♪ host: democrats have won the first u.s. house race since the health care bill became law. it happened in four they yesterday. it was not a close race. he went on to replace a retiring congressman. on capitol hill today the senate begins to debate on job benefits. a couple of high-profile hearings. one of them had the attorney general, the other had ben

bernanke. over at the white house president obama played host to a bipartisan group of lawmakers, the topic being the bipartisan regulation bill. gop senators are holding back, dealmaking is unlikely, republicans saying that mistrust lost by partisanship by number of issues. this morning the topic for the first 45 minutes is do you do your own taxes? if you do, call 202-737-0001. if you do not, 202-737-0002. we got the idea from "usa today." cover story says "filing taxes on their own. despite complicated tax code,

more people are going alone. kenneth stewart lives in claremont, florida, and has been preparing his own tax return since 1972 when it was required to use a pencil and a base a calculator cost a lot of money s become much more difficult and obtuse. "i think that people should be able to do their own taxes." they go on to write that " millions of taxpayers' that pay someone to prepare their returns, steward may seem like a throwback when americans can their own vegetables and cut their own hair. but the economic downturn has spurred an increase in do yourself taxpayers. 64% of individual and electronic

returns were done by tax professionals, but the total number of electronic refiled self prepared returns was up 6.7% from the same time one year ago. they also point out that e-file accounts for about 80% of the individual tax returns that have been filed. -- filed." if you are going alone, we want to hear your recent. or if your not we want to hear that as well. the first call comes from arizona. sue, good morning. caller: good morning. host: do you do your own taxes? caller: i do not. i do them at the local library. it is free and they are very good at it. my friend volunteered a couple

of years ago in she is a cpa. they have all on computer at the local library. host: any worries about mistakes or anything? caller: none. it is the best experience i have had in a long time. host: what does this process mean at this time of year? caller: i do not have to worry about my taxes. i get them done, they get them done right. the only glitch that i had was i forgot my checkbook. my refund is coming through the mail because i forgot to have a check with me so that they could write down about a number. host: thank you for being the first to weigh in on this.

mary, we understand that you do do your own taxes? caller: yes. host: what is the experience like? caller: takes a couple of hours. i can read, subtract and abide. the tax table makes it not that hard. host: how do you do it? caller: i sit down with my w-two nfl out the form. host: any -- w-2 and i fill out the form. host: any advantages or disadvantages? caller: i am tired of people calling things complex and complicated when it really is not. host: this story goes on to say that h&r block and jackson hewitt reported sharp drops in

business in february. meanwhile, turbo tax sought a 10% rise in sales. "many people that do it themselves regret the decision that even seemingly straightforward returns are loaded with land mines." curtis tell you do your own taxes. tell us why. caller: mainly because i do not want to give someone $100 to do it for me. that is the main reason. i would like to make an editorial observation. it seems that in the last couple of months you have gone right wing on me. it used to feel like you tried to give all of the perspectives.

i have not seen that lately. republicans get on there, the hands go down. a democrat starts saying something truthful and it seems like they get kicked off. i wish you would be more objective. this is a united states marine corps observation. the majority of the people in the tea party are racists, which concerns me on that -- concerns me about the country. host: can drive, do you do your own taxes? caller: i do. host: what is the experience like? why do you do your own taxes? caller: the cost reason, and by

forms are not that complicated. i do not have a lot of extra expenses or deductions. host: is there a cost associated with it? how do you do it? caller: i have been doing it on the computer for the past few years. for the first several years i did it by hand. host: what do you make of this whole time of year when everyone rushes to get this done? caller: if you owe some money back to the government's, you know that little freak out can occur with some people. i do not get that. host: "many people to do with themselves could regret the decision because the code is so complex even seemingly straightforward returns are loaded with landmines."

does that concern you? caller: it does not. sounds like they're just trying to catch someone doing something wrong. if i had more complicated things going on with my finances, i probably would pay someone. ruth host: "it has become very difficult for the average person. cynthia said she earns turfy many times over by finding credits and deductions that her clients have missed." they also write about why taxpayers are going in alone. "to save money. the average cost of hiring a professional is $129, the ad -- average cost for an itemized federal and state return is

$229. prices for taxed software -- prices for tax software range from $20 to $70." kerry, oklahoma city. how do you handle your taxes? caller: this year we had jackson hewitt do it. we were shocked, it cost us $300 and we did not even -- i think next year by will learn how to do taxes. host: were there a lot of deductions ? caller: they charged by the sheet this year. i just moved to oklahoma in april. in florida it only cost $125. i just about fell out of my chair. host: can you see a benefit to

having a professional duet? -- do it? caller: actually the people that did my taxes had to call their supervisor three times because they did not understand what they were doing. it was a shocking experience. my wife and i decided that next year we are going to use a turbo tax or something. host: eastern maryland, tell us why you do your own taxes. caller: well i was single i did it myself. now that i am married and i filed jointly, i find that the tax software remains pretty up to date and that it is not that complex as long as all of my ducks are in a row.

i just have to make sure that i've taken care of everything. what it does for me is that allows me to look at all of my income deductions, charitable contributions over the year, and get an idea of where i spend my money. host: the "the trend right now is people moving towards filing taxes on their own. people are managing their of their finances on line. -- are managing all of their other finances online. " another headline here, they do not trust tax preparers. "taxes have got more complicated

over the years, reinforcing his decision to do with himself. they are too complicated for a preparest at a big tax franchise and does not want to pay the cost of hiring a cpa." michael, tell us your story. caller: i used to do my taxes until about the early '90s, and it started to feel too difficult after that. i have a few extra things i just do none know what to do. my friend that usually does it, he made the mistake on the stimulus. i ask him about.

i said that i got it, he said no, but it was actually yes. host: what is your sense of the tax code overall? caller: it is too hard to do. he made a mistake, it was that hard. ridiculous. host: twitter.com/c-spanwj is our twitter address. one viewer writes "i gave up six years ago when my taxes got so confusing that it, founded and -- unfounded -- confounded the tax software i was freezing -- using." from usa -- from "usa today" "

the council of economic advisers tends to stay in with a law that will deliver $200 billion in tax relief and benefits to middle and lower-income families. $70 billion has been paid in the last three months." carol, why do you do your own taxes? caller: a couple of reasons. i thought it was hard to add up all of the interest. but he wanted me to add it up for him, so i figured i should do it myself. i found it more difficult last year. and it worked really easily this

year. i had some concerns, but even if it was not on the penny i appreciated that having to spend that extra money. host: florida, clyde. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i do not do like taxes because there are 80,000 pages of tax code. me and timothy geithner, he does not do is either. he publicly said he could not figure out terms of tax. we need to get a new tax system. a level tax or a fair tax. this tax is unconstitutional,

definitely. the supreme court ruled that way. this is the same tax code that karl marx wrote about in his book, the communist manifesto. it gradually takes money from the working class and gives it to the banking system. we need a new system and hopefully soon we will find one. host: kentucky, jenny, you do your own taxes. tell us why. >> i like to do them myself. and other people that i know use a turbo tax, which is really good, but every year many people do not realize that things change. they think that things stay the

same every year. i always make sure that i have everything together, no matter what it is. i do not think that it is hard as long as you know the new tax laws. host: how do you know from year to year? caller: you can call the internal revenue system. they have a book with all of the information. i have called them and always gotten the information when i have done that. host: more about what the irs is doing. "continuing education requirements have been required but the program will take several years. in the meantime, most people can prepare them for a fee. in 2006 gao submitted completed

returns with errors secretly with several overlooked, and deductions. jackson hewitt requires their preparers to take a five part competency test. the company said that they give mandatory ethics, fraud, with for terrorists needing to complete 110 hours of class worked in the continuing education, pointing out that privacy is also an issue for do- it-yourself tax preparers. seattle, you do not do your own taxes. tell us why. caller: my father used to help me with my taxes but he passed away a few years ago. i tried to do it myself and they send me a letter saying i was not doing a right.

the lady on the phone asked if i should do it for her, so i said ok. anyways, i cheated myself. i had that i owed money and she had that i had $800 coming back to me. i would rather have someone else do it for me. it is pretty complicated. i figured i would be much better off going to someplace that prepared it for me. host: honolulu, the morning. caller: good morning, c-span. thanks for all of you folks do up there in washington, d.c.. it is so simple to add it into the necessary formulas.

the speaker neglected to mention that the irs also provides free software from companies. there are many others, over 30 listed on the web site. i have used to teach my own family to do their taxes. it is true that the more technical of becomes, you have to get yourself on the changes and tax laws, but if you do your taxes for the years that the caller mentioned, you are just updating yourself on specific tax forms with the updates to the irs provides. host: we want to get more of your thoughts on taxes. what does it all mean at this time of year?

lots of other financial stories in the paper as well. we will get to them in a second. one specific what we want to talk about, the lead story in "the washington journal." an update on the financial regulations bill. the writer of the peace joins us on the phone. good morning. caller: thank you for having me. host: remind us what derivative trading is. caller: derivatives are an extremely complicated financial instruments that really has been exploited over the last 10 years. normal household would not invest in derivatives, but major banking corporations do.

they are really important because they are partly behind the collapse of aig and the white house sees it as a major risk for the economy. so they're trying to tax subject to tighter regulation. this is a big revenue stream for them. host: you do right in the second part of the peace that the white house is pushing back on its own and appears to be winning. tell us more. caller: the banks appear to be winning the fight. companies that use these derivatives, there are a lot of lawmakers that are sympathetic to corporations giving financial instruments to hedge their risks, so it seems like the rules will be dialed back a little bit. but there has been a big push to toughen the rules.

the banks were caught off guard. they thought they were born to win a compromise, but over the weekend they seem to have lost a lot of their influence. this bill will continue to the senate floor with a pretty strict line on derivatives. host: take a step back, if you can, to tell us about the goals of the overall bill. we know that there is a house version out there. what else is happening? caller: the house version passed in september of. the senate banking committee has marched along party lines with a broad sweeping bill, bringing about sweeping changes to the bill. we are talking about new rules for consumer protection and the federal reserve. new powers for the government to take over and break up the ailing companies, like aig,

preventing taxpayers from having to bailout firms. republicans are saying that what the democrats are pushing is not going to prevent the problem and will make it easier for the government to bailout firms in the future. the white house says that that is ridiculous. the president is having a meeting today with five congressional leaders to try to bridge the divide. republicans are free dog in, but things are kind of intensifying with democrats controlling only 59 seats in the senate. there is a lot of posturing and out reach going on right now behind-the-scenes. host: whose voices will be most influential from this point forward? caller: you will probably see

the president stepping up a bit more because there is more talk of being seen as someone taking a leadership role. timothy geithner is becoming more actively involved. we will have to watch chris dodd and richard shelby, so they can get something this thing might fail in a food fight on the senate floor. host: "banks faltering, rules fighting." thank you so much this morning for your time. two leaders said they talked about in following the meeting, we will bring you that coverage. we have 20 minutes left to take your calls on this question. do you do your own taxes? why or why not? it is the cover story in "usa

today." more folks going alone for a variety of reasons. jackie, you for waiting. caller: good morning. i do prepare my own taxes, but i also work for one of those leading companies. there has been a dramatic drop in business over the last couple of years because people are using their n taxes and using the term of tax, accessing the online help. host: what is your sense of why? is it the ease of it? the cost? caller: sometimes they come in and see how easy it appears to be for the preparer, so after that they will try to do their own. but where we are in illinois, we

can prepare a return for less than $45. we do offer great discounts for our already existing customers. so, we are trying to keep up with the trends. host: is it your sense as someone on the inside of the business that folks that do their own taxes are just going to make a lot of mistakes? caller: that is what i am getting at. they are coming back and saying they used turbo tax and they got a letter from the irs. or that they messed up in some other way. they come back to the company to have prepared. i do believe that over the next

few years there will be more of a drop because some people are giving it wrong, but other people are getting it right. it is a much-needed service, but other people do have very complicated tax returns. we also offer guarantees that if there is an error we are willing to go to bat with the irs for them. host: barbara, body blank -- bonnie lake, washington. caller: for fun this year i just plugged in the numbers without looking at the changes. my return was going to be about $160. then i went through and read all of the changes and the tax cuts

that president obama has put in place. i was pleasantly surprised that i got a big tax refund this year. that was because of the big changes with being able to write off interest on the house and some things to do with my son being in college. unemployment. host: do you worry about making mistakes in your taxes? our last caller said that people who used to get there's gonna starting to come back. caller: i had some experience with tax returns in my job in the 1980's. i just started doing my own

forms after that. i got my refund back to the dollar of what i figured out. i think that if you are careful and do it over and over, you can get there. it is not that calculated, just get out your calculator. host: this from "the wall street journal." "the department of the treasury is creating rules to prevent banks from using social security and other federal benefit -- benefits. the law does not say how money deposited directly into bank accounts can be protected. banks with garnish orders generally freeze bounced checks and other fees that the bank's

withdrawal from customer accounts, including social security and veterans' benefits. regarding the pocketbook and air travel, this story is from "the washington times." a new bill to block fees for carry-on baggage. airlines would be prohibited from charging fees in this new bill to counter the new luggage be from the sprint. a lot of folks think they should not be charged for certain things, like medication." florida, good morning. caller: it is very complicated

for me. the whole business is connected to doing taxes that are not profitable right now because of schooling, carrying on with people that are unemployed and other bits and pieces like that. host: south dakota, tom, you are on the line. do you do your own taxes? caller: i do. host: how come? caller: i run my own business and the self-employed. host: what kind of business? caller: i deliver newspapers.

figuring out my profit, it can be complicated. earned income credits and so on. i did my own this year and i had to pay $1,100. i got a letter in the mail a couple of days ago from the irs. to my pleasant surprise i made a mistake i did not figure out my earned income credit right. thanks to president obama i got another $500 credit for making work. something i had failed to put in. i got a check in the mail and they were very polite about it. they told me that i missed a couple of things. host: let me jump in and reverse this back to you.

you're talking about things that you are missing with forms being more complicated, why not send out the work? >> the biggest reason that i do it is that like to see how i am doing in my business. the main thing is that every year when you get your tax instruction booklet, you have to read the part that says what is new for 2009. i had failed to do so. but it is not that hard. i would like to make one last statement. the gentleman that called in a while ago that said that the tax code -- i do not think i pay enough taxes in this country. i would volunteer to pay more to help the country get out of debt. host: this viewer writes "if you

owe the irs $1 they will wait until the interest is $200 before they even tell you." stepping down, the chief of a politically active union. "the most politically influential union president, planning to resign this week, the many conservative detractors held the departure as a concern that was electrifying and polarizing. many democratic politicians declare the 1.9 member -- 1.9 million-member union a powerful force, even after departure.

making time for his own personal life." woodstock, new york. robert, good morning. caller: i used to do my own, but over the years i made mistakes. some of them were obvious. others were not so obvious. as i have gotten older i decided it was better to turn it over to a cpa. the thing that i wanted to point out and mentioned was the suggestion that the irs is very good at picking up areas and informing the taxpayers that they made a mistake and that they should file again.

that has happened to me a couple of times. the stupidest thing i ever did, i was young and foolish. when i got to the bottom line i misinterpreted debt. instead of falling down the amount of money i should receive, i thought it was something i was supposed to pay. i sent in the taxes that were due and sometime later i received a check in the mail for the taxes i should have received. + the irs included the interest on the money. so, i really have great faith in the irs as being very helpful. host: there is the view from robert in woodstock.

one of the lead items today, more people keeping up with mortgage payments as delinquencies have fallen for the first time since 2006. "there is a $8,000 tax credit for home buyers, expiring april 30. buyers much -- must sign a purchase contract by april 30 with a credit of up to 6500, the point being that time is running out. carol, you do your own taxes. tell us why. caller: i have always done my own taxes. i do not understand why when things get more complicated than people cannot appreciate

learning more about their situation. i am in a lower tax bracket, so i do not have much to deal with. but anytime my taxes are due, when anything looks different i pay attention to it. i learned about it. people do not have to use a turbo tax or go to a cpa. also, i love c-span. thank you. host: new jersey, good morning. caller: i always do my own taxes. host: how come?

caller: live first computerized tax experience was a very good introduction, and over the years i have developed a process. i have great faith in the computer packages because there was a question and answer process where i would just respond to the questions. i just for the answers in and assume that the computation is done correctly. host: more from the paper this morning, front page of "the philadelphia inquirer." "michaud obama visits haiti. they point out that this is her

first overseas trip without the president's. she and joe biden traveled there. "the wall street journal" pointed out that arizona has passed one of the toughest pieces of immigration enforcement in the country, granting police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect to be illegal. it could still face a veto from the governor. we will see what happens there. back to the philadelphia inquirer, a landmark said of abortion bills with new restrictions becoming law, including one that critics say breaks precedent by chart -- changing the legal rationale for a dam on late term abortion.

by the way, the lead story in "the new york times" today says that maternal best are and sharp decline for the first time in decades. the number of women dying in childbirth is going to a sharp decline. -- sharp declined." we have been reading a couple of twitter messages, perhaps very significant to millions of twitter users. "advertisers are being asked to pay for treating -- using clear. the california company took the first big step to commercializing its service.

twitter is attempting to start turning a profit. massachusetts, johnnie, do you do your own taxes? caller: a tried years ago. i have faith in my cpa. and only cost me like $70 and i always get money back. i am retired and i work a part- time job. they only to of like $51 out. for the entire year. they said that it was like part of the stimulus.

i could not believe it, i thought they did not take enough taxes out. $61 for the whole year. thank you for letting me speak. host: thank you for sharing all of your tax preparation experiences with us. of course, we will continue this program in a minute with congressman trench frank, a member of the foreign services committee. we are going to get his companion -- opinion on various treaties and other matters. >> natural disaster overseas with hundreds buried under the rubble in western china after a series of small earthquakes.

aftershocks of five. to end stronger. in this country, george blagojevich is expected to be a main player today on another unemployment extension, saying he will side with the democrats to keep the debate moving ahead. democrats say they need more time to iron out a separate extension that would last through the end of the year. congressional democrats will keep a house seat in florida with ted the voyage -- deutsch. dealing with cyber attacks, the u.s. must fireback quickly and strongly, even when the identity of the attacker is on no.

so says keith alexander, director of the national security agency and the president's nominee to head the new cyber command. a hearing on the nomination will be held tomorrow. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> a couple of live events to tell you about the day on c- span 3. the joint economic committee will hear from ben bernanke at 10:00 a.m. eastern. at 2:30 the senate commerce committee looks into the national broadband plan. members will question the commission about the plan and the role of the fcc in overseeing the internet. >> "washington journal" continues. host: at the table now,

representative trent franks in his fourth term on the arm services committee. we have seen the photographs from the papers today on the nuclear arms summit. the headline says "obama says that terrorists nuclear risk is growing." guest: that is not news. this was something that the bush administration was focused on very significantly for a long time. i am glad to see that he is finally seeing that. five years ago i called for his replacement at the security council before they had those 164 centrifuges. probably about time, given that they now have 8000. host: the subject of the piece

is that critics see the type and find no new information. "there is no specific intelligence on ongoing terrorist for cumin of nuclear material. guest: the reality is that iran is the rogue elephant in the room. possibly some sort of loose nuclear weapon talked about over the summer, they are actually building and industrial base to create nuclear weapons that could be passed to terrorists the world over. i have to say to you that it was astonishing to me that the president did not even mention iran or north korea. the reality is that i think this administration is focusing on miners and mine during on major's. host: our guest will be with us

for 41 minutes to talk about this policy. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. congressman, there was a head in the new york times that said that iran must face consequences for its actions. what have you heard from the president of iran? -- on the run? guest: -- on iran? guest: there is no credible deterrents. they have seen this administration, since day one. host: what is the answer, in

your view? guest: we have only three real options. supporting the dissidents in iran to support regime change, number one. this administration has not been forthcoming in that regard. they offered tax support and nothing that was terribly encouraging in terms of actually growing. they are suppressed to the extent that they cannot grow to a critical mass for regime change. similarly, everyone talks about sanctions, but the administration in less than one month ago changed their policy on sanctions. russia talks about nothing that is punishing or effective.

china, saying that they would join the efforts, they do not actually want to change the energy sector in iran. china burgesses a great deal of oil from iran. i do not see those things changing. the third thing is the military option in terms of things changing. i am afraid that we are at the point where the choice is no longer wear the world is now as compared where the world might be in terms of a strike for gaining nuclear capability. i am afraid that what the world might look like after a strike, or what it might look like after they become a nuclear power. it is difficult to work with them under any circumstances. i do not underestimate the challenges that the president faces.

but whatever the challenges are, how much more difficult will they be after iran means nuclear capabilities? host: what the king about the new treaty? guest: id focused on reducing our capabilities and we need to focus on reducing the capabilities of those that pose a threat to the rest of the world. the treaty brought our launchers down to 800. we had been way ahead of russia in that regard. and it did very little to regain any concessions from russia. the miss focus in my mind is that a weakened us, not reducing the threat anywhere on the globe.

host: jamie, democratic line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. republicans have been criticizing this new treaty for diminishing our security, but let me ask mr. frank a couple of questions. how many nuclear weapons does it take to wipe out live on this planet? why do we need any more than that? guest: the caller makes a good point. he forgets that the nuclear umbrella in the united states covers and protects about 35 different nations. if those nations become afraid that our nuclear umbrella will no longer be a deterrent against aggression from other nations, they may decide to protect themselves. which could only increase the number of nuclear-armed nations in the world. we are not trying to grow our

arsenal to the extent where we can do more damage than ever before, but we are trying to make sure that we can be the effective on rough or other allies and make sure that it does not fall into the hands of monsters. an astonishing aspect of this administration seems to be simply blind to. no one seems concerned that great britain has nuclear weapons. i certainly do not lose sleep. we do not worry about france. we are not worried about even a few of them falling into the hands of terrorists, but they could use it as an attack. iran has talked about that. they have had discussions among federal leaders about attacking the united states. especially so boring to me,

since they only need one more had to do that. and no one is really talking about it. host: some of the words from the president this week, at least publicly. >> we are talking about the instruments a potential war or terrorism. they're also the excuses and rationale for conflict that must be addressed. i remain committed to being a partner with countries around the world and particular hot spots around the world to see if we can reduce those tensions and ultimately resolve those conflicts. the middle east will be a prime example. host: complaints are going to the u.n. over obama's nuclear blackmail. saying that tehran is

threatening a nuclear attack against iran. guest: the reality is that that is something that conservatives like myself have been talking about for a long time. precipitating nuclear blackmail on the united states. dealing with an unhinged mentality, you do not know what he will or will not do. if he gains a nuclear capability he has the opportunity to make some threats that we must take seriously. it is the exact turning around of the equation in the industry. host: tim, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. these sound like neocon talking points. questioning israeli new killer weapons?

[unintelligible] host: let's go on to phoenix. guest: i will respond, if you do not mind. i was in egypt recently and we were talking about the possibility of iran gaining nuclear capability. he asked me about israel. i looked at him and said sir, you are worried -- are you more worried about an israeli warhead in cairo or the muslim brotherhood? his comment was that the muslim brotherhood was much more dangerous. israel has made it very clear that they will never be the first to use nuclear weapons in the middle east. they are fundamentally threatened by iran. they are 12 minutes away from televisa for jerusalem and if

iran gained nuclear capability there would be an existential threat hanging over their head and i am astonished the that is so hard for people to understand. caller: good morning. mahmoud ahmadinejad never threatened israel or anyone. what he said was that israel is going to self-destruct, the way it is going. that is true, that is what the bible says. guest: that is a complete distortion of the threats that come out almost weekly from iran in some regard. israel has definitely been threatened. my great concern is that if this administration continues to be asleep at the wheel, is real well at some point have no other option than to try to defend itself. of course, if that happens, the

obama administration willow an apology to the entire world, especially israel. iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet. they are almost -- they are this close to gaining the capability of producing nuclear weapons on a broader scale. having an industrial base to create them. if that does not cause concern, i am wondering when the furniture will start to levitate in the room. . .

i am not sure if anything else has any chance of working. i am not sure if sanctions can work. i cannot think we recognize how with intent the radical leaders of iran arms funds gaining this capability. host: our guest is a former member of the arizona state sen, now in his fourth term in the u.s. congress. what are folks thinking about most back at home? guest: the jobs issue is a big

commonality for all of us. i would remind people, when two airplanes in two buildings in our country, it cost us $2 billion in terms of economic impact. if we do not have security, it has ramifications for our economic status as well. i am encouraged by the progress we are making. al qaeda in pakistan -- and they believused afghanistan as their staging ground. probably the most eminent possibility of a terrorist in gaining a nuclear weapon is someone getting access.

host: and david on the democratic line. good morning. caller: my comment is basically in the past our politics would stop at the border. we would support our president when it came to national security. the republicans are trying to undermine our president in every area now. this is basically the same treaty that ron reagan tried to get passed. host: congressman, you do mention progress in afghanistan. so where do you support the president? guest: i believe the president means well. i have been one of his most vocal critics, whether it is on social issues, economic issues,

and defense issues, whether it is undermining constitutional definitions. i have been very vocal, i wish i did not have to be. i wish i could just say, that is great. unfortunately, i came to congress because i believe in what i believe in. i think this country is taking this country down the road to socialism, economically. i believe he is weakening of our country militarily. and truly creating a posture that makes us more vulnerable to terrorism and national security threats. those are things that have the

tragic character of being true. host: "the washington post, and other papers talking about this world summit. and they say that president obama is doing well as a seminar leader. he is making important relationships with many world leaders. what do you think? guest: i do not doubt that many of the world's leaders believe they can work with him simply because he is seemingly weakening america's capabilities in order to gain their favor. that is to their advantage. i guess the big issue i have with the treaty that mr. obama put forward is that it weakens america and it does not really

effectively do anything to address the real danger is that america faces. host: ashburn, virginia. good morning. caller: as far as i understand, there is little evidence that iran is actually seeking nuclear weapons. as a free nation, they have the right to procure nuclear power for energy. host: we will get to your question. we want to get a response first. guest: with due deference to the caller, i do not know where you have been for the past 15 years. iran keeps changing their stories. they have gone from no centrifuges to 8000.

if they were for peaceful purposes, i do not know what they would hide them. they are dealing with polonium, and that has only one use, and to trigger a nuclear weapon. they are 85% of the way to having weapons-grade material. anyone who does not realize that iran is relentlessly pursuing nuclear weapons is simply not paying attention. guest: fair enough. so what are we sending weapons inspectors instead of thapplying sanctions? israel refuses to sign onto the non-proliferation treaty.

what wouldn't the u.s. put more pressure on them to do so? guest: the question related to the nuclear proliferation treaty, that is one of the greatest ironies of all. while we are focusing on high and all nations have signed a treaty, iran is going forward building a nuclear weapons mechanism that will essentially cost that to evaporate. the process will be dead the moment iran deemed nuclear capability. they have already said that they are ready to pounce on it clear technology, according to their needs. if we are going to try to hold back a nuclear proliferation, that would be impossible. what were the other questions? host: 1 not just send inspectors

there? guest: we have had an iaea inspectors there for decades. and they report to us, there are sanctions that they ignored. it is not that we do not have people there inspecting. they have given us their word and that we have all the information available to the inspectors. the facility is more ideally situated to create nuclear material for bomb-making material than the on in natan z. as far as their desire to gain a clear capability can their relentless effort to do that, that debate, whether anyone

realizes it or not, it is fundamentally over. if we cannot understand that, i cannot understand how we could ignore the evidence. host: next phone call. oklahoma. caller: i hope everyone is paying attention. my grandfather fought in the korean war. my father was in vietnam. when you are supporting this bush agenda -- i used to live near a base that would develop persian missiles. after 9/11, it traveled down to nothing. artillery was set down to texas. what bothers me the most is

contractors are taking the place of mp's. now we have contractors regarding the space and we are going to have a nuclear explosion somewhere. i just cannot listen to you all trying to run the same agenda. these people do not know anything about iraq. guest: the first thing, to do is to thank the caller for his service to the country. my father served in the korean conflict as well. there are no more noble people than those who put themselves at risk to protect the lives of their shift fellow human beings -- of their fellow human beings. i do not really know what his

question was. the me just say this relate to president bush. he has taken a lot of abuse. when he was in office, no matter what people called him, he continued to do what he believed was right. the bottom line is he sometimes found himself trying to stave off an enemy. he had to walk like a line through high yen has always trying to attack him. if iran gains nuclear capability, we may be wishing that the that line is walking among us again. host: next phone call, dick from dayton, tennessee. caller: my first question is

about israeli nuclear capacity. in the 1960's, president kennedy got a promise that iran would not build a nuclear bomb them. israel lied to them and then, and they are lying now. the other thing is, the u.s. spend more money on defense than any other country. we are building submarines, bombers that we do not even need. the submarine's cannot even be tracked down. what are you trying to spread this disinformation? >guest: on and on the strategic arms committee, so i am not very

aware of our nuclear triad and submarine capabilities. i am not suggesting that we do not have enough capability to devastate our enemies. i am suggesting that the idea is not to reduce capability so that we can only have so much destruction. the idea is to prevent us from seeing any attack on any country. the caller does not seem to understand that iran is not concerned about our submarines or anything. if they gain this capability, it will create and asymmetric capability for terrorists that will make it harder for us to protect ourselves from. host: an article in "usa today" --

they point out that republicans blocked the appointment of an ambassador. guest: i would combine that with the last question related to israel. israel is the best friend that the u.s. has in the world. they are surrounded by enemies who are dedicated to wiping them off the map. israel has no room for error. consequently, they had done the things to make sure that they can defend themselves. i think this is a critically important point when we consider

the discussion that we are having today. they have hamas, hezbollah, all kinds of challenges. they had thousands of rockets fall on their nation before they decided to move into gaza. now they are surrounded by rocket capability, maybe $16 and. some of these missiles you are talking about are being provided to terrorists and can arrange the entire nation of israel. people do not realize that this tiny nation has a moral threat facing in almost all the time. host: and our guest is a member of the house armed services committee. what will you be looking at today? guest: the armed services today? alan tucker, a democrat -- ellen

tauscher, a democrat, will be there. i think this is the right thing for discussions. we also have a strategic force meeting this morning. i am going there immediately from here. as i mentioned at the beginning of the program, it was obvious to me the intent of iran. they had no need for nuclear energy since they had enough natural gas to supply them for 270 years. it is much easier to create electricity from natural gas capability than it would be to create a new nuclear generating plant. so it was obvious early on to

me. now, fortunately, the rest of the world is beginning to focus on it. i just hope that this is in time. speaking to my kids, i truly believe, everyone with the children should be focusing on this. if terrorists gain nuclear capability, they will use it, and it will change our world. host: back to the treaty. it needs ratification in the senate. what do you see happening? guest: there is the potential and will be ratified, but i think it will take longer, and i would like to see us look at it with a fine tooth comb we know fundamentally it weakens america a lot more than it does our enemies and does almost nothing

to address the real threat of a rogue nations having nuclear weapons. postcode chairman on the independent line. georgia. caller: i continue to be -- unbelievable -- my question is, republicans in the world have a problem saying that any country has a problem, and this and that, and america needs to do something. when people look back and say what about iraq, there were no wmd's there. i am not saying that iran does not have them, but why are you pushing this iran thing? as an independent thinker, we are saying, wait a minute, there

was a lot of the same fear with iraq, what about this thing was going to do -- saddam hussein's was going to do. guest: the lady makes some cogent points. the truth is, iraq did have wmd's in the sense of chemical weapons. the nuclear threat that we thought existed had been interdicted earlier. they were moving in that direction. if they had stayed on the trajectory they were on, and i believe iraq would have eventually developed the capability. remember, one of their plans were blown up by the israelis because it was moving toward the ability to have fissile

material. maybe the administration moved too quickly, but it was not all the -- about nuclear weapons. there was the incident in new york with the 911 tragedy that had a great deal more to do with our concern about iraq and the staging ground it represented for terrorists then others may recognize. host: of brooklyn, new york. caller: i think netanyahu it is a threat to our security. obama was asked about is real cost nukes. -- isreal's nukes. you can read the fax online. guest: this administration

criticized and them more for building homes in jerusalem than they did in iran for building nuclear facilities to create nuclear weapons to threaten the world with. i do not know how you can attack -- it always seems like israel is compared to a different standard. we think there is a moral equivalent some hon. if anything, i would criticize this administration for attacking our friends and strengthen the hand of our enemies, rather than the strength of freedom -- the hand of freedom. host: following the healthcare bill becoming law, the posture of the gop, they are focusing on the senate side.

dealmaking from this point forward is unlikely. what is your take about the mood in the relationship right now? guest: if there is dealmaking to buy votes, and i hope we have seen the end of that. it is a tragedy that never occurred. yes, the gop is fairly disheartened over the way this administration shoved government takeover down the throats of the american people. i think they will respond in kind in the election. the reality in my mind is we need to do what is right for the country. when people call republicans the party of no, i would suggest to you that when the administration does something to us that weakens us fundamentally, in our constitutional base, weakens our national security, you bet i

will be a no on that. host: if you could get one thing done on the hill before the end of the year, what would it be? guest: preventing iran from getting nuclear capability. i am not obsessed with that because of lead in will have profound effects on the world if it happens. host: next phone call. caller: i like this guy. he is a pretty good guy. what have the republicans done in the past eight years? now they are all of a sudden conservative. another thing, barack obama thinks differently from others. it is not my way or the highway.

we have to work together. try to work with the president. give him a chance. guest: i appreciate your consideration and heart. i want to work with the president. my first letter to him was the most amiable, heartfelt effort to work with him. unfortunately, even though his efforts may be well- intentioned, the end of those efforts economically, in terms of national security, the constitutional sense of our nation, are threatened under barack obama. so i need to do the best i can to resist that. if it looks like anything other than love for the country, then you understand. host: big senate primaries happening in august? who do you like? >guest: i love them both.

that is not a politician's answer. who ever comes out of the primary, arizona will support them. i just have to say, when we have someone like john mccain, a war hero, running against a great person like hayworth, whoever wins, we will be better. host: trent franks, thank you for your time. in a couple of minutes, we will speak to senator mark begich, senator from alaska. much more time for your phone calls as well. we will be right back. >> let us meet another winner in

the student can competition. we asked students to tell us about the country's greatest strengths or a challenge the country is facing. today we speak to a senior in oklahoma. sheila, what made you want to work on a documentary about partisanship? >> i have always been attracted to multifaceted issues. partisanship embodies the concept -- i like to dig deep into sources and subtext, and partisanship seemed to be something where i could do that. >> you, a prescription drug rally. what was that like? >> once i learned about this rally, i contacted moveon to

film the rally. it was so much fun. i was surprised to see how many people supported universal health care. i like being exposed to that type of the event. it was pretty unpopular in oklahoma. >> what have you learned about partisanship in your documentary? >> sometimes it is a misperceived term. recently with the health-care debate, it was as if the democrats and republicans were antipathies to each other. what i learned was that this was not true. both parties strive for freedom and liberty and security in the nation. in both of my interviews with the republicans and democrats in tulsa, they said the same three words. i feel like there is a misconception that they do not have anything in common.

>> does the media affect politics? >> definitely. i think it is well known that the media can influence the way that political progress is -- politics progresses. they can enhance the story. in this day and age with plenty of resources, we have the ability to spread the word of progression. we should not be worrying about our own political interests and instead provide credibility to the citizens. >> how did you arrange your interviews? >> i brainstormed the individual that i wanted to interfere. then i searched for those types of individuals. then i contacted them and let them know who i am. usually, i received positive responses. then i set up the logistics of

the interview. >> what was the most fun thing you did in your documentary? >> definitely in the drug riley. it was such a unique event in tulsa, especially for how conservative oklahoma is. it was neat to be exposed to that. >> what message would you like to send about part of the injured? >> my primary reason for this was to present partisanship in the most neutral and informative manner in the hope that maybe the audience would be compelled to ponder the ins and outs of partisanship and make their own conclusions about the concept. >> as the third-place winner, what would you be doing with the money? >> definitely saving it to fund my undergraduate education. >> thank you for talking to us.

congratulations. now let us watch a portion of her video. >> identifying a particular set of creed or beliefs about how we govern ourselves. >> partisanship is a challenge and a strength. it is a challenge many times because people do not understand the strengths of partisanship. if you belong to a party, they have a platform, and that will pretty much laid out their basic beliefs. it is a good starting point for the voter. >> you can see the rest of the winning entries at student cam.org. host: our guest is mark begich, a member of the armed services committee in the senate. let us begin with the start treaty. when do you think of it? >guest: the president is moving

down the right path. his work with many other nations in regards to trying to get nuclear weapons, potential material that could be made into weapons out of the hands of terrorists or other vote nations is a great step forward. i think the treaty, as you heard, there will be great debate when we get to it in the senate. maybe i am naive but it seems like a logical step to work on this treaty. the 67 votes that people say or may be difficult to get, my view it is we have done the work, we have done the debate. armed services will have more debate. at the end of the day, we are moving in the right direction. especially considering that well over 40 nations are working together to solve this problem.

host: we just had a heavy conversation about iran a nuclear weapon with the last guest. looking at the "washington post" -- a lot of the headlines around here talking about iran. what do you think should be done? guest: as you know, we have been aggressive talking about pensions. it is important the president makes an aggressive step in that area there are probably two, three avenues. first, do what we can as a in a country. second, asking help from other countries. third, resorting to the united nations. however, i think that we should try not to resort to the second two.

them roblin their nuclear capacity is a potential danger to the world. host: phone number is on the bottom of the screen. our guest is serving in his first term, took the seat of ted stevens. he is also a former mayor of anchorage. as an alaskan, we need to ask you about the climate change in legislation that is out there. specifically, the announcement about further oil drilling around the country. guest: no question -- we can no longer skirt around the issue of having an extensive energy source for the country, clean energy policy. the president has made a half step forward. in alaska, we have a few areas

that are very valuable for us in the oil and gas exploration. one of the phrases i like to use is, when it comes to development, what is good for alaska is good for the country. i think there is more to be done. one piece that is important to alaska is as we develop the resources, a portion of those revenue streams that the federal government collects should go back to local communities impacted by ocs development. i am a supporter of revenue sharing. louisiana is one of state that has a good formula for that. again, to help mitigate and offset cost, as well to make sure that the infrastructure is there to support long-term exploration. i had this debate with some of

my colleagues recently. they said the strong letter to the folks putting together the bill saying that they oppose ocs. this is an overall picture. we cannot just do alternative and renewable. oil and gas have to be part of the equation. i will probably have a lot of talk of war in my own caucus with democrats to a are pretty much hard said on ocs development. host: north carolina. dwight on the republican line. caller: good morning. was it your father that was killed in the plane crash a few years ago? guest: yes, my father with the majority leader from anchorage were traveling on a small plane.

it was never recovered. small plane travel is one of the dangers in alaska. guestcaller: i am a big fan of r brother, and you. after the crash -- i do not know much about the history of the state politically after that -- but it seemed like almost a cobol developed between the mikulski is, ted stevens. if you are up there, you can look at a lot of the positives that are influenced, but it seems that there was something going on. perhaps maybe you represent an opportunity for things to take on more balance. i do not think that we will go back to the days where alaska was just a national park.

but i am pleased to see you in washington and hopeful that maybe alaska can become more multi dimensional. that long-time slapped, is that because it perhaps some of the native people were afraid that they would not have jobs if they support a certain things? guest: there is an interesting dynamic of politics in alaska. we have had a delegation here in washington probably since 1980. that was the last time that a republican won both seats in alaska. what you see it is a great debate among my colleagues, but when it comes to alaska issues, we are joined at the hip in trying to resolve what is needed

for alaska. this is the class a dynamic of a state. we were only put into the union a few years ago. very fresh. we had a lot of influence when the pipeline was built. both myself and mikulski were born and raised in alaska. that is the first time ever. i was the first mayor of anchorage to be born and raised in the city. it is now a community where there are more second and third generations. i think you will see a more independent view of how we deal with problems rather than democrat or republican. the largest percentage of registered voters are not democrat or republican, they are non-partisan or independent. it is a unique in that perspective and i think you are seeing second and third

generations now stepping up and living in their retirement. host: next phone call. rick. caller: good morning. i have a couple of comments. like ron paul said, iran is not a suicide mission. israel has more than 400 nuclear weapons and they are not part of the non-proliferation treaty but nobody talks about israel. guest: i think it is an ongoing debate and discussion of what we need to do in israel. i have met with many people in organization to support or israel is today, but they are always under attack in a lot of ways. our goal has to be how to figure out how to move that region into

a more peaceful state. if we do not do that, it will jeopardize not only the work that is being done today and yesterday, but as well, the stability of the world. this is an ongoing effort and we need to work with neighbors to figure out there right approach to bring peace to the region. this is a very troubling area, as we know. host: our guest is in the commerce committee and veterans affairs committee. a phone call from memphis, tennessee. margaret on the democrats' line. caller: i wanted to make a comment. i noticed we have so many right- wing wing nuts on c-span. i have been watching for many years. it seems that the right-wing talk show hosts froze the logs

on the fire. fox news lights the fire, and now a c-span is stoking the fires. host: who would you like to see on the program that you have not seen yet? caller: we do not need to get into names. we just need a balance. the person that you have on now, have him on at the same time as your previous guest so that they can have an exchange. host: understood. next phone call. caller: how many years before nuclear waste is safe? who came up with that information? could you store nuclear waste in your state? guest: in the energy production, there are these larger plants and then the smaller ones. alaska is one of the location where they are considering one of the smaller plants to see how we can manage these and if there

are test opportunities. we understand energy, we see it from a broader perspective. we have renewable, non renewable, 30% of the gas potential for the country in alaska. we are not afraid to talk about all the different types of energy issues. what we have to do in energy policy is put everything on the table, and where there are issues, and this case storage, we have to discuss it. how do you make sure you have good clean up? when it comes to wind energy, which is now becoming a conflict with the military on the end of because of radar systems, how do we mitigate that issue? the question is, in a broad energy policy, how do you put that on the table and then how do you allocate resources to deal with those issues? host: what is the climate of the

senate, will something be passed this year? guest: there is an energy bill by kerry, lieberman an, and graham that has a combination of renewable, nonrenewable, and research. there are impacts that we are seeing in parts of our state, literally falling into the ocean. permafrost affecting the infrastructure. there is a good chance someone will be passed. however, as you know, things could change rapidly. but there seems to be little motivation and momentum. energy policy is good for national security, economic security. the largest users and producers

of power in the country are armed services. they are also the most advanced in terms of technology in alternatives. the more dependent we are on foreign countries to buy our fuel from, the more risk we are nationally from the security and economic point. we need to develop an energy policy that helps us from a national security and economic perspective. host, that being said, what else might take to get your vote on a climate change bill? guest: one is ocs development. without that, they can forget about my vote. the second piece is the issue of oil spill response. i have a piece of legislation where we need additional infrastructure development.

we also need to make sure that gas, in the broader perspective, is part of the equation. a cleaner-burning fuel that is plentiful in alaska and throughout the country. the other is revenue sharing. it is not fair that one state can walk away with a share of the resources, in the sense of dollars, and then the rest of us do not. so revenue-sharing support. the rest is adaptation. every coastal state will have some impact on climate change and i need to be resources for us to address that. not only from in mitigation standpoint, but from an infrastructure investment standpoint. ocs, gas, revenue sharing, making sure adaptation is there, and new technology. host: next phone call from charlotte, north carolina. caller: when you start talking

about israel, start treaties, nuclear proliferation -- we have to understand a single principle. because of how it is real was established by the international community -- is rail was established by the international community, -- isreal the established by the international community, you cannot go on talking about these national issues and policies that are going to affect the minorities. the palestinian community is a minority community because of the political power and alliance with america that israel has. guest: i think that was a statement. i will comment. there is an area in the middle east with the ability to move

down the right path. the question is how do we get there? it seems every time we move forward around larger issues around peace in the middle east, it is a big and broad issue. perhaps to me to figure out one or two issues that we can figure out so that both sides can agree on something. right now if there is no agreement, there is no feeling of movement it seems to me, there needs to be one or two of those items. i think the first stage right now is doing with the president has done with the start treaty, the nuclear issue. that is a good step. then focusing in on the middle east. , trying to figure out what the right -- trying to figure out what the right next to move it is. host: next phone call. caller: i cannot believe the

ignorance of people calling in about israel. we are going to be glad one day that we have them. isn't oil going to be sold on the open market? here in texas, new in drilling methods have been improved because of earthquakes. also, isn't more tax money said to each person in alaska than any other state? guest: 3 questions. first of all, i guess that we are debating for in alaska, the idea of a gas line, to bring gas supply to the lower 48 -- that is one idea that we see in the long term. in regards to the drilling technology, we have used

technology and advanced technology along the north slope that is now used around the world. we can be in one location and drill out 80 miles without touching land. we have seen great advances in technology. it used to be that you could see all the oil wells in the los angeles horizon, but now you cannot see them at all because they are underground. in alaska, we are no longer on the top of the list, but it is a very rural state. this is a pretty new state. there is an of infrastructure that our state that was left behind. -- in our state that was left behind. that is the reality, but the

government owns all of the land in alaska. the majority of the land is owned by the federal government, so they have an obligation to protect those resources. the other thing is, we are very strategic from a military standpoint. we can touch most of the western mold and pacific rim within nine hours. that is why we have a missile defense system there in alaska. it is critical for our long-term perspectives. now with the arctic opening up, we have another connection to the rest of the world. there is a large resource that is extended up through the government. we have a small population, but strategically, alaska is critical from a military perspective. we also help the trade down to in the country through our exports.

we provide 62% of the fish product in the country. if you are buying a fish product, it is probably coming from alaska. i also think the federal government should be putting more investment into this. host: next phone call for senator begich. caller: good morning. i am a ron paul supporter. he wants us to get up out of the middle east now. you are talking about iran, but what about what the turkish prime minister said? he said that the only run in the area is is relisreal. host: guestyour response?

guest: they are our strongest ally in the region. is important that we continue our strong relationship. in the budget that the president provided, there is billions in aid for israel. we should not forget the role. they are supportive of us, we are supportive of them. i think there are other issues that are causing risk in the middle east. people who blamed it just on israel are wrong you look at issues with terrorism in iran. in pakistan, afghanistan, you have al qaeda issues. so many elements in the region that we have to be focused on. ron paul did very well in alaska, did better than john mccain in the primaries, but we are also a very pro-military

state. we have a certain role in this world. we have to be cautious when we exercise it, and we need to recognize that israel is our ally. host: more funding for afghanistan, what is your thought? callerguest: i was one of the fo say that we are under resources in afghanistan. it was clear to me that we needed more troops there. it is not a perfect situation we are in. we have to beef up our troops, traine to afghans, as well do what we can to to look economically there. but i think there is a careful balance. i have been a supporter of the troops from the beginning.

host: steven from central florida. good morning. caller: thank you for your service, i appreciate it. i have a comment and question. i am amazed at politician possibility to and what questions. -- politician's ability to dodge questions. i guess my issue is with politicians in general. someone earlier asked if you, as a representative of alaska, are vying for nuclear waste to be stored in your state. guest: we are not applying for it, but no one has been said they asked me. caller: the idea is nuclear power will be installed in alaska. are you going to keep that

waste in the state, or will it be shipped to another state? guest: that is a question that we have not resolved yet. just so i can answer -- i think your frustration are fair. i have always been a streak shooter. -- straight shooter. we have not yet answered that question. as we move forward, we have a responsibility to answer that. if we cannot, we should not be moving forward. host: on jobless extensions, you could be taking a vote this week. what are your priorities with a jobless bill? guest: the one that we have is short-term and that we make sure that benefits are of their to make sure that we are not

complicating the situation more. the second thing is seeing how we can improve possibilities for small businesses. in alaska, small businesses create 52% of employment opportunities. it is important to us to ensure they have the resources through tax legislation as well as incentives when it comes to the fda loans for them to expand. one of the biggest things i heard in alaska from small businesses was that they do not have access to capital. their ability to invest in equipment now, which they want to do, will allow them to move forward. what are we going to do? yes, we have to do unemployment, cobra, but if you want to move the economy forward, we need to

have investment from small business, not just checks. host: chris from new england. guestcaller: i hope i can get my question off because you are hitting that button pretty quick. obama is giving them some tough love. they are giving us french, but we cannot believe that -- giving us a threats, but we cannot believe everything that they say. your past guest lied on tv. i wish to host would have caught him on it. let me get to iran. as soon as we have any knowledge that there are about to create a nuclear bomb, that will be the next war. we know what they are trying to do. they are trying to make the material, technology -- leak the

material, technology, trying to put it into the hands of al qaeda. guest: i think his point is that iran is our greatest friend moving forward in the region as well as on the issue of nuclear weapons. that is where i am a strong believer in sanctions. we need to be stronger than we have been. congress can pass all the resolutions they want, but the president needs to be aggressive. not only with them, but with other allies to move on tensions. if we continue to move that deadline for, we are putting our own country at risk. also, we are basically saying to iran, we are strong, but not strong enough. i think the senate this week is having some hearings about the

issue of iran and you will see some strong talk from senators. host: thank you for your time. after the break, we will speak to elisabeth warren, the chair of the congressional t.a.r.p. oversight panel. >> ben bernanke is expected to tell the joint economic committee today that the price of recovery is likely to remain sluggish due to factors that continue to include high unemployment and hard to get credit. on the upside, he is also expected to say the recovery is taking hold. that hearing is at 10:00 eastern on c-span radio fans c-span three television. .

j.p. morgan chase is the first of the big banks to report earnings for the january to march quarter. it turned to 0.5 @ billion dollars during the first quarter, and sees signs of strengthening and the economy. -- j.p. morgan chase earned $2.5 billion during the first quarter. opec says it will put fewer barrels on the market this year than last.

>> a couple of events to tell you about on c-span3. the joint economic committee will hear from ben bernanke at 10:00 a.m. that is also on c-span radio and online at c-span.org. and at 2:30 p.m., the senate commerce committee looks into the national broadband plan released last month. members will question fcc chairman about the plan and the role of the commission. host: you have a chance now to speak with elizabeth warren, the chairwoman of the congressional oversight panel. what did you look at, and what does the report say? guest: this is our third report on mortgage foreclosures. you may remember when congress passed the original $700 billion

bailout, they said here is this amount to deal with troubled assets, mortgages and the trouble. we managed to get the banks back into the black. but mortgage foreclosures continue to be a serious problem. this report is about evaluating what the treasury has done, and trying to make sure the tension stays on that important metric. congress said we will measure the success of tarp by its effect on unemployment, peoples savings, and on mortgage foreclosures. host: remind us of what tarp is, when and why was put together. guest: you remember the crisis in september and october of 2008 when the stock market was dropping to my credit markets were freezing. there was a real question about

the solvency of our largest financial institutions. then-secretary of the treasury henry paulson turned to congress and said "i need $700 billion" to be able to deal with the subprime mortgages and other troubled assets that the banks are holding, said that we can get credit flowing again, stabilized banks, and stabilize the growing foreclosure crisis. now, that was the announcement. congress passed. it put an oversight panel in place as part of passing it, and all those we have to write reports every single month. secretary hank paulson then pivoted quickly and said that will not work. so instead we will put money directly into the large financial institutions. we did that. they are now making money big time, paying out those big

bonuses, but the rest of the economy is still struggling, and foreclosures continued to climb. host: so what is next with tarp? where are we and where is it headed? guest: 4 the bank of bailout part we're getting a lot of that money back. we seem to be doing pretty well. there will probably be some that will not pay. whether or not the automobile companies will be able to pay depends on whether consumers buy them. whether or not they have a good product and a good business model. there is still trouble with aig, wondering whether we will cover all that money. most of the big banks are coming back. that part of the program has worked. there are other pieces dealing with small-business lending, and in particular with mortgage foreclosures. that part of the program has

been much slower to get started. it is not that the oversight panel is trying to save every home -- some number need to be moved out of the homes because they cannot afford them and never will. but for those who can come to the table and make a deal with lenders, those need to be made, and we need to stabilize the market. until we do, we will continue to have trouble. the construction industry is a big part of our economy. when the housing market is still going down, there is no new construction. the same with furniture and home centers. lots of employment related to this. no economy recovers when everyone is looking out at so

many foreclosures into the future. it is a problem that we need to get ahead of. host: back to the phone calls, arlington, va. caller: hi there. i just want to make a couple of comments and then ask a question. related to tarp, my research has shown that bank of america, citi, and all the auto companies have gotten less money than fannie and freddie. it seems that some people in this country are under the impression that housing is our right, and it is not. the pursuit of happiness is a ride. the subprime issue has not yet been addressed by this congress. everyone knows is what caused the collapse.

guest: he makes some very important points. the first is, we have a congressional oversight panel for tarp. patrick, that is not the only program out there. the money is being pumped into fannie and freddie. remember that the fed is putting a lot of guarantees back into this economy, has opened the window, is basically lending for free to these very large financial institutions. they can then turn around, and if they want to make even small investments, it is a license to print money. tarp is only a subset. but patrick, your other point is really the key one. we were in a crisis. tarp and the other programs were

about let's patch through. congress is out there a year and a half after the crisis still arguing about regulatory reform. until we get those rules in place, our lenders are still going to be doing, and they are -- the same old things that got us into trouble to begin with. in my view, the number one issue to focus on is what will be the rules that come from congress for the large banks, for consumers, for derivatives and shadow markets. this will tell us who we are and who will be for the next generation. host: the house has a bill, waiting for senate action on the bill. san antonio on the line now. caller: my question is on the

health for homeowners program. -- on the help for homeowners. at the time it said you had to be behind about three months on your payment. my wife and i have not missed a payment, but she was set back on her hours at work. we're trying to keep our credit good, but it is really hurrica-- is really hurting us. you need to look of the program now. guest: remember, we look of the treasury and the programs that treasury is putting into place. one of the criticisms we have made of treasury is they have come out with a program that is too small, hard to scale up, and that may not be providing

sustainable mortgages over time. i want to give treasury some props here. they have tried some new programs, brought some new ones online. but here is the problem -- it is confusing. they're doing incentive-based programs. some of these will not be fully ramped up for another year which really brings us four years into the mortgage crisis. so, we're sure trying to push them in that direction, but that is our tool -- only to push. host: scott, from georgia. caller: thank you for taking my call. i heard you before the break saying that j.p. morgan chase had 50% increase in profit in the first quarter.

it kind of bothers me. that is my mortgage company will not deal with me at all over any type of modification. my point your guest is what others have made. these banks from the get go once we give them $1 trillion commit their plan was to sit on it until things got really bad. then they would hand it out to their friends and family. guest: i will tell you, i am really bothered about this. you know, a year and a half ago, the then-secretary of treasury henry paulson came to us and said, i know that no one likes it, but we will have to bail out these big wall street banks. he said if they go down, we will all go down. he said like it or not, we are all in the same economic boat. we swallowed it to save the economy. here we are 18 months later, and

j.p. morgan chase is rolling in the money, making big money and are able to pay it out to their executives. yes, went in front of congress yesterday and said about the treasury's plans that are modest -- they said in effect, you know, we actually do not think so. we do not want to go along with what you are proposing. remember the thing about the boat -- forget you, we will go our own way and make our money. i find it stunning. these financial institutions would not exist if it had not been for the american taxpayer. host: here is a message by twitter. guest: you have to take that up with secretary paulson. we began to ask the question over a year ago as part of the

panel. it is simply not the direction. we have a staff of about 30. host: your budget? guest: we spent about $3 million from the beginning. host: do you have a specific term? guest: as long as the congressional oversight panel exist, six months after the tarp expires. it must expire this october. they cannot start any new programs. we will therefore and one year from this month. host: let's here from cleveland, on the republican line. caller: thank you, and find everything you are saying so informative. we have heard some of this before, but it is good to continue hearing all you were telling us.

listening to other callers, one thing brought to mind regarding the housing issue -- i was born in 1950. my dad had a ph.d. in chemistry, and i had a stay at home mom, and we live in apartments until i was 10 years old. i had three siblings. we lived in a tiny, 3-bedroom house. my parents went by a formula. maybe you remember it. you had to put 20% down, no matter what the banks told you. then, a certain fraction of your monthly payment -- there was a formal eufaula. i see you nodding your head, so maybe you know. we did not get into trouble. -- there was a formaula. i'm amazed to see the very young people with 4000 square foot

homes are larger, and you wonder. my husband is a physician and we work really hard. i do not know how they are doing it. unfortunately, i think a lot of people have been living beyond their means. i would like you to comment. i read yesterday in the plain dealer, that in shaker heights, a very wealthy committee in cleveland, that there is a vacant lot -- which was surprised to see, they are using stimulus money to turn it into an orchard. guest: so, i get your point about what has happened in the housing. in the 1950's through the 1970's, the median first-time home buyer put down 19% as a down payment. they financed the remaining 81%

on a 20-year or 30-year fixed mortgage that frankly became more affordable over time as you got a little raise or there was some inflation. buying a home was not only responsible, but steady the family's budget. by the time we get 200's, by 2005 the median first-time home buyer was putting down zero. financing was 100%. they were i shall leave financing somewhere between 103% -107% of the hon. there was so much irresponsibility oout there on the part of

both financial institutions and on the part of families. i would change from being a guy who was a computer programmer or from being a nurse to someone who fllips homes. plenty of irresponsibility to go around. host: there is a product out there waiting for the senate. here's one have one -- gop takes in democratic plans to curb financial industry. -- gop takes aim. guest: if we have not heard anything else from this crisis we should have learned that the wall street guy, not only will they engaged in the crazy behavior, but they engage in risky behavior that threatens the rest of us. there were plenty of private citizens who played with them, but these guys lead the charge. we have to find a way to rein

that image. it happens in many different ways. the consumer financial protection agency -- it is to say on consumer financial products such as credit cards, mortgages, check overdraft -- these agreements need to be readable and understandable so that people can compare from one to the next. two-page agreement, let's get a little market competition and allow people to see what they're doing and what the alternatives are. host: someone like you to run that consumer agency. would you want that job? guest: right now, i do not want to make this about me, but about a stronger structure that works the right way regardless of who was running it. host: your name has been turned out there as a possible nominee

for the u.s. supreme court. what do you think? guest: you know, it is such an honor just to have your name mentioned in the kind of company. for anyone who has ever studied law, to about it, there is no higher honor then even to have your name mentioned. i am very touched. host: you have all law degree from rutgers, from newark, from harvard, business-related law. we continue to take phone calls. this one is from boston, a democrat. caller: hi, the reality is that she knows the real issues but will not pursue them. you can go to my website, wheretovote.com. write it down, do not pretend. you can look at the jack reed

evidence. he served on the senate banking committee fowhile he took $4 million from the banks. there needs to be a grand jury investigation against the senator from rhode island, jack reed, and all the other bankers who took millions from the banks and campaign contributions, then voted to deregulate the same banks while serving as the chairman of the senate banking subcommittee. guest: i think the whole question about the money and loans in washington is no where nmore intense than in financial services. the industry is spending $1.4 million per day to lobby against regulation. they want to be able to continue to do what they have in the past. they got all the profits and the good times, and taxpayer bailouts in the bad times. they berlin to spend enormous

sums. -- they are willing to spend enormous sums, and to was on the other side? it is us taxpayers who do not have that kind of money. caller: first of all, i'd like to thank ms. warren for the excellent job she is doing. she explains things very, very well. i want to thank her. secondly, i have noticed the modifications the banks have been offering is all voluntary. i do not find they are really wanting to help anybody. also, would you talk about the new program that mr. obama just announced about underwater mortgages? guest: robin, i'm your stand. i am very worried about the fact that our approach to mortgage

foreclosure modification is to put a little money on the table. -- i understand. to ask banks to please come over to work with come runnehomeowne. the reports of services who do not know where the papers are, who the owners are keep flooding in. the treasury has been working harder, gotten stiffer with the banks, stiffer with mortgage servicers. but you know, a year and a half ago when it was the big banks in trouble we found fast solutions. when we're talking about millions of families in trouble it has not worked so well. last year treasury managed to get through 167,000 mortgage modifications for every one the got through there were 10 families who ended up for closed -- who ended up

foreclosed. host: tim from pennsylvania. caller: please hold on -- i just wanted to make a point about how the biggest problem that i see is the complete lack of regard for manufacturing over in china. we seem to be using them as the biggest manufacturer for every consumer product we could possibly need here. i have proof that what is happening over there is, every prototype we send they can turn around and make that product

and sell it out of the back door to anyone, all over the world. this has killed our retail. host: do you have a question? caller: yes, what will be done to stop this? guest: tim, i have been studying the economics of the middle class for an entire generation now. we have hollowed out our middle- class with the real one-two punch. flat wages because of the declining job situation. it is not a problem only from the crisis, but of the last 30 years. productivity has continued to go up while wages have flattened. a fully employed person earns about $80 less than his father was back in the 1970's. women's wages have increased some, but not enough to make

it up. on the other side, homes, health care, transportation have increased. that has put the middle class in a squeeze. we stopped sitting and have turned to credit. the bottom line means that to rebuild a middle-class, to make it strong, i'm working on working creditsend with the consumer financial protection agency. there are others working on health care to try to help to get costs under control. the home mortgage thing, we hope to get it back under control and breakdown prices in the house and. ultimately, we need to rebuild the middle class, but cannot if we do not have a strong economic foundation and jobs base. our future in america is not as a strong country without a bottle middle-class. host: with the consumer agency

that might happen is whether it should be a free standing entity or tucked within the federal reserve. which you prefer? guest: i prefer a completely free standing agency. we know then that it would be functionally independent. if not, you might be able to make it independent. here is the bottom line. if it will not be functionally independent and able to do the job, do not pass it. we do not need one more bureaucracy. we have seven bureaucracies and washington right now the have a piece of the consumer financial protection. this agency is a pair of scissors taking seven bloated bureaucracies, slumming them down into one agency and then holding that one responsible. if you will not be an agency with the teeth to get the job done, then let's not pretend.

host: we go to north carolina, on the line for democrats. caller: i have a personal question, but maybe some of your viewers have the same problem. you mentioned a.i.g. i have a paid-up life insurance policy with them. the cash value is substantially less than the death benefit. i have been leaving it with an edgy, but i get a little more nervous every time i hear bad news about them. -- i have been leaving it with aig, but few more nervous. would you go out on a limb and suggest what you think the future of aig might be in a few years? guest: quite understand your concern. i cannot give you a legal or investments advice, but maybe i can talk generally. each of the insurance

subsidiaries that issues like insurance in whatever state -- which state does warren live in? i forgot, i'm sorry. but in each state there is an insurance regulator that makes sure that the assets of their to back up the insurance promise. host: it was north carolina. guest: yes, the north carolina insurance regulator is watching out for you. i will be blunt. those guys got snookered during the last go-round. they are weak now and they understand. they relied on the rating agencies. they now know the ratings were not true.

the aig subsidiary received an infusion of cash and are now paying it back. on the insurance fund, aig is looking pretty good. i will tell you this. the congressional oversight panel is doing work right now on a.i.g. and we will have a report soon. i hope it will be valuable to you. host: one last call from chapel hill, tenn. caller: thank you for c-span. first of all, there are two books to read. one is called "too big to fail" and the other is "shorts." is anyone doing anything with the sewage problem here in birmingham? it seems to be similar to the

cds' going on. guest: yes, ma'am, it is. i'm very worried about this. there is regulatory reform pending in the congress now. we have pumped money back into the system into the large financial institutions, and basically have not changed any rules. they are still up there in beijing in the interest rate swaps. what congress is debating now is how much restriction to put on that, how much to force them to trade on markets where it becomes more visible. and how we try to stop this from happening again, the bankrupting of america's cities, counties. host: elizabeth warren is chair of the congressional oversight panel. guest: thanks so much for having me. host: we will turn attention to efforts to increase government

transplanted. our guest is the coordinator of the sunshine in government initiative. ♪ >> a couple of live events today on our companion over. the joint economic committee will hear from the reserve chairman ben bernanke at 10:00 a.m. eastern. that is also online and on c- span radio. in the afternoon, the senate commerce committee listen to the national broadband plan released last month by the federal communications commission. members will question the chairman about the plan and the role of the commission and

overseen the internet. -- in overseeing the internet. >> the first of the british election debates. all three candidates will face off in u.s.-style debates. watch them for three consecutive weekends in entirety. the first debate will be sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern. >> of republican president and republican congress and the february and march of 2013 will repeal every radical bill passed by this machine. >> one of the speakers of this year's southern republican conference on the c-span library. over 160,000 hours of video from last week or last year. every program since 1987.

it is the latest gift from table to america. "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is a first-time visitor to the show. the first question as we look at the idea of government transparency, what does that mean? guest: transparency can mean a lot of things. two journalists it means, is the government able to give you the information you need in a timely manner to help citizens make decisions? whether it is drinking water at school being saved, or services if you need from government? is government able to give you the information about not only things it wants to promote, but that may be embarrassing? host: here is a look at what

president obama said in 2009. >> i expect members to live not only up to the letter, but to the spirit of this law. i will also hold myself as president to a new standard of openness. going forward, any time the american people want to know something that i or former president wants to withhold we will have to consult with the attorney general and white house counsel whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law. information will not be withheld just because i say so. it will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well-grounded in the constitution. transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency. host: from the very beginning of his administration. so far, what grade would you give the president on transparency?

guest: i would give him and a forever. as it unfolds it will take a long time. you have nearly 200 federal agencies. when you put in a request, they have to respond. it will take awhile for what the president wants to do and his initiatives to take real effect. so, when there is a tragic mine accident as we recently saw in and you saw hundreds of violations -- is that average? are they an allied air? it will take a while. -- are they and outlier? host: as far as the agency's go, which he would welcome and which ones have a lot of work ahead? guest: one of the initiatives

from the president dealt with the freedom of information act. he changes the presumption which was previously that if an agency has a sound legal basis to withhold information in response to a public request, it should do so. the justice department would back it up. he switched back to say that agencies, if you are in doubt about whether to withhold or disclose, when you are making a choice, and you have discretion, let the information out. he did that on day one. it changes the training, the discussions agencies have. he put out a directive that he set in motion on day one. it requires agencies to come together and put out open

plants. it was only the last week that they put out their plan. the department of health and human services are doing a number of things. when the h1n1 virus was in the news, they allowed a little sticker on the website that you could click to find out more. so, when you look at the plans, about half of them according to one commentator -- they are really planning the plan, starting the discussion. the president for many agencies has begun the discussion. it will take a while. host: the first call is from an independent in ohio. caller: i'm calling about the transparency. a couple of weeks ago when a person from arizona was killed on his ranch i tried to contact

different agencies to find out who was in charge of erecting a fence on our border. i got the complete run around from homeland security, of fema, a bunch of my senators, congressmen. nobody can give me an answer on who to talk to, who to call. i am chasing my tail in a circle. transparency, you know, they work for us the last time that i checked. it is just disappointing that i'm trying to find some answers and delegate is the run around. we still have no transparency. they are talking out of one side of the mouth and doing completely different thing on the other side. guest: a think that bob has a good point. the federal government is very complex.

there are a lot of agencies, many with overlapping responsibilities. if you look at the state and local level, those governments can be much more responsive, more quickly. so, it is very complex. there is no easy way to find out who was responsible for directing the right kind of fence, or providing 64 and oil drum in your neighborhood. but the more you can do, hopefully, with the new energy going into this transparency initiative, over time it will hopefully change. host: good morning. caller: the local and state governments are not more responsive. i have been in homeowners associations, and it is impossible to get information. here is the free-fall of our

economy, and we can i get any information from either legislators or the administration, or the federal reserve as to where the trillions and billions were used in our financial services industry. they tell us that if they did not use the money, things would have been worse. fine, use our money, tell us where. now they say that they do not know. host: is that true in terms of tracking the money? guest: it is very difficult to track. if i had a dollar bill and i give it to someone who gives it to someone else, you think you could track it. sometimes it is a choice. bloomberg news had to sue the federal reserve to find out which banks were getting overnight loans. sometimes it is a choice of trying to find out for the money is going. when you try to track contracts

and grants, as then-senator obama tried to find out -- you can find the one agency gives a grant to a contractor who might in most 10 subcontractors. it is very hard then to follow that path. host: we know that the white house has begun a website tracking the stimulus money. what do you make of their effort in that particular area? guest: it is a good effort. then they run to lead data quality problem. agencies are reluctant that if they cannot provide the right answer -- you find when you release data, if there are errors in it -- and the one example, an agency got into a little bit of trouble. they were trying to estimate.

the real issue is that it is very hard to do those calculations. returning to the mining accident, we would like to know -- was the of mine operating in similar ways as others? is there a need for more regulation? or was it specific to that line? -- to that mine? host: we go to robin on the republican line. caller: this is an excellent transition from your previous segment with ms. warren. until we have campaign reform we will never have transplanted. as long as our politicians are bought and paid for, like pac's and lobbyists, they will not be transparent.

guest: money is obviously powerful. it is very difficult to find out, to tie campaign contributions with lobbying expenditures. there are efforts to. it is designed to make it confusing. divide the information and separated. but over the last 10 years you see more interest on capitol hill, around washington to improve transparency. host: our guest was educated at the university of california- berkeley. also at indiana university. he is the founder of the website, and coordinator of sunshine in government, and they have a website. you have mentioned freedom of information requests a couple of times. for the average person to file one of those, what does it take?

guest: time. basically, get an address and write a letter. look on agency website where there are forms to fill out. it is very easy. the more specific you can make the request, the better. if you know the particular office, that is better. for the one caller looking for the person with authority over fences, it can be difficult. but you can request, given this incident, a want to know who has authority. then the agencies have responsibility to get back to you. they have 20 days. oftentimes, you get a tracking number and it could take weeks, months, even years. some people plan their news

stories years in advance because they know it takes awhile. you could get charged for duplication services or research time if you have a particularly difficult, more complex request. host: good morning. caller: 35 years ago there were three basically tv stations. they left the air at 3:00 a.m. at that time there were three independent news-gathering agencies. radio was separate from tv stations. there were always two-party newspapers. here we are years later.

when you start connecting the dots, people talk about the media. the media is not those five networks. it also includes corporations alsonike, wal-mart, dell computer, and so on. all of a sudden, you have propaganda. you have war criminals, for dollar guess, financial institutions being run literally -- guest: over the last five or 10 years with the advent of blocking and easier access to the internet, you see many voices in the public sphere. many more ways to get news and information. slowly, the loss on transparency will have to develop to catch up.

right now loggers have more rights than they did -- bloggers have more rights than previously. host: and we will not comment on the very end of that caller's comment which is an inappropriate direction. we're talking about government transparency here. caller: i have a question about the health care reform bill. the transparency of it. i have read the first draft. one thing that was very prevalent was quality initiatives. i figure the government would determine how to initiate quality initiatives to find out why the cost of health care is so high. why was this reform bill not

made public as they were going through the process of trying to develop it? i was there not more input from other places besides congress? if they're going to do a quality initiative, or tried to set up some type of quality initiative to find the problems with cost, why did they not go through an outside agency? guest: in health care, this is an area where transparency is very important. some complain it is very hard to get anything done. the president promised, even mentioning c-span, mentioned having open discussions on national news.

there was one day-long session, and i hope people watched that. the process, the president promised greater transparency, and got criticism for not being transparent enough on health care -- on the specifics it would be wonderful to know, to follow the money, whether drug companies are paying doctors to attend conferences -- in one version of the bill that eventually got enacted would require drug companies to disclose payments to doctors. so, it is moving slowly in that direction. host: 10 minutes left. philadelphia, pedro. caller: 01 to repeat what the

caller said earlier -- you cannot have transparency in government campaign reform. -- i want to repeat. how can we go forward when we have had some much -- where we have not had transparency, how can we move forward? guest: he touches on transparency increasing trust in government. it is essential for the agencies to here, for members of congress to hear. even let the supreme court to hear that message. host: any other agencies on the top of your list who are doing the best job? guest: the labor department has identified five databases of critical importance to health and safety issues that they will make more publicly available. they might be doing a good job.

some of these plants are 20 pages, some are 80 pages. host: who has the most work to do? guest: when journalists look at this, and the sunshine in government is a coalition of organizations that represent the reporters, agencies -- who has the longest delay? certainly, if you look at some of the national security agency's, it is tough to get information from them for any reason. there's more work to be done there. also, when you look at tracking on the fiscal issues, as

elizabeth warren pointed out previously, she is deep into this. those areas are where we need more. host: this phone call is from clifton park, new york, an independent caller. caller: good morning. ibm of first-time caller. just before obama got elected, there was a bill in congress. hr 217 or 219. they were voting to give it any whistle-blower in congress amnesty would come forward to expose who is the problem.

guest: that has been around for long time, and there has been pushed for many years to give greater protection for whistleblowers who speak up. this goes back to the most famous whistle-blower with the pentagon papers and disclosure about vietnam. there has been a great deal of interest in this. many who worked in the government who speak up and when no problems, and later justified by independent analysis and reports -- they go under tremendous financial hardship. and that is while they're trying to serve their countries. host: good morning. caller: i have a solution for this campaign problem which is

really disrupting transparency with politicians. we need to set up a separate tv channel for they can speak whatever they need to to run their campaigns and front of all of america so they don't have to spend millions to support their campaigns, and cut off their ability to receive campaign money. the campaign money is basically kickbacks in advance from corporations influencing legislation. host: what do think of that idea? guest: the caller is talking about using public money to give candidates an equal playing field. the public is just not there yet. will many continue to discuss and argue about it?

the latest supreme court ruling and the citizens united case that said the government does not have the ability to regulate corporate contributions in elections may increase efforts to give more disclosure about who was finding some of these efforts. host: jacksonville, fla. caller: thank you. i enjoy your show, and my blood pressure goes back up every day. i use my one call per month. in florida we have sunshine in the government, and as of yet they're very strict. we are one of the six states of the union, whatever our troubles, we do have a pension fund that was over-fun and. in the congress, be it republicans or democrats, those

bills which are so long that they cannot be read are unreadable. yesterday a you have the ridiculous situation where democrats have written themselves out of their own private insurance with the federal government. they are trying to frame it that their staff will not be insured. they have a permit themselves on the insurance that they're telling us is a wonderful. they were saying they do not yet know if it is all of them, or just -- they're pretty sure that the membership staff will be able to remain on the private, federal insurance. one more thing -- you're talking about the freedom of information act. that is very difficult to use. they stumble you. i was in the financial situation that came out in march. they found out that one man made their report.

this is online. one of the sources he used was a website that talked to god. guest: you begin by mentioning florida. it has one of the strongest sunshine laws in the country. you are fortunate. you mentioned that they over- funded their pension plan because they could not operate in the speaker. it sounds to me like the government officials actually operated differently, having to operate in full sunshine then if they had operated behind closed doors. that is a good example of government working better when the public can see what is going on. host: good morning, mike. caller: it is a very good idea. i like the name of the organization.

i really have doubts about this getting accomplished. there is so much corruption in the organization's going on. you have the for reserve which is nothing to do with the federal government -- this is the federal reserve. host: a doubter. guest: many people are in mike's camp, wondering whether the obama administration will be able to do all they hoped. it will take a great deal of time, effort. every once in awhile news companies must sue to get information and to make sure that the act works well. host: nick blum, we appreciate your time.