host: thanksgiving proclamation to begin with the continental congress in the 1700's and george washington proclaimed thanksgiving day in 1789, but not until the midst of the civil war when abraham lincoln declared an annual observation

national day. if good morning. we will begin by asking what you are thing for this morning. here are the phone numbers. -- what you are thankful for this morning. we will get to your phone calls in just a minute. let me begin with the president's proclamation. you can find it on america.gov. in it he recognizes-americans who helped colonist to survive their first harsh winter, and acknowledged the troops serving overseas and here. he ends with saying that he set his hair and eye-- you can readn

america.gov. there is an editorial about thanksgiving. it is from newsweek. in notes that lincoln declared the annual national observation primarily due to a 15-year head campaicampaign. "the new york daily news" editorial ends with this -- though the date changes from year to year, the purpose does not. give banks to god in whom you believe, for despite our

differences and travails, we are truly blessed. a things giving toast here. -- at thanksgiving toast here. we will bring more from the washington times this morning and other editorials. first we want to thank you what you are thankful for this morning. we want to begin with news about afghanistan. sir, let me begin with the front page in their headlined -- the u.s. is seeking 10,000 troops from its allies. let me ask you what it is like

on the ground there as the discussion here domestically continues as to whether president obama send more troops and whether our allies will contribute more. is that something discussed on the ground there? guest: probably among soldiers, but among afghans it is probably a much smaller group who pay attention to the smaller, finer points of american policy. soldiers have a sense depending on the area they are patrolling, whether or not they have enough people working with them. that is something that is talked about. really, in their day-to-day life in afghanistan a lot of people are not so involved in the particulars of this decision. host: there is also news about the karzai government and its

efforts moving forward. have you seen any change on the ground there groundkarzai last week put forth his principles for this administration going forward? guest: not much concretely. there have been quite a few announcement by the prosecutor's office. but when it comes to whether there will be charges, under investigation for corruption had -- whether there will be charges will be quite a take and the president's office denies that anyone has been charged. or that there have even been requested charge any of these ministers. for now i think the main focuses on the president's effort to the cabinet, the most important

thing for the next 10 days. he hopes to have a new cabinet to send to the parliament here by about december 6. that is when the parliament goes on break. the focus now is who he will attain, and whether the people he chooses will be professional and have the expertise in their area. host: we are asking viewers this morning what they are thankful for. many will probably say the troops or serving. how the troops serving today? guest: in these countries it is our regular weekday. you cannot really take off. i have not been over to the dining facilities today, but i'm sure that they are serving turkey at all the military

facilities. the main event here is the muslim holiday. it is probably a little more quiet than usual because everyone goes home to spend the holiday with their family. the holiday of officially begins tomorrow, but people are preparing almost like it is christmas eve. host: any indication that there could be a visit by a and american official to afghanistan in the coming days? guest: i have not picked up anything, but those things are held closely. i do not think we would hear about it ahead of time for security reasons. the same would be true of any, with the british -- the prime

minister or something like that. you will probably not hear about that for an hour or two before he lands. host: what sort of technology our troops given their to communicate with loved ones, especially on a day like thanksgiving? guest: i'm not sure. obviously, the terrain here varies usually in terms of what is available. there are phones on all bases and some people have access to cell phones. there are satellites on the combat outposts in the middle of the mountains or desert -- but a lot of people also use things like skype, the internet phones which are very inexpensive.

there are a variety of options. it depends a lot on where they might be posted. host: you are one of many reporters working in afghanistan. what is your life like there? guest: well, it is cold here right now, but other than that it is pretty much like everything else. the war in afghanistan is an insurgency, different from iraq. if you lived in baghdad you would hear a lot of explosions and gunfire. here in kabul it is very quiet. there is the occasional bomb. it is very different if you were out in the rural areas where the fighting is happening against the taliban.

there are two very different worlds year depending on whether you are in the city which is relatively safe, or you are out in a rural area. host: thank you for spending some time with us. happy thanksgiving to you. we will go to davenport, iowa where robert joins us. good morning. caller: good morning. i am thankful for many things. more than anything else i am thankful to see really important things happen in our country. even this year i helped with the program here where there were not allowing [inaudible] to vote in iowa. they now can vote in iowa.

it is one of the major reasons obama one in iowa. i'm thankful that we would get some kind of health care, if not the best kind, that we can have in this country. our local radio station, a man said he was thankful to get a liver and pancreas replacement. as a result he felt health care would be bad if it were universal because he would not be able to get everything he needed, even though he thinks that getting everything mean some people not getting anything. host: do you have a full-time job? caller: us, i have a full-time business, but make sure that i do what i can to help with in the community and nation.

the other thing i'm very thankful for is that in shifting from the healthcare and will get into civil rights now because as a black man, unemployment is 30%. we're just loaded with prisons, even being treated unfairly with this crack cocaine king were a lot of these young men, five years mandatory -- there will give someone who could have 1 pound of cocaine off. host: will leave it there. paul on the republican line in arkansas. caller: good morning. i'm thankful that i live in a nation where i can pick and choose my own praying ground. i am very proud of our men and women in both iraq and afghanistan. i think that this president needs to stop dithering and go-

ahead to send the extra 40,000 troops so more americans like myself can continue to enjoy freedoms. host: paul, are you going to be watching his speech expected tuesday night about his decision from west point in new york? caller: yes, i am. ma'am? yes, this president is such a socialist and he is anti- american. he is not my president because i did not vote for him.

i'm glad that we live in a democracy that hopefully will come out in 2012. host: chattanooga, tenn. caller: good morning. i'm thankful for my nephew, who is in iraq who is safe and for my nephew ben who is a marine in afghanistan. i'm grateful that they have stepped up to volunteer for the cause because someone has to defend the country. a half of one nephew in iraq and another about to go to afghanistan. host: where in each country? caller: a do not keep up with the particulars pekoes the news just breaks my heart. host: all right, we will move on

to vinland, new jersey. caller: happy thanksgiving. basically, as a descendant of abraham and one of the 10 tribes people who arrived here in finkel for the mercy and blessing of being able to see my 62nd things giving day here in america. i'm very grateful for obama. we are descendants of abraham. there are some of us who never got here. give it thanks to all of our presidents and all of our representatives. host: georgia, on the republican line. caller: yeah, i'm thankful for miss sarah, sarah palin. i think she will be our next president.

she would be part of a good team. you can see them every day on fox news. his all lot better than rush limbaugh. host: have you bought her book? caller: yes, all but five of them. i'm going to give them away for christmas gifts. have you bought the book yet? host: no, i have not. i remember you. that guy did the poem about you. you sure are pretty lady. caller: good morning. i'm thankful the that i live in a country where the president is a screen the economy completely up. the american public recognizes it. president obama is the perfect example of the fact that no one is ever completely useless.

host: manhattan, jack on the democrats' line. caller: thank you for c-span. i'm very thankful, contrary to the previous caller, that obama will be in office for another three years, plus a few months. and that he will have the opportunity now that he is starting to dig in and get himself, the administration going, to turn the stinking shit that george w. bush left us. he will turn the war around, the economy around, and the justice department around. and i hope to god that in his next three years he will attack campaign finance and the horrible system we have in which our elected officials take money from the very corporations like the healthcare industry

which they want to deprive us of proper health care. they take money from the oil industry, from the pharmaceuticals, and write down the list. i hope that the administration will attack the root of all political evil which i believe to be is campaign finance. host: jack, let me ask you about afghanistan. the president will announce his decision tuesday night from west point. we'll be watching? caller: i think he is going to listen to his top military people. i think he will make a very sound and prudent decision about how to proceed. everybody who is against obama can relax and let him do his job.

he will do the right thing for the troops, for the country, and for the world. host: let me read this headline from "the washington post" which we have been showing to our viewers. democrats in congress said they will not support an increase in troop level in more money for this war in afghanistan. they are at least resisting it. do you think democrats should back the president? caller: of course, democrats should back the president, and republicans should back the president on health care reform. when we had the situation in iraq i felt we had to give iraq our best shot and it meant going in for the surge. i'm a democrat and i was in

favor of the surge. i am in favor of listening to the generals and giving it another best shot. i am not saying that i want to be there for 10 years, but we have to give it our best shot, listen to the generals, and democrats should get behind obama and listen to the military, just like republicans should listen to what of the rest of the country is saying about health care reform. host: there is a new gallup poll out -- it says americans have become slightly more likely to favor sending more troops to afghanistan, and slightly less likely to favor a reduction in forces. orlando, on the independent line. caller: happy thanksgiving. i am thankful first four c-span and for what you do for our country and dingell you are on

this morning -- you are like a flower in the garden of my life. you are my favor. i am thankful for being american. no matter the side you are on, remember on the other side is americans. we need to have the debate, but when it is done, we're still americans. united we stand is more than just a bumper sticker. host: we will move on to new orleans on the republican line. are you with us, william? caller: good morning. i am thankful to god and my lord and savior jesus christ for watching over us in this country

because apparently people who have been hired to look over us have not been doing their job. look at people who crashed the president's party last night. that is ridiculous. i would like everyone to know that the lord is keeping us safe and give him thinks on this day. host: the caller refers to the two people who came to the state uninvited. they were not on the guest list. somehow they were able to get in, and then posted pictures with notable guests on their face but pages. you can read more of that in the washington and new york papers this morning. manhattan, what are you thankful for?

caller: i'm thankful for alternative media, like on websites, such as are referring to the black plague taking on europe. i'm also thankful for a particular media company going down. nobody is buying "the daily news'" anymore. all the official media is just propaganda. it is government-owned. host: reminder that you can send us a tweet this morning. you can send us your comments there. we will move on to florida, on the independent line. caller: good morning. i am very thankful for brian lamb and i hope that mr. icahn the thankful for seeing the vote

tally board in the house. host: here is a front-page article. it says that the administration's decision to identify a series of goals including cutting emissions over the next decade in the range of 17% is a calculated risk given that congress has never set mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. president obama will go to copenhagen on december 9. he will be there at the beginning of negotiations. the white house also said they are putting forth a target at about 17%. it is a 5.5% cut below the 1990 levels.

this sunday for cs brands "newsmakers" we sat down with steven chu about the president's role there. >> i think the intent of the president's visit to copenhagen and followed up by many cabinet president's is to show first that he is very serious about the energy and climate issue. number two, copenhagen, since congress will not be able to address the energy and climb a bill until after copenhagen, that it is a framework for all countries. prime minister rsmussen proposed -- going in for establishing a framework to say that this is

our goal, and it will be towards a legally-binding treaty. we will not get there. but these are the steps to take. the good news is, there aris a t of commotion going on. i'm encouraged that a lot of countries are beginning to show concern. host: we will host the steven chu on sunday. more concerning climate change. they endorsed the president's announcement to go to copenhagen as well as his target to reduce emissions. in "the new york post" this morning, the gop reps plan to visit clinics summit.

one senator who is that ranking member of the committee plans to call for an investigation into a store that kmart recently that he-mails, or signs that questions climate change were suppressed. he wants to probe the hacked e- mails from the research unit at university in britain. next to this story is a sidebar that says capsizing, new costs to household each year -- this is from the congressional budget office. the bottom 20% of earners save $40.

salem, oregon. caller: yes, i'm really thankful for c-span. you guys do a lot of good work. that is really important on this day of being thankful for things. you guys are something i'm really thankful 4. host: things, william. we appreciate you and everyone else watching. good morning. caller: first of all, i am thankful for being alive. second of all, i am thankful for the article you read as to how people got in at the state dinner -- and dingell that

president obama is here -- for the simple fact that they do not guard him like they should. if this can happen and everyone is worried about whether the country is safe -- maybe they do want a white joe biden or someone else to be president. i'm just thankful that things will turn around. i am thankful that him and john mccain, all of them, they put to the campaign to give stimulus money? so, when they criticize president obama, i just think that it will take some time. clinton, it took him almost his second term to turn things around. that i am truly blessed. host: that was kathy from dallas. on a lighter note, about michelle obama's address. the designer who is born in mumbai -- an indian designer.

three months ago he got a shot at his fantasy job, to create a down afor the first lady, so he made four versions to travel back and forth the u.s. to india. he did not know that the first to depict his dress until he saw coverage of for cannot agree to the prime minister and his wife. he says it is a moment like he had never felt in his life. the first exciting call came from his father congratulating him. how many sequins? tons, in kilos. he also said there is no prize, no value on a dress like this, because it is made with passion.

host: the last phone call on what you are thankful for here. caller: good morning. i am a thankful that i am an american. i think many people have forgotten that we are americans. all the goings on nowadays, there is a saying, a nation divided cannot stand. we are not standing anymore. we need to get together and figure out what is going on instead of being subdivided. we have a president that divides everyone, a president who decided that the unions were more important than anyone else. he has decided that the healthcare plan is more important. we also have a president who thinks copenhagen will be the saving grace of this country. you read the story about the e- mails -- i think the president should back up and decide what

he will do before he goes to copenhagen. host: all right, up next, a discussion on global hunger and poverty with david beckmann, the bread for the world institute. >> it is a is giving day on c- span. at 10:00 a.m. eastern, bill clinton is on hand to present steven spielberg with a the medal.

then, a panel assessing the president obama presidency. at 5:00 p.m., the hip-hop artist and actor on youth mentoring. later, howard dean and another on the economy and capitalism. >> this thanksgiving holiday we have four days of book to be on c-span2. on thursday morning we will feature books on history, public policy, and politics. watch the authors discuss their new book, and about government contractors. you will also see the author from the recent miami book festival. right through monday morning watch the tv on c-span2. to get the full schedule go to booktv.org.

you can also follow us on twitter. happy thanksgiving. "washington journal" host: continues david beckmann is president of bread for the world institute as well as bread for the world. there is a new report out from the institute. let's talk about the first. you put it out on monday. it found that more $1 than 1 billion people are hungry every day, it is an increase of more than 1 million from one year ago. guest: the economy is hurting here and all over the world. also, in developing countries there hit by relatively high prices for rice and other basic grains. so, a poor family in developing countries will spend two-thirds of everything they have just on a couple of plates of rice for the day.

the price is double what it was in 2006. in addition to the economy, they're struggling with those high prices. host: but we have seen the price of food come down in the last year. isn't it the case there? guest: it is, but compared to three or four years ago, or the last decades, rice and soybeans are still high. it is one factor, one reason we have seen after decades of slow progress against world hunger, we have seen a surge in hunger in the last three years. also in our own country. the government this week released data on hunger in america. they found just before the recession one of seven americans lived in households struggling to put -- i'm sorry, one of nine -- and in 2008 that jumped to one out of seven. it is one of five kids in our

own country who lives in a household which struggles to feed itself. i am especially concerned about the kids. especially babies and toddlers, if they even suffer moderate lack of nutrition it does long- term damage. we will suffer the consequences of this recession 50 years from now. host: the price of the food, infant formula, and such -- has that gone up? guest: no, we cannot just eat a place of rice here in this country. we have highly-processed foods. the increase of rice and other grains is not so important here. here it is unemployment, under- employment, financial problems. host: how did you compile this data? guest: the international data are kept by the united nations, and the u.s. data on hundred

come from the u.s. census bureau and is then processed by the department of agriculture. we began by introducing new as a president for two organizations, bread for the world and its institute. what is the difference? guest: the institute does research and education on policies that affect people. bread for the world is a collective christian organization that has a voice to urge people to end hunger. we organize people in churches across the country, all stripes of churches to put pressure on their members of congress. there are things we can do to help hungry people directly, but we also need to get our government to do its part. what bread for the world does is to help people focus on a few things congress's considering that would really make a big difference to tens of millions. typically, hungry people cannot -- maybe are not as well able to

speak for themselves. host: what are some initiatives you would like congress to do? guest: right now we think it is important, the president and just the day after they released the data on hunger in america, the administration said congress in the next few months, they want to pass a bill to strengthen our child nutrition programs. i hope that congress gets it done in a hurry. one of the gaps they need to fill is to strengthen the summer feeding programs. every food bank has a surge in requests for help during the summer. mothers are trying to feed kids who in the wintertime in school months get meals. the administration is asking for steps to close those gaps. especially summer feeding, school breakfasts. it is urgent. beyond that -- the host: what is

the cost? guest: asking for $1 billion in additional per year. we know that kids do not get enough to read you can go back 16 years later and the same kids will have higher rates of school dropouts, do not do well in school, and are more likely to have trouble with drugs and alcohol. they will not be as productive as workers for the rest of their lives. investing to strengthen the child nutrition programs should be part of a strong recovery, one that is durable. that is one thing that we are working on. we're also campaigning to make foreign aid more effective. at a time like this there are ways to make it better. and to get more help to those who need it. bread for the world members

across the country have been campaigning to get congress to pay attention. it is a little complicated. it is a matter of getting the house, senate, state department and white house working on making foreign aid better. we are pleased on that. really, from the grassroots managed to get the house and senate, the state department and white house working together to make toaid programs more efficient, better coordinated. host: domestically, are the states doing a good job delivering federal money to the people who need it the most in these programs like the ones for children? guest: that is a good question. really not. our states could do a better job. there are, only two-thirds of

those getting food stamps -- who should beginning to stance, are getting them. with the summer programs it takes effort by the state and community groups like local schools or churches to set up summer feeding programs. even the school breakfast programs -- there are many schools that offer lunch, but not breakfast. we know that when they do not offer breakfast many of those kids do not do as well in school. just using the federal nutrition programs the money is available, but it takes effort hong the state and local level. some states are doing a great job -- maryland with the governor's effort to to use the federal programs better. the governor from colorado announced he wants to end child hunger there just this week.

all the states are struggling with budget problems. and this is a source of revenue from the federal government available if you make the effort. host: let's hear from our viewers. daytona beach, fla., on the republican line. caller: good morning, i'm going to respectfully suggest that perhaps we do not have the hunger problem -- rather we have an overpopulation problem. hunter is a symptom of the fact we are overpopulating the earth without any limits. host: what kind of limits would you like to see? caller: perhaps a higher level of consciousness of people taking greater responsibility for their actions. if you cannot take care of children, you should not be having children. guest: steve, i agree with you.

rapid population growth in some countries makes it hard for families to take care of their kids. hard for country to take care of the next generation. part of the solution to ponder and poverty is for families to plan their lives and families. the causality goes both ways. if measures are taken to reduce hunger and poverty so that fewer children die, we know that as fewer die in families become a little more prosperous, mom and dad do plan their family. the population growth rate comes down. it is also true that we need to pay attention to family planning. if you've visited africa and asia, really poor families are

often big families. it is especially important to pay attention to gender roles, the role of women. if women have a right, if ross learn to read and write, that is the most powerful way to reduce family size. once a girl learns to read and write she is likely to have fewer children. host: if every american gives what he/she spends on our honoraria strong iraqi money -- spends with the deal on one restaurant meal per month, to help hungry people that would be great. guest: i'm not sure if it is enough to end hunger, but it would make a big difference. it is a great idea. there are really great charities. at the local level you can find a charity that is helping to feed hungry people and, even

more importantly for programs like mentoring that help people to get on their feet. and to become productive people who can provide for themselves. host: jacksonville, fla., good morning. caller: i am an advocate for those who really need the agent, but those to go around to buy $300 of phones and toys for their kids that they don't need -- i have lived in port their heads on my life and worked two jobs all my life -- and as far as overseas aid, it is better to teach someone to fish than to give them fish. we can build farms over there but then we have to protect them. their countries will not do it. so, you put an effort in to get an effort out. the federal government has no money. the american people have a money that they give to the federal government to use.

these programs are used to death even by the people who run them. guest: the basic point you're making i think is right on. that to get out of poverty you need to work. nobody can give you enough. there are people who do not work hard or to have mental illness or addiction problems. or for whatever reasons are just not living their lives in a way to lead to success. so, it is not easy. in our foreign a system programs, bread for the world worse for the programs that do teach people to fish. help kids be in school, help farmers and others to be more productive. it is possible to invest and programs that help people to get

out of poverty and stay out of poverty. in our own country, you are right -- the wic program helps mothers and children who would be vulnerable to not eating. i think that that is worth doing. the best way to help people get out of poverty is to strengthen the job market. and then people have to go out and get a job, work, and feed themselves. you are right about self- reliance. host: we have a build short, the executive founder of share our strength. if i could just have you expound a little more about the situation with children and hunger in the u.s.? guest: yes, david said it well. kids in this country are not hungry because of war or famine or dropped. kids in america are not hungry because of lack of food. we have food in abundance. they are not even hungry because

of lack of food in nutrition programs. kids in the u.s. are hungry for many reasons -- they lack access to programs. one of the ironies today is that for the past 25 years we have had bipartisan support, not perfect, but strong bipartisan support for programs like school lunch and breakfast and summer feeding and food stamps, but in many states the kids are dramatically, under-enrolled. david mentioned that governor ritter in colorado. i was with him on tuesday. we announced this campaign. he realized that colorado had left $70 million of federal money on the table back in washington for the anti-hunger programs for kids. for a state suffering from recession like so many others, and for the governor who is having to cut one program after the other, to realize they could

actually bring federal dollars into the state to feed kids -- there is some real opportunity right now. host: mr. shore, what is this new campaign? guest: it is really a campaign to go state-by-state to knock down the barriers existing for kids, to get the services and they are entitled to under law. in some states, for example -- colorado which serves 40,000 kids per day lunch, but only 18,000 get breakfast. there are transportation issues and sometimes stigma involved. they are experimenting with a breakfast in the classroom. there are things like that. the school is such an important deliverer of services. we found, as we surveyed this

week, of over 700 schoolteachers, of those we surveyed across the country and across all segments, 62% saw the kids in their own class or hundred because there were not getting enough to eat at home. 63% of the teachers were using their own personal funds to buy kids in the classroom during the school week and to to come on weekends. the pain of this recession is seeping into the classroom and damaging the next guest: generation what share our strength is doing is just greed. they are working with governors across the country to address the barriers you talked about. what bread for the world is doing is trying to get the federal government to make things a little easier for the states and communities to use the national nutrition programs. what bill and share our strength

are doing is extraordinarily high in impact. it is very high impact work. the good to talk to you, bill. guest: thanks, i appreciate it. our organizations have worked closely in tandem. you just mentioned the maryland governor and his office has added 26,000 children recently to the program. to leverage these big systems can really have a powerful impact. host: can i ask you how much assistance to receive for your efforts from the federal government, and how much as private charity? guest: we are a charitable organization not involved with government funds. we have a few americorps/vista workers, so that might be some federal money coming into the

program. but we have not sought any federal funding. we raise about $24 million per year. that is almost all through private charitable events. we worked extensively with the restaurant and food-service industry. chef-participated events at the food and wine events to help raise funds. lots of individual donors. host: food network? guest: yes, could not work is a huge partner. we have a six-year relationship with them. they have counted on all their stars who have put on p.s.a.'s for us. host: what are you seeing it as far as private donations of the last couple of years during this recession? guest: we have seen just the opposite of a big draw. we have found in the case of hundred that people are more aware of this issue than ever

before. over the last 20 years we have been trying to convince people we have conquered in this country. now people know it. we have seen a powerful surge, totally unexpected. there has been of high volume of low-dollar giving. it has resulted in share our strength having its largest revenue of over the last 20 years. host: given that number again. guest: about $24 million per year. host: what about staff and labor expenses? guest: those expenses probably come to about $2.50 million per year. all of those folks -- those are

not involved in raising money, rather in most cases on the nutrition education side, educators working with young families around the country to make sure that they access food, not just food, but nutritious food. host: happy thanksgiving. any thoughts on what you heard from mr. shore? guest: i am a big fan of share our strength. what bread for the world and share our strength does complement each other. bread for the world is based in the church committees. we focus on getting the federal government to do its part. share our strength does rework to directly assist hundred people and has the strategy to help states and communities, especially at the state level to better use federal programs. it is brilliant. host: is there a benefit to an

organization like that, not depending on the federal government, and instead raising the money they use privately? guest: sure, we need both. strong private charities, and to get our government to do its part in assistance. it is not enough to offer food assistance. you cannot and hunger by just feeding people. people are hungry because they are poor and many people are poor right now because they cannot find a job, or have had their hours cut back. strengthening the job market is part of what needs to happen. there are other ways we can reduce poverty. for example, bread for the world is think about next year's big tax debate. lots of tax provisions come up for renewal next year. a flick people will be fighting to protect their tax breaks. there are also some provisions in the tax code to help working, poor families. bread for the world will be

mobilizing people across the country to defend those provisions. host: all the provisions, including the tax provisions and what do people get? guest: no, the ones that bread for the world is concern about our earned income tax credits, the child tax credit that helped the working poor. those help to reduce poverty in families. one way to reduce hunger is to help those parents have enough. host: wealthy people have been allowed to deduct what they give to charities. is that something you support? guest: it is a good question. there are other ways i would tackle first if we have to raise taxes for wealthy people. i would protect the charities' first. our focus is the provisions in the tax code that benefit

people who were working, but are still poor. it used to be that if you had a full-time job you could feed a couple of children. that is no longer the case. if i go into a burger king and there's someone your age serving me and she has a couple of children at home, those kids are not eating all the time. so, it is through things like the tax code, food stamps, school meals -- those are ways to help those families where there are working people but they do not have enough. host: run, on the republican line from augusta, ga. caller: since we decimated millions of iraqis who were starved to death and displaced and the rest still live without water or food, and then you look at obama making a big production about everything so he is going to west point, the same thing will happen to the afghans with

the escalation of that war -- what are you doing to help people like that? guest: i agree with your point that were causes a lot of suffering and hunger. before the iraq war -- i am pleased that bread for the world lies our network to get a slowdown of the invasion of iraq. we're not experts on foreign policy or military policy, but from the point of view of hundred people we could see it would cause a lot of hundred there. and also that it would be a mouse lived use of resources that could be focused instead on reducing hunger and poverty. helping people to be more productive and take care of themselves from under/poverty perspective we tried to slow down the mission. it is not where we focus, but your point is right. if there is any way to get out

of these wars, peace is just basic to progress. caller: if you do not raise kids, who will this for the country? they better wake up and start thinking about god. you know, it is a shame that kids cannot afford to go to a ball game anymore because sports cost so much. i would give a thousand buyers my social security back. i did not start to get it until 65. host: what did you do for a living? caller: right now i am retired. i was over a community service,

the kids to get picked up for all kinds of stuff. host: thanks, frank. what did you hear? guest: i like about the jesus beating the 5000 -- i preach on the text allowed. the odysseys hundred people and once and fed and turns to the disciples -- that is us -- and feed them. take what you have been starving people. you'll be surprised. i think that god cares about hungry people and when we make some effort in that direction i'm struck at how often we are able to do a lot with a little. host: i in this new report, your institute warns of the triple threat of hunger, unemployment, and climate change. you say that those three things need to be addressed or any economic recovery will only lead to a bubble.

our next phone call comes from detroit on the independent line. bread for the world institute, if you just heard the last things i said about what they are proposing, coming change, unemployment, and hunter -- what do you make of that? caller: there are a lot of things that can be done up there, but it takes community to do it. the government did not need to take over general motors. that could have been done by the employees who could have done a better job running it. . .

restarted in get this in the country and around the state. they were run out of the state by basically the monopoly of the auto industry in the 3ó)$(lc@&c+ it has been a problem. if we couldz get other industry in the country and stop a lot of the state -- it would be a lot

better off they do not money -- that has been the biggest problem. guest: of a comeback to his last point. what this is campaigning, lobbying in congress are a few issues like nutrition programs. we tried to think about what' happened. it is important to get an economic recovery around the country in the world. as we think about it, we have

to work on the economy. some say we cannot think about poverty right now because of the economy. we need to deal with poverty. l our problem not have big durable growth. we work on world hunger. we see in africa that farmers are already losing productivity because ofú4product change. if we ignore it, any kind of economic activity that ignores climate change will not be good. rñthe crisis may be bad enough that we have to do the right thing. we have to pay attention to hunger and the environment and do it all together. is doing right now is right for our economy.

you can help farmers in other parts of the world that have been affected. going back to this point, we think there is something in green jobs that as we move to a greater economy, that will provoke some jobs which can be done by people who are now unemployed, especially those who are targeted by it. :eywe are convinced that as we w our economy, that is one way to get people to work. hpñhost: talk about your economc background? >guest: church helped me while i

was working as an economist. host: on the republican line. caller: new never stop. we do not stress the fact that thep-ñ family is responsible to push nutrition programs on to their children. the parents become -- we have to stress the parents stay away from vice in take responsibility for their children as opposed to turning them over to the state. hamathere is a need to take carf

your kids. we never teach the kids that they have to be independent in the schools. host: let's have him respond and then you can follow up. guest: he is right. there is no substitute for parents taking care of their kids, feeding their kids, teaching their kids to live right in work hard. that is absolutely fundamental. we should not do anything to detract from that. taking care of kids is hard work.

nobody else can intervene in a way to help those kids better than parent. there is a large part of our population where they do not have enough food in the house to last several days of the month. we know from studying those families, that the mother does not eat for the last five days. she may grab a donut at work or something. that is why a lot of low income women suffer obesity because there is a pattern of women going without food while trying to protect kids. and they spend to eat and make up for it.

they do not have enough food for their kids. to have a school lunch program that insures every child has a meal each day is a good way to supplement what families have to do. it should not be one or the other. /i do not think that giving a school lunch undermines the family. caller: i have been in a lot of urban situations. there is probably a lot of hunger. they have high-tech communication devices like cell phones. are their priorities wrong? they should be spending money in the supermarket as opposed to the comcast store or verizon store. have we train the generation of people that do not have a clue as to how to allocate household funds because the government is

trying to make them more dependent upondñ the government? it strikes me as what is going on. they do not have enough money. you get enough social benefits to feed people, but if your priorities are not set up towards beating and you allow the state to take over that portion of your family, you are going todxd run into these situations. it seems though we are trying to make people exist by putting their cup out. that is the way to act in their own self interest as opposed to going out and create some wealth for themselves. guest: there is some truth in it. lots of us make that spending decisions. a lot of poor people make bad spending decisions. what you are saying is right.

especially for parents, parenting is a tough job especially for poor parents. it is a big responsibility. they need to do it and do it well. people need to take care of themselves, go out and get a job, work hard. we are talking about are undermining that kind of behavior. i think they complement it. $écaller: happy thanksgiving. thank you for c-span. the reason for my call, in my

neighborhood, ibub have three ts in my yard that produce fruit. in my neighborhood of and down the block, i spotted all kinds of trees with different type of fruit trees bearing fruit. and pick this fruit and provided jobs to these different programs? how can we do that? i$v picked my trees myself. i have one in my guard producing apples, peaches, pears. my neighbors pickford. we went down to the school --[ey

neighbors pick fruit. we went down to the school to give it to them. guest: you can go to a food pantry or soup kitchen and do what you did. that is a great example. people are organizing to take advantage of a food that is available through the food bank system. if they have extra pieces, --

pizzas, they can be channeled back to soup kitchens, food pantries, and distributed to people. the basic idea is right. you can do it yourself. we have this remarkable system of private charitable feeding lead but the food banks that does a pretty good job of doing what you do on a large scale. it is a good idea. we thankqght that your fruit trees are bearing such good fruit, figs and all. host: thanks for spending partd. we appreciate it. we want to talk about giving to charities. would you give less or more this year? we will start with the christian science monitor magazine that ran articles about giving to charities this year. they are finding new ways to u)vive in hard times.

here are the phone numbers. trying to find new ways to survive in hard times. the nations are down 9% at the top charities according to an industry publication. 77 percent of charities let fund raisers go or cut fund raising spending. next year will be worse predicts one person. @úc 1?r

the article says the center for nonprofit advancement is trying to help local nonprofits to help a programb#+ called back office in a box that enables them to share financial management and accounting efficient at fund raising. ?uñsome 61.8 million adults@!t l need about a billion hours of service in 2008. r seven years@l. do you plan to give more this year? if so, why?

caller: i normally give to the salvation army. there is a program that gives animals to families around the world.

smiling as they pass by and shake their heads. last year at the salvation army tested it in several cities. myrtle beach, south carolina. you plan to give less. why is that? caller: the reason for that is because of the taxes and the unemployment, instead of giving more money i will donate time which i think will help or benefit the nation. host: what will you do? caller: i am a sober alcoholic for 39 years. i delayed my time tox shelters, going to prisons. especially with the general

coming out saying there( 9 are o many soldiers killing hk i thought -- i thought the question was directed toward money. inwñ think the time is harder to do. i am grateful that i am in a country where i can do that kind of stuff. host:úu, this year? why is that? dçpcaller: even though like most people, times are rough, i still need to give more.

that is a decision i made because of what you see around you. ei also giveí to our museum. and to veterans organizations. volunteer for the annual arthritis walk.

retired people can give their time. other people cannot. úoi do see some participation p for some. there is an annual turkey donation. it exceeded -- the amount of turkeys donatedny exceeded their expectations. you see more involvement from what i see and hear on tv recently. host: if history is any guide, looking at individual giving during the depression --

úcçexcluding religious organizations, the u.s. has 9.8% of its active participationte÷ employed or volunteering in the non-profit sector. what are your plans this year? caller: i will give more for one reason. about a week ago, my son is a fisherman. he sold half of his catch.

the other half went to sell and the factory was shut down for whatever reason. instead of it going bad, we had the poor community right up the road from us. i said, let's give this fish to those people. we must of had 700 or 800 pounds of fish. the fish had to be clean. these people did not want to take it because it needed to be cleaned. they wanted me to give them fish where they just had to put nit in a pan and cook it and eat it. i had to talk people into cleaning their fish. this is like me giving you money.

what do you have to do -- you 8s time on your hands. take a few hours to clean the fish and feed your family. host: reread about the new york times this morning. they say the notion of a sustainable thanksgiving is at odds with the holiday.

i do all of the paper work. i take care of them every day. yesterday, i had to drop my insurance from my husband and i.

i am a breast cancer survivor. i cannot afford it. my parents are very well off. they have at least 20 envelops a week from every organization asking for a donation. i just became incensed while i am struggling at my heart -- house, taking care of my family struggling -- and i do not know of these letters that they get in the mail are real. they write $25 checks 20 times a week. host: do they ever go and check out a charity to make sure they are credible? caller: i only know about the breast cancer once. i decided for them that they cannot do that anymore because there are so many scams going on. i have been scanned personally as well. what i do personally is i take

it in off of the street. i feed them and house them. i have done that forever. we have never made more than $35,000 a year. this year we are not even hitting 20 yet. i am still taking people in. host: what do you do for a living? caller: my husband is a house designer. i take care of the family. host: a free lancer? host: a free lancer? caller: yeno carrierringconnect0

caller: i had to join mail- stoppers.com and another organization like that. but i will give to a micro-l oan decision, or something like that. happy thanksgiving. host: we will switch gears and talk with jane who is the founder of the blog, fire lake. we will be right back.

♪ >> its thanksgiving day on spending at 10:00 a.m. bill clinton is on hand to present steven spielberg with this year's liberty medal. also, a panel assessing the obama presidency. and from the jfk library and museum, these guests on terrorism and nuclear weapons. at 5:00 p.m., the hip-hop actor and artists on youth mentoring. later, on the economy and capitalism. on this vote, 3/5 of the senator is duly chosen sworn having

voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. >> with that vote the senate moves its health-care bill to the floor, starting monday in december followed the entire debate and how it would affect access to medicare, the public option, taxes, abortion, and medicare. that will be live on c-span2. "washington journal" continues. host: she is the founder of fire dog lake blog. you are working today and so is yourblog. what are you working on? guest: it is about five years old and we're one of the biggest on-line blogs. we have a tradition that we build ourselves up by making sure someone was always there during the holidays. so, have printed my dad's old summons from the 1960's. there was a great one in 1968 on

how jesus would love hippies. guthrie singing. host: let's get your response to the news on the front page. president versus party on troop increase, caucus would not back costly expansion of the afghan war. he is expected to announce it on tuesday, his decision on whether to increase the amount of troops. the indication is that he will increase the amount of troops. what is your reaction? guest: i read that senator kerrey and others have said they are in opposition to this. i wish they would have mustered this opposition during the summer when they were we authorizing a were supplemental -- war supplement. i don't know whether the president will have to return for more authorization, but i

hope they have the courage and convictions at that time to say no. host: what would you like to see then? it they say they will support an increase but want a war tax, are you in the same camp? guest: i do not support the increase. working in the world of the possible, if that is all they feel they can stick to, then yes. it is better than a blank check for more war. host: what do you want to hear from the president on tuesday night in terms of afghanistan? guest: i believe that you had matthew on recently. the people who are working over there, the people fighting the war, are asking what we're doing to defend this corrupt regime? why are we giving american lives? what is the justification to stay over there? he ran as an anti-war president

and people really supported him because of that. i think he owes his supporters an explanation for what he thinks this is a good idea. host: there is a new gallup poll out. it says americans over the last weeks have become slightly more likely to favor sending more u.s. troops to afghanistan, and slightly less likely to favor a reduction in forces. your reaction? guest: i do not know what -- host: 46% would advise the president to increase the amount while 39% to advise him to reduce the number. another 9% would opt to leave troop levels as they are and 5% have no opinion. guest: what was the level of increase? was it in the margin of error?

is it statistically significant? host: i think 47% compared to 39% would be outside the margin. guest: i have undemisunderstood. my general reaction is to have a conversation about what is going on there. in a time of high unemployment i question whether americans want to continue to commit a lot more resources there when we should be investing in resources here at home. host: you can phone in now. i want to move on to health care, the other big story and debate happening on capitol hill between congress and the white house. your website, blog has a cult

action section where your readers, anyone can go on and could not to be part of a phone bank to encourage senate majority leader harry reid on the public option. what are you trying to do? guest: i have been fighting since june 23 to get members of congress to fight for the public option. at goldman sachs the recently released a report saying if there were a public option in the final bill that stock prices of insurance companies would go down by 36% and if not they would go up by 39%. what are we trying to do? provide profit and increase to the companies to have done a poor job? or bailing them out yet again? harry reid is the pivotal person in the senate. we want him to know people are watching his role here.

if he facilitates of bailout of the insurance industry, that people will hold him accountable. host: how effective has your phone bank then? guest: i think it has been very effective. at one point harry reid -- it was his decision to include a public option in the final senate bill. he was trying to say he would let the white house, or he cannot do because people will filibuster -- we said no, you cannot allow silent filibuster in the back room of the senate to determine the content. if there are people who say they will filibuster, let's hear who they are. i dare them to do it. host: what do you plan to do if there were to filibuster this on the floor? guest: it is not me who plans to do anything. if you join with the republicans

there will be public consequences. the senators know this and that is why none of them did. all the democrats fell in line. harry reid did not for the public option out. host: let's go to our first phone call from buffalo, n.y. caller: good morning, regarding afghanistan -- the american people have been anesthetized. for example, we have done away with a draft so that only a very few american boys representing the total population served, and they primarily from lower income families. number two, we do not ask the american people to pay for the war. we continue to pay for it on the credit card and let our grandkids even our enabling meda contributes because they refuse

to show photographs, horrific photographs of what war really is. is it true the american people have been anesthetized? guest: absolutely. let's pay for this and taxes. the president recently signed a $680 billion for one year defense authorization budget. our priorities are a little skewed these days. this does not include the wars in afghanistan and iraq. that is why they're coming forward by sentimentalists. host: one of our viewers is to call for a public option. what should this complelook lik?

guest: we have been advocating for a public option. americans wind up spending more per capita for health care than any country in the world. we want to advocate for single payer, which means one pay year that does not have this overhead going to health care, siphoning it added of the system. that was taken off of the table early in the debate. as a competitor to the insurance companies, we advocated for a public option, which meant that if you are in s date that had only blue cross or wellpoint and they had a monopoly, as these companies do, that there was a government-run option that could be competitive. people such as myself, i'm a breast cancer survivor, have a very difficult time getting

insurance. there was a health care clinic and arkansas that keep over been put on. there were people there, we have videos on our side that had no legs and are unable to get health care. one woman was diagnosed with healthcare seven years ago and never able to be treated for it. it is because insurance companies do not want to carry them. we want to make sure the competitor keeps prices down. competition is integral to the free market functioning well. we would like to see this option as a competitor said that if you need insurance and insurance companies do not want to cover you, even if pre-existing conditions, if the company -- government does something about that, no insurance company -- we

know the insurance company will find a way to get out of something they do not want to do. host: there are different ways for paying for increasing those that would receive insurance. this is the headline, "two of the president obama senior health care adviser said wednesday that a proposed tax of high-cost insurance plans and a new initiative to control health care spending is among four pillars of health care legislation." guest: this really hits middle income people. that would not be my choice. i would prefer to go with the tax that maketaxes people making a certain amount per

year. are we going to tax our truck drivers or people that have been treated very well under the tax law? host: republican line. caller: the status of the government is fairly integral in that regard. it is not a foreign service -- it is not a foreign service officer. there are a thousand other guys like him. he is not the foreign service officer. host: why do you think it is important to make that distinction? caller: there are but the magnitude of expertise of of what he represents. he has been represented as a

foreign officer, which he is not. that is like saying that a heart surgeon is a pediatrician. my point to health care, in regards to -- congress has their own separate health care system, but they will totally remake a system which 80% of the american public is satisfied with so we can wag the dog to satisfy the tail. here is my point, congress will keep their own system, which they are satisfied with. would you buy a chevrolet from a salesman when you ask him what kind of car he drives and he says i drive a ford? that is what congress wants us to do. congress is driving thithe cadillac. if you really think the final bill is clinton have that, i am

going to sell you a bridge in brooklyn. if congress would live on the? i will be long dead and gone before congress will vote for something like that. trust me. guest: we will see what happens. i have a question for the caller. host: i am sorry. most of the time they are very insistent that members of the military be spoken about respectfully. i believe he deserves the same respect. i think there are betting -- better ways to conduct this. i think there are several things that happen said about this

health care bill, number one that congress would not be covered under it. host: new haven, connecticut. anthony, you are next. caller: happy thanksgiving. i was on your site and we are trying to call as many people as we can in connecticut to look at the public option and support it. we called the senator is mr. aetna. hoguest: understandably. caller: it is very disturbing because a lot of independents and republicans voted for him. if you watched the democratic

primary, he came in independent. we went for him, and he says he wants a filibuster with the republicans. 63% for the public option by a study at the university. can you comment on that? thank you very much. guest: as you know, joe lieberman has taken over $1 million from insurance industry interest. i think it is interesting that the members of the senate that said they will not vote for a public option, they will not allow a vote on the floor, have all taken significant money from the insurance interests. blanche, lincoln, and bill nelson have taken over half a million dollars. joe lieberman over 1 million.

host: you think has more to do with the political contributions then a more conservative ideological idf? dea? guest: none of them seem to have trouble with medicare. this is a single payer system. if you are seeing ben nelson fight for things like ending -- making sure that anti-tax exemption is not ended in this bill -- i wonder how much of that is because people in his state are demanding that and how much is related to his concerns to coming through for his donors? they all claim they're doing this out of a sense of brunn's -- responsibility.

their arguments do not really wash. host: tom on the democrats' line. now you're on. go ahead. caller: good morning. i describe myself as an e-jerk liberal -- as a knee-jerk liberal. i still find myself unable to read a lot of the republican blogs and so forth. i read huffington and talking points. host: tom, are you still there? i think we lost him unfortunately. we will move on to the independent line.

caller: happy thanksgiving. i have a couple of different talking points. one is imf disabled american veterans who has not worked for one year. i have been walking television, because that is all i can do. i cannot walk very well. yeah, i am being taken care of by our country, which is a great thing. what is going to happen if this bill does not pass? every american that has insurance, which has denied them coverage, which are all going to drop our insurance coverage and say now the government can figure out how to do right so we can all be covered in a different way. i believe if this does not pass and beneficial to americans i believe we will say fine, be another general motors company because you're not helping us anyway.

we have a huge rate in america of obesity and health issues, which are medical profession has not done anything about. instead we want to preemcram pi down our throats. the biggest problem in our world is everyone wants to think they're right. if we would just stop and realize everyone wants to be loved and hugged, we would be a better world. and guest: thank you for your service to our country. happy thanksgiving to you. i think there are many problems that this bill does not address, and but hopefully this was not just a start, we're made during -- we're opening up a major health care discussion. we really need to deal with allowing our business leaders to be competitive in a way they are not right now because they are

under help -- under crashing health care costs. -- under crushing health-care costs. there are tremendous problems, and for moral reasons and financial reasons we need to move forward on this. i think many of the issues you bring up our things we're going to have to discuss. host: it. we cannot get a vote on this, should he lose his job? -- if harry ried cannot get a vote on this, should he lose his job? guest: there is a great article, and i recommend all of your

readers to -- viewers to read this. harry reid can actually bring this to a majority vote. he does not have to allow for senators to hijacked health care. we're looking at tremendous cost disparity to taxpayers, to the government is a public option is not included. is harry reid strong enough to bring democracy to the senate and stand up for these people? host: if he does not do reconciliation, should he continue on as the majority leader? gues guest: i do not think you can be majority leader if you do not have a seat in the senate. she is struggling -- he struggling and it has said he will go to any link to put a public option in the bill. he has been e-mail link in building his list.

if harry reid is asking people to do something he is not willing to do for himself, i think that raises a question -- is he doing this on behalf of the insurance company? host: the republican line is next. caller: the first thing i would like to say is there has been a lot of information about this health care plan thrown out. t.r. reid was on and was talking about the socialists in europe. i did a little bit of research into the facts he threw out. one that got me right away was the french been responsible for the artificial knee, when actually it was pioneered and perfected by manchester,

england. there is a lot of and misinformation being thrown out. barack obama's said it best in his town hall meeting when he was asked will the government go on this plan? he said, you have to realize federal government is approximately 2 million people and we get a better rate. we put it out for bids and get a better rate. why not open it up to states? just as far as everyone has to be fully covered, do away with a pre-existing conditions and let the states get better rates, let the people be insured by the state in which they live in, including federal employees. guest: that was one of the planned early on and is very much favored by the insurance company, -- i have my master's

in business. one of the things that makes you able to keep costs down is the ability to negotiate for prices. we know that when medicaid task they were negotiating prices. americans pay 20% more for their prescription drug per capita than the no. 2 country on the list, which happens to be france. there is a problem if you do not have centralized ability to negotiate for prizes, and states do not have that. they would not enjoy the pre- market advantage that walmart does. while i understand wanting to say yes, you actually reduce the ability to keep costs down. host: charles fishermen will

join us tomorrow from 8:15 a.m. eastern time for an hour. democrats line. good morning. caller: happy thanksgiving to both of you. i am sorry you have to work this morning, but i appreciate you being there. i have been a lifelong democrat. i was very involved in the health-care battle of the 1990's. i was involved and implementing a town hall meetings back then and wisconsin, iowa, and illinois, so i do not take a backseat to you, but in the area of february 2008 i discontinue treating your blog -- reading your blog because of your extreme hatred of another democratic candidate, and that

was senator hillary clinton. i want you to be aware how much damage you did and how much damage that marcos did. guest: are you sure you're talking about my blog? caller: you were very hateful to her. you mentioned today that president obama was an anti-pork candidates -- anti-war canada. he was no such thing. you really cause of lot of people to lead the democratic party during the 2008 campaign. i am telling you now, i am sorry you are sick and have had three bouts of cancer, but i am going

to say this, you are going to be showing exactly what damage you caused our party the last primary season, and i will never forgive you for that. host: let's get a response. . .

guest: and a think that each side selectively saw the other side of the issue, but i do not think we were unfair to senator hillary clinton, and i do not believe the people who left the party to vote for john mccain -- who was very much and anti- choice, pro-war candidate reflect the same values or those of senator clinton anyway. host: new york city. caller: good morning, jane. listen, i'm going to call you what you are. you just came on "washington journal" this morning and you are a liar. president obama like the lady

previous mentioned, ran as an anti-war candidate. you are a liar. host: hold on. you are calling her a name. why are you saying that? caller: that is not a name. she just lies. the president did not run as an anti-war president and you should have corrected her, greta. guest: he did run as an anti-war iraq war candidate. he did call for escalation of troops in afghanistan, but the anti-war committee was polarized on behalf of senator obama, rightfully or wrongfully. and thing hillary clinton -- holding her vote against her. it was the deciding factor in people's support of him. or he generally believed in not

escalating -- clearly, that is open for question. but of the facts are the facts. host: unfortunately, romeo hung up. new hampshire, good morning. caller: thinks giving. . a suro-american i will tell you that the health care they have in washington will not work. -- as a suro-american. i have relatives in europe and one needed a surgery and she was 81 at the time. her doctor center to the surgeon and when she got there the surgeon said that they have to put her name on the list. she asked what is that? he says when your name comes off the list you get the surgery. he told her she would not die.

she waited almost five months before the surgery. at that time she was 81. that is what mr. obama wants for the old people here so that they can die faster. guest: uh -- people always come up with an example of what happens in some other country, but the fact is that medicare is one of the most popular federal programs of all time. i believe that 90% -- 70% rate its nine out of 10 or higher who are on a. one of the big attacks republicans have launched is saying that medicare would receive less money. republicans are trying to rile up senior citizens to be upset. they have partially succeeded because instead of realizing this is good for them and they

would like to share it, they are afraid of losing something. unless people want to argue that medicare is a bad system or that it is poorly run and people are not happy with it -- bringing up examples of how things have been in other countries -- that are subject to different situations, different regimes, amounts of funding is probably not comparable. comparing it to something that happens on medicare is rarely done. host: back to new york city. to the previous caller. caller: i am a liberal american. i look at what is happening now and we can use health care as a partial example. if it is passed, the republicans are not going to be able to mention healthcare ever again. ever again when the run for office. the democrats will own the

health care. that is what they are afraid of, i think. the republicans have been on the wrong side of medicare, and the the wrong side of the to rights, and on the wrong side of social security. if i were sharper eye could public name half a dozen other things that shine in history as democratic laws that we can now run on. we really frustrates me to see politics get to the point where lies overtake truths, and trees cannot even get the word out -- and truth cannot even get the word out. the same thing will be true for afghanistan. the lies will be overshot billiadowing the truth.

host: jane? guest: i think you are right that democrats did pass social security. they are responsible for medicare. that does not mean that passing any health-care bill, however, just for political advantage is the right thing to do. i am not saying the caller said that, but a lot of people have made that leap. we have waited for 60 years. let's do this right. passing a bill that will be dysfunctional, that only transfers trillions on to the balance sheets of the companies will not do the country or either party any favors. let's take the time to do this right. host: did morning, phyllis.

-- good morning, phyllis. caller: good morning, across. the lady who called about hillary clinton -- hillary clinton deserved what she got. her husband could have vetoed nafta. what is causing the problems is this being exported. at the war with bush who was a terrible precedent. and to the man who is in office now, mr. obama, i have in my hand a photograph of president obama at the age of nine years old with his adopted family. he received a fulbright awards, went to the occidental college -- everything paid by the fulbright and the only way that

you can pay for the scholarship is by being a foreign citizen. number two, if you want to get health care back in order tell congress to stop borrowing money from medicaid and social security. if we get our jobs back my bring troops home, the war is senseless -- guest: i agree on the war anyway. let's bring the troops home. i'm not sure what the business was about him being a foreign system. host: the white house announced yesterday that the president will go to copenhagen. but at the beginning of negotiations, not at the end. the real deal-making happens at the end. are you concerned the president is going then? guest: i probably have a bigger concern with the way congress is

choosing to address climate change. the bill wound up being a big giveaway to big coal. i have a strong concern that we are in a pattern here. we bailed out the banks, big coal, and it looks like we will bailout the insurance industry. it is not the rate to approach problems we have. it is the they're fiscally responsible, nor does it solve the problem. host: what about the democratic agenda do you like? what about the administration's agenda? guest: their hearts are in the right place and they're dealing with the system with inherent problems. the lobbying system pumps millions every day into trying to make conditions advantageous for the business and get

taxpayer dollars to increase their profit margins. that is difficult to fight against. i admire that they are tackling health care. but i question whether these companies all the want as a way to keep them from financing republicans in 2010 is the way to do that. host: west virginia, on the republican line. caller: happy thanksgiving. a few concerns. if this bill passes for health care, what side of the curve of will this put us on in economic terms? the downside or the upside? guest: what exactly? host: why don't you explain the laffler curve? caller: ok, it is a theoretical

curve where on the upside or you tax people it is beneficial and you collect more taxes for things, but on the downside you tax people so much that they look for loopholes and ways to not pay. you collect your revenues. if you pass health care and are taxing everybody who makes so much money and the curve of only addresses people who make a lot of money, how much revenue the do you feel you will collect? and -- i do not see this as beneficial to anybody. they will not be able to get the money. everything is projected. there are no real numbers for this. guest: there are real numbers.

that is what the cbo is. i think you are objecting to the part of the house health care bill that puts taxes on the wealthy to pay for a portion of this. it is not an enormous portion. the revenue comes from several places. it is deficit neutral. i do not believe we're talking about driving people to move overseas. host: it will add to the deficit in the short term, the health- care bills we're talking about. guest: i believe the senate bill, the latest score says it will actually subtract money from the deficit, but they achieve that by pushing off the benefits of the plan. many do not kick in until 2014. it is like an accounting sleight

of hand, not an honest -- it does not honestly cut down on the deficit. host: mich., don, on the line for democrats. caller: happy thanksgiving, ladies. the thing is about health care -- we need the 46 million people without insurance to go to washington and hold them all hostage. it might be only way to get them to do the right thing. i never thought in my wildest dreams that we would vote obama in. we have millions of unemployed. myself. this is sickening valdez allies twist. jane, you are speaking from truth. never give up.

-- this is sickening how they twist the truth. i want to thank you for fighting for the public option. guest: thank you and happy thanksgiving to you. best of luck to you. i just want to say one thing. on this day we actually do have republican friends. we worked with them very well last week on the fed bill getting passed through the house financial services committee in spite of everything. we want to continue working with them again. they -- th host: where else? guest: chairman ben bernanke's reconfirmation and his being questioned next week. he has not done a very good job. the balance sheet has expanded by over $2.20 trillion. we should audit him before he is

reconfirm. jim benning in the senate was the one member who did not vote for his confirmation -- that is jim bunning. jim demint, either. we hope that they will put a hold on this. i think that chris dodd as chairman of the banking committee would be hard-pressed not to call for this audit, or he would look like he is covering for the fed and the bank. host: jane hampsher, thank you for spending some of your thanksgiving with our viewers. up next, we will speak with craig shirley about his new book "rendezvous with destiny" and ask him about the future of the conservative movement today.

♪ >> it is on thanksgiving day on c-span. at 10:00 a.m. eastern, clinton is on hand to present the liberty medal to stephen spielberg. also, these people as part of a panel assessing the obama presidency. and from the jfk library and museum on terrorism and nuclear weapons. his part artist and actor on youth mentoring at 5:00 p.m. -- tha-- the hip hop artist.

>> american icons, three nights of original documentaries on the economy comes of the three branches of american government beginning tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. the supreme court reveals the building in exquisite detail for the eye of supreme court justices. friday, the white house inside america's most famous song. -- home. it shows the grand public places as low as the rarely-seen places. saturday, the capital with the history, art, and architecture. american icons, three memorable nights starting tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. get your own copy, a 3-disk dvd set. order online. "washington journal" continues.

host: craig shirley, let's start with the future of the conservative movement. news reports of the last couple of days about a battle within the republican party, some sort of purity test put to candidates for 2010. some of the 10 conservative principles out there are smaller government, smaller national debt, a smaller deficit by opposing the obama stimulus bill, health care by opposing government, opposing cap and trade, opposing car jack. the word "opposing," are you concerned that the conservative movement is trying to be defined by the opposition rather than defining itself? guest: these 10 points are

restatement of what has been the conservative and for the most part republican principles for the last 30 years. i take it as a good sign. one year ago you could not find a pulse inside the republican party. you would have to put it on resuscitator. now you have a vigorous debate inside the conservative movement over what it stands for. it is proof it is alive, vital and will mount a comeback. there has been a power vacuum on the right for the last eight years. we have had two big parties in america. under bush and others running the party they called it big government republicanism. you had the democrats ever since the new deal and the republicans, but the populist right that ronald reagan

represented -- there was nothing there. that is now reasserting itself within the conservative movement and eventually within the republican party. host: what factors do you see within the obama administration that make you think there is opportunity for republicans? guest: i think he missed the opportunity to redefine his party as the majority for a generation. if he has governed as he talked about with tax cuts for 95%, going after deficit spending -- if he went after cultural issues like affirmative action he could have repositioned the democratic party more to the middle. he surprised a lot of people by going so hard to the left. he has not only gone back to the democratic traditions of big government that go back to the

new deal and great society, but has also cast its moorings away from the working man and woman in america. the democratic party have represented them since the time of roosevelt. ronald reagan was the president of the labor union. he made great appeal to blue- collar voters. the democratic party historical league represented them. obama has reorganized the democratic party into the elitist party of america. the american people see a concentration of power between the governing elites in washington, monetary elites in austria, entertainment deletes in l.a. he is not only governing from

the left, but also on this capitalistic socialism, but it has also cut off the working man and woman in america. that should be very obvious to the powers in the republican party. populist. cuts across all populist host: are you saying that it is not obvious? guest: i don't think they understand it. newton gingrich does. many do not understand yet because they're too busy squabbling. -- newt gingrich's does understand it. host: what names do you see filling the void in the republican party? guest: congressman mike pence gets it. gov. sarah palin is talking to a lot of people about their frustration.

how they are becoming less and less connected to their own government. and radio talk-show hosts such as rush limbaugh, glenn back, and others -- glenn back, and others. host: some have said that the media and pundits are underestimating sarah palin. your book "rendezvous with destiny" is about how the media underestimated ronald reagan up until the end in 1980. do see a parallel between sarah perron and him? guest: there are some parallels and some obvious differences. ronald reagan had been on the national scene from the time of the 1940's as an actor, and in the 1970's as a governor and radio commentator and columnist

and lecturer. he had been around for a long, long time before being elected. sarah palin just burst on the scene last year. obviously, they are both underestimated by the elites. there is a great disconnect in 1980. between president carter and gov. reagan. after the debate in cleveland one week before the election, all the political reporters all said that jimmy carter won. the american people by virtue of the polling all said that ronald reagan had one. there has always been a disconnect between those in power and those who put them into power. you see it today was sarah palin. the more that she is attacked by

elites, the more popular she is with people. there was the famous debate in 1980, one between president carter and gov. reagan which happened one week before the election. to this they the most watched presidential debate in history. host: we have one of the most famous moments from that debate. >and we will get to it in just a minute. it is october 1980 with jimmy carter. my apologies that it was not ready to go. let's keep talking about your book. you spoke to carter before this book. guest: it was fascinating.

i was surprised to greed it to an interview. i sent him a letter and expected a perfunctory no. within a matter of days and got a call from his office asking if i would like to meet the president. i said i would love to. i thought about arrangements to fly to georgia. and they said no, 6:00 a.m. tomorrow morning by phone. i e-mailed a series of questions to his secretary. at my office the next morning, very early -- impressed me that he got up that early -- we went through and ended up talking for about 45 minutes. he was very frank about 1976 about his appeal. he described himself as an odd duck because he was conservative on some issues, liberal on others. conservative about a middle-

class tax cut, cleaning up corruption, but liberal on human rights. that was an odd appeal in 1976. it was clear that even 30 years later your member that ted kennedy challenged jimmy carter in the primaries. 30 years later it was clear none of the animosity had washed away. there was still resentment from carter about senator kennedy challenging him. the one thing he did know was when kennedy challenged carter in the primaries it allowed the culturally conservative voters, especially catholics, to think twice about supporting the president's. indeed, they in the fall election voted for ronald reagan. but he thinks because kennedy's

challenge allowed them to be pulled away that it opened up the opportunity for reagan to move in after kennedy had conceded in august 1980. he is probably right about that. host: let's go to that moment in 1980 during the october debate. >> tuesday is election day. next tuesday all of you will go to the polls and stand there in the polling place to make a decision. i think when you make that decision and might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? is it easier for you to go and buy things in the store than it was four years ago? is there more or less unemployment in the country then there was four years ago? is america as respected throughout the world as it was?

if you answer all those questions yes, why then i think your choice is obvious. if you do not agree, if you do not think this course we have been on for the last four years is what you like to see us fall the next four, then i can suggest another choice. guest: i'm glad you showed that. everyone goes back to the cleveland debate. they inevitably go back to his quip "there you go again" which was a funny but laugh line at the time. it was the first presidential debate with a live audience. what closed the sale with reagan is when he looked into the camera and asked "are you better off than you were four years ago?" do not forget that at the time

he was behind in the polls, but ahead in the electoral college. he ended up having to debate carter to make his case. for the previous month's his campaign had been hammered. he had fallen behind in the polls. to get back in he had to debate. host: what did president carter tell you about that moment? guest: he was always ready to go against reagan. his aides were divided. some bought into the idea that ronald reagan was nothing without his 3x5 cards and that carter had a good record as a debater. but carter went back and forth. in his diaries he thought that

reagan was a tough debater, and other times he said publicly he thought he would get the best of his opponent. there was a great disagreement inside his campaign. when i interviewed his political pollster, he was dead set against carter debating ron reagan, not because he did not think that carter would not win, but because they have momentum on their side. by agreeing to a debate it would freeze the campaign for a certain number of days and the rest of the campaign would be defined by who won the debate instead of whether or not ronald reagan was up to the task. host: tenn., on the republican line. caller: good morning. here is what i have to say -- i think the republicans are cowards. they will not fight.

why won't they fight what obviously is going on in this country? when you have a man who is going to prosecute navy seals, many eric holder, the attorney general of the united states averawhich i even hate to say -e will prosecute three navy seals because allegedly, supposedly, a terrorist was captured. he happened to get beaten up during the course of his capture. the republican party and the representatives of its and their so-called conservatives are merely cowards. they've will not fight. they will not stand up against

the left. i will give the left this much credit -- at least they will fight for what they believe in. guest: um, i understand the caller's frustration which i sometimes feel myself. it does not seem like they are speaking with one clear voice right now. the problem is, it is a food fight right now. it is like a the omegas versus the deltas and who will have primacy over the campus. they cannot effectively take on president obama and the democrats. they always do get it together. nature, abhors a vacuum -- nature of pores of vacuabhors a.

at some point there will get their act together and start not only to make their case, but the case effectively against democrats. host: wyoming, good morning. caller: happy thanksgiving. give me some time. conservatives [unintelligible] death for dignity, and of the voted for the citizens, voted twice for that, the conservative government wanted to go after the doctors. when states want medical marijuana laws approved, the conservatives wanted to go after the distributors or doctors. then you had terry shivo.

you call yourself a pro-life and yet you are for the death penalty , deathwars. when a baby is born you want the mother to go to work. or else she is a welfare mother. -- and get you are for the death penalty, and for wars. guest: i agree that the republican party should be ideologically consistent. i'm speaking for myself. i think it is intellectually dishonest for the republican party to tell the people to overturn roe v wade, but on the other hand we want to federalize marriage. of virtually all these behavioral issues in the tradition of what founders

envisioned and ronald reagan articulated -- most of not all of these behavioral issues concerning marriage, divorce, child-ring, should be decided by the state's -- child rearing, should be decided by the states. the toothpaste got out of the tube with terry, faith-based initiatives, and other things offered to the social right to nationalize instead of leaving them where they belong, on the local level. this is a battle to decide once and for all with a social right the stands for. host: the next phone call comes from syracuse, new york.

caller: ia uaw member. at the beginning of the segment id said that craig shirley was against carcheck. i doubt that he has ever read the labor act. it never eliminated the secret ballot. section nine government's secret ballot elections. it never deleted language. it added a new paragraph. guest: first of all, ralph, i am formally from syracuse myself. go orange. i do not think that the introduction did say anything about the car check because i believe a secret ballot is secret. whether in political campaigns

or union elections. host: here is a message from twitter. guest: i think gingrich is one of the most important thinkers, leaders in the republican party today, the conservative movement. he gets it, understands what the fight is about -- there are others who are doing a good job, making the case. gingrich is somebody that the movement and republican party need a lot right now. host: san diego, on the republican line. caller: when sarah palin was

proposed as vice-president -- and i am a stop to republican -- i felt like we had given up and were looking for the one bang to make a difference. on your books title "rendezvous with destiny" -- how did that come about? guest: great question. in 1936 there was a young radio broadcaster at who station in des moines, iowa. as you might remember, fdr famously said, to some generations much is given, and from others much is expected. the young radio broadcaster heard the dam.

the broadcaster was dutch reagan. the history of this title goes back further. there was a poem written in 1918 by an american who have volunteered to join the french foreign legion in world war i. he wrote a poem called "i have a rendezvous with death" which was a romantic poem and unfortunately was true as he was killed in the battle of the psalm. the poem was published posthumously. president kennedy loved it so much that is what memorized it to repeated to him often. one fellow around fdr was familiar with the pond. he took "rendezvous with the death" and turned it into a "

rendezvous with destiny" for his speech at the democratic convention. ronald reagan heard it and always used it in his important speeches. the one with goldwater in 1964, several important speeches in the 1970's. he used it when he announced he would run for president in november 1979. then again in july 1980 when he accepted the republican nomination for president. host: who did you talk to for this book? guest: you mean who did i not talk to? president carter, vice president mondale, vice president dick cheney, jim baker, the former president george h. w. bush, just the bush, david broder, tom brokaw, sears, peter and deferred -- all principal players still with us.

from the reagan campaign, the carter white house, the kennedy campaign. i interviewed john anderson and his running mate, the former governor. i tried to talk to as many as possible and gather as much oral history as possible. host: mrs. reagan? guest: no, she has retired from interviews. i will forever be grateful to her that -- the 1985 files are sealed at the library because they have not been culminated yet. there are millions associated with his life there. but she told the library to open them exclusively for me to go through. i had exclusive rights to go through the 1980 campaign document. host: what did you learn from

the documents but that surprised you? guest: most of it was pretty straightforward. the one thing which was interesting, all of his inner circle dick allen, and meese, and others -- they were modest men. there were very focused on their conservative philosophy. you did not have campaigns, at least with these men -- it was not about the celebrity consultants. it was very focused on policy and winning the campaign. making sure that reagan was always ready and prepared. host: atlanta and, on the democrats' line. caller: happy thanksgiving to

both of you guys. mr. craig shirley, what i hear is the conservative fascination with ronald reagan. that is fine if you want to hang on to that. in a 43-year-old african- american male. president reagan is now gone and not coming back to lead your party. you need to join the new millennium and find some real leadership and ideas in today's political world. host: do you agree? guest: i understand, but it is not so much about the man, but ronald reagan's principles. to say to give up on ronald reagan is like saying to give up on thomas jefferson. he articulated a former populism that was anti-growth. the constitution is a document

of-governance -- negative governance. -- he articulated of form of populism that was anti- government. the republican party signed on to the idea also that government could solve all these problems. from the 1930's until the late 1970's both parties approached of problems of america through the prism of government. ronald reagan came along to restate principles that have been lost from the time of the founders, that power should reside with people, not with the governing elites. the power. flow -- the power should follow up to the people and that we should challenge the status quo. he restated those lost principles.

that is what conservatism is about to do. those principles that put power and trust and the american people. when ronald reagan ran he said not to trust him, but to trust yourself. host: atlantic, good morning. caller: i agree with ronald reagan in that regard, but in a different way than he might think. first of all, everyone gets trapped in language. when you approached the republican philosophy you immediately become trapped in language. host: what do you mean by that? caller: talking points. they do not address real human issues. they tracked a real human issues in language. what everybody has to look at about america today is that you there on the left or right

nobody is addressing the real street-level problems that will take our country down. guest: i agree. the party should not be about talking points, but more about an intellectual discipline and organized around the philosophy of freedom. every problem should be approached from the proposed question concerning legislation -- does it enhance or limit freedom? talking points inevitably affected by celebrity consultants are usually not about making an intellectual case. it is usually about trying to knock down the other guys' idea. my opinion and that of reagan is

that the populist conservatism that put its trust in the individual was very attractive. we had it to go out and tell the american people why. host: mich., on the republican line. caller: the conservative movement sees eye to eye with everything i had in the engineering rooms that i worked in. we had a philosophy of the keep it simple, stupid in designing products. another philosophy we had was a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. it seems like mr. obama wants to go after the two in the bush with a pie in the sky dreams of bring energy and everything.

guest: if i understand, the caller says that you should be satisfied with where you are and i would agree. but also, this country is unique in that it has always been future-oriented. the democratic party was always that party from the time of fdr and kennedy up until 1976 when jimmy carter was elected. carter immediately embraced an agenda showing the comparison between himself and president obama -- he talked about scarcity, sacrifice. american people do not want to hear that. they had always heard about the manifest destiny, the opening of

of the west. is a free country with limitless opportunity. ronald reagan seized the opportunity. he said that if carter will be the candidate of the past, then i'll be the candidate of the future. he projects optimism and opportunity for all americans. that is the other problem president obama is creating. with his health care proposal and others coming from this administration, they are talking about scarcity and limitation. young americans do not want to hear that they do not have a future. there is a great opportunity to seize upon that. host: larry in michigan on the democrats' line. caller: i have been listening to mr. craig shirley. this is america. he has the right to sell a but.

-- sold a book. i was reading a book last year with the 19th century english political pundit and someone in your audience asked him what his definition of a politician was. the authors said my definition of a politician is someone who sees like at the end of the tunnel and orders a more tunnel. guest: that is a great definition. one author said the only way to look at a politician is down. historic way, we have had a healthy low regard for politicians. -- historically. people have always understood that the term public servant meant something.

elected officials work for the american people. not the other way around. it makes the country unique. host: myrtle beach, south carolina. caller: i wanted to say i really believe ronald reagan was very overrated as a president for the middle-class people. i think the republicans are extremely despicable the way they use ignorance and lack of knowledge of issues like health care. they flat out lied. i think that is awful. -- they flat out lie. things like health care -- if people only knew this would not be socialized medicine, but they use these words and upset everyone. guest: as far as reagan and the middle-class, do she or her

children sleep better at night without soviet missiles pointed at their heads? he destroyed the soviet union. there are not tens of thousands of missiles pointed at the u.s. from the soviet union because of ronald reagan. that itself should qualify him as a. presidents i don't think he is overrated at all. do not take my word for it. take the word of two liberal historians. -- that is so should qualify him as a great president -- the fact that soviet missiles are not pointed at us. look at a couple others who are also rank as great presidents. the criteria is that, get these men, great liberators -- the answer obviously in the case of all four is a yes. that, by the senate of liberal historians -- they rank him as a great president.

host: a couple more phone calls. the republican line. guest: happy thanksgiving. caller:yo you too. i want to tell you why there are some like me who are really fascinated with sarah palin. she is down to earth. she does not lie. i would also like to inform the democrats that they were in power for 40-50 years before 1994 when the republicans overtrick congress. they cannot blame everything on the republican party. host: what advice would you give to sarah palin? guest: keep doing what she is doing, round out her appeal with her views on different topics.

maybe do a weekly column to expand her horizons on various issues. you want to get beyond being just a personality. get into specific issues. great politicians had signature issues. she might -- there is a signature issue out there she could associate with and identify herself with. host: you just referred to her as governor sarah palin -- more often people refer to her as just sarah palin me know the you think she needs to be called governor? was it intentional? guest: no, but i'm old- fashioned. i think they fought for the

title, they earned it. newt gingrich should be speaker gingrich and obama should be president obama. one way to lower the animosity is to have a more civilized debate. people have feelings. is should the governor sarah palin, president obama. host: scott, on the democrats' line is our last call here. caller: happy holidays. i would just make it two points rather than three because we are running short on time. guns, conservatives want to run on that -- you are hypocrites. you tell us to support the laws that we have, yet we saw dick cheney a few years ago out of doing an illegal act and he shot someone in the face. it was a crime to hunt without

a license so he shot one while committing a crime. we let him get away with it. most people who do not know the laws are prosecuted. ignorance is no excuse. guest: i am familiar with the incident. i'm sure that the guy he shot in the face has his own opinion about the incident as well. the nra as a kind of my firm, so you should know that i am in favor of the second amendment and private ownership of guns. i did not think that republicans or conservatives are hypocrites on the issue. everything that has ever come from the nra is that the law is the law and should be enforced and prosecuted, regardless of political position or affiliation or economic status. host: "rendezvous with destiny" host: "rendezvous with destiny" is the new book.