on how student loans are administered. our guest is representative tim bishop. "washington journal" is next. host: our first question for you this morning is comments on senator baucus' plan which uses

$774 billion bill with co-ops. good morning, on this thursday. you can always send us a message by e-mail. we also have our twitter account. let's put some basics on the screen of the plan which calls for estate-based health insurance co-op and tax credits for small businesses forpoor individuals -- for small business and for poor individuals, and expands medicaid coverage. joining us is david from roll call. there are a number of newspapers that say this really echoes with the president released to the white house last. last the headline here is that the senate bill sets the line for a

health-care showdown -- that is from "the washington journal." guest: there is a bill that is at least deficit neutral. the president pledged to would not add one dime to the federal deficit through health-care reform. it can theoretically be accomplished with this bill. they're still many questions remaining. but the public-relations battle is on better footing for democrats then when the various house bills reported out of committee and when the senate bill from the committee formally chaired by ted kennedy was reported. host: on the price tag you say it is a deficit neutral. in the morning newspapers they're two different figures used. either the $774 or the price tag well into the high $800's --

what is the difference? guest: i'm going with the $774 billion number. there's a difference in how you calculate the overall cost compared to the net cost of that max baucus bill. because both numbers are under $1 trillion over the first decade of the bill, that difference in number is not as big a deal as it would be otherwise. the key here is that the bill purports to be deficit neutral. there still some details we need to delve into to verify. one agency has given it a deficit neutral seal of

approval. next we will look at, well, will be deficit neutral in the second 10 years? is a deficit neutral as far as we can project, all the way through into the future? host: let's take a few calls and have you explain that that the signature position. let's hear some reaction. detroit, mich., on the independent line. caller: good morning, didn't obama say when he was running for president -- universal health care? didn't he say that? didn't he also said we would have jobs? it is just like years and years of talks. politicians are useless and worthless. we need jobs here right now, today.

i don't to hear any more crap. host: new jersey. on the line for democrats. your thoughts? caller: i don't know all the details although i have been following the subject since the president ran for the presidency over 18 months ago. my concern is that even if they force the insurance company to take pre-existing conditions which i have, was to prevent them from raising their rates 25% to everyone to compensate? host: the next comment is columbia, md., on the republican line. caller: good morning, i wanted to state my opinion even though i am republican and did vote for barack obama, i'm a bit upset

with max baucus proposal because it does not do anything to decrease the cost of premiums. right now many people while we're paying them we would like to see the cost come down. i have not seen anything in his proposal that does that. for that reason i am totally against it. thank you, c-span, for taking my call. host: let's return to david drucker. he says the congressional budget office has scored this as deficit neutral. guest: a lot of industry fees and mandates. whether you are a medical lab, another healthcare provider industry group, you would be hit with fees -- particularly the insurance companies, more less attacks. it brings in additional revenue.

-- particularly the insurance companies, more or less taxes. most businesses would have to supply it insurance to their employees. just as in many states to have to buy car insurance you have to buy health insurance. if not, you'll have to pay a fee to the government. looking ahead, this bill tries to bring in all the young, healthy people who can afford health insurance that do not bother with it. by bringing them into the system not only do have them paying premiums, but they're unlikely to need to use it. that is much more money into the system. it is designed to bring the cost curve down. when you have a lot of money into the system that is not used, then there's less pressure on the providers to raise rates.

that is where this bill is going. you see a lot of people who are being acquired renown. many are not very happy with these mandates. -- you see a lot of people who are being very quiet right now. there's a spot in their between being poor and wealthy enough to afford this where you have a mandate and it cannot quite make enough money to observe this without it being a severe financial burden. they are trying to figure out how to handle those families and individuals so they can afford to adhere to the law, but not go broke. host: this is senator baucus talking about part of it. guest>> i think it is a bridge t the fat out of the insurance companies.

i'm glad that the bill focuses on those who profit the most. they should be part of the solution. to answer your question, the congressional budget office says frankly the net result of all this would be a signature get change in the way companies provide benefits to employees. namely, as a consequence which is will be increased -- wages will be increased. that will increase taxable income. cbo therefore gives it a positive score. it is also designed -- thank you -- to bend the cost curve. host: shreveport, louisiana, on

the independent line. caller: first of all, on yesterday's show i tried to call in, but no one answered the phone. host: that is because the lines are so busy that we do not answer until you get on the air. caller: i'm not a racist. i voted for alan keys, but this bill is totally out of whack. i'm already paying insurance tax and they take about half of my budget. if this goes through will be even more. if there trying to fine people who cannot take insurance -- they cannot afford it. they are already broke. that is what is going on in this nation. these people are hurting already.

this is just a farce. the whole congress must be blackmailed or intimidated -- i have no idea, well, i appreciate your taking my call. host: a comment by twitter. the next comment comes from buffalo on the line for democrats. caller: yes, i don't really think about this is serious. people need to just go past them. the one in charge of the senate

-- i think he should remove both bacchus and kent from any committee and put someone in there who is reliable. i feel uncertain about these two people. what do we care about the effect on the insurance company? our purpose should be to get care. people will not be paying two bills -- one to the company and have some taken out. we already get insurance taken out from our checks rattner. social security takes it out. they take it out for prescriptions if you have that. it would be better to have it taken not iout rather than havio pay for it at the end of the

month. host: let me go back to this first, and where she said she does not think that senator max baucus is serious about this. you wrote about how calm his. what you think his motivation is going forward? guest: he is trying to get 60 votes in the senate -- that is the minimum it takes these days. to his credit he is trying to design a bill that can actually garner the support, moderate and centrist democrats -- many do not like what liberal democrats would do with the policy. he will make some valiant efforts to get at least a couple republicans to climb on board. many democrats do not like what leadership and the president wants to do for healthcare. he is trying to design a

moderate bill. his effort is difficult partly because this is not the last word on health care in the senate. there is already a bill reported out in july which has a public insurance option. baucus has non-profit cooperatives. that bill spends more money and looks to expand coverage bigger and in a different way. these two bills once the max baucus bill reports out of committee will have to be reported with the health committee bill. they will have to be merged. we do not know how that will go. there is no guarantee it will go smoothly. even if it does, there's no guarantee that the max baucus bill will survive. there are many looking ahead to the merger already to make changes they want, including make sure that the public insurance option is the main component moving forward. not the cooperative approach

that senator max baucus and others championed. there are many changes that will have to be made. he was trying to do something to garner enough votes just to get out. there is also a problem in the house on that side where you have the moderate, a blue dog democrats who will not vote for the public insurance option. host: dallas, patricia, on the republican line. caller: i think that the co-ops are the same as the public option and everyone knows it. i don't know any republicans who will vote for that. olympia snowe seems to like the max baucus bill. the unions are against it because it hurts the middle class. this is just ridiculous bill. the american people would have to pay $3,000 if they did not buy insurance. i don't understand why they don't start ever to get a good

bill with tort reform. and you could buy insurance from other states. that's rather than completely overhauling the system. host: the next call is on the independent line from montana. caller: let's keep doing everything for the rich people as we have all along. where has it gotten us? where is this getting us? my god, this has to be a public option. he is my senator and i'm so ashamed of max baucus. i hope that you're listening to me right now, max baucus -- you are a corporate whore. you're taking money from insurance companies and not even listening to us anymore. it is the corporation to have the money. they own the politicians. they crafted the bill in their favor.

we would just give more and more of the sand. we have to keep the profit out of this health industry. if not we will die as a country. ridges we keep getting more and more of the same. slaves come in all colors. all you have is a social security number to be a slave for the corporations. i fought for this country, at two tiyrs back in vietnam. -- two tours in vietnam. host: good morning, caller from texas. caller: i do not like this bill. i don't think we'll see a significant change without a public option. the co-op id as a republican one. the tax credit idea -- was that not republican idea? if we're going to take on their

ideas and they still will not support bills, we might as well move forward with the original intent. the same happened with the stimulus bill. we made concessions and except some of their ideas, yet they still would not support. if they will not support when we make concessions, then we should just move afford. the democrats against the public option need to grow a spine. those of us who support it need to become louder in our support. these tea parties and those who have been so loud in their opposition to the reform in health care -- those of us who support reform need to become louder. i have one more comment. i would make an editorial change to your question yesterday, the first one. his opposition to president obama's policies considered racism? it is not that you oppose it, it is the manner in which you

go about opposing it. is opposing him racist? no, it is the manner in which you host: do it next up is a call from washington on the republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. in looking at all the things going on it is striking that several years ago legislation was passed that caused most third-party payers to not keep insurance from those who have pre-existing conditions. there is a drop-off point where most have to be paid for. that is a bunch of crap their turn to put on everyone. most of the pre-existing conditions restrictions are for

those trying to get things like life insurance. secondly, congress has made this whole process so complicated. i have been doing medical insurance since the 1970's. i'm a certified coder and watched the transition from carriers going from non-profit as with blue cross blue shield to for-profit carriers. my opinion is that an easy way to solve the problem is for those uninsured, is for them to prepare a pre-paid medical services card, much like when people got a pre-paid food stamp

card. it cut the waste and fraud from the program by about 80%. people would be given a certain amount of dollars on the card and then it would be a full tax deduction which could be applied to the health services card. the only catastrophic -- the only extra insurance would be for catastrophic illnesses. host: i think we understand the parameters of your proposal. here's a message from twitter. we have been listening to calls, david, from democrats,

republicans, independents, and i don't think we have heard from anyone who likes the bill from senator max baucus. guest: he was up there alone on the podium yesterday. it was interesting. he has worked so hard to have members of both parties at his side. he just could not get it done so far. that is because health care has become such a big issue in the senate, as it is publicly, pretty much all the time. it defines whether you are liberal or conservative. it also reflects the difficulty the president and democratic congress is having trying to move comprehensive reform of the senate to the president's desk. there is so much in various bills that is hard for people to swallow or that makes them

concerned even if they think they might like it. they are worried about the negative consequences. will it all work correctly? as we have heard this morning that is the problem lawmakers face, to try to do something this big on such a very personal issue. for every part of a bill that might satisfy someone such as expansion of medicaid you have another fraction worried about that. for everyone glad to see the hospitals and insurance companies glad to see a hit you have another party concerned insurance companies and hospitals might lower the amount of services provided. it is a very big moving targets. it is difficult. host: columbus, ohio, on the independent line.

caller: hello, i have a question. the different proposals that have come forward, no one has spoken of what i think maybe hidden or peripheral costs. the example i will use here is one of the programs often referred to for the public option -- the way that england was healthcare. they get everything covered. but if you look at the cost of living in england, excluding rural england, the cost to buy a home or a flat is roughly $100,000 per square foot. that is directly related to the money they lay out for the medical care for citizens. has anyone addressed that? or is it hidden in these bills

somewhere? host: do you have an answer for him, david? guest: not really. i don't know there are hidden costs in the bill. it is a good opportunity to point out that this bill as with others we have seen rests on a number of assumptions that are not universally agreed upon. it is assumed that if we can increase access to primary care and make sure more people get tested for chronic diseases before they show up unexpectedly or are well-on their way to being a major problem, we will save a lot of money overall in the system. it costs about $2.30 trillion when you look at everything. however, we do not know for a fact it will lower costs. if you have more receiving

primary care and run more tests, not everyone who was tested will turn up with the disease will catch early and therefore save money in treatment. you have many who will never catch the disease and now are having tests there would not have had before. from a health perspective this sounds like a very good idea. we do not know for fact that spending all this on tests for people who did not have them will bring down the cost curve. senator max baucus faced questions yesterday in terms of how he knew for sure that insurance companies would lower their premiums and bring down the cost to consumers. a number of things in his bill appeared to have pressure for that to have been coming after words his staff members told us some of the bill rests on economics.

that happens all the time. you make common-sense decisions based on how the economy works and how private businesses function. they were candid saying that they think it will happen, but don't know for sure. host: "the washington post" has done a side-by-side comparison of the three pieces of legislation -- it is one of many that have done that. hollywood, fla. is up next on the line for democrats. caller: yes, we need to wake up and look at europe, japan, taiwan and canada and adopt the best plan from one of those countries. the next thing is that for-

profit healthcare is a shameful thing in this country. greed is killing this nation. that is all i have to say. this is doris all the republican line. caller: i would say pretty much the same thing the gentleman before the last call said. we went to canada to work for six months. we had to rent a basement apartment from a famous, a very famous opera singer who is retired. she said she had to convert her basement to a rental apartment in order to pay her property- tax. it was so high. a lot of her family had to sell their homes because they could not pay those taxes. that was 30 years ago.

about eight years ago a canadian neighbor asked me to take him to the doctor. on the way he told me about how great it was in canada because it would not cost him anything. here was costing him a lot of money. i asked him why then did he move to america to buy a house instead of staying in canada? he said he could not afford a house in canada because the property taxes were too high. so, mr. president obama is saying that the health insurance will not increase our taxes, but i don't think he is talking about property taxes. host: that caller was from arizona. politico tells us that michelle obama will go on the road.

it says she will have a dedicated focus on health insurance reform. the president continues his selling of health care going to the university of maryland. on the front page of this baltimore paper the reporter looks at the politics of this. back to telephone calls, mt. olive, california. caller: first i have a request.

could you one day have someone on their knows the actual figures as to how much congress takes from us as taxpayers? their health care and retirement, all of that? what they take from us to give themselves? the only way to face this health care problem is to take the congressional health care plan away from them. we pay 72% of their monthly premiums. congress has a record they can get it for life whether they have been there one term or 30 years. if they choose, they can have it for life. we have become a country of pansies. if congress were in the same position as us there would come out with a good health care plan. some make summit thousand dollars per year and just refuse

to buy health care. congress makes between $140,000.200 $40,000 per year. they can afford to pay for their own health care. host: virginia, on the line for democrats. caller: i have a question. it states in the healthcare plan that if you had insurance and wanted to switch to the option that there would be a six-month waiting period. there is no way i could wait six months. i have diabetes and i have to give blood tests and stuff like that. i could not wait that long. host: let's find out if david drucker has ducked into the fine print about senator baucus' plan. guest: you would not be allowed to switch right away because co-

ops don't exist yet. this is not a national co-op. it is intended to be regional. it has been determined that there are not enough insurance companies serving a particular market -- that is where they would be treated. alabama is one example. 90% of people there have only one or two insurance companies to choose from. it is unclear how will shake out. the co-op system -- it would be regional ones if it were to be creative. the insurance option, that would be national in scope. you have to create the system and put together basically a non-profit insurance co. the

government would run. there would have to build it or decide to expand access to medicare. right now medicare is focused on care for seniors. some democrats on the hill would like to see become the de facto public insurance option for anyone of any age. there are still disagreements in terms of exactly who would be eligible to access care from the public insurance option. one of the things they're worried about is how much a public insurance option would cost and how much it might add to the deficit. there would not want to see the entire private system collapse. there would probably be some rules in place involving eligibility. not just anyone could leave their private plan and move over to the public insurance option

or to those of co-op, for that matter. this process has such a long way to go. this max baucus bill has to be merged with the health bill and that is in the senate. in the house that have emerged through different bills. then they have to go to conference committee. host: silver spring, md., on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. my son is on his way at the university of maryland. i will wait to hear from him as to what president obama has to say. two of my concerns are, number one, i heard president obama's speech to congress. one of his points was that the way he will find the bill would

be to essentially protect or tune down the medicare rates. on the one hand, medicare has been working well. it is the government plan and people like it. therefore, putting a public option should be an additional benefit. but the other way -- there is so much medicare waste. medicare has been doing well for the elderly, however, there is medicare waste. i'm not sure how much waste can be trimmed to foot the bill for this new plan. the second point is about illegal aliens.

i work in india. when patients come there who are illegal -- it is true that social security numbers or date of birth would be asked for. but what do you do? do call immigration? there will come to the emergency room. how will that be handled? we'll talk about them not being funded. -- they will come to the emergency room. it is true that illegals are here, about 12 to 15 million. where will they go for treatment? overall i do feel that definitely some kind of reform needs to be made. host: thank you, you said you were an emergency room physician? caller: yes.

host: "the wall street journal" has this story -- proposal's cost savings. it says the latest health care bill will emerge from senate contained a slew of measures designed to control costs. the next call is from michigan, bob, on the independent line. caller: hi, i am a physician myself. two points to make. one is about tort reform that many people are talking about.

from my own experience basically my malpractice insurance has not really changed that much in the last 20 + years. it has not been a major factor in increasing the cost. most doctors i know have been relatively stable for the last 20 years or so. so, i don't think that tort reform will be a major factor in affecting the cost. secondly, a lot of people complain about the government- run programs. our most successful programs have been the u.s. army, u.s. air force, and other branches --

nasa. so, those two points. host: the next caller is on the line for democrats from cedar rapids, michigan. caller: first of all, i wish senator max baucus and his committee had worked harder for the people. i don't believe any of them are working for the people right now. my question regarding competitive prices -- and this may sound very simplistic, but when i go to the grocer's store and buy a dozen eggs i know what the prices. but when i go through healthcare testing or

medications sometimes the bill is always after the fact. i am wondering why isn't there any bill that offers the opportunity for a publication that hospitals should put out? if you have a callto be rigid a colonoscopy -- if you have the colonoscopy it will cost this much. and so on. people should have the opportunity to know what they will pay before they do it. host: david, her first comment was she wished senator baucus and finance committee members worked harder. what happened in the end with the gang of six? why did everything fall apart? guest: they ran out of time. the president wants reform enacted this year. if they did not get this bill

into a marked up, then it would not be able to accomplish. -- to accomplish that goal. they have been working since january. senator baucus began work on this last year in the finance committee. some say it is long enough. if you speak to republicans, moderate ones such as olympia snowe, they said they just ran out of time. they deem it an artificial deadline. they said they did not have enough time to iron out the contentious issues. they agreed on the direction,

but the most contentious issues were the ones they were grappling with. it did not leave them enough time to put something together to sell their colleagues on it. even senator baucus has had trouble selling democrats outside the finance committee on this bill. kent conrad and jeff bingaman, the two other democrats in the six are prepared to vote for it in its current form. they were not up there was senator baucus just a day saying to look at what we crafted. senator baucus is selling this on his own. there was not enough time. even senator conrad who said that deadlines can be counterproductive -- he probably

would have liked more time. simply, the democratic leadership, many democrats who want to see reform passed this year, and the president basically said you are out of time and we need to move the process for. that is why chairman max baucus might be where he is at this point. host: it is 7:45 a.m. and i know that you need to get to capitol hill. we appreciate your being with us. guest: happy to do it, thank you. host: we will continue until the top of the hour to talk about senator max baucus' plan. i want to get another important story on the table here. it started to break as we were coming into work early this morning. "the wall street journal" is the only newspaper that has it.

defense plans for poland and the czech republic are to be dropped as the iran rocket is likely to be downgraded. this store will be found all of the internet now. here is its essence. the white house will shelve the bush administration's plans to build a missile defense system in poland and the czech republic. it is a move likely to cheer moscow and upset the security debate in europe. later on the reporter writes that there is widespread disagreement over the progress of iran's nuclear program.

there is lots more detail, but we wanted to make sure that our viewers were aware of this story in print. good morning, on the line for republicans. caller: yes, the whole co-op is just like medicaid. for anyone who has ever tried to apply for medicaid, it is terrible. you have to fill up all these documents. you give them every detail about your life, all of your banking.

two or three times per year. half the time you have a deadline to turn this in. when you turn it in half the time they lose it. the misplaced it. -- they misplaced it. i would rather die than have to be on a public option or to go on medicaid. it is that bad. host: guestnext is chris from nw york city. caller: good morning. two points very quick. i am so disappointed with max baucus. i do not trust him. $3 million for the insurance industry for his campaign? there is no way that i trust this guy. secondly, i'm so disappointed. i love my senator, senator schumer. i'm so disappointed with the

democrats. the bottom line is that we put them into power. democrats, independents, and some republicans -- we put them into power and we want our agenda done. they are offering everything to the republicans. these are just people who wanted to vote for john mccain. who cares? i'm not saying they cannot say anything, but we put them into power. i swear to god, if they do not pass this with the public option which would be the only way for the insurance companies' to all of a sudden put down their costs, i will not vote. i will vote for senator shimmer, but there's no way i will even vote for the president. host: a different view from steve smith by twitter.

the next call is from illinois, andy, on the republican line. are you there? caller: yes, the timing of this -- we seem to be in a rush to pass reform, but the bill, the system will not begin until 2013. so, the reasoning behind it is -- why we are in the rush is wrong. people forget, anyone who has gone through government system, they know that the government is usually costlier, slower, much less efficient. the costs will probably increase under government plan.

host: thanks for your call. from the opinion pages on health care. the senator from oregon has a piece published here. he rides data problem with these skills is that it does not make these -- he writes of the problem is this does not make it available to all people. 25 million people would be allowed to shop there leaving more than 200 million americans with no more options than they have today. also, on the healthcare opinion pages, "the wall street journal" printed this piece. massachusetts has the healthcare system in place now. the governor right said that opponents of reform claim that the massachusetts experiment is too costly. they are wrong.

that is deval patrick from massachusetts. the next caller is from las vegas, on the independent line.

caller: hello, i'm a registered there's. i have been a nurse for over 20 years. -- i'm a registered nurse. i have worked on regulatory healthcare reform in this state. very simply, there is no magic. you will not create any more healthcare providers by giving people a voucher that says they have healthcare. there will not be any more available. of course, there will be rationing. suddenly, the problem with healthcare is the same we have with our financial system, banking system. the lack of regulatory oversight.

i would like to see the government over seeing more than anything else. medicare is not very efficient. i have taken care of patients on both private and on medicare/medicaid. i know the system well. if the senators want to make the system more efficient, they can do that now. it does not need to be this rush to try to do something -- so many people are here don't even know something wrong with the system. there is much they can do now without regulation. i hear a lot of people talking about this as if it is magic. many people do not want to pay

for anything. they think the government should provide. they do not even understand the needs of the system. it is regulatory reform, quality improvement needed to make the system more efficient. all of those who need health care are getting what we pay for to begin with. those of us who do pay for it are not necessarily getting what we pay for. host: we will let you go. the next phone call is from new york city, scott. caller: thank you. max baucus -- i'm a democrat -- max baucus is a bit of a turned off. he has not kept it simple. it does seem like he is representing the insurance companies. going to charge people $3,000 for not having insurance. i have two points.

he is not keeping it simple. someone from c-span revenues article quoting ex-senator mcgovern, saying we should open of medicare. last night i saw special on pbs with an american doctor who said the same thing. the doctor last night said opening medicare to the uninsured -- and they say many of the uninsured are eligible for medicaid, and if the woman who called in previously is correct that it is difficult to get into medicaid -- then if that is true, it should be made easier. what about a flat 5% tax coming off your income tax to buy into medicare if you earn $50,000 or

less? if you earn $100,000 or less may be 7.5% tax. maybe with a cap of 10%. that is my first idea. my second idea -- and i will be quick. liability insurance to business. could the insurance companies' form together to deny liability coverage to businesses for claims that arise out of the employment of undocumented workers? this would force all businesses in the west to hire illegal workers. it would have read away -- it would help right away. -- this would force all businesses in the u.s. to higher

legal workers only. host: this editorial does not like the max baucus plan. you can see this. let's go back to your telephone calls. the next is from maryland on the republican line.

caller: i have been asking people in the house business what they find wrong -- in the health business. almost without fail is management. keeping prices down. i just learned this morning the public option would only cover a few people. i do not know who they are. it would be interesting to know. the care givers say that if insurance companies were allowed to compete across state lines, that would drive costs down. the other thing, there does not seem to be a reward for people who take good care of themselves. people who abuse themselves get the same prices on insurance. maybe like car insurance if you do not have any accidents you get a better rate. all across the line everyone i

spoke with said the cost, there's a lot of fraud in medicare. as far as people not being taken care of, just the other day i spoke with the recovery room nurse who said recently an illegal immigrant came into the hospital with his arm cut off. it got put back on and he is getting better. it is all at no cost to him. people do get emergency care. host: banks. we have to go here at the top of the hour. this message from twitter agrees with the previous nurse who called in. the final comment comes from college park, md.. are you on the campus? caller: i am very nearby, but i'm not going. good morning. i am a true independent. i'm a fiscal conservative, pro-

life. i think the healthcare issue has gone too far. i work for a company where we get 20 problems per day and do not go home until they are resolved. congress is a lazy. you had at 300 people working on this issue for one year? we are paying them? most would be out of the job. there are people calling in to talk about how expensive and inefficient -- they do not have a passport. my family is there and they paid the equivalent of $250 for private insurance per month for a family of two children. we do need a public option. . .

host: it is just after 8:00. this ends our discussion on health care. let me tell you what is coming up. over the course of the next hour, two different voices from two different parts of the political spectrum. our next guest is the co-chair of the progressive caucus, a democrat from arizona. he will probably be the new president of the american enterprise institute, arthur brooks, we will introduce you to him, an economist by training. we will learn more about the

policy directions that he is helping to put into the discussion in washington. our final guest, 10 bishops from york state, a democrat. the house of representatives is debating right now a very big change to the student loan program. we will learn more about that from him. first, we will learn more what is happening in the news. >> an update on the president's decision to shelve the missile the set -- missile defense system in the czech republic. a major adjustment to plants in the system has been confirmed. nato generals have also been weighing in, saying that the decision is a positive step. the new plans would improve -- approved the involvement of all nato nations. earlier today in afghanistan a suicide bomber attacked a

military convoy. the senate foreign relations committee meets at 10:00 a.m. on the war in afghanistan. turning to the economy, today a congressionally appointed panel begins examining the causes of last year's financial collapse, modeled after the 9/11 commission, it has 15 months to submit findings. congress hopes to have new regulations in place before the deadline of the commission. those are your latest c-span radio headlines. >> this morning the senate foreign relations committee looks at u.s. policy in afghanistan. live at 10:00 a.m. eastern, on c-span 3. the house subcommittee this afternoon looks at private health insurance companies. they will look at officials from a number of companies.

live coverage at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3, c-span.org , and c-span radio. in 1971, as a new york times reporter, neil sheehan obtained the top-secret pentagon papers. years later, he won the pulitzer prize for "a bright shining lie." "q&a" sunday night on c-span. >> this weekend, john crack our, with the biography of pat tillman, killed by friendly fire in afghanistan five years ago. part of c-span 2's "booktv"

weekend. >> "washington journal" continues. host: co-chairman of the progressive caucus in the house of representatives, raul is with us now. and there is a paragraph here that says that you, as co-chair of the house progressive caucus, is amongst those saying that democrats need to arm up,. . "the largest caucus in the house was going to have to reevaluate their approach to obama going forward." what you mean? guest: that the conclusion of a caucus, at the beginning of this discussion health care reform was an important example. afghanistan, what will be our long-term commitment an exit strategy? the entire debate on the energy

wilbill. many of us feel that we have been very good soldiers, there for the tough votes up until this point, without regret. but we should be not treated as a movable part, but as allies to be brought into the discussion. we are part of the compromises, part of the accommodation, we do not feel that we are either taken for granted. i think that is the point i was trying to make, we need to be " -- included at the beginning of the process. host: in contrast to the clinton administration, they were looking for the legislation to come from the congress. what did not work about that? >> parts of it did work. what came out of my committee,

it was a good piece of legislation. what came out of ways and means is essentially a good piece of legislation. energy and commerce is a start. the health committee in the senate gets us to a good jumping off point. we could have anticipated that those were going to be issues. in terms of the public option, i think that the administration early on could have been more proactive and assertive about that. then it became a point of debate. legislation should have to lend a hand to the policies within that you think corporate -- critical.

host: for democrats, 202-737- 0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. afghanistan, you all " -- you also referenced that on your list. you talk about not making a quick decision on the request for new troops. talk to us about your concerns. >> we do a whole series -- guest: we do a whole series in congress, and out of their the conclusion was that it had to be diplomatic as well as military. i applaud the president for holding those cards back. it is essential that he

reevaluate what our long-term commitment is. i support the mcgovern legislation, that no more troops be sent into the area and, more importantly, we get to talk about a timetable and an exit strategy. long-term debt is going to be the resolution. -- long term that is going to be the of what resolution -- going to be the resolution. you do not see a pattern change at this point. host: "he made it clear on wednesday that he was in no rush to send troops to afghanistan. -- afghanistan." i wanted to see what this said about your point about goals. "details of a complicated new program aimed at gauging the war in afghanistan and how it is

going, it will especially reveal whether the president plans to dispatch additional troops. they are planning to outline what they describe as a novel an honest program to measure progress in afghanistan. the program involves a team of military and intelligence analysts, who will produce quarterly report for the president's. -- president. that team is meant to be a control group to ward off the potential of administration insiders preparing rosy but inaccurate assessments." how does that strike you? >guest: bluntness and honesty would be welcome, most people would be appreciative of that.

we now have to go into more of a training mode for the afghan police military function, continuing to create an involvement that seems to be escalating for us, certainly by the loss of life, there is an issue going on. some areas have already been lost to the taliban. i think that this evaluation, blunt and honest, it is appropriate and necessary. the more that we hear about it, the more the american people will want that. host: before we get to your phone calls, i wanted to hear from you what it means it to be a progressive. guest: i am a realist and a common sense politician. progressive means that there's a

role for government in society. it is not control, it is not to be impressive, it is to be part of guidance and how our society evolves. as a progressive i looked at the investments that we make in our own people. after having a long discussion with someone about being a progressive, you get to the issues of common sense. you have more areas that you agree on than you disagree on. host: where does federal spending and the deficit and debt fall into this? guest: i think it will need to control the deficit. we need to start to take it down, i plan to do that over time. i do not think we should handcuff ourselves to the point where we cannot make essential investments in the american people, health care, and

education. i am not saying to exempt other domestic programs, but at the minimum extent of the ability for them to me the bottom line of the deficit in order to reduce it. -- to meet the bottom line of the deficit in order to reduce it. robert kennedy, when he was a young man, he brought a lot of inspiration into the idea. in terms of my own background, figures like cesar chavez, he did not put limits on people's ability to get somewhere. that was an inspiration. host: mike, oregon. you are on for the congressman.

caller: good morning. can you hear me? thank god for c-span. in terms of what i have seen with the health care situation, i am basically holding on by my fingernails, hoping it we did not get fooled again. this nonsense about the health care system in this country, pharmaceutical companies, insurance, and then the lawyers, it seems to be piling up. they all understand that health care is going to be reformed. quite possibly the situation could be something closer to europe, something that i think that the rest of the world has found a way to work. so, what they are fighting over is basically the corporate

system. basically they have got the republicans, the insurance industry, and the pharmaceuticals. guest: i hope that people understand, and those of us that our opponents of health reform -- proponents of health reform, i hope that we realize that this was not going to be a walk in the park. i hope the president knew that, i hope that our leadership knew that. there is a status quo represented by the industry. they have a lot on the profit line, as well as the ability to control a significant market. it is going to be a tough fight. it is not over, but you are up against some entrenched and

profitable industries that are not going to go gently into the night. host: gary, oklahoma. you are on the line. caller: i just have a couple of comments regarding our health care and proposed legislation. i had a question for the rep. i would like for him to answer this, if you would. first of all, it seems to me that every time a crisis comes up, something important in this country, the only way that congress can deal with it is by throwing money. the first option is to throw money to solve the problem. why not look at things that can be done that do not cost the public money. why not start there first? why is there not a bill that can address the issue of insurance across the lines?

everyone knows that that would bring premiums down. everyone knows that having some type of tort reform would bring premiums down. it would not cost the country a dime. why not include in the bill where we can exempt premiums. if individual families could use that at the end of the year as a tax deduction, with that not help the situation? would that not help the people we are talking about? host: thank you. guest: i think that there are regulatory decisions that can be made absent the expenditure of money. you mentioned some that i agree with, others that i disagree with. for example, you could end of the exemption of antitrust from insurance companies, easily providing more oversight and regulatory controls over

insurance companies, actuarial, how they are set. issues on defensive medicine so that frivolous, unnecessary mitigation is thrown out and that legitimate compensation does go forward. those are things that can be done. but we are still talking, if i may, about a significant group of people, 48 million, a number that continues to grow at the rate of 14,000 every month. what are we going to do with them? at some point the role of subsidies where people can get insurance has got to be a part of the plan. we cannot simply get around that. we have a collateral damage of those 48 million? that attitude cannot be

tolerated. it is not good for the economy or the country. host: that number does include some level, disputed by those who count, of undocumented people. what is your position on that? >> i agree with the president. people that are here and documented in this country cannot receive government services, they cannot be part of the subsidies. i disagree, something that came out in the background of the senate finance bill, that an illegal permanent resident, would be prohibited from receiving the ability to go into the health insurance exchange if they qualify for subsidies. that is a double jeopardy. you have someone that has gone through the process with legal status in the country, and now, despite the legality of his

status, or her status, or that family, the benefits. that part is very wrong. host: on day, florida. caller: i think what we should do is adopted the french plan. the world health organization said it was the best health care in the world at a per-capita cost of $3,000. the united states came in 37th at a cost of $8,000 per person. bank of america did a study. if we adopted the french plan, we would save $600 billion every year. host: what are the basic contours of the french plan? caller: the majority of the doctors and health care people are private practice. they have nonprofit -- they are like insurance companies.

the way that it is financed is that the employer pays a certain amount and the employee pays a certain amount. there are a lot of things in there. pregnant women, for the last five months of the pregnancy, the last three months after words, they have to pay nothing. the chronically ill have to pay nothing. over 60 pay nothing. host: we will get back to that point. guest: early on in this discussion the single payer concept was taken off of the table as a viable solution to the health crisis. unfortunately, i think that that was done prematurely. discussion on single payer would have put perspective on

everything else we are talking about right now in terms of a viable alternative, cost containment, it would have put perspective on the discussion over the public plan. many of us support the public plan in the absence of a viable alternative, which we see as the last tool available to us in this entire health care package. single payer, taken off the table, it changed the debate and a conversation, because we could not compare and contrast. host: of the next question comes from paul in pennsylvania. are you there? go ahead. caller: can you hear me? i have a comment. many of these people that do not have insurance, there's a fear

they will flood the system and we could not take care of them, but at one time they had insurance and lost their job and could not afford it anymore. i do not agree that they will flood the system. they were taking care of at one time. if everyone was on an employer mandate and was working, they would have been in the system anyhow. i do not agree that they will flood the market. another thing, my local taxes and my state taxes go to the wages of those people. their health care is covered through my taxes. it is happening in everyone's community across the nation and no one is complaining about that. people cry about paying for someone else's insurance, but we do it every day. thank you.

host: i would actually like to bring in the reference to the energy debate, the cap and trade legislation that you just voted on. will congress be to energy this year? >> i think that we have to get to it. now that we have gone through a very important trial with health care reform, and the public reaction to it, i think that the pages from that same playbook are going to be played on health care and immigration. host: how so? guest of government intrusion. government takeover. the revenue issue. more taxes. those same playbooks are going to be used over and over again. i think that we have to hold fast.

that bill could have been stronger and better. it is an essential step to dealing with what i think is a pressing issue in the nation and the world, climate change. i hope that it is not a debatable point anymore. it is happening, and as dire effects on the country and the world. this nation has the lead, since we are the greatest consumers and causes of fossil fuels in this world. host: explain to people how cap and trade addresses it. guest: it is not as effective as many of us wanted to be, but it does provide the incentive for lowering the carbon footprint, providing a mechanism to do that with. i wish it would have been a simpler fee on the emissions issue. i think that we could have

required more stringent controls, but we did not. cap and trade provided a business friendly incentive so that we could move on to the next step. host: next call comes from maryland. carlisle, republican line. caller: that first park where you started talking, sounded like there was some dissent in the ranks about not being included in the process. as the tone of trying to sound like, because elections are coming, i do not want to be full in on obama, positioning myself and my colleagues for reelection. secondly, for the last eight

years we as a country [unintelligible] on the war in iraq. the second car was rising gas prices. what happened to health care? all of a sudden everyone decide that the administration has this great idea on how to fix the health care bill. what happened to the last eight years? what were we doing, congressman? thank you. guest: for myself, i think for the progressive caucus, it is not a question of positioning ourselves. it is a question of insisting upon and pushing for a public plan to be a part of health care reform. as the draft policy and

legislation. that is not about fishing as much as it is to want to have our position heard. each time it has been tackled before, it has been a battle that has amounted to very few gains, other than what happened with medicare and social security. beyond that, every time there has been this discussion, from eisenhower to truman to clinton to nixon to carter, it has got nowhere. the last eight years, the bush administration felt comfortable with that the status quo in terms of health care, did not make that a priority. the obama administration, to their credit, followed through on a campaign promise to make it a priority.

here we are, with that as a priority and the ongoing debate about it. host: last call for the congressman. joyce, independent line. caller: first, i am kind of on the fence regarding the public option. i know that currently, statutory, we have a somewhat private system would work for compensation. employers pay into the workers' comp policy, but it is regulated by the state. the doctors can charge so much money for whatever -- not the doctors, but the state mandates what can be charged for certain procedures. it seems to work. it is a profitable system. it seems as though insurance carriers make money off of the policies. and the doctors still take patients.

i was wondering if that was ever brought up or discussed in these discussions of privatization of health care, and that this could be something that could be handled. guest: the discussion of putting more regulatory control in the states in the terms of a public plan or public option has been discussed, it is still part of the discussion. your point is very important. the public plan is being viewed in some ways stereotyped as a government takeover and intrusion into america's help delivery system. on the contrary. looking at where we are right now with medicare and medicaid, 80 million americans right now are on some government subsidized health care plan.

this is not something new. the public plan offers competition. it talks about cost containment. it is accountable, you can keep costs down, and it is about competition. a free market, without the friction of competition, is not a free market. what we want with the public plan is to interject that into the marketplace and make it competitive. the consumer wins. you are then dealing with costs that are lower, and choice. that is all any consumer wants, choice. host: what is going happen? will it wait until after the spring? guest: i wish it would not. we have the opportunity to set

the bar much higher in the senate. in terms of public land, as opposed to what is coming out of the senate, the finance committee has no public plan. they have got a public portion to it, but not very strong. if we wait, we have to mesh those three committees together. our insistence and advocacy for a public plan is going to continue, as we think it is essential the policy. host: thank you for being with us this morning. our next guest this morning, arthur brooks, is the president of the american enterprise institute and he has a very different view of the world. we will be right back. ♪ >> this morning the senate foreign relations committee

holds a hearing looking at u.s. policy in afghanistan. among the witnesses, general john kraddick. by today to p.m., private insurance companies and the house domestic policy subcommittee. -- live today at 2:00 p.m., private insurance companies and the house domestic policy subcommittee. >> congressman ron paul wants to hold the federal reserve accountable for the economic crisis, and he wants to end of bed. follow us on quitter with the latest schedule -- and he wants to end the fed. follow us on twitter for the

latest scheduling updates. >> justice brandeis would not come in here. he said that the building was so leverage that it would go to their heads. perhaps he was right. it has come to symbolize the need for stability and the rule of law. >> as a complement to this production, teachers are offered free resources on the judicial system. go to c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: making his first business -- his first visit to "washington journal," washington brooks. -- arthur brooks. he is an economist by training. you wrote a piece in the spring

with the headline that the real culture war is over capitalism. did you watch the town hall meetings this summer? did you see the capital protests? how has your theory been developing in your mind? >> summertime protests -- guest: summertime protests were almost inevitable, given what was happening in the spring. policy has been controversial. they promised to do many of these things in order to help the economy recovered. as it recovers, like the policies that you promised, there were less and less. it is about the cultural values

that americans have for free enterprise, having been systematically aggregated. they were in a panic in the last election cycle. you are seeing a lot of push back and protest. frankly there is an environment right now from public opinion polling at the free enterprise policy, something we can count on, 70% of the population, there is a perception that these policies are being weakened th. the genesis was the people that marched on the capital, some 2 million people. host: using it is 2 million? >guest: somewhere between 10,002 million. host: arthur brooks is going to be with us for about 45 minutes. we welcome your participation in

the conversation. we will cut lines on the screen. we have an e-mail address an hour twitter account, twitter.com/c-spanwj. we will makes those formats up with our guest. tell our audience a little bit about yourself. i read something interesting, after you left college you were a professional musician for quite a while? >> actually i did not go to college until i was in my late 20s. i was a professional musician, in my late 20s i went back to economics in college. i encountered the work of several scholars i had never heard of before called the american enterprise institute and it changed my thinking completely. reading these books and articles by these scholars. host: who introduced you to them?

guest: nobody. i came from a very politically progressive background. academics and artists in seattle, today probably one of the most political cities in america. i literally d street, but i didt know any personally. coming across this literature was brand new to me. i do not consider myself particularly ideological, but as i was studying what we today understand as the culture for enterprise, it changed my thinking quite a lot. as strange as the world is, a circuitous task that was started by a frame of movement started by the center of gravity. host: where did you choose to start studying economics? guest: when i started, i was at a distance as i was still a member of the barcelona city orchestra.

when i went to get my ph.d. i went to a public policy school that was a part of the rand corporation. host: what do you want to do with aei guest: they have a tradition of being the intellectual center of the free enterprise movement. i followed up on a 22 year tenure, he was a great visionary. we stand for re principles. i cannot do much better than to keep it on course. but times are changing because the policy that we are facing and political climate in this country are changing, meaning basically that we will have to roll with the challenges that we see. we are trying to cope with the fundamentals of the free enterprise system being questioned.

there must be a spirited defense. this is being attacked in a lot of ways. and this is not some sort of statement about people that believe capitalism is bad, there are a lot of people who believe that american culture is not a question of economics, it is a question of social policies, and i disagree with that just as strongly. i believe that many of our freedoms come from this system and the fact that we can have a strong debate about religious issues, abortion and other social policies in this country, it is because we have a base in the economic system. host: what is your thinking about how iraq stands today as the troop withdrawal begins? guest: i could not be much

prouder that the iraq surge policy was conceived. that was the kind of idea that we believe is what the free enterprise think tank movement is best at doing, coming up with ideas that are going to take the nation forward, serving our country for all americans, so i am very proud of the fact that we were the home and the genesis of that. the question, of course, is how can we do that with economics, foreign policy, education and political thinking. what can we do such that we have visionary ideas for making real progress? host: what about the consensus view on afghanistan? guest: like any academic

institution academicaei does not have a -- like many academic institutions, aei does not have an institutional position. what we agree on as entrepreneurship and freedom. we disagree on is how the ideas are executed. we will have an op-ed page where we have academic freedom, people making public policy ideas. host: the surge strategy was something that the organization is proud of. is there a like-minded viewpoint emerging in afghanistan? guest: our scholars are first on this, believing strongly that, as the chairman of the joint

chiefs of staff has said, we need a significant number of new troops in afghanistan such that we can effectively deal with threats, in particular i am kandahar. we take that seriously. fred katelynn spent a lot of time doing -- performing these assessments, and it was suggested to us that this was something that we needed to do. host: i have a bit of information and your organization that i would like to share with the audience -- founded in 1943, you currently have 77 member scholars, 50 adjuncts dollars, and six primary research facilities. economic policy, foreign and defense policy study, health policy study, political and

public opinion studies, social and cultural studies, is funded by donations from corporations, found an -- foundations, and individuals, and as an institution can advocate for a position of scholars and fellows freely do take positions on policy. james, you have got your tv volume turned up. please add that mute button for us. -- hit that mute button for us. caller: ok. i hear people like this gentleman right here talk about free enterprise. host: you told our producers that you are a republican? caller: i thought that i was

until i heard this gentleman here. host: what are your concerns? caller: this gentleman said it was 2 million people at this march? the other day? host: we will leave it at that point. we will move on to another caller. the next call is from orlando, florida. caller: good morning. i think that it is a basic economic question, but i think i grew up in the exactly opposite background. i grew up in a republican majority. over the last 30 years i have seen a trend in this country where we have gone from having a very regulated capitalist society, with more and more

consolidation and industry. what really worries me now is even our basic needs and services have become capitalized and consolidated to the point where basic needs and services have become so dispensable that there is no capital left for free market wants. what happens to an economy when the free market takes so much profit from basic needs and services that there is no money left over for the desires of society? guest of the caller makes a good point. there has been a lot of consolidation, focused on very big business increasing very quickly, it has been for the past seven or eight months. part of the reason for that is that policies that favor big businesses and large government,

as well as labor unions. consolidation to the expense of of entrepreneurial activity is very distinct in the united states. unprecedented. the idea that my kids and grandkids can do better than i am, this is based on the idea that they can do something hunter and oriel. i share the caller's concern over the basic consolidation of the economy. host: similar question -- "does aei find it acceptable that revolutionary technologies have been shelled and suppressed to further profits of enterprises"? guest: a good question. generally speaking, it is the government that is usually behind the suppression of

innovation. host: taking it from the theoretical, let's look at the market of fossil fuels. things that would limit the carbon consuming engines. guest: the question is whether or not there has been some kind of suppression of technologies that would make cars that would lower our dependence on fossil fuels. i have heard the arguments. the technology itself has not been suppressed. the problem is that the way that our public policies have pushed the use of petroleum, it has not been cost-effective for car companies -- in other words, it has simply not got the expense of enough on the fossil fuel side for alternative fuels to become viable. market forces, i would expect, will help to take care of that problem. i do believe that a centrally

directed government's strategy is not very likely. with that the government takeover controlling what they are doing, i think we all have a legitimate cause for concern. host: next caller, good morning. caller: good morning. if you look at the various -- if you look at the average cost for insuring families, it is highest in communities where there is the most regulation. it seems like every politician says that they are in favor of competition and choice. but in the real world, that is not really what the regulatory framework seems to embody. i would like to hear your

comments on that. guest: great to hear from a fellow independent. there are two issues at stake here. one is competition, the other is choice. as the last guest suggested, competition is critically important. the question is how you get it. the other issue is choice. it is the fact that in states where politicians have taken lots of choice off the table, insurance is incredibly expensive. in new york state just to get some medical tests, you have to purchase insurance that covers things that young people do not want. the result is that a lot of young people make a rational decision to forego insurance. getting as much competition as we can, suggesting a mammoth

public agency is probably not a good idea, it allows politicians to dictate all the terms. host: james, republican line. caller: i called on the republican line, but as an academic banker i always liked president obama, as well as -- as an academic thinker i always liked president obama, as well as president clinton. some of the things i agree with, some of the things i do not. i remember when i was 62 i took my mother with me to vote. she said that when i get to be

her age, you realize that both parties are corrupt. can you comment, sir? guest: i would never encourage cynicism in the parties or for someone to not vote. i think of what we need to do is to get involved enough -- i think that what we need to do is get involved enough to assert an influence. there is a lot of substitution of power over principle. that is the best explanation to what happened to republicans last november. there is an old axiom that when power is withdrawn, desperate man return to their principles. i was really heartened by the last guest on this program when he said that this is not a question of political positioning by the progressive caucus. i would love it if all politicians would stick to their principles and we could look at the american people.

i believe, looking at the data, approximately 70% of americans have mainstream principles that follow the contours of the free enterprise system. of we all work towards the principle that and make us -- that animates us, we could get a better system host: as an economist, what is your -- better system. host: as an economist, what is your view on undocumented immigration? guest: to be absolutist about the notion that we have to do anything that we can to cut illegal immigration to zero as opposed to looking at the cost and benefits of doing so, you can get to that absolutist position very quickly. every country has a right to talk about who should and should not be in the country. we have a right to make

decisions about who we think should come to join us, and how many. on the other hand we have to recognize the fact that the culture in the united states is based on people who are entrepreneurial, willing to take risks, and those overwhelmingly have been immigrants. most people listening to this program today come from immigrant stock. that is the culture of the united states. we have to balance these opposing views and have a rational conversation. host: kansas city. caller: i have a quick comment. the parks service said that there were 75,000 people at this march.

i thought that republicans were a big proponent of states' rights. if you propose the highest level, calif. as an law that is 85 cents on the dollar of health care money has to be spend, that might help your argument. the public option is the only way to stop these insurance companies from gouging. they are the ones the nine claims. guest: a couple of things. first of all, we do not know how many people were at the march. there were a lot of people, bottom line. i do not know. i am not going to make a claim on that issue. when it comes to health care,

the caller makes a great point, we need more consumer protection and consumer choice. one of the best ways to do that is to allow for real competition. we all agree that competition would be fantastic, so allowing them to compete across state lines, we could find a lot more confidence that there was less price gouging if we had more of a national market for health care. there is a policy change right there that would suit the callers needs. host: we are talking to arthur brooks, having a wide ranging discussion. monte sent us a twitter. "under communism, the means of production is in the hands of government. is consolidation under capitalism leading us to the same end"? guest: right now we are not

consolidating anything under capitalism. the united states is moving the american economy towards much higher levels of government control. it will almost certainly be the case that the maximum marginal tax rate will be about five percentage points higher. about 49% of americans will have no federal income tax liability. this is not large scale capitalist consolidation, but rather the government is redistributing wealth at faster rates. more and more of the bill is being paid to the government by a smaller number of people. i can imagine cases where we would have inadequate government control bleeding to predatory activity. -- government control leading to

predatory activity. caller: good morning. i have not called in like two years, but there are about 16.5 million people out of work and i believe that we need to get people back to work. i believe that undocumented workers in our economy have really put a strain on people who are earnestly looking for jobs. then they go into our emergency rooms, because that is the only way that they know, they have a splinter in their finger, that costs them a lot of money -- costs us a lot of money. then we give them free education, which is not fair. we have to teach them english. but if we taxed corporations, would that not bring more jobs immediately?

would that not help more people get jobs faster? guest: the smartest thing that we could do right now to stimulate the economy is to lower corporate tax rates to be competitive with european allies. many americans do not know that we have the second highest corporate federal tax rate in the industrialized world, only had little bit behind the leader, japan. sweden has much lower corporate tax rates. we simply cannot be competitive. this is a huge opportunity for this president. no republican would dare to suggest cutting the corporate tax rate in half, people would immediately suggest that he was bought and sold by corporations. president obama could be talking about bringing jobs home. this could be his nixon went to china moment. host: where do you stand on

labour unions? guest: they are a phenomenon that a free market economy can and should allow to exist. i am less sympathetic of the case of the public sector. the public sector does not have sufficient bargaining power on the other side, it tends to go to taxpayers and course of the raise revenues. one of the ways that private- sector labor unions have constrained activities is by the understanding that if they pushed the company to hard it goes out of business and everyone suffers. that is not the case in the case of new york or the federal government. we need have concerns that larger parts of the public are being gobbled up by public- sector union activity. that is a big part of the explanation for what has gone wrong in california. the. .

guest: the housing overhang, the amount of housing that is too high, still has a lot of weight to go, but it will go up and down for awhile. the scary thing about the recovery was that it will be so variable. there will be ups and downs. we will not have much of a v- shaped recovery.

notwithstanding, we will start getting improvement over the place. -- improvements all over the place. caller: i have a question about manufacturing. last week, you had a guest who says high-paying manufacturing jobs, related to wall street, overseas they are counted as exports. this is not the true health of our manufacturing base. our manufacturing base is dying. we do not make anything anymore. all of our appliances are made in mexico, major appliances. clothing and shoes are made in china and taiwan. this needs to stop. and when you say we're the largest manufacturer in the world, yes, if you count all the

product other countries are making. i wish you would start telling us the truth. guest: there is a lot of obscurity in the way these numbers are calculated. i do not know exactly where he is talking about with wall street product being canada's manufacturing. but america is not doing well. he's exactly right. that is a structural fact about the economy that we have to get serious about. what will we do about jobs? what are we doing about retraining? what are we doing to create incentives for entrepreneurs? simply putting barriers in place such as manufacturers not being able to go overseas will be an exercise in futility and ultimately make america pour --

poorer. ultimately, we need to look to the lens of entrepreneurship. host: a free market without regulation, it is written, foments agreed and fraught -- greed and fraud. guest: i disagree. the economy is more than just supply-side. we understand the economy and work on many issues beyond just lowering taxes for wealthy people. we have a large education policy. we do work on cultural and social issues. we do work across the spectrum, beyond just taxes. we want an economy that provides a real opportunity. the second plank of our story

principles is trying to increase the level of individual -- the second plank of our three principles is trying to increase the level of individual opportunity. host: the next, is from idaho -- the next comment is from idaho. go ahead, please. caller: it is such a pleasure to speak to you this morning. i wanted to mention how important this man and his organization are to provide free country -- freethinking for our country. our economy is really in dire straits, and we need more people to be able to kind of

brainstorming is going on in our country and find solutions for us -- kind of brainstorm what is going on in our country and find solutions for us. communism and socialism have to be off the table, but there are solutions, and young men like the one at your table this morning are the key to determining what we are going to do about our economy, and not necessarily lay it on the backs of politicians who are under the gun to come up with these solutions. if they are in a situation where they cannot see the forest for the trees, so to speak. but, you know, i am so proud we have organizations like this that can sit back and see what our problems are and come up with the solutions.

that is my comment. i really enjoy c-span. thank you. host: "must house prices return to previous fights and price growth rates to be considered recoverrf?" guest: no. there is a view that the economy is not back to normal until your house price is what it used to be before the crash, but in truth, we should have known before that we are at the middle of -- in the middle of the terrible housing bubble, created by a lot of irresponsibility and fraud. but what we have seen nationwide is that housing prices have

fallen out something on the order of 34%, and they just got now to where they should be on a long-term trend. where housing prices are right now is where they would have been had they raised at a more normal rate. this is from a colleague of mine who shows it very clearly. what this means is that we will see real estate rising. prices will go up. but it will take a long time to get anywhere near where they were last year. caller: i am retired now. but the crisis that we are in -- i have worked for unions. in mississippi, it is right to work state -- the "right to work

state." we were paid a decent wage. we were not paid $25 an hour. to me, unions, when they first started, were good. but i remember, of all things, i worked for a school at one time, and they took the school and put us under ieew, the electrical union. they put waitresses in, just to get us in the union. and all of the money we paid in, we came to found out -- came to find out they were buying boats and airplanes and just using our money. before i retired, i worked for a

medical company making medical supplies. of course, it got to where our government, when they opened up nafta, it went overseas. we had a warehouse sold with downs, surgical equipment -- filled with gowns and surgical equipment. they would send imported products to us so we could redo what they had messed up for 50 cents an hour overseas. guest: there are lots of unfortunate stories about corruption and waste. people unfortunately behave in the inappropriate ways. whether or not unions are

needed, in a free-market economy which can accommodate workers and companies in a lot of creative ways, we do not necessarily need unions. in the case of general motors, the government handed over eight large portion of the company to the uaw. host: go ahead. caller: i just heard that last statement, that the creditors should be ahead of the workers' retirement. most of them cover the retirement of the workers, and i find it really offensive that a

man who is willing to take public education and really produces very little for the economy sits there and says that the workers should not have a right for their retirement, but the company should be able to have a right to make bonuses. i guess i do not understand that statement. but what i called about is the idea that this new economy that is coming out from organizations like you does not a spouse a production economy -- espouse a production economy. it valuse a service -- values a service economy. guest: it is true.

this is a big opportunity to think about how we are trying to prepare people for the next generation. to be value adding numbers for the next economy, and to help economies around the world. host: the discussion in the european banking industry is that they want to push on limitations, especially with the number of countries who have been looking at that idea. guest: it has always been compelling to look at the salary structure for those people looking at a lot of money. there are some stories of corruption and risk. but when the public sector starts getting involved in setting private sector salaries, it is a real separate -- slippery slope.

there are all kinds of movements to decide salaries and bonuses for executives. some people are already talking about the notion that maybe if the government has any bailout money left over, -- invested, they should sit on the board of trustees at the companies. i am convinced after studying the data on this that the costs are much higher than the benefits of the government intervening in this way. host: and what ailed the financial markets has not been fixed. it has been subject to regulation. guest: we will find out over the next couple of months -- the coming months. the inquiry commission has started. two people on the commission are

from the american enterprise institute. these are people who are highly trained at looking at intricacies. i think we will get better information. we cannot be a dramatic -- dogmatic, political, were ideological about that. we want the best. host: go ahead. caller: it is nice to hear such an intelligent gentleman. if you could please explain why the and insurance companies are not allowed to sell in every state, and what we can do as citizens. guest: it is a mystery to americans why you cannot buy an insurance policy in kentucky

that you can get in new york. why can we just relax that and get more competition and lower prices -- why can't we just relax that and get more competition and lower prices? there has been an exception for medical insurance for a very long time. if you want to get involved, i suggest that you suggest that very idea to your congressman. host: we are going to close for that. do you still have time in your life for music? guest: i deeply loved music, but i do not play anymore. my brother and i disagree on everything politically, but we're close to each other.

there is a little bit of regret, but we have worked towards reconciliation in other ways. host: thank you for visiting. we appreciate you taking our viewers' questions this morning. our final guest is here to tell us about the congressional debate over changing the way countries structure student loans.

>> it is the first time president obama will award the medal of honor. on capitol hill, susan collins and darryl isa are calling on hud and other organizations to investigate all money sent to acorn, $53 million since 1994. and talking about a bill involving filling the senate seat left by ted kennedy. current massachusetts law calls for filling the seat five months after it is vacated, but kennedy one of the law changed. david axelrod has also contacted

officials asking for the change, in the hopes of obtaining a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. host: we are pleased to introduce our final guest, tim bishop of new york. he is a member of the education and labor committee, here to tell us about the congressional debate on funding and structuring of student loans. what does the house what to do? guest: the centerpiece is to take the family federal education loan program, but discontinued the program, and allow all students who wish to borrow -- discontinue the program and allow students to borrow through the existing

federal direct loan program. this maintains access to capital for students and their families and allows the government to say that -- save $87 billion over 10 years because it is less expensive for the federal government to provide loans directly than it is to work through intermediaries like banks or other lending institutions. we want to take the savings, $87 billion, and directed in several ways. most importantly to increasing the pell grant maximum and tying it to inflation. that will cost about $40 billion. we're going to invest in community colleges. we will reduce the federal deficit by $10 billion over 10 years. this is a piece of legislation that says our priority is to put federal money in the hands of needy students so they can go to college as opposed to using it to subsidize banks to provide

a service that the federal government can provide itself. host: how does it save money to supply the loans rather than guaranteeing them? guest: right now, we pay banks a subsidy to participate in the program. so the way the program works now, because of the lack of liquidity in the market, if the president -- federal government provides the capital, taking all of the wrist -- risk, and the lending institution gets the profit. what we're saying is that we need to prove that there is no need for a middleman. we need to provide the loans directly to students. this direct loan program has existed since 1993 or 1994.

it was 20% of the market, but because of the crisis in the credit markets, several schools made the switch this year from ffel landing to direct lending -- ffel lending to direct lending. host: let's listen to paul ryan representing the opposition. >> these 10 new entitlement programs being created at have official sunset dates in the law. the most permanent thing in washington is a temporary program. if you repeal the sunshine -- sunset dates, that is additional money spent. at this bill does not save money. it raises the deficit. it deprives students of choices

and used budget -- uses budget gimmicks and exploits the system to try and say that it is saving money, reducing the deficit, when using honest accounting, it actually does nothing like it. guest: the cbo has scored this bill at $87 billion savings over 10 years. they have also validated our savings of $10 billion over 10 years in terms of how we are going to allocate that $87 billion. the only entitlement program and the bill is one that we currently have, the pell grant program, a program that we have had in this country since 1974 or 1975. none of the other programs we seek to find with this legislation will be considered an entitlement. he talks about crowding the private-sector.

were it not for the intervention of the federal government, the private sector would not participate in this loan program. we passed legislation ensuring access to student loans. had we not passed it, there would not be a private student loan program now because of the lack of liquidity and credit markets. we rescued that. talking about choice, it is subjective. most people response to a choice. i work for students -- i worked with students for over 20 years before coming to congress, and what they were concerned about was making sure that they had money available for them to pay their loans -- pardon me, to pay their bills. and the conditions of the loans are identical because they are established by the federal government.

host: mr. bishop is a graduate of holy cross. his master's degree is from long island university. his experience in higher education is 29 years at southampton college, including as provost, director of student aid, and dean of enrollment. he saw a strong editorial against this on saturday -- you saw a strong editorial against this on saturday and sunday. they make a lot of the points that paul ryan did. i want you to respond. this week, letter was signed urging a longer transition period to the public option, fearing that the bureaucrats will not be able to pull off a takeover in just eight months. any delay in getting funds to schools on behalf of students will result in us needing to get resources at a time when credit

is difficult to obtain. guest: the department of education is doing everything they can do to make sure we have the capacity to handle the transition in lending. the loans themselves will be serviced under contract by the private lenders currently existing, so that infrastructure is already in place. lastly, i would say that we have any number of students -- schools that have experience in making the transition. the school at which i worked made the transition in the mid- 90's from fel lending to direct lending. we did it seamlessly. we did not incur any additional expense. students were not inconvenienced at all. we had testimony this year from penn state, who have an enormous volume of student loans. they made the transition in four months, they did so without

adding any staff, and they opened this fall without any difficulties. it is a challenge i believe both the department of education, the services, and the schools are up to. host: ohio. caller: i have wanted you to get someone in for a long time on this, so give me just a moment, if you please. i'm concerned about how accountable to you are the students who received the loans -- receive the loans? they get thousands of dollars in their bank account. it is hard for somebody who is not used to having money to have thousands of dollars in their bank account. guest: the default rates are pretty good.

the national average for default rates this summer in the neighborhood of 6.5% to 7% -- is somewhere in the neighborhood of 6.5% to 7%. but you raise a good point. the amounts of money that the students can borrow are regulated by their institution, and they are not able to borrow more money than the cost of attendance net any other financial aid elements they might be receiving in their financial aid package. but students to receive loan disbursements that they are able to place in their bank accounts. but they are required to spend the money on education-related expenses, and as i say, the law prohibits them receiving money that exceeds their education- related expenses. but one thing we focus on is all issues related to financial literacy, and that is to be continued.

host: cape coral, fla. caller: i feel like at this point in the history of our nation, this is totally unnecessary. i do not understand why this is so important. i would like to know in 10 words or less that you think this -- why you think this is more prevalent than health care. i believe that the system is unbalanced. it is an intrusion into our private life. it is taking away our choice. if you could explain why this is so important of because -- so important a cause. guest: the cost of college continues to outpace inflation, and it is important that students have available to them the resources they need to be able to afford to attend college.

we cannot go back to the pre- g.i. bill days were college was for the wealthy and the lead. we need to maintain egalitarian availability of education. we can do this by securing capital for the guaranteed student loan program. the other reason it is important is that because of the crisis in the credit market, the guaranteed student loan program would not function as well as it need to -- needs to without the intervention of the federal government. so if we were to back away and let the market function as it has historically, students would be disadvantaged. they would not have access to funds. host: this question reads, if stu loans were not available, wouldn't they lower tuition and

make cuts instead? market forces? guest: i only worked in one institution, but i participated in decisions to set the price for about 25 years. i can tell you that never once was the amount of financial aid available to a student a consideration at all. i worked at a private institution. a private institution is driven primarily by cost of personnel. 65% to 70% of what private schools spend our salaries and fringe benefits for employees. -- are salaries and fringe benefits for employees. reliance on adjuncts drives and educational quality. -- drives down education

quality. either service goes down, or tuition has to go up. right now, schools and states are making their choices within that range. i simply do not accept the notion that because financial aid exists, schools are not mindful of the burden the students have with respect to what schools charge. host: mr. bishop is in his fourth term at the house of representatives. i was wondering if you could tell our audience, after 30 years in higher education, what made you decide to run for congress? guest: i made the decision in early 2001 or 2002. i frankly was very troubled by the direction in which i saw our country heading, and i decided to take the advice that i have always given my students when i give a graduation speech. i always told them to step off

of the sidelines, to get involved and make a difference. i decided to take my own advice. the most often-heard analogy i have heard is that it is like trying to take a sip of water from a fire hose. you are inundated with an enormous amount of information, an enormous amount of things and practices that you have to familiarize yourself with and acclimate to. i will say that i found congress a welcoming environment, and not just from my own caucus, but from the other side of the aisle, as well. we have disagreement, -- disagreements, but we try to work together to the extent that we can and have affection for each other.

host: next caller. caller: i would like to compliment the democrats for coming together within our education system. without education, we have got other countries and everything like china and everything -- i mean, they are smart, they send students to school. they do not be talking about this money thing. if we do not have education to be able to become future leaders and everything, we are going to be taken down. we need to keep in mind that we must come together for common cause. you know, some people's causes might be there because they benefit and get money out of it. then you have other people saying things against it.

we need to come together as a common cause to make these things happen and strengthen america so we do not have to worry about these other countries coming to take us down. host: let me use his statement as a question, because it parallels the debate over health care. kucan access these loans under the plan you propose -- who can access these loans under the plan you propose? guest: there are subsidized loans given to students determines to be financially needy. and needy student is a student -- a needy student is a student attending a school that costs more than what his family can cost -- possibly contribute.

another type of loan has interest paid by the federal government while the student is in school. with an on subsidized loan, the student pays the interest himself while they are in school. anybody who can attend an accredited institution can borrow. you must be a u.s. citizen or legal residents. -- legal resident. caller: good morning. it has been put it well. the last time i spoke with u.s. several years ago. -- the last time i spoke with you was several years ago. my question is about historically black universities and colleges. where did they fit in? do you think they will be

viable and necessary in the future, given that education has been denied in the past to a vast amount of citizens but that is not the case now? and i officially submit my t -- resignation as a c-span junkie -- my two-week resignation as a c-span junkie. i have seen c-span commandeered by mr. murdoch and the corporate media factions. last time i spoke to you, i was a journalism student. i am now a lawyer as well. and you ask leading questions with subliminal actions.

i must sign off. i wish you guys well and hope to come around. host: it sounds like you will watch for the next two weeks. sorry to be losing year, but i hope to come back to the fold. -- sorry to be losing you, but i hope you come back to the fold. guest: historically black universities will continue to play a role. this legislation provide significant help to them over the next 10 years. that is one of the ways that we are realizing the savings from the federal load program -- federal loan program.

host: rhode island. go ahead. caller: the state of rhode island right now is that 12% unemployment, one of the highest rates in the country. i'm one of those who has been laid off in the last year and a half. credit scores have been affected dramatically between people losing their homes, i know a few people who have been denied student loans due to their credit score. how much of an impact is your credit score going to have with actually being able to afford an education? because now, in rhode island, there are so few free jobs that people with degrees are getting jobs over someone like myself, who has 15 years' experience. because i do not have a piece of paper stating that i have that experience, i am not getting hired as quickly as somebody else.

guest: 1 advantage of guaranteed loans is that their offer to students based on their financial need, and there is no -- they are offered to students based on financial need, and there is no credit check associated with them. historically, the default rate is in the neighborhood of 6% to 7%. but we offer loans to students so that they might advance and get their slice of the american dream. prior credit history is not a consideration when student loans are offered by financial aid officers. host: this question echos with the last caller said about having a piece of paper. guest: we have a job market that is evolving, and it is estimated

that the vast majority of new jobs that will become available over the next several years will be jobs that will require training beyond high school. one of the things that we do in this legislation is make a significant investment in the federal level in our nation's community colleges, because we see them as an injured of access with the students, and we also us -- and in june of access for students -- an engine of access for students and a way to train the workforce. there are an enormous amount of jobs available to people without degrees that are either associate's degrees or technical degrees. host: eric, democrats line. caller: i had a quick question

for you. i just wanted to ask you why the american people should pass any legislation right now with the current corruption in our government? i just found out that we have seven congressman who still want to give money to acorn after everything they have done. congress is buying learjet and spending money without -- buying learjets and spending money with no transparency. guest: combination has a great many needs we need to address. -- the nation has a great many needs we need to address. i take contention with your claim that the government is corrupt. we make a good-faith effort to solve the problems we are confronted with, and we do so in a fashion that i believe this

transparent indefensible -- is transparent and defensible. every few years, the people get a new judgment. we do have problems that we must address. health care is a problem we must address. higher education access is a problem we must address. i believe we have to act. caller: when president obama was elected, he talked about having a national army. the way he wanted to do it was to forgive student loans if you would volunteer for 10 years for service to the country, community work. is this in the bill, no. 1? is it coming next year? is this and other social program

that taxpayers will have to eat -- is this another social program that taxpayers will have to eat? guest: if the president never did propose such a provision, that provision is not in this bill. what is in this bill is the continuation of existing so- called cancellation provisions for student loans, and they have been law, in some cases, for 25 or 30 years. students entering public service professions can have some portion of their loan canceled while they serve and those professions -- in those professions, if they serve for a significant amount of time. but there are no provisions for

national service in the legislation. the only provisions are the ones we have had for a while. host: are you expecting that the senate will have agreement with the house? guest: i think we will have more areas of agreement than disagreement. i think some disagreement is inevitable, but our understanding is that their legislation tracks hours pretty closely. -- tracks ours pretty closely. caller: i have to take issue -- i agree with one of the previous callers that this is disingenuous. it is almost a joke to suggest that washington d.c., congress, the executive branch is not rampant with corruption. the student loan program, when

it was devised, given the fact that everyone in congress and the senate was college-educated, it does not take a genius to figure out that banks would profit the most. not the students, not the taxpayers. how is it? it is disingenuous. it is pretentious to pretend that corruption in government is not america's number one problem right now. guest: one of the points you make, that banks have profited significantly from the student loan program, you're absolutely right, and it is one of the reasons that we're acting as we are with this legislation. we're taking the profits that banks have realized from their participation in a federally- guaranteed program where the government takes on 100% of risk and banks realize profit, and we're taking that profit and trying to put it into the hands of needy students. in my opinion, that is a bible and valid thing for public

policy to do -- a valuable and developing for public policy to do. -- a valuable and valid thing for public policy to do. and the perkins program. two programs have gone forward free of scandal and corruption. they have helped an enormous number of students over the years. they are worthy of our support, and they are a model for what we're doing with this legislation. host: the last call is from miami. caller: yes. rep., i appreciate the decision you made to get involved. many of us in the education arena need to be more involved,

to run for various offices, not only of the national level but at the state and local levels. host: dr. mitchell, what do you do in education? caller: i am retired from college and secondary. public education and private college. religious, as well. i have seen it all over the 30- plus years. i commend you and think you are moving in the right direction. i did want to question you about the initiatives. graduates needed jobs. -- graduates need jobs. what is the thinking of the congress? guest: the community college initiative, in which we will invest $12 billion, is a piece of that. we will be looking to marry the

community college curriculum in certain areas with needs of the workforce in the areas where the colleges are located. so there will be, if you will, a consortium between local businesses and local community colleges in terms of developing degree programs that will fit the needs of local economy. another provision is one that i was very proud to get inserted, and that was a reestablishment of the federal role in promoting something called cooperative education. that is a program allowing students to work while they're in school in career-related positions for which they receive credit and salary. the placement for co-op jobs is somewhere in the neighborhood of 70%. that is a way for students to prove themselves to employers and get jobs once they graduate. host: the debate continues on

the house of representatives today. when is the vote scheduled? guest: i believe we will finish amendments this morning. we should be voting on this by late morning or early afternoon. host: thank you for being here. for the last 10 minutes, open phones on any topic you are interested in. we will put the numbers on the screen. if you'd like to comment on health care, foreign policy, trade, the economy, it is your call. let me read this story from the "washington post." republicans in the lending industry say that the bill could diminish quality of service to borrowers and the costly to taxpayers. the obama administration says the government can save $80

billion by ending a subsidy system. they contend that it is for the banks, rather than students. some senators have raised concerns about the magnitude of the proposed shift in federal lending programs that would occur next summer, affecting thousands of colleges and universities. but president obama considers the legislation key to his education reform. a representative for 2000 colleges calls the bill the biggest redesign in the structure of federal students' aid that he has ever seen. michigan, democrats' line. go ahead.

caller: i have been watching, and you are pretty good about keeping an even keel on everything. but i have to agree with a collar that you had a few minutes ago. it seems like every time a turnaround, you have the american enterprise institute on -- it seems like every time i turn around, you have the american enterprise institute on. you will talk and talk. maybe you get three or four calls through. anyhow, there are always three in favor of the republican party and one that democratic response -- one a democratic response. it is not like it used to be.

host: what would you like us to do differently? caller: nothing really differently. but i do not like the american enterprise institute. host: [laughter] we did have the head of the american enterprise institute on this morning. you are right. but one guest was the co-chairs of the progressive caucus. the other was congressman bishop, a democrat representing -- caller: i am glad to get on. i have never gotten on. i want to say that i do not know how you people put up with some of these -- they do not even

know what they're talking about. i wonder what planet they're living on. when they call up and come up with such nonsense and foolishness. host: it sounds like he gives you a chuckle from time to time. caller: it does. but i don't know how people can stand there and listen to these people. host: thank you for calling. new york. open phones. caller: in any event, i want to comment on the health care plans being proposed at the moment. that is that they do not strike me as being extremely realistic for several reasons. there was a poll recently taken where they point out that 45% of the doctors that were polled said they would retire if any of

these health care plans were put into effect that would further erode their ability to earn a living. i think that that has to be taken seriously. it seems like we're trying to make a decision about a large issue without taking into consideration some of the small, important details that need to be understood better about how this will impact health care overall. the second issue is, this number people point out, it is not 47 million americans without health insurance. it is closer to 37 million. of the 33 million people who are not illegal immigrants still looking for health insurance, many of them have been offered insurance and refuse to take it. for us to sit here as a nation when we have trillions of dollars of debt, to be looking

at an issue that only is going to provide health care for possibly 10% of the population, that we would scrap the current plan, covering 85% of the population, and also overlooking the level of innovation and research and development going into all of the amazing cures and processes that our country, the united states of america, comes up with, is just to the detriment of our nation. the last thing i will point out is that with the stimulus plan on top of this, the obama administration has decided to borrow an additional 1.7 trillion dollars. that additional borrowing starts october 1 of this year, and the administration will find out that the u.s. bond market, which is a political -- apolitical, that the financers of our debt

will seek a higher rate of return. in doing so, they will diminish the effect of the rebound of our economy, which has just begun. host: from sag harbor, new york. caller: i just wanted to get on when my congressman was on. but what i can say is that i understand the republicans going against trying to give money to kids to get an education. there is nothing that scare's republicans more than educated people. they might get into government and start to pass laws. and there is nothing that they love more in the republican party than to give money to banks. and to the caller who was just

on, 33 million people? he thinks that is nothing? that is amazing to me. host: a call from harley, florida. go ahead. caller: i am a first-time caller. i listened from time to time. i agree with the gentleman that spoke before the last lady. the health-care bond market, yes. what amazes me and watching your program occasionally -- in watching your program occasionally is that whenever a politician is on, they are very polished. but i never hear anyone say anything about what they will do

to cut the deficit or cut their own spending. we of record unemployment, record national debt -- we have record unemployment and national debt, and all i hear from officials is how they will do more for people spending more money. i think that is totally irresponsible, and if we do not vote them out and start over next fall, we will be in very big trouble. host: walter from georgia, republican line. i think you will be last this morning. caller: good morning. the guests on the left, who represent the progressive caucus, these people are self- defined the leftists. --