national security interests, preserves russian national security interests, and allows us to guard against a rogue missile from any source. i am actually optimistic, that having completed this treaty, which signals are strong commitment to a reduction in overall nuclear weapons and that i believe is going to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation treaty regime, that sends a signal around road that the united states and russia are prepared to once again take leadership in moving in the direction of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons as well as nuclear materials, that we will have build the kind of trust not only between president but also between governments and between peoples, that allows us to move forward in a constructive way.

. . ,,,,,, ,,

>> i would like to say a few words on the issue. interrelation between missile defense and start was one of the most difficult subject -- at present, the language that has been in the treaty signed -- proceeding from the bases of the newly signed treaty. it matters to us what will happen in missile defense. we will watch how these processes develop.

the preamble, the language that extends, replicates a legal principle of change ability of circumstances that were the basis of the trading. a flexible process, and we are interested in cooperation with our american partners. in terms of decisions in the area of missile defense -- this does lead to progress. does not mean there are no digressions in understanding what we should address these issues. to help establish a global

missile defense system. given the ball more ability of our world, the terror challenges -- vulnerability of our world, the terror challenges, and nuclear arms by terrorists in this world, and i'm an optimist as well as my american colleagues and i believe we will be put to reach compromise on this issue. >> [interpreter] i have two questions. president obama, the first time to agree on reduction of the offensive arms. but as you mentioned, russia and the united states are not the only countries who have nuclear weapons. how specifically can it be achieved similar to today's documentation on limitation of nuclear arms.

how soon will we see others sign the document and will you move with the russian federation? president of the russian federation, a dimension -- you mentioned not able to agree on anything else except reduction of mutual arms. will we see any counter -- anything that counter such a statement and what will be agreements be? >> first of all, as i mentioned in my opening remarks, the united states and russia account for 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. and given this legacy of the cold war, it is critical for us to show significant leadership.

that, i think, is what we have begun to do with this follow on start treaty. other countries will have to make a series of decisions about how they approach the issue of their nuclear weapons stockpiles. as i repeatedly said -- and i am sure dmitri feels the same way with respect to his country -- we are going to preserve our nuclear deterrent so long other countries have nuclear weapons. and we will make sure of the stockpile is safe and secure and defective. i do believe that as we look out into the 21st century, that more and more countries will come to recognize that the most important factors in providing security in and peace to their citizens will depend on their

economic growth, will depend on the capacity of the international community to resolve conflicts. it will depend on having a strong conventional military that will protect our nation's borders and that nuclear weapons increasingly in an interdependent world will make less and less cents a as the cornerstone of security policy. but that would take some time. i think each country will have to make its own determination. the key is for the united states and russia to show leadership on this friends because we are so far ahead of every nation with respect to possession of nuclear weapons. the primary concerns we identified in a recent nuclear posture review essentially a declaratory statement of u.s. policy with respect to nuclear weapons.

our biggest concerns right now are actually the issue of nuclear terrorism and proliferation. more countries obtaining nuclear weapons. those weapons being less controllable, less secure nuclear materials floating around the globe. and that is going to be a major topic of the discussion we have in washington on monday. the united states and russia have a history already come a decade-long history, of locking down loose nuclear materials. i believe that our ability to move forward already on sanctions with respect to north korea, intense discussions we are having with respect to iran, will increasingly send a signal to countries not abiding by their nuclear nonproliferation treaty obligations that they will be isolated. all those things will go toward

sending a general message that we need to move in a new direction. i think leadership on that front is important. the last point i would make is, i would anticipate or approach the question about other areas of cooperation. our respective foreign ministers -- secretary of state hillary clinton and foreign minister lavrov have been heading a bilateral commission that has been working intensively on a whole range of issues. president medvedev and myself identified a series of key areas on the economic front, a trade relations, essentials for joint cooperation on various industries, how we can work on innovation and sparking economic growth. we already worked it gathered -- together closely on the g-20. i think we can build on that bilaterally. there are issues of

counterterrorism that are absolutely critical to both of us and i just want to repeat how horrified all america was at the recent attacks in moscow. we recognize that that is a problem that can happen anywhere at any time and it is important for russia and the united states to work closely on those issues. and there is the people to people context, figuring out how we can make sure there is more interaction and exchange between our two countries on a whole range of issues within civil society. so i am optimistic we can come to new to make progress -- but we need to -- it speaks to not only security of the nation but security of the world. >> [speaking in russian of] >> [interpreter] yes, we have 9%

of the stockpiles which is from the cold war legacy. we will do what we can to be taken in mind the special issue of the united states and russia on the issue. we do care about what is going on with nuclear arms and other countries of the world and we can't imagine a situation between the russian federation and the united states, taking efforts to disarm and the world will move toward a different -- printable different direction. we are in charge of our peoples and the -- so all the issues related to the implementation of the treaty and nonproliferation and the threat of nuclear terrorism stood be in a complex

and integrated way. i would like the signing not to be regarded by other countries as stepping aside from the issue. on the contrary, they should be involved to the fall and take an active participation in it. they should be aware of what is going on. so, we would welcome the initiative that has been proposed by the president of the united states to convene a relevant conference in washington and i will take part, which should be a good platform to discuss nonproliferation issues. as far as the linkages in nuclear arms that are concerned. in this world we have a lot that brings us together. and today we have had a very good talk that has started not

with a discussion of the documents -- they were coordinated -- and not without discussing iran, north korea, middle east, and not other press shrink -- pressing issues of foreign affairs but we started with economic issues. i said there is a gap in our economic cooperation. looking at the figures of you would've investment of the united states in russia. -- cumulative investment of the united states and russia. it is small and the figures have decreased a bit in terms of russian investment into the u.s. the line it is nearly the same. with all countries would not have such a volume of investment. but if we can compare the figures with figures of foreign investor presence in the american comment -- economy, other countries, including

states that can be compared with russia. it is a difference of 20 or 30 times. so we have a field to work upon. to say nothing about the projects we talked about, high- tech economy establishment and russian federation. we are open to cooperation and we would love to use american experience -- issues of energy, cooperation in transport, and i suggest that some time ago returning to issue of creating a big cargo plane as such a unique experience. only two -- u.s. and russia. issues of nuclear cooperation are important. there can be a lot of economic projects. it is not the business of

presidents to deal with each of them but some key issues are to become told -- controlled by us. relations between business, between those depend on business ties. people to people context are important. it is significant that we do our best so our citizens respect each other, understand each other better, so they are guided by best practices of american- russian culture and not perceived each other through the lens of information that sometimes is provided by mass media. so we should more attentively, more forcefully in -- have more

-- and i count on this. >> thank you, president medvedev and president obama. for president obama first. could you an elaborate on how the year-long negotiations over the new start treaty had advanced u.s. cooperation with russia on iran and give us a sense of when you will pursue or move forward in the united nations or next week with sanctions discussions and what those sanctions might look like? for president medvedev, could you address whether russia could accept sanctions against iran, specifically dealing with its energy industry and energy sector? thank you. >> discussions about sanctions on iran have been moving forward over the last several weeks. in fact, they have been moving

forward over the last several months. we are going to start seeing some ramp up negotiations taking place in new york in the coming weeks. and my expectation is that we are going to be able to secure strong, tough stank -- sanctions on iran this spring. now, i think there are two ways in which the start negotiations have advanced or at least influenced russia-u.s. discussions around iran. the first is obviously president medvedev and i have an able to build up a level of trust and our teams have been able to work together in such a way that we can be frank, we can be clear, and that helped to facilitate

than our ability, for example, to work together jointly to present to iran reasonable options that would allow it to to clearly distanced itself from nuclear-weapons and the pursue a path of peaceful nuclear energy. that wasn't just an approach that was taken by the united states and russia, but an approach taken by the p5 plus 1 and the international atomic energy agency. iata. -- iaea. what we have seen from the start is a host of country is -- countries, led by united states and russia, have centered around, we are willing to work

through diplomatic channels to resolve this issue. unfortunately iran consistently rebuffed our approach. i think russia has been a very strong partner in saying that it has no interest bringing down iranian society or the iranian government but it does have an interest, as we all do, making sure each country is following its international obligations. the second way in which i think the start treaty has and will start discussions around iran is it sent a strong signal that the united states and iran -- the united states and russia are following our obligations and the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. and our interest in iran or north korea or any other

country following the mptnpt, is not signalling out one country but sends a strong signal that all of us have an obligation -- each country has an obligation to follow the rules of the road internationally to ensure a more secure future for our children and our grandchildren. so, i think the fact that we are signing this treaty, the fact that we are willing as the two leading nuclear powers to continuing the work of reducing our own arsenals indicates the fact we are willing to be bound by our obligations and we are not asking other countries to do anything different, but simply to follow the rules of the road that have been set forth and have helped to maintain at least a lack of the

use of nuclear weapons over the last several decades, despite obviously the cold war. and the concern i have particular, and the concern that i think is the most profound security threat to the united states, is that with the further proliferation of nuclear weapons, with the state's obtaining nuclear weapons and potentially using them to blackmail other countries or potentially not securing them effectively or passing them onto terrorist organizations, that we could find ourselves in a world in which not only state actors but also potentially non-state actors are in possession of nuclear weapons. and even if they don't use them, would then be in a position to terrorize of the world community.

that is why this issue is so important and that is why we will be pushing very hard to make sure that both smart and strong sanctions end up being in place soon to send a signal to iran and other countries that this is an issue that the international community takes seriously. >> [speaking in russian] >> [interpreter] let us ask ourselves the question. what do we need sanctions for? do we need them to enjoy the act of imposing reprisals or is the object of another one? i'm confident all those present here will say we need sanctions and ordered to prompt one or another individual or state to behave properly, behaved within the framework of international law while complying with the

obligations. therefore when we are speaking about sanctions, i cannot disagree with what has just been said. and this has been the position of the russian federation from the very outset. although they are not always successful, those sanctions should be smart sanctions capable of producing proper behavior on the part of the relevant sides. what sort of sanctions? today we had a very open-minded, frank, and straightforward manner discussing what can be done and what cannot be done. let me put it straight forward. i have outlined our limits for such sanctions, our understanding of these sanctions, and i said in making

decisions like that, i, as president of the russian federation, will proceed from two premises. first, we need to behave properly. secondly, but not least, is to maintain the national interest of our countries. so, smart sanctions should be able to motivate certain parties to behave properly. and i'm confident that our teams that will be engaged in consultations will continue discussing this issue. >> [interpreter] vladimir -- now everyone is concerned whether it will be ratified by the parliament. you mentioned everyone will be working to achieve such ratification. what difficulty do you see and

how dss chances for success? the question is addressed to both presidents. >> [interpreter] well, and all appearances, -- believes we might have more problems with the ratification. perhaps it is true. let me say what i think about this question. of course, such agreements of major importance, international under our constitution and our legislation are subject to ratification by our parliament. and of course for our part we intend to proceed promptly and to do all the necessary procedures to ensure that our parliament, our state duma starts discussing this treaty. i will proceed from the following -- i believe that we have to ensure the synchronization of the

ratification process so that neither party feels in one way or another compromise. -earlier one state would ratify but another party would say sorry, the situation is changed. this is something we have to avoid. that is why i say we have to proceed simultaneously in the conditions of an open-minded and faithful discussion with subsequent ratification by our parliaments. that is what we need. and we will not be found amiss in that regard. >> the united states senate has the obligation of reviewing any treaty and ultimately ratifying it. fortunately there is a strong history of bipartisanship when it comes to the evaluation of

international treaties, particularly arms control treaties. and so i have already engaged in consultations with the chairman of the relevant committees in the united states senate. we are going to broaden that consultation now that this treaty has been signed. my understanding that both in russia and the united states, it will be posted on the internet, appropriate to a 21st century treaty. so people not only within government but also the general public will be able to rebuild it and open and transparent fashion what it is we agreed to -- review in an open and transparent fashion. they will discover this is a well crafted treaty that meet the interest of both countries. that meets the interests of the world. and the united states and russia, reducing its nuclear arsenals and setting the stage for potentially further

reductions in the future. so i'm actually quite confident that democrats and republicans in the united states senate, having reviewed this, will see that the united states has preserved its core national security interests, that it is maintaining a safe and secure and effect of nuclear deterrence, but that we are beginning to once again move forward, leaving the cold war behind, to address the new challenges in new ways. and i think the start treaty represents an important for step in that direction. and i feel confident that we are going to be able to get it ratified. all right, thank you very much, everybody. >> [interpreter] thank you, see you next time. [applause]

>> client -- on this morning's "washington journal" talking about the just signed strategic arms reduction treaty joining us at 8:30 a.m.. and the new york times washington correspondent will talk about a financial crisis inquiry commission and we will also speak to national public radio and fox news analyst juan williams. all of this coming up. "washington journal" is next here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] host: we are getting a late start this morning because of the announcement by the russian and u.s. president in prague of a new nuclear arms limitation treaty. a we have about 15 minutes with our phone line opens for you to

react to live coverage from the czech republic about the arms process here and what you think it will do for the security of both nations and the world. here are the phone numbers -- let me give you a little bit of detail from the newspapers on exactly how this will proceed. a first of all, if you were watching the press conference, the president explained this will require ratification by both parliament -- in the united states, the senate, and it requires a two-thirds affirmation vote to approve a treaty. the president also announced that the text will be on the internet for citizens of both countries and the world to review before it goes to the parliament. here is a bit more from all " -- "the new york times."

later on peter becker explains russia deployed is -- both have thousands more reserve board tactical warheads that future negotiations will try to limit and china has an estimated 180, india and pakistan, 70 or 80, and north korea just a few. their concerns in both countries about what this may mean for security for the nation. peter baker explains of the concerns in russia are american plans to build a missile defense system in europe to counter any iranian threat. moscow worries a shield can neutralize its smaller arsenal. the missile defense system, coupled with russia's deteriorating conventional forces, foster and security that will make it harder for mr. obama to move toward his goal to

a nuclear free world. a scholar from the center for strategic international studies says the russians "see this as potentially making the world safe for american military intervention whenever we want." he added that "a court tension and a challenge for the president's agenda." that is get to your phone calls. already a robust discussion on the twitter group. they have been commenting as the press conference was under way so we would like to involve the phone audience and include some of the twitter comments. oregon. go ahead, please. caller: i am excited about this. i think this is a marvelous move forward and told keeping in what president ronald reagan wished to do also. as a recent republican turned independent i'm just as bad about this move. host: how do you think it will make the united states and the world safer? caller: just by reducing the firepower -- we have an obscene

amount of firepower, both sides now, and we don't need it. only a couple of these can destroy the world. host: what is your vision for the future with regard to nuclear power? caller: nuclear power can be used for very good -- host: i mean for weapon power. are you a person who wants a nuclear-free world or do you just see a rural scott -- stockpiled? caller: i would love to see a nuclear-free world. i think it is a realistic sense it does exist i would just like to see it used very judiciously. host: allen, a democrat from new york. go ahead. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. host: your comments on the new treaty announced by the russian and u.s. president. -- mccaw my biggest concern that i have with obama -- caller: my biggest concern that i have with obama doing the signing of the treaty is the protection of the country. i feel that the russians have to

also walked the walk like americans have to. another great big concern i have is with iran's threat. how are we waiting in? what i am seeing in the media today is they are really not addressing the comments from ahmadinejad, how he is coming at obama and running down. and i don't like that kind of image in the world. and we have to step up the plate and talk the talk and walk the walk. it is time to do that now. not only economically, but also with relations to other countries, especially in the third world. that is my comments for today. and i feel that the president really needs to make a real stand on that. host: there are a number of other even its related to nuclear security coming up very soon. monday and tuesday the

president is hosting a 47-nation summit in washington, d.c., on nuclear security and next month the united nations conference on nuclear nonproliferation treaty, npt, referred to by the leaders. "the wall street journal" not very supportive on this. mr. obama has been arguing the merits --

that is open "the wall street journal" opinion this morning. corpus christi, texas, arthur, republican line. caller: i have a comment. a general comment. first of all, i think it is nice that they are trying again to have a workable treaty. but when obama first took office, people talk about his vision for a nuclear-free world. you know, as far as visions go, i think anybody who grew up during the cold war had visions for a nuclear-free world. and i really think he is kidding themselves if he thinks everybody is going to disarm. one thing that concerns me is where china's stand in all of this.

i do not see china reducing its nuclear arsenal. and i hope you're later guessed -- i believe you said you have one who was going to address the treaty issues -- it might be able to comment. host: we will talk to him about that too will be here later on in the program. he will be here at 8:30 eastern time. he it -- he supports the president, he is president of a group of the plowshares fund who is involved in nuclear nonproliferation. but we will talk to him not only about his policy views and his thoughts on the announcements today but look back in the past 60 years of u.s.-russia relations over nuclear weapons policy. the next telephone call is from atlanta. good morning. brian, independent line. caller: good morning.

i am very pleased to know that a treaty has been signed with the russians and the united states. i really feel like nuclear weapons are really unnecessary. it is just too much destruction, you know? it is one thing to fight a war but the other thing to completely annihilate a whole group of people. and those bombs, they are too destructive, in my opinion. i believe the less nuclear warheads we have, the better off we are as a whole world community. so, i mean, that is my take on it. i wanted to call and just, you know, voice my opinion and say good morning and what not. host: tony from orlando. the next phone call is from baltimore. frank, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i guess i have two questions for the president.

how can you first ensure that the russians are going to abide by the terms of the treaty? what is in their history that points to the fact that they are going to abide by these treaties? secondly, in the wake of the attack on the subway in russia, i thought they were going to sign a treaty declaring war on terror or islamic fundamentalists. how can we ensure -- do they have a history of being forthcoming in their commitments? host: good question. again, later on in the program we will have a guest who will look over the history of u.s.- russia policy on nuclear weapons and we will ask them how both

signs complied. the front page of "the washington post" today. greg would lop's story. -- craig whitlocke's story.

back to your calls reacting to today's events in prague. tony from orlando, florida. caller: how are you doing this morning? host: get your mute button. we are getting feedback. caller: how are you doing? i think this is something great for the country. i think barack obama is doing a great job. and only if the american people can look at this here, we come together as russians and americans come to that. i would like to god bless america and you are doing a great job. host: >> it is joe, independent, sun valley, california. caller: good morning, susan. wow. so they signed some really nice minded books there. -- binded books. but before i make a comment,

could you in for me, what exactly did they sign? as i told the screener, boy, does this sound like quite a bit of flags draped lip service but what exactly did they signed in those nice tightly bound books? host: from the news reports, it is a treaty, if approved by both parliaments will limit the number of nuclear armaments and that each country possesses. caller: right. well, ok. and that is on its face value- wise, a good thing. but this really brings a spotlight on the whole nuclear political value that has been going on since, you know, fat man and little boy. basically they only got one real deal, and the rest of the whole

nuclear "arms race" is just simply political distraction, as in, they can look really important behind the nice desks with, again, the nicely bound books, and look like they are doing something but really the reality is anyone who ever dreams of using a nuclear device in the military fashion ever again has really destroyed themselves politically in the eyes of the whole world community. so it is, again, one of these great grand macro political distractions that distracts the mass of the world from what is really going on right now, and the reality is -- the economy is exploding. thank you, susan. host: joe in sun valley. what do you think? the next telephone call is potts

bill, pennsylvania. debate on the republican line. caller: good morning, susan. thank you for taking my call, susan. host: go ahead, we can hear you. caller: i feel this ratification is very, very important. but the main issue i have is, i think if each nation would be more cooperative with the economy and jobs i think we would have a more peaceful world and maybe would not be facing this issue. thank you for taking my call. and god bless. host: next is a telephone call from tallahassee. this is donald on the democrat'' line. caller: thank you, susan, for taking my call. like some of the callers i am real -- host: donald, are you there? caller: do you hear me? host: if you are hearing feedback, it is from your tv. caller: i am pleased on the signing of the treaty and i want to tell the american people --

one comments, please don't cut me off, susan. the reason why at the extreme right is unhappy with this is it blows of the rapture ferry out of the water because if there is no nuclear war the rapture theory has to come but first there has to be a great nuclear war and then they were going to fly away and leave all of us evil people down here who have health insurance on earth and then they were wrapped her back down so the reason why most people are upset is because they sit in their church and they hear this false gospel about sarah palin and a whole lot of people on only the republicans believe in the rapture. so i am well pleased with this. thank you very much for taking my call. host: we are going to -- a couple of the recent callers talked about our economy, and that is our next focus.

the washington correspondent for "the new york times" is our guest. he was on day one of the financial inquiry commission looking at the roots of the financial crisis. yesterday alan greenspan was 01 -- among those testifying. lots of coverage. we will talk about the politics and policy of the inquiry when we are back with him. >> in the headlines, in addition to the siting this morning of the nuclear arms reduction treaty, but the u.s. military says two american soldiers died in combat in northern iraq while conducting a patrol. the earnings are being withheld pending notification of next of kin. according to the associated press, the number of debug is military personnel that died in iraq since the war began in march 2003 now stands at over 4300. following clashes that left 75 people dead, the government of kyrgyzstan and central asia appears to be an hands of an opposition coalition.

at a news conference earlier the leader of the coalition of opposition groups says they will hold for six months. and that the toppling of the government would have no affect on the u.s. base that supplies troops in afghanistan. meanwhile in afghanistan police said they arrested five would be suicide bombers in a couple -- koppel, the largest suicide bomb team ever apprehended in that city. acting on intelligence that caught them in the southeastern part of the city and said the team had been sent by the al qaeda-linked network -- hakani. back in the united states authorities who asked to be anonymous say there will be no criminal charges against the persian gulf diplomat who sparked a bomb alert aboard a jet yesterday flying to denver. he tried to sneak a smoke and joked about letting his shoes. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> a second day of coverage

today of the financial crisis inquiry commission getting underway alive and 9:00 a.m. eastern with former citigroup executives, live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. today begins the first of several days of coverage of the southern republican leadership conference. this evening, speakers include liz change the -- liz cheney, newt gingrich, and former oklahoma rep j.c watts. and we'll talk about this morning's nuclear arms treaty. the group global zero will also preview the summit next week. former ambassadors thomas pickering and richard burton -- 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on your screen is the " lawyer times" washington correspondent who covers the economy.

she hung on your screen is "the new york times" washington correspondent covered the economy. everybody has a former chairman greenspan on their front page today. what do you think happened? guest: chairman greenspan offered his analysis of what got us into this big financial mess. unfortunately it is an analysis not very comforting to many people feared he essentials ec's what happened as a once in a hundred years storm and he thinks it is very difficult for changes in regulatory structure to prevent what happened from happening again. and for congress, which is about to overall financial regulations, it is not good news. his message was essentially would have to increase the amount of capital banks have told, the amount of collateral traders have told, and those are the two main things. the moving around, regulatory

organization, he sees it as not necessary. host: we will have a clip in a minute or so. it seems to be the money clip. his suggestion that he was right 70% of the time. his legacy would seem to be height leap -- hotly debated. is it something he is used to having? guest: he is used to having it. i think it was a little bit rough yesterday. this was a man a decade ago was revered as part of the " committee to save the world" during the asian crises and his luster has tarnished a little bit in recent years. people think the fed kept interest rates too low for too long in the early part of the last decade. even more significantly yesterday really fault that the fed for failing to adequately supervise the regular banks. that came up in pretty dramatic detail. host: here is that clip i mentioned. >> when you have been in government for 21 years, as i have been, the issue of

retrospective and figuring out what you should have done differently is a really futile activity because you can't in fact in the real world do it. my experience has been, in the business i was in, i was right 70% of the time but i was wrong 30% of the time and there are an awful lot of mistakes in 21 years. >> would this be -- would you put this on the 30% category? >> i'm sorry. >> would you put this in 30? >> i don't know. certainly part of it i would. host: someone in the paper says the 30% wrong record makes a c- by any teacher standpoint. but overall let us talk about the point of the chairman made, the retrospective nature. this commission is charged with looking backwards. what is the point of that, what is the goal of those who created the commission and how will it

play out watching it? guest: the creation of this commission was itself a matter of some contentiousness. congress's mission in setting it up was to create a panel who would really do a thorough, but in debt, and compelling report to the american people of what happened. the model in a way is 9/11 commission, and previous government commissions in the past decade. but there was a lot of debate setting up -- setting appeared it reflects the fact there is a democratic majority in congress. but that itself lead to this agreement. the commission was created last alive. it only has until december to do its work. this is only the second round of hearing. host: critics of the commission process in washington -- you mention they produce authoritative findings -- but critics say not much change as a result. how well the results be reviewed? guest: congress is moving full steam ahead on the whole

overhaul of financial regulations. the house of representatives passed the overhaul in december and the senate is taking it up now. there is partisan dispute because the senate banking committee that is controlled by the democrat majority moved forward a democratic bill but so far there is no republican support. as you know, in washington, to get any major legislation done typically you need the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster. the democrats are looking for a republican vote. but of a legislative jockeying is going on behind the scenes and meanwhile the commission is holding these hearings and doing these back findings even though congress is already moving ahead on reform. we ask the commission what you think about that, are your findings just going to go on to the shelves that contain many of the report? they said they hoped the report will be so definitive and so far ruled that it will remain useful in guiding policy makers for years to come, beyond just the

current round of reform legislation. host: the other group of people giving testimony were related to citigroup yesterday. you have written about citigroup in the front page of the business section of "the new york times." federer you find errors and oversight of citigroup. what the focus on citigroup? they are certainly not alone. guest: they are not alone. we asked the commission this. the first set of hearings had chief executives of four big banks -- j.p. morgan, citi, bankamerica, morgan stanley, -- citigroup, bank of america, morgan stanley, but not citi. basically looking at citigroup as an example of one of the extreme cases of securitization going on where mortgages, many of them subprime, bought by by years that otherwise would not be qualified for a home mortgage were packaged and sold by citigroup to investors. at such a high rate, so that

when the underlying mortgages began to default, that created a cascading series of reactions appeared -- reactions. host: folks at "the financial times" were so intrigued, headline coverage on the fact that citi relied on outside advisers on its decisions on to jordan nations. did you find it interesting as well? guest: i found it interesting, but one of them things about securitization and why it is difficult to explain and one thing that frustrated the commission is the process got broken up into some different segments. you had the mortgage originators, you had the banks that bought the loans, that package the loans, you had the outside advisers that worked with them and you have the investors who bought the securities. at every step of the game there should have been diligence done. but i think the fact that the process became so fragmented, unable each element of the process to deflect some degree of response ability.

host: talk about bill and delete these -- phil angelides. guest: he was a former state treasurer. he is known as having run in 2006 against governor on the shorts and it appeared he is a democrat who lost that race and he has been engaged in various projects since then and there is speculation in california he might be interested in returning to politics, possibly running for the senate in 2012. it was an interesting choice. he worked to help oversee california's pension-fund. but he does not come from the wall street-washington nexus that has come to dominate a lot of the debate. so that is interesting. host: does the vice-chairman come from that nexus? guest: bill thomas was chairman of house ways and means, republican from capitol hill, kind of legislation -- powerhouse. this of a comeback for him.

he comes from southern california. host: was it intentional the chairman and vice-chairman come from california with that state in the situation is in? guest: it would make a lot of sense and this commission was about the fiscal crisis or about the fiscal affliction facing the states. but it is not. it is about financial rules and regulations. one thing we noticed is a great number of the commission members are westerners. there might have been an effort -- two are from nevada, alone. wondering if there is an effort to bring in people from a fresh perspective who have not had an extensive experience working on wall street although many have worked in the financial-services industry. host: another big day, bob rubin. guest: he was not only influential member of citi's board -- he was considered for chairman and ceo several times but did not want an operating role -- but also because he was treasury secretary, one of three during the clinton

administration. i am personally interested whether the commissioners will be asking him about the ethos of deregulation that existed in both the 1990's and the last decade. it's got a lot has been going on in the nexus of legislation and regulation. currently, in addition to the two days of commission hearings, the major speech by current fed chairman bernanke where he talked about the debt and the sec is both revealing and making new announcements including about capitalization and the reserve is going forward for companies to mitigate risk. so we've got lots to talk about. we will get to your telephone calls and dive right into this. let us begin with a call from lake zurich, illinois. bob from the republican line. caller: i hope they selected people for this commission will

have the ability to predict is happening. ron paul has been talking about this for years. . -- has talents -- peter, senate candidate, predicted this year's ago. and peter schiff challenged alan greenspan to a debate. i would suggest they get people who predicted this even to be on the commission because they have the answers. host: the commission has already been established. we have a graphic that has the name of the members. we will put on the screen and ask our guest whether or not there any skeptics, to characterize it broadly, that are among the members who populate it. guest: of the de regulatory philosophy? sure, i think one of the most interesting changes it was between mr. greenspan and commission member called brooksley born -- she was in that clinton administration

appeared at the time it was a sleepy regulatory agency. the name is in print a book -- impenetrable to some people. she was one of the critics who warned against lack of regulation of over-the-counter derivatives. there was a battle in which she was on one side calling for regulation and the other side mr. greenspan, and mr. rubin, treasury secretary, and larry summers, deputy secretary and now top advisor to the obama administration. she really called out mr. greenspan during the hearing. it was very dramatic to watch. blaming the fed for failing to avert a crisis and asking whether mr. greenspan, whether his deregulatory ideology contributed to the crisis. and he basically denied the accusations. .

we did not see what those risks were until they unwound at the end of the lehman brothers' bankruptcy. i have always presumed, as did virtually everyone, in academia, regulatory areas, banks, presumed that risk potential was. having failed their means that we were under-capitalized in the banking system probably for 40 or 50 years.

that has to be adjusted. host: st. louis is next, there'll come on the democrats won. caller: i'm not sure, but i like to ask, a bet that the rattner, paulson, bernanke, greenspan did not lose a dime during this fiasco. can you look into that? see how much money these geniuses lost over the last 10 years. we know the american people were hosed, the people do not have pensions, that wall street looted the country. could you tell much -- how much money that the rattner and greenspan and these clowns lost during the fiasco? guest: sir, you are in touch with a lot of the anger out there in the country. we have looked at the personal financial disclosures of those you mention. several have lost money. the one i know most about is ben bernanke. his stock portfolio went down

considerably. of the people you mentioned, rubin is probably the wealthiest because he had a career in investment banking before working in the treasury department. greenspan spent most of his career in the public service, and the honor and bernanke had only been in for a couple of years before him. it is a legitimate question. host: here is a question from twitter. guest: that is a great question, and it is being asked by the commission. i wish that i had a simple answer, but i can sum up this way. there's a lot of controversy in that question. many people seek glass-steagall which separated investment from commercial banking, so deposit- taking banks would underwrite securities -- there is consensus

that it was part of the deregulatory spirit of the 1990's. the question is whether its repeal in the 1999 actually was the cause of the crisis, as opposed to just a symptom of deregulation. there is not certainty about that. many questions that failed spectacularly in 2008 like a.i.g. or lehman brothers -- these were respectably and insurance dealer and the broker -- they were never deposit- taking institutions. there is movement on the hill to restore glass-steagall, but others say it would not do much. you're not getting at the root causes of the crisis. i would hope it is one of the answers the commission can deliver. host: these are documents turned over to the commission by the

fed, is that correct? guest: yes. host: you say that they paid a troubling picture of the fed's oversight of citigroup, before and after mr. greenspan left. tell us more about that. and how of figures into the debate in congress about whether the fed should have more power. guest: in 2005 and again in 2009 the fed conducted peer reviews were they asked to take a look at how other parts of the department were doing. for citigroup they found the oversight was not adequate. in 2005 i could see how that would have been a big story. it seemed even more significant that in 2009 after the crisis had already erupted and citigroup had gotten $45 billion in three installments, held

oversight could still be inadequate. that is will we emphasized today in the article. mr. bernanke has vowed to overhaul supervision and regulation. but that is a tough challenge. there are over 300 in the country. they will take away a bunch of small state-chartered member banks of the fed system and put them into other agencies, primarily the fdic. for the first time bill give the fed explicit oversight responsibility for the nation's largest, most intra-connected financial institutions, even if they're not banks. hopefully that aig's of the future -- the fed is being tasked with this responsibility. can meet the challenge? host: so, citigroup would have been alone? guest: or the insufficiency of the oversight? probably not. host: go ahead, richard.

caller: it is just a big joke. they rap these guys around, tell them they're bad people, but nothing is really done. no one goes to jail. after all the investigations are done, it goes in the back of the papers and nothing happens. that is what makes me so aggravated. these people need to be put into jail, hard jail, not country clubs. this is what is wrong with america. this is what people are angry. if it happened to me, i would lose my attention, be in jail. cunningham is not in jail. that aggravates me. there's nothing we can do about it. thank you for listening to me and let me make this call. have a nice day. host: richard is like many callers to ask where is the

justice department? guest: you know, eric holder, the attorney general testified in the first round of hearings. he pointed out what they're doing, essentially enforcing and cracking down on fraud. the number they pursued has gone up dramatically. of course, while helpful to know that now, it might have been more helpful five or six years ago, during the previous administration. but at that time, hundreds or thousands, sometimes of sketchy mortgage originators and lenders were entering the market for the first time because securitization was exploding. host: we're speaking with sewell chan. this is fort myers, fla. caller: how much responsibility from fannie and freddie and

congress who pushed companies into making loans to people who could not afford them off and could not pay that back -- someone walked away from fannie mae with over a million dollars and walked out the door. they were falling apart. host: we heard some of this team yesterday from mr. greenspan that congress supported the more people into homes. guest: yes, that is a great question. fannie mae is one of the subjects of this week's hearings. fannie and freddie together, one created in the 1960's, and the other it in the 1970's were near or at the center of the crisis. one of the key questions the commission faces is how much? this is where she got a little bit partisan. the republicans seem to want to put as much of the blame as possible on fannie and freddie. the democrats would in general

like to see more of an assigned to the wall street firms, investment banks that securitized many of the loans. it is a complicated picture. former chairman greenspan pointed out yesterday that under successive administrations there was a real focus on home ownership. the way to that was through home-buying. rates were rising quickly. mr. greenspan made the point that had the fed done anything to clamp down on that type of mortgage lending, it would have been accused badly. he said congress would have clamped down on us. the fed is independent, but only to an extent. that was one of his more powerful points yesterday. fannie and freddie are essentially entirely dependent on the government now.

host: the basic contours of the crisis have been known for a while. all these additional investigations but by journalists as yourself, and official ones from washington -- are we learning more? guest: we are learning quite a bit in the sense that so many government documents are being turned over. it makes a lot of sense -- there is a powerful argument for the idea of a single, national commission to produce a definitive, authoritative account of what happened and what the causes were. one of the challenges is the amount of time they have and a limited budget -- only about $8 million. it is pocket change, unfortunately. the bankruptcy trustee appointed by the court in the lehman brothers' case spend $38 million just looking at the inclusion of lehman. multiply that across all the different institutions that fail. it will not be an inquiry that,

that level. host: oregon, john on the democrats on. caller: good morning. have you heard of harold the bank in blackrock group? he was the original originator of the subprime mortgage industry. from the very beginning, there were placed in seizure-ship. guest: i'm not familiar with the individual, although i've heard of the rest. host: do you know more about the history of the subprime mortgages? guest: yes, there have always been mortgages given to people who may not of a was qualified because either of the poor credit history, or inability to

pay. these loans gained traction as the move towards homeownership gained strength. the difference was the securitization of the loans. instead of holding loans and portfolios and writing off whatever losses came, it banks increasingly packaged and bundled them to securities that were sold to investors. the acceleration process magnified the default. instead of only affecting the banks who issued, they had a ripple effect through all levels, through which the loans had passed. host: this question involves an interpretation of greenspan's argument. guest: that is great, very funny. that is a brilliant remark.

no one is covering alan greenspan during his 18 years -- no one would have described him as a patsy. he was such a larger-than-life character, one of the most influential financial statement in the world. he stepped way beyond the traditional role of guiding monetary policy and interest rates of the fed. he give advice to clinton and the first president bush on budgets. now for him to say that he was constrained by the sphere of congressional intervention is a turnaround. host: the next call is from erie, pa., on the independent line. caller: good morning to you both. chairman greenspan has often stated he is a true believer in the ayn rand philosophy that developed from the 1930's and the great depression, and the regulation that took place there. that entire philosophy now has been called into question because the true believers have

just turned their backs are closed their eyes to regulation. truly, that is what fell down is regulation. the entire philosophy stems from the fact, the belief that self- interest will always do what is in its own self-interest. that will keep the markets working. what happened in my estimation is that they believed the financial system was immune from human foible. this belief that there will always do what is in their best interest, and will never manipulate anything. it appears to me that if you make regulations, we will figure out a way around them to make money. what happened to me as a result

of believing we do not need regulation -- could you please comment? your last comment about how derivatives were produced and marketed was right on. thank you very much for your time. guest: banks, that is a wonderful question. i wrote about this a couple of weeks ago. -- thanks. in some ways his paper was a mea culpa. he recognized that some deregulation had gotten a little out of control. as an observer, it has been fascinating to me that there has not been a giant mea culpa from mr. greenspan. he still believes to an extent and the self correcting nature of the pre-market. what he is saying now is a little more nuanced, that fraud

and enforcement do need to be cracked down on the men and government resources do need to be devoted to rooting out wrongdoing and corruption. but when it comes to judging risk, he does not say that regulators can do that. he said i, good luck, it ain't gonna work. he said the major breakdown occurred was not of regulation, but of the private surveillance system of counterparty risk. that means essentially that if you are an investment bank the people you're trading with, they are the ones who should know what they're buying and what you are offering, and they failed to see the dangers and hazards and the products offered. that is the system that broke down. obviously, there are people who will dispute the point of view. host: i might be putting you on the spot this question.

you can have time, if you like. if you can get to one or two players and the crisis and ask them a question or two, who would be? well with the questions be? would you like to think about it while i take a call? ok. bloomington, ill., on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. it is a great service to the american people. i want to ask about leveraging ratios. in the run-up to the financial crisis, the sec allowed leveraging ratios in investment banks to go from something like 12-1 to 40-1. for every dollar they held announces the world something like $40 against that one in assets. i'm wondering if anything has been done to put a cap on how much leveraging is allowed and those of us men banks?

-- in those investment banks? guest: i have to give you a direct answer. it is today i was at a briefing with several white house officials, including the deputy secretary treasury -- a couple of them. i asked that very question. in this new regulatory environment being considered, papers regarding requirements, one not spell out what those requirements are in the legislation? right now the legislation does not really do that. it defers to regulators the decision over the percentage. the answer i was given is that the number can change over time. economic conditions can change. their argument is do not lock into law something that in a few years may be our cake.

also, the need to harmonize those practices with other advanced, with the countries. -- do not regulate something that in a few years might be ar chaic. right now regulators might be consistent with what the administration wants, but how do no intent or 20 years who the regulators will be, and where they will set the levels? host: our referenced the sec announcement yesterday. here it is in the paper. mary shapiro on wednesday called the proposals a fundamental revision to how securitization is regularly, and said changes are both necessary and critical components of restoring confidence. one proposed rule would require banks to own 5%. it has invoked intense debate.

another would require them to release more detailed data on the loans and asset-backed securities so that investors can make more informed decisions. any comments? guest: what was the second one again? host: it is actually concerning transparency. guest: it makes a lot of sense and is consistent with what the current sec is trying to do, to recover its repetition. many people are talking about bringing back chris cox for some hard questioning. he was chairman during the bush administration. mary schapiro has made an emphasis -- ansec has really taken a hit, especially after the bernie madoff scandal. host: do you have an answer to my previous question? guest: yes. i had to think about it. i would like to ask two people

two questions. i would like to talk to chairman greenspan a little more. he made one of the most critical accusations made -- the fed failed to develop rules cracking down on subprime lending, even though congress give it statutory power to do so in 1994. he said yesterday the statute was somewhat vague, that it did not define clearly whether deceptive practices were. i would ask him a little more closely about that, whether he ever considered banning certain mortgage practices of red, as opposed to just issuing guidance. the other person i would ask would be larry summers. he is the final treasury secretary in the clinton administration and now advisor to obama. i would ask him, talk to him about what decisions he made, or he could have main -- what does

the most read from his time as treasury secretary, and his time now? he has existed at the height of power in two completely different environments. host: are these the seeds of what happened later? guest: it was about two years at the end of the clinton administration, a time when the stock market was so high. just before thedotcom bubble was bursting. it put a lot of the regulatory issues on the back burner, and now they have come back in full force. host: next, philadelphia, john on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. when the business-friendly democrats took over the democratic party, 80% of the public's representation went down the drain.

picture a table for you have the republican party and the business-friendly democrats like the clinton wing sitting at this table with the corporations, would ever falls off the table is will we get. we get supply-side economics from republicans, a little minimum-wage, or environmentalism from the democrats. it all started with ronald reagan identifying the government as the problem. that is the mantra that took hold. fast forward to phil gramm and his wife wendy who put through a favor for enron which caused the firm to go out of business. you have the same actors again, fast forward -- the clinton, robert rubin, greenspan, the entire republican party. the glass-steagall act whereby the whistle.

your enemies today is the business-friendly democrats running the party, in your enemy is the mindset of the business community. -- the glass-steagall act whereby the wayside. they are in it for themselves just to increase the bonuses. it is exactly what they're doing on wall street, this bankers. they were putting their own value on the paper. the bottom line, it was only a piece of paper. it had no intrinsic value. it increased their bonuses. they were playing the game. host: what do you think of the current administration? are they business-friendly democrats, john? caller: you have larry summers in there, tim geithner in there. i am not too enamored with obama, to tell you the truth. until people start going to jail, you have a mindset -- is every man for himself.

let me get control of this corporation so i can do what i can. one final thing, in this country today we have people who run hedge funds who earn hundreds of millions of dollars per year, and they are in the 15% tax bracket. you two people on that set there are paying twice the amount they are. that is will we see from people who are anti-government. they want to get government out of the way. host: there is a lot there to respond to. guest: the most compelling point that john may, and i hear his anger and frustration, is this observation that many critics from the left have raised the same -- why does this administration, obama, choose people very much associated with the past or recent past? such as larry summers.

he reappointed ben bernanke, who had been the fed chairman selected by president bush. he put tim geithner as treasury secretary. the position of the administration is that they came in during the thick of the crisis. the world was falling apart and the september 2008. their argument was they wanted to keep steady hands at the wheel. tim geithner played an instrumental role in these transactions, had worked in the treasury department during the 1990's on the situation with the asian debt crisis. he is a financial firefighter retronym. ben bernanke obama wanted to keep stability in the markets. larry summers is a renowned economist, had been treasury secretary. they represent some degree of continuity. whether or not it was the correct political message at a time when there is a much anger about the ways of the past is a great question. should there have been more of a

break, a clean break from the past in terms of the team? host: here is a message by twitter with a different one of you. the real market must be allowed to assign risk. the risk cannot be hidden or reassigned by bureaucrats. guest: that is at its core of people like greenspan and even many of those in the obama administration agree with. they are not trying to provoke -- revert market forces. they might argue that when the risk gets distorted, or are no longer transparent, that is when you start getting into problems. host: waterford, mich., dale. caller: no one is addressing two issues. one is that the new york stock exchange is set up as an exchange of commodities, stocks, and bonds.

two, why did we borrow $750 billion from the banks to give back to the banks in the bailout? i do not understand. no one is even attempting to address these two issues. i saw it coming in 2004 when everyone told me i was just du mb. i do not understand where this whole thing is going until we address those two issues. we're paying interest on $750 billion. guest: sure, much of that amount in the tarp program -- most of it has been repaid. i'm not sure if it was borrowed from the banks i'm assuming that in the larger sense. the government is operating in deficits. the argument i have heard for the immediate bailout in 2008, especially after the collapse of lehman was the fear of the general contagion that would completely freeze the markets

and could potentially lead to a great depression. the obama administration has argued, as has the bush administration under which the bailouts occurred, have both argued the solution was really obnoxious and hard to swallow, but necessary. host: is at this financial crisis inquiry commission going to be looking at whether the remedy, the bailout, the tarp program, was appropriate, or will they go back to look to the roots of the crisis? guest: largely the latter, the roots, not the response to. someone described it this way -- they want to look at what happened after the patient arrived at the hospital, not what we did i'm sorry, what caused the car crash, not what happened after the patient arrived at the hospital. sorry, it is the other way around. host: yes, looking at the car crash that caused the injury in the first place. thank you very much.

your first visit, survivable? we hope that you will come back. that is sewell chan of "the new york times." we will return to nuclear policy with the u.s. and russia. our next guest is president of the plowshares fun. we will look back over the history of the past 60 years to understand how significant today's announcement is. >> let's meet another winner from the threat c-span sewell chan video competition. today we meet jacob berg, an 11th grader from waukesha, wisconsin. congratulations. >> i'm doing fine. >> tell us what made you choose this topic? >> both my parents are teachers

in my school district, so it is interesting to listen to them discuss what is happening now, and what is about to happen in the future. it may be want to say something about it. >> tell us? >> there have been over $60 million in cuts in the past 10 years or so in our district. that is very significant. >> how has that affected your community? >> it has cut multiple jobs and really affected our students as well as the people working in the district. all the guidance counselors and

librarians and computer service people, and all those really important people no longer have positions in the school district. all these kids are facing problems and have no one to help. >> can you tell us some difficulties some people you interviewed are facing? >> yes, we interviewed and joe, one of the people who do the cutting, essentially, in our district. it was really interesting how he man he was, and how he is not one of those suit and tie, let's just cut things. he actually cares about students and people in the district. it was interesting to see the human side to him. >> what would you think can be done? >> of her multiple things about raising the sales tax one penny,

the penny for children, i think is the foundation. i think that is a really good idea. so the people going out buying things, the people who have the money, can pay extra for the school districts. our school districts really need help. >> how long did the videotape you to do? close we began discussing it in september, and began filming in early october. we finished one day before the deadline which was january 20. >> what was the most difficult part of the project? >> it was figuring out what should go in, and what should not. we had eight hours of them to condense. it was very hard to figure out what would be the best, and what would not go in. everything was so good and high- quality material that it was

hard to really figure out what went in. >> what will you do with the money? the time going to save it for college because colleges expensive. maybe give some to charity. >> congratulations, jake. >> let's watch. >> what is happening in waukesha is not unique. the nation's 14,000 school districts are faced with the challenge of increased expenses from the declining revenues, and higher expectations for student achievement. for generations the mantra of parents has been, we did not have that when i was in school. ironically, now is the children who can turn to their parents and say, we did not have that when i was in school. >> in the case of our schools, the consumers are the children, not the politicians, labor unions. schools exist to ensure that children learn as much as possible, and as well as

possible. >> as you can see his entire documentary and all other winning videos -- you can see those videos any time at the website. "washington journal continues. host: joseph cirincione is returning to give us some context for the u.s. and russian announcement today regarding the non-proliferation treaty. how important is this attempt? guest: it is an attempt to restart the arms control process. collapsed in december, and the arms control between the two stopped four or five years ago. but the weapons remain.

the cold war has been over for nearly 20 years. each side still has thousands of weapons, and have not decided it is in both interest to negotiate. they bill to the verification systems. once again we can see what they are doing, and vice versa. host: what would you say to observers is say the problems seem less today between these two major countries then between of the players, including rogue states? and also, the concept of nuclear weapons getting into the hands of terrorist organizations? guest: i would say that they are correct. that is what the two presidents said today. you heard both medvedev and obama talk about these threats. this was just enshrined in strategic policy two days ago with the release of the nuclear posture review. the document that sets out a clear policy.

there they said what most experts believe in the world. the number one threat is nuclear terrorism, al qaeda getting the nuclear bomb, or proliferation. iran, north korea consolidating as nuclear-weapons states. we still have this cold war hangover. we have thousands of nuclear weapons that need to be systematically dismantled. it will take time. host: our guest has spent most of his career in washington thinking about security issues. he has a masters of science from georgetown. he has written numerous books. we hope not only to talk about this policy announcement which must be ratified by the senate

and by the russian parliament, but to get historical context. we will go to phone calls and a couple of minutes. we were looking at this chart produced by "the new york times quoted this morning. we can see that it peaked, and in both cases has come down over the years. what can we learn from the chart in terms of history of these weapons? guest: two things. strategic weapons limited by the treaty today are only one part of arsenals on both sides. both countries have hundreds.

russia has thousands. these are tactical, short-range weapons. they can destroyed cities, but travel over shorter distances. looking back at the madness of the cold war, look at those charge. we just went nuts. the u.s. went from about 300 in 1949 to 20 dells and it in 1960. the russians then raced to catch up and built 40,000 weapons during the 1960's and 1970's. it was only the process of arms control talks that began to limit, and thanks to ronald reagan, reduce these arsenals. fortunately, we now have about one-third the amount we had at the peak in the 1980's. ronald reagan is the first president who started to cut these weapons.

before, under richard nixon, we had not limited -- we have limited, that you could only go so high. but ronald reagan came in and did much more. he was a passionate nuclear weapons abolitionist. he said these weapons are good for nothing. they should be made and the tent, he said. he came very close in conversations with then-head of the soviet union, miguel gorbachev, to some a treaty eliminating all weapons within 10 years. and then the start treaty and the late 1980's finally signed by president george h. w. bush that cut the arsenals in half. ever since then we have been on a steady decline in both countries. host: if ronald reagan was significant for beginning the

declining process, is there an earlier president you look to us most responsible for the build up? guest: it was during the eisenhower years, not because he wanted to do it. but he like most presidents really thought these weapons should be eliminated. every single president has said that. but it was during a time of intense competition between the u.s. and the soviet union. we had built a bomb in 1945, and used it. the soviets caught up in 1949. that is when the arms race began. in the 1950's it was thought that atomic weapons were the thing to do. we had nuclear death charges, torpedoes, mines. the army even had a nuclear bazooka called the david crockett that would filefire abt half a mile. these were seen as prestigious

items, weapons to be used in the normal combat. but the time kennedy came, that is when we began to limit the number of weapons. those that we were applying. the word tends to have arms control talks with russia. there was a limited test ban treaty signed, then in the atmosphere of tests, but no real strategic reductions took place for many decades. host: let's get to telephone calls. we can also be reached by twitter and e-mail. waterford, new jersey, valerie, on the end of in a mine. caller: good morning, susan. i'm so happy your guest has addressed the historical park that ronald reagan played and the whole production of nuclear arms. i have been dumbfounded at watching the current coverage on president obama's nuclear posture talks.

now the treaty being signed this morning. there has been an incredible backlash by republicans. it plays into their whole national security standpoint, but they have taken the posture that may be obama as a reduction or intentions to reduce nuclear arms and stockpiles are inherently going to make [unintelligible] -- i cannot believe these are the same people who bandy about ronald reagan and build the memorial time and again. he has been in history the most outspoken and most passionate leader, leading the call against nuclear weapons. guest: yes, bella, an excellent point. many of us when we think about these issues think about the

poetry almost of president kennedy who talked about the nuclear sorsword of damacles and never had. ronald reagan was equally passionate and more effective at controlling them, reducing them. he began in the 1940's believing we should ban the bomb. when he became president, one of the reasons he began his missile defense program was to make these weapons impotent and obsolete. i worked as a staff member on capitol hill of the armed services committee, and i don't think i've preceded his sincerity concerning these issues. many people do not know the historical role that ronald reagan played in reducing the nuclear threat. it is one of the reasons you hear president obama refer to this, hear him say in the

tradition of kennedy and reagan. dedicated to reducing and eventually eliminating the nuclear weapons. ronald reagan came close. he could not quite seal the deal. host: we have on this graphic a number of key events over the last 70 years, including the manhattan project testing. some key points in u.s. nuclear policy development. here's the next phone call, from beaumont, texas, on the democrats mind. caller: [inaudible] host: thanks. caller: [inaudible]

ahmadinejad it is a loose cannon. americans do not realize -- created by man --[inaudible] host: i will jump in, we have a very bad connection. but i think that our guest understands the gist of your question. guest: first, on the role of ronald reagan, it is a historical legacy. the more you learn about what he did, and start to look at other presidents, nearly everyone when they came in were appalled at how many nuclear weapons we

have. and the little warning time they have to actually decide whether or not to use these weapons. nearly every one of them has strived to reduce and eliminate these. i just heard a story about george w. bush from reporters. bush reluctantly went along with their nuclear review, and signed on it in approval, and set on the cover sheet -- but why do we have so many? this is what the president's wrestle with. but we have 10,000 nuclear weapons? about 5000 in our active stockpile, 2000 deployed. what earthly mission can be accomplished by 2000 hydrogen bombs? that is why we have as broad consensus to reduce nuclear weapons and strive for their elimination. looking host: again from "the new york times" -- the current

number estimated by the federation of american scientists of nuclear warheads that not only the u.s. and russia have, but other countries to our nuclear nations. here is the next phone call from battery, louisiana -- from metairie, louisiana, on the republican line. caller: hi, again with this call thinking one thing, but i wanted to remind you that ronald reagan was well before 9/11. we're still in a race, not with russia, but with korea, iran. sometimes having these things allows us to have the fear capability. i remember the 9/11 commission report saying that we had a failure of imagination, it did not assume things would come over here. we always assume we're going over there. it has an intimidation factor.

i am a huge ronald reagan supporter. the question is this, if we get rid of all our stock spirals stockpiles, and we are in these treaties that other countries are not following -- the great movie is calledthe sum of all fears" with morgan freeman that addresses all these things. we did make these bonds, make them with russia. the immediate threat of russia is over, but the immediate threat of nuclear weapons is not. what do we do if we don't have the intimidation factor? guest: that is an excellent point. here are a couple of responses to it. one, understanding how powerful

the u.s. is. we have the best military force in the world, dominate the world through conventional military power. and increasingly, you hear military leaders say any contingency we face can be addressed through our conventional forces, even if troops were to attack with chemical weapons, we could respond with conventional firepower, devastate cities with conventional firepower. so, we do not need these nuclear weapons. in fact, they become a liability for us. other countries with nuclear weapons can compensate with nuclear-powered over our conventional weapons. it becomes in our interest to get rid of our nuclear weapons, so that other countries will get rid of them. no one is talking about getting rid of power blindly or idealistically. every plan that i have seen talks about negotiated reductions.

we go down, the other guys go down, we like it and and understand what everyone is doing. we give broad consensus is that security would be better at lower levels -- where we get broad consensus. then you take a look and see whether it is possible to actually eliminate entirely. it is a fierce debate. nearly everyone agrees that should be the goal. it is good for u.s. security to have the rest of the world believe we are in favor of eliminating weapons, and in favor of the other countries not getting them. as the president said, one standard for all, we're all marching down that non-nuclear road together. host: sart 1 in 1992, start 3 in 1993 -- was the history of

those? guest: it began with reagan and with gorbachev. they did not quite finished. george h. w. bush than finished in 1991. it is part of the bipartisan tradition of the agreements. an agreement negotiated by a republican president, but ratified by the u.s. senate in 1993 when bill clinton was president. he continued, took his predecessor's work, took it to the senate and got it ratified. you see that overcoming the most of the votes on these trees have been overwhelmingly in favor. 93-7, 90-10, like that. however, they do run into problems politically. jimmy carter negotiated a treaty building on the work of richard nixon and was not able to get it ratified because of the 1979 invasion of afghanistan. the entire believe we control

these arms collapsed in the process. you sometimes to that in the current history for you see politics playing a role. the treaties are being decided not on strategic merits, but on one side or the other ones to give the opposition president a win on this issue. that is one of our fears this year. will republicans seek to weaken the democratic president, obama, but i the ninth this tree? -- by denying the street, or will bipartisan support continue? host: talk a little more about current politics. -guest: it looks pretty good. the treaty does not reduce the many limits. , new, lower ones we have not

seen since eisenhower. but the actual number to be dismembered is in the hundreds. it establishes new verification procedures. it has the support of most experts. the key players on cap will will be in the senate foreign relations committee. a democrat from massachusetts has already come out in favor of it. the republican leader, luger from indiana, has indicated that he is also in favor and wants to see swift action on it. much depends on what the minority leader says. in the history no arms control treaty has ever been approved without the support of the minority leader in the senate. that is currently mitch mcconnell. i will pay a lot of attention to what happens tomorrow. today secretary of state hillary clinton is in prague with the president having sessions. she flies tonight back, not to washington, but to kentucky

where she will speak at mcconnell center tomorrow as the guest of mitch mcconnell. those two people, clinton and mitch mcconnell may decide they do this treaty. if the secretary of state and minority leader can agree on a plan to bring this before the senate, then you might see action quicker than most think. and finally, there is jon kyl, one of the key opposition figures to the president, but even he has not come out against the treaty. he has questions and concerns. you could see him voting for it if those are dressed. you could see a 90-10 budget in favor of reducing nuclear arms. host: go ahead, caller. caller: a so yesterday on fox news which was supposed to be a debate. of course, everyone knows what

goes on there. [unintelligible] when you got on she interrupted you three times. you can bet you never show on fox again. they had -- come on after you -- they have rudy guiliani to come on after you to disqualify what you said. they already have arrest beaten poll out -- no one quotes him except for fox. if he had a real poll, john mccain would be president. the day before the election, john mccain according to that type of poll was leading in several states. john mccain was only four points behind in ohio, ahead in the

pennsylvania -- host: thank you. you are taking us in the direction of some politics. let's move on to the next telephone call from galveston, texas, on the democrats won. caller: this is my first time to call, but america has no one to blame but america, the believe that she is. america started this. america is the only country who has used a nuclear bomb. now america is like a dog walking its tail. they don't want anyone else to use them. people realize that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. where will they put that nuclear waste?

host: first of all, do you agree with his theory that american began it? guest: well, president obama talks about the special responsibility the united states has as the first country to have built nuclear weapons -- we invented them. we're the only country to have used them so far. but the arms race was clearly competition between two countries. there were repeated efforts by one side or the other to control over the 1960's and 1970's. they both fell. it was only when richard nixon and henry kissinger started to negotiate a we started to cap the arms race. you began to see american leadership with the partnership of the then-soviet union, now russia -- whoever it began this is less important than who will finish it. america has a special leadership

role in the world. we are the most important country. we dominate militarily, economically, even culturally. we cannot do this job by ourselves. we can certainly lead the way. that is what you see on display today in prague. the president of the u.s. reaching out to the russians. using this critical strategic issue as a bid to get cooperation on other issues. how do you contain iran, stop it from getting nuclear weapons, and other countries in the middle east from getting them? you need russian cooperation to do that. it was very encouraging to hear president medvedev talking about sanctions, convincing iran to give up these weapons. i see this international cooperation building and am quite optimistic about reducing current arsenals and the world, and preventing new states from acquiring them.

. . guest: we have offices here in washington and incentives go and we have investments in security and peace from the world.

host: "wall street journal" editorial of "dreams of disarmament." history offers different lessons. one is that the npt has done little to discourage nuclear pr. guest: throughout there has been this debate, those that say we have to control nuclear arms and those of our say -- that are cynical and say that you cannot do that. it is like trying to ban guns harder. they have been proven -- to ban gunpowder. they have been proven to be wrong. let me just take that one specific argument about the

nonproliferation treaty. in the early 1960's, john f. kennedy worried that if we did not do something we would have a spread of nuclear weapons from the four countries that currently have them at that point to 20 or 25 nuclear nations. many of these warlike -- our allies, japan, germany, sweden. switzerland had a nuclear weapons program. we worked with other nations, including the then soviet union, to promote -- to form a nuclear non-proliferation treaty that said that we will negotiate their dismantlement if we have them and those that do not have the will promise never to have them. it has not worked perfectly, but it has slowed proliferation. we only have nine countries that have nuclear weapons now. that is the rate of about one new country for decades. in that time, many more countries have given up off nuclear weapons programs that have tried to acquire them.

the arc of history is pretty clear, moving away from nuclear- weapons, moving away from these been a prestige and security item. the move is toward chemical and biological weapons. most countries use to have chemical and biological weapons. we give them up. -- we gave them up. i think nuclear-weapons are not far behind. -- nuclear weapons are not far behind. host: we are talking about today's announcement in prague about the nuclear arms treaty between the u.s. and russia. silver spring, md., good morning, sean on the republican line. caller: for the use of the bomb, my grandfather was

scheduled to go to begin in japan and the japanese were going to fight to the end. we saved japanese lives and american lives by dropping the bomb on them. second, know about ronald reagan and star wars and i know he has his famous speech about everyone together in unity to fight against them. that might be a reason in 2000 because we do not know that 100 nuclear bombs might destroy the whole world. there might be an attack from our space, from a lisaliens.

this may sound a little crazy, but ronald reagan was a person that believe in aliens. everyone always rings a dark area 51 and this might be -- always dreamed about area 51 and this might be something. guest: i was on with the steven colbert and he said we need to keep nuclear weapons because we needed to have the power to destroy the world. what if someone else wanted to destroy the world first? we needed to be able to do it first. it turns out you can pretty much destroy the world with about 100 nuclear weapons, 100 nuclear weapons and set off, let's say, in the south asia that would shrove boat berthed in clouds, blocking out the

sunshine, -- i wish route to the earth in clouds, blocking in the sunshine. 100 will do it. we have 10,000. one of these weapons destroys a city. how many do you really need? can't you get down to a few hundred? that is the goal for this decade. we can agree to cut down these weapons. not blindly follow some idealistic past, but for the reasons that many strategic advocates are up -- strategic experts are advocating. it could prevent terrorist -- is in our security interest to prevent terrorists from getting these weapons. it is in our security interest to have as few of these weapons as possible. host: an article in the "washington post" this morning --

guest: this is one of the things that military leaders are saying. there's a lot of banter aboard adjectives -- about additives and posturing and supporting the troops, but if you listen to what these leaders are saying, they say, we do not need nuclear weapons to carry are our concerns. we can do this with conventional firepower. we have long-range munitions that can knock out almost any target. if we need to have destruction on a large scale, we have ours, missiles, troops that can -- we have bombers, missiles, the troops that can do this. host: mesa, arizona. caller: the russians and the

chinese have always been at odds, even through the cold war. now that we are borrowing all of our money from china, where does that leave china in this mix? guest: this is another thing that security experts talk about. the importance of economic power in today's world as opposed to just a military power, so clearly, it is a complex -- a complex of relationships that you have. we still have the best political and diplomatic power in the world and we have the strongest military. our goal should be to preserve all three legs of the. china's history is that they acquired nuclear weapons in 1964. at that time, they were in favor and of proliferation. -- they were in favor of

proliferation. that seemed like a good idea until india got a nuclear bomb in 1974 and they started to rethink our policy. china still has a small arsenal, about 280 weapons, more than enough to deter anyone from attacking china. the goal has got to be at some point as the u.s. and russia reduce, you start bringing in china, india, pakistan, israel into these talks about controlling and eventually reducing their weapons. next week on tuesday, there will be the heads of 47 countries here in washington. do not drive your car. do not come to work in a cart on tuesday in washington. but those will -- in a car on tuesday. but those will include the heads of these countries that are going to be here to talk about controlling nuclear weapons material to prevent terrorism. it's very interesting collection. we have never had this many

leaders in washington talking about nuclear issues. it could be the start of something quite significant. host: iran is not invited? guest: iran is not invited, neither is north korea. these are problems states. and actually, the only two countries that are threatening to develop nuclear weapons. if we can solve them, then we can and the proliferation problem. host: and here is a tweet. guest: first, follow me on twitter. second, this is a leader that you cannot trust, but you have to deal with. you have to contain iran and one of the ways we contain them is to show the people of iran that we are not a threat to them, that we're willing to deal with them fairly and equitably with respect -- and you heard the

president say this again today. but the other is to build a national coalition. iran will gain status if they see their policies are working and they lose status of your and your country's they have right now standing with them. -- be fewer and fewer countries they have standing with them. iran is a regime on the ropes. they are getting weaker, not stronger. interestingly, their nuclear program has actually/note -- slowed down somewhat. they're having -- has actually slowed down somewhat. they're having technical difficulties that is making it difficult to import technology and many believe there are some sabotaging the material that is coming into the program.

i think we have time to deal with iran. if we engage with the current strategy of engaging and containing them, i think we can outlast this regime. host: next call from connecticut. caller: i have been doing analysis from a different angle. of which reagan -- are in the liberal -- with reagan, a liberal in the good sense of the word. -- i'm a liberal in the good sense of the word. i benefited from the fortune 500 companies and then i researched to find why. as americans, first off, both

linear divide between conservative and liberal must stop. we are in a crisis of terrorism and nuclear warfare. we have to put our talents together and unite, and really have conferences. and analyze objectively. i hated reagan and i did not even know why. i have read his diaries and i see a couple of his kids and he can be a bad guy. host: was just stop right there. guest: i remember distinctly in 1986 we had just passed a number of amendments to the defense authorization bill that would have cut funding for for some of the key nuclear programs.

and we have a conference in the office of then speaker tip o'neill about this and a lot of the liberal members of the house at that time wanted to stay with the amendments, but to o'neil overruled them. he said the president was flying in air force one to meet with the head of the soviet union. we cannot undercut the president at this critical time. everybody was convinced, we dropped the an immense -- the amendments. even though he was the leader of the opposition party, we supported him to strengthen his hand in dealing with the soviet union, at that point, our number one enemy. we really did stop at the water's edge. we have got to get back to that time. we cannot possibly be undercutting the president of the united states, tossing around these policies and comments because other countries

are to believe that. they believe the president is weak and that they can dominate him in the debates. it is -- to have this kind of divisive national debate, i'm not saying that we do not have these differences. of course we do. this is america. the we have differed over these things since the revolutionary war. but you have to have a domestic discussion that does not undercut the president when he is negotiating and dealing with our friends and enemies. host: how you have this discussion on facebook and twitter and all of this? guest: you have to have a civil discussion. you cannot just log in sauce. you can say i disagree with this treaty and here are the reasons, but personally attacking the president or the secretary of state or the secretary of defense -- and the same is true of the other side. you cannot be attacking the bigger share of the republican party. let's be professional.

host: next call is republican from stafford, new jersey. caller: i wanted to ask you about the recent trip to venezuela by mr. putin who agreed to sell a huge amount of armaments to hugo chavez, and what you think of that? guest: there is only one word you need to know about that as well and that is "oil." they sell oil. in the history of our planet people make deals with oil states. during think that russia should be set -- selling armaments -- do i think that russia should be selling armaments to venezuela? of course not. it is one of the reasons you want to improve u.s.-russia relations and it is a good thing that we have climbed back from wherever when the georgia conflict was going on and there

was a new cold war developing between the u.s. and russia. you need russia to help resolve a host of global problems, including iran, including venezuela. now the united states can talk to russia and expressed concern about those kinds of dealings. and maybe, just may become alter the behavior. host: thank you for being here this morning. guest: it was my pleasure. host: and you are on the web at? guest: plowshares.org. host: we will be right back. >> in the headlines, jobless numbers reported this hour show the number of newly laid-off workers cd in -- seeking unemployment rose expected but -- an unexpectedly. west virginia crews are making

their way into the mine were four men remain missing after monday's explosion. gov. joe manchin says crews hope to reach the start -- the target search area before noon today. morneau on the safety of toyota from a newly released company -- more now on the safety of toyota from a newly released company mail. toyota executives debated when they should inform the public about safety problems with accelerator pedals, prompting irv miller, toyotas than group vice president for internal public affairs to warn in an e- mail that "we are not protecting our customers by keeping this quiet. the time to hide on this one is over. we need to come clean." the e-mail was sent on january 16 of this year. the financial crisis increase appears to be getting worse. its borrowing costs have jumped, stock market is down, and there

is talk of either a default or an expensive bailout. asian and european markets were down more than 1% on the news. meanwhile, treasury secretary timothy geithner currently in beijing has concluded a meeting with the vice premier on economic ties. he did not say whether the two sides discuss currency. he had been expected to press washington's case for beijing to use exchange-rate controls that critics say destroyed -- and distort trade. and finally, an update on gtmo. germany is considering taking prisoners from guantanamo bay, but is being criticized by members -- but the leaders been criticized by members of his own party over it. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> this began on c-span2's "book

tv" deborah amos on what has happened there. find the entire weekend schedule but booktv.org and follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal" continues. host: familiar face back with the "washington journal." we will start with the tea party and your april 2 column. among the things you write is democrats cannot capture the elections without capturing the

moment of independent minded the swing voters. tell us more, please. guest: if you look at the numbers this morning, they're pretty overwhelming. at the end of the bush administration it was close to 80%. no it is close to 60% off track. we are at 4 in afghanistan and iraq. the we have gone through a recession. -- we are at war in afghanistan and iraq. we've gone through a recession. but it is not just that. if you look at the numbers in terms of the people losing their discontent with congress, it is very high, both republicans and democrats. the percentage of people that say they do not want to see most members of congress reelected, the number of people that say the government has become too big and is a threat to my personal liberty, again, well over 50% of the country.

all of those concerns are reflected in the tea party mantra. if you understand that, then they become mainstream concerns and to ignore that is to risk losing touch with the populist energy. that would be a threat to democrats because they just say that the tea party people are just a bunch of kooks or they are racist or violent. the folks have to be concerned about their rhetoric feeding the kind of anger. but there is something much more about the two-party reflecting mainstream -- the tea party reflecting mainstream discontent in america. there are folks trying to figure out how to use two-party energy going toward the midterm elections this november -- tea party energy going toward

the major elections this november. some were looking for sarah palin to be the leader because they don't currently have a leader right now. others were saying dick armey. but what we are seeing is it is really a grass-roots movement. and again, the concerns are across-the-board and across political as well as racial lines. when you ask americans about the tea party itself, you find that it is about 25% who say that they disapprove, about 30% who say they approve, but most americans do not have an opinion or have not even heard about the tea party. that itself is not the issue. i think it is picking up on this anxiety about the direction of the country is going in with regard to the economy and politics. praise comes into it only in this regard -- race comes into it only in this regard, that

when you look at health care, polling comes from older, white americans who are worried about their entitlements being cut, social security, medicare, taxes being raised. only 20% of white americans think that health care reform is going to help them or their families. if you go to blacks and hispanics, it is almost the opposite. they see health care reform as fulfilling a necessary part of a whole that existed in the social safety net in the u.s. there is a big difference there. when you look at long-term unemployment, you realize that especially blue-collar white males have been hit hard. they, too, have a concern that the government is out of control, not responding to their needs, not talking about jobs. a lot of that anger gets picked

up in the prison that is called the tea party. the tea party becomes like a tea pot that holds all of this anger that has been swirling around. it becomes the repository for all. and people who want to write it off as something less than serious risk losing touch with that energy, with that boiling energy that exist right now in the american body politic. host: a number of polls have been cited that suggest the state of the public. last thursday there was one in of a " usa today." in this poll last week, which is a gallup poll, 65% think members of congress do not recall -- do not deserve reelection and those who support their own member is now below 50%. and 28% say they support the

anti-government tea party movement. for the first time, both major parties are viewed unfavorably by most americans. the tea party has a favorable rating, almost as much as they do. guest: it is incredible because there is a sense that, especially among tea party people, that there ought -- they are under assault. the poll that i cited in the "wall street journal" showed that 30% have a favorable view and 25% had an unfavorable view of the tea party. but again, most americans had not heard of it. i do not think it is the tea party-to be the issue.

it is really this discontent and -- the tea party that are to be the issue. it is really this discontent and anger among the american public. with the bailout, wall street is very unpopular. somehow, there is this sense that there is a disconnect between what is going on with the american leaders and the american people. host: we will get to calls in a moment. race factors in here. 52% of white see the health care reform as helping the poor. the majority of blacks and hispanics, however, see the bill as helping their families. i saw this morning in the "los angeles *" a lead story that suggests that obama set sights on a rich to fuel the health

care agenda. she writes, a "politically, it could backfire." you are suggesting here that race and economics mix. i would like you to comment on whether or not this is a specific policy of the obama administration that they're pursuing on many layers, and what that means for party politics. guest: you have to take a broad perspective year. if you look at u.s. policy over the last, i would guess, even 20 years, bush, clinton, and then the second bush, what we have had is a series of tax cuts for the rich. the idea being -- i guess it is a reagan idea -- that the rising tide will help out. you have to tax the levee in this country in order to generate that kind of growth. in the clinton years we had surpluses. but at the moment we are dealing

with tremendous deficits. i think the president obama's position is, you know what, it is time now to do some preparing of things like the social safety net, health care reform, of infrastructure. we have got to do something in terms of the large deficit that has built up because of the wars in afghanistan and iraq, things like unfunded prescription drug benefit that was passed under george w. bush. who is going to pay these taxes? president obama promised during his campaign that nobody who made less than to a hundred $50,000 would pay additional taxes. -- less than $250,000 would pay additional taxes. and he has kept that promise. but i think is political of buyers are saying, well, someone is going to have to pay taxes if we're going to have entitlements and those entitlements are going to have to remain solvent. we will also have to pay off some bills because the deficit

is also a tremendous concern if we are talking about public anger. the most recent idea that has been floated is a value added tax european-style. critics say it is more socialist type thinking coming from the administration. but the economic people i've spoken with at the white house, they're thinking is to the contrary. we are trying to balance of this tremendous benefit that has been given to the rich over last 20, 30 years in this country with no things -- with things that would now reinvest in america, american education and american workers to make sure that the country has what it needs to move forward. that is going to require that the rich pay a bigger toll. host: levittown, pa., catherine on the democrats line. caller: i want to know, the tea

party people were the last eight years. in 2008 we lost 500,000 jobs each month and i did not see any of them protesting then. and i think we should give the president a chance. guest: i think we definitely should give the president a chance. i think the difference here is that the tea party really has gained momentum around the health care debate. in all of the town hall meetings, the sense that the tea party people were born to have demonstrations in the street and come to washington, i think they have come to represent overwhelmingly a suburban white older concern about health care reform, and as a result of that, spending about taxes, about

deficits. that has become the spark that has set the tea party on fire. at this moment, it has not been -- as you rightly point out -- it was not deficit spending previously over a prescription drug benefit or the costly wars, none of that. they did not see the prescription drug benefit as a threat. they see health care reform as the potential for future cutbacks in medicare and medicaid spending. that is a direct threat to their pocketbooks. host: north carolina, nancy on the republican line. caller: mr. williams, i want to say, why you think the two-party is buoying the route that they are going -- a tea party is going the route they are going? it is because the government is

saying we're going to do what we want to do no matter what you say. people have finally woken up. one thing after another they are taking over everything. i watch the news, but i go other routes to get news. you can go to international news and get things you do not get here. host: nancy, let me ask you a question. are you actively involved in the tea party movement? caller: no, not really, but i agree with them. why are you putting people down in the t parties because we stand up for what we believe -- tea parties because we set up

for what we believe? i watched on tv the thing with. and they tried to make him look like [unintelligible] host: nancy, i'm going to jump in. tired of the hypocrisy in the coverage. guest: i think she said she feels like the government is taking over everything. if she is thinking about health care reform and taking over the health care system, to my mind, the plan is not a radical plan in any sense. it is a plan that people like tom daschle and others are looking for as a mainstream alternative. it certainly keeps in place the private insurance host: other people have -- the private insurance. host: other people have made that claim, that we made the

wall street allowance. guest: you have to balance in your mind, do you believe we were headed toward a depression? are their financial industry -- entities in this country that -- are their financial entities in this country that are too big to fail? clearly, our political leaders, both president bush and president obama, made a decision they had to engage in helping with the troubled assets and even going beyond that in looking for a stimulus for the american economy and doing things for companies like the auto companies. is that the government taking over things or the government acting as a sort of beneficial force for good? trying to moderate the excesses of capitalism that would have

crashed this economy because there were people who abused mortgages and got into gains on wall street that ultimately turned out to be a house of cards. obviously, there were people in leadership that felt they had to intervene. but is that the government taking over? i do not think that is the case, but i understand her anger. i hear it all the time, the people think government has gotten so big that it is now a threat to their personal liberty. host: customers, this is frederick on the democrats line. -- boughton ridge, louisiana, this is frederick on the democrats line. -- baton rouge. caller: everybody supports the troops, but there is anger a about the war.

where were those people? mr. obama did not create all of these problems. he is just trying to take care of it. guest: i think there was lots of anger over the war. if you look at the polls on the war, the war is very unpopular, especially the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. it was a big issue in the election of 2004 and led to the shift of democrats seeking control of the house and senate in 2006. and it was the heart and soul of the complaint that barack obama used in his campaign to say that is why he was running for president, that he wanted to stop the war and bring it to an end. there was lots of anger about the war ended was evident in the body politic. it did not emerge from the

right. it certainly did not generate this tea party anger that we are seeing out that many people came specifically at obama. but i think putting a lens on it is dangerous for anyone interested in politics because it would allow you to marginalize the tea party rather than see you -- see them as reflecting the mainstream bankat over the economy and the size of the government and like of leadership in the country. host: next call from louisiana. caller: i do not necessarily agree with what your best to say about the mainstream. in my opinion, it is really a moderate and they are not with the tea party. i see the mainstream as being shut their own.

-- shut down. most people see that where the country is going erica sustained -- cannot sustain. i am angry with them as i do not see the republicans doing anything but complaining -- because i do not see the republicans doing anything but complaining. guest: i think the people are concerned about politics and the direction of the country, concerned about their economic well-being. we have talked about the size of government, the intrusiveness of government. but when you look at that, that is just the american people 2010. the tea party, when you

described it to my you said that they were extremists or violent. again, i think there may be people on the fringes of the tea party and some of the rhetoric clearly made verge over that and feed that angewr. there were those that caricatured obama and there were those events during health care reform where the "n" word was used. that stuff is despicable and is to be condemned. you have to be careful about your rhetoric because they could easily be painted as extreme, but i think is dangerous not to exceed the angst that is represented in the mainstream american body.

it is the people who are concerned about taxes or concern about policies with regard to health care or the bailout with wall street, that is what i think is the heart and soul of the tea party at this moment. host: a polling group called itself identified members of the tea party and they found 57% republican. not surprising, but 28% independent and 13% self identified as democrats. guest: to me, what this indicates is there are a lot of people -- there were a large number of independents that you just cited. i wonder if a large number of republicans became that swing that went over to obama in the 2008 election, and even in 2006. then you have a large number of people when they think about politics this -- these days

worry about the direction in general. i think there are large number of people who are self identified as republicans who are really the party members. but even so, you get a large number of people who say they are searching, looking around. those are the people who determine the outcome of elections today. it is not the hard right or the hard left. it is the middle. i think the tea party is picking up on some of this discontent. guest: there have been poll numbers about this and the polls come back and say that diversity in the tea party is about representative diversity in the country as a whole. but what i have seen on the streets of overwhelmingly is this white, older, suburban group of people.

and i think if you went down to harry reid's home town, overwhelmingly, white, older, suburban looking crowd. these are the folks that were energized by the argument over health care, and folks like the lady we just heard from kucinich she thinks the government is taking over everything. -- the lady we just heard from who said she thinks the gorman is taking over everything. -- the government is taking over everything. is that the extent of the two- party? i do not think that is the -- of the tea party? i do not think that is the exclusive realm or the extent of the tea party, and again, it could lead people to the conclusion to raise -- to dismiss them. host: next call from jason on

our democrats line. caller: i read your book about -- very quickly, i do not want to get off the subject. it was about third marshall. it was just great. -- a thurgood marshall. it was just great. with respect to this discontented the middle -- discontented middle, i know a guy that went to a rally in washington. he happened to be black. he liked it until he saw some of these signs and people carrying ak-47s. those are the extremists. i happen to think that the tea party is onto something. i'm just worried about the discontent or the increase

anger spill in over -- or the anger spilling over. and then you have people like john barringer talking about armageddon. -- john boehner talking about armageddon. people need to ratchet down the rhetoric. guest: i could not agree with you more. and i wrote this in the peace, that the tea party has to be very careful about spurring the rhetoric of the militia type mentality that could lead to violence in this country. i do not think it is a joke after the reform bill was passed we have seen death threats to people. in the last few days, senator patty murray of washington state, there was a death threat against her. nancy pelosi apparently received some sort -- some sort of threat. i think these things are very real. and i think that cements -- that

is that this immense in the american mind that is what the tea party is about then it will go nowhere. people do not want to be associated with that militia type development. people do not want to be associated with a mockery of the president or anything that could be perceived as a racist attack or things that are racist in their roots were in their thinking. -- or in their thinking. i do not think there's any question that there is a racial issue in thinking about how the benefits -- how the benefits affect the country. there is a lot to be said about white men, especially older white men feeling threatened. about one-third of the jobs lost

in this recession have come from blue-collar white males. and they're worried about who in washington is representing them as opposed to wall street, or presenting those minorities because among minorities, they view health care reform as an essential part of protecting them and giving support to basic needs. this is all part of this conversation. i think race is an element here that cannot be ignored. but is the tea party to be viewed as simply some sort of racist, violent group? but think we have to be very careful because people on both sides, republican and democrat, will not appreciate the power of the tea party at this moment. host: in the usa today, there is an article that the say it --

that says it is the third time in two weeks that someone has been arrested for threatening a member of congress. someone on tuesday was arrested for threatening voice mail at the office of patty murray from washington. we have about 10 minutes left in the in withjuan williams -- juan williams. next call from new york. caller: if you could address the previous callers comments about clarence thomas. i think you're missing a key point here concerning the populist anchor. -- anger.

the federal government was never constituted to be the originator of consumer loans. it is not so much going to war -- know, people are angry about war, but that is the proper function of federal government, not been the guarantee of mortgages or banks or any other institution. furthermore, the whole notion that i can be taxed, let me tell you [unintelligible] speaks clearly to the taxation clause and governmental power. these are things that say the commerce clause is limited in its scope.

i do not want -- if i do not want to participate in commerce, i do not have to. that is between me and my state, not between me and the federal government. host: let's pick that up into various parts. first, and responding to the comments made about clarence thomas, let me tell you, one of the interesting things about having this computer on the desk and having the twitter of feed opened, there is a secondary conversation going on. the rhetoric about race this morning is really amazing. once you start talking about the tea party, all of the accusations about who is a racist start flying back and forth. what you think the state of racial dialogue in america is right now? guest: when you are looking at race in america today, you have to look at the demographic shifts that are taking place and there are profound shifts. the country is in the midst

transformation, and there are people who are uncomfortable. you hear things like "i want my country back." again, this is an older, white segment of the population. people who are going into 7/11 or to the store and remember, joe biden said he cannot find a dunkin donuts that is not owned by east indians, and that kind of thing. what is going on in this country? the top tv or radio stations are sometimes spanish-speaking. you turn on cable and there are stations for people from nigeria or korea or japan and. i think, wait a minute, this is america. what about english speaking people? remember, there are going to be even more seniors coming -- i think 2011 is the first year that most of the baby boomers turn 65. at the other end of the

demographic is a barbell. you have about one-quarter of the population under 18, and disproportionately young people -- just the other day it was reported dead soon it is willing to be the case that children of color will -- it was reported that soon it will be the case that children of color will be the majority of children born. i think there are some real tensions there and they get played out in lots of different are rena's. -- arenas. health care is one where people might think it is a threat to their health care or social security. they're living on fixed income. young people are not even sure it will be a rare for them. you can interpret that as a racial argument, but it is also important to see it in terms of a generational tension.

there are arguments, i think, that have to do -- and they surrender even president obama. how much should he do when it comes to -- and they surround even president obama. how much should he do when it comes to things like employment programs. he says he wants to help an entire economy and he is not going to get locked into helping one group of people. of course, i think that when you look at where the real root of the anger that comes out sometimes, again, it is people who are economically distressed, so class issues. many people would say that there has never been a time that we have been more color blind in this society. there's more opportunity for people of color, for women.

we are making tremendous progress, but i do not expect that we will ever get beyond it, but we will always have this extreme racial consciousness. and at the moment is being irritated, if you will, by the fact of recession and high rates of immigration and the fact that we have this weight of the older population being overwhelmingly white and the younger population being more people of color. host: we are going to move on to another call. from rhode island, this is chris. caller: i have two points to make. african-americans are joining the opposition to obama's socialist, fascist agenda on abortion. obama does not represent the poor or minorities. what he really represents is the

elite and corporations and banks. i have two points to make on health care and unemployment. this health care bill funds abortion. this -- abortion is an ethnic cleansing effort started by racists. most abortions are done by african-americans when you only make up 12% of the population. this health care bill is unconstitutional. it violates the first amendment clause and free expression causes. on unemployment, you have people in rhode island and california who i've already reached the maximum weeks of unemployment benefits. 99 weeks is the maximum. obama is now pushing forward '85 program for long-term unemployment. he does not care about -- a

tier 5 program for long-term of a security does not care about the poor. host: we are going to stop it right there. you are doing far and on policy and when it gets light that, you do not have guest: to me, that is the french. -- that is the fringe. again, it is very scary and when you talk about the things like the threats and people cutting gas lines and during breaks through windows and engaging in such heated rhetoric, that stuff is very scary. there is real populist anger and

real concern about government policies, but that kind of language is what would tear us apart as a country. host: michigan, doddy are the republican line. caller: i watch you every sunday on chris williams, mr. williams. a lot of what you say is commentary and i enjoy your commentary. i kind of resent your always referring to the tea party as an old white person. i am not an old white person. i am 43 years old and i have never been involved in politics. when i was at the tea party last summer there must have been at 5000 people, just like the ones that you see that the one at capitol hill. but just last week you see people burning flags, a leftist

-- the leftists. when things would get repeated, people start to believe it. the tea party people are not republicans. they voted out the spending. and is not touchedanger. -- is. -- it is not anger. it is worry. host: let's begin and talk about -- let's break in and talk about this description. guest: i have seen in the marching on the hill and without a doubt, as a group, you could characterize them and say that is an