host: 02 website, c-span.org, to find the schedule of events. lots about the tea party movement you want to hear from you about who belongs to the tea party. set aside this morning for tea party members. -- we have a special line set aside this morning for tea party members. hereç is "usa today's" editoril -- "tea party activists take in but many miss the target -- take aim but many miss the target. traditional government functions like roads and education have to be more tightly controlled to avoid the kind of land is

deficits we have seen in recent years. in that sense, the tea parties are barking up the wrong tree spirit if there goal is to control spending, but they should be demanding curbs in medicare more cost control. tea party activists say that taxes are too high, but here, too, perception differs from reality, at least by history's measure. in 2009 and 2010, tax receipts collected by washington will total 14.8% of the economy. that is the lowest since 1950. if the activists want to reduce the deficit, they should be demanding that the two parties work together. but the tea partiers seemed to be promoting more partisanship, not less. many are rejecting candidates deemed to be too likely to cross over and reach accommodations with democrats. that is a recipe for more debt." here is a counter-argument that

written this morning by dick armey, the former majority leader of the house, who write s, "take the party back -- take america back. as they succeed, they will save all americans from the higher cost than naturally flow from big government. grass-roots activists are building a political platform for advocates of personal and economic liberty. $1.60 trillion deficit -- cannot afford the never-ending expansion of government by president obama and his cohorts in congress. tea party activists will not settle for simply making a bad bill is worse. they want fundamental change." your thoughts this morning. who belongs to the tea party

movement? we will get your phone calls here, and we will also get your tweets. go to twitter.com/ççc-spanwj. there is also a story this morning in the "usa today." "squabbling threatens to iced tea party momentum. since the movement has started, there are 3200 websites containing the words tea party registered with go daddy, which causes of the world's largest internet domain name provider. five organizations using the name tea party have registered political action committees with the federal election commission." we will have phone calls as soon as i can see them on the screen to start dialing in now. let me get those numbers again.

if you belong to the tea party, we have a special line for you this morning. kevin on our line forç democra, if you are the first phond0call. caller: thank you, c-span. i think this is justl( that ita party is the grass roots and they are looking for moderates to get conservative. it is the life force that is needed for the gop. host: washington,ok d.c., willim on the independents' line. çcaller: it seems that the movement started with ron paul's raised $4 million in aç day,çd then he and other events. but now it has been hijackedç y

right-wingç republicansxd who# really don't understandçó -- thy stole some of ron paul's rhetoric about printing money out of thin air, but before all the wars in afghanistan and iraq, iranw3,w3 militarism, whis what is bankrupting the country to the tuneç of $1 trillion a year for for an empire, they do not get what the tea party movement is at all. @f i were to say i canç remove president obama, he would have to replace them with congressman ron paul or rudy giuliani, john mccain, fredt(ç thompson, or te otherçç republicans in the yççprimary, then they just d'÷ get it. they don't gev(!55ujjtt of ççfort(ç an employer does!íor in. ççw3host: wero you a ron paul

çsupporter during the campaign? caller:i] i was. çhost:çç why aren't you attrd to the tea party movement? do you see them as different things? çççxdçt( (%ñçxdhost: "allçd

for the battalion of liberal qreporters eager late covering everyi] disjointed mishap of fr- wheeling andi] unorganized bandf rebels. but it would be wrong to think that he partiers have hadq anyç -- have notç had any successes. they are responsible for killing the democratic health care scheme. tea party ears sounded theç alm during town hall meetings in august. i]it was only when this rogue we got rolling that republicans answered the call. çi]ççnaturally, at tea partye xdçthis, and the fine china is going toç getç broken, and if there isqç any fine china, it s thew3 gopçç. çtea party earsxd are wrenchine

mantle of conservatism from the i]undeserving hands of thñ gop d making them earn it back." we will get your phone calls in just a minute. çwe have a little bit of a technical issue, i think weç wl go to your phone calls when we can get them up. there is also a commentary sectionç in "the washington times" this morning. ççç"the gop after massachuse- it is timeç for our real i]xdit is by at the head of a cr for trainingç theç next genern of republican membersç. rinciplesi],ç to give you a quç synopsis of that ift( you want o read more of that ths)morning. ças we told you at the top,ç t

brown was sworn into the senate yesterday. ççhe will takeç over the sene office of the late senator ted kennedy. çyou can see him getting a handshake from his new colleagues. ç

host: why aren't you attending

the convention? caller: because i have been caught up in other things. i actually drove to boston to work on at the scott brown campaign. i met with a lot of people there that call themselves tea party. i think it was a phenomenal thing that we accomplished up there. personally, i did not see the natural thing as something i was gravitating towards. host: to use the sarah palin as the head of the tea party movement? do -- you see sarah palin as the head of the tea party movement? caller: not necessarily. she is a vital element of it. i don't have any strong words about her as a leader. i am aware she is speaking at the convention. i heard she was getting $500 or something like that. host: it was reported in the newspapers, something around

five water dollars. caller: -- $500. caller: when i heard that it did not influence my decision to attend, but it made me think, that is not what it is about, to $500 ticket. should be a spontaneous grass- roots uprising. i am still working for the republican party, but i see the tea party movement as the grass roots of the center-right of the country rising up against primarily the democrat party and the leftists that are currently occupying the bureaucracies and the education system, but also the holding the republicans' feet to the fire and saying that the republican party is primarily who the key part consists of -- who the tea party

consists of -- some democrats and independents -- and not what chris matthews says -- you are familiar with what chris matthews said, are you? host: i am not familiar -- caller: he said that every single member of the tea party movement is white. that is absurd. host: akron, ohio, your thoughts on the tea party movement. caller: thanks for taking my call. i think it can be summed up in three words. i think the key bac are racist, fascist, and for takes. -- and fruitcakes. i think chris matthews was dead on. you have basically seen nothing but white people with racist placards, greedy people who don't want to help their fellow man in terms of health care programs, that there are people out there hurting. god bless people were meant --

god bless keith olbermann for running those free clinics that have saved people. host: our next call. good morning. caller: there are two parts of the tea parties. there is a sight of folks who just hit obama and the democrats, regardless of what could they try to do for america. and there is another side that is moderate that wants to stay in power. they wanted to the right thing for america -- they don't want to do the right thing for america. then there is another element that is the media. the media is like the moderator of a fight, but the media is not interested in the truth. they just interested in people's emotions, where they make money

off of people's bills and what is going on in america. -- people's ills and what is going on in america. they're not interested in facts, because they get more information on money is betting -- what is going on in america than the average citizen. host: next call. caller: this tea party thing -- i think it is just a bunch of republican hogwash. if they were really interested in government -- reducing expenditures, the federal government is the largest employer in the united states, and the average income for a government employee is $70,000 a

year. the medium income for everybody else, for taxpayers who pay their salaries, is $30,000 a year. what they would insist on is a straight government pay cut a 10% instead of the cost-of- living raises that they're giving them. you know, until they stop talking republican viewpoint, i think it is just a bunch of hogwash. host: we heard from the newest republican in the senate yesterday, scott brown. he was sworn in, and after he was, he held a press conference and asked about job -- and was asked about job legislation that senate democrats unveiled yesterday. >> the last stimulus bill that not create one new job, and in some cases, the money that has been released has not been used

yet. we lost another 85,000 jobs again, give or take, last month. massachusetts has not created one new job, and throughout the country as well. i need to see what is in the bill. host: joining us on the phone is emily pierce of "roll call." we just heard from scott brown, his reaction to democrats and feeling a jobs bill. what is in this legislation -- unvei,ling a jobs bill. what is in this legislation, and does not represent the gop reaction to it? -- s. scott brown or percentage gop reaction to it? guest: i don't think he does, at least from what i'm hearing. the question of what is in a is a good question. the first bill they want to do is a one-year highway built extension, which would make sure that the projects they want done

for highways and transportation will get done. they are looking at the small business tax credit. the big thing they are looking at doing is what is called the new hire tax credit, which would suspend payroll taxes for those who hire the unemployed, people who, and unemployed for at least 60 days -- who have been unemployed for at least 60 days. they have to get a net increase in hiring. it would basically get to wave table taxes for the new employees. -- they would basically get to waive payroll taxes for the new employees. they might extend unemployment benefits, might extend health insurance portability, and other things that are going on. but they are confident, democrats at least, that there will have a couple of republicans to support this. host: on the house side, there is legislation. what is the strategy to pass a

jobs bill, or possibly several jobs bills there? guest: the house has already passed a $154 billion bill. the senate was already thinking that with the centrists in the senate -- the centrist democrats, that is -- being leary and taxing something as large as a $154 billion bill, especially one that has a lot of spending for infrastructure and public service jobs that would be direct payments to the states for police officers and teachers and what not, the senate majority leader harry reid has decided instead to move a series of bills. the first bill that i outlined is mainly tax incentives, and will probably get a lot of bipartisan support. harry reid does plan to move some of these other bills have more direct spending in them. but as far as we know now, those probably get filibustered by

republicans. host: there is a story in several papers that the house allows debt to rise to $1.90 trillion. what did they pass yesterday? guest: well, they passed an increase in debt limits. basically, interest on the debt continues to grow. we have a statutory debt limit saying that you cannot have more debt than a certain amount. they have to periodically raise that. it becomes controversial, however, because people are concerned about the size of the debt in both parties. it becomes one of those tough votes that both parties try to use against each other when they are in the minority. but it is one of those things that is necessary to do, because otherwise, the u.s. would default on its debt, and that would really tank the economy, if you are worried about the kind of thing.

host: in companion to raising the debt level, the house also passed pay-go rules. explain those. guest: it says that instead of borrowing money to pay for it later, you have to basically pay for most of things you want to do. if you want to have new spending, for example, if you want to create any program, you have to either cut money from the budget elsewhere or raise taxes. you have to find offsets for it. it is much of value. democrats basically used it in the 1990's and credit at having balanced the budget under president clinton. but republicans say there are too many loopholes and that it does not do too much about entitlements and it does not help rein in spending, it is a gimmick. host: emily pierce, a senior staff writer with "roll call." thank you. ted on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning.

i was going to give my brief history of my version of what i think the tea parties market i was with the ron paul campaign when he was running for president. then i joined the campaign for the body and became an organizer after -- campaign for liberty and became an organ i izer when he started that movement. we coined the term tea party, or brought it back. after we started getting popular and gaining momentum, i noticed all the radio station and fox news all around the country it kind of jumped in front of our movement and started advertising on the radio and everything. sean hannity and rush limbaugh and everybody started talking about the tea parties. that is what really grew the movement.

i think it is basically kind of two main factions of the tea party, and that is -- they are all conservatives, no matter whether they are democrat or republican. i believe every one of the tea parties are conservatives. but i believe the main divide is foreign policy. you have the rush limbaugh types, the newt gingrich type people in there. they believe in an interventionist foreign policy. they believe america should be the policemen of the world, that muslim extremists are going to destroy us all. but they're not all conservatives -- but the ron paul conservatives, we believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy. that will come down to the real split. but i do not think it will break at all. we might have ron paul run or we might have sarah palin run and they might hash out their foreign policy differences and we think everybody will put

their support behind which ever one of those two we all decide on if that is what it comes down to. i'd like the guys idea earlier about keeping this just a broken-up thing, how we should not have the central leadership. when you have central leadership of something like this, you get people that are corrupt jumping in front and telling lies and not being honest. host: sarah palin wrote the other day in "the washington times," "why i am speaking at the tea party convention. some have tried to portray this movement as a commercial endeavor rather than the grass- roots uprising that it is. those who do so don't understand the frustrations of americans to feel when they see the government mortgaging their future or in teaching in reckless spending. the spark of patriotic indignation that inspired those who fought for our independence and those who marched peacefully for some rights as ignited once again. you cannot be why such a

sentiment. -- cannot buy such a sentiment, you cannot astroturf it. everybody attending the event will be a soldier in the cost. -- in the cause to i made a commitment to be there, and i am going to honor it." david, you are a member of the tea party movement. your thoughts. caller: we are having a lot of meetings all over and have a lot of defense -- events -- 9/12 project. a lot of organizations are joining and we are coming together. there has been a lot of publicity out there about certain tea party things and this and that. the best thing is is the common citizen remember during the

campaign and joe the plumber? the tea parties are to the plumber. -- are joe the plumber. host: will you be listening to sarah palin speak? caller: no, but i will beat this thing over the web. i do not think she is a good presidential candidate, but there are a lot of good conservatives and the party. i think the republicans have lost a lot of conservatives because of some of the actions that the party has taken in the last election. host: you said you will participate over the internet. how? caller: through our web site. we have forums and live blogs and webcasts, campaignforliberty.com. everybody get on there and join for free. host: sarah palin will be

speaking saturday night at the convention in nashville. live coverage here on c-span. c-span radio, c-span.org. go to our website for more information about the tea party conviction and our coverage of it over the weekend lowry on the democrats' line, good morning. caller: well, hello there. the tea party people are going to take over this country. that is a fact. host: is that a good thing? caller: no, it will be very bad. they will take over the sheriffs, the congress, and this happened one other time. but the time people can to their senses, it did a lot of damage -- by the time people came to their senses, it did a lot of damage. in the 1920's, up 5 million strong, white pith and sheets on -- white hoods and sheets on,

and people could not get elected if they did not belong to this group. host: here is robert reich's piece this morning. "mad as hellers on the right hate government, mad as hellers on the left hate big business. but share a growing sense that the economic game is rigged against them. the two are united by how much they detest wall street and its bailout, and their contempt for any cozy relationship between big business and government. mad as hellers are likely to be a formidable force in the upcoming midterm elections and beyond." brenda, what you think this morning? caller: i have been to some of the tea parties. i did not see the phone number up there. they are misunderstanding the whole movement.

when we went, there were democrats, republicans, independents, who knows what else. what we are concerned about is that we see the country is going into this completely wrong direction. the people that we have elected sit there like fat cats and let the factory go to heck. the democrats will work with republicans. when they took over three years ago in congress, they said they did not have to work with republicans and they won't. the ones that are in there now are ignoring our constitution. it is going too far to the left, to socialism, communism, fascism. our congress and our elected officials are supposed to be a citizen legislators for the common good. they seem to get in there and sit there for 40 years or 50

years. they don't watch the banks, they don't watch our housing market, and they ignore all of the responsibilities. it has to change. we have to bring it back to our constitution and people working together for the common good. not for just a certain democrat party or republican party. and we don't hate. the only people i hear hate from are the people who are haters. host: the coverage begins tonight at 9:00 p.m. on the east coast, the national tea party convention in tennessee. we spoke to the convention- goers, and here is what he had to say. >> can you show me what is in

one of those gift bags? >> i don't know what it is for. it has a hole in the bottom. it will not hold much tea. >> so that is nice. and we of got a -- have got a fanny pack, tea party nation fanny pack with a teacup on it. this i can talk to you with. megaphone. and another teacher. ok. -- another t-shirt. ok. >> you have a ticket? >> right here. we need to keep bees with us at

all times. -- key to these with us at all times. >> at tea party-corporate we will talk to her -- a key party- goer. we talked to her at the convention. -- tea partygoer. we talked to her at the convention pretty you are a key party member. what do you think? caller: a lot of the members have things they are concerned about, but what it all boils down to, one thing, and one thing is corruption, the one thing is government out of control and men and women getting us there and taking vows to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states, and doing anything but. we have had our own congressman and senators say that most of the stuff they do in the capitol building has nothing to do with

the constitution. i think most tea party members would like to see just about every incumbent, and i'm talking about white house and capitol, everywhere, just thrown out, and some new people in who are statesmen, who want to serve this nation and its people, and who are not in for the money or the power. they just want to do something good for their country, like the founders did. we have forgotten about what the founders founded this country on. we are throwing god out of the public square in schools and everything else. it has gotten to the point where this country is so corrupt that i don't see it lasting if these people in our remain in power. host: what is your number one issue? caller: my number one issue is

people talking out of both sides of their heads. in other words, just lying, the corruption that is my number one issue. if they would say what they mean and mean what they say, we would know who to vote for and what they are going to do when they get there. if you look at all the votes and promises, just from president obama, who is well spoken and supposedly intelligent -- he does not seem to get it. george h.w. bush made one broken promise during his presidency and then lost reelection because of it. this president has broken so many promises i cannot keep up. host: doris on our line for democrats from chicago. caller: i have a comment on the teabaggers but i would like to bring your attention to the article by paul krugman --

"fiscal scare tactics," from "the new york times." host: it is on the screen. caller: you have lately had conservatives -- they are not even economists -- talking about the deficit. you have the economists who say trying to control the deficit will hinder the economy. you need to start having illegitimate economists on talking about the deficit -- having legitimate economists on talking about the deficit. host: we have economists on from both sides. let me read that article from paul krug and. -- paul krugman. "contrary to what you often hear, the deficit is not because of runaway spending growth.

instead, well more than half of the deficit was caused by the ongoing economic crisis, which has led to a plunge in tax receipts, required federal bailout of financial institutions, and been met, appropriately, with temporary measures to stimulate growth and support employment. the point is that running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930's is actually the right thing to do. if anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more to create jobs." scott, your thoughts. caller: good morning. i'm just listening in and i hear a lot of people calling in with misinformation. the lady who just called now -- i am not from tea party. i am from the libertarian wing of the republican party. long disenchanted with the new

conservative movement had taken over the republican party. what we're seeing now with the tea party movement is people coming to the more classical liberal mind-set of the old republican party, what liberalism used to mean, which has now been translated into conservatism. the lady who just called and refer to them as teabaggers -- i find that quite insulting and showing the intolerance of the left. i don't even know where to begin. you were referring to paul krugman, whom she referred to as being a real economist. paul krugman is not a real economist, first of all. he is a biased journalist. what he is talking about with deficits been a scare tactic is ridiculous. it is true that a lot of the deficit is a result of the downfall of the economy, but most of that is because of the bailout money that they had to

spend that was not necessary. that is part of the libertarian mindset, that all of this bailout of companies too big to fail is nonsense. the government needs to get out of the way. host: what do you think about newt gingrich and the possibility of him running in 2012? we are showing our viewers a story from "the orange county register." he sat down with the editorial board of the newspaper yesterday. what do you think about him leading? caller: i have got to say, i have seen inching his way back into the limelight over the last few years. i used to be sort of a supporter of newt. i'd like his fiscal policies. i'm sorry, i still think he was at the spearhead of the whole neocon movement, where they want

to control the social aspect of our country, and i disagree with that. host: here is a little bit from that article from "the orange county register." "gidget says he would need the support of a broad coalition of -- newt gingrich says you need the support of a broad coalition of republicans, democrats, an independents before he would consider a presidential bid. speaking to the editorial board, he spoke of a tripartisan movement." two authors of ronald reagan books right in -- write in "politico.com" "his was a lifetime of thought and conviction that grew steadily into those principles that mattered both at home and abroad. he had the courage to state them and keep on seeing them for 16 years, from 1964 until 1980, and then live out his convictions

as president. during the primaries, he may open appeals to democrats and independents and join his community of shared values, which laid the basis of the new political movement." independent line. we are talking about it tea party. who belongs? caller: i would like to say that teabaggers, or the tea party, were started to protest the election of the first black president. before obama got into office, nobody had any concern about the federal deficit. we have fought two wars. george bush jr. left our country broke. now that president obama has

come in and is trying to work with the people, for the people, they have a problem. if you will notice, the teabaggers all look alike. they do not represent the broad spectrum of the united states of america. host: in other headlines come here is cnnmoney.com -- "another 800,000 jobs disappear." we will talk about that later in the program when the latest numbers come out at around 8:30 a.m. eastern time. in "the wall street journal," a full page ad from toyota. other news this morning. "the new york daily news" has an article about cash that democratic senator from new york

chuck schumer has raised. "$19.3 million war chest schering off gop foes -- scaring off gop foes. he is running virtually unopposed for a third term." next call, david, a member of the tea party in florida. who belongs? caller: all kinds of people along. it's not just democrat or republican. is just people who are fed up and frustrated to be honest with you, i am so tired of hearing people call us racists or bigots or infer that we are related to the klan in some way. it is not what it is about at all. we just fed up. we don't know what else to do. they want to call us mad as hellers? well, we are, we are mad as hell. another thing, where they all

say that this is all since obama came out. i am a registered republican, and i was just as upset and angry and disgusted with the george w. bush. it is not a black-white thing or a democrat-republican thing. host: unfortunately, i have to let you go, because we are having a terrible connection there. sorry about that. bill on our line in towson, maryland, the democratic line. caller: good morning. i would like to say it that the teabaggers stayed home the entire time during the no-bid contracts in iraq or afghanistan -- iraq war in afghanistan, where there was no congressional oversight for the hundreds of billions of dollars stolen from the u.s. treasury on

a no-bid contracts, contracts that were poorly done by dick cheney's former company and everything. the money was stolen, and the teabaggers stayed home. they did not tear it because they were running behind, pushing them along, saying kill them people because they are foreigners. host: here is a headline from "the huff -- here is a headline from the huffington post. "two house members plan to push 8 stand by every act, which would force corporate chiefs to issue a message saying that specifically this ceo approved this campaign message." that this legislation being

worked on in the house, if you are interested in that pit when we come back, we will talk to tony blankley, former "washington times" editor, as well as tim fernholz, a staff writer at "the american prospect." we will be right back.

>> it is really easy to just complain about the issues and the politics, but to be entertaining, informative, and relevant, obviously, but in a way that offers solutions. >> progressive talk radio host and author of over 30 books, thom hartmann is our guest on "q&a." >> this weekend, a nobel prize- winning economist joseph stiglitz on c-span2's book tv. >> for educators, sees that offers the new -- c-span offers the new c-spanclassroom.org.

you can find a video clips organized by subjects and topics, and a chance to connect with other teachers. it's all free. sign up at the new c- spanclassroom.org. watch "washington journal" for the latest conversation and comments and calls. c-span, covering washington like no other. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with tony blankley, a columnist at "the washington times," also or working with edelman public relations firm, and ttim fernholz, staff writer would "the american prospect." deficits, debt, budget, your thoughts on that. mr. blankley, you go first.

guest: we are seeing a around the world of fear over the viability of bonds. a crash and the market -- a crash in the market, and agree to bonds, and it is interesting to see people -- greek bonds, and it is interesting to see people by credit default swaps to protect that. i cannot remember the last time that normally reliable countries were in this kind of situation. there is no doubt that there is a debt and deficit threat to global economic well-being. guest: but not as big a threat to the united states well being. if you look where treasure prices are right now, the united states is running a pretty big deficit, but doing it pretty cheaply, because people trust the american dollar. in the president's budget this week, we sought not enough focus on spending more to solve the

jobs problem. host: you were critical of the president's budget when it came out. he said that last year, the budget was open and honest and did away with trickery. this year, and you said, it is full of smoke and mirrors. why? guest: last year, it was ambitious, but it recognized things like fixing the alternative minimum tax and things like that. this year, the old-style budget fix or not there, but the rhetoric the president was using to describe it as focusing on the deficit freeze, which is not really a deficit freeze, but he is trying to do to cut the deficit, was -- he is trying to do to to cut the deficit, when it is probably not liberal enough. guest: i agree with his analysis of the budget. the question i have, which is more interesting, is has the

white house lost confidence in their policy of spending, keynesian policies, or are they talking to the center -- c- span.ortacking to the center bee it is not as popular to spend this year? problem, because it raises the question about whether people have confidence in the authenticity of what people are saying -- what the president is saying. the president has to maintain credibility at least with his own supporters. host: "politico" has story this morning that democrats are grousing that obama is tacking to the center. is he risking alienating the liberal base? guest: i think the second part

of your point is right, that they are sticking with the policies but trying to sell it in a more centrist manner. the administration projects by the end of this year that unemployment will be at 9.8%, and that will have severe consequences for democrats in the midterm elections, and they are worried about it. the story this year is going to be progressives disappointed that he has not been able to achieve what he promised may be sitting on their hands at election time, and the election team needs to be looking at doing things to energize them. host: people like paul krugman and tim fernholz are saying that you need to spend more, you need to spend more in order to help out the economic situation. why shouldn't the u.s. government be spending more, and yes, it will raise deficits in the near term, but long term,

help out the economy? guest: this has been a debate that has been going on for 70 years now, since keynes suggested that the government could step in to fill the void in spending that consumers were not able to fill because of the economy. that has been the theory, and sometimes it seems to work for awhile, and sometimes it does not. the debate goes on. the argument against that thais that the level of deficit to gdp and debt to gdp as well undercuts the currency and raises the interest rates on treasury bills, which will tend to drive out money for the private sector, undermine our ability to expand, and increases the public sector, which is not a productive part of the economy, and take that money out of the private sector, which is where growth occurs. we can debate forever and would

not reach a conclusion. those are the two series. there is and it was evidence to support both. -- there is evidence to support both. we have something of a command economy and it was not just a pure deficit-spending phenomenon. i think it is ambiguous. i come on the side of keeping public debt relatively low to gdp. host: mr. fernholz, why not tax cuts? guest: you look at what congress is proposing to do on jobs, it is a lot of tax cuts. what we are debating right now is tax cuts for small businesses. one of my favorite talking points from the american enterprise institute, a conservative think tank in washington, is to look at the fiscal stimulus last year and say that added 4% to gdp, helping to spur growth, i think that is unequivocal among most economists. and there is a long-term concern

about crowding out private investment, but i think the president and his team and people in congress are cognizant of that and i think that what they are trying to do with the new bill is to make the conditions so that the private sector can grow again. guest: i think the fear is for the medium and long term it co-- medium and long term. in the budget the president just introduced, it proposes long- term trend lines down in entitlement spending where it gets to where it is no more than 3% of gdp as long-term debt. he never gets even briefly below 3.6, or something. what this budget has is an unsustainable deficits and debt bubble. -- level. if you combine spending with a tenant policies designed to reduce spending on entitlements

in a way, you might have a balanced policy. host: we are talking to 20 blankly and tim fernholz. -- tony blankley and tim fernholz. on entitlement spending, how do you get republicans -- a coalition of republicans and democrats to come together on entitlement spending and tackle social security, medicare, medicaid? guest: i honestly think it will take a pretty big crisis. when you look at what happened in the last year, the president tried to tackle entitlements, with the health care reform bill, and over the last year, and last summer, with the negotiations with max baucus, they have really tried to work with republicans on this. when you look to the bill, despite what you hear about, it is a very centrist bill that maintains the private sector and the bill that bob dole proposed in 1996 and further to the right of richard nixon in the

1970's. but even if there were some place they could come together, the republicans are happy to say that we will wait until 2010 and get congress back weekend and do it our way. -- that congress back if we can and do it our way. guest: it is like the difference between the arabs and the israelis on the west bank. the problem is, the president proposed reform on health care this year, but his reforms to expand the amount of benefits. i suspect that at some point we will have to reduce the amount of benefits by moving the initial benefit eligibility age from 67 to 70, 71, 72, because after all -- guest: for health care -- guest: i am talking about health care as well.

when roosevelt set the average retirement age -- but not the life expectancy out near 80. people are help it -- we have a life expectancy now near 80 people are healthy and want to work longer. every year did you lose, the eligibility. eventually you get to a point where you have to work until 71, 72, and you have more income coming in because people are working longer. host: would take a grass-roots movement outside of washington that specifically focuses on a social security and medicare -- could the tea party movement, for example, take that up? guest: it would have to be a very powerful movement. i agree, we would probably have to have a crisis before this is capable to coming to terms, because the issues are so easy

to exploit every party to say let's been one more election and then we will deal with the issue. i've been in town for 30 years, and every cycle, one party wants to do it and the other -- guest: i think you are avoiding the real problem, which is the growth in costs. we have been spending most of any developed country, but we are getting some of the worst outcomes. what we really need to see, and what the president has proposed, are ways to actually change the game to make health care spending less, both in the public and private sector. it is funny that you mentioned the deficit issue, because one of the things that has been a really surprising over the last year is that republicans are suddenly the defenders of medicare and medicaid, and a democratic president is proposing to expand the coverage but not the cost. guest: the two parties play do-

si-doed and take advantage of the other parties. that is why we never get the solution to the problem. not to have a big debate on health care, but it is noteworthy that we have this wonderful system in canada, the premier of nova scotia coming to the united states for a heart procedure -- guest: partly canadian system -- guest: that is later down the line. .

guest: i understand people can hold two conflicting points at the same time. and we all have conflicting views. but as a political fact the president is going against this

deep instinct. and that's why the country is considered a right centist country than the lef. over the 30's it shifted. it's it in a nutshell. as far as the deficit, i did a column it a month ago, the job of congress is to make the decisions of spending and taxing and not try to pass off to unelected people. host: isn't that the point, that these people are unelected? guest: and that's the point of this country we are a small de-elected country and don't run by çpanels of democrats. and to say that our democracy can't ççfunction so we bring v panel in.ç they analageous this to the

90's, this is the whole column, all -- all of our okeconomy aç all of the decisions to point congress up and down. that's why the on left and right there is opposition to it. i wrote in the daily column that the people on the left were worried that these unelected people would cut benefits, but i was worried they would cut taxes. guest: good morning caller. caller: good morning, i guess i am on the right and left also. the question of the stage i want to present, i know we are talking about how the economy is down now below 10%.

but there is another economy, i guess i am in the ministry area of helping people to get their lives together. and i have seen for years the fact that, you know, georgia they call us the state of prison. and there is a lot of guys getting out of prison. now there are some you can't rehabilitate. but talking about those who just want to get a second chance. and you know that part of the economy, you know where it touches me the most is the fact that nobody is really concerned about those guys, that portion of the jobless people. but now it seems that, you know when everybody else that is able to be employable has lost jobs or can't find a job. now it's a percentage put on the job market. you know what about the market of helping the little guys.

that can't dig their way out of a hole. host: tony blankley, your thoughts. guest: regarding the inmates i have a republican working in that area. if you look in the 19th century, there was a tremendous effort to think about the penitentiary of being humane and trying to raise these people. what has happened is a high level of centicism in the last 20 years, that people are thinking how to help these people when they come out and reform them. and in the 70's and 80's and 90's so much crime happened that they were left out on the street to commit crime. i agree with the caller, regarding them it may be time for the society to pay more attention.

host: caller, i will let you respond from virginia. caller: thank you, for having me on, in the spirit of talking about republicans and democrats to get along and trying to build coalitions. i suggest that one thing that we have forgotten is the strength of this nation is still there is the strength of home grown states men. and before we had people that knew issues and could represent people in their state. and as they were successful they were national leaders. and now we are in an era where we have migratory politicians that move from one end of the nation to the other and like a party is put ççin like a foot game. and there is no thought of the local issues.

host: oscar, çjrare you thinking u!of specifically?çqñ caller: yes v:i çcan çthink ñ7 cliñ new w3york and çwhy ñrçw3go ç seek írfdto ?;help people ió york? even çif it did work, there ç something inherently çt(wrong ç that çand mccauley moveç to ç virginia to ñrrun for governor. what does ççhe know about ç virginia çand hampon ççroad, can he know the issues.ç and they said we w3çhave the2k and çwe will put you if there. and i think ççquickly tthe solution to this çis çw3to ç local civics in high school.w3çç we need ççokto teach people a and çi]robert's rule of ñ3ord to get along ttçand to respect other's point of fiew.çt( and v:ñrthe!ççstate politics 

different oo3i]ñrçassemblioáhsç o [ç you çthink that's inherent çtd movement, some çñrsay lpoyñrç anti-incumbent, do you yççi]á caller: yes if çthey [çt({ the ó[ycommonwealth fáççof vi and that's the çq(÷growth ?;ñ politics.xdç>ç there is ççtmçñdçççq çdei more çççon i.rthe state leveç i think xdñrçxdñrçthat highío

is great.çok;ç and the voters will decide awhñ they çwant and if they iówant someone from out of town.[ that's their vote.çççççç xó guest: a big part of that is because of the filibuster, where the senates go to die. and that's funny there was a filibuster that a vote was

counted and there was a hold on obama's officials to get two pork barrel projects for his state of alabama. and that's somewhat less democratic with a small "d". guest: tony blankley. guest: this is talk about the multisolution and now the tables are turned. guest: my magazine it was for abolishing the filibuster. guest: i commend you, but as a political fact you complain about the procedure. and it's true, the requirement forçt(ççóçw3çok 60!çvotes,

be. when i was reagan it happened once in a while and with clinton, it's been growing the white house or senate. as to his firstpoint about whether i was inaccurate of assessing the president's problem, we will find out. i think that liberals that support the president may be drinking more of their own kool aid çand more on the agenq as ça ççpartisan level, i thç that t(the public has understoo it and çdoesn't çwant it.ççd host: the çzvfinancial times s ççóqi]çxd

ç-- at ççthis ççxdw3rate recovery comingi] reciph çfáçç revive çhis presidency. guest: i think that ç obama on whole has had a pretty decent year. we will see in 2010, a new congress and he may have to change some things, but a few years before we know if he's a bad or good one. host: tony, what do you believe about this editorial? guest: i disagree with the binary choice, he should be inspirational and leadership, ç it should be both.w3 what i think çthat obama has failed to do is provide t(

leadership to his own allies in congress.ç he's not specific enough, he's done the opposite of what çóç clinton did on health care, coming up with the details and throwing in the senate. so they did the opposite, i know democratic senators privately and w3publicly have complained. tell us what you want. and he didn't give it, he was so passive in letting the congress work its will, they were incapable of coming to a were inchink çhe should çgive leadership, but not that any president not inspire the people. host: you are shaking your head. guest: no, i think that tony is right on. guest: is the president doing same thing with this job's legislation? guest: i don't know, at the time of the state of the union, i thought we would see more

direction to congress on these issues. in the last week or so there are white house aides talk to theçç senate. and i think that çpeople are ç still waiting to see that and i don't think it's too late çqfo him to provide it. on monday when we will see this vote on the job's bill, that will show us what is going on. host: yesterday there çwas a news conference çabout çthis job's legislation.ç the majority whip had these comments to say. >> we know as we strive to create jobs we know there will a forceit work that will cost i] us jobs.fá many çstate and local ç governments are laying off ç critical people, ççt(çóteacheç we çare çgoing çto çfind waç make sure çthose jobs çare no

lost, so that the number of jobs in the çclassroom are okmy protected.ç the bottom line is this, this is a good faith offering on the democratic side, and inviting the republican çside to put these çitems forward. we need to have a jobs agenda to move through the senate, it's the highest priority of the people of the country, and ç should be the ñr highest of the senate.ççq host: tonyçokçoçççççççsho vote for this? guest: i believe that they need to look where the money is coming from, from tarp money or congressional action. and i couldn't be but slightly amud by senate durbin, for the

states to lay off people, and they list police and firemen, and the emergency responders are not first. there is a hype quality to thatç but çthe larger question çis ç should ççthe republicans generally çççççbe ççoffe alternatives or that of opposition. they should provide something ç for qpeople xdto govern and not entirely negative. and no reason to support the çç çç-- çççbipartisan sake.ç host: we have kirk calling on the republican line. caller: good morning, first we need to get back to the

constitution, try the fifth amendment tim, read it, really read it. and second of all, this erotic spending that everyone is talking about. you know why we question the liberals how about this $30 million of the harvest mouse. speaker pelosi, how about the airport for congress murfa, $175,000 for two republicans a day. host: you asked about earmarks, what about those? caller: they were terrible. host: earmarks make only up about 1% of the federal budget,

yes look at them if t(they are legitimate, but only 1%. caller: look at the size of the budget, what t(ççis 1%.zv in washington ,0they seem to forget what çthe zero's çbehi the numbers mean. how they can throw money away on ridiculous projects.ç stuff that okdon't create any jobs.w3 if you create a government job,ç what does that government job create?fá nothing. ç host: tim. guest: if you çlook at theç interstate highway ñrsystes4xdo( numerous projects, i think çth ç government creates thing. there çóççóis wasteful çspendç the budwe,1ñçand no one will deny that, but as i]çyou said'

a small part of the budget, and whether çit's çallocated zvby federal bureaucrat. the real problem çis xdçthe ç of subsidies çand farmers and medical system, these are problems that congress needs to address. and it's hard to get them to come together.ççt(ç and one person's is wasteful projects.w3ç i don't think this iñis a question of liberal or conservative. there are a çlot of politics t play, and coming çtogether is hard as long as you can score points on it.çó host: tony. guest: there çu(áha senator th started a project of highlighting w3w3 these çççb and made w3a career of it. the point is that the money is not çwasteful in and of itself

but çcomprehensible for çprogç of hundreds çof millions and they are spendings hundreds of billions.ç i çunderstand the ñrnumbers, q when talk being aboupúthe tria ># ñr$200 çbillion extra ça çóçyear for securityç and putting aside the(ç añ million, to frivolously waste ç it is a frame of çmind and attitude to the people's çmone is creating anger at this placeç ç host: joseph, good morning.

caller: my question is concerning the health care.q i ñrwas recenfly severed from m job and çi did respond çto obama's website and got a form letter back.q my question is t(why çaren't ç targetynspecific groups çwhen ç you retire çor severed i]like q io) ççhealth care ççw1vççç two-thirds of what /7]ççincomç ãave w3w3coming in.d8çç?;xd@ my age w3xdafter çççóççç3:ç of the ççcompany i worked for] that the health care costs are going out of control.ç okt specific wdñçógrops in w3the ç care xdbill for people ñrçin  situation.xdçu! i]]i?;

guest: the bill is big and complex because of the problems that çneed to çbe solved.ç considering that complexity çi a bad thing çin itself is that] of çthe republicans.çzvç'tq( çgo republicans and he said that their idea çwas to end çthe b. he didn't understand why they were complaining because all the conferences. but that was way back xdbefore september. and no one knows what the bill is now. and qhe said i have çtaken you ideals and çi have presented

them to people. and no one says they çwill wor! and i t(thought, well, çthat's really great.zvç and then çmonday he says, xd republicans myçhave no ideals.ç why does he go çwith çthe t(m he say they çare the!çparty of nope.çç and i]mcconnell first fá çtime re looking forward to fá çtime working çwith the qdemocratic )5át immediately çafter çthe sunday's shows, the media said that the republicans are not going to work with the democrats.ç and it's gone all the way to the hype of nope.ñr host: tony blankley. 7á:mqiñthere is a çlot of w3 insincere statements. ñrç.ñú q%jris

being çworked by the leadershi and when they are doing it themselves. you care çabout how medicare w processed in 1965.ç i looked it up, i]they had mont of çhearings and ça conferenc report i]open to 153.ç it was all regudw order. now çthere u!çwere çsome com then çthat elements çof the hearings çweren't moved quickl to get it through. and you compare çto the leadur"!%amñof the majority party they çwork the deal in t leadership office. at times they cut out the committees.xdçç forget the opposition çparty, they are not çpart of the process of çdrafting the legislation. one çóadvantage of going througç the committees is they çtend t represent çthe people çwho el them. guest: çthe health xdcare refo party went through and çthroug

the house and senate, the w3 republicans offered çhundreds amendments that were accepted.ç the fact it's been online and people are ñraware of what is  it.çfá guest: real çconversations occ in xdplaces or don't.ç and u!everyone that works çins that çbuilding knows which conversations are fáthe real onç and which weren't.w3w3 -- aren't.ç tt members on both sides çthat they feel that the çleadership often is reaching in and doing the real negotiations and telling the chairman, this is çwhat you mock-up.ç guest: i think çyou i]should a3 senator harry ç ñrreid if ñrheq control i]u!over senator çbot' role.çi] host: çin w3a column çtouched

bipartisan, i i]can't find the ç argument, çbut washington post stephen çwrites this morning that bipartisan w3is çreally a! misnomer, if çu!anything is ço bipartisan, it's çwater-downed legislation.ç guest: i haven't çseen the ç column çbut i have been saying that for 20 years.ç it doesn't çmean that the çtw parties can't work together but to sacrifice what they believe in and what isçbest for the country out okof a çcommit for ÷z'pi have never seen ça meeti where ;u$ey slam down their ñr hands and i]by god i çwill not support this.ç it depends on what you mean by that, çit's certainly possible and sometim%)jdsee that on qa regular basis, if it's ça question of spending $100 ç

million or $150 million, and spend $75 million. but if qfor abortion or againstç it, that's not one. and you çhave to çhave differences to çsupport bipartisan from this çidea tha people will give"çup their ç principles and those they çwer elected on for some abstractionç host: tim, go ahead.ç guest: you çmentioned medicare and over çthe last years thereç has been t(a ymstunning realign of çthe parties.w3 because çyou had ymliberal ç democrats and liberal republicans.i] and if çyou had liberals of ñr parties and talking çabout civ rights or medicare in the 60's. but over çthe past years çyou have seenñdemocrats getting

more çliberal çand not to say et the compromise you çwill get.ñr guest: çthat's a true ç observation, no doubt you used r to have q30, 40, 50 moderate ç liberal republicans in the house. and çnow it's down çto a hand. and a lot v)ñof conservative democrats and that's down. host: ymindianapolis, jim.ç caller: good morning, i çthink am an çindependent, i don't think there is çmuch differenc between çdemocrats and republicans these ñrdays, they are just opponents çon a playi field.ç i wonder if this çform of government is not overwhelmed .ñr congress is overwhelmed with these issues, çthe bills are of . they don't have time to read ç

the bills.ç the districts are u!gerrymander to the çvqkextent çand to a i wonder çóif the whole systemç not breaking down in front t(of our very eyes çand perhaps we need a dictator to çsort this out. i would i]suggest çbrian lamb ç avid çc-span viewer.ç guest: i t(don't think ççi ç a benevolentçç dictator. i çthink if you looked at what they are çtrying to do. it's çin goodwill.ççççkoi]d ç

guest: i xddisagree with the i] caller, i think that i]the parties are çmore different th they used to be.ç and now ça huge difference andç you get a zk$different set of policies. a ñrplenty of çproblems of ç legislating, i agree, b]t!the idea that çthe idea i]ñr is ç true in çmy lifetime. host: caller. caller: tony, i agree with you in my lifetime, and i am older.d i have never seen the ççóparti more separated.çó

i am a strong democrat.xd where the çparties çhave i]di so drastically.u! the republican çparty is takenç over çi]by the neo-cons, they don't believe in government andó that it should serve the people] they believe w3that government ç should serve corporations. as çan example of that. all çyou have to do is çlook ç the supreme çcourt ruling zv' orporations w3such power.çç not only çconsidered persons b ore share of democracy than çthe people have. and çthis is ça supreme court that's çappointed by neo-conn federal society, and çthat's ç where çóthe tea party çpeople totally misguided.ç

they fáare blaming government fç what has happened for w3the in!luence of corporations to i] take our jobs out of the ç country, to çreduce the middle class çso that the rich on çk getting richer. where the 1 percent of the nation controls 40% of the wealth. badly this government is çserving th people. we çare not allowed to look ç europe ñrand compare. ç ççxdç europe qhas a trueñr social saf net, and the money çkeeping flowing through çtheir system. we just go through çfree-fall and çthe republican party çdo not care about the peo(e at all.ç there are democrats that do.ç i have çworked life-long çfor

democratic party, because i believe u!in the core values of the democratic party.ç host: ñrmary, we will leave it there and let you know çthat warren rudman wrote a piece ç about campaign findings and shared a sentiment çwith you that republicans are perceived ç ar favoring corporations.ç guest: it's interesting because the tea party movement looked ç like the conservative movement that many participated in çthe 60's.ç the goldwater movement, çit looks more çlike that. if there is a feature ñrof the hey don't think there i big çrole for public interveni

in the sector. but there çis a strong strain populous welack of support for corporate america. i think çyou misread, the conservatives are fractionalized and they tend ç support business. but the small businesses are ç supported by the rank and file.ç the big business get supported ç by the interest they share. but çi don't think that çthe republican party should be seen as çmerely for the corporation. they have a çlot of qhostility towards corporations. guest: i think çyou >wñneed toç separate it out, and here is the thing, if you look at what the parties are doing in congress.çç look at financial xdregulatory reform. the democrats are trying ççto restraints on çóthe banks, and

not spend the customer's money and can't sell okshotty loans oç stop having crashes like in 2008.ç but the republicans are supporting this, çñrand çñrjo boehner çsays that we çwill f tooth and nail xdthat no one pu restrictions on you, and in turn we need your money for the. i think your çconcern for corporations and financial corporations that have caused problems, you need to look at the policies that çare being p forward.ç and çrepublicans restrict çth banks.v: guest: the financial system in ç manhattan çsupport the clintonç guest: koit's true if you look the policies.ç l factors in ñramerica, çówhether

labor, or çfinance should çha some impact çon congress.ç guest: i agree.ç guest: they w3are special interest, if i]you are a gun ñr person çthe t(nra are legitimatç but it's çproper to have çsom communication çbetween large sectors of çamerica and the +pguest: actually, i i]don't th me question is communication ="i=(osing and draw their own conclusions. host: as we go back çto phone ] calls, the associate çpress is reporting an unexpected çdrop ç 9.7% çfrom 10%, qwhile employeo shed 20,000 qctçthat's how it's framed çon the wire.ç mike, you u!are next. caller: thank ñryou for i]c-spa teach çsociology at cal w3stat and i ç speak about ça çmaxi

issues. to çcollaborate çóthat content you know people çtalk çabout elite level and this zvissue about fox news and ymso forth. fox news for crying çout loud, they xdoffer arguably conservative or not. and the fact çthat the media starts with the ç"new york times," they get their lead from that and then "l. a. times" and each newspaper is toç the left, and çthey control ç nbc, cbs çand çevery cable ç station from cnn, etc.ç and this çnotion that fox çt( is somehow skewed because they offer the alternative contention, yet sort of ignores the reality of the fact that

the media really virtually carries water qto the i]democra everyday. guest: i hope çthat a lot of ç parents in çsouthern uz'iforni send their children w3to your class, i çdon't disagree with ] word you said. i used çto be ça press operat and i know wwhat we did, if we needed a çstory on cbs in the evening, çif a political story we had to get "the washington post" çand "new çyork qtimes"q character it, and çthey çtook their guidance çfrom those two new ç

i don't w3understand no one çg us a chance and to çvote and d

things.çç martin luther ç w3king had a dç that we were çall equal and we are not, and i çam white.xd guest: i think whatever çyou d you should çbe allowed to vote again.xd and tony said çsomething about prison çreform and one place that we ñractually agree. the way that we talk about the issues are skewed because of the last 30 years. and it's something çthat the onservatives can .30 years. and it's something that the liberals and conservatives cñn together on. president obama has looked xdat some things and ççthat's a movement that you can çsee a place wherei]ç çliberals and conservatives agree. and california is having a hard time çwith finances çand çi'

ensive to keep people çin didn't say that everyone is ç equal çbut we should be on our character.ç and if çyou commit a çfelony' a process of getting back to gave up okwhen you committed the felony. the fact that the vote is denied doesn't mean you can't ç be a responsible citizen çand over time get it back.çç i don't think çyou should give! up because you don't get it allr f the concept çof holdineñr people responsible çfor ççi] morale çconduct is based by çç their immoral conduct.ç host: mike, next caller up. caller: yes, thank çyou for c-span.çç i would qlike to find out çfro

social security how much of çtd çdebt ñris owed to social security from the past?çç guest: çççabout $9 trillion unfunded. what happens is social security sells i.o. u.'s to the treasury. guest: social security is still sustainable, we haven't exhausted that fund. guest: no, there is more now but the çliabilities ik&ready over time, i think 2070 there is about $9 trillion of benefits owed of which there is not anticipated to be revenue to support it. and that's different for

medicare that there are benefits promised and we don't have the revenues. so deep debt. guest: it's not debt but obligation. guest: yeah, obligation for ç which we can't get funding. host: caller, still there? caller: i want to get an answer of how much is owed so social security currently? guest: i am sorry there is not a simple way. right now the fund is solvent, it xdhas çenough ñrmoney to pa. but it has i]( on ç responsibility that ç

host: up next we will talk about neal irwin of the numbers out of the labor market and job legislation. and first we want to show an interview from the tea party convention yesterday in nashville. >> i am playing the part of button a signer of the american revolution from georgia. so i represent him. >> are you from there? >> i am from brunswick, i am

vice president of the tea party. >> why come here? why come to this meeting? >> because we are here to unite the tea party nation and patriots, and to discourage big federal government and to return to the principles that this nation was founded on. >> when this weekend is done, what do you hope for the results? >> i focus on the targets of the 2010-12 election, we will make sure that we are all united and give sarah palin a kiss for her stand and get out with our local groups and target those, part of the political class that still thinks they are necessary. and we will get them all kicked out regardless of republican, democratic or independent. >> when you hear of this convention, what is your

thoughts on that? >> that is what happens when you itñgroups where several different [inaudible] front and center çof everythin. but this is a good thing. this is uniting the tea party nation, and patriots. and those who want to criticize, they can criticize. i would prefer that we had this out in the field in the rain. but we have had here and rejoice and kick all of this government in the butt in 2010. >> thank you for your time. >> "washington journal" continues. host: william temple from brunswick that we talked to yesterday from tennessee. and to let our viewers know that we will be covering the tea party convention starting

this evening, 9 p.m. eastern time here on c-span and radio, and go to1eçç c-span.org inc sarah palin's speech on saturday evening. neil irwin, we have the figures from the labor market. guest: there is good news, it dropped from 10% to 9.7 percent and the fewer jobs is a break-even. we have a mirky picture, a mixed picture in jobs. thing are getting better in some areas but companies are not adding to the payrolls.

but a slow, steady progress in the job markets. host: the w3market will open aç fell almost 10,000 ççkoççv economic news outside of this country. what do you think these later unemployment figure mean of how the market may react? guest: this is what people were expecting, i doubt a huge impact, there are a lot of other factors of what is happening in the stock market. people are worried about greece and other european nations and people are worried about the economy. and that it may have gotten ahead of itself and paring back on risk. and after yesterday i am hesitant to predict anything today. host: the job numbers that came out of of the labor market, you

said in some areas they are doing all right and others not. does the market tell us what areas are coming back? guest: yes, it's complicated because they do two surveys. the way they calculate the unemployment rate they look at households and see who are employed. and second survey, they go to businesses and say how many are on your payroll this month. and from month to month they can veer different directions and that's what happened this month. due to businesses and the employers jobs were lost. could goed ;çççç -- according to the household survey more people were employed. and the good news is that the rate is down.

host: it's reported that job market uncertain and that one look is that it may be on rise after comparing to normal level of 2%. what do you make that have? guest: it's çinteresti44rçóçwç productivity o6kqzvçis qqthe ó is made over hour worked.ççç8 businesses çitkve okq?;back oç staffing çw3and i]xdlaid peopl and cut back hours. they have fewer people on the jobs. the cut back in workers is steeper on production. they are still making stuff and with fewer people and makes productivity go up. part of that may not last, people work harder and good more done and more efficient. all of us in our companies can relate to that.

whether thank you sustainable, it probably isn't. some of that will go away. the question is that high productivity is a good thing , in the long run it means there will be a rise but in short-term it's not a good thing. host: on congress this will give businesses a tax credit, are businesses saying yeah, we can use that. or no, we need customers.ç guest: in general they çlike that w3çidea, there çare varik ways rto structure.ç one çt(is çto çreduce the @ ncourage businesses to add jobs.w3 &.ña tricky çs possibilities.ç you don't çwant w3çw3çto inc if çyou çgive ça tax break fç hiring i]that çkowould happen ç

anyway, how çmuch bang çfor yç buck ççis the question.çç% i think i]businesses çlove a bç and w3you çwon't w3hear@oçfro crowd.okçç host: what is proposed on capitol hill?ççokçomççç guest: there çis xdjob çcreat and çtax i]credit and to desigç host: paul is joining us on the republican line. caller: good morning greta. i am so upset last friday many liberal republicans called in and they accused c-span of being racist. c-span is not a mouth piece forç l,ñáq(ublican party.çóxd you are very well, and balanced.

you do a very good job -- host: thanks paul. let me jump in, thank you but do you have a question or comment about jobs? caller: yes, this president needs to çççççççextend  that will provide jobs for the regular, ordinary american people. host: neil, your thoughts. guest: bush tax cuts are not being discussed at this moment, that has to be made or they expire in the next year or two. the president said he will let bush tax cuts expire and maintain below that level.

we will see what is coming out of congress, but that's what the administration is looking to do. host: are republicans on capitol hill and the issue to be a part of a job's bill? guest: republicans would like to keep the tax cuts indefinitely, but that doesn't look like an outcome. host: caller, good morning. caller: good morning, i am looking at an analysis of the jobs that the government is saying are being filled. the truth of the matter is, and i don't think it's different or any other village in our entire country. that one person is working three jobs. so it looks like three jobs have been taken. it's just çt(çone person.ç they can't çlive on onp%

part-time job. they have to w3take three.çw3 they çget no benefits. they ;çñrlive in çhomes with ç three other families.t(ççç the banks çwon't loan ççto tç çso they çcannot çbuy homes t here.[çi]ççç (%áq çof oklesser ççxdççç empty.ç[çç host: çqthank çyou, ççóneil : guest: çit's ççan interestinç point, çit's true that a lot oç people i]that ççare working çv part-time jobs would çlike ful time. the!çlabor market has accounted those people.ç this broader çmeasure of unemployment are çpeople that want full time work. that çrate t(came down ç in january. çç çççç q!%áhnot just ça story çof 

laid off, it's ça story of people not able çto çget the of hours they want.çóç or having multiple jobs.w3w3 or being çunemployed and peopl with a çcollege 3>édñkçqdeg working çmenial labor. we have çnot t(just people los )ñáñir jobs but xdwhat you described.w3qç host: çalexander, virginia, ç independent line.ç cal'htjt morning, çx9-çyou for c-span.q i would çlike w3to talk on i]s businesses, ççi am ça small ç business owner but not in t(ç top 3% i]that is affectedúçby t tax.okçççç there is ñrçroughly 30 çót(çmq small businesses, and if ççç3 take 10%, impacte"fççokxdççç the ççsmaller çbusinesg3áhçd

ztjjut: tom, we will çleave çç tzere as çóthe ççhouse w3of representatives xdçis coming o and çwe ççwill listen ççtoq >> the çprayer u!will be çoffç by çi]our çóççchaplain, çq coughlin.ççw3ç >> çlo+d çgod, qour ççlife-ç &yq(rq),!çwe ççpraise you anç praise çyou for those ççwho ç part çof this nation.çççç may!çparents, çteachers çand school administrators w3be çt( best teachers, both ççof t(wh3 they say and çby the çway the inspire çchildren w3çççóxdt( industerous and responsifee çiç their schoolwork.çxdççç grant w3ñrçççour qyoung çi] perseverance ççççóxdxdçqçok

more about qtheir character ça about the çworld in whi!i]w3th live.w3ç çby çtheir ççenw!vors, çi]l advancements may t(they give my xçu!now çand forever, amen.ç >> the chair has2ççexamined tç journal of çt(çthe ççlast '% proceedings and announced houseç their çççw3çpursuant t(çt( journ çt(stands approved.çç chair okwill lead the house in the pledge ççof allegiance.ç

çç

>> the çhouse will return next] week for çlegislative business we will okçreturn to çsous0ç neil çirwin, çto çtalk about latestç ççççççt(ççççóç , our çnext caller. caller: thank you, çi would li to çspeak about çççwhat ron reagan çstarted çthe process continued ççthrough the çdem and republicans.ç how w3ççcan yousay çthat çt will be ç saved çby the democ) because of ça tax break.çç if youçç make $15 an hour or to mexico or çchina and çpay

someone 1.50 to make something, what ççsaves jobs çhere. i am a republican and çfor çç free-trade i]agreement çççanç small ççbusiness ownr we are taxed the heck because the state doesn't have the jobs and the state has to get the jobs. it's a vicious circle for people that live in this country. as long as you have people going into congress and they do not recognize that they was put into office by us. and they are not looking out for our interest, i really don't see any way that without raising taxes how the jobs or anybody can make a living in this country. i mean, çthe çdemocrat party,ç they çassume on to çthe m1ñ e nothing to do with th jobs. they go into g.m. and lay off

the president of the g.m., and then all çof a sudden these g. workers go out of business. and next you know that toyota and t(others come çand buy companies.mçç and çputs american workers out of work. everyone needs to stop and look at the situation and over0óthat free-trade agreement and xdçli to 60 minutes when they had a thing on there that metal companies could not sell their metal in other countries or compete because they çt(were buying the çmetal from japan.ç and that's a cheaper grade than the xdçmetal çwe are çputtin. guest: there are a couple of things, i]it's easy to look at jobs ççlost through trade, ç whether businesses çor ñ manufacturers that migrated to other countries. and it's easy to find çthose jobs lost. and çççkeep in okççmindç

exports to other countrys and aç lot of work going on. maybe not as visible but part of the economy.çç i think that most economists that the çmove to free trade over the last 20 years has created benefits to the united states.w3 maybe not as obvious when you see people on the unemployment line because their factory moved to mexico.ok one thing çthat qneeds çto haç d

guest: also for the young, the people in the 16-24 bracket. both ages of the spectrum it's difficult. host: let's move on to the next

phone call, from kentucky on our independent line. caller: yes, i called in because of those out of work for wrongful termination. the rate in kentucky is 10.1%. and there is a lot of people who didn't have to lose a job, but they lost their job due to maybe a supervisor not getting along with them. or you know, them not able to handle the situation in the job force. but there are people who are losing their job because of wrongful termination. and i haven't heard much talk about that. i just wrote senator harry reid of nevada, his fourth term in

nevada. and i saw the scandal about him about to lose his job. a scandal about him saying a word. host: we will leave it there, neil, job retaliation, is that something that the federal government looks into? guest: not in this context but in equal opportunity laws. for people 65 and older, the unemployment is up but not as high for the entire population. it's true in a recession employers are looking for every way possible to cut workers perhaps unfairly and discriminatory. probably less for those individuals in those situations. host: we have charles joining us on the republican line.

caller: good morning, my question is that i have people that i sold houses to on contract for deed, and now they have lost their jobs. and my tax assessment came up and they raised the taxes on all the houses i sold them. and the highest paid house is $250 a month payment. and now the jackson county just voted in all the democrats up here. in illinois and now they raised the taxes and they average from $1,000 to 1200 and they are going up to 1800 since i called them and asked them about it. and they said there is not much we can do. guest: i don't know the particulars, we have a housing crisis in this country. even though there are efforts

to help people stay in their houses. a lot of people got over their heads, and that's part of the economic crisis we are in, and part of getting out of that, sorry i don't know that situation. host: caller from ohio. caller: good morning, i just call in because i really worry about the american citizens in this country. i used to live in jersey for 47 years, i worked in every factory with a different people. the way i looked at it. s old country is crying about unemployment, the rate is going up. but if the government and the democrats look and send people in one of these factories, you will see every factories, let me say, 75% of all strangers.

i am also a stranger, but i sympathize with the american citizens in this country. i feel like when i used to live in york, i see america begging everyday for quarters. host: we will leave it there and the a.p. reported jobs down and another million jobs not factored in this equation. guest: yes, and when they make these monthly numbers, they have to guess how many businesses are created and how many go under. and in the turning economy it's hard to know. and they update those estimates

with more solid numbers, and it looked like the job loss in the first part of this recession was worse, and we knew it was bad and more jobs were lost in 2008 than previously thought. and that said that's already priced in the market and understood that those jobs were lost. host: want to let our viewers know that on c-span 2 the live coverage of the winter meeting of speaker pelosi addressing the d.n.c. charles on the republican line. caller: good morning, the jobs with the situation of our major competitor, china. i wonder what role that plays and we have little power to

cause them to inflate their currency. so would the cause of tariffs be the answer to that? i don't think that we put enough legislative teak in the order 94 for the world trade situation. is there anything we can do to change the currency of china for us to have a dollar across the board? guest: that's an interesting point, the caller refers to china buying up the dollar and keeping up their currency lower than just an open market. when their currency is lower, it increasing their exporter advantage. it's a form of manipulation. so that makes their exporters

more competitive than they otherwise would be. and that's a big disadvantage for united states exporters. the question is if you are the treasuriy of the state, how do you deal with that. the bush administration tried different approaches, and congress considered legislation to put tariffs on goods as a form of retaliation. obama administration has used quiet approach and hope to have a more diplomatic effect. the thing that china has let their currency drift up but not as much in an open market situation. and that's something to watch. host: caller on republican line. caller: yeah, i have a comment. as long as the cap and trade

and health care bill is looming, there are no businesses that will be hire people. that's the way it is. i don't care how much obama throws money, that's not going to happen. you have to keep in mind that businesses realize that will happen, they are not going to hire people. host: greg there is a story in the "the washington post" with a lead that talks about drug makers share that sentiment, they are in limo -- limbo of what to do. guest: yes there is situation of knowing how big the effect is. a number of small business people articulating what you

are, that the uncertainty of health care is putting a damper on hiring. i think that the obama administration would argue we have to do what we have to do. and for the long-term for the country, and they argue that effect. it's hard to come up with solid numbers, when you don't hire, you don't have to fill out a form to explain why you didn't hire. the hope is to build a more stable economy and other programs to kick start things. see how that works. host: next caller from florida, mary on the democratic line. caller: yes, i was calling because we finally have good news. host: we are listening. caller: yes, we finally got good news on the economy, it went down to 9.7 or what he

said. and you sitting there and trying make excuses and let's it's not a good thing. you say wait a minute, the calculation may not be right. hold on. that's ridiculous to me, y'all can't give people a little bit of good news after a bad start. and i think that c-span is turning into, i don't know what is going on there. i have called in for years and the first time the people who you man the phones and letting people on, you are letting a lot of people talk. and i know for a fact, y'all have been a little bit bias, c-span is. please be more findful -- mindful to it. host: all right mary, we are very mindful in our aim to cover both sides of the debate and to have guests talk from both sides.

guest: for the record the unemployment rate dropped to 9.7%, that's good news, we are not out of the woods, there is still a lot to do but today's news is good for the economy. we will make that clear incase i wasn't. host: thank you for your time. coming up next, we will talk to frank morring, and talk about the future of nasa. we will be right back. >> indepth welcomes british historian, paul johnson, live

from london, sunday at noon eastern, on book-tv indepth. c-span2. >> it's easy on the depth of politicians, the day that i try to be entertaining and relevant but to provide solutions. host: radio show host, thom hardin is our guest. >> for educators, c-span has provided videos for the classrooms, organized by subjects and topics, it's all free. sign up at the new c-span

classroom.org. watch c-span's "washington journal" about the day's political affairs. c-span covering washington like no other. >> "washington journal" continues. >> frank morring is here to talk about the budget of nasa. let's start with president obama's proposed budget on monday for nasa, what was in it? guest: to start it had $18.7 billion for fiscal 2011, that's a 5% increase over the current fiscal year. beyond that it was a huge change in direction for the agency. since the columbia accident that was ironically seven years to the day that the budget came out this week.

nasa has been working on a plan called the vision for space exploration that would go back to the moon and on mars. and it involved building new rockets to replace the space shuttle. and a lot of development of new space vehicles. that was all eliminated, terminated in favor of a new approach that would rely on commercial launch to lower orbit initially to the international space station. and with the money freed up from that, nasa would develop the kind of advanced technologies to go not only to the moon, but to a lot of places. including asteroids and eventually mars as well. host: would those technologies be unmanned? guest: no the idea would to be

eventually to go with humans, it would be a technology effort than a focused-man raided effort. and the budget contains about $6 billion over the five-year run out which is how they do it here, for supporting the development of a space light industry. and that is certainly significant money. and it's being sold as a change from the government in-house space operations to something more like the airlines. host: james cameron that our viewers know of the director/writer of movie "avatar" has an opinion piece serving on the nasa council from 2003-05, and writes that

last year president obama instructed the report and after months of study, the release bite panel was gloomy, to put humans back on the moon by 20 twen could not possibliy succeed within that time frame. and he talks about a commercial flight and that private industry taking over. when the shuttle is retired after three decades of service they will depend on russian solivoids but under the new nasa plan they will take this capability over in the few years and more quickly than the

industry would have and at a competitive price. what is he getting at here, the competitive price. guest: the numbers are reported lower, lower than $50 million a seat. i can't remember but it was in the 20-30 million range who elon must is building a cargo and he was quoting a figure, somewhere between 20-30 billion, it's less. the vehicle is not ready yet. it's being set up for a first launch at cape canaveral now and it's not human-raided. it's basically a cargo vehicle. host: before we get to the phone calls on nasa's future. what is the impact of jobs in

these areas where there is manned space flight activities going on. guest: i checked these figures, there are about 11,500 people working on the constellation program. and that's the nasa program terminated in this budget. they are located in texas, florida, alabama, utah, california, louisiana, arizona, kentucky and iowa. most heavily in texas, alabama and florida. those civil servants will be ok. and the budget proposed to terminate the constellation program and satisfied contractual agreements for termination. the contractor jobs won't go away initially. those are at most risk, nasa

says they will do what they can and the space shuttle will probably stop flying this year. host: and that the program will offset the loss from florida. what is the reaction from capitol hill of these space programs and their districts? guest: so far i have not heard anyone lineup behind this idea, i have heard negative from congress of those areas changed by the imperil. and that is only for the space shuttle, and nasa was trying to work people out of the shuttle program into the constellation and will have to re-do that as well. host: first caller, on the

independent line. caller: good morning, greta, i would like to say i heard on the news in the past weeks about russia and start to investigate a way to deflect the asteroid coming toward earth. i don't know about asteroid physics but they have to do something by 2013 to do something because it will be near earth by 2035. i would like to thank the russians for their advance thought about doing this. i know about a couple of years ago you had someone on from nasa talking about it. but it's really sad that nasa has to be held back in such a way they can't do things. sure russia is a different government and have a different way of doing things. i applaud them for their forethought, not that our

scientists don't know about it but don't have the money. host: thank you, randy on the independent line. caller: good morning, my question is this, recently i heard on the news that nasa has been directed by this administration to turn its attention and resources to the global warming issues. has that taken away from space programs? and other military programs? host: frank morring. guest: i wouldn't say its taken away from them. there is extra money in the budget for the earth climate studies. nasa lost the study to map the carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas and nasa recouped funds for that program. the budget doesn't really, most

of the money in the budget is going for technology development for exploration. there is a pretty clear plan about what nasa can do to develop scientific data to guide decision makers in setting policy on climate change issues. as far as the military is concerned, a lot of technology that nasa uses to study the earth climate is dual use. just like a weather satellite doesn't know if it's military or civilian. some sensors are the same kind of things that the military would use. host: raleigh, north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning, with the economic problems we are in these days with record unemployment and more people carcerated. do you think it would be a

viable option to shut the space program down for months and funnel that money into the economy and community and back to the people? guest: no, i don't. the money spend on the space program is spent on earth, on jobs and education and scientific research. and it's also a driver for our economy, the kind of technology that will be developed in the budget as has been the case in the past, drive commercial industry that creates jobs. and the commercial launch industry that the budget hopes to set up will also create jobs. it's sort of a cliche that the

money spent here on space affects those. host: next caller, good morning. caller: it seems that nasa had its greatest success when not lost focus. in the future does it look more broad with the global warming and maybe education and things that are not of the core mission of space? guest: that's an interesting question. the columbia accident investigation board that was set up after columbia crashed in 2003, highlighted a lack of focus on the space program prior to that accident. i expect this to be a point of contention in the coming debate on this policy. nasa has been always stretched

too thin even in the days of a-pola. -- apollo. and when lockheed martin reviewed the space program, what they recommended was $3 billion more just for constellation, that's not there. so a focus, it's a good question and you will hear a lot more about that this year. host: jacksonville, florida, john. caller: yes, one thing i am interested in, jupiter has been hit several times in the latest years that would destroyed humanity had it hit earth. i think it's necessary to get out in space and beyond our own solar system.

there are a lot of things that can be done. and wish more would be done, perhaps money spent on other things. maybe some of these earmarked things that really may not help anyone. maybe should be used to create exploration in space. guest: the events that you talk about have happened on earth. there is geological evidence that earth has been hit by large space objects. there is a new space camera that can detect near-earth objects by their energy. and they expect to find hundreds of these things we have never seen before. it's a real threat but it's like dodging a bullet you can't see. we don't know where these

things are. if you are talking about moving off the planet, we are a long way from that. but certainly there are things that the space program is doing to quantify if any space rocks are out there. host: we have a blog, could there be a bigger waste of money going back to the moon, monitoring global warming trends. guest: we went to the moon the first time is a geopolitical statement in the cold war, our technology was better than the soviet technology. it's a little different this time. if you look at the international space station it's the opposite of that. it's a real international relations exercise. we are up there with the russians.

after columbia crashed we couldn't get there without the russians, we flew with them until the shuttle was restarted. yes, there is plenty wastes of money that could go into space. i leave it to the caller to think of other things we spend our money. host: caller, chuck from texas. caller: good morning, i have been a part of nasa my whole life. in college i created an organization known as promotion of activities for nasa, known as spam. oddly enough. i don't know where to begin, i still give presentations from time to time, and i am a little afraid of what to tell kids. i am kind of an a child of apollo, i grew up in the shadow

of apollo and it inspired us to go into math and science. and now what do i tell them? if you want to be an astronaut, you kind of can't. and the reason we go to the moon is to learn how to adapt to these environments and trying to get ready to use inpseudoresearch, the mining for the oxygen and hydrogen, and to get ready for those systems only three days from earth. the space is laid out like a lesson plan. you go to orbit and then to the moon and then the big ships, who knows when. you should have an orbiting space station around the moon and then to mars and out from

there. but over and over again nasa has been stuck in redesign cycles in perpetuity. is it to the point 40 years of these redesigns isn't it time to maybe say, look the united states government is unwilling and unable to do anything beyond low-earth orbit? guest: those are all good points. when i started covering the space program 20 years ago, people talked about the need to have a space program that would last longer than a presidential term. and my experience is that's true. here we are at the beginning of another presidential term and changing directions again. i have written about a lot of paper rockets in my time or rocket -- rockets that almost

got off the ground. i know that the people at nasa working on constellation earth are frustrated. they have done one test flight of their new rocket called aries. it was a low fidelity but full-scale mock-up of what they were developing. they spent five years and about $9 billion work on it. and now we are back to square 1. that's not to say that the commercial approach won't work. i am skeptical that it will work as quickly as the advocates say it will. it's hard to do what they are saying it will do. host: is $9 billion the total on that one rocket? guest: $9 billion is total figure and that mostly includes

the rocket. and they were doing advance work on the second rocket, they needed a heavy rocket like the saturn 5, those were things getting started at a low level. but most money was on the new rocket and capsule. host: from fort myers, chris. caller: good morning, i know there is a lot going on in nasa and i was curious how much research goes into researching ufo's? guest: not very much, i would think. there was -- i will tell you a story. there was a formation on mars called the face on mars. and a lot of people thought it had been built by a civilization. and research proved it was a

trick of the light. and at a laboratory it was in an area of mars called sadoania. and in the jet propulsion lab there is a mar's surface where they test rovers and there is a sign saying soedian park and it's a joke. host: joe, on the independent line, maryland. caller: good morning, i have never heard of directv or radio shack or verizon sending satellites into orbit, and nasa is the only entite. -- entity. and what is your thoughts of the

research money and then turn around and sell services after the companies sell it back to us after we pay for the research and maintenance and development. guest: actually i think that's what nasa is supposed to do and what the advocates of this new space policy would say as well. nasa is enable to do advanced research that doesn't pay-off in the bottom line. there is an awful lot of space technology that we take granted, that is weather satellites, and the technology part was developed by the government because no private company could afford to do so. but the investment in the spacecraft and the rockets that

launch them is private development already. we have a large industry that launches extremely complex commercial satellites. they are very valuable and the rockets that launch them are not reliable. the question is if the government can make the transition to doing the same thing with human beings. host: here is a similar question related to data, this person tweets, can the private sector grow from nasa and are we privy to their data? guest: yes, when nasa does a scientific program, we have the rights and those are available. a lot -- well, all of the

technology that nasa does is open to commercial development. and these commercial entities that are starting to work on their own spacecraft and take humans to low-earth orbit are using technology that was developed by nasa. host: who are some of these companies that may weigh into this industry? guest: that's a good question, nasa got some stimulus package money, that's appropriated and gave $18 million to boeing that is working on a rocket. and $20 million to a company in sierra, nevada. that's two new vehicles and that's small potatoes for building a spacecraft. but the ticket is that boeing and sierra, nevada will use

private companies as well. and spacemek is pretty far on getting a rocket up able to carry humans to the space station. and another company that can deliver cargo and may be able to deliver humans. there are rockets that are rated for humans, atlanta 5 and delta 4, there isn't a lot of detail in the budget. i was struck this week how little the nasa managers know how they will do this new approach. that's what nasa will do this spring, trying to figure out a new program and sell it at the same time on capitol hill. host: long creek, on the independent line.

caller: morning, greta. i love c-span. this is really wrong, nasa should be scrapped. there is no purpose for it. we have gone to the moon, there is nothing that has changed about the moon. this is morally wrong for our country to spend $19 billion a year when we have a homeless problem and unemployment rate, this guy is a cheerleader for nasa, there is nothing new to learn about the moon. host: frank morring, how do consumers feel the impact of nasa? how is it individualize? ? guest: you could say i am a cheerleader for nasa and space exploration. i think there is a lot to learn about the moon.

in the past years i have been to india and china that are both spending a lot of money to develop a space program. and not because they really want to go to the moon, because they want to encourage their young people to study science and math, which in this day is the drivers of the economy. space exploration is not about the moon, although there is fascinating science out there. we are expecting a snow storm in washington, we know that because of the weather satellites. people that are watching us on tv is watching through a satellite. the money is not spent in space but on the earth. host: good morning, democratic line. caller: how are you, my question is that a few years back on the discovery channel,

i saw that a vehicle was able to use high energy lasers and vaporize oxygen. i saw the working model of it. i saw the demonstration. and i wonder why nasa is not pursuing different avenues for space vehicles and why so maried to the other vehicles. i saw that vehicle operate and it used oxygen to provide its lift. can you tell me about that? guest: i saw those demonstrations too and they were fascinating. and the new budget includes $500 million a year over the next five years to do that kind of research, advanced propulsion research you are talking about. it's not just limited to that approach.

as of with this week they have not identified the technologies, and it's not just for getting off the ground, and propulsion into space that could cut back the travel time using chemical fuels to a matter of a couple of months. i have heard the figure of 39 days to get to mars. host: trinity from kentucky, you are on the air. caller: yes, ma'am, i appreciate you having me on. and i appreciate nasa and hope they don't cut their funding and we should explore the ocean more. i have a question about propulsion technology and if you have heard of ionic wind? host: have you?

guest: i haven't heard of ionic wind. there is solar wind, the particles pushed out from the sun and people can catch sails to catch that wind. there is ion propulsion, that's electronic that's low thrust and runs for a long time. you get the effect of a slow but steady acceleration over a long period that gets you up to high speeds. that's how get to mars in 39 days. host: douglas from georgia. caller: good morning i would like to make a comment to c-span of its choice of newspapers discussed in the mornings. there is not only newspapers but the internet and a whole range of data. we sometimes think that the

newspapers in washington, d.c. is skewed. please put up a range of newspapers so we have a broader spectrum. host: matthew, we try to provide what we see on the web. when we read newspapers here, it's not endorsement of one newspaper over the other or an endorsement of newspapers. but to let you know what people in washington are reading. give us your thoughts on the future of nasa. caller: right, with the gentleman you have with you, i would like to say i don't think that nasa is returning to come to american citizen the truth. and the reason i say that, because the technology that's developed on the taxpayers money, that nasa uses. and then it doesn't come directly back to the consumers, it goes through the corporations that use this

technology. guest: i don't know if i can ask a question. host: i am sorry, he's not on the line. guest: if the caller has a cell phone in his pocket. that's working on space technology. the timing signals to make sure that the cell phones work at once are based on spacecraft, global positioning. you are watching television, and something you see on television today will come from a satellite. there is a lot used from space but it's transparent as we are used to it through the years. host: sheila, good morning. caller: i agree with the gentleman that it's morally wrong when we have financial problems in this country. i understand the answer about

our technology coming from exploration in outer space. i assume that's coming from the satellites we have in outer space. but what does that have to do going to the moon and other planets? we bombed the moon months ago and discovered that the moon had water. what are we planning to do, going to the moon and steal water? guest: the bombing the moon attempt was to find out if there was water on the moon. and they found out it was. it's scientific information and the engineering that went into that mission is useful. it could be a resource that people could use on the moon. i repeat that the point of it is not the moon. the point is the technology and the drive to the economy that

comes from the scientific knowledge that we gain. i certainly don't like to see homeless people. and i know we have a huge homeless problem in this country. i don't think cutting funding for space programs is the way to solve the homeless problem. host: allen from maryland. caller: good morning greta and frank. frank, keep up the good work, god bless you, and know that the help is on the way, calvary will arrive. in america the capability to organize a space mission is the same quality to provide a relief effort to haiti and a disaster situation. i want your c-span audience to consider, if you eliminate the space program in any way, you

could kiss civilization good-bye. host: let's here from republican, carl. caller: good morning, i think it's disgraceful and a shame that obama administration has set aside the exploration of the moon and mars beyond and allow india and russia and another nation to plant a flag on these civilizations. and the united states to continue to go down the hill. and i disagree with the gentleman with the ufo's because there are too many unexplained situations to explain away and to say that they don't exist. host: you have thoughts? guest: no, i think there are better ways to spend money than

ufo's. host: what happens next with the budget? guest: it goes to capitol hill, both houses will have hearings on the proposal. hopefully there will be more detail than we have so far. this is a budget request. congress has to authorize the money and appropriate it. it's a lot of money, it's $100 billion over the next five years. the budget starts at 18.7 and goes up to $20 billion by the end of the run-out. host: what is the reality that congress will cancel this program? guest: now the reality is the people of congress in those states where the constellation program is centered, will fight hart -- hard to keep that money coming into their

districts and states. and people with other interests like the homeless may fight as equally hard to divert some funds to their programs. it's the classic congressional battle. host: one more comment from a view or twitter, i am for space program but if you privatize it, then private sectors should pay for all of it. will the private sector have to put in money on this effort? guest: yes they will, the budget will extend the international space station funding for five years, and that's the market for this commercial space industry. and the idea is that nasa would sort of be the main customer but the private sector would pay for most development. host: frank morring