elections. later, more news and politics with national public radio. from the nation's capital, this is "washington journal." . . host: today is tuesday, january 12. we begin with a discussion regarding underwater mortgages, according to an article in "the new york times" magazine section

60% of properties in nevada are under water. we want to talk about that and get your thoughts on whether homeowners should be able to walk away from those underwater mortgages. you can also send us messages by e-mail. twitter messages also at this address. you can also send us messages on the our facebook page. let's look at what was written this past weekend on sunday in the new york times magazine. just walk away -- why should underwater homeowners it being any different from banks?

the rector says that the president and ceo of the mortgage bankers association recently told the wall street journal that homeowners who default on their mortgages should think about the message they will send to their family, other kids and france. -- and friends.

we will read more from that article. we want to find out what you think about this issue. the first call comes from strasbourg, pa. on the line for democrats. -- stroudsburg. caller: they not billable to walk away, but should be given help. these people bought these sums because they wanted a good life for them and their families. -- they should not be able to walk away. with the situation now in the u.s. i think they should be able

to get some help. we helped everyone else -- i hate to keep saying that, but we did. take a good look at the homeowners. they tried to make their lives better. as americans we should help them not. host: ruth, what is your mortgage situation? mind is fine. i had a house before this one. my husband and i were very thrifty. i think homeowners where i am are worried about the taxes. it is killing us. the taxes will probably take our homes are now in situation. host: let's go to georgia on the line for independents. caller: good morning. i think the homeowners should not walk away.

the bankers should work with the homeowners to re-fight their loans. if all we let all the american people who are under water in their homes -- what will happen? we will have such a surplus of the market. here in georgia we have houses sitting everywhere that people cannot afford to buy because the doors have any money. we have to help the american people. we are losing jobs. the bankers have to let go of the purse strings on this money and help people. the next fall we will have is the commercial market. it is all over the internet. we need to get ourselves under control. not all these people intentionally went to these sums to default. there is no way -- people have an american dream and want to own a home.

that is what america is all about. i. in a double wide home that is fortunately paid for. it is older. i am so proud that i have it. but for all these people they must have help. the bakers have got to help them. -- the bankers have got to help them. we will have a homeless society of renters. i was watching a documentary with the intimate or for the mac that there will be a rent-to-own program. host: the next caller is calling from carlsbad, california . caller: my heart agrees with the previous caller, but my head does not. two parties are concerned, the

party giving you the money and the party by in the home and taking the money. it is an agreement on both sides. the bank makes the loan on the basis of the appraisal. therefore, they have a responsibility as much as the person making the loan has as to the value of that mortgage. and i think that our financial system in general is in a great deal of difficulty. money is a strange thing. host: patricia, ow are things in carlsbad? our most of your neighbors able to keep up or has anyone walked away? caller: no, i don't. we're fairly fortunate, at least those i know. not having this problem. i do know in certain areas, in the farming areas, the bay area, that there are whole towns and desperate need of assistance.

my heart goes out to the people who bought the home and good faith and are now losing it. host: if there is anyone out there watching or listening who has walked away from a mortgage because your house is under water, please give us a call and let us know about your situation. the article in the magazine section of the newly times" says the average american as it sprung from some franklinesque methodology is supposed to honor his debts. president obama has urged that

homeowners follow the responsible course. hud-approved housing counselors are supposed to cover of people against foreclosure. glen falls, new york on the line for democrats. caller: hi, i just went to point out there is one other consideration i have run into in my situation. host: what is your situation? caller: i got laid off six months ago and i have a mortgage. i have had this house for 10 years and a voice my payments, but the unemployment now does

not give me enough to make any payments, so have to make a decision on what it not to pay. so, working with my mortgage lender, if i make a payment it resets whole process back to zero, like now in current so that before they will start to help you in any way -- i have a 15-year mortgage and i would like them to make it a 30 or 40- year mortgage so i could work with them. host: how cooperative was your lender and reworking your mortgage payment? caller: not at all so far. i have to wait until i default. they will not look at it until you screw up. it is killing me. i have always paid my bills. i am not upside down. my house is obviously for sale. i am just strap here.

host: given your situation, have you considered walking away from your house? caller: no, i agree with that lady -- my morals -- i agree with her and feel awful that economic my payments, but am up against it. host: in detroit, a bill on the line for independents. caller: it is a strange feeling now. i have been off since a november 9, 2008. i think it is unfair, all the mess these republicans have created with a lack of oversight. now i have been able -- honest to god, to get food stamps. my unemployment has been extended. i have the able to save my home. it is just unfair, all of these cry babies.

everybody, the republicans have created an atmosphere where people are talking about being scared and all this kind of stuff. i just recently got part-time unemployment and am taking care of my responsibilities. i know that times are tough. when i look at wall street in these people getting million- dollar bonuses for one year -- that is almost as much as i make in a lifetime. host: more from the article, they write that there are two reasons why so-called strategic defaults have been considered antisocial and perhaps amoral.

host: new haven, conn. caller: i tend to agree. families need to look at their particular financial situation just like a business would. if it turns out that the home will put them under water in the long haul they should definitely get out of it. it is irresponsible for government to be telling banks and staff to shift their bad assets off their balance sheets -- and a homeowner does not have the government to come in and by the bad side of your mortgage. you start to wonder if there will do that with principal reductions. people, definitely -- get out of that house.

you have taxes, insurance, repairs. not everybody should be and house. let's face it -- you don't even on the house. the bank owns a good chunk of the house. so, get out of the house, started renting, save a lot of money. that's what everyone should be doing. one other thing about the fannie/freddie bailout going on. they had that christmas eve extension on the fannie/freddie -- how much money they could buy from the banks and they just raised the capital over $400 billion on christmas eve. we have to let house's job, let the market settled, then everyone will come in to buy and will correct themselves and the banks will go out of business. host: baltimore, on the line for democrats. caller: hello? yes, the article you read some

like it was specifically geared toward americans who can afford to pay their mortgage even if. their home is under if now not their fault, the individual american if their house is under water. it is the way the system is run. all lot of people want to blame minorities and people they feel like could not afford these houses as the reason we got into this mess. no, the reason is there were praising those homes of false values. i have been in bet the mortgage and the car business. when they are pushing those loans they don't care what you can afford. it was not my preference to bail out wall street, but when this president took office we had to save the economy first. for people to walk away from mortgage they can afford to pay it is almost like a conspiracy where businesses and people

just want this administration to fail. you of americans who will pay the mortgage the matter what. for people who cannot afford it that is one thing, but for people who cannot they need to suck it up so we can get this country moving forward. host: with your experience and the mortgage business if a friend or relative were to come to you saying they're thinking about this, what kind of advice would you give? caller: there are services available. you can find out what you qualify for. no one to allow themselves to be talked into anything they cannot afford. but you have the professionals who are supposed to tell you that, but they will give you more because they make more. they -- the more they get you to spend, the more it they make. that has been in the wake of sales in this country for a long time and it needs to stop. host: kansas city, and dolores

online for independents. caller: i saw when i was trying to rescue people from foreclosure and get them sold before the banks took back the houses. there was a consortium of bankers sitting there waiting for these to drop with all the equity and the banks did not want to sell the properties have back of the clinic could have. they liberally chose to let these sounds go into foreclosure because there are third-party firms that make a lot of money -- they deliberately chose -- to mitigate the foreclosures, to process on the backside of these banks. then there are investment consortiums of bankers who sit there and wait for these packages of home loans to drop down. they buy them at a big percentage off, then turn around and sell them, and they make

money. the reason we have this foreclosure crisis is because the bankers brought it on themselves. i have seen it several banks turned down a deal on a home for closure that i had sold because they would have lost $30,000. they would ago six months later and lose $60,000. host: are you saying there are those within the banking and housing industry who encourage homeowners to walk away from underwater mortgages? caller: what i saw in 2000-2004 is the banks are making very poor decisions as to whether or not to sell a foreclosure property for less than what was owed on it, that they should have been liquidating them and getting their cash at that point, but the elite of the banking it stood to make more money by letting it go into foreclosure.

the third-party firms were making money, is that they owned, and then the investment consortium would pick them up. i also saw banks literally drawing people into foreclosure because they're given incorrect figures and tell the car were that they could reinstate their loan for x dollars, then get every last cent from the barr work, and then not to reinstate a the loan. i saw lot of malfeasance on the part of banks. one other thing -- doubling the people are putting on borrowers for borrowing on these zero down-mortgages is false. that was a very small percentage of the market. most people did not borrowed too much. they went in to typical, fixed mortgages. it is completely false to keep blaming the borrowers for over- borrowing.

host: alexandria, va., go ahead. caller: the word underwater is interesting to me. also, i think that people should get in touch with max and take back the land. this is just another conspiracy connected to the red, white, blue, and gold flag -- that of the maritime military the-- which is why they use the word "underwater." they can take the loans and give them to china. host: thanks for the call. we'll take a break from a trip discussion about underwater mortgages and whether homeowners should walk away to walkin with just 10 of the detroit free

press and talk about this year's detroit auto show and jobs and some very special visitors at the show this week -- to speak with justin there. guest: good morning. host: there was a 20-member delegation who came? guest: yes, with house speaker nancy pelosi and a couple of other house leaders, several members of michigan and ohio delegations -- they toward the altar show for about seven hours from top to bottom and had discussions with auto industry officials about the future of the industry. speaker nancy pelosi said the purpose was to kick the tires of the investment the congress has made in the industry. congress has set aside $25 billion for advanced technology loans.

it is providing credits for things like renewable fuels. a lot of that technology is coming on line and is on display at the show this year. host: an item we got from the website, speaker nancy pelosi says this is about who we are as a country and how we grow our economy. she says after talking with michigan officials that would we see today is a renaissance. does everyone at the of a show feel like there is a renaissance coming up? guest: it is the first of the show in many a year or the possibilities seem to outweigh the problems. the i last n auto industry was a tremendous upset of the old order, where both gm and chrysler went bankrupt and slashed tens of thousands of jobs and closed a lot of plants. sale helps to the lowest level since the early 1980's. coming out of that there is

both some restrained optimism about the economy returning a little, but also a feeling like a lot of the old burden's coming down the detroit carmakers have been dealt with and reckoned with in away the has never happened before. talking to executives they said we don't have to worry so much about these massive debts and these massive benefits that we accumulated over the years. we can now concentrate on trying to build vehicles that customers want and not have these destructions. it was an interesting dynamic. one of the reasons we did not have these distractions. one of the reasons the policy came was to highlight an unusually good news report for detroit and for the rest of the u.s. economy. host: another item written by mark smith, the free press editor, says are the lawmakers at the altar shall i distraction? guest: it is an interesting media strategy. the auto show it tends to spread

itself over a few days. yesterday because it had been changed in the schedule most of the presidents for the bears are makers coincided with that of speaker nancy pelosi and lawmakers said there was a bit of competition for attention from the various media outlets -- many of us were on our feet for about 12 hours. if lawmakers have the weather would like more. more let the political side take some attention, and then have some for themselves for their products. if it happens next year, as nancy pelosi promised, you'll probably see a different schedule. host: in one of the articles, this says a low profile of this year, but chrysler says its day is coming. nancy pelosi is standing next to

the chairman of chrysler. is there a particular relationship between the lawmakers and chrysler? why did the focus on chrysler? guest: chrysler is a unique case. and did not bring any real new production vehicles to the show. is still probably the detroit auto maker with the most questionable feature at the moment. sergio, the head of fiat is trying to combine the two and restock a depleted pantry of new models chrysler needs to compete. it is an open question as to how well they can deal with the future. he has been making the statements of the past few weeks that they have things under control and chrysler will bounce back. given the amount of money the u.s. government and canadian government and politicians have put into making chrysler

succeed, it will be closely watched in the future. host: and the headlines also, members of congress and try hybrid vehicles. what was that like? were they driving around the arena? guest: there are couple of places where during that pressed these people can try out the hybrid and other vehicles. -- the electric vehicles. host: the house members are coming back to the hill today to start all types of legislative work. is there anything we should look for on capitol hill as a result of this 20-member delegation to detroit this week? guest: right now we are in a lull after the storm. last year after the crisis there were several different efforts underway to try to help the industry with loans, new grants.

there are a couple of programs still underway in congress to provide more aid for technology development. those still might come through. crinkly, the auto industry is looking at many of the same things the rest of the country is as to what is going on in congress as with healthcare and green energy bills. one lawmaker opposes some part of the healthcare bill and is in favor of others -- that person said i'm not talking about that today with the speaker. this is about the vehicles today. tomorrow we will work on health care. host: president obama's former automobile czar rattner was also at the show yesterday. guest: he was there not as a participant but as a visitor. he is a former reporter for "the new york times" and has returned to the skills to work on a book

about the auto industry. he was there for that. host: justin of the detroit free press -- you can read his blogs and www.freep.com. we will continue our discussion about mortgages under water and whether homeowners should walk away from them. from this article, the other reason they write for people walking away is that default supposedly debases the character of borrowers. when banks once held on to mortgages for 30 years they occupied a moral high ground. these days of lenders typically among the mortgages within days or minutes. the message is that enduring

relationships count for less than the value put on assets for sale. they go on to write to think of private equity firms that close factories that decide that a company is worth more dead than alive. host: north wilkesboro, north

carolina. caller: it is a vicious day out there. greed has control of everything. it has made it impossible for all lot of people to pay their loans and then the bottom falls out. they take them back and then jacked up prices again. host: what is your situation like? caller: i am retired on a fixed income and in government housing. no, i'm not in danger of foreclosure, but i see what is going on around me. host: line for independents. caller: may i make two comments

after i state the case with my wife and i? the mortgage companies get an incentive to work with the homeowner, i believe. to us what happened is we sent in the payment, they seriously lose the payment and come back with a house in foreclosure. it is countrywide. now they are doing another workout with us. another incentive. i don't know what the government is doing as far as pain these mortgage companies, but if the justice department would get involved with the smallest the-- in other words the cannot just look at the country and say we have so many problems going on so we will deal with the biggest ones -- they to get involved with the smallest problems. host: gary, are you saying that the justice department should go in and prosecute these people? caller: exactly, you need to

stop some of that. with prosecution people tend to stop doing what they are doing. these folks know that the crime and to begin at the justice department want stepped in. , if the crime is small enough -- they think it is, they start prosecuting some of these folks, not just the top-level people, but even the lowest level host: thanks for your call. we will take a look at some other items in the news as we continue our discussion regarding underwater mortgages. the lead story here in "the wall street journal." banks brace for the bailout be all the white house seeks to recoup the cost of tarp. the white house hopes the fee will suit the public's anger at financial firms.

other articles of a similar nature like this one -- the front page here, obama said it to target banks with new fees. the proposal comes as the administration faces increasing pressure in congress to take punitive action against banks. the white house is trying to contain an error in a week in which banks will begin announcing billions of dollars in new bonuses. one more, the lead here, obama weighing a tax on new banks to trim deficit. this reporter writes that the general idea is to impose a levy to help reduce the budget deficit now at a level not seen since world war ii would also discourage the kind of excessive risk-taking among institutions that led to the near collapse of

wall street. back to the phones, and gallup, new mexico -- i'm sorry, rocky mountain, md. on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. this is actually in missouri. not at all. i can see why people would want to walk away from these, the reason being -- i was in the industry myself, but on that escrow/real-estate/law side of it for nearly 13 years. i saw what was happening. it began reopening up in

2000/2001. it became rampant as mortgage brokers would sit at the table telling people -- this is the got honest truth -- if you go to sell your home, this appraisal we give you a little higher to get you more equity out of the house, but if you go to sell it will sell under the value of what this appraisal states. that became so much a part of the norm. i became livid because i could not say anything as a third- party interest. i left the business in 2007 -- thank god, ahead of the curve. host: so, if home buyers were given this kind of the information, pamela, do you think it is moral for them to walk away from their mortgages? caller: it was immoral for them to be put in a position by the

"professional" guiding them throughout their long experience. it is immoral that the fed reserve was allowing these loans to happen. it was immoral through the entire experience. so, i don't feel like it is immoral for these people who were put into sometimes 2 or 3x with they could actually afford. no, i honestly don't feel it is wrong for them. host: this morning the lead item, in crisis the fed made a record profit. the reporter writes that the fed will return about $45 billion to the u.s. treasury according to calculations by the paper based on public documents. it reflects the highest earnings in the 96-year history of the central bank. unlike most government agencies the fed funds itself from its own operations and return to its profits to the treasury.

west palm beach, fla., mary on the line for independents. caller: yes, i definitely think people should look away from underwater mortgages and i don't think it is a question of morality. corporations walk away from the debt all the time and keep their assets and move on. they continue to pay big bonuses. why should individuals be any different? they should be able to get out of really bad deals. it is kind of like in the early 20th century when workers have very few rights in this country. unfortunately, the governor always sided with the corporations as they continue to

do. it was not until workers started to go on strike together and form unions that the government really began to pay attention to their needs. and started to pass laws which made it illegal to let workers work in unsafe conditions. so, i think it is kind of like that. also, maybe people should start canceling their health insurance. maybe if people start to do that en masse, the insurance companies will wake up and start being more amenable to negotiate with people. host: more on "the new york times" article -- the contract explicitly details of the penalty for nonpayment which is a surrender of the property.

gallup, new mexico, dennis. on the line for republicans. caller: my first point -- i think the banks and mortgage companies and individuals are largely responsible. i don't have any question about either one of those. i think they should be held responsible. just like any debt situation, if someone is realistically going to have a shot at paying off the mortgage, then they don't need to walk away from it. if they don't have a realistic option, then they should walk. the biggest culprit which is not even mentioned it is the

government. it is interesting that when fannie mae and freddie mac got started there were supposed to be a government-subsidized separate entity, and now they're complete owned by the government. after being on for only a year they have to extend the credit and the dead of the night in the shadow of the health care vote. there is a reason it went down that way. right now depending on the numbers you listen to between 40-60% of all mortgages are underwritten by the u.s. government. host: in a few minutes we will talk about the congressional agenda with a round table consisting of david lightman of the mcclatchy newspapers and drew armstrong with cq. on the front page of roll call this morning, and democrats to shift its strategy. they should plan to get out from under the weight of their

unfinished work on health care and come up with senate election year agenda to help revive their flagging political fortunes. we'll talk about that in a moment. julie on the line for democrats. caller: i don't know a lot about finance, but i can say i have a property that about five years ago, and i got seriously ill and started a job at the same time and was out of job for about seven or eight months. and i -- sorry, i'm getting confused. i was out of work and having a hard time meeting my bills. so-called wells fargo who holds my mortgage. this was right around the time of the elections. they said yes, they had a plan, to write a letter of hardship and submit my report. i did that. they , not to make payments

during the process. their help to meet was to give me a 40-year mortgage at the same interest rate, then, when i said i needed at a lower monthly payment they said i could not finance because i had participated in this program. also, i had to sign up for bi- weekly payments for them or would be delinquent on my loan if i did not. host: we will leave it there. we're going to be talking about the congressional agenda coming up in just a few minutes with david lightman and drew armstrong. first and news update from c- span radio. >> president obama and the first lady traveled to delaware this morning to attend funeral services for the mother of vice

president joe biden. later in the day after returning to the white house he will meet with members of the ladies professional golf association, and then with robert gates. secretary of state hillary clinton is meeting with her japanese counterpart in hawaii on her first stop, discussing the future of the u.s. marine air field and japan and a security alliance. also delivering a speech today on ways to improve regional security and trade in the asian pacific region. russia's foreign minister speaking earlier said moscow hopes to restart arms control talks with the u.s. later this month. the arms agreement reached in 1991 and expired in december. both sides of what the new one and it would further reduce its nuclear arsenals. >> minority leader mitch mcconnell and other senate republicans are just back from a congressional delegation trip to

afghanistan. there will speak to reporters right after "washington journal .' later, a forum on reallocating the broadband spectrum for public safety communications. a number of firefighter, sheriff, and police groups are meeting in washington to discuss the topic. >> did you know that the number one free in his app for your iphone or itouch is c-span radio? there is also a tab with links to all our podcast. it is all free and available from the app store. host: will be talking for the next 45 minutes about the 2010 congressional agenda. first off, drew armstrong of

congressional quarterly -- you have a headline here. the final version is likely to include a modified version of the senate's tax on high-cost insurance plans that union groups would like to kill. it may also reflect the house as preference for boosting taxes on the wealthy. tell us about the struggle that will happen when both the house and senate get back on. health care on guest: we have a situation where the house and senate raised hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue. the house relies exclusively on taxing wealthy americans. many liberal democrats prefer that. in the senate the biggest raiser is a tax on the highest cost, essentially the cadillac plans. it is pushed by economists,

health care and some wonks of the white house. it would levy a tax on insurance companies that offer very high cost plans. unions hate this because many of the members have this, especially those who have a worked to -- the work in dangerous professions or have sacrificed other pay court over the years. they are turned to find a compromise on dealing with these two revenue proposals. at the end result is probably a little of each. the tax on high-cost plans could be changed a little not having as many. i think it will borrow some of the money from taxing some of the richest americans. host: david lightman on friday you read that congress is working down under the pressures

of a number of rapidly changing political dynamics. guest: i think it already has affected the bill to some degree. congress is changing as it always has, but this time because of technology. the internet, the 24/7 news cycle, the ability of members to communicate back come instantly. particularly the u.s. senate which was always called the world's most exclusive club, and kisses on club. members got things done by making deals. going into the room until 4:00 a.m. and returning with it% of what they wanted. many of the best deal makers are going or gone. last week when dofgin and dodd said it would not reelect -- seek reelection, that was 48 years gone. senator kennedy's death was a huge blow. senator biden to become vice-

president of these people came to the senate before c-span even begin to televise dealings and before there was c-span or twitter. there was a different kind of negotiation and congress. i am not saying one is better than the other, but that the changes happening fast. host: will the changes to allow the negotiations to get through and rapid amount of time so congress can move on? guest: drew would confirm this and that it depends which hour you asked me this question. i was convinced that we get this done by the end of january in time for the president to get ready for his state of the union address. it is not just technology. it is such a huge, complex issue. the closer that we get to november and the elections the tougher it will become. it will be done, but i don't know when.

host: you write that the will be no formal conference and instead lawmakers have agreed to work out the final bill in private. how long do think this will take to get the deal done, and is the white house would in for some kind of signal that yes, we have. a final have you can schedule the state of the union address? guest: david brought up an interesting point as to when things will get done. i have learned never to trust my own opinion. the goal is sometime near the state of the union, likely in early february. in reality, they will be ready when they are ready. it will take a few weeks.

i know they want to get it done as quickly as possible for political reasons. november is a long way off, but not in their minds. they 1 to be done with it, but there is a lot they must do. it is not only about crafting policy compromises. they have to sell to their caucus and both the senate and house, then returned to ask if it is ok, then return to negotiators. going back and forth takes a lot of time. guest: here is where the 2010 congress advantage differs so much from the congress of only nine or 10 years ago. in the past leaders would not necessarily muscled through something like this, but say this is what we will do. not take it or leave it, but the leadership would say this is what we're is-- play a game of

chicken -- and there is still some of that, particularly in the house. i think the leadership will eventually have to do that, but the problem now is every time they make a suggestion or that there is a new once it gets reported instantly. look at the health care tax. last week the president said he wanted the senate built with the tax in it. yesterday leaders met and were not quite sure. this would have been done in private before. it is still done in private but somehow we know every step. that changes the dynamic. host: drew, you write that there will be no formal conference. does that mean for fans who like to watch the process and to turn into c-span and other media that there will be nothing for the cameras to report? guest: if you look at the

historical number of conferences over the past years there have been fewer formal ones. even when there is one of the real do making getting done gets done behind closed doors. when everyone is in the room and can be harder to work on the deal. they will make a mini conference within the comets and go back to negotiate, then bring it back to the full conference. the reality is, folks like you and me and david are never going to be in "the" room when a lot of this happens. we can hear about it, but it is very rare that you would see the public dealmaking that goes on. the plan right now is for no formal conference. there will do what they call ping pong. the will be a deal worked out in

private. the senate will cleared for the president. they want to do it that way because it will be faster. host: the 2010 congressional agenda is our topic for the next 35 minutes with david lightman and drew armstrong. the first call comes from holly springs, mississippi, just south of memphis. caller: good morning to everybody. my question is, will there be any solution of the electronic medical records to cut the costs? i support healthcare, although i have voted in the republican party. i supported the senator who abstained from the last senate vote. i was proud of that because he has a lot of constituents in

this area who need health care. there are many people in that so-called donut hole. is the deployment of the electronic medical records coming on line soon? host: david, you touched on technology earlier. guest: that is one of the few areas where they tend to agree. you need to make it easier to get the medical records online. so you don't carry a folder from physician to physician. host: maurya from washington, d.c. caller: [unintelligible] we need is universal health care.

they're negotiating with the different industries behind closed doors. we the public deserves to know what it is going on. i don't want watered down healthcare. that is what is happening. the unions sometimes get no increase because we get a better package of health care. i support the administration. we need to know what is happening. they should allow c-span to go to this hearing. host: how much love back do think there will be in november 2010 when the elections come up, even if it is just a perfunctory

exercise if they do all this negotiation behind closed doors? guest: it is really hard to say and will depend on a wide number of factors. despite the fact that this is done behind closed doors if it is a relatively open process resulting in a product people can understand, then the blood that would be minimized. -- the blowback would be minimized. i think it would be minimized. on the other hand, if they cannot with a totally rewritten bill that people are shocked by, then the reaction will be that it was negotiated behind closed doors with no idea what would be in there -- then, yes, there'll

be reaction to obama's promise about having c-span in the room. it will be decided by the context. more so than by the actual process. host: john, glenview, ill. caller: i would like to discuss two issues. the first to do with a cadillac plan. i just wanted to point out how it is a shame that they're going after what it called a cut like them. i am in a situation like many people were you have two or three options from one insurance company. the cadillac plan pays for everything, but there is no plan that covers the 80% that

the next tier down . there is no plan that covers that and still covers 100% catastrophic. if you get $20,000 bill that will ruin you. the other thing i would like to address quickly is the republicans continually bringing up the one of their options is bringing of options, competition across state lines. this is an idea brought on by the insurance companies because selling across combine across state lines in competition means you can sell across state lines and do with the banks did which is then go to the state or one or two states that offer the fewest consumer protections -- you think of moving to china is

easy? moving to another state is nothing. the insurance companies will go to whatever state gives them the best deal. there will not be a plan in oregon or michigan. host: please address his concerns. guest: here is the more central point. i don't want to say that the caller is confused, but has many important questions. we get this all the time. it is very difficult to say, ok, we'll take your individual case. we are not insurance experts. part of the problem which every poll shows is that people do not understand what is going on. if you look at the pew research from last month the figure was in the high 60s as to the number of people who do not understand this, up from the previous month. there are couple of organizations that have it easy to read charts that we refer to,

for example the kaiser family foundation. it compares the senate bill in late terms. cq and a mothers have been charged. that is the way. you have to look at that and figure it out and then call your member of congress. then ask how relates to you. host: drew armstrong, took about the concerns regarding competition between the states. guest: one of the things that will be in this bill almost certainly is the idea of an exchange for people who do not have insurance will be able to buy a variety of plans through the state-based or nationwide based insurance exchanges. it is a point of debate in the senate. the house has a nationwide based insurance-based plans. it would be federally organized. it will not be federally regulated.

essentially the oversight and process would be done on the federal level. the senate bill does it on the state level. the argument by those in the house is that on the federal level you can hold insurance companies more accountable with tighter controls. . .

what does that mean in terms of what congress will be doing? guest: after can -- congress left fourth and giving, the easiest quote that people could get -- they all said, we need to do something to show people we care about the economy, we've are going to create jobs. health care is not what they are hearing about pac at home. it is a concern, no question, but people want to know what is going on with the economy. there is a feeling that they want to get health care over with so that they can move on to jobs. there are a number of job creating mechanisms in the senate bill. the extension of unemployment insurance for certain states.

the minute they get off health care, they will be focused on jobs. it would not shock me if there was a jobs package by mid- february, if not by the spring recess. host: drew armstrong, will the senate be able to work on this senate bill before health care? can say, excuse the phrase, walk and chew gum at the same time? guest: yes, but they want to make this bill about health care. they said the health care bill could create 4 million new jobs. they are trying as much as they can to make it a job to issue. they have done this for awhile, actually. one other interesting point that david brought up, there is not as much focus on health care

back in the district. there was a town hall over the break. it was notable that over the august recess, five months of, some of the town halls he was holding, people were upset, there was yelling. yesterday, he said people were interested, but nothing like august. for some, the shift back at home has been worrying more about jobs. host: back to the telephones for our discussion about the congressional agenda. idaho. sean on the republican line. caller: it seems to me if people are able to buy insurance across

state lines -- insurance executives say that there would be a race to the bottom with the cost of insurance. it seems to me, if that is the case, companies would be flush with money because they would not have to spend so much on insurance for their employees, and then they start to hire more people and invest more. that is all i have to say. guest: it is tough because reputable people, professionals have been widely varying differences of opinion on this. that is why we rely on the

congressional budget office. they are non-partisan, independent, and i would encourage the caller to visit their site. i am sure you have solid, reputable people on both sides and you walk away thinking, and i do not know what to believe. host: new jersey. jack on the independent line. caller: i am so disheartened by health care experts like you. i cannot understand how the united states is spending twice as much capita as any other country in the world.

whether it is a single payer, like canada, or countries with universal, regulated insurance, such as the netherlands, switzerland, and we are still paying twice as much? i can only contribute it to the fact that our congress is so financially corrupt. host: drew armstrong, help jack understand this. guest: he is right, on a per- capita basis, we spend more money than just about any other nation, and we get less. from a financial standpoint dancand care standpoint, our heh care programs are disappointed. -- disjointed.

part of that reason is because we do not have a centralized health care system. it is a fragmented collection of many elements. to even call it a health care system it is something of a leap. we are not pouring all this money back into the people who already have care. a huge amount of this is going to care for about 35 million who do not have care, so we will be bringing people into this "system." the idea is to get the per capita spending down. however, there are long-term affects that we do not know yet, but many of us hoped that it

will have a hand in making the system cheaper, more efficient. one example would be penalties on hospitals that would readmit patients who they are not supposed to. make sure we are not doing unnecessary procedures. paying for procedures that work better, not for the ones that do not there are a lot of ideas to try to drive down per-capita spending. the trick is to bring in these more millions of people. that will cost millions of dollars. host: one of the other issues that politico is highlighting on the 2010 and and it is deficit reduction. they write --

david lightman, can we spend the money on health care insurance and get people back to work, and reduce the deficit? can goncourts' to do that -- can congress do that? guest: i feel like i have been writing this story for about 30 years. a few years ago, they tried to start a health commission, and there were some problems. often, health care does on follow standard economic models. if my car is breaking down, i go shopping at the dealer, in the newspaper. if i feel pain in my chest, i

cannot go to shop around. i will go to the doctor. chances are, he will ask me to do a bunch of tests. and as the cbo pointed out, it is impossible to know what kind of technological advances will be available. we do not know what types of procedures will be there. having said that, it is hard to tame the deficit. not to sound cynical, but we have witnessed the death. to pass the budget we have the past 12 appropriations bills. in october, they passed a stopgap for more on the government in december. is that responsible spending? stop nafta goes through the

year. there is a process that everyone said they would follow. the president said it would not be as usual. host: back to the 2010 agenda with drew armstrong and david lightman. bearing in florida. caller: -- barry in florida. caller: insurance companies have always opposed a national health-care plan. unions, on the other hand, have always supported them. in the meantime, the non-tax issue is what insurance companies use when they meet with unions and other companies, too, to sell health care because the premiums are non-taxable. so you have the problem that where you have to raise money because we are going to cover all of the citizenry.

now the solution is, how do we face in a tax, or face out the taxes that the insurance companies had the benefit of using? my thought is there should not be a tax, but if there had to be, it should be fair for all citizens. you cannot have some people who cannot pay tax, which is the situation now. whatever you do, make it fair across the board. if you do decide to tax, because unions had to go through this collective agreement, what ever you do, you have to take that into consideration. guest: the caller brings up an interesting point. he is talking about the wind exclusion that health care

premiums have. the cadillac tax, as high cost plan, is actually a scaled-back version of what a lot of economists were pushing for at the beginning of the process, especially on the senate finance committee. tax is an economic tool, and a lot of ways. if you put a tax on something or remove a tax exclusion on something, you create downward pressure on the cost. there were a lot of economists arguing that you should start universally start taxing health care benefits, do not make this pre-tax dollars. the idea is it would make people more sensitive to the cost of their health care premiums,

companies would put more cost into wages, fight harder with the insurance companies to drive down cost, and the result would eventually be economic pressure on a lower insurance premium. this, like tax is basically a sliver of that, taking the most expensive plans and making them subject, indirectly -- because this is a tax on the insurance company, not the premium -- indirectly to improve the economic effects. does this agee the desired economic effects? the cbo says, to an effect, it does. host: next phone call. caller: senator mary landrieu approved this book she also conferred with gov. bobby jindal

who used to be involved in health and human services in the bush administration, so he is familiar with him -- the health debate going on. is this something the governor makes? would it be put to the state to vote on, if they wanted to opt- in? host: david lightman? guest: opt out was a part of the plan that harry reid introduced. what we have now is a plan where the government would supervise a multi-state plan, one of which would have to be nonprofit. this would provide competition

with private insurers. host: next is ron from syracuse. independent line. caller: i am not really interested in health insurance reform, regulation. i do not think we need health insurance, we need health care. the gentleman who called in and while ago said he could not understand why a our costs are twice what other countries are. the answer is we treat health care as a commodity, rather than a right, as everyone else does. from 2000 to 2008, costs went up 128%. health-care costs did not go up. nurses make an extra 3%, hospital staff.

but from 2000 to 2008, the 10 top insurance companies increased their profit 450%. that is where the extra money goes. we need a single payer system. we need health care, not health insurance. host: 01 to move this discussion out of the realm of health care, regarding the 2010 agenda. politico writes about climate change and immigration reform. they might -- write -- drew, your thoughts about climate change, immigration reform, and whether or not congress will get to them before the midterm elections, or if it is something that we will have

to wait for until after 2010? guest: i will take part of this over to dated who knows these issues better than i do. can they do jobs at the same time that they do health care? to some extent, health care is going to be the dominant issue for congress, particularly when the entire caucus is involved. until they finish that, they will be able to deal with some priorities, including jobs, but major policy decisions will be put on hold until they are finished with health care. climate change, immigration, some other top issues, that could be a better question for david. guest: climate change cleared the house in june. now we are in january and there

is no talk. they are barely getting 60 votes on health care. forget climate change. i think the issue that will come up that was not mentioned, in the spring and summer -- this is going to be a hot one -- financial regulation. people back at home are angry about the banks, mortgages, the financial system. senator dodd is moving a bill through. the committee may even write the bill before the month is out. everything they do this year will be specifically directed at being able to go home to tell people, here is what i did to help you through this economy. 1 host: 2010 -- host: 2010 congressional agenda. next phone call. democrat line. caller: it is a sad state of

affairs. we have the most uninformed public. all you have to do is repeating a phrase three times and they will bring it back to you. we should be looking at the media who seems to be making the decisions, clarifying, instead of waiting to see what our representatives say. especially c-span -- what i would like to do is to have publicized what is in your production meetings before you decide on your questions. why didn't you do this when you wanted to publicize the supreme court? you did not go public. you went public, but you did not push it the way that you are. host: are you talking about the

letter that our management wrote to the folks on capitol hill? caller: yes, the way that you have been stealthily challenging everything. host: actually, we have gone on record asking them to open up court proceedings. caller: let me tell you something. you have a powerful platform. people call in, and you cut me off. host: i did not cut you off, but if you are done with your point -- next phone call, scott from new jersey. caller: the bottom line of the government is inefficiencies. i may have a unique perspective and that i am a veteran. i also spent some time in the v.a. hospital system, so i got

to experience the government-run military experience. i do not care what anyone says -- i have heard some call in to say that it is wonderful. i do not know what they are talking about. it is the most inefficient system. i also worked for state government. i currently work for the federal government as a contractor. what people do not understand is anything the government pledges becomes massively inefficient because they piggy bank special interest. it is absolutely insane the amount of money i see. i am on a contract with the department of transportation here in washington, d.c. and i am shocked at how much money is wasted. people do not think twice about it in the government because it

is not their money. host: drew armstrong, is the congress going to do anything to address these concerns about government inefficiency? guest: you will certainly hear about it. hostcomplaints about government inefficiency are not exactly new, nor are they on warranted. -- unwarranted. there is massive amounts of money involved in this. we may be disappointed, but i do not think there is any abject shock in this. guest: one piece of good news goes back to what we said a few minutes ago. because of this transparency, the 24 hour news cycle, a lot of these hearings on capitol hill

that might have been ignored in the past are now on different c- span channels. there is more accountability, transparency for this stuff host. host: and we did not pay david lightman to pump up the network. next phone call. west virginia. caller: one thing i do not understand is, you talked about jobs. one reason it is an issue is because it is a global economy and we are trying to compete with businesses who do not have to pay for health care. why not take health care out of the business community and put it into the credit community? have mass numbers of people getting insurance together. if you are a small business, go

in as a credit union. caller how come they do not do anything like that? guest: in the nation's health- care system, for better or worse, has evolved as an employer-based system. there has been a lot of discussion about single payer. i believe in the senate they took a vote on the idea of single payer and the support is just not there. host: in the "financial times" there is an opt-ed that says bankruptcy could be good for america. he says --

andrew armstrong, at the end of 2010, after health care, which one of those things will be tops on congress's agenda? lower taxes, social spending, war funding of the military machine? guest: if i could be blig, both. heading into the -- glib, both. heading into the 2010 year, not all what is going to be done. they will be campaigning. there will be talk about lowering taxes, talk about funding the troops -- all of

these things. we are going to be back into promise season pretty soon. how much of that is an act upon after the elections is for question. democrats feel like they have a lot of pressure on them, but poorly, and after they deliver -- they hope -- on health care and jobs, that is going to be what they run on in 2010. the outcome of the election will determine what can be done. guest: i think what will happen is the president will propose his budget for fiscal 2011. that begins the first week in february. that will trigger the budget process. you are going to have hearings, votes, to route the spring and

summer on the military, social spending, low energy income assistance. you will have a series of these fire fight, and that will be the lead up to the campaign. defense -- they did not finish the defense bill until mid-2007. i cannot imagine that happening again. i think it will be done by late summer, early fall, saying, look at what we did for the military. host: next phone call, david. -- eric. caller: this is a moment of catharsis for me. i am a town holler, the better, and i am angry. congress has the power to tax income but they do not have the power to limit it. that is what the 15% tax is on the overhead profit in the reid

bill. i have a class action with two plaintiffs currently receiving medicare advantage and they are angry at the fact that there will be people in florida who will continue to receive it, and that is arbitrary and capricious actions creating two classes of people, and in violation of the constitution. host: we are going to leave it there because we are running short on time. this concern about taxing income? guest: he brings up a component that is in both the house and senate bills. they are calling into a limit loss ratio. essentially, there is a limited amount that insurance companies can charge for premiums, for anything other than what is

going to patients. yes, that is a profit limit on insurers. that does not mean they cannot derive profit from other areas, investments they made. but in terms of actual premium dollars, there is a limit to the profit they can take from that. guest: he talked about court challenges. i wonder, if and when his health care passes, if this is more to end up in court and we will have court challenges for months and months. i can see this getting tied up in court for awhile. host: we have to leave it there. thank you for being on the program. now we are going to go to my colleague who is at ge washington university with students at the washington center internship program.

host: we are coming to you on the campus of george washington university. we are here for two weeks. students representing 60 colleges and universities around the country. here to join us for the conversation is ed gillespie, former chair of the republican national committee. thank you for being with us. let me begin with a broad overview of the political landscape most notably, virginia and the new juror is a. why do republicans win these two races? guest: virginia has been a counter-cyclical state in terms of politics. having the governor elections the year after presidential elections, going back to 1966, every gubernatorial election since then the party of of power carries the virginia race. that is not the case a relative to new jersey which is a more

democratic-leaning state. i was very involved in the virginia governor's race, and it is much more of a purple state. i've volunteered as the chairman for bob macdonald. in both cases, politically, what happened was independent voters, who are an important chunk of the voters in both states -- in fact, new jersey was the first day to have a registered a plurality of the independents and republicans or democrats. and they broke for chris christie. in virginia, it is one-third, one-third, one-third. again, independents broke for

mcdonald over creigh deeds. there are certain aspects of it that are unique to new jersey and virginia. chris christie defeated an incumbent. jon corzine who had that job approval numbers -- the voters are fed up with him after one term, tired of one-party rule. there was lot of frustration aimed at trenton. in virginia, winter is a one- term limit on the governorship, there is more of an open seat dynamic. mcdonald had a positive agenda putting ideas out on transportation, and job creation. that was a singular focus for

his campaign. there was a bumper sticker that read "bob for jobs." that constant stream of policy proposals on education, higher education, charter schools, more assistance for of virginia students, putting aside green space conservation areas -- it was a proactive, positive agenda. in full disclosure, she is a friend, and i volunteered on his campaign, but i think he set a high bar for candidates to reach. host: what happened in 2006 then? why did john mccain lose the white house, why did you lose the congress? guest: if you look back, i

mentioned the history of virginia in terms of the counter-cyclical aspects. look at the post-war period, since franklin roosevelt. no party has carried the white house for three terms since then, with one exception, which was when george h. w. bush, bush 41, defeated ronald reagan. it is difficult to push the party either direction, giving them the same party, the white house or three terms in a row. history was against senator mccain in this election cycle. the second thing was the party in power is held accountable for economic factors. we had the market collapse in october which was truly frightening. i was in the white house at that

time. there was a concern weaver looking at the prospect of a genuine meltdown in the -- we were looking at the prospect of a genuine meltdown in the financial and housing markets. ben bernanke and hank paulson said to the president, looking at the prospect of an economy worse than the great depression, it took people to their core. it reinforced a change, and republican party suffered from that. let us also give credit to where credit is too. president obama was a phenomenal candidate, literally and figuratively. it was an historical run for the presidency. he blazed a lot of trails in

terms of technology, voter contact, so he deserves credit, as well as the dynamic working in his favor. 2006 was the second midterm of president bush's two terms. host: let us get to some student questions. go ahead, please. caller: good morning. i would like to know simply if you believe the republican party is ready to gain control in congress? guest: i do believe public and party is ready to take control. -- a republican party is ready to take control. the good thing about our system is a checks and balances. you learn lessons and i think the republican party has learned

from the defeat. there is more that we can learn, but republicans in congress have learned the importance of maintaining the mantle of fiscal discipline. that was his darkly something the republicans did, we will be more stringent on your tax dollars. we lost some of that. in fact, in 2008, most voters believed the republican nominee for president as well as congress -- believed a democratic congress would be more likely to rein in financial spending. they believed the democrats would be more likely to reduce the deficit. that democrats would be more likely to cut taxes than the republican candidate. that is a tough environment for the republican to run in.

i think that has changed, not so much because of what republicans have done, but because of what president obama, speaker pelosi, and harry reid have done in the past year. president obama has proposed more debt than all three previous presidents combined. we will triple the dead under the next 10 years. we are about to raise taxes pretty significantly. president bush's tax reliefs are about to expire. a 24% increase in non discretionary defense spending is too much. we need to focus our spending on restoring economic confidence. -- non-discretionary defense spending is too much.

if you elect us, we will not allow these tax increases to hit us at this time. i think republicans are prepared to take the majority and work with president obama, at least for a couple of years, until we can win back the house. i think voters will see that in the next 10 months. host: our guest is republican strategist ed gillespie. we are coming to you from george washington university. chris is on the democrat line from virginia. caller: mr. gillespie, i want to make a point. don't yout think -- don't you think looks and personality has a lot to do with who want of being governor with the commonwealth, more so than when there is a democrat or

republican in the white house? i know both of these gentlemen. creigh deeds is a wonderful man, but he stutters. he looks like he fell out of bed when he presents himself. bob macdonald is charismatic. he is very attractive, and his policy for the commonwealth is to basically sell everything. we are going to have offshore oil wells. we have beautiful beaches. one mistake, one storm can destroy our beaches. we will have tolls on the road to. -- roads. people do not really look at what they are doing, but how they look, and how they present themselves.

host: style versus substance? caller: style is important. when voters are gauging someone for a job, particularly for an executive job, like a governor or president, and take into account demeanor, style, temperament. i would agree. i think creigh deeds came across as injury throughout the campaign. he did not seem to have a clear vision of where he wanted to take the commonwealth. -- as angry to run the campaign. you talked about selling everything. what bob mcdonnell proposed was privatizing the state's liquor stores. right now and virginia, as with a few other states, the state owns and runs the liquor stores. it is an antiquated system and we could get a lot of revenue.

i think most of us would agree that it is not their role of the state to run these liquor stores. the private industry could do this. from a moral perspective, it might be better for the private industry to do that. by privatizing the liquor stores, we could gain revenue that will help us build roads. we would also have tax revenue coming in from the sale of the electorate itself. it is an innovative idea that has been done in the past. i think it can work in virginia to help us release some of this congestion. those of you who live here, if you are visiting, if you drive across to mount vernon, go to arlington cemetery, any of the beautiful parks, you will probably find yourself sitting in some traffic. we want to reduce the traffic in

the area. the way to do that is to increase our infrastructure, and when we to fund that is by privatizing the liquor stores. we have beautiful beaches in virginia. offshore drilling would be 50 miles away from the shore. one storm is not going to affect the beaches or cost oil to wash up. i would point to hurricane t katrina, the worst storm to hit the gulf coast in american history. we all saw the damage that was done to new orleans, alabama, and mississippi. all of those rigs, by the time it came through the gulf, was a category four hurricane. the most rigs we have are in the western part of the gulf of mexico, and not a single drop of

oil was lost in the storm. that is because of the technology. we can enhance our domestic energy resources in environmentally-sensitive ways which could bring high-paying jobs -- to bring up the slogan of the campaign. i think more jobs in the hampton roads area could reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and we would be bringing revenue to the treasury of virginia, which right now is facing a severe deficit. to answer your question, i think character and personality are important components, but the agenda and policy that people put forward, -- how will the

voting for this candidate improve my quality of life? i would also say his demeanor -- you can see him being the governor of virginia. in fact, i look forward to that exact thing happening this saturday. host: our guests spend 18 months as the counselor to president bush. we have a question in the back. by the way, what was that like, working with president bush at the end of his presidency? guest: it was incredible. the surge was in effect, we were dealing with the petraeus- crocker hearings. we went through the financial crisis.

we had some pretty serious battles with a democratic congress. i came in in june 2007. then, of course, we had one of the most thoughtful and organized transitions of power in our nation's history. it was exciting and interesting to be there. obviously, from a partisan perspective, i was disappointed with the outcome -- but from an american perspective -- to see the transfer, it was encouraging to me. i am proud of the way we handled it. >> i am from the university of iowa. i am very concerned with the upcoming health care bills, and also the potential for another upcoming stimulus bill.

my question is, how much of this bill -- sorry, let me rephrase that. how much money will we be spending on this? where will that money come from? how much of that money will be pushed onto my generation and upcoming generations? guest: a very good question. you have reason to be concerned. as health care proposal before congress, and the onus will fall on many of the people in this room. it will hurt younger workers entering the workforce. it will hurt you and your children. they say it will be deficit- neutral, but that is smoke and mirrors. all of the tax increases put into effect start immediately, while the spending does not start until 2013. in some cases, 2014.

all the budgeting in congress is done in a 10-year window. if you get a running start and you do full funding for 10 years but you only to spending for five years of it, then yes, you can make it look like it is a deficit neutral. but once you are in europe 11, 12, 13, it will increase debt on future generations. this president has decided to take the debt to $534,000 per household, i believe is the estimated number. that is unsustainable. that is going to affect our ability to grow our economy in future years. it will make it harder for people coming out of the workforce to be able to find

high-quality, paying jobs. it will be the result in higher taxes, inflation, or reduced government services, greater influence in our economy by the chinese -- to whom we owe much of our debt. in health care bill, there is a provision that says you can only have -- senior citizens, understandably, in later stages of your life -- consume more health care. those of you in college, new in the workforce, you do not have the demands of the health care. i have lost both my parents, but clearly, at the end of their life, they generated a lot of health care costs.

the health care bill says that you can charge senior citizens only twice as much as you charge your people. in order to do that, if they are spending five times more for your health care cost, then the younger voters, in order to make sure you are not ant a 5-1 ratio in terms of cost, but a two-one ratio, you have to bring up the cost on the under voters. that is tough for these younger people just entering the work force, trying to set aside money. i think that is incredibly unfair but the truth is older voters are more likely to vote in the next election than

younger voters. there is an income redistribution aspect of it by state. if you lived in nebraska, because your senator cut a deal, you are not going to feel the burden of higher medical costs. the other 49 states are going to bear the burden. there was some question as to the constitutionality of this bill. on and not sure it is constitutional to say to the younger worker who chooses not to purchase insurance and spend some of their disposable insurance on health care -- which by the way, and believe it is a bad mistake. but to say we are going to impose a penalty on you. this is the first time the government will say we are not

going to tax one person and spend it here. we are not going to take your money in the form of taxation. we are going to tell you, you have to spend your own money this way. if not, we will punish you for it. i am not sure that is constitutional, whether the government has the authority to say to someone, you have to spend your money this way. by the way, is a frightening precedent. what if a future congress says, we did this with health insurance and we did not raise taxes, but if people have to spend a certain percentage of their income on housing, college? now we have the government directing not only where taxes go, but individual personal income.

from a young person's perspective, you should take a close look at these health care proposals because they are going to diminish your ability to get a job in the future, it imposed costs that you do not have now, and at the end of the day, will make it less likely that you and future generations live in a country where we will be quick to our progeny greater prosperity than we receive from our parents. it is hard to see under current dynamics how there will be greater prosperity for americans then was handed to this house generation. i think that must -- that is a concern for a number voters. host: tony on the independent line. caller: i can see that you are

for the republicans. i am not a democrat. i am upset with the democrats, i am a registered independent. this man is full of so much hypocrisy. republicans have been there for eight years. what did they give us? they gave us two wars. they drove the country into bankruptcy and they are complaining about spending. i do not even know what to say about you. you have been here for eight years, what have you done? host: a response? president clinton did have a budget surplus when he left.

host: that is right, but president -- guest: no denying that president obama inherited a bad economy. but the same thing for president bush. he passed tax relief for american workers which allowed americans to keep more of what they earned. i would urge the caller to go back and look, under president bush, we have 52 weeks of positive job creation. that is a record. because the tax relief to a new british economic growth, we have more money coming into the treasury in 2010 -- 2007 than any other year. a number of things improved under president bush in terms of domestic policies. no child left behind narrowed

the gap of test scores between what students and minority students, enhancing educational opportunities in places where schools were suffering. teenage drug use was reduced by 24% under president bush. you talk about the two wars. they were necessary. i believe that because right now we are almost a successful in iraq because of the president. it was a tough decision but he decided that we would be better off as americans with a free and stable iraq. i applaud president obama for his decision in increasing the troops strength in afghanistan. he is correct to do that. we know if afghanistan does not have a stable government, we cannot have security there. that poses a threat to the

united states. if they have safe harbor for the taliban or al qaeda. i would say to the caller, we did some things wrong anbut i believe our agenda was a positive one. we worked for the taxpayer. by the way, reform of the health-care system with medical savings accounts -- trying to get liability reform. i believe president bush had a productive eight years. i know people disagree with the decisions he made, but you cannot disagree that he made those tough decisions. i believe history will be kind to the eight years of the bush presidency. you can dismiss that as propaganda. the fact is, i believe strongly in the things that i am saying today.

i believe in civil discourse. i disagree with my friends on the democratic side of the aisle although i have many friends on that side. one thing we generally tend to agree on is we are in this to make the country a better place. we just disagree on how to get there. host: how it is the president possible coming along? guest: very well. -- president's book coming along? . .

i will take some responsibility, response for the speech writing an media affairs and the press shots. you know, the george w. bush that i saw every single day in the white house, in the oval office, in the roosevelt room, talking to troops on airs force one, there was a gap between what i saw and what the public perception was. i think people will get a better sense of who this man is. host: question in the back, go ahead, please. caller: as counselor to the bush

administration, you said that you helped oversee the surge in iraq. what advice would you have for president obama for afghanistan an possible future involvement in pakistan? guest: my point is that i was there at the time that the surge was taking effect and we were seeing the positive benefits of it, and so i was involved in, you know, how are we talking about it, how are we conveying the information about what is going on with the surge, but the president, as commander in chief, made the decision to oversee the surge in iraq along with, obviously, general petraeus and general odierno, and others who did a spectacular job in that regard. i think in terms of president obama and his surge in afghanistan with 30,000 troops or such, i do think it's important to keep the country apprised and to make sure that your countrymen know what these

troops are there for and what they are going to do and why it is imperative, why it is not only in afghanistan's interest to have our troops there ensuring a stable government an democratic government in afghanistan, but why it is in our interest as americans, and i think that president obama clearly has the capacity to do that and i hope they allocate the proper percentage of their time to keeping the american people apprised of what is going on in afghanistan and reminding americans why it is important we be there. host: bonnie is joining us from columbus, mississippi. go ahead, bonnie. >> thanks for taking my call. i actually have two questions but i will make them short. the first one, he was talking about state-run liquor stores. don't the state-run liquor stores, the net money go into the state coffers to do roads,

to do things that the state needs? guest: the taxes do, but the selling of the liquor stores themselves, the licenses, the buildings and infrastructure around it would generate income from that that we don't -- that's not now revenue or a source of capital for the commonwealth of virginia. caller: second, they can say whatever they want to about the tea party people, which i'm a very conservative, do you think that -- now, the republicans toward the end of the bush administration were as bad as the democrats are ras today. this president was going to have everything above board and open on c-span, and he was going to have no pork, and to me, the

pork that is in every bill, i don't care what bill it is, that's passed, has a lot of pork in it. do you think that if the republicans get back in there and we'll make sure that they're conservative and have morals, will do away with some of this pork? would we have more money if we don't have pork to save little fish here and build a golf course where they don't need a golf course? i mean, that's absolutely ridiculous. guest: a couple of points. one is, like i said, i think that republicans, rightly, are learning lessons from the electorate from the losses in 2006, 2008. i have to take exception with the notion that we were as bad on spending as the current congress or the current administration. the fact is under president bush, we brought non-defense, non-homeland security

discretionary spending down from i believe it was around 11% in the last budget of president clinton to under 2% under president bush. the attacks of september 11 did require the government to do things in response to keep us safe. one of the points i should have made, by the way, for the other caller about the 8 years, the fact is after the attacks of september 11, if you had asked americans, and in fact, americans were asked this question in a poll, do you believe there will will be an attack on our homeland over the next five years and most americans said yes, it would be impossible to prevent another attack because of the steps taken by the bush administration, and so in addition to the points i made on gains in education, decline in drug use, 52 months of uninterrupted job creation, the president also, because of his actions, made us safer as a country. i think that's very important.

caller: do you think we're less safe under this president? >> i worry about the policies of the president. i think it was a mistake to not try the detroit plane bomber in a military tribunal but to try that person in the civil courts, i think, having access to the information that, by most accounts, that abdul muttallab was giving up about al qaeda in yemen would be beneficial to us, but once he was put into the court system and given miranda rights, he stopped giving us information that could be valuable to us and make us safer. i think they have made policy decisions that were mistakes relative to our safety. i think it was a mistake to try khalid sheik mohammed in new york city. that said, he has also done other things. the administration has maintained some of the practices of the bush administration, which is a good thing, so, you know, i will leave that for others to assess.

i do know this, i'm confident in saying after the attacks of september 11, president bush and and vice president cheney made us safer as a country. i want to make a point about being as bad as the current administration in congress, when republicans ran the mace, it's just not factually accurate. taxes were lower under president bush and the republicans in congress. democratic congress and this administration proposed to raise taxes on individual income, raise taxes on dividends, raise taxes on capital gains, raise taxes on health insurance benefits. we did not propose those things under president bush. well, actually, there was a proposal to tax the cadillac plans on healthcare and subsidize insurance for those who couldn't afford it, but there was no net tax increase proposed by president bush, or the republican congress. spending, again, there is a 24% increase in the obama

administration proposal in their first year budget with non-discretionary spending. that is 12 to 24 times more than what priz bush proposed in his last budget, and president obama has proposed more debt than not only president bush proposed for our country, but from george washington to george w. bush, president obama has propose the more debt than all of those presidents combined. of presidents one through 43, president obama has proposed more debt than all combined, double our debt in five years and triple it over ten. i have to take exception to the caller that republicans were as bad as the current congress and administration. host: time for a cup 8 couple more questions in the back here. caller: i'm, i'm chelsea cole from yin pack university.

-- from yin pack university. what about the taxing of the banks for bailout funds? guest: the imposing of taxes on mutual funds or hedge funds or the big banks, you know, the banks won't pay those. they will collect those from people putting investing money into those funds, so it's going to end up diminishing returns. it is a hidden tax. it is easy to say we will tax the bankers. that is going to be passed on and collected from the individuals who are holding those bank accounts, and i think that's a mistake. i also think it's a mistake to assume that we're going to cover, you know, part of the problem we had, going especially to the housing market, was this notion that fannie mae and freddie mac were to fail and the

federal government was going to cover all of their losses. that led to bad decision making, removed moral hazard from the equation, and i worry that that congress seems to be heading that way and learning the wrong lessons from the near collapse of the financial markets in october of 2008, around and repeating mistakes of the past rather than correcting them by saying these banks are too big to fail and we're going to make sure they don't. that removes moral hazard from those banks, so i would like to see, i think, you know, like i said, the decision to intervene through the troubled assets relief plan that tarp and other means at the end of the bush administration was a very difficult one, and they very carefully thought out intervention in the economy had to be done, you know, in pretty quick timely manner, very expediciously, but i would like to see congress thinking more about how we get government out of the market, having intervened

temporarily rather than now that we have intervened cement that intervention in the market. i don't think that is in the long-term interest of the economy, our the country or our prosperity. host: our guest is former counselor to george w. bush and former national republican chairman. our next caller is dexter on the republican line. go ahead, please. caller: mr. gillespie, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. the bush administration was one of the worst administrations in u.s. history. i look at the presidency as a relay race. bill clinton ran his leg of the race for 8 years. he handed the baton to george bush, and he gave him a balanced budget, a projected $30 billion surplus, and 23 million jobs, of economies in u.s. history. george bush ran his 8-year leg

of the race and handed to barack obama one of the worst economy ies in a short eight years, one of the worst economies in u.s. history, and you sit there and tell us that george bush was good for the economy. deregulation had this country at the brink of disaster. we were about to fall over the cliff, so i mean, you can sit there all day long with a smirk on your face, but reality is that george bush was not good for america. host: in the interest of time, we only have a minute or two left. guest: dexter, you are wren titled to your opinion as well. let me give you these facts. you can look them up. go on-line. 52 months of uninterrupted job creation is the longest stretch of uninterrupted job creation in the united states of america, more revenue floating to the federal treasury in 2007 than any other year in the history of

the united states of america. after we were attacked on september 11, 2001, in the worst attack on our homeland in the history of the united states of america, president bush, because of his actions and policies kept us safe as a country and we were not attacked on our soil again. the fact is that teenaged drug use declined 24% under president bush. the fact is that test scores closed between minority students and white students in reading and math at fourth and 8th grade. you can look those up. those are fractures. you and i are entitled to those facts. i encourage you to go on-line and look them up. i note that president obama has proposed doubling our debt over five years and tripling it over ten years, that's not my opinion. that is the estimate of the congressional budget office of the united states congress. you can look that up, too. i'm not trying to smirk. i'm trying to smile. host: one more question in the back, go ahead.

caller: you said there was a difference between the president bush you saw and the president bush we saw. i want to know what role you think the media plays in the presidency, and how do you see this affecting the current administration? >> i think the media plays a significant role in the perceptions of the presidency, and the truth is, for example, the president bush that i saw every day, you know, was incredibly -- you know, he would press you on facts, and he would dispute facts and he would challenge you. his grasp of the issues and the data points, and, by the way, you will find this universally from people who worked for him, it is not that we all got together and said let's take this up. this is 8 years of experience and those who worked for him in texas the same, an incredibly firm command of details, grasped

policy, and the media never portrayed it that way. again, i'm not blame game. i will accept some responsibility for that in my last 18 months of serving president bush, maybe i didn't serve him as well as i could have, but the media has a major impact, and by the way, not just the news media but the popular culture as well increasingly. saturday night live portrayals of a president have an impact. leno and letterman jokes have an impact. they were very caustic towards president bush, not so much toward president obama. i think that there is underlying that, perhaps a philosophical underpinning that they disagreed with president bush's more conservative policies and tend to agree with president obama's more liberal policies. president obama has a better feel for the popular culture. he is of a different generation than president bush, and i think is very savvy relative to the internet and cable shows and how

to project an image, although i would say if i think that the obama white house has made one mistake relative to that kind of, you know, media management and image projection, i would say that this president has been overexposed, president obama. i think he is out there too much for his own good, and the white house's own good, and it has diminished his ability to move the needle when it comes to issues like healthcare, for example, so the media plays a significant role in the perceptions of a president, and it is a challenge for any white house to try to kind of ride that tiger and come to terms with how the person for whom you work is being projected relative to the reality. i suspect that the reality of president obama's public image and real person is closer, much

closer than that between president bush's public image and the real person many. glenn: host: ed gillespie and 60 students from the washington center, we want to conclude with a round of applause and thank you for sharing your expertise here with us. guest: thank you. host: you're washing watching c. span's "washington journal" and it is tuesday january 12th. we have a news update first from c-span radio. it is 9:18 a.m. eastern time. the federal reserve said it made a record profit of over $46 billion, marking the biggest profit since 1914 when the fed was create, saying the increase was due to earnings on securities it held last year. those earnings will be turned over to the u.s. treasury.

the commerce department reports that the trade deficit jumped to the highest level in ten months as the demand for imports rose and exports rose as well supporting the view that american manufacturers will be helped by a rebounding global economy. the federal government launches a new organization on distracted driving called "focus driven. " transportation secretary ray lahood speaking earlier on "the early show" said they will be traveling the country to persuade people to put cell phones away while driving. he says he hopes that "focus driven" will provide the same impetus that mothers against drunk driving had. democratic governor jon corzine supports legislation for medical marijuana an could sign it before next week, and that would make new jersey the 14th state to allow medicinal marijuana use. fighting continues in afghanistan where nato says a

missile fired from ran unmanned vehicle has killed 13 insurgents. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. minoh mcconnell and others are back from a delegation trip to afghanistan and will speak to reporters about that trip. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on can c-span. later in the day, a forum on readvocating the broadband spectrum for public safety. a number of firefighters and police groups are meeting in washington to discuss the topic. live coverage at 5:00 p.m. eastern. did you know that the number one free news app for your i phone is c-span radio? now you can get quick and easy access to three streaming radio channels plus c-span and c-span

2. there is also a tab with links to our podcasts including q&a and afterwords, and it is all free from the app store. "washington journal" continues. host: we welcome juan williams of national public radio and the fox news channel. let's get the headlines over the last 72 hours with the comment by harry reid. is this a teachable moment in race relations to what president obama was talking to last summer? >> it's interesting on so many levels. when you talk about a teachable moment especially with all the young people in the audience, when they hear a word like negro, i think their ears just cock up and they think what exactly is he referring to? is this intended as an insult? is that equal to the n word? why are people upset about that word and the notion of dialect? again, i think a rich

exploration and as you say, teachable. i also think that when people get into an issue like skin color that someone is more electable in the opinion of a major political figure like the senate majority leader because they are of a lighter skin color, i think it is a window not just into sort of perception of the american electorate and the fact that we have never had an african-american president. we have never had any president who wasn't a white male. i think it is also a revealing window about conversations that take place inside the black community about skin color. i don't think that white people necessarily have those conversations. i'm not sure that they think about these things concretely. believe me, it is a point of concern and interest and fascination, and arguments about what amounts to beauty and accept acceptability and what you want for your son and daughter in the black community. all of this is real. if you look at politicians who have had success in american life, who are raff can

american -- who are african-american, you think, i just stop and think not only of barack obama, but colin powell and condi rice and ed brooks, the first african-american senator in the modern era, and again, you're thinking overwhelmingly light-skinned african-americans, so again, it allows us to have a conversation or a teachable moment. do you think this has consequences? do you think this really matters or is it something we shouldn't be discussing publicly? but it allows us to engage. it allows the dialogue to get started. that's why i think it is a teachability moment. host: this section of "washington journal" coming from george washington university, five, six blocks from the white house, gathered in the auditorium, representatives of 50 colleges and universities all part of the washington center here for two weeks to learn about government, politics an journalism. we will get to your questions.

go ahead, please. >> my question is whether or not you think republicans can win the senate race in massachusetts, and has the national priority kind of missed the ball by only getting involved in that race in the last couple of weeks? host: you're from massachusetts, what do you think is going to happen? >> i think it will be closer than people expected. i'm disappointed in the national view that he was not in the national race from the start. guest: you hear what people say about massachusetts, your home state, what people think of it as a lib ial bast on. if you look at the numbers, two democratic senators, democrats in congress, democratic governor. mitt romney was governor and had success there but people see that as exceptional. that's why there wasn't much of an effort by the national party initially, but now it has taken

on larger significance, so if you're thinking of it in terms you are thinking of, which is that if they had come out early and put a lot of oomph and money into scott brown right out of the box after he won the primary, that he would have a better shot now. i think that their calculation was he doesn't have a chance to win. this is not a good opportunity for us to claim this seat. now, i'm not necessarily convinced that the republican party believes that they can win even now, but what they do believe is that they can really take a shot at the democrats in this white house as sort of a warning shot, if you will, that says to them, you know what? there are going to be big losses in november for the democrats and look how chose it's going to be in massachusetts o and that's a warning shot that says to people who are democrats, get out, resign, quit, don't run, and says to republicans, who they're looking to recruit to run for office in november, this is our season. this is our cycle. get in. we can win.

i think they're using it for those purposes more so than what might appear this morning, which is everyone wondering what happens if scwots brown wins? what happens to healthcare reform? what about the democrats in massachusetts delaying certification of the election so that brown wouldn't have a vote allowing kirk to remain as the senator who would vote for massachusetts on healthcare reform. all that is sort of immediate, but i think republicans now are hooking long term. host: you're next, go ahead. >> i'm sam janes. you just mentioned that you think republicans may gain seats or the majority in congress in the next midterm elections. i'm wondering how you think it will affect the 2012 elections and if the republicans could get someone into office? guest: i didn't say that i thought republicans could gain majority in 2010 in the midterms. michael steele didn't think so either but he has changed his

mind now, the republican party chair, but i do think they will gain seats. if i was just to go with convention a.m. wisdom around this town, it would be between 20 and 25 seats that republicans would pick up. that would not allow them to claim the majority but allow them to say this is a rebuke of the democrats an obama administration and specifically over healthcare. healthcare has become the issue in the coakley-brown race in massachusetts. it is going to be the dominant theme of the 2010 race, short of any sort of catastrophic national security event, terrorist event, so that's where we're going, and what impact does that have on 2010? well, you know what? i have been around long enough so i have some miss tore caliper speck tiff. if you look at what -- i have some historical perspective and you look at bill clinton in 2004 or ronald reagan what happened to him in '82, again,

tremendous losses, both of them came back and won re-election. president obama remains personally popular personally with the american electorate. i think some of his policies are in question, without doubt, but are people willing to end that relationship? well, this would have to be a tremendously convincing and powerful republican personality to come onboard. you know, bill clinton was that personality who broke in on george h.w. bush back in '92 with "it's the economy, stupid." now we will see if it is possible for somebody to make the argument that republicans have been making in such a galvanizing way that the american electorate turns away from the historic presidency of president obama. host: another question here and then we will get to one or two phone calls. go ahead, please. >> i'm jessica lee from massachusetts. my question to you is how do you

feel about the current political discussion on expanding healthcare for minorties and do you think this is an important discussion -- a national discussion to have? guest: when you say expanding healthcare for minorties, are you are talking about as part of the healthcare reform bill or something different? >> for minorties. guest: obviously it does not apply to illegal immigrants. it would apply to all americans, minorties, majorities, everybody, in terms of people not covered for health insurance. we have already seen some expansion in terms of children's healthcare, so it is for everybody. it is not just for minorties unless i'm missing some part of your question. no? ok. what do i think of this expansion? to me, this is a major moment in american life. this is, to me, akin to the historic effort to, for example, put in place medicare and

medicaid, but i think it's more like, to my mind, covering the seniors, you know, seniors are no longer the poorest americans, young people are now, kids, but there was a day in american hive when seniors, especially older women really were in needs of protection, a social safety net. we saw some of that with social security and don't forget it covers widows, orphans and that kind of thing and then with medicare, again, to pick up the idea that the elderly should not be struggling for healthcare coverage, and now, i think the extension would be to make sure that all americans have some basic levels of healthcare coverage and that people don't have to scrap for, you know -- don't have to worry about having some catastrophic illness that will bankrupt them. it is not only them. we think of it in terms of individuals, but i can't tell you how often when i'm not doing or or thing, i come across people who are small business owners who complain about the high cost of healthcare benefits for

employees and of course, we have seen what happened with the auto companies, so this becomes larger. it snowballs quickly, but i come back to the individual, that you were speaking about. i think for people at the lower end of the economic scale, this is really a revelation. this is really a major moment in america. it is is a major commitment. now, i know there are committics who say -- there are critics who say this is an extension of socialistic ideology, that it will drive up the national debt, and it definitely has costs to it, but in terms of a basic commitment to the well being of the american people, i think it is a watershed. host: you are a contributor to the fox news channel. >> i am. host: sarah palin is the newest contributor to the fox news channel. your reaction? guest: i think it's tremendous. hook, sarah palin is a ratings grabber. i think she is, you know, like a lightning rod in terms of american politics right now. i think people will be fascinated to see what she is

like on camera, can she do it? what does she have to say? how well informed is she? you will not only have people who are fans of sarah palin watching? you will have critics of sarah palin watching and examining every word she says because they want to mock her or prove that she wasn't up to it in the latest book that is the talk of the town, all this difference between north korea and south korea and all. that everybody is going to be asking what is going on with sarah palin and is she preparing for a run at the presidency or the senate or whatever. to me, again, i think that management at fox has brought in another superstar. host: what advice would you give her when she is on with bill o'reilly? guest: understand that she is not the star of the show, that it's o'reilly's show. it may be difficult for someone who is a politician, because they're used to being the focus of attention. it's interesting, like for

example, in this exchange with you, steve, you allow the guest to speak, but if you're dealing with o'reilly, part of it is that people tune in to watch bill. they are fascinated by his opinions, his thoughts, his arguments. it is almost like the guest is the foil that allows o'reilly to reveal himself, to really blossom. also, she is going to are have to deal with people the likes meef contradicting her, arguing with her. again, i'll not sure that that kind of fast-paced exchange and people taking shots at you is what she is used to. she is used to critic afar but when they're in your face, it is a little different. host: we're coming from the campus of george washington university and the students here are part of the washington center. go ahead on the democrats line. caller: hi, yes. i just want to let all the americans know that why should we put the republicans back in

office when they were in office, they didn't do anything. they literally brought down the whole company. i am a democrat. i'm thinking about changing my -- going independent. i feel like that's what everybody should do. i'm disappointed in the democrats. i'm also disappointed in the republicans. i think that both of them are have made a mockery out of all of this regarding the healthcare. i do want to give a shoutout. there was healthcare in kansas city, missouri. i do not have insurance. i have been laid off for a whole year. i went. i found out that when i did go, i found out that i was a diabetic. i also found out that i had high cholesterol, and i thank god for them coming here, and i did follow up. i followed up with my doctor. it cost me $98. i paid it out of my pocket.

they did draw my habes in the doctor's office -- they did draw my labs in the doctor's office, so i didn't have to pay for going to the lab and getting that done but i did have a lab bill for $218. i want it to be passed and i want healthcare to be fair. i am also a person in the insurance field for over 30 years. it has never been between a doctor and patient. it has always been about the insurance and the doctor. host: thank you. guest: the interesting thing she said to me at the start was she is thinking to changing to independent. she criticized republicans and said she's a democrat but also highly critical of the democrats an considering becoming an independent. when you look at the numbers right now, looking at the trends in american politics, beyond the headlines, the biggest political force of the moment seems to be populism, seems to be people

disgusted with both sides, both political parties even as president obama's numbers go down and even the high numbers of defection with democrat majorities in the house and senate, you don't see commensurate rise in terms of identification with republicans at this junction. people are highly critical of obama and remain highly critical of the republicans. i wonder what is going to happen when things like tea parties, the town hall meetings, that energy. that any energy is anti-government, anti-big tax, big spending. you would be surprised, on the left, there is still a great deal of dissatisfaction about the war efforts and president obama's commitment there, so what happens to that energy as we approach 2010? if you talk to the political establishment in this town, it is about things like healthcare. it is about the president's expressed agenda in the congress on energy, cap and trade and the like, about if you're out in 9 grassroots and talking to the american people, they're more

focused on we just want more change. obama was once the bastion for change, but now if you see obama as part of the problem, as part of washington, then exactly what constitutes change? is it, you know, marco rubio is on the cover of a magazine as possibly the first senator from the tea party. he is down in florida. what happens to these people who are doctors affected from both republicans and democrats? is it possible that the republican establishment is able to get comfortable and claim some of those folks? sarah palin, by the way, would fit in with that, or is it the case that this is the founding energy for a possible third party, that we get back to the likes of ross perot, john anderson, or most recently ralph nader, that somebody out there says it's time to break apart this larger structure. i think it's very difficult to do it, but at the moment there's

no question in my mine that that's the political energy of 2010. host: difficult to do because the state writes the rules of who is on the ballot. guest: exactly, who writes the rules, who has the power and the american media. ate he the structure. it's what we built. to try to break that down would be a humongous effort, herculean. host: how many of you, by a show of hands, are frustrated or disappointed with the democrats or president obama? just raise your hand? and how many of you are frustrated or disappointed with the republican party. guest: see, this is what is going on in america? . host: how many of you voted in america in the last election? guest: wow, i'm thrilled. young people are cynical about the political structure r they are all stephen colbert fans and mock politics and politicians

are all a bunch of bums but i'm glad you got involved. host: to david next from springfield, massachusetts -- oh, actually brian from michigan on the democrats line. caller: thanks. i have a lot of respect for you over the years as i listen to us. we have the news media and they are right in your wheelhouse, but how can politicians actually hideaway from direct questions suchs as you're getting, news conferences, we depend on our media to ask direct questions and try to get direct answers but if the president, whether it's this president or the last president, does not come out in front of them and avail themselves to direct questions, how can we learn more about where they're going and cut through all this clutter? i don't believe this president, president obama, has had a direct news conference since july. guest: that's been a topic at

the white house briefings for the last few days, as reporters are beginning to pepper robert gibbs, the white house spokesman with questions about, hey, when is the next press conference? it is interesting because there are some people who say he speaks too often and in public too often. we have a state of the unicoming, and certainly major events and one question that is fascinating about washington life and politics and media is how do you get someone to answer a question? it might seem simple. how do you get somebody to answer a question? remember, there is such tremendous media management that takes place in this town, that it's hard to break through, because people, you know, i remember ronald reagan used to pick people who wore red but they were seated properly and he would know where they were an there was a chart. all presidents use t all presidents know as they go

into interviews the setup for the interview, what is it about, how will it be used? what is the direction of the question? oftentimes there are suggestions throughout as to where the president or major political figure is willing to may, willing to make news, and that of course encourages the average core or the interviewer to go in a certain direction, so that they are on the same wavelength with the person being interviewed and they can get something out of it and make news because that's what you want as the reporter for your interview. the question is how do the american people learn really what is going on and what is in the mind if not the heart of the politician. i think increasingly people look away from the center. they look away from the managed response to any set of questions and start to hook at things like the person's character, what kind of person it is, what do they see about them with their family, in inscripted moments when they may have had a problem, how did they handle it? they want to know more and more

about what makes the makeup of this person, rather than their public statement, and i think that's clearly the direction we're going in, because news management has become so sophisticated in this day and age. host: another question from the back, please. >> my question is who do you think are the future leaders of both political partys? guest: that's tough. if you were to ask me who's running, let's say in 2012, if that's what we're talking about, i would point to people like tim pawlenty, the former governor of minnesota, and i would point to haley barber, the governor of mississippi, and of course i think about sarah palin, former governor of alaska and my new fox colleague, but i think i would also, more and more, it seems to me, that the energy is with women, and so i would be looking for some of the

surprising leadership that's coming from women and the idea that women strike people as much as president obama, as much as president obama did, as someone who could be a game changer, someone who would bring new flavor and new perspective to the political process. i think that still is the overwhelming desire, so it's some of the new faces and energy that would be coming from the republican side. now, if you're talking about the democratic side, again, i think that it's not so much new faces as players who may not have occupied senator center stage coming to center stage, for example, with all the pressure on harry reid back in nevada, what happens if harry reid moves on, then you're looking at people like dick durbin, looking at people like chuck schumer moving into more prominent positions and becoming more significant in terms of their ideas and their policies in the future. host: david is joining us from massachusetts on the independent line. go ahead, please.

caller: how are you doing? i'm calling because first i have a statement and then second i have a question about the constitution of the united states. first, a statement. as an independent voter, i think that the people in massachusetts are going to vote for the person that represents their voice. i know in massachusetts we feel that this healthcare bill is a violation of our state rights. now, we live in a society where naturally we're not going to leave somebody to die on the street. but unfortunately, the hospitals an institutions are carrying the bills. host: let me ask you a couple of questions. you are an independent voter. who have you voted for in past elections in massachusetts? caller: in massachusetts, i voted for john kerry, and in the presidential elections i voted for john mccain. i voted for mitt romney as governor. i voted for senator kennedy. it doesn't matter your political party. it matters who you are as an individual and how outspoken you are as an individual and are you going to represent my voice as an individual?

host: so based on that, mar martha copely and scott brown, who will you vote for next tuesday? >> i'm voting for scott brown for basically where he stands on the healthcare bill and how they were both raised. martha coakley is somebody who has never really experienced the hardships of the world. i don't know much of their difference but i see a lieutenant colonel in the national guard. this is somebody who has endured. i see that as a fine candidate. host: what is going to happen tuesday? what is your prediction? caller: i believe that brown will win because the voice of independents are the sleeping giants in massachusetts. host: your reaction? guest: the numbers don't suggest that the numbers are closing but if you look at the boston globe and even at some of the polls that just call people sort of on the phone, those are the ones that have it now around double digits, around 10, maybe a

little less, but not much. host: but it is a special e election. isn't the key getting out the vote? guest: yes, in a special election, it is who shows up. it will be a lower turnout than a normal election. that brings us back to the fact that there is such a strong democratic machine in massachusetts that they can produce the votes. nour, i think that brown's team is counting on the fact that some democrats may not show up, may not have much energy for this and their force is then coming back to the populist antagonist toward healthcare reform. they have a a reason to go to the polls to show their concern about healthcare, but can those numbers overwhelm the democratic numbers in massachusetts? it's unlikely. remember, we're talking about ted kennedy's seat. host: back to david in springfield, go ahead. are you still with us? we will move on. let's get a question from one of the students here. >> i'm alex from suffolk university, boston.

host: good morning. >> our previous speaker ed gillespie mentioned that the iraq war is a necessary war. do you think that the united states should continue a neoliberal approach toward foreign policy and continue to actor become a prominent international police force in the world? guest: i think we are the lone superpower. there is no question about that. i was interested in your use of the term neoliberal. from my perspective, what you have is the argument for kind of being -- spreading democracy, for intervening in iraq when it wasn't iraq that attacked us on 9/11, would be a neoconservative argument. i'm interested in what you mean when you say "neoliberal." >> well, it depends on which theorist you read, and which term they give you with

neoliberalism and neoconservatism, but neoliberalism in the book i'm reading now "stay craft" deals with an approach that intervening not only militaristically but also economically and in every way possible in order to establish countries as democracies to make them partners in the world. guest: again, it's interesting. i haven't read "stay craft" but i see this is an effort on the part of the administration, political theory, was that we want to promote democracy worldwide. we want more democracy and especially in the middle east. we want the voice of the people to be represented. remember, after the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, then there were different arguments as toss why we were in argument. what is the justification? one of the principle arguments

was because we want to foster democratic representation of the people of iraq, so that we can, in fact, have a more stable political structure than, as an example, for the rest of the middle east, and that was coming from the bush administration, so i don't think they would be comfortable being described as neoliberal, and, in fact, the left in the country, i think, was much more quick to say it's time to get out once we didn't have weapons of mass destruction, once it looked like things were going against us and it was the bush administration again that insisted on the surge and the idea that we cannot afford to lose that war and what would the signal be, the cost be, the ramifications down the road historically if the u.s. was forced to leave? that's why i think we're still there. i think subsequent to the bush administration, that the obama administration has persisted that we will set a time line for the drawdown of troops, but -- and will agree to the state of forces agreement, but what we

want to do is exit in such an orderly fashion that we leave behind some structure that will, in fact, satisfy the idea that we we had created more of a democratic iraq than was there previously. host: how many of you are interested in government and public pom si, another show of hands. hopefully it is unanimous. raise your hands up high. ok. how many of you are roop interested in some day running for elective office. guest: wow. good. go ahead with your question. >> natalie valdez from miami-dade honors college. my question is in the current economic situation, i would like to ask you in terms of education, what is the view of teachers being laid off and so underpaid. healthcare is important but shouldn't this be a priority as well? guest: no doubt that education is the be-all and end-all. i wouldn't be sitting here in front of you if it wasn't for

education. i grew up a poor kid. education has been the life changer for me, so, you know, my mom really focused on education. she was a beast about, you know, school, and it's paid off for me and for my brother and sister. i don't think there's any question. when you ask me about education, i think that is the key, the civil rights challenge of this generation, maybe even more so than healthcare, because i think every child should have the opportunity to get a foothold on that hadder of upward mobility to be somebody in american life and you can't do it without education. you have got to have it in this society, and it is becoming much more society, even in economic terms of haves and have not's and i'm not talking about money, because you can go up and down in terms of your economic form form, but it is almost impossible to pay attention to an innovative-based economy

where we have to be sophisticated and almost a world traveler to deal with the fact that we have a global economy. you have to have an education to be economically sufficient in this world, so, to me, the idea that you're firing teachers, laying off teachers, underpaid teachers, i think is a tragedy. now, i will say that there have been excesses, especially in some of the failings big city public schools, and those excesses include wasting money, and so that you get an argument like, well, per pupil spending like here in the district of columbia might be higher than some of the suburbs and yet student performance outcomes don't match that per pupil spending, and then you get into arguments about unions and teachers halting possible school reforms. that's why you see people, the hike of bill gates, warren buffett, and others putting tremendous money into education to try to make it a political issue to say you know what

education is a plim concern and here in washington, education is a political concern and no child left behind was a controversial item under the bush administration, so this is an area of concern. yet, when you look at the polls, right now, education is falling down in terms of preoccupations of the american people. it's not on the screen as a major political item. i think it should be. i'm glad you feel that way, but i don't think it is simply about increasing the dollars t may be that we're in an age when we have to reshape, not only elementary and secondary education but rethink the kind of education experience you're having in college, what's necessary, what's unnecessary. look at the costs. i don't know what your parents are praying, but here at g.w. it is a big tick tote come to school, more than $50,000. that becomes prohibitive and that cements that class divide and that has all sorts of implications for who we become later in the 21st century as an

american people. host: our conversation is with one williams, part of the washington center at g.w. campus. where did you grow up? guest: in brooklyn and went to prep in upstate new york and went to haverford college in halferford, pennsylvania. host: on the republican like from new orleans, william. go ahead, please. we will get a question from one of the students. go ahead. >> hi, i'm ka buhlly. do you think the middle class will benefit from healthcare reform? guest: that's a great question. there are levels of benefits. if you are thinking purely in terms of taxes, let's say. i would say probably not. there is all sorts of different definitions about who is rich and who is not rich if you start to take the mini millionaire tax

of $200,000, et cetera, so there will be additional taxes in there. as you know, the unions were at the white house yesterday complaining about the so-called cadillac healthcare plan tax because if you're an individual, i think it's $8,000, and a family $24,000, there would be additional taxes on those healthcare plans and it is something like 40% of union members of this would be subject to higher taxes because they get some of those plans as benefits often times in lieu of pay hikes, so in absolute terms, i think there is going to be a cost and don't forget the kind of scoring we have seen from c.b.o. being deficit neutral. it is likely it will cost something to the american people. it may cost us in terms of increased deficits, inflation, all that. there is going to be a price to be paid, but i think there is also benefit in terms of who we

are as an american people. this is what i was talking about earlier, that if you say to yourself, is it important to you that everyone has some basic level of health coverage in our society, are you willing as an individual to pay for that? that's a very political question. i as an individual would say yes, i think it is important to me, as part of my american values. it is important to me to think i'm not walking past someone on the street who can't afford to see the dentist or for health reasons can't afford to go and see a doctor or a child that can't be seen. i don't want that as part of my society. am i willing to pay for it, yes? how much am i willing to pay for it? that becomes highly political, but if you're asking, will the middle class benefit now, one other factor is i think employers who see some limit, who understand that there is some control in terms of healthcare costs, are more likely then to say, you know

what? as long as i know what my costs are going to be, and they're not going to jump through the ceiling, i might do a better job of hiring. the other side of that is that they might, because they're add costs an penalties for not participating, not offering up benefits, some employees might be less likely to hire. i think overwhelmingly it will be to the positive side, more people saying as long as i know that my healthcare costs won't drive me into bankruptcy, i can do more in terms of feeling that i have a secure business and therefore more hiring. host: we have time for one more call. go ahead, steve. caller: i have an assignment for the frustrated democrats in the audience. please go to www.democratz.org, democrats with a z instead of an

s, and you won't be frustrated anymore, because we will take on the corporations that give money to conservatives. we're going to boycott them. we're going to force their c.e.o.'s to go to the congress and get us the legislation they blocked. tell your friends, tell your parents all over this country, we're going to take this country back! host: another question from the audience. >> as we all know, the president of the united states is a very important speaker, and as far as i have seen, president barack obama is an amazing speaker. does he mean his words or is he just talk for talking? guest: politicians, do they say what they mean? well, we were talking about media management earlier and

politicians know their audience and speak to their audience's concerns and are trying to win your support, so any politician is speaking in such a way as to try to help them gain your not only vote but your financial support. i don't think there is any question. president obama is part of that group. he is a politician, so does he mean his words? i happen to think that obama stands out in my mind for being brilliant in terms of being able to explain policy. it is almost like a seminar. oftentimes he does it off the cuff at news conferences. he can go on and on about the details in a way that that is astounding. i think he does mean it. the thing is where does he stand? i'm not always clear even after listening to him and being wowed by his performance and knowledge, not cheer about where he stands. i think that's us that's because he prefers to hear all sides of the arguments, to be familiar, to let the marbles sift out and