host: here is how you call in --

as the nation reacts to the president's state of the union address. good death thursday morning to you. -- good thursday morning to you. we would like to get your reaction. in this paper they get a glimpse of some of the behind-the-scenes planning of the speech. they write it was the 487th time that the president has delivered public comment. this time felt unique.

let be sure you some of the front-page headlines, very different from paper to paper. "the washington post" -- obama's sole mission, the economy. below it, "the daily news" from new york city -- jobs, jobs, jobs. "usa today" -- we face a deficit of trust. "philadelphia inquirer" -- seize this moment. "baltimore sun" -- a call for trust. "the new york post" -- obama 2.0 tries to revisit his troubled presidency.

we would like to hear what you have to say about the speech beginning with chris from monroe, louisiana on the democrats' line. caller: i think it was a very moving speech. the president reassured the american people. i want to make a comment that it seems as if republicans are not willing -- basically, they are not even giving him a chance. they are constantly saying no to him on every issue. i don't think this country will move forward unless republicans stop -- host: next is union bridge, on the republican line. caller: i think the president did all right at his speech. he talked about bringing 1.5

million jobs back to america by the end of the year. but i don't think he did enough for us who are unemployed. he gave no remarks, no speech, anything about helping us who are running out of unemployment. he did not talk about helping us to extend these unemployment benefits for all of us who are running out. a lot of us will become homeless. host: what caller: did you do i was a maintenance engineer. host: he focused a lot on it jobs -- and what are you worried about? good luck. next, antonio, an independent. caller: yes, i want to say something about mr. obama last night. the speech was mediocre, same

song. i hope the people in this country realize the condition this country is in. forget the war, there is one song in italia that says [ quality and italian words] -- america is a beautiful country. no one can beat us, and if we want we can do. we need to thrive these things going on in the washington for so many years. they don't care for the everyday people. host: antonio says words, words, words. there is a project at the university that keeps all kinds of statistics on presidential

speeches. about of the state of the union it clocked in at 60 minutes, 20 seconds. it was not the longest. the longest single speech on record in modern presidency was bill clinton's 2000 speech which was one hour, 20 minutes, 49 seconds. the shortest on record was richard nixon in 1972 when his was 28 minutes, 55 seconds. if you are interested and more such statistics, presidency -- uc sent to barbara -- check out that website. the next call is from boston. it is conures, ga., rather. this is bob on the democrats' line. caller: i voted for president obama and the believe both of the obama is our sincere and of

america, all americans. however, i don't think the cabinet and his administration tell him everything going on. i am going to give you some examples that pertain to veterans, retired military personnel. they pay, if they join their military retired pay -- the guy who was the assistant to rumsfeld who is now head of the world bank, he said that president bush did not really want to see retired people draw disability. if you have a disability, you do. i got it from one of the wars. or maybe people get it from the several times the went to war -- whatever, but military personnel who are retired pay into wars. it is over time and it is taken

from their retired pay and put into their disability. host: bob from conyers, georgia with his concern about retired, disabled veterans. great falls, va., you are on caller: hi. considering the speech it was good. he knows what he is talking about. but i am suggesting a new picture, talking about rules and benefits. [unintelligible] we need to talk about the whole world. if the whole world is not good, the u.s. will not be good.

host: brett who wants a greater focus on the world at large. we will go back to calls we get another clip ready for you. this one is from pennsylvania on the independent line. caller: good morning? yes, about the economy, i'm a person living persona -- i am a person living with aids. all the people who are uninsured ought to be covered silicon find out how many health care slaves we have in this

country and then go to the drug company and find out how many slaves we have for the drug companies. host: now the clip is ready on reform from president obama. >> as hard as it might be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may become, it is time to get serious about fixing the problems. one place to start is serious financial reform. look, i am not interested in punishing banks. i'm interested in protecting our economy, a strong, healthy financial market mesopause a will for businesses to access credit and to create new jobs. that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness

that nearly brought down our entire economy. we need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. [applause] we cannot allow financial institutions including those that take your deposits to take risks that threatened the whole economy. host: here is one reaction from twitter. for next is a call from indianapolis. james, democrat line. caller: there is still a little work to do. he is improving. it is hard to turn around economy that was in the shape it was when he took office, to improve it within one year.

when ronald reagan came to office he had a bad unemployment rate in 1983. it did not turn around until 1987. people who think obama can turn around the country in one year are really delusional. it is a shame you have no support from the republican side. all they seem to say is let's just wait for the midterm elections. that is all they care about. it is a shame. you cannot turn the economy in this ship around in just one year. it will take time. host: let's hear from michael, a republican, from arlington. you just heard criticism on republicans who are all about no. caller: unfortunately, i agree

with the caller to a certain degree. i'm a little discipline within my own party. i don't agree with everything this president says, and his method for resolving some problems, but i think there should be a little more willing us from our party to a least find some kind of common ground and let's get something done. this stalemate is just ridiculous. i don't feel the bickering will get anything done for my people. i look at the democrats as well and would suggest the same thing. we cannot have a stalemate. one doing this president said is that there needs to be more, some cohesiveness where we are working together. i am starting to agree with a

lot of his points. one last thing -- it seems there is the stubbornness that we cannot afford to have and -- again, i don't agree with everything the president does, but it seems like he is making the decision which he believes is correct and it rubs the republicans or democrats the wrong way. i don't think he cares. i think he is doing it based on his heart. you cannot blame a guy who is operating from that perspective. host: here is president obama talking about the republicans and the concept of the party of no. >> democrats, i would remind you that we still have the largest

majority in the kids and people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. [applause] and if the republican leadership will insist with 60 votes in the senate required to do anything in the town, the supermajority of irresponsibility to govern is now yours as well. just to say no everything might be good short-term policy, but it is not leadership. we work to serve the citizens, not our ambitions. host: the president is scheduled to meet with house republicans tomorrow. the republicans are going to baltimore for a party conference. they talk about their strategies for the legislative year and the upcoming midterm elections.

the baltimore paper has this story, they will gather at the inner harbor hotel. speaking of gov. mcdonnell he was chosen to give the republican response. he was just sworn into office. virginia has one-term limits. there is beginning to be

discussion about a higher office for him. let's listen. >> wahhat government should not do is pile on more litigation to kill jobs and hurt the middle class. it was a thomas jefferson who called for a wise and frugal government which will leave and free to regulate their own pursuits of industry. he was right. today the federal government is trying to do too much. host: later on in the program we will have guests and break it up into four major policy areas. we will begin with the economy. later we will focus on health care. after that we will talk to two members of congress about education and its place in the priorities of the president and of the congress.

two members of congress will be in to talk to was about national security. the next call is from san antonio, mark, on the independent line. caller: a couple of quick things. when president obama announced the troops would be coming out at the end of august next year, i heard this morning that that was a president thathe date that bush said. if someone could fact check that i would appreciate. bothered me was when the president said we need to start fighting for the right reasons -- and i am paraphrasing -- which is to keep americans safe, not to uphold values -- to me -- if we're fighting for freedom -- those are our values. to give up freedom to be to-safe

is not right. host: next up, the republican one. caller: a lot of your callers are hitting on different partisan points. unfortunately, there was a lot of blame game going on last night. the president should have put the past in the past and let everyone know where we are and move forward, but unfortunately he needed a partisanship situation. when it comes to the republicans people need to realize that the republicans have been locked out. it has been a power push by the administration. when he says that they're not cooperating, you get the laughter in the gallery. they understand that they have been trying. the speech by the governor of virginia show the contrast in

the two visions. the republicans on the right and many independents want less government to make our own money. the democrats and left want total government control and nearly turn it into a socialist state. we have a lot of work to do in this country. like the last caller said, we have men and women in the field in afghanistan and iraq and we cannot forget them. host: joe, a regular on twitter says when he was done a film like i as an american have let him down by not going along with change. next caller, renee? all right, we will move on to alan from jacksonville, florida. caller: good morning, ma'am.

as far as the financial corrections he wants to make, or whatever, we need to blame congress for that. they are the one who passed all the regulations. they failed to get bernie madoff about five years before he actually got caught. they repeal the glass-steagall act. how many agencies doing need to regulate the banks and financial institutions which congress passes the laws to do? or like national security where we have nine or 10 agencies to should have protected us from the under-pants bomber and now they have failed. one last thing, the president himself said the democrats control both houses. they only the republicans, so

they have blocked the amount. host: one speck of the speech getting a lot of discussion was when the president talked about the recent supreme court decision -- one aspect of the speech -- let's listen. it is the reaction from justice samuel only to. >> last week the supreme court reversed a century of law. i believe it will open the floodgates to special interests. including foreign corporations. the fed it without limit and our election. [applause] i and the american elections should be bankrolled by america's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. they should be decided by the american people. host: people watching closely said they saw justice alito

shake his head and mouth the words "not true." a long time water of the court for the supreme times, now an online commentator says nearly every president find something to criticize about the supreme court but not everyone gets to do it to the faces of the justices on national television. of the six justices in the audience at three were in my the the minority.

john on the twitter says calling at the supremes was appalling. this next call is from lou, from connecticut, a republican. caller: first like to say what i feel about politicians and bureaucrats generally. basically, they are the most worthless human beings. you have to be a delusion on the case to believe that government would solve our problems. government would screw up a cup of coffee. i want them out of my life to live. the whole speech by president obama is the same old left-wing yak kyak. it seems like environmentalists have a stranglehold on the

democratic party. they are green on the outside and in red on the inside. we have clean air. i see crystal blue skies everywhere. how clean does clean have to be? enough of this green movement. lives in a drill for oil and natural gas. it makes our lives better, healthier. host: we got your message, things. next is seattle, washington, on the democrats' line. caller: i just want to talk about unity. i wish there were something someone could say or do to bring the two parties together. hello? just to bring them together because of like a family, if there is a fight within the family you come together and makes everything better. they can make decisions better.

it seems like there needs to be some unity there. host: some of the editorial page reactions. "usa today" -- obama defines the problems but comes up short on solutions. they say it is congress who is unwilling to come together to make the tough choices. obama's speech appeared to be an opening bid to make that appeal. he heads to florida today in full campaign mode. your reaction, next, a peggy? college park. did you vote for the president as an independent? how the feel about him? caller: no, i did not. it is refreshing to have a

really smart president. i watched yesterday and i am sorry to say, but if my company had employees who came to work and did not do anything and went on there would not have a job the next day. they would be terminated. you have republicans who are not doing anything. they get a paycheck every pay. and they do nothing. they are not serving us or earning their pay. just sitting down like recalcitrant children is totally amateur. they need to begin earning their pay and working for the american people. i don't care which party -- you are american and have been given a job, do it. i have a suggestion regarding closing the deficit. it is the divorced tax. maybe we should start thinking about it. it is a no-bring your. people are divorcing -- it is bad for the family, bad for the

community. -- it is a no-brainer. host: callernext, lafayette, louisiana. caller: i like that the president called out supreme court , democrats, republicans. yes, the supreme court has opened the door for the fat cats. he did a good job of calling them out. most are worried about setting a seat, not working for the american people. he had said that he would rather be a good one-term president and do the right things. that is what he meant when he said he would make tough decisions that are not favored. he is not worried about reelection. this is why i see time and time again that we need to put a cap on how long a congressperson and

senator should serve. i see a lot of old, tired faces in the audience last night. his fresh, running, on the ground, working. host: next, chris, st. augustine, fla.. caller: i would just like to show a clip you showed a couple of clips ago about the democrats -- and republicans saying they need to have 60 votes to make anything happen. it is not that the republicans are making it 60 or nothing to happen. he tries to say they're not doing anything. you had democrats basically saying at the constituents did not want the healthcare bill and a default was the right thing to do, that they would vote for it anyway. it sounds like the democrats will do what they want to. since they do have a majority

how come nothing is getting done? just go ahead and pass what you want to pass no matter what the american people say or constituents say, and see where the chips fall, but they're not doing it because they understand that everything this guy is saying is not wrote in stone or the best way to go. host: democrats line, caller: st. louis i loved when the president had to say. he is not only calling on congress, but the american people out. things are coming about voting- wise for congress and senate -- the american people need to look at what is going on and who is voting how. that is what we need to look at. the president is trying to get the country to work together. he is trying to get everybody involved.

he wants to get things done, but you cannot get it with a house divided. host: we will begin focusing on specific topic areas and listen to more of what the president had to say for issues such as the economy and health care. then we will be joined by two members of congress each back- to-back, for 15 minutes each. our first is on the economy. we will listen to the president and first joined by javier from california, the vice-chair of the democratic congress. we will be followed by jeb hensarling. >> tonight i am proposing that we take $30 billion of the money wall street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give a small businesses the credit they need. [applause]

i am also proposing a new small business tax break. one the will go to over 1 million small businesses who hire workers or raise wages. [applause] while we are at it but also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment and provide a tax incentive for all large businesses, and all small businesses. [applause] host: joining us from capitol hill, congressman of california, the vice-chairmen of the democratic congress. guest: thanks for having me. host: white do you think of the

president's prescription that we just heard? -- what do you think? is small business where the jobs will come from in the next year? guest: two-thirds of all new jobs greeted come from small businesses. absolutely. the president was right on the mark about focusing efforts. if you just try to target the large corporations you will not succeed necessarily because they are always tried to open up markets abroad as well. to create a job here in america -- small business. we may take a look at what he has to offer and maybe change it here or there, but for the most part i think the president gave us a very good prescription of how to move and increase the opportunities for businesses to create jobs. host: the president also called for a great increase in our

exports. what are some of the barriers right now to americans exporting work, their products overseas? guest: the fact that too many countries have agreements with us are not respecting those. they are not enforcing the provisions while we do a very good job of trying to abide by the rules and the trade agreement here and offer those foreign companies opportunities here to sell their goods. to many countries abroad are not respecting our product, our workers, and allowing the markets to be open to our goods. if we're going to sign an agreement, we have to make sure both parties live up to it. too many times in the past years we have seen the trade agreements to open our markets, but not those of foreign competitors. host: mr. xavier becerra, your state has experienced some tough challenges as well. would you tell people what your overall view is of the federal

role in job creation? what can and cannot the government do? guest: we saw how the federal government working well could help avoid an economic catastrophe. we are on the verge of the great depression. if it were not for the fdr safety provisions created in the 1930's we probably would have seen many americans look at this as a great depression. what receive the federal government can do is to help stimulate in local communities and states the opera treaties for jobs. the economic recovery package we passed at the beginning of last year at the president's behest will help to create and save millions of jobs because we gave states the opportunity to continue the road construction projects or school retrofitting project that would have been put onto the shelf for a long time for lack of money. we give small businesses tax breaks to hire or by the new

computers. we can help to stimulate at the federal level. host: his joining us from the cannon house office building. it is one of three of the major buildings where members have offices. our first phone call for him is the focus on jobs and the economy from ardmore, okla. caller: thanks for having me on. the economy is in shambles. i see prices going up and being disabled we did not get a cost- of-living raise this year. it is a to under $50.10 time payment. -- $250 one-time payment.

if you can show me someone who is disabled or otherwise and can live on what they have -- and be able to not worry about thing, i would like to hear about that. host: terry. guest: what he is saying is true. the president proposed tried to address that in terms of many seniors who did not get a cost- of-living increase because of the recession. we must recognize that for terry and 40 million seniors we do have a social secured. most people did not want to look at their 401k statements of the past year because they have lost nearly all their savings. but the one thing they did not lose is their social security. most democrats in congress agree with him that we need not only to see social security survive, t buthrive and we need to

improve it. so that seniors at least have that safety net. -- it needs to thrive. host: we heard from a longtime unemployed worker who said the president did not talk about extension of unemployment or cobra benefits for people already out of work. what are the democrats in the majority thinking about with regard to that? guest: the caller is correct we need to do something for those of actively trying to be re- employed. last year we did something to extend unemployment benefits. i believe the president will try to extend those. he supported the cover extension which we passed. -- the cobra extension. it will help those who are gainfully looking for work.

in our house jobs bill of december 2009 that we're waiting on the senate to act on we included it exactly the provision the gentleman is talking about. something to make sure those are actively looking for work do not find themselves totally absent of any assistance. host: the next call comes from tampa bay, florida where the president will go today. caller: hi, good morning, sir. he is coming to the tampa bay area and another at charlie crist put it to him for a stimulus for high-speed rail. jobs for americans. i see three bridges going up on of the world trade center from day one. in battling cancer and have been sick from 2003. i have seen three bridges to

appear, contracts are awarded to canadian contractors from there, all mexicans working on these bridges. not one american died. i used to watch this while i exercised. it is what will happen with a high speed rail -- all foreigners living these things because they work for cheap, cheap labor. guest: patrick brings about three different issues. first, you have cancer and i wish you great luck in fighting and winning over the cancer. that is one reason the president says we cannot give up on health care because he should have health insurance whether in perfect health or with the condition. secondly, in terms of the jobs -- you are right. we need to make sure that we create jobs in america. we did with them for a structure projects.

we have to make sure concerning immigration that we reform a broken system to allow people to be in the country when the door of the right -- jobs in america should be for those who have a right to be here. host: another aspect of the president's remarks concerning the treasury secretary in front of the house panel -- a grilling by both parties. in davos the global economic summit is underway. we were told that the summit was dominated by debate over obama's proposals to tax big banks and curb speculative trading. in the article it says overreactions to the banking crisis by regulators and politicians could become a significant drag on economic growth according to a number of the attendees at there. what are your concerns with what you are hearing from davos that if the government an act to much

to senate could hurt the economy? host: you have a caller earlier talked about every day americans and whether washington's policies are helping them. if the government helped with the school lunch, the mortgages, we would be paying back on that mortgage or stood among because we got a chance to borrow the money. wall street got the chance to borrow hundreds of billions from the taxpayers. they have hardly get paid back. why should it be considered a tax on the banks and its industry if we're just trying to collect the money we lent them to stop them go under? it defies my understanding. we are trying to get the taxpayer money back. if banks don't want to pay back the should not have borrowed in the first place. it was not free.

i don't understand it. that is one reason that every day americans do not understand. banks pain on millions in bonuses to executives even in these difficult times? i agree with the president full bore on that one. host: the last call is from st. louis on the independent line. caller: ok, i watched the speech last night. i was watching democrats and republicans on both sides and when the president came up with the $30 billion to put into small business i saw very few if any republicans standing up and clapping like the democratsi did the have been voting republican, but the republicans are showing me they really don't care about the economy so i will vote democrat. i'm tired of politics. all the people in washington

must realize their jobs are on line. if they don't want to vote for what the american people want but rather the big businesses, then that they should be voted out of office. host: richard is reflecting the anger we hear from some been expressed in the massachusetts election results. guest: his comment was like that we hear from many different americans. hey, we return to be helpful to those in communities, small businesses. when the president proposes a tax cut for small businesses to help stimulate job growth, we should all stand up and cheer. remember, it was just a speech. the president still has to deliver with the help of congress. to the caller would say was just a speech, let's give everyone a chance. let's deliver.

when the caller says people will vote on whether we deliver -- i agree. the president has proposed these small business taxes and -- small business tax cuts and democrats cheered. host: all the focus be on jobs immediately or will there first be more work on health care? guest: we will continue the work on stimulating job growth, and most of the work has been done on the healthcare bill. it is now only trying to iron out differences. we will continue with healthcare, but focus on jobs. host: healthcare is not dead? guest: it cannot be. 14,000 americans lose their jobs and health care every day. host: we'll be joined next by congressman jeb hensarling. let me share two editorials that

are very different from two different new york papers. "the new york times" -- in its headline, the private sector seems unlikely to propel a self-sustaining recovery anytime soon. that means more stimulus spending, not less. now here is "the wall street journal -- -

back to your phone calls. next, tenn., on the republican line. caller: good morning. i listened to the speech and he has it all wrong as far as creating jobs those. sure we get tax credits and forgo capital gains, but that is ok if you have money. the problem for small businesses -- thousands going out of business every day, is that you do not have capital. the banks will not lend money. some credit ratings have gone down over debt. i would like to see the president give a direct loans to small businesses up to $200

billionths of the people can consolidate their debt. if every small business person were able to create five new jobs there would be 5 million new jobs. there would also be an aftereffect. host: thank you. congressman jeb hensarling joins us now. he is a member of the financial services committee and let the house of representatives, also -- let me find your biography. he is a ranking member on the budget committee. guest: good morning. host: you meet at the conference in baltimore tomorrow. would you think your conference and the president can find common ground? guest: i hope that we can and am encouraged that the president

would like to come speak to us. i find myself agreeing with 80% of what the president says, but disagree this amount with what he does. he did at least say the first job and congress is jobs. i was encouraged to hear a few things about tax relief for small business. having said that, i don't think there's much detail there. ultimately, jobs will come from entrepreneurs, not this government trickle-down which has now cost us over $1 trillion. it has created the highest unemployment rate in a generation. i hope we can see some common ground working with small business. i was glad to hear the president say on the energy front he believes that nuclear energy is part of the mix, that he wants

to find environmentally sound ways to tap resources offshore to make as more energy and eponym. he is not giving up on his plans at this time to impose a $600- $800 billion energy tax. nevertheless, there could be some common ground. i was encouraged to do and say he wants to pursue trade agreements which i believe creates more jobs. at the moment his party has in boggled up in the congress. bottom line, there are some areas and come in and give the president credit for wanting to reach out. host: in advance of the speech the white house sent housea tip off on the idea of domestic, non-security programs.

what do you think of the freeze? guest: it is more about changing headlines than budget lines. if you apply his plan to his last budget submission, he is telling the american people after helping to create the nation's first $1 trillion deficit, putting forth a plan to triple the national debt in the next 10 years, i have decided that want to grow government buy 38.9% instead of 39%. if you look beneath it is not a freeze. he does not started for another year. this is on top of the fact that in one year he signed laws that an active an 83% increase in federal same. if it were real freezer would embrace it. we're drowning in a sea of debt and deficit which is really him

during job growth. who want to start jobs in this economy, start a new business, create more jobs when ultimately you're sitting here thinking, am i going to have my taxes increased precipitously? will there be massive inflation? unless we deal with this debt and deficit it will have an unhappy in and ending. i was really disappointed and his proposal. host: this is peggy on the republican line. caller: after all, obama ran as a centrist. then he moved to a progressive agenda. a lot of the mandates and regulations of the big programs he still insists on continuing such as health care, cap and trade -- and even speaking about

emigration -- a lot of mandates and taxes on business. at the same time he says he will give us tax rebates for business. do not forget the state government will also raise taxes because only 80% a population supports the 20% that are unemployed or under-employed. how can business flourish while the federal government imposes taxes and mandates? on the other side are the states which will be forced to raise taxes because of this environment. by the way, will they get more money this year to balance the budget? there will still be a need to balance budgets each year. guest: i think the caller is completely correct. i agree with the president that

some type of tax on small businesses is necessary. you will not have any real job growth in america until these looming storm clouds of obamanomics are removed. the president is dedicated to imposing a to dollar trillion nationalization of health care. that has a huge dampening effect on growth. he is still talking about a 600-$800 energy tax. he still insists on a bill of gm, chrysler, fannie and freddie, so there is that cost. until the president commits msf do something, i am afraid a little bit of tax credit here for small business

-- although i will probably embraces, is probably too little too late. it is kind of like a guy who goes in and orders five cheeseburgers, two malts and then says he cares about his weight and orders diet coke. if you look at his budget, his trillion-dollar deficit as far as the eye can see, you cannot use enough draconian or apocalyptic language to describe the future. the immediate response today is the fact we do not have the. job the we are mired in double-digit unemployment. host: here is a question by twitter. guest: i personally do not

believe that we are under-taxed. we have a spending problem in the washington. you , get the you taxes still going up substantially over the last decade. so, taxes have consistently run -- if you look in the post-war era about 18.5% of the economy. spending has been about 20%. with the spending programs we have now in the next generation it will go from 20% up to 40%. i myself am working on a constitutional amendment.

limited growth of government with the exception of emergencies. otherwise we're on the verge of being the first generation to leave the next with fewer jobs and less opportunity. you're a liberal twitter who said we want to raise taxes, we can do that. all the estimates say if you want to do that then you will have to put a 60% tax increase on the american people. how many americans will no longer own a home, send a kid to college, or start a business because of a 60% tax increase? that is the magnitude of the tax increases necessary to balance the budget. host: next call from san antonio

on the democrats' line. caller: i would like to ask you one question. where were you during the republican rainy, during bush? what would you say and what you are saying now? let's balance the budget. bush left obama with a deficit. tell me where all you republicans were? guest: first, greetings to san antonio where i used to live. i am not happy that we republicans were in charge of congress and ran up deficits. in the 12 years republicans controlled congress the average deficit was about $110 billion per year. in the three years democrats have controlled congress, the average deficit has been $1 trillion.

essentially, what our annual deficits were have now become the monthly deficits. again, listen, i raised my voice, had fights with my own party leaders. i thought we spend too much money as republicans. but obviously we are rank amateurs compared to president obama and speaker nancy pelosi and senator harry reid. they are the ones to give us the nation's first $1 trillion deficit and increased the deficit almost ten-fold in almost two years. they put forth a budget plan to triple the national debt in 10 years. we see levels of debt we have not seen since world war ii. we have gone from a precarious fiscal tax with republicans to a buyer or apocalyptic -- to a

dire or apocalyptic level with democrats. . . you're not entitled.

i am not a fan of these banks, but the fact is, several of them have paid back their loans with a profit to the u.s. treasury. i believe there is a plan in place for all the money that once loaned to these banks. some of which was loaned against their will, to be paid back. this is nothing more than a bill of attainder which is patently illegal. this is about fairness before the law. host: let us get a response. guest: i agree with what you say. after the massachusetts election, i can imagine them getting the pollsters on the

line. i am disappointed that the immediate knee-jerk reaction was to engage in scapegoating. here's my question ques, if they place a tax on your bank, how is that going to create a job? do you think your bank is going to extend you a new line of credit? quite the opposite. like any other tax, it will be shoved into the cost of credit. the president said that this was a "responsibility fee" but there is a lot of responsibility to go around. the president wants to tax banks who did not take t.a.r.p. money. it is not going to create any

jobs. if you really want to assess responsibility, how about those members of congress, including the president, who protected fannie and freddie, who, before it is all said and done, will need for a big bailout. christmas eve, they announced they were lifting the cap of tax exposure to fannie and freddie while at the same time giving them multimillion-dollar bonus packages. what people do with their money is their business. what they do with the taxpayer money is my business. it sounds punitive, political, and will not create one more jump. host: thank you for being with us this morning. on our next segment we will focus on health care. "usa today" writes --

here is what he had to say. right after that we will be joined by fred kaplan of new jersey >> as temperatures cool, and i want everyone to take a look at the plan we proposed. there is a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts, who know the system best, consider this a vast improvement over the status quo. but if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen medicare for seniors, let me know.

let me know. [applause] i am eager to see it. here is what i asked of congress, though. do not walk away from reform. not now, not when we are so close. let's come together to finish the job for the american people. let's get it done. host: on the screen right now it is frank pallone of new jersey. where is the legislation, what is happening? guest: we are trying to see if we can get republican support for a comprehensive bill.

it would have three points, covering most americans, bring down costs, and ending discrimination for pre-existing conditions. the bottom line is, if we cannot get republican support, we will have to go ahead and pass it with democrats. unfortunately, whether or not we can get republican support is not clear. host: it sounds like you describe an emphasis on insurance company reform. guest: it is difficult right now for people with pre-existing conditions to get coverage at all. if they do, it is so prohibitive, it is not affordable. host: is the public option off the table at this point? guest: i do not think so.

i think there needs to be some picture of the public option and reform. however, i think the public option is the best way to create competition. host: what brought us to this point? what caused the process to stalemate? guest: i think, from the beginning, republican leadership is taking the side of the insurance companies and were not willing to move to any meaningful reform, so it is difficult to get them to work with us to accomplish those three goals. of course, the more immediate problem is the massachusetts senate race. but as the president said in the state of the union, the republicans cannot keep on insisting about this super majority, or else nothing will

be done. host: we are talking about reactions to the state of the union in what happens next. barbara on the republican line. caller: i am all for the public option and it makes me sick that it has not passed. i have had so many issues with insurance companies. the republicans are going to be no, no, no. they have made people fearful of everything. democrats need to fight back. guest: i agree, and i think that is what the president was saying last night. we will fight to do this on a bipartisan basis, but if we do not have a choice, we will forge ahead. there will be all kinds of insurance policies offered through this national exchange.

if you have the public option, competition would become greater. you could do it without the public option, but it would not be as effective in bringing prices down. host: next is keith from virginia. caller: my father has no health care. his wife and daughter do. he served this country for four years in the marines, in the heat of battle, and now he don't have no health care. guest: if someone comes back from iraq or afghanistan and they have an injury that is service-connected, they can often go to the veterans hospital, but if they were not injured, they will not have as

much access. they need health insurance, just like anyone else. i think it is up to the government to provide insurance that is affordable. that is what we're trying to provide with the legislation in the house and senate. the framers of the constitution did not anticipate that you had to have 60 votes. this idea that we need a super majority is making it difficult for washington to take action. we have to take action in the middle of a recession. we cannot ignore the problems in the economy, the need for health insurance reform, you name the issue. everyone agrees we cannot have

federal dollars paying for abortion. personally, i would have problems with them, but we all know it will not pass. so we need to find a way to prohibit federal dollars colon to abortion. i think the house and senate versions accomplish that, so it should not be difficult to forge a consensus. in the house language, even if you are paying for it yourself, you have to go outside of the exchange. it is difficult to find a way to pay for the abortion yourself. host: we have a twitter message -- guest: i know in my home state of new jersey, everyone who has health insurance is paying at least $1,000 for care.

if your health insurance is $7,000 a year, at least $1,000 of that is going for people who go to the emergency room because they do not have a regular doctor. host: how is legislation changing according to that? guest: under our plan, 97% would be covered. they would go to the doctor before they got really sick. the big expense is when people go to the emergency room for all their health needs. you could go there on a typical night and spent $10,000 when that problem could have been taken care of a week ago by going to the doctor. right now with kids health care, for example -- another program that we passed a year ago -- it

only costs three day to ensure children are covered under the schip program. host: next phone call. mark on the independent line. new jersey. caller: good morning. i am from mahler's town, new jersey. i have been trying to put forth ideas to help the working class the president said last night, put your ideas fourth. i have an idea that will help employment, help poor people get health care, and restore some justice to the immigration system. host: ok, we are ready. caller: to make things fair, everyone should be run through e-verify, foreign nationals the to have a healthcare bill provided for them. if not, the employer and

immigrant would have a $10,000 fine to share equally between them. guest: i think you are trying to come up with better ideas to better enforce illegal immigration. the one thing i would point out, in the bills broken through the house and senate, they do not cover the undocumented immigrants. that is still an outstanding problem. if someone is here illegally, they can go to the emergency room. so that becomes part of uncompensated care. we have to find a way to deal with this. the bill that is moving does not address the problem. host: ts twitter comment from kd -- guest: i agree that it is more

difficult to create competition without the public option but the bottom line is in states like massachusetts, which is often the model for what we are trying to do, they do not have a public option. they do not even have subsidies. even in massachusetts, the existence of the exchange and competition has brought down the cost. it is not so much that you cannot do it without the public option, it is just less attractive, but it is better than what we have now. host: willie from albany, georgia. democrat line. caller: your last guest stated that democrats had spent $1

trillion that put us into a deeper deficit. understand that was needed to keep us from going into recession. my question to you is how long do you think it will be before we get health care passed? guest: we are very close. in the next few weeks, you will see a strategy put forward. we have a bill that passed the house, senate. we are close. in the next few weeks, you will see movement. on the other issue, i thought the president was very effective say when the recession started, we had to use a certain amount of money for the bailout, for the stimulus, recovery act, to get things moving again. otherwise, we would have had a

collapse. yes, we have spent money, but now that the worst is over, we can address the deficit problem. i think the president is stressing that when things are bad, you have to do tax cuts, spend money on infrastructure, in order to get things moving again. gradually, you can move away from that. you said you appreciate the fact that even though we had to spend $1 trillion or more, that it was necessary. host: thank you for spending some time with us. we continue the conversation on health care from the cannon house office building with phil gingrey. he is a doctor and a co-chair of the gop caucus. we heard that there will be

movement, legislatively, on the health-care issue. from the republican perspective, where do you think this is going? guest: we do not know. we never have. the president said last night, regarding health care, let's come forward. i think he was talking to the divided majority. i do not think he was talking to the republicans. he talked about how people wanted by partisanship, for us to work together. however, frank pallone said that if we do not cooperate, they would go ahead. that is not by partisanship. host: what would you like to say

to the president about health care? guest: in the spirit of bipartisanship, our leader john painter -- boehner and others invited the president to have lunch. i hope, as a position member, i hope to have an opportunity to specifically address health care with him. he said his door was opened. he said medical liability reform should be a part of any solution. cbo said that it could save $54 billion over the next 10 years. i want the president to be true on his word and see if we cannot come up with a bill that will truly lower the cost of health care. but let us not let the federal

government takeover. host: we begin in florida. daniel on the republican line. caller: all we hear of the health care is insurance. my neighbor had a heart attack and went to the hospital. no surgery. he was built $80,000. -- billed $80,000. how come we don't talk about that? guest: that is a good point. it is those people who do not have health insurance who gets stuck with these sticker prices, if you will. if you are under a negotiated

rate, you would pay about a fourth of that. i think in would be a good idea to speak to the hospital and say, anyone who comes in paying for themself, and do not go to them. charge more to the groups. -- gouge them. host: next phone call. caller: i had two adults. one on the government plan. -- two thoughts. i think it is the democrats' attempt to eliminate private companies so that they can totally run the health-care system. guest: let me say quickly to that, bingo. that is exactly what is happening.

they would set rates to physicians so low, as well as everything else, private insurers, an uncle sam will have the advantage enforce every one of business. we are also talking about the need of primary care iphysician, in terms. -- interns. if you reduce their payments, they will be walking away. nobody is talking about that. it would be a huge problem. host: next question comes from new jersey. tiffany on the democratic line. caller: hello. i do not understand why there is such fear about having access to health care.

it is not socialized medicine if everyone has the right to go to a hospital and get treatment. you are spreading this fear to everyone and all they seem to care about is big business and the wealthy. i do not understand. guest: tiffany, the problem is the current health care system we have, although it is too expensive, i think most people are pretty satisfied with the doctor-patient relationship. they want the system to be more cost-effective, but they do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water. it is easy to make bronze -- promises on the campaign trail and be glib. frankly, the american people were looking for moses, and

unfortunately, they got aaron. i heard more of aaron last night. maybe the president can make a turn hand truly moved back to the middle and try to work with republicans. that is what the american people want. host: there are a number of democratic doctors in the congress as well. do you find common ground with those doctors? guest: yes, we do. back home, is a mitropoulos of atlanta. i would guess that more of my

professional colleagues, i would bet more of them voted for president obama. in regard to how to solve this problem, needing medical liability reform, forming a risk pools that the states manage, allowing people to purchase help the insurance online across state lines, then yes, i would say that physicians are uniformly in favor of a more limited, targeted approach. and they do not want bureaucrats walking between them, literally in the exam room. host: clearwater, florida. patrick, a republican line. caller: good morning. my question is, all the money that was lent to the banks, auto

industry, a.i.g. -- i am pretty sure you are not a doctor but you have a law degree. how come they did not put levies on these companies to guarantee that they would be paid back? guest: that is a good question. i voted against t.a.r.p.. i think the government had good checks and balances in regard to the payback, the interest on the forced loans. over half of that money went to the big financial institutions. many of them were forced to take it. we ended up giving hundreds of billions to a.i.g., general motors, people who did not have anything to do with the banking industry. if you live in a county with under 100,000 people, you know what i am talking about.

a couple buys some stock and puts it into a community bank opened that it will go up. and this current situation we had this $700 billion t.a.r.p. program and not one dime has gone to the community banks. there have been bank failures, and there are probably more to come. the president said that they would take $30 billion out of the repayment from the big banks, that it would go to the smaller community banks. that would be just enough to help them make loans. host: jim on the independent line. rochester, new york. caller: i am a retired

pharmacist. i have seen some of this debate on the health care bill. last night, he wanted to hear ideas that might be good to talk about. i think we need to let the people know, everyone in congress, who is currently at the negotiating table. the public needs to know what is in this. i think people from the public can present a lot of great ideas that can be discussed openly. i think a real bill needs to have at least 10, 20 votes from the opposition party to be honest guest: that is a great last question. my colleague that came in with me in the 108th congress, mike

burgess, an ob/gyn, like i am, wrote the president a letter. show us the dealings with all these people like aarp, ama, big pharma, health insurance industry -- and let us find out what happened behind closed doors. who cut the cornhuskers compromise, the louisiana purchase, whatever. let's shed some light on it. the president said that he would have to spend in the room on the campaign trail. in the letter that he got back from general counsel, it said that we would submit a list to you. big deal.

i do not think we will clean to much about the health care debate from that. host: thank you. we look forward to the news reporting from the president's meeting. guest: we look forward to it as well. host: in addition to hear from members of congress, we are also listening to different editorial pages. michelle cohen is an editor at the "boston herald." here is a little bit of what that says -- what was the major theme from the president speech? guest: i think you just read it. the president still thinks it is the message.

it is the communication thing that he gets wrong, as opposed to a policy. i think what we saw in the massachusetts election is that people are feel for all -- fearful about this health care bill. they are angry about the way business is conducted in washington. he gets that part of it, but he does not get the part of change. as for congressional guest pointed out, that does not mean opening up the list of white house visitors. i thought that was a bizarre moment and a huge contrast to negotiating a $1 trillion health care bill behind closed doors. my take away was, yes, i hear you, but the president jumped

right now is to stump speech- ifying and really listen to the concerns of people, the conduct of business in washington. host: you mentioned some of what he would hear from the citizens of massachusetts following the election. what kind of concrete policies would satisfy the constituency there? guest: one of the things we are beginning to hear from capitol hill is that there needs to be an incremental approach to the policy issues of the hour day, both jobs and health care. i had a number of conversations

with ted kennedy in the last years of his life. even ted kennedy, his key issue of health care, had become an incremental list -- incremental ist. let's start with this first part. health care for children. let's get it done. i am hopeful because even people in the administration have begun to talk not about health care reform about health insurance reform. that is a good place to start. covering a pre-existing conditions, better portability, allowing parents to keep their post-college age children on their policy until they can get health insurance on their own. those are all things that can

make a big difference without turning health care system on its ear. especially in a state like massachusetts where we are insuring 94.8% of our population, but we do not want overtures. host: if you want to read more about what the president said, you can read their reaction in "the boston herald." reaction to state of the union, focusing on education. let's listen to what the president said about the education proposal. >> to make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the on board to taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax

credit for four years of college and increased pell grants. [applause] and let us tell another 1 million students at that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10% of their income to student loans and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years, and completely if they choose a profession in public service in 10 years. no one should be prevented from going to college. and by the way, it is time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs. they, too, have irresponsibility to solve this problem host.

host: with me now is mike honda of california. he was previously a science teacher and principal at two schools. he was also a research professor at stanford university. thank you for being here. what did you think of the messaging? the president was talking about colleges and universities. guest: he not only focused on college, but he acknowledged that a college education is an expensive thing to do. i know all lot of students who have avoided going to college right away because they were afraid of the cost. there were financial institutions in the last administration that profited

from financial aid. we changed that right away. we also said to parents, when your student to go to college, you can get a $10,000 tax credit. on top of that, we increased the amount and number of pell grants available to the students so that the appearance of debt will not keep them from higher education. then he turned to the fact that republicans and democrats have agreed to reform no-cal left behind. host: -- no child left behind. host: that is moving through congress right now for reproval.

what would you like to see fixed about that law? -- reapproval. guest: what we did was, it was set up in such a way where final achievement was more important. people were looking at what the great or at the end, instead of making sure that each child had the attention that they needed. it was really about putting too much pressure on the outcomes, rather than looking at the daily of comes -- outcomes. i have been a principal, as

though i know that progress is made every day. the emphasis should not be on winners and losers in the school system. it should be about realizing the potential. at the end of the day, every child is achieving toward that goal set that they will need. there is a difference between all children and each child. host: let me start with this comment from twitter -- what is the link between jobs and education? guest: wow. that is the little shortsighted. that is like saying in order to grow my business i am not or to put money into it -- business, i

am not going to put any money into it. the president said the best anti-poverty program of the 21st century is a world-class education. having said that, we know programs we have, we have to pay attention to each child. he is putting that carrot out there. do not be afraid to go to college. i understand college tuitions have been increasing dramatically and most people cannot afford that. as a result, people are just coming to work, finding another

way to make a living, putting off that potential. it is shortsighted. host: first phone call on the democratic line. caller: i agree with mr. honda and president obama, especially in our inner cities. they do not even get the college prep classes. if they do not have the foundation, how are they going to go to college? they drop out. there is a disparity in this country, and children do need proper education to become productive citizens in this country. i agree with you, mr. honda, and

i support our president 100%. guest: thank you. i could not agree more. and parents, regardless of what the code they live in, they all want their child to succeed. unfortunately, that is not the case. even in a well established neighborhoods, research is not distributed equitably. that is something that we, as parents, as educators, and school board members, have to ask ourselves. not the pursuit of giving the same amount of money behind each child, that is parity. if you have parity, that means that every child has the same needs. that is not true. we need to invest in each child

depending on their needs. it should not be based on what neighborhood they live in but because of the potential that we recognize. host: battle creek, michigan. dorothy on the republican line. caller: one of the things they need to do with children is they need to have more time spent visiting colleges thereof high- school years. it does not matter what the president offers. there is so much intimidation. there are children who do not even know how to go to college because the families with money are always the ones that are looked upon. it seems that they are always the one that the school counselors and teachers get their eyes on. i think kids should be assigned at least, once a month through high school years, to either

observed a different college, see where it is unable to go. then they can sit down in the ninth grade, what all of these things mean. then the president is right about giving these families a break. guest: you are right. when he said youngsters need to be exposed to college campuses, what goes on in higher education, post high-school -- i remember back when i graduated. i went to a catholic university and i did not have much of a link in what happened there and in my daily life. i think that sharpened my

skills. visiting community colleges, making that next step, is a well-thought out process. it is something that we take for granted. host: thank you for spending some time with us. we are going to continue the discussion of education with phil roe of tennessee. let's continue to get your phone calls in the meantime. stephen from wichita, kansas. caller: thank you. my question is, why are all the budget cuts always to education? host: thank you.

next, it. booker. hamilton, a higher. -- next caller. hamilton, ohio. caller: the republicans talking about education -- they are talking about charter schools. they are fine, but they are for- profit schools. why would we abandoned public schools and put money into charter schools when the public schools in america have a great need? one more thing, if you watch the speech last night, every time they talk about tax cuts for the working people, no republican responded but as soon as we said tax cuts for big business, all of them stood up and clapped.

when are they want to look at the working class? host: ned in florida. go ahead. caller: i wanted to respond to mr. hon that about education. i am so disillusioned about his comments. we should not be focused on the results. that involved discipline and responsibility. if you do not account for discipline and responsibility, we are going back to the same thing. there will not be any good results. you need to put the money where there are good resources. host: john, independent line. florida. caller: we are spending $150 billion a year but scores are still going down.

whatever. host: what should be done about that? caller: i do not know. we keep on giving education more money but the scores keep on going down. the dropout rate to keep going up. when they graduate college, where are they going to work? host: as promised, phil roe is with us, a republican of tennessee. one of our callers suggested that the answer to education could be a charter schools. , would you respond to that? -- how would you respond to that? guest: i would not agree with that. i went to public school myself. we have a system that has

deteriorated over the years, and in some places, we have gravelle ratings that are just astonishing. in detroit, we are seeing 75%. that is not acceptable. i spent 10 years of my life in the inner-city memphis, so i have a pretty good idea of those school systems. i now live in a rural area, two of the consistent all together. the complaints that people have about charter schools, i think, are unwarranted. certainly, if you can put pressure student into one school and you put the other students who are not as motivated or do not have as good a family situation in the public system, that there is a higher failure rate -- i have hurcertainly head about that.

host: another comment on twitter -- guest: i think you have to look at that. if nothing is working, you need to look everything on the table. we had, in some places in the country, and education disaster. we have a technology center in tennessee that acts like that, perhaps for young people that did drop out, perhaps were misguided. they can go to a technical school for welding, carpentry, what ever it may be. host: next phone call from annapolis. frank on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to get some comments

from the republicans in regards to the current segregation on education. people in my community are still being educated based on there's a codes, based on -- based on their zipcodes. kids are conditioned -- innocent and their quality of education should not be affected by the quality of their parents' economic status. guest: i think one of the issues and problems about neighborhood schools -- we talked about this yesterday. i made decision to buy a home in

a certain community because of the neighborhood school. i think what he is saying is because some people, because of their socio-economic status, are trapped in these sailing schools. the idea was to be able to move these kids out of these schools. that has that worked and i do not know what the answer is. the economy does separate us, he is right about that. host: does that also come from the tradition of locally-funded schools? guest: it does a little bit. where we are, there are two schools where the government put in money, and there are other school that could other types of

funding. no question, your are dealing with different types of funding. host: next phone call on the democrat line. caller: children cannot learn in school with a calculator. that is doing all the work. my son and his wife are both teachers. we have a granddaughter. she already knows her abc's, she can already count to 15. we work with her every day. people are not trying to educate their children. guest: i did not hear what part of tennessee he was from, but what a great comment. no question it is true. i can tell you about my grand kids, too. he is right.

of course, they are two educators, and they know the importance of that. the problem is, a lot of people do not see how it helps them. my father parked in a factory and it was important for -- work in a factory, and it was important for them for me to go to school. it is probably the best anti- poverty program in the world. learning start at birth. children start learning right then. i delivered babies for a living. you would see families coming in -- and in tennessee, every child gets a book every month until they are five to encourage them to learn. that was a great call. host: thank you for your time.

much more to discuss in the weeks ahead. thank you for spending some time with us. today, the president travels to tampa. with me right now is the editor of the "st. pete times." what did you see in the president's speech last night? guest: i thought it was a good speech that talked about jobs and the economy, which he had to do. i think he showed that he does have a connection with the unemployed and he has a number of programs that he is working on to help. host: let me read specifically from the editorial --

tell me more about what your thinking? guest: you saw the reaction after the massachusetts senate race. republicans are now emboldened, i think, to try to stop the democrats' agenda. democrats are fractured. you can see the reaction. i think he had a two-pronged message last night. in courage and the people inside the capitol to work together and sending the broader message to the nation that he is trying to fulfill his campaign pledge to make things work differently. the problem is, they are not working differently, and the american people can see that. host: the president will be

showcasing the high-speed rail line in your area of florida. what should people know about the funding of the project? guest: we are not getting quite enough money to cover all the project right away. they are characterizing that as a down payment. the second thing is we are convinced this will bring more jobs to florida and tampa bay, where the unemployment rate is higher than the national rate by a good margin. host: a bit more on what the president had to say last night. >> we renewed our focus on the terrorists that the nomination. we need investment in homeland security and disrupt the plot intended to take american lives. we are filling a couple gaps revealed by the christmas day

attack we have prohibited torture, strengthen partnerships from the pacific to south asia, to the arabian peninsula. and in the last year, hundreds of al qaeda fighters, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed. far more than in 2008. host: and joining us from the cannon house office building is dan lundgren of california. his relevant security assignments our homeland security. -- are homeland security. last night the president gave just 9 minute to national security. do you have a reaction to that? guest: the american people are reflecting the reality of the situation. other than the economy, this war

against terrorism is the second most important issue. it's certainly with that reflected in his speech. i applaud the efforts of men and women in uniform, in the dollar this community -- they have done a tremendous jump since 9/11. they have saved literally thousands of lives, stopped hundreds of plots. about what the president said last night, while true, does not tell the whole story. we have taken a position under his leadership that, i think, leaves us more mobile than we would otherwise be. i was hoping that the president would say the reality that came to us on december 25, the attempted bombing of an airplane over detroit, causes us to reflect and make changes in our approach.

what i meant by that is not having that individual dealt with as a common criminal but rather, as someone who is an enemy combatant, to hold him under military rule. under those considerations, have had interrogated and turned over to the military tribunal. . .

host: 1 comment regarding prosecution of war is on ground, david ignatius -- i know you know him -- writes this -- "i suspect there is a growing opposition that the military has to get out of fighting expedition rewards every time and a flash point erupts with al qaeda. the pentagon has adopted this proxy strategy of turning friendly countries, meaning ones that share with us the enemy of islamic extremism, from north africa to the philippines. this partnership approach has not been articulated by the obama administration and does not get much media coverage, but it's worth a careful look, because it offers the best path toward a world with the united states is not always operating as an anti-terrorist robocop."

guest: to have allies around the world combating terrorism makes a good deal of sense. that does not mean we turn our backs on the mission in afghanistan or iraq. i do not think the president has suggested that we do that. this is not a world we are choosing, but a world wto which we have to respond to the alternative is to lose, and if we lose, that would encourage those who would attack as everywhere around the world to keep it up. i think it is a multi-front approach -- i think a multi- front approaches appropriate, and the idea that we would train other countries to meet this threat around world makes a great deal of sense. we need to uncover pots before they unfold, but we need to -- and cover plots before they unfold, but we need to take the war to the enemy in other parts

of the world, so that they cannot choose the time and place of the encounter bridge we need to -- so that they cannot choose the time and place of the encounter. yes, it does make sense for us to or purchased in that way. host: massachusetts, james, you are on. caller: i want to know why you are opposing this president altogether. am i being listened to? host: yes, sir. caller: all the things that you talk about, constantly, constantly saying we are going to do this, do this, do that did everything is rhetoric you are not doing anything at all in washington. the people of the united states of america -- we are starving, we are dying out there. you are giving the country away. guest: well, i don't know what

all those comments and then did it seems to be disconnected to a single approach. i happen to applaud the president what he is right. i've worked with him on the threat against pandemics and epidemics, man-made or natural to i think he is good in that area. i happen to strongly disagree with this approach in the overall fight on terror when dealing with those the recapture. we need to connect the dots, but we need the dots in the first place, and that is done by human intelligence, including tough interrogation against those who are in leadership positions. that is why i have a difference of opinion with what we did it with the bomber in detroit. 50 minutes or less of interrogations? any law enforcement person would tell you that is insufficient. this is not even law-enforcement engagement. this ought to be military

intelligence engagement. i am not suggesting he was a high level operative. what i am saying is that he had fresh information, at least as we understand it, from public information, and told us that there are others poised to do the same thing. that is fresh information and we ought to get as much of it as possible. i also agree with the administration's efforts to work with our allies around the world in terms of training and other agencies to deal -- diligence agencies and so forth -- to deal with threats in our own country. but i'm not going to stand up and lied or stand up and be untrue to my beliefs and to my constituents. they told me in town hall after town hall after town hall how they felt about health care, how they felt about federal spending, how they felt about taxation, how they felt about putting more and more debt on our children and grandchildren. i did not come to washington to be a weather vane, i did not

come to washington to applaud this president or the past president when i think i have not been correct. i have to give my honest judgment. the american people are hurting. they are asking for different approaches. i am trying to voice those concerns. if the president goes in a different direction, it is my obligation to try to persuade him to go in the direction the american people want. i don't see that as an attempt to fight the president. i view that as an attempt to represent my constituents and to the best i can for this country. host: let's take a call next from austin, bob on the republican line. caller: i was interested to know why we are spending so much money, or going to be spending so much money, defending people -- obama plays it down to make it sound like that even enemy combatants anymore. they are terrorists. we cannot seem to call them that. why are we spending millions of

dollars to defend people who have admitted their guilt when the economy is struggling as bad as it is? it just seems more like me. -- seems moronic to me. guest: i would not put on the cost, but what is it in the united states constitution -- to keep people like khalid sheik mohammed in custody, in guantanamo, to try them there. i was one of the authors of the military tribunal law. we tried to take cues from the supreme court told us they were concerned about, and build on the tradition of this country, which is to try individuals like this by military tribunals. it goes all the way back to george washington and abraham lincoln, fdr, harry truman, dwight eisenhower. that is how we dealt with that in this case, these are individuals who are not even in uniform.

individuals were specifically not in uniform who go after innocent men, women, and children, and use terrorism as a specific means by which they are trying to gain their ends. that violates every concept of the geneva accords. makes every bit of sense to hold them in guantanamo, where we have built a world-class facility and they are not maltreated or mistreated. we have the ability there to try them, a secure facility. we were going through a military tribunal. they wanted to plead guilty. for whatever reason, we decided to not accept the plea of guilty and put them into our civilian system. it makes no sense. i think it does heighten the possibility of new york being a fresh target. i think it concerns -- i think the concerns expressed by the police commissioner there are real. he knows, i think, what he is talking about. it is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

look, the former attorney general of the united states, michael mukasey, a federal judge who actually was the presiding judge in that trial of the terrorists and the early 1990's, says it is a huge mistake. we ought to listen to him. he has experience in this and i think he knows what he is doing. in addition to the fact that we have to think about cost, the greater concern we ought to have is what is in the best interest of the united states? i believe this is not in the best interest of the united states. we ought to admit that we made a mistake, and keep these people in guantanamo, try them there, and forget this nonsense about -- we have to be true to our constitution by bringing these people here and somehow giving the full panoply of constitutional rights. the only connection with the united states is that they were captured in the battlefield attempting to kill americans. it is never the basis to give full constitutional rights to

anybody in this country. host: michael, independent line. caller: i actually agree with you about the combatants that are caught overseas and stuff like that, in terms of guantanamo. but it seems a little hypocritical when it comes to the 9/11 people that we tried here in the u.s. i saw republicans actually applauding how we were able to handle stuff like that, and now with a democrat in our, is an issue if we do it. your feelings on that seem to be a little mixed. were you against for years ago? guest: we did not have the legislation that completed the operation of military tribunals at the time to read. the concept and we worked our way through decisions made by the supreme court, a process giving exclusive appellate jurisdiction to the district

court of appeals for the district of columbia, and then an opportunity to go to the supreme court. we also have learned from those situations. as i say, if you look at the trial that took place in the 1990's, for those who attempted to bomb the twin towers in the first instance, we thought that was the proper way to go the presiding judge now tells us it was not. even though we got prosecutions successfully there, we gave up intelligence information. we should learn from those mistakes, it seems to me, and apply the best information we have now, and believe, if the constitution allows us to do it, set up a structure under statute that allows us to do that. it seems to me that we ought to continue in that effort with the knowledge gained from our past experiences. that is all i'm saying, let's learn from the past and apply it and make sure we protect america in our interests and at the same time protect the constitution.

host: congressman dan lungren is reacting to the president's statements about national security in the state of the union. thanks for doing that. guest: thank you very much. host: congressman brad sherman is next. thank you for being here as well. the president made reference to the christmas bombing attempt on the jetliner and talked about intelligence. is there consensus on the intelligence response to the christmas attack at this point? guest: i don't think you have a national consensus on all the details. you just heard my colleague dan lungren criticize how the administration handle it. host: u.s. effort in congress from dennis blair and others about the apparatus -- you have heard in congress from dennis blair and others about apparatus and structure. guest: whatever internal arguments there are, those in

your profession are more likely to extract that from leaks that we are p. host: what are your takeaways about how al qaeda of my defection from what we know about the planning? -- help al qaeda might be functioning from what we know about the planning? guest: they were trying to set the norms in hitting the united states, trying to get our allies with medium-size attacks. they have gone from what was a plan to kill tens of thousands of americans to one that was designed to bring down a single airplane. their infrastructure is dismantled. at the same time, the very fact that osama bin laden is alive and they're still there, putting propaganda in the web and the world, is dangerous, and this is

going to be a long war. host: what is the appropriate response at this point in time, with the restructuring? guest: well, i think the president's approach of the focusing on afghanistan makes sense, but the real focus is pakistan. 9/11 was because we were unwilling to imagine the unimaginable. now we are willing to imagine what happened on 9/11 bid the focus has got to be on a nuclear weapons and perhaps a bioterrorism. we have to be willing to imagine that one of these terrorist groups or wrote countries could try to take out an american city -- or rogue countries could try to take out an american city, and that is why it is important to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons. host: secretary of state hillary clinton is at a conference on these very issues. they spent part of the time talking about yemen, where is the response from the local

government is being applauded. what do you see there from the government response? guest: i think we are taking basically the right approach towards yemen. we have to realize there is no central front in the war on terrorism. if there is, it is iran and pakistan. pakistan already has nuclear weapons, and it is to some degree unstable, and iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, and would at least threaten us with them, if not actually use them. so we need to focus on the nuclear threat, and iraq and afghanistan, to some degree, i just important because it happened to be there. -- because we happen to be there. yes, al qaeda can use afghanistan as a place to train, but they are using yemen, the a using somalia, and there are many places where al qaeda is operating. host: in the first segment on

this subject, i showed the david ignatius calling, "there is it growing consensus among the military that they have to get out of fighting it expedition. -- fighting expeditionary was every time any flash point erupts with al qaeda." guest: what we have to do is recognize that this is going to be a long war with many aspects to it and that we are going to incur some casualties year after year after year, and that is not consistent with american culture. we are shaped by the world war ii experience to be what to mobilize the whole country and win in three years and be -- we are shaped by the world war ii experience. we want to mobilize the whole country and win in three years and be done with it. it will be a test whether we can stay the course long-term without necessarily investing too much of our resources in any one effort, in some dream that

if we can just win one battle or do something for one year, that the war on terror will be over. guest: california, rate -- host: california, ray, democrats' line. caller: we have been at this war over 10 years. is there another way? what is a what? why do they hate us so bad? guest: what they want is a worldwide caliphate the values of that taliban would be imposed on virtually the entire world. the master of india points out that the demand -- ambassador of india points out that the demand radical jihadists is that all of india is brought under the radicals control. the idea that we could just

surrender one or two countries and they would be happy -- it just what's their appetite. -- just whets their appetite. when you give them everything they want, they will want more. there's a tendency to think that everybody is sane and rational and if you could just put a chicken in every pot, everybody would be happy. that is in fact not the case. many of the terrorists who attacked america are from middle class and even upper-class families. it is not a matter of -- i mean, economic development and diplomacy can play a role, but there are hard core who cannot be satisfied by anything short of ending at, say, all education of women worldwide. host: patrick on the republican

line for sherman. caller: i remember in 1980 when carter was president, i follow politicians and what was going on -- that country is bent on destruction of the u.s. they will lie and cheat and do whatever they can to try to trick us. there are so far out of touch with reality, the president of that country, it is not funny. but i tried to get a library card and ask me for a passport and a birth certificate, in town i -- and they asked me for a passport and a birth certificate come in at how i grew up in. these people are so scared in new york city -- spoke to corporations yesterday and they are moving out because they want to try terrorists in manhattan. host: thanks, patrick. you have given us a couple of different issues to work with.

guest: we have tried dangerous terrorists in courts in the united states before without incident frankly, in terms of people breaking out of prison, there are a tough gang members in prison and if anyone of them broke out, it would have connections and know how to operate and they would be violent and just as scary to individual households as escaped terrorist who might not know the english language and have a difficult time blending in. as to iran, i do not think that iran if they developed a nuclear weapon would just use it on a sunny day to bring back the 12th imam. instead, i think they would practice terrorism with impunity. they are already the no. 1 state sponsor of terror. every one of these terrorist acts, or every confrontation on

the strait of hormuz, would put us eyeball to eyeball with a very arrogant and high style nuclear regime. we made it through the cuban missile crisis, but khrushchev was considerably saner than ahmadinejad. we made it through one missile crisis. i am not looking to do several, or to do one or two every year. it is important that we tremendously increase the sanctions on iran. i've been calling on that for 12 or 13 years now. so far what we've done is pitifully small, under three administrations, compared to what we could do. host: we are talking to congressman brad sherman, reacting to the president's message is in last night's state the union address. chicago is next. henry. caller: independent, not democrat. brad, you are doing a good job

explaining the questions they ask you this morning. but you all have such a hard time explaining the difference between a terrorist and a combatant. this is what everybody is talking about where we tried them at. al qaeda is an organization that uses terrorism to inflicted their views on the world. these are not soldiers. these are enemy combatants and allocated is using religious and economic -- al qaeda is using religious and economic elites to recruit them. when we catch these enemy combatants, confused and used by their own religion -- they are economically stable -- as you say, middle-class, upper-class -- they have been brainwashed through their own religion to

take a jihad. when we capture them, instead of putting them in a military jail somewhere, and cutting them off, i agree that we should show them that we are america and we understand and will take no slack from you all and we will try you and you are guilty of the crimes that you did, but we have to understand that you have heard this and been brainwashed and yada yada yda and made this mistake, but we are not going to make the same mistake. guest: i think we should be trying to liberate imprisoned terrorists from the ideology that has imprisoned them. saudi arabia has tried to do a job with the least dangerous terrorists that we have sent back to them. they thought they had a very good program to put these folks

back with their families and reeducate them. in fact, many of the terrorists that we have returned to saudi arabia from guantanamo are now practicing terrorism again, fighting as afghanistan and yemen. -- fighting us in afghanistan and yemen. we do need to band win people over, whether it is a part in the terrorist or six or 7 billion people around the world. but we cannot assume that just because we are right, we will be able to convince folks. host: jo, democrats' line. good morning, joe. caller: good morning. i have been watching the comments this morning on tv about -- people commenting on the president's speech last night. i was watching on fox, and they had rudy on, i now come over,

and 9/11. -- a noun, verb, and 9/11. that is the only thing the republicans have to campaign on. they did nothing but get us into two wars, one of which we should not be in. they should read their history books. there were two democratic administrations that one of the two great world wars -- won the two great world wars. and it was a democratic administration that brought us to the korean war, and republican president who ended the war without a win. i think the democrats have a good history on defense. another thing i want to get at is the republicans are almost saying that 9/11 came during a democratic administration, which it did not. rudy giuliani alludes to this all the time.

1 9/11 happen, george bush is at petrified in a schoolroom in georgia, and dick cheney immediately went into a bunker. i believe they don't want these terrorist tried in new york, especially dick cheney, he is afraid that one of these bogeymen might get released and, hunting for him. guest: i don't think dick cheney or any american has got the fear of one of these terrorists getting loose in a court room. i think we can make sure that they remain locked up and down arms. i come up on one hand, am a democrat, and passions get up, i am on the side of the color, -- on the side of the caller, but at the same time, i would rather see some passions get down, and rather than say democrats are

good or bad. host: we have this twitter comment. guest: actually, susan, sanctions did work on iraq. we just did not realize it. the sanctions on iraq hollowed out saddam's military, the sanctions on iraq prevented him from even regaining his stock of chemical weapons. he was so afraid of the overall international effort. the sanctions worked with regard to south africa. they don't always work. as to china, i think that' to be truly effective, our sanctions need to be worldwide, and we have got to let china know that their continued access to u.s. markets depends upon their cooperation with us on the iran issue.

but even without chinese support, all the technology is european, a vast majority of it, and if they cannot get their parts, one elevator breaks and you cannot get the spare part, the elevator is out. many different aspects of the iranian economy could be severely hit by an absolute sanctions regime just from the west, but frankly, we have got to get china on our side. we are a sovereign country, and the next ship of tennis shoes may or may not be allowed to come in. host: annapolis is the last question for representative sherman. the republicans' line. caller: congressman, you stated that the reason that these people are attacking the united states and around the world is because they want a world

caliphate a world dominated by islamic i want to say that i find that a little hard to believe, i think that most of the american public agrees with me that the united states government kind of reminds me of the gambino crime family these people are angry with us because of representatives of our government looting and a pressing these people -- oppressing these people. the rest of the world will fight for their resources and blood and -- host: thank you. let's get a response. we are out of time. guest: well, i don't think america is the gambino crime family. as americans, we like to believe that everyone is a reasonable per.

most people around the world are reasonable, but you do have a hard core -- hitler was intensely popular at one time in germany, and it is not because he was right. it is not because america is the gambino crime family. there is a hard core of people who would love nothing more than two-seat american women and children die. -- than to see american women and children died. that does not mean there is any justice and seeing americans dying b. host: thank you for being with us this morning. we have half an hour left. open phones on the state of the union. the president covered a lot of issues that we've not gotten to. it is your call to talk about what ever else you heard in the

speech or to react to anything we have said so far. we've also been introducing you to reaction from editorial pages. doug mceachern is with us next, the editorial page editor of "the arizona republic." some of what he had to say -- "the speech reflected cognitive dissonance regarding the declarations of a new financial prudence." what is the evidence of cognitive dissonance that you saw? guest: i think it is what preceded the speech rather -- as much at least as was in the speech itself. he announced a modified spending freeze intention prior to last night's speech, and once i started seeing what he had to say last night, it became very apparent that was not -- that there was not a great deal of fiscal prudence at work in his intentions going forward. host: arizona has got an

interesting senate race this year. what are the things you are hearing from citizens there reflected in the speech last night? guest: certainly there are rumblings regarding senator mccain on the part of the most conservative elements of the republican party, and those have to do with largely, i think, immigration reform, which is not something that the president dwelled on last night. if that becomes part of his agenda, however, you will likely see that become a major issue again in the senate race. host: what about health care? the president exhorted congress to get back to work and find a solution from where they are right now. what are the citizens of arizona saying when you look at polls interest in health care reform? guest: i think they pretty much

fell into the same reactions you are seeing across the nation. on the more conservative side, there are people that are very much relieved to see that scott brown was elected in massachusetts. on the left, and in arizona certainly, there was a great deal of disappointment that it does not seem to be going forward. i'm sure that the president's insistence that he intends to go forward with at least some parts of the health-care plan was very uplifting to them. host: give us a snapshot of the economy in arizona. guest: bad. it is about as bad as it gets. we have come to the stark realization that we ought to michigan of the west right now in many respects. -- we are the michigan of the west right now in many respects. high unemployment. very little prospect of turning in some time. our budget deficit is bigger as

a percentage of population than anywhere else in the country, including california. host: is there consensus on the editorial page about what programs would be most useful in turning that around? guest: well, we are a free enterprise-oriented newspaper. we would like to see more, and it by the president -- seymour commitment by the president to letting -- see more commitment by the president to letting the free enterprise have a little more free rein, and i did not see much evidence of that. host: thank you very much for sharing your views at "the arizona republic" on c-span. thanks again for your time. guest: thank you. host: let's turn to open phones on the state of the union, by the reaction to the core issues we've highlighted today, or what else you heard in this speech, or the tone and reaction in the room.

keith, republicans' line. caller: i just wanted to say that obama is definitely a very good speaker, a very eloquent, and seems to connect with people, and his speeches seem a very motivating. but what he is getting done and what he seems to be actually accomplishing seems to be very different from what he seems to say he is going to do. and when he says that it seems that people are losing faith in government, i think this -- he nails it directly in the head. -- directly on the head the government continues to make peace and the promises. -- these and tempty promises. host: here is where the president talks about energy and green jobs. >> it means building a new

generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. [applause] it means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. [applause] it means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. [applause] and yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of

energy in america. [applause] i am grateful that the house passed such a bill last year, and this year, i am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the senate. host: if you are interested in seeing which words the president said most frequent, go to c- span.org and click on our state of the union paid and we have something called a worlde. -- a wordle. "americans" and "people" ranked highly. 7304 words. it is not the longest. that went to william j. clinton in the year 1995, clocking in at 5190.

pittsburgh is next. caller: i thought the president did quite well as far as speaking. he is an eloquent speaker. however, i was looking forward to seeing a shift from privatize asian, and i think that this is where the real problem is in this country. it is supposed to save money for the federal government. our government has gotten bigger, but it is all contractors and subcontractors. those people are making three or four times the amount that a worker would be if they served

in the u.s. military. they can get four soldiers for one blackwater look for, for example. if they go back to that kind of stance, they could save a lot of money. back in the roosevelt days, and during truman's time, or they had -- where they had the corps of engineers and civilian workers working side by side. host: william, independent line, greensboro, north carolina. caller: hello. i think that -- i agree with the last person. all the issues he said -- americans need to get back to caring about americans again.

i don't agree with what senator brad sherman was talking about. the hold -- the whole world war ii idea is over. i was in kuwait. you are dealing with terrorists, not the russians. this time recenter id -- this is terrorism. most drugs are consumed by the united states. every neighborhood in the country, that is what he is talking about. everything and the country we can do it ourselves. the senate keeps on bringing up -- [unintelligible] they have been sitting around feeding the fat cats this whole time. there is no way anything in this country will change unless we stop all this petty bickering -- host: william, thank you so much

for your comments. texas, charles on the republican line. charles, you've got to turn down the volume in your tv, please come and speak up. caller: yes. host: charles, hit that mute button. we're getting feedback. caller: here's the thing -- we are talking about these terrorists and stuff in our country. we need to cut the borders and stop the borders and keep these illegals from coming over here and taking our jobs and putting our lives in danger. al qaeda and then contests slip across the border. -- al qaeda and them and just slid across the border. host: with us is the editorial page editor of "the detroit free

press." overall, your reactions to the president's speech is what? guest: the president is a very eloquent and compelling speaker. this was his court as much as any place else where he could deliver his message. at the same time, i think we felt like the problem with this president is not his ideas or ability to express them, it is his ability to convince the public and the republican minority that is an agenda they should be invested in as well. he did not offer a whole lot of items last night that would address that problem. it was more of a doubling down on his ideas and agenda. host: the headline on your editorial is "now that the tough jobs done."

guest:isht more work to do. as popular as he seems to be, he does not have the majority that he came into office with in the senate. there is a clear erosion of support for what he wants to do. that is going to make things like health care, the further economic stimulus activity -- it is going to make it harder. he has to start selling to people, particularly in the middle, independents who voted for him in unbelievable numbers in 2008. those of the people he needs to win back for his agenda. host: detroit and michigan have had many economic problems. as detroit seen any signs of " in the economy? what is the situation like now -- has detroit see any signs of hope in the economy? what is the situation like now?

guest: this situation is horrible. there is no other way to put it. there are lots of people who are losing everything. municipal governments, state governments -- they are all scrambling to deal with unbelievable deficits, foreclosures. i think that if there is hope, it is that we are starting to see the automakers -- at least two of the companies headed in the right direction. ford never went through bankruptcy, and is doing pretty well. but it will be a long haul for us here. it will be years before we can make some structural changes that we need to get our economy to the place where it can drive an economy that does not depend as much on the manufacturing as it once did. speaking host: of a ford in particular, -- host: speaking of

a ford in particular, the associated press has a story saying that it made $2.7 billion in 2010, the first annual profit in four years. -- made $2.7 billion in 2009, the first annual profit in four years. it is also enjoying customer goodwill for avoiding bankruptcy and for refusing federal aid. what should take away be on that? guest: well, i think ford was in a different position than gm and chrysler, and kudos to them for that. i think there is a real negative reaction still against -- in the vast middle, to the idea that the federal government spent much money last year helping big corporations. i happen to agree with what was done. i think the president was right, both with the banks and auto

companies, all that idea at to enough people -- but if you cannot sell that idea to enough people, he is going to pay for it. host: thank you for sharing the "detroit free press" views with the national audience. guest: thanks for having me. host: democrats' line. caller: good morning, susan 3 u and c spent doing their usual good a job, and i pitched -- you and c-span are doing the usual good job, and i appreciate it. more attention is being given to massachusetts then it should be. as a political junkie and someone twho is lived in massachusetts for most of my life, this was an emotional election to replace ted kennedy. we had to pick between two individuals. one was passionate and charming

and a lot like ted kennedy, and the other one was a cold prosecutor with ice water in her veins instead of blood. people just did not like her. when you consider that scott brown's campaign was ninja-like, and martha coakley brand the worst, almost pathetic campaign in the world, and turn off everybody by the time she was done, i am not surprised that scott brown one. and i think teddy up there in haven't got a big kick out of it. -- i think teddy up there in heaven got a big kick out of it. he would work with scott brown. i think this was a personal, emotional thing that the people of massachusetts had to pick what the coakley it sat there on beacon hill -- some people call it collegeville layhill -- caligula hill -- while three

house speakers were dragged away in handcuffs. where was she? host: next caller. caller: good morning, susan. you look terrific. i really mean it about your hair. the last one on the foundphone -- keep going, left wingers, key to being in denial about massachusetts, and you'll be smashed. last summer, everybody was called a racist, and i am shocked that he did not come out and put a end to that. it will not stop until he comes out and explains what his policies are, and with everybody

who opposes the president being called racist. with the twittering, i don't think it's fair that c-span junkie and all these other people get on three times a day and we all have to wait 30 days. if you are going to about twitter to work like that, let's have some fairness. guest: thank you very much. appreciate, -- appreciate the comments. he talked about race and perception. one thing in getting attention on blogs, especially about the media, or comments by chris matthews. >> i was trying to think about who he was tonight. it is interesting. he is post-racial, by all appearances. for an hour. -- i forgot he was black

tonight for an hour. what a minute, he is an african- american guy in front of a bunch of white people, and you forgot about that tonight. the scope of this discussion was so broad ranging, in tune with so many problems of aspects of american life, that you don't think in terms of tribalism and the old ethnicity. it is so hard to talk about it. i should not talk about it, but i am. host: judy, republican line. caller: hi, susan. one of the things and it is on economics with the president is the neglect disabled veterans and people on social security. this is a real shame. these people are held captive by a limited income. it is not fair to expect them to absorb all the extra costs when

things are going wrong, especially the disabled veterans who served their country, did not ask about cost or money or even their lives. i think it is something that should be addressed, and it seems like the government is conveniently forgetting this and going on with politics as usual, and the congress and all the politicians got their race, and yet the poor people that put them there -- got their raise and yet the poor people that put them there are standing there worrying about how to make ends meet. host: gene, democrats' line. caller: good morning. can you hear me? guest: we can. -- host: weekend. caller: i wished the president spoke more to the american people. i think he is afraid of stepping on the republicans' toes.

he should have said that all the money we give dick aig -- gave to aig will be given back. how many people were listening to tim geithner? was it in the newspapers today? i doubt it. i wish you would dwell on that, susan, that everybody who paid the money will get it back. host: what did you think of the speech overall? caller: it was great pitch been answered intelligently, straightforward -- it was great. he entered intelligently, straight forward. i wish obama would talk to the people more like roosevelt did, have the fireside chats. don't try to appease the republicans. host: the president is going to tampa, florida, highlighting the high-speed rail projects and

holding a town hall meeting. from the associated press, the number of new claims for unemployment benefits fell less than expected. the labor department says that first-time jobless claims dropped by 8000 to a seasonally adjusted 407,000. analysts had expected a steeper drop to 450,000. the four-week average, which smooths out volatility, rose for the second straight week to 400 to be 6250. the average had fallen for 19 straight weeks before starting to rise. economists closely watch initial claims, which are considered an indication of the company's willingness to hire new workers ." next call, fran, independent- minded -- dependent line. -- independent line.

caller: what i heard from the speech last night is what i continually get. he comes across as very arrogant and biased. he says that he wants stuff from the republicans, but then he does not listen. then on top of that, he contends anybody -- condemns anybody who goes against anything that he says. if he would be more open and not allow democrats to do the background deals, he would get what he promised. but he does not. then he does this speech last night and the little all the republicans. i'm an independent. -- that he does this speech last light and heat be little all the republicans did i am an independent. i think both parties are bad right now. but he shows a continuous bias that has to stop.

host: justice samuel alito was among the justices who decided to be in attendance last night. >> with all due deference to separation of powers, last week the supreme court reversed a century of law that i believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. [applause] i don't think american elections should be bankrolled by america's's most powerful interest, or work by foreign entities. they should be decided by the american people. host: people watching were focusing on justice alito shaking his head and saying, "

no, not true." next call. caller: i think we ought to raise taxes on imports, or a cost as much to bring it in as it would if we made it here. whenever we passed the free trade agreement, we totally sold out america. we cannot compete with people making it for 50 cents or a dollar. it is not helping no third world government. they are still in poverty. that is what destroyed -- took the jobs away from the country. that is just what i think we should -- host: next is tim, watching in fort worth. caller: i've been watching all morning, and i want to read your -- want to reiterate what i

heard from another color. the republicans keep getting on and said that they are speaking for the people. i'm a small business owner, and my feelings on this whole thing is what i heard all morning long, that i think, i hope america is listening, that we are tired of all of it. yet tired of all of them. i am literally watching the death of our great nation. i love the fact we are a compassionate country towards for an interest in what happens to other people, whether it is -- towards foreign interests and what happens to other people, whether it is terrorism -- but our nation is in crisis. i think we need to bring the focus here and stop all this world economy stuff. i got problems in my home and i need to address those problems in my home and clean my own side of the street, and then when i can deal with other things, i can do that. we just need to get more

sensible. i'm tired of all the bickering, tired of the name-calling. i'm done with all of them. i mean, all of them, republicans, everybody. we are the people i meet our government to stand for us -- and we need our government is to address, the blue-collar, middle america, continuing to break our back. host: how this business been? caller: horrible. nobody can spend anything. carpet cleaning is a luxury item. and the moving thing, people cannot pay the mortgage, they cannot take a moving belt. -- moving bill. at both of those businesses, i employed 10 people. if millions of us are employing 10 people -- i try to pay my guys as much as i can, i tell

them that they are special and i provide training and stuff and it helps their egos and take pride in their work. you're missing all that, missing american pride, morale, and everybody is suffering. i don't understand how 20 years ago, a driver in a warehouse could make $50 an hour, and today, you go -- $15 an hour, and today, you go to motorola and everywhere else and they are only willing to pay you eight. host: alex, congratulations, from new orleans, you are going to be lost color. -- the last caller. caller: whee! although maybe will not like what i have to say. guest: i am not taking -- host: i am not taking opinion on anyone's calls.