>> good morning and welcome to "washington journal. " we had a deadly air strike. this may have killed a civilian. our topics for this first hour is the war in afghanistan and the direction that the white house is using to take their. our first guest is arnaud de borchgrave, who is the editor at

large for the "washington times." good morning. thank you for being with us. conservatives are coming out and talking about concerns about proceedings in afghanistan. tell us how you look at this yesterday in the washington times. guest: i think there are large number of public opinion in the country. then a number of the people who oppose the war is roughly 57%. k.i.a. will weeks ago is -- two weeks ago it was 51 percent said. president obama highlighted the cause of this war in his campaign. i think the chances are that senator mccain would be president today, so he had to

come out in favor of this war, provided it hadn't paid to al qaeda. -- it had a peg to al qaeda. we chased al qaeda ad of afghanistan back in 2001. -- out of afghanistan back in 2001. they are now in what as known as the federally administered i tribal areas of afghanistan. host: is this a new direction for conservatives? guest: i think part of the conservative opinion in this country is certainly against the war. i think george is now playing a the role of during the vietnam war.

-- i think george is now playing the role of walter cronkite during the vietnam war. this is when lyndon johnson decided he could not run for president see -- presidency again because once walter concrete is against the war, he has lost america. ithe war is very unpopular, and will require -- if we're serious about reaching out the taliban, as other people have said over and over again, we have to be there for the long run, and i would imagine that would be 5 to 10 tiercyears. i am afraid that our allies will not be with us for 5 to 10 years. host: you had a piece yesterday.

you read that president obama is not linking with the blackberry as some have suggested, but lyndon johnson with a war that the country no longer supports and a new concrete yapping at this afghan hills. a growing number of americans can see afghanistan moving toward stalemate. what is the danger of falling out of the key aniston? gues -- what is the danger of falling out of afghanistan? guest: the danger is that al qaeda will be there right away. the bad guys will be back in the minute we give this up. al qaeda winds that particular round. we cannot pull out for that particular reason.

our allies are very impatient to get out. let's go back to what happened right after 9/11. our allies invoked article 5 and everyone rushed to our assistance. no one thought it would be there for seven or eight years. they thought one year maximum. now we have been in afghanistan 50% longer than we have been involved in both world wars. it is a very long war. host: he said there are still 100,000 troops into iraq. the 2006 bipartisan commission on our rociraq, iran looms a la. do we need to shift our

attention? guest: we have already been given from -- we have already gotten the message from his reaisrael. they feel that iran is working on a nuclear weapon. it is just as much a crisis for us as the cuban missile crisis was for us. our gueshost: our guest is arnae borchgrave. we're talking about afghanistan as well as other foreign policy issues. you can join the conversation. call the numbers on your screen. we're also online.

you can find us on twitter. you mentioned that president obama had to take a stand advocating for action in afghanistan because he had to be seen as a tough guy in some respects -- guest: tough on al qaeda. host: talk about the politics of these decisions. guest: if he came out against the war he would be dismissed by his opponents. that certainly would have defeated him in the campaign. he said this is where al qaeda is located in this is what we're going after. the problem is that al qaeda is not in afghanistan. pakistan is thathe world's most

dangerous place today. we forget what we were allies fighting the soviet union's occupancy of pakistan, what happened during the successful suit to be -- during the successful defeat we turned against them because they were working on a nuclear weapon. if you were a lieutenant in capt. back in those days, today you are one star or two star general. there's a great distress on the pakistani army, the united states. that is a very difficult situation. our enemies are located in that country, even though it is not a province of pakistan. as long as they have safe havens there, as long as taliban and allocate have safe havens on the pakistani side of the border,

the afghan war is unwinnable. i think everyone realizes that. the pakistani is -- they will nt say so willingly but having the al qaeda regime back in control does not scared them. that movement prevailed putting the civil war to an end in afghanistan, which follows the soviet withdrawal, and by 1996 they took over the country. of course, we overthrew the taliban regime after october 7, 21. -- october 7, 2001. host: this is being called a mistake. how does that influence afghanistan? this that influence public opinion or policy?

guest: it is a huge factor in this discussion, and thain that was a huge distraction from afghanistan. this particular war in afghanistan is going to cost a lot of money it made last 5 to 10 years if we are determined to stick it out. most of our allies will no longer be with us. most of us 1 -- most of the allies want out by the end of 2010. the dutch and french are now engaged in connecticut operations, offensive operations against the taliban. the others are prevented from doing so by a series of cutbacks indented by their own -- the others are prevented from doing so by a series of costly that'saveats, invented by theirn

parliaments. host: let's go to a phone call from philadelphia, pennsylvania. caller: i am really disturbed about what i am hearing now. i am a vietnam era person. during that time, we were constructed to fight in vietnam, all war which was a lot murkier than this one. i see the same kind of creeping defeatism coming in here. no one is forcing these people to be in the military. we are a military superpower. i think my point is what good is being a military superpower if you do not want to use that military? as far as europeans go, if they

do not think they have a dog in the fight, what happens in madrid, in london? taliban comes back -- if the taliban comes back and al qaeda comes back in afghanistan, you will statee it all over europe. guest: i happen to agree with everything you said. i had seven tours in vietnam. and i could not agree with you more. what you just said is irrefutable. equally irrefutable is the fact that 67% of americans -- 57% of americans are against any more involved in afghanistan. host: tell us about the comparisons between the vietnam

war and afghanistan? guest: lyndon johnson had to can see that he lost public opinion. on the other hand, the conventional wisdom is that if we lost in vietnam, that would be to see in the cold war, and we would be engaged for many years to come. that turned out to be totally incorrect. we won the cold war and the soviet union -- half the states lost the cold war. al qaeda back in afghanistan automatically means there will be terrorism on all the places that he mentioned, europe and united states. host: there was an interesting piece of looking at -- comparing vietnam and afghanistan. it said there are important differences. aalso that the u.s. has spent so

much of the gdp on military spending. the amount going to afghanistan is far less. guest: obviously we can afford it. we have been printing a lot of money. there is about a trillion dollars worth of infrastructure requirements in the united states, so dollars can always be printed. i think you do need public be rigid public opinion behind you. -- i think you do need public opinion behind you. host: we have a call on the republican line. caller: this is just washington politics as usual. this president promised during his campaign that he would try

to have all troops home in 18 months. now he is talking about sending more troops. this is going to become his achilles' heel. he will not be reelected. i am 100% behind brmitt romney, and i hope he becomes our next president. guest: i am not here to express any opinions on the next president, but i do feel that the current president, if he keeps going on this track, the republicans would regain congress. this would paralyze the president for the rest of his term. unfortunately this president has taken on too much. you do your priorities one at a time, and obviously afghanistan is something that requires a lot more prioritizing on the part of the president than has been the

case. host: what are republican ideas for dealing with afghanistan? guest: i think republicans are divided on the subject. once you analyze all of the factors at play and the continuation of afghanistan, it seems to me you have to be there for the long haul, which is what general petraeus says. our allies may bailout. many of them are not doing the fighting. it requires a lot more on the part of our country. our nato commander said the situation requires about 400,000 troops. we have roughly 100,000 today. it is a country decides at france. it has the most awful to rein in the world if you could imagine. yo-- it has the most awful to reerrain in the world.

there are very difficult conditions. host: there is the younger generations and we may need to stay the course. tell us about your impression of that. guest: that is what i think i am saying, we have to stay the course, otherwise al qaeda will be back. it is a huge country. it requires a lot of troops to assure the kind of peace among the local population. today, as you know, it is mostly taliban by night and u.s. and friends by dead. that was very much the situation and that can -- that was very much the situation in vietnam. -- today, as you know, it is mostly taliban by night and u.s.

and friends by day. host: let's go to joan on the independent line calling from ohio. welcome to the program. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to state, you know, i know, and united states of america needs to know, we cannot afford to pull out because our government has told people the nuclear weapons and that is how our government knows they are there. they plan all of these wars. the one world order is here, alive and well. they have all been working for the devil. it is just a shame. people are worrying about all of

this, everyone needs to get on their knees and start crying. we aren't one mess. can you comment on that? -- we are in one big mess. guest: we remember that the soviets finally less on february 15, 1989, and minnine months lar the berlin wall fell. ththere certainly planning anotr 9/11. if they were given a free hand in this, which obviously we would be giving them a free and if they were allowed to return to afghanistan, i am quite sure they're planning something much bigger than 9/11.

host: guesthis is from an exper. the consequences of such a retreat would be to shift the balance of influence in the region decidedly away from the pro-u.s. forces in the direction of the most radical forces in tehran. guest: we have to factor into that the israelis, who are determined to prevent the iranians from having a nuclear capability. i think you have almost a general war throughout the middle east, because the iranian regime has of retaliatory capabilities. oil could be at $300.

this could happen very quickly. host: these withdrawals would signal a new isolationism. guest: i think there are people speculating that china is the next global power and will reap -- will be replacing 25 years from now. -- and will be replacing the united states 20 years from now. host: the is calling on the democrats' line from dayton, ohio. caller: i wanted to make the comment that i cannot believe i am not hearing republicans are suggesting we attacked al qaeda from offshore. that is what we did during the clinton administration, which

the republicans criticized very loudly. this is more politics. about trying to attack obama then it is wearing about -- then it is worrying about american security. i do not think george will is and walter cronkite. -- is any walter, great. -- walter coronkite. guest: i think you are absolutely correct and analyzing what is going on right now somebody, finally come up will have to re-spell out why we're there and what would happen if we give up. and you are right that this cannot be conducted offshore. we need bases in afghanistan.

pakistan we cannot get them. we would not be given base rights in pakistan. in afghanistan we have to maintain a base for several bases in order to conduct the bombing commissions -- bombing missions in pakistan. host: tim calling from palm springs, florida. he is on the republican line. caller: can you give me? host: we can. go ahead. caller: i am wondering what you think about the status of muslim public opinion direct the middle east -- throughout the

middle east? is russia's still interested and afghanistan and did the united states and nato were to leave, what other powers would come in to fill a vacuum? guest: you mentioned russia which is a very important factor. we just read about the tanker being blown up and killing civilians in the northern part of afghanistan, where the germans had their tactical area of operation, at is the no. supply route for nato and u.s. supply forces going to russia. it is a journey that takes roughly six to nine days. that is to replace the supply lines through pakistan that are no longer secure. how they have been under attack by taliban inside pakistan.

it is a very long trips. this is being replaced by the northern supply route. russia has been very cooperative. the only debate we have about it today is aggressive doing it in order to make sure that we get more involved in afghanistan -- the only debate we have today is russia doing it in order to make sure that we get more in afghanistan or are they concerned about this forming to their own -- spreading to their own country? host: we have a call from orlando, florida. caller: if we pull up

afghanistan -- pull out of afghanistan it will provide a base for turning around pakistan. if that happens, al qaeda loken access to nuclear weapons -- al qaeda will get access to nuclear weapons we would rue the day that we pulled out. second of all, we have lost so many men dying in their in turning around and pulling out like that tells the families of those people who have sacrificed their children in afghanistan that what it was all not worthwhile. when the democrats betrayed us in the south vietnam when the cut off the supplies and cause that to collapse, they betrayed

the 58,000 americans. it resulted in how many different suicide's? if demerol collapses as a result of this thing -- if morale collapses as a result of this thing, it could be a self- fulfilling prophecy. guest: it is very hard to disagree with what you just said. as i said earlier, it answers all of the concerns you have. clearly this war has to be explained once again to the american people, hopefully to reduce the 57% better against the store. if you're president have 57% of the people against you over the commitment to afghanistan, clearly that has to be spelled out in terms of everyone relating to. if we abandon afghanistan we will have another 9/11. host: let's look at another top story. you mentioned the nato strike.

the strike, the writers say, came at a time of intense debate and after a heavily disputed election that has left afghanistan tense and at least temporarily without a credible leaders. this was a german-led offense strike. guest: they were convinced these were taliban people. these were a lot of innocent civilians helping themselves to gasoline. even the general mcchrystal says the number one concern is civilian casualties, you cannot prosecute a war if that is our principal concern. we invaded france on d-day and thousands of french civilians were killed.

they realize that was necessary in order to liberate europe. to say avoiding civilian casualties is our number one concern, that would paralyze holocaust operation. host: he has restricted the air flights. -- to say avoiding civilian casualties is the number one concern, that would paralyze whole operation. host: let's talk about how other countries, how europe in particular is weighing in on afghanistan. how committed are they? guest: the only allied forces allowed to do abiding by their

own parliaments are canada, the united kingdom, britain, netherlands, and more recently france now has 3000 foreign legionnaires. they are now allowed to conduct operations. unless they're being attacked, they're not allowed to respond. i was in spain not too long ago , and they were firing practically every night because they were attacked but they're not allowed to conduct offensive operations. host: there was a piece written about prime minister gordon brown. he said when the security of our country is at stake, we cannot walk away.

he added a safer britain requires a safer afghanistan. guest: i couldn't possibly disagree with that, but british opinion is against that. there you have the conservative party anxious to get back into power, harassing george brown he wants to make a commitment to the long-term considerations in afghanistan. british opinion is very much against this war. >> let mcaller: i think the pieu wrote 25 years ago is worth having a look at. i am so frustrated i amish huge fan of yours.

i follow politics. it bothers me the republicans are for calling the war in iraq. now we're talking about pulling out of afghanistan, which is absolutely essential for the reason you said. i happen to agree with what you have said, even though it is unpopular. i would like for you to tell us how in the future can we stop stumbling into these wars without declaring them. do you feel if we instituted the draft, if people had to commit to these things, would we be better off than we are now? is seems like we're stumbling into one ill-advice package after the other -- ill-advised

package after the other. guest: whether you will work in the hospital and dean bedpans or work in the military, some national service should be u required of everyone. i think that is what unites the country. it is not going to happen. therefore this war has to be real explained in the terms -- re-explained to those that do not understand what would happen if we were to pull out of afghanistan and find ourselves back into a pre-9/11 situation. host: let's go to jail on the republican line. -- dale on the republican line. caller: good morning.

my call is specifically, why is it that we cannot -- why is it that we cannot and aid to pakistan for tactical reasons? -- why can't we go into pakistan for tactical reasons? guest: they took the units away from the indian frontier. they lost 1400. if they had 4000 wounded in that campaign. -- they had 4000 wounded in that campaign. it did not work. they have cleaned out the swap valley, which was occupied by taliban.

they manage to do that at a time when the taliban where just 60 miles from the capital. there is not planned city -- there is not one city that has not been hit by a suicide bomber, many cities twice. in one year there about 8100 civilian casualties oliver pakistan. it is an extremely difficult situation. most of the pakistani that you or i would interface with would speak english. it gives you a totally wrong impression of pakistani opinion. just last july when the prime minister of pakistan was here he had 10 -- just last july when the prime minister of pakistan was here he had 10 journalists traveling with him. i interrupted the conversation at the table and told the other

journalists what i just said and said does anyone agree with this lady? they all agreed. just a few days ago i had the visit of the pakistani diplomat in my office and i repeated this to her. she said everyone believes that was a comparisconspiracy. i remember when i was covering the war on the pakistani side. there was an intelligence general who was telling tribal chiefs the americans had just invaded afghanistan and now we're next. it wants to come in and take our nuclear weapons away from us. the tribal chief who appears that in the intelligence department obviously believes it. that is a huge problem we face in pakistan, everyone is not on our side, in fact, quite the

opposite. host: we had a viewer right, do you think killing afghan women and children will radicalize the population against us and help the taliban recruiting? guest: i cannot imagine all war without civilian casualties. -- a war with that civilian casualties. -- without civilian casualties. host: our guest is arnaud de borchgrave. he is the editor at large for "the washington times." he has seven tours of duty in vietnam. he covers the invasion of afghanistan. that gives you a perspective on

what happens in afghanistan right now. guest: people do not remember forwars besides vietnam. i have covered 18 wars and that is a very small part of what has happened since world war ii > ii. wars seem to be part of the human condition. host: people often reference past failures of other countries and afghanistan, for example the soviet union. what is separate today? the united states had a horse in that race. guest: every afghan has

imprinted in their dna that the corner will come and try to occupy us and they will get rid of the corner as they have been doing since alexander the great. so i do not know where you want to go on the particular point, but it seems hard to say we will not have further wars. host: critics say that this is something we have to get past to make room for other countries. guest:teh brits evacuated -- the brits were evacuated excepand

everyone died except for one who is kept alive to tell the story. we've looked at the recent elections in afghanistan and quite a few people turned out to vote. the problem with the government is incredibly corrupt. that is a major concern of the united states is the growing corruption in the country. we saw corruption even among our own people with high jinks of people guarding the embassy. host: let's go back to the phones. ed calling from jackson, mississippi. caller: hello. my question is to piggyback on

the last response your desk made. this is dealing with the corruption. the government is one in afghanistan that is totally corrupt. i think he is probably one of the main open -- o.e.m. dealers. -- main opium dealers. that government wants the united states to stay in there as long as possible. is there a situation where the government might be playing a part in the war itself to keep money coming in? guest: obviously the syndrome is important. the corruption is very hard to cope with, since ait has always been very corrupt. we're trying to replace this

with a democratic system of government. i think we will be lucky to move the country from the six teens -- 16 country over to the 18th century. -- 16th century over to the 18th century. if we were really committed the way we were in germany and japan after world war ii and putting both countries back on their feet, if we were to the deep -- if we were to do the same thing there, we would have to honor at least 10 more years. caller: i was calling to make a comment on vietnam. i was in vietnam. i served. one night we killed 3000 vietnamese in one battle. we lost 57,000 people in vietnam.

they do not want any more of america. at the time we collapse of afghanistan, i guarantee the taliban will want no more from america. i know good and well there is no better army in this world than the american army. they can really put it on you. i want to hear your comments to that. guest: i was working vietnam is the same time is a foreign correspondent. it seems to me we had totally forgotten at the end of the vietnam war came about. the last american soldier left vietnam on march 29, 1973. yet, saigon did not fall still two years later. the vietnamese and we're doing

quite well in between that. at that point, the vietnamese friends decided there is no point in fighting since we had been abandoned by the united states. if you read the memoirs the famous south vietnamese commander, if you read his memoirs, he concedes they were taken by surprise. how quickly saigon came within their grasp. they thought they were at least two more years from capturing a place like saigon. we have to look at what happens in congress to see how the war ended in a vietnam. host: afghan officials confirmed

that there was a blast. but could not provide details. guest: we would hope this would be a wake-up call in germany and allow their troops to participate in offensive operations. the problem is they voted 61421 ad against additional troops -- voted 614 to 1 4 against additional troops. 1 against additional troops. host: you have talked a lot about public opinion and how important that is. guest: i was caught in a very

that ambush in vietnam in september of 1966. the company at was with it took 60% casualties. it was a 31-hour ambush. the general started throwing grenades because there were that close to us. it was the most terrifying experience i have heever had iny life. i do not know what i consider beyond that. war is a horrible thing. soldiers died minutes or an hour later. secretary gates and i have -- i have a lot of respect for secretary gates. host: in your experience covering vietnam, was it

photographs of -- we have heard how influential the coverage of vietnam was, but do you see that as influencing public opinion? guest: it is bound to influence public opinion in both directions. host: let's go to the republican line calling from north carolina. good morning. caller: i am enjoying the conversation this morning. just had a question for the gentleman. if walmaorld war ii was being fought today, with the war turned out the same in 1945 with the news media we have today? guest: you raise an excellent

point. i spent four years in the british navy. imagine the invasion of normandy. i was a sailor at juno beach that day. imagine that with no censorship. i think someone in congress would say let's bring general eisenhower back and replace him. we have roughly 9000 casualties the very first day. host:, on the independent line from new york city. -- tom on the independent line from new york city. caller: i wanted to bring up the point that either you are brainwashed or involved in some very nefarious activities in your life. this idea that the united states has to be in an endless war for

the sake of our security is an obscurity and far from what our founding fathers had in mind when they put this country together. though it may be what the british monetary -- monetarmarkt is to see. -- monarchy wants to see. host: what would you like to see happen in afghanistan? let's say 10 years down the road. guest: i am frequently asked about what i think will happen, my view is that political forecasting makes this respectable. i would hope we will leave the country of afghanistan in the middle ages to be a modern

society on the way to political development. as i said earlier on your program, that would take at least 10 more years. are we ready for 10 more years? i doubt it. host: worst-case scenario? guest: worst case scenario is we would be abandoned fight our allies. in the public opinion would become 67% against the war. host: what role do you see women playing in afghanistan? guest: they played tremendous -- they take tremendous risks. a lot of work is being done by a lot of really impressive volunteers from many countries. and host: the democrats' line

from perry, ohio. caller: first off, how many taliban soldiers are there, and how do they operate? why can't we cut off their supply lines and stuff like that, as opposed to -- bid must be hibernating in the mountain areas. why can't we get to the supply lines? how can they get so many weapons into this region? if your guest could comment on that, i would appreciate that. hguest: do not forget the border is 1,400 miles long. we have hundreds of passages where things can be brought in from the pakistani side of the border into afghanistan.

the pakistani army tried to close down these safe havens. it is extremely difficult. we had a population basically against you. they're providing safe havens for al qaeda and for taliban. if we suddenly gave our special forces permission to go into afghanistan, which would put us at odds with friends in the pakistani government, if we were allowing special forces to go in and do that, it is an impossible job. it would require tens of thousands of troops to do a proper job of cleaning out the federally administered tribal areas of pakistan. host: we have carolyn on the republicans line. caller: i would like to ask you in talking about the american perspective of the war, the you

not think -- do you think the rise against it is that we're not in the war to win it? our soldiers are fighting with arms and legs tied behind themselves. america has never seen anything so horrible. we could one day see it over a year. i worry often about afghanistan because othf the terrain and how horrible it is. guest: i think it is a very valid argument, instead of invading afghanistan as we did we should have stuck to what we were doing in the very beginning, 410 americans -- you may remember the scenes of our

guys galloping into afghanistan. they put taliban on the defensive and eventually they were defeated. many people have said this is what we should have stuck with, special forces against taliban and al qaeda. that is what was being argued at the time. it is very easy to say we should have done this or that in hindsight. we did not. let's move forward from here. host: what are you looking up for hot spots around the world? guest: iran absolutely. we have just been told that they will not restrict the expansion of the settlements on the west bank. that pushes for the prospect of a palestinian state. i certainly do not think i will see that in my own lifetime. even though everyone is talking

about the two-state solution, i do not see it coming. host: let's go to tanya on the independence line from florida. caller: mike question is -- my question is it the middle east countries are so worried about iran having weapons why is it they're not worried about al qaeda having nuclear weapons? i think they need to concentrate on helping america whichever way they can to defeat al qaeda, not only rely on europe. guest: you mention it nuclear weapons for al qaeda and pakistan. the pakistani army has weapons. they have about 80 nuclear weapons. they are under lock and key.

we apparently are satisfied that they have taken all of the proper precautions. i think i mentioned earlier in the program that some young pakistani generals who were very badly treated by the united states when we started taking all sorts of sanctions against the pakistani military, against the economy and against diplomatic side -- sanctions as well. host: prudence on the democrat'' line from pennsylvania. caller: what concerns me now is i am very old. very close to 80. guest: id you by three years. -- i beat you by three years.

caller: i remember when wars were fought for the outcome of peace. now what really worries me is we seem to think this is the natural pace of things and you have never saw or you did not like. guest: i think war is awful. we fought in two world wars. does that mean you favor war? of course not. war is horrible. one has to release try to explain what is happening in a war and there are many complex on the horizon. host: the top u.s. commander at in afghanistan is very seriously concerned over reports civilians may have died in an air strike

against hijacked fuel tankers. general mcchrystal discussed the incident with the afghan president. we have talked about this over the past hour, but when the general weighs in on this it changes the equation. guest: i think he is right that we should try to minimize the civilian casualties as much as possible. host: thank you so much for joining us this morning. we appreciate having you for this hour. our guest has been arnaud de borchgrave. key is the editor at large for "washington times." coming up next we have eric olson. we will talk about food safety. coming up later in the program,

kevin carrey joins us to talk about the new college guide. on newsmakers this week we have wayne clough. he talks about how yowould likeo see this most onion -- smithsonian weigh in on major issues of the day. >> our position is that we will do our best to be honest brokers on this issue. what we want to do is present information that is useful for the people. the fact is climate change is a complex issue. it may be happening, but has not happened yet. there is a prediction part of the story of climate change.

i was in wyoming where we have a lot of us who is making observations on when global warming did happen. why are we there? we can document what really happens when global warming actually occurs. 55 million years ago this earth was very warm. what is happening in terms of the climate is a combination of natural and man-made influences. our job is to provide solid information to help people understand the story. it is a complex story because carbon comes from a lot of different places. we want to be the honest broker on these issues. 55 million years is based on dating these things and wyoming. you can date the profiles and

measure the carbon isotopes. you can see where the sources of carbon came from. you can see that that was the time the most or making a run after the dinosaurs were gone. they disappeared and may meet rigid mammals came in. -- and mammals came in. you can see a lot of very interesting things going on in that time. >> you can see the entire interview with wayne clough sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.. our next guest is eric olson. . .

guest: it's clear that the vast major of the population and the government has a role. we can't have the government eliminated but we can reduce disease by producing the food safe. host: one outbreak was cookie dough, and one victim of that, linda riveria, she's bedridden and very sick, and described

that her mute state is the decline of her in may, after she ate several spoonfuls of cookie dough. do americans understand how serious this can be? guest: i don't think they do, some think it's a tummy ache, but it can kill you. and c.d.c. says that we have 70 million people get sick and many are put in the hospital and 5,000 die. we have a serious problem, but we can deal with it by intervening and modernizing our laws. host: and linda has lost her

gall bladder and her brain is affected. guest: yes, there is a part of e. coli and you need to be sure that food is processed in a way that is safe. you can't wash off your peanut butter sandwiches and who has not eaten raw cookie dough. host: there are millions of americans affected by this. tell us about the legislation that the house is working on. guest: the house of representatives before the august break, did pass

overwhelmingly with bipartisan support the major portion of our food safety laws, it's a big deal. it would make the food and drug administration stronger, and modernize the laws. when the food is processed it's safe, and that the imports are safe. that's a major issue. we are getting more of our foods from china and india and elsewhere, and we need to make sure that our food is safe. host: and now the senate, what do we expect to see when they come back from recess, and how much is health care? guest: clearly the health care will be going on and it will take a lot of time and effort for that to move. but i think there is strong bipartisan support, and the major senate bill is supported by the democratic whip of the

senate, and some from georgia and others, i think we have broad spectrum support for moving this legislation. host: and why now? why is this getting movement at this time? guest: there was a major series of outbreaks, this cookie dough, and the peanut products. where people died from eating a simple peanut butter and jelly sandwich. host: our guest is erik olson, with pew charitable trusts, and you have the numbers you can call on your screen.

you can ;-lñe-mail us at c-span. the latest story was this frog or toad found in a pepsi can, these stories turn the american public off for obvious reasons. what does it have over brand recognition? guest: one reason that this is supported by democrats and republicans, that the food industry is asking for it, they feel we need a system across the board for our food to be safe. take one example, when this peanut outbreak, kelloggs suffered greatly, their c.e.o. came to congress that they lost over $70 million and it hurts

the industry of recalls and outbreaks and for the public to lose confidence in the food supply. host: what responsibility s with the industries and companies, and is it necessary for the government to step in? guest: surely the responsibility is on the companies to produce food that is safe. we have done a poll that comes out on tuesday, that looks at what the public thinks about this. and they think vclearly there a government responsibility. the vast majority of the people feel that the government is responsible to make sure that the food on our plates is safe. host: do you see any process of overstepping that? guest: you need to balance, you don't want legislation that will shut down our food

supply, but there is a careful effort that we are not overstepping our bounds, and that the food authority has the resources to deal with the problem. but no one wants to stop and impede the ability to have food on our plates. host: what will happen to mom and pop stores and those with local businesses? guest: the house bill and senate bill will not interfere with those localized activities. the bill is to deal with the interstate transactions and the companies dealing with the food. clearly you want to be sure that if someone is selling food across the country and that it's safe. there is a save coalition that

includes consumer groups and so on, that feels it's important to get a hand on the problem. but obviously we don't want to overstep the need. we need to be sure that it's a balanced piece of legislation, which we believe it is. host: and take us through the process of safer food. guest: now believe it or not, the food administration only checks once in 10 years. so you can have a factory that has not been looked at in a decade. and secondly we need to be sure that our imports are strongly regulated. something like 1% of imports is checked by the food and drug administration. and that's not adequate. and we need to test and trace

contaminations. so when something like a peanut butter outbreak happens or another outbreak, we can check back to the source of the contamination and that testing is done to be sure there is a contamination. host: let's go to phillip on the phone line. hello. caller: hello, i think it's possible to have a healthy diet without processed food. if you eliminated processed foods from your diet, to what extent would that affect your diet? guest: that's a good question, food experts will tell you the more fresh fruits and vegetables you eat the better. one the problems is that one the big outbreaks that happened recently is with spinach, and

you may remember this, e. coli had contaminated spinach. and this is a problem where pretty much you can't avoid the problem in many cases. you can't wash off a lot of foods contaminated often. so reducing the contamination before it gets to your house , before it gets to the grocery store is crucial, whether it's processed food or fresh fruits and vegetables. host: ron joins us from new jersey. caller: yes, good morning, i was wondering what is it about e. coli bacteria that makes it resistant to all of antibiotics available, isn't it a gram

bacteria. guest: that's a good question, there is not just one kind of e. coli, there are a lot of strains. and some are resistant to a lot of our antibiotics. in the case of this cookie dough and other examples, once these strains that are antibiotic resistant, once they hit people it can be very difficult to treat them. and there is an array of things that contribute to that. and some scientists say that the heavy antibiotics in concentrated food lots can contribute to the problem. that's an issue that has to be dealt with, and probably won't be dealt with in this piece of legislation, but there are many people in congress and other communities that feel we need a

handle on that problem. host: next caller is from missouri. caller: good morning, i wonder if you can address, i am an 80-acre natural farmer. my wife and i have had the place for 10 years, we do things without chemicals. we are trying to do a sustainable farm. i keep aware of things, for a while there was a thing called nais, do you know about that? guest: yes. caller: for a long time people thought it was gloom and doom, and it's for real. i wish you would address that, because for the small farmer it will put them out of business if they implement it. by ear tagging and microchiping. and it's my understanding that the large producers only have to give a number to a lot. say for instance a 300 sow

production farm, they only give them a number. and someone like me with a few sows and cows, they have to independently chip. and also do you know about garden registry bundled into that law? and also anything about well metering, i will get off the line and listen to your answer. and look up joe solomon and michael pollen. guest: thank you, let me say, nais, the animal tracing and other issues are not covered in this legislation at all. actually if i believed half of what is said on the internet about these issues, i would be at least as worried as you. but this law does not deal with the individual animal tracing issue. certainly it's very

controversial. and i think that the agriculture department has been wrestling with this issue and what do about it. hopefully that whole issue is not going to get wrapped up into this controversy. host: ok, what happens after there is a problem with something, say pepsi or the nestle cookie dough, how do companies restore consumer confidence? not only in a particular brand but in general in going to the grocery store and buying items? guest: again this is crucial to have a strong food and drug administration that can deal with these problems swiftly. and try to reduce the number of recalls and outbreaks. the way we restore public confidence is restoring the food supply. that's fundamental to what we need to do. if you haven't got a law that's

overhauled in 70 years, that's where we are, you have to fix that law and restore confidence. host: we have a question from twitter, the products wasn't pgj sandwiches but peanut butter. guest: yes there were dozens of peanut butter recall, the problem was the big industrialized tub says used in large cafeterias, and pe anut butter crackers and lots of products. we need to be able to trace quickly when contamination is concerned. we need to trace all the products to get them off the store shelves. what happened is that it took in some cases weeks to trace

that. and this law will provide prompt tracing. and another thing it highlights that the food and drug administration was not out inspecting those places routinely. and this law will provide that there will be inspections in months. host: let's go to the republican law, from lubbock, texas. caller: thank you, you are a beautiful woman, and i haven't seen you on c pan. -- c-span. i have a question, down here in texas, most of the you don't live in big cities and grow our own food and process ourselves. but being in texas, and it's ironic that we had that first guest and now you in here.

erik, it's amazing and it kind of all blends together. and i get out there in the fields, you know you got those big farmers with 4-5,000 acres, and all kinds of crops. and i get out and watch those immigrant workers. i watch them all the time. and they just go out and urinate and defecate, and do what they need to do, because there is no toilet paper. and they throw it in there with the rest the cabbage. and you talk about products out of the country, we need to look at what is coming into the country. we had a closing in texas because of that contamination. and you get up there, and it was immigrant workers, and they need to urinate and they go off

and do their thing in the peanuts. host: let's get a response from erik. guest: one thing that we need in this legislation is standards that apply to how the food is produced. there would be standards to be sure that we test the food as it comes into the system. and the inspectors, make sure, for example at that peanut plant there were tests to be sure that the food wasn't contaminated before it goes out into commerce. one of the keys is to make sure there a cop on the beat. and people like kelloggs and the grocery manufacturing association says that it would be helpful to have someone. it's helpful to know that your

suppliers is producing food that is safe. and the key and our coalition feels that the key, that we have to be sure when food is processed and produced and sent around the country, that we are test ing it and the factories are clean as they produce the food. before it gets into the system and people get sick, we are resolving the problem. host: and talking about farmland and sanitation standards? guest: surprisingly now there are not sanitation guidelines for most farms. and one thing is that the food and drug administration would work with the agriculture departments and states that there are strong standards for safe food. now we have a patchwork of voluntary standards, and this would make strong national standards apply in the states. and then the federal government

could cooperate that we are producing safe food. host: we have ralph on the democratic line. caller: yes, thank you. i work in a st. louis hospital, i rather not say the name of the hospital. but more and more people are metals. now that includes mercury, it seems to be the biggest culprit. what is happening with the fish that people eat? apparently the doctors are worried, and i check all the labs as they come out to make sure and see if they are in order. and about 10 years ago, one out of every 200 labs had heavy metal test in them. and now it's like one in every 50. and this looks like a pandemic

to me. people's mercury levels are going up and up. and i just wonder if you have a comment on that. thank you very much, i will listen to your answer. guest: sure, mercury is a problem. the way that mercury gets into our diet, it comes from coal-fired plants that have coal and mercury and goes up the stack and falls down in rain and gets into often fish. and it accumulates in fish, and across the country and oceans the fish have high mercury levels. and the higher up the chain, up to tuna, they can have a large source of mercury. and that's an issue, and in many states across the country, streams have mercury advisories that say you can't eat too much

of the fish. although we know that fish is an important diet for people. for certain types of fish, eating too much can pose a risk because of mercury. host: is this covered in the house and senate bill? guest: the way that the bill would deal with this, that food and drug administration has the authority to deal with anyone that is a contaminant. we need to eliminate the source of the mercury, so that we are reducing the amount of mercury in our fish. host: let's go to susan on the independent line from washington. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i have several things i want to discuss. the first thing is, i think it's wonderful that you are thinking of checking imported

food from china for lead, that's been a real concern. and also about the bill that the house passed this past summer. i had read it, $&qi don't know it was finally passed. but my concern is about organic food and farming. what the bill was going to say, that all the soil should have pesticides put on it. and i am a cancer fighter now, and petrochemicals are supposed to be bad for people, and i eat a lot of organic vegetables. and i wonder if that made it through the bill that all fields had to have pesticides. guest: i am glad you asked that question, there is a rs!fair amount of disinformation or incorrect information, the bill does not require that

people use pesticides, i eat organic food also. and i think it's sure that food that is produced by organic growers and small farmers that's considered. there is no requirement in this legislation to use pesticides or chemicals. in fact the house bill before it passed by the full house, says that small farmers and organic growers, the needs of those farmers needs to be considered when standards are established. host: we have harry on the republican line from texas. caller: yes, i feel like this man is really a tool of your [inaudible] in trying to make the modified food source more

and more powerful. and i just don't think we are getting the correct information on c-span. what they have done to patent seeds and to control our food supply is very, very important to us. and i don't think c-span is going to try to get us that information. and you know, we need to read like the defense of foods, that book. authors like that, that understand the problems with our food supply. host: let's get a response from our guest, let's talk about genetically-modified food. guest: first of all, i am working with make our food safe

coalition, and we publish consumer reports, groups like federation of america and public health association and people that represent victims of food borne interests. we are not generated by the food industry, but we need to be careful about how we produce our food and how we are processing our food. by no means is our coalition supporting the restructuring of how the food supply is provided or something on those lines. we feel strongly when you go to the grocery store, you ought to be able to be confident that the food that you are buying and putting on your family's plate and eating as a snack, that food is safe.

no matter where you buy it. and that's all we are calling for. host: carol on the democratic line, from ohio. caller: yes, my question is why does the government allow so many chemicals in the food, polyethylenes, and so forth, and why does the government allow so much of the chemicals. that cause many of the chronic illnesses and disease. and now we are struggling with the health care cost. because what we eat is what we become. if we eat junk and chemicals and processed foods in this manner, we are going to be chronically ill. and i understand it is important to keep the bacteria -- excuse me, keep the bacteria and so forth out of our foods. but i think that the biggest problem is what the government

allows companies to put in foods. they don't belong in the human body. guest: first of all, all of this legislation focuses heavily on bacteria and infectious organisms. the food and drug administration is to be regulating chemicals in the food supply and make sure that melanin that was coming in from china and the indirect food additives that can from the packaging. all of those are to be looked at by the food and drug administration, and the f.d.a. is to review and make sure those are safe. and i would agree with the caller, that the f.d.a. has not done their job in the last 50 years, and make sure that the chemicals added to our foods

are tested that they are safe. host: what should families do to make their food as safe as possible, obviously wash, but anything else? guest: certainly safety food practices, you want to be sure you wash your hands after cutting chicken, and wash your cutting boards and practice safe-food handling. and there are a lot of things, if the food you buy, like a peanut butter cracker or cookie dough, you want to be sure that food is safe before it gets to your house. and the best way is to support food safety legislation like this, and make sure that it's safe when it gets to your grocery store. host: erik olson, thank you very much for being with us. he's part of food safety on pew charitable trust.

we will be right back on "washington journal." >> later today an examination of obama administration's budget, fiscal and health policies, this begins 10 eastern following "washington journal" here on c-span. and crews of the space discovery ask questions about their mission. this begins at 1:05 here on c-span. and the roles of hispanics of the political process are debateod two programs, steamboat institute, 3:35 here on c-span.

>> in more than a dozen works, jonathan kozol, on sunday he will take your questions, part of a three-day book weekend on c-span 2. what is a way to look at america, tom ridge looks a part of a three-day book tv weekend, tonight on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we will take your calls, the question is what should the economy do with the jobless rate in august, the loss slowed with fewer than expected, 216,000 layoffs, still the highest since 1983. we wonder if you think this is

a concern or not. does this increase your concerns or deduce them? and what should the united states do? looking at this article, writing that 15 million of americans and the legislation has yet to yield jobs. the labor department reported yesterday, the unemployment is the highest since 1983. and job loss crosses every sector except education and health services. in retail the back to school promoekzs objection not offset declines in employment. with construction down and manufacturing down. jumping down in the piece, she writes that it may seem counter intuitive that the jobless is countered by the increase of unemployment rate. and there are two factors, the

number of unemployed and the workforce consists of people who have jobs or those who have searched for jobs in the last months. this is mixed signals. and the "washington times" talks about teenagers and the teenager unemployment rate has reached a high. and talk about teenagers and if your teenager had success. and writing that teenagers who wanted a job and could not find one is 21.5%, the highest level since the government has begun. likewise the teenagers that were working with the lowest level in recorded history. let's go to our first call, rochelle on the independent

line from michigan. caller: hi, i wanted to comment. the thing that disturbs me about the vice president and others getting on tv and saying that things are better. and it's almost like as long they are telling us that, as long as they're giving this information out, we are going to believe it. so we are living it. and here in michigan, you can't tell us that things are better and the unemployment rate. and even though the rate is going higher, we are better off and all of these things. we are a nation of people who can think for ourselves. we can see it. and i am an independent, and i am like wait a minute. your party is not doing any better by trying to tell us things that are not factual. we can see for ourselves, stop

telling us things and think ?qj that it will be our reality. host: rochelle, what do you think if the government can do, if anything, to improve the economic environment? caller: i think that the legislation that is imposed, is making it tougher for smaller businesses to stay in business. i don't think that will help. i don't have all the information, i am trying to figure it out myself. i don't think their methods thus far have improved anything. i don't see a difference at the end of the bush administration and what is going on in this current administration. i don't see the differences, i think i am seeing the same thing. that's where i am at now, and i think that much of our country feels the same way.

i don't care if it's from jobs to health care. you can't tell us something and not listen to us. i don't think they are listening to us. like, you will be fine. i don't know what group is being helped, i still know people that are being laid off. host: thank you for your call, let's go to bart in pennsylvania. caller: hello, good morning. i do have a comment on the economic situation. but may i just make a comment regards to the previous speaker. i didn't hear them address to me the most insidious issue with food safety. and that's the addition of nitrates into lunch meats that people are not away that, in my mind, the cause of this

epidemic of cancer in this country. host: let's talk about the 9.7 unemployment rate.v[2 caller: i just had to get that part in, i wished he had addressed this, and how the administration would allow this toxin. host: bart, can you address the unemployment. caller: ok, we are coming out of a situation that's a part of business. you know the bubble and the speculation and the hedge funds and bernie madoff, this whole, it takes time. and i believe we will come out of it, because i believe that obama is really trying hard. but we have such dissension in this country, and i want to state my thinking on the source of this dissension. it is w7iufox news and rush.

people believe in what they say, and all they give is innuendos and half truths and lies like glenn beck, and i have met many people in this area who smear at obama and smear at my obama bumper sticker. and listen to nothing but fox news and rush. host: let's look at the "new york times" editorial that appears today. where the jobs aren't. as is the case with so much economic indicators these wfday the only thing about the job reports is that it could be worse. employers had a smaller loss and lower total. and they ask what should the government do? should the obama administration move on something? the question then is how bad does the administration and

before they make job creation a majority and if the jobs will make it easier to form new unions. and how will profess support for green jobs be translated into a policy to manufacture new jobs. and if this will include efforts to train and re-train people for new jobs. do any of those ideas strike you as a solution or to help to add to a solution. let's go to bill on the independent line. caller: good morning, just a simple thing i have been a part of starting many businesses helping owners in many respects, get up the things that it takes to get the business started. in restaurants and many different kinds. and long story short, one of the biggest problems in business that i have found in

small business, anyway, is that start-up costs and training programs and health care and everything costs money. and unemployment is directly tied in to how a guy or a lady can get a business started with the money they have saved. they have to be able to save money. they need tax breaks, is one suggestion. having something to do with the paragraph you just read. and they need breaks on start-up costs and all the reasonable ways to get a business started. offer -- often they are not profitable from one to five years.ux$ and many new businesses are opening, and they can use the government getting involved in a program that could help small business turn into a viable, money making, because of the things that the government can

do to help these people. and when they are established already and go through tough times, a thing that many people had talked about. is help from the government then as well. just verify the situation is all you have to do with the government. if they got people involved in all of the hundreds of thousands working for the government in the different programs that involve business, they could easily verify when businesses are losing money and give them breaks. and loan possibilities with very low interest. host: let's go to william on the republican line from fort myers, florida. caller: hello, i am a first time caller. and i like to say this whole notion of our unemployment speaks to the fact that we need universal health insurance. all of the rest of the european countries and industrial countries, for that guomatter,

this is a cliche now, everyone uses the words, industrialized. but the fact that france, great britain and germany have health insurance. the reason for this, we pay for all of their research. we have bailed them out of two world wars. they don't pay their reparitions. i think that obama should go and talk to these people, hey, how about paying a few bucks. germany has not paid for war reparitions, and this goes on. and what the world could be like, business cannot sustain the health care costs any longer. employment would go down considerably if the government paid for it.

food taxes, i realize you don't get something for nothing. but they should do something to address it problem and employment would go way up. host: her -- herman on the democratic line. caller: good morning, i would like to make a comment on our situation as we stand in this country. every town and city and community throughout this country is dying for taxes, and why? we have no labor anymore, we make nothing here. you see my old employer, when -- whirlpool is shipping their jobs to mexico. who will pay those taxes, if given to the state of indiana, for instance. if we don't have people working, making something and earning a wage, they cannot buy

anything in this country, and it will remain in recession. host: let's go to a correspondent from bloomberg news, simon kennedy joins from -- joins us from london, to talk about the meeting in london about the global economy. good morning. i shouldn't say good morning, but good afternoon. tell us what is happening? >> the emerging markets are meeting here as they prepare for a summit of leaders, and pittsburgh is revamping the world's regulatory system in the crisis. and they are putting together a new world order for banks and financial institutions to avoid a repeat crisis that has

haunted the world economy for the last two years. host: what provisions are you seeing, there seems to be two camps of thought. tell us how things are shaping up. >> in the eve of thoughts, european leaders want to focus the talks to restraining bank bonuses, and the united states and u.k. on how to raise capital standards and to force banks to amplify their cushions for future crisis. what we are seeing is a design of a deal on both fronts to give reason for victory. on the bonus front, there would be a way for banks to crawl back to bonuses if their profits are short. and the pay deals they have given the top officials. and the capital side of the

equation, in the news just breaking now, that g-20 will have a plan that will force banks to hold more capital in reserve in case of future losses. very much a deal is being struck. host: how significant is that? it's very significant, it's a movement that began last year when the g-20 leaders met for the first time and step by step building a new framework. and the leaders met of how to help the world out of the slump. and saw the spending commitments, and that's the focus of those thoughts now. and now the feeling is that the economy finds recovery, and while too soon to declare victory over the recession, it's time to start putting in place a framework that will

prevent this crisis. host: you made a comment on bloomberg.com, that policy makers seem to have a plan in place as they pull out of the recession. is that still the case? >> absolutely, the policy makers have spent $2 trillion, and we will see inflation and ground work, so that stimulus has to be unwound. and while they build a plan to unwind that stimulus, it's far too quick, but the expectations of the unemployment rising, that most economies will recover sluggish, and it's premature to start reversing some stimulus. and saying they will keep their

foot to the gas pedal and keep providing the support that the economy is needing. until the point they declare the recovery sustainable. host: and you speak of a sweet spot, explain what that is? >> absolutely, it depends on the market, and if you take a positive view. for example, bond traders are focusing on the central banks, we will raise interest rates, and that will start next year. and they are focused on that. and in the meantime the stock buyers are looking at stocks, and they are buying stocks. it's a rare syncization that buying stocks and bonds. and other institutions, and

that the sweet spot is something to the sweet. host: tim geithner, what will he bring back and what is preparation like for the next meeting? >> the next meeting is in three weeks time, and this the high leaders building the agenda that leaders can deliver in three weeks. and he approached on a new plan to raise capital standards around the world, force banks to put money away. and in early afternoon, a couple of hours before they formalized a statement and come back to the u.s. and speak of pushing forward on the plan. and there is a very important role in the u.s. economy, and just how they will have to get their act together on compensation practices, and

perhaps going further than he thought. host: thank you 'ájjrkennedy for being with us. let's begin our discussion about the economy, and back to the question, the 9.7 unemployment rate. what is your take on that. and you can weigh in on what our bloomberg news correspondent talked of. let's go to scott from dallas, texas. caller: hi, if we look in our history and where we had the greatest investment and employment was in the 50's and 60's. and during that time we had a tax rate of 92%, and then kennedy lowered to 70%. and not until reagan did it drop to 50%.

this is on income of $200,000, and if did that today, and put a high tax rate for more, there would be no incentive for them to take more money. i have a hard time believing that people would say, i won't work for $2 million, i will sit at home. and if they could delegate the c.e.o.'s and others to help them out. furthermore john bogel who has suggested that those insane salaries lead to risky behavior. and they have to justify the high salaries and they take gambles. and it drains large sums out of each corporation. if you had a cap, they would be

forced to reinvest in capital expenditures, and these things, so they can keep the assets growing but they can't take the money out so easily. this would raise the boats for all the other people. we need to see why perhaps we had such great success and job growth and powerful middle class during the 50's, 60's and 70's. host: let's go to brook on the republican line. good morning brook, are you with us? caller: hi. i guess i am kind of -- yeah, can you hear me. host: we can hear you loud and clear, go ahead. caller: ok, i need to turn down the tv. host: yeah, that would be great. caller: i -- i am calling and watching, i am

26, and i was born at the last time we were at this crisis. but i am kind of, it seems simple to me. ' basically it's a fundamental problem of what they think, i don't think they are trying to create jobs. and i think that's clear of reading the bills and stimulus and the cap and trade bill. and no one thinks who is writing these bills and how quickly they were written. but to create more of a community workforce, that's coming out with the american recovery act i saw on c-span2, and i don't think they are trying to make the jobs, and wish the adults would grow up. i am mad at the baby boomers a little bit, i think they have this under control, and get out

of college and find out we have to learn everything again the right way, because we were taught the wrong way. and the republicans is crap and i think if we could get the government out of everything, that would create jobs and history has shown that. i think it's just ridiculous. host: we have joe on the democratic line from virginia beach, virginia. caller: yes, happy veteran's day. host: yes, go ahead. caller: yeah of all the people that want to keep government out of the solution. i would say, i spent 3.5 years in iraq, and there is massive waste in iraq. all of those people are employed. all the soldiers, the military. the problem is the drain on the resources keeps us from doing

anything else. now who is responsible for that? i would say it's the republicans, and not all of our military is recoveried in health care. i am a veteran and i have excellent health care and it's socialized health care, believe me. the answer to employment is to bring the troops back, try to go to an f.d.r. emergency plan, fix the roads. put the wildfires out in california, work on infrastructure, that's my two bits. host: let's go to tony calling from connecticut. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i would like to make a comment, i think one of the things we can do to improve the national economy, not so much to wait for the federal government or

depend on the federal government to help us through this. what i would like to see is major entrepreneurship spirit in the auto and also the energy industry take place. much like we have seen in the last 10-15 years in the wireless industry, the broadband industry. if you look at those two industries over the last 10 years, we have seen enormous innovation in those industries to bring technology, to bring smart phones, faster internet service. i would like to see that same energy entrepreneurship seen on the auto industry, and also in the energy industry. and i think those two industries alone, if we were to really, really see apply and invest in those two industries,

we would put an enormous amount of people back to work in america. there is an enormous need for our homes, better products, better heating systems in our homes. that would provide a lot of jobs. and in our auto industries, there is an enormous need to get out of the fossil fuels, the electric cars. where is that entrepreneur spirit host: let's go to ken on the line. welcome. caller: what? who, ken? host: what is your name? caller: ernest. host: i see you on the republicans line calling from new york. caller: well, i was calling on

the independent line and got messed up this with. host: we will take your comment. caller: this is not a mistake what is happening, nothing in politics happens by accident. the systematic destruction of this country has taken decades. i would like people to know, and look up the hegein dialect, it pits people against one another. much like c-span is perpetuating putting u republican, democratic and independent. what we have here is two supposedly competing forces that actually work in conjunction. if you look at politicians that

are running a rail against nafta, and once they get in office they hold up nafta, that drains of jobs. this is not an accident. you can't listen to what they say, you have to look at what they do. .

>> on sunday he'll take your questions live in depth at noon eastern, part of a three-day book t.v. weekend on c-span 2. >> september 1 marked 70th anniversary of the start of world war ii. sunday a commemoration from poland, including the german chancellor, russian prime minister vladamir putin. at 9:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. >> we continue our coverage of healthcare forum with mark warren warren. you can see that tomorrow at

6:30 p.m. eastern. >> oil mogul t-bone pickens will talk about politics and energy at the new west forum tomorrow starting at 2:10 p.m. >> later today, the role of hispanics in the political process debated in two programs from the steamboat institute and the new west forum. hispanics and politics this afternoon on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. >> guest kevin carey was a writer for washington monthly. he answers the question, are we getting the most for our money when it comes to choosing a college. tell us about the difference between your college guide and the guides we typically think of. >> the typical guides, they basically tell you what colleges can do for you, what college has the most money, the nicest

dorms. it's going to, you know, get you fun people to hang out with in school. the washington monthly college guide ranks collegeos what they do for the country dochlt they encourage students to go into public service and provide research our economy needs. do they help low-income students enter college and graduate? we think that is the fundamental difference. >> host: you looked at social mobility, research and service. can you explain what those are? >> guest: sure. college should be an engine of social mobility and long has been in this country. it should is be a way for first-generation students to get on the chk ladder and improve to better jobs. we looked at whether or not colleges have pell grants. then we looked at their graduation rates relative to sat scores and pell grants to see if

they are helping students get into college and get out with a degree. on research, we looked at the amount of research funding that they bring in. we looked at the number of people who go on to get phds or prestigeuous national awards and in service we looked at percent of students who go into the peace corps, rotc, the percent of work study money that is spent on service and we think that gives us whether or not colleges are encouraging students to give something back to society. >>the editor wrote introducing the college guide that things like the u.s. news and world report, the typical college ranking systems are nebulous in how they are calculated. tell us about how those numbers are arrived at because a lot of people look at the guides and take them seriously when they're trying to figure out which goals are the most prestigious.

>> harvard and princeton were tied for number one and number two. they're really based on three things. how much money the college has, how famous it is and essentially how good it is at not admitting students, how selective it it is. it is a prestige measure, a wealth and fame measure. it doesn't have anything to do with the quality of education colleges provide, nor does it have anything to do with what colleges give back to society. >> host: a survey goes out to heads of institutions and other people, as well. if you are are the president of a college, you can rate your college highly. >> guest: that is right. 25% of the ranking is based on this survey and the rest is ranked on spending for students. what we've learned recently in recent months is that a number of college presidents seem to be gaming the system. we talked about how the president of clemson gave

clemson a five on a scale of one to five and ranked every other college in america lower than that. the president of of the university of florida gave his institution a good rating and downgraded the other public institutions in florida. we see some of that going on and there is no set survey in the "washington journal" rankings. >> you looked at national universitys and liberal arts colleges. tell us about the surprises and who comes out on top based on your system. >> the top three national university necessary our system are all university of california system. you see berkeley, san diego and l.a. the universities are well regarded and they are institutions that produce a lot of research. they also are not so exclusive that they only admit rich students. some private universities you see little economic diversity. at the u.c. campuses you see broader range of people from all

aspects of society. that in a commitment to service were really what put them on top. >> host: any surprises in terms of schools that did not make the top 10 or top 20 that are typically ranked high when it comes to the classic ranking system? >> guest: sure, we see it running in both directions. that is third or fourth-tear university according to u.s. news because it it is not very exclusive. exclusivity and quality aren't the same thing in higher education. we found south carolina state was given the fact it enrolls a lot of low income students, had a solid graduation rate sending students into the rotc service and doing a generally good job. you have institutions like duke or princeton or some colleges that are usually in the top five or 10, they are down 30 or 40 on our list. we don't see that commitment to the larger public obligation.

>> host: our guest is kevin carey. we are talking about the new college guide. we'll also take e-mails. you can write to us on twitter. that is c-spanwj. when people look at the classic ranking system, typical ones, usually people considering going to college and be parents, who is your guide useful to? >> guest: we think journalists, members of congress, they should consider looking at the washington monthly college guide. the government provides awful lot of money to support higher education in terms of supporting financial aid, supporting research, giving colleges tax breaks. colleges are getting pork projects from congress these days. they should consider when they give public money which colleges

are really giving back and i think if they look at our list they might be surprised. >> why did you put so much effort in putting this together? why do you see this as a valuable service? >> guest: this whole race for prestige in higher education is one thing that is making college so expensive. in addition to the survey, 10% of the u.s. news rankings are based on spending per student. if you want to move up in the rankings, the smart thing for you to do is raise your tuition, spend it on something and watch your ranking go up and more people will want to go there and you can raise your tuition. it it is this prestige race that is really one really college is becoming increasingly unaffordable for the middle class. we want to provide a different perspective and give colleges different incentives where they didn't have to become super expensive and shut students out in order to be well known. >> host: a recent piece in the "new york times" called "myth

busting, the value of college," and leonard looks at the question of the cost of college and it is going up. what it really tells us as far as graduates and people coming out. he writes: the gap between the pay of college graduates and everyone else has reached an all-time high. you pay this money to get into college, what are you getting out of it? >> guest: he's correct. college graduates make more money than people without a degree and the gap has widened over time. to some extent that is because of the available jobs have disappeared in the last 30 or 40 years. it remains the case college degree is very valuable. all the more reason we should be concerned about the fact that college is becoming increasingly unaffordable and colleges have poor graduation rates. only about two-thirds of students who enter college actually get their degree within six years, much less four years.

more people are getting into college than getting out. >> host: linda from washington, d.c. hi, linda. >> caller: hi. i think this is a very interesting ranking and i applaud you for doing it it. i wondered if you had considered looking at some of the outstanding community colleges across the country who provide the same quality, faculty, credentia credentials, teachers that are not concerned about research that are concerned about teaching and independent studies and internships and that sort of thing and are a great value and now students can go all over the country and to community colleges and get all kinds of programs and education that can either transfer or get them directly into the work world.

>> guest: no, it is a great point. 45% of all students start at community colleges. in fact, a couple years ago washington monthly published what we think is the only ranking of community colleges to recognize that kind of excellence and we'll do it again next year. so it is a great point. we see president obama has proposed a big new initiative to provide funding to community colleges. i think that is important. a lot of of community colleges are providing excellent education for about a half to a third as much money as their four-year counterparts and i think there is something our four-year institutions could learn from their cousins in the two-year sector about how to provide high-quality education. >> host: ken on the republican line from huntington, new york. >> caller: yes. okay. i would like to know about, you know, if you know about any programs where older people like me, you know, like i'm 53 years

old. okay. i went through a special ed school and dropped out for one reason or another. 20 years later i went back and got my high school diploma. but now i'd like to know about any programs where -- that you might say about what people can go back, you know, people who are interested in going back to college, they could go back to college. >> guest: uh-huh. no, great question. i think that one of the problems we have in our higher education system is that all our colleges are built as if every college student is 18 years old and is going to live in a dorm and go to class full time and graduate in four years. that is not thes case. most of the growth in higher education are for people like yourself, non-traditional

students who need to go back and get an additional credential. we actually wrote about one such person in this issue of the "washington monthly," a woman laid off from her job, 50 years old, unemployed, like a lot of people in this country. i just saw the unemployment rate is up to 9.7%. one good thing, we see a real growth in online higher education opportunities where traditional colleges and for-profit companies are offering affordable opportunities to get a degree online where you don't have to pick up stakes or quit your job or drive to a physical campus everyday. there is a lot of potential in that to provide affordable opportunities for people who aren't traditional students. >> host: you wrote about this, referring to college for $99 a month. next generation of online education could be great for students and catastrophic for universities. i never heard of the opportunity to go to college for $99 a month

essentially. tell us about the model and tell us about how this could jeopardize the university system? >> guest: sure. we are used to hearing college costs $50,000 a year now and i think that is more than my parents paid for their first house. the idea college could be really cheap seems strange. but of course with the advent of the internet, all kinds of services that are essentially information-based services have in fact gotten less expensive. this is a service provided by a company called straighter line. it it offers only introductory courses. not the full range of college courses, introductory classes, college algebra, and college accounting. $99 a month you go through the courses as fast or slow as you want to. traditional college, the college has to schedule and tell you when to start and when classes are. they tell you, it is going to last this semmester, here it is

up to you. i think this is sort of the future of where higher education is going. now the problem is that frankly there is introductory classes that are money makers for traditional colleges. 400 student necessary a lecture hall paying $50,000 a year and one teaching assistant and one professor, not paid very well sitting there. that is a big profit center and colleges use that to support graduate education and senior seminars and faculty scholarship. the opportunity to make that money disappear and i think they are as higher education moves to the internet, we will have to find new models to support the banks. >> host: and a caller from atlanta, georgia. >> caller: how you doing mr. carey? >> guest: i'm fine, how are you? >> good. i have a couple questions. you were talking about rotc and

different programs supporting the system giving back to the country. i was wondering how you was ranking different things like entrepreneurship in america, how you are ranking schools that are pushing entrepreneurship or endorsing entrepreneurship because i notice more people come from other countries and come here to this country to go into business. >> guest: uh-huh. >> caller: we need to be doing more business here in america for ourselves and we don't basically know how. i think that is one of the problems that is affecting the economy. >> guest: interesting idea and it is funny you should ask, when we sat around with the editers to talk about what to put in the rankings, entrepreneurship was one thing we wanted to include. it is tricky to get data in a way that allows us to compare

them. one thing that we'd like to do in the future is actually get a list of people who have been successful entrepreneurs and where they went to college. again, i think would be surprised, you look often at the c.e.o.s, the people who are self-made men and women who start new companies. a lot of times they didn't go to harvard or yale or princeton, they went to a community college or local university. i don't think those institutions get enough credit for producing those individuals who really are the engines of innovation that continue to drive our standard of living. >> host: our guest is kevin carey, guest editor at "washington monthly," and he was policy director for education sector. gina from dublin, virginia. hi, gene. >> caller: good morning. an earlier caller stole a little of my question here. i'm less than two weeks away from becoming 55 years old.

i'm one of the refugees from the auto industry, an engineer that decided to go back to school. got a master's down at clemson and if you know where dublin, virginia is, you know where i'm at now. i've found as an adult coming back to school, appalled. the universities don't know what to do with us. i know my particular institution i hear has a point of trying to get the adults off to the northern virginia campus. i would like to see, i don't know if you guys or u.s. news, i'm told we are the fastest single-growing group of single students in the country. it is highly political because whenever you say to both sides of the aisle, i've lost my job, what do i need to do? you need to go back to school. when you go back to school you find it is just amazing, appalling how you are treated. instructors don't want to deal with you, instructors are

actually intimidated because you have done what they are teaching. i'd like to see if you and other college ratings really add into their rating system how they treat us non-traditionals because frankly 4100 of us out of 27,000 on campus. majority i talk to are really, really angry and upset with the way we're being treated. i just wonder if you could make a comment. sorry if i repeated it, i was chatting with your screener. >> guest: you are right. you are the fastest growing part of higher education. when you look at how magazines like u.s. news rank colleges, to do well on the u.s. news ranking has nothing to do with how well you you serve traditional students, non-traditional students. if you want to climb the rankings, you need to accumulate a lot of money and hire professors that will do well on the survey and convince students

to apply and rejecting them when you apply. that is how you get better at the u.s. rankings. it has nothing to do with learning or teaching students. the washington journal has written about new ways to measure what you are talking about. things like national survey of student engagement, out of indian university, which asks students at hundreds of universities around the country, it asks them how well is the college serving you? are you getting a good experience? how many books are you assigned? we think those things would be a better way to rank colleges. now there are problems getting colleges to release that information because frankly some of them don't look very good once you measure them that way. in the long-run basis, that is where we need to go and there is a role for congress to play in saying, look, in exchange for billions of dollars we are giving you every year, we're not

going to tell you how to educate your students, but would like more information about whether you are doing a good job. >> host: larry on the independent line. >> caller: hello. the educational institutions we have right now are kind of like -- own institutional idealism. what we have to do now is get the government option, not socialist educational institutions, but to have the social security credit card at 1% per anum going against the first social security check of all recipients. by doing this, it would enable mass numbers of educators to get colleges back into the green, institutions back into the green and even the economics picture back into the green. that is the solution the american people have to have. thank you. >> guest: yeah, i think we're clearly on a dangerous path when it comes to the college

affordability. college is increasing in cost even faster than healthcare and everyone in d.c. is talking about how healthcare is going to bankrupt the nation. students are having to woro more money to go to college. the amount they borrow is at all-time highs. we just saw in the real estate mark whaet happens when you have an out of control price situation fueled by increasing debt. it can't last forever. so we shouldn't wait for a terrible crisis like with the real estate market and now we're dealing with the aftermath. step in with higher education to keep it affordable for everybody. >> host: let's talk about liberal arts colleges, there is a separate ranking for this, and there are woman's colleges in the top 10 or 20. >> guest: true. there are not that many women's colleges left in the united states, but the ones that continue to run really are thriving. and the fact that the washington monthly rankings look at

service, look at issues like social mobility and whether or not colleges have a sense of obligation. it runs sometimes that can run counter to prestige. it is easier if you want to look famous to only enroll the best of the best, the brightest students. it takes more work to reach out and bring in diversity. women's colleges seem to be unusually committed to that proach. >> host: number two, mount holioch, between williams college. let's go to ed calling from odessa, texas. >> caller: hi, kevin. i'm old. i grew up in the time of f.d.r. and i listened to him on a crystal set because it was the only thing i had to listen to. but government radio is coming across pretty strong and will rogers comes on every once in a while and had things to say about college and everything

going on back then. he said the big problem in that depression was it was a matter of like beans. you have bean counters and you have bean growers. some of the colleges are teaching people to be bean counters and some are teaching them to be bean growers. the ones that are bean growers will make the economy grow and the bean counters just absorb the profit the bean grower makes. i thought will roger his pretty good thoughts on that and i wonder what you think about it it. >> guest: you know, there was a huge explosion in participation in higher education in the middle of the 20th century. it used to be going to college is the exception, now it is the rule. three-fourths of all high school graduates go to higher education. the colleges themselves are still designed and think in a way that might have made sense when you were only taking 10% of

students, but doesn't make so much sense now when what most students want in addition to the intangible things that are important that go into higher education, they want a good job. they want to go on and have a career. i'm not sure colleges are focusod helping all students move that direction to being bean growers, as you say. >> host: julius from west palm beach, florida. >> caller: yes, hello. what i'm calling about is you don't seem to spend too much time on the curriculum and what they are teaching in the colleges. have you added that into your ratings and i know i did my own ratings when i sent my grandson when i was looking for a university to send him to and of all the colleges that i can

find. also, do you rate the smaller colleg colleges? what i found actually was -- and they actually teach about the fathers of of the constitution and all the stuff that is really important, not just -- it seems like the one you on top of your list are these liberal colleges where they -- the students come out of there like mind-run robots and all they do is they get professors that are ultra-liberal to indoctrinate them. my grandson loves it. they have a 10-1, 10 students to each professor and they teach them the things that are important about our country. >> guest: well, i think we do have a mix of colleges. so yes, u.c. berkeley pretty

liberal place, but texas a&m in college station, many more conservative, strong commitment to military, is number six. there is a mix of institutions. we rank small colleges, even one college that does well is berrea college, a small institution, maybe a thousand students or less, dedicated to helping first generation college students get a degree. that is what it is all about for them. for that reason we gave them a high ranking. colleges have and should have a lot of freedom to decide what to teach their students. i don't think either we or the government should be in a position of judging them because we need diverse choices. so people like your grandson can choose that curriculum if it is good for them. somebody can go and be indoctrinated by a liberal if that is what they want to do. we need more transparency, you pick up the brochure from the

college and they tell you about the climbing wall and the new sports facility and the dorms are really great, but don't tell you much about. >> host: kevin carey, thanks for being with us. kevin carey was guest editor at "washington monthly." there is the annual college ranking in the current edition. he is also policy director for education sector. c-span guest on q&a this sunday, tomorrow, is t.r. reid, an author. >> should have the best healthcare system in the world. we definitely have the best medical schools, nursing schools and pharmaceutical schools. we have certainly world-class and maybe world-leading medical research. i'm absolutely convinced our hospitals are the best in the

world. they are the finest facilities. they care for you and have all sorts of people treating you. all that stuff, facilities, training, skill, nobody can match us. the problem is the system people have to work and the system is badly screwed up, expensive and unfair. we haven't allocated resources equally. all the other countries started by saying we want everyone in our country who needs a doctor to have access. and for some reason and you know i strug welthis question in the book, we never have, the richest country in the world has never made that commitment. we -- i talked to, you know, i'm pretty tough on canada because they keep you waiting so long, long waiting lines. i was talking to a minister in canada and i said, you know, you keep people waiting, how can you

call this good healthcare, you have is to wait a month to see a docor specialist. he said, canadians don't mind waiting long as long as the rich canadian and the poor canadian hases to work that same amount of time. we don't have that ethic. it's a standard in america that rich people are going to get better healthcare than poor people. no other country let's that happen. >> host: you can see t.r. reid tomorrow on c-span. our guest for the rest of the hour on "washington journal" is joel marx, board of directors member of the american association for healthcare. there hasn't been much talk about supplies. tell us about it. >> guest: home healthcare is one of the ways that we can save money for medicare. people prefer to be cared for in

their home. it is the most cost-effective home care, most cost-effective healthcare that we can have. a day of home care is far less expensive than skilled nursing or hospital-based. if we can enkoucourage people te discharged earlier into a home care environment, we can save entire nation billions of dollars by utilizing home care. >> host: the president has said home-based healthcare could not only provide cost savings to medicare, but to families and the elderly. >> guest: patients prefer to be in their home. families prefer to have patients in their home that are more involved with their community. it's the right thing to do. >> host: you are also president and c.e.o. of medical service company in cleveland. tell us about what you do. >> guest: medical service company was founded by my

parents in 1950. we provide home medical equipment, pharmacy services and hospice pharmacy to patients in the cleveland, ohio, northeast ohio and into west virginia. we serve 10,000 patients on a daily basis. >> host: give us a better sense of what home healthcare looks like in terms of what is provided to clients or patients, how intensive are things, do nurse guess into the home to assist? >> guest: two basic parts of home care. there is home nursing side, which is through medicare part a and there is the medical equipment and medical question sevenss provided through part b. our sector of of the home care market is the supplies and the equipment and the support that is required for that, the

respiratory therapist to support the oxygen, nurses who support the mattresss and from nutrition services. the nurses are separate service provided through part a. >> host: okay. you brought this chart to share with us about the cumulative impact of medicare home ogen rate reduction. >> guest: since 1997, medicare and congress has reduced the reimbursement levels for home oxygen for patients who prefer to be in the home utilizing oxygen. these have been considerable, almost 50% over the years. reductions will affect the outcomes we're going to have and ability of patients to maintain ambulation and maintain their vitality within the community that is so important to the providers who are in the, all the states. >> host: our guest is joel marx,

board of directors of the american association for home care. we can take your calls for the rest of the hour talking about home care services and how it factors into the home care debate going on in the country. how is this factoring into the healthcare debate right now? >> guest: there are several ways that we can save medicare dollars within healthcare. getting more people included with some sort of insurance, so they see their physician before they go to the emergency room at 10:00 at night. getting them to a primary care physician earlier, getting people to take control of their own healthcare and practice preventative healthcare. the third is transferring a lot

of services to the home that had been traditionally served either in long-term care facility or in a hospital. providing these services in the home is more cost effective and preferred by patients. >> host: last week former medicare and medicaid was a guest and your group called to point out his claims. why are there misunderstandings about medical services and the equipment? >> guest: dr. gladok, who is not a physician, i believe he has a phd in political science. he spoke of of air being delivered to the patients in the home. this is particularly hurtful to the millions of patients who use oxygen, medical oxygen in the home, ordered by their physician. there is a reason patients use medical oxygen, to allow them to breathe easier and save energy.

the blad is saturated with oxygen and referring to the services that are provided is unsympathetic to the plight of millions of americans who can't breathe and who receive benefit in their home from having oxygen delivered. it seemed particularly hurt sxfl it may just have been he wasn't aware of what the services actually were that were provided. the ambulation the patients are allowed, and the ability for them to go to church on sunday, rather than stay home in the bed because the oxygen provides saturation into the bloodstream and gives them more energy to do the things they want to do to participate. >> host: dianne from jacksonville, florida. good morning, dianne. >> caller: good morning, how are you? >> guest: good morning. >> caller: my question is about the rationing of home healthcare, my personal

experience is through the v.a. system on the medicare situation. my husband has been ill for the last years and needs to be completely taken care of for the last year and a half. i have had to quit my job and stay home and take care of my husband, who cannot fend for himself. the problem with that is financing, of course, and the situation goes to being able to get out of the house to go to the grocery store. through the goodness of the v.a. they managed to get medicare to give five hours twice a week to send in a home healthcare system. bathe him if i request it and help with household chores, which is wonderful, but it's twice a week five hours each time. that allows enough time to get out of the house, do grocery

shopping and approximate run errands. it is much better than nothing and i solely, truly appreciate it. but i understood through some conversations with trying to get these companies to scale back. because of financing, which is understandable. >> guest: the issue of non-skilled nursing care has been a challenge for medicare. the medicaid waiver programs often provide nonskilled care which allows patients to stay in their home as opposed to entering a -- only skilled services and this is a real weakness i believe in the medicare program because providing non-skilled care as

you would need would allow many patients to stay in the home longer rather than having to be institutionalized. i don't have anyone answer for it, but it is something that should be considered. fox 5 mona is calling on the accurate line. >> caller: good morning. the question i have, i myself am disabled. i have muscular dystrophy. there are certain types of medical equipment i need, like for example something that would help me get into bed and into my chair, things that would keep my family employed and i could be able to stay at home and take care of myself. but these are the very things medicare won't provide. they would guiltier us, we

needed medicaid waivers and instead of approaching it in another sense when we get things we need to continue at the same income rate that we live in. how do you think that would work into the new healthcare plan and what are your opinions on people who need durable medical equipment for survival? >> guest: this is precisely the issue i was bringing up before that home care is the solution and providing these services for patients in their home will be less expensive to the system and one of the choices that medicare seems to be making is to limit access to the type of items that you need. many times the providers are more than happy to provide the items, yet coverage isn't there for it. it it make its more challenging

for you to remain in your home and remain productive with your family embracing healthcare is a solution. >> host: anything look -- in the health bills before congress? >> guest: none of the health bills seem to be expanding coverage within the home. and this would result in some savings. most of the chafrnls being proposed have to do with expanding accessibility to insurance, which will allow patients to see a primary care physician rather than going into the memory room and the other part is paying for it by rachetting down reimbursement rates which in the long run doesn't do anybody any good. >> host: on the independent line, sherry is is joining the program.

>> caller: hi. my question to mr. marx is i'm a mental health therapist and clients that have medicaid approves in-home counseling. a lot of folks that have -- that are home bound are depressed and i have one client that -- ha hahave therapy, could you tell me is that -- possibly might this be changed? so many people need in-home mental health therapy. >> guest: this is the same situation from the other callers where medicare is not expanding services within the home. they're making patients come out of the home. they're requiring institutionalization rather than serving patients in a setting

they prefer. i don't see it happening right now. i'm not a -- however, what i hear is is not favor annual to expanded coverage for home care services. >> host: a question on twitter. mary anne writes in ohio who regulates home healthcare? this would stop abuse. >> guest: in ohio, the ohio department of health, i believe, oversees the nursing side. i'm not sure on that. respiratory care board in the state of ohio and all providers serving patients in ohio are either licensed or registered by that board. >> host: okay. curtis is calling on the republican line from fairfax, virginia. hi, curtis. >> caller: hi. thanks for taking my call. i want to address something i think i heard you say.

we're the only country rich people get better healthcare than poor people. when i hear stuff like this, it it makes me crazy because i'm trying to make my point quick, but i want to explain it it. in america, we strife toward excellence. try to make more productivity and things like that. you earn what you get and i don't think it's wrong for a rich person because let me she flew in experts from around the country for second opinions and everything he had a choice of doctors. are they skid row bum that doesn't work and ruins his liver, is he supposed to have people flown in? he didn't work. i'm not an expert, i'm a layman,

retired police officer and now i'm driving a gasoline tanker. i kept my old medical from the police department. i pay $600 a month and you know you have to be responsible for your own actions. you get what you pay for and things like that. why do you compare us with other countries? america is the greatest country, they should be striving to be like us. >> guest: i never referred to any other countries or whether rich people receive different or better or worse healthcare than poor many of us have personal opinions on that. everyone is is entitled to a level of healthcare. it shouldn't be through emergency rooms, you should have a relationship with your own physician your organization, the american association for home care, last month competitive bidding program for medical

equipment and services. tell us about the findings. >> guest: dr. o'rourke did competitive bidding program and congress proposed this program which is being implemented right now in 10 market areas around the country. it is a program where providers bid on providing drnt services and the lowest providers will end up on the medicare program. one provider may provide oxygen, one may provide a walker or a hospital bed. we have three different providers serving the same patients. the study determine as a result of this excluded from the medicare program and where medicare constitutes from my organization probably 60% of

revenue, the companies that are not still contracted with medicare probably won't be around and the long run we're going to lose providers and as a result with less providers prices will eventually go up. that is what the study determined. >> host: sandra on the democrat line calling from virginia. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i had a knee replaced in january of '08. i chose to come home. my husband is a supervisor in his office and he could be home with me and do his work from his computer here. many people don't have that option. as a matter of fact, i've had several friends in my same 60-ish age category who had knees replaced and i did much better than they did. my recouping time was faster. i was better guided on my

therapy so that i had individual care with no distraction at any time that the therapist was here and there was a nurse who came in couple of times a week, as well, and so my health was very closely monitored and the people should have had that kind of monitoring several times a day. i still did much better. my general prognosis of my health wouldn't indicate that i would have done better. i'm heavier, less physical ly well off, but i did better than the other women in the step-down units. what i wanted to ask you and i just come in from walking the dogs. i wanted to know is there any data available to show that people who are getting home healthcare and doing their therapy and such as that, that they actual ly across the board

we do better than those kept in the step-down unit at the hospital? >> guest: i'm approaching the same age that you are and i know i would prefer to recover at home. i don't know of impercal data comparing recovery rates. i know there is data that patients prefer to recover at home. there are so many services today available in the home that 20 years ago we would have never considered. you can can have diagsis in your home. you can have infusion pharmaceuticals delivered in your home. you can do inhalation drug therapy in your home. you don't need to be in the hospital for many of these things. the hospitals are appropriate sometimes and so are the step-down units or the nursing facilities, but the faster we can get the patient into their home environment safely, the happier they're going to be and undoubtedly will recover quicker. i don't know of impercal data

there may be. >> host: roy, go ahead. >> caller: i don't know if the gentleman, this is in it his area of expertise, but i'm particularly concerned with the number of advertisements i watch on t.v. for power chairs, diabetes supplies, even cath cathetters. i'm a big proponent of home healthcare it seems these must be extraordinarily profitable for companies to sell them through the v.a. or through medicare and in the case of my mother, for example, who got a power chair from medicare when she was 95 years old and died just two months later, the chair, you know, you can sell it on e-bay if you want. when i inquired as to the value of this chair, i was told they sell them new for $7000.

just wonder what your comments are on what seems to me to be an outrageous amount of money. >> guest: i don't disagree there is a lot of advertising for medical equipment and supplies for certain product lines on the television. it's probably no different than some of of the advertising for when you are at the baseball game and your legs hurt and they have a new medication for that. this is a close call between the ability to advertise a product and whether this should be forced upon a patient. medicare does not cover any product that is not medically necessary and ordered by a physician and there is an extreme amount of documentation required on all these products in order to have it covered by medicare. i'm comfortable that the if physicians are seeing patients

and they are ordering items, i agree there is probably more advertising than i would like to see. >> host: candy on the republican line. candy, good morning. >> caller: good morning. my question is i had a nephew who had lymphoma, and died a couple years after being diagnosed. he had to have a cathetter kept in him at all times, as well as when he came home. my sister came up with this new kind of invention called a cath catheter collar that prevents the catheter from pulling out of of the chest. when he wore that home, he never had to go back into surgery to have the catheter put back in his chest, didn't have the

leakage and infection and uncomfortable. he wore it everywhere. was very, very comfortable. since he passed away a friend of mine's brother was diagnosed with non-hodgkins, as well, and we tried to get the doctor and the hospital to -- especially whenever she came home, we tried to get them to let -- do the catheter collar and explained it to the doctor. the doctor just didn't want to hear anything about it and told us if we bought him lunch or gave him something basically an incentive for him that he would be more than happy to look at t it. >> guest: one of the challenges of innovation in healthcare is items that aren't approved by

the f.d.a. and given reimbursement code by medicare don't often find themselves in commercial production and it's very colleging. there are safeguards by the f.d.a. on whether items can be introduced into the marketplace, but without having it reviewed and passed on by medicare it will not get into the marketplace. that may be the case in this situation. >> host: robin on the democrat line calling from dallas, texas. robin, i understand you are a home health nurse. >> caller: yes, case manager for a small home health. there is such a need for home health and for the aging population there is such a need. i would like to comment on the -- what a caller said earlier about he was a retired police officer or whatever and

i'm not sure what he was talking about, but i myself as home health nurse, there is such a need that i don't know how you can debate about the home health, about is there a need for it. there is such a big need for it. there is so much out there to be done with the aging population that it is just over tremendous for me as a case manager there really is a big need for it. >> guest: this is something that we all need to talk to our legislators about. the need for increasing coverage of services for patients and their home and i'm not just talking about medical equipment, but the mental health services we talked about earlier, the physician services, nursing services, home health nurse services, non-medical patient

assistance. services that are going to keep patients from more expensive settings, that's what this discussion is all about. >> host: we have lisa calling from california on the independent line g. ahead, lisa. >> caller: hi. i'd like to ask the speaker about some services related to my father's oxygen. i live in california, but he's in florida. he's had oxygen under the medicare program for over three years and it it seems as though there is a cap in place or something that is causing some challenges for him to travel when he would like to. could you please comment on the challenges of a cap in medicare on oxygen and also he is in florida where hurricanes hit frequently obviously, and his home care company has done a good job of helping him when he does have to evacuate and out here in california, obviously, we have a lot of fires, can you

comment on the kind of services that you provide to patients in their homes during crisis and why is that required as part of your service? >> guest: there are two questions there. the first has to do with a cap that medicare put in place at the beginning of this year and actually went into effect in 2006 and after 36 months medicare has chosen to stop reimbursing the provider for some oxygen services for two more years, yet expecting the provider to continue to provide those services. the challenge comes when the patient travels or moves to a different area. the provider should pay another provider to continue to provide that service. that does make it difficult to travel during that period, although the initial provider is required to provide those services. the other question has to