progressive guide to raising." and we have joseph henchman from the tax foundation. and we will be joined by investigative reporter sidney freedberg who wrote about how military families are affected when soldiers return from deployment. "washington journal" is next. host: worries grow over stability in pakistan after the military supply routes and afghanistan were cut off on thursday, in response to an early morning u.s. air strike that killed three pakistani soldiers. on the domestic front, president obama will make a longtime capitol aid chief of staff. he work for former democratic leader tom daschle.

we will cover the president's announcement. and the financial stability oversight council for preventing future financial crises will hold its first meeting today. the often criticized tarp program expires on sunday, hitting its two-year mark. the administration says it was not fair but it was necessary and they claimed it work. of the white house on thursday lowered its projected loss to $50 billion, down from $100 billion earlier. others are still critical of the program, though, saying it was poorly managed, lacked transparency and did not do enough to combat foreclosures. have you changed your mind on tarp? the phone numbers are on your screen. tarp, have you changed your mind?

"the washington post" story this morning. it says here that --

nebraska on the democratic line. have you changed your mind? you are on the air. what did you think of the beginning and what do you think now? caller: i didn't think tarp was very good. from the beginning, i don't think putting a cap on the amount of money that people -- i recently got into a car and if somebody put the amount of money i was able to sue dr. for hurting me more than i know i would be pretty upset. host: tracy, go ahead. caller: it is not changed, because i never supported it. host: why not? caller: i did not think we

needed to bail out anything. i think we are already broke. host: let me show you in the bloomberg latest magazine addition out this week. it says that $16 billion is the respected return on the $250 billion bank investment. the government is expected to make a $16 billion profit on that portion of tarp. what do you think? caller: tweeted bid because we might be selling gm to china? -- would that be because we might be selling gm to china? i was watching bloomberg and i am not confident and the numbers we are getting from those resources. host: wilmington, north carolina. jack, independent line. caller: i wanted to say that the media, they pounded us before tarp, before hank paulson and ben bernanke got this through congress. they pounded us in the media. we were not going to get our paychecks.

there was such a fear launched at us if this did not go through. by congressman from this district, a democrat, a blue dog, he voted against it. he had a letter from 400 different economists signed saying, do not do this. the media feared me into this because at the time i thought, well, i guess it is something we have to do. but i find out on the back side after a little more study is the fact that basically -- it bailed out all of the bankers but all of the investors lost money, it did not do a thing for them and the bail them out on the taxpayers' dime. i changed my mind and i see now that mike mcintyre was right. i think we should not have done it and let the chips fall where they may. host: pontiac, michigan. stanley, democratic line. let us move on -- stanley, are you on this line? go ahead.

william on the independent line and in new york. you are on the air. have you changed your mind? caller: no, i haven't. i believe it was very useful because of the money is given out. i strongly believe at some point these individuals will end up paying taxes. otherwise they would not have gotten in the assistance that would allow them to generate the fund that will make them pay taxes. somehow the economy would generate funds and everybody is going to benefit. it is better to give a penny and get 10 cents and give up nothing and get nothing. host: democratic line. massachusetts. good morning. guest: thank you for c-span. dittos to the caller from north carolina about the fear mongering. nobody wants to bail out the banks less than i did.

but, however, we had to take bad medicine. our economy was very sick. and it turns out that the side effects were not nearly as bad as everybody predicted. i think it was necessary. it was a necessary operation. and i think down the road the historians are going to have to sort it out. i am glad we did it, in retrospect. i am beginning to see that maybe the new banking industry was right, they really screwed everything up and we had to do this. we had to bail them out. the whole economy -- not just of the united states, but the world economy was on the verge of collapse. thank you so much for c-span. i will take my response of the air. host: this is the money and investing s -- money and investing section of "the wall

street journal." we will read a little bit from that article. first, we wanted to talk to jonathan weissman from "the wall street journal" to talk about the president's announcement later this morning that rahm emanuel was leaving. looks like he will be running for mayor of chicago. in the interim, the president will be announcing pete raus. guest: he was the chief of staff of senator tom-0 when he was senate majority leader. chle wasator das defeated, he bequeathed a lot of the staff to incoming freshman senator barack obama and his chief of staff became president obama as chief of staff. pete rouse is one of the three

senior advisers, he has a senior post. he is extremely publicity adverse. you hardly ever see people rouse all around, so it is a change of pace. host: he was referred to as the 101st senator. what do you think it means for the job of chief of staff? guest: he is known as a fixer. he is very good at going behind- the-scenes and keeping the trains running on time. this works really well for a president who thought that these next two years were mostly going to be about implementing the gains of the first two years, implementing his health care bill, implemented as wall street bell -- implementing his wall street bill and winding down the stimulus. but if republicans take control of the house, if that happens, he might need a street fighter like a rahm emanuel because,

remember, there could be government shutdowns or a real big showdown. as a question of question ofrouse will stay after the election -- question of whether pete rouse will stay after the election. it could be permanent but the president will make the final decision after the election. everyone to see what the landscape looks like. host: does this decision making an interim have anything to do with the november election, not trying to disappoint the base or rival of the opponent with a different kind of pick? guest: i think it has to do with the elections in that they may decide they will need a different type of chief of staff depending on the outcome of the elections. but i don't really think politics is playing into this. he is a natural guide to obviously, in. this is a strange time for the

chief of staff to be leaving, right before a pivotal election. wright as president obama swings into political mode. -- right as president obama swings in to political mode. pete rouse is just the logical person to fill the chair for the time being. host: bob woodward's book talks about rahm emanuel possible decision to become chief of staff. in the book he wrote -- rahm emanuel understood was a historical moment -- deputy president, is that the role rahm emanuel has played and is that the traditional role of the white house chief of staff? guest: it has, in some sense, then the role that he played, which might not make joe biden had a. it has not been the traditional role -- well, off and on. when you look at john sununu under president george h. w.

bush, the first bush, john sununu got himself in trouble because he was such a powerful chief of staff and he was exerting so much influence over what happens at the white house. but if you look at andrew card, the longtime chief of staff of george w. bush, and he was followed by another very quiet chief of staff, that model is more likely rouse model and which you play your role behind the scenes. your main job is to get everybody on the same page and to keep the trains running on time, and not to exert policy into the woods. rahm was very interested in policy input, especially when it came to capitol hill. host: real quickly, finally, a lot of the stories today about rahm emanuel and what kind of person he is, referred to his propensity to swear a lot. is that a problem for the

cheapest staff? a lot of these articles, the second paragraph, right at the top, noting that about rahm emanuel. -- come only a problem for the chief of staff at the president does not like -- guest: only a problem for the jeep of staff of the president does not like it. there is a famous youtube clip of senator obama roasting rahm emanuel in chicago and he made a joke that when rahm lost half of his middle finger he was branded practically mute. that was obviously a hint early on that senate it -- senator obama, then president obama, knew what he was getting with rahm emanuel and he really wanted him as its first chief of staff. no, i don't think that was a problem. host: thank you very much for joining us on the phone. we appreciate your time. we will go back to the question we are asking all of you this morning, on tarp, have you changed your mind?

kansas city. john. republican line. what do you think? caller: no, i haven't changed my mind. it was a bad idea then and a bad idea now. i have a question. the profit thing you are talking about. i missed the source on that. host: it was "bloomberg business week, what their latest addition. love it or hate it -- most do -- tarp didn't bust the bank. $16 billion -- the expected return on that too rigid and $50 billion bank investment, the portion of the $400 billion -- the expected return on the 250 billion bank investment, the portion used. caller: how much has not been repaid? host: "the wall street journal" looks at that. how much was put out and how much has been repaid.

when it talks about the $16 billion profit, that is just one day $250 billion of gold out to the banks. -- doled out to the banks. according to the papers, from tarp, congress authorized $700 billion. according to a papers this morning, treasury only put out to these different financial sector is about $400 billion. the remainder was never spent. caller: only $400 billion. that is chump change, right? host: what do you think? caller: use said only. -- you said only. i would say that is not chump change even in today's economy. host: did not mean to sound like i made an opinion.

caller: used the term only. -- you used the term only. host: you believe obviously that is a lot of money. caller: at least in my book. the second component is, all right, they make $16 billion on they 250, but what about the money to general motors and chrysler? host: take a look at this, john. it says the auto industry financing program, general motors plans to raise money through a public stock offering. 79.7 bolivars -- $79.7 billion to the auto industry and 11.2 billion repay. $47.5 billion went to aig and none has been repaid yet but yesterday the news was that aig and the u.s. agreed to an exit deal on that money. the capital purchase program, but to many of the banks -- most banks have repaid the funds

they receive been redeemed warrants and hundreds of smaller banks have not done so yet. about 147 out of the two budget 4.9 billion has been repaid -- out of the $204.9 billion dollars has been paid. here is "the washington post" on this. chicago. terry, democratic line. caller: i think that tarp was needed. i think people need to take their emotions out of it.

the economy but of gone over the cliff. -- would have gone over the cliff. they still saved the auto industry. i don't understand where the anger is coming from. misery loves company, because they are suffering they want the entire company to suffer. i commend bush for getting that started and i commend the president for finishing it off. so, it was a good thing to do. in time people are going to realize that obama has brilliant people working for him and people should get the facts and not just rely on one source, even "the wall street journal." do your own homework and take the emotions out. i would say i think this president is doing a great job under the circumstances. with republicans working with him, and think how better we would be. host: albany, new york. russell, a republican line.

caller: good morning. how are you? host: what are your thoughts on this? caller: i think we should understand tarp has done its job. i don't understand where all the rhetoric is coming from. it is doing its job, the economy is rebounding. we should get on board with this president and understand that it has teeth. host: did you feel that way when the concept or idea or the legislation was first introduced? caller: i had my doubts. i have to admit, i had my doubts. but you can see how the economy is coming back from the cliff. we have to give this president a big thank you. we have to give the democrats and the president and republicans who voted for the tarp as well, a big thank you. host: circle pines, minnesota. beryl, democratic line. caller: thank you for c-span.

i appreciate the tarp funds even though it is almost like cancer, you don't like the chemo but you have to have an result. you only have to look at iceland to see what could actually happen. their recovery is probably not going to happen for years. they are like 40% unemployment. for people sit around and beat on general motors and ford and chrysler, people who helped carry this country through world war ii and all the weapons and what they have done for the united states of america is absolutely deplorable. the republican party, they should rename it -- host: "roll call" is reporting that senator ted kaufman will be replacing elizabeth warren on the congressional panel that oversees the tarp program. he was appointed thursday and

congress created the panel to oversee the bailout in 2008. he praised kaufmans sang the senator was a leader in the fight to bring greater oversight to wall street and the financial reform legislation. elizabeth warren wrote an opinion piece. she poses a question, can customers deeply understand the product -- easily understand product? that is part of birdshot to come up with ideas to simplify those disclosure -- that is part of her job, to come up with ideas to simplify those disclosure laws. she writes --

yesterday the senate banking committee had a hearing where they heard from different members about the financial regulation law. deputy secretary was asked by senator richard shelby if this new director of the consumer financial agency really has the power to make rules, elizabeth warren, that is, given that she is an attempt reposition and has not been confirmed as a permanent director. here is what he had to say. >> the you believe the treasury has the authority without a confirmed director, and if so, why? >> senator, i think there is limited war writing authority but it is constrained until such time there is a confirmed directed -- limited rule writing

authority. there is plenty of work to be done to get these various disclosures ready. it is an important piece of legislation and an important mandate for this new board -- bureau. host: you can go to c-span.org if you want to watch the entire thing. atlanta, georgia. scott, independent line. caller: what kills me about tarp. it was the government an insiders picking winners and losers. goldman sachs made out as a bandit and they were walking did just like marilyn jordan and brothers. basically we gave these bankers money to stay afloat. we gave these people operating capital to stay afloat. they immediately bonus themselves to millions and millions of dollars. companies that were dead and bankrupt, these ceo's walking away with $40 million to $50 million, aig ceo walked away with $22 million on a company

not work anyway -- anything. we bailed out aig which was a backstop to bailout goldman. and the which a bank is not even a u.s. corporation. -- and deutsche bank was not even a u.s. corporation. secretary paulson used to be with goldman. now you have four or five mega banking houses. that enable them to get tarp. basically the american taxpayer is worse off than they were before. now we have less control. you've got a bank of america that is consolidated into huge assets that basically, if anybody leaves the money in there, they are crazy. goldman sachs. banks, they are all crooked. and our government has colluded. as far as general motors goes,

that was just a bailout to the unions and the only thing the unions got out of it is now they have to take care of their own pension plans and that is going to be a disaster because they don't have the money-dance -- money down the road and that will go to the government as well. they brought home depot into the ground. host: can i ask you quickly, scott? it sounds like you follow this closely. you oppose the idea. do you oppose it and now that it is propelling you to go to the polls in november and vote against anybody who might have voted for this? caller: that is exactly right. the problem is i am in georgia, so the problem is you could be a child rapist but if you have republican behind your name and they will vote for the guy. the electorate here, as long as you are republican. i am telling you. jeffrey dahmer could run for governor endecott's the republican nomination he will get elected. that is the problem you have. exactly right.

the problem is, you can call in shows like this and let people know -- now, this is not a bush thing. what we have going on in america is corporations versus the people. this is from citizens united to the bailout to the tarp. if they wanted to really help people out they could actually provide true mortgage relief. if you give sallie mae -- if you give my next-door neighbor and extra $400 she will probably go spend the $400. host: we will leave it there so we can get another voice in here. andy. caller: i appreciate c-span and i appreciate what scott was saying. i was a supporter of tarp and i still and. in the front end it was necessary. what scott was saying, in the back end, yet the system being gained by the banker that insiders with giant bonuses and everything. there was so much that should not gone on.

there should of been some constraints put on what people make at the end of this in the banking industry. i salute scott for what he was saying and i cannot agree with him more. host: do you think this will still be a big issue in november when the white house is saying, look, we are making money, we will make money on this, our losses will be much less? do you think it will be a center front issue for people in november? guest: i really don't. i am not concerned at all. my irritation -- i am an investor. i have been in the industry for many years. it is one of the things -- we look at the insiders making so much money while folks don't have enough money to pay their mortgages. the system is still really fragile. yet folks on the inside are making billions in bonuses. i find that really irritating.

congress basically on the game. i will not vote against anybody because of that but i think it was a preventable error and did you look back in hindsight when a proposed tarp they should have had it things on the back and that prevented that from happening. host: gulfport, mississippi. caller: i don't support it. what hurts me more than anything else was the one time that american people got together and lobbied their congress -- you have 600 lobbyists in washington but the american people got together over tarp, lobbied their congressman and what did they do? they turn around and slapped us in the face. host: talking about whether or not you changed your mind on that issue. rebecca christie is one of the reporters who broke this story for business week and she will be our guest monday at 9:15

a.m.. talking about ins and outs of the program. houston, texas, dick on the republican line. caller: i would just like to say that ex-president george bush, i never got a chance to thank you for releasing -- you all have to give george bush and barack obama credit for getting money back from these people that we lend money to. i know, mr. bush, you had to fight against dick cheney and karl rove. america, wake up. george bush, what you did was masterful, barack obama, take the ball and run with it.

host: this says that senate majority leader and laid plans for a procedural vote on three measures, a bill for promoting gas and -- elected vehicles -- the house and the senate left yesterday after wrapping up their work.

that is "the new york times" this morning. john boehner, the house minority leader yesterday was at the american enterprise institute talking about what he would like to do if he became speaker and how he would like to change house rules. here is what he had to say. >> we should also consider developing a cut as you go rule, that would apply to any member who is proposing the creation of a new government program or a new government benefit. very simply, under cut-go, if your intention is to create a new government program you must also terminate or reduce an existing program of equal or greater size. in the same bill. host: minority leader john boehner also criticized democrats for how they went about their legislative agenda this past year. and house speaker nancy pelosi held their own news event

yesterday. >> it is no wonder that mr. john boehner wants to talk about process. they have no substantive issues to take to the american people. they want to talk about process. we can talk to them about that. but we would rather be talking about progress rather than process. progress for american working families. that is what the president has said would be the measure of our success. host: house speaker nancy pelosi yesterday. you can watch her and house minority leader john boehner if you go to c-span.org and the video library which is in the upper right hand corner. silver spring, maryland. roger. democratic line. caller: absolutely. i love the conversation. the last lady who pointed out that she estimated that there were 600 only lobbyists -- only 600 lobbyists in washington. completely wrong. more like 6000 or even more. i don't mean to say that to frighten america. but what i would like to talk

about is something that "the new york times" talk about three or four days ago, is that elected constituents use a revolving door in congress. and this revolving door pays people who are in private industry and exchanges money and secrets with government and that is how you get the whole homeland security -- this is my last point. the pentagon was recently disclosed they had a note competition did program. host: we will leave it there because we are talking about tarp and whether not you change your mind on that program. georgia, barts on the republican line. caller: the guy who called from georgia earlier, i think he hit the nail on the head because the senate bill that passed in 2000, bill clinton, the repeal of

glass stiegel -- glass-steagall, which allow the over-the-counter derivatives which made tarp have to come in. what they did with aig, take the money out of aig and give it to goldman sachs and goldman sachs turns around and pay off debt and get the rest of it, like $17 billion and gives themselves bonuses. it is treason against the united states. host: the supreme court will begin its new session on monday. this is the headline in "usa today." we will have a guest on monday morning talking about this

issue. tune in at 7:45 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. on that. good morning. caller: i wanted to comment as a real-estate broker that the passage of tarp continues to perpetuate the foreclosure crisis. if you happen to go to youtube and you search in the mac -- imdymac, you will -- indymac, the banks were guaranteed in some cases 90% of the value of their regional mortgage. let's say a homeowner has a $200,000 mortgage and gets behind a few months on the payments, there is no incentive for the banks to work with the homeowner. they consult a home for $100,000

and get reimbursed for about $180,000. there is no reason at all for the bank to hang on. so, the people of low voted for tarp, i already voted against them -- and i will vote against pete chambliss. they perpetuated the foreclosure crisis in america and it is truly a tragedy. you cannot get a loan on vacant land in this country now due to the new tarp legislation. host: arizona. wayne, democratic line. caller: i kind of appreciate c- span except sometimes people who photographed and fix your sound system. host: what's that? caller: c-span is pretty good except your sound system when you are recording and covering the committees. i was listening to the committee earlier and there was so much wrong.

host: you are listening. what is your point on tarp? caller: on tarp, i was against it all the time. i know your reasons for it and everything else -- i can hardly hear you're talking? host: you have to turn your television down. we have to move on. pat, independent line. have you changed your mind on tarp? caller: i have seen this coming years ago and i predicted it five years before this all happens -- as far as the other gentleman said this is something like treason, every dam person -- damn person up there has taken an oath to the constitution and they are violating it. i think the whole country should have gone into the depression just like the 1930's.

host: we mentioned senator john thune, he is our newsmaker gas sunday. we asked him about the 2012 presidential. >> if the goal of the republican party after november 2 as to concentrate on president obama and make him a one-term president, what type of candidate is best? a former governor like mitt romney who has a health care plan that other republicans will pick apart, a senator like yourself who voted for a controversial aspect of bailing out some parts of the government, is it sarah palin, who is a bit of a lightning rod? who is the best type of candidate to put forward on this and why is it you if you make the decision? >> i think that -- and nobody knows the answer to really who is the best candidate. i think there are strengths and weaknesses for a lot of people in the field. i think it is all going to come

down to things you don't control. but getting a candidate out there i think will have a right of center philosophy and they can't articulate in a clear way, but the talk about what is wrong with the direction of the country today, has a vision that presents a contrast with where we are headed today, is a candidate that can win. host: senator john thune, republican of south dakota, hours note -- our newsmaker guest. bloomingdale, new jersey. curt, democratic line. good morning. caller: my main -- about tarp, is that there has been no follow-through. in other words, we bailed out wall street, but why suddenly did we stop short and raise

this bubble -- bugaboo about the deficit and we can't spend any more money now. and we just stopped short. what about spending some tarp money on bailing out the fund -- the unemployed and bailing out of homeowners that are being foreclosed upon? in other words, they could very easily spend $200 billion and employ it 5 million workers who are out of work. $200 billion, that is what it would cost. that is chump change compared to what they spend on the banks. why a are they are unwilling to

spend money on the unemployed? they could re-employ people and get the unemployment rate down to 6% tomorrow if they were willing to spend what they spent on wall street. host: chicago. independent line. caller: good morning. i have not changed my mind about tarp. i think it was the best thing to do. when everything was falling apart, your economy would have fallen down. host: we will leave it there. coming up next we will talk to jamie court, author of a new

book "the progress is guide to raising hell." contentn2's local vehicles are travelling the country as we look at the most contested house races leading up to this november's midterm elections. >> what is keeping you up at night these days? >> all the money that the government is spending. i worry about what will happen to my grandchildren. >> the small business owner? i know we have to have fiscal discipline. i have three kids and i have the same fear, would leave them with the same opportunities. we need to make some changes. >> i totally agree. >> thanks so much. >> right, right.

basically it is mathematically. i think in an economy like this, raising taxes is generally going to be a bad idea. >> when times are better -- >> i would say, look, let's put everything on the table and saw the problem but you are going to have to start making trade offs. if you look at the height and benefit side first. general philosophy i have. can we work the spending side before work in the tax side. >> of the democratic side you have banned seal, third time running. hoping three times the charm. he is running against mark kirk. used to work for -- and the capital in the mortgage finance for commercial.

on the right you have robert dole, political newcomer, he owns a pest control company in the chicago area that is pretty well known. he lives in highland park. they both have three kids. they both make over $100,000 a year so they are both of the same economic class but on two different sides of the political spectrum. it is a district that traditionalists and the republicans in congress and boats democrat for president. that makes it seem to democrats that they can take it. one of maybe three or four seats of the country that they literally see as a jump ball that they can get back even though they know they will lose 10 or 20, maybe even 30 or 40 seats across the country otherwise. it stretches from the north shore suburbs, very eat, very wealthy, very well educated suburb of chicago, highland

park. it goes a little bit west into some more moderate income suburbs. bennett's which is pretty far north into more struggling areas like waukegan and north chicago that is heavily hispanic and largely poor. >> town jobs here in the waukegan better on the bus line, no way. you'll never get a job. a lot of people out here who want to support their family instead of being on low income or going to get food stamps, things like that, it is not everybody who wants to just sit down and do nothing. there are a lot of us who want to work, like to work. where do we start? we have no star. you have some programs to try to help you. it is not successful. if we need something successful to help us support our families instead of being out here in poverty doing nothing. >> to adjust this regulation

forcing companies to go overseas, where the pacific rim. >> i think voters are most concerned, is like everyone else, but maybe even more so, is jobs, jobs, jobs. in addition to that, taxes. you have part of the district that is really hit hard by unemployment. above 15% in some of the areas. they want to hear the candidates talking about how they will put them to work. >> the biggest challenge for me in getting elected is making sure people understand the differences between myself and my opponent. what i found in talking to the voters is they want someone who can make the decisions to get our economy back on track but not willing to compromise on their social values while they do so. whereas my opponent was to restrict a woman's reproductive rights, and to protect them. my opponent wants to weaken environmental laws, i want to strengthen them. what we heard today, whereas my

opponent wants to privatize social security, i think that would be a terrible gamble to make and i am not willing to add $2.20 trillion to the national debt. >> i did what we have to do is put people back to work by creating an environment that allows the private sector to grow, expand, create jobs, not the government. there will be stark contrasts between me and my opponent on how to do that. my opponent has been in line with pelosi and the democrats about growing the government as the answer. i don't believe it is the case. i believe there is a better way. a better way is empowering individuals and small businesses to grow, to invest in technology, equipment, materials, to expand their business. >> trying to run into the middle. and they are running right into each other. dan seal is going after him on social issues. trying to portray him as anti- abortion even though dole says he is pro-choice and tried to attack, the environment and all

of the hot-button issues that really trend well for democrats. and robert dole is going after seal taxes and budget, trying to align him with the healthcare bill. he is trying to portray him as one to raise taxes. that is the other side, the two components that make up the majority of voters -- socially moderate and fiscally conservative. they need to really come apart from the parties because the parties are not popular anywhere across the country, it seems. and seals needs to stand aside from the democrats. even though obama is still polling about 50% of the district, i think voters are not interested in making sure there is a democratic controlled congress or a republican controlled congress. they really need to portray themselves as independents. i believe the last time in 2008

$10 million or more was spent on both sides. the candidates themselves, raising between $2 million up to $4 million or more but you also have interest groups playing him -- here because of this is a place democrats think they can take a republican seat. you will see the democratic congressional campaign committee and a republican congressional campaign committee dumping $1 million, $2 million, $3 million for ads. it is very expensive to buy ads in chicago. >> c-span's local content vehicles are travelling the country as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to this november's midterm elections. for more information on what the local content vehicles are up to this election season, visit our website.

"washington journal" continues. host: this book, written by jamie court. in the book, you cite "the tipping point." use the example of paul revere. he was able to get the message out, but also the messenger. how does it apply? guest: it is about battle proven tactics. when you want to influence political change. if you want the change we will for a 2008 but you don't have the money. one of the lessons, one of the rules of populist power is influencing a few number of people and the small things can make a huge difference. the example of paul revere is a good example because it is all about -- he went in the right direction. he had connections. he was a connector. he had connections to other people and he had a great

message, the british are coming. there was a guy who went in the other direction it did not have the same impact in terms of waking up the folks. a for the book, what i really talk about is how we are in an unprecedented time. and mandate from 2008 to get some big things but yet if you are progressive or independent or conservative, you feel like there has not been the type of change we promised. and yet, we have social media. we have the ability on the internet to be paul revere, to find a platform on facebook or twitter, to find the right way to communicate with other people, round them up and have an impact on issues. maybe not huge issues like creating jobs, but definitely issues. house health insurers treatise, how oil companies treat us. how we influence things in our lives. host: this book references "the tipping point." the supporters of the tea party are often -- they often quote

that book and a story of paul revere as well. are they beating you at the game? guest: we have a election. we have a popular mandate where the folks in america saying we want affordable quality health care, we want energy independence, an end to the wars. the president clearly has not delivered and many of the people in wall streeters still in charge in the military- industrial complex is still in charge. we still have a lot to get done. that is important. but the fact is the public -- 60% or 70% of the public believes in the principles. this is populism. what the tea party believes income of 20% of the folks, according to "the new york times" identify with the tea party. this is a narrow group of folks in the republican party but i have been debating a lot of them. what they really want to do is rein in government. when you are as angry as i am about wall street greed and corporate bailouts and home

foreclosures, you understand that a key tool is government regulation to make those industries, in line. host: they are talking about less government, though. people saying government regulations means more and bigger government. are you concerned at all that the tea party movement is doing a better job at selling their message? guest: absolutely, i am concerned about that. progressives are mad as hell they are not speaking up. which is why this march is important. progressives will come out and they will say we are as mad as hell and we will get the change would would have for. the book gives simple rules on how to expose problems that get in their way, a powerful interest groups. how to confront them, how to force them to make mistakes, how to create change is based on those mistakes. i think you have a good example of the government to work with the people with this implementation of some of the

health care reform provisions that president obama put into effect. as of september 23, an issue we were involved in, if you have health insurance and you did six and have big medical bills you can no longer be canceled by an innocent omission. it is something called a rescission, something insurers were doing. we help them cover the problem. the president finally banned the practice and no one in america will now be canceled when the need the coverage the most. it is a great example of how government has to get involved to stop health insurance companies. and it is something that affects all of us. if the government were not able to have that power, if the tea party got a range of government said we would not in a box in the health-care marketplace, we will actually pull back health insurance to a place where there are no state regulations but they are all multistate plans which is something they want to do, we would not have these types of protections. i am very concerned the reins of

government will go to a party or members of the party who don't want to use the government's power to curb the biggest problems of corporations. host: jamie court is our guest, author of "the progressive's guide to raising hell." in the book you write five steps -- expos, confront, wait for the mistakes, make the mistakes the issue, and don't let go. but i want to ask you about the subtitle. to get the change we voted for. vice-president joe biden said last week in new hampshire and later that evening on one of the late night talk shows is that the base needed to stop whining and be grateful for what the white house has passed. they pointed to health care legislation, financial regulation, saying there has been changed. the president said you need to

hang with us and don't give up now. guest: that is totally not what the american public wants to hear. we are not winding. there is a lot of anger. they need to say, -- it now is that with a long way to go. that is why we at consumer watchdog made a call for the president to issue an executive order freezing health insurance rates through the end of the year. we have health insurance premiums going through the roof. insurers sending letters to policy holders saying the reason is obama's legislation. if you have people who cannot afford these increases. part of the federal law was a provision is said and reasonable rates have to be justified before they take effect. we don't have the regulation yet so the president has a ability to issue an executive order saying we will freeze the rates because of looks like unreasonable. that is the kind of response to the american public wants. the other thing is, we still

need the public option, we still need regulation of premiums. my group in the california pioneers regulation of auto insurance premiums that brought the rates down over 20 years and saved consumers literally $62 billion according to the consumer federation of america. president obama has got to look to the 24 states without the process is to regulate the insurance. i think it's a ticking time bomb for the democratic party unless they bring rates and line. we don't have the power of the votes in congress to do this but we can do this in a state ballot measure. the president and vice president have to stop telling people not to those pressed their anger and have to say we hear your banker and wheat acknowledge -- it can feel change. use it in the ballot measure process in the 24 states. the president when he took office, i am counting not just on my ability to create change but your ability. nobody is going to be falling if they are angry and not allowed

to express anger. i think they have to take a different tactic. host: you said 24 states have ballot initiatives. this is the graphic of those. those in green are those that allow ballot initiatives. how many of these states have health care initiatives you are talking about? guest: very few states have effective health care premium regulation. we have a mandatory health care provision. no provision that health insurers have to justify premiums to state regulators. some states have effective regulation. maine, i think. the insurance wrigglers and it's to say yes or no to a premium increase and check the levity. in california, one of the things that propelled obama's health care legislation through the end was a big mistake by in from blue cross. they tried to raise rates by 39%. our insurance commissioner use the power to stop the. became a rallying cry.

and the president used the premium increase to drive the legislation. but nothing of the legislation would stop future increases. the insurance commissioner had the power -- but i think the white house is in denial. it has to deal with the fact that it has to get more progress for a public option which can be enacted at the ballot box. premium regulation can be enacted in the ballot box. host: is it too late at this point with the election four weeks out? guest: too late for the midterm. california has a valid process every general election but by -- in 2012 will go to the ballot box and give the voters a choice to enact their own public opted to the private health insurers work to regular premiums and hopefully create bulk purchasing for prescription drugs at the state level. as a state we have 35 million people, we can buy in bulk and save big money. these are tools we needs to use to take things into our own hands. i talk and a book about direct

democracy, attacked about how to use the ballot. in the premise is public opinion is the most powerful force in the world is focused at the right time in the right place at the right window of opportunity and a right people. health insurers are the enemies of the american people. drug companies are the enemies of the american people. common sense experience shows as this. we can use the initiative process to rein them in and the president should join as but it doesn't will not stop us. host: how much the cost to have a successful ballot initiative? guest: in many states it is not that expensive. in california, where i am from, it is a pretty big endeavor. you need about 700,000 signatures total. if you were just what to buy the signatures, somewhere between 700,000 of to a million dollars. if you are picked -- facing a powerful interest group you need

money. in june at an insurance company trying to repeal a provision of our landmark auto insurance reform. we stopped them. they spent $60 million on the ballot measure to repeal our initiative. we were outspent 12 to 1, but through the free media and small tv and radio buys we convince the public insurance companies -- so the public beat the special interest all the time in the ballot measure process. the one place the public cannot be fooled. in congress it is easy to fool them because bills come up in the middle of the night when c- span is the only one covering them and people are asleep. -- asleep. the ballot -- pure populace. i don't see the tea party going with ballot measures. they are tried to change the balance of power in an election. 20 years of could -- progressive populism and how we got hmo patients rights through the process, auto insurance reform,

how we ranged in politicians through more transparency and campaign finance reforms. that is not with the tea party -- it is yelling, but not talking about that. we are angry and what the government off our back and our people in congress. that is not a real change and i don't think the american public really buys it. host: michigan. tom, democrats' line. first all call for jamie court. caller: i am calling from michigan. i have been a democrat since i first voted for john kennedy. how are you going to do anything -- getting things across when you have our own president, vice-president complaining about the progressives? guest: i think he's got to stop complaining. if you are mad as hell, you are doing some by calling in. there are to the people raising money in washington and not enough people raising hell. the tea party is going to come

to town, they will raise hell, and it progressives don't start raising hell, it is a mistake and i think he should be held to task at this rally. i think it was a stupid thing to say. obama often cites a story about franklin delano roosevelt. he met with philip randolph, the civil-rights leader and said i believe everything you want me to do for the country. now, make me do it. i think obama has been saying that for a long time, make me do it. he doesn't have a lot of pressure from his base to make him do it. that will have to change. it does not change before the midterm, and has to change after. my belief is he has to use outside of the box thinking. executive orders, stayed allies -- state allies, or he will not have a job. a he will have to face that reality soon.

and maybe the midterm is a wake- up call he needs. the problem is it will take a house of congress away that is a house that can do the job. i talk about in the book, we need to get rid of the filibuster. i think the president had a long time ago embraced the notion that we should allow 51 votes in the senate to change things, we would have a public option, we would have premium regulation. the rules of the game would be different. he is going to need to be radical if he wants to keep the house and ultimately i think he does. host: detroit, michigan. albert, a democratic like. caller: first-time caller. why it to the democrats attack republican ideology -- they don't like helping people out, they don't like social security, they don't like schools. it is a simple thing. host: let us just talk strategy. why not go after republican ideology? guest: pragmatically if you want

to get something done, define your problem. for me, it is high health insurance rates or the fact that we need curbs on oil companies, that we need to get out of iraq and afghanistan. these are the progressive agenda. if you want to do that is instead of attacking thoughts is bringing human people forward, bringing people who are victims of wars and people who can't afford college because we are investing so much in war and scholarships are gone. the tactics of winning change are really about appealing to human nature. hardened politicians on capitol hill i have seen time and again cannot turn away from human truth from either party. i think bipartisan is in -- bipartisanship is largely on capitol hill both parties getting together to give up on people who are not campaign donors. but oftentimes when you can change things it is because you can appeal to a non-partisan nature. that has to do with somebody

getting screwed by an insurance company. the biggest nonpartisan moment in health reform is when the victims of these health care recisions' came forward. we had people who were canceled on their health insurance because of an innocent omission on an enrollment application and joe barton, a conservative republican from texas, got together with democrats and said this is an appalling practice and we got to end it. that is because they heard human stories. when real people and stories and they come forward and tell them, that is how you get nonpartisan change. but attacking thoughts it is not going to give you change. host: california. how would on the republican line. caller: good morning, greta, good morning, sir. how are you? i am a fellow californian. the people's republic of california. i've got an idea for a new book. you should chart the progress of movement of europe -- not bad

greece is in your book, maybe italy, spain, portugal, ireland, and the problems they are facing in their economic conditions and what brought it to them, your blessed thoughts of progressivism, and then we can go to one of our favorite spots in the country, california. my goodness. $19 billion. and what is the answer? let me ask you, jimmy, and i follow up, if you don't mind. what is your solution to a $19 billion deficit that goes from year to year -- host: we got your point. guest: i live in california and i can tell you the state of our schools, they will close the state parks. this is partly because -- and so the problems in greece -- because of rampant finance a

crisis redone our country by wall street, by irresponsible lending, a lack of regulation, a wild west financial market. 7% of the american public does blame wall street greed for the problems we have in california -- 70%. they spread across the world. how we recover is a very difficult issue because you have to make choices. but if you are looking at afghanistan where we are spending $1 million per troop with all of the support. we just had an escalation of troops by the president said he was going to try to bring troops home. it's pretty simple solution to big money -- getting out of the wars. that is something we will talk about this weekend in this march because when you can't afford a state college education anymore, you realize the military industrial complex is getting a very generous handouts from the government and get the students, the middle-class families are not. i think there is bipartisan unity.

i hear glenn beck talking about bringing the troops home and a lot of people on the left. if you want a simple silver bullet for more money to the government, that is one. there are a lot of others. in california we have some pretty generous tax loopholes that it never been closed because of special interest control. if you reassess commercial property tax, corporate tax on the same level of residence you produce another $2 billion a year. there are lots of these ideas but the problem in sacramento is the same as washington, which is interest groups mobilize through lobbyists and the only way people could speak is through a ballot measure and you have to pick your times and ballot measures carefully and it takes a lot of money to get these on the ballot. we have done them and we will do it again. but it is very hard to do about a measure to legislate everything. that is why i think is gubernatorial election will be a defining moment in history of california and i am not sure which way this is going to go but i do think the next governor

will not able to dodge the question. he will have to solve problems and there will be a combination of a change in how government works, cutbacks, and also closing tech -- tax loopholes. host: are you the favor of jerry brown? guest: i try not to take a position as a not-for-profit. if you're asking me personally, hell yes. i am offended by a politician who spent $150 million to buy an office as a corporate ceo. personally -- host: but the union money he received. guest: heat -- she is getting money from the health-care industry. i would rather vote for someone who takes money from workers. as attorney general he is a smart guy. works for global warming. i know what meg whitman is going to do because i have seen what

she said she wants to do. she wants to get rid of government. it is not the time when we are in a major economic recession to get rid of government, blow up a government. it has to be used smartly and it has to be accountable but it has to invest in the public, otherwise we will not have schools that run, we will not have parks, and we will not create incentives in the economy for people to get back working again. so, i see it as -- i would not want to be governor of california. if you gave me the job tomorrow, i would not take it. hats off to folks who want the job but it is an easy thing for all of us to say the state is a wreck. i think it is a harder thing when you are in this system solutions that are outside the system. about ballot measures and when public opinion brings scandals ford, the crystallized for opinion leaders opportunities to act. we bring them the moments and

then on some issues, be it health insurance reform or an opportunity for greenhouse gas controls, which we had in california, these moments out there and take advantage if they are smart and that is our job. host: jamie court of consumer watchdog, in town for the rally this weekend? guest: and meetings on the hill. host: the rally is -- i am not speaking or anything. it is many progressive getting together. to say, look, we want the change we voted for. we are not going to stop expressing what we need but we are supportive of moving forward. vice-president biden, who i should never quote, but he said, you have to make a decision if you are going for d, out driving forward, or r, reverse, republican. i don't believe that a lot of what he says but the reality is if you want progress, going back

to the tea party will not help us. host: we are covering the rally live on saturday here on c-span at noon eastern time. florida. patty. independent line. caller: can you hear me? ok. i am just curious. in this country the push-pull between the federal government and the state governments. like, and understand recently sam brownback and i cannot remember the democratic senator introduced a renewable electrical standard. in the gulf coast ranging from louisiana downs to florida, did not have reliable standards for state and yet we of crises like the bp oil capacity that occurred and people to wake up and say, how we pull away from fossil fuels. why should 29 other states every global standards. states get minimal solar

exposure compared to states in the gulf coast which is closer to the equator yet we do not have the real portfolios standard. no politician is stepping up and putting it on a billboard and speaking this out. there are things that can be done but nothing is pointed out. it is absurd. guest: look, the petroleum industry, the coal industry, these are powerful special interest groups. and the book i talk about ways we held politicians accountable from both parties. i talk more about democrats than republicans because oftentimes they are the ones who have the reputation as being green, but they take a lot of money from oil companies and then they foiled reform. in california we have a real issue. a greenhouse gas emissions cap that was put in by gov. schwarzenegger, which is a remarkable thing, but we have a bunch of oil refiners try to repeal it at the ballot box through proposition 23. behind the initiative is an

interesting alliance. coke brothers, petroleum magnets, along with a bolero, and that tea party also funded. a recent rally where tea party members were standing out in front of valero gas stations. it tells you about the tea party and the power of the oil industry money. oil companies know that they and a ballot measure process or legislative fight, they can be the people out there saying we need to repeal the greenhouse gas emissions law and stock portfolio of clean energy. they have others do it for them, be it that politicians or the tea party. it tells you the way politics is played it is hard to know who is pulling the strings but the same people pulling the strings are the people live in making an awful lot of money tied up pollution. host: doesn't it happen on the left? guest: absolutely. i open a chapter about how the speaker of the assembly we had to hold a county the accountable for getting in bed with chevron

and blue cross, a very liberal guy who used to work for labor unions and ultimately his high living off the little relief campaign contributions of his donors when he went to barcelona and spend their money got him and a lot of trouble. basically had to get out of politics. our job is when we see corruption in politics is to hold that politician, particularly our representative, a cowboy. their stories in the book where people do it routinely and the people of politics going the wrong thing. host: let's go to jack on the republican line from louisiana. caller: good morning. i am in the oil business, the nasty old oil business, exploring for oil for years. i have been kicked out of an area in our state of 420,000 acres because of the people with

the regulations. what the regulations come down on the oil industry year after year. they are trying very hard to make us get out of the oil business. my first wife before she died within the medical industry and my two children are also -- one is a registered nurse and one is and ob/gyn. it to give examples of how your regulations are really wonderful -- #one, my daughter, she has about 10 people she has to work for her to handle the regulations. she told me the other day that when a lady comes in it and she is being paid for by the government, she has a d &c and finds out she has cancer, my daughter cannot operator -- operate on her for eight weeks because she will not be paid at

all. guest: look, i am not saying all regulations are the way to go but i am saying smart regulations for wall street or oil companies like greenhouse gas caps or health insurance companies preventing from dropping it. your daughter is a nurse. an example of regulations. really progressive allies, california nurses association. a lot a few years back say we need for every patient to have a nurse available. there was a deficit. hospitals were laying off. patients hitting 911 from their beds because there were no nurses. and a regulation that says in acute care facilities in emergency and operating rooms and accused areas of the hospital that have to be a certain number of nurses for a number of patients. it is a huge block, a huge change and increased safety. it makes your daughter's life easier. it depends on what side. if you are a professional in the industry that needs to be protected from a health insurer

or hospital, you probably want regulation -- if you want to drill and explore you probably don't want to be told you cannot drill or explore every word you want. not saying -- this is relative to the tea party. an agenda that says just get rid of government, led a strict regulation away, it is very dangerous and a time when the american be brought spoken up to say we need affordable quality health care, we need energy independence, we need jobs. you cannot do any of these things without some regulatory power going to the state. host: silver spring, maryland. roger, democratic line. caller: i congratulate you. i really believe in where you are coming from. however, you covered a wide gamut of topics. a million dollars per soldier, you are looking at spending a lot of money on tools and weapons that could be very

valuable in the future with the event of global warming. so, technically that is not money not well spent. i would like to know, but spending $20,000 more on teachers all across america, and also to find out that since everything is about accountability and accuracy, why don't we teach demographics to high schoolers all across america -- see, this is more spending money. the last comments i would like to make is to blame california for having an exploded budget of but what we failed to identify and what i would like to let everyone know is that is that the unions in california, the police unions are monstrous.

the unions of the inflation of the budget. that is it. guest: look, i agree, and i fought with labor unions. i fought with democratic politicians when they stood in the way of something about was good for consumers. our opponents change all the time. in the book i just thought about tactics. it does not matter your political agenda. if you want to change something and you don't have much money, you have to rely on big public opinion and your favor. the point about education is not spending on teachers. it is that kids are in college. this is not just uc berkeley -- but kids in college are losing subunit -- losing subsidies, grants. this is direct aid to students. if you go to rethink afghanistan -- you can see how much they are paying in taxes to war and how much they're not getting back in direct aid to students. when you see a kid who has to

drop out of college and their future disappears so we can put more troops and afghanistan with no strategic end in sight -- of about a filmmaker who is working on rethink afghanistan and a lot of other projects and he talked to the student and tremendous documentaries about their problems compared to where money is being spent. equipment and putting people in harm's way. it just doesn't make sense when this really looks a lot like the vietnam in terms of our strategic objectives not being clear and a lot of smart people not recognizing them inside washington. my only point is these are choices. if you ask where money could be directed, this is something that can happen and that is something the progressives really want to see happen. that is progress. moving us forward. host: philadelphia. jim, republican line. caller: am i on? this is kind of -- not funny, but this guy is a progressive socialist and blaming everybody but then the people he should blame, the people in government

that calls these regulations like fannie and freddie that caused the house and collapse with cause the financial debacle -- which caused the housing collapse which caused the financial debacle. i wanted to give a generalized overview of where america has been and will and can go. if you want to look around and see where the democrats have ruled the country for the last one or two generations and see how they destroyed that part of the country, you need just a look at the cities of america. the fact is -- nobody talked about this. republicans should. democrats have dominated the politics of the cities in america, most of them, for the last two generations and they have destroyed the cities. they have collapsed their own public school systems in america. that is a fact. half of the kids in high schools and cities in america don't graduate. while they are out shooting themselves in the school yard, playing and then running away

when somebody comes with a gun, shooting in school buses. that's right, and philadelphia. host: where is america going? caller: america is going to go down the drain like the cities is the american people don't wise up and realize that the social engineering, political correctness, multicultural diversity and, yes, affirmative action that has destroyed the cities over the last couple of generations -- host: got your point. guest: i am a consumer advocate. i look at the economic causes of all problems and i see the economic cause of the problems in america is reckless breed and the regulation. that is what we have had a long time since clinton. and i hold democrats responsible, republicans is possible, special interest groups, whether corporations are labor unions. but i have to tell you, huge corporations have had a very good time with the american people for a very long time and most people understand that. when most people understand that, that is a force, popular

opinion forced the president and congress could harvest. i blame them for not harvesting it. i believe if president obama can't do that he probably doesn't deserve to keep this job. i don't like the of turret -- alternatives, which would be someone who does not see eye to eye with me as a populist and progress of but i have to tell you it is really on him to deliver now and on him to deliver or at least died trying to deliver. go on capitol hill and if he can't do would go to your state and tell yourself show with the american people you will get them what you promised in 2008. not enough to say we did it because most people realize that this is a very bad economy, people can't afford health insurance, but can't afford college, it can't afford rents, can't afford mortgages and if something is going to change it will take the public, together but it is also going to take a president or an elected leader to lead. host: the next phone call, arizona, beverly, independent line. caller: jamie.

that man from pennsylvania was dead wrong. he is blaming democrats -- and i am an independent. i blame democrats for some things. but it is so obvious that corporations, the very wealthy, have taken over america. they have taken over washington. and we have not been able to stop its. all data can -- obama can stop it, congress can't stop it, because they do, they don't get the money to run the campaign. and republicans are the ones who back the wealthy. but the main reason i called was the military -- i think we should have a separate tax, a military added tax. that way the public knows how

much military is costing them. a and they are so gung ho for all of these wars, they would think twice if out of every dollar they had to pay 40 cents. host: we will go to gregory in manhattan on the democratic line. caller: good morning to your guest and good morning america. i wake up every morning at 7:00 a.m. to listen and watch c-span every day. it is going to be sure. first of all, president obama does not waive a want to fix anything and everything. let's be real. i think most people in this country need to take a trip to some third world countries some place where water does not run, where the food is not looked after and see what it is like to really have to struggle and live based on nothing. third point. mr. progressive -- i am also a

democrat. you sound like the tea party, bashing the president. and to the guy in pennsylvania who painted a brush, and he threw in the word affirmative- action. so, him using that word affirmative action as a republican makes it very clear to me and to many others of the racist undertone in his mind set. so, we need to all get together and realize and count our blessings. we have food on the table. you have water running. let us unite. guest: no one said the president does not have a tough job but i actually liked the guy personally. but strategically and tactically, to say that people don't have a right to be angry and that we did the job on health reform or on wall street is just not right. he may have gotten as much as he could out of congress, but for the vast majority of the american people, public opinion says that is not enough. they rank republicans and

democrats on wall street reform about the same, and that tells you that when democrats should be way ahead they did not do all they should. the consumer protect -- protection bureau will be a big test. but in terms of what we can do, if you are angry about getting the changes would for and you are angry about changing any practice in your community, there are time tested bottled proven tactics that can work. and when i see the president, a very smart guy, not listening to some basic rules about how you look at public opinion, it is problematic. .

we've got to give him that way. host: jamie court is the author of "the progressive's guide to raising hell." thanks for being here. coming up next, we're going to talk about states raising taxes during the recession. 29 states increased taxes to the tune of about $24 billion. that's our topic coming up next here on the washington journal. but first, meg whitman, candidate for governor in california, held a press conference yesterday to address the allegations that she had hired an illegal immigrant as her housekeeper. here's what she had to say. >> just classic smear politics. this is what californians and

americans hate about politics. here we are, 30 days out from an election, in a classic case of smear politics. and jerry brown, this is how he operates. this is how career politicians operate. this is what they do. and i heard this morning that the brown campaign had been flagged nothinging this story two weeks ago, so they knew exactly what was going on. i think there's very clear evidence that this is brown-motivated. host: joining us on the phone this morning is john meyers, the sacramento bureau chief for kqed radio in san francisco. mr. meyers, is there any proof to this allegation that meg whitman was talking about, that this is coming from the jerry brown campaign? >> there's not a lot of proof. i mean, what she's referring to essentially is that a rumor that apparently the brown campaign says they were passing along that they had heard that ms. whitman had a "housekeeper problem," and even the reporter she conferenced there from a television station in the san francisco bay area said it had been described to him as a

rumor. i think, really, you've got two things going on here. i mean, obviously the whitman campaign has tried very hard to focus on how this came about. a lot of other folks are asking exactly about the details and the issue itself and the fact that ms. whitman had an undocumented immigrant housekeeper for nine years. she had checked all of the ex- employee's documents, that she had a social security card, she had a state driver's license, and so ms. whitman and her husband said we did everything we could. but again, immigration has been a very big issue in this governor's race, especially when ms. whitman was running for the primary back in the spring and talked very tough on illegal immigration and talked very tough on employers who hire them. so i think that's why the story continues to stick around, and it's not going anywhere yet. host: it seems like the center of the story is about this letter from the social security administration back in 2003, alerting whitman and her husband about this possibly

undocumented worker that was her housekeeper. she says she never saw the letter, but then her campaign sort of changed their tune. what is 9 latest? did she see it or not? >> well, she says she still didn't. the question is whether her husband saw it. there is this letter that she referred to, which we have to be care to feel say it's from the social security administration simply saying there's a discrepancy in the employee's name records, and so it may not be an immigration status thing, it could be someone, for instance, who got married and their name changed. so the letter very clearly says, you know, we don't want to read too much into this, you, the employer, need to check this out. but the letter had handwriting on it that could be, apparently is, at least according to the woman and her attorney, the handwriting of ms. whitman's husband that says please check on this to the employee, nikki, the ex-employee's name. ms. whitman says she never saw the letter, her husband says now it's possible, i can't remember. as you can imagine, that makes the story trickle out a little bit honger. host: and as you said, she ran

to the right on this issue during the primary, and 20% of california's he electric rated is latino voters. so how do you think this is going to play out? has she had to change her tactics since the primary to win some hispanic voters? >> she definitely has tried to do the classic pivot back to the center even before this happened, trying to talk more about the issues that she's trying to focus the campaign on, education and things like that here in california. but this one's going to be a tough one. it's getting lots of attention in the spanish-speaking press. it does reopen some old wounds. two things we should make clear here, first of all, her honorary state chairman is pete wilson, best known in california to latinos, it seems, as the main backer of proposition 187, which would crack down on illegal immigrant services from the state back in the 1990's. that didn't help her from the very beginning. and secondly, there is the second gubernatorial debate with jerry brown tomorrow in the central valley sponsored by

univision in spanish, and you're sure to believe this is going to be front and center of the questions she's asked. host: and she said yesterday during the press conference that she would take a lie detector test on this. any update on that? >> well, apparently her campaign late last night is saying, well, she'll take a lie detector if jerry brown, the democrat, takes a lie detector to prove he wasn't behind it, and on and on we go. she was asked that question about the reporter about the polygraph, she dent offer it up herself. but we've got a media circus going on right here, and this is the kind of thing that we wonder how these things come out late in campaigns. we still don't know how this happened, when it did, and why the ex-employee waited to step forward until roughly five weeks before the election. host: yeah, and what about the role that this ex-employee's lawyer is playing here? >> well, the ex-employee's lawyer, we haven't even mentioned him, we probably should, it's celebrity attorney gloria allred, who has as carefully orchestrated the media events over the last few days and seems to keep dribbling out documents she has

to prove her point and keep the attention going. you know, the whitman campaign says she's allied with jerry brown. she did give $150 to jerry brown's attorney general campaign four years ago, and a little bit more money before that, and she is a long-time democrat. but there are at least some people who think that ms. allredden joys the publicity herself regardless of partisan politics. so when you get that mixed in the middle of this, this is one of those seemingly "only in california" stories, when it gets hyped up, even on celebrity web sites they're talking about this. host: all right, john myer with kqed radio in sacramento, thanks so much. joining us right now is the state project director with the tax foundation, here to talk about states raising taxes during the recession. 29 states to the tune of $24 billion. what was going on? guest: well, a lot of it is the ongoing recession, really hammering state revenues. during the boom time, states made a lot of big spending

commitments based on revenues that were growing very quickly. but once the recession started to kick in, revenues started dropping, and there became -- there grew this overhang between the expenses that they had committed to and the revenues that they were getting. the states are looking for any ways to close it. first states relied on short-term things, cutting travel, cutting expenses, short-term expenses, however they could, increasing borrowing, drawing down rainy day funds, and increasingly states are turning to taxes, especial until 2009, 2010, and we think it will get worse next year. host: what are your projections? guest: well, i think a lot of the proposed tax increases that we thought were going to come in 2010 haven't materialized, and i think because they're waiting until after the election to see the mood of the electorate. host: and where will these tax increases come from? will the income, property, sales tax, what? guest: historically the income tax is the last thing states

turn to when it came time to raise taxes. first they would rely on excise taxes, going after smokers, drinkers, and then sales taxes, and then finally income taxes would be the last one. this recession has been something different, though. income taxes have been one of the first resources in a lot of states by going after high-income earners. so, for instance, this november, washington state will be voting on a referendum to institute an income tax. right now they don't have one, but the income tax would only apply to the top 2% of income earners. so you have a question of a majority of washingtonians voting on whether to tax 2% of them. host: and what has happened on sales tax? guest: sales tax, we've seen a couple of increases. arizona has increased their tales sales tax. but generally not a lot of action. maybe bringing some items into the base here in washington, d.c., canned and i soda have been brought into the sales tax base. but not a lot of activity, not as much as we were expecting

when i was on a year ago. host: what have you seen from corporate income tax? guest: a lot of the action on corporate income tax has been in the way of proposals. corporate income tax is very volatile t. goes up very high during good times, and it drops very low in bad times. right now, states aren't even actually getting a lot of revenue from corporate income taxes, simply because corporations aren't making profits, so they don't have the ability to pay taxes on those profits, as there aren't any profits. but we do see a lot of candidates out there running for governor, proposing cuts or even limb nations of state corporate income taxes. host: and the property tax? wove seen, according to "the wall street journal," an increase of 3.3%, which meant revenues of about $89 billion for states. guest: right, property taxes have grown very modestly, but haven't fallen, primarily because states and localities can increase assessments, and they can increase rates even to make up as valuations fall.

host: home property values have fallen, yet the appraisals have not caught up to the fallen values. and so -- guest: it's partly that, and part that will they've increased rates in order to make sure the revenues don't drop. host: so "the wall street journal" says that taxes went up in 29 states in 2010 by $24 bition, the highest increase since at least 1979. joseph henchman, what's been the impact of this? guest: well, it remains to be seen in a lot of states. some states have really dug in and tried to cut spending and prioritize the services they're providing. and balance the structural deficit going forward, because you'd have to grow revenue at some impossible percentage a year in order to get back to what it was at the height of the boom going forward. so the states have the structural deficits that they need to come to grips with. some states just aren't. illinois borrowed. new jersey didn't make in, and

they're phasing in over seven years. and a lot of states, they may not even be trying. about half the governors in their budget proposals are going to rely on further federal bailouts, which i don't think will be forthcoming. host: ok. some states have actually lowered their taxes. it's louisiana, maine, north dakota, ohio, vermont. ymp these five states able to do that and others have been raising? guest: well, north dakota is the outlier in this recession. they're the only state that hasn't -- i don't even think they've entered recession. they certainly haven't had any budget shortfalls. they've had a lot of new oil production activity and mineral production activity that's come online there in the last couple of years, and that's enabled them to grow, to have a huge budget surplus. there's public debate is what to do with these continuing budget surpluses, not the taxes. louisiana has received a lot of federal aid. and they also benefit from the oil price increases.

ohio, there's was more of a tax swap than a tax reduction. they eliminated their corporate franchise tax, but they introduced a tax known as a gross receipts tax that economists are pretty unanimous in calling a very economically destructive type of tax. it's what's also known as a turnover tax. it applies at every level of production, so a tax, when you buy the raw materials, the tax when you sell it to the manufacturer, a tax when you sell it to the consumer, taxes on taxes. so i really wouldn't even call it a reduction. vermont lowered their income tax a little bit, and rhode island has actually done a pretty impressive tax performance too. host: joseph henchman is our guest. cleveland, ohio, curtis on the democratic line. you're on the air. good morning. caller: good morning. host: curtis, go ahead. we can hear you, sir. go ahead. caller: oh, ok. my question is, to the judge

that's sitting there, if you -- if everyone is screaming about taxes and raising taxes and lowering taxes and everything like that, shouldn't it be the mayor and governors who the money is trying to come through be out there in their own district and everything lowering these taxes for people and trying to get the 2% that y'all are talking about to get the money from them. it just seems like everybody is on tv trying to raise a point or get political goodies from everybody, but they are not looking at the prices. we're in a recession. plenty of time they've had food taxes on it, and these stores aren't here is raising taxes on things. host: joseph henchman? guest: he's right on ohio, that because of that gross receipts tax. ultimately it's consumers that pay that. we can talk about taxes

corporations and taxing rich people, but ultimately everybody needs to pay for the services that governments provide. and if people aren't willing to do that, then there needs to be an adjustment. interestingly enough, groceries are prohibited from being taxed in the ohio constitution. there was a legal case about that of whether the gross receipts tax violates it, but it was upheld as constitutional under that provision. host: tweet here from a viewer who says, does mr. henchman see a difference between spending cuts and tax increases? guest: i mean, ultimately that's the big question in this recession right now, do tax cuts and spending cuts, what effect do they have on economic activity? there's evidence all over the place. right now, here in washington, there's the big debate over the bush tax cuts, renewing them, renewing some of them, renewing all of them temporarily or permanently. i think it ultimately will come down to whether you're a

containsian. they think spending cuts do more harm, whether supply siders and free marketers would argue tax cuts would do more economic good right now. host: "the wall street journal" writes in this story that was put out on tuesday this week that couples with hikes in local tax breaks in many places, such state increases mean that overall taxation levels for some top earners would be higher than they were in the clinton era if the bush tax cuts were to expire. what does that mean? guest: well, with some of the tax increases, both at the federal and state and local level, you see these marginal rates rising. what a marginal rate is, that's the tax you pay on the last dollar that you earn. so say we have -- right now we have a -- about a 39% top rate in the high 30's, and it may go into the top 40's at the federal level. somebody who's paying that, isn't paying that rate on everything they earn, it's just on the amount above a certain percentage. that's why we call it the marginal rate.

and marginal rates matter because that's where the incentive is. if you're paying a tax of, you know, 70%, 80%, 90%, which is what we've had on the last dollar earned, it's less likely somebody will go out and earn that dollar. the idea being that government will lose money because people aren't being productive and earning the money that they're paying tax on. right now we're talking about top federal rates, at least in the short term in the 40's, and then a couple of state taxes that push quite a few of them over 50%. host: tweet here from one of our viewers who often tweets us on our website, saying that, i just saw a new material that texas needed to borrow $2 billion just to make the unemployment rolls, we're $19 billion in debt. guest: yeah, the unemployment insurance is a big issue for the states right now. a lot of them have exhausted their unemployment insurance funds and have been borrowing from the federal government

nords to make those unemployment check payments. and some states are relying on the federal government just writing off those debts at some point. in the meantime, they're having to pay interest and continuing to borrow those moneys. congress, you know, we go back to the unemployment issue every now and then, but generally unemployment benefits are very generous, which some people say is important to have in this recession right now. it's also very expensive, and the states are having difficulty doing that. so even texas, which has several bill yop dollars in the bank, one of only a couple of states that have a sizable reserve still left, is having to borrow in order to make this program go. host: we're talking about states raising taxes and the recession with joseph henchman of the tax foundation. st. louis, missouri, roger, i understand independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm opposed to the idea that these real estate taxes going so high that many people on fixed income have to do reverse

mortgages on their homes to try to pay the taxes. i think that's at the back door to foreclosure. and i think that some something ought to be done about it, and i haven't haven't heard any of the candidates address the problem at all. host: roger, have your property taxes gone up? how much? caller: oh, i would say 20%. host: both city and state? caller: well, i don't know how they divide it up completely, but it's a big chunk of money. if that money could be circulated in the economy, it would stop all this recession trouble we're having. host: missouri isn't the only state. according to "the wall street journal," new jersey, where residents have some of the highest tax burdens in the country, 11,000 saw an average increase of more than 10%. in jersey city, residents were

hit with a rise of more than 22% for fiscal 2010. guest: that was the big reason why new jersey just pushed through a 2.5% property tax cap, so the tax cannot go up by more than 2.5% a year unless voters approve it. host: was that a blal initiative? caller: a measure pushed through by democratic governor. rhode island had the same issue with property taxes, and there's calls being made to do a similar i have in tv everywhere. in many ways, this is a good tax, so long as policy makers are good about not springing huge increases on people year over year that just can't be predicted. that's what brought us proposition 13 in california, when policy makers out there were doing that in the late 197 owe's. i see glimmers of that happening again now all across the country. what the viewer said, people on fixed incomes, i mean, that's certainly resonates with a lot of people.

host: a national journal poll in june found that 58% of americans oppose tax increases to balance state budget, cuts to transportation were less unpopular than tax hikes as a quick. cuts to public safety were more unpopular. maywood, illinois. jerry, republican line, good morning. caller: long-time listener, first-time caller. host: great. go ahead, jerry. caller: the gentleman is doing a good job this. in the state of illinois alone, $19 billion in the hole. guest: $19 billion? caller: $19 billion. all i got to say, the money has got to come from somewhere. with everybody complaining about something, you just have to pay something. it just can't come from the top percent. it's got to come from everybody else. so with that, that's i'm i got to say. guest: i mean, that's the thing that a lot of people aren't talking about. here in the -- here in washington, the federal government's gone from about 20% of gross domestic product

g.d.p. being spent every year to about 25%, and nobody's really talking about paring that back, at least among the administration and the congressional leaders. so how do you pay for that? you can't just put taxes on the rich and be able to pay for all of that. it's a lot of money. illinois, as you mentioned, is very heavily in debt. although they have a balanced budget requirement, in my opinion, they haven't balanced their budget in many years, and they're just kicking can the down the road hoping the federal government will bail them out eventually. but i really don't see any way that illinois taxpayers can make up all of that money without having to really pare back services. host: a tweet in, property taxes go up with an area with higher income tax and make poor neighborhoods to raise taxes to keep up. guest: i mean, that's certainly something that happens. the previous caller from maywood made me think of maywood, california, which is the neighbor to belle,

california, which had special property tax increases to pay for the enormous peppingsers and salaries for some of their corrupt officials that are now in jail and aweighting charges. i think that a lot of people look at that and wonder what's going on in their cities. i mean, we hear a lot of deabts over expensive pension plans, where the drop in values, i mean, everybody who has a 401-k, everybody owns stock, everybody who's in the market has seen a loss in value, but for public employees, taxpayers are expected to make up 100% of that loss. that's something a lot of people are upset about, and it can create inequities like that. host: louisville, texas. dennis on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i cede an email yesterday about how congress took my cost of living increase as a retired

person and spent that for the congress. they said $24 million to put their digitize -- digitize their medical receipts in congress. and then they gave themselves a 3% raise. it takes money out of the system for social security, that's taxes for everybody. thank you. >> it's more of a federal issue i can't entirely speak to, but i think there's a lot of anger out there, surgery at what's going on. congress, of course, has adjourned without acting on the bush tax cuts. the 2001-2003 tax cuts, which some people want to extend in full, some people want to extend temporarily, some people want to extend only some of them. i don't think anybody really wants all of them to expire, at least very few policy makers do, but that's what may happen unless some action is taken.

and instead, we see congress doing other things as the caller mentioned. host: near tweet from a viewer who says that property taxes in their county were reassessed a third higher,&now are taxable t bill will be a third higher. assessment every eight years, and this year was it. is it every eight year? guest: it depends by jurisdiction. very few jurisdictions will do assessments every year because it's very time consuming and expensive to send the assess ors out to every dwelling and every building every year. so we see these schedules of two years, every three years, and that can result in huge jumps like that, especially if it's every eight years like that. host: maria, california, republican line. you're on the air, sir. caller: good morning. i would like to talk to the republican senator you got there. host: joseph henchman -- he's the state political director with the tax foundation. we're talking about taxes. caller: well, i just wanted to

tell him why, at 76, i won't go back to being a republican. i never got over george bush, and i'm not ready for another republican. host: all right. mark, democratic line in nashville, tennessee. caller: hi. host: good morning, mark. caller: yeah, i just want to say that i believe that the economy is deliberately being held back by the republicans to get back in office. obama wants to protect the average income people from the banks and corporations. it's not socialism, he's just trying to make a better quality of life for everybody, and i just want to say that the fundamental way of the republicans is to help the rich first, and then the money trickles down to us. i want to say that every state in america hases -- has its own

-- just good old boys people, and that's who the tea partiers on. host: on to new york, richard, independent line. we're talking with joseph henchman about states raising taxes during this past recession, the highest since 1979. what's your comment or question? caller: yeah, good morning, joseph. i have a comment and a question. one of the things is that, when you mention tax increases, everybody seems to exclude fee increases, which seems to be a nefarious trick that every state does. i know this, for example, that my automobile registration in new york basically doubled. they increased by 100% in the last two years, and registration for two years is another trick, because they think you'll die in one year, and they really doubled or quadrupled everything. and fees on everything are, of course, increasing.

the question is, do you think if you have a sliding tax scale that the people who are making $10 million and giving, perhaps, $3 million or $4 million to the nation, that would really work less if you increased that to $4.5 billion. guest: well, to take the question part of it first, we're in a global economy. capital and entrepreneurship can go anywhere, and states and the federal government need to keep that in mind when they design tax policy. i work primarily with states, and i'm always telling legislator that is taxes matter, you can't just raise rates to whatever you want and assume that won't have an impact on jobs and new investment in the state. it certainly does. host: what's the impact? guest: well, if you're out of line with your competitors, then you will suffer. you need to have an environment that welcomes entrepreneurial

activity. that isn't to say that it's zero taxes, certainly, but that it needs to be -- people need to feel like it's a fair system. the tax fee distinction is certainly a very important thing, and i'm glad he brought it up. oftentimes politicians -- here in america, we certainly have a visceral reaction to taxes, so we often see attempts to call things that are taxes fees. the tax foundation was involved in a lawsuit in california that we got involved in because there is a tax in san diego on landlords where they impose a processing fee on that. it was equivalent to, like, half the tax. so in order to pay the tax, you have to pay this special fee. the reason they did that was to get around the proposition 215 requirement in california that new taxes be subject to a public vote. i'm glad we helped win that case to prevent that

misdweppings of fees as tacks, but it's certainly happening a lot of places. tar cacks are certainly a big issue. in virginia, where it's sort of lay dormant for a long time, and in rhode island, it's seen huge increases in car taxes recently. host: san diego, bill on the independent line, good morning. caller: yeah. you seem like a smart man, and it seems simple to charge a flat tax for the state and operate within that budget. i'd like your opinion on something like that. .

guest: these are all the things that make the tax code so complicated in figuring out your taxes. and then in addition to that, you want as a flat rate -- as flat a rate as possible. road island is to have a top bracket with 9.8%. a copperwoodg to

is about 5.99%. they are get -- moving to a top rate with that just about 5.99% certainly it flat taxes have been tried all over the world. i think a lot of people consider .hem to be successful ho host: our guest is talking about states raising taxes during the recession. according to "the wall street journal," "despite the recent improvements, state and local governments are predicting continued budget shortfalls in the next few years. compounding the problem is that federal stimulus funding is starting to fade." what does that mean for the prospect of increased taxes? guest: a good rule of thumb is that state budgets don't really recover until two years after the general economic recovery begins. it was announced this month that the general economic

recovery began last summer. that means we still have about another -- nearly two years for budgets to get and to the -- get into the business and they were, out of this crisis phase. some states to the stimulus money and used it to back certain programs, or for one- time capital expenses, and some states just put it in the budget. you have this huge overhang that we need to deal with where you have this money in your budget even though it was just one time monday. illinois, which one of the callers -- that is a huge problem there, and pennsylvania as well. host: spending rose by a moderate amount in august. income increase by the largest

amount in eight months. what does this mean? guest: we are seeing signs that this is beginning a recovery. it may be awhile before we see that translate into a feeling that the recession is over. but with the state tax revenues, as i said, there is a long lead time. a lot of states rely very heavily on corporate profits, high income earners, capital gains, and those are not booming revenue sources at times of recession. quite the opposite. host: a tweet from a viewer -- guest: certainly, a lot of states do that. what economists will talk about, including us at the tax foundation, is that taxes ideally should have a broad base and a low rate.

you should try to tax as much economic activity as you can to avoid distorting and picking winners and losers, but do it all at one low rate, or as low a rate as you can get rid of a lot of states to the opposite. they had a very narrow base. we see that with the corporate income tax, where -- i'm sorry, rhode island is on my mind, i was just there is today, but they are perfect example of this -- i was just there yesterday, but they are a perfect example of this. they hand out a lot of one-time yields to a corporate companies. you have one successful company or a couple of successful companies, but generally no economic activity. politicians do this because it is very visible. you can say, "i created this job, i've brought this new business park here."

celebrities can talk about how much -- you can go to celebrities and talk about how much free publicity your state is getting. it is all the really bad for your state's economy to focus resources on this -- it is ultimately bad for your state's economy to focus resources on this. host: washington, democratic line. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: what? host: good morning. caller: ok. icu talking there, it confused me. -- i see you talking there. it confused me. i wanted to comment on the property tax he was talking about. on the property taxes, i just want to lay out a little bit for you there -- i worked all my

life and i paid all my taxes. on the property tax situation, my last evaluation went from 80,000 to 130,000, and i will let you figure out a percentage. on the gate proposition -- he has got lots of money, you know that, and it probably has several million dollars -- he probably has several million dollars for every 15 cents i have. if you take a nickel off of me, you still have the same percentage of difference between them. i think everybody ought to be paying the same percentage of their income. guest: the caller is referring to the washington state initiative i refer to, and to

washington state -- a a proposal to introduce an insured tax and to washington state. -- income text washington state. it is named after bill gates, at senior -- bill gates, senior. i just tax system is -- they just tax system is where everybody seems to be putting the kitty into it. host: kentucky, samuel on the democratic line. caller: yes, ma'am, i was calling about the budget. you fix the table on this budget and have

volunteered-pay off like a volunteer army? say you pay a certain amount and you make to put a thousand dollars, he paid a certain amount, -- you make $200,000, you pay a certain amount, and make a table for millionaires and billionaires, and they should pay more than the poor man does. guest: well, they certainly do, at least in dollar terms. you can look at the amounts they pay, and certain that the federal level and at the state level, you will pay more if you make more income. then you can look to the percentage of their income. is the low-and jumpers and paying the same percentage -- low-income person paying the same percentage as the high- income person is? if you want to take my from high-income people and

distributed to vote income -- low-and from people, we do that at the federal level. it is difficult for states to do it, especially in states like alabama, where, to be frank, there are not a lot of high- income people. it would be hard to carry out that redistribution process with some equity. host: independent line. caller: good morning. a friend of mine came up with an idea. a lot of states are allowing gambling now. his idea was to let the states have casinos, a state-owned-and- operated casinos, and put the profits from that to free clinics for health care for citizens. what do you think of that idea? guest: well, states are moving into gambling and over 40 states are members of powerball, a huge jump over last year.

some states are doing exactly what you are talking about. if they're not giving licenses, they are opening it themselves. maryland is in the process of opening several state-run or state-owned slot parlors, but they're having difficulty because they demand some much of the tape that nobody is bidding on the chance to open several of them, because, presumably, it is not profitable for them. when you talk about tying the revenue to certain government programs, that can run into issues. first, it exempts the program from the normal budget give-and- take. i am originally from california and i often hear that one of the big problems in california is that huge parts of the budget are walled off that way with a dedicated funding sources, so the legislature cannot prioritize different programs like they need to right now. they are all in their own little fiefdoms the other is the

question of -- these programs, like health care and k-12 education, are all important programs. shouldn't we be willing to pay tax dollars for them, rather than shunted off to smokers or some of the political minority? a lot of these revenue sources tend decline over time and that presents huge funding problems. host: another tweet -- is that true? guest: that is true. what it is rolled back property taxes to all level of sometime in the 1970's and cap the increase and 2% a year going forward. inflation and property valuations, of course, have grown much more than that. but the assessors and reassess the property -- the assessors

can reassess the property once the sale happens. the same goes for commercial property. commercial property also benefits from prop. 13, because once you buy it, your rates only go up by 2% per year. but at the initial sale, it can seem like inequity. host: sheila, in kansas. caller: in kansas we just passed statewide smoking ban, which represented at 20% debt to 80% loss in the state. kansas getting into debt size of to order to to million dollars a year, and the federal government -- that size of $250 million a year, and the french government with $200 billion a

year, -- the federal government with $200 billion a year, does the government what to profit from tobacco? guest: audit good year, cigarette smoking falls -- on a good year, a cigarette smoking falls by 7%, a good year for tobacco companies. that is not a long-term source. especially with a program like the health-care program, where the expenses are rising by double digits if the program is important, we should be willing to pay it out of tax dollars, rather than shutting it off to excise taxes. host: philadelphia, you are the best from col. calle -- you are the last phone call. caller: it seems that the property taxes in my area are what is killing their real estate market.

if they did not had such a high school taxes to pay for these properties -- when you offend the pay your -- when you finally pay your house off, it is like you are renting at, like you don't own anything. couldn't it be some other way? guest: we hear this all over the country. we have a tool on one of our websites or you can write all the property taxes across the country by county -- where you can rank all property taxes across the country by county. ultimately, you will have to be the judge. you have the ability to do something about it. but we can provide you the date on our website, taxfoundation.org, as well as a lot of other data out there.

host: joseph had men, thank you for being here. coming up next, -- joseph henchmen, and to for being here. coming up next, iraq and afghanistan soldiers and the challenges they face when they come back. we will be right back. >> next week, the supreme court begins its new term, and you can learn more about the nation's highest court with c-span's latest book, "the supreme court ."

candid conversations with active and retired justices, reporters who cover the court, revealing unique insights about the court. available wherever you buy books, and also as an e-book. listen to landmark supreme court cases on c-span radio. and a point was the advice of his rights to remain silent, is rights to retain counsel. >> this saturday on c-span radio, an online at cs panradio.org. host: sydney freedberg is an investigative reporter here to talk about his cover story on the september 18 "national

journal" issue, "when johnny comes marching home again." what is the reintegration process like for these people? guest: this story, first of all, is part of a series i've been working on since 2004. it is a series of oral history interviews with service members, and in some cases with family members, about the experience of going to iraq and afghanistan. remarkable insights, everything from counterinsurgency strategy to military hardware to psychological issues which come up again and again. continue this project full time now, because it is the most fun i've had as a reporter. there are stories i hear over and over again, where i talk to people, whatever the subject is, the families come up. 50% of the army is very, and the

professional corps of army, senior sergeants and the officers, are more likely to be married, older, more likely to have kids. people are leaving their families, in the case of the army, for a year at the time. in other cases, the air force has four to six months, the marine corps has six to seven months of the army has the longest separation. people have to come back, and turned back around again. families come up over and over again. host: what did you find out? what is the impact of these long months and years away from each other? what is the impact on marriages? guest: what was striking when i researched this particular piece -- it is not all fun. there is a honeymoon period, but there is a lot of readjustment that has to take place.

at a simple, the spouse who stays at home -- at a simple level, the spouse who stays at home has to do everything, a single parent in many cases, for a year. all the stuff about fixing the washing machine, taking kids to school, paying the bills in many cases -- i know a couple of guys who pay bills by mail from afghanistan. all this has to be readjusted during deployment. all of it has to be renegotiated when people come back. even if you don't have posttraumatic stress disorder, you don't have these suicides, which are horrifying, even if there is no dramatic problem like that, it is just hard. you could imagine being away from your significant other for a year and coming back and the adjustments. for kids, another readjustment.

and then with the fact that one person has been away in a war zone, the level of stress that has been going on, and, frankly, your social skills over there -- that is the one thing people mentioned, that you get in the mode 24/7 of being military. you or yelling orders at people, people are yelling orders at you. that is that preparation for renegotiating a mobile roles -- that is bad preparation for renegotiating merkel roles and dealing with your kids when you come back -- marital roles and dealing with your kids when you come back. people are adjusting with how they talk, dealing with when they get angry, and marriages break up. there is a clear upward trend. host: according to the defense manpower data center, 6.3% for

active duty military, in 2009. guest: 2010 data is not collected yet. host: 10% of all military divorces, enlisted women. in this demand, 26% -- enlisted men, 26%. what is the difference between officers and enlisted? guest: they make up the backbone of the armed forces, so they will have the most divorces brothers. -- the most divorces regardless. it includes people who are, on average, less educated in this to personnel have a high-school diploma but usually no college. officers are required to have college. that is a risk factor. a lower educational background,

often, lower socioeconomic status coming in. all this factors. -- all risk factors. when you break out of a population of which group gets divorced more often, -- when you break down in different populations of which group gets divorced more often, there is a male soldier or service member, a female civilian spouse. those folks as a group of the lowest divorce rates. they are going up through the whole population. if you look at female military personnel who are married to male military personnel, there is what is called dual military marriage. as you might expect, the divorce rate is higher. there is more stress. you might get the blood back to back and you never see each other. -- might get deployed back-to-

back and you never see each other. but the highest divorce rate is what you might call were sold marriages, court that is the supply -- what you might call role reversal marriages, where dad it is the civilian and the wife goes to war. that role reversal so hard -- is so hard, and one of the women in the story talked about, men are so unused to being to stay-at- home parent, and mom goes to fight the deadly hazards, and a lot of them don't adapt. if you look to them in general, they divorced at the higher rates than males. host: city freedberg sat down with 140 militant -- sydney freedberg set out with 1 en

route 40 military service members. -- sat down with 140 military service members. we have a special line this morning set aside for active duty families, by the way. we want to hear from you as well. stockholm, new jersey, democratic line. good morning. caller: recently, stephen colbert had a spectacular two- part salute to the troops on his "colbert report," and in response to one of his questions to the veterans, what can you do to help troops reintegrate into society, and the response was spectacular -- "don't be afraid of us." i would like to know what you think of that. guest: one of the really positive things in this conflict, unlike the vietnam

era, where a lot of the veterans have bitter memories of how they were treated when they came home, there really is from both the left and the right -- we just got a call from the democratic line -- whatever the policies about the war, there is a lot of support for the troops , and people letting step ahead in line, shaking their hands when they go to the airport. that is a positive thing. one of the people i talked to talked to forspan.or-- the article, he said, "people will talk to me at the airport and take my hand, but there is my wife next to me, and she has been through a lot, too. we need to acknowledge her." she has posttraumatic stress issues, because, among other things, she was on the phone

with her husband when a rocket attack came in and the line went dead she thought he had died. he got through 20 minutes later, but that is an example of how much stress can affect families at home. we need to our knowledge and support families -- we need to acknowledge and support families. don't be afraid is a good point. 1%, may become of the population is in the service or directly related -- 1%, maybe, of the population is at the service or directly related to someone who is. host: ryan, argue in the service? call -- are you in the service? caller: i got out in july. i saw the divorce rate on the screen, and it is so hot, especially it -- it is so high,

especially for the lower in listed people. i have seen so many people becoming -- just cheating on their families and everything like that, pricking their vows and all that -- breaking their vows and all that business. host: what is it like for you and your wife coming back from afghanistan? caller: reintegrating was an interesting process. i was at fort hood and they have a pretty good reintegration process there. host: what sorts of things due d -- what sorts of things do they do to help you out? caller: a lot of suicide awareness, of family time to -- remeetremade love o loved ones and remeet their

children. i have seen a lot of friends of mine who's marriages fall apart, because they came back different people. host: how come the program help you but not necessarily your friends? caller: honestly, everybody is an individual . one program cannot work for every person, every person is different. guest: i thank you and your wife as well for your service. people like you are at war and working very hard, and the population is supportive but kind of detached. there is a multitude of programs and it does vary from one base to another, not to mention the army and navy and

air force and marine corps. there is a lot of innovation and different programs out there. individual bases have things. different states have things for their own national guard whole separate reintegration issues because they have to come back to jobs as well. and the veterans affairs aspect, and the for each program has outreach to military kids. something that experts have told need more well- intentioned programs at this point. we need to reinforce the ones we already have the working, we need to figure out which ones are working and which ones are not working. sometimes they are herded into an auditorium and shown slides

and sometimes they're not really motivated or know what he or she is talking about. there are programs like in maryland, where it they have small groups with two psychiatric professionals per group, and they go around the room and see who is not participating and they reach out and draw them out later. there are basis in states that have different times where they reach out to people. many months and years after they come back. host: this is part of an oral history you did starting in 2004 with about 140 service members. what do you plan to do with this material? you say you will focus on it full-time. guest: it was one of several things i was doing at "national journal" as a defense reporter. it was my favorite thing. the stories people tell, some of them are very funny, some of

them are very dramatic, some of them are very moving. i was checking my audio recordings, a story of a woman's husband coming back and not being back in his hotel room, because he was on attack to be it for awhile -- attack duty for a while. and she was so panicked by, where is he, or is he? i had tears in my eyes as i checked the audio. these people who honored me by sharing stories over the years are -- i profoundly appreciate them and it is a great pleasure and honor to work with them. what i do now is to continue that full time. i have been doing interviews over the years and i will be doing more interviews. i will be putting transcripts on-line, not confined by the

fiscal magazine, you can do a lot more. these people have insights on things like counterinsurgency strategy, or where the military needs -- what the hardware the military needs, how to support the family's best, that need to be heard by washington, people anend.t host: christine, a champaign, illinois. caller: my dad was in the air force, and he was a career man, retired master sergeant. the quality of people who make it through, and the neighbors we had -- we live on based mostly, and i've got to air force-based schools and public schools.

air force-based schools are so much better for kids going through these things, because you are never the new kid. everyone is more accepting, because they have gone through the same thing. i was a kid during the vietnam war so i had to watch it on tv. i can only imagine what kids today go through. i really empathize with them. host: christine, studies have shown that kids and, as we said, whites can suffer from post-traumatic disorder as well. did you go through that experience? caller: i was 5 and he was gone for six months and it was hard. i did not know exactly where he was. i would seat trees on fire and things blowing up and i knew he was there and it was scary. but the support that our neighbors gave us -- the men who were not gone would come over lawn.rderlimow your

the women would stick together, would have coffee klatsches and wives clubs. it is kind of like a brother read and sister had -- a brotherhood and sisterhood. but most the bases i was on are all closed. i cannot take my kids there. they are all different. they do need to have things for people, if they need them, and notice that are there. guest: thanks to your father and to you as well, missing at christmas and worrying about him, what you have given to this country. the thing that many families have said to me is that the first line of defense -- it is not the official programs all over the pentagon or army or whatever. it really is the neighbors and

other families and their unit. the thing that is difficult, but also different, from the vietnam era, is that volunteers burnou out. if it is an informal system, people fall through the cracks. the phillips were at $a fort at one point and there was no community to support him. that was much harder on his family, to playing with a group of people who had a -- deploying with a group of people who had a shared badge and structure. there are family readiness groups that are run by volunteers, but now have paid

assistance or multiple assistance, and there are contractors, sociological counselors, who are running to the bases now. -- run through the basis now. they cannot export counselors to help people through. -- they bring on extra counselors to help people through. as critical as the woman next door coming over or the guy next door coming over to mow the lawn, the whole burden is no longer on them. in the vietnam era, it was your damn problem. that has changed. host: democratic line, maryland, you are on the air with sydney freedberg. caller: i have two points. the first is that i really

commend you on the stuff you were doing and getting involved with. one thing i notice is that in the beginning, we all were kind of together and we were going after the situation with 9/11, and the thing that created most of our armed forces to go. 9/11 came about, and i think with bush -- and again, i'm not bashing him -- i just think we took our eye off the ball and went to iraq and caused it to become more of a partisan problem. when we had that problem, you had a hard times for the armed forces to do a better jtheir jo. host: let's talk about politics and the impact of that, when soldiers come home and your political debates. -- hear political debates. guest: they enjoyed broad

bipartisan support, so that is not a political football. but the country is divided over the wars. there are real reasons for that. it is not pmere partisan bickering it back and forth. there are profound differences and a person can argue either side of the issue for a number of reasons. it is hard on the troops that some people, many people, see what they're doing as noble for the sacrifice of the country but ultimately useless, ultimately will not go anywhere. most of the people i talk to believe pretty strongly that this is going to be worth it, and that we are going to make something better in afghanistan and iraq and that the country will be safer.

but there are some real doubts, and that is very hard to think that you spend a lot of life, a separate youd from your family and senior friends injured and killed, and you, and are not sure it was worth it. -- and you come home and you are not sure it was worth it. host: jim on-line for active duty families. caller: thank you for c-span. i had a lot of interesting expenses coming back. i spent 13 years in the air national guard and have been mobilized before you are times. this last time coming back from iraq, -- have been mobilized four times. this last time coming back from iraq, i was hit with a lot of attacks. i was working in idaho, and once i it started with signs of ptsd, they very weirdly ask me

to resign. i am coming to find out that a lot of these situations are typical for guys in the guard, where they keep on mobilizing as an mobilizing us. -- mobilizing us and mobilizing a spread i thought that over time -- and mobilizing us. i thought that over time at the sides would go away. -- signs would go away. now they are pushing me into an involuntary retirement situation, and they are kind enough to but not active duty order so that i have some sort of income. but americans think it is some sort of john wayne movie, and because hollywood has done a great job glorifying what goes on, they don't understand reality. i kind of wish they would send

me back to iraq and let me stay there until i was killed. guest: well, thank you for sharing that. that is hard stuff to talk about, particularly since you say you of ptsd, that has consequences for your career. i hope you talk to folks about it as you talk to us. it takes courage, a lot of courage, to speak up, especially in a public way like this. more service members need to do that. and to overcome the fear and fight back against that stigma, the discrimination. i can understand why a commander or employer would be worried about someone with a posttraumatic stress diagnosis. but, that said, there are things to do besides kicking them out. that can make it worse.

it is important, because there are adverse consequences for their careers, but there are a lot of folks with ptsd or major depression -- a rand study a couple of years ago, a worthwhile study to look at, estimated hundreds of thousands of people. no one is really sure. people that stand on their foreheads -- get stamped on their foreheads "ptsd," and "we cannot do anything with you, goodbye." the troops do not see themselves as victims. even the full blown ptsd is a treatable condition. i am not sure you entirely get over it, but you can do things

to get better. another story in this whole series, www.nationaljournal.com/oralhist ory -- there is a whole spectrum of different approaches to treating ptsd. a lot of people come back driving high-speed convoys looking for roadside bombs, and they find driving the highway here very stressful. they cannot drive. it is too upsetting, and they become aggressive and afraid. you have a psychological counseling and talk about it, and you and your friends and drive around slowly in an empty parking lot at 5:00 in the morning, and work yourself up to the back street, then up to the major road, and you get on the highway again. there are ways to work on this. there are medications that are affected. sometimes you speak up and say,

"i need help," and people smack you down. that should not happen. as admiral mullen said, " that should not happen." won a resource that is great is military one source, a clearing house for those with its deployment issues and it is confidential. chaplins, unlike psychologists at the military hospital, are not required to report to military commanders. they have confidentiality production. there are also private groups -- one is a confederation of counselors, a psychiatrist, psychotherapists, who donate time to treat personnel. national military family

association is a great organization for a civic military families, active or reserve, struggling with deployment issues. host: over 14,000 troops diagnosed with ptsd since 2008. one in five at afghan and iraq war vets likely to suffer from it. we go to florida, frank, independent line. you are on the air. caller: thank you for the important work you do. i have a question for you. my question is with the depleted uranium at munitions that the troops use. according to the top expert in this field, he says that most of the people that work around this stuff, including civilians and military, one of dying in 10-15 years and have a

horrible health problems involving the kidney and urinary tract issues. have you covered this, and will you cover this? guest: it is something i have read about. i have not done a story about it. i don't think anybody in my population, obviously not a representative sample, as the health complaints related to depleted uranium. an article the week after this one, about military air support, talks about the aircraft that is the major user of depleted uranium rounds. depleted uranium is not retroactive, but it is toxic. it is use -- because is -- to depleted uranium is not radioactive, but it is toxic. it is used because is heavy. when it impacts the target, dust

is scattered and it is toxic and people that exposed to it. i have not seen definitive research to know that no, this is not a problem, or yes, this is definitely a problem the stuff it's always dangerous, but how easily people get exposed to it is not -- the stuff itself is dangerous, but how easily people get exposed to it is not easily resolved. host: republican line. good morning. caller: thank you to c-span, and thatthank you to the troops. i remember one experience and a particular where you literally to sjust got letters. suddenly there was four weeks where we did not hear. one day it -- my mother was a stay-at-home mom and she was making pie dough, and the phone

rang and we were not expecting anybody, and -- the doorbell rang and we were not expecting anybody, and it was a friend dropping by. there was support in helping families. one thing i remember at the time, the family talking about trying to help him laugh and tell jokes and try to help them just -- in the readjustment period, trying to laugh more at things. is that something that they recommend today? guest: every person is individual and will react differently, but there has to be a mix of taking your mind off of it, not falling on it, but also talking at -- through. not dwel -- not dwelling on it,

but also talking it through. many men cannot talk to their wives about it. but many of them found that writing down some of their experiences and letting their wife read it, that helps them communicate what they have suffered so that it is not so painfully intense. that is one technique that works. not having everyone in the family at all the friends show up in a big mop to greet the person -- big mob to greet the person. people are exhausted. one thing i studies sleep deprivation. people are just tired when they get back. to thank your brother for a service -- the korean war is often called the forgotten war, because the people who serve re are so overshadowed by the

memory of the huge world war ii contingent and the vietnam war contingent. it is important that these wars not become a forgotten war is as well. host: montana. what is your experience with the afghan or iraq war? caller: i have family over there. but i add street towards in the brown water navy -- i did three tours in the navy, and i was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress. just telling people messes you up for life. you will never get rich -- of it. just -- just killing people messes you up for life. you never get rid of it. on the second tour, i was so pass off i went down to mexico for 30 days -- so pissed off

that i went down to mexico for the days and i came back as a deserter. it was like it never happened and i was on my third tour -- host: where did you serve, sir? caller: third tour? host: in what country? caller: vietnam. when i came back, people were spitting at me. there is one professor said it never happened. shame on you, professor, a lot of us were still suffering from that. guest: the soldiers come home and the problems don't go away. almost 40 years since the end of the vietnam war for eyes. it continued for the vietnamese. -- the end of the vietnam war for us. the continued for the vietnamese.

the country want it to pretend -- country wanted to pretend the war never happen. the military wanted to pretend it never happened and get back to fighting the soviets. there was not a diagnosis of something -- there was a diagnosis of something called ptsd in response to civilian rape cases. vet centers that are part of the va and are more informal and based on community outreach, where people come back and talk about these experiences. there is a lot of counseling services available. yes, it never goes away.

you never are the person you were before. but that is not a death sentence. ameliorateays tho those symptoms and get back to a normal life. there are counseling techniques, there are medications, programs without medication involved. host: a tweet who takes issue with me using the term "war" -- what the soldiers say? -- what would the soldiers say? guest: they would say it is aw war. we have not had a legally declared war since world war ii, and there's the question of whether congress abdicated its

role and responsibility of declaring war. it amounts to a war, but the dance around the word -- they dance around the word and do not consider the legal ramifications of a war. two wars, because as much as it is called "the global war on it terror," even though the obama administration abandoned the term, iraq and afghanistan are very different conflicts. those are two different wars. host: next call. caller: i would like to thank mr. freedberg for the work he is doing. but we're missing the elephant in the room from the army perspective to it there are so many opportunities for veterans returning these days, and i don't think that is the problem.

from a strategic standpoint, the army is deploying too long. if we went to six-month tours, there would be less changes and adaptations coming home. and the issues besides counseling and talking, etc. -- host: use it is from an army perspective. are you active military? caller: yes, ma'am. host: can you tell us what you are doing? caller: i am at fort campbell currently. i came back from my fourth tour. it is not necessarily the counseling we are receiving, etc. anyone, whether they spend 12, 15, 18 months away from their families and children, it is unavoidable to become different. the reintegration process takes a long time. the army training and deployment cycle, you're not fully read to credit before you go into the turn -- a cycle --

you are not fully reintegrated before you go into the training cycle. guest: thank you for your service. you make a great point. this is much different from the army souservices. there are people who go in different capacities, but those are general rules. a year is really tough. now, the army argues that as an institution they need to do a year, because they simply don't have the people to cycle folks in and out more quickly, and because it is a ground service and as logistical support on the ground as well, it has the most people over there and toys at a higher rate -- deploys at a

higher rate. some of the commanders i talked to said, look, you are doing this complex counterinsurgency and you have to get with the community and get to know these loca -- and work with these local leaders. nine months, i am burned out and i am watching the clock. finding the right time is difficult. i suspect that for these conflicts come up for a long time to come at some level, even as advisers, which is nominally but we are in iraq now, there will probably be a cadre of people who make their life to spend many years over there and get immersed in the culture and be the liaison between us and the iraqis, whatever country comes next.

host: one last call for sydney freedberg. miami, democratic line. caller: we are grateful for the fact that we have the program intact, military reintegration into civilian society. mr. krieger, i want to let you know that -- mr. freedberg, i want to let you know that we should lobbied the congress amen, and we want a salute president jimmy carter and wish him a speedy recovery. and the executive branch and the legislative branch and judiciary the point is that we come back to our various cities and we get involved into the