will take your questions about fundraising for politics. "washington journal" is next. host: financial regulation is in the newspapers this morning. the senate is poised to possibly bring a bill to the floor later this week. president obama heads to new york on thursday to push for legislation. gop senators are not supporting the bill as it is written. all 41 signed a letter last week as saying that they will oppose it. we want to hear from you on whether you think that the republicans should support this legislation? if not, what changes need to be made? here is one of the headlines from "the washington post" this morning. the democrats seek to close the

divide on reform. both sides are attempting to exploit a lingering resentment towards wall street in the election debate. as i mentioned, the president is headed to new york on thursday and will give a speech at cooper union. he is expected to remind voters in the starkest terms of what

many call the irresponsibility that took hold on wall street. we want to hear from you about whether you think republicans should support this bill making its way through the senate. this is a democrat from virginia. caller: thank you for c-span. these republicans have no self- respect whatsoever. a guy like mitch mcconnell who just barely got elected last time kentucky -- the republicans need to change leadership. anything this president does, anything the democratic majority comes up with they are completely against. they have absolutely no ground to stand on. all they do is find one little part in the bill -- even though the whole thing [unintelligible] they are still against white

even the democrats are willing to take off the table. what are people going to wake up? the republicans' tire agenda is for this president to fail. host: the caller referred to a $50 billion fund. that is the headline here. it says that senate democrats will likely scrapped a proposal --will likely scrap a proposal -- it says here that the $50 billion fund would be paid for by the large financial firms with money collected in advance of any failure. president obama last year proposed having the industry pay

the government for the cost only after one collapses. chris dodd said yesterday he is not committed to the fund, which was a republican idea, but is willing to consider alternatives. sandy, on the republican line. caller: no, i do not believe republicans should support the bill as written. i wonder when mr. paulson and mr. bush's administration walked down the hall that day and said there is a financial meltdown coming and we have to act, what caused the financial meltdown? the rules and regulations that they are tried to put in have nothing to do with what caused a meltdown. i have an article from "the new york times" published september 29, 1999 -- it is about fannie mae using credit for mortgage

lending. it says right here at "fannie mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages has been under increasing pressure from the clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people. in moving even tentatively into this new area of lending, fannie mae is taking on significantly more risk which may not pose and the difficulties during flush economic times, but the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble during an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue." this article is from 1999. host: sandy, let me ask you about the other complicated trading aspects of the securities, the derivatives and -- caller: what happened was fannie

mae would buy all of these products. in the past they would not do these dealings. what happened is, they allow these things to be sold to fannie and freddie. these people did not have to worry about whether it would bad later. a ticket out of their hands, so risk could go on and on -- it to get out of their hands. host: so, what changes should be made so that republicans will sign on? caller: first of all, the regulations need to rein in fannie mae and freddie mac, first of all. that is where the collapse came from. when mr. paulson walked into the office of mr. bush and said we have trouble it was not because of all this other stuff on wall street.

democratic administrations had been pushing -- people were getting loans without credits and without jobs -- without credit. they wanted to increase low and minority housing. host: we got your point, and will move on to tony on the independent line from the lbaton rouge. caller: yes, i think at this time the republicans should support the bill. but at this point, who cares what the republicans think? they have run the country down the tubes. host: next, david, also from louisiana. caller: the caller prior to the other louisianian caller -- the

market went down, starting with bear stearns and everybody knows that. we just got the report from goldman sachs about what was done. these subprime loans were sold to people who could not afford loans at a high interest rate. they broke them down and so the men to the market as derivatives. everybody knows what has happened. then they turn around and blame poor people for what happened with the economy. -- the broken down and sold into the market as derivatives. fdic protests us from losing money to most of what is the problem that we are asking banks to pay $50 billion of their own money so that if one thing fails it does not affect the other things? how canceling argue against this? all these republicans are trying to do -- they have the 2012

agenda. it is to make obama a one-term president. everything that comes out -- we cannot support this bill, not any changes. this is a start. host: democrats who are critical of republicans for not supporting this bill have a memo that was put together by a pollster that is widely publicized. it says that a speech given by senator mitch mcconnell, the republican leader in the senate is very similar to the speech -- to a memo that frank rich. it says the single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the big bank bailout.

that is "time" magazine if you want to read more. joining us is a reporter from "the washington post" to give us a preview of news that will happen today on capitol hill. the health financial services committee will hear about the story that hit last week the lehman brothers had a so-called alter ego company. what are we expected to hear today? guest: good morning. you will see a lot of efforts by policymakers to argue that back in 2008, the failure of lehman brothers is a strong argument for reform. the former ceo of lehman

brothers argued some elements that have recently come out about its financial maneuvers are kind of misleading and that they were not a major cause of the failures. host: the headline is that this former ceo will say that the fed knew all even if he did not. that the federal government knew about this so-called alter ego and what they were doing. there is also a story this morning in the new york times that the lehman brothers examine and will testify that the sec set on its hands. guest: yes, what is complicated about this is that lehman brothers beginning in march 2008, when bear stearns went under, it made it clear that the risks and the investment world. there was more attention given to these firms. the sec was casting a closer eye. the federal reserve put a couple

of people into these firms. they have people on the ground paying attention, but it is not clear that anyone was quite aware of the degree of risk. there are a couple of issues. what they were doing to cause them to go under, and to ultimately caused the crisis, then questions on their accounting. host: who will we see at this hearing? guest: a couple of panels. there is dick fuld. the panel includes ben bernanke, tim geithner who is now treasury secretary, who at that time was secretary of the new york fed. he was then task with overseeing wall street. also, mary schapirhapiro.

host: we will have live coverage of the hearing on c-span3 and c- span radio at 3:00 p.m. the stories were already leaking yesterday about the testimony that ben bernanke will give, and then we see the headlines this morning about what the lehman brothers examiner will say, as well as the former ceo. much testimony is being leaked the day before. guest: the house financial services committee put all the testimony on their website. i am not sure why they put it out one day prior, it is usually put out on thfirst same day. the question will be on this huge committee of 70 members

will find it insights from members who have not talked much about this. host: what about congressional oversight on this issue? guest: it is how it plays into the reform debate more broadly. the lehman brothers' bankruptcy back in 2008 was a trigger for much of the bad stuff that happened. all the crisis dates back to that date. it was ultimately the bankruptcy that triggered this. that plays into this debate you were referring to, about whether there should be some fund or wind down authority. what ben bernanke and tim geithner will be arguing is that the show's more than ever that you need some ability for the government to do with the resolution of a financial firm, that does not include

bankruptcy, that is a more careful wind down of the company. that is the political subtext. host: do you suspect we will hear about other companies with these so-called alter ego firms? could you explain how an alter ego firm works? guest: yes, a couple of issues. first, these would essentially -- at the end of each quarter they would do kind of a swap and trade billions of dollars of assets on their books to the other company. there would be an agreement to buy back a few days later. that made it look like they were less leveraged than they were. so, that was a way to make their balance sheet. when they had to report at the end of the quarter, four times per year, and made them look safer. not as heavily leveraged as they actually were. they were just moving assets off

their books for few days at the end of each quarter. that is exposed by the bankruptcy examiner's report that came out a couple of months ago. it really raises questions. why would auditors and everyone else allow this approach to accounting? host: all right, neil, thanks for your time. we're talking about whether republicans should support of financial regulation reform bill making its way through the senate. lyle is joining us on the republican line. caller: i think the two sides of to get together and work out something without this continued b.s. between the two. the problem, the reason for the problem is people borrowed money they could not afford -- the

government or banks were mandated to lend money they would not have otherwise. fannie and freddie would buy these things, otherwise the banks never would have landed money. then, they start to do all these swaps. it is more complicated than i can answer, but i think the two sides need to get together. they both have some good ideas. when only one person makes a decision, and you forget about what anyone else has, you will make mistakes. host: so, if republicans oppose this legislation and it does not pass, and it is november 2010 election day, and republicans are devoted no because they saw it as a bailout for wall street or something else, do you think that will fly with voters? caller: it may, but i'm just

concerned -- i am just as concerned about the democratic people being inflexible at this time. if the republicans get in there and do the same thing in reverse, we will like it anywhere. we need moderation on both sides. talk to each other and use the best ideas from both sides. to me that is the solution, not this stuff about it is my way or the highway from either side. host: we will go to manhattan next. the ap is reporting this morning that dorothy was the leading female voice of the 1960's civil rights movement -- she died tuesday at 98 years old. the independent line in manhattan, what do you think? caller: i think it needs to be regulated. i was working around wall street for the last 12 years before

everything went south. i was working as a consultant, so i saw a lot of documents. everyone knew that this was coming. i saw balance sheets of over 200 pages where everything was rated triple a, and it was a joke. host: do you think the legislation as written now gets at the culture of wall street? caller: it should, because they did not learn anything from enron, and just went around in the legislation that came from it. it is not an ethical culture at all. host: so, if this bill were to

pass, the think those on wall street will find more loopholes and get around any legislation that is passed? caller: they will try to. i do not know who would monitor it. they did not learn from and wrong, and continue to find the polls. -- they did not learn from enron. even my hair dresser was told two years prior when to get out. it is one of the biggest jokes that could possibly be perpetrated. host: what do you do for a living? caller: i am an editor. i am independent, and at it legal, financial documents. -- and i edit legal and financial documents. host: this 1400-page bill would

create an independent regulator house that the federal reserve. tyler, texas, joining us on the

democratic line. caller: you know, the gentleman called earlier this of this crisis came about because of fannie me, and them wanting to reduce requirements so that more poor people could have homes. if that was the case, this would have happened a long time ago. i wonder why no one is looking at the repeal of the glass- steagall act? it prevented this kind of thing from happening. when they left the stock market get into the business of the hormones, they're the ones who got rid of all the rules and regulations and requirements for a person to buy a home -- when they let the stock market do that. you, anybody and everybody could

be a broker. there were no rules regarding those people. i know several people who got caught up in this. there were no qualifications for the loans. that did not come about from 1994, but when you put these mortgages into the hands of stockbrokers. mr. paulson also a part of goldman sachs at one time. it makes me think this was all planned. if they keep digging, they will find out. right now they're looking at goldman sachs, having pushed these loans to their employees, to their clients were investing with them -- and then they turn around and bet against it to make money. this was just a big hey,

buddies, i'm on my way up -- how about we line your pockets? host: on the "meet the press" tim geithner said he was confident some republicans would vote to pass the bill. he was up on the hill yesterday meeting with senators. yesterday the office of harry reid said the bill could possibly make its way to the floor by thursday. that is after the senate agriculture committee on wednesday marks up part of the legislation dealing with derivatives. that is the headline this morning on the front page of "the new york times." the consequences to regulating the derivatives market could be about $700 million, or couple of billion dollars according to jamie dimon. there was so much at stake that

it is no surprise that these have made their way to the senate committee. joh, on the republican line -- john, from los angeles. caller: yes, the republicans should support the legislation because they should let it pass, but work to change it.

i would like to see its more conservative. abill that would change the focus really closing down the business. host: ok, washington, the independent line. caller: i originally called to comment on the gentleman who quoted from the 1999 article, trying to pin things on the clinton administration, which i do not agree with completely myself. however, -- and also, in relation to the woman a couple or three colors ago whom i believe made some good points regarding glass-steagall, etc.

i think it was very important to highlight that the points the gentleman was trying to make had happened at a time -- i believe he said 1999 -- at a time when we had record surpluses, and therefore, you know, had some way to play with here in this country regarding promoting homeownership. i am not really quite sure that , with the administration was trying to promote had anything to do with subprime mortgages or derivatives or anything like that. that was before the time of 9/11

which i hate to refer to, but what happened as a result to getting into unfunded wars and the bush tax cuts. host: we will leave it there. here is the front page of "the daily news" -- the mayor is miffed over the obama snub. the mayor michael blumberg was upset he was not given notice that president obama would be at cooper union college on thursday giving a speech about financial regulation -- mayor michael bloomberg. here is the front page, o brings street were to new york as the dems cash in on goldman. that is "the new york post" this

morning. caller: i just hope america wakes up because this stuff goes on and on. they will always make loopholes, whoever is in office. they will always make loopholes for the corporations because the corporations are finding their elections. if they do not get reelected, they have a job, a side job for them. i have that america wakes up. something really has to be done to stop ait. host: ok, steve, from erie, pa. host: the question you're asking is kind of misleading -- yes, the gop should support the financial form, but the right

kind of reform. the other question, should the democrats have supported the performed during the 2005/2006 bush administration? then senator obama and voted it down with a filibuster. it was in 2005, the bank and financial reform act during the bush administration. it was voted down by democrats, pushed aside. i keep hearing this from different democrats -- you cannot waste a good crisis, yet we are the ones to suffer. it is a joke the way the questions get pushed back and forth. we need to sit down and look at what really happens. hold people truly responsible, then things would change in this country. things would be done for the people instead of four financial institutions. host: steve, you think

democrats were playing politics back then and do you think republicans are playing politics now? caller: yes, i do. i think it goes both ways. but i also think the bill they're voting for right now does not take care of everything. and like glass-steagall got revoked, then you turn around and have all these bills over the years by both parties -- there is no true journalism to find out what really happened and why. it is just to blame this party for today, and tomorrow the next party. that i guess is the way that america wants to be run, so we will have to suffer. host: let's go to carol in california, on the independent line. caller: this bill not only had this $50 bailout fund -- host: the $50 billion --

caller: yes, but it also has a provision that even if that amount is not adequate, the administration can make decisions about bailing out companies. it is not exactly written in those words, but that is in the bill. we might recall when president obama was interviewed by "60 minutes" and made the famous statement about those fat cats on wall street. two months before that he flew to new york for a dnc fund raising committee with 30 multi- millionaires, a fund-raising dinner in which each person donated about $30,000 per person. president obama collected $10 million for obamadnc. who did he meet with and the wall street?

who did he meet with? the press reported he went for this dinner for fund-raising, but did not go into the details. so, president obama later, about six weeks later came up to say about those fat cats on wall street. president obama that the largest amount of money according to the then-john mccain/fine gold bill from goldman sachs. -- feingold bill from goldman sachs. president obama wanted to keep getting money from wall street for the campaign this year and for next year, so the bill as dictated by the administration is addicted to bail out companies in indirect ways.

host: the issue of banks can of yesterday when congressman john dingall appeared on "the colbert report." >> what you think the people are so angry at congress and dress up in hats to express it? it is incredible to me that there is such anger and it is such costumed anger. [laughter] >> the simple fact of the matter is that people are afraid, frustrated. a lot of times they really do not know who they are mad at. they're mad at everybody, and not particularly upset about wall street. they are raising cain with the congress because we had to bail out the banks, or we would have had another 1929 on our hands. host: that was the congressman

on "the jon stewart show." here is marshall on the democratic line from arkansas. are you there? caller: yes. host: go ahead, should republicans support the financial regulation? you know what? i will put you on hold and we will go want to sunnyvale, california with nancy. caller: absolutely, they should stop them and stop this radical ideologue and the white house and what he is trying to put through. to return to the glass-steagall act, it was clinton who got rid of that before he left office. as far as goldman sachs getting on the downside, i was there when these acorn people -- let

me make the connection -- i was in the banking when bankers had to hire attorneys because acorn and their affiliates would come into the bank and say, if you do not make these loans, we will sue you. these people have a right to get a loan. right now obama is doing the same to fannie mae and freddie mac. i see the loans every day that come through. the people do not qualify. the modifications are going into bankruptcy and foreclosure again. host: what do you do for a living? caller: yes, i worked in the insurance agency. i see these come through with no source of income, no qualifications. i received phone calls all the time to hurry the documents through because fannie mae wants to clear these loans. these loans are an abomination. who made good on all these bad

loans? if you want to know when things began to go downhill, it was in 2006 when the democrats took over the purse strings. host: all right, marshall in arkansas. caller: yes, it is time that the gop except it -- and i think most do -- i think that mitch mcconnell has one of his welcome, frankly. i think god for senator bob corker who has stepped out and said a few things that may help get more of the gop some courage. the talking points will not get you everywhere, just to make the president fail in the upcoming elections.

this country is much bigger and stronger than that. host: here is an editorial -- the sec's impeccable timing.

that is "the wall street journal" with their lead editorial this morning. we're going to ohio. caller: personally, i think everyone is missing the ball. the problem is the federal reserve, since 1913. you talk about the madoff and other ponzi schemes, the biggest one is the federal reserve. all they're doing is giving more power to the fed. that is the biggest problem. look at what ron paul is saying. as far as republicans and democrats are concerned, six on the one hand, half a dozen on

the other. barack obama is just following the same policies that bush had it instituted. host: here are more goldman sachs headlines, this from politico. also, from "the financial times" -- the front page, aig eyes action on goldman over credit defaults. another story this morning about citigroup turning the corner, the u.s. government could soon sell-off its $7.70 billion shares in that company.

the next phone call comes from taxes, dan come on the democratic line. -- dan, on the democratic line. caller: it is not either a democratic or republican problem. it is a problem for the whole country. we do not allow this in sports. here it is the same thing for you have people butting up front, then people behind it betting against it. i just do not see why they cannot see it is that simple -- you had a basketball referee did the same and he went to jail, so should these people. host: the republican line, fla. caller: thanks. hopefully, i can get this out before being cut off -- i am a real republican: on the republican line. it does not have been too often. you hear the same voices

everyone. it is always-george bush. i am a republican, the tea party goer. i have been to meetings all up and down the coast. i do not think the republicans should stand up for this bill which is another bill. look at all the cronies. you have aggressive obama who says he will not have any lobbyists in his white house. he has more lobbyists there now than have ever been. the same president has now tripled down on the debt in this country. everyone wants to say he inherited it. he has spent more money in 18 months then george bush did in eight years, including funding two wars. host: we got your point. here are the headlines, this the

world news section of "the washington journal" -- the greek debt crisis is seen as getting worse. hear, obama picks this person from harvard to run medicare and medicaid. he announced it on monday. it fulfills widespread expectations that he would tap berwick, a harvard university professor and leading advocate for improving health care quality and efficiency. on emigration, the front page of "the hill" -- the representative speaks to reporters saying yesterday he has told obama to push immigration, or he will tell latino voters to stay at home.

here is the last phone call concerning whether republicans should support financial regulation legislation. this phone call comes from wyoming. caller: thank you very much, i appreciate being able to get on. i have never called before. i am staunchly independent and proud of that. i grew up democratic. just because the family said that we were. what of the book to convey, one thing i really here from anyone , independent news sources -- what i would like to convey -- the glass-steagall act, timothy gardner, that was his baby. what most people are upset

about -- and i agree with the last caller wholeheartedly. i am a the tea party goer. the first central bank war, the second, the third all in the 1700's. or 1800's. we have a total fiat money system. the main money interests make money. it does not matter at all. host: we will have to leave it there, tony. we have run out of time for questions. we will continue the conversation with carroll will speak about a new pew survey that found that one of five americans do not trust the government, nor corporations.

first, a news update. >> in the latest headlines at nasa will try one last time to bring shuttle discovery home to florida today. the rain and concerns about fog prevented discovery and its seven from living at thecenter on the first attempt this morning. the mission control decided to take one more attempt at ford before directing it to california. at this time is aiming for just after 9:00 a.m. in florida. a warning from the international federal pilots association that says safety should be the main factor concerning a flight operations in europe. the group says that the ash from the erupting volcano in iceland poses a real danger, and the final decisions should be left to pilots themselves. the airplanes have begun to fly from some european airports, but

british officials say that the london airport which is a major hub, will likely remain closed for least another day. on capitol hill a government watchdog is warning the change is intended to make it easier for struggle and homeowners to avoid foreclosure could leave at the mortgage assistance program more vulnerable to fraud. the special inspector general for the troubled asset relief program says the administration needs to do more to one the public, and more security needed to prevent abuse. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> a couple of live events this month. the senate judiciary committee holds an oversight meeting. then, live at 11:00 a.m. on c- span3, the house financial- services committee looks into the bankruptcy of lehman brothers. the witnesses will include ben

bernanke and tim geithner, mary shapiro, and former lehman brothers executives. host: this is the associate director from pew research center here to talk about a new survey from yesterday that shows one out of five americans said they cannot trust the government. guest: one out of five americans say that they can trust the government. it is extraordinary low levels of trust, lots of anger and frustration. negative feelings about government are as bad as we have seen in 50 years. host: why? you wrote yesterday there is the perfect storm out there? guest: right, we see a bad economy, the public taking a very dim view of national conditions.

a high level of contentiousness in the washington, bitter partisanship, and extraordinarily low ratings for elected officials, and for congress. the lowest in 25 years that we have trapped. host: also, the survey found 30% of the federal government has an overall positive effect on daily lives while 43% see its impact as broadly negative. guest: yes, a big change from 1997. this study replicates the one we did in 1997, and nearly every measure is more negative about the federal government. back then about half said the federal government had a positive affect on their day-to- day lives. host: what is the impact of that when congress is trying to take up legislation like this financial to regulate wall street?

guest: there is not much trust for the federal government, but the banks are rated about as lonely as the government. we seek 61% support saying it is a good idea to regulate financial regulations more strictly -- we see 61% in support. host: when was the last time you did this survey? guest: we we did 13 years. we had meaning -- we had been meat back to it. it seemed like a good time with midterm elections ahead. host: what those the surveys say about the popularity of midterm elections?

guest: you see the so-called generic ballot tied. the problem for democrats this dissatisfaction with government. it is driving enthusiasm among republicans and independents. but it is early yet. host: what could happen to change that? guest: the democrats themselves could get more enthused and engaged. we have seen consistently low levels of engagement so far. they just not locked into this election. host: did you ask about the healthcare bill? democrats say they think this has helped energize their base, and they will be more likely to turn out. guest: we did a follow-up survey after the main one in the march before the passage of health- care reform. there was not a great deal of change.

it will be awhile before the effects of the bill are fully realized since it was just finished in march. i'm sure that we will track retrospective attitudes about health care reform throughout the year. host: "the washington post" has a piece noted the senate rules committee will hold a hearing on thursday on the history of the filibuster as lawmakers look for ways to limit the tactic that they believe the gop as been abusing over the past 15 months. this is chuck schumer who also hold the political position for democrats. this is likely the first of

several hearings on the issue. your poll finds people are not necessarily dissatisfied with the system, but with the members of congress themselves. guest: yes, the members have very low regard. nearly any criticism you raise large numbers agree with, that they are just out for themselves, not careful with the money from the public, influenced by special interests, and on and on. there is a great deal of cynicism about elected officials. host: so, what does it say about incumbents? those of the the party? guest: it is very low, typically people like their own congressman, but not others, but now they say even their own that deserve not to be reelected. host: does that change according to party? guest: there is certainly more

of an anti-incumbent feeling among republicans, but it is across the board. there is a very angry mood out there among voters. host: how did you go about this survey? guest: the major one was through march, then several follow-ups, one in early april. host: and how you go about asking a question -- the headline yesterday was that one of five voters said that they can trust the government -- so, how you phrase the question? guest: that question has been around since 1958, from the eisenhower administration. how often can you trust the government to do what is right? host: if people would like to read more about the survey, and its results, where do they go?

guest: on the website, and you can say an interactive graphic that shows the measure over the last 50 years along with developments that have impacted those views. there is also the follow-up survey. host: and people can go on to do the survey themselves? guest: yes, if you go to our website or street to the government website about satisfaction, you can satisfactiona quiz yourself. on pewresearch.org you can discover what you think and how you relate to the people in the survey. host: this is cindy from indiana. caller: one of the reasons the

people of this country do not trust the government any more is due things like passing the healthcare reform bill when most of the congressmen and senators, especially the democrats never read that. even the president admitted to not even knowing what was totally involved and the bill. pushing it through when the american people had no real idea of what it consisted of. they get out debt the deportees and expresso the field, but no one is listening. even the democrats -- the get out at the tea parties and no one is really listening to how they feel. guest: well, i think all those points are reflected in the survey.

health care reform is an interesting issue. certainly, though low levels of trust pre-dated the healthcare debate. it also impacted. it was it a condition of health care reform. it is different from when the medicare bill past 40 years ago with high levels of trust in the government. host: she said that lawmakers do not read these bills. guest: it is one of the critiques of the healthcare bill. host: do they expect the members of congress to read the full bill? guest: they expect the members of congress to understand what is in it, certainly. host: eddie. caller: good morning. the comment i have, and i am 46

years old, and even your best said this -- we really started not trusting this government during the bush administration. why is that? because the men like us into an illegal war in iraq and was never prosecuted for that. no one has looked into that at all. so, we will not trust anyone until that gets settled. -- because the bush and mr. shen put us into an illegal war in the wreck. guest: yes, there are a variety of factors. the financial crisis of 2008 and the bill. one of the interesting things about republicans and their view -- it began with the bailout in the fall of 2008. people were very unhappy.

host: is that the crux of this feeling toward the government that it is the economic issue? guest: i think you cannot minimize the importance of the economy. we see the trust go down. it is in times of economic stress. with nearly 10% unemployment, you see it right now. host: is there a comparable time? guest: in the early 1990's with trust this low, a bad economy, political partisanship. in 1994 it was a major election when the house and senate changed hands. caller: good morning. no, the american public has no trust in the government. host: bob, why do you think that? caller: because we have been

lied to, had our money taken and spent in any way, shape, or form. we call our politicians, talk to them, go to the town hall meetings, go to their offices. you can ask them, what percentage of people are for this or that? they do not tell you, but then you go by your neighbors and talk to them, and find out that they are just like you. they are not for it, or not against it. host: do you have any interaction with the government, such as a social security check, medicare, any relationship with the federal government in your daily in personal life? caller: yes, ma'am, and it is funny you should ask that. i get so sick and tired of hearing this call of

entitlement. i started paying social security in 1956. . . how many billions of dollars of reviewers have been taken from that and put into the general fund? host: wondering whether or not you survey people -- one in five

said that they can trust the government. when it comes to social security, medicare, medicaid, services that people use, do people think about the government more favorably? guest: more said and 13 years ago. however, it is pretty negative over all. i think one other reason is the uncertainty about the finances. the under people worrying about if the money will be there by the time they retire. host: do you ask what the government should do about a system like that? guest: the issue of social security and medicare is something that we are going to get back to shortly.

host: joe said, clinton, maryland. caller: it is sickening to hear politicians call social security and medicare, which is taken away from my pay, and, end. the reason the american public is so angry right now with the government is because it has become blatantly obvious that the entire system, not just the politicians, are corrupt. someone earlier said that they create loopholes. you cannot tell me that all of these harvard and yale law school graduate do not understand that they are creating loopholes. they are part of the problem. i want to hear your guest address the legitimacy of this corruption and not pass it off

as a conspiracy theory. guest: corruption is a big issue. there is a great deal about public cynicism, up of elected officials influenced by outside organizations. our polling over the years has shown that the public believes members take bribes. it is extraordinary delaware love all of cynicism. host: we have a twitter talking about the trust in government. we also have a chart showing this. how should people read this?

guest: this is a basic question of how things are going, positive or negative. the trust line is pretty close to the satisfaction level. there is a gap in the 1990's during the clinton administration where the economy was doing very well, but the trust line was relatively low, due to the impeachment process. over time, both lines start to go down. host: for the survey that you just conducted, do the numbers relate to president obama's approval rating? guest: relative to other

institutions in washington, with his approval rating below 50%, congress's approval rating is about 25%. so by washington standards, he is not doing all that badly. host: al has congress feared since the last time you did this survey? guest: there are the lowest we have ever seen, in the 515% range. it has been plummeting for congress. host: west virginia. larry on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i can give you three reasons why people's trust is down.

they had the bank bill, and now retired these, like myself, are reducing the power rates to half a percent. -- our rates to half a percent. then a little while later, it increased to almost 16%, then 26%. that takes away the trust from government officials. host: do you feel frustrated or angry? caller: i will be showing my anger at the polls. guest: people feel like the government is not doing enough

for them to alleviate their economic situations. we hear economic data is turning around, but that has not been reflected in the public. host: what are you hearing in terms of frustration compared to enter? -- anger? guest: that is the interesting thing. americans are used to being frustrated with government. that is nothing new. every time we conduct the survey, a majority of people are frustrated. it is about double what it was in 1997, so i think people might feel entitled to be frustrated with their government, it is the american way, but anger is up. host: do we know why?

guest: there is a small group of republicans, tea parties -- in large part of this group thinks the government represents a major threat to their freedom. the idea that the government could infringe on their freedom is what is really driving these intense feelings. host: do you ask what could quell those feelings, what could improve the numbers for members in congress? guest: the economy turning around would be one thing, but that is a bit out of their control. ale low level of contentiousness, partisanship in washington would help. host: next phone call, jean in alabama.

caller: of what bothers me is -- what bothers me is president obama is getting a raw deal. he has not been in there that long and he inherited a lot of bad things. that is what i do not like. you have people like rush limbaugh, fox news -- i do not want to them anymore because it is always negative about obama. host: what about the strategy by the obama administration to say that we inherited this? democrats on capitol hill repeat the same sentiment. could you get at that question? guest: typically, the public, by

and large, agrees with that sentiment. they do not see obama as primary the responsible for the problems with the financial institutions. the bush administration gets a good bit of the blame host. host: next phone call. round rock, texas. caller: the president wanted us to be bipartisan but the republicans started off saying that we will disagree with everything he suggests. goldman sachs was one of wall street companies that knowingly advise their customers to buy back stock, and then they bet

on that that stuff i getting insurance on it, and they made $16 billion on that investment. obama's bill is trying to reform wall street and the republicans are fighting in, blaming the bailout, but it has nothing to do with it. guest: republicans in our poll take a different stance when it comes to health care issues. not so much financial regulation. they are more evenly divided on that difficult issue. host: what about the perception that this bill could bail out wall street once again? could that be a winning strategy looking at your survey? guest: the word "bela bailoutba

there is a bit of the take from that word. it is probably not the best strategy but i think there is a desire to rein in some of the abuses on wall street. host: this person tweets in -- what do you think? guest: i think that is absolutely correct. the level of partisanship that we are seeing now is the greatest we have seen it. there was a lot of hope when barack obama took office, as post bush and-error could begin, -- this post-bush era

could begin. host: next phone call. caller: i do not understand the people's concern on the right health care. this is a system where your taxpayer money is coming back to the people for services that they actually need. i also do not understand where the t party people were that when the bush administration was using no bid contracts, spying on the people, engaged in a very dangerous things such as torture, things of that nature, and nobody except for the lowest people involved were held accountable. where were all you people when this was going on? not only did they not say anything against it, and they

cheered him on all the time. any time somebody said something about him, they were not patriotic. guest: i think we really saw the negative of the use of government starting in the second bush termthe anger, -- bush term. that anger come by and large, was from liberals. host: is this sort of thing normal, but when you see power change hands? guest: yes, but they keep on getting higher with each succeeding administration. the swings are greater. host: president obama's promise to change washington, did that

feed into this anger? guest: i think it played into the idea that there would be more of bipartisanship in washington. host: next phone call. caller: basically, i agree with everything that has been said. it is about a lack of accountability. of course, the big issue that people understand is this issue of terrorism. a majority of commissioners knew that it was fake, now why can't -- host: next phone call. caller: the government is not trusted. nobody is doing the right thing. somebody made some interesting comments about bush.

but obama is not keeping his policy promises either. wiretapping is still continuing. things are not getting better. you put obamacare in and the federal government continues this power grab. that is why the people are frustrated with government. host: take the war in iraq and afghanistan. guest: i think you still see the impact. the impact from iraq was, in some ways, what started the downward slope for government. what we have now is a turnaround, especially with

afghanistan. republicans are actually more supportive of the troop increase than democrats. host: next phone call. caller: i just cannot believe some of this. where were these people during the bush and administration when we were torturing, bombing iraq? where are our priorities? my god, we kill the innocent people. he saw this coming with the economy, and he did nothing. host: pennsylvania. gregg on the independenct line. caller: my thing is, this guy, a lot of people that you have on, they have an agenda.

his thing is to demonize the american people. everything he says it is about the sentiment of the people. if it is anything with the government, he minimizes that. host: ok, does your organization have an agenda, how are these surveys paid for? guest: we are a non-partisan organization. we designed the question surveys and studies. host: how do you go about coming up with the questions? guest: we look at a news, see what is topical, and we also tried to launder studies. we have the luxury of doing a variety of polls, not just politics-related. host: when it comes to how you

phrase a question, what is that debate like? guest: it is like science, you want it to be fair, reflective of what is going on. host: from looking at past surveys to how you do that now, any changes in how you phrase the question is, words that you have found misleading in the past that you have changed? guest: i think often you see something that did not quit work, perhaps it was misleading, or even confusing to respond to. we are constantly refining and modifying wording to make it more clear. host: can you think of an example? guest: i am not sure that we would ask this trust in government question the same way.

we would probably do something a little bit different. how often can you trust the government in washington? that is sort of day clunky phrase. there are a lot of questions like that where it is not ideal language, but it is such a trend where you can measure it over time. host: next phone call. natural. -- nashville. caller: that may add one word to your vocabulary. confusion. obama's said that he was going to share the wealth. a lot of people thought that meant share the wealth. that is not what he meant. the rich are going to take care of the port.

-- of th poor. today, we are unemployed. look at international countries. india, people who have been working for 30 years are now asking the government for a job. that is where we are headed. guest: i think one of the things -- and again, this survey was about their views of government. we also wanted to see other things about what was going on. does the government faced tougher problem than it used to? 70% agree with that. a majority says that americans are just not willing to pay for what they want. i think, while government gets a

good share of the blame, the public is willing to point the finger at themselves a little bit. host: does that open up the argument for members of congress to say that we need the american people to make sacrifices? guest: that is a tough word in politics but it puts the negative views of government in context. guesthost: craig, west virginia. caller: the republican party should call themselves the party of pliers. they are only obstructionists. they acted like they wanted to pass health care, but they are not bipartisan. they knew that all along, and they played it out. the american people are being misled by the republican party

who led us into the iraq war and tortured people. this is america, we do not torture people! host: when it comes to favorability ratings for republicans and democrats, you know that they are at record lows. there was a spike around 2008 for the democratic party, while republicans were at about 43%. what is going on with republican here in the trend line? guest: in the last couple of years, there favorability rating has been about 40%. some of this opposition to the healthcare bill may have helped them in little bit. democrats, on the other hand, have been in decline since obama

took office. now both parties are viewed about the same. now it is slightly less than 40% saying they have a favorable view of both parties. host: do you think that that is due to what is happening in congress? is this related to the healthcare bill? guest: some of it is. some of it is probably related to the economy. the economy is the top issue and this long effort to do health care struck some as being the wrong priority. host: dinwiddie, virginia. bob. caller: i had a major heart surgery and became disabled.

i tried to work with the mortgage company -- i am one of the few that got some assistance. but they did not do much to help me, but they are going to get lot of money from the government by claiming that they helped me. that is frustrating. and the banks are back to doing what they used to do, paying their ceo's a lot of money. that makes people angry. host: we mentioned this at the top, a survey about how people feel about corporations. guest: only a 20% positive rating for major corporations and banks. the government is not alone as a major institution of the public having a negative view of it. news media, entertainment, labor.

host: shelby township, michigan. amanda on the republican line. caller: i can tell you what exactly is going on. it is not just republicans or democrats. they all support each other. president clinton had the economy going and that is why he had a favorable rating. after the democrats took over bush, that is when things fell apart. people being demonized, well when the republicans were checked out and the democrats took over in 2007, that is when this stuff started falling apart. the republicans started messing things up, but the democrats messed things up worse.

obama made all of these promises. he tripled everything that bush had done in eight years. now there are demonizing the american people for speaking up. we got rid of republicans and now the democrats are doing things even worse. that is why we are so angry, it is just a continuation. host: south bend, indiana. ed on the democratic line. caller: i hear a lot of frustration from the war in iraq. that is where most of our problems come from. i used to work for amoco oil company. at one point, they were getting 90% of their oil from kuwait. later on, they merged with bp.

how can a huge, the company merged wit with bp? it did not make sense. they basically four things apart, moved their headquarters out of chicago. host: we are going to leave it there. one last question for you. this graph looking at trust in government by party. how should people need this? -- how should people read this? guest: there is an effect when the president in power gets a more favorable view when therfrr

constituents. in much of the bush a administration, republicans were very high on the government. host: an e-mail here -- guest: absolutely right. we have a media survey that we are planning. we will be examining that subject. i think that is an important issue. host: thank you for being here. up next, we will have a conversation about volunteerism. we will be speaking with patrick corvington, the ceo for the corporation for national and community service. >> let us meet another winner of

the studentcam competition. we asked to dance to tell us about the country's greatest strengths or challenges. today we are speaking to a ninth grader in south burlington, vermont. thank you for talking to us today. the name of your documentary is a "del land of opportunity." how did you come up with that title? >> we thought in hard times like this, there are so many challenges we are facing, so we need to look at the brighter side of things and focus on the strengths of the country. all of the strength seemed to fall into the category of opportunity. >> what type of opportunities to do you think the u.s. has to offer? >> there are a lot.

freedom of, stable government, education, jobs, much more. through freedom, everybody is given an indication, you can practice any religion, -- given an education, you can practice any religion. host: di>> date your project shd diversity? >> absolutely. it is great to see all different people of the world living peacefully. >> you interviewed a former citizen of iraq. what did you learn from her? >> we wanted to interview someone with a powerful story to show how they feel in america and the opportunities and they were given. we were considering one of our

custodians in iraq, but her religion would not let her be on camera. being in america, we respected her religious decision. however, someone else decided that it would be ok, so we found someone else to interview. we knew that we would be able to tell about her experience. >> what impact that her story have on your documentary? >> it was unbelievable knowing that someone my age had gone through what she had. it is crazy hearing about everything that is happening in iraq. i always hear that we should be grateful for what we have in our country, and sometimes we forget how fortunate we are. hearing her story shows me that we are really living the good life in america. we should take every chance we

get to appreciate that we are so privileged to live in such a great country. >> you used of the creative elements in your documentary, how did you decide to do that? >> even though this is supposed to be a documentary does not mean that it cannot be creative. we thought the idea of reading an old, dusty book would be a fun time. we thought it would be a cool story line. >> what did you enjoy most filming a documentary? >> everything actually. it is always fun to work with my friends and teacher. my teacher is amazing, dedicated for his students. it is great. filming and editing videos is one of my passions, so i had a

blast producing this video. it was a great experience to overcome that experience. i hope to participate in studentcam in the future. >> congratulations. now let's watch a portion of her documentary. >> you can be a woman, be from a minority race, from any political view, sexual orientation, and you will not be discriminated against. any individual as the right to pursue their goals. just to imagine how much freedom our country has been and david paterson, an african-american and blind individual can become governor of new york? host: patrick corvington is the c o for the corporation for

national and community service, you could talk about volunteerism. this week is national volunteerism week. it marks the first anniversary of the edward kennedy served america act. here is what that legislation does -- patrick corvington, one year later, however you measure your progress, where are you? guest: great to be here. the served america act was an extraordinary opportunity for service. it helps service focus on key priorities, education, health,

clean energy, veterans, and opportunity. the important thing about the serve america act it is, including providing for the country, in addition to helping us focus on critical issues, it also creates money for banks. we know that nonprofits, when they get volunteers, sometimes, they do not know how to use them. the volunteer generation fund provides money so that nonprofits can better manage volunteers, ensure that they are getting the right experience and will want to volunteer again in the future. many community-based organizations are suffering in this economy. and they need to board to ensure

that they are well managed. nonprofits help to build their ability to do that. so we have a host of new funding streams providing support to the non-profit sector, to national service, and helping volunteers make a difference. to your question, this past april, we were funded in december. the big push was getting the money on the streets. host: $1.1 billion for 2010. the president has asked for $1.4 billion for 2011. guest: that is right. we are happy to say that all of our funding opportunity notices have gone out and we are expecting a applications, community partners and others so that we can begin work. host: of that, how much has gone

out? guest: we do about $700 million of grants every year. for 2010, most of that money is already out. host: $785 million that you have put up for volunteerism. is the rest for administrative costs to run your organization? guest: we actually run various programs. we have a program consisting of five campuses throughout the country where young people come together to live on campus and provide from mine disaster management work. they were first on the ground in the katrina. some are still in new orleans. they are supporting the recovery from the floods in iowa. might announce some of them are on the ground in rhode island.

-- right now, some of them are on the ground in rhode island. host: how many volunteers do you have? guest: about 88,000 right now. we expect to get to 100,000 next year. the thing to remember about these volunteers is, our americorps members, one of the principal roles they play is engaging other volunteers. so for each americorps member, they engage 30 volunteers. we think the return rate is pretty high. we helped to build capacity of the community-based organizations to engage more volunteers. we know that volunteers play a critical role in solving some of the country's most critical challenges. they have always been there mentoring kids, helping in the

community churches, wherever it is. our volunteers help engage others and bring in people through the door. host: the website for your group is nationalservice.gov. you are a government agency. why should the government be involved in volunteerism? guest: what is important to remember about our agency is we provide a certain amount of scale, the ability to engage more volunteers. one of the tougher questions that i get when i travel the country is people say, i want to make a difference in my community, what can i do? one of the hardest things to do it is to find an opportunity in. we have a.

we have a website at serve.gov, enter your zip code, and you can see volunteer opportunities in your community. also, maybe you want to build a community garden, maybe there is an issue that you want to tackle. you can enter your idea and then maybeyou can generate volunteers. host: is the amount of money increasing with the number of volunteers? guest: that is right. we expect contributions to go up to about $800 million. host: patrick corvington will be here until about 9:15 eastern time. we are talking about volunteerism. christina, go ahead. guestcaller: i am actually in

americorps alumni. what are you going to do to help recruit more people? i thought it was a great experience for me, better than college. guest: how diguest: hosthost: ho do this? why do you believe that it was more beneficial than college? hostcaller: i learned a lot of e skills, instead of from a book. i wanted to pursue something that was bigger than myself and i am not a military-type of person. i definitions like it better than working in corporate america. host: do you mind asking how much you were paid for that? caller: i was offered $140 a week, and i did receive two stipends, and that definitely

helped. host: how long did you do this for? caller: 11 months. host: what did you do? caller: i worked for a nonprofit mostly focused on the schools in south carolina. host: ok, we will go ahead with your question on recruiting. guest: thank you. always great to hear that you had a great experience. getting people engaged in is in critical thing of what we have to do. people want to be engaged, but we need to be talking about volunteerism. more than that, people want to make a difference. while people have been volunteering for years in episodic ways -- soup kitchen on the weekend, tutoring and a kid -- that is a critical component. americorps volunteers the bill

themselves full-time for 11 months to take on tough challenges. that is a strong commitment to make. we want everyone to have the opportunity to be able to do that. 11 months, $5,300 to help to go to college. i think we have to help people see the value in volunteering, help people see that they can make a concrete difference in people's lives. host: she said that she lived on food stamps. when you are trying to recruit people into this program, people might hear that and say that they do not want to live like that. were you surprised to hear that? guest: actually, yes. i will have to look into that. i do not think that is a prevalent situation, to be

honest, but i can look into it. host: she said she lived on $140 a week. guest: it is tough work. it requires commitment. being a volunteer in americorps requires a certain amount of commitment. reason that we have these small stipend is because it should not just the for middle-class kids. it should be for everyone who wants to serve their country. but the reality is, if you are going to volunteer full time, 40, 50 hours away, you have to live. you have to be able to pay bills, buy some food, and so this type and helps with that. but it takes commitment, it takes part. it takes a real commitment and service.

host: next phone call. caller: working for the government and volunteering are the opposite. if you are volunteering and doing as you please, then you are using your own ideas. the two are diametrically opposed. host: why is that important to you? why do you bring that point out? caller: i had a daughter in the peace corps, and it was wonderful. however, she spoke in a foreign language. when she came back, the colleges would give her no credit for that. host: what is different here between peace corps and americorps? guest: peace corps is international, americorps is domestic, but the idea is the

same. people have the opportunity to give back. she raises an interesting point, which is, while we are a federal agency, we work with community- based agencies. we do not drive the idea or work. communities get to decide how they use these volunteers. that is an important point. she is right, there is a difference from being a volunteer and working for the government. we are volunteers working on problems that the community decide. host: next phone call. kansas. independent line. caller: i am an rsvp senior director. i have not heard your just

mentioned the senior programs. they were the backbone of volunteer service for many years. with people losing so much money in their retirement right now, senior programs could be a real boost to help people have a bit more money to take care of their needs. host: the serb america act included a one-year fellowship for individuals 50 and older to serve in the community development. guest: thank you for your question. i apologize for not mention that earlier. it is one of my favorite programs. in gauging citizens is important. we are putting $22 million into engaging seniors. we talk about folks who are over

50, for example. those who are engaged in volunteering in their 70's, versus those in their 60's, those in their 50's -- they will want to have different experiences. we want to make sure that everyone gets an experience that matches their needs and that matches the community. host: are they paid for this service? guest: yes, the stipend is enough to cover the trouble. we are trying to eliminate those barriers. let us say my mother wants to volunteer. paying for her bus fare, a taxicab, those are the barriers that we want to get rid of. host: can you give us the average stipend? guest: i believe it is just

under $3 per hour. host: does this include a program that we just listed? guest: that is a new program. it does include the program. host: for seniors volunteering, about $222 million. is there one area of the country that is more prevalent in volunteering? guest: no, it is interesting. seniors have been some of our most consistent volunteers over the years. and they are engaged from a whole host of activities from working with kids, working with other seniors. soup kitchens, working with the elderly. host: dallas, texas. jared on the independent line.

caller: this is my first time calling. i want to make a comment and then ask a question. i read an article this morning where a reporter was arrested for exercising his first amendment right. i am not too sure what he said, but the fact that you can be arrested for asking a question about karl rove, i think that is deplorable. how does americorps the into defending constitutional principles? host: is there a link there? guest: i am not sure. host: what are some of the different programs that people can be involved in with americorps? guest: it is what you would expect. working with kids after school, building community gardens,

working with habitat for humanity, recovery efforts buildinrebuilding after a naturl disaster. it is with the community needs. the notion of volunteering and service is a quintessential american value. what we're trying to do in these complicated times is providing an opportunity to do that. host: california. joe on the republican line. caller: of want to keep this in general. are you going to perform on their core as a national security force with all the money that you are receiving? host: why do you feel it is going that way? caller: because of how much

money americorps has received in relation to other government programs. host: how much money does americorps received, and is this heading toward a military-type service? guest: military service is the highest form of service that people can engage in. we have asked for $488 million to grow our members to about 10 billion. host: that is how much more than 2010? guest: i think we have asked for $350 million. folks in americorps are in beijing in a host of activities. i did not quite make the connection that he was making. host: boston, you are next. caller: what he was trying to say was, adolph hitler did the same thing by indoctrinating the

youth. he used them to push communism and marxism, which is what obama is doing. this entire senate and house of democrats and republicans needs to be replaced in the next election because they refused to extend unemployment benefits past 99 days. host: we get your point. what about this as being a socialissocialist? guest: people have been engaged in volunteerism across all administrations. i think he has his own agenda with the president. the reality is getting engaged with one's community is a good thing. providing an opportunity for

folks to do that is a good thing. host: there are republican volunteer programs under your purview as well, meaning that they were started by republicans. guest: yes, we cannot think of them as a republican or democratic because they are community-decided. we have close relationships with faith-based organizations, military families. we cannot solve these types of problems as a democratic or republican idea. the serve america act was one of the most bipartisan bill ever passed. we have a board of directors that is bipartisan. this is truly an issue that gets support from all sides. host: spencer in washington. independent line. caller: some of the criticisms that i hear from these

volunteers and programs it is this this is a way to replace the labor that the government could not find. guest: that is a good question, but it is not the case. we cannot replace existing staff. in fact, when we see that happening, we stopped the program. it is clear they are building extra capacity for positions who can afford to hire more staff. host: the previous caller brought up the food stamp issue. you said that you would look into it. do you think that perhaps the stipend should go up, so that is

not the situation? guest: that is a tough question because it is volunteerism. we are trying to strike a fine balance between breaking down barriers to get people engaged and paying people to work. the spirit of the stipend is more about breaking down barriers. we have to walk that tightrope. every year we have this debate, frankly. we think about cost of living, adjusting it by community. the reality is, people who are committed to volunteering have found a way to make it work. in some extreme cases, as the one that we discussed, it is less than ideal, but we are working on it. host: mary from california. republican line. caller: i have a comment and a question which i know when not be answered.

they are calling this a corporation. he is the ceo. what is your salary? also, the fact that he uses the word community all the time, this is another baby of obama. another way of pouring billions of dollars into his community. guest: well, first of all, many presidents and community leaders talk about community. this is a way to get people engaged in their community on a regular basis th. the fact that people are disturbed by that is strange to me. i think it speaks to the mood of some folks, that people have the

trouble of seeing the benefit of folks being engaged. whether it is in urban areas, rural areas, people coming together to make a difference is a good thing. host: she asked you about how much you are paid. do you care to answer the question? guest: that is a private matter, but my pay is public, as a government employee. it is on the opm website. she is welcome to go to that. host: anderson, south carolina. luther, go ahead. .

anything to promote that, we should do. guest: i am happy to hear that. i believe in free enterprise, as well. and people are engaged in a particular kind of free enterprise. there are people deciding around them, and this is going toward solutions. host: there is a special innovation fund which got $50 million this year. what is it? guest: the fund was designed to

sort through the most interesting solutions today. it is requiring a 4-1 match from philanthropy, the private sector, communities. we are going to tip the group from intermediaries who will find the best of sometimes new, sometimes old projects. host: there is also summer of service. guest: that is a program that engages disadvantaged youth in service learning, using service as a way of giving back, of learning about the community. host: how old are the volunteers?

guest: i believe middle school to high school. caller: good morning. there are so many people retiring nowadays, the baby boomers or whatever they are called, and i am retired. couldn't they use a pool of us and ex-military people? to make up a civil defense type of organization. guest: great question. in fact, our seniors, our baby boomers are some of our biggest volunteer pools. i encourage him to see the different programs available and how he can be engaged.

boomers want to be engaged in their commnuities. sometimes it's about after years in the private sector, switching tracks a little bit, finding a way to get engaged. we think it's a great opportunity, so the most we can get folks engaged, the better. host: who has jurisdiction over your commission? guest: the health committee. we've been working closely with them on the budget, and as we approach the summer, i'll be engaged with them and with the appropriations committee to

discuss the budget. host: next phone call. caller: the definition of volunteerism is to give to your community without expectation of being compensated. i don't have a problem with this if it is pertinent, but you are spending billions of dollars on promoting volunteering. i've seen the commercials where they were giving volunteers a free ticket to disneyland or something. host: dr. corvington? guest: we are not giving billions of dollars to

volunteering. we're trying to break it down to make sure there is an opportunity. as for the disneyland example, you know, corporations have been one of our greatest parker's -- partners, who and we think it is great, finding ways to get people engaged together is a great thing. host: the budget is 1.1 billion for this year, and for 2011, the president has asked for $1.4 billion spread across four different programs. guest: there is the local program, mr. krebs problem -- programs of major cramps were

volunteers. our senior program, and our national civilian community corps, which is in the frontlines of disaster relief. finally, we have service learning, engaging k-12 in using service as part of education . caller: when i see people on television, i try to remember that they are being looked at in front of the whole country, whether i agree or disagree. having said that, i was offended by one thing you said. he said military service was the highest service to the country,

and you need to reinvent that if you are in charge of the volunteer programs. i do not think you understand what other people go through. the military puts their lives of the wind, i have good news for you, lots of other people put their lives on the line. i am one of those people. i believe we're in an immoral and unjust war. guest: yes, service to the country is what is important, whether it is in the military or in communities. caller: specific to seniorcorps rsvp, what does the program hope to realize from federal grants starting in 2013?

guest: quick context on that. in our seniorcorps programs, folks that were grantees in the first round still are grantees today, getting the same money, or more. so one experiment is to inject some competition. the notion that people have been received grants over the years does not mean they compete. we want to provide the opportunity for new programs to compete for those grants. we think competition is a good thing, so the notion that we would allow folks to compete for funds is a good thing.

caller: hi, i am having a problem with the definition of volunteer. i do appreciate the military, but it's not volunteer on any other basis in that we don't have a draft right now. it is a paid position. there are career military personnel. volunteering should not be a paid incentive, and that's what i have a problem with in these programs. what i hold on to is that it needs to come from the heart. i work so i can volunteer. i have a job so i can volunteer. guest: i agree that volunteering

should come from the heart, and i appreciate your service. we want to make sure that people are finding ways to get engaged, building this ethic of service. host: laurie. go ahead. caller: one quick question. i don't understand how come [inaudible] a couple callers referred to the hitler youth and americorps. when americorps started, it

wasn't about hitler's youth. host: let's talk about the history of americorps. guest: it started under clinton in the early-90's. americorps in particular was created in 1993, and the notion was folks wanted to serve, so the notion of creating a program like the peace corps in which people could engage in part-time or full-time service was the idea. host: dr. patrick corvington. thank you for being here. when we return, ken vogel is here to talk about fundraising.

first, an update. >> "discovery" is finally home after weather concerns waved off the first attempt this morning in florida. ending the 15-day international space station mission. beleagued goldman sachs said earnings were 3.3 billion dollars as they face a civil fraud charge. dorothy hite has died at a washington d.c. hospital at age 98. she wa a leading woman in the 60's orchestrating the civil

rights movement. you can see her at c-span.org. click on the "video library" link. finally, are school lunches a national security threat > a study by the group mission readiness finds school lunches are making children so fat, few can meet recruitment standards, putting recruitment in jea par -- jeopardy. >> live at 11:00, the house financial services commitee looks into the bankruptcy of lehman brothers.

guests include former lehman executives. host: ken vogel of politico is here, talking about fundraising in 2010. the most money raised for the 2010 campaigns was massachussets, pennsylvania and arlen specter, florida, nevada, connecticut, and then on the house side, south carolina's 2nd district, pennsylvania's 12th district, minnesota's 6th district, ohio and forida at

about $$4 million. where are we headed for 2010? guest: towards a super-expensive election cycle, not only because it's getting more expensive to compete for senate in these states with larger media markets, but also because we're going to see unprecedented spending by outside groups, particularly corporations facilitated by the decision in january, citizens united vs. the federal election commission, where decades of rules were struck down prohibiting ads that explicitly support candidates,

and they are already seeing 527 groups gear up for extremely expensive, aggressive campaigns outside the direct fundraising we see here. so they are trying to answer some of the negative attack ads from outside groups. really a combination of factors, competetive election cycle, the first election of a president is going to be competitive and expensive. republicans are gearing up for what they think will be significant gains, combined with the supreme court decision and

escalation will make for a very expensive 2010. host: an overview from opensecrets.org about fundraising. cash on hand with democrats is about $222 million. $128 million spent, $172 million cash on hand. democrats have raised 141 million and have $116 million cash on hand. republicans have about the sa me amount of cash on hand. what is going on?

guest: but democrats have long had an advantage in cash on hand. we are seeing republicans cut into that. it is not a whole lot, but it demonstrates that there is something close to parity in the fundraising. i think that is surprising, given that the factors seem to be a lightning for republicans to be more energized and take more advantage this election cycle, and yet democrats come up with the most part, including the national committee, they have traditionally out-raised the democratic committee. they point to some of the problems that michael steele has had and the republican national committee has had under his tenure for dissuading a large

donors that make up an inordinate share of the fund- raising from giving as much as they might otherwise be doing to the republican national committee. there are outside measures to take up the slack, including the governors' association, which is mostly what we're dealing with here talking about fund-raising in the first quarter, as well as outside efforts to compete a little bit with the rnc for fundraising and trying to be the campaign arm of republicans, including a push by karl rove and well-connected operatives in washington d.c. called american crossroads. these are things to watch. the first quarter tends to be

important, so there are initial preliminary judgments to make, including a good job keeping up with republicans, except with a few key races that are among the most expensive, and we see republicans out-raising democrats in these races. florida, marco rubio, republican superstar, tea party, raised 3.5 million. scott brown did well for an unknown candidate that beat a well-known democrat. ohio, portland, illinois, there are senate races where we are

seeing republicans put distance between themselves and democratic opponents. host: with an independent, what happens to money raised from republicans question marks -- from republicans? guest: with arlen specter, there were calls his donors made to him as part of a conservative campaign organized by a prominent d.c. political group that reached out to reporters -- donors and said he, hey, you should request a refund from arlen specter. the trust is broken. arlen specter did volunteer, setting himself up for the situation. anyone who wants their money back, i will give it to them.

he could start a campaign, and it was substantial. the amount he ended up the funding, there was no obligation to do that legal or otherwise, but you might face calls to return some of the money. so the money was a very, aggressive fundraiser, largely drawing on some of rubio's tea party appeal, he has managed to raise money from out of state to out-raised charlie crist, but if he runs as an independent that could create some news. it could be seen as a drop from rubio in the general election. host: i know you have written

about the tea party. are they raising money? an organized effort? or are they giving money. guest: certainly they are giving. they have some semblance of structure, which is rare in the tea party, because this is a grass-roots movement that has not taken kindly to efforts to coopt, raised money, capitalize on things. there are groups that have emerged, with very substantial sums of moneywe wer -- money. scott brown's success, those were tea party folks. one group, out of sacremento,

weighed in in the 2008 campaign on behalf of senator mccain and palin against barack obama, called "our country deserves better." then they tacked on "tea party express." they run those bus tours you see. they raised $1.6 million in the first quarter, nothing to sniff at, and they are using it both to fund the pac and direct money to consultants, but also to independent campaigns including scott brown's, where they started at a big expenditure against bart stupak,

seen as key to passing the overhaul of health care, and he subsequently retired. they took credit for the retirement. they are throwing around money in a way we don't normally see among tea party groups. host: we saw a new pew survey that only 1 in 5 americans trust their government. if that's the case, are individuals giving to campaigns? what type of person? guest: it is always a small universe of people who have the incumbent -- income and interest.

some of these positions seem wilder than any recent election cycle. when you add it up across the board, where we see a shift in that is an uptick in interest because of anger but the administration or government, or the economy tanking, as we see now. it is counterintuitive to think that you will see more people giving to campaigns in economic struggle, but you have to activate your base and have something to light the fire under them. in this case, even as we see them showing signs of coming out of it, showing signs of life, as well as the fact that democrats

control both chambers of commerce and the right lighthouse -- white house, that seems to bode well. nonetheless, is a small universe of people who are giving. that is the tea party with republican operatives in washington. they are mobilizing for campaigns and working on a different way to get them to do that. we saw that in the obama campaign where he got people to give some of money to his campaign. republicans would be lucky if they were able to take that energy that we see right now into a surge.

host: $20,000 to any national party a year, $2,400 to any candidate. election, and $5,000 to any political action committee or party locally. >> do you think this will be funded back into the democratic campaign? guest: unions, as well as corporations, are going to have unprecedented flexibility. they were previously limited in terms of what they could communicate with and how to communicate. most of those art general funds.

they had to use that. now, the supreme court decision allowed saddam to use that money to communicate door-to- door -- allowed them to use that money to communicate door-to- door. that could make a difference as they have more cash and money to go round. i'm not sure that was the case, they may have an uptick in dues, but i think ed is a little bit extrapolated. -- i think that is a little bit extrapolated. host: you can see the national

rifle association, the national association of realtors. democratic line, go ahead. caller: i looked at the massachusetts race -- host: sorry, caller. i pushed the wrong button. call back. next caller. caller: i have a comment. i hate lies and i hate fraud. we have seen a lot of it. is it against the law for fox and their contributors to raise

money for the republican party? guest: it's actually not. that's an interesting line of inquiry we have seen, pushed by mediamatters, a left-wing watchdog who have raised concerns about fundraising, pac's maintained by fox contributors like newt gingrich or sarah palin who have contracts with fox to provide commentary, but who are active still in politics, raising money. the most cynical of us might say to position themselves for their own races. there's really nothing in federal election or

communications law that would prohibit this. also, a lot of people like to assert more airtime for one side than the other, but rules that would prohibit that, ostensibly, this equal time doctrine, only apply to broadcast television, not cable, the idea being the public owns the public airwaves that the networks borrow, and therefore they are prohibited from backing a particular candidate. we saw this with fred thompson's run in 2008. folks said he was on "law and order" so nbc should be prohibited from running reruns

or live shows. there were concerns raised that nbnc should not air reruns of "law and order" because that would violate the equal time doctrine. they decided nonetheless to voluntarily not air them. other networks, cable networks that do have contracts or syndication agreements were not similarly obliged and laughed off some of these concerns, because they said the equal time doctrine did not apply to them. interesting backstory, there. host: kansas city, missouri. democratic line. good morning, karen.

caller: one thing i have a problem with is i see tea partiers, as far as they want to target democrats, i think it should be fair to -- someone like senator mccain, why should we vote him in again? we should be fair, target everybody. if they're democrats and republicans on this, ever since they've been in office the last 8 years. that's who should be getting up out of there. i say, get rid of all of them. host: two headlines this morning i want to share. here's "usa today." frustrated voters cut ties,

shift to unaffiliated may shape the midterms. more people are saying they are independent. "usa today." and the "wall street journal," bid to reclaim senate. they say that brown is on a roll, and polls favor republicans in many states. but jim demint is endorsing gop challengers across the country, supporting his conservative fund to push candidates in florida, california, and colorado. any idea of the fundraising efforts between these two?

guest: there's no way it could compete overall in terms of fundraising or influencing races writ large. however, because demint is targeting taxgiving in which there is a more moderate candidate, sometimes a candidate backed by the main street, including senator cornin, using his funds to further challenge a more moderate candidate, including in florida. so we see demint's efforts or folks like him, ideologically simpatico with him, have an impact. the committee and john cornyn

helped out the idea they were supporting charlie crist, the moderate governor of florida, against marco rubio. moreover, he had rhetorical support, urging his own backers to support marco rubio. that helped rubio to the point where cornyn is urging crist to get out of the race. so we do see a battle, and this is a good point we hear voiced from tea party activists and others, that the anti-incumbent tide and sentiment is not limited to democrats.

it's also republicans. john mccain is despised by the tea party movement, and there are several candidates challenging his nomination in arizona, seeking to tap in to anti-incumbent energy. however, mccain has significant fundraising energy. host: susan, independ lin -- independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. it says between 3 feet and 5 feet of rainfall where i live. i'm going through a remodification, trying to remodify my home loan and live in it. but to find out in these past

elections from 2000, our votes were stolen, but big pharma -- anheuser-busch, i guess, also pays the way. but we have tabaroff, i.p. author for the ipa, but suddenly he is writing legislation? minorities, i.e. women, are trying to maintain their homes. host: susan, what is your point? caller: people are always trying to figure out a timeline. it was in 1995 that the states backed it. again, it is about pharma to blame. host: what is the latest on

corporations? guest: it is unclear. democrats, and at least one republican, are scrambling to pass legislation that would dial back some of the predicted effects of this supreme court decision, so it is not clear as to whether they will pass anything in time to impact spending heading into the 2010 elections. perhaps they could get something implemented in time for the 2012 election. but there are a number of trade associations devising plans to take advantage of this new flexibility. i think we will see it most acutely, and increased spending

will be from trade associations like the chamber of commerce, and vague and ambiguous names, the association for better choices, the american enterprise fund for new energy -- i just made those two up. and lastly, groups with specific policy interests who seek a newly-targeted way, with the ability to be more aggressive and supporting or opposing candidates who they believe want to follow them and their goals, or are supportive of them. it remains unclear. we're going to have to pay attention.

thre's -- there's also a question of what will be required to be reported by the federal election commission. that's one thing advocates are seeking to address in pushing legislation, trying to close loopholes. i have to point out that advocates on either side of the issue say the decision is a victory for free speech and those who have rights impinged are trying to establish themselves. obama sees the spending as having a deleterious effect on the economy, drowning out the voices of voters and influencing elections in a way that could be

misleading. and it is probably expected at this point to favor republicans, because corporations tend to have more to invest in the political process and have favored republicans. in this cycle, where you have congress pushing far-reaching initiatives, including a clampdown on wall street and the financial services industry, they have a target on their back, so corporations have more ammunition for their target. host: one republican from delaware has become the only republican to sign a bill by

obama and democrats protesting the supreme court decision. scores of seats within their grasp, repubilca -- republicans are turning up the heat on corporations and private entities to win the elections. caller: a comment and a question. i wonder if you had read an article in the "american thinker" that looked at the campaign of a man who ran for governor of california against schwarzenegger, and i learned there was an independent group called "californian's for a better government," that sieu

were allowed to raise 23 million dollars for that candidate as long as their was no coordination between the union and campaign. there were meetings where officials were seen coordinating with the campaign, and nothing was done. so there is a loophole. host: ken vogel? guest: i.e. is independ exp -- independent expenditure, where you have political action committees of unions and interest groups being able to air ads of unlimited amount that mention candidates, and in some cases, in some states, these

expenditures are even allowed to explicitly support or oppose candidates. at the state level, the campaigns themselves, the diea -- idea being if they are coordinated, it becomes a de facto contribution, and of course corporations and unions are federally prohibited from direct contribution. so if they could air a 23 million dollar expenditure, it would be coordination.

so something that echoes the message without crossing the line into coordinating with the candidate. that's one area we see an appetite for increased regulation where advocates say, hey, one way to prohibit this new spending from having a significant impact is to toughen coordination rules so not only do candidates not talk with each other, they can't even use the same words or messages. so that would be problematic in that it would allow groups to say, "hey, this violates our freedom of speech.

all wew an -- we want is to weigh in here." host: eric cantor is now endorsing rubio over crist. what is going on? guest: we are seeing a rising tide of support for rubio, and it will become increasingly untenable for crist. he may drop out and run nidependent, or drop out entirely. many groups had already thrown in with rubio over crist, but this is yet another indication that it is not just the tea party movement, and the real

conservatives throwing in with rubio, it is everyone. you have the washington d.c. republican establishment deciding that rubio is their chance for success. and mitt romney met criticism. he recently also endorsed rubio over crist, and people said, "hey, you are late to the game here. the lines have been drawn." but the battle lines are drawn with even the establishment on rubio's side and fewer and fewer supporting crist. host: "crist considers bolting from the party and running as an independent.

he trails rubio by double- digits, but polls suggest crist could win as an independent in a 3-way race." florida, go ahead. caller: greta, i watch you all the time. i have two statements. host: make it quick, mary. caller: yes, i will. regarding meeks, everyone keeps forgetting about meeks. one lady said yesterday that democrats need to vote for meeks. i'm going to be there. i'm going to vote for meeks. but see how republicans push everyone out, getting this rubio guy in there, the tea party. you're fooling yourself if you

think rubio will win, but that's another story. guest: as far as meek goes, he's a fromi -- formidable candidate, a state trooper, an african american who can rally votes back there. and you have a race between meeks, rubio, and crist, it would seem to look good for meeks, because you would have crist and rubio duking it out for conservative votes. host: winston-salem, north

carolina. larry, independent line. good morning. caller: one quick comment. a lot of people in this nation have forgotten we're a republic, not a two-party system or otherwise. this is the first time i've done this in my life, i hate what is happening to our nation. it's being torn asunder. i am sick of it. these people who go to "tea parties," they love the country, they are getting fed up with not who is in the white house, but fed up with the foulness and stench coming from all the money wasted on stupid things. to begin with, when i turned on my tv, you were talking about

campaign finance money. host: ken vogel? guest: foreign money is prohibited. there were news stories about foreign contributions to obaa. the obama campaign went through it's rather extensive filings and flagged and returned every one of them. as recently of -- as last year, we were still seeing the obama campaign return donations. it's not unusual to refuse or return donations, including foreign nationals, a donor gave more than allowed, or it was from a corporate structure,

also prohibited. an infusion of foreign nmoney could come from the campaign, the allowing for television ads supporting candidates. chuck schumer and chris van hollen are seeking to address in legislation closing some of these loopholes from the supreme court decision. host: 2012, your story, gingrich raises 2.7 million for a possible run in 2012. and democrats raise cash for 2012.

guest: potentially, if some lawmakers want to run for president, they could transfer money to a nascent presidential campaign. on the flip-side, you have republicans gearing up for a run, raising money into political action committees. many times you see leadership pac's like romney's paying

staffers who end up being staffers for presidential runs, and a lot of pac's, the main purpose of them, they do give money to other candidates, so that puts out chips they can collect if they decide to run in the future. gingrich's committee is different, a 527, not registered with the lection commcis -- election commission, so he can raise money, except for contributions. whereas mitt romney can give contributions to anything. in fact, he did get $52,000 to

the current governor of minnesota, tim pawlenty. sarah palin, same thing, $400,000. mike huckabee, former governor of arkansaw, $273,000. how you have to raise your eyebrows at that and say that is something to watch going into the campaign. -- mick huckabee, former governor of arkansas, $273,000. these are things you have to watch going into 2012. there is concern about inc endiary rhetoric on both sides,

and we've seen a concerted effort with leaders in the tea party movement in particular to clamp down, to self-police. i definitely see signs at these rallies that area -- are a little edgy. i saw one in searchlight, nevada, that said "exterminate the democrats in 2010." nonetheless, i do see far fewer of them, including this week in washington, d.c., i saw a rally, and a lot of the signs were more passe, but there was a sign of this inflammatory