association summer moating and a look at youth activism. later neil irwin talks about the economic recovery process. washington journal is next. . .

for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. if you are calling from outside of the u.s., 202-628-0184. today would be the data use the internet if you have called within the last 30 days. that address, journal@c- span.org. you can also send us a message through twitter.com/c-spanwj. we will keep up-to-date with those throughout the program. this is the story we are referring to on the front page of "the new york times," business section. "government that business spending is a contentious issue right now in washington.

the funds in the stimulus package for extending high-speed internet access is just beginning to be spent and the beneficiaries could not be happier. the types of internet activities that most americans take for granted are out of the reach of millions of homes across the united states. these people either have outmoded, dial-up internet service or have no affordable internet service. sometimes the nearest high speed internet connection is that all local library, 10 miles away. the program is a guest -- intended to extend the broadband service to what is known as the middle mile, which can connect institutions like schools and hospitals, and the last mile, homes and businesses, that internet providers have bypassed because the expected revenue was

too small to justify the the investment needed. -- needed." the first call comes from jeremy, baltimore, maryland. go ahead. caller: how's it going? thank you for [no audio] host: jeremy? caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: i do not think it would be the most prudent thing to do right now given our current economic standing. i think we should cut back on spending. i do not think that this would be the most prudent thing to do. not for government spending. host: you think that the private sector can do a better job at extending the reach of the internet into these rural areas it? caller: considering our

government spending right now, i think it right now it would not be the most prudent thing for the government to do. we should try other means, expanding things. i think that that will probably be a lot better if we give the private industry a try. host: more from "the new york times," article in the business section this morning. "for some it will mean the difference between isolation and being connected to the rest of the world. "if you have no high-speed internet connection it is almost impossible to get anything done any more," according to the head of the gci coordination expert in alaska's." dave, republican line. good morning. are you there? caller: yes. host: go ahead, dave.

turn down your television or radio. caller: ok. right now. host: ok. go ahead. caller: on this stimulus money that we are spending here, especially the stimulus money we are pushing into health care -- where i work, i have owned by business my whole life and my son runs it now. he is done -- he is doing a better than ever. all of this stimulus money in the health-care system seems to go into these overpaid doctors and stuff that are not really doing their job. as far as the internet goes, we have put everything into paper and things like this and i do not know -- i think that everything is really going good. we have never had a better.

i am 75 years old. i was a combat medic in korea. as far as i am concerned, looking at what we have, we have enough. host: erica, somerset, new jersey. welcome to the program. caller: i am calling on the republican line because by a registered republican. i am probably more of an independent. perhaps a tax credit would be a good way to give people the opportunity to have the internet access without giving money directly in having to trace how the money is spent. if you use the tax credit, the incentive is there for the businesses. you already have machinery in the irs to hold people

accountable for claiming tax credit. you have a mechanism for funding it and for trading it without creating an extra cost to the government. i thought that might be a good way to get a dollar for dollar tax credit if you spend money for internet access and you live in an area where it was not previously present. host: the tax credit would be for the companies that provide this service? caller: no, it would be for the areas that it knew -- it would be for the areas -- the individuals that need the service. host: i do not think that the problem is that not enough people do not want the internet access, it is that the public sector feels that they are not going to get the money back that

they invest in sending the wires out. right here, "for some than -- " hold on a second. "the last package was approved without a significant debate. the program is intended to extend broadband service to what is known as the middle mile. bypassed by the internet providers, the revenue was not worth it for the internet providers." would not be better to provide the tax incentive to the companies it? caller: i do not know. host: think about that. next up, randy, wisconsin. where are you calling from? caller: right between green bay and apple 10. host: is that a rural area?

caller: a small community of 15,000. host: like a suburb of. caller: exactly. host: what you think -- what do you think of government funding for internet access in rural areas? caller: i think it is overdue. i happen to know that the mayo clinic is working on programs whereby they want to connect with their patients in their homes through high-speed internet connection, which i think would be helpful and cost saving to patients in the health systems of the united states. not only would it bring information to rural areas, getting them up to speed, but i

do think that for reasons mentioned, like health care, i think that this will be a good thing for getting the rural areas connected as well. host: oklahoma, independent line. caller: one thing that has been extremely overlooked, not everyone has a computer. i am out here with the hicks and what ever, but the one thing that is not even being address is that not everyone has a computer. host: do you have one? caller: i do not. i used to when i was married. there are these polls that take

sound bites of america, but not everyone has a computer. host: what is your nearest computer? library? caller: library. but my library is very -- how might you say religiously control? host: the public library? caller: exactly. you cannot do this, that, or the other because it is the bible belt. not every american has a computer. host: all rit. we will leave it there. twitter, "a total waste of tax dollars. there are not enough that do not have internet to justify the expense." back to the "the new york times," article.

"so far more than 200 projects have been awarded from the program administrators, the agriculture and commerce departments. the stimulus law requires that all the money in the program be allocated by september 30. even so, many remote homes will not have high-speed access." wisconsin, what do you think of federal money for expanding the internet? caller: i think it would be great for some areas that cannot receive the digital live television signals. i lived in the city -- i lived in the city. i have lived here at the same address for 35 years. we have three different carriers. it gives the opportunity to put in high-speed lines instead of

putting them in. local telephone carriers pocket that money and sell it to each other like wall street banks. we are going on at our third provider. i have a windows 98 computer. i find that technology -- is easier to go to the local library and wait for the telephone companies to get done sorting out the profit the government has thrown at them for providing high-speed internet. host: joe, maryland. good morning. caller: how are you? host: what do you think of federal funding for expanding the internet? caller: a great idea. not quite electrification in the 1930's, but as an expansion of

government funding, it is a great investment of tax dollars. compared to the extensions of unemployment benefits, these are the investments we should be making. a great opportunity to create jobs in the short term. host: more from "the new york times." "while the program will reach many areas in many states, there are still some who will not be helped. in the mountains of north carolina they have been trying unsuccessfully since 2006 to persuade at&t to replace their dial-up service. "i can get around by e-mail ok, but when it comes to on-line meetings is really frustrating." chicago, illinois.

randy? hello. caller: hello. i have serious problems with wasting federal money on this demographic. host: why do you call it wasting? caller: we are talking about people who are uneducated and are simply unable to use the technology. that man previously talked about the fact he had no computer. with religious not controlling the public library. -- religious nuts controlling the public library. we need access to areas where the internet can be used productively. host: and you think that people in rural areas cannot use it productively because they live in rural areas? caller: they are obviously locked in.

that is not where american productivity is. why would we want to give internet access to people that cannot use it productively? host: let's take the case of the woman in the article. they own a farm and horse breeding system in western kansas. they will be a lot of load photographs -- of load photographs in minutes, rather than an hour using the dial-up. host: what we are looking at is a minimal use -- caller: what we are looking at is a minimal use of the internet. up loading a picture of a hose -- picture of a horse is a very minimal use of the internet. host: what about commercial activity? sounds like they will be using it as a part of their business. caller: we are talking about

minimal commercial activity. yes, they are doing it for their little business. but we are not talking about something that contributes to the overall economic development of the country. host: john, republican line. thank you for getting up so early. caller: am i on the air? host: you are. caller: i have a question lit -- regarding the internet. [no audio] host: we lost that line. mary, texas. good morning. caller: first-time caller. we love c-span. host: we love having you want. what are your thoughts about expanding the internet? caller: it is necessary. i have been waiting. i cannot wait.

randall, chicago, i do not know what planet you live on. i am an independent manufacturer's representative. i sell healthy products to major stores, whole foods markets across the nation. a network of independent contractors. would you not believe that the person who represents me, who happens to be from california, my representative outside of fort worth texas in a little town within 20 minutes of fort worth, texas, has no internet access. this will make a difference. we have been counting the moments until this money will be spent to help her have internet service. to get e-mails about price changes, of placing orders, it

is beyond my imagination. this community right outside of a major city has no internet access. they fall into this world space. initially, until i knew of this relationship with lying to -- independent contractors, i could not dream that an area like this would be right outside of a major city. the best thing to do is to purchase a computer. they are very affordable. host: they give a call. more from the article. "since many of the recipients are poor, the sec is reporting -- fcc is reporting that

broadband service be expanded through a monthly fee of $2.78 per household, part of the telephone bill and is expected to disperse $8.7 billion this year." next, mountain lakes, new jersey. well, washington journal. caller: led to beyond. first-time caller. on this broadband, i have a question. can this information not be distributed through satellite? host: do you think that satellite service would do them just as well and it would not need to run the lines? caller: why run a line if you can get service through satellite? host: you have internet service by wire or through satellite?

caller: i have television through satellite and through that company i can get internet. host: where are you located? caller: about 10 miles from morristown. host: not exactly a rural area. caller: no, but my understanding is that satellites can broadcast throughout the country. people living out in a farm, they get their television by satellite. i think that they can receive the internet through satellite. seems like a waste of money to run lines all over the place if a satellite could produce the same results. host: one of the earlier callers suggested a tax credit for consumers. we talked a little bit about tax credits for providers. what do you think about tax credits for providers as an

incentive to get them to provide more service? caller: well, that would help the people that need the hard line to get the information. host: you are definitely in favor of the satellite. caller: i think the satellite. it is less expensive. if more people could use it, the cost could come down. host: sam, democratic line, ohio. caller: i was listening to the previous caller and am inclined to agree with him. although the trouble with that is that you pay your satellite bill for the internet, but you have to have the dog on satellite to start with. you must sign a contract. it is cheaper, i agree. i do not agree with that fellow who was criticizing we uneducated rustics.

this is about opportunity. the opportunity for citizens to get on-line and keep up with others. i think that one of the reasons that people probably go to the cities all the time is that there are things like this. what happens, if we are really stupid out here, the smart ones go to the cities so that they can have the services. host: where are you located in ohio? caller: south-central ohio. the county borders the ohio river. i qualify as rural. host: do you have internet service where you live? caller: i have it through satellite. i have no idea how much it costs relative to broadband. i cannot get broadband. host: how far would your nearest internet access be if

you did not have satellite? caller: i am guessing that the library would have it. 3 miles. host: thank you for your call. we want to let you know about this program note. "newsmakers," this week, immigration issues. including the arizona immigration law set to take effect on july 29. >> it is not persecuting people for being here illegally, they are being offered up to the federal government so that the federal government can take their responsibility. giving it to them on a silver platter with the job done. arizona is not apprehending people as they run over the border. when they apprehend someone for some other crime, there is no

question that supports the federal law. there are a number of laws that work supporting that. the administration cannot have it both ways. they cannot have these programs where they are supposed to take criminals and pass them over to the federal government if they are here illegally, but then say that if you do it wholesale we will come after you. i am convinced that the supreme court will rule that way. you cannot stop a state within its rights from asserting its sovereignty in supporting a federal law. host: you can see the entire interview with congressman issa tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on c-span. much of the interview is on the new law in arizona.

"newsmakers," also available online at c-span.org. also as an app for your iphone. speaking of, "and internet connection in the hand is better than no connection at all. six out of 10 african-americans and hispanics use their cell phones to get out of -- get onto the internet. experts say that the reason for the high adoption rates are numerous. minorities are often first adopters of new technologies. cities, such as washington, have become giant hot spots of free wif-fi connections. a phone with a gatorade is more a -- more affordable for -- a

telephone with a data rate is more affordable to many been the $1,000 computer and internet access. next caller, illinois. caller: it is a great investment to have is a stimulus. first it should be for the businesses. but then for the consumer. i think that with a couple of the calls then i heard, one gentleman against unemployment -- i am not unemployed, but with so many people unemployed it

should be higher on a list. i also think of that comment from randall is an inch -- ignorant statements. everyone should be able to get on the internet. keeping up with the news, education, there are so many valleys -- values to it. keeping in touch. satellite, it should be looked into. the different variables that can be used in the most cost- effective way. a tax credit, i believe, would be better way of going. host: we have this twitter f, "i pay $30 extra each month to get the internet on my iphone." tony, republican line.

go ahead. caller: i agree with some of the previous callers. i think that satellite is a good option. i cannot understand why anyone would think that this would be a government responsibility. free enterprise could do a much better job. if the money is there, they will do it. in this time of economic uncertainty, this is the wrong time to do anything like it. even if our coffers were flush with cash, it would be a hard decision. host: what about some of the company is not wanting to do it because they did not want to -- did not think it would get a return on their investment. what do you think of a tax credit as a way to incentivize companies? caller: that would be a much

better idea. let's get creative without just throwing money at every potential problem. tax credits are a much better idea. host: chalk, -- publicchuck, -- chuck, independent line. caller: my question is this -- where will we get the money? $7.2 billion? are we going to borrow it? host: i believe it is already in the stimulus package. caller: that is borrowed money. when will this government stop spending us into oblivion? host: when do you think? caller: good question. we already have $14 trillion in unfunded mandates. when will it stop?

host: other items in the news this morning, this from "the baltimore sun." "the obama administration plans to issue a new ban on oil drilling after the rejected moratorium. ken salazar rejected the moratorium imposed in may, saying that the difficulties bp has encountered underscores the need for stopping deep sea drilling for now." portland, go ahead. caller: i work for two of these communications companies. some of those people talking about satellite, the only thing about it is that when you have weather disturbance, your satellite will not pick up the signal.

-- fiber optic underground lines carry direct signal. people saying that it is not worth that, that people outside of rural areas do not deserve it -- let me tell you, these people can get on line. they can do their homework. parents can pick up the homework on line. by the time a book is printed and on the shelf, it is already outdated. you can get instant information online. i think that everyone should be connected. if the government has to do it, so be it. working for a cable company, i know that they do not go into areas where they cannot get their money back. when we set up a new connection, if there are no other people in their area, they will not put it in. maybe a tax credit for those

companies. fine. but they are not going to do it. host: below the fold in "the philadelphia -- the philadelphia inquirer," "spy swap was quick and quiet." from "the new york times," "with negotiations between two countries led to exchanges." from "the washington post," "u.s. and russia complete spy exchange." susan, good morning. caller: is that me?

host: are you susan? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: i lived in an area where comcast has a monopoly. they have methodically and regularly removed certain channels from the broader network, making them part of the cable network. in addition i think that the motive is to change the way that we use the land line telephones. i think that if they get broadband to enough people they will cut the land lines and everyone will have to use cell phones. that is my comment. i will take the answer of the air. host: let's move on to hampshire, tennessee.

caller: i just wanted to say, i do not know if people realize or not, it has been since 2005 or 2006 that the fcc approved technology to carry everything through the infrastructure we have in existence. the host: let's go to rhode island, independent line.

caller: thank you, sir. the federal government is funding a lot of different stuff. i would be interested to see where the mandate is in the constitution. i am very wary of that idea. i think you should try to find out who is proposing this funding. if any of these people proposing the funding are part of the trilateral commission or the council of foreign relations, watch out. i think that there is trouble ahead of people go for that. host: from "the philadelphia inquirer," "white house silence on marriage ruling.

a white house that has been accused of not vigorously defending the laws of the land must carefully calculated its next move. president obama has repeatedly said that he would like to see the federal defense of marriage act repealed, but the justice department has defended the constitutionality of a lot. -- of bi the law. a state law taking precedence over the federal definition of marriage has exposed the fractures within states' rights. the decision in the district court of boston echoes a central tenet of the tea party movement,

all of which argues that the authority of the state should from washington in matters not explicitly assigned by the constitution to the federal government." finally on this issue, "the new york times" has its lead editorial on redefining marriage, "laws should not be afraid to be examined when challenged. the defense of marriage act was passed as an election year wedge issue, and the brief debate leading up to it was full of bigoted attacks against homosexuality as depraved and immoral. one congressman said gave mat -- gay marriage would devalue the love between a man and woman. laws passed on this kind of basis deserve to be offended --

up ended." new york, new york. democratic line. barbara, you are on "washington journal." caller: thank you very much. lots of people are talking about why satellite to about doing this work, but i read a little while ago that satellites can send, but they cannot receive. and that that was the big problem if you years ago. other forms can send e-mail to you and you can send it to someone else. but to have people sending information back up to the satellites is impossible. i would think that the satellites would already be in use, if they were capable, if they were able to do this they

would definitely be sending messages to everyone saying that you can send messages to your computer over satellite. host: i am not tech savvy, but pretty much any communication you can do on a hard line you can do on a satellite. caller: why are they not advertising to the rural areas and giving customers, then? there is one that is called dish, i think. i think it is difficult for them to have that many people sending messages. host: thank you for your call. this anonymous e-mail, "satellite is more cost- effective. if someone cannot afford the dish, they cannot afford

broadband either. are we going to give them internet access and free usage as well? how does everyone's cellphone work except through satellite? look at what you are reading right now." bob, you are on "washington journal." caller: i have high-speed internet and cable where i live. i feel fortunate. i cannot live without it anymore. it is intertwined in your life. those people that do not have it, they have a right to have it. we waste a lot of money in this country for a lot of nonsense things and things that are not american. i think that americans should have cable. what about all of the congested areas where, per mile, they have a lot of customers and they make a lot of money in that mile. these cable companies can afford to take a little less money in

those areas. host: in "the los angeles times," the oil spill impact. "the long-term outlook is still dire." back to the phones, newark, new jersey. scott, go ahead. caller: i think is a waste of taxpayer money to put more into the pockets of companies with government trying to get control of the internet. they will only let you go to sites that they want you to go to. i think it is a very bad idea. host: what about the part of the story in "the new york times," where it talks about

people trying to do business in rural areas that need this kind of internet access that do not have thait? caller: they have choices. people can move. they can get satellite internet. they can always get internet on their cell phone. to me it is a total waste of our money. that is the government, wasting our money. host: on the front page of "the atlanta journal constitution," "gop jumps on illegal immigration. candidates in the georgia race for governor recognize the opportunities. several republican hopefuls launched efforts to warn voters that illegal immigration is costing jobs to georgians and threatening to bankrupt

economically threatened state treasuries." merriman, dominic. go ahead. caller: i've lived in an area where it is very difficult to get internet connection. we live right next to fort meade, bwi airport on the north, we are kind of an island out here for services. especially cell phone. i did a lot of satellite design work for nasa. the problem with using the satellite connection for the internet is the uplink. the cost of that is going to make it two to three times as

expensive as a land line connection. the idea that it is too expensive in rural areas is really not true. in maine, where my parents live, the cost of their internet connection is one-third of what it is in maryland. host: i hate to cut you off, but you say that you are a satellite engineer? caller: yes. host: very quickly explained, one of the earlier collier's -- one of the earlier callers said that you cannot send information via satellite. explain that. caller: most of the information is a one-way broadcast. if you use enough power you can pick up information on a relatively small dish. the uplink, you need a

relatively powerful transmitter. it gets to be technically difficult to sort it out with many people using information at the same time. you could not use the high bid rate to get through. host: thank you for the explanation. we will take a short break and afterwards we will have a discussion with gary herbert. you are watching "washington journal." you -- we will be right back. ♪ >> the senate judiciary committee returns next week to vote on the nomination of elena kagan as the newest supreme court justice. learn more about the nation's highest court in c-span's latest book, "supreme court,"

available in hardcover and as an e-book. >> the most important mission in journalism is to confirm in question those in power -- confirmed and question those in power. >> univision, the largest spanish television network in the united states. >> this weekend, fox news analyst, and june of paul lozan -- andrew napolitano, interviewed by ralph nader. all this weekend on c-span 2 on "booktv."

>> for a snapshot of washington and the 2010 congress, the c- span 2010 congressional directory. order online at c-span.org /store. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from boston is governor gary herbert. earlier by calling bob, -- earlier i called him bob, for that i apologize. welcome, sir. guest: thank you. good to be with you. host: what seems to be overarching priority at this year's governors association meeting? caller: there are a lot of issues that we are going through. health care is certainly on everyone's mind in the role of states in the new nationalized

health care. different states have different perspectives. economic development. clearly everyone is concerned about jobs. we have a particular interest in utah regarding energy. that is on the mind of everyone because of the gulf oil spill. some of the corporate sponsors that are here have got their own agenda. wanting to talk about issues that pertain to them specifically. host: there was a report earlier this week in the examiner with the headline, immigration summit. how is this the same or

different from what we find in arizona? guest: i think that the issues are similar in some ways and if there is a case regarding illegal immigration, it is becoming more and more of an emotional issue. arizona having bobblubbled up. feeling like their borders are leaking like sieves, they have passed a law. we have legislators in our state that are concerned about that issue. we have a significant population of illegal aliens in our state also. before the rhetoric gets too hot, before the motions get too high, it would be a good idea to bring the different stakeholders

in from around the table and see what we should do, if anything, when it comes to immigration. i think that this is borne out of frustration, certainly in arizona and other parts of the country, because of the lack of action by the federal government. i propose to bring latino communities and faith based organizations, legislators and others, anyone with a point of view, round the table -- a round the table. let's see if we can get together on facts and data, making a determination as far as what we should do regarding undocumented aliens and immigration. host: in the article that i referred to earlier, "the utah legislature has tried to enact stronger immigration

legislation. recent public assistance went into effect with limited success in 2008. proof of citizenship created long lines at the department of motor vehicles when it became law in 2009. july 1, 2010, private employers began verifying immigration status of employees. but there is no penalty for non- compliance." if you have this legislation on the books but there is no penalty for non-compliance, how will you get companies to buy into this? guest: i think that there's a transition time that needs to take place when you enact laws, particularly for the business community that might have a certain percentage of the legal employees. as we working at the legislature, the business community essentially said they

needed time. the legislation was touted more as a volunteering measure and a first step. i think it tougher measures will take place as we move forward -- i think that tougher measures will take place as we move forward. the cost of compliance is voluntary right now, but i expect that perhaps next january -- next january you will find tougher measures being taken for those who have not complied. that has yet to be determined. i think that there is some transition time needed. again, it has not been a significantly detrimental impact in utah. with everything else is taking place in the country, we will

eventually be forced to act. host: we are talking with utah gov. gary herbert, from boston at the national governors association meeting. if you would like to get involved in the conversation, for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. you can also send us an e-mail or message through twitter. our first call for the governor comes from kingsport, tennessee. independent line. nancy, go ahead. nancy? caller: good morning. how are you folks? host: go ahead. caller: a few things. the, the, the state of

immigration and what not, that is what this country was founded on. the statue of liberty says to give me your tired, your hungry, your poor. we have stretched our hands out so far that it is americans who are tired, hungry, and poor. it is one of those things that you cannot turn your back on. we are sending all of this government relief to foreign shores. host: thank you for the call. gov.? -- governor? guest: we are a compassionate country. we have a lot of foreign aid. we do try help people. we are trying to provide opportunity for liberty and freedom around the world. at home we have always been a

welcoming country. we still have the opportunity for people to come to this country. you talk in particular is quite a melting pot -- utah in particular is quite a melting pot. but there is a right way and a wrong way to come into the country. i think that almost everyone believes we should have secure borders. i think that there is frustration, particularly with those border states that are not seen as secure borders. at the same time i think we need a wide gate that allows people to come in and out of the country, so that people have the opportunity to come in and out and go home again. we have people crossing over our borders illegally, but overstaying their visas.

that is 80% of the illegal immigrants in this country. we need to take away the incentive. in fact we need to have some sort of punishment for employers. taking advantage of neighbors to run fair competition in the marketplace, we need to have a fair identification program. e-verification is one step. we need to take the carrot away from the employers to incentivize people to come to this country. immigration is fine, healthy for the country. but not when it is illegal. host: james, you are on "washington journal." caller: thank you very much. thank you for taking my call.

we are trying to lower our carbon footprint. every human being in the united states leaves a carbon footprint. 20 million more people, it expands our carbon footprint. a friend of mine went to coast the reek of. he was not allowed to do any kind of work unless it was a certain occupation that there was a shortage of in that country. i think we should at a similar policy here. host: governor? guest: clearly our policy here is different from other countries. generally much harsher than what we have here in america. we understand that. i do not know that we should

dictate our policy based on other countries. we need to do what we think is rational here in america. part of the frustration we are seeing in arizona is that we have federal laws on the books that no one is talking about repealing, they're just not being enforced. arizona is saying medical laws are on the books and you will not enforce them, we will. i think that that is intellectually honest and consistent. we should develop our own immigration policy with all laws we have on the books. it will be a collaborative effort. it might be similar, it might be different, but we need to find what works for you talk in light of the fact that the federal government seems to be lackadaisical in the enforcement of their own laws.

carbon footprint, a concern for many people. as to whether it should be part of the discussion for the legal immigration, i do not know that it is as germane as other aspects. certainly there is an impact as we have more people into the united states. again, most of us simply think that these people need to be here illegally -- legally. host: your nine. plan relies upon a strategic -- nine point plan includes regulatory reforms to develop cutting edge technology for energy generation capacity in making room for more renewable energy production. .

back to the phones. new york on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: governor, i applaud you for what you are trying to the hore. i'm a democrat. i'm a little bit ashamed of many of my fellow democrats who seem to be pandering to the legal hispanic community to get that fast growing vote in the

future. my main point, governor, and i'm not sure we have touched on it yet, is the myth, in my opinion, the myth that's bandied around the nation that the illegals only take jobs that americans won't take. that's not true. for example, you may recall a chicken processing plant not too far from utah was raided by the compgration people. they found about half the employees there were illegals. of course they were arrested, they are taken away. then shortly after that, the c.e.o. of the chicken processing plant was whining because he had to go out and hire legal individuals and he had to pay them more. so i think in a nutshell, that's the reason that employers are out there hiring illegals. they want cheaper labor. host: we'll leave it there.

governor, go ahead. guest: well, i think that's accurate. there's no question in the marketplace if i can shingle a roof and get it done by paying $8 as opposed to $10 an hour, you are going to pick the cheaper labor. and there's opportunities for people that come across the border to america where they are getting paid three or four times as much money in this country as they get in their own and you can see the attraction. i think all of us understand that. we really don't worry about the illegal immigration that comes from canada. our economies are very much the same so there is not this attraction to cross over the border for a healthier economy as there is on our southern border. that being the case, again, i think there is clearly exploitation of undocumented aliens by the marketplace, which is unseemly. i think that particularly in a time when we have unemployment

as high as it is in this country where it is 9.5% in some of our states it is in double digits. not in utah, we're considerably less than the national average, but still there are people who want jobs. and so there is opportunities out there to in fact fill these jobs with domestic employees. and i'm sure that we would be able to find people who would take jobs that maybe otherwise during healthier economic times but certainly looking for working for work today. so i believe in the free market there's opportunities out there and employers need to look and deal fairly with each other and with the citizens of the united states. host: our next call comes from jefferson, utah. go ahead. caller: hello. my name is don. i have a statement. the -- i heard you say just a minute ago that shale oil was,

you considered that an alternative fuel. and i really have to question that whole thought and philosophy. an alternative fuel is something other than a folve fuel, not just -- fossle fuel. not just oil taken out of a different part of our earth. it is still going to have the same results. i know it is cleaner burning but it is not an alternative. and i hear this in the environmental groups we've been teaching for a long time, and people pick up on different things. we have a big green movement but you will have some companies that just go totally away from that and they think just painting your house or doing something or clipping your lawn shorter is a green movement thing and so they will advertise it as being green. and that's not really the purpose of it. the purpose being being able to conserve and use our resources so they are replenishable.

host: let's get a response from your governor. go ahead, sir. guest: well, i wouldn't want to bandy semantics on what alternative fuels mean. when i talk about fuels, those are usually coal, which we have an abundance in this country. we have more coal than they, whoever they are, have oil. and it's something we probably need to have particularly for another generation to come as we transition to more renewables and cleaner burning fuels as we see in any of the marketplace and an opportunity. so coal, oil, gas are the traditional fuels. i mentioned oil shale as an alternative because it really has not been utilized in america. we have tar sands up in canada which is being utilized by the canadians in a significant way which is different than our oil shale which we have in utah, colorado, and wyoming. so i mentioned as an alternative, only as an

alternative to the traditional fuels we use. certainly it's carbon based and will have the same impact as burning oil because it becomes oil through a chemical process. we have renewables out there that i would consider cleaner fuels meaning that it has meaning less fuel emissions, not carbon based, which would be geothermal, hot water heat, which allows that to be commercially viable and wind and solar of course are options out there that most everybody knows about. unfortunately, they are such a small percentage of the overall package of energy development that it's not really viable to have a sustainable electrical grid with use of just wind and solar. now, maybe that will happen later on. i think those kind of fuels will be -- have more viability if we have the ability to store them. we need to have better storage capacity, better batteries, because wind and sellor are intermittent. and if we can capture it when we have the opportunity with wind and the sun is out and

good solar capacity and then re lease it when we need it, i think that's more viable. until that happens, the technology and the demand for energy in this world is still i think going to be founded in our traditional fuels. host: also up for discussion in the nga meeting in boston is public and higher education. in utah you've established the governors education excellence commission to examine utah's school system with fresh ice to focus on the entire menu of education, including higher education and charter schools in order to implement statewide reform and long-range planning. what are you going to be telling your fellow governors about this education excellence commission and how it is working in your state and what they might be able to learn and use in their states? guest: well, i believe you're going to find solutions to challenges that you have. clearly getting stakeholders

that have an interest in the issue ought to be brought together around the table and there needs to be a bipartisan effort as it were with republicans and democrats. in my state we have some unique situations which are in fact different to our state, and unique to our state compared to others. one, we have the highest birth rate in the nation by a significant margin. we have the youngest population in the nation. our median age is 28.6. we have a larger percentage of children per household. we have about a third more children per household than other states. and so we have a growing demand, an expense in the budget to fund education in utah. the same time, in utah we have only about 22.-- 21 president 2% of our land mass is privately owned. the rest is either publicly and indian reservations or surface water areas, which makes it difficult to develop commerce to fund education. so we have this unique

challenge that we need to address in utah. hence, i put together the commission to talk about in utah's unique circumstances how are we going to fund this ongoing obligation to make sure our children have the best educational opportunities to be the best they can be and compete in what is now a global marketplace? it's not an easy thing. 55% of my state budget goes into education. and now, with the demand for increasing skills, it is not just high school education, high school diploma, it's got to be post-high school education, technical studies, vocational training, as well as typical college and university studies. so we are bringing people together to make some recommendations to get the discussion out there. we have had a motion between the unions, the uea folks, our charter schools, our private schools, our voucher proposals. those have been a little bit tense in the last few years.

i'm trying to bring people together to see if we can't collaborate on consensus building and move forward in education opportunities in utah. i think it is the way it should be done. host: our next call for the governor comes from new jersey for our line from republicans. good morning. caller: good morning, governor. my question is -- and i want you to comment on my personal situation. i have -- was working for a small construction company for about six years. and i was laid off from my job and now the only employees left are illegal immigrants. so i'm on unemployment which is costing the government money. the illegal immigrants aren't paying taxes. and the employer is not paying taxes. so it's costing the government money for me and they're not collecting revenue from the illegals who are working for the company. so i don't know what to do. i'm beside myself to say the

least. guest: well, it's frustrating on so many different levels and that's what you're seeing bubbling up in arizona. there's frustration in california. there's apprehension in utah because of this. because it isn't fair. government i don't believe should pick winners and losers in the marketplace but we ought to make sure that everybody is playing by the same rules, that there's a level playing field and everybody has opportunity based on the guidelines, rules, regulations which we set as a society and as communities certainly among the respective states. i remember meeting with a contractor that asked me, what are you going to do about the illegal immigration problem? he hired illegal immigrants themselves, asked them, but they said we've got fake social security cards so we hired them. they left him two days later and went to another employer because he paid them in cash. and he asked me what are you going to do about the illegal

immigration problem. i said, you're just mad because somebody else is cheating better than you're cheating. and, unfortunately, that's what we have going on in the marketplace. that's why i believe the solution to the problem on a nation yl level -- and it is really a federal responsibility, is secure the border, tall fence. we need to have a wide gate that allows people to come in and out as the marketplace demands where people are here documented. we need to have a good ictse identification program so we can establish whether people are here legally or not. and employers need to be held to accountability to make sure they're hiring only legal people. and if they're not, we ought to come down with some kind of punishment, some kind of fine, punishment, that will have them to stop that. now, i believe there needs to be a transition time to make that happen. pick a number. three years, five years, four years. we're going to say to the employers, you need to make sure that your employees are legal and if not we're going to come in and out at you and we

will fine you significantly. so don't take the chance. i think all those things working together would solve the problem and pretty soon people will make the right decisions because they're only rewarded for making the right decisions. they're not rewarded for making the wrong decision. host: about another 15 minutes. our next call comes from utah. caller: yes, this is susan from taylorsville. i would like to comment on the immigration problem. people think that we are just trying to get hispanic illegals. i remember a situation down in utah county where a family from england came in, they bought a house, did everything legally, except the lawyer did not put in the proper paper work of one single document and they thought everything was taken care of and it was his mistake

and his flip-up and yet they deported this family back. they made it so miserable that they just had to go back to england. now, they came at considerable cost, they left their home, their jobs and everything to come to utah because they did everything by the rule they got sent back. and they were trying to do it by the rules. why is it any different just because somebody is hispanic? guest: well, it shouldn't be. illegal, undocumented immigration has nothing to do with ethnicity. and i know that sometimes it gets lost in the discussion because we have the highest percentage some estimateations are 85% of illegal immigration are latinos. and so that is probably why. but it has nothing to do with ethnicity. you can be an illegal canadian,

you can be from asia, it doesn't matter what your national origin is if you're here illegally, if you don't have the proper documentation, then you are here illegally and steps should be taken to correct that. now, part of the challenge we have is with the illegal immigration problem is recognizing that most people come to this country and certainly we have noticed in the state of utah come here because they want a better life. they have good intentions, they have what they believe opportunities in this country they don't have in the country that they come from. i think all of us can applaud that and at least understand it. but there is a right way to come in, and a wrong way to come in. and, frankly, we need to have the federal government to provide opportunities to come into the country legally when people have to cue up here and it takes eight, nine, ten years to come in and then somebody hops ahead of the line, it creates frustration for those who are trying to do it

correctly. i think all of us understand that a part of enforcement of the law needs to be at least some spirit of compassion and understanding. these are human beings we are dealing with. and that's part of the frustration here. but the frustration is borne out of just inconsistency with our immigration program, which of all the departments of federal government immigration seems to be the most broken, seemingly the most incompetent. all of us are calling upon the federal government to fix it. you are the ones that should be in fact taking care of the immigration issue and are awol on the issue, hence the states are saying if you're not going to enforce the laws we will step up and we will do it. but in doing so, again, it's compassion for everybody. it's not fair for those people who cue up for ten years and then be crowded out because somebody's hopped the fence or overstayed their visa and taken their spot that they could have gotten legally. host: we want to let our viewers know that c-span will

be covering the national governor's association meeting this afternoon. at 1:00 they have a plenary session. the topic for the plenary session, redesigning state government. that's from 1:00 to 2:30 in boston. and for more information you can go to our website. you can also go to their website, www.nga.org. governor herbert, how would you say that under your administration there has been a redesign of utah's state government? guest: we're in the process of making sure we're as efficient as we can be as a government. i think government tends to grow and blossom. you don't even have to water it it tends to grow and become a little less lean and mean just over time. the demand from the public is to expand programs generally people will come to you and say

we need more help. they never come and say you've given us too much. we've taken too much money, we'll givet it back to you. so we're in the process of reviewing state government. we've been recognized in utah as one of the best managed states in america by the pue foundation. we have ben recognized as one of the best states to do business. we pride ourselves as having less government in our lives and empowerment of the private sector so the business community, the entrepreneur can thrive. we've reduced our tax rates from 7 to 5 on income tax. we are trying to keep our taxes low again and keep government kind of off your backs and out of your wallets. but still, with that, i have empowered a commission chaired by our former governor and other business interests, republican, democrat, to look at utah to see if we can find some efficiencies and optimize the taxpayers' money and government services. we have, because of that, have

already changed our retirement program for our state employees. we are on a trajebtry like many states that it was unsustainable. we have corrected that problem so that those in the system are protected but new employees and new hires that are coming in will have a different system. we are looking at consolidation of some of our departments. seeing if we can in fact optimize our services by use of new technologies. we are pretty high-tech savvy state. we are a high-tech savvy people. but we can do more with if he can noling and are trying to do so so we become more lean and mean and the taxpayers are going to get more bang for the buck. so we are consolidating, empowering the private sector. and i think that provides an environment for growing economic prosperity. host: let's go to lakeland, florida on our lane for democrats. you are on the washington journal. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to ask a question. how do they come up with the total of 12 million illegal aliens in the united states?

i've noticed an increase just in my area that is just unreal in florida. also, recently there were 12 illegals stopped in i believe it was lake plassyid, florida. when they called the office in florida to find out what to do with them because they are driving with -- without a drivers license, they were told to let them go because there's only anyone immigration agents in the state of florida. guest: well, i think again she illustrates the frustration that is being found by the people at large in the communities, in arizona, where they estimate and theer are all guess mats, that there are 500,000 illegal immigrants in arizona. and the fact that nobody seems to take notice and where we have them kind of moving around

in the community and nobody does anything, lack of enforcement is what's caused arizona to become frustrated. there's a law in the books at's not being enforced by the federal government. hence, arizona has said we're going to take the federal laws. and if you're not going to enforce them, federal government, then we will empower our local people to enforce them. as the governors attempt. we're going to look at it from utah's perspective and see what do we want to do? do we want to have a similar kind of law? as we see them being pushed out of arizona are they going to come to utah in larger numbers? how do we accome date that? what should our response be? i think that's the issue in many of the states. if the federal government is not going to do anything, then the states are going to feel like we need to do something to protect our own borders inside the country. it's unfortunate but that's the

reality. i think those are just estimations with our census bureau and other that is are trying to come up with those numbers, i know we feel like in utah it's between 08,000 and 100,000 illegals in the state of utah. again, most good people trying to do the best they can to find a better life. these are human beings and we need to remember that as we go through this discussion. host: john, north carolina, on our line for independents. go ahead. guest: how you doing, governor. guest: i'm fine, thanks. caller: i don't know if you have seen or rated but i was on the internet and i don't know how many groups in here but it was 1 million, 500,000, 575 people have organized all over the states that is supposed to march down to arizona against immigration and i understand i

have governor that they are going to help secure the borders if the government don't do something. i really, when i saw this i was down in dunn, north carolina and there were 18 buses of people that was involved. so i want to know if you heard anything about it. guest: you know, i haven't. and again, i think the overreaction again is borne out of some of the frutration that people feel. they feel hopeless. there is in many ways perceived to be be an invasion coming across the borders that they can't seem to control. so i think there is anxiety about that. i think we need to have those who are appropriately involved with law enforcement to do the work. i don't think we want to have any kind of vigilante efforts out there. that's why arizona is trying to make sure that their own law enforcement people are empowered to enforce the laws in some kind of reasonable and rational fashion. they have a reasonable

suspicion level of interface with law enforcement. they're just empowering the people to ask the questions. and have them provide documents just like if you're pulled over for a traffic stop to show us your drivers license. they're trying to find that same kind of interface. in utah, we think that might need to be a higher bar raised, the discussion with some of our legislatures in talking about a utah immigration law would have a probable cause standard before you would have interface and cause to ask the question. there would be an absolute pro hibitation against again kind of racial profiling. again, this is frustration out there in the marketplace because of inaction by the federal government. hopefully, this is a wakeup call for the federal government to do something to enforce their own federal laws. host: governor gary herbert is the 17th governor of utah and sits on the health and human

services standing committee, also the task force and the homeland security special committee. next call comes from utah. wade, go ahead. caller: i really want to talk about immigration. however, since you have a national stage here, let me just ask you if you would share with the country how we are affected in utah by the control that the federal government has over so much land. maybe you could let the country know the percent of land in utah that is actually controlled by the federal government, what effect that has on our economy. i lived in texas for a while and i have a feeling that if we had control like texas does of the minerals and the energy coming out of our land we would have a lot fewer problems as far as raising funds. but also, how it affects our

recreation and how it affects our ability to use historical roads. host: thanks for your call. guest: thank you. i was in texas not too long ago. in texas they have about 2% or 3% of the entire land mass thass federally owned and controlled. the blm in utah owns about 69% of the state of utah. we only have about 21.2% of all of our land mass that's privately owned. and as everybody can appreciate. if you had a farm of 100 acres and 75% was taken out of production, it over time becomes increasingly more difficult to sustain yourself on that farm as your family continues to grow. that's what's happening in utah. it's a unique situation that makes it difficult for us to develop our natural resources that are found there. we have to work through a lot of red tape and a lot of efforts to interface with the bureau of land management. our forest service, et cetera.

which makes it a little more difficult. compared to just developing private lands. and as rules become applied sometimes nonsenseically, for natural gas, oil, coal leases on public land, we end up forcing capital and developers to move to other states, like in texas where they don't have that red tape with private land. so it's a unique challenge to utah. it makes it more difficult for us than other states. and in our case, as i mentioned earlier, we have a growing population, which we have to in fact education and we have a challenge economically to generate revenue. we get in fact payments in lieu of taxes for public lands. but it's like getting 10 cents on the dollar compared to a patriot tax you would normally have in a state. that being said we have a great state with vistas and venues, national parks, it's a great place to come and visit. our tourism is up.

that certainly helps to offset in some ways the lack of development capability. but it's a real challenge in utah because of the large amount of public land that we have uniquely ours in utah compared to other states in the union. host: next call from feans, phoenix, arizona. caller: thank you very much. i haven't heard a lot about how do we after securing the border and employer sanctions, all those in place and we, if we put a law in that states if you were caught here in the united states el lylely and we took you and finger printed you and photographed you and deported you, and at that point we tell them that they can no longer become a united states citizen, period, don't you think that would be an incentive for some of these people to move out on their own? i would say give them six months before, after this law

is enacted in order to get their affairs together and get out, and then implement the law. but you don't have to go around chasing people down. all you have to do is if you get stopped for a taillight, a tibet, in any way that you might be caught here illegally, if the threat that you may never become a u.s. citizens ever might detour some people. what are your thought on that? guest: i think you are right. again, i think the principle that's involved here ought to be you reward people for good behavior. you don't reward people for bad behavior. and certainly, and not rewarding mean we could escalate that a we would punish you for bad behavior. so if somebody is caught here illegally, just depends on what the punishment should be befitting the crime. whether that is to deport them, put people at the back of the line. or say because we have caught you here you will no longer be

eligible for any kind of end to the country orksf or any potential for citizenship. again, i think that's part of the discussion ought to happen. that's part of the discussion we're going to be having in utah as far as us looking at whatever our be combgration law should be, lack of federal enforcement of the current federal laws on the books. again, i'm a believer that you need to have some transition time to allow people to make good appropriate decisions. i don't think you nee to round anybody up. we can't afford it. it's impractical anyway. but i believe if you had good identification enforcement of the borders, and opportunity for people to in fact, some meth oddcal and reasonable way to come into the country, as there is a needs in the maetplace. i grew up in utah where we used to have seasonal workers that would come all the time and work in our orchards and our fruit. they would come, they would work and then thled go they would go home. i think we have a lotf people

in the country who would like to go home but don't dare because they don't think they can come back. so the free flow is part of what's broken that ought to be fix. but once we have done that and have a process that works and is reasonable, then we in fact make sure that employers are not gaming the system, by giving a carrot of a job to an illegal. if we have somebody that comes and we ask if you're legal, we're not. i can't hire you but the guy behind you is legal and i'll hire them. somebody will say coming to america is a great thing if you're legal. it's not such a great thing if you're not. and people will make great decisions based on the market forces and will que up and get the market they need because they won't find a job otherwise. host: governor herbert has been our guest. thanks for being on washington journal this morning.

guest: my prive leverage. host: earlier this week in washington, campus progress held its annual conference. we're going to be talking about youth activism. we'll take a break and then be back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> this weekend on book tv's afterwards, andrew napolitano, the autteds of of request lies the government told you," check the entire book tv schedule. watch world leaders from the white house to parliaments around the globe from this week and the past 25 years with the

c-span video library on line all free. it's washington and the world your way. washington journal continues. host: sarah is with the campus progress and is here to talk to us about youth activism. first, let's start with the national conference that took place this past week. what were some of the big issues? guest: it's an annual event where we bring about a thousand young progressives together to talk about the issues, as opposed to telling them what matters, this year the kind of issues that determined kind of what most of the conversation was spocussed on, immigration reform, energy reform, celebrating the victory that is health care reform, and also focusing on how we can go about advancing equality. host: with the 2010 elections

coming up, there's a lot of concerns that the youthful enthusiasm that was generated on both sides won't be there for the off-year election. is that part of the mission of the campus progress program? guest: i'm smiling because i'm excited you asked this. it's a mission of several youth organizations. we're working on a project called vote again 2010.com. we're trying to replicate some of theas enthusiasm that you saw in 2008. that was the first election that i was involved in. i worked on the obama campaign. so you hear a lot about how enthusiasm has suffered as a consequence of the pace of progress, as a cons quens and yet i'm still here. and i'm not alone. so we're looking forward to providing young people with a way to express their frustration, because that's

what it is. members of congress may vote for or against legs but we vote for or against members of congress. so that mentality is one that we want to internalize amongsted but really get young people a way to feel they can get involved and organize on a grass roots level. they are incredibly important and we are working on them. host: talking about youth activism. if you want to get involved in the conversation, pick up the phones. before we go to the phones, gary bower had an op ed in politico this week under the headline, obama's anti-youth agenda. he writes that a closer look

reveals it harms young americans in many ways. guest: i couldn't disagree with gary more. i think what we're seeing now is a consequence of eight years of disastrous policies and if you look at 2008, what young people were presented with was a recipe that looked delicious. and it's much different reading the recipe and actually making the sauge. so what we are focused on is finishing what was started. the investments this administration has made in green energy and job reform, $61 billion is now being

reinvested in students is unprecedented. this president has inherited eight years of disastrous policies, policies that benefited those who were more well off in the first place. so what we are seeing right now is kind of, again, i'm still hungry, i still want to see that recipe get made. so young people as a whole are progressive and looking forward to governmen playing a role in assisting them, in helping people. not a handout. >> our first call comes from sharon on our line for democrats. caller: hello. i recently, my daughter was telling me about the program. she is a college student. and ironically, one of the things that she was most interested in is the immigration issue because she went through florida with her older sister and she got early admission to university of arizona, and the ride over her

sister had pulled over on the side of the road to look at a map and they were pulled over, they're both buy racial. and one of the things the policeman asked them was did they have papers. now, my older daughter has a drivers license, no problem. she said well this is my younger sister going to college. she has her admission things in the bag. that wasn't enough. her dad had to fly out and take her drivers -- i mean, her birth certificate and all. and that got my daughter really involved. because she was so shocked that that was really happening to people. and i wanted to know how many of your people who are involved are actually getting involved for that reason. thank you. guest: thank you so much for your question. and that actually is an

incredibly tragic story. it does speak to the repercusions of a broken system where we have to be concerned about those who are here and undocumented. i believe in providing a pathway to citizenship. i believe that the american dream is one that generation after generation we fought for and we've not only fought for it for ourselves but we fought for it for those who are unable to attain it. so i think the best way of addressing your concern is to ensure that we have every person who is here, 11 million undocumented americans, giving them citizenship so no one is being pulled over and being questioned whether or not they're here validly. as for immigration reform, young people it is definitely an issue that has sparked a lot of enthusiasm. there's something called the dream act that provides a pathway of citizenship who came to this country before they were 15. it's something that i am optimistic about, some

legislation, and i'm optimistic. i'm hopeful and i think that you will see young people on the right side of this issue as well. and i say the right side because it's the side of more tolerance, which is something that we're able to take that position as a consequence of the work that's been do before. host: next up, kyle on our line for independents. good morning. caller: how you all doing? guest: good. caller: i just had a comment about our youth of today and our society. i feel like our generation are just getting lost in a lot of like media, just a lot of stuff going on as far as like not caring what's going on in politics and the world. and in general, our new generation coming up is going to be like there's supposed to be the free world. and i feel like people are lost in translation and i feel like

people aren't getting like the whole story or they're just reading and listening to what they see on things like fox news. they're not reading in anything. and i feel like the news that people really need to find out about they're not finding out. host: before sarah has a chance to respond. you say your generation. how old are you? caller: i'm 25. host: and how politically active? caller: that's just it. even just to talk to people my age, they don't want to talk about politics. they just want to just let brack do his thing. and i feel like people voted for him because like the media just portrayed him like of course he's african american but like i felt like that's the only reason why young people in my age group voted for him. i feel like my generation is kind of just mixed up in a whole bunch of media. they're worried about what's going on on mtv and what's going on on the kim kardashian

shows. that's fine. we all need entertainment. but i feel like entertainment has taken over our lives and people aren't getting the whole picture. host: we'll leave it there. guest: i'm really glad you posed that question. i'll tell you why i volunteered. for me it was not about the candidate. it was not about one partyor one policy. it was about this belief that people who love their country, people who -- large amounts of people who love their country can come together and change it. i think that sentiment has been lost over the course of two years and i think folks like you and i who still believe that and are frustrated by this belief that young people aren't capable of altering our circumstances, we have the opportunity to talk to friends and make the case. i get the sense that you're a little disillusions and i can't blame you. we are a generation that is watching the gulf of mexico drowning in boil because baby

they drilled. we're watching tens of thousands of people face deportation because we're refusing to address our system. so while there's a temptation to believe, especially of people who were supportive of barack obama that he can do this on hi own, the fact is these decisions that are being made by members of congress, this isn't -- he doesn't have as much say as you might believe. congress is voting for and against legislation. so the best way that we can stand up and fight back and that was the point of the campus progress conference is by voting and lob yig our members and by really talking to our friends about figuring out ways to be proactive. so i hope -- don't get off the phone and do nothing. i hope over the next several months, i'm hoping that will give you a platform to get engaged. and also campus progress.org has lots of programs that would enable you to fight on issues

that you care about. host: next up, connecticut. you're on the washington journal. caller: good morning. to your guest, i shut my tv off. first of all, you know, all of you young students, it's great that you're progressive, but you don't do anything. you've never done anything. it's the older people that have fought the wars. dig up the oil, dug the coal, brought in the technology. we're the ones that fight and die and you all sit on your campus while we pay for your education. and you tell us what we're supposed to do with the world. how 20, 15 million illegals are supposed to come here. you want to call them undocumented. i hang around with the mexican people. they're wonderful people. but you cannot bring in anybody. if we're going do have a bord we are no laws, that's fine. but start ignoring the law for me, too. and you students think you have all the great idea. you put obama in there and he doesn't know anything. he's screwing up the country,

screwing up the world. and you young people should at least pay close attention, because communism by the way does not work. socialism does thot work. there will not be universal health care. and when he finally kills the tax base in this country, there be no taxes for your schools. and while you complain, remember something, on your campuses and everything, it's the guys, the electricians, the plummers, it's the diesel guys who bring your fuels. and you can freeze in your campuses because it's the working people, the older people like me that do the work. i'm 70 years old, i still work outside and you don't do anything except sit and yak and tell me what i'm supposed to do with my money. host: do you offer the same kind of advice and counsel to young conservatives? caller: absolutely. guest: so jeff i will actually tell you, i grew up in

connecticut so we have that in common. we might disagree on how to advance the country but we have that. as for the points that you made, i completely -- i thank you and i respect you because you are right. a lot of what i'm able to do just in terms of the work that i'm doing in politics is as a consequence of those who have come before me. i acknowledge that. i am grateful for that. on the other hand, i would take issue with some of the points that you've raised. it is young people who are out there fighting the wars in iraq and afghanistan. so i not only do this work to talk about what i think this country should do on issues. i do this work because when they come home they should be taken care of. it is young people who were pivotal on the civil rights movement. not just in the south but up north who took bus rides down south to register voters. so you've seen young people take a role in advancing the country. i often think of something

robert kennedy said. the answer is the world's hope. it is to rely on youth. that doesn't in any way mean that we don't need the counsel and guidance of those who are older and wiser. i don't claim to have all of the answers but i do have a lot of questions and i'm going to ask those questions, because fundamentally the decision that is are being made by this congress, by this administration, by those in power are decisions that i'm going to have to live with and my generation is going to have to live with. i do appreciate your insights. host: our next call comes from stanford, connecticut. anthony. caller: good morning, folks. i actually was most interested in your comments when you first started about the grass roots support for mr. obama. and i understand that folks were looking for a change. but what concerns me now is that the policies of particularly of the spending and it wasn't just mr. obama. it actually started with the

wars. but the continuation of the spending is such a dike my for you to support that for the youth, particularly when the future of our children is literally going down the drain with these inflated deficits. i'm not really sure there's enough emphasis put on that. do you realize that going forward here, these kids are going to have to work twice as much to get so little. and when you start thinking about helping people, and i'm one that loves to help people. you can't do it to the extent that people are going to be going in reverse when you overspend. and you don't manage money properly and you're not giving any accountability for your actions. you know, they keep using the excuse that they had to do it, they had to do it. well, i'm not buying that when you really look at the numbers and where we are today, they've got to stop. and then all these other policies are coming down. i don't see them as being progressive. i see them as putting us in reverse. guest: thank you for your insights. and i will say that is a really

interesting dichotomy. that's one i struggle with personally. our generation, my generation is going to have to deal with really ridiculous deficits. on the one hand. on the other hand, a lot of the spenting taking place over the course has been investment in our generation, whether it's in green jobs, like retro fitting and being able to build solar panels. that's something that years from now we're going to lock back and be grateful that was an investment that was made. i mentioned the student aid and fiscal responsibility act a little earlier, our student lending system until recently consisted of having banks get subdiesed by taxpayers to give out students loans. that will allow us to spend 61 billion over the next years in education. i think the stimulus spending we saw has done wonders for the economy. i think it's really easy right now to kind of be a little uneasy and to feel very frustrated because unemployment isn't going down. but at the same time, the

spending that took place, and economists have agreed that the stimulus package was in fact beneficial for the economy, has actually brought us from a very, very low point to a point where there's, once again i think there's reasons to be optimistic. so i think that the spending that is being done, i do hope that president obama stands by his pledge to drive down the wars in afghanistan in july of 2001. i think that the spending that we're doing on war itself is spending that shulled be redirected into areas and policies that are going to be beneficial for my generation and generations to come years and decades from now. host: a lineup from the nation.com says that the sixth annual conference this past wednesday, more than 1,000 young people came together to discuss the critical challenges their generation faces and develop ideas, networks and innovation that can help create a more progressive america. give us the age range of the folks involved in this.

guest: i would say like 18 to 27. that's a pretty wide group of people. host: and generally how do they get here? are they sponsored by groups, pay their own way? and once they get here, what is it that they're looking for? guest: it varies. we do have a couple having scholarships. we also had a campus drive teamed up for a national key note contest where we allowed young people to submit ideas discussing what they know, how you work to enact change. and dozens of videos came in, 213,000 votes and people were sent here. and we put them up. so i think their remarks speak to what young people came to the conference for. i think that they came for a little bit of relief. it is definitely, especially right now, is very easy to feel disillusioned and frustrated and wonder whether or not we really our collective power is inadequate. so the conference was to get a

sense of where we are in these issues. that's something lacking in media coverage and especially with kind of the media that young people are interacting with. they're not sure what happened because they voted and were able to say, well, because we've been voting. and in increased numbers since 2000. we now have a health care system that is going to allow you to remain on your parents' plan until you are 26, which is a god send. we now have a student lending system that puts you over the interest of banks. and there's areas we haven't made progress and yet we can still do something about it by voting and by insisting to our elected officials that energy reform is important to me and i want you to be aware that i'm going to vote for or against you on that issue. host: if you want more information about the campus progress you can go to their website. we will show you that while we're taking this next call from virginia. republicans. go ahead. caller: good morning, sarah. let me just start out by saying

i'm a mom. i have kids that are 21, 25, i'm friends with a lot of their friends on facebook i interact with these young people. one of the things i'm dismayed about with this generation is their lack of information. and i have a lot of questions for you. you said a blanket statement at the beginning about the disastrous policies of the last eight years. but i'm wondering if you know who passes the budget. is it the president or the congress? do you know that? guest: it's the congress that passes the budge. but it's the president who has to evently sign it . host: very good. so it's dismaying to me that you want to shuffle off the blame on, quote, the disastrous eight years, which is code for george bush. but barney frank, meerks, waters were in there making the rules, were not having oversight.

i'm frustrated with the politics, too, but i'm frustrated with everyone. guest: me, too. i am. caller: would you categorize yourself as a socialist? guest: no. not at all. i categorize myself as a progressive. and i try to steer away from describing a lot of those labels. i think i'm complicated. i have a bunch of opinions about a bunch of different issues and they're not necessarily in line with any one person in congress. i do believe and i will say right now that campus progress is a nonpartisan organization. i'm not here for democrats or republicans. i do believe there are some democrats who are also kind of complicit over the course of those eight years. so i think you're right in that sense that it is, and i apologize if that came off as a blanket statement. houfrl, i will say that we began drk -- we ended the 90's with tremendous surplus and we ended up with a deficit. and if president obama is going

to get blamed and kind of cheered for everybody that takes place in the country then i don't think it's necessarily unfair to kind of expect the same for president bush. host: next up, james on our line for independents. out of wisconsin. on the washington journal. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. this is my first time calling in. i'm 26 years old. i live and i work very hard out of green bay, responding to the gentleman that was making a lot of generalizations about youth. i was very active in the ron paul campaign and very disappointed when media cut him out before he had dropped out. suddenly we jist stopped hearing about ron paul and he was in the race, which was very frustrated for me. but i do have a couple of different things. regarding even just recently what we were talking about. i've been hearing a lot about socialism. you hear people throwing around

labels. it's really not the form of government, honestly. a lot of these different forms of government work in their ideal forms. what we're seeing is that no form of government works when it's corrupted. democracy won't work when it's corrupted. neither does socialism, neither does communism. they all probably world work wonderfully if people operating within them were using ethical and moral codes. communism really there's nothing wrong with except for the fact that it was corrupt when it was being used. and we're going to see democracy will prove be much the same. . .

i think that that is a problem and i do hope that this congress addresses campaign finance reform. host: he said kemper's progress is a non-partisan organization? -- you said the campus progress is non-partisan. how many would identify themselves as conservatives or members of the tea party movement? guest: a very slim majority.

it has to do with the ideology. we are a progressive organization, but we are nonpartisan. young conservatives have attended our conference because it is important to have a respectful dialogue with the this have different points of view, but by and large the people in attendance were progressives. i cannot speak to their political affiliation. host: the progressive and conservative at the same time? guest: i think you can. you can be socially progressive and still be fiscally conservative. there are some republicans to at some point were more in that court and not so much anymore. i think -- it is not mean making a generalization. hopefully you will see socially,

i am sorry, progressive republicans in the future. host: minneapolis, minn. up, on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. i am afraid i agree with the caller from connecticut. i'm afraid your quite naive and have been brainwashed by your liberal professors. you have never had to make a peril. you talk about the government taking care of you. you want them to pay for your health care and stay on your parent's health care. everyone and the baby boomers should pay for your education. i was wondering what your opinion was on eric holder deciding not to prosecute the black panther voter intimidation ruling. do you think that maybe a little racist? do you think -- are you proud of

that? barack obama appointed eric holder. he gave terrorists rights. decades ago, i do not know, steve freed the terrorists from pr. are you aware of those types of things? guest: i will address the first part of your question first. i think it is easy to see young people and give a blanket statement. we are not even come out ignorant, lazy, and it is so inconsistent. i think it is ironic that by and large the conservative movement appeals to young people on those terms. you do not know what you're talking about now so join and work with us. consider our ideals. i think that is problematic. i am not going to speculate too

much on the second portion of your question. given the problems that our country is facing right now, and we are facing problems. once again, looking at immigration reform and being fiscally respsible and not having -- fiscally conservative and not having to pay for the things i am talking about. i am not asking on behalf of myself. i am asking on behalf of my children and my children born to children. if we were to execute a strategy of the course of the next five years it would cost $285 billion. that is not fiscally conservative and get that is something that members of congress are advocating for. i think we really need to focus on the big issues that will affect our lives and affect our futures. i hope that you hesitate before you go out and not call a young

person i need or ignorant. -- go out and call the person naively or ignorant. that is why young people do not get involved. when we try to, people come forward to say we have no answers and they are rejected beyond the terms you say. thank you for your call, but i hope he will reconsider and put a little more faith and confidence in my generation. i think we are often underestimated. host: how are you funded? guest: we are part of the center for american progress. caller: the main thing i'm calling about is that this was not reported on all of the news channels except on cnn.

back in alaska when the fishermen in alaska had divorced their wives do to depression. they had been asking for psychiatrists. bp has not delivered. host: your thoughts on the oil situation in the gulf? guest: they drilled and here we are 75 million or wondered million gallons in the gulf of mexico. and would be irresponsible for us not to look of the situation with clear eyes. i think they should in fact pay for all the damages and pay to restore the livelihood for the individuals who were affected. i think we really need to address our energy consumption. oil is not only spelling on our shores but it is part of the reason why we are dependent on

foreign oil. i would like to see us investigate alternative energy and really have a clear energy economy that is responsible. host:sara hail-mariam is with us for another 10 minutes. tennessee on our line for independence. go ahead. caller: i did not have the opportunity to go to college, which i have -- which i would have loved to do. we went over to vietnam and we came back. we had to go. you all ha a different choice. talking about the oil spill, it took obama 30 days to get out there.

this is unlike any other president where they have -- they would have been out there in a week or less. we have had more spending in the last 18 months than any other president has spent in their time. i think that before being a president you should have to serve in the armed forces someway, somehow, before you can be president or anything else. guest: the first part about not being able to go to college, that is still a relative for a lot of young people who are not able to afford college -- that is still a reality for a lot of young people. it has been monumental, but not enough has been done. i will say that one of our speakers at our conference was a

young man named david cho that is going to ucla. he is undocumented. what he wants to do after college is served in the united states air force. the dream act would provide him with citizenship. the young people who served our country are so admirable and i am so grateful and indebted to them. not just young people but all of our veterans. more needs to be done to make sure they're taking care of when they come home. when the ways of getting citizenship could be true military service. i think that would, again, give people an opportunity to do so. host: stafford, virginia. caller: good morning. ma'am, like you said, people need to stop touring around labels. this goes to the use and the college people of today.

the word "socialism" keeps coming up associated with barack obama. we are a capitalist society. we are capitalists. the people that the president surrounds himself with, bernie sanders is a socialist. he used to be a democrat. he never was a republican. jones is in the white house. he is a friend of the president. he is a devout socialist. these people are in the white house. when people like me, a small- business owner that creates jobs that is a capitalist, when i see the president's policy like free health care, this dream act, free college, free this, everything has to be fair and just.

i will tie this in with the college thing. you young people loved barack obama. you love his policies. you are indoctrinated at the young age of 25 or 23. those are the ways that you will think for the rest of your life. america is a capitalist country. that is why even in the newspapers and all over the place "socialism" is being drawn out because his actions are not capitalistic. they are leaning more towards the socialist and. host: when you were 23, 24, 25, who were your political heroes? caller: i have been voting republican since the day i turned 18. i met -- i am a conservative. i am a republican. i am anti-welfare, free

everyone, fair and just the thing that barack obama says all the time means that you will take something from me and give it to someone else when that somebody else could get it from themselves -- for themselves the same way that i got it for me. guest: i do not believe the way that you characterized the role of government in the eyes of this administration and young progresses, i do not believe that characterization. i do not believe government can solve all of our problems. i am not looking for a handout. and believe it should be able to help. i think in the case of the health care reform law that you referenced, people are dying because they are not able to get insurance. families are going bankrupt because of a broken health care system. i am thrilled that the health care package? -- health-care package passed. it does not have a public option.

it is a step in the right direction. i do not believe it accounts for all of the inefficiencies of our current system. there is something else you said that i wanted to respond to. you got in a lot there. i think they may have been forgotten. it was a long question and i appreciate you taking your time. host: last call from philadelphia, pa., on the democrats' line. caller: you have made me proud, darling. do you now with the problem is? you are young, bright, and you were the future of this country. you intimidate these people. when they call up and say that you are ignorant of the fact, you are not ignorant. what it is is they feel barack obama will level the playing field for everyone to have a fair chance. please do not hang up on me. i have a few points to make.

host: i need for you to get to your point, okay? caller: it comes up about eric holder not prosecuting the black panther. i lived in philadelphia. someone was sending a leaflets saying that if you have traffic tickets or anything you would not be allowed to vote. a few showed up at the polls to be locked out. the panthers were there to make sure that no voters, black, white, or anyone else, were intimidated or stopped at the voting places with threats of being locked up. they were trying to stop those votes for obama. once again, when someone says to you we only voted for obama because he was black coming your response would be, is that the reason you did not vote for him? good day, racist america. guest: think you for the first

part of your question and your response. i think i will leave it there. host: campus progress communications and outrageous as it. thank you for being on the program this morning. in just a few minutes we'll be talking with neil irwin about the risks of the global economic recovery. first, we want to tell you about a project c-span was in. we were in new orleans at the national airport on wednesday as workers from the louisiana department of wildlife and fisheries transferred brown pelicans from a rehabilitation facility to coast guard airplanes on their way to being released back into the wild. this is what it looked like. i'd like for you to take a look. >> today we are at signature air outside the new orleans airport. we are transporting brown pelicans from the rehabilitation facility to the

tampa bay, fla., area. >> we have 32 birds today that will be released. so far we are over the 400 and mark of birds that have been released back into the wild.

>> "washington journal" continues. neil irwin used they wrote an

article about the economic recovery being driven by global imbalances. what do you mean by that? guest: things were out of whack. there were and balances where china and other asian nations were saving too much and spending too little. we had a consumption binge in america. it was funded by those asian nations. there are similar imbalances within europe. a lot of people thought that once this recession arrived and the crisis happened that finally all the imbalances would get righted and we would end up in a sustainable place in the world economy. what seems to be happening is something different. all the old patterns are coming back in various countries are going back to the old. there has been a steep rise in consumption which means trends of going back to using debt to fuel economic activity. that delays reconciling in dealing with these problems for

another day. host: to paraphrase an old song, everything old is new again. if the behavior's do not change, where will this ultimately lead us? guest: it cannot go on forever. an analogy i will use is you are a customer in a store and you can spend more than you make in the store can extend your store credit. you can consume more than your income would allow, but eventually the store will say, "i am not sure you'll be able to pay off that that." there is a line from herbert stein, what cannot go on forever will not. the question now is how these trends that go on forever, how they get resolved and whether this happens in an orderly way ward in a way that is more disasters. host: you write that obama renewed his call for a doubling of u.s. exports. that has been made more difficult given the value of the dollar has driven 7.5%

against the other major currencies this year making american exports more expensive. explain how this works. guest: one of the things that would help the balance is that the u.s. is importing more than we export. we consume and use more than we actually make and ship out. one thing that needs to happen to bring the world economy back into a sustainable balance is to export more. that is the present's strategy. he wants to encourage trade agreements and encourage exports. the problem is what is working against that is the fact that people around the world are worried about this renewed sense of crisis and problems in europe. they're driving of the value of the dollar. if you are a u.s. exporter suddenly your goods are 10% more expensive than they were at the beginning of the year. that is hard competitively and it hurts our ability to export.

host:, to this is driven by the fact that in the united states, perhaps we are just not making with the world wants to buy? guest: that is part of it. we have had an economy that is very oriented towards consumer goods, domestic services. those are things that are hard to shipped elsewhere. part of what we need to do as a nation is find ways and what we're good at exporting like boeing airplanes, turbine engines, and we need to find ways to develop more industries like that. it is true of the firm -- the pharmaceutical and movie industries. finding ways to do more things like that where we have a competitive advantage and the rest of the world once our stuff. host: we're talking about risks in the global economic recovery with neil irwin of the "the

washington post." the numbers are on your screen. you can also send us messages via e-mail or twitter. our first call comes from santa clarita, calif., on our online for republicans. 01, are you with us? -- owen, are you with us? go ahead. caller: yes, i have a question. what did we put up for collateral? when i got the loans for the trillions of dollars, was it mount rushmore? the grand canyon? these are the things that i was interested in hearing. i have not heard anyone talk about that. host: it is not collateral in

the traditional sense -- guest: it is not collateral in the traditional sense. they bought bonds. it is not collateralized by mount rushmore but it is by the u.s. government and all of our tax dollars. they have invested in mortgage- backed securities, home mortgages all over the country which is collateralized, i suppose, buy houses. there are other forms of debts which include corporate debt, and consumer debts, so not collateralized by mount rushmore in the literal sense but we are definitely on the hook. host: blue rock, ark., on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i would like to know how the recovery will take place went so much money is being transported across the border by illegal

immigrants. they come in, take the jobs, lower the economy, then they spend most of -- then they send most of their money back into mexico. that has to be millions of dollars and tax dollars from workers that would be put back into the u.s. economy. thank you. guest: most economists would not view what is called remittances by immigrants to their home countries as a major drag on the country. it is not used to buy consumer goods or invest in anything in the united states, but the numbers are not massive enough to be something that really holds back a recovery. host: this week asks, in the world as the u.s. to be with factories filled with slave labor like the foxconn tree

where the ipad is made? guest: there are two situations there. these factories are horrible, and said, involve children, and are beyond the sorts of things that we do. then there is the economic question of when we import things from countries where there are very low wages and working conditions that people would not be happy with here, it is not involving a moral issue. on the first, we have the various policies to try and avoid situations where there are truly immoral stuff going on. the wage differential is the essence of trade. there are plenty of countries on earth where the average wage a lot lower than what we are used in the u.s. or other developed nations, but that is how trade works. we focus on what we are good at which involves high-tech products, and as i mentioned

earlier, boeing airplanes, blockbuster movies, to any number of high-value products. my understanding of what goes on in china is more assembly. more of the chips and high-tech stuff is produced in other countries where there are higher wages -- higher wages. there is a wage gap between u.s. and developing nations but that is how to read works. host: kansas on our line for republicans. you are on west neil irwin -- you are on with neil irwin. caller: there is a lot of stuff. everyone has a lot of stuff. a lot of things, there is not a lot for of a market. i think there is a lot of stuff that is becoming obsolete and there is no longer a market for it. i'm curious about these third

world countries that will continue to supply us with goods. the world is becoming pact with stuff. everyone has too much. host: sounds a lot like george carlin. go ahead. guest: there is clearly overcapacity and oversupply. there is stuff stacking up in stores but also houses. we have an excess supply of houses in certain cities. it is not clear when the demand will be strong enough to have demand for the empty houses. probably the same is true for automobiles and other kinds of household objects and consumer goods. there is an overcapacity of things, but part of that is driven by an absence of demand in the economy driven by high unemployment. instead of a 9.5% unemployment and we had a 5% or 6% unemployment, it would create more demand. there are people sitting on the

sidelines not able to work for a variety of reasons. if we get back to a strong economy, everyone would be better off and there would be more people with the income to buy that stuff. host: on thursday under the headline, he wrote the federal reserve officials are concerned over signs that the economic recovery are faltering and are considering new steps to bolster growth. one of the steps they're taking were considering taking to bolster growth? -- what are the steps? guest: this recovery began about one year ago. it has not been going at a blockbuster pace, but we have steady growth. in this last few weeks, these last two or three months the economy will not be as strong as it was. one of the concerns is the job

numbers have not been improving. we had a couple months in march, and april. in may and june we went back to very weak job growth. the stock market has been volatile and down over the last couple of months. there are reasons to worry that the pace of growth will not be very strong as government stimulus gets withdrawn, as the inventory balance that people are benefiting from goes away. the question is what happens going forward? if you are a policy maker, what do you do? on capitol hill there is an ongoing debate whether to extend unemployment benefits and find other ways to pump money into the economy. at the federal reserve, they have their short-term interest rate targeted at zero. they do not have much they can do on that front. there are some other things they could do if they think things are getting worse. some of the more modest alternatives, they can cut in interest rate on excess reserves that is now have 0.25%.

they did indicate they will leave rates lower than people expect. then there are better options. if this recovery goes off the rails and we did a double dip, they will consider buying hundreds of billions of dollars worth of mortgage securities or bonds to try and push long-term interest rates down. that only happens if we see conditions worsening in the economy in the months ahead. host: los angeles, calif., on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: i have a question. i was reading recently about how companies like ge and big corporations have all these tax shelters in places like the cayman islands and how trillions of dollars we could be getting in taxes from these large corporations we do not get in america because of they are in the tax shelters. i was wondering would be of some

of the better for our economy if we did not let them do that or if that could stimulate the economy to have them pay taxes somehow. that was my question. host: -- guest: the corporate tax code involves opportunities for companies to shift income around the world. they have the structures to make sure they have the highest income in the places where they have very low or zero income tax rate to minimize the amount of money they make in high taxed countries. it is a distortion of incentives. all the effort that goes into hiring lawyers and accountants to manipulate where your earnings are, that is running you're not spending on building products increases in value for your customers and shareholders. i think most everyone who looks at this from an economic perspective would say getting a world where there are not a lot of loopholes would be better for

economic efficiency. that being said come any time talk about eliminating loopholes or -- on an industry, they will push very hard to stop it. there is a push to do a broader tax reform legislation. and have been in 1986 where there was a sweeping overhaul tax reform that dealt with a lot of these kinds of issues. a lot of people were arguing it is time to do that again. it takes a lot of time and effort. there are lot of lobbyists trying to make money manipulating those results. that is the kind of thing that could have economic benefits if it would happen. host: and next call regarding risks in the global economic recovery comes from our line of independence of georgia. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to cover some basic economic principles that were taught to me by a fifth grade educating father that raised nine children.

he told me you cannot borrow yourself out of debt and you cannot spend yourself rich. this seems to be with the united states thinks that they can do. it is simply impossible, first of all. second, we do not make. we are a consuming nation. the president encourages us to go out and consume, but we did not have the money to consume any longer. our wages have stagnated at $11 an hour and gas has gotten tremendously high, who has gone a tremendously high. you name it and it has gotten high. we do not have any expendable income to consume even the things that we would need much less what we want. as soon as they sign of the trade agreements and they will send our jobs overseas. the company i work for five years ago moved all the jobs to china. i work in the distribution center.

they ship the product back to george room and then we exported straight back to china who are the only ones with the money to buy it. interesting thought, is it not? host: who do you work for? caller: i would rather not say. guest: we will not sell them. it is tough. trade can cause a lot of difficult times for people in the industries that are effected. when production moves whether it is automotives in detroit or any other industry, when the production moves overseas it causes a lot of displacement and distress for the people involved. i think what most advocates of trade would say that the overall gains are better. we, as the united states, the focus on the industries that we are more successful in.

the problem is the people benefit from those industries are not the same as the people who suffer when the higher imports and activities with oversee is -- move overseas. there are challenging ways to try and figure out how to smooth the downside and find ways to minimize the impact of people in industries where we are not as competitive so the people who benefit in those areas can share the gains. it is tough to make it happen and it is a shame it happens that way sometimes. host: waxahachie, texas, underlined for democrats. good morning. -- on our line for democrats. caller: i am curious how we've had companies that will finance our debt when our people, as we have seen over the course of the

last 10 years or longer, have continued to run up their own personal debt. when personal that goes up, you get to the point where no one will lend you more and you get into a situation where our economy gets into a pickle. we do not have as many people working. our output goes down. what makes us continue to receive the financial dollars that we would get when things were going great? how do we continue to receive money from china, europe? in d.c. where i am going with this? -- do you see where i am going with this? guest: china is a big exporting nation. your -- you're thinking is that you build this growth model around exports. shipping your stuff to the other

developing nations who then buy it. they have a great incentive to maintain that pattern. that is what i mean when i say we go back to these global imbalances that helped contribute to this. in the run the world and think, i need the u.s. to buy my stuff. to do that and -- the value of my currency affordable -- to do that i need to keep the value of my currency affordable. this drives up the dollar. the dollar is more valuable than it would be if it were not for this activity. that makes it more affordable for us to buy their stuff. it is a circular transaction. that is what i mean when i use the analogy at the store. you can extend store credit and they can buy more than their income. as you point out, that cannot go on forever. ultimately, you can make more than you consume -- consume more than you make, but you cannot do it forever. eventually the debts coming due and you need to pay. how does that happen?

does it happen in a nice, orderly way or do we when they have another force that causes a rethinking of all this and everything collapses? host: to use your analogy, how does the store make a profit when as they are also extending you the loan to buy this that they're selling? guest: there is a lot of consumer behavior involved here as well. china is not the only place where they buy treasury bonds. they have a very high personal savings rate in china. their workers, to gdynia the analogy, -- to continue this analogy, the employees of the store instead of consuming themselves as they are funneling that back into the stohr coffers into savings. there is a high savings rate because of you need to support

yourself because there is not a lot of safety nets in there. that is part of the story of money falling back to us in the form of debt. host: neil irwin rights for "the washington post" the economy and the federal reserve. he has also covered technology, real estate, and the washington, d.c., regional economy. we have him for another 20 minutes. denver, colorado, on our line for republicans. caller: the morning. i will try to get this out quickly. the one thing i have not heard are the reasons truly why we are in debt. the two reasons we are in that is the high interest they put on these loans for when we go to war. the second thing is that we are now, i think, in our fourth generation of welfare. we live in a society where we

invite cultures in. we are the only society to do this and we are the second beta test for this. the last thing i heard you say, too, is you cannot really buy bonds. that actually goes into the government. now, that is a good idea in 1929 with the great american robbery. buying bonds is not the correct way to do it. contrary to popular belief, there is no more money. that is what people have to understand. we cannot go out and make a buck any more. the wage rate is done, like you said, at foxconn, that is what we do. we read them for $1 a year, to do the job, and shut up. that is disgusting. we need to change our values. we have lost strength in the court. the supreme court shows no law at all.

you cannot tax employees. the supreme court does not show there is a lot for this. that shows you right there that the federal reserve owns the banks. host: we will leave it there. neil irwin? guest: i think his view of the economy is rather different than my own and that of most people who analyze economic trends. host: he started off talking about the cost of war. we are in iraq and afghanistan. how much does that play into how our economy is or is not working and the global economy? guest: i cannot remember the exact numbers, but there is substantial and they are part of the deficit problem and these imbalances. part of that is related to these large budget deficits. i think most people would argue that you have to judge your

foreign policy based on your foreign policy goals. the question is, are there areas to cut if we use these words as necessities that are in the best interest of the united states? the rest of the 2000's we did not. we went to war in afghanistan and iraq. we did not see tax increases or comparable cuts in the government to pay for it. that is part of the deficit story. host: here is a tweed that says is a team -- says if the yuan flows as it once and they continue to buy u.s. bonds, will we be more competitive? guest: those are more competitive than you might think. but the way of the chinese had kept the value of the r.m.b. down is by buying u.s. assets. if they were going to let their currencies float entirely it may appreciate by 20% 25%.

they would try to manipulate that currency and keep the value down. yes, if the currency were allowed to float these imbalances would ease over time. the reason the chinese would not do that is because it would hurt their exports a lot and damage their domestic growth, at least in the near term, and caused economic problems. host: on the front page of "the financial times," the inflows into money-market funds. the of the tens of thousands of dollars into money-market fund is considered to be bought some of the safest assets amidst fears that a double-dip recession -- a double-dip recession could send financial markets tumbling. guest: any time things get a little hairy, people put money into cash and something close to cash. bond rates have been down over the last few months and money- market mutual funds were people

park their cash they do not use. they do not want to use it in other risky assets. given the publications in europe and the european debt crisis given the volatility we have seen, it is unsurprising people are parking their money in money funds. host: in the last year or so, you see commercials talking about investing your money in gold. how does that play into the global economy? i did not expect that you are an investment analyst, but in the long term, is that a safe place to put cash? guest: gold is a funny thing. it is a commodity in the same way the oil is that people use it for the jewelry and industrials. it has even more weight as a safe haven when economic times are rough. if you are in a war-torn country, gold might hold its value better than currency. that is part of what is driving

the rising gold prices. there is a sense of fear that the entire world economy is at risk and things might not go well in the future. that has driven the price of gold up. it is a riskier investment. things calmed down and we get back to a global growth path, you can easily see the price falling. people should be aware of the risk. but they should be aware and be able to handle that risk. it does not create a yield. i like putting the money in a bank or investing in the stock market, there is no ongoing cash gold -- cash flow. it costs you money to store it and keep it safe. it is not something that produces a yield, but it can be a safe haven in times of distress and apparel. host: our next call for neil irwin comes from new york, new york. caller: good morning. neil, this is a comment about

two of the callers and how it relates to our current economy. one, the woman who called earlier complaining about companies have in offshore tax shelters and so on, people complain about companies. my response to that is always the same. buy stock in companies, american companies that produce dividends higher than the banks produce. why are people complaining about the activities of companies that actually have the production like ge? a buy stock in the companies. the second thing is, the man that called earlier complaining about losing jobs to foreign companies. those companies have become powerful because americans want to buy inexpensive products from stores. these are products that americans cannot afford to make. my response to that is very simple. spend more money on american goods. i'm not even a proponent of buy

american. by more expensive products and stop trying to get deals at wal- mart and sears because that is where all the foreign products live. stopped buying cheap products and we will have a resurgence of new jobs created here to create standard commodity goods. just stop buying cheap goods. everyone wants to complain about these companies, but they do not want to stop buying cheap goods because it makes them feel rich. guest: keep in mind, people buying when they think what offers the best value is how the capitalist economy works. when people think that one company's product has a better value than another, it forces other companies to become more competitive and create better and cheaper products for us all. i am not sure if help -- telling people to buy more expensive stuff just for the sake of doing so is much of a long-term answer to our economic woes.

people forget that because so many manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, there are things to find ways to emphasize to get out of this matter -- to get out of this mess. host: centerville, arkansas. you are on "washington journal." caller: i have a quick, then the question. first of all, i live out in the middle of nowhere. luckily i have broadband. i do not have television. i do a completely over the internet so i am able to see news coverage from around the world. mr. irwin, with the new prime minister of great britain, mr. cameron, he is slicing a lot of that out of the economy. there are a lot of things going

on in the world that people in the centerville, ark., are completely ignorant of i use that were respectfully, but they just do not know what is going on in the world can give us some perspective on how our economy and our problems with the economy are not only reflected throughout the world but as their economies are reflected within hours? i will hang up and listen to your answer. guest: this is a global economic downturn. it is a global recovery. the linkages between the world has been more significant in this downturn than any in the significant past. what is happening in the great britain is the new conservative prime minister, david cameron, and they are embarking on a very aggressive campaign to trim the budget and get themselves on a sustainable but the track. in some ways, they have been in a rough spot than the u.s..

the question is whether great britain and other european countries, especially germany and also france, as they cut their spending the day after the exacerbates the global problem? the country's, so some americans -- some european countries are being forced by markets to cut their budgets aggressively and do not have much choice. when it germany, france, and great britain cut spending, does that slow economic activity in a way that creates risks for the global economy, a deflationary situation? that is what the u.s. administration, timothy geithner, and the president, have all been arguing at the g- 20 summit in toronto, the countries that are in position to continue spending, which includes germany, we should be spending now and try to prop up economic activity given that

other countries are pulling back. that does not seem to be the direction things are going in europe. there has been a push to cut spending aggressively. we will see how that does. host: king county, new york, on our line for republicans. caller: i have a company -- more than 35% people in china are out of work. most of the companies in china are run by [unintelligible] we need to spend money to make jobs in america. people do not mind to pay more to buy american. the companies are owned by the americans and europeans. guest: it is true that a lot of

the company's are on the bi yaris -- by u.s. and economic. more chinese have gone from barely scraping by and feeding themselves to lower middle income and middle income jobs where they are manufacturing or doing other jobs in chinese cities to produce goods. just the fact that some of these companies are owned by firms in the u.s. or in europe it does not mean they have not paid. we have not had any real net job growth over the last decade. we have been in a very rough time for u.s. employment. what are the industries that can drive us for work? host: there is an article in today's "the wall street journal." it will street journal analysis

of trends in 11 countries say that manageable debt burdens and help the banking systems, areas in which the u.s. does not xl, are proving to be crucial factors in creating jobs. your response to that? guest: it is important not to confuse causation with correlation. countries without banking crises and manageable levels of public debt have stronger job growth. that is the relationship you are seeing. it may be that the things that caused the deep global downturn are the very conditions that led to the recession to begin with. it is not necessarily the case -- let me put it this way.

it is clear that countries with the worst financial crises have worse economic conditions. i would love to look at it more carefully, but it is not a shopper that in countries where things are worse had weaker job growth. host: appleton, wisconsin, on the line for independence. caller: howdy. a comment for the gentleman in new york. people buy cheaper products because the corporations have continued to neither cut or stagnate wages. wheat purchase what we can. i would love to buy an expensive car but i cannot because my wage would not cover it. my question is, if we are borrowing from the savings of the people in china, which is basically what you said before, they are larger savers, the government uses that will of money to take on our dead, what happens when this thing collapses?

it is not very similar to a huge ponzi scheme? guest: that is the risk. in the years before the crisis, we actually did experience, starting in 2007. a lot of very smart economists, it was this set of conditions they were worried about. there were worried there would be a debt crisis in the u.s., a dramatic decline in the dollar that would cause a lot of distress. that is the the crisis that happened. we had something averted in the real-estate market and all of the ugly events of the last three years that we all know of. the question is whether we are setting the stage for the original kind of crisis, a crisis of the dollar yet again. it will not happen as long as we have an orderly path toward a more sustainable balance. over the next decade, we gradually bring the trade deficit down, bring the budget down, then we can be fine and

the world economy will prosper. if we continue and go back to the old path and the imbalances -- the balance is continue growing, there will be a day of reckoning. is that a disorderly crisis of some kind? that will be very scary for all americans. the goal is to have that happen over a more steady, long-term time. host: st. augustine, fla., on our line for democrats. caller: if you take off the ideological blinders just for a minute, you realize that capitalism really does not work. how many great depressions do you really have to go through before you realize it does not work? second, the richness of capitalism does not work. that is why they run to socialism. oil companies alone get $70 billion per year from taxpayers free.

this is not a tax break. this -- this is money they get from the federal government. for the corporations that gets subsidies from the taxpayer, cut them. talk about welfare. just for a change, you know, move away from the idea that capitalism is great. it is not. host: you made your point. guest: capitalism has a lot of flaws. there are recessions, but it is also a system that has created prosperity that even 100 years ago people would be shocked by. the products we take for granted whether it is electronic devices or the ability to fly anywhere in the world. these are things that are produced out of a capitalist system.

i would argue that not too many other systems have produce that kind of prosperity. there are not a lot of counterexamples we can point to and say that is the society i want. they have been communists for the last 50 years. there are flaws in capitalism that we can manage and i think the system is not going anywhere. host: last call for neil irwin comes from maryland. caller: good morning. america replaced england at the end of world war ii. we have been the reserve currency. from 1945 to 1987 we were the world credit agency. america became the world's debt nation. china has