bureau chief for "market watch," will take your questions about job creation. "washington journal" is next. . host: over at the capitol today

we are going to see the first meeting of an entity called the financial industry inquiry commission, appointed by congress, bipartisan, their job will be to talk to the big bank chiefs about the financial crisis, how it happened, and what will happen in the future. that is at 9:00 a.m. we would like to ask you what you would ask the bankers today at that meeting. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. we will begin at the port today -- court today, where david savage is a long time reporter. two items we have on our minds.

one is citizens united verses the sec. what is the situation there? what are we likely to hear today? >> we do not know if we will hear anything. we will simply be ready at 10:00 this morning. you never know when the court is going to decide something. the the issue is whether the supreme court is going to say corporations have a right to free speech, to spend as much as they want, to elect or defeat candidates for congress or the white house. as far back as 1907 congress told corporations that they might not put money into campaigns. since world war ii, unions and corporations may not spend money directly to influence elections. the supreme court a few years ago took up what looked to be a

fairly small case. citizens united, a small conservative case, had produced a attack on hillary clinton in 2008. the question was whether it was regulated by supreme finance laws. it looked like a fairly small issue. the justices over the summer were going to reconsider a series of decisions that go back decades, a decision that forbid corporations from using their own money in campaigns. citizens united is going to win. what we do not know is if they are going to win big, allowing corporations to spend as much as they want, or if the court will back off into a more narrow

ruling. nonprofit organizations would be easier answer. but we will not talk about the big profit-making companies. host: what could it mean for the 2010 election cycle? >> i think that most people think it would have a big impact. suppose that the pharmaceutical lobby or the oil and gas industry is not happy with the cap and trade bill in congress. or that they are unhappy with some aspect of the health care plan. those companies, singularly or as a group, could say that their point to launch a campaign to defeat certain senators or members of congress who took the wrong position from our point of view. we are going to pour that money

into independent spending. corporations spending money to defeat senators, because they are bad for business or the economy. the law will still be that corporations cannot funnel money directly into the campaign. most people would think that it would mean more money and corporate money in politics. who knows, it could have a big impact. host: we are talking with david savage, court reporter for "the los angeles times." ñrmoving into the area of the video coverage of the court, can you explain the decision we are waiting for? >> yes. this week it began on monday. there is a big trial in sentences go on the

constitutionality of proposition 8. replacing the same-sex marriage ban in california. the issue is whether the constitution gives gays and lesbians the right to marry. the judge said that he wanted to permit limited video coverage of the trial. that there was great public interest in it. he initially said that he was going to allow the procedure to be taped each day and put on youtube. he has changed that to the court's web site. i think a lot of people thought of this was a good idea. but the federal courts have had a pretty strong will forbidding broadcast coverage of the trial court's. a lot of your viewers are sure

to be aware of the state court trial rules, but the federal court has had no cameras in there. over the weekend the defenders of proposition 8, the group that opposes the gay rights initiative, they went to the supreme court and said that we think that our witnesses and our clients have a danger to be harassed and intimidated if their faces and testimony are broadcast and put on youtube all of around the country and the world. on monday morning the supreme court issued a temporary stay, telling the judge that there was no video coverage allowed outside of the court. now they are going to decide this afternoon whether to make it a permanent order or to lift it. host: could this be extended? >> that is the big possibility.

that is what the court is being asked to do. did is likely that they will extend the stay, saying that because of a threat to a fair trial and the unprecedented video coverage, we will forbid the judge from allowing any sort of open video coverage of this trial. host: we will keep an eye on the actions of the court. david savage, thank you for the update this morning. >> a good to speak with you. host: here is a piece, one of many, on the bankers. "banks rehearsed lines for questioning. the players in the game in washington reversed their lines. beginning today, the cross- examination of the chiefs of

four of the large banks to explore the causes of the 2009 of people across markets, repercussions of which are still being felt. after examining witnesses, if necessary, using sweeping subpoena powers that allow any of the 10 members to summon any person or document, the fcc will deliver a report will for christmas to president barack obama -- fcic will deliver a report for christmas to president barack obama." traci, democratic line. what would you ask the bankers today? caller: good morning. first of all, i would like to know how it is that they allow the situation to take place that damages the african-american

community and the latino community. this type of bailout program that is in place for african- americans and latinos to come out of foreclosure and be able to reestablish their credit and get mortgages for loans. host: thank you. julie, independent line from charlotte, n.c.. what would u.s. them, julie? caller: i would ask them how much, exactly, of this to you deserve by virtue of being a banker in the united states? even though you have been saved by the federal government. our sec person just call in all

of our tax dollars. we are honest, government of biting folks for whom taxes are regulated, the banks were bailed out, saving these people, the bankers, their jobs, and etc.. now i want to ask them how do you explain tehe math? how is that benefiting? how is that fair? host: some of the names that we will hear from -- here is the photo from the paper -- "banks testifying before the committee last february, today they will hear from lloyd blank ein,

jamie diamon, brian moynihan. leaders in congress said that they were not interested in debating the bankers. their purpose was to get information and it was more important than shaming anyone. for the chief executive at jpmorgan chase, the chief executive at goldman sachs, bank of america, and morgan stanley, that is good news as they prepare for their 9:00 a.m. appearance." john, what would you ask the bankers today? caller: probably 20 different questions. what i would start with would be for the chief of goldman sachs. if this free market that they

are operating under and bundling securities, passing them off to unsuspected folks, if they were so wonderful how is it that they bet against the success of those as this moved down the tracks? they knew that this would fail. goldman sachs was the biggest culprit according to the article from "the new york times." that would be my question. host: thanks a lot. colorado, your questions for the bankers? what would they be? caller, turned down the sound, if you can. cathy, are you there? caller: yes. host: turn down the sound before you speak. caller: absolutely. host: what would you ask? caller: how can they sleep at

night, having done what they did? host: we need you to turn down the sound. caller: yes, i am. host: that will make a difference. caller: anyway, i called in once last year when this was all coming down. i was speechless, it was beyond belief to me. i thought that the american public would jump up, something would be done. i was glad that president obama did what he did. i did not believe that he was taking over the world with socialism. he was saving our country and economic structure. of course he gets blamed for anything anyways. but the anger that i felt i still feel today. the knot of anger in my stomach, these people paying themselves

as much as they want, crazy amounts. i go to the store, i have to shop sales, living on second- hand clothing. i am elderly and done a fixed income. not even the banks help me when i was a victim of check fraud. these guys are supposed be the adults, taken care of this. it seems to me that they're spoiled brats looking for more money and we are just going to hand it to them. i do not know if it is fear or ignorance, maybe both, but there is a saying that good people stand by, which is why bad things happen. host: ridge, republican line. we are broadcasting this bankers' meeting on capitol hill

with -- on c-span 2. what would you ask? caller: i was shocked to get through, take -- thank you for taking my call. what kind of job they be in where they could make that kind of money? i do not know if anyone on capitol hill is listening, but it would be nice to ask that question. what other job in this world gives you that kind of money without any oversight? i heard someone say over -- the other day, it was a representative from the banking industry, that said that these people are like professional athletes and movie stars. leading to my next question, do they realize that the banks are supposed to be the foundation of our economic system? do they realize that they are the face of capitalism for the rest of the world?

it is no wonder the people all over this planet find it disgusting. i am so frustrated with this. there are many frustrating things in my life, but this takes the cake. host: just to help you watch this event a little bit, it starts at 9:00 and it is supposed to go all day. the first panel, the one with the chiefs of these major banks of the financial industry, the members of the committee questioning them are a bipartisan panel. the first comes from california, as well as it bill

thomas and broksley born. byron georgiou, bob graham, keith hennessey. these are the folks leading a bipartisan committee. then, what would you be asking these people? -- dan, what would you be asking these people? caller: thank you for having me on this morning. the number one most important question will not be asked or answered. you guys have been gracious enough to let me on a bunch of times and i have brought up the fact that on september 11, 2008, there was a run on the united states treasury. it happened in the morning.

an overwhelming amount of money was being drawn out of the treasury. the treasury could not keep up with the money that needed to go out. the country was going in the financial collapse that afternoon if the computer did out -- did not automatically kick in. if you have a 401k and u.s. your broker to cash in, that happens at the end of business. -- if you have your 401k and you ask your broker to cash in, that happens at the end of business. why was this happening in the morning? these financial institutions, how much money with i in 2 for the oil futures market when oil went up to over $150 -- how much

money were they in for with the oil futures market when oil went up to over $150? çótimothy geithner, ben bernank, they will lovnot say september , 2008. but he will say -- that thursday. two attacks in the morning of september 11. host: thank you for your call this morning. "business week" has the headline "mr. fat cat goes to washington." "what is expected? some humility and identification with americana." some of the statements that they

expect, "we can police ourselves, really." they have spoken to many experts in various sets of the economy and they have their own questions. there is a big op-ed piece in " the *" that you can read. -- the times "that you can read. -- the times" that you can read. "how did you use the bailout money and how did it benefit your employees? what changes did you contemplate making to your aid programs? what have you done to modify your risk management and oversight structures to reduce the possibility that the problems of 2008 and 2009 will occur again"?

lots of questions here. cleveland, ronald, on the democratic line. good morning. caller: first of all, i would like to thank you for allowing us to call in. thank you, c-span. i am a first-time caller. it is my opinion that if we must democratize our democracy, we must remove the influence of capital. it must be dispelled. this legislation coming before us today might give us the opportunity to democratize our democracy. the protagonists -- the pythagoras theory, where the tip top of the government has

greater influence than the bottom, is a non-democratic situation. host: steve, republican line. caller: how are you doing? host: how effective did they think their schooling was? i wanted to turn the tables and asked congress if the constitution gives them the responsibility to regulate commerce and industry, how can they drop the ball like that? how could they repealed last stiegel? i think if you should ask questions of business and government. it was not just the businesses.

host: "the president will announce on thursday it planned to impose a new feexd of ameri's biggest financial firms in a yearlong effort to recoup funds. this from a senior official last night. returning as much as $120 billion to the treasury from the tarp program." also in "the post" this morning, a broader view, "$787 billion creating or saving jobs in the economy, less like the administration released its second quarterly report to congress. the spending on the package was out the door.

the office estimates are that the stimulus added between 1.5% and 3% to the growth in gross domestic product in the final quarters of 2009." next caller. caller: there is a glass skyline in existence here. the height of our economy, the bailout situation, my question would be -- host: are you there? tony, hello. caller: how are you doing?

ñihost: fine. caller: i wouldçó ask the bankes that they could search their souls a bit, if people are calling to try to do business, to stop them from foreclosing. when you are ready to pay, you want pay your mortgage -- myself, i got hurt at work and that mess with my finances. o2oñwhen i tried to call them ty hung up on me right after i repeated the number of wanted them to call me back on. since i could not deal with the regular people, i call the vice- president. i expected his secretary to call me back. someone like that. but that did not happen either. i was so afraid because of the

writ of scams and everything else that has happened -- rep off -- rip off scams because of everything else that happened that the paperwork sent to me was up the same, it was different and look like it was from a collection agency. i did not know who i was dealing with. host: interesting. thank you. "as america recovers from the worst financial crisis since the depression, chief financial officers are offering a rare apology. but their words are so carefully parsed been scrubbed by lawyers, picked over by a public relations professionals, it is unclear just how much mea is in their culpa." it goes on to say "the art of the spreanuanced regret."

what would you ask these folks today? ed, republican line. caller: i have an observation. after the banks had been bailed out, the first thing was increase the use of american interest rates. they doubled the double payments. average people that never had problems with credit, what they did out of those measures that they took, they forced millions of americans to go bottom up on their credit. this is one of the reasons that the economy took such a big hit. this all happened after the billions of taxpayer dollars. they destroyed the credit of average americans by doing what they did. at the same time that the banks were doing that, they blame the regulators for doing that and

the people paying taxes were caught in the middle. they had to make a decision to pay taxes or pay these extremely high interest rates. it was a catch-22. people were caught in the middle. that is what is going on today. that is why small business is suffering. that is why the economy is in such a bad state. host: thank you a lot. a couple more calls, bill, you are up first. go ahead. caller: i would reverse it on them and ask the regulatory commission's, ask the people from these companies what our government can do to reverse the

situation. host: what do you expect to hear? caller: i think that something needs to be done. just like the caller before me. they were talking about the fact that as soon as they got the chance they doubled their interest rates. there seems to be no regulation at all. host: last call for democrats, new jersey, what would you ask these bankers? i think that that caller is gone. we will talk more about this later on in the program. in the meantime, we will take a short time out and turn to health care, i guess, with congresswoman jan schakowskyñi. she is a member of the intelligence committee, but we will be focusing mostly on health care. be right back. ♪

>> this weekend, finial johnson on the 1965 voting rights act and how it paved the way for future path african-american leadership. he will discuss his book on "after words." >> the deadline is approaching to enter c-span's 2010 studentscam contest. -- studentcam contest. create a video on one of our country's greatest strength for a challenge we are facing.

it must incorporate c-span programming and include different points of view. do not wait another minute, go to studentcam.org to upload your project today. >> the juno that your number one news application for york ipod is c-span? -- application for your ipod is c-span? you can find links to our programming and it is free, available from the app store. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest now at the table, rep jan schakowsky from illinois. we woke up congresswom, congreso this story. charlie rangel, health care talks had stalled, not likely to

have a final bill until february. what are the serious problems? >> we are at a moment right now where we stand on the press of this of being able to offer to americans, finally, affordable quality health care. getting there has not been easy. there is a lot of interest involved that wants to stolid and those that want to pass it. here we are, at this moment, where we have difficult questions about how to pay for the bill. as well as affordability. are people really going to, when they inevitably go to those online calculators and put in their income and health status, will they find that they can afford to have health care bella will we be able to cover millions of new people with the plan? we are at a point right now

where some of these serious questions are unresolved. host: there was a big democratic meeting on the hill last night. what was that like? guest: a lot of people felt that the house bill was preferable to the senate bill in many ways. i think that is what you heard in many ways, from the numbers of large, who are happy with various positions. a lot of people talk about a way to pay for the taxing benefits of workers. this was not viewed as a good way to go. this is a plan that is in the senate bill. the white house is certainly supporting a version of that. we are trying to come to a

place where middle-class people do not find themselves, once they take a look at the bill, now i am going to have additional taxes on my benefits. there is dispute over what exactly is a cadillac benefit. really, what it means is a high- cost benefit. let me give you an example. i know you want to go to your viewers and listeners, but the house and senate are all part of the federal employee benefit plan. a large group with the average age of 47. the cost of our plan falls below the threshold of the so-called cadillac plan. if the senate of the united states, average age of 63, a smaller group, if they were getting their own plan, by

themselves, that same benefits package would say -- suddenly be a cadillac plan. because the cost more. when you talk about these plans, you have to talk about -- is that the benefits? or is it because of the age or health? even the gender? more women in the group? more money. we are also discriminated against. host: the phone numbers are on the screen, separate lines for democrats, republicans, and independents. jan schakowsky is our first guest this morning. "11 lawmakers, meeting privately with president obama today, the house majority whip will attend, as well as chris dodd and dick durbin.

support grows for u.s. health exchange. the white house wants to include health insurance exchanges in the bill, giving democrats more sway." guest: the house bill creates a national pool, lots of people will be able to choose. people that are uninsured, self- employed, small businesses. they will be able to go to the national exchange with national guidelines. they will be able to choose from a variety of private plans in the exchange. the house bill would also have a public option to choose from. we believe that by creating these national rules and a

national pool, it will be much more successful than the senate idea, going state-by-state. these could wind up being very small, with very little negotiating power to bring down costs. host: to our guests. jane, louisiana. caller: good morning. can i ask my cup question -- ask my question? host: you are on the air. go ahead. caller: last year there was a passage of 1.1 $2 billion it was cut down because of a discrepancy in paperwork. how do you justify that, given that the real cost of hospital care and medical care is behind insurance rates?

guest: the idea that some of these insurance executives are making these huge bonuses, that they are getting these golden parachutes when they retire, that a lot of these health care dollars go to pay these costs, that is something we are going to get under control. we are going to say that a certain percentage of the premium must go to health care. they will not be able to simply dip into your pocket and take all of that money into profits, which has been a problem for so many years with these high salaries and bonuses. we are actually going to require insurance companies to open the books and provide more disclosure so that we can have more oversight and control in the way that health care dollars

that come from hard-working people. host: jacksonville, sally. republican line. you are on the air. good morning. caller: i have a question. i have health care. i do not want to lose the health care that i have. i do not want to have to pay for anyone else's health care either. how am i, as a taxpayer, going to be penalized for money to come out of my pocket to pass the bill? guest: i disagree with a foolish bill. but if you have excellent health care, and i assume it is through your employer -- am i right about that? host: she is gone. guest: we will continue to have

your health care. the way that the bill is organized, you will not pay additional costs for anyone else. i want to say this, every other industrialized co. -- industrialized country in the world has made the decision, just like we have, with putting out fires for fire departments, that it will be a right of all of the people in their countries to have access to health care. they decided that it was a community, country function, of something that we are all doing together. the united states stands alone in saying that we do not share together in making sure that all americans have health care. i really think it is a moral issue. we should all be involved in making sure that we have access to quality, affordable health care.

host: back to that meeting, what was the general mood of the caucus? guest: at the end of the day, house members want to see a bill that more resembles the house bill. we think that it provides much greater affordability for people. we think that handles the issue of control over the insurance industry much better. just one after another of provisions. the closing of the doughnut hole, that is how much the people on medicare have to pay out of pocket for their medication. we want to close that gap. that was, i think, a lot of the conversation. host: we've covered a town hall meeting up in michigan.

they talked a lot about the amendment on abortion. did that come up last night? >> it did. the caucus that in my part of, which has well over 100 members in the house of representatives, as well as wide support throughout the country for reproductive health care being a part of any package, it came up last night in the context of those of us that believe we should be pro-choice thinking that we should stick with the status quo, which says no federal dollars to pay for abortion. we don't -- we do not necessarily like that, but we agree with that. the stupak and nelson amendments

go well beyond that. we think that all of our reproductive health needs to be covered. that was discussed even by a pro-life democrat, he agreed. he did not want to make this an abortion bill, he wanted it to remain a health care bill. keep the status quo with no federal dollars going for abortion in moving on. talking about how it would expand and not take away the rights that women have now. host: blanc, ohio. good morning. caller: my concern is the amount of taxes that will be put on me. i run a very small business. i have a couple of employees. what they are going to force me to do is going to put me out of business.

one of the democrats said that the republican health care was to die quickly. i would rather die quickly and free than under the yoke of oppression. host: what do you and your employees do for health care right now? caller: we do not have any and i will not get any. there is plenty of health care available out there. this thing is turning the nation into a bunch of bums and beggars. where is our american pride? guest: actually, this is good news for you, if you look carefully at this bill. there will be an opportunity, if you are a small business, to go into a health-care exchange where they can get the health care that they need. this will be an opportunity for you to save your employees and a way for you to get health care

that will not be charged to you if you are a small business. additionally, right away there are going to be small business tax credits that will make employee coverage more affordable. tax credits of up to 50% of premiums that will be available to firms that shoes offer coverage. so, actually, this bill has been very careful to particularly target small businesses. most of whom want to provide their employees with health care coverage. i do not know if that is your situation. but they can provide it with the assistance that they desire, but perhaps having a health care change that your employees can go to. host: our guest was elected to

her sixth term, recently. jan schakowsky. indiana, democratic line. hello. caller: in my book i would love to save more taxes to get good health care. i think that we shall have a single payer system instead of paying these lousy insurance companies to make their big ceo's all of these profits. i would rather pay more taxes, i think i would probably get a lot better health care of and what i have right now. host: anything you would like to say that? ñrguest: single payer systems ae very efficient. what that means is that the government would be the insurance company, and people would still be able to pick their doctor, go to their

hospital, having the same kind of distribution system that we have for health care now, but every single person would be covered. it would be covered by a special tax for health care. as you correctly said, for most people, it would actually be less expensive and everyone would be covered. remember, the united states of america spends nearly twice as much as every other nation in the world. for person. yet we have 40 million people without health care. more and more i hear that every single day, people that are underinsured. they think they are insured until they get sick. host: tennessee, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have three questions, please

do not cut me off. one, but want to ask you about the national insurance exchange. host: let me stop you there and we will come back, but let's get an answer first. guest: insurance companies would qualify to come into the exchange. it would be a place where there would be established benefits package. there would be some people that are subsidized within the exchange in order to pay the premium. ñrthey would have to abide by certain rules in order to be in the exchange. but it would be for private companies. as i said, in the house bill there would be one publicly run option. all the rest would be private insurance companies that meet the criteria to come into the plan.

host: keep going. caller: ok. i got an e-mail about a month ago from one of the major insurance companies. people keep beating up on the insurance companies, but the truth is that 99 cents out of every dollar that they get goes to doctors and hospitals. the second point i would like to make is that government is good in some areas, but this is not the time -- 6 million people involved with health insurance, if you want to break them, you have got to put them on the unemployment rolls. guest: first of all, the insurance companies would still exist under the house and senate plans. and we would be adding so many people to the ranks of the insured, we know that the health-care industry would absolutely boom. in fact, one of the challenges

that we have is making sure that we have enough health care providers in order to meet the demand. both the house and senate bill had made investments in workforce development to make sure that we have the primary doctors that we need, the nurses that we need, and a whole range of health care professionals, bringing the assistance that we need to take care of people that need access to the system. there will be a lot of jobs in health care that are available. we are not taking away insurance company jobs. host: tensions growing between the chambers -- this is from "roll call." did that come up last night? what is your view? guest: one of the things that senator nelson got was 100%

government reimbursement for health care for just nebraska. even within that state there are people that are saying wait a minute, because you have got that 60 of vote now you are going to make special deals that only applied to the people of this state? this is not so good. there is enormous frustration. the fact that one united states senator can hold not only the whole congress, but all country hostage, i think it raises questions about the rules. we know that we have got in the high 50's of senators that are ready to compromise and work on a bill with house members. we have probably got about 55 u.s. senators that would support the public option, for example,

which is supported by the public. senator lieberman, by the way, just days before he said that he would not support allowing people to purchase medicare, he supported it. we have seen some change of heart, probably due to the insurance industry. host: we will be talking to the attorney-general south carolina later today. we will be talking about the constitutionality of the bill. what do you make of the constitutional argument on health care? guest: every other industrialized nation has figured out, constitutionally, how to provide health care to citizens. i think that we could certainly, as the richest of all the nations, figure it out. host: back to the phones.

syracuse. caller: i have a couple of questions i could ask, but i am a bit nervous. host: take your time. caller: thank you. the waste, fraud, and abuse in this bill -- they make it sound like they will only go after that once the health bill is passed. i do not understand that. second, what happens when we hit the next big wall? when people are living longer and healthier? what will happen with our social security. host: thank you. guest: one of the ways that we want to get this under control is to hold the insurance industry accountable. one of the most important ways to do that, right now the

insurance industry is exam -- exempt from antitrust laws. by law right now they can collude with each other to set prices. without any interference at all. only major league baseball and the insurance industry is exempt from antitrust. one of the things that i know that the white house wants to do, it is in the house bill, is remove that protection so that they actually have to compete. host: now that your back in town, there will be a lot of activity -- regarding the attempted attack on christmas day. what is the right approach intelligence-wise and security- wise? guest: we have the intelligence.

it was about connecting the dots. we are going to get a full briefing this morning on exactly what happened. we need to look for where the holes are. weaker rate -- created the director of national intelligence to make sure that we coordinated communications. so that the cia talked to the military and homeland security, so that we can pull it together. the one that sticks in my craw is when the father of this young terrorist was turned in -- he came in to term in his son. how that did not get translated into not letting this guy with no baggage and a one-way ticket on to the airplane, how did we miss that?

but i think that there are a number of other places where it fell through the cracks. we will try to woo those together. -- lou -- glue those together. host: what are we going to hear? guest: there needs to be accountability here. employees from top to bottom must transmit certain pieces of information. we also want to look at the internal structure that is somehow preventing that. is there a problem even with hardware? google, if you put in a wrong spelling it will say -- do you mean? how come, with this guy's name with one letter wrong in the computer caused it to disappear? as we have heard. this is all transliteration from

another language. of course there are going to be different spellings. we cannot let that make us unsafe on airplanes or anywhere else. host: woodstock, that morning. caller: i have a question about the cadillac tax on the media -- on the middle-class. depending on the media sources you listen to, it could be up to 40%, which would topple over almost every working family. host: this argument that somehow if the plan is taxed at such a high rate that instead of doing this general health care plan, employers could turn that money into salary, that is just a mistake. especially in this economy. i am agreeing with you.

it is a real problem to say that we are going to tax these benefits, particularly in a group of older or more female workers. this package will become very expensive because of who you are. or if you are in an industry that is very dangerous. i think that the notion of taxing these benefits is not a good idea. we are working very hard right now to reshape that proposal so that it does not hit middle- class workers. host: florida, david. republican line. good morning. caller: who am i speaking with this morning? guest: congresswoman jan schakowsky. caller: i am a member of the board of medical association. i am a doctor. this strikes me that we are

making so many apologies, pushing forward so many myths. insurance companies are bad, they need to be controlled. then you support the mandate that forces everyone to purchase overprized health insurance and they will not even -- and they could even be subject to jail time if they do not purchase insurance. you complain about price fixing from 1945, but you love allowed it to be taking care of. you complain that it is broken and costs too much, yet medicare is bankrupt. congresswoman, do you think that the people that elected you are this stupid? why are you placing politics above the lives of people? .

our guest will be peter hoekstra, who is on the intelligence committee. in the meantime, in news update from c-span radio. >> president obama meet with democratic leadership to work that details of the final health care plan. later, the president goes to maryland to toward a job- training center. bankers testify before the financial crisis commission today. in remarks to "politico" douglas holtz-eakin says not to expect

any bombshells. you can hear live coverage of the meeting on c-span radio up at 10:00 eastern. and update on the earth quaked in haiti. officials say there is no way to estimate casualties from the devastating earthquake but went on to say, thank goodness and bus after hours. meanwhile, prince's foreign minister says the head of the mission in haiti died. everyone in the un mission building are apparently dead. >> congress established the financial inquiry crisis commission to look at the root problems in the financial market. they will hold their first hearing today.

the house armed services committee this morning will be hearing on china's military, including the country's security development and missile buildup. this weekend, tufts university professor on the 1965 voting pact, the role it plays in black radical politics, and how it paved the way for future leadership. host: we talk now with representative pete hoekstra, ranking member on the intelligence committee in the house. congress will be getting a briefing by the administration on christmas day bombing attempt. what do you want to know?

guest: there are a few things. number one, i am from michigan, so is there any indication that detroit was picked for a certain region? is this an indication that it could be a target in the future? was this a choice of convenience? it could have been any other city. the second thing is i want to find out, why, after fort hood, the cleric, what steps and then the administration take after for code and before the christmas day attack, and the put enough emphasis on going after awlaki?

the refusal to recognize fort hood as a terrorist attack meant that there were certain things we did not do in that intervening window. host: the president said that the intelligence community failed to connect the dots. what do you make of that response? guest: i am glad the president recognizes it was a terrorist attack, that there are continued weakness is in the intelligence community. they collect a lot of data. what we need to do is develop a system. i do not think information- sharing is the key issue any more. we have all this data coming into these organizations and we need a system that pushes information out that says, we are starting to hear this chatter about a nigerian.

we have this other in nigeria that says his son is becoming radicalized. this is information data that needs to come together. we need a person to analyze this stuff. host: phone numbers on the bottom of the screen. we are talking about u.s. policy on terrorism. our guest is representative pete hoekstra of michigan. in addition to the briefing, you can ranking members sent a letter to the white house. speak more about that letter and the major points. guest: the frustrations we have had is we have had no briefings on fort hood. the president commissioned a

report to be done. cummers still has not seen it. -- congress still has not seen it. i thought it was a terrorist attack. what caught my interest again must a radical islamic cleric who is american-born. awlaki, what is his role? when al qaeda can get an american as part of their inspirational network, that is a coup for them. what do we know about him, and what did we do as a result? they continue to refuse to brief us on that. i was in yemen, the white house ambassador had called and said, the congress may ask a range of

questions. if he goes into that area, you have to tell him that that information will be forthcoming to him from washington. excuse me? you cannot talk about the things that you are doing here? you have to get the answer from washington? there is a high level of frustration here. host: you mentioned yemen. what did you learn? guest: we learned a lot of things. people tell you everything they need to work on. awlaki is a problem. gitmo detainees returning to the peninsula are a problem. they are forming the core of al qaeda on the arabian peninsula. then these people had a special

interest in the united states. the franchise on the arabian peninsula, the al qaeda franchise, is different than the senior leadership in pakistan and afghanistan. afghanistan and pakistan, the leadership is focused on the battle in afghanistan, disruption in pakistan. al qaeda on the arabian peninsula, they are interested in this, but they have a special interest in attacking the united states. they will take satisfaction from smaller attacks. 14 killed at fort hood. if that airplane had gone down in detroit, we would have lost about 13 on board, we do not know how many on the ground. we know that they all owant to o

something bigger than 9/11. host: first question. camden, new jersey. caller: good morning. when we catch somebody and they are here on a visa, and there are planning an attack, how come they are not charged with spying or is in a rush? if there are a citizen, how come they are not charged with treason? -- or espionage? guest: i would like to say there are easy questions, easy answers, and but in this case, there are no easy answers.

as a result of fort hood as well as the christmas day attack, we have asked the president to move in the direction you are describing. we need to rwcmgnize people traveling to the united states from overseas, this is a privilege, not a right if we had information that a person may pose a threat to the u.s., we would put them on a no-line test. -- no-fly list. if they commit a crime, absolutely, a terrorism act, charge them to the full extent, but take them out of the civilian court. they do not deserve the right of -- that our civilian courts provide. the third thing, for americans to become traitors, the awlaki's

of the world, the d.c. five that went to pakistan to practice in the high -- these individuals need to be treated as the traders, they are. we need to remove the barriers for dealing with these individuals and the recommendation to the president. if we have detainee's from yemen, saudi arabia, the president sends six of them back to yemen. stop. leave them in guantanamo. they do not want them. they go back to form -- too many of them are joining al qaeda again. host: on the democratic line. ed in delaware. caller: it seems like we are

swatting flies. what is the root cause of the war against islam? and there is this is real- central policy that is made up by americans, and now we have this 9/11 just after cheney gains control of the air bases. here we have israel, a country with hundreds of icbm's, a satellite that they blackmailed us with, and we have to assume

israel's enemies -- even though they conduct a pilot against their own people -- what are the people were reacting to that our enemies? guest: i think you are right, we need to look at the root cause is of this radical jihadist movement against the united states. you have outlined a couple. sure, our support of israel is one cause that motivates these individuals. they are not big fans of democracy. they do not believe in equality -- women's rights, freedom of religion. at their core, they despise our way of life and the valuesñi we espouse. there is a difference.

you are right, we need to understand those root causes and understandable not be easy to address these problems, and why it is so difficult to see why we should negotiate with these folks. i do not know if there is a negotiation path between the jihadist movement and the values that we have in this country. host: of course on the hill, health care, jobs. this story of terrorism, we are expecting a lot of activity. can you give us the scope of hearings that could be coming? guest: we will get a briefing on the christmas day attack, the full house, and then a briefing from the president's national

security adviser. i expect this to be followed up by a number of hearings and a series of committees with homeland security. hearings on the intelligence side. i am sure there will be hearings on the armed services side on what their level of involvement will be in yemen, pakistan, afghanistan. but those are not the only on govern areas. i have been to nigeria a few times, and there is a fault line in the northern part. the northern part is islamic, in the southern part is more question. that iin between is where a lote fighting has taken place. we need to take a look at the bigger threat. it is almost a global threat.

you have these hot spots where activity is taking place. host: "usa today" -- good idea? guest: i think so. i spend all lot of time going through airports. going through yemen, one will take a much more intensive -- something that goes closely to the israeli model. even if you are going for the right reasons, they still make you break out in a cold sweat. it is human judgment.

rather than having a bureaucratic model that says we are going to have any body scan, people find their way around the system. we have to recognize the bureaucratic system is not going to work. we have to allow for some gray matter analysis. that person over there, for whatever reason, they are behaving suspiciously. we are going to ask him a couple of questions. people that are trained in this, they will be able to spot the kind of behavior that will warrant them from being pulled aside. host: next phone call. caller: i voted for george bush twice. i voted for president obama this time around.

what the republicans have been doing for the past year or so it iis anything and everything that deals with america is wrong. they know the right way, the way it should have been done. there is never an american way of doing things coming from the republicans. if it is not done by republicans, then it is the wrong way. do you think it is fair, people like me, who are independent, and a vote for people who they believe are on both sides -- not one side -- looking at everything from an american

view? guest: i think you are exactly right. that is the environment that many of us hoped for when it came to washington. that is what the president hoped for. there would be an american way, he was going to bring down the partisanship, and we began the year with a stimulus bill that must $787 billion which was passed with democratic votes. from my standpoint, rather than looking at the coalition's where there are democrats or republicans to support the stimulus plan, health care plan -- that really would enable us to move forward recognizing and that neither party is the repository for having the correct answer. i think, in some ways, the president is driven by the leadership in congress.

harry reid and nancy pelosi helped the president make the decision to pass these legislative priorities. getting 218 democrats to vote for a piece of legislation was an easier way to move for a rather than getting 60 democrats and 60 republicans moving legislation forward. they moved to the president in a position that said we recommend you take a more partisan approach and we not go along the bipartisan approach on three major pieces of legislation. i am disappointed by that. i was more than willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt a year ago to work on these issues but the leadership in the house and said that decided on these major pieces of legislation, they would go it alone. now you are seeing the final

steps as we move through health care. negotiations will be held in secret with the only democrat in the room. two years ago, in the campaign, we expected to see all of this on c-span. we were hoping to. but that is not the direction leadership in the house and senate will be moving to. we will end up with a partisan approach. on and disappointed by that, as much, if not more, then you are. host: next phone call. caller: good morning representative hoekstra. why do we continue to be on the defensive in screening people to get on their plans? -- good morning, representative hoekstra. host: what do you mean by that? caller: all the people trained to be suicide bombers are said

to mecca and medina during the hajj. i said to an intelligence director, i bet there are a lot of that people there. i think we ought to bomb mecca and medina -- guest: i am not sure how many are there for the hajj, but it is probably in the millions. an indiscriminate bombing is something that i would be opposed to it. that would be a relative, if not a very bad idea. right now within the muslim community, the number of individuals that have radicalized his very small. an indiscriminate bombing on their holy site would definitely

be something that i cannot in courage. host: a comment on twitter -- guest: absolutely, we are at war with an ideology. we have to recognize it is an ideology. more importantly, muslims need to recognize there are some within that are trying to hijack their religion. they are going to be the most effective and most forceful in dealing with this issue within their religion. if you take a look at it, people say that this comes from the port, lack of economic development -- this young man from nigeria, he came from one

end of the well-to-do families in the country. his father was a high-ranking thinker. it was the ideology that brought him in. host: biloxi, robert, you are on the line. caller: let me give you some history. i m a u niter, not a divider. -- i am a uniter, not a divider. richard reid, the shoe bomber. you were in the head of the intelligence committee. i believe you are the person to correct some of the problems that happened, and now you are complaining because what you recommended did not work. i do not know where you are coming from. these past eight years of republicans -- are remember the energy bill.

it was secret, if you recall. it was nothing obama had anything to do with, and now you say democrats are doing things in secret? you guys kept locked in secret. -- a lot in secret. guest: we were on the weekend news shows with some other democrats, and we work tirelessly together. we were in nine years. i have not criticized the system we put in place, other than to say we addressed the problem of information-sharing. now we need to address the problem of the information analysis. i am more than willing to work with democrats and the president to make that happen. national security should be a bipartisan issue you will also

find on the record unchallenged president bush pretty repeatedly on his on a willingness to share certain intelligence information, information that i thought we were entitled to on the intelligence committee. just as i am challenging this president on sharing information on fort hood, i challenged the previous presidents. it is the congress's response ability to hold the executive branch accountable and to oversight, whether it is a republican, democrat, one of your members, or anyone else. richard reid, this is why we should try this guy in detroit in civilian court. just because we were wrong with him does not mean that we are run here. let us set a consistent pattern that as we move forward, let us try them in military courts.

host: the headline in -- next phone call is from michigan. you are on the line. caller: here is my presidential voting record, just so everyone knows. i voted for ronald reagan, bush, perot, clinton, gore, and obama. what do you think about dick cheney coming out and calling obama weak the day after the christmas day attack? as far as information-sharing goes, you hear about things

that 9/11 commission did not pick up on. able danger was blocked by a military lawyers to share information on purpose. what are your comments on that? guest: thank you. i understand some of the frustrations the former vice president may have to. repeatedly over the last 12 months, everything that is wrong with america has been blamed on the previous administration. i might prefer at this point in time to say, mr. cheney, kind of back off. i understand why he is speaking. he is proud of his track record. it is an imperfect track record on some of these national security cases, but it was a focused effort. he is saying, wait a minute,

here is what we accomplished. it may not be perfect, but i want to set the record straight. the second thing on information- sharing. you are right, i do not remember the specifics on the table danger, but prior to 9/11, we had boxes of information that could not cross the line from the intelligence world over to the fbi, homeland security. we have broken down those walls. when i am concerned about is, now that we are treating this as law enforcement, we are going to start building those walls again and information will not be shared. i cannot tell you how many times i have asked for information and the answer is we cannot share that information with you because we are involved in a legal process.

but this information is important to understand the larger context of the threat we face. now i am worried about that, that information which we cannot share with other people. this is what happened after fort hood. was there information that we had that was part of the investigative process that should have been handed over to the intelligence communities? host: last phone call. joe from oklahoma. caller: if we had all the information, we, the public, would be able to come back all this terrorism. i wonder if you are familiar with the book "final jihad." guest: not with that particular book. why don't you give me the

particulars? caller: the first vice presidential pick for president bush, frank keating? former cia, fbi, former governor of oklahoma. he was the first choice for vice president and elected not to do it. his brother wrote a book called "finally jihad" that described timothy mcveigh and blowing up a building. i imagine you are on the intelligence committee, so you know about these things. i wonder what you were doing, listening to yourself contradict yourself, talking about obama

not leading the charge on terrorism when the heads of those house committees leading health care bill, who is leading who? host: final thoughts on the intelligence system, what happened on christmas? guest: i think it gets to be a question of information and analysis. we have this data, so how do we push this information out? in reference to the caller, i hope we start declassifying more information and make it available to the american people. the recidivism rate of detainees from guantanamo. that is something important to think about as we released prisoners. i think there is allow a lot of information that would help the

american people better understand the debate to be in more constructive part of the debate. host: representative peter hoekstra, thank you. another short timeout and me turn to economic matters, specifically creating jobs. our guest will be the washington bureau chief for "marketwatch." >> congress established the financial crisis in court commission to look at the root causes for the problems in the financial market. they will hold their first

hearings today. the house armed services committee this morning holds a hearing on china's military, including that country's security development and the missile buildup. >> the deadline is approaching to enter the 2010 studentcam contest. top prize is $5,000. create a five-minute video on one of our country's greatest strengths, or a challenge that the country is facing. it must show varying points of you. do not wait another minute. american icons. three original documentaries now available on the dvd. a journey through the three

branches of american government. see the exquisite detail of the supreme court. go inside the white house. and explore the history and architecture of the capital. a three-disc dvd said. -- set. host: our guest is the washington bureau chief for "marketwatch" rex nothing. we found this blurb about jobs. it said for every job, there are more than six people waiting for that job. -- rex nutting. what do numbers like that mean for the broader job picture? guest: it shows how tough the environment is for a lot of

people. the usual number is around two openings for every job. of course, a lot of people are not qualified for those openings, but there is usually more turnover in the labor market. now we have more than 15 million unemployed. millions more have been forced to work part-time. millions more have become so discouraged about finding a job, they have dropped out of the labor force. it is tough right now to get a job. why else are falling, but hiring has not picked up yet. host: what are the best projections you are hearing these days? guest: i heard one economist say that he thought unemployment would fall to 8% by the end of next year. but most economists i taught to do not think there will be much progress at all over the next

year. there is a survey called the blue-chip. their expectation for next year is 9.9% unemployment. so very little progress. millions of people could struggle even though the economy is growing. host: creating jobs is the subject for this test. we welcome your calls. more headlines first from the "wall street journal" -- and they say the stimulus package was responsible for keeping between 1.5 million and 2 million jobs from being lost. give us more of your perspective on this. guest: a year ago the democrats

pushed through the stimulus plan. at that time, they said it would create or saved about three and a half million jobs. a lot of that stimulus has come into the economy and there was a report last night that said their best guess was nearly 2 million jobs saved or created. the republicans have always scoffed at this idea that stimulus could have any impact on the economy. very few republicans voted for the stimulus. i think there was just one in the senate. so there has been a big battle and the two parties about what to do about this recession. democrats are more activists. they won the government to take a role. republicans have been pretty reluctant. host: we will talk more about

what congress and the white house are attempting to do. before we go to the phone calls, i wanted to show you a chart. it is on the -- in the "washington post" that makes the argument that there was no job creation since the beginning of the millennium. that is a pretty significant statistic. what does that mean for the broader economy? guest: first of all, we have had two bad recessions in this decade. a lot of months of the job losses. more fundamentally, the structure of our economy is changing and it is going to be very uncomfortable for a long time for that to happen. the last time we had this kind of structural change was in the 1930's. i think it means we need to

shift some of our focus. we got very good at building houses, packaging mortgages, selling financial security, but we were not that good at doing the things that maybe we needed as a country. maybe that is why the administration has this focus on infrastructure, green jobs. one of the things we probably need more of its manufacturing jobs. we have a large trade deficit. that means we buy more than we can pay for. ultimately, we cannot do that and we need to shift the balance. that goes beyond the recession. a lot of people will not go back to the same job they had before. we have to think about what kind of jobs we can create for the future. how does this country fit in with the rest of the world? host: tell us what the house passed in december?

they describe it as a jobs bill. where will it go in the senate, if anywhere? guest: it is hard to tell these days. they are locked up in a lot of this partisanship. the house has an easier time because democrats only need a majority vote. the house bill is a bit of a grab bag. it has things for people who are unemployed, some infrastructure, some taxes. what is interesting is there are tax credits to get businesses to create jobs. we always talk about not allowing business to gain the system, but i think a well- designed tax credit could work. prospects in the senate, i have no idea. host: lewis berg, pennsylvania.

good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a statement about this job creation. i always felt like we were sending too many jobs overseas. one not bring some of them back to the united states? those jobs are going overseas so that certain interest groups can fill their coffers with more profit. there are no many freshmen jobs left. the country has become a service country. that is the reason why we are in the shape we are in now. thank you for time. host: we have heard these sentiments from many, many callers over the past few years. bring those jobs home. guest: it is understandable that

people have that approach. it is not that easy to bring those jobs back. but i think there are things that can be done to reduce the incentives to move jobs offshore. i think it is a misnomer to say we do not have any manufacturing jobs lasleft. i think the things that people buy -- clothing, electronics -- those things are often made in china, but the reality is the u.s. is the biggest manufacturing economy in the world. we make quite a few expensive things that everyone buys. it is not true that we have no manufacturing jobs but there has been such a surge of productivity. in other words, we are able to produce almost 40% manufacturing goods than the could 10 years

ago, with fewer employees. this is the productivity revolution that should be a good thing. workers should be sharing the benefit of that productivity, but they have not. i think the profits are really gone to the companies, rather than going to the rest of the companemployees. host: the article goes on -- they are making the connection between job losses and trade issues. guest: a year ago, trade collapsed globally because of the recession. it was the biggest decline since

the depression, and i think even greater than the early years. that has been rekindled now. exports have increased quite a bit this year. in one month we had a setback, but that is common because the numbers are skewed by boeing. they said 10 planes in one month, and those can make a big difference. that is good news for the american worker because it means maybe we are becoming more competitive on the global market. host: two and job creation point that callers are making. carol on the republican line. good morning. caller: i had a question about the health care aspect of new job creation, what it will do to

the economy. there is all lot of corruption in chicago and a lot of the newspapers -- one of the city leaders was in jail for embezzlement and corruption. while he was in there, he wrote the book about health care. host: to that point, make a broader connection to the jobs issue. guest: we are hearing from all lot of smaller businesses especially this uncertainty about what will happen with health care, energy, taxes, in general. i think they believe this uncertainty is hurting them. they do not want to make plans right now with this uncertainty over head.

that said, the health care bill, if it is well-implemented and designed should reduce the uncertainty for employers about what their health care costs will be. small businesses, in particular, are struggling with the system we have today. imagine someone working for ibm that has a great idea and want to start their own company. it is unlikely that they would if their child had leukemia or if they had a pre-existing condition. that restraint and entrepreneurialship. the small business sector in europe is bigger in europe than it is here in the u.s., and they are not dealing these issues. i am hoping entrepreneurs can be helped by the health care bill because of the ability to get it

other than through your job. host: angela on the line for democrats. could you turn the sound down? caller: just a moment. host: we need you to turn down the sound, please. caller: how about now? my question is on the economy. host: you are on the air, we are just listen in. caller: these suggestions about the economy, the american people -- i am sorry, i cannot hear you. host: we are going to put you on hold. i am not exactly sure what the issue is.

in the meantime, bangor, maine. independent caller. caller: thank you for c-span. i wanted to make a couple of points. one was about health insurance. i am kind of an open door -- on japan nor -- entrepreneur. as a business owner, i do not feel, with all this stuff i have to do, that i should have to worry about someone's health care. it should be totally removed. guest: i think there are a lot of people who feel that way and the bill does not get us to that point. there are a lot of progressives and liberals who say a single

payer plan, which would relieve the bourse health care from employment, would do that. it does provide some methods for businesses to not worry quite as much about health care, not be at a disadvantage with their competitors. host: the democrats named this bill and noted that there was not a single republican who voted for it. what does that mean for the debate on the economy? no republicans. why was that the case, what are they looking for? guest: it is hard to tell what the republicans want to do right now. they have lt some credibility by suggesting that government spending cannot spur the economy. these are the metrics that have

been used throughout the years to try to judge what the impact on policy will be. they have pretty much decided they are not going to pay attention to that. i think they would like to stop obama and the democrat from doing anything. i think they hope that will be a successful strategy for november. i think republicans are being political about this right now, especially with some of the votes on the bills. a few members may want to go for it and try to negotiate with the democrats to get some of these things that they would like, but it has not happened so far. host: next phone call. mike, good morning. caller: all wanted to talk briefly about the jobs issue. basically, i have been self- employed all my life. i recently lost my business, my

401k. you said there were manufacturing jobs in the country. when i was 20 years old, i could start a job on monday morning. if i did not like it, i could walk down the street. they talk about job creation. i have been in construction. let us build a new city, you know what i mean? there is job creation. guest: construction, of course, has been one of the industries hardest hit. not only do we have this bubble in house and which created a huge collapse in the number of new homes being built -- we that are at a record.

even back in the 1940's, we were building more. those jobs basically disappeared for a while. the same thing has happened on the commercial side. we built into many malls, offices. now there is a collapse in the commercial business. construction is not a great place to be right now, that is for sure. the only place that is growing is government spending on highways, schools, bridges, things like that. host: we also hear about green jobs. to what extent are they a part of the jobs picture, and to what extent are they sustainable? guest: there has been all lot said about those green jobs. obama put a lot of emphasis on that in the early part of the

administration. the reality is, there are not that many green jobs available. there will be more as we develop these kinds of alternative energy technologies. above all a lot of these accounts are essentially the same old jobs we did before they have a more benign impact on the environment. putting insulation in houses, new windows. some of them are fairly good jobs, skilled labor pain pretty well. of course, some of them are going to be lower-paying. 10 million tons of where we need to be -- there are not that many jobs available anywhere. host: next phone call. michigan. caller: your guest mentioned earlier that a lot of people

lost motivation and stopped looking for a job. i am wondering what we can do in order to give them incentive to were -- to join the work force again, maybe a push instead of letting taxpayers pay their wage. that is self-destructive to the economy. host: you describe de "push." -- a "push." go more into debt. caller: a lot of people on unemployment make things up. if we spend some time and find the unemployed people and took them up with guns, that could be a good benefactor -- jobs, that could be a good benefactor.

i know there are jobs out there. i have two of them. host: we have your point. thank you. guest: i think a lot of it has to do with the individual motivation of a person. especially someone with a lot of skills and drive can find a job. let's go back to what you said at the beginning. six unemployed people for every job opening in america right now. that means no matter how hard we pushed them, there may not be a job for them. businesses need to create those jobs. they did not see many sales, not a great future for the employee, and the employee needs to pay for their own way. you will not hire anyone who is going to cost more than they earn.

there is much more that we can do in terms of job training, coaching, getting people off of unemployment benefits. right now people are on unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks. that is unheard of. until there are actual jobs out there to get, it is hard to see what else we can do. we need to encourage businesses to create these jobs. host: president obama will be speaking in maryland today as he tours a labor-management apprentice facility. he will make remarks on clean energy. for the rest of 2010, give us the scope of the president's efforts in this job creation area? guest: de no politically this is

one of the biggest issues they had. maybe terrorism could be bigger. foremost, the job is what matters. the administration, they know in november there will be a lot of angry people felt there. -- out there. they are trying to pass another stimulus bill to try to create more jobs. they are working with small business is to ease credit conditions. . .

guest: a lot of union workers have some of these plans. i am not sure how this prevents american companies from hiring. businesses often point to high taxes as being the big obstacles to their expansion. one of the reasons they move jobs overseas is to get lower costs. easier environmental regulations. maybe lower taxes. all of these things are big

problems for the u.s.. we do not want a race to the bottom. we do not want to gut the environmental regulations. we do not want to lower wages to 2 cents per hour. but we still want to be competitive. the balance that is hard to achieve for a country that is used to hawk -- high stand -- a high standard of living. we do not want to be india. host: fairbanks, good morning. caller: i am glad that you mentioned a green jobs. there is a company called evergreen solar. with government regulation and all of the stuff that governments put on companies nowadays, they have to have all these regulations. the companies could not make any money at what they were doing.

so, the move the jobs overseas. in that environment with that regulation, companies said they could not make money in the united states and went somewhere else. guest: well, i guess it is hard to know. i do not know the particulars of this company. the leader in solar technology right now is germany. a country that no one could say has no regulation at all. some regulations are probably valuable for a business climate. certainly, they can be onerous. one of the things that helps u.s. competitiveness is our work force being relatively well educated and trained. even though we pay our workers more, they actually produce more. productivity of the american worker is arrly high.

talked about is the value of the currency, the value of the dollar. many people believe that the dollar is overvalued and that if it were -- weaker, u.s.-made goods would be cheaper for buyers here and abroad, and that might be wide manufacturing is suffering. much of that has to do with what the chinese are doing with their currency. host: explained that more. why is the dollar where it is and why doesn't need a change if that is what is needed. guest: the chinese are officially devalue their currencies, so theyan compete with anyone, because there are subsidies that the government gives to anyone that does business in china. there's a lot of manufacturing and labor interests in the united states that have been

talking about this for years to live -- very little effect. the chinese have promised to do better. they have loosened up their currency a little bit, but not to the extent that people had hoped. not to the extent that would make a big difference for u.s. jobs. currency issues are one big reason why the united states has such a big trade deficit. something that the administration is reluctant to talk about too much because of the relations that we have with the chinese. they own a lot of our debt. they are one of our biggest customers. they are huge military power. you cannot just push the chinese around. they do not like it and it does not do any good. host: in case you missed the meeting yesterday, the chamber of hope attacking obama policies, calling democratic taxes and regulations a sure-

fire recipe for a double-dip recession and even greater economic misery if congress did not extend of the bush tax cuts. anything more on taxes? guest: this has been the chamber's point of view for a long time. it has changed a lot for them. they are frustrated by their lack of access to the white house under obama. this issue of taxes is going to be a big issue, the bush tax cuts to expire at the end of this year or next year. depending on the tax. that decision about whether to extend them or change them in some way has always been pushed xdoff, one year after another. it will likely be pushed off until the next election. i think it will be a big issue for the congress next year, what

to do about these taxes. host: lewis is calling from the bronx. he is an independent. caller: i have a question for you regarding the influence of computers on joblessness. playback when they entered into the commercial market, everyone was concerned that they would be displacing workers. at that time the explanation was that would not have been because we will need people to run the computers. as the years have gone by, people like bill gates, thomas watson, all of these developers have made such efficient machines that a machine does the work of three people now. how are we going to solve the problem of unemployment on a world scale was something like this going on? i await your answer.

guest: the problem of technology and labor has been an issue for hundreds of years. there were people that were afraid they'll lose would destroy their jobs. -- that looms would destroy their jobs. in general technology has allowed us to get other things. in the long run, most of the fears that people have about technology were proven to be wrong. but you have a very good point right now. look at the industries that are hurting the most. newspapers, for instance. they have been devastated by the computer. not because it and do the job of three people, but because people can get their news and advertising on the internet. the business model for newspapers and many other industries has been disrupted by the increase in technology.

it would be a wonderful thing if we could get the machines to do all of the work and all we had to do was think lofty thoughts and eat grapes and frolic in the fields. that might not be a bad life. but a lot of people have a lot of their self worth wrapped up in their jobs. humans are productive people. we like to be busy, do things, make things. psychologically many of us need that work to be fulfilled people. banker event today. one of the criticisms of the banks is that they are not lending enough right now to sperm -- spur job creation. what is your take? >> the biggest bankers are

coming in today. the biggest problem with blending is probably with the smaller banks. these are the banks that lend to local businesses and local consumer and homeowner. those banks are being hurt by this squeeze, the collapse of the commercial real-estate market. there is not a lot of lending going on right now. in part because there is not a lot of demand for loans. even businesses that have good prospects and are making good money and have good cash flow, who would normally be a good shoe in for a loan, that is a big issue for us right now. especially for small businesses. they are being been done to do more, to lend more money, but let's face it, they make more money borrowing from the fed and investing in securities cultures

and turning record profits. blending is too risky and too low of a margin business for them right now. host: down to our last couple calls. bob? caller: i had a couple of questions. i do not see any coherent policy making regarding job creation and job maintenance in the united states. i have been a consultant for over 30 years and done a lot of work internationally. many jobs were shipped offshore in the development of industry, and commerce in countries, in an effort to forestall communist incursions'. i watched as and tire industries were sent offshore to boost

those economies and sell those products. defeating the communist threat. we lost so many jobs in manufacturing primarily for that reason. the american people were sold a bill of goods in terms of if we get these people working, they will be able to have a sustainable economy and they can purchase our goods. conversely, today most of those manufacturing jobs are gone. we have been sold a bill of goods that we would be able to develop and maintain high tech jobs in the united states, but there is a double-edged sword. technology jobs are now beginning to head off shore as well. there is a diminishing pool of technology jobs. at the same time you have a 50% dropout rate from high school in

many of the major urban areas around the country. here we have generations to come that do not have the necessary skills to be competitive for those jobs. there is nothing in the pipeline to make -- replace the manufacturing jobs that we lost. i do not see anything. caller: your analysis is fairly accurate. i am not sure that there is a specific job creation policy in this country. it is disbursed because of the federal system that we have. education being the responsibility of the states and local government. our education system is likely failing us right now, failing to produce the kind of training, giving the people the skills that they need to get a job. the unemployment rate for college graduates, i am not sure the exact number, but it is not that high. 4%, 5%.

for people to drop out of high school, close to the 20%. one of the ways that people can guarantee that they can be employed. as a country we need to be better about training people, keeping people in school. and there has been no effort to do that. host: michael from charlotte, n.c.. caller: thank you for taking my call. a couple of things. i never hear anything about accelerating appreciation schedules. also, i never hear any further conversations about reducing corporate income tax. the government asking corporate america to collect taxes, in effect taxes that are passed on to the consumer.

also, i think that the difference between democrats and republicans, in large part, is the tax credit concept. they're not accumulating quickly. because you have to do something that the government is telling you to do. and then you do not get to deduct the tax credit until the following fiscal year, when you file your income tax. much more stimulative would be reduction of the corporate tax to small business or a marginal tax that for small businesses where they in fact, have to pay. it seems to me that when president clinton tookñi office, he set into motion the concept of national economic policy. i think that tax credits and a high corporate income tax have that impact. they both seem to, rather than stimulate, restrict the growth

of government. could you comment? caller: you covered a lot of ground. appreciation is one of the tools that the stimulus bill will try to use to help small businesses spur job creation. businesses being given a tax break to expand, purchase new equipment, and usually when you purchase new equipment you have to hire people to run that. that is a part of the stimulus bill, extending that schedule. the corporate income tax is not a part of the big debate right now. generally, people look at the tax rate as being relatively high, but the effective tax rate freeing companies from the middle. i am not sure it is at the top of anyone's agenda.

host: last call comes from milwaukee, nancy. caller: good morning. thank you so much for c-span. host: you bet. caller: unemployment, is there a way to level the playing field? by will be 50 in a few months and there is nothing out there for a 50-year-old. they know that you will be getting older, getting sick, more prone to injury, blog, blogs, block -- blah, blah, blah. is there anything we can do besides unemployment extensions? also, health care. i am truly excited with senator sanders proposed single air policy. i thought that that was awesome until they play their little stunt and they had to withdraw it. now i feel totally disappointed

with government. by attitude now is just -- what ever. get some calls and stand up for what is right for the people. host: final thoughts on job creation and where congress and the white house might be headed? guest: it is hard for the workers, especially older workers, they can be seen as risky. but it is harder for young americans right now, i think. many young adults have dropped out of the work force. they are not getting that first job, that second job. they are not starting their career ladder and it will probably affect their ability to make income for the rest of their lives. it has been shown in the past, people who start their job career during a recession have a hard time.

which is not to say that everyone is not suffering, but the young people really need those jobs right now. host: below -- thank you for keeping us up to date on the economic issues. guest: any time. host: we have some updated news from c-span radio. >> more on the earthquake in haiti. president obama has been receiving briefings since last night on the situation. meetings in the white house situation room continued into the night. the president told members of the national security staff that he expects a coordinated effort. the president will be making a statement at the top of the hour. the airport in the capital is operational after the earthquake and aid will soon be arriving in haiti. turning to the war in afghanistan, the president will ask congress for an additional

$33 billion to fund the war in iraq and afghanistan. the president ordered an extra 30,000 troops, part of an overhaul of the strategy late last year. traveling in afghanistan today is the chairman of the house services committee. speaking earlier, he said there was a major shortage by an afghan force construction. stating that some countries have not met pledges, calling it unacceptable, saying that they needed to make good on their promises. those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. >> the deadline is approaching to enter the c-span 2010 studentscam contest. top prize is $5,000. create a video of one of our country's greatest francs for a challenge the country is facing. enter before midnight, january

20. winning entries will be shown on c-span. do not wait another minute. 0go to studentcam.org and up load your entry today. >> american icons, a unique journey through the three branches of american government. see the extreme detail of the supreme court. go beyond the velvet rope of the white house. explore the history and architecture of the capital. american icons, a three dozen tv set. one of the many items available adds c-span.org/store. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we have updates from the associated press this morning on the earthquake in haiti. lots of photographs, even

imagine how badly they have been damaged. looking at these photographs, we can tell you that the u.s. is sending first responders to assist the victims as part of a coordinated american response, including defense and homeland security. the head of the u.s. agency for international development said that they will be going in today. we expect the president to speak on all of this at 10:00 eastern time. we are waiting to hear what he has to say. as we continue to look at the photos, the president told members of his security staff on tuesday that he expects an aggressive, coordinated effort. his thoughts and prayers are with the people of haiti and that the u.s. stood ready to help. it was former president bill clinton who was a u.s. special envoy to haiti. he stated that his and prayers were with the people there and that the system was monitoring

the situation and that we were doing anything we could to help in the building and recovery efforts. we will hear first from the president, and perhaps some of the other briefings. lots of responses on this. for the next 25 minutes or so we want to ask you this question. when it comes to business leaders, our apologies important? we are asking you this because, over on c-span to right now, it started about 20 minutes ago, we are showing the first hearing of something called the financial crisis inquiry commission. a bipartisan panel, 10 members, talking with some of the bank chiefs. jamie diamond, the chairman of jpmorgan chase, is there. there's also the chief operating

officers of bank of america, morgan stanley, and goldman sachs. we are asking you this question -- are apologies important from business leaders? for democrats, 202-737-0002. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. we got the idea for this question from the story in "the new york times." "bankers saying sorry, there is a peril. some of the nation's chief executives are offering their rest of statements, an apology. often the words are so carefully parsed and picked over, it is not clear how much mea is in their culpa.

jareld levin dropped jaws last week by taking the blame for the worst deal of the century. yet in few other chief executives, including a handful of wall street's chieftains would knowledge missteps, they have not embraced his plea to accept personal responsibility for decisions that have caused pain. "american culture does not put a premium on apology," according to a professor of management at the wharton school of the university of pennsylvania. "the level of anger in his public in general is extremely high against those who led wall street into the abyss." mike, independent line. apologies, the matter? -- do they matter?

caller: yes, they matter. i think that clinton should apologize for being part of the building birds. host: erie, pennsylvania. caller: very few of them are sincere. they just want to make it look good, like they're trying to appease everyone. just like with this $100 billion bonus. 10 years, $1 trillion, there's only so much money in there. when they take $1 trillion out in 10 years, it means less money for businesses to loan and everything. the stockholders, i am surprised that they do not rebelled. host: booking for sincerity, how

do you know it is there? how do you know if they are sincere when they do apologize? caller: if after the apology they straighten the problem out, it is sincere. but afterwards if they keep doing like the banks are doing now, apologizing for scoring of the economy and losing billions of dollars for stockholders, then they go back to the old ways. host: georgia is on the line now. democrat, middletown, delaware. good morning. our apologies important for business leaders? -- are apologies important for business leaders? caller: i think that they are, as long as they are accompanied by an action to remedy this circumstance. an apology, just to make an

apology this kind of like glossing and giving them absolution, which still does not help people that are unemployed or communities that are falling apart. so, coupled with action and may be some planning to rectify the damage that has been done, that makes more sense to me. host: "the new york times" goes on to say that "the art of the new ones regret will be on display today -- nuanced regret will be on display today in washington at the testimony four of the big bank heads on their role in the financial crisis. a 10 member commission, put together by congress. they go on to write that brian moynihan recently took over bank of america after the troubled merger with merrill lynch.

we understand he is planning to say that these decisions can affect the main street. , but he will stop short of a statement from a few months ago, confirming that there will be a blowout 2009 profit level. although he is not expected to repeat that in his testimony, his remarks came one week after he drew fire for saying that he was doing god's work, but it was never clear what the subject of the atonement was. "we have reason to apologize, without focusing on the things that the firm did wrong. -- did wrong." gary, detroit. caller: how are you doing? i want to the answer your question with a question. if i took a job to clean out your fan at -- your finances and

burn your house for the ground, would you want apology? thank you. host:ñr burlington, vermont. caller: i believe that apologies are very important, but there is a time and place for it. i believe that the time and place for these guys is when they come before the parole board. host: more on your thoughts and apologies in the business world. we wanted to bring up this headline from "the wall street journal," "google is warning of an exit from china over hacking. the company had been hit with major cyber-attacks. they believed it originated from china. this move would be a high profile rebuke of china from a major u.s. firm. one of the riders is joining us

on the phone right now from beijing. he is the deputy bureau chief for "the wall street journal." çóhow did this all come to play? what else are they saying? what about the chinese government? caller: the chinese government has yet to comment. this came across as quite a surprise to the chinese government and everyone else, google issued this statement late on tuesday, u.s. time. saying that the country had moved not only against google, but many other foreign companies. they had decided not to center their chinese search results, as they have done since 2006, a condition of entering the market. they acknowledge that this may result in their meeting to shut down their chinese operations.

host: how important is their work to china? how important are they to the chinese? >> quite important. they are a distant second in the search market here, a distant second to a chinese company. their market share has been growing quickly and it is well known and respected. particularly by people who have traveled abroad or work for other companies. many people recognize as a company that offers the -- recognize as a company that offers -- recognize it as a

company that offers greater freedoms. host: "the company said they found evidence to suggest that the primary goal of the attackers was accessing the gmail accounts of chinese human rights activist." what else should we know about that? caller: it appears from other people that we have talked to that there are as many as 34 companies or other entities that have been targeted by these attacks. the sense that one gets when reading between the lines is that this was sort of the last straw. they had been struggling, sometimes very publicly, with the paradox between their own stated principles of freedom to information and access, as well as theirs stringent censorship rules, for years.

they apparently discovered, quite recently, that on top of that, china has been the source of these attacks, of tax -- a tax that appear to have very much targeted people that were human rights activists. in particular they seem to have been very upset over these principles, it was too much for them and i felt they could no longer accommodate government demands. host: could this affect broader u.s. trade with china? caller: it could, in so far -- look, it is not likely, for the same reason that any other major company might follow with leave here, certainly not in the near future, but it will reignite the

debate about how companies in the u.s. government and u.s. institutions engaged with china. the logic governing the relationship for many years is that china is so big, it needs to be accommodated and largely on its own terms. google is saying that they do not agree with that. host: a couple of quick points before you go. you say that google is going to speak to beijing over the next couple of weeks but how they might operate without censorship. what do you expect those talks to be like? will they result in an agreement? caller: i doubt they will be particularly enjoyable for either side. it is fair to say that the chances of an agreement are not high. although there is some interest from both sides in trying to

seek a solution, but the bottom line is that offering a separate search service for china with separate results to eliminate the results from the government that they find politically unacceptable, that was a condition of entering the market, for all practical purposes. now they are saying that they are no longer doing that, presumably the chinese government -- which has not backed off at all in the last few years on its use of information control, is going to have a very hard time finding that acceptable. host: based on your own work in computer use as an employee for "the wall street journal, how has it worked for you? -- "the wall street journal," how does it work for you? caller: when there is a company network, clearly want to get

around the chinese fire wall. for most chinese users, the end of the chinese web site for google would not, necessarily and by itself, mean that they no longer have access. potentially they could certainly access the google.com website that americans use. it is possible, if this escalates, that there will be greater antipathy and the chinese government could tblock google.com. that would make it much more difficult for chinese users to access google in any capacity. although there are more sophisticated users that can use more sophisticated tools to get around the chinese government.

but it does get more difficult the more they throw up. host: jason dean, joining us on the phone from china. thank you for your time this morning. we have about 20 minutes left in the show before the house gets into session. we are asking you whether apologies are important when they come from business leaders. over on c-span 2, a top bank executives right now are of for a new committee, the financial crisis inquiry committee. from the associated press it says that top bank executives are defending bonus and top compensation practices. the chairman of the commission told the ceo of the top u.s. banks that americans are angry and they have a right to be. the ceo of jpmorgan chase said

that many of his employees have taken significant cuts and that the bank would continue to pay them in a responsible and disciplined manner. hearings are being held at a time of rising public fury. witnesses testifying today come from all the big banks there on this first panel. columbia, tennessee. wilden, republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you. good morning to you. host: good morning, sir. caller: i would like to thank c- span for the wonderful job that they do at giving the american citizens bayview of the government. i regret that you have not taken an active role in getting close the doors open for the citizens here. when you have the house and

senate meeting behind closed doors with obama, along with the lobbyists and special-interest groups negotiating this health bill. another thing, when it comes to this problem that we have with china, it is no greater problem internationally than we have with illegal immigrants from mexico. we have that problem on both sides. host: thank you for calling. gulfport, mississippi. you are on the independent line. our apologies important for business leaders? what you think? caller: i agree with the last gentleman, saying that c-span needs the more involved with what is going on behind closed doors. i think that we need to start with health, food, and drugs,

taking poison out of them. going back to business, as far as china, they'll like great britain. in the 1950's. they will be the emerging country. we need to have more policies where we agree with them on exports and imports. host: thank you. democratic line, sherry. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do not think that an apology is what is necessary. if another country was reading the american economy the way that these big banks and wall street are allowed to do, we would see it as an act of terrorism. we would, at any cost, stop this from happening to the fiber of

the american people. with jobs, health care, just a total disregard for the human being living in this country. it has not grown abroad. it has grown in our own country. it is beyond shameful. they would not accept just an apology for 9/11 or any other terrorist act. by president, who i love and voted for, needs to put his foot down on the neck of these people that are pillaging the well-being and welfare of the people of this country. host:. "the new york times" has this story -- "saying story has its perils." the ceo of jpmorgan chase maintains that they did not need a bailout, "despite the and

the government takeover. "their regulatory lapses and errors by the ratings agency that trigger the mortgage debacle." he has acknowledged this. federal aid programs have yet to provide comments." this is airing on c-span 2. there is a photograph of john mackey, who apologized to congress last february for his role in the financial crisis. he is not expected to do so again today. last month there was a bonus for the third consecutive year after receiving $50 million in stock bonuses. de "he is expected to tell lawmakers that many firms took on too much risk and that they

need regulatory overhaul." kenny, good morning. caller: apologies should be necessary, but first of they should be depending on what you are apologizing for. you can give a shadow apology. -- shallow apology. host: what is more significant when you hear it? >> in my view, it is like saying okay -- let me try to get this out as best as i can -- in other words it is like saying you are sorry, but you are not release

saying what you are sorry for. i think that that is what they should be doing. trying to get a -- host: we get the point. let's hear from lou, -- hosheren washington, d.c. caller: i would like to make my own comment on apologies. it is good to a knowledge the wide range of thinking coming from the previous callers. in that regard, one is hard- pressed to date to get an earnings of 1% interest on investments of $10,000. smaller than that in your hardly getting anything. however, money gained by these institutions is higher. if those other metrics, they did

a good job and they deserve their bonuses. however, something is evidently wrong, criminal or moral, so they are offering apologies and something is not right there. if they are doing things wrong, we need to sort out the fact that apologies are needed, but plans to correct them need to forget the apologies. host: at 10:00 a.m. today, the house is coming up, there is no heavy work. they will be talking about health care and other issues later this week. c-span two her -- -c-span 2, speaking with four of the large banking heads. later on, a panel on the crisis,

there is a long -- all day long coverage on c-span 2. on c-span 3 there is a house hearings committee at 10:00 a.m. on that i on spending. next caller -- what you think about apologizing? caller: actions speak louder than words. they should be apologizing specifically to the families affected. those that of lost their jobs, is not the fault of the central bank, it is the fault of the ceo's that made the decision to put them in the current financial crisis we are in right now. host: by you for calling. and managing professor at dartmouth, talking about the heads of fortune 500 companies

that never apologize for poor performance. "only one acknowledged managerial culpability. over at intel for the handling of pentium. "we specifically looked at other companies, and none admitted managerial error. it is so hard for them to have -- to apologize, they are simply equipped with very large egos. you do not get to the top of a competitive organization by the basement and humility." the politics of humble is seen in stark contrast in japan, where executives often make wrenching public apologies for their missteps. the head of toyota recently acknowledged the car company's woes, warning that the company

was open " grasping for salvation." apologies from business leaders. kentucky, hello. caller: good morning. i would like to thank c-span for the coverage that you all do of things. as my father used to say, actions speak louder than words. these ceo's, they said they are sorry in one hand but they do the same actions over and over. it is not genuine. also, just like you just said, whether it is a small hamburger place or right on up to the heads of the company, i guarantee that problems start at the top in terms of heading downhill.

and from there they work their way down. from the high manta the middle management, down to the lowest end of the totem pole. these small business owners, it begins at the top. the boss, the manager, the foreman. it works its way down. host: thank you for participating. david, independent caller. business leaders, apologies, they important? do they matter? >> this is basically a christian country. if giving an apology is synonymous to asking for forgiveness, the american public is that a quandary. saying i am sorry, is that equal to saying forgive me? these people, they were once

little boys. many times when they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar or they did some sort of stunnet, they would say they were just kidding for -- this is classic -- i am not perfect. the american public needs to understand what has happened. we have not put limits on competition in this country. they used coded language like taking too much risk, but what that really means is limits on competition. when they get caught, they are not release saying forgive me. i think that that is the problem. we have adolescent children running this country. ñiñithe country is too big to f, too big to manage, and we are all sitting out here wondering

what will become of us. host: the financial crisis inquiry commission holding the event on c-span to right now, it is a 10 member commission appointed by congress. it is bipartisan and bicameral, with those 10 members. "usa today focused on the commission, saying that "after congress last year looked into the causes of the crisis from one of the california treasurer's, they were seeking wisdom from the late author -- in the 1930's they read -- led congressional investigations into wall street and the securities and exchange commission and a half century of financial regulations.

our work can serve as an antidote, as it did in the 1930's. none of us want to see those actions repeated again. -- again." roy, democratic line. caller: all they're doing is trying to think of ways to get more money from the government. it is ridiculous. i tell you, i think that they all need to kick out. i think that they really do. host: we want to talk with one more reporter today about a story she is writing in "the washington post." "virginia gop, setting sites on thwarting federal politics. rosalynn the joins us by phone. -- rosalinda joins us by phone.

what is going on in virginia and what does it mean for the rest of the country? caller: republican was elected governor here in november for the first time in eight years. they have been emboldened by that victory, the clearing virginia and national battleground. -- declaring virginia a national battle ground. the state has a new attorney general coming on saturday who is putting together a staff with an eye towards suing the federal government over all kinds of things that he thinks are unconstitutional and overstepped their authority. host: so, how much of this will actually happen in to be enacted? you touched upon the courts, what is this battle supposed to

be like? how long will it go on? caller: we will have to see if these things are enacted into law. there is a piece that remains, if the democrats stay in control, some of these bills may not be successful. there is much nervousness in the democratic party about the health care bill in particular. it would not be impossible to see that bill make it past a democratic state senate. i think it will be discussing this all of the way through. host: you write that there are risks associated with this type of strategy. caller: they are facing very serious problems, like the $4.2 billion budget shortfall. that unemployment is higher than people would like.

and if the republicans are seen as focusing on issues outside of their control or that are politically motivated, the conclusion could be that they're not spending a lot of time concentrating on funds and important issues. host: is this happening in other states? to what extent? caller: the national conference of state legislatures has written up 18 state legislators as considering legislation designed to limit federal health care reform. governor tim pawlenty wrote a column just this week about the impact of a federal constitutional amendment around the country. host: thank you a lot for the talk of a front-page story today. caller: thank you.

host: more on apologies and whether they are important for business leaders -- john, go ahead. host: remember john -- caller: blankfein is from goldman sachs, remember what he said? the juicy clinton talking with timothy geithner at that funeral yesterday? is worth hundreds of millions of dollars out. thank you. host: edward, independent line. hello. caller: apologies are important, but not only for businesses, they have worked with the government's to work with the american people on the free- trade agreement.

which did nothing but move american companies offshore, taking advantage of cheap labor, sending their products back to the united states, causing -- charging exorbitant amounts of money. leading a minority of workers by an empty factories and they had done nothing. the free trade agreement also affected the japanese economy, which set up all the red tape that kept products from going into their economy. we never returned the favor. host: thank you for the call. the president is supposed to me meeting in the white house, we read today. a group of 11, they are saying,

hashing out some of the differences between their bills on health care. the president has upset that an invitation to speak to republicans next week. the administration plans to ask congress for an additional $33 billion, despite what they discussed as unpopular wars in afghanistan and iraq. frederick, maryland. robert. apologies, are they important? caller: may be. i was calling about the green jobs thing. host: we want to stay on topic. oklahoma, robert, democratic line. caller: by was just going to say that the entire premise of bank of america apologizing for making profits is naive.