to discuss u.s. relations with iran and we focus on the economy and jobs with republican representative marshall blackburn and bruce reed, head of the debt -- leadership council. "washington journal" is next. . . .

yesterday senator conrad had a hearing where he invited experts on spending and during that made a bit of a speech about the role of congress in dealing with this with the line that history will judge them. here are the phone numbers if you would like to be a part of the discussion about washington and the approach to budgets and deficits. before we get -- we have a couple of things to put into context. you probably heard yesterday

that the president's council of economic advisers chairwoman christina rumor released a report about the economy to the president -- christina romer. unemployment likely to stay at near double-digit through the year. we have the continuing jobs problem. but the question on whether or not or how to spend federal money to stimulate jobs is in washington now, and an opinion çpiece in "the wall street journal" rights of this. the obama budget takes publicly held debt --ç growth that of 1% of gdp by 2015. long run growth potential of 2.5% per year. a decline of one percentage point would cut the end of the growth rate by over half. that is essentially the difference between a strong economy that can project global power and a stagnant economy.

such bass that implies immense future tax increases, balancing the 2015 budget would require 43% increase everyone's income tax. it is hard toç imagine a worse detriment to economic growth. job situation, the deficit as a backdrop forç a brand-new poll reported on from "the new york times" and cbs. çthe poll suggests that both parties face a toxic environment as they prepare for elections in november. public disapproval for congress is at an historic high and huge numbers of americans think congress is beholden to special interest. fewer than one in 10 americans believe members of congress deserve reelection. qlet us listen to senator conrad as he concluded the hearing yesterday on spending and federal budget and the size of

the deficit. w3>> what does it take? it is not just dealing with earmarks and not just nibbling around edges here and there in domestic spending. no, no, no. it is going to takeç bold stros to dealç with this challenge. it is going to take a big ideas and it is going to take political courage. because it is every hot-button issue -- social security, medicare, revenue. all of it. and we've got an obligation. history is going to judge us. host: there it is. weq will like to open up to the phone lines. what would you want washington? will the political pressures you apply affect the decisions lawmakers make on this. let us open up the phone lines and hear what you are going to say. history is going to judge politicians as they lookçó for

bold ideas and big strokes, says the senator, to deal with the current situation. çmichigan, debbie on the democrats' line. caller: great to talk to you all. it might be off the subject, but why don't we look at -- we don't know how much money goes there. i heard there is a lot of waste. and please, republicans, independents's democrats, they are trying to tear us apart. do our own research and hopefully we can stay together. thank you, c-span. host: mary, republican watching us from sarasota. caller: thank you for the opportunity. one of the ideas i had this to have the senators develop a life insurance policy -- policy that cannot be canceled, premiums can be deferred but a lifetime for the student, if they were to

education as the only beneficiary i think all the student loans, even those defaulted could easily be paid back. the amount of a premium for a life-insurance policy for a 55 year-old is still less than one- third of what the collection agencies subcontracted under the u.s. department of education wanting and very threatening. the other thing i would like to say is part of the unemployment money that isç beingç extende, that those rules should be reconsidered because all too long people are just sitting back and the ongoing through the 200 resumes but not required to take a job that will pay them less money. host: you offering ideasç but these -- this is a question about washington's response to the cards and swisher did you think washington is up to the task? caller: yes, i think they have

to because they have to support the executive offices, a u.s. constitution, and we have to look at the bigger picture not limited to the next 10 years. host: thank you. john watching unwarranted, virginia, at independent line. can washington deal with our current situation knowing history will judge the results? caller: definitely not the way they're acting now. president obama -- i watched him repeatedly over the past couple of weeks -- and he is often confronted with the question, the voters don't appear to be behind you with the big spending initiatives and he constantly corrects the questioner and says, that is not what's wrong. what they need is this, this, and this. for example, recently he said -- i am a small business owner, and i'm not hiring anybody. since obama took office i've laid off three people.

so, what he said was, small business needs more loans so that they can keep the wheels running in their business. when i run my business, i don't borrow money. i don't borrow money to keep my doors open. we operate on income. i am not getting into more debt. i think it shows how offtrack he is. what the american people want right now, is we want to pay our bills. we want to pay the federal debt. we want to start paying instead of increasing the -- increasing it. we want to stop right now, stop increasing the debt and start paying the debt. host: thank you, john. dawna sends us a twitter message -- they only work to get reelected. it reflects some of the most captured in the new "new york

times"/cbs poll. next is a call from michigan our republic -- keep on our republican line. caller: the last republican caller kind of stole our fund. i'm tired of talk about the deficit -- i want to pay down the debt. we need to balance the budget. there is no need for commissions. look at former comptroller david walker -- all the studies have been done. we know we have a horrible, horrible future, with our entitlement programs and they have to be fixed now. there is no better time to fix it than when you have one party complete control like we have right now. and the people who created these great society, social security, they championed these programs, they should fix them and not start new programs.

i have three small children and i think that governor palin was correct when she said this is generational theft going on. it is horrible. it is child abuse. host: a twitter message -- i want washington out of the way. the make it worse no matter what it is. donald from tallahassee. donald is on our democrats line. caller:w3 i would just like to say, all of the republicans who don't want the government involved -- if you don't want the government -- stop asking for jobs and find your own jobs. i think the deficit would go down if all the republicans get together and they get together and they find their own solutions to this deficit and

let other people alone because we love the government. the government's -- republicans would know that the democrats are doing something right. that would help the budget if the republicans can go out and find a jobç byç themselves. thank you. host: the washington post reporter that watches the federal government at work in the capital city is on the line with us right now. the rest of the country has been watching washington basically shut down the rest of the week. you have been telling the cost to the taxpayer in productivity and other ways. guest: using an estimate the office of personnel management has been using an talking about, these delays have cost taxpayers roughly $450 million if you believe the estimate. basically payroll for about 270,000 federal workers not showing up for work. but yesterday in the afternoon,

the director, basically the federal government's hr director, said we will probably have to redo the estimate because we had so many reports this week of the federal workers working from home on their laptops or on personal computers and using their blackberries to get work done, conference calls over cell phones. it is believed that much fewer than the 270,000 have actually been able to do the work. it is expected opm will go the beginning of next week and, with a new estimate what it will cost taxpayers any time the washington region closes because of the weather. host: any other affect people from around the country will feel with washington not work this week? guest: i made a few calls yesterday and wednesday to get a sense of that. they remind you -- if you talk to government folks -- that about 87% of the federal

government employees work beyond the immediate washington region. places like irs call centers or social security check processing, they are well beyond washington and the bad weather that hit the region. the checks are going out. the national parks are still being protected. as one person put it, if it is really important, really critical, it was going to get done. host: 270,000 federal workers in the washington area, most of them not able to work at their offices. you are saying a whole new approach to work with digital connectivity. guest: that's right. tell work is what they call it and it is increasingly popular -- telework. a lot of angry federal employee you saying, hang on, i have been working all week from home with the kids in the other room because i know i have to get these projects done so don't tell me that federal workers have not been working. çthat 270,000 figure, however,

are the people were not able to show up this week. basically nonessential or non emergency employees. it is estimated anywhere between 400,000, to 600,000 federal police and contractors in the region, but the 270 is based primarily on those who would not sure what because of the weather. host: thanks for keeping an eye for the rest of us on our federal civil servants and especially how they were able to respond in this week's historic snowstorm. appreciate it and we will look for new calculations as the office of personnel management learns to deal with teleworking. we are talking to you about federal spending and the budget and job creation. particularly picking up on senator conrad's statement yester@v that how washington approaches this will be judged by history. next up is a new york city.

michael on independent line. caller:ç donald trump was on tv andç he said the money spent oç the in iraq and afghanistan wars was just a total waste of money. he also brought out the point that the russian stock market has doubledw3. they scrap all of their submarines and tanks. we are spending $700 billion on the military, $200 billion on the wars and the other $300 billion on intelç and who is te enemy. the wars have been a waste of money and afghanistan is 91% of the hair run worldwide. host: let's go back to the iñíjfsys)central core of our d is there a mood in washington coming along that you consent to their rethinking their approach to spending? çthe you believe washington can respond effectively to the country's situation -- do you believe? caller: as a professor of

business i would say obama has missed the point. he wants to put a freezeç on social programs. now we[çç3 0yñ military, togr with in teller -- intel, costing $1.20 trillion. the reason why china is the oil well as they are not spending money on the military and russian stock market doubled. host: doris on our democrats line. doris is in chicago. caller: good morning. how can you balance the budget during this great recession where workers have no jobs and they are paying no taxes? çwe need to let some of these conservative democrats and blue dogs go because they are not working for the people. theç people need jobs. if you work, you will payç taxes, the balance will come into line. we need to work on social

security and medicare down the line. but first we need to work on getting jobs for the people. host: a little bit moreç from f the leader times/cbs news poll. it puts the president in better instead then converts as a whole. the question -- do you think barack obama spent too much, too little, or right amount of time to fix the economy and create jobs? when changing the health care system, 48% said too much. congress -- do you approve disapprove of the way congress is handling its job. congress as a whole, 75% disapproval. in general, is your opinion of the democratic party favorable or not favorable -- not favorable -- which comes closest to your feelings about the way things are going in washington?

17% say angry and another 53% say dissatisfied but not angry. the question for you is, has washington got the power toç ce together in the right way to fix the problems that failed the nation right now? massachusetts is the next call. albert, republican line. caller: i wanted to say on lincoln's birthday that i feel emancipated that the federal government has been closed and life goes on. i think the lesson here, people talking about jobs -- the economic engine is small business, it is not government. government cannot solve all problems. we spent trillions upon trillionsw3 of dollirr and have done nothing but restrict those of us who own small businesses. here in massachusetts, it cost another 30 cents or 40 cents

per dollar throughç government regulation and taxes doing nothing but holding us back. this president needs to learn that it is individual freedom that made this country great, and not to government. host: john, a democrat from michigan. caller: hello? good morning. the morning, how were you. host: about your contribution to the conversation today? caller:ok as far as theççç dt goes? talking about the deficit, right? host:ok yes, sir. ççcaller:çó i think president obama's heart is in the right place. i think he came into office between a rock and a hard place. i think it has alloted to do with our currency, the fee at a money the federal reserve has printed -- the fiat money. i believe his heart is in the

right place. çi get so sick of this party le stuff that has got to stop. it is not enhancing the country. they look like a bunch of yo-yos on capitol hill. there's got to be a happy medium. host: when the house and senate are closely divided and the parties are divided for your vote, how do they come together -- when the parties are vying for your vote? caller: they got to show some sort of cooperation. i lean toward being a democrat but i'm also an independent. i am for the candidate -- that is the trouble with politicians. they will tell you anything to get elected and that is where the problem, said. they get in and they are looking at the next election. host: edward, rockaway, minnesota, on our independent line. caller: i would like to make a comment about the debt and deficit.

i'm old enough toç remember whn they used to collect a lot more social security than what they were paying out. this all used to be kept separate of the general fund. then along came certain president from -- i think it was in the 1980's, all of the sudden all of that stuff ended up in the general fund. iou's got put in a separate file for the baby boomers paying them down. çnow we are trying to retire. now we are being told thereçç were i don't know how many trillion unfunded liabilities but nobody wants to go back and see where it all went. so, does the taxpayer owed the social security fund order to çthe social security have the people may takeç a half cut now in order to fix the deficit? the chickens have come home. it is easy enough to remember how it all happened.

it is only 20 percent years ago. host: teaneck, wisconsin, republican line. caller: i have a good way to start taking care of the federal spending. i know several women and men for that matter who are in their early 20s and they are getting social security and disability and they are perfectly capable of getting a job and supporting their families. this is costing the government -- i can't even imagine how much money every year to provide for these people and they are perfectly capable of getting a job and taking care of themselves and their families. a lot of them are in their 20s and their main goal in life is to collect social security checks. i just don't understand how the government can dow3 this and why there isn't some kind of overhaul of this because this is just ridiculous. host: yesterday the senate came back into session for a brief while and there was some

announcement about jobs. senator strike bipartisan deal of job creation. this involves key democrats and republicans in the senate -- a rare bipartisan agreement on thursday on steps to spur job creation. democratic leaders said they would move ahead on only some elements as of the two maneuver to address both the struggling economy and voter unrest on gridlock. senator harry reid, a nevada democrat -- nevada democrat party later saying he will strike four initiatives from the bipartisan proposal, including tax breaks and increased public works spending and seek to move those rapidly through the senate. w3only portions of the bipartisn plan developed by senator max baucus and charles grassley, caught some lawmakers by surprise and threaten to undermine its republican support for the proposal even as members of congress and the white house saw ways to work together across

party lines after months of the partisan division. let's go back to your telephone calls. next a takeoff on al obama -- alabama. -- next, a call from alabama. caller: just washington c-span and i appreciate you letting me on. one of the things i think this country ought to do is to rethink foreign aid. here we are going trillions and trillions of dollars into debt and we are giving more money away than trying to help the american people. the second thing, it should be against the law for any public owned company to give bonuses to their management when they are showing a loss. if they are not showing a profit of at least 10% where they can pay taxes.

where they can hire american people -- the american government shouldç make a law they should not receive a bonus. they got these companies set up now where boardç members make l the decisions and the stockholders can't even vote on a raise for a pay bonus or anything. they make all of the decisions and -- and then we reward these companies for taking jobs out of the country. host: next up is a comment from andrew,i] independent line in cincinnati. caller:ç i was just sort of listening. i'm a first-time caller. i think we cut all weekend. we cut all we can here in cincinnati. we are laying off policeman, laying off workers who were

supposed to be repairing the pot holes. things and unfortunately the way our system is set up, a politician,ç whether democrat r republican, who even raises the issue ofç raising taxes is votd out of office. and until that changes -- you see all of these people with bumper stickers freedom isn't free and that is when they are ' put it on the debt war, but i think it is patriotic to pay your taxes. if we are running this war and some kid is over there in afghanistan at least we can do is pull me up the money to pay. or if you want roads running or snow plow. your electricity. this is not free. we are under taxed in this country. çso any politician who supports that is basically dead on

arrival. çso that would alienate the voters. the second thing they could do, which they would never do,t( is alienate the lobbyists. they could do that by, for instance, enforcing fair trade. the chinese, they are dumping poison on their people, and you cannot pick up the paper these days without some kind of call back or horrible things they are manufacturing. but, you know, there is this mantra of free trade. has there ever been an intelligent discussion on why shipping our jobs overseas is good for us. i have never heard that discussion. and any politician who wants to stand up and say, no,ok tariffs, cannot be elected. çhost: you are a new voice on washington journal. caller: i got in here late from

a flight and will cut and don't really want to say my employer. host: thank you for taking part in our conversation. "the new york times" reporting of the jobs bill and discussion. strong editorial from "the new york times" this early. how not to write a jobs bill. they say the jobs bill emerging in the senate is pathetic, both as a response to joblessness and an example of legislation deemed capable of winning bipartisan support. çbefore thursday morning by max çbaucus and charles grassley scarcely began to grapple with the $266 billion for provisions of jobs in stimulus president obama proposed of the budget. it was not even in the same league as the modest house passed a bill. worse, about half of the proposal had nothing to do with jobs. about -- with 14.8 million

americanst( unemployed, marty -- morei] than 40% more than six months, the package was so puny as to be meaningless. it is unlikely to work unless paired with other federal supports to generate and maintain consumerxd demand, namy extended unemployment benefits and more fiscal aid to states. no matter what congress does to lower the cost ofu! labor, employers will not hire unless they believe the man will be sufficient to sell -- demand will be sufficient. we are having the conversation about senator conrad during a hearing yesterday about the budget and the deficit and debt issues saying that history is going to judge washington for how it approaches these problems. next is a call from california. this is patrick, democrats line. caller: good morning. i'm a first-time caller. let's look at history. çóthe history that i want to lok

at is look at what took place under president clinton. he actually investedç in ameria and when he invested in america it brought us a surplusok which americaçó became a lot more stronger. then we elected the republican administration and under the bush administration want and up happeningç is we went to war under a pretense or a line that took our deficit and we spent tons ofçó money on a light that just shouldn't have been and then because of that we have all of this money that wexd have lot and made our surplus go away. what is interesting is that when the democratic political party gets back into power, we have a

president here that wants to invest in america and yet everybody is going bananas about how much money he wants to spend in order to invest in america when they don't look at what was spent during the republican administration for the war that was a lie. so all of the money that has to be spent trying to invest in america to bring america back to its feet, everybody is looking at it like it is so much money they have to stand when the month that they are spending is something that they are supposed to do an order for us to get back on our feet. host: thank you, patrick. have a lot of colors on the line. dennis, republican, sheboygan. caller: thank god for c-span. i have been listening -- watching c-span for most of my adulti] life and i have never sn this many first-time callers in

such a short period of time. i love this about our nation. if less people would apply for federal jobs the federal government would think they need to offer less federal jobs. unemployment -- don't even get me started. if they just take all that revenue and give it to employers for people to come and work, even if it is a temporary basis -- çólet them shake theç rust, brushed off, and give the money to an employer and that the employer give the money to them. of course, they can up the ante for that so they can get a bigger check. i really feel that less people need to lookç toward a public jobs and look toward private job. iç look in the classified ads d i say wanted -- jobs, jobs,ç jobs -- and nobody is even

calling 1 days. i am not even looking for a job. çi have a job. which says a lotç because in te construction trade is my area, 25% unemployment right now in this small little fraction of this state. if we just get less people waiting for that prime job that fits all of their jobs criteria -- swallow your pride, go out there, help out somebody who needs a helper -- work. it is easier to get aç job if u have a job. t(host: thank you, dennis. yesterday the labor secretary announced new rules on temporary immigrant farmers program, saying they would wait -- raise wages and strength and labor protection for foreign and american workers. growers would no longer able to attest they tried to find american workers but have to prove the conducted job

services. the labor department will have an electronic registry of farm jobs. theç american farm worker organization held theç changes but growers group said it would be costly or prohibitively cumbersome for many farmers. host: kansasç city, new jersey barbara. you are on the air. gone. let's move on to jim, savannah, independent line. caller: i got a little comment about how possibly we could look at killing two birds with one stone. one, as far as job creation and one as far as taxes. according to the constitution, taxes are supposed to be raised by our government in the form of duties on trade and tariffs. if we were to look at free trade, it has not been free for a long time. we have taken the brunt and carried other countries by

letting them bring our goods in this country at a cheap price and we send and let them inflate the price. we should probably look at what we aren't taking from the american people, working people, about 30% of their wage, and apply the percentage to trade and tariffs. to that will drive up prices on foreign goods and it will make it easier to create american jobs, because people will be looking for things made in the usa. t(other than that, i wish to the politicians would get together and tried to do something for the good of our country instead of fighting over how they want to get elected -- elected in the next four years. host: that's jim. barbara is on the line for kansas city. thanks for waiting. you are on. democrats line. caller: i was calling in that i say history will judge both democrats and republicans very harshly in the future and that is because the democrats, which

i am one, don't stand up for what they believe in enough's. they let the boley republicans repeat over and over there talking points every time they get on the air and then they whip the ignorant and homophobic and the racist of and that is what keeps them in office for by saying divisive things and i think if we are going to get a hold of the deficit people have to be more informed. just like the health bill, it is mainly what the republicans want but they keep yelling they did not get what they want. we don't have the public option, single payer. they talked about the abortion thing, they took that out. everything they want they get because they just holler over and over and the democrats are too nice to do them the same they will get something on a democrat and every time they get on the air they will go over and over it.

the democrats don't do that and therefore the squeaky wheelç gs the oil in all of what you hear about is what the republicans want and the homo -- homosexuals and the black folks, that is because the republicans keep that on their minds so they can get them back in office because it is a lot of that type of person in america whether we want to admit it or not. host: thank you, barbara. a couple of announcements from the political world. in florida, lincoln --ç announcing his retirement. "miami herald" has this headline. çç the from page of ""washington times" saysç cnbc'sç kudlow tg on charles schumer, senate third

ranking democrat in a matchup that could be the most entertaining encaustic race of the year. kudlow last year brushed off -- patrick kennedy saying he will not seek a next term in the house. his hometown newspaper said he created an emotion-ladeni] advertisement -- advertisement released that will air on sunday night. it is on youtube. let us listen and little bit on how he is positioning his decision not to run. ç>> now that i've spent two decades of politics, my life has taken a new direction and i will not be candidates for election this year. going forward i will continue many of the fights we waged çtogether, particularly on behf of those suffering from depression, addiction, of his own, posttraumatic stress disorder. i am so grateful for the people of rhode island. when i suffered setbacks in

responded not with contempt, but compassion. to those who stood by me like a brother, thank you for all of the times you lifted me up and pushed me forward and filled my heart with hope. a bystander on your side shoulders, i was able to do moret( -- by standing on your shoulders i was able to do more for this great state that i ever thought possible. is host:ç this two-minute spot available on youtube. 42-year-old rhode island congressman buried his father this year and the decision not to seek reelection. you can judge by the languageçç carolina, julie on the republican line. caller: very excited to finally get through. i do think that they are going to be judged in this situation with the deficit. i think there is blame to be laid at the republicans and democrats.

i think one of the things that strikes me is that we heard so much about their being a lot of fraud and graft and entitled programs. it seems you could form some sort of commission to seriously and finally look at that. lastly, i just want to say, i have been unemployed for almost two years now and i really wish that we can do something that was a lot more proactive about getting jobs out into the public. i am not sure what the answer is but the victory, and like the previous caller i believe was implying that people of different police are homophobe'' and that sort of thing, is just not helping the conversation. host: what field were you in? caller: i was in the tobacco field. host: what are you thinking about? caller: i do have a degree in psychology. unfortunately there has been absolutely nothing available.

right now i'm looking at pursuing a master's. host: what field? caller: counseling. host:çó you think your future might be in that direction? caller: i think so. host: how long will it take? caller: it will be very costly. right now i have a deferment on my previous student loan but it it will get me a job that will hopefully whether future economic stress, i am sure will be worth it. host: the united esther age range?w3 caller: 51 years old. host: the big change in your 50s. are you ready for this? caller: i have to do something. staying at home is certainly not productive. host: state -- next up is jerry, independent. çcaller: good morning. the entitlement program, both foreign and here, fromy/6 what i haveçt( heard from the economit went i watched c-span and they

areok talking toç everybody isy out of line. it is killing the country, from what they are saying. they needççç to do somethingt the health care and the banks and get them in line so they are not treating the people. -- cheating the people. you are taking taxpayer money from a person may be --ok making ç50,000, 66 -- 60,000 year, and you are giving it to people who are abusing the system and they don't even have to report that money. they get food stamps through the year and then they get a big tax check and the people who are actually paying the money income of the and not getting hardly anything back. the whole system is wrong. çhost: banks. çif you @be interested in watching the hearing we covered,

senator jeff sessions was also actively involved. it is available on c-span's w3video library and archive and ready for you to watch. i am sure also additional play over the weekend. we also linked "the new york times" survey we told you about this morning that shows public dissatisfaction in washington at our website, c-span.org. let us take our last call from democrats line. caller: good morning, sue, how're you this month. i have to say you are one of the best hosts. to answer your question, though, do they have the power in order to do this. they really don't. it was pretty much demonstrated a couple of weeks ago when kent conrad and that republican hypocrite from the hampshire whose name is judd gregg, they actually advanced a bill to have this budget commission to do

this here and one of the key points about that is whatever decision they came up with would be binding. they had seven of the republican side on to the bill. they, when it came time for the vote, the seven republican disappeared. even the president was talking about that. now the president is issuing an executive order to get it done but it is not binding. this democrats that they don't have the political will to do it, to make those tough choices. they can't do it. it is like they need intervention. he asked this question as though you witness a person burning down a house and you ask a question, did that person do it. host: question for you. of the voters responsible? caller: i tell you what, they are. a lot of them speak in the bumper sticker -- the gentleman called from cincinnati, andrew, he had it on the mark.

99.9 percent are republicans. they speak in this bumper sticker mentality as opposed to what is reality. so they did. the media kind of helps pushes it. there are a few people on your show, your colleagues,w3 that steve sculley, these people push this right wing talking point and it does notç serve the country at all. it does not. we need to have serious conversation. host: thanks. i would have to disagree about my colleague. i don't think he is pushing an agenda at all. we will close with one thing. we have seen this week andç concern by the market's on the situation in greece and their budget deficits and whether or not it will have a spiraling affect for the european union. there was an announcement yesterday that the member states, including especially germany, might help with the situation in greece, sort of all

for one and one for all. here is "the guardian." rift between paris and berlin over bailout. angela merkel, german chancellor, mountain stiff resistance last night to any swift bailout of greece as a rift opened about how to best tackle the risks posed to the euro. despite a show of the franco- german unity on the first statement from eu leaders pledging to safeguard stability, hope for a german-led plan to shore up grease's critical finances cord-by merkel -- greece's critical finances were dashed by merkel.

speaking of europe, we will move to foreign-policy. çwright,ç she has been here my çtimes. ç she spent her entire career reporting on global affairs with a particular emphasis on southeast asia and the middle east and we are going to talk to her about what we saw coming from tehran yesterday on the 31st anniversary ofç the islamist result -- revolution. we will be right bcb.

>> to the and "book tv" for a three-day prison as the weekend. henry paulson talking to warren buffett. on "after words," historian and poet to prizewinner on how the atomic bomb changed the presidency and the role of the u.s. in the world. it read airs sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific, and all day monday, books on american presidents. fdr, president obama and our culture, creag shirley on ronald reagan. for the complete schedule go to book tv.org. >> his film "hillary: the movie," it was the focusçw

the screen. she is with the institute of peace as a foreign policy analyst. she has reported from more than 140 countries for six continents for papers like "the washington post," and others and author of several books on foreign policy and we will focus on iran. guest: always nice to be here. host: we saw interesting video of president ahmadinejad, the anniversary of the islamic revolution. help us understand the size of the crowds. how did they do that in iran? çguest: on this particular occasion, this was such an important event for both the regime and the opposition. it was a test of will, a test of strength. the regime knew that after eight months of unrest and turmoil in the country that it was particularly important to bring out as many supporters of the regime as possible, and they

busted hundreds of thousands of people from not only parts of pteron but other parts of iran to signal that they are in control and that they do still have a lot of support. host: we have been seeing throughout the year the active demonstration of people opposed% to the power structure. where were they yesterday and how did they respond? guest: they had been planning for weeks trying to get the opposition out on the streets. they had been a very creative in their call to turn out on the streets, whether it was graffiti on buildings, posters put on the internet, very artistic appealsç threw facebook and twitter to kind of call to get out on the streets to signal that they are still very vibrant and resilience. many did get out into the streets but it was disorganized

and very early the government put out the vigilantes', security forces, to get people on the street and break up in a gathering that might look like it might turn into an anti- government protest. host: i want to tell you robin wright will be here for 45 minutes. a lot of time to get in depth about iran and u.s. policy toward that stake there. let me give you the phone numbers -- also had e-mail and twitter and you can join us that way as well. i want to ask a larger question. and maybe obvious to you because you have been reporting on this for so long -- but why should americans care for iran? guest: it is likely to be one of the two defining issues for the obama at the devastation over the next three years.

it is a country that has an important geo-to strategic position. it boarded the old soviet union but it is still close to russia. china and iran possible missions is becoming very important. china isç buying a significant part of iran's oil and this is a relationship that turned around increasingly east would rather than look westward -- then westward. this is a country that has extraordinary influence in the shi'ite world. it is the largest shiite dominated country in the world and it has its tentacles in iraq where it still has troops. it has close the like -- alliances with groups like hezbollah in lebanon and hamas. çi]i]with many of the extremist groups. it is the top ofq the list of state department state sponsors of terrorism.

so, between its vast oil and gas resources to its influence and a part of the world where the u.s. has the political and economic interest, iran will always poor into the denied the state to weather is in power in tehran. host: what do analysts such as yourself see in the green revolution? guest: green movement is in many ways the most vibrant civil disobedience campaigns any world -- anywhere today. it is not just turning out on the streets in days of protest but also what isw3 happening in the background. that in many ways shows the scope of the green movement, which is the largest position movements since the 1979 revolution. it is also creating a different kind of model of people power for the middle east, for theq islamic world, which is the last block to hold out against the democratic tide that has swept the rest of the world since the 19 seventies.

-- the 1970's. whether marking the currency was anti regime slogans on national bank notes, whether it is boycotting goods advertised on state-controlled television as a signal that we don't like you are supporting the regime. there are a vast array of things people are doing in the background to signal their discontent with tehran today. host: we have seen the regime has reacted with increasing violence. they had some trials, said some dissidents to death. how will this reverberate with the public at large? guest: i think this is where you will find a lot of people who may not have been as engaged in the political process up through the june 12 presidential erection is becoming -- elections being increasingly dissatisfied.

it has affected many people beyond who have taken to the streets. there is a sense that the newspaper's been banned, the sense of big brother watching everything that is going on, that this is a state that has become militarized and is today a police state. host: is there consensus in washington about if we should support -- support this movement, and how? calguest: the obama administration has taken an interesting position. the aftermath of the elections that were disputed over allegations of fraud, they have tried to stand back and not play a role. our focus had been on iran's nuclear program. but in december you began to see a shift as the administration began issuing statements about human rights abuses -- as the

government, because of a show trial, because of the clampdown on the streets, the mass arrest, began taking a more outspoken position criticizing the regime. one of the most interesting things to happen this week is a joint statement by the united states and european union calling on iran to comply with international human-rights standards and universal declaration of human rights to which iran is a signatory. host: i have a clip i would like to pull. a speech yesterday -- president ahmadinejad spoke frequently about iran boss in nuclear ambitions. let us listenç to a little bitf some of his remarks on that and you can help us explain why the country is going with its nuclear ambitions. >> when we say we do not manufacture a bomb, we need it. we do not manufacture a bomb. we do not believe in it. we did not believe in manufacturing a bomb.

we have the coverage to announce it. if you think a nuclear bomb can save you, you can keep it. if you think a nuclear bomb can't save it, you can keep it for yourself you should know you are mistaken. you are making a mistake. we are openly announcing that through your management method -- we oppose your management method in the world, we oppose your bullying policy. we oppose your policy of imposing your views. we oppose your blundering policies. we oppose your method of administering the morals that is filled with discrimination, in a humane --ç inhumane. we have the courage to announce it and you should have the courage to say that you want to dominate the region and the

iranian nation does not permit you to do so. host: that is obviously the voice of the translator over the address from president of ahmadinejad. what did you hear there. guest: iran is talking a lot in the last week about its nuclear program and the fact it has moved from enriching uranium at a low level to a higher level. this of course has led to a lot of concern in the outside world about what iran's long-term intentions are and whether it may what denies its nuclear program. i think one of the things it is really important to understand is what they have done so far is moved from enriching uranium for the peaceful nuclear energy, which is about 4%, to 20%, which they will use for a medical research reactor degree at -- create isotopes. enriched uranium for weapons

needs to be at 90%, so there is a still significant way to go. but the fact is they have crossed the threshold of going from low enriched uranium to hire. of course, that lead to wider concern. ahmadinejad tried to say -- we said before, we don't intend to develop the weapon and the outside world should hear what we are saying, if we wanted a bomb we would tell you out right. it but the problem is, the iranians light for 18 years about a weapons program that they had -- lied for 18 years about a weapons program that they had that was uncovered in 2003. because they still have not answered all of the questions from that program to the international community, there are suspicions that they may be hiding something else. of course, there was a recent revelation last fall about a secret reactor they were building in a religious holy city that surprised the international community -- the

united states revealed its intelligence. çthat led to further suspicions about what iran really wants to do long term. host: when he speaks, for whom does he speak? guest: a very important question. iran's regime is very fractured in the same way the body politic has many different sides to it. the regime is not speaking just with one voice. there are those who are conservative who are not -- particularly those in parliament, who are not happy with ahmadinejad, who believe he goes too far, that he is too provocative with iran's own people or the international community. .

ñri]çç caller: good morning, t(i ççóhç questions concerning the ç--  am sorry, ñrlet me çñrget çmy down. ok, i am sorry.ç ok. i wanted to talk about the fact that, do we remember çóthat the head of ççthe çgreen t(party is çççça former prime minis something like that.ççç i have grown to be very weary ç of people who are reformed from

the former regimes. because they turn out to be just another version of the people in çópower in the end. about i]this because it çhappvñq in many okçcountr the world.i] and çalso i feel ñrvery çmuch the 3ópeople t(i]çt(of iran.]d because çthey ççare ççcomp powerless, why i]all qof this 3 power play ççis çi]ççgoingq r most time you have to get to power and make so many compromises liieiwe see heref] and it turns out finally, and it makes it so hard for the ordinary man to change the reseem. -- regime. host: first of all, he's weary of qreformed reformers. guest: among the elite ççin p

today there are many fractions. there are more in the green movement, you have those in the defeated presidential candidate and a former prime minister, one who was an early revolutionary and father of the nuclear program. and you have those who never voted for anyone in this power and opposed to the islamic republic. you have a huge spectrum of people who don't line the status quo. some want to overhaul the system and some want to reform it. if the green movement makes inroads, i suspect you will over ther)visions. host: do okyou agree with okher çar powerfulless? çar that people have taken the

power in their own hands. for eight months they have taken to the streets, w3and in the çrun up çto this i]çanni çñ -i( aççççmyçç don't use weapons. we are a peaceful movement, çç thpy say.çóçç|çz7çoks-ññrç limit, ççthey ñofáxdcall çon nurses çwho are supporters t(to take first ai .i] çxdçççt(çç vh)e is xd÷a ççlot ççqqof planning, their leadership is not effective of motivating ça] this is where çyou may xdw3see anniversary as a fáturning w3po where çmany çwere disappointe w3' n the street and didn't have a strategy and may see them looking for

alternative leaders. host: next we have michael on thev: republican line. caller: good morning, i just came back from that region about a week ago. and i noticed certain political dimensions of that region. and how connected they are, çç with zvçxdççqçkhr saudia ar holy sites and mecca, and you have millions of people coming from all of the world. and w3iran accounts for a total -- quarter of the total of people who attend çomeha each year. and now they are suspending services for okçthat region. i noticed something boil w3çq

boiling in that area. specifically with the çyouth, surrounding areas when the çóñr egypt, and egypt won. the youth were balling xlçin ç streets, çand this mywas in s arabia ççand they were up and down the çstreets and blowing ( the horns and dancing on the cars. it was contrary to the image you see of saudia arabia.u! in some xdi]ways it is, but i w surprised to t(see the out bursd of that energy and people blowing the horns. host: michael, do you have a question at the end of your observation? caller: yì, i am getting to the question, can she give çw3d

particular time frame, çwith  intellectual t(barometer xdof tç region, and give me a time frame of that regime crushing or falling, within five years or 10 years.ç because it zvdefinitely çóçwil fall, a lot of these regimes.ç host: michael, can you tell us what takes t çyou çççto that of the world? are you ñrçin çthe military?ók caller: no, i am not w3qin the military, i go there on my own and observe. host: oru/xare you able to trav easily from country to country?ç xdi]any problem. host: thank çyou very much, ñr it common for americans to travel the region? >> he -- guest: he may be a muslim.u.jç he brought up theçç)t(çyoun

population in iran. in the aftermath v:çof çxçtheó revolution, the clerics called on women to breed t(the islamic region.çw3 and they@odid, çand the çç population çwent çfrom ownñç to 62 million.ç a by-product was a regime revolution to not implode çtho numbers. ç

guest: the kids born after the revolution of çcoming of age. and they are the leaders on the street.w3 the two political dynamics in iran are young people and women. the other interesting thing that happened after the revolution, were the number ço traditional çfamilies çthat ç trusted w3an islamic system to educate their çkids and girls.ç and they çt(started çsending girls çt(to school çor çóscho beyond elementary school.ç and çtoday you find women w3th3 are architects and lawyers and d an ççiranian women won the no peace prize.fát(i] and women that ççwon at çcan and international festivals around the world.

and they had a female çvice president. host: related çto çthat, one writer says that it seems çtha the green women's ççmovement repressed, xdis that a çpast oç the i]çislamic extremism?w3çwç he ok international guards, the ççp years çof first term ççxdof ç president ahmadinejad brought w3 the revolution guardsçó çççt(3

guest: it's clear the regime is among ñrthe women's movement to achieve their goals. trying to change laws on family that has to do with divorce and alimony and custody issues. but by and large the women's movement remains in iran and

defiant against the repression. host: we have daryl calling. caller: good morning, c-span and robin. my question is if you were to do a public poll to the iranian people on obama in iran. how do the iranian people feel about obama? guest: i think there is some division, there have been some public polls, but the question is how reliable they are. they have had to be taken by telephone and some iranians are reluctant. in the take-over of ovzthe u.s. embassy, instead of death to israel, they are saying death to no one. and there was another cry,

saying obama you are with us, or you are with them. and ?;okthem being the governm. the obama g#administration has tried over the past year to engage ñrthe iranians because o its nuclear program. to get them to the table and w3 talk of the çissues qthat cnna dispute for many years. and that çeffort has been so z but the appeal was to recognize s important, not because qñrz÷ço nuclear program çbut the human rights' issues.ç host: of @

unable to put together the ç three different components, the material, the fuel cycle, ]ith missles and warhead that maries the other two. it's not able to do çall threeç the one c(we are worried about the uranium enrichment and that's where the focus has been over the çlast years. host: another daryl is calling # from missouri, de(.(ápás line. caller: good morning, as an american citizen, i have no problem with iranians wanting to be a nuclear power.ñr talk and q4ñrçóças w3not said about çthe çlies çof çi]qthç why is our xdcountry so critica

f our media.ç they are dropping white dd8çópalestinia 't do anything that 1]nç obama (oldçymçt(ç nituren a' said anything. i am sick and tired of supporting israel and of sending my money to them. you should do a report on israel and the lies about their nuclear weapons and what they are doing to the palestinians. i don't see them bombing anyone. guest: israel has not talked about their nuclear program but it's htwidely known çthey çha nuclear program. nuclear program.

nuclear weapon, it feels vulnerable to any future attack. now the iranians have not invaded for 200 years, they are most recently by saddam hussein, one of qçthe bloodest conflicts.ç but there is speculation if not diplomatic resolution, that #g

israel may takeróçt(xdq later connection and change the balance power in çthe region a affect çoil prices and potentially get the green movement supporters to rally around the regime. host: we have doug, qrepublican line. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i have two questions 'pr(jus.qo3ó i was ó73ççñrcurious fáçabo'k relationship with russia./t]ç it seems to me that russia is somewhat playing with fire, in many ways çççbacking okw

guest: we in the outside world á regarding iran we çtend ñrto h ççin one basket.çfáçw3ç the revolutionary guards are ok actually very diverse.xdç and all young men have to do national çservice in iran.ç and many opt to qçdo çthe revolutionary guards because of the training programs and ça kind of credential that may get you access or entry into a university or better job. and also because they get çóoff at 2:30 in the afternoon t(and that offers the opportunity in this dire economy in iran to take on a second job.çç

one interesting thing that the government çççfound in 1997 the first reformist president ç was çççelected, (that ç84 revolutionary guards voted for the reformist. we shouldn't assume that all rank and file of revolutionary guards are hard çliners that support the regime.w3 many çmay be doing national service. on the issue of russia, that's clearly ça very important dynamic of trying to get iran ç to the diplomatic table. russia and china are two of the five permanent members çof the council with veto power. the last u.n. resolution was weak because of the united states couldn't get either country to sign on to anything uq). now russia has a long standing

relationship with iran. and it's supplying building its first peaceful nuclear reactor. and it's still not open even ç though it was supposed to be open years ago.;íez iran is also looking to russia and china for additional peaceful nuclear reactors for energy purposes.ç but russia over the last months has taken a tougher position. it's interesting to see the gradual i]xzdw3ç shift, russia glad çabout sanctions because the effect to çtheir economy b they are happy of ahmadinejad and the nuclear reactor. host: we have paul speaking of

invading iraq. did the iranians feel they were next on the list and needed nuclear weapons to defend themselves? did that espionage affect that nuclear program? guest: i think the original interest in a nuclear program that may extend beyond energy really has its roots in the iran/iraq war. when iraq çwas working on a nucleyxdçweapon, and çisrael bombed their secret site. and %9%9mwere concerned they needed to have a nuclear weapon to balance or nu+l+p) program or capability to balance off the iraqis. that's q$ñwhere the origin of t program was. it's clear in 2003, between

2001-03, there was greater interest in iran in dealing with the united states. in trying to get beyond what president ikamiti called the wall of distrust. there were repeated overtures. the problem with iran for 31 years is that united states and iran have never been on the same page at the same time. we have been interested in better t(relationships with the when they are unwilling to take steps to us. and vice versa. that's a tragedy over the past years, when we couldn't get beyond the tensions of the take over of cát embassy. the majority like americans and

want better relations. host: next question from chris. caller: hello, i have admired mrs. wright's work for a long time. i am an avid follower of iran since çv:my u!cousin was a rid with the shamira. you mentioned they have an education system for the girls, what is their education like since their youth is the future of iran, what are çthey being taught and how are ççthey thinking? guest: one interesting thing about iran's attitude to the taliban, they thought this was qñthat was backwards, because at the top of the list they banned education for girlsç iran's education system has gone through ççup's and down' since the revolution.

immediately aftermath they had a revolution and they wanted to provide the curriculum. there are many maths and sciences taught in the schools, particularly at the universities. what is interesting, iran has won the award from the united nations for closing the gender gap between girls and boys. and has the highest increases anywhere in the developing world of closing the gender gap and bringing girls into the çç education system. host: next caller, we have john. caller: thank you, and thank you everyone for c-span. i find it -- host: i think john is moving on. we have mike on the republican

line. caller: good morning, i am a vietnam veteran and not opposed to war. i feel that the united states is going to enter into world war iii once iran's installations are attacked by either israel or the united states. and the politicians and the media in this country for most part are prostitutes for the state of israel. and obama has done everything he could to destroy this country in every way, shape and form. and especially militarily we have weakened our military. and we are right for attack. and since the soviet union, although that's not politically correct, but i still consider it the enemy of the united states, and red china, they have treaties with iran. and in a great position to attack the united states. they will probably accuse the

united states of condeering the middle east oil reserves which in reality and what they want and use that to attack the united states. and we will have this one world government established after the dust settles because the united states will be hit the strongest. host: what did you think of the theory? guest: i disagree with it on many levels. but the question is what does this tension between united states and iran eventually lead to? of course çthe military option is left on the table. no one wants to see another war. not only because çwe are stretched already in çóç afghanistan and iraq. iran çwould be different with afghanistan and iraq. we are talking about a population that is three times

larger than iraq, and with an infrastructure and iran has the most powerful military outside of israel in the middle east. this is something that i think everyone @

sanctions and how are they on trading? guest: these are not effective but having iran deal with laborers. and one is the port of dubai. and sanctions are a very difficult instrument. that's the reality. i lived in southern africa and 15 years of civil war and you know, incredible international sanctions. and rodeeshia did not crumble until south africa joined the ban and prevented the fruit from getting to railroad trains

for export to the world. and that's moment that the rodeeshians recognized that the economy would collapse, and they didn't have oil and iran does. and that's a valid commodity that will continue to make it a player.ç but sanctions can make life more difficult for the regime. the most interesting thing that has happened is something unusual, the banking sanctions that's imposed on iran. not through çthe internationalç community çthrough the united nations.xd but going through financial organizations and çsaying okth iranian çbanks don't comply ç financial law.çñr and since the 9/11 çattacks an financial overhaul to track terrorist funds. every bank has to know where v: 1ñlo(ñjust the last transaction but t(all the koway back.

to prevent laundering. and through new international banking w3regulations, the treasury department has managed toç çççcommit i]çmajor band the world, including china, not to do"çbusiness with iran. and this has made it more difficult for iran to çget lin of credit card to çw3fáç qi]- do business.w3 and have have had to go to banks çt(ççwith a higher fee. there are creative mechanisms used over the years to try q[ç pressure iran. host: qas we t(çclose for ;çq h0á çare w3s7interest⌞in thó tiui]ñsomething çççcritical 3 weeks ahead they should watch!% for?i] to signal which direction this is going? further public protests and qç( watch i]ççfor çççw3civil d. this is çwhere you çsee çif ç

look to okmartin luther king or gandhi çfor the movement for t pressure on the regime to signal their ççi]ç discontenq host: thank çyou for çbeing h. we will return to domestic policy, we are çpleased to hav join us here okçxdon "washingt journal, " marsha blackburn. guest: i am happy to be you. host: we began showing a "new york times" cbs poll that shows that anger at lawmakers is at an all-time high.çççóu! are çççyou w3çççand your aware t(of çpublic sentiment a what do you propose t(to do to address it? guest: you know the american

public is angry.ç and i think rightfully so.éd the interesting thing w3they ar ÷parties 1eand ççthe ççççñrñrççi]

guest: number one is jobs.t(ok we are one ymfqar after the stimulus and people are sa=cg, where i]are the jobs. now /+they want the economy,  job creation çto be focus no. . and here we have the administration bringing out the budget that's a 3.8 trillion budget, and talking about having stimulus too. and people are saying that washington just does not get it. so we are going to make an effort to be concern that our constituents have the opportunity to voice their opinion. host: we would like to give the phone number to join our conversation with marsha blackburn, she will be with us 45 minutes to talk policy and politics. the numbers for republicans, democrats and independent line. this survey that i suggested for "the new york times" and cbs talks about the virginia

tea party movement is one place where the anger in washington is being vocalized. i wonder if you can explain your relationship and your decision not to take part in the tea party and where this goes? guest: i think that the tea party in this nation is a great grassroots movement. and it's a revitalization that people are seeing and bringing to the public debate. the meetings are taking place all across this nation, towns large and small. it's energy and focused. and one thing that has interested me, when i spoke to tea party groups, the number of women in the crowd. and so many women are looking at what is taking place in washington. and they are saying, you know what, it's time for washington

to get its house in order. they are showing up and voicing those opinions. i like the energy i see there. history with tea parties. when i was in the late senate in early 2000's, we had a push in the state, we had a governor that wanted to implement a state income tax that we don't have. we had a four year battle to defeat that. and indeed, the great people of this state rose up. and we had tea parties at the state capital in nashville. and that conservative uprising started as people looked at the state budget and said, wait a minute. we know that the government never ever gets enough of the

taxpayers money. when we looked at the state government and said, how much is enough? there wasn't an answer for that. we know there will never be a top for that, of how much they think is enough to take out of your paycheck. i lead that fight against the state income tax in this state. and worked hand in hand with so many wonderful constituents. the people of this state stepped forward. they came to the state capitol. we had our tea parties and after four years we defeated the state income tax. so in tennessee we are probably a little head of the curve on this. and we know that there is tremendous energy all across this nation with people looking at government. people looking at both parties and saying, enough is enough. we have had it. government has first right of

refusal on our paycheck. it's time for government to be good stewards and accountable for how they spend the dollars. host: given that, can you explain why you weren't at the party? guest: absolutely, because it was a great gather of the conservatives. the structure of the event was a party with concerns to us. and suggested that we not go. in order not to have a violation and to stay within the rules of the house, we had to decline the invitation to be a part of convention. host: last question on policy, because we talked about job creation and the deficit. is there a consensus among your conference in the house, about the best kinds of jobs program, vis-a-vis of the rise over the

debt? guest: the best economic stimulus is a job. and what we hear from the small businesses is that they want to see tax reductions and incentives. and there are ways to do this. they would like to see moving forward of no. 1 is a cap on gains taxes for a couple of years. that gives them an opportunity to reinvest in their businesses. many small business owners are saying eliminate withholding, let the american worker get their full paycheck for a three-month period of time. what that will do is put money back on main street. and give them money in their pocket to address the needs they have. and that's a great way to incentivize the economy at the

main street level, which is where people want to see the focus placed. not on wall street çbut on mai street. ñtake our first call from oklahoma city, michael on the republican line. caller: good morning, how are you marsha and hostess. host: michael, if you have your tv on, please hit the çmute button.qç caller: çsorry, marsha, real quick here.t  the republican leadership, when are qthey going to realize the atmosphere, what is going on in the country today?w3 the conservative principle, hannity talked about it, and why we lost in 06 and 08, the administration is blatant and a train wreck. when are we going to put out talking points and remind the people and remind the

republican leadership where we stand? guest: thank you, and that's a great question. i think in 06-08 we did lose the majority. because much of our republican leadership in the nation was focused on pork and perks and privilege rather than on people and problem solving. so i agree with the caller on that.ç a couple of points because i do think our leadership now and republicans as i]a whole, republican elected officials realize that i]çthe american ç people are sick and tired of q the çout çof control spending washington, d.c. they are sick and tired of the out of control growth of government. not only at the federal level. but we are seeing this in many of our state governments also and in many of our cities across the nation. accountability, that's a good

thing. and the american taxpayer and demanding transparency. a couple of points i would like to make to the caller. i am one of those republicans that always felt like even with president bush and republican leadership in the house, we spent too much money. and one of the disappointments i think, not only for us but for the american people is that the obama administration spends too much more. and speaker pelosi and her team spend too much more. and here is a great point that came to us from some of çóqour budget committee members. when you look at the 12 years of republican control, the average annual deficit, when you pile all of those annual deficits çin was $1.4 billion per year. that's the annual average deficit. you had surplus and then the

largest deficit was $530 billion deficit. when you look at the three years of democrat control, çu7 their@oçaverage annual deficit3 is $1.trillion. so the average annual deficit is the average montly for democrats for spending. there is a $3.3 trillion that will double the national debt in five years and triple in 10 years. the american people are joining us and saying we have got to stop this. because the spending is out of control. and the taxpayer is not going to put up with it. host: michael asked çby w3

twitter, can you name the one thing you would cut?xd guest: absolutely, you can çgoç to my website çto get information çfn this. the best ççway to çw3fáçapp is exactly how our states have, it's across çthe board spendin cuts. every year in the state çsenat in tennessee and again if congress, i proposed three bills calling for çone, two an five cuts. and the reason this is important is because it resets the baseline. the federal governmed does not work [çfrom performance t(base zero based budgeting. they work from baseline budgeting, which qmeans they start çfrom what you got last year and build on that. when you make the spending reductions, you are resetting and lowering that baseline. now for 2006 budget, that was the deficit reduction act. and we were able to get that 1%

across the board cut. that provision as a part of that bill. it çwas çon the discretionary nondefense, nonhomeland spending. it çwas a ok$40 billion saving the american taxpayer. think what would happen over a period of five years or 10 years, we were to do a 1% or 2% or 5% haircut. think of the way we could reduce that bureaucracy and achieve efficiencies and get çó rid of redundant programs. a couple of years ago i was checking on economic programs and there is 115 different programs available. what if those were consolidated and bring those in line. simplify that xdçand get rid o some of that bureaucracy, put th -- put the money into programs çand savings.

host: elizabeth town, tennesseeç this is jack. caller: good morning, thank you for c-span and marsha, it's nice to talk to you, i have followed you since the 90's in the legislator in tennessee. we need more people like you, maybe you can win the state of tennessee, al gore couldn't. i am concerned about social security. number one, i am 55 years old and unemployed now, i am trying to figure out i e3made more mo 10 years çago, gross pay than today. i think that america needs wakeq up, marsha. and in east tennessee where they have six or seven government housing people, they are drawing a section 8. the government is paying for

their food stamps. i think this is one program that's been abused over the year. just as one area of the country. i think çwe need to put some people who are healthy back to work. now i realize that some people do need assistance. but i think it's being abused. guest: let çme çtalk about tw separate areas in the question. one is waste, çfraud and abuse in the federal government system.ñr and the other is the concern over the çsolvency of the soci security system. there are some of us who have tried to work on solvency issues in medical and social security. it's important to remember, çt federal government has first right of refusal on your paycheck. they have taken that money çou of your paycheck to put into social security. that should be your money.

they have taken money out of your paycheck to set aside for medicare. our seniors have pre-paid that medicare, they çhave had that money coming out of their paycheck.çç when çwe go through çthis deb that's something to remember, that's not the mçfederal government money, çit's the taxpayer's money. when it comes to social security one item i sought to do is to make sure that the federal government puts a wall there. what is happening now, they take the money out of your paycheck. and then they put çit into a line item for the social security trust fund. but they end up spendanf that money in the general fund.gk% basically the federal government is borrowing that money back. and then they write an i.o. u. every year to the social security trust fund.

the social security trust fund ( stacks up these i.o.u.'s. when we get to late 2017-2019, we will run out of çsurplus, which means that social security won't have more money coming in than out. we will start running out of the i.o.u.'s and we will run out of those. i believe that the federal government should be blocked from borrowing@oand spending that money, that's your money. i have had legislation around for a few çyears that would do that. and i have had legislation that would deal with the medicare issue and çallow individuals zv that turn 65 that are still working and like private health insurance to be able to get their voucher from medicare from what they paid in. this is their money.

and use that to stay in a health savings account. or a private option they have available to them through the job. it's more choices and more options for today's seniors. the second issue that he mentioned, waste, fraud and abuse. i bet you if i were to go around a room with my constituents and say, tell me where you think the federal government is wasting money. everyone in the room would be able to çógive me a solid, concrete example of some area of waste. or fraud or abuse. that they see taking place on an ongoing basis or regular basis çor something that they have heard or seen çon tv or been a part of. and they want to see this end. they are looking for the transparency and accountability and certainly as we work through the appropriations process. i will continue with my

across-the-board spending cuts. we will continue to fight earmarks which need to be revisited or done away with. and some transparency brought to that issue. because it is important to our constituents. it's important to the health of this nation. and it's important to our children and our grandchildren to their future that the fiscal house of the united states of america be brought into order. host: our next question is from columbus, georgia, david on the republican line. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: my biggest myconcern isç when you look çóat the budgetçt loo here isçç president çççoba a women at macy on a spending

spree. and it's kind of makes people wonder where his ties are. i mean i personally think he's trying to bankrupt the country or nation. host: caller, why would he want to do that? caller: say again? host: why would he want to bankrupt the nation? caller: i wouldn't want to mention it, the next thing i have people come down and investigate me like bill the plumber. guest: i think that the spending, the out of control government spending is something i hear in my district. when i am in my colleagues' districts we okwill hear the sa thing.mçu! it's interesting that across this country people are going,

wait a minute. government doesn't have sources of revenue other than what they get from the taxpayer. and the taxpayer is saying, we are overtaxed and government, you are over spent. and it's time for you to do, this is a great example. yesterday afternoon i was visiting with a small business. they said, look, we have gone through every single area of this country. we're doing everything we can do to save money. and make certain that we are not laying people off. çç3 on't bureaucrats ñrçin washington, d.c. çódo this. why don't they sit down at a table. why qdon't members of congress require these federal agencies to do with less.ççw3ççxd they were astounded there ñiçq

$3 .8 trillion. and that's going to be piled on the debt. you add it all together and our debt total is over $13 trillion.ç we put another $4.3 trillion on to that debt. and people are saying, look, i 0 don't have anymore money i can send to washington. they get first right of refusal from my paycheck. government can't take anymore out of this. if i have to pay more in taxes and in fees, then i am going to have fewer people that i can hire. if they go implement this cap and trade bill, i am going to see my fees go up. if they implement health care, i am going to see the cost of

that health care go up. what is happening in washington, d.c.? because it seems like, and rightfully so to a lot of our constituents, what we are seeing now is more emphasis on growing government and stimulating big government. and we are not seeing the emphasis on creating jobs and making certain that the environment is right for creating jobs. and the american çpeople one year after the stimulus are still saying, where are the jobs? and they know that they are looking at this budget that is going to spend too much, it's going to tax too much, it is going to borrow too much and heap that on the heads of our children and grandchildren.çó and they are standing up and saying, qno more.çów3 enough is enough, time çhas co for you to get çyour spending under control and çyour fiscal house in order.ç

ç. both. çmorning w3çw3to ;váei- first i would like çto start o saying for qthe past eight year i have ççóheard the ex-vice president çsay deficits don't matter.ç and now all of a sudden they matter. i will be 70 years old çmarch . you said nothing çthat i have' heard for çóthe last 40 years. it's the same old, same old. i have ydgood suggestion i think.ç based onççó t(çççthe çtea(ç townhalls and the faces that i see, i would çsuggest that we dischargeç everybody from the ç military that doesn't look like you, and you can be the ç recruiter in tennessee, çmy ho

state, w3çw3çççç memphis e recruit an all-white military. based on the faces that i see w3 in t(these ridiculous prode"qáq thanks for listening. t(ç host: anything for the viewer? guest: you know she is like many people, she feels as if ç what she hears out of washington is a lot of rhetoric and doesn't see a lot of action. that's why i think people want ç to w3see legislators take actio and solve the okspending proble and address many of the problems çour çnation has.çñr jobs i]and economy being the number one xdissue on the table. host: health care continues to be an important topic for the president, and i wonder if there çóis consensus of how the

republic will handle his meeting at the white house??;ç guest: it's interesting we have been çasking the president t(fç meeting since last year. and then he was gracious in accepting our invitation to baltimore and i asked çhim izb question in baltimore dealing in health care. and when çhe planned çto brin our ideas to the table. and when he also planned to bring the lessons learned to the table.ç because we have had a couple of experiments in the public option health care. one being here in tennessee which was the program çput in place in 1994. that was the original case çte for public option health care. and the other in massachusetts, we çknow from the scott brown race in massachusetts there çw a 32% rating for that plan. and they have seen their cost

rise over 20% and they çhave t $5 billion çstate budget defic in large part because of their health plan. in tennessee a plan that has 15 years of experience, we have a governor who is a democrat thatç has çdone a good job of çtryi to reign this program in. and (o make certain it was something that the state could afford. i mentioned at the top i]of çt show çthe state income tax battle, and it was due(çto the fact that çthis qhealth care ç plasñtin care was put in place. and then all of a çsudden it i] quadrupled what the estimates were that it would cost it. it was about t(to bankrupt the state. it was çan executive order program. the legislator couldn't deal with çççit but çyou had to it. so people are very concerned

and rightfully so about the implications and the çproblems thaqiñwould exist çi]if you implemented this kind çóof healç care plan. and as the president has invited us to discuss on ç february 25, i think there is aç couple of things that çwou very çimportant before those discussions begin. number one, çthe american peop want to çknow that the health care bill that went through the house and went through the senate is going to be thrown away and not on the table. what they want to see on the table çis a clean sheet of pap. and they want to know that this is going to be starting from scratch. because we as republicans have ideas that would address the issue of portability of insurance, ççand that would a address insurance accountability.

and according to cbo reduce the insurance premiums 10% a year, per individual, per family. that's significant. and those ideas deserve to be heard. we also have called for addressing liability and tort reform.w3 and i think çwe need to rememb too, that many of these plans pass the house in 2006 on a bipartisan basis with support. . .

when it comes to public option health care and what the pinballs are, but the lessons learned are and what we should be wary of. indeed, he said this would be the mother of all unfunded mandates to our state because

much of the burden would be shifted to the states for paying for the implementation and expansion of services in these programs. host: our next call is from kentucky. bill on the independent line. you are on with congresswoman marsha blackburn. caller: i'm an avid viewer but i have never really called in before and i appreciate "washington journal" and "in depth." you do a great job. the concerns i have listening to the program this morning is that both parties appeared to be wedded to corporate interests and i think it is probably more on the republican side of things. i think there is a little bit more of an affiliation with corporate interest on that side and the democratic side. but nevertheless, i think both parties are sort of wedded to

corporate interests. at least in the legislature, as a people, we are not seeing the legislature really do the business of the people. we are not seeing the legislature getting things done. so i think that is a problem and i think representative blackburn would agree with that, that we are not seeing things get done for the people. so my question is, i think that we have -- there are two things i have concern about. one is that we have a president who from the very beginning from his overture to the republican party, saying we want judd gregg to be involved. i think it was secretary of commerce or something. extended that from the very beginning and has routinely taken a conciliatory stance,

reaching across the aisle. but he has been wet -- met with such vitriol, even i think of joe wilson saying, you lie, which is really unheard of and very bad decorum. maureen dowd's article, when she heard you lie -- you have to put boley on the end of it. the second thing, there is sort of an undercurrent of racism it seems to me. while it is unfashionable to express our racism, so we sort of sublimate it into tea party is and so on and so forth. host: in the interest of time, i think we understand your direction and we will give the congressman a chance to respond. guest: a couple of things. here again, expressing what we hear continually. the american people are tired of

talk. they want to see action and they wanted to see problem solved their and they want it laid out clearly. give a time line of how we are going to move forward to address some of these problems. now, when it comes to being the party of no, which is something the mainstream media many times likes to say, well, the republicans are the party of no. i'd like to say, no, we are the party of know. know what is in this legislation. know what is in these bills. we are against these policies that are being brought forward. increasing taxes is not a good policy. that is not something that needs to happen right now. indeed, when you have an economy that is in this situation we are in right now, increasing taxes is not what you want to do. you want to move back and reduce

taxes. increasing spending is not the right move to make. that sends the wrong message. it sends the wrong message to other nations that own the debt of the united states. it sends the wrong message to the markets. most importantly, it sends the wrong message to the taxpayers of this great nation because it says the federal government is not going to get that spending under control, they have not kept their appetite for the money that is in your paycheck. and the american people want to see less spending. they want their taxes lower. they want their government to be more accountable. more transparent. and they would like to see trustor restored in some of these foundational institutions of -- trust restored in some of these foundational institutions. all across this land we are hearing that. and people are showing up from every walk of life to express

their discontent with the path that our country is on right now, with the sum of the policies that been moved forward. they are not in favor of what they hear speaker pelosi, leader of reid or the administration bringing forward when it is a policy that is going to increase the size of government, grow the bureaucracy and mean that more money is going out of their paycheck. host: retail sales numbers in from, department. better than expected increase in january, a welcome development that could mean stronger economic growth in the coming months as the ap. commerce the promise of friday retail sales increased by 0.5% last month, the best showing since november and higher than the 0.3% increase economists had expected. excluding autos, sales posted a 0.6% increase, also better than expected. strength in consumer spending says the aba is important because it accounts for 70% of

the economic nativity. -- economic activity. back to calls for congresswoman marsha blackburn. mississippi, clive, a republican line. caller: good morning susan and marsha. i want to let you know i am one of the mississippi state alumnae and i appreciate what you're doing in washington. we are getting some of the snow down here. i am sick of the snow, too, like you all art in washington. a year after i finished mississippi state in 1965 i bought a 600 acre farm and i farmed for 30 years and yet the federal bureaucracy is running off from the farm. what i am thinking -- we need to

get back to our constitutional republic. our foundation of our country -- it was not socialism, it was people getting out and working. i know today there are about 30 million government workers. since i worked at the farm, i had become one of them because you cannot make any money farming anymore. not but 25 million manufacturing jobs in the united states and 30 million government jobs. when are they going to realize that it is the physical economy that is going down the tubes and quit worrying about the financial economy. that is my question. guest: well, thank you so much. go bulldogs, right? one of the things that we hear from so many people is that this stimulus bill -- as iw3ç said, february 17 is one year the

marker on that stimulus bill. what it did was to stimulate big government. it stimulatedç growth in government. what the caller isi] talking abt is when you look at all of the jobs creation in the country and where jobs growth has been -- did you see it in manufacturing? noç. did you see it in retail? no. what you saw it in the is government sector jobs. çand the public sector job is where the growth is. sector jobs getting the pay checks and make money and sending the money in, in order for there to be those government jobs. and many people are beginning to look at these numbers -- i think this is one of the great things that comes from having some of this -- soç muchçó of this information available online. because when reports come out, susan, like you are talking

about, so many of our constituents go and log on and read some of the reports and then they have that information. and the growth that they are seeing in the public sector jobs is a concern. i had a constituent last week that said i readç that over the next 10 years, with the implementation of expand governmenti] programs, they are talking about employing several hundred thousand new federal workers over the next 10 years. and the concern was, as the nation was most of those employment would be in the washington, d.c., area, and it is an expansive the growth of government. and they were quite concerned about the impact that would have on their federal income tax rates and how much -- the question to me was how much did i think those rates were going to have to escalate in order to have to pay for that big an

expansion of government. more and more workers are looking at this and they are saying, what is enough? what percentage of my paycheck is enough to send in and pay for your expanded growth of government? when are you going to say, we are going to cap it? what the taxpayers are saying is, look, i decided -- taxpayers are saying they have decided that it is already too high and it needs to be lowered and the government needs to learn how to do with less. çhost: a minute or two left wih you. lake charles, louisiana, ken, democrats line. caller: my name is kenw¿. i'm a vietnam -- hello? host: you have your tv on. caller:yç can you hear me? w3ñçççi'm a vietnam vet andt

i'mmç getting sick ofç all ofs bipartisan -- non-partisan, whenever it is. i'm sick of the rnc. vççall of you and set up and y whatw3 can we do today -- howçn you know, we got into the vietnam war, which was a stupid which you did not pay for when you were in office. you sit there and you're talking points all day. i sit and watch you all morning. çyap yap. didoçç not pay for the wars. now we have to pay for them. that is why the $1.20 trillion budget. why don't you get the facts right, lady? host: we will get a response. honi have been getting twitter messages about the war's been

off budget. guest:ç of the happy to talk about that. i want to thank ken for his service to our country. and when you look at the new budgetingç processes, that it going to be put in place and bring in those costsç on the budget rather than running them asç supplementals, that assumption that as you look of the budgetsocess and needs to be done so that there is a regular order to the budget process. unfortunately, as they were approaching this, there were looking at making tremendous cuts to some of our military posts. one of our concerns was with fort campbell, which actually sits in my district in tennessee where they were seeking to realize 40% reductions, and we had troops that were getting ready to deploy, families -- we were very fortunate to be able to work with the general lynch

and stanton and work closely with our leadership team at fort campbell to address this. but, you know, more people want to see a regular order budget process. this is one of the reasons why they want to move away from earmarks and it is one of the reasons why they would like to p'sparency to that budget. and if individuals want to look through what has beenç proposed inxd that budget they can go toa the peak government printing office, -- all.gov and can log on and pull the -- gpo.gov. i think there is a 600-page budget and then 1400 pages of historical data and for those who want to do the bit of research to go back and look at how the funding has been put in order over the years and then balance that against what they are seen in the budget this year, that is a great place to

do it. host: delta, colorado, joshua on the independent line. caller: i found at least $529 billion in a tax mobile. if we discontinue federal annual income tax to all tax money paid to federal employees, also contractors, services and their goods and lower their competition levels by the current 35% income-tax rate we would be saving $525 billion and the government would be buying everything at 35% less than the public. saving money and getting more. isn't that true? guest:ok joshua, i don't know wt formulary -- exactly where you are going there, but i will tell you this. i love it when i hear from constituents who are trying to find solutions. that is what more and more

people want to see. that is what more and more people are doing and why it is so important to go and look at these documents that are on line -- whether you go to the agencies, where the go to mark -- my website comandante -- my website. people thinking about ways to save things are great ideas and they are bringing them to us at our meetings. one of the reasons i am looking forward to having listening sessions, to be able to hear from my constituents. some of the best ideas i have ever had have been ideas that have come from these town halls, and then we take those back to washington with us. that is the duty of a representative government. it is what more and more members of the house should be doing what the time they are spending in their districts, especially during this president a work period. host: we are out of time. thank you so much being with us. back in your district during this present as a period. we will see you when you back in

d.c. and thank you for being with us the last 45 minutes to talk to our viewers. guest: absolutely. thank you, susan. host: congressman marsha blackburn. yesterday the chair person of council of economic advisers christina romer was at a press briefing with the latest economic report for the president on this date of the economy. here is what she had about jobs. >> 95,000 is very consistent with other forecasts. i think the blue-chip came out yesterday, they asked a special question. it think on average in 2010 it will be 116,000 jobs a month. we are very much in the range of other forecasts. what i would say is its -- our best estimate going forward. it did not take into account the specific form of many jobs bill going forward. we know there is still a lot of uncertainty about what will come out of congress. at the time we did the forecast there was a lot of uncertainty

about what exactly would be proposed. certainly the case -- the reason why we are proposing things like small-business lending, jobs and wages tax credits, is because we think those will be particularly effective. what the president is going to do is put in place the best that we can, working with congress, and see if we can get better performance. that is what all of us are hoping for. host: on the screen is bruce redd, ceo of the democratic leadership council -- bruce reed. one of the headlines was grim outlook on jobs. what is this about? we had recessions in the past. what is it about this recession making jobs so difficult to begin to foster? guest: the big problem we have had in this recession is that it comes on the heels of a very weak job market to begin with. xdthe american job engine was actually sputtering before this recession began.

in the 1990's we were creating ççjobs at 2.6 million a year,m 2001 through to about seven, it dropped by more than half to 1.1 million a year, -- from 2001 through 2007. in a recession when lost 7 million. we have and particular to -- we have a problem with job creation. job losses have leveled off but the real key to job law -- growth over time is for new jobs to be created and that is what the president is focused on. host: we will talk about jobs with bruce reed. new concern questions by phone, twitter and e-mail. mr. reed, ceo of the democratic leadership council, which was very much involved with the clinton-or administration. he was a domestic policy adviser to president clinton and before that very much involved with his campaign for office. he is speaking about policy

issues with the present. have you talked to him since his heart -- guest: i have not. it sounds like he is doing well. host: news reports suggesting might be getting back to work soon. guest: he has been working so hard in haiti. he is a c-span junkie so he very well may be in a hospital bed watching us now. my sympathies for that. host: my question with regard to the democratic leadership council -- where do you have an avenue for your id is today? it seems as though with each administration there isçç açk take -- thinkç tank that has an ççear for a particular white house. it was the case during the clintonç administration. now the progressives seem to have a larger voice. ready have an avenue for your guest:çççç we have a lot ofs inç the obama administration. the we houseç is all ears when it comesçñmççw3ç toçxdçç:

you foundç him receptive? i think president obama is extremely pragmatic. he has a lot of problems to solve but he wants to find solutions and he is not in the logical and the slate is. they have been great to work with -- he is not ideological in this latest. great to work in a democratic think tank with a democratic town. host: it used to be referred to as the third way of thinking. the middle ground. where is your policy platform emanate from? guest: dlc was founded in the mid-1980s because democrats had a problem in that the country was not buying the ideas we were selling. so, we had just come off of a string of landslide losses. we have tried over the last 20 years to move the democratic

party forward and toç the cent, to try to focus on non- ideological solutions to problems and to try to move away from the partisan gridlock that frustrate americans. host: have been showing the new york times/cbs poll showing america's attitude toward congress at the lowest point until the surveys -- since the survey has been done. i wonder if it is right right now for the middle ground such as dlc and others are finding their way to break the gridlock, the order of the day. guest: i think it is the only way forward. look, americans are very practical people. they are not ideological. they want to solve problems. and they want their leaders to work together to find their way through this. i think president obama has bent over backwards to try to reach across the aisle and get

republican cooperation here in washington and they have mostly spurned that offer, which is a shame. i think one of the things you see in that poll is that the president is the right to be persistent in continuing to push for cooperation because eventually americans are going to hold both parties accountable for working together. i think the republicans have had a clever short-term strategy of saying no to everything, which may help them in this fall's election but over time they are only going to get back in power if they show they know how to solve problems and if they show they have answers to those problems. so far they have not been able -- willing to engage. host: with regards to job creation. we started this morning a discussion following yesterday's senate budget meeting about debt with senator conrad suggesting history will judge the current crop of political leaders on how they work through our current situation.

when you look to job creation, how on board if short-term consideration of the deficit? guest: the deficit and the dead are in medium and long-term problem and not an immediate short-term problem -- the deficit and debt. the administration has made the right decision not pulling back investment in the economy in the midst of this recession. washington was able to offset some of the cutbacks at the state level. but over the long haul there is no way we can sustain these kinds of deficits. we cannot grow on as the world's greatest economic power as the world's greatest bar work. there willçç be aç reckoningd if there is one thing -- one good thing to come out of these challenging times is to recognize we have to deal with these long term problems. host: i it want to put on the screen some of the major recommendations coming out of the democratic leadership council for job growth and then

we will get to calls. first of all, transfer $30 billion in unused tarp authority to establish a small business lending fund. simplify and make permanent r&d tax credits and established for billion dollar american investment bank to fund near and long term infrastructure. let us stop right there and have you talk about what the philosophy is behind these three major planks. if guest: it starts with the fact that the private sector is the real engine of job growth. and that starts with small business and new business. one of the things that we've found is that the real challenge we have in this recession is that small business creates more than half of the new jobs and new businesses create two-thirds of the new jobs. small businesses and new businesses are the ones hit hard by the credit crunch. 98% small-business financing from banks. they are really hurting. that is why the president has a

right to propose a small business lending fund using the tarp authority. it is also why it is very useful to target a jobs tax credit as he has done to be most helpful to small businesses and do businesses. -- and new businesses. over the long haul research and development is essential because innovation is what drives economic and job growth over the long term and the kinds of investments that the government and private sector can make right now in broadband and efficient networks and high- speed rail will pay off in the short run in job creation and in the long run new businesses that lead to more job creation host: specifically to tax credits to employers last week we had a representative from the small business administration and they cannot support the tax credits because they say it will cost the country a good deal, no

employer will take on an employee in that they don't have need for even with a tax credit. hiring has to come because there is more demand for products. guest: i think we need to do both of these at the same time. clearly a tax credit in and of itself will not be the number- one factor for small business. but i think it is important to reward small business is growing their payroll and make it possible to succeed. most of the proposals out there for this provide up to a $5,000 payroll tax relief. so really it is a tax cut for them. it eases their bird and a bit. it is not going to be the only thing, but i think this proposal was quite well designed to be targeted to help the businesses where it makes the most difference. it is not for big companies but smaller ones. host: arkansas, democrats line. caller: the jobs here in america -- don't cut me off because i

will connect this. the jobs here in america have been sent overseas. the president has tried to address health care, to address employers paying for the people's health care so they can kind of complete with the other countries. the other countries subsidize their workers' health care. he was trying to work with the congress to go and deal with that. but one of the main things that happen, the american people have been hoodwinked. i will tell you why. the teai] party, those people paying $500 for the meeting, those are republicans. they lost the election but they are under the disguise like they are a third party. those are the same people who lost the election trying to call themselves the peak -- tea party saying this is what the american people want. those are republicans trying to fool the people. those people who have dividends and stock overseas with the slave labor, those of the people trying to push the agenda on the present.

we need to wake up and see these people for who they are. guest: i cannot agree more. look, health care costs are a huge tax on our economy and on our employers. it is one of the reasons why most americans have not gotten a raise over the past decade and one of the reasons why job creation has been as low as it has been. so we cannot walk away from health care. the president is right about that. we need is something done. i think there are ways to bring jobs home, too. at the president's job summit i met a remarkable country nor named angelo sullivan who runs a company -- remarkable entrepreneurial named angela sullivan who runs a company that does home sourcing. she demonstrates that by having a solid broadband network in florida and around the region, she is able to convince american companies that they are better off having their call centers here in the united states then

outsourcing them to india or elsewhere. host: next is orlando, florida. john on the republican line. caller: please give me an opportunity, a few minutes. number one, mr. reed stated earlier talking about obama coming into an economy on the downturn and then he mentioned the 1990's early on which clinton had a lot of jobs. fact of the matter is, bill clinton had absolutely nothing in the eight years along with a republican congress or anybody to do with the boom that took place -- that was the dot com boom that dealt nothing but the government. when bush came in the economy was going into recession and we had 9/11. fact of the matter we lost a lot of jobs and then we had a false market housing boom which we created tons of jobs and a lot of money -- that went into the tank. obama ran on the fact he would resolve these things, he would

be different from anything would be different. fact of the matter is once he became president he reverted back to being what nobody knew he was anyways because there was no research -- nobody knew anything about obama and -- except what was written in his book. let me say this for last. the fact that when we talk about obama reaching across the aisle and doing whatever -- publicly when he gives speeches, he says of the things that i want to hear and everybody wants toi] hear. but when you look at the governing as far as the policy making, it is totally contrary to what the people want. mr. obama does not have a health care bill. he did not present anything. he allowed pelosi and harry reid to draft this legislation in which nobody knows what is in there. here is my suggestion -- and i will get off the phone. number one, i would like to see them on the 25th outlined five, 10 specific things that need to happen with health care -- what the problems are. out of those five or 10 things,

specify specifically what it is they are going to do, their solutions, and the republicans specified their solutions. the problem i have is, 3000 pages -- who knows what the heck does and 3000 pages? host: i guess really let us start with health care. guest: i think that is an excellent suggestion for both sides to say here of the fiber 10 things we need to do. and i think there is room for common ground. there needs to be a common willingness to get things done. setting politics aside. i think it would be better for everybody -- if you look at the popularity ratings that congress has right now, they are all in trouble. host: i keep reading different analysts suggesting this is not a time for big solutions to any policy problem, that it is better to take things incrementally. would you agree with that? guest: that is where the

electorate is. the challenge president obama faces is the problems he inherited are bigger than the country is willing to trust government and the political system to solve. and that is especially true in health care where people -- it is a huge part of our economy, people feel passionate personally about it. and even though he has proposed a private sector solution, people get nervous about big change. we may end up with an instrumental solution. healthcare is the kind of problem where if we are really going to tackle it over the long haul, you are going to have to get everybody in the system, you have to get all of the players collaborating to control costs. so he is right to keep plugging away. but it is a very tough time to be doing it. host: of the admin is cheap -- the administration usurped tried

to overhaul health care when things were better. guest: health care is the middle east of domestic policy. it almost always ends in tears. as the president said, you can't walk away from it because it is such a big problem for our economy. host: indiana, ken, on with bruce reed. caller: thank you for the opportunity c-span offers to little people. i remember when i was young and little town in indiana, the doctors were supplied with a home, sometimes a card to make house calls and the insurance was based on people who were healthy pain into a fund that took care of people who were sick on a small bases, and until politics got involved and the politicians in discounting decided they wanted to be involved in this funding that was from people who were paying

in to take care of people who were sick and could not pay end. welfare state or a community church would take care of people. but it has gotten so far involved in politics and sometimes religion even that it has gotten completely out of hand. i would like to see the democrats and the working-class party get involved and bring it back to that basic part where people are working and paying into an insurance fund to take care of those who are 6. that is the way insurance works. i would appreciate any comments you might have. guest: to live ever much. i grew up in a small town like that -- thank you very much. i grew up and small town like that. i wish we could go back to that model completely. a the basic principle is exactly

right, that we ought to have a health care system good for people who work and we should have a health care system that doesn't put employers out of business for offering health care to their workers. because the only way we are ever going to sustain an insurance system, a safety net, is to have it built around working and rewarding work. host: with regard to your first proposal, transferring $30 billion of the unused tarp authority, senator judd gregg is among those suggesting there is not that the tory authority to use tarp funny -- tar money for this. guest: i and not an expert on this. there is an argument about whether this was unused part money or authority. one way or another, everybody from both parties ought to be to agree there is an incredible credit crunch for small

businesses. it would be good if banks took care of themselves -- of it themselves but they haven't despite the jawboning by the present. incredibly self-defeating if we do not do this. we will not see job growth until we see small businesses able to get credit. host: texas,, on the democrats' line. -- tom on the democrats' line. caller: i want to make a statement in terms of some of the rhetoric going on in terms of president obama. the way this country has got in trouble is really with unfunded tax cut and unfunded wars. i work for a large multinational country and i know what happens when you get a tax break at a high tax bracket. you take that money and you make an investment. to believe that money will go

back and create american jobs is a total fallacy. this has been going on since 1980 when ronald reagan came along and it kind of bamboozled the american people to believe we would have this trickle-down economics and jobs will be created. jobs has -- have left% he had taken over and we are not at the point of -- have left ever since he had taken over and we are now at the point where jobs overseas. when someone at a higher level gets money in terms of a tax break it is underfunded, they will take it and invest and invest some place. they will go into china. which is a communist country. the people here, the tea party people calling barack obama a communist are totally ridiculous. we are taking money that american investors make, and their primary thing is to make money and they can care less about creating jobs in america and they invested overseas.

-- invest its overseas. we really have to get back where we are talking intelligently rather than the way the tea party is taking things which is the total unintelligent childish way of dealing with things. i really don't have a question. just the statement i wanted to make. guest: you raise a really good point. particularly over the past decade we have gotten away from the old way of doing things, making long-term investments in areas that will make our country and economy stronger in the long haul and have gotten too far into promoting consumption and especially excess of borrowing. everybody has dealt with this in their own lives. we have to be able to live within our means as individuals and as a country and as a government. and the government needs to

shift from trying to promote consumption, to promote people to buy things and put that investment into areas that are going to make us stronger over the long haul. host: with the concern about jobs leaving the country. in hindsight of 15 years, is nafta a good thing for the united states? guest: i think so. i think trade is good for countries. the president announced in the state of the union he wants to double exports over the next five years, which is a terrific idea, an idea that has support across party lines. and for good reason. americans are deep in debt. having trouble finding scratch to go out and buy stuff. but other countries whose economies have not been hit as hard by the downturn want to buy our products and we need to make sure that we continue to

tear down market barriers so that they can do this. host: the next call is from franklin, tennessee, marshall on the republican line. guest: two questions. the proposed r&d tax credit only panders to large corporations. why not change that to a tax credit for small businesses where true economic growth will occur? my second question is, in the last couple of years we lost like 7 million jobs but obama's stimulus plan really only looks like it will create 100,000 jobs a year. what about the other net loss of jobs? guest: first, on the r&d tax credit, you are absolutely right. we proposed simplifying it and making it permanent. the existing r&d tax credit is not as good for small businesses as it should be. if we simplify it it would provide more bang for the buckok for small businesses.

on the second point, the recovery package have done a lot of good. gdp would have probably grown two points less or dropped two it has made a huge difference in keeping r&d spending from dropping even further than it has. and it has saved or created far more than 100,000 jobs. more on the order of one or 2 million so far. so we would be a lot worse off if it did not happen. but our work is far from done. host: what i am looking for and cannot find it -- hear it is. economists expect shifting work force. this piece in "the wall street journal" suggest as we come out of it, the kinds of jobs the new economy will need are not the kind of jobs that were lost in

the old economy. how do we factor in workers for the next generation of jobs as we move out of this recession? guest: a great point. one of the most important things we can do in the next few years is to make sure people have access to the kinds of skills they need. for example, we work closely but the obama administration of their plan to help community colleges, which are a tremendous resource for people who are looking to upgrade and learn something so they can get a new job. there is enormous potential to make community college accessible to everybody. a lot of community colleges are putting their curriculum on the line now, which means if we have broadband networks and plaze, efficient networks where people can stream of lectures and take a class from home, then somebody who is working can take that

class at a time that is convenient for them and continue to upgrade their skills. because it is pretty clear you are not just going to be able to go to college and be done with it. now are going to have to continue to learn throughout your career. host: long island, good morning. steve on independent line. caller: i would like to take a little trip down memory lane. as the congresswoman before was saying -- social security and medicare are automatically deducted from our pay checks. i would like to know, does the democratic leadership council still consider the lock box -- you remember the lockbox as a viable part of its plank, of its program? or are the lines to blurred now to make that effective? i will make the wait for your

answer offline. guest: thank you. it was not so long ago when al gore ran for president in 2000 he proposed a lock box that would protect and strengthen social security and lock with the surpluses we build up -- built up. with fiscal discipline in the 1990's, that was one of the great things washington has squandered in the past decade. i think we could get back there. we are going to have to deal with the social security funding problem in the next few years. it would be difficult to get to a lockbox in the short run. but eventually we are going to left to live within our means it as a nation. host: pittsburgh, good morning herman on the democrats' line. caller: i want to see if i'm on the right track. had the economy not fell -- because most of the jobs in the united states are provided by

private investment, correct? guest: that's right. caller: once the economy fell, all the jobs fell. therefore he needed the recovery act to put money into the system. it does not mean it is a socialist system, it is a way of getting things started again because there was not any money for private investment. so until private investors start putting their money back into the system, there will not be any jobs. am i correct? guest: exactly right. a job creation is tied directly to business and investments. -- business investment. but the recovery act tried to do and the rest of the obama agenda is trying to do is to leverage much more business investment, private investment in ways that will make the economy stronger. for example, recently the present went down in florida and

announced an expansion of high speed -- the president went down to florida and announced an expansion of high-speed rail. it will not happen without government pushing for it but the big benefit of that kind of efficient transportation network is going to redound primarily to business. host: this year suggests it is the tax code that is the source of jobs creation. put in place a flat tax for all without exception of income source -- interest, earnings, etc.. guest: i do think over the next five years we are going to have to reform our tax code. it is a mess of loopholes on the individual and corporate side. it is difficult to do one straight flat tax without soaking ordinary people. but there is no question that there are all kinds of holes and move -- loopholes and the current tax code that were designed and another era, inside

dealing in washington. host: bruce reed on jobs. west virginia, dave on the republican line. caller: my question -- i really have two questions for the gentleman. on c-span several months ago they had a gentleman on their that wrote a book on the medical plan throughout the world. he offered to give it to the senators and congressmen and even to the president's -- president, how to fix the medical plan. i had operations on my back. on "60 minutes" they showed that what happens is people are getting treated for pregnancy tests and something on 89 year old women who are passing away because the hospitals have to make up the difference -- because what they lose on medicare and stuff. my question is this.

with the people passing laws -- the supreme court passing a law that people can donate money to the senators and stuff and have these things going on in washington, d.c., who is there to trust in there? i used to be a republican from reagan's days and now i don't really feel i have any representative at all pleased -- republican, democrat, anybody. host: david brings us back to the first discussion about the new poll about the trust in washington. guest: it is a real problem. one of the reasons why people want both parties to work together is that to they are suspicious and were read and not sure who they can trust and feel if both parties make compromises and work together and try to find common ground,

that would produce a solution. i think it is important for voters to hold washington and their leaders accountable. that is the reason that barack obama was swept in with a landslide in 2008, because his predecessor had not delivered results. i think in this kind of climate it is important for elected representatives to do the work and get the job done. host: 8 minutes left with bruce reed. lafayette, louisiana, jack, independent line. caller: what was the unemployment rate at the time ronald reagan lowered our taxes for all of the taxpayers? what was the rate one year later of unemployment? the same question goes to the george bush 2001 lowering of

taxes. what was the unemployment rate at the time he lowered taxes and what was it one year later? host: jack, do you know the answer? guest: i did take a shot. reagan tax cuts passed in 1981 and i believe in the short run unemployment went up, not necessarily because of the tax cut but because we were in the midst of recession, unemployment was very high that year. in 2001 bush came in, unemployment was at historic lows, below 4%. he passed his tax cuts again in the midst of recession, unemployment went up. i think the bigger consequence of both of those tax cuts was not so much on the unemployment rate as it was on the long term debt and deficits and dug deep

holes that make it difficult for the country to get out of later. host:ok how much did the deflatn of the dot com but will contribute? guest: the dot com crash at the end of the 1990'sç hurt some bt that was a relatively modest the real problem coming out of that recession in 2001 was business investment never really recovered. as a country we were pushing so much emphasis on individual consumption and on over bar wing -- over bar wing that we never saw the business investment recovery we have seen in past recoveries -- over borrowing. host: mansfield, ohio, and be on the democrats' line. caller: i would like to thank

you for c-span2 get all the different views on tv. host: thanks for watching. caller: i would like to talk about how government helps big businesses and big banks with the bailout. we've got millions of people losing their houses every day now. there ain't nothing to help them up. i'm talking about middle class people, not the poorest of the port. talking about tax breaks for the rich. and if the trickle-qdown economics obviously does not work -- i would just like to make that comment about some kind of accountability of the people on welfare to go out and try to get a job and not surround and the lady. -- and be lazy. guest: i think people are sick of bailouts and understandably so.

i think what everybody wants to see -- everybody wants to see over the long haul the government having to do what they had to do over the past year. see what they can still afford and what they need to do and what decisions they need to make now that will end up with better results than the decisions we might made over the past decade. so, it is important -- but with the middle-class is better over the long haul is if we have small businesses starting up, if we have an economy where somebody has an idea, they are an on shipper nor and taken started and raise capital -- they are an entrepreneur and they start and raise capital. caller: i have been listening to this. to me, the big problem is that years ago with president carter

and the democratic congress and senate kept the import tariffs off where we had to compete with the rest of the world without -- was being taxed heavily. people don't think about these things. then the government taking over -- having social security that is going bankrupt. medicaid is going bankrupt. now they want to take over medicine. let's get real. the government is not doing the job they should be. thank you. guest: i disagree with you on the tariffs. i think one of the good things that happened over the last few decades is we made real progress in lowering trade barriers so american exports have been able to dominate and that led to enormous number of jobs here at home. we need to do more of it if we are going to have more jobs.

on social security and medicare, nobody wants a government takeover. a govet çpro(ápsçç it doesn't need toç be strengthened for the long haul. -- itw3çq doerççokw3 need to e strengthened for the long haul. one of the great canards of the health-care debate is somehow democrats want a government run system and nothing can be further from the truth. v:host:ççt(fá pennsylvania, p, democrats line. caller: my first time. (%ñgive o get straightened. to mr. reedw3 about nafta. i disagree because it took a lot of jobs and gave it to other countries. it took away jobs from the americans. and the trade thing -- if you see it but containers that are coming into this country and the trade that is going back out, it

is less than half of what is coming in. how can you create jobs if you are outsourcing all the jobs out of the country? i just seen it the other day about the $2 billion that barack obama, the president gave for jobs for windmills and there are companies in china getting all the work and nothing getting to the u.s.. çcan you please give me somethg on that? thank you. guest: i think expanding american exports is vital. the more we celebrate the world the better off we will be and the more we force other countries to bring down their trade back -- barriers, the better off we are going to be. qw3i think on the energy front,u raise an important point, which as --xdç is some of our compets are doing a lot more than we are as a country to promote the

kind of new energy technologies we are going to needç to both thrive in the globalç economy d also protect the planet. çhost: oklahoma, james on the democratic line. çcaller:ñr i was just wonderiny ççno ond0says anything about e reason most ofç the jobs were shipped out was because of the big unions, what they chargeok, whatç they pay their employees, they can go over there and get itokúevne for one 10th. çit just looksçç ridiculousçt çthey go on like that. w3çhost:çok thank you. just about out of time. guest: not so much a union or non-issuew3 isçt(çç as it is qçin order toç keepç our ecoy kostrong and to have a thriving