supreme court's 2010-2011 session. also, john park of the u.s. institute of peace talks about u.s. relations with north korea. then an update on the troubled asset relief program tarp. washington journal is next. . .

host: we will read your tweets -- twitter.com/cspanwj. "--stan's ms your was on pakistan's ambassador was on "face the nation" yesterday. let's see what he had to say. guest: sometimes people in the united states think about pakistan and take it as all flat land. even at the drones, everybody in waziristan -- cannot identify everybody in waziristan. we have lost more soldiers and

more officers than any other country from terrorism. the only factor is the capacity of our military to go in issues about stability, etc., are all behind us. pakistan is saying that we will take all tourists on the pakistani side of the border -- all tourists on the pakistani side of the border but you will do it on a our time line. host: that was pakistan's ambassador to the united states talking on cnn yesterday on "state of the union." we wonder what you think of pakistan as a reliable partner. this from "the washington times ." "gunmen attacked tankers in islamabad on monday. it is a move likely to delay the

planned reopening of a supply route through pakistan. aelevision pictures showed u towering inferno of fire coming from the trucks, which were fully up outside islamabad en route to afghanistan while the unknown assailants attacked a convoy with guns and molotov cocktails." this the fourth attack on trucks carrying supplies destined for nato troops. our question for you this morning, do you think pakistan is a reliable partner? we will look at some of the news surrounding what is happening in pakistan as well as afghanistan and get your reaction. let's go to our first call, michael in las vegas, nev., on the republicans' line. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? host: fine, thanks. caller: working with th --

coming back from india, i was working with some actors on a film. a press conference was on the web, all over tv there. i'm an actor. but the name michael allen -- host: tell us your thoughts on pakistan, since you're just in india. caller: it seems that they split it, muslims, and all the muslims decided to concentrate in pakistan. most of your violence is going on in the northern area. a lot of times it is down to rock-throwing and stuff. basically, the problem is nationality. i was there for close to the hotel during the mumbai

situation, and it comes down to very simply having other people to your dirty work. host: let's look at this story from "the new york times." ona's steps of drone attacks the taliban in pakistan. american officials said the cia has drastically increased its bombing campaign in the mountains of pakistan in recent weeks. the strikes are part of an effort by military operatives to cripple the taliban." let's go to grendell, sue on the democrats' line. caller: thanks for having me on. do i feel they are a partner? no, i don't. we are is sending billions of dollars to the government and they cannot take care of their own people that are flooded out.

now they are burning the convoys. i know it is the taliban, but where is the government? where is the government helping us out? i'm sorry, i think we should get the heck out of there, and that is my opinion. host: looking back, more from " the new york times." "the cia has launched 20 attacks with the armed drone aircraft since last month, and more than twice the number in a typical month. this expanded campaign comes as top officials are racing to stem the rise of american casualties before the obama administration's comprehensive review of the afghanistan strategy set for december. officials are also evaluating reports of possible terrorist plots in the west for militants based in pakistan." let's take a look at more comments from the ambassador to the united states from pakistan , who was on cnn yesterday. >> the local situation in

pakistan is that the united states is not that popular. secretary clinton, when she went there, try to reach out, and ambassador holbrooke try to reach out to the pakistani people, but the fact remains that the elected democratic government in pakistan is limited by public opinion to the extent of what it can do. people in washington sometimes get all excited. every john, joe, and in jayne covers it and tries to cover the complexity of the story in a simplistic way. pakistan is an american ally and we cannot do everything the americans think we should do because sometimes we do not have the capacity or the need. we will work of those things out and that is what we're doing now-all the political noise, the fact remains that we are working together going after all

terrorist groups, and the few groups that are remaining, we will target them. we will target them with american help, but it will be technical help and not personnel on the ground. host: our question for you this morning, is pakistan a reliable partner? now was pakistan's ambassador to the united states, reflecting on how pakistan ne -- on how pakistanis see the united states. we're talking about the two countries in light of the afghan war. "at the new york times" talks about the drone strikes the cia has launched, particularly in the mountains of the country. "it reflects mounting frustration in afghanistan and the u.s. that pakistan cost of government has not been aggressive enough -- pakistan's government has not been

aggressive enough in this logic militants from their bases in the countries western mountains. in particular, the americans believe pakistanis are unlikely to launch military operations inside north waziristan." san francisco. good morning. do you think pakistan is a reliable partner? caller: unfortunately, it is one we're stuck with at the moment because of its long, common border with afghanistan. 19th century british statesman, a great power, only has permanent interests. we should keep that in mind when dealing with pakistan and afghanistan. thank you. host: from "the new york times," "general david petraeus recently issued a veiled warning to top

pakistani commanders that the united states could launch unilateral ground operations and the tribal areas should pakistan refused to dismantle militant works and in north waziristan, according to american officials. david petraeus wants to turn up the heat on the safe havens, said one senior official, explaining the sharp increase in drone strikes." what do you think about pakistan's involvement? should they be doing more to help the united states in afghanistan, or are they walking a thin line themselves as they try to do with their neighbors on the border? as we look the other stories related to this, we had our recent message from al qaeda leader osama bin laden. he sought to exploit discontent following this summer's devastating floods and it pakistan. it says that region -- he says

that the regional governments are uncaring. "usa today" reports that "it was the third message in recent weeks from al qaeda figures concerning the massive floods that affected around 20 million people in pakistan." rockville, maryland, good morning. caller: good morning. my comments on pakistan is that they are definitely an ally of ours, but it is complicated. they are in nuclear power, and since they are an islamic nation n, they are target not only from outside, but within. also, the isi is not exactly simple to figure out. they have to aid us and we have to aid them.

the drones are not exactly helping the situation, because we are killing too many innocent people and that has to stop. but i definitely believe they are an ally. host: "the new york post," and editorial opinion piece, from an american enterprise institute visiting scholar. "nato supply trucks being set ablaze an accent should send chills up the spine of every american -- set ablaze in pakistan should send chills up the spine of every american." he goes through some of the concerns he has. "last year, the u.s. launched 45 predator drone attacks into pakistan. this year we may almost triple that number, with 22 in september alone.

u.s.-led nato forces in afghanistan are running cross border raids into pakistan to flesh out taliban insurgents. all this adds up to a u.s. effort in pakistan had the reminiscent of the one we undertook in laos in the 1960's, one of the springboards into the vietnam quagmire." jean-marie joins us, democratic caller. caller: i think the united states should stop making other countries fight for the wars we start. if pakistan wants peace there, they have every right to not send their forces in. host: all right, let's go on. arlington, virginia, john on the republicans' line. caller: i would say to the last caller that 9/11 clearly started this around. the whole discussion of pakistan

-- one of the biggest reasons these groups got started who are in certain groups or terrorist groups, what ever you want to call it, in pakistan, is because of kashmir. the united states at least publicly does not want to do a thing to settle that problem. that is with india and that is the root of most of the problems with these radical groups getting set up. if we work a reliable ally to pakistan -- were a reliable ally to pakistan, in the forefront of getting a settlement for the kashmir issue -- if that could be solved, a lot of this stuff would go away as far as the formation of these radical groups. host: republicans, the number you can call --

a moment ago we were looking at this op-ed piece from "the new york post" by a visiting scholar at the american enterprise institute. "despite efforts, or perhaps because of them, pakistan is becoming the epicenter of terror plots against this country, from the abortive times square bomb plot to theg mumbai-style attacks toward the last week." david, independent line. caller: my opinion is pakistan is definitely not an ally of the united states. yes, there may be the military that is backing the united states for political reasons,

but the rank and file pakistanis, more than 70% are strongly anti-american, anti- western, pro-al qaeda. this is not a country that the united states should even pretend is a friend. it would be in america's interest to be more pro-india, because india is a democracy in that region and india, like the united states, has been attacked, like mumbai, by the terrorists. if anything, the united states should set up special operation forces to the northwest province find bin laden, because the pakistani government is never going to do it. the only way we stop these plots, like in europe, is to do what dwight eisenhower our did in world war ii, go for nothing less than total victory. we will have more americans

dying, because that is the only way we will ptu an end to it, by going for the jugular. host: a message from twitter. i assume he is talking about extremists, because he refers to islamists. russell on the democrats' line. caller: how are you doing, c- span? thank you for taking my call. i just wonder why the questions -- that -- christians that said in a leadership and faith leaders that sit in leadership never go and pray with the holy books and everything that is good. i don't understand why it has to be all this killing. next month we will be voting and going to the polls. nobody in fayed park suburban going and sitting down and just reading the whole book -- nobody in faith just talks about going

and sitting down and reading the holy book. i would like to hear someone of a fake call in -- someone of faith call in and say why there is always more and no meetings about faith. host: the nato supply route into afghanistan was shut down recently. let's go to comments from the pakistani ambassador to the united states talking about this on cnn yesterday. >> i think the supply line will be opened relatively quickly. i will explain it to you. according to general petraeus, the pakistani team has already arrived in khost and investigating the incident. allies have to reassure each other that it was basically because of the fog of war. americans have assured us that it was. we will investigate it jointly.

on the security side, we cannot take the risk -- there are tribal people there who are not necessarily under the full control of the government of pakistan. i don't expect the blockade to continue for too long. it is not a blockade, it is just a temporary suspension. the other lines in pakistan are still open. 60% of major's applies go through pakistan to afghanistan. tot: pakistan's ambassador the united states, talking on cnn's "state of the union" yesterday. "the washington times" picks up where he left off. "the new incursions and the closure of the supply route, and now in its fifth day, have heightened tensions between the united states and pakistan,

whose long alliance has often been an easy -- uneasy. the u.s. and britain warned their citizens sunday of the increased risk of terror attacks in europe, as washington is saying that al qaeda my target transport infrastructure." maryland, democrats' line. good morning. are you with us? caller: how you doing? host: fine, thanks. what do you think about pakistan? is it a reliable partner? caller: i don't think so. first of all, i don't think so. host: and why not? caller: pakistan is a poor nation, and i understand lifting them up is a good thing to do, but given the situation america is in, should we be focusing on pakistan?

host: and you don't think so? caller: i mean, it is recession and people are still out of jobs, people are still trying to find work to do. money is going out of america. host: use a focus on here at home. -- you say to focus on here at home. that is from maryland. looking at the region, "the wall street journal" says "the afghan government said sunday that it had begun disarming private security companies that protect the countries major infrastructure, convoys and international installations, fulfilling president karzai's order to dissolve all security

firms here by year's end. coalition officials and western diplomats have publicly praised the move, agreeing that some of the dozens of security companies operating in afghanistan stoke popular resentment with their trigger happy behavior and might even have colluded with the taliban. the coalition troops in particular are trying to put their reliance on private contractors." pennsylvania. good morning. what you think, is pakistan a reliable partner? caller: just listening to that ambassador, they are not our allies. it just want our money. they are not helping, really. and those bombings that they are doing are not efficient. we are good with our drones because we have human beings and their brood -- because we have

human beings in there. host: do you think we need pakistan? do we need them close? caller: i don't think we need them close. ignore them, really. they are not helping. they are obstructing our travel for the supply routes. how can that be helpful? host: we have a comment from twitter. rick on our independent-calling from arkansas. -- independent line is calling from arkansas. caller: i think we need to drop a new. -- a nuke. host: on pakistan? caller: yes, that region.

host: what do you think that would solve, would accomplish? caller: uh, i think it would make a difference. it would make a difference. host: next call. do you think pakistan is a reliable partner? caller: i think it is somewhat a reliable partner. we are fighting the whole nation. we are fighting a whole different type of people. i have been to vietnam and i've been to vietnam for two years. this is a very complicated situation. if we leave them alone, if we leave the militants alone, then we will be fighting here. nobody understands -- they blame the democratic government, the republican government. if you do nothing, we've really got a situation.

9/11 -- how would you like to see those every year, or once a month? all our lives, we ever fought on other shores. the american people got to understand that we are in no ways kind of prepared to fight a war here. host: we have a comment from twitter. some questioning of the direction of the president's decisions regarding what is happening in afghanistan and pakistan region. looking at other news stories that are in the papers today, "win or lose, gop can make health care law a target." this in "the washington post." "repeal and replace -- that is what republicans are saying about the new health-care law as

they look towards the november 2 midterm elections. if they win at the house, and possibly the senate, they say, among their top priorities will be to undo president obama's signature legislation. the odds that republicans will win a veto-proof majority in november are generally considered slim to nil. so does all this talk about rolling back the law amounts to mere sloganeering crux not necessarily. but at least during the next congress, the true bedell will be probably fought at the margins, over initiatives republicans are planning in order to slow or disrupt the administration's preparations for 2014 at." congress is back home right now, not in washington, but on the campaign trail. "the new york times" talks about democratic strategy.

"it is time for democrats to attack, pelosi says. this week it signifies a turn towards an unalloyed of a coral brawl. speaker nancy pelosi calls it a time for democrats to attack. 'our members feel very good about doing that.'" some of the strategy as democrats had into the final weeks of the election. "there seems to be a lot of apathy," reports "the wall street journal." "union leaders are cranking up their ground game to mobilize at this rerouted -- mobilize a

dispirited rank and file and turnout votes for democrats." heights to capitol maryland, gregg on independent line. caller: we should be focusing on technology and weapons so that we can fight the aliens already here. host: let's move onto another caller. we are talking about pakistan and whether you think it is a reliable partner. lenny, republicans' line. caller: yes, i believe they are trying to be, but they are split, kind of like our country is. big divides. they have total fundamentalists, regular muslims who want to go about their everyday lives. we have big divides in our country right now. christian conservatives, if that's what you want to call them, and liberals, not so -- i

shouldn't say christian, because that is probably not the right word to use. just liberal, i guess. it is a bit by bidivide. host: there are questions on all sides, but it sounds like you're talking about the divide between liberals and conservatives in this country. caller: right, but over there is more extreme. the one to go about their daily lives and not worry about a -- or, they want to go on about their daily lives and not worry about war, but they cannot do that because of the fundamentalists. from what i see on the news and the computer every day is that they have held inside their own government, so they are fighting people inside their government that are helping fundamentalists. host: how do you see he was working with pakistan? what is -- how do you see it the

u.s. working with pakistan? what is the way to facilitate a good partnership there? caller: one thing i would say is that they, just like all the people waiting for taxes -- waiting for an answer on taxes in our country, they want to know that we're not pulling out next year. that was a mistake. the president should never have said that he was pulling troops out of afghanistan in the middle of next year. it is the same kind of thing. if you look at the uncertainty that that brings to pakistan, they think that they have a partner in afghanistan that will be there until the problem is taken care of, but then they hear that americans might be leaving in a year. host: let's look at the politics news right now. "the wall street journal" says

"latino voters ship governor's races -- shape governor's races. in california, a weekend debate between republican meg whitman and a democrat jerry brown, held in latino-rich central california, recalled around immigration policies and which tended it could best appeal to hispanic voters. in texas, democrat bill white has a shot at unseating a republican gov. rick perry. towardis moving back being a two-party state because of the growing hispanic population,' wrote a former democratic representative in sunday's 'washington post.'"

"the wall street journal" reports that "remaining legislative priorities might be broken into smaller bites in hope of securing a peace peace proposals on energy, climate change, immigration, and terrorism policy, white house officials say." let's go to here in washington, d.c., on the democrats' line. are you with us? caller: i am. can you hear me? host: we can. caller: i had 21 years in pakistan. is the pakistani government aligned with the u.s., the answer is yes. but the normal people on the street are really against the usa. the question is why they are

against the usa. the pakistani nation is anti- india, and the usa is in favor of india, so whatever you call it, the isi, the pakistan army, all those people are trained to be anti-india. they will always be doing something that impacts india. unfortunately, all the money and whatever is going from here will not solve the problem. the problem about taliban and al qaeda will remain there until the u.s. shows some interest to the pakistani government and says yes, the western border will remain said. -- safe. if they have another enemy on the western border, pro-indian government, it is not in favor of the --

host: is it a matter of the united states showing more loyalty to pakistan, or getting more funds or eighaid -- caller: no, no, aid will never solve the problem. you have so many billions of dollars and the last five to 10 years, and no one in the street even knows the u.s. has sent a dime. if you look into the history, it should happen a part of pakistan. -- should have been a part of pakistan. unfortunately, the establishment of the usa has always been with india. host: all right, well, thank you

for sharing your perspective as someone who lived in pakistan. i question this morning is do you think pakistan's -- is of our question this morning is do you think pakistan is a reliable partner. good morning. caller: hello. what are we even concerned about whether pakistan is a reliable partner? what is our interest in pakistan? host: what do you think? caller: i assume because of counterterrorism. host: also the close proximity to afghanistan and the ability to get supply lines in and blocked supply lines from the taliban. caller: i guess that is for the same concern, to fight terrorism in afghanistan. hoso how big of a problem is to resume? problem-- how big a is terrorism. host: you tell me, what you

think? caller: 9/11 was nine years ago. how many lives were lost, how much damage has that done to our ability to defend ourselves? the amount of resources we lost on 9/11 doesn't hold a candle to the amount of resources that we news engaged in these efforts that have not been very successful, if you ask me. how big is the thread that we are combating? host: do you have a fear that if nothing is done, there could be more attacks or more efforts against the united states from that part of the world? caller: absolutely not -- host: okay, let's go to another story that is in the news right now. from "the washington post,"

"where is spending, and from -- where is spending coming from? interest groups are spending five times as much on the 2010 congressional election as they did during the last midterms, and they are more secretive than ever about where the money is coming from. the wave of spending is made possible in part by a series of supreme court rulings. conservative operatives say they are writing the support of donors opposing policies that they see as anti-business." capt. contributions and advertising and how corporations and others, interest groups, could advertise during the campaign election season, and we

are seeing some of the play out as we head towards elections. "the new york times" says "easy borrowing by corporations spurs a few jobs. companies like microsoft are raising billions of dollars by issuing bonds at all for-low interest rates -- at ultra-low interest rates but few of them are actually spending money on new factories, equipment or jobs." mike on the republicans' line is calling about pakistan and weather is a reliable partner. caller: hi, how are you doing? host: good, thanks. caller: i have been putting to enter together over the last few months and i know where bin laden is. host: where?

caller: encino, california. host: all right, well, that is not necessarily with the united states is putting its efforts. we're talking about how the al qaeda leader made a recorded announcement, one of the more recent times we of at seen him. one of the things he has to do fillings in pakistan about the recent floods. "working on farming and agriculture to guarantee food safety." and that was an audiotape was released recently. alabama, democrats' line. caller: yes, is back as an

unreliable partner for the united states -- is pakistan a reliable partner for the united states? if they had that nuclear weapon -- this country needs to stop going around taking over other countries. the one to take the resources there -- they wanted take resources there. there is so much to be done in this country. being a democrat and african- american, i do not see much difference between democrats and republicans with our president. these people want to make this man the culprit for everything. nobody wants to be an ally of the internet states with these guys and the country. -- nobody wants to be an ally of

the united states with these guys in the country. host: next call. caller: we are so involved getting involved with what is going on there and not with what is going on here. as far as whether pakistan is a reliable ally, are they helping us on any of the things, any of the wars we are fighting? host: what do you think? are they? caller: i don't think so. [unintelligible] i really think they are not a reliable party. host: from "the new york times," you have probably been hearing about this story.

"banks of loch paperwork for as foreclosures into chaos --'banks banks' slot paper work cents for closures into chaos. banks are beginning to reexamine whether all the foreclosure papers were prepared properly." you can see an example of a three signatures here that they line up, three very different signatures that were attributed to the same person at american home mortgage servicing, but of course look very different. they talk about problems related to that. others included legal node rescission of documents -- the transition of documents. that is a story we will be falling over the next couple of weeks -- we will be falling over the next couple of weeks.

i also want to mention this story from "wall street journal ." "the first round of international climate talks posted from china aims to shine a spotlight on the country's ambitions and shortcomings in clean energy." california, independent line, and the question of pakistan and whether or not you think it is a reliable partner. caller: good morning. thank you. i don't think pakistan or any third world country will ever be a reliable partner. it is like asking holden caulfield to be a supporter of john d. rockefeller. if you get a government, there

is a potential coup d'etat, fractionalized government. host: next up we will be talking to adam liptak of "the new york times" about the supreme court's opening its session today. thanks for all your calls on pakistan. >> c-span is traveling the country as we look at the most closely watched house races leading up to the midterm elections. >> how are you today? >> i know one interrupt, but we look forward to seeing you in washington. -- i don't want to interrupt, but we look forward to seeing you in washington br. i hope i see you again. >> thank you for our

firefighters, police officers, military, all of those fighting for our freedom. we have another fight, and that fight is in washington. >> we are desperately out of control. that means to stop spending. >> the 24th congressional district is a new district created after the 2000 census. it includes a lot of pollution counties, a lot of beaches in fallujah county. it is one of the most independent district in the united states, and that is because of the space program. with the winding down of employment, \ -- at the time the district was created, he was the speaker of the state house, and he had a key role in carving out this district.

it is only barely a republican district. 20% of the voters are independent. she was able to win in this district largely because of ethical problems tom feeney had with jack abramoff. putting the -- pushing the ethics charges, she was able to win that race. as a member of congress, she has taken a moderate stance. she voted against the house version of the health care plan, though in the end she voted for the senate bill. she has been cagey in the way he campaigns on that. she does not defend the health care plan as a whole, but rather

selectively defense aspects of the health care plans to in order to not be assisted -- selectively defends aspects of the healthcare plans tin order to not be associated with it. there is only a 2% difference between the three republican candidates running. she is the one without the most political experience. she is so -- she is the one with the most political experience. she is someone moderate as well. she used her background in law enforcement to portray herself as the type of person who is tough on crime, pro-military, has a strong presentation as a candidate. >> all in all, we have a concern, and that is the out of control spending, but that of the nation, the deficit -- the

debt of the nation, the deficit. they don't feel like anybody is listening to them. >> there is a strong local issue felt strongly by voters, the displaced workers here or mostly skilled workers, the retraining for them, employment opportunities and what national legislation the candidates will support or grants they will secure. with a democratic white house, a democrat majority, she is at a better position to deliver the goods. >> we work every day improve benefits for veterans. i am happy to say we brought

$371 million and had a medical center built here, and that is under construction. veterans will be served by this great new facility. >> i think because it is a republican leaning district people write it -- rate it barely republican, but it does mean that way. -- lean that way. tom feeney is a very conservative republican, and i think it is a fluke that he lost. they think it is their district and they want it back. >> c-span's vehicles are traveling the country as we look at the most closely contested house races leading up to this year's midterm elections.

for more information on what the local content of vehicles are up to, visit our website, c- span.org/lcv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: adam liptak is the supreme court correspondent for "the new york times." it will be our first time seeing justice kagan on the bench. tell us what will be looking for. guest: she replaces the retired justice john paul stevens. it is a huge generous and a shift. she is 50. he was not -- 90. -- it is a huge generational shift. she is 50. he was 90. judging from her confirmation hearings, justice capt. will be a different model, more in the -- just as kagan will be a different model, more in the john roberts mode. it will be interesting to see

how she handles herself. host: justices often use the rusted to set the tone, or are they more inclined to sit back -- often use the first day to set the tone, or are they more inclined to sit back and listen? guest: at least judging by justice sotomayor, just as a toledo, and chief justice roberts, -- justice alito, and chief justice roberts, the like to get out of the box early. justice sotomayor was asking questions right on the first day. host: "the washington post" has a seating chart. what does this mean? guest: they sit by seniority. you can tell by how close someone is to the center and chief justice roberts how senior they are. for the last umpteen you had the

chief justice, the relatively conservative roberts, and before him, rehnquist, and right next to him stevens. now you have the more conservative justices in the middle. it will set a different kind of tone with the liberals more off to the wing. host: three women on the court. we are seeing an alteration on the average age of the justices. guest: and now we have three women for the first time. that is a critical mass and it brings issues to the fore. host: justice kagan recused from a great number of cases this term. explain to us why. guest: she was the solicitor

general, the job in the justice department who is the chief lawyer representing the united states before the supreme court. that means she has been involved in a lot of the case that come before the court and asked to disqualify or reduce herself -- and has to disqualify or recuse herself. it gives rise to a problem, because if it goes to 4-4, as her absence makes possible, it means we have no decision from the court. it is very frustrating to a lot of people. it is no fun not to get an answer. host: adam liptak is our guest, correspondent covering the supreme court for "the new york times." you reported looking at today's upcoming term that senator leahy of vermont has proposed a

solution to this potential for-4 split. guest: we now live 3 active retired supreme court justices, sandra day o'connor, david souter, and john paul stevens. in the possibility of these 4-4 deadlocks, giving the court the authority to appoint one of the retired justices to fill the spot and make that the black unlikely. the problem might be political, -- make the deadlock unlikely. the problem might be political, that those justices are moderate .o liberal host: let's take a look at footage of this, the attendees at the cathedral, including

justice scalia, breyer, clarence thomas, and she's juschief juste john roberts. host: many justices have attended the mass. but this highlights a new development on the court. we have an unusual makeup on the court heard six catholics and three jewish justices. justice schrier, one of the jewish justices come -- justice breyer, one of the jewish justices, attended. host: adam liptak is taking your calls about the supreme court, whose new session begins today. cases to watch this term -- one

of the big ones comes up on wednesday. guest: a marine died in iraq, and at his funeral, a fringe church called the westboro baptist church from topeka, kansas, showed up to protest, not against the soldier himself, but in aid of their idea that god is angry at the united states for its tolerance of homosexuality, and a parade around with quite hit ful -- hateful science saying that -- hateful signs saying that god hates us for tolerating homosexual it a-- ho mosexuality.

the courts of said that they have a right to say these things, and that is probably consistent with the first amendment documents, but it will be very interesting to see how the supreme court handles it. host: other interesting cases coming up this term. guest: there is another cool case on a violent video games. there is a statute restricting the sale of a violent their games to minors. -- violent video games to minors. this one was struck down, too, again on first amendment grounds. it gets into a question of whether video games are speech, but they probably are. the question is the obscenity content, ability of the government of regulating sexual materials. host: your newspaper has an

editorial today where they talk about the kinds of cases the justices choosing to hear can reveal a lot about the sign of the times. "the warren court chanted individual rights, the rehnquist court, looking for opportunities to vindicate states' rights, favored petitions from the states. the roberts court has championed corp's." guest: as you said, those are the opinion pages. there are -- as everyone knows, the court ruled in citizens united that corporations and unions at first amendment rights to spend money on advertising to support candidates. this year there are a number of

cases largely in that mold. when asked the question of whether corporations are persons for the purposes of personal privacy. the second one is whether the government can win a case against corporations by invoking the state secrets document. there are a whole bunch of cases about someone pouring but important concept -- the somewhat boring but important concept of pre-emption, where states can have their own efforts to protect citizens. host: ken in arkansas. caller: i have a question for you, sir, and i will give information to you, mr. liptak. what i did recently, i filed a motion with justice samuel

alito where a federal judge took a case where his wife had a former employee defended in the case -- a defendant in the case, and his wife looks for the attorney general post office, and the attorney general was one -- the attorney general's office, and the jattorney general was one of the attorneys. when you have a federal judge who takes the case while his wife works for one of the attorneys in the case, and the judge didn't recuse, there is a problem with the supreme court in the state. .

host: adam liptak is our guest, supreme court correspondent for "the new york times." i wanted to hear more about some of the future hints you describe. you say that the terms, arguments and decisions will be scrutinize within the insights of the new justices, of course, and how the court will rule when cases on federal health

care legislation, same-sex marriage, the immigration status of people that are stopped. how do you get a sense of the direction of the court based on what you will see in the next few months? guest: the arizona case is a relatively easy one because there is a second arizona law that the court will look at this year. that law imposes hash penalties on businesses that hire illegal immigrants and the answer in that case may well tell us about the police law from arizona that allows them to in some situations to stop people and ask for identity papers. so those two cases hook up fairly well. as the health care legislation every time the court rules on the relationship between the federal government and the states you are going to be looking for any kind of hint that we may have about when the health care bill reaches the court. host: will you get a sense when they ask probing questions the

direction they're leaning or does it take hearing their decisions and many months' time to know -- to know that the tenor of how things are going? guest: i usually feel like a pretty good idea of how they're rule and sometimes i'm right and sometimes i'm not. host: all right. republican caller. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: go right ahead. thanks for calling. caller: i have a question i want to ask host: yeah. go right ahead. caller: is it true in 2012 we are going to be in slavery? guest: i have no reason to think that in 2012 we are going to in slavery. host: nor do i. yvonne, democrats line. caller: i have a question that i'd like for you to remember. when the tea party start sending in their legislation to review or appeal the health

bill. i saw on tv, c-span, where justices clarence thomas' wife was there and she made a statement, was talking about the tea party. will he be able to sit on the bench or make any kind of, you know, legislation according to them by her being in the party? host: she is a political activist. guest: we don't know when the case arrives and when justice thomas decides for himself. based on past practices, he does nothing based on his wife's cases. host: can you give us more context? guest: i don't know the name of the group. she's the head of a group that's quite active in broadly speaking tea party activities. host: and do we know about justices' private lives? we hear about politicians' private lives and the legislative branch.

the supreme court, because they don't do public events, i'm sure you know -- private lives are not interesting because, you are what you would expect. quiet, refiring lawyers with quiet lives so except once in a while when, say, justice scalia goes duck hunting with vice president cheney, you don't hear them in the news in that sense. caller: i have a quick question for your guest. what are his thoughts on the lifetime senate cures for the justices? do you feel there should be a mandatory retirement age or term limit or should they be for life? host: do you think they should have term limits?

caller: i am a firm believer in term limits in government, period. that's the problem. senator byrd and edward kennedy, you get these individuals in power and they stay for decades and decades. host: so you think that should apply to the supreme court as well? caller: yes, man. guest: life tenure is in the constitution. it's unlikely to change and it's hardly to have a constitutional amendment to change that. i would also say that justice stevens at age 90 was as sharp and vigorous as any 50 or 60-year-old. when i say the framers of the constitution thought about life tenure they probably didn't realize quite how long people would live. host: seth on our democrats' line. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. thanks for c-span. host: thanks for calling. caller: my question is, how many conservative justices are what they call originalists and what are the types of diversity do you think could be a good

idea on the court? for instance, do you feel an atheist on the court would be good -- a good idea? guest: two believe the constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its original meaning. but a lot of the justices take original meaning into account. but are also willing to look at things like history, purpose, consequences that brought abstract -- the broad abstract meanings that could be part of the open-ended phrases like freedom of speech. what kind of diversity do they want on the court? every single justice went to harvard or yale law school. justice ginsburg started harvard, graduated at colombia. you have an east coast-oriented elite court with not a lot of great public figures on it.

we forget a generation or two ago you had the governor of california, former attorney general, former senator. you had people that had brought a life experience or savvy to the court. as for an atheist, i think that's probably a politically tough sell. host: adam liptak is our guest from "the new york times." we talked about one of the big cases this week, this case over a protest at military funerals. what will we see today and take it to the rest of the week? guest: you have two atypical but minor cases. one involving bankruptcy and criminal statute. these are the cases that the press normally wouldn't cover except it's justice kagan's first day. one about scientists and engineers at the jet propulsion labs at cal tech who object to a bush administration expansion

of background checks. they don't do military work. they don't have security clearances and they don't want to have to have their private lives probed about things like whether they've ever taken drugs or sought counseling and so on. so that case, which they've won below in the ninth circuit, which has a reputation for getting reversed a lot in the supreme court, will be interesting to see how that plays out. there's also a case and has been a big run of these about what happens to someone who has been wrongfully convicted, who spent 18 years in prison based on bad evidence, 15 of them in solitary confinement and then comes out and wants to sue somebody. and this one sues the new orleans district attorney and the court has not been terribly sympathetic to that suit. it tends to give prosecutors immunity, wrongfully convicted people tries to find ways around that immunity. and that should be interesting too. host: let's go to arizona, mike, republican caller. hi there, mike. caller: how are you doing,

guys? mr. liptak, i'd often a slight correction to a previous caller when you're discussing term limits for the members of the supreme court. if you look at the constitution, it does not provide for life appointments. the constitution is very specific in its term limitations. it says all justices of the supreme court and of the inferior courts shall serve during good behavior. guest: you read the constitution correctly. i don't see any tension between that and what i said. of course, justices can in theory be impeached if they commit misconduct or conceivably, even though we have not seen that, if they become unable to do their jobs for health reasons. host: and who makes those decisions? guest: well, two things can happen. impeachment proceedings are brought by the house and tried

in the senate and they ever' very rare and they'd need to have some grave misconduct. there have been instances on the court where the other justices have been so concerned about how a justice is doing his job in those situations that they have made a kind of pack that they wouldn't allow that justice to be a vote in any deciding case. host: we saw footage on the new justice, justice kagan, with justice roberts strolling down the steps of the supreme court and we have images it here. these are the few looks that we'll have over these two over the next while because we don't see a lot of images from the court. guest: that's right. i think they gave the camera press that image in order to have some what you guys call b roll to show something about kagan or roberts. it's also interesting because they have such similar resumes and such similar backgrounds and when justice kagan was

arguing before chief justice roberts they seemed to tuffle a little bit in good fun, i suppose, but chief justice roberts went after solicitor general kagan in a tough way from time to time. host: talk to us about the questions that have been looming, recordings from the supreme court, letting people hear the audio and where is that at? guest: well, we had a big development last week which is the way the court handles the way it releases audio. there is no camera coverage in the court. the court used to over the past decade or so once in a while in a real big deal case release same-day audio and that was great and helpful but only 21 times. they have now gone to -- and the rest of the audio would be released but not until the beginning of the term in october. only by a point in time which is completely unnews worthy and for our scholarly purposes they would release this audio. no more same-day audio. bad news from journalistic

perspective. but at the end of each week, not at the end of the term, they will release the argument of the arguments that week so the court typically hears arguments monday, tuesday, webs. we'll hear audio from friday. scholars good but reporters not so nice. host: terry, akron, ohio. inline. hi, terry. caller: i think you touched on it a little bit. i guess this has to deal with a judicial review or whatever. when these justices, not only supreme court so much but lower courts and even prosecutors or whatever, when they do things that affect people's lives and people go to prison, etc., etc., when they make grave mistakes, i mean, i just want to know what are your thoughts on the whole idea? we should be able to prosecute people like that. i mean, they're really

affecting people's lives. guest: well, i guess two different issues. i think of them as two different issues, anyway. there have been documented issues of prosecutorial misconduct. it's fairly well documented that prosecutors don't tend to suffer significant consequences even for proven misconduct. and nobody can think that's a good thing. the federal judicial system, at least, seems to me almost entirely to be people acting in good faith, making sound judgments. you may agree with them, you may disagree with them. but it's very rare to see that kind of misconduct in the judicial system. host: eric in cincinnati, ohio, on our democrats' line. caller: how are you doing? i lost my kid through children's service and they called me a deadbeat dad and took my kids away from me and have been lost all my life. that's why i became an innovator on cutting out crime.

i have a lot of ideas on cutting crime out because the way crime is dealt with now it's like -- it's a big big best and what we really need to do is invest crime out instead of investing in crime. host: ok. let's go to our next caller, thomas, republicans' line. caller: good morning, i should say. i'm curious. with the new court and supreme court that's been elected and that's on the board now, is there any discussion or any talk about what's going on in california and some of the other states with the pleelization of marijuana either for -- legalization of marijuana either for health issues or paper, instead of cutting trees down? guest: there is no medical marijuana on the docket. the court did decide a state involving whether federal law trumped state law in california in that area and said federal law did. host: we're here with adam liptak from "the new york times" talking with us about

the supreme court session which starts today. we'll get our first look at justice cage ab as a member of the bench. we have been talking about a number of cases rays facing the justices this term. let's go to richard, independent line in florida. hi, there. caller: good morning. host: good morning. guest: cloorning. good morning. caller: i'm 80 years old and paid my taxes, fought during the korean war and i feel, why should people have the right to tell me and over 300 million people what they can do and what they can do, especially when they're so political? when you have so many decisions telling you it's politics? host: -- guest: well, you can agree or disagree but the way our constitutional system sets up our supreme court has the last word. it's not the only way run the system but that's the way the american system has run for more than 200 years and people

feel it's run ok. there are, not a few, ideologically divided 5-4 cases. maybe a dozen or 15 last year out of a total of, say, 70. the court often acts unanimously. i do feel there is legitimate concern when the court does divide 5-4 it does so among predictable lines and that questions what's going on. it's a fairly small number of controversial cases in which that happens they get a lot of attention and much of the day-to-day court is unanimous or divided in not particularly predictable ways. host: president obama criticized the citizens united case. we've seen sort of scuttle back and forth between the court and the white house. is that unusual or do you feel like there is more politicization going on than what you've seen in the past? guest: it's a rare thing for the white house to just days

after a decision come after it directly through the faces of the justices at the state of the union address so you don't see that every day. you had president roosevelt criticizing the court but in broader terms. so that's an interesting development. and that probably heightens some of this political tension that viewers are talking about. host: doug in michigan, democratic caller. hi, there. caller: hello. i was wondering, when are we going to get a black supreme court justices? guest: the first, thurgood marshall and then clarence thomas. host: republicans line, oklahoma. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm calling in regards to justice kagan. she has represented barack obama in were justice days and how is that going to affect

things brought up before the supreme court in the future? guest: well, she's represented barack obama only in the sense that she was president of the united states and sliss sitor general she represented the united states. you can say she represented barack obama but only in that kind of structural formal sense. she has no -- did no legal work on behalf of president barack obama before she took that job for one year. in the cases she did represent the federal government she has refused herself from roughly half the cases this term. host: it seems like an obvious thing. you would recuse yourself in from a case she argued before. justice kagan her arguments, her viewpoints and decisionmaking may be different than arguments she made. guest: quite right. she was a lawyer representing a

client and her job was to make the best argument for that client, not to make the best argument if she were running the world she would do. and she was in her academic life a real scholar of the first amendment and some of the first amendment arguments she made in the court i would hesitate to say don't fully comport with her other views. host: do you think other justices will be recusing themselves from other cases or do you find it as it goes along? guest: justice sotomayor recuses herself from a case she might have been involved in from the federal appeals court in new york, the second circuit. and occasionally they will recuse themselves from companies they have stock in a company. you'll get the occasional recusal. it may be a family matter is involved in a law firm.

host: independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm calling because i'm concerned about the patriot act and its potential consequences. and i came in -- from a country 53 years ago where we experienced the communist system to spy on people and not only with their fears of the eventually -- eventual what the states would do and could do to you but that some of these potential -- but some of the people abused this system. what are the chances that the patriot act will be examined by the supreme court? guest: my parents came from

that same country, hungary, in 1956 and it was terrible and terrorfying in the worst kind of dictatorship. the patriot act is hard to compare to that kind of surveillance. it reached that court in bits and pieces the last term the court upheld a part of it that spoke to material support of terrorist organizations. but i don't think there's a patriot act case on the horizon now, and i do think that one vast difference between communist hungary and the united states a we do have an independent judiciary is we look at whether the patriot act and similar legislation does or does not comport with the constitution. host: adam liptak, supreme court correspondent for "the new york times." he's a graduate of yale law and practiced law in new york city and in the legal department of "the new york times" company

before joining the staff as a news reporter in 2002 and he covered samuel aleta and john roberts and the closure of valerie wilson's identity. she was, of course, the c.i.a. undercover operative. and you covered the criminal justice system. and we now read his stories about the supreme court. let's go to lloyd, democrats' line in arkansas. hi, there. caller: hi. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to know the second amendment that's been before are the supreme court two or three times. why does it have to keep going back? if their judgment is final, why can a case go there two or three times and it be decided differently? guest: the court in recent years had two big second amendment cases.

and the first of them two years ago district of columbia v. hiller the second amendment protects an individual's right to bare arms but that only applied to the federal government. and the court does take one at a time and said, of course, now we know the federal government or federal enclave lie d.c. can't like d.c. can't pass laws like that. the court did ask the follow-on question about state and local laws and they upheld that view of the second amendment that i just described. so now we know the second amendment protects an individual's right but the court has said, we're not telling you how far that goes. we are not saying whether felons can possess guns or have it in schools and the nature of american judecation coming out of the common law is we ask questions step by step. it's not that the court is giving us different questions. it's that the court is asking a

series of logically linked questions. host: gary asks on twitter whether you can predict the next justice who leaves the court. would you expect anyone to retire before the end of president obama's first administration? guest: there has been some speculation a year or two ago given justice ginsburg's health she might be thinking about retirement. the signs are she might stay and she seems vigorous, has not missed a day of court, even after her surgery, has had a very active public speaking schedule. and the other justices seem to like their work, too, so i think after a period of a lot new quick transitions, four justices, we might be wrong, though. president obama may have no more appointments. host: and how much do the justices weigh the administration in power when they think should i retire now

but i have good years left in me? i might like this administration more, i might like this one more? guest: a lot. justice stevens said he was happy retiring under president obama who he said he admired. host: harry in new jersey. republican caller. hi, harry. go ahead. you're on with adam liptak of "the new york times." caller: my question. i'm curious. there's some cases that the supreme court would not take listen to because it's settled. for example, drunk driving and violating the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth amendments and they said, that's the state's problem so that's final. host: so when justices don't choose to take up a case? guest: they take very few cases. they get maybe 8,000 requests a year that the court hear the case and take maybe 70. so you may have one in 100

shot. the court takes a look at federal law. there are some for the states to decide. there are lots and lots of cases that you and i might find interesting but the court doesn't look into because they are looking at federal law of broad applicability. host: gary, good morning. caller: good morning. i'd like to ask your guest if he's familiar with the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity and then if he is to tell me where in the constitution he finds the authority for it? and it's my understanding from studying it that it comes from judges giving to to themselves and doesn't it violate the doctrine of be a satellite immunity? -- absolute immune cincinnati -- immunity? guest: it's true that people acting in their official compass its, whether they're legislators, executives,

judges, prosecutors, whatever, typically can't be sued. the constitution doesn't say that in so many words. judges have extrapolated that idea. you can argue either side whether that's good or not. it is surely the case it would be distracting for judges and others to face lawsuits over their decisions. host: democratic caller in knoxville, tennessee. good morning, larry. caller: good morning. i was wondering if you think once the supreme court makes a decision on the case, is there a number of years before you can bring your case -- bring your case back before the court? guest: no. the court in theory could reverse itself the next day. it reverses itself very, very rarely but it does and then there were cases, for instance, about gay rights where the court in just a little more than a decade said one thing and then said a different thing. there's no rule of how quickly you can bring the case before the court. but given it's quite unusual

for the court to reverse itself, it's a long shot that the court would fake such a case. host: you mentioned the cases aren't very high profile. one follower on twitter asks what details makes it worthy of the cofert's time? guest: the main way is if the lower courts, the lower federal appeals courts have given different answers for the same legal questions. if that happens you have a chance the court will take the case. but the lower federal courts will give different answers to very boring questions and those cases will often reach the court. they call that circuit splits. so from a reporter's perspective, they are cool cases we would love to have the court take news worthy cases. host: he's particularly concerned about the bankruptcy case. guest: what situation if you

own a car can you take a deduction against your bankruptcy estate and i will be challenged to stay awake during that argument this morning. host: jack, republicans' line, columbus, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. the recent federal court decision in california essentially ruled that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy violated the constitution and, again, the case was a deservice member who was removed. in the past, the courts have given the plirlt -- military a fair amount of deference saying that it's different than civilian life. do you sense there is a shift in the philosophy of the supreme court, is it likely to come to the supreme court? or if the law is changed, will it likely to be preempted and the supreme court will say this case has been moot, it has been decided?

guest: i sense one kind of shift but not the shift rur talking about. i think the courts in general do defer to military judgments and don't like to get involved in second guessing the military. so the case is unusual in that respect. but it's not unusual in the following respect. we now had a whole series of cases in the lower federal courts about the treatment of gay men and lesbians whether over the defense of marriage act, california's ban on same-sex marriage, or the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and you're starting to get a sense that at least the lower federal courts are more and more sympathetic to the argument that the government has not come up with good reasons to treat gay men and lesbians differently from other people. so in that sense maybe we do have a trend and then, as you suggested, this don't-ask, don't-tell question may well be solved by legislation long before it reaches the supreme court. host: any sense whether retired justices might be there today to start -- see the start of this opening? guest: you know, i don't think sooned i'll tell you why.

there was a ceremony of justice kagan on friday and all three retired justices turned up for that. and i think in that way they've paid their respect to the new justice, to the court and they probably had a look at the cases on the docket today, too, and i'll be surprised if i see any of them. host: "the new york times" supreme court correspondent adam liptak. thank you. guest: thank you. host: coming up next we'll talk about north kariya and what's in store there with john park. but first a news update from c-span radio. >> it's 8:32 a.m. eastern time and law enforcement official tells abc news that the suspected terrorist include presecurity areas in at least five major european airports. authorities believe the attacks play be modeled on the mumbai attacks two years ago. and speaking earlier on abc's "good morning america," michael chertoff says americans planning trips to europe need

to pay attention to the security alert to europe. his comments coming a day after the obama administration learned of a possible terrorist attack against germany. they need to consider, "where you need to take shelter if something happens" and not "walk around with the american flag on your back." meanwhile, japan has joined the u.s. and britain in issuing a travel alert for europe warning of the possible attack by al qaeda or other groups. and some experts say the warnings could hurt a still fragile european economy already hit hard by the debt crisis. and those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> hey, middle and high school students. enter c-span's student cam documentary competition. make a five to eight-minute video on this year's theme, washington, d.c., through my lens. tell us about an issue, event or topic that helped you better understand the role of the federal government in your life or community. ble sure to include more than

one point of view along with c-span programming. download your video to c-span by january 20, 2011 and you'll have a chance to wind the grand prize of $5,000. there's $50,000 in total prizes. c-span's student video cam competition is opened from grades sixth through 12. for more information go to studentcam.org. >> the "communicators" has the leaders of the house subcommittee on communications, technology and the internet. rich boucher and cliff stearns tonight on c-span2. >> good morning, everybody, and welcome to the least suspenseful announcement of all-time. as almost all of you have reported, my chief of staff, rahm emanuel, has informed me that he will be leaving his

post today to explore other opportunities. >> and with the president's announcement, rahm emanuel heads back to chicago. since 1992 he's appeared on c-span more than 400 times. just one of the almost 115,000 people you can search and watch for free anytime online at our c-span video library. it's washington your way. >> "washington journal" continues. >> john park is with the u.s. institute of peace where he's a senior research associate focusing on northeast asia. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. host: big development last week when ruler kim jong il named his son as a four-star general and we finally got a glimpse of this young man. tell us what you gleaned from that? guest: we have been anticipating something called the party conference. it was originally scheduled for early september but delayed. the speculation that it was either due to the floods in north kariya or kim junge ill's

house but eventually did happen . he is maysry character. until it was released there were no official photos. we were basically dealing with the announcement. i think we have to keep in mind that in addition to the military ramifications, the north economy is heavily militaryized so being a four-star general has you in -- rts sort of hard to imagine not seeing an image of kim jong il's son. you mentioned kim jeong moon is 27 years old, we think. we're not entirely sure. how are they so secretive about the family? guest: it's amazing. with respect to the inner circle of the family, they are cocooned and the security apparatus is very much geared towards making sure they are very well protective. we have to make sure that the

eldest, kim junge un and the youngest by many points of view the successor, the official successor, they were all educated abroad, trained during the early years. so these three sons are simply of a mystery and enigma. host: why educate them overseas? does it seem like a mark of their intelligence or seen as maybe something that's a little bit questionable because it is relying on an outside influence? guest: a lot of watchers view that as a very effective way to protect the sons. another explanation source is looking at the sons being educated abroad as a way to groom them as leaders of a new generation, hopefully a korea that will be more integrated with the international system. there is explanation of why they were educated abroad. when they did come back the father made sure they were educated in north korean

universities? host: tell us about the rest of the family and also kim junge ill's sister? -- kim junge il's sister? -- kim jung ill's sister? guest: they suffered an event with their mother passing away. he's reported to only rely on his sister. when he suffered a stroke in august of 2008, he relied very heavily on his sister and many believe that she was a big power broker behind her father -- home run brother was convow lessing but also working closely withler other brother. host: why have other men's of the family who are in that older generation elevated at this point? how much faith is given to this son and how independent can he be? it certainly seems like he will be advised and guided for the next few years. guest: you have to remember

he's all of 27 or 28 years old. when we look at the poignant of his aunt and uncle, i think it's very important to view them as something as a cocoon and in that cocoon he would grow in the leadership role. host: john park and we are talking about north korea. republican, 202-737-0001, democrats, 202-737-0002, and independent callers, 202-628-0205. we'll get to your calls in a moment but there is rumors that kim jung il's health is not good. we don't know nearly much about him as many north korea watchers would like to. guest: correctly. what we know about his health is something we've pieced together as well as media reports, japanese media, in particular, has been covering him for a number of years. so piecing those reports

together he's suffering from diabetes, has been suffering from that ailment for a long period of time. as i mentioned earlier in earlier of 2008 he had quite a severe stroke. so he was out of action and out of the scenes for a few months. and there was a lot of explanation of whether he was actually dead or incapacitated and the decision of a nuclear state. north korea views itself as a nuclear state. there was a lot of concern. and the notion that the country was involved in trying to make sure there was a safe dealing with the passing of kim jonk ill, there was a lot of -- kim jong il, there was a lot of meetings that they were trying to discuss this. so there was a great deal of receipt sense on the part of the government. north korea has been described as the black box of information. but interestingly now they're a group of defectors in south korea, some of whom used to work in these north korea trading companies.

you're hear and able to piece together a system that's involved quite a lot of kim jong il and the pagging of his father. another is a look at what government officials are looking for because the career workers party has a very close relationship and that's something we monitor closely. host: let's hear from arie from san francisco on our independent line. caller: i wanted to understand more clearly why we view -- why the u.s. views north korea as such a dangerous country when the u.s. views nuclear weapons against another civilization? guest: that's a very important question. if you look at a lot of the formulations of the government when it comes to threat perception, i'd say the biggest concern is that noirt korea, having -- north korea, having produced plutonium is now a source of concern when it comes to command and control, who is controlling that material?

if north korea is in desperate straits, will they try to sell it or if there is an instability problem, how might that material get out of the country and potentially in the hands of terrorists? so if you view it from that angle there is more of the clear and present danger. the traditional assessments is based on the delivery systems and many intelligence agencies believe that north korea is far away from weaponizing, actually miniaturizing a warhead. host: recent story in "the financial times," they plan to strengthen rather than abannedan their nuclear diterrence in the face of the u.s., the foreign vice minister told the u.n. recently. so what is there -- what do we know about their reasoning and their ideas and goals about having nuclear power? guest: there are a lot of theories out there. i think one of the dominant views is north korea, before launching into a period of negotiations, launches a lot of these type of threats.

and if we see the north korean negotiating record, by elevating these tensions, their hope is to perhaps enter into a more favorable bargaining situation. but for many outsiders, when you look at the situation with an unstable pleerp with its very early succession, probably going -- leadership with its very early succession going to the very young son, it's probably not that strong. host: democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. i have a question. the third son is the heir apparent. do we anticipate or think there would be a power struggle after kim jong il dies? i'm really interested in that because history shows that there is constantly a power struggle when a leader dies. guest: that is a question on the minds of many leaders not only here in washington but in

asia as well. right now kim jong il's situation is one where there's at the very big concern. as i mentioned, it looks like the idea is to form a cocoon, a collective leadership with the aunt and the uncle playing a very important role and giving enough time and space for the third son to be groomed and for him to learn the ropes as if were. but frankly that is the plan. as we know with plans they can go wrong. and so we're looking very closely at the different moves within the power elites in pong i don't think. we -- pyongyang. if these trading companies are falling under certainly leadership, it may be indicative that that group advising. it's good to read it in a more substantive manner. host: john park is part of the u.s. institute of feas where he

focuses on europe and asia. we have a question from twitter. why do china and russia insist on supporting them? guest: iran is a very unique country for north korea. there is a great deal of cooperation, specifically on long range missile development. i think the point is iran launches a long range missile, you have to treat it as north korea launching a long-range missile. there is a lot of information sharing, it looks like. with respect to the broader cooperation between the two countries, there's nothing that binds them, ideological, ethnicity, those things don't have a match. it looks like both countries have a focus of greater amounts of sanctions and scrutiny by the international community to change their behavior, they're depraun and compelled to cooperate more. host: tim, kp in kentucky. good morning, tim. caller: good morning. how well are you? host: we're well, thank you. caller: i have a question. i know they haven't maybe, you

know, been watching it closely. we're always talking about north korea is a totalitarian dictatorship. but if they're always looking for maybe nuclear, biological, something like that, but more of a conventional attack? have they really checked and seemed like the 38th parallel, you know, like in the korean conflict? and what will be the guards to make sure there wasn't more like a conventional, you know, invasion, maybe south korea, something again, a repeat of history because, you know, a lot of times when -- we know with leaders like that and sometimes that instead of going with what they do they're so secretive that they may go a different route and thank you for taking my question. guest: tim, there is a great deal of concern that there can be miscalculations with north korea. i would say one way to address your question is with north korea there is a great deal of uncertainty already before the leadership success announcement

and this whole notion that kim jong un would be groomed. with them trained on seoul and also heavily militaryized d.m.z. where you have over a million man situation facing each other, this is something where it can be volatile. i'd return to this combination of miscalculation and atmosphere of greater uncertainty and all the more reason why i think the government is paying combra attention. with the secretary of state for east asian and pacific affairs, campbell, and leon panetta, are trying to read the tea leaves of what happened with this leadership conference and this succession. guest: having a younger generation start to be groomed and take -- host: having a younger generation start to be groomed to fake power, is there diplomacy or making enroads? we know he went to a swiss boarding school at least for a

little while. has there been a look into relationships he's had with westerners? guest: one hopes there is a greater emphasis on the new leadership group, there may be opportunities -- excuse me -- to engage them. i think we have to look in a comparative way of what the united states is doing and doing what the chinese have been doing. it's one based on north korea coming back to the six-party talks and living up to their obligations under the six-party talks. there is an agreement called the september, 2005, joint statement that all six countries, the two koreas, the united states, russia, china and japan signed that north korea stops in the implementation side of that agreement sometime in the early farther of 2009. and so we see the situation where there's a great deal of concern with its current leadership generation is at. i would quickly note with the chinese, they've been engaging

the north koreans through this party-to-party meck anythings and president hew onto you looks forward to -- mechanism and the president looks to this party-to-party relationship. host: let's hear from john, democratic caller. good morning, john. caller: good morning. just two quick questions. what did the son study overseas? what was his course work like, was it economics, foreign repolice stations? and second question, does china or do you per receive that china -- perceive that china sees north korea a future threat to stability? and will there ever be a chance of north korea turning on china? guest: john, thank you very much. kim jung un' looked like a

regular curriculum as a high school student. it is documented that he had learned foreign languages, european languages. so this aspect of being a little more cosmopolitan than others in his family is something there is important to note. but how these capabilities will be used in such internally focused country like north korea is that seen as a strength or liability remains to be seen. the second point about china. china has viewed north korea as an instability variable in the way they look at northeast asia. they've been trying to deal in a concerted manner to stabilize north korea and facilitate a situation where north korea can underfake reform and opening. but the fact is with the chinese-north korean relationship, it's a very suplex one. when we see a senior chinese officials meeting with pyongyang and meeting with his counterparts, it has a relationship with allies and alliance that looks quite enduring. there are many fractured areas.

what the chinese is trying to do is steer north korea away from their focus on nuclear weapons development and more on economic development. the chinese it appears that they're pursuing what the progressive governments in europe did in 2000, the whole notion of sunshine policy. so with the chinese pursuing this engagement aspect, we have to start wondering, what does this mean, what are the implications for denuclearization? because it looks like in a chinese-north korean relationship, it's not linked to this deepening economic development activity. host: let's go to democrat line, fayetteville, north carolina. go ahead. caller: hi. i need your help on explaining something to me. i know there's once in our history where north korea, north vietnam, now pakistan and iran was our friends.

what happens that we always have the problem of turning our friends into our enemies? help me out there, please. i know about marie and i was in korea and all that. explain when we had a good relationship with north korea, what happened there, please. guest: with respect to north korea, the united states has basically had an adversaryial relationship from the very beginning. there was hopes as a divided korean peninsula developed after the end of japanese colonial rule in 1945 that elections would eventually see the foughtering of a north korea. what we saw in a boston-world war ii period is -- post-world war ii period is where they had the soviets over the 38th parallel and the southern part with a great deal of support with the american military government. we see the beginning of the division of the korean peninsula.

it's in 1950 after months of efforts by kim il sung, the young leader of north korea seeking support from stalin and mao to basically reunify the korean peninsula that we see the beginning of the korean war. so unfortunately there has been no peace between the united states and north korea in a technical sense as well as a literal sense. but with the efforts in the six-party talks, the hope is that negotiations would form the basis of a peace regime, a peace treaty. vinylly the resolution of a situation -- eventually the resolution of a situation of a peaceful north and south. but at the end of the six-party talks, it's frozen. efforts are under way to try to restart it. but the future of the six-party talks remains uncertain. host: our guest, john park, is a senior research associate at the u.s. institute of peace. he co-directs the institute's

korea working group -- rather, you direct that working group. you're co-director of the u.s.-china crisis. a little bit about mr. park's background. he holds a ph.d. from cambridge university and did predoctorial for science and international affairs at harvard kennedy school. let's get back to your calls. richard, independent line in massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. i -- talk about north korea with the nuclear facilities and stuff. i can't see why we just can't have like a group of people from north korea and a group of people from the united states sit down and talk instead of taking -- the united states, they want to bring on four, five more countries to talk with them. we're the ones who are worried about being attacked by all these people. you know, that's what gets me

aggravated. we black ball everybody and then we wonder why everybody hates us. guest: well, richard, with respect to what you're advocating this idea of engaging north korea, there have been numerous attempts on a bilateral as well as a multilateral basis. and so we see things like the 1994 u.s.-north korea framework that was concluded under the clinton administration. in terms of implementation, you know, certainly there was a stop and go dynamic to it all. from there we move on to the six-party talks. we've had successive rounds of those and various agreements. as many the north korea watchers would point, implementation is tricky to do. there are many agreements that countries have signed with north korea. but the implementation record is quite weak. so when it comes to an evaluation of who's at fault, there's a healthy group that points to north koreaa and the lack implement -- north korea

and the lack of implementation and others blaming other countries because of lack of policy. we're in a situation where with the six-party talks, as i mentioned earlier, there is a september, 2005, agreement that lays the foundation of accords that were signed with north korea. but the current state of it is north cree c.i.a. not coming back to the talks -- north korea is not coming back to the talks. host: the "financial times" talks about the -- the reporter, christian oliver in seoul writes leadership of north korea could be a country of chalice. it's so hard to know because we don't know too much about the family and the son, kim jung un but how likely is it that the family retain control and how

much of a sense do we have that the family's really interested but a sides kim jong il maintaining the dynasty that he established because it was his father's as well? guest: pointing out that this dynasty has undergone a lot of transformation under kim jong il. when kim jeong sung passed away, the elites were privileged, it was a one-state type of country where the elites did benefit from that structure. under kim jong il, they're noting that he created a two tier economy. a royal economy and a general economy. the reports we hear of the general economy, the currency reform of november of last year being a disaster causing hyperinflation and difficulties for the people, those point to a gentlemen economy that isn't well administered. but frankly if you look at it from the perspective survival of the kim jong il leadership and regime really depends on the health of the royal pal ace

economy so with this type of elite economy there is a big emphasis on how these trading companies are run. it is linked to the korean workers party as well as the military. what looks like a succession platform put in place for kim jung un', the focus on running north korean, incorporated. so with the difficulties and certainly the challenges of leadership on a stand-alone basis i think north korea would have undergone tremendous fuents and perhaps the brink of collapse. but the role of china in all of this, it looks like a bailout hub of their counterparts across the border there. so the situation now is one where the workers party of korea, is receiving a tremendous amount of assistance from the communist party of china, both in terms of political capital in support of this new regime structure that is getting ever more solidified as well as this whole notion of helping north korean, incorporated out.

host: jack from new orleans, good morning. you are on with john park from the u.s. institute of peace. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a two-party question. has there been any explanation over whether the presumed succession of kim jung un might accelerate the reunification efforts on either side of the border? and my second question is, are there elements within south korea that have openly questioned reunification is really in the best practical interest of the south given the size of the project they may be taking on? guest: sure, jack, with respect to the first question, this whole notion of the succession process in north korea is such an early stage that priority is internal consolidation. and within north korea there is

a big emphasis on the year 2012. it will mark the 100th anniversary of the founder, the 70th anniversary of the birth of kim jong il, the current leader, and the 30th anniversary of kim jung un within the 2012 year there is a formula in north korea called a strong and prosperous nation being unveiled in 2012. the strong part is an area where the north korean elites feel they accomplished. and october of 2006 and may of 2009 are a clear indication for the elites that they are a nuclear weapon state. .

many in south korea prefer this gradual approach. >> he has become a four-star general. did he have any military training before that? do we actually know if he was involved in the military? do we know what he has done so far? >> he was enrolled in the north korean military university. there were rumors that he had received a title as the brilliant lieutenant. there were other promotions along the way, but when you hear the big focus on the "brilliant ieutenant" -- transportation

and trading activities are controlled by the military. it is the role played by the generals. they are also big actors. one way to also look at that is that as a president or ceo of a subsidiary of going into a leadership role. it is on the job type of experience. >> there is tension between the ideology and the military. >> there are concerns. with something like the party conference, i think it is important to look at the deals made beforehand. given the level of interaction

with the chinese, the chinese leadership most likely got wind of the independence before hand. it is a product of a lot of deal making. a lot of question. is the united states giving serious consideration to pulling out of the 30th parallel?

would such a move help for a better relationship between north and south korea apart from unification, at least a better relationship between the two? guest: with respect to your first question, the u.s. has moved away from the demilitarized zone. that is completely controlled and managed by the south korean military. this is a part of the overall movement and realignment of u.s. troops away from camps scattered around north korea -- south korea. it is about 1.5 hours away from seoul. with respect to your second question of how this will impact relations going forward, in the initial move of those troops there was a lot of concern for north korea that this was a prelude to some kind of attack, that the movement of troops weapon this area cleared the way for military action in

north korea. it is viewed as a very positive sign and a reflection of the alliance. eventually in april 2015, there will be a chance for where operational control will go to the south korean military. south korean troops would fall under the command of the united states. there have been some movements and changes. we can see if they are a positive development or a negative development. host: he directs the career working group. you can give us a call and talk with him. kevin is up next in pittsburg on our independent line. you spoke earlier of

a alliance between north korea and another country. you said that they have allied on economic development. are you in agreement that u.s. foreign-policy encourages terrorism? guest: it is a delicate question. with respect to u.s. policy there is a clear goal. with respect to the earlier comment that i made, the two countries have been sending technicians back and forth, monitoring the tests. in fact, there have been failed shipments of north korean missile components to iran. with respect to u.s. policy,

there is an effort right now to make sure that iran does not make the -- does not become the next nuclear power. there is the feeling that sanctions done in the proper way with close coordination with friends and allies may help us to change iranian behavior and that help them move away from nuclear weapon development. the north korea connection, that is one where the two countries seemed to focus the policies and find a way to cooperate. you can as syria to this connection. most of the defectors we have been able to interview point to the fact that the north korean, iranian, syrian transactions had been the oldest and the most enduring. -- most enduring. >>

caller: with our tight economic ties with china, does north korea not realize that if they step on us, china might step on them? guest: there has been a great deal of focus on chinese influence in the north. other countries need to monitor rate -- other countries need to moderate their behavior. if we were to seal the border today, we would have a lining up of two chinese lines on the chinese side of the border. that is very important to chinese energy security and the three provinces bordering north korea. they are among the poorest in

china. from the chinese perspective, having to do through the economic development relationship with the north korean provinces is very important. it is an economic tool of cutting ties, trade, and aid. there is a great deal of concern right now that the level of cooperation is such that that kind of impact would be difficult. host: has the aba must approach been similar to the bush administration? -- cal has the obama administration's approach been similar to the bush administration? guest: in the process of implementing those, north korea seems to be the ones living up to their obligations. with respect to the emphasis on the six-party talks process,

there is a great deal of continuity. there is also a great deal of eight continuity on economic sanctions. an executive order will basically put a lot of emphasis on the notion that companies that do business with north korea is essentially can be cut off for the united states and the international community at large. what area of change, i would say, is looking at the focus of what will happen in north korea. that is always the change variable. all of the parties are very vigilant. host: let us go to thomas in baltimore. caller: my question is the european members of the six- party talks and what kind of impact they have had on the reason negotiations over the past couple of years. we rarely hear of their

involvement. guest: the european union is not an official member of the six- party talks. the countries involved are the two koreas, china, russia, the united states, and japan. the overall goal is the peaceful demilitarization of the peninsula. we have seen how these delegations consulted from time to time on the progress with this overall goal in mind. they are very supportive of this effort. there is a big concern about human rights in north korea, but the eu is not currently a former member -- is not currently a member. guest: caller: does the u.s. predict that there might be a change in

the top military leadership of the national defense commission or the north korean army, specifically maybe be stepping down of the general who is thought to be one of the most powerful man? what do you think? guest: rochester much. one quick point. the position of president no longer is available for anyone to take over. when his son died, he was the president. the constitution was revised in the 1990's to reflect that he would essentially be the eternal president. there will be no successor in terms of a north korean president. when it comes to the leader of north korea, it is the chairman of the national defence commission. it became a vehicle for power following the death of his

father in 1994. we saw a lot of this in the 1990's. with respect to the training companies, the more profitable ones are affiliated under the nbdc. what we saw as a party conference in 2008 was the rehabilitation of the korean workers' party. the delegates to arrived -- some of them had died. the amazing thing in north korea is that the generals did not retire no matter how old they are. with respect to the rise and fall of certain groups, these power centers can be monitored, but i take there has traditionally been a block. we can perhaps monitor in a

little more detail. host: have you been able to cross the border? guest: i get a few times a year. i would to a copper's two years back. the north korean message to our group was that they only wanted south korean nationalists on this tour. unfortunately, the others in our delegation, we did not have the chance to go. these are unofficial gatherings where government officials interact with others. host: the dumbest thing about try to understand or to react? guest: when information does come out, the whole question is why it happened. when we look at something like

the communist party of china interacting with the workers' party of korea, these are deals that have been announced. host: john park is a single research official. talk but the'll successes and failures of tarp. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> is not a plot 16 eastern time. the federal reserve board has two new members. topbecomes the fed's official. both report to their jobs earlier today. there were tapped by president obama to fill vacancies on the seven-member board. the economy is on the agenda today at the white house. president obama says down with his recovery advisory board. cabinet members are expected at the member -- are expected at

the meeting today. former president jimmy carter is taking today on cbs. he says he is recovered from a bout with the virus. he has a relatively hectic schedule at the age of 86. he said he had one day of intensive hospital care. the democrat was president for one term, losing to ronald reagan in 1980. more on the gulf of mexico oil spill. the next round of hearings begins today near new orleans. federal investigators will be looking for key information about pressure tests, decision making, and the safety culture. the size figuring out a cause for the explosion, the panel will look is safety and oversight. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> this week, the supreme court

begins its midterm. if you can learn more about the nation's highest court with c- span's newest book "the supreme court." it reveals new insights about the court. it is available in hard core burke wherever you buy books. -- hard-covered were ever you buy books. >> the c-span network provides coverage on television, radio, on line, and all social media networking sites. you can find our content any time on c-span's video library. we take c-span on the road with our local content vehicle, bringing our researchers to your community. it is watching your weight, the c-span network. created by cable, provided as a public service. "washington journal" continues. host: rebecca christie joins us.

tarp ended yesterday. what does that mean? guest: under the our original law, october 3 was the sunset date. it was the day that no new money could be committed, and the new -- and the money could be spent, and any ongoing activity would be working with the programs that were out there to make sure they wound down successfully. in the reform bill that passed earlier this year, lawmakers it did the ability to start new programs early. the october 3 date is a little more symbolic. host: we have heard so much about tarp over the past two years. it has become a point where politicians do not want to take ownership. republicans who voted for it

said that they may not have actually supported tarp. it has become an issue. it buildup banks, insurers, and automakers. candidates running in november, especially the deportee members, say no more bailouts as their mantra. talk to us about the facts on the ground. guest: what people talk about a bank bailout, they generally take about millions of dollars. it was an astounding amount of money. a reporting shows that a lot of voters want to know what the money is not going to them. what people do not think about is that this money was put at risk. that is a big thing. it is not subject to make light of. it is an investment that was --

that is coming back right now. host: we have a breakdown that you have created here. $700 billion allocated, but then for less than that was actually committed and cents. guest: it is a tricky thing. if you look at the stores that have come out, you can see that many of them have different numbers. some of the numbers are clear. $700 billion was the original authorization. hank paulsen said they picked that number partly because it seemed like a really big number that would give them enough room to do what they needed to do. they never got anywhere near $700 billion even when they had most of it pencilled al. they possibly had maybe $550 billion. a lot of that money never went out the door. i think somewhere around $500

billion went out the door. by the time the regulatory reform bill passed, they were able to cut that authorization down to $475 billion. it was a visual or moved. it did not change any of the programs that were out there. if the fight -- the $50 billion number is the cause they believe will come back. there may be some losses on automobile and the ig. host: the new york times printed down in a graphic. $470 billion committed. to honor $4 billion is outstanding. that is breaking it down on the october 1 issue of the "new york times." guest: that is one thing all the numbers have in common. you can come up with different figures depending on the cash out the door versus the cash

that has come back. host: why has tarp become such the punching bag? he mentioned the fact that people bill like that money could have come to consumers in a more direct way, not all to the big banks. do you have any more insight as to how it became such a political punching bag? guest: the various polls seem to show that voters want to see some sort of change in their own circumstance. the unemployment rate is still pretty high. people still still like the economy has not gotten better for them. the idea of a program that was aimed at banks did not directly affect them. it is not something that most people can relate to. host: we have rebekah christie with us from bloomberg. we are taking your phone calls.

the "washington post" talk to secretary geithner. he said that most americans remain angry at seeing the government bailout the financial firms. it triggered a wave of unemployment and wreaked havoc on the economy. he defended tarp. he said it was not fair, but it was necessary. how long will it take us to know if it was necessary or not? guest: the policy makers and banking sector people think it was necessary. they will tell you that when the financial crisis was at its height in 2008, there was a huge sphere about an even broader collapse of the global financial system. that is a scary word -- global financial system. it means the whole banking emperor structure -- infrastructure.

if the banks cannot move our money around among themselves and keep everything flowing, it can shut down our ability to business. the economy would hurt. the jobs would hurt. the defenders of tarp will say that it sucks we're learning all this money to the banks, but this system is something we depend on. host: secretary dieter said that in september 20008 the world was falling apart behind us. -- secretary geithner said that in september 2008 the world was falling apart behind us. guest: despite the turn around, you write that tarp remains a career killer.

the political fallout is coming to play in the election in november. a lot of people have voted for tarp have seen that vote come back to haunt them. a lot of people who are trying to challenge incumbents are wondering how you could vote for the banks and not vote for "fill in the blank." there is a sense of light their life is getting better. anytime somebody can use to mark as a way of saying canada's support banks and not you, they are using that. it depends on the dipper races. that is the general theme that we are seeing. host: we might on the democrat line. good morning. caller: i am a democrat, but i have common sense. we look at the top money -- the

target money, a lot of people say that it should not have been used, but it started in the bush era. we look at tarp, the public will say we do not want to spend any more tarp money, let the market bears of what it theirs. when you come down to it, if some of these companies failed or were integrated into other areas, would they let these companies fail? all market would have been worse if these companies would have failed. guest: it is an interesting set of points that you bring up. the tort law was only passed after the bush administration let lehman brothers fail.

lehman brothers went under and caused a big chain reaction. when aig was on the brink, they started to see a collapse of the broader system you're talking about earlier. that is what made the bush administration and congress come together and try to put together the stabilization package. host: the sunset date was yesterday. you say that some candidates are calling to mark the solution. now because this is shifting to managing government investments, collecting payments, and preventing home disclosures -- home foreclosures. guest: tort is a large bureaucracy. -- tart is a large bureaucracy.

canceling tarp would be a cosmetic move. it would not really into anything. there cannot be any more new programs under part. it cancels tarp, you not press a button and fire all those people. the government will not liquidate all of those that were stimulated. the only program that is going forward is this housing program. the housing programs have been criticized for not helping barry many home owners. the numbers do not share the big numbers that were promised. that said, they are still out there tried to help homeowners one house at the time. that is the kind of thing that will come to an end if the republicans push forward with their republicans. host: we have a republican

color. good morning. caller: i think president bush deserves some credit for all of this. ben bernanke has helped with the ledgers rates and refinancing homeowners. we built a house for 5% which we would never been able to afford at all if it was more than by%. because we cannot afford the extra $150 a month. we pay the down payment. we bought the home. we picked up the home, but we are doing it piece by piece. we're not spending a ton of money. i think president bush needs to get some absolutes credit for what he did, for the credits it took a sitting president to come and ask for that type of money. i think the tamp program was

another disaster. what was happening is we started -- there were people buying two or three houses. they were renting out the houses, not paying the money back to the banks. there pocketing that money and then they were going into bankruptcy with it. -- foreclosure with it. these people who are sitting around with one house, they are not getting 30% interest and lowering their home waters and they are the ones that caused a lot of the problems. we had people by multiple houses. they cannot sell them so they let them go to short sell or go into four for closure with them. guest: that was a lot of interesting points on housing. mr. the programs out there are aimed at owners moving into their homes. most of the assistance programs are aimed at people living in their homes.

in terms of the bush administration, certainly there was a lot of cooperation between this administration, the obama administration, members of congress throughout all of this. get back and look at the secretary doctors speeches and you will see a lot of credit given to the bush administration and the officials to help put these programs together. host: rebecca christie is a reporter with bloomberg news. the final costs of tort or approximately $50 billion. the $16 billion, and tell us about what that money and means. how does it work? guest: when it goes to the banks, it provided capital in the way of investment.

they got preferred stock and promise of dividends on the stock. the purpose was that the stock rose, the government could exercise these warrants. the $16 billion is a pretty fresh number. it is the estimate of the people who are managing all of these bank equity stakes. how much extra they will happen the dividends and things like that. that member -- that number could change. 75% of the bank money has come in so far. they are getting close to a good number. int: let's go to jim michigan on the independent line. caller: yes band a c-span junkie. i am addicted.

i have been watching a lot of c- span. it seems like when they do any investigation, and if you look at independent news you find out that goldman sacks and a lot of these groups tide of engineered something for several years where they got the laws changed so they could go in and take these funds and these loans and then borrow against the value and sell that as if it was a real commodity, like it was really worth something. then they pay off people in the ratings agencies in order to get them rated aaa. this whole thing was kind of a set up. i think white people are upset is the fact that they ended up

bailing people algers still made money off of it. they are the ones left with the loans that were given out. i have relatives and friends in the banking industry. they were pushed to give out loans to people who had nothing. my worked works -- my wife works for the credit unions. they do not just ahead and sell all their stuff. they hang onto it as it was a long-term investment. all they were doing was pushing as much paper as they could because they knew they were going to sell its. they were going to get their money and get out of there. guest: there are a lot of conditions that set up the financial crisis and regulators had been tried to deal with it ever since. one thing going on right now, international regular taters are trying to find -- international

regulators -- the other states has been pushing for a limit on the amount of leverage that banks can take on. as you're saying, the amount of barley they can do against various assets that they have. this is something that is on regulated tons. host: the new york times reported that bob bennett of utah said that for those screaming at him, their children and grandchildren were saddled with $700 billion. "my career is over, but i do hope we can get the word out that tarp did save the world from a financial meltdown and did not cost the taxpayer anything. it was the thing to do." the jumron lost his renomination.

he is not even a candidate in the midterm elections. are there any other candidates standing by a tarp after coming under scrutiny? guest: i tend to follow the regulatory side of it more than the congressional side of that. people continue to say that the banking system needed some kind of support. the continue to say that no matter how ugly this looks, no matter how deceitful it is -- they used words like deceitful -- to give money to these bankers, we would do worse off if these systems would have collapsed. this is something that politicians should be proud of. they are pointing out thattarp was the last truly bipartisan effort to come out of this congress. secretary geithner has been calling on cooperation to try to get other things done for the economy. host: were they surprised by the

backlash from the public? it came from conservatives and liberals. it was not one side or the other. it came from both ends of the spectrum -- criticism of the decision. guest: regular people have not seen the level of recovery. they are getting more resentful. the story line has changed somewhat. i think a lot of what happens next will depend on when businesses start hiring again at what happens going forward. host: rebecca christie has covered the treasury department says 1999. she previously covered the defense department. let's go to our democrat line in

leesburg, virginia. caller: lesbos a reality in here. there is a difference -- let's put some reality in here. the economy is the reality of what type of work gets done to keep the population of life. -- to keep the population of live. -- to keep the population alive. there was no recovery. there is not going to be a recovery. according to this statement, what we have in front of us is a repeat on a global scale of what happened to our -- to germany in 1943. the problem is that these are

the investments necessary to keep the economy and the population of life. it disappeared in favor of these cash infusions just to the financial markets. guest: a couple of different points erased there. you look at the federal reserve and other policymakers around the world and you'll see that they are looking for ways to keep the economy alive and keep interest rates low rather than raising them as you might see during a time when inflation was rising more. it is an -- there is a real connection between businesses being able to get finances and credit and their ability to hire workers. their ability to hire workers and tends to be the thing to keep the economy moving forward.

that gives the economy going. host: we have an e-mail from poland. we hear more about mortgage brokers in the second round -- in the subprime mill town. the landsats originated 0 subprime loans, for example. -- goldman sachs originated zero subprime loans, for example. >> guest: going forward, there are a lot of efforts underway to try and make sure that anybody who takes out a mortgage on it is in a good position to pay it back with up in themselves, their investors, or their banks at risk. also that banks are not taking

advantage of consumers were getting their take-out loans. host: we have erred on the republican line from arkansas. guest: caller: tarp has been the worst thing to happen to this country. the situation is that investors to put their money into the banking system prior to its filing, that was real money that has been circulated to the economy. when the banks failed, the situation was the investors were not want to get that money back. what happened is, the home sellers now are having to compete against the foreclosed houses. they should have been priced for bankruptcy or prior sell rates at 25 or 60 cents on the dollar. as to the previous caller, i have recently discovered a neighborhood from 2004 to 2006

that has 40 foreclosures out of 127 homes that were built in the subdivision. i have pointed that out to a reporter to look closer at the subdivision. as for tarp, the banks should have failed. the one thing is situated -- the assets are really out there unlike common stock. the stock that was backed by the mortgage-backed certificates, they are out there. guest: it is interesting. tarp was set out to deal with troubled assets. some of the things you're talking about is securities based on loans that were valued at all kinds of rates on the dollar at the heart of the crisis. there was a big debate over whether it was appropriate to flood the market with these things and sell them at the low prices you mentioned, or if

there should be some way to help the investors -- primarily we were thinking about banks because of the way lending and the economy was affected -- whether they should be allowed to recoup those costs. it came together to stabilize prices and help to keep the bottom from pulling out and all the damage that could have caused -- the chain reaction effect. host: last week we heard that aig would repay taxpayers. how will that happen? guest: this deal came together in the way it was laid out for us last week. prior to this deal, the treasury department was estimating that aig would reimburse taxpayers about $45 million. that is about half of the amount of money that went into stabilizing this insurance

company. now that they have this plan to sell out certain unions -- units, they are saying the losses will be under $10 billion. that depends on a ig stock and if the treasury to sell assets and at what prices. it is tough for the government to make a profit on aig. it is a big change from the $45 billion lost their looking at a few weeks ago. host: the independent line in tallahassee, florida. good morning. caller: it might be a example of what we have here that people are fleeing mainstream media and going to the alternative media. that you believe the tripe coming from our government or the so-called experts that you "or listen to. there will be no recovery.

i do not know how we can call ourselves a free country and how you cannot report on it. they call going in for this bailout were 2001 against it -- the so-called leaders of this country that seem to know better than us at every term. they passed it anyway. even if it was a bad thing to reduce the money or to do the bailout, which did not be prudent or why could we not have called ourselves a democratic- republican if we went with the people's wishes? also with the so-called criminal bankers? all of this was forecast by people who seem to know a lot more than you'd do about this. i would ask people to go to alex jones and listened to him.

not this -- to insultdo not need our guests. she is here to sell -- share information. you think the banks had to control and had too much say in the political system. i think it begs the interesting question, "how do we look at the influence of the banks on the system?" the have a sense of how close they are related together? guest: the banks and the policy makers talk a lot. they get to the calendar and things like that. one thing that is hard to remember from where we are now is the sense of fear and panic that was going to the system in 2008. major institutions or toppling and not necessarily in ways that people could have predicted.

it seemed separated from what has seemed to be the underlying condition of those banks. when tarp and the other measures were put in place, the credit lines, the their reserve, and others -- it was really an effort to stop the domino effect. a lot of people spent a lot of time trying to put that together. the: let's go to mark on republican line in louisville. you are on the show. welcome. caller: i started framing houses back in the early '80s. it started a lot longer than what people think. builders started getting greedy and built wait too much -- more

than what they could handle. a lot of banks would play hot potato with the money and if they could not get somebody from one big bank, they would go to another bank employee hot potato with the money all the way up until the 2000's it came to a head because the builders were getting so greedy and the banks were getting greedy. they were just passing the hot potato. host: how do you see a solution to that problem? is a matter of regulation? you talk about your own experience and your line of work. what do you think would make it better? caller: to be honest, it is more than one thing. it is not just the banks. it is immigration, people coming

up from mexico to make a better life for themselves. i can understand that, but the builders are greedy. the banks are greedy. they are going to go for the cheaper people to work for them so they can make more profits. it is not one answer. it is a very hard answer to say. host: the stick to our end and align in new jersey. caller: to the builder that just called, when this started -- we have a bank in new jersey. they had the president of the bank on one of the network news shows because they wanted what his bank was not in any trouble. the reason his bank was not in trouble was because they do not loaned money to people who cannot pay it back. my problem with the discussion

of the bailout was our secretary of treasury used to be the head of goldman sachs. most people do not know the difference between investment banks and the banks we all do business with with are checking and savings. they are two separate things. this investment bank's they got all this money to be bailed out -- and how much money did they get to aig to pay all themselves and the taxpayers are stuck with aig. host: it was the previous secretary of the treasury, hank goldman, who was with bal sachs. it is hard to keep track of all these folks. it seems like a game of musical chairs all the time. there was a real issue of who is following the money.

people were playing off one regulator against another. that is something the policy makers are trying to address in terms of making it tougher to find ways around the rule. host: a poll conducted in july for bloomberg said that three in 10 americans 10 said that tarp was necessary. there is a disconnect between what people see as their day-to- day reality and the fiscal financial collapse that financial regulators were trying to address in 2008. it is just too big. it is difficult to see the connection between these a vast sums of money that are swirling around in the financial system and the small amounts of money that people are using to make

ends meet. let's go to a democratic cholera in maryland. caller: i think people have demonized tarp. these people have no idea how the economy works or how government works. they never take any blame themselves people -- blame themselves. people who have credit cards to do not pay them. they are just as much at fault as anybody else the way i see it. we let people try to do the right thing. we are starting to stabilize and now. they do not have sense enough to know that. guest: it is a really part of the -- it is a really important part of the debate right now. how much responsibility people

should take for themselves. people should be able to control, foresee, and plants around the money they borrow. it is a really difficult part of the debate. host: joe breaks it down on twitter. what is financial collapse and what does that mean? guest: it is a breakdown in the system that keeps the economy going. i like to think, personally, the economy is like a big swirl like a galaxy or big dust cloud or anything that is moving around and around. financial collapse of and takes the form of a big shot of that moving out. when you take a big shot of et

al, if you take it out slowly the system can keep rolling around. if a big shock comes out at once, there is a big gap and everything comes to a screeching halt. it comes to a big crash. that is how i think about it in terms of what is the worst that can happen. a chunk could give missing in the whole system could crash. host: you cover the treasury department and others -- the banking industry. what have they learned from what happened in iceland? what have they learned from what happened in greece and what is happening in ireland right now? they were on the brink of collapse or having a financial meltdown. guest: one of the lessons of iceland it seems to be that it

is a bad thing when a bank gets bigger than the economy. it is a scary thing. it is up in the united states has not had to go through. in a small country like iceland, you have a bank that gets bigger than the underlying space where it lives, it is very hard for the government to step in with the bank gets into trouble. that is why when they had problems, it was difficult to find a way to keep that collapsed from affecting not just the people in iceland, but the people in europe and any other folks that had regular accounts that they thought were injured. in terms of greece, the problems they have this public borrowing. they have been borrowing for a long time to keep their economy going. investors were buying back debt thought that greece would default or drop out of the

bureaeuro. the lesson there that people are trying to learn, and you'll hear a lot about this, we need to worry about our budget deficit before it gets out of control. we are ok right now. we can borrow at lower interest rates. we cannot let that all us into a state of -- we have to start thinking about our long-term obligations so we do not get close to the panicked investors had over greece. host: let us hear from john in illinois. caller: our problems started in the '80s when reagan deregulated. we got into trouble with the home mortgages. under the clinton and under reagan week lowered taxes.

under clinton we increase taxes and got things straightened out. bush came into power and did the same thing that reagan did. he reduced taxes. in order to pay our bills we need money. there is so much pressure on the middle-class. what we need is more regulation. i do not agree with bigger government, but the government we do have should have a little bit more power in banking to get the job done. host: very interesting viewpoint. certainly there are a lot of ways of looking at how we got to where we got in the different conditions. one thing that does come up is the way the bush and the obama administration -- there was a lot of cooperation. alexandria, va. on the independent line. caller: one way to frame the

problem would to say the financial collapse was like a heart attack. the heart stopped. the banks had to keep money flowing to the system. everything would have come to a stop. it was necessary to put the bank back into the heart and keep that pumping. guest: that is another interesting way to look at and how to think about the financial system. everything is connected in a way that is difficult to explain simply, but if you can come up with what ever metaphor makes sense to you -- a dust cloud or pumping heart -- the whole system has to move smoothly. system has to move smoothly.