after that, joan claybrook of the national highway safety transportation association looks of the ongoing problems of toyota. ♪ host: good morning. a live in view of the u.s. capitol on this morning, sunday, march 14. it is 7:00 a.m. eastern, and daylight savings time. two issues that will dominate the headlines as we move ahead on this busy and along week ahead. especially for the house with a book that could come on health care on friday or saturday, possibly even next sunday. we want to focus in the first 45

minutes on another issue likely to get a lot of attention over the next few weeks and months. just how much regulation should washington have over banks and wall street? the details in a moment with some background. then to your phone calls. one of a number of stories related to the issue, inside "the washington post" with senator christopher dodd leaving office at the end of this year, having met with reporters last thursday -- the headline is republicans want dodd to slow down on financial reform. steven sloan is joining us on the phone from cq politics. we heard last thursday from senator christopher dodd, and will hear from senator bob

corker also. there seems to be some agreement in that changed last week, so what happened? guest: it depends upon who you listen to. senator bob corker says the politics got involved. he says that senator chris dodd was facing pressures to get something out of committee before the senate became consumed with healthcare before the recess coming up. senator chris dodd said we need to move on. that is what we heard from a number of democrats, that we need to simply get something from the committee, saying we have been discussing this for over a year now. host: in terms of moving on, with the paper is reporting is that staff members for the senate banking committee have been working this weekend to craft a bill that will be presented monday.

what is in this bill for banks and wall street? guest: still waiting to find out. do we are still waiting. the will be a number of things, an issue many are paying attention to is how the bill will regulate banking protection. both senator bob corker and senator chris dodd were very close, says senator bob corker. but now senator chris dodd is going alone. he might have an independent agency, something republicans have resisted. other key parts would be how large banks that are failing would be resolved. obviously, a particular interest after bear stearns, lehman brothers, and alike have failed. approach to watch will be how it

regulates derivatives. all of these key areas have major political implications and applications for how banking and financial services are conducted. host: steven sloan's writing is available online at cqpolitics.com. can you explain how derivatives work? guest: even people in derivatives don't quite understand how the word. people want more clarity, more transparency. to make sure people know how much is being traded, and the values of the trades. transparency is definitely the watchword of the market. host: in just a minute we'll get

your phone calls and ask you how much regulation you think the federal government should have over wall street and banks in light of what happened it in a 2008 with the bailout. earlier, "the national journal" -- a cover story with the reporter writing that it will reform regulation, or will it unleash a rash of unintended consequences? here's more from senator chris dodd last thursday as he met with reporters. >> so, i intend on monday to put a proposal on the table. that is the next step. each week we have let it slip a little bit because we thought we could give further along in developing a consensus product.

the proposal i will offer monday does reflect a lot of ideas that bob corker and others have brought to the table. but clearly, we need to move along. i am facing mostly the 101st center which is the clock, especially in an election year where becomes a rather demanding member. as time moves on you limit the possibility of getting something done, particularly a bill of this magnitude and complexity. host: we're joined on the phone thecq politics. the clock is pushing a lot of this. guest: sure, congress is moving into recess at the end of the month. that will be a two-week recess.

it will be nearly the middle of april, and then they face another recess over memorial day. then it is summertime and the election season is not far behind. in that time something needs to come from the senate banking committee, and then to the senate floor, then be reconciled with the house. there are potential hurdles in each of those steps. the calendar is not forgiving. host: what is in this bill that would prevent what some call another meltdown on wall street? guest: there has been so much attention given to help consumer protection would work out, but i think resolution will be a key part of this. the provisions over hauhow large

banks failing will be dealt with. it remains to be seen over whether this bill that comes out tomorrow will force banks to go to the bankruptcy court. or whether banks will be ordered, big banks a special will be ordered to pay into a resolution fund that could be tapped. in the event that one of these big banks fails -- but the whole provision is aimed at ending this too big to fail phenomena. if you have a major bank facing a failure you will not have to turn to the government in such a dramatic manner as before. host: thanks for joining us this morning here on the "washington journal" -- >> i knew that chairman bdodd

was given a lot of pressure, called him at home. don't let anyone in a fair, let's just move ahead. he said, you are right, we can. you have been a great partner. today we missed each other, and finally at 3:00 p.m. we met. we met privately, and then staff came in. he made me aware that with reconciliation coming he felt the need to go ahead, regardless of where we were in the negotiation, to put forth a bill on monday. obviously, that is very disappointing. host: that is from last week. and the republican from tennessee. we want to hear from you.

we also welcome international viewers from the bbc parliamentary channel. this reporter writes in this edition of the national journal, it is unclear how much the reform can prevent a revival of the crisis this year or after. larry is joining us from the mississippi. caller: good morning. i believe republicans are trying to hold up everything. i really don't think they want

to work with democrats on anything. host: we will go to bill also on the democrats' line from indiana. caller: i agree with that first caller that the republicans are trying to drag their feet on everything that is trying to get done in both the house and senate. then the banking rules and regulations their turn to come up with, you just stop and think, people, of what happened to this country right now, the domino affect that the bad banking industry has done to this country right now. the reason everything is cut, and the reason the deficit is so high, there's nobody working to pay taxes anymore. you think about how many people are out of work who would

normally be paying taxes, this country would not be in as bad a shape as it is. then think about all the industry that has moved out of the country. if you give everybody in the united states $1,000, it would not help the economy because the only thing they could go out and buy would be foreign products. host: things for the call. from the cover story, this question -- congress is finally tackling the problems under the budget of financial meltdown. how will the next generation judge the results? >> the moment has a right. put aside the reconciliation. the moment has arrived to put down a proposal. we walked outside interest to react to something other than news stories and comments. they need something on paper.

what does this mean? how does this work? you have to have a proposal on the table. host: some of that reaction coming in "the washington post" as republicans say to slow down on reform. it sent republicans balking at the ambitious timetable. ken is joining us on the independent line. caller: good morning. i just had an idea about how we

should deal with these politicians as far as them putting us into debt. if they are the stewards of our debt, we should be like the collection agencies that call them every day. a expensend them to pay up, or not put us into debt like they are. -- and expect them to pay up. i just believe that we should put their feet to the coals, tempeh, make them pay for all they said it will do. host: thanks for the call. larry is joining us from memphis on the democrats' line. caller: i don't think these

financial regulations go far enough or have enough teeth in them. a lot of these people need to be in jail. host: next, mich.. caller: this is not ken, but joe. a lot of people need to do some reading and find out what is going on. bill clinton's favorite college professor wrote a book called the "tragedy and hope." it makes it clear there is a shadow government running the country. he mentions that it is imported to have an election from time to time so that the public can throw out the rascals without changing the general policy. in other words, we are being

confused. they are keeping butter's added to others' throats so that we will not pay attention to what is going on. host: claudia joins us on the independent line from new york. caller: why don't they just reinstate the glass-steagall act? once that was implicit seemed to be a check on all that has been going on with this. the problem, steve, the banking system, they support the candidates. until we get the money out of the system, the american people will never get an honest election. they sell their souls before they get into office. it is really a tragedy. host: thanks for your call and for your enthusiasm. caller: good morning.

i'm a republican. i agree that the monetary part of this regulation should be handled by the federal reserve, so i disagree with mr. dodd's opinion to create this whole different type of repair. i think the federal reserve it is capable of doing its job. i usually go republican. i am very sad about financial decisions both republicans and democrats are doing. i have to say that republicans are dragging their feet, and that is not good. we need to keep the federal reserve and independent agency. there are some problems and we do need scapegoats, but taking

away their power will hamper future economic growth. choose someone else as scapegoats. host: this is from last friday's paper the day after the announcement of senator chris dodd -- the headline is the financial system reforms will not wait. next is michael from arlington, va., on the republican line. caller: just a quick comment. republicans are not dragging their feet with this. we have to look at this -- any kind of oversight or overhaul of

systems of this magnitude -- i was an investment banker in new york. i agree that there are things that need to be cut. that is pretty clear, but i guess we do not know what needs to be done. i don't know with having a government system take over this sector is the best thing. something needs to be done. i just get frustrated when i hear comments that republicans are dragging their feet. host: generally in this story when used to be done as outlined here. let me just read it. the enforcement powers of the consumer watchdog which is expected to be housed by the fed in the upcoming bill has been one of the key sticking points. they want an elaborate appeals

process to resolve conflicts between the consumer agency and regulators charged with keeping banks and the good health. >> i still think it is important in this country that we get a financial regulation bill. the thing that is sad about this is this really is a jobs bill. the fact is that our financial markets need predictability. they need to know what the rules of the road are. it does not take but a few phone calls to leaders in the financial world for them to tell you, we would like to have a good bill, like to know where the country is going, want to know the rules of the road to the we can just get on with business, because many of them are hoarding cash. host: roland joins us on the

independent line from rhode island. caller: there should be regulation. i would like to make a point about bob corker -- he receives an enormous amount of money from the payday loan companies which take money from the working poor. the should be placed into the spotlight when people are thinking about bob corker and his holding up the process. another point want to make, this goes into a greater issue of debt. shaming the american people for living beyond their means. shaming them for wanting the government to provide services they don't to pay for. while during the recession people have cut back on the debt, they have not as that of the government. china, germany, france, and others are the biggest debt- holders.

more of our money is going to pay service to interest. host: thanks for the call. we always welcome your comments via twitter. we're having issues right now and it may be through twitter itself. as soon as it is worked out we will have those comments up. cheryl has the story we want to bring your attention to. a profile of this sent parliamentarian. going from under the radar to under a microscope is the headline. he puts his procedural acumen to use. most of the time it is a quiet kind of job, not these days.

next is tony from connecticut. caller: thanks for taking my call. i would like to see the american government make an effort to educate the american people that money and wall street is fast money. it is a place to put money that is considered fast money. if the american people are interested in saving for

retirement, to buy a car, to put a downpayment on the house, to save for college education like i'm trying, you don't put the money, those savings, in wall street. it is fast money. it is kind of like a gambling and vermin. the american government can find ways to help american people put away money that they were card for and what to save for things like retirement. don't put it into wall street. host: spending is the subject of a piece last week by a republican from oklahoma. he says, let's freeze the budget at 2008 levels.

senator inhofe would join us at noon eastern for a special live "newsmakers." walter joins us. caller: good morning. these lobbyists and the last 10 years, they have received $1.7 billion. we pumped that kind of money in for the democrats and republicans. when you talk about letting out democrats and putting republicans in, you will not accomplish anything because they are all of the same, in the deep pockets of these lobbyists. host: jeff, giving up early from fresno, california. caller: hi, yes, i want to know

about the glass-steagall act. host: sure, do you want it reinstated? caller: no, i just looked it up and they say they have put it up in 1933 and we have never had a problem with banks until 1999 right at the end of the year when it was taken off. and i wonder if they do not reinstated, can they just bring it back and give it another name? host: we're joined from north carolina. what is your take? should we bring back glass- steagall? will other regulations help? will they hurt? caller: unfortunately, if you look at deregulation, it started in clinton's era, and stumbled down the pike to the major abuse at the end of the bush administration. unfortunately, look at dodd and

tim geithner whose hands are all over deregulation. look at fannie and freddie in the housing industry. if they don't put some regulation on, where do you end up? they have to do something to put some type putfork in the road to say with a minute, you cannot go to battle because look at the coffers, they are all empty. host: here, the president calling for a remake of lead no child behind. it was his predecessors hallmark education initiative.

>> and on monday my administration will send to congress our blueprint for an updated the elementary and secondary education act to overhaul our left behind. this plan recognizes that while the federal government can play a leading role encouraging reforms and high standards we need, the impetus for change will come from states and local schools and districts. yes, we set a high bar, but we also provide educators the flexibility to reject. under these guidelines schools that show real progress will be rewarded. local districts will be encouraged to commit to change, and schools that are clearly letting their students down. for the majority of schools the fall in between, schools that do well but could do better we will encourage continuous improvement to help keep young people on

track for a bright future. prepare for 21st century jobs. because the most important factor is the person standing in front of the classroom, we will better prepare teachers, support teachers, and encourage them to stay in the field. in short, we will treat the people who educate our sons and daughters like the professionals that they are. host: more details on that issue again tomorrow, leave no child behind. we're joined from virginia on the independent line as we turn back to wall street, banks, and how much regulation washington should have over their financial dealings. caller: it is almost laughable that people think the government can control the banks when it is actually the reverse. payday loans, comment, first of all from those poor people who have a refrigerator or appliance by a committee will buy another use of plants, but if you go to your bank the will

insist to borrow at least $1,000. the payday loans, although they do take advantage, it is on a smaller scale. the bank will demand that you buy into an excessive amount of money. that said, if you ask most americans, 98% are clueless that the word federal and federal reserve does not imply the role of government. the word federal is a misnomer. when the federal reserve act was passed in 1916 and give a small group of european bankers total and exclusive control over america's financial destiny. that means that they can dictate to americans the value of our $365 days of the year, and dictate not only what recession will occur, but what depression will occur.

host: good morning. caller: i believe we should have regulation, that the last eight years and the other republican philosophy of less government hast gotten us into trouble governmenthe fda does not do its job. we have had bad food come into our country, bad toys. they are dragging their feet, they are in the pockets of the banking industry. host: a story this morning in the latest editions of "the national review." a comparison between the first years of ronald reagan's term and that of obama's. it's as the contrast to creates an interesting puzzle.

the question it is all more curious when one considers that obama's party has majorities in both chambers. we are joined from new york city by drew. caller: yes, i am so happy that a couple of callers ago broke down the federal reserve. people get confused and think that the federal reserve is

part of the federal reserve, or the other way around. -- that is part of the government. until regulations are put into place we will continue to go down. larry summers is the worst. he is the one he tore down the glass-steagall act, the free marketand led the free market j. it brought the crash of 2008. these people from the fed, trilateral commission, and committee on foreign relations are all working together. host: the national journal, if it works and if it fails. two takes. if it works, it is possible to declare the financial reform laws success.

here's the other take -- if it fails, looking back it is hard to expect anyone expected anything but a mass. -- but a mess. you can read more if you log on to their website at national journal. they for talking about the proposed details coming up tomorrow by the chairman of the senate banking committee on regulations and the rules about how banks on wall street potentially do business. we're joined from trenton, new jersey. caller: what is the difference

between democrat x and republican x? if they are the same thing, i can't do work together? host: "the n.y. times" magazine, a piece getting a fair amount of attention. peter baker examines rahmism. the writer asks what happened? joe from harrisburg, pa. caller: i was going to try to clear up one thing a person said earlier about the regulation taking place during the clinton administration. the should toy another look because neil bush who came of it

somehow or another with $1 trillion -- you can look him up on the up-- they could balance the budget with the money he took. the regulation, when you look back at it you must look at the keating five, and see how they took this design and moved it into today so they're doing whatever they want to through deregulation. the regulation was part of the theft, and has been so from the beginning. i am a socialist, and for me, the entire network of thought in this country is that a socialist is a bolshevik which is a lie. a socialist is an individual who believes as does the greatest of

all socialists, jesus christ, you believe in your neighbor. you treat your neighbor as you treat yourself. host: thanks for the call. one of the stores and some of the humbling of toyota. a look at what happened, as to what is said to be one of the dominant companies of the world. several factors have led to the quality lapses that have tarnished this brand. our guest later this morning will talk about what it means firsfor car safety. good morning, on the republican line. caller: i would like to comment that the real problem in my opinion, we should be blaming not the banks, but barney frank

for encouraging fannie mae and freddie mac, to buy subprime loans. there has been little talk of how bad freddie mac and fannie mae have been regulated. they should concentrate on that. host: that is our focus this first 45 minutes, a look at new details coming out by chris dodd tomorrow. he announced he was looking for republican support, but republican leaders in a letter slowed down some changes -- they think that they're not good for the economy. the debate will continue. we're asking you whether there should be new financial regulations over wall street and the banks, what they should be. we began by talking about this and health care. the house will be in session late in the week with a vote expected later week or next

weekend. peter baker has this piece and the weekend review. is failure forgivable? he writes that washington is already debating how critical the vote will be to presidency.

again, the other issue this week is financial regulation over wall street. tom is joining us from buffalo on the democrats' line. caller: first of all, this barney frank thing -- i have heard this a lot on talk shows. bill riley would like to blame the whole crisis on barney frank. if you really think that one event could tell tom delay would to do when republicans were in charge, then i have some swamp land in new jersey for you. the fed should definitely not be in charge with regulation. they are there to help banks on wall street. i do not see them being a good watchdog. we need a separate, independent group to overwatch banks.

maybe we should try to get more tax money from corporations. lots of the top corporations pay less than 5% in taxes. maybe we should go back to taxing the top 1% in this country more money, and maybe there'll be less incentive for them to rip off the little guy. maybe we should return to have been the wealthy pay what they did under eisenhower. host: ok, thanks. we have been showing you open with the national journal" -- the latest edition. k street is not only surviving, but has been very lucrative for those in the business. the cover story is michelle obama and her efforts to curb obesity. more is available online at newsweek.com. we're joined from chicago by

julie. -- by julian. caller: i am a first-time caller. regulation or deregulation, it really does not matter. it will not be enforced. there is a lot on the books now and there's nothing done to keep the rich from according all the wealth. host: we would go to markets in tennessee. -- to marcus. caller: the best thing we can do right now is get rid of the federal reserve because we're dealing with an elite group. they are just taking over our land of the free. we need to act now. everybody, get where you need and take care of your business. the federal reserve has not done

nothing host: for us what would you replace it with? caller: something independent, something small. i have never liked the federal reserve the way they regulate everything, outsourced everything. these never-ending wars. the value of the dollar has gone. host: if financial regulatory reform becomes law, what then? no one can know whether the new rules taking shape in the congress will go far enough to prevent a repeat of the last crisis. will jumble of hybrid agencies propose to enforce those rules? will the reforms unleashed unforeseen problems? baking experts are still arguing 10 years after the effectiveness

of the 1999 law and whether it brought on the era of excessive risk-taking. as we have been reading from the paper this morning, members of the senate are working this weekend to try to craft a new bill. details are expected tomorrow. we will cover the announcement by senator chris dodd when that happens. we're joined on the republican line from cape cod. caller: when i turned on your

reading an article on health care. both sides, neither side is talking about what i'm about to say. there are not enough doctors right now. you cannot get a doctor in many parts of the country. there are not enough to go around. the administration wants to add that depending on whom you're listening to, 30 or 40 million more people. if you gave a general practitioner 1000 patients -- that means we need 30,000 more doctors. where are we going to get them? if the healthcare bill passes and everyone's dollars running run with a brand new insurance policy, nobody will have a doctor and it will be like running an engine with no oil in it. it would seize up and the u.s. would fall. host: thanks for the call.

the front page, more on rogers, the white house social secretary was leaving after 14 months. while she is leaving, while she is done at the white house -- one reason, she insisted on calling her bosses barack and michelle. caller: good morning. i hope the president is taking his children to the home in indonesia, the largest muslim home in the country. host: he is not taking his children. he delayed his trip. he was supposed to leave on thursday, but is now leaving sunday. robert gibbs says it will be a brisk trip and michelle and the children are remaining behind. caller: he has traveled a little too much overseas. it would behoove him to stay here.

this is a very troublesome problem, this health care. close to 300 million people are very happily enjoying the options we have, as does the congress. for him to force especially us seniors into medicaid will be a problem. i am calling also to mention about the regulation of banks. of course, i hope we do not pass, and you know we will not elect democrats, ever democrats as in this state where they've bankrupted us in the california. they the worst leaders and the world. they don't know how to handle money. they tax, and spend, and spend. as far as regulation, you know the last time it all started when democrats decided they want to have this housing for the

poor. in the end, the poor did not get thet housing ging. and they forced the banks to give money to people who could not afford it. they bundled the money. moody's made it an a bond. today the world the is and $50 trillion of debt. we cannot make it -- cannot afford to dollars trillion more for health care. we cannot afford it until we get rid of these derivatives and problems in the world. host: review of a new book on wall street, it is by michael lewis, called "the big short."

howard is joining us from jacksonville, fla., on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. of like to say i do not see quite it has taken us this long to realize that we should have full federal oversight of our

banking and investment markets. too much fraud has gone on for too long. i would like to correct a few things people said that were incorrect. deregulation began under the nixon administration, through the airline deregulations. deregulation was cry word of the day. it was just saying, all right, we will give you a chance in this industry to rip off the american public. host: coming up in a couple of minutes our sunday political roundtable with a reporter from the washington examiner and david from the washington post. we will talk about health care, financial regulation. later, joan will join us to talk about troubles for toyota and

what it means for the consumer and car safety. our sunday talk will continue until noon, 9:00 a.m. for those on the west coast. senator inhofe would join us for a special noon edition of "newsmakers" because carl rove will be on c-span2. >> healthcare is the main issue on all the sunday shows to do. also, the economy, middle east, and party politics. the guests on "meet the press" will include what house senior adviser david axelrod, senate majority whip richard durbin, and james coburn, and karl rove. "this week" david will talk with david axelrod and anita

dunn. and other guests. the guests on the fox news sunday, there will include karl rove, robert gibbs, the democratic congressional campaign committee chair, and house republican whip. on "face the nation" robert gibbs, lamar alexander, former representative schultz, and karen of america's health insurance plans. on a "state of the union" talking with david axelrod and house republican leader john boehner. you can listen to all five of the sunday morning talk shows beginning at noon eastern starting on c-span radio.

and follow us on both facebook and twitter. >> today, your chance to speak to karl rove, live on booktv. he would take your phone calls, e-mail, and tweets on his new memoir. afterward, race relations in america. all weekend, continuing coverage of this year's tucson festival of books. find the entire schedule that booktv.org. >> obama and his socialistic ideas -- this is a life lesson in progress right now for conservatives. >> tonight, founder and president of the clare booth

policy institute on her work to promote conservative women in leadership roles. host: healthcare is one of the issues that will dominate our discussion in the week ahead. joining us is david, a contributing editor to "west coast" and also, a reporter from "the washington examiner." what is happening with healthcare? guest: one person would know a lot more about it. what has happened again as numerous times during the healthcare debate, democratic leadership has gone behind closed doors. that is where all the decisions are being made. as nancy pelosi's aptly put it to an audience on thursday, we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in them. host: will the house debt 216

votes? guest: it is very rare that nancy pelosi will bring a bill to the floor and it will not pass. health care and controversial bills always turns out to be as close as it needs to be to pass. host: a member of the senate, scott brown, talking about health care yesterday and the republican response to the weekly address. >> the more determined they seem to be to force it on us anyway. their attitude shows that washington at its very worst, and the presumption they know best and will get their way of the the american people like it or not. and when politicians start to think like that, they don't let anything get in their way, not public opinion, not even their own promises. they pledged transparency. instead we have the healthcare

bill tinted by secrecy, conceal costs, and fullback from deals. that is just not right. they should do better. the american people expect more. they pledged a true bipartisan effort. instead they resorted to bending rules and now intend to seize control of health care in america on a strict party-line vote. it is speech after speech on health care plan. the president has tried to convince us that the ways he is proposing will be good for america, but how can it be good for america if it raises taxes by a half a trillion dollars? it costs $1 trillion or more to implement. host: your response? guest: on the rule that the bill may or may not be brought forward in the house and appears that nancy pelosi and the rules committee chairman are considering an unprecedented procedure whereby they would

vote on the reconciliation, and dean the house to have passed the senate version. that has never before been done. if they do, it will probably end up in court. republicans will challenge it. host: "the new york times" has a piece -- his new-found prominence in all of this. guest: it is always important when you get to something like reconciliation. it is a behind-the-scenes, he is a behind-the-scenes operative. yes, he will definitely take on a prominent role as senate parliamentarian. according to other options are feasible, whether it can work. host: ultimately, what do you think will happen? guest: it is interesting.

lees said that he does not decide what we do on this side of the house. i do not think that we know. my guess is, i tend to think it will not pass. guest: well, of course, i disagree. louise is correct that the senate parliamentarian does not determine what the house will do. he determines what the senate will do. he has an advisory role and cannot make ruined himself. generally, his ruling to ouare fallow. eselexecuting rules are not typl -- what is at issue is whether it is transparent and clear enough to have a vote in the passage of the healthcare bill like this handled by, in

combination with something else. they are not only self- executing bills, but omnibus bills are not so unusual either. host: the cover story here of the sunday magazine, rahmism. he was chosen as a steve of chaffed because he could make things happen. what happened? let me read one excerpt. for 14 months the president has struggled with the balance between pragmatism and idealism with his campaign. at times he disregarded the advice of rahm, and others he has sacrificed campaign positions in hopes of achieving a compromise. he says there is a constant tension between the need to get things done and the commitment to change the system, says david axelrod. in choosing the chief of staff,

president obama concluded he needed someone who was not like him in temperament or political instinct. obama needed a guide through the labyrinth of washington. he once rahm in that position because he trusts him. your reaction? guest: a good, dynamic chief of staff will probably always find himself in that position. rahm is properly one of the more dynamic people we have seen in that position. i think that he is where he belongs. he has a reputation for running a tight ship in the house. he belongs in the executive branch more than the legislative branch. he does know the process. whether he sees eye to eye with everyone operating inside the washingtowhite house is another. .

.

guest: that that led primarily to the meltdown in 2008. i don't think that begins to explain it, but that is the conventional wisdom. host: we talked about in the first hour, you had both senator bob corker and senator chris dodd working on a compromise. senator bob corker says that there were at the five-yard line and then senator chris dodd announced that he would work on his own way to get the todone. guest: this is the pattern for major legislation. things are contentious. there are lots of ball in the air.

the different bills and animosity seep over into other pieces of legislation mingo just as we now see the immigration legislation threaten how we proceed with healthcare, i expect the same sort of resentments are seeping over into dealing with banking, and you were probably find that chris dodd things he has a deal going only to find that at the last minute the rug get pulled out by one party or another. the deal falls apart and the democrats have to say we will either go forward with a our agenda, and then something like banking, this is something they need to go forward with with or without help. host: we're joined from maryland by a democrat. caller: good morning. i wish the democrats would just realized that the republicans

are not interested in any kind of deal, a partisan ship is dead -- bipartisanship is dead. the president has wasted so much time trying to reach across the aisle and all they have done is try to make a look bad. i want to know from your guests if they agree? guest: i think the caller is absolutely right. the republicans are determined to say no to any kind of proposal that will put bureaucrats from washington between the doctor, your doctor, and the american people. i'm glad because that will ruin american health care. guest: i agree with the caller also and probably for different reasons. republicans will say no do any kind of a deal because any kind of deal is a success for democrats and president obama.

. . it has nothing to do with the public option portability or medical mall practice. it is this. why haven't america's old-school news organizations blown the whistle on the chief of fox news for using the

network to conduct a propaganda campaign against the obama administration, a campaign without precedent in our modern political history? through the cler use of the fox news channel, he has overturned standards of fairness and object tivity that have guided the american print and broadcast journalists since world war ii. guest: we all remember that you were the guy in charge of the "new york times" when you reported without question that there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq. i find it very difficult to take something serious about honest journalist from him. i've known him for many, many years, and when he was a political editor of the "new york times" he was well known as one of the folks that was could be depended upon to communicate the democratic point of views through his work.

guest: if you had asked me to address the same question i probably would have come down the same way and i would have told you that the weapons of mass destruction weren't there. so you can come at this from any number of angles to see that fox news handles its on-air presence and using its on-air presence to report from a point of view and a very conservative one of that i think is fairly obvious. why professional journalists haven't taken them on i'm not sure. i don't know that it's necessarily top of mind for them. i think they're worried for getting their job done. but there is probably a point at which it would make sense for them to question whether they ought to be standing shoulder to shoulder on the same level with folks who will take their news and wrap it up in the gice of dementry. but it's presented as though it were news and i'm not sure everyone who watches it sees it

the way they say it ought to be seen. host: in the "washington post" in the outlook section also available on line, he says under the pretense of correcting a democratic bias in news reporting the fox news channel has accomplished something that seemed impossibleber he imported to the news studio the things he learned in richard campaign's think tank. they have suppressed conclusions whether on health care reform or other issues that they want would have stated demonstrably proved by their reporting. i cannot believe this amounts to self-censorship but it's hard to ignore the evidence. guest: the most particular thing is he offers not one single example of what he is talking about. host: chris tin in south bend, indiana. good morning to you. caller: i was wondering that if

the government is taking over health care and many years ago the i was -- i was on medicaid and the doctors that i would see when i was on medicaid, they did things to cause me disability, to cause me to have disabilities worse than whatever my accidents were. host: how so? can you explain? caller: yes. for one, there was a dentist that poisend me. i was allergic to the metals that he put in my mouth and i told him he could not use those before he put them in and he did anyway. and i was not allowed any -- he

never received any repercusions from that. i went to the hospital once with an injured knee and i came out with two injured knees. host: thanks for the call. let me take her point and go to the larger issue of medical mall practice. this is being addressed adequately in the health care bill? guest: it's not being addressed at all in the bill. the democrats who are writing the health care bill are afraid to take on the trial lawyers lobby because they receive so much money from them. it's unfortunate that that's the fact because study after study after study has shown that doctors order numerous tests not because they think that they're going to learn something about a patient's condition but to cover themselves in case they're sued. if you can eliminate that threat, we can reduce i believe about $200 billion in the health care costs each year.

guest: medical mall practice obviously is something that's on a lot of doctors' minds although they can probably tell you that they're having some tremendous problems with their insurance companies and it would pay for them to have someone step in and put some kind of a cap on how much the rates can go up for their own insurance. and it's interesting particularly to watch with conservative doctors complaining that their medical mal practice insurance rates are out of control and ought to do something but don't dare do something about the other side of equation and that's the rise of health care costs and insurance. i think what the caller experienced is probably a problem with her doctor and probably ought to be taken up with whatever medical boards there are but it seems to me she saw a private doctor under medicaid, but as far as discussing it in terms of a government takeover, i don't think that had any great deal of relevance.

host: we'll get to more of your phone calls in just a moment. jay, who has a blog has a piece in the latest edition of the national review. it's comparing the first year of the reagan administration and the first year of the obama administration. i read an excerpt earlier. one of the points he makes is that the most pressing problem today is without doubt rampant joblessness yet president obama has largely focused on health care and global warming. guest: i don't know that's been such an intense focus, but certainly health care i think is properly viewed by most people and by the administration as part and parcel of the economic situation. i mean, the largest republican complaint about the work going on in health care is that it touches on something like 16% of the gdp or of the entire economy. for people who are out of work of course they're also losing their health care insurance or

paying cobra extension rates. it's something that's kitchen table issue. and when there's a down economy, kitchen table issues is what's going to control. and health care is at the forefront. he made it plain he would like to get that done and move on to jobs. host: president reagan won 489 of the 500 votes, president obama won 365. additionally reagan won 308 house drictions while obama won 26242. why is this important? the difference is relevant. reagan could say to 308 and 88 senators your constituents voted for me which obliges you to support my program. and the piece in the national review looking at the political differences between the first year of ronald reagan to the first year of barack obama. guest: this is one of the great mysteries of american politics. survey after survey has shown

that the american people oppose what obama is proposing to do, put a bureaucrat between a doctor and a patient. survey after survey has shown that health care does not rank among the top issue concerns that most people have, and yet they insist on proceeding dun this path. host: but conversely the republicans are saying slow down on financial regulation reform. let's start over on health care. isn't that part of their tabtic as well to delay delay delay so nothing gets done? guest: if you're heading down the wrong path, delaying is better than continuing down the wrong path. we're going down the wrong path as long as we're depending upon more and more government to solve problems. host: and conversely, aren't the democrats with this blair house summit trying to give the appearance of bipartisanship when in fact they're going at it alone? guest: what they're trying to do is extend the hand of bipartisanship lds they know it's going to be bitten. it's a frustration for a lot of

democrats like our earlier caller to be sure, but president obama is somebody who takes it seriously that you must at least make an effort, frankly for myself i think the time is long past. he likes to make these last-ditch efforts just to go the extra mile. if no one meets him halfway, then you finish the mile on your own. host: why, or has the political dialogue in this town changed? and if so, do you attribute it to fox, msnbc and the blogs? what's changed compared to what linden johnson faced in the 1960s as he tried to push through his great society program? guest: i think there's been some experimentation and some success with this sort of ult rat partisan approach to things. it's been, i think, a change in the goal of getting yourself elected to the federal legislature and holding the seats has become more important than doing anything with those seats. but there's been i think a

sharp turn downturn in the way legislatures deal with one another in recent decades, and i've seen that attributed to the fact that they travel back home to their districts all the time rather than staying in washington and socializing with one another. i've seen it attributed to partisanship and the rise of cable news television and that there's now narrow casts of channels to everyone with particular political points of view and people get siloed and they become ultra partisans for whatever they're watching. i've seen it attributed to the rise of the blogs. but i view at least the media stuff as serving a market interest. people always had these opinions. it's that they were frustrated before in being i believe to find people whowled communicate with them about those things. i think that always existed. but there are a million different thing that is have led up to the point where we're at now where people are at logger heads all the time. guest: all of that is true but

it miss the single most important difference between the reagan years and today, and that is that the government is vastly bigger than it was even then. it's in every aspect of our lives. and every time you turn around you're confronted with a regulatory issue from government or a spending issue from government. government has politicized, full, to a degree that we've never before seen in america, the public policy debate. host: i'm going to ask you to take your opinion hat off for a moment and explain what you wrote about the slaughter position. what did representative slaughter of the rochester area of new york suggest? guest: simply what she suggest sd a rule -- and every rule that comes before the house has to have a rule which basically determines whether or not -- how it will be voted on, for example, whether the minority will be allowed to offer amendments. her suggestion, the slaughter

solution is simply that in order to pass health care, obama care, the house would vote on a reconciliation package and that package in that vote would deem the house to have passed the senate version of health care. it's very complicated and very questionable. guest: it's not all that complicated as far as i view it but i deal with this sort of procedure all the time. the essential thing to remember is that there will be a vote and they will ask shall we pass this thing? hands will be raised and the side with more hands in the air is going to twin. and everyone will know that that's the day that the senate bill was passed in the house and that they will also be moving on to some other business related to that bill is i don't think will surprise anybody. but if it were actually passing without a vote, you'd have something to be worried about. unfortunately that's the way it's kind of being sold?

shorthand, people say it is passing without a voit. but it will vote, everyone will see the score and that's the way it goes and that's the way e everyone expects it to go. host: back to your comments. send us an e-mail, the numbers will be on the bottom of the screen. our guests, stephanie is joining us up early in california. good morning. caller: good morning, please don't cut me off. i have a question for america. if we don't pass the health

care bill, where will web in ten years? -- will we be in ten years? secondly, i want to say that the reason that the obama administration has failed so far is because of bipartisanshipship. thirdly, i wanted to say that didn't reagan leave a deficit? and haven't we had the majority of presidencies for the last 28 years lose by republicans and look at where we are now? thank you. have a nice day. host: thank you. guest: well, she makes a point in each of her comments. if we don't pass health care now where will we be in ten years? probably back trying to pass it again only it will be that much more of an issue because the costs will have gone up. people will probably be losing their insurance at an even greater clip. people who have lost their insurance now may not be around to wait ten years to see us try again. the other points of course, yes

ronald reagan did leave behind a deficit. and i mean, without getting too partisan about it, it's true. republican presidents over the past several decades have had a tough time dealing with those things, and there was a run of a platform of fiscal discipline. everybody does. even democrats will say that they do that. the federal deficits a monster and it's difficult to bring under control. host: on the republican line from south lake tahoe, california. another early riser. it is day light savings time. so you're up extra early. krgetsdz good morning. i don't think day light savings time has anything to do with the need to do something about health care. host: we appreciate it. we welcome it.

go ahead. caller: thank you so much. one of the things that i'd like to point out is the fact that notion that somehow this legislation has been passed with any form of bipartisanship is an insult to the american people. i don't think that you can have the farm coling industry, i don't think have the insurance -- the unions into the white house in secret meetings without the spotlight of america shining on those meetings. i don't think that you can have one six or seven hour meeting with everyone in a room at the blair house and consider that to be bipartisanship. i think that what would be much better, instead of starting over, would be to take the best ideas of what we currently have and then flush them out and and allow the things to rise to the top that seem to make sense. i think that we all agreed that we need health care reform but in this manner i think the american people are clearly against it because it's being shoved down our throats and without having the minority

party having their best ideas brought to the table in a clear decisive and responsible way leaves people with the impression that they have, number one. it's being shoved down their throat. number two, it's not in the best interest of the people because all the best ideas aren't in it. and number three, because of the poll laret of both parties and it seems that the leaders are the ones who are most importantlyized, we're not getting the best of what we can have. host: thanks for the call. guest: the call ser certainly absolutely on target that this bill is being shoved down the american people's throat. they've made it very clear as i mentioned earlier in survey after survey that they oppose obama care and yet the president and the congressional leadership insist on proceeding with it. it's interesting, i think part of the reason why washington, another part of the reasons why washington has become so

intensely partisan, if that's the right term for it, again, is this idea that if there is a problem in america, the default assumption is always that it has to be solved using government. and the more areas in american lives that you get government involved in, the more conflict you're going to have because people disagree about what's the right way to do it in government. host: 13,742. that is the number of active registered lobbyists in washington, d.c. it's the cover story this week of the national journal. they call it the k street paradox. the more the president tries to implement ambitious reforms, the more he is forced to broker deals with entrenched business interests even as he tries to control lobbyists k street earns more money. those seeking to way washington spent $3.47 billion in 2009 to influence the industry's most

lucrative -- that was the int industry's most lucrative year ever. guest: it stands to reason that they would be working hard to try to influence the way this bill came through. and i think a lot of people who have watched what they could watch of seeing the industries try to influence the bills, seeing the president dealing with the insurance companies, with the pharmaceutical companies, it's been frustrating for people who haven't been able to see very much of it. but it also speaks a little bit to the question of whether or not this is really the government marching in and adding more government to the issue, or taking over the health care system. all of this negotiation as bother som as it is not to be able to see it, i think the fact that it's happening is evidence that the president is bringing a lot more parties to the table than the notion that the government is marching in to take over health care would suggest. of course, i feel very differently about that and i

think the idea of government health care is very different from what's being served up in this bill but it makes a convenient bumper sticker. but the fact that all these folks are at the table, they're not wasting their time. they're dealing on this bill. and whether you like it or not the fact that they're there, the fact that they've got a voice in this tells you a little bit about how many people are really going to be in the picture even after the bill is passed. host: another way to put this in perspective. $1.3 million per hour that is on average what k street reported in fees for the health care industry and there's a chart of where the time went looking at which industries have had the most number of lobbyists, those dealing with any budget or appropriations leading the list with about 5,000 lobbyists, followed by health care issues, defense, taxes, energy, transportation, environment, and education. more this morning from the cover story of the national journal.

richard is joining us from florida. good morning to you, independent line. caller: good morning, c-span. great to hear you this morning. the government taking over 1/6 of our economy and the health care program is really a scary thought. that's enough to get anybody up early in the morning, especially in california or anywhere else in the world. my wife's doctor just said the other day, if this bill passes that most likely he will be leaving the profession, and i imagine a lot of medical people will do the same. what i'm wondering is what model is this congress or excuse me this administration going to use for the health care plan? are they going to use the post office? which is trying to compete against fed ex and ups and can't do it? they're going broke. is it going, how about cash for

clunkers? the first week they went broke and had to be funded with $2 billion. social security is probably the worst of all. it still pays for itself. however, the money that comes in from the people is spent immediately by congress and then they borrow money to send it back out, which the tax payers pay an interest on. these are all failed models that the health care plan is not even going to kick in for four years until 2014. yes, they're going to pay, the taxpayers will be paying for it for four years prior to that. host: thanks for the call. we'll get a response. guest: well, this is an issue that comes up again and again when you're speaking to folks who are opposed to the health care reform movement. and there's not too much more i can say other than it's just not the way it's being portrayed. the model probably, if you

would like an example, is going to be the federal employee health benefits plan. which works just fine. i have been on it myself, members of congress, families, staffers use it. you're presented with a number of choices of qualified insurance companies that will cover you and you make a choice based on how much you want to pay and what kind of coverage. so i'm not too worried about that. social security of course another issue. but i think before we get into -- stick to the health care for a while and toss it back to you. host: let's turn back to the former vice president. a piece by cynthia tucker and from david coal this morning. she says the father/daughter chainies have no sense of decency. liz cheney doesn't hold a u.s. senate seat, she doesn't have a power to call committee hearings to challenge those who dare to disagree with her. and she isn't practicing her

dem graggy in an area of widespread fear. nevertheless she has slipped easily into the role of joseph mccarthy. the daughter of the former vice president, she has her father's means in, his dark views of the world and auto cratic sense of authority. like her father, she disrespects the constitution, we rates the rule of law, and sneers at diplomacy. guest: that's certainly a way of encouraging moderation and bipartisanship. host: the issue is she called the department of justice the department of jihad. who are these government officials? whose values do they share? she was going after eric holder. guest: whoever she is going after, it's precisely that kind of rhetoric that is personally attacking somebody. host: from who guest: from both. i have a rule that we enforce very strictly at the washington examiner and the editorial section. you can say anything you want,

but you cannot attack somebody personally. i think that's what we need more of in washington. host: david coal, the "washington post." it was liz, not dick, who impuned the patriotism of the justice department lawyers. the sins of the daughter ought not necessarily be visited upon by the father. but in this case does anyone think that liz cheney acted without her father's blessing? guest: it's very clear they're coming from the same place. to put it mildly, extremely unfortunate, really. most people are willing to say just reprehensible that she would have made those kind of accusations in that kind of atmosphere. i'm not entirely sure what liz cheney is doing on television so often. even if her father was still the vice president it wouldn't make sense. the fact that she is on television so frequently and to go back to an early story so frequently with fox where she's continuously welcomed despite

the fact that she will say things like this is really outrageous. i mean, there's just no explaination for having the daughter of someone who is out of office on constantly. it makes no sense. i would love to hear an explanation for that. host: hammond, indiana, democrat's line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i was just listening to the conversation with liz cheney and i don't see what credibility she has as far as national security. but yet, still fox has allowed and a lot of other medias will put her on. but as far as the health care debate is concerned, i want to make a comment in regards to that and it's from day one republicans have set out to discredit barack obama who -- to make him less effective at a president. and with the sound bites of government takeover and death

panels, where they actually went out and scared the american people with lies. and they shifted the polls so now how can you say that the american people don't want it when you told them lies in order to get them to -- what to say? thank you. guest: i guess the american people are too dumb to figure out that they're being lied to. guest: well, i don't know that i would say that. but i will tell you that one of the other issues when we discussed about polls or what sort of opinion is expressed about health care, things have very definitely change. but things change with the wording of polls. i think anybody who watches them acknowledges it depends what questions you ask, sometimes even in what order you ask. if you ask the question are you having difficulty for paying for your health care and should the government help? the answer is yes.

if you ask if there ought to be a government takeover, the answer is no. so depending on how the questions are asked, it's no surprise you can find a survey that says what you want. guest: but david, poll after poll after poll worded basically the same way and it doesn't make any difference whether it's gallup asking the question, rassmussen asking the question, you consistently get between 50 and 55% of the respondents saying they're opposed to obama care and a significant percentage says they should start over. guest: obama care, carries an awful lot of weight with it. and when i ask people what do you think about if i were to use the word obama care or government takeover, i would get a much different answer than if i ask people are health care costs out of control? are you going to need help? guest: that's a different issue. guest: it's the same issue, a different phrasing. that's the problem with the

polls. and it's what makes it difficult to understand exactly what people want. i've seen polls that would suggest exactly what you say and exactly what i say in the same survey depending on what question you're looking at. host: our conversation with david and mark. the elections show a finchingsing democracy in iraq, if they can keep it. editorial. guest: i think that's absolutely the issue. if they can keep it. it's rather remarkable, i think, that iraq has now held two national elections successfully, had frankly higher percentages of participation than we have here in this country, and seem to be arriving at a workable national democratic consensus quicker, frankly, than this country did after our own revolution. host: vice president joe biden

traveled to the middle east. he delivered a speech at tell aveeve university to talk about the way forward and the peace process in the middle east. this came the same week in israel the prime minister announcing while the vice president was there the construction of 16 00 additional housing units in east jerusalem. here's what joe biden said last thursday. >> we all know what happens when cynicism festers, distrust, harsh words, and eventually violence. the cycle of unintended consequences, which has happened more times than i can count, has led you to build more walls, that may offer short-term relief, but will not bring sustained security that you seek. this is no way to live. this cycle must be broken. in the middle east, in the middle east, that i first visited, peace between israelis

and its neighbors seems absolutely impossible even to discuss. those who suggested a two-state solution -- and no one did actually. but had someone suggest add two-state solution they would have been considered either demeanted or dreamers. but then, israel, egypt, and jordan all acted boldly to end decades of conflict. over time, other contacts have emerged between israelis and arabs. and there's now an arab peace initiative that makes an important contribution by envisioning a future in which israel is secure and at peace with its arab neighbors. turning these visions into reality is among the hardest challenges we face, but we have to face it. there is no alternative. host: david, mark, reaction to the vice president, his trip or what he said last week? guest: i think the israeli

government definitely put him in a difficult position, basically pulling the rug out while he is actually visiting to have the settlements announced. but what a difficult issue this really is. i mean, on both sides it seems to intractible, but i was surprised by the aggressiveness in which the israeli government confronted the representative of the american government whithe while they were there trying to facilitate peace, surprised them, i think it's unfortunate. host: in a rather candid phone call between the secretary of state and prime minister on friday. guest: frankly, i believe that he was sending a message, if you will, to the obama administration, that you have got to take us seriously and get a realistic view of what is happening in the middle east. there will be l not be peace in the middle east until two things happen. number one, iran stops

financing hezbollah and hamas. and number two, the arab states officially and in all practical ways required to show that they're serious about it recognize the fact that israel has a right to exist. until that happens, there won't be peace. host: but as the largest contributor in terms of foreign aid to this country to israel, does israel not have an obligation to the u.s.? guest: is israel's obligation to the u.s. government or to the people of israel? their first responsibility is the preservation of the state of israel, and they will do whatever they deem necessary to assure that. just as our government will do the same to is assure the survival of the american people. host: where does this go next? guest: that's entirely unpredictable. i have to agree with mark in terms of the israeli government is obviously going to act in the best interest of the

israeli government and the israeli people. and the u.s. people will do the same. it's unfortunate this type of mission is something you wait for to be over with before you do something like this. but it's very possible that they were sending a message. where it goes from here, i don't know. i think it's going to stay there for a while. host: and the prime minister said he had no idea that this was going to be announced during the vice president's trip. guest: he plays hard ball. host: we'll go to martin next in texas. republican line. caller: good morning. you are covering a lot of ground pretty quickly. i was calling on the health care. i don't understand why -- there's four or five points that everybody agrees with reduced health care costs and limit government actions waste

and fraud, drug reimportation, portability, mal practice, what is wrong with addressing those items that all american people, almost without exception, agree that those things need to be addressed? host: we'll get a response. thanks for calling from texas. guest: well, this is another one of the recurring issues in health care. we touched on this earlier that the -- i think mark mentioned, i think you called it an insult to the idea that there was any bipartisanship going into the bill. i think it's clear that there will be no republican votes for the bill. but i think it's also clear that there has been republican participation in the formulation of the bill all along. people take sides, people tend

to disagree, people tend to color the history of what happened depending on their position. but there have been a number of republican ideas that have been incorporated into the bill on the way through even more incorporated following the summit, but this is one, this is another of the problems that we've run into in trying to deal in a bipartisan fashion in terms of getting agreement on the bill. we run into tactics, especially lately as we're discussing using reconciliation and having the republican side declare that reconciliation is really the nuclear option. well, i've study it had nuclear options as extensively as anybody, and ki tell you that it's not the nuclear option and i've explained why and it has to do with the facked that even though both can get around the filibuster, both rin with -- within the rules and one outside of the rules. the self-excuting option, only

to find out that it's been done 200-plus times by the republican houses. you know, the idea that there's no bipartisan participation in the bill. and then we find out that one idea after the other has in fact been incorporated into the bill. at each stage we find out that the republican tactic to anger or scare people into opposing it has a kernel of truth but doesn't turn out to quite be the real story. and then the final pitch of course is it's a government takeover. it's going to prevent you from seeing your doctor. if at every stage we find out that kernel of truth hasn't been presented fairly and honestly, what do we think about that last ditch effort to try and derail things? i think it's probably been delivered in the same fashion. host: how do you respond to this e-mail from a viewer this?

guest: my wife has a preexisting condition so this is an issue i feel very personally about. i agree, the insurance companies should not have the power to say to somebody with a preexisting condition we're not going to cover you because you have that condition. but the government does that already. and it will do that even more when this health care program is passed, if it is passed. host: how does it do it now? guest: because you have, for example, hundreds and hundreds of medicare bureaucrats telling the insurance companies how much they have to charge, for example, or how much they will be reimbursed which has the effect of telling them how much to charge on all kinds of medical procedures. that limits choice by definition. host: another e-mail going back

to broader issue of the republicans and their role in all of this. guest: well, the lucky part about that is we have built a fairly strong system in which we're going to eventually have an up or down vote and raise hands about who wants this thing to pass and how, and we're going o to count those numbers and the side with the most votes is going to win, although there will be a lot of kicking and screaming about procedure, that's the way things work in this country. luckily, when they do that and they count those hands, if the bill passes i think probably the e-mailer will be satisfied that no coup has taken place. but i understand this frustration certainly in seeing a minority, as small a minority

as you can get away with in the senate obstructing this and other bills. i mean, currently under the rules that's their right. but not only are they a pretty solid minority, 60/40 split basically, but the folks in the senate representing -- who are members of the senate, republican caucus, representing a much smaller percentage of the american population. this difficult -- and i can see why they put nit those terms, but luckily the votes will be counted and it will be done as they expect it will be. host: you can read the works of our guests. we have links to both of these respective web sites on our site. greg, you get the last word from buffalo. good morning. caller: lucky me. good morning.

it's been a while. can we take two or three things one at a time there? host: absolutely. caller: all right. i've gone a bone to pick with you about how you're doing the twitter thing. host: the twit ser down. caller: i'm loving it. this way here we don't have to watch the same -- watch the same half dozen people get their opinions in while we've got to wait 30 days. now, i've been doing this thing for 30 years with you guys. and you're going to allow the same six people to voice their opinions two, three times a day while we're sitting to wait our phone calls getting in. host: you make a good point. there are more -- caller: and you say that and we should do something about that. host: ok. caller: let's take the 30-day rule off and we'll have add it. the country knows there's not going to be a bill. what are we wasting our time for? secondly, obama made a huge mistake last summer when he

allowed the liberal meal media to call everybody a racist because they disagree with obama care. thank you. have a good day. host: i thought you had three points? he hung up. greg is a man of guest: greg is a man of very intense feeling, intense opinion. i almost agree with him that there is some chance that there will not be a bill, won't be a vote on a bill. the indications at this point are that pelosi is a handful of votes short and i suspect that's not going to change much between now and say the end of the month. guest: there's always that chance, of course. but they're in the business of making sure that there is one. so i think that's what they will do. you may find that a couple of the retiring blugs, for instance, who were earlier no votes -- blue dogs. -- may do their fellow blue dogs a favor, say i'm retiring,

allow you to vote no and let the thing pass. that's a possible dynamic. i think we'll see it. we'll see that vote. always a chance something doesn't pass, of course. good point about the twitter. that is interesting. i don't know how you limit that. host: this is a program in which your participation and using new technology is a way to facilitate the dialogue and the discussion. we do monitor, we should point out, to make sure we can get a variety of opinions, but we appreciate your point and we hope you keep watching. and we have a 30-day rule so we can have a wide variety of opinions, not just the same people phoning in. but appreciate your point as always. to mark, thank you very much for being with us. and david, appreciate your time. joan is going to be joining us. just how safe is the car you drive? and specifically what's happening with to it. and how did they get in this current situation?

coming up in a few minutes. later, a reminder on book tv, live at 10:00, 7:00 for those on the west coast, a conversation with karl rove out with his new book. and our "newsmakers" program with on at noon eastern. enough about c-span programming. some of the other sunday talk shows on the air this morning and the topics with that. >> steve, health care will be the main issue on all the shows today. also, discussions about the party. the meet the press will be hosted today by tomorrow brokaw will include karl rove, white house senior adviser. senator majority whip and house majority whip. on abc's this week, jake tapper will be talking with david axel rod, former white house communications director, south carolina republican senator

graham and former national republican committee chair gilles pi. the guests on fox news sunday will include karl rove, white house press secretary robert gips, democratic congressional campaign chair chris van hollen, and house republican whip eric canter. on face the nation from cbs you'll hear bob shafere with robert gibbs, senate republican conference chairman, florida democratic representative and house whip schultz and karen of american health insurance plans. and on state of the union, candy crawly will be talking with david axel rod and also with the house republican leader john boehner. you can listen to all five of the sunday morning talk shows starting at noon eastern on c-span radio. here in washington, d.c. nationwide on xm satellite radio, channel 132 and on the

web. and follow us on face book and twitter. >> our mission is to make the world more open and connected. and we do that providing people a free tool where they can share information with anyone at any time. >> with more than 400 million users on line, the fastest growing site. monday night on the communicators on c-span 2. >> washington journal continues. host: we want to welcome back to c-span joan, president emeritus, public citizen, and during the carter administration served as the administrator of the national highway traffic safety administration. is it safe to drive a to it car? -- toyota car? guest: it depends. there's two different defebts. swun a sticky pedal, and it's a low speed problem and many are being repaired rapidly and it's less unsafe. if you have a floor mat,

so-called floor mat car where the accelerator jams to the floor, then there's a lot of questions about whether or not it's still safe to drive those because this is a dispute whether it's electronic. what they're doing is fixing the floor mats. and in some cases they're putting a brake override, which if you have that it should override a sudden acsell ration. p >> there's a piece in the latest edition, the humbling of toith and it makes this point. high speed global growth and ambitious cost cuts that led to the quality lapses that have tarnished this once mighty brand. how did it all go wrong? >> i think that toyota was on the ascendancy and they apparently -- i mean, we don't really know all the reasons why but they apparently made some very bad decisions. many companies that use

electronic throttles, which is one of the issues here, where the connection between your accelerator and your engine is electronic, they put a brake override on. all the german cars, a number of other cars. so if there is a problem, if there is a failure in the soffware of the accelerator the brake will still stop the car. and toyota didn't do that. that's definitely a cost-cutting issue, their failure to do that. also, i think that when the department of transportation got wind of this problem and they started looking into it and started doing investigations, toyota tried to persuade them that wasn't a problem and they closed these investigations. i think that meant that toyota won the battle but they've lost the war. because it was so big and so -- such a terrible defect that it now has gotten all the publicity and the company is struggling to survive with all of these attacks on it from the s.e.c. is looking into it, new york prosecutor is looking into

it. and the department of transportation is doing a review, the inspector general of the department of transportation. so they're having to deal with a worldwide, i'm sure in japan there is, too. in europe. looking at what's wrong with these cars and why this has happened and how to make the public safe. >> it's early in this entire process but what is the long-term impact for toyota as a company? >> it's going to lose customers. it already has. and this has been a company that has excelled at selling cars and at getting across the message that it's reliable and safe vehicles. and people have loved these vehicles. so it's going to have a hard time coming back from that. i think it's a very well financed company so i think that it can survive this problem. but it's going to have to make some major reforms. the president of the company has apologized. he said that they didn't pay enough attention to their customers. they were thinking more about profits and growth than they

were about their customers. and he said that is going to be a new issue in there, the way that they do their company in the future. also, one of the big bureaucratic problems was that there are three different entities of toyota in the united states and all of them connected directly to japan but not to each other. and any big decisions like recall had to be decided in japan and the u.s. people said this is what we think and here it is. and japan would make a decision, and often they would take a long time to do that. also, they're a very secretive company. so it was very hard for the department of transportation to deal with it. they were pretty irritated. they had to send officials to japan in december in order to say, look, if this is a safety issue you're going to have to take care of it. and so i think there's some cultural differences here in addition. so there's a whole series of reasons. >> our guest is joan clay brooke, the president emeritus of public citizen.

we'll get to your phone calls and e malse. on the situation with toyota and the larger issue of highway safety and public transportation. we're talking about automobiles, but any industry, if you look at the airline industry as they look at trying to kstu cut costs to make a profit. where do you draw the line between public safety and profits? and how far are companies going or can they go in this area? >> well, in terms of the automobile manufacturers, they have to meet all the federal standards. and in addition, they should think ahead about when they make changes in their vehicles, such as putting electronics, what is it they can do to have fail-safe protections for the customer? and toyota didn't do that. so i think that if you look at a company like volvo or b.m.w. and mercedes, they've always had better and safer vecks. they've got a beck -- vehicles.

they've got a better stricture, put better seats in. so they protect their customers when there's a crash. and the big issue is whether or not you can control the car, brakes, steering, and whether when you crash you're safe. and some companies are just -- have made a much bigger effort to do that. toyota has done moderately well with crash worthieness, but they've always had good cars to drive. and so when they have a failure of the ability to drive the car, that is the sudden acsell ration and going down the highway at 100 miles an hour, it really scares people and they really failed. they failed in that test. >> let me go back to the business week piece. in 2003 they write a lot of things were going right for toyota. profits were booming. and in 2003 it enjoyed a market capitalization of $110 billion. that is more than gm, ford, and daimlerchrysler combined. today, despite its troubles,

toyota is valued at $132 billion. so the question is, how much more were they trying to make by these cost-cutting measures? . .

i would like to know why people in the senate and congress are sitting back and letting all this stuff go on. i think it's about time they get off their rear ends and do something or else let them vote them all out of there. >> do american automobile makers have their parts shipped in from foreign countries outside of canada? >> they, they do to some extent.

and also of course in mexico where cars are also made. that's true. and it's interesting because toyota often ships parts in from japan as we will so parts are shipped quite substantially. >> what about cars made in the u.s.? >> also ship in japanese parts. they also use parts made here. it's a very complex mix. they're made all over the place depending on the price and the skills and the availability and so on. so it's a very much of a global automobile market now. >> some background on our guest, joan who served in the carter administration is with the national safety administration, also the president emeritus of citizen, president of georgetown university, and fran sin is joining us from vista, california. good morning. caller: good morning. this is fran seen from

california. i'm concerned, i watched the hearings where the panel was interviewing the japanese executives, and all the responses were usually that we will get back to you on that. and then after i watched that just about a day or two ago, an attorney came on that said he represented the toyota industry at one time was an attorney for them, and he had boxes and boxes of detailed information that states they wanted everything covered up. host: and your point? caller: i'm concerned. if this is true and many things

that their government was doing, we don't have rules to guide and restrict them. i think it needs to be set up to be taken care of host: thanks to your call. back to the global marketplace of these cars. guest: it is true that toyota is quite secretive. but so are a lot of companies. a good example is the black box that's in cars. it's not now required but it's about to be. and so the united states companies have a standardized downloading system so you can get the information when a crash occurs and see what happened. and this is quite rellvant for sudden acsell ration because drivers are being blamed in some cases and the question is whether or not they have their foot on the brake or accelerator or so on. the black box should reveal that. toyota testified that they only have one system for downloading their black box in the united states. all the vehicles that they have here with black boxes and that they also have to be decoded by

the japanese, the company, toyota. and so it is a kind of a secrecy that is most unfortunate. and they've been put under a lot of pressure about this so now they're making some downloading systems more readily available so that we can figure out exactly what happened in individual crashes because that's one of the issues raised in this whole evaluation of sudden acsell ration. so not even to the police, not to the department of transportation, not at all. unless you can look at those black boxes and see what the circumstances were, how fast the vehicle was going, whether the accelerator was being pushed to the floor, whether or not the brake was being used, it's hard to evaluate these particular crashes. host: one of the stories posted yesterday was that california

situation, 61-year-old driver who claimed that his preeyuss was going up to 94 miles an hour and now some including the police looking into this are questioning whether or not it was in fact a hoax. guest: well, i got a call from a reporter, and i don't know the details, but i got a call from a reporter in san diego where this occurred and he said that the issue has been raised but i would only point out that the day that this happened was the day that toyota had a big pr event in california to show that or try to show that the vehicles did not have electronics problems. and they were really -- the press paid attention to this car problem and didn't pay attention to their press event. toyota has hired dozens and dozens of -- at least a dozen, i don't know how many but a large number of communications firms. when i was here they had 21 different people from

communications firms, there at the hearing. so they're trying to do a whole p.r. initiative here. and i think that they raised this issue about whether or not that was a hoax, whether or not it was or not i don't know. but they raised the issue because of the interference with their p.r. campaign. host: michael joining us from illinois democrat's line. caller: good morning. i just had one question. is it true that you have he werees? host: i apologize for that. stand by. i apologize for people who get there and that kind of comment so beel go to tim and -- we'll go to tim and move on. caller: steve, idiots like that just irritate the living hell out of me. god almighty. anyway, she just completely discombomb bled me. host: go ahead.

guest: usually it's some idiot guy that does that. i'm really disappointed in women callers who do that. host: it happens from time to time but we'll move on. caller: before i ask joan, i have three very short questions. host: sure. caller: as far as your lines are set up, i'm actually an independent but i vote third party. i voted for ralph nader the last three times. and if i can make a suggestion, instead of having it as independent you have that third line for third party voters, because even then between the greens, the libertarians, the constitutionalists, we're still going to be competing for one line where as the democrats and the republicans are jump over to the independent line. host: that's a good suggestion. caller: i'm still getting over that last caller. any how, i was just wondering

if, joan, i'm going to be forward to call you by your first name. i don't know if you're married or single or whatever. but number one, have you ever worked with ralph nader? and number two, i find it very ironic that when the big three is in trouble, all these republican callers call in blaming those greedy uaw workers. and i haven't heard one complain about nonunion workers at the toyota plant. and i would like to finish up about a story about a friend who worked at ford motor. it was his to slap water on the motors. he ran out of water pumps and stopped the line. the foreman came screaming at him and i can't tell you over the hair what he was calling him but when rick said, i'm out of water pumps, and his foreman said there's a whole bin over there. and rick said they're red

tagged. they're defects. and his foreman said, they're water pumps. aren't they? so when would buy that car and it would overheat between a dealership parking lot and their house, the first thing they want to do is get on those greedy overpaid auto workers. thanks for putting up with me. host: thank you. guest: first, i did work with ralph nader from 1970 to 1977 and i worked on a study of congress and also formed a lobby group when he was head of public citizen. in terms of the way the vehicles are manufactured, i mean, i've heard stories like this before, and that the pressure reduction overcomes the safety issues, and i think that one of the things that's

happened recently is in the last ten years that the cost of recalls has gone up and companies, if their defects are discovered, it's very, very expensive for them to do recalls. and so there's a lot of pressure on them to have more conversation of safety. and also, the u.s. companies have put a great effort in having their cars be better manufactured because of the challenge from companies like toyota and honda and european companies. and so i think the u.s. companies have gotten better. i think cars overall have gotten a lot safer because of safety standards and because of public pressure to have safety on the highway, safety cells. people want safety and i think the auto companies have finally acknowledged that.

caller: win a news happens, it should help all americans.

host: let me share with you one exchange that took place at a house hearing. this was the. whether former nhtsa officials working for toyota represents the perception for the federal government and for the consumer. >> do you think there is an apparent conflict of interest? we are charged as members of congress with insuring that the public interest is always the key. you can understand that people are more than a little concerned when they see that sort of cozy, quick turn over of the revolving door? >>8 ethics laws were broken. mr. santucci and mt tinto, when

they left their post-employment, they were at the level of employee where everything they did complied with the current federal lawyvñs. i will not quibble with you on appearance. perception is reality. the secretary was clear to hiths committee on this issue. he is committed to strengthening the ethics requirements at the department transportation. i fully support his effortm and as far as i'm concerned, i will hold every employee at net sought to the highest ethical standard. the obama administration has made it a focal point that this will be the most ethical administration in history. host: you've been in that role lets the head of mixumixup.

f nhsta. guest: i agree there has to be the highest ethical standards. they could leave the department one day and leave toyota of the next. i think there should be requirements for higher and lower level employees. it is a problem because what happens is the employee to learn how the operation is and how it works and they take that information to the company and that is how they maneuvered to get a lot of these investigation disclosed that were closed by petition. host: why would date -- why would they do that? guest: money, they make more money than with the federal government. they take their expertise and

leigh. members of congress do it. staff in congress do it. other federal officials do it. they lead and in fact that the department transportation, there were about 40 that i have been able to count, a former employees, general counsels, top employees as well as engineers have left and gone to work for the auto industry. they pay a lot of money and they find it very valuable to know the inside thinking process of the agency and how it makes decisions from safety standards and enforcement. they hire these employees to figure it out. host: with toyota, there is a direct connection between the toyota and there is a bond of trust. why did toyota jeopardize that in order to increase its profits?

guest: they thought they were not going to get caught. many companies take that risk. some companies get away with it. hear, toyota cut caught. ford and firestorm got caught. they had a defective product and they did not tell anybody. it was so large that the problem was so huge and sudden acceleration is an incredible experience and what brought this case open was the family in california but once -- went on a cell phone and they all died. it was show shocking to people. the media started looking into it. i would say that in the toyota case, the media had been incredible. they dug up all sorts of information and have kept this a high-profile issue. they have done in credible

analyses. i will not say that the media is perfect but i will say that in specific, they had been jumping on the spot. they showed that nhtsa was not the cop on the corporate beat. they showed that the company failed, toyota, to adequately take care of its customers. they need to design their ways and a way where people are protected. they do not have the bill say it system if the accelerator fails. this is an incredible experience to see this. i think it will cause many changes in the auto industry in terms of the priority they get to safety, the priority they give to save the vehicles.

there has already been changes to toyota and i hope it will be permanent. it has raised the question with the buying public to be more careful and ask more questions. and they need to report their problems. i would urge anybody who has a problem to let the department of transportation noam washington, d.c. because that helps them take action when they get consumer complaints. consumer complaints matter. if they go to the company, they have to be reported to nhtsa. if they go to the dot, that helps them. sg÷the consumers have played a g role, and much more prominent role than normal because of the media coverage of this. i urge everyone to get in touch with the dot if they have any knowledge of problems with any vehicle. host: if you are listening on c- span radio, we have a

conversation with joan claybrook. she was the nhtsa -- she was the former nhtsa administrator. democrats line is next. caller: i was in a car accident and when i was hit at a red light and i was the passenger, i was surgically operated on. the lady ran a red light and chea -- she caused spinal fusio. i have tried and tried to to report this.

i have a serious fracture spinal fusion and i need a repeat spinal fusion and my blue cross does not pay 100%. that leaves me 25% of a very expensive repaid spinal fusion. it is in the neighborhood of half a million dollars. host: i will jump in because this sounds like a personal issue with your health. caller: i cannot get any help from washington. i have tried calling. i have called every judicial organization. i have called department of transportation. i don't know who to call. i cannot get another neurosurgeon because of this insurance situation. it is such a corrupt thing.

how can this happen when we have a constitution and a bill of rights? guest: first of all, there are cameras at many red light intersections. that helps to the turk red blood running which is a terrible accident. i feel very sorry for this call oer because the side impact impacts are among the very worst. i don't know about her particular situation. it is very hard for me to comment on that. i would recommend to go to the state attorney general. they have a consumer protection division in almost every attorney general's office. i think that maybe one place

where she could find relief. host: baltimore, md., independent line, go ahead. caller: i am calling because i think the toyota issue goes back to at least 1999. i had a friend who had toyotasb and another friend who had the same issue. the throttle body was slightly larger than the throttle body itself. we sanded down a millimeter and that fixed the problem. other models seem to have the same problem. we knew that once we went through this system and once this is probably sticks or get stuck, it felt like the computer

would go to a home position and try to find its way back and cannot do that. it will almost go full throttle. that is kind of what happened. i only volkswagen jetta that has the same system in it. it has an override system in it. most of the european and german cars have that -- have had that for quite awhile. are they looking back to 1999- 2000? host: thank you. guest: there are many different designs. the models he is referring to are not under the recall now. there's a statute of

limitations at the department of transportation. they cannot go back more than 10 years. i doubt the dot is looking at those because of that. there are also different designs that they're looking at now. they are the early systems. there is an electronic connection between the accelerator and the engine as opposed to a cable system which is what we used to have. it is not being looked at as far as i know. i would suggest that he write a letter to the department of transportation and ask them to take a look at these vehicles. host: here are more numbers from

the business"week"story. -- "business week "story. toyota rate and $55 billion in operating income in fiscal years 2005-2007. we're joined from jackson, mississippi, good morning. caller: i work on cars. i see the after market parts. companies sublet alternators and things like that. who designed the gas pedal for toyota? guest: i cannot tell you the name of the company for the

floor mats. there are two different recalls. there is the sticky accelerator which was made by a company called tts which is in indiana. they made the systems according to toyota specifications. it sticks at low speeds. i don't know who made the system for the so-called floor mat of vehicles. there were 5 million vehicles that had sudden acceleration when the accelerator jammed under the floor mat. when issues that toyota said it was a floor mat catching on the accelerator. many times, there is no floor mat in the vehicle and the same problem happens. there is a real part concerned there is -- that as an

accelerator issue. host: democrats line, good morning. caller: when there is a problem in a vehicle and the state that i live in, our mass transit administration had a defect with their hub wheels which was coming off their transit buses, what i could not understand is when these defects happen and you go to court and you argued these cases in court, the insurance companies back out and especially in this case where the government is involved, it is like they can push this under the carpet like it never happened. in public transportation and you have these problems of defects

and the government is not willing to correct these problems and stand by the citizens to protect them, how can you take these cases and have the court to deal with these cases? i was injured by a public transportation bus that had a defect. guest: first of all, to go to court in a situation, you have to be injured. you have a claim against either another driver or a vehicle design or, in his case, a defective transit vehicle. yes, you can go to court. lawyers -- consumer lawyers take this on a contingent fee which is when they get paid when they win. they are very fussy about which cases they take.

you don't want to go to court with many large -- a legitimate -- with many illegitimate cases. i think that had he has information about a defect and a transit vehicle which will affect others, he should also report that to the transit authority and the state. they need to be aware of that particular defect. host: what do you think happens next with toyota next? >guest: congress will pass legislation and it will be very active and they will look at the department transportation and what more authority they need to. the civil penalties are much too low. it should be on ltd. $25,000 per vehicle. -- is to be unlimited $25,000

per vehicle. i think the dot needs a much increased budget, doubling the size of the motor safety vehicle budget. dot has a huge budget, 1% of the budget. and the amount of the motor vehicle budget is only 15% of that. there should be a big increase in the budget. i think they will deal with transparency issue. there has been secrecy at the department transportation particularly in the early warning system when companies report potential problems. also the black boxes. i think there will be new requirements for upgrading and having them in cars and requirements for new safety standards. they should look at the whole electronic system of vehicles.

dot is doing a major investigation in toyota to find out more. they demand a lot more and permission from toyota. the congressional committees will keep an eye on this. they will look of what nasa is doing. -- they will look at what nhtsa is doing. toyota has a lot of stuff to take care of. they have gotten themselves in deep trouble so i think we will see what the determination is. host: thank you for stopping by. we will take a short break and when we come back, more on health care, a lot more this

week as we gear up for what will likely be a vote at the end of this week in the house of representatives. speaker policy is predicting victory. john painter and other republicans are appearing on sunday programs to weigh in on the debate and we want to hear from you and a couple of minutes. the" newsmakers"program will air a special time this week. next, we want to take a look at the events of the past week. these of the editorial cartoonists are around the country.

>> "washington journal" continues. >host: is failure forgivable? that is the question. president barack obama will face a different political landscape. washington is already debating how pivotal vote will be to his presidency. mr. obama has devoted vast energy and political capital to get to this point. it is the presidential equivalent of an all in bed at the poker table. it would damage his credibility as the leader for months and years if this does not go through. the republican response came from scott brown. >> the greater the public

opposition to the health care bill, the more determined they seem to force it on us anyway. their attitude shows that washington is at its worst and the presumption that they know best and they will get their way whether the american people like it or not. when politicians think like that, they don't let anything get in their way, not public opinion, not the rules of fair play, not even their own promises. instead, we have a health-care bill tainted by secrecy, concealed costs, and full bathroom deals. that is not right. they should do better. the american people expect more. they pledged a true bipartisan effort and instead they have resorted to bending the rules and they now intend to seize control of health care in america on a strict party-line vote. in speech after speech, the president has tried to convince

us that the ways he is proposing will be good for america. how can it be good if it raises taxes by half a trillion dollars and costs $1 trillion to implement? host: that was from scott brown, the republican from massachusetts. our phone lines are open. let me go back to peter baker's peace. if the health care effort fails, curbing carbon emissions would seem out of reach. some democratic candidates would run away from obama and he would be forced to consider a narrower

agenda like the one pursued by bill clinton after his health- care drive collapsed. peter baker also has a piece in the sunday magazine of ""new york times." two weeks before the massachusetts election, there was a conversation with rahm emanuel at with staffers at the white house. this was about the senate seat in massachusetts. caller: i am very upset with the president. yesterday in the mail i receive from the democratic party, a questionnaire on the president. i was-on a questionnaire. -- i was knee -- i was very negative on that questionnaire. i am urging democrats to vote republican, come november forget those democrats out of office because what they are doing is

they are letting the seniors pay for this health care by taking all that money out of medicare. how can they say that the medicare benefits will not be cut when they take that kind of money out of it? he is using debt to pay for his health care overhaul. host: senator in haholfe is talking about real spending restraints. he wants to cut the deficit, reduce the cost of health care, and not be saddled with an expense account and trade tax. he says the country needs non discretionary spending to the levels we saw prior to the massive expansion of government over the past two years. senator inholfe will be our guest on "newsmakers"later this

morning. caller: ina world war two veteran and i have been on 100% disability for many years when i got out of the service. i went to the va system. at 100% disability, the government and the va would treat me for any element. now, when i go to the va, because of the clinton administration, they were the ones in 1993 who took everybody off the welfare system through hillary clinton and put them in the va hospital. i have to wait six months to see a doctor now. when i do, instead of the va paying for my service, they charge my adrp and my medicare. this is where all the money is

going from the va that they give billions of dollars per year to run the system. why are they charging 100% and disabled that essence? host: the aarp is not a government agency. guest: they are seeking the money from my medicare to pay the services they offer me. host: erie, pa., independent , good morning. caller: i hope that none of these people do vote republican. host: is that your point? caller: i am listening to all these other people that are misinformed about this. we have to get a nationalized

health plan. we need to have no insurance crap. it has to be done and a european system, one of germany? host: jacobsen, washington, -- yaima, washington. caller: i agree with the last caller. the republicans always call in and they are so against government health care but there are two government health systems that have kept them alive. the republicans do not speak for the american people. they only speak for themselves and they are watching out for the corporate interest. host: why don't you have health care? caller: i make slightly too much money. i own my own business. i can qualify for free health care. my wife is pregnant now and

insurance companies call pregnancy a preexisting condition. host: a does she have health care? caller: no, she has been denied by the state. i got a part-time job over the winter and i make too much money now. host: who will pay for the baby when it is born? caller: i will have to pay for that and possibly there are charities to help cover that. people who have insurance will pay for it anyway. i don't see why the runaround. host: the republican line, washington, d.c., good morning. caller: i don't know what he is talking about. if he makes so much money, you just have to call kaiser or blue cross and they will put him on a monthly plan. i have health care now through

the city and all i hear is about abortion clauses. we need to set them down and as with the armed been doing. host: shepherd's town, west virginia, good morning. caller: i want to make a point about these polls when people say they are healthy and have insurance. most people are very healthy and never have any call to use their health insurance. naturally, if you ask if they are unhappy, they say no. the polls should be to the people who have gotten sick and have tried to use their health insurance. you would see the results would be significantly different. host: also there will be state

of the union addresses. >> we are very optimistic about the outcome of this process. i think people have come to the realization that this is the moment and if we do not act now, there will be dire consequences for people all over this country in terms of higher rates and being able to be excluded from health care if they have pre- existing conditions or being thrown off of their health care if they get sick. there will be dire consequences for small businesses who are being priced out of the market. there are individuals who have been priced out of the market. this is the future if we do not act now. the sense of urgency has overtaken the process. host: that is from david axelrod

this past hour on cnn. democrats line, good morning. caller: is interesting to hear the republicans say what the american people do not want. to hear them consistently say this every week night talk show about what people do not want, that is very disingenuous. xzcaetna cut 650,000 people in illinois. i would ask the republicans if those people want a health care plan that would at least stop these companies from dropping people. host:"the washington post" and"

the new york times" address the no child left behind. president is calling for a broad overhaul of president bush's program. republican line from new jersey, good morning. caller: this is my first time being able to get through. i used to have excellent health care. i used to work for fedex. i was hit by a drunk driver and became disabled and i have no health coverage. i finally got medicaid. i was excited because i was having so many problems. i had seizures and i went without seeing a doctor for two years. i thought that finally i would be able to see a neurologist and other specialists medicaid is

great for going to a family doctor and getting prescriptions and tests but you cannot see any specialists. you cannot see a neurologist. you have to wait for-six months and you could only see one through a clinic. you cannot see a regular doctor. you get there and they do nothing for you. they do not even examined you. i have papers to show this doctor that i have been having seizures. i have a brain mri showing that i have three things pressing on my brain and she did not want to see it. she said the doctors and the tests were wrong. she just did not want to waste your time for people on medicaid. host: fayetteville, n.c., democrats line, good morning. caller: i would like to say that

i watch c-span daily. i am a disabled and retired veteran. the guy who called about the veterans administration is right that this is on bill clinton. the benefits from va have been cut since they were started. every year, they get chopped. they have been cut continuously in every decade. thank you for letting the call this morning. host: republican line, houston, texas, what do you think about the health care debate that will continue in earnest on the house floor? caller: thank you for taking my call. i am an american and i am highly 0 fended of all the corruption that is going on in washington.

i am offended they would use our money and a mandate to use our money to fund abortion. i am highly offended and i'm calling all apathetic christians to stand up in revolt against this congress. i do not believe in killing our children and taking our money and forcing it down our throats. it is highly offensive hoste. host: you can watch all the coverage of the house on c-span. caller: i have a few suggestions to help out with health care. i think they should make all medical bills tax-deductible without having to achieved 7.5% of your net income. they should also give tax incentives to companies that of

pickup 150% of the cost. no matter how much money you make, you should be able to write off medical bills. people will spend more money and people -- and money will be put into the economy. host:" the weekly standard" is calling the health-care bill the anti-jobs bill. they say the end game is as unseemly as the various maneuvers and back room deals got them this far. they say this is outrageous and embarrassing. we're joined from madison, wisconsin, good morning. caller: i think obama should have taken a page of the clinton book.

i think he been off more than he can chew. he should brought down the cost and made it more affordable for those of us who have insurance. we would be more likely to contribute to the cost of health care for those who do not have it. host: lansdowne, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: i would like to see some information that explains what is going on. i do not understand the medical initiative at all. i feel that if anybody is going after anybody, we should be going after the companies that make the medicines that some of

us need to take. i have noticed over the years that an injectable medicine that i need for my multiples cirrhosis has jumped from $1,800 per month to $2,600 per month that is for an injection that i have to give myself four times per month. that is for my multiflora -- multiple sclerosis. i am also on sells security. -- i am also on social security. i got in touch with my pennsylvania senator because of the lack of increases in our social security. host: thank you for your call and all of your calls and comments.

thes this week and you could once the boat as it happens toward the end of this week. our conversation continue tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. we will have a roundtable discussion on health care. that is tomorrow morning on c- span's "washington journal." at 10:00 eastern, karl rove will join us on the book tv program on c-span to. n-2. he was called the architect of the 2000 and 2004 campaigns for the president. at noon, we'll have our live " newsmakers" program. enjoy the west of your weekend. . .