. . host: the number to call is 202- 737-00014 no.

twitter.com/cspanwj to twitter. coal is back in 30 days or so if you have called in the last 30 days. we would get your comments and calls in just a moment. here is the headline from "the washington times" this morning, "no need to apologize again, representative wilson says. he made his comments yesterday on "fox news sunday." >> i am not going to apologize again. i apologized to the president on wednesday night. i was advised, thank you, let's get on to a civil discussion on the issues. i have apologized one time, the apology was accepted by the president, by the vice president, whom i know. i am not apologizing again. in fact, i have been proven correct on the issue of citizen verification. in fact, the senate adopted it friday. i'm very grateful, on friday

night, that the white house is now going to be included. >> let's get to this question of the apology. you said you apologized twice. >> no, no, once. >> why not apologize to your house colleagues? they say you broke the rules. >> the apology to the president, the white house, the president's acceptance, the white house acceptance, people know my civility. they know this was a one-time event out of frustration. i believe the truth, and what i heard was not true. host: congressman joe wilson from south carolina yesterday on "fox news sunday," saying he has already apologized to the president. on the politico, "democrats are planning for a floor vote

this week, possibly as early as tuesday, unless wilson takes some action to first head it off." that is from the politico this morning. nokesville is up first. judy says no. go ahead. >caller: yes, i think he should be censured. how are you going to teach our children to respect other people when you have a congressman interrupting the president of the united states and calling him a liar? host: the congressman said in that clip that he has already called the president, and you do not think that is good enough? caller: that is inexcusable. whether he apologize or not, he should not athe representing the american people. he is a bad example to our children.

host: next, this is michigan. caller: personally, i think he belongs in jail. i would like to make a comment without being cut off. host: bill ahead. caller: we hear all these distractions in the news. i do not know what planet these people live on, but if you come to michigan, people are in poverty here. i have been working three years, my own -- i have been out of work for three years, unemployment will be cut off soon. what am i going to do to make a -- host: let's go to new york city, ted. caller: i am sorry for that last caller using a profanity. that is not necessary. but i think this man made this outburst intentionally. i think he did it on purpose. i think he was fully aware and he should be fully responsible. i do not buy that he said it

just came out and he did not really had a chance to, you know, deal with his thoughts. i do not think his apology was sincere. host: ted, do you think this discussion about him, whether he should apologize officially on the house floor -- does it distracts from the debate on health care? caller: you know, it is almost one and the same period the republicans so much are just being obstructionist. they are carrying on like children within these town halls, these town halls where it is progressive thinking. -- is a regressive thinking. if i could just finish my thought -- he wants to have civilized debate. but they are not having

civilized discussion on the matter. to finish my thought, i do not think he is sincere. even his language, if you listen closely to the way he apologized, it was not forthright. he said his party told him he was wrong. you know, it was just not -- and even the way obama received it, he said i appreciated his apology, but appreciating the apology and excepting the apology, i guess is one and the same, but -- host: we did want to give you and other viewers a chance to see what the president have to say. he was on "system and its" last night. >> well, congressman wilson shouting out during my joint session speech was a surprise not just to me but to a lot of his republican colleagues who said it was not appropriate.

he apologized after words, which i appreciated, and i have said so. the truth of the matter is that there has been a coarsening of our political dialogue that i have been running against since i got into politics. >> do you think congressman wilson should be reviewed? there was talk about that today, and now he is claiming that he is a victim, that he is being attacked. >> this is part of what happens. it becomes a big circus instead of us focusing on health care. host: we are wanting to hear your thoughts, yes or no, should congressman wilson be censured by the u.s. house? 202-737-0001 if he should not be censured. 202-737-0002 if he should be.

a tweed,t -- from "the philadelphia inquirer," "wilson: i'm done apologizing." jesse, do you think he should be censured by the house? caller: definitely. host: jesse, make sure you give it 30 days. you have called within the last 30 days. north carolina? caller: the only way he is going to come out that he was lying is if somebody brings it out. obviously something was wrong because the senate is going to make sure they tighten up that loophole. the democrats have voted twice against, or three times against an amendment that would definitely -- no illegals allowed. they voted against it twice.

host: so you think what congressman wilson had to say had an impact on legislation being formulated by the senate finance committee? caller: obviously, just like that glenn beck. that changed the legislation about a coin. -- about acorn. the common from sarah palin changed -- the comment from sarah palin changed the legislation about the death penalty. i have watched morning joe, and they have not said one thing about it. host: we will air that speech -- excuse me, the rally that happened saturday on the mall. we will air tonight on c-span2. the headline, "economy still troubles most americans."

"one year after wall street teetered on the brink of collapse, according to a new associated press poll, seven out of 10 americans lack confidence the federal government has taken safeguards to prevent another financial industry meltdown, even more, 80%, rate in addition -- recondition of the economy as poor. -- the condition of the economy as pour." "a key moment in the global financial meltdown." a year ago today to lehman brothers went belly up, and it was a clear full-scale panic under way. next up, lafayette, indiana. this is brian. you think the congressman should be censured? caller: definitely. i will try to get my thoughts out quickly. it was funny, the caller before mentioning glenn beck.

that is the problem, these seven conservative confederate views. to get to the plan, "no immigrant should be allowed to enjoy public health care option." where the public does not realize that, if an immigrant goes to the hospital, emergency room, they cannot be refused service. number two, if they do not treat them when they go to the hospital, they could have any kind of disease and they could pass on through america. we cannot allow them to join health insurance. until we deal with illegal immigrants, we have no choice but to serve them in the hospital. as far as the congressman who made that statement, he was showing exactly what his republican party stands for. number two, you do not tell the president of the united states, "you lie."

i did not like bush, but i respected bush when he had that shoe thrown at him. that upset the country real bad. host: right after that speech, though, joe wilson was roundly criticized by leaders in the house and senate republican leaders. caller: if you watch the interview after he made that comment, he said that after the republican leaders told him to. but then when you see the republicans on tv, they say what he was doing is not right. but they say that what he said about the health care plan is not true. host: do you think the congressman should not be censured? why? caller: no, he should not. that is not the worst thing that has ever happened on the house of representatives floor. back in the 1840's, two gentlemen got into an argument,

a fistfight, and one man took 18 a cane and be the other man almost half to death. host: are you talking about the caning of charles sumner? caller: yes, sir. host: does it have to get that bad for the house to discipline one of its members? caller: know, exactly. i do respect president obama as president. he had mentioned here and television there were half truths and lies being told about the bill, so is president obama going to be apologizing to the people that he called liars? i have not heard anything from him yet. itch of the purported treatment of illegal immigrants -- host: the purported treatment of illegal immigrants are behind the comments that representative

wilson made. here or stories -- here are stories -- zero americans -- immigranthe article says -- "whn federal agents descended on six meatpacking plants owned by swift & co. in december 2006, they rounded up nearly 1300 suspected illegal immigrants that made up about 10% of the labor force at the plants. but the raids by immigration and customs enforcement agents did not cripple the company or the plants. in fact, they were up and running at full staff within months by replacing those removed with a significant number of native-born americans, according to a report by the center for immigration studies. that was the most extreme example of what has become increasingly common result of the raids -- they were very beneficial to american workers, according to a vanderbilt university study professor.

helen, go ahead. caller: actually, i am from a massachusetts. my name is helena. the example of the south carolina constituency has been to disrupt congress and, as you mentioned about charles sumner, the attack on charles sumner was also a south carolina representative. what seems to me to be the divide-and-conquer mentality of the republican party at this time, and it seems to be that we are the united states and we should work together and try to bring more of the team effort into the way we approach our issues and our problems so that we can resolve them. thank you. host: van cleve, mississippi, susan, who thinks we should --

the house should not censure congressman wilson. why is that? caller: because he has already apologized to the president and he accepted his apology, and i do not hear no outcry when harry reid calls president bush a liar twice in the media. he says that he is not going to pay for illegal immigrants, but pelosi is going to bring up a reform bill to legalize immigrants, so he is going to get legalization anyway. host: about 15 more minutes of your calls on this story this morning, the import duty, the headline in "the financial times." "u.s. tyre duties sparked/." and the front page of the "the new york times" this morning.

"china moves to beat back a tire tariff." "china unexpectedly increased pressure sunday on the united states in a widening trade dispute, taking the first step toward imposing tariffs on american exports of automotive products and chicken meat in retaliation for president obama's decision late friday to levy tariffs on tires in china. the impact of the dispute extends well beyond tires, chickens, and cars. both governments are facing domestic pressure to take a tougher stand against the other on economic issues. the trade battle increases political tensions between the two nations even as they try to work together to revive the global economy and combat mutual security threats, like nuclear ambitions of iran and north korea. mr. obama's decision to impose a tariff of up to 35% on chinese

tires is a signal he plans to deliver on his promise to labor unions that he would more strictly enforce trade laws, especially as china, which has become a world-class factory while the united states has lost millions of manufacturing jobs, making the trade deficit with china in record to do $60 billion in 2008." rose in fort worth, texas. he should be censured, why? teacup good morning. i am a first-time college. i think he should be because that was wrong. nobody else has ever done that. just because he is a black president, i would have had more respect for him if he had behada sheet on. poor people do not have health care, and i think that is wrong. if you have money, ok, that is fine and good. you can go anywhere you want to and get help for your situation.

but poor people does not, and i think it is a shame and i think everybody just like the tea partiers, they should go to the capitol, too, and let the people know there are poor people out here that do not have health care, and they took that all. no " -- now "you lie" get more coverage than health care. host: he was asked that yesterday on fox news and said that basically it was not behind his reasoning for it. he dismissed that out of hand. wouldn't congressman wilson had the same motivation no matter the president's color or gender?

wouldn't he have the same view? caller: and all the white presidents we have had, you have never heard anyone stand up and say "you lie." i just think you should call these people on what they say because, ok, msnbc -- they did a fact check, and rachael ray and keith olbermann, which i give kudos to because they put out their correct. it is not in the bill that will be covered. people hear what they want to hear. i appreciate you. thank you for taking my comments this letter. host: thank you for your call. here is the front page on the "los angeles times." "some fear gop is being carried to the extreme." tennessee is next. deborah, you think congressman

wilson should not be censured by the house. tell us more. caller: good morning. i do not believe it is necessary for him to be censured. i really do not believe it is necessary he called and apologized to obama -- that he called and said it obama -- and said to obama that he lied. people already know that. the caller before that talking about people not having insurance -- i am afraid that most of the people that would be out there, people would be mostly illegal aliens. thank you. host: thanks for that call from camden, tennessee. here is a headline about the brewing congressional race in tennessee.

here is a picture of steve kull whecohen, the incumbent. "it has been fitted with racial overtones, with a prominent black politicians in the white incumbent can not properly represent black voters. the black candidate has argued that tennessee is a black voice in its currently all-white delegation. he is running a blistering campaign against representative steve cohen. "no steve kulcohen is to know that he does not think very much of african-americans. he has played the black community will." the primary election in to test and 10 kids and unlikely officeholder, a je-- robin brown also writes that "mr. cohen is a

well known for --. to bloomfield connecticut. this is -- did i get your right -- your name right? kuba? caller: yes. the whole world is watching. when president obama won the election, america had turned the -- it appears the ugly face of racism manifest itself in all different forms. joe wilson is an embarrassment to republicans. he was an embarrassment to the whole house. he brought the whole house into total distribute. it is a -- it is -- into total disrepute. it is incumbent upon them to

call him out. i do hope that the people in his constituency give him the boot. thank you so much. host: thank you for your call. to benton harbor, michigan. marcus, you think he should be censured? marcus, make sure you turn down your television or radio so that you do not feed back on us. caller: yes, i absolutely think he should be censured for an elected official to the congress of the united states to behave in such an unbecoming way is a total misrepresentation of what the founding fathers set up, and how it relates to a civilized government. i would also add, here we had president bush who now has in the public record that the weapons of mass destruction

charge was an outright lie, but no one in the congress, as it relates to the house or the senate, stood up to say that this is a lie. so there is a double standard. i think that is what truly needs to be updated. host: marcus, thank you. here is james writing estate tweake us a tweet. we are asking you this time around, do you think congressman wilson should be censured by the house? in this morning's "roll call," "forget health care and afghanistan: let's all talk about joe wilson." "it is hard to blame congressional democrats and their allies on msnbc for trying to change the subject, but let's get real -- wilson does not even rise to the importance of a footnote in history. he is getting credit for reviving the democratic party

that seemed very much down a dunce. contributions to his likely 2010 democratic opponent, rob miller, skyrocketed. the dccc reported thursday that miller had taken in more than $200,000 since wilson house outburst from 5000 new contributors. by friday afternoon, it was over $800,000." here is the "roll call" editorial showing jobe wilson in the bunker, the sand trap, joe wilson saying, "you like, te, t" you do not think that joe wilson should not be censured? caller: i think that he should be censured one minute after all

the other democrats are censured for booing president bush. let's not forget who really started this when we had eight years of it. for the democrats to get all in high dudgeon over this is a little hypocritical, if you ask me. host: portsmouth, new hampshire. michelle, you think he should be censured. tell us why. caller: yes, i do. i think the underlying problem here is definitely racism. i think that people have lost this over. maureen dowd's column on sunday mentions that mr. wilson belongs to the sons of the confederate veterans, ran a 2000 campaign to

keep the confederate flag raviwaving over the south carola capital. when you look at the photograph and "the times" where mr. wilson was seated between two gop members, neither of them looked at him as though they were shocked. they did not disagree. host: take his comments in the context of the weekend protest. thousands of people in the nation's capitol are supporting the comments that he made, his concern over illegal immigrants and the treatment in the legislation. caller: well, i think people have really gone off the deep end here. they are not checking their facts. they are being led by people who have not bothered to read any

part of this bill, who have not gone to fact checked the board or have they gone to the white house website where you can go through and, item by item -- host: michele, you look at factcheck.org on a regular basis? caller: yes, i think it is important. before we say this is definitive, we really have to know what we are talking about. host: this is a related story here. "trust in news media falls to new low in pew survey." "trust in news media has reached a new low with record numbers of americans saying reporting is inaccurate, biased, and shaped by special interests. the survey of 1506 people showed that a self-described republicans continued to take

the dimmest view of news organization, but discontent among democrats was catching up." good morning, from royal, virginia, and you do not think the congressman should be censured? caller: i do not. i think the president does not exactly say what he means. he obfuscates very often what his intention is, and wilson caught him on this. i agree with the person who said that all the people who booed and said terrible things about president bush overlooke this fact. i guess that is all i want to say. host: charlotte, north carolina, kimberly -- you think he should be censured? go ahead.

charlotte, north carolina, are you with us? caller: yes, i am with you. yes, he should be censured. if he went into a court room and called a judge a liar, he would be held in contempt. if you called a police officer a liar while he is speaking, you would probably be charged with breaking the peace. this was nothing the disrespect for this man because he is african-american. i do not know what we're going to teach our children when the president of the united states is treated like this. host: thank you, charlotte, north carolina. more coming up as we talk to neil king of "the wall street journal" next. more of "washington journal" coming up next.

>> new york democrat steve israel on how he uses technology and social media to teach -- to keep his constituents up-to-date on the issues. tonight on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> next month, a look at the nation's highest court. >> i do not think it is an understatement to say that this building would not be here if it had not been for chief justice taft. >> taft had in mind that the court need to the building of its own. it became almost an obsession. "supreme court week with insight from the justices and the

historians. go online now for a virtual tour of the court, historic photos, and more, at c-span.org/supreme court. >> part of our coverage today includes the commission on wartime contract and in iraq and afghanistan. they will be looking at the state department management and oversight of security and other contractors, live this morning at 9:30 eastern on c-span3. this afternoon, the senate appropriations subcommittee looks at the potential health effects of cell phone use. live coverage at 2:00 p.m. on c- span3. the house and senate back today. this week the house considers authorization for $3 billion through 2014 for the energy department-based research on turbines and vehicles. general speeches at 12:30 eastern. live coverage on c-span.

the senate is also back at 2:00 p.m. today, continuing work this week on fiscal year 2010 federal spending. back up today, $122 billion for transportation and housing programs. four of the 12 bills that fund the federal government each year have passed the said it -- have passed the senate. >> "washington journal" continues. its coat neil king -- host: neil king had an article. guest: the first term used in this sort of setting was back under fdr when curt had to this -- when cartoonists use it to lampoon at the time. it is a moniker of someone who

is overseeing the policy areas at the time. poverty is ouczar, inflation cz. it has really gotten carried away. host: "some republicans, fanned by conservative commentators, warned that these commentators right of a shadow government pickup y have. guest: at the moment there is an existing list of 32 advisers, a list that glenn beck has posted on his web site -- for instance, a lot of senators that i have talked to have cited this list. at the moment, if you take just the so-called czars on the lesson that existed in previous administrations, where talk of

the faith-based, intelligence, the drug czar. if you take that list, the convoys, -- the invenvoys -- pick somebody overseas that will have a lot of stature in the region. if you take those couple have four. if you then take the people that are without any debate confirmed career government officials, who are actually serving in some cases in congressionally approved tasks, the stimulus accountabilities are, earl detainee, that was -- a host: and he had to be approved by congress, correct?

guest: i think he was uprooted -- appointed under bush. you go through that, that is actually about 11 people. then there is -- this may be debatable, but there is kind of what i would call the short-term economic crisis people that have been appointed to meet immediate things that will probably not exist a year or two from now. this would be the manufacturing so-called czar, ron bloom, also working on the car bailout. where the auto recovery czar. economic czar paul volcker is almost never intel. that leaves us with seven people that do not apply -- is almost never in town. the domestic violence czar. then we get the ones that are

significant, carol browner, handling energy and climate change issues in the white house. the health czar, also working in the white house. the urban affairs czar. the one causing the biggest stink was vaqn jones. i highly doubt he ever would have gone into the administration if the administration had better understood his past. host: so you think if he had to face congressional scrutiny, he would not have made it? caller: i think he probably would have pulled himself out -- host: are these numbers radically different from these types of positions, say, in the bush administration? guest: there are differences. part of it is the fact that obama came in so aggressively, and it was one of the things that people are now a restaurant

-- reacting to. we are going to push for climate change, therefore we need a climate change adviser. on the foreign-policy front, we're going to try to jump into all these things, so i am going to have four big envoys right off the bat, when most presence would have picked them as their administration went on and a particular need arises. a lot of this is the immediacy of the whole thing. host: there is one czar that is pretty well known throughout all administrations, and that is the drug czar. guest: that office has existed for a long time. the monitor -- a moniker goes back, a congressionally approved office under reagan. william bennett was one of the best drug czars.

if you go back 10 or 20 years, the czar moniker has been used more often. host: the moniker has been used by both parties? guest: is not official. it is used in the media. the whole terminology went back, if you think of times when the president had to deal with a whole bunch of things, picking people willy-nilly to oversee things during the depression, and fdr's response to that, so he had what people called the war production czar or the transportation czar. host: duties positions -- and do these positions, is it adding an extra layer of government, say, between -- that was going to be -- well, tom daschle was going to be the health and human services secretary, and now you

principally have two people looking after health care policy, nancy and apollo and kathleen sebelius. guest: is arguable that if john -- tom daschle had become that, it is possible they would not have had such a position in the white house. kathleen sebelius come on the other hand, i think they saw the need to marshal support congressionally, which is not the kind of job the hhs secretary would do. host: going back to fdr, accompanying neil king's arbuckle, this is sergeant shriver, eunice shriver's has been. what was he called? guest: under johnson in 1964, there was an earthquake in alaska that was devastated. he picked a person to oversee

the effort. he was called the alaska reconstruction czar, similar to somebody that bush picked after katrina. host: the morning to leon, on our republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to speak to the issue of the people in place as czars. it seems to me that everything this obama administration has done has been planned on purpose way ahead of time in. even though there is no pressure of the site, if they had announced prior to his administration coming into office, we the people would have had a chance to look into these people and to see their background and to see what their foundation is and what they believe in. i think that would have been much better, a much better way of having people placed into our

government that have no congressional oversight. what do you guys think? guest: echoes to the issue of transparency, which is one of the things that has concerned -- it goes to the issue of transparency, which is one of the things that has concerned people in congress. i mean, one of the other problems that is really going on here, which is really putting a little bit of land on the senate, is that the confirmation process itself has become so slow that at the moment i think it is less than half of the people that obama has put forward. host: why has it gotten so slow? guest: ees just got more gummed -- it has just got more bummed out over the years. the financial disclosure and process had become so involved. it has kept people away from preferring the more kind of advisory council a positions because you do not have to go --

he has kept people away from those positions and preferring the more credit advisory council positions because you do not have to go through that. in some ways, in this case, it is being encapsulated in this whole fear about the czars, which i think is in large part overblown, but on the other hand i think there is an increased number of these advisers in this administration, and some concern in the senate about their muscle over this is legitimate. host: let's hear from greensboro, north carolina. ann, go ahead. caller: i was so glad to hear the guest make that point about the appointments being held up. the republicans are holding up several of the president's nominees. for example, hillary clinton voiced concern because many of her staff had not been approved. that is one way the republicans

have attempted to -- not attended, but they have held up his nominees, and so a lot of the people had to go ahead on the point based on that. the other point i want to make is regarding c-span3 i just noticed recently that c-span has really started bringing in the other point i want to make is regarding c-span. i just noticed recently that c- span has released to bring in a commentary from fox news. c-span before seemed much more balanced and would bring in a balanced view of what is going on. but i just noticed in particular yesterday, and it seems like today starting out with the same thing. it is very important that the audience here both sides of this. host: thanks for your input. neil king?

guest: is not just republicans making life miserable on a sitting president, there were similar tussles going on in 2001, at the time of 9/11. there are a lot of important positions that bush did not have in place. i was reading a story that a scholar that covers this stuff more than anyone else at new york university had talked about how he thinks it will be well into 2010 before the vast majority or perhaps all the positions that obama needs to fill through senate confirmation will be filled. host: kay bailey hutchison complaints in "the washington times -- in "the washinton post" that these folks do not get vetted. she writes "tsarist washington," "i oversleep legislation and agencies that cover policy areas -- i oversee legislation and agencies to cover policy areas,

trade technology, transit, consumer protection, and commercial regulation. neither i nor the committee chairmen have clear authority to compel these stars to appear before the panel and report what they are doing. the obama administration presented only two of these officials for our consideration before they assume their duties. we have had no opportunity to probe the others credentials." guest: i would be interested to know the 10 of the 32. you know, it is interesting. if you take someone like ron bloom, being called the car czar, a very small office responsible for the gm-chrysler matter, he has gone before congress many times. i am wondering if this -- in this case of senator hutchison has tried to some of these

people to these hearings. if this was an issue, i think would be worthwhile to try to force it. host: can congress almost force everyone or put a summons for people to testify before them? guest: they can. they cannot immediately call up obama's national security adviser. they cannot call any member of the white house staff just automatically to go testify, that there are precedents for doing that, if they are interested in doing it. they should push for it. there is talk of them doing that. host: on our independent line, john from out of when, illinois. caller: i was wondering if mr. king knows about the size of a book that he co-authored, i believe it was in the 1970's, -- or, i am sorry, i am not sure

of the date the book was written. but the information out there is that this guy has supposedly written that he believes a human being does not become a human being until the age of two. he also has advocated abortion up to the age of two. also, one. quick about the health care thing in the gop. all right, the gop has brought up 800 amendments to the health care bill, and not one has passed. no one. so do not give me the bipartisan line on the democrat side when, you know that, there have been amendments on the other side but not -- none of them have been passed. host: back to the comments about john coltrane. -- john holdren. guest: there is a huge tracker

of people who have said various things, and people have made a lot out of it. one is widely regarded as being the most prolific and the most cited legal scholar in the country. he is also a kind of a provocateur and loves to wade into every kind of interesting legal issue, so he has taken a lot of positions to push forward various arguments, not necessarily thinking he was going to institute them as policy, but basically as a legal scholar. i did not know that holdedsren d discuss legal issues, but i always thought of him as the science commentator. host: "conservatives took shots at holdren for environmental

textbooks that he wrote. the authors mention involuntary britain would vefertility contrg sterilants into drinking water or staple foods. that to the office of management and budget role. what does that position mean? guest: that is interesting position. the office of information and regulatory affairs, or something like that. it was created under ronald reagan as an anti -- hot onerous ones and ones that are going to damage are not get through in and become regulation. there is because the back and forth through all administrations whether or not it is intuitively -- intrinsically a anti-regulatory

position. to call him a czar, i think we have called that position a czar, but again, it is a short time thing -- is a shorthand think, not some nefarious thing. host: next caller. caller: thank you for c-span3 i do not understand why congress is lying down on -- i think you for c-span. i do not read as to why congress of lying down on this. how can they allow this to go on when they have no oversight? i thought the secretaries of the cabinet and the undersecretaries would handle this type of activity because they do have some oversight committee congress does, all these people. why has this congress laid down on their authority? it seems to be usurping the separation of powers with this czar structure. guest: i would challenge the idea that there is a czar structure.

if you take those people, i mean, the money involved is not necessarily that large. if congress wants to really shed some light on these particular positions, i think it certainly has the right and the authority and the muscle to do that. so far it has been a lot of smoke and not much else, but maybe they will see in the next few weeks that they will try to push forward on this. i question whether the authority is -- congress has a lot of authority on these things. host: if these the czars are in the executive branch, they are subject to purview by congress, are they not? guest: if obama has picked someone to be an advisor and that person makes 100th of his cousin dollars -- and that person is $150,000, it would

probably be more difficult host: greg in washington, d.c., good morning. you are on the air. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make a clarification because you said glenn beck says there are 23, but when your guest was talking, you said, well, not all 23 are congressionally approved, that it only ends up being around, i do not know, less than 10, 11? so bush had eight, he has 11? and these people calling to say he has a plan -- how do you plan something like that? he sounds a little bit crazy, and i think people jump the gun and they do not listen. host: is there any indication the obama administration came in looking to use more of these offices, these sorts of the czars or whatever you want to talk about.

guest: during the transition, obama started anointing people even before -- appointing people before taking office. this person is going to move forward on this issue, tom daschle's name was already out there. one of the for stories in december about, he is going to go the direction of peaking advisers for some of these things. i think it is a stylistic thing where he has decided that he once -wants his trusted guy in e white house to push forward on a legislative matter. i think the one people -- the one thing people are misconstruing is that under carol browner there are 20 people for this new office on climate change issues and there is a new kind of bureaucracy created. for the most part, these people

are on their own with a staff member or something. this is the kind of thing that can sprout up and disappear fairly quickly. it is interesting, but go ahead. host: no, no coming you finish your comment. guest: paul light says here in his piece in "the new york times," "sarsgaard are really the giants of a difference. they hardly ever restraint -- czars are really the giants of the administration picked up soon the guy's not in on the back door of the president and say, mr. president, what about me? host: here is georgia, richard, it independent kollek. caller: good morning, bill. good morning, mr. king. yes, then jones -- van jones

became a communist. he stepped down and resigned. however, we have another one that is probably just as scary as head, and his name is mark foley, the director -- mark lloyd. he praised hugo chavez when hugo chavez was taking control of the media in venezuela. he criticized the united states for trying to intervene and keep the press free over there. now i think his position is basically shut down free-speech, talk radio, and to deny the people. host: we just have a couple of minutes here, richard, and we will get a response from neil king. guest: that has been a big issue played out on talk radio.

i do not know a lot about mark lloyd's biography, but he is a low level at the fcc, the chief diversity offer or something like that -- the chief diversity office or something like that. he is not a person in any kind of great authority. there is talk along these lines that this has percolated at various times on capitol hill, but i do not know if there is any indication that the administration is going to go down this track. the things that he said about van jones are more or less true. to go back to the vetting thing, that is how he got host: back to the confirmation process. in your words, you said they were gummed up. is it worse than in the past? guest: people are making the argument that it is getting

worse, getting slower in the efforts to reform it. it is not necessarily like more acrimony than there was a years ago. host: so it is not worse -- your mind guest: i think it has been bad for a long time. it has been that eight years ago, probably worse now, largely because of the partisanship. host: san diego, good morning. caller: good morning. i have been listening to your program and i find it interesting today, for sure. issue of letting people, it seems to me these individuals have been around long enough to learn what is going on with the american system, how it works, how taxpayers' money is funneled here. a lot of these individuals being picked, it seems to me that there is not any way for the

public to get ahead of the cur ve and get out there and say something about these people and have the media picked it up and get busy and investigate these people. host: we will get a response. guest: there is certainly been huge amounts of attention paid to this issue on talk radio, fox news, the blogosphere has very recently been lit up. that may be is one of the reasons why the whole thing is way more of an issue than it has ever been before because, like i have said repeatedly, the use of these kind of as pfizer's in various capacities is not new. the magnet -- of these advisers in various capacities is not new. it is not as if it is a totally new phenomenon. .

incredible amounts of money-- now, you're changing the healt >> you are changing the health care system. i get the sense, politically, that people are worn out. there has been so much change, people are fatigued. >> i think you are absolutely right. this is a very difficult economic in parliament, people are feeling anxious. we have to take a series of steps, in circumstances not of

my choosing, and it is absolutely fair to say that people start feeling some sticker shock. there is an argument to be made out there that maybe health care can wait because we have had to abort a lot, the system has gone into shock, perhaps we should wait for another time. >> people ask you, do we need to do all of this, can mchale this back? >> the problem i have is the only way i can get medium and long terms better -- federal spending under control is if we do something about health care. ironically, health care reform is critical to deficit reduction. host: chuck hawkins in new york is the deputy associate editor

for the "associated press." many of you will be familiar with the articles that are published across the country. thank you for joining us. in a year since the financial meltdown, what is marked as the beginning of the meltdown, this is a five-week series said the associated press put together. when did you start working on this? >> ever since last fall, we knew that something is up was going to be important. it 1-year anniversary is a logical place to start. the thought process of looking at the five weeks after the decision to take over fannie and freddie mac. when we were at the peak of the crisis with the stock market

falling for eight days, we thought that was a pretty good time to look at what was happening, where we were going. host: we want to invite the viewers into the conversation. democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001 independents, 202-628-0205. tell us what it had been like for you, in terms of the year since the financial crisis. what has changed for you? your report goes into many aspects of the economy. let's start with the auto the economeconomy. you write --

how has it changed since then? guest: particularly for chrysler and gm, the credit crisis came at a worse time. they were losing money. they had an inability to raise fresh money, and that is what brought the financial side of the house to a head, and what they had to go to the government. the trends that that story identifies was going on at that time. last summer we had for dollar gasoline and that made people rethink, do i need an s.u.v.? they were like almost all companies. if you look at the current market prices, if you want to put in the definition of a meltdown, that is what it was. companies could not raise money,

banks were not willing to lend money, everyone was scared. host: in terms of auto sales, the no. you report most it 10 million annual expected sales. how will future sales be affected by less demand for automobiles, consumers hanging onto their cars for lumber? guest: -- longer? guest: they are, and part of the reason is it is much harder to get a car loan amount. basically, you had to put down more money. there was a time where you could come into the door and sign a piece of paper, and you could drive away. that is no longer a given. host: if you have to sum up what you have learned in these series of articles, the aspects of where the economy is now, one

year later, what would you say? what have people you spoke to said about where the economy will be one year from now? guest: there will always be a recovery. i do not know if we can say is right now, six months from now, but that is coming. it is pretty apparent the economy is getting better. typically, when you come out of recession, you see much more pronounced increase in consumer spending. they call it pent-up demand. this time, we think it will be perhaps less-pronounced, particularly after the bad recession of 1982. it is all about demographics.

this recession have been at the worst time for baby boomers. some of them are retiring, or retired already. some are about to retire and they saw their pension plans, their retirement savings getting decimated. we believe that will have a pronounced effect on consumer spending. if you look at car sales, in the bubble years, we were up to 17 million sales per year. right now we are around 10 million. are we going to get back to 17 million? probably not. host: our guest is the associate editor of the associated press. first call on the independent line. mike in florida. caller: back in march, on cnn, they've released statistics

chumming that 49% of the population was receiving most of the goods under president bush and 1% of the population was receiving 10%. those in the top 10% received the income growth. lower and middle class essentially dropped. in my mind, and the economy should be fed from the bottom up. therefore, in my view, the reason we went into recession was because people who normally spend the money did not have the money. people who had the money were trying to put more money into the stock market. i only heard that once, and i have never heard it again. i am curious why? guest: i would disagree.

it is well known income disparity grew within those years. we have reported on it. it is a fairly pronounced affect. what happened as the recession hit -- this is when you went from a garden variety recession into a great recession. everyone stopped spending. arguably, there were people who did not need to have credit, but they were not spending either. when you think about one year ago, going into christmas, retailers were wringing their hands about who was going to buy. host: you referred to this as the great recession. is that what history will call this? guest: we think so. this is the deepest recession since the great depression.

we have not hit bottom in the unemployment rate. some experts believe it could exceed 10%. if you look at that progression of the decline in the unemployment rate, it is pretty scary. the slope is all lot deeper, and faster, and that begs the question, how long before it turned up? is it going to be a be-shaped recovery -- v-shake her recovery as you often see, or will it be more like a u? host: next phone call. caller: i noticed your clip on obama talking about health care on "16 minutes." all he said was i think we should do this, i think we should do that. i think we need to do this. this is the most unqualified

president -- host: jeremy, we are focusing on the financial meltdown. do you have a question about that? caller: what are barack obama's qualifications for knowing anything about the economic history of america? where has he been schooled in economics? host: chuck hawkins has been reporting on this. what have you learned about the administration's efforts across the board, in terms of the scope of our primary efforts on behalf of the federal government? guest: it has been unprecedented, that is for sure. when you think about the bush administration, but secretary paulson did, remember, he ran goldman sachs. in 2007, he was talking about

making government less interested in the markets. you heard the same thing from alan greenspan. they had to kind of wing it. as things got worse, the fed, treasury, and administration took unprecedented steps, and that followed through when president obama took office and made tim geithner his secretary. the steps they have taken are unprecedented. host: 15 more minutes with the deputy editor of the associated press and their five-week series. democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. look here in the "financial times" --

here is drawn from seattle. democrat line. caller: i am an unemployed union carpenter. i have been on unemployment for 10 months. item on an extension right now. all along the coast, may be about 10,000 people who are out of work in our trade. all these businesses say that there will not be workforce six months, a couple of years. so when we start defaulting our loans, the ones being carried by stimulus, what will happen then? are they going to open up food

lines? host: are you close to defaulting on your home? caller: right now i am pretty good. but if things do not work out, i may not have enough to pay moneandrent and i could default. guest: he has hit on some of the key question here. jobless benefits only last for a certain amount of time. congress passed an extension that gave the unemployed workers additional money. you have to ask a question, though, will there be pressure on congress to extend the extension? we have not hit the bottom in unemployment. that is a lagging indicator companies do not typically

higher until it is very clear to them that they have a sustainable increase. you are right, there are a lot of people on the process right now. i am not in washington. i used to be. these are the kinds of issues that people need to be hearing from their constituents. i would not be surprised if something happened on that. host: here is a headline this morning on executive pay -- schenectady, conn.. caller: good morning. i have a statement and the

questions. in the last 100 years, our system was the best in the world. all these banks and big companies had to report quarterly profits. even their quarterly reporting was fudged because $180 billion to get them out of bill whole -- something is wrong there. they were in trouble before they reported. in any case, what i wanted to ask is, where did all the money go from the banks? you are only getting 2% from savings, and they can go as high as 19% on the loan so i do not

understand how they can be in such trouble? host: any response to the caller? guest: not that i want to make this an accounting seminar, but you have a pretty good idea of how regulation played a role in this. when you think about what banks did in the bubble years, they packaged securities as mortgages, credit cards, they would buy the mortgages, package them and tell them to other investors -- sell them to other investors. they often kept those assets on their own books. the rules did not require them to mark those values to market, in many cases. while the worst of the worst was

hitting, when it was difficult to come up with a bill you for them, they were sitting on arguably unrealized losses on their balance sheet. when it was apparent they had to take write-downs, that is what you are talking about where did all of these losses come from? the banks were making the same kinds of investments that other banks around the world, central banks, had funds -- everyone thought home prices would always go up. the notion that you could package a loan that basically should never have been written in the first place, the borrower was going to default and someone was going to lose money -- that was not in the market. there was almost a collective amnesia about risk. host: a tweet this morning.

on your series, here is a reprint, a study by the research firm about unemployment. what are some of those implications? guest: we already talked about not buying enough cars. will there be as much stores? probably not. will there be as much variety of product? probably not. if you think about what happened after the depression, thrift was

sobered into everyone's minds, it took a while to recover. this is why we believe the demographic issue, remember, these are some people who should be in the prime spending years. once you lose your job, it is tough to think that you are going to come back and spend the way you did before. so slower growth is probably one of the big implications. probably much higher in new normals for unemployment as well. host: a footnote on this series of spending. the story goes -- after more -- world war ii, there was growth, but savings

was pretty decent. guest: i do not know if they are inclusive. it depends on how the economy grows. at that time, you had an economy that was expanding greatly, so the income could support increased spending and increase savings. that could still happen. i do not want to sound like it is all over, but the american economy tends to have a breakthrough in tough times. people believe they have to find a new way to do things. host: next phone call from connecticut. caller: imf first-time caller. -- i am a first-time caller. policy these days is all about

parties, republicans and democrats, not about america, as a whole. what i mean by that is in the past couple of weeks, months, there have been so many problems happening in the country because no government involvement and the running of the economy, like the issue we are talking about this morning, the financial markets. they have gotten us into this mess we are in. and yes, this new administration is trying -- seven months -- to correct this long problem, whether it is health care or the

financial institution. host: thank you. chuck hawkins, do you want to respond? guest: in terms of financial regulation, that is certainly a good point. the obama administration has put forward a fairly aggressive reregulation for financial overhaul plan, and so far not much has happened in congress. i know they are back now and barney frank says that they will be moving forward, but some of the most important parts of the plan that the administration is pushing the hardest, including this new consumer protection agency, has drawn complaints from the financial-services industry. it will be interesting to see how this plays out. host: next phone call.

caller: ever since de regulation started, including president bush -- there was one democratic president in between -- all that means it is they had not want these bankers making all of these volatile loans. host: how much abovof a bill ans the regulation? -- deregulation? guest: i do not know if i'm qualified to answer that, but alan greenspan said that markets are self-correcting. we do not need to monitor derivatives because these people want to make money. they do not make the logical

decisions. after the meltdown -- i do not mean to speak for him -- but the point is made where there are regulations that are required. this laissez-faire attitude that the market always correct did not prove to be correct. host: next phone call. kevin from boston. caller: there is an economist named paul krugman. he has some pretty out there . . after a housing bubble and automotive bubble burst, he wrote a paper describing when the bubbles are about to burst, the government needs to step in and direct the markets and break

the bubble at the time of its choosing so that it can decide when and how to deal with the fallout from it. guest: that is one of the key points that obama and tim geithner are advancing. the argument is in there are too many federal agencies overseeing distinct parts, and you need someone looking at the whole, systemic risk. if you are going to crack a ball before it bursts, then you run into some questions about maybe it is not a bubble. host: look for the associated press series in website in

newspapers across the country. chuck hawkins, thank you for being with us. we are going to spend the next half hour asking you about your thoughts on health care, in particular, if your position on the public option has changed. democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. from "congressional quarterly" --

also this morning from "the hill" -- olympia snowe was on that program. this is what she had to say on the public option. >> did the president take the public option off the table, should he be more specific? >> he should be more specific. i have heard the president to do

that. it is universally opposed by all republicans in the senate, therefore, there is no way to pass a plan that includes a public option. it is a road block to building the kind of consensus we need to move forward. even chairman baucus has said that it would be best to move forward. >> you have word what david axelrod has said, not willing to take it off the table. >> it would be unfortunate because we create lot of uncertainties in the process. this would build momentum to coming to a contentious. i appreciate the fact that the president expressed flexibility in his speech last night, but the process remains to be unpredictable. host: here is the front page of the "times picayune" --

all sell, a front-page story from "the state" in north carolina as lindsey gramm continues to hold a town hall meetings -- that is the front page this morning. the associated press writing about health care reform, hospitals and drug makers like what they see in the early version of the plan that may end up in the plan that ends up on president obama's desk.

minnesota, republican line. caller: good morning. i have been listening to c-span for many years. i am retired. i look at this whole thing and i remember being a child working on a farm, working hard. we always had jobs. i cannot understand, because i know people around us, all kinds of people, because this is a diverse country, nobody, nobody

expected to be cared for, taking care of. we taught me more privileged to have a job and make our income. we were poor but we never knew. anyway, my thought for the date is less government. why oare we having more czars? the government needs to be reduced in size. that money could be used for the people who really need help. not only that, jobs. that is the best medicine you could give someone. make them work for their money. shouldn't they want to?

moving back to minnesota from the washington, d.c. area, the first thing that i noticed in the town of monticello, where we live, is there are more doctor offices and clinics and dentist offices, chiropractors, wellness clinics in the state of minnesota than any other business. host: why do you believe that, in what i assume is a smaller town? caller: that is what i asked. are there that many sick people in this place, or is it a business? we are people, we are humans. people just expect to go to the doctor, to the clinic.

host: here is a democratic and beer. milton, west virginia. -- viewer. caller: i can't believe that last person. she talked about this being in business. that is not available to me. i called my congressional representative and said it is time whoever is trying to block the public option should become a statesman. it is time to get this fixed. i have been working since i was 14, 15, and i come from a poor family. my husband and i have done fairly well but i have systemic fibrosis.

we used to have insurance, but we do not have it anymore. host: what happened? caller: my husband was laid off after 30 years. host: so what are your options in terms of health care? caller: cobra, but we cannot afford that. host: how much is that for you and your family? caller: i do not know the exact amount, but it will be at least double. host: thank you for your input. here is the front page of the "washington post" --

a bit of this lead story -- here is the key question. this goes by too would you support the promised changes in the health-care system as promised by the obama administration? that is from the washington post. next phone call, philadelphia. tony. caller: i agree with ralph nader that much more disclosure needs to be discussed with health-care providers. we need a large network.

i know it is awful easy to throw mud as a state employee with a very good health plan. my father was a doctor. i think a lot more discussion needs to be done in detail with this. host: thank you. south bend, indiana. republican caller. caller: hamas and i am retired military. i have a very decent -- i have a very decent medical plan. host: is that from the v.a. system? caller: i do not think i am old enough for that. the government pays for my health plan. it is not something they are giving to me, i earned that.

that was part of the deal when i sacrificed 20 years. now we have found out that the government wants to charge a fairly sized deductible. that is not something that we signed up for. i think this is just the tip of the iceberg. because it is the government, because we are technically former federal workers, does that mean that they can change our health plan at will? i am not happy with what is going on. it is not anything racist, because the president is black. i just think there needs to be more discussion. someone before mentioned that these people talking at town hall meetings do not read the bill?

you better believe we are reading every word. host: a bit more on health care, whether your opinion has changed on the public option. this on the need to deny coverage. the president also talked about health care in his interview last night with "60 minutes." >> i intend to be president for a while. once this bill passes, i own it. if people look at it and say, this has not reduced my cost, by premiums are still going up 20%, insurance companies are still in jerking you around, i will be the one held responsible. host: danny from indiana. good morning.

caller: it is interesting that these two topics were back-to- back. host: you mean talking about the financial meltdown and health care? caller: that's right, deregulation, the table being tilted so heavily to the wealthy, corporations. this is my logical conclusion of where we sit today. the medical plan, it is not just about medical treatment, it is about a shift away from friedman and back to keynesian economics. host: break that down a bit in layman's terms. what do you mean by that? caller: in my opinion, we have been in a state of class warfare since the institution of supply- side economics.

that hurt me bad when it was first put into practice in 1986. i did some research and there was a qualifier in the first sentence that said that it always favors the wealthy and corporations. like you said, everything has been from the bottom up. that needs to be restored again. the argument we are facing today, public option versus private plans, basically we are looking to sustain the economic plan of republicans. we have been living under their plan for 30 years. host: thank you.

alaska. caller: my opinion has not changed on the public option. the people who are opposed to the public auction have no experience dealing with the health insurance industry. i do not understand why we are talking about ways to keep the insurance companies involved in health care. that is exactly backwards. if we do not get the health care industry, of health care, it is going to get worse. insurance companies need to be banned from health care. it is not supposed to be a commodity. host: do you think the government can run health insurance better than private companies? caller: i think a cage full of monkeys could run it better than private insurance companies. i was disabled twice in 16

years. i have been criminalize to buy these people many times. that is the one thing that i find from people who are opposed to health care. they have not been through it. host: what is your current surge -- insurance situation? caller: my wife works the local college, so i think that is through the state. my secondary is medicaid.

caller these companies are businesses. they hire people. what happens if they go out of business? that is another group of people who will be up there without

jobs. host: maybe you could respond to one of our e-mailers. what would your response be to her? caller: there are all types of regulations coming down from the government. people want to break this thing line by line. increased government involvement in health care? that is what created the higher cost. i'm sorry if you are disabled or if you lost your job. i have four children. if i lost my job, i would do what i have to do because it is my responsibility. the government requires these

individuals to cover these people. host: if the bill passes without the public option but there is a stipulation and there, by federal law, insurance companies cannot deny people because of pre-existing conditions. what does that do to the business you are in? caller: i wanted to talk about cost, and that is a good question. they're definitely need to be regulation but what the government is proposing, they are putting some money obstacles and other companies, namelthey will not be able to compete. also, people are not talking about illegal aliens. we have always been -- we have all been to the hospital. who is always in there? they are in there with a sprained ankle. it is the same thing when you do not pay your credit card bill. it gets recycled back into the

economy. host: raleigh, north carolina. paul on the democratic line. caller: i continue to support the public option. it is the best way for cost containment. the second reason is it is the least likely aspect of reform to be dismantled by a future republican president. this brings to mind what george bush tried to do with social security. host: thank you. on the front page of "the boston globe" -- wisconsin, mark. caller: the point that i am trying to make here it is, there has been a change in the delivery of health care. i worked in health care for 20

years and it progressively got worse and worse. there are more layers of bureaucracy in insurance companies to do with and more are getting the night, diverted from getting the care they need. all of the developed world has universal health care, why? because it allows everything to run less expensively. if you do not believe that, where is the money going? doctor salaries are through the roof, insurance companies paying for 16 different specialists because they think they are going to be sued. insurance companies seem to be doing pretty well. they have so many obstacles in terms of getting us the help that we need. i have had to know many problems.

i have yet to develop a respect for these companies because of how they tried to wriggle, of all of these things that they are morally and certainlresponsr doing. host: on the front page of "the washington times" -- chino hills, calif. caller: good morning. i am of hispanic descent, but i want to say something. instead of changing the whole

health care system, a believe the country should be creating more jobs. some of the republicans have said it is better to have insurance from other states, to compete, and that way we could get a better rate. that is what i believe should be done. host: next phone call. randy from detroit. make sure to turn down the volume on your tv. i'm going to put you down. we will come back to you. president obama was interviewed by "60 minutes" yesterday and was confident that health care reform could pass. >> i believe we will have enough votes to pass not just any health-care bill, but a good health care bill, that helps the

american people reduce cost and controls our deficit. you are right, so far we have not got much cooperation from republicans, and there are some who see -- host: back to detroit. go ahead. ramsey? you are on the air. caller: i think we need to get insurance companies out of the business. all they want to do is make profits. we need government to be an insurance to keep these insurance companies fare. host: word euchre and they get your health insurance?

caller: i get it through my job. host: next phone call. chris from wisconsin. caller: i work in the health- care industry. i have a problem with insurance is and i support the public plan. i have excellent coverage, but the bills that come across my desk that are the nine are absolutely unbelievable. the deductible that we are seeing come through our $10,000. there are more people filing for bankruptcy. it is absolutely ridiculous. all of a sudden, all of the bills are being denied. this costs money, too, because we have to appeal them for the patient.

and a lot of hospitals do not even appeal it. they simply bill the patient and let them more about it. we have had the niles for anesthesia for a caesarean section. there are so many things going wrong. what they are telling you it is we are going to deny you for pre-existing conditions. i have not heard if there will be any cap on how much they will charge you for that insurance. a friend of mine whose daughter has paid, and she says she is lucky that she can get a policy for the $800. we do not make that much money. that is $800 a month. host: in other words, you have to hit that $10,000 level

before your insurance kicks in? caller: yes. to say that people are not working hard -- we are working. people at the top think that they are the only ones working. that is not true. host: here is the front page of "roll call"newsp newspaper -- flint, michigan. joe is a republican. caller: i think most of the people who do not support the public option 10 to stem from the federal government -- tend to stem from the federal

government. it seems like they cannot control things. i know our county has something like a public option where you can get health insurance through the county if you cannot afford it. that appears to work. everyone likes that. that is pretty much it. host: did you say you are on that plan, too? caller: to be honest, i was on not one, and it was even better than the one i have now with my job. my premiums went up. my employer health insurance. everything was much cheaper before. it was really good. host: thank you. bonita springs, florida. denise on the democratic line. caller: i wanted to reference the gentleman who called about

the military. we are on tricare and the deductible is minimal. i have been working for the obama plan and i think it is necessary. there are so many people who have lost their job. these are people who want to work but cannot find work and are suffering. i have a sister who had her insurance cut off because she has bone cancer. she was taken off of her insurance plan because it was supposedly pre-existing. this is totally ludicrous. what good is insurance if it is not going to cover you when you need it? people are suffering. they are not able to get what they need. without the public option, they are not going to get it. host: what kind of insurance you have now?

caller: tricare. my husband is retired military. host: thank you. we turn our attention next to gary gensler, the president of the commodity futures trading commission. we are taking a look back at the start of the financial crisis, with the closing of lehman brothers. larry summers was interviewed over the weekend about what has happened in the past year. here is what he had to say. >> we have a lot to do in terms of financial regulation. we just cannot have institutions that are large enough, connected enough, that their failure has catastrophic consequences and they're not be a point of accountability for their over of regulation. we need a framework that will enable the management failure

for large financial institutions, just like we do for small banks. we need ways to protect consumers that are more satisfactory than what we have had in the past. clearly, we need to eliminate what was just a pervasive problem, even a year and a half ago institution moving from regulator to regulator, in an effort to reduce capital requirements, other kinds of standards. right now we are still in very substantial risk aversion, concerned about the excessive lending. but that makes this the time the right time to put in the right kind of regulatory framework so that we do not get the kinds of bubbles we have had in the past. host: we are talking about the

one-year anniversary of the fall of lehman brothers. the president having to wall street to talk to folks, mainly about the regulation of financial markets. . guest: 1 lehman brothers hilda was not easy for decision-makers to do what they needed to do --

when lehman brothers fail. the commodities futures trading commission and its predecessor was set up by president roosevelt when he wanted to oversee the securities market. then, a separate regulator of the marketsofcorn and wheat -- since then this was for all kinds of commodities. we overseas markets. we oversee metals as well. host: there is an article this morning the says one year after beamon's collapse, it sent shock waves to the economy. they could not make payroll or make supplies. many relied on large banks to supply short-term commercial paper.

how did the collapse last year change what you do at the cftc? guest: i only came on board in may and am honored to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. we're working with congress to push a broad reform agenda. particularly to cover over-the- counter derivatives. the administration sent a strong package. we're working with congress to get it enacted. host: what kind of reception is a getting on capitol hill? guest: good reception. it will get a healthy debate and some pushback from wall street itself, but there is a broad consensus that we must do this. host: we invite viewers to join the conversation.

the lead editorial this morning from ""the new york times" is about forming the financial times. it covers areas like consumer protection, systemic risk regulation, and derivatives. the multi-trillion dollar in three this was a major catalyst of the crisis. they are supposed to help investors and businesses manage risk, but after a 2000 law deregulated then they became a tool for speculation. they also right that the administration's proposal would exempt some derivative investors and like many hedge funds from requirements to trade standardized contracts on exchange. they increased that the point was made in a recent letter you

wrote to letters -- they write that. guest: i think the agencies should regulate all these derivatives. the plan sent to the hill was very strong. we want to make sure all derivatives are covered and of a standardized products do get the transparency of central exchanges. host: is there risk is still out there in the derivative market one year since lehman's? guest: yes, definitely. these large financial institutions have gotten even more concentrated in the last year. they're not regulated for transparency. they are not reporting their trades to any central regulator or to the public. the public benefits from transparency and benefits if we lower risk by having specific

capital and margin requirements on them. this is all in the administration's program with congress. host: the president has a lot to get done with healthcare and energy as well. how quickly do you think he can get something passed congress? guest: the president will speak to wall street today. he sees its importance. i leave it to congress to time these different reforms. host: good morning, houston, on the independent line. caller: thank you. i purchased fannie mae and freddie mac bonds which were collateralized mortgage obligations. when the crisis started i didn't detail the investigation -- i did a detailed investigation of what i owned. i am an attorney.

the homes that were the collateral, there was no description of them. there was no recording of the securitized interests in those towns in the property records. this is accounting 101, banking 101 and law school 101. if there is a bond collateralized, then there must be in the till district action -- description that must be updated on an annual basis. they threw those rules out the window. if there is a security interest in real estate, that must be recorded in the real property records. they threw that out the window. this is what they call a toxic assets, but it really is fraudulent paper. there are no homes. the same or collateralized over and over. this is a massive fraud. guest: marylou, you have

highlighted one of the things we have learned. the sale of mortgage products often preyed upon many consumers who do not understand them. we need to reform that an need strong consumer protection laws. secondly, wall street in underwriting this product lower standards greatly. bank regulators need to enhance those rules. host: minnesota, good morning to bob on the line for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is, if you are seeing many parallels between the enron debacle and what happened with the housing market?

arthur andersen should have been, should have had people who were responsible, but because of the regulation aiding and abetting, that law was repealed. it would have made someone legally liable who work for arthur andersen. my comment is, in 1999 senator phil graham of texas was responsible for a bill that deregulated the housing market so that the investment and commercial banks could merge. the same kind of high-risk, high-yield mentality spilled over into the housing market. your comment? guest: bob, i do think there are certain parallels.

enron was outside the regulatory regime and at the time one of the largest companies in the country leading to the largest bankruptcy. aig had no real effect of federal regulation. you and i both had our money in there. we must regulate the over-the- counter derivatives marketplace. i believe there will be consensus with congress willing to do that. host: good morning to frank on the republican line. listen, you just said that a.i.g. had no effective regulation. they are the largest insurance company on the planet and they do not have honest people in a regulatory agency doing their job? they're out doing s doing swap

contracts? the problem is there's no one with decency or honesty to tell people the truth. you know what the truth is, so does alan greenspan and ben bernanke and larry summers, so does a timothy geithner. you are all from the same place. it is obvious that no one is telling anyone the truth. credit default swap contracts that absorb the counterparties from these downside risks from their reckless gambling? guest: frank, all the people you mentioned are very good and honest people. the problem was at a.i.g. that it was regulated at an insurance company at the state level and at the federal level there affiliate's were not all covered. it was about $450 billion of these credit default swaps, but

the laws, the federal once did not give them any tools, these nice people to regulate the business. host: jonathan has a column on the real cause of the crash. he writes here at the sub-head, that the main question is not have to strengthen conditional banking, but how to stabilize our shutter banking. -- shadow banking.

if that is the case, is her regulation proposing to address some of these issues? guest: it this and that is well said. i fully support the idea to bring under regulation. anyone who deals in it must be regulated. low-risk through capital margin and increased transparency through reporting. the standard product must also be on what is called central clearing. so that the public can see moment to moment with these transactions trade. we do not have any of that right now. it is a very large shift if we are successful with congress. host: here is florida, an independent caller. caller: you good morning, i have a question, please. i want to know concern in the

glass-stegall act, if it could be enacted again with whatever improvements need to be added or deleted to make that functioning. host: what did that act do? guest: it was passed in the early 1930's and separated investment banking from commercial banking. commercial been making loans and investments selling bonds or stock to the public. over many decades investment banking and commercial banking came back together. chris, to your point, what is important now is to protect the financial system of the 21st century so we do not have this feeling again. the regulatory and financial system failed the american public in the 21st century.

that is why we must revise laws. revisions to they are probably very different from those 70 years ago. host: in the absence of regulations until the congress passes them, what is your agency doing to bolster regulations? guest: the commodity futures trading commission is doing a number of things. we're able to put out on a weekly basis better information about index investing and hedge fund investing in the futures markets. we do not have to reach into the over-the-counter derivatives, although we want to. we are taking a close look at whether to reinstate position limits in the trading and oil and energy markets. we once did. we now do it in the agriculture market. are the financial actors are so large that concentrated

positions could destroy markets? host: are will the clinton markets waiting on us? host: guestguest: we're workinge both in europe and in asia. we have had success with those in london. host: we have about 15 more minutes with gary gensler who heads the cftc. good morning, bob, on the line for democrats. caller: hello, nice to see you on c-span. you touched on an issue that seems to be ignored which is very important to me. this position limits. he mentioned energy and agriculture -- two areas you're focused on particularly when the long side. i'm concerned about the metals markets, particularly the

precious-metals. specifically with concentrations on the short side. currently today we have proudly 20 million ounces short in gold concentrated in four banks. the two major players hsbc and j.p. morgan are short more than one-quarter of the world's annual gold production. host: let me in an e-mail missing topic. -- on the same topic, let me tie in this e-mail. what can you tell us about this? guest: at the agency we're looking at whether to set a position limit for commodities of finite supply. congress gave us that authority

and directed us to use it back in the 1930's. we did it for metals and energy products through the 1990's in partnership with the exchanges. while that was backed away from in 2001 will looking first at the energy project. there have been many questions also raised about the precious metals markets. host: what is the danger of that in terms of people's positions in precious metals or other commodities? guest: there are two sides of the debate which resulted. we want to promote markets. the cftc does not set prices. we make sure that markets are free of fraud and manipulation. that hedgers can naturally mead speculators on the other side. the farmer need someone on the

other side to take that risk. they need to add a place that is fair and orderly and no one party has such a significant size that the concentrated position might overwhelm the market. host: here is a call on the republican line from tampa, fla. caller: over the past 20 years i did attention to something told to me about a former irs agent about our economy. do you believe we can do anything in our country without changing the tax system? it has become regresses instead of progressively. it allows these different exchanges. enron and all those people, arthur andersen had the accounting responsibility. they told them where to put it

billions. two weeks later the largest accounting firm in the u.s. this appeared. if you look at the problems in healthcare is the tax system. they have been talking about it for 40 years to simplify its. it is up to 67,000 pages. both sides will not talk about it. guest: merrill, i run an agency that is a regulatory one. i don't know if bill wants to answer your tax question, but i leave that to my colleagues over at the treasury department and white house. i would mostly focus on reforming the financial system which i think we must do. if we do not, then more taxpayer money will go out. you and i both put money into aig. i think the most important thing we can do now to protect

taxpayers is to reform our financial oversight. host: what you think the legacy will be of september 2008? guest: i hope is that we make reforms and protect consumers better, but certainly there will be steady for decades about what happened. -- there will be studies for decades. we were saving so little at the time. we were trying to get the economy right in the federal budget and account deficit. host: you are speaking at a conference this week looking at events from one year ago. what is the focus? guest: mostly on the over-the- counter derivatives and reform. i take every opportunity to promote that.

host: about 10 more minutes gary gensler. richmond, good morning. caller: a few minutes ago a gentleman called then talking about ben bernanke, timothy geithner's, larry summers and telling the american people the truth. your guest responded to say they were very honest people. i want to direct the audience to an article in the nation magazine put out in november 2008. it is a very liberal publication. it was a scathing criticism of larry summers in particular. this was on him. i was astounded. it went back to the 1980's and 1990's. the premise was that they did not want him appointed and treasury secretary. they were trying to prevent obama's administration from naming him as treasury secretary. they did a very investigative piece on him.

in the 1990's and his exploits in lithuania when he was there for two years. host: mary, this was in "the nation" a magazine? caller: yes, november 2008. guest: i want to say that i think very highly of larry summers and worked closely with him and the late 1990's and today. these are challenging issues. we need to bring reform. to the earlier caller what i was addressing was that aig's downfall was really largely about an effective federal regulation. the laws were not there to cover these cds's. we need these agencies to have greater authority.

host: here is the front page of the orange county register in california. it is one year all. it is specifically about the real-estate market in california. what sort of signs does the cftc keep its eye out for in potential trouble for markets? guest: we have a market surveillance group. on a daily basis we look at transactions to guard against manipulation and fraud in the sale of the markets. unfortunately, we were shrunk in the last 10 years. we are a small agency, fewer than 600 people. we shrunk over 20% from 1999 until 2008. today we have more tips and leads on fraud cases and manipulation then we have staff to investigate.

host: last week the head of the sec staff testified about the inspector general's report on how they missed the bernard madoff ponzi scheme. that must raise concerns on whether you are able to catch all the nefarious characters? guest: it does, partly because of limited staff. we also went in the last 10 years from markets with an open outcry, images of people in the chicago pits screaming at each other -- that is now all a lectern. we need to update electronic surveillance and spend money to have the 21st century systems. -- that is now all electronic. caller: good morning, in the trader. if you would only let me talk

about hank paulson for second. before this happened he was the head of goldman sachs. he retired. he would become the secretary only if he has a lot of power, so they accept him. he lets bear stearns go. lehman brothers was let go. he saves aig which has about $120 billion of the credit default swaps insured by lehman. then the hedge funds go after him. the get him down to $47. he runs and stops and short selling of the banks and savings goldman sachs. then we find out that he had preferred shares -- $50 million in preferred shares he should buy and we only got $25 billion.

is there anything he thinks hank paulson should be investigated for? he knows what i'm talking about to. -- talking about. guest: we lived through very challenging time. the financial system and the american economy was on an edge last fall. it was a difficult time that congress and the then- administration came together on. we ought to take those lessons and make sure we put into place sound financial reform. part of that is a transparent way that when institutions are in trouble they get resolved. there was no good decision making that could have been had last year for non-banks like a.i.g. or lehman brothers. working with congress it is

important to make sure that the federal deposit insurance corp. and treasury have a way to unwind these institutions. host: rodriquez gary gensler has his m.b.a. from the wharton business school at the university of pennsylvania. you spend time at goldman sachs and also on senator sarbain'ne's staff on the banking committee. what do you think? guest: the american public needs to be assured that there are no conflicts. i left a wall street 12 years ago. it still comes up. people want to make sure whether in my job or anyone else's that we're working on behalf of the american public. that is valid. host: how on your staff do you

make sure? people who have had both policy and wall street experience? guest: one, may sure they comply with everything the government office of ethics layout. obama also has a strong set of ethics laid out. we need a strong balance. some expertise from the hill and some from academia, from main street, and on occasion even from wall street. host: good morning charles, on the republican line. caller: michael relates to the past two years of predatory devaluation and untitled transfer of these foreclosed mortgage notes on the courthouse steps. i'm an expert. i set up systems that are now checkable through different

programs. any american can find the real estate value of his home as an estimate. the problem is the wall street people through securitization have taken a different method of valuing the toxic assets. it is a security which is totally different from the home that evening of the home values last week in san diego were predatory dropped on the courthouse steps by an unnecessary $135,000 per property. why and how does this happen? the credit default swap takes place and a new owner is transferred in place of the foreclosed person. the new owner is the beneficiary of a cds. the investor who never held title to the property is now on the public record.

we have a massive fraud. how can you answer that when you're part of the set up of it in 1999 and 2000 under the commodities future modernization act? guest: i do believe we need to bring broad reform to the markets. particularly to the derivatives. credit default swaps which were a blip on the radar screen in 1999, 2000 grew significantly. they need to be regulated, particularly against fraud and manipulation. the use of cds' can lower risk, but also aggravate things as with a.i.g. host: good morning, independent caller.

caller: i watched for several hours when officials from moody's and standard and poor's sat in front of a congressional committee. they blatantly said they gave high ratings to those instruments. after they were sold their original should have been d but got a and aaa ratings. if there is no punishment for these people who transgressed, there will be no lessons learned. people have said they made a mistake and will correct it. there were people who did not even own the stock and were able to purchase it and sell it. it is so crazy that even i who invest in the stock market marginally could not follow

this. is massive fraud. guest: the sec which is led by chairman mary schapiro is taking a look at both of those. we need to enhance our oversight of the ratings agencies. the agency is taking strong steps on that. they are addressing short selling. we have gethsemane areas of financial reforms to address, some with congress, we have to ensure oversight for derivatives, some within our jurisdiction. the cftc is looking at position limits. as you mentioned on the ratings agencies and short-selling, the cftc has already been looking closely at ratings agencies. host: have you testified?

guest: in six months i have testified three and a half times and have another one coming at. host: you might want to take a look at your laptop and look at whorunsgov.com, it is "the washington post" website. we will speak with its editor in just a moment. ♪ >> steve israel on how he uses technology and social media to keep his constituents up- to-date.

>> next month a unique look at our nation's highest court, its role and history. >> it is not an understatement to say the building would not be here before or not for the persistence of the chief justice taft. >> he believed the court needed to have a building of its own. >> supreme court week with insights from historians and the justices. it begins october 4. go online now for a virtual tour of the court with historic photos and more. >> part of our coverage today includes the commission on wartime contract and in iraq and afghanistan. there will look at the selection and management of contracts. that is live 9:30 a.m. eastern

on c-span 3. the sub-committee looks at the potential health effects of cellular telephone use. the house and senate are back to do. this week the house considers authorization for nearly $3 billion through 2014 for energy department-based research on gas turbines and hybrid vehicles. also, removing a private lenders from making federally subsidized student loans. legislative work will begin at 2:00 p.m. the senate will return at 2:00 p.m. today also. but they will continue work on 2010 fiscal spending. four of the 12 bills have passed the senate. the new budget year begins october 1. live coverage on c-span2. "washington journal" continues.

host: we're joined for final 25 minutes by rachel von dongen. she is the editor of whorunsgov.com. what is behind the reason for the site? guest: it is the paper's website. there is a dearth of political biography out there. you have other sites that deal in the reference guide manner with other areas. we're looking to fill this niche. host: if people come to the website what is the main thing they're searching for? guest: is basically a reference site launched in january of this year. we have been quickly building the site with about 700 profiles. there are members of the obama administration including cabinet secretaries and behind the scene people.

we will have a political nominees, senate-confirmed people. there will also be lawmakers, governors, profiles of interest group leaders, lobbyists, and political strategist. host: who is using it? guest: last week we just began with moderated wiki. we keep you get deals with not only people but topics. it focuses on everything. we're looking for political users. we opened last week as a moderated wiki which means any member of the general public or policy maker in washington can enter the site and choose to add or aidedit profiles.

we only opened last week. any contributions or suggestions from the public will come into the editorial team at the post. we will review them before they are published. host: you can join us on the phone lines. we have discussed the word transparency quite a bit this morning. on the website who are some of the top searches people are looking at? guest: oftentimes it is the people behind the scenes. like reggie love, the personal secretary or personal aide it to barack obama. more commonly known as the famous do university basketball player. another popular figure is the

speech writer who has made about 20 speeches for the president. he has been drafting a major health care speech. host: for instance, on john the speechwriter, are you able to find out which particular speeches he has a hand in? guest: yes, we make an attempt to interview the subject. we have been able to get quite a few exclusive interviews with several of barack obama aids. host: good morning to larry, an independent caller. caller: good morning, these profiles on the website, how the you approach them? do they approach you? guest: so far it has been us picking them.

but now that we have an open the site to the general public we are asking you to nominate or add profiles. we hope to get ideas from the public and expert policy community here in washington. host: thanks for the call. last week the story about van jones changed. how did his profile change our website? guest: one of the nice things as we had him up before anyone knew much about him. we have not yet opened the side as the moderated wiki by the time he resigned, but through the team we had updated continuously as the news broke. host: you're the editor. how big is the team? guest: there are three other reporters and one blogger.

host: what is that all about? guest: it is basically just his take on politics. it is quite popular. host: you have only three reporters but you are a washington post publication, said the benefit from other reporting? guest: we do draw on those stories, link widely on the web, and have had some washington post reporters write some of our profiles. as with the ted kennedy profile. host: good morning, lynchburg, va., a caller on the line for democrats. please mute your television. caller: i want to give my opinion on the way the democrats run. i don't think we have the government anymore.

the elderly, we're getting shoved into the corner. they do not want to give you help with the cost of living. i do not believe the government is doing a proper thing as it used to. the need to be things brought up about this that are not being brought up. you hear about hospital care and this and that. host: things for the comment. would you have, was it in the planning a matter who won the election? guest: yes, it was. we tried to seed the site with lawmakers who would have been in congress regardless. we have something called a reform tracker and are asking

the general public to update the positions of their lawmakers or others on health care. we are telling them to find work congress stands in general. host: how you verify? is a part of the moderated wiki? guest: it is indeed. we ask people to go to local newspaper articles, or cite things in some way like that. we can. verify and then publish. host: so, it is a 24- 24-- things change constantly? guest: yes, that is the hope. with participation from the committee we hope to keep up with the ever-changing news. host: louisiana, good morning to steve. caller: yes, sir, it seems to me

that the newspaper is running whorunsgov.com is no different iscbs, abc, or nbc. it is itpravda from russia. it was six months before van jones had any trouble. then the day that he resigned cnn gave him credit for creating two million jobs. i don't understand the difference between pravda and mainstream media, and the czars and politureau. guest: van jones was on the website since january. this is detailed biographical information about him. it is way before he came to light on either cable tv or on

the internet. as we review the most popular profiles on the site i change the home page every day. we try to update as news warrants. we were aware about mr. jones for a while and were one of the only reliable sources are places for news about him. host: this is wichita falls, texas, on the republican line. are you on the air? go ahead, please. i tell you what. i will put you on hold and please turn down your tv. we will go to akron, next. caller: i was wondering if you lose people like the trilateral commission? they seem to have a big influence. guest: yes, we do not actually

have those at the moment, but intend to include members outside the government such as heads of think tanks and interest groups. we are expanding. we invite the general public to nominate those they would like to see. host: good morning, minneapolis, on the republican line. caller: i have been active trying to get pro-small business legislation here in the state legislature for 29 years. i know who runs the government. it is members of both sides of the aisle who are influenced by lobbyists. i will put forward legislation and the matter which side of the aisle, the lobbyist will step in to make a case. that is the way that it goes.

host: lobbyists have often been called the fourth branch of the government. do you cover them? guest: yes, we're just beginning that it and we want to. we want people to help us understand the obvious players behind the obvious ones running government. host: you launched in january? what surprised you about the eight months we have entered. guest: yes, and there really is a niche out there for political biography. there might be a lot written about your congressperson. who is the new chief of staff to michelle obama? when her old one left there was not much information about her on the website at all. people are coming to us in large numbers to find out.

we keep the deer or others cover public figures. there seems to be an interest and a desire for more information about those who are not necessarily political nominees. host: here is idaho, on the independent line. hello, david. caller: yes, i would like to thank the lady for her website. i think this is very important at this time to get some transparency here. personally, my take on the entire washington, d.c. crowd is they are all crooks and thieves. i have no confidence in the majority of those running this country. the gentleman on their previously talking about the

market's -- he was very careful not to say one thing about punishment for any of these people who have taken advantage of the situation. i listened to mr. obama's chief adviser who said never waste a crisis. do you feel like you might be getting taken advantage of? there is no credibility. it is disgusting. host: we will get a response. guest: basically, there are a lot of those who feel like you do. we invite you to share your views on the website. take something from your local

papers and submit a contribution. host: i'm looking at the news section of your website. you have norquist of the americans for taxpayers reform, and andy stern who heads the international president of the service union, and howard dean. what caused you to choose them? guest: we have been doing a lot about health care reform lately. especially with this protest last week by the more conservative activists. some of these have been involved in that. we just wanted to point out that it is not just lawmakers to influence the debate. there are outside influences to

make a difference. good morning on the republican line, texas. caller: i have not yet visited your website, but i hope you will report unbiased. i have to stay on fox news or c- span to get the unbiased report because all the other channels lean to obama's aside. the lobbyists are just running this country. -- they lean to obama's side on other networks. the lobbyist pay people to do what they want. if they have enough money, government officials side with them. if you have anything to say about that? thank you. guest: we encourage, in fact the role of participating is that everyone uses a neutral point of

view. anything biased that leans to either the right or left, we do have the obligation to reject. the major difference between this and other such that there is we invite the public to participate and contribute important facts to profiles important to them. host: how difficult is it for you as an editor to determine that? looking at two different views or two different pieces of evidence on the story. guest: that is always challenging. so far, the moderated wiki has only been open for one week but we have been very happy with the contributions. they have found news stories or pieces from their congressional representatives are website stopping go host: what did your

side differently saturday? guest: we basically tried to highlight some figures who might have been involved. we did not go out there to cover it. host: next, macedonia, ohio. caller: part of my question has been answered by a previous caller. i had a concern about manipulation of the government officials behind the scenes. by being exposed so much to the public -- do you have a thought on that? you answered the question about being unbiased and how you go about trying to get to that

point are you put out information that is neutral. that is my concern. will this undermined any administration by having so much detailed scrutiny? guest: that is a good question. more than ever before there is so much out there on the internet so quickly about to government figures. the challenge is to get reliable and unbiased information. that is where we are trying to moderate. on another site they might publish something immediately. we are trying to take a look and publish responsibly. host: is your website sold for advertising by the paper as well? guest: yes, it is.

host: the obama administration talked about transparency a great deal. how would you rate them through their website? guest: they obviously come in with the big challenge. i don't know whether it is fair to grade them so far, but they have begun important initiatives are around transplanted policy itself. members of the technology office have submitted public comment on how to do it. host: 21 to find out background information, and you mentioned michele obama is chief of staff, how forthcoming is the white house? guest: it depends on the individual, but we have gotten lots of interviews. there is a much out there about them already.

they are interested in speaking with someone who will verify the information. host: good morning, georgia, on the republican line. caller: i have a couple of questions. one is whether u.s. their credit scores. another is if you have organizations or groups you give information for? guest: we do not lose their credit scores. there is some information that will be too private. we do have detailed biographical details in terms of former jobs, the dates they were, at were-- e days that there were at those jobs. we do read them on issues relevant to their jobs today.

host: if the credits for were publicly available why would you and exclude or include it? guest: if they were relevant to their current position or had come up in a controversial way relevant to their jobs. if it is an official in the department that overseas finance or the treasury, then maybe it would be relevant. i am not sure. host: here is an e-mail. guest: we have not gotten there yet. we are considering going into profiles of supreme court justices and some u.s. attorneys. we have profiles on department of justice figures including various nominees in the new offices there and the top

staffers. host: is that just a workload, staffing issue? guest: pretty much. we're hoping to build out to several thousand people by early next year. the judicial branch is something we are interested in expanding. host: good morning, frank. caller: i'm grateful there is the type of website you are establishing available to the public. just prior to your coming down we had mr. gary gensler on and i was so upset. an individual like that in his position spatting about reform when he was part of the cause. instead of talking truthfully he

holds the line of the administration. it is so upsetting when they put the theives right in front of us to see on tv. so your website is refreshing. guest: thank you. we tried to make sure we put a focus on some of these financial officials at the treasury or at these independent agencies. we urge you to go on to the site and check out the offerings for these if the interest you. host: you have a profile of gary gensler on the website. the last call comes from tennessee on the line for democrats.