o'neal will talk about jimmy carter and huh his influence on policy in israel. policy in israel. "washington journal" is next.no0 for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. a reminder, if you have called

in and out last 30 days, and give others a chance to call in this morning. you also reach us by e-mail, journal@c-span.org, and on twitter. the obama's are not in the white house this week, but the white house will have a special visitor this week. a philadelphia family will get a tour of the white house. one dozen of the descendants of jennings will view the famous gilbert stuart portrait of washington. the story this morning that we are asking you about is afghanistan. here is the front page of "the new york times." the military says that the afghan forces is insufficient. "military troops sought for procurement in war. the chief envoy to the region

this weekend said that they did not have enough troops to do their job, pushed past their limits by taliban rebels who operate across the borders. taliban insurgents continued to bombard the towns and villages with rockets despite a new influx of american troops. in eastern afghanistan, a network of militants has become a main source of attacks against american troops and their afghan allies." further down, "the assessment comes after stanley mcchrystal revealed that he was working to complete a major war strategy review and as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, described a worsening situation in afghanistan despite the recent addition of 17,000 american troops ordered by the obama administration in the extra security efforts surrounding the

presidential election." florida, james, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to first say that afghanistan is a tribal area. they have had tribal philosophies since before christ was born. we will not be able to change that. i am disappointed that republicans suddenly feel that this is obama policy war -- obama's war. would you do me a favor, please? host: go ahead. caller: would you have some people, in, a psychologist or whatever -- some people come in, psychologist or whatever, young boys and girls are committing suicide more for 100,000 it than

the general population. i wish that c-span would do a better job of making that point. the republicans really disappoint me. they preached all of this stuff, but when it comes to actions it does not happen. host: perhaps we can air a program like that. thank you for the input. chairman mike mullen was on television yesterday, talking about this issue. here is some of what he had to say. >> over the last couple of years the taliban insurgency has gotten better or more sophisticated in their tactics. our troops certainly indicate that. general mcchrystal is about to wrap up his assessment. i have not seen that. >> you have no doubt that he will ask for more troops? >> actually, we are not at a point yet where he has made any

decision about that. his guidance from me and the secretary of defense was to go out and determine where we are and we need. i want to reassure you that he has not asked for any additional troops up to this point. host: minneapolis, republican line. good morning. caller: i think that we are in another quagmire. do me a favor as well. explain to me how it is that callers that call on the republican line say that they voted for barack obama, espousing liberal ideas. calling on the independent line and you can tell the they never voted for a republican in their life. i notice that you drop a lot of republican calls and do not go back to another republican, which you can easily do, and you go onto a democrat. from here on i suggest that republicans do what the

democrats do. call in on the wrong line. host: we appreciate that input. we use that method of line division simply for that reason, so that we can get an idea of the political background of people. it is hard to verify every call, obviously. caller: in happens consistently on the republican line -- it happens consistently on the republican line. host: i hear you. any thoughts on a afghanistan? caller: anything that barack obama does, mainstream media, msnbc, it will be ok. anything that bush does, they hated. host: the debate over afghanistan continues. we have seen it definitely.

caller: but they are being colorcovered in a way not like y were. host: md., good morning. caller: i served my country. host: when and where? caller: in the first il invasion of iraq by the criminal father bush, 91 to 92. first of all, you are misspeaking when you say that these are mortars. the only way to go to war in this country is for -- you are misspeaking when you say these are wars. the only way to go to war is for the congress to declare it.

this is about the military- industrial complex being put into the hands of the elite. let me just say that the people on the planes are from afghanistan, not iraq. host: we are not calling it a war, but we are hot -- asking for options in afghanistan. what are the options? caller: the only one is to get out of afghanistan. we have got to understand, the second bush got into office by stealing an election. host: thank you for your call. an election was held last thursday in afghanistan. this story was held -- this

story was in "usa today." "the electoral process is starting to resemble the florida recount, even before preliminary results are announced tuesday. the second presidential election since the taliban regime was ousted in 2001 has created political uncertainty as officials attempt to count the votes amid fraud allegations from all sides. election officials say that it will take weeks before knowing who the next president is. 225 complaints have been filed with their alleged oral complaints commission, including 35 serious enough to sway results of confirmed." republican line, alabama of. go ahead. caller: yes, i am a military family man. we have too many troops in afghanistan. we need to bring the troops

home. the reason that i say that is we are only providing business for contractors to make millions off of us. my son is in there now. that is my last son that i have got in the military. we do not need the military over there. bring the troops home. my son goes out on patrol, if he is not blow it up today he will get blowed up next week. host: how long has he been there? caller: he goes for a year, then he comes back, then he comes home, then he goes back for another year. host: "makers of military grounds takeoff." this is a picture of the military drove being loaded. the controllers here in north

dakota say that "unmanned military aircraft have altered the defense military landscape as well. requests for 2010 include about $3.5 billion in unmanned aerial vehicles. as demand grows, the pentagon increasingly is relying on smaller suppliers." doyle, a kansas city. please make sure that you turn down your television. caller: i am a world war ii veteran. i do not think that they are doing any good in afghanistan. russia was going to take it over in six months and they were run out. they are going to fight those terrorists over there, what they

ought to do is get the troops out. they are not doing any good. bring them home. get them out. host: john mccain, who served in the vietnam war, was abc yesterday. >> do we have enough troops? we do not. general mcchrystal is going to make some recommendations. i am not happy with what he is going to do. they always go with medium risk. i think that general petraeus should be deciding what the number is. the president makes the ultimate decision. >> i know that you were concerned a few weeks ago, it seemed as if general jones was sending investors -- message to

the commanders do not put out a message for more troops. are you convinced that general mcchrystal is completely free to make the best recommendation? >> i think there are great pressures on general mcchrystal to reduce those estimates. i do not think that it is from the president. i think that it is from the people around him, others that i think do not want to see a significant increase in troop presence. host: mass., good morning. independent line. caller: my opinion on this is that we are going to be over there anyway. the government is going to stay there. we might as well listen to what

general mcchrystal has to say. put more troops there if he wants. if it is one year from now, we pullout and we say hey, we tried. i want to say one thing, i called on the independent line because i have never voted. host: never? caller: i am 65 years old. host: what kept you away? caller: when you talk to them, they talk like they are going to be your friend. hello? host: we are here. caller: but they just lie to you. since i was eligible in 1968, i never voted. that is the only reason i called

on the independent line. they have no phone line for nonvoters. host: you obviously have opinions on these issues, do you not feel that you can influence these issues by voting? caller: i know what your saying, but when you put someone in that will do something, they play by the rules or they get in again. host: you are calling on the independent line, you are not registered in any party? caller: no. host: thank you for the input this morning. a few of the comments this morning from general mullins. pittsburgh, good morning.

caller: i think that we should have taken lessons learned from other countries that invaded afghanistan. it seems to be a losing proposition all around and i really, truly, the older that i get the more that it pains me to see the numbers of soldiers killed. host: hang on the line, your comments echo another. carey writes on twitter that "we should not fall into the trap that the russians did, but it seems we already have 1 foot in now." caller: yes, i agree. with that. his comments. except that i do not think it we should have to sit -- have tuesday. we should try something radical

indifferent -- radical and different. host: what you mean by that? caller: leaving. just leaving. we seem to have his moral character, but i do not know if morality has anything to do with it. or if it is the machine of the defense department. it rattles my mind constantly. i cannot figure out what they are up to. nobody else can. i do not think that we should continue this. host: thank you for your call. georgia, republican line. caller: good morning. you just showed john mccain, that is why i did not vote for that atf. i will tell you, i thought that obama would be a change, but he

is as stubborn as a bush. 10,000 years from now afghanistan will be back in the stone age and we will be throwing money away. host: you said you did not vote for mccain or obama, did you vote? caller: obama, we thought that he was a change. but he is stubborn. that health bill is bad medicine. he is trying to ram it through with a nuclear option. i think that america is against it. people in town hall meetings have the right to organize just like the left. host: this is an op-ed piece from "the new york times" this morning. "the legal america -- american needs to prepare for an early iraq exit.

america's legal relationship with iraq is falling apart. nouri al maliki has announced a referendum next january on the agreement governs u.s. military operations. under the terms, military troops will have to leave the country in january, 2011, nearly one year earlier than planned." lisa, independent line. caller: i feel the same way as that person before who said that we should get out of afghanistan. we should learn from the russians. there is nothing that we can really do in that country. we are just wasting our lives. that is all a half to say. host: democratic line, minnesota. u.s. actions -- u.s. options in afghanistan? caller: we have got to leave. we are doing the same thing we did in iraq, playing these games that look like we are there to

protect them. my bottom line is that we talked about spending money, spending money for health care. if we spend money to destroy all of these things in afghanistan, yet we cannot even take care of our own here. host: that call was from minnesota. here is a twitter from caffey. "the big difference between the u.s. and the russians is that the russians tried to subjugate afghanistan. more troops and more prt's." from the associated press, " social security to shrink for many." we will show you the story this morning, "do not expect a rise

in your social security check. a cost of living boost will not be seen for the first time since 1975. the first time in a generation that payments will love rise. " david, good morning. caller: i had a friend killed in afghanistan. host: sorry to hear that. caller: thank you. i was very angry when 9/11 happened. i do not understand one caller after another forgetting the fact that we were attacked by these terrorists. soldiers obviously continue to be killed over there. if we pull out, all of those wounded soldiers that have come back injured permanently, their

injuries are wasted. we cannot leave this country, we cannot leave the terrorists in place. they will declare victory immediately. host: at what point is it safe for the u.s. to begin withdrawing forces? caller: i trust the military to make these decisions. we have sent them on a mission to destroy terrorists and eradicate their agenda. we leave them to decide what we should do. we supply them with whatever means we need. like in world war ii. we do whatever we have to to support the military. i do not understand one caller after another forgetting the fact that men have died and one less person is that their dining room table as a result of this war against terrorism.

we are finally taking the war to them. host: "the washington post" this morning has a story about questioning terror suspects. "president obama has approved the creation of an elite team of interrogators to question key terror suspects. senior administration officials said on sunday that obama signed off late last week on the unit, that the high value detainee interrogation group is made up of experts from several intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. it will be housed at the fbi but will be overseen by the national security council. shifting the center of gravity away from the cia and giving the white house direct oversight.

obama moved to overhaul interrogation and the detention guidelines soon after taking office, including this creation of a task force on interrogation and transfer policies. there was a recommendation that the new interrogation unit, along with other changes, be implemented regarding the way the prisoners are transferred overseas." alicia, good morning. caller: good morning. our love and blessings to the troops. please, bear with me. i want to go back a few years. during president reagan's policy administration, charlie wilson, who was a congressman, and a rich lady from texas, they

wanted to help the war in afghanistan against russia. after the russians went home, charlie wilson said the congress -- said to congress, and senator mccain was there then, that they dropped the ball. charlie wilson suggested that these people needed to reestablish themselves. but no one was interested. since then, how many presidents have we had? they have all dropped the ball. it is too late. we cannot even fix iraq now. we do not have any money.

host: a couple more minutes on your calls about afghanistan. talking about the reason election fraud stories in afghanistan, "the situation is deteriorating. one of the top aides claimed that the election is secure, the first claim will be to open peace talks, ending the taliban insurgency. " brooklyn, good morning. caller: i am a first-time caller. host: good to have you. caller: thank you. we have got to bring the troops home. superpowers have been defeated

in afghanistan throughout history. we cannot win that war. we have the strongest military power in the history of the world. we have bigger fish to fry. bring the troops home and save millions. one more thing before i go. i come from a country where people died from the right to vote. host: where do you come from? caller: from haiti.

these people that you not want to vote, that is why we are having so much of a problem with the health-care debate. host: thank you for the call. "obama's have arrived in martha's vineyard. the debate continues, despite the president's absence from washington, over health care. senate democrats said that they were flushing out plans to pass health legislation, including the option of a government run health insurance program last week, democrats began to talk openly about using a procedure known as budget reconciliation to match the bill in a senate -- and that's the bill in the senate without republican

supporter. -- support. democrats believe that they can clear the hurdle by demonstrating that the public plan would save money." castle rock, colorado. independent line. caller: our actions in afghanistan so far have created -- i know there are no terrorists, according to some, but there are. they are viewed as freedom fighters or rebels over there. when we first invaded and kicked out the taliban, we could have done the entire liberator thing.

rather than trying to free them, we are in this mind-set where we have to crush these taliban guys. as the russians demonstrated, that does not really work. what that tells us at this point is that we need to sort of make peace with these people and try to come to a conclusion that is not crushing them or driving them away. you have to realize that there is no way we will get rid of these people at this point. host: let's get one more view. north carolina, republican line. caller: good morning. the last caller made some points that i would like to resonate. one, we are a democracy. our goals have been somewhat spelled out in afghanistan, but they are not really clear. we are fighting against

terrorists that are faced driven, fanatical. some of them may have russian influences and so forth, but the fact is that it is two different causes fighting each other. that is one of the reasons that some callers say that this has not been successful. these people have tribal beliefs that come into conflict with democracy. democracy is not a faith, it is a procedure, a system. these people that we are fighting against the not believe in procedures. they are diametrically opposed to begin with. the president has not articulated our goals very well. ending of this comment, if i may, one of your callers was david from alabama. he lost his son in afghanistan. i felt sorry to hear him talk about that missing spot at the

dining room table. i am sorry that david has lost his life, along with several thousand other americans, in a battle that is not joined for the right causes. if we want democracy in afghanistan, it is a very difficult path, as previous administrations have shown. if we want them to be on their own in an economically prosperous country, we will have to withdraw, as the last caller commented. host: thank-you for all the calls in this morning as we turn our attention to the federal budget deficit. we will be speaking with james horney, coming up just after this. ♪

>> our coverage of the health- care debate continues later today as economists talk about the rising health-care costs and the impact on the economy. friday evening, jim eurand joins howard dean for a health care of town hall. we would like to know your thoughts on these town hall meetings and the proposals being debated. share your thoughts and experiences on video. go to c-span.org. >> the go inside of the supreme

court to see the public places and those rarely seen spaces. hear from the justices as they provide their insight about the court and the building. the supreme court, first sunday in october, on c-span. host: alan martin, training information technology professionals, on "newsmakers." >> "washington journal" continues. host: james horney is here to talk to us about the budget deficit for 2009 and looking 10 years out as new projections emerge this week. the headline from bloomberg, white house lowering the deficit estimate to $1.58 trillion. is that good news?

guest: people talk about the deficit being lower or higher than before, one of the things that is difficult is that there have been in number of estimates this year from the office of management and budget. there are differences in those numbers depending on a couple of things. first of all, which agency makes the estimate. two, which policy do they assume? or do they assume that there are new policies, like those proposed by the president, will they be adopted? we have numbers starting back in january, ranging from $1.20 trillion, assuming no change in current policies, assuming that economic conditions remain how i thought it would be. up to $8 trillion, which both of the office of the president and the management and budget office have based on proposals

being adopted. host: there are two sets of numbers. one from the white house office of management and budget, then from the hill and the congressional budget office. which of these organizations tends to be more accurate? guest: hard to say. anyone who does projections is going to be way off. it is extremely difficult. no one gets these numbers exactly right. you cannot say that one gets it right and another does not. i think that people sometimes have more confidence in the congressional budget office because it is a non-partisan organization that works for all of congress. the office of management and budget, while it is staffed with confident professionals, these

people believe that there is a policy that will make it feel like it works better. host: telephone numbers on the screen, we will get to your calls momentarily. why should people be concerned about federal budget deficits? guest: there is nothing like the $1.50 trillion, there may be higher numbers from the congressional budget office. it is the biggest deficit we have had since world war ii. what that means is that we are adding an amazing amount of debt that we are paying interest on. it is important for people to realize that the deficit this

year was unavoidable, and if you look at the alternative a big portion of that. it goes towards propping up financial institutions, housing markets and banks, institutions that six months ago people were thinking were going into the tank. a substantial, additional amount went towards stimulating the economy so that state and local governments did not have to make as big a cut. while it has not made the economy start working better, it has had a major effect on the decline in the economy, keeping the unemployment rate from going higher. it will probably grow a little bit.

it has had a big effect on keeping the most serious downturn in the moat -- keeping us out of the most serious downturn in 60 years. host: how is this affecting the debate on health care? guest: the current deficit is really not related to what the deficit is going to look like in 10 years or 30 years. while i hope that the fact that we have deficits right now means that people will take a serious look, they are going to get a bit better over the next few years. primarily because of health care costs. that is one of the reasons i think it is misguided.

health care reform is part of what we need to do to get started to bring those long-term health care costs under control. if we do not see this, there will be a deficit. host: scott, republican line. go ahead and. -- go ahead. piecaller: you are paid for the government, correct? guest: no, i do not. i work for a nonprofit organization. caller: that change is my opinion. this entire deficit thing over the last few years, it has been the same. tying health care into a deficit, i do not understand. anyone that says insurance companies are good, they work

for insurance companies. this deficit thing is too much money. far too much money. you are killing america, turning citizens and to slaves. billions of dollars in taxpayer money, you are just crippling america. host: thank you for the call. guest: health care reform, two things that you should think about, we need to have health care costs brought under control. the high deficits that we have

now, they will remain as such for a few years. this reinforces what the president said. this should not be deficit neutral, it should not add to the deficit, it should put into place a start for reform that will close the rate of growth. host: that caller mentioned that the federal reserve. reporting on the conference this weekend, they said that long- term budget deficits could cause serious economic disruptions. a washington think tank

populated by democrats, over the next decade they estimated in a paper written earlier this year that the u.s. budget deficit will add up to $10 trillion and possibly more. credit markets have begun to signal a risk that the u.s. government defaults, something of -- something unheard of a few years ago. guest: i agree completely. the center on budget has done similar projections. in a paper that they did earlier they talked about what happens in long run, reflecting what i said, which is that there is a dramatically rising deficit in the long run. it does not mean that we need to turn around to try to reduce the deficit. it is too late for this year, but the year is almost over. the a economy is still weak, that is not the time to cut the deficit. beyond that, they are right. we need to start cutting the

deficit down. more importantly, we need to signal to the people that are lending us money that even if we somehow manage to bring deficits under control in the next 10 years, they do not exploding after that again. they have written about the long-term problem being very serious. they are right, they need to be unconcerned and we all need to be concerned about the next 10 years. host: last week he released a piece about the 2009 deficit estimates. you write about the need for continued federal spending, once the only clear conclusion to be drawn from the deficits, and a continued need for action on long-term deficits. host: what that means is, to a large extent, rising health-care

costs -- not just for federal programs, but systemwide they are going to really push deficits up. medicare and medicaid costs have risen at about the same rate as private health costs per person. they are expected to continue to do so. the only way that you can bring down the federal spending on those programs without harming the people that depend on them is to bring down the cost of health care overhaul. that is part of what they are starting to do. there is a real question on whether it is going far enough. we absolutely have to do that. we have estimated similar estimates on the budget office, if nothing is done to change the current trajectory, we are looking at deficits that could be 20% of gdp, twice as big as

the deficits this year, when the economy is going very well. that is about three times what we had at the end of world war ii. it would cause severe economic problems in this country and we need to start dealing with that. host: what is the u.s. debt right now? >> $5 trillion, $6 trillion. host: good morning, glenn. independent line. caller: this health care reform is costing america ridiculous amounts of money just talking about what we will do with it. 1000 pages or better for someone that wants to read them but they still will not vote on it.

we have not even taking care of the people in the katrina disaster, but they are still sending money to people in other countries. it is like vietnam all over again. host: you talk about controlling health-care costs. he brought up other costs as well. what other organizations do you see where the u.s. government can do a better job in controlling costs? guest: farm programs are generally inefficient. the idea is that you want to protect small, family farms, but many of the payments go to large, corporate forms -- farms. i cannot speak to the area of defense as an expert. but we will need to have more

revenues. right now, under the current policy, revenues are somewhat below where they were for the last 30 years. the three times that we balanced the budget, we had significantly higher revenue. host: "the christian science monitor" has an article this morning, "are higher taxes inevitable"? the national debt is being held as a aspect of the gross national product." where does it stand now? guest: 12%, but it will improve if the economy gets better. but it will not go down to 3% for the next 10 years. it will take some changes in policy. i think it will take policy

changes to control spending in health care costs, as well as a higher level of revenue and a continuation of current policy. host: you would say that higher taxes are inevitable? guest: as well as lower savings, it is the only way to get costs down. host: democratic line, jack. caller: at the beginning of the clinton presidency we had a deficit. by the end of his presidency we had a surplus. with us being in the iraq war, going towards a $9 trillion deficit, how much was the

government spending? i think that the american people put george bush in to control state -- control spending. they thought that that would happen. seems like when he got in, spending went out of control. guest: the war has certainly contributed to deficits, while other -- well over $100 billion per year. by the end of the clinton term, we had a surplus. one of the reasons was work that president clinton did in 1993, but i also have to say is that part of the reason was that worked was done even before he took office. in 1990 the first president bush and most of the republican

leaders in congress got together and put together a deficit reduction package that cut into that deficit, totaling $500 billion. it was a combination of an increase in revenues and cut in spending. 1993 there was the clinton deficit reduction, including spending cuts and revenue increases. both of those -- the first demonstrating that even do it on a bipartisan basis, the second -- without republican support, and mixed package, those two together contributed greatly to the surplus that we got to. along with a booming economy, which helped a lot. host: republican line, texas. go ahead. gene, are you there?

caller: yes, i am. i wanted to ask mr. horney de, e said he was not funded by the government, but i wanted to know which foundation. guest: a number of foundations, as well as individuals. host: you talk about projections going out tenures, but how does that impact our everyday life in terms of taxes and what we are able to do? guest: in the short run we do not see an impact, that as we accumulate more debt it means more of the money that we spend has to go towards interest payments. higher debt can affect interest rates, one of the things that we

were talking about earlier. there was a concern that if the deficits do not come down the people in this country and abroad will start demanding higher interest rates, which affect how much we pay in interest, as well as what people have to pay on their houses. there is not an immediate effect, but in the long run it is very damaging. if the debt gets high enough, it can cut into the rate of that economic growth. host: mark, independent line. caller: i save my money and i paid $500 to join a union. i needed a little bit of dental work.

i am sick of you guys snubbing your nose at the common guy. look at you. you sit there with everything underneath you, you do not care about nobody but yourselves. what is going on with you guys? host: do you have a specific comment about the federal deficit and the budget? caller: yes, i am the deficit. i am in normal, working man. nothing is being done to help me. host: next call, democratic line from ohio. hello? florida, republican line. go ahead. caller: how much money is given away to foreign countries? how much is given a way to subsidize things like to back out -- like tobacco and things

that we do not need? guest: tobacco is one of the ones we do not do any more, something that this country has done, giving people allotments ended several years ago. there are other things that we subsidize that i do not think we should, like foreign programs where too much of the money goes to very large farms or corporate farms. something that i think we could reduce. we do much less for foreign aid and many other countries. host: most states by law cannot run the deficit.

"falling natural-gas prices, states struggle with their budgets. more will be asked from the federal government." how does this play into the debate over federal spending? guest: i think it is in a time of economic downturn like this. one of the things that they can do is get money to the states. tax revenues are way down. some of the costs are way up. one of the worst things that can happen is dramatic cutbacks. but they start laying off policemen and firemen. raising taxes across the board,

it makes the economy worse. laying off teachers, they do not go on vacation, they do not buy groceries. one of the best things that the government can do is give money to the states, making sure that they do not have to do cuts as big. money going forward will not completely plug the hole. that is one of the best things to do to keep the economy going. host: jim, good morning. vermont. independent line. caller: please excuse my nervousness, this is the first time i have called. as far as the economy goes, our education program is paid for through our property tax, which

really drains us on property taxes up here. just extraordinary. we have been trying to change it, but no one seems to have different ideas. talking about the afghan war and the iraq war, president obama was not elected until january. host: we will get to james horney's response on the taxes. thank you for calling. guest: it is always difficult to figure out how to fund what, and there is certainly often a trade-off. property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, it can be tough to

do. host: james horney is with us from the federal budget for policy priorities institute. your released last week, understanding the deficit estimates, "there are two different ways of understanding fannie mae and freddie mac." guest: privately owned organizations, chartered by the federal government to help to provide funding for home mortgages. like many other financial institutions, they were very badly hit. they were placed into conservatorship. government sponsored enterprises are privately owned and operated, even though they

have this tacit backing of the government. generally, they make money. it is a downturn in the housing market crisis, they got in trouble with conservatorship. it could be a temporary thing where the market improved, then they would be released. others believe that that will not happen. not in their current form. .

host: one more call from rochester, marc anthony. linda, go ahead. caller: thank you, hi. i'm a baby boomer, 1948. a little background on what we went through in school. we were told that it was like a snake, the teacher put a snake on the board, with a big bulge in the middle and she said this

is you baby boomers. you're coming through. there's not enough homes for you. there won't but be enough jobs for you and so obviously i am coming to a major point. the other thing was then our men, our boys were sent over to vietnam war, which wasn't even a war. i mean, we don't need to go into that. everybody knows. ok. so we got into the working field. we worked. money was building and building in the social security fund. so from what i can remember hearing, when russia needed some money, we have all this extra money, look at all this money sitting in social security that the not even going out. it's not even being used. and it was used to give loans to

other countries and all that. and the one thing we depended on was the social security. host: you've made several good points there. we'll get jim to respond. guest: on social security, i think people should understand. the money that's gone into social security that wasn't needed to pay immediate benefits was put into federal bonds, which means that there's actually a place out in i think shepherdstown, west virginia where the bonds are held. when those future benefits need to be paid, the social security administration can redeem the bonds. now, there is a social security problem going forward, and it is largely or entirely because of the baby boom population bulge that you talked about, but the reason that we need to do something about social security to make sure we've got enough adequate resources to pay the benefits going forward is not because the money that went in has been frittered away or it's not there in bonds. it's that early on a decision

was made in social security that we were going to pay benefits to our parents, my parents' grandparents and so on, who in the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's, were given higher benefits than they would have been based simply on the taxes they had paid in the system. based on that, the current amount in the social security is not enough to pay all the benefits going forward and we do need to make some changes. we need to make some changes probably both in certain things on the spending side, but also raise more revenues on social security and make sure we pay them down. the demographics going forward, the bulge of the baby boom population, is a significant factor in the deficits we're going to be facing over the next 20, 30 years or so. but it's not the most important factor. more important than that, actually, is the rising cost of health care per person, particularly when you combine those rising costs with the

demographic change. you have more people eligible for health care, but more importantly, if health care costs keep going up the way they have the last 20 or 30 years, the costs per person have grown even more. you combine those two things, that's why we're looking at really high def sits 20, 30, 40 years from now. host: jim jim, thanks for joining us this morning. guest: my pleasure. host: we will hear from terry o'neal in just a moment to talk about health care legislation and more. first, though, an update on the news from c-span radio. >> it's 8:05 a.m. eastern time. president obama and the first family spending this vacation week on martha's vineyard. no public events are scheduled. spokesman bill burton said that work won't stop entirely. he ♪ed that the state has a secure line to the white house if needed. scottish legislators are meeting

in an emergency session to consider the release of convicted lockerbie bomber. lawmakers want to question the first minister's minority government and some of the british media suggest a confidence vote is possible. the f.b.i. director robert muller says the congress' release gives comfort to terrorists. as schools reorninge parents say cuts in bus districts will have wide ranging repurr cushions. everything from parents' work schedules to students' attendance will be impacted. bus service cuts are happening in school districts all across the u.s. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> c-span's coverage of the health care debate continues later today as rand economists talk about tim pact on rising costs on the u.s. economy. tomorrow evening, jim moran of northern virginia is joined by

forming democratic national committee chairman howard dean for a town hall meeting on health care. and as the congressional recess continues, weeth like to know your thoughts on these town hall meetings and the various health care proposals being debated. share your thoughts and experiences on video. go to c-span.org/citizenvideo. host: terry o'neal is the new president of the national organization for women, making her first visit on "washington journal" with us since being elected back in june. welcome. guest: thank you. host: what are you now biggest concerns over the health care debate that's happening now both on and off the hill now in this congressional recess? guest: i think there are two concerns. now has long supported single payer health care. we know that's not going to happen this year, but we do

believe that single payer is really the best way to help women out of what is currently a broken health care system. we know the system is broken. it's particularly broken for women. and if i could just tell you a little bit about why it's broken for women and that will kind of explain where we're coming from with the current health care reform package that's going through congress. so women are getting it sort of from both sides of the health care industry. on the one side, women don't have a disproportionately -- we don't have health care coverage. women are disproportionately represented in part-time work and it doesn't have health coverage attached to it and that's because women have childcare responsibilities, responsibility for caring family members who may be ill or elderly. in addition, women tend to be disproportionately represented in nonunion jobs that don't have health care and low wage and

minimum wage without health care associated. on the one hand, we don't have access to health care insurance. host: right. guest: on the other hand, over the past 25 years or so, the health care industry has progressively been shifting health care responsibilities to unpaid family members of people who are ill. so over 25 years, you've seen this trend of people being sent home from the hospital, sometimes with tubes still in them that need to be tended to, wounds that need to be dressed and redressed, being sent home from the hospital, and very often it's family members that are literally trained in the hospitals to take care of the person who's going home, and who is it that's really doing this care? it's women. on the one hand, we're doing a lot more, unpaid actual health care tasks and on the one hand, we don't have access to health insurance because of unemployment realities. so given that that's the case, the question is, what part of

the health care reform going through congress now is good for women and what part is bad for women. the good parts are the preventative care. it seems it is a part of all of the health care bills that are moving through congress. and that's a very good thing. women utilize preventative health care. the annual check-up with your ob/gyn is a preventative thing. many women don't have access to that. women disproportionately experience die bites more than men, so having preventative care will be wonderful for women. there are provisions to eliminate gender discrimination for similarly situated women and men. that's a good thing. but that leads me to a real problem that we're having, which is that reproductive health care services are being used as a political football, which is

completely outrageous and there have been amendments to the health care package proposed that would prohibit the public option, assuming there is a public option, from providing health care, such as abortion, and in some cases, birth control . that amendment has not passed in the house committee, but it's there, and what's really outrageous is the idea that women's reproductive health care would be singled out for attack. host: now is upset over the facts that the so-called essential benefits is designed here a page from the bill hr-3200, the house bill, the essential benefits. your concern is that you see reproductive health services as an essential benefit. you talk about abortion. and birth control. guest: absolutely. s.t.d. h.i.v. testing and treatment. that is a huge issue for women.

h.i.v. is becoming -- again, disproportionately something that women and girls are affected by. host: terry o'neil with us. talk about now and health care and other women's issues. we'll get to your calls momentarily. on the health care debate, what are you hearing from members via e-mail, via twitter, via phone calls at now? what are they most concerned about? you talked about some of your concerns. give us some of the anecdotal stories that you're hearing about. guest: women are concerned about attacks on limiting reproductive health services. many women are covered currently have that insurance and private insurance, health insurance. they are covered for a wide range of contraceptive services as well as abortion and they're afraid of losing it. members that i've spoken to are

very concerned about moving back ward in that sense if some of these anti-reproductive rights amendments were to make it through. i think more broadly, what women are telling me, and i'm calling now members around the country. you know, what are you real concerns? what the now members are telling me is we want single payer health care and we want the single payer health care to be required to provide the full range of reproductive health services. i can't tell you how many women i've spoke on the who said, i just got laid off and i don't have health insurance and i want single payer because i don't want to have to worry about that and they say i don't have health insurance for my kids because i just got laid off. host: let's hear from our viewers. breezeville, michigan. james on our democrats line. caller: good morning. i would like to ask a question about the health care debate.

all i hear about is health care for white men and white women. how about health care for black men? young black men need health care, too. i hear nothing in the debate about helping anyone else besides the white and -- the white men of america. host: have you heard about health care? caller: no. it seems no one wants to care about the poor and needy of this country. host: thanks for the call this morning. guest: i think it's a very good point. the bills that are moving through congress retain alliance on employment-related health insurance. in other words, the health insurance you get through your employer remains the core of the way we provide health care services in this country. that excludes the people who don't have employer-based health insurance. and that is disproportionately people of color and women.

the caller is absolutely of right to be concerned about that. host: manchester, new jersey. good morning, gloria. caller: i'm a senior. in 1965, i was widowed. i had five children. i provided a family plan to the youngest one. she was only 7 then, until she was 18. so my kids were well covered. as a matter of fact, i went many years without any claims. i was ready to give it up. however, my brother talked me into keeping it and my oldest son had a very bad accident. thankfully i had it. all those years not putting claims in. however, now, you cannot buy that insurance in ng because the legislator won't let you buy it. it's crazy what they want you to buy that you don't need. so it starts with the government being the fault of the high coast cost of the insurance. god help this country. thank you. guest: yeah. the question of what gets covered and what kind of

insurance plans can be bought into, i'm not knowledgeable enough about new jersey law to know where the issue is there, but i have to say, single payer health care is the answer to that. medicare for all. you have one set -- you have a provider and it has rules. host: what sort of plan do you provide for the employees of now? guest: well, we have comprehensive health care. our employees do contribute to part of the policy. but all of our employees are covered by health care. host: terry o'neil, a graduate of north western. took over now in june. broadening this out more than health care, what are some of your priorities for the organization? guest: we are going to be rolling out national action campaigns, which are not focused on a particular federal legislation, but rather at

community level organizing around issues that really are important to women. one of the national action campaigns that we're going to roll out will be advocacy for single payer health care. we view the current health care reform bill as an incremental step toward what women really need, so we will be doing a very -- we think it's very important to get out there with an education and awareness campaign. also the equal rights amendment. in many states the debate is heating up. we think it's time to jump in and demand equality for women in the constitution. and we'll be working on equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. host: let's go to paris, arkansas. good morning to frank on our independents line. caller: thank you, and good morning to both of you. there are some wonderful -- i have a different perspective on health care. 10 years ago, a medication

actually stopped my heart. there's a wonderful herb called wolf berry that is under a lot of research. in fact, in new york they've just discovered a university hospital in new jersey that this wolf berry is actually inhibiting the growth of human breast cancer cells. so alternative medicine is something i don't hear. wonderful information site. gojitrees.com. host: savannah, georgia is up next. guest: good morning. caller: good morning. there must be some option for the vast majority of americans to afford insurance, because even after you have insurance, people are paying for insurance and cannot afford to pay to use

it. you have co-payments for medications that are $50 each, and if you have six prescriptions, how much is that coming out of your budget? or you have to pay the co-payments for the insurance. the prepaid that come with it, you've got to meet the deductibles to go to the hospital and the doctor and everything, but you're paying $700 and $800 a month. so you're paying three times. host: is that it? caller: that's it. i want to know why people feel like they have a right to complain. maybe they can afford to use their insurance or they can afford their insurance. but what about the cross section of people who cannot? host: thanks for the call. guest: you know, that's exactly -- the caller has laid out exactly the problem.

women who are laboring under a wage gap, 78 cents on the dollar -- host: has that improved over the last 10 years? guest: very little. maybe it was 76 cents at the beginning of the bush administration. latinas, 46 cents. it's really an outrage. with women having less access to wealth building because of the wage gap and less income because of the wage gap, we have less ability to pay those $50 co-pays for the medication, and yet we have higher incidents of the kinds of disease that require those monthly medications. diabetes medication and heart decide medication. host: on the wage gap, what sort of specific legislative actions can be taken to sthrange gap? guest: we know what needs to be done.

nobody wants to talk about it. the reality is it's comparable worth legislation that needs to be done. we have an equal pay act in place. the equal pay act demands that women and men must be paid the same for the same job for doing the same job. the problem is that the vast majority of workplaces in this country are severely sex segregated. so you go into a factory, you have one line that's almost all women, you have another line that's almost all men. which one do we think has better access to promotion? well, it's the men's line. which one has higher pay? well, it's men's line. yes, they're doing different jobs. what you need is a comparable worth legislation that requires companies to pay people in accordance with the level of education required for the job, the level of experience required for the job. host: wouldn't more women in management over time eventually sort of see that and reduce that gap just on their own with more women in positions of management and influence?

guest: yeah. over centuries maybe with a lot of work. truly, more women in management, it's just so painfully slow. women constitute currently less than 10% of the boards of directors of the fortune 500 companies. so we're not going to get anywhere close to that any time soon. it's important to understand, that glass ceiling that keeps women out of those very top management levels, it's not made of glass. it's made of people making specific policy decisions for these very large corporations. host: we have in connecticut, next up, good morning to william on our republican line. caller: my concern is i've been watching a lot -- my party, they're using misinformation and i believe the insurance companies are -- people are badgering our u.s. senators -- i would not do that.

i'm bipolar. there's no way i would badger or heckle a senator. my concern is we need to fix the health care problem and something needs to be done. why both parties will not get together and make out the best program possible. make put some safeguards in for research and development. host: what specific efforts has now made in terms of trying to influence the debate? what sort of presence at town halls, etc. ? guest: we have urged our members to go to those town halls and to talk about using the reproductive health care as a political football and also to talk about the importance of retaining a public option. we do feel that the current plan needs to have a public option, particularly because the current plan, again, puts employment-related health insurance at the center of the plan, which disproportionately

women don't have access to. so we really need that public option. host: i wanted to bring your attention to yesterday's sunday "new york times magazine." the entire issue is devoted to women's issues, why women's rights are the cause of our time is front page headline of the magazine. i'll open it up just a piece from one of the many articles on here. the u.n. estimated that there are 5,000 honor killings a year in the majority muslim world. they write, the girls vanish partly because they don't get the same health care and food as boys. in india, for example, girls are less likely to be vaccinated that be boys and are take on the the hospital only when they are sicker. the girls in india from 1 to 5 years of age are 50% more likely to die than boys their age. in addition, ultra sound machines have allowed a pregnant woman to find out the sex of her own fetus and then get an abortion if it's female. the global statistics on the abuse of girls are numbing. it appears that more girls and women are now missing from the planet precisely because they are female than men were killed

on the batting field in all of the wars of the 20th century. so with a new administration in power and with a female woman heading the state department, how should u.s. priorities on women's issues internationally change? guest: the secretary of state hillary clinton is doing a marvelous job of highlighting the issue of women's equality around the world. one thing that we need to do in this country is the united states senate needs to ratify the united nations women's convention, the convention on the elimination of discrimination. host: when was that passed by the u.n.? guest: in the late 1970's. it was signed by president jimmy carter in 1980. in order to become the law of the land, it would be ratified by the senate. whether controlled by democrats or republicans, has never seen fit to ratify this very simple equality treaty for women.

and it's frankly an outrage. in fact, now's global issues committee, we have a number of ad hoc committees of members from around the country that work on specific issues. our global issues committee will be working to convene a number of rallies around the country in march that we're going to do to urge the senate to ratify it. host: any better hope this time around getting it passed? guest: yes. usually in the past 20 years or so, we've had better luck getting -- when democrats are in control, but with democratic-controlled estimates in the past, we still haven't managed to get it ratified and we're hoping to get it done this time. host: next call, florida. on our independents line. caller: good morning. my question is, i've never heard it talked about in health care, we've got 15 million

undocumented aliens in this country that could walk into an emergency room and get free health care. now, my solution is if you hire somebody to work for you in this country, you should provide that and their family if you bring them, with health care. that's all. host: any thoughts on his point? guest: well, i know that a lot of -- there has been a lot of talk about providing health care for undocumented immigrants. now has taken the position very strongly that we need comprehensive immigration reform, and that it's not a solution to in a punitive way withhold health care particularly from children who don't really have a choice of being in this country in a family. some of the adults may be undocumented, some may be documented. it's a very complicated picture. but punitive measures to withhold health care or education are not the way to go. host: we talked about equal pay. a tweet. if a pay is required to be set

according to education level required to perform that job, wouldn't congress be paid $50,000 a year? sort of a tongue-in-cheek comment. to omaha, nebraska. good morning, margaret. caller: first of all, i don't agree with your position that people don't get involved. my issues are these. president obama said that he would not have special interest groups involved, and yet you pointed out that you are responsible in the health bill. number two, you're so much for universal health care that yet in england, where they do have it, the success of getting treated for breast cancer is much less -- what do i want to

say? than the frequency of getting cured in breast cancer is less than here. the access to mammograms is less. each of the cancer medicines are available here that are not available there because of a rush. you talk about -- i'm 67 years old. and i know the rations and i know people that live there that goes on. to get your own medical doctor is like nil. it takes you a year to get your own family doctor. host: marg, are you -- margaret, are you happy with your health care coverage now? caller: yes, i always have been. i know there are people that don't have access. but when you pull out the figure of 47 million, that's not true. i have a 20-something that doesn't have insurance, but that's because he simply doesn't want to buy it at this time.

caller: well, first of all, the english health care system is in fact a very good health care system, and i understand that on some conservative talk shows and radio talk shows and cable and so forth that there's been a real effort to paint both the canadian and the british system is somehow dysfunctional. in fact,, the outcomes in england and canada are superior to the health outcomes in this country. host: she talked about mammograms. are they better in the u.k. and canada? guest: that's a specific statistic i don't know. i just think you have to be really careful about looking at those statistics. i think there's a lot of propaganda out there that isn't necessarily factual. i will say this, that currently in the united states, we do ration health care, only we ration it in a particularly irrational way. the way we ration it is by

making it unavailable to people that don't have jobs that don't have health care, this affects women and people of color and most particularly women of color. it's not acceptable. host: terry o'neill, president of the national organization for women. thank you for being with us this morning. guest: thank you so much. host: the clash for clunkers program is ending today. we'll talk about that right after this. >> c-span's coverage of the health care debate continues later today as rand economists talk about the impact of the study of rising health care costs. live coverage is 1:00 p.m. eastern. tomorrow evening, democratic congressman jim moran of northern virginia is joined by former d.n.c. chairman howard dean for a town hall meeting on health care legislation. live coverage from reston,

virginia, at 7:00 p.m. here on c-span. as the congressional recess continues, we'd like to know your thoughts on these town hall meetings and the various health care proposals being debated. share your thoughts and experiences on video. go to c-span.org/citizenvideo. >> go inside the supreme court to see the public places and those rarely seen spaces. hear directly from the justices as they provide their insight about the court and the building. the supreme court, home to america's highest court, the first sunday in october on c-span. >> george mason university president alan meriten on training information technology professionalings. tonight on c-span 2. "washington journal" continues. host: the federal government's auto trade-in program cash for clunkers ends today. we are joined on the phone by

josh mitchell to talk about it. josh mitchell, we're going to ask our viewers in a home whether the program was a success or failure. how do you think it will be remembered in history? guest: well, if you look at it as to how quickly it was able to get cars off lots, then it had a great impact on that. if you look at it in terms of just how the government should be spending taxpayer dollars, some people say yes, it helped lift car sales. some people say it should have been used for other things. it's up to each person. host: in the end, how much will the federal government have shelled out for spending on the program? guest: the program had about $3 billion. it started with about $1 billion. that was exhaust after about one week. there probably will be some money left over because the d.o.t. is going to end the program this evening, which is

about four weeks sooner than people expected because they want to mike sure that all deals that have been made under the program are in fact reimbursed. so probably there will be some money left over, but for the most part, it's about $3 billion. host: what's the official end date -- it's today, but what time do they close up shop on this program? guest: it's 8:00 p.m. this evening and that's when dealers actually have to submit the applications for reimbursement. there's a lot of car dealers that have already stopped doing clunker sales because they want to make sure they have time to get these applications in the system. host: if these applications go in, and the federal government winds up having to owe more money -- pledge more money for this program and somebody gets less standing with the $4,500 they're not going to get? guest: that's a very good question and that's what the car dealers were saying last week, they actually met with the administration and at one point

they said maybe you guyings should stop the program this week because we want to make sure all these deals are reimbursed. the administration said, no, we're confident we will be able to honor all the deals even if we keep it going through monday. so, i guess there is that risk, if sales over the weekend push it over the $3 billion mark, then some of these car dealers may be on the hook. but the administration insists that there is enough money there to honor all these deals. host: so some of the top three or four brands of cars that were bought for trading in these clunkers? caller: as of friday, the top brand was the toyota corolla. honda had a top model in the top three or four. the ford focus was number two, but for the most part, they were foreign cars in the top 10, foreign-made vehicles. a couple fords in the top 10. host: what about the auto companies themselves?

they've obviously seen a spike in sales for this program. how are they going to -- from here on out, what do they think about anticipated traffic in the future and their business going forward? guest: well, that's also a big question, are these sales that people are using because the rebates are out there, that this actually draws new customers into the dealership, or are these people that would have bought new cars next year but they simply moved up those buys to next month. in other parts of the -- and other places where these clunkers programs have been put into place, for example, in europe, car sales have in fact dipped. so there is expected to be a dip in september for car sales. host: what was the european experience with their program? guest: they had a very big spike, and right now, some of the auto makers are pushing for them to extend those programs, saying that there is going to be a dip once you end this program,

but you could keep on saying that, so once the program expires, there's always going to be a dip, you know, because those rebates aren't going to be out there. but there have been dips when other programs have been ended. host: josh mitchell writes for dow jones news wire. thank you for being with us this morninging. guest: i appreciate it. host: and we'll spend the rest of this morning up until 9:00 eastern on the cash for clunkers success. did it work? the numbers are on the screen. we will take your e-mail, your tweets at twitter.com, and get to those phone calls in just a moment. front page of this morning's "new york times," they report that a story on the obama administration's appointment to various positions, obama team is lacking most of its top players. a peter baker story this morning in "the new york times." he writes that of the more than 500 senior policy-making poll

positions requiring senate confirmation, just 43 position have been filled. a senate that is intensively investigating nominees and a legislative agenda that has consumed both. while career employees or holdovers fill many posts on a temporary basis, mr. obama does not have his own people enacting programs central to his mission. he is trying to fix the financial markets but does not have an assistant treasury secretary for financial markets. he's spending more money on transportation than anyone since dwight d. eisenhower, but does not have his own inspector general watching how the dollars are used. that's this morning in "the new york times" this morning. let's go to our phone calls on clash for clunkers. success, or failure? el paso, good morning to raul. caller: good morning, how are you doing? i was just wondering -- like toward the end instead of toward the beginning.

and they don't extend it because people were weren't notified. host: did you take advantage of it, raul? caller: no, i didn't take advantage of it. i mean, they should have let people know -- they did let people know, but not really towards the end. and now it's over. well, the year's not up. i was wondering why they won't extend it for a little longer. host: would it help you if they did extend it? caller: it probably would. host: thanks for your call. republican caller. what do you think? guest: i think we should stop all this foolish and putting down the government. the president. not because he's a black man, we are putting him down, nothing he do is right. i work in this country and i pay my taxes and it's a big deal.

host: two different views on editorial pages, the opinion page of "the wall street journal" and the christian science monitor. "the wall street journal," their lead editorial all clunkered out. the dealers may or may not get their money is the title of their piece. also this morning on the -- in the christian science monitor today, clunker of a policy, yep, is the view of john allen williams. houston, texas, good morning to row da. hi there. caller: i think it's a very bad idea for the federal government to get involved in retail promotions or health or education or welfare. but since they did it, why did they limit it to american cars? host: lexington, alabama, good morning to malcolm on our democrats line.

caller: i think it should just be made for the american cars. i don't think -- if these german companies want their cars subsidized, let them subsidized it. i don't think it should be our taxpayers money subsidizing other countries. host: some of the auto dealers have made the point, and our guest mentioned toyota, corolla, many of those toyota models and other japanese and foreign makers are made in the united states. caller: yeah, but the profits all go to japan. because it's japanese owned. host: thanks for call. we are joined by tammy davish. she was the vice president of the dark horse automotive group in the washington, d.c. area. thank you for joining us. guest: my pleasure. good morning. you said that the federal government had not come through in terms of paying you, your organization, for the cars you had already taken in, the

clunkers you had already taken in. where does that stand now? guest: right now, we have actually as of this morning, we've received payment on 18. well, we've received papal on nine, but there are nine more ready for payment, so 18 total. host: 18 total vehicles? guest: correct. host: we've been asking our callers whether they viewed the program as a success or failure. as an automotive executive with a number of dealerships, what do you think? guest: it really depends on how you define success. the success as a dealer was for me to sell a lot of cars. yes, we sold a lot of cars. there was a profit margin that we have not seen in quite some time. if success is defined as maybe regenerating general motors and chrysler, i don't think so. i think what you'll see -- of the 1,400 plus that i did, approximately 77% of those

customers bought an import vehicle, a nondetroit domestic, i'll call it. and over 82% of my trade-ins were detroit domestic, general motors, cars that are ford vehicles. host: what's to these clunkers when they leave your lot? what happens to them? guest: well, the salvation yard that we made our grumet is in baltimore. we drain the oil out of our cars at our delip. we ship them -- we truck them to the auction. once we receive payment, we have seven days to drop the poison, to disable the engine. and get the certification for salvation and get it back to the government. host: you mentioned this briefly a moment ago in terms of traffic to your dealerships. going forward, what's your anticipation of how the auto business will be at your various dealerships? guest: first of all, the availability is at an all-time

low. yarble how long ago i've seen our dealerships not have any availability. the good news is that our toyota stores will be able to revamp those inventories quickly, because their clients were never really shut down. they just scaled back production a little bit. the other manufacturers will have a really tough time catching up because those plants have been closed for months. host: is there any sense or hope on your part that the federal government will institute this program or a similar program again? guest: well, first of all, if they do, i hope they get a dealer involved when they're creating the rules and the processing and everything so they really understand how the flow of the dealership goes. it would probably safe the government a whole lot of money and personnel and paper and processing and it was just completely unnecessary. i think this will end up costing them way more than the $3 billion they had anticipated

spending, and personally, i think they could have accomplished the same thing with even half of the incentive. host: lastly, there were reports over the weekend that a number of dealerships closed the program early. what about darcars? guest: until midnight some of our dealerships were open finalizing some transaction. we have a few today, the customers could not prove the insurance or didn't have their trade titles or whatever. we told them if they were here by 10:00 this morning we'll honor the transaction. host: vice president of darcars automotive. thank you. continuing with your calls. cleveland, tennessee, from boris on our republican line. caller: i think the cash for clunkers was a great idea. i think they should use that for helping some of the education.

instead of just giving the cars to be destroyed. i think that's what they're doing. because i was watching a thing on tv where they were showing the cars being destroyed by bigger things. so what i think they should do is get these cars some kind of way to help fund education for some kind of thing there. host: i think the purpose was to get these cars off the road, was it not? caller: yes. but there's people in need. education is one of them. you got kids -- not kids, but college kids that are looking for ways to get back and forth to school. host: lee on our independents line. caller: good morning. my response to the cash for clunkers program is an extraordinary effort try and stimulate a business that's

relevant to every person in this country, but it displays two things i think the lady had on from the drip. it shows the incredible greed that people have. they expect the government to fork over $4,500 on a whim without any documentation, and then people like yourselves and shows like this would be saying, look at the fraud that took place. they have to document these thing. if they can't carry themselves for two weeks, it's been two weeks, three weeks, and they're crying that we need our money immediately. secondly, the other problem i see is that the people today want fuel efficient cars and the industry in detroit where i happen to live, doesn't produce those cars. they produce big beasts and they're not relevant. that's not the point. they still need to transcyst

into the type of automobiles that are relevant to our time. host: another view from michigan here. shawn from la pierre. caller: i don't see how anybody could consider cash for clunkers not a success. my wife works at a local dealership. they sold more cars during cash for clunkers than they have the entire time she's worked there. host: how long as she worked there? caller: 10 years. they've sold more cars if this 10 years than they have -- during cash for clunkers than entire 10 years she's been there. host: what kind of dealership is it? caller: it's a ford clip. host: tax dollars should never be used for such a ridiculous program, supplementing personal property. now california. our republican line. caller: good morning.

i'm prepared for the post office debacle. the sold stamps would be inflation, no matter if prices go up, and now the post office isn't selling stamps and they're in big trouble. so i think there's a comparison there. host: houston, texas, next up, on our independents line, manny. caller: i wanted to make a point here. a couple years ago, i think there is the energy bill. this must have been about two or three years ago. there was a layoff for s.u.v.'s. a complete write-off. no one may have mentioned it or anything else. when you're writing off $65,000 for s.u.v.'s -- host: that was a tax provision for use in business or something like that.

caller: of course this is a success. it has put people back to work. you get income and they go back to work and they're paying taxes. $4,500, you know, people turn around and use to even debate this. host: about 10 more minutes of your comments and calls on cash for clunkers. rock island, illinois, next up, democratic caller. go ahead. caller: i was wondering about this cash for clunkers. when they first started out, they chose the cars that really looked like clunkers. now all of a sudden they're showing pretty nice looking cars. i was just wondering if they're really sticking to -- if the dealers are really sticking to

what they're supposed to to trade that car and then get rid of it the way the government wanted them to with grants. host: because they had to get like a certain amount better gas mileage than the so-called clunker that they're turning in, right? caller: but what do they consider gas mileage? some some of those cars i know darn well on the highway they get 20, 22 miles to the gallon. just seems like it's not fair. a person that wants to get a new car should be able to get $3,500 to trade in on a new car. i guess that's all i've got to say. host: still a couple weeks left in the congressional recess. the "washington times," the senate race in nevada, reid trails rivals, according to poll. this is from today's "washington times." a survey of 400 registered voterses for the las vegas review journal released sunday

paints the democratic incumbent as an underdog when matched against either of two possible republicans. mr. reid lag by 11 percentage points. he had 49% to mr. reid's 38%. he is a real estate professional and former university of nevada at las vegas basketball player, the son of legendary basketball coach. louisville, kentucky, and on our republican line, go ahead. caller: that lady you had on, i think maybe she's a loob byist for the toyota car dealers. host: she's the vice president of a chain of dealerships that includes toyota and a number of dealerships. caller: the foreign fwotes and whatever -- toyotas and whatever they have you. host: i think she was given

statistics. our reporter josh mitchell echoed those two. the toyota corolla was the number one model traded in. go ahead. i'm taking your time. you go ahead with your comments. caller: i think she really is a lobbyist also. host: tammy darvish? i don't think so. she's the vice president of an auto chain. next time she's on, you can ask her. caller: i saw her on there twice. she seems to be pushing those toyotas. i appreciate to get somebody on there represent ford, general motors or chrysler. host: long island, next up, john on our independents line. caller: i was going to co-sign one of those deals for my son on a cash for clunkers and the government doesn't get the $4,500, i'm on the hook for it. host: so you're not guaranteed in the paper work that you signed, you're saying you're not

guaranteed to get that $4,500? caller: if they don't get it, you're not getting the $45. host: have you already signed it? caller: no. host: a democratic caller. caller: i think this cash for clunkers program really has been a success in america, similar to hillary clinton signing an agreement with china to give china eminent domain power to take u.s. cities building and land in exchange for china buying u.s. treasury notes. this is one of the main reasons why the united states took an ownership stake in the auto industry so china can use the eminent domain power now to seize the u.s. auto industry and also seize a u.s. city. i think there needs to be a congressional investigation by giving away the united states through this eminent domain deal

that she signed in february. host: when was this deal signed? caller: february. i think this should be a topic for c-span to cover why ms. clinton chose to give china eminent domain power to seize our cities and our auto industry and our banking industry and any industries that china so chooses when this government has tensionally inflated our national dead to the point of which people can no longer pay it and it's equal too entire military funding for united states government. host: we welcome your comments by e-mail and twitter.com. journal@cspan.org. here's one from bigskychef. one of my employees would still have a job if he had access to a clunker. good morning to elaine on our republican line. caller: i think you can call the clunker program sort of a

success because you've got the realize the government is giving vouchers to help car makers pay back those loans that we gave them. you look at it, basically the taxpayers are paying yourses back because of the taxpayer money, too. personally, i think if obama had a way to pay back the union for their support the last election, the upcoming congressional elections -- host: why did you say it was a pay back? caller: we're paying for the upcoming congressional elections because they figure the health care is a little bit of a problem with getting what they want, so if -- they'll still have their support. host: here's the front page of "the new york times" story here on the justice department and abuse cases. justice report advises pursuit of abuse cases.

the justice department ethics office has recommended reversing the bush administration and reopening a nearly a dozen prisoner abuse cases, potentially exposing central intelligence agency employees and contractors to prosecution for brutal treatment of terrorism suspects, according to a person officially briefed on the matter. the recommendation by the office of professional responsibility, presented to the attorney general, in recent weeks comes as the justice department is about to disclose on monday today details on the prisoner abuse that were gathered in 2004 by the c.i.a. inspector general but have never been released further. he writes that with the release of the details today and the formal advice, that at least some cases it now seems certain that appointment of a prosecutor or other concrete steps will follow, posing significant new problems for the psi. it's been political awkward

because president obama has said he would rather move forward than get bogged down with the issue at the expense of his own agenda. one more call here. alex in daytona beach. success or failure? caller: i actually think it's a failure. i just see it as a -- i'm skeptical whether or not this money is actually going to do any good in the economy and try to make cash flow. i think for investing in this alternative fuels for vehicles, pretty much anything else that would have been able to make more of a long-term change, i don't know how long the program went, but i don't think it's going to make any significant difference because it's not the

right channel. host: the cash for clunkers program officially ends today. next, we're going to turn our attention to jimmy carter. a new book called "jimmy carter: the liberal left." we'll spend an hour talking about jimmy cart and his new book. but first an update from c-span radio. >> it's 8:59 a.m. eastern time. three nato troops, one from the united states and two from estonia were killed in attacks in southern afghanistan. the american service member died in an insurgent attack yesterday. it was the 37th death for the u.s. military in afghanistan since the beginning of august. the attack coming as fraud charges continue to mount from last week's presidential vote. more reaction to the release of a libyan convicted in the lockerbie bombing. correspondent an andrea ya mitchell speaking on msnbc's

"morning joe" ♪s that libya's president expects to meet with president obama in his trip. adding that there is a lot of anger and repercussions in terms of diplomatic relation. turning to financial news, investment banks have been repackaging old mortgage securities and offering to sell them as new products, a plan that's nearly identical to the investment packages. the associated press says that would-be solution probably sounds familiar. it's a lot like what got banks in trouble in the first place. finally, aaron williams to be sworn in today as the 18th director of the peace corps. mr. williams, fluent in spanish, met his wife rosa as a volunteer in the dominican republican. aaron williams is the fourth director in the peace corps' history to have served as a peace corps volunteer. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. headlines on c-span radio. .no carrierringconnect

guest: jimmy carter had a liberal left ideological world feel. he saw the world through the eyes of -- that people such as khamenei were human-rights movement, and little toward washington -- little george washington. he still does today. host: didn't jimmy carter run

as sort of a washington outsider, bought part of a liberal or otherwise establishment? guest: he did, but so did barack obama. they both ran out hope and change. host: but barack obama had been a member of the senate. guest: that's true. one was a governor. some would argue that the governor has more experience than a senator. nevertheless, they ran against an unpopular president and an unpopular war could for carter, it was nixon and watergate. for obama, it was bush and iraq. host: the heart anof your book is jimmy carter's views on the middle east and broadly on terrorism, it specifically on middle eastern relations could you describe it as carter-obama plan that will not work. tell us what you think it will not work. guest: the first thing i have to do is set the scene for the

plan. when jimmy carter came into office, because he saw the shot of iran as a conservative republican alpa -- shah of iran as a conservative republican ally, he took the position that this had to go. they had a twin bill of doctor and which richard nixon developed -- twin pillar doctrine which richard nixon developed with a strong iran was in america's best interest. carter did not believe that and did not want a strong iran. he looked to a man in france who was only there for months. that is what intrigues me to read the book. -- write the book. how could a refugee go to france in four months and accumulate the firepower and the money and resources to overthrow country? it did not seem possible to me. that is why i researched this.

israel is our proxy. it has been a party of the united states back to the cold war. host: does that mean? guest: america has used israel to do its fighting and the middle east. during the cold war, we cannot fight a war in the middle east. the deployment time is not probable. we had places like diego garcia that we would have to go through. it was impossible for us to fight a six-way -- six-day war in the middle east. all the battles against communism, we were paying israel to assist us. they were our proxy. the new course of the 21st century are proxy wars. host: i want you to address the comment on khomeini in paris. guest: he shows up from najaf,

iraq, and he is a refugee. the president said he did not know who he was when he arrived. i did not believe that, but he said he did not know who he was. the first thing we find out is almost 1000 individuals a day, 1000 individuals a day, are coming out to the chateau west of paris. we are finding out that tourists are going through the airport and they are not -- terrorists are going through the airport and they are not being stopped. the french put in another show -- they only do two a day, short shows, but they did another just to cover khamenei. host: are you say that the u.s. government was behind supporting him in paris? guest: as the french were and the british were, and it ended up in a summit in guadalupe which confirmed it all. host: did in the revolution in

iran happen first, before khomeini was in paris? the was already a nascent movement there, was there not? guest: mosques, mullis, and madrasahs -- mullahs, and madrasahs but my contacts on the ground, ambassadors i talk to, said it was run through the mosques. khomeini was firing through the mosques with cassette tapes every week. listen, they were sending money in to him, he was getting enormous amounts of money, covertly. host: but back to the u.s. interests, why would it be part of the u.s. interests to have someone like him support that if the world view of khomeini was anti-u.s.? guest: because carter did i see

him as anything but a ghani-like figure -- did not see him as anything but a 90-like figure. he had a team of leftists who thought he would be a cleric and good for human rights, or as he thought the shah was a republican-loving mark who needed to be overthrown. -- monarchs who needed to be overthrown. host: we will go to calls now. good morning to give the and in austin, texas. caller: i think carter was one of the best presidents we have ever had if we would have stuck to his plan, -- he had a plan under way to get us off dependence on foreign oil. he put solar panels on the white house. and you are just a corporate

mouthpiece for the dark oil companies. the same things were going on then, oil companies influence, is going on now, and you are just part of that. carter was the best present we have had and we have not had one like him since. guest: i think he was a wonderful ex-president i have a problem with a president that sends $50 million to the muslim brotherhood in egypt and bombs at up to $90 million, and it becomes known as al qaeda, because he wants to find the afghan [applause] -- the afghan which had been. we are fighting them because of that operation. the russians were very worried about the destabilization of iran, and they were extremely worried in july of that year, 1979, when carter started moving some of his people into

afghanistan, and the russians threaten to invade. it is our real problem. there are a lot more facts out there than most people know. host: that caller talked about jimmy carter's view on energy, some of his famous speeches about a war over energy. do you write about his views on energy at the time? guest: yes, indeed. jimmy carter created a lot of economic problems for the united states. sure, he wanted to do something about energy, but we see something that happened with energy. the price of oil went through the roof. because the destabilization of the middle east under carter's watch. he was obsessed with one thing, i think it was a good thing, but he was obsessed with it, and that was peace between israel and egypt. i was advising men often been at the time. -- advising menachim begin at the time and i know the story well. he put everything else on the back burner, including our

revolution was beginning in iran, a shiite revolution that has destabilized the entire world. host: it is coming on this third anniversary of the takeover of the u.s. embassy in iran -- the 30th anniversary of the takeover of the u.s. embassy in iran. how much did that heard jimmy carter's presidency? guest: that was the existential nail in the coffin. you had a dilemma for jimmy carter that he could not get out of jimmy carter was, i believe, a kind man. he did not want morris, he did not want to fight with people. -- w he did -- wars -- he did not want wars, he did not want to fight with people. he said you cannot kidnap a holy man. host: back to the u.s. supporting khomeini, how does it make sense that khomeini would

allow this takeover happen if the u.s. had provided some sort of support for him in paris or wherever? how does that jibe with the fact that the embassy was taken hostage for over a year? guest: in fact, the embassy was working at the destabilization of iran. sullivan, the ambassador at the time, was working with the clerics, opposition figures, to undermine the shah and they had but his palace. motorola set up the operation there for the phone services. i met with quite a number of the people who were involved in it. the cia really believed that the shah was not good for iran, and the only guy in town that seemed to have the voice of the people of iran was khomeini, so carter had a program that was designed -- was to find plausible deniability. they had a contact there were working with you had a direct access to khomeini, even though

carter said he never had direct access to khomeini. caller: good morning, gentlemen. first, i would like to know if you're just as appeared on fox news yet. guest: i have been on the fox news quite a lot as a middle east analyst. caller: that seems to be rather obvious. first, i'd like to point that unlike mr. bush and cheney and reagan, jimmy carter was a noble, decorated man who served his country in the military. i think that needs to be pointed out. you are all over the place with your selective history. you don't have any quibbles about mr. reagan misleading the american people and continuing with the republican leadership to say no negotiations with tear wrists, when everybody knows about the secret negotiations, the delays of the terrorists.

mr. obama finds off in an economic -- finds himself an economic disaster much like the one mr. carter finds itself in, and we see the republicans playing the game of trying to blame the trillion dollar debt as it of their administration on the following democratic administration. guest: you know, i did not write a book on reagan or bush. truthfully, i did not support the iraq war. i wrote a book against that, before bush went to war in iraq i said the war would not begin until it ends. on a rake and, i was with the marines -- on ronald reagan, i was with the marines in beirut 1240 of them were killed by iran, hezbollah. i filled those kids the night before because they're not going come to christmas so that they

could say something to their moms and dads. i could see their faces right now. i am well aware that ronald reagan himself pulled out of lebanon. i remember the ice and our guns. i also remember the fact that he was c-span.org. -- i remember the eisenhower guns. you are right about some of your facts, but the book is not about them. host: republican line. caller: this big of brzezinski, president carter's -- zbigniew brzezinski, president carter's national security adviser, thought that he could prevent the soviet empire from expanding into afghanistan and so on but they thought it was best to remove the shah from power and have an islamist that would obviously be against an atheist type of government. they had this idea and it went forward with it.

today, most of the problems that western nations are facing in the middle east and afghanistan is as a result of jimmy carter's mistakes with iran and afghanistan. the creation of hezbollah, hamas, iran at turning into a bully, all as a result of shah being deposed. the cia director of carter has appeared on the show you are on right now and has not denied that the cia was against overthrowing the shah. guest: you have your facts precisely correct. i agree with you on those facts. nobody wants to tell the truth on this matter. it is not convenient for people to say that the crisis in afghanistan was greeted by us. brzezinski, who you mentioned, in july of that year, warned

carter -- if we continue this course, the russians are going to invade afghanistan. carter did not listen to him. it is true. the soviets were very worried about destabilization of the muslim bordering countries, and they threaten to before it ever happen. i wrote articles called " blowback" on it. if we win, we lose. you cannot put $10 billion of money into pakistan and create a terrorist network funded and feel it and she did and if they win, we lose. it was a real problem. host: you write in the book that --

guest: yes. listen, the saudis right now are shopping for a nuclear reactor. they know that their 400-mile wall that they built between iraq and saudi arabia will not sustain them on a 200-mile gulf with the nuclear atomic country the shiites number only 100 million, maybe 120 million, where you have 1 billion sunnis. we are talking about a trillion-dollar nuclear arms race among all the oil states if the shiite states goes nuclear. this would have been prevented a totally if carter had not stepped into the pot with iran and had actually supported democracy. host: in your view, what israel be justified with a pre-emptive

strike on an iranian nuclear facility? guest: well, i have never been a proponent of that. i hope and pray that there are other alternatives. ahmadinejad is coming here for the united nations in september. what i lobbied for in 1988 when yasir arafat was coming was for the president to not give him a visa. ahmadinejad is a fraudulent president the iranian people -- many people are still in prison and tortured over him. if we justify this fraudulent election, this could be a huge sign to the iranian people and a world that we will not tolerate this type of things and marginalize and islamic regime. that is the last resort. we should try to avoid any cost. host: and on the democrats' line for mike evans. caller: jimmy carter was interviewed on one of those programs, and he was saying that

any congressman or senator voted against the government of israel -- giving israel money, they would never be reelected again. can you elaborate on that, tell me what he was talking about? guest: i met with carter's people around the end of his presidency, and one of his key guys that i met with -- there was such animosity that he told me carter had towards the jews but he blamed the jews for the loss of his election. this gentleman told me in the white house that. for some reason, he just developed a really bad attitude. begin did not like carter. menachem begin would meet with him after the presidency. carter developed a real attitude towards the jews and israel and

still has it today. host: jacksonville, florida, independent line. caller: i will ask a question and then make a comment. you claim any party, a democrat, republican, independent? if you do, where do think we would be at now without the peacekeeping force that president carter put into the middle east between egypt and israel to watch over those two countries? i think israel and egypt is a big piece of the puzzle in the middle east. if carter had not did what he did, i wonder where we would be at today, sir. guest: look, i agree with you on egypt and israel could actually, it was not carter. i know the story well. it was begin and sadat who put the deal together. carter was opposed to it.

he was trying to bring the soviets into the peace process. sadat was opposed to that and so was begin and carter back down and changed his tune and he ended up taking a lot of credit for it. nevertheless, the peace accord was brilliant, and worked, even the carter did not develop the plan. he did participate in it at camp david and did a good job at camp david, reasonably good. yes, i support that program totally. i think that is something that carter should get a lot of credit for. host: former president carter continues to have a role or presence in middle east peace discussions. world leaders push for mideast peace. several world leaders, including president jimmy carter, plan to visit israel on the west bank in an effort to advance the peace process. the international middle east center said that the group will arrive in israel on monday but will not visit the gaza strip during the trip. the visit is aimed at trying to

push barack obama's peace policy forward and encourage israel and palestinians advance peace and reconciliation. are the goals of the former president in sync with what president obama would like to see in the middle east? guest: i don't think so. it is interesting, the animosity between clinton and carter. he has not been in step with most of the past presidents, and has created a lot of animosity with that. carter is coming in under our organization called the elders. bishop tutu was a bus to come with him -- host: desmond tutu? guest: yes. i do not know if he is still with him to read if you take the term elders and you go to the jews and say to the jews that we want to have a peace program called the elders, would you like to meet with us, they get very nervous. the great book that traded most

of the anti-semitism is called "the elders of the protocols of his eye ozion." it is the number-one selling book in the muslim world outside of the car on -- out of the koran. appropriate smith's, and that is a news story today with a swedish -- it propagates mix, and that is that news story today with the swiss journalist talking up the selling of organs by israelis. but his belief system is that -- is precisely the same. hamas should be recognized breed is a terrorist organization, but carter did -- and as should be recognized. it is a terrorist organize asian, but carter does not seek -- terrorist organization, but carter does not see it as one. host: california, sally for mike evans, republican colubr-- repun

caller. caller: i am sorry to say that i voted for jimmy carter, like a lot of people that, because of its it was more against keeping gerald ford in print, thank you for writing this book about jimmy carter. i remember his presidency very well. after he turned the country into chaos, and unemployment soared, he turned around like a true democrat and taxed our unemployment. he was the first president that did that. i remember it very well. that is the better of what he did. i hope this was in your book. i remember the interview with a reporter when the reporter asked jimmy carter, "do you mean that anyone coming to our borders seeking political asylum, we will give it to them? he hesitated and then said,

"well, yes." that was the beginning of our downfall. anyone who wanted the two magic words, political asylum, we had to take them in. that is when our country -- easterners began to flood the country. barbara walters even did a segment on it on "20/20" program. i used to travel back and forth between new york and france, and it got so bad. when i would come to customs, they would not even ask for my passport, and they would just put me through. i would say, "how do you know i am an american?" dewitt said, "just go through, we know." it was not until i saw the program that barbara walters in that i realized they were letting me come through, because they had to let these people through that customs agents themselves said release scary. guest: well, i also voted for jimmy carter.

host: both times? guest: no, the first time he ran. because of my faith, i thought this was going to be a wonderful president. we claim to be an evangelical -- he claimed to be an evangelical and he said all the right things but because of my personal fit, i thought it was so great. -- because of my personal faith, i thought it was so great. i was excited about his presidency. i did not understand at the time. i was in washington, d.c., with a general who was dying and crying, and he was the general who was sent by carter to iran to work with the military, and he told me, "i caused the death of these men. i lied to them." most of the top leaders in iran were tortured and executed. they were allies of the united states, but the general said, "i was sent there to neutralize them and keep them from a military coup." to was horrified.

that upset me when i talked to the general and realize some of the things that actually with the truth about the dilemma. host: of you were sent as a tweet. -- a viewer sent in a tweed. do you think he is an anti- semite? guest: i don't recall calling him an anti-semite. that is a dangerous word to use. i don't think he is an anti- semite. now, i am not going to build a case for him based upon being a nobel peace prize winner, because yasir arafat was also, who killed leon klinghoffer, threw him over in a wheelchair and was this possible for the munich massacre, and over 1100 terrorist attacks. just because you got a nobel peace prize winner does not put you in great stay with the world. carter, i don't believe, was an

anti-semite, but i do believe that carter is completely wrong about his position on the jews and the state of israel, and has been on the rocks at of history on virtually everything lightly. -- wrong side of history and virtually everything lately. host: what did the camp david accords fail? guest: they did not fail. how did they fail? host: in the long run, division of middle east peace. guest: begin told me that he had a problem with carter because carter did not seem to understand where he was coming from. he said he had a list of cities in america were from the bible, such as bethlehem, pennsylvania. mr. president, with the governor of pennsylvania said that everyone could live in bethlehem except the blacks? he said of course not. he would be accused of racism

then how can you ask me to do that? ours is the original bethlehem. he had a problem with carter because begin did not agree to divide jerusalem with the basic things that carter was saying, and by the way, carter is still saying it. even his secretary said that we did not agree to these things. the camp david accords failed because carter was trying to solve all the problems in the middle east at once. he wanted a complete solution to everything at once. israel was the center of gravity at that time, seemingly, on all of the problems. he still thinks that the center of gravity for all the problems -- that is not true. when you have iran, a terrorist state, most of it mahdi army with hamas, there is a lot of problems in the middle east

besides israel. host: james, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. mr. evans is the first person who has ever caused me to stay on line long enough to get on line. i'm a first-time caller. thank you very much i am an ex-navy man, and jimmy carter was one of the reasons i joined the navy in 1973 he was a wonderful man, and the things that he felt about people are totally anathema to what this man is saying. he just upsets me so much. the first thing he did was dehumanize ayatollah khamenei who did nothing but try to protect his country. if you put the shah of iran in

charge of my country, i would hope that i would have the guts to fight him back. the center of gravity is still israel. you don't have to be anti- semitic to disagree with the treatment of the palestinians. you don't have to be anti- semitic to disagree with the fact that one small country as hegemony over an entire region. host: his views are echoed by of the work or whites on twitter -- writes on twitter -- guest: well, there is an issue here with what nation? i never heard of a palestinian language, flag, culture. there is not any. all that was created. i debated someone in madrid who said to not distort my reality.

she said, "bethlehem as a muslim village where the first palestinian was born, jesus christ." i do not agree with that premise, the palestinian press. you have a refugee problem that the arab world that does not want to resolve. in order to support an enemy, you have to have an army for an enemy, and israel becomes the enemy to justify their armies. the palestinians have been pawns. they have been exploited by everyone, including the muslim world. the refugee problem is the center of gravity for all of it. nobody wants to stop it. i met with the prime minister of jordan and said, "the palestinians were passports, why can you resolve the problem?" he said, "we would be delighted to, but we cannot get the support of the arab league." host: you mentioned being an adviser of menachem begin.

what is your background in the middle east? guest: i became involved as a very young man. the senior advisor to the prime minister became my mentor. he introduced me to the founder of mossad. and i must tell you this story and i will try to make it short. in some to more 23rd, 1980, i had dinner and i said, "do you think terrorism will come to america?" "if terrorists have the will but not the power, that could change in time, and the first terrorist attack would be in new york city in your tallest building." he predicted that the world trade tower was be hit -- would be hit as the first target because it was a phallic fertility symbol. he said that sadat would be

assassinated. any said ronald reagan would be elected president and he puts his hand on the bible, the hostages would be released. i was shocked. rubén called me that moment and said that he was right. carter wire transferred $7.9 billion from the federal reserve to the bank of england and find documents -- signed a document to buy back the hostages. host: what were his, -- what were his options at the time? host the ba -- guest: the backward options had failed. he did not want a military option. when you give a terrorist regimes $7.8 billion and respect the territorial integrity, you are sending a signal that crime pays we need to deal with that militarily and we needed to deal with it quick.

he would not do that. host: mike evans with us until 10:00 eastern, talking about his book, "jimmy carter: the liberal left and world chaos." thomas, good morning. caller: will you write down these two names for me? guest: short. caller: they took jimmy carter and sued him over the panama canal. they went to the supreme court. when she walked to the supreme court, she said, "i'm a legislator, a teacher, and a professor. i am a lawyer for the supreme court." they went and checked her documents. she is a lawyer who sued jimmy carter over the panama canal, said it was unconstitutional for him to do that. the lawsuit has never been heard from after she left. the woman has passed on now. but the lawsuit is still there and nobody has ever talked about

the panama canal and el salvador and nicaragua and colombia to -- the columbia pact for the portrait that jimmy carter left in. guest: i am not familiar with a loss of -- with the lawsuit so i cannot speak to it. listen, jimmy carter has a belief system. he actually believes that most of these human organizations that we call terrorist organizations argument rights movements. -- are human rights movements that have not matured. if we are going to fight a war on terror, we have to define it with more clarity. somebody has to be a terrorist. right now jimmy carter does not use the word terrorist. host: what is your view of the work he has done with his carter center? guest: i think that the carter center is a front for the arab

league. the an oblique puts enormous amounts of money into the carter center -- the arab league puts enormous amounts of money into the carter center and jimmy carter is there poster boy. and talking about the ones that are anti-israel, finally taking the position -- fundamentally taking the position that "carter is our man." habitat for to manatee is wonderful. ." and for that. but i do not -- habitat for humanity is wonderful. god bless him for that. but i do not have any respect for the carter center. caller: someone finally what about saying how horrible jimmy carter's presidency was. he was the worst president of the 20 was century. the unrest in the middle east is due to him. they did not do it because they finally saw their shot in 1979,

1980, because they saw that we had an unfit president, and that is what started all of people taking shots at the u.s. from the middle east. if anyone else is president at the time, they would not dare do that. that led up eventually to the impact in 2001, when they started taking attacks against the west and they should not let him go around being ambassador for the u.s. if he has something to say, don't say nothing at all. guest: well, thank you. i met twice with the empress of iran in this city. the wife of that shah. i said to her, what was your has been thinking when carter was pressuring him? to release political prisoners who were fundamentally khomeini 's people but to give freedom of the press to the radical islamic movement in iran.

what was your has been thinking? who knows where or will come into the world of carter continues with this pressure -- what a horrible, into the world if carter continues with this pressure? she told me this, and then i remember reading about osama's number, the number he gave us when he had us on 9/11, the number of moslems that were killed. i checked on the approximate number of moslems killed in the iran-iraq war and the afghan war, and it was fundamentally the same number. osama, even the terror is never justified, had taken that as a reason to attack us. i think there is a lot of truth to what carter did. i met with the iranians when ahmadinejad came to the united states the first time.

i brought up the name and george ball, and the ball report is another reason i wrote the book, because it was a plan to overthrow iran. when i mentioned the report, they were shocked that i knew about george ball and his 18- page report. if iran was still our allies, he would not have an islamic revolution in iran, i don't believe, he would not have had the russians invading afghanistan, you would not have the iran-iraq war, and you certainly would not at al qaeda. yes, in fact, i think the united states made terrible mistakes in the middle east. it could do it intentionally? no, i don't he did it intentionally. caller: i hear a lot of discussion about carter's relationship with aipac and the israeli lobby. i worked on carter's 1980 pennsylvania primary campaign. it was the first time i ever worked on the campaign at that level. it was fascinating to watch what happened, because about two or

three days before the pennsylvania primary, a vote came up to the u.s. security council. our then-representative donald mchenry abstained. literally, within hours, the apec groups and all the other jewish groups, especially -- aipac groups and all the other jewish groups in mobilized, and we heard the stuff they were calling carter on phone calls, and literally, that is why we lost the pennsylvania primary to kennedy. less than ours. for me, it would never work on a campaign at that level, it was an eye opener to see the kind of power aipac has. host: you are talking about 1976? guest: no, 1983 i do not know if it was a pack at the time, -- gue19 now, 1980.

i do not know if it was aipac at the time we little israel, the great jewish northeast, if all went for kennedy. later on, you find out, no wonder every politician on the hill is scared to death of aipac. host: does that correspond to the research you want done? guest: no, not really. i have had this discussion with bibi netanyahu. i was advising him for his first position. we have discussed this, and we laugh about it, because a aipac is not that big an organization as far as that in -- as far as economics. but what they do is mobilize the

christian community. you don't have that many jews in the senate or the congress, but you have an awful lot of christians. if you look back to the days of harry truman, you find that a lot of harry truman's decisions to do what he did were based on his biblical beliefs system. he read the bible through by the age of 12 place. he had a strong bible belize. a lot of evangelical christians and america. they are a big lobby. host: tennessee. caller: i forget the man's name. host: mike evans. caller: thanks for c-span. he is using a lot of work games, but he is right about the nobel peace prize not being that important, because they give it to henry kissinger. i think jimmy carter was an honorable man.

here are my two questions. please do not evade them again to what branch of the military did you ever served, and what is your party affiliation? since you said you are evangelical, i am pretty sure you are one of the neocons. i am enjoying your book our this month. i hope to continue this. guest: i served in the army, i was a medic in the army. i was not in thethe vietnam, but i served in a hospital in korea. i was horrified when i came back from korea because people were spitting on me and calling me a baby killer. that is the military i served in. politically, i am a republican. honestly, and embarrassed republican but i don't agree with a lot of the positions that have been taken by the republican party. i hope i answered your

questions. host: you write in the book about the war in iraq. "while the liberal left in america at screams about the mess in iraq and the war on terror have been caused by the republican presidency of george w. bush, the truth is that the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies and the ultraliberal leftist jimmy carter." wasn't george bush's reaction -- decision to go into iraq and afghanistan based on the attacks of 9/11? guest: you had a german chancellor and the british prime minister. those three that there. 1979, january. you had at the president of france telling me, a direct quotation, "carter told us that he was overthrowing the shah of

iran and everything has been worked out." "carter is a bastard of conscience." i could not believe -- he said it was already done. in february 1, khomeini our lives back in france, and on the airplane is filled with two groups, terrorists and journalists. peter jennings was on the flight. there were going back to france to take the country. host: frank, republican line. caller: mr. evans, my name is frank. my belief is that when they raise the interest rates so why, that was the reason that jimmy carter's presidency was history.

secondly, i understand that your name -- that is not your real name? if it is not, can you tell us your real name? guest: my real name is my name, mike evans. i have never used any other names but that name. it is the name on all my books. i don't know anything about the federal reserve matter. i only know that i lived through the situation and i was close to the prime minister of israel at the time and watched it very carefully. i do believe that iran was the reason that the president lost his presidency. i do believe and i know for a fact that he founded the muslim brotherhood in egypt, provided french and chinese arms to them to go fight the russians in afghanistan, and i treated the organization that we are dealing with right now.

-- and that created the organization that we are dealing with right now. host: new york. good morning, you are on the air. i am going to put him on hold and go to noblesville, indiana, independent line. caller: good morning. early on in your statement, he said that jimmy carter rose up through peanuts, the peanut farmer can you elaborate on the fact that he was kind of an unknown, and this was in brzezinski's book, that nelson rockefeller met him at a conference and introduced him to his brother david, and then brzezinski school and tutored him on foreign matters, and he immediately became a charter member of the newly formed trilateral commission that these two men had formed, and when he got in, landslide, 30% of his

members were trilateral commission members. this sounds a lot like obama, who has been schooled and tutored by the same man. many people in the media never discussed the similarities of these two presidents. can you elaborate on that for us? guest: that is why i wrote the book, to compare them agre. they both ran, as i mentioned, on hope and change, against unpopular presidents and unpopular wars. we had watergate and we had iraq. the american people were ready for something, and they both controlled the house and the white house. it was a real problem. i see the potential for problems with obama. i was hoping that maybe president obama can learn from jimmy carter past mistakes -- jimmy carter's mistakes and not repeat specific ones.

host: back to the subtitle of your book, "a carter-obama plan that will not work." what is it about president obama's middle east plan that are similar to jimmy carter's and that you think will not work? guest: good question, bill read obama supports what is called the saudi plan. -- good question bill. obama supports what is called the saudi plan. can they ever accept the plan? no. to accept the plan, they have to comply with resolutions and go back to pre-1967 borders. and they have to bring the refugees from lebanon, and many of them are terrorists, into the land of israel. in addition, they have to give up airspace. they can never give up airspace. there is is zero warning time on airspace.

secondly, they have to permit an army to be developed, an army with distances of literally feet. host: this would be a palestinian army? guest: palestinian army. the distances are feet, meters. and treaties were palestinians could form treaties with enemies of israel, such as iran and syria. i have been there during the last war. then they could do nothing. israel cannot possibly do this. this is a cruel joke to the palestinians. to keep debating them, to promise them something that is not realistic, -- to keep baiting them, to promise them something that is not realistic, is a cruel thing to do. host: new york, democrats line. caller: this gentleman does not know the broad issues of the iran relationship with the

united states. i was in iran in 1953. they overthrew the elected government in iran. it was a continuation of aggression that you had in iran. i think it is forgetting the whole history. history does not start in the middle of the book. what we have right now is secondary to the overthrow of the legitimate government in iran. guest: i agree with you concerning operation ajax and the cia's codeword "loch be a lady tonight." i met with the last iranian ambassador to the united states concerning these matters. the u.s. intervene and overthrew the government, which at the time was a democracy, to put in that shah of iran, and then turn

around and decided we did not want him anymore and we were going to take him down. i agree with you on this. it's historically accurate and true, and it is in my book. host: susie on the independence line. caller: 10 ack-a -- can i talk? host: you sure can. caller: number one, anti-semitic is not apply only to jews, but all the middle eastern people. number two, what harry truman did, to get rid of the jews here to put them in palestine. no. 3, why hitler hated the jews? why did he take them so much? if somebody come and take him

out of the house, what would he do? he would never sleep at night until he gets his house back. that is what hitler did to the jews, kicking them out of their homeland. now the palestinians have to get a home and back. no justice, no peace but never going to be peace in the middle east until the palestinian people get back their homeland. guest: that is a lot. you talked about anti-semitism. it is a broad word. there's a lot of anti-semitism. there is a lot of hatred and bigotry against a lot of different races of people. the thing you discussed with harry truman -- harry truman did not want to establish the state for the jews. he tried to not do that. we have a document in the state department called "the state

department's complicity in the murder of a 6 million jews," because the state department did not support bombing the road trucks and -- wrote checks and liberating the jews in the war because they thought the allies would not support them. shanghai that them in. they had no where to go. they have absolutely no where to go. i was feeling all of this? into hatred. -- what was fuelling all this? jew hatred. hitler believed all problems in the world were created by jews and he felt justified in murdering 1 million jewish children. you have a book called "protocols of the elders of zion." there are many muslims that believe that today, that there is a jewish conspiracy, all the banks, all the media, controlled by the jews, aids was greeted by

the jews. this is anti-semitism and jew hatred and it will not solve the palestinian problem. if the palestinian children are not taught to kill through the kindergarten camps -- by the way, the palestinians did not start all of this. this came through the islamic radicals. hamas came into the palestinian territories and evangelize these children and exploited these children. the palestinians were nationalists when i first met them and they were not involved in suicide bombing. host: illinois, craig on the republican line. caller: good morning. mike, you are always welcome in my home and my church. i always appreciate your intelligence and what you have been doing. i wrote you a letter in the early 1980's about rebuilding the temple of jerusalem. aone i am wondering about what s

going on over there. i think you're doing a great job. if people knew more of what you were all about, they would listen to you more. guest: well, there has been a more activist attacks in the city of jerusalem than any city and -- more terrorist attacks in the city of jerusalem than any city in the world. radical islam once this city. they really do. radical islam once this city because they believe they can usher in the mahdi. a spiritual adviser told me that, did a shot would be ushering in -- ahmadinejad would be ushering in the mahdi. once he is assured in, at all

christians and jews would be converted instantaneously to islam. this is a dangerous belief system, but it goes back to a belief system that that mahdi will liberate the temple site. the majority of muslims do not believe this. probably 10% or less believe this, but that 10% are very dangerous people. host: next caller. caller: i just wanted to let you know that i was in the service when jimmy carter was president. i was in the infantry at the time. i thought jimmy carter was a very good man personally. i think he was highly intelligent and tried to do his best for the country. i thought that the federal reserve did bad things against him and driving interest rates up. he was kind of wanting to pay off the national debt. that was one of his main

concerns. i also feel that if he would have made a different move on iran and given them a short notice, 24 or 48 hours, and told them that they were going to be heavily in faded and possibly an isolated, -- heavily inundated and possibly an isolated, it would've made a difference. i think that the world is standing on an abyss. that is my opinion. i think it is time that everybody toned down the rhetoric and a little bit. and look towards may be trying to lead the weapons aside for a while and use a bit of dialogue to work things out. there's been way too much hatred on all three sides, and when i say all three sides, and the christians, of which i am one,