mark and then come home. western civilization is based on devastating attacks and returning home. our military units are not even a military caste. it is a free man who are temporarily in the military. your notion about impatience is misplaced. we the american people know that we are members of western civilization and we want to get the job done and then come home. guest: it is an interesting point that he makes. the problem is, we are playing an away game. we're blessed in that all of our games are. we are planning on other people's territory. and that means we have to know what their ground rules are. yes, we would like a quick, decisive victory the leaves a fundamentally changed situation, but you cannot always get it.

the trick is recognizing where you are fighting, who you are fighting against, and what it will take to prevail. that is why i used the term "the long war." we do need patience. eric is correct in suggesting it is not part of our mecca. we want the decisive victory, and our troops home -- is not part of our makeup. you have to realize hard realities for what they are -- that is what we are up against in afghanistan. host: what is your job down at texas a&m? guest: i am being of the bush school of government and public service. it is a tremendous opportunity after a career in public service. i got a role here in shaping the next generation of young americans who will go forward and serve the nation at the local, state, and federal levels.

70% of our graduates go into public service, by far the highest number of any school in the nation of public service. having walked the walk in hard places for some years it is a tremendous privilege to be here. to try to impart some of my experiences to those of the next generation. host: and that is named after the senior president bush? guest: that is correct. yes, he does come to the campus often. it is the great thing about being here. he and mrs. bush spent one week on campus last spring. they attended class is every day, and for young americans who are making a commitment to public service to be in a classroom with a man who has personified commitment to service since world war ii is a tremendous thing. host: only a minute left -- fort

myers, florida. caller: think you. like the last caller, i differ with you about your patients point -- thank you. most americans believe is a just cause and will stay the course, but when you have millions who do not believe that it is a just cause. it is not a question of patience, but whether you believe they are right or not. you are skirting the issue. i don't think we have evidence to show that americans will not fight a long war. guest: i try to be as clear as i can about why think it is important to fight the war in afghanistan. 9/11 came to us out of afghanistan from al qaeda, planned and controlled by the taliban.

those of the same adversaries thatt we're fighting again adversarieshey have not become kinder or gentler in the last decade. to the contrary. to me it is clear. we are fighting a just cause in afghanistan. we are fighting for america's vital national security. to me that is inescapable. it is a long fight and the stakes are very high. i hope that we as americans will understand and master of the patience to stay the course host: dean ryan crocker, thanks for joining us. that is the end of "washington journal." if you were watching earlier, we discussed the military, protesting at military funerals, the supreme court case -- quite a conversation was going on on both facebook, if you'd like to

join the conversation --go to the facebook site. no hyphen in cspan on facebook. tomorrow on this program, the author bob woodward "obama's wars" --his most recent best seller. the program will air again on boot tv this weekend. that is on c-span2 -- "book tv." you can go to that website and see when it is scheduled, and the entire schedule. that is our program today. the senate may be out of the session, but there is a hearing -- senator tom harkin is discussing the committee topic.

discussing retirement securities issues. it has not yet begun. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . .

and again a live picture from capitol hill where the senate health committee is holding a hearing on social security. they will be looking at the status of social security and other post post -- postings. the "wall street journal" is saying the midwest is shaping up to be a place where the battle of the house and senate could be lost. an area of concern is around lake michigan which is demographically similar. of course, you can follow all the races during this political season at our website. c-span.org. senator tom harkin is now in the

room. >> committee on health and labor pensions will please come to order. i want welcome everyone to this hearing on retirement. this is an issue that is of critical importance to every american family. a recent survey found that 92% of adults 44 to 75 believes there's an retirement crisis in america. are they right? is there a retirement crisis? let's consider the following statistic that we will hear more about in this hearing today. over a quarter of workers do not have meaningful retirement savings the all. one out of four. nearly half of baby boomer that will turn 65 will not have sufficient retirement savings to pay for expenditures. food, fuel, housing and uninsured healthcare costs.

we learn from the testimony that we'll hear from the employee benefit research institute that the gap between what people need for retirement and what they actually have is $6.6 trillion. i think those numbers make it perfectly clear the system is failing many americans and the 3-legged stool of retirement. private pensions, social security have gotten wobbly. it use to be retirees could count on a secure requirement because they provide a predictal source of income. but unfortunately, it's endangered. the number of employers offering these plans has fallen drastically over the past three

decades. now, less than 20% of the workers in the private sector have the security of a pension. not many have a 401 k. they do not provide real retirement. they leave workers with the risk that investment may perform poorly. billions of retirements have evaporat evaporated. 401 k's do not provide lifetime income like the traditional income plans. workers and their families will outlive their retirements. families are faces unprecedented challenges and saving for retirement is not an option.

wages have been stagnant for years. people are working harder and longer then ever before and still cannot meet the cost of everyday needs. education, transportation and housing. let alone save money for their old age. for many americans, the only sold retirement security they have is social security. but that too is under siege. there are those that want to privatize the system, cut back benefits, raise the retirement age. they said everyone should just work longer. retirement is a luxury. clearly these people don't swing a hammer for a living or string power lines or work in our corn fields or oil rigs, lay bricks. drive trucks. for americans who work in these

physically-demanding jobs, working longer is not an option. we will hear about that at our hearing this morning. so we're facing a future where no one other than the rich will have an opportunity for a safe and secure retirement people that work hard will find themselves teetering on poverty. that's going to have drastic consequences for our families. it's time for our nation to face the retirement had on. i am going to make retirement security a priority. over the coming year, i tend to hold a number of hearings from a number of different angles. i look forward to working with my colleagues to assure they have a sense of retirement they

cannot outlive. it's been an area where we can reach across the aisle. i thank you all for being here and i will yield to my good friend who is been heavily involved in this from his days in the house to had here in the senate and i'm going to count on senator sanders to be one of our lead persons in our hearings going into next year to examine all the aspects of social security. i yield to my good friend, senate sanders. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for stepping up to the plate and getting involved in an issue that is of concern to many americans. i don't want to tell you, but all over this country, there is a feeling of deep anxiety. something is happening in our country and people are not quite

sure what it is. what they do know is that in this great country of ours, the middle class is disappearing. people know that. they may not be phd in economics but they know. they are worried their kids will have a lower economic security. and they understand our manufacturing base, which supplied so many jobs working people has disappeared. millions of people left the middle class. went into poverty. they understand we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the world. that is why the middle class is collapsing and poverty is increasing. virtually all of the income has gone to the people on tom. today we have the top one % top

1% earning more income than the bottom 50%. top 1% owning more wealth than the bottom 90% and that disparity is growing wider and the widest in the industrialized world. in the midst of all of that. there are now attacks often from billionairetype people, going after the one area where people had security for the last 75 years. the truth of the matter is that social security has been the most successful federal program in our history. during all economic times, whether we are in prosperity, or in severe recession, social security has paid out every nickel owed to every eligible

american. during the last collapse, not one american did not receive 100 cents on the dollar what high or she was owed in social security. that is a pretty good record. and, while all of us must be concerned about the $13.4 trillion national debt that we have and the very large federal deficit, it is imperative that we be honest about the causes of that national debt. i get a little bit tired of people saying. we need to privatize social security. we have got to cut back on social security benefits. we have to raise retirement age because we have a $13 trillion national debt. you know what? social security has not added one penny to the national debt.

quite the contrary. we are fighting two wars and given hundreds of millions dollars in tax breaks. bail out of wall street, unfunded. social security has a surplus. hasn't added a nickel to our national debt. if there are people who are ideological reasons. want workers to invest in wall street for their retirement programs, that's fine. that's a good ideological position, but not mine. social security is not responsible for our national debt. let's also on the other hand from the c. b. o. social security can may out every nickel owed for the next

29 years. we got a lot of problems in this country. 25% of our kids are on food stamps. we have an infrastructurure is collapsing. yes. but for 29 years, 29 years, every beneficiary in this country will get 100 centses on the dollar they are owed. that's pretty good. you have ideas, i have ideas. let us not going forward either in privatization, let's not go forward in raising the retirement age to 70. as you just indicated, amount of these guys that think raising the retirement age to 70, they are not out laying bricks, lefting patients in a nursing

home. they are not out doing the physical labor. to ask american workers to work to the age 68, 69 is reprehensible. for those people working to 70. you know what else it does. it tells the young people who want to get into the labor market. you can't. so social security, the reason there is so much opposition to social security for some of these billionaire guys. it has worked for the elderly, the disabled, widows and orphans. this senator is not going to let wall street people raise the retirement age. thank you. mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator sanders. and we become back, we have two

panels. our first panel, phyllis borzi at the department of labor which over seeing private sakt -- sector retirement. she was a professional at george washington university and counsel at a law firm specializing in issues affecting employee benefit plans. ms. borzi will give us an idea of the problems facing social security and improved at helping social security. welcome back. your statement will be made as part of the record in its entirety. please proceed as you so desire. >> well, the mic. >> no one ever accused me of not being heard.

sorry. so good morning chairman hart and senator sanders. thank you so much for inviting me to discuss how the department of labor is working to ensure americans have a secure and safe retirement there's their systems. i fills -- phyllis borzi. we are responsible for enforcement the title one. we oversee 700800 plans. that he plans provide benefits to until 150 million americans and along with social security and individual savings. provide workers and their families with income during their retirement as you said, both senators, senator sanders

and chairman harkin. many americans are worried they may not have saved enough for retirement. for fewer employers offers benefit plans and a dramatic increase in the offering of 401 k type programs. they have shifted on to the shoulders of american workers in the 2011 budget, initiatives are included to improve the transparency and adequacy. we are working to find benefits plans to provide workers with a steady stream of income in retireme retirement. we plan to help workers get the services they need at a fair price. senator harkin, in particular, i want to thank you for your leadership in this area.

we are in the final stages in a rule that will allow workers access to the information they need to make informed decision. for the first time, they will receive information in a format where they can compare the investment options. and retain the information they need from service providers. this will help fiduciaries with the reasonableness of the fees they're paying as well as potential conflicts of interest exist with respect to investment services. we believe this rule will particularly benefit small and medium sized companies. we are all taking steps to make

sure unbiassed investment advice is accessible to workers. we with help worker avoid common investment mistakes, while all providing strong productions against recommendations about investmented tainted by conflicts of interest. but, not only do we need to support americans in savings for re tirement, we all need to make sure that good options are available to them. the department is exploring proposals that appropriate the availability of lifetime income streams for workers that want access to these products. we also want to improve plan reporting reliability. the arisa retired audit perform a critical function in making sure assets exist.

un fortunately, many of these reports filed contain substandard reports prepared by auditors with the or no benefit experience. we are seeking correction to allow the secretary to define standards for plan auditors and provide accountability for accountants and others responsible for this report. we also devote resources to protect workers employee benefit plans. for fiscal year, 2009. our enforcement program achiefed results of $1.3 billion and closed 287 criminal cases. the criminal investigations lead to indictments of 115 individuals. lastly, the department believes it's important that workers have access to information and education. they need to make sound

decisions for retirement. to that end, we have established a dedicated saving matters education campaign. this campaign using publicati s publications, only outreach to provide information. the campaign helps the workers understand the importance of savings. most the materials are available in english and spanish. together, these will help workers retire with confidence. thank you again for this opportunity to testify at this important hearing. private sector retirement plans together with social security are important components of assuring to find a dignified retirement. but more clearly needs to be done to strengthen the system.

chairman harkin, i know your committee is starting this process to think about how these goals can best be met and we look forward to working with you. thank you so much >> ms. borzi, thank you very much for your leadership on this issue. and the department of labor is under secretary so lis. >> first of all on the transparency issue. 401 k has been a priority for me and senator sanders has been involved in allowing people knowing what they're getting into with their fees. you provided in your testimony as a footnote, just what the differences can be in small percentage changes in the fees.

a difference of just one percentage one. 1.5 as compared to one percent. you say 1.5% to 1%. if the 1.5% has ornaments on this. over 35 years, dramatically facts returns. if you have $25,000, averages a 7% return. you will have $223,000. $163,000 if everything else remains static. i hope and trust that we are soon going to have mandatory regulations rules that any fee have to disclose this up front.

absolutely >> so a person will be whatever plan they pick how it compares to the other plans. >> the disclosure i alluded to is in the form of a chart so the participants can look and compare every investment option offered to them on fees and expenses. you're absolutely right, mr. chairman, most people don't understand the impact that fees have on their returns. you know, they look at a return and say, hey, that's pretty good. they didn't understand the return can be dramatically reduced once the fees are subtracted. the fees are paid by employers in a 401 k plan, it's passed to the individual and makes a difference in the bottom line. >> the other thing i wanted to

cover with you. i have been more aware over the last couple years how many people are borrowing on their 401 ks. the more i looked into it. they are depleting it. taking the loans or withdrawals. do you have any sense of how many people are borrowing? and then, as i said. they borrow and if they don't pay it back within a certainly period of time, they get penalized. i don't have a hand on how many people are borrowing. >> i don't know the numbers off the top of my head. i will be happy to look into that. i share your concern. i worked on the house side as a congressional staffer for 16

years, and when this provision that allowed loans from 401 k plans was being considered, certainly the members of the labor committee that i worked for were very, very concerned. but the provision was put in because the argument on the other side was put in that people wouldn't save unless they knew they had access to the money. that really illustrates the difficulties we have with 401 k plans. senator sanders, you alludeed to that. they are savings plans. that's a good function. we need to have people save. but, people can get their money prior to retirement and all that does it reduce their ultimate retirement security. i will be happy to try to get those numbers for you. if you have health expenses or something happens to your family. downturn in the economy.

lose your job. borrow the money now. borrow and you get penalized. >> we need to get a handle on that. >> we will try to get those numbers. >> thanks ms. borzi. >> senator sanders. >> thank you very much. you in your statement say," 27 percent of workers report they have no savings or investments or less than $1,000 in savings and 54% report they their house is less than $25,000". if we were to raise the retirement age in social security to 70, and you were living in the economic period right now and you had somebody

who was out building roads in the state of vermont, or this is his job. he's a construction worker, what happens first of all, how many employers are going to hire a 68 year old construction worker as opposed to a 25 year old construction worker? and second of all, second of all, if that construction worker or if they nurse or anyone else who is 68 or 69 years of age waiting for social security is unable to get social security, what happens to that person who has virtually no savings right now. is 68, 69, has a number of health problems and can't get social security? how are they going to survive? >> i wish i could give you a good answer. i know that there are many, many hundreds of thousands if not millions of americans who are

exactly in this situation that your posing. the question about older workers in the work force is one of issues that i did work on when i was in the private sector. because age discrimination issues were one of the sets of issues i worked on. it's very definitely. it's not just the 68 year old. it's people like one of my brothers. in his early 50s. >> i absolutely agree with you. >> but the idea there are people out there, the leader of the republican party and the house of representatives. 67. 68, go out, you know, go out and work on construction. be a carpenter. what world are they living? then. if this person has no income coming in from social security, what happens to that person? you know, it is, you know, it is, an idea i guess it's okay

for wall street billionaires to come up with. pete peterson who made billions of dollars on wall street has pledged to spend millions of dollars to cut medicare. among other things, mr. peterson funded a movie entitled i owe you u.s. a. just worthless i. o. u's. >> well, senator, it's what i say to my, the children of my friends who tell me that social security won't be there for them. and what i say is the one thing i know and it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that i work for the obama administrati

administration, the one thing i know is that social security will always be there for people. our task is to make sure, over the long run are, it remains there. >> isn't it true. these are backed by the u.s. government? >> that is true >> and the social security is the least of the problems we will have to worry about. >> i think that's absolutely correct >> now i'm going to ask you a hard question. i know what your answer is going to be. it's going to be a hard question, on april 16th, 2008, a gentlemen runs for president of the united states. i won't give you you his name. he said, "a propose raise the cap on the payroll tax.

today it's $106,000 a year. that governors name will not be named but did win. in fact, only 6% of population does. i have always said i will be willing to look to exempt people making more than that. raising the retirement age or raising payroll tax on people. those are not good policy options. it really was barack obama that said that. >> what do you think? >> this is a hard question. >> i know. >> and in other words, what the president said to me when he was campaigning makes sense. in fact, while social security is not in crisis right now and

can pay out every nickel owed. we want to make it stronger. even in years beyond that. what the president proposed during his campaign is to get rid of cap. i think that makes sense. do you want to comment on that? >> well, the only thing i can say is that if i were to comment, it would be well beyond my area of expertise. but i do think that over the years as a citizen taxpayer myself, i know over the years a lot of ideas have been floated. it seems to me that we ought to examine that one very carefully. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. chairman. >> well i can't help but remark on that. we often talk about the middle class in america. i think we got a little confused to who is the middle class america. >> uh-huh. >> at $250,000 a year income,

that's the top 2%. 98% of the american people make less than $250,000 a year. at $150,000, that's 5%. 90% of the american people working make less than $150,000 a we're. i think we have forgotten the people in the middle class are thoses making 40, 50, $60,000. we forget about that. they are rightfully concerned. i think the fairness of what senator sanders said. the fairness. if you're an american making $40,000 a year, you pay on social security on your payroll tax on every dollar you make. >> uh-huh. >> you are a person making $400,000 a year, you only pay on social security on 25% of

you >> right. >> 1 fourth. where is the fairness in that? >> so i can understand that the middle class in america is upset. i don't mean people making $250,000. i many 40, $50,000 a year. i can see why they are upset. i didn't mean to get into that, but you brought it up. i have one other issue i want to cover briefly. >> sure >> as you know the money in i. r. a.'s dwarfs the 401 k. i am worried that some employees may cut costs by encourage roll overs. is the department looking at rollovers?

and in particular. the communications between employers and service providers in terms of rollovers. >> mr. chairman, we are looking at it. we have a legal problem. once the money is rolled out of the arisza-covered plan. it's not quite clear to me how we can reach the money in the ira's. but we can look at the information. making sure it's accurate and there aren't conflicts of interest associated with it >> do you plan to take steps to implement the inspector general's recommendations? >> i am sure we will do whatever we can to make what the ig suggested. >> exposing conflictses. >> exposing conflicts is

important. >> i want to work on the issues of rollovers and how they are being promoted. the fees that are taking and how people are enticed to do that. the other area is the whole area of borrowing. we need some good data on that. how many people are defaulting on these loans? unable to pay them back? >> we will get you whatever data we have, mr. chairman, i appreciate that. >> do you have any follow up? >> just one briefly. just very briefly. as i know, ms. borzi, social security not only covers the elderly, but it all is a very

important part of the life in our country with people with disabilities. >> absolutely. >> um, what happens to the 8 million people currently receives social security who have disabilities and the four and a half million widows and the 4.3 million kids who receive social security if we make cuts in social security? in other words. my point is, there are, as senator harkin said aptly. people are hurting all over this country. it's so easy for people up here who take campaign contributions, we got to cut these contributions. what if you're a widow and your sole income is social security? >> we need to protect those people.

>> we sure do. thank you. thank you ms. borzi. >> we will now move to panel two. we have three witnesses. mr. jack vanderhei. the research director at employee research institute. has more than 100 publications. he focusing on the private defined plans. we will give us statistic on participation. >> we also have ross eisenbrey. he worked in the u.s. house of representatives. and the counsel will in the senate and a policy director of the occupational and safety administration. we will speak of the importance

of social security. and finally, we will hear from shareen miller, a home care worker from falls church, virginia, who will give us a first account of the trying to prepare for retirement. your written statements will be a part of the record in its entirety. sum it up in 5, 6. seven minutes. i won't get too excited. somewhere in that range to sum it it up. >> mr. vanderhei, i read your testimony, extremely interesting and insightful. >> thank you. good morning. senator harkin >> i am jack vanderhei, we are a nonpartisan institute that conducts research on retirement and health in the past 32 years.

we do not take policy decisions or lobby. first, sponsorship and participation in retirement plans. second, the adequacy deficits. third, the importance of social security, and fourth, americans retirement confidence. first a quick look at the numbers will show you where the nation is today in regards to america's retirement plan. almost half, just over 49% worked for a union and almost 40% participated in a plan. for full year, between 21 and 64, 54% of these workers participated in a retirement plan. obviously, the likelihood of a

worker participating goes up with with size. less than 14% participated in a plan. now looking at the more than 78 million workers who did not work for. employers, the remaining 69 million workers, almost half were not full time, full year workers, 27% has annual earnings of less than $10,000, and 57%. they don't work full time. they work at small firms or they

are very low income. measuring retirement is an extremely complex topic. when we modelled the baby boomers and gen x-ers. they were at risk for not having basic retirement expenses plus uninsured healthcare costs. even though this number is large, the good news. that's 11 to 12%age points lower than in 2003. who is most at risk? my oral testimony shows lower income house holds are much more likely to be at risk. the 2010 at risk range from 76% to the lowest income households to 25% of the highest. the average retirement deficit

by age. family status and gender for baby boomers and gen x-ers. it's estimated to be approximately $48,000 per individual. if you were to eliminate social security benefits, that would increase approximately $89,000. that would be from 4.6 to $8.5 trillion. the importance of social security for low income workers is shown in my testimony. 91% of the lowest income households would be at risk if they had no social security retirement benefits. that's compared to 76% with the current social security benefits. the other three also benefit from social security to the extent that 24 to 26% of

households are saved from at-risk status because of social security benefits. these trends have been reflected, excuse me, in annual retirement competence study. in the 2010 rcs they are very confidence they will have money to live through their retirement years. the percentage of workers that reported they and their spouse saved for retirement substantial doubts at 69%. the amount of works that have no savings has increased over the past year. as you mentioned, our workers providing this type of information. 54% report that the total value of their household savings is

less than $25,000. the amount workers say they need appears to be rather low. 29% of workers say they need to save less than $250,000 for retirement. another 17 mention between $250,000 and $500,000. thank you for the opportunity to testify testimony. i look forward to the opportunity to work with you in the future >> thank you very much, mr. vanderhei. now we turn to ross eisenbrey. >> thank you for inviting me. >> i am ross eisenbrey. >> together we represent over 50

million people to strengthening retirement requires strengthing social security. the retirement usa, just this month happens to be in the middle of "wake up washington" month and let the policy makers and the american public realize what a crisis we're actually in in retirement savings. the three legged stool has always been wobbly for most americans. it has one sturdy leg. social security, employer-provided plans and personal savings. social security covers 97% of employee, provides more than half of retirement income for 55% of seniors, and a quarter of seniors get more than 90% of

their savings from social security. the second leg, personal savings, as you just heard is not very substantial. it's been shrinking has middle class incomes has squeezed. the third leg, employer-provided pensions have never covered more than half of employees. but the quality has decreases with personal retirement plans disappearing. the reasons are well known. they don't provide lifetime benefits. employees return professionals

manage their own assets and do so badly. they fail to diversify. they put their investments in their employer stock, even after enron we see this. fees can decimate investment returns loans and hardship withdrawals leak away assets. the employers generally contribute only through a match for employee's contributions and lower income employees tend not to participate. so they don't get anything from their employer as a result. the tax incentives are completely upside down for this program. they are skewed to higher income tax brackets and as a result, 80% of the tax benefits, incentives for participating go to the top 20% of earners. just increasing the kind of

inquality that you and senator sanders has been talking about. the result, i have slightly different figures, they are about the same magnitude as you heard from mr. vanderhei. the senator for retirement research says that household says 32 to 64 is $6.6 trillion. the federal budget deficit is about $1.2 trillion to give you a reminder about the magnitude about this. the 401 k, i think is at the heart of this problem. it's had serious negative consequences, allowed upper income familys to shelter their income from taxation without

increasing overall retirement savings as a cost you should try to calculate. between 1 and $2 trillion over the last 30 years. what have we bought from that. other congressional actions have harmed the defined pension plan. before 1986, some of these were well intentioned and some were actually, i think, wise changes. but they still lead to a decline in pension plans. the pension plans were a handy tax sheller for employers, and employers routinely over funded plans. congress put rules in place and

made it harder for employers to recapture excess assets they were doing by putting on large excise taxes. congress put on tighter rules and you did this just again a few years ago. to pinch hardest at the time the employers could not afford to increase their contributions. whereas 401 k programs are funded at 100 percent at the contribution the employer makes. they can cut back unless they have a collective bargaining gleam. and faster vesting rules. to make sure employees got a pension. all of these things and others when i can talk about contributed to the decline. but the result, of course, is a

huge shift. 40% used to have a defined benefit plan and now less than 20%. so as on page four of my testimony, you will see what the center for retirement research predicts. the share of americans at risk of being unable to have ample retirement. they will have less security going forward. gen x-ers, god help them. the most important thing i can say. cutting social security benefits in this context will be disasterous. it would be pulling the rug out from under millions of people. there's a six and a half % cut

in benefits that are very modest. the average retiree only has $14,000 in retirement. the funding gap is less than 2%. it can be closed with revenue increases. more and more of whose income escapes the taxes. polls show this is the solution americans want. 83% of americans in the rockefeller foundation poll said they would like to see taxes raised on the upper income people who are not paying on their full share right now. good policy happens to be politics. thank you. >> thank you very much. ross, and now we'll turn to

miller. >> good morning. >> i heard your testimony last night and it's very profound. >> i like to thank senator harkins and senator sanders for inviting me to speak on this important issue. i am shareen miller. i live, i'm a personal care physician and a member of the sciu local five. i started working when i was 17 years old. i have done everything. worked in a nursing home. i am used to living hands to mouth. .

i love more so. -- marisa. the most rewarding job i've ever had. without the services are provided, she would not be able to live a full and productive life. i cannot care for her forever. i have to lift her into the bed, the tu,b and if we want to go

somewhere, i have to lift her into the car. it becomes harder each year. i think about the day i permanently damaged my back or knees trying to lift her. after all, how many of you could imagine your grandmother carrying a person around? there are not a lot of open doors for 65-year-olds with a high school education. e have no plans n retirementd dave and i will continue working until -- have no planned retirement date and i will continue working until it gives out. my entire paycheck is to pay my mortgage, keep electricity on, put gas in my car, and buy groceries. the money in mike 401k is half

what it was before the crash of 2008. my retirement cannot be left to the ups and downs of wall street. thankfully, i know the social security will be there for me. if i retire at the full retirement age, i will receive $17,000 the year, and it will not be subject to swings of the market, but still not enough i make approximately $35,000 a year, and i'm barely making ends meet. if there is an emergency, like necessary dental and car repairs, i have to borrow from my 401k. this is a fight back holds up for another 24 years. if the retirement age is raised to 70, as some are proposing, i would lose another 5% of my pay if i retired at the retirement rate.

cutting social security or raising the retirement age is not an option. we need to do more. members of this committee and every lawmaker in washington needs to commit to finding solutions that allow americans to spend a lifetime of hard work, driving the bodies to the limit, to retire with dignity, to be able to pay their bills and spent time with their grandchildren. i hope we can meet this challenge. thank you again for letting me share my story. >> well, thank you, ms. miller, for putting it in concrete human terms. a lot of times -- i'm not disparaging our experts who are here -- they tend to incredibly important work in informing us as to what is happening. too often we do not get down to the real people and what is happening out there. we keep talking about tax breaks for to order tickets thousand dollars and above -- for

$250,000 and above, as if that is the middle class of america. you are the middle class of america but most americans are making what you make. they are being squeezed like they have never been squeezed before. on top of that, they are losing their retirements. is it any surprise that the vast middle class of america is pretty upset at what we're doing? does not come as no surprise to me. thank you very much for being here and telling us your story. i have a couple of questions for you, too. i wanted to ask mr. vanderhei, in the old days, many people got their defined benefit through their employers but they did not have to sign up or choose which plan. it is just automat -- it was just automatic. now retirements are much more complicated.

workers with 401k's need to do research to figure out how much to set aside for retirement, their own choice, their own decision. less than half of the workers actually do the calculations and only 1/3 are getting professional advice. he noted in your written testimony that when workers understand how much they need for a secure retirement, they generally increase their savings. in that regard, there have been proposals, put forward by senator bingaman, to require 401k account balances to show a cordesman's projected -- to show a participant's projected income stream. do you think that information would, number one, encourage retirement savings, and what if that weren't paired with an estimate of how much a person would need in -- if that were paired with an estimate of how much a person would need for

retirement? >> senator harkin, that is an excellent question, and i am afraid my answer will be more complicated than yes or no. this is something we have studied for many, many years. we have at the 2006 issue brief just trying to estimate what people actually do need to have a comfortable retirement. the problem i would see of trying to do something that is just a boilerplate regulation or legislation is that there are so many complications in trying to figure out what is an adequate retirement target. it depends on whether or not you have any sort of annuity, it depends on whether you have any sort of long-term care, it depends on a number of different things. just quickly, quickly emphasize one thing -- you can do all the simulation models you want and come out with here is the

average value. you have to keep in mind that when you shoot for a target based on averages, you are in essence telling people, one chance out of two, you are not going to have sufficient money, either because you live too long or you have catastrophic health- care costs, what have you. if someone were trying to purchase something like that, my professional opinion would be -- trying to approach something like that, my professional opinion would be that you cannot just have a number. you have to guide them to their particular comfort level and have to reflect their particular characteristics. i personally think it might be a bit misleading, more than a bit misleading, to just come out with any rule of thumb and try to apply it across the board. >> that is really hard for people, the average person, to sift through all those numbers

and say, "here is what i need." my wife i make good money. we are in the upper reaches -- ranges. if the counselor gives us all these things, i don't even understand it. what do you think is best for us? well, it's your is what i think. fine, we will do that -- well, here is what i think it fine, that is what we will do. people tended take whatever is presented to them -- people tend to take whatever is presented to them, suggested to them. how do you get it in a form so that they do understand that here is what your income stream will be, here is what you need. based on wherever you are now, assuming you are disabled now,

here is what you need, if you are not disabled or don't become disabled, to is what you need, and here is your income stream. people would have a good idea of that one thing. >> if one were to simplify the target to a place where one could do comparisons between the projected in which the value plans, plusibution social security and their savings and an account balance the situation, and combine all that information together, again, what could come up with a relatively easy comparison. my extreme caution would be, if you are going to develop a target based on nothing but average life expectancy, average investment experience, average health-care costs and retirement, you are in essence dooming them to a 50% chance of running out of money in retirement. if you are going to proceed down that road, one needs to be

conservative in those assumptions. one needs to realize that life expectancy is going to be relevant only for 50% of the population. one needs to get a target that they will be able to focus on and have some degree of certainty that that would be sufficient for them. >> i am trying to get a better handle on this, and also, this shift is to the 401k -- shift to the 401k. i will pursue the later, because i want to ask -- my time is out. i have a lot of questions, but i will turn to senator centers and we will go back and forth. -- senator sanders and we will go back and forth.

>> thank you for your excellent testimony. let me run through some economic history of the last couple of years. a couple of years ago, as a result of the greed and illegal behavior on wall street, the country has been plunged into a horrendous recession. congress decided to bail out wall street to the tune of $700 billion. despite growing income inequality for america, raising taxes for the rich -- warren buffett, one of the richest men in the world, pays a lower tax rate than that of his secretary. we have some colleagues who want to give $700 billion in tax breaks for the top 2% and want to repeal the estate tax, which provides $1 trillion of tax breaks for the top 3/10.

now we have folks mike peterson foundation -- like the peterson foundation -- you say in your remarks that they are "a host of mostly well-off experts who have managed to convince much of the media and policymakers that the way to save social security benefits is to cut them doctors do you want to comment on a billionaire who made money on wall street suggesting using some of the money to persuade people that we save social security is to cut benefits -- that the way to save social security is to cut benefits? >> there is so much to say about that. >> and so little time. >> the secretary might be paying 35% on our cellar, whereas someone like pete peterson -- on her salary,

whereas someone like pete peterson, hundreds of billions of dollars and capital investments, is paying 15% on his capital gains and dividends. when confronted with the possibility of helping out the deficit by supporting the carried interest -- ending a carried interest exemption, which taxes private equity managers at a capital gains rate instead of the ordinary income rate, at chose to oppose the repeal of that exemption. his concern about the federal deficit is a very narrow one, and it seems to be focused on people who have a very little on what date can contribute to closing the deficit -- what they can contribute to closing the deficit. social security does not contribute to the deficit. the law prohibits social

security from borrowing. if we were to do nothing and the trust fund were depleted, in 2037 or 2039, it would not even then contribute to the deficit. >> why are people on wall street so focused on closing social security? >> they happened since the inception, and people would have to save through 401k-like instruments which give them a fee. it is a business towards for them, and they would like to see their business expanded. >> thank you very much. ms. miller, thank you very much for being here today. as senator harkin indicated, your experience is the experience of many, many people, who don't have their expenses will be reflected here on capitol hill. -- don't have their experiences

really reflected here on capitol hill. many guys sit behind a desk and make whole lot of money, and they think is a great idea that you work until the age of 70 and people involved in construction, people on their feet every day, doing physically demanding work, should work until the age of 70. what do you think? >> i will work until i am 70 because i am going to have to, if my body does not give out. but that is a hope. i am lifting a 100-pound person in and out of bathtubs. they can work until they are somebody because they are -- until they are 70 because they are behind a desk. if i were behind a desk, i would have no problem working until i work 80 -- >> you would be one of the

younger members. [laughter] >> my grandson would have somebody to be really proud of. when i turned 80 -- my grandmother was 80 and when i turn 80, i want to be up as a sound mind and body as she is. >> someone at 60 years old doing the type of work -- someone 68 years old doing your type of work -- many employers would prefer somebody who is 25 years of age, maybe with more strength? what about somebody set -- what if they say, we cannot hire you any more? are there a lot of good job opportunities for someone like you? >> i was a bookkeeper, i was

making good money. i was making over double what i am making now. i went to find a job, and i was semiskilled, i can do bookkeeping and all that. i could not find jobs. they wanted young kids. i was in my 40's are ready. >> and for physical, demanding jobs, younger people are stronger. and for other types of work, a young people are going to work for lower wages than older workers are. i am not sure what will people are living in when they say it that when you are 68, 69, you can go out and get a job and you don't need social security. it is quite incomprehensible. thank you very much. >> just to follow up on that, i was reading mr. eisenbrey's testimony, and on page six, you said that about the peterson foundation and other mostly

well-off experts at banished to comp -- have managed to convince the media and policymakers that the way to save social security is to cut it." the average social security recipient is not living in a gated community. i like alan simpson, he is a fine man, but i know a lot of retired senators, people who have left, or been defeated, voluntarily retire, and that is who they associate with, people who live in a gated communities. they may not live in a gated communities, but they are robert income. they're not this is sitting with ms. miller and the 40 -- they are upper income. they are not associating with ms. miller and the people who make $40,000 a year. they have the condo in miami and someplace else up north for the

summer, a gated community. that is who alan simpson is thinking about. but that is not the bulk of americans out there. that is the thin veneer at the top. the average benefit, as you pointed out, is $14,000 for social security. i doubt anybody on that is going to be living in a gated community. we have to get back to who are we talking about. mr. eisenbrey, you said also that we are weakening this retirement system, taking into account the increase in the normal retirement age from 65, to 67, which we're doing right now, based on the 1983 bill, as well as medicare deductions and income tax credit benefits. the net replacement rate for the average earner retiring at 65 is

already scheduled to drop from a 39% to 28% in two decades. the replacement rate at 65 to 39, and that rate will drop to 28. what will it dropped to -- drop to if you raise it to 70? to either one of you know that? >> it is another 13% -- 70 is 19.5% additional cut in benefits. i cannot give you -- i will give you my calculation of what that will do to the average replacement rate. you can see that it is a substantial cut. each year that you raise the retirement age is an additional 6.5% cut in benefits. >> i would say offhand, thinking out loud, 39 to 28, 11%.

if you went from 70 to 67, that is three more years rather than two years, and you need a replacement rate down in the teens someplace. am i very off on that? >> it would certainly be the height teens -- high teens. >> somewhere less than 20% 39% replacement rate is somewhere down in the teens -- somewhere less than 20%. 39% replacement rate to somewhere down in the teens. how does ms. miller, someone earning $35,000, $45,000 a year -- i mean, their standard of living is really going to fall. it is that right, mr. eisenbrey? >> that's right, and the figures

that mr. vanderhei if you on how close people are to property - , this would push millions of people into poverty. as benefits are cut, there is no question that more and more people will be pushed into dire circumstances. >> both you and dr. vanderhei talked about the decline of the benefit system, 401k. there is a book by jacob hacker and there is a whole section in there about this issue. what i cannot sue to get my hands on is when did this take place -- what i cannot seem to get my hands on is when did this take place, and why?

when did this take place and why? mr. vanderhei, and then mr. eisenbrey, give me some context here. >> you have to go all the way back to 1974, and keep in mind the in november 1981, proposed regulations were released that all-out 401k -- allowed 401k plans to develop the way they have. you have had many instances since 1974 that have made a defined benefit plans these less and less attractive to employers, due to certain constraints on funding flexibility. one of the things that happen in the mid-1980's was, because of the deficit, there was a problem when they were trying to do with -- deal with pbgc

problems. they wanted to make sure that under-defined benefit plans would be increasing their minimum funding standards. the problem is, if minimum funding standards go up for that portion of the defined benefit population, that means more contributions, more tax deductions, more revenue losses. a decision was made, 1986 or 1987, that to counter the revenue loss for increasing minimum funding standards for under-blended plants -- under- funded plans, there would be a holiday on contributions for any plan that had more than 50% more assets than they needed to cover liabilities. i do believe that the thought was that you give plans a holiday of one, two, three, five, seven years, and when the funding ratio came back down to

150%, eventually employers would start making their deductible contributions to these over- funded defined benefit plans. unfortunately, if you talk to many, many pension consultants, when that day finally came where the pension holiday window had evaporated, surprised employers have found other things to do with money they were making as far as contributions to the defined benefit plans d. they had to decide whether or not it wanted to continue to prefund benefit plans to that extent. i worked at some of the initial modeling for the pbgc, and we all knew that sooner or later he would get the perfect storm we ran into, where discount rates go down at extremely low and you saw what happened in the stock market, saw what happened with respect to bankruptcies. basically, when all these things

happen it together -- happened together, you now have a number of people who used to think sponsoring defined benefit plans these make sense, in a financial situation with the volatility at the absolute minimum contribution you have to make every year can jump around severely. there was a lot of attempts to deal with this in 2006. i think some of these are still being worked out. but to be perfectly honest with you, i think the volatility not only in cash contributions by the way these things are accounted for has scared away a large number of employers. if they did not just out right terminate the plan, the thing that they have been doing, i am sure you are aware, is increasing accruals certainly for new employees and maybe in some cases for existing

employees. >> pretty good run down. do you have anything to add to that? >> i think that is all true. there are many other causes. the decline of unionization. unions are much more likely to have a defined benefit pension plan. there was a huge wave of terminations during the 1980's, the merger and acquisition craze, when employers leveraged buyout, corporate raiders could seize another company's pension plan and take it over in a hostile takeover and raid the plan. that went on for a long time before congress intervened to stop it. bankruptcy law allows employers to terminate their pension plans, even when they have a collective bargaining agreement.

that is a contribution. you know, the terrible industrial decline, where manufacturing companies were most likely to have pension plans. the steel industry lost its plans. right now, the auto industry, as part of the bailout, it agreed to put in place for new employees defined contribution plans th. the regulation in the late 1970's of the transportation industry was a huge contributor -- deregulation in the late 1970's of the transportation industry was a huge contributor. and then finally, one health

benefit promises were forced onto -- when health benefit promises were forced on to balance sheets, when those rules change and companies had to report these huge retiree benefit obligations, that was one of the things that employers realize that they had to do with their money, and it made them on a take money out of their pension plans the and put it into retiree obligations. there are a host of causes for this. >> i will think more about that. senator sanders. >> mr. chairman, we're not going to go into great length today on this, but i hope at some point we can discuss the growing income inequality in america, and what that means not only from a moral, but an economic sense as well. mr. eisenbrey you write in your

statement that 55% of all income gains in the last 30 years have gone to the top 1%, while the bottom 90% only received 16% -- i.e. the people on top become much wealthier and a middle- class collapses. you could talk about that from a moral point of view, economic point of view, but let's talk about it a little bit from a social security point of view how has the growing income inequality in our country affected solvency of social saturday? >> -- lee, i -- impacted the solvency of social security? >> simply, as more income shifts to that group of people, social

security is getting a smaller and smaller share. going forward, the trustees suggest -- the social security actuary says that if we returned to where we were in 1983 and taxed 90% of income -- right now we are at about 84% of income as being taxed -- if we return to going forward, we would close -- returned going forward, we would close about 1/3 of the gap for social security's funding. this is an enormous problem. going forward, we have lost in the past 20 years or so a lot of money that should have been raised on the that tremendous engine of growth of the very wealthy people.

-- tremendous income growth of the very wealthy people. >> you say that most americans don't realize that someone with a salary of $300,000 a year pays no more in social security taxes than someone making roughly $7,000. what is the implication of that in making sure social security is solvent? what do you suggest we do about that? >> my institute, the economic policy institute, recommends we take the cap off entirely for employers so that high-income people -- the way we do now for medicare. an employer pays the tax on the entire income, the entire salary being paid too high-income people. -- to high-income people.

we raise the cap perhaps to restore it to the level it was in 1983, were 90% of the income would be captured. that by itself would close more than 3/4 of the remaining gap in social security funding for the next 75 years. >> in other words, with fairly modest changes, social security would be so bad for the next 70 or 75 years. -- would be solvent for the next 70 or 75 years. >> you said that if we return to 1983 in texas, he would close about 1/3 of the doubt --. in -- in taxes, you would close about 1/3 of the gap. now i hear you say 75% of the gap. >> in 1983, at that point,

employers were not required to pay a tax on the entire salary that they paid for employees. now it is capped at $106,800. i am suggesting that employers pay on the entire salary. >> but the employee does not match that, the employee -- sure to 142,000, i'm not what the calculation would be now, but it would be a higher figure than it is. >> the social security is always employer-employee -- >> the contribution would be the same for employer and employee, but employers should pay more. >> mr. chairman, if i could get

back to mr. eisenbrey, in your testimony is that 40% of american workers last year were employed with the physically demanding jobs and jobs with the difficult conditions. how hard would it be for these workers to work until they were 70 years of age? isn't it a little bit absurd to suggest -- a, if they lose their job, would anybody hire them, and what happens to their health if they work to that age? >> large numbers of people, construction workers and hire workers -- iron workers, it is hard to think of them working at that long. but there are other jobs like

cashier, on your feet all day long. people are not retiring at the full retirement age. they tend to retire earlier already because of health concerns. if we raise the retirement age even farther, it does not mean that they will be able to work any longer. it just means that income will be reduced by the early retirement penalty that much more. >> mr. vanderhei, there was one issue brought up here and would like to delve into a little bit more. -- i would like to delve into a little bit more. we know that collective bargaining is one of the most effective means for workers to negotiate better pay and benefits. do you have any data that would tell us what percentage of unionized workers have access to employer-provided retirement plans, contribution and benefit

plans, and how does that compare to workers who do not have help from the union? >> i do not have that with me. i can get back to you with that. >> you have access to that information? >> there are collective bargaining cuts in a very old form that i might be able to put back together -- collective bargaining codes in a very old form that i might be put back together in a way that is useful to you. >> again, mr. eisenbrey, we talk about savings, but as ms. miller says, at $12 an hour is pretty

hard to save. family, kids, housing, fuel, food, everything else. what is it -- we talk about saving more and people should save more. what is the effect on our economy as a whole of our low savings rate? what is the effect on the economy, and how would you help people in the $35,000, $40,000, to save more? what is the effect on the economy of the low savings rate, and if we think savings is a good thing, how do we promote more savings among a group of earners? -- that group of runneearners? >> a high rate of savings is generally a good thing. it is put into investment and

high use by industry. this is a curious time, because a lot oflly dowon't need savings and this year and next three what we're lacking right now is consumption. it is a good thing, the build of pension funds -- the buildup of pension funds led to tremendous investment in the economy. of course, it is not always invested in the united states, but that is a whole other problem. to help people save, i think somebody mentioned -- senator sanders, i think, mentioned him in nature earlier. it is hard to get people to save. it is hard to get people to think 40 years into the future and plan for their retirement -- >> if i may, it is especially

hard to convince people to save if they can barely pay their bills today. "oh, by the way, you also have to save 40 years down the line at." is easy to talk about savings when you have money to save. >> incentives are being given to people who need the incentives the least. somebody who makes $25,000 or $30,000 the year gets much less, even if they are paying and taxe -- paying income taxes and making it $1,000 contribution to a retirement plans, the government is providing them less than 1/3 of what it provides the same $1,000 contribution of somebody who is making $200,000 a year and paying a 35% tax rate. this is crazy. i would turn these completely upside down.

i am actually in favor of a mandatory retirement system would subsidies from the federal government. in the retirement accounts -- i think it is an excellent way to solve this problem going forward. short of that, others have suggested changing the tax deductibility of the 401k's, turning it into a tax credit, a refundable tax credit, so that the government is helping the people who need help the most to save, and not just helping all people -- not just helping help the people moved their savings into a tax savings account. >> i want to get back to the social security retirement age, because one of the arguments people use is that american people are living longer, what is the problem?

it has not gotten the kind of attention that it deserves -- let me quote from a "washington post" article from september 2008. "for the first time since the spanish influence of 1880 -- spanish flu of 1818, life expectancy is calling for women. it is shorter than it was in the early 1980's." earmarks -- your remark that over the past quarter-century, life expectancy at age 65 has increased by one year for the wort-income men -- for lower- income men, compared to five

years for upper-income men. >> it certainly is not in longevity. >> what you are talking about with people who are already working really hard, who are not seeing any significant increase in life expectancy, if they are women, they may be seeing a decrease -- guess what, you will have to work until 70 to get social security. what does that mean? >> this is one of the most compelling, to most people, reasons to raise the retirement age, that everyone is living longer and therefore they will be in retirement longer and will get a bigger benefit. but this is not an across-the-

board phenomenon. in some counties, the evidence is -- there is a report that i can supply to you, a researcher who was found that lower-income women, especially in the low- income backed out, are living less long. their longevity is decreasing. they're not benefiting from the overall situation of americans who -- most of us are living longer -- >> if you raise the retirement age, many of these women would never get a nickel from social security. they would be dead. >> their benefit would be produced that much more, and they would be punished -- >> but this is an important point we don't talk about.

we always lump everybody together. for many low-income women, their life expectancy is actually declining, and for working class and lower-income men, the gains are minimal. the ones with good health care, they are doing just fine. interesting. >> we talk about life expectancy, but life expectancy starts at birth. life expectancy in the united states has increased substantially since 1900. we have immunization, vaccination, babies are not die at birth any longer. life expectancy has increased because a public health. what have we done with public health in america? if you, in 1900, reached the age of 40, you have lived just about as long as if you've reached the age of 40 today. a little bit longer, not very

much. a lot of people say that when we enacted social security and put the retirement age at 65, life expectancy was only, like, 68, but today it is 70-something, so we should raise that up so that it is comparable to what was in the 1930's. that is missing the point. the life expectancy may have been that. but he if you are a working person and have made it to age -- but if you are a working person and have made it to age 30 or so and that, you could have expected to live as long as you would today. it is that people cannot live as long because of low life expectancy because of job it -- it is just that people did not live as long because of low life expectancy because of childhood. >> their working life as been extended, saeidheextended, saidk

life to retirement life has not increase at the same rate as longevity -- has not increased at the same rate as longevity after 65. >> if you raise the retirement age, what you are doing is going backward from where we started in the 1930's. you are actually going backwards, in terms of how many retirement years would be covered by social security. i can prove it with data, too, but i just don't have the benefit of me. front of me. it in ms. miller, there is a lot of talk about raising the estate tax exemption for states up to -- for estates of $5 billion per person, $10 million per couple -- $5 million per person, $10

million per couple. how would that impact you? >> i am still taking in whether i am going to die early, because i am low income. i'm sorry. layman's terms, please? >> in other words, you don't have $5 million in the bank that you were going giving your kids? -- that you can rely on your kids on? >> my children make the same amount i do. i get very confused when you guys talk about all these numbers and taxes. i admittedly field fence at the

moment, because i will never hit -- admittedly feel dense at the moment, because i will never have money to let my children. -- lend my children. i may be just a burden on my children. >> ms. miller just raised a very interesting point that we have not really discussed. we talk about folks raising the retirement age, and i am a bit of a johnny one-note today, but that is the issue that is on my mind. it would seem to me that if you raise the retirement age, people were not getting social security, they might put the burden as ms. miller said on their kids. wouldn't we have more debt if we raise the retirement age? >> well, i cannot give you an

exact number on that, but basically, that is something that we try to get at in the testimony. we try to look at what happened, in essence, if you eliminated social security benefits. we could very easily go back for you and, instead of doing the current status quo versus nothing, do these kinds of comparisons for you and show you exactly the percentage of population that would be at risk, and/or having -- not having any other financial resources, if that is how you wanted to find a burden. -- wanted to define a burden. >> i would like to see those statistics, but the middle class might have even more overburden taking care of parents -- more of a bird and taking care of parents who are not getting social security when they need

it. what common sense suggest that? >> absolutely. >> this has been very enlightening. we are going to have a whole host of hearings, because the retirement system in america is putting a lot of people at risk. there is a crisis in our retirement system, and people have to know this, and we have to take some action to shore it up. mr. vanderhei, you have some information you are going to get to us on collective bargaining, and mr. eisenbrey, you are going to give me some information on if you raise the retirement age to 70, what the replacement rate -- mr. vanderhei, if you have that data, too -- will be the replacement rate? ms. miller, you are the face of working america, middle america

, and if nothing else, it seems to me that you and many millions of americans out there who are $30,000 -- who are making $30,000, $60,000, we have to shore up the retirement system for them. the most secure what we have is social security, because that is backed by the full faith and credit of the united states government. when young people ask me if social security is going to be there when they retire, i say, "let me ask you this -- when you are my age, will the united states of america exist?" they believe that. if the united states of america it exists, social security will exist, because it is backed by the full faith and credit of the united states government. >> i think we have heard this

morning, and most americans know, that there has been a war going on for many years against the middle class of this country. i see a tax on social security as part of that -- attacks on social security as part of that, with wall street and others extremely unhappy that we have a federal program that has worked enormously successfully for the last 35 years. >> the committee will stand adjourned. thank you all very much.

>> white house spokesman robert gibbs will be briefing reporters today. that is at 12:30 eastern. we will have that live when it gets under way. president obama travels to maryland today, campaigning for gov. martin o'malley, who is running for reelection. you can watch that at 3:15 eastern, also on c-span. later, the g-20 summit and the role that france will play. from the carnegie endowment for international peace, that will start at 4:45. in the race for senate in nevada, nevada voters have a third option. a cnn-time poll says that one in

10 voters are planning to vote "none of the above." you can see more of that story on cnn's website. and you can follow all the races during this political season on our website, c- span.org/politics. >> 17% of those who cross our border have committed crimes previously in this country. >> we need to secure our border and we need federal immigration reform, and that needs to be led by our next united states senator. >> now until election day, we are covering more than 100 debates around the country, and if you miss one, you can watch it on line at the c-span video library. it is washington your way. a look now at the ninth anniversary of the war in afghanistan from today's "washington journal."

and will try to get him on at a future date. and now joining us from college station, texas is the former ambassador to pakistan and iraq, former state department official. he served in italy eastern affairs during the bush administration, and is now current dean of the school of government at texas a&m. i want to begin with "the wall street journal" -- pakistan urges on the taliban, the front page story. could we get your response to that? guest: you know, i have seen

those nd of allegations and assertions during the years that i was in pakistan from 2004 until 2007. the picture is clouded. the security forces have lost hundreds, even thousands o soldiers in the fight against terror. many of those against taliban and affiliated groups. at the same time, there are clear indications that some elements of the pakistani establishment are hedging their bets. i take this latest store with a measure of caution and pdence. i do not see it as the reflection of a strategic shift in the pakistani policy. what we may have is a deliberately planted story on the part of the pakistanis reflecting their deep unhappiness over the nato air

strikes in the pakistani territory, that killed several pakistani soldiers. we all need to calm down on both sides, reassess, and reflect on the importance of a strategic partnership. and get on with the fight. host: do you agree with peace talks? do you think it is an effective strategy, after they were kicked out? guest: i believe is good to talk to just about everybody. that is the strategy that we followed in iraq as we've worked to deconstructs that particular insurgency. i think it is important in afghanistan as well. but timing and sequence is important. the best prospect for headway th the taliban or talibans, because it is not a monolithic

organization, is after the surge has had an effect. we are still in the early stages. the taliban must feel they are no longer winning before these kinds of talks are truly effective. i'm not sure we are there yet. host: bob woodward who will be a guest tomorrow on this program, this was his take -- he is quoting the director of the dni. "the best w out of afghanistan would be for president obama to broker some kind of peace between india and pakistan, the director of national intelligence had said in november 2008." guest: that is a nice vision, but the indo-pak problem has

been out there since the creation of two states, 62 years ago. i don't think you will see resolution of the tensions anytime soon. we must be realistic for pakistan. india is the ultimate strategic threat. not afghanistan. we have to take that into account and manage the tensions. it is not realistic to think we could broker a comprehensive solution that has included the world for the past six decades. host: do you support the strategy of general david petraeus, and the use of drones? guest: i do. it is the extension of an existing strategy. there is a lot of continuity between the bush and obama administration is on the issues of these countries. this is one of them.

the drums were used during my time in pakistan. -- the drone used, and with some excellent effects. that program has been ramped up. it is only part of our strategy and must be carefully modulated and coordinated. it is a significant tool. host: how would you assess the current pakistan-u.s. civilian government? is a strong enough to withstand pressure from military or intelligence? guest: governance has been a johns almost from the creation of the state, particularly between civilians and military. i was there when miss sharp was also the president. those tensions were submitted -- when mushareff was president.

the government faces challenges. there have been the terrific floods.. their ability to govern effectively is very much in question. i have seen fairly encouraging indications that tensions between the civilian government and the uniformed military and intelligence services have been fairly well managed so far. but the tension is always there. host: today is the beginning of the 10th year of the war in afghanistan. where do we stand? are we successful? guest: i thinke're making progress. i have been encouraged by the reports i have seen of the surge beginning to gain traction. i have seen comments but admiral the spoke here at the univerty just last week. as well as by general david

petraeus. we are beginning to gain traction. it is a long war. this is the beginning of the 10th year. it will go on for a good bit longer. we in america must adjust to that. general david petraeus and i talked about the difference between the washington club and the baghdad clock when testifying before congress two years ago. it is even different when you look at the washington clock and that of kabul, much less the trouble areas where there are no clocks. i have often felt that as rich as we are as a nation, and as strong as we are, we lacked certain things. one of them is strategic patience. the ability to simply settle in and fight a long war when we

need to. that absence of patience is somethinthat our allies have come to fear and adversaries to count on. as we movinto the 10th year, that is what we will need as much as anything else. >> when thwar began youere at the state department, assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs. did you he the patience? are you surprised? are you surprised it has lasted this long? guest: actually, nine years ago today i was in geneva. i was talking with the iranian diplomats as to how we might approach for the overthrow of the taliban, and more significantly on what might come next. a few months later at the beginning of january 2002, i was

in kabul to reopen our embassy. i was there at the beginning. i remember one important event in those early phases. something called operation anaconda, in march to a dozen to -- a concentrated u.s. action -- in 2002 --the fight against remnants. it turned out to be a much harder fight than expected. we had to bring in northern liance armor to eventually prevail. we saw for the first time afghans moving toward the fight, trying to get through our lines to join with militants inside. that told me that this is likely going to be a protracted affair.

could i have predicted we would be here nine years later? certainly not. but again, fights and not part of the worldend to follow their own progressn. our adversaries sometimes do not even really organize for the fight until some point long after we believe we have already won it. host: theush school of government at texas a&m university. dean ryan crocker. here are the phone numbers for the allianlines. caller: hi. ryan, i think you are one of the finest ambassadors the u.s. has ever produced. was there even anything in afghanistan when you got there? you have a lot of questions i want ttalk about.

but this transportation question, it looks like russia might be sending all of our oil and fuel through russia, and pakistan might be losing these contracts because they cannot secure their lines. what is the future of the relationship? what can we do [unintelligible] to purge of certain officers. guest: it has been a long war and we have had an uncertain relationship with pakistan. what we need to establi on all levels is that we are reliable partner, and it for the long haul. when that happens, some of the hedging we have seen in

intelligence will dissipate. but there is no quick or easy fix. it takes patience. it takes commitment. and a willingness to commit for the long haul. host: on the republican line, las vegas. caller: thank you. i know that the war is very unpopular with most all americans, and is growing even more so all the time. if americans could understand that we do have a rational reason to be at war, and the reason is religious. it any religion that has as its basis the desire to rule the world, or anyone who does not believe, should be killed.

that religion should not be allowed to exist. it is a threat not only to the u.s., but to the world. even in this country it seems like the islamics and muslims -- they say they don't believe that, all that -- but they need to either be a muslim or not. any religion. even those in the stick, the jew that feels there is -- a zionistic, the jew that feels ere's is the only true belief at the expense of others. taking someone's life -- that is the important part. host: the role of religion in this fight? guest: our enemies, especiay al qaeda, would love to have us turn this into a religious war. christianity versus islam would

really make their day, and make their strategy. but that is not what it is. we are fighting against a political enemy who has misuse it is on. look at who our allies are? they are all muslims. in the rocks, the government, security forces, the afghan government and its security forces -- in iraq --these are all muslims who are fighting and dying for their country against internal, or regionally-backed enemies. it is extremely important we see this conflict and its own terms as a political fight in which religion has been abused and misused, but not make the mistake of doing what al qaeda

isrying to -- and make this a war of religions or civilizations. host: baltimore. caller: 4 the previous caller -- i am so sick of hearing these people who are so ignorant. they don't even know about islam. these people to talk about this religion says everyone not their religion should be killed -- that is a falsehood. i wish that people would lead to a muslim at a gas station or what have you. what ever your ignorance will allow you to think. need someone actually in the religion. have a diatribe after that. what point is that we are killing innocent people. yesterday i saw on cnn a small

blurb that said nine were killed in canada are yesterday. -- in kandahar. people cannot say what they feel like -- they are mad because they hateur way of life. well, they're not here to take over america. it is ludicrous. host: bobby, do you think that the u.s. should pull out completely from afghanistan? caller: define what victory is. i feel le it is americans putting ouralues somewhere is not wanted or respected. we have mutual appreciation for liberty, justice, and eqlity. of course. guest: i understand his frustration, and on the part of americans generally as we move into the 10th year here. but we do have to keep focus on

why we're there. in afghanistan you can see that clearly. this is about america's national security. we were heavily engaged in afghanistan and pakistan not that long ago ithe 1980's as we worked to resist the soviet occupation, the whole anti- soviet jihad. it was basically staged from northwestern pakistan. and it worked. the soviets withdrew in 1989. then why did we do? we also withdrew. we did not have the conventional forces engaged, but we put an end to programs, imposed sanctions on pakistan, both economic and security assistance terminated. we said goodbye, and good luck, even though we knew that a vicious afghan civil war was going to ensue -- which it did.

the taliban emerged dominant. they invited al qaeda to relocate from east africa in the 9/11990's, and the road to and rolled in front of us. we are fighting the same adversaries in the same place. the taliban wants to regain its hold over afghanistan. they still have an alliance with al qaeda. if we decide that we are tired and done, it does not take a tremendous amount of imagination to see what will come next. the taliban will take back the country. al qaeda will have operational space again. in my view, america's national security will be in jeopardy. so, the costs are great in blood and treasure. it is a long war. but you fight wars for a reason. i think the reasons are very compelling.

this is about american national security. host: do you know ambassador patterson, the current ambassador to pakistan? and what you think about the apology yesterday? guest: i do know her. she is one of the finest foreign service officers we have ever produced. before she was our ambassador to the countryf colombia. she knows a about hard places. the nato raid, helicter raid across the border into pakistan was exactly that kind of thing that i resisted strenuously during my tenure there from 2004 until 2007. the death of pakistani soldiers made it that much worse. the entire image of nato

aircraft coming across the border to engage targets on the pakistani side gets at pakistan's deepest ssitivities and concerns. we spoke earlier about the pakistani-indian problem. if you are sitting inslamabad, and looking at allied forces coming across sure eastern border and killing your soldiers, it does not take much imagination to think what if the indians think that is a good idea for the western border? i understand the frustrations that and tell these type of actions, but as we have seen, these are hugely counterproductive to our effort to build a strategic

relationship with pakistan. i believe that ambassador patterson and general david petraeus did the exact right thing. host: this headline says frustration with pakistan is going in the u.s. partly because "we are living in this post- shahzad era." -- from this article, not a headline. guest: that is right. the times square incident could have been hugely damaging. not only in its own terms, but traced back to pakistan could have had very dire consequences. we made that clear to the pakistanis. but at the same time we need to think smart. not let our emotions and

frustrations drive the policy. that means a very serious set of discussions with the pakistanis. there are things they will have to do, but there are also things we will have to do to sustain our relationship of long-term confidence. we need to take a deep breath, go sit under a tree, and think about our long-term interests, and not carry out short-term actions that can work against the interests. host: tampa, thanks for holding. caller: yes, ambassador, when the war first began in pakistan, we had the largest coalition ever blt, even larger an the coalition against not to germany. -- nazi germany. we were able to knock out the strongest army the worldad known at that point with the

coalition. we would certainly have been able to do that in afghanistan, had we been allowed to stay and finish the job here. but george bush subverted troops into them and to iraq and change the entire focus of the conflict. -- changed the entire focus of the conflict thi. guest: i was there in those early phases. the military operation in early 2001 in afghanistan was called an economy of force operation. it was largely done with special forces, with para-litary elements, and some the marine contingents. but when i got there in januar 2002 we did not even have a

general ofcer in the country in combat command. interfirst division commander did not arrive until february 2002. we had a very, very small force on the ground. it was only a us and the british because that was all that it took to do the job. we have built a strong coalition, and it has been imported. this was a fight that developed a very slowly over time. a few years ago when i was in pakistan we probably had less than 20,000 troops on the ground. it is only as the fight exhilarated that we have put in those additional forces -- as the fight accelerated. this had a very small footprint at the beginning. host: the next call for ambassador ryan crocker is from

leavenworth, kan. caller: i was a nippit in baghdad in 2007 and we shared helicopter rides when i was going on mid-tour leave. host: what is a nippit? caller: national transition team police relief. it took a great fortitude to be in charge back in 2007. it was tough times. my question is both a quick statement -- our objective in the pakistan is to fight the taliban to estimates of that of these some are more willing to make a deal with the karzai government. do we have a corps of experts

with pakistan? people who speak urdu, who have lived there, who as the ruli class no the trouble areas? if you are ignorant about the country, you're doomed to fail. i do not see many old hands in there. guest: he makes a great point. to fight effectively need a country of people out there who understand the environment. the truth is, we don't have enough people in the u.s. government who speak these languages and have ain-depth familiarity. that is where your foreign service comes in. it is what we do and why we recall that. all of us are professionally fluent and at least one

languageand they're working very hard to train people o speak dari, pushtu, urdu --the principal languages of pakistan and afghanistan. but it takes time and resources. i hope very much that congres continues to provide the resources to build up a foreign service that can provide exactly these kinds of perspectives and influence that paul notes. host: he served as embassador to iraq and pakistan, has worked for t provisional authority in iraq. he was ambassador to syria, kuwait, lebanon -- among many other middle eastern countries, andas assigned to the embassy of beirut during its bombing. what is the toughest assignment that you ever had? guest: as you go through the

litany, there were a number of tough ones. but without question, my last assignment in iraq, coming in with general david petraeus, trying to make something good happen -- that was the greatest challenge. host: are you satisfied with the result in iraq? guest: is along war, whether it iraq.afghanistafghanisn or there is progress between 2007 and 2008, but it is still the beginning of the story of the new country. we have seen the politics they have gone through to try to form a new government. but our continued assistance will be important. major contingencies like iraq or else just do not get to have become a stable place in a few

years. stablet get to a happy, place and a few years. we have a plan that defines how we can cooperate in all fields in the years ahead. the obama administration has committed to the implementation of the agreement. we have a framework going ahead. but if we think that we can just turn the page on iraq, that we are finished there, i thi things could spiral right back down again. host: did you speak to bob woodward about his book? guest: i did not, i am happy to say. host: and bob woodward will be our guest tomorrow. >> i really think that the people of afghanistan and pakistan over ere are not doing enough to help their own

country there, and they don't want to get in there -- there are some fighting in the army, but you think it is the majority of people who want to change the untry -- that they would do more themselves. stay't see how we can there for eternity and spend the money ju to prop them up. when as soon as we leave there will be taken back over. they need to fight themselves. guest: there are two different cases. in pakistan we do not have deployed forces. it is all the pakistanis. while clearly they can and should, and i think will do morethey are fighting and dying and the trouble areas for their country, and doing so in alliance with us. in afghanistan there has been some encouraging news of further increases in size and

cability of afghan security forces. t as paul from kansas who worked as a national police trainer in iraq can tell you, this does not happen overnight. trying to build the and you said of security forces at the same time they are engaged in hostilities is pretty darn difficult. again, i think afghan security forces like the iraqi ones can rise to the johns, but it is not realistic to think they can overnight, or without substantial support from us. host: the next call, about five minutes left with our guest. it is from seattle, and a republican. caller: president bush,

president obama, and all the media said that islam is a peaceful religion. as you know, there are palestinian, syrian, lebanese christians. christiansthe arab commit suicide? guest: i don't think that a person can say at a tenant of any of the great religions of the world is one of violenc certainly, adherents of all the great faiths have practiced violence. jews, christians, and muslims. the notion or tactic of a suicide bomber, i think, is inherently political. muslims starthi'a

this in lebanon, and they have backed away fr it. now is among the sunnis. arab christians have played an important role in the development of a rich society and culture in the region, and the they will continue to, but at a different phase in history, you might rember, the palestinian terrorist organizations had a disproportionate representation by palestinian christians. two of the most lethal palestinian terrorist organizations back in the day were headed by arab christians, yet no one at that time thought it was an expression of the essence of christian faith anymore than i think that we should believe the use of violence by some muslims is an

expression of islam. it is simply not true. host: is it important to capture laden?cked-- ben guest: he is only a simple, and has not been operationally effective going backo six years ago when i was in pakistan. we have not been able to get him because he is holed up in a compound somewhere in the afghan/pakistan border region. he does not move or communicate, does not even send emissaries. that is why he is so hard to find. it also means he is not the effective leader of al qaeda, and has not been for years. he does n play an operational role, but is an important symbol. he is important to us, to them. the hunt for him goes on. we have to get lucky ones. that day will come.

we have to get lucky once. i'm confident that we'll get the lead we need, he will make the mistake he should not have, and that we will kill or capture this important symbol for al americans. host: what was the significance of benazir btto's assassination? gut: was back in the states when it happened. i had been involved when i was stl ambassador to pakistan in early efforts to delop an understanding between her and mushareff to allow her to return. it did play out, but is a reminder that terror can make an important difference. her assassination was a major setback to pakistan in its efforts to build a stable civilian governments. yet they went ahead with their

elections. they did produce a government. the country did not descend into chaos. for all of its challenges, including the tremendous loss of benazir bhutto, i think that pakistan has shown a remarkable resilience inability to keep moving ahead. host: chicago area, a democrat. caller: i do not agree with the investor that the patience of american people has anything to do with it. we are members of western civilization, and as such our forebears' are people like socrates who was a spear- carrying member of the military unit. when he went forth he would expect to make his mark and then come home. western civilization is based on devastating attacks and returning home.

our military units are not even a military caste. it is a free man who are temporarily in the military. your notion about impatience is misplaced. we the american people know that we are members of western civilization and we want to get the job done and then come home. guest: it is an interesting point that he makes. the problem is, we are playing an away game. we're blessed in that all of our games are. we are planning on other people's territory. and that means we have to know what their ground rules are. yes, we would like a quick, decisive victory the leaves a fundamentally changed situation, but you cannot always get it. the trick is recognizing where you are fighting, who you are fighting against, and what it will take to prevail.

that is why i used the term "the long war." we do need patience. eric is correct in suggesting it is not part of our mecca. we want the decisive victory, and our troops home -- is not part of our makeup. you have toealize hard realities for what they are -- that is what we are up against in afghanistan. ho: what is your job down at texas a&m? guest: i am being of the bush school of government and public service. it is a tremendous opportunity after a career in public service. i got a role here in shaping the next generation of young americans who will go forward and serve the nation at the local, state, and federal levels. 70% of our graduates go into public service, by far the highest number of any school in

the nation of public service. having walked the walk in hard places for some years it is a tremendous privilege to be here. to try to impart some of my experiences to those of the next generation. host: and that is named after the senior president bush? guest: that is correct. yes, he doesome to the campus often. it is the great thing about being here. he and mrs. bush spent one week on campus last spring. they attended class is every day, and for young americans who are making a commitment to public service to be in a classroom with a man who has personified commitment to service since world war ii is a tremendous thing. host: only a minute left -- fort myers, florida. caller: think you. like the last caller, i differ

with you about your patients point -- thank you. most americans believe is a just cause and will stay the course, but when you have millions who do not believe that it is a just cause. it is not a question of patience, but whether you believe they are right or not. you are skirting the issue. i don't think we have evidence to show that americans will not fight a long war. guest: i try to be as clear as i can about why think it is important to fight the war in afghanistan. 9/11 came to us out of afghanistan from al qaeda, planned and controlled by the taliban. those of the same adversaries thatt we're fighting again adversarieshey have not become kinder or gentler he last decade. to the contrary. to me it is clear.

we are fighting a just cause in afghanistan. we are fighting for america's vital national security. to me that is inescapable. it is a long fight and the stakes are very high. i hope that we as americans will understand and master of the daily briefing had been scheduled for 12:30 and has been moved to 1:00. we'll have it for you when it gets under way. until then, your phone calls from today's "washington journal." twitter.com/c-spanwj.

here is a take on it from "usa today" this morning. court struggles with the supreme -- free-speech question.

that is "usa today." "the new york times" lead editorial.

margie phelps will be a guest on this program in 45 minutes as well as timothy nieman who filed and amicus brief on behalf of the vfw.

"the wall street journal" yesterday opined on this case and they agree with "the new york times" essentially. this is their conclusion in their editorial from yesterday. your turn. we want to hear your opinions. josh from gainesville, florida, independent line. caller: i noticed in that newspaper article they mentioned the skopie case in 1979 but i read the oral argument transcript from yesterday and they did even mentioned that case and ms. phelps did not mention that. i thought it was an incredibly

strong president and i'm wondering if maybe you or ms. phelps at some point would comment on whether it would -- why it was not mentioned by her or the justice. host: veronica. california. democrat. caller: good morning. this is what i find the biggest problem with the united states of america but we were founded on christian values. so, viewing the tea party as saying we want to take our country back in the constitution and what not, i think first and foremost being founded on christian values we should look at what the bible states and when we look at this minister, the bible also stays for us that there is going to be false profits and false ministers but we are to go and listen to what people are saying and what is coming out of their mouths. although they disagree with gays and whatever, the bible also states thou shalt not judge of this minister should be

teaching these people. one of the biggest sinces. host: lancaster, pennsylvania. what do you think was in my caller: i think you have to go with free-speech. what about the argument on the other side cop -- host: what about the argument on the other side raised by the snyder family that this is emotional distress, the case of a private funeral and related to the protests, in their view, that the phelps were enacted? caller: that is a tough one because i guess that is why we have a supreme court. my question is, we have people are arrested and we have free speech zones at the rnc and dnc conventions, g-20 meetings. they just lock these people up. and i don't understand it.

it is a complete hypocrisy on both counts. host: nebraska. bob, democrat. caller: good morning. these people, they are a very small group and how they possibly get any kind of coverage is just absolutely beyond me. i believe wholeheartedly in free-speech. they have the right to say what they want. i don't agree with it in any way, shape, or form. but in the same case, these people are disparaging those that have passed on. i am a veteran. and a lot of those are members of my unit that are sitting under -- i don't like these

people at all. host: that said. legally, do you think they have a right to do what they are doing. caller: yes, i do. legally i do think they have a right to do it. but i also -- well, i don't want to get into too far what i could think this happened. host: marshall tweets in -- joan -- from "usa today" lists the key cases. first, she list the new york times vs. sullivan. she also lists gertz v. robert

welch. this is what will -- one of the issues that came up yesterday, whether or not this was a private or public event, a private or public person. hustler magazine v. falwell in 1988. finally she lists milkovich v. lorrain journal. so, that could also come into play in this decision. , on washington, d.c., on the independent line. caller: first of all -- what i take exception with the previous

caller. the country was founded on questions on the value of allowing others to practice their religion as well. and because of that i think you have to realize that if you restricted speech other than where public safety that fire in the theater is involved, if you restrict this you throw out the baby in the bath water and by letting the people speak freely we find out just how ugly they really are. host: breeze on the republican line in louisville, ky. -- bruce. go ahead with your comment. it caller: my comment is that your freedom of speech is protected, yes, but this is more of a hate crime and not a freedom of speech issue for the court to rule on. i don't know anywhere where you could go and hold up a sign and says god hates you and that would be perfectly fine. if you are targeting a certain

group of people, the funerals you are targeting, and holding up signs where i just saw, that is a hate crime. and using the word hate in their signs. host: in fact, that is one of the issues of some of the justices raised, was the sign, they god hates you sign because it uses the word you. hmaryland. i agree but the caller mentioned that it should be a hate crime. -- i agree with but jamar. i and a former marine myself. the father showed all kinds of great restraint. basic christian humility, he did not strength of the people themselves. i don't think i would have had the same level of restraint. what is legal is not always expedient. i think a lot of these pastors

need to keep it in mind. people pick and choose what they are going to preach on or believe. host: are you saying that they do not have the legal right to do what they are doing at military funerals? caller: i do not know of the currently do but i think they should not. it is not right. host: indiana. john. independent line. caller: thank you, cable, for c- span and thank you c-span for being c-span. i have seen these people and evansville, it is seems the families right to peacefully assemble is being violated. host: this tweet -- caller comes from a longview, texas.

charlie on the republican line. go ahead with your comment. caller: these people are burning the flag and sang god hates you and god hates america, are not americans. i lived through this when vietnam was the 11. they done the same dam thing. whatey'd don't do it like merrill haggard's song says, get the hell out of our country. if they don't love it, go to where the sign says. that is all i have to say. host: tweet -- today is the ninth anniversary of the start of the afghanistan war. here is the lead story in "the wall street journal" this morning.

we will discuss this later but former ambassador to pakistan, former ambassador to iraq and former state department official for near east affairs, ryan crocker. the next call is from topeka, kansas. jan on our democrats' line.

jan? you know what? i punched up the wrong number and i apologize. hang on, jan. caller: yes, hi. i know this family very well and they are a continuing embarrassment to topeka. i wanted everyone to know that this is a very small group of people. it consists of one family -- fred phelps i think has 13 or 14 children and many, many grandchildren and now great- grandchildren. and that is about whole group. nothing more than that one group of people and they thrive on being more outrageous and doing more outrageous things than the next. topeka has been very tolerant because we don't know what else to do. but they are certainly not

representative of topeka. and i am just so embarrassed by every time they mention our city. host: you say you know them well. through their activities or do you see them out and about? caller: their children went to school with my children. and now their grandchildren are going to school with my grandchildren and they are just perfectly lovely children when you get them away from them. they actually live in a compound within the city limits of to be got -- topeka. their activities are just completely around the family. they don't allow the children to participate in any kind of extra curricular activities. host: they don't call school? they sent in to public schools? caller: public schools. for all accounts, they are very

good students and when they grow up and they are very good workers, very well educated, very polite. if the same laws that apply to today was applied back in the days when fred phelps's children were younger, were tiny, he would have been brought up on a child abuse charges. he beat the children severely. host: is that opinion or fact? caller: it is a fact. it is a well-known fact. in fact, selling candy and a store -- i mean, he would take them to a shopping center and put them out of a car and told them not to come home until they sold a certain amount of candy. host: has that been reported? caller: yes. in fact, he was sued by the

candy company because he refused to pay the bill. we all have lived through this. for years and years. i know people who are on the police department who have dealt with this. and we are just sick of it. we are tired of it. host: that said. do they have a right, in your view, to do what they do at military funerals? caller: absolutely not. they are provocative. they get in your face and they know just how far to go up to the line and not cross it because several of them are attorneys. host: thank you for your input this morning. here is a picture in "the washington post" of former representative karen mccarthy, she was a democrat in missouri. years in congress and on

troubled note. -- ended on troubled note. she was an early those of -- voice of dissent against the invasion of iraq but whose career crumbled and it's an ethics breach and a struggle with alcoholism died october 5 at an alzheimer's care center in kansas. in addition to all time disease, she had bipolar disorder that had gone undiagnosed for more than a decade, her family announced last year. she was crowned one of the lucky 13 democrats who won a house seat in 1994, the year of the gop landslide. beside her to thousand to vote against the war in iraq, are that is the record in the house was undistinguished, she pen -- spent much of recovery in the minority and admitted she had not sponsored a lot of bills. she was regarded as a centrist democrat who saw consensus on such major issues as the 1996 welfare reform law and efforts to