congressional spending, the national debt, and the economy. from the nation's capital, this is "washington journal." . . host: the numbers are on the screen. please allow 30 days between your calls.

this is the "washington journal" for friday, june 18, 2010. i want to show you some of the headlines about yesterday's bp congressional hearings. we will start with the " financial times." this is a picture of tony in worhayword on the cover. here is another. and here is the "houston chronicle," home of the oil industry. care is the politico from washington d.c. -- here is the "politico" from washington d.c. and here is "the hill" newspaper. here is what joe barton had to

say yesterday. >> i am not speaking for the republican party or anyone in the house of representatives, but myself. i am ashamed of what happened in the white house yesterday. i think it is a tragedy of the first portioproportion that a pe corporation can be subject to what i would characterize as a shakedown, in this case a $20 billion shakedown, with the attorney general of the united states who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation, and has every right to do so on behalf of the american people. it amounts to a $20 billion slush fund. it is unprecedented in our nation's history and has no legal standing and, i think,

sets a terrible precedent for our nation. host: here he is with a scrum of photographers all around taking his picture. and here is "the wall street journal." the "washington post" have no picture, but a lead story as well. and inside the money section. and before we get to calls, here is the open for wall street journal" editorial today.

there was in particular no reason for bp to compound it error and agreed to spend another $100 million to compensate the oil workers sidelined by the nation's policy choice. bp had no liability for its costs and a concession further separated and its compensation

from for their proper order. and finally the "new york times" editorial from this morning. your turn to weigh in.

cranberry, texas is our first call. -- grandburm,y, texas is the first call. what you think about this oil spill? you are down there in texas. caller: i am very upset in barton. i'm very disappointed in him. host: what does mrs. peterson think? caller: she thinks the same thing. i tell you, we are down here in the oil country. host: i appreciate you calling in and we will talk to you in a month or so. fort myers, fla., please go ahead. caller: i am here in florida and

we are anxiously awaiting and praying that the world does not hit our beaches here in southwest florida. host: right. what did you think of yesterday's congressional hearings? caller: i think this is a lot of showboating by a lot of congressmen. we have people from michigan grilling a someone and they have no clue what we are going through in florida and louisiana. we need to put this aside and stop the oil. we had people explain how they had a similar situation on friday and dave were able to drain the oil and -- and they were able to drain the oil and contain most of it.

host: has agreed to your beaches in fort myers? caller: no, it has not. host: has it affected the tourism? caller:, it has because of the media -- yes, it has because of the media. there have been a lot of cancellations and people who are afraid to come. host: this is the front page of the miami herald. an ominous turn for the panhandle. this is a picture on okaloosa island right there on the front page of the "miami herald." next call is bill on the democrats line. the what do you think of the congressional hearings? i had caller: watched the

hearings and everyone is -- caller: i have watched the hearings and everyone is up in arms about barton. if bush was in office, that $20 billion would not have been secured. host: a little later in the hearing yesterday, joe barton apologize for his comments. very quickly, here is what he had to say. all right, we do not have that quite yet. if we will move on to falls church, va. -- we will move on to falls church, va. on the republican line, go ahead. caller: it seemed a bit of a circus to me yesterday, really. once the guy was not going to comment on open investigation matters, you know, they had five

good points that they had to say to bp. he was just not going to comment on it. i really wanted to hear more about what they're doing for the cleanup and, what the heck are they going to do to secure these oil wells and going forward? it sounds like these are a time bomb out there. maybe that is not the case and maybe we are just being jerked around by the media. host: next call is larry. what do you think about the hearings? caller: i have been a little out of touch the last week. man, i cannot believe these guys. joe barton is the mouthpiece for the oil companies. and he is in charge of the

energy department? host: is the lead republican on the energy and commerce committee. -- he is the lead republican on the energy and commerce committee. caller: does not look out for the american people. this -- he does not look out for the american people. host: was important for you to hold this congressional hearing yesterday? caller: it is a lot of pompous and circumstances. oh, we are looking into it and it is a 60. -- the day 60. host: and joe barton, again. he apologized for his apology a little later. >> i want to make it clear that t.a.r.p. is responsible for this accident, should be held in response -- make it clear that

bp is responsible for this accident, should be held responsible for this accident and the consequences as a result of this accident. if anything i have said this morning has been misconstrued, i want to apologize for that misconstruction. host: an article inside the open court financial times" this morning -- in the "financial times" this morning.

again, this is in the "financial times" this morning. next call on our democrats line, larry, hello. caller: this shows that republicans will be with big business at all costs. host: do you think the hearings are important? ever -- from the beginning

they have always said that they will do whatever they need to do this. but the bp ceo guy, the gentleman that demanded that he should apologize or kill himself, and then the other guy turned around and said, if it was in his country they would tell them to kill themselves, that is appalling. that should never be heard out of adult people's mouths. that is a bullying tactic and children at this time bully other kids in school and we have had kids to take their lives. i cannot believe that was set up there by grown adult people. host: as we take this call from scott in ohio, i want to assure

you this week's "economist." scott, go ahead. what do you think about the congressional hearings yesterday? caller: i think it has all pretty much been a joke. it has been 100 years and whether it is woodrow wilson, fdr, lbj or obama, we need to learn that there is not always going to be a government solution for every problem. they just do not have the know- how and ability to solve every problem. host: greenville, new york, david, hello. caller: what i was watching yesterday was pretty much showing me how these congressmen and senators just do not know what is going on and they just need to make their constituents feel a little bit better about what is going on.

i just feel that federal regulations, just like what happened on wall street, continue to fail the american people. they continue not to look our for our interest. they continue to just bend over for special interest groups and how much money they're getting from lobbyists and all of this other stuff. we are never going to get away from drilling in the gulf. one-third of the production comes from the gulf. a lot of natural gas comes from the gulf. putting a moratorium on the gulf is just going to make the gas go up. it is going to make everything go up. it is ridiculous. host: inside the "new york post" --

jim is a democrat in the union, alabama. what did you think about yesterday's hearings? caller: i thought it was wonderful. we, the little people, thankfully, it has reached beyond c-span, but we, the little people can see how we are finally getting a voice. i do not care if it is a democrat or republican or independent. we are seeing what is happening. joe barton is just one of the republicans that are starting out -- spouting out there spiteful attitudes that we, the little people. host: raise union grove --

where he is in union grove, and how big is your local economy? caller: we are right down here in alabama and i have many friends who own businesses that are just based on people coming down here. host: this is inside a the "new york daily news" -- cook bill, tennessee, republican . -- brookevillcookville, tenness,

republican line. caller: the thing i did not hear said it was what was the first place. to me, maybe i'm not as smart, but you know, everything they did was on a safety level. i would not be surprised if some environmentalist actually planted a bomb and blue something up. the reason i say that is because two weeks before president obama said what he said about offshore drilling. i would like to hear about the real reason why we have this explosion that killed 11 people. host: carmine is an independent

in hamilton, montana. please go ahead. caller: the guy that just called probably believe that the north koreans bombed it, too. we found out yesterday that money is much more important than the lives of the people, for the people who run the show down there. i worked on eggs out -- exxon valdez for two years in san diego. our sister ship company was using 11 supertankers for exxon. and we were using 11. of those 22, only one of them hit the ground and that was the exxon valdez. and that was the only one that ever, ever was led off the waves with a double bottom.

that was the only ship that went aground. and we never got to put the double bottom in. and i remembered therefore those who did not want to touch -- are remember there were those who did not want to touch the story. host: carmine, wrap up your comments. caller: we are having a mass extinction right now and this is just going to speed it up. host: you're watching live video from the bp website of the deep water a rise in spill. -- verizon spill. -- deep water horizon spilled. here is another headline.

albany, georgia on the republican line, cory, you are on the air. caller: let me say how distraught i am that after being given a list of questions that the ceo was to be answering during this committee meeting that all of these questions, never once did he answer with a yes or no. some of the congress men on the committee were pushing a little hard to get some of their questions answered and i have a little bit of difficulty understanding why after given all of this time to prepare he was not prepared. but there was a bit of a discrepancy on what he thought he was supposed to be doing there. host: phoenix, richard you are

on -- richard, you are on. caller: i would just like to make a small comment. first, the bp ceo as well schooled in sidestepping -- is well schooled in sidestepping the questions. the thing i was impressed with today with all of the attorneys and congressmen of their is that there actually is gearing -- up theire is that they are actually gearing up to focus on the cost. the sensors that were to be put down there, that would have been the cause of the blowout. i work with sensors and i know becausthey play a critical part.

they sort of work like idiot gauges. but anyway, they're questioning in that area and the recommended blowout preventer, they were supposed to use 21. even if they had used six that day. that is all i had to say. host: here is a tweet -- from marion, va., dennis on the independent line. dennis, what are your thoughts? caller: it is fairly obvious that bp is going to have a few -- a huge financial debt. the idea that bp is going to get out of this without being hit

financially [unintelligible] i liked art stupak comment -- i like barton's comment. instead of the president using the viggo process to determine what bp -- using the legal process to determine what bp will 0owe, i think that needs to be determined in the future. i think they did the same thing with gm. host: sutterville hill, alabama, independent line, mary, go ahead. caller: i am very upset. i just have four quick points. the administration should apologize for not responding for

nine days. alan salazar should resign. and that $20 billion, and that is over four years. that is $5 billion per year. they should listen to the locals who know the waterways and the estuaries and the wildlife and not hinder people who are trying to clean it up like bobby jindal in it louisiana. it is killing what is left of live in the gulf. -- left alive in the gulf. i wish people would stop and look at what is going on down here. it is not just killing the animals. it is killing our way of life. and mr. president, you played golf ball ever won and was down here crying and wanted to put ordaz -- you play golf while everyone was down here crying and wanted to put out the fire.

host: next call, please go ahead with your comments. caller: i feel the more that he kept saying that he did not know -- i mean, who answertwo ao the gentleman. if that is the case, then he is so informed -- then he is so ill informed, and i can see how this has happened with his company. host: michigan, mel is on the line. but what are your thoughts? caller: the comments of the gentleman that it was a shake down, the $20 billion, that brings to mind something that a

wise man said before that is at best to remain silent and not be thought a full and be found out. -- not be thought a fool and be host: next call from maryland, republican, jay, please go ahead. caller: i think there are those who try to fix problems and those who tried to flee -- to fix blame. all i heard yesterday was trying to fix blame. whether we like it or not, we need to work with bp to stop the oil flow. when the will flow is stopped, that is fine, affix blame. -- when the oil flow is stopped, that is fine. affix blame. host: next call from kansas.

caller: i cannot believe people are not more excited about these hearings taking place and the information, at least through the questions, gleaned from the situation. i think the congress men are doing an excellent job of asking these. and i am confused about the comments of some of the other callers that it is a knee-jerk reaction and that the media is hyping it up. we really should be focused on bp and the way they conducted business and potentially wiping out one-third of our coastline. i am just amazed that we are even at this point -- even blaming president obama is so insignificant. it is, of course, promoted by fox news.

anything to get the blame on to obama. i am sure we would not have a $20 billion trust fund if obama was not in office. if bush was, it would try to be covered up and under the carpet. host: here is another tweet. if was referring to the congressional hearings. our next call comes from the gulf coast. mobile, alabama, debbie on the republican line. please go ahead. caller: i would love for everyone to quit talking about the money, who is going to get the money. we need to get that leak stopped. i spent my vacation over there last week and we enjoyed it.

i know everyone is blaming bp, and it is their problem, but there is this just like the rest of them. -- they are a business just like the rest of them. host: debbie, what did you think about representative joe barton's comments? caller: which one are you talking about? host: where he said -- he called it a $20 billion shake down and then later apologized to bp. caller: i'm not sure our would

take that. -- how i would take that. i do not know why he would say that and then apologize for it. host: here is the front pageeof the "los angeles times." you can see the photographers with him. and nothing on the front page of the l.a. times about the lakers win. obviously, we got an early edition here. doretta from georgia on the democrats line. what did you think of the hearings? caller: what he did, he was all lawyers of. -- euan all lawyehe was all law.

host: what are your thoughts about the questions that members of congress were asking? caller: i think they were asking a lot of questions. he was just not going to answer them. i'm sure his lawyers went over them with him. host: do you think that he had a those questions ahead of time? caller: they said that they gave them to them ahead of time. and he probably went over them with his lawyer and his lawyer told him how to respond. host: the great falls, south carolina, please go ahead. caller: i have not been following it too much, but last night i definitely watch.

-- i definitely watched. he definitely dated a lot of questions and i am thoroughly appalled. -- he definitely he dated a lot of questions and i am thoroughly appalled. if you're the ceo, why aren't you informed of these decisions? why aren't you briefed on all of these things going on? he is maintaining the idea that he does not mean -- need to be because of all of the technical people that can make those decisions. host: st. george's, georgia, independent line, robert, you are on the air. caller: i am not so much american -- but i am not so much republican or democrat or

independent as i am american. i have worked in welding for 20 years and i am disappointed that they have not focused on getting this week taking care of -- of this leagetting this leak taken. having these structures, for example, and having them fail and the learning from that and building it better -- a friend of mine lives in tennessee and she said she is actually starting to see to our eyeballs in her area. -- to see tar balls in her area. host: and from the world cup total of america, houston, texas -- from the oil capital of america, houston, texas, chris, go ahead. caller: i have worked for bp

many times and their whole safety culture is a clean coulter. -- is a bling culture. every two hours you walkout ended changes again. host: could you explain that? caller: it is okay to do anything dangerous as long as they can blame you for it. it is different when the safety inspectors walked out. host: if you have c-span on, you can see the underwater robotics from the bp website. what kind of work you do? caller: right there is what i do. my best friend is the supervisor on this said that you are

watching right now. this is a pretty much british- controlled company even though they are norwegian. host: where are you located when you are doing this work. -- this work? caller: on the ship. host: and you are basically using a computer and a joystick? caller: yeah, kinda. it is a lot more complicated. what they were just doing is probably putting some type of why call in the containment dome to keep their hydrates from freezing up. but on the screen it says the dispersant and they are still

spraying dispersants -. i heard that people have said that they still have the same as bill policy, and that is not -- the same spill policy, and that is not true. a lot of companies have updated their policies, but bp has seemed to do little other than spraying dispersants and hiding it. you make it neutrally buoyant and it floats away. host: you mentioned that a lot of contractors do not like to work for bp. is that a shared sentiment iwith your colleagues? caller: that is a shared sentiment worldwide because they

have a blame policy that makes you not want to work for them. host: does your work pay well? caller: pretty well, i think it does, yeah. host: as a contractor, you just take jobs when you want to? caller: that is the way it used to be. everybody is without a job right now. host: even you are affected. caller: yes. host: next call from portland, lee is on the line. caller: it is difficult to follow such a knowledgeable collar. but i am from portland and we are paid by king -- we are a

biking community. we need to get away from fossil fuels. and we need to change the way we do energy in this country. host: did you watch the hearings yesterday? caller: i did. host: and what did you think? caller: i can tell that i do not live back east. the whole blame game, the congressional issue with them trying to control the image of their job, this man tried to control the image of his job, and in the meantime, the people who are actually living the nightmare are still living the nightmare. all i can say is, go buy a bike. host: next call is from west virginia, hello, steve.

caller: i have a hard time with people sitting in front of this man that the only way they face issues about economics is they borrow more money from china. that man that is sitting in front of these people, he has to make a business work. he has to make decisions and he cannot go over his budget and say, hey, i need more money from china. and i think the people in front of him, it is just ridiculous. this is just another feather in obama's hat to try to push his agenda. i am really disturbed. he does not want this leak. this is bad for bp. this is bad for everybody. but to sit there and browbeat

him for procedures that they should have detected -- and i come from the coal industry. you cannot do anything. if you monday a creek -- if you levy equity -- if you sort muddy a creek and iraa rock rolls dow, they're on you. steve host:, what kind of -- host: steve, what kind of work did you do in the coal industry? i would caller: a service operator at a -- hostcaller: i a surface operator at a surface

well. and i can tell you, any kind of discharge of coal, these people do not know the nightmare of trying to keep a cool operation open. if they have the same standards placed on that industry that the coal industry does -- i mean, it is really disturbing. we had a situation where we had to drive -- to leave the property we had to drive through a creek because a train has blocked from the normal entrance and exit and a federal inspector caught us doing that, creating cloudy water in a creek that was diverted off of coal property for drainage, and they threatened to shut us down. host: let's move on to eric in sioux falls, s.d.. good morning.

caller: i really feel for the people of louisiana. i can re-relate to them here in south dakota -- i can relate to them in the south dakota because i was born in maryland where i was a clever for years and we lost our population. -- i was a crabber for years and we lost our population. the one topic that nobody has mentioned to geyet, and my main concern islam, we have ... -- and my main concern is, we have all of this waterfowl down there that we will have to clean up. the redheaded ducks are just starting to come back into the population.

when they get done with this, if they do not get it cleaned up before fall, it is going to be a big loss. if the waterfowl starts going down there by the fall, it is going to be devastating for the population. it is going to take a toll. host: thanks, eric, let's leave it there. that is the end of that discussion right now on that topic. coming up, i want to show you this from "the politico.com." this is john bresnahan and jonathan alan riding about disclosure act, which was -- and jonathan alan writing about the disclosure act, which was working its way through the house. jonathan hall is in louisiana covering this oil spill. he is sending back different

video and interviews that he is doing down there with regard to what is going on in the gulf. and he talked with the national oceanic and atmospheric administration contract biologist and discussed how they assess oil leeels. this to place outside of new orleans. -- this took place outside of new orleans. >> the epa is here as well to supervise protocols and how they are handling this person. the we also have the wildlife and fisheries service here to tell you about what they are doing and how they are clean birds. and kurt hansen, he is here to collect your ideas. if you have an idea, we absolutely want to hear it.

we hope this will be an educational opportunity, an informant -- and informal opportunity for you all to learn something here tonight. we think this will be good for all of us. i just want to say something. i was here during katrina and i saw and helped rescue 33,000 people and i saw how tough that was on new and our id mess up -- how tough that was on you and how it messed up your way of life. let me tell you something. this is about your way of life and i am back in louisiana to fight for you and to fight for your way of life. thank you very much. [applause]

>> a sandy beach is an easier area to clean up then, for example, a marsh. you try to pick up the area -- the oil so that it will not refloat into the area. >> what if a hurricane comes in and there is always oil? >> right. >> i work with the department of human services. we are here as a medical element. we are organizing in establishing the policies for the care of primarily the occupational workers better down

here cleaning up on shore and inland. -- that are down here cleaning up on shore and englaninland. >> if you want to sign a contract you have got to call this number and they will tell you how to get a contract. and you will sign this directly with bp. u>> i am a biologist with 's emergency first response system and i'm here to answer questions that people have about the biological impact of this oil release. >> we spoke to many fishermen and they are concerned about their way of life. >> people do ask about that and

i fall back on an historical example. there was a spill in 1979 and there was also ways of service will release that went on for nine or 10 months and spewed out something on the order of 140 million gallons of oil into the gulf of mexico before the relief well was in place and stopped the flow. dispersants were used. over 2.5 million gallons of dispersants were applied at that time, and the fisheries recovered from that. >> i started doing town meetings when i first got here and i realized there was a gap. and we were not getting the information out to the public like we wanted to and we were not able to answer questions about services and dispersant and claims and what our relationship is with bp. this whole town hall approach is to better inform the public

about what we're doing to clean up the spill and fight the oil spill. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on your screen is john bresnahan, a senior congressional reporter with "politico.com" newspaper. -- "politico" newspaper. i want to show you a few headlines. here is the hill newspaper. and finally, your story from about 1:00 a.m. last night, "how a campaign finance deal backfired." what is the campaign legislation that the house is working on? guest: this is bill 5175, which is the disclose at. it casts light on spending

elections. it is a response to a supreme court ruled in january that the high court struck down restrictions on corporations and unions being involved directly in campaigns. host: citizens united case. guest: exactly, and this is the congressional response to it. this bill will impose a new disclosure requirements on corporations or outside groups that want to engage and express advocacy. host: would it turn -- return to the days of mccain/fine gold campaign refinance? guest: no, it would not. groups would be allowed to expressly run ads, but they would have to disclose their involvement in these ads.

host: does this campaign finance law address the court's decision? guest: this is the response to the january ruling, to that ruling. it struck down decades of campaign finance law, which would have restricted corporations from being directly involved in campaigns. this is the congressional response saying, okay, we cannot stop that they are doing it, but we want them to disclose that they are. host: in an earlier article that you wrote -- how did that language come to be? and is language often used like that, that is that specific? guest: no, it depends on the

bill. it was marked up in committee in may and they were going to bring it to the floor several weeks ago. the national rifle association, which is a very powerful organization, was opposed to it. the democrats knew they could not pass the bill if the nra was expressly against it. congressman chris van hollen, the lead author of the bill, he carved out this extent -- exemption. this was really aimed at the nra. it exempted the nra from disclosure requirements in this bill. and the nra did not oppose the new legislation. they just said they did not support it. at that point, it looks like

the bill was going to come up for a vote this week. host: we want to get you involved. we are talking about campaign finance loans. -- campaign finance funds. the numbers are on the screen. please allow 30 days between your calls. john bresnahan of politico is our guest. what about unions? do they fall into this language as well? guest: there would be covered by that. they would not be exempted. host: who is for it? who is again ist it? guest: the chamber of commerce and a number of other

organizations feel this#ua is n infringement on their activity. they are opposing this bill. also, other progressive groups such as sierra club. what happened is that during the week, there were complaints about the exemption given for the nra. the democratic leadership decided to lower the limit on a number of -- and lower the limit on a group. but the sierra club does not like the bill anyway and is opposed to it. they're going to oppose the bill anyway. it and different blocks of members -- and different blocks of members within the democratic caucus, blue dogs, they were opposed to the legislation. and the caucus was opposed as well. host: why?

guest: they were concerned about the treatment of the naacp and tax treatments and whether they could jeopardize their step -- their tax status. and they also did not like the special treatment for the nra. here we are doing a bill to require disclosure in politics and we are giving an exemption for one of the most powerful interest groups and there is. -- most powerful interest groups their resourcethere is. host: do they just have to disclose who founded an advocacy or an ad campaign? guest: it deals with a lectionary communication, which is an ad saying, vote for joe

schmo, or against joe schmo. they would have to say, i mdot acencio x and i -- i am not cce and i approved this data. under current law, they do not have to reveal owners. these nonprofits and the 501-c3 that covers them, they are saying, this is not public. why should we make it public now? host: they are afraid it will impact donations? guest: right. anyone who even funds to the data -- to even funds these advertisements would have to be disclosed.

the democrats' argument is, look, you cannot stop corporations and unions and nonprofit advocacy groups from being involved. but what is the problem with disclosing? the public has the right to know who is involved in elections. the public likes it when they know who is the political -- was behind the political clout. there is no reason not to know who is doing this. host: the supporters of the bill are saying that. guest: yes. host: who are the supporters? guest: nancy pelosi, congressman van hollen. there's also some bipartisan agreement. this is a first step for the

democrats in -- imposing any kind of limits. host: how close is the vote? 433 members of congress. guest: it is unclear. they started whipping it out earlier in the week. it looked like by yesterday they had gotten what they needed. it was going to be the two republican co-sponsors. and i'm not sure there will be any republican support. then you have these two factions within the democratic caucus, the congressional black caucus, and the blue dogs. host: that is 40 to 50 members. guest: exactly, so, you have these is significant blocks.

and any legislation that nancy pelosi and van hollen were pushing would have to be almost entirely democratic votes. so, they have to hold onto their democrats. . . union do you find more upsetting, the nra or the afc,

or american federation of -- host: when you talk about upsetting, what exactly do you mean? and i don't think he is going to give his political opinion on this anyway, so do you want to try to rephrase your question a little bit? caller: yes. i live in south texas. i'm a frequent caller on c-span. i own firearms. my wife is a school teacher. and i just see a lot of in-fighting among people who are confused with both. so i really would just like to ask your opinion. host: so it sounds like his wife is a member of a teacher's union and he is a member of the n.r.a. guest: i think it's important that people understand that

groups like the n.r.a. and advocate groups is really important to the function of democracy and important for them to have a vote here. what the issue is, is money and politics, what we're getting down to. money and politics. and who is funding what? and how big a role money plays in elections. to many people the spring court's ruling in january was a major setback and setback decades of campaign finance law. for others it was a victory for free speech and first amendment laws. that there's no reason individuals individually or collectively why they shouldn't have their voices heard. i think it's important to note that as a journalist, for me, disclosure is the important thing. i would like to know who is

paying for ades -- ades. -- ads. why they are paying for it. to advocate for a governmental outcome for legislation for a bill, for an administration to take some action. so i think there's a lot of difficult issues here. >> when it comes to all the bills in congress, the budget and tax extenders bill and financial regs, where does this rank in the priority list? >> well, i think president obama has made his views known on this. i think a lot of members take this very personally. they want to know who is going to be, you know, funding ads against them in an election. i think they are very concerned about way it is process can be manipulated under the citizens' united ruling.

i think there's legitimate concerns about that. let me give you examples. what if a company -- there was a bill on the floor and the company was opposed to it and they sent their lobbyist in to see the chairman or chairwoman of a committee and said we're opposing this bill and by the way we reserve $2 million of ad time in your district. that's a powerful message and one that would put the fear of god in a lot of congressmembers. we have to value the rights to be heard but protect our political classes and keep the integrity there as much as possible. host: barbra from pennsylvania, you're on the air. caller: thank you for c-span. you do a great job. i am really concerned about this passage through this.

i thought it was planning. because -- and especially, the people that say, oh, the government owns this business, and the government's trying to take over this business. do they realize how they open the door for business to own government? and not even disclose it is so wrong. guest: i think the caller raises an interesting point. i think one of the biggest concerns members have for folks who cover the federal office and work in politics is the amount of time spent fundraising. in the 2008 elections, candidates and incumbents and challengers spend over $5 million and that number keeps rising. it impacts the quality of our government. i think people outside of washington, i think this is the hardest thing for them to realize.

there's a first amendment right. people should be involved in politics but the california senate race is going to cost $ 10 million-plus. t most an individual can contribute is $400,000 per person. that means they need to get thousands of people on their side. if you have to see thousands of people are you doing an effective job now? and where are they going to go? special interest groups who raised it. and sometimes that's seen as giving a new impact on what happens legislatively. it's a very important issue and a difficult issue. a lot of journalists don't understand it as well. but you talk to members, they take this issue very highly. it can't be done in a 30-second sound bite. but it's a critically important

one. host: jane from baltimore. you're on. please go ahead. caller: yes. hello. i was watching rachel meadow back during the debate, and i remember, like, almost every day they twonet town halls and where people were getting crazy. and i remember when she was exposing not all of the stuff because we don't want to all call all the tea party people crazy, but she was exposing some of this stuff to be setups of the corporations. so i have two questions. my first question is would this legislation pretty much do what rachel mado was doing, and two, what do you think the chances are for a clean energy bill this year? >> there was the issue of

arrest astro turfing where corporations or advocacy groups were kind of beginning up some of the protests -- gining up some of the protests. but frankly a lot of it was concern over the health care bill. this wouldn't address that. this goes specifically to election engineering questions. as far as an energy bill, it's not an issue i cover every day, but the senate is the challenge there. it doesn't seem to be a lot of con census coming together. the schedule is very tight. it's an election year. we've got the supreme court nomination coming. afghanistan, campaigning, there's a lot going on. i think right now the odds are against an energy. right now i would stay odds are kind of stacked against it.

>> john bresnahan, a lot on capitol hill advocating or not advocating for this law? guest: there's a lot of interest in this for instance, some of the campaign finance reform groups want this bill. they are supporting it. campaign legal center. democracy 21, campaign watchdog groups. their main focus is finance reform. they are advocating as a measure, you know, they like to see more. they were unhappy, very unhappy with a united citizen ruleling but at least this gives some disclosure and who is funding what, on the other hand you have some very powerful groups aligned with this bill. for instance, commerce, which is the largest bill association, association of manufacturers, association of

real tores. very powerful organizations lined up against it. so there are -- may not get all the headlines a lot of time but there's a lot of interest going on here. host: will he grange, texas. caller: good morning, peter, john. guest: good morning. caller: you know, i really have a hard time with the supreme court's ruling. from what i understand the main reason it was moved to d.c. was to keep everything out of politics. at the time it was swamp and they fwilt capital there to keep money out. how the court can today say a corporation, which, by the way, i understand they were formed during jackson's administrations and he wasn't a believer in them to start with. he knew where they were headed. so i don't know how the court can reach that kind of

addition. of decision. another thing, i don't understand why these same corporations, if you're employed by them, and you accept a dinner for $125 to sway you, say you're selling something, and you cut the price by 25 cents because somebody spent $125 an meal, you're no longer employed with them. >> well, -- guest: well, i read this when it came out. but it was very strong. there was very sharp opinions in the court on this. and, but it came down in the end was this censorship saying up until that decision, you could not have unions or -- this is general treasury, not a pact or -- could be funding ads

within a window leading up to an election, the majority of the court felt strongly about this. they felt that this was an important principal, though it did overturn several decades of previous rulings by the court when they ruled -- and of course, the minority felt just as strongly. they felt corporations should be treated like individuals on this issue. so there is a lot of controversy over this topic. it is -- it is one we will see before the supreme court again, during some point. there will be legislation not moving in this congress but future congresses. in my -- on capitol hill. congress has consistently tried to tweak this language.

but now basically the rules are off. they can now use what we call soft money. not necessarily for their campaign but raise million-dollar contributions for other issues. for instance, a redistricting initiative back in their home state. they cannot benefit themselves with it. can't use it on their campaign, but it has an impact on the politics of their state. so right now we're kind of in a netherworld, and nobody's really sure what's going to happen next. this was one step the house democratic leadership wants to address to -- wants to take to address campaign finance rules. at some point there's going to have to be -- one of my colleagues wrote a story about a month ago. from politico. for a long time republicans, say senator minority leader

mitch mcconnell had opposed finance campaign saying the real thing is disclosure. it's not how much they give but who gives it. let them give anything they want but disclose it immediately. with the internet, we can have it out that day, we can find out who did what. but the funny thing is now some of these folks who wanted immediate disclosure are not so big on disclosure saying this is a united ruling. didn't have anything to do with that. so now they are kind of hemming and hawing. so there are very strongly-held views and principaled views on the first amendment and it's an issue that draws a lot of emotion. and when you take time digging into the fascinating issue, it's one of the long in this country. we wrestled with money and

politics. the powerful or well-resourced to influence our political process is not one that's going to go away. as long as we have elections, we're going to have this issue. hoot: have you ever seen a carveout such as the one that was created for the n.r.a.? >> sure. guest: sure. tax bills. they won't name it but there are -- there will be only certain organizations that can qualify for a language. ear marks. they may not necessarily name a company or the -- that gets an ear mark but the language will be structured in such a way. what was interesting on this is that you have very progressive liberal leadership, speaker plosey, these are progressive

liberals, not right wingers. this is the second time in months they've had to acknowledge the real power of the n.r.a. to swing votes. it was on the d.c. voting bill. and they ended up pulling that bill because there was language in there the n.r.a. opposed. i had one say to me 260. that means the n.r.a. can mobilize 260 votes in the house so if the n.r.a. wants to come in on an issue, that's an issue that is something that the leadership is going to watch. also if you remember back to the membership in 1994 and they swept away 40 years of democratic rule, one of the groups behind the rep can takeover was the n.r.a. they were upset with the assault gun ban. they mobilized their voters, one of the democrats learned

after the elections, don't mess with the n.r.a. they can bring a lot of pressure to bear on any issue that they choose to focus on. >> carol in reston. on our rep can line thank you for holding. you're on with john bresnahan. caller: yes, i think this is the most corrupt government we've had since i don't remember when. being a member of the n.r.a. we eat the deer meat we shoot and i'm also a member of the tea party. i went to the first tea party rally in little rock, arkansas. and it wasn't just white people. and there wasn't a lot of people there. but the second time i went, it grew and drew and it's continuing to grow in my small town, because people are tired of this spending. the ear marks, the pork. and it's out of control.

and -- host: two points to address with what carol had to say. corruption and government are the perception of government and also would this affect the tea party movement at all? guest: corruption is part of government. there's always going to be corrupt government officials. i think something like this, what happened in this -- on kind of jockeying around -- i think will feed some people's distrust of got to the. here you have a special interest group getting an exemption carved out. a special interest group. that is kind of what people are looking at here. in this case it was the n.r.a. but in health care it was different groups and tax bills, other things. that is a legitimate issue. but then you go back to the folks pushing, what they are

saying, saying this is what they are trying to address. if we don't do something about would youing special interest groups to run elections without any disclosure of who they are, how are they ever going to get to the issue of addressing some of the topics that or some of the crises that face america, across the board in terms of the economy, environment, and what not. so it's a have difficult issue to balance. host: does this affect the tea parties at all if the finance bill is passed? guest: well, the tea party as a group, primarily engage in express advocacy, if they were -- they wouldn't be affected by this. this is outside groups. this is not groups primarily involved in politics. host: jane from new jersey,

democrat. hi. caller: yes. hi. good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i, you know, with all the believeuating from the right about activist judges, the finding by the supreme court on citizens united, all that was -- i mean, the issue at hand was can they make this prop demand is movie or can they? and the answer was simple. yes, they could. but this court. the roberts court, used this opportunity have this finding that's further pushing us towards an olgarky. the right has been doing whatever they could to weak at any working class and put the power in the hands of the corporations. and now our entire congress will, with this finding, the congress have become the employees or the puppets of the

corporations. and the tea partiers in all their screaming about the government. government is here to protect us. and it worked just fine after the new deal. but little-by-little, the corporations have taken away our right to speak, and i'm sorry. corporations are not people. they are given privileges that we don't have. they have limited liability when they are found criminally culpable when found guilty of murder by -- they get a slap on the hand that wouldn't be worth a pimple on an elephant's butt. we would be put in the prison. guest: i think the caller read the book where he makes somewhat of a similar line. corporations are not individuals. they are treated under the law by the terms of those the right to cast a vote and in terms of

their involvement in the political debate, they hadn't been seen in the same light as an individual, but again, this is, you know, this is an issue. this is an issue the supreme court has wrestled with. this is an issue that legislatures, democratic and rep can, different congresses and the president, this is not going to go away. we are going to have this debate as long as we have elections. who is paying for what and who is running for offices? and are they being helped by powerful, rich interests? i mean, until early in the to the century we didn't have any disclosure requirements at al or whose campaign -- at all, or whose campaign was funded by who.

the system is a lot better than it was. it is not perfect. people are going to continue to work on it. politicians, advocates on both sides of the debate will keep covering it. it is a debate that will continue. host: about five minutes left with our guest. milton is a guest in bowling green. caller: hello. appreciate you taking my call. first time on the air. host: welcome. caller: i just feel deeply about campaign finance laws. i feel like it's the key to all our problems in government today. you know? can't have a government for the people, by the people with the current laws we have. when you look at the current laws that they just put in place with health care, i mean, who does it benefit? it benefits whoever paid those people and who gave them the noun be elected.

i mean, -- them the money to be elected. i mean, we need to take our government back. and this is the way to do it. it's the only way to do it. guest: and milton, i think you made an excellent point. i have been covering congress. this is my 16th year covering congress. i cannot tell you how important this issue is. it is one that in my time up on capitol hill, races have become exponentially more expense i, which means members and senators and challengers have to spend more time raising money unless her she can write a big check out of the pocket. when urp spending that much time raising money, it -- as hard as they work and they work very, very hard and have excellent staff, fur spending that much time raising money, it's going to cut into other

duties as a legislature. meeting with constituents, hearing their concerns, drafting bills, writing bills. it's just a very difficult balance they have to make. if you go around washington every night there's fundraisers, lob yippists, attended by lobbyists. and corporate folks, or those well-connected people. because members have to get money in order tore run for office. the first thing you're going to do. the people don't understand once a member gets elected, he or she wants to get re-elected. that sort of what drives everything they do. in order to get elected, they need money. to have money they have to meet money. as great as it was to see president barack obama raise $800 million. even he stepped outside the campaign finance system and

raised a lot of money in small doe makes nations but wanted -- raised a money -- a lot of money from people who wanted to see things happen. 3w he went to special interest groups, because that is where the money is and what's going to give these powerful organizations time with the conditions congress. some would make an argument that's a case for public financing right there. but how do you do that and balance it with the rights people have to participate in the political process and spend their own money out of their own podget. it's a very difficult issue and a nail hit on the head. a fundamental issue. who is paying for our campaign and how? >> and even after the spill,. k fundraising hopping. they hosted 53 parties for law makeers and candidates and four

skins the explosion and oil spill. lobbyists -- the numbers are based on fundraisers data compiled by sun light foundation. nine of the 11 known fundraisers this year were hosted by lobbyist tony podesta or other lobbyists for his firm. >> b.p. has a right to lobby the government. they have a right to express their views to the government around participate in fundraising. there's clearly politically -- clearly politically sensitive issues taking money around b.p. at this moment. but some may have been in the works beforehand and they carried through with it. but listen, every night in washington there are dozens of

these events. challengers, they go to them, because that's where the money is. they go to pack events. they can raise a lot of money at wivepbt that may take them much longer to do it over the internet or smaller events back home. you know, the folks who want things from government. they knew this is a big business. politics is a big business. running for office. campaigning is a big business. it's a multi billion-dollar industry. host: last call comes from al from gary, indiana. 3 caller: yes. i would like to say actually to carve out an exempt disclosure from the n.r.a. would actually inhibit or prohibit my free speech if i had a position that was against the n.r.a. in the sense that before you have free speech, you have to be able to have disclosure and

free thought. it actually seems to be unconstitutional for someone to be able to hide and not come through with open disclosure, and that stops and prevents me from even having an opinion to incorporate and use my free speech. guest: well, right now, as the law stands in the wake of citizen's united ruling, there's no requirement for disclosure at all. again, i'm not sure i necessarily agree that to incorporate the n.r.a. would not infringe on someone else's first amendment rights. they felt strongly that they did on theirs. and they felt strongly with the language covering part of the language covering part of the language on this extension. so a group had to be in business for at least 10 years. had to be around for at least 10 years. so they've brought in other

advocate groups that also fell into it. so the idea was, dump $10 million into it and then use that to run ads against congressman joe shmoe. i'm not sure that in doing that they -- on the rights of other individuals, but disclosure, as a journalist, disclosure is a good thing. the more, the better. so i think there's a lot of folks in the press who would like to see at least some way to tell who is funding what kind of ads. host: john press in a han from the politico, please come back. guest: thanks for having me. host: first this campaign 2010 update. >> today we're focusing on the runoff race in south carolina's

fourth congressional district. the reppcan there, the incumbent was only able to get 28% of the primary vote last month. the runoff is this tuesday, june 22. joining us on the phone is sean miller. he is a staff write tore talk about this race. >> is the uncustom bent. if so, why? >> yes. he is. conventional wisdom that any forced into a runoff is in trouble. we saw it in, a but all my sources in south carolina tell me bob ingli s's career is coming to an end. >> what has been his message to voters since then? >> he's billing himself as a true conservative. this is something that he maintained throughout the primary. he said that re-released an ad that said he's going to fight

for conservative principals, support for the free market, constitution. things like that. he's really tried to contrast himself again. and with his voting record it was quite liberal considering he has one of the most conservative districts in south carolina. >> they've come out with final ads. we'll watch them and come back and talk about them. >> when joe wilson said you lie he should have pointed at every member of kong. i know what it will take washington and the truth. every congressman knows we're headed toward bankruptcy but they are afraid to tell you the truth for fear of using their jobs, afraid to tell you eliminate every program except defense and the debt still grows. why? medicare, medicaid and social security. beyond commitment to seniors, everything's got to change. real sacrifices, tax snikes they strangal our economy.

our debt, at any point foreign governments can come knocking to collect. i've made mistakes but i am not wrong. cowardly politics will not solve this. i'm one of 12 fighting for radical change in washington. if you're ready for this change, so am i. honest change starts with your vote. i'm bob inning license and i support this message. >> i'm running for congress to fight for the essence of this country. we need free market principals and government that respects the constitution. we need fiscal responsibility and secure borders. and what we really need is a willingness to fight for them. not change or talk but fight for this country we love. i'm trey gowdy. i approve this message, and i'm asking for your vote. >> what has been the intact of bob inglis incorporating joe

wilson into his ad? >> well, he's trying to build up his conservative credentials and feeds into an endorsement he ruled out. he got the back et of bob jones iii from the university in his district. that was another event to bolster his credentials. he's been dubed the al gore of the g.o.p. and made environmental changes voted for tar , which angered a lot of conservatives. voted against the surge in iraq. he's really stuck himself out there as far as the votes he's takin' in congress andy advocating names like joe wilson and bob -- reminds folks he is a republican.

>> and it is such a well-established conservative -- it's considered the most conservative university in the united states. it is a pretty big institution in the district. it's been split in the sense that bob taylor, one of the senior administrators at the school, has backed gowdy. he backed him during the primary. so there's a real split going with the incumbent that they know or going with trey gowdy who is billing himself as a true, blue conservative. >> what happens over testimony weekend leading up to tuesday's runoff? >> well, both candidates have busy schedules. they will be meeting three times, together tonight for a debate on a conservative radio shation. -- radio station. saturday they will be at the beacon drive-in restaurant

where i'll be doing the town four rum and at the pub they'll be doing another campus event. >> let's talk about the general election. whoever win this is runoff between bob inning license and trey gowdy. who do they face in the fall and how is this rated? >> corden, excuse me, in the fall. this seat is considered the most conservative in south carolina. of course, you could make a case for the third district being the most confuse. -- the most conservative. but this is republican territory. this is not a seat the democrats expect to pick up. so whoever win it is primary, expect them to be in congress. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> for more information about campaign 2010. please go to our website. c-span.org. >> and on your screen now is steven moore, a member of the

editorial board of the "wall street journal." and he is joining us for the next 40-45 minutes or so to talk about congressional spending issues. and mr. m administrator, -- mr. moore, i wanted to start with paul crugman's column this morning. that 1930's feeling. it's entitled. suddenly, creating jobs is out, inflicting pain is in. condemning deficits and refusing to help, a still struggling economy has become the new fashion every where, including the u.s. extending aid to the unemployed despite the highest rate of long term joblessness. many economists, myself included regard this turn to austerity as a huge mistake. it raises memories of 1937.

what do you think of that? guest: i think the biggest problem in the world economy today, peter is the fact that we have this massive overspending by governments all throughout europe and of course, in the united states. and i think it's plunging the entire global economy into a potential, you know, long-term spiral. it's preventing our getting out of this crisis. and this idea that the government can create jobs by spending has obviously been refuted by what's happened over the last 1 1/2 years since we passed the stimulus bill that hasn't created any jobs. in fact,, the president promised if we spend this $800 billion we'll create 3 million jobs. but instead we've lost 2.5 million. what's happening in europe is the bond market that is the people who have to buy these, i

wouldn't call it austerity. i would call it fiscal responsibility of these governments start torg pay their bills. and that idea that seems to have penetrated washington, d.c., that some how expanding unemployment expands jobs. but we're now at a situation where providing two years of benefits to people who this is supposed to be a temporary aid for people who have lost their jobs. and it may be one thing, paying people not to work does not create jobs for anyone. in fact, it makes people less likely to find jobs, and the data is very clear on that. >> one last point, self-described deficit hawks are hypocrites.

easy to slash benefits for those in need , but their concerns are about red ink vanish when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthy. thus, senator ben nelson who was sankty moan usely -- goim i'm glad you mentioned this, because i think this is one out central issues we're going to be facing takeover next several months. what to do about the exploration of the bush tax cuts. i personally think it's a catastrophe for our country if we go into 2011, raising death taxes and at small businesses. peter, i don't think our economy can possibly climb out of this terrible -- so i think the most important thing we do to turn this economy around is to extend the bush tax cuts, keep the rates where they are and let's not raise taxes in a

resession. host: a headline from the hill news. house dem versus senate dem. heats up as the bill -- >> first of all, what's the extender bill and in a recent column, spending binge, part 2. you're calling it a spending bill but it's also been troferede as a tax extender bill. >> you're right. there's two elements to this bill. and then a spending provision. every week or so i go through this rig maroul. research and development something businesses say they need. so what's happened is to pay for the extension of some of these tax cuts, which i think are important for job creation,

they've raised other taxes to pay for it. in other words, in balance this is a tax increase, not a tax cut. >> so on the spending side it's >> this in addition to the debt. over the next 10 years, it includes the unemployment insurance you just mentioned. it includes a lot of pork grill programs. for example, there's a program that burney frank has wanted a for a long time. a slush fund for housing groups and on and on. my thing is there's a difference in tax cuts and i believe we should not be but what we need to do is grow this economy. i agree with paul on that. that's priority number one. putting people back to work and getting the economy growing 5%-6% which we should do in

this economy. but according to him that's growing government spending. i talked to it -- cut tax rates, unleash the powers of the private market and put government on a leash so its spending doesn't grow out of control. host: that's your fifth book. the one before that bullish on bush, how the society is making america richer. anythinging in that book, and you wrote that prior to 2008 and the financial problems, is there >> the one reason i think we saw the economy collapse as it did in 2008 is i do think government spending and the spiral and death. we are thinking -- the tax cuts really did help us get out of the resession we had in the

early of 2000. but spending year after year after year, a $200 billion surplus turned into a $500 billion when he letcht. he took a deficit and turned it into a $1.5 trillion deficit. co-authored. in april. >> just came out in -- that provides a description on how we get out of this crisis. mainly through control of government spending. then we talk about a lot of other interesting ideas like tax am insisty. if you want to get hundreds of billions of dollars into the treasury, why not provide the amnesty in people will voluntarily pay up money that they haven't paid in the past and we think we could raise $200 billion a year in doing that. host: good morning. from franklinville, new jersey,

loni on with steven moore of the "wall street journal." caller: yes. good morning, joe. i can remember back in 1980 when you beloved guy ronald reagan said we do not need -- if you don't want to pay the wages for employment here, we'll subas i dies you, which meant public money to send the jobs out of the country. now how did barack bok cause these jobs to be lost? >> well, one of the things we talk about in our book is that period from the early 1980's, we called this the greatest period -- we've never seen anything like that. anywhere, anytime, at any place in the history of mankind. it was an awesome period of

expansion. we createed in this country, peter, about 40 million jobs over the last 25 years. the tragedy is we lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 million-to-10 million in this resession. but reagan unquestionable turned this economy around. i'm not making a partisan point. i think bill network, i think prosperity continued in the clinton years and we had a balanced budget. those are the kinds of ideals we have to get back to. i pray president o'ballet sees the wrongness of his debt policies an we get this budget under control and start putting america back to work. that has to be priority number one. >> president o'bama is going to clums, ohio to launch the 10,000th stim lineups funded road project. $15 million in federal funds.

325 jobs. >> i this i the fallacy that government creates jobs. no question if the government spends money, it depoff -- guest: what i think the democrats have left out of thet equation is what milton friedman, one of my favorite economists of all time used to tell us. there's no such thing as a free lunch. if the government spends a dollar, peter, the dollar has to come from somewhere. so when the government spends $800 million that may create jobs on those projects, by the private sector shrinks by $800 million. that's the reason with -- comes from highland's new jersey. foe just listen to this. the station is, like, giving me

an ulcer. i mean, the country, i mean, this is my country. i love it. but i see it's going deeper and ddeper and deeper. i mean, everybody i talk to. my neighbors. there's people losing their homes all over the place. there's forclosure signs. people being hauled out into the street homeless people who have owned their homes 30 or 40 years, and that generation is all homeless. in the last four or five years, i've seen so many homeless people. it's rid clubhouse. i, myself, owned my house seven years. i'm young. 35 years old. cancer. my husband lost his job. all through this resession and it's just very tiring to come out and guest: you know, i travel around the country. i've been talking to audiences from florida to california and every state in between.

this woman's concerns i hear every day. i think what the politicians don't get is not just that we have 10% unemployment but the other 90% who have jobs are very nervous about lutesing them. i think we've got to get serious about competitiveness and government spending under control. we have to cut tax rates to encourage business expansion. i think we need to lighten the regulatory touch in this country. i think we've got get back to making america number one. i think our institutions of government are not working and not creating zwrobs. >> well, assister, florida, ind line. >> good morning. caller: good morning. i disagree with you because -- host: we lost her. doorty this is gone. we will move on to las vegas with ar you are theo on the republican line. guest: good morning. caller: i was wondering if you

had comment on all the overwhelming entitle -- he spoke with neil can a have you toe years ago that if left unchenged we are greece in five-to-seven years. >> your opinion? guest: we're not greece. e i know your viewers know what's happening in greece that the debt has gone so high that it's caused massive decreases. and they are almost -- and the titanic is exactly what this gentleman said, the long-term costs of our entitlement programs, the pension programs, the health care programs are simply unsustainible. we'd have to tax over 507 of everything our children own just to pay for these programs. so it would be to fix these

programs, get the spinding under control and by the way, it's not just in washington. it's as i look in the health care you've got a lot of cities like california and new york that are on the verge of bankrupty. new york declared they cannot pay their bills any foe with people starting to say, no. we can't keep spending. one of my heros right now by the way around the country is governor chris christy of new jersey who has really taken on a terrible situation that he inherited from jon corzine this year and starting to take on the -- host: what is your view on the tax? guest: i think a value-added tax can be thought of as a

national sales tax. when i was on the show before i said maybe we should have it to replace the income tax. and now that people can see me, -- it's not a value-added income tax. they are talking about a 10%-15%, national sales tax on top of the tax. i think if we went in that direction, no on top of that, it would make everything you buy from a cash register, 107-15% more expensive. host: next call for steven moore comes from baltimore. caller: thank you. i have great respect for both of you. but i have to disagree respectfully. i would offer the tax cuts bush

put on were haehnel titlements in and of themselves. northed to bring back the economy we have to create that's another idea that's been around 40 years for conservatives to try to get through. i would submit to you conservative democrats right and left agree and get off the rhetoric bandwagon 12k3w4r6789 guest: well, sfraul, i've never met as a matter of fact almost every -- i don't think this idea of years olded value it's coming from the white house and nancy plosey has said nice things about a tax. they want to increase revenues. i do agree that e -- peter, let

me be very clear about this. the republicans are the ones who got us into this crisis. they controlled washington from 2001 to 2006. they are the ones that allowed the budget to go from a $200 billion surplus or whatever to a deficit. we knew what the economy was. way too much got to the spending then barack obama comes in with his agenda of change. what was the change? more deficits. more out of control debt. i think that's why the american people are revolting against both parties. >> next call. westchester new york on our republican line, john. >> what? we had a take on employment problem in the united states. i work for a hedge advisor in harrison, new york. what they have done is outsourced all their operation

sites. >> right. >> they ever labeled us 2/3 of the workforce and i was one of the lucky ones to be laid off a year ago. i'm 63. i've been trying to find work. the unemployment. certainty live on unemployment. i have 10-year-old daughter. you cannot live on unemployment guest: right. caller: i've been using my pension noun pay for my house. i went for the mortgage, what do they call it? where they refinance your mortgage payments, just for help. guest: yep. caller: i was turned down last may because i had an anewty. i was told to use my anewty money. i'm 63. i used up all my anewty. i serveed in vietnam. i have nothing left. all i have is my home. guest: i've heard this tragic

story and tell it a million times. it's the tragedy of my lifetime to see what we've done and the problem is we've treated in washington, d.c. in this nation's capital to -- let's take, for example, this awful health care bill passed. how was it paid for? all these andates on businesses. light at any taxes on businesses if we want them to employ more americans. i dot not want to see a single american company export a job overseas. how do we keep it here? have the lowest tax rates in the world. so i think lowering taxes as president reagan did in the 1980's which led to the creation of tens of millions of jobs is exactly what we feed to do now.

>> president george w. bush. politico op ed, bill, the tax extenders bill we talked about earlier sends the wrong message to our innovaters in the fine print of the $110 million tax the bill due to come before the senate is an obscure provision. it would do three things, turn face on the tax extenders and further stall the country's economic recovery and if passed it would single out more than 1.5 million business partnerships. mainly those who invest in realize for punitive and discriminatory tax treatment. >> he's talk about the private equity firms that basically provide the capital to grow businesses. i agree with professor hubard. i think this is a terrible idea.

this really does it go after the sub chapteresque corporations and basically now they have to pay in addition to their business taxes, they have to pay income taxes. we, unlike any other country have an entrepreneurial culture. it's like in our d.n.a. that we go our economy by americans throughout the country starting businesses. you're not going to incentivize people to start businesses if you raise taxes on people who start the business. host: betty on the independent line. hi, bedy. caller: yes. i live on the retirement of my husband, who was a federal employee. host: mm-hmm. caller: and i spend my money on

paper every month. and when that smun gone, i quit spending. in plain, simple terms, why does the got to the create all this money that i can't even fathom trillions and trillions. host: sorry, betty, i thought you were done. well put. i couldn't say it better. guest: americans across the country are struggling to pay their bills. one of the things that has happened. we all know one of the reasons we got in this resession, we were spending too much money. you and i and businesses around of course, government were spending too much money and we had to reign in that money. but the good news is households are beginning to pay down their debts. businesses are starting to save more. there's only one institution that's not saving. that's the government. while we're saving, the government is mass ily borrowing. . .

who does not belong to an association, who is just really concerned about these issues, how does the average person -- and the people calling in -- what organization, what can be done when you are sitting here listening to this every day and

you are paying your bills and you see your husband, who has a private business that he is involved in, where banks are not lending to them anymore, who is struggling -- how do we get our voices heard other than joining the tea party or something like that? there are so many associations out there -- citizens for tax reform. i just feel that there needs to be a movement of some sort and is there anything out there? guest: i think there is a movement. i think that is what the tea party movement is about. some people may not like what the tea party stands for. i have spoken at many tea party in dance. one of the things i found so fascinating is it is just this collection of people -- like this woman who called in -- who say, i have never been politically active before. this is the first time i have ever been active. and people are becoming active because they feel that washington is out of control, that the debt is raping our economic futures. i would say what has happened in

this town in the last five years is the greatest episode of fiscal child abuse in the history of this country. i haven't eat your old and i tried to explain what is going on -- i have an eight-year-old son and i tried to explain what is going on, what is a trillion dollars? a million million dollars. i ask people, who is the greatest basketball player in the world. but sales of braun james. although kobe bryant may feel consultant. -- may feel insulted. le blanc james makes about $40 million a year with endorsements -- lebron james. the thing lebron james, how many seasons would have to play to get $1 trillion? 25,000 seasons at $40 million would be $1 trillion. one reason people are not as angry as they are is the numbers are so huge. a saying in washington to $1 trillion is the new billion.

what we started talking on the show about the budget 10 years ago, we were talking about billions. now talking about trillions. the other day i saw this wonderful bumper sticker and said, thank god obama does not know what comes after a trillion. these politicians are spending money like it is monopoly money. host: what about -- is there room in your view for defense cuts? guest: there is. no question. if i were president obama's economic czar, the first thing i would do is exactly the opposite of what paul krugman recommends. i would call for a 15% across- the-board reduction in spending -- every government agency. then i would freeze the spending at current levels until the revenues catch up. we've got to balance our budget but we have to balance it by growing the economy and reducing government spending. host: what if the spending or just frozen? right now, no cuts, just frozen. guest: it would be a big improvement. >> at what point would revenues

catch up? >> we are in such a fiscal hole right now that it would probably take 15 years. it depends a lot on how fast revenues grow. but here is the point. it is going to take a long time, but at least let's not keep digging this hole deeper. that is why this tax extenders jobs bill is so crazy. we already have $1.50 trillion in debt. the anybody think adding another $50 billion of debt or 100 billion will get us out of the recession? if they do, i think they are certifiably insane. host: stephen moore is founder and former president of the club for growth. how is it going? guest: it really good year this year. host: are you involved? guest: i want to be very clear -- i am not involved in elections and partisan politics any longer. i gave that up when i took my job as a journalist in "the wall street journal," which i love, by the way. can't believe they pay me to do

this. my time of the club were groped -- for growth, the idea was to put more people in congress. at the time, two of the guys i picked other real superstars and congress -- people i know you have had on the show. jim demint from south carolina and tom coburn from oklahoma, two of the people we helped push over the goal line and they have been stars. look, one of the things i am excited about this election is a thing we will see more people like tom coburn and jim demint elected to the senate. pat toomey, of course, who took over for me, running in tens of it. i met sharon ankle -- sharron angle running against harry reid. one of the things that is exciting about her, touching back to what a previous caller said, she got her start in the tea party movement. that is what is interesting. the tea party movement is

congress that would get the debt under control. host: was she a club for growth candidate? guest: i believe she was. i don't follow day today becauss i have to kinda keep my distance -- host: you have a chance to meet her. she is not very accessible to the media. guest: she was accessible to me, i'm the media. but i will ask for the next time she is on town to come on c- span. i just really think she is one of the people who proves throughout her political career that you can take on city hall. she is able to organize people, bring political change. a lot of people feel stress trade it -- frustrated that we can't change anything. host: james in peoria, illinois. thanks for holding. democrats line. caller: thank you. good morning. i have been listening and i have never heard the one thing i believe is really causing the problem, and that is labor costs.

if companies can't make a profit, they are just not going to stay in business. and if people are not working, they can't buy anything. guest: that's right. caller: and manufacturers and retailers can't sell anything and that means manufacturers are not making anything. my point is, until you fixed labor costs, you are never going to get the economy back on track. thank you. guest: well put. i think you are exactly right. i think we need to get businesses hiring workers again. once people are back on payrolls, they start spending money, saving money, they grow the economy. i just happen to believe that when you try to create jobs through government spending -- let me put it simply. what happens when the government spends money, every government job that is created does not create more private-sector jobs, it replaces a private-sector job. my point is let's grow the job base but let's do that in the private sector and not in the government sector. that is the way to grow this economy.

right now what is happening in my opinion with respect to the economy is the good news, peter, businesses have stopped laying off people. the layoffs, for the most part, have stopped. the problem is they are afraid to hire new workers. why? they are uncertain about the economic future and whether they can have demand for their products that they need to expand business. host: kay tweets in -- guest: actually i still disagree. if you look at our book, the one i wrote before this one "the end of prosperity," i talked a lot of the bush tax cuts. in 2003, cut the capital gains, dividends, the state and business taxes and we had a nice recovery for the four to five years. we had a big expansion in jobs -- i think the numbers were about 6 million or 7 million jobs were created after the bush tax cuts. we also, interestingly enough,

after bush cut the capital gains in the the attacks is, amazing but true statistics, cutting the tax rate on dividends and capital gains led to more revenues and not less. so, if president obama is listening, if you want to get more taxes average people, cut their tax rates and not raise them -- what john credit approve -- john kennedy proved to be true and ronald reagan. host: richmond, virginia. landon, republican. caller: i take a completely different look at the debt that we have than you do. we are supposed to own money to china and different places like that, but actually the chinese don't print american money. will we have done has been done through selling bonds. i think what bill clinton and george bush and even president obama, is looking at the situation -- where we are it is

a battle with the euro, the european morning and they really want to take charge of the financial markets of the world. but they can't because the dollar is so strong. what we actually do is, we sell bonds -- we give the chinese bonds, more or less, and then we print the money by ourselves. people basically don't understand that. the whole world is saturated with american dollars. we talk about how much we owe -- in reality, we really don't owe anything. we will have to pay back in years, say, 20 years when the bonds mature. all right -- host: we have to leave it there. let's get a response. guest: i think this gentleman raises one interesting question is, if we continue to accumulate this massive amount of debt -- by the way, the tenement's right is the chinese are buying up a huge percentage of our debt.

i think the latest indication is the chinese own nearly $1 trillion of our national debt. the real question is, when the debt gets bigger and bigger and bigger, as this congress and president want to do, how do we pay off? what do we do? one of the concerns about a lot of people have is we are going to have inflation. the reason for that is, when you can't pay your debts, what countries tend to do is inflict their currency and then they pay back the creditors with dollars that are worth less than what they borrowed them for. so i do worry, if we allow this to go up another $10 trillion, there will be a huge political incentive to inflate the currency, maybe inflation rates like we had under jimmy carter 10, 12, 14%. matt welch with -- totally destabilize the economy. at some point you have to pay the piper. there is no such thing as a free lunch.

we may be bar when the putting of the day of reckoning. host: is he correct when he says the borrowing is for 20 or 30 years from now. it is not for immediate use. guest: it is true the government is issuing bonds -- actually, peter, when the government is doing is borrowing, it issues bonds at anywhere from one year up to 30 years. actually what has happened in recent years -- this has started obama -- we are actually issuing more short-term wrote it -- notes because short-term interest rates are low. the average maturity of the average bond out there and i believe is only three or four years. every three or four years you have to turn over the debt. if the interest rate -- the cost of servicing this debt will rise. just to give you a sense of how badly this debt can be paired -- can be pared by congressional budget office and 01 b, if we

stay on the path we are right now, 2019, the single largest expenditure in the federal government -- budget, gas, interest on the debt. we will pay more money in 2019 to pay interest on debt than we will for our national defense. this is craziness. >> lowell, massachusetts. danielle, a democrat. caller: i am glad to be able to get in. i hope i get to say everything i have to say. i completely disagree with your guest. for the last 10 years i have had cnbc and c-span on over 20,000 hours. i saw him push for the second bush term. i disagree with the statistics about jobs being made. the bush tax cut of $1.50 trillion only brought nine% --

9% of jobs to the united states. the rest went looking for yields by buying up chop up mortgages. and commodities like copper went from 85 cents to over $3. and that is what they were putting their money in. they drove up oil from $28 a barrel to $146 -- host: cupp to a conclusion. -- come to a conclusion. caller: the republicans gave us $10 trillion of the $12 trillion we are in debt and now obama has taken what the bush people did, of putting the debt in and run-style off balance sheet accounting, he put it on the balance sheet -- enron- style. host: we got the point.

guest: i think daniel has won fair point that i would agree with, is both parties -- danielle has won a fair point i agree with. both parties. i have a couple of chapters in the book talking about overspending. i said, this is the damaging thing. remember, we did the medicare prescription drug bill, we did the education spending, we did a lot of the spending across the board that i don't think was necessary. so let me be very clear -- i think both parties are responsible for this debt. we need a leader in congress and the white house to get us out of this debt crisis. the problem i have with what is happening in washington right now is nobody, especially in the democratic party, is getting serious about bringing the debt down. not tomorrow, not bringing it down next year, or 10 years from now. i think this is a great, great country but it will be ruined by debt. the thing i worry about is what kind of future are we leaving to

our children when we are talking about adding $10 trillion of debt over the next 10 years. host: time for two more calls for stephen moore from "the wall street journal" and one tweet. just want to make it clear -- in guest: i am an editorial writer so i do get paid for my opinions. at "the wall street journal, what we tried to be very factually based. i hope people whether they are liberal or conservative, take 10 or 15 minutes every day to read "the wall street journal" editorial page. i think -- i am biased, but i did it is the best editorial page. we are not left versus right, but we want to be right versus wrong. i am sorry, the idea that you can borrow your way to prosperity, spend your way to prosperity, tax your way to

prosperity, has been discredited time and time again. host: if you have been watching washington journal for all three hours, we read a "wall street journal clause would editorial about bp and representative barton, that was written by mr. moore this morning. florida. caller: i have a solution -- and the comment first is, especially right now where we are already promising all these things to people, we need to get and the education system that the true safety net is our family, church, or nonprofit self efficient self-contained organization that does not have nothing to do with the government as our safety net. i think that sense we are a consumer nation, we should eliminate all of this tax code. we are supposed to be treated equally according to the constitution. there should be a flat tax of 10%. guest: amen.

caller: 10% on new, 5% on news. we should all contribute. everyone will contribute. the money should be collected by the cities and sent up to the federal government instead of back down from our politicians to get favors. guest: i think he has read my book. if you ask me what single thing we can do to grow this economy to get the unemployment rate down from the tragic level of 10%, to where it should become a 5%, the silver bullet is the steve forbes flat tax. 18%, no double tax on savings and investment. let us have the lowest tax rate and not the highest rate. so many of my liberal friends say, my god, these companies are outsourcing to china and india. they are right. how we solve the problem? bring the jobs back. let's make the united states the lowest tax rate country of the world and not the highest.

we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world and we wonder why the jobs are not coming here? host: alabama, charles, independent line. guest: i have a two-part question. -- caller: i have a two-part question. i pay taxes, just like my grandparents did, we are here legally. 27 years i never had to collect unemployment until five months ago. i was cut off two weeks ago without any warning and we did not know what we were going to do next. i know it is so hard to get unemployment. i just want to know how a faugh regulation -- gift card regulation bill can go up to congress and have priority over unemployment. and, with lower unemployment -- couldn't we lower unemployment if we could get rid of all of the illegal immigrants out of here and get us who were working

before this happened back to work? guest: let me deal with the second issue first. i am not in favor of illegal immigration. i think everyone who comes into this country should come in through legal means. let me be clear. but i feel strongly about -- immigrants are the greatest asset. they built this country, they are the hardest working. smartest and brightest people in the world. i want immigrants tt this country because they are the ones who are entrepreneurial, and i believe immigrants create jobs, i do not think they cost of jobs because of the businesses they start and a hard work. on the first question, look, i'm in favor of unemployment insurance as a temporary safety net. what i object to is giving people two years of benefits. i think most people who are working think it is kind of outrageous to continue to give people a month after month after month unemployment insurance benefits. they should be temporary assistance, not two years of

assistance. host: stephen moore of "the wall street journal" has been our guest. his most recent books -- "the end of prosperity" published in 2009 and "the return of prosperity" published in 2010. 45 minutes left in "the washington journal," and we will turn our attention to obama's visit to columbus, ohio, in just a few minutes. we will be right back. >> he was a volatile, emotional, very complicated kind of depressive young man and very adventurous. when he was an american he was

25 and having a venture. >> take a new look at the alexis de tocqueville and his 1881 tour of america. a new book "tookville's discovery of america." sunday on c-span's "q&a." >> this weekend on book tv, growing up between arabs and israelis. an autobiography. charles -- chronicles one of the most violent and corrupt places on earth, juarez, mexico. and on afterwards, a vietnam veteran on the novel that took in 30 years to publish, following the soldiers of bravo company through vietnam. find the entire weekend schedule at book tv.org, and join us on twitter. more than 30,000 already have. >> it is campaign 2010 your way, with the c-span video library. we make it easy to follow the primary season, from the campaign trail to the debates,

to victory and concession speeches. all free online anytime. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we have about 40, 45 minutes left in this morning's program and it is open phones friday. what ever public policy topic you would like to discuss, we will put the numbers up on the screen and a second. they are divided by political affiliation. we talked about a lot of things this morning. we will also talk about stimulus spending with the columbus dispatch this morning. allow 30 days between your calls. public policy issues, whenever you would like to talk about, we will give the opening phones a twirl. but first, president obama is on his way to columbus, ohio, today.

and the chief political writer for "the columbus dispatch" is joe hallett. what will he do in columbus today? guest: he will cut the ribbon on a $15 million road project that is being paid for with federal stimulus funds. because of the widening and improvement of that road and the utilities along it, the children's hospital, nationwide children's hospital will be able to expand and add jobs. so, the white house is billing this as the 10,000 stimulus project. and president obama obviously would like to come in and change the conversation from the gulf oil gusher to one of john's, particularly in a crucial battleground states like ohio. host: how many times as the president into ohio in the last couple of months or year or so?

guest: he has been here eight times since he took office. he has been to ohio -- i think this is his fourth trip this year. he was in youngstown last month at another stimulus-related event, again, road improvements to pave the way for the expansion of a steel company. he has been in the cleveland area three times this year. that is home to about 40% of the state's democrats. so, i think in an election year, part of the aim is to make sure the base is wis -- with him, with congressional races and a hotly contested governor's race. host: have you seen a lot of evidence of stimulus spending and the columbus area besides of this project of president is coming out to do?

guest: there was one very visible example, very early when the stimulus bill was passed. the president came to town to dedicate a new police class, which would not have been possible without stimulus funding. the city of columbus, like most, is experiencing financial tough times. and the mayor announced the city lacked funding for a new police class. through stimulus money, they were able to fund it and the president came here to dedicate that class. host: what is the economy like in columbus, ohio, and in general? guest: we have been in -- since 2001. unemployment rate is about one point higher than the national

average although we did get a bit of good news this morning, the unemployment rate in the state dropped 0.2%. and ohio added 17,000 new jobs. but still, we have been reeling with job loss. in fact, since the stimulus package was approved in february 2007, we lost a net of 138,000 jobs in the state. so, we are on tough times. and it looks like things are improving but it is going to take a while. host: what is the president's popularity level and ohio right now? guest: depending on which poll you see, his job approval rating

now is around the mid 40's. which obviously is not really good news. you want to be over 50%. particularly if there is going to be some coattail effect for candidates here for governor and the u.s. senate and congressional offices. host: very quickly on the politics -- congressional incumbents, how are they looking right now in ohio? guest: a good number of them are looking in trouble. we had one of the most closely watched congressional races in the country, which is the 15th congressional district race for a democrat mary jo carol ward being challenged by steve -- they had a race that was about a percentage point difference. she won.

ohio state university is in that district and it is a pretty educated, upscale district that is more moderate. so that is going to be very close. then there are a few others -- another democrat in cincinnati, steve driehaus is and the trouble -- is in trouble. we expect to see president obama back here in political mode a number of times. host: joe hallett, what time is coming to town? guest: he is only here for 90 minutes. the airplane lands at 11:30 a.m., and he is gone it by 1:00. host: thank you for your time. joe hallett is a political writer for "the columbus dispatch."

we want to go to open phones and we have an -- articles to show you. here is the lead editorial in "the washington times." gainesville, florida.

trevor, a democrat. you are on c-span. caller: good morning. this morning you read and one of the papers that someone said that this gentleman from bp had the worst day of anybody yesterday. host: an editorial and "the new york times." i think he was being a little sarcastic. caller: i think there are people who had a worse day. there is a lady who had a baby -- her husband had died and she had a baby a few days after, in the fire on the oil platform. i'm sure that baby had a worse day. she had a worse day. all the children had a worst day. the 11 families who lost their fathers had a worse day. thank you.

host: jacob, cincinnati, ohio. caller: i wanted to talk a little bit about the abolition of the income tax. i have done research -- i am about 20 years old. it is interesting to note -- and i would like listeners to know the federal income tax on accounts for 30% of federal income and revenue. so, if we look at from a time scale, if we cut our spending back 30%, it would take us roughly to the year 2000. we should keep the -- if we read -- about are you confident the 30% figure? caller: i am pretty confident. it could be a little upward but i'm pretty confident. host: what is the rest of the 70%? caller: it comes from other taxation. it comes from bonds, it comes from just general government

raises. because people -- you know, i would like people to google this. don't take my word for it. host: i think there would probably be an argument about this figure, 30%. but it would be interesting to watch it play out. what do you do in cincinnati? caller: i actually am a student. well, i live and ohio, but i'm a student in north carolina. but i am home right now. host: what you studying? guest: i am studying economics. host: what year are you? caller: i am a jr. now, i guess. i also wanted to -- host: it goes downhill from there. caller: about the income tax, i wanted to briefly touch on one thing. i can do it real quick. if it is basically the fact that the morality of the income tax. governments are comprised of people and the people give the power to the government in order

to protect each person's rights. one of our rights is our right to make money. i think when the government does something that would be illegal for an individual citizen to do, it should be outlawed, it should be wrong. for the government to say you are going to give me 20%, 30%, 40% of the income make or else we will throw in jail it is morally wrong because an individual themselves cannot say, next door neighbor, i need you to give me all of your money. besides the fact that it would increase job growth, it would boost the economy, i would think getting rid of the income-tax would be a moral stimulus, so to speak. host: do you think the government needs to be funded in some way? caller: i do. host: how would you fund it? caller: some people are advocating a flat tax. i am not so much for it, and if i did, it would be smaller. i think 5%.

i and thinking -- cutting government spending. let us give education to the states -- host: got to leave it there, jacob. thanks. moving on to the independent line. rick, urbana, and illinois. caller: i was not very happy with c-span this morning. mostly unhappy with you, peter. it seems like you were awful closing what your guest you have this morning from "the wall street journal." do you know him -- host: just from being here and having him on for years. he is a nice gentleman. we tried to be polite for all of our best. i was the same with john breslin hand, who i never met. caller: you did not let people finish up. danielle had things to say to review a lot of the misstatements and things that he had to say. i just don't understand. you look like you were holding hands under the table and i am

just not happy with you. host: all right, thank you for your comment. jeff, democrat. jamestown, tennessee. your turn. caller: i would like to speak on the gulf oil spill. why has someone not tried the -- on this problem that we would have. it is used when you have a hot line. it will take care of the problem. host: sir, do you have a caller: only that i have worked for the city of jamestown, and we did hot taps. i was not in charge of the gas but i had seen it done many times. host: thank you for calling. are you retired? caller: yes, sir.

host: june 28, the elena kagan nomination hearings began. this week on our newsmakers program is the chairman of the senate judiciary committee, patrick leahy. we just take this interview with him yesterday, and here is a sneak preview. >> republican senators with a variant like -- much like you to push of a hearing back after the july 4 recess. any circumstance where you would delay the hearing if they ask you? >> i can't think of anything of hand. i am always open to suggestions. trying to do it so nobody could say we are being partisan. taking the schedule for the john roberts and sonia sotomayor, which turned out to be to the day, the same. probably do the same scandal for elena kagan. she will take a day longer only because we don't want to start a hearing on sunday. i have to go to mass on sunday. i will started on monday.

we get a lot of stuff to do in the senate. i want to get it done, because of she is confirmed she has to set up her chambers, do all of those kinds of things that really take a little bit of time to do. >> how long do you expect the hearings to last? more than a week? >> if they last more than a week we would probably be the only people in town. they will last until we finish. i would hope it will not go into a second week because my family will be in vermont and i imagine most other senators will be in their home state. host: the full interview will be at 10:30 a.m. on sunday morning eastern time. charles, ky. caller: i'm calling concerning

the unemployment rate is high. the way that they could possibly do to get the unemployment rate down would be to move people who are close to retirement into social security. get started with like the 61- year-olds, then you would go to like 60, and etcetera, and each time you checked the unemployment rate to see what the rate would be the next month. continue that until you get down to 56. host: what about the social security spending? caller: now have the same cost, if not more, paying unemployment. what you would be doing is moving people who need the jobs the most, moving them to a different category, which would be employed. then moving the people a year

away from the retirement anyway. host: how is the economy in georgetown? you have a big toyota factory. caller: we do. host:, a people they employ, you know? caller: we are doing pretty good so far, as far as that goes. looks like sales are doing pretty good. host: is the economy in georgia down doing pretty good? caller: there are not many hiring and around the plan and stuff. once you get a job, you got to stick with the job. you can't find anything else. host: do you see any evidence around your area that stimulus money is being spent? caller: not really. host: like road projects? caller: there are still potholes' to be filled.

there is no sign saying -- the funds have been used for any purpose or anything like that. host: thank you for calling in this morning. vinnie in reston, virginia, here in the suburbs. republican. caller: i just wanted to chime in. i heard a guy a couple of calls ago talking about the income tax. i wanted to add to what he was saying, just saying that people think the income tax pays for government, it does not, it pays the interest on the debt that the federal reserve creates. people have to realize that not 1 cent goes to infrastructure -- it goes to the debt, interest on the debt. host: i want to show you the front-page of "the detroit free press" this morning. ford leads surge in quality.

as you can see, almost full page coverage of some car news. kansas, arthur, democrat. caller: i would like to say, i would lot -- i think a lot of people, including news anchors, editorial, journalist, the are missing the point. i am living in poverty. i make about $80,000 a year. everybody is worried about -- i make about $18,000 a year. everybody is worried about losing their houses. what about people in poverty who don't have houses or 401k's roll over. you guys are making sixers seven figures a year. that is why you guys do not like taxes because it is hitting your pockets. but one aspect, the people who don't got nothing, who don't have anything, i believe the ones obama is trying to help. you are looking like you did not understand what i am saying. people don't -- who don't have

anything. we don't have houses, we don't have cars, we don't have checking accounts, anything, nothing, and then people complaining about, i'm losing two of my -- my house. what about the person who does not have an apartment? did so what do you do? caller: i am a cook. host: where? caller: i work there russell diner. host: how long? caller: are you a graduate -- 12 years. i have a bachelor's in business. host: just unable to find employment in your field? caller: correct. 33-n't want to say -- i'm a year-old black male, and it is really hard out here. i hear people complaining. i hear people complaining about,

you know, stuff i would love to complain about. i wish i could complain about losing a house. i wish i had that to complain about. i am complaining about getting another loaf of bread. getting milk for my three-year- old daughter. i don't hear those concerns. everybody else's concerns is, this $80,000, i went for making seven figures down to six figures. come on, give me a break. what about people in poverty? i really believe people -- obama is trying to help those people mostly that are doing terrible. host: thank you for calling in and sharing your story. the next call is richard in morgan city, tennessee, on independent line. you are on washington journal. caller: i would just like to ask a question. obama said that they have been on the oil spills since day one,

and it took him 52 days to get through the ocean. we are hurting the down here in tennessee. we have floods and everything and they will even help us any. host: those gloves really got overlooked, didn't they? caller: we sure did. host: you have the oil spill, you had the potential times square bomber in new york going on. you guys kind of got lost in the middle of all of that. how many people died? caller: 8, i think. host: how close are you to national? caller: 50 miles. host: what do you do in morgan city. caller: there are no jobs. host: what do you do? caller: retired from the railroad. but it takes what i got to take care of my two sons -- i have a 30-year-old who is out of work

and a 41-year-old who can't get a job. host: thank you for coming in. "financial times" -- the u. of mines with washington for tighter sanctions on iran -- eu aligns with washington to tighten sanctions on iran. that is an "the financial times" this morning.

this is in "the wall street journal." federal government formally responded to the most serious legal challenge to the health care overhaul, invoking its powers under the constitution to regulate interstate commerce and impose taxes. that is an "the wall street journal" this morning. chicago, david, republican line.

you are on "washington journal." caller: thank god every day for c-span. you guys are great. i'm a paraplegic disabled vietnam veteran. maybeot two ideas -- and i'm just a crazy that -- vet. the first ibm -- idea is, we tried to refinance to lower our mortgage. we could not because the appraisal came back lower than our existing balance. however, when we got our tax bill, our tax bill was increased several thousand dollars. and the fair cash value of the tax bill exceeds our mortgage balance. to stimulate the housing market, make banks

utilize the fair cash value on property tax bills instead of having them appraised. because the market is so skewed now with the short sales and foreclosures. the second question -- with trying to extend the unemployment and the welfare checks and everything, why don't they attach an amendmenn to that that says, everybody has to reapply this time to make certain they weed out any fraud and anything else going on. that's all i have to say. thank you. host: david -- do you live in chicago proper? caller: no, i live and an outside suburb. i grew up in july -- chicago, a daly democrat. host: are you still? caller: no, i'm independent. host: are you paraplegic because

of your service? can we ask what happened? >> , it was about 12 years ago -- it was about -- caller: it turned out about 12 years ago i became very ill, and it turned out the pesticides that would to guard dogs in -- i was a dog handler in vietnam -- they were neurotoxins and it was absorptive to my system. i didn't know what. but my immune system got a very weakens -- got very weakened and these cut los -- cut loose in my body and they are destroying my brain sales reps and there is nothing they can do to stop it. so, it is a progressive disease. host: are you getting care at the veterans -- veterans administration? caller: yes. like i got ambushed 40 years

after i got back home. host: thank you for calling in. just to let you know, i did not know if you heard it, the new book "matterhorn." it is a novel, but it is a novel about vietnam. it has gotten a lot of good reviews. he was a vietnam vet and it took him 35 years or so to write this book. he will be our guest this weekend on "after words" and book tv. he is interviewed by a historian and writer. if you go to book tv.org, you will see when it will air. it will air on saturday night as well as sunday night. "matterhorn" is the name of the book. new york city, democrat. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span and thank you for taking my call. two points i want to say to correct mr. moore from "the wall

street journal." he points out that reagan cut taxes and that was this possible for the great boom we had in the 1980's, but what he does not tell you is that reagan raised taxes three times during his administration. he neglects telling you that. it should be pointed out. that he realized he had made a mistake when it cut the taxes of the compensated for it by raising them before he left office three times. the second error he made is he tells you, moore tells us that the reason companies are leaving the united states is because of our high taxes. that is not the reason the reason they are leaving the united states is because -- that is not the reason. the reason they are leaving the unit -- united states is the low cost of unemployment. the three components in business our overhead and labor costs and material costs. those are the three major

components in business. and the reason they are leaving is because of the drastic discrepancy in the cost of labor. people in china, they don't have any wages whatsoever. and what we really need in order to correct our unemployment, is we need a living wage that is universal, we need a universal living wage. host: what do you do in new york? caller: i am retired. i had my note -- my own business in new york in the textile industry which is null and void. there is no industry whatsoever. host: we've got to leave it there. sorry that we had to end it there. very quickly, "wall street journal" has an interview with the outgoing vice-chairman of the federal reserve. his name is donald kohn. he has been with the fed for 40- plus years. this is an interview that was done in "the wall street

journal." today is the 70th anniversary of winston churchill's finest hour speech. this is a story out of england in "the new york times." churchill's finest hour yields insights. here you can see the hand written speech and winston churchill's edits. 70 years ago, winston churchill, barely six weeks in office confronted with the threat of invasion rose from the house of commons and in 36 minutes of soaring auditory saw to rally his country when -- countrymen with what has gone down in history as his finest hour speech. ending with the words, let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties and so bear ourselves that if the british empire and the commonwealth last for at 1000 years, men will still say this is our finest hour, has resonated ever said on both sides of the atlantic and

beyond. it has been hailed as the moment britain found the resolve to fight on after the fall of france and ultimately an alliance with american and russian military might to gannett -- vanquish the german armies. the tight -- typescript of the speech heavily edited by churchill rests now in one of 2500 boxes of documents and artifacts numbering more than 1 million and all that cram the carefully guarded upper floors of the churchill archive center of cambridge university's churchill college founded in 1960, five years before churchill died. baltimore, a republican line. jim. caller: hi, peter, how are you? host: ohio. caller: the visit today to columbus at a hospital. what was brought up in the news is all of the construction workers that are working on the hospital and road projects, that

have been going on -- host: the stimulus project. caller: it has been going on for a while. they were forced to take a day off without pay. because of the president's visit. i think it is just ridiculous. host: that was not in "the columbus dispatch." caller: that was on local news. all construction workers forced to date -- take a day off without pay, all because obama wants to come and cut a ribbon. the fuel costs alone to fly the 747 from d.c. to hear probably could have paid their wages for a month. just a fact. host: what do you do in baltimore, ohio, jim? caller: service connected 100% disabled veteran, retired from being a car mechanic for a number of years and now i'm a house husband. my wife works. host: georgia, independent line. scott. caller: good morning.

the quick point. everybody has been bashing mr. moore, and i would like to join in, too. you really need to add to defy him for what he is. he is just a far right wing republican. that is his viewpoint, and it has always been that. he is pretty much wrong on everything. host: we have never hidden his viewpoint. as you know as a regular watcher of "the washington journal," we have people from viewpoints from a to z on this program. caller: well, yes, somewhat. i guess the problem is, like other people have said, sometimes when people are trying to make a point, a kind of get cut off and he gets to redirect it. anyway, real cloak -- quick, he and a lot of other people want to go with this flat tax, it is not fair, everybody should pay the same amount of tax. comrade, they don't believe that when it comes to in compared they have no problem seeing the bottom half of in come still

fall, something he did not address. median income fell over the last decade. how is it ok. that is the real problem. if you don't want the wealthy to pay taxes and the people at the bottom are making less than they were 10 years ago, who is going to pay them? the problem is the wage inequity. unless people are earning a enough, like a cook in kansas, if you can't even afford food, clothing, and shelter, it is not everybody spent too much. everybody didn't spend too much. i did not spend too much. i am making less than 25,000 a year. host: the last call is from huntington, new york, dooley on our republican line. caller: i have a very simple question. in reference to fema. i recall during katrina we kept hearing about fema. i have not heard anybody mentioned fema and what they are go