrats in the middle of the decision about healthcare. americans don't have a lot of confidence in the federal government to deliver services, to deliver goods. president obama has yet to rollout an agenda that would reassure the public that the federal government could actually run a healthcare program, let alone the details of the healthcare program. americans are looking at this and saying, i don't want the federal government involved in it my healthcare. it is the devil they know, which

is their own insurance company. most americans say they are satisfied with their insurance companies, but when you get down to nitty-gritty they are telling us it is a hassle to deal with their health insurance companies. we have done nothing to reassure them the federal government will get better at delivering service, so practically any attack will stick. the death panels and so forth and so on, there's a lot of of muddiness in this it debate and it's a bitter debate, much more bitter than you would have is thought and it is not all scripted. a lot of it is is i think genuine and you have the counter attacks and so forth. americans are really quite confused about what is going on and this is becoming a sink hole for attitude on all sorts of issues from immigration to the iraq, afghanistan wars. >> host: mary is calling on the democrat line from washington. good morning, mary. >> hello. >> host: welcome, you are on

the air. >> hi. i'd like to say i think obama, you know, is a lot more popular than what is getting out. i think the reason he was put into office was because he supported healthcare. i think it it is our biggest civil liberty we'll ever have because healthcare, if you don't have healthy workers, you don't have a good economy. if you have people that are putting everything they earn into paying healthcare and the policies being offered in the private sector really are lousy policies that people do not know until they are sick what they really have and at that point it's too late. the gentleman that called in about his wife and the liver transplant, there is a prime example. 500,000 dollars for something that cost $250. the reason it is that skewed is because the healthcare insurance industry has pushed these prices up really high to force people to have healthcare and that's not a fair system.

the united states government is paying for a whole sector of of people to have healthcare, so the private health insurance companies don't really want the small business people and i'm somebody who was self-employed person, paid in taxes my whole life, thought i was upper middle class until i got stage four breast cancer. within eight weeks of that my healthcare went from $369 to $479, a year later $569 and as soon as i went on disability, i was cancelled. now this is unfair to someone who has paid for healthcare for their whole life and stuff when they need it the most there is laws and rules that allow them to be put in this position. fortunately i am in the state of washington where they offer good healthcare for people like myself, you know, when the situation happens. i was able to go on to a basic health program, state run. i tell you, i felt as though i've had a lot less stress in my

life because i know it's going to get covered. my bills get covered and stuff. a middle-class person shouldn't be wiped out because of one illness. >> guest: i agree with you. i'm not an expert on healthcare. you want to talk about death panels, every insurance company has one. they decide what the percentage of possibility from treatment is. they decide whether treatments are coverable. we've got that problem across the healthcare system. we've got high expenses across the healthcare system. i think the problem here is that the debate has shifted entirely to the obama proposal and the obama proposal is not clear to most americans. it is fuzzy. and i think that's because we're dealing with five or six packages that are moving forward

on capitol hill and the president hasn't made clear what it is he actually wants so that he can beat nothing with something. i mean, what we basically have is debate between no action, nothing, continuing with our current system and we don't have a something to really talk about. so what we have are people who are against healthcare constructing a reality around an obama plan that may or may not be true, we just don't know. the president has not seized the initiative. he's working the issue of whether or not we need to act or stay in the current tense. what he needs to do is focus on what he wants and then harness that gigantic engine of support that we saw in the campaign. young americans, middle-aged americans are on the sidelines on this issue. they don't know what they're supposed to do and we need to

get the obama admin stragsz, if they want to, from a political standpoint, just from sausage making that congressional phrase for how you put together a legislation. if obama wants to win on the issue, he's got to mobilize supporters behind a specific plan. that is what johnson did on medicare in 1965. >> host: a recent gallup poll shows that americans disapprove the handling of healthcare. 43% do approve and that number has shifted only slightly from a month ago. and gallup says of four issues tested in the august 6-9 poll, the president fares worse on healthcare. his ratings on the economy are slightly better with americans divided in how he is handling that issue and president gets better ratings for handling foreign affair and reducation.

>> guest: presidents astart ou high in the polls and tend to drift away a few percentage points at a time until their approval starts down into the low 40s into the upper 30s. and 30% range. and what we are seeing right now is a classic pattern. the president is running out of steam. he has a very brief amount of time left to really harness what approval he has and stick it to a bill. the real skill of being president in the legislative process is what i call the focusing skill, the ability to tie your approval. the seats you have in congress to a specific piece of legislation. what we're missing here is clarity regarding what the president wants. he can't one week say he favors the government opgsz before the

american medical association say that it's got to be part of the solution and the next week say, well, actually that is not a priority. the american public gets hopelessly confused. the opponents of action are able to paste it with pretty much any charge they want to invent. they are doing focus groups right now to figure out where the president is weakest and they have seized death panels as one major option and that is what you are seeing in the town hall meetings. >> host: pauline is calling from mississippi. good morning, pauline. >> good morning. >> host: welcome, you are on the air. >> thank you. this is my first time calling. >> host: great g. hate. you are talking to paul light from nyu. >> good morning, mr. light.

right now i'm a republican, but what i'm calling about is we're not giving the president a chance. we all need help here. i'm 72 years old and i worked all my life for healthcare. what i'm calling about, we need to give him a chance and he keeps telling us what his plan is all about. it's a public option, not a government-run program like a lot of people seem confused and talking about. the people are for america. we need to think about that. so what do you think about this? >> guest: well, i think the president should stop talking about the need for healthcare coverage, sit down in a conversation with the public. he might look back to the fireside chats that franklin l roosevelt had with the american public and layout his healthcare plan. tell us exactly what he wants. then he can go to the wall with his public approval, his support

in congress and push forward on that plan, make it it clear what's in it and what is not in it and then get into the negotiations with the house and the senate. >> host: is it too late, when has the train left the station? >> guest: well, you are letting the opponents of healthcare, of of the obama plan if there is one, concrete in form. you are letting the opponents define what it it is and they are very good at it it. just as democrats are very good at painting republicans into a corner, the republicans, conservatives are very good at painting the president into a corner. so what's happening is that they're punching at every possibility, every possible component of the plan and the president has yet to say, this is what i favor and here is the bill that i favor. he's letting these bills move through congress. they got this in them and that

in them. you had a caller earlier who said he's read the entire bill. good for him. he can't find anything that says you get to keep your own insurance. which plan was that? which bill was that? there are five or six of them floating around and that is just the ones that are in committee. i don't think it's too late. i think you have the august recess here where you can reset the agenda and really get the american public to focus, maybe write in early september he sis down and has a candid conversation with the american public and instead of talking about the fact our current system isn't working, talk about how his plan will work better because if there is one thing i've learn friday watching congress it's that you can't beat nothing without something. and he needs to really tell the american public what he has in mind for his agenda. >> host: our guest paul light is professor of public service

and founding principle investigator of the organizational performance initiative. he worked at brookings institution where he was a senior fellow and was founding director of its center for public service. our next caller is from minnesota. good morning, marge. marge, hi, you are on the air. >> good morning. >> host: welcome. >> thank you. thank you to c-span. i guess i'm looking for the truth. i'm looking for some answers. >> guest: i think we all are. it is nice to hear from minnesota. my father lives in brainard. he's 95. he's on medicare. he also has medigap. he's well covered by the federal program for older americans. you know, i'm hoping to hear the truth, as well. and i think that's partially the

president's job. no matter who it is, for the president to come out and say, here is what we've got. the debate is clouded with assertions from both sides about what's going on, how much we're subsidizing charity care in our insurance premiums, what is covered by the drug companies, did they pull a fast one with the obama administration? there is just lots of interpretation right now and it is occurring in a vacuum without a clear answer from the president about what he wants and that i keep coming back to, that is the president's responsibility. that is how you get legislation through congress these days. that is how you get the big bill through congress. that is how we got the big bills through during the bush administration, how you get the big bills through. we need a plan and then we need

to really take a look at it using more thoughtful methods than shout-downs at town hall meetings. >> host: next caller is palm on the democratic line from new york. >> good morning. that is a perfect sedway. yesterday there was a reporter on c-span who said she'd been to four town halls. she'd asked dozens of people at town hall fist they had voted for obama and not a single one had. i wanted to make the point also we hear a lot of callers saying, we need tort reform, why isn't tort reform in the bill. we need cross state insurance purchasing pools, why isn't that in the bill? well, both of those are state issues and i'm afraid that if obama came out for tort reform and across state line insurance pools then the same people would be screaming, have you ever read the constitution? we believe in state rights,

blahblah, blah. this is a wound-up gang of people who are generating a lot of great television and little serious debate. thanks very much for listening. >> guest: i think there is some truth in that argument. i think that a lot of the town hall upset has been brood and promoted from washington and elsewhere, but when you listen to the town halls and listen to the individuals who are not shouting, there are good questions about this. there are people who are stepping forward saying, what's going to happen to me? how does this affect me? i think there is desire for inform ag information about that issue. it is in the devil, i know. we don't particularly like the way we're getting healthcare right now, but we're getting healthcare. it is a pain. we have to file form after form,

but we don't have a good sense of what is coming. so i agree that a lot of the town hall shoutdown is generated from outside. it's being promoted from outside, but when you look into the town hall, sometimes you hear a question that's just so painfully personal about how this will work that you beg for an answer. you beg for the truth that our friend in alexandria, minnesota was calling for. >> host: and sam from central city, kentucky. good morning, sam. >> good morning. how are you today? >> guest: just fine, thanks. >> good. good way the lady from new york just called, i was going to talk about tort reform. i believe this is not healthcare reform. this is healthcare welfare that is being pushed on us and will be passed on us because this is what the liberals want.

if it was reform, tort reform would be a big part of it because we know the trial lawyers and ambulance chasers play a big part in the cost of overall healthcare. trial lawyers and democratic party do not want this so it will not be passed. as far as things in the bill, we are told there are myths out there about healthcare. one of them is taxpayer money for abortion with the public. as of date, there have been nine amendments presented that would expressly prohibit taxpayer money on any public option of going toward paying abortions. it has been defeated. what does that tell you about the agenda on taxpayer money for abortions and public or anything. i'm not one of these town hall crazys, i'm just a person who looks at the whole thing. i believe that we -- the

government should serve us, not us serve them and i feel healthcare thing is essentially the thing that is going to enslave a lot of americans to the government. going to be tied to it. a lot of security and welfare and things are going to be tide to healthcare. it is going to be provided by the government. >> well, i mean, i think there are a number of issues being debated in town halls and elsewhere that would better be debated behind closed doors where you are really working out a package. i don't know what will happen with abortion. for example, i don't know if we end up funding it or not f. this is going to be even a tiny bit bipartisan, you are going to have to deal with some issues. we know where the big cost drivers are toward the reform at least as i read the papers and look at it is is not the big

driver. it's technology. it's the testing. it's the multiple, the heavy investments and end of life care and so forth. the big cost of insurance in part big chunk of our insurance payments that end up in charity care for people who aren't insured. it is a complex debate and we're throwing it all at americans in just a big gulf in a short period of time. and i think that's difficult because we end up saying each one of us ends up saying what does this mean for me? what's going to happen to my family? am i going to get the treatment that i need? am i going to get the choice of doctors that i currently have? we don't have a good sense yet of what it means for each one of us and that has to be communicated in order to get

legislation done, especially of this particular size. it's just huge and we just need more information that's perhaps coming from independent sources like congressional budget office or the government accountability office where we can be told what is in this thing and what is not in this thing. we don't yet have the president articulating a plan and that is essential as i've said before for taking advantage of the president's popularity and it's also the president's responsibility. he's letting congress do too much of the work without really telling the american public what he favors. >> host: from jackssonville, florida, bruce is calling on the independent line. >> yes, good morning. >> host: good morning, welcome. >> how are you this morning? i only had a few things to say. one was concerning the president

and as the gentleman was saying, backing up what he said or whatever and being exchanged from healthcare reform to insurance reform and back to healthcare reform and then we're doing the different back and forth public option. not the public option, it's not. it's just -- he's not, you know, he ran centers when he was running for office and we had the economic stimulus bill and i call it chicken little syndrome. they flew a senator or congressman back from somewhere in the midwest to vote on the bill to pass it through and that was valentine's day weekend and the president went off to chicago with his wife for their favorite dinner and then he flew to denver to announce signing of the bill. then he went to arizona to do the mortgage recovery act and the economic stimulus is pork.

he wasn't going to have any more pork and like the gentleman said, there is a lot of things that he said he was going to do that he hasn't done. then we have the omnibus spending bill that was, you know, that was george bush's bill left over that had 9000 porks in it. >> host: bruce, i want a response from paul light before we have to say goodbye to him. let's hear what he has to say. >> guest: there is traditional politics rolling through this. the stimulus package is loaded. the omnibus was loaded. there have been some coming out of the -- i think americans want to hear from the president specifically on what he proposes on healthcare. he needs to sit down with us, i think really in the form of a fireside chat, not a press conference, to really explain

what he wants and let that debate be the one that shapes what is happening out there. don't let the opponents define what you stand for. you define it it and that is what the president's job is. >> host: paul light, thanks for being with us. >> guest: always a pleasure. >> host: our guest paul light is from new york university. he's author of numerous books, including "government ill executed," and also "vite presidential power, advice and is influence in the white house." we'll be right back. >> columnist john on marijuana

trafficker, the 1970s. he's interviewed by keith stroup, national organization for the reform of marijuana laws. on afterward, saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2's book t.v. >> as the healthcare conversation continues c-span's healthcare hub is a key resource. go online and follow the latest tweets, video ads and links. also keep up to date with healthcare events like town hall meetings, house and senate debates. even upload your opinion about healthcare with a citizen video. the c-span healthcare hub at cspan.org/healthcare. >> "washington journal" continues. >> host: next hour we'll be talking about cuba. but first for the rest of this hour, open phone. give us a call and let us know what you are thinking about. republicans the line is the following number. and democrats and independents,

the number is on the screen. also send us a tweet on twitter. you can e-mail us comments jushl journal@cspan.org. >> host: man convicted in lockerbie black is freed and seen by some families as -- returned home to tripoli on thursday, greeted by cheering crowds after being free friday a scottish prison. a release president obama called a mistake. mr. -- scottish authorities released the man, who is dying from prostate cancer for human tarrian reasons after serving eight years of a life sentence. he is the only person convicted of the crime in connection with the 1998 bombing of pan

am flight 103, which exploded over the town of lockerbie. that is creating distress for families, especially american families. there is another piece also on the same page in the "washington post" looking at some of the victim's families and their reactions. we see a picture of stephanie burnstein, whose husband died in that flight. others are speaking out and saying they did not want to see the man freed and sent home to libya. another photograph in the washington times of his homecoming and how cheering crowds are greeting him as he returns home. in the washington times piece it says the american families hate this. susan cohen lost her daughter in the 1998 bombing. some in england have fallen for the leader's massive campaign.

so families reacting with concern over that. and in other news, violence takes toll on afghan election. the story in the financial times. the u.s.a. edition, voters define taliban by 26 killed in attacks and karzai vows to do better if elected. there were signs violent intimidation in the runup to the poll had taken its toll. are these issues you are thinking about? first caller this morning for this segment, phil calling from kansas. hi, phil. >> good morning. wanted to talk a little bit about what professor light spoke about in the last part of his segment about getting behind closed doors. that is one thing that worries folks like me and people who really want to question these healthcare bills being pushed

through congress. i think the root of the issue has become trust. you know, trust should be the mother's milk of our relationship with our government, but i think a lot of people are just, their trust meters are really on red right now. the reason is is that when they get behind closed doors, when we read the bill and i've read the bill, i have questions. i don't understand it because it is written in legal. >> host: are you speaking of the -- what story are you talking about? >> 1018 page with the porgtion that the senate stripped out, concerning end of life planning and so forth. so there are concerns. all we hear is the noise from the congress. so for example like when the president talked about his grandmother, i understand that is a painful situation. my wife and i had a similar situation with her mother. she was 88 and had a hip

replaced. and there were people who questioned whether we should or shouldn't with her and here she is two years later working in the garden. it's only two years, but in the background we have folks like peter singer, who has written on euthanasia and he's written about rationed healthcare and he talks about leveraging the cost of providing an additional two years, i think they call qaly, quality adjusted life years. in a case where like my wife's mom, they would leverage her against say a 30-year-old astro physicist. who is worth more to society? who would you provide healthcare to? naturally folks like me are going to get upset. all the talk from legislators saying, stop being emotional. what other outlet do we have? is i can't go to the white house

and sit in a policy meeting with with peter singer and other episis. the only outlet we have are town hall meetings and we're getting -- expressing frustration, fear, anger and growing sense that we just don't trust our government. >> host: tom on the democrat's line from evansville, indiana. hi, tom. >> good morning. okay. first i want to talk about -- did you hear the news about tom ridge coming out with a brand-new book? >> host: yes, i have heard about that. why don't you tell our listeners about that. i'll see if i can find the article. >> it showed the bush administration are coming out in droves and people talk about not being able to trust your government, this and that. i think that most of the people, especially republicans, are just on auto pilot. and you got tom ridge and now

you got tom delay going on "dancing with the stars," and he is fixing to be indicted on campaign fund fraud. i don't get it. i want to say something. i am a democrat and i am a liberal and i believe there needs to be some kind of tort reform as far as dropping the amount of money that they have to pay as far as malpractice insurance. this is the thing, anybody that has been a victim of malpractice, either they have died or either they were seriously injured from the hands of a doctor, they would change their opinion immediately. as far as i'm concerned, i'm so tired. it's been months now, i'm so tired of hearing these myths about the death panels and about manual's brother and the other guy he mentioned. it's ridiculous.

the democrats need to do reconciliation. the republicans, i heard on rachl show, a very credible source, very credible, not like the groups and insurance-based entitys that give information to fox and the right wingers that chuck grasley, and other republicans said, we need 75 votes to get this passed. come on, be ridiculous. want to talk about breaking the rules and being corrupt? come on, people, stop watching fox news. it it will rot your brain. >> host: take a look at the story tom was talking about. this is in the "new york times" today. bush official tells of pressure in 2004 vote. the story by peter baker. he writes, tom ridge, asserts in a new book he was pressured by top advisors to president george w. bush to raise the national threat level before the 2004

election in an effort to influence the vote. after osama bin laden released a tape before the election, ashcroft and rumsfeld pushed mr. ridge to elevate the public threat, but he refused. according to the book, mr. ridge call its dramatic and inconceivable event that proved troublesome and reinforced his decision to resign. and let's look at the response. keith urban, a spokesman for mr. rumsfeld says the defense secretary supported letting the public know if there was a greater threat and pointed to a variety of threats and warnings, including one tape vowing the streets of america will run red with blood. mr. urban said it it would seem reasonable to discuss threat levels and valid been irresponsible had the discussion not taken place. let's go to jake on the independent line calling from

are silverspring, maryland. >> good morning. happy friday. i need to stay on the healthcare issue. it's been the only issue on c-span for many weeks, i think. but the last caller pointed out republican party on auto pilot. to some extent, i would agree with that. i think what you are referring to is the neoconservatives and they have been using scare tactics for so long, i want to say that the future of the republican party will be more lib tarrian and fiscally conservative. what we've seen in the last eight years was not the republican party. along the lines of healthcare, we know it has to do with special interests and it is a lot, healthcare is an economic issue. it really is. what can we afford? so in america money has been cheap. interest rates, i guess interbank lending rate is still

zero. the money continues to be cheap, but we're going to see that change. the current situation is unsustainable monetarily. you probably heard the story of the chinese students that laughed at tim geithner the other day when he was trying to share the strength of the dollar would continue to be. when the dollar crashes, i think along the lines of healthcare, people are going to pay for their procedures. i think the best transition for that -- what's probably going to happen would be something similar to auto insurance. you don't pay for new tires. your auto insurance doesn't pay for new tires and i think you see where i'm going with that. people should pay for their procedures and we should have some type of dramatic health insurance. we should pay -- insurance should cover things outside of the normal person's ability to pay. so i guess i need to wrap it up because it it is getting to be a

long call. what i want to say is c-span, i know you are on this issue because it is a hot button, but the real issue is economics and you really should cover the bill to audit the federal reserve more. i haven't heard anything about that and you can give us an independent like bernie sanders or or get ron paul on. look at the money splooi in america. that is what a big part of healthcare cost is. >> host: the "new york times" business section, cash for clunkers program is set to end now on monday. the sudden halt means new car showrooms are likely to be flooded by last-minute shoppers over the weekend. dealers have until 8:00 p.m. on monday to submit the application to be reimbursed for the programs they are giving out. it has been plagued by confusion and processing delays. the article goes on to talk

about some of the issues that have come up through cash for clunkers and many cases the administration says incomplete forms submitted by dealers are slowing the process. workers reviewed 40% of of the applications filed and many rejected and returned to the dealer for possible readmission because of paperwork errors. the question is what happens if the money is exhausted more quickly and consumers get in their paperwork on time if the funding is exhausted before all reimbursements are made. some dealers and possibly g.m. could have to write off the unpaid credit. the administration does not plan to seek a third installment of funding. let's go to linda on the republican line calling from arizona. good morning, linda. >> good morning. i've been looking into co-ops for many reasons, thinking that people can getting together and

gifting maybe $5000 each. off the subject, on healthcare, i think the way it would work, you have a pot of gold in the middle of the united states. each person pays $100. so in my family there is two, we pay $200, $400. if anything was ordered, if you have insurance, keep it. anything ordered by healthcare person, it is paid, no questions asked. nothing to do with the government. we would run it ourselves. pay them if they ordered it, if approximate a hospital ordered it, physical treatment, prescriptions. one pot of gold. thank you. >> host: all right. let's go to our next caller from connecticut. chris is on the democrat's line. >> good morning. i want to comment on the irony

of comments of people who suggest that government-run healthcare plan would take away their independent. people in this country have no freedom to move around, to change jobs, to -- with their lives, with any degree of freedom of movement because they are literally tethered for life to their insurance provider, usually provided by their employer. to the comment from the previous caller about the fact that only catastrophic health insurance is going to be able to be provided because people ought to pay as they go for office visits and procedures. the poor cannot do that. the poverty level in this country has climbed

atroeshuously over the last eight years and previous administration. people supporting family of three and four children on a yearly income of $25 or $30,000 a year, they can't afford $100 doctor visit. something has got to be done with regard to this. and the idea that i've got mine. i don't care about anybody else, i would like to sign up ask say this person is an illegal -- and has no insurance and i would like them to indicate which of those people they are going to turn away from that hospital emergency room. the answer is, none of them. we have a system now where nobody is refused care, but that, the cost of that care goes back to the rest of us. okay. something has got to be done to

have universal healthcare in this country. >> host: charles is calling from texas. hi, charles. >> hello. i would like to say that i do not support osama's healthcare plan whatsoever. i believe it is socialist and i do not believe in the centralization of power. i think tony alamo, in texarkana, texas. >> host: let's go to -- from arlington, massachusetts. rona, if you can hear us, turn down your t.v., you are on the air. i think we lost rona. rosa on the democrat's line. rosa is the next call er callin from virginia g. ahead. >> okay. i'm calling for the health and i am right now unemployed, but i

have insurance through my work. i have blue cross/blue shield, but the procedures that i need they consider it as cosmetic procedure. it it is a bypass. stomach bypass. i'm paying for an insurance that does not give me what i need, but i still have to pay for that. so i don't -- i just don't see why the work people make us pay for an insurance that is not any good for what i need. i need some kind of advice or somewhere to go to have what i need done. do you have any advice for me or do you know anywhere i can go and get this procedure? >> host: rosa, i think contact your insurance company, but beyond that i can't really give you advice.

thank you for sharing your story, though. let's go to joe on the independent line from long island, new york. >> thank you. >> host: thanks, rosa. joe on the independent line. hi, joe. >> good morning. thanks to c-span. i think the comment about what dr. light had said. i agree with only about 1% of what he said, which is basically that the president has not presented a plan that is detailed. i did read the 1018 pages and what i find is a lot of "maybe" and "could be," and might do this or that. i don't see anything that is addressing the real issue that we have. they talk about 47 million people who are uninsured, but we know that about 17 to 20 million are illegals, who are not covered by the bill. people don't want insurance for whatever reason.

we have 10 million people eligible for certain programs like medicare and medicaid, but the government, with bureaucracy, is not reaching those people. what we have is a problem of about maybe six to 10 million people denied coverage and in new york, for example, in approximate our auto insurance we have assigned risk program. every auto insurance company must take their share. we could do the same thing with healthcare and require that every health insurer take their share of pre-existing conditions. so the plan was trying to be rushed through congress, which would leave open a lot of hits and maybes and not tell us what is going to happen. as far as the town halls, i think that is unfair. lobbyists, of course, with million dollars and checkbooks have access to our congressmen, but we don't. i have tried to get ahold of steve israel, who is my

congressman and i never hear anything. the town hall meetings are the only way for the people to get together and demand their congressman pay attention to them. >> host: take a look at some of the newspapers from around the country. these come courtesy of the mu seum in washington, d.c. state jobless rate is rising. a story about the early release of the lockerbie bomber. let's look at los angeles time, the top story is about the lockerbie bomber. he was serving a life sentence for the pan am bombing. the story of foreclosures and prime borrowers. and the boston globe, afghan voting largely peaceful. a personal plea from edward kennedy to grant the governor power to grant interim senator

through public support -- silent on the proposal and most republicans attacking it as partisan power grab. senator kennedy has proposed getting someone to fill in to his seat quicker than state law dictates if he should have to step down or if he no longer has his seat. the globe mail from canada, this is canada's national newspaper. tornados tear through ont tarar. rona is on the republican line. good morning. >> good morning. i have two points. my first point is feasibility of keeping your current insurance. most working people tend to sign up for the insurance offered by their employer, so if their employer decides to switch to the government plan, that is the option that will be available.

my second point is that not not everyone will be available for the government option. i think the figure is approximately 5000. you are not elvisible to participate smchlt employers might choose to offer different insurances to employees based upon differences in salary. thank you. >> host: next caller on the republican line from richmond, virginia. good morning. >> good morning. i'd like to reference what i thought dr. light was really trying to say and that was simply we don't know who this man is. i did not vote for him because you cannot find one bill he's ever written. you can't find any college papers he's ever written. you can't even find any elementary school papers he's written or grades he's ever

gotten. we don't know who he is. i don't know who is pulling the strings. i don't believe it is obama. i don't have evidence to show me he has the wear with all to do what he's trying to do. >> host: democrat line, chris in new mexico. hi, chris. >> good morning. just a couple of issues i'd like to address. one is the fact that if you're currently covered by your employer's insurance that insurance is going to get progressively more expensive until eventually the employer would be tempted to drop coverage or to reduce the quality of that coverage. it is inevitable, just keeps getting higher and higher and higher. secondly, the issue of tort refo reform, when you consider malpractice insurance rates, you have to consider a number of factors. one is the amount of malpractice

and medical mistakes that are going on. currently we kill more people through medical mistakes than die in car accidents every year. so one thing you can start with reducing the number of medical mistakes and malpractice. secondly, the insurance companies and their lawyers who are involved in malpractice claims, are they making excessive profit? the attorneys that represent them, are they making huge amounts of of money? thirdly, you have recipients or the victims of malpractice and their attorneys and so when you consider the malpractice issue you have to look all across from the beginning to the end. and if you just arbitrarily limit the damages for pain and suffering on malpractice claims,

then you also limit the rewards for that gentleman over in texas, for example, who lost both arms and both legs to a hospital, acquired infection that could have been prevented. this could happen to you tomorrow, you could get in a car wreck, go into surgery tomorrow, get a terrible infection and end up with both legs and both arms missing. his $250,000 adequate for that kind of injury? so think, can this happen to me? thank you. >> host: coming up next we'll talk with laura sholz. we'll talk about cuba, united states relations. we'll be right back.

>> frank mankiewicz. his years as kennedy's secretary, and the consideration of walter cronkite.

>> this fall, head to the halls of america's greatest corp., to places only sensible to the justices. coming the first sunday in october on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest for the next hour is lars schoultz, author of "that infernal but the cuban republic." the title comes from theodore roosevelt? guest: it does. i tried to explain the dysfunctional relationship we have with cuba, and the more i studied it, there is nothing unusual, except the longevity of the animosity. so i wanted to pull out

something that hinted at the longstanding difficulties we have had with the cuban people. and i pulled out a sentence where teddy roosevelt said in 1906, "i am so angry with that infernal little cuban republic that i would be to wipe its people off the earth." i thought that captured it perfectly. they annoy us in the early 1920's, and with the exception of the longevity of our hostilities, there is nothing unusual about the relationship with castro. host: the situation with havana is different than china or other situations. guest: yes. with this book, i try to explain why.

on a fundamental level, we have to protect our interests. first, the economic interests of u.s. investors. we lost a lot of money. $1.8 million. much more important, the security interests of u.s. defense managers, and more recently, concerns of u.s. politicians with domestic politics and in particular the growing weight of the cuban- american community, especially in florida, which has 27 electoral votes, the fourth largest prize in the quadrennial all electoral college sweepstakes. half we can simply not afford to disregard 800,000 votes in florida. host: you write, "imagine living in a neighborhood where the

family across the street irritates you. it is a wide street, so you can ignore them, but every now and then they are annoying. they welcome out of town house guests that are no good. or what about when you found one of their children had pitched a tent in their front yard? they intend to stay forever. you marched across the street to set them street and return home with a sense of accomplishment. but imagine you do this too often." tell us how that reflects u.s.- cuban relations? >guest: the earliest hint of trouble is 1820, when we marched across the street because cuban pirates were harassing shipping coming out of the gulf of mexico, and secretary of state john quincy adams had to drop what he considered his important work, writing the

monroe doctrine, to compose a length the instruction to the u.s. ambassador in madrid. you can feel the exasperation. it is surely within the power of the cuban government to close that market, and you can just walk through u.s.-cuban relations and find that the cubans have repeatedly annoyed the united states, and often by inviting into cuba out forces we consider hostile to u.s. interests. cuba is a small country. our economy is to under 50 times greater -- 250 times greater. they cannot damage us. they can annoy us.

but they invite in others, and that is what happened with the cubans and soviet union in the early-60's, closing the door on the possibility of positive relationships. host: guest is lars schoultz. join in the conversation. republicans 202-737-0001, democrats, 202-737-0002, independents 202-628-0205 . we also have a special number for cuban-americans. you can e-mail us or send us tweets on twitter. you write about how things changed when the cold war ended, because that was the reason for many years to have icy relations. but once it ended, why did policies continue? tell us about that history and

that changeover. guest: the best way to address it is to look at george bush. just as the soviet union was collapsing, it reporter asked a question at the end of the news conference, now that the soviet threat has disappeared, do you plan on engaging fidel castro? and president bush about skip a beat. he shot back, he said, what is the point? all i want is to give people the freedom they want, then you'll see the u.s. to what we should, go down and left those people -- live to those people up. when the cold war disappeared, we needed new odds.

1992, call it the cuban democracy. what we did was we shifted from what most people considered a legitimate policy of trying to attend to our security interests based on the soviet encampment and alignment, shifting to an uplifting note. a discussion of that, the interest of the united states in helping our little brown brothers, if i could use that term, could become developed, is a late motif that stretches back to the first years of the 20th- century. we have consistently tried to uplift cubans. if you look at president obama

in april, he said cuba is not free. we are determined to make them free. frankly, i do not have enough data to determine how much is behind policy and how much is domestic politics for voters. host: and for them, the idea of lifting up can be insulting. guest: yes. the best-ever opinion, the assistance to cuba, of 423 page report divided into six chapters. the first is about getting rid of the castro government, called hastening castor's transition.

and there are five chapters about redesigning their economy and politics. to read this is to marvel at the arrogance. it is to imagine a country that would create a commission to improve the united states and then publish a 400-page report, the first 40 pages of which is how you overthrow the obama administration. cubans, the top goes off their head when they say things like this. host: let's go to the phones. we have alberto on our cuban- america online, from palm coast, florida. good morning. caller: think you for facing this very important issue to us.

-- thank you for facing this very important issue to us. i saw how this started. i was a u.s. naval base, in which our family to approximately contribute 200 years of service. we have abuse and arrogance. as we speak, we're talking to north korean officials with 58,000 americans, but we refuse to speak to cuban americans. right or wrong, no one is

supposed to accept that. so i think the time is right. stop this. 12 miles from where my grandson is in guantanamo bay. this has been happening since 1820. guest: i have no disagreement with anything you say. it is involved in so many other important activities, the obama administration. you cannot watch c-span and not see the range of concerns confronting the administration. to pick up the cube of ball is

extraordinarily difficult. president obama had to go to the summit of the americans in trinidad and tobago in april and knew he had to say something about cuba, so he said we would allow unrestricted family visits and came back to the united states, and basically, his statements were made statements. to this day, a code of federal regulations has not been modified. the 2004 limiting cubans to visit every three years is still in place, although president obama said he was eliminating it. hillary clinton went to one tourist -- honduras, and the one item more prominent than any

other was the readmission of cuba. both of those senior officials of the u.s. government made and not, giving some attention to cuba, and this has happened over and over again. the one president too heavily invested his political capital was president carter, and he lived to regret it dearly. host: what incentive does the obama administration have to move on? guest: well, cubans are beginning to vote like irish- americans or italian-americans. that is a good thing. the historic generation, that generation is beginning to fade. as that generation fades how we

go along, a new generation will make changes, and cuban american interpretation of changes will diversify and eventually we can declare victory and move on. but nothing dramatic seems to be occurring here. host: delaware, republicans line. caller: good morning. i just want to, when you were talking about the historical and of it, saying it was annoying to the united states because of the pirates in the late 1800's, do not forget, in glen -- the english had pirates, also. and during john quincy adams, the english could have taken the united states. so sure we have an anglo-saxon

society here, coming into cuba at a time when they said there were pirates. what we wanted their, sugar, tobacco. there was no interest except for the agricultural. if they were a benefit at the time, after a while, people wanted their independence and got it. then they said, hey, let us now control our country. you can back off with your interests, and the united states has kept a watch on all of the area. you take cuba, with a 98% literacy rate. no matter what you may say about

fidel castro, they have a high educational rate, socialized medicine. when they open up to the rest of the united states, there are going to have a littered, literate population. host: i did not expect i would agree with you from the way you were beginning, but i simply could not find anything to criticize in what you say. guest: i think it is very important not to overemphasized economic variables. cuban obviously represent a source of certain goods, and it also is an investment site, a potential investment site. but economics is not driving u.s. policy.

the business sector, particularly large exporters, have been trying, and tried unsuccessfully to open up cuba, purchasing more food from us than i ever thought possible. we are the first provider. beyond that, economics is the first provider. host: you write, "went to the first begin to irritate the u.s. is unsettled. -- went to the first began to irritate the united states is an aunt -- when cuba first year to the united states is an unsettled question.

adams affected his envoy in madrid to launch a formal complaint." guest: one of the fascinating aspect about our government is the manner in which economic interests are not at all shy, as anyone in this building understands, of voicing their concerns about u.s. policy. the united states national archives is packed and overflowing with instances of u.s. economic interests, go into congress, going to the state department, seeking interests. it is fascinating to watch. a young attorney from new york by the name of john foster dulles got on the train in new york, coming down to washington

to talk to his uncle, woodrow wilson's secretary of state, robert lansing. he said, i wish you would send ships to cuba, because there is trouble. this was in 1917. next thing you know, five ships are headed towards manatee harbert on the east coast of cuba, and 350 of the marines on those ships stayed in cuba for five years. you can find these examples everywhere. but again, i think it is important to emphasize that economics is a part of everyday life. in no circumstances investment drive u.s. policy. host: how has the military detention center affected the

human perception of the united states? guest: i have been going to cuba since the mid-1980's, and have gone every couple of years. when i go, i go to interview people in u.s. interests and talk to people like me who have private foundations. i cannot tell you about cuban views. i can tell you from casual conversations that i have no public opinion. at the beginning, i think it is coming through to 9/11. there were planes in the air, and i did not have a place to get them.

we accept that, but the cubans roundly condemned the attacks. but they were at the front of the line, doing so. they turned guantanamo into a prison camp. the official position has always been that we occupy guantanamo. fundamentally, what they condemn, what the cover of my book -- it is a picture of global board, condemning u.s.

torture, abu ghraib. that is where they focused their attention, not on guantanamo. host: we have a caller from bellingham, washington. caller: good morning. here is my problem with some of what you are saying. the castro brothers are despots. your book, or some of the things you are saying, is giving them a certain amount of validity. on the other hand, i am a believer in the embargo, but after the berlin wall fell, it seems to me that the best

solution was to open the doors and let the world go in and see what is going on. guest: i hope i am not giving credence or validity to the cuban government. my goal is to explain policy toward cuba. it is interesting to note how the dispersion suggests it has been so dramatic in recent years. it is accompanied by a sense of the best way to get rid of castro is for us to go into cuba and show the cubans exactly what life is like elsewhere.

i am not sure i want to agree with that. i do not think the united states foreign policy makers ought to be thinking about the best way to get rid of the castro brothers. we should be thinking about the best way to protect our interests. the cuban-american community, though, has changed dramatically, and the comment really captures that beautifully in the sense of their belief that if cubans became aware, if they saw it on a daily basis, what the alternatives were, they would throw the government out. maybe, maybe not. i do not study that. but i do know from 1987 to 1982, there was unlimited travel.

the consumers of i saw it is really remarkable to see. if you go to havana and see early on in the mid-1980's when it first went on, this new running shoe with the distinctive swoop no one had seen before, people were quite pleased to be wearing that kind of clothing and so forth. and consumers of -- have noticed. host: talk about the younger generation. what does that mean for younger cuban-americans and cubans? >> i cannot talk about them, but i'd can talk about the cuban- american community. there is tremendous research on their beliefs. particularly helpful is a series

of public opinion polls aimed at cuban-americans. they indicate a remarkable dispersion of opinion. it is growing rapidly. during the campaign, barack obama went to florida to talk to cuban-americans and said, "if you elect me, i will allow you to send as much money as you want to cuba and go as often as you want." those words came out of his mouth because someone had done their polling and they knew that was a way to position the candidate in a positive way. florida polls are good, showing us that by generation and time, cuban-americans show no

interest in camps genuine hostility of my age. -- in continuing the hostility of my age. caller: the thing that really annoys me, but is troubling, is that our biggest interference seems to be after the cold war ended. i'm glad you made reference to the 1992 and 1996 laws. for instance, the embargo -- it just seems like we're going in the wrong direction. it is great that president obama has opened up for the cuban americans, but we still do not have the license travel that

president bush had in 1924, and hopefully we can get that back. i have gone to cuba under those licenses and i was fortunate to have gone when you did. i am hopeful that the cuban- americans will start to see that opening up, traveling, talking directly with cubans. this is the key to whatever change. guest: thank you. i need to emphasize that u.s. policy is not, to my way of thinking, a question of republicans versus democrats. the act that i mentioned was passed by a democratic congress, signed by a republican president. the helms-burton act was passed

by a republican congress and signed by a democratic president in 1996. i think if you are taking a poll, you will find more democrats in agreement. but fundamentally, what is driving policy is a concern for cuban american voters, and there are not enough members of congress yet who think they will not be punished one way or another for supporting an end to the embargo. these are not just members from florida or new jersey. the cuban-american community, some of it is very heavily involved in campaigning. it's money reaches every corner

of this country, they have shown their ability to get rid of members of congress with which they disagree. the cuban-american community is a force to be reckoned with. host: knoxville, tennessee. caller: of wanted to save, a blockade is an act of war -- i wanted to say, a blockade isn't an act of war -- is an act of war. now if americans try to go to cuba, they can actually be put in jail.

it is ridiculous to be at odds with cuba. in 1973, 20 years after the pharmacist arrive -- pharmacists -- armistice was signed with north korea and read china, mao is on and richard nixon were there. we have had a lot worse relations with china and north korea with things they have done with us, yet we have made peace with them. i do not think castro has done that much bad. the cuban missile crisis is his fault, but we tried to invade him in 1960, and that was totally illegal. i think even if cuba and of being -- and this up being -- ends up being our friend, i do

not know that we would want their style of the economy. nicaragua and el salvador have also been occupied, and when we do that, you look at the example, those countries are the poorest in the hemisphere and they have been at the heel of the u.s. government for some time. guest: yes, i would agree with most of what you had to say. let me clarify, though, that we have an embargo, a trade embargo, not all blockade, which is an act of war. and you mentioned it is a deterrent in going to jail. going to jail is maybe the last thing. before that, you will see yourself in difficulty,

violating the regulations prohibiting spending money in cuba. our travel ban is just one of those amazing -- it is something you are going to have an impossible time explaining to grant children. what we did originally is president eisenhower, when he was all lame-duck, he said it was illegal to use a presidential proclamation, a u.s. passport to travel to cuba. cuba has never required a u.s. passport. president eisenhower at the time, my first had, "this passport is not valid for travel to the following countries --

china, north korea, north vietnam, and cuba." in 1958, before the eisenhower proclamation, rockwell kent was denied a passport. he took his case to the supreme court, refusing to sign an affidavit saying he was not a communist, and the supreme court ruled in can verses dullest the right to travel is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution and that you and i have a vote to go anywhere we want, anytime. in reaction to that decision, the government, and this is both democrats and republicans -- they pulled out an obscure 1917 law called the trading with the enemy act. fine. you can go to cuba, but you

cannot spend a dime unless we license you. asset control licenses people to go to cuba if they fit in certain categories. this is a moving target, very difficult to keep track of who can be licensed to go there. nonetheless, the travel ban continues until today. the minute you get in a cuban taxi at the airport and have begun to take you to your hotel, you have violated the trading with the enemy act. if you register in a hotel and pay for it in cuba, you have a second count of violating trading with the enemy. everyone knows that this is just legal legerdemain.

we are getting in trouble for traveling to cuba after the supreme court has ruled otherwise. host: you say that cuba was under developed before the revolution. nonsense, was the reply. they have data to back that up. >> it is interesting. i am particularly concerned about -- that is the first couple of sentences of chapter 3. there's a feeling among cuban- americans, especially the ones came earliest, but you but did not been -- that you but did not need a resolution. they were fined -- cuba did not need all revolution. they were fine. they were third in literacy.

their infant mortality was second in latin america. in terms of television sets, newspaper readership, they were first. in the entire latin american world. but then you look a little bit below the surface and it is fascinating to see how, first of all, almost all of the modern parts of cuba were located in the city. if you look at the last census before the resolution, to look at the difference in housing statistics, for example, in rural cuba, 92% of cuban homes were dirt floor. 54% of cuban homes had neither an inside nor an outside toilet and rural areas.

54%. 50% just use the bushes. and just where fidel castro when -- when ---- went? caller: looking very good today. i notice you have a lot of newspaper scattered about the desk there. i was wondering if you could read me the "family circus." host: i think we lost him because he did not have a real question. let's go to alex, independent from arlington, virginia. caller: i am from poland, going

back 27 years ago. right after, east germany had an idea to bring in the polish. we were able to listen to radio free europe, voice of america. the younger generation reconvened with the east germans and russians. we had to go with democracy. it was freedom for the people. so any kind of blockade with cuba is against u.s. interests. you have europeans traveling there, hotels built by spaniards, the rest of the world is there. we would be left out, i think. the best ways to just let the

people go so we can talk directly. people within those countries changed their idea about the future. the young generation of russians, not a democratic way to lead. it changed within russia, within the whole of eastern europe. guest: that approach to cuba was prominent with the bush administration that just finished.

the idea was to try and stimulate creation of something like this solidary movement. we have been applying tens of millions of dollars into what we call building civil society in cuba. this money is funneled primarily through the u.s. agency for international development and a government-funded program. they have identified people, and it fundamentally has become hog at the trough day for cuban- americans in the united states and some groups that are not cuban-americans. they say we can hold a few

seminars and teach students how to organize political parties, and i am thinking of one in particular, the university of miami, they gave their center for cuban studies about $300,000 to hold a series of seminars with cubans. obviously, the cubans will not let university of miami people come into cuba and probably will not give them visas to leave the country. the university of miami spent about half the money, almost all of it, on overhead and salaries

for people, so they simply said, well, we will do instead is give cubans short wave radios. the idea was to give them something to make them happy, and report after report says this attempt to build solidarity is not only not working, it is counterproductive. imagine if cubans started funding the democratic party in the united states. they would refuse to take it. how outraged everyone would be. all we're doing is throwing money down the drain, and at the same time, arousing nationalism.

host: republicans, 202-737-0001, democrats, 202-737-0002, independents, 202-628-0205, and our special line for cuban- americans. let's go to key west, florida. peter, hello. welcome to the program. caller: i have a question for this gentleman. when will we open cubans for us? we are suffering that we can now visit cuba and see what life there looks like -- we're suffering that we cannot visit cuba and see what life there is like. guest: you are very right. i go there, as i emphasize,

primarily as a policy researcher. but cuba is the most engaging place i have ever been in my life. it is just an extraordinary, welcoming, open society. i have lived in argentina and colombia, and they are wonderful environments, but to go to cuba, the joints are looser down there. everybody sees it. we have been deprived of one of the great pleasures in life, visiting cuba. even if you do not like beaches, of which they have the most magnificent on the face of this earth, even if you do not like beaches, just to go walk the streets is revelatory. you cannot imagine how relaxed people become, how quickly. it is a real shame but we have been denied. host: cape cod, massachusetts.

caller: i noticed that can and trade has not been mentioned this morning -- tap and trade. the bill. it goes hand-in-hand with what is happening in cuba. i am a disabled, retired veteran, and i did a lot of training at gitmo bay, off the coast of cuba. i always have my constituents mentioning that the cuban people are not getting a fair shake, not unlike the irish-americans and the english. it has to do with special interests, and we're not being represented by constituents in washington d.c. is really unfortunate. -- it is really unfortunate.

guest: i have no response. i really not clear what the point is. host: let's go to the "new york times." writing about how hurricane season brings the two countries together. he writes, with coastal communities vulnerable, meteorology could bring a longtime adversary closer together, especially with the increasing engagement pushed by president obama. he goes on to say, there is some work that is done, shared between the two countries. for years, cubans have allowed american planes into their airspace. government meteorologist were cooperating when it came to storms.

in terms of enforcing the embargo, banning cuban cigars, there also trading information and engaging in exercise. guest: we have kept to the telex line open to cuba to share data about tropical storms. we cooperate on a whole range of activities, so the most significant now, i think, is drug trafficking. but when in 1976, the u.s. role law claiming a 200 mile boundary for fishing control, it was 90 miles away. we hammered out a maritime boundary, march and westward,

collecting coordinates. it was easy to do, because both sides recognize they needed to do it. cuba has been devastated over and over again. there are indications it was in cubans interest to have a relationship with us, and certainly in hours. caller: during the early 70's, [inaudible] they were going to open up cuba

but did not. guest: i think that is a apocryphal. there have been many people, but it has never been a major obstacle. i am sure we can negotiate those differences, and there are just a handful. there is a case of an escapee who killed a state trooper in the united states, but that is not major. caller: i am very impressed by

your guest. i have never called before, but i would like to voice my opinion. i am concerned at the point of view being put forth. basically, i think we are committing the same mistake with cuba, and it seems like there is only room for a cuban government point of view and an american interest point of view. there are independent cubans out there. we go back to the original amendment. the election was forced significantly by the united states government. unfortunately, the support was

really ignored. there was never room in the american policy interest to say beyond castro, and away from castro, there are alternatives. people want the guantanamo base back to cuba. i feel it is generally a one- sided -- the word would even be colonia's or imperialists, the way you are looking at those relations.

guest: look, unquestionably, the united states has a colonial approach to cuba. you cannot read the 2004 report of the commission for assistance to a free cuba without recognizing that this is a document which simply states all of the things that cuba has to do in order to become a well- functioning society. we draw out plans for other countries. it is called the white man's burden, and undoubtedly, we have done stuck in that mold. when president obama goes to trinidad and tobago and says that the cuban people must be free, he repeats what his predecessor said, that cubans

need the blessings of liberty, and that chapter came right out of president clinton before him. we've got an of lifting -- uplifting attitude towards cuba that we have to address. host: mary, good morning. you are on the air. please turn down your tv or radio. caller: thank you. i got a call from a friend who knew i was interested in this issue. i am on the city council and tampa -- in tampa, and i made a fact-finding mission to cuba a few weeks ago with a member of our port authority board. i would like to -- a couple of things i wanted to ask. number one, you talked about polling, the change in opinion of cuban-americans. are you aware of the poll

recently that showed a majority of even miami cuban americans were in favor of cuban- americans, and there was a willingness to lift the embargo? guest: yes. it is very easily for anyone listening who got in that late to go to florida international university's web site and type in cuba polls to of the search box, and you will see what mary is saying. the port authority of campo looks at cuba and they say, a lot of ships could be used in airports if only we did not have this embargo. in north carolina, we are very interested in selling it cuba apples.

they bought tons and tons of north carolina apples. our secretary of commerce goes to cuba regularly. we try our level best to increase our sales. our farmers do not have an infinite market. they need to sell, and mary's, it is terrific. it really helps to have a public officials say what professors and others claim to be the truth. there is a direct contrast to be served by reestablishing relations. we can make some money on it. host: from baltimore, maryland. caller: it is amazing that the god of the heavens could let it rain on the righteous and non righteous so we can have food, whether we obey or not. and yet america which on a

country -- would shun a country. that is one of the reasons they called america a falls profit. their behavior outshines, and that is hypocrisy. host: do you have a dominant about the benevolence of the united states, were the lack thereof? -- do you have a comment about the benevolence of the united states, or the lack thereof? guest: look, the cuban people have always been viewed by us as retarded. my generation's euphemism has been under developed, but we all know what we're talking