tv Washington Journal CSPAN May 7, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EDT
7:00 am
then james richardson will talk about how the gulf oil spill is affecting the economy. we will then be joined by the head of allergy and infectious diseases to take your question about infectious diseases. also more about the 37 races for governor with the heads of the republican and democratic governors association. "washington journal" next. . .
7:01 am
host: inside "the financial times" trading goes wild on wall street. "the new york times" -- the lead story, dow falls 1000. "the wall street journal" -- the market plunge baffles wall street. bob davis, "wall street journal." are we still baffled? guest: it did not seem possible that it was a sell-off of that magnitude.
7:02 am
something odd happened. it happened in five minutes. host: have they figured it out? was it a fat finger? guest: that is one of the possibilities, but i do not know that we will go for days. host: the market ended up going down about 340. that all due to what is happening in greece? guest: you can never psychoanalyze the markets, but a lot of it clearly is. there's concerns about the defaults around a the world. greece and of itself would not be a big deal because it is a small country, but the fear is that greece goes to spain, goes to portugal, goes to italy, and then it is a real mess. host: a couple of associated press articles just coming over the wire. here's another one.
7:03 am
italy approved an initial $7 million loan for greece. greek borrowing costs have hit another record high. the bank of spain says the country is out of recession. guest: it is funny, four of those were very positive news. spain is out of recession. and yet, the greek debt spread, the amount of interest that greece has to pay on its debt increases. you would think the opposite would happen. it is pretty volatile. host: democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. please go ahead and dial in. if you happen to be watching and overseas, we would love to get your reaction to this also, especially if you are in europe.
7:04 am
we will be looking for you to call in also. in your paper this morning, the euro hits a 14-month low against the dollar on thursday and the yen surged as investors fled riskier assets over concerns that sovereign debt problems could engulf the weaker eurozone members. help us understand this. guest: the euro itself was supposed to be one of the safe currencies. people were trying to get out of that and into the dollar, where there has been months of concern that the dollar was going to crash. and even more amazing, going to the yen. japan is hardly growing and has hardly been growing for 10 years. i think it is all the characteristics of the panic this morning.
7:05 am
host: also in your paper is an editorial the sat says the greek problem could lead us to a double-dip recession. guest: that is certainly true if you spin it out. if europe goes into recession, we trade a lot with europe and we have a lot of banking relations. u.s. banks are directly tied to european banks. it's not too hard to think that in the same way that the u.s. problems led to a recession in europe that it could work backwards as well. host: let's take it to capitol hill now. former secretary henry paulson, treasury secretary geithner, and some democratic senators are calling for further regulation on the markets. has led to the volatility? guest: i'm sure that has led to it also pre there's no logical relationship between what is happening in greece
7:06 am
right at the moment to the discussion about financial regulation. they are two different things. basically, after a banking crisis, there's often a sovereign debt crisis. in part because country's peso much to get their economies moving. -- countries pay so much to get their economies moving. host: bob davis, how long have you been aware of what is happening in greece? guest: this is what i do for a living, so the past year i suppose. host: should we be surprised by this? guest: yes, i am very surprised. it's a little country. it is 2% of the size of the united states. its trading with the u.s. is 1/10 of 1%. to have this kind of impact on the u.s. is quite surprising.
7:07 am
it is not surprising some countries are getting into trouble. that has been brewing for years. we went through a really bad recession with a really bad fall in the markets. the markets have recovered quite a bit, but it has not been that long. host: the dow futures look up this morning. what does that mean? guest: it has been falling for quite some time. we got down the 700 points from the high or so. there's always a bounce. you can never read too much into one day, especially del futures -- dow futures. host: international economics reporter bob davis, "wall street journal" is our guest. alabama, you are on the air. caller: good morning.
7:08 am
thank you for having me. it is really strange that some sort of work which would cause the whole stock market to fall -- some sort of a glitch would cause the whole stock market to fall. it would take a major mistake for this to happen. at a time when it is recovering, it is really strange. this is the case in point for more regulation of the financial institutions, and we have a republican congress members that are totally resistant of the policies that are trying to be put in place. guest: in terms of the glitch, i do not think it says anything about financial regulation. it might say something about what we need to do in terms of
7:09 am
fixing the computer systems. these are software systems. god knows what happens. remember, one year ago, toyota was considered one of the most safe cars in the world? that's so sort of thing happens. it is not a democrat or republican issue. nobody is in favor of that software. host: nathan, you are on. caller: go to books.google.com and download "making a currency" written in 1913. go educate yourselves. thank you. host: any reaction?
7:10 am
guest: i do not know the book. it's always good to read history. host: bob davis, you seem unconcerned with what happened yesterday. guest: it is totally bizarre. i do not think this has anything fundamental about the market's. it says there's something odd that happened that should not have happened. dealing with a technical issue is very different than dealing with fundamental economic forces that might be taking the economy downward. host: how much of the trading is done electronically? guest: a tremendous amount. part of what by newspaper was reporting it is a possibility that the so-called high- frequency trading, which is people trading on the smallest changes in the market, that once the market started declining 500
7:11 am
points, those systems shut off because they did not want to worsen things. it is possible that by shedding those of, and possibly deepen the decline. that sort of thing is very different than -- is greece going to lead to a global recession? host: william on the line for independents. caller: mr. davis, people have theories. it sounds very nebulous, a lot of the things that are being said. you said it is your business. you would think it would help when something like even two hundred points, or a 90 minute shutdown instead of a 92nd shut down, what would be a theory that would be more rock-solid? guest: again, is the difference between a problem in the market
7:12 am
system, and the mechanics, in the electronics of the system versus the problems in a more fundamental fashion. i'm not an expert on how the markets operate. clearly, somebody has to be looking at how the systems wero. one of the rumors is somebody typed in $1 billion instead of $1 million. there are measures you can put in place to make sure the person typing realizes what they are typing. host: greece passes austerity package in the world news section of your paper.
7:13 am
guest: yes, that is the problem. that is the fundamental problem we are talking about. greece cannot pay its debts, so it is getting a gigantic loan from the imf. it is possible that spain, italy, and portugal are in the same bu. oat. if they cannot pay their debts and they get huge bailout, it is possible that one of them will say it is not worth it and we will default. or it is possible that they will put up with the kinds of cuts that would cause huge protests
7:14 am
in the u.s. as well. to fight that, you have won a series of austerity measures after another. there's no demand in the markets, so the economy's tank. host: wesley on the line for republdemocrats. caller: i have been watching the stock market. we have a two-party system here. for the life of me, i cannot understand how you can have a party that claims they love this country -- everything that this government -- the house was burning down and they tried to
7:15 am
put out the fire. instead of the same government that was in power previous -- take this country to the tank. you have a president that is so intelligent and smart and put together an administration that is taking this country internationally an internal recognition, and yet the american people cannot see that? guest: what should i say? this administration inherited a gigantic mass. the efforts to fight the recession in the last administration were pretty bipartisan and also during a
7:16 am
period of intense panic. the panic subsided. this administration tried a variety of different measures to get the economy going. you have a mix of political and policy issues. a political issue, obviously, there are a lot of people who hate bailouts in this country, and understandably so. that is the policy issue. on the other hand, you have the normal back-and-forth of politics in this country and republicans see an opportunity there. it has been amazing about how partisan the votes have been on measures of historic in for somimportance.
7:17 am
host: do you see that with that there will be a tightening around those markets and more regulations? guest: yes, there's hardly any doubt that there will be tighter, tougher regulation coming about. democrats and republicans are starting to talk in a serious fashion about the compromises that are needed. one would expect something to happen in a few weeks. it will be tougher on the markets. host: g-7 call said ahead of
7:18 am
7:19 am
it is a tough one. does that mean an imf program for the other countries? i do not think so. it could be, but i doubt it. then you're back to the kind of questions -- how do you show your guarantee of the rest of europe? when the leaders talked about standing behind greece -- they tried that for a month or so and that did not work. the markets did not believe that. we may be getting down the road toward more imf programs, more european bailouts. we are talking about a huge bailout of greece, $145 billion. that is probably half the money the united states spent on fannie and freddie. there's a lot more that could be spent. i'm not arguing that they need to, but one has to keep this in perspective. host: what is in the austerity package passed by greece? it has been passed, but there
7:20 am
have been protests. could the government fall? guest: i doubt the government could fall this quickly. it has just been elected. host: it is more conservative. guest: yes, but in the context of greece. there are a lot of tough things. there are 25% cuts in their version of social security. there are similar sorts of cuts for people who work for the government. a large percentage of people in greece do. in addition, there's a variety of different measures to open up the greek economy to greater competition, even though it is part of the eu. that means that a lot of companies that have been protected will have a tougher time, too, and they will go out of business and it will cut their wages.
7:21 am
they have clearly been living way above their means. host: melissa, a republican, buffalo, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. mr. davis, thank you for taking these questions. first, for the caller from alabama who said republicans are fighting regulations on the finance industry -- it was the democrats who first bought it in the 1990's. maxine waters was one of them, who said there was nothing wrong with fannie mae and freddie mac and that there would not be any problems, and we ended up having problems. i hardly trust an administration that would allow tim geithner to be treasury secretary when he could not even get his taxes right. finally, my question. i'm not very familiar with the
7:22 am
stock market. i have a basic understanding from high school and college economics courses. why is it that yesterday during the crash, some stocks, like the samuel adams beer company stock and proctor & gamble fluctuated downwards, while others have several thousand dollar increases? guest: i honestly do not know. i'm not sure anybody knows at the moment. what was traded during that five-minute interval? everything was magnified beyond anything that approached rational levels. if proctor & gamble was on its way down, it was going to go down like falling off of a building or something. the opposite would have
7:23 am
happened, like sitting on a rocket ship. that is a sort of thing they need to sort out. host: will this be sorted out? how long? guest: i think it will be sorted out very soon. i imagine they're working overtime on this one. host: the second editorial in "the wall street journal" this morning. they have a chart here entitled "restat restgreece hates busine" the u.s. ranks fourth in singapore is first. at 109, greece ranks below egypt, zambia, rwanda, and kazakhstan. country has to work hard to do
7:24 am
this poorly. again, an editorial in "the wall street journal." john on the line for independents, you are on with bob davis, "wall street journal." are you with us? we will move on to mike. caller: there was some sort of possible technical difficulty. what is the possibility that there was something more sinister related to this? we have seen on the news what led up to the crisis was hedging or shorting companies and forcing them lower than they actually were and causing panic. could this have been something that was just the same type of thing, but struck down from weeks to minutes?
7:25 am
guest: i doubt it, but if somebody had some sort of a computer program to start buying when the market went down 1000 points, i'm sure they made a lot of money in a minute. it is possible. host: west haven, conn., democrat. caller: good morning. i'm understanding is still trying to check out what was the reason, whether it was manueal r a glitch. no one was there to double check on it, like the various two or three departments or regulators. there was no one there to check
7:26 am
. that is why they cannot check if the right way to find out what it is. i do not know. that is what i heard. i'm just curious. there's one other thing. i understand we are giving so much money to help these european countries, primarily like greece and so forth. he has taken everything out on entitlements. my social security check from last year when down almost 25 points. the difference to be transferred into medicare. why is he taking it out on us? host: who is he? caller: the president. guest: the u.s. owns 17% of the
7:27 am
imf. the imf is putting in $40 billion. the u.s. gets a vote in the imf and can vote yes or no. once the imf makes its decision, we are a member of the imf. this is not a direct funding issue. it is not a bailout in the sense of lehman brothers -- not lehman brothers, but the other ones. the other countries are putting in a lot of money that requires a vote of their parliaments. it is a different situation. whether you're a fan of the president or not, it is just the way the system works. host: what would happen if greece defaulted? guest: the holders of greek bonds would take hits. talking about the imf, it is the first entity to be paid back because the country's know they
7:28 am
will not get a penny from anyone else unless they pay back the imf. that is not really the issue. the issue is the other banks to take hits. with their debt be in question, and so on? host: the lead editorial in "the wall street journal" this morning, "greece in contagion." first saw spherguest: i'm not se
7:29 am
run on the euro is that people do not believe that the imf program is sufficient -- that is what is going on. it is not the fact of an imf program. you could argue that the imf should get even more money. it is a lot of money. or that the people will not believe it until they see the greeks taking the hits that they will have to take. that will take a while. you can pass a bill and that is a great deal. the greek government is passing the various austerity measures. we will see. we will see if the greek people will tolerate that. host: next call, north carolina, john, you are on the air. caller: good morning. host: hi. caller: i would like to ask how
7:30 am
much of this, portugal, india, greece, and spiain -- how far does this go back? does this go back to before world war ii? this should not be surprising to anybody, except those who are pretty much not following what is going on. it seems to me this is all part of the system and they need to audit these reserve banks around the world. he only knew about this a year ago. if he was working in my job, he would have been fired. guest: i'm glad i'm working where i am.
7:31 am
you are right. it is more than a year. it goes back a number of years. these countries, as well as the u.s., have been overspending the amount of money coming in through taxes for years and years. the question is, when did it become really problematic? people can take on debt. the caller may own a house and have a mortgage on it. many people with more normal mortgages have very high debt levels. it is the same with countries. they can have debt levels, but they are debt levels beyond which it becomes a little scary. when did that happen? it's been happening for a number of years. there have been many warnings about that in this country and in other countries. the level has increased a lot lately over the past year or two in response to the global
7:32 am
7:33 am
caller: good morning. i think the real question for us now, as americans, and i'm a business owner, what can we do as business owners and americans to protect our country and our interests from turning into greece? are there certain steps that we can take? it just seems like everything is so connected. but if one falls, it is a domino effect. as the united states, i want to see us coming out of this strong. what can we do? guest: it is a good question. we have two contradictory pressures on us. the recession is over, but it is a very mild, modest, unsatisfactory recovery. you have part of the way the
7:34 am
government response, and i would say that this occurred under the republican administration as well as the democratic administration, and that is to spend a lot. the idea is that compensates for the falloff in private spending. on the one hand, you're increasing your deficits. you are increasing your debt. you cannot do that forever. the very difficult policy issue is -- you spend a little now, and he spent a lot more, and then you have to reduce a deficit sometime in the future. it has to be done in a way that people believe it. that's a very difficult transition for anyone, for any government, to make. on the other side, the federal reserve has poured tremendous amounts of money into the system and they have to take it out. if you take it out too fast, you
7:35 am
get another recession. that is what happened in japan. it's a very delicate balance. host: the dollar is getting stronger. the euro is at almost historic lows. the pound is dropping. is that good for us? guest: we have a lot more to go. i lived overseas in 2001 and it was 90 cents. there's a long way to go. if you're taking a trip to europe, things are looking good at the moment. for american exporters, this tends to be a negative thing because the dollar gets stronger and so the u.s. exports are more expensivehost: we have.
7:36 am
guest: carl would agree with that. people are trying to -- i would agree with that. you see that happen. people go to the currency's or areas of value that will hold up best. that happens to be the dollar and gold. usually the dollar and gold work in opposite ways. host: the next call comes from austin, texas, rodney on the line for independents. caller: good morning, mr. davis. guest: good morning. caller: i was listening to you going through the various stories. they were talking about henry paulson and tim geithner pushing this new legislation control in financial markets. i'm sitting here thinking. two of the most incredible sources -- both of these
7:37 am
gentlemen have very close associations with goldman sachs. isn't this two foxes guarding the henhouse? guest: paulson was the head of goldman sachs. there's no question about that. tim geithner has been criticized as being too close to wall street. there are legitimate issues about how tough financial regulation that is being proposed really is. there are people out there, respectable people, who argue that if the fundamental problem was that if the banks were too big to fail, they should be smaller and less connected. you should have the equivalent of very powerful antitrust action against those banks. we're not going anywhere near that. we are tightening regulation,
7:38 am
hoping to be able to spot the next problem before it occurs. that is a really tough one. if it does, if we have another financial panic, procedures would be in place that you would not have to have a gigantic u.s. taxpayer-funded bailout. nobody will know if that turns out to be the case until we hit the next one. what happens inevitably in those types of situations -- policymakers and the population are scared to death. you wind up doing the maximum that you can do. host: we had yesterday's volatility. we have the g-7 coming up in brussels. what will you be looking for? what will you be writing about today? guest: over the weekend is the real issue. the european leaders meet for dinner over theire, which is
7:39 am
nice for them. that is after the market's close. we will see what comes out of europe. in addition, the imf will approve its portion of the greek loan on sunday. these are timed. host: in d.c.? guest: yes. there's a lot that ought to be done over the weekend to restore confidence in markets and give people a sense that the government snos know what they'e doing. host: bob davis, thank you. we have been a little euro centric this morning could we want to continue that trend. we want to spend a little time getting caught up on what has happened in the british election.
7:40 am
7:41 am
>> the outcome of this country's vote is not the unknown. >> i believe it is already clear that the labour government has lost its mandate to govern our country. ♪ >> i hereby declare that caroline lucas is elected member of parliament. [applause] >> it is now, for the conservative party to prove that it is capable of sinking to govern in the national interest -- seeking to govern in the
7:42 am
national interest. host: james blitz, london to will be forming the next government. we have had the most extraordinary measuelection. the parliament has the overall majority. mr. cameron's party has ended up largest. mr. cameron now has the right to start trying to form a government. host: tradition says that prime
7:43 am
minister brown should have that opportunity, right? guest: you are exactly right. the person who was the sitting prime minister technically has the first right to try to form the government. the thing is that there's really no where for mr. brown to go. he could try to form a coalition with mr. clegg, the leader of the third party. even if he were to do that, that would not give him the overall majority in the house of commons. what mr. clegg has done is to say, the issue is to get a good, firm stable majority with the conservatives. that is where the direction of
7:44 am
politics is now going. host: james blitz, conservatives now have 307 seats. are those confirmed? guest: it is not quite confirmed. the process of counting seats started at 10:00 p.m. last night and is still going on. the bbc projections are still pretty good. they will not go beyond 326, which is the figure that would give them the overall majority. host: what are the chances that the conservatives could work with the liberal democrats? what does that mean for clegg? guest: it is unprecedented in british politics. the only coalition you've ever had in the postwar period has been between labour and the liberal democrats. the conservatives and the
7:45 am
liberal democrats are not two parties that naturally come together. liberal democrats tend to be more of the center-left wing of economics and policy. mr. clegg wants reform of the british electoral system. the liberal democrats want an overhaul of the system that his constituency base, and has given them a very low level of representation in the house of commons for many years given their share of the national vote. in this election, the share of the vote is about 23%. because of the nature of the system, the year ending up with less than 10% of the seats in the house of commons. they want reform. that'll be the critical issue of negotiation between mr. cameron and mr. clegg. guest: is there a chance that the brits could go to a national set like that, rather than by constituency? guest: the biggest chance of it
7:46 am
happening now than there has been for many years. there's a growing awareness in the country that the old system, which was dominated by two parties and constituency based, no longer works in british politics. we no longer have a situation in the u.k. where politics is dominated by the center-left labour and the center right conservatives. you have seen an increasing fragmentation. labour and conservatives no longer dominate. they have between them about 65% of the total votes. we are moving toward that. the issue for cameron, although his party is very resistant to changing the system, it believes it has a lot to lose. if he wants to be the candidate of change, which is the way he has presented himself, he does need to show he is in tune with
7:47 am
a growing demand for reform of the electoral system. host: how would that work? if there was electoral reform, would you get rid of constituencies all together? guest: no, there are various options. you could have a peer system of proportional refuse -- pure system of proportionality. the other one is the alternative vote system, in which to have a constituency based system. at the same time, you ask people to order the provinces they have in terms of numbers. they do not just say who they want to be elected, but they give a second, third, and fourth preferences. the winning candidate is one who has a far greater consensus of approval. i think that's what we are looking at. it is a system that will benefit
7:48 am
the liberal democrats over time. that worries some of the other parties. host: how was the turnout? guest: around 65%. that is higher than the 2005 election. it reflected the fact that this was probably the most interesting and closely followed election campaign that we cut in the u.k. for a number of years. turnout was 61% in 2005. in the u.k., you do not see the high levels of turnout that you see in continental europe. in the french president's election, it was much harder to it in the italian parliamentary elections, they have always been in the area of 80%. host: what happens next for prime minister brown? did he win back his seat? did he have any competition? guest: mr brown won his seat back with the biggest majority. there was never any threat to
7:49 am
him as party leader. the party leaders and the general elections are always supported by the fact that they are natural figures -- national figures. guest: i'm quite sure gordon brown will resign, quite possibly today, and maybe in the next few days. after 13 years as finance minister and prime minister. that will lead to a competition for the leadership of the labour party, which will be very heavily contested. host: what happens at 10 downing street and when does it happen? guest: it could happen very soon. we are in an unusual situation. we will end up with prime minister cameron and the leadership of a minority government with some type of support from a liberal democrat. it may take a few days to negotiate all that. i'm pretty sure mr. cameron will be walking in there.
7:50 am
toward the end of the month, he will need to put his political program to the house of commons. at that moment, he will have to have a majority of the comments. between now and the moment of that vote, he needs to turn around to the liberal democrats and say this is what we are offering. electoral reform, issues involving the economy and redistribution of tax, and get their support. that's the critical issue. if he fails to do that, we will move into a very uncertain situation in the u.k.. host: james blitz, does david cameron become prime minister at the exact second that gordon brown resigns? guest: yes. basically, we never have a situation in the u.k. where someone is not running the country.
7:51 am
gordon brown will resign. he tenders his recognitioresign. david cameron immediately follows. he forms his cabinet. and then he subjects it to a vote. that is the process. host: there will be a move at no. 10 within a day or two? the families will change? guest: i think so. this is a very unusual situation. this is the first time we've had a hung parliament in the u.k. since february 1974. a lot of the civil servants and prominent figures in government are in somewhat unfamiliar territory. mr. cameron has the number of seats in the comments. mr. clegg has said he will go through the business of forming a government. the momentum is very much with
7:52 am
him. i'd be surprised of anything happened to take it away from that route. host: what it's clef clegg would have said gordon brown should form a government? guest: then the momentum would be going for gordon brown. there were several reasons why mr. clegg was never going to do that. both the la labour and liberal democrats -- he would not guarantee there would be ineffective majority. that would have been a very bad misjudgment. that would have been a blow for mr. clegg. i do not think clegg was ever going to back gordon brown. labour's share of the vote is 29%.
7:53 am
that's the second lowest level of the vote is has had in the postwar period. labour under tony blair was 43%. that is not a good basis for mr. brown to remain in power to it that is the other reason why clegg was never going to back him. host: thank you, james blitz of "financial times." how have the markets reacted? guest: the sterling is down a little bit, but nothing significant worry that people had expected. if this were to unravel, then i think there would be a very serious reaction. host: james blitz, very much thank you. guest: thank you. host: coming up, we will be talking to james richardson,
7:54 am
louisiana revenue estimating conference. we want to talk about the financial cost of the bp oil spill. >> the justices life and legacy. kagan has been interviewed as a potential replacement for justice stevens. >> this weekend on book tv, 10 years after doing the crime, piper kerman's new book. on sunday, two books by first
7:55 am
lady's. laura brush talks about her new memoir. and follow us on twitter. >> this weekend, ted leonis on the business of happiness. sunday night on c-span's q&a. >> "washington journal" continues. host: in usa today this morning is this map showing where the oil spill currently is. this is a forecast location of the oil spill today. you can see its size, as opposed to the gulf coast and how big this is. we are joined from that in ruche by economic -- are joined from baton rouge by james richardson
7:56 am
of louisiana revenue estimating conference. how much do you estimate this will cost louisiana in lost revenue? guest: right now, you could almost have to say the impact on the state's budget is relatively small. assuming that they stop the leak fairly quickly pacific continues for a long time, all bets are off. the real impact right now is on certain people along the coast to make their living off the fishing. that is rwhere the real cost is right now. with respect to the overall state budget, that is not affected badly at this time. host: what is going to cost fishermen? guest: we have estimates of the value of those industries. for example, the strip is storagshrimp issue, about $88 m.
7:57 am
that's a relatively small number in terms of value to it if you look at the oysters, you're looking at about $36 million. if you look at the blue crab, about 30 two million dollars. in total, shrimp is the biggest, $144 million. it goes up the chain in terms of processinn and into restaurants. that is where you add value. host: what other industries could potentially be harmed by this oil spill? guest: if you look at louisiana, there are four industries that are very connected to the coast. oil and gas is one. the ports will be a second.
7:58 am
commercial fishing is the third. then you have the overall tourist industry. people going to the saltwater fishing. some people going down to watch the birds. some people just enjoying the unique environment of south louisiana. the fourth part -- there's no doubt that in terms of magnitude, dollars, the oil and gas industry stands out as the biggest by far to the ports will be second pick and then you get down to fishing and tourism. host: the oil and gas industry, what is that worth to the gulf coast states right now? guest: looking at louisiana, we have about 90% of the oil that is produced -- about 90% of the
7:59 am
oil produced in louisiana will come from those offshore wells. it's a major source of revenue for the state in terms of supporting jobs along the coast. jobs from utility boats to individuals who live there and work offshore -- those are fairly high paying jobs. that becomes a major source of revenue for the state. income tax, sales tax, and business taxes. host: james richardson of louisiana revenue estimating conference is our guest. we are talking about the economic impact of the good morulf oil spill. we want to get your reactions. democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205.
8:00 am
8:04 am
host: we are talking about the oil spill in in the gulf. robin, democrat in cleveland, tennessee, you are up first. caller: i had heard at one time that the state of louisiana really doesn't receive revenues from the oil wells that are out in the gulf or wherever it is called. is that true? and if so why can't the laws be changed so that the state of louisiana can benefit from that? guest: the wells that are in the federal offshore, the state do not get royalties or revenues and we cannot tax those wells. we can only tax the wells that are within the state's
8:05 am
jurisdiction, which would be about three miles off the shoreline. but we have indirect impacts in terms of obviously that people live in the state. you have many companies that service those platforms out there. so we get indirect effect. there's been discussion about revenue sharing with the states on the wells nearby. there is a law that will share some revenues. but no, we don't get money in terms of being able to tax it because it is not in our tax jurisdiction. host: next call is from crescent city, florida, henry, a republican. caller: i'm henry rhodes and i was wondering due to the fact that it is one well in a large number of wells how do we calculate what the direct economic impact is going to be?
8:06 am
guest: from the perspective of the state of louisiana and there is a number of different perspectives, this one well is certainly causing some damage. it was in the employxploratory but it would over time make a contribution to the nation's energy supply. we are now losing some of that, though they are trying to reduce it. in terms of the impact from louisiana's perspective, the number of offlower rigs -- the offshore rigs and platforms is a very large impact on the state economy. this one well doesn't detract
8:07 am
from that, it merely causes problems and creates a little disturbance right now which we are trying to get under control. i think the real element is as you are looking at the impact of this one well and particular spell is what damage has that caused because of the oil spill. and you can focus on that issue to get some sense of the extra cost the state is incurring or individuals have incurred because of this one well. but in terms of the overall economic impact it is one small part of a much larger industry. host: jim in rockville, maryland, independent line. please go ahead. caller: yes, i heard that there were something like 1,000 reefs out there. is that right? guest: yes. definitely. if you are looking for offshore
8:08 am
activi activity, the gulf of mexico, louisiana, texas, that is where the rigs are. there are a big number of rigs and it is a major industry. if you are looking at production from louisiana, 90% of the oil production is from those rigs offshore, not from the in-shore state rigs. if you look at natural gas production, about 75% of the natural gas production coming through louisiana will be from those rigs offshore. so that is a major industry and a major source of domestic energy. host: james richardson, the obama administration has put a moratorium on any new offshore licensing. is that correct? guest: they have until they have more information about this. i think the president made a very prudent statement saying
8:09 am
that this is not a reason to shut down offshore drilling but was a reason to examine what may have went wrong and proceed at that point. so from that angle it was a prudent statement and a reasonable statement. host: we have a tweet for you. what assumptions could be made of the economic impact of the spill should the leaking continue for a prolonged period? guest: then i think you get into the unknown in terms of the potential impact. if it leaks forever or a long period of time, this is what we are not sure of. and you are talking to the scientists, you talk to the people who have information about the environment, the ecologists, they have to provide you some impact on what it might cost. in terms of the real economic impact on the country, if it leaks a long period of time it makes people very hesitant to do
8:10 am
offshore drilling and that takes away one source of energy. so, i think you will see at that point we have become a little more dependent on foreign oil. if the other element from louisiana's perspective, the impact, if it creates some problems for the ships that are coming in to the mississippi river, then that is going to cause problems for the state if they cannot unload their cargo or they have to go to other ports and you have a major impact that we would have to calcula calculate. also then the commercial fishing industry would be harmed for a more extended period of time and we would have to see the impact there, though again in that situation there are shrimp in other parts of water an oysters in other parts so people will find ways to make that up. it will take time though. but the industry in louisiana
8:11 am
would be harmed directly. host: next call for james richardson, waldorf, maryland, charlie, democrat. caller: this guy sound like he has been bought and paid for by the oil companies. that area is going to be devastated for a long time. what the oil company will try to do is make a couple of attempts to try to stop the oil. they are not really serious because the third largest company in the world would have had a plan a,,b, c and d. they would have thought out could go wrong and made a seu serious -- a serious company with the public's interest at heart would have foreseen this and had alternatives to what they are doing set in place. so, yes, that area will be devastated. thousands of jobs will be lost, lives are going to be affected because you are going to have some problems years down the
8:12 am
road. this gentleman is acting like it is no big deal and it is going to be ok. everything will be ok in the very long term. let's be real. that area is devastated and lives are going to be lost. host: mr. richardson? guest: well, again, from the perspective of what is happening right now, given what occurred there are some impacts. is it a catastrophe at this moment? no, it is not. could it be? it could if it continues for a long period of time. that is why the emphasis is on getting the leak stopped at this moment. in terms of activity here, if you are here in the state you know this the state is continuing. indeed, if you look at other parts of the commercial fishing industry, the state, federal government, are stressing the fact that the seafood is safe to
8:13 am
seat. right now depending on which way the tides run, which way the spill actually goes, if it goes toward the east of the mississippi river then you are affecting about 0% of the commercial fishing industry. if it goes back to the west, you are affecting a larger part of that industry and we don't know right at this moment, we are not really sure which way it will go. but, no rb, there are -- and yo have to say right now, at this moment in time there are several people, a number of people, who have been directly affected. is it a huge number? no. but it is a number of people that have been very much impacted and harmed. it is not at this moment a catastrophe. can it become one? if they don't stop the leak then maybe. we don't really know. >> you said earlier that b.p. will certainly be picking up all
8:14 am
the different costs. we have a tweet, should b. pfp.y the state for compensation for their mistake in addition to the cost of clean-up? should there be a revenue neutral situation for the state of louisiana? guest: i'm trying to figure out what they mean if we should get a little bonus payment or something. from this angle, i think that the state has every right to keep costs to keep the extra dollars they have spent for the overtime that must be paid, the reallocation of their workforce to the coast area to take care of this particular spill. that is very reasonable for the state to do that and i think the state will certainly have that. local parishes, local municipalities that are
8:15 am
incurring additional costs will keep tabs and single submit some type of statement or bill to b.p. and i'm sure at that time they will talk about the payment. at that moment i think b.p. will have some obligation to pick up that tab, yes. if it should be additional to that, some extra payment, that is a different issue, i think, and will be negotiated and discussed and talked about. for example, if there is environmental damage that you cannot foresee right now, perhaps there should be some type of fund that should be developed. that will be the cost that will be much harder to quantify directly. host: next call is in baton rouge from silver spring, maryland, jim, independent. caller: yes, does he know how many rigs are in the whole gulf of mexico? host: mr. richardson? guest: i don't know exactly the right number whether it is 967
8:16 am
but it is a large number. you can go to a map and see it. it is a very large number and that is where a lot of exploration and drilling has taken place for a long time. the start of offshore drilling was in 1947 off the coast of louisiana and has continued ever since. as i said earlier, it is where the majority of the oil and gas is right now. but in terms of precise numbers of rigs, i cannot tell you that number. host: do you know offhand what percentage of oil this supplies for the u.s. or what the revenues are for the federal government? guest: for the federal government i don't know what the revenues are. if you go back a little bit and look at louisiana, we produce about 25% to 30% of the nation's domestic oil.
8:17 am
out of that, coming from the offshore about 90% of the oil is from the offshore. so, that suggests between 20% to 25% of the nation's domestic oil will be from the offshore. host: what has been the reaction in baton rouge at the state capitol with the legislature? guest: well, they are dealing with the session now and they are dealing with the issues of the budget and normal issues. and they tacked about it, but -- they talked about it but right now there is not a lot they can do, to be honest. they have to deal with the things they can deal with, which will be the state budget and other programs like that. host: smyrna, tennessee. arnold, a democrat. caller: good morning. i think that this oil spill is a wake-up call for all americans and for america.
8:18 am
we could be completely free of any need for foreign oil if we could convert all of our cars and trucks, all of our vehicles, to switch them over to run the same way that our trains run. our locomotives are powered by a hybrid of a diesel generator and electric motor. the chevy volt is coming out next year and will basically run the same way. it will have an electric motor powered by a small gas powered generat generator. we could be completely free from any need of any foreign oil if we could convert all of our vehicles to run like this. i think if we made a commitment to do that it could be done within five years. host: any reaction to that call
8:19 am
er? guest: i think that the oil spill will become part of the national debate about energy and how we as a country travel, how we heat our homes, how we develop industry in terms of energy needs for industry. this will certainly suggest that offshore drilling is not risk-free. there are potential costs that we have to worry about. now the question is, are there other alternatives like the person suggested that will be cheaper, will be acceptable to the american people in terms of the quality of the product that is provided. that will be part of the debate. there is no doubt that conservation is by far, in my judgment, the cheapest and easiest way of adjust to an energy world in which most of the oil and gas is from
8:20 am
overseas. so that will be fine. the question is can you make the car that the american people are willing to drive, able to drive, enjoy driving, and that can be functional. is it marketable? but this will be part of the debate. host: what is the unemployment rate in louisiana? guest: it is about 6.8%. host: it is relatively low as opposed to the nation. guest: it is. we have escaped the more traumatic unemployment climbs that you have had in other parts of the country. we were not a major subprime housing market area. number two, we don't have the major industries like the car industry where you have an industry that really fell off the cliff. we don't have the bond markets
8:21 am
like new york in terms of where you have it falling off the cliff. so we didn't have any industry that just fell off the cliff. our unemployment rate has risen but it has not risen the same size that the nation has. host: sterling, virginia, gary, republican lane, on with james richardson of the louisiana revenue estimating conference. please go ahead. caller: hello, sir. i don't know if you are the correct person to address this to or not, but there is a product out there called yeast water. it goes by the name rid-ex. people put it in their septic tank to digest what is in the septic tank. i have used it to clean out sewer pipes. host: where are we going with this? caller: this is to treat the
8:22 am
beaches and water. you spray this stuff like a pound will make 500 gallons and it is a bacterial digestant. host: thank you. james richardson, what are they doing as far as clean-up? i hate to use the word but will it be an economic boon and will there be people down there doing clean-up? guest: it always happens that disasters create little booms because you have more people coming down for purposes such as that. right now, in terms of responding to the caller, they are using different techniques, chemicals, to disperse it. every time you use a chemical it doesn't go away, it stays in the ocean, too. so there are tradeoffs. in terms of the fact if it comes on-shore they will have different methods of cleaning it up. if it includes the product that
8:23 am
the gentleman is talking about i don't know and that is not a question i can answer. but there is no doubt that there will be a mini-boom that will be out there to help clean up the beaches and the marsh hrapbld -- marshland. we don't have beaches like florida. but there will be a number of people that will be needed to take care of those jobs. host: madison heights, michigan. david, a democratic. caller: i do have a comment and i do have a question. let's go back about eight years ago when dick cheney and his big oil buddies had backdoor meetings and gave the oil people everything that they wanted, and they deregulated the offshore drilling to a point where they were free to do anything they wanted. we are seeing the results now.
8:24 am
host: james richardson? guest: again, i'm not sure exactly how much deregulation occurred. there is no doubt that the offshore drilling has been a boom for oil companies. it has been an area to go. it has also been a source of energy for the country. in works both ways. the companies have prospered from it and the country has enjoyed some additional energy from it. now, is there any regulation that would have stopped this accident from happening in i don't know. i don't know if anybody knows right now because i don't know if anybody really knows exactly what happened down there. certain certainly, if b.p. had not done somethi something, hthis spill would no
8:25 am
have handled, or did it? so i'm not sure we can say if there is any regulation that would have stopped this from happening unless you are saying we really don't want offshore drilling. well, that is a judgment call, too and that would top it from happening. host: last call from colorado springs. james, republican, please go ahead. oh, the call is gone. mr. richardson, there's an article in "u.s.a. today" this morning and i know this is not your area of expertise but mighty mississippi winds up in spill fight. they are talking here in the article about increasing the flow of the mississippi river to keep it off the shores of louisiana. are you familiar with this or know what is going on? guest: well, i think it is a very delicate and intercrate environmental system, and --
8:26 am
intricate environmental system and that is why so many scientists are involved who have expertise, ecologists and other scientists of that nature, that it is intertwined, and if you do something on this part of the shoreline, it affects something someplace else. so, this is why it is a very delicate balance and what they are referring to in that particular article. but no, that is not my area of expertise. host: i appreciate your time and appreciate your answering our viewers' questions. james richardson from baton rouge, thank you for being on "washington journal." up next we are going to talk about anti antibiotantibiotic r. >> this weekend john paul stevens and u.s. solicitor elena kagan on the justice's life and legacy. mrs. kagan has been interviewed as a potential replacement for justice stevens.
8:27 am
>> the president got on the phone and said to me, judge, i would like to announce you as my selection to be the next associate justice of the united states supreme court. and i said to him, i caught my breath and started to cry and said, thank you, mr. president. >> learn more about the nation's highest court through the tkwraoeus of those who serve -- eyes of those who serve there in "the supreme court" with interviews of all the justices. it is available now in hard cover and also as an e-book. >> washingt"washington journal" continues. host: joining us from the campus of the national institutes of health is dr. anthony fauci, the
8:28 am
director of natural diseases. today we are talking about antibiotic resistance. do americans use too many antibiotics? >> unfortunately the answer to that is yes. there certainly is a lot of appropriate use of antibiotics but very often a patient will come in to a doctor's office really with not a bacterial infection or not an infection at all and would really almost demand of the physician to be put on antibiotics. that is what is referred to as inappropriate use of antibiotics. that one that leads to the bacteria ultimately developing resistance to antibiotics so that when you really do need them for a serious infection in some cases you start to develop a certain percentage of those microbes that are resistant to the antibiotics. we are facing a very challenging
8:29 am
situation because this is an increasing problem. host: but it is also increasing worldwide, isn't it? because in traveling around the world i have seen penicillin. you can purchase it over the counter as regular medicine. >> yes, it goes well beyond the patient-physician interaction. it is much more flexible, unfortunately more flexible in other countries where you can walk into a pharmacy and ask for an antibiotic and get it without the prescription of a physician, which just naturally leads to inappropriate use because patients feel they will take an antibiotic for feeling badly and it may have nothing to do with an infection. that is a big problem. host: in the last year or so this has become a very popular product, hand sanitizer. we have it all over the office. everybody has it at home. everybody uses antibacterial washes and stuff like this.
8:30 am
is this also creating a problem? guest: it could potentially. some of the hand sanitizers, the pure alcohol ones is not a problem because that is directly toxic to the bacteria. so, when you heard us talk about hand hygiene during periods of time when there were a lot of infections going around we were talking mostly about the alcohol. when you talk about an an antimicrobial substance in a hand sanitizer that potentially could lead to the development of resistance of microbes particularly those that inhabit the skin. some of the organisms that could be spread. host: we will put the numbers up on the screen if you want to talk about antiantibiotic resistance and use of theand us.
8:31 am
host: you can also send us a tweet or e-mail. there was a hearing this week on capitol hill on antibiotic use in animals, in meat products. what is the problem there if there is one? guest: the situation is that in the agriculture industry particularly among livestock, if the livestock are sick with an infection it is very appropriate to give that herd or individual animal an antibiotic. and sometimes when there is spread of infection that is clear you want to use tproef lacks cyst meaning gosh prophylaxis. those are well-defined. but what is a practice that goes on widely is to put antibiotics in the feed of animals to help enhance their growth so that you have animals that are bigger,
8:32 am
that have more meat on them, into really have very little to do with them being sick with an infection. there is the potential risk there that if you give antibiotics to those animals the normal bacterial flora that are in every living animal will ultimately evolve to have org organisms that could be resistant and be passed on to humans so if you have something that infects somebody that might be a problem getting the right antibiotic. so there is the potential risk. it is very interesting the numbers that a large percentage of all the antibiotics that are manufactured are actually used in the feed of animals so theblg have -- they can have growth enhancing capabilities. host: should they be restricted? . that is hotly debated because
8:33 am
there's a thin line between getting it for animals that are sick versus for growth enhancing possibilities. when we as health officials get called before a hearing, for example, the f.d.a. is pushing towards using antibiotics appropriately for animals that are sick but gradually phasing it out of just putting it into the feed normally for growth enhancing. so, when officials from the f.d.a. were testifying at various hearings, they made it clear that the appropriate use of antibiotics in animals is the way to go but we should be phasing out of just normally putting it into feed. but that has created a considerable amount of controversy particularly among the animal growers, the people responsible for the an halls who feel -- animals who feel strongly that is positive even though it has the potential danger of reducing resistance. host: what is your personal
8:34 am
opinion? guest: well, as an infectious disease person the fundamental mechanisms that lead to resistance are giving antibiotics in situations when they are not needed for infection. so on pure infectious disease principles i'm concerned about that practice because even though they may not have definitive data to show the link, the scenario of giving antibiotics when the animal is not really sick is a set-up potentially for that. host: how many -- do you know how many prescriptions for penicillin have been written in the last year or how much stronger the penicillin is than it used to be because of resistance issues? guest: i can't give you an exact number. it must be in the hundreds of millions the last several years. and it is not just penicillin. we think of the prototype antibiotic aspen sillenen --
8:35 am
as penicillin but there are others that are widely used. that story is a very interesting story. when penicillin was first introduced widely in the 1940's and 1950's virtually all the microbes that we used it for, all the common infections, were highly sensitive to penicillin. as we used it over the years certain organisms, particularly staph infections became resistant to penicillin. then we substituted another drug and we saw resistance to that with staph diseases which is worrisome because that means it is going in the direction of being more resistant. so there is a gradual evolution. and if you use penicillin as the prototype there are more microbes that years ago used to be highly sensitive to penicillin that are no longer sensitive to it. host: let's take some calls. first up is dr. stokes a democrat from reston, virginia.
8:36 am
please go ahead with your question for dr. fauci. caller: i'm a ob-gyn and what i find the two biggest problems are, one, marketing drugs, unsophisticated doctors that use high powered drugs. secondly, primary care doctors who have yet -- family practice people are taught to use high-powered drugs on simple drugs and now i can't treat gonorrhea with cypro and others are going away because too damn many doctors are having marketed high-powered drugs when the simple ones will work so you need to something about marketing drugs to doctors. you should not have people saying you should use my --
8:37 am
host: we got the point. let's get an answer. guest: the point is well taken. what he is referring to is it is almost like using a cannon when you could use a pistol. if somebody comes in with an infection that is likely sensitive to an antibiotic that is not a real blockbuster that can knock virtually any microbe out, if you use your heavy weapons against things that don't need happy weapons, at the end of a period of time those heavy weapons will not be as effective against the microbes that you need them for. so what dr. stokes is referring to is sometimes the drug companies come in and market a really god drug, one -- a really good drug that is good for serious infections but they market it so the physicians who rely on that information might use it for something that is really what we call overkill. you don't really need that antibiotic. host: next call for dr. fauci is new york city, annette. caller: good morning, c-span,
8:38 am
and dr. fauci. i work in a public hospital in new york and i'm a nurse at home. the patients are swamped for mrsa. is it true most healthcare workers carry these organisms because they are exposed? guest: i'm not sure that is the reason why they may not. it varieses from hospital to hospital. some are tested particularly when there is the suspicion or history of outbreaks in a particular facility like a nursing home. but you are correct. when you have hospitals, nursing homes and long-term care facilities, that is one of the post problematic areas in the sense that we have seen outbreaks of resistant microbes in those particular facilities. there's been a history the past couple of years of outbreaks in nursing homes of an antibiotic that can cause serious
8:39 am
gastrointestinal problems and can be resistant to the usual antibiotic. so the point is well taken. if people don't practice the hygiene that they should be practici practicing, they can often get the microbes on their own hands and person. health care workers, we have strict rules that you can lose accreditation if you don't do it. you have to wash your hand with a sanitize are before you go into a room with the patient and after you come out. if you do that religiously you are certain to cut down on the carriage by healthcare workers of microbes. host: next call is farmingtop, maine. caller: what i wanted to know is as an individual who doesn't use antibiotic unless necessary is that any advantage to that person taking it or is it not an advantage to being healthy and not doing antibiotics? guest: when you say advantage,
8:40 am
that means when you need it, it will work on you. is that what you are saying? what do you mean by advantage? caller: is there any advantage to doing everything that you are saying as a health care worker and not to prescribe antibiotics if you get somebody that is health conscious and doesn't use antibiotics is, there any advantage to them as far as the diseas diseases? guest: let me answer the question quickly and in two parts. if you are a person who has not inappropriately used antibiotics, the chances of your evolving within yourself a resistant microbe to common antibiotics is less than someone who uses antibiotics even though it is not particularly necessary. so, there is something that you can do by not demanding of your physician to put you on an antibiotic when you really don't need one. that is one thing. the other thing is that there is the evolution now and this is very troublesome of what is called community acquired
8:41 am
resistant microbes. we used to get staph only if you went into a hospital and got it from the environment of the hospital. we are seeing how up to 50% of the staph are community acquired, that you might just get it being outside in the community. we see that among athletes, direction, wrestlers and football players who can get a resistant microbe by contact with somebody who has it and it has nothing to do with their on antibiotic history. dr. fauci, your next call is from vista, california, jules. caller: good morning. i was just wondering and want to health you know a little secret that has been around a long time. 1957 i made my first cruise to the pacific in the navy. at that time what they would do, there was so much gone raorrheay would put a whole big bottle of
8:42 am
penicillin tablets on the quarter deck. the way it was posed to work was if you had contact on the beach you were supposed to take one of these penicillin tablets when you came back off the beach. instead of doing that, what a lot of guys would do because if you got gonorrhea you got restricted so they would pick up these tablets and hang on to them. then if they came down with gone reia, they would take the tablets on their own. and that -- the next thick you hear is, well, penicillin don't work no more. guest: well, that is not a secret. that is well known that that happened. that is unfortunate. that is just an example. you don't want to fault what the navy did. there was so much -- that is another story. on some of those cruises and
8:43 am
locations where our armed forces had to be involved there was such a high degree of gonorrhea that it was almost a factory type of giving penicillin to individuals. if you get infected you should be treated for the intpefrpblgts you shouldn't just take it because you think you might have gotten ineffected. the best way to prevent it is to use a condom. host: where do we stand now on antibiotics? do we have the correct formulas to fight any disease? do we just keep making them stronger? guest: we mostly do. the challenge we face -- and this is what the congressional hearing that i and tom friedan, the director of the c.d.c., we both testified a week and a half ago at a hearing that was directed exactly at your question, namely what about the pipeline of antibiotics that we
8:44 am
have to meet this challenge of antimicrobial resistance evolution. we still have very god boots but -- very good antibiotics but we are running out of some of the first line ones. the real challenge is how to stop it and in addition to stopping it, if it is such that you can't stop it, you have to have a pipeline of new antibiotics to replace the ones to which the microbe is resistant to. and we need to develop partnerships with the farm suit companies to -- pharmaceutical companies to get new and better antibiotics. and there really isn't that incentive. if you look at the new products that have come out the past couple of decades, very, very few of them are brand-new antibiotics. so
8:47 am
inginginginginginging guest: if you get an infection just because you are allergic to penicillin doesn't mean you should not take antibiotics. you should take them at the advice of a physician that would avoid the allergy of penicillin. host: palm beach, county, florida. rachel, you are on with anthony fauci of n.i.h. caller: thank you for taking this call. i have been practicing chinese medicine for 0 years now and -- 30 years now and one of the first things we learned was that if there were four people in a room and one of them has a cold
8:48 am
and the next day two of the others have the cold, in wester% medicine we would try to find out what the germ was to try to attack the germ. in eastern medicine we would say how come that other guy didn't get the cold. what does he have that the other two didn't have? what we try to do is raise the immune system. i wonder why there isn't more going on to teach how to raise your immune system and for western medicine to move in that direction. guest: well, there certainly is a lot of work about -- that is going on -- about appropriate scenarios in which you would want to boost the body's immune system. certainly the many municipal system -- what she is referring to is the natural defenses is the body's immune system. the only problem is there are certain scenarios in which an infection that you get exposed
8:49 am
to you are still going to get infected. so the person in the room who didn't get infected, that is just really the natural distribution of what we call attack rates of infection. it is extremely unusual that you will get an infection in a community that everybody will get infected. that is a scenario that probably has never happened. however, the ones that don't get infected, there may be a variety of complicated reasons why they didn't get infected. so to say if you just boost up the immune system, that is not necessarily the case. having said that, it is important to understand the mechanisms of the immune system and where to boost it. tkpwhr is this -- host: is this all a personal position or does it carry over in your genes? guest: it doesn't carry over in
8:50 am
the genes but what we call a propensity to allergic responses certainly is inherited and can be seen in families. if you have a family history of allergy it could be hay fever, it could be allergy to a variety of substances. it could be drug allergy. if you have a family history, the chances of your being allergic is greater than someone who doesn't have a family history. but it is not an all or none phenomenon. there are some that have no family history of allergies who get a very serious drug reaction. and there are people who have a heavy family history of allergy who never get a drug reaction. so, it is not an all or none phenomenon, but there is a contribution of hereditary. host: an article that says the use of antibiotics has possibly led to the increase in allergies in this country, have you seen
8:51 am
that article? guest: yes, but that is really confusing. so, if you use drugs a lot and expose somebody to any substance, after a period of time in a population there will be more allergic responses to t it. whether that is just the fact there are people who inherently will be allergic and the support you treat you will notice more who are allergic, but there is no real evidence if you give a lot of antibiotics in a given person that person will get an allergy. host: jim from manatau beach, michigan. caller: thank you for c-span. it is a wonder we don't get this news coverage on the commercial networks and that is sad. i guess they are just all being bought off. my question, doctor, i have a fact ary farm -- factory farm, a
8:52 am
dairy farm a few miles from my home and they are constantly spreading millions of gallons of their waste fertilizer and stuff all over the local farm fields here. and this bacteria -- not bacteria -- the antibiotics that they are putting in these things, they went from like 1le 800 -- they went from 1800 goes to almost 7,000. and antibiotics that are in that manure are being spread on the fields and you have runoff from this. now, i have a pitch pond. -- i have a fish pond. do i have to worry about that and stuff breeding in that? guest: it depends on the concentration. the point you make is something that is being actively discussed about one of the real dangers of the widespread use of feed is when you have waste from the animal particularly manure that runs off into the ground or streams that you will wind up
8:53 am
getting the antibiotics themselves or even some of the resisting mike roebgs. i don't think it necessarily means a direct threat to the fish in your pond because it is going to depend on the concentration. and even if there is antibiotics it may not have an effect so i wouldn't say it is an absolute danger. i think you would have to check that and see what the concentrations of bacteria and antibiotics are in the runoff into your stream. i don't think it is an absolute sin kwa none that you have a danger to your fish. host: why do they call the antibiotics in animals a growth hormone? guest: there are certain mechanisms that are not well understood. it alters the bacterial flora of the animal's intestine that allows it -- and this is speculative but likely a contribution that allows the animal to greatly absorb more efficiently nutrients that makes
8:54 am
it bigger, stronger and bulkier with more muscle. that is what they mean. it is not just growth hormone, it likely works by altering the bacterial flora. host: do you personally eat meat that has growth hormone? guest: a-i don't eat much meat at all. i'm not a pure vegetarian but close. when i do i have no idea whether the meat came from an animal that was given antibiotics. host: next call is a democrat from long island. caller: there is no disrespect from you but the problem and this is similar to [inaudible]. when you are in front of congress and you talk to these people, give tell medical
8:55 am
answers. this is wrong, this is right. don't give political answers because it has a tendency to let you agree with them. so stay away from the politics of medicine and gave tell straightforward medical answers. host: caller, are you suggesting that dr. fauci doesn't give that, he gives political answers? caller: there is a 10 enof deny seu -- for a long time i have been observant. i almost literature to c-span -- listen to c-span every morning and there are too many political answers when the leaders are in front of congress. guest: so, let me for the record i have been testifying before conggess for about 26 or 27 years and i have never, ever given a political ly corrected answer. they rely on me and trust me because i give a completely scientifically based answer. so i can understand his concern that some people with the aura
8:56 am
of the congress feel they have to give a political acorrect answer. host: why are you still in public service? guest: because i love it. it is the most important thing i can do with my ability, energy and talents. my way of getting the greatest impact of the things i do is in public service. and i wouldn't trade it for anything. host: with antibiotic resistance what are some of your other fields you oversee at n.i.h.? guest: probably the most visible i'm in charge of the aids research program of n.i.h. and we do all of the research that is involved with developing the drugs that have been so successful in transforming lives of people with h.i.v. i'm responsible for the malaria, tuberculosis, tphepged tropic-- neglected tropical diseases. as well as a variety of other issues. so there is a very robust portfolio that i'm responsible for. host: would you like to see
8:57 am
d.d.t. used again to prevent malaria? guest: that is a broad question. you have to be more specific. i think that the issue of completely banning d.d.t. resulted unfortunately in a re surpb resurge generals of the mosquito -- resurgence of the mosquito populations in certain regions of the world. i don't think you should haphazardly use d. it d.t. but most health officials feel completely dropping its use for insect control was not the right choice. host: when it comes to aids and h. eufp h.i.v. drugs are you finding that generations are getting resistant to the earlier ones? guest: as we discussed earlier in the show, whenever you use widely an antibiotic or antiviral you will have the natural evolution of resistance. certainly a certain percentage of the h.i.v. are resistant to
8:58 am
some of the drugs. fortunately, we have such a robust menu of antiviral drugs for h.i.v., more than 30 individual drugs have been approved by the f.d.a. in this country, that even though you have resistance, you very often, in fact almost always you can find another combination of anti-h.i.v. drugs that would suppress it. so resistance is something you don't want to take lightly we have been able to circumvent that because we have so many good drugs. host: 15 minutes left with our guest dr. anthony fauci. boca raton, florida. caller: my kquestion, i read a recent article that said it is now becoming an infectious disease and that the h-pylore is
8:59 am
resistant to first line drug treatment and many people are having second and third treatments because it is coming back. host: what is h-pylori? >> it is a bacteria that affects the g.i.tract. guest: it is a fascinating medical story in that forever, for decades and decades, people thought that alwaulcers were du stress and a variety of other factors when in fact the overwhelming majority of gastric ulcers are due to a microbe referred to as h-pylori which inhacketts the -- inhabits the upper attract of people. when that was discovered which one a nobel prize for that, when that was discovered antibiotics clearly were used to get rid of
9:00 am
the h-pylori and dramatically decreased the you willers. and -- ulcers. and the more you use antibiotics, microbes will find a way to survive that and mutate and develop resistance. that has happened with some strains. but fortunately we have alternative drugs for it. so what you need to do if you have h-pylori you have to make sure you are deem with an organism that is sensitive to the antibiotics that the physician chooses to use for the treatment of that person. .
9:02 am
guest: there is a lot of controversy and debate about that and infectious diseases that you should not use very long term antibiotics. there has been a lot of debate and controversy about that. host: our antibiotics used in the h1n1 shot? guest: not at all. it is a virus. you do not used antibiotics against the virus. if you get a shot of the h1n1, that is a vaccine that is used to prevent infection. if you happen to get infected to -- infected with h1n1, then you fall into a high risk category or you get a significantly hill, there are anti-viral drugs, tamiflu and
9:03 am
others that can be used for h1n1 and other influences, but you would not want to give an antibacterial drug, an antibiotic, that is done, for influenza, that is a very common and -- for influenza. is it a common illness. host: call comes in from new jersey. caller: i wanted to know about the study that you did in 1991 when i was up there. the medication was bactram and folic acid. is there anything new on that? guest: yes, there is. the study that we did in the 70's and 80's -- in the 1970's and 1980's was for serious diseases, particularly kidney disease.
9:04 am
host: unrelated with our conversation is this tweet. that is completely unrelated to dr. fauci, but i thought you might be interested. we go to wisconsin. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been watching a program for over four months and taking notes, and i have been interested in all strands of medicine all my life. never won, going on the 63 years
9:05 am
old. what i am reading -- number one, i am going on 63 years old. what i reading right now is by a doctor who talks about taking products -- probiotics. you have the evidence to support that, but most doctors do not support that. host: what is a probiotic? guest: it is a substance that contains a relatively benign substances that is found in your gut and nasal passages. if you take an antibiotic, it counters the affect that you are giving -- should she take an anti biotic, it counters the effect that you are taking it for, but it will kill all of the bacteria that cause you no harm.
9:06 am
with a probitic you repopulate the harmless, or good, and bacteria. most people do not necessarily feel that you have to give that and the overwhelming majority of physicians do not do that. host: what about yogurt and other things? guest: yogurt is good and there are some harmless bacteria and there are microbes that are harmless and symbiotic and work well in your body without calling disease. host: mass., your honor. caller: thank you for your long public service to all of us.
9:07 am
is there an antibiotic better than most to treat pediatric your infections? -- your infectionear infections? i am hearing a amoxicillin, and it repeats itself. guest: let's break it up into two components. there are good antibiotics. a amoxicillin that you just mentioned is the classic antibiotic for a job with an infection. pneumococcus is a common cause of middle ear infections in children and pneumonias in children and adults, particularly elderly adults. we have a very good vaccine against pneumococcus that we give to children and the elderly. what we really need to do is to get more children vaccinated with the pneumococcal vaccine so
9:08 am
they do not end up with these your infections that are so troublesome. -- ear infections that are so troublesome. host: i know someone who gave their infant as acipro for an infection. guest: that is not good for children. physicians generally universally say you should not do that with children under 13 years old. host: with the recent scarce that we've had, acipro became a familiar word to all of us. has it been overused? guest: probably, it has. whenever you get an antibiotic
9:09 am
that is commonly thought of as a really good antibiotic, you would almost certainly see some inappropriate use of that. i cannot give you the numbers of how badly it is overused, but i cannot imagine that it is not used in circumstances where it probably should not be used. it is a very good antibiotic. host: michigan. caller: doctor, i've liked to have more appropriate use of kordell minerals -- colloidal minerals in the water rates, for example and i would like to see them on a national scale. host: any reaction to that call?
9:10 am
guest: there is no scientific basis to do that at all. host: teresa, go ahead. caller: if i have an autoimmune system, such as diabetes, does that mean my system more susceptible to bacterial and anti- -- and viral infections? you had mentioned the intestines allow for more absorption of nutrients, but doesn't it also allows for more absorptions of toxins? guest: two entirely separate questions. the first, if you haven't -- if you have diabetes, there is a greater susceptibility mostly to a certain bacterial infections among people with diabetes,
9:11 am
particularly poorly controlled diabetes. that is a well-known observation since we have recognized diabetes as a disease. getting dr. the question regarding -- getting back to the question regarding the changing the flora of the gut, you do not change the lining of the debt. you change the bacterial composition of the colonies of the gut. that would allow for more efficient absorption of certain nutrients. there is no indication when you do that that there are more toxins released. because the animals, if anything, are much healthier, rather than getting sick. if you were observing toxins, you would see the effect on the animals, and you do not see that. host: last fall in virginia.
9:12 am
-- last call in virginia. caller: a couple of years ago, about seven years ago, i was treated for non-hodgkin's lymphoma. a treatment with other chemotherapy agents. the very soon after, my thyroid decreased significantly and my levels -- might t h c levels went up. is there any link here? guest: you have four powerful side of toxic and immunosuppressive agents. there is no one directly between an decressin function and the use of those, but it is
9:13 am
not surprising -- between endocrine function and the use of those, but it is not surprising that when people undergo treatment for something like hodgkin's disease, there would be some of new melik -- abnormalities. it grows to be something unrelated, but since you had such a reaction, i would not be surprised that there is a relationship between that and your subsequent function. host: how much money is spent on research for antibiotics? guest: my institute does the invest majority of that. i would not say, all of it is done by us, but we spent a short of $800 million per year on antibiotic research. of that, about to enter million dollars is specifically to study antibiotic resistance. -- about $200 million in specifically to study antibiotic resistance.
9:14 am
host: if you, wanted to say anything to the people of the country that are listening about the use of antibiotics, what would you say? guest: there are many life- threatening things that needed antibiotics, but do not pressure your physician or yourself to go on antibiotics unless you have a bacterial infection that is proven or bear very -- or very, very highly suspected of being in you. and you will not do your body any good by creating a resistance. host: is it a crisis? guest: i think we have to pay set-series attention to it. that is what progress held the hearing. -- by think we have to pay serious attention to it. that is why, chris held the hearing. host: thank you for joining us. it is time to turn our direct -- our attention to the democratic
9:15 am
9:16 am
possible replacement for justice stevens. >> this weekend on both tv, on afterwards, 10 years after doing the crime, piper kretschman spent 10 years in prison for delivering cash in an international drug ring. her book is "orange is the new black." and rosalynn carter look at how -- looks at how far mental health treatment has come in the u.s. fine the entire weekend schedule at booktv.org and follow us on twitter. >> this begin contador ted leon sisk on his book roger cortez valances -- by entrepreneur ted leoncis. >> the midterm elections are just six months away and could change the balance of power in washington. watch the debates that have already taken place in key
9:17 am
house, governors and senate races that have taken place across the country. search it, watch it, and share it all for free. it is cable's latest gift to america. the crux the president on the phone and said to me, judge -- >> the president on the phone and said to me, judge, i would like to announce u.s. my selection to be the next associate u.s. justice of the supreme court. i caught my breath and started to cry and said, thank you, mr. president. >> learn more about the nation's highest court to the eyes of those who serve there in c- span's latest book "the supreme court." it is available now in hard cover, and also encourage and e- book. >> "washington journal" continues.
9:18 am
>> we have nathan daschle, the executive director of the democratic governors' association, and naysayers, the director of the republican governors association -- and nick ayers, a director of the republican governors association. 37 states have gubernatorial elections this year. our goal is to look up the hot ones, some of the close ones, and were these two general and think there could be some switching in seats. -- two gentleman think there could be some switching in seed. -- in seats. guest: we have 12 open seats. we feel very good about being able to hold the ones that we have. we think our incumbents are in a pretty good position to get reelected, with the exception of one who suggested he will not make it out of the primary.
9:19 am
that would be jim gibbons in nevada. the former judge, former attorney general of the state of nevada left the bench and is pulling at 10 or 20 points in the primary. we are not involved in the primary. we think is best to leave that up to the republican primary voters to choose their nominees. but we do pay attention to the data and it does suggest that brian cent of all will likely be the nominee in nevada -- brian sandoval will likely be the nominee in nevada. we had two net gains last year in virginia and new jersey, which we are very proud of. our goal this year would be to get to 30 republican governors. that would mean we would need to win 24 of the 30 races. we would have to win over 60% of the races this year.
9:20 am
host: how many are of for reelection? what is your situation? guest: we have 18 of for reelection -- i'm sorry, 19 democratic seats, seven incumbents and 12 open seats. there's no question that if the election were held today, we would probably suffer some losses. i think it will be very difficult for nick to get to 30. but the election will be held six months from now and in between that time i think the democrats have an opportunity to take their message of growth and prosperity to the american people. at the state level, there's only one party talking to those voters. if we can continue the conversation for the next six months, i think we will continue to do well. host: let's put this conversation of four phone calls as well. -- but for phone calls as well.
9:21 am
you can go ahead and start dialing in right now. we will talk to these two gentlemen about the importance of the governors. why should we care about gubernatorial election? guest: that is a great question. this is probably the single most important gubernatorial election that this country has faced. we of 37 races, more than we have had in one year in the history of this country. and it has been 20 years since we have had these races on the eve before redistricting. the long-term and short-term impact of these going to elections is virtually unprecedented. guest: i totally agree with nathan. at one of the things that he and
9:22 am
i try to work on together is raising the level of awareness about the importance of governors' races this year. he and i took our jobs at a similar time and when we came to this town, people were very focused cycle after cycle on senate and house races. that means a lot of our donors were only focused their as well. the house and senate races in 2010 are very important, but we want -- every one -- and we want you to continue to focus on those, but the gubernatorial races will be relevant for the next decade. there are a few reasons for that. one, the country will go toward the redistricting in 2011. every state go through redistricting in 2011, the states that really matter will be the ones that will be reapportioned. it is estimated that 18 states
9:23 am
will leave your gain or lose a congressional district in 2011. 15 of those 18 have governors races in 2010. 14 of those 15, the governors play board -- a large role in the rear portion process. -- in the reapportionment process. but the majority will be 10 seats, or whether the republicans have a 10 seat majority or the democrats have somewhere between a one to 10 seat majority. that means whoever controls the reapportion process will likely have a bigger say in the 2012 election. i think david axelrod and rahm emanuel are very smart man. there is a reason they're paying attention to the governor's race in ohio and colorado and other swing states. they want democratic governors
9:24 am
there. i do not blame them. if we had a republican president, i would what republican governors there. guest: we are blessed right now with having the problem of the really large map. there are places like the northeast and midwest and the great lakes that we have a great opportunity to go on offense in those areas where we have not been on offense in a long time. you can immediately look to places like ohio, wisconsin, michigan, pennsylvania, illinois, those are an area -- host: is ted strickland leading in the polls? guest: absolutely. it is already a horse race. host: nathan daschle, what is your one biggest goal that you want to have? guest: probably california, texas or florida. i know you asked for one, but it is difficult when you have 37
9:25 am
states. but those three are the three that we're looking at because they all have republican governors and we all have very strong democratic candidates. host: when is your recollection? guest: in june. host: and right now and jerry brown is running unopposed? guest: he is unopposed. host: and in california? guest: steve poizner and mikelyn. -- meg whitman. there is a real civil war going on between the far right, who is perceived as the establishment candidates -- and i think a civil war is taking place in california, florida. you can virtually pick any state with the governor's race this year and you will see that. guest: it is a wild stretch of imagination to say that when you have a lot of candidates running
9:26 am
against each other it is a civil war. it is a democracy. the reason we have big primaries is because people are inspired to run this year. one, they want to take their country back. they feel that the country needs more checks and balances and that more republican governors would provide more checks for this president. but the the thing is that they can win in november. we are blessed to have things like steve poizner and meg whitman battling it out. frankly, it will make better candidates out of them in the fall. host: they are pretty rough on each other. are the poizner people going to support the equipment -- the whitman people? guest: we did not have a problem in new jersey last year with chris christman. there was a popular mayor of the regatta, steve login, a very
9:27 am
conservative guy that got 35% of the vote in the primary. chris christie won because people understood he was a conservative, fiscally conservative, maybe not a socially conservative. the primary helped chris christie prepare for what john corzine wanted to do with him in the fall. host: and does this help you in any way down the florida gubernatorial race? guest: it does. i note nick does not want to take the gop were too seriously, but it is a serious threat to his party -- the gop war too seriously, but it is a serious threat to his party. there is a former congressman who has lost two statewide races. there is a sharp lack of enthusiasm for him in florida. just a couple of weeks ago, a conservative businessman got into the race, rick scott.
9:28 am
he is going to tap into the two- party momentum -- the tea party momentum and that will be problems for the other candidates. i understand in an off year midterm election, republicans feel that they need to focus their efforts. but it leaves this huge space in the middle. host: who is running on the democratic side? guest: alec cink, unopposed. host: we want to take some phone calls, but we want to first show and add that the republican governors association is putting out. and that we want to get the leader of the dga to respond to it. here it is. ♪
9:29 am
>> yes, we can. >> the bill is passed. >> yes, we can. >> there ain't no rules around here. we make them up as we go along. >> we have to pass the bill so that we can find out what is in it. >> americans wanted to vote for socialism when they elected president obama. >> certainly, our government cannot produce money that we do not have. >> yes, we can. >> we suffer from a fiscal cancer. >> we killed what made us a great nation. >> yes, we can. >> this is what changed us.
9:30 am
host: nathan daschle, that is what you are running against. guest: it is a perfect example of what and talking about, the need to radicalize their base. while extremely well produced, and i'm glad to know that make is spending his money on web ads, but it is shocking. the republican party knows how to blow a whistle to its supporters. this is clearly an allusion to a 17th century domestic terrorist, guy fawkes. remember, november is an allusion to remember. it is the start of iran paul campaign. -- the start off to the ron paul campaign. the images that they use are
9:31 am
violent and it is a very anti- government message. but it is reflective of were the republican party is right now. guest: the video speaks for itself. there was not one image of violence. people protesting, it is news to me that people protesting is violence. and the democratic leadership, we are going to make of will up. you know, al sharpton and others, those are their words. we put it out on the web. and nathan might be disappointed to hear we did not spend a penny producing the. our in-house team produced it and we put it on the web. it says a lot about the pent-up anxiety in this country that in 72 hours, over 1 million people
9:32 am
downloaded the video. many of them signed up to support the rga and give us donations, but yours and mine and nathan's interpretation of it does not matter. everyone just saw that on c- span. i'm very proud of those who produced it. host: let's take some calls. paul from massachusetts, your first up with our two guests. caller: thank you for letting me get through. i'm from massachusetts and i see a very disturbing had against tim cahill from the republican governors association. i want to know why other governors in other states can get into state elections. i have never heard of that before. also, why don't the democrats get on tv and defend packard?
9:33 am
-- and defend duval patrick ordaz? host: are you a supporter of duval patrick? caller: yes, i am. host: but get a response. guest: i understand if they do not have -- do not like a third party activism in these races. it is our job, but the bus, to support -- both of us, to support the candidates'kg host: m
9:34 am
cahill hurt your chances in massachusetts? not i guest: robb. when i saw that the rga went up in massachusetts i almost gave them money because of a like to see them spend more money on this ad. the more that kale and bigger fight it out and they fight over -- the more cahill and baker fight it out in the fight over who is more conservative, it will be apparent that the only serious candidate in this is deval patrick. guest: nathan and i agree -- i should not say that we agree, but based on what he just said,
9:35 am
it is clear that a vote for tim cahill is a vote for deval patrick. the only thing he is going to do is split the anti-patrick vote. right now, all of the internal polls show that 60% of the voters in massachusetts want someone besides patrick as their governor. that is pretty disappointing that 60% of the people do not want to see you reelected. the only thing tim cahill can do in the next six months is split the vote and bring the winning number down to about 40% because that is all patrick would be able to get. guest: governors across the country are facing tough poll numbers right now. fortunately, the election is still six months away. what is going on is that republicans have no enthusiasm for charlie baker. a lot of thinking is too liberal. this goes back to the gop war that i was talking about that is
9:36 am
playing out all across the country. kale is independent and surrounded by strategist -- cahill is independent and strata by strategists who say that baker is too liberal -- and is surrounded by strategists who said that baker is too liberal. host: tampa, merle, republican, hello. caller: i wanted to bring up this subject, and it does have to do with governors. i am basically a conservative, although i am liberal on the idea that the tax code of our country is screened the conscience of our country -- but the tax code of our country is screwing the conscience of our country. democrats need to get together like never have before. we will not get out of it until we change the tax code. neither one of the parties will
9:37 am
talk about it. host: merle, who would you vote for for governor if it were held right now in florida and for senate? caller: i will be voting for rubio. host: and what about the gubernatorial race? caller: probably the lady -- and i cannot think of her name right now. there is a lady that is running. host: she is the democrat, right? caller: she is covering the serious issues that we have. host: oh, a third republican, thanks so much. any response to what the gentleman had to say? guest: i'm not sure there was a question. host: well, states in trouble physically, are all those states in trouble? and is this an issue -- the state in trouble physically, are all of the states in trouble?
9:38 am
and is this an issue across the country? guest: 1 dramatic difference is the economic records of democratic governors versus republican governors. my friend is not like this, but these are the facts, the top five states with the highest unemployment numbers, republican governors. for best list for business, democratic governors. -- for this best list for business, democratic governors. the rga want to talk about these talking points that work more on the national level, but they are not backed up at the state level. guest: nathan and i are friends. i will try to be short. but first of all, on the job unemployment numbers, based on his own model -- ok, if he wants to tout the five states with the
9:39 am
highest unemployment, you do not hear him touting the three states with the lowest unemployment, which also have republican governors, north dakota, south dakota, and nebraska. the difference between the lowest unemployment, with republican governors, and the 45 that are the highest, those 45 are also -- and the four or five that are the highs, those four or five are rich -- are controlled by the legislative level by democrats. on the forbes list, where he is not saying is that if you look at the top 10, five of the top 10 are also republican governors. these are not born to be won by statistics. these races are going to be won by a state-by-state basis. host: another state with a
9:40 am
gubernatorial race this year, an interesting one, chicago, illinois. go ahead. caller: i have a question. it seems to me that both the republican and democratic parties are pretty much the same these days. there is so much corruption in both of them. so many of the states make it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballot. i would like to know what your parties are -- when your party are going to loosen up the stranglehold on the american populace. host: nathan daschle? guest: i think right now we're seeing a lot of third parties running for office. they are just running for -- running as republicans. and bill britton in most systems would be far right because -- would be republican
9:41 am
because he is that far right in his day. host: didn't they see a poll where he is leading governor quinn? guest: that is what he is not telling you. guest: but the race is still six months away and nobody knows anything about the brady. host: is it your job to make sure that they know about bill pretty? guest: yes, it is, and in six months, quinn will be back on top. host: six months before last year's election in new jersey, the same was said about chris kristie and jon corzine. people in new jersey, joseph people in illinois, -- just like people in illinois, are not confused about whether governor has been doing. if you have 40% and the toll --
9:42 am
in the polls, your toes. -- you are toast. if a governor is below 47% or 46% in their reelecting number, they are seriously vulnerable. our candidate is 10 to 12 points ahead of his incumbent governor and are kennard has one-third of the name by dedication. guest: part of that is that one candidate has to make tough decisions, and there is a really difference -- a real difference here. democrats have been making the tough decisions and they are turning their states around. host: each state has different problems, yes? what is the purpose of an rga? guest: really, we are a source of campaign finance reform.
9:43 am
probably as early as 2000, 2001, the rga and i think the dga were just campaign offices. then they were spun out in their own national committees. our job is to make sure there are more republican governors in the country than democratic governors. guest: i think it is similar, our function. it is primarily two-fold. one is to elect democratic governors. but we believe in electing democratic governors. we believe the difference in leadership of the state level is very important in this country. we also act as a policy source in this country in which there can be a forum. host: beverly in phoenix, you
9:44 am
are on the air. caller: i have a question for nathan. i lived down here 16 years ago and i have yet, except for janet nepolitano, seen a good race against a republican in this state. and jan burqbrewer is going to e coming up for reelection and i do not even know if there is a democrat running against her. also, in the senate race, even though i voted for mccain twice for senator, i think he should go out now. and who is running against him? j.d. hayworth, another republican. host: you always call on the
9:45 am
democrats line. caller: i am a democrat. host: ok, thanks. good to hear from you. guest: right now, all of the action is going on, surprise, with the republican primary. the incumbent governor is one of the few, and we only have seven, that will face a difficult election. she has a number of challenges, a number of primary challengers. i think her immigration bill was a very shrewd move in her attempts to win republican nomination, but it will be a huge setback in the general election. let me tell you how extreme this immigration bill is, rick. -- rick perry is against it. if someone who advocated secession is against your bill,
9:46 am
that tells you something. guest: rick perry did not advocate the session. at least 70% of arizonans absolutely support and likely conceded his opposition to the wind. had he supported the bill, you would have gone to the primary and lost. if gov. brewer wins the primary, i believe she will sell only to feed the attorney general goddard. host: california has a gubernatorial race, tara from daly city, hello. caller: i have a question for mr. ayers.
9:47 am
gov. schwarzenegger has not been particularly successful and has been keeping a low profile lately. i'm wondering if he is thinking about switching parties. also, is mr. poizner or ms. whitman going to have to run to the right of mr. schwarzenegger if they hope to turn out to the republican vote. -- the republican vote? host: do you think that they should run to the right? caller: yes, they should. i am running to the right of governor schwarzenegger, so i think that they should do the same. guest: polling would suggest that you're not the only one, and certainly not the only republican in california that feels that way. as governor schwarzenegger enters his last year in office, i have not been entirely focused on what he has been up to. one thing i have focused on is
9:48 am
attorney general brown. we think jerry brown and an overwhelmingly democratic legislature would be disastrous for the future of the state of california. i am not sure who will win the primary, whether it is meg whitman or steve poizner, but i am confident that they will run on fiscal conservatism. and i believe either one of them would be competitive against the democratic candidates. host: nathan daschle, along with jerry brown you have a cuomo and edmonton. those are familiar names. guest: in california, nick is going to have to get used to the fact that jerry brown will be the next governor of california. in the republican primary, both whitman and poizner are having a sprint to see you can get their forest. that leaves this huge hole in
9:49 am
them -- can get there first. that leaves this huge hole in the middle. in new york, despite nick's overwhelming financial commitment to steve levy, the candidate who is down 30 points, the next governor is going to beat andrew cuomo. -- is going to be andrew cuomo. host: what about edmonton? guest: he still has the primary. we feel very good about the strength of our candidates in the primary. guest: is that a civil war because you have a primary in oklahoma with two candidates? guest: it is not because i think we have candidates who get along. and what you have with snakes is that you have -- with nick is that you have the two-party --
9:50 am
the tea party that has an effect on how these things play out. host: georgia, go ahead. caller: this is like watching wrestling. you are mentioning the monarchical dissent in the families. jefferson and adams and others are very clear about what is beneath and and in when you peel it off when they corresponded. you look out the window and you can see where the white jet flew up over the top of the capital from the pentagon on the morning of 9/11 and thousands were evacuated from capitol hill. host: let's take this to georgia. your and independent.
9:51 am
who are you supporting for governor right now. caller: there was a guy that bought -- that fought bush's boyd, a rich guy dutch tried to steal genco island -- jacko island. he seems like a religious man. host: we're going to leave it there. we're talking about the gubernatorial races. in georgia, mr. barnes is running to recapture his seat. guest: that is right. host: what do the polls say? guest: in the polls, barnes maintains the lead, but this is something that is not that
9:52 am
difficult. i clearly hit a nerve with the civil war something. look, that does signal something very serious when it becomes anti-government. host: who is going to be the republican nominee in georgia? guest: it is too close to call. we have several great options. we will go to a runoff. i think the race will be so close that the top two vote getters will go to a runoff. host: and that is happening in july and then the primary in august? -- that is happening in july, the primary, and then in august? guest: that is right. host: do you think it is going to be a democratic pickup? guest: no, they do not have a chance this year. there is a 55% job approval rating.
9:53 am
voters through the democratic party out of office, led by -- and voters threw the democrats -- the democratic party out of office and they do not want to see if return. caller: i knew the republican was on that because i even -- before i even attuned to it because they have that holier than thou attitude. i would not vote for republican because if i was on fire, they would not spit on me because they would be afraid they would be giving me something for nothing. and poor people who vote republican, especially white, poor people, they must be racist because they will not do anything to help you if they -- if you fall through the cracks. and people do fall through the cracks.
9:54 am
host: what is your question? caller: where did the republican party get the idea for the scary add that you showed? guest: i totally disagree with the caller, and i think she is just fundamentally wrong about her political philosophy. i think most americans who watch our video, clearly, over 1 million of them who have downloaded it and support our gorda organization come to a far different conclusion than the caller. -- support our organization come to a far different conclusion than the caller. she sounds like a better perso and -- a better person. -- bitter person. caller: the gentleman that was talking aboarabout jan burqa ah-
9:55 am
jan brewer, and she got my vote because she signed the bill because she knew it was right for arizona. host: how often do issues like that play into the mature a racist? guest: it is good news for -- in the gubernatorial races? guest: for the most part, this is about moving forward, about who can put together a division of economic prosperity for the state. right now, i think there is a difference because republicans are unnaturally obsessed with washington d.c. and the democrats are talking about their states. there is only one party that is talking to middle-class voters and moderate voters and only one party that has an economic vision for the future. host: next call from sara on the
9:56 am
democrats line. caller: my question is a basic one. i want to know what the young men think the governors can do to promote our economy again and get us back into manufacturing. and i have a section -- the suggestion -- i have a suggestion. by love trains' my whole life. i think of this country -- i love trains, my whole life. i think if this country will manufacture the beautiful locomotives to go all over this country -- host: who are you supporting for brawner in florida? caller: i do not care for -- for governor in florida? caller: i do not care for either
9:57 am
one of them right now. i hope they come up with someone else. host: all right, we will move on to apollo, pa., regina, republican line. you have quite a gubernatorial race going, don't you? caller: 0 age, yes -- oh, yes. my representative is sam morrah. we taxpayers -- property taxes continue to increase for the mandate for notre but behind. -- no child left behind. representative sam more has been a leader. host: give us a thumbnail of pennsylvania. guest: we are blessed to have two good candidates for attorney general -- to good candidates,
9:58 am
one is the attorney general. the democratic nominee will likely be dan al-nahda, but -- of dan's orinado, but they have half the primary, too. it is a 20 " swing state, and we believe we will be competitive -- a 2012 swing state, and we believe we will be competitive with our nominee. guest: this is where nick and i can agree. although, i think our candidates will be the winner there. the primary is in less than two weeks, so we will know pretty soon. this is going to be a very competitive race. it is one of a series of open seats. host: there was an article about the merc the special election --
9:59 am
murtha special election and that could affect the primary race. do you agree? guest: i think specter will bring a vote in the philadelphia area and that will help swing candidates in the area. i think it is a very strong formula because onarado is at a very strong candidate. host: would've been a failure to have sestak -- would it benefit you to have sestak as the candidate rather than arlen specter? guest: we will deal with the hand is dealt and ultimately, i think we will have a matchup between our nominee and his nominee. it is going to be very competitive race.
259 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on