toward iran. we will hear more about the proposed budget at 9:30 eastern and president of the national council owill focus on latinos. "washington journal" is next. . .

"washington journal." today is tuesday, february 2. the president ruled out his budget yesterday and today we are going to find out, does the federal budget reflect your priorities? some of the things you have seen and heard and read so far, all kinds of things in the newspapers we will be looking at. the numbers -- if you would like to get in touch electronically, you can send a message via e-mail, journal@c-span.org, and twitter, c-spanwj. this is "the los angeles times." and another article we want to

start off with -- "obama budget sets strategy for fall campaign." also bolsters a goal of the 2010 election -- angeles times," obama's but the planç includes $100 billion jos plan. the president today willdj÷

propose $3.80 trillion federal budget that includes a $100 billion jobs package, more education spending and higher taxes on familiesçç eavmng mo3 çthan $250,000 a year. çy3çq(ççifw3[9í535tp/ç in %4)3u%ñw3xoçóo»wçkoçyg3+l business tax cuts, infrastructure, and clean energy, all designed to create jobs and this includes a new small-business jobsç and wage - it also allows the 2001 and the 2003 tax cuts to expire for households making more than $250,000 a year,çç generating8 billion over 10 years. two more little items in the budget package. ççççit includes a $3 billion increase in elementary and secondary education act for public school funding, raising

$1.3 billion more forç)qhaace to thes;n top program for schoos toçççç increase student pere and $17 billion for pell grant funding for college aid. we willç talk more about that s we go through the program. qfirst,q youngstown, ohio. good morning, welcome to the program. caller: how are you doing this morning? host: what do you think of the budget proposal. does it reflect your priorities? caller: it definitely does. money, and all it did was help the rich. at least this guy has the common man in mind somewhat. the only thing bush did was just burn money up as far as i'm concerned. that is all i have to say. host: before you go, is anything

in particular what he's seen and read in the budget that appeals to you? any particular branch of government -- government -- government, cabinet positions? caller: the pell grants. host: you got kids in school? caller: but i've got relatives in school, nieces and nephews and i think it will be really good for them. acting this guy is at least for the american -- i think this guy is atq least for the american people. çta] is my opinion. i think he is wayç better than what weç had. host: johnny, winston-salem, north carolina, on the line for democrats. does the president's federal budget reflect your priorities? caller: yes, itç does. he is attempting to help the people. çi do have grandchildren and

school. çso these programs will be important. nieces and nephews, all important. the tax cuts tow3 small business maybe this would be an opportunity to get more jobs. and the jobs bill is important. xdneighbors and family and all looking for jobs. they cannot find jobs. i don't know what the republicans are complaining about. $3.80 trillion of what george bush did not include two wars in his budget, was put it to the side so it looks like this budget is huge or inflated but it is not inflated when you go back -- 2003 through 2008 and put the iraq war and the afghan war in the budget, his budget would has been just as high or

higher and the republicans need to stop this mess saying this is outrageous. they had not -- if they had not been lying to us the budget would have been just as bad. host: brian on the line for republicans from seattle, washington. caller: i was born into an extremely wealthy family. basically my family is in the oil business and that also have connections to -- i tell you what. i have so much money and that makes so much money that i cannot afford to have my taxes raised at all. i think the best way to fix this economy is for me to let me keep all the money that i made. this billç doesn't do anythingo protect the rich. people like me and rush limbaugh, you know, we've got

plans to buy a new things, i have plans to buy a new yacht -- i made some much money, i've got so much do i don't know what to do with it, i can buy anything i want -- host: let me show you "the wall street journal." wealthy face tax increase. budget projects rising debt despite cuts in spending. gop decries deficits and says the budget plan for fiscal 2011 calls for nearly $1 trillion in tax increases on families with incomes above $250,000 over the next decade, largely by allowing tax cuts from the administration of george w. bush to expire, but the extensions of the tax cuts for middle-class plus new tax cuts in mr. obama's jobs program would cost the government to hundred and $84 billion over the coming decade. what do you think about that? he's gone. let's go to massachusetts, bob

on the line for independents. caller: i think that last that was pulling your leg. but thatçó is okay. my priority, i need to have a water pump for my car -- i am on fixed income, poverty level. there was no cost of living increase and i heard aboutççóç one time payment of $250, something like that, that might be attached. i need that water pump so i can be a consumer and go out and spend my $800 aç month i get in on my social security. host: is the president's budget going to keep you from buying that water pump? caller: well, i'm looking for some kind of an increase on my income. with no cost of living, i don't know how they come up with that formulary but it is not helping me. host: kevin landrigan is on the

line and he is going to talk to us a little bit about the president's trip up there today. good morning. guest: how are you? host: doing just fine. where is the president going and what will be talking about? guest: he will be going to one of the two high schools in nash ua and will talk about a small business lending plan. his proposal essentially to take $30 billion the big banks have returned from the bailout last year and set up a separate fund only four banks with $10 billion in assets and for that money to be lent to small business. host: how is that going to affect the small businesses and nasua guest: new hampshire bankers association did a study, of banks and of the customers and they concluded that credit

availability was not an issue in new hampshire. but certainly gov. john lych and senator jean chretien said in the business roundtable that one of the biggest complaints they have from customers, from small business owners essentially is that it is very difficult to get credit or adjust your line of credit in this economy. banks are underwriting business customers a lot harder than they used to. they definitely feel infusion of more cash would be beneficial. host: do the folks up thereç think the business -- visit by the president will spur banks to make more loans? guest: as you know, in new hampshire we are used to presidents and would be president visiting the state. that does not tend to have great impact immediately on the business, but they certainly

feel the governor and senator believe infusing more money into the fund and allowing all of the community and small banks to take money out of the funds would help small business in the state. these banks which have $10 billion less in assets -- they make over 60 percent of the loans even though they represent only 20 percent of assets. we have 7% unemployment, which sounds low internationally -- but it is double what we had a year ago. also for the first time in 30 years we saw the labor force shrank. so there are a lot of people out of work and a lot of entrepreneurs out of work and

some feel this bond will help spur start-ups and businesses. host: do you know if the president plans to visit and the small businesses or banks or just going to high school? guest: we are told he does plan to go to an undisclosed business that is not far away from the high-school in nashua before he speaks. guehost: is it that big of a town? can you sort of guess where he is going? are there barricades'? guest: there are more cops on the street in the particular part of town, the northern part of town. on an hearst street on the way from -- amherst street, on the way from nashua anto amherst, oe

of the larger retail and commercial hub of the city. it is difficult to see which business. there are a couple of prospects but we are not certain. host: what time did they expect the president to touch down and how long will we be in town? guest: he will be in town about 90 minutes and he will be touching down, speaking out around 2:15 p.m.. arriving at 10 minutes to 2 in manchester. we will leave the building by 3:15, and should be on his way out of the state before 4:00. host: kevin landrigan, statehouse reporter, thank you very much. reporting from their act

nashuatelegraph.com. we will continue discussing the federal budget. does it reflect your priorities? our next call comes from berkeley springs, west virginia, on our line from republicans. good morning, carl. caller: you know, i'm a conservative republican and the reason we were voted out was because we were spending too much money, and you know what, this guy -- sorry, president obama, is taking this country into bankruptcy. he is taking what george bush did and doubled it and it is taking us into bankruptcy. it is going to ruin this country. and the guy that called in on

the republican line and say -- said he was rich and made too much money, you know, he played you and you sat there and allowed him to do it. i can't understand that. thank you. host: takes a lot. every once in awhile and fast ball bids by you. the line for independents. caller: first-time caller. i'm a liberal but in a sense of the or regional liberals back in the 17th century who were fiscal conservatives. and the way i see it right now, it is kind of like the president is in a car and he is driving off the road as fast as it can and i don't know if there is a clip ahead of what, but i don't know how we can keep spending so much money. it is not like we have infinite supplies. so, i'm worried. i think he is taking off from where president bush was with his unfunded medicare spending

and just making it worse. and i'm concerned. i am more repaired host: -- i am worried. host: front page of "usa today" they have winners and losers. education would get $3.5 billion boost, mostly for programs modeled after the race to the top competition for elementary and secondary schools. war spending stays high. the wars in iraq and afghanistan would give $3 billion more this year, $159 billion in 2011. millions to get tax cuts. middle-class families and small businesses would receive tax cuts this year and next, including $400 tax credits for individuals and $800 for families. any of those appeal to you or are you concerned about all of you? caller: some appeal to me. i am a school teacher so seeing education fund it seems to me

something to be thankful about -- middle-class tax cut obviously the -- obviously i would be in line to get that. but it is almost that the line has been lowered. 200 or 2 engine $50,000, whereas in the past that might be millions or $750,000 or $500,000. it really is not that much money not with inflation. and that understand our need to have a strong military although i have concern about us being in afghanistan when al qaeda is training 1,700 miles away in yemen. i am really not positive where we are going. host: where do you teach? caller: inner-city baltimore. 50 mile trip. ninth great english. host: do you have a feeling kids even in the ninth grade have an understanding about the budget? they concerned but the money being spent? caller: not really. although i do try to presented

in a completely neutral way. zvi don't want to let politics t in it from my perspective. i think that should be the student's responsibility. çit is hard because they are young still, between 13 years old and 16 generally. and they don't have yet and çunderstanding -- but right on the press at this, on the line where they will soon have the more of an appreciation whether position is in the world -- right at the press it disappeared host: the lead editorialxd in the "the wall street journal." we know why the white house leaked word of a three-year spending freeze on a few domestic accounts before this extravaganzaç was released. no one would have noticed such a slushy promise and it does glacier of spending. of the budget reveals of all federal outlaysç would reachç $3.72 trillionç inkç fiscal 20 and keepç rising?&z to $3.80

trillion inç 2011, i share of e economy out-beach post world war ii recordç of 25.4% this year. this is a new modern spending landmark, up from 21% of gdp as recently as fiscal 2008 and 40 -- far above the 40-year average. the editorial goes on to say, if this budget, is mr. obama's first clear demonstration of his long term governing priorities than it is hard not to conclude that the spending boom is the liberal. it is an effort to put in place programs and spending commitments that willq require a vast new tax increases and give the political class a claim onç far more private american wealth. back to the phone, district heights, maryland, on the line for democrats. what is on your mind this morning? what do youç think about the president's budget and doesn't match your priorities? caller: let me say this to you.

no, it doesn't. that is number one. number two, i am so confused about the budget when i hear all of the figures thrown out. i went to school for politics, to be a politician, but i did not make it because i got kind of fed up the way the thing is played. i have been payingç social security since 1957. i went into the army in 1965 and got out in 1968. i had to pay taxes on the little did i made in the army. then i joined the police department, retired in 1991 and paid taxes than they're what i was working someplace else and a private firm i was paying taxes. now getting social security and finding out i have to pay on social security. there does not seem to be any adjustment or revamping on the tax system in this country. these people are crying about the president and the big budget. one sure thing -- we are going to be taxed to pay at all back because there is no business in this country that is going to

pay the taxes that need to be paid. they can cry and say you've got a big budget but unless the tax system as redone so people can keep some of our own money we are gonna be taxed yini yang. the concern he has a big budget but it seems to me every time i turn around taxes are goingç u, everything is going down -- food is going up, mortgage is going up, taxes going up, but the paychecks are staying the same. i'm just confused about what is going on. çi'm just sick of paying taxes that is one thing i've got to say. thank you. host: tennessee on the line for republicans. caller: i want to give kudos for çthe teacher. i tried toycçdñrç give ge a r once. -- i tried to be a teacher once. he has money receivingç from taxing trade, something that has

not passed yet. printing money, that will definitely lead to inflation. for the last caller, i feel the sting. i, too, pay a lot of taxes, i have my ownç business and it is taxing me to death. host: of a complete page on "the washington post" this morning, agency by agency, it shows how the president uses the budget proposal to show initiative of someç agencies,ççw3 including veterans affairs and justice, but other agencies would have significant declines, including the labor department was falniìc budget reflects the end of much of the economic stimulus spending. as we go through that, if you see a particular agency that strikes your fancy, let us know. our next call comes from waldorf, maryland, on the line for democrats. caller:ç can you hear me ok? his budget does not reflect my priorities because what we actually need is a stimulus to help the middle class people.

one thing they can do to help housing prices and middle-class americans having problems, extend mortgages from 30 years to 60 years. that way it would cut the mortgage payments almost in half, but people can stay in their homes. çhousing prices would not fall, and they would have more money to spend in the economy. to their needs to be a direct stimulus money for middle-class people. how you would doç that, helping beyond mexd how you would doçpá but they need to get money into the economy so people could spend it andç not for rich peoe but for middle-class and lower middle class people. host: let me ask you about this item in "the "washington times." raising levies in firms and rich. ç

do you think you are going to qualify for that $400 or $800 or are you going to get hit with the end of the tax cut for those making $250,000 or more? caller: i was making more than $250,000 but i think actually it should have been in the neighborhood of $400,000, and should have started putting the tax on those individuals. $250,000 is not a lot of money today, to be perfectly honest. host: extending the tax cut

brought in by president bush, how would it do for you, how would increase spending? caller: it would definitely give me more money. but i feel that the country needs help. we definitely need help. for millionaires and people making gobs of money, i feel like they should pay more. host: maryland, on the line for republicans. caller: hello? no surprise that once a month this administration claims that the recession is over because people smarter thanç i know tht taxing and spending. in recession will lead us right into -- at first, hyper inflation and then a depression, but that is all part of the big plan. i have to point out, what you claim to be a fast ball -- you know quite well. i think it was bad form on your part. it seems that every time a liberal calls on a republican line or someone is bashing bush,

you ask them to articulate. you are as transparent as this administration. thank you very much. host: bowie,ç maryland, frederk on our lives for democrats. caller: hello? yes. this is frederic. host: go-ahead, frederick. caller: talk now? host: let us move to ohio, doris on the line for independence. caller: this cap-and-trade has not been voted in yet and he as already giving funding for it? for the teachers, i don't think the teachers should be unionized. he is giving this money. now a new program for students to read sol olinsky, a communist, that will be taught in the schools so he could join his army? can you explain that?

anything on the paper on that this morning please? host: thanãoor the call. on "the politicoçó," winners and losers. host: back to the phones. our next call comes on our republican line from charles in missouri. what is the name of that town? caller: though? -- hello? i in from michigan.

host: several about that. caller: what i wanted to say is i think the spending bill the president is proposing is preposterous and that we cannot keep this i have a check book i have to balance and i expect the same courtesy from my government. it is time for a change. not the one he is proposing. host: stay with me for a second. anything in particular in this bill you find preposterous? caller: pardon? host: what is it specifically in the bill you find -- caller: the amount of money being asked to be spent. this is absolutely ridiculous. i as an american citizen cannot afford these kinds of spending bills. i'm the guy who is forced to support this and i'm only going to receive more taxes, which i can no longer afford. host: in a "the wall street

journal" is op ed. how to make a weak economy worse. you get the feeling president obama is girding for battle with the financial sector.

fdr's were played to the crowd but it hurt the economy. while monetary policy in be the recovery in the late 1930's, it was the administration's assault on companies and capital that ensured the depression's duration. wheaton, maryland, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i have two points -- one on the stimulus and on what has occurred since bush and obama. going into the last part of bush's term and obama -- here is in the example. in an elevator shaft. and our country was falling. a perpetual fall. ççand both the bush withi]ç h to a half page mugislation and çobama,ç they shut hands on ts and created a net in this elevator shaft as the country

was falling. if you go back and study the depression -- and if any of these americans on this network ever want to be standing in soup lines, white males, black males sitting on the curb, nothing, those two men -- bush and obama -- created a safety net. it is not a floor yet. çit will go to a floor. but they created a financial safety net that kept all of us in our homes, most of us in our homes, most of us employed and we are not 70 from a building standing in a soup line getting it from al capone or somebody, getting turkeys or something. these two men prevented this fromç happening. now, on the stimulus, i'm worried about the stimulus because the real-estate market is the most recent -- racist market of america. çthe appraisal aspect of all te

real-estate, from construction ç[ççto sales, theç appraisee t(mostyçç racist, ok, becausea value of what ever community is street. but when it comes to stimulus, it is also racist on the contractors because most of them çare white -- host: mike, what does that do with the budget priorities? caller: if itççu! goes into çconstruction, black men will e left out and white men and latino men both anç urban and rural areas, they are going to get the money, latinos are going to get the money but black men and families and womenç ain't gonna get jobs because whiteç n only hire white men and latino men. host: we will talk toç janet

from the national council of la ñrraza, she is president andñr o and she will talk about the economy and the latinoç community. that will happen later inw3 the program. çsandusky,ok ohio,i]ç jill --n the line forok independents. çcaller: if i understand it, really the conservative stuff has been a shell game. reagan doubled or tripled the national debt, george bush doubled it were made itç 54% higher when he was present for four years, as i remember correctly, and lowered it about 36% compared toç the eight yeas of bush's four and now th$. it is time to point out the shell game. +çi voted forw3 reaganq persona itçyççokw3 just seemsçoçç the media letsçççç them gety withç not bearing the facts. ççnow, iç could be wrong. just how many jobs did we lose

when they voted to send american jobs overseasç but the tax cut? i don't know. maybe the last step is social security in the stock markets. you know, if we don't elect the right people. w3host: thank you for your call if he programming note. we want to let you know that this morning on c-span3 at 9:00 you will be able to seek live coverage of the senate armed services committee hearing. secretary gates and joint chiefs of staffçt( admiral mullen will testify about the budget request çfor the military. also they willñr be talking abot the pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and that coming to an end. that will take place at noon and that is also on c-span3. you can get all of the details on our website, c-span.org.

macon, georgia, on the line for republicans. ççtell us about the presiden's budget and doesç it meet -- reflect any of your priorities? caller: no, it doesn't. i'm a small business and my customers are small businesses and the last six months of last year they were telling me the same thing. nobody is spending any money -- fact is, they don't have money çtoçç spend. ççqçxdçhost: what kind of sml business? bmççxdçhw3çcaller:w3 i putr annunciators in small businesses. something to let them know someone is coming in. host: you have been heard by the slowdown in the industry? caller: i have been hurt by small businesses being hurt. çwhen iwk> mean byç that, nos spending any money -- they don't have incomezceming in. bottom line is this, what i see as an answ»ç?;ç is tax cuts.

that is the simplest way to put money in consumers' hands and that is what i think needs to be done. when i look at the budget and i see basically what he is doing, freezing of from last year. we overspent last year soç we will do it again this year? we have to cut spending. and we have to cut back -- taxes and i thinkxikmç that would gee economy goingok again. xdhost: howç much capital came through your doors as aç result of the tax cut that president bush did? xdcaller: goshç -- business was very good up untilç the banks d real estate collapse. host:ç on the front page of "te miami herald," it the look at the budget. florida feels he'd of nasa cut back. -- heat of nasa cut back. a sense of the trail. he wants to make dramatic changes the way nasa functions,

dressing plans to return to the moon, letting privateç companis handleçw3mç humanç transportr orbit and focusingççç onççç defocusing the space agencyç oa new rocket technology. miami herald" in hard copy if you are in miami or online if you are not. new jersey onç our line for democrats. çcaller:çç good morning. how are you doing? would focus on actually what is goingçqç[w3ñr on. if you look at what the president said when he wasç in çfront of the republican house the other day, he laid out a ñrveryççççççç clear planç explain why taxes have to go up. ççççw3bççççyçççnobode tax cuts that we received as americans -- if you made less than $250,000 --ç nobody wantso

talki] about the fact that we actually received taxes, nobody received a dime's worth of increase during his proposal. during the previous year's bush increased taxesç on who? people who could not afford to payç taxes. so, iç think historically you'e got to look at what the budget÷% tookç over, and theç reason te taxç increases are necessary nw amount of money and the economy and in order to raise revenue you have to raisexd it some kind of way, we have toç pay for education, we have to pay for things like scientific investments, so i don't understand where people think the money is going to comeu! frm taxes, you know? çin new jersey it is extremely high to pay taxes but the fact is -- i do think we need to

controlç costs, but iç think t taxes are something that is going tot( take bipartisan cooperation and that is something the president is not getting. çxdhost: a little bit more abot what joint chiefs of staff chairman mullen and secretaryyç ofq defense gates will about ths morning. çça pentagon may ease "don't, don't tell." some in congressç want to keep existing rules. he pentagonçw]/ççç]çzvççmçyo

gñ!oçswuwrz9)m-ñ supposed to be less and take care of all the problems, all the baby boomers getting social she cured, going broke, and all of the things? it can't work. so all of these people -- both here in tulsa, expected to get laid off, firemen expected to get laid off. it is the people hurting. these cuts that they are talking about, understand that, some

more people hurt, people in the community. 147 firemen jobs were on the line up until friday, understand, and they have to take a pay cut and all of those things. if that should happen here in qtulsa, a lot of people who woud like to call the emergency line, they will get hurt when the house is burning down. host: what percentage of income to you think goes for taxes and how much more would you be willing to pay in order to get the firemen and policemen back on the streets? caller: i am willing to pay the tax because that is what -- the life style, lifestyle of a lot of people, just like the other caller, they don't want to talk about paying higher taxes -- everybody don't want to pay -- ok, how and i going to get a social security attack -- check if i don't pay taxes?

how will the police officers keep the community say if i don't want to pay higher taxes? how is the fire man -- if i don't want to pay higher taxes? ymhow am i going toç drive on a everybody is telling you tax cuts. the less money comesç in,ç the poorer all of us is going to be paired host: on the line for republicans. silver spring, maryland. caller: i think the budget is not going to helpçó us at all. the debt limit, i think itç was to dollars trillion and there is 135 -- or 138 and a half million americans, $14,000 a piece, like having a credit card -- xd14,000. i think the supreme court will have to revisit the 1942, you know, when they expanded on the commerce clause for that average get people, i think they will

have to step in. the legislative and executive branches have no control over themselves. çspending too much money trying tow3 solve too many problems and the government -- not only do they want to raise taxes but because they have to borrow so much, tying up all the money that business people need for houses and all of this stuff to get loans. it host: you said the government is spending too much money trying to solve to many problems. if you were present and what of the top three things? çcaller: national defence is te only thing inçç the constitutn except to take care of paying for theç buildings and salaries of congress and all of that. çi know there are a series of tax -- social security, we have to revisit that. a big mess, a train wreck. we are trying to help all of these people. we have to comexdxbçi;wn up wite solid lead fund it base. we can have all of these

priorities. it seems like we are already committed and so many ways that we have to clean up thet( initil mess by trimming down government and trying to find more cost effective ways. çi think it is going to have to take something like the supreme use the commerce clause like you ççhave and you have to trim çççhost:b we arèuájjti]çço leave it there. w3wayne andç springfield, the t(illinois,ç on the line for democrats. ççç@>çoçcaller: pedro(, hou doing? çi think you're doing a great job. that is what i talking about, allç?eoç ofç these armchair quarterbackszvçt5ok out there ó america still withç your hidden races the agendas. i tell youçw3ççç what,yçñrt reflects myw3 priorities becausi çtrust president obama --ççó q

the president of the united states --

times" talks about what the chairman and the secretary are going to be talking about at their hearing today in front of the senate armed services committee. what are their budget priorities? guest: still part of the transformation. trying to prepare us what -- trying to build weapons systems that we need, military that a strong and steady. host: the numbers show what they are asking for. in 2011, the proposed budget,ñi $708.3 billion for the depar÷m nt of defense, up from $693.4 billion, which is also a jump from $659 billion in 2009. what kind of bang are we getting

from the book? guest: remember some of the money -- some of that is afghanistan and iraq money now that they put it in the budget so it is not growing as fast as you think but it is still a huge budget. it is an expensive department. it has a lot of people. weapons systems are expensive. the bank you're a getting from the buck you see it in comeback -- combat today, in haiti during humanitarian relief. host: is there a significant difference in the budget process under this president than under george bush? when i ask you that, i'm talking about the supplemental that we kept seeing for the iraq war. will weaken said -- continue to see those for iraq and a afghanistan? guest: they said we will not have more but i think we will. there will probably be a small supplement to pay for the war in afghanistan,çóñrçó $33 billion t they don't have covered that they will have to find.

host: the secretary and chairman will also be talking in front of the senate armed services committee about the qdr -- tell us what it is and why it is important. guest: they have a panel of experts meet and try to decide the future of the military, what size it ought to be, the missions, what threats now and in the future. and to make a course change if they need one. that is where we are at right now. we had the results -- to try to talk about what threats and what they have to do about it. host: talking about the quadrennial defense review, is it easier for the two gentlemen to make their case for why their budget is what it is? depending on who you are speaking to, if your report says you don't want the weapon of the lawmaker once you are on the wrong side. it can help you and can hurt you.

but it does give you a course to follow. that is the idea. at least you have somewhere to go. host: we are talking to "of the army times" congressional editor. if you want to talk aboutçó the defenseñr budget, and we willçóo talk about the phase-out of " don't ask, don't tell pierre, give us a call -- is there anything in particular on the chairman's mind that he is going to want to talk to these two gentlemen aboutñi the defense budget? guest: he is interested in a variety of things. he will ask a lot about afghanistan. he has been paying attention on what exactly the strategy is. he has grave concerns about our ability to get out there in the time line obama administration has laid out. it is concerned is not

necessarily over what we are doing but the nato allies not providing the trainers they promised. if you can't train the afghan police and the military to take care of themselves and provide security, we don't have an easy way to get out. host: what about the what are some of their concerns as we go through the budget process? ñrñiguest: thatñr we are not spg enough, not spending in the right place. they are very worried about missile defense programs, and lower priority in the obama administration, and it ought to be a higher one. becoming a debate over the defense budget for about 30 years, and you can sort of tell where it is going to go. host: we are talking with rick maze from "the army times." we want to take a look at what

secretary gates said talking about the politics and the future of the c-17. them i am fully aware of the pressure to continue building c- 17 and proceed with alternate engine for the f-35. let me be clear. i will strongly recommend the president veto any legislation that sustains the unnecessary continuation of these two programs. we have restructured the f-35 program and believe it is on track to become the backbone of u.s. air superiority for the next generation. nonetheless, the progress and performance of the f-a 35 over the past two years has not been what it should. in number of key goals and benchmarks were not met. as a result, i will withhold $614 million in performance fees from the lead contractor, since the taxpayers should not have to bear the entire burden of

getting jff program back on track. host: your thoughts on what the secretary had to say. guest: they fired the general in charge, which is a big sign that this administration expects high performance. we have not done this kind of thing in quite some time. it will be a fight for congress because congress keeps trying to save these programs, save money and have been go faster and don't have the same doubts. it will be an interesting debate. last year the administration won about 90% of the things they tried to do cancelling weapons, which is quite a victory. host: while some focus on these two systems? guest: both are new and expensive, really two pieces of equipment they need -- many something for the next generation. the fighter jets we have now are wearing out. joint strike fighter is the

thing we need to do. and the second engine is just a question of how much do you spread work around, and do you need an alternative engine when you have one that works perfectly. this is a time where carl levin is on the opposite side of gates. host: the next call from maze comes from fred from do we, maryland. go ahead with your question. caller: i'm not happy with the defense spending. i don't understand it. i am unemployed and i'm sitting at home and it really doesn't make sense for us to be spending a lot of money spent in that area. host: is there anything specific in defense spending that puzzles you? caller: all of it. i don't agree with the war, period. i don't agree with spending a lot of money to kill people.

under the republican administration and the last eight years we spent a lot of money doing that. and it is unnecessary. this country, in the u.s., we are out of work and we are sitting at home and we are more concerned about plane -- bombs, it is ridiculous. host: will the secretary make the case that by dealing with the weapon systems and by putting this money in the defense budget that it will somewhere down the line create jobs? guest: at the defense industry tried to make the argument, if you are buying whenever, blank, it will create blank number of jobs and that is why we need to do it. but the defense budget is not an efficient job creating told. the sentiment the caller had is probably not what we will hear today but probably this year because of the defense budget is one of the few agencies that was not frozen. getting a big increase where

others are not. there are a lot of democrats to wonder why we are spending more on defense when other domestic programs are not being increased at all. that is not a foregone conclusion there is still a chance the defense budget might be reduced. host: jacksonville, florida. bruce on the line for independences. caller: the first question is, the contractors that we have working in iraq and afghanistan, does that come out of the military budget? the second question is -- which you pretty much covered, c-17, the extra gulf strains that congress wanted and they backed off to the three that the airforce really we crested -- requested get i forgot no. 3. guest: some of the contractors -- some don't.

it depends on exactly what they are doing. some of the money for reconstruction is paid for by the state department. but the direct support for military functions as part of operating costs of the defense department. c-17, just because they did not request the extra one does not mean someone will not try to add them later. they are little, tiny executive jets. host: michigan on our line for republicans. go ahead. tim? caller: hello, robert? how are you? do may a favor, if pedro is in the studio, tell him i said hi. can i preface this, as far as your lines are set up -- host: kennedy to the question, please? we are running out of time. caller: as far as the defense

budget. if you were to take half of the money in the defense budget, theoretically, and use that money to start building desalinization plants, i am sure glassworkers in toledo would love that. and accompanying piping that goes with it. i'm sure a lot of steel workers would like that. if you started building more turbines, you could take the gun right out of iran's hands because i am sure they have a lot of sun and wind, and they say they need nuclear power for electricity. you take thei] trump card right out of their hands. here is the alternative energy you need. you would be putting americans to work. and i got a feeling that if we irrigated those peoples desert, provided them with electricity and jobs, i bet you would have a hard time getting people to sign up for al qaeda. guest:ñi i think that is the lo- range goal of what we are trying

to do in the middle east, but you have to get over the violent stage in the meantime. i think one of the lessons we learned just trying to restart the oil industry is people who don't want stability will try to blow up the oil pipes. if you tried to build a desalinization plant, people who don't want that to work will try to blow up the desalinization plant. you have to first find a way to stop the violence before you can move to that step. host: silver spring, maryland, the caller those unidentified on the line for democrats. but what had appeared silver spring. .

we are in a path where we cannot do anything at all. thank you. guest: contractor costs are a huge factor. what the caller says is right. it costs more to hire a contractor. the turning point in terms of using contractors, when the

house appropriations committee tried to get an answer from the defense department about how many contractors we had working on our behalf in iraq, and they could not answer for more than six months. i think we will probably see less of that in the future. host: in "usa today" -- secretary gates and chairman mullen will be talking about that. the president addressed it in his state of the union. >> this year, i will work with congress and military to repeal the law that denies gays from serving the country that they love because of who they are. it is the right thing to do.

[applause] host: rick maze, you wrote about that. what is in the president's mind? how willing is the secretary and chairman to carry this out? guest: a willingness is not a question when it comes to serve the president. they are willing to try. they have dozens of questions about implementation, how it cannot be done quickly, how this is not the right time to do it, but in the end, they are ready to start on the course to get it done.

certainly not as fast as people in the gay rights community may want, and it is a long road, and it is not a sure thing. host: how much support does this have fromxd officers? why do they have to go to congress to implement this decision? guest: the law is clear. homosexual melanie is not conducive to -- homosexuality is not conducive to servers in the army. the law was set in 1933. bill clinton tried to pass anñr

amendment. this left us with this don't ask, don't tell. the discharge members have been down from the military, maybe 1500, only because they were gay. host: washington, d.c.. tony, go ahead. guesño'ñicaller: i am a veteran. if someone wants to go to war, they have the right to. since it is a law, itñi seems strange, selective in the ways that we follow the law.

i just looked at this video of the general wesley cox that said the u.s. has invaded seven countries in five years. then i sell former president bush makingç!eu'announced -- i saw former president bush would be making an unannounced visit to the white house this week. my question is,ñi the defense department has a notorious reputation of not being able to account for trillions of money given to them.

cynthia mckinney was interviewing donald rumsfeld and they could not account for this money. how come this is not brought up? are we planning world war ii? host: sorry to cut you off, you gave us a lot to work with. guest: i do not think general clark was talking about places we were going to convey, but places where we could have to take action. that is what the qdr referred to. here are the threats that we may face that we may have to take military action.

on the question of lost money, he is right. there was a time when the defense budget could not balance its books. there was a lot of money missing. they have done a great job since then. i cannot tell you that they cannot account for every dime, but it is no longer trillions missing. host: new york. ted on the democrat line. caller: common sense tells you that any human being, gay or straight, that is willing to risk their lives for our freedom, we owe them a debt of gratitude. although, i question the timing of this. i have two questions.

in places like korea where we have military, japan, europe, i do not know who covers the cost of those operations. i think the europeans, koreans, japanese should pay the cost and then some to the united states. lastly, off some debt, -- subject, the government should use the military, medicare as a profit generator. sell it to young people who need health insurance. the military could be reimbursed and the military could wreak cooper its expenses around the world. -- recoup its expenses and around the world. host: if we were to subcontract

out the military, how would that make them different from contractors like black water? caller: those contractors are very expensive. i will not say exactly where the military should be located and used. that is another series of questions. but if it is decided that we should be in a location, in a country with a good economy that can pay for it, it should be from their wallets, not ours. guest: that argument has been going on to world war -- since world war ii.

some of the costs are picked up under the -- by the local governments under the agreements that we have with them. we do not have u.s. troops in asia, europe because the host countries want them. there are there for u.s. strategic interests. we are in the east because of concerns about china, world balance. if you could convince china -- korea or japan to pay more for them, great. in terms of the a mercenary force, that is not what the u.s. military is about. there are some groups who are willing to do that because oftentimes the united nations

contributes, but it is not something that a superpower is interested in doing. host: rick maze, the chief pentagon reporter at the "usa today." he has been a staff writer for the "navy times"as well. he was assigned to the third infantry in germany as a speechwriter. who did you write speeches for? guest: the general who went to become the chief of staff. host: general, if you are listening, please feel free to call in. next phone call. caller: i served in the navy for

10 years. don't ask, don't tell seemed to work. we got along with people that we suspected were gay. of but when you have an open policy inviting gays and lesbians, i am wondering how the impact on morale will be? you do have some people who are more conservative. for me, it does not really matter, but i know plenty of people who do not think that is correct. i will take my question off the air. guest: the question of accommodation is that part of this. right now, nobody is going to

try to tell you with a straight face that there are not gay and lesbian people in the military. the question is what you do when the they are open about it. accommodation is a big subject. what if someone does not want to have a gay roommate? they are worried about violence against gays once they can serve openly. can they be protected? there are some said incidences of the gay bashing. i think that is what we build here today. the need to study the logical aspects of how you opened the door to gays and lesbians serving in the military. the fact that some people will oppose it is one of the

greatest concerns that leaders have. this is an all-volunteer military and you need people willing to serve. some are worried that you could have recruiting troubles -- not so much about the younger people will into volunteer, but what will their friends and parents ansay? host: germachairman skelton, isf like mind to -- skelton remainsxd deeply opposed to opening the military to gays

and lesbians. he has a sentiment that a lot of lawmakers will have, something that you will hear -- why now? we are in the middle of a war. why do we have to do this now? it is a good question to ask, but from 30 years of writing about the military, there is never a good time to make a change, particularly if you are resistant to doing so. host: and the administration's insistence that this is the right time. do they see this as a way to keep people with terms and skills that are beneficial to the military? guest: numbers are so small, is not a big recruiting tool.

-- it is not a big recruiting tool. pools like linguists, intelligent people -- is not really a problem. it is one thing he promised he would try to do in his first term. this is his fulfiling of the promise. host: michael on the independent line. visalia, louisiana. caller: your last caller made a valid point about being with gays in the military. i have family members who were in different branches of the military. i had friends -- not family members -- who were gay and they were kicked out for it.

there is no reason for this prejudice. prejudice in this country is ridiculous. we need to stop worrying about whether or not he or she likes another he or she. we need to wake up and start being a regular people, encouraging each other. get over it. we got over having blacks, women in the military. why not gays? they do everything we do. just because someone is gay does not mean that they are weird, alien, cannot do things. host: racial and women

integration did not happen over -- overnight. why is there a push right now to get this done so quickly? guest: for one thing, there is a big difference between them. taking minorities into the military, it was easy to see where they were. gays and lesbians do not look any different, so it is difficult to see where they are. i think the strategy will be similar. i think they will try not to do it in combat arms because they might be worried about camaraderie issues, things like that. i think that is their plan. do it in phases, occupations at

a time. i think it will be more like women where you let them in a few occupations at a time. what do you do with those days and lesbians who are in combat operations at this time? those are the kinds of things that they face, maybe making the discharge policy more lenient. never ask, never tell. host: members of the committee are certain to ask about troops in iraq and afghanistan. here is what admiral mullen had to say. >> become that in iraq will be drawn down to six brigades. all will be a bit withdrawn by

december 2011. in afghanistan, a key focus is a competent afghan national security force. our request makes that ever while the -- a reality. host: rick maze? guest: this is what they promised. we would have combat troops out of iraq by then. host: how do they define what a combat troop is, what a combat troops' mission is? if someone is walking around with a loaded weapon, somebody shoots at him first, he is ready to shoot back, defend his comrades? is that not a combat mission? guest: if you think about the definition more simply, are you

part of an operation that is planning an offensive? the war against terrorism, insurgents, will be carried on by iraqis. we will provide logistical and air support, but this will be a supporting role entirely. host: back to the phone calls. pat on the democrat line. caller: it is amazing. rick maze acts like this is some new construct that was just invented, gays in the military. as the son of a military general, my brother is just retired after being in the military as a navy seal. i can tell you there are gyasñi

everywhere -- gays everywhere. the director of the kennedy center was a homosexual. i know lots of people who are fighting. there are gay navy seals. this is absolute and bigotry. this country, who is going down in flames economically, has been suffering from a military complex is racking the u.s. host: let me stop you for a second. what was it specifically that rick maze said that makes you believe he is a bigot? caller: it reminds me of dick cheney. he is going to go back to his editorial page and ask as a mechanism that gays are not

treated equally. guest: well, i have never been compared to dick cheney before. i have been unclear. the debate has been going on since 1933. we have been discussing this the whole time. i agree that there are gays everywhere in the military. they are already there, they have been there all along. host: georgia. richard, on the republican line. caller: why are there so many earmarks in the defense budget that have nothing to do with defense? couldn't a line-item veto take up a lot of this stuff?

host: give me an example. caller: i do not really know. i was reading some article where they included some-4000 earmarks in the budget that had nothing to do with the fence itself. guest: those earmarks that he is talking about are not included in the budgetçó untilñi members this is a big budget and there are a lot of places to do this. the second thing is, you know that this is a budget that will be passed. that just makes it a target. he is right. 4000 may be a small number in terms of the number of earmarks. host: in yesterday's briefing,

secretary gates has also talked about programs for troops that have been injured or need rest between assignments. guest: recognizing -- >> recognizing the strain put on troops, we will put $2 billion into the wounded warriors initiative, including focus on ptsd and traumatic brain injury. we will sustain health benefits and enlarge the pool of health professionals. we will broaden the sense of information sharing for when the borders making the transition out of military service. we will increase the time spent between deployments with our ground forces, hoping to a cheap -- to achieve a swell of support. host: how much will this increase the defense budget? guest: one of them could be

expensive. basically, we are not talking about a lot of people with serious injuries. medical costs for them is not huge. it is something we should have been doing all along. the fact that people are still having trouble getting health care from war-related injuries is difficult. we are cutting down on deployments, and that is a good thing, but if you say that people will not deploy as often, but you still have the same number of missions, you need a bigger force. if you have two years before your next deployment, you need more people in the military. that is an expensive proposition.

the military assumes that we are not going to have more deployments. they will come home and we will have a small number going to afghanistan and that no emergency will arise in the next year that will require a large number of ground troops. host: chris from colorado. independent line. caller: hello, nice to see you again. good morning. i had a question about the constitutionality about the federal income tax, and how it was found in most of this debacle -- funding most of this debacle rick. rick, what is the

constitutionality for us to pay the federal income tax? guest: i'm sorry, i know more about the military, not much about the constitutionality of the income tax. i wish you were correct and that i did not have to pay them. host: thank you for being on the program. in a few minutes we will be talking about u.s. policy toward iran with danielle pletka. first, an update from c-span radio. >> president obama travel to new hampshire to talk about his proposal to target t.a.r.p. money to local banks. the president speaks later on c- span media. reaction from spain on the president's decision not to travel to a european human summit there in may.

a spokesperson said it was understood that president obama would attend, but the summit does not fit into his travel schedule and did not plan on coming. the spokesperson says that they hoped the meeting can be rescheduled. china talked about arms deals with time on today. the foreign ministry spokesperson said agreements between taiwan and u.s. could affect chinese-u.s. relations. those are some of the latest headlines. >> c-span's coverage of the request budget continues today with secretary gates and admiral

mullen before the secretary armed services committee. also this morning, treasury secretary tim geithner speak before the finance committee. live coverage after "washington journal." at noon, secretary gates and admiral mullen are back before the senate armed services committee talking about lifting the ban on gays serving in the military. the secretary is set to announce the first open study, hoping to prevent disposals in the future. that will be at noon eastern. host: danielle pletka of the american enterprise institute is with us to talk about u.s. policy toward iran.

how would you define that relationship right now? guest: bad and getting worse is probably the short summary. host: why is that? guest: the president campaigned on a platform of negotiation. he wanted to separate himself from the bush administration. he made quite a few efforts to engage the iranians but they were met with a resounding failure. i think that the president, as he suggested he would, is slowly moving to punishing iran for ignoring the international community. host: in the "financial times" -- tell us about this iran threat and where is this assistance going?

guest: this is something that has been in place since the revolution. the anniversary is next week. the iranians are developing longer missiles, more sophisticated, they have a nuclear program that has been acknowledged. i have an aggressive support for terrorism. they are supplying longer-range weaponry to terrorist groups around the world. so everybody, our allies, particularly in the middle east, are worried about it. what have we been doing? the obama administration has been stepping up arms supplies. we have some extended naval tours in the region. i think everyone in the area it is a bit worried. host: it was reported last week

that secretary clinton is warning china on sanctions. she said that they would face economic security and diplomatic isolation if they did not sign onto tough, new sanctions against iran. tell us about where china its into this, and how we deal with them to push iran in the direction we would like to see them go? guest: we have three united nations resolutions against iran for failure to comply under this nuclear non-proliferation treaty. now the secretary is suggesting we want a fourth resolution to end to these largely ineffective resolutions. the chinese are not playing the game.

the problem for the obama administration is, when he came in, he said he would repair relations with the world. george bush had not only tarnished our image, but he had made relations difficult with many nations that, although are not friends, our adversaries, like china and russia. we have been pretty nice to china and russia and how have they paid us back? let us just say in the way that many of us expected, with no gratitude, no willingness to support sanctions against iran. while the russians have been able to hide behind the chinese, at the end of the day, the russians are not playing either. host: are we as tough with the russians that we are with the chinese? guest: i zore so, but there has

not been that much evidence. frankly, i was surprised to hear the secretary speaking as tough as she did. it seems to me the first time the topic has been broached publicly. if iran had not stepped up and agreed to negotiations over its nuclear weapons programs, there would be "crippling sanctions." you do not want to talk about that at the end of the process. you want to start acclimatizing people at the beginning of the process. host: we have a little bit of what the secretary had to say. >> on iran, we had a productive on a conversation with foreign minister yang. they are part of the p5 +1

process, it is unified, and we hope that it continues to move forward on that track, to work together, to change the strategic calculus of the iranian leadership with respect to its nuclear program. we shared some of the thoughts with our chinese counterparts. we also set up additional opportunities for expert consultation. we made it clear with everyone, with whom i spoke to yesterday and today, our efforts to apply pressure on iran is not meant to punish the iranianñi peopleñi ty are meant to change the approach the iranian government has taken toward its nuclear program. he made that clear when the p5 +1 made a plan to offer iran the

opportunity to ship out its leu , which they have refused to accept. china is engaged, an active member of the group. we are continuing to work together. i am not going to preview what our plans are, but i think we had a constructive conversation. host: danielle pletka, it has not been that long, but is there a response from the chinese? guest: i have not heard one. the chinese historical do not respond well to public pressure. right now, the u.s. is accused of supplying arms to taiwan, which makes for some long

discussions in the future. host: we are speaking about foreign policy with danielle pletka. if you would like to get involved in the conversation, the phone numbers are on the screen. portland, maine. brian on the independent line. caller: it is unfortunate c-span woa bring a known terrorist onto the air -- host: let's go to minneapolis. ñrcaller: i want to ask your gut in question -- a question. i will be a u.s. citizen soon. the u.s. helps a lot of countries like iraq, iran. they created a lot of the power. now it is backfiring on the u.s.

now it seems like the policy they used to have the producing countries. now china and russia are -- not creating a power -- but using u.s. strategy. how come the u.s. did not tell the peopleñr to do something el? what are we helping those people? host: danielle pletka? guest: first, congratulations on becoming a u.s. citizen soon. it says something about our country. certainly makes me proud.

frankly, i am not entirely sure what your question was, but let me try to answer generically. often times, and we have these types of conversations on television and elsewhere, people see foreign policy as a game of risk. they believe presidents, democrats, republicans move the acs the way that we would expect them to. all i can say is, having played a brisk, i wish that was the case. -- risk, i wish that was the case. we have supported powers that we should not have, for logger then we should have, but generally, we are an influence for good and i hope that we are successful in derailing the iranian nuclear program. host: daniel, republican line.

caller: it all depends on the nation of israel. god gave them the land. he said that he would bless those and curse those who try to take it. the u.s. keeps on saying that we have to give up gaza. this is their land. the church age is ending, we are going to see the kingdom cage. if we did not back israel any more, we would not have any more terrorism. all of these middle eastern countries would be kissing our butts. host: in "politico" they talk

about refining petroleum products to iran. a similar proposal has passed the house. what does this say about foreign policy in a congressional perspective? guest: congress has always been on the forefront of what is happening there. it does not matter who is in charge. the congress has always taken the lead. i think the chairman of the foreign relations committee were deferential to the president. this bill has been around for a long time. congressman berman and others said that they would not push it until january because they wanted to give diplomacy a time. now at that time has passed, i hope that it will be implemented quickly. my fear is, like so much of the iran policy, it is going to be

too little, too late. host: the article goes on to say -- does this legislation have the teeth to stop any iranian nuclear weapons program? guest: no, it does not. it is a good piece of legislation. i wish it would have past five years ago. it is not so different from the

original sanctions. the president needs to exercise those authorities that he has. under the previous act, we have not seençó any levies put upon some of these companies. host: vermont. benning on the independent line. caller: i admire your smart glasses. i hope you are getting your paycheck from massad. host: next phone call. caller: i have a bit of a

problem with anyone from aei. she said the president had a failure in iraq. then she started talking about hillary clinton. other than what president bush kept on doing, war, war, war, what is your big solution? host: that the, are you still with me? tell me specifically what ms. pletka said against hillary clinton. caller: she said she finally decided to take a strong stance against iran by setting severe sanctions. and she said the president's plan was a failure. that was the first word out of her mouth.

guest: well, i think that is a bit of a mischaracterization. good morning. i do not think the president was a failure i think his diplomatic engagement with the iranians was a failure. by the way, in an interview with "times" magazine, i believe the president used the same words. as far as mrs. clinton is concerned, the quote that i used, i believe she said those things in a speech last year in november. it is important to get the details when you are talking about these things. host: the president spoke about this briefly in his state of the union address. >> we will bring 44 nations

together here in washington, d.c. to secure all nuclear materials are on the world within four years so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. [applause] these diplomatic efforts have also strengthen our hands with those nations to insist on violating sanctions in pursuit of nuclear weapons. that is why north korea now faces further isolation and sanctions which are vigorously being enforced. that is why the international community is more divided and the international public -- and the republic of iran is more isolated. no doubt, they, too, will face growing consequences. that is a promise.

[applause] and that is the leadership which are providing. engagement that advances the prosperity of all people. host: danielle pletka, your thoughts on what the president had to say? guest: i think it is a mistake when any president sets a goal like within four years we are going to get all loose nuclear material in the world. you set yourself up for some real challenges. second, our problem is not lose nuclear material, although it is certainly something we need to address. our real problem are these rogue regimes developing nuclear weapons. the more urgent question is, when iran has a nuclear weapon,

i think we are going to see a cascade of nations looking to acquire their own. syria, uab, turkey, that is not good news for anybody. ñrhost: next phone call. louis on the republican line. caller: the u.s. already has a policy against iran. sanctions are not going to work. as the clock moves forward, the basic threat is against israel. by deploying anti-missile systems, israel does not have the luxury to sit back and wait. i believe israel will attack iran, with our approval in the

background, and we will fortified the other gulf nations to protect themselves against the possible fallout of this. thank you for listening. host: it sounds like, in his mind, we are setting aside up against each other. guest: i think there are a lot of confusing scenarios ahead. i do not envy the president or regional leaders. israel is certainly in iran's cross hairs. for them, it is an existential question. it is not for us, but it is for our allies. what happens if there is an israeli strike? does it mean the end of the regime? what are the implications? what do other states in the region do? how do the iranians react? how do they retaliate?

today retaliate against international shipping? -- do they retaliate against international shipping? i think, for us, there are an enormous amount of unknowns. that is why so many of us have been pushing for progress of policy before the iranians have nuclear weapons so that we are not set with -- left with a set of the unpleasant choices. host: next phone call. caller: why should iran be a sitting duck for terrorists in israel like that yahoo!? israel has attack just about all of their neighbors. -- like benjamin netanyahu? iran is not a threat to the u.s.

it took our hostages in the 1970's, but every one of them was returned without harm. guest: you make an argument that we hear a lot. it is tempting for me to dismiss these types of calls. there is no basis in reality, for example. however, i think it is good to take this seriously. first of all, it is unfair to suggest benjamin netanyahu is not a terrorist. certainly, he has not been designated as one by any government in the world. iran sponsors a group called hamas and hezbollah. they are responsible for the deaths of americans over the

years. i think it is wrong to suggest the iranian government is a sitting duck. the best argument of that is the iranian people do not think the iranian people is one that has the interest of its own people, let alone the region, at the forefront. that is the domestic dynamic in iran that we have not talked about. turmoil from the elections from last year. two people were hanged in the last week for opposing the the ahmadinejad government. these are real things happening. that should be at the forefront rather than silly, and informed theories about how israel it is at fault for everything in the middle east. host: you brought up next week is the anniversary of the resolution -- a revolution.

what kind of activity do we expect to see in iran? will any of that spill over to other areas? is there a concern that this could turn into something larger? guest: we are not sure what is going to happen. yesterday, the anniversary got a lot of internet attention. ahmadinejad said that there would be -- i am trying to remember the exact quote -- but he said that there would be a blow to the global arrogance. referring to the u.s. that got a lot of attention with the news about supplying weapons to the region. frankly, this is something that ahmadinejad has said on many different occasions.

i think what we need to look a law more for in the anniversary is what will happen domestically. iranian opposition leaders have called for demonstrations against the government, despite increasingly draconian steps. the government has been under capable of putting that genie back in the bottle, and i think that is what we should be looking for. host: next phone call. shreveport, louisiana. caller: i have a problem with the new spin on all the evils that always take place in the media. when you look at the origins of the conflict between the u.s. and iran, you are going back to

1963, a cia coup, a public dictator who was never mentioned as a terrorist. it is never mentioned about who you say is a terrorist. it is as if some people are above it. israel has had nuclear weapons for a long time. there is someone there being imprisoned, mordaci inunu. why is it so hard to turn away from evils? world war ii was the last non- exclusive corporate war. host: danielle pletka? guest: a new spin on old evils.

i think you are partly correct in that. it is true that a lot of the iranian propaganda and used to center around a question of the overthrow. the cia did sponsor that overthrow and the installation of the show -- shia. i think terrorist is probably the wrong word, how clever. on the other hand, there are people in iran, very few people, who have been given the option to choose who would look back at the stella. he killed your iranians and the current government in prisons. well i think the u.s. should have been more vigilant in our alliance with him, we should

have asked more questions about the nature of his rule. at the end of the day, i do not think we can look back to the 1950's for 1979 and say it is all our fault. host: next is willie from baltimore, maryland. caller: i am going to speak about israel, and that is a no- no. we have done so much for this country and they slapped us in the face. they spied on us. they have taken our money, this respected us. they have co-optted foreign policy. host: you are talking about iran? caller: no, of israel. this is why we are in the predicament we are in.

we are in this because of israel. host: we are going to have to leave it there. guest: this will be an important year. iran is closer than ever to having a nuclear weapon. what it means for regional security and what it means for this administration is important. a lot hangs in the balance and we no longer have the luxury of waiting around for policy. i am worried that we are not getting the policy right, helping the iranian people. host: danielle pletka, thank you for being on the program. we will be discussing the president's 2011 fiscal budget. we will be right back. .

is set to announce the military's first in-depth study on allowing openly gay service members, promising to try to spare more troops from being dismissed in the meantime. resuming live at noon eastern.

on c-span3. >> watch "washington journal" for conversation, comments, and your calls. live daily from 7:00 until 10:00 eastern. covering washington like no other. >> we know historically that markets often don't work. >> this weekend, noble prize- winning economist josephi]t( stiglitz of economic collapse and effect on the global economy on c-span to's book tv. >> "washington journal" continues. host:xd senator bernie sanders s an independent fromw3ok vermontd the numbesç of the budget committee. çtell us whatçw3 about the but you like andç what you dislike guest: i like the fact he is beginning to address some of the major crises facing our country, which for many, many years were not dealt with. he is putting a lot ofç moneyç

absolutely terrible necessary. he is putting money into program so when kids graduate college to the will not be as deeply in çdebtç as they are now. it will make college more affordable. he is putting money into sustainable energy and energy efficiency which is also of enormous consequence because we have to break dependence on foreign oil and we create jobs becoming energy independence, putting money into health care. especially print -- pleased he understands the importance of primary health care, the need to have more community health centers so people can walk in and of the health care they need when they needed, putting more money into primary health care doctors as well. so i think there is a lot to be said. it is moving us in a direction we should be going in terms of changing our national priorities. he is also right in terms of saying we've got to begin to repeal the tax breaks president

bush gave to the wealthiest people in this country. as you may know, we have in the nation the most unequal distribution of wealth and income. where i disagree is i would be çmore aggressive. when the top 1% earo0more than that bottomç 50%, if they own more wealth than the bottom 90% i would repeal the tax breaks and move toward a more progressive tax system. i also disagree with the president and that in terms of agencies where we want to cut, we have to look at every agency, including the pentagon. in my view there are a number of weapons systems out there that many experts tell us were designed to fight the cold war and not international terrorism. i think we have to take a hard look at that. bottom line is this country has enormous problems. the middle-classç is in very dp trouble. this budget begins to move us in the right direction. host: are you concerned about how the president wants to pay for the budget? guest: i think less so than

other aspects of the budget. i think that's heat is also understanding that in the midst of this very severe recession, which is leavingç 17%ç of the people unemployed or underemployed, one of thew3 this you've got to do is to everything you can toç protect the middle class and create jobs. while we've got toç address obviously the huge national debt that we have and thet(ç fact hs given a terrible deficit situationç from the bushç administration, the most important point we have to address this jobs and the economy. host: talking about the president fy 2011 budget with bernie sanders, independent from vermont and member of the senate budget committee. if you want to get involved in our conversation --

walk us through, if you will, the budget process. the budget wasw3 delivered yesterday. okthe senate budget committee started to bring folks in to talkçç about the various agen. the house will do the same. then what happens? guest: we will be hearing from peter orszag, -- i believe today, as a matter of fact. he will give us an overview of the budget. tell us where the president is coming from. and obviously respond to questions. i think we will be hearing from the secretary of treasury this week as well then there will be a lot of debate and discussion about the budget. what the budget committee does çit doesxd not goç into -- des with a broad categories.

but what categories we should be spending. and the appropriations committees do the rest. host: and then after this goes through the of whole process, budgets are crafted by both appropriations committees. guest: obviously the senate will vote on its budget and the house will vote on its budget. host: in your experience, what is the likelihood the budget that comes out of congress will look anything like the budget the presidentç proposes is tha? guest: based on history, it probably won't. there will be a lot of debate. i think what we should c punderstand. -- and i say this as an independent who disagrees with ez issues, what we've got to understand is when president obama was swornç in he inheritd the worst set of problems since the great depression since

roosevelt came in 1932. ç it ain't easy stuff. we have a middle class in many ways that has disintegrated. we have a $12 trillion national debt, under bush the national debt doubled. we have two wars. we have a health care system çwhich in many ways this villae disintegrating. not only not providing us the quality of care -- 46 million americans uninsured,, but an economic disaster for the country because we end up spending almost twice as much as another country. we've got all of these things and we've got to deal with these issues. my main criticism of the bush administration was not treating the american people as adults and saying, you know what, we've got real problems and you cannot push these problems underneath the rug and the president, while i disagree on this and that, at least as saying we got to get our act together. you've got to deal with health

care or else you got unsustainable budgets and deficits in years to come. if you've got to deal with global warming or this planet is going to look at a horrendous situations in terms of droughts and floods and in terms of mass migrations of people and that we can move into a new energy system away from fossil fuels into energy efficiency and sustainable energy and we can create millions of jobs ñ but the bottom line here as a nation, we've got toç understad we can't go back to the ways that failed. we can't push serious -- terrible serious problems and need the rug. we have to address them. i think if we h)qç the courage (t up to the powerful special interest in washingtonxd who have so much power, if we can do that i am (jjt)qq'tqt(ñ that we canok puls country out of the very difficult problems we are currently facing. host: we wantç to let ourw3çs andt( listeners know we will be

covering live on c-span rightç after this program today's finance committee hearingç, wih treasury secretary geithner talking about the 2011 budget. and later on in thet( afternoonn the house side, the house budget committee,ok with peter orszag, director of the office of i]management and budget. that hearing will be taped. if you want to see when it will air, by all means, go to our website, c-span.orgç. first callerç for senator sands comes from oregon, mike on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. it is an honor to speak toçq y, senator. çççi]çóççwell -- hello? host: go ahead. caller:ok i guess when it to sty -- i don't know. ñri give up. i give up. i have been ai] staunch he -- i don't know. i was one wh believed that basically the country has sold out toç theç corporate fast ae

lead to somew3 that exists in ts country, the supreme court passing of this lastç thing,w3u know, corporate fascism isi]ç e and well. guest: despair is really not an option. if you are saying to me thatç r friends on wallç street whose greed and recklessness and illegal behaviorç plunged this country in the recession we are in right now and want to go back to the way they used to be and give themselveu huge bonuses and so forth, and if you are telling me that the heads of the xdçcompanies haveç enormous pr and i fighting for their own çinterests and on profits as te expense of everyoneç else, you are absolutely right. that is reality. this bear is not an excuse. t(qw3i have grandchildren, you't give up. what you have toç doç, is to figure out how to begin to where

we are right now. çówas it a wonderful idea, as an greenspan told us and president bush and some democrats toldç us, that we should deregulate everything. let wall street do whatever they want. it is aç great idea of the corporations are people and they contributed as much money to the political process. oknot a good idea. it is a horrendous idea. qokçw3. duquesne korean hands up, or you can say this is tough stuff. how do we once again bring ordinary people into the political process, how do you create a government that works for the middle-class rathert( tn the wealthy? it is not easy, but giving up is not an option. host: chicago, ralph online for

independents. caller: " we save a trillion dollars a year byokxd covering alternative, holistic natural remedies and health care? considering the cost of nutrition, massage,çó meditatio, music,ç chiropractics -- considered that cost but with the surgery, radiation, chemo? 100 to one saving with alternatives and we can also save on the war onç drugs one trillion dollars. guest: interesting question. i remember a couple of years ago in vermont we had a town meeting on alternative medicine, called complementary medicine. an alternative health care. we had like 600 people coming out, a small town in the middle of the state on a cold day. there is a lot of agreement with what you are saying.

i want to tell you, in the health-care bill that is being debated right now, there is a huge amount of money -- not going to alternative health care, per se, but disease prevention, dealing with issues like, why are people becoming obese, which leads to diabetes? how can we prevent heart conditions? how can we prevent cancer rather than just spending a fortune treating people after they are ill. in a rational health care system, we should be doing far better in disease prevention. i happen to agree with you. that is a lot to be said for therapies like acupuncture, massage therapy, and so forth. so, i agree with you. that's all. i agree with you and i think it is a good deal -- idea for the american people to focus on that. host: of a message on twitter --

why is cap-and-trade on the budget when it has not been passed yet? guest: the legislation is not in the budget. ideas are in the budget. that is what a budget is about. but let me say -- i know people have arguments about cap-and- trade. people have arguments about global warming. i happen to believe global warming is very real. but more important, i believe right now we are on the cusp of an energy revolution, and i applaud the president for putting more money in the stimulus package into the revolution of taking us away from foreign oil into energy efficiency and sustainable çenergy, then we have done in e history of government. this is what i believe. if we move aggressively in terms of energy efficiency come we can cut back substantially on the amountç of energy weuse. right now we are spending -- and this is totally off theç wall,a

totally insane -- $350 billion every singleçç year imported - importing oil from saudi arabia and venezuela and other countries. if you took just a fraction and move it toward energy efficiency, if you have w3automobiles getting 50 or 60 miles an hour -- gallon, electric cars, or some strong presence in hybrid, or mass transportation. in my state we haveç been very strong in energy efficiency. we are now beginning to movemy o wind, solar, biomass. we canxd create over a periodñrf time millions and millions of jobs and break our dependency on foreign oil. that is exactly where we have to go in that area. i think the president has been strong and we have to continue to be aggressive in that. host: westç virginia, roof on e line for republicans. ymçcaller: yes, i would like to know what you mean by

progressive. guest: thank you, ruth. this is what i mean by being progressive. the vast majority ofç the peope in this country are either working class or the middle class or lower income. weç have, as i mentioned befor, a situation where the top 1% earn more income than the bottom 50% and the gap between the people on top and everybody else has grown much wider. w3çand, ruth, what i believe by being a progress of is i believe that health care is a right of all people and i believe it is an international disgrace that the united states is the only country in the industrialized world -- not many people know that -- the only country in tje÷ industrialized world that does not guarantee health care to all of ourç people as a right of citizenship yet we and expended almost twice as much as any other nation and our outcomes are not particularly good. when you ask what needs to be progressive, every person in

this country is entitled to health care. i would also tell you that it is very hard for people to make it into the middle classt(, or for our country to be competitive internationally if we don't have a very strong educational system, if all of our people regardless of income don't have the capability of going to college. the idea that kids are graduating college 25,000, $50,000 ink debt and forcedi] o get into jobs making a whole lot of money instead of doing what they like to do is unfortunate. qwe have the highest rateç of childhood poverty of any major country in earth and the corollary is more people in jail than any other country on earth, including china. so what being a progressive is about as saying that we should have a government that begins to address the real issues facing working people and the middle class -- health care for all, making sure we have a strong social security and retirement ng sure thatthry çókid has a quality education, d not just the wealthy that can go

to the best colleges. post" this morning, there is an article or actually a graph that shows winners andç losers, as they put it, fromqç the officef management and budget, of spending by departments -- from the veterans affairs, which has an increase of 7.3% in their budget from last year down to commerce,ç which has a reductin ofç 36%, in their budget from last year. of these changes, which won concerns you the most. guest: i am a member ofç the veterans committee and very activeç in veterans issues. i think for a number of years, we have to be honest about this, theç federal government short changed our veterans. w3now, you can't agree or disage on a war. i was strongly opposed to the war in iraq but you can't be a

host of a went -- men and women who put their lives on the line, came back one bid, sometimes physically and sometimes emotionally, high rates of ptsd, high rates of traumatic brain injury, and in vermont we worked very hard --ñrxdçç i]'e got to do thisxd all over the country. when people come back fromç tht war we have to protect them and their families, and i think the president is alsoq doing, for many, many years, what happens is wei] said to veterans that if you are above a certain income level --ç not very high, by the way -- your so-calledçq prioriy 8, andi]xd you can't access thea system. qwhat president obama is saying is that is wrong,ççyçt([ we bringing more and more of those people back in the system. i know the secretary of the va believes in that, iç believe in that, theç committee believes n that. what we are saying to people who put their lives on the line to

going to that about you. we did that in the past. we are not going to do that. not only that, if you are over in afghanistan or iraq we are doing whatever we can to protect your families. whatever your viewsç on the war --t( i have serious misgivings about the war in afghanistan, the can't forget about the people but their lives on the line or their familiesi] back he and i think that is one of the reasonsç why theç veterans but has increased and the president is right to do that. host: senator bernie sanders, independent from vermont, came to the house in 1991 and served there until 2007 andç succeeded jim jeffords plant and it is in the middle of his first term. a b.a. from the university of chicago. back to the funds. riverside, california, on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller:çç i think bernie sands is the real deal and my point of being, a great website on the

economy and the military and this new push for a smaller government is just a ruse to get them away from social security and some of our entitlement and now i see that as becoming a real threat. how can they take away our social security that people have paid into, after diet -- denying us health care, and what will be next? everybody should see him bruce gagnon's website. guest: look, here is what the debate is about. we've got into this horrendous deficit situation, national the situation, how does it happen? xdlet's talk about it for a second. important to give huge tax breaks toç the wealthiest peope ini] this country who had alreay become muchçóok u(rq). you got to pay for it. that is going to cost you a lot

+tpreside.um!ok decided we wand to invade iraq and go into a war that over a period of years will cost trillions of dollars. decided we did not have to pay for that. because of the deregulation of the banking industry, which is supported by both republicans and some democrats, clinton was there as well, the system virtuallyi] collapsed and againt my vote congress provided $700 billion to bail out wall street. that wasn't paid for. prison bush decided for political reasons, i think, to provide a prescription drug program forw3 seniors, desperaty needed, but this particular one was written by the insurance companies and the drug companies, the nott(ç ask the government to negotiate drugçç pricesç with the pharmaceutical industry, became an expensive program, and paid for. you add all of those things together you look at trillionsç w3of dollars in debt. now what some of our republican for these

things, by the way, my goodness, they have suddenly woken up to the fact that we have a very large national debt. and as ruby says, one of the ways to deal with the dead is not to ask the wealthy pay more in taxes, not to cut back on military spending, not to negotiate drugçó pricesç with e pharmaceuticalxd industry. that kind of steps on thei] toes ofç powerful special-çñrçint but what we could do, we could slashç medicare for the peoplef this country. we can move toward privatization oft( social security and cut bak on benefits. thoseç are ways that in fact yu can't cut back on the deficit and a future national debt. i think that would be grossly unfair. right now our health-care system is in crisis. we have to strengthen medicare, not cut it back. ççone of the debates will bidt it will certainlyw3 be front and center, how do you deal widhç aç

$12 trillion national debt that is growing. do you take it out of the hides of working people andw3 elderly and children or do you begin to ask the wealthiest people to start paying their fair share of taxes question of do you start rethinking our foreign policy and maybe start ending some wars we have not -- should not have got into the first place? do we get away from corporate -- corporate welfare? say to some of the financial t(institutions whose greece and recklessness caused this, you ain't going to go back to where you were before and in fact startw3 taxing it, break up a large financial institution so you will not have to bail you out again. we will put a cap on interest rates show you -- so you are not w3charging 25% or 30% on your credit card. basically the future debate over theç debt and deficit has to dl withç what side are you on. host: next up is wreck on the line for independents.

caller: it seems like we have become a charge card society. when we run into the problem, we borrow the money. we constantly borrow money to fix problems. just like with the civilian court and things like that,çq n a lot of people who did not have çjobs, we turnedç to national resources and usedç those but anyway we could use those to actually pay for some of the green products? xdçwhen you actually are mining something oru! you areok takinge forest or whenever and producing resources, that is not something that you are borrowing, it is something thatç is no, it cannt be outsourced. guest: that is exactly right. let me give you just a few examples. and as the chairman of the green jobs -- envirojant committee,

very excited about this. i think there isç unlimited economic potential and job creation in moving toward new energy. let me give you just a few examples. if you talk about resources. in the northern part of the state of vermont there is a small electric co-çop, actually in central vermont, that is providing most of the electricity, pretty cheap. you know where it is coming from? methane gas that comes from a landfill. got that? çlandfill, methaneç gas provig electricity. in the state ofçç vermont we e having close to 40 schools and one hospitals that areçq providing heat and cold winters with wood chips that come from the local forest, sustainably harvested. so you have in terms of solar, there are estimates out there that if we tapped the solar energy that comes into the southwestern part of the country, which is just a

wonderful location for solar energy, we can provide close to 30% of the electricity that homes utilize in this country. if we have -- and i am ç10 million solar rooftops allç over the country, even in the northeast where people think you cannot utilize solar, you can. we have extraordinary potential to move away from fared well so that we don't spend $350 billion a year importing from saudi arabia. develop our own energy and create jobs. i see that as not only important for energy independence but important to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and global warming and it is very important for our economy. host: regarding the process, i want to get your reaction to a statement by rep wiener in new york, saying republicans are the opposition, regarding the

talk about the tension between the two chambers. guest: that is tension. what the congressman under -- sl- i understand. i spent 16ç years in the house qthe republicans haveok been vey clear, and their view has been that if it is good for obama, it is bad off for the republicans and the end result has been more filibusters and delaying tactics on the seventh floor in the last year, i believe, than any time i believe i think certainly in modern history or the history of the country. what congressman weiner is also sang, because time and -- a lot of americans don't know this. there are a hundred members of the senate. 51 carries. 51 doesn't carry. the republicans have threatened to filibuster and you need 16 votes. on many issues, it is very hard for us to get 60 votes because you have some pretty conservative democrats who are not sympathetic to what is on the floor. and it has slowed up the

and there is a real bottleneck in the senate. i talked to members of the house, we keep passing good stuff and nothing happens because you guys are not moving. i understand where they are coming at. my own view is what we have got to understand is we don't have -- which certainly will not have 60 votes in a few days. even --ç you don't really have0 votes. you've got to develop a strategy that works with 51 votes and figure out how with 51t(ç voteu can pass legislation that may not be as broad and comprehensive as he could if you had 60 but that is theç wayç e is. host: last call from senator sanders comes from michael on the line fromç republicans from greenbelt, maryland. caller: i just0w"9q to say that i appreciate that you are a real patriot and working for the american people and one of the few people in congress that i feelç strongly thatokçt( way,i justçó want you to keep up the good work and one thing i wanted

to bring up is,ç i remember you beingt(w3 onç the floor last yr voting against the tarp bailout of the big banks, and i appreciate that, i wonder, what is your feeling, do you feel that while some people say, well, if we had not done this big bailout we would be any worse condition. i don't know if i truly believe that. çi justç believe government hs gone into this thing where we feel we can bail everything out and that is helping people. me as a small-business man, don't feel we are getting any relief. i am just fine to put two kids through college right now. host: sorry to cut you off. guest: michael raises a whole lot of good points. i said --ç and i remembered s@iing this to bernanke -- i believe for theç denning wall . you guys and your friends and wall street caused the problem.

even if you think the ballot as necessary, i tell you what to do. go back to the richest and saying we are putting a surtax on millionaires and billionaires to pay for the bailout. that was my view. xd and iç think what michael is talking about, there was huge frustration and anger in this countryq that government has worked to protect the interest of wall street whileç ignoring- çkow3michael talkingi] about tt that he is a father tried to send kids through college. we are putting more money into programs but we have a lot more to do. i think what people are saying and crying out for, what about us. we are working 50 or 60ç hoursa week, start worrying about us and not just the big money interests. i (jjtjr host: senator bernie sanders, thank you for coming on "washington journal." we will take a short break and will become that the discussion regarding the economy and the latinoç community but the president of la raza. first tennessee's band radio.

>> president obama and russian president dmitry medvedev offering supportç for global 0, international group trying to rid theç world of nuclear weapons. + qpreside%tç obama in a written message to the group said disarmament is one of its highest priorities. the resin president ca&ing it a priority. the conferenceqxd opened today d concerns could of iran's nuclear program and the startç treaty,n arms control agreementç between theç u.s. and russia. the treaty expired in december of last year and reports say talks to renewç the treaty have stalled. qv:xdxdi]five american terroriss being held in pakistan say they were tortured by the fbi and pakistani police trying to frame them. the message, written on tissue paper, was tossed out to reporters as they were entering their latest hearing. the u.s. embassy spokesman ççdenied the torturei] ahqt(ur the five men, all young muslims fromç washington, d.c., were detained in december south of islamabad not long after they

arrived in pakistan. it was nearly one year ago today qa regional airlinerrashed near buffalo, new york, killing 50 people. today the national transportation safety board is expected to give the cause of the crash and alsoç make some 0 recommendations. çthe crash revealed a safety gp between airlines and the handle short flights. thosew3 are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. ç>> in depth welcomes british historian and former adviser to margaret thatcher, paul johnson, author of over 40w3 books. his latestç on winston churchi. joinç our 3 our conversation wh your phone calls for paul johnson, live from london, sunday at noon eastern on book tv's "in-depth" on c-span2. >> watch "washington journal" for conversation, comments, and calls about today's public affairs. live daily from 7:00 until 10:00 eastern.

covering washington like no other. >> "washington journal" continues. host:çq jaç nmirvea is presidt and ceo of la raza. what is your concern about the u.s. economy, especially as it affects the latino community? guest: like all american families, a hispanic families are concerned about jobs and the economy. we certainly would like to see specific strategies implemented that would target latino families and communities of color. our sense is that during the last stimulus package, that was approved and push forward, there was a lot of funding in there to reach out to states and localities but it is not entirely evident to us that much of that funding reached the most

needed individuals and families. to engage congress and the w3administration as we look at a new jobsç creation package to makeç sureç that there are targeted programs2that reach te most vulnerable families and also provide relief to middle- class families. host: last week the national council of la raza put out a news release talking about a partnership with freddie mac, tell us about the portion of what you are trying to do. guest: basically we want to ensure there are more opportunities for transparency when it comes to lending and community development. we want to make sure there is access to community development funds as well as loans that are fair, and allow our folks to really understandq what are goig to be the implications when they

take on loans, when they looked at trying toç develop communities. they want to make sure there are targeted funds there that are actually going to leverage in many ways for those communities. freddie mac has been a great partner in making sure that we are reducing the amount of predatory lending that is out there. there are a numberç of folks in our communities that are vulnerable when it comes to predatory lending practices. there are unscrupulous actors keep in the lending community and we want to make suresour families have full access to information and when it comes to purchasing a home, we found, and betaç support, home ownership counseling is the most effective way to make sure families are fully educated when they are making significant purchases, and helping them plan for purchases. a lot of folks need better

education and wceerstanding about saving and how they can maybe do more saving for their families and plan for that purchase. these homeownership counseling programs and partnership with entities like freddie mac have been quitew3 successful and thee are best practice models who want to take to scale as a result. host: do you feel predatory lending has been targeted specifically at the latino and hispanic community? guest: there is no question the data supports communities of colors are vulnerable. latino and black american families haveokt( been highly indexed. we see the data supporting, higher index that other families. where they are absolutely taken a manager. and there are bad actors out there. there ist(xdç no real regulatió w3there is no real accountabiliç for when we see these bad actors and play in these communities. the result, there is legislation moving through congress now thaç i think is going to try to

target many of the bad actors and provide, again, more opportunities for education for vulnerable families so that they can't use that education as a tool to armç themselves and be educated when they engaged lenders or when they do small loans. that is very important because we find that many of the families get into trouble when they are not fully educated -- educated and informed and not looking into theç background of the lenders. okwe still find that when you don't read the fine print, and the fine print can oftentimes be very convoluted. çit is very complicated and people are veryt( easily taken advantage of. there is no reason for that. we should have homeq ownership counselingç programs in every community so we are harming our folks in the best possible way to make the best possible loans and savings and investments for their families. host: in the jobs bills that are

working their way through congress right now, do you feel that enough is beingç done by e folks in washington, d.c., to get jobs into the latino community. guest: not enough. we are very much in beijing right now with the administration and congress, but they do need to act and act soon. but again, a number of the funds that went through the stimulus package, we found just did not quite bridge down into the communities and individuals that most needed them. we are hoping the next opportunity to put together a jobs package would actually make sure there are proposals in there that ensure that the small business community members can have access to funds that they can actually use to create jobs. and perhaps the tax credits that the president admitted in his budget i think is an attractive tax credit before allowing any small business to hire someone to get a $5,000 tax credits,

that applies not just to small businesses but for us and nonprofit community. çwe have a network of 300 community-based organizations. between the small business and nonprofit community, that is a large segment of the sector that employs latinos today. we think incentives that can be targeted directly -- and one thing i talked about before that i think that we can't seem more funds around is the home on a ship counselors. we are finding right now, as we know, the housing situation across the country is in dire straits. many of these properties in need to be rehabilitated. we can find ways where we are doing two things -- one, we are engaging individuals to help rehab these properties and make them more suited for being inhabited and making sure that

the ground around a lot of these different properties are kept up. that is a key way to keep a lot of folksw3 in jobs. weatherization programs, toward these green jobs being created. there must be more targeted funding there. the homes we need an infusion of more fun so we can create more of these home ownership counselors. that is the keyt(ç way where we going to be book to bring people to wo%get the benefit as a result of that work in taking care of another issue. the foreclosureçó rate for communities of color is much too high right now. adding the estimate is between now and 2012, betweenç african and latino families we are going families at risk of losing their homes. there are strategies we could put at play in the jobs creation pa qforeclosure issue as well as jb creation, and we just need

smart strategies that areqiq td really -- to those families who can benefit the most. we have not seen that so far. host: we are talking with janet of the national council of la raza, president and ceo. talking about the economy in the çlatino community. if you want to get involved -- the line yesterday --ç yesterday robert gibbs responded to a question about president obama's stance on immigration reform. we will show that ended the response. >> i think the president's position on immigration form and what he supports is enormously clear. he campaigned on it, he worked on legislation that i think is quite similar to what would come up this year in thatç house and

the senateok with people like jn táqv graham, into the oven five or 2006 in the senatei]çç like climate chang, there areq bipartisan efforts that are ongoing to bring w3legislation like this to the four, and to create bipartisan majorities to get it passed. the president hosted a meeting here not too long ago to keep that process going and we look forward to taking part in it. does go well, judy guest: well, we are disappointed and frustrated that there wasn't more attention given to this issue both in the state of the union and by the administration to engage in theç congress more directly on this issue. xdwe believe that a strongç cae

can be made for immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform, around the economy and job creation. it isv: hard to ignore eight segmentsç of labor that isçó in this country right nowçç, pret but not benefitingxd from the revenue that these individuals are currently potentially able to provide. there have been studies shown forxd us that a strong fiscal ce can be made that if we do comprehensive immigration reform, there would access --ç absolutely be a boon to the economy and we could actually see jobs created. i would just mentioned, the most recent report by the center for american progress where they make the strong case that in addition to job creation we see wage increases for american workers as a result of comprehensive immigration reform, and in the report,

raising the floor for american workers, included -- concluded gdp would rise by $1.50 trillion over 10 years if congress enacts comprehensive immigration reform and granting legal status to undocumented immigrants and creating flexible legal limits on future inflows would also raise the wage floor for all american workers and by enacting such to legislation would generate enough consumer spending to support 750,000, up to 900,000, new jobs. so, we can make the case that you can do comprehensive immigration reform. it may be counter intuitive. there are lots of folks who think that maybe a threat to the american job situation. it absolutely can help benefit the american job and from -- situation and the economy and we would like to see notym only the president but congress lead forward on the issue, show the correct that they can not only addresst( the job creation situation and the economy but also deal with a problem that

needs to be dealt with, and it can be done in a bipartisan way. so, we are encouraged by the work that senator schumer is doing what senator lindsey graham, a republican from south carolina. we are in coverageç congressman gutierrez released a good bill in the house of representatives. but it will take much more leadership from the president made a promise quite frankly to the latino community that has not been forgotten, that he would make this issue a priority in his first year. host: a calliwç from new iberia, louisiana, danny on the line for democrats. you are on an agenda from the national council of la raza. forw3 caller: i see some inconsistencies from the argumenpn çfor one thing, it seems like e people who would most be hurt -- are being hurt in the job situation by these illegal immigrants are in fact multigenerational mexican- americans who are already here,

and people are --ç of color, because they go in and take away from them. if you do make all of these illegal is illegal, they are quneducated, cannot speak english, and all things being equal pay wise, they are going to choose the more educated american worker over them and what we are doing is in fact importing a whole class of welfare people in the end when qtup&. guest: obviously i disagree with that assertion. there is no question in our mind that therei] is enough data out there to support theç fact that when we are looking at the economy, a strong caseç can be made for leveraging the benefit of revenue from the work force that is currently being exploited and taken a manager of paired with need to make sure we are raising the wage base for all workers and not just one segment. and if you ignore this segment

of workers out there, you are really going to not solve the whole problem. for us, we believe by leveraging comprehensive immigration reform as part of an infusion of creating more opportunities to t(çgenerate and stimulate the economy, that you can benefit from this increase of revenue that currently is not moving so, i disagree with his assertion. host: linda on our line for republicans from santa barbara, california. u!çcaller: good morning. i sold real estate during the 1980's and 1990's, and it was my experience that if a latino family could manage to come up with the down payment in order to get into the house, they were the best credit risk imaginable because their home meant soç mh

to them that they would do anything to stay in it. now, as far as what has happened since then, i don't have as much experience with that. çand these were more conventiol loans. but they would never go into foreclosure. but i do have one comment, and this is also probably goes along with the changed, is that what does your guest plan to do about the huge dropout rate in the current latino community? host: thank you. sorry to cut you off. guest: i think linda points out an important fact, and it is one i think is represented by david, is that when we are able to ensure that latino families actually get a little help in navigating the system, under

standing mortgages and the down payment and looking -- as they engage, they are very worthy of the creditsç because they are very mindful of making the payments. and they treat that the situation from a values perspective. and it really is something that they understand that their word is at stake when they sign a paper that says they are going to make a commitment. we have seen that manifested in the different ways, when families have been brought into the system, and they have been fully informed and educated about what their responsibilities are. they're veryç much when to make sure they are doing everything they can to honor that system. and that is something that we can benefit from faugh -- if we have more transparent and accountable system when it comes to those lenders and those folks

who are playing a role in the mortgage system. and we want to make sure of that latinos and all families that are vulnerable are getting access to the information. ubut credit ratings for latinos are actually very good. the the problem is they are still very vulnerable when they are not informed. çóhost: phoenix, arizona, go- ahead. for caller:ç i would like to pass the laws of viewpoint on the clearly racist border walls. puttingç walls up in areas whee there is a lot of migration, or a higher number of immigrants passing. and the result is, is the situation has gone from bad to worse, where there is actually more fatalities in the desert -- whole families are being found

dead out there. if;hváu)y to take them water, the police and government will try to stop you. it is clearly -- it brings to mind other things in history, and what was the result parrot to record taking my call. guest: of your callers --ç your caller i think mentions a traffic situation we still find a covering every day. i think on average at least one person dies a day trying to come into this country. for us, i think we believe that it reallyç doesç call for thed for comprehensive e immigration reform. we shouldn't haveç families and individuals buying literallxç to get into this country. we really should have a more rational, humane system, and that to be reflected in a comprehensive immigration reform and it really does call for a sense of urgency that is needed and the moral imperative that we

have to create a comprehensive immigration reform that is obviously fair and follows the role of law -- but we want to make sure it is also humane. right now, the signals that are being sent, the fact that it is a broken system --çq there are families who are lured to come to the united states because they have this vision of coming and creating a better life. yet they find themselves tragically often in the midst life-threatening and oftentimes we have seen death occur on the borders as a result of that. it is really reflective of a current broken system that reflects a inhumane policy. we should do comprehensive immigration reform and to bring more a sense of humanity into that. host: our next call comes from beckett -- betty from waukegan,

illinois, on the line from democrats. guest: i disagree with the lady. in my little town,ç waukegan, e hispanics have taken over. every job you go to, it is the african-americans who are suffering in my town. they have built their own currency exchanges, they have built their own airline services. if you don't speak both languages, you can't get a job. so i disagree with the lady. it is the african-americans who are suffering and not the hispanics. and have a good day. guest: thank you. well, i am sorry she feels that way. i know there are some times tensions are around this issue and a lot of times i think there are a lot of folks who can fall into -- i think this misperception that when newt commerce comes into this

country, that somehow they are taking away from the current environment in some fashion. çbut the newcomers, and we have seen this in history throughout. but whole of our country, and that is we have thrived as a result of the dynamism and the contribution that immigrants have given to this country. we just have to find a system that is a rational system that allows them to come into place, that allows four roles to be set and followed. and we need to have comprehensive reform that clarify is what the standard will be for the future flow of immigrants,çó and allow us once and for all have legalization for those who are here. if we could do all of that, i think it would go a long way to address these perceptions that somehowç newcomers are taking

away from others. i don't think thatxd is the case at all. and we should respect our history as a nation of laws but also recognize that we have been a nation of immigrants and have benefited tremendously from that. host: our conversation regarding the economy in the latino community. juan on our line for republicans from fairfax, virginia. caller: i wanted to tell -- regarding the home on mission -- home ownership, and educating leptin of commuters, here in northern virginia we have many instructors, including myself and my mother, we are small business owners, bolivia, iok am first generation university's demand as well. i think what is needed is not only comprehensive reform in immigration but comprehension of

the latino community. i know nclr prides itself in understanding of the community, but my experience at the university, a little more radical leftist kind of organization that i found not welcome to a republican latino like myself. i have been that way since i was a little one, so i want to let her know, we are out here, republican latinos, we want to be involved in part of that movement and getting to know the latino community means getting to know latino republicans in northern virginia and across the land and i think that would help a lot toward people like myself and my mother to be more open to working with organizations like nclr bringing that instruction to the latino community that we currently do, and we don't ask them if theyym are democrat, republican,w3çççu! or indepet which is ask them if they need help.

guest: i appreciate that. the fact is we are a nonpartisan organization. ç and our mission railing is to open the door to the american dream for all families, including the latino family, and to create opportunity for hispanics. we are not a partisan organization. we reach out to members of congress, individuals on both sides of the aisle. we serve all of those who we believe can benefit from that mission. t(and we those labels. not really about%- it is about what is in the best interest of the community. and i hope one will give us a çchance, lookmy atq our websitd engage many of our affiliates. we have affiliate's in northern virginia that work in particular with small business owners and help create opportunities for on japan and