continue our look at the white house 2011 budget request. the house budget committee chairman joins us followed by the american federation of teachers president. we will then discuss the president's budget. this is a "washington journal." > > . .

the armed services committee in the senate. let us take a look at how the " moeller times" leads off. the top two defense officials call to an end of the 16-year old don't ask, don't tell, law. along with openly gay women to serve in the united states military for the first time. that us listen to what admiral mullen had to say. >> speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. the matter how i look at this issue, i cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy that forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. for me, personally, it comes down to integrity. there's as individuals and hours as an institution. i also believe that the brave young men and women in our military can and would accommodate such a change. i never underestimate their ability to adapt. but i do not know this for a fact, nor do i know for a fact how we would best make such a major policy change in a time of two wars. that there would be some disruption in the force, i cannot deny.

host: admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. let us go back to the "the new york times" piece. however, republican sound like they are not interested in repealing the law. "the wall street journal caused what has this to say. republicans appealed to be united against the appeal. including senator john mccain, looking more at coverage of this topic, we will see a clip of

senator john mccain in a moment. and more mullen became the highest-ranking military officer ever when he asked to appeal these restrictions. a source of controversy within the pentagon. it was put in place in the clinton administration back in 1993, according to "the wall street journal." the story goes on today that and nbc-wall street journal poll in 1993 found no more than 43% of americans supported lifting restrictions on gays in the military. usa today-gallup poll in june 2009, by contrast, 69% of americans favored eliminating, don't ask, don't tell restrictions. let us look at what senator john mccain said yesterday. >> numerous military leaders to tell me "don't ask, don't tell" is working and we should not change it now. i agree. i would welcome a report done by the joint chiefs of staff based

solely on military readiness, effectiveness, and needs, and not on politics. that would study the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, considering the impact of the -- repeal on armed services and would offer the best military advice on the right course of action. we have an all-volunteer force. it is better trained, more effective, and more professional than any military in our history, and today that force is shouldering a greater global burden than at any time in decades. we owe our lives to our fighting men and women and we should be exceedingly cautious, humble, and sympathetic when attempting to regulate their affairs. don't ask, don't tell, has been an imperfect but effective policy, and at this moment, when we are asking more of our military that at any time in recent memory, we should not repeal this law. host: let us get to the phones.

asking if you think "don't ask, don't tell" to be repealed. jay calling on the active military members line from memphis, tennessee. caller: thank you for taking my call. real quick -- a difficult topic so it is really not bill click on anything. the problems some of the politicians who never served or -- if they did serve, a lot were officers. when i started my career at 17, when i went to boot camp, i showered and lived with 79 other guys, all right? quite possibly someone -- some were gay, quite probably. they had to keep that little fact a secret. when you are living in conditions such as that when you are sharing rooms and living spaces, shower facilities, if someone is gate and you don't know about it, it does not affect your comfort level but if one of those or several of those individuals i were there with were openly gay, then it is not unreasonable to suspect that

they were physically attracted to men, just as if i were allowed to shower with a group of women, not unreasonable to expect i would be attracted to them. when people are thinking about this grant social experiment, allowing gays to serve openly, that are not realizing the people it will affect the most of the junior and listed individuals because when they leave work, they don't go home to houses and families, they go home to a barracks room, they go home to a rack in a ship where they live 24 inches away from someone above them, share showers. when you change that rule and you change that paradigm for the set it up with the bunkmate -- you may have suspected was gay but now you know for a fact, what they need to do if they are going to do this is, number one, allowed a six-month general honorable discharge period for people who feel uncomfortable living in those conditions who say, you know what, i can't do

this, you changed the rule 2 much and i'm out of here, allow people to do that and after that period, after the change the rules, then the establish how you are going to handle shower facilities. if you will allow gay people living in the same areas and straight people, why not combine males and females and go from there? i know people will call it bigoted but that is the way it is. host: would you opt to leave the military if it is repealed? caller: i could push a button and retire any time and i have enough right on my shoulders that this policy does not affect me in a way it will affect the 17 year old kid or 18-year-old kid. the way it will affect some young, brand new kid out of high school who does not have what i have. host: steve calling from florida. good morning. caller: jay just summed it up.

excellent point. better than all of the testimony yesterday from the admiral and secretary of defense. it is reality. the other thing is, at what cost do we want to pursue a social experiment, and 69% of americans may support it now but if they follow the issue and just think -- like he just said, the perfect analogy, is the shower scenario with young women and men. in the real world, it does not work like that. you have a culture of the military that is a bonding, camaraderie, and, yes, they are in there now, but like jay said -- what's wrong with "don't ask, don't tell?" i know people say it is ridiculous, but we will cover eventually cross dressing, transgendered -- what about adultery, we change the rules of adultery? ok, thanks. host: let us take a look at "the "washington times".

according to defense official general, james conway, a marine combat income and joint chiefs number is leading efforts to oppose the repeal. an outspoken opponent of lifting the ban -- elizabethtown, tennessee, tony on our retired service members . tony, good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air, welcome. caller: i enjoy c-span and i just wanted to make the point -- the last two colors i agree

with, with the shower situation. i just wanted to say that's -- that, i'm so frustrated after 20 years in the united states navy and through the naval air station and we never had this stuff ever, appeared of course, i'm sure there were plenty of gaze back then, but it would just never come up. of course, i am just wondering in my own mind, why it is so important, this gay issue right now when we have so much on our plate here in america. i heard the state of the union address with president obama and he brought this issue up, and i could not believe it -- all the baby boomers and senior citizens, he did not mention anything that will help these senior citizens, especially the $250 for all of these people -- i am fine, but all of the people around me that i know. and this issue just doesn't seem as important for the american

people, and i just wanted to say thank you. host: tony, if you are still on the line with us, what if you yourself or gay or a friend, the you believe it would have to live a lie to be in the military? caller: if they were gay -- i want every person to live what they are. i am not a prejudiced person. but the fact of the matter is, i think there are more important issues that we need to address the and america other than the gay issue. host: john on the other line from traverse city, michigan. caller: good morning, america. i appreciate hearing from eligible for retirement serviceman earlier and the way he stated the issue. a very good summation. i think a key point really is that there are -- i believe -- i

don't know what the military rules are like in terms of on duty conduct, off-duty conduct, etcetera, but really a person's sexual proclivities, what they tend to like to do in terms of activities is not an on duty phenomenon, so a person is -- i will call sexual behavior as a social behavior and really social tendencies are not central to anything like what a person is doing and being while they are actively engaged in the military, which is a civic

activity having to do with patriotism, protectionism -- protecting hopefully our freedom and not necessarily that of others. but in any case, yes, it is pretty straightforward. it is creating a class distinction that does not have anything to do with what the military is and does. host: let us take a look at the comments secretary gates said yesterday. >> last week the president announced he will work with congress this year to repeal the law known as "don't ask, don't tell. he subsequently directed the department of defense to begin preparations necessary for a repeal of the current law and policy. i fully support the president's decision. the question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it.

we received our orders from the commander in chief and we are moving out accordingly. however, we can also take this process only so far as the ultimate decision rests with you, the congress. i am mindful of the fact, as are you, that unlike the last time this issue was considered by the congress more than 15 years ago, our military is engaged in two wars that have put troops and their families under considerable stress and strain. host: taking a look at some of the details of how some of this would be put in play, what happens next? "the washington post" says gates appointed a pentagon team.

let's get to greg calling on our retired service members line from lancaster, new hampshire. caller: thank you for taking my call. i served six years in the navy active duty, side-by-side with gay and lesbian people. back when i was in the service, sensuality was never an issue. there was just a note issue about what one's sexual preferences were.

i am not sure why this is on the forefront of the agenda for the military when there seems to be some serious pressing issues right now around the world. but getting to the issue of, don't ask, don't tell, i think it actually leveled the playing field for people who are gay and lesbian. they could serve in the military without any repercussions as long as they did not want or display their sensuality. so, you have to wonder, what is the agenda here? it was never an issue that i was heterosexual, so why is it that the gay and lesbian community want to be known for their section quality rather than their performance in the military and the job that they do? that is all i have to say. every -- taking my call.

host: do we still have your online? we have statistics that say as many as 13,000 service members have been forced to leave the military since 1994, as a 2008, because of "don't ask, don't tell." does it concern you? caller: i guess you have to wonder -- you mean they were prosecuted by the military, so to speak, i guess, or ask to leave, right? ok. why is it that their sexuality has to be made public? that is with anything in life. why does it have to become an issue? you can serve in the military if you are gay and lesbian now. "don't ask, don't tell" is just a policy that allows people who are gay and lesbian to serve in the military without making it an issue but if you get into the other statistics of the hundreds

of out of the people of around the country who are serving in the military, you are going to have a far more repression -- repercussions regarding people leaving military who find that offensive, and another statistic that says that over 10% of the current population in the military will take voluntary retirement. i think what you will have is nothing but a reduced military service of gay and lesbian people serving in the military. you are disrupting an organization that already has a policy in place, it is working. and it never was an issue before. again, i served six years side by side with gay and lesbian people who were very professional, conducted their jobs in the manner in which they were trained and nobody ever made it an issue. when they left the ship they went to their gay bars, straight went to their regular

bars. host: thank you, for your comments. appreciate you calling in. we appreciate all of your calls this morning. yesterday at a more mike mullen and secretary gates were just two people who made the trip to capitol hill. not only talking about don't ask, don't tell, but also the president's budget. we are following budget week this week and continuing that today, and here to share with us what to watch for, capitol hill -- we have economics reporter for cqpolitics.com. who on the admin strait -- from the minister is and will be on the hill today and who will be the audience? -- who from the administration will be on the hill today? guest: today we got treasury secretary geithner, he has ways and means committee and the morning, and he is followed by white house budget director peter orszag in the afternoon.

you also have added more mullen and secretary gates meeting with house armed services committee. you have the labor secretary on the hill as well as transportation secretary. while obviously they are going to be talking about the president's budget proposal, there will also be talking -- talk about the jobs plan and what congress can do to get the unemployment rate and jump-start the economy. host: are there any hearings that look to be especially contentious or no word? guest: secretary geithner's and peter orszag's appearance before ways and means might be an opportunity for republicans to grill them over the budget, particularly the high deficit and the amount of debt, that was on display yesterday at the house and senate budget committee. that is generally the case when the budget director comes to the hill, the other party criticizes the approach. i think based on your last segment obviously, admiral

mullen and secretary gates appearance before the armed services committee closely watched, not the budget point of view but but "don't ask, don't tell" policy. host: is the day secretary gates -- was the visit to the committee overshadowed by "don't ask, don't tell?" guest: the pentagon has a huge budget, highly focused on each year. two other big -- of the dish -- big issues is the president calling to cancel the c-17 program as well as alternative engine for the f-35 program. that receives generally mixed reaction in congress, especially from lawmakers who represent states or districts where the plans are made. you can probably expect to hear more from that today. she obviously the president included in the budget another round of war funding, $160

billion the next year and additionally for the so-called afghanistan surge. both issues will be at the top list of questions lawmakers will be asking. host: you mentioned jobs as a big push. can give us a preview of what you may hear? guest: yesterday the president unveiled one of his proposals, $30 billion from the tarp program to create a program for lending to small businesses. that would be on the top of the list. secretary geithner in front of the tax panel, there will be talked about what tax cuts to be enacted to spur job growth. one is the idea of giving some sort of tax break to employers who hire new employees or give wage increases. that received a mixed response from the hill although it looks

like that will be part of the senate jobs bill moving fairly soon so i think that will probably be the main focus today. host: david clarke, thanks for being with us. getting back to our topic this morning "don't ask, don't tell," to be think it will be repealed -- should be repealed. jeremiah from the other callers line. caller: good morning, america. i just feel it is not really an issue because if you are and the military, you are there to serve the country and you have adopted it. your sexual preference or sexual life has nothing to do with it, and for that even to be a topic or an issue is very stupid. host: and marie, on the other callers line from chicago. good morning. caller: i want to say something about "don't ask, don't tell."

i think they should not pass it because -- what about -- cnn did a series about the young men being raped in the military. now, if they put those sergeants or whoever over who is gay openly, let them take over, who's to say they won't touch -- or boley one of the young soldiers? host: the phone numbers -- let's take a look senator john mccain's position. michael shear writes --

brooke would cannon said her boss is not shifted her position --

let's go to los angeles where joe is calling on the other callers line. caller: how are you doing? how are you? i am very disturbed with this issue. i could only imagine having a female with double dd breast and plants on the front line. the military has to deal with more route. if you have females with young recruits -- the military has to deal with morales. if you have females with young recruits, yet the basically die for it to other and confront an enemy in those types of situations -- host: i think we lost joe. let us look at some of the editorials and opinions from the national papers. equality in the military -- history was made capitol hill tuesday.

taking a look at "usa today." after 17 years, time to bury "don't ask, don't tell." the strike goes on to make a correlation that senator -- the piece goes on to make a correlation, the practical issue of the transparent and fairness. let's go to another call and let

us take a look at the editorials. the other callers line, georgetown, texas. caller: i am speaking for someone who cannot speak. can you hear me? host: loud and clear. caller: i am speaking for someone who went into the service right out of high school, he went on what was called a key crews. -- kiddie criuse. he was with many men -- his pastor had warned him about staff seeking friendship with young sailors and until that day he had never experienced an attack or never experienced this type of pressure, and his pastor saved him from, i think, degradation and pain and being

forced to leave the military. his parents would have never allowed him to go under "don't ask, don't tell." they never would have allowed him to go under an open gay navy. i think the country right now is dealing whether they want heterosexual young people to go in as part of their education and patriotism to serve their country or whether -- giving up. host: let us go to korea on active military line calling from camp to the june -- corey, from camp lejeunne. caller: i'm only 22 and i have been active military for a year- and-a-half -- i think the actual act of military is not involved

and we are the ones most affected by the decision, whether for or against. host: would you like to see a poll from military members? caller: i think it would be great to have the military -- i am very open-minded and i did not have a problem with homosexuals at all, however, i do think that many of the military people who have been in for a while and do come from different backgrounds would have a problem adapted to someone openly gay fighting in a pit and sleeping in a pit next to them while in war. a lot of people have opposing views and civilians cannot quite grasp the severity of the personal level when you are in a pit fighting next to you, sleeping next to your -- next to you. working in a war with anyone is a stressful environment. i think the military should be

polled on it. host: also active military from fort stewart, georgia. caller: how are you? i would like to say first of what i'm not at all -- i am active duty military for many years and i did not think it is the thing to do. as we all know, the military, we live a completely different lifestyle than civilians and those men as a whole, when we think of homeless 6 rollin, one would think of it, we think of weakness. we take community showers together, we do everything together and as far as i'm concerned, taking a shower with a man -- it would be like taking a shower with a woman and there is no place in the workplace and -- workplace and it takes away from readiness. if you have a gay man or woman, there is too much controversy that is going to come around it and it will take away from what we are trying to do i mean, what

you do in your bedroom is your business. i don't understand why there is this huge need to let everyone know what you do sexually. i ask that you accept what i do at work. host: would you want to introduce your wife or girlfriend to your colleague? caller: sure, absolutely. but i don't think it takes precedence over what it could potentially cause. it is not great. i did not think it expresses over the mission readiness -- takes precedence over mission readiness. host: let us look at this bloomberg news -- discharge has been down from the prior year. to the lowest level since the pentagon started tracking the

figures in 1997. dismissals included 259 men and 169 women. the peak of dismissals occurred in 2001, that year, 1227 members were discharged from the military. taking a look at some of the op- ed pieces and editorial commentary is for repealing "don't ask, don't tell." "usa today" says time to get rid of it but an opposing view from a republican from colorado who writes about his combat experience in the persian gulf and why it makes him reluctant to change "don't ask, don't tell." also open "the wall street journal" has a piece called "the case against gays in the

military." anything that threatens the non- sexual bonding -- let's go to mickey from the retired service members line. caller: good morning. i would like to remind people and senator john mccain it was not very many years ago when the blacks were considered inferior and they could not fight alongside white soldiers. in 1952 when i was fighting in correa i got shot in the upper chest and collapsed then it was a black and a gay soldier there ran into open fire and dragged me to safety and i think the people should just forget this and go on about things that really counts. host: next, walter, a retired military service members line

from butler, indiana. caller: thank you for taking my call. being in the next military, a caller made a perfect analogy a couple of calls back about the cohesiveness of the military units that is so different from public life. we should not try to use an experiment, a social experiment in the military. the military has completely different worlds and a different mission. we are soldiers ready to kill. you have to be completely cohesive. you have to feel part of a team. you have to be a unit. it would be an absolute disaster for open home of such quality, which is against god's creation, against god's law first of all, an abomination. would you realize -- what happens if the drill sergeant and of making one of the cadets or so is the extra pushups or run an extra mile two and taken turn around and complain it is because he knows i am gay and he is punishing me, it will be all sorts of court-martialed and trials. i'm going to operates up and down the streets with their gay,

sexual friends can see to the question of it is disgusting. when is this aside going to get right? if you don't get right -- homosexuality is against god's law and if it was not, then would be able to propagate with men and women with women. we need to get back to reality. host: let us look at "the new york times." looking at the cost of (don't ask, don't tell." many gay men and lesbians are serving honorably and effectively in the military today, despite the policy that led to more than 13,000 discharges including those of much needed arabic translators. they talk about that yesterday and they said that is a place where numerous people have left the military because of "don't ask, don't tell" policy. valerie, active member, fort meade, maryland.

are you with us? let's go on to michael who is active military in fort meade. caller: hello? host: welcome. caller: hi, how're you. i'm in an active unit that is non-combat and we actually have several members of our unit that are gay, and while they are not out of officially, i think any units, what you are come back or not, you tend to get to know people very well and we all know each other's spouses and partners. and while it is not offical, nobody has a problem with it. if they have a personal problem with it, it has never become an issue. and i have been active duty for nine years. i personally think it should be repealed because what i see is the people that are gay that are in situations when, say, we have

a unit holiday party or something like that and they are not allowed to bring their significant other and they always show up as though they are single and yet they are 42 years old and a senior member of the military, that creates a large amount of strife for them and it winds up affecting their work in a negative way. if they were able to openly serve, i think for everybody on a personal level it would make their lives easier and it would translate to a more efficient workspace. host: let us take a look at how other countries have dealt with this issue. 24 countries allow open to a military service. it comes from the service member's legal defense network. paul, retired member, oakland, california. caller: i was in the israeli

defense forces in the 1980's, active duty, that -- combat, both as a private and later in the officer. this idea of separating between gay people and straight people is absurd. it comes from the old testament which also says it is and abomination to wear clothes of -- an abomination to wear clothes of mixed fiber. i happen to be straight, with gay soldiers openly, it is perfectly safe and you can have a shower with them. in the 1970's and 1980's, a blue ribbon panel of senators came to israel and spoke to senior israeli officers who happened to be gay and came into his office,

tel aviv university and the end up spending time fighting with each other in his office. they did not discuss -- they came to discuss this question and the and not just standing in his office fighting with each other. it is absolutely absurd and ridiculous and it does not make any sense whatsoever. host: looking at dana milbank's colorado, he talks about one of the comments made by senator mark udall. host: let us go to retired military member, john -- kentucky? caller: raccoon, ky.

good morning. we are a nation under god -- sell most of us have that feeling -- so most of us have that feeling it is wrong. i am not going to sit there cast the first and did you do what you want to do. that is no problem. to me, all you are going to do is break stuff up. i spent three tours in vietnam. i look at our senators up there, they are the ones that going to debate this and stuff and the handful that served in the military -- first, most of them have no clue, they have to get information from somewhere else. they use our tax money so they can fly around and justifies their job. but all is going to do to break stuff down. the young lieutenant -- he knew before he went to the united states army that that was the law. he knew that. now all of a sudden he wants to be righteous night -- righteous. my point is, i'm a teacher now and i have been retired for over 20 years and i tried to tell the

students, my question will be, who did you sleep with last night? look at their faces. i don't want to know. and it is none of the business to i slept with. if it is, don't ask, don't tell, i have no problem of them in the military. host: rick in our other callers line from yardley, pennsylvania. caller: you ask the gentleman earlier would he like to bring his wife and meet the other soldiers. i would like to say -- with your wife like you to then go back to the barracks and sleep with 100 women and shower in the women's barracks? that terrorism on a little further. thank you. host: answer all your calls. coming up next as representative john spratt, a democrat from arizona, who will be talking about president obama's budget. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the u.s. senate is not in session today. democratic senators are meeting at the newseum and will hear from president obama this morning. live coverage of his comments and their questions at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. we will continue coverage on the president's desk open -- fiscal year 2011 request. a hearing on the health and human services budget, requested to go of 3.9% in 2011. secretary kathleen sibelius will testify. live coverage at 3:30 p.m. eastern. on c-span2. on c-span3, secretary geithner

testifies in the budget law that 10:00 a.m. eastern. in the afternoon, and house armed services subcommittee will hear a report from the defense task force on sexual assault in military services, including some specific recommendations in the report. a hearing is live at 3:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. >> "in-depth" welcomes british historian and former adviser to margaret thatcher, paul johnson, author of over 40 books, his latest on winston churchill. join our three-hour conversation with phone calls from -- for paul johnson, live from london, sunday at noon eastern on book tv's "in-depth" on c-span2. >> for educators, c-span offers the new classroom.org. we redesigned the class -- the website with timely c-span videos for use in your classroom. you can find the most watched video clips, organized by

subject and topics. the latest and education news. plus the chance to connect with other c-span classroom teachers. sign up for the new c- spanclassroom.org. >> watch "washington journal" with comments and your calls live daily at 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> " washington journal" continues. host: congressman john spratt joins us, democrat from south carolina and budget committee chairman. let's talk about jobs. where the jobs in the president's budget? guest: of the president is proposing $100 billion this year in supplemental to support a number of job programs, first and foremost, to extend unemployment benefits. that is the very least we can do. and coupled that with cobra benefits, that is to say, the government pays two-thirds of the cost of doing and keeping

the group insurance that the unemployed worker once had. that is the key piece of this particular budget. the other thing is stimulus, trying to pump up the lagging economy through infrastructure investments. it had not yet defined what it was going to be because the house passed a jobs bill, $154 billion. but the president is renewing a call for at least $100 billion this fiscal year. host: how do you think it will affect this district? guest: i have hired a national average unemployment. in particular we need the extension of unemployment benefits and the cobra that goes along with it. so it is very important to my district where unemployment is high, even higher than the national average. in the county where i live, we are in the metropolitan area of charlotte, which has been a job

generator for years and years and now we see double-digit unemployment and all counties in that area and south carolina. host: we have a breakdown agency by agency and "the washington post" that looks at various departments and how they fare in the budget proposal. some departments taking hits and others getting a boost. how you feel about the energy department's budget? it also looks like fta will get a 6% jump in its total budget, and also funding for defense. guest: the president draws a distinction of what we are doing to support the economy now and what we are going to lay the foundation for future growth. clean energy, energy independence are two key things for future growth. he is also saying he can't because we recession stop doing what we are doing in this critical levels, we have to fund a minimal level. so the budget gives a substantial sum of money to the office of research and development and energy, national

science foundation, national bureau of senators. a lot of money there that will have some impact on the economy, but the hope is that it will affect research and develop and far in the future. host: critics have complained that not enough is being done to tighten the belt and that it is a critical time in our economic picture to do deficit reduction. does the president do enough to work on the deficit? guest: of this particular budget does not do enough for me. i would like to see more deficit reduction in the 10-year span. but the president does put a cap on discretionary spending, non-defense discretionary spending. $250 billion. not an insignificant sum of money. then you should look to the bottom line of the budget. the deficit this year will be substantial, but bear in mind it was one trillion $300 billion the day he took office so there

is an increment but the budget takes the bottom line down from one trillion, 556 this year, two trillion, to 97 next year, and 828 the following year, 727 subsequent year end for 50 -- not bad progress. i would like to see more deficit reduction but i admit if we can achieve that it would be were the achievement. host: does the administration need to walk a tight rope between keeping the economy fed with money and jobs but also trying to rein in spending? guest: no question about it. a good way to put it. i think the president and his staff realized from the first to move the deficit down we have to move the economy of involves to some extent to be contradictory things. to stimulate and public the economy, it has an impact on the dollar amount of the deficit.

host: one of the things the president is looking at, tax cuts expiring for top earners. taxes on high-income earners will rise by nearly $1 trillion over the next 10 years under the budget plan put forth by the present. the bulk of that increase comes as tax cuts enacted under president george w. bush expires at the end of 2010. what you think about that? guest: they were designed to expire december 31, 2010. this is an easy decision. the president ran on the theme that they would be extended for most middle-income americans, but not for those making over $250,000. that saves a considerable sum of money in terms of revenues. i think some variation is likely to pass for that very reason. host: we are talking about the budget. you can join the conversation --

host: randy on the republicans line from perkins, oklahoma. caller: how are you doing? you know what? i believe tim geithner's is probably right when he says never let a good crisis go to waste. i believe that most politicians are in it for themselves. i don't believe they represent the people at all. because you've got everybody talking about minority this and minority that -- i believe the majority of the people in this country are in the minority when it comes to political games. i just don't believe that the government is out to do anything for this country except destroy it. guest: that is a pretty heavy condemnation. i don't tend to agree but that obviously. the president is trying to walk this tight wire between pumping

of the economies of a book people -- put people to work, and at the same time living. -- limiting expenditures on the bottom line. as substantial diminution of the deficit on the bottom line but that does not just happen as though we are on a glide path by default. it has to be done by a policy making, very extensive policy- making. the president is trying to do more for education, keeping one eye on the budget, what the budget does for the future and that the same time trying to limit the deficit. the idea that the budget unfortunately is a larger number -- i would like to see something done. that is what the president proposes a commission to make serious recommendations, we would hope bipartisan recommendations, to handle the deficit problem. host: wayne on the democrats'

line from fort wayne. caller: i have been a logger for 45 years, and let me tell you, fort bragg california coast has been in recession, and oregon and actual washington, a lot of loggers are just lucky we have extended unemployment. we have a place called jackson state forest, state owned. 50,000 acres. there's 9 billion -- 17 people, three-quarters of them are environmentalists, saying they are trying to save the forest and what they should do, they should get back into exports and help the loggers out but a state has a lot you cannot export state timber.

but the thing is, it would create a lot of jobs. the forest is real healthy, it loves to be logged, it has been logged since 1852 and they would rather see it byrne -- byrne or just shut it down and let it rot. guest: clearly the solutions we devise have to be sector by sector, different things for different sectors. you are talking to someone who comes from a timber growing region and i understand how it affects the economy. but that is one piece of the economy that needs attention, as you acknowledge, and i appreciate you acknowledging it, without extended unemployment benefit, loggers would be hurting badly and one of the things we have to do in the forthcoming months is passed extension of unemployment benefits. host: how things looking in your committee as far as

receptiveness to the president's budget and where the vote might come down? guest: it will be a hard, tough road because there are some tax increases and spending cuts. it will offend different factions. for instance, if you go out to the concession to the oil and gas industry, southwest, you will have members who say we are from the oil patch and we cannot agree with that and it will take some negotiations to bring them back into the fold. host: tulsa, oklahoma, larry is on the independent line. caller: the morning, rep. it is good to talk to you. -- good morning, rep. for one thing that is forgotten and not brought up very much is when president clinton was president, and he balanced the budget, the republicans were in charge of the house and the last two years of the bush administration, the democrats

were in charge of the house, so i would like to see everybody work in a more bipartisan way and get rid of a lot of this rancorous attitude and try to work this thing out for us. thank you very much for your service. guest: thank you for calling in. keep in mind, that was the purpose of the bipartisan commission. some what -- would save -- we would say decisions are so tough, the long run decisions are so difficult we need to have bipartisan accord in undertaking them. in any event, the commission's job would be to look down the road, not just five years but 10, 15, 20 years, to make recommendations for the future solvency. host: representative john spratt host the budget committee and you were part of the balanced budget agreement back

in 1997. guest: we got together in the beginning of the session, first in polls just took the job as chief of staff of the president -- ersten bowles. i said i ran on the platform we would finish the job. he agreed that he had come back for that reason also appeared the president agreed. and i think it is a key point -- what made those of the -- negotiations in 1997 work was that the leadership in both parties support what we were doing and the white house fully supported it. whenever that without having frank raines from omb and bob rubin's from treasury -- so we knew the president was supporting what we were doing. we put together the balance the budget agreement in 1997 and the

following year for the first time in 30 years the budget was in balance. when mr. bush came to office we handed him a budget that was $236 billion in the black, surplus of that amount, the year before it came to office and within four years the deficit was $412 billion. host: what can you take on the work he did in 1997? what can you apply to right now? guest: you've got to have a bipartisan effort to make the tough decisions. number two, there has to be, the accord because you're going to have to bring to the four the package. so you've got to -- you cannot simply shut the doors and come up with some agreement in closed session and then a poppe on your membership. you've got to bring them along with you step-by-step. host: mark on the republicans line from canton, ohio. caller: i guess one of the other

things have to do is not have a budget with 9000 earmarks attached to a stimulus package, but also the reason why i called, you know, in 1979 the department of energy was created to get us off of foreign oil and $25 billion plus a year later, 30 years later, we are more dependent on foreign oil than ever. when do we get to judge you guys on your results? not just your good intentions. thanks. .

if you've looked through the budget from department to department, you will find in almost every category, clean energy, energy research and development, and alternative energy. host: politico has a story talking about republicans and democrats considering themselves as fiscal hawks. criticizing the budget while maintaining earmarked for their jurisdiction. guest: if they have something that they want beyond what the president is doing, please put

your consideration on the table. in addition to that, i would like to see something in the out-years. beyond that, it begins an upward trend. in 2019, 2020, we would to some problems. we cannot have that. host: dave on the democratic line. baltimore, maryland. caller: good morning, everyone. listening to the last caller, if you do not like what you see, vote. it seems to me the budget has something for everybody to agree and disagree on. however, with the president on

the bully pulpit, congressman, i know that you can pass this and house. but in the senate, you have people from purple state just going against the president. that said, republicans are voting down to not support -- the line to not support pay-go. in political terms, do we have the muscle, the will to get this through? it does not seem to me that we are going to be able to pass anything. thank you for your time. guest: the pay go bill bears some explanation. back in the 1990's when we were

trying to get a grip on the deficit, we made a number of changes. there were some who said cynically, we are just avoiding the hard decisions through changes in the budget process. one of them was the pay as you coble which basically said, -- go rule, which said, if you want to have new entitlements, you have to be able to pay for it. either through new revenues or by cutting another entitlement. there was a fair amount of cynicism back then, but it worked and help us bring the balance to the budget by 1989. by 2002, those rules expired. the bush administration allowed them to expire because it is impeded their ability to cut

taxes. the rule said that if you cut taxes, you have to find other things to offset the revenue. we are now renewing the pinko will by making its statutory. -- pay-go rule by making it statutory. now the senate and house will be casting their votes, and we should be closing this next week. it is a small step in the right direction. it helped us before, and it can help us again. host: fayetteville, north carolina. caller: hello. i think you may have misspoke earlier. you said that president obama

inherited a $1.30 trillion deficit but it is closer to $800 billion. in 10 years, he is said to triple it. you people have lost touch with the american people. guest: on january 7, 2009, the congressional budget office submitted to the congress a report which it gives the congress every year prior to the budget season reporting of the economic and budget of look for the forthcoming year. a few weeks before the president took office, cbo found a deficit in herod in those policies of $1.30 trillion for the year 2009, and another $8

trillion over the 10-year period. so there was a substantial deficit in the works, embedded in the budget, even before the president was able to make his recommendations. we did add to it. given the dire situation of the economy, the recognition that we could not bring the economy back up without fighting the deficit , the president opposed the stimulus bill, recovery act which has taken a toll on the budget, and will continue to do so as it plays out. the total amount is $787 billion, but when the president came to office, the economy was

shrinking. nothe economy was shrinking at a rate of 5.7%. this previous quarter, one year later, the economy is growing by the same amount. that is quite a change. host: thomas. republican line. oil city, pennsylvania. caller: i know the president says there is to be no pay raise for those making over $250,000. i make about $50,000. in the last year, i have saved in dividend payments. i wonder if that is going to continue under the new plan.

is that going to be wiped out? thank you. guest: i hope that you can get it again because the economy is beginning to move forward again. we would like to see this growth sustained, but the good news is we have had two quarters with a positive movement. there could be a double dip, we could fall back again because of commercial real estate, foreclosures and things like that. that still need to be corrected but the economy looks far better. host: an op-ed in the "wall street journal" --

reductions in the budget? caller: the president went down to the departments where there will be a cut they look for places where they could make simple, reasonable cuts, particularly, in places where they were not warranted. host: and comment on twitter -- a comment on twitter -- guest: i do not think the foresman wages will be affected. host: we have this from the "washington post" talking about

how it would get 4% more of the total budget. talk about the aims and what this money could achieve. guest: there is a lot of money in homeland security. what we are doing is more support. there is a small increase in homeland security. it is one of the programs singled out that is above the freeze level. i have seen a lot of different numbers, so it depends on what is included. but there is an increase over and above the freeze, and there should be. host: next phone call.

thomas on the democrat line. caller: why is it that the republicans and democrats go up there and act like kids? i have had been watching this. the night the president spoke, after the president said, it did not matter what he said, the republicans did not want to do anything with it. they looked like a bunch of kids. it is my way or we are not going to play. it is disgusting watching what is going on. i am retired, disabled.

that is about all i have time to do. guest: the things that are discussed in the congress go to how we live in the country. education for our work children, health care for our people. these are things that people have become very passionate about, and sometimes stubborn. it should not be a surprise that we see these kinds of statements that you are talking about. if it comes across as being childish, it should not. it is more fervor than anything. the republicans have a fair point to make. it makes for a lively debate. the one thing i would say is the

framers, founders of the country did not make the constitution easy to legislate. and they wanted us to fight and work over legislation passionately, said that when we came up with new rules, they would be good. having this vigorous debate is good because when we put something through, it will have gotten the right scrutiny. host: the pentagon would be getting a boost in its regular discretionary budget as well as extra money for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. guest: that is right. currently, we are spending quite a lot of money there. we had hoped that the savings

from iraq would be seen in afghanistan. that has not yet been seen. the total amount for defense is well over $700 billion next year when you include the supplemental for afghanistan and pakistan. it is a substantial amount of money. and they still exercise judgment, over what is needed for the purpose, but there is no arbitrary freeze. the amount provided for iran, afghanistan, pakistan next year will be about $160 billion. host: carry from rome, georgia.

caller: i am a frustrated independent voter. this budget is a travesty. but what really concerns me is the out-year budget that continues to show trillion dollar deficits. that is beyond responsibility. pedro -- pay-go is a joke. bringing this budget back to quarter is just passing the puck to all of you. i would expect the president to come forward belting the budget, not pass it off to some committee. it is beyond me how you can stay in office. when it comes to results, there is no difference between a democrat and republican. neither one of you are doing the

job. guest: if this plan is applied, it takes the deficit from $1.30 trillion to $727 billion in the four fiscal years. in the second five years of the 10-year production, there is an uptick, increase in the out years of 2020. i do not like that. the administration is affectively been saying, some decision need to be made to achieve that result, and we believe those decisions can be made in a bipartisan commission. we had a deficit reduction committee in 1997. but the budget principles got together and the administration went through the budget and put together the agreement that they had in 1997 which cleared the

ballots for the first time with bipartisan support. we can do that again. it will not be achieved unless we have a concerted effort. host: "the wall street journal" opinion column -- guest: the program would go to $5,500 this year or next year. what we have done in this administration is take the student loan program which was

largely made by third parties in the past, and make a direct loan program. the department of education will be making direct loans. how much is hard to say. it will be in the billions, and that will be used to pay for pell grants. host: what is your idea of this column shifting, taking into an image from one area in moving them to another? guest: we should not be doing it. it seems to be something that needs to be appropriated every year. something has a purpose to

serve, so you make it happen. host: peggy on the republican line. winston-salem, north carolina. caller: i would like to ask a question and then make a comment. did you get your automatic cost- of-living increase on january 1? guest: i will be voting not to have a salary increase. caller: i never saw you bring in up. i am retired and on social security and we did not get one. amen to the previous caller. how much are we paying all of you clowns, $200,000 a year?

you have no common sense at all. if i ran my house like you do, i would have been in the poorhouse a long time ago. host: you have been chairman of negotiations in the budget talks for awhile. it s the tone different now? >> the ton -- guest: the tone is angry. constituents are looking for someone to blame. who made the bad loans which caused the bailouts that we have had in the past couple of years? who did this, who did that? it must be the congress. health care is a good in the temple. we tried to put the health care package together to pay for it

in similar levels. -- health care is a good example. having health care is a key part of financial security. host: bob on the democratic line. caller: 9 and a frustrated democrats. when the president took over, unemployment was 3.5%. -- i am a frustrated democrat. when we passed the stimulus, they said it would not go above 8%. they gave all this money to the motor companies, banks, to the auto industry. it seems like you are still out of touch with the people. we have unemployed people.

all of you on the hill, you are talking about this freeze which represents only 17% of the budget. guest: well, it does have an effect and we will be saving $250 billion over 10 years. in the quarter before president obama took the oath of office, the last quarter of 2008, the economy last 623,000 jobs on average per month. in january 2009, when the president of the oath of office, job losses in that month alone was 719,000. within 27 days, the administration put together a set of recommendations for a recovery bill. it has had a good effect.

cyclical effects have also brought us back around, but the recovery act help ued us get the unemployment rate under control. we are still not where we want to be, still not good enough, we want that job generation, but this is positive progress. the recovery act needs to be given some credit for doing this. host: in "usa today" looking at the race vacated by president obama. they talk about the anti- establishment movement.

obama tries to win back independents. also, sarah palin will rally for tea party activists in harry reid's home town. she also has an op-ed about why she is speaking at those conventions. what is all of this telling you as a democrat? guest: we are coming out of the worst recession since the great depression. unemployment is higher than it has been in years. we are seeing failures of institutions we took for granted. citibank may have been on its knees if not for federal intervention. the mighty gm.

the impact on the people is that more and more people are losing their jobs and they wonder, why can these people in washington get their things together? we understand that. but the truth is this is a tough recession. it has been difficult to turn around. jobs lag recovery. as people begin to go back to work, i think that it too will soften somewhat, but we will look back at what got us into the problems that we have now. host: ken on the independent line. north carolina. caller: mr. sprat,t, you have an

idea of how angry we are. one quick comment and a question. you mentioned the 6% increase in the homeland security budget -- guest: i am not quite sure what percentage is, but it is above a freeze. caller: ok, but you said it was small. i understand there was a 100% increase in the epa. there was a large part of the education department. al qaeda was threatening us with an imminent attack. i have so many representatives that i have called through the years. we are an oil-based economy.

it has driven up the price of groceries. it has damaged airlines, the automotive industry. oil was at $147 when the recession hit. a lot of leverage in was because of oil. if you do not see the wisdom of opening up anwar, offshore, it should be an emergency meeting from congress to say it is more important for us to bring down the price of oil. in your own words, to bring the economy up, we have to bring the cost of living down. host: i think we have your point. guest: look through the budget. you will see more money than

ever for alternative energy, research and development, conservation. all of this needs to be part of our energy independence. this budget really makes it a priority for the first time. host: he was not quite correct in his epa numbers. guest: i do not know exactly what it is but it is not even close to 100%. in fact, their funding may have even been cut. host: oil taxes, are you concerned about that? guest: most of these concessions were granted to the oil industry a long time ago. there can be a debate about whether or not they are still needed.

host: eugene on the republican line. caller: everything i am hearing has to do with the budget. i had a question. when, if ever, it is the budget going to be balanced? -- ever, is the budget going to be balanced? guest: one of the problems i had with this budget is it does find in the first five years, but in the out years, the deficit goes back up again. we need a concerted second effort. what the administration said was, in order to get ourselves in a long run solvent to tuition, particularly with medicare, medicaid, social

security, we need a bipartisan commission. it may not work. it depends on who is in the commission and it depends on the receptivity of both houses. this is a right step to formulating the type of budget actions we need to take to put the budget in balance for the first time in 20 years. i was a member of the 1997 group that balanced the budget. before i leave, i would like to do the same thing. host: thank you so much for being us -- being with us. you have been in congress since 1982. coming up next, we continue our discussion about the budget. we will be speaking with stephen more from the "wall street journal." in just a few minutes, we will hear from -- randi weingarten

from the american federation of teachers. >> the u.s. senate is not in session today. senators are meeting at the newseum. they will be hearing from the president this morning as well. we continue coverage of the president's fiscal year 2011 budget request today. the senate finance committee holds a hearing on the health and human services budget which is requested to go up 3.9%.

secretary kathleen sebelius will testify. live coverage at 3:00 eastern. a budget hearing on c-span 3. timothy geithner testifies on the budget, tax, medicare proposals. in the afternoon, the house armed services subcommittee will hear a report from the defense task force on sexual assault and military services. that hearing is live at 3:00 eastern. >> we know his starkly markets often do not work but we forgot. >> joseph tickets on the economic collapse and the effect on the global economy. >> now for educators, c-span offers the new classroom at c- span.org.

the most timely information and videos for your classroom. they will be organized by subjects and topics. it is all free. sign up at the new c-span classroom at c-span.org. host:-- it is great to be here. talk about the president's budget. guest: we have to look at this through the lens of everything that was cut. we are appreciative education was not caught in the budget -- cut in the budget. ultimately, you cannot invest in the economy if you do not invest in education. we saw that with the recovery

act in terms of the amount spent to avert these draconian cuts. having said that, i am concerned about the cuts in the safety net which affect kids. we want to make sure that those dollars actually flow into classrooms. a lot of those new dollars our competitive grants. kids, particularly disadvantaged kids, should not have to rely on how well someone writes a grant to get a good education. title 1, the program that has been around since the johnson administration, needs to go up with the rate of inflation. we are going to work with the administration. we had in the past.

we have great respect for secretary duncan. ultimately, we are going to try to turn that around. in the president's budget as well is signals of how to reauthorize the elementary and secondary act which used to be called no child left behind. everyone is now moving away from that title. host: let us take a look at comments that secretary duncan made. >> it includes a $3 billion increase in programs. it also signals the president's commitment to redesign accountability systems created by nclb to help students get ready for college and worked. the president is committed to strengthening the accountability system, and it will be based on

closing the achievement gap. today, far too many state standards are too low and there is not enough incentive to raise. nclb does little to grow more progress. we want accountability reforms that factor into the growth, progress, closing an achievement gaps. host: what was your reaction to those comments? guest: all of that sounds great. we cannot have this stagnant and you by 2014 all schools are going to be proficient. that does not work. the notion of making kids' college and wife ready is crucial. the issue is, how can we make that not just about accountability, sticks -- which

is what happened under the bush administration -- and how do we make this into building blocks where kids can succeed? when you boil in our field, and you think about it from the classroom level, what you spend a lot of time thinking about is, how do we help teachers teach? how do we strengthen the connection between teachers and students so that what they are teaching is what students are learning? programs and resources are as important as accountability, which is crucial, but accountability needs not just the top to bottom, but bottom to top. host: you said it is important to deal with ineffective teachers. guest: maybe it is because i have been a union activist for a

long time, but unions are how we help people. it is about giving opportunity. it is not about protecting the status quo, keeping things where they are. we have always fought to make life better for the middle- class. we always believe education and they could chop is the way of poverty. the issue becomes, how do we do that? let's try the things we have to work on. that is creating a robust, different kind of teacher evaluation system. most of the time this is what happens. teachers go into schools -- we used to tease. they are thrown the keys and someone says, go do it.

and evaluations are basically a printable coming in once a year, maybe twice a year for 15 minutes. that is not going to help kids learn. what we propose it iis, let's ry promote good teacher practice, look at student learning and replicate what is working, abandoning what is not. in fact, many local schools wanted to try this. if we can get other districts to try this, so that we can create a system of development and evaluation, that will really help us to improve. host: you talked about the way that teachers could be judged. we all know looking at test scores. how would you like to see that changed? guest: we know that student

learning has to be part of teacher evaluation. the issue becomes, how do we do in a fair way, how do we do it in a way that tease if an teacher has -- do it in a way that sees is a teacher had a good effect on the towel? do they have the care that they need? everything that contributes to their learning. we said, let's look at future practice in an evaluation. let's also look at different ways to measure student learning, including test scores, but not compared one group of kids to another group. look at the students throughout the school year.

but also, do those things we have to do to level the playing field for poor kids. a child who cannot see, who is disadvantaged, who does not have a nutritious breakfast is not going to have the same opportunity to learn as a child who does. host: the politico is reporting that center -- secretary duncan had a breakthrough. the process for getting rid of non-performers is cumbersome and teachers want to come to the table to find a solution. why is this such a change? guest: i think we have an opportunity right now to change the conversation. we have been saying this for awhile. in new york city, we want these

measures to be fair. teachers want to teach with other teachers who are effective. they want to help children. we have to find ways that are fair and fast, not glacial. we recognize that and said, let's step up to do that. we asked kenneth feinberg to do that. we cannot do it alone. just as teachers cannot change a generation of students alone, we need the help of labor and management. host: sam on the democratic line. caller: good morning. this is near and dear to my heart. both of my son and daughters are in st. mary's county.

some of the the schools there are considered failing. there are a lot of poverty issues here. there are some kids who have a lot of money but there are a lot of kids who depend on the schools to keep them going. with this program of the end of the winning teachers -- my son is in eighth grade history teacher, my daughter is a resources teacher. these kids are coming in and they cannot read. but the teachers are saying that they need to be evaluated on their progress. when they are passed along from elementary school and cannot read -- if he can read the test to the children, they do ok, but if they have to read it, it is more likely that they will do poorly.

this evaluation of teachers is very shortsighted. guest: you are right, we build on what each other does. what we see a lot -- i was a high-school teacher for many years. we championed the end of social promotions. we know that kids are not served by being promoted if they do not know their stuff. this is part of the reason why teachers always talk about how we do not want to have ineffective teachers with us. ultimately, the union has tried to figure fell ways to help teachers teach. we have also tried to campaign ideas of the cola increases so that kids can have a nutritious

practices, after-school activities. this is why we are trying to make this a carefully practiced program. student learning needs to be a part of it, but it cannot be done in the ways that we are doing it now -- a snapshot, once a year, three-hour test that serves as the verdict for the student and teacher. host: todd on the republican line. minnesota. caller: from what i see, there needs to be a restructuring of the priorities of what is taught in what grade. i would be satisfied if our kids could graduate from third or fourth grade, never mind being smarter than a fifth grader.

you talk about a foundation. that seems to be a good place to start before 1 tackles the idea of -- one tackles the idea of political responsibility, which they may get in junior high. guest: this is what makes the work we do as teachers so difficult. we have to help all kids get a well-rounded education. you will have to excuse me for the fact that i always focus on disadvantaged kids. if we lift up those who are most disadvantaged, we will not only help the country, but we will really make opportunity real in america. in cities, rural areas, we have to ignite the spark of learning. that is done through music,

art, physical fitness. in my field, social studies, civic responsibility -- you are right, kids need english, mathematics. reading is the foundation for everything else, but we have to have kids have that well-rounded education. host: randi weingarten is with the american federation of teachers. you are coming at this from a wide range of engels. -- angles. guest: what is interesting about all the people we represent, other than their amazing dedication to serving people -- and i have been in 50 different

places since i have become president. from montana to st. louis, to california, oregon, to my home in new york, you see this amazing dedication to making a difference. host: darrell on the independent line. florida. caller: good morning. my comment is about time of the development. -- childhood development. it seems to me most of the learning takes place when kids are a little. if parents spend more time teaching their kids to read at an early age, they would have a better shot. instead of throwing money at an issue, why not get some of the smartest, most proficient people in child development and see if

they cannot find holes in the ways that we are teaching? guest: you are onto a fantastic idea, and that is why many of us, the administration especially, has been pushing the idea of early education. we know from child development theory and practice, that kids are sponges when they are two, three years old. if we could create all day pre- kindergarten program that are of high quality, we will be helping tremendously. we also know in homes where you have a print-rich environment, where kids are read to, hear words, play with blocks, legos, they are better prepared for school. but we have to help parents.

parents are having a tough time these days. we are still getting help of the worst recession to the great depression. that is part of the reason we talk about having the government create these early childhood centers. host: kay on the democratic line. michigan. caller: i grew up in detroit. we had an excellent the education program. as a matter of fact, the head of neurosurgery at johns hopkins went to my public elementary school, middle school, and public high school. he then went on to harvard. what we need is parent involvement.

we need order in the classroom and we need teacher coordination. the third grade teacher knows what they will need in the fourth grade and so on. i think we need to have a mandatory orientation for parents, and this would begin from day one, all the way at least through elementary school, where they get their basics. they need to know what is expected of their children when they go to school. i hear about overcrowding in the house from -- classroom. there were at least 36 students in each of our classes. you could have two students, 32

students, but if there is no order and the teacher does not get respect, they will not be able to accomplish anything. guest: i have been saying this to everyone. all of them are showing just how tough education is, how many factors are involved. parental involvement really helps, but we have a responsibility whether we have parental engagement or not. when we had it, we know that schools will be better. but you are also right about the issue of order and responsibility. what we are trying to do in the teachers' union -- and i have to give a child out -- shout out to

the teachers' union in detroit. they did a lot of stuff to save the education system there in detroit. we need that kind of respect. that means everybody need to take more responsibility, and teachers and the unions are starting by throwing out the current evaluation system and focusing on creating better teachers. but we need other people's health, including parents, elected officials, including our administrators. host: a comment on twitter -- they suggest publishing the evaluation of parents. guest: the budget can be a factor. we need more money into schools and classrooms directly.

but we also need to make sure the accountability system is 360 degrees. when we have principles in control of budgets, and it is all about what the test scores may be, all about what looks good to central administration, we will see them hire one or two people just to do the record- keeping and inshore that they look good, instead of spending the money on services and teaching. host: oklahoma. marlon on the republican line. caller: how are you this morning? i had a two-part question. for k-6 students, do you think it would be helpful to have one hour a day to rehash the

information in order to make them more engaged, may be to increase their standardized test scores? the second part of my question would be, from seventh grade to high school, implementing a more vocational type of training for electricians, carpenters? as the curriculum and gets more difficult, it will make them more engaged in school as well as increasing them in terms of college readiness. guest: i am a big believer of careers in tech-ed, which is what we refer to as vocational services. when we had robust careers in tech-ed programs, kids did well. those schools did better than at other schools in new york, and

they went to college. exactly as you said, it was about engagement. if you actually learned about autowork, engineering, you can be gainfully employed. it became a point of engagement for them. frankly, things are different these days. look at west philadelphia. those kids are competing with the likes of the tesla motors to create racecars and the this group from mit. your first question is harder in the fact that we need a classroom. in order to advance learning, we have to make sure that kids are learning. but there are different ways to do that. one of the ways that we saw did

not work is if you have a bunch of. to put together on english or math. so we have to change instruction based on the kids. that is part of what makes our craft so tough. we have to differentiate instruction for each child to meet his or her needs. host: "the washington post" had an editorial that was critical. it references you and even as you -- guest: i was very disappointed with that editorial because they did not care about the facts.

i do not think washington should be in evidence-free zone. unions in new york tried to increase the number of charter schools in new york. the union they were most critical of, my local, we started a couple of a charter schools. we represent teachers in charter schools. the issue is, we want to make sure all schools are held to the same standards. they wanted to give charter schools preferential treatment, and that is not fair to the kids. if they have a lot to teach us, they should be taking more special needs kids. what they are doing is just the opposite. what these unions are doing is, we want there to be more charters, but we want to hold everyone to accountability.

not just give some preferential treatment. host: the issue is whether to lift the cap on state charter schools. guest: exactly. as i said, i am disappointed. "the washington post" should know better. if they know what they are doing, they should be helping more kids. why do parents who want a charter schools? they want that safety that one of your callers talked about, the small number of classrooms. if we want to help kids, let us learn from the best. .

caller: i teach my children and my great-grandchildren how to use the english language. the school but i am talking about, the children in the kindergarten could not rissole reached -- we cite their alphabet. they could sing it and a new all

different sorts of things. host: i wrote it down. what you just talked about in terms of what you do with your grandchildren is exactly what we would hope we would see throughout the country. guest: that work is crucial to us. what happens outside the classroom -- what happens inside the classroom has to be reinforced outside the classroom. we thank you for doing that. we would hope that we could figure out a way to promote that more often. host: democrat line, sparta, new jersey. caller: thank you for cspan. i grew up in new york city and the neighborhood i grew up and was composed of people who were

from eastern and central europe. they came in from the second world war and before it. one thing that impressed me was the attitude of my friends' parents who said that the one thing they could take with them when they left was their education. it was not degrees or diplomas but their education. that is one of the things that the parents have to impress on their kids in order to get a better educational system which is, the education is what important. it will carry you far. it may be the only thing you have left in the end. ok? but you very much. host: thank you. guest: when we talk these days about testing and we ask what kids have to know how to do, kids need to learn to the problem solvers and learn to do critical thinking. the world is much more

complicated and even when i grew up. that is why teachers fight so hard to have the running room to actually teach those skills, to teach on a day like today when the snow was falling or has fallen, some creativity about snow and seeing if we can fire the kids imagination and do a creative lesson about it. as opposed to thinking about what is the test and if we have covered everything. host: the obama administration hopes to tie teacher evaluations and how they perform with pay. is this a matter where the unions have to find a technique that they like? guest: in new york city, we

negotiated a performance plan that was school-based. there were new contract in new haven and detroit and philadelphia and they did the same thing. the issue about pay is that teachers deserve a decent pay. most of us tease about how we did not go into this profession to be rich but teachers want to make sure that their families do better than they do. they want to be part of the middle class. unions fight to have competitive pay. on top of that, there are all sorts of things we can do. some of us have focused on things like the school-based bonuses because what we think is really important is the collaborative environment in school. the research has shown that schools that really works are

the ones which are collaborative. bwthe clue is the labour- management relationship. let's marry the concept of collaboration and do something like school-based bonuses. in places that has been tried, we see more of a joint focus on the mission. host: there is still room to have prayed of lessons when teachers are being evaluated on test scores and performance? guest: all of this has to be done in the right way. what we have seen is that when there is too much focus on top- down accountability as opposed to how we help teachers teach, it does not work. "no child left behind"did so unimportant things. it created a spotlight on kids that we are not serving as well as we ought to.

that was very important. over the last eight years, we have not seen leaks and downs and schools. we need to do these things the right way. accountability is important top- down and bottom of. we have to give teachers who really care about what they are doing with kids. they went into teaching to make a difference and children who have to give them the tools they need to do a good job, not just simply give them the keys and tell them to do it. we need to make sure we change the systems and create continuous improvement in schools so that kids, all kids, not just some kids, can achieve. host: the republican line, pittman, new jersey. caller: my husband is a fifth grade teacher and his children's

scores are always where they should be. i get so tired of conservatives and progressives blaming the teachers first without mentioning the parents. this discussion has included the parents but you really have to discuss the parents and their role and their respect for the teacher and also then teaching their children to respect the teacher. i think that is really important. guest: we cannot do it alone. our job is to try and help all kids and create opportunities for children. teaching is really tough. in this environment right now where we have to actually make sure that kids are safe and secure and free from the stress that may be happening because of economic circumstances, it makes our job both more important and tougher. having said that, teachers want

to make a difference but as your caller just said, we cannot do it alone. teachers get really angry and upset when they are told that they do not care or they are blamed for something that they really want to do to help kids. host: let's go to the independent line in brooklyn, new york. caller: good morning to all of you. i have a comment and question. i know that most people are probably able to judge teachers as inspirational. i don't know if there is any way to teach teacher to be and -- inspirational but every student -- and a perceptive student knows who the good teachers were and that the teachers were. i don't know pouring money to the educational system has anything to do with making a

teacher good or bad. what is your opinion? guest: let me take it personally from my teaching experience. i was a far better teacher my third year than my first year. i may have had a lot of energy in my first year but i did not have the experience and the practice. this is our craft which is complicated and sophisticated because we are trying to -- it is not just about our love of kids which is very important but it is also about our knowledge of the content area and about our ability to transmit information, ask questions, differentiate instruction with kids. many of those skills we can learn of the course of time. the issue you are raising is to actually teaches. there are some schools where there is real joint participation in hiring

teachers. ñrbut the teachers' union and teachdo not hire the teachers. that is what we have been proposing is how to create an evaluation and development system so we can create a good and great teacher and help all teachers be inspiring, in -- confident, effective teachers that our kids need and want. host: the union was involved in looking at the health care proposal. you had a voice some concerns about one of the taxes on some of the high and plans. tell us about that. guest: getting health care reform is very critical. we're watching, as well what will happen, like your viewers,

now that the senate has a different change in composition. affordable quality health care is critical for americans and it is critical for the economy. our objection is that the excise tax that the senate seemed to want and the president seemed to what actually hurt the middle class. in many instances, when you actually looked at who it would impact, it was not about cadillac plans because a lot of high-cost plans are not high-and plans. even the monopolies that some of the insurance companies have liked in new hampshire, the current cost for public employees in new hampshire averages the family's $23,000. those are not cadillac plans. that is just because of the nature of who is in the plan,

the cost of it, the gender differences, there is a lot of insurance factors that go into why it is a high-cost plan. we wanted to try to figure out a way where we reduce the cost or keep insurance for those who play by the rules of portable. at the same time, as we try to increase access for those that don't host: democrats line, from fort worth, texas. caller: good morning. i would like to address management style. if you would take the clusters in a school, high-school, one high-school, five or six middle schools, and then seven or eight elementary schools -- and have the principal responsible for the high school principal for

the and the middle school, which means that high school principal would control the fate of the middle school principal in the middle school principals control the fate of the elementary school principal, you will have a lot more responsive system because i know what is necessary to get my kids through 1-6, 7-9, etc. if you change that model of management, you would have a better system. the second point is, we need to move away from giving teachers race is just based on degrees that are non-subject matter. a degree of education, as most people are fully aware, does not help to make a teacher a more effective teacher. it is subject matter content that will make that teacher more effective, thank you. guest: we can debate some of

these points. we will debate those when you and i are long gone. the issue is about subject matter and about transmission of information. you are saying that education can do a better job and i agree with you. 10 years ago, we put out a report about how they could do a better job, including how they should work with other parts of the university to reinforce the subject matter which is what you were saying, sir. i think that is an interesting point in terms of creating a different way of looking at k-12 education. i think you are saying that all this have to take more responsibility. we tried to say that in the speech i delivered at the national press club this week. we know about how to create great teachers and great

teaching. that is what we tried to do. you are right, other people have to take more responsibility and there has to be more of us with more accountability from principles and from systems instead of them simply deflecting responsibility to other schools. host: charlotte, north carolina, republican line. caller: have a question about the early education program that the administration is supporting. the issue i have and you can hear from the other callers is it is about what is happening in the home. to the students value education and up to do well? given all the problems of public education, whether it is critique for teachers or how to manage large groups and even helping the individual child in discovering learning

disabilities or getting them services they need -- is the solution pumping millions of dollars into an early education program where you bring in three-year olds into summer school. is that what we need to bring into the realm of public education? can we take that money unfunded toward educating parents and teaching parents how to help their children, how to raise children who value education? when you teach those skills, those parents and skills that the contest into their children and this is not something -- if we do this and the public education system, we're not teaching anything to those children who will be parents of one day except that they need to send their kids off to school as soon as possible. guest: i am talking about our experience and research. we know that if we invest $1 more in early childhood

education -- and there are complexities with it. it is more expensive because you need to have different kinds of facilities with kids who are that young. if you invest $1 more an early education, that means you reap $7 of that investment later on in terms of kids who are graduating from high school, kids who are going to college, kids who are not dropping out. there is something about helping kids early when their minds are being molded that is very, very important what i would do, frankly, is i would end up to that what the caller just said. i have talked haveco-locating services at a school. you might have parental programs or programs aimed at parenting and that kind of training on the weekends.

you have parents and teachers working together in terms of how we can strengthen what goes on in schools by what goes on at home. you can do literacy courses on the weekends in schools. opened the school doors in a way that works for the community by co-locating the services and then you can do both. you cannot force parents to do that but ultimately, if you create the service, i think a lot of parents would come. host: our guest host history at clara barton high school in new york. she is the president of the american federation of teachers and thank you for being with us. guest: you for being with us. host: coming up next, stephen moore, an editorial board member of "the washington journal."

>> u.s. senate is not meeting today. president obama will speak this morning. we will have live coverage of his comments and questions at 10:00 a.m. eastern, on c-span 2. we continue coverage of the president's fiscal year 2011 budget request today. the senate finance committee holds a hearing on the health and human services budget which is requested to go up 3.9% in 2011. secretary kathleen sebelius will testify. live coverage is at 3:30 p.m. eastern, on c-span to parry a budget hearing this more on c- span 3, treasury secretary tim geithner testifies on the budget on tax and medicare proposals,

live at 10:00 a.m., eastern. in the afternoon, the house armed services subcommittee will hear a report from the defense task force on sexual assault and the military services. that includes some specific recommendations and the report. that hearing is live at 3:00 p.m., eastern on cspan 3. "in depth" welcomes paul johnson, author of over 40 books, his latest i churchill. join our three-hour conversation, live from london, sunday at noon, eastern, on c- span 2. for educators, cspan offers the new cspanclassroom.org. we have the most current and timely videos for your classroom. you can watch video clips organ was by topics and subjects.

you also have a chance to connect with other cspan teachers and it is free. watch "washington journal" live daily from 7:00-10:00 a.m. eastern. host: stephen moore is an editorial board member of "the washington journal." talk about the budget and what are your concerns. guest: i have a concern that the vast majority of americans have that our budget has spiraled out of control and our debt is on an unsustainable path. we have spent over $2 trillion in new spending since the economic crisis began. it has not created jobs, it has only created massive indebtedness. i worry that a great nation has

to pay a bills -- its bills and we have not taken that pretty scary as number in this budget is that we're going to borrow $1.60 trillion dollars this year. over the next 10 years, by many projections, we will borrow $10 trillion. it is hard to see how america can retain its economic greatness with that kind of fiscal policy. host: what about the defense department spending in iraq and afghanistan? guest: the number one priority of the government is to keep us safe and to defend our national security. i am in favor of spending money on defense. i'm not in favor of wasting the money. there are ways that every bureau and agency and program in government can go through. do you remember the grace commission? we need people to go through every single agency and find the 10%-20% waste in government.

the defense department is probably the top priority but let's look at things -- you were just talking about education. i don't think education is a federal responsibility. we should let states and localities deal with education. host: should localities get federal grant money for that? guest: know, the federal government gets money from the states. the best thing the federal government can do to help states, 40 of the 50 states today aren't bankruptcy, the best thing they can do is to cut taxes and cut spending so the money never leaves the state. host: "the wall street journal"today -- it calls the budget one of the greatest spent while you can documents in american history. guest: spending as rapidly as

possible, build up the budget -- we have gone from 20% of gross national product devoted to spending up to 25%. if you increase your spending by 5 cents on an additional tax because of the obama spending spree, the problem is we will have to raise taxes by 5% of gdp through a national sales tax i am worried that we are on the path right now fiscally to look like europe. europe has been a disaster over the last 25 years. they have created very few jobs. we should not try to emulate europe and france and germany. we should try to maintain the american level which is low tax rates, keep government spending under control. that is what led to the great prosperity of the 1980's and 90's. host: we had the chairman of

the budget committee so let's look at those comments. guest: genuine risk, 2009, the congressional budget office which is neutral and non partisan submitted to the congress a report that it permits every year preliminary to the beginning of the budget season. it is a report on economic and budget outlook for the forthcoming year. taking policy as it existed, 2-3 weeks before the president had taken the oval office and projected over the next 10 years, the cbo found a deficit inherent in those policies of $1.30 trillion in the year 2009. there was $8 trillion over a 10- year period. this was before the first obama law was passed for there was a substantial deficit in the works. it was in the budget before the

president ever got to make his recommendations. host: how responsible was the bush administration? guest: there is some truth to that. there is no question that when president obama came into office, we had a very large deficit. first of all, the american people are getting tired of the obama administration continuing to blame all the problems on president bush. the president has been in office for one year and it is time for the democrats to take responsibility. the point that he did not mention is that it was a republican -- i am not here to defend the republicans because i think they screwed up -- the first thing the democrats did when it took for the presidency was to pass the $800 billion spending bill which we could not afford. that made the economic crisis worse and they passed the "cash for clunkers" they'll and they

passed the rescue plan for housing. we have had some of spending. look at this new budget. this is not a republican budget. wind is either party going to step up and say that we have to bring this down and get our taxes up so we can retain economic competitiveness. host: let's hear from our democrats line from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. caller: i wonder when stephen more was when dick cheney was saying that deficits don't matter. you guys lost your voice for the previous eight years and suddenly, when someone who has righted the world on its axis, has come to sit in the white house, all you do is criticize policies that have actually stopped the bleeding. this man has only been in office

one year. blenny on bush holds true because it took eight years -- blaming it on bush pollster because it took eight years to bring us to our knees and we now have a man who sits in office who has two wars on his hands and $8 trillion deficit that was handed to him on a platter, generated by republicans. you guys sit and criticize. you need to come on board. the policies are working. the last thing to come around, as obama said before anything he did kick into action, was that lag time always told to be true. hguest: i don't think the deficit is a major problem. the major problem is that we spent $2 trillion to put out the

fires of this recession and it has been for programs that have been extremely ineffective. a poll came out that found that 2/3 of americans think that half of the stimulus money was wasted. i think it was more than that. there is no evidence that the stimulus plan has created jobs. the reason is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. the federal government spends a dollar, it is not like it comes from the tooth fairy. that money has to come from somewhere. ," the private economy one way or another. all we have done with the spending bill is we have shifted spending away from productive private sector business purposes and businesses are the ones to hire people to ineffective government programs that have not worked to create jobs. i think the economy is on a better path now. we are at the beginning stages of a recovery.

i'm all that in 2010 we will see some pretty modest growth, 3% or 4%. the problem is we have a 15 million unemployed americans. i think those americans would not necessarily agree with this caller that the economy is on a wonderful path when we are not creating new jobs. host: "the wall street journal" how the budget breaks down in categories and looks at how the money would be spent and where the money would actually come from. you talked about your concerns about spending what about where the money comes from? guest: think the problem with the tax policy in the united states is that we cannot beat the global economic superpower. we cannot be the global generator of jobs as we were in the 1980's and 1990's it we have a tax code that is not competitive. the richest 1% of americans, the

evil whichrich, the topçó 1% pa% of the income tax. they pay more in federal income tax than the bottom 95%. i note that we have a tax system that is distributing the tax burden in an effective way

the republicans are not accepting their part for eight years of irresponsible spending, two wars, bringing not only america to its knees but the world. they need to get back up, start working with democrats, get this job done. health care? we need it. we have to have it. accept that. as far as the party of no goes, that is a party of no for america, not just politicians. guest: i think the republicans did exactly the right thing in 2009 in opposing these massive government spending programs we cannot afford. $800 billion was fiscally outrageous.

we bar that money from our children and a great money -- and a great country does not erode the future of their children. i believe the economy is getting better and i think we would be in better shape today if we had not spent all this money. if we had cut taxes instead of having these government programs, i think the economy would be in much better shape. we lost 11% of our gdp in this recession. that is very deep. we should be experiencing strong economic growth now. one reason we are not is because government is working against small businesses that create the jobs and opportunities in america. host: there's a story about conservative republicans as well as fiscal hawks who are democrats, citing the president for not scoring enough money way. away. they talk about your marks.

the republican from wyoming said the money had been promised to his state and others and it should not be withheld by the federal government to pay for new programs because something might be a ripe target. it is not fair for credit to say that he should be willing to see his home state ticket modest hit. guest: members of congress and the senate, regardless of what party they are in, will try to get money for their state and district. that is the reason why we need a president who speaks out for the national interest. he needs to veto these earmarked for the increase in your march over the last 15 years has been of state. we have seen a 10-fold increase. we're spending about 10 million -- $10 billion per year on these bicycle museums and research and skateboards and things like that that have no place in the federal budget.

i really wish that president barack obama had a line item veto where he could go through every budget and scratch out these programs that are so wasteful. americans are so angry about this budget and the fact we have lost control of our fiscal destiny. they want to see the spending cuts. they want to see the money not wasted. there was a article in the paper yesterday about the fact that there were 25 sec employees that have been spending hundreds of hours on porn sites while they are at work. they should be fired but you can't fire federal police. we need to make federal government as efficient as private business. right now, it is not. host: the tax cuts during a time of war put this into this mess in the first place. guest: in the book that i wrote this out now, we talk about how

important the tax rate reductions are to economic growth. the most important lesson we have learned over the last 30 years is how important it is to take tax rates low so small businesses can flores. we were talking about the richest 1%. there's a big problem with them paying. to tax them, two out of every three of those people are small- business owners and operators. that is where the jobs come from. those of the people who signed the front of the checks. i think we need to have tax rates as low as possible. i think there should be a flat tax. which to get the tax rate down to 18%. if you put in a flat tax, you will have more jobs than workers. host: are there times when more taxes need to be instituted? guest: there is no question we need tax to fund the level of

government we need. there's not a break -- a big problem of running a deficit of 2% or 3%. right now, we're a 10% or 12%. if you look at the federal budget, by 2019, we will spend more money on interest on the debt, just the interest than we pay for our entire national defense. that is crazy. host: chico, california, republican line. welcome. talk to us. caller: i am here. the last caller said that the last administration was responsible for this. unemployment was 4.9%.

gas was $1.49 per gallon. when the democrats took over power, we have gone downhill ever since. guest: one thing that people for get and i am not here to say that democrats are bad and republicans are good because i think the fiscal policy is a result of both parties. the both lost control of the spending. democrat calls are right in that we spent too much money on every program in the bush administration and that continued at a faster magnitude under the democrats. people forget that nancy pelosi is the speaker and has been for three years for the democrats did not take control of 2008, they took control in 2006. ever since she has been speaker, the budget deficit has been $200 billion up to $1.60 trillion. she said we would get the

deficit under control host. host: let's go to the democrats' line in highland park, illinois. caller: good morning. guest: i am from winnetka, ill., not to for a car from where you are from. caller: i am a proponent of the national sales tax with a concomitant increase in the sales tax. i'm a proponent because i think it would bring in people who cheat on their income tax into the fold. guest: yes. caller: illegal businesses and such and what your opinion on that. guest: by law of that idea. if we want to be economically number one, we have to have a tax system that taxes people on what they take out of the economy, not what they put in. the problem with our income tax

on the corporate and personal level is that the tax people on risk-taking, investment, savings, hard work. if we were to move toward a model like you are suggesting where we abolished our personal income tax and put in place a national sales tax, it is like you pay national sales tax in illinois or other states, it would have a profoundly positive impact. you would see some of jobs created in this country. if the united states did not have an income tax, you would see money from all over the globe flowing into manufacturing and factories. we are raising taxes on our businesses and that is a way to create jobs in india and china and not in the united states. caller: chicago, illinois, independent line. caller: i agree with you completely. ??i think we need to abolish education, the epa, what are your views on cutting spending

with the insane amount of troops would have all over the globe like japan, germany, australia? japan was on an uprising but i think you can cut considerable spending and abolish the income tax altogether guest: i am not an expert on national defense but the caller is right, we still have troops in korea, troops in europe, troops in areas where we probably don't need them. i think we could cut spending in the defense budget while still maintaining our national security and making sure that we win these wars and i reckon afghanistan. -- iraq and afghanistan. people forget that bush took over in 2001 when we had an economic crisis, when the high- tech bubble burst and the nasdaq went from 5000 to 1500 produce surpluses of the 1990's were

going away. people also forget that we were hit by 9/11. the most important thing for america -- one, we have to reduce the national debt and the second thing is to make sure that we win the war against terrorism. that will be expensive to do. that is one reason why the deficit went up in its first six years host: orlando, fla., on our independent line. caller: i agree 1 harter% on what you are saying. -- one & on what you are saying -- 100% on what you are saying. i am in construction and we are at the bottom right here in florida.

when you think of everything that goes into building a house , unemployment is so much higher than what they're talking about, is not funny. it is ridiculous. all that you unemployment is closer to 50% rather than 10%. guest: i hear that a lot. i am on the road a lot and there is some truth to what this gentleman is saying. if you looked at people who are either discouraged workers were not looking for jobs for workers that don't exist for people who cannot find full-time jobs -- there are many people who are counted as employees but they don't have a full-time job. it is hard to pay your bills when you were only working part- time. if you look to the actual statistics that the labor department looks that, they calculate the unemployment rate when you count all these people that cannot find a full-time job and that is closer to 17%.

i recently put an ad in the paper for someone to do some house work for us. we have 350 people responded to that head. does amazing how many people cannot find jobs. i think the jobs picture is improving. i think we will see a gradual reduction in unemployment this year. i think we have hit the bottom. i think the picture will improve. host: what is inspiring that tax guest: just the natural animal spirit of recovery. you are starting to see that we have at the bottom of the housing market. the point is, i think 2010 will be a good year but 2011 really worries me because the president is talking about raising the capital gains tax, raising the dividend tax, raising the tax rate and that will have a negative affect on the economy. host: our next caller is from fort worth, texas, democrats line.

caller:x am recovering from throat cancer. i am retired military. i was in the special forces with three tours of vietnam. i love to listen to people like you and your call is from california who blame everything on the democrats. the democrats were in charge of nothing. they have one vote in the senate. the stillborn in congress. -- they still had one vote in congress. the first bill the george bush ever introduced was an increase on health insurance for young people.

if the american people want to go back eight years, don't buy this bull. set their -- don't sit there and hate stuff. guest: i was having a problem hearing this but i think the city served in vietnam. i want to say that i thank you for your service and your service to our country and those fighting in iraq and afghanistan, they are great american heroes. there is no question that republicans a share the blame for these deficits and for our out of control fiscal policy. both parties have really miss represented us. they have not regarded the constitution. that is the reason why we are in this fix.

it will take potentially generations to pay off this debt. i say let's get started now. the problem i have with the president's budget is that he says we will do all these cuts and get the fiscal house in order and that will happen next year. why don't we start right now? i have a concrete suggestion -- there is $500 billion of that fiscal stimulus bill that did not create a single job that has not been spent. let's not spend it. let's use that money to cut tax rates or to help the death. host: the recovery access it has created jobs. guest: there has never been an example of american history where government spending created jobs. i care how many of the president's followers says jobs are created. the president said we create the stimulus plan and spend $800 billion. we have an autumn crop -- we had

an unemployment rate of less than 8%. the unemployment rate went up. no matter how you edit the math, there were no net job greeted by the system. when the government spends money, it hurts the economy, it does not help the economy. host: the independent line is next. caller: we frequently hear about this stephen more talking about corporate tax. there are countries like germany and others that have higher taxes than we do and they export more than us even though they are smaller countries. my fourth -- my first point is, if you want smaller corporate taxes to compare with foreign countries, is he also prepared to implement the type of tax structure of the foreign countries? the second point i want to make

this your sarcastic, that we do not want to be like europe. if we look at the oil industry which used to be totally american, two out of the top three companies in america now are european. if we look at the pharmaceutical industries which used to be totally american, five out of the top six companies in the world are european. if we look to the aircraft industry, not too many years ago was 100% american and now most of these companies are european. why is it that he does not want to be like the europeans? guest: if you look over the last 30 years, there is no question that the country -- the u.s. has grown at a faster rate than europe. the united states over the last 30 years has created about 45 million new jobs. over that same time period, europe was only created 40 million jobs and they have a larger population. we need to move away from europe model per they spend more money

on gdp than we do. that have higher taxes but their corporate taxes are lower. the thing that is different about europe is that europe, all the european countries have a value-added tax. that is like a national sales tax on top of their income tax. that generates about 5%-10% of gdp. the question americans have to ask is if they want to pay an extra sales tax every time you go to the store to buy groceries and bread or a bicycle to pay for big government? my answer is no, i think that model has failed. the countries that are growing are the asian countries who have gone their taxes down and have better corporate tax rates and we do. want to compete on a global scale, we should be the nation with the lowest tax rates as we were in 1980's and 1990's. host: republican line, is next. caller: it is a pleasure to speak with you, steven.

how much influence do you think larry summers has on the economic spending we have going on? why is it that brooksley vaughan is not a household name? he said 10 years ago that this disaster would happen because of what they were happdoing and she was fighting for regulations and larry summers stood in her way. it is a name that everybody should know and everybody should be aware of. guest: i am not familiar with that woman. i will look her up because it sounds like she predicted this economic crisis. as far as larry summers, i think

he has been very influential. he is one of the chief economic advisers and he was treasury secretary under bill clinton. i think he has been the main cheerleader for this huge keynesian experimental spending ñruntil we go bankrupt. it has not worked and it is competing. the left believes that you need to spend money on government programs. the model that i talk about in my book is we have to get our tax rates lower so businesses have incentives to hire workers to expand. the people who are the real heroes of the american economy are the entrepreneurs who start businesses the last year-and-a- half, we have done nothing to help small businesses and expand. host: a former fed chief, paul volcker, he is here and talks about the direct it to me to congress to have a proposed ban

on banks. a member of the senate banking committee announced opposition to the barack obama plan. there was plenty of criticisms that the lack of details were in the announcement. guest: the big issue now is that banks are not lending to small businesses. the president is right about that. we need to un-freeze that gridlock. banks need to loans of vacant lot and expand their businesses. i am in favor of taking steps to expand the banking sector. the of the problem is that many businesses do not want to expand right now. what we are facing now is the national health care bill which kills small businesses with new taxes. you also have the democrats passing the cap and trade energy tax. that would have a major negative effect on our manufacturing.

the small businesses that i talked to say that they cannot get loans but they are also saying that right now they don't want to expend. they see a tsunami of terrible ideas coming out of congress that will make it impossible to make a profit the want to stop treating small businesses like atm machines. i think that will help. host: our democrats lined, from michigan. caller: you just answered my one question about the bank's top lending. until you get banks to start lending money to small businesses and big companies to start doing more manufacturing in the united states, you have to get the average joe back to work so he can go and get a loan for a car or go to the gross

restore and spend money. until we get him back to work and banks start lending and corporations hiring people, we will be in this situation. another question is, i really feel that obama is getting a bad rap because we first came in, yes, president bush and everybody told him that we have to stop spending or the economy will fall and banks will fall. i think he is getting a bad rap. i think he can into a bad situation. guest: i agree with you on the second point. i have been tough on president obama but let's give him credit -- he has helped stop the bleeding and there is no question that when he came in we were in an economic crisis. we were losing 600,000 jobs per month and a sticky has inspired some confidence in his demeanor. he has an upbeat nature, like ronald reagan.

on the issue of the banks, you are right that it is tough for banks to make loans now. why in the world do we want to put a new tax on the banks? if we want the banks to lend money, do not tax them. that means they will have less money to lend. that makes no sense to me. look what happened to the bank stocks when the president proposed that. we are invested in the bank. i thought that was a terrible idea. host: another michigan caller on our independent line. caller: the computer is a beautiful thing and i am looking back in the 1990's and as soon as i said nafta i will get marginalized. how will be ever compete with mexico in the auto industry and

other industries when it is $3.50 per hour. china is even less than that. how will we ever compete with that? are we looking to go back to the 1960's when my older brother was working in the auto industry for $2.20 per hour? none of this adds up. there are 10 million jobs associate with the auto industry what they should have done with past presidents, they should have taken a big hair cutter the unions should not happen as fast as they are now and we should have watched that industry. the second tier of interest workers are being brought in at $13-$15 per hour. that's where they need to be at. in the higher end, the guys were sucking down $20 million per year and all other crap, that is all it is has ever been, we will

not be able to compete. until we have an honest discussion about jobs, jobs, jobs, you cannot compete against mexico at $3.50 per hour in the industrial world. guest: i'm a big advocate of trade. i think united states economy which has done well over the last 25 years has been a big beneficiary of trade because we have the best-trained, best- educated work force in the world that can compete. president clinton, a democrat, said it well when he said that we have to decide as a nation whether we are going to compete or retreat. i am in favor of competing. the problem i have now is that every policy in washington that we are putting in place is making america less competitive. how can you pass a cap and trade energy tax on american manufacturers at a time when we are losing hundreds of