>> if reducing consumption is a good idea, could you see the potential for a value added tax in this country? >> i know there has been a lot of talk lately about the value added tax. that has worked in some countries. it is something that would be novel for the united states.

before i start singing this makes sense or that makes sense, i want to get a better picture of our options. first, how can we reduce wasteful spending so we have a baseline of the core services, and then we decide how to pay for that, as opposed to figuring out how much money we can raise and not have to make tough choices on the spending side. host: that is what the president had to say. you can decide for yourself whether that is hinting at openness. some people are seeing that for sure. here is page two of "the new york post" this morning. let me show you some other references in this morning's newspapers. in "usa today" on the forum, it is about the vat tax.

this should be a last resort, not a first option. in "the washington times" -- this is a reference to the april 15 senate revelatioresolution tt senator mccain introduced. there is some of the discussion about it. let's get to yours, beginning with a call from buffalo. this is jim on line for republicans. caller: enough with the taxes. cut the spending if you need to spend money, but, please, no more taxes.

host: cliff line for democrats. caller: i agree with the previous caller. the last thing people need is another tax. the health care bill is a massive tax. vat tax on top of that is ridiculous. the american people have been raped and pillaged for the last 10 years. enough is enough. host: thank you for your call. let me tell you more from wiki pedia as a resource on the value added tax. the vat is similar to a sales tax. maurice laure was the first

to introduce it in 1954. in france, is the most important source of state financing. i also want to tell you, in some places in the world, the vat tax is as high as 16%. in canada, 5%. all of these countries already have the tax. there's one state that has a variation. denmark has 25%. in the united states, most aids have a retail sales tax only charged to the end buyer -- most states have a retail tax only charged to the end the buyer.

is there people from michigan who would like to add to the discussion, we would like to hear from you. michael, independent line. caller: i agree with the other callers. the already take 30% of your income. they take 25% of any money you invest. we already pay sales tax. you lose about 3% per year because the government prints money on inflation. on top of that, they borrow more money. it's not like they are not going to raise taxes in the future because they have to raise money. if you continue to charge businesses more, the only person who's paying for it is the end user. host: how concerned are you about the federal debt? caller: i think it is a big problem. i work for a hedge fund. i'm extremely worried about it. if you look at greece and new

york, and california obviously has their own problems -- without defaulting on debt, the only thing the federal government can do is to borrow money to the point where they have to print money, and they make are dollars completely worthless. host: is not inflation, how do they addressed the debt? caller: they have to not spend as much money. politicians got elected on the free lunch idea. host: now we are in a circular argument. caller: we end up defaulting on the obligations and the states turn to the federal government, at which point the federal government gives them money. at one point some of among market will tell the federal government -- you cannot do this anymore and rates will go up. caller: since you're in the

hedge fund business, what do you think about the debate over regulation in the financial markets in washington? caller: i think it is a great idea. you cannot have public companies, which have shareholders, go out and take as much risk as they have. that allows them to get too big. they go out and they do trades and cds trades and derivative trades that are larger than they should be able to do. the risk management is absolutely ridiculous. it does not matter if they fail or not because they are shareholders. they do not have enough skin in the game. if the company i work for blows up, there are a few rich people that will lose money and that is it. we are not systemic. host: thank you. later on, we will be joined from reporters from two of the top newspapers in the country, "the new york times" and "the wall street journal."

let's go to our next caller as we talk about the vat tax. is it time for the usa to have a vat tax? scott on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: i'm kind of ambivalence. if you concealed the people on the lower end of the economic spectrum, such as carving exemptions for food and medicine and such, i would have no problem with that. personally, in terms of trying to come up with revenue to make up the debt, a lot of these people who are now complaining about the dead were strangely silent from 2000 to 2008. my solution, if i had the power, i would raise the top rate of personal income taxes to 51%. i would raise capital gains taxes 10% to 15%.

we are always expecting sacrifice from poor people. host: would you let viewers know where you fit in your own income spectrum? would be affected? caller: very much. host: scott takes the same position as bob beckel. in "usa today" he writes -- next is a call from seattle. this is john on the line for democrats. we're talking about the vat tax this morning. caller: i have been thinking about a value added tax for months. my wife and i are both doctors. she has been dead for five years. i'm now supporting two of my

daughters, in part, because they lost their jobs. with the money we made out of -- we have to sell the house when my wife was sick. i give 10% of miny social secury because i worked at boeing after i retired from practicing medicine. i have almost two thousand months in social security. i live alone. i'm doing my own housekeeping, much to my distress, and i would tax everything. i would tax food, drugs, but it would only be at 1%. it would be only to pay the debt.

that way, if you build a car, for instance, and you add 0.1% or 1% even, but i would start with 0.1% on this. the number of trillions of dollars of exchange that goes on in the united states -- we might be able to pay off $200 billion per year with 0.1%. you would have to get some of the economists who know how much the exchange of goods means in dollars for the entire united states. host: we will have to stop there. thank you for your call. we have another caller named john on the line for independents. good morning. caller: there have been some good suggestions made.

i would stay away from the vat tax for now. there are a lot of areas that could be cut. the first one would be defense. they could take off $200 billion as a starting point. keep in mind, also, with the health-care reform not going to affect for three or four years, the health insurance companies will gouge us. i do not think it is a great idea now, but the .25% for stock transactions would be a good idea. host: next up is another pennsylvania caller, tom, republican. good morning. caller: i just wanted to explain something.

when you explain the vat tax, you sort of oversimplified it. it adds taxes -- host: along every point of the manufacturing process. caller: i think you referred to it more as a sales tax. i wanted to clear that up. also, there's no way we can tax our way out of the debt. it is impossible to think that we can do that without crippling the economy. we need to look at programs that are either no longer needed or have never worked, which is, sadly, a large amount of public programs. another thing we can do to reduce taxes is to look at going

back to some kind of gold standard, which is a lot easier now than it was in the 1970's when we went off it due to the advancements in the internet. thank you. host: that is, from state college. just to be clear, here is a description of it from "the wall street journal." host: next telephone call is from annandale, va. on on the line for democrats. caller: i support the vat tax as a foreigner. most people, especially the earlier callers who only recite

what they hear on tv -- if you want to know how taxes are enough, if you're concerned about the debt, look at africa. value added tax is evenly -- nobody can evade taxes. if you call the irs and see how many millions of americans -- this is millions of dollars. value added tax is an even tax. any purchase that you make, it is already added to it. that even minimizes the federal taxes. the government has a way of bringing in some money and paying for the deficits that people cry of.

just like people who complain about services on the metro. the rose that you drive on and you complain -- the roads that you drive on and you complain, that is government. even social security, that is government. anything you tax has something to do with government. do not just call in and recite the things you hear on tv. value added tax, if you want to know how it works, look at africa. why africa is the pride -- so many people have not been able to pay taxes. host: in the places you have lived with the vat tax, is there also? an income? caller-- is there also an incom? caller: yes, i am from gonna.

it is not in debt likely united states. people forget where we come from. -host: thank you for your call. "the wall street journal" also reports on sandra 1levin. he was asked about the value added tax at the national press club. he said he wanted to take up a broad tax code overhaul starting in 2011, but added that the much discussed value added tax was "not on the agenda." he said a number of left- leaning economists said the vat

tax would be discussed. if you did not see the national press club speech, it is available on our c-span video library at c-span.org. is it time for the usa to institute a vat tax? next call is from rhode island on the line for independents. caller: thank you. i would like to list a few things that i would like to see eliminated. i think it would take the burden of taxation of the rank-and-file american citizens. that would include getting rid of the income tax, which is communist. the federal reserve, that's another communist thing. foreign aid, and the united nations international monetary fund, world trade organization,

and world bank. get rid of this is the called -- to rid of this idiocy called free trade. restore the tariffs on imports. we had a wonderful thing which capped a trade surplus in the united states -- which kept a very steady trade surplus in the united states. congress killed it in the middle of the 1970's. the trade surplus became a trade deficits. that trade deficit is now in the trillions of dollars. i think we need to get our priorities corrected and put an end to these things that really cost the united states -- now

our sovereignty. china has become a creditor nation. the united states is now a debtor nation. host: mike freeman sends us this tweet. those are his alternatives to a vat tax. next is a call from john on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with that position that says that if there is a small tax, it should be used exclusively for one purpose and one purpose only -- to pay off the debt. another place that i would like to see cut are government employees and their pensions.

that's a huge strain on our country. there would be no problem at hiring them at half what they're paid now, and have their pensions eliminated, and have them have to save for their old age like the rest of us. host: thank you. michael johnson sends us this. secretary paulson said $13 trillion in transactions per day is $8 trillion in revenue. next is mike on the line for independents. caller: before the team baggers get upset, i would like to say that taxes paid for the services that we enjoy. including c-span --

host: we sell our service to cable companies, just like cnn and msnbc. no taxation. caller: obama did say that he was going to consider the issue, not that he was going to implement the issue. again, he was going to consider the issue. we do enjoy services paid by taxes. there are many of these people who enjoy these services. i would like to know what services they would like cut. they do not want taxes. what services would they like cut? host: he talked about the white house reaction to the president's statement. after the interview, there was a

clarification from the white house. back to chuck battinbington at the associated press. host: there is reaction from the white house. next telephone call, david on the line for independents. caller: we live in a debt-back ed economy. 90% of our money is borrowed. if we borrow the principal, interest is never created. if we spend all the currency to pay off the debt, there would not be enough money in circulation to pay it off.

host: ok. thank you. more from paul volcker from "the wall street journal" on april 8. host: next is a call from alabama, will on the line for republicans. we're talking about the vat tax.

what do you have to say? caller: i say no to the vat tax. she cut the size of government, cut the spending, cut the salary, and cut the pensions. -- they should cut the size of government, cut the spending, cut the salaries, and cut the pensions. host: robert on the line for independentdemocrats. caller: thank you. i am for the administration getting everybody together, sitting down, and try to figure out what we can do to generate revenue. the idea of the value added tax , if that is a possibility, let's talk about it. we have to generate some revenue, or we have to do the hard choice of cutting spending.

social security and medicare -- we do not want to talk about that because that takes up a lot of our budget. we have some hard choices to make. i hope that all the republicans and democrats come together and sit down and have an educated and informed discussion about how we increase revenue and address some of these other issues. thank you. host: thank you. next call is from columbus, ohio. rachel on the line for independents. what do you think about the upheaval vat tax? caller: i think it is a good idea, but there needs to be something that protect the people. when we do pass the vat tax, the money needs to go straight to the deficit, and not anything else. the government has a bad habit of taking money in and changing the way the money is spent five years later.

if we put it directly towards what we say it is going for, then and protect the people and makes sure the deficit does get paid. host: yesterday in committee, senator chuck grassley voted for a derivatives regulation package. here is the resulting story in "the denver post" this morning in 15 minutes, we will have two reporters this morning, one from new york and one from washington to talk about the financial reform. next telephone call is from pennsylvania. good morning to sam on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i am 70 years old. all my life, they have been putting taxes. i think i'm still paying taxes

on the civil war. i do not know any taxes that the government has put on that they have not taken off. even if they have the vat tax, i just see more taxes in the future. they threatened to cut my social security in half. if they take $500 of my social security, and they take $1,000 for the vat tax, what good is that? we have to be sensible. we have to drop down all our spending to we have to go back to basic american spending. that is going to hurt everybody, but we have to do it. we have to start eventually. we have to start taking our medicine. thank you. host: next is west virginia. this is debbie on the line for democrats, talking about the vat tax this morning. i can hear your television in the background. can you hit the mute?

caller: i'm sorry. yes, i live in west virginia. a vat tax -- we are taxed like crazy in west written yet. we pay a real estate tax, personal property tax, and we pay a tax to have a dog. if you have a business, there's a tax for every city. we're taxed to death. plus, the sales tax. ananother tax will kill us. the last thing we need is another tax. host: if they created one that exempted food and other must have services, would that change your mind? caller: i think there's a better solution to the deficit.

first, i think the first thing we need to do is welfare reform. these people who are on welfare do not work and they just have another kid so they can collect more money. it would probably make a huge difference in the national deficit. host: 4 "the houston chronicle" the oil rig explosion is front- page news. later on in the program, we will talk to the lead republican on the house energy committee and ask him if he agrees with "the wall street journal" front page story that suggest that the oil rigs may change the debate in this country over offshore drilling. the next phone call as we talk about the vat tax is john in georgia -- excuse me, joan, you

are on the air. caller: when you add in all the legal -- all the legillegals, green cards, visa -- they do not pay american taxes, but they're also receiving federal benefits. if they had to pay the vat tax, just think about the billions of dollars we would get in five years. host: next up is a call from detroit, michigan. this is paul. you are on the air. we learned earlier that michigan has a business person of this that it instituted in the last decade. do you have any experience with it? caller: i have never supported

any tax from the time i started voting at age 18. i have never supported any type of tax. if you continue to pay taxes, if we did the same thing in this appropriation that the government has been doing, we wen-- i do favor taxing the corporations and the house and the senators. also, i believe that in order for us to stop all this, we need to go to the federal courts. we need to sue the government to stop this taxation. we need to go to our tribal tax court's. i would like to make a comment

in reference to the c-span accounting. i think it would be great to see more "washington journal" live. also, happy anniversary to c- span. i want to thank c-span radio, the coast, the colors, -- [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] -- the host, the callers, and the lawsuit -- i think it was a frivolous case. i think c-span should take action. thank you so much. host: i want to complete this story on the michigan single business tax. my reference is wikipedia.

the only state in the united states to have used a vat, adopted in 1975. next call is from ohio. this is thomas on the line for democrats. good morning to you. caller: good morning. we need to go back to savings bonds. $25 to $500,000, and have them mature every two years. invest in america savings bonds. this will probably eliminate all our taxes completely if we go

into this type of system. i am retired, but i lost my job on march 25. i have been to medical problems and workers' compensation, where they literally defrauded you. started my own business. host: how is that going for you? caller: cannot get a loan. i want to do custom cars and custom fits. the problem is getting money. the bottom line, u.s. bonds that invest in america, and have them mature every two years. host: thank you for your call. .

next is jason on the line for independents. caller: hello, susan. with everybody out of work, where is the money going to come from? host: what do you think of the idea in general, if economic times were a little bit better? caller: i do not care how good economic times are. i think higher taxes are always a bad idea. taxes only go one direction, up one. as you have a tax, they never go down. one -- to have a tax, they never go down. you cannot get a head. the people who have jobs, even if they get in the overtime, they tax them 44%. who agreed to that? i would much rather have that money in my pocket. any money being spent would

stimulate the economy, as opposed to going to the government. they constantly spend on programs. another caller mentioned that we cannot buy ourselves out of that. -- debt. raising the taxes has never solved the huge government spending problem that we have already have. host: with reference to earlier that on april 15, senator john mccain's resolution against the value added tax. the tally, according to j.d. foster, 85 senators stood with the american families and mr. mccain against the value added tax.

host: next is the call from montgomery county, maryland. frank, a republican, go ahead . caller: as a country, we need to think, what is a tax? what is the definition of a tax? a tax is a penalty on behavior. something like cigarettes, speeding, smoking -- you tax it and u get less of it -- and you get less of it. what exactly are we trying to tax? we're trying to tax sales in this country.

what affect would that have on the economy? it would hurt the whole economy. when we think about the united states, what do we stand for? i thought we were created to be different in europe, to be different than the europeans. when this president and this administration tried to change everything to make it look like the europeans, they will have no choice. we will have no where else to go to be free. it taxes a behavior which is productivity and sales. it will have a negative affect on the country. host: on twitter -- speaking of wall street, in 10 minutes, we'll be joined by

louise story, a business reporter for "the new york times" and kara scannell, "wall street journal" reporter. we will also be covering president obama's trip to new york city today to make a pitch on wall street on the need for financial reform. next, a call from naples, fla., denise on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. without taxes, we would not have libraries. the roads would be crumbling. we already have bridges that are crumbling. we need to have taxes for infrastructure. without the taxes, how will we

rectified this? without taxes, you do not have social openings like libraries. we have to have taxes for these things. thank you. host: thank you. bob on the line for independents. we are talking about the vat tax. join the discussion. caller: until the early 1930's, businesses and corporations supported all the government spending in this country. this country was founded on a tax revolution. today, we have reversed everything that the poorest people in the country have to pay the most taxes in reference to their income. ge made $18 billion in profits and paid zero in taxes.

it is the same thing with exxon mobil. the corporations and the wealthy in this country have shifted the burden of paying for our government and paying for services on to the middle class people and the poor people. this value added tax is terrible in another way in that it taxes taxes. as you add value to a product, you tax it. you sell it on the open market, and a certain percentage of those taxes are taxes on taxes. from my perspective, that has been illegal since the founding of the country. this value added tax, the flat tax, and all of those -- they slammed the middle and low

income people in favor of the wealthy. host: thank you for your call. chuck sends us this tweet. last comments on the vat tax. david on the line for republicans. caller: for everything the government wants to spend, every year, they should tax us to completely cover all the money they want to spend each fiscal year. that will balance the budget and very quickly put an end to all this ridiculous spending. that would take 90% to 95% of your money. people would march on washington and this would quickly come to an end. host: what about the debt that we already have? caller: everybody has to take a bite.

we have got to take their medicine on this. -- we have got to take our medicine on this. it will not be pretty, but we have done this to ourselves. we have allowed this. it comes down to week, the people, that have allowed this to happen. it's our fault. we have not been involved. we have been complacent with the free lunch attitude. as long as i get mine. like the census. i do not want anything from them. host: thank you for your participation to we will be back after a news update from c-span radio. we will get into the whole discussion about financial regulation. we will be right back with that. >> in some of the headlines,

coast guard rescuers are resuming the search in the gulf of mexico for 11 people still missing from the still burning oil rig that exploded off the coast of louisiana on tuesday. meanwhile, families and survivors of the blasts are having an emotional reunion after 100 workers arrived in court this morning. as you are hearing, president obama will be at ground zero of the economic meltdown today around noon to try to make a case for stronger government oversight of the financial industry. at a speech near wall street, president obama is expected to urge congress to quickly finish the financial regulatory reform bill. thousands of people are flying over europe today, but shifting winds have sent a new plume of ash over scandinavia. a project to conserve one of the

oldest rainforest is paying dividends in new species. some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. h>> at 10:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span 3, a senate hearing looks at the proposed budget for nasa. the head of the space agency will testify. at 3:00 p.m. eastern time, the second of three debates between britain's party leaders. this one will cover the topic of foreign policy. this year's parliamentary election season is the first to feature u.s. style televised debate. watch the broadcast live on c- span 3. >> i think there's a huge lack of knowledge about how this town works, how congress works. >> when you are doing the actual

research work, you have to do that yourself. >> this weekend, richard norton smith and douglas brinkley will talk about their work, their books, and their professions. they will revisit their first appearances on our net fowork. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on your screen right now is kara scannell, "wall street journal" reporter. i want to show you a headline from the daily news this morning. how important is the president's speech today to set the stage for the senate debate? guest: it is important because he is trying to get down to wall street and really speak to that constituency, speak to the people who doubt that there needs to be reform. he is really trying to rally the troops and get people on board. host: louise story, "new york times" business reporter is in

new york. what is the sense on the street today? guest: this reminds a lot of people of the number of speeches the president has made. right after he was elected, he called the wall street bonuses shameful. he has kind of moved in and out. often, it is very scathing. he was here on the one-year anniversary of the collapse of lehman brothers in september. at that time, he spoke about the need for financial reform. there's a feeling that he is coming back, and he will say his harsh words, but there's a lot of wariness in the industry, especially in light of the recent goldman sachs complete. host: there's so much to talk about. the real important part is to get to the telephone calls. here's how you join in by phone. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002.

independents, 202-628-0205. we also have our e-mail address, and you can send us a message on twitter. there are a lot of suggestions this morning and comments, especially from republicans, that the timing was politically motivated. guest: the sec came out with the lawsuit against goldman on friday. it was in the middle of the debate about what to do about derivatives. it was right in the middle of one of the final individual arguments about the bill before the senate takes it up. derivatives are a hot issue. the goldman complete its an area that is very complicated. a lot of people do not understand it. people feel there's not enough oversight of wall street.

what goldman is alleged to have done shows the shade near side of what everyone on wall street was doing. at the same time, the sec had another report from the inspector general that was slamming the agency's enforcement division's aggressiveness. this complaint was filed hours before that i.g. report was made public. that is what got republicans saying that this had to be politically motivated. host: it also went forward with a 3-2 vote. guest: that is unusual for enforcement cases of this magnitude. goldman sachs, until now, had been completely unscathed in the financial process. they had a record profit last year. the commission has slipped before, but often not on a high-

profile matter like this. host: what does the sec and the white house say? guest: they absolutely deny this. robert gibbs and president obama said they had no heads up. yesterday, the chairman of the sec said it was not politically motivated and no one was tipped off, not the committees, not the white house, not the. -- not the administration. host: louise story, let's take the goldman point of view. the financial times is reporting on the front page that the head of goldman is making telephone calls to clients to stem the damage to the firm's reputation. the stock price is down. as we just heard from kara scannell, they have reported record profits. what does goldman say in

response to these charges? goldman says there was adequate disclosure. emphasize that they have their clients' interests at heart. in the earnings call, they talked about how clients have faith in them. this is a court case. if there is not a settlement, this should be heard in court. the facts need to be brought out and examined. right now, there's a lot of spin. one thing you have to wonder is, the financial regulatory reform debate has been going on all year. it may last for many more months. do you not want the sec to bring cases during any of this debate? at any moment, you could bring up these accusations. there's very much a political

feel on all sides. goldman is talking to its clients, as well as many people in washington. they will be testifying in washington next week. the ceo will be testifying in senate. host: louise story, will you talk about that congressional inquiry? what is it looking at? what are the likely outcomes? guest: the senate committee has been looking at all kinds of things that contributed to the financial crisis. tomorrow they will hold a hearing on the rating agencies. the hearing next week on goldman is looking at the essential question of conflict of interest. did goldman not disclose things to its clients that it should have? did it have a conflict? these are very central questions for wall street coming out of the financial crisis.

years ago, there were only client focused. in recent years, they have taken more proprietary positions, and trading positions for their own books. some people feel there are legitimate questions if their own interest get in the way sometimes. host: kara scannell? guest: i think it will be very interesting if one of the people that the sec sued will actually show up. he is the one person who is charged. he basically handled both sides of the deal. he is apparently -- he had agreed to testify before the charges were filed. the big question, will he testify, or will he pull out at the last minute? host: last question. yesterday the agriculture committee reported derivatives

regulation with the vote of one republican senator, chuck grassley. kara scannell, what does this do for forward movement of the financial regulation process? guest: there's still a long way to go. have to reconcile it with the bill that dodd has. they will have to meet somewhere halfway. even grassley said it by no way guaranteed that he would vote overall for the financial regulation reform bill. host: louise story, what does the debate in washington look like with the advantage of your distance? guest: they're discussing things people in new york for talking about years ago. it seems like it takes a long time in washington for these topics to move through.

wall street has already kind of moved behind this. in a sense, there is this disconnect. in washington, is about reform feedback on wall street, is making profits. host: what is the response in washington? guest: congress always takes a little bit longer. the new york fed was ahead on the derivative issue in 2005. in some ways, wall street wants to make a profit. it will take a lot more muscle to force them to do things. they got somewhere from what then new york fed president timothy geithner was trying to do, but not to the extent necessary. host: let's get to your telephone calls and your questions. we begin with a call from ohio.

tom is calling on the line for democrats. caller: c-span is truly the pulse of the nation on "washington journal." i remember a quote, "just remember the money." everything that touched goldman sachs in one way or another -- and the panel's we had that have bernanke and paulson -- if perjury comes up, what kind of repercussions will we have if these guys lied outright about goldman? host: louise story. guest: there will be a lot of

scrutiny if these charges turn out to be correct. one of the questions we all have, will this be the only case brought on these sorts of investments? or will the sec bring more? if they do, people will certainly be asking what the sec, the fed, and the regulators knew about these deals. guest: i think it will be interesting to see how many additional cases there are. this case is narrowly focused on this one deal out of a number of deals. as far as i know, all the banks are looking very closely at their deals, making sure their disclosures were accurate, and looking for where they might have problems. as far as the administration officials go, there will of course the scrutiny. i'm sure there has already been scrutiny. congress has had a number of hearings.

if there is something, i think it will be some time before we get an answer to that. host: george on the independent line from jackson. .

let ms. but the questions and have for our guests. on the justice department, where are they? guest: they are investigating a number of companies, a.i.g., they are also looking at statements that lehman brothers officials made in the course of 2008 when the company was trying to raise money before it eventually filed for bankruptcy. unlike enron and worldcom, these cases are more difficult because there was more happening in the market at the time, more people doing the transactions and business was all in a part in ways that people did not anticipate. so it is hard to prove what was

bad judgment from what was a criminal offense. host: police story, where is christopher cox? guest: he is now working for a long effort in california. we have not been hearing a lot from him. certainly, people have questions about what he knew. as we look into more things, like the accounting tricks that a court examiner said that lehman brothers did, that would raise more questions for him. host: talking about the fine edge crisis and the response in washington to it. caller: i am wondering about investigating greenspan and his connection to this. all this is this a revolving

door from goldman sachs or j.p. morgan and then they become head of the fed or treasury secretary. working people will not have any money left. host: in recent weeks we have heard alan greenspan defends his record at the fed. are there any investigations going on about fed policy? guest: not any of sec investigations. that is more a dutchman that they made about housing, inflation. host: what is the new york city view of alan greenspan's tenure at the fed, louise story? guest: there are a lot of people who say that the low interest- rates field housing bubble.

others say that this also had to do with the influx of money coming in from china. people here are still very flat. however, there is not that hero worship that used to be for him. host: least story has an m.b.a. froin advertising. karen scannell has a degree in economics and journalism from ford and universally -- fordham university. this story is very complex. what is the most challenging thing, kara scannell, about getting your arms around this? guest: the structure itself was

hard. we know that there were other deals like this that were out there, but we do not know about what all of those people who participated new in what they did not know. it is about piecing it all together and how far it extends through wall street. guest: this market is incredibly opaque. i have had numerous days were i call around and i cannot get any information. part of it is, the data providers to track these things only get the information to investors. i have heard literally, you are not a sophisticated investor. with derivatives have there is no central party that tracks all of these deals.

agencies only have some of them, so we do not know how many synthetic cdo less were created, how many bilateral swaps were done. just getting your hands around these things is a challenge. and if we are having this kind of trouble working on it month after month, it speaks to the question of how regulators, the public, or anyone would have been able to see these problems, ahead of time. host: there is a description today in the papers about derivatives --

any reaction to that? guest: derivatives were pretty much under the radar. only in the 1990's were they being put together. back then, a credit default swaps were so small. it has only read it exploded in the past few years but nobody really understood how big it was. exactly what believes must same, who was -- louise was saying, who was involved? guest: i have to admit, i am not a "star trek" fan, so i cannot

really comment on that. some people say that part of the reason the market is so opaque is because it makes it easier for these profit spreads the easier to get in this area. host: another question that we are hearing is is there any analogous experience in canada or europe in terms of derivatives transparency or policy? guest: they have been non- transparent everywhere. they really started spreading in europe and many areas in europe before the u.s. certainly, eu regulators are taking a harder look at this. one thing they are looking at our capital rules are around derivatives.

those conversations will be interesting to see how they fleshed out. host: run on the democrat's line. caller: thank you for c-span, and thank you for these three intelligent women trying to get their hands around a complex question. it seems the problem we had in america is the profit center has moved from our farms, land, communities, to wall street, where it is one big casino. the people willing and dealing are doing so in the dark and we have a government that is on whether to regulate -- and women to regulate. where has the sec been for the last 10 years? is this new bill really going to

regulate derivatives, or is it that the service? guest: depending on the form that it is passed in, will put oversight on derivatives. the sec specifically card, any kind of derivatives through the modernization act in 2000. in that respect, they could only look for fraud. that is how the market was able to trade with abandon. this legislation would force derivatives through a clearing house that would require banks to have more and more margins set aside, have more cash on hand, so that they did not create the run that it did when they are called. there is discussion now on how big these loopholes are for these swap dealers. depending on that, people might

say, it did not go far enough, but there will be oversight that never existed before and it will be up to the regulators to implement it. host: louise story? guest: the bill is pushing for clearing, and there are many parties and there, including hedge funds, asset managers who are on the other side, and they would like to see this go further. they are managing money, often for pension funds, and feel that they need more transparency for pricing. host: elkton, maryland. george on the republican line. caller: i would like to see financial reform. but i would like to see it without any locals. -- loopholes.

i am not a financial persiaperst i understand goldman sachs, one of the things they're being accused of is betting that their deal will fail. how do financial firms benefit from this? host: louise story, could you briefly explain shorts? guest: this included a bundle of insurance policy that would pay out if certain mortgage policies with that. the people who bought it were essentially the insurers. they agreed to pay out some of these mortgage bonds when the day but that. the case says that goldman sachs led a party who was very negative on the bonds pay could be injured. the allegations are that it was

designed to fail because if these mortgage bonds were selected by someone who is very negative on the housing market, he selected ones that he thought would fail, and that information was not disclosed. it is all about your incentive, what you want when you are, but -- creating these complicated vehicles. host: at the end of the day, who one man who lost? guest: those who were positive on housing lost big. less than one year from when the deal was created, 99% of mortgage bonds have gone into default, a very dramatic figure. certainly, these mortgage bonds were pretty bad. host: we are focusing on the legislation in the senate. what about the house of legislation? -- representative? guest: the house passed a bill

in december, and that bill would require clearing througpassage a clearing house. basically like airlines who want to head for oil. they would allow them to have an exception from being forced upon to an exchange. it is similar to the senate bill. but there are still areas where they need to find a direct connection. host: i want you to think about this question. we have asked reporters about this in the past involved in this financial story. the question is, if you could get to one person in all of this to ask an important question, who would that be, and what is the question? think about that. we will get back to phone calls.

cleveland, ohio. dale. caller: a few things that people have talked about, where was the sec earlier, and when will they get enough t so that when someone -- teeth so that when someone lies and they are as rich as oil sheikhs, there is not much encouragement for them not to be criminals. also, the reform act of 2000 passed under the clinton administration and that changed the percentage of capitalization that companies had to have in order to buy these things, that is what

allowed this house of cards to be created. finally, if this is to be reformed, hopefully, it will be reform and not another aspect of our society being federalized. if you could comment on that. host: karen scannell -- kara scannell? guest: the sec's morale hit a low last year with the burning in the scandal breaking. it seemed as if there was more of a slowdown. -- bernie madoff scandal breaking. it seemed as if there was more of a slowdown.

the new sec chairman mary schapiro has taken a number of steps to take the handcuffs off enforcement, and they're trying to speed things up. but one of the criticisms of the sec is that they often take a long time to get things done. now they are trying to delegate more evenly through staff. we will have to see how it works out over time. host: louise story, comments on those remarks that wall street's tightened, and asking where the policy makers and washington were in all of this? guest: i think some of the reasons why people are focused on wall street is because they were the ones making the money. one of the most common things that i hear is, why has the money not been given back?

these banks had record bonuses paid out to executives as well as traders, based on revenues of mortgages that turned out not to be real. no money has been given that, and people are wondering why. host: grace sends us this twitter -- is there any discussion, kara scannell, over making derivatives and illegal? guest: there was discussion making those shorts illegal, but that was fought back.

if you cut away derivatives in the market, you take away the real need to hedge. we have learned from the last crisis that the risk was not laid off that well to begin with, but nobody is talking about making them illegal. it is about making sure that there is more money kept on the side to deal with potential problems. host: is the discussion the same about synthetic cdo las's? guest: these are the ones that do not include any actual mortgage bonds. they are simply derivatives, insurance policies. you can have one home in california, for instance, if there were no derivatives created from this, there would only be one mortgage bundle out there that would include the risk of this house, but when you

include these synthetics, you can create thousands which refer back to the same mortgage. so it exposes much more people to the upside or downside, if the person that owns the house gets in trouble. host: "the wall street journal" has just that story. individual houses at the very base of these complex financial processes. i wonder how many people would agree with one of these guys moving out of his home who says he bears no grudge against mr. paulson and goldman. guest: that is surprising but

funny because most homeowners have no idea what happened to their mortgage after they sign the paperwork. i give them credit for not being better about the experience, but i am sure that there are others who do not share that in view. host: jo said on the democrat's line. conn. -- joseph on the democrat's line. connecticut. caller: what key to financial firms from simply creating a different financial tool to get around the new regulations? the second part of the question is, risk is part of investment. by limiting risk, do you limit investment and the potential for financial gain? host: louise story?

guest: one of the things that people are focusing on are the accounting rules. there have already been a number of changes their including bringing a off-balance sheet from vehicles that banks originally hit, back on to the balance sheets. the question is, will they get around these rules? part of the question is if accounting rules stay up to speed. a lot of how they set up new creation is sort of going in between the holes in accounting rules. host: any perspective on the question? guest: on the accounting rules issue, there is still a broader debate whether the u.s. moved to more international rules. each accounting body has their own issues in keeping rules current, not letting people manufacturer around it. as they get closer together, it

gets harder for them to do that. host: how about the dust -- a philosophical question of risk compared to investment? if you limit risk, do you limit investment? guest: i think you would limit returns. people are always on the scale of how much risk their appetite has. but it is true, if you limit risk, it has implications down the road. indiana host:. brian on the independent line -- host: indiana. brian on the independent line. caller: brooksley morn, back in the 1980's, she had the strength and courage to take on alan greenspan.

she won. she was questioned by a panel and said that derivatives were a bad thing, they were so secretive, and she warned that the fed does something bad was going to happen in the 1990's. then in a few weeks, it came to pass. back then, alan greenspan, it has been said that he was not even interested in investigating fraud back then. since all this has happened, alan greenspan has been before congress and has admitted he was wrong. host: do you have a question?

caller: i am just frustrated with all of it. the government and corporations, all the rich people are connected. i do not care if it is republican or democrat. they are all crooked. whenever you talk on the right side about smaller government, be warned. that smaller government that they want would take away from the general population. we are already seeing crimes go up because of what is going on in the country. an example is the guy who ran his airplane into the irs building. host: at 9:15 eastern time, richard wald will be with us. it will be telling us about the his report on the rise of unaffiliated voters as a result of recent politics.

you nodded when he mentioned berkeley born -- brooksley born. guest: she was the former head of the cftc. in the late 1990's, she was part of the president's working group, and she was pushing and then while day, saying that they needed to regulate derivatives. it did not get very far within treasury. certainly, when it went in front of the banking committee, and then chaired by phil gramm, they did not have much appetite for it. that idea was essentially pushed aside. now she can take her victory lap.

host: more on this from twitter -- does the president have any influence in shutting her down directly? guest: i think it was more the administration itself. alan greenspan had no interest in regulating derivatives. he was a hard hurdle to get beyond in the debate. host: louise story, an answer to my question of any one person that you would like to interview? guest: yes, i would like to know how much money goldman sachs made from the mortgages, negative betts. they have spoken about the money that they have lost. in 2008, they took a $1.7 billion writedown on their

mortgage investments and pointed to this as evidence that they did not number the housing market was going. but i know many people that worked there who say that they also put that on the other side which made them profitable. of love to see their books to see how they'rir bets lay out or a multi-tier period. host: kara scannell? guest: i would like to speak to a group at the sec and know what they were doing and tied the board room with lehman brothers. they give us some and you into not being able to press firms into doing more. i would like to know what they knew about and what they fell about what they could and could not do. host: last phone call.

new jersey. richard on the republican line. caller: i think we need more practical solutions rather than ruminating about the details to the complicated problem, like this. the state that you made earlier, falling money, is most profound. we should already adapt what is being done. if people obtain a mortgage fraudulently, eventually, they are going to pay the piper because the bank will lien their home. and the irs does the same thing. if you defraud the same thing in taxes, they will clean your property. what i mean is these are disincentives to do that act.

rather than allowing these people cart launched -- carte blanche to do these things, we need to provide disincentives so that they do not do any of this. i think that is a practical solution, and i would like to hear more from your test and other members and a c-span community. host: we started by noting that the president would be on wall street today. the head of goldman and colleagues will be testifying before congress next week. legislation seems to be on the move. kara scannell, what should people be looking for in the coming weeks? guest: look for how the bill is

forming. it will come down to how many books they have. but the bill looks like in the last couple of weeks will be important. host: louise story? guest: it will be interesting to see if there is any new evidence that the senate committee brings out next week in the goldman sachs investigation. they have been doing their own investigation, so it will be interesting to see what kind of evidence and questions neighboring. host: thank you to louise story and kara scannell. both have done extensive research on the financial crisis. thank you both for being here this morning. we will be right back after the break. energy legislation is also on

the move in washington. the joe barton is the lead republican on the house energy committee. he will be here with his views on what he thinks the energy situation should be in the country. >> let's meet another winner of the studentcam documentary competition. we asked students to share their thoughts and create a video on one of the strength or challenges that the country is facing. today we have an eighth grader from t. c. williams high school in alexandria, virginia. andrea, thank you for being here. what was your view on this general before documentary? >> i thought there were certain things that a man or woman could do. my stepmother is a doctor and i could not get back into my head. she was a woman, she had to be a nurse.

when i was little, i found out there were stereotypes that we have to follow. >> when you found out about the competition, was this a natural topic to fit? >> yes, it was. it is important. stereotypes have always been in our society. i think a lot of people just accept them and go with them. i think it is important to know that people do not need to be limited by them. >> tell us about how you started the documentary with your peers, talking about gender roles. >> we are all teenagers. i wanted to do that because people grow up in different families, different cultures, but we all come together, and i wanted to see what stereotypes

they knew, what they learned from the media, tv. >> so what is media's influence on gender roles? >> it has a lot of influence. it does not matter how old you are. it is always guiding people to look a certain way or feel a certain way. >> in your video, you interviewed a female football player. what was that like? >> that was really fun and awesome. she is so feminine, but she is so enthusiastic about football. she was but insecure about at all. she was the only girl on the football team. she was confident and loved football. >> you've interviewed eight other. why did you choose to interview her? >> she is a neighbor of mine.

i wanted to know at what age media influence her. her parents did not tell her what to say. neither did i.. it was really interesting to see that she picked that up from toys, from what she watched on tv. >> what do you want viewers to take away from your video about gender roles? >> media will always be in our lives and will always influenced everyone. i am not trying to get rid of media. but despite media, i want people to know that they need to be happy with themselves. they should not be living by these categories to fit in. people should not be limited because of their gender or race or anything. >> as a second prize winner, you received $1,500. what are you going to do with the winnings? >> first, the girls are going to

get some ice cream. then i'm going to use some of the to go to film camp this summer. >> you have one more year of school left. what are your plans after high school? >> college, maybe grad school, and then hopefully a career in film. >> congratulations. here is a short clip from her documentary. >> toys, and they really say this is what you should be, this is what boys should be, what girls should be. >> if you were given a truck or a boy's toy, would you play with it? why not? >> boys don't play with them. >> to see the rest of the

winning videos, go to studentcam.org. host: on the screen now is texas republican joe barton, the leading republican on the energy and commerce committee. we were talking about the headline in the "houston chronicle" about the oil rig -- the 126 people, raging fire, multiple injuries. they are suggesting that the oil world has been jolted. some analysts fear that accident could damp the pace of oil development in the deepest reaches of the gulf. and, from a political perspective -- your comments on both? guest: first to extend to it,

yes, it was an accident. the oil industry focuses on safety. not that i go to oil rigs all that often, but for someone who has visited, they put you through some safety steps before you go. i am sure they are concerned about the families. trying to do everything they can to find out what caused in accident, prevent future accidents, and take care of those who were hurt. the reason these oil rigs are out there is because there are huge resources and it takes a bigger oil rigs and more people to do the exploration. i do not know the specifics of this platform, but it could have had 20, 30 producing wells. host: critics will say that accidents can happen as a reason

for their opposition. guest: you were talking about coming in at 4:30 this morning and having rush-hour traffic in the tunnel. accidents can happen anywhere there are people because of the pace of modern life. industry and the government need to do everything possible to minimize it, but the answer is not to shut down offshore drilling. we need those resources for society. host: "politico" is reporting on the agreements in the senate on energy legislation which will become the vehicle for discussion between the two bodies. this is gene cummings in an interview with lindsey graham. it reads --

let's use that as a launching pad to talk about the nuclear power idea in the u.s. guest: back in 2005, we authorized $50 billion for loan guarantees for a new nuclear power plant. the department of energy and president have given one loan guarantee for a project in georgia. they had about three others in the pipeline. when you look at our budget deficit situation, i am not sure that i would want to give an additional loan guarantees, at this point in time, until we have exhausted what we already have in the pipeline. host: why has the pace been slowed? guest: we have not built a new power plant in 30 years.

a lot of the components to manufacture have gone offshore. the nuclear regulatory commission is putting in a new inspection program and they do not have that protocol complete yet. it just takes a bit more time to get geared up for the next wave of power plants. i do think they will be coming. i believe it is in the interest of the country. host: back to "political" on offshore drilling -- "politico" on offshore drilling -- allowing states to share revenue from offshore drilling, is this a good idea? guest: i think so. the state that the shoreline is adjacent to, taxpayers in that

state should benefit from offshore program, even if it is in federal waters. host: the measure would put a price on carbon emissions to certain sectors, and one senator says that it is far more business friendly then the cap and trade system. guest: apparently, some have banned the use of the words cap and trade, but if it sounds like a duck,? like a duck, it is a duck. they have a cap and trade program in there. i spun myself. it is a climate change regulation bill. -- i smiled myself. and they have developments in the ocs to woo republican

senators basically, but it is pretty much a revision bill of the waxman bill. host: more in the article -- guest: i do not know what that means, to be honest. if you are putting a price on carbon, and i guess they are going to put a federal pre- emption standard that gives the government the right to preempt state. also make it explicit that co2 would be regulated by this bill and not a clean -- cleaning act -- clean air act law. the theory of global warming

being based on man made wilco2 s becoming more untenable every day. if this deabill is going to be unveiled next week, it is sort of the last gasp for environmentalists reading into a theory whose best days have come and gone. host: the 40th anniversary of earth day, you tend an op-ed piece called it is time to listen. guest: in the modern economy, we need to have and it energy environmental policy that obviously protect the environment, but also allows people to have jobs and a lifestyle that america has grown accustomed to. if global warming is the truth,

they have had 20 years to prove it. their models are no more effective today and even predicting the past than they were 20 years ago. host: on wind and solar power, and "politico" -- wind and energy proponents are asking for more federal money. guest: i support alternative energy. we authorized a lot of these incentives at the president is using. i am not anti-alternative energy. but there is a reason that you put alternative before the word energy, and that is because they

are still very expensive, in the case of solar. in the case of wind power, i do not think it is an emerging technology anymore. it still needs to these tax credits and incentives to really compete head-to-head with natural gas and coal-fired power plants. at some point in time, the alternative needs to drop and it just needs to be an energy resource. host: twitter is reacting pretty strongly to your comments about co2. could you tell us more about your science behind your theory? guest: first of all, we are all creating co2.

when we exhale, we create co2. if i was drinking a soda, that has co2 in it. co2 is odorless, tasteless, is not a carcinogen. the theory is, in the upper atmosphere, concentrations of co2 that are man made somehow alter the ability of the earth to filter sunlight and dissipate the heat back into the upper space -- outer space. they have not been able to prove that theory. they have tried mightily. the models that predict all of these cataclysmic things happening in the future in terms of temperatures are models. they are not empirical data. when you actually look at the temperature record, there are just as many places on earth

where the temperatures are going down where they are going up. so my position is, if you want to continue to do research to find out what the truth is, i am for that. if we want to find a way to get more energy with less input, i am for that. but i am not for something that is how draconian that will cost millions of americans their jobs and literally deindustrialize america. the bills in the house and senate -- we are told the house bill has an 85% reduction in co2 emissions by 2030. the senate has an 80% reduction. that would take us today co2 level par person that we last had in the late 1800's when people rode horses.

i do not think that is acceptable to the average american. host: first phone call from miami. manuel. caller: i have a comment and a question. i understand new oil rigs will be opening up off the coast. that will not be running for another 10 years. so in that time, what should be done to improve some of the other technologies? 10 years from now, they will be leaked ahead of where they are now. i think it would be a bad idea to invest 10 years into oil rigs and not into alternative technologies, including things like solar.

guest: we can do a lot domestically on shore. we have tremendous natural gas resources that we are finding in these shales in texas, pennsylvania, new york. they can be commercialized much more quickly. the reason it takes longer in ocs is because you have to have the exploratory wells, lease sales, and if there is a commercial reserve, you need to build the oil rig. it does take some time. but in the short term, we can use domestic onshore resources, especially natural gas. we continue to research the hydrogen economy. maybe that will become more commercial more quickly. we certainly hope so. and continue some of the efforts

in terms of energy conservation. host: palm springs, florida. drerek on the republican line. caller: it is pretty clear that 90% of scientists believe the exact opposite of your guest. for him to say that there is no science is an absolute lie and something that republicans and oil companies have been saying for some time the science is clear as a bell. secondly, you have a guest on that we need to make clear it is from texas, and joe biden has recognized him for most of his career as a spokesperson for the oil industry. he says we need to accept risk. that means we need to accept the risk of ruining our beaches, lungs, ruining our air and economy, so that companies, like

the coal company that killed 29 miners, can keep on making huge profits. i had the opportunity to talk to the u.s. president of shell oil a few years ago when gasoline was $4 and they were making the highest profits in their history. i asked why does profits could not be put into reducing the price at the pumps instead of the executive compensation and stock options. he did not have been entered. he said, we have to go. host: would you like to wrap up in the question, or would you like our best to respond? caller: my question is to you, will you have someone who is more credible? joe barton is paid by the energy industry. guest: first of all, with all

due respect, what i said it is not untrue. there are thousands of scientists who agree with me. there is mounting evidence, the biggest alarmists in the global warming debate have been misrepresenting their datasets. they have never released, to my knowledge, that after will model itself so that it can be independently verified -- actual model itself so that it can be independently verified. i do not have any problem continuing to investigate, trying to independently verify. certainly, i want to do things that makes sense in a cost- benefit way, in terms of

improving the energy economy. i just do not want to bet the future of the american worker on a theory that has yet to be proven. in terms of being a flak for the oil industry, i come from texas, on am proud of that, but i have a reputation in washington for being fair, open minded, even- handed. i just want an economy based on transparency and free-market principles where everyone in america has the opportunity to improve themselves, their family, and working collectively to improve the country. i think that is what made the country great in the past. if we continue those policies, we can continue to do so in the future. host: we will have more people with differing points of views

-- and i will not use the term that you did -- but we will have all sorts of attitude at a table. let me move to a twitter question -- guest: what we have not done is open up anwar, exploration in the outer continental shelf, which president obama now says he wants to do. probably the most of what we have done is in the natural gas area, these shales, hydraulic fracturing has opened up all of resources. we have spent a lot of money trying to research gasoline. that hydrogen program that president bush initiated has not

shown much fruit, but it has potential. while i am not a huge proponent of the ethanol, it is a domestic product. to the extent that you use more of it in the gasoline supply, it does reduce the need for foreign oil. the short answer, to be honest, our dependence has not declined significantly in the last 10 years. host: could you explain more about your ethanol position? guest: i support it as a blend fuel. i am skeptical, from an environmental standpoint, because it uses so much energy and create a lot of greenhouse gases. but i acknowledge because it is produced domestically by the farm community that there is some value to it. i think, over time, he would

have to reduce the subsidies for it. we have a quota, mandate, and tax credits. it is heavily subsidized and it is still not commercially viable without all that protection. host: the debate is about to get louder as the senate bill moved along. joe barton is you could talk about his energy policy. next phone call from detroit, michigan. jeff on the republican line. caller: just keep on doing what your doing, joe. we could have been pretty close to being self sustainable if the democrats and wackos had not been trying to stop us all this time through the 1970's for nuclear and in drilling for natural gas.

it makes me sick when i think about how they got their way. here we are now. my question to you it is, i have been out of work for a year and a half, and i have been studying this global warming situation. a lot of people do not know this, but everyone out there, crazy, hugging trees, if we maxed out our wind turbines and solar energy, in the areas where we can get the most out of them, that would run anywhere from 3% to 8% of our total use in the country for one year. there is not some big invention that will drop out of the sky

that is going to save us from this. we need oil, natural gas, nuclear, for decades to come. people need to get out of this ideology and start going back to practicality and common sense. guest: the caller is correct in reporting that we use one trillion btu's of energy a year in america. while alternatives are growing, it does not have the magnitude to handle all the energy that oil, gas, and coal do in the economy. he is right about that. i am totally in agreement with his basic premise. but i do want to point out that i do not think environmentalists are wackos. i think they have a legitimate interest in protecting our planet. i just think we need to have a

more balanced approach in protecting the jobs of our american workers as we also try to protect the environment. host: you attended texas a&m university. you also have a master's in science from purdue university. .

caller: and they think no make revenue of marijuana. -- they think they will make revenue off of marijuana. one question, obama is looking at just exploring, is that right? guest: he has announced that he is interested in exploratory.

he is at least developing that is something that needs to be looked into, which i think is a step in the right direction. i want to say one thing, one of the previous callers who said we need to be more balanced -- i am more than willing, more than willing. if senator kerrey, congressman jay inslee, congressman markey, congressman waxman, there are any number of credible opponents of some of these additional -- proponents of some of these additional regulations. i have debated them on the floor in committee -- on the floor, in committee, and i am in favor of some sort of debate. in a democracy you want people to be the judge of the correct policy, and the way to have that is to lead both sides have their say.

i am absolutely -- is to let both sides have their say. i am absolutely in favor of discussing it face to face on the air if that works in your format. host: thanks for a discussion of the debate. we will see if something like that will work. on the debate of geothermal, how realistic would be to use it? guest: there is a lot of potential in geothermal. i do not know a lot about it, but there is a group down in dallas at southern methodist university that has done a lot of debris research into the geothermal and things that have a lot of potential and i have encouraged folks at the department of energy to look at it. we have put some incentive -- as

incentives into our go for geothermal in 2005. it certainly has no emissions. there are areas of the u.s. that it appears it really would work very well. host: detroit is next, this is james for congressman joe barton. caller: good morning, first, i would like to say that when we have people who manipulate very serious places, like joe barton, here, if i'm investing and i am american and i see these tea parties and these people that are way off base because of some sort of poisonous gas, and sure you would not want your children exposed to co2 on a constant basis. we only have 2% of the world's

oil reserves. oil is already a finite resources, so is cold. -- a finite resource, so was coal. all you have to do is go to any major city like los angeles, shanghai, and you will see the poisons being spewed into the atmosphere. do you want your children and grandchildren living on a poisoned earth? you think they will survive on a poisoned earth so that you right now can make a profit and manipulate theories that make us look bad on the world stage? host: let me jump in so the congressmen can answer. guest: premise of this argument is not correct. co2 is a naturally occurring compound. we create co2 as we agreed.

you could expose me, you, your child out to all the co2, and it is not harmful. it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas. it is ubiquitous. it is necessary on moment -- for the life on the planet as we know it. it is called a pollutants because of this theory that it accumulates in higher concentrations in the atmosphere and that changes in dissipated he when someone comes through the air and is reflected into outer space. but in the sense of a poison like arsenic or some thing like that, it is simply not. it just is not. in terms of myself being manipulative, i believe in a free-market economy with openness and transparency and free market capitalism to develop the resources of this

nation to provide jobs and economic opportunity for every american citizen based on their ability to participate in the marketplace. i don't think that as manipulative at all. but i want a planet that is clean. i want clean air, clean water, you know, things that need to be regulated at the federal level that are harmful to our children and families. i want to regulate them. i voted for the clean-air amendments in the early 1990's. i voted for the consumer protection reauthorization bill last year. i was on the conference committee to take the lead standard as close to zero as we can get it. i'm just not a radical in the sense that i try to give absolute zero risk for of activity in daily life. that is simply not possible. >> this question from a twitter viewer -- host: this question

from a twitter viewer -- guest: i think that is a fair question. the answer that i give is since it is so uncertain that the private marketplace would finance a brand new nuclear power plant because of all of the problems we have had and the controversy over nuclear power in the past and i think it is an appropriate use of some federal resources to provide a small number of loan guarantees to get the industry restarted again, but that is a debatable question. there is certainly the case that if it is commercially viable you do not need to have a loan guarantee. and when we put the policy act together five years ago, the best thinking at the time was due not have direct subsidies, but do the loan guarantees.

new get more leverage that way, a bigger bang for the buck, so to speak. -- you get more leverage that way, a bigger bang for the but, so to speak. and these plans that would tend to be the most controversial would definitely build -- be built and then once they were built you would not need the loan guarantees and more. host: vermont, nicolas on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. thanks for c-span. this is the hola where we will give our interests represented. -- this is the only way we will get our interest represented. i heard about a car that was run on health oil. i believe it was a mix of hemp oil and sesame seed oil. but it will never see the light of day.

a good example of this is monsanto and corn subsidies. these subsidies are responsible for our horrible by it. if you look at fda officials, they often come from monsanto as rep. it is a systemic problem that i feel we need to deal with. if we do not get rid of these corporate interests, we will never give anything done. and the founder of the aspirating? as the center -- of the house pertain to toxicity center stated, "the united states corruption by the food industry was disclosed in the late 1960's and 1970's host: i'm going to jump in because aspirating and food safety takes us in a different direction. -- aspartame and food safety

takes us in a different direction. guest: his first comment was about hemp oil and the car. if it has a commercial viability somebody will delicate and somebody will commercialize it. it is not possible in a free- market economy to stifle true in duration. just look at bill gates and microsoft. -- to stifle true innovation. does look at bill gates and microsoft. this idea that somehow you have this almost perpetual motion machine that detroit has buried or some added some of that you can add to gasoline that gets 100 miles to the gallon -- i guarantee you that if those things were true, somebody would be putting them in the marketplace. it is just not so. in terms of the fda being corrupt, the food and drug

administration is the gold standard in the world for protecting our food and drug supply. are there people there that have done things they should not have done over time? sure, and my committee, the energy and commerce committee has done oversight investigations under both republicans and democrats where we saw things that were being done that should not be done. we have called them to task. but generically, our officials and the fda are outstanding men and women and are working every day to protect our food and drugs and they're also working to help the pharmaceutical companies and the innovators, the medical device industry come up with new drugs and new products to make life better and extend the quality of life in america. host: this is asked by a viewer on twitter --

guest: with all due respect, i do not think gas taxes do anything that make us more competitive in the world marketplace. i would much rather see gasoline at $1.50 per gallon than at $8 per gallon. in a marketplace, you have to have some gasoline taxes to provide the infrastructure for the roads and the things that we need for our economy to have mobility. but i am opposed to these draconian gasoline taxes. if you want to go into a recession, lift ca gas tax that would put gasoline tax at -- let's put gas attacks that were put gasoline tax like we see overseas. caller: may i ask a question and

giving congress -- comment to the congressman? would that be ok? let me thank you for what you do in congress on this issue of oil, natural gas, and all that you do down there in texas and oklahoma. all you congressman, i'm grateful for every one of you. when i pull of to the pump with my corvette and my seavey -- my suv with my family, i worked very hard so that i can keep my home. i want to thank you for all you do down there in the oil industry. it you ever regret to support those industries. we need you. with these folks that i just want to -- co2, please. give me a break that the epa is going to screw around with that. you do not have to answer that. just accept my gratitude for all

you do. susan, i have been with c-span for 30 years or more and you just did it twitter, the same one twice within half an hour. why is it fair that twitter people get to do their commons virtually every day and we have a 30 day waiting period? this is a call-in show. we could do without the twitter. c-span has always had it and it has always worked beautifully. what is it with this twitter crap? host: [laughter] thank you, tom. we're right in the middle of the show and i'm sure our executive producer will take your comments uttered by an. -- under advisement. do you have any comments? guest: the political side mof me

would love to see it. the public policy part of me hopes that they do not bring in fort of -- it forward because of in consumer confidence is shaky as it is. we do not need an extended debate this summer that scared people and prevent investors from moving forward with projects. i think it should go forward. we do not need a tax on carbon in this country. i do not think we need higher energy taxes. we're just now beginning to see evidence of an economic improvement and the absolute worst thing that we could do is put the country through another one of these extended debates that best case, barely passes. worst case, probably does not pass.

i wish the president and the senate democrats and the speaker would talk about a program to reduce federal spending to bring the deficit down to lower taxes and really restore some consumer confidence in our economy. host: thank you for taking your viewer calls and questions. we appreciate that. the congressman talked about the political side of him and that is our -- our final installment today with richard wolf. and we will learn more about the unaffiliated voter after the next break. >> in the headlines, some good news on the economy. first-time claims for jobless benefits fell sharply last week. analysts say that as evidence that employers are cutting fewer workers as the economy recovers. the job cuts claims came after claims rose sharply after two

weeks. the secretary of state hillary clinton says the administration sees continued value in the sending an ambassador back to syria, this as centers are threatening to hold of the confirmation of the administration's choice of the first ambassador to syria in five years. that is diploma robert ford. there are reports that syria is transferring scud missiles to hezbollah in lebanon. one of three navy seals charge with abusing an iraqi prisoner has been acquitted by a military jury in and baghdad. the petty officer could have accepted a disciplinary reprimand, but insisted on a trial. the other two seals are awaiting their day in court. end -- and the solar dynamic

observatory is returning unprecedented new capability for scientists to understand our dynamic processes. you can see for yourself at nasa.gov. and charles bolten testifies this morning on his agency's budget request. that is going to be live on c- span radio and the c-span3 television. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> here is what we are covering on c-span3 today. at 10:00 a.m., a senate hearing looks at the proposed budget for nasa. charles bolten of the space agency will testify. and at 3:00 p.m. eastern time, the second of three debates between britain's party leaders. this will to cover foreign policy. this year's foreign policy to let -- this year's election is the first to televise the debates. watch them on c-span3.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: need where richard wolf, our final does this thursday morning. -- meet richard wolf, our final guest this thursday morning. your lead in this story is the nation's fastest-growing political party is "none of the above," which could be better for the democrats and republicans. what is different right now? guest: in a sense, nothing is different except that the trend is continuing. we have had this trend for 20 years or more going back to the band of the reagan administration. we just chose at usa today to look at the latest statistics because we're coming into the 2010 midterms. we compared it to four years ago, although, that was during the -- i mean, to two years ago with the presidential campaign,

but we have to go back to march to show the difference between now and then and found that 14 of the 28 states, plus the district of columbia, that do this form of a party registration, independent voters were growing faster than the democrats and republicans. we should note that democrats were also rising and republicans were fairly flat. the democrat rise is reflected a british nation in early 2008. -- a voter registration in the early 2008. host: if you're an independent and have nearly become so, will you tell us about it and why you made that decision as you call in this morning? we will put the numbers on the bottom of the screen. what does this mean for the 2010 elections? guest: interior, which should mean that there is room for moderate candidates, -- in

theory, it means that there is room for moderate candidates, candidates in the middle. i say that is true in theory because as the democrat and republican parties have a smaller percentage of the registrations, that means that those primary voters in states that have closed primaries, and i would be where only democrats or republicans respectively could vote, the people voting in those primaries will tend to vote more toward the extreme. the candidates coming out of primaries might be more liberal on the democrat side and more live -- more conservative on the republican side, but everything can change. in 2010, for instance, john mccain is being challenged from the right by j.d. hayworth. he might benefit from -- mccain, that is -- might benefit from the rise. and charlie crist in florida, he might choose to get out of the

republican race and run as an independent. florida is seeing a rise in independents. host: another poll that has gone a great deal of attention since last week is the pugh study, which suggested that americans disaffection with congress is at an all-time low. does this suggest more active involvement in the election or just staying home of their title -- if they're tired of it? guest: it is hard to read voters' minds. kershaw, voting will go down in the midterm election. a week -- first, voting will go down in the midterm election. but i think that the disaffection is going to lead people to vote. how they vote is another question. we do not yet have a lot of third-party candidacies. i should note that there is of this independent rise, and it has been going on for a couple of decades in new england. in new england, you have three

viable candidates for governor in maine, massachusetts, and ryland. -- rhode island. and maine has had a couple of independent governors in the past. there is a chance that you could see voters choosing to go independent. right now, it seems that dara anger is so severe that -- that their anger is so severe that i do not think voters will stay home. host: also, people who call themselves democrat or republican is getting on close with being on par with those who support the tea party activists. guest: is a little unclear even after a year or more with the tea party represents. they certainly do not represent the majority of people we see choosing to register as independent or an affiliated. there is probably some percentage of those who

represent a a tea party folks, but it is unclear, to me at least, where the tea party movement heads in 2010. if we thought the majority of this, then we would say that those voters going in and are doing so because they are upset with washington, upset with more government, upset with more taxes. it is not clear yet that is why they are choosing to go independent. they're obviously frustrated with washington, congress and the white house, but why, if it is an anti-government sentiment, we do not know host: there is also -- we do not know. host: there is also a party realignment going on in great britain right now. there are three candidates in the british parliament. the number to debate is happening today at i believe

3:30 p.m. i will make sure that information is correct, but it will also be aired on sunday night if your interested. just comparing politics in our two countries. let's talk about politics and voter realignment. we will begin with richard wolf and a call from california. you are on the air. caller: we did not have a political presidents until lincoln. and you guys at what we have always had them. can you address this? because i think is so bogus the for the first 100 years we did not have a political president. but for the past 100 years we have these political guys scoring it up. can you address that? guest: i'm not sure exactly how he means we do not address it other than we do not talk about

the era before abraham lincoln. host: do you agree with his analysis that we did not have political presidents before lincoln? guest: i am not a great student of the first christian in presidents, but i imagine i will not quarrel with the five that -- the first 15 president, but i imagine i will not quarrel with the fact that we did not have a far to the left or far to the right elections prior to that. and starting with lincoln i think we went more to the d's and r's. if that is true, then we do not enter into new stories all that often is all i can say. host: if you're interested, that debate is at 3:00 p.m., not 3:30 p.m. it will be eastern time and we

will be streaming identified c- span.org and you can watch it sunday night as well. the next call comes from shenandoah, pa., christine on the democrats line. caller: that is shindell. -- shannondale. host: thank you. caller: i am under the impression of president obama is way too far to the right. we do not get enough news and of other countries. 10 years ago, germany felfelt tt by now to have the energy needs they wanted to, two new nuclear plants were necessary. the electric co. was ordered to repay citizens seven times more than the amount due for excess energy for those systems created. duprey much equaled the mortgage

on the equipment. -- that pretty much equal to the mortgage on the equipment. today, no new power plants were made in germany has more solar pommells than any other country in the world. -- more solar panels than any other country in the world. therwhy are these things are reported? where are we hearing the same thing over and over again? guest: there are several points here, one is perhaps the decline of foreign news in media in general, part because of the economy and cutbacks. it is very possible that she is seeing less foreign coverage by reporters working for those new to entities then she has in the past. the second point, there are ways -- and maybe we should get congressman barton back in here to address our energy needs

without expanding nuclear power -- nuclear power, which obama has this just as part of his energy plan. i think the caller has been saying that there are countries where they do not have to go nuclear in order to expand their energy base. and that is true. the third point that she raises is that obama in her mind is too far to the right. we go back to who is the democratic base at this point, whether she is a registered democrat in pennsylvania and i do not know. i suspect she is, but she may not be. but the base of the two parties to give back to the topic is probably each year, each couple of years that there are more unaffiliated voters, the base becomes more liberal and on the republican side a little bit more conservative. you are hearing from her a growing sentiment among liberals who were very important in selecting candidates obama two years ago, some of whom feel that he has given in to much to republicans -- even in too much

-- given in too much to republicans. host: we will talk more about his recent story about realignment in the electorate. our producers found some other stories on a state basis that tie into this. the fourth of all, in kansas and ohio, voters a a vote to change registration before primaries. in oregon, voters shake up politics. and in california, thesciu is hoping -- the sciu is hoping to shake up the primaries. during with primaries and allowing people multiple candidates in a general election, as the -- and doing away with primaries and allowing

people multiple candidates in elections, as primaries in the states, what role does the electorate have? guest: there is the presumption that they're doing so because they feel a pox on both parties. but as they leave the party or if those parties do not grow as fast as an affiliated or independent wrote -- voters, that leaves the base to decide what candidates will be in the primaries. there are states where they have open primaries and that is one of the reasons for affiliated of order growth in those states. -- unaffiliated voters grow in those states. sometimes it means becoming a democrat or republican in order to do it, but you can and do that right afterwards. -- undo that right afterwards.

the problem is the -- is that it can mean that those primaries produce more candidates. it is because of the way this are drawn and that goes back for decades. you will see the potential at primaries of people who will be left heavily satisfied to be registered democrat or republican. they are likely to be those who are more liberal or more conservative. host: how many states have open primaries? guest: i do not know the number. there are 28 states with product -- party registration plus the district of columbia, 29. i do not know the exact number that are open primaries vs closed. host: let's go to pennsylvania, michael on the independent line. caller: i just want to say the i am going more and more toward independent as republican and

the democrats have given up our voice and they do not care what they think and they do what they want to do. i was always republican because of ronald reagan and what he did, but today i am so disgusted with the media and congress and everyone continues to think that america -- in 1960 we had 60% of the world and now we only have 40%. if you look at china and places in india that are much more beautiful and much more progressive than the united states, the u.s. has lost its clean in the eyes of world and in the eyes of me. guest: it is interesting that he mentions china and india because those are two countries that owned an increasing portion of our debt. i think the caller is upset with the degree to which this country has gone deeper and deeper into debt through annual deficits. it is an issue that is going to get a lot of attention over the rest of this year.

there is a deficit commission that president -- president obama and members of congress have appointed that will begin to meet next week. although their deliberations probably will not produce a lot of news until after the election, which is purposeful, after the election we will see if they can come up with any solution to one of the things that i think is driving this caller to consider becoming a registered independent. that is, can we do anything about a 12. -- $12.5 trillion growing debt? double be a growing story after the election. -- about will be a growing story after the election. the only way congress will be asked to vote as if 14 of those members agreed. therefore, republican members would have to agree to whatever democrats want. a very long shot, but possible. host: about the florida race

earlier, they have a headline talking in a florida governor made to us the odds of outsider. that is the marker were below- charlie crist battle. -- mariko rubio-charlie crist battle. sherrod brown is quoted as campaign manager in 2006, saying, and you will need an enormous amount of money to be heard among the screaming. fund-raisers say they will not say whether they will stick with the governor. would you talk about money and independent candidates? guest: money is extremely important. joe lieberman was able to win as an independent, but he was elected incumbent senator. he lost his democratic primary -- did he lose it? i think he lost it and chose to

run as an independent. i think he had the name recognition and also have the ability to raise money. charlie crist has the ability to raise money. whether he has the ability to raise it on par with democrats and republicans is going to be difficult. it is absolutely true that money is still important. it depends on the independent candidate in question in each case, whether that person has the name identification and the appeal to get the number of contributions. and that would normally be a number of small contributions to a enable them to compete monetarily. but money is not everything. host: what do you mean by that? guest: i think we are seeing with this rise of independents a much more electable the elector. that is not to say that with $5 you can compete with a democrat or republican has $5 million, but voters are becoming

increasingly and unpredictable in many states, not in all. in some states, party operations are still strong. but in others, we have seen a professional wrestler become governor. just look at a state like minnesota where you have a governor's coming from the relatively far left and the relatively far right, and i do not know what you would call jesse ventura. i do not think that is happening because voters are aware of only one candidate out of three because federer a candidate is on television more often and has the most money. i think voters are paying attention and being willing to take a chance on someone who is being outspent if they see what they want to see in many cases, which is often someone who is not on the far left or far right and who is a problem solver. host: 1 article this morning says, them -- some democrats do

well. democrats reported a $21 million edge over to republicans in the amount of cash available. the republicans report of the best monthly hall for february -- the best monthly hall for february since losing. what do you take away from this? guest: something is going on here, but we know what that is. that is the election of barack obama in 2008 and the election of the democratic congress in 2006. money flows to power. the majority of money in the last couple of cycles has slowed a little bit more to the democrats than republicans, and in some cases a lot more. friedgen is showing that in some cases republican is -- republicans are gaining back. this is also in midterm

election. voters are angry, so who are they angry at? predominantly, the party in power. democrats know able have a problem in the interim. president obama is lucky that he is not on the ballot right now probably. but it is not at all clear that they will take a severe beating as they did in 1984 during the republican revolution. how that will play out is important. the republicans are hanging in rather than getting completely demolished in terms of fund- raising. and they certainly have the advantage to win back some seats in the senate, some seats in the house. no one knows exactly how many and that is the key to the day after election day in 2008. will barack obama have the majority in the house and senate or simply a reduced democratic majority? host: is out on the independent line, good morning to you.

are you there? we will move along. the next telephone call is from san bernardino, calif., rory on the democratic line. caller: what i was a kid, viable politicians use to be given air time on the networks. the fact that they have to raise all this money now keeps them in perpetual campaign mode instead of doing things. in my district, we do not have an open primary. i would have to register as a democrat. but i do not feel that the democrats or republicans represent me in any way. i think they are all in it for their own self-interest. here in southern california we are bankrupt. in los angeles, los angeles is being held hostage by the dwp and the near in rio dosa.

homeowners across the country's current and say, but i see politicians spending our money like verdoorn to print some more tomorrow. and with the over 10 -- like they are going to print some more tomorrow. and with the over 10% unemployment rate to my seat nancy pelosi and harry reid is trying to bring immigration reform back to the table, i. the guest: a couple of good points there and when is it he was talking about the amazing amount of fund raising better congress has to do. it is shocking how much time members of congress have to spend on the phone personally seven days a week making calls for money, and they hate it. and they have to do it. the campaign finance system is what it is.

there have been campaign finance changes. there is a supreme court decision right now the congress is likely to address with president obama backing trying to change the ability of corporations and unions to spend even more during the elections than they currently are able to. the will be an important legislative battle in the next few months. it is one that president obama has a good chance of winning, i believe, although it is unclear what will happen. yes, too much fund-raising in congressional politics at least, yes. there is somewhat of a solution in the money that candidates can get during the primaries and in the general election from tax payer dollars. that makes things a little better if both parties agree to accept that. he also talked about the overspending by congress and the white house. the overspending more than anything else, or the belief

that it is overspending is what is fueling the a lot of the anger and the growth of independents. it is interesting to hear his point of view that as soon as he gets through the primary, his vote cannot be counted on. i was saying before about who is left in the republicans and democrats being for leftist or four rightist. -- far rightist. that is not true in some states. in some states they lose their primary vote and they cannot do that. host: next call is from david in texas. caller: obama is smart when you are talking ibarrabout

[unintelligible] qf offshore and he got the while money. -- and he went off shore and he got the oil money. here is the way i love at it. it does not matter where -- who you elect. that is why i went independent. host: how long ago did you do that? caller: about four years ago. as soon as they get up there, who can turn the money down? host: what party were you registered with before? caller: i was a democrat. host: thank you. for years as an independent for david. guest: i do not think anyone has seen since last january 2009 that it does not matter who gets elected. i think the bush administration and the obama administration, their differences are clear. i do not think we would have a

huge new national health care bill before not for who we chose to elect. it will play out to a lesser degree on the financial legislation before the senate now because it does look like it becomes -- it will be the one bill that is going to become fully bipartisan. it is going that way. what we have seen over the last 16 months is a lot of the change that candidate barack obama promised. whether you like it or not is a totally different question, but i do not agree with the caller that it does not matter who you elect. and that is where u.s. before, whether these people going independent -- and that is what you said before, whether these people going independent, whether they see the direction in washington inclined them to vote. i would guess it will be more of

the latter than the former. host: usa today this morning has and others that shot of the voters up there. -- another snapshot of the voters out there. allegheny college finds americans overwhelmingly saying that civility is important in democracy, and when possible even when does the -- people disagree. let's dig even deeper.

guest: i was a little bit surprised when you said liberals wanted more compromise because as you heard the caller earlier, we hear more people who are more solidly left and helped to elect obama who have been disappointed in some of the rhetoric and decisions that he has made since coming to office because they wanted him to stand even firmer. for instance, on a public option on health care. but here is where it makes sense. democrats are in power in the white house. regardless of the details of those achievements, they accrue to the house and senate and the president of the united states. if there is sufficient compromise to get things done,

it is the democratic congress and president who are going to get the lion's share of the credit of that. on the republican side, the republicans in congress basically made the decision after obama was elected that the way to win congress and the white house back was to oppose as much of his agenda as possible. that is not to say that every decision they make is a political decision and they will find a reason to oppose it, but by compromising with president obama on issue after issue, voters might be more satisfied with how washington is being. but it is unlikely that is going to put the republicans back in power. i think republican voters are seeing the same thing that republican legislative leaders are seen. host: from florida, this is james on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i feel that the two parties have

high-tech the representative democracy system. -- have hijacked the representative democracy system. they're much more into their party leadership then and in working as a group. in 2008 in the fall use of a huge number of politicians ignoring the constituents and voting for the bank bailout bill with the year marks on top, including guys like john mccain, john barringer, mitch mcconnell, guys whose constituents did not want them to vote that way. -- john mccain, john boehner, mitch mcconnell, guys whose constituents did not want them to go that way. and then you see the guys on the health care bill who voted yes anyway even though their party -- because their party was twisting their arms. rather than representing you,

they represent their party. i wonder how you feel about that. guest: i would make one twist on what you just said about that person does not represent new, but their party. i would say that they do not always represent you. they were selected by you to do what they think is right. the reason i say that is because when it comes to the "bailout of the financial institutions" which largely occurred at the end of 20 -- 2008 during the bush administration and the transition, but which obama supported, a lot of members of congress regardless of what they were hearing back home believe something that they felt was more important from treasury secretaries and fed chairman, which was this in tyre -- entire economy could collapse. it could get so dire and you could never live through something like this economically.

we need to pass this bill the matter how bad it might smell. that is when you saw people going against the wishes of their constituents and voting for the bank bailout. that is one of the issues that members of congress were called on to do what they felt was the right thing regardless of the sentiment back home. and honestly, that is their job. sure, they have to represent constituents as much as they possibly can, but then you hear voters disdainfully saying, the politician takes a poll on everything. if he takes a poll on everything in his district he is doing everything, in essence, that you want him to do, right? he is figuring out what people in his district wanted to do and goes with the majority. when it comes to the health care bill and the democrats in moderate and conservative district who voted, yes, you did see a lot of democratic party

arm twisting because this was the big kahuna. this was something that hippocratic party and try to do since bill clinton -- since truman and to bill clinton and others. and they wanted to get this done to make it more affordable and also because they felt that failure would be terrible for the party in the upcoming elections. yes, you did see a certain amount of moderate and conservative district democrats being cajoled -- and that was a life term. it was a lot worse than that. by their leadership to vote the way they did. that is not to say it was wrong. if the bill works out well, then they took a somewhat noble stand and maybe they will pay the consequences for its back in their districts. 50 -- if they voted yes and you

voted them out of power, that is what politics is all about. host: there are different signals out there. earlier we sure do the article that said the democrats who supported the bill are seeing an increase in fund raising in their districts. on the other side of the coin, a "wall street journal" article you may be interested in -- more detail in that story, but we are seeing messages from both sides. tampa, fla., becky, your up next.

caller: here in florida for the senate race, charlie crist and rubio, it is $8.2 million. florida is supposedly broke and to pay unemployment benefits we are having to get the money from the feds. why does it cost so much and are we as relief -- really as broke as wethey are saying? guest: states have to balance their budgets and states are, from what i can tell, really has broken as they're saying. the federal government -- with the islesboro as they are saying. the federal government does not have to -- really has broken as they are saying. the federal government does not have to balance its budget. yes, we are broke. if we are that brokaw, who is it

that is bankrolling these elections -- if we are that broke, who was bankrolling these elections? could that be spent better on unemployment benefits? sure, but people with money are not being asked by the government, please handed over to the treasury so we can spend more on unemployment. -- handed over to the treasury's the weekends been more on unemployment. -- suspect hand overage it to the treasury so we can spend more on unemployment. it is just the political system. every political system -- every political cycle goes into the campaign finance. caller: i am calling regarding your comment of this being border realignment. -- a voter realignment. i see it more as the republican

party looking to achieve their party realignment. the tea party years -- the taa party years -- if the tea partiers have a lifestyle that is based on consumerism. and after slavery, after they destroy the nation, they have no plans for the slaves that were abused. i would like to know how republicans are going to get on the ticket when the green party is struggling state-by-state over the years. guest: a lot of different point there. the tea party, to my knowledge, is not trying to get on ballots the with the green party or the libertarian party is. it is more of an ephemeral

movement. the caller started out talking about republicans trying to reposition themselves. where the republicans want to head and were the tea partiers want to head, and they are desperatedisparate, it is not al clear that they're heading in the same direction. she started out saying that this realignment has to do with a grand republicans scheme or strategy. i think republicans would be lucky to have the strategy. the right now, they do not know the this tea party movement is headed their way. host: last call from richard in michigan, good morning. caller: i guess i would have to

have considered myself a few years ago s and republican centrists -- as a republican centrists. some of the mainstream media, when democrats took power, it was reported heavily -- and i believe it was nancy pelosi that made the statement that we do not need the republicans. i felt the market -- and enormously marginalized by that statement. rather than going independent, i was so offended by that statement that it actually made me go further to the right. host: i'm going to stop you right there because we are just about out of time. any reaction? guest: i do not remember the statement, but many of