our special week-long series on energy concludes with the president and ceo of a solar energy company. "washington journal" is next. . .

>> she will likely of ago some of the same things since the ethics charges were leveled against her. that is "bayville" newspaper this morning. -- that is "a the hill" newspaper this morning.

that is from as well. senator dick durbin had a tumor removed from his stomach during a surgical procedure thursday.

that is from the politico. as is this article. mike huckabee, don't change the 14th amendment. and the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads, "all persons born or naturalized in

the u.s. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states and of the state wherein they reside." and that is what we want to talk to you about. it has been a simmering issue, whether or not this part of the 14th amendment should be repealed. if you support repeal of the birthright citizenship, the numbers are on the screen. again, we are talking about repealing the birthright citizenship part of the 14th amendment, as has been talked about for a couple of weeks. some politicians are lining up

in favor of it, some opposed to it. a former arkansas governor and now stands as one of the few gop leaders firmly against the proposal. that is from the politico this morning. go ahead and dial in. we will start taking your calls in just a minute. i want to assure you this picture from the front page of "the wall street journal."

there are six pictures of center schumer here. in an empty senate, the eye has it is the caption on the picture. how to fix a dysfunctional senate, cut 98 centers. a senate can work quickly after all, you just have to limit it to two senators.

critics, especially on the left, have denounced the credit in recent weeks and dismissed it as broken.

our first call comes from texas. brenda, what are your thoughts? caller: good morning, peter. thank you for taking my call. i am for this repeal and this is probably my only time in 57 years i have agreed with the republican party. it is very obvious that this group of people came here deliberately and are giving birth to their kids to have citizenship. this is breaking the law. while this debate continues to go on, they're breaking the law. host: bakersfield, calif., john, you are opposed to it, why? caller: the 14th amendment was crafted and set up by a lot of cooler heads then those who want to repeal it today. it was set up in an improper per

manar -- in an improper manner, and that is how i feel. host: thanks for calling in. evelyn, what are your thoughts? evelyn lives in fort lauderdale. caller: i supported. all these people on the line, as them in this heat, will they go -- will decline on a roof and build a roof in 90-degree weather? host: your action for repealing the board said -- birthright citizenship. >> yes. -- caller: yes. host: this is an article in the "wall street journal."

that is linda tobben is in "the wall street journal" a couple of days ago. i want to assure you this ad. it was taken up by lockheed martin in the moral of senator ted stevens from alaska. again, it is a message from lockheed martin -- lockheed

martin on the passage of ted stevens. it goes on to talk about some of his service. the next call comes from u.s., fla., william on-air immigrants line. hi, william." caller: where you are born, that is the citizen that you are. do you know what i mean? these congressmen do not know what they are talking about. the amendment is already signed. nobody is supposed to change it. host: where you from originally? caller: i am from haiti. host: are you a citizen? caller: yes, i'm a citizen. but i'm talking about illegal immigrants and people born here.

host: what do you say to the folks who are concerned about this, where people come over nine months pregnant, whatever, have a kid, and then stay in the country because they have a child born here in the u.s.? what about people that are concerned about that issue? caller: they do not know what they're talking about. if my wife is pregnant and she is illegal, but the child is not illegal. if the child is illegal, they deport him back years later, he does not know where he is going. host: if you would like to send

us a tweet, c-spanwj is our handle.

john in silver spring, md., you support repealing the birthright part of the 14th amendment.

why? caller: because a lot of democrats will use this as an excuse to continue amnesty for those who are here illegally. they will say you cannot send back the mothers of these children because they have to raise these children inside the u.s. i do not want any excuses for amnesty. it is time for us to secure our borders and get this country back on track. host: rose, washington d.c., what are your thoughts? caller: i am a republican, but i cannot agree with this. it is not the way to go. the 14th mmm has been around for over a century. -- the 14th amendment has been around for over a century. it is established law. i think that the statistics in terms of how many babies are born here is not that high.

peter, can i say one thing about ted stevens? host: go ahead. caller: thank you for showing things about him. i am so upset that the prosecutors who went after mr. stevens are still working for the department of justice. they are throughout the country now. they are no longer in d.c., except for one. if you really think about it, but for the fact that they went after him with such vigilance -- and it was an ethics disclosure form for the senate. it really upsets me. host: if you are here illegally, you are a criminal who invaded our country, why should your criminality be illegal? that is a tweet we have received. carolina, go ahead. caller: i agree with what you

just read. i think you should amend this -- just totally get away from this amendment and do away with it. that way, all of the white europeans who are here that have polluted and the stain and segregated this great continent for all the great people who were born here, who were here for 10,000 years, people. 10,000 years. and i think all of those people that have come here, these white europeans, it is not their continent. they should go away. host: missouri, john, your in support of repealing the portrait -- the birthright citizenship amendment. why?

caller: it is not right. what are as -- what else are they going to change? we have been fighting this for years. it is not going to happen. i just oppose it. they ought to just leave it alone. host: richard, haysville, north carolina. what are your thoughts about this? caller: i think the 14th amendment was written for the children of slaves to be sure that they got citizenship after the civil war. however, i think it needs to be interpreted. it says "people under the jurisdiction thereof." people illegally coming into the country are not under the jurisdiction of the state. they are turned over to i.c.e.

and they are actually citizens of another country. that automatically voids citizenship for the newborn. it is just an interpretation. host: you are fading out a little bit, richard, but thanks for your thoughts. this is a story from the "financial times" this morning.

the front page of the "financial times" this morning. back to your calls. what is your perspective on this? caller: good morning. i do believe that the republicans are doing a great job of spreading hate in the country about the subject, about immigration. my advice to them is to change their attitude and you changed their tone of voice because we have been attacked for the last nine, 10 years after september 11 and it is outrageous how they have tried to control the weakest mines in this country. minds in this-

country. host: alex, where you from originally? we will never know. this from the "washington post." west union, ohio, gary, what are

you opposed to repealing birthright citizenship? -- why are you opposed to repealing birthright citizenship? caller: because i believe that people come into this country and they give birth to babies in this country. that kid you should not have citizenship. host: you actually support repeal. i know it is a little confusing. you actually support repeal of the 14th amendment's, the section that guarantees birthright citizenship. caller: yes. host: again, why you support repeal? caller: i believe that all

americans have earned -- host: gary, turned on that tv and just say where you're going to say. -- turned down that tv and say where you're going to say. caller: no one can sneak into this country and try to have our constitution support them. they are trying to gain citizenship. host: 1 in miami as opposed to repealing -- ron in miami is opposed to repealing a birthright citizenship. where are you opposed? caller: there are a lot of illegal immigrants who came into this country and gave birth and those kids went in to the army and fight for their people -- for other people. why would they try to have them and back -- sent back or pull

their citizenship? i do not think is right for them to do that. host: thanks for calling in this morning. a couple of e-mails. i think anyone at willing to swear an oath of loyalty should be a citizen. new york city, paul, what you think about all of this? caller: first, we are a nation of laws. it is a wrongful assumption to declare that these people are citizens because they are born here. i was not the intent of this amendment. -- back was not the intent of this amendment. the founding fathers had another

purpose. these people come here and defraud the constitution. the constitution was not meant to be defrauded. for them to defraud it and for other people to say they are citizens now is an abomination in my eyes. host: again, the 14th amendment, all persons born or naturalized in the u.s. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states and the state wherein they reside. there is a lot of talk on the political level about repealing the portion, the birthrights portion, of the 14th amendment. that is what we are talking about this morning. the alexander from chicago rights in --

oklahoma, sean, what are your thoughts about this? caller: good morning. i think the attitudes for repealing the 14th amendment are basically mean-spirited and shortsighted. i would like people to be reminded of what makes this country the greatest country on earth. and everybody knows deep down inside this country was made great by immigrants. and just to show i believe in fair play and i love my european brothers and sisters, my last bear.is standing ther

you have a caller earlier mentioned something very relevant that people turn their heads to. in large group of people in this country are illegal immigrants, but we seem to have just let that slide. but i love my brothers and sisters and i wish this country could work together for a common purpose. those are the characteristics that make this country great. thank you for your time. host: polymers, florida, good morning to you. what are your thoughts? caller: i do believe it should be repealed. and i want to make a comment really quickly to the other caller. i am african-american and when he made the comment that it would also include african

americans, that is why we are repealing it. the we are not saying it does need to be done away with deposit -- it does -- we are not saying it needs to be done away with. we are saying it needs to be critiqued. they are updating it, like everything else. they are sent there to initiate laws that work for the united states as a country. this is simply not working. if it needs to be revised, then that is what needs to be done. i'm sure there are a lot of people in congress that will come to the educated decision that, no, we cannot send all africans back to africa. but there are people that are coming over here and they are abusing the system and it needs to be addressed. i also agree with the other caller that we need to get back on track here in the u.s. as far as that is concerned,

this is a little bit off the subject, but i missed the other sees again when they were talking about the gays getting married -- i missed the other c- span when they were talking about is getting married. and i have a comment about that. i do not think they should follow through with that bill, either because we have printed on all of our u.s. currency, "in god we trust." and if you go into the bible, the bible the test same-sex marriages and same-sex unions. host: randy in maryland, what are your thoughts on repealing birthrights citizenship? caller: i am for repealing it. i do not think it is correct value reward parents for doing something wrong and give them a foot all -- i do not think is correct that you reward the parents for doing something wrong and give them a foothold

into the country. this is just another way for people who do not agree with what the definition of the word really is, just like the term "illegal immigrant." these people are not immigrants. they are illegal aliens and they are breaking the law by coming here. you cannot reward them. host: william in key west, fla., immigrant. caller: i called earlier today, but i was confused. host: you did call earlier. we got your point earlier and we appreciate it. thanks for calling back. "washington post," india latest to warn of blackberry shutdowns.

that is in the "washington post" this morning. doris, what are your thoughts about the birthrights citizen ship amendment? caller: i think we should repeal it because we're the only country in the world that has these stores were you can go in and out. that amendment was not written for this reason. it was written for the african- american slaves. also, you're a criminal when you come in. we do not grant criminals' rights.

it also has to do with racial profiling and minorities. people are ignorant. we have all colors of breaking through and coming into our country illegally. we need to stop it, repeal it, and put a stop to this. put our borders back together. people are taking advantage of our laws. i am an african-american and i am ashamed of our country. host: a tweet -- and another article from the "wall street journal."

next call on whether or not to repeal the birthright of this insured part of the 14th amendment comes from jackson, tennessee. carlton, please go ahead. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: i am a disabled veteran and of this right here is like giving a free pass to a person. any time you give a free pass to someone who has committed a felony, it makes it no and void.

you should go to the back of the line. in the very least, be financially punished. my know these are children and i hate that they are caught up in this, but when the parents are caught up in this crime, you do not get wide. when you are doing something criminal, you do not have no rights. host: of our immigrants line, dulce, miami. caller: i am a legal immigrant. i came when i was seven through cuba. i am with the arizona law. if you come to this country, you have to do it legally. you have to come with a paper. the american media, they do not know what is going on.

they have people in late pregnancy, they have to worst so they can come to the human states and give birth. -- they have tours so they can come to the united states and give birth. i do not think that is right. host: some people would say that maybe cubans have a special entry into this country. how would you respond to that? caller: and sorry if i'm a little bit nervous. i do believe that should be taken off. that is the way that fidel castro is getting away with this for the last 53 years. it is like a pressure cooker uecker. -- a pressure cooker. i do believe it should be taken off. foell was faced with a problem -- fidel was faced with a problem. and also, the embargo should be lifted.

all the people's rights that he has been taking their -- i'm sorry if i'm not making sense. host: thank you for calling in this morning. we will leave it there and move on to louisville, ky. caller: please do not cut me off. i sort of agree with the lady that just called, but i believe this problem started way before now. i feel like they are blaming the president of the united states and people now for not really doing anything, but this problem started in the 1990's. i do not understand why they can't do something about finding out a, you know. they know they are illegal when they come into this country and they know what to do when it comes to having children, that

the children will become united states, you know -- united states, you know. host: citizens. caller: exactly. i'm just getting a little excited about this. look at our crime rate and the cow many are in prison that we are actually paying for -- and look at how many are in prison that we are paying for. not only that, but the ones that -- ok, some of them work, but they will have their spouse -- or they are not a spouse. maybe, i do not know. they come into this country and they get everything for free. this is causing problems for the united states.

host: we will leave it there. this week came in and it amused me -- another story from the "financial times."

"hat is "the financial times lead editorial this morning. carol in north carolina, what do you think -- in the south carolina, what do you think? caller: we are all immigrants. but we are all coming from another country and to try to take their rights away from a particular life is totally uncalled for. a child did not ask to come into this world. for him to be born in the united states, this is supposed to be

the country that is supposed to have so much freedom. the point is, it may seem like it is wrong, but we are all here illegally in this country. we have germans, asians, blacks, whites, all types of race. and we are not even relief from this country. to be born here is a privilege. it is a right that you have. to take that away is hurtful and wrong. like i said, no child has us to be born here in the -- in this country. host: "new york times" --

this is from the "new york times" this morning and they interviewed christopher hill on his leaving baghdad. next caller, georgia, go ahead. caller: and they are illegal. their kids should be illegal. they should be sent back with their kids and get in line. also, every issue, it seems like

a black people love to join these issues with hispanics and these other types. with same-sex marriage, blacks are read litigating. -- re-litigating. the main thing about it is the right to vote. hispanics are not going to get behind blacks for any reason. their reason for coming to the united states is, they have their language and their culture still intact. they bring their drug money, push again, and they get benefits and economics. hispanics are way above blocks economical wise.

ordaz -- are way above blocks economical-wise. we pay taxes. they get hired because they do these jobs cheaper than everyone else. host: we will leave it there. the open or detroit free press" with a cover story -- here is a local article from the carbon for houston chronicle." the suspected gunman in the teen-ager's killing had been previously deported from the u.s. twice. it is not fair that he came back a third time.

the last call in connection with birthright citizenship comes from ohio. caller: i just want to say that if the 14th amendment was meant for the african-americans, it would have clearly stated it. i have heard a lot of callers calling in and no one says the american indians were the first people here. host: a couple of callers have mentioned that. caller: right, but i also want to say that mexicans are descendants of american indians and europeans. the american indians were here first, and then the europeans

came. mexicans are descendants of the american indians and europeans. a lot of people, clearly, they do not understand that. because the american indians were here first. host: we will leave it there. this is the front page of the "chicago sun times." you can see a picture there of former gov. blagojevich. up next, jane hamsher. >> mr. president, just before christmas in 1968, i was appointed to succeed alaska's first senior senator, bob barlow. next month will mark the 40th year that i have had the honor and privilege to serve here in this great chamber.

>> with over nine under appearances over 24 years, a look at the life of former texas -- former senator ted stevens on line. it is all free on your computer any time. it is washington, your way. >> here you are, senator. not a bad desk, either. daniel westcott -- daniel webster used to use it. >> daniel webster sat here? >> harry truman made this movie, just really despise it. at the time, dreman was seen as the senator from the vendor gas machine in kansas city -- truman was seen as the senator from the prendergast machine in kansas city. >> senate historian donald ritchie on his books about progress sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's q&a. >> this weekend on the tv,

columbia and university provost claude and steel on the effects of stereotyping at 9:00 p.m. eastern. on afterwards, peter benart. and on sunday, former cia agents hlili.a for a list of books, visit booktv.org. "washington journal" continues. host: jane hamsher, on august 8 you wrote this. leo, an guest: good morning.

i guess that is as good a " as any to open the day on. i will refer to an article in the "huffington post" yesterday. it was saying that the current controversy over robert gibbs and the professional flight of being critical of president -- the professional flout of being critical of president obama implies being held to a standard he should not be expected to meet. but it is not only in terms of the left. he has failed to meet the standards that you set for itself on the campaign trail. we have immigrants who really believe that he was going to do something about amnesty, something that the majority of the country supports. don't ask, don't tell, the majority of the country supports the repeal of that. and a variety of disheissues whe

failed to stand up to the corporate america, and that sentiment is reflected through the majority of america. i think there is a schism between the two different obama's that the country is seen. host: and here is robert gibbs speaking on this issue. >> do you regret what you said to the hill? >> by will say that there are many times that i read transcripts of what i say here that i could have said things slightly differently. i will say i watch a lot of cable tv and you do not have to watch long to get frustrated by some of what is said. i think that is where that answer was born out of. guest: he said this and i do believe it reflects how they feel in the white house. we have heard this before

coming out. not only did rahm emanuel call, liberals names, we had the political reporting about a month ago that senior administration officials were very upset at liberal bloggers blaming beckham and -- and they were blaming them for the president's poll numbers. i think he needs people on the left who are critical of the white house, and not just sort of clapping and saying, hey, whatever you do is great. within that, it is almost on to call the group the left because they are not being partisan and they are reflecting the broader concerns of the country. host: would you support president obama for reelection today? guest: there is no race being run right now.

against john mccain? yes, i would support president obama. but we are looking at 2012. i hope president obama between now and then makes the transformation into the leader he promised to be on the campaign trail. with the inspiration that he inspired in so many people. host: the numbers are on the screen. please allow 30 days between your calls. the president spoke to the netroots convention in july. your is the tail end of what he had to say. >> i'm asking you to keep making your voices heard, keep holding accountable, keep up the fight. change is hard, but if we have learned anything these past 18

months, it is that change is possible. it is possible when folks like you remember that it is fundamental to our democracy. the change comes from the bottom up, from the netroots, from the grassroots, from every american that loves their country and believes they can make a difference. we have done it before. and we can do it again. or let's finish what we have started. guest: i would like to believe president obama is sincere in wanting people to hold him accountable. when people are critical of this administration from the left, i do believe that is what we are doing. but to say that he believes that robert giggs speaks for president obama, you have to wonder how sincere that is. host: jane hamsher is our first is fromd our first call

marion taxes. caller: -- from marion in texas. caller: you have got to give obama time in there. if he said blame me, that means he is taking on the whole world, what is going on, which a lot of presidents did not. so, give him time. guest: i think it is fair that a lot of the problems he is basing you cannot expect anyone to solve overnight. but on things like "don't ask, don't tell" that does not take a lot of time. these are the things that people are frustrated with. he ordered an assassination of an american which are due process. host: we talked earlier about

repealing the birthrights citizenship part of the 14th amendment. and what are your thoughts on that? guest: i think this gets to the heart of a problem that we are seeing right now in that real unemployment is climbing into the range of 20% in this country. there is a tremendous danger of things like this picking up steam and is sort of demigod taking the floor and trying to blame immigrants for what has happened. it could easily take off that way again. people are looking for president obama to take a lead and show some leadership here. where is the obama of the campaign trail? the approval rating of the -- of obama among hispanics has gone down 20% because he has not addressed amnesty, something that the majority of the country supports. it is his own party that is

unwilling to address it. you tell the blue dogs to address immigration in an election year and they laugh in your face, but we have seen what the president wants to do when he wants to crack heads. this week dela 8 univision -- this week, a univision anchor came out and said that they feel like neither party represents them or has their interests at heart. and the hispanic vote gave obama the victory in three key swing states. you have a key constituency that feel like they are being scapegoating. where is the guy who said he would lead us all? when now, we have felipe calderon and been sent dave fox in mexico both calling for a vicente fox inin chen d

mexico calling for a change in the drug laws. he is not showing the kind of leadership that people like myself hope to see when we got him elected. host: some of the issues that he is looking at and concentrating on, the august recess to pass a border security bill. maybe not confronting some of the issues that you would like to see him in front until after the 2010 election. guest: i think it does threaten to alienate hispanic voters and i do and they are key to democratic victories in the fall. it is one thing to say that they do now represent his interests and the fact of the matter is that hispanics do not have to

vote for republicans. they just have to stay home and do not vote for democrats. host: you have a recent entry on your blog about tournament in the connecticut democratic primary. guest: turnout in the connecticut democratic primary .as really abysmal peter doll in the race against ann malloy for the democratic primary for the governor's race, it was 20%. that is just abysmal. democrats will get killed by low turnout if they keep this up. that is why i hope the white house realizes that robert comments were in error because you have people like alan grayson saying he needs to resign over this.

districts are trying to get people to the polls and get them excited and unfortunately, it is difficult because of things like this. host: lewis in south carolina, you are on the air with jane hamsher. caller: thank you very much. give the guy a chance to do what he needs to do. when you have the republican filibuster and everything, you cannot just go up there and sarah want these finan. -- and say i want these things. guest: when you say they turn down the public option, there

were only 50 votes required for the final passage of the health care bill and the public option was not in that. we are not sure that it would have passed runoff. but the white house did not want it in that bill. you are talking about procedural excuses that were given in that particular instance that i do not think the people who work big supporters of the public option actually -- i actually believed. -- supporters actually believed. but we have also seen what the president does when he really wants to crack heads. one thing that ramos of univision was saying is that he can relate to the storms and there is no evidence that he has been on immigratio. > host: what are you feeling

about democrats these days? guest: do you mean their election chances or how they are performing? host: their performance. guest: i think they are held hostage about -- by a what the senate will pass and what it will not pass and i think they are feeling of a useless. that is a shame because they are the ones that have to get reelected every two years and they have to be more responsive to what the public says. i think there's tremendous frustration in congress and on the part of the public with congress. host: melissa in buffalo, new york. caller: as far as the comments that we need to give obama more time, i believe he said before he became the other quick point

before i ask my question is as far as alan greenspan pointed out robert giggs and saying he needs to revise, recently has nothing on his issues. if he should be called out for his conduct. i have seen very little criticism on the left concerning the racial policy scam that is being played with maxine waters and charlie rangel saying that they are being called out on ethics violations because they are african-american. . .

if you don't serve him he won't be president is sort of asking to give them a license to, you

know, support pharma and boeing just as the republicans looked to the war on terror. i think it's an unfortunate game that both parties are playing. i think it's the people that are getting trapped in the middle of it. host: next call for jane hamsher -- i'm also thankful for another television wen tv. unfortunately our various networks have worked together to -- what the corporations wants for us to know as american citizens. i think all of the racial congressional republicans, democrats, independents, arguments are just train -- our

congress has sold us all down the river to the multinational corporations. the republicans are not in charge. the democrats are not in charge. the independents are not in charge. our government is not in charge because it has been paid off by the corporations that are all guilty, they all have blood on their hands. i and my husband worked on the obama campaign to get them elected because we truly believe there was hope there. and we do see a lot of good in what he has done but he has a long way to go and we are not going to align ourselves with any party. we are watching c-span. we are paying attention to the

corruptions that's getting dragged out. actually it's the pot calling the kettle black. where is the ethics investigation for timothy geithner not paying his taxes? guest: i think your comments are very reflective of geithner that government has become unresponsive to their needs and i understand the frustration of criticism but that's just part of the job description. host: we will give you a chance to define the professional right, if you would. guest: well, i'm not sure particularly who that would be but i think it's a misnomer and that it really does reflect, sort of the broad consensus in

the country, i guess. the professional would be part of that same group. host: next call, bedford, indiana, kevin, republican, hi. caller: hi, good morning. and thank you for taking my call and thank you so much for c-span. i want to talk about what the lady from indiana said. she is an independent. i am not a first-time caller but for some reason i am a little nervous. the topic today being obama and the left. i really believe that president obama is the leader of the democratic party. i may be wrong for taking that assumption, but i believe that and i think most democrats do. and the left is, in my estimation, the left is the problem, and it's not left of

center. that bothers me. it's the left of what is right and wrong. and i believe the left is wrong, wrong-headed. wrong-headed in that a person who has the capacity to think that it's ok to take the life of a baby in the womb and then turn around and then make economic decisions, judgments, etc., in a thoughtful way, i don't believe with the good leader for people who think this say that the left of center is not the problem. it's left of wrong of being

right. not that the right has any lock on being right in the sense of right and wrong. guest: well, i think what the caller is speaking to are the issues that are you to define right and left and keep us from coming together on areas where we could be in agreement. you know, this year one of the most successful things we did as liberal is to work with the federal reserve. that couldn't have happened without both right and left coming together and saying, look, the federal reserve, they print our money. the congress, you know, the government isn't allowed to know who they're handing it out to. there's never been an audit of the federal reserve. you have bankers of one of jpmorgan sitting on the board and knowing where this -- what's happening, where the decisions are being made and congress can't know.

so right and left came together and said, you know, this is wrong. we should have an audit and despite the fact that the banks, the white house, the treasury and the fed all vote -- all -- it passed the senate unanimously. and, you know, when we can -- we can -- you know, we can clearly have differences on choice and to a larger extent social issues. but also to the extent that we allow that kind of -- those kinds of issues coming together where we do have agreement on. then i think we miss an opportunity to hold the government accountable and push back the corporatism that has dominated the country. you know, i think it's one thing to say, you know, you can't trust a leader who does something like this. but barack obama was elected. would you rather have the government that he presides over at the moment holding the banks accountable? would you rather have them

holding the corporations in check or have them writing their own laws to their benefit? and i think that's the question that we have to ask ourselves as americans right now as we see unemployment soaring. host: who do you read on the right? host: who do i read on the right? i like ed harthy. i read res state. i read "the examiner." i read tim carney. i think he's good. i think there is a lot of debate about right and left online. the sharp points of the spears but that's kind of the fun of it. host: how many readers do you have at firedoglake? guest: about 100,000. host: new hampshire. good morning. caller: good morning. everyone i know that voted for president obama is still very supportive of him. i think one of the things that he did say when he was

campaigning was that he wanted to work with the other five and so that he has -- has had to compromise in some of the policies to get the other five even though every vote has been perhaps no more than two or throw republicans. and i think what happened is that republicans are always interested in the top 1% to 2% of the wealthy in the country. that's the only proposal of bills that i heard that they plan to present. everything else has been something but obstruction, anything that the president has tried to do. and, also, i was wondering at some point, and i think that the hope may have been alluded to that -- ask the question, who do you read? the more i listen i wanted really a republican who is trying to advance the

republican talking points. guest: well, you know, my issues are -- i never cease to stop caring about them no matter who's in office. you know, i'm for civil liberties. i am for, you know, i worked very hard to try and pass the public option. and i think that when you start to try to accuse somebody of, you know, working for the right despite, you know, that kind of clear track record on the issue, that does engage in the partisanship that the president campaigned against. you know, the problem of partisanship that the president campaigned against. at that point you have to ask people, did you believe it when he said that? you know, did you -- did you support him when he said that? because i think that that holds him accountable to the issues is important for america to be able to do as for progressives

to be able to do if we really believe what we say regardless of who's in office. because there's mog more hypocritical than to a-- there is nothing more hypocritical than to apply a yardstick to george bush and say we won't apply it to our guy because we like him. host: have you ever accused of being a closet republican before? guest: i'm sure but none i would take seriously. i'm pretty much considered the left of the left online. host: you were a producer on the film "natural born killers." how did you get into that line of work? guest: that was what my masters degree was in. i went to the university of southern california, to the motion picture producing program and i worked in hollywood for most of my adult life until i started blogging about 2004. host: and how do you go from producing to blogging? guest: well, i was always interested in the -- you know,

well, basically, to see what they had done with the coalition and networking, existing entities together to get them to act in unison but there was never anything on the left that had the same organizing possibilities. you couldn't really organize the produce section of whole foods. so when the internet came around and i saw daily posts was becoming sort of a watering hole, that possibility of networking, someone who felt one way in massachusetts with someone who felt the same way in wisconsin seemed to be upon. i was very -- possible. where were you born? i was born in massachusetts and grew up in nebraska. i went to mills college. i worked at the san francisco bay guardian when i started working there when i was 19. and i soon realized that journalism was going to be a hard road to toe. so i decided to take up something easy like the movie

business. host: next call for jane hamsher comes from defiance, ohio. dan, republican line. caller: good morning. even though i am on the opposite side of the fence here, i figure that we could have a civil discourse. i am slightly curious at a couple statements that you made. you have said that the majority of americans want do act don't tell repealed as well as immigration reform. but every poll that i've seen from gallup to "the new york times," to cnn, to abc, to rasmussen and right on down the line say the exact opposite. as a matter of fact, the last poll i saw was a rasmussen poll that said 80% of the citizens of the united states do not immigration reform. at least 78% of the citizens do

not want don't ask, don't tell revoked. and under article 2 of the united states constitution, which gives the powers to the president, at no place and no time in that article does it say anything about the president having the authority to have an executive order or give weight to law by the stroke of a pen. so, please, if you don't mind, ma'am, could you please give us where you got your information from? guest: i'll be happy to do that. most recent polling say that 66% of americans support a pathway of citizenship to people who haven't broken the law. it was done by west group of a -- the most recent "new york times" poll say that 59% want a repeal of don't ask, don't tell. and another one say that 57% of americans say -- want don't ask, don't tell. the poll of iraq and afghanistan veterans say that

73% found openly gay service to be acceptable. so -- and i think that most people agree that, you know, president obama does have the power to do this with a stroke of a pen. so i'd take issue with your polling numbers and invite anybody to google those polls right now. host: jane hamsher, what about the president's war policy in general? "the new york times" takes the full editorial power this morning and owe pines on the president's war strategies. guest: you would have to tell me about that one because i haven't seen it yet. host: your thoughts on the president's war strategies? is it the same as president bush? is he doing the right thing as far as the progressive movement feels? guest: well, president obama very much campaigned on ending the war in iraq. and even though he said he would increase troops up to 30,000 in afghanistan it was in the interest of winding down the wars. and i don't feel that, you know, that americans in

general, you know, feel like that enough is happening to get us out of the war in iraq. particularly because we're devoting so many resources over there. and it doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. then, you have the wikileaks, the video release of the true horror of what's happening over there. that really shocked people working in service over there when they thought and has triggered a real rethinking across the board within the service about what's going on and why we're there. so i think that there's broad concern on the part of the american people over the morality of it, over the wisdom of it, over the resources that we're committing to it and questioning whether the president is fulfilling his interest in, you know, the commitments that he made to try and extricate us from it. host: where did you get the name firedoglake? guest: i like to lay by the

fire with my dog and watch the lakers. caller: you seem intelligent enough to know that basically the two parties are irrelevant, the president today is irrelevant. you must be aware of groups like the build and berg group, the council of 300, better known as the continuity of government, and i wish you would do your research on it. host: say why jane hamsher and firedoglake and her blog and writing is irrelevant, very quickly. caller: i didn't say that her -- i say that the president and the parties are irrelevant. i'm saying that there -- the president is no better than mid-level managers because all they do is read off

teleprompters and what they're told by the shadow government. guest: i think the caller is voicing a historic concern that there are people pulling the strings of government that are unseen and unelected. and i think there is a broad concern that corporate america sort of fulfills that role these days and does it in groups that he's talking about. the underlying concern i think he's expressing is something that, you know, may take a different shape in different parties and different political narratives but there is a broad concern on the left and the right that there are corporate forces that control our government to an extent that most americans are not acceptable. host: now that you're living in the washington, d.c., area. will you be attending glen beck's rally on the maul --

mall? guest: probably not. i'm not a big mall person. host: republican line, hi. caller: well, i'm actually a small percentage of republicans, probably, because i'm not -- i don't -- i'm not well-off. i just believe mostly in the republican beliefs. i'm just as poor as any democrat out there. i don't believe in, you know, gay marriage and abortion and everything, but i just want to ask, from what you see, do you see that the rich will keep getting rich and the poor will keep getting poor? do you think that people can start making money again and quit being just as poor as third world countries and having to live off the government and stuff like that? guest: you know, that -- and

that is the uncomfortable through-line, i think between the past through white houses is that the rich do keep getting richer. that's largely because they do have a disproportionate influence on congress and the white house and our political system and our laws are being written by lobbyists who are writing them for the benefit of corporate america. and it is having an impact on, you know, jobs, on our -- the well-being of the middle class which is really on the ropes. and i think that's a concern that people have across the board. host: massapequa, new york, dennis, democrat, you're on with jane hamsher. go ahead. caller: good morning. i hope i don't get cut off because i waited over 30 days. ms. hamsher, i called in with a solution, not a complaint. i want anybody to enter the search engine and enter the

words "help me change america" and i believe for the last eight to 10 years now that in order for the republicans and democratic parties, i call them the gopranos, we need to take the fight to the corporations that fund these companies and follow them with massive consumer board cuts. the advantage of this is we can't get it because the corporate c.e.o. will not ignore tens of thousands of emails and phone calls. and we can't get arrested because we're making that decision from our house. and it's sort of like the neutron bomb of politics. in other words, if we close our wallet to a company like riteaid and demand that our c.e.o. gives us a fix to the prescription drug benefit to

put in medicare part d, what will they do? 50,000 people call riteaid or email them and say, you better do this or otherwise we won't step into your store, you know, that will work. guest: well, i think that a lot of groups are going towards consumer boycotts these days as an effective way to -- i know move-on has moved there. you know, i would personally like to see in the maul -- in the small business bill that congress may cut back and reconsider what the definition of small business is. by statute, 24% of all federal contracting is supposed to go to small businesses. but it's going to fortune 500 companies, you know, del, boeing, big corporations because of loopholes in the law. and there is, i believe, only about 4% going to small businesses, and small businesses are the engine of jobs.

so, you know, that's something that i would really like to see congress take up in the small business bill. host: who are some of your favorite members of congress? guest: i like grayson a lot. at various times we've seen leadership come out of, you know, a variety of places. i think jerry nadler has taken some impressive stands. brad miller. barney frank right now is championing a piece of -- marijuana legalization that i think members of both parties, i have heard behind the scenes, are wanting to consider because of the -- you know, the terrible impact it's having on mexico. and the fact that we really -- the problem at the border is not an immigration problem. it is a drug cartel problem. and barney has been the on one willing to get out in front of that. and say, no, we should legalize it. and so i respect him for that.

host: nancy pelosi? guest: i think her heart is in the right place but when she gets wrapped up in, you know, holding on to her job as speaker of the house when she's got steny hoyer nipping at her heels and, you know, a group of blue dogs who would gladly back hoyer, we get things like the war supplemental that included a sense of the house that they would take a vote during the lame-duck session on the recommendations of the deficit commission which, you know, a hearing would include cutting social security benefits. we know that could pass with a combination of republican and blue dog votes. we would like -- i would like her to have the courage of her convictions and not punt on things like that. host: mark on the republican line. you're with jane hamsher. firedoglake.com. caller: good morning, jane. you sound fair and balanced,

jane. you mentioned several, several times that corporations seem to be your target. and from my perspective, and it's not just the obama administration, it is politicians. they so overreached in promising special interest groups, whether they're along racial lines or union employment, corporations, they have overreached to the point where they cannot fulfill their promises, and it's not just in a corporate -- the teachers -- well, i don't want to pick on a particular group of people. but a politician cannot fulfill the promises the election promises that they are extending to get that

nomination. guest: well, you know, from my perspective, living here in washington, d.c., what i really see is the big battle here between the parties is the battle for the control of k street. you know, who is going to control the sort of corporate money flowing through the veins of washington, d.c.? and in doing that they rarely fulfill their promises made to the electorate so they wind up, you know, tossing scraps to interest groups. i think that we sometimes look at across the aisle and see concessions being made to a particular interest group. and give it, because it tends to be around emotional -- fiery, emotional issues, give it more weight in the political process than perhaps it deserves. when the true battle really is over corporate dollars. host: jane hamsher, is your perspective changed since moving from the west coast to the east coast?

guest: oh, i think it definitely has. when you're in washington, d.c., and you sort of hear the conversation that never makes its way onto the page and onto the front of the cameras, you know, you really do realize that it's about money. when tom delay was around and he said that republicans are going to control k street and all the money that flows through it, you know, government contracting, making sure that all of the people who are getting the government contracts, making campaign donations to republicans, you know, he really did set the mold that rahm emanuel has continued into the democratic administration. so when people say they don't see that much difference between george bush and barack obama, well, of course there are differences between george bush and barack obama. you know, particularly with regard to social issues, but that's largely because they were, you know, elected by different tribes, with different, you know, cultural values that they're paying homage to. they're giving favors to large

corporations in every piece of legislation that has passed. that's why we've seen these huge om bus bills. they stuff all these things in there that if they, you know, were closely scrutinized in smaller bills the public would be very upset with. but it's no different than what was happening when george bush and the republicans were in power. you know, we're changing the name but really they're serve servicing the same constituents, the corporations. host: this tweet. how should we deal with 59 senators, nelson, lincoln, blue dogs. should we focus on individual members? guest: supporting bill foster in her race against her and it actually did have an impact because blanche had control over the ag committee. in derivatives she controlled

more because holter was snipping at her heels. so primaries do work it is a problem, 59 senators. but we've seen what the white house can do when it really wants to crack heads. i think people are concerned that it's being used more as an excuse for not doing things that they don't want to do than it is a real obstacle. host: jane hamsher is the founder of firedoglake.com. thanks for being on the "washington journal." up next, terry jeffrey. his book "control freaks: seven ways liberals plan to rouen your life." >> joining us on the phone this morning from miami is beth reinhard. she's in hollywood, florida, actually. she's with the "miami herald." beth, let's focus first on the democratic candidates running for senate in florida. kendrick meek and jeff green have held debates this week. the first one was tuesday night. and there was quite a big of

back and forth between those two candidates. i want to show our viewers a little bit and then we'll come back. >> why is he corrupt? the dennis stackhouse is one example. dennis stackhouse is a developer that's facing charges. kendrick meek is not attacking his mother but she did get a car and a $90,000 salary. his chief of staff got $13,000, all of it in cash. look what happened. every day we learn about -- >> every day we learn about your business dealings and how you treat your employees and how you come up with versions of why you went to cuba, you have more versions of why you went to cuba than baskin robins has ice cream. you have three fingers that are pointed back at you when do you that. mr. greene, i have more integrity in my pinky than you have in your whole body. host: joining us on the phone

is beth reinhard from "miami herald." is this unusual back and forth for kendrick meek, specifically, but what's the tone of this debate between the two of them? guest: it's nasty. it's been that way for weeks. they're two guys who have a content for each other essentially and that was obviously clear when they met face to face. this is the second time they've done so and they will do one more time on sunday. host: this debate, by the way, from tuesday night is going to air on c-span television tonight for our viewers who want to get the full effect of what they saw there. but this race is close. what is the latest polls showing between these two candidates, jeff greene and kendrick meek? guest: it is a tight race. you know, greene -- sorry -- meek was the frontrunner for months and months. he was the only candidate in the race and jeff greene sort of burst onto the scene just

last minute really and started pouring his own money, millions and millions of dollars into a tv campaign that shot him up to the top of the polls. now the polls looks like they're closing a little bit. meek seems to be closing that gap, so it is very close. early voting, which we have here in florida, is already under way. so that's, i think, another reason why you see, obviously, the better tone of the campaign is that it is so tight. host: and it's tight between these two candidates. and we're showing polls of hypothetical matchups for this fall. if meek comes out of this primary and wins the primary and he goes to face mark rubio and charlie crist this fall it looks like rubio would come out ahead. but if jeff greene were to get the nomination, it looks like charlie crist will come out ahead. so neither one of these candidates are looking good for the fall. but it looks like charlie crist

would like jeff greene to win this primary. guest: right. meek's theory if he wins a lot of the democrats who are supporting crist, he has the lion's share of them, he recognizes that his big win over a billionaire and come back to the fold. but that remains to be seen. the governor is very popular with democrats and neither of these two democrats seem to have caught fire in the general population. host: well, charlie crist was in washington this week and he was raising money with who and where? guest: he was actually raising money with some democrats. actually the governor's secret is he's been doing this for years, he's been raising money from democrats for years. now even more so that he defected from the republican party so there are a lot of republicans who are fed up and wouldn't give him a dime. so he's become almost a fixture

now on the democratic fundraising circuit. host: do you know how much he was able to raise this week? guest: i'm sorry, i don't. host: let's talk about the florida governor race for a minute briefly. what's the latest between the republican candidates and this race? guest: you know, this is sort of a living parallel live here. this is another race where you have an establishment candidate coasting for the nomination. you have a rich guy who has never held public office storm in. you have mccullum, longtime member of congress. the republican frontrunner for weeks and months and then rick scott, this corporate executive, multimillionaire comes in, not quite as much as the last minute that jeff greene did, and starts counting the airwaves. and the polls for several weeks

now has shown him at the front of the pack, at the front of mccullum. there's also an indian date in the race, the son of our former governor. is running as an independent. and president obama will be in florida -- host: and president obama will be in florida campaigning for kendrick meek and alex sink. beth reinhard, thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. host: for more go to our website, c-span.com. host: your subtitle of your book is "seven ways liberals plan to ruin your life" and one of the seven ways you outline in your book is about social security. how do liberals plan to ruin our lives with social security? guest: well, social security,

the first check, peter, was paid in 1942, lady fuller who paid just a few dollars of taxes into social security. unless you actually work for the federal government, you didn't get an income from the federal government. and social security started with the transformation of america as a country as individuals who are self-reliant to a nation where people were more and more dependent on government. what we have today is a majority of seniors in this country rely on the federal government for a majority of their income. through social security. so they're dependent on the government for their income. then we had medicare created in 1965. so seniors are dependent on government for their health care. this well fair state which started with -- this welfare state which started with social security, the relationship of the individual between the government, if you take the numbers which the obama treasury department published in february for fiscal year 2009 and peter g. peterson

foundation, which is a nonprofit organization, which paid $60.9 trillion in unfunded liblets. the national debt but the president promised in entitlement benefits, will not be covered by the tax revenue to be brought in to pay for those programs which -- $200,000 in additional revenue that the government needs to go out and find for every man, woman and child in the united states, all 307 million of them. i don't think we can find it. i think we're head for a crisis of the welfare state. we're headed towards a pivotal moment in the history of our country. host: what do you say to people who have paid if for years and years? guest: we have to live up to those promises. that's -- part of what's happened is since 1940 with the creation of these welfare state programs, particularly social security and medicare, people have paid significant amounts of their income in payroll taxes every year on the

expectation that they are going to get these benefits so the government will take care of them when they're seniors. that's the delema. that equals $7.7 trillion of the $6.9 trillion in unfunded liabilities. i think social security can be dealt can. i advocate what paul ryan from wisconsin which would switch people into personal retirement accounts. it's going to be extremely difficult to reform the medicare system in a way where people get the health care they deserve, the seniors get the health help from medicare and able to finance it. i believe obamacare has put another giant burden on top of that. host: you right -- you write that ray lahood that democrats love or the republicans love to hate. guest: he's a republican that liberals love.

and they love him because quite frankly he's a republican that wants to increase government control of our loifs. and, of course, he was taken by president obama, he represented -- ray lahood represented peoria in the congress. to be the secretary of transportation. in the book i talked about an event. i think c-span has it in its video library, as a matter of fact, that took part at the national press club in may of 2009 where a reporter was asking ray lahood about his clinical initiative, which is part of the housing and urban development, the environmental protection agency and transportation and the moderator of the united press club say this is critics say this is a way to force people out of their cars and ray lahood said it is way for them to force people out of their cars. in my book i explain the vision that some people on the left have for trying to force people into densely packed urban environments where they live in communities called transit-oriented development where everybody is close enough to walk or bike to a

government-run, government transit system. i think fundamentally at odds with the american way of life and has a -- will hurt our way of life. host: terence jeffrey is our guest. the area code is 202. the number for republicans are republican republican. democrats are -- 202-737-001. democrats is 202-737-0002. independents are 202-628-0205. can you send us a tweet at tweethtweeth. or you can go to journal@c-span.com. -- journal@c-span.org. what do people want to get from

your book? guest: the way i set it up is that i -- i use a quote from john dickinson, he wrote the letters from a pennsylvania farmer. a farmer and a philadelphia lawyer. the boston tea party happened in late 1773. and in response to that the greatest parliament closed down the port of boston, pretty dramatic act. and they wrote a letter that they wanted to send to the people in new york and philadelphia asking them in response to the british closing the port of boston that they join with boston in a complete boycott of english goods, no trade in and out of britain. that was a radical act for the americans to do considering the british mercantile system. but the people of pennsylvania had something the tea party patriots would very much recognize what they did. they didn't go to a general assembly. they called a convention of the delegates from all of the counties of pennsylvania. they came in and wrote

instructions for their assembly which essentially called for the pennsylvania continental congress and john dickinson said, he was commissioned to write the instructions of the assembly to get this done. he said, and i'll paraphrase, humanity and injustice call for americans in 1774 who were raised in a country of freedom to make sure they pass on to their children a free country and they felt it was threatened then. what i'm writing in my book it's always like 1774 in america. it's incumbent on every generation of americans to do what's necessary to keep our country free, to have free enterprise. i believe it's uniquely threatened at this point, peter, in history. i believe that my generation can fail. our children and grandchildren, by allowing policies to come into place today or policies to continue today that is leading

us in a direction where not only our prosperity is significantly curtailed but our freedom. guest: i'm surprised -- host: i'm surprised he could think of only seven. i could think of a few hundred. guest: i had to prioritize places where i think in concrete ways i show people, look, here's a place where government policies are moving to take your decision away from you and put it in the hands of people in political power. and when i looked at that, the same way i came up with this movement, which ray lahood is looking to restrict our movement. social security controls the majority of income for seniors in america. health care where we have already medicare. now we're going to have obamacare which most americans are have their health care subsidized. you have property rights which are threatened in very many ways which i explain in the book. the freedom of speech which i think has been threatened in a number of ways.

citizens vs. -- president obama talked about it in our state of the union. whether we live or die which government in fact is allowing that to be decided by our people. and finally the freedom of conscience which i believe is the most important thing and i write in my book that the ultimate goal of the left in america is controlling the hearts and minds of future generations. if you're a conservative like me they want to use our goals. host: we talked to jane hamsher from firedoglake. what would you and jane agree on? guest: i know she started out her compreer in journalism in san francisco. i'm a native san franciscan. we spent some time in san francisco and journalism. journalism is not an easy career. we need good journalists in america. i talk about the freedom of speech in the book. i do talk about this a little

bit. at this point our history with newspapers struggling financially and a lot of them i think are just going to go down, we're transforming into a country where the media and all these electronic venues, including the internet, and there is a profession and vocation in journalism that takes certain disciplines and skills that have to be trained into a person. i think it's very important that as we go forward we have people with professional journalistic skills working in the new media. as we transform from newspaper to new media, and it has to be adversarial against the government, look, journalists needs to do is check on the power of government and the sense of liberty of people. host: are you part of the republican or conservative establishment? guest: not the republican establishment. i guess i would plead guilty to being a member of the conservative establishment.

i'm -- i -- the human events was the original conservative periodical for several years. and i am part of cnsnews. it's cybercast news service. and i manage patsy cann's presidential campaign in 1996. it is an organized movement and i am guilty to being part of it. host: terence jeffrey is our guest. first call. indiana. go ahead. caller: hello, guys. i have a first question for jeffrey. are you a catholic? guest: yes. host: why does that matter, caller? caller: it's important because i am catholic. part of what the catholics teaches is helping people, justice and humanity.

it seems to me -- i'm also a conservative but my conservative is about helping people who are poor. and usually when i hear and i read about some other things that mr. jeffrey has written, i go by what the pope talks about which is also about peace. you know, when i hear some of these -- my fellow catholics, when they talk about things, it's about -- it seems to be about rich people and all that stuff. yeah, we're supposed to make money and help the poor. i don't hear enough of that from some of my fellow conservative catholics talk about helping the poor. guest: it's a good question. i agree. we do have to help the poor. i think we have to be our brother's keeper and take care of our neighbors. first and foremost, i think we have a responsibility to take care of our own family and ourselves. one of the questions i look at -- by the way, i simply talk about a way in which the roman catholic church specifically was targeted by government in the last chapter of my book.

specifically the catholic diocese of sacramento being attacked by the state of california, being forced to do something that is directly against catholic teaching, persons ought to buy birth control. we need to take care of our families, our neighbors. the question is whether we have a socialist system where government controls these things or whether you have a system where people are taking personal responsibility, not only for their end lives but their moral obligations to others and protecting the rights of others to make sure people aren't out on the streets freezing. i think our last pope, if you're catholic, john paul ii, who is polish, he came out of a communist country, poland, and said that the real threat that collectivism opposed to the individual autonomy that is part of the free society and our ability to practice their religion, and i would hate to see america go down a collectivist path where government can dictate people to do things against their

conscience. i think i dictate in the book in recent years where the government in this country has directly tried to violate the right of conscience not as individuals but around the catholic church. host: next call calls from andy, independent line. hi, andy. caller: i have two questions. my first question is when bush was in the office, dick cheney said it doesn't matter except when there's a democratic president. the second question is when i listen to hasity it seems like they're trying to make obama not a legitimate president. is the only legitimate president can be republican nowadays? guest: dick cheney was wrong. i tried to explain the history of how we got to unfunded

liabilities. george w. bush signed medicare prescription drug plan, that equals $8.8 trillion of unfunded liability. remember, i said social security was $7.7 trillion in unfunded liability. george w. bush's medicare prescription drug plan is $8.8 trillion. that drug plan cost more in terms of the money we have to find than the entire social security plan. in terms of hasity, glen beck, i have never heard those men claim that barack obama is an ill legitimate president. he was legitimately elected. the question is whether his policies is right for the country? i agree with rush limbaugh. i hope that barack obama fails because i think his policies, if carried through fruition, will be very harmful to our country. host: st. petersburg, florida. mary, republican. hi. caller: yes. good morning. you know, my -- i'm going to get to my original commept but i'm also going to say that i am a conservative catholic, polish, republican.

and on the last point, i do agree that our government influences people's -- they do tend to influence people to violate their own consciences. and there are so many people, nonthinking people, who just believe that, you know, if it's legal it's right. and, of course, that's ridiculous. women have been duped into that , and our government wants people to eliminate these babies so they're going to save all this money. and that's leaked out of nancy pelosi's mouth. ok. back to my original comment. i wanted to take issue with you because at first it sounded as though you were saying that people who worked all their lives, my husband and i did, not in high-paying jobs, but we worked all our lives, fully and rightfully expecting to have social security as our retirement income. so it's -- you know, now there's a lot of people who just kind of look at this as

these people, elderly, people getting into their 60's, 70's and so on, we're not looking for welfare. we put our money into this all along. and i want to say that my mother came to our country as a year old infant with her parents through ellis island and there was no welfare given to them. none. and i'm really upset that social security was dold out, has been dold -- doled out for people who haven't worked at all. i think that whole part of the social security system can be changed so that that money comes from other donations. guest: well, congressman paul ryan from wisconsin put a plan together with one from new hampshire, put it in personal retirement accounts that were invested in broad-based vehicles. the social security looked at that and said if we did that over the long run social security would be solvent and

people would have control of their own retirement income. i put out in the book that at the very beginning when the social security act was enacted in 1935, aside from the fact that people actually wrote it, believed it was unconstitutional. it's quite a story. it's in the book. there were people who understood that they weren't paying for it even then. essentially what they're doing, they were borrowing money from their kids and their grandkids because they weren't willing to impose the tax on the current workers, the current voters, in order to get the revenue to actually fund the system. and most of the years -- most of the years since 1940 when the first social security check was paid, ida mae fuller, until now the federal government has run a deficit. now, there are some years they didn't. most of the years they did. what happened is we pay our payroll tax for social security. it's spent immediately on what they're doing that year, including social security, among other things, and then they have to wait until you

retire to tax your kids. that gives us unfunded liabilities. host: do you know how much ida mae fuller received in her lifetime? guest: it's in the book. it's a large multiple of what she paid in. it's an interesting story. this is a very nice lady from vermont. she lived to be 100 years old. she was a legal secretary. i believe the social security taxes -- the bill was passed in 1935. people start paying very small payroll tax, she retired at the end of 1939 and heard about social security. she went to the social security office in vermont and heard about it. she found out because they changed the rules, actually, she was entitled to a benefit. so january, 1940, which was the year ironically that f.d.r. was running for a third term, breaking the idea that they

should run two terms, she received a check which exceeded the taxes she paid in. i believe she lived until 1975. all those years she was getting a social security check. host: kansas city, missouri, democrat, hi. caller: thank you, c-span. i just want to talk about your book there. yes, i just wanted to talk about your book. i like fiction books, not nonfiction books, because anybody can say whatever they want to say. people always talking about our freedom and, you know, give us back our country and all this kind of stuff, like that, we are free. and we are better than -- we are better than that. we are not a fearful nation. we are much better than that. we are free people. i am not in a prison.

i'm not in no kind of prison. i still get to do whatever i want to do. i am so sick and tired of this. i fought the government for this. i really do. i fault the government for this because i am going to become an independent because i don't want to be affiliated with no party. and i think all americans should be affiliated with no parties. be it independent. because you pit -- y'all pit the american people against one another. host: terry jeffrey. guest: what she said sounded like the last couple paragraphs in my book. one thing i say, what's different between now and 1774 when john dickinson wrote those words after the boston tea party, we have what they gave us. we have the finest constitution ever written. we have the declaration of independence which enshrines them which natural law, god's moral law is the basis what our

country is all about. and we have this -- we don't have a foreign army occupying our country like they did then. we have the instruments that represent our government to make the government do what we want to do as a people. host: eyed amae fuller, page 49, paid in $49.50, along with her employer, and through 1975 when she died she was paid out $22,888.92. 460 times which she and her employer had paid in social security taxes. we're talking with terry jeffrey, author of "control freaks" and editor in chief of cnsnews.com. fairfax, virginia, george on the republican line. please go ahead. .

caller: by "your people," it seemed so bizarre. it is a sorry example for a christian. guest: my people are the american people. in my book i did very concrete, specific examples of what i'm talking about. host: topeka, kansas, charlie.

please go ahead with your comment for terry jeffrey. caller: i have a couple of comments or questions, however you want to put them, if he wants to answer them. he said about two or three times that social security is a welfare program, and that is exactly what i have for our i don't even- know what you call it. i don't know what these people are. that is not a welfare program. the only reason that it is in trouble is because, like he talked about, bush when he put the medical expert thing on their to not pay for it, did not raise anybody's taxes. you have got to raise taxes to pay for things you want to have, ok? don't call it a welfare program. millions of people -- that is the way they have survived over

the years. companies cannot have retirement plans or anything. -- companies did not have retirement plans these are anything. host: we got that point did you have another point you want to make? caller: 1 talks about obamacare, that is not what obama talked about during -- when he talked about obamacare, that is not what obama talked about during the campaign. it is what hillary clinton talked about during the campaign. guest: the information that has been made available by the social security administration indicates that ida could have been self-sufficient. she was not expecting to get sold -- social security. she had other sources of income and a rental property. she was a self-sufficient person. and now we have people in their retirement years who are

dependent on the government for their income and social security. we -- i forgot the jobs of a point. host -- forgot the gentlemen's appoint -- other point. host: obamacare. guest: people will be entitled to a subsidy approved by the government and sold through at government-operated exchanges as the benefits that the government dictates. the family of a four is going to become dependent on the government paying for their health care and the government will call the shots. just before it was passed, it was olympia snowe, in ain liberal republican from maine, who asked the cbo about the average cost for the four

government obamacare for a middle-class family making $90,000 having to buy. the average plan in 2016 will cost $15,000. according to the congressional budget office. six years down the road, if you are a family making $90,000 a year and you have two kids, and your employer is not going to buy insurance because they don't have to and it is cheaper not to, you will be required by the federal government to get on health care plans to the cost $15,000 per year. -- to get on a health care plan that costs $15,000 per year. it is unbelievable, but it is true. there is going to be a lot of political activity when that comes down. i suspect that the left would like to see when that happens is that people will say that we cannot afford this and they will want to bring everybody into the system and everybody what government-subsidized health care we will have a medicare for everybody until you die.

host: george w. bush tried to reform social security during better economic times and with our republican congress reported that it did not happen -- and the republican congress. it did not happen. guest: he did have good ideas but he did not go as far as he should have. had bush been bolder and said, this is the way we're going to do it, he might have had a chance. he tried to compromise preemptively with democrats and it did not work. one other reasons we're headed towards what i believe is a crisis of the welfare state is because people have paid a significant chunk of their income in table taxes and expect a benefit and they really have a right -- in payroll taxes and expect to benefit and they really have a right to it but it is insolvent and cannot be sustained. guest: i am not sure whether i have that in there or not. host: but the system is set up

by actuaries. guest: they do have people who count things, but the payroll fund is set by congress and the benefits are set by congress. people have how many have been paid and who got benefits, don't have the figures. but since the 1970's they have had the call automatically increasing the benefit. -- cola automatically increasing the benefit. the fact is that it is insolvent. host: next call for terry jeffry, author of "control freaks," staten island, mike, republican line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i have a basic comment for mr. jeffry. i completely agree with him. it is sad to me personally, i find there is no fear mongering

or any sort of that whatsoever if you look at basic context of what is going on in our government, it is clear that liberals are trying to steer us in a different direction to have bigger government and have more control of personal things that we should control ourselves. i think it's just obvious. mr. jeffrey, you hit the nail on the head and i'm going out to get this book. i want you to talk about your seven ways that liberals are trying to take over private citizens' hot concept spread your money, your ideas, all the different things -- thought concepts. your money, your ideas, all the different things -- host: all right, we will leave at year. -- leave it there. can you talk about all seven ways? guest: retirement, socials

occurred, obamacare, property, property rights, freedom of speech, the right to life and whether you live or die, and the seventh is freedom of conscience. host: two political issues that are for for right now. the issue of the 14th amendment -- that are at the forefront right now, the issue of the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship. guest: you know, i want to study it more. one thing in book is i go back to the language of the constitution and here is what the people who find the language -- who framed the language thought in their own words. i would really want to study the original understanding of the 14th amendment, which was written after the civil war to ensure that freed slaves would have protection when people had

reason to believe that people in southern states who had been held in slavery were not going to do that. i don't think they had anticipated a that moment that you have large numbers of illegal aliens in the country and having children here. on the other side you have that if you orgue the child of a diplomat who not automatically a u.s. citizen. host: proposition 8, gay marriage working through the court system as we speak. guest: this goes directly to the seventh chapter of my book on conscience. i talk about an elementary school in lexington, massachusetts. the supreme judicial court at the ri -- the supreme judicial court there said they had a right to same-sex marriage, and there was a book

in kindergarten where they had two princes marion each other. that came up in the presidential debate in the democratic side in new hampshire. the parents sued and went to the first court of appeals in boston. essentially, the courts are saying that we don't care if you teach other people's children that same-sex marriages ok in children. we don't want you to teach our children that. let us know if you are going to do it said that we can take our kids out that day. the u.s. court of appeals said that we know that this violates your religious principles, but tough, we are going to let it schools to it. -- let the schools do it.

the holding is that the government can teach your 5- year-old kid that same-sex marriage is ok. this was -- judge vaughn walker, the judge who decided as in california, this exact case is alluded to in his opinion. i believe that was ignored in a lot of people talking about this opinion, that ultimately what same-sex marriage revolves around is the right of the child. two men and two women who want to go do something -- people talk about the morality of that, but there is another part here, the child. --judge walker's opinion what they say is that a child does not need a mother and father. having a mother and a mother is as good as a mother and father. there is not a single child on this earth that did not have a mother bite nature. -- by nature.

every child who has ever existed has had a mother. now a judge is saying that children do not need mothers. and that two men have a right to, as he calls it, assisted reproductive technology. this was a finding in the opinion, at the california law encourages some six child -- encourages same-sex couples to have children. is it consistent with the founding creed of our country, that we have the inalienable rights from are greater-- from r creator -- is that child not denied the right to a mother and father? i would argue that the child is

tonight, and the control freaks want to control so much that the child is denied a mother. host: michigan, and you are on with terry jeffrey. caller: terry jeffrey, you are a big mouth, and you are a propagandist. i agree 100% with the guy from kansas. you just said you know president obama would fail. i have listened to you for a long, long time. i'm so mad right now -- i would never vote for republican again in my life. i have in the past. guest: what i mean by president obama of failing is having the policies of failed. licies fail.

president obama is the most pro- abortion president in the history of the united states. he does not believe in the right to life. when he was interviewed by rick warren in 2008, the pastor asked him a brilliant question, when does a baby get human rights? if you know president obama's career, it is a pertinent question, and he said that it was about his pay grade. -- above his pay grade. not only do i hope president obama fails in his plan to have people have our right to kill unborn child or embryos, i hope those policies are rolled back, because i believe they are damaging our country. host: terry jeffrey, author of

"control freaks," editor of cnsnews.com, thank you for being on "washington journal." guest: thank you very much, peter. host: as we have all week long, we have been looking at energy issues, and we will look at solar energy. thomas rooney is the president of spg solar company. here is a news update from c- span radio. >> california democratic representative maxine waters, who is under investigation by the house ethics committee, will personally plead your case to reporters at a news conference on capitol -- her case to reporters at a news conference on capitol hill this morning. she is accused of steering bailout money to a bank in which her husband had a stake. if possible, c-span will have

coverage of the news conference, at 10:00 this morning. officials at should know today thep's broken oil well in gulf of mexico is still for good. an analysis of a test on what date is expected to be completed in 24 -- out an analysis of a test done yesterday is expected to be completed in 24 hours. the federal judge in san francisco overturned the california's same-sex marriage ban has more bad news for the measure's sponsors. he is not only on willing to keep gay couples from marrying be on next wednesday, he also doubts that the ban's backers have the legal right to challenge his ruling. on tuesday, the chief u.s. district judge vaughn walker rejected a request to delay his decision striking down proposition 8 until i records can take up an appeal lodged by its support -- until higher courts can take up appeal launched by its supporters.

finally, it is the sort of a three-day weekend for the jury in the trial of former illinois gov. rod blagojevich. i a short note to the judge yesterday, the jurors said they had reached a unanimous decision on just two of the 24 counts. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> here is what is coming up later today. covering the iraq war, black water, and wikileaks documents, jeremy scahill is a reporter for "the nation" magazine and he will talk about those topics. that is at 3:30 on c-span. every weekend in august, we go to book festivals around the country. see tammy bruce in l. a and

christopher hitchens in new york. later in the month, freedomfest, a fair with authors and paddles and books. for the full listing, go to booktv.org. "washington journal" continues. host: all week long we have been looking at energy issues. monday we look at energy saving home and buildings. tuesday we looked at electric car technology. wednesday was the natural gas industry. today we will be looking at solar power. we are joined by thomas rooney, ceo and president of spg solar, a solar installation company. describe your company to us. as a: we aren described solar integrator.

we developed projects for people through the designs and fairly sophisticated systems. and economic modeling and procuring tax rebates and so on and so forth. and frankly, we even maintained almost all our systems for a decade or more through the maintenance and operations. host: how old is your company? guest: we have been around since 2001, one of the oldest solar integrators in the country. we are in california, north of the golden gate bridge. host: how much manufacturing do you do in the state of your product? guest: in the states we do all of these subassemblies, the raw materials from china, and we bring them to sacramento and reassemble. host: i want go back to the last 40 years, because jimmy carter was talking about solar energy. how has the technology for solar energy changed and developed over the years? guest: remarkably so.

if you go back to the jimmy carter here, you see that solar is really the realm of satellites. the way to generate electricity in space is to draw it from the sun. solar has evolved dramatically. when our company was founded, solar was predominately put on home sprs. there was a burst of solar in 1983 and 1984, and laid dormant. the very fast acceleration of the computer industry has actually spawned a great deal of the technology advancements in solar, believe it or not. at the same silicon wafer for technology that drives a computer in some ways drives solar. technology has advanced remarkably in the last 20 years,

so much so that the costs and the last two or three years have come down almost 60%. the costs have come down and technology advances. it has been a remarkable decade for solar. host: you have been in business for 10 years. are you making money? guest: we are one of the very few companies that actually do make money in this industry. we make a fair amount. we are privately held, so we do not disclose financials. the vast majority of the solar industry has been like what we thought about with computers and dot-coms in the 1990's, which is to grow, grow, grow, and we will worry about profits later. i remember amazon.com, great business model, you'll be huge, but all you talk about is your burn rate, at much cash you consume. that would be the story for the solar industry.

there are few companies that manage to be profitable and we are fortunate to be one of them. host: how much government money does a solar company get? guest: we don't get any, actually. host: no stimulus funds? guest: not for our projects. the project to develop for other people -- when we developed a system for a timid a producer --, for a tomato producer in california, tax incentives would incorporate some of their costs -- host: so indirectly you are getting money. guest: absolutely. the entire energy sector is heavily subsidized. it is interesting that you bring that up, because a couple of studies have come out and the last year said that asked the question of how much -- that have come out in the last year or so that ask the question of

how much goes into energy production. the g-20 did a study based on 2008 data on, globally, how much government subsidy goes into all energy production. it turns out it is one of the largest subsidize industries on the planet. i'm not talking about solar. i'm talking about fossil fuels all the way through solar. there was a study two months ago that said that roughly 2% of the world's gdp goes to energy subsidies, $550 billion. that study was commissioned by opec and others. 11 times as much subsidy goes to fossil fuels as to renewables. when people are waking up to is that the energy sector in -- is heavily what people are starting to pick up to is -- what people are starting to wake up to is that the energy sector is heavily subsidized. the specific subsidy in the united states is the 30% tax

credit that currently the federal government grants. if tomorrow at c-span was to b put solar plates on your roof, 30% of the capital cost would be returned to you by the federal government. host: thomas rooney is the president of spg solar. as we've done all week, we are talking about energy, and we're talking about solar energy. as to rooney, is solar energy ready to stand alone -- mr. rooney, is solar energy ready to stand alone as a capitalist enterprise, much like a car manufacturer? i know we can get to subsidies and held for all industries. but consol energy stand on its own? -- but can solar energy stand on its own?

guest: it can trade one of the challenges the industry has -- it can. one of the challenges the industry has is that it is compared to a much more highly subsidized industry. as the subsidies are coming out -- i brought a book with me that the congress commissioned in 2005. the republican congress and the bush administration commission at the national academy of sciences to produce this. it is called "the hidden costs of energy." fossil fuels have massive energy costs that have been hit dden. the cost of solar is plummeting extremely fast, such as that even against the disproportionate subsidies, solar will be less expensive than fossil fuels by the year 2015. but if congress was to take

action based on their own report and actually begin to roll back the subsidies -- subsidies would be things like unfunded in transfer nuclear power plants borne by the federal government. -- unfunded insurance for a nuclear power plants borne by the federal government. even against the toll-one subsidy disadvantage, solar will be -- a 12-1 at subsidy disadvantage, solar will still be more viable than gas by 2015. host: why do you get raw material from china? guest: the simple answer to that is that the two primary drivers that the government uses to stimulate this particular industry would be to create an need to-market, and that would be germany. they have the -- an end-market, and that would be germany. they have a solar market that is 10 times the size of the u.s.

solar market. they have roughly the same solar content as the u.s.-canadian border. in texas and arizona, the sunshine would be tremendously stronger. what we see and germany is a tremendous manufacturing base to support that. that is one government position on how to grab next generation jobs. the other is the government of china. china is throwing tens of billions of dollars of stimulus in to manufacturing for the solar industry. they decided not necessarily to be an end market, but that they would like to be a manufacturing base. the vast majority of the world's solar goods are coming out of china because of the economic stimulus and support out of china is unprecedented in anything the world has ever seen before. also all the high-tech products and steel assemblies and what not that go into the soul is street are coming -- that go

into the solar industry are coming out because china has bought at a manufacturing base. host: st. louis, democrat, your first up. caller: i was listening to him talking about subsidies he is getting, but i was upset -- i was asking the same question you are asking, why is he getting it from china? even though they do have estimates money in china, i think we have money in the united states trade with the economy so bad, i want to ask your guest is it possible in the future that we can supply those needs that china is supporting for us getting the panels? why are they getting subsidies if they are not getting materials here? guest: i think your question is a fantastic one. what i would suggest is that we need to choose which of the methodologies the united states

once so that we can lead again in the world in this area. solar and all forms of oral energy or where the job creation is going to -- all forms of renewable energy are where the job creation is going to come from in the next 20 years. unfortunately, the united states is stuck in neutral. the united states has fallen to fourth place and will be in fifth place. germany, followed by italy, japan, and the united states, and frankly, at the czech republic may soon pass the united states. the hottest seller market is ontario, canada. -- the hottest solar market is ontario, canada. we have to earn at the right to have a high manufacturing base in the united states, and we do that by being the dominating and market. -- end market.

the vast majority of the world market for computers is here. the other way to do it is through brute force. the chinese government has said that we may not be the end market, but will put tens of billions of dollars into subsidizing manufacturing. i would love to see the united states to pick one or the other out for them, but we are stuck behind and falling quickly -- to pick one or the other algorithm, but we are stuck behind and falling quickly. to be honest, i don't think we have the kind of cash it is going to take to go head-to-head with china. until the united states gets out of neutral and being stuck between those worlds -- unfortunately, the technology leadership is coming from germany and the manufacturing leadership is from china. the best thing that companies like mine to do is find the best technologies, the most innovative technologies, and

ways to source the material and drive costs down. job creation is going on, to the point, but- caller's the government needs to have stronger policies for jobs in the united states. it is the jobs today said that we can have people employed today, but it is also the jobs that will take place within the next 10 or 15 to 20 years. there is a window of opportunity now and if the united states does not take technology i leadership or manufacturing leadership, this window will close. we cannot win these fights if we do not take advantage of them when they're taking place. united states is the dominant player in the computer sector because we were there early and consistently. if the window closes quickly,

be caller's question will the sat or reality -- sad reality. host: does it help your company that several states have to have renewable energy as part of their portfolio? guest: yes and no. you have to ask what the penalty is if they do not have it. x energy has to come from renewable sources by the year 2020 or what have you. those held at are some necessary. what you do is look at all of the -- those held and are somewhat necessary. when you do is look at the states and the penalties. we had the act that said that certain agencies cannot dump a certain amount of pollution into

the water, but there was no teeth to that. a lot of agencies just keep paying the fines and continue dumping. there is not a penalty, if there is not a cost for not providing that, then, interestingly enough, it a lot of utilities have looked and said, wait a second, it is easier for us to just pay the fine or no fun and just voluntarily miss. -- no fine and then just voluntarily miss. host: pennsylvania, a.j., republican. caller: i graduated from one of two community colleges and a pennsylvania -- in pennsylvania. one was harrisburg community college. there was a former engineer from the 1970's, and one thing that was of concern was that

currently we are using one wavelength for the production of the systems -- nasa technology will use three wavelengths. another thing is chinese manufacturing. chinese manufacturing -- i am from lehigh, pennsylvania, so would have been allentown, the producer of semiconductor technology. they have certified manufacturing facilities that could be used for manufacturing silicon products. host: any comment to what he had to say? guest: he made some great point spread the first is multiple with links that can be used -- he made some great points. the first is multiple wavelengths that can be used. grabbing additional wavelengths instead of the first wave length

is absolutely the sort of thing that is driving our industry forward. of'd be surprised, the kinds jobs that are being created are astounding. molecular.d.'s in sciences from princeton running laboratories all over the world. the advance but in solar is dramatic, and it is exactly at -- the advancement and seller is dramatic, and it is exactly like your caller put it. slowly, very slowly, the united states market is becoming interesting to manufacturers around the world, and a lot of them are moving manufacturing facilities into the united states. a lot of the chinese panel manufacturers are doing sub assembly in the united states. discipline in they come at a lot of the manufacturing jobs they -- disappointingly, a lot of the

manufacturing jobs they are bringing to the united states are low-tech. as strange as it sounds, ph.d.- level jobs remain in beijing and shanghai, and they bring the caulking and sub assembly into the united states. to the degree that we become an interesting and more stable market around the world, you will see investment money clamoring to build and manufacture and the united states. these panels are large and are not cheap to ship across the atlantic ocean. how did you get -- host: you get interested and involved in this industry? guest: i have been in the clean sector for years. anything that is involved with the next generation technologies that enable clean production of

water and energy and everything else that we need. i speak all over the world on water issues and energy issues. i kept being approached by people who said -- specifically, one of the most fascinating concept out there is the water energy nexus, the idea that there are thousands of incredibly intelligent people trying to fix our energy crisis, and there are, equally, thousands of people trying to fix our water crisis around the world. what people are is slowly starting to figure out is that a lot of the solutions to the energy crisis occurred the water crisis -- hurt the water crisis. desalinization is an example. it is a beautiful way to create fresh drinking water. sydney, australia, has launched a massive desalination to fix their drugs. the problem is that it consumes an enormous amount of energy. a lot of people are looking at the nexus, what a lot of smart

people are working on technologies -- what if a lot of smart people are working on technologies that simultaneously solve the water shortage and energy shortage? host: indiana, please go ahead with your question on solar energy. caller: i have heard of a large solar farm in -- i think it is new mexico. how much energy does a large solar farm like that produce? what sort of maintenance or care to do it solar farms like that require? how many solar farms like that do we have in the u.s.? guest: that is a great question. the question is to large-scale solar technology. you first have to ask the question, which technology is being used? this is the technology were by

photons, down from the sun -- sun andown from the immediately produces energy by the rays hitting the solar panel. with thermal, the water creates steam and it runs a turbine that creates energy. a lot of the systems were solar- thermal. those tend to the high maintenance and they consume a lot of water -- they tend to be high maintenance and more critically they consume a lot of water. if you go into the mojave desert in mexico, yous have something with a lot of water, and you go back to the water-energy nexus.

the new technology is using technology or the sunlight comes down -- where the sunlight comes down and there is no water. very low maintenance. that is the next generation that is being developed. you would be stunned as to how many installations exist in the united states. size is also an interesting phenomenon. 10 years ago, a 10-kilowatt system -- it may be enough for a large home -- that was a different project. today, 10 mw, it would fit roughly on 10 acres -- excuse me, 50 acres. we have systems now being planned that are 500-acre applications. what people are really looking for -- i make the analogy to the computer industry. if you go back to the 1950's,

the computer sector was not all that interesting to ibm and others, because we were going to have something like four mainframes being built at all the rest would be working off of those mainframes. we have phones in our pockets that are more powerful than the mainframe's conceived them. we get away from the single large computing sectors to a much more highly decentralized. will we have today is thousands of small energy production centers be -- what we have today is thousands of small energy production centers being built. you fly over something that is 500 acres -- instead, in your house and my house will have a small solar installations, every business will have small solar institutions. -- solar installations. it will be a very decentralized system controlled by a smart

grid. host: shreveport, louisiana, william, republican line. caller: i just have a lot of concerns about solar. one is the fact that when you put them on residential applications -- in louisiana there is an incentive, 30% that the state of louisiana gives, but long term, i see the maintenance problems -- $2,500 to 35 fighter dollar parts, and every time -- $2500 to $3500 parts, and every time you have to replace that. the other thing i find interesting is that a school of engineering did a study and they said that the amount of power generated from a solar panel system over the lifetime does

not equal the amount of power it took to manufacture the product. there are hidden costs that i am afraid we -- and i am afraid we are throwing money -- there is an application for solar, but $20,000 for an application could be used more towards improving efficiencies in the home and air-conditioning to lower electric bills and things like be long-here it would term savings for the consumer and electricity -- host: all right, william, we got the point. mr. rooney. guest: he brings up a great point. first, it is not either/or. the industry expression is megawatts. take away the 1 digit usage. we should all start with energy -- take away the wattage usage.

we should all start with energy conservation. another point that he made was that the energy required to manufacture solar panels is such that you never get it back by putting it out in the sunshine. that was true tend to 15 years ago. manufacturing efficiencies are such that the three to four k 40 years attoo thre for the system to pay back the man -- a fact it -- it took 4 years to pay back the manufacturing system. solar systems allow 30-years- plus, so they pay back their debt and 18 months -- in 18 months after that you have a free energy. the cost of energy, the cost of solar, has plummeted, because of

manufacturing efficiencies and technology gains. thousands of people have put solar other groups and they have paid off their entire -- assist -- thousands of people have put solar on at their roofs and they have paid off their entire system. the other thing i would point out is when we talk policy and everything else, one of the things i have written a number of times about is that one of the most potent drivers for all industry right now is wal-mart. wal-mart has taken up the notion of renewable energy and solar in a way that has never been seen before. wal-mart has decided to become the world's new environmental know if-- i don't that is the case.

the economics of the solar are very viable. i do not do business with them, but i have to tell you, they are the most potent force in the united states right now. they are effectively demanding that they looked renewable energy. wal-mart, a would contend, is the world's most true business enterprise and in terms of driving down costs. they are driving tens of dozens of people to look at solar and -- tens of thousands of people to look at solar and what not, i think the verdict is in that it is a way to drive down costs. mr. and mrs. smith on elm power for 25hrefree years and realize that this is cost effective and where we need to be. host: would solar be where it is

today without government incentives? guest: no, it is true. regulated monopolies have been around for years. we would not have nuclear without the federal government. we would not have solar but for the federal government. government's obligation is to get new technologies and new jobs into the marketplace. when new technologies come along -- absolutely, positively, we would not solar or wind or geothermal or nuclear if not for the federal government. host: massachusetts, democrats' line, go ahead. caller: i have a question about the development of solar energy. for instance, the speed and in which the solar panel converts to energy, has that increased dramatically in the last 10 years?

is there a foreseeable limit to how fast it can convert energy? guest: how fast? we are down to nanosecond's at this point. question the caller's was how fast could we create jobs. if we put the solar panel on the roof now, how quickly could we get that done? the question was how quickly the energies produced -- the answer is literally the speed of light. we're talking about instant conversion. i am not sure if i understood the question -- host: i think that is where he was going. what about storch? -- storage. guest: the vast majority of

electric consumption happens when the air-conditioning is required and at some time and so on and so forth. -- at summertime and so on and so forth. but for these forms of energy to go as far as they can come up battery technology and -- as far as they can come up battery technology -- as far as they can, battery technology. the advancement of batteries for cars is really going to be a huge impetus. we see the chevy fuld and -- chevy volt and tesla and prius coming out. as the battery technology becomes much more advanced, we are seeing huge advancements there. we will be able to run our a.m. byator at 3 a:00

virtue of having it read to the battery. solar is getting a pretty backed right off investments in cars and of the the -- else a p -- a piggyback ride off investments in cars and everything else. host: next call. caller: i'm excited that you are here, because i have called my senator and the white house. there are things that bothered me about this. we are giving the chinese, giving spain, all this money to come in. there is no manufacturing jobs coming with this. we are abusing a lot of our water, which i am worried about -- are using a lot of our water, which i'm worried about, to do this. c-span has done a tremendous job on this energy, but i like what harrison ford said -- when al gore and pelosi and the

president park their planes once in awhile, it may be america will wake up. host: all right, what from that statement would you like to comment on? guest: the concern that we are creating incentives for foreign enterprises to come in and build solar systems in the united states. i am concerned about that as well. the reason that takes place is that you're not the dominant end market in the world --. not the dominant end market in the world. the top two solar markets on the planet are in europe. the united states needs to be a more advanced end market. for that we need job creation. i would tell the caller that because of some of the shrewd moves made on behalf of the united states, there are chinese

panel manufacturers that are moving jobs to the united states. suntech, the largest panel manufacturer on the planet, is opening up in phoenix. as i mentioned earlier, they are moving some of the low-tech subassemblies, but it is job creation in arizona and phoenix. the more the united states becomes an end market, the more you will see that. what i hope we will see is the growth of u.s.-based manufacturing with the highest tech started in the united states and not for us to become an afterthought behind china and europe. host: next call for thomas rooney, virginia, pamela. caller: i will try to contain my enthusiasm for this topic. this is great. thank you so much, c-span. i am an industrial engineer who

transitioned into environmental engineering. i would like to start of renewable company. i have been a contractor for doe. i have a couple of questions, but how do you find and train your workers? do you have your own training program, or do you work with community colleges? for a startup, what is the biggest and barrier in financial and technology, and how would you mitigate it? guest: we do hiring all around the united states. we are a national enterprise, so we hire locally and trained locally. there is not sufficient employment base in the solar industry. most of those we hire we have to train, and that is a good thing.

we are creating new jobs and training people. and yes, we do work with local community colleges and so on and so forth. the caller also asked about the barriers to getting in as an entrepreneur. there is an incredible proliferation of new technologies in solar -- how the electricity goes from dc to ac. our houses are ac and there is a tremendous amount of technology like the inside of a computer, a computer the size of a park, that converts electricity from a -- battery--- computer the size of car, that converts electricity from dc to ac. it is more about, if you or entrepreneur, getting into the

industry and understanding how to put together various technologies and the most elegant fashion to create the economic solution. solar is much more about economics and then trying to save the planet -- than trying to save the planet. the smartest people are taking basic technologies and putting them together in the most elegant way and creating an economic solution so that somebody has 25 years of free power grid you could be an economist, technology experts -- 25 years of free power. you could be an economist, a technology expert, and efficiency expert. you asked earlier if we are profitable or not. the reason we are profitable is that you're going into the next generation business techniques. whether it is hiring incredibly intelligent engineers, intelligent economic modelers, there is a place in this industry for smart minds.

you do not have to own a technology. you have to be ready to compete, and it is rough and tumble. you have to compete against the germans and the europeans and chinese. host: grand rapids, michigan. rebecca, go ahead. caller: i am 51 years old and i have been for green ever since i heard about it. i think it is the most exciting thing that has ever happened. i want to tell you about -- i called to ask -- when the president gave out the first time that everybody is screaming about -- i called the county asked what they were spending this money before, and they said not much, because the only thing they get is the fair grounds.

out of all of this money, we get a dumb fairground. what about the green technology -- we were supposed to get solar and wind and all of that on government buildings. host: let's go back to stimulus funds. has your company received any of that money or the tax credit? guest: not directly paid one of the first and largest commitment -- but the -- not directly. one of the first and largest commitments was that a manufacturer in the bay area. as part of the american recovery and reinvestment act, the lender is supplied with a huge loan guarantee. as a result of that, huge

facilities are being built in northern california, interesting technology, so on and so forth. companies getting direct support from the federal government, but our company? no. is there money from the stimulus to support it? yes, absolutely. if you call your local agency and ask them what they are going to do about it, and you get a lot of head scratching. we do not have a lot of people in the -- it is not that we don't have intelligent people in those commissions -- what we lack is national policy. the reason that china and italy and france and the czech republic are lengthening their strike against united states is that they have distinct and clear vision as to what they want to accomplish, and that