if you'd like to get involved in the conversation we're talking about should the federal government do more for the economy.

the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. here's the lead story in this morning's "wall street journal" under the headline, job losses increase pressure on the fed.

the article goes on to say this is how it's being reported on the front page of the financial times weekend

edition. our first call comes from fort lauderdale on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. i think we need to reduce

spending. this is what's killing our economy. the economy is in a free-fall right now. people are saying that we are recovering. i don't see it because we're still losing jobs even though it's been decreasing. host: what about those who would say that -- you mean consumer spending? or spending by the government? caller: i mean what i'm saying is that we still are in a recession because the recession is still on. not only that the recession is on, but after losing billions of dollars, i'm tired of democrats saying that we are recovering. i don't see it. host: so you're saying that we should reduce spending by the government. caller: by the government. that's what i'm saying. host: let's move on to california. licea on our line for

independents. caller: i've never talked before but i'm just shocked and horrified at what is going on. i just listened to boehner. i mean, he said plain as day that the stimulus was spent to send jobs overseas. i mean, if i listen to that sort of thing and that type of information, i would think all sorts of things. this not spending any money is what is scaring me to death. host: let me get your response to this item in the financial times weekend edition. it says tim geithner said the global reovery could be jurend mind by lack of progress on lifting domestic demand in countries running external surpluses and the foreign exchange intervention and -- caller: yes, that's a big huge

story and everything else. but this whole thing with the trade and -- oh, my goodness. what i would really like to talk about, though, is the government is not a business. the government doesn't run like a business. and we're sabotaging ourselves by refusing to spend any money and at the same time cutting back. we're doing like the reverse of what we need to do to get things going. host: wilson in little rock, arkansas. should the federal government do more for the economy? caller: yes, it could. they could start by makeing, stopping the jobs overseas. but the unemployment rate is all part of the republican strategy to take back the white house. you know, most of business people are republicans, so they're holding back on hiring

people. they're trying to ruin the economy. for obama administration. you know, the people chose to put obama in and they're like saying how dare us to put one of our own in the office. so they're punishing us by not hiring right now. and they're trying to ruin the economy for obama so they can put themselves back in office. that's the problem. host: bernie in new york on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: good morning. the plan is, according to the newspapers and the financial wizards for the federal -- the fed to buy treasury bonds, and

they don't have -- when they buy these bonds, all they're doing is they're creating money. it's not like they don't have hundreds of billions of dollars of cash in their pockets. when they buy these bonds, they create money. and the tendency when they do that is to create inflation. when they create inflation, they're taking the money that i have in the bank and making it less valuable. so in effect they're destroying through one measure or another is our economy, which is already being destroyed. we've had problems throughout the history of the country where we've had recessions and depressions, i'm not talking about 1929, but before 1929 we had depressions and somehow we made it, we got out of it without the help of the

government. leave us alone. host: the lead story in the "new york times" this morning, public jobs drop amid slowdown in public hiring. katherine writes, and quotes here, we need to wake up the to the fact that the end of the stimulus has really hit hard on local governments.

should the government do more for the economy sf memphis, tennessee. larry on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning. yes the government should do more for the economy and for the people. [inaudible] people are the government. but the people are the government. government should do the will of the people. what the government should do for the people is put money directly into the hands of people. the government should give every working family $20,000. if the government was to do this they could give working families $20,000. people would go to the store and pull everything off the shelves. that would get this economy going. but they don't want to help poor ordinary people.

they only want to help rich people. they don't give a damn about nobody but rich people. all they have to do is put money directly into the hands of poor people. $20,000 into every working family's hands. people go to all these stores and pull everything off this shelves. that will get this thing going. that's exactly what we need to do. host: joe on our line for independents. caller: good morning. my opinion is the government has already done too much. the real problem is our jobs are been sent overseas, our factories have been sent overseas, and the reason they did it is because of bipartisan government in passing nafta. this is the cause of our problems. host: you think the government has already done too much. what do you mean? caller: when the government passed nafta, they actually

destroyed the american base of our prosperity. this country was made a prosperous country by manufacturing, basically. and when they made it possible for gmc to build their new plants in china and mexico and everybody else to put their plants where they can get $1 an hour labor, this destroyed the base of our prosperity. and the government did that. host: in this article by steven bernard, it talked about how private employers added 64,000 workers last month, short of the 75,000 economists expected. what do you think about that? caller: well, i'm sure there's going to be some people writing, but of the 64,000 that they added, how many millions have been sent to -- not the workers but the jobs have been sent to china? millions of our jobs have been sent overseas. that's the problem. host: larry, if indiana, on our

line. good morning. caller: good morning. i think the government should do more to help our own people, like the starving kids in tennessee and virginia and all the places that are low income in the united states other than spend $4 billion over in afghanistan to rebuild their schools and things like that. we should worry more about the thing that is we have over here, the $20 million that they spent over in the islands and they went out and bought tvs and government cars for their people when they give them that money to rebuild their country. you know? and it seems like we're spinning our wheels in other countries when we should concentrate on our own country. host: in the "washington post," dow over 11,000 for the first time since may.

next up is sharon in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. the first report you read was of course the results of the jobs from the "wall street journal." you stopped just short of where it said but. and it did go on to say but the dow is up above 11,000. host: ok. we just read that in the "washington post." caller: i work at a bank. we get a weekly and a monthly

market wrapup. and despite the people who write this thing, they can't help but say how positive things are. i always got the impression that they don't b see things the way i do. but at this point, they can't help but say how much better and improved things are. if i were to go through and highlight on the paperwork we get, it would look like a christmas tree all lit up with positives muping upward. and the one thing they did mention in there, of course corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars. trillions of dollars that could be making jobs. and -- host: what do you do at the bank? caller: i'm the senior teller. i get a lot of interaction with our general customers. i live in an extremely rural area. but we actually are sitting on top of the shale areas where i am right now. host: is your bank putting out

a lot of loans into the public sector? caller: our bank never took any of the tarp money. we are a very high standards for taking loans so we never did have to do that. but we see a lot of traffic through and small loans is a lot of what i see in our office, do -- >> have you seen a fluctuation of those loans? are they coming in for less or for more? guest: it seems they're coming in for -- caller: it seems they're coming in for money to live on. that's kind of sad because they may be senior or sickly. i can't tell. i can't be a great judge where i live specifically because of the shale. it's completely different here. we are actually literally sitting on top of it. but that's off point here. i did want to say also that the government is me. we sent our congressman to

washington and he is me. he is a regular man with a wife and five kids, and he is a great guy. he is me. the people that say oh the government this, the government that, they don't know. but they do know because we sent them there. host: we're going to leave it there. ohio on our line for independents. caller: thank you. host: should the federal government be doing more to help the economy? caller: the only thing i think that the shof government should do to help the economy, more of a long-term thing is innovation. and basically bringing -- you could go short term by bringing back industrial jobs.

but the only way to do that is to have something to make. and as the last caller mentioned, the amount of money that is held up in corporations right now is tremendous because once a company -- everyone says there's a bull market, everything is going down -- i might have that reversed. so everything is going down so all the companies start tightening their purses and don't want to spend, they stop hiring, production goes down. people stop spending, and it trickles down to every other sector. and when that happens, everyone starts getting scared, they panic, they stop spending, stop hiring. host: what's the employment situation like there in dayton? caller: i've been out of full-time employment for two years. i've been working with my dad

on a small company. i go into a bar maybe once a week, maybe twice a week and make $25 for the night. that's been the most i've made in years. host: any prospects on the horizon? are you thinking about maybe leaving dayton to look for work? caller: i'm a convictd felon. so no matter where i go it's going to be tough. my roommate has his mafertses and is unemployed. host: in about 25 minutes we'll be talking with tim holman, the economic reporter with bloomberg and he will be here to talk to us about the latest figures. next up, new york, new york on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. i guess everybody knows about the car fit to $2.50 per ride. for people unemployed, the $5

round trip to look for a job, in the end they're not going to be hired. they go for an application, all they're going to get is we'll call you. that's $5. how many of those $5 do you think people are going to be able to spend when they're getting maybe 100, $200 a month for unemployment? the jobs are not going to be there to get because people can't afford to pay for the car fair. host: is there anything you think the fraling can do? caller: i think they can help but trying to stop the increase of the car fare by the end of the year. first of all, to have that right around the holidays when people are hit with so many other things is another unfair thing. the world is getting very bad. nobody has any money, nobody is spending any money. first of all, the health

situation, how many of these employers are going to hire anybody when they know eventually it's going to cost them a lot of money to keep people on the payroll because they can't pay the health care? they're not going to hire anybody. host: we'll leave it there. in the "new york times," faith in fed pushes dow past 11,000. greenville, south carolina on our line for democrats. go ahead.

caller: my thing is washington is involved but is not the only thing that's hurting this economy. it is your governor. you have to look at your governor. i live in south carolina and my governor did not accept the stimulus plan which in the result actually affected our state tremendously. we have so many people that are out of work, so many people were not even able to get their unemployment because of it. it put us in a really bad state. and i'm not going to point the finger at obama because he tried. darned if you do, darned if you don't. and if he is given the money and he gives more money, then you're going to hear, well, here's more money. and then there's more finger pointing at him. and that's not right. to me that's not right. you need to really look at your government, get involved, vote.

election is coming up in november. vote. make us different. but do not, do not look at obama to be the one that makes the decision. it is your governor. host: two stories having to do with foreclosures. the first from the los angeles times this morning. also regarding foreclosures in the detroit free press this morning, their headline, some michigan home owners get a break on foreclosure.

back to the phones. should the federal government do more to help the economy? great falls, virginia. caller: good morning. i changed my opinion. of course government always is better much smaller. but the other problem i see when you elected the president, that's his job. it's 24/7, to take care of the business. but in your country, from the first day he choose as a

government, as a president, they attacked him. he has to ask them, beg them please let me do my job. let me do the right thing. and they mess up the house home business. and if you remember, any time bush said the economy is good, home sale is good, but he knows what's going on. now he's still a republican have to foreclose and stuff like that that they did. they just lied. they're scared to lose the whole thing. host: is the current state of the economy going to have an effect on you when you go to vote in november? caller: yes. host: are you going to -- who is your representative? caller: mr. wolf. frank wolf. host: and you think he is doing a good job or are you going to vote to replace him? caller: yes.

he knows the job and he has done it for a long time, and we are very happy. host: in the "washington post," in politics in the nation, u.s. chamber puts million into g.o.p. adds. in the "new york times," what the president has to say on the topic of foreign money in u.s. house races, as he's out on the

campaign trail. you can read more about that in the "new york times." back to the phones. wisconsin on our line for democrats. you're on the washington journal. go ahead. caller: good morning. i believe that the government should tax the richer, because the government bailed out all these banks. give to the poor a certain

amount of money, like 50,000 so there is going to be more spending, and that will create more jobs. instead of having us struggling and trying to get revved up the middle class is going to be poor. they're going to spend the money which will create more jobs for everyone. i mean, wisconsin has voted the fourth largest unemployment and welfare. and that's terrible. host: next up, moim, florida on our line for republicans. go good morning. caller: good morning. i don't feel the government should do more. i think they should do less. the government is the problem, not the solution. like the chinese outlet store like wal-mart that has 80,000 different products and all the appliances and electronics being made. if these products were made here, it would create a shipping department, a

manufacturing, people that manufacture. it would rent commercial property. it would have accounting and administration. just one of these little products. if it's even a tooth pick, no matter what it is. host: the folks that are on the opposite side of your argument are going to say that in order to produce those products here in the united states, it's going to drive up the cost when we sell them in stores like wal-mart. caller: but we can't produce them here because of government regulation, overtax. we can't compete. the strong unions and everything like that. we can't compete in the world. it's just that's the problem. government is the problem. and all these new regulations like between the health care and the new regulations on banking and wall street and all that, that's 40,000 pages. and each sentence, each paragraph is more government hah rassment. hah rassing people's life in business and it's causing us to

stagnate. it's the problem. host: next up, california. john on our line for independents. should the federal government do more to help the economy? caller: good morning. the difficulty for the government is that we're going through what's called the kem shift that neither the democrats or the republicans, the politicians do not understand this. the public does not understand it. chem shift is the human employment model and it talks about that people or corporations, business go to the lowest cost of labor. and there's been a lot of discussion about how during the bush years there was no jobs created. well, that isn't true. there was a lot of jobs create. but it went to the lowest cost of labor, so that was two things. one was overseas. but what everybody missed and what is happening today even in

china is that workers are being replaced by robots and computers. robots and computers have become incredibly efficient in manufacturing and incredibly quick in doing things like customer service. when you call your water company or your electric company, you talk to a computer when you first call. for a million customer service jobs were replaced. and this is the most important thing. there was no corporate leader in america or anywhere in the world who was saying that i am thinking of replacing some of my computers and robots with human workers. host: we'll leave it there. in this op ed, under the

headline, it is time for obama to switch from hope to fear.

seattle, washington. mike on our line for republicans. should the federal government do more for the economy? caller: good morning. i just have one question for you. what does c-span stand for? caller: c-span stands for the cable satellite public affairs network. caller: thank you. i will just ask everybody out there why a person lives in a trailer park in mississippi with three kids making $20,000 a year should worry about the federal debt? or the government being a socialist, i don't understand it. nobody comes to come and nationalize this trailer park.

what they should carry about is their kids' care, education, and a lot of things they should worry about. that's my comment. host: detroit, michigan, on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. you know, i am an independent but i've watched this president and i think he's done a great job. i see him all the time. he's working hard and i know he's the best qualified man, and i know that the republicans can't do any better. as a matter of fact, it was a disaster when they were in the leadership. i just can't imagine how anybody could do any better. host: thanks for your call. in the "wall street journal" this morning, obama's security aid quits. tech no crat tom done lynne to succeed general james jones.

leaseberg, florida on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. host: what do you think the fed

should be doing to help the economy? caller: i think we should change the title, should federal government do more for the economy. and i think it should read should the taxpayers do more for the economy? buzz that's who is funding this buyout. i think the jobs need to return to the u.s. from these foreign countries. and the only way we're going to be able to do that is to cut the corporate tax on these businesses. you can't continue to tax them out of the country. we're chasing the people away. and the unions are not helping us. they just keep wanting more and more money, and i don't know if the public is aware but a school teacher will retire with $50,000 a year. so if they were both school teachers they end up with $100,000 for the rest of their life. host: what should be the retirement rate for school

teachers? caller: i can at the time you, i retired from the military, i retired from the military as a master sergeant and i don't get but $24,000 a year. and i put 24 years in and i served in about five different countries. now, i've been retired for 25 years and they cut my benefit and -- they cut my cost of lig for the last two years on my retirement and they're custing cost of living on social security. but these people on social security need to be the ones complaining. milk is high, gas is high. but they keep sticking it to the military retirees and social security people. i just think the union has destroyed this country. back in the ford motor company days when they were working for $1 a day, that was a different case. and also, and i like to just say obama should have took ibm

up on the suggestion to track this fraud and waste. but he turned that down. and it wasn't going to cost obama nothing. host: we'll leave it there. atlanta, georgia on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: should the federal government do more to help the economy? caller: i think the government has done about as much as it

can do and it's still doing things. for example, i was on a local police officer who will probably have no jobs if it were not for the federal government stimulus package. although they have been placed on furlough from time to time, they still have their jobs. there are school teachers that still have their jobs. for instance, here in atlanta, georgia, where some people were laid off people were being rehired because of the stimulus package. i don't think that's talked about enough by these people that have a problem with big government. big government employs a lot of people. if it were not for that -- host: were you able to benefit directly or indirectly from the stimulus package? caller: i have always been employed. so i think i always benefit.

i always been employed. and i think people, no one said anything when the bush administration was spending billions of dollars a year on a war we shouldn't have been fighting. host: in the orange county register this morning, budget crisis deferred. pennsylvania on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. i'm calling in reference to a lot of these people who are calling in saying he's done a wonderful job, he's working so hard. yeah, i guess he does work really hard. he took six vacations over the summertime. i mean, come on.

when most americans can't even afford one. setting a terrible example. second of all, guys, socialism is coming. he spent the first two years of his presidency not trying to get jobs for people. he spent it trying to push through his socialist health care and his socialist cap and tax. that's his interest. now it's election time, now it's time for jobs. stimulus was a failure. didn't save any jobs in my school district. i don't know what they're talking about. and also, 26 years old, now, let's think about this, now you're allowed to cover your kids until they're 26. when i was growing up, when you were 26 years old you should have been out of the house, had a job and buying houses, things of that nature. this thinking is backwards. host: we'll lever it there. in the financial times weekend edition, selling of u.s. dollar

accelerates. long island, new york on our line for independents. joe, you're on the washington journal. caller: thank you. i want everybody to know that's listening, you're proud to be an american, you want to salute the flag. the steel that is going up at ground zero, the steel that's going up in the new buildings comes from china, not made in the united states. virtually nothing is made in the united states. we won world war ii with our massive manufacturing base. and now, it's the global economy. wall street runs it.

two weeks ago, there was rumors that there was going to be a big spike on wall street because china is hiring. i don't care about china. i care about the united states. and i don't think any american ever elected a politician to represent the global economy. november is coming. make sure you vote for politicians that represent the american economy. host: we'll leave it there. in the wall veet journal this morning, turkey and china to shun the dollar.

ohio on our line for republicans. should the federal government do more to help the economy? caller: yeah. host: go ahead, mike. caller: i'm a republican and i was just curious about the debt, the national debt and the money that we're borrowing from china. the interest that we're paying china on the money that we're borrowing from these countries, how come that we ain't the government taking care of this money that we're borrowing from china and give it to the small business people? we've got to figure out a way to stop. in the last five years, we've

got to look at the interest that we pay china and these other countries and incorporate the interest into our work, for small businesses. host: we're going to leave it there. mike on our line for republicans out of ohio. we're going to take a short break, and in just a few minutes a discussion on the latest unemployment numbers.

host: tim holman writes for bloomberg news. the jobs in the public sector are down, but up in the private sector. what does this mean in the short term for the employment situation here in the united states? guest: well, right now it means that because there are jobs being added in the private sector but it's sort of a

slowing pace compared to the last few months. that's just a sign of how u.s. companies are very hesitent to hire in this environment. and the fewer people that they hire, the fewer people that we have out there making purchases. and consumer spending makes up about 50% of the economy. so you have fewer people making purchases and then companies don't have the demand so they're not inclined to hire even more. host: in your reporting last week you wrote that new york fed chairman william dudley said that further action is likely to be warranted. what can the fed do at this point? guest: there's talk that the fed is going to resume its large-scale asset purchases. and that can come in the form of morning-backed securities or treasuries. so the fact that they're considering more purchases in the market place is getting markets excited. and the fact that we don't have a lot of people making those types of purchases right now

means that we could see some interest activity. but that decision won't be made until the earliest early november. host: you also write that james bull lard, the president of the st. louis fed said the chance of renewed recession is diminishing. what's his proof, and why does it seem we're getting mixed signals? guest: the proof would be, i'm sure, he would point to the fact that we have had job growth in the past few months and we have had consumer spending has tipped up a little bit. so there's a fear of a double dip has been removed. we've seen some gains in durable good orders. so that shows companies are still investing. it's more that we've backed away of this cliff of falling into a recession again more so than it is sort of happy times are here again. and i would just say that it's, i think that we're seing a

little bit of divergeance in the central bank and they've become a little more public with their views. but i think we'll see in their early november meeting what they also come a to a consensus on. host: the bureau of labor statistics put out the jobless numbers yesterday, and we'll compare them to some previous reports. september 2010, 9.6% unemployment that rounds out to about 14.8 million people out of work. this time last year, it was 0.2% higher. january of 2009, 7.6%. september of 2008, 6.2%, and september of 2007, 4.7%. almost half as many people were out of work as they are now. guest: in fasked, we've seen with this -- fact this recent, 9.6%, we've now had 14 straight

months where it's been 9.5% or higher. that breaks the freeves previous, which is the reagan administration. and so this breaks the 9.5% or higher because the economy is not adding enough jobs to bring down that rate. host: we're talking about the latest jobless figures with tim homan. give us a call. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. our first call comes from florida on our line for democrats, dennis, go ahead. caller: i just wanted to say if they want to stop these jobs from going overseas, all they have to do is put an import

tax. and even on wages. we can't compete with china for wages because they're pretty much slave labor over there. if they put an import tax on their goods before they bring them over here, and even on wages, our people will be working and filling that stuff. the second thing is the reason that this count is not working right now is because we're not building houses over here. the government was given a tax incentive for people to buy first-home buyers. if they made it a $10,000 down payment on a house, then america could go back to building houses, this recession would be over. host: we'll leave it there. tim. caller: yes. there are -- guest: he touched upon some concerns especially in the economy right now. and the housing market is certainly known as sort of the cat list of the recession that

we just had. and the home bire tax cut that he referenced brought forward sales during the spring months. but now we've seen home sales decline again and a lot of economists are saying it's because all the tax credit deal to bring the demand forward a few months. but if it had been spread out we would have seen normal sales. so now we're seing a little bit of a renewed decline in housing. as for manufacturing, the house recently debated legislation that would impose a tax or a duty on goods from china because of what they feel china is doing with their currency. in fact, timothy geithner has stepped up his criticisms of china for telling them they should let their currency appreciate because right now a lot of u.s. manufacturers feel that china is purposefully

undervaluing its currency, which makes chinese goods more attractive and cheaper in the global marketplace. host: in the "wall street journal" this morning, this headline about turkey and china to shun the dollar, talking about how these two countries are effectively going to trade using their own curnssies and that they want to do between the two countries they want to get up to $50 billion in trade within the next five years. is this the right time for the u.s. to be imposing some sort of an import tax on chinese goods? guest: well, the government agency did a study that showed if the u.s. were to impose a tax of this sort that the house is considering, then that wouldn't bring in that much money, maybe bring in about $20348 a year. so what -- $20 million a year. so what we are seeing take place in the global economy right now is somewhat of a

tension among countries in terms of currency. and that's because each country is trying to essentially -- or lots of countries are trying to export their way out of this recession. and the cheaper their currency is, then the cheaper their goods are overseas. so we have a country like brazil and their finance minister recently said that they will purchase as many u.s. dollars as possible because that lowers the value of their currency. so making their goods cheaper abroad. and we have other countries that are doing the same. so some people have termed this as a currency war that might be brewing. host: next up is laurel, maryland. tom on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. there's a gentleman from new york called earlier and he made a comment, i think it was touching on the point of mon tiesing the debt. i would like to talk about that

just a second. it seems like that is a non -voted on tax. if you look on from 2004 to current, if you look at the price of commodities such as the traditional stores of value such as gold and silver, those have rose 400% relative over the last six years, which would represent a 24% inflation rate. i just have a feeling that once the economy gets started, inflation is going to take off. and that is just a precursor to that. basically, when we start printing more money to keep interest rates low to quote/unquote spur economy, which is one of the thing it is government is doing to help, apart from tarp money, this overshadows tarp money incredibly. host: we're going to leave it there. what does tom mean by

monetizing the debt and how might that affect the employment situation in the united states? guest: once the economy takes off, there could be a concern about inflation just because the federal funds rate, sort of interest rate that the federal reserve sets right now is so low. but they can -- they meet almost monthly so they can easily increase that if they need to. in recent months the concern hasn't been on the inflation front. it's been even some people have raised sort of deflation concerns with the consumer price index we've seen prices for some goods decrease over the past year. and that is usually spurred by the fact that we have such high unemployment in this country. so the fewer people that you have working and the higher the unemployment rate, you don't have employees demanding raises as often and so you don't have wages increasing.

and when you don't have all of those things going up, then the consumer isn't really willing to pay more for goods. so as of now, the inflation concern isn't really on anyone's front burner, but it may be once the economy takes off again. host: the president signed a $26 billion aid bill in august that was designed to prevent public sector layoffs. what happened? guest: well, as we saw with this most recent report from the labor department that came out yesterday, there were still significant amounts of layoffs at the state and local level, particularly the local level. we saw pay rolls decrees by $76,000 for local governments and that was the biggest one-month decline since the early 80s. and that's a big bulk of that was in terms of teacher layoffs. and we had about 50,000 teachers that were laid off in the month of september. host: wasn't this 26 billion supposed to keep those teachers

from being laid off? guest: that's exactly what it was supposed to do. and the labor secretary yesterday was touting that legislation, and she was saying that what it did was prevented the loss of even more jobs. so she was saying that if we didn't have that legislation at all, that 50,000 number of teachers lost and the local governments, that number would have been much higher. host: we're talking about the latest jobless figures with tim homan with bloomberg news. pat on our line for independents. go ahead. caller: hi. i read in the papers that on tuesday, september 28, some republicans lost -- launched a democratic plan to launch -- as the g.o.p. voted against the motion to debate a measure on the senate floor. the legislation would have raised taxes on corporations to

shift operations overseas, costing u.s. jobs. it also would have rewarded companies that bring jobs back from abroad by offering a two-year hiatus from pay roll taxes for those positions. now, the big business groups strongly opposed the measure saying it would hamper their efforts to compete in foreign markets. it's also interesting that the republicans are getting so much campaign money from big business. what has -- what's your take on this? guest: well, we have had several bills that have gone to congress that have tried to address this issue. and it's a lot of politician whose are campaigning for the mid-term elections said that this will be one of their priorities if they were to take office. there is some, a lot of

businesses and business groups would raise the concern that they don't want to have any taxes raised on them during this downturn. so that's sort of their primary response to it. . .

caller: when i hear the democratic collars, one of the constant refrains is that george bush left us with mess. we are nearly two years into the obama presidency. when does any of this become his responsibility? guest: we have seen in the past -- may be why this recession is so different from the previous ones, the u.s. entered a downturn, and it was quickly followed by the rest of the world. in the past, the u.s. has been able to export its way out of a recession. this time was not the case because we saw so many countries experiencing recession so there was no demand for u.s. goods.

the federal reserve can certainly influenced treasury market with its purchasing, but i don't know if it would be accurate to compare it to a housing bubble. the federal reserve purchasing treasurys is not exactly the same as american citizens purchasing the house is that they did it in the early 2000's. >> the headline, "long-term unemployed are stock." -- stuck." is there a light at the end of the tunnel for people looking for a job that long? >> there is a life for some people looking for jobs in certain industries.

it has to do with the job applicant is skill base. it if you or working in the construction field or manufacturing, a lot of those skills that have not changed dramatically over the past few years, so once that demand picks up, it is probably going to be easier for those job-seekers to find employment. people in a field such as technology or information technology or software, those fields are changing almost monthly. if those workers are out of work for about six months and they apply for a new job, the interviewer is going to ask them which programs day are familiar with. it might not have been something that is around six months ago. host: tim homan writes for

bloomberg news and has also reported on international trade for "congressional quarterly." next up, kansas city, missouri, on our line for democrats. caller: a lady called in about the outsourcing bill. i think what is really most interesting about this issue, i think it is international corporations pay no tax because of subsidies. if they would pay their fair shares, corporations here in america would see a 10% decrease in tax which would make us competitive overseas and bring jobs back.

so basically, the on fairness in the tax code is that power of the very wealthy. thank you. host: tim homan, go ahead. guest: the to pay their corporate tax rate in the u.s. is too high -- that is what a lot of businesses will say. they say that is what prevents investment in the u.s. and prevents companies from deciding to locate in the u.s., foreign companies deciding to work here. the that also -- they say u.s. businesses want to move abroad because of the lower tax rate. i think it will be interesting to see how this plays out especially once the global economy as a whole emerges from the most recent downturn because we may see some emerging markets either in asia or latin america attracting more business

than they have recently. that will then be somewhat of a challenge to the u.s., how they want to restructure their tax code, if at all, because u.s. companies can only relocate abroad to a certain extent. host: the numbers i also want to talk about include the so- called under employment, also provided by bloomberg news. so, what is the status of the under employed and are we likely to see them start working in

full-time positions first or wendy's full-time positions there to open up, will that be every person for themselves? >> that is often cited as -- people say that is the real on implement rate in the u.s. because it incorporates all of these job seekers who, as you say, mayfield marginally displaced or prefer to work full time but are only working part- time. it sort of depends on who in that group is looking for a job. if somebody already has a part- time job, they are very likely to get that full-time job more quickly than somebody who does not have even a part-time job. so, it was somewhat surprising to see that number uptick that much. it has been trending down

recently. the more people we have working part-time for economic reasons, that shows people bringing in not as much income. host: james is calling on our line for independents. caller: we have a lot of people working down here for these temporary employment services. they work them in these factories, 40 or 45 hours a week. they occur still considered temporary part-time workers. they work them for three or four months, let them go, replace them with other workers just to keep them from paying insurance and full-time benefits. they just replace them over and over in cycles. the government needs to step in and do something about operations like that, in my

opinion. the factories that hire full- time workers, there would be more people with better jobs, .ood paying jobs host: tim homan, bloomberg news, co-head. guest: that is something we have seen recently, in terms of temporary jobs and their role in the economy. traditionally, temporary jobs -- payrolls and a temporary job services will pickup during the time when an economy is coming out of a recession. that is a sign that companies are starting to get their feet in the water and are getting ready to expand their payrolls but they do not want to take on full time staff.

it requires paying often benefits and sometimes higher wages. we did see it payrolls for full- time services pickup for six or seven months, and now they have started to slow kilobit. some heads of these attempts agencies say some of those jobs are translating into full-time jobs. we have only seen that slowing trend for a couple of months. if it continues, we should be seeing full-time hiring pickup as well. >> in wednesday's new york times business section, a dim outlook for holiday jobs. host: generally we see an increase in workers' between now and the first of february. it sounds like we should not be looking for that kind of relief

this year. guest: we are going to be seeing a lot -- a lot of these companies will still be hiring their temp workers for the holiday season. ups recently said it will be hiring thousands of temporary workers, but it is the same amount that they had last year. toys r us is one exception. they said they would be adding 45,000 holiday workers for the holiday season. host: md., on our line for republicans. caller: i realize that our unemployment rate is somewhere between 9.5% and 10%, but in real numbers, how does that compare to the great depression? i know the percentage of people now working was higher, but in real numbers, what does that compare to?

thank you. guest: the unemployment rate during the great depression was around 25 percent sign it. it is difficult to make a comparison with the unemployed because of the population difference to now. one thing we have seen with this unemployment rate at about almost 10%, we have lots of workers -- a loss of job seekers who potentially dropped out of the labour force and their not being counted anymore. if we were to look back right before the recession in 2007, we would see that the number of people that were in the labour force, if we were to keep that number constant -- right now, we would have an unemployment rate north of the 10%.

we have lots of americans that just dropped out of the workforce or not looking for a job. they have become discouraged with the employment situation. host: the president was talking about the small business job at that he signed last week, saying it will stimulate job growth. we will take a look at what the president had to say. >> i signed into law the small business jobs act, a bill that does some big things. first, within the 11 days, more than two dozen small-business owners have already received more than $1 billion worth of new loans, with more to come. beginning today, the small business administration is offering loans for folks who need them. second, it expands the tax cut for all the equipment investments small businesses that make this year. it is going to help small

business owners to upgrade equipment, it encouraged large corporations to start putting profit back into the economy, and it will accelerate $55 billion in tax cuts for businesses over the next year. third, it creates a new initiative to strengthen the state programs that spur private-sector lending to small businesses, a step that will support $15 billion in new small business loans across the country. maryland, for example, will be able to support $250 million in new lending for businesses that are expanding and creating new jobs like this one. guest: the president touched upon two things that i have been -- that i have a great concern with. credit and the amount that they can invest or their ability to invest in new equipment.

the credit concerns have played out in terms of hiring because companies cannot borrow, they cannot hire new workers. some company ceos will say it is great that we now have this access to credit, but if we don't have the demand in sales, if we don't have people buying our products, we are simply not going to hire new workers. it will be interesting to see how many businesses take advantage of this new credit availability. then, the investment angle. investment in durable goods has pretty much brought the u.s. out of the recession. that was a testament to manufacturing and how they were able to step up production. we also had a lot of economists

putting out that the investment we have seen simply has been replacing the older technology, older machines. we have not seen investment expand any of these companies. so, it will be interesting to see if that kind of investment can be maintained through this year and through next year until the u.s. labor market gets its feet moving . host: the new york times had this headline -- that seems kind of counter intuitive that they would borrow this money, hold onto it, and

not put it into their industry and put out a product they could sell. guest: that has been one of the big issues in terms of hiring. corporate profits now -- in terms of the amount they are bringing in, companies are just sitting on huge amounts of cash right now and they are not deploying that cash to hire new workers. some economists have said that the reason they are doing this is for two reasons. one is that they were simply scared from the most recent recession. there was concern about a double-dip recession. companies may have been holding on to the money because they wanted to see what would happen in terms of the u.s. economy. others have said that they are not short what the policy outlook is -- they are not sure about what the policy outlook is in terms of regulation reform

and how the recent health-care overhaul is going to play out. so, some companies are taking this week and see approach. but others are saying they have to see the man before they can justify it to use that money to hire new workers. host: paul in maryland on our line for democrats. thank you for waiting. caller: i was curious about the global economy. it seems like a lot of that tarp money is going overseas. the strategy to get the balance back in line is simply devaluing the dollar. another caller was talking about that. i am curious how that impacts jobs here in the united states and what your thoughts on that. thank you. the president has a plan

to increase exports in the next few years. if you look at recent export gains over the past few decades, it will probably take closer to 10 years to get something like that done it. it is extremely challenging in this global environment to boost exports to that extent. economists have pointed out the side of manufacturing which produces many exports, those industries as a part of the u.s. economy as a whole makeup about 11% of the u.s. economy. it is focusing on some what a small portion of the u.s. economy, wanting to double that. in terms of jobs, we are seeing a lot of the u.s. exports are in

very high technology goods like semiconductors, companies like intel. for those types of companies, it is easier to increase productivity then it is to hire new workers. while exports may increase, that does not necessarily translate into job gains for manufacturers. host: wilmington, ohio, on our line for republicans it. caller: they were discussing the 50,000 teachers that lost their jobs. overall, it isn't the teaching profession have a pretty high employment rate -- they do not have the unemployment rate that the rest of the economy has. public-sector jobs probably stand a lot better because most of the stimulus money has gone to public sector her jobs rather than private sector jobs.

the other, and, they always talk about this being the bush recession, but you have to remember that the democrats have been in charge of congress for four years and they are the ones that spend the money. that is all, thank you. guest: the national bureau of economic research is the entity that is tasked with determining when recessions begin and end. in september, they said that the most recent recession ended in june 2009 after starting in december 2007. in that sense, the most recent recession ended during the obama administration. in terms of the teaching jobs, it is for the education and health workers in the private sector have been doing quite well.

they have been showing job gains during most of the recession's. but that is in the private sector so those teaching jobs are not a part of the public sector. host: generally, job growth lags behind the end of a recession, but this recession has been over for over a year and a half. why does it seem like the job growth has not caught up? guest: that is the main question that a lot of economists are grappling with right now. there are saying that this time is different. we are not seeing economic models of the past play out. there are some indicators with temporary workers. we are still not seeing that

robust job growth that has been typical coming out of previous recessions. host: next up, md. on our line for independents. caller: i am kind of curious about something. the republicans have vague rhetoric that it mixes people that make over $250,000 with small businesses. my first question about that is, are to small businesses incorporated? they would have to write their own check to even the owner, and at the same time, how it correlates with the new small business package just passed. you guys are great, thanks.

guest: not all small businesses are inc., meaning that the extension or the elimination of the bush tax cuts for couples making $250,000 or more would affect some small-business owners who are not incorporated. that is something that congress is expected to deal with before the year is up. it has been challenging for a lot of small-business owners and even larger companies to determine how they are going to sort of map out their spending for 2011 if they don't have the certainty right now about the tax rate than they don't know if they can take on new workers or what kind of tax incentives there will have it in the next year. that has sort of been one of the biggest challenges, at least in

these last few months of 2010. host: one of the headlines in the new york times this morning was -- if the unemployment rate continues to hover around 9.6%, what kind of long-term effect will that have on the stock market? >> we are going to see, as you noted, we are going to see some activity in the stock market are run the federal reserve's meeting in early november. that is because we have seen this persistently high unemployment rate, and that is one of the federal reserve's mandate, to control the unemployment rate. they have hinted they are going to take action if things do not get better. since things have not gotten better, that is why the date may resume these large-scale asset purchases.

they know they were be a buyer out there. for the long term, that is something the federal reserve and economists are trying to figure out right now, what will be the new no more rate of employment. some economists have said we might have to get used to 7% or 8% before this is all over. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i am a republican, a traditional republican it. i am a small businessman. it recently, fortune magazine said walmart may be a $500 billion company. well, 83% of the products they sell are made in china. they go to small localities

around the country and state governments and get gigantic tax credits. i think this is inconsistent with policies that support small businesses. host: tim homan? guest: walmart is the world's largest retailer. they have presence in small-town america it has certainly reduce the ability for some small businesses, many small businesses to compete with them. in terms of the tax credit, i am sure some businesses would say it is better that we keep these workers employed at a place like walmart especially now that there is no other place for them to work.

walmart has increased its scope around the world. they are expanding in china and other countries outside the u.s. we are likely to seek a lot of the revenue come from these overseas markets. it would be interesting to see and then what significance that tax credits in the u.s. play on their bottom line. host: our last call for tim homan. caller: thank you very much for listening to meet today. my question has to do with accessibility and the income tax credit. when a disabled person or a small business tries to make their business acceptable, we can only do $50,000 on our taxes for services.

a lot of businesses that fail trying to make ends meet. i am looking to increase tax exemptions so that might business could put in an elevator or a ramp. what can the small business association do and the president do to increase those tax credits to help these businesses [unintelligible] guest: with a situation like that, the u.s. government through the small business administration could increase the tax credits so companies could write off those types of investments to expand the structure of their business. and a lot of these laws were written before the recession

started so they might not have foreseen how tight people's bottom lines were to try to make those types of changes. we are now seeing those play out. host: tim homan, bloomberg news, thank you very much for being on the "washington journal" this morning. this is from the associated press. 33 miners were offered a way out saturday as the drill broke through to their underground purgatory. and embraces.eers in just a few minutes, we are going to be talking about women candidates. but first, this look at some of the week's news through the eyes

of political cartoonists. ♪

>> "washington journal" continues. host: we are talking about women candidates of campaign 2010. what are the prospects for the number of women in congress after the november election? guest: it is a little frightening right now. an article by the l.a. times points to the fact that for the first time since maybe 1968, the number of women in u.s. congress

will decrease. when you look at the incumbents that are running, the problem is that an awful lot of them are being endangered. it is a real challenge. a lot of the women that are running -- i ran for congress with them in 2008. the number of those young women that were selected are on the front-line fighting for their lives right now. is it a matter of sexism per say? guest: it depends on how you want to look at it. the republicans are saying these gals look like pretty easy pickings -- that could be something that is going on. it in this case, it is the republican playbook because almost all of the women are looking to be endangered. there are a few republican women

in addition to that. liftoff for a minute about sexism and how it does play in -- let's talk for a minute about sexism and how it does play in. a gubernatorial candidate out in california referred to a white boy -- referred to meg whitman as a whore. that kind of comment which unfortunately has become. normalized in the political landscape actually causes her to receive fewer votes. a study that we tested under a program we have, research so that it has a very negative impact. there are things that women can it can do to respond to bounce higher. to your point about sexism, it

is very real in politics for women candidates when they run it. host: why would a situation like this have more of a negative affect on the candidacy of meg whitman then it would on the candidacy guest: of jerry: it all depends on the response. if meg whitman or any woman candidate -- for instance, in virginia with some very shall we say some very unfortunate photographs were circulated about her by a republican blogger. she responded and called those out as sexist. because she was a woman, those photographs came out. our research shows that if a woman goes to camera, goes out and says this is sexist, the

voters understand what is going on. host: we are talking to sam bennett. regarding this situation out in california, on it newsmakers was week, the president' talking about the group's work supporting women candidates this year. in one of the segments of the interview, she talks about one of the comments that was made, at that mr. brown branded meg whitman as a whore for a policy that she took. >> when words like this are used in a public forum. >> they should not be used anywhere by anyone, period. it is just not what our democracy is about.

it is unfortunate to hear in any place. >> beyond this program, are you intending to speak out? >> obviously, we will make it clear that it is inappropriate. we have a lot to do -- we have a lot to do to focus on it. we are going to keep our focus. he should apologize. host: you can see the full interview tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on " newsmakers." for more information, go to our website, c-span.org. guest: obviously, governor brown did not make this comment himself. what we have to do is denormalize these kinds of comments. i was on camera the other day defending christian o'donnell

for some of the very sexist comments that have been coming out against her. in truth, i probably don't share personally a single value of christine o'donnell and don't agree with her on many policies, but when an attack like that comes to one woman, it is against all women. it makes it that much more difficult for women of any party or any stands to gain credibility with voters. so, the time is now to end this. we need to stop it and really make it even for women candidates when they run. no male candidate has to worry about those kinds of comments being directed at them. host: not to justify the comments made by jay leno, but some might argue that christine o'donnell diminished her own

credibility with the comments that she made on bill mark's show about having dabbled in witchcraft. her first campaign advertisement was, "i am not a which." guest: it is a delicate balance. i think the standard we can apply is -- does a male candidate ever have to worry about being called the equivalent of bitch, cunt, whore? no. we have to make it socially unacceptable and move on. it is tough work sometimes, rob. but the truth of the matter is, no candidate male or female deserves to be on national television being referred in a sexually explicit way. no one. our first call comes

from fayetteville, north carolina. caller: a couple quick comments. there are two different issues. the rudeness of general elections taking place where people don't want to talk to the issues. they are just rude and become personal. the other issue is the potential loss for -- the potential loss for its gains in traditional republican areas in 2006 and in 2008. we would expect those losses anyhow. republicans are putting forward many women candidates, many minority candidates. when we talk about losses of women this year, it is clearly not the fault of the republicans, but the policies of the democrats and the policies of the president. host: could you repeat the first

part of your question? caller: the loss of traditional republican seats into the six and two dozen 8 for women and the issue of sexism and rude comments overall in campaigns, which we really need to get away from. i think republicans are the ones putting forward minority candidates this year much more as a percentage than the democrats are. guest: i think frank is correct. colorado is a great example of what he is talking about. frank, i am happy to report that we have not had any nasty reports from that campaign. congress right now only has 4%

republican women. 13% are democrat, 4% are republican. republicans have some catch-up work to do in terms of representation for women. not many women made it out of the cycle. of the 46 candidates that were tagged as top guns, only four of them are women right now you are right. we need to get rid of the sexes and. we are going to see some changeover in seats gained in 2006. and you are right again. a lot of loss of seats by women republicans have been around moderate women republicans like in the alaska. you are right. host: 56 women are democrats in the house, 17 republicans. on the senate side of the

capital, 13 women democrats, four republicans. next up, dallas, texas. caller: good morning. i would like to say it was not browned that called her. it was someone in his tenure or whatever. why do you guys constantly say brown called her a name? i have an issue because look at all the bad things that the republicans say. i don't care about male or female. the have even called president obama sort of a whore and he was going to be pregnant. when it comes down to a white woman, it is always outrageous. if you are going to take the negativity out of the campaign, look to rush limbaugh and everybody else calling him

hitler and all types of things. it is degrading all across the board. host: even if there was an aide to governor brown that made this comment, doesn't he as a candidate bear some responsibility for stepping up and saying that it is wrong? caller: it is just like on the republican side. they are not being held accountable for the nasty things that your going on. host: we will leave it there. guest: jackie, a pleasure to meet you. you are right. it was an associate from his campaign. i would agree with many who say that anything that someone says from my campaign, i need to be held accountable for. if i could go back to your rush limbaugh, and, you are 100% correct. there are many unacceptable

things that are said out there. please dial in to us. we will jump right on it. it is nameitchangeit.org. this is not about race. it is about gender. we need to end this really awful trend directed toward women of all colors and ethnicities. host: providence, rhode island, john you are on "washington journal." caller: the reason why i called was our guest over there mentioned about christine o'donnell. christine o'donnell, even though i am a conservative, she is going to be defeated in november, so it is easy for her

to say this. she is really ready for the senate. when you take a look at other people who are in our public office, for example, like michelle bachman. i have not heard many people defending her, the reason being michelle bachman, a lot of people don't know that she is a tax attorney by trade. secondly, these women groups i find amazing. when sarah palin started to hit the campaign trail, man, they were just jumping all over her. i did not see this organization backing her. i find this a joke. here is the key. these conservative candidates and public officials, one thing that is going for them is that they are young and healthy.

they have a future. christine o'donnell will not win this time, but she has time. she will be fine. the others may go very far. michelle bachman is the most conservative of the lot. guest: thanks for your call. we just launched this campaign basically two months ago. when the comments that were made and put in front of my newspaper day after day with a photo of me i -- are so offensive, i cannot repeat them. every day, myself, my husband, and my children got to look at this newspaper with an unbelievably offensive quotation on the front of the newspaper. that is when our resolve that no woman would ever have to go through what i went through. that is why we did not come to sarah palin's defense before. i have been under a lot of fire

for defending christine o'donnell and sarah palin because their positions on the issues. here is my response. i was on tv defending them against sexist comments that were being made about them recently. guess who called me on the phone? it was christine o'donnell. i agree with you. she has some spunk and some legs as far as a long political career. she said she looked at my website and told me i was way far left of her. i was the only one in the country that stood up and defended her against an attack like this. i want you to know, john, you'll be seeing a lot more of us. we just launched this. we are definite women on both sides of the aisle, conservatives, liberals, it does not matter. we want to eliminate these types of attacks from the political

dialogue. the research shows -- for example, a mailer was put out. the truth of the matter is, if betty goes to camera and defends herself, the research shows that she regains the votes that she lost and potentially could get a bounce back because the voter assumes that the opponent made that sexist comment against her. i ran for office and a little bit north of philadelphia. it is two counties, a classic swing district and the state of pennsylvania. some might argue the most important. i ran and lost but lost with dignity. host: who is your opponent? guest: in man named charlie debt

to service here on the hill. i was cleared as the board of directors and will be running for office again one day, but first we have to fix things for all the cows here in the country. -- all the gals here in the country. caller: good morning. i would like to say, first of all, she keeps saying that brown threw that out there. that phone he thought was hung up. one of his aides said. but the media is making it seemed that mr. brown said. she is sitting there herself saying that he did. for christine o'donnell, you mentioned everything about how good she is. you don't mention the fact that

she is just not qualified. what is wrong by saying she is just not qualified? sarah palin is not qualified to be president. what is wrong about saying that? she need to come back down the road. as of right now, what is wrong with saying that the woman is just not qualified? guest:hi, mary. we have a home down in your neck of the woods. we can certainly say that, but the truth of the matter is, when a man runs, no one ever says he is unqualified. what they say is he is fresh, has new perspective. people are far more likely to say that women are on qualified than a man. some of this is sexist in nature. the truth of the matter is, christine o'donnell, whether i agree with her or disagree with

her, is no more less qualified than many men that run. very often, there is this pile on on women candidates on this issue. host: houston, texas, on our line for republicans. caller:hello? host: if you have your television up, turn it down. caller: it is turned low it. i can barely hear you. i am calling in concerning the lady's comments. my question is, number one, -- i need to ask this question. why is it that i can call -- when i call on the democratic

line, i can't get an answer? as soon as i called on the republican line, i got an answer? host: are you a democrat or republican? caller: right now, i don't know what i am right now. move on to another caller. caller: i am a democrat, have been and always will be proud i just wanted to say that i agree with a lot of what the lady there is saying. i really appreciate what she is doing and they're really hoped she runs again. i lived in new castle, pa.. we really need some good

democrats here in pennsylvania. one of the things i have seen also -- women, we are our worst enemies. some of this things we say about each other, it is so sad. that is what i wanted to say. keep up the good work, i appreciate it. guest: i am from allentown, pa., so we are not quite neighbors. she is absolutely correct. pennsylvania is ranked 47th among all states for women in elected office said. the united states is ranked 90th in the world for women in elected office said. -- in elected office. the truth of the matter is, if you go out a door and go to any

gentleman and say hey darling would you run for school board? the gentleman would say shorter. i just want to ask you a little question. do you have any qualifications? are you still willing to run it? sure. you go up to any woman, she might have and master's in education and guess what her answer is? i'm not qualified. so women take them out of the box way before the men to. a 50% fewer women than men strongly run for office. of those, 30% fewer women than men run for higher office. it is no accident that we rank 90th in the world. we have a lot of work to do. half the time, we are the problem. who runsve got a woman

the house of representatives, speaker nancy pelosi. we have the third woman secretary of state. we have had women on the ticket for president. guest: i would argue that half the problem is complacency. we see nancy pelosi, hillary clinton, condoleezza rice, and we think no problem. the truth of the matter is, all of these nations that are far ahead of us have established national targets if not national quotas. here in america, i don't think we will see " does them, but we can set it as a national goal. we suffered as a nation because we don't have more women in elective office. when you look at those areas like education where we drastically underperformed relative to other nations, despite having some of the

finest universities in the world, women care more about these issues than men do. we have some of the finest hospitals and specialists in the world, but the average quality of care received by our citizens -- which are ranked 30th in the world by the world health organization. women care about those bread- and-butter issues more than men do. we as a nation would enormously benefit from more women legislating, but the truth is, we have not set national or even state priorities around this issue. i think that is what it is going to take. the average person on the streets do not know how bad this is host: next up is washington on our line for independents. caller: good morning.

you seem to be suggesting somehow that there needs to be some type of a quota system almost four women in congressional and senate races for office. think it matters except a person's politics. any one that meets the requirements can run for office. in my state, i have two women senators and they both do a good job. i disagree with their politics most of the time so i may choose [unintelligible] by here just as many attack ads from people like john stuart and stephen colbert as i do from rush limbaugh. all of them are morons trying to get people to vote one way or

the other. host: did you vote for either to of the female senators? caller:no, i did not. i don't think i was in the state when they were voted for last time. host: when they come back for reelection, will you vote for them? caller: right now, patty murray is up for reelection. she chooses to vote the way that i agree with often. there are other topics that i disagree with her on. host: we will leave it there. guest: i understand where he is going. targets would be helpful. the other thing is that stanford did this fantastic study that

shows that women legislators are far more effective than men legislators when it comes to the amount of legislation that they write, the amount of work that gets accomplished, the level of constituent service, and the constituent rating approval. women, when elected, are tremendously effective on both sides of the aisle. snowe and collins, both women from of maine. they are powerful who can -- powerful women who can accomplish things. we have a systemic problem. women take himself out of the box before the have a chance to run. jennifer law less who is now at american university and she says one of the big reasons women report that they do not even think of running is that they are concerned how the media will act towards them. and is a systemic issue that prevents women from running which is one reason why our

organization specializes in getting more women in thinking about and running for office and endorses them in the early stages. that is why this is such an unfortunate initiative. host: the number of women on the ballot in the 2010 is 91 democrats and 47 republicans. david washington of the cook political report predicts the number of women in the house will decline by five to 10 members. does that surprise you with so many women candidates out there? guest: it does not surprise me at all. if we had a lot of women coming up through the pipeline in having this many endangered women, it does not look good for a number of these women. there are not enough women coming up to replace them. that is another systemic issues like to point to.

when term limits were first talked about or established, and one of the positives work the minister groups. but if we could do this to be better off the but there are a lot of issues with that. women do not think of running. there is not this pipeline of women coming after the ranks. we need them to stay there once elected because it is hard to replace them. lauder systemic issues at play here. coke is absolutely correct on this issue. host: on our line for republicans. you are on "washington journal." caller: everything is not perfect, but i wanted to tell you that as a father i care

about women's issues. we care just as much about our women counterparts just as much. the lake -- the lady calling in talking about republicans calling his daughter's wars. that should be addressed. as a black conservative, they need to look at who is running their areas and hold them accountable for what is going on. thank you very much. host:sam bennett. guest: i'm happy to hear you care about issues like education and health. those are not women's issues. they are everyone issues. when the the debt legislative voting records and you look at

the introduction of wall, what laws get introduced to be passed, overwhelmingly it is women who are the decisive vote and the ones presenting legislation. overwhelmingly more than whim -- more than men they are round education. they may summarize them as being quality of life issues for ordinary citizens. a great example is the common misnomer that fdr was responsible for something as fundamental as social security. the first woman to ever serve in the cabinet was the one who came to him and said that was what we needed to do. a woman conceived the idea, did the necessary are not fishing. frances perkins. remember that name. we look at the track record of a voting in the track record of legislation introduced, women

commonly outperform men. host: next up is teresa in bolingbrook, illinois. caller: let me speak to my neighbor here who said the black people need to look at the republican party. i will just say this. ronald reagan kicked off his campaign in philadelphia, mississippi. republicans have never been welcoming to black people. we need to and that right here. as far as women are concerned for the sarah palin's and women backthey said 50 years. women in politics and understand that if you are going into that arena you need to grow some balls. you cannot play the same game that has been played all of these years.

guest: a pretty powerful statement. there are a number of women out there who are saying exactly what she is saying. that may or may not be true. when christine 0 dawdle over -- palin areor sarah attacked -- i had been taken to task when i said i would defend her against any misogynistic attacks, she cannot call herself a feminist. host: why not? guest: it is interesting that a conservative republican -- and this will show you how for culture has shifted, that she would even embrace that terminology. feminism itself implies in the use and founding of that word a deep commitment to all issues that benefit or help women.

sarah palin is 100% against individual right to make an for in life decisions. she would prefer the government to make that. a case in point is reproductive options. that is for about what makes a person a feminist or not. if we were measuring politics like baseball, sarah palin's would be batting about dave -- about a .580. host: who has mergers one gets to getting women elected, sarah palin's or michael steele? guest: palin. it is interesting how she endorses. she has a full range of the value positions from high the conservative to almost modern. she is looking to pick the

winners and get behind them. host: what is a moderate issue darks -- moderate issue she supports? guest: moderate republicans, not issues. here she comes and of a sudden he comes out of nowhere and wins. that is a great example. host: apparently he was not as forthcoming with his endorsement when someone asked if she was qualified to be president. might that come back to bite him in the legs in november? guest: poll after poll shows that the americans respect her, quite frankly a lot of democratic women respect her, too, but no one thinks she is qualified to run for president. host: plymouth, mass., on our

line for republicans. go ahead. caller: what i wanted to know is who is financing miss bennet's organization? in current politics, we always want to know who is financially behind the different organizations since they want to exert influence whether it be over women or male candidates. guest: absolutely. our name it, change it campaign was funded by a terrific organization called the every family foundation. they are out of dallas, texas. that project is a collaboration between women's media center and another organization called political parity. both can be looked upon the web. host: where does the women -- money come from for the women's forum? guest: we have the women toxic

campaign forum and the campaign forum foundation which are two different pipelines. our foundation receives funds from other charitable organizations and philanthropists. and the women's campaign forum, we receive money from lockheed ,artin, northman grumman th viacom, comcast, a union support and it has a really broad range. we pride ourselves in getting a lot of support from a broad range of what may be called "uneasy bedfellows." we are non-partisan. we just want more women in the process which makes the country better. host: in "the washington post" on thursday there was this article. one in six in washington, d.c.,

earned more than $100,000 of the wage gap persists. one in 18 women working full time earned $100,000 or more in the 2009 which is a java 14% over two years. in contrast, one in seven men just up from 4%. with women making more money, will they be able to exert more political power? guest: one of our board members was quoted in that article which was exciting. here is the truth of the matter. one piece of creatures brick -- one piece of research was called bove with your purse. women give a fractionally to what men do politically. the numbers remain the same. it is a chronic, systemic problem that women did not invest in politics. they give overwhelmingly to charitable and philanthropies.

they have not made the connection. if they gave some of the money to candidates, the world would be a better place. my fervent hope is with this extra disposable income that they will think to giving about candidates and women in particular. host: in south carolina on a line for independent voters. caller: think you for taking my call. on the issue of qualifications, the question is, is there such a thing as being qualified? if they are cleared to run, they are qualified, right? or am i wrong? guest: you are 100% correct and you get a price for that statement. i will steal that line from you. i hail from chapel hill and raleigh, north carolina. our founding fathers when they

created our form of legislative government, their hope was that farmers would come off the farm and work here in washington and then go back. they did not concede to something called "career politicians." it is these people's perspectives and valleys they bring to the -- perspectives and values they bring to the job. host: our last call from sam bennett comes from milton, new york, joe on our line for democrats. caller: i have two quick questions. i was wondering is if your guest feels that both parties are manipulating the sexism? rich larry said things during the debate like when sarah palin's winter i that he felt

tingly. they are playing out on their sex and how they look. they are also making sexist statements saying that they support them because they are attractive. i wonder if your guest also felt if a woman becoming a president would move forward on women's issues or move backwards? with president obama, a lot of people thought that would move the racial issue forward, but in my view it has moved further backward. i would wonder what your guest thinks about that. guest: i will start with the second question first. if we see more women in elected office, people would get more comfortable in the seeing women in the leadership position. with president obama as our commander in chief, of -- there are concerns about late racism.

there are children now of all colors who can now see that the president can be an african- american. it is a wonderful thing. if we had a woman, and quite frankly i would love to see hillary clinton run again which i think would be a great face- off after obama hopefully is reelected. be that as it may, i would say you are 100% correct, joe, that sarah palin's probably using the sexism coming at her and trying to figure out a way to use it because there is no one defended her. i liken that too many years ago, we go all the way back to the late 1800's and early 1900's when african-americans would it do it themselves. guinea to do something with the racism coming and you may go --

coming at you. we need to do something about the racism and sexism coming toward you. you need to call the dow for what it is. it was a pleasure speaking with you. host: we have been speaking about women candidates with sam bennett of the women's campaign forum. we will take a short break and when we come back, a discussion on the legalization of marijuana in california. this is "washington journal" and we will be right back.

>> the supreme court has started their near-term. you can learn more about the nation's highest court with c- span's latest book, "the supreme court" which includes candid conversations with current and previous justices. this reveals unique insight about the courts. available in hardcover where you buy books. >> what are people watching on the c-span video library? you may be surprised whether it is the most viewed the events today, the past week, or the past month. click on "most watched" as the most popular events we have recovered since 1987. watch what you want, when you won. >> hey, middle and high school

students. enter the to the video documentary competition. make a five-day -- five-eight minute video on this year's theme -- washington, d.c., through my lens. talk about an issue, event, or topic. include more than one point of view along with c-span programming. download your video to c-span by january 20, 2011, and you could win the grand prize of $5,000. there are $50,000 in total prize is. the documentary competition is open to all students grade 6-12. for complete details, studentcam.org. host: he is there executive director to talk about proposition 19 in california which if approved would allow

adults over the age of 21 would be able to possess over 1 ounce of cannabis. guest: after 74 years, marijuana prohibition is an abject failure. we have 20 million arrests cents in 1965. we had 850,000 arrests this year. 90% will be for possession on the. i am 45 years old. in my lifetime, the government said they should reduce tobacco smoking. without taking the constitution and then get into a pretzel, we have reduced smoking by 50%. we did not arrest people or racially profile. we did not take away student loans. we did all of these important things without using the criminal justice system to achieve them. a government stated goal, which i think is supposed to be the base of our discussion, with tobacco, a drug that kills

400,000 people per year, highly addictive, unlike marijuana, the government has achieved that goal to a large degree. for that analytical reason alone let alone as a stakeholder, someone like myself, i do not think i am a critic -- a criminal if i use marijuana. host: joining us from your kids -- joining us from new york is as a hutchinson. he served as the dea from 2001- 2003. why should the people vote against proposition 19? guest: i think it is important that we reduce the use of illegal drugs such as marijuana. history teaches us that if you legalize it, the u.s. will go up. i think it is a great concern to anyone involved in the public policy but also as a parent and community leader. to put this in context, what

drove me to ambi on here today was the fact that all former administrators of the dea, nine of them joined together and they serve in both republican and democratic administrations asking the attorney general to say very clearly that he would oppose and the administration opposes proposition 19 in california which would legalize small amounts of marijuana. one principal reason is because it would take our country in the wrong direction and it would be in violation of federal loss of the people of california need to know, even though they may take a step to legalize this, it is still a violation of federal law and would still be a criminal offense. the objective may be to raise tax moneys, but i do not think they will be successful because would still be a violation of federal law. host: you have laid out a lot, mr. hutchinson. the first thing that i want to touch on, and mr. st. pierre has

touched on this as well, is the parallel between the use of marijuana and the use of alcohol and how in the 1920's ad 1930's the prohibition against the alcohol did not work and that the marijuana use in this country is the same and it is not working that well. your thoughts. a let's put this in historical perspective. we had the heights of the drug problems in our country in the 1970's and the 1980's. we wanted to go after the huge trafficking of cocaine and marijuana. since the late 70's. -- since the late 1970's, overall drug use has declined 50%. that me state that. overall drug use has declined 50%. if that was a criteria to any

other social problem, it would be considered a huge success. i think the idea that there has not been success in reducing a harmful drug in our country and it is used because we have the engaged in education, rehabilitation, and enforcement, is misleading. we have had success. we would give up on that success if we legalized one of those harmful substances, which would be marijuana. host: mr. st. pierre, your response? guest: to the success the kind we have a for the reducing of the amount of people using marijuana? did we achieve that? the government asked children if they used marijuana and then they asked people, someone in my own living room asked me if i

used marijuana in a government survey. that is how we measure whether or not we are winning or losing. this is a very poor way to measure this. we look at arrests which have never diminished. people in jail, those incarcerated for the amount of marijuana grown domestically. mr. hutchinson would knowledge all of those have actually gone up over the years. he is citing the willingness of people to of knowledge on surveys, from the government no less, about this. i an not think that is a criteria one would use to measure success. host: we have some points regarding proposition 19 on the ballot for november in california. these come from yeson19.com. it allows adults over 21 to possess up to 1 ounce of cannabis. state and local governments can choose to levy sales tax and

maintain criminal penalties for driving under the influence. they can ban marijuana smoking in public or in the presence of miners and protect medicinal canada's patient rights. we will get to those in just a second. if you want to get involved in the conversation, the numbers are on your screen. you can also send us an e-mail or treat. our first call comes on our republican of pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: i have a generalized comment. my area here in pennsylvania has become inundated with drug use. it does not start off with just the marijuana. nobody wakes up one morning and

thinks they will do heroin or cocaine. it starts with an entry-level drugs such as marijuana. i know this from personal experience. i have been there. sure, there are people who have no problem with them. for children, you can sit and say we will have it to where you have to be over 18, but let's face it. children can get a cigarette anytime they want. children can get alcohol whenever they want. marijuana would be just as easy. guest: the gateway drugs are caffeine, coffee, tobacco, alcohol, then marijuana. marijuana is the first illegal drug to the years. it is not a gateway drug. we have tens of millions of heroin and cocaine abusers in this country.

secondly, according to government surveys, like the one i just mentioned, children have the knowledge they have more access to uncontrolled, untaxed marijuana. host: our next call from greenville, south carolina, on our line for independents. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i would like to direct my question to the former dea agent. how many normal, working people are made into criminals every day in this country because they smoke marijuana? not just for the high. i have a husband that suffers from cancer. i have a son that suffers from an eye disease. you know what is amazing? marijuana, not in the pill form

but the smoking and the so- called "high" is what contributes to their relief. i would like to know how much money the pharmaceutical companies and the alcohol companies can -- have contributed to this country. host: asa hutchinson, former administrator of the dea? caller: first of all, this is not a debate about medical marijuana. this is a debate about legalizing pot smoking for anyone over the age of 21 in california. you raise the question, and allen mentioned this as well, how many people have been arrested for marijuana use or marijuana trafficking? i think you need to separate those two. sure, there have been dozens of arrests in america for marijuana possession. many times it simply amounts to

a citation. you appear in court and you pay a small fine. it is not something that in and of itself destroys a young person's life forever because you had a marijuana arrest. if you make it to where it is totally legal, usage will clearly go up. that is the fundamental question. do you want marijuana years to increase or decrease in america? if you want it to decrease than legalizing is not the right approach. i think that it is misleading to say that we spend all of these dollars on incarceration costs when most of our enforcement efforts to make the decisions on citations or how to proceed, the dea goes after the major traffickers which will not change whether you enact proposition 19 are not. it is still illegal to be trafficking in thousands of pounds of marijuana. host: on our line part democrats

out of florida. caller: good morning. i called in last year. i was unemployed and now i am then floyd. host: what do you think about our topic today? caller: i have a question for the former administrator. it is a question and comment, if you will allow me. i'd think we need to turn this debate to the economic issue where it should be. in common was made earlier. the usage of tobacco was reduced by the government because it was legalized. therefore, it could logically be assumed that if you do the same thing with marijuana and you reduce the use of marijuana and legalize the, the same effect will occur as it did with tobacco. host: i do not recall a point in our history where the use of tobacco was illegal.

caller: because it was illegal. they were able to reduce the use of tobacco because it was legal. make something illegal in the well naturally cause the usage to go up. host: asa? guest: whenever alcohol was legalized again when prohibition ended, i think it was clear that alcohol was a major consumable items. i do not think you can say that alcohol consumption has gone down simply because we ended prohibition. i do not think anyone would claim that marijuana use would go down if you legalize it. i think it would have, obviously, just the opposite effect. the caller raises the question of the economic issue and it has already been raised about how much tax revenue it might bring in the regulated it. i cannot think that should be a

motivating factor for social policy in the united states just because the federal government needs money, i do not think we should be looking for products like this to regulate and tax. secondly, this is not just for california. they say local government can regulate and tax marijuana use and growth. no one will sign a sales tax form or any other tax form when by doing so you are missing that you are violating federal criminal law. as long as it is a violation of federal law, i do not know how it will work. guest: there are probably 25 communities already in california where people are happy to sign the sales tax forms. those bean counters with the government are happy to take their receipts. if i can remember them correctly, colorado, new mexico,

the district of columbia, rhode island, new mexico, and man. all of these states, their attorney generals, and government lawyers have already signed off on this. on medical marijuana, they are already collecting taxes. you are maybe making a distinction that lawyers appreciate, but those of us in the ley world do not. host: did you have something to say, mr. hutchinson? guest: this administration has indicated they will not be pursuing medical marijuana types of cases. it is not really in the conflict because of that position. we are not talking about medical marijuana here. we're talking about position and growing marijuana which is clearly a violation of federal law. we are asking this administration to make a strong statement that this would be the wrong direction for our country.

president obama's drug control policy states they oppose the legalization of marijuana and we hope they will make that more forceful. host: fort worth, texas, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i think mr. hutchinson is on the wrong side of history on this one. the damage of penalizing people, putting them in jail over this is worse than the smoking of this. good luck to mr. st. pierre. host: mr. hutchinson? guest: that is the wonderful thing about our democracy. if the american people decide that is the direction to go, we support that. the dea would support that. we are in a debate now as to whether that is the right direction to go. i would disagree with the caller then we are better off to increase the usage.

even last year with the mixed signals in america, marijuana use went up 1.5 million more users in 2009 versus 2008. i think this is said to because people are taking a more lax approach to this. i hope that does not prevail. host: asa, have you seen with the increase in usage, have you seen any sort of a marked change in the behavior of those 1.5 million people or a marked change in the behavior of the people in areas where they live? guest: of course those statistics come from the national survey and there are two of them. one is privately run and the other is a government run. both are measuring the statistics for over three decades. in terms of, yes, you have to look at emergency calls. you have to look at treatment

statistics. you have to look bad driving under the influence statistics. you have to look a productive statistics in the workplace. all of those, i believe, would be impacted by 80 increase usage and you have to look at those statistics. host: santa rosa, calif. how you propose to vote on proposition 19? caller: i am not in favor of government regulation, but i will still probably vote yes. i have a couple of points to make than i would like mr. hutchinson to respond. earlier, he called our great nation a "democracy." he should know that it is a republic, not a democracy. his department, the dea, should be more careful because there open bond will be on the line for everything they do. the point i want to make is,

what does mr. hutchinson think about the federal jurisdiction existing in the federal ozone witches five territories, some of them not even on the land known as the united states, for instance american samoa? canada is rebuild neurons which is supported by research. host: i think we lost the caller. talk to me about the enforcement of the federal ozone, mr. hutchinson. guest: 5 former administrator of the dea. i am in the private sector. -- i am a former administrator. they're doing a great job over and the dea. and is a great agency. i am in the private sector now. in terms of the territories, we have a d.a. in many of those territories working locally with law enforcement.

i really did not get the gist of that question. i appreciate the caller reminding us that this is a republic. with the propositions we have out there, this is as close to a pure democracy that you can get at least when the people are voting directly on these legislative proposals. host: while we're talking about the legality of proposition 19, we want to address some of the economic. there was a report put out on the budgetary applications of drugs. there's a long-running debate. and did little to address -- to impress the people to which it was addressed. one reason was because the economy was coming along quite nicely. he goes on to say that legalizing of drugs would yield a $41.3 billion per year saving

on government spending on law enforcement and a $46.7 billion float in tax revenue. address that for me, mr. st. pierre. guest: the amount leaving on the table is probably between $10,000,000,000.2115059965 dollars. the amount of windfall we would take from police not having to spend this time going after people, we have about 80,000 people incarcerated for marijuana only offenses. they were involved in the cultivation and trafficking more often than not. to the point that it is these crushing recessionary times that have really sharpened these legislator's viewpoint, that is why i mentioned earlier, not only has the obama administration given them the latitude and the autonomy to do something different, but they see a terrific amount of revenue. when you think about alcohol

prohibition, it lasted about 12 years. if it was not for the depression today, and we are in the great recession today, we would not have this discussion moving as fast as we are. host: asa hutchinson? guest: when prohibition ended, did the law enforcement out of business because they did not have responsibility? of course not. the crimes and the kids move from alcohol -- the crime syndicates moved from alcohol to other venues. today, the argument is that if you are going to legalize marijuana somehow, that enforcement efforts will decline. you think about the responsibilities thought law- enforcement methamphetamines, heroin, all of the other

challenges. those will continue to be applied. you can argue it will make us more effective because they do not have to worry about marijuana anymore. that is a debate. you have a shift in resources. you will not have a dramatic savings that the institute cited with reductions in law enforcement expenses. it just will not happen. i do not believe you will have the same benefit on the revenue side either. host: seattle, washington, on our line for independents. caller: you are talking to an ex-smuggler. back when i was smuggling, there were two types of smugglers, those who paid the dea off and those who went around them and did not. someone asked john gotti once how much the mafia makes from

drugs. they say they are not in the drug business because they cannot compete with the government. this guy hutchinson is a man who is a fascist. he is a control freak. if i had a can of drano in front of me and i wanted to snort it, there is no law in the world that could prevent me from doing that. what i do with my body and my personal usage is my business. the only reason we had any drugs that are really got all this so that the government can control us, make criminals out of those, and they can insulate us. you were looking at this man, hutchinson, who is a mid level criminal organizer host: asa hutchinson, former administrator of the drug enforcement agency.

guest: i have enormous gratitude for the dea agents. they do great work. i challenge the collar's question about bribing dea integrity. when you look at mexico and some agencies, these problems are addressed directly. this is what is great about america. we have a great deal of integrity in our justice system. he makes the point about the libertarians that the government controlling the actions of individuals. i think we made a judgment in our society. the libertarian view on cigarettes is that the government should not be involved in that personal choice. we make requirements on warnings. we educate people on the danger of that. we restricted the use of that in public places. i think -- i think our society

is at the line where we need to balance that. when society on the whole is tremendously harmed by illegal drug use than it is certainly appropriate for us as a society to govern those actions. host: brown's bill, texas. you are on the phone with asa hutchinson and allen st. pierre, the director of the national organization for the reform of marijuana laws. caller: i feel completely opposite of what your last caller just stated. i think mr. hutchinson was a very dedicated law-enforcement agent. being that i live on the border with mexico right in brownsville, the war is all- around me. we seem to be losing. i could write you around and tell you there is a drug dealer, there is his house. i was born and raised here all

of my life. i see people coming in from mexico with nothing and they start smuggling. within one year they are very, very wealthy. you can spot them. i am an american. i was born here. i can tell you who is legal, who is illegal, who is selling. the law enforcement because they have overwhelming evidence candace walking in and take them down. i have plenty of family in law enforcement. i have a brother who is a border patrol agents and many relatives that have been in the u.s. customs or police officers. in my opinion, it is almost an unbeatable enemy, you know? like in any war, we have to start to come to realize about making it withdraw. host: allen st. pierre?

guest: like the new show on hbo, "boardwalk," there is corruption on both sides of the border. these do not come onto our streets without some degree, minor as it may be, but there is clearly political and law- enforcement corruption that allows this to happen. he identifies this being so close to the source. i am sure the caller can relate to this. corona beer is made in mexico. there is no problem associated with purchasing that. real not talking about any legal difficulties here. host: livingston, tenn., on our line for democrats. go ahead. wayland?

caller: the marijuana industry should be treated as a cash crop. it should be like corn and tobacco. the government can regulate and the people can get what they want. it is just that simple. everything else is just for other people to make money, evidently. if you control it as you do corn and tobacco, you should have no problem with that. you have everything you need regulated already. host: asa hutchinson? guest: that is a totally we areent direction than t going. president calderon of mexico made the point that in proposition 19 in california which would legalize the possession of marijuana, that it

would be totally against everything we are asking mexico to do today which is to reduce the flow of illegal drugs coming in our country. it would certainly be inconsistent with the direction we're going. in terms of taxing and regulating, it is all a question of whether you want another substance like marijuana from an illegal environment to a regulated environment. if you do that, consumption will increase. that is the fundamental question. do the parents of our nation want marijuana use to increase? theyaska in the 1970's, decriminalized marijuana. when consumption went up they saw the social problems and voters, once again, re- criminalized.

we need to learn from those slices of history. that is one that shows consumption would go up and it would be harmful to our nation. host: we had eight twitter message who writes, "mr. hutchinson, how would ending canada's provision affect the dea? would the dea receive less funding? would that be bad for your formal organization"? guest: great question. the dea is in charge of controlling the controlled substances act which congress gave them. if you ship one drug, marijuana, from an illegal status to a legal status, it does not change the mission of the dea. they have their hands full with methamphetamines, the diversion of prescription drugs which will be the problem. there will still be an enforcement problem.

if you regulated, there will still be marijuana on the black market. we have heroin, ecstasy, all kinds of drugs that still have enforcement responsibility. i really think the opposition of the former administrators of the dea is based upon not the mission of the dea but simply the direction we are concerned about in terms of where our country goes. host: philadelphia, pa., on our line for republicans. you are on "washington journal." caller: i have a problem with the decriminalization of marijuana. in massachusetts, they took this marijuana wall --law it becomes a civil offense. they can find you a little bit. my question is, where did people have the little bit get a larger

amount? are the people on the lower and subsidizing the criminal activity? host: mr. st. pierre? guest: indeed they are. it affects about one-third of the population. in 14 states and they have decriminalize marijuana. massachusetts, my home state, democracy in its finest of voted with a 65% and almost every single city voted to decriminalize marijuana. the decriminalization is only really good for a consumer like myself. if i get pulled over and i have to pay what i would call a left- handed fine of $100, that would be much better than getting arrested. it never addresses the taxation,

wholesale, and retail concerns. host: in two papers this morning "the financial times close "and "the washington post" both of them have articles talking about amsterdam. amsterdam's cannabis-selling coffee shops facing a crackdown. the incoming coalition government seeks to tighten rules. what did the dutch know that maybe we can learn from here in the united states? guest: i have been to amsterdam. i have toward the district's where the cannabis shops have been located historically. it is wide open. and it's not just cannabis but other drugs as well. on ibm with the chief of police in amsterdam and someone comes up and offers me ecstasy. whenever you have a

recreational drug haven, people go there and other drugs are sold. in terms of what they are seeing now, i think they are seeing the danger of the direction they are in going with usage increasing. it looks like they are trying to crack down on the overabundance of these cannabis houses. i think they are learning that this social experiment has not worked out as well as the thought. host: next up from massachusetts on our line for independents. caller: think you for taking my call. -- thank you. i went to respond to the massachusetts call. it is just a plant. cannabis is just a plant in nature. it will be tough for mr. hutchinson to ever get rid of nature. the other thing about massachusetts is down in beacon

hill when they put the lot together, there was not anything after the fine of $100, there was no penalty after that. he did not even have to pay the fine if you do not want to. mr. hutchinson, everything have said so far has been here based. i believe everyone would agree with this. -- it has been fear based. the government has nothing to do with this plan. it is a plant. this is fear based so we are all in fear. we are in fear of the da -- dea. host: we will leave it there. asa hutchinson? guest: when massachusetts said it would only be a fine and that would be the only risk, would he

or she be more likely to use marijuana because of the decriminalization? i think the answer is yes. you can call it a fear factor, certainly. there is a fear in the enforcement of the law that discourages use. that impacts young people. they hear the message from the parents that this is harmful, but you also hear from leaders in law-enforcement in the society that it is bad for you. there are consequences to the action. all that works together. it creates a climate of reed used use. i think the message is hope. you will struggle every generation with drug usage and addiction. it is not just a law enforcement question. let's invest in education. drug treatment and let's talk about an alternative punishment.

it really shows success. i think those are messages of hope for parents and communities that we can address that are a very difficult challenge. host: allen st. pierre for the national organization for the reform of marijuana laws, what do say to people who think the passage of proposition 19 would give them the right to smoke marijuana on the job? guest: it is absurd. you could never come to work here at c-span drop just because alcohol is legal. -- you could never come to work here at c-span drunk. it is the same morals and values for alcohol and tobacco would be completely up of -- completely applicable, as they should be. if people will use marijuana, it will be the same restrictions for alcohol. anyone who thinks otherwise is completely utopian. host: explain the supremacy

clause and how this would play into the enforcement of the ban on marijuana? guest: great question. the supremacy clause in the u.s. constitution says that if federal and state law are in conflict that the federal law tromps. -- trumps. this is illustrated by the obama administration taking the stance that arizona cannot enact local laws on immigration issues because they conflict with federal law and it is an area the federal law has a regulation over. we have asked the attorney general to apply the same analysis to the proposition 19 in california that clearly proposition 19, if passed the there is a complication so federal law would stand. voters should be aware of this

in advance. i think the attorney general should take just as aggressive a role in making that message noun about the supremacy clause when it comes to conflicting marijuana laws enacted by the state. it is very relevant to this debate. host: our last call from omaha, neb., on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. mr. hutchinson, i have epilepsy. i was always told not to have drugs. that i came down with glaucoma. i became scared because i was starting to go blind. i am 53. i kept hearing about weed would help someone with glaucoma. i took the risk to see if it would help me. i did not have a seizure and my neurologist said