host: u.s. senate is said to have a cloture vote today, they have a press conference scheduled later for today, many believe that this means that the press conference will have an up -- that the democrats have enough for closure. this morning we are picking up on the story of the week, relations between the white

house and house democrats. questions for you this morning comes from a blog posting on the u.s. news policy page with the headline -- does obama want head -- democrats to lose the house? kamen lynch is the rising on if it is an advantage for him to have a divided congress. the groups tried to diffuse tensions following the comments from the press secretary early in the week. here are the phone lines. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. good thursday morning to you. i want to show you some of this morning's headlines related to the recent set of tensions that have become public between the house and the white house.

"house democrats hit a boiling point, obama tries to quell uprisings." "nancy pelosi blasts did this." on politico this morning, "white house tries to diffuse tension." we will talk to jonathan allen in just a moment. getting to our questions, the u.s. news posted cameron lynch, a professor of politics here in washington, "could obama want democrats to lose the house? is it better for the president to have a super majority or are there political a advantages to having one house of congress held by the opposition party?

"it sounds preposterous from the outset, why would he want to lose his majority hold? yet white house press secretary robert gibbs, with fury over the common that the house could be in play, in recent days speculation has arisen that his presidential legacy might be helped by the ominous occurrence of a republican takeover of the house. he could be provided with a natural foil for his 2012 platform. showing that the democrats were making progress until the house was taken over. more than likely they are commonly of referring to this as the clinton model, his

legislative overreach all but led to the republican takeover of 1994 and like the early clinton presidency, obama's social agenda appears to be sinking like his ratings to moderate his stances, thereby increasing his popularity with the american electorate. it is the strategy to secretly lose the house in november, one cannot say for sure." obviously mr. lynch's perspective on that are from the republican side of the aisle, but it is a theory that we would like to know what to think about. john, good morning, thank you for being here. caller: thank you for having me. host:. and counterpoint between the white house and give this, the

house democrats had a meeting last night. caller: it is remarkable what happened, robert gibbs said what everybody already knew in washington, but sometimes saying the obvious what happens is he met with president obama and his top staff, politics was discussed. nancy pelosi, a veteran politician brought a list of what she wanted from the present administration. recognizing that she has the upper hand and the controversy caused by the white house, she

saw some more explosive commitments for political help for candidates. when it comes to policies in trying to articulate what this administration is doing in terms of policy and its members. host: the fact that some of the concerns went forward as moderated by the senate? caller: that is exactly right. part of this frustration is not just the fact that house members are facing a tough election, but it is the fact that the house has moved somewhat significant way over the past few years with issues ranging from health care to energy reform.

they do not necessarily have the benefit. july of 2009, the vote for the house, what happened in the senate one year later, there was not necessarily any gaining from the vote by assuming all of the political risk. host: the bottom line is they want to see the president on the campaign trail? caller: they appreciate having a vice president biden campaigning for them, but when it comes to house campaigns this fall, they want to see president obama campaigning for their members out there. the sticking point of many house members is that he has done

three events for harry reid but not as many for house members, individual house members. they feel that this president and this administration is too focused on the senate. host: it might seem to people watching from the outside that this is just another washington who shot joe back and forth. but how does the politics of this affect policy? caller: if they are not on the same page, it makes it very difficult to get anything done. back-and-forth politically will make a tough climate even tougher when it comes to trying the have any kind of legislation before election day.

making it more likely that the next four months will be more difficult in terms of getting things done. host: thank you very much in bringing us up-to-date on this story. nancy pelosi wants obama more involved in the house races. "politico" has posted a memo yesterday that categorizes the efforts made. in your time. caller: thank you. host: our press issue is raised by a theory and professor of politics in washington, cameron lynch. could obama really want to lose the advantage of the house to end advantage in 2012? let's give some telephone calls on all of this. new york, your on the air.

caller: thank you for c-span, my voice is sore and this will be brief. it is possible that obama would want to lose votes, but that is ridiculous. there might be some writing on the wall issues going on. the democrats and president obama, if they do not start to stand up and talk like men instead of this sometimes surreal wailing that comes out, they're losing average connection and contact with americans. i do not know who put harry reid and nancy pelosi in charge. i would rather see al franken out front. we need democrats that talk tough, talk back to the republicans. very briefly, if we need to raise taxes is inevitable.

raising taxes from wealthy corporations. only in the united states of america that you get middle- class people -- i would argue more in favor of tax breaks for the rich. i would be impressed if the tea bag party would stand up and talk about taxing wealthy individuals who spent $20,000 weekly on vacations traveling in europe, spending money on themselves. we should not be crying for the wealthy individuals. host: bill, republican line, charlotte. caller: the most refreshing thing i have heard this morning as the democratic position just now on the leaders of their party. the idea that you have about losing the house being plausible, the more that i see this president and administration the more that i

understand that they are long- range working group. they have been waiting for this opportunity for a long time. one point that i would like to make and put out there in the public, this is supposed to be a president and administration that came in to reconcile many of the pastilles and shortcomings of this country. we were supposed to have a black president that would unite us. now we have a president is standing on the sidelines instead of being a leader in telling the people of the united states that we might have differences in ideology but we are waiting -- working together. he is standing on the sidelines allowing the tea party to be victimized, allowing the black panthers and the naacp to put their rhetoric out there. where is the reconciliation and the leadership? the american people want a

leader, not only to get them out of this economic slump, but also to woo was ahead. if anyone is moving as backwards it is president obama creating this racial and class tension within our society for political gain, trying to mobilize the democratic base. many people are seeing this for what it is and are upset about it. it does not matter what color we are or what party we are, we are americans. that is what many of us believe now. that is where we want to go. host: thank you, bill. michael, ga., democratic line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. why would he want to go through this with the the congress?

it would be stupidity on his part to go through that with in both chambers of the house. host: thank you very much, michael. we are talking this morning about the house of representatives and we are framing the discussion with an article posted by cameron lynch this week, suggesting that for 2012 the president might be better set of politically to suggest that gridlock happened because the republicans in the house. victor, good morning, you are on the air. caller: as far as i am concerned, obamanomics and obamacare are going to fail. i am very nervous about what

happens when the bush tax cuts go way in 2011. people out there, my friends are very angry at obama and his gang of thugs. we cannot wait for november to throw out the liberals that are ruining this country. i am proud to be a tea party member. absolutely proud to have rush limbaugh as my friend. i listened to him every day on the radio. i have called him a couple of times. i also like mark mcgran out there, telling it like it is. the liberals said they are tolerant and that they like other people's ideas even though they disagree.

there is a move to get rid of talk radio. they will not succeed. too many people are furious at november. harry reid, you had better start looking for another job. thank you, ma'am. host: in the denver senate race there are charges of plagiarism on behalf of the leading candidate in the republican gubernatorial nomination over allegations that he plagiarized articles for which he was paid $300,000. stephanie simon writes this morning, this is "the wall street journal," "he was not widely expected to cruise through the republican nomination, also showing him leading the republican nomination against the democrats

in november. but articles on water policy that he had represented as original material, it was taken from other source material without proper attribution." talking about president obama, "the los angeles times," says today, "the white house communications interview showed the obama following as not directly transferrable, but the white house believes it is a job that only obama can do." back your calls, we are talking with you about the democratic party and tension between the white house and the house of representatives. wilmington, vt., good morning. mike? caller: i do not think that president obama really wants to

lose his congress. i am a liberal, i voted for president obama, hoping that he would end these wars without killing any children. 18-year-old young people are children, they belong in college, not the military. i think that the democrats have forgotten their charter and have moved across the line and joined the republicans by taking the same corporate contributions. they have sold out to corporate interests. i think that the obama foreign policy is basically the same as the bush cheney foreign-policy. i would like to see a fair and even-handed policy. muslims are not the devil. they are just human beings. they are no worse than any other

people. i think that by providing them with skills, wells, good water and positive things, but would be doing a heck of a lot better than killing them. thank you for tolerating the. host: this twitter message came from cindy. "the democratic base -- i think that robert gibbs statement that it is a possibility woke up the democratic base big-time." caller: there is historical precedents for midterm elections to go to the party not in power. i do not think that obama will move towards the center, i believe he will continue to

blame his predecessors for the first few years. bank you for taking my call. host: your historical comments are the lead in to richard smith, presidential historian joining us now by telephone. good morning, richard. we are looking for a bit of modern presidential history and concepts on how presidents fare when they have a dual majority in congress. what can we look to? caller: a couple of models. you have already heard references to president clinton. people forget that after losing both houses of congress in 1994, he had a press conference where he had to protest his own relevancy. it was an unheard of experience. not only was irrelevant, he turned to the republican

congress to his advantage in many ways. it became triangulation. moving somewhat to the right, finding places like welfare reform and a balanced budget, where he could not only cooperate with a republican congress, but in some ways, what their issues. blessed with a strong economy he turned it around, put himself in a good position to be reelected in 1996. the other historical example that some have cited is to go back to harry truman, who did not expect to lose congress in 1946 and was widely written off as a candidate for reelection himself, but in his campaign manager to turn the tables on what he called the do nothing

congress. a conservative congress. although it was elected in 1946, it had managed to alienate many of the voters, particularly organized labor. truman ran unsuccessfully against congress in 1948. the danger, susan, with looking for history to repeat itself is we have a tendency to see these events out of context and context is everything. in 1948 america had basically become a democratic nation. there were strong memories of the great depression. while truman had lost congress in 1946, there was an underlying majority in the country for a more activist government, particularly in terms of providing economic security. he was able to tap into that in 1948. the other thing that is

different between now and when bill clinton was successfully moved to the right, somewhat, stopped in think -- stop and think about what has changed. it is the blog this year -- blogosphere. a very articulate base of democratic voters, many of them articulating their concerns through the web. i am not sure that even bill clinton, in this climate, with this incredible polarization that you see between the parties, to some degree within the parties, would have the latitude, if you will, to do today what he was able to do 15 years ago.

host: you mentioned the strong economy. do we have many historical precedents for that? caller: gosh. host: how presidents might fare in the second half of their term. when the economy is in a bad state. caller: if it remains in this state it will really be a ball and chain to the president's strategy. ronald reagan in 1982, republicans were swept into office and had taken the senate, they did not take a house. there was a severe recession going on. remember, the republican slogan was to stay the course in 1982, shrinking government. the argument was giving us more time and this will turn around. in fact, politically that is what happened. they took a hit in 1982, but by

1983 and 1984 you saw the economy significantly improved. lots of jobs being created. in 1984 there were parties that had run somewhat defensively, able to proclaim their morning in america. host: thank you for giving us a little bit of context the day about the tension between the white house and house democrats going into the election. back your telephone calls, we are talking with you about party politics, this time in her party politics between democrats. baltimore is next. good morning, george. caller: this has been a very interesting show. i have two brief points i would like to make.

the negativity coming out of people's mouths regarding racial reality is incredible. i cannot believe it. two, this man inherited a very sick economy. he has done a lot in his first few years of administration to put these promises towards working for the economy as far as health care and those issues. i know that people have a lot of opinions about it, but some of those are needed because of the people that are left out. i am just amazed at how hard it is to except this man of color in the presidency. thank you. host: i want to show you some economic stories from this morning's newspapers. from the wednesday announcement from the federal reserve, "at the center was released in the report -- shaping jobs."

"fed cuts 2010 growth forecasts over concerns of economic forecast." that is the headline of this morning's "to the financial times." from "the washington post," this morning, "recovery moving champa jammed packed." continuing with economic stories, "the wall street journal," "stimulus to skeptics telling us that the president is traveling to michigan to promote his stimulus plan in a community awash in stimulus dollars where the majority of voters are skeptical that the program's working. related to that, the white house seized sunny skies for the stimulus.

" "usa today," they have the joblessness picture." on the tax-cut debate, in "the washington journal," "there is little debate over what is best to stimulate the economy. president obama wants to extend the bush tax cuts to the middle class only. republicans and a handful of centrist democrats are talking about extending all tax cuts. headed into one of the biggest tax debates of the decade." let's go back to your calls. cody, new haven, connecticut. caller: so many callers, educated or whatsoever about the federal reserve being a branch of the bank of england.

how many people are educated about the orsini family? caught -- host: thank you very much. dave, independent line. caller: how're you doing? i am just calling about the health care system. right now my father just got his last unemployment check. i am an only child that was in the house told, i tried to put my parents on my health care or something like that. you know what i am saying? the economy is so bad right now. i am the only person in the house with a full-time job. host: how old is your father?

caller: he is a steel welder and he cannot get back to work. i am the only one in a house -- in the house with a full-time job and i think it would be a great idea, putting my parents on my insurance. host: how old is your father? host: in his 50's. -- caller: in his 50's. host: quite a few years before medicare. caller: now they want to review immigration, they should be worrying about the american people and not letting more people in the country. thank you. host: patti, sterling, virginia. caller: the president we are supposed to be answering is if president obama could want to held turned the house over to republicans? caller: that is the theory.

-- host: that is the theory. caller: i would say no. he has had a hard enough time with senate rules and potential filibusters. i think that he has already demonstrated a very strategic and non-politically driven approach to his policies. most of them are not really going to pan out. i would say that that is a very cynical understanding of the president and i would completely disagree with that. i would also like to say that the caller from silver spring that was praising rush limbaugh , as a 25 year national security expert i would say that the biggest threat we have to national security right now are

people like glenn beck and rush limbaugh. the instability, hatred and resentment that they are spinning in this country is horrifying. i hope that people will use their own minds and not the hateful rhetoric of those very uneducated, very profit driven so-called pundits. thank you. host: we have a tutor from bobby, "there is less heat when you do not control all three houses. robert gibbs comment hurt house democrats." kendall, indiana, francis, democratic line. caller: good morning, susan. i think that you are the best of the best. i wanted to talk about legislators being in authority or separate.

democrats do not all vote the same way. they are not in lockstep like republicans. there is one little thing that was done when they were all locked steps, they passed a tax reform bill in houston, texas, leaving billions of dollars to their heirs. the normal extension is 3.5 million for individuals and 7,000,004 couples. this man gets to leave $9 billion to his heirs. his name is mr. duncan. the story was told by the senate floor last night. the senator from north dakota is not running again in his

wonderful -- again and he is wonderful. we cannot have these kind of laws passed or repealed, because it goes to the top 100 of 1%. the rest of us are left out. if democracy is going to be lost, privatizing our schools and pentagon, privatizing social security, it is just so incredible what the republicans can do in step lock. host: thank you for calling in this morning. from about -- from "the wall street journal" this morning, " u.s. senators and senate

employees received far more than had previously been known at a unknown countrywide program that had cut rates for favored borrowers. rep isa had been spearheading the investigation. no one specific was investigated, but many listed there place of employment as the office of dr. robert bennett. members of the utah banking committee had received the home loans. kent conrad had been identified as one of the high-profile individuals by and receiving such loans, but no senator has admitted to set -- to any wrongdoing."

that is "the wall street journal" this morning. florida, we continue to talk about the democrats' and the house of representatives. caller: good morning. the president don't want the democrats to lose. he don't want them to lose the house and senate. by voting them out, putting republicans in, you will not solve the problem. they are not working together for the betterment of this country. one other thing, they are blaming the president too much for unemployment. a cop -- economic commissioners and city mayors are responsible for many cases of unemployment.

it is not president obama's problem, it is the state's problem. thank you for letting me talk this morning. host: we were operating off of the cameron lynch article. could obama what the democrats to leave the house -- lose the house? from lisa, "i do not get it, he would be rendered a lame duck." miami, florida is next. good morning, chuck. caller: thank you for your service, i love listening to you guys. it is not so far-fetched that obama would actually like the democrats to lose in the house and senate. they will follow the script they have had this entire time. they love to point the finger and everywhere else but themselves, playing into pointing the finger at the

republicans when they do take over. he has not exhibited any ability to take responsibility for anything that has been done so far. the woman that called recently that stated that she worked for national security, everything that he has done has not been for political gain as the effect of this legislation does not take effect until six years down the road, which is the opposite. they want the effect to be delayed so that they can remain in power and reelected. i think that it all fits. they point the finger and i think it will play out good for obama if the republicans take the house or senate. host: all right. next, independent line, robert from north carolina. caller: good morning, susan.

it is an honor and privilege. really, c-span should be renamed america's town hall meeting. i enjoy very much. it is not the color of the skin, it is the way that you govern. white people would have been proud of obama, it looks like to me that he has done everything he can to sort out this country. look at new orleans, deliberately going to court all the time. the only income they have got down there, the environment is already destroyed. it looks really bad. this country is going down the road it does not need to be going down. host: thank you for calling.

baltimore, democratic line? you are on the air. caller: good morning. thank you. i do not think that he wants to lose his seat. to give the republicans the chance to rule, he has taught -- he has had a hard enough time in office. i believe that he is one of the most intelligent presidents that we have had in a long time. i also think that that is one of the reasons he has such a hard time. i do not think that any other president we have had in the past would have taken over all the problems he came into office with an even be able to stand everything that he has gone through so far. i sat up all night long myself,

watching the different debates that they had on television about everything. i do see that it is a problem and if they do not come together, the democrats and the republicans, there will not be much that they can get accomplished. before you can solve one problem, you have another problem. everything is always such a great debate, everyone has to come together. they say that it is not the color of your skin, but if it is not the color of your skin, give the president a chance. everything cannot be -- everything cannot work and be a miracle all at once. people have to come together. thank you for my time. host: on the phone with us now, from "the washington post," he is telling us about the president's trip to michigan.

the morning. caller: good morning. host: why is the president taking a trip to this region? caller: unemployment is extremely high in michigan. he fell into a different story, saying that they would essentially a focused on battery plants that would make batteries for electric cars. host: the white house is dubbing this as recovery summer? what is that about? caller: trying to make a constant amongst people that jobs are coming back, especially important to the democrats as they approach the midterm elections. without that confidence, people will be voting for a change in congress.

host: traveling the country to point out the effects of the stimulus package, yesterday christo -- christina romer had a similar message. does your reporting correlate with government numbers? caller: any kind of spending has the effect of giving money to people that sign up themselves, which is one kind of impact. another kind is if you give a certain amount of money to a battery plant, private investments might come in and do part of the job for you. that is the whole idea of stimulus spending, it has effects far beyond the single dollar.

host: why has the jobs picture not improved? caller: in part because these companies are setting a large piles of cash and are not hiring yet. people are not sure how strong the government is. the last thing that you do, if you are a business, is higher a new person if you do not want to take on the obligation over a longer period of time. host: looking specifically to michigan, how important is it for congress to act on energy legislation for this landscape in green jobs and the automotive industry? caller: the dream -- a green jobs idea is being pushed very hard by the president.

in some ways, these are real. green jobs mean a lot of different things, from money coming from agencies for construction jobs and building things to building new plants and people that are actually very technically skilled that might be working in some of those plants. you know, the outlook for a lot of these companies and their products is very uncertain. much of it depends on government subsidies. the battery plants are a good example of that. the president thinks that we will have 1 million electric cars on the road by 2016. a lot of people doubt that that happen. the administration says that they are building a new industry for that economy with 40% of the

global market. other people doubt that very much, thinking that we are building overcapacity in electric batteries and that the demand will not be there. caller: " -- host: so much of the economy is about perception and the like. how important is it for the administration to cheerlead to save the economy? caller: i think it has the same impact on consumer confidence a real effect on the economy, but to some extent it falls on deaf ears. for some people it does not correlate with the reality they talked about. it is important to help but it cannot be detached from the reality of the situation. that reality is still one of

slow jobs and bringing up the real -- rear. host: thank you for talking with us as the president makes another trip to michigan. caller: thank you. host: related story this morning in "the new york times," " attempting to lure early adopters, general motors said on wednesday that it would guarantee the batteries for eight years or 100,000 miles, better than typical warranties that they offer for powertrain on conventional cars." a couple of quick calls here as we finish up our discussion with you about the tensions between the white house and the democrats in congress. reno, nevada.

caller: how are you this morning? host: fine, thanks. caller: good. i do not think that obama wants republicans to take the house, but i think that he is more focused on keeping these radical -- keeping the senate away from radical republicans. here in nevada, sharon angle is trying to crash this economy just to make obama look bad. host: the last call is from archy, democratic line, ill.. caller: of the evening. i mean good morning. [laughter] i have a few comments. the first is on money going into the government instead of coming out of the government. first, i lived in a nursing home in mitropoulos here.

things are pretty hectic. the government is paying each of these people to run these places, perhaps as much as $6,000 per person. which seems ridiculous to me. i wonder why someone does not think about -- don't think about sending this money to the family and having the family take care of people on a voluntary basis. the parents. that they chose to do so. have the government paid them 50%. that way they are flying high. no. come out -- #two, in '86 and

i will express myself. do not laugh at me. host: i am not laughing at all. caller: the immigration problem will not be solved overnight. two things, any of the illegal immigrants in this country should be sent back to where they come from. pure and simple. just do it. but most important, everyone of us should ante up some money with so many out of work. where do we stand, $20,000 each year? if we gave them $5,000, these families would probably go back on their own. there's nothing wrong morally with helping someone in that position. host: i hope that when i am 86 i will still be falling politics

as well. we will be right back. we will continue this conversation and much more with our guests, xavier becerra, he is on the debt commission and he is the vice chairman of the democratic caucus in the house of representatives. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> with congress back to work we have added a new feature to the

c-span bit video library, a search for a congressional bill, what's the status in debate on the senate floor. make your search as general or specific as you like. is free online. the c-span video library, washington your way. >> the senate judiciary committee has postponed voting on elena kagan as supreme court justice until next tuesday. watch live coverage on c-span 3 and under c-span.org. find out more from the latest c- span book, "the supreme court." unique insight on the court, available in hardcover and in e- book. >> c-span is now available in over 100 million homes, bringing you a direct link to public

affairs. crted by america's cable companies. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are pleased to welcome back congressman xavier becerra of california, vice chair of the democratic congress and part of the debt commission. there's a tension between house democrats and the white house. "politico" ran the story on the meeting between the two. caller: -- guest: it was a good meeting, the president was right on the money. making it clear that where we want jobs this year is in america. i thought that it was a very good meeting. i saw no inconsistency, it was a

good meeting. host: call came suggested this -- pauol kane suggested this morning that they have been taking it on the chin from the president without enough political support from him. do you feel that? guest: i think it is a frustration principally with republicans in the senate, they have become obstructionist. we cannot get wall street reform without republicans. in passing so much of the agenda, the senate has become a graveyard for those ideas. host: the white house is dubbing this a recovery summer, sending members on the road to suggest the positive effect of the federal stimulus program.

california received $85 billion in a chair stimulus funding. 17 months later the job situation in california, third highest unemployment rate. tell us what those numbers mean to you. guest: they are lower than the but it would have been. i can take you to about three health clinics which as a result of the economic recovery package, we are gradually seeing the progress. it is hard to remember when the keys were taken to the white house by george bush in the way of 25,000 jobs per day. having lost 8 million jobs during the bush recession, it is tough. host: our 4 -- phone lines are on the screen, you can call us,

e-mail us, or send us a quitter. -- twitter. there is a big debate in this city about the best way to continue the road to recovery in the economy. what are you learning? what is your concern in the tension between reducing the debt and more stimulus? guest: that we need to do something and we have to be careful of what we do because the path that we choose has to follow a very narrow course. if you try to deal only with the deficit that the president inherited, you will choke off the recovery. if you move too aggressively towards recovery you might not find people fiscally responsible. what you have to do is try to cross that half in a way where you are able to achieve the job, as the president said, of

putting america back to work, at the same time making sure we have a fiscally responsible course for the future. host: what will become of the work in this session? guest: hopefully we are able to present work to the congress that the congress can support to put us on the right direction. we are hoping that what we can do is lead the country know that the federal budget will begin to reduce those deficits sufficiently so that we will not choke off the group that we need. if we are going to recover those 8 million jobs, we have got to go out there and create confidence in the private sector. when no one else is trying to put blood in the patient in a coma, someone has to step up to the plate. that is what the government did. host: what about the concern over banks not lending?

host: it is embarrassing to see how some of the banks did not step forward after they participated in thetarp and -- the tarp without doing the lending. we will have specific bills that will target small community banks, which we know do a lot of the lending in our communities. if we can get small businesses going, we will be in good shape. host: i wanted to get your perspective on these calls that are lined up for you. "digging out, a tough recession. the united states might face a bigger than usual cyclical downturn as well as a historical turning point where the usual macro economic templates are unreliable. the way out is for a deep restructuring that restores

innovation and international competitiveness as neglected by america while on a buying spree funded by home equity. elements of stimulus and austerity will be required and for the most part moving to a new growth model will require thinking outside of the stimulus box. because of high levels of unemployment, the social safety net should be strengthened and modernize." do you think that the country is able to think outside of the box? caller: -- guest: i think that that is where we are heading. all this talk about green jobs and a new energy and firemen, that is what "the washington post," is talking about. we cannot do it the way that we have because the competition is fierce. we have to be ready for the next level, the next plateau. that means creating those good paying jobs that we are more prepared to take on than anyone else.

we have made the inventions. we should not be purchasing batteries from korea to pattern -- to power electric vehicles. on the part of the president use the green jobs, if we can stimulate the economy based on a new energy policy, we will get phenomenal jobs at the same time that start dependence on foreign sources of energy. host: the chairman and ceo of kenaco, he writes "business is taking a pounding on capitol hill and for the most part we have remained silent. it is time to make our case. political attacks against business could result in serious economic damage, especially in an election year." . .

economic recovery package to make investment in business to stimulate growth and create jobs, many of the big businesses are sitting on their money until they can see what is going on. we need to have them making an investment in their innovation as well. if i were the big guy on wall street, i would be upset. but we are not looking at him, but we are looking at the little guy on main street who creates

two-thirds of all the jobs in america. host: as a member of ways and means, i have heard analysis suggesting businesses are uncertain about the regulatory framework, the tax structure and the impact of health-care legislation. guest: i scratch my head and say, why do you think you are uncertain about the regulatory environment? you abuse it. when you were a bank and were enticing people to take loans and knew they could not pay back, why do you not think we would have new regulations? when you asked us to bail you out, why don't you think we want to know how you are spending money and whether you are making investments in derivatives that were not backed by anything and ask for the taxpayer assistance to back you up. when you are bp and you want to drill outside of our coast and you don't have a mechanism in place to keep out or stop catastrophes, then you find out

you had virtually control of the regulatory agency, why do you think we are doing oversight? unless you want us to have a wild, wild west mentality, you have to make sure you protect the public assets. you can still throw but they are still public assets on the coastline. it is still the people's money you are playing with. if you are expecting us to bail you out, please make sure you are doing it the right way. host: we are going to begin with west point, nebraska. robin, republican line. -- i give it a d. -- caller: i give it a d. you cannot tax your way to prosperity. in 2011 it will go back to the

clinton era. host: i will pick up from there. cannot tax your way to prosperity and expiration of the bush tax cuts. guest: if you take a look and do homework, you will find today americans are paying lower amounts of taxes than they have in the last 40 years. if you take a look, you can see that we follow the prescription to 80. we did lower 95% of america's tax bill. we are moving forward in trying to preserve the middle-class tax cut that help americans invest. what we are not willing to do is watch the special interests get tax breaks that allow very wealthy individuals or very large corporations paying lower tax rates than the average americans who work for these companies or rich individuals. it is a matter of making sure if there is going to be gain, everyone participates, as well as the pain that it would take

to make investments in that gain. we cannot have the unfair and is where the working man and working woman is doing everything possible to get this country back on track and you have folks are riding very high, making investments with our money, and ultimately not paying for it. we cannot have any more bernie madoffs making money out of our hard-earned dollars. host: tennessee, lacy, democrats line. caller: i would just like to address the middle class and the port. -- poor. what's -- what can the republicans do? have you listened to their proposals like raising social security age on people and things like that? i am 66 years old and i can remember harry truman's time vaguely, then they got eisenhower in there and for a

couple of years things were not so bad and then a recession. wh little few commodities gave dabbled out, some of us start to death until kennedy got in there. host: on your concern about the middle class and the poor. guest: item with you on that, especially when you speak about social security -- i am with you on that. i wish that you can tell me talk to young people so they understand how you feel about social security. young americans are sold a lie, telling them it will not be there for them when they become older and move on to retirement. for the next 30 years, social security is probably the sound is program we had in the federal government because today the social security fund has a surplus, not a deficit, of $2.50 trillion in assets because you and i have been paying into the

system for quite some time, knowing that we need to do that so when the baby boomers retire we have a enough money. there are not too many programs i know in the federal level or even private sector proposals that can say for the next 30 years they can guarantee you they will be in surplus. when you talk about republican proposals, i agree. republicans are proposing we scrap everything the president has done to get us from a sinking economy losing 730,000 jobs in one month, january of 2009, to going back to the prescription under president bush, the same type of tax policy that helped wealthy americans and corporations but never saw the money trickle-down fast enough to working-class americans. if we are smart, what we will do is stay on course. we are finally beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel, because it is tough because we sank so deep and had such massive deficits along that

all of a sudden people see that deficits do matter. we see the results. when you face a $1.30 trillion deficit, 790,000 jobs lost in january of 2009, 2 million jobs in the last quarter of 2008 when barack obama became president, it is tough. he did not all of the sudden turn things around, but he has done that. host: you talk about social security health, but erskine bowles, when he was talking about the state of the economy -- i took away the concern that there was going to have debate reforms to both the social security and medicare system. do you anticipate coming out of the other end of this review process with a raise in the eligibility age for social security or medicare, for example, or income tests? guest: i am not willing to tell lacy he can't retire now if he worked hard. not willing to tell my father

who was a laborer, picking every crop, repairing the hulls of ships, fixing the brakes on railroad cars, working with construction for 30 years with a jackhammer, i am not going to tell an african-american male who probably will lead about six years less than a caucasian male in this country that we are going to all of the sudden extend the retirement age simply because we have fiscal problems that were not related to social security. if we are going to use social security money to correct problems of spending by politicians, i think we will need a few folks like lacy to lead a revolution because all security is a sound program. we will have to tweak it long term because we are trying to keep it sounds, but there is no reason why the current crisis in our economy and our budget should be saved by social security, which is there and has

been there for people to be able to retire, and by the way, as lacy probably knows, one-third of the people receiving social security benefits, one-third are receiving not because they are retired, but either because they are disabled or because they are the survivors of workers who died because social security is not just a retirement policy, it is a life insurance policy for a worker who died or a distant -- and a disability policy for those a get work. you find me a 401k or ira that gives you those things in one, and i will tell you you have a great deal. host: riverside, california, david, republican line. caller: good morning, how are you? have you ever been to a welfare office anywhere in california, san benito county, riverside, aren't counting? guest: my brother used to work for the health -- welfare

department. caller: basically what i wanted to ask you is, we have seven out of 10 people -- my sister works for the one in riverside and she has been there for 15 years. my question is basically, the entitlement programs had ruined the california. how can we cut back on the entitlement programs in california? that is my question, mr. becerra? guest: your sister could probably be very helpful, because what we have tried to do is to make sure that folks who apply for the benefits qualify. once they have gotten onto the system and they passed through the check, it is tough to find them until someone, a good citizen, can help report those who are abusing the program. your sister, those who are able to track, those who are first applying are going to be our best defense. i think what we have to do is make sure we have a good system

in place to keep people from getting into the system, and we need to have a good system to monitor those. as you know and your sister can probably tell you, once they are in it is tough to find them. host: on this program we did a special for five days looking at states with budgets in the red, california the largest. what will life be like for california citizens when the legislature passes the budget? guest: it will be leaner, i hope it won't be meaner. i fear some of the decision sacramento will make will cut back and our investments in education. we used to have great public schools. i went to public schools when i was growing up in the 1960's. i fear that the uc college system will suffer the consequences, and that will hurt us long term with all of those fabulous and talented young people who want to go on to college. i would say, let's make the cuts

where we can. let's have people participate in sharing the pain where we can, those who can afford to. but i would not ask young people who are trying to get educated in our schools and then go to college, to pay the price. i would not allow our investments in education to pay the price and certainly not the seniors, who works for a long time, and now should be able to retire in dignity, to pay the price. i am willing to pay a little bit more. i am willing to hunt down those trying to abuse the system and take advantage of programs they are not entitled to. but i don't want to ruin our chance to educate our community. i am the first and my family to get a college degree. now, my wife is with my daughter in california to visit stanford and berkeley because my 70-year- old is getting ready to go to college. that is what i want for every family. host: new jersey, stella, independent line. caller: three quick points before you cut me off.

first, the only thing the present -- republicans and democrats have achieved is enslaving us, no matter what our race and ethnic background by debt, dependency on the government, but worst of all, the violence that you have done to our language and what words mean and how they should be used. secondly, getting back to our language, our laws are not being enforced. you guys are picking and choosing what laws you follow, what laws you don't follow. all three branches of government have been complice it in creating -- complicitous in creating and generating laws that violate our constitution and the fundamental direction of our constitution is for government to be -- to create a healthy balance between competing interests, whether

there are foreign and domestic. it's got a little competition with your pet in the background, -- host: a little competition with your pet in the background. what are you talking about with a loss selectively followed? give us an example. caller: oversight has become an oxymoron. a look of the representative the representative gave about -- look at the example of representatives gave about the oversight. causing the oil spill, causing the financial meltdown. you guys have not been doing your job. and no laws should be passed that violate that fundamental directive that government balance competing interests in a healthy way. and we have just gone from one extreme to another. and as far as i am concerned, none of you have been doing your job in any of the branches of government because you have not

followed that directive. host: let me jump in here. please. guest: let me first agree with stella so i can disagree with you. i agree with you that oversight went awol. no doubt. the referee was taken off the field. this is where i disagree with you tremendously. i didn't participate in that. so, you have every right to be upset but i will fight back when you say that you, meaning everyone of us. right now what we are fighting to do on this wall street reform is to get oversight in place because for eight years oversight was removed from the banking industry. right now we are fighting to put oversight back in place over the oil industry because for eight years it was removed from the industry, and the industry in essentially controlled those who were supposed to oversee them. i mentioned that in my opening comments to susan's questions about some of the news people -- newspaper articles about some of theusiness community are

complaining. we have done more for tax credits and cuts for small businesses, bailing out industries. when the business community says, we are sitting on $1.80 trillion and not willing to invest it and instead ask task bears -- taxpayers to get the economy going again, those on the verge of losing their jobs, and without the help of the private sector that has 1 $20 towing -- $1.80 trillion sitting on the sideline -- but oversight when a wall. we need to bring it back, to make sure good businesses don't get tarnished by the bad apples. go to it, keep talking, and keep your dog barking because we need to have your voice up there because the best thing we can do is to have transparency in government. when we have transparency we will probably get it in the private sector and then you will know what is going on and

therefore people will not cheat hard-working americans. host: what you think about a concept that all of us are enslaved by the level of that? guest: in many respects, if we did not get control of the budgets, if we can't get private sector businesses to be able to balance their budgets and stay in the black, she is correct, we will be enslaved because china will continue to be our creditor and one of the days, china will say i will demand a little bit more than interest. she is absolutely right. right now we are still the country to go to. when greece started to have problems, where did all the investment dollars go that were going into the euro? to the u.s. while our crisis is tough, people still look at america as the place that will bring the world out of this recession. we can still lead the world, but it will take us being smart, adding that oversight so we can let the private sector, the good guys that are out there, do it

the right way and really be sent on the bad guys giving everyone a bad name. host: we are talking about congressman xavier becerra. california. however, republican line. caller: good morning, congressman. good to talk to a californian. guest: good morning. caller: how are you? guest: i am well. you are up early. caller: i am retired and i have become a political junkie. i have been watching c-span when brian lamb was doing -- and i must say a host you have is brilliant. guest: you stole my thunder, howard. caller: she made the comment the other day that the time in the chair, but time you spend as a host makes a good host and i agree with that and she has paid her dues. it's cutbanks a lot -- i appreciate it.

-- host: thanks allot, i appreciate it. [laughter] caller: first of all, the state of california, $19 billion in the red and nothing in sight to create long term stability in our state. let me say, i think we would both agree that it is the amount of dollars of that are spent on programs in a retirement, whether it is the teachers' unions or calpers, or any of that, which is a broad brush to cover, just about any state employee. that is number one. that is what we need to go after. maybe privatize it -- that is a of a thing. -- that is a hell of a thing. but the thing is, you, sir, are for big government and i am for

small government. those are the crossroads. are you there? let me just give you -- i like to deal in facts. i think you understand the facts. correct? we had a governor of california named ronald reagan who became president of the united states. he came out of a situation when one of our peanut farmer -- peanut farmer from georgia. let me give you some figures. host: before you do it, we have a lot of callers. real quick. caller: five figures. 1982, fourth quarter gdp 0.03, 1983, first quarter, 5.1 increase, quarter two, 9.3, quarter three, 8.1, porter 4, 8.5, and the 2010 projection, first quarter is 2.7. i love hope, i love change, and i'd love smaller government.

have a nice day, sir. guest: you are forgetting something. ronald reagan was able to have some good years because of governor brown before him who preceded him made investments in our transportation, made investments in our university system and made investments in the infrastructure that make california the place to be. that is why i was able to go to a public school during edmund brown's tenure as governor where we had a pretty good environment, where my dad, a laborer with a sixth grade education, could see his four kids have a chance to go to college. that is what makes it possible for a state to become great, when you invest in your people. but i would disagree with you. i will not blame a state employee who worked very hard for less money than you can make in the private sector, and therefore tries to make up for it and other ways by having decent health benefits and

retirement benefits because you did not rich by trying to serve the people, i don't blame the public employees. i do blame those who may try to gain the system, whether an employee pension system or any other system, or the welfare system i talked about earlier or the private sector like bernie madoff or the banks. but i disagree with you completely. for you to try to put the burden of these billion dollar deficits on the backs of workers, i disagree with you completely. that is not big government. that is smart government. what you are talking about is privatizing a lot of what we did. i am not going to outsource a job to another country when we can make in america and also not outsource a job and end up paying a higher price. as i just mentioned, it cost more when you do it in the private sector when you outsource. look at the prisons, gov. schwarzenegger tried to outsource and it cost us a ton of money away more than it costs

through the state government. we have to get smart, they're i will agree completely. but clearly we diverge when it comes to who's to blame. arnold schwarzenegger got the previous government kicked out, gray davis, because he claimed he was irresponsible. today, arnold schwarzenegger has the worst budget situation than gray davis ever had. it is politics. i disagree in part. host: we have not yet talked about immigration policy. sorry, getting extra audio. on the front page of "the washington times." let me read this to the audience who has not had a chance to see this.

we have a tweet from someone named brian. -- ryan. guest: you cannot call yourself a sanctuary city and not enforce the law. what you can say is you will not have your resources used to help the federal government pursue people who are not violating any particular law other than your immigration status. so, when the immigration service's come out to do inspections, they can still do them. the city may not use law enforcement to pull them off community policing and other things to be supportive of that, because they are trying to keep crime from increasing. a city is not allowed to violate the law. but a city can say we will concentrate our resources to do the things we have to do to protect our citizens. if you want to give me money to do those things, perhaps i will do it, but if you ask me to do it on local tax paradigm to

enforce federal law, no thanks. i think a lot of cities are tired of being asked to do the work but that a government to be asked to do, and i think that is why we have ever gone along over frustration there is not enough done. the president is changing that. more deportations we have seen. more border patrol agents then we have ever had. more apprehension than we have ever seen. and actually fewer numbers of folks trying to cross the border without documentation. but still, we have to fix the system because we have an infrastructure in place in america that allows 10 million to 12 million people to survive here without documents. we do have to change that. host: what are california businesspeople telling you about the obama administration is stepped up enforcement? guest: those who see how it is now being done, it -- they say it is much smarter. they are going after criminal aliens, those who do other types of crimes.

those rates that were targeting businesses, disrupting the business, where you might find some undocumented but for the most part you are disrupting the entire business. those folks are saying we appreciate that, because sometimes we hired folks that we thought were eligible because they had these fraudulent documents that look real, so we are being disrupted in our operations. i think most will say if we are concentrated on getting rid of folks, especially those who are doing us harm or committing crimes, that is the way to concentrate our activities. host: west haven, connecticut. robert, democratic line. caller: keep smiling. i have been a registered democrats and i was 21. i will be 81 in november. i am disappointed with you people. guest: i will keep smiling, though. caller: you talk about taking care of the american people,

social security trust funds? you want to raise the age to 70? guest: not me. caller: congress does. i am sorry, not you. i always say you -- congress does. guest: thank you for correcting that. the generic sometimes hurts. caller: but listen -- the more money they get in there, the more they are taking. i have a report that our government in the congress has taken over $2 trillion all of the social security trust fund -- out of the social security trust fund, which is a criminal offense. but congress get away with it. here is an example. i will try to be as quick as possible. i was get $1,029 a month last year. i get a letter, i did not pay

enough taxes. i was taking care of my father. i was taking him off as a dependent. he passed away on november 10, he was 106 and eight months, but that does not matter to our congress. now they cut me down to $905 a month, taking the difference of $34 a month and putting it into medicare. i want to know -- and i voted for this guy, i have always voted democrat, but i am beginning to wonder -- when are you going to stop -- not you, sorry -- when are they going to stop? if you could help, it would greatly help. host: thank you, got to go. guest: he posed great questions. half say, i hope we have those genes where we can take care of our father in our eighties.

either they overpaid you and now they say they have to recoup that, or talking about the fact that medicare premiums have gone up a little and your social security did not because there was no cola increase because and the recession there was a drop in the cost of living so there was no cola increase because there was no cost of living increase. what i would suggest -- because we cannot do it over television -- you contact your representative or senator and they can give you the clear answers why your benefits were reduced. social security has never once failed to the benefits that were owed. if you were owed money that you believe has been taken away unjustly, contact your representative. that is our job. on the second point, i just so happened because i figured they may raise a question -- a savings bond. i got this when my middle daughter olivia who is now 15 was born. this is 15 years old. i can pass it any time.

it had a face value of $50. i had to wait a little while for it to reach $50. i can pass it at any time. this is where the social security trust fund is, in securities and treasury bonds. robert, no one stole the money. but what happened is, congress and the government used the money for other purposes. george bush took office saying, what these surpluses, i can give tax cuts to the wealthy and not do any damage to social security. guess what? he ended up using the money to pay for things like his tax cut and for iraq and afghanistan, because we never paid for the wars the directly. -- wars directly. but it does have $2.60 trillion in these treasury bonds, which are good money. this is what china gets. this is what the banks get when they seek to make investments with the federal government. it is solid.

don't let anyone tell you it is not. some people will say social security is part of the federal government, so why should so security pay the federal government -- or why should the federal government pay social security? they are part of the same government. don't worry. the federal government has to, because it bar of the money from one arm of the federal government. he because it borrowed the money from one arm. -- because it borrow the money for one arm. the republicans calling the money for that bp oil spill a shakedown, these republicans were defending bp. let me tell you, the biggest shakedown will occur if anyone lets you believe you don't have to $0.60 trillion sitting because you paid into it -- $2.60 trillion sitting because you paid into it. don't let anyone tell you the social security system is an stressed today. it is in not. it may be in the future. but unlike the federal

government's budget and a lot of private sector businesses and unlike the banks, social security is as sound as you need it for you. host: tennessee, paul, republican line. caller: good morning. did not think you would ever get to me. i will try to make this as quick as i can. mr. becerra, i do not think i will be as nice as some other callers. no disrespect to you. guest: none taken, go ahead. caller: the little people, i call us, we are sick of the federal government. we are sick of them. they just take our money and spend it anyway. to be caught -- quite honest, i think your state has a big helping hand in this immigration thing. we just sit back and take it and take it and nobody says anything. i used to be a registered democrat and i am sick of the democratic party, said of obama. he came in and spent trillions of dollars and every american in america would have plenty of money if they just gave us 10% of the money this man spent.

it is ridiculous that the democratic party has failed to protect us while at the same time taken the money right out of our pocket and spending it like it is nothing, like feeding a baby ice cream. it is ridiculous, we are sick of it. i hate to say it, but i think republicans will take over this november, that is why you are wanting to wait until december to push that little bill for. you just have a few days left, i would enjoy it. guest: stay active, as the animated, be angry, if you wish, but stay animated. and i hope at one point you will realize the democrats are trying to help you out. let me tell you why. when this bank crisis occurred, the recession occurred, 2007- 2008, you, i, and the rest of the americans who had money in ira's for retirement,

we've lost about $3 trillion in assets. you are probably afraid to look at your 401k statement. that is just retirement account. you know how much wealth we lost in those two years? $15 trillion. what does it amount to? the size of the entire national debt built up into hundred and 30 years of government. what i am trying to tell you, the national debt is high, deficits are bad. most of that inherited from the bush administration, which inherited a surplus. but if we don't get this economy going, we will do such a damaging that in two years, america lost the same value as the entire national debt. we've got to be smart. we have to invest. that is what president obama has done. the airplane was in a nosedive when george bush handed the keys to barack obama.

barack obama pulled us out of the nose dive. it was not freed. you have to put the pedal to the metal. if you want to blame us for that, that is what america is about and get the opportunity but it is not his fault he inherited the massive deficit from a guy who assumed office with the largest surplus the country has ever seen when he took over from bill clinton. so, we could argue about this but i want you to stay enemy because of a motley we want you back on the democratic side. host: thank you for being at the table this morning. we have been talking so far about the democrats and positioning themselves for reelection bid in 2010. in our next segment, congressman bob inglis from south carolina who lost his bid for reelection will talk about his views of the republican party. but camping 2010 update, looking at race is in colorado. >> today we are focusing on the senate race and colorado where michael bennett, the democrat who was appointed to fulfill

what term for can salazar is facing a challenge on the left from former colorado house speaker mr. romanov. joining us on the phone is the denver post political editor. michael bennett is facing not only a challenge on the left, but if he survives, he has strong candidates on the right. what are the latest polls showing? guest: the latest rasmussen poll continues to show what we have seen across the spectrum, which there is sort of a head wind for democrats or anyone who has a tag that can be viewed as an incumbent. i think most recently the rasmussen poll shows he is trailing district attorney ken buck and also jane norton.

we had a poll earlier in june and we showed buck with a narrow lead over william bennett and training jane norton in the margin of error. host: mr. bennett and mr. romanov out what adds to further define themselves. let's take a look. >> while others learn to read, he struggled to make sense of the page and while others moved ahead, and stayed back, but in the end, he persevered. you felt unloved -- in love with susan and the west. you were a leader saving jobs and fixing companies. to help kids, you challenge the way things were done now are setting out to fix a broken washington, for colorado. >> i'm michael bennett and i approved this message. >> like a riggs casino. washington take special-interest money, wall street camels with

the economy and washington bales wall street out and we pay with our jobs, homes, and pensions. special interests in washington have more power than the people. that is not just wrong, it is corrupt. the difference is, i don't take a dime of their money. i stand with you. iam andrew roman off and approve this message. host: what is the impact of these ads? guest: it is hard to say at this point. the advantages see is that bennett, who has the front running position, is able to introduce him to voters, to give him a cent -- then a sense of who he is and where he came from. he was appointed to the senate seat that was held by interior secretary salazar in january of 2009. so, he is able to go and

introduce himself to voters. where is andrew romanoff has to pick a fight, and a fight he picked is one about money. he has been waging the war but as the bennet campaign points out, romanoff took money from pacs and has operated one of his own. it is not really moved the needle. host: the endorsement for these two candidates have also been an issue. president obama has endorsed bennet and former president clinton endorsed romanoff. what is the impact? guest: the obama administration has been behind senator bennet early on, and some or much of his fund-raising success can be attributed to that. i think everyone here in colorado was surprised by bill clinton's endorsement of andrew

romanoff, and i think it was a testament to the work he had done in the democratic party, to his support of hillary clinton's presidential campaign. but it does far has only been an e-mail letter of support. at the time the people around bill clinton said that is all it would be, it would not translate into appearances or fund- raising. while it was a good two-story -- two-day story for the campaign, it has not turned out much more. host: mr. bennet said he was able to raise a lot more money than not only mr. romanoff but also the republican challenger and he is better situated to fight off a gop candidate. guest: if it was a contest simply about money, he would be winning far and away. his most recent campaign finance reports, i think is what -- he was reporting something in the

order of $7.5 million raised to date, $1.25 million raised this quarter. the top republican fund raiser, former lt. gov. jane norton, took under $1 million and raised $2 million over all in her campaign. romanoff by comparison -- and he has not released second quarter results -- but as of march 15, and he had collected, i think just over $1 million and have about half a million dollars in the bank. host: jane lorton, the republican candidate, is out with a new ad as well -- jane norton. defending herself against an attack ad from an interest group. >> the country is at the brink. colorado families and workers need relief. yet jane norton support of the largest tax hike and caliber of history. and her record on government spending? the state bureaucracy she

managed to grow by $43 million in just three years. a record taxes and reckless spending has cost colorado jobs. call jane norton and tell her no tax hikes and big government spending. damascene those tv ads attacking me? they are paid for by a shady interest rates going the bidding of ken buck. think he would be man enough to do it himself. here is the truth. the state budget i'd cut budget, cut programs and reduce debt. ken buck, his spending skyrocketed by 40%. we need a senator who has actually cut spending and has the backbone to stand her ground. i am jane norton, and i approve this message. host: whether the main differences between these two candidates? guest: ken buck is a district attorney and former u.s. attorney and was able to

fashion themselves somewhat as a political outsider. jane norton is a former lieutenant governor and former director of department of public health and environment. she was the state share for the mccain for present campaign, -- for president campaign, and has had to fend off the view that she is too close to a more moderate republican. host: thank you very much for your time this morning. i want to let the viewers know that the primary for both of these candidates, the democrats and republicans, is august 10. for more information about campaign 2010, go to our website, c-span.org. host: let me introduce you to the next desk, represent about -- bob inglis, he had been a candidate but got an unhappy message from the voters in the primary effort and you are now speaking out. i have seen your last night on

"hardball" and an interview at the associated press. what is the message you want to send to the party? guest: what i want to be is the first ones to become the adults. we really need adults in washington to address the structural problems we are facing. we have medicare, medicaid, and social security that are taking us over the greased cliff, and if we did not address those, that is where we are headed. what i hope as our party is the first one that is to the adult level that says, ok, we are really ready to talk about real solutions. the challenge is, if we go off on misinformation, talking about things like that panels and things like that, what we are really doing is deceiving people, we are not getting to the real solutions. the good news is there are real people here who are working on real solutions. if you think of paul ryan, for example, road map for america's future, or jack ingston, who has

exactly the right kind of spirit, those folks and others like that can lead us to credible solutions. we've got to get there, but we have to get beyond the ear -- fear and the misinformation and it's incredible solutions. because that is what conservatives are about. host: what do you think about people -- there was an article this week -- that the worst appellation is i, incumbent. it is clean sweep, get them all out. guest: it is definitely the case. there is a sense that maybe if we pick the top four or 25 -- 435 people and the phone book, it made for. maybe it would work. but i would think you would lose some of the people i just mentioned that would really give some thought as to what would be the plan, how would you deal with the situation.

the key here is to see it as a an american challenge, and not an american -- democrat or republican challenge. i know this town is geared that way, but this is an american challenge. i got into some trouble by saying democrats are not my enemies, they are my countrymen. i have enemies -- al qaeda and people like that. they are not enemies, they are countrymen. often wrong, understand, but we've got to pull together as a nation and figure out how to solve these things. nixon was the only one who could go to china. maybe bill clinton was the only one who could sign a welfare reform. in order to deal with social security, medicare, and medicaid, we have to work together. what i hope happens is we turn away from misinformation, we turn away from scapegoating and a turn toward solutions and we pull together, realizing we are all in this boat together. host: a number of analysts are suggesting this year that what you are seeing, the divided

country, is evidence of an historic debate about the role of government in american life. how do you work together if your views about government involvement are very, very different? guest: they are very different. but let's start clearing up some misinformation. i followed a senior recently in a car that had a sticker of socialism on the back of their car. i got closer -- close enough to read -- it is that system that works fine until you run out of other people's money. a good understanding of how it is we conservatives don't want to spend other people's money, but the people driving our seniors and therefore they are receiving social security and they are on medicare and perhaps they were fairly young seniors, they might have an older relative on medicaid bed who might have run out of the own money and covered by and medicaid bed on a nursing home. that is pretty much the society

keeping up those folks. what we really need is an honest conversation. if that is the case, if we really want to have individual reliance, which is what i believe we should be doing, let us figure out a way to do that. if that means changing medicare, social security, and medicaid. host: give us your view what you see specifically happening in the republican party this year as we head into the 2010 election. guest: what i hope what will happen is people, like the voices i mentioned, like paul ryan or jeff lake or jack kingston, they rise to the top and they are talking about solutions and they've got plans. if we take control in november, then paul ryan would be budget committee chairman. that is an exciting thing because roadmap for america's future could be a very helpful path. the only problem is there are only 12 of us on that bill. so, because it broaches these very difficult subjects we were

talking about. so if you are going to do that, get ready for the backlash because some people that consider themselves conservatives don't want to hear that it is medicare, medicaid, and social security. then there are folks on the left that don't want to hear anything about changing the entire oil -- entitlement system. this is an equal opportunity offender. the truth is an equal opportunity offender. we are going to let the talk beetroot to the american people and say really hard decisions -- talk the truth to the american people and say really hard decisions lie ahead. let's be the adults on the scene and talk through those. but it is not going to be pain- free. it will involve real changes to those major programs. host: just a couple of specifics before we get to calls. we will have a phone number on the screen. you can send a message by twitter, e-mail, and your phone calls. in our last segment with congressman becerra, he told a

social security system is basically healthy and he does not support any age increases, as some have suggested. you share that view? guest: no. how could be healthy if this year, what was expected that will happen in 2018 is happening this year, that outflow exceeds inflow into social security. this was supposed to happen in 2017 or 2018, but it happened this year. that is not a health system. what we had in social security is a ponzi scheme. where you set up a contest where the leader entrants pay out the earlier ones. that is what social security is. but the gig is about up and we will find that out. so when social security starts calling on the iou's that congress sent over there, that is when the crisis starts to happen in social security, and actually it is what is

exacerbating the budget deficit. we have $1.40 trillion budget deficit this year, $13 trillion debt. it is not healthy. we've got to take action on social security. but there are ways to get there. there are things we can do. it means certainly honoring our commitments to current seniors, but to people who are younger, everything's got to change. host: what about those close to retirement. can you tell us what you know of the situation, that they can expect changes in eligibility age or means testing? guest: for those who are real close to retirement, i think not. i think there will be many changes. you can't change a deal on people when they are just getting ready to retire. you cannot move the age of one folks just getting ready to retire. in the road map for america's future, paul ryan said 55 -- for 55 and up, no changes, those younger than 55, there changes. that gives people time to plan

and adjust their retirement system. as to means testing, though, that is something i think we need to consider for people that are even currently on social security. realize, a major change in the philosophy of the program, but tough times mean tough action. host: tax cuts. you will probably be faced with a vote before you leave congress on whether and to extend the bush tax cut because they are set to expire. what we your vote week -- boat b? guest: we have economic expansion opportunities there. conservatives believe if you tax people less, than the economy will grow. having been on the budget committee for six years, 1993 through 1998 -- what we saw in the first six years is that, yes, it was fiscal restraint, you have to do what we were

talking about -- changing programs, reducing expenditures, having fiscal restraint. but the key to balancing the budget is actually economic growth. it was the internet and a pc that caused us to balance the budget in the late 1990's, the expansion created by those. we need a similar expansion. the one that i think we can get here has to do with energy. that is a favorite topic. but i think the next internet and the pc, the next plateau we can climb up on in the economy and create enormous wealth and jobs. host: we booked you for a call- in program. let's begin with chicago. ralph on the independent line. caller: thank you. as congress has decided to play doctor, i am calling about a 40 million americans who on a survey who said they are desperate for pain relief. the tea party refers to

marijuana and tobacco, and we have not differentiated between -- the actual tobacco smoke, what causes the problem. the american revolution was also known as of the tobacco war. america was founded by columbus finding freedom from the turks cutting off the mark apollo route to get spices. -- marco polo. medical marijuana is a million times a prevent chemo but a million people die every year on -- from unnecessary survey -- surgery. guest: ralph, i understand, there are other ways to treat pain. it seems medical marijuana is probably not the best way to treat the pain. but at understand there are people like you and other medical professor knowles --

medical professionals who disagree. by uncomfortable with the position that we do not want to legalize marijuana use. host: individual states that are allowing medical marijuana use? would you want the justice department to crack down? guest: i think we do need to allow individual experimentation among the states, that is the system in our constitution, and from a guy from south carolina we talked a lot about states' rights. but, yes, i think it would make sense for states to have latitude. host: albany, new york. patrick, a republican line. caller: this is my first time calling the show. i wanted to mention a couple of things. i have been watching -- i am actually 40 years old, i live in albany, new york. we have a high unemployment rate. i have been taking care of an overly father. with mike unemployment being cut

now, it has been so tough -- with my unemployment being cut now. i do not know why the senate floor it is discussing nomination of elena kagan the other day and all of these issues than i really pressing. the people cut from unemployment and not care about that. we want these benefits, just like they say. this is insurance. we pay into it. it is not welfare. it is not a handout. i look at my local people here -- local paper here every day. the jobs section is about a half a day -- half a page. when you go to an interview there are 50 or 60 people trying to get one job. i don't understand why the senate is discussing these other issues when they are not really pressing. host: extension of unemployment benefits. you come what we are real -- guest: what we are debating is how to pay for it. that has been the real hold up

an extension of unemployment benefits. i think we do need to pay for it and figure out what else we would cut to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits. but i do believe we should extend the unemployment benefits, because, you are right, people like yourself are in a very difficult spot. i certainly feel for that. by the way, the reason to move forward with the supreme court nominee is that the term of the court will start in october, the idea is to have a replacement there for the retiring justice. host: talking to congressman bob inglis from south carolina. next telephone call, oregon. good morning to mike. guest: good morning. caller: am i on the air? good morning, susan. i have to say, you are one of my favorite people. host: thanks so much. how about your question for mr. inglis? caller: i ask the say, look, sir. i beg to differ first about your statement about canada's.

-- cannabis. cannabis is right up there with cocaine and heroin? give me a break. susan, don't cut me off. i promise not to get bolder. really -- vulgar. but art two-party system is really like a party of manure looking in a mirror at itself. it is disgusting. you can't tell the difference between a republican and a democrat because all are about corporate, all are about the corporate fascist theocracy we created an the country, surrounded by the military industrial congress. host: an angry voter. guest: i have not thought about it but mike has a new phrase, a pile of manure and looking at --

in the mirror at itself. for a guy who has four horses on a farm, i can identify with that. obviously we do have a problem with the public -- with the political system here. it is something, when you look at what the founding font -- founding fathers thought about political parties, they might have also said it is a pile of manure and looking at itself. they really did not want this level of partisanship. what drives that is that politicians have to stir up their bases. so, if you are a liberal, you got to stir up moveon.org, say some incendiary things to get them excited, make them promises, then you get active and enthusiasm. if you are conservative, you have to say something to get some real conservatives very excited. and when you do that, what is happening is that the people who

are frankly more adult-like, who would be ready to make hard decisions and who want to follow good leadership, say, for get both of you, i am not interested in participating in either party. .

soon after the midterm elections the presence of canada's are going to start getting much more visible. do you see names on your side of the aisle who are looking at presidential bids that you want to be part of? calleguest: 1 that i wish it wod win is the kind of guy, exactly

the kind of guy that i would like to see a national leadership. george bush nominated him for u.s. trade representative, but if that was so disappointed because i thought he would become speaker of the house. he is another example with a person of real plans in the right tone and texture. not someone that identified as democrats as evil and enemies, but rather someone working for real solutions an attempt very adult-like way. -- in a very adult-like way. >> are you criticizing your current house leaders for being overly partisan? guest: icing to some extent we're getting what we deserve. -- i think, to some extent, we are getting what we deserve. the country needs people serving

in washington to say let's listen and help people to understand it does not help to put out misinformation about death panels for example. there were no deaths panels and that health care bill. you lose credibility when you say the things like that. you scared them. how will you get them to follow your lead when we say we need to make changes? it is for our common good as a nation, we are going to make changes. that is the kind of leadership rising we need. -- i think we need. host: cherry bottom, tennessee. and on the republican line. caller: we do not believe politicians because you tell us that social security is fine.

how can we believe anybody? this unemployment money has been loaded up was earmarks and pork and we need a clean bill to get that out of the senate. since you are not going to be back, why don't you tell us all the people that have put the earmarks and they're keeping it from being passed. look at the community reinvestment acts that force banks to make bad loans that have brought the economy to its knees. look at welfare. young men picked up for murder bragging that he had five baby mama's into more on the way. we need to have initiative and encourage people to get out and work. we need to start drug testing the people on welfare.

guest:i think you have to weigh what people are saying, and figure out which one you believe. people shave the truth to fit their position. two things i picked up on is we need to be straight out. social security -- i do not know how anybody can say it is in good shape. the actuaries have been saying it is a very big problem. that is not president obama salt. he is not the one that created that. it has been decades coming. for my party to blame it all on president obama on something like that would be clearly inaccurate. we need to come together as americans and say we set up a program that is not sustainable, let's change it. the other thing is i am supposed

to echo back to you and cra was the cause of the budget to a meltdown in 2008, and i said that to you, i would be clearly wrong. it had been around for decades. how could it be that cause a problem suddenly in october 2008? the problem was over barrowing expect. along with interest rates being kept too low for too long by the federal reserve. those kinds of things are what created the financial meltdown in october 2008. it was not cra, but i know as a republican that is what i am supposed to say. therefore we can establish it as a scapegoat. democrats like it, and we can of course the racial shue on that and that makes even more powerful. if we do that, if we go further

away from the solution, it is to deal with the fundamental things, not to pick up on scapegoats. host: are you for youreer to sat because you are not seeking reelection? guest: my view is that if you cannot answer the question and say it's not cra -- a lot of conservative republicans would say absolutely, that was the problem. that is not solving the challenge, and that is not leading. i made the mistake of saying that before the election. host: ed on the independent line. caller: good morning. let me say something about the bush tax cuts that will expire

next year. they are one of the problems why we have the 5 trillion dollar deficit. the rich invest their money in corporations. corporations started building factories over in china where the wages were cheap. then they sold the stuff in the united states and they made a lot of money off it. return a lot of money to shareholders. the majority of shareholders in corporations are the rich people. the rich got the money in the corporations went to china. they were tripping over each other to build factories in china. we lost 5 billion middle-class jobs. -- 5 million middle-class jobs. now republicans will propose the same thing next year. we have to reinstate the taxes because they create jobs. they have been created all the jobs over there in china. it is the free trade agreements. the democrats are holding up the free-trade agreements.

the republicans cannot wait to get in next year to push the free-trade agreement, which will cost more of our middle class jobs. you republicans have the same ideas that got us into this mess. explain to the people what clinton raised taxes on the rich, republican said the economy will crash. we have eight years of prosperity. we're going to try the same old thing next year. tax cuts across the board. tons of money going to the rich. more factories built in china. the rest of us will be suffering out here. guest: i think the reason for the great growth during the clinton years is the internet. that is what created the expansion of the economy, along with fiscal constraints when republicans took over the house in 1994. i am sure bill clinton would

change -- claim credit for his 1993 tax credit. the big thing was the expansion of the economy because of the internet and p.c.e.. it had very little to do with congress or the president but a lot to do with the inventiveness of the american people. we have to figure out a way to do that again. the difference that i have with u.s. corporations are not that, they are good. there are collections of people that create things, they make products. they provide services. that is what makes the economy grow. i am for those things. you and i have an agreement that the industrialization of america is what we're coping with.

our solutions would differ. what i would say is to set the right tax policy, the right regulatory environment, get litigation down and enact reasonable trade policies and do those things, and we will see industry building here and not in china and india. host: there is a sweetweet sayig how about some facts on this -- was tarp necessary to avoid a meltdown or just a giveaway to wall street? guest: i think it was necessary. we have people in iraq and afghanistan literally dying on hills. at the least we can ask members of congress to die on the political health for votes like

tarp because if you are facing a 50/50 chance of depression, do something. the first three under $50 billion that went to the banks is being paid back right now, and it looks like it will be paid back in full within 8% return to the taxpayers. the taxpayers will make about an 8% return on the first $350 billion. save the banking system and made a profit on it. that is a pretty good thing. the second 350 that got devoted to auto bailouts, i am not sure how much of that we will get back. host: louisiana on the republican line. caller: i am a democrat. i agree with about 10% of what you said, but i respect you. i am approximately 40 miles

outside of new orleans. can we compromise and say that how we kicgive ourselves out of this is a balance between tax increases and spending cuts? i did not see the tea party being all revved up and saying what the problem is medicare and medicaid, social security, and defense. that is where the bulk of the money goes, not to welfare. i am a working man. i have never received any welfare or unemployment. that is where the bulk of the spending going -- is going. if i am wrong, correct me. i saw a senator on the news of a couple of days ago talking about this versa stuff.

that is where republicans lose a lot of credibility. where they persist upon saying it is a legitimate. guest: been due for the generous spirit. that is what we need is people saying i disagree with you, but i will not call you evil. that would go a long way to solving some of the problems in washington. as to the matter, let me be clear. the president is obviously a citizen of the united states. you can see some way of how you would have a conspiracy to change the official record in hawaii, but it would be difficult to go back into the newspapers announcing barack obama was born in honolulu or

wherever. it would be hard to change that. they announced the birth in the papers back dead. really we do lose credibility when we spend time talking about such things. why do we do that? we do that because we want to vilify the other side. we want to make them into the bad guys. the big bad thing is what we have all created to gather, into into the first part of your question it is like this. medicare, medicaid, is also security, and interest of the debt are 60% of the federal budget right now. if we do nothing but 2050, they will be en 90 percent of the budget. i am leaving out the offense. that means it has to squeeze in 10% of the budget by 2015 if we do nothing.

while we have here is an american challenge. it is republicans. it is not democrats. it is not republicans. we have to figure out a way to work together. host: san antonio. stanley on the republican line. caller: i have a couple of statements i would like to make. my unemployment runs out next week. cahthere is millions of people figuring out where to get the money. take our money from the political advertisements, the millions they spend thaon peopln prison and give them a pardon.

there are plenty of money that we can get out of the prison system and out of what they spend. we know how these people vote. we do not need them to bad mouth each other on tv and spending millions of dollars, six months of commercial time to prop themselves up when they're making $174,000 per year. guest: part of your suggestion is exactly the place we need to be looking, and that is the thing that the government spends on that it doesn't add to spend that much on. that was jails and people that are non-violent offenders. the mandatory minimums that have become popular in the country and the discrepancy between crack and powder cocaine is we do have a lot of people that are in jail costing a great deal of money that we probably do not need there.

that is an example of something that is a legitimate suggestion that we can work on to find a way to save money. as the campaign advertisements, that cannot be converted to the use of the federal government, but the idea of looking at jails is the kind of balancing we need to do to ask what our priorities are, what is the right thing to do and then let's come together and find a way to get to a balanced budget. good suggestion. host: less call from greg on the independent line. -- last call from greg on the independent line. caller: you look like you are seriously, seriously in pain about what has happened to you. i want to thank you for your service to your country and your state in your community. i do not know what you did

before, but i am sure what you do in the future will be gratifying and the billing, and i want to thank you and congratulate for your service. i have a request for you, susan, if you do not mind. can we have a one hour question and open phones -- i believe president obama has no right to legalize tens of millions of mexican folks to come up here. i would like to know why this country is not having a debate on slave preparations for the slave descendants of what happened in this country. the question please, would you ask the question open phones, should we be debating legalization because you hear these phone calls where there is pain going on in the black community.

if the mexican folks are legalize, the black folks lose political power. we need to have this debate. host: any comments? guest: i think we need to solve these things through an incredible constitutional process, and not have what you just mentioned -- glut in the streets. -- blood in the streets. we want to build of institutions. there are voices that want to tear down the institutions. those institutions protect our liberties. we want to make sure to do that. on immigration, i think it is a simple problem we face. immigration is really easy to solve.

tighten up the borders, require a mandatory variation nationwide. limit social benefits to citizens. fowe consol immigration. we can come together and solve that this afternoon. but the thing that keeps us from that is what we started out on the show about, and that is political influence on the way left and way right that means we have to cater and really pander to those sides, and the result is we do not come together and solve in an adult-like fashion. immigration is the easiest issue we face, and we could solve it this afternoon. host: to you expect to be back in public life again? -- do you expects to be back in

public life again? guest: i hope there is an opportunity to contribute in some way, particularly in free enterprise to solve the energy challenge and to see a way to create jobs and to clean up the air at the same time. that is what i have to be doing. host: congressman bob inglis, thank you. the house of representatives will represent rigid will debate -- will debate flood insurance. it is $19 billion in debt. we will learn more on how it functions with our next guest. the first two days of this week the presidential commission that was created to look at the gulf oil spill met at new orleans at the end of the day.

they had open comments. drew landrey decided to do his message in song. let's listen. >> grew up from the southern shores. kick in the mud of of a crawfish whole. barefoot and with a fishing pole. make a living with my own two hands. it is part of being who i am. and went to work in the oilfields. it is the only way to pay our bills. host: on the phone with us right now is trdrew landry. have you think your message was received by the commission? where are you from? caller: i live outside of

lafayette, louisiana. there is a little town called scott. i crawfish when i want to because of this fund. i worked for a gentleman out there. i went down when bp showed up in venice and volunteer to clean up in anyway. it is frustrating to me that they still have not given me a call back. i started to do things on my own and organize people. i am a songwriter. that was a no-brainer for me. host: what i wanted to ask you is what level of faith in the kinds of commissions that you testified before today that they will be able to do something effective of for the people in your region?

guest: i think there is so much red tape and bureaucracy. i was not planning on playing the song. i went on and and i had a backpack on, so when i went outside i had a guitar in the car, so i figured i would bring that back in for my speech. i go down to grand isle and dennis and check on the people that i know down there that are still out of work. i have a friend who has cattle on the mouth of the river. and i am staying with friends in grand isle doing handyman work right now. i think it is important for

people to document the story so thiwhen this is all said and doe there is a record. right now we're trying to get citizens to organize. we're just raising the money to do independent testing right now. and the citizen should not be at risk. there should be transparent to what the air quality is. host: have you ever been involved in policy issues prior to the incident? guest: i am a former member of the louisiana national guard. i have done a few different things. i have traveled the world. i just do not think until you get out of this area you can see how greed -- i do not know, it is a catch-22 all the way around. i do not think that this is good

for anybody. there are lots of people in the oilfields that are hunters and fishermen that are great environmentalists. we all care about the coast. years ago they said the wetlands had 10 years left. once we lose these, we're done. host: last question for you. in addition to our telephone call, have you had any intention for your testimony? had you had people from around the country calling it? guest: yes, but i have to pay my rent first before i said on tv all day. i got a bunch of calls from the major networks, and they are really nice, but i find that most of them want you to talk about one certain subjects, and i want to talk about what needs to happen here. it is not just one fisherman being out of work or one oil

story, it is about the whole state. the fact that bp should be out there cleaning the ocean. i feel it is not rocket science to go get a shovel on the beach. i do not want to see them roll through the $20 billion and give it to a bunch of contractors that will be gone after this is over. i think you let the people that really care about the owner. do the cleanup work until the waters. they know better than anybody how the place was before it and what needs to be done. tsk host: thank you for giving us a few extra moments. good luck to you in your search for your job and your efforts in the coast and the citizens. guest: i appreciate that. host: drew landry from louisiana testified this week before the presidential commission looking at the gulf oil spill. thank you again for your time.

let me introduce you to our final test of the morning. we will be focusing on national flood insurance as the house offis set to debate this today. we're talking to michael livermore. how do we get to a program which was intended to be self-funding is $19 billion in debt? guest: there are two underlying problems. one is the system was never financially sound. a kind of got five year to year, but was nearly on sound footing to deal with catastrophic losses. basically that is what happens. we had a series of very bad losses, especially katrina. those major losses all at the same time basically put the program into a series amount of debt, and has not recovered. reports and independent

experts have decided it will not recover absent a major overhaul of the program. host: how does it work? there is a statistic that shows up 5.5 million americans are covered by the program, but 50% of the people are in texas and florida. guest: that is right. the program is oriented towards a couple of states at some level, although, there are people that are insured by the program across the country, but there is a concentration there. guest: the main idea for the program when it started was to help us develop more wisely and have better development policies in flood plains. there is a whole component that is about building codes in trying to manage development and high-risk areas.

the second idea is to provide affordable flood insurance for people. it turns out that -- there has been some successes, and we are better at managing floodplains then we were when the program started, but there are still major problems. hong the insurance side, obviously, the program has not been financially stable. host: i would like to open up the phone lines for those that would like to ask questions about the flood insurance program. it is $19 billion in debt. congress is debating that today. we would like to hear your thoughts or questions.

and i was interested in a study that you produced suggesting there is really a barbell affect other people that use the program. richard americans and low-income but not middle-class. why is that? guest: what our study looked at is who is benefiting from the program. there is a major subsidy in the flood insurance program, physically the debt that taxpayers will ultimately have to pick up. -- basically the debt that taxpayers will ultimately have to pick up. it turns out that an average years it is the wealthier counties that are more likely to benefit from the program, but it is during the big catastrophic years when there is major losses poor people and lower- income people tend to benefit more from the program. and it really is the middle class that are less likely to benefit from the program. there are different theories about why they may be.

obviously for catastrophic class, lower-income people tend to be more exposed to really bad weather events. they live in lower-lying areas. they have less capacity in terms of the ability to relocate and so on, so they tend to be more exposed to the really negative events. on the other hand, the program also covers things like second homes and vacation homes, so on the other side of the spectrum there are people that have a wealthy people who have seconds or vacation homes that are being covered by the program, and those types of homes and intend to also be largely in exposed areas because they like living near water. host: the national flood insurance program was set to

expire absence of congressional action, even though the house is working on it today. it is unclear whether they will finish the work in times for those who need it during the hurricane season. the president recently approved an extension. guest: there is an extension. one thing that is important to keep in mind is that when the program collapses, that does not mean people will lose their insurance, it means is close down in other areas. it is a problem for people. and we want the program to have continuity to it. it is not like people immediately lose their insurance. that is not what happens. congress is right now -- the house is at least looking at a bill to do a five-year extended to the program. host: how does a deal with the money issue? guest: they do a little work around the edges, but this is not a comprehensive reform that is needed to put the program on

sound financial footing. they do a couple of things. they are phasing out subsidies for second homes and vacation homes, so that will help a little bit improve and the solvency. it also makes it easier for the program to increase rates for people. that will help with the solvency. on the other hand, there are steps in the bill that are not great ideas, including reducing the requirements that people purchase insurance when there has been updated maps, and making it easier for people to stay outside the program or enjoy lower rates during transitional periods. host: for those of you that are in flood-prone areas you know there is lots of debate and discussion about the contour of

the maps that suggests where you are and where you are not in your eligibility for the program. let's go to phone calls on the national flood insurance program. columbus, mississippi. caller: good morning. before they built over here, it had never flooded. ipad like $1,500 per year for flood insurance. what is going to happen people like us living in this area? host: is there any concern that they will stop having national flood insurance? guest: no, when the program lapses and is not the case that the insurance is cancelled. for people that already have flood insurance under the program, they are not in danger

of losing their flood insurance right now. during the time of the program fails to be reauthorize or there have been lapses in the program, the issue is that folks can not get new flood insurance. that is a problem because there is requirement and banks like when people have flood insurance, and also, we want people do have flood insurance because it protects them if there are floods. that is why we have the insurance program is to ensure it that people who see losses from floods have some recourse in somand some financial responsibility. if you already have flood insurance under the program, this kind of back and forth in congress is not really going to

cause you immediate problems. host: john republican line from south carolina. caller: the hurricanes are covered under this, correct? guest: yes. when damages not covered. -- wind damages are not covered. caller: cna't yan't you transfee cost of the flood insurance that are extremely wealthy to the person like the first caller? host: means of testing of the program and other words. guest: that is one of the issue that makes people uncomfortable is that it is not means tested. this is something we've looked

at in our study was to see who was really benefiting. it turns out that there are folks on the of the side of the income spectrum that are benefiting. this bill does do a little bit to help on that front in the sense that subsidies for second homes and vacation homes that are in a high-risk areas are being phased out. that is not the same thing as a means testing where you would say this is a program to help those on the lower-side of the income spectrum. folks on the higher saiide, we will say you can buy your own insurance. that has not been the approach that has been taken so far. congress is not currently looking at that. the closest they are coming to that kind of approach is to at

least cut out some of the subsidies that are more likely to go to wealthier people. host: understanding of the federal flood insurance program with michael livermore. caller: three years ago i purchased a house, and at that time flood insurance was required in order to get the mortgage. my house is 60 years old. i lived approximately 45 miles away from the coast. i am paying about $1,500 per year for flood insurance on a $130,000 property. according to the commercial, average payment would be $300. i also worked on at the coast. petrina came in and flooded the entire area. -- katrina came in and flooded the entire area. they are now paying six to $400

per year. my house is 60 years old. it has never had a claim of any kind. i do have my classification as ax. i just had a flood of classification done. i submitted this in hopes of reducing their premium to a more affordable level. and i have no problem with having a flood insurance, even though 60 years with five major flood incidents in my area, my home has never been touched. host: our connection is really bad. would you like to comment? ♪ i would like to know -- caller: i would like to know how you are paying the premiums? guest: i think your question was, you have lived in your home or the home has been around for a fairly long amount of time, 60 years, and has not been a flood.

but you are still paying a relatively, what you feel to be a relatively high rate. there are couple of different things happening. how does the flood insurance program actually figure out what your rate should be? the way they do that is they have these very sophisticated nappes, some of which are out of date and needs to be updating. -- the way they do that is they have very sophisticated maps, some of which are out of date and needs to be updated. the risk with the value of your home is what determines the amount of your premium. and now, one of the tricky things about flood insurance is that we're talking about fairly low probability events. a lot of flood insurance is issued for homesteader in the 100-year flood plain. meaning there is a 1% probability in any given year that your home would be flooded.

we would actually expect statistically, given the number of the people in the program, that many people that have of 100-year flood risk would still not see a flood over the course of 60 years. in fact, there is going to be some portion of people who will bought see a flood even in the course of 200 years. hiso we do have -- and is a tricky thing for any particular property. the probability of flooding is sufficiently low that even if you have your property for a long time or has been around for a long time without a flood, that is not necessarily an indication that you are freed from arrest or that your risk is even terribly low. host: miami, a good morning. republican line. caller: after hurricane andrew,

insurance when the big time. they did not want to pay. -- insurance went up big time. we get hit by one hurricane, and these people say they do not have the money. can they put this money in an escrow? i am wondering about the rich nile. do they get flood insurance any easier than we do? we try to buy a piece of property in lafayette, fla., and we cannot get along because we cannot get flood insurance. guest: well, one thing for people to own a lot of very valuable homes on the order of like 10 million like to mention is the national flood insurance program does not cover them for the full value.

there is a cap on the amount of insurance as home can have a. someone with a 10 million-dollar home is technically at exposure -- their value is well beyond the cap. if they want to ensure their home, they have to go into private markets. there really is not robust private market in the united states for flood insurance. there is a variety of different reasons for that. the national flood insurance program is probably one of them, because there is a government program that is offering subsidized rates. when you are competing with a government program that is actually losing money and offer subsidized rates, it is not an easy position to be and when you are a private insurer. for people that own the expensive homes, there is more of our private market. there are some insurance companies that will alter plans

on those types of homes, but those are private companies, and the people that buy those insurance plans pay an actuarially premium. it actually reflects the risk of the blood for their homes. that is a private market operating. for people in the middle class who did not own homes anywhere near that cause, it is much harder to find private insurance. you are really in the national program. host: joe tweets i went to a meeting and they were arguing over what side of the street the flood plain was. this is a flood map for austin,

texas. let's go to the next phone call. caller: i live along the pennsylvania river, and i have gotten flooded out. host: are you required to have national flood insurance? caller: yes, i am. it is usually only covered four things you cannot move. if you want to give the interior of your home, it is very expensive. it started out as a low-price program, and now it is quite expensive. host: have the premiums risen in the past few years? guest: they have. certainly over the life of the program what has happened is when the program initially started many of the properties were grandfathered in. they were around before the program started.

those properties were given to seriously subsidize rates, meaning the government was basically giving them a big break on flood insurance. they were really covering 20% of their actual cost. over the life of the program, the number of properties that are subsidized in that way has seriously declined. we are at a relatively small fraction of the program. what has happened is during that time, rates for the average property, of course, it will go up because they are not getting that subsidy for the government. now, depending on where you are, the level of a flood risk that you have and the value of your property in the amount of insurance you are purchasing, it can be more expensive. one of the things of the program does to keep rates down is works with local communities on building codes and other

requirements like that so that people are not building homes and other properties in such a way as to have more risk. the idea is that through building codes we can reduce the risk, have requirements of elevating homes and so on so that they are not in as much risk, and that will reduce premiums over time. but, of course, for many folks they are still feeling the pinch of these insurance premiums because they are exposed to some flood risk. host: next is manhattan. this is our neearnest on the independent line. caller: i own property in daytona beach. i understand about the flood insurance and the wind insurance. my statement is to the people is this ended up being a

program that you could call it the bailout. today they would call it the bailout. insurance companies have loopholes everywhere where they did have to cut people who have had insurance for years. we had to go out and get some wind insurance, damage insurance. it is just something -- we have to put the right people there because we have to get these things hashed out. you have to make these companies stand up. the insurance companies were not held accountable. thank you. guest: 4 i thii think you are tg about an underlying issue is the government has moved in or private insurers have been

unwilling to go in the flood insurance area in a standard homeowner policy, slugs will be excluded. that is not something of private insurance company will cover. the question is if we want more private insurance in the area, what is the best way to do that? some folks have argued that if we want private companies to provide flood insurance, what we need to do is actually produce the amount of flood insurance that is being provided by the federal government, because that is competing with private companies. on the other side of the argument, private insurance companies will never cover flood risk and a serious way for the population for everybody. they might cover certain very high-value properties, but they will not cover it for middle- class americans. that argument is we are never going to get private insurance anin are robust way so we need

some type of government program. if that is right, we need the government program to be financially sound. just because we're going to have a government program provide flood insurance, does not mean it needs to run a $20 billion debt. the key going forward and the reforms that need to be undertaken going forward are really about taking the national program and putting it on sound financial footing, cutting out subsidies, updating the mpas andapsaps. host: rocky mountain, missouri. pamela. caller: good morning. i really enjoyed the last statement. it identified, for me, exactly -- of we have had tremendous flooding in the past few years. we are very hilly.

it is really scarce on private companies coming in. really, why would they? it is catastrophic loss. there is no profitability. my questions to you was did this program ever make money prior to petrina or the other sex and secondly, where the bis, and sea rewdrawing of the map? guest: the first question is has the program ever made money? the major losses associated with katrina -- some years they would make money, and in other years they would have to borrow

money from treasury, but nothing on the magnitude like it is now apparent i. they were more or less fiscally sound. if they borrowed money, they would pay it back and so on. you would never think of the program as having made money. really having enough that it was a moneymaker for the american people basically. it has always been something that teetered along the edge. never build up enough of a surplus to deal with catastrophic risks, so when the catastrophic losses came, the program was unprepared. in terms of map redrawing fema is always in the process of this. these are extraordinarily contentious process cheese. it can be very political.

members of congress can get involved. communities are very active and engaged because it matters a great deal with the line is. if it is on your side of the street or the other side of the street because al will affect your insurance rate. one of the things is if you are in a flood plain and if you have a certain slot rest, you have the risk regardless of what the map says. the map represents the underlying risk, but the map does not change the underlying risk. the flood plain is what it is. the map is just an attempt to characterize that. one of the issues is that 14 for fema and the flood insurance program is the one to draw the maps as accurate as possible because that is the only way we can appropriately prioritize insurance.

when we give cheaper insurance rates basically because of the way the map is drawn, that does not change the underlying risk. all that means is they are getting lower rates than they should, and the program is subsidizing that. either that will be taxpayers' letters subsidizing it, or someone else in the program. that is always the possibility, that your math overestimates the rest. there will be some of that. but the ideal is as good of a map as we can get. host: we will try to squeeze in as many questions as we can. miami or next. caller: i understand if you have a lot of water damage from rain coming into your house, that the contents are not considered a flood, and flood insurance will not pay for it.

and what is the difference between that water and the rising water from the ground? guest: there enough. it is all hd wi20. there is a definition of what a flood is in the flood insurance program. it is some of the land that is inundated. the reason they do that is because the purpose of the program is not to deal with all water damage in the country, but a very specific kind of risk. other kinds of damage there are private markets for. this program is something to deal with the very specific type of risk where we think we're going to work with communities to have better management of floodplains and also make up for space where private markets were not getting involved.

host: friend on the independent line. -- brenda on the independent line. caller: you failed to mention the limit is $250,000 payout for the loss of our party. and-- for the loss of property. the fact is that flood insurance refuses to pay out any damages until the water has hit the first leveiveable floor. it's mortgage companies require you to carry flood insurance