host: democrats and republicans on air marks, federal spending directed to certain places like companies or nonprofit institutions. there. a band being discussed and already opposed on the democratic side. we will talk to you about the idea of banning earmarks and whether you think it makes a difference in controlling federal spending. here are the phone numbers.

to set the stage for discussion about the remarks -- earmarks, here is susan on the line. the first question for those who do not follow the hill close fully about how they work. guest: they are funds directed to pet projects. they have come under scrutiny because some of these entities give members of congress campaign contributions. some people think that they are in exchange for the earmarks that they get, some numbering in the tens of billions of dollars. and some ethics watchdogs are

criticizing this year marks as a cause for problem and congress. host: is also concerned that they become no-bid federal spending and? >guest: that is right. they can do this constitutionally, but they have proliferated in recent years. civil watchdogs believe this is a direct problem and cause of some correction in the congress because the entities are giving members campaign contributions and in exchange many times the members of congress are providing the earmarks, or at least that is the argument. host: the house of representatives under speaker nancy pelosi has made a specific move it. what is that? guest: should begin to float the idea of a full moratorium, a full one for the appropriation year.

it has now turned into for the last day the appropriations chairman from wisconsin have been announced a moratorium on earmarks to for-profit companies. the context is that you have seen a lot that the democrats have suffered, and they have really been taking a beating on the ethics front in the last two weeks with congressman charlie rangel resigning his chairmanship from the ways and means committee, and a democrat from new york resigning amid allegations of sexual misconduct as well as over health concerns. host: so, the timing of this is a counter to concerns about positions of the democratic majority on health issues? guest: exactly, and the other thing that did not get as much attention on the ethics front is the ethics committee having released its report on -- it is

sort of a scandal that happened last year, and that erupted. the fbi rated a lobbying firm, the pma group but that was tied to several members of congress, the now-late murtha and another from a democratic position who came under scrutiny concerning their earmarks to those pma clients and the contributions they received. that organization, the pma group, has now shuttered its offices after the fbi raids, and are no longer doing business. but the ethics committee last week amid all this other, all these other ethics issues that the democrats were concerned about and there were erupting released a report completely

exonerating the seven members of the defense spending panel. that caused members of congress, some who are critical of the air marks and watchdogs to criticize that report and say they did not do enough to really investigate and show the connection between campaign contributions and remarks that companies received. host: i want to take some calls from viewers as you have suggested the timing for the house decision. if you could stay with us after a few calls, because there is also a move by republicans to do one better. also, a disagreement in the senate. let's hear reaction. we will begin with david baltimore on the republican line. caller: i definitely agree that earmarks should be banned. also, i would offer the suggestion that corporate lobbyists be banned. they don't do anything in the

interest of people who put the politicians in office in terms of our votes. we cannot give the same kind of amounts and that creates an unfair playing field. host: you're calling from baltimore and here is the story from that city's newspaper. corporate grants could be felt in maryland. millions could be affected. maryland employers, particularly those in defense and aerospace could take a hit from an election-year decision by democrats on wednesday to ban corporate earmarks in 2010. let's stay with the democrats -- on the senate side, one senator is not reacting positively. guest: that is right. many members of congress believe that it is their constitutional power to direct money and control the power of the purse. so this senator is the chairman of the appropriations committee.

he says no way, there's no reason why we should unilaterally disarm because it is an election year. house democrats are facing an uncertain situation. he says he will not agree with this. that is critical because the senate really has a lot of power to control the conference process and these spending bills, their differences get hashed out between house and senate. so, i don't know, david obey, his counterpart in the house, he is the one who announced the ban on earmarks yesterday. he told his conference that he would fight inoway, but really, we do not understand right now what tools he might have to do so. host: this is indiana, a democrat on the line. caller: hi. i was calling because i do feel

that it is not appropriate to ban earmarks for-profit companies. if there is a community need and the proper response and we ban it, and the only one with access to helping us is a for-profit community or business -- then i think we should just let that be. in the not-for-profit person who just recently started in business and i'm having a tough time receiving funding. a lot of people i would go to our for-profit entities. i don't think we should ban earmarks for-profit businesses. it might trickle down into the not-for-profit and we might take a loss. host: thanks for your comment. this is wes on the democrats' line. caller: good morning, ladies. two quick questions and one

comment. number one, whether we call earmarks exactly what they are? bribes. number two, how many members of congress are not millionaires? number three, my comment is, i am very, very tired of these congressional hogs slopping at the trough of the public dollar. host: anything for that caller, susan? guest: the previous callers making a point that many members of congress make. murtha also made the point. the members of congress and other districts best, and the best companies because they're in touch with them a regular basis to provide some of these multi-million dollar contract to the department of defense -- he said, when tom murtha was alive and fighting these accusations

that the earmarks were bribes, he was saying he was getting jobs for his district. so, there is an argument to be made that the members of congress know that districts do know their own companies and should maintain its power. the problem is, when it comes to campaign contributions, that members and watchdogs are connecting to the earmarks. one of the suggestions to watch to crusade against earmarks is to take away the financial incentives. say me began the campaign contributions from entities receiving your marks within the same election cycle. the two-year election cycle you cannot receive any campaign contributions from anyone you are directing earmarks to. jeff, who has been beating this bush for a number of years,

trying to eliminate earmarks -- he does not take the moral question himself -- he says it would be better to treat any campaign contributions you receive from entities you request earmarks for as a financial interest, just as they would do if they were accepting money from the moneythey were legislating on in their personal, private finances. when they are certified in the most sign forms -- every member, and request, saying that they do not have a personal interest in that company or earmark it's up. -- or earmark. host: susan is joining us to set

the stage for the discussion about earmarks. monies could be earmarked for non-profit organizations. susan is a senior editor at the hill and has always followed the money story closely. thanks for being with us. as to how much the earmarks account for the federal budget, there is a story here from yahoo! news that suggests in the current year, the total amount is under $16 billion. while that is a tiny percentage of more than $1 trillion in fiscal 2010 discretionary spending, earmarks have become a lightning rod for critics of federal spending and ethical problems in the congress. we would like to hear more from you about whether you think it matters, whether it is a step in

the right direction. it has made a great deal of news coverage. let's begin with mike on the democrats' line from baltimore. caller: good morning. all this makes me think that what is missing is popular oversight and participation. if you imagine the founders of the country and help each jurisdiction would be represented, people would be going to town hall meetings and would know about these things. there would be a function for congress to arbitrary decisions about favoritism and localism, but basically the people would be involved. there would not be back room deals to the extent we have here. let's ask americans, why do only 30% of those boat? have and we get everyone involved in the process? host: the next comment is from atlanta, dick on the independent line. caller: yes, both of those guys from maryland stole my thunder.

i do think the earmarks should be called bribes because there is approved" pro -- a prid quo pro easily tied with each of them -- i think the house ethics committee and the way business is sort of a claok to protect their own. i think that there should be a civilian or citizen group to oversee -- and maybe the hill -- maybe somebody in her magazine could do this, actually take the ethics cases out of the house, and adjudicate them and an open forum. really get to the heart of the matter. i think that these guys protect their own. host: what we're talking about this morning is a move led by house democrats led by david

obey from wisconsin to ban as of the 2010 year, earmarks, it directed spending to for-profit companies. they could still select foundations and universities, and other non-profits as part of this spending. it is a discussion about how to control federal spending. we would like to hear from you about whether this tactic makes sense. it is about $16 billion in earmarks in the current fiscal year's budget. does this matter to you? or do think it is about politics? here is a view from john on twitter.

next is a call from arizona, doug on the independent line. caller: the house bringing up the attempt to block the marks and all the money that floods us is good, but you must remember that congress is run pretty much by millionaires. i honestly do not believe they really care about the people. they are very quick to make sure that they get theirs while the people's business is not being attended to. in the meantime, we're going broke and money is being wasted. i just kind of wonder what will happen when congressional budget office was talking about reaching an impasse, as far as the impasse and there will have to cut social welfare programs and social security -- do you think that they will miss that deadline? they will not fail to make the

cut. i'm starting to wonder if the system is just too embedded and corrupt to be reformed. host: the next call is william from four washington, maryland. he is on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. to be precise looks for in these issues with facts. the fact is that earmarks are very small part of the budget. so, from it with that fact, and then you understand that this is crumbs in terms of what is going on with regard to legislation that gives billions to corporations. this is irrelevant in terms of the budget, people, wake up. host: the next comment is from michigan, russell. caller: one of your callers is

talking about the ethics committee there. he hit it right on the nose on that one. these people here are protecting themselves. with this nancy pelosi, the cia deal, they just threw that out the door on her. they should have something like jury duty, and have the american people get out and come in there and find out who is guilty of this stuff. these earmarks are ridiculous. all of this is bribes, just like the last caller said. host: here is a little more reporting from susan's story whom we talked to at the outset. she says here that obey pledge to shake on his counterpart and says that he will fight tooth and nail about this.

host: the next call is from north dakota. good morning, forrest. caller: have you ever heard that phrase "of bride is a bribe -- a bribe is a bribe is a bribe, no matter how you pay for it?" i come from a small, rural community. sometimes, if it is a good earmark, and distributed right, then is a plus, but you get all

these big corporations which us, people cannot fight. what we do here in north dakota is let the representatives, or the senator -- and it seems to work for our people. but i voted against these people -- i would vote against them if i thought were going to be for-profit, helped the big companies. you know, i am for the little people. i'm independent. i used to be democrat, but i changed. host: this is thain in annapolis. caller: it is a constitutional issue. a gives congress the private to spend money. the president on his own has no ability to spend funds. it is up to congress to decide how to spend money, including

earmarks. i am aware of the county in california that has been at the forefront of the foreclosure problem. when they relied upon the decisions being made solely by the administration on funding assistance for foreclosures, they did not get a single penny. not once, but twice in that process. had congressman more involved, there would have been more of a guarantee that a county like that that was so competitive would have received some funding. host: next, christina, calling from hanover, pa. caller: i think earmarks think are appropriate as long as they are directed towards necessary items. and they lose to competition, at least in the defense sector.

that company may not necessarily win that bid. it in itself has a process. as long as it is put towards a specific necessary capability can be very beneficial helping out when times are short. host: sounds like you work for defense contracting firm? caller: i do. host: so, you have some first hand familiarity with this process? caller: yes. host: little more from the reporter --

the next call comes from ohio, and tim on the independent line caller: how are you doing? host: very well, things. what you think about this earmarks debate? caller: pretty much everyone else said what i was going to say. host: are you concerned about federal spending and the size of deficit? caller: they have to figure out who is stealing on the money. they need to do other processes and to find out who was causing all this stuff, and then maybe they can do something -- i don't know. i don't know what they can do to anybodyt tohey of all these organizations. since the change the constitution with bush, it is pretty much -- i don't know. host: this morning, newspapers around the country suggest tough times for a number of states.

"the chicago sun times" -- quinn's grim plan is to raise taxes or else. in orange county, california, the local jobless rate is 10.1%. and also in atlanta, the jobless rate is front-page news there. metro atlanta it jobless rate brackets to 10.8%. out of denver, colorado -- job losses nearly 17,000 more positions were cut. in new jersey, gov. looks to cut 2000 state jobs. again, and the chicago, that 33% tax hike for people who lived in illinois fothat is proposed by e governor there.

the senate right now disagrees and republicans want to top it by banning imports across the board. back to your calls. tuscaloosa, -- rather tuscaloosa, michigan. caller: thank you. i personally believe they could stop their marks for all 49 other states because michigan can use all the extra help we can get right now with jobs. that is what a vote on, to bring back some of that money to help this state. so, if the other ones want to give up their earmarks, that is fine. more power to them, but we need -- you me that ability to create jobs. small businesses are for profits and they are that engine runs

the businescountry, as the klan. we can give earmarks to all these energy companies, but we need -- personally, let them banned them in the other 49 states, because in the michigan we need all the help that we can get. host: taxpayers for common sense has much more detail about common sense. if we can get in close with the camera so that you can see -- the total number of earmarks in fiscal year 2010 --

in the other statistics here, the house of representatives -- we will look at that after we take more calls. michigan, how are you doing? caller: yes, i have to say there's nothing in the constitution that enables earmarks. i feel anything that should be appropriate for money should come under constitutional rules. it should be set up, debated on the floor, moved up or down. these earmarks have become pork- barrel. it is getting way out of hand. i am in michigan, in one of the

most depressed areas, muskegon, and i cannot agree less with the gentleman who just called. we need to get some control in our government. if we do not, we will be worse than a third world nation. thank you for taking my call. host: joseph is a republican caller from north carolina caller: you are not going far enough. i would rather give my money to an american corporation ban foreign corporations. in japan, the second richest country of the world, and they get billions of dollars in aid every year from the u.s. we've got to start spending money at kong and stop sending it to make sure everyone else is secure in their economy and life style. we what is more important to us -- not foreigners.

number two, stop bashing poor mexicans. there refugees from mexico. these are wonderful people. the foreigners that we need to worry about are the europeans and the japs. host: chris in alabama sends a message by twitter. the next call is from bill, a democrat in baltimore. caller: good morning. i would like to disagree with the lady who said there was competition once these air marearmarks were appropriated. i don't think that is probably true by and large. i also want to make a comment then when we talk about the air mearmark problem, it often leads to other federal expenditures down the road. if an earmark is set up for

for-profit company to do a certain kind of study, then when the results are available to congress -- they are often not sound, then suddenly you find other legislation that magnifies the preparation by 100x. maybe people could think about that. host: back to taxpayers for common sense with a list of earmarks o recipients in congress.

below that, more statistics. the top ten states per-capita -- next is a call from baltimore, gary, on the republican line. caller: yes, earmarks one large are not good, but on some occasions they can be beneficial. i would like to see a public page were both bodies have to take ownership of what ever earmarks they want to put into place. so that people could review them on the internet, as opposed to sticking them in there. personally, if they're taking accountability for what their turn to bush, then maybe it is not so bad. it is the head and once that bother me the most. host: next is a call from

norfolk, va., jay, on the independent line. caller: they should have done as a long time ago, but there are a lot of people out there who do not care. i have an idea. in the 1971 richard nixon invented amtrak. he said in two years and made a profit -- it has not made a profit yet. let's sell the earmarks back to the railroads and seven other $10 billion. i think it is a great idea. host: in a book with the washington times" on front page coverage -- since taking control in 2007, democrats have taken steps to bring transparency to earmarks.

next is a call from bethlehem, pa., on the democrats' line. caller: i don't think earmarks are the big to a problem. some are correct, of course. the real problem is logging. when george bush took office there were 5000, when he left there were 35,000. if that is not an indication that people were going there with whellbarrows full money and dumping them on congressmen and senators -- i don't know what is. thank host: let's take a call from pennsylvania, on the republican line. caller: i am one of these old republicans who was in the air force watching russia from

alaska long before sarah palin came along. my only comment is that the dems are now trying to sell less a penny wide, pound foolish idea it to take attention away from the fact of their spending us into the poorhouse. host: to go. this comment is from twitter. next to the call from flint, mich., on the independent line. caller: basically, as long as we are willing to spend every dime that we have in this country on security and paranoia -- and negate our welfare, our expectation is messed up. if we will spend all this money on defense -- and it does, not

does the limit, then of course we will suffer. this is just a taste of what is to come until we get that balance. host: the newspaper in new orleans has a story about a review by the inspector general. it says that the firm repeatedly overbills. back to your telephone calls, this one from tallahassee, fla., a democrat. caller: yes, ma'am. you look good this morning.

this is really an absurd discussion because the money will just find its way there regardless. of course, they should ban earmarks, but it will find its way to another venue. c-span, your pride yourselves -- and i watch you faithfully, you pride yourself some been egalitarian and fair. i like to point something now that shows that you are not. the whole business of the supreme court coverage -- healthcare debate backroom discussions would be covered and it was touted as a big deal by c-span. i do not see any kind of c-span conference rooms, or y'alls boards of discussions -- there is no ombudsmen that you can contact on c-span as "the new york times" has. i have checked your website in totality and there's nothing there. i did not see y'all as being an

egalitarian at all. host: i guess we think with the phone line to give a lot of feedback. we also have of your services department. from time to time we actually have televised our editorial sessions. it would be pointless to televise what directors because it is written in the bylaws that they can have no say in the editorial policy. i understand your point, but that particular example does not take you there. thanks for the criticism. next phone call is from brandon, minn., chad on the republican line. we're talking about earmarks. caller: yes, good morning. i think people forget what the founders had for the scope of government. government was supposed to be for three things. national defense, laws, and the

infrastructure. so, if we need to spend earmarks of national defence, i agree about that, but think we need to cut them back and everything else. host: next, a call from denver, alfred, on the independent line. caller: yes, thanks. as i said, a the earmarks should have been gone long agoi long have to agree with everything because from tallahassee -- they eat everything now which includes his criticism of c- span. but i think he was misled in his criticism of suspending a c-span has been the only network that has served america well. as a matter of fact, there the leading platform now for communications in the non-profit

sector. they are non-profit. the criticism that the gentleman from florida made -- i would make one, you might think about. that is, since the inception of c-span, there has never been a woman of color anchor, and it was many years before they ever had a man of color anchor. it is not necessary because there are lots of c-span going on right now, i'll get off the line and let someone else call. god bless everybody, and god bless america. host: a lead story in the paper about education. here is what they are saying. the panel proposes a single standard for all schools. think about the tradition for

local control of schools. this is a big suggestiong here bi -- this is a big suggestion here. it proposes a uniform set of academic standards. it lays out the vision for what all the nations public school children should learn and math and english, year by year, from kindergarten to high school graduation. there is a big debate in texas about school textbooks. texas conservatives seek a deeper stamp on texts.

this is the last call on earmarks, coming from chris in new hampshire, on the independent line. caller: thank you. first, i am for the banning of earmarks. yes, there are larger budgetary issues that could be addressed, but certainly earmarks is a legitimate way to save some money. as far as the power of the purse in congress giving up some legitimate right, i think that was intended for them to find legislation that they had passed. for example, if they would pass the law of our book behind, and the other part would be the powerful purse were they

separately fund that. a lot of people do not realize that. it was not really the power of the purse intended for them to directly manage their stakes or the country. people should look to their governors for that. if there was a federal law standing in the way of profits of companies in states, it is up to governors to bring up to the congressional representatives. to change, or legislate laws, but not directly use the power of the purse manage. host: thanks, a very interesting discussion. thanks are participating. we will speak to a congressman of pennsylvania and a couple of minutes. he has come from the healthcare industry.

>> today, a senate appropriations committee looks at the budget request for the department of housing and urban development. they have made a certain request for 2011. the hud secretary is scheduled to testify. you can watch a live on c-span3 and on c-span.org.

>> sunday, your chance to talk to karl rove, live. starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the current fox news contributor will take your phone calls, e- mails, and tweets. former defense secretary bill cohen and his wife janet on race relations in america. all this began, live coverage of this year's tucson festival of books. find the schedule at booktv.org. >> obama and his socialistic ideas -- this is a life lesson in progress right now for conservatives. >> on sunday, founder and president of the clear blue us policy institute on her work to promote women in leadership roles.

>> "washington journal continues. host: i want to tell you about him before we get into the discussion about policy in process on health care. in the 1993 was part of a working group for president clinton's task group on health care reform. as you can imagine, he has been very much involved in the debate. guest: thank you. host: this morning we have been all over the top rita. house democrats looking at this to pass obamacare without a vote on senate bill.

this will be hard to understand for people on our end of washington, but what exactly is this concern in healthcare? guest: if they do not feel like their members to pass the bill, they will go round the rules and possibly the rules committee. i would not support that approach. i think that the bill is too important to the american people to do it in a way that the american people are not comfortable with. already we have a pretty partisan divide. we're going through the reconciliation process which is inappropriate use of reconciliation. now when you start to hear about using little-known rules in maneuvers that have not used on things like this in the past, it will make it difficult to have public support. host: two pieces in today's

paper that conflict. first headlines from the ap and the philadelphia paper. democrats say that agreements are near on health overhaul. then, the gentleman we know well in this town -- is looking at numbers and congressional districts. he asked if nancy pelosi can get the votes? he says the democratic bedrock is smaller than the republican better was four years ago even the democrats have 31 more members. he says it is because democratic voters tend to be bunched and relatively few districts. as a result, more than 40 house democrats represent districts which john mccain carried.

he says it will be hard with all these statistics to get the number needed to pass. your district -- even though you one, john mccain carried it. guest: yes, he won by 11 points. i voted no on the house bill in november. anyone who votes yes now after having voted no, will have to explain. this is a very different bill. the former mandate is out. the income tax increase is out. the public option is not part of it, but the political dynamic is key. four members of the house who voted for the bill in november

are not going to vote for this time -- three have left the house, including murtha passed away, and the congressman from louisiana who voted for the will not this time -- ride from the beginning there is a minus four. districts are very much opposed. it will be hard to find people who are willing to vote yes this time after having voted no before host: some people from the tea party came to talk with you. they came away thinking that you are a yes vote on this. guest: i think i would be doing my constituents a disservice to say that i a am voting for it, no matter what you have to say. i am in listening mode. i an not going to pre-judge the issue. i want to represent my constituents. i had 50 or 60 come to see me

yesterday. they wanted me to say that i would agree 100% with them, but i want to hear from everyone. then i will cast my vote. host: i will open the phone lines. what is most important from a pragmatic standpoint for you? guest: cost containment. there are three aspects in you cannot do one without the other. bring it down the cost of insurance through no pre- existing conditions, it cannot drop you when you get sick, cannot do lifetime or annual caps for people with chronic diseases -- on the other side you have coverage, getting more into the system to spread out the risk pool. but the house bill was very silent on cost containment, bringing down the cost for those who have it now. families and businesses, and for

governments at every level. if you do not, we have missed a great opportunity. the senate bill is much improved. we could do more. at least it is addressing all three factors together. host: what we have learned is that the major components of cost our demographics, aging baby boomers, and technology. how the proposed to control those? guest: delivery system reforms. right now we have a fee-for- service system. every time someone goes to the doctor, a procedure or test is ordered or run, dr. makes more money. you get seven different bills, one from the radiologists, dr., a surgeon, anesthesiologist. it has not encouraged working together as a team. if we did, it would increase

quality of care and bring down costs. we should reimburse based on the quality, not the quantity. those are the changes that we need to make. host: as another component, do believe there is need for attention to medicare fraud? guest: i think that the reconciliation package will have strong language. the senator from oklahoma has been a leader. my understanding is that his language will be incorporated into the reconciliation package. host: tell me what the funds are like in your office now? guest: we hear from both sides. i'm hearing more about this by far than from any other issue. it is uniquely personal to everyone. so, i'm hearing personal stories about how the insurance system has not work for people. i am hearing from people wheeled met with yesterday were concerned about the role of

government and what they perceive to be intrusive nature of the bill. i am hearing lots of questions. what is the truth? can you walk me through the bill? i have been evenly split district, six counties in the western pennsylvania, three along the ohio town near the old steel town, the rest belt area. those areas have fallen on hard times. then i have three counties that are the no. suburbs of pittsburg that are high-tech, more affluent. it is politically a toss up at the start. on any big political issue i will hear from both sides. host: how about age? guest: i have more medicare beneficiaries and then all but three other districts in the country. host: how does that affect your view? guest: it is very important. when you have many medicare beneficiaries of have to be accountable for my vote on that

policy. this will hopefully have an effect in bringing down the cost ofw medicare costhat i hear about is a 40% rate increase that beneficiaries in my district got in 2009, followed by a 45% increase in 2010. back-to-back years of more than 40%. that is not sustainable. we must do reform, but do it right. host: this is grace on the democrats' line from pennsylvania. caller: my comment for you is, in every industrialized country in the world they have healthcare. our jobs have been shipped to china who backs every industry and provides health care for every person in the country. why not here? you are from a rust belt area? your manufacturing jobs are now in china.

you have to go to china to get a nuclear reactor for use here. guest: the caller hits on an issue dealing with our global competitiveness as relates to health care. our health care costs are higher than anywhere else in the world. it does hurt our competitiveness across the board, especially for manufacturing. i fundamentally believe that we have the best health-care system anywhere in the world. yes, there are things that need to be fixed. it costs way too much. that is the biggest problem. there is problem with access. once you are in the system we have the best medical innovation with technology and research far exceeding anything else available anywhere. the dilemma is to preserve what works and fix what does not. host: boston, tim, on the independent line. caller: good morning, congressman.

we were once a great nation, the nation of laws, not legislation. if it does not promote equality and legal justice -- it is only the tyranny of the majority and social engineering. we pass more rules, legislate everything all the time. we're less able to master of our own life, liberty, property. if government controls health care, it will be the ultimate power grab. the idea of government containing costs is almost laughable. guest: i hear your concern time and time again, most of which is based on the house health care bill. the house did have a more intrusive role for government then we should have been

considering, in my opinion. at this time many of those issues have been resolved. with regard to cost containment in proposing to change the delivery system without government intrusion, but to allow providers to work together., to together so that we can have the private market, not the government work to improve the quality of care. the doctor makes more money the sickert that you are. the incentive is to keep you well and out of the system. that would change the cost going forward. host: here is more from the ap article. several officials said democrats were likely to impose a new payroll tax of as much as 2.9% on investment and dividend income earned by wealthy taxpayers. what is the definition of what

the taxpayers? guest: $200,000 for individuals, to under $50,000 for families. it is not one of the things that i enter about. i think we could have achieved savings we need to cover people within the current health-care system. i said it from the beginning. you examine where the inefficiencies are. we have a $2.50 trillion healthcare system. we can squeeze out waste and find savings. whenever the dollar amount is, that is and how many people that you can govern. so, i am not thrilled with any of the revenue raisedrs. it is part of the discussion i'm having with my constituents. i think we can cover people, but to do by squeezing out the waste. host: [reading]

guest: economists will argue that is the way to bring down costs because those plans lead to over-utilization of the system. these are the folks on wall street with cadillac plans. everything is free. you can go to the spa, have the doctor come to your office. all that is covered with no premiums, no co-pays. most would agree that you are free to have that, but economists would argue that if you put a tax limitation on that, employers will scale back on that and will put that back into wages. the revenue derived from that is through taxes paid on increased wages. i'm not thrilled with that policy, but that is what economists would argue. host: next, we're hearing from

charles in nashville. caller: i am a republican. i did not vote for obama. i will look for obama at this time. give me one second to tell you why. . . i am voting for obama next time.

when i hear republicans say that they are and employment, they are not looking for work. then we put out an ad for a job, we get 1200 responses. if you want to do anything for america, keep us in mind. and did not mind spending my money, but i do not want to be removed from the system by paid for. please vote for obama. guest: you asked about the phone calls we are getting, and i am hearing a lot like that. people want change. host:. on the democratic line. caller: i appreciate what you have to say. i am concerned about the tyranny of the insurance companies. if i might give you some

anecdotal evidence my daughter had a pre-existing condition when she was born, and we had to sue the insurance company to pay the bills. we are going to have to drop her from our policy this year due to the tyranny of the insurance company which says after age 25, we cannot pay for her insurance. the least cost from the company that will give her coverage is $18,000 a year. it would be nice to have a philosophical discussion on what the insurance companies will do and where the money will come from, but how does a 25-year- old, who is paying $18,000 a year for health care continue to work and produced for the country? the simple fact is, the weasels

in congress are only interested in protecting their jobs and insurance while the rest of us twist ourselves on the backwaters. we get up and go to work every day, just like you, that it seems to me that all of you weasels in congress are only interested in yourself and being reelected. thank you. guest: i understand the collar's anger. these are the cases that prove that we need to reform the insurance industry. we need to limit the practice of pre-existing conditions. it is awful, the story that you just called. i hear stories from people in my district, and through the same thing. we cannot allow exclusions, cpa

aps for out of pocket expenses. these are things that have widespread agreement among everyone. the problem is, we cannot just do this in isolation. we cannot say the insurance companies need to cover all the sick people, but not the young and healthy. the biggest block of those not covered are the young and healthy people, they are offered coverage, but they turned it down. the way you balance and on the risk pool without greatly increasing the cost for everyone else is getting the young and help the people in the system, as you make sure that you are not dropped. host: in the "washington times"

gop senators vote no on reconciliation. guest: i do not know why we would want to make it more complicated. most of them is coming from the senate, but we have passed the student loan bill and house. they are unable to get the votes right now. i cannot imagine it being more difficult. host: william on the republican line. asheville, north carolina. caller: i have a question. i am 73 years old.

i hear something that is how often been said, and that after you reach a certain age, they will withhold your medical care and give you death counseling on certain issues. is that in the bill? guest: no, it is not. this is something that came up after then-governor sarah palin put on her facebook page. there is nothing like that. what is is counseling regarding end of life care, which happens every day. families need to know what their options are. every day, thousands of families seek counseling for the end of life care, the will, power of

attorney. that counseling is currently not reimbursable under medicare, but the house is saying that it can be under medicare. it is not forcing anyone to do it, and certainly, not forcing any of come on you. -- outcome on you. host: next phone call from pittsburgh. independent line. caller: the only question is, the you love the insurance company that rip you off, or do you want the people to have 100% health care? in pennsylvania there is legislation coming up which would establish a single payer health care program.

health insurance companies would be eliminated. instead of premiums, it would be similar to social security and medicare. some of that would be withheld from your check. it is very simple. nobody has to apply for anything. everybody will be covered. it will be paid for by payroll deductions, which is a system that is already set up. it will pay for every person from birth to death. everyone is covered. the main advantage to it is that businesses will come to the state of pennsylvania because it will be not to deal with insurance companies, and it will

cost them less. if we can get pennsylvania to vote for the single payer health care security and business act, we will even be ahead of california. they have twice passed a health care reform bill but gov. arnold schwarzenegger has vetoed it. guest: there is a constituency in congress that supports single payer. i am not among them, but there was disappointment when this approach did not include the single payer option. i know in states including pennsylvania, there are always debates about single payer health care, but to be honest, there is not the public support for it. you can see that from the reaction that we are seeing now,

from people perceiving this as government intrusion. i think we are far away from getting these public -- from getting the public support for this. the market that we have, i believe, is the best health-care system in the world. there are problems with the cost of it, but i do not want to take away from the quality. host: next phone call from texas. tyler, a democrat line. caller: hello, how are you, c- span? you are doing a great judge. -- great job. al is this going to affect me? we just started a business and

we have some employees. i do not have helpedhealthcare myself. i have to tell you, bart stupak is driving me crazy. there were issues about him and his living quarters, when he paid rent or not. if you could talk about those two things, i would appreciate it. guest: with regard to your small business, if you are a start up, with all the employees and you have not had insurance before, there are tax credits for businesses with 25 or less

employees. i am guessing that you will qualify. so you would get a tax credit to help to offset the cost for paying premiums. on the stupak thing -- people that are with him on this voted with him. for each person on going to support the final package that did before, you have to make up with people that did not vote for it before. abortion is something that is personal to a lot of members, it is a deal breaker for many. it is a personal issue to everyone. there is not much you can do to change their mind about that.

host: you listen to members of congress explained differently whether or not the language in the legislation does, in fact, provide payments for abortion. what does it do? guest: i am pro-lifers. i voted for the stupak amendment. there is no question, the amendment was airtight. the senate bill is worded awkwardly in is not written in a good way. i am not convinced that it allows a taxpayer funding. when you look at current law, stupak goes beyond current year. within the scope of the bill that we are moving on, i have

not seen good evidence that the senate language, as it is, allows a taxpayer funding for abortion. it could be worded letter, but i do not even know if there is in direct funding now. host: can you tell us when there will be a vote on this in the house? guest: we expect by the end of next week. i think it will be similar to the debate we had last november. you would have probably a day- long series of debates and a vote in the afternoon, evening. host: so you will be hearing a lot from people in your district and tell them. guest: i hope so. host: we are going to take a break, but first, an update from c-span radio. david savage is our next guest

in will be telling us what is up with the white house these days. >> president obama signed an order creating an export cabinet made up of federal agencies who wor's work is in exports. he is naming two american business leaders to lead the council. the announcement is scheduled for later this morning in remarks to the export-import ban annual conference. later, the president is met -- scheduled to meet with members of the congressional black caucus. they believe they are getting too little support. as vice president joe biden wrap up this trend in the middle east, he says good faith negotiations can meet israeli

security needs and a palestinian state. he said that peace with palestinians is profoundly in israel's interest. defense secretary robert gates also said in the saudi capital on an iranian support for the taliban in afghanistan is not much of a problem for the united states right now. as far as the u.s. can tell, their influence is somewhat limited. those are some of the latest headlines. >> sunday, your chance to talk to karl rove. starting at 10:00 eastern, a former adviser to press the bush and correct fox news contributor will be taking your questions.

then bill cohen and his wife janet on race relations in america. they will be interviewed by john lewis. and live coverage of the tucson festival of books. and get the latest "book tv" updates on twitter. host: with me now is david savage. i want to go to the washingto"wn times" -- what is happening between the white house and chief justice? guest: this is also a democrat versus the supreme court, senate democrats. this decision from light january, the court, with a 5-4 vote, said that corporations

were unlamented in their contributions to campaigns. democrats on that it was a gift to the republicans. they were angry about that decision. they want to overturn it to some sort of legislation. the president criticized them with the justices sitting right there. a lot of the democrats cheered, but then this week don roberts said that it was a bit of a troubling scene with the justices sitting there in what seemed to be a political that early. this will have big impact. host: let's listen to the president's remarks in the state of the union. and we will come back to hear what the chief justice said. >> with all due deference to separation of powers, last week the supreme court reversed a

century of law that i believe will open the floodgates for special interest, including corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. guesti do not think american elections should be bankrolled by the most powerful interest, or worse, by foreign entities. host: now we are going to listen to chief justice roberts speaking at the alabama law school. >> is the state of the union address the proper venue to chide the supreme court for the decisions it makes? >> first of all, anybody can criticize the supreme court without any qualms.

we do it enough and our defense. [laughter] some have the obligation to do so, given their office. so i have no problems with that. on the other hand, there is the issue of circumstances and decorum. the image of having one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the supreme court, cheering and hollering, while the court, according to the protocol, has to sit there, expressionless, is troubling. it does question whether or not it makes sense to be there. to the extent that the state of the union has generated into a political pat riley, i am not sure why we are there. host: what are you hearing?

guest: i think he feels a little miffed. i think perhaps he will not be there next year. roberts has been to all of the state of the union addresses so far. a number of them have made this comment before that they are uncomfortable being part of a political pep rally the president talks about his agenda and members of his party jump up and cheer and the other side just sits glumly, and the justices have to sit there twiddling their thumbs. basically, i think they are saying that they've and not show up again. host: we want to hear about your thoughts, the escalation between the justices. there was also a hearing on

capitol hill yesterday as congress looks for legislative remedies to address what they see as the improper decision. we will go to your phone calls in a minute. there was a piece about those justices. here is what they say -- not nearly decorum, but the force of law compels the target to sit silently and not respond.

hostguest: he is a lawyer, and i think he has had some bad experiences with judges. i have spoken to him before. i do think there is something to be said about the fact that if you are invited as a guest to a situation where you have to sit there quietly, it is a bit uncomfortable. you can imagine from the point of the justice says, it is uncomfortable having everyone standing up or down here cheering. i understand why he is put off. there are two different views on who is being partisan and who is being political here. from roberts'point of view, they are deciding on a decision that

is unpopular, but they are based on the law and people can react however they want. in the democrats' view, the supreme court was giving benefits to the republicans and corporate interest. so from their view, it is the court that is being partisan and political. host: naomi on the republican line. caller: there are a couple of things i would like to say. there is a delay in your voice and your lips. host: yes, ma'am, there is that delay with the satellite. caller: it is very annoying. i have to look away when you are talking. mr. savage, mr. obama was very

rude in addressing the supreme court while they sat there. the democrats were approved by standing up and clapping like a bunch of teenage girls. thank you. host: i am not sure that we spoke earlier about justice alito, the discussion about whether or not he mallet the words "not true." guest: john roberts said that he had to set their expressionless, and perhaps he meant four of them work expressionless. i heard alito speak in the argument. the president began by saying the supreme court overturned a century of law. most people think it is either

100 years or 60, depending on how you count it. he described this as a relatively recent thing. in the early 1990's', there was an amendment about that. he took the view that this was a relatively recent thing. why is everyone saying that this is a century-old law? it is a strange dispute, but he does not agree with the criticisms. host: minnesota. bob on the democrat line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think the supreme court is dismantling the mccain-1 gold bill -- fine gold -- feingold bill. they are taking away the voices

of the people. their voice will not be heard, and it is putting it in hands of corporations that could be foreign or domestic. most of them only have the interest of their corporation in mind. they do not care whether their policy making is damaging to the public or not. an example of that would-be health care. insurance companies are completely out of control, as far as i am concerned. they want more money while we have been making less for the last year, and they have a 56% increase in their income.

i think we're going backward if we allow more controlled by corporations and less by the people. thank you. guest: every time i listen to this debate, it sort of play is on the health-care issue, -- someone recently said there are two fears and political life. there is the fear of dominating government. the other is the fear of corporations, corporations setting the rules. republicans have been able to attack the democrats' health care bill by saying it is a democrat takeover. there are a lot of people were written about the government having too much power -- were read -- worried about the

government having too much power. that is why the white house has reacted strongly. they know a lot of people are with them on this issue. they are more rid of the corporation having even more power to set the rules. republicans -- their voters are more concerned about the government having too much power. this is a dispute were both fear some perhaps come into play host. host: the chief justice also criticized the selection process for the justices. guest: when you go up there, senators want to ask you a lot of questions asking you, how are you going to vote on this issue, that issue, and that is exactly what you should not be telling them.

it is not really very productive. from john roberts' point of view, and others, they have a bad reaction to this. and they are picked on and the american people do not really get to learn what they believe, but the counter argument is, it is the one time where the american people can see them talk and answer questions. from john roberts' point of view, he does not relieve want to have them if there are not going to talk about anything of significance. from the senators' point of view, these people are appointed for life, so there should be some question before that happens.

there was a time when the confirmation process was virtually nothing jfk picked there might as the supreme court justice and was confirmed one hour later. it was only in the 1960's and the supreme court taking a more prominent role in political issues, ideological issues, that you had public hearings. i do not think anyone hess felt that the process was particularly edifying. host: michigan. you are next. caller: the three branches of government are still the people. since president obama has become president, he has diminished our legislative branch. that is what he has done to the justice department. as far as i am concerned, he is

taking more control and people are afraid. he is taking over companies, he wants to run health care. he wants to get into every aspect of our life. but he did was wrong with the supreme court, and i agree with justice robert. i think obama is on this huge power trip and people are backing off because of all of these executive orders and what not in the dark of night, and that is what he stands for. host: anything to respond? guest: well, there is a system of checks and balances. this is a situation where the supreme court, i think, will disagree with the obama administration on a lot of issues. i think a lot of people think that that is one of the strengths of our issues.

one party cannot control the entire government. the supreme court can go its own way. the last few presidents would all say that they had their problems with the supreme court. host: here is the headline from your story in the "los angeles times" -- it is on the front page. today, -- would you agree with that, and a simmering feud between the two bodies? guest: maybe a little strong. i think roberts thought it was an inappropriate moment. down the road, there will be a confrontation between the administration and supreme court.

it is more ideological than personal. host: how will that take place? guest: i do not know. if you would have asked me in the first year of the bush administration, i could not have foreseen problems with the supreme court. he took an aggressive stance on the war on terrorism and said that he was going to decide how to treat it. that was a bit of a conflict. to pose a health care bill passes. there is this mandate to buy health care insurance. a lot of republican do not like that, and the supreme court does not have the power to tell the american people to buy a product. it is possible in number of conservative justices will say congress does not have the power to order people to buy insurance. that would be one heck of a conflict. host: providence, rhode island.

john on the democrats' line. caller: i wonder when the americans will realize that this is a country for the lobbyists and by the lobbyists. special interest is taken over our country. now it has become a foreign corporate america as well. i think justice roberts' reaction to this entire thing speaks to his insecurity, as far as i am concerned, with that decision. it was a political decision to shift the power between the union to and corporate america, between americans and elected officials, and to really sealed the fate of this country in the pockets of those who would

otherwise destroyed us for their own personal and corporate gains. i think that is where this is. i think justice robert almost choked during his swearing in ceremony. if i am not mistaken, that was kind of a freudian slip, in my opinion guest. guest: i do not know about that, but notice how from one color to another, people are talking about corporate takeovers, and then government takeover. that is sort of the drama that is going back and forth. this creates such a bad reaction

among democrats and other people. host: the chief justice came to the court in 2005? guest: correct. host: when we did our interviews with the justices, we asked how long it would take to acclimate to the bench. consistently, they said about three, five years. guest: did he say something like that as well? host: i am not sure if he did, but others certainly. i wanted to ask you about the evolution of chief justice john roberts are you beginning to see a sign of his court that might not have been as predictable in earlier years? guest: i thought both the john robert n. barack obama, two harvard law graduates, two of

very smart guys, came to their job thinking that there would be bipartisanship. john roberts talked about wanting the court to seem less political. he did not like the fund-4 decisions, a more unified way to -- 5-4 decisions, a more unified way to come to a decision. now all the liberal justices today that robert has a conservative agenda. host: the liberal justices are saying that? guest: that has been their view from the first year in. there was a bad reaction to a number of -- for example, there was a case where parents were unhappy that their kids were not able to choose their first choice school because of racial

guidelines. they sued. as soon as samuel alito arrived to provide the fifth vote, they took the case. robert wrote an opinion saying voluntary racial integration plans cannot go forward if they use racial guidelines to transfer kids through school. and none of the liberal justices said we have been telling school to integrate. do what you can to integrate your classrooms. now they are saying, you may not do that. there were a lot of decisions where the more liberal justices thought even though justice roberts was trying to bring them together, the five conservative justices have a fairly ideological view. it is a very divided court.

i think roberts still wants to get away from the idea that we are political people. we want to be deciding legal issues. i know from the critics and outsiders, it looks like, on some issues, that there is a conservative agenda. host: california. milton on the independent line. caller: i just had a few comments in the back to hear your response. in my opinion, corporate america is just another institution. these institutions need to be balanced with constitutional protecting values, as intended by the government. i think it is unfair for roberts to pretend to be so distant. he understands quite well the legislator is owned by corporate fund-raising in the sense that it dictates fund-raising and campaigns.

he was quick to acknowledge the low pay for the judiciary as a threat to the independence of that branch. so i think he should be sensitive to the impact that this decision could have on other parts of the government. also, this premise that corporations have rights is flawed. it is based on a case from the 19th century that dealt with railroad, the most powerful interest at that time. the case was decided in california, a relatively new, heavily influenced state. insofar as the supreme court is threatened by the legislature, it is silly. justices are appointed for life. they are an independent branch of government. they can strike down laws as unconstitutional. they are powerful. they can always retire to their chambers.

as far as this being a threat, i do not understand that. i also believe decorum is important. for me, the most important thing about the state of the union is, this is american democracy at its finest. i think that is a point of pride for this country. i was disappointed to see the lack of decorum to some degree, but if the polling is correct on this citizens united case, three-quarters of americans oppose it, and maybe the five members of the court who felt so strongly about corporate speech should take that and recount. host: do you mind if i ask what you do? caller: i was a student but now miami researcher. host: political science?

colorado kono, american studies, history and english. guest: when he was talking, it reminded me of some of the criticisms that were set after the decision. people in washington learned that they 5-4 majority in the supreme court was better than a slight majority in the senate. john stevens wrote a 90-page dissent that read like a filibuster. anyway, the supreme court is important in all these things because they get the last word. i gave you the health-care example earlier. you never know how these things will play at all. the congress and white house can the planet -- the date for years and later the case can get to the supreme court, and if

they want to -- mccain-fei ngold is an example of that -- they can strike it down. host: the comment about the court -- the congress petitioning the pay structure. comment about that. that is actually in the constitution, payment of federal judges. what is the sense between branches on how -- justices are paid? guest: roberts speaks for the judiciary. he is head of the federal judiciary. i think he feels an obligation to speak up and say federal judges have not gotten pay increases that have even kept up with inflation for the past 20 years. he was concerned because if

judges are not paid adequately, they are going to leave, and they will lose quality judges. he has spoken about that a few times. a lot of people think that they are paid plenty and should stop whining. host: we have a twitter comment -- some states to elect judges. what do these studies tell us about elected judges compared to appointed judges? guest: elected judges are very popular in states that have it. sandra day o'connor has been going to run the country saying that we need to get rid of them. the difference is, in a lot of states supreme court, you have a

case where business interests are on one side, trial lawyers and consumers on the other side, and the election race becomes where the businesses put their weight in. it looks as if you are buying justices. i think people think, over time, this there is a selection of judges, and this appointing system, you get a better quality of people. it seems less political, less partisan. i think if you had elected justices -- as you said, first, you would have to change the constitution -- but i think people would be troubled by the idea that one party gets 5 the elected justices and then they change the law in some way. host: next phone call from florida. augie, you are on the air.

caller: i agree with the supreme court ruling that corporations can have an influence. the reason is there are leveling the playing field. look at what is happening with labor unions, the news media. everytime you turn on the tv there is some liberal -- not progressives because liberalism is not progressive -- and they just assume, as far as i can see, that the american people are dumb and we are going to affect everything -- except everything. as far as the health-care issue, let's get one thing straight. it is health insurance versus health care. that is the key. the administration is going

after health insurance and there is a difference. most people have good health care in this country but they are attacking the health insurance agencies and companies, and that is a problem. host: we will let that last comment stand. back to the supreme court, what is coming up in the next couple of weeks? guest: oral arguments in march and april. they do not have a lot of big cases in march. one of my favorites that when the leak occurred in april concerns employees and the right to privacy. everywhere in the country people use cell phones at work, computers, text messaging, and the question is, do you have any right to privacy in your text

messages, in your workplace messages? does the corporation say, we own a computer, you have no right to privacy. this involves a police department in florida. the police chief was reading the text messages that some officers had said to their girlfriends, and they sued, and the ninth circuit said that there were privacy rights for employees. it is something that has a daily impact on pretty much everyone lives. host: on the legislative response to the citizens united case, as the article suggests, there are no specific suggestions on what should be crafted. we will continue to watch this debate as it moves through the congress. thank you for being here, david. we are going to take a break the

next topic is the economy. we will hear about a new report that suggests we are teed up for another big problem in the economy if there are not regulatory changes. robert johnson will be here. >> a senate budget hearing this morning. housing and urban development secretary shaun donovan testifies on their $405 billion budget request. live coverage beginning at 9:00 eastern.

sunday, your chance to come to karl rove starting at 10:00 eastern. a former adviser to president bush and current fox news contributor will take your phone calls and e-mails. on "afterwards" -- and the tucson festival of books. all the details on c-span.org. >> obama and his socialistic ideas -- the government running the car companies, deciding salaries -- this is a life lesson in congress right now for conservatives. >> michele easton on her work to promote conservative women in leadership roles.

host: on your screen is robert johnson, who is the director of a project of global finance at the roosevelt institute. recently, they released this report. some of the reporting from that have had bines won this. another financial crisis on the way. what makes the people who contributed to your project suggest that another financial crisis is on the way? guest: i believe is the lack of reform in the most recent crisis. there has been a profound and violent change that everyone is familiar with, the downturn was abrupt, and none of the bills -- if you connect and the house

bills, bills, nothing in that compromise looks to us to be adequate to address the problems. these are all clients that have been in place for seven, 10 years. many international policy officials have understood this, but we are still not moving correctly. host: before we get into this discussion of what the remedies might be, tell us about the roosevelt institute and what your role is. guest: the roosevelt institute was founded in honor of eleanor roosevelt. we have a park in hyde park, we are building a park in new york. we have a think tank in new york city that focuses, at this point, primarily on economic issues. host: how would you describe the

roosevelt institute's approach to financial questions? guest: i think roosevelt symbolizes a man that was extremely forthright and courageous at a time of transition. he symbolizes the type of thing that we would like to see at this time. host: there has to be some concurrence on what the real problems were. what did the groups say was the heart of the issue that caused the financial meltdown? guest: i would say deceptive accounting practices. one of the contributors, a professor from the university of san diego talked about how on the eve of the crisis, you could look at a balance sheet where it looked fine, except it was citigroup. then you have the off-balance

sheet. complexity of finance, will take this, false accounting, false leverage, and but everyone seemed to lament, no system to handle these too big to fail institutions who keep their names but pass off their losses to the taxpayer. host: on the front page of the "new york times" -- when you read this, he suggests we want to be a global bank for institutions and individuals. when you hear about banks looking for global finances to their key to profitability, what

is your reaction? guest: one would say that america is struggling. china, brazil, india, are rising, and there are more likely to find opportunities there. it is a good thing the taxpayer owns 27% of the company because they have made a lot of guarantees to keep citigroup working. if you look at the dark side of citigroup, one looks at the fees and interest rates that people pay on credit cards, penalty payments. those practices are not very friendly to helping the american people and small businesses get back on their feet. host: across from it, the lead story of the "financial times" -- if they are too stringent, it

will depress activity between the eu and united states. it reads -- can you tell us more about this? guest: and i am somewhat perplexed. i used to work with george soros' and funds. they should register, should be accountable. i do not mean that they are

required to release proprietary information every morning, but we cannot go on with an unsupervised financial system. secretary geithner seems to be emphasizing what i call the competition in lax city. the places that are least regulated will do the best. i think we need a process to restore confidence. confidence in the financial system has been shattered here and abroad. it is time to put in proper rules so that everyone feels safer. right now we are not there. i would encourage secretary geithner to become somewhat more like the europeans in this particular case. host: you may call us, e-mail, and twitter.

what you think about the financial situation and the regulatory debate going forward. robert johnson is at the roosevelt institute, bringing economic thinkers together to talk about the problems and to just what the solution could be. we also have this hyperlinked at c-span.org. it looks as if the senate is getting closer to a mill in their regulatory scheme. .

guest: elizabeth warren is an advocate. she is also the head of the she said we need a cop on the beat. the said if you put this thing into the federal reserve, you will have financial oligarchs on the cop, instead of a cop on the beach. an independent agency that has its own mission to simplify credit cards, mortgages, keep people away from home equity lines with all the fine print -- she showed a 21-page contract for credit card in her presentation yesterday. she wants to get down to two pages.

the spirit of what she's after cannot be imbedded in the comptroller's office, the treasury or fed. but it must stand alone. host: the next caller is from texas, on the caller: democrat'' line i could not agree more that the fed should be out of it completely. i was just reading through an interesting book "fool's gold" about the young hot shots at j.p. morgan who were very abusive with derivatives. it spread -- you're talking about greece -- it was widespread in all countries, banks. it is very scary. in hearing the other day on either c-span or c-span2, i heard with bankers -- one said

if we regulated there will not be any loans. that is pretty scary. i am pretty heavily invested in the stock market, and i just wanted to say -- and it pertains to the last segment. i do not have a say in where money goes with a for campaigns or anything. i think the john roberts very partisan court is one of the scariest things i have seen a long time. host: that was a follow-up to our last discussion. but on derivatives? guest: thithe caller spoke about being confused and about 300 million of us share the confusion. derivatives are designed to be confusing, designed to create inefficiencies in markets. the five largest banks, bank holding companies, about 90 p97f

the market. it is not connected on exchanges or platforms were you see the price and other information, but they hold these transactions on what is called the boo" over- the-counter market" which is dark, opaque, maximizes profits of institutions. derivatives are contracts derived from underlying assets in securities such as stocks, bonds, oil. the complex derivatives we have seen cause some much fear in this crisis --in this not clear that we need them. host: let me see if i can find it quickly -- a paragraph from the newly ti"the new york times"

the market was much smaller than in the early 1990's. it's dangerous were less apparent than now. it has grown rapidly to $300 trillion. mr. gensler calculates. the size of the derivatives market, at $300 trillion, what kind of risk does that imply for everyday citizens at the tail end of that process? guest: you have the over-the- counter derivatives markets --

it is attached to the too big to fail banks. a wipe out, collapsed in that the main spills right into the banks which we need to maintain our payment system, other functions, and leads to was bailing out the big banks in order not to have that spread throughout society and creed damage to the economy. it is an enormous risk. i spoke in congressional testimony last october, that think that the derivatives market is the san andreas fault of the american economic system. i was very skeptical of gary gensler when he took office. he was a big champion of deregulation. i delighted to hold him up as an example of pleasant surprises. he has done an excellent job, stood on principle, fought not

only across party lines, but within the democratic party that appointed him, for stronger regulation. consumers in this country should write him positive and favorable letters. he has been a very strong public servant. host: mr. gary gensler is head of the cftc. the next phone call is from new york on the independent line. caller: after 25 years of working in law enforcement's i have learned that capacity in complexity inevitably lead to fraud. it leads me to question -- when you do work for mr. soros, did you -- was there a bad odor coming from derivatives? guest: when i work for him, derivatives, a left a hedge fund

industry in 1986 -- most of this game exploded after i left. he and systemic, the chief partner, and myself, at the time -- i guess that we had an aversion to derivatives. we thought they were complex packages put together to make spreads and margins for the dealers, not something that particularly help us manage the money we were responsible for. host: let's return to the discussion about the too big to fail institutions. the major argument suggests that we must unwind the concept of too big to fail financial institutions. how you suggest that is possible? guest: the chapter that i road called "credible resolution" tried to step out. when you have a traditional corporate finance as in bankruptcy as with an airline,

or personal one stumblinlike w'p or disney or others went through bankruptcy, there are ways to pay off your debts by seniority. with regard to the big banks, one of the dangers is that we do not practice that. the gap between how we treat the big banks and people, and corporations like converse that makes the tennis shoes, kmart, texaco -- is from a different, and it feels very unfair, demoralizing. it also removes the discipline from the market system with a big people do not have to play by those rules and tend to get subsidized. people lend the money -- they cannot lose money. the government will bail them now. i go through an exercise -- what needs to be done? first, you make the assets transparency that regulators know what is on the balance sheet.

the part of that is derivatives regulation and reform we talk about with the caller a moment ago. then you need a road map of exposures so that you understand both domestically and internationally what all of these banks look like, what is the spider web? so when you do restructure them, what of the consequences? when you have a proper road map, you know how to navigate and are not as afraid. the third dimension, when you want to protect the american taxpayer, you need to deal with to restructure these creditors. all around the world you need a harmonized or common regime for bankruptcy. let's say hypothetically, protecting creditors' more than u.s. -- with switzerland. there would issue of the debt to switzerland and then when it came now time for the bailout you would not research of that, so taxpayers have to pay more.

all major countries need to agree. we need a crisis management system. i did this chapter 20. logically, i understand these eight or nine things. they could be done, hypothetically. but i do not see a human system, the political will, the president of the u.s. leading the charge. in the state of the union this year he said i hate bailouts, you hate them, they're like a root canal. they feel as bad as a root canal. there is a lot of work he is not stepping forward doing, congress is not doing, that needs to be done. do we need to break up these banks? we cannot credibly resolve them. that is the question that my chapter poses. host: irvine, california, a republican. caller: good morning.

i have a statement. i stand behind a philosophy of separating states from the economy. i was trying to analyze, what if we had not been about these large institutions? what would have been the worst case scenario? in mind it seems it would have been the complete elimination of moral hazard. say some of the large banks have failed, the chances are the banks will have learned a lesson. there is no evidence to suggest that systemic failure would have been a certainty. i am wondering whether more regulation is the answer, or perhaps if we just leave the market completely free to do what they want that they will

kill themselves? the markets tend to punish bad performers more effectively and ruthlessly than can any government regulator. guest: a number of thoughts come to mind. first of all, with regard to factories which pollute. they have a "spillovers" things that come from their smokestack that are other people's health. and the finance we have spillovers that harm innocent people, homeowners, businessmen. the entire society is thrown into recession now. if you had a time of inadequate supervision and regulation such as i believe that we have, when you get to the brink, if you do not build amount, the spillovers, side effects hurt

lots and lots of people. i agree with the listener that we want to let the markets work as much as possible to discriminate between winners and losers, but the problem is it is really not credible for government officials when in a massive crisis to sit back and watch the situation, the system crash. unfortunately, before the s system gets into trouble, many financial regulators will blink and do the bailout. how do you tie their hands? there is a theory called the capture of regulation from the university of chicago. they do not work to defend the public, but rather the industry that they regulate. there is a lot of concern after aig that the fed and treasury

were doing a better job taking care of wall street and of society as a whole. maybe that argues for having the market play a bigger role. those side effects, spillovers are very powerful as a reason to doubt whether we can just sit by and watch. host: john in seattle, on the democrats' line. caller: i have two questions. the first is whether you really thought we are in a depression, not a recession? the second one, if we are as bad as it sounds from what i'm hearing for the last 18 months on c-span, what do think about calling martial law now before we need it so we can start when we get the great depression and getting some cc caps going, and

getting people to work even if it is just building different things. i have seen a lot of upset people from c-span. it is escalating. you have hysterics with religious fanaticism, end of the world. you have the global economy shutting down. frankly, i feel like we need to do something to put the brakes on and take care of people. to me it would make sense to declare martial law and do things they did during the of cc caps now instead of when we needed. guest: first of all, is this a depression or recession? the greatest recession, second only to the great depression. it is clear that we use trillions of dollars of guarantees and support, otherwise we would be in the

second great depression. we pumped air back into the balloon or the bubble, so we are limited along right now. wall street has come back pretty nicely, but a lot of those so- called real economy has not done so well. with regard to martial law i have a certain aversion to that because i do not know quite with the marshals would do. with regard to greater aid to the public, acknowledging the stress of local governments and individuals -- i personally would have advocated a much bigger stimulus program than the administration when with. i would have targeted it on durable projects, things with long-term, durable infrastructure benefits to the u.s. when you go to the american society of civil engineers they have a laundry list of $1.60 trillion of infrastructure improvements.

we could have used that list to provide more jobs and would be better off today. host: we're speaking with bob johnson about the state of the economy and preventing a future not down. caller: yes, sir. good morning. thanks for talking with us. i have a roundabout question. there are approximately 303 million people in america. what would happen with justice roberts and the supreme court decision if all the sudden there were 303 million new corporations. if every single american decided to incorporate themselves? all of a sudden we can band together and fight against corporations. what would that do to the world

economy with that many new corporations? guest: the first implication is that lawyers that create corporate charters would have a lot of work. my sense is that it is not so much that you as an individual have a corporate form of organization, but large amounts of money released to participate in an unrestricted way in the political process emphasizes the role of dollars as opposed to individuals. i i think that would change particularly by making 300 million corporations. host: here is a message by twitter. guest: no, i think that is an

inaccurate criticism. first of all, mr. george soros and i are different people. i will not take him down with me. if they want to criticize me, that is fine. i think the kind of inspiration that the u.s. capital market provided when people believed it was transparent, clear, and the integrity was strong, is largely dissipated. i do with the people from china, europe, brazil, other parts of latin america. i deal with them all the time. daily, weekly, yesterday, tomorrow. they speak of the u.s. kept the market now as the kind of chronic capitalism that we accuse the agents of having during the asian crisis. i don't believe they have confidence. particular not after the bailout structures. host: jacksonville, alabama.

caller: good morning. in 90 years old and lived during the time of the great depression and saw what roosevelt did. i have seen the ups and downs in the economy over many years. we have people today who are irresponsible. they not care what they do as long as they make money. it does not seem to bother them how they make it. we have many industries that have been brought down by people doing illegal things, try to make their company look big. maybe the parents are the ones who have fallen down on teaching their children honesty, do unto others as you would have them do unto us. we need to get back to some of the old models this country had that we were taught when i grew up. i know that is a big problem.

people have lost confidence. here we have people in the government who did not pay their income tax, who are holding positions in government. years ago that would not have happened. i would like to know what you have to say about that? guest: my now-deceased mother used to always talk about the motivation in societies to make the world better for yours childr children than it is for . she felt a great responsibility to be sickly engaged and participate. when i hear this caller talked it reminds me of her ethic. i used to talk to my mother about the difference between my generation and hers. she said, we banded together through the great depression and world war ii and oil is understood that we depend upon each other. your generation thinks that each of you is a long and fending for yourself. you do not have a consciousness of the support that you get and

that you owe to society. my mother used to say the breaking point was the vietnam war when trust and faith and the institutions of government would diminish. i note that is accurate or not. what the caller brings up is something we all feel inside, the we're not seeing the system where people are devoting their lives to helping one another or who are conscious of the side effects of their actions. host: this is bob johnson from the roosevelt institute. good morning, john. caller: you're talking about banking regulations. don't you think it's fine to dismantle the federal reserve system? i do not think it is right that a private bank controls the economy of the u.s. we elect congressmen, and it is their job to take care of the value of currency.

the founding fathers made it so that they were only in office for two years. if we did not like the way that they spent harmony, we put them out of office. people do not realize this is a private bank. 35% of them are not even american citizens. no one can even find out who owns this bank. you can stop talking about glass-steagall and all this other nonsense. you have your alan greenspan who was a rock star -- come on, give it a break. i have no questions because i already have all the answers. guest: i think the caller speaks about the accountability of the federal reserve system. there are a lot of very smart people. people would argue with the caller would say that these are complex issues and you do need expertise. the problem with the federal reserve situation is its structure, particularly the new

york federal reserve. it hands out a lot of bailout money but is not accountable as a member of the house is that you can vote about every two years. the feedback from the public when it disapproves the exercise is very limited. the congress should be discussing the structure of the governance of the federal reserve system now. is a burning issue. when you look at the gallup polls, the cross section of government agencies, center for disease control, fbi, and everything else -- the fed is less popular than the irs. it has fallen 23 points in the last five years in their approval rating. it is obvious that the population does not think they are acting unaccountably and fairly despite the intelligence. host: jacksonville, fla., on the independent line.

all right, we will move on to karen on the republican line in georgia. caller: yes, my question -- i cannot hear you? ok, one question is about getting rid of the fed -- and i could not hear your answer to that gentleman's question. my second question, when you were discussing your mother talking about how her generation banded together more than our generation has -- and you are working for an institution that is for the globalization of, i would think, american interests -- how do those two correlate? bending together in this country would not necessarily mean banning together in a global

way. if i understand. also, the roosevelt institute -- what is their philosophy? host: to go. we talked about that at the outset, but please talk about global interests. guest: first of all, i don't see the work to do the global finance project named because the financial markets and institutions are global, implies any endorsement or advocacy for global interests against the american national interest. i grew up in detroit. i came from a community of people who saw tremendous compression in their living standards, pain and dislocation at the hands of globalization. i do not think will position has been handled well. the transitions, costs, burdens borne have been very, very unfair to large segments of the

american population. studying global finance does not make an endorsement of globalization. host: mr. johnson, the last question comes from oregon from mike on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. sir, you perked my interest with your statement about your mom. i am in total agreement with your mother. my condolences, sir. in the war, when i was in the military and did one year in vietnam -- this is when i began to hear about what the industrial military complex, the corporate fascism -- eisenhower's statement to watch out for the military industrial

complex -- please excuse me, i'm a little nervous -- and i would have to agree. it does seem the country has gone farther down the road of basically being controlled by the corporate interests. the american people really do not have much of a voice anymore. i agree her. guest: well, i think all 303 million people share concern about the role of money and lobbying in politics and campaign incentives. many politicians do not enjoy spending 7% raising money and less than 30% working on policy. we appear in many regards to have a broken system right now. i think the only remedy is widespread participation in vigors involvement. -- many politicians do not enjoy

spending 70% raising money, less than 30% working on policy. i'm grateful that you have me on the show to invigorate participation and debate. we are off course and need to work together to get back on course. host: can what is happening in greece have been here? guest: i think what is happening in greece is a long distance from what can happen in the u.s. right now. my biggest concern here right now is the deficit hawks will stop us from putting into place the proper infrastructure and platform, and sustain activity and jobs. 9.7% reported, 16% or higher actual employment is a far greater danger and lost an expanding the debt to gdp ratio

in the short term. the pays the taxes to bring back into balance is not being addressed. some talk about the financial sector bearing more of that burden. it is on the front burner right now. i am very concerned that the u.s. -- when i work on financial reform i remind people our debt to gdp ratio because of this crisis will go from 40% up to 80%, basically doubling the national debt because of the mistakes that we made. if you want to be a deficit hawk, you have to be for vigorous and enter reform. you cannot be a hawk and allow another explosion of this magnitude to take place in another five or 10 years, or it will wipe out the capacity to provide roads, bridges,

schools, senior health care. host: thanks again for being here. if you are interested in reading the report it is hyperlink on the website of c-span, and you can find it directly on the website of the roosevelt institute. our final discussion will be on the go and how it best serves american interests. >> it is 9:32 a.m. emigration legislation will be a focus at a meeting later today at the white house with chuck schumer and lindsey graham with the president for an update of the bipartisan bill. the president and first lady hosts a tv screen called. a book with the called" actor tom hanks and director steven spielberg are expected to be there. evidence this morning that the job market might be improving. the labor department reports that new unemployment claims fell last week.

commerce apartment numbers say that trade deficit shrank in january, reflecting a drop in imports of foreign cars. american exports also fell. they expected the trade deficit to widen. on capitol hill, a house panel hears testimony on the federal government's oversight of the auto industry. another in a series on toyota's massive recall. 60 groups accuse the nhtsa of being too cozy with toyota. democratic leaders plan to begin reading the healthcare bill. hoyer says the congressional budget office has scored it as some provisions. an estimate will be released today. >> obama and his socialistic

ideas, this is a life lesson in progress right now for conservatives. >> sunday, the founder and president of the clare booth policy institute. >> "washington journal quality continues. host: last up is james goldgeier. is a political science and international affairs professor. our topic is nato. why does nato still matter? bob guest: good question, because here is an organization organized in 1949 to protect against a soviet attack. that threat disappeared 20 years ago. what nato has become since then is an organization doing a variety of things. first, working to establish

stability across central and eastern europe, and tried to repair damage done during the cold war. now increasingly dealing with threats that emanate from, far from the trans atlantic area. but there is afghanistan or counter-piracy off somalia. host: what is the current u.s. contribution to nato? guest: the u.s. is the main contributor in troops and personnel, financial resources. on afghanistan, the nato allies are contributing about 40,000 up to 50,000 troops, and the u.s. will have about 100,000 by the end of the year. hostthere are 28 members of nat,

and other issues that are aspiring members of nato. a couple are in the membership action plan for nato, which means there trying to become members. others such as the ukraine and georgia have been discussed much in recent years. some parts want to be part, others do not. -- some parts of the population want to be part of nato, others do not. the partners for peace is designed to provide links between nato and other countries nearby. host: we have the phone numbers on the screen. we want to talk about nato and whether it still works. you can reach as by e-mail or twitter. the main argument for reading

your report is essentially that nato member nations must begin to think about the real threats more deeply. cyber-security, and terrorism. is that discussion not happening among nato organizers? guest: nato is engaged this year and the development of its strategic concept. it is guidance going forward. the last time the document was produced was 1999. the world was very different them. allies are working on this now. it will be released at the summit in november. it will be in portugal. the idea was to contribute to the discussion and help people think about the issues. a number of european countries would like to continue to keep the alliance focused on european security.

the point of the report is that for the u.s. this is no longer a major priority. europe is largely peaceful, which is good. it is something that occurred after the end of the cold war. we increasingly see threats from the other parts of the world. the u.s. and europe need to dig about how this institution can deal with those other threats. host: richard, st. louis, mich., on the independent line. caller: thank you for being there. if the u.s. and decides we're tired of bailing out these countries, being the policeman of the world, we will not spend that much anymore. what will need to do then? will other countries step up to do their share? guest: this is the real issue.

the question of what role the u.s. should play in the world versus what our allies shouldo be done alliesne of the big problems is, the initiative by robert gates, is that allies in europe do not contribute enough militarily. it has been true for a long time, and will remain true. an argument in the report is we will not be able to expect european allies to do more militarily. they of a lot of helpful resources. the european union can be helpful dealing with threats like piracy, dealing with terrorism, proliferation, cyber- warfare. what i am hoping is to see more cooperation between nato and the your opinion that would

alleviate some of the burdens that rest on our shoulders. host: here is a question from twitter. guest: we do and we do not. one argument that we do not is that we're the biggest country with the biggest military and economy, so let's take care of ourselves and other people to take care of themselves. it is not as though the allies are not doing anything. they are providing 50,000 troops in afghanistan. would we really want to fill the gap ourselves? i don't think so. the other advantage for us working with allies, it can help increase legitimacy of actions we feel are needed to take. we looked a lot less legitimate

in the world affairs when we act alone. host: dan, a republican, from the state of maine. caller: i was wondering since the purpose of nato has changed, why wouldn't it be necessary that the senate ratified continued involvement in nato? guest: anytime there's a change to the treaty, the senate must be involved. that has occurred since the end of the cold war since new members have come in. any time new members are invited to join, the senate must ratify it. in that sense the senate is involved each time in debate about the importance and future

of nato. so, they have been involvedain . they himself an american and being part of the cfr. the council on foreign relations is not a lobbying organization. it is partly a think tank, a membership organization dedicated todoes the process wo? guest: in this case this particular document does not really involve a change to the treaty. it is simply a document that is there to help guide. the strategic concept document that will be released in november -- it will have been worked out among the member states. each member state will

contribute its own ideas about what the document should say, and then it will be approved by -- first, likely through the foreign ministers, then by the nato heads of state. host: if it reorganizes to address some threats you mention in your document, nuclear and terrorism, piracy, and the like, do the aspiring members also have a say? guest: no, no to does not operate by consensus. the er they will decide whethera new document for need a fix their own national security needs? guest: the reason the states out there would be interested in joining the alliance would be that yes, they feel it would address their security. what we have seen since the end

of the cold war is the reason countries want to be part of the lines is largely that they see it as validating reforms they have carried out since the end of the cold war. basically, they're part of the club. particularly because it tends to help them with their aspirations to joining the european union. host: west virginia is next, on the independent line, jeff. caller: my question is a little more on a small scale. in the late 1980's i was in the army, stationed in west germany. right across the street was an infantry unit, down the road, another unit. anywhere in germany we had military bases everywhere.

i left right before the berlin wall came down. do we still maintain the same troop levels in germany that we did back then? what as happened to a lot of these bases we no longer occupy? are they considered the german on-loan to us? or are they like embassies? guest: thank you, first of all, for your service. we have cut back considerably on the nu remain in germany. we do still have american troops there, as we do in places like japan and south korea. since the end of the cold we have seen that it is a recalculation.

in some cases we have troops in europe, in eastern europe, to help us deal with missions that might be outside of europe, but are closer to europe and to the u.s. it is important for us regarding afghanistan to have bases closer by to deal with these external threats. we're still seeing as the country important in helping to keep europe secure and stable. it is increasingly something that europeans can do themselves. there is still the lingering concern that without us there there could be problems of rising. it is lessening, but there are a

number of reasons we still have troops there. largely, we have them there because europeans want them there. host: pa., stella, on the republican line. caller: sir, i will take you to another part of the world. in violation of international law, the nato charter, nato at the urging of president clinton little chinese yugoslavia that did not have weapons of mass destruction and was never a threat to us. instead of being honest brokers we csided with the terrorists that we are fighting today. there was another situation with osama bin lot in concerning bosnia and cause above. "holy/unholy terror" is a book

by professor schindler i like to refer to. sir, i am ashamed of what we did there. nato had 19 members, approximately 800 million people population, and we bombed tiny yugoslavia. guest: it is the second time sunday use the word "ashamed" on this show this morning. the war from 1999 with kosovo was fought by nato in an effort to protect the population that was being subjected to what was then euphemistically called the "ethnic cleansing."

the decision was made that nato should carry out this operation. as you point out it is true that the united nations did not authorize this. the russians and chinese would have vetoed such an action. the notion was that country's, that we normally see sovereignty give up the right to that when they carry out barbaric acts inside their country. the population of kosovo was subject to such barbaric operations by the government of serbia and nato countries did believe it was important to act. the secretary general of the united nations at the time said he was ashamed that his own organization was unable to support such an activity because of divisions on the security council, but he also felt it was

important to uphold these norms and the international system. host: new jersey, kevin, on the democrats' line. caller: hello. it has been a rough discussion so far. i like to pose a quick statement, given the history over international actions of the last, say 30 years or so, and more so recently, seeing how our interventions around the world have come to backlash against us, somewhat politically and through terrorism actions, i was wondering about your thoughts on a non- interventionist action in the future. many concerning middle eastern problems.

given that, would you think a democrat, republican, or independent would best serve us in the next election? each has its own view concerning interaction or non-interruption in the international community. guest: we have seen questions along two lines this morning. one, the use of force by the u.s., sometimes in conjunction with a [inaudible] , sometimes not. whether that benefits of the u.s. and serves national security. these of the most important decisions a president can make, and that we as a country make about whether to send our citizens into harm's way.

the other concern limits about national power. what should we realistically be trying to do in the world? someone used the term international policeman earlier. your question really gets at both. importantly, i hope we have learned of the last 20 years is that while we are the most powerful country in the world, there are limits to what we can do. we cannot do everything. we need to strengthen ourselves here at home. we need to recognize limits and use our partnerships and alliances so we don't have to do everything. i don't think it is an issue of whether a democrat, republican, or independent is necessarily the best -- it depends a lot on

a particular individual. that is when we are talking about the president. it also rests on a reasoned debate about these issues. we should never be rushing into war. i hope that that is a lesson we have learned. we can disagree. the last caller disagreed about the rightness or wrongness of a particular war -- and we should have those disagreements with tough arguments about when and where to use military force. the more those discussions are on the reason that level with healthy debate, the better off that we are. host: here is the question from twitter. guest: the way that needleworks

is it does not really have its own troops. the troops it has are those provided by the member states. -- the way that nato works. there's not some standing military force. we and allies have military forces that we contribute to nato operations. there are a number of nato operations around the world. kosovo is one example. our allies contributes to nato operations in various places, about 70,000 troops total. the u.s. always provides the bulk of troops. we have the biggest military. it does not mean that allies are not doing important work. look at afghanistan, for example, and the serious fighting there. countries like canada who has suffered more per capita than

anyone else, the netherlands, britain, and australia have all contributed. they are not contributing the same numbers, but they're not as big. their contribution is significant and we should respect that. host: next, frank, on the independent line. caller: i'm old enough to remember the iron curtain and the bamboo curtain. we have been there for 50 years plus in nato. why haven't we turned over more of the day-to-day operations to the nato allies, and drawback our troops to a small degree, and may be handled general operations or assist? guest: again, our allies are contributing quite a bit too

general nato operations for the policing in kosovo, working with us and make off, combating piracy off somalia. they're not doing nothing. that tends to be the view. we would love for them to be able to do more militarily. the bigger question is, what do we get from our alliances not only in europe, but elsewhere? we will be get a seven partnerships that enable us to pursue our own particular interests with the help of others. -- we will be getting a set of partnerships. they have certainly contributed in a significant manner.

what point in writing my special report on the future of nato was to suggest that there are other areas are these wealthy countries could help us to deal with non-military threats. for example, in cyber-security. we should get their cooperation and put the burden on them to show us that even if they cannot do things militarily, that there are other things they could do to be helpful for the common defense. host: n.y., republican line. caller: i am also a veteran. is it true that david rockefeller is the ceo of the cfr and trilateral commission? inside his book of memoirs he says something about his family

setting up a social, economic, religious world government -- he says if that is the charge he is guilty as charged. that is treason. i'm a veteran guest: thank you for your service. certainly, mr. rockefeller has been a major contributor to the council, and in fact the studies program that i am part of probably bears his name.