caller: i think it's ridiculous that the people who made their mortgage payments on time -- this seems like for the people to do the right thing are the ones who are getting hosed and the people who do not care about anything keep getting money given to them and hand over fist. i think it is unfair the. host: we're talking about under water homeowners. what do you have to say text caller: i have talked to people who have been going through this process. the banks are making it very difficult. they are going through this test model more than once pe. one person is turned down for one thing and they accept them back into another test model.

the only person that seems to be helping them mess naca and i would like to see s something streamlined where people could get some help. it seems to me that the banks are messing with their minds. host: "the new york times" says," i am currently unemployed, what can i qualify for a dense"?" you have to live in a home to qualify and the mortgage balance has to less than $729,000 but the monthly payments represents more than 31% of the borrowers total income.

if one person works in the household and one is unemployed, you would not be eligible. you need to prove that you are receiving unemployment benefits. the amount of the reduced payments will be added to the balance of the load you pay off later. jacksonville, fla., up next. caller: good morning. i have my tv turned down i have been in my home for 21 years. i am an underwater home owner. i have a tarp of my roof -- on my roof. i am upset right now while i am

talking to you. i took $4,000 out of my bank account and i am totally disabled. i lost my roof and since 2005 i have been fighting this. host: you qualify for this program? caller: i think they do. host: will you take advantage of this? caller: if i could foreshadow more about this i would. i went to legal aid on friday. i have two more weeks. when with the city ordinance because it was against my house. the assistant attorney general, because it is a state thing, he called legal aid and told me to go down there and make an appointment and i had to walk

for blocks. i've using a cane in a wheelchair -- and a wheelchair. i was in tremendous pain but yes, i want help. i need to know what i need to do. host: if you want to learn more, the federal housing administration website might be the place to go, fha.gov. you could also go to hud.gov. there is a front page that you see when you go to it. "the los angeles times"says it is unnerving to think about the fha taking on the risk of millions of new loan guarantees free benefit of the refinancing program thinks it can have all problems who have borers because of the steep drop in home values have become trapped in bad

loans. cape cod, mass., go ahead. caller: the big problem as i see it is that the home values have decreased because of a poor economy. appeared mass., we're getting taxed more and more. my real estate tax this year when up 30% in my town. if the economy does not pick up, the whole federal government will be owning more private property. the government will start owning everything if all these houses go into default. it is a big problem for the national populous that a lot of people will no longer own homes. they will be in debt to the government forever.

fannie mae and freddie mac are going bust. we are spending way too much money. it looks like the future is very dim instead of bright. it looks -- we don't have a feeling of security toward the future right now. that is a major problem. host: the previous caller called the economy stable. what would you call it? caller: the problem is that the economy is flat. it is very poor. there is no, it's going on. around here in massachusetts, it takes weeks and weeks and i am talking a year-and-a-half to think about selling a house. people have had their properties for sale for two years. nobody is buying any realistic around here. nobody is selling anything. nobody is manufacturing. i think it is a stable economy but it is an extremely flat economy. host: how to help under water

homeowners is our topic. secretary of state clinton talked about the recently announced arms deal between the united states and russia. there's a breakdown of what it means. it says that when it comes to currently deployed strategic warheads, the new arms control treaty would set a new limit of 1550 of strategic warheads. when it comes to launchers, it would reach 800. current deployed ballistic missiles and strategic bombers would reach a limit of 700. the current tactical warheads that operationally of billable would go to -- there is no limit there. the warheads that are awaiting dismantlement would stay the same, as well. caller: did you want to talk

about housing still ta? host: yes. caller: i have a good example of someone under water. it appears that in the poorer areas of the homes will not come to the values they are now. that is just a fact. this house that she is in, she is putting $1,000 down, it was sold at two to thousand dollars which it is a modest home in a working-class district. it is now worth $60,000. she is upside down to the tune of $180,000. she is never going to realize that. it is an impossibility. people are forgetting that any mae and freddie mac played an

extremely important part in this situation. they allowed a predatory lending in the banking industry. some of that was spurred by the fact that fannie mae and freddie mac and the government was indicating to people that they were not doing credit. it was homes with no background checks, no names, you did not have to prove your income. there were many people that tibet is a bad and now they are in a course but. -- there were many people that took advantage of that and now they are in may spot. a spot. people who took that should not be awarded with -- rewarded for bad behavior. the government just does not have the money. our debt ratio -- within five

years, we will be paying at present levels, forget about this program, $800 billion. host: flint, michigan is up next, what is the nature of the economy there? caller: terrible, sir, terrible, terrible. i am a disabled veteran. that lady who just called -- i did not hear anybody talk about the war. if we did not have to pay for one year of the war, we could help out all these people. i am suffering. host: what do you think about this new effort for homeowners? caller: they want me to give $5,000 to get out from under water. they appraised my house at

$200,000. now, i am coming up to $140,000. they brought this into two loans. i got a second mortgage. i am paying about $2,000 per month on both of them. i am not asking to get out of the loan. i am asking for one interest rate would gmac. they are charging me 11.5%. they told me i get too much money from the government. they do not want to help me at all. i think it is a scam. they want me to give them $1,500 up front. host: sioux city, iowa, go ahead caller: i am glad you accepted

my call. i love your show. if someone purchases of a house and you assume they purchase it because they like the house and if they sign in knowing they can afford the loan, they should not sign if they cannot afford the loan, it is inconsequential if the value of the property goes down. we purchased our, 1977. we bought a little above arab means, or so we thought the house payment was $387 per month. the house has been paid for for many years. we are solvent and we live within our means. we certainly knew what the amount of money was when we purchased the home. if the price goes down, who cares? we like the house. my second comment is that we own a second home in florida that we inherited from my father when he passed away a couple of years ago.

the home had plummeted in value it happens to be in one of the worst real estate markets in southwest florida. the condominium was paid for and we could afford to make the monthly payments to keep it, so we did. if we had had to sell it because there were still remain payments, we simply would have sold it at the reduced rate and sucked it up. host: as far as government efforts in this matter? caller: i am very sensitive to the sad situation with people losing jobs. that has to be taken into a hold that different set of considerations. those folks deviling need help. as far as people who are still working and got loads and aknew what they're getting into, i have no sympathy for them. host: the president has to look again for someone to head the

transportation security administration. the retired major general took himself out of the running friday night as head of the tsa. he faced tough confirmation struggle so he bowed out. harding's past as a defense contractor raised questions about his nomination for head of the tsa. caller: might take on the situation is that rather having the government subsidizing these situations where they come in with these programs, it seems to me that they should be gauging the monthly payments that people have. in certain states and cities, there's typically an average monthly payment.

rather than subsidizing the situation which will just add to our debt, if they gave the people a lower interest rate -- a couple of years ago, they got a -- an interest rate of 6.75%. if they gave them 4.25%, they would be an affordable situation. if they stretched the loan at an additional five years instead of having a 30-year loan, hypothetically, someone's payment may go from $1,600 down to 970 and that whole situation is much more affordable. rather than letting the people off the hook on the principle which adds to our national debt, if the people want to stay in the house -- if they want to lose the house that is different. if they want to stay in the house, they can do the application and they can get the

pavement and bet that is based on a lower interest rates. to get to 4.25%, the banks are still making money. there is no subsidy involved. it seems to me like they should be gauging all the stock based on monthly payments and not based on the principal owed on the combination of lower interest rates and may be stretching the loan out five years creates a much more affordable monthly payment and that is a solution. host: we want to take a few minutes but we want to tell you about our "newsmakers"program. the interview this week is with the head of fema. he talks with two reporters about their efforts. one topic was the result of that

white house working group hamas comes to federal disasters. as you will see, he talks about possible recommendations from this working group of the federal response. >> you are part of the white house working group on disaster and recovery. i think it is supposed the -- it is coming up with its recommendations in the next few weeks. is fema's role changing? >> what is changing is that the stafford act is not the only program that the federal government has in a natural disaster. oftentimes, state and local governments are not aware of these programs. how you build a system that brings all the federal resources together where there are lot of aspects that congress has told

us to do temporary housing or shelter but we do -- don't you permanent. if you lose a lot of homes, who has these programs? hud has a piece of that and various programs. if you do not tie those together, we put people into temporary housing solutions but we are not lurk -- looking at the long term solutions. you end up with people who will be in temporary housing units will pass the point we would like to have those programs run. in a recovery, we have to work as a team and the stafford act is one of the tools. that is not the only tool. we need to bring the federal government together so when state and local governments are facing the problems of disaster as they do not set for web pages. host: "newsmakers"program is

tomorrow at 10:00. if you miss it, you can catch it again at 6:00. back to our calls about help for homeowners who are under water. branson, mich., are democrats line, go ahead caller: i am in the building trade. 60 years ago when i refinanced my house, not one bank would give you any loan other than a three-year arm. i got into one that was bad. i got out of that and got into an fha loan which was worse. it was because the interest rate was higher than where i was. the payments were more than where i was with the arm because the interest rates started accumulating two points every six months. i got out of that and i got into an fha. the mortgage company got absorbed by the government and

got disbursed to bankamerica. i am at the mercy now of bank of america. i have been dealing with them from august of last year and they told me they do not have my paperwork and they don't know anything. i went to the federal housing authority. they have done nothing for me. i got a letter the first of the year saying they might homeowners insurance. i sent that to them and bank of america says they did not receive it and they want to charge me more. meanwhile, they will not take a payment from the or discuss of the loan. i go to another housing authority and get on a three-way conversation. bankamerica wants me to take a second mortgage on my home to resolve and the back payments. i ask them if that would help me keep me in their hommy home,d

do it. they said i refused. then i got a letter that i was being kicked out of my house. we are all at the mercy of the bags. they can do whatever they want. bank of america got a hundred $11 billion from the government. the government was going to put regulations on them and they decided to give it back. now, they can do whatever they want. host: tenn., our republican line. caller: i built a home and is guaranteed for 30 years. i have a youtube video up. i contacted my senator, state representative, and president barack obama. he is busier than a one-legged

man in a mud kicking contest. host: how much to the home cost to build? caller: about $50,000. i pay $640 per month. it was built 10 years ago. i have contacted people to try to fix it. nobody refuses to do anything. these government bureaucrats telling me to take care of it myself. for many people, it is not their fault they are behind it is because of the economy. i am it 100% of service- connected marine.

i feel for these people. my house is falling apart. host: at&t joined in health charges. the company says it would take a $1 billion charge against earnings tied to the health-care overhaul. there is a graph that shows what these companies are saying about their costs under the new health-care law. there is an accompanying story.

the response from henry waxman to these companies as far as their claims as far as what they will lose. it says that henry waxman, the democratic chairman of the house commerce committee who is a strong advocate of health care reform. he says the chief exited -- executives hand over information. the new law was designed to expand coverage and bring down costs. the assertions are a matter of concern fon. they appear to conflict with independent analyses. you can see both sides of that perspective. naples, fla., our independent line. caller: i am actually in the

trenches, doing work and lost medication. -- mitigation. april 30 the contract has to be written and it has to be closed by june 30. i have seen mostly in the trenches, 38%. the treasury wrote 31%-38% for the debt to income ratio. if your mortgage payment is under 38%, obviously other debt as a problem, it is not the mortgage. they would not modify you in that case. the second tier is based upon what you owe. if you 0 $200,000. if they run that interest rate

down to 2.5%. , at $200,000, a 30-year fixed, if that is above 38%, you cannot afford a house. essentially, that is what they are doing. you first have a mortgage payment that is a problem and did you get past that, you qualify if you are over 38%, you have to get under that because they will not reduce principal. if they do, it is for serious hardships, mental part of, something major. what they would do is to use forbearance on principle, not a principal reduction. when you transfer ownership, it could come back. host: atlanta, georgia, republican line, good morning. caller: quite frankly, i feel

like the government needs to stay out of it. you signed it alone. deal with it. i am currently in default on one of my loans. you know what? i signed it. tough luck if i lose it. host: you walked away from the housing question? caller: no, i haven't. i am still trying to keep it. if i lose it, big deal. you know? suck it up. go find an apartment. start over. do it better the next time. host: houston, texas, democrats line, good morning. caller: i would like to say to

all of the american citizens, have some pity on the citizens of this country. the unemployment rate is way beyond what any of us could said. ay or could think. i am not under water. i am 62 years old. f i haven'tha mortgage soap -- i have and fha mortgage. my interest rate is 3.75%. i plan to retire but because of the economy and my children are out of work, i am still working. they are under water because that went from two incomes to one. it is not that the people are not trying. the banks are stealing from the people. their credit card interest rates

have doubled. we signed a contract for fixed interest but they decided, for business purposes, to go up 10%. the way the system is set up, the poor people will never get out of debt. i thank you. host: off of twitter you talked about the previous caller talking about renting an apartment. what a people moved to apartments and the banks had to deal with millions of foreclosed homes? are independent line, you are the last call. caller: they are talking about lowering the amount of money that is paid on that mortgage. if they do that, it will devalues all the surrounding homes in that area. consequently, the states will

not collect as much money for their property taxes to keep their state afloat. i think it will lead to so much more debt in the states and i do not know what will happen. i would rather see them keep the mortgage rate for the house based on the value they paid stretch that mortgage 40 or 50 years. that way, even though the banks would make less money now, eventually if they extend the mortgage, it will catch up at a lower interest rate. i hate to see the states get into any more trouble than they are right now. i want to thank you very much for letting me speak. host: that is the last call we will take. if you follow the new said all, you probably heard about axle of violence and expressing anger about the health care legislation. our next guest is linda feldman.

she wrote an article about this. she will be with us in a few minutes. >> today, supreme court justices antonin scalia and steven briar on the constitution. is it a living document?

>> i don't pretend that this is producing a flexible system. to the contrary, it is producing what a constitution will produce and that is frigidity. >> we have to deal with an organization that is capable of passing laws in accordance. of the powers given by the constitution of the united states. >> america and the courts, today at 7:00 p.m. eastern, on c-span. >> the renovation of the pentagon has made it much harder for a reporter to just walk around. more and more spaces are now behind doors where i cannot go on this i am escorted. >> sunday, the national security correspondent on covering the military here in the u.s. and iraq and afghanistan. that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is the linda feldman, a reporter from "the christian science monitor." tell us what you have learned about america since the passage of health care? guest: there has been a lot of turmoil and the last year, even longer, since the economy kind of craft and moved to the bigger collapse. we have double election of obama and the rise of the tea party movement. there have been protests all over the country and people showing up at town hall meetings with guns in close proximity to obama. there is a rise in hate groups. there are some alarming trends.

my editors decided they wanted something that looked at anchor in this country and to put it in a historical perspective. host: where do we stand now compared in years past? guest: this is a time of dissatisfaction and anger but it is not extraordinary. even comparing where we were in terms of polling on public anger in the early 1990's when you had the perot movement, it is different than the tea party movement. the polls showed that anger and dissatisfaction was higher even though unemployment was lower. this is nothing new. history does not repeat itself but it rhymes. there are similarities and differences ho. host: you wrote a follow-up piece looking at legislators.

what has happened since the signing of health care and what do you see since you reported earlier? guest: it has been quite a week. there was the passage of health care and the signing. you have the protesters coming to washington. we had big immigration reform on sunday. on the eve of the passage of health care, you had to tea party people agitating near the capital. you had members of congress, the democrats, walking through that crowd. some of them were hearing racial epithets. you also had some republican house members standing on a balcony and addressing the protesters and some democrats were not happy with that. they felt they were agamemnon. -- egging them on.

it has become a political issue of the anger has been addressed. the democrats are feeling that this is working for them. it is making the republican party look radicalized. the republicans are stuck because they do not support violence. they keep saying that but they know there is a lot of energy on the right and they don't want to discourage that energy. they see momentum heading into the fall elections. they have to walk that fine line between encouraging legitimate activism and discouraging violence and death threats. host: there were broken windows in arizona and pictures of n oooses. there were envelopes of white powder at an office in new york.

have you ever seen this kind of attention to signs of violence in years past? guest: veterans of the civil rights movement say this is nothing new. it was worse back then. instead of people faxing pictures, you actually had lynchings. today we have the social networking and more technology. things can move more quickly. there are more ways of communicating. it is different but it is the same perio. host: sarah palin entered into this and what was the result? guest: she released her list of democratic leaders in the house that she wants to help defeat. she put a map of the united states on her website and had

cross hairs of the congressional district of the members she wanted to defeat. some people felt that win over the line. most conservatives defended her. elizabeth hasselbeck recalled that despicable. she was a supporter of sarah palin so that cost attention. host: the battleground states put it in contests. guest: john mccain defended her and said battleground imagery is as old as politics. people were concerned about the gun imagery. people -- twitter had called upon people to reload. you had that message and then you went to facebook and have

the gun cross hairs up there. at the rally that sarah palin and met john mccain appeared at yesterday's for his reelection, she addressed the issue of violence. she explained that taking up arms means to vote. she is trying to distance herself off from this idea that she wanted people to take up arms hostguest: there is a mega- rally protest coming into harry reid's home town. he is in a tough reelection fight. we will see what happens if anybody shows up with guns or if the rhetoric goes over the top. cspan might be covering that? host: yes, here are the lines if you want to weigh in on anger in

the united states. political anchor in the united states and linda feldmann is our guest. you had mentioned of the civil rights movement. "the washington post" talks about this. he says today's tea party is like the george wallace legacy. they fear they are being driven from their rightful place in america. they seem to come from the anti- civil rights alumni.

they are faithful to the old george wells playbook. guest: it is an interesting time for the tea party movement have not been around that long. in a way, i feel sorry for tea party activists. most of them are law-abiding, not racist, concerned about fiscal issues. they are concerned about debt and the deficit and what they seek as an outrageous overreach of power by washington, bailouts of banks and individuals who are behind in their mortgages. they are small government conservatives. then there is the friends that gets involved. -- then there is thefringe that gets involved. they are questioning president obama's legitimacy as president. the tea party movement faces a

challenge in holding on to the energy and playing a role in the political process without being completely consumed by the wackos. host: has the tea party done anything to tamp down this kind of rhetoric? guest: they talked about it but what can you do? you have a rally which is open to the public and what can you do? they had a tea party convention in tennessee a couple of months ago. you had some speech is that people generally thought win over the line. tom tancredo talked about having a literacy test for people to vote. people complained about that. people in the tea party movement said they did not go far enough to distance themselves from that. there is internal and -- there is internal contention. they want to keep a legitimate and nonviolence and out of their

fringe. host: legislators are weighing in on this as well. here is a republican leadership member mike pence from two days ago on the house floor. >> that is no excuse for bigotry, threats, acts of vandalism and i condemn such things and the strongest possible terms. people who engage in such attacks undermine our cause. they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of blogger. i also rise to contend the efforts to smear millions of law-abiding americans who oppose obamacare by associating them and their opposition with these criminal acts. host: several house legislators weighed in on that sentiment. guest: this is a concern for the republicans have an image problem now. they are strong politically

heading into november but it could pull back a little on their momentum. the democrats and obama death, they have the momentum now coming out of the health care victory. the debate over health care is not over. obama was in iowa couple of days ago and will continue to travel to talk about what the law does. you have conservatives who are apoplectic about what has just passed. they are talking repealed but we know that is not possible. obama would never sign that. he has 61 votes to override a veto. the political calculus shifted overnight after health care passed. republicans are on the defensive and you had the incident with david to fromme who posed a contrarian point of view and lost his job over that and suggested the republicans have overreached.

there is discussion on the right about where to go next. liberals, democrats are obviously thrilled that the got this through. there is still this tremendous anger with washington throughout the country. going into the fall, the democrats will probably lose many seats. host: mission viejo, california, you are up first. caller: good morning. i am younger than the civil- rights time. i wonder if the same people you see out there now, if their colors were brown and black and they were showing up in the streets with guns, why don't we see the fire engines with the water hoses and the dogs right now? i do not understand what makes

the difference here? guest: well, people have the right to assemble on the right of free speech. depending on the jurisdiction, there is the right to carry weapons. there is a reason for the police to break that up. host: framingham, mass., on a republican line. caller: good morning, as far as i'm concerned, at this hysteria is being greeted by the media. as far as sarah palin, it is sarah paycheck because he is merchandising this. i don't the she has any serious political future. there's anger being expressed. if barney frank was an investment adviser, would he be fired by now? he said that fannie mae was fine for the last 10 years and i

think barack obama is president of the united states as a result of that. many people look at this and say they have been taken. guest: if victory has many fathers, defeat has few. people have been called to blame for the collapse of the economy and is not just the republican economy. it goes back into the clinton years as well. both parties deserves some blame here. host: illinois, you are next, on our independent line, good morning. caller: i don't think people realize the anchor that is out there. many people in this area are very angry because this bill was

passed. it will not help my husband and i at all. it will make our situation worse. host: have they expressed that in any way in your area? caller: there are groups of people in restaurants talking about it, stuff like that. quite a few people are very angry at this. we are not well off. the company we week for -- we work for, sellers had to go down. we are one of the lucky few that does not have a house payment. everything else is going up. the economy, the prices are going up and now we have to supply our own insurance. we're scraping by now. we will not be able to afford this. we work for a small company that employs a little over 50 people

and if they have to afford insurance, they will have to start getting rid of people. the mood out there is very hot style. guest-- is very hostile. guest: there is a lot of fear out there about what this bill will do. most americans to have health coverage. many people are concerned that they will lose what they have. the democratic argument is that the system was unsustainable. it started with 50 million uninsured but the costs were rising astronomically in some cases on a yearly basis that we could not keep going at this rate. there is also an argument that

if your individual situation gets -- is not as good as it used to be that there should be some concern for the greater good of society. there are many people who had no alternative but to go to the bar is a room and a health crisis. -- in a health crisis. host: what do you make of all lawsuits and the anchor issue? guest: the lawsuits are big. i am not an expert on that. those are mainly centered on the individual mandate and whether that is constitutional and whether the government can require you to purchase a particular product spreat. the anchor issue is interesting. i talked to a tea party activist who lives there oakland, california and travel

to tennessee for the tea party convention. i asked her if she was angry and she said she was beyond anger. she was in action mode. for some people, it feels better to be doing something rather than just sitting around stewing or being destructive in some way. these lawsuits are definitely an avenue for angry conservatives to fight back and take this into the court system. . . .

most of those in the tea party. i believe some of them are actually addressing the legislation itself but most of them you can see by all the signs and stuff, i don't care what they say. i was kit in the behind and spat on because i tried to go to school when it was integrated, when i was 12 years old i went in the restaurant and they kicked us out because we wanted to sit down. i know how you are. so whatever they're saying is just disguise d racism because they can't stand the fact that this black man dare to pass, try to pass a law and he has no right. host: linda. guest: well, there is no doubt that there is a racial component to this and it's impossible to sort of parse in the tea party movement who is

motivated by racism and who is motivate bid fiscal concerns. i think it's the economic collapse followed by the huge stimulus package and the bailouts that really got this movement going. but yet, at the same time we elected a black president and so there's this whole swirl going on. and i know that african americans in particular are highly sensitive to minorities are all colors are sensitive to this and that you can watch a tea party movement and see the signs and feel very threatened. host: would you say that the public perception, the overriding tone is racist? guest: it's hard to know. recent polls on the tea party movement actually show that i think it was in the recent poll showed that about half of americans just don't even have an impression of the tea party

movement. maybe they've heard of it but don't know what it's about. so the tea party movement, it's not a big national group, they try to keep themselves local and locally based, locally active and not turn into a big movement or party, that it's impossible to say how each individually are dealing with that. some might be going over the line on the racial issues and other others are really working hard to steer clear of that. host: wellington, florida. caller: good morning. i just want to say to ms. feledman that this discussion about the tea party movement or just conservatives in general or what i call the american spirit being racist is so auchesive and is what fuels the anger in america. it is just ridiculous that it's obvious the americans are

disgusted with the spending and it doesn't have anything to do with race. what happened many massachusetts and the senate torl and the governor races around the country, the polls that the americans wanted, tort reform in the health care, they wanted free market concepts to be employed, to be able to purchase your insurance like you do car insurance or home owners insurance across state lines. we wanted cost containment in this and all the government is doing is push 24 on to people who are buying private insurance policies. that's why we're angry. we're going to be forced to buy a product from a private insurance company with no cost containment and no limit on what we have to pay for it. they're taking away the precondition claws and then forcing us to buy a product. the constitution does not allow the commerce claws to be employed for someone not purchasing.

you're going to mandate that we, a person not purchasing anything, just live thirg life freely is now going to be forced to buy something. and when will that stop? if you're going to force us to buy private health insurance, then you're going to force us to join health clubs and eat certain foods. and you can wrap anything into this health care thing. guest: i think she laid out the concerns of a lot of americans. the reform that just passed is still, a majority of the public, maybe a slim majority is still unhappy about it, fearful of what it will bring. it's such a huge piece of legislation. it's the biggest expansion of the social safety net in 50 years almost. and sort of people are worried about what this will mean for us and the idea of being required by law to purchase

something from a private company is offensive to a lot of people. we'll have to see what happens in the courts. host: this kind of anger, does it eventually subside? or just because we've had these big events? guest: obviously the recent events have fueled the anger that's been sort of at play now for over a year. if the economy improves, if we see unemployment in particular declining over time and people feeling there is an actual recovery and it's not a job ls recovery, i think that will do a lot to kind of come people down. host: one of the voices that have weighed in on this issue of political anger is chris van hollen in maryland. here are statements that he made recently on television. >> these are not isolated incidents.

you're seeing this happen across the discountry. during the protests over the health care bill up here on capitol hill we heard a lot of ugly slurs, we heard a lot of eepthets thrown around. and that was outside the capitol. but unfortunately some of that also took place on the floor of the house with a republican member shouting out baby killer. and what's happened here is the republican leadership, instead of saying to its supporters around the country calm down, that this is a time to try and put down the flames, they're pouring more and more gasoline on the flames. and that is irresponsible. it's time that there be some adult supervision within the republican party. that some republican leader say this is not acceptable, that we can disagree with one another without this kind of outrageous conduct. host: do both sides use these politically? guest: of course. and then they deny they're being political. you have the republicans saying

that the democrats are suggesting that the democrats are using all theagetation for their political benefit and then you get this -- i was going to say sniping but that's gun imagery, and we're trying to calm down the rhetoric here. host: off the internet. john says that all the information from white house is the cause for anger. can honest and civil debate stop it? guest: this idea, but that comment reflects is just the utter lack of trust in washington. i think the latest polls show that maybe 25% of the american public trusts washington to do the right thing. so even though in a way it's amazing that president obama is still close to 50% in support. i mean, half the public still believes this him as president. but the, -- i've been in washington 22 years and i've never seen such a importantly

rised time. one of the most striking -- polarized time. we've never done anything like this before. it poses risks for the democrats going forward. it just makes it look like they tried but republicans say they didn't try. you even get this sort of meta debate going over that about why there was no bipartisanship here. host: the next call, san diego. charles on our independent line. thanks for holding on. go ahead. caller: thanks for having me on. i've been very involved with the tea party movement and i can say my great, great grand father and my whole family comes from a long line of abolitionists and i'm very sensitive to race and i have to tell you, there is -- i'm not going to say no racism in the tea party that i've been to,

and i've been to a lot of them since february 2009. but i have not seen one person that i would consider a racist. and i have to say that it is political rhetoric designed to ramp up and shut up people that are part of the bipartisan opposition to the current democratic political machine that's running washington. i had the opportunity, because i'm an independent, to help some journalists talk to small business people. i'm a spall businessperson so i started calling my clients that i know and started asking them if they were willing to make comments on the health care bill for a newspaper article here in san diego. and nearly everyone i talked to was afraid to commint --

comment. and that's the goal of why they are lying and saying that there's an additional amount of threats in congress. it was reported the other day that the sergeant at arms of congress had given him a letter that said there is no rampup in threats. this is a regular level of threat that these people live under as politicians but it's being accent wutted and brought to public attention at this time to continue to ramp up the rhetoric. this is not -- this is a political tactic to shut people up. so there's a bipartisan opposition to the direction of which they're trying to take this country. guest: he correctly high lights the role of the media in this. and when something sensational or outrageous happens, the media are going to be on top of that.

they're not going to cover all the peaceful, calm, rational discussion going on every day about the future of the co country and the future of health care reform. so this is one of the big new developments of all this. we have the cable, the cable talkers and talk radio and the web. but it's true that people, that because of -- and particularly because of the web and web sites where they're posting the addresses of people, trying to post the addresses of members of congress so that people can, quote, drop by, that's frightening to a lot of people. i understand why people don't want to talk to the media. host: peggy noonan weighs in this morning on the waug street journal. and she says both sides need to cool this or something bad is going to happen. when i worry aloud about this and say to a conservative that or liberal that i feel something bad is going to happen, no one disagrees. they say left right and center,

i'm afraid of that, too. guest: some people say it's words, but nancy pelosi was saying words have meaning, words have weight. cool it. in a way she's like a mother of five and she knows about words and how words can hurt and how words can sort of inspire people and maybe incite something tragic. host: but if you have responses from house leadership, from the tea party, from those inside. is there more concerted effort than that? or is someone trying to calm down on the rhetoric? guest: well, people have said the right things. you had a member going on the talking about how they're going to get, was it steve from ohio, he's dead, he said. he said well i meant politically dead. so people have -- they engage in outrageous rhetoric and then

pull back. by the end of friday, i could feel the steam sort of declining in washington. people had left town, it's spring recess. we've got two weeks off. a lot of people have left town because their kids are out of school for a week. so we'll see. it's all been concentrated in washington and now it's disbursing around the country and we're going to have rallies, town halls, speeches, we'll see where that leads. it could set off little fireworks all over the country. but i would like to think that people would realize that all thisagetation could end tragically in some way and that we just don't want to go there. host: we have about 15 more minutes. greg on our democrat's line. caller: good morning to everyone. the first thing i want to say here is since barack obama took office, the threat level against him or assassination or whatever has lit up

tremendously. and that's reported by the secret service and they're independent. and they would know better. so there is a problem and it is linked directly to race. having said that, hasn't the christian monitor put out mouse pads, ape rns, t shirts, teddy bears with scriptures saying to assassinate the president and to make widow of his wife and to get him removed from office? i think you should speak more to that. guest: the christian scientist monitor has done nothing like that. we're not part of this so-called christian conservative movement. we are a politically independent and nonpolitical entity. the christian science monitor is -- our stated motto is to injure no man but to bless all mankind.

so we're interested in not looking away from conflict and threats and bad things but we're looking and having kind of a healing impact and not inciting people and adding toward moreagetation and violence. host: wisconsin. steven on our republican libe. caller: good morning. just listening to some of these calls, the last one said that the death threats went up on the president since he became president. well, a report was just filed. he is right in line with the last few presidents. so that's nothing new there. it's ashame. also, if you would go to tea parties, you would see besides republicans and libertarians there's also a lot of democrats at them because they don't like all the spending and the taxing. and you were talking about the

violence and stuff like that. two years ago, during the election out in colorado, a brick was thrown through a window at the democrat combrick head quarters. the papers picked up and ran with it. all the hate. guess what, it was a democrat that threw it. it wouldn't surprise me if this last one was the same thing using that same tactics trying to get, after passing this terrible bill, being down in the polls, they want to get some sympathy and everything else. that call to mark stupak, he had a lot of them before he voted from the union members that he said weren't very nice, of course we never heard any of them. that last one also maybe came from a liberal. we don't know. so why are you blaming people before him? and then -- host: we'll leave it there. guest: there is something called the reporting effect

that once the media sort of catches on to a theme then you get more people coming in saying this happened, and there is a lot of kind of lumping together of all kinds of events. for example, the incident in virginia where a propane gas line was cut to at the home of the brother of a member of congress, the police have said it was a deliberate act. they don't know who did it. for all we know it was some neighborhood kid and that it maybe had nothing to do with the fact that a local tea party activist had posted this guy's address on the web. reporters need to be careful when they're sort of talking about trends that there rally is a trend here. and when eric canter the house minority whip stood up and in response to the democrats on this issue of death threats and attacks on democrats. he said, i get threatening

calls and e-mails all the time and people go after him because he's jewish. he says but i don't talk about it because i don't want to whip up a frenzy over that. we don't know what we don't know. we don't know what members are really experiencing and whether there's an increase in threats against politicians. on this issue of barack obama, my understanding is that there has been an increase on threats on him and that people in that world who look at the activities of millishas and hate groups have seen a dramatic increase really in recent years and since the election of barack obama even more. as you know, barack obama was given secret service protection earlier in the campaign than historically would have been the norm because of threats against him. host: orange park, florida. on our independent line. caller: good morning. i have three points that i want to make but just to what she just was talking about.

fox news is the antitsdzsiss of what is going on with the tea party. in fact, they basically bank roled and encouraged this. and to see how president obama was treated during that interview is just a direct reflection of how these people do feel about president obama. so let's just be clear. yes, there are some people that have a problem with the deficit but i say to them where were you when big business was raping our country a few years ago? to the c-span audience who tend to be more educated, we were saying years ago this is not sustainable. we're spending money we don't have. the republicans did not want to repay the money at the beginning of the war. et cetera.

the provisions that were put in place in terms of regulation were moved from the banks et cetera. every piece of legislation that went through was against the american consumer such as the bankruptcy laws et cetera. so now they're angry about what is going on. but this is a direct result of what happened in the past 8 years and what angers me as a journalist, no one is really out there doing the hard reporting. and i would like to put a challenge to the christian science monitor or c-span or anyone. someone needs to do a comparison to what george h. and george w. bush both did even reagan during their time in office. and what has happened during the george bush, w. bush presidency and see how these people go into office, make a mess of it and then when people

come in to try -- host: we'll have to leave it there. we're running out of time. guest: she's touched on something that is definitely true. people are angry. conservatives are angry about president obama and his agenda and his health care reform. but they're also angry at george w. bush. he spent a lot of money as president. he started a new entitlement himself. the prescription drug plan. invaded iraq. not paid for. so it's not necessarily just anger at democrats. they're in some ways just as mad at george w. bush. they say he's not a true conservative. in a way this helps sprain why the tea party -- explain why the tea party grew up. they sort of felt the elites on both sides of the aisle were not addressing their concerns and so they had to take action themselves. host: you talk about a poll towards the tail end of the

piece that you wrote. and you said that with partisan differences and optimism, 83% of democrats saying 2010 will be better than 2009, compared with independents and republicans. but those numbers represents an increase for all three groups. guest: it's i want resting in light of all the negative thing that is have been going on, that at the beginning of this year this poll found increases in optimism over previous years and some people were joking -- well, americans are by nature an optimistic people. i think even if you went to tea party rallies you would say that they are optimistic. they're not giving up, they're out there expressing this point of view because they believe in a better future for this country. and other people saying that well they maybe just feel it can't get any worse. there's no where to go but up. host: georgia on our democrat's

line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i don't even know where to begin with ms. feledman. she gives me the impression that she is a racist and so is the christian monitor organization. it seems that she has taken up to defend everything that the republicans, the conserve tives, the tea party movement that all of them does. first of all, i hope you give me time because i'm really upset about this. first, when the question was brought up by the young lady, i don't remember where she was from a few calls back. when she said change the color of the picture. she was from the 1960s. i'm 69 years old. i lived through the civil rights movement. i fought in the civil rights movement. so i understand. for all these people who say it has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with race. the gentleman from california

that said that he went to many tea parties and he didn't see any racist people there. racists don't see racism because they are racist, number one. the whole time she's been there you have defended sara palin, what sara palin said. that the conserve tives, the tea partiers or the republicans are not inciting everything. host: i will pause you there and let her respond. guest: well, i think i disagree. i don't think i'm a racist. i think that what's happening here is that we've had waves of anger andagetation in the past and we didn't have a black president. so yes we have a black president and we're seeing expressions of racism around that. and part of that is in the tea party movement. but you can't tar the whole tea

party movement as racist. it's just not true. so if i'm seen as defending them in any way, so be it. but i think people need to kind of pull the pieces apart here and look at what's really going on. you had the anti-tax revolts in the late 70s, early 80s. and that's some ways the precurser to what we're seeing today. just americans feeling unhappy about the size of government, government spending. and, you know, this, the prospect of greater government involvement in our private lives in terms of our health care. and it's frightening to a lot of people. and on top of that, we have a black president. so we have this whole kind of stew going on. and a lot of people with guns. in fact, we're going to have a rally here next month, april 19, a big second amendment march. there's just a lot of foment

and -- and as we can see from all the calls this morning that people are coming at it from widely varying points of view. and that's great actually. host: michigan. amanda on our republican line. good morning. caller: i am a 48-year-old white american woman who has never gotten involved in politics in my life. and the reason why you see all these people out there, tea partyors, it's not because we're racist people. it's because we don't like what we see what's going on in our country. barack obama was voted in by a majority of white people as well. there's no racism going on. and george bush, there was movies made about him being killed and murdered. there was pictures of him beheaded. there's a lot of threats on george bush's life as well. but the tea party began with

the ron paul revolution. people are upset with what's going on. dwonet like what's going on. barack obama ran as a centrist, which he's a far liberal. lies and deception is what's gotten people upset. host: we'll take one more call on that. that's our last call. final thoughts guest: i think i've said just about everything i have to say. but it's just, as a reporter, as somebody who is trying to sit back and dispassionately looking on and to be fair, it's a fascinating time. and there's a part of me that wants to flee and get outside the beltway and get away from all this intense feeling and shouting and yelling and lack of bipartisanship, but as a reporter it's a great story. host: the story that she wrote is the united states of anger. this is the cover you can find on the christian science monitor magazine. guest: it's a weekly.

we're on the web daily, hourly, new content always going up. and then for the stand-back larger perspective we have a weekly magazine. host: thank you. should a credit check be part of a job background check this that's the topic we'll take on when we return.

host: welcome back. joining us, melissa broom is joining us, the senior advocate for the jobs opportunity task force in maryland. also joining us is colleen, the government affairs director for the maryland society for human resource management and they represent human resource officers or employeeses. guest: we represent both the employer and the employees. host: we're talking about credit checks and job background check. could you set up what's going on in maryland. i understand there's pieces of legislation within the maryland assembly specifically dealing with this. guest: there's a bill that's been filed in the house of delegates and the senate that would restrict employers from being able to pull a credit check on employees in certain circumstances.

this idea has been gaining a lot of momentum particularly in this recession when you have people are experiencing long spells of unemployment. you lose your job, fall behind on your bills and get a ding. then you apply for a job and you're denied the job because of your bad credit. so this legislation would limit employers, in certain circumstances, from being able to pull credit checks. host: what are those circumstances that she talked about as far as or for what employers when they conduct these types of checks? guest: well, currently when an employer goes to pull a credit check, and not every employer pulls a credit check. they're pulling it generally in accordance to a certain job. so they're looking for someone with responsibility ors an executive, they may pull a credit report. to make sure that there's no pattern. we're not -- most employers, most hr professionals are not

going to come across to a potential employee just for the simple fact they have one blemish on their credit report. it's going to see a pattern. the past seven years have you paid one bill on time. and somebody lost their job a year ago or two years ago and they haven't been able to pay a bill since, that's understandable and it's not considered. host: and yet here we are with a piece of legislation that would block that. guest: that's where we have a problem. we want to see more of a balance between the employer and the employee. because a majority of the employers are doing it correct. they are putting exactly the credit report exactly to the position that they're being considereded for. host: so as far as that balance is concerned, what would you say to that then as far as the balance that at least from the human resources perspective? guest: we're seeing a trend where more and more are turning to credit checks as part of their hiring process, upwards of 60% of employers are using

credit checks to help them make decisions. and we think it's a pretty big leap to say that just because you're behind on your telephone bill, that that's going to equate to you not being responsible or trust worthy worker. we also know that the vast majority of blemishes on credit checks are caused by things like medical debt and divorce. and those things don't relate to you being able to perform a job. if you are in a situation where you're ill or we've heard stories of someone with cancer and you aren't able to pay the chemo bills and then you go to get a job and now you have to discuss that in an interview when an employer asks about -- people don't want to have to talk about something like that. in a job interview. nor should they have to. so, again, these are situations where your credit has, does not relate to your ability to do the job. and i think we're only going to

hear more and more about this in these economic times. host: you say 60%. guest: right. host: how do you get those figures? guest: actually from a survey that 60% in the most recent survy cited using credits checks in their hiring. that's up from 43% in a 2006 survey. and in the late 90s, it was only 43% or 25%. so the numbers are gring. host: she talked about the amounts of numbers being checked and then the causes, especially with medical concerns. guest: keep in mind from that survey out of that 06%, 13% did credit checks on all employees. they could have been banks, they could have been somebody in the state or federal level who are required to run credit checks on all their employees. now, 47% of those said that

they run credit checks just specifically for certain positions. and out of that 40%, 91% of them say they only run credit reports on people with judiciary responsibilities. so that's not everyone. host: so if you're a comptroller for companies, that's pretty much where the credit reports lie? guest: exactly. and in a human resource profession. i personally have had my credit check pulled. and i would want my credit check pulled if i had access to people's financial information. i have access to everything and i would want my credit report pulled to see that i am a decent person. guest: i would say that employers have lots of ways that they can determine your cribblet or your character. noth -- credibility. nothing this runs prohibits you

from running a criminal check or talking to references. you still are able to do all of that. we're only talking about the credit piece. and also, the legislation, said earlier, certain instances are exempt. and in any position where you're required by federal law to do a credit check, you still would be able to do that. fiddurebry positions are also exempt. so, again, we're going back to just this idea jobs or for many jobs there's no need for an employer to know what you're doing in your personal life with big able to pay your bills. that doesn't equate to you being a good worker. host: we'll continue on our discussion. if you want to weigh in with either of our guests here. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen.

you can also weigh in on twitter and you can also e-mail us. does the technology you have available make it easier to pull up credit checks than before? guest: it does allow people the ability to run credit checks on line and so forth. but to address some of the things, yes, we can run background checks, we can ask for prior work history, contact their prior employment. the problem with that is just due to legal ramifications, employers do not want to provide that information any more due to detamation lawsuits and so forth. so basically they give us name rank and serial number so we don't know how they did in their prior job. we don't know if they were trust worthy. what we look at is a bad habit. somebody who just habitually

does not pay their bills and if they're not going to pay their bills we find that they're most likely not going to service us that well, either. and i'm talking about leans, i'm talking about multiple debt collections. we're not talking about education, we're not talking about medical claims. medical claims i think is 1% of the one surveyeded only 1% looked at medical claims. and i know when i personally look at a credit checks, i do not look at education, medical. if somebody just comes out of college, you know they don't have credit history so you accept that. you have to talk to the potential employee and understand what's going on. host: history and patterns then from her argument is what you're looking for. guest: we hear from perspective employees that there's not a chance to discuss what's in the credit report. you know, that they get to the point where they're offered the

job, the last step is to run the credit check and then offer is rescinded. we've heard examples of that. but there's no opportunity to have a discussion about it. so we don't always know that employers are giving the person an opportunity to explain themselves. i also want to point out that in oregon they have been considering a similar piece of legislation and actually it has passed their assembly. it hasn't been signed yet but it has passed. and at their senate hearing they had the director of government relations for transunion come and testify and he said that at this point there is no research, no evidence to show any statistical correlation between what's in your credit and your likelihood to commit fraud on the job. so there's no research, no evidence to say that if you've fallen behind on your bills that this is going to follow you into the workplace.

and i'm sure that if it existed you can bet transunion would have that kind of information. host: i'll let you respond before we take calls. guest: there's a report put out in 2008 by the certified fraud examiners. they stated that financial difficulties and living beyond one's means were the two most common carktrissficks of employees that commit fraud. host: first call. rocky mountain, north carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. i noticed a lot of people called in and they're so afraid. they're so afraid of big government. and i think the problem we're missing, is big business. that's what's got us in this mess. you know, this right here is going to take a lot more jobs from americans. you can take someone from

overseas, say someone that comes from mexico. they can come over here with a rap sheet as long as my leg and they're never found out about it. the mexican government is not going to tell them about it. they can get everything, drivers license, and there's no trail record to know how many duis. but then you take the poor american and a person that got something on their record and it follows them for life. it's the same way about people that got some criminal stuff on their record. and what we're doing is disenfranchising millions of americans and they're being replaced with other people. and the reason these people's credit, a lot of them has gotten bad is because of big business. what they did was double the interest rate on people, on their home loans and stuff like that. so the stuff they've been doing over the past 8 years is the direct result of what happened to a lot of people. now, these people have been

punished and they're going to be punished more. host: we'll leave it there. to his point about in a time when people are searching for work, this makes it one step hard tore get a job. guest: i would not agree with that. because of the simple fact that if you have a blemish on your credit report it does not mean that you're not going to get a job. it means that you have a blemish on your credit report. you can either be forth coming and offer, i have this on my credit report and this is why, or 87% per our survey say that they ask an employee, we notice that you have this on your credit report. can you please explain. there is the option for a potential employee to come back and explain why they have this blemish. and again, we're not looking for one. we're looking at a multitude over a seven-year period. we're not just looking at one. host: is there an option to say i don't want a check performed? guest: there is the option.

and understood the federal fair credit reporting act, any employer who is going to run a check on you has to get your signature and you'll sign off saying you authorize it. so sk you have the option to say you're not going to sign off. but it's pretty much an assurance that you're not going to get the job. host: let me get you to respond. the last caller equated this kind of check to the equivalent of a criminal check. guest: i think he was just saying that there are also issues of criminal records, people who have -- i think he was just saying that people with criminal records also have things that follow them through and prohibit them from getting jobs. that's a completely different issue. that's certainly an issue but this is strictly about credit host: does it speak to the issue about stigma? guest: sure. absolutely. and i think what he said about how this is another barrier to getting a job is right on

point. i mean, that is what we're hearing. we have unprecedented numbers of people in this country whose credit has now been impacted because of job loss or because of the mortgage crisis. you name it. and it's just a reality that it's something that more people than we've ever seen are having to deal with. and now this is another barrier when thigh go to apply for a job. it's something else that's standing in the way of them gaining employment when really they just need to get the job so that they can get out of the credit mess, so that they can fix their credit. host: kentucky, bruce on our republican line. good morning. caller: yeah. ok. look, i don't want to sound like somebody down here angry. but, you know, i'm trying this morning when you first came on and you opened up your all's

phone lines and i sat here and i watched you all and i dialed and i dialed and i would get busy signals. and that's fine. i understand you've got a lot of calls coming in. but seven times when you had your other guest on there i would get through and the phone would ring and it would ring and it would ring. and then it would hang up on me. and then all of a sudden, you know, i dial and it'size by, busy, busy. and all of a sudden it hangs up on me. now, i don't know what's going on up there with your all's phone system but it seems like it's set up for certain people to get through. i mean, host: i'll stop you there and tell you that it's not. do you have a question to our discussion? caller: the anger here is people are tired of being ignored. it's just like this phone. i tried to get through to you

all. host: you made that point. and i think you're calling to our last segment so i'll stop you there. mark on our independent line. caller: i've been in law enforcement in 30 years on a federal level and i have to go through periodic back groupped checks to maintain my job. and 20 years ago i had a scenario where my wife and i had just gotten married. we bodes had separate homes and decided to combine. so we moved into her home and i rented out the home that i had. now, i had a tenant that stopped paying so i had to go to court, file papers, et cetera. now, when i got interviewed to maintain my position, that issue came up because i was unable to maintain paying the condo fees on the unit because we now have one household and i had a tenant who was not paying the mortgage on the other property. so i had to assume that responsibility.

even a person who has been in law enforcement for 30 years, i was extremely antagonist tick because i felt insulted that i had to set and have someone question me even with my background as to what happened in the scenario like that. and i'm saying these things about my personal life to a stranger. someone i've never seen before in my life. who absolutely knows nothing about me except for what's on this paper. and that's just one minor aspect of my entire life. so i do agree that this can be very offensive, and even a person like me who knows how to behave in all circumstances. i was very upset about that. host: we'll have both of you respond. guest: i have to understand this caller. i understand his frustration, i understand why he would feel this way. i don't know the protocols of the state or the federal and what they're looking for, but i do know that if i had an

employee who was an exemplary employee and who has always come to work on time, i've never had any issues and it was required by the state or federal that you run periodic credit or background checks, i don't believe that i would put any merit into one incident blemish on your credit report. it just seems unreasonable. so i have to agree with the caller. host: ultimately the people who decide whether an applicant goes forward if this comes up, is it just one person who decides typically, or does it have to go through some type of review process if there's a blemish on a credit check? guest: you have to remember this is very confidential information so it would technically be very limited people. i as an h.r. professional may pull the credit report and take it to my executive to say this is what we found. this is why this candidate will work, this is why he won't work. and it takes into conversation many different things just not the credit report.

so we're not just simply singling out this credit report. we look at all aspects of the applicant. host: ok. guest: thing this caller's story is typical of the stories that we hear. and what's so disturbing, in his case it's even more disturbing because he had already been working. he already had proven himself as a great employee. and as he said, now he's put in this position where he has to explain something personal that has nothing do to do with his work life to his employer. and you think he's someone who is already on the job doing a great job. if he has to go through this, can you imagine what it's like for the person who is just trying to get a foot in the door and who is up against all these other people who are vying for positions. employers, we've made decisions many times about what employers can and cannot talk to you about, an employer is not allowed to ask you in a job interview if you're pregnant or planning to get pregnant or if

you have a medical condition that might keep you out of the office at times. they are not allowed to keep you out of the office at times and this falls into those same lines. we don't think employers need to know if you've not been able to pay your condo fees. host: you said that there are other states considering this similar type of legislation that maryland is considering. how many states total? guest: right now my understanding is that there are 16 states with similar legislation before them. host: is there some type of when you go to the federal law does federal law address this at all? guest: yes it does. actually the federal bill is very similar to the maryland bill. basically, they state that you cannot run a credit report unless you have a are required by federal or state law or if you are in an executive position -- please correct me if i'm wrong -- or if you have judiciary responsibility. now, keep in mind the maryland

senate has just given the report. there is still a house bill but the senate has given an unfavorable report. so it's not going forward in the senate at this time. guest: the federal b act just says that you have to get the person's permission to pull the credit report. it does not limit the employer from being able to deny you the job based on what they find. even if what they find has no relationship to the job, you still are able to deny the person to the job. so what we're trying to say in maryland is that they would not be able to do that. so i would say the federal act does not address the issue. guest: i think he was talking about the new federal bill that's out. guest: but there is a bill or legislation that's been introduced by representative cohen but that's not -- has not moved. host: thanks for the clarification. if you're just joining us, we're talking about the topic of credit checks as part of a

background check list. they're with us for about 20 more minutes. jackson, tennessee. charles on our democrat's line. caller: good morning. i think the line should be drawn at criminal background checks. i think that it's not the employer's business what your credit situation is. you know, because like the lady was saying there, there could be just a little small blemish on your credit. that has nothing to do with your job performance. it has nothing -- say, for instance, this person is applying for a job. you go check other employees to

see -- employers to see what their work history was. they've got a good work record, a good work ethic, but they've got this little black mark on there frod from a credit report. i think the line should be drawn at criminal checks alone. other than a criminal check, the employer has no business knowing anything about your credit history. guest: i certainly agree with the caller. i also want to mention that there have been some employers in maryland who once they learn that there's noggetsdz -- nothing in the legislation that prevents you from doing a thorough investigation, once they receive that assurance they wids drew their opposition to the bill. so i do think there are employers out there who are just willing to say and understand that a criminal

record check is enough for them. host: does this usually happen at larger companies? guest: it varies. it can happen at larger or sayings, it can happen at smaller organizations. generally when you see it happen at smaller organizations you have one person who handles all the judiciary responsibilities, accounting, could be any kind of insurance and so forth. they basically have hands-on for everything. so that's when you see it in a small organization zoofplt when you say credit check, is that when you go to the three agencies who do these reports and compile them or is there a separate process? guest: it comes from a credit reporting agency. and what they do is they compile the three reports for us and then we purchase it from -- it's basically a third party. and we purchase the credit report from them. and keep in mind, it's not the credit report that when you get a mortgage.

it's not the same credit report. it does not give us a credit score, it doesn't give us account numbers. it gives us work history, it gives us what kind of loans they are and if there's been any delinquencies and those type of things. going back to the caller. again, the issue with the credit reports is that they really do only concentrate on those with certain responsibilities. it's not everyone. host: maryland, larry on our republican line. caller: i think you picked up the line early. i have to agree, even though i'm a republican, it just seems like sometimes business goes too far and they want it all. and a lot of times there's personal irresponsibility on the part of the individual but there's also employers that lay people off and there's other things. and it seems incredibly unjust that people be judged that way

they might get themselves into a situation where they were not living beyond their means, but because they get laid off or pay cuts, automatically they're thrust into a situation where, because of their debt obligations they are living beyond their means. host: we'll leave it there. guest: again, i think we need to concentrate on it's what position you're applying for. and also, it's not a one instance. we're looking at a seven-year history. we're not looking at what happened a year ago or two years ago, if there's a situation that happened such as a reduced pay or basically loss of job. we concentrate on what the situation is. you can see if there's a pattern of bad behavior. guest: i would just remind us that credit checks were determined or designed to be able to determine credit worthiness. credit checks were never designed with the idea of being

able to determine job worthiness. as the caller said, we all -- there are times in our lives where something happens, a pay cut, a layoff. and you do your best to have a savings and to plan for those times. but the economic reality of these days is that a lot of people are finding themselves in a position where they just can't make ends meet and they're deciding which bills they're able to pay and which ones they're not. and all they want to do is get back to work and be able to pay those bills and to be able to just do the right thing. and if we don't have evidence to show us that, that credit means you're going to be a bad worker why does an employer need that information? . .

guestcaller: what happens to a business when they do not pay their debts? guest: it is a free country. each individual is responsible for their own debt. how they handle their debt is their own choice.

host: would you agree? guest: sure. host: let's say the question comes up. do i as a job applicant say, this is my history. here is where i should explain this. guest: every interview is different. it depends on the specific situation you are in. we advise someone with this legislation, you know they will pull a credit check. if you have an opportunity to try to explain yourself -- on one hand, it may be a good idea to do that. then on the other hand, he may admit something that may make the employer more wary of you. guest: is there a good time?

guest: if someone is upfront and honest, i am going to take more merit into that, because they are showing that they are responsible. they know we will pull a credit check, and they are honest. host: should it be if you know they will be one of the key candida's for the position -- candidates for the position? guest: almost 90% of the survey of credit checks are only pulled after the job has been offered or right before it. it is generally at the end of the entire process. when the offer is rescinded, you can be deduced it was because of what was on the credit check, even though it was not discussed.

guest: if they feel -- they are required to receive upfront notice of their credit check being pulled. if they are not getting the position, if it is because of the credit report, there are certain requirements. the dimmest notified them -- they must notify them and give them a copy of the report. host: can use to, if you think you lost a job because of a credit report? guest: there are penalties if you fail to follow the fair credit reporting. guest: there is nothing in the act for the employer to deny you

of a job. it is only if they did not notify you that they are pulling your credit. host: democrats line. caller: i want to thank the c- span for this topic. i have been record by legislators for a while about this. i have been unemployed for about two years. i was denied a job when i applied. when i asked them why, they said they went with someone else. i felt it was because of my credit. should i attach an explanation of my credit before i go for a

job? guest: coming from the human resources profession, i am not sure i would include a letter. if you know it is on your credit report, i would discuss it with them and let them know the situation that came up if you feel comfortable. let them know it was due to a situation. before that, it was sparkling. i would not attach anything r to anything resume. guest: i appreciate this call. she touched on the points we are trying to make.

if you're going to discuss it, you will probably have to let the note -- let them know you are divorced and it affected your credit a certain way. they can offer many reasons for why they did not offer you the job. they could just change their minds. that is what we are trying to address. i do not believe in those cases that the person is getting a chance to explain themselves where their credits or that the employer is even telling them that they are not getting the job because of their credit. we have not talked about the discrimination aspect of this. there was a lawsuit against a

company for this practice they are looking at employers. they are looking to see if they are using this in a discriminating fashion where using it as an excuse to not hire someone. this is not an issue that is going to go away. we all need to think about this. we need to find a balance. no one is saying that we can just take blank credit checks entirely. there are certain things that we need to look at. host: what does it look like?

guest: what we discussed. the committee in the senate gave it an unfavorable report this way. the vote was very close. the house committee has not had a chance to vote. a lot of avenues stations ran stories. the question of the day was to you think -- a lot of news stations ran stories. they had a question of the day, do you think they should do this. i think some people are misinformed. when the question of abortion out -- when the question goes

out, if i did not have the knowledge i have, i would say no. in some instances, i would say yes. it is required. in other industries, it would not require it. that is a complication in the bill. host: next caller. caller: thanks for this opportunity. you guys are really fantastic, according to one person.

[unintelligible] marines have trained to kill. if this is such a great idea to have employers pulling credit reports, why don't we make reciprocal. why don't the employer open up the books so that employees can check their financial standings and everything else about them? what some people doing some cricket stuff? -- kirk didn'crooked stuff.

guest: every potential employees should check out the employer and see what kind of organization they are before they go for the interview. it is very important to see where they stand on issues and ethics. guest: its credit check was pulled on them, it would have looked fine. this is not an indicator of someone's character. host: independent line. caller: i do not know what the current line is -- lot is. i was wondering, the human resources woman --

host: you broke off a little bit. go ahead. we will leave it there. one more call, indiana, democrats line. caller: >> i have 10 years' experience in the employment and training industry. one person was talking about how it evolved from a military model where they did not want people to get security clearances because they felt if a person was receiving -- or was in debt, they could be bribed to pull some sort of espionage. what has happened over time is big businesses have captured this model. they say, if you have an

employee who cannot pay their bills, they are not a good worker. that is what big businesses have captured from this model. as far as employers not being able to say an employee is a bad employee, let me tell you how to get around that. would you hire that person again? you did not ask if they were a good employee? -- you asked if they were a -- if they werwould be hired again. they can get around it that way. host: final thoughts? guest: i think employers can find other reasons to say they are not going to hire you and say it is not because of your credit, when we know from the stories we have heard, it does

happen. people are denied the job because of something on their credit. we are in a tough time where people want to get back to work. people once gainful employment. it just seems inappropriate to be putting of this barrier when there is no evidence to say that bad credit will say that you will be a bad worker. guest: today are responsible for choosing the employees that have the knowledge, skill, and ability to complete an assignment or fill a position to the best of their ability. i do not know the background of this model. the credit report is for certain positions. it is not a credit report on all the employees. we do not agree with a blanket

policy unless it is required by state or federal law. what we do believe is certain positions can have a credit report did shows what is necessary for if a person is fit for a particular position. host: thanks for the discussion. we will take a look at the recently signed health care bill. we will be right back. ♪

>> today, on the constitution. is it a living document >> do not pretend that this is producing a flexible system. to the contrary, it is producing what the constitution will produce which is rigidity. we have to deal with an organization that is capable of passing laws in accordance with the powers given them by the constitution of the united states, which is the whole point of the constitution. >> "america act and the courts" today on c-span. throughout april, see the winners of the student camera video documentary competition. middle and high school students submitted videos on one of the

country's greatest strengths were challenges the country faces. meet the students to make them. for a preview of all the winners, visit this web site. >> mr. gorbachev tear down this wall. >> whether you are watching speeches, duquesne search it, watch it, click it, or share it online on the new c-span video library. every c-span program since 1987, the video library. it is the latest gift to america from cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: if i am a veteran at home, is there a perception that i am

getting about the recently signed health-care law? guest: the american legion is the largest veterans' services organization. we are hearing a lot of concerns from veterans and active duty in relation to the overall health care reform bill. they are wondering if there are benefits for health care did they have earned through service to our country. are those benefits protected in this new health care reform law? we are doing everything we can since the beginning of this debate to ensure that the health-care benefits that the service members have earned through different services as well as va health-care -- we have been part of the debate since the beginning to ensure that those health care benefits for our service members and veterans are preserved. host: how can you tell they are preserved? guest: the american legion, the

largest veterans' services organization is based on our membership. our resolution that we have this brought up from those veterans in the local community that says this is an issue as a major issue. we have heard from our membership. we have resolutions that have been brought forward by our members through our organization saying any health care reform bill passed in the country secures be a health care to our veterans, the retiree health- care benefits, try care for life, all those health care benefits are secure in any health care reform bill. here in washington, d.c., we have carried that message to congress passed and to the white house. our national commander has met

with the president to insure the need that those services are preserved. in those efforts, we have ensured that during this health care debate, va services and health-care benefits are preserved and not affected by any national health care reform host: bill is there any specific language in the law that goes directly to that? guest: yes. our director attended a hearing on saturday. during that hearing, the representative introduced a bill that provided language to secure tri-care. our presence in the hearing went a long way to ensure that this action was taken so that the language introduced in the bill would preserve this benefit. there is specific language in

the loss stunned by the president that insures that to be a health care meets the -- law signed by the president that ensures that va healthcare meets the required requirements. we need to keep in mind that this new health care reform law focuses on health care insurance. va is a health-care provider. tri-care is a health-care insurance paper. the language in this new law clearly states that anybody receiving this are meeting the obligations of that insurance provision in the new law. host: are their concerns that the money required to make the seven may be taken away from

some services? guest: we are hearing some of that as well. we are here to assure them that the american legion and the president himself has said that these will not be negatively effectived by the new law. host: our guest until 10:00 and the topic is health-care reform bill. here are the numbers. as far as where we go from here, what other issues when it comes to veterans and their health care -- what are you looking at?

guest: this is the beginning of the debate. the law may have been passed, but a lot of provisions will take time to implement. it will take time for us to understand how they will be implemented. it will take time for the american public to determine what is going on. those provisions in the bill should ensure that the veterans and their families are protected. this could be a major voice for america's veterans as we move forward with the implementation of this law. they continue to debate this. the american legion will be as vocal as recant regarding the issues on this specific bill. our concern is the specific provisions that affect the military and their families. we will continue to be part of

that debate. we will hold the president accountable for anything that comes out of this that negatively effect american veterans. host: how would you explain tri- care to date? guest: we have been dealing with complaints and confusion from beneficiaries for years. it has changed considerably. we want to ensure that it remains a viable health care payor for america's veterans that put the uniform on. if you do your service and retire, you will have health care for you and your family through these benefits. we need to make sure that the tri-care reimbursement level is attractive enough to health-care providers. we want to make sure that they tri-care beneficiary will not struggle to find a provider to

take their family to. we need to make sure that america's veterans and their benefits are not slowly becoming less effective. it is our obligation as a nation and the people lead benefit from the service of our military that when they come home and take up the uniform, and they have dedicated their life to our freedoms and liberties that we take for granted, their benefits are protected. we want to ensure that tri-care will remain a viable health care benefit for america's veterans. host: what is the range of coverage? guest: it is changing depending on availability. each one is different. i cannot comment on the full range. everyone has a program that they qualify for. but duquesne answer that question more directly if you

visit our web site. www.legion.org. host: a good deal of our callers are or will americans -- are older americans. guest: they get the coverage. there are qualified for the coverage benefit. the hard part is finding a tri- care provider. that is what we are trying to solve. host: they have to find a doctor who takes it? guest: that is it. they may have a workload of regular patients, those that do not set tri-care that can treat on a faster basis. medical practitioners are still running a business.

some doctors offices feel like it is too much of a struggle to bring in tri-care. host: is it the paperwork or the reimbursement? guest: yes, both. the reimbursement rate is not attractive enough for the practitioners. i do not know the ratio. they are different. you can check, or go to the website. regardless of the percentage you are getting, we are hearing and seeing that the doctors are not opting to provide care to tri- care beneficiaries. that is an issue we need to deal with. host: republican line from florida. caller: i am a partially

disabled veteran. i think the va is the greatest hospital system i have been too. it has changed since i went there in the first 30 some years ago. will this new health care program cut down on the amount of back up claims that the va is suffering from now? i heard it was 800,000. i have a job available. if anybody want one of my businesses to pick up, you can call me at -- >> i do not know if you want to give that kind of information out. i will stop you there. we will let our guest continue. guest: the backlogs of disability claims is the biggest

administrative challenge this year. it is a top priority. you mentioned 800,000. it is up to 1 million now. those disability claims are up to 1 million. it is dealing with the new legislation. a good decision has been made by the department of veteran affairs. if they exhibits an illness that is relative to agent orange, they can file a disability. that is added to the backlogs. this will not address the backlog. the american legion is working with congress and the be a to address -- va to address the backlog issue. it is a major issue that they are taking seriously. we are taking that message to veteran affairs. we are developing an in-house

task force of service officers. they assist veterans in addressing their disability claims free of charge. we want to help them file their claims, get the paperwork and provide the information and get quality claims done. that a veteran that is suffering gets the health care and the benefits they deserve along with the health care. this is a huge issue. we are taking it very seriously. host: independent line, arkansas. caller: i am a veteran from the air force. i am 68. i have tri-care , medicare, and the veteran affairs system. guess which one i prefer? the veteran affairs system. all of these people are scared to death of a government takeover. it would cost half as much if

everybody was under a similar system. i pity the people -- i went in for a colonoscopy. there was no government bureaucrat there. there or did not get in between me and my doctor. everybody was polite and courteous. i got my colonoscopy. i've got my results. it makes me sick to hear them worried about a government takeover. i would be more afraid if i had to go find an insurance company. the veteran affairs a system is a government system. i do not pay anything for tri- care , and i paid $96 for medicare. i barely use it. guest: it is good to hear from a

veteran getting the care they deserve. this gentleman sounds like it is meeting his needs. a want to bring up the existing law that was passed. what we just heard from was a the a patient who is very pleased with the delivery of health care through veteran affairs. that is something i believe in focusing on. we need to concentrate on the quality and access of care. what the american legion has done for years is initiated a program for american legion to go out and fight for a system worth saving. it is a system worth saving. we go out to that system and make sure those administrators are receiving the budgets they deserve, and the full-time

employees they need to meet the obligations and provide quality health care in a timely manner to any patient that goes to that of veteran affairs hospital. this is a testament to the improvement in terms of delivery of service. many americans have an image of us were harassing patients and not treating them well. -- warehousing patients and not treating them well. but the department of veterans affairs is doing what they need to do to make sure they provide the care necessary so that we have more callers like the last one who are very pleased with the quality of care that they earned through their servers. host: democrats line. caller: my husband does not set any problems getting any help with the veteran affairs. he is on medicare. he has a va doctor and another

doctor. this doctor wanted to do all of the tests that his doctor and va did. i think we should have medicare for all. the best system is the one at the va. guest: thanks for reassuring american veterans that may be debating turning to the department of veterans affairs for their health care. a want to talk about the basic load. our veterans population, we know that we are in a couple of wars. we are creating new veterans every day. we're creating a new democratic of veterans population. we have more and more disabled veterans returning from combat who in the past we may not have had the technology to get them from combat to care so quickly. we are seeing a change in the

level of disability. we are seeing more than one disability. he may have a better and dealing with a traumatic brain injury to is also dealing with posttraumatic stress disorder. we are expanding our walsh and try to address this new demographic and new level of disability that veterans are returning with. we cannot deny that they have to deal with this new population, demographic, new level of disability, but we cannot forget ever vietnam's population. host: are you concerned about the strains it will put upon the system? guest: it is the need to identify now so we can go to the department and say you are bringing in a new population of patients. we cannot forget the pages you're already treating on your roles at the veteran affairs. they are reaching an age where

they may be considering turning to the department of veterans affairs. i need a health care system at my age. i want to go to the provider that i have earned for my service. we cannot forget their sacrifices when we talk about the department of veteran affairs. we need to ensure that they are given what they need to meet the obligation to every level of service, every age group, every era. if you do not have a family member in the military, and you are not affected by the military, it does not mean that you're not obligated. we asked them to go to the members of congress to remind them of their obligations. what are you looking at that the money provided to the v eighta?

the medical appropriations bill allows the va to get their budget in advance. almost every year, we would pass the fiscal year and the budget was five passed it. administrators are moving into that new fiscal year and they have no idea what their budget was. they cannot hire full-time employees they did not have the equipment they needed. they did not know how much money they would get. we need to make sure that we continue to address the needs of and move forward with congress and the white house to ensure that the department has put it needs to meet obligations of patients just like the colors

we are hearing from today. host: arizona, republican line. caller: good morning. i have a different story. i am retired air force from 1948. i have had to go for counseling. i have medicare for me and my wife. [unintelligible] my military medication went away. that was in 1964. i have medicare and tri-care for life. my wife cannot get anything except for just tri-care with copays. that was until she was 65.

now she is getting tri-care for life. when they going to change this? guest: you are receiving tri- care for life for both you and your wife interfere is that it will be taken away? the existing law -- if that is the case, if you both have tri- care for life, the law that exists now in not affect that benefit. if your wife does not have the level of coverage that you prefer her to have, contact your department of american legion in arkansas that can walk you through this and help you understand how you can apply for it through the benefits you have earned. if that is the case, go online

or contact your local american legion in your state to what he threw those specific concerns you have about your level of coverage for you and your wife. host: seattle, washington, david, democrats won. caller: -- democrats line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am a veteran. i am married to an iraqi war veteran. why wife went to war, i did not. -- my wife went to war, i did not. i do not have any complaints about the va health care system. they tried to move as fast as they can and treat you with respect. there are many veterans out there that need care. it can get back up in seattle.

they try to get you through relatively quickly. i just want to say something to all our great grandmothers and grandfathers and all of those soldiers and military personnel, the new health-care bill that they passed will not affect veterans at all. those that are receiving the benefits -- that is not corn to be effective. we co-president obama the benefit of the doubt. he came in saying he is with the veterans even though he is not one. host: do you have a question? caller: i was going to end my statement and let your guest go on. i say give him a chance.

host: thanks. to comment on what he is saying. guest: i think it's good that veterans are hearing from veterans that your benefits will not be effective. i tried to make that clear at the beginning of our interview. these va is a health-care provider. tri-care is a health care insurer. this law directly affects insurance. tri-care meets the obligation of this new law. but their benefits are not affected negatively by this. host: republican line. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. 53 year-old disabled veteran, service connected. i was that the va hospital

yesterday for about six hours. i got there an hour later and got my blood pressure taken. they asked me if i speak english at home. i sat for three hours to see my doctor. i left. on my way of, i had to stand in a line with about 30 guys waiting to get their mileage, which is nowhere near enough. the va health care system is one of line after another. i see a doctor every six or eight months. that is my schedule. if i want to see a doctor in between, i have to go to urgent care. i sit there for up to six hours. to say that government-run health care is a good thing, it

is a terrible thing. host: thanks. guest: there are issues that the department has to address. no person at the va should have to wait as long as they have to in go through what this gentleman was talking about. we want to ensure that va is providing health care. we have beneficiaries and leaders that go to these hospitals. this is what we need to hear. we need to hear from veterans that are struggling with this health care system. it is not systemwide as well as it can be the. we realize that. we want to make sure it gentlemen like this one do not have to deal with this anymore. we want to make sure the system operates in a way that reflects

the sacrifices made by this gentleman. we take this to the leaders and the central office in washington, d.c. we tell them you have problems that you need to address. veterans are not receiving the care in the timeliness they need. we are creating new eligible veterans every day. we know they are coming back. they need care. they have charged that care. we need to make sure that we are capable of providing that. host: mississippi, independent line. caller: i want to thank you for having the chance to talk to america. i spent 18 years in the navy.

i was medically retired. i've received 100% service disability. i've received so so security behind that. i have been so angry for the past year since i have been following this whole thing. if you are going to cut me off, give me some warning. host: 12 minutes before the end of the show. go ahead. comment or question. caller: i joined the navy because i was a single-parent. i had a toothache that i cannot afford to do anything about. the only money i had from a lawsuit that i had a car accident to get in the navy,

because i was in apparent. i needed the insurance. i stayed in the navy. i got married and stayed in the navy because we cannot afford for me to get out of the navy with insurance and all the other things going on. i served on four ships. i spent a lot of time away from home. i have four children. host: please wrap up. caller: i tried to get into a position that was able to take care of my particular problem. i could not do it. the va system was not working for me. in a couple of years, three of the people committed suicide in my small group. the system was not working.

i went to a medicare-base program. that was not working for me, because i was only getting prescription drugs, not real therapy. host: we have to leave it there. guest: not only do they need to address the visible wounds of war, but also physical therapy and counseling. the department of defense les to provide stronger oversight and stronger screening for those veterans that are in combat, and when the transition back to their units stateside. the screening need to be more thorough. mental health care cannot be ignored. there can be a gap. this is a major problem and health care issue that needs to be addressed to ensure that those that do not that visible

wounds of war are still given the opportunity for treatment. that treatment needs to be quality and exactly what they need. mental health care not only affects the individual, but also the family in the children. we cannot ignore. we cannot have a family falling apart because somebody chose to wear a uniform. host: oklahoma, democrats line. caller: we went into the service to fight for a human rights all over the world. here in the united states, this health bill comes under the blanket of human rights. this is paid for by the blood of those that went to war.

this is my country. i believe in human rights. everybody has a right for health care. under the va you get that right. you go there to see the doctor and weight. -- and waited there to be seen. guest: i applaud him for his service. i am glad to hear that he is receiving the care that he earned. his statement and what he has done for the country is something we cannot forget as a nation. he is ready to go and do what he has done again. that is what strengthen our nation. that is what we need to recognize in terms of our obligation to them, to make sure they receive what they have earned. that is why the american legion

is fighting to make sure that any provision in any long as we implement this that the veterans and americans in military are preserved. caller: i am from arkansas. i am a dependent of a veteran. tri-care is a supplement of medicare. if medicare services are cut then tri-care does not pay on those services. if medicare does not pay for a colonoscopy then tri-care picks up what it does not pay. it will not pay anything. that was my first question. my second question was the theva

-- if your income level is over a certain amount, you are not entitled to services beva. -- at the va. please clarify. guest: our first step in moving forward with the health care reform bill is to stay on top of how tri-care works with medicare and how that will affect a tri- care beneficiaries. we want to make sure those are preserved. we need to make sure that any implications that come out of a new law that indirectly affected tri-care beneficiaries, we want to make sure nothing negative happens. the department is split up into priority groups. if you are a non-service connected veteran and you do not

make a certain amount of money or make over a certain amount of money, the department of veterans affairs is closed to you. that income amount is as low as $24,000. it depends on your geographic region. that is something that we are fighting as well. we have a list of legislative priorities. opening the doors for every veteran is part of our goal. host: alabama, and a can of line. -- independent line. caller: i am a retired army veteran. i put my time in vietnam. i had to get out because i was

having a lot of problems with my back. i applied for disability when i retired based on the problems of was having with my back. i could not do much of anything. it took me 20 years to get almost any disability for my back. i finally got 40% of disability on my back. since i retired i have had four different cancers, a traiche and constant surgeries. my wife had an aneurysm in her

brain. my portion of the hospital bill on that was $62,000, which i paid over 12 years. host: i do not mean to interrupt, but we have about four minutes left. caller: we were told that when tri-care came out it was the grandest thing ever. it would take care of all these bills and everything. all i would have to do is pay a minor cut pay. this is what we were told by our local hospital. host: i apologize. i have to leave it there. i think he was alluding to make a tri-care and a more viable provider for those beneficiaries. guest: the american legion wants

to make sure that tri-care reaches the beneficiaries and not a burden to those that try to use the benefits. we want them to easily use at their health care provider. they can say, i need help, i need care from you and i am bringing my tri-care benefit. we wanted to be an attractive benefit not only to those that have it but also to the health- care providers. host: buffalo, missouri, good morning. caller: i have called before on this. i have been fighting with the veteran affairs to do something about my issue. i am a non service connector. they say that because of that, they cannot do anything about

my issue. i believe it is service connected because they put drillings in my teeth. when are we going to get some dental service from the veteran affairs? host: you want to turn your benefit into providing for teas in you believe it is service connected? guest: if you think it is service connected and it will allow you to get treatment that the veteran affairs, you need to contact your american legion officer in your state. they will get you to the service officer to provide you with assistance free of charge so that you can submit your claim and get treatment for your dental care. host: 1 roll-caone more