where we will take your calls for it later in the day, treasury secretary tim geithner is interviewed live at 12:45 eastern. the u.s. house is back from spring recess today and live coverage begins at 2:00 p.m. and later, author and former labor secretary robert reisch gives his perspective on the u.s. economy. this is "washington journal." host: four republicans joined

democrats to advance the bill to extend unemployment benefits, passing a hurdle by a 60-44 vote. scott brown, a and b is no, susan colin and george voinovich. it will extend long-term on and when the benefits and cobra until may 5. "the wall street journal" lead editorial argues extending these benefits is an incentive not to work. we want to get your thoughts this morning. the phone numbers are on the screen. here is the editorial. it says here, quoting lawrence summers --

that was lawrence summers writing in his concise encyclopedia of economics published in 1999.

do you agree with "the wall street journal" or disagree? you can start dialing in now. the brookings institution, whose panel of economic activity reported this month jobless insurance extensions correspond to 0.7 or 1.8 percentage points of the 5.5 percentage point increase --

joining us on the phone is martin kady of "the politico" to talk about what the senate did yesterday. they approved a cloture vote, a procedural hurdle. what happens next? guest: at this point the way is cleared for this extension of unemployment benefits as well as other programs to pass within 30 hours. this was the big hurdle. this was the sort of republican unity vote against this particular bill. republicans will point out they were not against the extension of unemployment benefits or extension of other programs like the doctors 6 and flood insurance and cobra health insurance. republicans are just mad that democrats keep doing these one- month sort of band-aid fixes on this and it is not paid for. trying to figure out a longer- term bill here.

but this should clear pretty easily. four republicans jump ship, including scott brown of massachusetts. host: longer-term bill, when could that come up for a vote and what with the legislation say? guest: we don't know exactly when it will come up. they just bought themselves another month. but harry reid said yesterday he might be able to put together a deal with mitch mcconnell and tom coburn, the primary filibuster guy, by this afternoon. might be a longer-term deal. what they would do is a full year extension of all of these programs. that way they would not have to deal with it every month. the thing is, tom coburn and the republicans are not going to land on this unless they have some sort of pay for, congressional limbo for spending reduction or revenue increase or something to offset this.

host: do democrat have the votes now that we see that four republicans yesterday voted to end this debate and go forward with at least a short-term extension of unemployment benefits? does that tell us possibly democrats have the votes even if tom coburn objects? guest: the only have votes for cloture and the one-month and extension. both scott brown and susan collins who voted to end debate yesterday, both said we are only supporting the cloture vote. we are not necessarily supporting the constant one- month extension here. the democrats don't have the votes in the long run to keep extending this temporarily. the way the democrats have gotten around the pay goals is to labeled as emergency spending and keep doing it one month or another with extension. host: what about how democrats and republicans are framing the

issue for the midterm election? guest: the democrats have an easy way to bring it. they will say republicans are letting 200,000 people who are long-term unemployed have their benefits yang out from under them because republicans can filibuster this. that is the democrat line. that is an easy line. republicans are saying, look, we are not completely wanting to yank the social safety net out from under people. we just believe it should be paid for with some sort of other reduction in spending or something like that. a so, for republicans, it is a little harder. the other backs are to the corner. but they are trying to stick to some sort of fiscal printable sunsetting we will give you those programs. we needed to be paid for in the long run. host: this bill is slated for a final vote to extend the unemployment benefits for one month, would expire the end of april and if they don't pass a long-term solution before then they will have to be address this at the end of the month?

guest: we will be back here in another month just like we were in the same place in march and in february. it if you remember, the famous jim bunning filibuster. host: thank you so much for your time this morning. now to your views, your comments on whether or not you agree with "the wall street journal" this morning that extending these unemployment benefits either for the short term or permanently is an incentive not to work. the first on call comes from maryland. lydia on the independent line. good morning. go ahead. are you with us? lydia, i'm going to have them put you on hold and maybe they can punch up that phone call for me. having a little trouble seeing what might you are on. we will get to you in just a minute. but more from "the wall street journal" this morning. it says, sure enough, the share

of unemployed workers that do not have a job in 26 meet -- 26 weeks steadily increased. average spell is now 31 weeks even though the economy is once again creating more new jobs than it is losing. forestville, maryland, lydia on

the independent line. what do you think? caller: i don't agree with anything what "the wall street journal" has to say. it is just a mouthpiece for the republican party. who would not want to work? my son has been out of work for over a year and he has been to dozens of job fairs and filled out dozens of resumes. what is he supposed to do? sit on the streets or go hungry? i hope the workers across the country see republicans don't care about working people. host: can i ask about his son and his efforts to find a job? the argument open "the wall street journal" makes this morning, quoting larise summers, an economic adviser to president obama in a book he wrote in 1999 and argument he made that it is people have a certain amount that they want to make when they go into a job interview. so, because they have this unemployment benefit that they can rely on, if a job does not

meet their requirements that they don't take it. is that the case with your son? caller: no, my son has been working ever since graduated high school. he has done construction work, fencing were, dry wall. he is a hard worker and he will do any job as long as it is honest, decent labor. this is nonsense that people on unemployment don't want to work. when he was working, he was bringing home $1,500 a work -- $1,500 a month and now he is getting $240 a week. it you think he is happy? but it keeps a roof over his head and food in his mouth. this is nonsense. the republicans have no problem voting for emergency spending to finance two wars and have a problem with working people being able to eat and feed their children. host: alright, we get your point. that is here from a republican. joe in raleigh, north carolina.

caller: my heart goes out to the previously but the last time i checked, the military recruiters were still open for business. i'm sure her son would probably be able to enlist in one of the armed services and we would be more than happy to have him. when it comes to incentives not to work, the republicans are sticking with what the democrats started, pay as you go. but i think this is a small piece of what we are going to seed in november. the american people are just starting to really wake up and realize what has been going on for the past year with the obama administration, and our new normal and health-care takeover and the list goes on. i think we are going to see a big change in november when a lot picked up for the republicans in the house and the senate. so i would also look for the summer to be rather contentious when it comes to senate debate. host: let me jump in and read to

you another "the new york times" editorial. a wrong way or right way. on your point about republicans and they want pay as you go, why they are objecting to extending unemployment benefits. they say this --

host: what do you make of that argument? caller: there is an argument for it. i also believe if government would just get out of the way, economic stimulus would find its own way through american ingenuity. we are not going to sit back and collect unemployment when people are hiring. it there is a little bit of history -- an interesting piece of history about benjamin franklin when he was younger and traveling abroad and he made the observation when he went to other countries and his observation was, that when a country props up the unemployed and its board through subsidies, they remain poor and slide even further into poverty but when they cut off subsidies or any

kind of entitlement to the port, the basically come to the realization, either i get off my belt and i get to work or i starve to death. what happens is they, to the realization of bottoming out in our own situation and get to work and do what they can and basically become more productive and just opens up their whole horizons. host: we will leave it there and move to greenville, south carolina, and the democratic line. december, go ahead parent good morning jiging -- december, go ahead. good morning, a greenville, north carolina. caller: i am sorry for the feedback. i wanted to say this is more complicated than people wanting to go to work or not wanting to go to work. there are a lot of people looking for such a long time. he then they get a sense of entitlement when they get unemployment benefits provided to them and then there are

people like single mothers who decide to go back to school. my little sister is one of them. she decided she would go back to school full-time. then the idea of whether or not it should be extended month to month to month, i don't think so. but at the same time, it is like any other household with a budget. when you have a crisis coming up, you have to pull money and pay for a write-down because it will not go away and if you do not fix it it will make things worse. after you fix that, you have to see what bill you have to pull money from to take care of the thing you had to fix because you could not do anything but take care of it right then. so, i think there is some psychological thing with people being unemployed for long time. some get tired and give up. some are not looking at all. some decide they will do something better like start a business or go back to school. i and all of those factors are important. the other thing is, i support what they are doing as far as making sure people cannot go

homeless and feed their children, but i cannot think they should just keep extending benefits without putting some kind of restrictions about why u.s. built on unemployment. technically, how many times do they apply for jobs? there ought to be more restrictions to see what you are doing actively to find work. there are a lot of people just sitting around collecting benefits. it is being treated like welfare. and then there are a lot of people who are hitting the pavement everyday looking for something and cannot find something. and there are a lot of people who get in a rut and they have been looking for a long time, they get depressed and their minds set is not in a diligent search for employment. so there are so many factors of why people are still the unemployed and having the government needs to do more to address those instead of handing of more money every 30 days. host: herald in washington, d.c. caller: did you say that was

"the times"? host: i read -- which one? i read the wall street journal -- caller: whoever wrote the article -- host: it is the editorial. caller: they should try to live off of unemployment for a while. i had unemployment and it is about one seventh of what i normally make. i live in washington, d.c. dared -- washington, d.c. my rent is over $1,000 a month and might unemployment is a little over $300 a week. you do the math. host: what kind of jobs are you interviewing for? what is out there? caller: the jobs that are out there -- don't get me wrong, there are jobs out there. the jobs that are out there are minimum-wage jobs and you are

not going to do it in washington, d.c., and minimum wage, especially at the time taxes come out unless you are living at home with your parents. i am 62 years old. 62. host: ok. can you retire and collect social security and medicare? caller: i am an independent worker. so, retirement is not in the cards for may. host: what did you do before you lost your job? caller: i am in the convention business. host: i think we lost harold. we will move on to frank on the republican line from new jersey. caller: great show today. what "the wall street journal" has written is true, but it isn't true. but i would go on and like to elaborate.

the federal government helped create this monster by kicking i am going to go back to several administrations with all of these three treaties and naphtha. you talk about people wanting to go out and go to work. if you look in the want ads or the job searches, there is nothing in there to go to to see if you can get a job and when you watch the news and you pick up the newspaper and see this business is closed, home depot is laid off 10,000 people. where are you supposed to go to get a job? i would like to know where they are going to put all of these people back to work that are on unemployment because there is no work out their. we don't manufacture anything here anymore. we don't make anything. the reason why the bottom fell out of this is because you can blame this directly on the government with what happened. thanks. host: we are taking your phone calls this morning about open

"the wall street journal" editorial, incentive not to work this out a phrase that. talking about a bill in the senate and congress to extend unemployment benefits for americans along with cobra health subsidies. a short-term extension of the benefits pass the procedural hurdle last night. the final vote to extend benefits until the end of april is expected this week. four republicans voted for moving ahead on this legislation. democrats are also eyeing a long term solution, one-year permanent extension of unemployment benefits as well. do you agree or disagree with "the wall street journal" that it is an incentive not to work? we have a tweet from one of our viewers -- our twitter page is c-spanwj --

is a handle. beverly on the democratic line. caller: you know, i have listened to those people talking about "the wall street journal." perhaps if people would stop buying the paper, maybe they can shut down and maybe they would understand these people understand just what it is to be unemployed. i am a retired teacher, so i'm not unemployed but i heart goes out to those who are. and, you know, i also heard that black water is coming up for a big raise, billions of dollars. we will see how the republicans feel about that. host: moving on to wisconsin, add on the republic -- independent line. caller: i really someone agreed with "the wall street journal" but increasing the taxes on the hedge fund people, also throw in the people who were on the bush

tax cut when they reduced if -- reduced the amount of tax people were paying who were in the upper 10%. and congress should also include their own pay. with the work congress has done the last year, i think it would be justified. host: that brings up a piece of this morning on the front page of "usa today." erasing the u.s. a's red ink will be easily be easy or popular. as you know, president obama created a debt commission to look at possible solutions for eliminating the debt. "usa today" this morning, the front-page, says u.s. the debt

held by the public will be 90% of the nation's economy by 2020 under president obama's budget. the debt commissioner will take a look at the choice of the government faces. one of those is the tax cuts come as the caller mentioned. it says here --

host: we will read more on the article as we take your phone calls about whether extending unemployment benefits is an incentive not to work. >> on the republican line. caller: i have been on unemployment for two years now. i have worked manufacturing my whole life. and i have tried very hard to get a job. even outside of my field. i can't get a job. nobody calls me. i call, nobody calls me back. i hit the pavement. i have done and not to try to get a job. i am a very disgusted with what has gone on in this country. the last three manufacturing plants that i worked at were a lot of illegal aliens. at one plant i worked at, had to have the health department: because there was a tb outbreak,

so it was scary. but i was not one of the ones who got the tv, but there were about 50 people dead. host: let me ask you about the hourly wage of these manufacturing jobs. caller: at one time i was making almost $20 an hour. in the last job that i got laid off at two years ago, i was making $14 an hour for a while and then they gave me a good raise, 17,000 -- $17 an hour. i got laid off after my $17 raised. i am disgusted. host: now when you are looking at manufacturing jobs, what are you seeing hourly wage at these days? caller: i was going to explain, some of the staffing and tend agencies. i got so upset because i have applied to these places, gone

and filled out applications and nobody calls me. and i have 17 years operator experience and i have 10 years of mechanical experience. i'm mechanically inclined and i'm taking college courses to better myself in my field. i called them yesterday and i said, why doesn't anybody call me? what is going on? i have an excellent work record. i have mechanical skills but i don't get it. they said because of the money that i used to make -- because i applied for $12 an hour jobs, just even 12. they said that they tried to find people in the perimeter of that money. they don't want people job jumping. because then it makes them look bad. they work with companies to find the right employees. host: if you took that job at $12 an hour and a manufacturing job opened up, would you jump into bed manufacturing jobs?

caller: who wouldn't? i am a single mom. i have two daughters. its goal how old? caller: 10, i have twins. host: you are calling on the republican line. republicans said they are not against extending unemployment but the government needs to pay for them. icaller: i do agree but then i don't agree. because they are the ones who mess this country up to begin with. ok? look at all of the money we spend on illegal immigrants that are not supposed to even be here. we can't help everybody in the world. we have lost all of our manufacturing. the pork barrel spending, everything. if they would have run the country right we would have a nice, big chunk of money to help the people in need when times get tough. host: new york, mike on the democratic line. good morning.

caller: a couple of points i wanted to touch on. the article in "the wall street journal" going after the independent contractor situation, making them pay taxes. this is an attack on small business, also. those are the ones that employ a lot of the people. you put out small business, you will hurt 85% of the workforce. where is obama helping small business? like the lady said, everything is being outsourced to other nations. we are losing our industry. losing jobs. if we don't start waking up and doing something about it and help out the small by you as a good business plan, to help put jobs on the planet here, come on, these people have to wake up. they are asleep at the switch. a host: in other news, 46 countries descended upon washington, d.c., yesterday

today and yesterday. today formal meetings start. president obama will deliver a formal remarks at the opening session and return to meetings in the afternoon he has -- in the afternoon. he has head-to-head meetings with the turks as prime minister and the german chancellor. look for coverage of the news conference on c-span.org. about the nuclear summit, "usa today" says how to keep nukes out a terrorist hands as their editorial. headlines this morning about the nuclear summit.

several and ""the financial times." -- several inside "the financial times." that is "the financial times" this morning on the nuclear summit. bill on independent line. extending unemployment benefits incentivize people not to work? caller: it is not an incentive not to work because it is no incentive at all.

i have been on unemployment for two years, unemployed for three years. there is just no work out there. that is what the problem is paired -- that is what the problem is. host: what kind of jobs? caller: i am ase certified technician with over 30 years experience and there is no work here at all for me. host: are you willing to take another job for less pay? caller: there is nothing out there, period. i would do anything. if you look in the local paper, 10 pages of foreclosures. only like three columns of jobs. we've got a lot of carpet industry out there shut down. most of them when they do start opening back up they tend to employ the people they laid off previously. they are not taking new workers. host: what about moving to another area of the country? caller: how can you afford to move somewhere -- you cannot

even save any money? $300 a week compared to what i used to bring home. i already lost a home last the appeared -- already lost a home. host: are you renting? caller: yes, cani arely afford this. host: where else are you cutting back? caller: i cut back everywhere. the price of gas is getting too expensive to try to go out and find a job. we have to look at how far can we go, is the money going to be worth going there for? i can relocate -- i don't even own a computer. host: have you gone to the library? caller: you can go to the library and get online, but i live at the country is not like i can just jump into the car. a lot of people think these are just excuses but really, the job

market is really in the toilet right now. those unemployment numbers they say and "the wall street journal" are not right. in my area i would say it is closer to 15% unemployment. host: people working part time but want to work full time or people making a lot less than they used to. h caller: the are not jobs out there to make what you used to make. pawnshops are closing. when pawnshops' close down, you know you are in trouble. host: was their manufacturing in your area? caller: a lot of carpet mills. host: they closed down. caller: 70% of this area of them close down. host: fred from great falls. caller: i believe it is good to pay them for a while.

people do like to get paid because they are proud but there is no choice. i believe the solution -- republicans, instead of using their energy to fight the democrats, just sit down take the time and create some new job. after all, mr. bill gates was an american anti shape of the whole life, millions of people got jobs. creating jobs means something that is not there and we have to create something new. the way to do it is to sit down and take time, concentrates and figure out what to do. host: you think there will be another google or apple or microsoft in the making that could create hundreds of jobs and be a big exporter? caller: that is a good example.

smaller, but now, a good example -- that is the way to do it. if it happens. but the mood -- republicans fighting against democrats because they lost the game. host: denise on the democratic line. michigan. caller: i have been unemployment for about a year-and-a-half now. i have six months' worth of severance. i worked for a bank so i was in the mortgage industry, and in michigan, the mortgage industry is not doing too well. so, i am looking for work. i will be starting the job on the 27th of this month's -- 27

of this month for the census bureau. but i need this money from congress to pass so i don't lose my home. we are in the middle of modification. host: let me ask you about getting hired by the commerce department for the senses. how is that process? how did you find a job? how did you go about getting it? caller: i found on line. i had to take a test. i will be going house to house. i have training starting on the 27th, and as far as i know i will be going house-to-house to do what ever they need me to do. the job is only eight weeks long, so after that i'm unemployed again. host: how much will they pay you? caller: am i allowed to say that? i will get $16 an hour, so

definitely more than unemployment. it is about what i was making prior to being laid off. so, for eight weeks, i should be ok to catch up on my bills. but after that, i'm back to square one. host: you said you had to take a test. what kind of test? caller: you had to do math, reading, arithmetic, and just simple basic questions. host: some say the employment figure rose over the last couple of months because the government is hiring about 100,000 new workers to conduct the senses. as the knees just said, she is one of the workers -- conduct the census, and denny's just said she is one of the workers.

caller: i wanted to say the same thing as the woman before me. i live in a big automotive community. in east point there are some houses in foreclosure. my husband has been on reduced hours now for four years. he has tried to find another part time -- part-time job, can't. my sister has been laid off for two years, getting ready to run out of hers. she was in the aerospace industry. she cannot find a job. i think some of the congressmen need to take a view of southeast michigan. they would be board did -- how many things are closed. there is no work here. like some of the other people, even if you go to a fast-food restaurant, they are only giving you 12 hours a week because they are trying to share hours with everybody. it is just horrible host: as we mentioned, senator tom coburn, a republican from oklahoma is

holding up the extending unemployment benefits. he argues the government needs to pay for these benefits, institute pay-as-you-go rules because of the looming deficit. "usa today" has a front-page article about the deficit and the choices i had it for the government. -- joyce is headed for the government. the choice is based are gramm according to the congressional budget office. health-care costs are soaring. medicare and medicaid will cost more than $800 billion this year --

host: minneapolis, richard on the republican line. talking about extending unemployment benefits and whether it is an incentive not to work. that is what "the wall street journal" said.

caller: larry summers should get out of the house and mike allen greenspan appeared -- like alan greenspan. i think they could start by lowering minimum wage to get people to work and stop the illegals coming into this country. there are a lot of people who have been here for years and years and can't find a job. the other thing they should do is stop the age discrimination. a lot of the people on unemployment are older people, and they have been let go by their companies through a trick or something like that because they have been at age discriminated against. fairview health systems here in minneapolis, they do a lot of age discrimination. host: cleveland, tennessee, on the democratic line. caller: i was just listening to the conversation.

i was unemployed for about two years. i remember calling and probably in that year's time where we were talking about the immigration situation. there was a previous guest talking about that they were taking low end jobs. that is an understatement. i think a lot of the low and jobs now that the american people would love to have these jobs could give some people work. that is what they're looking for. i'm employed now. but i look at the situation with the unemployment, and it does help. i think a lot of the american people do need that. host: the front page of "the washington post" has a story that the president of's team is optimistic about the tax deficit.

we are going to be talking about the bailout coming up next with paul keel joining us from new york to talk about the bailout and whether or not the treasury department is collect that it will be costing the government less than predicted. the countryside, illinois.

phyllis on independent line. what do you think, is extending unemployment benefits incentivizing people not to work? caller: we can't work because we don't have a job to support a family. i spoke to you a few years ago. hello? host: i'm listening. caller: i am a lady who said don't vote for bush because they will take over the middle east. they will bomb teheran and taken over. china, russia, the united states is planning its right now. $8 an hour, the other juror who said minimum-wage should be lowered. people cannot support the family on $8 an hour and if you get a job it is with walmart and will not give you more than 32 hours a week. this country needs a revolution. i hope the militia boys in michigan and now and boys and montana and get there but together to save our country.

host: we believe that there. we will be back with paul keel to give us an update on the financial assistance program. but first, a news update from c- span radio. >> former senior executives of washington mutual, the biggest u.s. bank in history to fail, testifies today on capitol hill. for the first time since the bank's collapse in 2008. their appearance follows an 18- month senate investigation that found a frog for route the bank's lending operations. live coverage begins at on c- span3. more on toyota safety. consumer reports is issuing its eighth warning on toyota to's 2010 lexus south carolina vein because of an increased role of risk. the magazine said it found a problem. routine testing and is urging car shoppers not to buy that vehicle until the problem has been fixed.

reports this morning that a navy plane has crashed. the florida-based aircraft just missed an house when it crashed in a wooded area about two-hours north of the lantern. at least three people have been killed and a search is underway for a fourth person believed to have been on board. an update on the coal mine explosion in west virginia. the bodies of all 29 have been recovered from the mine earlier this morning. now that the dangerous gases have been cleared, federal investigators will enter the mind and try to determine what caused the worst u.s. coal mining disaster since 1970. meanwhile virginia gov. bob macdonald restored $750,000 and funding for mine safety inspections -- bob mcdonnell. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> senate investigators said washington mutual, the largest u.s. bank ever failed, engaged

in fraudulent and deceptive practices in its home mortgage business. former executives for the company testified this morning. live coverage from the government affairs subcommittee on investigations starts at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. later today, treasury secretary timothy geithner is interviewed by washington post economics columnist steven pearlstein. part of a conference hosted by the american society of newspaper editors. live it 12:45 p.m. eastern. >> "washington journal" continues. host: paul keel as a reporter with probepublica.org, an investigative website. you have to the "eye on the bailout" on your web site.

outflows, you have $514 billion. this includes money spent, investor, or long. then money coming in to the federal government act about $207.3 billion, money returned unpaid to the treasury as interest, dividends, fees, or to repurchase stock warrants. it looks like the net outstanding is about $306.7 billion. "the wall street journal" reported yesterday the treasury department is predicting financial assistance to banks will come in at about $89 billion. where did they come up with the figure? guest: it was a private estimate given on background by treasury officials that they did not make public. you cited the "washington post" report, and that was also some numbers given on background. this is not something the

administration has come out and said publicly on the record so that they might be held more accountable to it. there is a little bit of an art to that -- $89 billion as altman calls. they threw in spending by the federal reserve, that is spending that went on but not appropriated by congress under the tarp the way most people think of it. that is what we are tracking on our site, the $300 billion number, that is part plus the treasury taxpayer bailout of fannie and freddie. that total still stand -- stands north of $300 billion. host: secretary geithner writes this morning in "the washington post" on the opinion page g-8 latest estimate conservatively puts the cost at $117 billion and if congress adopts the feed

proposed in january, the cost to taxpayers will be zero. how did he come up with those numbers? deguguest: these are taxes they are proposing to try to recoup some of the losses in the bailout through taxing is essentially the operations of largest banks. along those lines, it is kind of important to note that when you talk about losses from the tarp , for various reasons billions and billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars went to the wall street banks. a lot of that has come back. there is pretty much general agreement that the government could be made whole on that part. a the losses are mainly from the bailout of aig and the bailout of the auto company. and beyond that, the steps the administration has taken to stabilize the housing market, particularly the modification program which they say they plan

to spend $50 billion. that is all money out of the door not coming back. host: you finish your thought. guest: the plan is to tax the banks to recoup the bailout, but just for a frame of reference it is good to remember where losses are actually coming from. host: let us take specifically each company that was part of this federal assistance. can you go through and tell us which companies received a bailout money? the top ones, not the smaller banks, and what is the status of those banks? guest: the biggest chunk is the bailout of fannie mae and freddie mac. that stands at $126 billion. they are not done yet. general motors, i believe it is around $50 billion.

there is the biggest banks -- bank of america and citigroup. general motors is still a question mark. they have not pulled a profit. they said they it might do so this year. how well they do this year will ultimately determine how much the government can recoup from that the bailout. bankamerica and citigroup -- bankamerica was able to pay back the money it received and the government made about $4.6 billion profit on the need that they gave parrot -- that they gave. citigroup paid back $20,000,000,000.20 $5 billion the government holds as common stock that they will sell all over the coming months. others, the other wall street banks -- wells fargo and j.p. morgan chase -- they have returned the money. j.p. morgan shays, that bail

out individually, and with a profit of about $1 billion and the government will auction off the warrants it is holding on with wells fargo, and i think that should pull about 1 billion as well. so, as i said, when you have aig, you put more than $45 billion into aig. it is not clear we are done there, either. some parts of the bailout are an ongoing story like aig, fannie mae and freddie mac. whereas of the wall street banks, that has been winding down for about a year or so. >> we are talking to paul keel about the status of the bailout repayment, the banks but that taxpayer money and whether or not they are paying the government back. the attack could be $89 billion -- the tab could be $89 billion.

timothy geithner writes for the writes fortqarp could be $117 billion. why the two different numbers? is tarp one program and $89 billion figure the wall street journal wrote yesterday include several programs? can you help decipher between all the numbers being thrown out there? to guest: it is part science and also part heart. what geithner comes out, that seem strictly limited to the $700 billion tarp bill that we passed in october of 2008. totally separately, we took over in essentially the government took over fannie and freddie in september of 2008 and we have been bailing them out since then. that is a totally separate tab. that is $126 billion and rising.

the government has not even put a plan together about what they will do about fannie and freddie. i think it is kind of premature to kind of say with any confidence what the losses might ultimately be. like i said, "the wall street journal" estimate, $89 billion, they get that from throwing in the federal reserve, which is an important amount of spending to keep in mind but it is separate, that is the federal reserve, not taxpayer money appropriated by congress. it is confusing. host: do fannie and freddie have to pay the government back? guest: the plan was for them to pay them back, yes. they are government awards at this point. there is not much more the government can do to them in terms of financial penalties. fannie and freddie have been paying dividends, but for the most part they have been able to pay the dividend because the government has been bailing them

out so in a sense we were getting back our own money. if you take it into -- they have been paying back in the range of five or $6 billion. they are paying some back but right now they are way and the red -- in the red. host: christian on the republican line. in new haven, conn. caller: i wanted to talk about one aspect of the bailout nobody seems to mention. the fed doing the back door bailouts. they do it in a variety of different ways. first of all the did it by removing a lot of the toxic securities on all of these banks balance sheets, which comes up to well over $1 trillion. we don't hear about that. they also allowed the banks to change in their accounting rules so they don't have to write off any of the losses they are taking in housing.

they also did the purchase program, $1.25 trillion for the bad mortgages. and they are also giving out a 0% money in to banks like goldman sachs, morgan stanley, j.p. morgan, etcetera. so, there is a lot more to this bailout than just the $750 billion we hear about all the time. in fact, bloomberg reports of the total bailout -- and we just always hear about tarp but we do not hear about talf and other programs. bloomberg totals that it could be up to the $13 trillion range. host: what about those numbers? guest: like i said, bailout tabulations are part heat and science. but there are financial analysis type firms that have looked at this. i think the most reliable

member, in terms of money going out of the door related to the bailout -- like the caller was talking of but would reserve spending and a range of $3 trillion to $4 trillion, the bloomberg estimate up to $12 trillion and sometimes you hear up to $20 trillion. that is kind of maximalist, if the programs that they announced were to be completely maxed out. that is where the get the $12 trillion to $13 trillion but it is really not an accurate estimate of how much money that is gone out the door. not to underestimate the importance of what the caller was talking about. there has been a lot of federal reserve activity. when you talk about the general health of the wall street banks, their ability to pay back some of the money, that has been made possible to a large extent by the federal reserve supporting them in a variety of ways and also the treasury department. the housing market has been

almost entirely stabilized by the government since the crash. so, it is sort of an artificial environment they have been operating in beard i agreed that you -- operating in. i agree you should not dismiss the role the federal reserve has played in it. caller: when i hear the news internationally and nationally, it literally makes me want to laugh. there are thousands of bernie madoffs in new york and washington who are looting the national treasury into absolute ruin. the coming collapse of of the united states dollar is written in stone and the jews in this country have literally destroyed -- host: we will move to ocean city, maryland. .

everyone agrees that it is important to fix a system that is obviously broken. but that not -- that will not happen on its own. financial reform is a big deal and right now it is not entirely clear what is going happen. host: that have what timothy

geithner is writing about this morning in "the washington post." endorsing the senate regulation bill, calling it financial reform with teeth. arguing for financial legislation. some have criticized the legislation because they say it still allows the banks that taxpayers gave money to to be big. in other words, they will still be too big to fail. can you explain that criticism and what the legislation will do? guest: there is one school of thought that the largest of the banks that caused the collapse, that it is an issue of leverage. that they were borrowing to such an extent that when the dominos started to fall, their troubles

were confounded. i think that the treasury has taken a pretty common sense approach, not aggressive, in terms of how to provide some framework and transparency in order to prevent some of the gross excesses' that occurred. there is a lot of criticism that they do not go far enough in setting strict limits on the banks in terms of how much leverage they can have. host: michael, republican line. caller: good morning. it is funny. we get a lot of these gentlemen on your show and other talk shows and people the right pieces in the newspaper, talking about what the stimulus package is supposed to do.

the truth is that much of this money has been wasted. regulation must be done, but i cannot understand wanting to throw people in jail like madoff, but what about all the politicians? people that have taken kickbacks. why are they not in jail? the government creates the laws and the problems. timothy geithner never paid his taxes. i would be in jail. i do not understand all of that. host: maria, democratic line. virginia. argue with us bella i think we lost that phone call. from old, independent line. -- ronald, independent line. caller: everyone should have to

pay the same amount in taxes. host: were you able to understand that? guest: yes. caller: i guess a general point is that, to the extent that they were bailed out and given the money, i still think that there is legitimacy. there are other things beyond this to be concerned about in terms of their operating at the great expense of government support and the system that we have that allowed a lot of risks to be taken. that system is still in place.

host: this is from a viewer. "loans from although companies save money in the economy. please put to rest the idea that the u.s. took over the auto industry." how much money did they receive this year? how much have they paid back? guest: they have received upwards of $50 billion. they have paid back a little bit of that, however most of the government's investment is in the form of ownership of general motors. how much they get back is entirely dependent on how much the share is worth fell . 2009 found them still struggling. they have been out of

bankruptcy. that was their first quarterly report out of bankruptcy. the ceo said that he expects to fully profit this year. and -- poll a profit this year -- pull a profit this year. this has been a dance on the part of the government's. in many ways it was a takeover with the bailout. but they were guided through bankruptcy and the government has tried to take a hands-off approach when it comes to the day to day operations of the company's. is really up to them to determine how much they can lose it. host: richmond, virginia. good morning.

caller: i just wanted to say that the bailout was a hoax in the first place. fro[unintelligible] it looked like they were playing together to keep the job market that on, keeping them from lending money. it was not done right. the four people got nothing. they have two wars going on at the same time. bush and his people are trying hard with lily white people to help them get back in there. but they will never get in with my vote. host: republican line, virginia.

we are talking about the status of bailout repayments to the government. caller: hello? host: what is your question or comment for paul keil stalofl? caller: what is the difference between tarp and tarf? i know that it was paid out to jpmorgan and the like, paid out that a profit. but they continually borrow this money, they keep spending this money and what ever is paid back goes to another program. or something like that. and then we have this stimulus bill. we have spent 1.4 trillion

dollars in the past year and i do not see what has been accomplished, other than stocks have gone up if you have stocks. but if you have no stocks it has not help anyone. gasoline prices are going up. what is becausthe talf? guest: talf was a federal reserve program to helhelp keepe issuance of asset backed securities alive. it encouraged them as the beginning of that type of credit to be issued. the treasury had only limited support of that program separate from the federal reserve,

resulting in losses for the treasury. that is a small part of the tarp. i forgot the last part of a question but tlf is a relic -- talf is a relatively small part of the program. host: "i'll look for the economy, corporate earnings, individuals on the sidelines." that is from "the wall street journal." is this discussion related to the stock market going up? >> the stock market has been up since the lows of march of 2009. there is a lot of recent optimism about the economy.

at the same time it has been an economy that has not seen a lot of government support. not much more than is normal. it has been on training wheels. we are just getting away from that point with federal reserve support for the bill being the largest part of tarp spending. and lot of question marks are going forward about how it will continue to be. host: democratic line, michigan. caller: if we have a stake in these companies and the government is making a profit on the stake of these companies, why do we not hang onto that and continue to use that profit to pay down the deficit? host: paul keil?

guest: in large part of the profit we are getting in some areas -- a large part of the profit we are getting in some areas are offsetting some of the biggest losses. mortgage modification, automobiles, those are some of the biggest losses. host: paul keil, what will be done with the money? $700 billion set aside for the banks that were faltering. how much in total of that has been spent? what are the discussions about the rest of the money and how it might be spent? guest: right now we are still under $400 billion in terms of money that has gone out the door.

off the mortgage modification program barely got started in terms of spending. in terms of what was left over, early on the treasury took the position that they could use the money that was repay by other companies -- repaid by other companies and apply it to other programs. that is still their position. at this point i do not think we will ever get to the point where we have spent the entire $700 billion of the tarp. host: paul keil is our guest this morning. a reporter with propublica. "the washington post" won four pulitzer prizes on monday, and propublica became the first

online organization to win a prestigious award for print journalism. tell us about the company. what do you do there? guest: we are non-profit with a staff around 40. we do investigative journalism covering a broad range of topics. in one case we look very closely at a hospital after hurricane katrina. essentially we give our stories away for free. we have partnered with a variety of outlets. we are very excited about the award. host: tell viewers about the bailout guide on your web site.

how do you go about tracking this money? guest: this is something we have been doing since early 2009. i am the person putting the numbers in based on reports from the treasury department. sometimes numbers that are included in securities, there's a lot of hunting around that happens. resources that are created. if you look at what the treasury department provides, they can provide some information in terms of which companies have received money in a way that is not easy to digest. all of these acronyms and program names that can be confusing.

we tried a boil down and make some clearer sense and hopefully not too much use of acronyms. host: william, sacramento. good morning. caller: i would have the gentleman investigate the bailout for the ones burying the biggest burden, veterans -- bearing the biggest burden, veterans. how do they qualify for a home in a job that would give them security to start a family or whenever. coming back from vietnam i paid $500 down, got my wife and son out of vietnam for a $60,000 house. these kids coming back, what is their standing? i have seen that they will lend

up to $700,000 from the g.i. bill. host: we are talking about the bailout program. guest: the vietnam vets need part of the bailout. host: tony, republican line. your next. question or comment? caller: question and comments. there is a consistency of these folks calling in and making racial comments about white folks, like that gentleman from a while ago. host: let me just address the policy. if you want to go to our phone policy and how we go about them, don't you c-span.org at the bottom of the web site page.

guest: i know that the art -- caller: i know that there are some things you cannot control. host: we do not screen. you are welcome to give his viewpoint on public policy. once you start with the apart -- inappropriate comments and such, we will hang up and move on. question about the bailout? caller: bardee monitoring the fact that all of the people that receive the bailout money are paying it back? how much of that paying? are they all allowed to pay the money back? is it being accepted? how do you keep track of that? guest of the treasury does print reports on who has paid the money back.

-- guest: the treasury does print reports and who has paid the money back. we have a database as to where they're located. with over 800 recipients, the large majority of them are community banks. smaller banks. early on there was a delay in setting up a system for having the money returned, but that is long past. i understand that it is produced . by and large the smaller banks -- free streamlined -- freddie streamlined -- fredpretty streamlined. looking the banks over to say that they are viable, using the

money to loan it out, there was a lot of criticism early on. but i think what has happened is a lot of the smaller banks, it turns out that a lot of the wall street banks do a lot of small business loans, which is a very tough sector right now. those banks have been hanging on to the money for a little bit of insurance. there was a rule that was passed in february of last year that limits executive compensation for the executives of the banks that receive this money. essentially affecting more people at that company than the money from the government.

at the smaller banks that was the ceo. it was a real complaint that fuel the rush to give the money back last year. host: michigan, david. democratic line. caller: i think that the president did the best that he could with that the bailout. i think that our country is on its way back to prosperity. i watch every morning. all the signs are pointing upward. we should not try to do so much monday morning quarterbacking. but i do think it will take a little time.

general motors has paid their money back and come up with positives that are very attractive. i think that everything will work out if people stop wishing for the worst in this country. host: is general motors ahead of schedule, paul keil? guest of the majority of the government investment is in the ownership -- guest: the majority of the investment from the government is in the ownership of general motors. there is a portion of the aid to general motors that remains in the form of a loan. they have been paying it back, ultimately about $7 billion every quarter. you have them paying back some of the money.

host: colorado, independent line. good morning. caller: is well in the good that the banks start paying back as soon as they can, but what is not mentioned is the huge loss of wealth. especially the people that are under water on their mortgages. i do not think that that money will ever be recouped. i worked for one of the five major banks. eigenvalue that their intention was not to get people into home ownership. they could not get people into

subprime mortgages fast enough to prevent bone loss of their derivatives. i wish that the derivative market would be much more exposed and i definitely favor taxing the transaction on the derivatives to pay back the tremendous damage that was done to this country. host: paul keil, argue familiar with the discussion on capitol hill with how they regulate derivatives? in talking about this financial regulation reform bill. do you know this session? guest: i know that one of the main agreed upon solutions is to form an exchange to take these transactions that were done over the phone on wall street and bring them out into the open so

that something like aig could not happen again. banks with hidden connections to the financial system. part of the panic was not knowing how deep or far they ran. a major part of that solution is to bring transparency. it is important to bring up a different aspect of the bailout, which is the mortgage modification. $50 billion still feels very public. that is one aspect of the bailout that should not be overlooked. host: what is the timeline for dispersal? guest: of that program, people can get a modification and there

are other ways to avoid foreclosure through the end of 2012. $90 million is that such a huge disappointment. host: financial rules and revisions, "the white house has raised objections to a potential compromise between democrats and republicans over rules governing trading. complicating the broader effort to rework regulation as it could derail a bipartisan deal.

it signals the obama administration's increasing efforts to kill parts of the financial overhaul that opposes ." tim, democratic line. good morning. are you there? die will move on. i think we lost -- we will move on. i think we lost that phone call. we will take a break. paul keil, congratulations and thank you for joining us from new york. guest: thanks a lot. it has been fun. host: we are going to take a break from our discussion on the economy this morning and we will take a look at the supreme court, looking at the latest names that have been thrown out there by the white house.

after that we will return to our discussion on the economy with robert rice, former labor secretary and california professor. first a news update from c-span radio. >> let's meet another video from our studentcam documentary competition. we asked students to share their thoughts on one of the greatest strengths or challenges facing the country. today we face a third prize winner from berkeley, california. guthrie, congratulations. >> thank you. >> why did you select a topic of health care? >> i felt it was very important, maybe the most important issue facing the country right now.

people could get sick or died because of not having a public option. >> how did you become interested in health care? >> on the internet, reading an article about it. i was captivated by the stories that i sought. >> why do you think that the public option should be included in health care? >> i think that everyone deserves to have coverage in health care. i have seen the results of it in france, like in the michael more movie, "sicko." >> president obama did not include a public option in the reason health care legislation. what are your thoughts? >> it was a huge thing to get past, really great.

but it still needs a public option. but it is a good first that. >> how did you select individuals to interview? >> we were a bit rushed. we heard about it late in november. but we thought of people in the medical industry, generally area died people -- area dites -- erudite people that could talk to the subjects. we used stock footage that we found and stuff from youtube that had to do with the news that was put on the internet. >> who is a jake kornbluth?

>> my uncle. >> what did you learn from him? >> he had a lot of personal experience, telling us about health care. >> what were some of his experiences? >> he is uninsured. he has a girlfriend and he is worried that if he gets hurt, he wants to be able to pay to be covered. >> how long did take you to complete the entire project? >> four days. >> what are you going to do with your winnings? >> i do not know yet. probably the bank. >> thank you for joining us today and congratulations again on your win. >> thank you. >> here is a short clip from his award winning documentary.

>> as a result, many serious problems that could have been avoided with preventative treatment did progress of the worst, eventually forcing people to go to the emergency room. as a result the extra costs must be absorbed by others. >> you can see the entire video and all of the winning videos add studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: stewart taylor is joining us to discuss the supreme court decisions coming up. this is from " washington journal." -- this is from "at the washington journal." -- this is from "the washington journal."

guest: justice stevens is from montana, sitting in montana. not much is known about him in washington. frankly i had not heard the name before, his obvious credential is being a westerner from montana. it will be interesting to learn more about him. host: another name that was put out there was leah ward sears. who is she? guest: a very complex woman, a chief justice from georgia who is a black woman. she is very big on steps that help the family. she is fairly liberal on criminal-justice issues but

moderate on social issues. host: after that, the governor of michigan, jennifer granholm. she was mentioned last time around. why is surname being floated again? -- why is her name being floated again? guest: governor of a big state, she has been there for a long time. there is a feeling that the judges are not enough elected officials. we do not have anyone on the supreme court that has ever run for elected office, which makes her a serious candidate. all of these people are well qualified in terms of having the

legal basis. host: janet napolitano is also being considered again this time around. what is the likelihood of her being paid? -- being picked? guest: she was one of the finalists last year interviewed by the president. the president has a high opinion of her, by all reports. she was elected state attorney general. she was a federal prosecutor. now the head of homeland security. a very impressive list. she did make a couple of gas saying that the system worked after the near bombing on christmas day.

calling terrorist acts man caused disasters. not a great laine. but i would take her very seriously. host: do those comments maker and a likely choice? guest: everyone makes gaffs. i made one month, my wife told me. -- i made one wants, my wife told me. -- made one once, my wife told me. [laughter] but it is a conversation that i am not sure that the president wants to have on national television these days. not so much a problem of what he said with -- as much as what was going on at the time.

host: the harvard law school dean, martha ammonaminno. guest: she is well respected but he has a law list of liberal positions, which -- but has a long list of liberal positions which would make for difficult to get through. i would be surprised if they chose her over kagan, who previously worked in the clinton white house. apparel with the president thinks very well of her. those are the list of qualifications. host: we were showing be worse footage of elena kagan, who is

on what people are calling the short list. along with names that our viewers are hearing. you wrote in the national journal about the supreme court short list. guest: all of the people we just talked about are very well qualified. there are -- are all very smart. they represent a good range from left of center to the democratic range. dianne woods is not nearly as liberal as some of the liberals would love to see. judge garland is probably the

most moderate of the four. vary widely respected by the bench in washington. it would be an easy confirmation. dean kagan is very well qualified intellectually. one of her assets is that she does not have much of a paper trail. people do not know what she thinks about much of anything. this does not mean that she agrees with the position. janet napolitano, we talked about her already. her broad political experience is an asset. and she is a cool customer. >> beyond of the short list, all of the names being tossed

around, do you think that republicans should filibuster any of these names? guest: i and my personal opinion the filibuster should never or almost never be used for judicial nominations. therefore i would say probably know. two extremely liberal people, i can see the incentive for filibuster. none of the people mentioned prominently by the white house would be filibuster candidates. there are always 41 republicans in the said. that is more than it was before the massachusetts election. democrats tried to filibuster justice alito when he was nominated. that fell way short and there

were more democrats back then than now. host: you mentioned some liberal possible picks that you think republicans might object to. who are they? guest: they are all long list of 18. longer than anyone else's list, i guess we win the contest. the top lawyer at the state department is lionized amongst liberals and is a smart man with government experience. ironically he recently gave a talk regarding the creditor drones and the administration's embrace of them in afghanistan and pakistan. many of the people that followed the record were surprised by that sort of thing.

so, he would be one. looking at my list, there is duval patrick. on the record as a passionate advocate for affirmative action. he had some controversy as the governor of massachusetts that i do not think would help him. dan carlin, if he went down list of legal activists, many people might say him or harold cohen. host: michigan, anderson, republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span, we appreciate your efforts, although i wish you would have

more opposing opinions on the show at the same time. it is easier to rebuke someone when they sit in front of you. on that note, i obviously have something to say about the governor. i want to tell people about what is happening in michigan. you can see that her lack of decision making has put us into the huge problems that we have. i hear -- by her sheer fact of being a governor, you can see the decisions coming from the supreme court. also, she is canadian. why would we lot -- why would we want her to make decisions for the rest of america? guest: michigan has a -- has been a rough place recently. i do not know enough about

michigan politics, but it would certainly be explored at great length in any confirmation hearing. it could be a factor against choosing her through the political criticisms. i would be surprised if our canadian origins are problem. she was elected governor of michigan and has been fairly thoroughly americanized. host: san francisco, good morning. caller: my personal choice would be been cohen. do you think that he would really be filibustered? how much of a problem is that

for the country is justice kennedy? guest: i think the conservative republicans would really want to filibuster with only 41 of them there. the only way that they could make it stick is if a large number of democrats were nervous and able to make that impression. i am a little doubtful. as for justice kennedy and his pivotal role, it just so happens that for a long time we had four pretty liberal on the supreme court and four free liberal people, and justice kennedy.

this is not really mean that he is moderate. i would say that he is liberal on some issues, conservative on others. what i think that entire tableau shows you is that the supreme court does not just sit there and apply the law to the facts. their job is much more complicated than that. you would not see them splitting it was more than ideological. that sort of pattern comes up again and again, telling you that the supreme court is fairly political as an institution.

host: i have read the justice kennedy looked up to and was influenced by justice stevens siding with the so-called liberal bloc of the court. who makes that out in terms of the remaining justices? >> first of all, they are fiercely independent. i would take with a grain of salt the idea that justice kennedy will change his position. justice stevens is a very persuasive man. he thinks things through and knows what he thinks. but the next senior justice after stevens is true spader ginsberg. she would be the logical candidate to step in to the

shoes of stevens. that power to assign the opinion is very important. what he did very effectively sometimes was assigning the opinions knowing that it would keep them on board and he got to control jumping over to the conservative side. but that is not rocket science. guest: what about the role that justice -- host: what about the role the justice sonia sotomayor might play? some have compared her to justice scalia on the right, saying that she is fiery.

guest: she seems feisty in oral argument. i think that she livens the oral arguments. in terms of brand strategy and a simple majority behind a position, the force of personality will be her main access. she did bring important experience before she was a trialshe has experience that the court was fairly short on. host: carl, independent line. good morning.

caller: my phone number is 941- 936-7248. the other young lady asked me what for. my name is carl. this supreme court that is elected, my son and died desk -- testified in front of congress. host: what is your question or comment? half caller: i am trying to get to that. we testified before congress. i am asking for the supreme court to address the issue of federal, state, and civil forfeiture.

host: can you talk about that issue specifically and the big cases that the next supreme court nominees might face? guest: i cannot think of a big case right now, but there are big cases. if you have done something wrong, drug cases, if they think that, it can be very hard to get them back even if you -- even if you realize that the suspicion is justified. the big issues that are recurring these days, the

guantanamo types of issues, what do you do with an immediate oeneus? i think that those will be very big. affirmative-action preferences will be very big. abortion is always very big. religion and state issues. campaign finance reform was a huge controversy when the court unleased contributions. there is a list of others. gay-rights as well. host: barbara, democratic line.

caller: i was wondering -- justice stevens was in a lot of decisions about the corporation's, recognized as one person. how is obama going to find someone in that court to make sure that the people are represented? right now these people decide the politicians and the campaigns, where do the people, in? guest: to be specific it struck down a 1947 federal law that prohibited corporations and

unions from spending stockholder or member money to oppose election candidates. the court struck down by 5-4. it was the longest this and he had ever written. the new appointee will probably be fairly liberal democrats in congress have forced disclosure from the chamber of commerce, perhaps requiring shareholder votes with corporations and what foreign owners can do.

there are a number of avenues for the congress. i think that the probable effect has been exaggerated. i do not think that corporations are just dying to jump in and spending a lot of the profits. host: georgia, blake, independent line. good morning. caller: the way the the messages are put out in the writings of the supreme court, i am not happy with it. it is not intuitive. often they have very short attention spans. more important, how can

journalists actually write about the supreme court in a way that the members can look at that kind of documents guest: i think that the supreme court press corps do quite a good job of explaining what can be a very complicated matter. if you think it is hard to understand the stories, try reading the judicial opinions themselves. justice scalia, dusting them off and saying that you cannot possibly understand. the actual job of the supreme court person is quite different. trying to get people to leave some things, trying to get

something that no one else knows about talking about the cases where the justice has the cent in the currency. what a great democratic control on the process. there is always the center. someone is always going to be calling out to whoever wrote the majority opinion and getting a good dialogue that way. host: "the wall street journal" and "of the washington post" had these articles about who is being considered.

"no front runners yet." "the new york times" did not have a story this morning. as far as timing, they have this in "the washington post." "obama is not likely to make public his announcement until the end of may, leaving much media speculation about the selection but there is a timeline similar to that of judge sotomayor. but a goal of hearings in the middle of july and a one-year hearing on her confirmation, that is the year the senate is slated to adjourn for confirmation." guest: their major objective is to have someone seated on the bench before october so that you do not have a to judges possibly deadlocking on important cases. the best and cleanest way to get that done with no margin for error is to do this summer

recess. the president nominated judge sotomayor in the hearings for the senate judiciary committee began a in july and she was confirmed in august. one reason that i think that they will wait rather than just take someone -- he could pick someone today if he wanted to -- you do not want a nominee hanging around too long for republicans to try to pick fights with, dig up what ever happens. . .

caller: he already has just a sotomayor. even perhaps a black male american such as justice thomas. host: to add to that, senator carden was quoted on the ninth justice, which is the blog at national journal that the supreme court pick saying that president obama should pick the best person. store taylor, is there pressure to -- stuart taylor, is there pressure to pick an african- american?

guest: there's pressure, but less than last time. for example, merrick garland, who was mentioned earlier and has appeared on all of the short list, and diane wood, a federal appeals court judge, and elena jayden, the solicitor general. he was at the bottom last year because a white male was not going to get nominated last year. this year it could happen if the all off -- if all of the factors are in the right place. the republicans will not fight too hard and judge garland might be his best paid. but there are others on the not so long list. judge thomas, who was mentioned recently, deval patrick, the governor of massachusetts has been mentioned. eric holder, the attorney general has been mentioned. it just so happens that most of the people on a fairly short list is -- are still women.

and there wilthey are well qual. it is not like he is beating the bush to try to find men that are more qualified. host: flint, mich., democrats line. good morning caller:, i wanted to call in caller: and good morning, i wanted to call in and put my vote in for jennifer granholm. she was the attorney general here in michigan before she was governor. what is amazing about that is that this really is a republican state, especially over on the west side. she managed to get those republican votes. host: does that bode well for her in a confirmation process? guest: if she is good at getting those votes, she would not need any republican votes to get confirmed.

one peculiarity is that any of these people could get confirmed if the president really wanted to drive them through. there probably will not be a filibuster and if there was, it would get broken pretty quickly. democrats are nervous because they are afraid that at a time when they are on the defensive after a fairly popular health care bill passed and there looking toward an election where they are expecting huge losses, they are afraid the republicans will be able to turn these hearings into a summer television show that highlights things democrats considered to be their weaknesses. therefore, there is incentive to make a candidate that kind of keeps its short and sweet and gets it over with and also, does not provide the republicans with an excuse to steer the conversation to things like not giving miranda warnings to terrorists, which the administration does not really want to talk about much on national tv.

california host:, joe on the end of london -- host: california, joe on the independent line. caller: the women on your show this morning of for the supreme court, i would not care too much for. most of them are politicians. i think the only one there that i would vote for is the guy that is on the montana court. host: all right, what about the list overall? is it fair to say, or should people assume that whoever is on this -- that someone will be picked from this so-called list? guest: it seems pretty likely. you can never rule out a big surprise. justice souter was a big surprise, for example. the president was thinking about who to put on the supreme court before he was president. he was thinking about it a lot a year ago after justice souter resigned.

he is a former president of the harvard law review. he thinks about constitutional issues. he wrote about it in his books. now he has had more time to think about it. it would be a bit of a surprise if somehow somebody popped up who had not been thought of before. it could happen because maybe he was thinking about someone that has not been leaked, or it just could happen. the for example, judge thomas, who was mentioned earlier, i never heard of him until yesterday. suddenly, he is on the list. maybe there will be someone else i've never heard of suddenly on the list. if i were a betting man, i would bet on one of the short listers. host: why expand the list? why float more names out there? guest: one reason could genuinely be they are considering them all. a more plausible reason might be that there are constituency groups and people who feel

better about the president if he is putting out lists that have their guy or their woman on it. there is somebody out there, i imagine judge thomas, but also a lot of westerners that are saying, ok, good, at least he is considering a westerner. there are a lot of liberals out there that are thinking that he is considering harold coe is nice. you stroke various constituencies if you put out more list. host: william is joining us on the republican line. go ahead, william. ahoy caller: caller: i have -- caller: i have two statements to make. before the -- for the gentleman who just called and the president mr. obama, he is the president of this country

and should be addressed so. shame on you. also, are the justices supposed to be non-political? if so, why did justice roberts make a political statement about the president when he spoke in alabama? host: stuart taylor? guest: i wasn't sure what went on between the president and justice roberts. but in a way, justice roberts did not started. in the state of the union address when the justices were surrounded by democrats, they basically called out the supreme court and announce them in a way that has not been done in modern history for their decision on campaign finance. i think roberts' reaction was not so much that he should not be criticizing us. in fact, he said that is fine. his reaction was that he really should not be criticizing us in

that setting, surrounding -- surrounded by cheering and during politicians andand jeering politicians -- and jeering politicians. i do not think you will see many supreme court justices at state of the union addresses next year, or ever. i think that is over because of this incident. host: have you heard that directly from any of the justices or sources inside the court? guest: not probably, but i think one or two of the justices has indicated so publicly. and of course, there are some that have retired, like justice stevens, but have never done it. it is a political show. i think roberts said something like this -- why would we show up just to be props in a political show? host: chester, conn, bill on the

democrats line. caller: you are just the man i want to talk to -- talk to, mr. taylor. the 5-4 decisions that are coming down, don't the justices to realize that causes a great deal of speculation on the part of the citizens of the country as to whether or not the constitution is valid or not? i mean, more guys assigned to the constitution originally and you cannot get nine guys to agree on something? it does not sound right. and i want to start hammering on these judges to add these to -- to at least agree to something. guest: it is a very good question if the constitution is clear and they are interpreting the law, why can't it be 9-0, or 8-1 or at least 7-2.

they your shoes from federal appeals courts, who are also good judges and have come to different and contradictory conclusions. they are very hard issues. but the other thing is, and i think i've mentioned this before, the job is inherently political in a lot of ways. it is supposed to be political. that is the civics class ideal. but a lot of the decisions they're making, there is not anything in the constitution that clearly spells out what you are supposed to do. or if there is something in the constitution, there is probably a president from some earlier court that goes the other way -- a precedent from an earlier court that goes the other way. at the conclusion i draw is that the supreme court ought to be pretty darn hesitant to strike down democratic and that makes -- democratic enactments, whether they are state or

constitutional. if you cannot have more than a one-vote margin, maybe you should back off. host: last phone call for stuart taylor, bob on the independent line from wisconsin. caller: thank you for this wonderful program. i wondered if you recall the famous, legendary tammany hall statement, the supreme court files election returns. contrary to what justice roberts would like to maintain, and has on c-span, the supreme court is, indeed, a political institution in the best use of that word. would you care to comment on that word, please? guest: i think that is true. the larger truth there is overlong. the time -- over long periods of time, the supreme court, their role is that some of freedoms of

speech are so important we will not let transitory majorities of voters take people's rights away. but in the larger frame of history, the supreme court rarely gets far out of step with public opinion. we have a story in the current "newsweek" that develops this. it happen in the 1930's with the new deal and the court got way out on the right flank striking down fdr's laws. that ended rather quickly when fdr replace a bunch of them in the 19th -- a a bunch of them. in the 1950's and 60's, there were some changes that were different, but i think necessary. there was some aggressive civil- rights -- there were some aggressive civil rights issues. but people -- the justices do not want to get too far out

of step with public opinion. host: thank you for your time this morning. coming next, we will talk with robert reich, a professor university of california berkeley. he wrote this piece in the "wall street journal" yesterday. we will talk to him coming up next. but first, a news update from c- span radio. >> it is 9:14 a.m. here in washington d.c. the commerce department is record -- is reporting that the u.s. trade deficit is wider than expected in february as exports rose to the highest level in 16 months, but this gain was offset by a bigger jump in imports, reflecting increased demand for consumer goods from televisions to clothing. this design of the regarding u.s. economy. speaking on cbs' the early show

from moscow, ambassador john byerly says outraged over the incident concerning the adopted russian boy says he hopes the fuehrer -- the furies surrounding a woman's decision to send a child back to russia alone will not jeopardize other adoptions. the job was put on a flight with a note saying that he had psychological problems and was violent. he is now being cared for in a moscow hospital. general qadeer no -- general odierno is leaving his post at the end of the summer. he plans to remain in iraq through the drawdown of combat forces through september, and then take over the joint forces command. his successor will be lieutenant-general austin, the staff director for the joint chiefs of staff.

kyrgyzstan's president says he is going to resign if his security is guaranteed. he made the statement at a rally with about 5000 supporters. no immediate response from interim to the authorities to have said he would be arrested if he did not return to the capital. and finally, britain's labor and conservative parties have released their manifestos this week outlining their plans for the country's government -- government. this ahead of next month's parliamentary elections. and for the first time it will hold a u.s.-style to cut -- television debates. you can watch them at 9:00 p.m. eastern town -- eastern time. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> washington mutual, the largest u.s. bank to ever failed, engaged in fraudulent and deceptive practices in its home mortgage business. four executives from the company testify this morning. live coverage on investigations

starts at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. later today, treasury secretary timothy geithner is interviewed by "washington post." this is part of a conference by the american society of newspaper editors. that is live at 12:45 p.m. eastern. >> "washington journal" continues. host: have a very early hour in california, robert reich is joining us to talk about the economy. many of you know him as the former labor secretary under plaze -- president clinton and now the policy professor at university of berkeley, california. also, the author of 12 books. i wanted for some headlines out there for you this morning before we get going. here is the "wall street journal." that is the front page.

the "washington post" frontpage says the team is optimistic. and then we also saw in the last couple of days that the economy is on track to possibly grow up 3.6% from off -- 3.6%, create $518 billion in recovery and the banks have started to repay their loans from taxpayers. are we on our way to recovery? guest: greta, i wish i could say we were on our way to a vigorous recovery. we certainly are on our way to recovery. the business cycle follows isleton's law, but in reverse. everything that goes down eventually -- follows isaac newton's law, but in reverse. everything that it goes down and eventually comes up.

the stock market is recovering in part because corporate earnings are up, and corporate earnings are up largely because companies have sliced their payrolls. they have cut their cost and, again, their payrolls, their employees, are their biggest cost. many companies are going abroad for sales. they're also going abroad for workers. so, what is good for america's big companies in terms of their property -- profitability and american stock market may not be necessarily good for american workers. we are seeing in this recovery a little bit of a two-tiered recovery, that is, big companies and wall street are doing very well. their workers and employees are doing ok. small businesses are doing badly. people on main street still are without jobs and is going to take, unfortunately, even if we have a pretty good recovery, it will take years and years before we take -- before we get a level of employment back to where we were before the recession.

later on, we will get to some of my concerns about why this recovery is going to be quite anemic, unfortunately. host: you wrote yesterday in the "wall street journal" this, the u.s. economy has added 162,000 jobs in march. that sounds impressive until you look more closely. at least one-third of them were temporary government hires to take the census. better than no job, but hardly worth writing home about. the real jobs were fewer than the 150,000 needed to keep up with the growth of the u.s. population. it is far better than it was. we are not hemorrhaging jobs as we were in 2008 to and 2009, but the bleeding has not stopped. at what is going on? guest: you can say that we are going in the right direction, but still not producing enough net jobs to fill the need for jobs by a population that continues to grow. we have lost about 8.4 million

jobs. net jobs from the american economy, and on top of that, we're down 2.7 million in terms of population growth, the number of people coming into the labour force, people who would like jobs, young people who were counting on jobs. that is over 11 million short of what we need. even if we had a very vigorous recovery, and that would be about 300,000 net new jobs per month. you can see that it would take five to eight years for us to get back to where we were before. i do not want to be doom and gloom. i am quite an upbeat person in real life. but i'm looking at these numbers and also realizing something else, that is, many of the old jobs are never going to come back because companies have been using the great recession as an excuse, or maybe they have been forced to do it, to trim their

payrolls with outsourcing and also with new technologies, office software cannot machine tools, whatever -- office software, machine tools, whatever. the combination of software over there is actually reducing the number of jobs in these companies and, perhaps, will reduce them forever. many of the old jobs simply will not come back. it is not a typical recession or at the end of the recession you get a lot of old jobs coming back. the people you have lost their jobs, and we have a record number of long-term unemployed who have been out of work for six months or longer. about 40% of the unemployed are going to have to get new jobs, often that pay less than the jobs they used to have. that is a hidden dark side to this so-called recovery. it is a hidden dark side to the unemployment figures because when you have a lot of people who settled for new jobs that pay less, they do not have money

in their pockets to turn around and buy things to keep the recovery going. host: i know our viewers are easy to to -- eager to talk to you. let's go to the phones in citrus heights, calif., randy on the republican line. caller: thank you for the opportunity. conservatives also get up early here in california. my question is, it seems to me that it is kind of a no-brainer that the uncertainty about the agenda of this current administration is what is holding down people from hiring. there are too many things pending that business owners are afraid are going to affect their bottom line. while all this stuff that the administration would like to get done is kind of hanging out there, you know, it is not known whether it is going to be done or not. with cash and trade, are they just going to say we will not -- kappa and trade, are they just want to say we will not pass a

cat and trade -- cap and trade. we will just give dollars to do it, kind of like with fiat. i do not think anything is going to turn around unless we have a regime change in this country. host: what should the obama administration and congress do to get businesses hiring? caller: they should take the bull by off of their backs. it seems like every week they have a new business group that is the bad guy out there. these are our employers. just because they have money does not make them bad people. the administration seems to just flippantly throat around accusations against -- throw around accusations against people with money. i guess they are trying to harness this populist backlash against business or whatever. host: professor reich, what do you think? guest: randy is correct that there is a lot of uncertainty in the business community right now

about new regulations, new rules coming down. but i think the biggest source of uncertainty is whether there's going to be enough demand among consumers for all of the goods and services for the pri -- the businesses they are producing. we have had ituri and legal uncertainty before, but the businesses -- we have had regulatory and legal uncertainty before, but the businesses are reluctant to hire when they do not know there will be enough consumers out there to buy everything they want. that is the number one uncertainty. until they know that, they are simply not going to do a lot of hiring. small businesses have a special problem. the biggest problem for small businesses is not the regulatory uncertainty. it is not even necessarily knowing how many consumers are going to be out there. the biggest problem for small businesses is that they are still having a lot of trouble getting credit, bar wing. big businesses do not have to worry about borrowing right now. they are sitting on a huge pile of money, in fact.

but small businesses do. often, regional banks or community banks that are sitting on a big pile of a -- of non- performing loans, those small businesses are being told by the banks, even though you are a very good credit risk for a pretty good credit risk, we cannot take the risk right now. host: burlington, wisconsin, david is joining us on the democratic line. caller: professor reich, thanks for your good work. i'm a constituent of congressman paul lyonrayns. i'm wondering if his road map for america is a good idea, or if it is just more handouts for wall street, stockbrokers and the wealthy. i would appreciate your thoughts. guest: i wish i knew exactly what congressman ryan's roadmap

is for america. i think we have to be careful about any more handouts to wall street, and also, the wealthy. wall street is now saying to anyone that would listen, that is, the big banks are saying, we have paid back most of the bailout. i was reading an article this morning that many people in washington are breaking our champagne saying that the bailout work aned and they gives back almost as much as we gave them, but that is not true. the allies a hidden cost. in fact, it is not so hidden. the cost of the big banks now knowing that they were not too big to fail. they were not quite sure of that before they got bailed out. now they are quite sure of that. that could lead to risky behavior of a sort that got us in the problem in the first place. with the zero interest rates, we basically have a circumstance

not unlike 2006 and 2007. we have given the banks a great deal, not just through the troubled assets relief program, but also true low-interest loans. the federal reserve has been extraordinarily kind to the big banks. and now, without any regulatory reform, financial reform, all they know is that the federal government is going to be there for them when they need it. and this is a different situation -- and frankly, i will tell you, i do not think this is a liberal or conservative or democratic or republican issue. i do not see the logic in bailing out the big banks. i do not think we should have done it. i think we should have come up with extremely tough regulations and rules that prohibit banks from doing anything like this again. the cost to the economy was incalculable. the cost to the global economy -- a recent estimate by a scene was about $four trillion.

the cost to americans who are still out of work is extraordinary. -- the cost was about $4 trillion. the cost to americans were still out of work is extraordinary. this is just the tip of the iceberg. host: memphis, tenn., bill, independent line. caller: i have a question concerning the relationship between the large millions of illegal aliens who are here and americans who are out of work. i know it is a cliche, but it seems to me that the 20 million something illegal aliens better in this country and the politicians addressing that issue, what's better relationship -- what better religion to they have with the declining numbers of american workers who are not working and what better relationship do they have with the declining numbers

of american workers who are not working. that means they are taking our jobs. i see mexican workers who cannot speak english. host: i will leave it there. secretary reich, your written about jobs and immigration -- you have written about jobs and immigration policy on your block if viewers are interested in going there to read your comments. go ahead and respond to this caller, though. guest: there are a lot of concerns about undocumented workers in the u.s. that is a couple of things. number one, there are fewer undocumented workers as far as we can tell -- and these numbers are hard to come by, obviously. but there are fewer undocumented

workers then there were before the economy plunged. the simple reason for that is that most undocumented workers come here to get jobs. when there are no jobs for anybody, and how unemployment is very high, they tend not to come. or they go home. if they're coming here and remitting their salaries back home, they leave because they can do better back home. i think there is very little evidence that undocumented workers right now are taking a lot of jobs away from americans. the big problem, obviously, is the economy for everybody. the economy is not generating enough jobs or enough demand for jobs for everyone who is here. number two, giving precisely to your point, most of the studies show that the undocumented workers who come here tend to cluster in particular occupations that are not

occupations that native-born americans tend to want jobs in very much. we are talking about elder care, certain kinds of construction jobs. undoubtedly, there is a negative income affect, or negative employment effect on certain americans. they tend to be low-skilled. they tend to be clustered. those native-born americans, in the same places that foreign- born undocumented workers are migrating to. but the overall effect on unemployment is almost by every measure very small compared to everything else that is going on. host: new orleans, louisiana, john on the republican line. caller: almost every year since this bill was implemented by the president and congress, it has not seem to have much affect. it seems like it would encourage irresponsibility. people can say i can get billed out again if i engage in

irresponsible -- bailed out again if i engage in its irresponsible behavior. what do you think the american economy would do if we found ourselves in that situation? guest: i agree with the thrust of your point in terms of the bailout bill. i think without tough financial regulations preventing this from happening, all we have signaled to wall street, to the big banks is that they can be bailed out. and they will be bailed out if they get into trouble. that is an invitation to more risky behavior on their part if they can make a lot of money off other people's money. i think is a very unstable situation and a dangerous situation. i worry that the near lobbying and financial and political contribution power of wall street is making it very difficult for congress to come up with the kinds of rules, tougher rules, the kind of laws

with tough teeth that will prevent wall street from doing this again. i thought initially would be talking about the stimulus bill, which is something different from the bailout bill. the stimulus, $787 billion, most people who look at this closely, and i'm talking about economist that are not affiliated with either party and have not advised your party, have come to the conclusion that the stimulus has had a substantial impact in a positive direction in terms of creating jobs. it would be much worse off right now in the job situation if we did not have the stimulus. a lot of people like me worry that when the stimulus is over, and also the federal reserve board has to start raising interest rates again, that there is not enough demand among consumers to keep the economy going and to keep us out of either a double-dip recession, or at least out of a very anemic recovery. host: treasury secretary timothy

geithner of this morning's rights in the "washington post" what are your thoughts on that legislation? guest: i am one of the ones who -- maybe because i cannot sleep sometimes at night -- i actually read the legislation. it is very weak. i do not think the legislation goes nearly far enough. for example, it does not control all derivatives. it allows derivatives called credit default swaps and others that are specialized to escape being regulated by any exchange whatsoever. that is a huge loophole. it is the kind of loophole that investment bankers can drive there flurries through. second, there is nothing -- drive their sports cars through. second, there is nothing in the credit rating agencies -- and

that is the issue the credit rating agencies have because they are reading these and if -- raising these in the first place. and it puts the consumer protection agency in the fruit -- in the federal reserve board in a way that replicates the conservative bureau that the fed already has. it does not give enough powers over all. it does absolutely nothing about executive salaries or trader salaries, linking them to long-term performance by banks. there is still an incentive to do very short term shenanigans to prop up your short-term pay. and that is what got us into trouble. the volcker wilrule that would separate some of the functions in investment and banking are very weak. the bills coming out of the house and the senate also give too much responsibility to the

regulators in their despair -- and their discretion. when you do that, you are begging for the same problem that we just had because the regulators essentially sat back and did nothing. thereafter be requirements that under certain circumstances, regulators to x, y, and the. and finally, neither bill sets 11 to the size of the banks. if these -- sets a limit to the size of the banks. if these things get too big, they will be too big to fail. these big banks are likely to get into trouble, several of them at the same time, because they're all using the same financial techniques. this is just what happened last time. if more than one gets in trouble, even though the resolution of 40 may be there, regulators -- resolution of 40 may be there, regulators and congress will be prone to --

even though the resolution authority may be there, regulators and congress may be prone to bail them out again because they will fear that the entire system is in danger of going under. my point is that no bank should be too big to fail or not to fail. and nobody has come up with any logic or analysis showing why banks over, let's say, $100 billion in assets should be allowed to exist. we have antitrust laws and have used them in this country to be sure that big entities to not get too big for the economy or for politics. one of the original purposes of the sherman act of 89 he was to limit -- of 1890, was to limit the political affect, not just the economic impact. i think the bills that are coming up, the two financial

reform bills, are far too weak. host: thank you. kevin on the democratic line in some -- in the louisville, ohio. caller: i have been traveling around the country and we cannot find any work. it seems like all of the big projects are put on hold and there is a big freeze on infrastructure. no one is letting loose of any money. i just cannot understand what is going on you know, why it takes so long to get these projects. a lot of projects are started and everybody pulls out. it seems like they do not want to spend their money. host: are you unemployed then? caller: i have been unemployed for six months and i have traveled from new york to florida trying to find a job. host: are you collecting unemployment benefits? caller: i am, and it is rough.

getting your salary set by -- i mean to ahman it is one-third. -- i mean, it is one-third. host: your thoughts on the prospect of getting a job, and if i could throw in there the "wall street journal" editorial this morning saying that extending unemployment benefits as an incentive not to work. he quotes larry summers in his book in 1999 that argued when you give folks unemployment benefits that it just means they stay unemployed logger. guest: let me take that and then i will get back to your point, kevin, in a moment. unemployment benefits on average only pay 40% of the pre-earnings that people had before. there is very little evidence that unemployment benefits keep people from getting a job. most people who are out of a job desperately and -- want and need jobs.

not far from where i'm sitting -- a hearing california, there was an employer who needed 4500 workers and 45,000 workers showed up to apply for those jobs. i hear the same thing all over the country. unemployment benefits are not keeping people from wanting work. there is no factual background or foundation for that. kevin, back to your question. you say you have a lot of infrastructure projects around the country that are not being fully funded. that may have to do with the fact that the big stimulus bill, that $787 billion bill, that is funding infrastructure projects around the country. it is taking a long time to get the money through the system. every level of government wants to be absolutely sure -- and this is a good thing -- that there is no fraud, that the money is being spent wisely. nobody wants headlines in the

newspaper saying that the government money was wasted. but the cost of that is that it is just taking longer for these projects to get going. a little bit more than half, as far as i can judge, of the stimulus money has been spent. the peak of the spending is over. the stimulus money will probably be all spent by the end of this year. my advice to you is to keep on looking, look in the private sector as well. i know there are few private sector jobs. i want to say one more thing about this because i tell this to a lot of people who have been unemployed for more than six months. it is very hard for many of you to keep your spirits up. many of you blame yourself. many of you find it almost impossible to get up in the morning and keep on looking for jobs. i want you to know -- and i say this as the former labor secretary and someone who has studied the job situation very

carefully and knows a lot of people who are unemployed -- a, is not your fault. b, jobs will come back. but they may not pay as well as the job you have lost, but is better than nothing. you may have to settle for that at least for a while, until you get some experience on the job. and c, hopefully unemployment benefits will be available for those of you who are for now uncertain about it. the house and senate have agreed on at least in one month extension, an additional extension of unemployment benefits. hopefully, that's stop-gap measure will help a lot of you. host: charlotte, n.c., sandy, you are on the air. caller: it is a pleasure to speak with mr. reich. it amazes me how the republican voters are so misguided. i would like mr. reich to elaborate, please, on aprilthe

republican agenda on the new world order, which i think has been planned to drive down the standard of living in this country to make us more competitive on a global basis. could you please answer -- which administration was the one that actually offereauthored nafta ae caftqa bill? >> the after the election can of the clinton administration. it was difficult to convince a lot of -- the nafta bill actually came out of the clinton administration. it was difficult to convince a lot of americans that it was a good idea. it did not create all that many new jobs north or south of the border. it diwas worried over by people

who thought it was going to be a job destroyer. most of the jobs that did leave the united states did not go to mexico. they went to china. and china was obviously not part of the north american free trade act. let me get back to your basic statement. i worry in this country about the polarization of all of us. one of my best friends is alan simpson, former republican senator from wyoming. he and i get together and talk about how republicans and democrats rarely talk anymore. in washington, washington has become a much more polarized place than ever before. when i am on tock shoulders -- talk shows, very often pitted against the conservatives, the producer speaks into my ear and

they say, we want you -- during station breaks they say, we want you to be angrier because that helps us sell products or gets people to stop surfing through the channels. when they see a very angry debate. we need to talk more with each other. republicans and democrats, most republicans feel and want to ultimately the same thing that ever one else wants, and all democrats won. we want good jobs, an economy -- and all democrats want. the one good jobs, an economy that is working well. i can tell you that a man who is not in washington and nema lager, but keeps careful tabs -- any longer, but keeps careful tabs on washington, this polarization keeps things out of control and does not reflect our most people are in this country.

host: and just to be clear, we do not have a producer in secretary reich's youear. we will move on, ron in las vegas. kollhofcaller: could morning ank you for c-span. my problem is tied to the economy, but a bit different. i'm a 29-year-old male and 12 years ago i was convicted of a felony when i was 18 years old. basically, i have a lifelong barriers. i am receiving welfare right now and the taxpayers are paying for my rent. about a week ago i tried to get a job and young lady who was doing the hiring, she said i was

really a good candidate. i told her about my felony and i did everything i can do in new york state law to get my records cleaned up. they offer you a certificate, but they do not give you an expansion. this ticket is a piece of paper called a certificate of release. she said she wanted to hire me. my application had to go through the administration. and they denied me. host: we will leave it there because we are running out of time. talk about those seeking jobs, educated, non-educated. and it is callers situation, a felony record. -- and in at this collar's situation, a felony record. guest: i'm sorry that york state has a law that will not allow you -- new york state has a law

that will not allow you to expunge your record after you have paid your debt and several years. it is very difficult for those who have paid their debt to society to actually get jobs. those records still blocked employment. but greta asked a moment ago about people generally getting jobs right now, if you are somebody who has not finished high school, your actual unemployment rate is about three times higher than someone who has finished four years of college. one thing the unemployment rate heights -- it hides many things, but one thing it hides is an -- is implement is related to how much education you have. a college educated person who has for years of college, the official unemployment rate is only 5% -- that has four years of college, the official unemployment rate is only 5%

rather than 9%. that does hide a lot of people who are underemployed or too discouraged to look for work. but nonetheless, there's this huge difference if you have graduated from high school, -- there is this huge difference. if you have graduated from high school, the unemployment rate is about 8.7%. if you have two years of college, it is slightly better than that. whatever level of education you have, your chances of being unemployed are lower with the higher level of education and more education. i would therefore urge anyone out there who is having a hard time getting a job to seriously consider using this as an opportunity if you cannot find a job, to get some more education if you can possibly afford it.

of course, that is the problem, because many people simply cannot afford it. my earpiece has disappeared. let me look for it. host: we will go to the next call while you look for it. on the democratic line, go ahead. caller: it is hard to believe that the economy is going badly when you see at all with that thousand dollar product and people standing in line for it. they give the tax breaks and they exchange names after seven years are over. host: let's take your first, because we want to get some more voices in your before the end of the show. about apple and ipod, how can

the economy be doing so badly when he said thousands of people are lining up to buy ipod and i phones? guest: the short answer is that people are able to -- if they have a job or even a part-time job, they're able to express some discretionary spending. not very much, a lot of people have to trim their sails and be very economical, but if there is a product that everyone wants to have, they will probably trim their sails and elsewhere in their budget in order to afford it. let me just say this, one of the problems we have with this recovery, this so-called recovery, when we do find ourselves in recovery, one of the problems is that many people will not be able to use their homes as essentially cash machines the way they did between 2001 and 2007 carried

during those years, as you recall, -- and 2007. during those years, as you recall, it was very easy for people to refinance their homes or get some kind of home loan based on their home being collateral. that created a lot of cash that people used to buy things with even the wages were not going up. these days, those homes can of the cash machines. also, many people are worried about keeping their jobs. you need two incomes in most families to pay the bills. and therefore, the chances that one of those two incomes is either going to be jeopardized by a loss of jobs or a loss of ouhours at work, or attending fr of a loss of a job also is putting a crimp in people's spending. people do have to replace their cars.

they have to replace their clothing after a while. other things, appliances breakdown. we're seeing a little bit of an uptick in spending, but not much. one final thing that may explain your ipod example, people who are in the top 10% of income earners, those people tend to have most of their assets in the stock market. people below them tend to have most of their assets tied into their homes. people who have most of their assets in the stock market have seen that the stock market -- a little bit of a stock market improvement over the past three months has given them a feeling that they have more cash. it made them more willing to spend. but we cannot have a sustained recovery simply on the purchases of the top 10%. the middle class is still, for very understandable reasons, holding back from the malls. host: we have a twitter comment

from a viewer who is winning in about unemployment benefits. we will go to philadelphia where carol is joining us on the independent line. caller: i'm enjoying listening to this morning, professor. i have a couple of questions i would like you to respond to. host: we are running out of time, so can you- caller: a brief overview of myself, two of my daughters have lost their jobs in the last few years. wherwhy is washington refusing o recognize people who are trying to support families? host: we will have to leave it there. guest: washington's response to the problem that many people are having just keeping their homes, i do not think it has been adequate. there are reasons for the obama

administration has held back from as much support for, let's say, bailing out homeowners as otherwise. it does not want to create a kind of encouragement of irresponsible behavior. it does not want to make people who have kept up their mortgage payments feel that they are johnsochumps and less advantaged relative to people who are getting help. but you are right, the combination of loss of jobs and at the same time having these very crippling mortgage payments has made life very difficult for a large number of americans. most people are under water these days. they owe more on their homes than their homes are worth and they are getting behind on their payments. they are in trouble not because they took on too much home or too much borrowing, but because they have lost their jobs.

they did not anticipate, as nobody did, that the job losses would be as deep as they have been over the past two years. washington has got to do a better job helping people who are in trouble with their mortgages and their homes or now. host: some people on our twitter page are wondering where you even need a and your peace. let me just let them know that you cannot hear the phone calls without it. with that, we will take one last want your guest: -- one last one. guest: yes, i'm not deaf. i need it just so i hear you. host: sorry for the trouble. go ahead, caller. caller: my question is this, suppose in the beginning instead of the stimulus, they had just turned around and declared

either a six months or a one- year income tax cut off. in other words, you would get your income tax in your paycheck instead of having it deducted ahead of time on your income tax. wouldn't this have done exactly what you were saying? keep up consumer demand because people would have more money in their pocket and everything else. and it would have gone directly to the consumers immediately so that it would not have been delayed. i will listen to you on the air. guest: that is a good question. about one-third of the stimulus was tax cuts. business tax cuts primarily. but let me respond to your question about why personal tax cuts might not have had as big an impact as stimulus spending. the thinking is that people take their personal tax cuts and they very often pay off their own

debts, which is fine. it is completely rational from the standpoint of individuals, but it will not get the spending bill in the create additional jobs. or they may take their tax cut and they may go to the mall and they spend money on various products that, really, are coming from china or from abroad, not stimulating jobs in the u.s. many economists think that the best way to stimulate jobs in the u.s. is to provide infrastructure projects, to provide help to state and local governments. in other words, to get money into the system that will generate directly -- directly create jobs in the u.s., even if the second order, that is, people who get that pay then go to the local mall and buy something from china. nevertheless, there will be a multiplier effect that is still