speculation on the health of the long time egyptian leader

and daniel schorr died yesterday in washington had 93 years old. for an interview tomorrow, secretary of the treasury tim geithner is calling for modest growth over the next 18 months and this thursday, president obama will deliver a major speech on education. this is the 100th anniversary of the urban league conference. education is our topic for the first 45 minutes per the chancellor of the d.c. schools fired 241 teachers putting another 700 on notice. if you support this idea, give us a call. the numbers are on your screen. we would like to hear from educators as well. up front page of ""the washington post."

the washington teachers union will contest the dismissals. this represents the second game changing developments for michelle rhee's efforts to amass more control as to how teachers are removed from their jobs and placed the school system at the head of the movement started by the obama administration race to the top grant competition to

more wriggles -- two more rigorously assess teacher performance. we will hear more in education from the president as he delivers his speech on thursday. we will get to phone calls first. tacoma, washington, good morning to you. caller: good morning. i oppose this. i oppose firing two of 41 teachers right now because of the slowness of the economic recovery and the softness of the economy and i think we should put in some sort of national standard, not just to local standards for teachers when reviewing them. host: the school boards often dictate the funding of school districts, should that come from the local level? caller: know, everyone should get an equal amount of money across the board. it should be done from the top down. host: thank you for the call.

this is the headline this morning. susan is joining us from boston. do you support the idea? caller: i am reading about and watching michelle rhee. i think the d.c. schools were a grave situation where probably 80% of the teachers were functionally illiterate. they were destroying children's lives. with the support of the mayor and civic leaders, i don't think they had any other choice in this situation. host: tiffany is joining us from baltimore. you are an administrator. caller: i am a teacher. i think it is wonderful. i cannot wait until they get most of the teachers out of the d.c. public school system. i taught summer school last year there, second grade, and some of the comments,

disparaging remarks, attitudes among the teachers and some of the other personnel in the school -- it is incredibly -- there is no positive way to even describe it. i agree with michelle rhee and everything she is trying to do. the d.c. public school system is bad from the top to the bottom and teachers need to be held accountable. i decided to step away from the classroom and i work with after- school development, and i tried to make a difference because there are so many problems with the school system as it is. i applaud any major changes that are being made by the school system, parents, who ever. it cannot continue to go on. host: we conducted an interview with michelle rhee back in 2007. it is available on our "q &a"

website. she talked about her experiences in baltimore, maryland and she said some of the teachers and parents say that they are dumb and she said they are not. she said we need to be engaged in the process. this is something we have to prove to the world richie also talks about the waste and abuse in the d.c. public schools. dismissal of to get 41 teachers in washington, d.c., your reaction? -- dismissal of to order 41 teachers in washington, d.c., your reaction? caller: i oppose it because of one reason. i think it is too much pressure on the teachers about how the school system is going on when it is really about the politicians. we should be more focused on what programs are cut and i think it should be up to the parents for it if you cannot discipline kids at home, how do you expect the teachers to do anything?

they should be more focused on pta meetings. i was once a teacher years ago to is very rare that you could do anything about the classroom if you cannot discipline. you can be the best teacher in the world but you cannot control the discipline and the teachers are not attending pta, that is a problem. host: our phone lines are open. 165 teachers were given poor ratings of a new evaluation system. seven of the 37 educators were judged minimally effective and given one year to improve their performance. there are 4000 teachers working in the d.c. public school systems. gary duncan has this on our twitter page -- i support michelle rhee's decisions. the d.c. school days and over all -- the d.c. school system

needs an overhaul. east hartford, conn., good morning. caller: good morning. the evaluation aspect of what is going on and they changed the evaluation aspect. i think that is probably what in thatthe stair situation where the teachers are up in arms about this but one has to recognize that teachers are valuable assets but in the same breath, teachers have to be evaluated. the evaluations indicate that they are not doing their job. being that i was a former union member myself and i was evaluated in my job when i worked for the government, you have to look at it and recognize

that if you are not doing your job, you are not doing your job and you cannot hold on to the union aspect of it. it is about doing your job and that is the problem. that is not what is being focused on here. it was the principals who did the evaluations, not the superintendent. they just cannot come out and say this is a bad superintended. she is trying to move the system for and young people do know how to learn. host: there are 141 principals and the d.c. school system. -- in the d.c. school system. michelle rhee, the reform-minded chancellor who took over the d.c. schools for years ago fired 2141 teachers or 5% of the district's total. all but -- fired 141 -- fired

241 teachers or 5% of the district's total. every child in the d.c. public school has a right to a highly effective teacher in every classroom of every school of every neighborhood of a reward in this city. this is our commitment. those dismissed for librarians, counselors, custodians, and other employees. next is jim from orange city, calif., caller: an educator naturally i was also president of the teachers association in my district to widespread i have two statements. if teachers are not doing a good job, they need to be relieved of their duty.

i was involved in that. my teachers association supported that concept. the other idea is that the state standardized tests in california -- the problem is there is no standard for the kids. there is no penalty on the kids that they don't do a good job. you can work your rear end off and teach the kids and i did and i've always taught college prep classes and my kids did well. i feel bad for the teachers who have students that are not motivated and they work hard and of the kids don't do well on standardized tests, nothing happens. host: why mediocrity among some teachers? is that simply human nature? is it evident in many fields? caller: i have worked in public areas and you find that everywhere. i certainly support the idea if a teacher is not doing their

job, they need to be relieved of duty. you cannot have a poor teacher in the classroom. it does not work. i now substitute teacher. i go into classrooms where teachers are not affected and it makes my job as a substitute teacher that much harder. host: what grade level have you been teacher or currently teaching? caller: i taught high school for 34 years. i substitute teacher now. in english, social studies in high-school host: your up early on saturday morning, thanks for calling. getting fired for not doing your job well is crazy talk. what will they pick up next? competent? excellence? next is rachel opposing the idea from jacksonville, n.c. caller: you teach a class in

school did you do it and tell that solly had to do it right. ok? kf host: next, caller: teachers have to understand they are the motivators of students. you cannot hold a student accountable that if you do not build their confidence. they are the first ones to deal with this on an everyday basis. they are around them all the time. they have to tell them they are intelligent, smart, and a productive. you can see that in harlem and other areas that are underprivileged, south bronx where teachers care. job.annot be a nine-five dut you have to have the passion to deal with the students and inspire them. where they come from, they are told that they won't succeed. the ones that are going to

college or on the fast track have the competence. if not from their families alone, from their teachers. i think you have to start somewhere by firing these teachers you are creating a goal and a benchmark and tell teachers they need to step up their game. host: there is a political component to this. there is a mayoral race in washington for it this is likely to spark a new round of debate about michelle rhee's treatment of teachers. mayor adrian fenty is getting challenged in the primaries. if elected, his opponent questions whether he would keep michelle rey. if you just joined us, the d.c. school dress -- district fired

to hundred 41 teachers. what is the implications for school districts around the country? president obama will have a speech on education this thursday. wilmington, delaware, good morning. caller: i think it is a horrendous idea and they have been doing this throughout the country i think what is going on in this country is going on in new castle care to, delaware. they are destroying perfectly good school buildings and rebuilding them, but they don't have any money to reduce the student slashed teacher ratio in the classroom. what i was in the classroom and there was 35 kids in the classroom per teacher. what is going on in this country is horrendous. i think the construction mafia controls our foreign-policy as well as our domestic policy.

you try and teach. there is a tremendous amount of preparatory work and take home work. the pay is horrendous. wake up, america, you are being a sleaze. host: thank you for the call. next up is a view or from washington, d.c. you oppose this move by michelle rhee? caller: first, i am a student of way -- by my parents of a student in d.c. public schools. all studies show that when parents are engaged with a student's education that achievement in cases. michelle rhee has done nothing about parent engagement or involvement especially with black parents. the second thing is allocation of resources. we have maintained in the district of columbia, michelle rhee has continued to keep schools open and white communities even though there

student enrollment is low and poured more money into those schools which forces children in black communities to go to those schools. there is a question of allocation of resources. that is not being done fairly. the thing about the teachers is we all know that the teachers and some respects cannot do better than management. michelle rhee brought in a lot of new principles. one of her principles at a middle school has not made a difference. this is a hand-picked principle. this is a political year. she is trying to say that the mayor in his position and she is as much a part of this problem as are the teachers. by the way, last year she fired 900 teachers and brought in new teachers. the question that has to be raised now is, how many of the new teachers who were brought in last year failed to produce?

how many of those were on the cutting list? most of the teachers hired last year were black and most of the teachers who were hired last year were white. we are seeing a shift in the racial makeup about our teacher population. all studies show that when children are taught by people of the same rights and the same gender their achievement goes up. we have to come to grips with this. we have been remaking the d.c. public school system but in a way, it is and difficult to everything we note that as best in terms of educational achievement. host: we appreciate your call, the parent of abc student. we need growth models and more data. more than 700 teachers get one year to improve their performance. michelle rhee and light-minded

leaders contend that the best way to overhaul schools is to intensely monitor the performance of every adult including janitors and measure it by multiple yardsticks. that includes evidence that teachers meet or exceed predicted rates of growth on standardized tests, a metric known as the value added. it is employed as a diagnostic tool to detect weaknesses or bonuses. michelle rhee's decision breaks new ground. the school systems are expected to look at the system as a possible model she announced plans to extend -- expend standardize tests at all grade levels. this story in washington, d.c. but with repercussions around the country which is why we are asking you about the decision yesterday by chancellor michelle rhee to fire 241 teachers and place another 700 on warning that they could be let go within

one year. our next caller is a viewer from maryland. good morning to you. caller: i support chancellor michelle rhee's position. there are so many teachers and that is not the major they had in college. they could not find a job in their career fields of a fell back on teaching. likedon't particularly kids so they don't do well further has to be a measurement tool. the only question i have is the confidence of the evaluate her. i wonder if these evaluations have been reviewed by an assistant superintendent. i had a child in the d.c. school system that went to jefferson junior high school in southwest under the principality of miss vera white and that is the model for all teachers and the d.c. school system. you have to portray that

excellence from the front of the classroom and that starts with the front door as soon as the school bell rings host: thank you for the call. vivian says that as a heckuva lot of teachers. why are they also bad at teaching? we're joined by someone who opposes the idea from tallahassee, florida, good morning. caller: two. want to make. michelle rhee says she has taught for 34 years and it seems to me that the basics of scientific are that we first develop a hypothesis and consider all the factors that might affect the outcome of the results that are anticipated. i don't see why she is only

using one factor of the results of a standardized test as the basis for deciding whether teachers are effective or not. just the fact that she is a science teacher blows my mind . host: she hasn't been teaching for 34 years. she graduated in 1992. she is basing this on 34 years of assessment studies. caller: thank you. host: baltimore, supporting the idea, go ahead, please. caller: i have been a couple -- i have been in a couple of teacher jobs from brooklyn, new york. i teach at a private school. it was a private-jewish school. i dealt with situations where

the students could not do math and i was teaching them physics. i ask them what their math teacher was doing if they could i do math. if they do not know math, they could not learn physics. i think we also have some of the policies about teachers. we hear people talk about parents and pensions. we have pta meetings. maybe 10% of the parents show up for them. some of them don't care and there is nothing you can do when it comes to the students and parents. i would propose that if the government wants the students to graduate and they want more graduation rates, i would propose that they have more boarding schools. when you have a situation where some of the students don't have to go back to the communities where they are from and don't have to deal with the other things that go on outside of school, then it is easy for them to pay attention in class host: firing these people for

incompetents is fine. firing them because the kids scored low on standardized tests as incompetent. there is a photograph of the general staff in my crystal. -- general stand mcchrystal. it was a wistful and yet with humor that led to the retirement of general staff andmcchrystal. >> for those who need to contradict my memory with the truth, remember i was there too. i have stories on all of you. i have photos on many and i know a "rolling stocne" reporter.

host: those were the comments yesterday of general staff stanley mcchrystal. this had the opportunity to be an awkward or sad occasion but there was a little bit of humor. back to your calls on the issue of d.c. public schools and the firing of those 241 teachers. we are dividing the phone lines by those who support or oppose the idea. caller: good morning. if this is an education system,

we are sending the wrong message to our kids. if you say we are educating the kids that want them to have the opportunity to learn, if the teachers are not doing something that is being judged, they need the opportunity as educators to get in the classroom. maybe there is a process they have not learned. they need to be in a classroom with teachers that are there and develop a role model. this is based on economics. they don't have an environment where they can do their studies. they need this have the schools stay open for hours after school and rotate the teachers for their and increase their income so the kids can study and do their homework before they go home. host: somebody who supports the idea is sandy joining us from waynesboro, va., good morning. caller: i support the idea.

i was a teacher for 20 years. host: what levels caller:? i taught at every level. i was not popular. when the principles refused the tenure, they said i was not a team player. i did not support the mossbacks that had talked for 20 years and their attitude toward the children was incredible. they might have been purposely lovely when the parents came in and chopin's but the fact was that they believe that students were going to do what students were going to do. there was not a whole lot you could do as a teacher. as far as the teacher is being given an opportunity in d.c. to improve, there were given an opportunity from the minute that michelle rhee took the position she said they must proimprove their position in the classroom or they will get -- or she will

get rid of them. i salute her for that. she is taking on a stone wall better than the berlin wall tried to get rid of some of these people who just don't believe in their students. let me give you one little factoid. when i was in college and i was very much more recent events on because i waited till i got my kids raised re. bass said that the performance of students -- they said that the performance of students is 76% predicted by the attitude of the teacher in the classroom. imagine that. if you could get the teachers to believe in these kids, what could happen. host: white to stop teaching? caller: i am very old host:. you don't sound old. caller: i have a lot of physical ailments. i still substitute and i have the termite telephone off at 11:00.

you don't have to be a team player to substitute. you have to control the classroom until the teacher can get back to continue what they were doing. i teach when i teach. i don't read pocketbooks. many of them do. they let the kids play games or listen to their ipods and assign the home market and let the next teacher take them. i love teaching. i love to see if i can support something in that kid that nobody else can get something out. i just love it. if everybody does not feel like that, they need to go peddle their papers elsewhere why does the person who went into teaching have a god -- god-given right to state their? caron't say that about used salesman or engineers or anybody else? . we get rid of the president of

united states every four years ago don't like what he is doing. host: we appreciate your time, a strong conversation on. twittercom. we are opening the door for importing bad teachers, importing teachers, that teachers must go. caller: i am a teacher. host: do you teach public or private? caller: public. host: what you think about this decision yesterday by michelle rhee to caller: tax i think michelle rhee needs to be sacked. the mayor needs to be sacked and michelle rhee needs to be sacked. every day i steve -- see the students in d.c. roaming the streets.

[unintelligible] there is nothing you can do about it. many teachers are not teachers. it takes a special talent to be a teacher. [inaudible] you need to take a holistic approach to revive the poor system in b.c. and the united states had large grid it is not about parenting of life. sometimes the teacher needs to be fired. host: thank you for the call. if they are not replaced, this is simply a budget cut back dressed up as a performance improvement program the conversation on our website at a. twittercom. we will continue to share your

comments on the decision yesterday. there were stories on the d.c. public school system, 241 teachers fired and another 700 teachers and administrators were given a warning that they don't improve, they could be let go. charles rangel is on the cover of ""the washington post." a settlement has been explored in the accusations against him which would allow the 20-term congressman to avoid a public trial. the democrats will have an organizational meeting of this trial-like session next thursday. our cameras will be there. yesterday in new york, congressman rangel addressed these charges >> i would like for all the people that have read what they had to read, how

awkward it has been for me, to constantly have to say," please wait until the ethics committee completes its investigation." i cannot think of anything that relieves me more than to be able to say to my constituents," this is the result of the investigation." this is so they would know who charlie rangel really is. those of you who know me know that saying, "no comment, "is very difficult for me. mean and cruel pigs have been said and not be able to respond is very awkward. -- mean and cruel things have been said and to not be able to respond is very awkward. i can only say without dispute that i will not let you down and thank god that once the report is complete and we will do like anything else and discuss the findings. host: that was congressman

charles rangel and we covered his entire news conference. he said he will charge ahead. caller: thanks for having me a host: on. let's go through the background on this story. what is he being charged with tax caller: they have not released the charges. from the past two years of investigation, they are looking into the taxes that he failed to peg although he has since paid them. they are looking at in come for holdings that he did not declaring his personal disclosures. probably the most troubling things they are looking at is whether or not he took donations for the charles rancor center -- charles record so -- charles

rangel center named after him. host: you wrote that the lingering cloud leaves a lot to be resolved. some had hoped he would cut a deal to avoid the trial-like process and except center or a reprimand. so far, that is not the case, correct? caller: that is not the case and the negotiations were fairly heated. the problem for charles rangel is that in his mind, he has not actually intended to do anything wrong. he admits that he messed up with his declarations and he had mets does not look good -- he admits that it does not look good buddy does not think that he intended to break any rules. he does not want that permanent stain on his legacy host: the newspaper reported that one democrat is calling for his

resignation. could we see more? caller: you certainly could. the feeling inside of the charlie rangel camp is that there is a fairly large contingent of democrats in congress who would like to be able to say that we cleaned house and they are not like the republicans in 2006. they would like to say they pushed out the bad apples before the election system. bradellsworth is returning donations. host: this seems to be more of a procedural meeting. what are you looking for? caller: i am looking for them to formally lay out the charges and explain precisely what the investigative subcommittee which is now over and has been doing the work for two years, what they found that they think is

probably a violation of the house ethics rules. then, i expect they will set some kind of time line for more of a formal hearing. i believe it is 25 days that a member of congress has to get in order to respond to something like this. you will not see any actual hearing, i don't like, until sometime in september. there is still the possibility that mr. riegle could change his mind and take some sort of deal. that could also happen on thursday. host: this would keep him in the house if he cuts a deal. his lawyer says they are open to reaching a deal. could that come before thursday? caller: it could come before thursday and a kind of have to but most likely we would not hear about it until thursday unless somebody leaks something.

host: mcauliffe, thanks for being with me. it will get back your calls and the issue of d.c. public schools and the impact across the country, the firing of 241 teachers and more could be on the way. i would hate for my job performance to be based on the intellect of an eight-year old. back to your calls, baltimore, good morning. caller: i have worked in schools for over 30 years. being in baltimore now, i have visited some of the schools and the schools are in atrocious conditions. i have talked to the mayor and a school superintendent. they tell me that i must wait. our children cannot wait.

not only the teachers but the people who clean the schools. the toilets have not been cleaned in weeks. no toilet paper, no stalls in the bathroom, the structure of some schools is falling apart in the library of one high school, there was only 12 books. host: thank you for your call. from our e-mails -- my son taught school for one year and absolutely hated it. the kids were not interested in learning and the parents were not supportive of the desire for them to learn. he said he was a baby sitter. we have another comment -- teachers fired did badly and various tests and all were given ample time in previous years to improve performance. another viewer says -- as a

former school employee, academic performance is dictated by the education and income level of the parent. these teachers could be moved to more affluent districts and their performance would be fun. another comment -- -- another caller joining us from springfield, ore., good morning. are you with us? we will go on to kathy who opposes this from long bridge, new jersey. caller: it is long branch. it's the jersey shore. i love it. i oppose this big time. we have money for all these illegal oil wars and we have to cut school in. our governor is cutting here -- cutting everything here, too. the federal government only wants war. i am tired of it. everybody i know feels the same one host: do you have any kid

caller: stacks i don't. you need to learn and there is too many teachers -- too many kids per teacher. we are going to hell in a handbasket. host: next is bernard, an educator from springfield, ohio, good morning. caller: i agree with the lady from new jersey regarding the fact that we have plenty of money for wars. more importantly, i work for a genius in dallas, texas in the recording business and he said people -- no one took a job planning to fail. when i taught many years ago, six great near cleveland, ohio, i was a very creative young person. the created activity --

secretive and stamped out of me by the superintendent and others. there was no way they wanted anyone to do anything. we talk about the fact that more ideas were accepted from the janitress than the teachers read i believe that michelle rhee and washington, dc needs to make every effort she can to see to it that the teachers who are threatened are given a chance to go in and improve their skills whether it is teaching skills or people skills or communication skills. many years ago, there is a program in tennessee where a man started 300 starter schools. the idea was that to trade ideas between the schools for when something is working well, share it with other schools through a central database. i think michelle rhee need to make sure she puts through every

effort to give us those teachers who invested in their educations and not one of them ever started teaching without the idea of succeeding. give them the chance to succeed. host: on our twitter page -- if we hire capable teachers at the beginning, there will be made known the for hiring. there is a need to look at the hiring process. there is the obituary a sc danielorof daniel schorr. he was a senior news analyst npr who had firsthand knowledge of news makers from the 1950's through 2000. greenville, ohio, good morning. caller: thank you for cspan.

i agree with michelle rhee. these people are not held responsible because they are in made union so they think they are protected. i really believe in this economy that everybody should suffer the same whether it be a policeman, firemen, teachers, anybody. a teacher should not be in a union because you don't -- you do not see dr. unions. you really don't see lawyers unions. i feel that they should be held accountable as any other person that works every day in a factory or what ever. they should be held responsible. thank you very much host:. senator kerry, the message moved

his boat from massachusetts to rhode island to avoid taxes. his wife has three sons part of the boat was designed and purchased from a company in rhode island says senator kerry's office. it is based on upkeep, not for upkeep. his rivals were not by a get. michelle joins us from indianapolis, good morning. caller: i have been teaching for 16 years. one thing that many people have been calling in and not really addressing is that irresponsibility of parents. i am a parent and i am a teacher.

i think it is the role of parents that is never questioned. many times when people come to school and they have not slept or they have been up all my playing video games because peak -- parents are working two and three jobs, you can't hold teachers responsible for the irresponsible mess of parents. no one wants to address that issue. kids come to school with video games and cell phone spreaes. and there is a responsibility that goes on in the home. if i am trying to teach you something and you are sleepy and hungry, that goes directly back to what you are giving me to work with. i cannot teach you if you are too tired or you are not interested. teachers are not entertainers. they are there to do their job

and we are not supposed to be entertaining kids and that is what parents want her a host: thank you. we appreciate all your calls and comments. one final thought -- the schools are run by the same morons that run our american businesses. this is all a failure of capitalism. and e-mails as the firing of 241 teachers out of 4000 is not a statistically significant event. the real question is how long were these teachers on notice? this is from the names and faces section of the washington post." john kerry is in final negotiations had them as thepaa. tennessee republican lawmaker is in talks of secession.

the congressman appeared on a hot line friday encouraging a change of the federal level saying states are tired of being run over by federal mandates. he praised texas governor rick perry to raise the topic of cessation in 2005 arab anti-tax tea party rally. -- 2005 after an anti-tax tea party rally. information was provided to federal authorities investigating whether the senator broke the law in trying to keep secret his affair with a onetime staff member. we will continue in a moment.

>> is weekend, today, the eagle forum collegiate summit. this is a libertarian and conservative batch of ideas.

after that, an author on her new book about coming to the united states and the like she left behind. on sunday, the roosevelt reading festival and authors to talk about their books on fdr. it is a weekend filled with nonfiction books on c-span 2. for the complete schedule, go to book tv.org. this weekend, the former new york times public editor on the changing world of the newspaper industry. >> i worry about some of the standards and maintaining journalistic integrity as we move from one media world to another person >> clark hoyt, sunday night on "q &a." cspan brings you a direct link to public affairs, politics, history, and nonfiction books as a public service created by

america's cable companies. >>" continues. -- "washington journal" continues. host: there is a series getting a lot of attention about contract work and the federal government. you talked about this shadowy leader in the federal government. how do you define it? guest: i am talking about what is called the shadow government which is the massive work-force that has grown over the past 20 years, although it predates that and has grown greatly since 9/11 in a big way. it is the people who work for federal government who actually get their paychecks from

contractors, from companies who are paid by the federal government to do its work. that is actually the 3/4 of the federal work force. 3/4 of people who work for the federal government actually work directly for contractors. that is how big it is. host: who do they report to? guest: they report to their employer who reports to shareholders. they are directly responsible to the company. why have we reached this point? guest: we americans have had a long discourse against big government. we don't like big government. we like small, limited government and that is wonderful. we should like small, limited government, but the problem is that citizens needs and demands

for services keep growing. what we have done, what lawmakers have done over the years, over a long period of time, over decades, we have capped the number of civil servants. we have placed restrictions, a ceiling on the number of civil servants that have been hired so that when the need to grow -- we go out and hire contractors so it looks like the federal work force is being contained, but in fact what is actually happening is that it is growing. it is just that we don't see it. is much less visible because those employees are not counted in the federal work force. this is really an illusion. we have bought into this allusion under the name of anti- big government host: there are other layers to this story. you wrote about this earlier

this year. 50 retired generals offered their independent opinions through the media on the conduct of the war in iraq and afghanistan. you point out that they get private funds from the pentagon. why is that significant? guest: this was in reference to retired generals who were on the air who were being purchased by the pentagon, given private briefings. general mccaffrey was one of the many examples we have no way in the public of knowing when we were watching him on the air, we did not know he was getting special information and briefings and being fed the pentagon line and being given special perks. ostensibly, in order to toe the line at a time in the iraq war where the government was trying

to enlist the support of the american people, it was a critical juncture. the problem is the information system. of players. kind what happens today with some much of governing outside of formal government is that the chief power brokers play these multiple roles that overlap. somebody like barry mccaffrey was getting the special pentagon briefings and was on the air many times during critical times. he was working for defense contractors and was a consultant and had its own consulting company. he was able to go to iraq and afghanistan as part of the spreahis. the public does not have any way of finding out it to what extent he is independent and yet he and other people like him are on the air being presented as

independent experts. it is a real problem in our information systems and it is a problem -- is a key problem -- it is a key problem of peddling influence that we have come into in the shadow government. this is not nearly as visible or transparent or accountable as formal government for all its abouthost: we're talking the -- to the author of the book "shadow elite." this is from a posting that aria, huffington gave this past january listing you as the first book to read for 2010. she writes about the term that

you are using which is new, "flexians." guest: these are people who are playing these overlapping roles and not fully disclosed roles. we don't really know what they are up to and yet they are influencing policy and helping to make policy. we cannot know what their real agenda is but they have agendas and they are not necessarily in the public interest. that is the danger to the public of these flexians who are very flexible and a son of the times. guest: another term that comes up as "government, inc." guest: this was illustrated this week.

government contractors do perform government functions. these companies are performing critical government functions. they oversee other contractors, they manage other contractors, they hire other contractors, they do 25%-30% of the intelligence work. they are at the core of critical mission, not only in the national security field, but more generally across the government. i have studied them at dod and homeland security and intelligence, but they are an entrenched part of the energy department. 3/4 of people working for government are actually working for private companies. the amount that the federal government has devoted to services is gone from something

like $125 billion in 2001 to about $325 billion in 2008. that is a huge upswing. that is how fast it has grown. that is how fast the shadow government has grown. the number of government officials who oversee private contractors has not merely kept up. very often, we have government officials signing on the dotted line for policies that have been developed and written essentially by contractors. guest: you have written a number of books. what is your background? how did this become an area of expertise for you? guest: i am a social

anthropologist by training. my earlier career and continuing career was in eastern europe. i started off working in poland studying how people actually functioned in a communist society. this is in the early 1980's under martial law. i was 10 years old at the time, of course. from that, i learned the importance of studying networks in a system that is rapidly changing. what does that have to do with the american federal government today? if you read this series in the post this week, you see how rapidly our system of governing has changed just in the past decade. there are many precedents for this precontracted rules were changed under president clinton in the 1990's. this paved the way for less

transparency and less visibility and more networking among contractors and government officials. the system has been developing for a long time but along came 9/11. this is great need and all the sudden we hired all these contractors and it just grows from $125 billion in service contracts in serviceto about 325 billion in 2008. how does the system really worked? . .

she said the one thing that surprised her the most in doing this two-year investigation is that there was not one individual, one agency, one department that had a complete handle on the umbrella of public and private involvement in national security and intelligence, 854,000 people who have security clearance but no one individual who fully understood what everyone was doing, again both public and private contractors. >> absolutely. and out of that 800-some,000, about 265 are contractors with top security clearances. and the problem absolutely is the information system.

no one has a clear handle on what is going on both at the systemic level, how many contractors are there. right? i mean, that's -- that we don't know. and in that sense it's out of control and beyond the reach of the upper most government authorities. and then we also don't know at the level of individual policy decision. we have people like the general that we were talking about earlier who is on tv, who is connecting the dots, the information that he has access to at the penguin, he is using it -- pentagon. he has access to this information and he is the only one connecting the dots. so at the root of the system as it has evolved is this massive deficit of information at the level of the system and at the

level of the play whorse are taking advantage or it. and what is a real problem of our age that if we don't begin to grapple with, we're going to lose the core of our democracy. >> the book is called shadow elite. the subtitle is how the world's power brokers undermine democracy, government, and the free market. talking about private contractors and national security. if you want to read the entire series, it's available on the "washington post" website. andy is joining us from rally, north carolina. caller: good morning. thanks for this book. i think this is an incredibly important topic. when it comes to the shadow government, i think a lot of people, myself anyway, don't think of people outside of government, the ones that are kind of pulling the strings in the halls of power, behind the

scenes. and that's definitely true of the lobbyists and corporate influence. but the other side is what you're talking about, kind of the output side. the lobbyist may affect what goes to legislation and what they do, but on the other end there are the corporations on the receiving end and so they set up a policy and then they reap the benefits of that. and somebody like cheney is a good example being hall burton c.e.o. and getting a huge bonus just as he leaves to become vice president and do everything they did where them and black water is hugely profitted and they go right back into the public sector. but if you could also address the procurement process, all those no bid contracts that halburten got and how these things actually shape the policy, the decisions the laws that get made, how they are influenced by the lobbyists as well as these corporations, how much do they drive the policy

contractors? guest:right. let me say the shadow government refers specifically the terms is a long-standing term. there was actually a 1976 book published called shadow government. so the shadow government refers not to the lobbyists but it refers to this gigantic ever growing workforce just employees of the government who actually work directly for private contractors but whose budgets come from federal government and who are doing the work of federal governments. so that's the shadow government. with regard to lobbyists, actually, the lobbyists as we know washington has the greatest number of lobives, has more lobbyists than anywhere else in the world and that's a dynamic that we have to pay very close attention to. but what i've been looking at are people who are actually not

registered lobbyists, people like the general we were mentioning earlier, people like senator daschle, for example, who has pronounced and has been involved and allegedly influence shl in health care policy, had the ear of the president, had the ear of key people and key leaders in congress, and yet was also on the bankroll of private pharmaceuticals and law firms and so on on those same issues that he was involved in, in public policy, and also speaking to the media. so the question becomes who is he really -- who is someone who is playing those not fully disclosed roles, who is he really -- who is he really beholden to? is it the taxpayers? is he really pronouncing in the

public interest? or is it other interests? so the issue again is, is the agendas of these people. how do we begin to sort out what their true agendas actually are. host: let me take it to the next step, because you wrote in the book "the survival of our democracy is at stake. ." guest: well, i think it is because the survival of our democracy -- and i should also say, picking up on the point, andy's point, the last caller. the survival and the health of the so-called free market is also at stake. with regard to the free market as andy points out so many of these contracts are no-bid, well over half of the contracts in iraq, i think that's correct, but it would be correct in the book, are sole-sourced contracts. so they're not competed.

there are certain kind of contract that doesn't get competed beyond a certain level. so many of them are sole-sourced. there isn't a lot of competition in this system. so what you're really seeing is the undermining of the so-called free market system, the undermining of competition and the reforms, the so-called reforms instituted during the clinton years presumably to make or ostensibly to make the contracting system more efficient actually undermined the competition. so it undermined the free market. so the system that we are in today, this new system that's powering and influence which has the shadow government as a huge component both undermines the free market and it undermines democracy. and it undermines democracy again because of the information system at its core. we don't have the information, we don't have the tools to really find out what's going on.

when federal government doesn't even know, cannot even reasonably guess mate how many contractors are working for it, then there is a problem. that's just basic. host: also a senior fellow at the new american foundation, this from a viewer saying the true shadow government is the continuity of government. can your guest please speak on this issue. guest: can you say that again? host: i think what he or she is referring to is regardless of who is in the white house, there's a bureaucracy that continues to churn things along. guest: well, yes. i mean, i think what we're seeing now is the intertwining of state and private power and the with intertwining really at all levels of the bureaucracy with -- of the federal

bureaucracy with the so-called private sector. and even splitting them up into those categories is somewhat misleading, because at the mid-levels we have what everyone refers to as the blended workforce, the blended workforce is when federal employees are sitting side by side with contractors many times in the same offices. the g.a.o., for example, did a study and found that in the offices that they reviewed, defense -- this was in d.o.d. the defense offices that they reviewed, 80% of the people in those offices were often contractors. so we had the blended workforce throughout the workforce, and then at the top levels you have the executive key officials from the main contractors involved in certain areas who were working intimately with government officials.

and then there's a huge revolving door that occurs between those officials and the contractors, and in fact it's been called the evolvinging door, the evolving door, because the door in many cases is disappearing. host: one of our regular viewers saying no bid cost plus plus plus plus. if you say anything you go to the front lines without armor, referring to the body armor issue. my son saw it happen. guest: well, i can't say more about that. i can't speak authoritatively on that particular issue. host: but on the issue of no-bid contracts. guest: but on the issue of no-bid contracts, yes. these are contracts where as i just said there isn't a competition in the sense that there usually is. there is a company that's

designated that's seen as being the company that can do it very often. the work is diffied up between among several companies. this company will do x, another company will do y, a third will do z. and it's all sort of figured out in advance. and then the task orders and the work is done according to that scheme. so, yes, no bid contracts. and the guys, the men and women on the ground are often the vims of this system. host: and this coming from chris who lives in alabama. the merging of corporations and government should be of supreme concern for all citizens who value freedom. caller: i've a quick question for you. i'm a retired federal employee. i retired in 94 and i saw a lot

of the contract jobs coming in when i retired. now, my question is the this on your percentages of contract employees versus civil servant employees. does your numbers include the low man, the lower employees such as messengers clerks and middle-management employees versus contractors? guest: yes. the figures that i'm citing are from brookings scholar paul light who has studied these numbers and puts out the most authority tative numbers compilations analysis of this over the years. you said you retired in 1994. before the war in iraq, the portion of civil servants to federal government employees -- sorry to contractors was two thirds. that is, two thirds of people working for federal government

were private contractors. then, most recently, since the war in iraq, the end of the first decade of this century, the figure has become three quarters. three quarters people working for federal government are private contractors. but, yes, this is people at all levels. this is -- you know, everybody from messengers to intelligence analysis and policy. and what i think is problematic is not the people who are doing the photo copying or the food service or the gardening. sometimes it makes good sense to contract that out. but what is problematic is what are called inherently governmental functions. and those are the functions that are judged to be so critical, so crucial to the mission and to the public that government officials need to be the ones who are signing off, they need to be the once who are making the decisions.

they need to be the once who are intimately involved and knowledgeable about what's going on. host: our topic, private contracts and nurets. our guest jan in wad el. she is also a professor at george mason, university. the great advantage of twit ser you get instant feedback. the point about no bid contracts and her son in her situation saying they not only sent him and then to the front lines but in jeeps with canvas tops. my helped helped put the armor on top of the damn jeeps. raffle on the republican line good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm interested in this subject because i'm retired military person. i had combat tours in vietnam and desert storm. i tried after 9/11 to get back in the military to help my

country and i was told one i was too old and they don't need my services, which is fine. i currently am in law enforcement in pennsylvania. and when they send military folks, men and women over to these foreign lands to die, at the salaries which they make, which aren't very much compared to the public sector and then they send black water over to at $1000,000 to do security, it upsets me because i see our men and women dying every day and these troops that work for blackwater, these private contractors, go over there and do pretty much whatever they want with no checks and balances, no controls as we've seen them do in iraq. and it bottedsers me that the government allows these people to go. if we're going to fight these wars let's use military personnel and bring all those civilian contractors home because they have no controls, no checks and balances and they're not accountable to anyone except for their employer.

so if we're going to send men and women over there to die, let's do it and use the people that were intended to do it the military folks to protect our nation instead of paying these people hundreds of thousands of dollars to do the same job with no control. guest: well, i think raffle points to a -- ralph points to a real crucial issue here which the contractors are not beholden to the public, they're beholden to the shareholders as they should be. companies are supposed to be responsible to their share holders, where as it's the military employees who should be responsible to the government and to the public. and there's a real difference. and those differences come out very clearly in a wartime situation, and we've seen some of the real problems, the challenges in iraq and afghanistan. a real problem now for the system as we have it and for fighting these wars is that we have now as many contractors in

iraq as we do military employees. and in afghanistan we have more contractors than we do military employees. so the united states is utterly reliant on these contractors to fight the wars and perhaps the solution is for us, as i said at the beginning, to be honest about what government really is. government is getting bigger. but we have to include the shadow government instead of fooling ourselves that government is contained because we have a cap on civil service. and perhaps if we were more honest with ourselves about this, we would make some other choices. host: our e-mail address is journal at c-span ztorg. and our tying both together 9/11 and the speech made famous by president eisenhower.

guest: well, of course i'm not inside the top levels of the pentagon and it sounds like that people in the pentagon can't account for this money according to the g.a.o. but i think the issue here is the issue really is governmental control and the information system again is at the crux of the problem. and yes, a lot of this money, if we read the series this week, does go to the private

contractors and as we know private contractors are more expensive according to the report done by the director of national intelligence. than are government employees. host: our next call is from tom in massachusetts. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i like the title of your book there, shadow elite, but i know it's primarily discussing military contractors. but let me give you the scenario and see if these kind of folks fit into the shadow elite. i look at, for example, it seems the pathway to success now is to become a staffer for somebody on capitol hill. you work for them for a while. all of a sudden you're in politics. you get into politics for a while. the next thing you know, your big payday is the private sector. and to give you just two examples, i look at madeline

albright's group. currently, they're dealing with representing kuwait to get their money back during the original first gulf war, desert storm, from the iraqis. and they're i think set to make about $1 billion in commission if they retrieve a lot of the money the kuwaities are looking for. and i look at one of the staffers that madeline albright has, wendy sherman, and she was a social worker, trained social workers, became a campaign person for someone on capitol hill, next thing you know she is c.e.o. of fannie mae in i think it was 97, and she also negotiated with the koreans on nuclear weapons and, i mean, it just goes on and on. are these people part of the shadow elite in the sense? maybe you didn't investigate,

but is that kind of the general, where you're? guest: first of all, shadow elite is about the new system of power and influence, and the new model of the power broker that's developed in the past several decades. it's not just about the military sphere, it's equally about the medical arena or the economic arena. what i'm charting is the mode yuss op randi for the new power broker. and this power broker, as you describe, i mean, the pro file that you describe -- i can't speak to the individuals that you're talking about, but the profiles of moving among these roles and sometimes even playing them simultaneously is the new model. it's the way one weeleds influence, maximum influnes today. it's one of the chief models of the way of being effective. so somebody who moves from

being a staff person to being in politics to being a chief of a company at the top levels, that's the model, that's the kind of evolving door when they're not fully disclosed and when information is being parlaed from one and used in others, information that other people outside the system can't know. information is really at the core of it. that's the new model for better or for worse. that's the age that we're in. and that's the challenge to democracy that we're facing, is the challenge lies in the information system at the core, and also to the free market. because when people are moving into these so-called companies, they're often have information from the public sector that will help those companies. so those companies aren't really competing on the open market so to speak. they have the advantage of inside information. so it undermines both democracy

and the free market. host: "shadow elite." and the "washington post" is called top secret america. if you go to c-span.org, nearly 2,000 companies have top secret clearance, among the top ten, general dynamics, north rupgrumnd, man teck, rates i don't know, and lockheed martin. what does this tell you? >> well, this tells us that there are just a few -- we've been talking about the lack of competition in the system, and this tells us that there are just a few big companies, ever bigger companies that are the major beneficiaries of this largesse and do most of this, the work in this area. and, again, it points to the lack of competition and the undermining, really, of the free market in this system.

host: new york, democrats line. good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning to you. thank you very much for c-span. thank you so very much for the shadow government indicators that you are bringing about. and that's exactly what it is. and it's rather sad that the average person i don't think really knows could fathom the implications behind the concept of the shadow government. here are people who have gone beyond their so-called managerial, those spots that they used to occupy within the complex running things and doing things in the country. it's the same game. we are still on the plantation

because there is a kind of process, a thought process here that within itself has the impression that it transkends anything that's going on. these are unscrupulous people who don't care anything about so-called individual rights. when we talk about that, that is just simply -- that is beyond the pail. host: how would you respond? guest: well, i don't think that the contractors are necessarily unethical or unscrupulous or bad people. there are many good people who are working for contractors. but the concern that i have is that this shadow government has grown so big and with little accountability and with contractors in playing key functions without necessarily government officials being

overtwindt -- being involved. and business and government have become so interdependent and intertwined that we really are undermining the free market and the democratic accountability. accountability is supposed to be at the core of our democratic system, and that's precisely what we don't have with a run-away shadow government. and i think what the people, what american people need to understand is that what we're getting when we're insisting on small government and these caps on civil service is really a much bigger government. it is shadow government and it is much less accountable and less visible and more insidious and dangerous potentially to democracy. host: and of course part of this, the cost involved, senator levin, the chair in the senate arms services committee

in afghanistan and iraq during the july 4th recess talked about whether or not the pentagon can sustain the level of grodse it has seen since -- growth since september 11. >> there's a sense that as we grapple with this, the 7% increase are just going to have to end and it's going to have to be belt tightening. >> it is. and i tried to answer that quickly in my answer but not adequately. the next year's budget is where these battles are going to be fought. i think the two big issues are troops in iraq and afghanistan. you're not going to make huge reductions if the keep the current deployments and the current size of our military. and secondly even on the contractors that we hire, or we're going to have to cut down the use of contractors which represent a significant chunk of our budget. host: senator carl len is our guest on "newsmakers."

you can watch tomorrow at 10:00 and again at 6:00 eastern time. you also talked about the issue of private contractors. your response. guest: well, i think the problem is going to be in actually cutting down the use of contractors. i totally agree that we've got to do that. i think if we're going to fight these wars, i think we need to be doing it with predominantly military personnel, at least military personnel in the key mission critical inherently governmental functions and contractors to merely support roles. but i think my suspicion is one of the reasons that we're able to continue to conduct these wars is because of this illusion that i've been talking about, this illusion of we're discounting the military troops. so president bush or president obama can say we're cutting down, we're reducing our troop strength in afghanistan and

iraq where as in fact we are cutting, ok, we're bringing home some of the military people but we're uping the number of contractors or woor maintaining the number of contractors. we're fighting these wars with contractors. so we americans seem to want to have our cake and eat it too. and i think at some point we have to realize this is dangerous to both our democracy and to our free market system. host: we have about one minute left. larry, last caller for this segment. republican line, ohio good morning. caller: yes. good morning. i just want to make a point. homeland security at ohio stadium, they have about 800 people and they stand around with numbers on their shirts and we're talking about in the city we're going to cut our police force and we're going to cut our fire department. and the people that are working, they have a five-year waiting list for volume tirs to come in and do the same thing.

they have no guns, they only have a t-shirt with a number on it. some of them have walkee talkees. i don't feel that big security there where i would much rather bring another 100 policemen in there. we have 800 policemen in there, but i would much rather have a guy with a gun on his side giving me security versus a guy with a t-shirt and a number. guest: well, what i can say about homeland security at the federal level is that there are more contractors, there are more contractors working in homeland security than there are federal employees. so that's the dynamic that i would like to draw our attention to. and that's a problem, because many of the contractors are more experienced than the federal employees, and the expertise and the experience

has been drained out of these agencies and is outside of government. and, again, that presents real challenges to democracy and to issues of accountability. host: the other policy component is sum rised in this twitter question. guest: well, the supreme court decision absolutely does empower even more the shadow elites and particularly this intertwining of state and private power, because what it does is it empowers corporations even further and enables them to get away from more what corporations are supposed to be which is to have some element of competition. so they become interdependent, they become even more dependent on state contracts and state and private become even more

insidiously intertwined, which as i say is a key challenge to democracy and to the survival of our free market system. guest: jan neen, author of how the book shadow elite, also professor at george mason university in fairfax, virginia. thanks for joining us. guest: thank you. host: we will be focusing on the issue of the mid-term elections and the campaign finance laws. but first, a look at the week's events as viewed by some of the leading editorial cartoonists from around the country.

host: we want to welcome fred ra scott, thanks for joining us. guest: thanks for having me. host: let's put some numbers on the screen. first, the house campaign fund raising, the democrats have raised about $350 million and have cash on hand about $246 million. republicans about even, $352 raised. what does that tell you? >> well, definitely democrats and particularly when you look at the house where the biggest issues are at stake, the greatest numbers are at play, the democratic congressional campaign committee has a very substantial advantage cash on hand. when you look just at june and where they were, they were about $34 million cash on hand at the end of june, that one committee. and that's nearly twice what the republican committee has on

hand. meaning that they started july with lots of cash available to start running ads, to define their candidates, to get out ahead of their opponents. and so -- and they've already sort of indicated that they're going to be spending money in about 40 races. they have reserved ad time to protect their vulnerable incumbent. host: compare that to the senate and its relatively even. guest: right. host: but you have the democrats raising about $215 million, the republicans $229 million. again, these figures through the end of june. guest: again, roughly the same amounts in terms of the ability to have money available at the

end of july -- beginning of july, rather, to compete. one of the stories, however, that we've been seeing on the senate side is some individual candidates who are doing very well. there are about 13 open seats. and the republicans in virtually all of those seats have out-raised their democratic counter parts. host: there are a couple of states most notably in florida there are going to be three leading candidates. guest: yes. host: what does that do to a senate race? guest: it makes it very hard to tell what's going to happen. you have marco rubio who is a republican. he raised i think $4.5 million in june, which is far more than anyone else in that race. charlie crist. and then you'll have a democrat, and it's not clear yet who the democrat will be, kend rick meek who has been planning for this race for a long time. and then out of the blue in

april jeff green, who is a billionaire, got into the race and spent about $6 million in advertising. and so it just makes it -- it's a free for all. host: in other states, some high profile primaries, in arizona john mccain and j.d. hey worth, and others. guest: again, it is another example of how uncertain this election is. you have john mccain, who was the g.o.p. presidential nominee two years ago who is now being -- faces a threat on the right from j.d. hay worth. in colorado you have an appointed senator who has the backing of the democratic establishment and you have his opponent who has been backed by president clinton. it's -- i mean, again, it's

going to be very difficult to tell the outcome of all of this. and i want to go back for a second because i know you had some cash on hand numbers that were different than mine. i was looking where they are right at the end of june, those last reports. host: let me put some context to this. for those who have not been following the debate, a lot centered on the mccain-feingold law signed into law by president bush, and then the citizens united case. what did mccain-feingold state? guest: it tried to get rid of the soft money that was in politics. we had all these unlimited corporate contributions, union contributions that went to parties. and so it said let's clean this up. and in 2002, eliminated that and set a butch of limits on how much corporations unions and other groups could contribute to campaigns. host: which led to the citizens

united case. guest: right. it's a very interesting case. the supreme court in january ruled in a case -- and i'll explain what it is. it's a group that ran, that prepared a very scathing documentary about hillary clinton in the run-up to the 2008 presidential campaign. but it was barred by rules that prohibited unlimited corporate money from being used on ads that ran right before a primary general election, so they couldn't advertise it on pay per view channels, they couldn't advertise about this. in citizens united, the supreme court said, look, those rules vile yate corporation's free speech provisions. they have the right to talk about politics. and so it basically undid decades-old regulations on what, how much corporations and unions could spend.

and people who favor campaign finance reform fear that it will unleash millions into races this year. host: this is on our twitter page. guest: there is a big debate going on. the rnc recently had to report that it had $3 million in debt that had not been previously reported and the treasure argued that staff members had been keeping information from him. that has now been reported. rnc officials say they've always been up front about it, that the debts have been paid. but at the end of june, we had the rnc i think it raised about

$11 million or had about $11 million cash on hand at the end of june which was roughly equivalent to what the dnc had -- just checking my notes on this. and the reason this is significant is that the rnc has traditionally been a big fund-raising power house and able to aid republican candidates, and they're no where in the kind of strong position they had once been in. they have had some difficulty, particularly since march when it was revealed that about $2,000 had been spent at an exotic club in los angeles, and a number of donors decided to start moving away from the rnc. and i think -- what happened this last week is another sign of the dlts that committee is facing. host: one source we use is open secrets funded by the center for responsive politics, a nonpartisan source of information tracking campaign

expenditures. and one of the areas that they're able to look at the top industries and who they contribute to. let me put a coumple examples. lawyers and law firms tend to contribute to the democratic party, real estate and health professionals on the fence, about half to the democrats, half to republicans. business services leaning democratic, oil and gas strongly republican, general contractors strongly republican, hospitals and nursing homes leaning democratic. guest: that makes sense. we certainly have -- those are patterns that have been in place for a while. we are starting to see some shift in some of the trends. there have been some evidence that wall street, for instance, which had been backing democrats may be shifting more toward republicans and raising hopes of a republican -- republicans will do well in

their efforts, particularly in the house, to take over the majority. host: if you go to open secrets.org, if you can type in a zip code and keep track of which industries or which companies are contributing to individual candidates, and then a comparison to other candidates. have you been able to navigate through that? guest: oh, yeah. host: what does it tell you? guest: that -- well, it gives you a sense that, one of the things that you see on that map and these numbers is that republicans are -- have certainly had much better fund raising cycle recently. both on the house and senate. their fund raising is surging. you have a sense that there are going to be a number of states in play this year. you see a lot of investment and fund raising in places like ohio for house candidates, virginia for house candidates.

these are going to be some very competitive races. host: if you go to open secrets.org and click on a state and individual congressional map to get more information on who is contributing both by industry and by companies. and then this by total sector. i'm just going to provide a couple of high lights. other industries, lawyers and lobives, health care field, labor, construction,ing a ra business, transportation and defense. guest: one of the reasons you of course see the financial services sector contributing heavily in insurance is that think of the big issues that were before congress this year. health care, a major overhaul of the nation's health care system. and financial regulatory changes, the biggest changes since the great depression. those have all been hot issues. and those groups have been

lobbying heavily and have been very active in races. host: our phone lines are open. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. senator reid is expected to take up the issue of it's sense united in a debate later this summer. what is he expecting? guest: this is called the disclose act and it's the democrat's response to citizens united. the democrats are very worried about the potential for all sorts of spending by corporations in particular that's what the democrats are concerned about and unions through shadowy nonprofit groups or trade associations. and the argument is that the public won't know who is funding the ads. that a group called good americans for other good americans will run some nasty

ad against representative john doe and the public won't know who is funding it. so to that end, the bill does things like require c.e.o.s or union chiefs to appear in the ads they fund. it also requires public disclosure of the top five donors to the organization funding the ad. and it also bars large federal contractors, those with contracts worth $10 million or more from funding these kinds of ads. and there are other more technical provisions such as disclosing transfers among and between groups to ensure that there is not money hidden in again flowing into some nonprofit. it has been quite controversial, it passed the house by a narrow margin last month. host: there was an exemption for the national rifle association, and two democratic

senators said that they will oppose this measure because the nra is exempted. guest: right. that was of great concern to both of them. it was one reason that a bunch of republicans on the house said that they were concerned about and voted against it. frankly, we don't know what the prospects are for the bill in the senate. the democrats as of the end of this week or end of this last past week did not have any republican support. they had those two democrats who were concerned about it. and they need 60 votes to get passed an expected g.o.p. filibuster. senator reed has called for a vote on tuesday to try to force the issue. but it's not clear whether we will have a new disclosure regime in place before mid-term elections. host: matt from reno, nevada,

republican line, one of the states seeing a big senate race this fall. caller: i can't even get started on that one. host: feel free to, if you'd like. caller: no. there's not enough time. but i was calling because i am curious, why are these 30-second attack ads and the fear that people have, why are they so effective? what is the psychology behind them? i would think that with the cynicism towards politics, you'd think i'm going to take that with a grain of salt. so who is the target for these ads? maybe c-span viewers don't fall for them. but who is falling for these ads and goes to the polls and votes based on them? host: we'll get a response. guest: i think that people are concerned about them because of what happened in part in 2004.

when you saw ads that ran against john kerry that certainly affected the outcome of the race. he would certainly argue that it did. i think that it's -- perhaps you're right. maybe it's not the c-span viewer who is up early on a saturday morning watching this who may be wayed by a last-minute ad. but it certainly targets incumbents, and they are very nervous about their ability to respond to them. if all of a sudden there is a bunch of last-minute money that casts them as not doing their job, out of touch with washington, that they're not going to be able to respond quickly. i think advertising works. we've seen that. that's one of the reasons why people spend so heavily on it. host: next call, gary from dallas. good morning.

democrat's line. caller: good morning. i've got a two and a half part question, i guess. number one, i'm interested in the governor's race here in dallas, texas. i recently joined the bill white campaign. but they make me like a presinchingt captain and i started calling a list that was given to me. and it just seems like the presinchingt people are not on board with the bill white campaign from what i found out and that they feel like he is kind of pushing away the base democrats and he is going out for independents and republicans. and that may be a shot in his campaign's foot, but i guess overall he is doing fairly well. so i'd like to hear your comments on that. the next thing is the mccain push-away from his first stance on he was a maverick, then he

wasn't a maverick, then, you know, i really like to be a maverick, i don't want that now. i think that's killing him. the last part question has to do with unemployment benefits. i think that this is really going to be something that really shoots the republicans also in the foot. i think that they're underestimating their hand, and i think the democrats that you -- and the part of the country that you don't hear from which are hurting really bad, i think that's going to come back and be a noose around the republicansneck. are you following the governor's race? guest: i pay more attention to congressional races host: the politics of the unemployment debate which we saw on the senate floor this past week. guest: i think that's going to gsh -- both sides are very vigorously trying to point fingers at the other. i got lots of e-mails from

democrats trying to characterize republicans as party of no. a lot of republicans saying that democrats are fiscally irresponsible. so i think you're going to see the lines drawn. that debate sort of presages some of the conversations we're going to be seeing in fall election ads. in the case of john mccain, he is -- i mean one of the issues for him is that he has this challenge from the right. and he needs to make sure or he is trying to make sure there in arizona that he does not lose the republican base. and that's what we're seeing time and again in his messages there. host: one call that came out had him up between 58 to 62% compared to 19 or 20% for jd hey worth. guest: so his message appears

to be working. one of the things we've been talking about money, he certainly has an advantage. he raised more than mr. hey worth did. so there is the value of the incumbansy in that case to raise money. host: the primary is set for august 24, and jd hey worth and john mccain and the republican candidates in the arizona senate race debated a week ago today that the data is available on our website. you had a story about ten states adding campaign finance laws in reaction to citizens united. as states wait for the federal government or washington, i guess, to decide one way or the other, what specifically are these states doing? guest: requiring more disclosure. what happened in response to citizens united is that 24 states had outright banned or restricted corporation and union spending on these kinds of ads. so they had to respond. basically, the supreme court said that's no longer

constitutional. and so in anyone states they said, ok, we understand that the law has changed. we want some more disclosure. in yea, for instance, a corporation that funds an ad, the name of the corporation and the c.e.o. of the corporation now need to appear in the ad. in addition, organizations must certify with the state election board that either their board of directors or some leadership body approved the spend. host: charles from washington, d.c., independent libe. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. love the programs on c-span. my question is i have some friends who are democrats and i seem to get a lot of flack because i support the citizens united decision. and it also seems that in the

media when business united is cited, it's referring mostly to corporations roles and campaign finance. and then when i look upon the internet, i find that the top seven or seven of the top ten contributors to political campaigns are unions. and then you just don't hear very much about how unions might be playing a role that i don't know seems to be a little bit understated. and i just wondered now more about maybe why that is happening, or if there is some upper hand that corporations gain from the citizens united decision over unions. host: thank you. guest: thank you. the folks who are most concerned about this, pro ponents of further restrictions have argued that corporations

have deeper pockets than unions. but certainly unions are going to play a significant role. we've already seen unions spending heavily in races such as the primary in arkansas between blanche lincoln and bill halter. lincoln prevailed in that. the service employees international union, for instance, just told me that they plan to spend $44 million in races this year, up from i think $33 million in the last election. so we are going to see a lot of union activity. and some of the uneyps also have capitalized on citizens united to be more explessity in their advertising, the way they talk about candidates when they are running ads. so i think that we will -- there is the potential for both sides to capitalize on it. host: let me ask about these self--funded candidates, because you talked about the

situation in florida where mr. green has spent about $6 million of his own money. meg wittman last report close to $80 million of her own money. she has said that she would spend up to $120 million. and the man running for the senate seat in connecticut has spent $17 million of her own money. guest: we certainly have seen an uptick in self--funded candidates. there are 42 house and senate candidates who have donated half a million or more of their own money so far in this election cycle, most of them about 35 are republicans. one of the thing is that history has not been on their side. a recent study by the national institute on money and state politics found that only 11% of candidates who put in their own money or that of an immediate family member between owe and

2009 had actually won. but we are seeing some other successes in some other states. g.o.p. nominees for governor, for instance, in maine and alabama have at least partially self-funded. the republican, former hp is running against barbara boxer. peter shiff, who is also g.o.p. in the primary there has put some of his own money into the race. so we'll if self-funders this year are more successful. there's been some folks have observed that in tough economic times people are, a lot of these folks have been successful in business and may have some appeal to voters saying, look, i know how to create jobs. you know, i'm not of the system, i've been out here making money. you know, creating jobs.

building the economy. host: we're talking with fred reeka shouten. her focus is money and politics. before that she was a national education reporter. spent 20 years with gwinnett. larry joining us from redding, massachusetts. republican line. good morning. . .

guest: it raises an interesting point about how can the debts can be spot -- candidates can respond. in the two dozen to campaign finance law that has gone by the wayside -- 2008 campaign finance law that has gone by the wayside has allowed candidates running against funded candidates to raise extra money so they can compete. there are a number of states in

which state candidates can get public funds to allow them to compete more effectively. we are seeing a number of challenges to those provisions around the country. there is a big challenge pending in arizona. the supreme court is weighing whether to take that case has decided that the state of arizona cannot go ahead and provide money to the candidates that are facing well funded candidates in the state. it is going to be very interesting to see how that plays out. that is a big campaign finance issue we see. host: a look at the numbers, charles, go ahead. caller: i have a couple of questions.

i know under the constitution, it is supposed to be for the people, by the people. how did corporations come to be able to lobby and have the right under the constitution that other human beings have? white is not there more discussion about that? >> what we are seeing with the supreme court ruling is the justice feels corporations have as much right to speak in politics as individuals do. that is the direction the country is headed in. corporations cannot give direct contribution, who but the sense from the courts right now is everyone should be able to participate in the political

process through independent ads. >> our next is from wisconsin, independent line. caller: i liked the story we are having. i guess i wonder, after the election, where is the story about the fox got a billion -- all of the money ends up somewhere. guest: it could be a blockbuster year for the media. i did a story about $139 million spent so far by candidates outside of groups and political

parties. that is twice what we saw at this point in the midterm election. one person with the campaign analysis group which tracks broadcast at and politics very closely said there could be more money then there is prepare time this year. host: are there any republicans who support this? would it passed the vote needed? guest: it looks difficult. groups that supported have been putting pressure on three moderate republicans, columbia snow, susan collins, who in the past have a favored tougher campaign finance rules. senator scott brown in

massachusetts. not one of them have said they are in support. scott brown wrote a letter to the groups about a week and a half ago saying he thought it was a little more than an effort to gain a tactical and political advantage for democrats right before the election. the other senators said they were reviewing it. they had some reservations. it is not at all clear if they will be successful. host: we are speaking with the reporter from "usa today." i am so grateful to the tea party patriots. let me ask you what impact that party will have on congress. guest: we are seeing it in senate races and primaries. paulson kentucky has been

successful. marco rubio has had the support of some tea party activists and has been successful. you have also seen it in utah where senator bob bennett, a veteran incumbent was basically kicked out of the party at the gop nominating convention and mike lee who is the republican nominee in has the backing of the tea party expressed in california. i think you will see an impact in terms of a fund raising, the area i look at, i have noticed 30 political committees and so the movement is as it matures, it is becoming more involved in the money side of it.

we are not seeing a great deal of money raised. the most successful one is the tea party expressed out of california. the last time i checked it raised about $4 million. it is connected with a bunch of republicans from that state that have been active for a long time. they created that back in two dozen 8 to oppose president obama -- 2008 president obama's campaign. >> there is now a tea party conference. seattle washington, democrats line. caller: in light of the recent supreme court decision and, of are there any projections as to

how much corporate money private givers -- what is the equation there? how much to do the people have to raise? can we get an idea? guest: it may be too soon to tell. there are a couple of reasons why. we have not seen this eruption of spending. while advertising is going up, it is going up for a number of reasons. there are a bunch of incumbents such as senator reid is spending a lot of money on advertising, because they are in close races to introduce themselves to voters. what we do not know is what the rules will be. there is uncertainty because there is one act that we have

been talking about that may come into law. there may or may not be further disclosure. a number of experts argue that corporations probably -- publicly traded companies may not get involved at all, because why would a company want to offend shareholder customers? it is too soon to tell. it is too soon to predict what will happen. we are seeing some that are forming that may capitalize on the decision. we do not yet know. host: 1 viewer sang tea party expressed = republican front on our twitter page. beverly, mass., and evangeline. caller: i was calling because

during the first part of your show, you were talking regarding the firing of the teachers in washington, d.c. i do not know much about this frankly, but i wanted to type in what we are talking about now. with all of the many for political campaigns, it should be going to our children. we wonder why we have a crisis in this country. it is probably because we are not teaching our children and nobody cares. i went to a state college in massachusetts. i saw from then that it has spiraled, that no one cares about our children. host: thanks for your call.

your comment? guest: there have been people who have deprived the amount of money that go into campaigns for years. it goes up every year. the cost of running for the house and senate does not get cheaper. it does not seem as though there is an appetite to change the system. there is a bill in the house that would try to have more public funding campaigns, and there has not been much attraction for it. host: athens, ohio, a democrat line. caller: i have an issue.

mcclain can win in arizona because they had the money and backing, said they can live on the republican high hill with the power. they cannot give up the richness -- they are a manipulative bunch. as long as those people are in the united states, there will be friction between the republican party wanting is all and the democrats kicking them out. they do not get nothing. guest: we have seen certain man coming up, because he is advising a couple of groups, a 527 group that has been raising money to get involved in races

this year. he spent half a million dollars on harry reid. i do not think we will see mr. rose exiting politics. i think he and other republicans intend to be very active in this election cycle. host: 30 or 60? guest: 31 seats that are tossups according to charlie cook. a couple of dozen are very close. the republicans need to capture 39 seats to take control of congress. they think they will win 40 plus. the democrats say they intend to retain a majority. there are enough seats in play for a republican takeover. host: how much will be spent in total in house and senate races this fall?

guest: we do not know that yet. people are expecting a record amount. it will exceed all previous spending. host: we heard rumblings that if the republicans do not gain the house of representatives, there could be changes within republican leadership. could we see that? guest: that is always a possibility, if you have an opportunity to win an election and you do not and you come very close. there is always a time frame of self examination. people wonder about changing the leadership. host: you can read her work online at usa today dot com. when we come back, more from one group as they meet in las vegas.

the executive director of right on line will be joining us in just a moment. ♪ >> this weekend on book tv, discussions by congressman's, senators, and activists. it begins at 1:00 p.m. eastern. afterwards, the author of a best-selling book on her new book and the life she left behind when coming to a united states. in the roosevelt reading festival. horn a weekend filled with books

on c-span2 for a complete schedule go to booktv.org. this weekend, the changing world of the newspaper industry. >> i worry about some of the standards and maintaining journalistic integrity as we move from one media world. sunday night on c-span q&a. c-span is now available in over 100 million homes bringing you a direct link to public affairs, history, nonfiction books. it is a service created by america's cable companies. host: today, we will get the

comments from our next guest from right on line. what is the agenda? guest: today is our last a day. we kicked off yesterday at 8:30 in the morning. it was on citizen journalism. after lunch, we heard from a congressman and the producer of not evil just wrong. we went back to some of our training sessions. we had a dinner with a congresswoman. we had our general session this morning starting from 9:00 a.m. to noon. we had a guest from fox news and from "the wall street journal" and many others. we will have a couple of more training sessions and our affiliated organization " rabbit

up. >> we will be covering both your conference and another. [unintelligible] let me ask you about this story that involves sheer rodham. -- sherrod. what does ensure represent your movement? >> many of your viewers are probably aware of the number of web properties that he has become involved in over the last few years. maybe since the big inning looking at a report and the the

up and running partner. it is in the conservative online realm. many people remember the acorn prostituted video. bride art was one of the backers of. and recently this sherrod video as well. host: take a look at this. >> what has happened to our industry and the white house? >> first and foremost, in and that is like an open sewer. no one is they're exercising any kind of editorial judgment. some might be exercising its for militias reasons. that is why they edited a video like this. host: would you call the internet an open sewer? guest: it has allowed so many

people to be heard that were not before. it empowers people to make their voice heard that would otherwise be locked out of power. the real failure was not on the part of the internet, but on the naacp and the person in the administration making this decision. this was their video that in brightbart in the news. some acted before they knew the context of what was happening. that is where you see the breakdown and you see the need the lack ofe looked at

accountability and responsibility. but that is in our federal government as well that made a rush to judgment. i am not going to stand up for him on this one. i am not going to cast the blame on him either. host: rush to judgment was based on the video you posted on his website. it was a video that he confirmed was edited. what about where the fault may lay with the federal government. the source was andrew brightbart. guest: us some accused him of acting improperly for the way he edited id and presented it. that was not his intention in

causing this. i do not know what he was trying to prove in that segment. the naacp who took the video and had it in their position and should have viewed the the whole thing before they put out the statement. they could of of you did to see the full context before they put a statement about which pushed the administration to make a rash decision. host: we have a link to our web site to get more affirmation of our guests. you mentioned you will be out of going door to door for the senate race in las vegas. is sharon the strongest republican to face senator harry reid? guest: it is the right of the republican voters to pick their

nominee. he is in a weak position because of the agenda he pursued her hot. [unintelligible] the stimulus that was supposed to stimulate the economy which is falling flat on its face, las vegas is the 50th state in terms of returning funds to do that. they are very upset about that. we do not get involved in elections. we educate elected officials i think harry reid is right on many issues they pursued.

the numbers up at the bottom of your screen to call us. senator harry reid is up seven points over sharon. guest: it is hard to take on the senate's leader and all of the resources he is able to bring to bear. just the fact that how vulnerable he is and has been speaks for himself. host: what did michelle bachman tell you last night? guest: she gave a wonderful

speech about what happened back in washington. the bailout of obama care and the like. she put forth her plan for america. host: indiana, democrats line. good morning. caller: it morning. you said something i thought he said was wrong about the amount of money that harry reid, you said 50th, the last in the state. i do not think that is correct. you all here myths and repeated them over and over again. if -- everybody goes to washington. nobody wants to leave or go back to their home state after they are done with their service. washington is a magnet that

people stay and end up going up to hire paid positions. they are not doing our country justice. guest: that is a great reason for harry reid to leave. i think he has lost the value of his home state which she went to represent in the first place. i am from connecticut not from washington. i spent most of the time on the road. my favorite part of my job is getting the heck out of there. i agree with you on that. with regards to the figure, if i am wrong, i apologize. many people said harry reid has failed to deliver an not produced for the state. he wields a tremendous amount of power.

host: what is your conference represent in terms of how technology is changing quickly in the roles and tools of the internet in terms of disseminating information and keeping track of candidates? guest: it is not just about getting people elected. whether they are a democrat or republican, holding them to the values we believe in and make sure they are geared towards those that are beneficial to americans. there are citizen activists that to do on the ground involvement. it is about how can we work more effectively together and use the internet to do that. the effort of the tea party

focused over the past year and a half and what they have been able to achieve and organize and grow and become a very effective force in american politics are using tools like facebook and twittered to oak -- organize and mobilize. they use youtube to get information out that the mainstream media may be ignoring. it is about getting people involved in the public policy process. making sure they are informed and active. they are getting their co- workers involved as well. host: why don't they meet simultaneously? guest: we found out that we started looking into it in said there is nothing like this on

our side. for a number of years, we thoughts, because of conferences like this where they train people and give them the tools and resources to be successful -- ours had nothing like it. we thought, why not create is. we took it head on. i thought it was a great rallying point. no more will we let them dominate. it is time for us to get mobilized and engage. we cannot afford to be losing on this front anymore. a lot of the media said it was a battle between the them. we are trying to get more involved in our democratic process and exercising rights to be involved in all the freedoms the founding fathers fought for us to have.

we are trying to find a way to work together such as through transparency. host: 1 person is following up on a comment regarding andrew brightbart. what is your response? guest: i think it is an overall unfortunate situation in which a woman's reputation and her career was harmed. i do not have any desire to see it used politically to beat up on it. i would rather talk about the issues. because the left does not want to take -- talk about the issues -- they want to call them racist and attack people on the other side, because the more they talk about the issues, the more their public approval

ratings drop. there are not supportive of the policy agenda they are pursuing. the democrats are terrified of going into the midterm elections. i would rather talk to the american public so they can make an informed decision. it is to nobody's benefit to continue on these. host: a south carolina, good morning. caller: the morning. i am a republican. they are going to take a beating in november. and they are heartless people.

they do not care about the average worker. they are all for rich people. in south carolina, host: he said he is a republican, but he sounds more like a democrat. what is your comment? guest: 3 balkans are pawns of big business. we are not here to represent republicans, but the values that will return our nation to prosperity. you can tax business is more, but they will have to take money away from their employees. obama care is supposed to be a gift to the american public. the bill cannot afford health insurance, but it increases premiums for everybody, employers to cut back on health benefits, to the people they employ, and even lay off people.

people would much rather be employed in see our country returned on a track toward economic growth than getting out of one that is in the midst of recession. the impact of many of these policies are not average americans benefit from. who on a growing economy, these are the wrong policies we are pursuing right now. host: you were saying trillions of dollars in deficit spending say women and minorities have feared we're -- fewer opportunities and will stay poor. guest: not only is the government spending money we do not have, but also money that our kids do not have in future generations. so security was not supposed to

go into the red until another six years. it did this year. we need to rein in our spending and pursue policies that are more friendly toward job growth. host: 40, independent line. caller: i do not even know where to begin. where was the tea party when the republicans were spending as into this deficit? the obama administration did not spend as into this deficit. as far as -- i am no fan of harry reid. i feel he should have been -- he is not as politically astute as he needs to be. he should have been tougher. heat is providing legislation that will help the american people. the republicans have stopped him at every turn. in terms of -- it is not because

of money, it is his contender, even when she has a platform to speak, her self-proclaimed press conference, she will not take questions. as far as andrew brightbart, he is responsible for what happened, because regardless of whether the naacp head of the tapes in their possession, which they should have reviewed more closely, he intentionally edited the tapes to cast aspersion on this woman and the administration. no one is fooled by the allies and the innuendoes that is being propagated to the american people in the name of those that want to be back in power who ran this country into the ground and now are angry.

guest: estuary word during the bush it mensuration, go to our web site and look at some of the efforts that we had during that administration. -- republican after republican and the bush administration itself. they had an awful record when it came to government spending. there were a number of groups out there calling them out on it and pushing them back trying to stop the path there on. it does not change the fact that the obama administration is doing the same thing in making it much worse. they need to address the problem and stop focusing on the blame of it. host: the headline of the "washington post."

is this the defining issue in the campaign? guest: being on the road and talking to people, the thing they are most fed about is out of control spending. this is the first that many have come out to a rally. they are spending money. my kids and grandkids will have to pay for it. they need to stop sending -- spending their future. people are fired up about it. they bought into washington's access. when the american people spoke

in for the amount of power, the democrats should not have taken it as a mandate to do the same thing. we need to hold their feet to the fire when they are in office and make sure they stop on some policies they cannot afford. host: has this story reached this turn? guest: i think it is going too far. the more immediate talks about it, it is a distraction from the real issues we need to focus on. i think they all should step up and accept responsibility for the role they played in this. nobody benefits from talking more and more about this. i love that she is able to accept the apology and take them up on their offer to get her job

back or pursue another course. i think we need to get back to the real issues at hand. host: he is the executive director of the right online conference taking place in las vegas. democrats line, atlanta. caller: it kind of seems to me that the educator trying to educate people and give them information helping give a false information. if you took for example, if we edited this program and made it seem like everything he said, values, the important things in life, and government spending -- if i cut it up and posted its in

made it seem like he said the exact opposite and he got fired, would i be responsible or would the organization of irresponsible if they reacted to what i posted as the truth? we have a responsibility to the truth, to speak it and view it in its entirety, not have step and presented to convince people otherwise. host: we will get a response, thanks for the call. guest: if someone misrepresented what i said, i would be upset with them and hope they take responsibility. if my employer acted without viewing the whole context to happened and rushed to judgment, they need to take responsibility as well. it is an instance where you cannot point the finger at one person and say you are the one

that did this. it is on many levels from many different people involved. host: independent line, new jersey. was a medic for 15 years with the government. i lost everything as a victim of crime. i went bankrupt, lost everything i had. i was on top of the world. social security came in and offered me $1,000 a month. medicaid, all that stuff there, i cannot get medicaid. then i find out that i cannot get an increase in living.

i have 10 kids. i cannot support a family. i think they are all crooks. if you are someone who did not work all of your life and you end up -- [unintelligible] 2 come to this country and get medicaid and all this stuff, but a guy like me who has lost everything and obama does not give me an increase. guest: i think there are -- we can talk about government spending and there are areas where there are people who when it comes to welfare and social security are in need of help and there are many cases where it is abused. they need to get what they need.

look at government officials of a city manager in california making $800,000 a year. the spending priorities of government are completely out of whack. there are so many things they waste money on. they also ignore basic needs of individuals. host: nisei the largest astro turf proof -- here is what they say. both funds them? -- who funds them? guest: we have donors who have given as money to support our mission thus far. it is unfortunate that this individual is looking at the

-- rachel maddow.matters no i invite any of you to come to cover events and check out who the people are. there are not paid to be there. they're hard-working americans who care about what is happening in is getting involved. people want to get involved. the outpouring of americans from across this country that want to stand up and make a difference, they are doing everything they can to get involved. look at so many of the rallies they have both -- our people are there because they care and want to be. the left does not want to talk about the issues, because the more they talk about their

vision for america, the more the average american's hours on them. they do not want -- sours on them. they do not want to talk about the election. host: minneapolis, republican line. caller: the morning. i am grateful for c-span and the information it presents. my question is a couple of things that i listened to recently has caused me to be very disturbed. one issue is with regards to the indoctrination of our young people in the schools of california. this will continue as a trend all across our nation. i heard another thing about the hidden agenda that is beginning to take over our beloved nation.

it has to do with islam and funds. we are so worried in this country about who is a democrat and republican or independent. we are getting caught up in all of these national issues, which i think a very important. however, there are other things that i recently saw a video on in arabia. they are changing our history. they are changing what our forefathers did and even before that in the middle east and europe. those are the things that are concerning me. i am not only a grandmother but a great grandmother. host: i will stop you there. thanks for your comments and

col. guest: -- call. guest: that is not something i am equipped to answer. a broadere's based to point. so many people are asking how do we reached our young people? where they are getting their information from or learning in schools, the information paradigm has completely flipped. people decided the website as they go to. during the broadcast age, the only place to go was the newspaper or the evening news. there were a very limited number of outlets you could go to. it is easy for young people to not see both sides of the issue.

people say, how do we reach them? that is why this is important. many are going to youtube, facebook, and twittered. that is where they are getting the majority of their information. the only way to break through with them is to be connected with them. it is so difficult to get it through to them and make sure they see the other side of the issue. it is so important for people to get involved and share information whether it is a word of mouth or on line and make sure people know what is gone on through their perspective. host: what impact do you think? -- the impact social media will have before you during the short term over the next couple of

months as they get ready for the elections in november? guest: people have used it to mobilize and organized, which is important. we have to keep people engaged not just up to november but up to that and beyond. it is certainly going to play a critical role. across the country, there are very high stakes in priority races occurring. all across the country, they are engaged in what is going on. even if they are not in the midst of one of the ski races, they have the ability to participate and draw attention and support in nature people are aware of what those races may be. the social media will be essential. i hope it is something that people will continue to be

engaged in. host: thanks for your time today. guest: thanks for having me. host: we have about 10 minutes left. we want to open our phone lines for you to tell us which you are thinking about today. our numbers are below. did you can give us your comments on line -- you can give us your comments online on edgewater. there was a dismissal of two and 41 teachers in the district of columbia. others were put on notice that they could be let go due to poor performance. and general mcchrystal - had fun at his own expense to the

rolling stone article that led to his dismissal. >> for those that want to contradict my memories with the truth, i was there as well. i have stories on all of you. photos on many, and i know a rolling stone reporter. look, this has the potential to be an awkward or sad occasion. i left a mission i feel strongly about with my resignation. host: you can watch this in its entirety on our website. the passing of daniel schorr, 93 years old, he died at georgetown university hospital here in washington, d.c. he spent seven decades as a reporter and commentator with cbs news, later with cnn, and

national public radio. he passed away at the age of 93. greensboro, n.c., caller: i just wanted to remind everyone that the republicans and the tea party that keeps speaking about how much money the democrats and the president has spent. the democrats need to remind everyone that they would not have had to spend that money if this had not been for the republicans. the president would not have had to do these programs if the country was in a different economic situation. it was left in that situation because of republicans. it was only done because of them. also, the person you just level on -- i wanted to respond.

and i am not sure of his name. i think a lot of people when they heard the tape said she needed to be fired, because you assume that when something like that is on tv, that it has been vetted. and that it was the truth. now we know and i think everyone will be much more suspicious of anything you hear or see on tv. host: thanks for your call. the timing of the ethics trial has some democrats worried. the trial will begin the process this thursday.

he spoke with reporters in harlem, new york yesterday. >> i will let all of the people will have read what they've read to constantly have to say, please wait until the ethics committee completes its investigation. i cannot think of anything that relieves me more than to be able to say to my constituents, this is the result of the investigation, so that they would know who charlie rangel really is. of those of you that know me know that saying no, it is very difficult for me. and for anybody to not be able to respond, it is a very awkward thing. to my family, friends, constituents that have been there for me throughout, i can

only say that i will not let you down. thank pla the report is complete. then be will discuss the findings. -- we will discuss the findings. host: a preview of next weekend's wedding of chesley clinton. some of the stores on the new york times this saturday. north carolina, republican line. caller: good morning. this is a response to your guests statements. after watching president bush and a couple of a wawars

watching him drive the country in the ground and the current republican is refusing to work with the administration, i am embarrassed to be affiliated with the republicans. i may go to be an independent. it was absolutely necessary to prevent a depression. -- that is the spending that obama did. spendingma's forecast -- borrowing 41 cents of every dollar. the record deficit for this year, $1.40 trillion. it will increase next year. here is a comment from one person.

there was a story first reported by the boston herald. the yacht has been docked saving about 5000 -- $500,000 in massachusetts taxes. michigan, good morning. caller: i will make this really simple and as plain as i can say this. everybody is on television, all of the talking heads, democrats, republicans, the parties, independents, claiming they love this country and they are willing to die in fight for it. what are not they willing to pay taxes? how can you buy a $100 million mansion and put absolutely no money into it? it takes money to run