hemingway, and look at the environmental impact of the gulf oil spill with aaron viles. and after that we will hear about congressional concerns paid to military personnel from todd harrison. "washington journal" is next. host: well, most likely you saw the news report yesterday or seeing it this morning, or reading online or in papers, the top kill effort by bp has failed to stop the oil gusher in the gulf. it's sunday, welcome to "washington journal." we want to ask what is the next step after

the top kill effort to stop the leak. the number for democrats, and republicans and independents and others. reminder if you made it through to "washington journal" in the last 30 days, give others the chance to phone in this morning. we will take your e-mails, and tw tweets. and looking at the headline, top kill fails, bp's next strategy to pipe the leak. and next from the miami chronicle, top kill a dud, robots next. and one more, bp's new plan

after top kill fails. that's our question for the next 45 minutes or so, and look at the headline, day 40 with no end in sight. and more on the effort by bp and the top kill effort. "the new york times," bp's latest effort failed and the company abandons the top kill technique. and we have statement from the news conference that the engineers will try to solve the problem with cap, and they have started relief on two wells and won't have contributions until august. the worse spill in history. and they are putting pressure on

the obama administration to take some sort of action and take control of the effort from bp. your thoughts, first up, roger on our democratic line. caller: good morning, yes, i was watching cnn and there was an engineer that said, i am sorry, i see you still speaking. am i on? host: you are on. just listen to the phone. caller: ok, thank you. on cnn there was an engineer talking that said they could use sea water to hold back the oil in lieu of the mud. and i wonder why they don't continue that until they get the relief wells. host: let's hear from indiana and from michael, what is the

next step after top kill didn't work? caller: i wasn't calling about the next step, i am concerned about the problems and more problems because no one has a plan of how to cut these oil wells off. host: michael your comments are reflected in the news, that oil giant bp has been spilling cash on capitol hill far longer than they have polluted the gulf of mexico, that the firm pumped $500,000 in campaign coffers in 2008 and 20 million and they

have put in fields and new york, the watch dog group said that bp has been in the top tier of oil and gas spender on the hill. we have john on the republican line. caller: good morning, i would, i know this has been already disregarded, i think it should be turned over to the navy, and bp be at their beckon call. and whatever money and assets. host: what assets do you think that the navy has that bp hasn't been able to deploy so far? caller: i don't know, bath scapes i think they are called, and submersibles, in miami there is one that is 140 feet in

length. i believe that the navy owns that. they have got things they can get down to and perhaps facilitate this in a better way than bp is able to. i don't know, but that's my thoughts. host: to denver, next up is dave on our democratic line. caller: good morning, sir. first let me say that c-span provides an invaluable service to the public. first on bp did we just rely on their good word that they could do it or not? b, does mms have staff on board. host: that's the mineral and management service. caller: yes, i am sorry. has staff onboard and can track

what is going on and have expert knowledge about drilling that far down? or is it just an oil company, period. and thirdly, correct me if i am wrong, i heard early had bp installed a half a million blow out preventer, if i have the name wrong, forgive me. that could have prevented the whole thing after they spend 18-20 million to clean it up. host: thank you for the call, can't speak of the blow-up preventer. here is the post from denver, the grain in colorado, they speak that the numbers is to triple to change the workplace in colorado.

niagara falls, debbie. caller: good morning, i want to contribute to the previous caller that c-span is great asset to the public. i believe that i heard the admiral from the coast guard that has spoken to other oil companies and getting their evaluation sias well as from bp. and i have heard that the united states has no assets that could contribute to correcting the spill than any experience or knowledge from bp. so going into the food chain of the engineer group than the c.e.o.'s of the big oil

companies is something i would look into. and i don't expect the president of the united states to put on a dive suit, and i believe that the criticism that they are getting is unfounded from a point of bias and ignorance. host: debbie, thanks for the call. and she mentioned that the president go down there, and i will bring up from the round-up of huffington. i am a huge fan, but when i saw that the white house would support the round-up, i hope they play hey, jude. and are you kidding me, this is not time for the white house

sing along but to put up one in new orleans, and if there is a sing around put together all those that are provided by a well (inaudible). those are the thoughts from huffington. and paul mccartney will be in washington at the liberty of congress for an award. jacksonville, florida, here is fran. caller: good morning, i heard one caller mention about the sea water to keep the pressure down and drills. but one report i heard said that it was the use of the sea water than the mud that contributed to the explosion in the first place. also about the government involvement, i find that ironic that the republicans, their

whole tenor is less government and let private industry and the free market take care of everything. host: right. caller: now they want the government to spend their money. it's because we left everything to the free-market and private industry that the government doesn't have the facility to handle this. because we have left it up to the free-market so long. after that maybe the republicans will realize that there are some things that government has to control. and i thank you. host: thank you for the call, maryland, welcome to ron on the republican line. what is the next step of the oil gusher after the failure of the top kill procedure? caller: good morning, i am not sure what is in place in reference to topping off or

capping off the well. i am sure there are plans and probably lead-times for certain equipment come in play there. but in reference to what this administration could do and congress could do, they could mobilize. there has been, i don't know i think someone said 17,000 ideas as to how to clean up the oil that is already spilled. and i think that most of the criticism is from the lack of attention to the clean-up while after the fact. and that just goes to show that the government with its control cannot control that. they don't do a good job. host: do you think that the federal government should have said ahead of time for bp or any

country drilling in that deep of water, ok, what is your plan if anything fails? caller: that should have been in place, and if it fails what is the plan to minimize damage. and i don't think any of those steps are in place. and i don't know why they aren't. host: and on the deepwater rig in particular, front page story of the "new york times," document earlier fears of the safety of offshore oil well. i want to show in the "new york times," they write about the technology and the trust that americans have. our fix-it faith, the struggle to contain the oil spill in the gulf challenges america's belief

that technology can solve any problem. she writes that americans have had an unswerving belief that technology will save us. it's the calvary coming over the hill, but as americans watch the undersea well over the past month, it became our belief that perhaps technology was misplaced. to have your calls after top kill has failed. going to staten island. caller: good morning, i am calling to make a few comments. last week on a show, going back in the archives, in 1979 the same thing happened and it took nine months to solve the issue. host: where did it happen? caller: 200 feet, and she showed

clips of what took place. it happened in 1979 and it took nine months to solve the problem. and they were doing the exact same things in terms of trying to plug this leak. it's interesting how they tried to move forward and can't done anything different than 30 years ago. and also i went to the internet and hit on an alternative website alex jones. host: what website? caller: alex jones, based out of texas. and there was a reporter with research and saying that the

americans should be paying more. and two reporters at the roundtable discussed, one said to the other, you know that you think there should be a two to three dollar tax for foreign oil and said that the administration would against that. host: are you saying you think there is aina deliberate nature this disaster? caller: it raises that point. the world is running out of oil. so i think we have reached peak oil already as far as production goes. it costs more to get the oil out

of the ground than it does to get the oil that we have. and you get the quality of the oil goes down, the amount of the oil goes down. it takes seven gallons of oil to produce one tire on internal combustion car. host: thank you for your opinion, from twitter.com, one thing the oil will be stopped by professional oil men and not by meddling bureaucrats. and from this headline, protesters march in phoenix and backers gather in tempe, hoping to turn their frustration into action. protesters marched in arizona on saturday and urged the nation

leaders to hear their pleas. and immigrants are not the problem, we must stand together for justice, opportunity and peace. and that's a look at the front page of the arizona republic. the issue leaves the front page of the "los angeles times," the picture on the rally in phoenix. and we go to tom on the democratic line on the oil spill and the failure of top kill. caller: thank you, bill. the one question i haven't heard asked, what is going to happen when a hurricane comes through there and picks up this oil and it starts raining oil over this country. is that a realistic scenario? i have heard people talk about the hurricane washing the oil

ashore. host: we will ask that question, we will have aaron viles and focus with him on the environmental, and the wildlife impact. and we will remember that question, what will happen now that the hurricane season officially begins this weekend. here is pat from ft. worth, texas. caller: yes, about the oil spill, i don't believe that the government can do anything. the government has sat around for 30 something years and allowed the companies to dump in the ohio river that was to be cleaned up by 2005. but president bush gave them an extension. that poison river that you can't even eat the fish out of. and it's the same with this oil thing, they will sit around on

their duffs and get their retirement and pay nothing. i think that all congressmen and senators need to live on social security, and they need to live on the majority of the people that do a living on a dime. and it's sad that allow the companies like halliburton to move to dubai, and they don't want to pay their dues but rape the land and oceans and poison it. and that's what is going to happen. the government including obama won't do anything. they will do a lot of talking, we have seen it from congress, when they passed that bill they had only had a $75 million liability for something like that. that's the most insane thing. and they need to fire every congressman and senators up there. everyone one of them.

because they are all in bed with the big money. we got most of our groundwater poisoned right now. and you know what, no one really mentions it that much. but this has been going on for so many years. since the 70's they knew that the groundwater has been in trouble. host: pat, we will let you go there. the views from ft. worth, texas. next up we have carolina beach. caller: good morning sir, and thank you for c-span. i agree that the government doesn't have a lot of tools at their disposal to cap the leak. but they do have tools for clean up. i was disgusted that bp's clean-up crew left when the president got on the plane. and the government has the power

to enforce the clean-up. host: you are calling from carolina beach, and that the oil spill has affected beaches like florida and alabama. has it affected carolina beach? caller: haven't seen it yet, i am on my way to do some fishing. it would break my heart, i look over the beauty of the atlanta ocean and it would break my heart to see that come around. and i feel so bad for the people in louisiana losing their livelihoods. host: as the summer vacation gets underway, and there is a story about long island being one of the best beaches in the top 10. and one is cooper's beach, and second is siesta beach in

saraso sarasota, florida. and noted as for siesta beach, and they believe there is a low probability that the oil will get to southwest florida. we go to jean on the democratic line. caller: good morning, i would like to mention something, a lot of people are nullifying the technology, and it's not the technology that the problem but the people. i have watched the federal regulatory and we don't need to regulate business, they can take care of it. the gulf is the biggest example of food recalls.

there is now a criminal prosecution on tylenol or one drug. the financial community that was no longer regulated that went wild. i hear this from so many people on the far right, that government is the problem. we need to let business do business. we are now reaping the fruit of eight to 10 years of this things and it will get worse. host: gene, what regulatory you work for? caller: i work for a university. host: back to this editorial piece talks about america's fix-it faith.

and that abstract devotion was misguided. that good new ideas need funding and testing to be sure they worth. and pointed out that pledges by the coal industry and emissions of technologies that are yet unproven or not tried to a large scale. alex is next from raleigh, north carolina. caller: i believe that we need to bring prosecutions to all who don't do their jobs. but with this particular disaster, how about the government revoke the drilling

rights of bp unless they fix it. and i was listening to npr, there was a gentleman that called on the diane ream show, he seemed very knowledgeable. and said that they need to cut the pipes where the leaks are, so they can get a clean cut and put the cap on the valves. it seemed he knew what he was talking about. and i am not sure if the pipes are bent and broken, or how many leaks there really are? host: do you think that bp know what is they are talking about and if they have a grasp of what needs to happen next? caller: i have no idea, i haven't followed the story closely with the mixed messages. but following on tv, if you get

a clean cut on that pipe, you can cap it properly. diane reams took the man's number, out of st. louis. host: and to let the viewers are getting a look at bp's cam, that we linked on our website. if you go there we have hearings from capitol hill and last week's hearings by the coast guard and the mineral management service. you can look at those online in their entirety. good morning to massachusetts. caller: good morning, i am calling as an independent. i am trying to hear about transparency about anything, whether the oil spill or any issue. i just want honesty, whether

bush or obama who is president, we need transparency and honesty. they know damn well they weren't. but we need to cap this thing and move on. it's not hard, the technology referred to "the new york times" report. first of all, they are not credible. and second of all, get this capped and move on. host: albany, new york, democratic caller, hi. caller: good morning, i am fully supportive of president obama and his actions. and i feel that bp would be responsible for all of the damages. and i think we need to hold them account to that. and we need to involve the

manufacturer and push bp (inaudible) america taxpayer's dollars. host: looking at the baltimore sun and guests including jindle, governor of louisiana. and we have comments about the president. >> i have a relationship with the president, i like him. and as far as being involved in his objectives, they are limited. i give credit to his energy

secretary for reaching out and let me work there, i appreciate it. in terms of the white house, either they don't want to work in a bipartisan way or doesn't know how. and i am still puzzled. for example, the president came to visit us, we are delighted to see him. but he didn't say why he was coming. he didn't say, i am going to talk about immigration, i may send troops down to the border. he and senator mccain could have jointly said that. so there was no real effort to involve the other party in the way i always did as governor. and i guess they won't pay more attention until we have more senators and have to. host: let's later today on

"newsmakers," and we have a look at the sunday free press out of detroit. taking michigan's pulse, attention candidates this is what michigan wants from you, jobs. in a poll they did. and on the front page the story about the failure of the top kill effort. we can't make this well stop flowing. the latest effort to plug oil leak failed, bp says. we have rob on the republican line. caller: good morning, i had one question on this, all we see is remote photos of the well. and i have been following this pretty close, they haven't sent a man in deep submersible vehicle to survey the site, with a human being in there. it looks like there is horizon

on the sea floor. if you are going to drop something on a seal, don't you think you should make it flat on the ocean? host: thank you, our next caller. caller: yes, i found a website that takes suggestions. host: yeah, someone did mention that, do you remember the website? caller: i don't, but i have been a metal fabricator for 20 years, and i built oil rigs for some time. and there is a process called explosive welding, and was used in the 70's by a company offshore for this thing, for underwater repair for pipelines

on the seabed. this process i believe can be used to patch the pipe and get the volume of this thing toned down until we can hear of a permanent fix. i haven't heard back from thee these guys and did some research. host: are you still involved in fabrication? caller: not in the oil business but i run a fabrication shop. the heat index is made out of metal and you can bond to similar metals. and this works at depth, it

doesn't matter. host: are you listening to sirius radio? caller: yes. host: thank you for your time. and we have this headline that the procedure fails and the gulf plug is unlikely but the technology is on the radar. next up we have richard on the democrats line. caller: yes, you are referring to the experts they have. they are experts with bp on how to drill it. and as far as stopping it, there are experts on how to plug it but save the plumbing fixture down there and also save the situation where they can get the oil out after they stop it. the direction that the president

should have given them is there is only one objective, and that's the stop it. we don't care about recovering what is down there. and if they would have had say half a dozen barges lined up with that heavy mud and the concrete they were going to pour down there. and just keep barge after barge, dumping it down there to cover it. and it would have stopped it. but it would have also probably destroyed bp's objective of recovering what oil there is underneath there. and that's what, you know, we got to get bp out of there and get somebody else handling this thing. host: 10 more minutes of your

calls on what is next in the terms of the aftermath of the failure of the top kill effort to stop the leak in the gulf. "new york times," malawi's president regarding gay marriages. and for the countries to rebuff their proposal of middle east and israel joining the nonproliferation treaty and did not mention iran of the atomic program. the agreement reached a day earlier had put u.s. officials

in an awkward position, and to reject would cause a problem, but to accept would create a new source of tension by the allies and that is set for tuesday. here is an international section headline, "new york times," military reports false drone operators in the deaths of 23 afghan civilians. knoxville, republican line, what is the next step? caller: i don't know, i agree with the clean cut, put a valve on this thing. i wonder why they can't take a heavy deflated ladder and blast

air and close it off. i don't think trying to bury is is the other. and obama saying that all the cost would go to bp, and then a sentence later someone asked about the burms that the general wanted to put up and concerned about the cost of it. host: we have independent call. caller: good morning, from waterford, new jersey. i don't have an idea for a solution immediately. but i think it would be very, very prudent for when they drill a well, the only real solution is the relief well. and we know in the past it takes multiple efforts and months to get down there. host: right, they are saying a

couple of months off. caller: i think we ought to demand when they drill the wells, they have to at the same time drill other wells simultaneously and then they have more than one point of access. host: sort of an emergency shut-off valve. caller: yeah, you dig the well. if it will take months to dig a relief well, and why not multiple holes when they do it. so if something happens with the hole they are drilling, they have other holes behind that hole they can plug or put another valve in. host: that's valerie from new jersey. here is a tweet from ann, bp recks the -- wrecks the

technology. and top kills can't stop bp's devil. oh, my gush, and the timeline now 41 days since the april 21 deepwater caught fire and with this leak that has spewed 40 million gallons of oil in the gulf of mexico. and then water valves fail. and bp tried with retainment boxes and that failed. and then they tried with pipes to limit the flow that never met the solution. and now the top kill failed. we have al, democratic caller. caller: yeah, i have a couple of

things to say about people calling in. i read a book by robert kennedy, jr., that was put out before the carey election. and you can read about that, and about league of international voters and find in the library who voted for it and all against the environmental protection. one thing that george bush did was stop the superfund. and now we need the superfund to clean up that mess. that's all i have to say. host: a couple of calls here, it's memorial weekend, and here in the daily news in new york, of the brooklyn scouts and head

stones adorned with u.s. flags and coverage from arlington cemetery, and the story about the ladies at arlington and one is paula mckinley that serves as the navy chief arlington lady. and that's tomorrow morning on this program, and again coverage from arlington national cemetery. we have tom on the republican line. caller: why do we have the lobbyists in washington? host: why do oil companies have lobbyists in washington? caller: well, put it this way, as long as washington runs on

lobbyists, our representatives can't vote for the people. it's corrupt, everyone knows that. we ought to have the rules no lobbyists in washington. if bp wants to talk to our senators, they can do it in phoenix or denver. the problem is that as long as the money, the bribery is with bp and that's why. host: we will spend more time on the oil spill and the environmental impact to the gulf coast. one more article, fishermen in the gulf fear disruption of their way of life. and how bp will source for the loss of income, and if the company will provide for the upfront investment in the

industry that is harvesting. and what if this shrimp business is proving to be the best, and that's a shrimp investment, you can make 8,000 in six or seven hours on a night like this. and in the next segment, we will turn our attention to politics and the economy with mark hemingway, columnist for the and the examiner. but first the sunday shows. >> the topics will include the oil spill, the mid term elections, arizona's new immigration law. the guests on meet the press, include carol browner.

former congressman and candidate jp hayworth. with louisiana's governor, bob jindle. and on sunday they will meet with the ranking member of the oversight committee. on face the nation, you will hear from ededmarky, chairs the house committee on independence and global warming. and on cnn, state of the union, talking with guests including democratic senator, jim web, and

louisiana republican, david witmer, you can listen to all five sunday morning talk shows at 90.1 fm here in washington, d.c. and on c-span. >> tonight david and jean heidler on c-span's "q & a." >> and you will find quickly in this life beyond college, that you will be acquired to occasion to dig the well a little deeper. >> this weekend commencement addresses from leaders in the arts, sports and scientists, at 3 eastern on c-span. next weekend on book tv, noted

scholar from chicago university has contributed on 20 books, join our three hour discussion with your phone calls and e-mails and tweets on book tv, live next sunday at noon eastern on c-span 2. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is mark hemingway, there is a story with the headline that oil spill hurts obama's brand, do you agree with that? guest: yes, people expect a lot from the government with the size and the responsibilities it's assumed. so when something big happens that appears to be out of the government's control. when they are trying to

micromanage things like salt intake. it looks bad when you can't take care of big things like border security and oil leaks in the gulf. when you are trying to say, trust us, we know what is best for you. host: don't big expectations for government to do things and regulate right, does that mean that a big spending commitment comes with that? guest: i don't know if a big spending commitments with that. but they expect more in return. host: mark hemingway has written about tension across the country. i want to pull out a couple, when a public pension is trust fund, you wrote on monday, and you began to wonder if it wasn't

time to bring back shame in a back in a big way. in terms of public pension how big of a problem is that looming, both public and failure of private pensions? guest: oh, gosh, it's hard to get a reliable estimate but it's probably exceeding $3 trillion. now to put this in perspective, in california, governor schwarzenegger had a study that said that the state had 5.30 billion, and that's more than the gross national product of sau sau saudi arabia and sweden, and each household owes for that one

state. and in the "new york times" weighed in on this, and this is again a huge problem in new york. it's a huge problem everywhere. host: and you wrote about senator casey's union bailout from the multipension racket. what was all about? guest: now bob casey, the senator from pennsylvania is pushing a bill in the senate and the congressman is pushing a similar bill in the house. and the deal is that they want to make sure that the pension benefit corporation, that's a government sponsored entity, like freddie mac, where they pay

in if the government goes bust and they can provide. but if you have to rely on the pgc, the pay out is 12,000 a year which is not something you can retire on. but the problem is that a lot of pension plans are failing, a lot to do with unions, and now they are pushing to bailout the union pension plans that could be a straight liability. and a lot of people wondering if my 401 tanking and why should i pay for someone else's retirement when mismanaged. host: would we be better off ridding ourselves of the pension plan and for people to have their own 401 k's?

guest: i believe that as we have seen pension plans out of control, that defined benefit plans are a thing of a past. and really the only way to get out of this situation we are in, either a lot of people are going to suffer some hardships or a huge taxpayer bailout. host: mark hemingway is here to talk politics and mid-term elections and the economy. the numbers for republicans, democrats and independents are on the screen. i wanted to point out a headline in the constitution, called the state of discontent. this is about sonny purdue running for governor, it's not a

job for the timid. where school districts have been axed, thousands of teachers and where immigration remains a thorny issue. can you broaden that out between issues that face the congressmen and senators and governors in the mid-term elections, there is a state of discontent among the elected public. guest: i know, and that's true and for a number of valid reasons. there are a lot of primary functions of government, border security and national security, and we have seen huge failures on those fronts. you have a government spending all kinds of money to micromanage your health care and salt intake, any number of things that the government is

trying to dabble in. but they are not doing their basic functions well. and the overreach of the combined failures is a lot of people are fed up. host: align that with capitol hill. you hear that washington is spending too much, and that government should do the things they should do, border security and the regulation of the oil spill. the regulation of salt intake you talk about is smaller dollar versus the border security? guest: it's the time and energy they spend on things that are not government functions. cap and trade and other things, it's hard to convince people that a lot of things they are spending time on is not the most

important use of their time and money. host: from a political standpoint from the health care measure is that a plus or minus? guest: that's a minus, they spent so much time in political capital arguing it and we found out what is in it, and the famous quote that nancy pelosi issued. and whether or not you agree with the legislation or the idea of health reform, there is a whole lot of things that are just straight-up political pay back. and i think that people are wise to that. host: we have callers waiting, mary, in michigan. caller: good morning, yesterday it was interesting to see, i

believe it was fred thompson, the former senator from tennessee. host: yes, on "washington journal," on friday. caller: yes, apparently the tv show he's on has been canceled. and fortunately for mr. thompson being in government for 10 years, he is probably going to be getting a full-pension with full benefits. perhaps this gentleman can el elucid the fringe benefits for people in congress for a short time. and if we could mention the trillions of dollars we are losing because our companies are offshore. say for example that halliburton is in dubai, they have people in

houston but do not pay taxes. guest: it's true, the federal workers in general get an unbelievably sweet deal and that extends to congress and the president. the average federal worker makes twice what the private sector worker makes. and i think frankly that is out of whack and totally not defensible. and that's just the benefits and not the pension. host: back to pensions, you wrote about state and government, and do you see a day of reckoning for federal? guest: the voters in the last two years, this is a sort of issue that sort of crept up on

people. and more and more people are paying attention to it. and i think that voters are generally discontent about it. particularly with the sour economy. the federal government has gained jobs over the past years, and the number of federal workers making six figures increased 50% in a calculation they did. and that happened through both the bush administration and the obama administration. this is a general inertia, it's not a partisan issue. it's not democrats and republicans, this is public versus taxpayers. host: and the economy a quick snapshot from the associate press, and the series on the american economy issue, debt forges ahead, there are new jobs produced but old wars produced

and with the savings, 46% of those surveyed have debt related stress. we have archie on the democratic line. caller: mr. hemingway, i am calling about medicare. i live in a nursing home. and it seems to me that the government could balance medicare immediately if they would pay half the price they are presently paying a nursing home to stack us up like cardboard. and the family members could afford to keep us at home. this was done for years in germany and it worked. and i think you might be surprised. i believe that medicaid would be

cut in half over night. you might look at that because you are influential enough to do something about it. thank you. guest: thank you, i don't know a lot about that issue but not many would not disagree that medicare, there is a lot of ways that we handle manage care and elderly people that need medical help that could be . .

so i think there's some signs of life there. i mean, hopefully other politicians will follow his lead. but look at los angeles is in terrible, that city is in terrible fiscal predicament yet they have a mayor who has got a long history of union involvement and seems to be largely unwilling to stand up to union expenditures. so we'll see. host: call from texas.

what's the name of your town? caller: uncertain. host: go ahead, james. caller: i keep hearing these people saying they want the government to do more and more. just what do they want obama to do? put on a wet suit and dive down there and clog it up themselves? the republicans were the ones that are out there and i'm from this area. it seems like the whole gulf coast, all they kept saying, they have these signs out saying drill, baby drill, well, they got drilled. and they keep saying they want obama to do something. why don't they get down there and do something about it if they know so much about it. guest: you know, regardless of whether or not you think that's unfair, and there is some argument to expect the government to do everything in a wation like this. but either you believe that and you have to accept it from time

to time calamities will happen. or, you have to hold somebody responsible here. the president himself has taken responsibility for this and we do have a tremendous amount of reg lay tr oversight here. so again the government should bear some blame, along with bp. and i think bp should be made to pay for this. the other thing though you have to ask is where are we going to get america's oil? if we don't get it from drilling in the gulf, we have to have it shipped in. the last major catastrophe was from a tanker. if we're not drilling in the coast that means more tankers. >> what do you think this means about future overshore drilling? guest: i don't know. public opinion and other things have gone back wrds a bit on this. but it just depends. i do think that this is a very important issue. i've been on a rig in the gulf, and these are really amazing

technological marvilles, the companies that operate them are by and large responsible. we have thousands of wells that we have drilled over decades and there have been very few clamties of any sort. when you talk about this idea that you're dragging this massive platform to the middle of the ocean drilling 5,000 feet below that and another 10 ,000 feet below that to get oil out of it and they're doing this productively for decades, you know, i think that by and large this oil company doss know what they're doing. but, again, you know, things happen. and companies need to be held responsible. host: we is that right this morning several more liberal views and more supportive of the president were critical of the administration. the philadelphia inquiry, the spill effort needs oil. the administration's response

to the disaster in the gulf has been anything but smooth. i'll pull this off and take a look. passivity in the east room. that's the headline on his piece this morning. another look this morning at a piece from the "new york times," frank rich. obama's katrina may be worse. and also from that newspaper this morning. also from that pape they are morning is what's more with feeling? maureen dowd, even mr. spock shows his emotions sometimes. what do you read into that? what is the posture that the administration should take that they're now now taking? guest: well, i think liberals are waking up to something that those of us saw from the get go. there have been any number of things since obama took office. the response has been entirely lack luster. look at the administration's response to the underwear bomber on christmas day. remember, the system worked?

you know, i mean, they have been entirely lack luster in situations that they need to get out in front of and be responsive. i don't think president obama can go in there and plug the well himself but certainly they can act like they're on top of it and be concerned about it and be communicating with the public about what's going on, at least reassuring. and i think it's fair to say that this administration's approach that we're going to be cool and calm and not worried about everything will somehow transfer to the public their passivity about it. it just isn't working. you need to go out and show a strong forceful response. and obama hadn't given a press conference since july. and how long would he have again if this hadn't have happened? host: your senior political writer, the headline on his op ed piece today, the oil spill

tars democrat's reputation for competence. this is christopher on our democrat's line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my thoughts about the spill would be i want to think we're swimming against the tide. these companies have the reputation of they know how to drill. i don't think they're particularly an expert in capping stuff. maybe we shoold try again to siphon the oil, i mean, suck it up to the top with whatever. they did try once and didn't get enough. but they did get some. so maybe we should look, swim with the tide and see if we can get some more of that oil up. the first reason we were there was to get the oil. it's unfortunate what happened. but i think we can look at other areas of getting this oil

to the top instead of trying to cap it. because we're facing mother nature and you know what happens. maybe we should swim with the tide. with the response to mr. hemming way. let me guess i'm pretty sure you're a republican because everything you said so far is against the administration or obama or whatever. that's not what we're here for. people like those that influence the top process of people who do not think for themselves. nothing good has happened in this administration if you listen to him, you know. and i live in new jersey. it's not good for this, we know it. it's not his fault. >> when you say chris, when it's a matter of time. what do you mean by that? guest: caller: he's going to lose the election. we know he has. he comes with his agenda. >> host: you put a lot out there.

we'll let mark respond. guest: well, if you would like me to discuss my thoughts on the presidency of george w. bush and congressional republicans generally i think you'll be pleasantly surprised. but again, i'm not here to necessarily take obama down a peg because i don't like obama. i think that i'm critical of the federal government here generally and their response to this oil spill. i do think that one of the big problems here, i don't know how exactly what the best way to cap this oil we will is, but i do think that the big problem here is there was no plan in place for when something like this happened that was effective and timely. and i think that is largely a regulatory failure as much as it is a bp failure. as for chris in new jersey, well, i'm sorry to tell you, as far as i know more people in the state according to the opinion poll still have a favorable opinion than

negative. but the bottom line is that chris christy is making a lot of decisions that are unpopular that need to be done the state's fiscal situation is dire. and anyone that pretends otherwise and what chris cristty isn't at least serious about addressing the problem in that very few politicians in this country are, is being unfair to christy. his policies may not work out in the end but i do think his commitment here is sincere. because he's clearly not trying to be pop lor. host: are other governors keeping an eye on him? guest: i'm sure they are. because a lot of tough decisions have to be made. decisions like peeling back union expenditures and pension, these don't have to be republican versus liberal issues. these are special interest policy issues. host: bob in virginia, go ahead. caller: yes. you know, i would like to hear

your opinion on this long-term effect sitting here, you know, the oil spill. i know this much. the oil companies, people look [inaudible] they might think that's an indicator of what the oil companies make. but it's not. the oil prices ever since two or three years ago when they went up sky high to $140 a barrel, in the auto parts stores and everything, the price of motor oil where you used to change your engine with and everything and all the products have doubled and tripled and never come back down even though gas prices have. and with this oil sprill, i see a really long road here where all this oil that they're disbursing under the water, i think the oil companies are going to join together and probably protect each other so one company don't take a big hit and ultimately i think all the people in the country and in the world too are probably going to pay for this oil

spill. i just want to know what you think about that. guest: well, there's no question that oil companies are extremely profitable. in fact, i think exxon mobile is the second most profitable company in the world. so clearly i think that we need to do our best to make bp and anyone else who was directly libel for this responsible. and if that means paying out millions of dollars or even billions of dollars i guess in lawsuits, well, then, so be it. these companies are going to make lots of money in the future, and it's important that they take care of what they have done now. so i don't have a lot of sympathy for the oil companies. at the same time, you know, i don't think they should be demonized. i think they do provide a valuable commodity and generally do a good job. but they're also compensated

handsomely for it. i think this is how free enterprise should work. you make a lot of money, you assume a lot of responsibility at the same time. and i think bp can take it. host: mark, a graduate of the university of oregon, with us until 8:30 eastern. i'm sure you get asked this. any relation to earnest? guest: i've never verified this, he is a cousin of my great grand father. host: how long have you been a writer? guest: since college, editor of my school newspaper and went to journalism school. and here i am. host: i want to turn to politics and ask you your thoughts on the joe sestak story. he revealed yes e indeed he had a conversation with bill clinton's office at the behest of rahm emanuel. the report from the white house office says that the, they defend that offer to sestak. what was your view of this whole story?

guest: well, it's complicated and nuanced one. on one hand, if you look at the statute that the president is accused of violating here, it is about the most sweeping thing you have seen. any activity directly or indirectly covering anything involving electoral politics involving any offer of a federal job indirectly or directly, it's incredibly sweeping. it would seem to basically sweep away any notion of political horse trading whatsoever. in that respect i think this is in many ways similar to the valerie plame affair which hinged on something called the intelligence and indemties protection act, which i think should not exist. it was passed in the 80s to target one c.i.a. agent. and this law the democrats protested at the time and i think rightly so because it piped down coverage of the kea

creaws used against the bush administration was fairly nakedly political. and i think in this regard it's kind of unfair to expect the president not to do any sort of political horse trading in terms of how his own party is governed. that said, i think most people don't like the idea of federal perks or jobs or whatever being offered. i've seen a lot of liberal barters defend the president by saying it's not a big deal because sestak would have been qualified for any job that he was offered and i don't think that's fair to say either. i think when it comes to ethical stuff, err on the side of caution. there was the point president obama was going to be different and above this kind of stuff. anything who knows about chicago politics should have known better but i think the president in some way is being hoisted by his own part on this. host: how much would that story have changed the election scenario if this would have

come out before the primary in pennsylvania? guest: i don't know. the allegation of it was out before the primary, so i think that was enough to influence the election one way or the other. and i certainly think it helped defeat spector. so i don't know now whether or not the knowledge that bill clinton was the bag man, that might have stired the pot quite a bit more. but i don't know. we'll see. host: back to calls here. senate. good morning to bob on our independents line. caller: i was watching c-span here earlier in the week and was watching the senate investigation as a very competent senators were asking the bp, transatlantic and hall burton about the complexities of solving this. and i thought gee here we have senators who for years have created their own gusher called our budget. and if i would have been one of those executives, i would have

said solve this federal gusher that you're in charge of, let us g back rather than appearing here, let us try to solve the gusher we have on our hands and we'll get ours fixed before you do. on the sestak issue, knut gingrich brought up a good point. i think possibly the first conversation is not the one bill clinton had. and i think it's important to ask not only did mr. clinton have it, but were there conversations before that. thank you and have a great memorial day weekend. guest: i think you're exactly right. this is the point i was trying to make earlier. i think you said it a bit more directly. it's a bit galing in some regards senators raking executives over the coals when they do not have a reputation for that themselves. so that is a good point. and i think there's for better for worse is a good many americans that still for whatever clamties, corporations might bring upon us, you know,

at least know that a lot of these corporations are somewhat accountable at least to the bottom line, which is not much but it's better than say what congress is. you know, as for the sess tack thing, you're right. another thing to keep in mind, and very few reporters have even asked about this which blows my mind. well, out in colorado there's a man who is running in the primary against michael bennett . the denver post reported last fall multiple sources confirm that deputy white house chief of staff jim mass na had made a similar offer to andrew romnoff to get out of the race. so clearly this is not just one thing that happened where maybe bill clinton went rogue and made a job offer that he was not empowered to do. this clearly is a pattern now.

this is a mode duss op randi. host: good stories like this threaten the long jevt of rahm emanuel's chief of staff? guest: i don't know. rahm emanuel is probably better hard-nosed politics than anyone in washington. but it's entirely possible that it could. host: dallas, texas. good morning to doris on our democrat's line. go ahead. caller: good morning. he's already answered the question. but my question was that i think mr. hemmingway has his facts incorrect as far as federal employees. now, it may be the senate and the house that get good benefits. i worked for the d.o.d. and we, i get like $53 for every year that i worked in retirement. so when i retire next year in 2011 aul i'm going to get is 1176 with no cost of living raise because the social security is not getting a cost of lig raise.

when i get 62 they're going to take half of that back. i have to live on 623 a month. now, they're going to force me to take social security. so for people to get all their information out there, the federal employees get so much retirement benefits. that is not so. host: we'll let you go there with a reminder we'll be talking about military pay and benefits in our next segment. mark. guest: obviously not every federal worker gets a sweet deal but the bottom line is if you average it out, you don't take one specific instance whatever on the whole the pay in benefits including pensions and everything else and retirement benefits for federal workers are far exceed the private sector. host: republican view from westover, maryland. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to congratulate mr. hemmingway for his ability to distinguish this

administration because of its incompetence. a couple of responses. there really is no response to the oil spill crisis. secondly, the administration is exhibitting extreme naivity in foreign policy. for example, it's nonpolicy versus iran. thirdly, the administration is in a perpttull campaign mode. unfortunately they forgot about governing. and additionally, the administration continues to demonize every single opponent they have. whether it's the oil crisis or whether it's a political opponent. and that's all that the administration is good at. i would like to hear your response. guest: well, i agree with a lot of things you say. there are any number of situations where the bush

administration response to big important developments and crisis, particularly hurricane katrina was lack luster. on the other hand, again, there is the question of what really the president can do in a situation like that. the difference is that obama came into office here after the bush administration and specifically made a point of saying this last administration was incompetent. i will be competent. so to exextent he is going to be held accountable. as far as what you're saying, i think this is a very valid critysm about the administration. you have to remember during the campaign when they were threating to sick the justice department on anyone who was criticizing them, if you're going to be that har nosed, i'm not too -- for better or worse

i think the way they've chosen to handle things is coming back to haunt them. host: talked about your criticism for the bush administration, their response to hurricane katrina. when did the sort of competency in government begin to decline? guest: well, that's a good question. i don't know if government was ever terribly competent. but i think the issue is more that once upon a time the federal government wasn't so big and wasn't expected to assume so many responsibilities so that you had stronger networks in communities and you had stronger state governments, stronger local governments that were better prepared on the ground when something happened immediately to deal with stuff. and yet you've got things in situations where fema has gradually expanded to the point where they've taken over so

million responsibilities. fema hands out grants to buffalo, new york when it snows too much. it snows in the snow belt. this is absurd. and we need to get back to a situation where people, the more local you are, the more control that you have. that said, again, i don't want to harp on the federal government too much because i do think they get an unfair rap. if you look at what happened in hurricane katrina, the bottom line is a lot of stuff happened over a long period of time and the vast majority of people got out of that city safely. had that happened in just about any part of the world, the damage would have been far worse. so you have to pick and choose what you hold the government accountable for. in some cases they fail miserably but in some cases they do ok. host: your criticism of the financial, the commission to no where. guest: this is an editorial. i didn't write this.

but i am on the examiner editorial page. host: and in that editorial you focus in on the chairman, the "new york times" report on his setup of the commission. but most importantly, the editorial writes that, what value can there be in such a report when the senate and house have already passed landmark regulation designed to prevent another economic meltdown? now in your opinion could a panel like this produce a report that would have impact or value? guest: that's a good question. why are they reporting to congress on the causes and effects of this financial crisis if congress is already going to go ahead and pass financial reform before they even get finished with the report. i think their response to it is is something along the lines this isn't just for congress, this is for the general public. the idea to use subpoena powers and other things like that to get access to information that no other journalist could get and then produce a

comprehensive report that they have to write in plain english and give to the american people so they can have some sort of understanding what happened, a lot like the 9/11 commission report. host: on the financial regulations bills particularly, in the senate and the house, the headline is 3,000 pages but still not enough. what's your take on both the senate and the the house version? guest: i think that a lot of these big banks escape accountability with the financial reform that they passed. and clearly congress is still working on one of the biggest crisis fannie mae and freddie mac. they national liesed the mortgage company and it led to a catastrophe and they are unwilling to do anything about that because it is plit can i sensitive involving what they do to give mortgages to low

income people and other things. and they're afraid to shut off that spig got of credit even if it may damage the broader economy. they don't want to be the person accused of saying i'm going to be the person who doesn't let low income people have housing limits. maybe people wouldn't need to get credit from the federal government if prices were relltil sane and they just refuse to deal with them and that's a huge indictment i think of the financial reform. host: a couple more calls. ricky, independent. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. i'm calling because you are a very smart man and intelligent. one problem is when you ask him about this health care passage, if it's going to be a failure or a success.

he doesn't come right away to say it's a failure without giving the health care chance to work. just like saying that the pregnant woman is going to have a boy or a girl without a sonogram. that is one thing i'm talking about. if you have a foreclosed house, a foreclosed house is always a run-down house, you need to spend a lot of money to put the house to the test where you can move into the house with your family. just like what obama inherited a rundown government that is totally broke. he has to spend money to get this government working again. host: we'll get a response. guest: a rundown government. a rundown house. you see the analogy there? guest: well, that's true but i don't think that's the case. i think that the issue is really the size of government. there's a lot of things,

essential functions that the government has either taken on it shouldn't or things that are pure out and out waste. the department of education was instituted some 30 plus years ago and how have standards im proved the answer is they have not. they've gotten worse. so the question is what good is the department of education doing? not necessarily advocating we eliminate it but just we need to look at that, the money we're throwing at certain problems in the federal government and what results we're getting. i don't think people would mind spending money if we're getting results for it. host: jerry on our democrat's line caller: good morning. as a disabled vietnam vet one of the reasons i was proud is because of a program like c-span. host: just to be clear, for our viewers, we don't take any tax dollars. we appreciate your service. we honor your service, especially on this weekend. but c-span is not one dime of

your tax dollars goes to c-span. it's all funded through the cable industry but go ahead. caller: one thing i'd like to say i'm very disappointed in the president and the reason being is after this last attempt to block that oil spill, the president should have fired bp, got them out of there, got in their experts. because if people don't think that having bp do this, they're not thinking of damage control down the road to recover more oil. now, the thing about it is, if they brought in their own exports, told bp they were responsible for paying for anything that's done to close this, that would be the way to go. secondly, i would like to make a point. i would like to tell people all veterans in the united states regardless of party, we have a president that would rather play basketball and go to the lincoln memorial instead of going to arlington cemetary for memorial day. that is so disrespectful to

every vearn who is serving and who has died. host: i'll get a response from mark as we look at the sunday examiner, the front page today. strangely quiet on iraq and afghanistan. war fatigue sets tone for memorial day. guest: well, i want to thank the caller for coming in. my fath ser a vietnam vet. so veterans issues are something that i do care about. and i do think that symbolism matters. in fairness to the president, he is not the first president to necessarily skip out on the arlington wreath laying ceremony. i believe george hw bush did play golf and say some brief words at a post or something like that. so it's not just barack. but that said, i think that other previous presidents have had more pro-military cred den shls that barack obama does. barack obama has very little in

the way of pro-military credentials. and i think that it's a mistake of him politically. and i totally understand why certain veterans feel slighted by his decision to go to chicago and say remarks frm there. host: we will let our viewers and listeners know that we will have coverage of vice president biden's remarks and obama's remarks from lincoln cemetary. host: jim, republican caller. caller: thank you for having me. i was talking about the oil spill that we are dealing with right now. i would think it would make some sort of a dome that would have a slot in it the similar size of a pipe lowered down over the top of it it would collect the oil, and suck it out. at least it would limit the amount of oil going into the

gulf. host: we're going to spend 45 minutes talking about the oil spill in a moment. but mark, any final thoughts? guest: well, there have been a number of solutions to this that haven't been fully explored. there was a situation in the massive oil spill in the gulf used a super tanker to siphon up lots and lots of water and filter out the oil. you know, even outside the box. russians have used nuclear bombs on the sea floor to shift the plates of rock involved and cut off the oil spigot. so i think it is time to start thinking outside the box. host: you can read his work on line at washington examiner.com. thanks for joining us. implingtsdz thank you for having me. host: we will go to new orleans in a moment focusing particularly on the

environmental impact on the oil disaster in the gulf. first, news of the week through the eyes of some of the nation's editorial cartoonists.

host: joining us from new orleans, the campaign director from the gulf restoration network. and we appreciate you joining us this morning. i want to ask you first about your reaction to the news from late yesterday when you heard that the top kill procedure had failed to stop the gusher in the gulf. what was your reaction?

guest: well, we are absolutely disappointed. it felt like somebody punched us in the gut. there was a lot of hope that this was going to work. not that anyone really bought the 60 to 70% chance of success that bp had touted but everyone wanted this to work. and so as we stretch into well beyond that first month, everyone is hoping for something to stem the tide. but we understand that we're in for the long haul here and it really is disappointing. host: what is your organization tasked with doing in response to this spill? guest: well, we're a 15-year-old environmental advocacy organization. so we've been for our entire history focused on helping to protect and restore the natural resources of the gulf of mexico. so for us this is a game changer and it's something that we've put as much of our resources into as possible monitoring the spill, monitoring impacts, having a critical eye on the containment

and cleanup efforts, watching what's happening as the oil's coming ashore and working for a better response for both the federal government and from bp. so we've been doing independent flyovers of the spill site and oil and its impacts. we're the first group that flew over what was happening offshore in the gulf of mexico that first sunday and have been on the water and in the air trying to keep a hand on what's happening and spreading that and sharing that information, because we found that to be something that hadn't been happening as much as we would like. there needs to be better information and we're working to facilitate that host: we're day 41. are things worse or better than you expected in this disaster? guest: i think we have -- it's hard to say. we've never seen anything of this scale before as we watched it unforlede and just really weren't sure what the impacts were going to be. clearly, we're seeing them.

you know, hundreds and hundreds of animals have washed up dead, you know, and we know that the oil is coming ashore. we have seen really likely hundreds if not thousands of acres of wetlands' impacted, hundreds of miles of louisiana coastline have seen oil come ago shore. so we know the impacts are there. but there's so much you can't see. under the surface of the gulf of mexico where so much of this oil and so much disburse nt has been put into that eco system we don't have a good handle on what that's doing. scientistses now are beginning to understand that the oil has created plumes under the surface. we know that is impacting the marine environment somehow. we're just not really sure how. so it's a really important time of year in the gulf of mexico. blue fin tuna, which are really a globe trotting species but the western atlantic population only spauns in the gulf of mexico. they're spawning right now. we know their la va are coming

into contact with the oil and dispersents. we don't know what that's doing. it will likely have a f an impact on the ability to recover. it's a threatened species. host: go ahead. guest: what we do know is there's a sperm whale population that's in this area that their most productive feeding area is in this canyon. so we know they have been moved off their best feeding area or coming into contact with the oil. so again, we don't know what the impacts are. we expect them to be significant. we hope they're not devastating. host: we are lining up calls. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. the impact on the environment. the impact of the livelihood of those living on the gulf coast. caller: thanks for taking my

call. i have a comment i guess. i keep hearing a lot of like basically excuse making for this administrrtion's response to this. and they could talk about the culture that exists with the friendly ties to the oil companies. but the bottom line is according to my understanding is this administration gave this leaking oil well operation a permit to drill. this administration gave this leaking oil well operation an environmental waiver. and how long is this guy's learning curve? he promised to have change. you can only finger point so much. and then, as far as the response to the oil spill, that's where they also went wrong, because it was my understanding that the people in the gulf states, particularly louisiana had their own state disaster plan

responses and they were told to stop and do environmental impact statements before they went ahead with any plan they had while they were facing an environmental catastrophe, which is kind of like swatting at a fly while your house is on fire. host: your thoughts on the administration and the state response to the oil spill. impltsdz well, tho one can look at what's happening right now in the gulf of mexico and be satisfied. you can't be satisfied with bp's response, with the administration's response and with the state's response, either. this is a crisis that we're going through right now, and i think clearly there's lots of blame to be assessed everywhere. ultimately this is bp's failure, bp's responsibility. and bp needs to be spending all the money to make the community and environment whole again. but this is going to be a decades long process. so to say the obama administration's fault because his mms had the final

signature, you know, ignores the fact that the drilling plan was created and first proposed under the bush administration mms and really the changes to mms, there are cultural changes that need to be made and we think that this is, if anything comes out of this, one thing that we'll hope is administrative kind of perspective is that mms gets completely reconfigured so the internal conflicts of interest are minimized and we can have an aggressive watch dog out there in the gulf of mexico and anywhere that drilling is happening. host: ten days ago your organization, the gulf restoration network, is one of a number of organizations writing a letter to the administration calling for more direct oversite in response to the disaster in the gulf of mexico. have you seen any progress on that front? guest: i don't know that i can say that we've seen enough

progress, certainly. we've asked for more federalized response here. we've been here for 15 years. we were here five years ago in the wake of hurricane katrina and rita. and what we saw is a military response is sometimes wholely appropriate and the best way to bring the full weight and resources of the federal government to bear. what we've seen right now through the coast guard leadership many, many agencies it has not been adequate. folks in new orleans are hoping for a general hon ray who came down and kind of cigar chomping, butt kicking kind of guy who got a lot of stuff down and marshall resources and was very sensitive to the community as well. we haven't seen that type of response and we're hungry for it. host: a caller asked, talking about the oil spill earlier and that caller wondered what could happen now that hurricane season is under way. what's the prediction of what could happen if this gusher is

still going and a hurricane hits? guest: well, tuesday is the start of hurricane season, so it is another worry, another level of anxiety placed over this horrific scenario that bp's oil drilling disaster has brought to the gulf of mexico. so clearly, if you are moving a lot of water in the gulf of mexico and the water comes ashore we could see some impacts but i think what we expect is that the later summer tends to be the more active area for this region and storms. so we're hopeful that we'll see far more effective cleanup and containment efforts before we goat the more active part of the season. host: we have our lines open. louisiana next up. good morning. go ahead. caller: well, a couple comments. one is that so many people always complain at least

particularly in the very republican area that i live in that they don't want big government. and yet now they're all complaining that we don't have enough government down here to clean up a mess for us. whether it was a natural disaster or a man-made disaster. secondly, one thing i hadn't heard anybody ask the question about is this second drill that they're doing, the relief drill, if the first drill released incredible pressures, what's to say that the second drill can't create an even worse mess? host: any comment? guest: well, i certainly am not a drilling expert. you know, put some things together in this last month, unfortunately, but we know that the relief well is about a couple months away. the date i read this morning was august. so that is something that is too far away. but i hope that they do it as

safely and quickly as possible because experts say this is the most guaranteed of the options to shut down this spewing geiser of oil. so i don't know clearly they've made mistakes. what we're seeing right now is that deep water drilling is a high wire act without a net. we hope there's something done and some safely and ultimately contains it. host: joe in orlando, florida. go ahead. caller: good morning. well, the one lady asked about the hurricane. that was one of mine. but i've got a couple quick questions and then i'll hang up and listen. what i got here is this oil is getting into the gulf stream. isn't that glowing to contaminate the entire world? the gulf stream will carry that oil for years through the entire gulf stream and contaminate the whole world

what's already out there. and also, is it possible that it could rain oil on to like we're in florida here. could the storms in the gulf of mexico end up raining oil on to florida? and i'm wondering why they can't just drop a gigantic bolder or square piece of concrete on top of it. and i'll hang up and listen. guest: well, i'm not sure about how the oil will interact with storms to create rain. i do know that the gulf stream issue is something that a lot of people are concerned about. once it gets into the gulf stream clearly -- it's starting to now and it will be moved through those curnlts and it will show up in places you won't expect it. we can see it in the carmes. but as we're watching it come up shore here in gaufen island,

alabama, or ship island, mississippi, it's coming up in smaller tar balls. so it's not the images you have seen in louisiana's coastal marsh where you'll see a blanket of oil in certain areas. it's smaller and more widespread. so i think what happens, you'll see some impacts but you won't see a devastating slick of oil as it gets into the gulf stream. host: so at this point, the state of louisiana bearing the brunt of the most difficult of thickest oils? guest: once again, louisiana is once again taking the environmental price of this nation's addiction to oil. our coastal marshes, they're not healthy. they have been really devasted through a 50-year legacy of oil and gas exploration. and that 50 of year slow motion death is in fast forward mode. and what we hope is that the

nation now sees what's going on down here, the cost of this exploration and development, and we get the nation fully committed to in the long haul using bp's resources and the federal government's to make this marshland whole. host: we're starting to see more of, the baltimore sun, the illnesses flair. fisher mone hired by bp to mop up report sickness as law makers press for medical care. what can you tell us about efforts to protect people to go into cleanup areas? guest: we think they're wholely inadequate. we've talked to some friends of mine at the louisiana slimple association. their slimplers were eager to help protect the coastal system. they became part of the vessels of opportunity program. and then put out there with inadequate protection. didn't have ressprators and they're out there in this toxic

stew that is louisiana crude mixed with the dispersnt. they've never done hests on this concoction. and so now i think it's 11 workers who have been hospitalized, folks who were working to protect their marsh and protect their way of life and this is what bp does? it's outrageous. osha needs to be engaged. what we've also seen is really offensive first responses from bp and the federal agencies. they not only think it might be heat stroke or food poisoning. these are shrimpers. they work out there constantly. if they weren't cleaning up the mess they would be out in their boats. so what we do need to know is what is bp going to do to protect people. we need to put all shrimpers to work. the direction of the federal navy is how we're going to have the boats on the water to contain the spill but those

workers have to be protect ds. host: charleston, tennessee. caller: good morning. i don't think this is rocket science. i just think it's boiling down to incompetence. the technology exists to close this we will off well off. it's used every day. farmers use it to pressure test plumbing at home. auto manufacturers use it to expand. it's just steel with compacted rubber between it and the top and bottom are threaded and when the center shaft is turned it compresses and expands. i don't understand why something like that wouldn't work to plug this. i don't know if they're just -- i don't know. i don't know what the excuse is for not having this closed. it seems simple to me. i know this is a mile deep in the ocean, but why could

something like that not work? i'm just -- host: robert one of many weighing in with suggestions. here's one from vivian. you mentioned that your organization has been there for 15 years. do you think that there was adequate preparation before drilling in mile deep water that the procedures were well known in advance on what to do if catastrophe like this happened? guest: well, clearly you can't look at what's happened right now and say yes to that question. there was no preparation, whether it's because mms didn't require an effective blowout response plan or because the industry didn't feel they needed to go through the effort to set one up. there just wasn't nearly enough resources mar shled here to

quickly and effectively contain and clean up this disaster. and what we saw, that first weekend when we flew over this huge site of the slick, we saw three boats out there. and we've been hearing reports that bp had mobilized dozens of boats. there were three boats, two of which were operating the sub, and one was a skimmer that couldn't work because it was in three-foot seas. which three feet in the gulf of mexico is a pretty calm day. so what we found quickly is the technology wasn't the immobilizer didn't exist to deal with this. and as we watch this go on it's clear they haven't changed the cleanup technology, the containment technology from what they used 20 years ago in alaska. and no one said that was terribly effective 20 years ago. so they've expanded and gone into deep water and now ultra deep water drilling for oifplt they've pushed the envelope when it comes to the technology to get at these very deep, very

inaccessible oil fields but they've done nothing commensurate to bring along the technology to contain it. this is a high wire act without a net and now we're paying the price. host: good morning on our democrat's line. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. i believe i've heard that up in canada they require two blowout protectors and the only way they've ever stopped a spill like this has been a relief well. so, and they require that you drill one of those along with the original well. i think that would be a good idea for congress and the senate to write up a bill for that. and i just, i was so glad to hear everybody coming together on this in the first segment we had. and i wish that it wouldn't continue and i don't know why we listen to people like rush limbaugh and palin and beck who make millions of dollars

dividing this country and that's what i have to say. and thank you for your service there, sir. and we appreciate it. host: guest: thank you. host: is your organization one that is sort of organizing and massing volunteers to go out there and help mop up clean up or protect some of these delicate marshes et cetera? guest: we have on our website that we put together for this is bp drilling disaster.org. there is a button you can volunteer. but unfortunately, the way this horrific scenario is unfolding is there is not a lot of things for volunteers to do. what we do know is contractors that are paid for by bp are the folks who are the front lines cleaning up this oil. and that's the way it has to be. people need to be trained, have proper hazardous material training. and they also clearly need to have the proper protection to be out in this toxic stew.

i don't think bp is doing that effectively right now but that's their charge. and when it comes to cleaning up this contamination, 700 animals that have been killed by this oil so far and we have seen really hundreds of birds that have been easketted. everyone sees these iconic images of the brown pell kn turned black and they want to help. and what you can do to help is to take action, to hold bp accountable. to put resources into the ground that's necessary so we learn from this and we effectively respond to this. we unfortunately don't have an outlet for people to come down and help clean the marsh. as i said before, our marshes in louisiana are incredibly vulnerable. they are not a robust system even though they are still a very productive system for the nation. about 30% of the nation's wild caught seafood directly related to these marshes. once the oil gets in, we can't

have beam in boots wading around cleaning up the marsh. you're going to do more harm than good. so unfortunately touf do it from afar. but there's you can do from your community. so as a nation we learn from this. go to bp drilling disaster.org to take action and to help out. host: there's a piece in the "new york times" about the use of these dispersents to break up the oil. a woman writes this piece, swimming through the spill her, the results of her dive into some of the oil spill. she writes that though all dispersents are potentially dangerous, when ooptplid in such volumes, cor ex is a particularly tomism one. she finishes with this.

the deep water horizon spill has done enough damage without adding to it. would you agree with her? guest: absolutely. i would add into that this on the workers is significant. it seems like it's very negative. we've called when president obama came this week to address this issue we were out there asking for him to put a halt to this unless and until we can tell they're not having more harm than good. we think really as that marine biologist points out, it's really a pr move. it takes the oil from where you can see seen it and puts it out of sight. of course, it's not out of the eco system. it's not hadgic. it doesn't make the oil disappear.

it moves it into these deep water plumes just below the surface expanses impacting our marine environment. and we are just terrified that we might be making this matter worse than if they were just letting the oil come to the surface where they could be more aggressive and containing and skimming and collecting it. host: our guest joining us from new orleans this morning, aaron vials with the gulf restore ration network, talking about the impact of the gulf oil spill. sandra on our indents line. . .

caller: they wanted to fight bp $100 million per day. i am on board with that. how about you? guest: it sounds like something that is in line with general honore. we want an aggressive federal response. the full weight of the u.s. military, as well. seizing their assets or the fine sounds good. we need to bring all our resources necessary here. last i checked, bp had a lot of them, billions of dollars of profits quarterly. it is time to bring everything to bear in terms of cleaning up the oil and repairing the

coastal communities. that is a good step in the right direction. host: you've mentioned the under water plumes of oil that have been escaping. scientists are building a case for undersea plumes. has this not been noticed before? guest: to is not something we have been aware of here in the gulf of mexico. there are a number of reasons. we have not seemed a disaster like this before. we have not seen unchecked geysers spewing forth. there is a natural response that could likely to explain the plumes. there is an outrageous amount of disbursement that has been used here. there is an unprecedented deep water injection at the well head site can explain some of desperat some of this -- some o.

as the plumes eventually get eaten up by the natural bacteria out there, we will likely see oxygen depletion which causes a condition called hypoxia. as the mississippi river puts out amazing amounts of nutrients into the gulf of mexico, that excess nutrients blooms algae and that does and it creates hypoxia which sustains marine life. week are afraid we will see multiple plans in the gulf of mexico for it to remain a productive ecosystem. host: we have a sweet here from, who writes, "everybody is an oil

spill expert. drop a boulder on it. this is not a warner brothers cartoon." new orleans is next. caller: thank you for taking my call. in canada, they require a second drill being done at the same time as well as devices to kill the well when these accidents happen. is that true that they have that in canada? guest: we have heard that. we are checking on it now. we hopefully will be able to make sure that is in fact the case. we have a canadian member of parliament who is interested in coming down. we will ask him when he comes down to discuss the issue. that is certainly something how the nation approaches it deepwater drilling is how we inform our approach in the gulf

of mexico. it sets the bar when it comes to the technology to explore for oil. clearly, we have not when it comes to the ability to clean up and stop accidents. host: there is an article on u.s. policy in the arctic. our democrats line is next. you are on the air. caller: i have the solution to stopping the oil leak. you take weather balloons of catheters and forced them into the hole and blow them up. you will need three or four in case one of them explodes. host: there are a lot of experts on the line this morning. the impact on the lifestyle of the livelihood of the fishermen,

the watermen on the gulf coast, here is a "new york times" col. article. any sense of how bad it will be? guest: the fisheries in louisiana is about $2.6 billion annually. we will see that severely curtailed. you can multiply the impact of those communities. i have been talking to my trumping friends and oyster man. -- my shrimping friends and oystermen. these communities are still not recovered from katrina and ike. they are recovering but this is the inverse of katrina.

boats will be there. the docks will be there. they might not be able to get to them. this is an ecosystem that is open for business. if you are at a restaurant, please keep more seafood. we have been aggressive to make sure it is safe. we are closing areas where oil might be coming ashore. if it is on the menu, it is safe and he did. these communities need help. we look forward. we know the oil is contaminating the wetlands right now. that will continue because the oil has not stopped flowing yet. we think it will have significant long-term effects. that is the worst-case scenario. we hope that whatever the bp response is, we want to make

sure the ecosystem is cleaned up and make sure these coastal communities remain whole and are supported in the interim as they are being affected by the oil spill. we must learn from this and make sure that any offshore drilling is done safely with the effect of responses. ultimately, we hope to get off oil and we don't put our coastal areas in harm's way. host: the head of bp america has testified on numerous hearings since the initial oil rig exploded. he testified last week on several hearings where you can find online at c-span.org. he is focusing on what bp will do in terms of environmental restoration and the gulf. listen to this. >> to ensure the rapid implementation of sticking to supplant, we have made available $25,000 each in block grants.

on monday, we would said -- we have said we would make up to $100 million available to research program to study the impact of the deepwater verizon impact and its associated response along the gulf of mexico. beyond the environmental impact, there are also economic impacts. bp will pay all necessary, and costs and is committed ted to paying all legitimate claims for a loss of damages caused by the spill. we are expediting interim payments to individuals and small-business owners. whose livelihood has been directly impacted. host: anything from that testimony you like to react to? guest: it sounds appropriate but there is an awful lot of legal which will room in there. we understand that right now, the nation's eyes are focused on bp and the gulf coast. they are saying the right things.

if you think back 20 years ago to the exxon valdez, it is a similar game plan. the corporation will be contrite and apologetic and commit to amazing things. the question will be, after this geyser is capped and the worst oil impacts is contained, what will they be saying. where will they draw line for a pro. damages? we will need to hold their feet to the fire. they will say the right stuff right now. what will they say in five years to the local community that has legacy issues that relate to the ool drilling disaster. ? we don't know right now but we have the ability to watch them every step of the way. host: texas, an independent

caller, go ahead. caller: i don't know if this is true but maybe you can shed some light on this. as russia accused nuclear devices to cap off similar oil geysers? i think host: that is the second call we have had on that. guest: i have heard it but i have not checked it out. we haven't done any trust or the research. -- trust for the research. host: long beach island, new jersey, republican line. go ahead. caller: with the way nasa handles missile with the thrust and wait and everything else and some of the scientists at nasa, maybe they could design a pipe that could go over the end of that or design something else. they seem to handle very good

for the space ships and everything. they have some of the best scientists and the world. host: we read a piece earlier that suggested americans were relying too much on technology to solve their problems. guest: if we rely too much on technology, clearly that is coming due now. technology is failing us. the top hat did not work. the copper down did not work. all the technology we mustard to shut this thing down at the source or contain it has failed. they are operating 1 mile deep. the best minds in the oil industry are in the room in houston working for the different scenarios. it is outrageous that these scenarios were not worked

through before. this is all being done on the fly and as much as 1 million gallons per day of oil is flowing into the gulf of mexico. we need to think very long and hard about how our energy technology and energy economy is set up for the future. as the easy oil has been captured, we get into the harter oil. --harder oil. every time we discuss this, we hear about coastal's drilling in the interim until we can get into solar and wind. that doesn't make any sense to me. the folks i have talked to says it takes 10 or 15 years to get a new offshore field online. where will we be in 10 or 15 years? we want to get the transportation system off of oil. i bet in 10 or 15 years, we will be pretty far along.

this is openly bp' responsibilitys it is not openly their fault. we have a very energy-intensive lifestyle. we have not demanded better from our leaders and energy companies. i hope now that we do. host: federal regulators have been blamed. here is a piece suggesting we share blame. your thoughts on that? guest: i heard that rush limbaugh blamed the sierra club.

he was blaming them from blowing up the oil rig. there are many people who are to blame and the environmentalists are clearly getting some from the right. it is an interesting argument but i do not understand it. the gulf of mexico has shouldered the responsibility of providing domestic energy for a long time. if anyone wants to bring it to your shores, see how it goes because of energy production. because other coastal communities do not want it does not mean those coastal communities are to blame. we are to blame as a nation for not making the tough decisions and not demanding better leadership from our federal leaders to get us off of oil and not just put it into the convenience sacrifice zone in the gulf of mexico. host: ohio, good morning on our democrat line. caller: thank you for bringing

up that we have to look at our personal consumption habits. people don't want to look at that. it is obvious that bp did not to the preliminary safeguards that they needed to because of money. all that being obvious, the bp executives sounds like they will take on responsibility. the wall street executives did not sound the same way. you had admiral allen on the other day and he said the oil rigs in saudi arabia could not be used in the gulf because of the shallow nest. ness. another expert said the tankers could be used. why wouldn't use them if they could? could cspan do shows on what is going on in iraq and afghanistan? our major media has talked only

about oil. host: we will speak on monday's program for nearly one full hour on that subject. guest: the technology to contain this is not being utilized. it is either because it does not exist or there is some other reason, i cannot answer that. what i do know is that we have monitored the best and what would happen at the site and were the oil is coming up and in the marshes where the oil is coming ashore. it is having a response but it calls for a more federalized response. we also called for a halt to the toxic disbursement activity. the shrimpers were working to protect their marshes and were getting sick. most importantly, this is a very

vulnerable and important ecosystem that is getting hammered because of our nation's dependence on oil. we need to make that ecosystem hall and bp money can be used to move in that direction. we need to commit long-term to this region. you can go to bp oil drilling disaster.org to see what we are doing. host: you can also go to help thegulf.org. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will have a conversation on military pay and benefits with the senate committee for budgetary assessments. first, a look at what is ahead on the sunday shows on the sunday morning. >> the shows will include the oil spill as well as iraq and

other foreign policy issues. national energy advisors. on"this week," jake tapper will talk to colin powell. he will also talk to the louisiana governor. the guest on "fox news sunday," will have admiral michael mullen and california republican daryl i said. ssaq. =. .

on cnn, virginia democratic senator jim webb will be on and the joint chiefs chairman admiral michael mullen. you listen to the sunday morning talk shows starting at noon eastern on cspan radio. that is 90.1 fm in washington, d.c. you can listen to it on the web at cspan radio.org. >> tonight, we will speak on the speaker of the house and five time presidential candidate henry clay. >> you will find very quickly in this life beyond college that you will be required on occasion to dig a well a little

deeper. >> commencement addresses this weekend from the leaders of the arts, education, and the sciences at 3:00 eastern on c- span. next weekend, noted feminist author martha nussbaum. she has contributed more than 20 books on liberal education. join our three-hour discussion with your phone calls live next sunday at noon eastern on c-span 2. "washington journal"continue . host: we have the senior fellow for the center for strategic budget to talk about military pay and benefits and the focus on the 200011 fiscal year budget proposal. secretary gates has been in the

news lately quite a bit. he had several speeches on think he would like to see in and out, mainly out of the pentagon budget. how is the current debate over the budget over what our priorities? how is a different from previous years? guest: was going on this year, with the deficit the government is running projected to run a deficit of $1.60 trillion is set a record level. it has put pressure on the budget. what that does is to put pressure on everything in the budget. what we have seen in fiscal year 2011 is the president proposing a spending freeze on all discretionary spending in that is non-security related.

it does put a downward pressure on everything in the budget including defense. defense is not seeing the same rate of growth. over the last decade, dod averaged 4% above the rate of inflation each year. this year, it is around 2%. is not growing as fast and that means that dod have to prioritize more within its budget. everything cannot keep growing at the same pace it has been growing. host: whenever defense spending comes up, the term "guns and butter"comes up. guest: in previous periods of fiscal austerity, when the federal government' had to trim the budget, it was a guns vs butter debate when spending on

defense vs. other domestic programs came up. in the current situation, it is a little different because previously guns vs butter came up at the end of the cold war, vietnam war, world war two came at the expense of new legislation. those are your classic models. this is different because we are not at a period of rapid military buildup or drawdown. we are in an ongoing war and actually for the two wars we are in, we have not built up the military in terms of size. once the war concludes, there is not much to cut in that respect. the new debate is within the defense budget. it is a choice between growth in

the butter items of the budget like pay and benefits and education vs begun items which are equipment and operating minutes of that equipment. host: tfdd harrison --todd harrison is our guest. the phone numbers are on your screen. before we get to calls, about military pettitte, you write that the fiscally -- beef about the military budget, you write that the budget has risen 70% from. from

m thousand. guest: a large part of that as pay increases that congress enacted over that time period. every year, congress has enacted a pay increase that has been larger than wages in the private sector. congress has actually enacted new benefits and expanded from existing benefits. these programs are quite expensive. healthcare has been a large part of growth. about 10% of the base defense budget goes to health care costs, military health care costs. one of the new benefits that congress enacted the past 10 years is something called care for life. to the medicare supplemental insurance policy that applies

only to military retirees over the age of 65. it covers things that regular medicare does not cover. it is free for them. and is costing us about $11 billion per year. in host: the president is opposing the increase. the president wants a 1.4% increase? guest: in basic pay. that equals the employment cost for this past year. that is the same as what average workers in the economy received. by far, that is what the president is pushing for. the house authorization bill that passed friday attack on an extra 0.5% above that. when you look in terms of a budget perspective, in the first

year, the cost is not that much, $367 million in the budget. it is less in the first year because it only applies for 3/4 of the fiscal year. the pay raise does not take effect until january 1. the following year, you get the full impact of the pay raise which ends up being about $500 million per year. breaking the pay by 0.5%, that is a permanent change. -- raising the pay by 0.5%, that is a permanent change. in one year, that is not a huge budget impact but the fact is that dod has been passing this 0.5% increase every year for the past 10 years. it is fair to say that military pay has lagged behind private-

sector pay for some time so they needed to catch up. by nearly all measures, military pay is at or exceeding the pay for equivalent jobs in the private sector. host: does this mean that the push will be fewer guns a less butter? >> guest: bator current trends are headed. if congress does not do things differently, the better part of the budget looks like it will win. host: our first call is from boise, idaho. go ahead. i will put you on hold. i think you are listening to your television. ohio, on a republican line, go ahead. caller: thank you for putting me on. my main issue on military pay is i am all for it. i would like to know why they

took away the cost of living. everything else is going up and i am a disabled vietnam veteran. host: they took away your cost of living in europe than that stacks yes caller:. -- took away your cost of living in your benefits? caller: yes. guest: that is funded through the department of veterans affairs. all those benefits are paid for separately. the veterans budget has grown significantly lately. i am not sure of what he is talking about not having a cost of living adjustment. i continue the overall federal spending has gone up about 10%- 12% per year for the last few years. part of that is due to expanding the veterans' benefits so that more people qualify. it is also because we have more

veterans that are qualifying period host: let's look at the basic pay rates. this is basic pay effective january 1 of 2010. is $1,447 per month? guest: that is monthly and that is in darman basic. that is typically for someone who is 18 or 20 years. a master sergeant would be the next level. host: let's go into the officer category. o8? guest: that is a general officer very high in rank. it might be an admiral in the navy. that is someone who has been in 30 years or so.

host: 11 joins the military, you can look at the chart of what your basic pay and you look at a number of years out. this goes 20 or 30 years out. guest: military compensation is different than what most of us are used to in the civilian world. does not just the salary. your basic salary is only one part of your compensation. you also get a basic allowance for assistance and housing in addition to that. an e1, is a basic level coming into the military out of high school, they would make about that much in basic pay but when you get in what they get for subsistence and housing allowances and the tax breaks they get because they do not pay the income tax or payroll tax on their allowances, they end up with total compensation at

about $36,500. but as someone right out of high school. that is good compensation. that is about $17.50 per hour on an hourly rate compared to the federal minimum wage at $7.25 per hour. host: boise, idaho, an independent, go ahead. caller: does this include the bonuses they receive? guest: no, these are your basic pay allowances. there are also bonuses. there are incentives pays. if you are employed -- deployed to the combat zone, you get extra pay of a couple of hundred dollars per month. congress is talking about raising that.

for specific career positions, they are offering good bosses to keep people. they need retention of specific skills and -- skills in the military. some of the bonuses offered are up to $30,000 or more for people to reenlist and stay in the military. host: some of the incentives involved has reduced duties, going back to the e1, a master sergeant would be an e8. and let's take a look at the officer ranks. o5 be a lieutenant colonel and that is $250 per month and hazardous duty pay. is there additional pay a fee to multiple tors? guest: it does not matter how many times you have done the tours in iraq and afghanistan.

when you were there, you're getting the extra pay you are entitled to. host: fla., on our democrats line, good morning. caller: $250 per month for hazardous pay is extravagant? you have to live in the real world. i pulled up the defense budget bill on line. there it was, $6.6 billion for enterprise, data processing. the defense department has said it projects every year for as long as we can remember, billions and billions and billions. we have projects in that department that the defense department has not even ask for. guest: first of all, i don't mean to suggest that the hazardous duty pay is too generous.

it is nothing compared to the rest these folks are taking. -- the risk these folks are taking. i have served in the military previously. i have worked with these people. i work with many people in the military today as part of my job. they are not doing it for pettitte. they are doing it for service to their country. i don't think that is an issue. he brings up what dod is spending and acquisition programs. it also applies to larger weapons systems like the joint strike fighter aircraft carriers we buy. those costs have grown dramatically in the past 10 years. there are cost overruns and a number of acquisition programs and that is a big issue for them. the situation we are in today and what we face is that we spend a lot of money -- spent a lot of money over the past

decade but we have not acquired that many new systems. we had this lagging pace of recapitalization of equipment that is catching up to us. our plans are getting older. our navy is getting smaller because we're not replacing ships as fast as we retire than bird that is a looming issue for the defense budget in the future. it sets up a situation where it will be a competition between pay for personnel and pension and benefits vs funding for the equipment that we will need to fight future wars. host: las vegas, on our independent line, go ahead. caller: i am a major in the u.s. air force. i have been applied five times. i was sitting here listening to the young time speak and i'm glad you said what you just said about no compensation. the 220 -- the $150 for hazard

duty pay -- there is no compensation. i registered nurse. -- i am a registered nurse. i have taken care of people who up and run over by ied's. to quantify that with the amount of money we're talking about despite the fact that people do not understand that when people deploye, what they go through psychologically and what their families go through. when you are talking dollars, i am very glad that you said there is no dollar amount for what our young men and women are suffering and going through in the military, in the war. this war has gone on in nine years. guest: the sentiments she

expressed are exactly right and i hear that from many people. when we talk about military pay, pensions, and benefits, i have found this is something people feel passionately about. it is hard to have a good debating congress about it because it is such an emotional issue. it is a very charged issue at a time when we are in two are going wars. -- ongoing wars. these servicemen are making a unspeakable sacrifices for their country. it is are to come back and talk about how much should pay increase? what about health care benefits for military retirees over the age of 65? we talk about the the numbers and it is unfortunate but you have to do that. you have to talk about what we can afford as a nation. if we pay certain groups in the military, we might have to go without other things.

is a very difficult debate. there is no easy answers to this. it is something we have to deal with. host: these figures say that family separation allowances to under $50 per month regardless of rank. is that only separation when a service member is called to hazardous duty or any sort of separation for two and $50 per month. guest: if you are sent somewhere where your family can accompany you, you do not necessarily get the benefit. host: topeka, kan., our republican line, good morning. caller: when you were showing the pay scales for the different ranks, basically, you were showing two years or less. for the e1 would be correct.

for e7, you would have to go around the 12 or 13 year mark. for the o8, you would have to go to the 20 year or 30 year mark. there is some assistance for housing and food and and everybody gets that. it is only married people that get that. there are people authorized to live off the base that get that money. i just want to clarify that. guest: he is correct on the pay scale. when you look at someone's pay, you look at their rank and number of years in the service. in terms of the allowance for housing and subsistence, it is not just for married people. you get extra when you have

dependents, about $3,000 extra. just about everyone in the military is getting the housing allowance. if you live on base in barracks and some people do especially in the junior enlisted ranks, you do not get that same housing allowance. the military provides housing for free. host: looking at the years of service, this is the chart looking at 20 years of service and going to the e7 on this chart. this is $4,131 per month after 30 years. the o5, nearly $8,000 monthly for an officer at that right. this is after 20 years of service, correct? guest: correct. host: ohio, go ahead. caller: i have been the airports

for 18.5 years now. if you looked at the price it costs to sacrifice your life, it is a small price we actually pay. i have a family of four i am and e8 and i can tell you we barely get by. there has been a lot of changes ever since i have been in. it never stops the demand of what is expected of us. i agree it needs to be upgraded but i think we waste a lot of money. host: how long have you been in? caller: 18.5 years. guest: to is a difficult job and puts strain on family. many civilians don't realize that if you are in the military, you will be required to move every couple of years. you never know where your next

move will be. makes it difficult for your spouse to maintain an independent career of their own. one benefit that congress enact it was a $6,000 tuition reimbursement for took military spouses. that is $6,000 total on a lifetime benefit but that is no added help spouses to go to school to get advanced degrees or a college degree in an area where they would have a career that would be transportable and could move around with the military member and transfer that career from one location to another. host: what is the basic gi bill benefit? guest: i am not as familiar with that because that is funded through the veterans budget. they are not part of the defense budget. within the dod budget are a number of education opportunities. everyone qualifies for a $4,500

per year tuition assistance, almost everyone. that is like going to school for ninth class is when you are not on duty. -- fort night class is when you're not on duty. there are a number of r.o.t.c. scholarships. there are a number of education opportunities. most people do not realize that the department of defense operates its own school system for k-12. \ they have about 12,000 teachers and staff. the budget for that is about $2.3 billion in fiscal year 2011. when you compare that to other school districts and consider all the dod schools, that

would be in the top 40 largest school districts in the united states. host: about 50 more minutes moretodd harrison department of defense budget. -- about 15 more minutes. caller: you said something to the effect for most military personnel joined the military to serve their country. i have known quite a few and i'm not questioning any bodies -- question anybody service but most of the guys i know joined the military because of their economic situation. they were not really in a position where they could go to college after high school. i kind of question that a little bit. guest: to is a complicated

decision for many people. you should be able to join the military to serve your country and be able to maintain a decent standard of living for your family. no one questions that and there are great benefits that the military offers in terms of getting an education and good job experience and good skills that will benefit you in future careers. the retirement benefits are actually great. you can retire after 20 years of service. you can start drawing have of your pay for the rest of your life and get cost-of-living adjustments and free health care for you and your dependents for the rest of your life. there are great benefits and people do, regardless of the reason they initially joined, to is a great incentive to stay in until you reach the 20-year mark. host: we go to maryland next on our republican line. caller: good morning.

one thing that needs to be pointed out to the general public is the intangible element where a person that works at a desk and leaves eight hours later and receives pay for the is a much different position than a soldier or military person that does the same plane. the difference is that the military person has made a deep commitment to this country. in many cases, the comparison of pay of looking at a person that does a job in the private sector and one that does a similar job of a military cannot be compared. i have been named da civilian for many years and have been honored to go to south east asia

twice. the people i have served with theire would like to receive moe peg. ay. guest: it is very difficult to try to compare jobs in the military to jobs in the private sector. people in the military who are not in a combat position, you may work a desk job or in an office somewhere, it may seem like a regular desk job. in many ways it is. i have worked with many people in those positions. at the end of the day, the military is different. you can be deployed. you can be moved up with very little notice against your will. to is a difficult comparison to make. when you talk budgets, these are

the double the issues we have to deal with as a country. how much can we afford as a nation? host: the irony is that cutting military spending also cut jobs. admiral michael mullen said he would have preferred converts to wait before the repeal big " don't ask, don't tell" policy. congress kept in the money for the second alternate engine of the f-85. it seems like the issue of military pay a somewhat under the radar. who will win on this? guest: if the past is any indicator of the future,

congress will win out the president last year proposed 2.9% pay increase which was equal to employment. congress enacted a 3.4% pay increase. that has been going on for some time now. relative to the larger issue, things like the joint strike fighter alternate engine get more attention in the budget. to be honest, the joint strike fighter alternate engine money, the money is under $500 million this year. that is about what the extra 0.5% increase in pay would amount to. they are equivalent of the joint strike fighter alternate engine is getting more attention because it is an acquisition program and there are many companies involved and will be impacted by this program. not much attention gets paid to military pay.

host: the bill as it stands now includes an extension of the existing moratorium on many of the paper for province elements of intelligence -- pay for performance elements of intelligence. the final report will be delivered to congress by june 1. the defense secretary will have until august 1 to propose a response to the findings. they are asking that there not be a continuation of pay for performance? guest:dod civilian pay has been controversial for a while. the implemented something called a national security personal systems several years ago. this was undersecretary rumsfeld. the idea was to tie pay to

performance. if you perform better, you play better, you get bonuses. it shifted the authority down to lower levels. this is a basic idea that has been done in the civilian world for a while. it was very controversial. i forget the name of the organization for the dod civilians but they had an interest group that was against this program. it was challenged in the courts and the dod the new administration looked at it and cancel it. people had who -- who had transferred to the new system have to transfer back to the old system. in some cases, you end up with a situation because they had been in the new system for some time, their pay had advanced more quickly and to transfer

them back, they would have to take a pay cut. the dod says they would not cut their pay back what would have been but that extra cost. host: let's hear from fort meade, maryland, good morning. caller: we live at fort meade. back in 2001, before 9/11 when they're privatizing houses on base, these outside contractors took over and have the land and houses and came and caller in and collected house and the government gave the money to build new houses. they build new houses on bases that the government already own.

they basically became property managers. these private contractors are having us pay extra bills which we did not have to pay before like water bill's, electrical bills. host: before hand that was paid by the military? caller: you have that in your housing allowance. we got a bill every month. they give us some of electricity and take away some for water.

the bill can be up to $600 sometimes. some people get bills only $30. and some people get a refund. guest: what the caller gets to is a larger issue of outsourcing. back in the 1990's there was a push to outsource more. these basic base functions were performed and these jobs or outsourced. there's a sense in the dod that the pendulum has swung too far and they want to push it back. secretary gates has started an initiative to in source more jobs. he is focusing on service support contractors, particularly in dod acquisitions

for weapons systems but he is hiring new dod members to do the jobs that were outsourced. caller: i am dr. meyerson. i have never done this before host: what are your comments? caller: i am absolutely"dp i fin.

host: franklin, pa., on our republican line for todd harrison. caller: i joined the military of a bicycle. -- out of high school. i get out and went to college on the gi bill. i can understand being satisfied with the military benefit. the last caller mentioned that they started outsourcing housing. a lot of change since i have been in. the military did not pay utilities or living or food.

host: how long were you in the service? caller: about 4.5 years. i get out as an e5, as a sergeant. i was deployed once. i had a relatively good understanding of how the military works. i understand servicemen are making huge sacrifices. his tragic that some of them are coming back injured were giving their lives. the thing of it is, you cannot afford -- the defense department is not a bottomless pit of money. joining out of high school, we are unskilled people. we have not been educated on any specific task. the benefits you receive -- i think i was making, all included, a little under $30,000 pe