will discuss the new report on u.s. security challenges and threats. later, the intercollegiate studies institute's richard break. . .

host: there are lots of politics in the news today. about washington. including what president obama sees as petty politics. he is saying he wants folks to move forward in town to transcend petty politics, we want your reaction this morning. republicans, democrats and independents your numbers. you may see progress or maybe not. depending on what you are reading in the papers today. lots about policy and lots about politics and back and forth. that was the day yesterday here in town between the republicans and democrats in congress. we start with the view of the president. >> we all understand there are

legitimate and genuine differences between the parties. despite the political fostering that often paralyzes this town. there are many issues upon we can and should agree. that's what the american people are depending of us, and they are tired of every day being a political day in washington. the people expect a purpose that transcends the petty politics. that's why i continue to seek the ideas from every party. host: the job bill is a joint effort and republicans back small business, that's the "l. a. times". and on health care from the "washington times", front and center of the president

yesterday jestering to the crowd of reporters. the headline, obama tells gop it needs to budge. and refuses to scrap the health plan. and "new york times" talks about the back and forth. their headline, two parties resume together. president obama and gop leaders each willing to put aside bipartisanship. agreed that they had related jobs creation, and that senate republican subsequently voted to block mr. obama's choice of craig becker for the national

labor relations board. first call this morning on what the president sees as petty politics. veronica, good morning to you. caller: yes, good morning and happy new year. i am glad it's going to be open. i hope the public gets to see everything, you know that is going to be happening. you know i wish that they would just show what the republicans say behind closed doors and then show the takes when they come out. saying that he doesn't talk to them. this president is talking to them more than i have seen any president talk. he's on the air everyday. it's good to see, the fourth thing they were ñzemdemanding i the health care bill is in the health care bill. so i don't understand what it

is. all of us can actually see it, they have to come to some kind of agreement here. and we can get something passed. because everything is no. and you can't govern if everything is no. i really hope this works out and somehow they join together and you know, try at least to compromise in some way. we are not getting business done in america. host: that was veronica and now to ed. the president pointed to what he saw as petty politics. he wants everyone to move forward, what is your reaction? caller: i believe it is petty politics and if we don't get this debt under control we will be in trouble. it's not a good idea to spend billions on health care when we can't pay our bills.

i am disabled and i needed a check from the government, and when i got it, i said thank god for the democrats, it helped a lot. host: good morning caller. caller: i believe that the petty politics is going to continue. but i believe that obama was correct on what he said in the -- to the house republicans. that you both need to work together. and i am sure they are not going to. the main reason is pure politics, the republicans spread so far apart from what the democrats want. they cannot jump on with obama now. it's impossible. host: appreciate your call from frederick, maryland. more, after a meeting in the

white house, both sides made clear that neither in pennsylvania avenue was ready to declare an end to discord. withins minutes leaving the white house, boehner said he asked the president if you are clear about cutting spending, why not do it now. and mr. obama demonstrated he could quickly squash the message from republicans through his bully pulpit. mr. obama trumped them with a surprise appearance before the

reporters assembled in the white house room. here he is. >> americans have heard that we are serious about cutting spending. why don't we start now with a rescission practice. the president has the practice of sending recession up the hill. we don't have to pump all of this off to some spending commission. we can start cutting spending now. we are interested in a bipartisan conversation regarding health care. but it ought to be that, bipartisan from the beginning. we have been asked to be involved back to a letter that we sent to the president last may. and we got no response to it. so we outlined our concerns about this conversation that the president wants to have.

we certainly want to have a bipartisan conversation, but we need where we are going to start from. host: back from that bipartisan conversation, that the president has scrapped this, that the gop congressional minority will still be required to swallow things it doesn't like. debbie, what do you make of this notion of petty politics in town? caller: i think that president obama is further driving a wedge between the politicians. why doesn't he take bill clinton's example? bill clinton knew when to scrap a bill and start over. bill clinton was a person that brought people together, politicians.

and he helped our government to run better because he knew when to take a stand and when not to take a stand. i think that president obama takes a stand and he doesn't know when not to take a stand and when to work together and bring people together like bill clinton did. bill clinton was a great president because he was a person that brought people together and worked together for the better of our country. president obama seems to be one that divides the country. host: let's hear from michael, what do you think of the debate in town? caller: first i would like to say as a minority republican it's difficult enough for me to agree with the republicans when all the people in the community where i am supposed to be, obama. i think it is petty politics.

of course i don't like agree of the lot of things, the miranda rights, of course i believe in the energy plan. when they come out and block everyone that appears to be a part of the position. and blocks people for no reason, that's petty politics. the american people like to speak and say american people this and that, i don't think that the american people are interested in these petty politics. and this bipartisan meeting is going to shed light on a lot of things and especially the idea of what each party has, not what they claim. host: reminder that if you are a twitter, you can reach us at

twitter.com/c-span wj. one viewer writes national to state to local, our politicians need to grow up. we have jj on. good morning. caller: what the president doesn't seem to understand, this town is about power. who has it and what you need to get hold of it. the party in control determines policy and from policy it determines funding for programs. if you are a politician and work for constituents or party, you want that funding to go what program. or you want to deny funding to a program you oppose ,in this town and washington, d.c. area, it's all about power. when one party comes in, they hire people that support them, either lobbyists or members of the party.

to help them attain that power, or they help the party in power how to use that power. host: so caller, what does all that mean? plug it into the agenda and the need many people see to get things done in town. caller: that's exactly how it's used. whatever agenda that the politicians has that he brings in with him, he the utilize that power. host: i am speaking to viewers and the paper, not much gets done. caller: i understand that, the game plan that the party out of party uses to deny the party in power to look bad. an example, before secretary clinton ran, when she was considering to run for senate. there was a senator from texas that commented on how she

forgave her husband. and saying that if it was his wife, he would never forgive him. and there were two lady republicans discussing it and saying that he's right. i had to explain to him, that if senator clinton had not forgiven her husband, then he would have turned around and said the opposite thing. that my wife is forgiving. he would have said that senator clinton -- or at the time first lady clinton would have done exactly the opposite because he's a political rival to her. host: thank you, and we will look at "washington times", of the headline filibuster thwarts

pro-union lawyer. the senate's flewest republican and two veteran democrats tuesday helped block mr. obama's bid to fill a key labor post. two democrats, lincoln of arkansas and ben gibson, and they write that this rival is only the latest flair up to the minority party and individual senators. senators debated months for the health care overhaul, along the way that expected filibuster.

to wavering senators. we have more calls, petty politics, what do you think? caller: well, it is petty politics whether we want to believe it or not. take for instance i am a vietnam veteran, and i think that veterans have served their country well. but what they are doing is charging veterans for household income for the husband or wife when they did not serve militarily. how could you actually charge veterans on pay because of the household income feeling. that's a slap in the face. that's a disregard to the veterans that served their country. i think that something needs to be done about that.

the health care debate as well. any time the republicans or democrats sit at the table, our veterans should be there also to add their view. they are the ones who served. care for the ones who went to battle, it's not given to them. host: john, what do you think of this in washington? caller: thank you for c-span, i will try to be fast. first of all the problem really, there is pettiness but some is institutional. if you think about it, most of the majority of the american population lives in nine states. they can filibuster and have that 60-seat rule, you don't have democracy. that's been replaced plus the legislative addition, you can't

move without 60 votes and that's not fair, most of the population lives in nine states. host: how would you change the system? caller: well you have to get rid of the filibuster. why not limit it to 50 votes instead of filibusters. if someone should have 50 votes it ought to be legislation. host: writing that legislation is frustrated and a historical unusual dominance by one party. they are stymied and they write that unanimous consent is needed. and that the senate is almost dysfunctional. it's 100 times worse.

it used to be that we would have one or two filibusters for congress, and he's proposed a rule change making it harder to filibuster. next call, albany, new york, lynn. hi, there. caller: good morning, i can't i got through. host: glad to have you, we are talking about what the president said yesterday about petty politics and what we need to move forward. caller: i wholeheartedly believe, i have been a c-span addict and i am glued to c-span 24/7. as a health care worker i compare this financial situation to a health care problem. the patient now is our economy. and we are in critical level

requirements. and i am really very disappointed in the republican party. for thinking this is the same old, same old and sending the patient to the doctor's office and saying, take two aspirin and drink plenty of water. when we have a multisystem failure going on, and any nurse worth her weight in gold understands the critical care treatment. the petty politics has hurt our country severely. when you are in critical care you have to look at the multisystem simultaneously. the congress should have fired off four different bills in 2009 to help our economy survive. and they did nothing but chitchat about they wanted all sorts of debates to go on.

while the patient was dying. and we will see the effects in this 2012 as well. host: thank you for calling, keith is on the call from louisiana. hello, keith. caller: hey, how are you doing, hope i can get this all in, with a comment and advice for the white house. what about us being petty americans. the reason i say this, the president has issued many alternative energies, but not looking in our backyard, we could have a safe energy that creates jobs. and the same people that build nuclear plants run them. we ask for something but then we don't want it. this is my advice to the white house, president obama allow some of these democratic congressmen and senators to

lose their seats. people like the underdog, democrats in power, we are blamed for everything that going on. people have a short memory, everything happened under bush. host: thank you keith. in the headlines in the post, that electorate gaining favorite and republicans gaining ground on democrats and sharply removed many of president obama's advantages. that there is a dissatified electorate in a political year, as many as seven in 10 americans are disapproving of the job congress is doing. asked how they would vote in

the november house elections, americans said 46% siding with democrats and 46% with republicans. at least as four months ago democrats held a 51 to 39 percent. our caller, petty politics. caller: let's go back one year and look at all the wasteful spending bills that the democratic party hasted through because of panic. and no one sat down and said should we do this or not. they all panicked. if you want to talk about petty politics, the democratic party needs to look in the mirror before they go on tv and say get rid of this petty politics

issue. host: the new poll out there says that obama's approval rating is holding steady, on the big domestic issues the economy, health care and jobs, the majority disapprove of the job he's doing, 56% saying they approve. the majority opposition of the administration's plan to try terrorism suspects in federal court. paul, good morning. caller: good morning, i don't get to call in a lot. i am really a nervous person, bear with me a little bit. i have an issue about this thing we call a government. as far as i am concerned i

think there are too many people in this country to be governed by simply a senate and a congress and a president, if you want to call him that. i think it should be spread out. i don't see anyone getting up and protesting like they do in other countries. these bills go through these people that are hypocrites basically. they will tell you one thing on one side and then something else that you want to hear. and then go do something else completely. see i am getting really nervous. i think this country is going /@quick.rong direction real i know i am one voice out of couple million. and i think that more people çó nd i ç am not çótalking çabout çtea parties.kñ(ççmyw3ççççç and saying, @

çme a hard time.zvym i went to çwar and ççi çseeç destroying çthe system ççóand get bonuses.my anddohere çi ççxdam t(a gu married and gci]kids, and i ç don't çget a çnfçbreak for no. host: let's go to gary in new jersey. caller: i got two issues i want to cover. the way we are handling the concept of bipartisan as oshg -- opposed to partisan, both sides are guilty. i will tell you straight up, i voted for the president in the white house. but when you get to the part

you are introducing ideas from both parties into a bill. and then it's rejected by one side or the other, it's stopping the business of the people of america who voted whoever. republican, independent, to go in and do the job for america. ok, now second point. the writing is on the wall, the facts are on the seats. health care, health care. i have written a letter to the president of the united states, i happen to work for a small company that provides transportation, they have been in service for 127 years. they started with horse and buggy. i spoke to the lady that hired me at this particular company, when they got their premiums for the small mom and pop company in northern new jersey,

out of montclair, what little deductibles we had as workers as far as prescriptions and doctors have & -- visits had to be cut off.çççi] áát then çççthe çunion atta company.ççççç but dhey don't çrealize çtha company w3is under çattack çb wayhthe health insurance companies handle their businessç you know it's like coming to me, çççççççççi çxdç just to throw a figure out there for insurance for my car. and then they come back and tell me the following year that my premiums have gone from 500 to $3,000 a year. host: gary, thank you for your comments. we are talking about president obama yesterday at a surprise

news briefing about petty politics. and speaking of politics, if you watched the rest you would have seen robert gibbs. >> president obama is saying no to boehner and o'connell calling him to scrap the house and senate health bills and that's a nonstart. >> they are going to bring their ideas to the table. there are some in their parties that want to do away with as you saw in the presidential campaign. the entire -- i wrote a few things down. [laughter] i wrote eggs, milk and bread. but i crossed out bread so i can make pancakes for ethan if

it snows and then chains. pretty good. host: from that briefing, the headlines say that they smock heavy handed, mocking sarah palin, robert gibbs shows with a shopping list scrawled across his left hand. and you can see the two hands in question, appears robert gibbs, he writes eggs, milk, hope and change. and down here is sarah palin from her speech and what she writes. "the new york post" having fun

with this. caller from virginia, what is your reaction? caller: good morning, i want to state that i hear both sides say, it's an all around problem. but i notice that we have a president that made 22 campaign trips in his first year in office when he should be doing the problems of the country. and making the comments. this is not helpful to bipartisanship. and i noticed that he met with the republican congress in a retreat and then met with the democratic congress, and his rhetoric was more bipartisan than ever. it's good to hear him say bipartisan. but you can't speak two different languages out of the same mouth. host: all right, chris on the

line from boca raton, florida. do you see petty pol -- politics? caller: abs]lutely, first to start robert gibbs [inaudible].ç even çon çççxdthe campaign president ççobama ççwas çs to petty politics.ççççç you may t(recall çççthat thç 9mmade ççt(ça ççbig % wearing a flag w3on çhis lapelç he dismissed it çbut then çóne week he put çon a çlapel pin.ç hez)s çgot so çççsmall çle integrity çand little principl he limits that. republicans can be counted on to be çççjuvenile and petty.ç they complain about spending yet the aggregate spending under obama has gone up, not down. if he is serious about cutting

spending, he should start there. pork spending is not enough, as that is only a fraction. host: as we continue and look at politics from sarah palin at ast weekend. >> plus our administration promised it would be good steward of taxpayer dollars. you remember biden, he was put in charge of a tough precedent oversight effort. that's how it was introduced. you know why? because nobody messes with joe. [laughter] now this was all part of that hope and change and transparency. and now a year later, i have to ask supporters all that, how is that hopy, changy stuff working

out for you. host: more of your calls. caller: good morning, i am absolutely impressed i guess is the right word of the johnson administration now after looking at what is going on today. i don't know how in the world they were able to get through the civic rights legislation at that time. it's amazing to me. and through listening to c-span and reading articles and so forth. i realized at that time you had conservative democrats and liberal republicans, so you were able to get bipartisanship. i was listening to your guest with the president buried iny -- wrote "grant's tomb," he said

that americans public beef should be with the institution and this is how the system was designed. i will say this, as long as the republicans have no risk to their activities, they will continue to do what they are doing. our problems are so vast that disarranging chairs on the titanic is not going to do it. i think the president, if you agree or not, he's trying to attack our deficit, which is health care. which is a big driver. and i think we really are in trouble, as one of your callers, the health care worker said.çç we are really in trouble in this country and we have to come together to find bipartisan solutions. and i think we can do it, and it's up to the american people to see that their politicians will do it.

the politicians will try to get in front of a parade. politicians don't have ideas. the american people have the ideas. the politicians will follow us. it's you will to us america to be sure they do the right thing. host: the town shutting down, we are expecting more snow. maybe a foot or more here in washington. and see if any events take place the rest of the week. we know that the house and senate won't be voting. twitter message on our topic, time after time the çpresident has held out his hand, but the g.o.p. continue to show they worship a corporate master. in the times, obama's perpetual

campaign, wagers that we can't have a perpetual campaign. that's what his white house team is doing, it's not working, çthey write. their fear is that an election is coming, and republicans are trying to scareçç, it's nonse but effective. this helped ram laws through congress. and now republicans are playing the fear card for the fall elections. caller from georgia. caller: good morning, three comments, the 51 vote majority for filibuster is a poor idea. what will happen is that legislation will allow

democrats to pass. i don't understand why people want to do that in the short-term. second, the president pretty much outsourced bipartisanship on his health care bill. because nancy pelosi took it over and harry reid not taking the lead. and forget the role of the public, when it comes to this, i love c-span and it's great. but people call up and say that clinton balanced the budget, but actually congress balanced the budget. or that democrats did this and that, and it's ignorance and we can do our own role of holding our party accountable and not being hypocrites. host: good morning caller. caller: good morning, this is the first time i have called. i have opportunities to watch

c-span and enjoyed it significantly. i would like to say i am more of an independent at this time. and i followed the politics and the games they play. and unfortunately i am disappointed from the democratic side. that they are yet to be responsible for their position in power. the republicans fortunate for them have been willing to stand side by side of their principles. and unfortunately the democrats haven't had the fortitude to take on the responsibility of leadership. one thing i would like to say, i would love to see the lobbyists banned from ú% participating u!from behind closed doors and have an open forum so the people can see what they çwant to çu!discuss the companies and organizations

of çw3ñrwashington, d.c. host: appreciate you weighing in on v:qthe program. darrell is on the line. caller: hi, i want to talk about petty politics. ok, now there is a history in petty politics. the republicans and democrats are both at fault and they both can be part of the solution. in politics things get nasty because we forget where we came from. and i want to speak for a moment. and i don't know if you will cut me off or not. in biblical times daniel the prophet, he saw things, he was actually in politics in babylon. and the writing was on the wall. and you know, when king james put it in english, people could see what it was that our god

was trying to tell us. now politics are a part of us. and we have to live with that. but we can be a solution and get over the bickering. and i want to point people to a scripturec÷i], it says that the lion which is symbolic of england, the eagles wings were plucked off of it, and it stood on its i]own two feet and given mind of its own. that was america, and people can debate it. but it's true. and our forefathers saw that when it was open up for them. host: ok, a little more of the battle between the parties, thomas frank writes in the washington journal, one narrative is that liberals don't offer a competing

narrative, and doing so would not necessarily mean criticism and they want to lead us into the land of nicy niceness. the recent government has failed because it's run into the ground by anti-government politicians. government regulators didn't regulate laws they were starved for resources. the government was constantly being insulted by its democratic bosses. could goed -- according to the story in the washington post, government workers earn 26% less than private sector workers in comparable jobs. the debate is coming soon. let's get a couple last calls

in, margaret from knoxville, tennessee. go ahead, you are a democrat, hi. caller: hi, thank you for taking my call. yes, it's petty politics going on. host: what to do about it then? caller: i think we need to come together. one side says they are not being heard. the other side says they are being heard. put it all out in the open, like on the 25th. see who is telling the truth. there are so many things being said behind the closed doors in agreement. but once they are in the public eye, they change completely. this can't go on, we are not going to advance if it continues. host: a couple more quick headlines, "the ñwashington post", the u.s. illegal immigrant number falls again, it fell by 1 million, or 8% in

2008-09. there is one story about iran and the sanctions over the nuclear program. russia expressed greater concern over iran's program of the prime minister expressing western anxiety over tehran's plan as valid. and valid is in quotes. we have barry ças an independeç caller: all right, it's benny. host: go ahead. caller: obama on the campaign trail you know he lied about everything and he's been lying every since. and all that stuff on c-span, all that will be a lie. he had all the government, all his people in congress and the house and the senate.

and they can't pass his thing because they are not good. and the american people don't want them. and besides that look at social security now, they say they are out of money in social security. back in the 60's we had enough social security that they could have dropped it down to 50 years old and it would have never ran out. but they took money out of social security, borrowed it and democrats and republicans alike. and now they say they are running out. that's their own fault. they put i.o. u.'s in there, you know it and i know it. the health care they should go back to square 1, and do tort reform and all the states. look at georgia, they do tort reform. the doctors are paying about 50% on their malpractice insurance and stuff. and their health care went down.

they could do that clear across. host: all right, that was barry from new jersey. we will talk next about this jobs bill developing on the senate side. our next guest is ian swanson, news editor of "the hill." but this is what leaders are saying about the jobs bill. >> it's really a nice piece of legislation w3çstarting with bipartisan with hatch andt( [inaudible] and we çççhave s business tax and we have a highway bill extension and also build america bonds. the core things i talked about mr. president, are that we were told that the u.s. office okw3w create jobs immediately. not next year, but now.

i hope we i]can work through this, i had one discussion with a çrepublican leader today and will have more as the day goes out. >> mr. boehner did you make any progress on the jobs solution? >> there were a lot of conversations about various parts of it, the house has passed a stimulus bill, it's over in the senate. >> yeah, we discussed a senate package that's been percolating if you will, it's a work in progress with some members of the finance committee. frankly it's not ready yet. most of my members have not seen it yet. we are open to it, and is there a chance we can move it forward on çça bipartisan basis. we hope it's not a stimulus bill, we hope çit's a job

generator. but i think there is a chance that the çsenate could get the with a small package.ç host: çour guest t(is ian swan editor of "the hill." we talk about this jobs bill, give us a sense of what is evolving? guest: what is çevolving is a sense of democrats çand republicans to agree on a jobs bill. it reflects the new political reality in washington where democrats can't get through the house. they have to get some republicans on board. they are trying, but there are some things in the bill that republicans are not crazy about. and the political realities if you want to let a jobs bill go through that could be seen as a good political thing. to give a boost to the members of congress.

host: one writes that the job bill is postponed. one reason is the weather, but the bill itself is in draft form.çóç guest: that's right, harry reid was hoping to get a vote this week, and a part still to get that vote. saying yesterday that we were watching for the bill to come out. and threatening that we will stay here this weekend if we need to do get this vote out. as afternoon turned into evening, he said it doesn't look like we can do it. there were 15 senators missing and having a tough time to get into town. senator reid has asked them to ó host: our guest, ian swanson,

and we have our lines open for republicans and democrats and -eeáq'd-n%s.ç the headline saying, jobs bill cuts payroll tax on new hires, touch on that concept. guest: the key provision would give a tax credit to çóhire new workers over the next year. i believe the dates go from february, assuming the bill passes in february, to january 1, 2011. and that's right, businesses would get a tax credit for o not replace existing workers. and there are a couple of republicans and senators that have been working with this. the idea emerges from a proposal that came from senators hatch.

some republicans have raised criticism in the past, it was used in the 70's by the carter administration and that it didn't work then. host: the bipartisan portion, does that talk about the broader bill, talk about the two sides getting together? guest: you are going to need republican voteos this. i think that the republican conference is a bit divided on the policies in çthe bill. there are a lot of tax policies based on a tax extender package. generally populated from the business and both parties. the hiring tax however is something that not all republicans agree on. and we were reported that not all democrats are sold. we had a quote from senator

brown from ohio, he said he was worried there were too many tax cuts in the bill. it was focused too much on tax cuts for business. this thing is not across the finish line. both parties need to come together, there are only 59 votes in the senate. but both republican and democrat leaders could have difficult with it. host: the snow maybe not be a bad thing and give them more time. guest: i don't know, it's hard to read. host: let's get our first call from rhode island, independent. caller: good morning, i wonder how we in america will create jobs when we no longer have a manufacturing base. you know that bill clinton destroyed the country with the republican congress at the time. those manufacturing jobs çare never çcoming back. host: comment on the

manufacturing base. guest: yeah, there is some truth to it, the manufacturing jobs have been crushed by this recession. i believe that the u.s. remains the largest manufacturer in the world. china hasn't surpassed yet. may do so in the next couple of decades. manufacturing has shown some signs of life in the last month or two. there are a lot of surveys that show more production by u.s. manufacturers. in terms of the jobs bill going through congress, obviously if manufacturing companies are thinking about hiring new workers but not sure given all the uncertainty in economy, a tax credit could spur them on but it's argued it's not the best use of taxpayer money.

host: we hear about the number of jobs that could be created and saved? guest: i don't think i have seen that, and i think that both parties would be careful about that. there are numbers attached to the stimulus saved and created. but we learned it's tough to tabulate how many jobs you save. and the economy has lost a couple million jobs i believe since the stimulus was approved or sent into law in february. it may have prevented many more jobs from being lost. but that's an argument that is sort of difficult for the democrats now. host: we will keep digging deeper in this jobs bill. our caller, democratic line. caller: yes, my question is about the outsourcing of jobs to other countries. i know we have lost more jobs, every time

i call my credit card company i get someone in india. and i wonder if the jobs bill will do anything to keep and bring those jobs back and give incentives to companies not to outsource to other countries. guest: the interesting thing, there are some things in the jobs bill that could help. and going back to the hiring tax credit that could convince companies to hire more workers. in the white house when obama talked, one thing that came out was the agreement to move forward on trade. there have been three trade agreements pending in congress that were initiated by the bush administration that have not moved at all. the republicans have demanded they move, and argue this would help create jobs in the united states. a lot of democrats don't think

that's the case and would lead to outsourcing. we have seen signs of renewed emphasis from w3president obamad on exports.çokq they have iñbeen ca+eful talki about qçt(the ymtrade çt(w3ag they areñrçñrt(ñrw3 controvers demo host: in the past our guest was a trade reporter for "inside u.s. trade." ian swanson is an editor at "the hill." and from the columbia school of

journalism. our w3çcall from ççpat, good. caller: good morning, tampa loves obama. he qwas here çand he okked our high speed transport system. host: what is the jobs trade? caller: 10%, we are hurting. and we look at the rail and that it will provide jobs and health care. i think that one thing feeds into the other. it's giving an optimismic attitude here in tampa. we are all excited about it. when we got here and spoke to the university of tampa, we ç were elated. dñron the line, there were questions that our students socked it to him. he responded so well.

i am a republican, not a democrat, but we love obama here in tampa. thank you so much for the high-speed rail. host: high-speed rail, and tamp isa one of #ei1spots obama has hit. guest: and interesting a swing state, we have seen many of those from president obama. host: more about the okjobs bi the cost of the jobs bill. any price tag on it yet? guest: there isn't an estimate from the congressional budget on the cost, it looks $85 billion in the first year and another 19 in the second year. host: çare there offsets being talked about? guest: there are, they are rather complicated that would involve the highway transportation fund and fuel to

pay off the tax credits. host: clarksville, tennessee, anthony. caller: good morning, i have a question, isn't ççthis money reallocated from the tarp. i don't see the issue, ççxdifç reallocated from ,iátthe money is there. and to reallocate from the lower end, i don't see the issue. host: is that the case? guest: not exactly, the president has announced some initiatives to use tarp money to spur along loaning of small businesses but that job bill paid from a different revenue source. i don't believe that the tarp bill is used for this jobs

sector.g#ççó host: any particular economy will benefit from this bill? guest: there is talk about didn't segments of the economy. host: one headline, the senate job bill is a joint effort. they point out that democrats include, republicans backed idea of backing of businesses. florida is on the line, caller, what part of the state are you in? caller: this is ohio, this is south of cleveland. your football hall of fame, bull dogs. host: how is the job situation there? caller: it's bad here. host: how bad?

caller: our manufacturing base is almost nothing, the biggest industry we have is hospital industry. and plus we bring in a lot of trash from out of state. that's another big issue we are having in this county. we don't want other people's trash but it seems like money talks. anyway, that's not the issue. what makes this gentleman think that the republicans is going to do anything other than what they have been doing on this jobs bill. they was for the bank bailout. they were for cap and trade. they were for pay as you go. they back all of them until they found out the president was for it. and on the stimulus thing, everyone of these, you can go to the senate and congress on the republican side, they all

are in support of this, disapproved it. but when they got the money in their home districts, they praised it. saying it's a boondoggle and then there is a check in their hand. they are just hypocrites and boehner is the leader. guest: mitch o'connell suggested that republicans were looking at this seriously and may come onboard. anyone watching washington recently have complete justification that the parties can come together. all the major bills have been on partisan lines. however there is a danger for residence -- republicans to be

seen as obstructionists. president obama is taking the tactic of trying to reach out to republicans and trying to bring them onboard. some republicans would say he's not sincere in that. but that's how qçqthis t(çpolç game ççw3çwill çóokplay out.ç if okthe americans believe that president ñrobama çis making  nd the nt ñrobama çis making  nd the nc>r>xdkoçoçkçkoñçç dçymççóby d8 in march.çu!ççççó and at çxdçthe same ortimw t risk for republicans being seen as rolling over or giving new momentum to the democrats. and that's politics and that's what a lot of people don't like about washington but that's the system. host: we have brian on the call, from michigan.

caller: hi, don't take this personally. speaking of reality, the previous caller talked on it earlier, concerning nafta. people mention that like it's old news, here is new news, buck 50 to 3.50 an hour for manufacturing. how do we compete with that. and let me state this, over the weekend i talked to paul johnson, a great historian, he's a brit and i asked how he would compete on this. and he said it's new technology in the colleges and what we will learn for the future and perfect that. what is the stop for detroit now, we will develop the best

batteries in the world and the best drive trains and transmissions for everything to work right for the new age of cars. once we get this perfected. the swells, the big corporations will just move this stuff to mexico and china. we need to ask ourselves directly how are we going to compete at an average of $3 an hour when they think they are swimming in money now and we couldn't pay an bill at $3 an hour. it doesn't make any common sense. host: ian, let's hear from our guest. guest: it won't make sense if you are building a broom, you can't compete with people making less money when you are making a low-cost product. the potential is there for u.s. manufacturers to make high-value products. as many troubles as the u.s.

automotive sector has had, ford has had a fantastic last year, and the problem with toyota gives the ability of profiting in the united states. and the obama administration sees an opportunity for manufacturing products to get to this new green economy. and thinking that the u.s. manufacturers would have a leg up there because of that technology. look, i don't think any would argue that the competition from emerging companies like china and india isn't fierce. they have competitive labor markets and huge surpluses, their governments can invest in a lot of money in state tech and they are doing that. so it will be a challenging

world environment for u.s. manufacturers much but the argument from republicans and democrats is there is still a good shot as long as they focus on the right industries. host: here is a twitter from a viewer, we don't have as many manufacturing jobs because of computers and robots having replaced overpriced u.s. union labor. we have a caller from indiana. caller: it should be from both democrats and republicans, they are both not doing anything to resolve the problem with the jobs, hospital care or whatever the case may be. let me give you a forinstance. after katrina, i remember governor schwarzenegger said, there is a levee problem in

california. i haven't heard of a resolution there. these shovel-ready jobs, we have to be isolationists, because we can't choose the industries, because they will ship them overseas. the american public has to buy our own products. we are the biggest market for the most part. this world crisis we are probably ending the best of all the countries except china, because they manipulate v:their money, the wan. it's crazy, there is no common sense in this thing. and this gentleman by the name of obama is captaining a ship called titanic. and he's fighting the passengers all the time, and

he's not going to win. guest: i think one thing that the caller mentioned about china pegging of their currency to the u.s. dollar. that has made chinese exports less expensive to the united states and europe and all over the world. and it makes it harder for u.s. manufacturers to export to china. their products are more expensive. there is a continuing clammer in congress from both parties and the community for them to do something about this. there were years of clammering for the bush administration to do it as well. it's difficult because u!d8they need to cooperate with china on many foreign policy things. and there is this nasty issue of the u.s. debt much which is owned by the chinese. and i have u!done reporting how

economic relations between the u.s. and china are expected to worsen this year. and we have seen no sign of any evidence of that not to be true. from googles problems in china, to the chinese reaction to the sale of taiwan. the currency debate will continue this year , i don't know if we will see legislation. host: from "the sun" about senator boehner and you see house members there reminds me to ask, what has the house been doing on the job front? what have they done and where are they headed? guest: they passed a jobs bill

before christmas while everyone was focused on the health care in the senate. now the house is looking at a smaller jobs bill to matchup with the senate. so you can have an easier conference with the senate and get something done, there is behind-the-scenes on that and nothing is discussed on that. it looks like the house is moving towards where the senate is going. of course we don't know how the senate bill will be. host: we have melvin on the line. caller: i have been a c-span watcher since 1994 and am one today since i am retired. one thing you need to do is to they have an understanding that everyone comes to the table with their own agenda.

they meet çin çtheir ñrown ç and come to the table and try to meet the legislation that way. the and -- and the gentleman said that no money would be used from the tarp. that is partially çw7çright, b you have small businesses that can't hire people because of the money tied up in the major banks. the money will be used to hire people, and that's the purpose of loaning the money from the tarp to the small bank for people to get the loans çfor more.çççoksñk and çhe was çççwrong and th dhçmoney t(to be qççused çf jobs program. guest: what i said is that the money -- excuse me, the jobs bill moving through congress now i don't believe that bill will be paid by tarp funds. college right that tarp funds

will be used in this initiative, that the president announced.i] and congress writes that lending is a problem. the banking industry is doing better than a year ago, the credit still isn't moving through the economy the way the people would like to see it and the administration and congress would like to see it. and this effort is supposed to help people get loans for small businesses and homes. so yes, caller, good point. host: a twitter, republicans all say they are the fiscally responsible ones, i don't think so, look at history. and ?;i]ççça writing çthat businesses grew optimismically

last month, guest: this is a good sign, the question everyone wants to know is when is hiring going to begin. last friday the news is ççtha the unemployment went down, theç ews ?spxobeoç?;ççççis çç jobs, çand not gang.çç -- çgaining jobs. you have millions of people out of work and giving up on looking for jobs.ç hopefully the statistics çç!( show that, that will ççturn around and there will qbe a çç (

guest: that's the story in washington today and it's the story for some time. and why it's hard to cut spending. the caller said to talk more about agendas and that's one that every lawmaker has, looking out for constituents.

and they don't like to see money çççcut that affects th home states and districts. host: what is the money cut w3i up the three strikes and what the future might bring with the commission. guest: the reason they are talking about a commission, they can't agree of spending cuts to get the deficit under control. the new idea is to create this outside commission çwith forme politicians that offer how to cut the budget.i]çt(ççççokç programs that are a long-term problem. the idea is that if the system is broken, it won't take tough decisions itself. you have to get an outside

group to make decisions. and the problem is that the congress will have to sign on it and who knows if that will be possible. host: caller, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i would like to ask the guest if he could elaborate. it's my understanding we have yet to spend half the stimulus money, the $865 billion and if we have the remaining funds from the original stimulus, a lot of remaining funds. why are we coming back to the american people and the chinese in particular, to borrow more money to go about setting up a jobs plan. i will take your comments off the air. guest: i think that most of the

money from the original has been allocated and a fair share is out fáthe door. i am sorry i don't know if i] every penny is spent, i have anç update on the latest figure. ujjzey was to be spent in 2009 and in the first part of 2010. the argument for why they çóare doing this, they continue to see unemployment high. and they think they need to do more.xdç .h["

guest: the question is whether the automakers can pay. this is complicated because the stock transactions took place when they took over general motors. but most analysts think that it's not only paid back but ahead because of dividends.

host: if it is paid back, will this increase confidence? guest: it could, i think the dilemma, the bailout of the banks on some levels has worked. and that you are not seeing the big banks spiral downward as in the fall of 2008. but we haven't seen credit, it's not easier for small businesses to get credit. that's what people on main street wanted. they were sold the idea that that would happen through the tarp. and i think that's why the anger is out there. that the economy still continues to be horrible. the workers can't get jobs and can't get the help and then read about the bonuses. and when you don't see it

trickle down to main street. until that happens i think that people will stay anger about tarp. and the last thing the budget deficit. the money paid back means that the deficit wouldn't expand because of the tarp in people's minds. people see this deficit and all the money going out to banks and all the these bonuses. people still out of work. and that creates political hard feelings on main street. host: going to anthony, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning, my concern is an example for citibank, i called on my credit card and next thing i know i am speaking to philippines or india. it's outrageous that we are giving banks billions of dollars and they are now sending these jobs overseas. there is no reason why college

students getting out of school cannot have these jobs at citibank or at bank of america. we are here in palm beach, florida, the unemployment is really 15%. it's not being broadcast with the rest of the united states, but it's absolutely horrible down here. i was wondering if you could comment how these banks were allowed. and it must have taken years to set this up. why were these jobs outsourced to india and the philippines? guest: i am sure that the banks set up cost centers in foreign countries, the value of labor. the labor is cheaper in those countries, and that's why they are doing it. and to drive down the costs. i would assume most set-ups took place before the tarp money was put out.

businesses are tree -- free to make those kinds of decisions. the reason and argument why the tarp needed to be set up and aid needed to be given to citi bank and others that you would see the situation collapse and get worse. but it doesn't and you can't argue that it wasn't a mistake and companies that are doing that shouldn't get the help. and that's why there is anger about it today. host: going on charles on the independent line from chicago. good morning. caller: good morning, i will take as little time as possible. please don't cut me off, i probably have three points to make and it all comes about the job effort that i have from mr. swanson. and thank you for being there, mr. swanson. you guys are talking about a

lot of important topics, but what confuses me as an american, how you divide the topics. you can lock at -- look at the phone lines, democrats, republicans and independents. we are not volunteers to help president obama, one of millions. i have worked with democrats, republicans and independents to get him into office. there was a good segway you had of petty policies and brings into the jobs, as unemployed americans. but because part of our stimulus package, what our president has done to help many americans to see the problems that our country was going into. one caller talked about the call centers, and i believe that the call centers should come back to america, even at $10 an hour, that's better than

what some americans can make. everything was going to energy policy. gas went up to $40 a barrel and as people were losing their jobs and still let go. so that nafta thing i think that needs to be repealed. i love working with other countries but we have problems in america also. guest: there is a bill sponsored by democrats that would force the united states to renegotiate nafta and i believe every other trade bill on the books. it's one probably at 140-150 co-sponsors, probably half of the democratic caucus, there are a lot of people that agree with that point. it doesn't seem like leadership is interesting in moving the bill.

but that's part of the debate. host: a couple other items, business section of "new york times," that ben bernanke has survived a challenge to his second term as chairman, and faces the delicate task of beginning to pull the central bank out of its extraordinary situation. guest: the economy through the fall of 2008 and through last year, in an effort to help banks and credit markets and to prevent the financial system from imploding. they did that by lower the interest rates, and now they have to pull that back. they have to pull the federal reserves investments in the economy back. and they have to do that carefully because they don't

want to cause problems in doing so, which is something that could happen. it will be delicate. markets are watching when this will happen. if he doesn't do it right, you will see plunges in stock values. host: what is the update? guest: last week senate dodd announced he was at an impasse with senator shelby, and it's not a good sign. there are some republicans who said they were committed to get a bill. one thing to watch is bob corker, a new senator from tennessee, he's working with mark warren, the former virginia governor, and they are working on some aspects of the bill. if they can get an agreement that could roll into a larger

package. host: one last caller. caller: my comment is straightforward. i can't be more blunter. i noticed throughout the years, every time there is a republican in office, this country goes downhill and no jobs. and when democrats get in, there are plenty of jobs. and it seems to me people are forgetting who created this problem in the last eight years and trying to put the chain on obama's neck and it's not right. host: final thoughts. guest: in terms of who is to blame, there is a lot of blame throwing. obama has not forgotten, he mentioned that he inherited a rotten economy. and gets from republicans that he's been in office for a year, and it's time for him to take

responsibility. both parties have their messages they are trying to get out on that. and if you listen to that, maybe they won't get the bipartisan job bill. host: thank you ian swans -- swanson. we can barely see through the snowy hill, but our guests are coming. our necks guest, daniel kaniewski. the topic homeland security. be right back.

>> tune in c-span 2, book tv, beginning saturday, authors include henry paulson, talking with warren buffet. afterwards gary wills of how the atomic bomb changed the presidency. and all day monday, books on american presidents, fdr and our culture, craig >> documentary producer and head of citizens uniteds david

bossie on c-span "q & a." american presidents life portraits on display, through february 21, the exhibit looks at the lives of the presidents. sponsored by c-span and the white house presidential historical association. and if you can't get to the site, visit this online. >> "washington journal" continues. host: at the table, daniel kaniewski working for president bush from 2005-2008 and on the table is homeland security report, what does it look at? guest: first it's an important

document, i applaud this administration and that it meets the congress attempt. i feel it provides a road map for the future for the department of homeland security. in reality homeland security is broader. and i feel this document will lay the future. host: what are the topics in this report? guest: there are no surprises, this is not controversial. preventing terrorists attacks is the number one priority. no surprise. but other items resiliency before disaster. i arrived here before hurricane katrina and i am happy to see that this is one of five major themes identified in this review. host: and it's the first such

review that the department relatively knew. what piece of information are members of congress looking for in this? guest: this is the first process and the ideal state is that this document will help build future budgets. the 2012 budget it will be interesting to see how closely the homeland security budget lines with this document. host: our guest is the director of homeland security institution, daniel kaniewski, and the phone numbers on the bottom the screen. topics what is next for d.h.s., when was this department first formed? what did it come out of?

and how big now? guest: after the legislation in 2002, it was a combination of several efforts on the hill, there were committees working on this issue before 9/11. and it surprised us that the bush administration looked to congress to help them build this bill. and a year later, in 2003, the department opened it doors with 180,000 employees, it was a huge undertaking. in the seven or eight years since the department of homeland security existed, it's a growing process. it's not just like flipping on a light switch and the department is ready to go. this quadrennial review comes at a the right time and the department looks back and says what are our priority. host: what is the budget?

guest: it's a little over 200,000, and the budget request for 2011 is 2% increase from last year. and this is not news, but the other departments and agencies budgets are frozen or declining, but homeland security is up 2%. host: is that enough money to do the job effectively? guest: there is always room for improvement. i want those budgets to be larger. host: first call from greg to daniel. caller: i think that the trial of mohammed should be held publicly with a citizens grand jury so we can get to the

bottom of who really did this. thank you. host: any thoughts? guest: this is a controversial issue and a top issue on the agenda for the obama administration. president obama made the pledge to close began -- guam guantanamo bay. the issue that came forward just now in the last few weeks is the cost of this trial. and are we as americans willing to sacrifice our resources to have these trials in the united states. in 2009 there was $2 million allocated for these trials. given what will happen in new york, it may be difficult to

find a location in the united states to have these trials. but more importantly, $200 million of these trials that could have taken place at guantanamo bay. come at a cost. they are significant costs to state and local programs. those costs and expenses and opportunities are wasted because we want to have these trials domestically. i would rather see that money spent on state and federal homeland security programs. host: our caller on the republican line. caller: did you say anything about closing the borders of mexico and canada? guest: mission two in the report talks about security and managing the borders. guest: sure, security is

managing but not closing the borders. it speaks of free commerce. the administration understands and i am happy to see this, understands there a balance between security and free commerce and free trade. both are important. if you lock down the borders you could be cutting off trade. and that would be good for nobody and bad for the economy. host: how do you strike that balance of free trade and securing the borders? guest: it's difficult, similar to the securing of the borders and security. like the christmas bomber, the privacy issues take a back seat. i say that not to be coy, the bottom line there was not support for full-body scanners

prior to the christmas bombing incident. and now the question is why don't we have these in more airports. the political will was not there, facing pressure from outside groups and commerce with grave concerns about the full-body scanners. and in the wake of the christmas bombing incident, $215 million has been requested for these full-body scanners. host: mission one, preventing terrorism, speak to how you think the current administration is doing in office? guest: i think they struggled at first, when you look the homeland security's director in her opening comments, refusing to use the word terrorism, it

tells me you are almost in denial. and much as we would like to forget about terrorism, it will happen again. the christmas bomber was a wake-up call and i see in this new document of the homeland security review it mentioned terrorism throughout. and the number one priority is preventing terrorist attacks. i am sorry that it took almost a year for the administration to focus on that. at the same time they are focused on national disaster prevention and something we are trying to do in the wake of hurricane katrina. i applaud the obama administration that they are clear that they focus on this key mission. host: does this report make

this clear or just status report? guest: those priorities are made and more importantly i hope it plays a key role in the fy 2012 and future budgets. where they can matchup these to priorities. host: back to calls, francis. caller: hello, this man is very articulate and i am sure he can answer questions. the last time i called into c-span, the two guests wouldn't answer my questions. i have three questions and you it answer them clearly and truthfully, i would be very grateful. on the homeland security act when it was passed was there a

midnight rider put on it to block [inaudible] children's vaccines? host: let me stop you there. guest: i haven't heard of that, i don't know but i don't think it's come across. caller: mitch daniel was the governor who supposedly did that. the second question, in southwestern united states, they are building detainee camps that hold whole families by homeland security? guest: i think there is some truth to the fact that the federal government should be planning to handle a mass influx of people. but not if detainees. i am not aware of that. but if you mean those who cross

the border because they need to be detained because they are unlawfully crossing, of course, there are facilities for that. host: one more question. caller: a 15-year-old boy was arrested in north carolina and in a secret prison in u.s. patrit -- patriot 1, will this be used against or citizens? guest: no, i am an advocate of supporting the civilian government, we want the military to assist of but not that military play a law enforcement role. host: we have a call from will from atlanta. caller: good morning, thanks for c-span. mr. kaniewski i would like to address the man from north carolina that suggested in the

trial of mohammed fella be held by a citizen's grand jury to see if he committed the crime. if you read the book about bush and cheney that committed 9/11. you did a good job and your priests raise you to be a part of the system and only the catholics that supported the hitler's grandson draft dodging. >> host: to say? guest: no. host: we have fred on the republican line. are you there? caller: yes, i am. thank you for taking my call. i want to ask your guest, mr. richard trupp president of the

afl-cio gave a speech where he talked about unionizing the employees, and that they would be better off if unionized. and that flies in the face of a fella that is head of israeli surety for ll airlines. at least he was. and he allocates nurses and if failure by security people they would immediately be fired. and he would tolerate no failure on their part. and i wonder what your guest feels about unionizing tsa employees? guest: that's a good question i

don't feel that's needed to unionize tsa employees. host: more table of contents, the break-down of this quadrennial report, and anything else on your opinion on money spent and the money on southern border and northern border, what is your take? guest: there is one concern and that's the reduction of the number of border agents in the fy-11 budget. while the security review is to look forward and that border security is important and spending money on border security is important. you see in the fy-11 budget there is a cut. if you dig deeper it's not a

large cut, 180 border agents would be let go by attrition. every year 1,000 retire, so this is not a big deal. if your viewers hear that the border agents are cut, it's a small number and through attrition. host: they touch on labor relation laws, what does that say? guest: it whasz the bush administration says, we will look toward high-tech solutions at our border. we will look at opportunities to ensure that only lawful, people can only lawfully enter this country. i will say there is not a lot new on the immigration side. even overall, there is not a huge change from what is being

said in this document from what is said previously in bush administration documents. obviously where you sit is where you stand, i think that's good to have a continuation of bush policies. and this administration has made tweaks where they feel is necessary and keep up with the times. host: we go to waco county virginia. caller: yes, i want to say a few words, i never understood when the world trade center was bombed and why they didn't get people out of florida and put them on the fastest plane out of here. and to find where you hide and everything. host: comment on that? independent line, good morning.

caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. i have a couple of questions, one is the failure of homeland security in the christmas bomber when he actually boarded the plane i think in the netherlands. and now we will have body scanners in the united states. what are we doing about the foreign countries that are letting these people get through to come through. and then of course the trials of the 9/11 folks i called the senator's office and fly everyone to impanel a jury to gitmo and go there. host: let me stop you there, the caller mentions other countries, what is happening there? guest: that's a great question. in fact no matter how good our security is at domestic

airports, we would not have stopped that christmas bomber. that's an important part and the secretary said it was not there fault but that's an easy way out. it's important that we reach out to our allies and that they have security support. after all the terrorist will approach the weakest link, and if that's a foreign partner, that's where they will go. europeans have taken immediate actions. and in amsterdam where this individual flew through, they put in the full-body scanners almost immediately after that incident. host: caller, what is your other question? caller: back in the beginning of the obama administration they have several, i guess they call it ice now.

they had several raised that went into a factory that rebuilt engines and arrested a bunch of people and napolitano told them not to do that anymore. we still have immigrants, i live in jacksonville and we had the same situation where there were 100 people working on the new white -- court house that were not documented. if we don't penalize the people that hire the illegal immigrants, then we are not going to take care of th problem. and it seems like the obama administration doesn't want to enforce the laws. and they are letting these people slide by. and i will hang up and wait for the answer. guest: i think that the issue you speak about is just one part of comprehensive

immigration reform. until comprehensive immigration reform is resolved we can't deal with other aspects like security. security is very important to me. and i realize and security and enforcement are just one small of immigration. until there is leadership on this issue and some level of agreement on comprehensive immigration reform we will continue to face the security concerns that the caller raised. host: a question by twitter, how much of homeland security is run by contractors, don't contractors have limited oversight and not work for profit, not public good? guest: the department of defense relies on contractors. and the department of defense or homeland security couldn't

function contractors. there are not enough employees in these areas to perform those functions. most importantly if a private sector company with do it more efficiently and at a lower cost, i think they should be contracting. host: we touched on a lot of issues with this report, what is the biggest problem? guest: i think the department is still going through growing pains. the department and its secretary had a steeper curve, pandemic influence, that was one of the first major challenges. and now the christmas bomber and all sorts of issues in between. i think it's been a difficult time, a difficult first year. but i am more comfortable now that the department his learned the political issues.

and political staff aside, even the career staff had a difficult time the first few years. i see them gem -- getting more comfortable with their mission and understanding their roll. -- role. and i applaud them for acknowledging that homeland security is so much broader than just the department. and for example, the influenza or bioterrorism, it's the role there. and animal health issues that we dealt with, with swine flu, that's usda, department of agriculture. supporting department obligation whether in haiti or

military, it's the military that has the equipment to assist. you see that homeland security is broader, and i applaud the administration for hitting on that. host: caller, jim, we are talking about homeland security. caller: i would like to talk about the christmas bomber and the naked body scanner as the airport and he was lead on by a state department. he didn't have a passport. i think there is a lot more truth that needs to come out for this. and you can go to prison [inaudible].com. and you mentioned yourself that through immigration until the immigration process is done what we want to do with these immigrants.

i think that would be the most important, don't you? guest: i will hit the last question first, i do feel that security is important. my point is it's difficult to look at these issues separately. security and enforcement are important pieces, but in the broad scheme of immigration re form, they are just a couple of pieces. there are many issues and much more complicated. absolutely security is important, but my view it's more difficult to fix that security issue unless you look at the comprehensive piece first. you are right, there are body scanners at the airport. however those scanners were not used for u.s. bound passengers. a lot of reasons for that, one is privacy concerns. today those scanners are being used for u.s. bound passengers. so you are correct.

so is the homeland security saying that scanners are using it now. host: where can people read on this report? guest: it's on the homeland security website and you can google it, quadrennial review, it comes out over four years. host: here is the website, what happens with this report. congress gets it and you mention they will look to future budgets and that type of thing but whatever? guest: it was congress that mandated this in 2007, and they have the biggest interest in this. you will see now many committees in congress will each look at the portions of this report that apply to them. what many people don't understand is that there are 80 committees and subcommittees in congress that have some

oversight role with respect to homeland security. . .

was created after 9/11. i don't think 9/11 would have happened if the ball had not been dropped. if somebody had opened their eyes, that could have been presented -- prevented easily it was the people we had up there, the leadership was not working. now, we have gone and created another bureaucracy which costs $100 billion per year per i don't see where they have helped us out. i don't want to be critical of you but you have to tell the truth. during the election of george bush on the second term, people were running scared. they used that to get bush reelected. they never really thwarted any attacks. the only ones they thwarted or on airplanes. we're looking at money now.

this is government spending there. we have to look at where we are getting the bang for our buck. i understand homeland security is important but you have to look at health care. there are more people dying because they cannot get health care than any terrorist could kill. if i was osama bin laden. , we can't do anything about it, that is crap. we're spending $100 billion per year for what? c'mon, man. host: i think he is gone. guest: the viewer feels very strongly. i respectfully disagree. if we spend an unlimited amount of money, can we do a better job of security at the borders?

sure, but that is not the environment we work in. there are other priorities out there like health care. unless we have an unlimited amount of money, there will always be a trade-off. there will always be a prioritization between what we spend our money on within the department of homeless security whether we spend it on disaster preparedness or securing the borders or on broader issues like public policy. you raise a lot of concerns and a lot of questions but if there was an unlimited amount of money, this would be easier. host: independent caller from kentucky. caller: i was calling in about -- in reference to janet napolitano bridge probably made the most devastating statement about returning war veterans from afghanistan and iraq, saying that this was a special group that had to be observed

because of the fact that they may turn to violence against their own country. i was very upfront about this. -- i was very upfront about this. -- affronted about this. i think she should have been removed from office. pre-9/11, during the clinton administration, people don't understand the budget deficit that went on. yes, the deficit was zero under clinton but they cut the military in half. many people that i knew, we had foreseen that if an incident occurred, they would have to spend five times the rate to be able to reinforce the military again. we have seen armaments go and body armor being limited. we knew we did not have enough cruise missiles. 9/11 happened and our deficit

for spending went amuck. people do not even look at that. my main thing is about janet napolitano. i think she is the most incompetent person i have ever seen. guest: i have heard comments about her. she had a difficult year. i have said that before. the right wing extremists report that you referenced was taken out of conference -- context, i think. i think was handled very poorly. that was one of the first challenges that she faced. there have been several other challenges this past year, including the christmas bomber, where she misspoke. unfortunately, the obama administration took a hit. i do not disagree with the callers or frustration. i hear you and i feel a similar way. when i see things like that happen, when i see things not

handled well. i think a criticism for the military veterans is unfortunate. i hear you and i hope that the department leadership here is you as well. host: 01 to get your take on the lead editorial of "the new york times." they say the republicans are trying to scare americans by making it appear as if democrats do not care about catching or punishing terrorists. the republicans did that in 2004 to get the president reelected. that is a big issue that has gone back and forth on capitol hill from both sides as somebody close to last president in this area, what do you think of that kind of critique? guest: i vehemently disagree with the fear mongering part. to think that someone in my

bush administration did anything intentionally to spin the threat is ridiculous. we were vexçñ concerned about a terrorist attack. that is why we focus on terrorism. the last year and watched the obama administration not emphasized terrorism away we did was very concerning to me. there are two sides to every story. i will say that if there was any fear-mongering about terrorism before or now there is, you have to think it is because of the christmas bombing incident. he did republicans are saying i told you so or the obama administration is saying they are tough on terrorism now -- it will be an ongoing debate. host: a couple of more topics from the quadrennial report. what is the report say about cyberspace? guest: cyber security has been a

tough issue in the bush administration and the obama administration. to put it in black-and-white and to say this is not only a priority, it is a priority of one of the top five issues. it is certainly not new. because it is in the report, it does not mean there was nothing on this. the bush administration was focused on this. i applaud them for making this public. host: in showing resilience to disasters? guest: this is not something new. this was in relation to disaster response. what is new is that they have on equipped -- they have unequivocal said that responding to natural disasters whether they be hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, or pandemic influenza, kudos to the obama

administration for doing this. in the bush administration, many of us felt that way but we were not able to get it said quite as clearly as the obama administration has. a lot of that has to do with congress. many in congress felt strongly that all my security does not incorporate responding to natural disasters despite the fact that fema is in dhs. putting in the document that responding to disasters is a response broke -- responsibility, security is important. host: massachusetts, republican, you are on the air. caller: i have a question about air marshals. my son is one and he will fly

from boston to new york and he says the bureaucracy -- when they go on vacation, they classify him as an air marshal. there are only like 3% of all domestic and international flights with air marshals. it is a joke. this, and security -- this homeland security is ridiculous it is like the tsa. ñguest: i think it is complicated. the federal air marshal program has good intent which is to provide another layer of security to prevent terrorist attacks via aircraft but is it is not the be all and end all. i will say that the statistics,

there is a good reason it is not public. regarding where federal air marshals are flying for it would not make sense unless we had federal air marshal's braylls. we don't have the funding to provide a federal air marshal on every single domestic and international flights. it is unrealistic. i don't think we ever will. it does not make sense to provide the level of funding to the federal air marshals not to these other levels of security. by keeping it random or putting them on the highest-risk flights determined by the department of all my security and keeping it secret, i think it keeps the terrorists questioning and on edge3 . they don't know whether there is an air marshal on a certain flight or not.

i think that is the best case scenario right now. host: massachusetts for this last call, a democrat. caller: by mgm from melrose. -- i am jim from melrose. i appreciate cspan because it gives the american people a chance to be heard. my first question is -- how do you balance privacy vs. security? let me give you two instances of which propel my question. i9 believe it was norfolk maybe three years ago. i paid cash. i encountered eight not to courteous security person. i was given the once over.

they were too close to my private parts which i found objectionable. before i knew it, a big woman who looked like a professional wrestler gave me a once over and i saw two policeman and a policeman were very reasonable they said the reason was that i was targeted is that i paid cash provide but that was in physician -- but that was insufficient. i told -- and showed them my retired military corporate instance two -- this was in corpus christi, texas. i got the same ones over and the guy asked to take my belt off. i ask what would hold my pants up and they said you are. i'm a rookie because i do not travel by plane very much. they confiscated my deodorant in the can. i ask what they did with this stuff. they said they destroy it. told them to give it to a nursing home or something. how do you balance the need for

security and privacy? guest: i think it is a great question. it is an abiding concern for it has been a concern before 9/11. if you think of a pendulum, after 9/11, the pendulum swung toward security. there is no question that in the days and weeks and years following 9/11, there is an emphasis science -- on security and people will put up with inconveniences'. several years past 9/11, i think we risk swinging the pendulum too far toward privacy. iythat breeds complacency, unfortunately. the question is always, how can we remained vigilant? how can we insure the security measures are taken while still ensuring a level of privacy? how can we defend the country

from any terrorist attacks? as concerned as you were about the search you had, all of us wish that the christmas bomber winter such a thorough search. i will always be sensitive to the privacy issue but security is number one in my mind. host: thank you for being with us. you work for the bush administration as a special assistantçó to home when securiy and director for response policy. thank you for your time. we will take a short time out and talk about education and civic leader -- literacy. we will have questions for you to test your civics knowledge during this last segment of the show. our guest will be with the intercollegiate studies institute. we'll be right back.

>> tune in to book tv for the three day presidents' day weekend. we will have former treasury secretary henry paulson talking with warrenúau'eijzrñt&a/-ñi te ujqhì(lc@&c+ winfet(ávçóñiñrxdxdxdçóñrñiçóçñe nuclearçóñi bombñiñi changed th. presidents. -- we will have books on american presidents. for the complete schedule, go to booktv.org.

>> the film "hillary, the movie" was controversial. we will talk aboutñi sunday nigt on c-span "q&a." >> it is the only collection of american portrait painted by one artist. it is now on display at purdue university in west lafayette, indiana through february 21. the exhibit looks of the lives of the 43 men who held the office for paintings, photographs, prints, and audio recordings, sponsored by cspan and the white house historical association. if he cannot get there, see the entire collection on line at c- span.org. . american org. host: it is very snowy in the

east but many folks are, and we can learn something today. guest: thank you for having his back. host: you put out a new report on civic literacy. what is the update on what people mill about six? guest: unfortunately, they're not doing well. we have made an assessment as to how well current college students know about their government and foreign affairs and economics. they're not doing very well. they don't know we have three branches of government and do not know traditional review and basic things about the economic system. host: why not? guest: it goes back to the curriculum. kids can not know what they are not taught grade civics is not a priority starting from kindergarten up through college. we think that college is a good place to start. that is where our teachers are trained. that is where our future leaders are trained. host: speak more to the

collection of american believes. guest: what we want to do other than looking at how much people know or don't know, we want to see what that impact is on public opinion. we also ask them a battery of questions about american ideals and institutions, public policy, economic policy. for example, is america a force for good in the world? are the founding document of america obsolete? does the free market provide prosperity? and then we saw ask them how -- and then ask them how they answer those questions? we saw a diverging impact on a per if you go to college, that impact is on a very narrow step of divisive social issues. if you go to college, you are more likely to favor abortion, you are against school prayer,

you are much more in favor of same-sex marriage. there is a question about whether there is indoctrination that might be going on on the college campuses in relation to civic ignorance. it is both sides of the same coin. they are not teaching well the foundations of the republic but they might be influencing opinion on some of these issues host: they are serious issues but we will try to have fun with some of the questions. the phone numbers are on the bottom of your screen. education and civic literacy is the subject. one question you ask -- what was the mainñi issue in the debate between abrahamçó lincoln and stephen douglasñi in 1858? what is theñi answer to that question? guest: it wasñi actually the extension ofçó slavery into new territories. that was important during that time because there was a border

war going on between kansas and missouri. ñrslavery had been a huge issue through the republic. ñrthere had been a compromise which is important to know. ñrñiasñi we expanded westward, e was a question of how to balance ñieventually, it came to a headn the civil war. you get host: thisñi test to a couple of thousand people. ñiwhatñi percentage got that fit question right? sqáj than 45%. that was in college graduates. that was an interesting finding from the report last year was the college did not add to much to it. they did better on the question slightly but it was stimn a failing grade. host:ñr here's another one -- ñe u.s. electoral college doesñr what? it has five choices. what isñr the answer to this? question because resurveyed elected officials asñrñr well. they got this question wrong more than the general public.

one of the "-- one of the possible answ$y was "it trains our futuzez elected officials." maybe we need more training for elected officials but the answer ñiis "it picks our president of the united stats5" that was the issue in 2000. ñipeople found out for the first time that it was a general popular vote -- that was not a general popular vote for the president pretty hos. host: how is your general said acknowledged? caller: it is maybe 80%. guest: that is better than most americans. host: let me throw you want to put on the spot. what was the source of the following phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people," ñiñiñiçóçóóiguest:ñiñrñiçóñrñi

that answer to that question. ñr caller: the president talked to the american people on television a couple of weeks ago. in america, in the united states,ñi our populaceñrñixd hì+ reallymy understoodñi what a de leader of the country is. ñiñiçóñiñrnot since hirohito, tn

who was in charge of japan, the emperor of japan, he was considered a divine person. in the united states, obama is not. world, he is considered a divine person. when he was talking on that everyone on -- misunderstood him. hostguest: the american founders agree with you that we did not want a divine right of kings. we actually put into place a separation of powers system with three branches of government. we also ask that question.

than half of americans actually know the three branches of government. that was something startling. host: that is quite a disconnect between what the caller said that everybody knows. people are startled when they hear about this. host: 10, south carolina, a democrat. jzwyou are on the air. caller: high school. they talk to about city government, state government. would you encourage the public school system to teach six again? guest: absolutely, i sat on my local school board and that is one of the things i ran on was to try to improve civic education at the k-12 level. less than half of the states require even one course on civics. this is something that was par

for the course for folks when you grow up. we got away from it. xdwe rolled into social studies. the amenities that have taken a hitñi underxd "no child left behind." we need to have aw3 re-emphasis. we have to have an educated citizenry if we're going to make sound judgments. host: independent, from washington, good morning. ñiñrçóñrñrñiñiñiñiñiñican iñr sa ñiçócaller:ñi sure. host: in 1935 and 1936, the supreme court declared parts of the new deal or unconstitutional. president roosevelt responded by threatening to do -- what? caller: he was going to pack the supreme court. host: there you go. that was letter c.

caller: i don't know which one it was. i cannot see the screen. host: you know it off the top of your head. good job. caller: your guest seems to feel that the colleges are doing what might be called in conservative terms a leftist indoctrination job on the college students today. is that the case? guest: one of the reasons why we did this new study is we were finding definitive results the colleges were not teaching basic american history and government. we asked whether impact college might have on our civic life? when we asked those questions, the only impact a college had

was on the very divisive and polarizing social issues. it moved college graduates toward a left wing view on abortion, school prayer, same- sex marriage. it also made people identify with the liberal and democratic wings of the political spectrum. we will leave it to you to decide whether that is a good or bad thing. study after study, not our studies by independent objective analysis will point out that college professors are like 14-1 and identify with the liberal and democratic side. we will leave that to you to make your own conclusions. host: explained again why you think they are not teaching this and the lower grades. guest: clearly, the curriculum is getting crammed with so many

other requirements. there's a huge focus on math science. that is not a bad thing. we believe that republics are special and fragile and the founders realized this and wanted -- and jefferson want to make sure that he's carved out a school in every town so they could educate future citizens. self-government is tough. we have gotten away from requiring these courses and teaching them well. there's an over-reliance on the part of teachers and textbooks. this gets back to how the colleges prepare our teachers. it is much more how to teach as opposed to what they know about the actual content. host: guest is a doctorate in american politics from american university. he has taught all over the place.

he is currently chairman of the civic literacy program. what is that? guest: it is a division of the collegiate studies into a sinst. we do that in the k-12 level. we are always assessing how much money we put into k-12 and what are we getting in return. we do not do that in college so we want to try to enter that debate and give parents and taxpayers some information about how well or not will colleges are doing host: here is another question host: montrose, pa., what do you think? caller: it is the power to

defend the united states. guest: absolutely. caller: the senate can declare war. guest: many people -- over half of americans think the president can declare war. that is a big concern. caller: you just exhausted it extensively in the previous callers discussion. this was about the indoctrination or whatever you want to call it that our kids get. ii have a son in law and a daughter who are both k-12 teachers. my daughter got her master's degree a couple of years ago. my son-in-law got a bachelor's

degree at about the same time even though&qíjy are non- traditional students. neither one ofw÷ them --8v1 theh have learned what they know about this stuff from watching things like cspan, not from what so4they learned at school. they learned?íp --]v what they learned at school would lead him d-astray and they know that. guest: in our study last year, we ran some statistical analysis to demonstrate that you can actually learn more than a college degree by doing the same things you are talking about, reading independently, discussing current affairs with her family and friends, and participating in a life of your community. the kind of self-education got to do better on our civics test and actually going to college. that is kind of startling. host: what does the lack of civic education mean to people growing up? hv)guest:;'d+z that's a good q.

qtw to dwell on these is because you could do well on "jeopardy." . it is about exercising judgment or wisdom. we are doing a radical thing to 1thexpect ordinary human beingso be able to exercise sound judgment about our political leaders. we get to choose them and look at it they are doing well. how do you do that in a vacuum? civic ignorance creates a vacuum where you will be accessible to hucksterism on the campaign trail as opposed to knowing what a certain policy is. you can agree or disagree. host: we have james on the line from east orange, new jersey, a democrat. a question for you --

caller: you've got made. -- you got me. guest: i will give you the answer and you could maker, agreed the answer is that it helped lead to the adoption of the bill of rights. that is something that is important to teach because there was a big debate about whether to adopt this new constitution and states were concerned that the federal government was getting too powerful. doesn't that sound familiar today? these things occur over and over again.

they said they want to make sure that the same limits on state government also exist at the national level. caller: i'm amazed what the college graduates don't know about the constitution. guest: i was watching the television show "are you smarter than a fifth grader." the fifth graders have more knowledge than college graduates about the constitution. guest: maybe there is some hope there. maybe we are doing it better in these earlier grades. good point. host: we keep throwing these

questions the callers and most of them are doing better than the general public. we have dave online, an independent, from north carolina, are you ready? let's throw one at you. juttqcaller: thomas jefferson's letters host: there you go. guest: 8 people think that as part of the constitution. jefferson was riding in the context of trying to write in the separation but that cut incorporated in our lot in a supreme court decision. . people confuse that.

caller: i have a question and comment. north carolina is adopting a new high school studies program with the board of education, part of which would have a high school district courts beginning in 1877, the end of reconstruction which is the beginning of progress ofism which prep them for college, liberal college in north carolina the actual question would be -- is there a good way to get the constitution taught starting in middle school and through high-school and make it mandatory for high- school graduation? they could even have supreme court course is to get people to let them know they actually control the government? guest: that is a great question.

to back up a little bit, when you were talking about when this stuff should be taught, you will through judicial review -- you will through judicial review and other things and those will go over their heads. should they be starting to reside portions of the constitution in third grade? absolutely. how'd you get this done? it has to be through a good old- fashioned democratic mobilization. you have to put pressure on state legislators and governors to require this stuff. if you think that is important and if you don't think it's a good idea -- to teach american history after 1877 mrs. a heckuva lot -- misses a heckuva lot. we are not very old country. that first part is important host: what is the parents' role in all of this tax guest: parents are the primary

educators' of our children. kids' role model after their parents. some of it has to do with how you spend your free time. i live near philadelphia. go down there and check out historical sites. they are all over the country. the kids will balk at it. you get them out there and they start remembering it. it starts building up a kind of civic culture within your own family. host: we have a republican from fairfield, california, good morning. caller: have a question -- with gun sales up to a high in the united states, the u.n. is talking global gun-control plus new law's being talked about. how was the second amendment covered in high school and college? guest: the entire bill of rights is not covered very well, i think. people do not know the

difference between that and the constitution. the second amendment is probably the most neglected because it is kind of a debatable issue. there are two parts of the second amendment that sometimes people don't get rid the first close talks about a well- regulated militia. that is why we have the right to bear arms. there is a public function that was supposed to go along with it. knowing that kind of balance actually might de-polarize some of the debate that is going on host: here is a question for the yen, a democrat. caller: guarantee women the

right to vote. with all due respect, i agree with your conclusion that the need to be much more civic education with students but as my daughter was going to high- school and i was going back to college for international relations, she took ap class in historyçó and social studies and did quite well. she had a wonderful time. i found that in college and high school, the kids could not wait to get out of the classes. as a professor would say his last line in the hour of the class they had to attend, all the students would be slamming their books close. there is something wrong with the way it is taught. as far as a liberal bent, i think that is a low blow. the class is that i have

attended and i went back to 30 years, the class as i have attended gave no indoctrination. i think the kids like to think aboutñi sex, talk about sex, tht all has to do with sex. civics is boring. how can you make it more interesting? that is my question. guest: i think you are right, we don't do a good job of training college professors to be stimulating. many times, you do not get ahead in 10--- in tenure and promotion by being a good teacher pay is the research and other things like that. i absolutely agree with you there it on your experience about the lack of indoctrination, i'm glad that you had that experience. however, when we do a random sample of college professors and all americans, you get to factor out the anecdotal case by case

examples. that's tough washes out a little bit. that is all i would say on that. you are right, we need to do a better job of getting our college teachers to teach welker and host: how long have you put out the studies? guest: since 2006. we will look at support dissipation next year. -- we will look at civic participation next year. this might factor into public opinion but might factor into how often people voted we will look at that next year. host: what is the role of geography in the role of teaching our kids? guest: if we did an assessment of geographic literacy, it might be worse. that is even within our own country. i am from indiana and i am on the east coast.

host: if you gave a test like this elsewhere and the world, how would other countries corte? guest: new citizens to this country, a lot of these questions were taken from the citizenship exam. the three branches of government question, new citizens who have never seen the question did as well as college graduates on identifying the three branches of government. that could be an indication that the people that are trying to become citizens are may be more educated than we are host: let's go to fort lauderdale, fla., max is an independent. here's a question for you --

caller: teaching evolution. host: thank you. guest: i think our callers are 90 percent of. they are off the charts. host: what do you think about the idea of civic literacy? caller: i don't see how anybody could not be all for it. the reason why listening -- blisters are doing so well is because they watch your show and are interesting in this. i want to follow on something you said earlier. disregards colleges and you indicated the college's seem to push their students into liberalism and that sort of thing. the fact that many of them are that way indicates that where is

the college leading them. i take umbrage with that. perhaps the reason that many college students and graduates are leaning that way as far as not being anti-abortion, is that they are more intellectually curious. they go to college and hopefully the college does not just shove and permission down their throat. maybe they teach them to think for themselves. they come to these attitudes on their on, maybe, because it is open-minded and it will -- they will not just follow what their parents or religious leaders have forced down their throats. guest: i think that is an interesting observation. i think it bears repeating that it -- impacts on public opinions

are a vast parade just going to college will have an influence on what you think and also your race, your gender, your religion, where you are from, all a kind of stuff. i would point out that what we are trying to do is to demonstrate the impact independently in college of opinion. college graduates are only 20% believe in abortion on demand, only 40% believe in same-sex marriage, we are not saying that going to college makes you one way or the other it may push you toward distinct left-wing views on those particular issues. we think that bears some scrutiny on the part of the american public. host: new york is on all line, republican, your ticket is the following question --

caller: germany and japan. good morning. have you read the book about the dumbing down of america? guest: i am not familiar with that book. i am familiar with the book called "the dumbest generation." maybe they make the same jet -- observation. caller: i get a lot of information from the ron paul campaign. this is for all of the americas. it looks like we don't down our

country to bring up the rest of the countries. guest: i will take a look at that. host: let's hear from north dakota, here is a question for you -- caller: the answer to that would be missiles in cuba. host: what would you like to say? caller: what is the background of the intercollegiate institute? and where debt -- where do you get your funding? guest: we get over half of our funding from individuals. we get funds from other

foundations. we are nonprofit, nonpartisan, we are what i would call a small conservative group in that we're pushing for a conservation of a core curriculum and a return to traditional approaches to education. it looks like north dakota in washington d.c., right now operated as knowing a lot. caller: i ask that question because the examplesñr that you said were things that were definitely anti-liberal. i am wondering how objective your group is. guest: i think we are not saying that it is a bad thing or a good thing to be a liberal or conservative. we are pointing out, and this has to do with reams of evidence

that shows the political identification of college professors, that it could be, and this wouldñi bear further scrutiny, it could be the fact that some of this impact of college on people's beliefs and those issues has something to do with who is teaching them there are other impacts on public opinion and we will not sit here and say it is all because of that. if you teaching college the way i have for 10 years, it is pretty clear who dominates the academy. host: this book is "choosing the right college per-quo what is the idea here? guest: this is like a consumer's guide to college. instead of going by the u.s. news and world rankings which take the college word for how good they are, we kind of doing independent audit of not just the academic client but the social climate of the place as

well as the types of curriculum they offer, who was a good professor, who is a good professor or a bad prof. not in our terms but their own rankings. we think this is a good way to educate consumers of higher education about where to send their kids to college. host: revised student loan practices -- arne duncan wants to send a bill to congress. the want to address the ideas of costs and debt for college. what is your take? guest: it is clear that the price of college continues to go up. we have gotten ourselves in a catch-22. we're expecting anybody who wants to be somebody to go to college. we want to create more affordability but by increasing -- it is kind of a supply and demand thing -- by increasing

the grants to colleges, it will actually increase the cost of the price tag because every time you increase a pell grant or anything like that, you see an increase in the price the colleges pay. if you demand more for product, you will get a higher price. that is a question we ask on our test. host: out and folks take this test at home? guest: go to our website, isi.org and it goes right to it. you can't take the test online and see how well you do. i encourage people to do that. host: you go well beyond the constitution and utah grab economic matters. here is an economic question for our next caller, an independent. they are talking about a progressive tax. what is it?

caller: i am not certain because it is not being publicized but believe it is"c." host: that is the correct answer. caller: could george guest -- could your guest give a brief summary of [unintelligible] guest: dread scott was only the second instance where the supreme court had validated a federal statute. it was declared unconstitutional which create a line above and below the parallel of the state of missouri. they not only declared that law unconstitutional and said the federal government could not

regulate slavery, it also said that even african-americans in three states had no civil rights grid many people believe that dread scottñi was the straw that broke the camel's back and created such a climate of distrust that led to the civil war. host: one last call, it is from virginia, on our republican line. one more financial question -- ñrcaller: i think "c."

host: that is correct guest: another caller doing quite well. caller: i have a quick comment and question. i have just graduated from college. i have been trying to find a job. i have run into a problem for many of the social studies departments want to put people in who are coaches. do you find there is an emphasis on social studies and to you think a lot of the problems with history glasses or social studies or there is too much of teacher policies being taught instead of the curriculum? i find that many people give their political opinions but they don't necessarily know the political facts.

guest: the question about priorities at k-12, you have to budget and some of the budget will go to athletics and some will go to academics. i share your concern. i'm a huge sports plan. i played sports, my father is a coach. that is an important part of development. the academic portion is important, too. i would be concerned that people are making choices not based upon subject matter. as far as k-12 influence on this stuff, we found that thereñiñr a small impact teacher and it had to do with being a republican self identification. college seemed to go one way and k-12 the other. host: what should our takeaway be from this study and this

report? guest: going back to the two sides of the same coin -- if colleges are doing a good job teaching thismz stuff, the question about whether they are influencing public opinion one way or the other would be moot. you could make an argument that enlightened opinion equate with liberal thinking. the fact that there is such a disconnect between the civic ignorance on the one hand and a suggestion of subtle indoctrination on the other suggests -- and the fact that if you do better on our test and the better -- it moves to the other way -- that suggests that is it the case that this is being neglected or is it the case that maybe it is not being taught for other reasons? we want people to get into the game. the first order of business is to teach this stuff straight up and teach it welker it lets students make up their own minds about their politics. leave the