get some historic perspective on how passage of the health care bill, which the president signed today. george washington university professor edward berkowitz will join us. after that, proposed changes to u.s. education system with education secretary arne duncan. later, a conversation on health care, politics, and the november elections with bill kristol of "the weekly standard. "washington journal" is next. . .

revelation. and the senate parliamentarian will be asked to rule. in some cases you will hear arguments from both sides. another case is the points will be raised on the floor. and you will have to make a ruling from there. a host of you right to today, a story called gop launches final move against health bill. you start off by writing the gop officially launches its last day of the dance health care reform today. tell us more about this last stand? guest: the president will sign the bulk of the legislation into law today. it is hard to quantify, 99%, 95%

of the reform democrats were seeking on their agenda is going to be a done deal and there is nothing anyone can do about it anymore. at least not in terms of blocking. so i think what republicans are looking to do is continue opposing what is left to be done -- both showing constituents, those opposed to the president's health-care agenda, that they have not given up -- continuing to poles and the health care legislation. a little procedural exercise because they feel the reconciliation bill, as presented so far, does not necessarily adhere to the rules. and i think republicans also believe every day they can talk about health care on the senate floor, and the capital, on television, is a dude -- good day for them politically.

and republicans still have designs down the road trying to either adjust or repeal if not portions of the president's bill, but the bill entirely. host: you wrote but senate democratic leadership has been successful obtaining commitments from rank-and-file members to vote down all republican amendments, even those that might be politically problematic, november. however, one democratic source said the leadership is still working to ensure no democrats propose amends to their own. do you think you will see democrats bring things to the table? guest: of it is possible, but the thing about the reconciliation bill, you change one comma or a period and it has to go back to the house for a revote. that is where republicans say they can create problems for democrats and extended health care debate. if a democrat were deposed the amendment, if it were to pass it would have to go to the house for a revote.

what democratic leaders are trying to do is preserve the integrity of the bill. harry reid, nancy pelosi, the white house negotiate the contact of the reconciliation package. harry reid guarantee he would have 51 senators to support reconciliation. all it takes to pass. again, any change by the democrats, it causes the house to have to debate the thing over again and revote. we don't know yet democrats will agree not to propose their own and amendments. i am told it is likely if they did propose an amendment, enough democrats would vote it down that it would not cause a change. so it will be interesting to see, for instance, if any democratic senator chooses to oppose the amendment for a public insurance option, which is still popular in some quarters. democrats are trying to keep their conference unified the same way the republican

conference appears to be unified. host: "the philadelphia inquirer" says gop regroups for senate health showdown. "the washington times" let us take at look at that one. the gop fighting mad. and other reports from other outlets like " the new york times" talking about how the health boat is of a partisan debate rages on. do you have a sense of how focus the american public will be on the senate floor? the republicans see this as a chance to gain political points? guest: they do see it as a chance. it will be interesting to see what the focus is on the senate action, only because the president today will hold a big signing ceremony. it appears that the bulk of the health care reform as the president wanted it will become law. but polls continue to show the public is engaged in the health- care debate, and they are watching what goes on on capitol hill because the unemployment remains high and people are insecure and concerned and they

are not pleased with the direction of the country. so i think that republicans believe that if they continue to discuss health care reform it keeps the eye on the ball in terms of things people don't like about democratic leadership. that is being republican position. the and democrats in the senate's -- and democrats in the senate are aware people might be paying attention so that is why their goal is to give it away from procedure and shine a light on all of the benefits that are in the health care reform bill, some of which will kick in immediately over the next three, six, to nine months and others, of course, which don't kick in until 2014. but it will be a message battle. i think people will continue to be engaged generally. how much they wanted the senate floor fight, that will be interesting all because people, after the watts the president signed the bill, will be aware that the main battle over the white house reform agenda has been one.

host: who are the players to watch? guest: i think on the democrat side, kent conrad, but the chairman, harry reid and dick durbin, majority whip. kind of his job to make sure that his members vote the way the leadership would like them to vote. on the republican side, i take a look at judd gregg, the ranking republican on the budget committee. the republican point man for reconciliation, and tried to poke holes. watch mitch mcconnell, a decent strategist in his own right and republican leader. and jon kyl, the republican whip. the republicans, they already signed a letter, all 41, that they would also bar budget point of order -- and any budget point of order would take 60 votes to over,. democrats only have 59 votes as

long as republicans remained unified. host: and democrats that they peel off or is it written stone? guest: i don't think anything is written in stone. but i can't say that senator michael bennett, appointed to replace ken salazar, interior secretary, is standing for election for the first time in colorado. he is a big proponent of the public insurance option. and at least last week when i talked to him was not ruling out the possibility of proposing an amendment to include -- to add a public insurance option to the reconciliation package. he wanted to see the final outcome in the house to see if the james does mind -- decided since i talked to him not to do so but it is something he was public about wanting to do. host: david drucker, staff writer ed "roll-call -- staff writer at rollcall.com.

we will switch gears to taxes. >> in all, we sent $175 billion in refunds out through march 12. a what is really telling about these numbers is that so far this year we sent out $6 billion more in refunds than the same period a year ago, even though we actually received a less returns because of the bad weather, the hit in many parts of the country. a major factor in these larger refund numbers has been the recovery act. from buying homes to allow people with their college expenses, the recovery provisions have increased tax payer refunds to record levels. and this is going to continue in the weeks ahead because roughly half of the american taxpayers have not yet filed their tax returns. so those who have not filed yet, we want to remind everyone about

the many important recovery credits and deductions that they may be eligible for this year. host: irs commissioner talking about tax returns. have the new tax provisions affecting you? you give us a call -- our e-mail address is journal@c- span.org and you can find us on twitter, c-spanwj, and we also have a facebook page where you can find more about our schedule and the comments. our question relates to some of the news that came out yesterday, looking at tax returns and how the administration is viewing the success rate of stimulus funds. let us look at abc news reporting on this. vice president biden announced that the average tax american

refund is up nearly 10% because of tax benefits from last year's recovery act. this news report from abc says the stimulus act had tax credits and savings able to working families, first-time homebuyers, americans making energy- efficient improvements on their homes, and people who purchased a new car last year. vice president biden called this welcome news for an awful lot of americans had said the tax refund tax will not just be a boost to their bank accounts. the vice president is set for hard-working folks, this extra cash in their pockets in tight times can make an astounding difference in terms of attitudes as well. the obama administration said irs data shows less than half of the overall expected returns have been filed. that is why the an ounce yesterday to make sure the taxpayers are aware of the new benefits available. and this story from "the salt lake tribune."

helped push average refunds from 2009 tax year up almost 10%, or $266 per household. how have they affected you? clyde on the independent line from detroit, michigan. caller: good morning to you. thank you for taking my call i watched -- the thing with this health care debate. i am an independent. i did not vote for obama but what little measures he was trying to get through -- i was for universal health care. i know he was able to get people like kucinich on board, more of the left-leaning democrat on board. but these tax provisions, i still feel the tax cuts were so unbalanced in this country. while my mom, who is a senior, would take the $260 graciously and can find a whole lot to do with it, it is just so much

injustice in our tax system and i just really, really would like to see poor working class people start thinking about putting more pressure on democrats and republicans to make things more balanced. for example, with a high taxes and people losing their homes. tax the oil companies to fund a jobs bill would directorate profits. thank you for taking my call and let me comment. have a wonderful day. host: bill, democrats line. new mexico. caller: i have two comments. the first one is i am hoping the tax credits will come bill for my -- i just put in a radiant before and i put a little wind tower on my property, 5 acres. -- i just put in a radiant

floor. and how will the irs handle individuals who have offshore accounts like in switzerland and every year they file a fraudulent false tax report claimed? host: have you filed your tax returns yet? caller: they are right on my desk right now and i am halfway down. host: do you have a sense of whether of the home improvement or efficiency measures will pay off? caller: i think they will pay off pretty big because i paid like 15,000 sofar on my green power, and i should get a return back of about 10% to 15%. that is a good saving. host: thank you for your call. let us look back at the "salt lake tribune" article that we got off the web. the average tax refund is $3,036

so far this year, the head of the irs said. and tax changes in the stimulus are a major factor in driving the increase. the administration has set up an online text tool to help taxpayers ensure they take advantage of more than a dozen tax breaks available under the law. you can see the website there. the vice president of the broadest category includes more than 110 million americans qualify for the whitney -- making work pay tax credit. individuals $400 a year and married couples $800 a year. edward, republican line, leesburg, florida. caller: good morning, how are you doing? thank you for taking my call. i tell you, it is time to our country to go to a fair tax. we are being overtaxed everywhere you go. here in florida now, my old truck was the $61 the year before and today it was $91 just

to redo my tag. what we need is a fair tax. i'm going to tell the american public, get ready for the vat, and if they don't know what the vat tax is, they need to look up. i did not want to tell them. because i want them to research something. we are going that way and the tax situation in this country is terrible. host: have you file your taxes yet? caller: i filed my taxes and because i had a cd which paid may lessen than 1.5%, they took away the profit i made on my cd. and i did a report of my earnings. and thank you for asking me. have a nice day. a host: independent line, atlanta, dirge and -- georgia. have you filed your taxes yet and have the new provisions affected you? caller: i did. i got more back.

but the point of it is, without my wife working, i still made a negative. i was an independent contractor and i had to pay out more for expenses that i took in. so if i was not work -- married, i would be living under a bridge. a and i'm an independent but i agree with the republican guy right now, that we need a fair tax of sword. -- of sorts. i might not be to live with his ideology but we need a fair tax, something that will not hurt the little guy. i am just the little guy. one independent operator. but i'm in business for myself. but i get really killed because i have to pay on top of all of my expenses, which was like $30,000, does because i'm an independent operator. that is the law and i live in america and i know that and i don't lead anywhere else.

other countries have better situations, others have less. i think in america, we can do it better here, and we can create something that gives the little guy like me a better chance. when i go in the red light that, that i don't have to pay extra also. host: have benefited at all from the stimulus funds? caller: believe it or not, the stimulus funds is the reason why i still have my phone on today and television looking and talking to you because of the wise -- i have learned how to parlay a lot of those funds into savings and just money management which a lot of americans doing nowadays. a lot more money management. and that is where i am also, because, you know, everybody is going to tighten the belt nowadays. we are still in the middle of a depression. people on wall street -- that is another subject, will not get into that. it but the thing of it is, the

more money that you put in people's hands -- the people paying is what stimulates and keep this economy afloat. for instance, ok, it is not feasible to put $200,000 in every taxpayers' hands because it is not feasible, although that would stimulate the economy more than putting it into businesses hands. but there has to be something similar that will work, that will stimulate the economy and bring it out of this trend that we are in. host: all right. let us go to michael. independent caller from new york. caller: good morning. i save the money on buying a house. i got the house for $300,000 less than what they were asking two or three years ago. but i did want to bring out one thing which would give tax savings of $2,000 a year to each

person. i am a senior professor of accounting at a business school and boston. what president bush did was he bought 10 billion barrels of oil from the strategic oil reserves and saudi arabia is only 4% of u.s. oil and canadian as 31%. what he should do is do the same thing clinton did. we are no longer at war with iraq. suspend the war powers act. it sell the 10 billion barrels of oil to people on medicare, senior citizens, the disabled, and people on the part of the level. and that will bring gasoline for them down to $1.25 a gallon -- a barrel, when clinton sold off, and $1.75 to ordinary people. the obama once a stimulus program that will even do better

than lower taxes, sell off the 10 billion barrels of oil. it is a great thing for texas. a great things -- this $80 oil is taking out about almost $89 trillion out of the economy. and oil has been historically around $20 a barrel. so, do what clinton did and sell off at least half of these war reserves, the war is over. host: tactic, democrat line, tupelo, mississippi -- patsy. caller: thank you for taking my call. this tax has not helped us at all. and although i am a democrat, i have never seen anything like this before in my life. i have one comment to make. as a democrat that i am entitled to -- everything that i have been watching and following over

the past -- since this president was elected, i have elected him. i will never, ever both democratic again. they can forget us from now on. we are headed down to a road for destruction. host: are you seeing that in your taxes? have you figured out if you benefit? caller: i have figured it out. we are not going to benefit. as a matter of fact, we are an independent owner, trucking company. we are being forced to sell out. this president is not going to help us or anybody else. he is in it for the long haul for himself. and did little cricket buddies up there -- nancy pelosi, harry reid, they are all crooks. there is nothing we can do. our hands are tied. i feel like our hands are tied.

host: sorry to cut you off. rodney from austin, texas, on the independent line. caller: good morning to you. how do you guys go about picking your quotes to support your talking points such as above quote that came from vice president joe biden? host: they are not necessarily talking points but sharing what is going on in the news the last 24 hours a show -- or so. caller: i can't say i actually benefit from any of these credits or the stimulus but, at new know, i do not put any stock in anything joe biden said. this is the same vice-president last week who embarrassed the president and prime minister of ireland by announcing that the man's mother had died, and now you guys are quoting him as

saying that 10% of people -- whatever the quote was, but he cited the number 10% i did not believe anything joe biden says. and quite frankly, i kind of believe what a lot of people are saying, that how are you going to benefit from anything when every time you look around the there is a new tax? in fact, this new health care that was just passed, according to "of the hill close what it is saying that -- accordingt -- he hill," by the time and by the benefits of seven years out but taxes will really taken so anything anybody gets now it will probably be in not immediately from taxes from this new health care package. host: let us go to the republican line. wesley is in louisiana.

good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. i watch it every morning. i really enjoy it. i am retired military and, you know, president obama promised a tax cut for 95% of the american people. i got that tax cut last april. i got a payment from the military, and my taxes had been blowing $67 a month. -- had been lowered $67 a month. that is great. well, in january they started taking its back. so when i filed my taxes this year i talked to my cpa, instead of a tax cut i got a tax delay. i will wind up paying the same amount of taxes whether i got the cut or not. exactly right. it it was not a tax cut, a tax delay. that is not a tax cut, that is a joke. i guess he thinks he can fool the people by doing this but we are still paying the same amount

of taxes. host: jack, democrats line, oakland, illinois. caller: good morning. i am really disappointed with this tax issue, this new package. my opinion -- if i am wrong, i apologize. i feel we are being put like a blindfold over our eyes and, wham, it all works out where this looks good. 1%, i understand as far as increasing taxes. but in the long run we all know that raising taxes is not the cure. it is not the magic pill. there is going to be some strain, some stress. we are in a recession right now, a bad recession. let's go back several years when we had a freeze put on everything, for a reasonable amount of years. you can't raise nothing but you can lower it. put a freeze.

if we are going to tax something, let us gathered the money out so we can balance the budget, so security -- i'm a diabetic, i have put -- high blood pressure, my health is not the best. as far as the tax cut package, i am not benefiting none from it. host: let us look at some other stars from the news. this is from "the wall street journal." financial overhaul advances. part of a broader strategy by the obama administration to pressure the gop to vote on the regulatory overhaul. it looks like republicans will weigh in as it gets to the floor. also taking a look at some other stories in the news. former presidents bush and clinton visited haiti. they toward the rubble-filled capital monday to raise aid and investment. that comes from "the washington post."

and a story from "the wall street journal" -- acorn is disbanded. the community activist group said on monday. it had long helped register people to vote on ways long way viewed to help democrat candidates. it turns out of shoots and other groups will continue under other names. in "the washington post," it is senator lindsey graham offers a plan for handling detainees. a republican from south carolina said the draft legislation to the white house to create a broad framework for handling television -- terrorism suspects.

we will watching that as this develop. let us go back to your calls. floyd, a republican line, norfolk, virginia. caller: i would just like to ask about -- you know, when this government was trying to help all of these people with their houses and everything, and i did not need no help and i was making it and still find -- just fine until one accident took me out of work and lost all of my income. because of what i made for the last 15, 20 years, i guess it affected me because they told me i did not need no help. now i spent all of the money that i saved, and the 401k and savings plans, and i have asked

the government for help to help me renegotiate my loans, which was not more than i could afford at the time but now i am taking everything i could get to make a payment, and i need help. and the government don't -- all the paperwork that they give you, you can't find it. and i don't know which way to go before i lose the house. host: have you saw any advice, a lot of clinics have people that can help. caller: yes, ma'am. everyone of them -- if you paint in foreclosure and -- i paid up all my bills to make sure i do qualify and now i don't qualify because i did pay off all of the people that i old. see what i am saying. now they say i did not have enough debt ratio. well i thought the thing was to

pay off the people that you owe because you borrowed it from them, and now that i did that it is costing me. host: let us go to eric on the independent line from both cretonne, florida. have the tax provisions affecting you? caller: yes, it has affected me. i was laid off from my job in late february and unfortunately i filed my income taxes and the the early and i got my tax return doubled. the so i am basically living off that now. host: do you know what caused it to double? a provision in particular? caller: i filed the 1040 ez -- it was all part of the stimulus plan and everything. i had my returns -- i had help filing return and that is what the person helping me said. so, it is interesting -- i find

it interesting that people have a big problem when we spend tax money on helping american people but when we spend hundreds of billions of dollars, some say waitrons of dollars, to destroy two countries and tried to rebuild them -- talk about iraq and afghanistan, of course digging people don't say anything. host: i want to take a look at "the salt lake tribune" article looking at specific tax benefits. some of the details in my find waiting for you when you sit

down to your taxes. memphis, tennessee, on the democrats' line. caller: mitchell in miami. host: mitchell, welcome. caller: what happened is, basically we are going to get over this situation, but it is usually always the south for the past 50 + years and it is more or less the conservatives who are basically dixiecrat mentality but the young people are seeing it and little bit different and now they have a chance to totally observe what they have been taught basically on both sides of the aisles, meaning their families, they differ, but they tried to respect and i think the young people have more input in our nation for the future based on what they see their parents have no fully grounds, no grounds totally to be against this new

reform which basically is going to be improved in due time, but they will and spite of positive things this particular group focus on cutting their nose to spite their face and also vacate -- claim to be religious and claim to be christian. host: ok, let us take a look of the cause of iraq reconstruction but one of the callers mentioned the wars in iraq and afghanistan. from "usa today." of that it spent 44.6 million at the end of last -- 46 -- $44.6 billion at the end of last appeared to have information about security, it infrastructure, and governments. a wreck security forces, $21 billion. infrastructure, $11 billion. governments, and little over $6 billion. and then other sources. looking at down, and they also

talk about some of the goals and results. health care, security forces, drinking water, sewage, and then you see electricity and then the oil industry. some of the things the iraq reconstruction has gone toward. let us go to south bend, indiana, which rolled is on the independent line. the winter wrong? let us go to a different line. at santa clara, california, pete, independent line. caller: i hope people take note of the tenor of most of the calls, discussed with the taxation system. i have a unique proposal to put forth. and that is, how about stop spending by the government? how where it is that they say no to anything with respect to spending. talking about the legislature. host: what would you like to see happen, how would you like to see the government funded?

caller: i would like to see the government say no to spending and actually teach the people, or reflect the will of the people, to reduce spending. it is so rare. they say, it can be paid for, let us just continue to increase taxes. host: the next caller -- good morning, welcome to the program. caller: good morning. host: what is your name? caller: larry. host: calling from pittsburg? caller: yes, i'm. host: any particular provision? caller: the tax credit for the college tuition. i've got two kids in college. one of which turned 22 last year, no longer on our health insurance so do to her problems she had, as snowboarding accident, was not able to get

more private insurance so i had to go with cobra benefits and a tax refund actually paid for her premiums for the entire year. host: when this bill is signed into law, when president obama signs the health care bill, do you have a sense you will be able to roll her into your plan? caller: i am not sure. i it may have to wait until open season. but i am hoping i will be able to before the end of the year. host: let us go to our next caller. john, republican line. good morning. john, good morning. ok, let us check out some more of the store is going on in the news today. this from "the financial times." google bids to god's chinese censors -- dodds' chinese censors.

we are going to talk a little bit more about health care in a little bit, trying to look at the historical perspective on what the legislation means of terms of prior legislation. how does it compare to other bills that were passed over the years, over the past decade? but i want to give you a sense of how some of the newspapers are reporting on the big signing today and also the passage sunday night on health care legislation. "usa today" has a big spread, what it means to you. personal impact for the americans who are poor, uninsured, sr., upper-income taxpayers, how they will be affected, and also the time line, when things will actually take effect that will look at what will come into play in 2010, 2011, and on down the

line. you can see that they're down to 2017, 2018. and it looked as some of the other papers. checking out "the washington post," that has a recap of the last six -- couple of months. 61 days from near defeat to victory. it tracks back to the last couple of months looking at what happened, starting january and the scott brown when of the democratically held a seat in massachusetts that went republican and now the democrats were able to get back into play when it comes to health care legislation. let us get to our next call, sterling heights, michigan, chris, independent line beard have a new tax provisions affecting you? caller: yes, i have seen some improvements. my wife is a teaching paraprofessional and when i track the federal income tax on the check i always see a zero.

i have seen a reduction in my federal taxes. to answer the question, yes, i have seen some improvement. host: yank -- hank, independent line, michigan herrity caller: in all, i have seen a great deal of improvement. i have seen this president barack obama just day one, he looks like he is working 20-hour days or something. he is continually fighting for people that is what i respect most about him. recently he got the nobel peace prize and he got over a million dollars as caught -- part of the reward. and he has given that to charity. that is a million dollars and he's got two kids of his own. he is not one of those multimillionaires like mitt romney and john mccain.

host: have you file your taxes yet? caller: no, i have not yet. host: do you have a sense of the provisions will make any difference for you? caller: i just think everything is working out probably as well as they could under the present conditions in the country. so many things are happening for the better. i just think it is a matter of time. the health care thing. if we would have had this years ago, i do not think general motors would be fighting for their life because there is a big difference in the auto industry here, paying for health care, doing negotiations where foreign automakers like toyota today, in here and the japanese government is taking care of their health. host: past, republicans line, burbank. caller: two items on the tax break that is help to me.

not the child -- but making america work, the $800 tax break. also i was unemployed for a few months last year and a tax break on my unemployment help to me also. so i found a big increase in my tax refund this year because of that. the other thing i would like to say, i have been a republican, i did not vote for obama but i think he is doing a great job and with all the republican senators and congressmen being against him i think the man should get a lot of credit. host: coming up next, we will talk about the current congressional efforts on health care and how it stacks up and to other major measures like social security and medicare. we will be joined by george washington university professor edward berkowitz

>> this morning president obama signs the health-care legislation. live coverage from east room of the white house beginning at 11:15 a.m. eastern, on c-span2, c-span radio and live online at c-span.org. on c-span freak, a coverage of a

couple of hearings. treasury secretary timothy geithner testifying on the future of mortgages and housing markets. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. sec chairman julius genachowski testified about the national broadband plan before the senate commerce committee. and this weekend, a campaign rally but senator john mccain. he will be joined by his former running mate sarah palin in a rally in a maze that, ever done. he is running against former house member hayworth in the republican primary. a live coverage, saturday at noon, here on c-span. >> " washington journal" continues. host: our guest is ed berkowitz, history professor at george washington university. glad you can be here. it talk to us about how this legislation compares to other bills in the past. the big topic that we will talk

about the next 25 minutes or so. but give us historical perspective of how major it is. guest: certainly one of the three big ones. my personal list for the big ones was so security, 1935, huger than any deals with them, where we start our social security program and unemployment compensation and welfare programs. number two, particularly in this field, 1965 when medicare was passed, which was an amendment to the social security act. that really just part of that -- carved out a whole new realm of health insurance for the elderly but the government providing financial support to the elderly for health care. other than that, i think this one may be no. 3. it is a complicated law that brings together lots of different committees and congress and lots of different programs. all these people are jealously

guarding their jurisdictions. in some ways also, it is the hardest of these things because in 1935, the federal government was working with kind of an open field, not much there, so they were fairly free to do things. and much of that legislation provided money to the states for one thing or the other. so it was the kind of thing most people were reasonably happy with. medicare also, it passed in a time when there was plenty of money around and is sent to me what medicare said was, ok, we will buy a health insurance policy for the elderly having trouble getting health insurance because they are retired or more ill or what ever appeared and the essentially they just bought into the system and provided rather liberal subsidies to the hospitals and doctors and actually were able to unite both the democratic and republican approaches and marry them together. also in medicare, everything was very tightly held by the ways and means committee, which did

not have any subcommittees' -- a committee as a whole, so they had a unified place to enact public policy and that in many ways made it easier. of course, it was a controversial measure in 1965. a lot of people talk about socialized medicine, but in the and it passed relatively easily. then we come to this legislation, in many ways, the hardest of any to pass -- probably the politics is as difficult on this as they were for any of the other pieces of legislation. i put it right up there for the big three. it host: a report in "the washington post" over the weekend, how it stacks up. talk to us how bipartisan the other measures were? guest: elwell, i think in all three cases, it is fair to say the democrats were the lead

party and republicans were the minority party and the official republican position and all three cases was pretty much against the legislation. but you have to remember in 1935, president roosevelt had very fat congress to work with. he had a big majority of democrats and actually they complained, they complained about the social security part of the legislation because, like this legislation today, it was started out by taking money help of people's checks in 1937 and it was not going to pay regular benefits until 1942 and congress said, what is the point of that when people need help today. so there was opposition. but the president kind of sat them down and i want this and it passed with big numbers. medicare was a more complicated situation. that came in 1965. it just had a sort of the perfect sequence of events to get past. john f. kennedy died in 1963 but he did not just by at the beginning of the term, but at the end of the terms of

president johnson did not have time to build up ill will and in 1964 we passed civil rights act, which was always one of the stumbling blocks -- which is sort of like abortion. there was an issue that people used to block social legislation and in this case -- hospitals, we did not want to integrate the hospitals. but the civil-rights act passed in 1964 so it took up the table and then they have the election that gave lyndon johnson this really fat majority so they made medicare hr #1 in the congress and that had a lot of momentum and everybody realized it would pass so in the and it basically was a bipartisan measure because it had both the democratic and republican alternatives. host: "the financial times" looks at healthcare history in the making. they look at past presidents and what they attempted, starting with president truman, 1945- 1948, government run health insurance fund, funding to increase the number of doctors

and nurses and hospitals and what went wrong. american medical association attacked the plan as socialized medicine and accused his team of telling the moscow party line. guest: you have to remember president roosevelt died in 1945 and president truman takes over and he is feeling really inadequate, if that is not to clinical a term, to fill these incredibly large soyuz -- shoes. they can upon healthcare, which is a good post war thing. optimistic. but they did not have a chance. it was doomed from the beginning even at that time, the social security system did not cover everybody -- almost half of the population was not covered. it was a tough sell to push health care at a time in which social security itself was not very popular. the ama was able to say, do you want the government and the room where you are being

examined? people feel terrible anyway when they are being examined, having the intimate -- like the person from espn, where someone saw her through the keyhole, there is a sense of violation of privacy so the idea that the government is coming in there with the doctor was a pretty effective thing to block this. they did not have the votes. and truman i think was a nonstarter. host: next up, lyndon johnson, creation of medicare and medicaid, government run, covering the elderly, poor, disabled. what went wrong -- the schemes were passed and now highly popular but have contributed to the ballooning costs of u.s. healthcare. a comment from president johnson -- no longer older americans tonight healing miracle of modern medicine. give us a sense of how controversial? guest: what happens after truman -- i'm a historian so i have to go back to laborious detail. after truman said, this is tough. we need another plant. around 1952 somebody said, let's

just go with the elderly. that is a good group to appeal to because the elderly is really getting short shrift from our present health insurance system. let us say, ok, the working aged people will get health insurance through their employers. and the elderly are going to get what came to be called medicare. president kennedy pushed that very hard in 1961. we had started formally in 1967 or so -- 1957 or so. but the person who introduced it was like the third ranking guy in ways and means committee. they really could not get the top folks interested. in part because there was another battle, disability insurance. paying social security benefits. that distracted attention until 1956. then the medicare thing took over, and once again, ama said we did not want to have this, socialized medicine. president kennedy pushed very hard when he was president.

he got a vote in 1962 but they lost by one vote in the senate and never came to a vote in the house. it was being considered by the ways and means committee when president kennedy was assassinated and they basically just said we are not going to meet on this any more so it kind of debt inherited by lyndon johnson and he takes it and it becomes one of his top priority items for 1965 and it brings health care to the elderly in complicated ways, you know? i think it is important that we realize that every generation works with what it has. it and this case they had a relatively -- blue cross/blue shield coverage for people, which people are familiar with. the kind of work with bad, and elderly were brought into the system. -- the kind of worked with that. that is what happened in 1965. we are talking to end -- ed berkowitz, george washington

university. a barber on the democrats' line. cincinnati, ohio. -- barbara, on the democrats lined parent caller: -- democrats line. caller: i was calling because i do have a question regarding health coverage, etc., but it is not the patient. some of the things like social security are doing, as previously stated, i got an increase but then social security changed some of the benefits to the point that now i have to pay $80 for one of my very important prescriptions that i need. and i cannot use these other medications that they want you to use necessarily. so i have to stick with wyck -- what my regular medication because of that is a concern. when we first started talking about health insurance, a pharmaceutical part was not terribly important.

in fact, none of it was terribly important. in the 1920's people paid out of pocket. but now for many seniors and others, the cost of your prescriptions are just prohibitive. congress has tried to deal with that -- not so security you are talking about, but medicare. apart d addresses that problem. and the new legislation actually provides some relief for people in terms of lowering the cost they are going to pay for their prescriptions. a maybe some of your problems will be solved. host: conn. kathleen, republicans line -- connecticut, kathleen, republicans line. caller: several comments. i have not made a dime from my business and a couple of years, being a mom and pop situation, three generations.

industrial parts -- we know where manufacturing has gone. aircraft, government parts being made out of the country now. to say the least, we are hurting. the government does nothing to help small companies. guest: talking about small companies and health care, right? caller: that comes in here too. we have not had health care in probably -- we have not been able to afford it. guest: this new bill, whether it works and not, i cannot tell you. but this new bill is definitely on that question. the people who are self-employed or single individuals that will essentially be able to enter this market that the states are going to have to provide an array of health care benefits.

so in theory, this bill is supposed to work for you, and in fact, it is a good test case. we have to see in a couple of years with the benefits -- benefits. the fact that the industrial base here is shrinking, this bill cannot address that. but at least health care coverage for people struggling with businesses or individuals, that is exactly what this bill is intended to address. host: caitlin, independent line, orlando, florida. caller: i have a question about social security. i am a little bit worried what i heard on tv when i watched the news. how is it going to end up with the social security for somebody young like me, 34 or 35 years old? guest: your first mistake is watching television they're all sorts of misinformation. we can spread a little bit more

may be today. your question is about social security. and it is a question about the solvency of social security. first of all, kind of unrelated to the health care legislation and we should make it clear that the face of social security and the fate of this health-care legislation are a little bit different. but this question about the solvency of seoul's security, my personal take is worst case, the benefits and the future will be 75% of the amount promised today, which will still be more than people are getting today. i have every confidence we will deal with the social security problem. in fact, it is not unrelated to health care in a sense that congress has been totally preoccupied with health care, and as a consequence, the committees considering health care, they would also naturally consider social security, a problem to president obama said we should not kick the can down the road. maybe now, or maybe after these elections, the have a little bit

of time to think about that so maybe that health care legislation will pave the way for other social policy discussions that we should be having. host: why the concerns about the solvency of social security? was there a time line or a sense of how long it could be sustained? guest: from the very beginning it was complicated. let us say you were 65 years old in 1935, the year social security past. you pay nothing in beard of the question is, she you get -- should you get benefits? they sort of made rules saying, you pay in a little bit. so there was this, as a said before, this complicated arrangement where taxes were paid beginning in 1937 and first benefits were 1942. that caused an enormous amount of controversy. in addition, when the bill was first presented to president roosevelt it had a subsidy from general revenues, until the year

1967. and roosevelt said i cannot put on the shoulders of those guys in 1967 this enormous debt. so it was made to be self financing. but maybe to be self financing, the taxes were higher than otherwise and people complained. .

i can understand why people who have all are not socialists. it seems to me dated not want to share. if i have a million dollars, i do not mind sharing. i hope we are beyond the indentured slaves now. if i had a million dollars, i am not sure that i would fly down to gainesville and give it to you. i do not think it is natural for

people to want to give money away unless it makes them feel good. this is a fundamental question that divides us today. some believe the rich are not giving enough to the port, others believe the rich are being asked to much by the government to provide for the poor. this goes back well into the 20th-century and the perennial question which reflects the optimism of the society, how generous do we feel? i think this health care bill is a sign of that generosity, beginning to change the climate a little bit. host: looking at the "peninsula times" piece -- "financial times" piece --

guest: that is a very interesting episode. the nixon administration decided if if you were an employer, you had the obligation to provide insurance. we have a new individual mandate that was not in the nixon's law. kennedy was trying to interpret what his brothers' behalf, -- brothers would have, what their legacy would have been, so he picked up health care. you should not have to get insurance through your employer. at one point, he and the head of the ways and means committee, a compromise bill called the

kennedy-mills bill. two things happen. wilbur mills went into the tidal pond, got involved in personal scandal, and he was founded as an alcoholic and left washington. even at the conservative age, the watergate scandal that occurred made things trend a democratic. some of the labor union decided they were going to win the election in 1974 big, so let us speculate political futures. let's bet that we are going to get in better deal in 1975. it turns out that that was the wrong bet because the economy went south and things were not as often as they were today.

so nixon considered this somewhat conservative proposal in 1971, and it becomes president obama's liberal proposal in 2010. host: a comment on twitter -- was there a time in history where people were more willing to give and share? guest: perhaps back in the early days where it had more to do with our religious duty, christian duty. providing for people less in the community -- who have less in the community. we started to get these really big fortunes. andrew carnegie. eventually, his company would become the largest in the world. he began to think, what are my

responsibilities? do i have a responsibility because i am wealthy? a number of these big industrialists began consciously to think about charities. the carnegie library, for example. those are some kinds oof the things that he started. host: let's go to the phone calls. ron from cincinnati. caller: i have a question. you know about social security, medicare, etc. my wife and i are in the doughnut hole from june. do you know what year that

starts to take effect? guest: off the top of my head, i do not. i am just an academic. caller: 2016. good luck, fella. this is the biggest cost to hit this country. host: how was the public reaction to these major pieces of legislation, as far as the feedback, ranchor? were there protests, were there things like we saw with town hall meetings? guest: not quite. in 1935, people really did not understand what was in the social security act. that is similar to today.

this is a very complicated piece of legislation to grasp. there were guys from left saying that every elderly person should have $100 provided to them at the end of the month. compared to that, social security was very miserly, so there was protest from the left. there were attempts to create mass rallies. president kennedy actually went to madison square garden to speak in favor of medicare. there was concern about the supreme court and the left- leaning nature. the conservative movement was just beginning, but there is not that same vitriolic sign that we see today.

1935, there was no television there was radio and news real. you could not set up on the street and expect someone to talk to you from television. now only live in an age where communication is so instant. that is a difference that did not exist in the 1930's, 1960's. host: in "usa today" they talked about this timeline for medicare -- don on the independent line.

pittsburgh, pennsylvania. caller: how are you this morning? one of the problems i have put health care, i used to work in the zero are in virginia, and i was devastated -- or in virginia, and i was devastated because there were incredible doctors but insurance was always in the way from preventing the patients from being helped. the problem i had is no one looks at that as a problem. the problem is not that we cannot afford insurance. the problem is these insurance companies and corporations producing these medications decided it is going to be this amount when it only costs a certain amount to produce it.

there are a few people walking, with fistfuls of in their pockets. guest: that is one of the problem with medicare. right now, certainly, people in washington are aware -- first of all, it is a mess with all the paperwork. if you walk through the doctor's office, a lot of paper, and probably a lot of it is need this. there is hope we can simplify that. as well, managed care, getting permission to do certain things. having said that, there will always be limitations. for example, mental health benefits. someone could go into therapy for 10 years, rehabilitation benefits. that is also something that does

not have a natural and into it. -- ending in it. if you have a certain illness, then the hospital gets a certain amount of money because the idea is not to create this open-ended entitlement that leads to expenses. host: "the new york times" are writing about how lawmakers plan to challenge the bill -- give us the contact for that. guest: the most relevant example is social security again in 1935.

1935, that is the year when the supreme court took in 1933 laws and said that it was on -- and constitutional, by a vote of 9- 0. the question about the lawyers was on the present. -- omnipresent. the court has always been a factor here. 1905, there was a case in which the state said only people could work for a certain number of hours if there were in the baking industry. when social security came in 1935, the supreme court said you cannot tax people's payroll. it is a violation of freedom of contract.

medicare, and little bit less cell, in terms of legal battles, but they have always been part of the story. this is nothing new. this is a battle -- people say that this is a legislative battle. this is just the beginning. now we have a complicated legislation, putting together what these insurance companies have to do. the real battle is now with the court and in limitation, trying to make sure there is no repeal. there have been appeals in the past. host: francis in the winter haven, florida. good morning. caller: it seems to be such a big controversy, and it is going to be a controversy, but it is so said.

if everyone was working together, there would be no controversy. this was an opportunity to make it a wonderful change for all the american people. what people do not seem to realize is, by going to emergency rooms because that is their only option, our bills are so much higher than they should be. it is time that the insurance companies did have some competition. guest: your point about the emergency room is true. it is never an easy thing. it is never easy for them to figure out what to do because they do not have good access to your records. with any luck, a system where poor people could get their care

only an american to rooms -- that would end with this bill. -- only in the emergency rooms -- that would end with this bill. medicaid is different in every state of the nation. medicare has complicated rules about what is reimbursed, what is not. there is this complicated private insurance industry and regulated at the state level and provide all sorts of plans for people. this is just a very complicated process. it is not necessarily ill will that is blocking people from a conclusion. this has taken a long time and we have had to compromise all along to get to where we are today. host: in the 1980's, ronald

reagan -- "the financial times" writes -- guest: that 1988 law is interesting. i think that is the only one like that that has been repealed. wanted was put in place, people said, i am going to have to pay more taxes and i do not see the benefit. that is always the issue. in this case, the more affluent people were paying higher taxes for things they already had, and they basically said no, we are not going to do it. 1988 was when the representative from chicago came of his car and

people started to threaten him. it did get repealed. i am sure that has to be on the minds of everyone today. we do not want that to happen again. that is a key part of what is going to happen in the years ahead. host: charles on the republican line. bella vista, arkansas. caller: you went through the history of medicare, medicaid, and everything, and guess what? they are all broke. we are trillions in debt. 44% of the people are paying no taxes. all this conversation you were doing this morning will be for naught in 15 years. this country cannot afford all

these things. guest: i am hoping that we get immigration and people do not pay taxes -- of course that is not of my hopnot my hope. host: was there a consciousness of concern, creating, increasing the debt? one of the largest tea party concerns is that they did not want to increase the debt. guest: in 1969, they said that they would collect money and then use it to pay people in the future. the government is in debt, what does that mean?

social security is in surplus but the government was in debt? that confused people. they had meetings with economists to see what the effect of this would be. is this going to create a drag on the economy, is this going to increase our debt? medicare was added at such an expansive time but it was still cheaper than what they have bought in would be before. the deficit was certainly on people's minds. the difference, though, is there was no congressional budget office then. i do not think anyone realistically knew how much medicare would cost. they did not have the forecasting techniques. they were sort of blissfully ignorant. they were wrong, of course, about some of it. wilbur mills got word about it

quickly -- and worried about it quickly -- worried about it quickly. host: joel in new york city. caller: i have to agree with the individual before me. there is a battle line being drawn right now. there are 35 states saying the health care bill is unconstitutional. it will be contested in the supreme court. i am glad this is happening because it is showing when the government + true policies are. -- government's true policies are.

guest: not all 50 states share the enthusiasm that, say, nancy pelosi feels about this bill. that provide the impetus to try to contest. the other thing is, much of what is going on in this has to do with states. medicaid is a state program. therefore, everybody in the state of new york today will have to figure this out. is this good for new york? is this could for queens, brooklyn, upstate new york? people will make different calculations about that. those on the short end of the calculations wealth and about ways to fight back. host: deborah from south carolina. caller: i am and unemployed single mother of three. i receive medicare benefits in

2008 due to open heart surgery. now that i am on medicare part a and b, i do not perceive medicare part d, but i am on medicare advantage. can you tell me how you can help me? -- can you tell me how this would help me? guest: i understand that the long run futures are not the best in the world. i do not wanto know what your income is, i do not know the state of florida's rules on medicaid, but this is meant to help people like you. those with low income but have had trouble getting health insurance. making too much money to qualify for medicaid but are still considered poor.

this should benefit you. if not, the law will be a failure. host: "new york times" taking a look -- "the financial times" taking a look -- guest: this is something that is within the living memory of everyone in the white house, everyone on capitol hill. this is the text. everyone is aware of what happened to president clinton. he decided to make health care a central issue. unlike president obama, he

tried to do several things at once. it quickly run into trouble on capitol hill. part one. part two, the elections of 1994 followed, and that was truly a disaster for the democrats. that is when we had the rise of republicans, newt gingrich. democrats do not want that to happen again. republicans are saying this is exactly when to issue that we are going to use. that is absolutely central to this story. host: kathy from florida. independenct line. caller: you keep saying this is so complicated but it is pretty simple.

the government has the power to tax us. however, it is not a tax. all of the other programs, they tax and provide. now they are mandating that week by a private product. they are stopping all over the constitution. the millions will refuse to comply with an unlawful wall. guest: i do not share your deep anger, but you are certainly on to something. this law really goes into the private health insurance market and regulates in ways that run on revenue would turn over if he saw what was going on. you want to sell health insurance? okay, fine, but you have to

agree to a strenuous set of rules. this is an interesting intrusion into the private health insurance market. however, it has always been a heavy regulated market. the government has been involved from the beginning, but you are right, about the nature of the bill. host: rick in alcorn, nebraska. i think we lost him. darlene in morristown, indiana. democrats line. caller: good morning. i love your show. it is interesting to know that this is not the first time that the country has fought about health care and social security benefits, etc. there was a lady that called in who said that she had to have an

expensive drug because she could not take the generic. if she would talk to her doctor, they may be able to get her a waiver so that she does not have to pay the full price. my mother was able to get one because she cannot take a generic, and they got her a waiver so that she could get the brand name drug for the generic price. guest: that is helpful information. what we might have to do with this new law is talk to each other and see how it works, what kind of benefits and there are. this is helpful information, thank you. host: edward berkowitz, prof. of history and george washington university, thank you for being with us.

coming up next, secretary of education arne duncan. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> more on the healthcare bill from presidential adviser david axelrod. speaking earlier, he said people will embrace the overhaul once they get familiar with what is and what it is not to. meanwhile, republican chairman michael steele appeared on the same program and told mr. axelrod that he is offering in the public and lollipop before rendering a needle. the war on drugs is un secretary of state clinton paused agenda today. she is leading a cabinet focusing on mexican drug cartels. the meeting in mexico city comes two weeks after an american consulate workers, her husband, and other employees were gunned

down in mexico. the associated press says a draft indictment against three individuals under black rock are being sued. those are some of the latest headlines. >> good morning from the national archives, between constitution and pennsylvania avenue, adjacent to the national. it holds three main documents that serve as the foundation for our country, the declaration of independence, the u.s. constitution, and bill of

rights. it can also find a copy of the men in the carter and sen says data dating back to 1890. we are in the archives with about 200 students as part of the close the program, a conversation with the secretary of education arne duncan. thank you for being here. let me begin with an "newsweek" cover story that said we have to fire the bad seed. how do you do that? guest: what we need to do it is support great teachers. an overwhelming number of teachers around the country do a fantastic job. i do not think we do enough to recognize and encourage them. were you have some teachers at the bottom who have to support, where they are not getting better, yes, we need to remove them. our students have only one chance to get a great education.

host: we are going to get to student questions in a moment. generally, what is the role of the department of vindication? guest: we think expectations for students have been far too low. we want to have college and career-ready standards for everyone. due to political pressure, i think standards have been dumbed down. we want to raise the bar. we want to see where we have schools improving. we want to make sure that we have a well-rounded curriculum one thing i am hearing is that they really narrowed the curriculum under no child left behind. allow kids to find their passion, find their skills. high bar for everyone, rewarding

excellence. we want to become an engine of innovation. we have been a service-driven bureaucracy for too long. we want to close the achievement gap. host: in terms of funding for schools, what percentage is it? guest: is pretty small, usually about 8%, 10%. we want to use those resources ito start dramatic change. we want to drive those dramatic reform that our country needs. we have lots of measures in which we need to get better. the president wants us to lead the world in 2020 in the rate of college graduates. we used to lead the world, but we have dropped back.

we also have a dropout rate of 27%. we lose 1.2 million students a year. that is economically unsustainable and morally unacceptable. we have to educate ourselves. the are not looking to incrementally get better, tinker around the edges. we are repaired to do something dramatic. we have to level the playing field to give you a chance to compete. if we do, your chance to do what you want is phenomenal. host: let's start with a question appeared. as always, we will be taking your questions as well. the phone numbers are on the screen. for all of you here, a show of hands, how many of you is this the first time to washington? thank you. caller: my name is kevin from

nebraska. how does your education policy differ from no child left behind? guest: how many of the love no child left behind? host: i would tell you what i think it did right and what it did wrong. i think what it did right was focusing on the achievement gap. focusing on the outcomes of the students. we need to continue to do that. there were a number of things that it got wrong it was very punitive. everyone was labeled a failure with little ways to succeed. it was very prescriptive. telling local schools what to do to get better. did actually lowered the bar, due to political reasons. that does you a great disservice. it also led to a narrowing of the curriculum we want to flip not on its head. we want people career ready.

when there is a four-year university, two-year college, vocational school -- whenever it is, we want to work toward that. we want to continue to see school districts grow and flourish. we want to make sure all of you have a well-rounded curriculum. host: question over here. caller: game from boise, idaho. how do we solve this challenge? guest: the president is asking for the largest increase -- while he is funding domestic spending, we are funding resources. a number budget is only 10% of most school district's budget. in most places, it's tough to the global budget.

right now people are in a her in his position. schools should be open longer. some schools are going to a four-day weeks. i do not think that is right. we have to think about education not as an expense but as an investment. even when times are tough, i do not see how we can cut back on spending for education. it is hard, brutal budget times at the local level, but if we do not invest in education, we will never get better. despite the tough times, we are challenging state and communities to make this a priority. i do not see anything more voluble than investing in your future. host: question in the back. guest: teachers who were under par under nclb could be admit -- is best. do you think under this program

merit-pay should be part of it? guest: i think so. there are programs that have been set up that i think puts teachers against each other. i do not think that is good. what you want is having people work together, and teamwork. when i ran the chicago public schools, we put together a performance-based plan. we put together 25 of the best teachers and we did a couple of things. we reward teachers and schools for getting better. we all mourn and everyone in the school, not just teachers. -- we reward the everyone in the school, not just teachers. you have to be thoughtful in how you do it and you have to be engaging with teachers.

we have enough funding injured, to fund about 20 schools. we only went to the schools where teachers wanted us to come to run the program and we had huge interest. host: compared to european nations, we are now ranked 10th or below in terms of graduate rate. when did we start to see this drop off? guest: it started about a decade ago. we used to lead the world. 40% of ou 32r 30 to 40-year-old had a college graduateducation. things have changed since then. all the political fighting that

you see here in washington is not any good for you. we need to break through and education has to rise through. all of us have to work together. so far there has been that spirit around education. what is encouraging to me is that nobody is saying that we are in a good enough position, defending the status quo and everyone knows we have to get better. so far, i have been very comforted by the support. host: teachers unions, how does this affect them? guest: i think the department of education has been part of the problems when it comes to unions. we have been this large, compliant-driven bureaucracy. we are going to push everyone

outside of their comfort zone. teachers' unions, governors, all all of us have to be part of the example. but we have to drive the kind of change and reform that we think we need. everybody loves to point fingers and blame each other. when we do that, high-school teachers blame middle school teachers, medical teachers blame the elementary, elementary teachers blame the parents. host: how many people work for the department of education, what is your budget? guest: we have about 4000 employees, our budget is about $3 billion. caller: what you think in the best education was one of the first thing is to be cut in the budget? guest

because everyone could not vote. if every kid could go, and would be better. having students step up and have your voice is heard it is very important. as a country, we have to remind me under invested in the country. i think teachers should be paid more, principles should be paid more. you need to have more after- school programs. as a country, we have not invested enough in education. having the student voices speak up could work. you have a leadership role to play. host: this is an obvious question, but what about role of parents? how has that changed? guest: they will always be a

student's first teacher, that will never change. we have kids at home. we make sure we read to them every night. i think we have to challenge parents. where there are not involved, publications could happen. parental accountability is huge. -- complications could happen. we have an audience full of teenagers. we used to survey teenagers and one of the most important things they would ask for it is more time. there is this perception that parentteenagers just want to be. they said that literally, one

thing that they wanted more was more time with their parents. host: and a question on this line of the room. guest: christie from nebraska. what is your bonds on extracurricular music in the flooded programs after school? do you think that is quality or should schools focus on raising their great? guest: it is hugely important. whether it is banned, drummond, sports, academic decathlon on, those extracurricular as could not be more important in helping you stay interested and unique your interests and self-esteem. in our department, we used to do a lot of things. we tried to become world class in six things.

we want to run a well-rounded education. we're putting an additional $100 million into that. we want to increase that to $1 billion to provide states and districts a chance to give you a world-class education. we are serious about this from the outbreak. -- dropout rate. caller: noah sullivan, nebraska. the most heavily funded high school and is right here in d.c. and spends $14,000 to send kids to school but they have some of the lowest test scores on average. what does this say about the notion that many have that government funding = academic prowess? guest: funding education is

important, but is money the only answer? of course not. in need to be well invested and well spent. i think we've under invest in education. were you have schools going into a four-day weeks, that is not the right thing for our country. to your point, we have to make sure every dollar we are spending is well spent. if we are perpetuating academic failure, we have to challenge that. host: good morning from the national archives. this is a special edition of "washington journal." we are in a conversation with about 200 students from about 10 states. arne duncan, the secretary of the department of education, was previously a part of the chicago education system. next guest.

beth in maryland. good morning. how about a question from over here? caller: laura from nebraska. i know most teenagers in high school will say that being called homosexual or transsexual is the worst insult. the average high school students will hear 26 territory gay slurs and during the school day. what are your feelings about this and how do you plan on stopping gay bashing in school? guest: i hate any type of intelligence -- intolerance. we need to teach people to have respect for diversity. we are going to work as hard as we can to make sure that we are

creating schools where kids can feel safe, emotionally, physically, where students are respected. in is very hard to be successful academically with that type of behavior. we need to promote safety so that kids can focus on school work. wherever we see that kind of intolerance or discrimination or hate, we need to challenge to fight the climate. host: how do you do that? guest: i think you have programs that bill walk students and teachers through these climates, giving them a chance to talk about their differences. you have diversity clubs, voices in government, where students are providing a huge amount of the hard work to make sure that there is a positive culture in

their school. student voice is huge. i do not think we value and not how much our young people have to contribute. i think students can do so much by creating more positive peer pressure, by reinforcing good behavior. and we need to do a better job of tapping into your capacity and skill. host: margaret is on the line from north carolina. caller: good morning. with the account left behind, so many of our teachers struggle to pass our kids. would this new bill of teachers to go back into teaching, rather than teaching a test? guest: thank you. that is a constant complaint that i heard.

we wanted to have a well-rounded education. reading and math were important. science and social studies are as well. is a little education, art, drama. all those things gives us a chance to be successful bid to two other changes that we want to make to support teachers in a better way is investing $4 billion in teachers. we need better professionals, better mentoring programs. they need more time to collaborate. we are making an historic investment there. the other thing about nclb, for example, if you were in sixth grade teacher and i came to you as a third grader three grades behind, and i left her classroom leadiving one great behind, i would still be labeled as a

failure. not only what i consider that cater to be not a bad teacher, but a good teacher. in one year, and they accomplished two years of progress. what we should be doing is rewarding that type of teacher. we want to look at growth, how much states, districts are gaining to a higher goal. a well-rounded education is usually better. we think more time for mentoring, collaboration with teachers will help. teachers are not scared of accountability. no one is. they want to be fair. host: on that issue of being well-rounded, when a school is faced with budget cuts, often it is the arts, music programs,

sports, that are cut. guest: i do not have any easy answer. i have been there. when budgets are tight, you really have to reflect our priorities. when we do not value those extracurricular, i think the students pay a price. but if you do not raise your math scores -- guess what? music has a huge influence on math scores host. callerhost: how many of you participate in dexter corp. -- extracurricular activities? how many have seen cuts in your school or school district? guest: that scares me. i love the but dissipation. this is a highly motivated group of students. -- i love the participation. when we start to narrow down the

school day, i start to get worried. guest: in north carolina, saw carolina, and texas, and they have been talking about changing their history books. mom was wondering why and what is wrong with them? i was wondering if this would become a national issue? guest: curriculum should always be done at the local level. what we are working on is -- leadership is not coming from us, but from the states. the education leaders working on these higher standards. if you have a high bar, then local folks can work to get to that hire bar and figure on who is doing a good job, but we are not going to have some sort of a national curriculum. if we have high standards and good assessment behind it, we

will see improvement. guest: make rodriquez from wilmington, north carolina. callerin some schools, there art of illegal immigrants. how do you feel about educating illegal immigrants? guest: i think we need to educate every child in the country. not educating someone because of their parent prostatitis, i do not agree with that. -- parent's status, i do not agree with that. we have to give every child an opportunity of a free education. host: next phone call. caller: innovation has always held to this country to be great. with all of the bosses and buildings, etc., why have not

been taken the internet more for our education? guest: i think you are starting to see that. we want to invest heavily in innovation. we have a $600 million fund that we're going to compete out two different districts -- to different districts. how many of you have cell phones? how many of you spend a bit of time on them? host: everyone is awake now. guest: we could maybe think about educating through those. why do we have to only educate for these eight hours a day? we want to make an unprecedented investment and use technology to better teach students. host: jacqueline from tempe,

arizona. welcome. caller: good morning. my question is for a school on this reservation in arizona. traditionally, native american students are the lowest performing in the country. how do you plan to address the severe problem with the school system? host: before he responds, can you give us a sense of the number of students on the reservation, some of the issues you are dealing with? caller: we have 350 native american students preschool through fifth grade. the issues in the communities, traditionally, students have the highest dropout rate, highest suicide rate, severe social issues, because of the integration problems historic way that we have had with

reservations. that has trickled down to the school environment. traditionally, they are a federally funded school. currently, only a portion of what they need is being funded through congress. we are challenged severely with financial constraints. how do we raise the achievement of native american students who have been historically underfunded? guest: thank you not only for your question but for your commitment to these children i have had the chance to visit 37 states these past few years. phenomenal schools. one that i will never forget it is visiting a school in montana, northern cheyenne.

i thought i knew what part of my, coming from chicago. in that reservation, there is 70% unemployment. the high school i went to have one student in six years go to college. staggering. these were great students. 9 keep in touch with one of the young man who is there. that lack of opportunity is devastating. these are tough issues. i asked, what can we do to help? there is huge teacher turnover. one thing we want to do is put resources behind teachers and principals who want to serve in underserved communities. you have to have some sort of stability in those places for students to be successful. technology. that can be a huge opportunity here.

if you cannot offer an ap class at that location, one not take it online? they want to be challenged. we have a huge challenge with schools in the indian countries. we're working closely with the bureau of indian affairs, the garment of the interior, and we have to give these children a much better education if we want to reduce those unemployment rates. host: joshua from dream bill -- from greenville, north carolina. can you tell us what the dream act is? guest: it would basically allows students who may not have the immigration status in place the chance to go to college and receive financial aid, just like you would. . .

>> some students, teachers and parents believe that the federal government and even the school system, like superintendents, do not have enough experience being inside the school and knowing exactly how it runs, so they cannot possibly have the best policies for the students and the school system. what are your views on that and

how you propose to have more personal experiences in there? guest: i actually really agree. riley joked before i came from washington are no -- i did not think that the great ideas came from washington and now that i am in washington i know that they do not. part of what we want to do is to reauthorize no job left behind and to give a lot more -- no child left behind and give a lot more flexibility in this country. do you know how many schools are in this country? take a guess. host: you have at -- you have the microphone. how many do you think we have? >> balad. guest: -- >> balaa lot.

[laughter] guest: safe guess. we have about 100,000 schools in this country. we want the innovation and flexibility of the local community. host: if you could change one thing about your school, what would it be in terms of documents or the way the school was run? could someone wants to answer that question -- if someone wants to answer that question. but we will go to your question next. >> de believe the standards of the standardized tests should be raised or lowered? guest: they should not be lowered and they should absolutely be raised. when we dummy down students -- the state arms from did that, they lowered standards. -- the state i am from did that.

they lowered standards. if you're told at fifth or sixth grade your "meeting a state standard" the logical assumption is that you're doing ok. when in fact, in many places those standards have been dummied down so much that those students are barely able to graduate from high school and totally and adequately prepared -- totally and inadequately prepared for college. these are your strengths, these are your weaknesses, this is what we have to work hard to be successful together. what bothers me is students that work hard and get to be juniors or seniors and then find how far behind they really are. we have to raise standards. host: janet is joining us from indiana, good morning to you. caller: right now we're in big

trouble with standardized testing. those tests become so important that people are cheating in order to maintain their schools. before standardized testing, it was like the s.a.t. at the end of the year and these kids went to college. you are taking so much away from the classroom with a standardized testing because all they do is the standardized testing. these kids miss out on so much imagination and flexibility for the teachers who are getting so frustrated about everything because it all focuses on standardized testing. guest: i just continue to say this, that everyone there -- every child having a well- rounded curriculum is so important.

we have to get back to well- rounded education. host: if you could change one thing about your school, you raised your hand. what would you change? >> i am from nebraska and i would change things like the fine arts because we got our little theater taken away to make a fitness center for the sports people. now we have to go to the elementary on their little stage, i guess. nafta your presentations up there. i would change that. guest: the fine arts are acute importance. the sports are a few -- huge importance. they should not be competing with each other. if we look at the average high school around the country, basically, every four seats, somebody would be dropping out. and in many places it is actually one out of two. i would like to ask students

what we can do collectively to reduce the dropout rate. what can we do collectively nationally, the local level, the school level to drop -- reduce the dropout rate to the -- to zero. host: you want to inject question? >> no, i have another question. host: let's stay with this. let's move on to you. >> change the dropout rate? i do not know, atry to instill s much as you can't as early as possible. try to instill a fervor of -- try to instill as much as you can as early as possible. try to drive a fervor and a love of learning. i do not know how you do that, but i guess it starts with the parents and teachers.

host: keeps going back to the parents. guest: parents are hugely important. great teachers are hugely important. i think we ought to make sure that every child has an adult in their lives helping them through good times and bad. when i was growing up i had to great parents. not every child is that lucky. -- i had two great parents. not every child is that lucky. we have to make sure that there's someone from the community, a church member, a coach, someone to step up and be a positive influence in that child's life. caller: i have a question that i'm sure the students in the audience are when to kill me for. i'm 44 years old and i'm going to school to be a teacher. i am also a mother. during my time in the classroom i have noticed that from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., that is not a lot of time.

i was thinking that if you could extend the school time to make its so that teachers have more time, because it seems like they have specials and then they ought to go to lunch -- half to go to lunch. host: will ask them. how many would prefer to go to school longer during the day? it just a handful. how many say it is just about right? ok, everybody. caller: i also have a question about teachers that cannot be fired because of their tenure. they probably should not be there anymore because they do not want to be there. how many students feel like the teachers do not care about them at that point? host: interesting. guest: we're going to need about 1 million new teachers

over the next four, five, eight years. the baby boom generation is moving toward retirement. i think all of you have had extraordinary teachers. i have that one teacher, my high school english teacher that pushed me to do things i did not think where possible. i think we have to do a much better job of rewarding the excellence of some money teachers and -- so many teachers that are working 10, 12, 14 hour days, at home preparing. we need to reward excellence and deal much more honestly where it is not working. >> peter torrey, san francisco, california.

you mentioned a good test scores come with good education and confidence, but for certain students the confidence is just not there and test taking is difficult. if i were to change one thing about my school, it would be to administer a standardized testing strategy class for the sophomores and juniors. guest: that is a very good idea. that kind of stuff can be learned, frankly, fairly easily. the hard part would be content. helping you with the test taking skills should be a minor part. you spend all your time running out to take tests. that is not for the where you need to have the knowledge. host: i want you to be honest about this next -- next question. are you embarrassed to raise your hand, ask a question of the teacher, or are you the kind of person that asks questions all the time and says, i do not know what this is about?

>> i will ask questions, but i find myself on the test more confused and nervous than during class. host: how many of you are afraid to ask your teacher for a follow-up? you do not understand something and you just sit there quietly. be honest. hands are still going up. guest: it is hard to make yourself vulnerable. it is hard if you feel the teacher does not really care passionately about you. but again, most fans stayed down, which says that a lot of folks -- most hands stayed down, which said a lot of folks here have good teachers. >> earlier, you were talking about the college graduates and how we are not rising with the other countries. i was wondering, why did you think cutting budgets in higher education schools is necessary if they will just take away scholarships and make it harder for people who cannot afford college to go? guest: i'm glad you brought that up.

going to college has never been more important and it has never been more expensive and our nation's families have never been under more financial the rest. -- financial dresseduress. >cñc÷opart of the health care bl that is around higher educationñ will allow us to put an additional $36 billion into y]programs to make college more affordable over the next -- into pell grants to make college more affordable over the next decade. this is a great lesson in politics for you. we're going to put about $60 billion into higher education, to increase pell grants, money to reduce your payments once you graduate for -- from college. all of this is because we're trying to simply stop subsidizing banks who have been

making loans to you and put that money into education. it seems like the right thing to do. and but this has been a huge debate. the banks have had a big -- a good deal for a long time, spend millions of dollars to hire lobbyists, run ads in many states. families like yours do not have lobbyists. families like yours cannot hire advertising firms to put together television ads. i think it is the right thing to do. how many times do you have a chance to invest $60 billion in education without going back to taxpayers? it is a phenomenal, breathtaking opportunity. i'm very hopeful that it will pass the senate this week and become law and make college much more affordable for you and your brothers and sisters. host: how well do you know the president? guest: known him for 15, 16 years may be. host: how is he on the

basketball court? guest: the template. a very good competitor, placed to win. a good defender. and likes to get to the basket and scored. host: whose scores more points, or the president? guest: we both do ok. [laughter] host: going to chuck in boston. caller: so many things have been said that my initial thought is secondary now because the secretary had on something -- hit on something. these kids seem to be more advanced than my original thought. it seems now that schools take care of the advanced students and it seems like the rest of the group -- which is maybe 10%, and the rest of the group is thrown into one. it did not used to be that way. self-esteem was reality and not every kid can be an honor student.

sometimes parents put too much pressure on children. sorry to refer to you as kids. it is like the soccer parents that pushes the kid athletically. they want the kid to do too well. there is a happy medium where a student might be better off at a technical school, might be better off -- you know what i am saying. you do not all have to be advanced students. host: chuck, we will get a response. thank you. guest: it is a great point. what every student has to do today is graduate from high school. there are no good jobs for a high-school dropout. they're almost no good jobs if all you have is a high-school diploma. but there are good alternatives. for your universities, technical colleges -- a four year universities, technical colleges, some kind of trade. it has to be preparing for the

next step on the education journey. it does not matter what it is. kids can figure out what their passion is. we want to invest $2 billion in community colleges. but some form of education beyond high school has to be the goal for every student in this country. host: before we get our last question, the news of the day -- there is a front-page story in the chicago sun-times and the chicago tribune about a list that you came up with to help city officials make sure that they went -- that their students went to the beat schools. guest: that is not correct. we actually try to do was make this available to everybody. -- we actually tried to make this available to everybody. when you run a large school system of 400,000 students, when they go to the dry cleaners, you

get questions. when you go to the zoo, you get questions. you just want to be responsive. you try to get people and answer, yes, no, whenever it is. host: no special treatment? guest: 0. just trying to be responsive, making sure that everybody could have an answer. host: last question right over here. >> so often, policies focus on the kids that cannot keep up. but what about the kids that have outgrown the curriculum? guest: we think that ap glasses, international baccalaureate, dual enrollment, taking junior college courses as a junior or senior is a big deal. we are investing dollars to make sure that students have more of those opportunities. raising expectations in the classroom is hugely important. and all of those opportunities,

we cannot do more of -- enough of those. just give me a show of hands, how many of you here can give -- can take a college level class if you want? i love that. i want to make sure that every child in this country as those kinds of opportunities. host: as a follow-up, what advice would you give the secretary on your point? >> i think the school needs to look at the kids a little more closely. maybe they're cheating, but they stop and get bored, kind of as i have done. the class can only move as fast as those person. i think the government needs to look at more options to keep the kids in school because dropping out when your board is a big issue. guest: it is a big issue. we are trying to invest $100 million to invest in high school kids taking college level courses.

host: the you learn anything today? guest: i am inspired. i think we as adults have to do a better job of helping you fulfill your potential. our students are smart, passionate, committed. they do not want to just be successful themselves. they want to help their peers and create opportunities. i think if more adults understood your passion and how serious you work, we would invest more in education. the more your voice is heard, that is a good thing. i want to thank you for taking education so seriously. host: secretary duncan on behalf of the students here, thank you for being here. we appreciate your time. guest: thanks for having me. [applause] host: we will continue the conversation here with the close of students from 10 states as far out as idaho and north

carolina and other states. but first, a news update. nancy quiero is in the nazis and newsroom. -- nancy kalpoe is in the c-span newsroom. >> the housing finance system really cannot continue to operate as it has in the past. the first congressional hearing on how to restructure the mortgage system is coming. the housing markets focused on three government-backed entities, fannie mae and freddie mac. the rain starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern, live coverage on c- span3. also on capitol hill today, israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. he meets with speaker nancy pelosi and later in the closed- door meeting with president obama. he has stated that jerusalem is

not a settlement. it is our capital. the prime minister is responding to u.s. criticism of his government's plan for 1600 settlements in a part of jerusalem that palestinians claim as their own. and finally, secretary of state clinton and treasury secretary tim geithner will lead a u.s. delegation to china in late may. but twice yearly strategic economic dial the -- dialogue will include currency, human rights and the u.s.-based internet company google, which announced earlier today that it had pulled its search engine out of the mainland, shifting it to hong kong. >> a program update, president obama is citing the health care legislation today in the east room of the white house. -- is signing the health care legislation today in the east room of the white house. he later give comments on the passage of the bill at the interior department.

members of the house and senate will be there. look for that just after noon eastern live on c-span2. a series of hearings today. first up, timothy geithner talking about the future of mortgages and the housing market. in the afternoon, the fcc's national brought bad plan -- the fcc's national broadband plan. and politics this weekend, senator john mccain campaigns in mesa, arizona and is joined by his former running mate sarah palin. senator mccain running against former house member j.d. hayworth. the republican primary is august 24. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] this for a [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] host: mislocate inside the archives here in washington d.c..

-- this is looking into the archives here in washington d.c.. and we welcome bill kristol from the codey standard -- from the "weekly standard". has the government fulfilled its mission to educate the fish -- the people? guest: its vision is not really to educate the people. about 92% of the spending of state and local. and obviously if you go to school in fairfax county, where our kids go to public school, the decisions are made where they should be made, but the state or the county. some places, by the city or town. the federal department of education can play a role. i came to washington to work in the education department along time ago, actually. to work for bill bennett when he was education secretary. and we try to play a role to stimulate debate about education and encourage reform and

encouraging excellence, some of the same questions asked here were questions that we heard 25 years ago. huddy make sure that kids are getting pushed and get a chance to compete with those around the world and the best opportunities they can. education is not that changed. the good news is that people understand how important education is. the good news is that parents understand how they need to push the school systems. the good news is that every teacher knows how to challenge. the bad teachers, i think that has changed. some came in and said, we need to fire the bad teachers, the bad principle. and people were shocked. it is controversial when it was talked of, a little bit of tough

love in the education establishment. but here we have arne duncan saying similar things to what bill bennett said it 25 years ago when he worked for arnold -- ronald reagan. host: do we still need a department of education? guest: a lot of what the department of education does is send out checks. if. pell grants or -- if pell grantspell grants -- if you get pell grants or student loans, they will be sending you a check. the federal education department was begun under jimmy carter in 78 or 79, something like that. i think the track of the federal department of education, in all honesty, you will hear it from secretary duncan. one of you asked a question and he says, we have $100 million in

the budget for this or that. but it is a trivial amount of spending for total spending. 15 but -- if people think they can go to washington to get their problems solved, they're mistaken. you and your friends need to focus on improving things at the local level and the state level. if the schools in your area are not doing what they should be doing, washington has a limited ability to help. in that respect, the notion that washington is going to fix these things is a trap for people to fall into. host: we are talking about education with bill kristol of the "weekly standard" and also talking about politics and health care. but first, some questions from the students here. >> i'm from san francisco, california. do you support president obama's plan to pull troops out of iraq by 2011, and if not, what you think is a proper time line? -- what do you think is a proper

time line? guest: i have been involved in the iraq debate over the last several years. i think it's terrific that things have taken a turn for the better in iraq kirk -- ever since the surge in early 2007 under general patraeus and general air now. if he says to back it, i trust it. he is not going to risk u.s. troops or u.s. success in iraq by going too fast for drawdown. but i hope that president obama keeps an open mind. i think it is foolish to set an arbitrary number -- 50,000 by sunday, june, 2011. that was just picked out of the air. if you are fighting a war, and we have sacrificed a lot in that war, and you want to make it come out well, which is important for the middle east and our future, it is foolish to get trapped by some campaign

promises for some arbitrary date. if we need to slow down the withdrawal, i hope he understands. it would be foolish to stick to that arbitrary number. host: for the students here, can you understand -- can you explain the role that the "weekly standard" plays in politics here? guest: i introduced as bill kristol, the editor of the "weekly standard" n'yah often get asked how often it comes out -- and i often get asked how often it comes out. we do come out weekly. we have about 100,000 paid. subscribers, lots and lots of people come to the website to read the material. we're a conservative magazines are 1995. a little unpredictable in their conservatism sometimes. we have supported president clinton in some things and we have supported president obama in his decision to send more

troops to afghanistan. we try not to be simply partisan or predictable. i hope we inform the debate. i think a fair number of conservative politicians look to us to see what the arguments are on some issues, and a lot of liberals i know. the "weekly standard", if only to see what is being argued on the other side. and we also focus on music and history and art, which is a strong focus of the magazine as well. we had a piece just two or three weeks ago by the -- by a leading iraq expert that has been there several times reporting on what the situation was with the election and what the prospects were and what the challenges are. i encourage you to read it online. host: both of our speakers today

have a -- are graduates of harvard. he played basketball. do you? guest: yes, we all play basketball. but i imagine that he and president obama are better basketball players that i am. >> i'm from north carolina and i come from a family of farmers. my dad and i live on a farm and he has a lot of acres and we grow soybeans. i was wondering how the conservative party feels about agriculture in america. it should it stay in america or go overseas? guest: when you drive through north carolina you do see a lot of family farms. generally speaking,

conservatives are pert free trade, -- are pro-free trade, so i do not think it is good to shut ourselves off from that. but it is good to have things that are consumed locally, or nearby. it is one of the good things that americans have done in the last decade, the amazing strength are our culture. we are now producing an amazing amount of food and fewer people are involved in it, which is good for the country as a whole. it allows people to do other things. it is more efficient. but i am no expert on foreign policy or food exports and the like. host: juanita is joining us from union, missouri with bill kristol of the "weekly standard kik." caller: because of this bill and its cost, i may personally have

to sell my home. i think basically what he has done is given a death sentence, basically, to all senior citizens. i'm sorry if people do not agree with me, but he is rationing health care to anyone that is not on medicare. i have a backup insurance, but even at that, it is not going to meet the need. host: thank you. guest: i am an opponent of the obama health care proposal. i do not think it will be good for our country and it will explode the deficit. i hope, in fact, that after the elections of 2010 and 2012, large parts of it can be repealed. this is a democracy and one vote does not determine our future forever. obviously, bush thought he had put the country on certain patents and president obama has come in and reverse a lot of those paths. in 2010 and 2012 are think some of what obama has done will be

reversed as well. -- i think some of what obama has done will be reversed as well. government is a huge -- government as a huge player in health care is not always good business. i think this will create more regulation and make the system less effective. host: but you're already seeing the political divide on this issue democrats today and mike allen reporting in the political st. they welcome the debate. is this a game changer -- saying they welcome the debate. this is a game changer? i do guest: not think so. it has been covered -- guest: i do not think so. that has been covered extensively by you and everyone else. it is the same bill we have been debating for a year and not much is going to go into effect in the next few months. and some of what is going to go into effect is bad, actually. the cuts in medicare advantage

and some of the plans that seniors can buy will really have an effect on what seniors can get. i do not think it is good legislation. but it is a democracy and it is ridiculous, this notion that -- i certainly accept that president obama is entitled to get through legislation that he thinks is important. i think democrats should give room for that. we're not going to just go home and say, i guess we lost about one. we never get to have another argument about health care. that is one of the disturbing things about the way that president obama addresses it sometimes. he acts as if this will once for -- once and for all and the debate. to many people think it is

foolish. to many people think it will -- too many people think it will damage the economy. we will soon see that it is when to explode the deficit. we are already running a big deficit. i predict that we will not implement this health-care bill in the way that it is now past. there will be changes in the next three or four years. host: chris from buffalo, we welcome you to the program. caller: i'm calling about what i would consider a discrepancy, or a bit of hypocrisy on the part of republicans that now they like to talk about the deficit when they had two wars that were underpaid for, the bush tax cuts that were underpaid for. they created a doughnut hole in medicare. there was no regulation in these

financial industries with no congressional oversight when they were in power. all of a sudden in one year, president obama is supposed to be able to fix all of this, and yet, republicans come up with new ideas for these things. but they like to demonize the president for what he is trying to do. guest: republicans made plenty of mistakes. some of them may have been worthwhile expenditures, some not. but that does not justify president obama making mistakes. he has increased the deficit of what appeared that part is just a fact. he hasn't -- he has invested in the economy and some people say that is wise. i think we're running a dangerously high level of debt. and i think republicans do have alternatives. republicans have proposed various cuts in spending in the long-term and short-term. no one can do away with it immediately. it would be foolish for a candidate to say, let me in the

debt is when to go away. -- elect me and that that is going to go away. there is a spending bill that is part of the reform bill for higher education. arne duncan talked about education expenditures. they're not cutting. we are fighting two wars. you can debate whether we ought to be, but here we are. it is tougher times than it used to be. and what happens to families, they tighten their belts and cut out some expenditures. this president is not cutting anything. he went to every cabinet and secretary and said, let's stilt -- let's spend more. he believes he is doing the right thing for the country. he thinks the spending is important to prevent us from

going into a worse recession. he thinks it is important to spend money on these different areas. but some of us think it is not sustainable. we need to cut some things that sound good, but still need to cut. i think that is a real debate that the two parties are going to have in the next few years. host: the question right over here. >> i'm from boise idaho. hardee believe the health care bill can be improved? -- how do you believe the health care bill can be improved? guest: that is a complicated answer because it is 2700 pages long. if a republican president were to come into power in 2013, parts of it could be repealed or abolished. parts of it could be dealt with pretty easily. other parts are going into effect now and people will have to judge and people can decide.

some parts are ok. some can be changed or amended to be more consistent with conservative ideas. and we have repealed legislation in this country before. in 1988, legislation was passed that was repealed by the next congress. it is a question that a lot of people are beginning to think about, a lot of republicans and conservatives that and people that do not like this healthcare plan. you cannot just snap your fingers and say, let's pretend. once it begins to go into effect, you ought to figure out to undo certain aspects of it. host: right here. >> with many democrats leaving office around the nation, how you think this reflects president obama's job that he is doing? guest: it has been an amazing year and one thing you should learn, being in high school, is that most people tend to predict

what has been napping -- happening in the last few weeks or months, they tend to project in a straight line. our member at penn state in 1979, they had some good at regional and got to the final four. they lost by 50 points to magic johnson. bush won reelection in 2004 and republicans held congress in 2004. it was the first time in 80 years that a republican president and a republican congress had been reelected at the same time. everyone, conservatives like me, thought ok, it is a new moment for conservatives to govern.

everything fell apart. 2005 and 2006 were disastrous years for the republican party and the administration. host: why is that? guest: the iraq war was going badly, katrina, one thing after another. in 2006, democrats won more seats. and in 2008, president obama. at the beginning, if you had said it, which democrats would win, it would have been hillary clinton. and damned -- and president obama is on the top of the world. conservatives are in total disarray and it is going to take 10, 20, 30 years for a recovery from the bush administration.

suddenly, some of obama's policies are not so popular. in virginia, republicans won the governorship in a state that obama had carried. and of course, scott brown of massachusetts. politics can change quickly in a democracy where people change their minds. people vote for president obama because they do not like bush. and did they say, with a second, i do not know if i signed on to this kind of health-care policy for this kind of foreign policy. it is not fair to say that republicans are not -- are being too confident because president obama is not that popular now or because democrats are retiring. it does not mean that things could not change again. having said that, given where history is now, republicans may

take control of one or both bodies. and that in 2012 becomes a very big election. i think the two parties are very different in the way they look at fundamental questions and the role of government. pretty different also on some foreign policy issues. i think we will have a big debate in the next few years about the future of the country. everyone knows the debt is too high, large portions of the government are not working well and large portions of the private sector are not working well. it is a very interesting time to be getting involved and watching what is happening in this democracy. there are some times, you know, things are chugging along peacefully and they do not change that much. there is not that much drama, not that much of conflict -- consequence happening. i think there -- this is a very unusual moment.

really, it is up in the air. there's a wide spectrum of possible outcomes two or three years from now in terms of politics and policy. it is a good time to be engaged in the debate. i think republicans will do well in this coming election. it is really key for conservatives like myself to really explain why conservative policies will address these problems -- these policies better than liberal policies. why there were mistakes made in the past and to say, yes, at times conservative policies have not worked. there's no reason the bush administration should have led banks levy themselves 30 to one, not that others did not have responsibility as well. but we need to be honest about that and present to the american public in 2012 a series agenda for helping the country. host: throughout the year, the close-up program brings students to washington d.c., many first-

time visitors to our nation's capital, and we are joined by about 200 students from 10 states. one of the questions, right over here. >> arm from boise, idaho. what are your -- i am from boise, idaho. what are your views on china and how to deal with them? guest: people in washington are supposed to have universal knowledge and have an intelligent opinion about everything, but i can honestly say that i do not know enough about the chinese currency trading you should ask an actual economist about that. host: york governor in idaho did something that was the first in the nation. anyone in idaho want to respond to what he did and what this

means for the health-care debate? >> i thought what he did was -- well, i agree with him. host: tell bill kristol what he did. >> did he say that the mandate to buy insurance against our constitutional rights? host: and he was the first governor to do so. there are 37 states that are likely to fileñi similarly, like in your home state of virginia. guest: the federal government can require certain things. if you get a pell grant you have to fulfill federal requirements by not doing drugs and assuring the federal government that the moneys were and where it ought to be going. but can the federal government

make you buy something? can he tell you you have to have health insurance? it is uncertain constitutionally. there are very few cases like that where the federal government says, you have to buy this good. the federal government does not say you have to have car insurance. they say, if you want to drive a car, the state laws say you ought to be injured. -- insured. there is a big question about whether this mandate is constitutional. and obviously, there are a lot of state attorney general's that will question that. can we trust individuals and families to make intelligent decisions for themselves? should we help them to buy health insurance if their lower income? yes, i think there's quite a bit of agreement on that. but should we require every individual through the federal

government? if a state once require it, that -- wants to require that, that is up to them. caller: something that mr. kristol said early on, it was something to the effect of what you with children that are more academically challenged, and at the same time address the needs of those really first-rate academic the bright children -- academically bright children. i'm concerned about the attitude that exists with teachers that have that attitude of, oh, yeah, we have those that are not that academically bright and we have these really first-rate children. shouldn't our education system be addressing the problems of

the attitudes that exist that automatically peg some children as not so academically bright and then we have the reliefers rate? you may have said that unconsciously, but you see how that pegs those children? guest: no, i do not think that these markets are better people than the less intelligent or less academically gifted students. i think is foolish to have kids go through public school and have kids who are smarter than my kids and my kids are more academically gifted in other subjects. there are students that can perform at different levels. should we try to help those that are struggling? absolutely. does it help those who are struggling to draw them into a class that with those who are more gifted? i'm not sure it does. -my sense is that some students

benefit more from a high academic, classical education. some benefit more from a vocational education. and we have a diversity -- my impression is -- in our schools of glasses and tort system at least in the bigger public schools. -- in our schools of classes and choices in our school system, at least at our bigger schools. i think we probably should spend more to help those that are struggling. they probably need more help in the way of individual assistance from teachers and that kind of thing. but i also do think it is a problem -- i just say this for my own experience watching students in different school systems. i think we need to pay attention and help those that need help, i believe that. but we also need to help those who can achieve at high levels academically and sometimes are not challenged.

one of the students questioned secretary duncan about this. they sometimes give off and get into disciplinary problems or whatever. in any case, that is not good. if you are talented, you need to develop those talents. the what is the point of being this great, free country if we do not help kids to look the best they can. i think is a concern for all students and we need to seriously try to help all students what we need to provide good opportunities for those who are most academically gifted. host: here's a question in the back. >> i am from boise, idaho. i have a question relating back to the united states carrying a significant amount of debt. what is your personal solution to paying off the 10 year treasury bonds to china? guest: china is a big topic in

boise. something in the water in idaho that makes them more willing to stand up and ask questions. which is good. honestly, the china question is very complicated. the chinese seated in their interest to buy treasury bonds. that is not a bad thing. it is an open market. whether it creates longer-term problems for our country if we are in debt to china for a huge amount of money, i think that is a problem, yes. it is one of the great achievements that we step back and say, two minutes on china because there have been a couple of questions about it. one of the great achievements of the last 25, 30 years, a little more than your lifetimes, is they have brought hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty in china and india. when i was your age, china was engaged in a horrible internal

revolution with tens of millions of chinese killed. india look like it was going to lose tens of millions of people to famine. it looked like they could have massive starvation in a place like india. one of the great achievements in the last quarter century is that those two countries have gotten on the road to economic prosperity. hundreds of thousands of people live much better lives. that is a good thing for the world and for us as a country. we compete with china and india. people say, what about china? we are much better off with a wellesley, rising -- with a wealthy, rising china than a port and chaotic one. -- then a poor and chaotic one. having said that, china does have an autocratic government. that is a bad thing, i think. i would much prefer something like india, that has a

democratic government like us. they could use that debt, they could use that as leverage over us. it would be great to see china with more political freedom. if china and india and the u.s. for all free, flourishing liberal democracies, your futures, i think, would be much brighter. china is worrisome because is a -- an unstable political situation because it is governed by this one party that does not have much legitimacy except that they have been doing a good job of keeping economic growth going. but if economic growth slows down, it could go in another direction. it is right of you all to think a lot about china and to learn a lot about china and india, i would say. your generation is going to be much more focused on asia than mine has, probably. when i went to school, we learned about europe and asia was a secondary thing.

for you all, china and india are a large part of the future. host: growing up, many fathers say, and each your meal because their return and india who are starving. -- eat your meal because there are starting children in china and india. now he says, each more meal because -- eat your meal because there is competition. guest: it is an achievement for the world and it is an achievement that the united states can take some credit and develop some pride. we provided open trading framework in which these countries could attract capital and export goods. again, that costs us sometimes. people lose jobs here because china is exporting goods. from the broader point of view,

i think, is a very good thing that china and india have been able to make the progress they have. host: the next call is from compton, california. ida is on the phone. caller: this article is called "return of the neocons." i will tell you about our financial crisis. our crisis is funding israel and fighting wars for them. and now you want to start a draft? everyone knows that aipac controls our congress. you can look on page 147 of the 9/11 commission report that talks about why we were attacked on 9/11, because of our support for israel and their oppression of the palestinians. guest: we were not attacked on 9/11 because we were supportive of israel. the congress is not controlled by israel. israel has never had any american to fight for israel.

we give 3000 in foreign aid -- $3 million in foreign aid every year to israel. maybe we should not give accurate -- give it back. -- maybe we should not give that. host: today, the israeli prime minister is sitting down with the president. what do you think that conversation will be like? guest: i have met them both and they're both impressive, intelligent and proud men who are not used to differing to anyone else in the room. they're both used to being deferred to. i would like to be a fly on the wall at it. i guess they're not even allowing cameras at all, not even for the handshake at the beginning. obviously, there have been tensions between the obama administration and the netanyahu administration.

presumably, they will try to work that out in private. tensions are usually about small things when compared to the threat of a nuclear iran. i hope they focus, honestly come on what we do to prevent this iranian regime from getting nuclear weapons rather than squabbling over a part of -- apartment buildings in a part of jerusalem that is already jewish. is going to be part of israel the matter where the borders are. it is stupid, in my view, of the obama administration to overreact to the surprise. it is an unnecessary fight when they should focus on iran. host: right appear. >> i'm from oahu. i was wondering about illegal immigration. i am not a bit -- a very big fan of that, but i believe that everyone should be able to live in this c