[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] we're going to begin this morning with a question that is posed inside the "washington post," a new survey about the government. one of the questions is, in one word, describe the federal government, congress, the judiciary branch, the executive branch, and is it working for you. welcome to the washington journal. here's a look at the front page below the fold in the "washington post" with this question.

what's so good about the government? most americans say they want more lifpltted government, -- limited government. they want washington to be invfled in schools and help reduce poverty. nearly half want the government to maintain a role in regulating health care. the survey is on line. some of the findings include this, most americans saying they want limited government but come january politicians will confront a challenging and sometimes contradictory reality about what americans think about their government. a nationwide report card showing that most americans give it barely passing grades. ten years ago, this survey gave

washington a c. today, those questions would give washington a d or an f. the story is front page of the "washington post." inside that publicication and available on line. you can also join on twitter or send us an e-mail. first up is judy, independent line from houston. good morning to you. caller: hello. maybe i need to get a little clarification. i'm trying to decide whether or not this one word that's supposedly should describe government as it is today between draconian and mack vellion. you know, it's just absolutely abhorrent what's going on right now.

just the looting of our parents' stock portfolios, and it's just absolutely very frustrating to have a situation where people are just basically victimized and it's done with the government's blessing. i guess -- hopefully justice will prevail, whether criminal or spiritual. that's all i have to say. thank you. more frequently they were used the bigger it appears here. confused, disappointed, dysfunctional, poor, incompetent, frustrated, corrupt, inefficient. of the 43 most frequently used words, about three quarters were negative words. so as part of this survey, if you were to use a single word

in describing the federal government, what do you think it works for you or doesn't, tell us what you think. also from texas from san antonio. good morning. caller: good morning. good to hear from you. the single world i would use for the government today is ink. i have felt that way since long before obama was elected. host: why is that? caller: it seems government wants a hand in everything and they represent corporate america more than they do the individual americans. host: ok. thanks for calling. from our twitter page.

here is part of his weekly address yesterday, the republican response. >> for almost two years president obama and democrats in congress have broken their promises obon jobs, on spending, and on health care. the white house promised that massive federal spending would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. instead, what taxpayers got was $800 billion in new debt and nearly 10% unemployment. 48 states have lost jobs. friday's job figures confirm that far too many americans are still looking for work. while the white house touts its recovery summer, most americans see an alarming autumn. people are beginning to realize that the only jobs congressional democrats are really focused on are their own. the president promised to be financially responsible with your tax dollars. yet, our federal government continues down a ruinous path of outrageous spending,

borrowing and piling more and more debt on future generations. our nation is now over $13 trillion in the red, a number so large it's difficult to imagine. since democrats took over the congress, the national debt has grown by $5 trillion. host: delivering the republican response yesterday in the weekly address. the national journal focuses on the economy. why aren't we recovering faster? and going back to the "washington post" survey of 2000, the conducted in late september through early october, nearly half of the 205,000 adults felt threatened. there is a creeping sense shared by one in five americans that is not possible for the federal government to be run well given all the problems in the country.

new jersey on our democrat's line. good morning. in award, how would you describe the federal government? caller: i think it's very confusing and i think we're forgetting that the object is to gain power in washington. the democrats have the power, and the republicans want it back. it's just as simple as that. it doesn't matter what you say, what they say or how they say it, the goal is to get that power back. there are no holds barred. they want to get control. and the democrats need to realize this, and this business of trying to work together, that's just some fantasy because that's never going to happen. host: thanks. let me show you one other part

of this survey. in determining a grade, the highest grade goes to the u.s. military, a b plus. their own representative in congress gets a c, the federal court system also a c, the president gets a c grade. democrats a c minus, the federal government overall a d plus, and republicans in congress a d plus among those surveyed. richard joining us from new york on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. the one word i would say that the federal government can be described is witches. i am a black man which is synonymous with the word evil. and not sitting at a lunch counter or can't go to the school that i wanted to go to, getting lynched, this is evil. and this is what's happening right now to the people in arizona.

they're getting robbed, they're getting raped, they're getting murdered and they're getting kidnapped and this government does nothing. they are the witches. there are so many witches in washington. the witches don't even know which witch is which. host: thanks for the call. the neutral or positive words to describe the federal government. challenging, adequate, good, ok, complicated. and what would make the government in washington work better? 60% say pass a constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget. 56% say have a national referendum system for citizens to vote on proposals that deal with major national issues. and 52% say make it easier for third parties to compete in politics. the front page and inside the "washington post," also available on line. we're asking you about the federal government. in a word, how would you describe it? gloria from chicago. good morning. democrat's line. caller: good morning.

i say thank you because the government this one way helped the poor, feed the poor. it makes sure that the police and the firemen are there to help you when needed. so i say thank you. too bad that the republicans want to cut all that out and want to see you suffer. i don't like that. that's what i say. host: thanks for the call. al from denver, good morning, republican line. caller: good morning. my word is fabianism. it's european socialism which has crept into the united states under the guise of progressive. and what's happening is you're not noticing much difference between republicans and democrats. there's only a thin line between them. and george bush, why do you think everybody is saying that

barack obama is doing the same thing george bush did. they were both progressives, fabianism. you need to look the word up, america, because their shield is a wolf and it's got a sheep's clothing wrapped around it. host: thanks for the call. another caller saying we welcome our viewers outside the united states. rod is joining us from south brunswick, new jersey. democrat's line. good morning. caller: good morning. i wish obama had some tough

decisions to make. i wish the republicans, the leadership would take a course in comics 101 and really come out with some answers that are realistic and which really happening. this has been a tough recession and it's not going to be instant gratification for the problems to be solved. as far as passing the information that's not accurate, that should be really examined and stopped and the american public should take a look and say am i being told the truth? host: another comment from ronald johnson. jim joining us from south bend. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my one word i cannot say on the air, it would be censored. host: ok.

caller: and i see this now what's happening in our federal government is filtering all the way down to the city governments, the state, the county, and the city governments. it's just everything is being so turned around. host: to use a word that could be used on television and radio, what would that be? caller: frustrating. host: thanks for the call. the imf meeting here over the last couple of days, stories from the papers all telling the same story. this is an ap story.

dolores from cumberland, maryland, republican in a word how would you describe the federal government? caller: my one word would be disoriented. they can't see, they can't smell, they can't feel. the country's in a mess. they're borrowing money that is not ours. and they've got their hand in the cookie jar and how they'll ever get out of this mess i do

not know. host: thank you. front page of the "new york times." a piece on the speaker of the house. the story points out that on the brink of an election that could end her four-year run as speaker, it underscores an enduring truth. she is also one of the most resolute. there is a side-bar story in the "new york times" as well. a gentleman that you may not know, john dennis, running against nancy pelosi in the san francisco district. mr. dennis described as a 47-year-old straight mearied father of a four-year-old girl says he is making an honest run

for the seat and raising not a small amount of must be as well. so far 33,000 donors most of whom do not live in san francisco, has raised more than $2 million in his challenge. and the new york post has this on the speaker of the house. back to your calls. in a word, describe the federal government. bill from hollywood, florida. welcome to the washington journal. caller: good morning. to describe it, it is broken. but to fix it, the same three

lines that you have open for every writer to call them are going to have to be the same folks to fix it because we're the ones that broke it in the first place. so all this business about how what's going to happen, get together and stop all this, well, this is not going to work, that's not going to work. it's driving america crazy with all this attitude. it's time to buck up. pull up them boot straps and then tighten that belt. we made this problem and it's going to take us to fix it. and to tell you the truth about the whole thing, if you like the four years and then the two years and then the next two years, you think that the

people who brought us into this mess, you're going to have 12 years of the same thing. if you like that, go right ahead. host: from the "washington post," disappointed, the word used most often. again, the survey for the "washington post" conducted by the henry j. kieser family foundation and harvard university. incompetent, confused, good, necessary and ok some of the positive words used. from our twitter page gloria from trenton, new jersey. republican line. go ahead. caller: i will describe it incompetent and also ignorant. those were elected, at least the government, it was elected. we need jobs. there's foreclosure, fix social

security, fix medicare. they went with the health care that we don't care, with cap and trade which is -- that really won't solve the problem. social security, and medicare. host: we have this comment. atlanta, georgia. good morning, independent line. caller: my word would be scary.

every night i just pace the floor and i think about what's going on with this country and it's very disturbing. one thing, one reason is the government seems to be trying to control every aspect of our life. the president's wife has a campaign against obesity which is basically no one's business. the technological denialist on the democrat side. we have a candidate from delaware who is strange, but she said that she believes that a mouse and a human brain can be put together and they're laughing at her, which we know that we're to that point right now. and also, it just seems like the media is an agent of propaganda. and i'm just afraid that if the tea party revolts, all it's going to do is to put this country into revolution which might lead to a dictatorship. so i'm just disturbed. thank you. host: thanks for the call. every sunday we give you prime

minister's questions time. over the last three weeks we've been showing you the conferences taking place in great britain. the final one is the conservative party. and david cameron, part of a coalition government this past may. from the new york post, a transcript of the prime minister's speech. we are the radicals now, he says, at the conservative party conference that took place in birmingham, england. here is part of his address. >> too many people thought i've paid my taxes, the state will just look after everything. citizenship. citizenship is not a transaction in which you put your taxes in and get your services out. it's a relationship. you're part of something bigger than yourself. it matters what you think and you feel and you do. so to get out of the mess that we're in, changing the government is not enough. we need to change the way we

think about ourselves and our role in society. your country needs you. host: by the way, the entire speech available tonight also on our website at c-span.org and often parallels what happens in great britain and what happens in this country. we saw that in 1979 with the election of margaret thatcher that led to the election of ronald reagan and the parallels between new labor and the new democratic party in the 1990s, bill clinton and tony blair. david cameron, part of the conservative party leader who is a coalition government leader, the election that took place this past may and the new labor party leader also available on our website. kim from virginia, welcome to the program. republican line. caller: hi. if i had to choose one word, to describe our government now, it would definitely be divided.

and i blame it on the leadership or lack thereof of our president, barack obama, who campaigned that he was going to be a uniter and not a divider. and it was all a con game. and as anybody read the book that he wrote dreams of his father and for any of the -- tapes and went to the polls and could vote for him, that tells you right there where we're at. it's scary. host: george will, his sinned kated column, the obama referendum. one reason why carter, who promised to deliver --

back to your calls. cheryl on the democrat's line. good morning. los angeles. caller: good morning. please just, my word is a

blessing. it's a blessing. and please let me comment on the lady from virginia. she sounds like a fox news reporter. president obama says -- senator obama at the time of campaigning said that he wanted to be a uniter. to unite this country. he has -- you have to have someone to come to the table to want to work with him. from day one, he never had any other republicans that wanted to work with him. and please, please let me be candid. the only reason president obama has not had a chance to work

his plan is because he is an affro american president. every democrat that goes into that white house has one strike. he came in with two. and as we know, three strikes you're out. and that's why they were trying to strike him out. host: let me just clarify on the one point. is the color of his skin at all a factor in how people perceive how he's dealing with the economy or other issues of the country, foreign and domestic? caller: yes. because they don't want first of all, sir, they don't want a democrat in the white house. and then he is an affro american. you talk about all these polls, people this and 86%. all the people that i know, and i know a lot of people. i'm not just talking about my

circle. we never, never, never get called or asked a question. so where are all these polls coming from? where are they all coming from? i have just been so fluss traited over this last 22 months. i am an affro american woman. i am a senior. i have seen -- i have been from one spectrum to the other, from the civil rights with the dogs, i have been denied going to the bathroom, i have been told we don't serve the n word here. i have seen this country come from a mighty, mighty long way. and, sir, please believe me from the depths of my heart, if president obama had been a caucasian president, sir, we would not be talking about this

today. if he had been a caucasian president, and put that health care bill through, you and no one else can tell me, sir, that it wouldn't have been this tea party, it wouldn't existed. they tried to villify president clinton but they didn't form a tea party. take my country back. where does this end? host: thank you for the call, up early in los angeles. cindy has this comment from our twitter page.

so what changed to produce such incivility? die an from arkansas, good

morning. caller: please give me as much time as you did that lady from l.a. the word for me i have to -- somebody already said is scary, frightening, the government is. this lady tried to throw in the race card again. lady, it is his policy is why the republicans are against him. his socialist party. he has communist and marksist and the democrats refuse to admit it. i'm talking about the regular people that refuse to see who he has got up there. they've got to start paying attention. we warned them about pelosi. furm during the campaign, the republicans were saying do you want -- this is in 2006. do you want pelosi in there? we knew what was going on.

and the public, the republicans have tried to work with obama but he keeps appointing all these people. he won't allow them to be vetted. that's no way to run a government. and steve, can i ask you a question? host: sure. caller: in june of 2006, you told a caller that you had caller id there at c-span. do you still have that? host: we do. caller: ah hah. i like that. that's great. but why can't you catch most of these people that, especially this one guy that keeps calling in democrats? host: it gets complicated. i don't want to to reveal some of the secrets. people do get around the system. we do ask that if you phone within 30 days that you make room for others. sometimes they'll use different phone lines or methods.

it's not a perfect system but we are working on it and trying to improve it so this is a fair and open forum for everyone. caller: please put the phones back like they were in the very early early 90s where they had the geographic. please. host: we have done that from time to time. caller: very few things though. but when it comes to our politics, we need all the -- i don't believe that the -- we would look so divided if you would let everybody just take your chance, just call in and if the republican, if you're democrat, but just take your chance if you're from new york or wherever and get in. and i don't think that there would be so much hatred. host: thank you for the suggestion. and thanks for watching. caller: i've watched a long time. thank you.

host: we're always glad to hear from you. if you've just joined us or are listening, the focus is a new study out conducted in part by the kieser foundation and harvard university asking you to describe the federal government and what kind of a grade you would give the government. some we read off earlier. the u.s. military gets the highest grade, b plus. republicans, the federal government get cs and d plus. before we get to danny, let me read this caller: i want you to give me as much time as you just gave the lady out of arkansas.

hah hah. fox news gave the republicans $2 million. and also, steve, before i get to my one word, during eight years of george bush and i've been listening to c-span for a long time, i've never heard c-span ask this question under george bush. and also, those people who have this animus against the federal government i've got the perfect paradise for you. you can move to somalia. go to somalia. they have no federal government. you can carry an ak-47 or you can carry a 155 house itser. no police, no federal government, no local government. so you anti-government people, your perfect paradise, go to somalia and try that for a second. and what that lady that called like from l.a., even this

question, steve, is pretty much stupid. a grade for the federal government. you know what those like i say, you need to ask a question to the tea party people, ask the tea party people where were you from 2000 to 2008? you know what, i was one of the original tea party people. i said in 2002, 2003, that george bush, dick cheney and the republicans are going to screw this country up so bad they're the ones -- it will take a lifetime, if ever, to fix it. and what we said back in 2002, 2003, . now they want obama to fix this mess that they voted for and they supported and want him to fix it in two years. and -- wait hold it. and they are saying how dare you not fix our screw-ups in two years. we screwed it up.

you should fix it. and they throw in every obstacle and then they get c-span to ask this sellly question, what grade do you give this federal government. host: i've got to tell you, i'm sorry that you think it's a sillry question but you can blame me because i came up with it. it seems to be a pretty simple question if you were to describe the federal government in a word what would it be? it could be a positive word, a negative word, it is an open-ended question to solicit the debate and discussion we're trying to accomplish here today. so if it's stupid, it's my fault so you can blame me. caller: it was not a question from you. this was a question from the "washington post." who donated $2 million. caller: host: rupert mur dock does not own the "washington post." thank you for your phone call. mary says

new jersey, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. the word i was going to choose was inconsistent. it just seems that obama has a lot of promises that he puts out there to the world, like when he said like we did the stimulus we wouldn't go over 8% and -- unemployment, and we're still hovering at 9. he wants to be a uniter and yet there's no consensus to be reached in congress at all. like they're never willing to budge on any particular issue. it's just that's how i feel the government is going right now. host: the comment from doug.

one of the editorial car toons looking at incumbents. from the washington examiner it's the incumbent with the ant lers to symbolize deer and called open season election day 2010-2012. congress and incumbent right above it. craig from georgia. welcome to the washington journal. caller: i just want to mention a little bit of history to people out there. who think that the top down economics work in this country. the last time we had a bad economy was when the great depression. but it's hard for me to believe that people are blindly looking at the money that the chamber of commerce and all of these business groups are pouring in

zwroust help one party and thinking that it's just fine. just as long as we win. if -- when they win the republicans aren't going to repay them for all that money they're putting into politics. that's basically what i need to say. people got to think. the people have got to go back and look at the history of this country. stephanie, the president of emily's list, our guest on "newsmakers" which ares at 10:00, also a rebroadcast at 6:00. and among the questions asked, that citizens united case and the impact it will have. >> it is very, very interesting

, and i knew when it happened that we were going to see that really start changing as we've gotten closer to the election and i think we're seeing it. there's so much money coming in to the chamber of commerce and through the group american across roads that we don't know who these folks are. and this is really opened up some doors for very, very large corporate checks and individual checks that we're not going to know where they're coming from. and it's just bombarding our members and democrats around the country. i was looking at the numbers. in fact, in washington state before i came over. and there is such a difference between how much republican conservative money that's being spent against patty murray versus what we on the democratic side have put together and it's really opened the flood gates. it's what we were afraid of and

i think we are living it right now. host: stephanie, the president of emily's list and our guest on "newsmakers" after the washington journal, 10:00 eastern time, 7:00 for those on the west coast. back to your calls and comments. another word by steve schultz on our twitter page. phil joining us from washington, pennsylvania. good morning. republican line. caller: good morning. great topic this morning. my one word would be finished. it doesn't matter who gets into office. republicans or democrats. they're not going to work for us people. they're all caught up in their own little deals and it's not going to matter who we elect today. i'm a republican that voted for obama because i felt he was the better candidate. but what he did as soon as he got into office he changed his

whole mandate and he is really made me feel that government's finished. we have to have term limits. until we get term limits and another party, nothing is going to change in this world. the republicans are going to gain control, and nothing is going to change. as far as all this money people's complaining about, there's always been money in campaigns. the democrats have it, the republicans have it. that's a problem. but don't blame that because the democrats are going to lose control. the democrats are going to lose control because they had control and they used their power to get nowhere. host: thanks for the call. let me go back again.

we're asking you on this sunday morning. pamela from north carolina. welcome to the program. good morning. caller: thank you. i'm a first-time caller so i'm a little nervous. but the main thing that i wanted to say, my word would be lost. this country was founded, our founding fathers founded this country on christian principles. i know that i'm not bringing religion in this per se but those principles, that moral fiber is what is lacking. not only in the citizens of this country but in our leaders. we can only vote based on what we are hearing the leaders say, what we are being told they are -- their lives are like, their more or less are, and as the gentleman before me said they get ree-- we elect them and they get into the government and then they're doing

about-faces. or i just -- every time you pick up the phone, the newspaper or look at the tv, you are seeing this one is being busted because, take the phone call in california calling his candidate names. and then the opposite end, the other choice, at least in the state of california, is a woman who is not checking and hiring illegals for her house hold. it's over and over and over again. they lack the moral fiber that this country was founded on, and we don't find out about it until they get busted. and this one had an affair and that one took money, and that's my word. would be just lost. we need to go back to fundamental human principles, love thigh maybor, do good -- thy neighbor, do good, don't lie. and these people we elect are supposed to be for us and this

gentleman before said they're for them, their own jeands. they're not for us. most of them don't even know what the minimum wage is. they are out of touch. host: thank you, pamela. one of the many debates that we'll be covering, this thursday at 9:00 eastern time in nevada that senate race with democratic leader harry reid in a tough reelection battle polls showing right now that sharon angle is up slightly but within the margin of error. and our complete debate schedule is available on line. charlie cook, who is keeping track of house and senate races has the latest from the journal. back to the question, joe last night on saturday night live, the mid term elections getting

a lot of attention from delaware. chris teen o'donnell becoming a paradell. >> i'm not a witch. i'm nothing like you've heard. i'm you. and just like you i have to constantly deny that i'm a witch. isn't that what the people of delaware deserve, a candidate who promises first and foremost that she is not a witch? that's the kind of candidate delaware hasn't had since 1692, and that's why, if elected to the human senate, i promise to fly straight down to washington on a plane and do exactly what you would do, not spell. besides, if i were a witch, why wouldn't i just cast a spell making all of you forget that i'm a witch? it's certainly not because the spell requires one nuth per person and i lack a sufficient number of newts.

i know the problem speaks for a nation because i've been living among you since i moved to delaware from the black forests of germany almost 3,000 years ago. so this november 2nd, vote for chris teen o'donnell, aka, the rate of the enchant ress. because i'm not a witch. and if i am, do you really want to cross me? i didn't think so. host: from last night's saturday night live. there is a debate in the race. it's the only debate scheduled to take place in that delaware senate race, and we'll have it live here on c-span beginning at 7:30, wednesday, october 13. and the nevada, kentucky senate races and indiana all coming up in the week ahead. check it out on our web page.

our sunday roundtable is coming up next. and later, bill adair, fact versus fiction, courtesy of plit fact. mid term elections and the economy. with a preview.

>> despite the uprising and state crackdown that followed last year's iranian elections, many influential and liberal iranians still believe in an islamic republic. this weekend on "afterwards". find this weekend's complete schedule of nonfiction books and authors at booktv.org. >> i've tried showing the book, arguably washington's greatness was what he did between battles, simply holding the content together.

>> these politicians who nearly bankrupted our country, who left a legacy of cuts and debt who are still in denile of the disaster they created, they must never be allowed near our economy ever again. >> tonight on c-span. >> washington journal continues. host: our sunday roundtable we want to welcome sherry, a blogger for the hill newspaper, republican stratjidge, and maria, democratic strategist. thank you for being with us. let's begin with a new study that came out this past week saying that hispanics more likely to vote for democrats but maybe less likely to go to the polls. the enthusiasm gap that we've been hearing about. >> i think what's happening is not a whole lot different than what's happening with the

overall community in terms of democrats and the quote/unquote enthusiasm gap. i think right now is when democrats as well as latino democrats are starting to realize that there is an election, that it is important, that there is a lot at stake. and democrats across the board from president obama on down to every candidate who is running in a district where latinos can make the difference are going to underscore the key differences between the parties. and for latinos, there is a lot at stake not just from the standpoint of economic policies in terms of if the republicans do take over congress it's going to mean going back to the same failed economic policies that put us on the brink of the second great depression. but in terms of the latino community, it also means understanding who has been with the latino community from the very beginning in terms of immigration and any other issues that is important to the latino community. it's been democrats, the white house. republicans have completely turned their back on the

community, betrayed the community. in fact, the language that has been used in the debate has been very anti-hispanic and very racist. >> one theory is that the republicans are going to the polls. in all the polling that is been conducted you know who is going to get there. but as the president tries to rally the base, that could up the ante and increase in turnout on election day what we're not seeing in the polls right now. and the president doing his second of four addresses today in philadelphia. does that worry you? >> no. i think everybody to sta expected the gap to start closing. it's working somewhat but the base is not happy with him. doy want to take issue with something with regard to the hispanic community. this is something george w. bush did very well with in texas. they're not enthused about the democrats. when we're talking about

immigration i think we need to be clear. with regard to illegal entrance, illegal immigration. leel immigrants do not necessarily go along with the notion that we should grant amnesty. so i think that community can still be up for grabs and there's a reason why they're not enthused and that's because the democrats haven't won them over. with regard to democratic voters in general, or at least the base, we've seen the president go out there and use very devicive language. democrats know that they can't get a lot of those independents and undecideds right now are probably not going to break for them. the only thing they can do is go to those folks who turned out in 2008 and get them enthused. they have to get likely voters out of registered voters. it sounds simple because it's a simple idea but it's extraordinarily difficult. it's a real uphill climb. the president has not been able to get these folks enthused when he was just elected two years ago and they're ready to sit home now, that's a big

problem for him not just now, not just next month but in 2012. >> let's look at the unemployment numbers. now, it is 14.8 million. the gallup organization out with a poll this week saying the unemployment rate is actually closer to 10.1% across the country. in states like michigan it's 13, 14% and among college students, the unemployment rate is 16%. >> absolutely. there's no question that that is the biggest obstacle, the biggest problem facing not just democrats but any person who is running for elected office today. it is the unemployment rate. it is the jobs issue. there's no question about that. the first one who will acknowledge that is president obama himself. he will also say that everything that this white house and the democrats have put in place has been to try to put us on the path to a recovery, given the extremely huge disaster and economic hole

that we were in when the president took office. we were losing 850,000 jobs a month, steve, when the president took office. that was less than two years ago. we have now seen the nine consecutive months of private sector job creation. are we where we need to be? absolutely not. but the hole was so incredibly huge, we are still climbing out of it. but there is no question that what democrats have put in place have put us on the that road to recovery. we need to do more. >> there is one word that george willis used this morning. the word is overreaching. >> in fact, if you look and sherry talked about his liberal base, the liberal base is not as happy as they could be with him because a lot of folks think he didn't reach enough. a lot of folks think that the economic recovery act didn't work as well as it should because it wasn't big enough so

there is a lot of i think anxiety out there in terms of the economic situation, but there is no question an economist will tell you, economists from across the political spectrum that the economic recovery act really did help if in really slowing that catastrophe that we were facing when president obama took office. but there's no question we need to do more. >> part of that economic recovery act came with the tarp program. tim geithner has a piece this morning in the "washington post," he points out that tarp was created by a conservative president with the support of republicans in congress and now it's being used against this president. is that fair? >> i think everything is fair in politics. look, we're talking about the entire package that this president and the democratic congress is responsible for. and you e inherit what you inherit. nobody comes with a clean slate when they take over congress or becomes the president. i think there's some liberals who are angry with the president for not doing enough.

i think there's a real confidence gap. i think it has to do with competency. i think if this president is challenged by someone in his own party in 12i in the primary, it's -- 2012 it's not going to be from the left from an ideological position. i think it's going to be from a competency position. when you have an economic team promising no more than 8% unemployment and now we're over 10%, there's a psychological impact as well as just the joblessness impact. so i think the president has a real problem. you're going to have democrats that are going to lose in november who probably think they shouldn't have. and the white house said we'll are just casualties that happen in every mid term. but just like in war, the public can only withstand, only tolerate so many casualties. i think it's possible that because of some of the democrats that are going to be losing, because of the problem with the president, -- they may agree with him ideologically, but they don't trust him to get

it done, they don't trust his team. he went out there and shoved through obama care which was absolutely huge, unprecedented to do something that massive that affects every american and do it without any republican support whatsoever. and he didn't do the politics first. the polls were against him. he didn't go out there and sell it but he forced his rank and file democrats in congress to walk the plank and vote for it. now many of them are going to lose as a result. so i think the anger will be on his lack of ability to lead and to sell his program. not necessarily because they think that he didn't do enough. . . one recent

report, right here in illinois, this senate race have outspent the senate race 2/1 funded and advised by karl. so the question to the people of illinois. are you going to let special interests come to this state and

tell us who our senator should be? >> they joined yesterday saying this may not be true. the "new york times" also writing about this. guest: here's the problem, steve. because we will never know host: specifically about the gps? >> there are several groups that are spending millions on behalf of conservative candidates to try to beat the opponents. it's something that's unprecedented and came from the supreme court citizens united. i think what this says to the american people, you now have corporations, billions and billions of dollars that have the same exact voice as one american voter. that's not real democracy in my eyes. everyone should be very

concerned about this. to me, it's aback lash to standing up against wall street. the credit card companies and credit card reform. what the obama administration did standing with gulf coast residents. it's kind of like the empire strikes back >> obama never campaigned when mccain outspent him. >> you can't compare the money spent by outside groups. he discouraged the outside spending. it's completely different. you know exactly who's donating to the obama campaign and to the committees. when you have these shadow parties and groups, it's completely fair whoever wants to give money to them. we will never know >> i think the reason the

democrats are backing off. their hands aren't clean. it's really, really hard to lobby those charges when you have an awful lot of special-interest money. when you look at the stimulus spending and what money was given. i think it's no surprise they are starting to back off. they can complain about the money being. the obama campaign has lots and lots of money. that's the last thing the republicans want to look like. the american people have a problem with washington spending their money. you have a lot of self-made millionaires. the whole business man or

business woman image has been negative. now you have american saying that if you have someone that knows how to make money. that's what kind of person we need. instead of throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks with our tax dollars. promising only 8% unemployment which you point out has gone up and up. i think they have a real problem with credibility and stop complaining giving money to republicans. the last thing they want is people looking their own campaign. >> sherry jacobus and maria cardona >> good morning. can you hear me? host: we sure can.

>>caller: i am calling to say i think the democrats are on the positive side. i see a lot of fear tactics happening. so i say, open alive. yes we can. we shall succeed. it never works. it never works. so keep hope alive, maria. >> i love rita. >> republicans in 2011 who will control the house? republicans or democrats? >> i think democrats will still have control. i think republicans have completely overturned their hand. they started talking about taking control of the house. now each if they get within one seat of taking control of the house and senate, it's going to be seen as a failure on their part. they have talked about it so much. they really now have to deliver.

there's no question and it's not a news flash that democrats were going to lose seats. we knew this less than two years ago. we took a lot of seats in 2006 and 2007 which were in conservative districts. we know there's going to be a handful the seats that will shift over to republican hands. the news here is, i think the republicans have over played their hands. to make sure the environment, the money, the message goes perfect on election day. it's too much to hope on their part. i think democrats at the end of the day are going to continue to focus on this message of it's a clear choice. stand with workers and the middle class or you stand with the wealthiest individuals and the big corporations who all they want to go is ship jobs

overseas and return to the failed economic policies of the republicans. >> the democrats will lose and we will all be blue dogs. congressman talking about the job situation we were discussing a moment ago. >> the greatest rep to job creation in our country is the flawed idea that we can tax, spend and borrow our way to government. people are stubbornly devoted to the idea of spending and borrowing. for the past four year, they have been controlling our congress. from the white house to capital hill. 500 miles away from here in

washington, the spending bench is going on that threatens our economy. we are gripped by uncertainty. under obama and speaker pelosi, washington has been throwing everything at them but the kitchen sink. first it was a stimulus. a few months later, came the threat of a new energy tax when they called cap-and-trade. then obama care. and people work requirements. >> congressman john boehner. what's going to happen in the house? >> i am going to agree with maria, you have republicans getting too enthusiastic thinking this is done. this is a print. these last few weeks,

republicans have to turn out and keep widening that enthusiasm gap. host: what's the margin? >> i'm going to say 60 seats. i'm going to be really optimistic. you have five possible seats for the senate. the republicans need to win four of them. i think we will out of all of them. i think everything is very, very close. sharon is ahead slightly. illinois, west virginia. john racy pulling ahead by a pretty wide margin. california we are down just a little bit. the big question is the senate. the house, people need to be enthused. i wrote this in my column. i am a blogger and a columnist. i wrote this, republicans need to be careful.

they are doing very, very well. the wind is at their backs. i don't think boehner is doing that. but the republicans are excited. i think the margins are going to be great. on friday. there was a gallup poll that says 54% are republicans. and only 40% were calling themselves republicans. to give you an idea what's going on outside of washington beltway that our genius pollsters are finding. host: if you don't get the senate, people will be looking at delaware. chris coons is up 19 points. their first debate we will

cover. her campaign has become a p paritiy. >> i think it definitely has changed how the republicans's numbers might line up. the focus on christine o'donnell and it might make the republicans take the senate. she was the winner of the republican primary and not doing well there clearly. because of the extreme -- media on her and her campaign. we're missing the larger point of the republicans that are doing so well in the fact that you have charlie cook for that. he has 12 democrats incumbents, usually when they are doing not

so well in the polls. you consider them a toss up. you put them in the lean republican column can. there's a lot of big things happening out there. to focus on christine o'donnell. if it weren't for the parities, would they focus on anyone else? >> i have one question for christine o'donnell. are you a good witch or a bad witch. >> the point sherry bring us up is a good point. democrats need to focus on the substance of this. snl aside and the cheap shot i took a side. that's something democrats will continue to focus on. this is not 1994. this is not a race where the republicans are seen in such a better light than democrats. if you look at polls where democrats versus republicans,

democrats don't have high numbers. but republicans have very low numbers. the committees have done a great job raising money. they are doing hand to hand combat in really speaking to the needs and the interest of each of their constituents and making this about a clear choice. if you want to go with the failed republican policies they will put in place again. it's interesting that john boehner talks about wanting to be for small businesses. this white house and democrats have passed 16 tax cuts for small businesses. the latest which was just signed by obama backed by almost 0 republicans. they have a credibility issue when it comes to financial issues as well.

they were handed a huge surplus when george bush came into office. that's a choice we're willing to take to the american people and that's a choice i think we can win. host: we're talking to maria cardona and sherry jacobs. americans won't be caught flat food-footed. >>caller: when you put that up from nbc. why don't you say they're a direct operative. put your chart and you will see what was there since 2000. the democrats left us there. she doesn't say anything when

the outside started, she never said anything about thank >> thank you. bob. host: sherry, >> thank you. i think the outside money is an interesting issue. another thing. maria keeps talking about the failed republican economic policies. i think that's a line that voters aren't really listening to that much. right now, these are the democrats economic policies. we have a democrat president and the democrats have had the congress. we have this unemployment it's dissenting, you have republican tea party candidates who basically all they have to say is i will rein in spending and vote to cut the bush tax cuts or keep other things going for taxes. i will vote for taxes. i will will repeal obama care. this is why you have democrat after democrat after democrat

not even admitting in their over ads they are democrats. not linking themselves to president obama are or they voted for obama care. they are being rejected now by the electorate. so democrats at this point are grasping at straws. trying to sound like republicans and win over tea party voters. i think they are desperate. they very having trouble even doing that. >> following up with no republican will dare to cross the aisle.

>> christine o'donnell was not new. she benefitted from obviously the tea party movement and outside support from tea parties outside of the state. what i do think that is going to happen. you will have a lot of democrats that will want to work with republicans. the tea party issues and why there are so many trying to get the voters, the issues are not the social issues. although a lot of your tea parties are social candidates. they want to repeal obama care and tax cuts that help job creation and small businesses. i think what you're going to have a congress, republican-lead congress, that once they get over the feelings of the

election. i think speaker boehner will bea able to get a lot of republicans. the focus is on economic policy which draws in a lot of people. you don't have to have that line drawn in the sand. >> chris has joe biden as the worst week in washington in part because of the rumor was that shot down of hillary clinton runs with barack obama. you worked for then-senate hillary clinton and some of the comments joe biden has made. and the two of them are appearing in philadelphia and later this week in delaware to campaign for chris coons. you called this story, "cable cat nip". >> i did. it's something people in your world love to talk about. there's no truth to that rumor. the white house said so.

secretary clinton has said so. i think vice president biden has done a great job and what the white house has done for voters. what the democrats need to do in terms of making sure they get to their base voters. when you put the two together and have a stark choice of making sure you rein in the insurance companies. the affordable care act now holds insurance companies accountable. they cannot now take way your insurance because you get sick. children can now get covered. these are kicking in that

democrats are running ads on this and many more. then you have all of the other reforms that democrats have done in terms of standing up for the middle class and working families. giving them the largest middle class tax cut in a generation. again, that is a fight we're willing to have. had you compare everything that democrats have done for student loans. making sure college is affordable for 8 million students. making sure our young people are ready for college. all of these things are i think so that would be repealed and says so in the repeal of the republicans. it's fighting for the working class families or fighting for the top one % of wealthy individuals. >> the college students aren't going to have jobs when they get out. the jobless rage is huge. the long-term unemployment rate,

that's where we haven't been there are for 75 years. people out of work for six months or more. that's where the roots are very deep. we do have a democrat in the white house. it's a policy. we don't know what our taxes are going to be in january. because the democrat-lead congress failed to address we don't have a budget. they know there's an angry electorate. nancy pelosi is frozen. every policy they have instituted has failed. the unemployment rate is down. >> obama care was not sold to the american people. you know what? this is a democracy. people are going to vote at the polls and largely with their voting is obama care. those are the facts on the ground. and it's so simple and the

american people understand it. they want repeal. that's what candidates are running on. they wouldn't be runing on it. that's the big issue out there. host: have some more coffee. >> it would be spending. it is jobs. every poll will tell you that. right now, while i don't think american people like politicians. they don't like washington, congress, democrats, republicans. but when they are forced to look at it, right now, they like the candidates talking about repeals obama care. cutting taxes, spending, shrinking government and having an atmosphere where small businesses can create jobs and get the government off your back. >> the new religion they have on spending, we wouldn't be in this whole to begin with. >> it's a new religion.

gone -- began george bush handed obama this deficit. this election cycle, if americans want to continue on that road to recovery, they need to support their democratic candidates. only fighting for one % of wealthy who don't need a hundred thousand dollar tax cut. >> the overall debt is approaching $14 trillion. >> that's the other problem we have seen. republicanss have been absolutely absent from trying to help democrats solve any sort of big issue in this country. they have been the party of pure obstructionism. the party of no. they have no new ideas. no new solutions to offer >> weekly standard has this

cover story. don't call her ma'am, call her senator. we will take a look at this in just a moment. sherry ja -- jacobus and maria cardona. john is joining us. >>caller: thank you. i am a veteran and small business owner. the democrats have control of the house and senate two years prior to this presidential election and after they took office, i watched gas prices spike. the flood of illegal immigrants taking our jobs. it has drove me so far right, i have to look left to see reagan. there's no way i could support a democratic candidate. and i'm not going to do any

hiring. i own a small business. i am a veteran. i am not going to hire until in economy has stabilizes. i would rather go hungry than to bum off my neighbors. the only thing they're doing is encourages food stamps, welfare, extended unemployment. let them have a job. this is not america. where is our pride? host: ron, what is your business by the way in >>caller: say >> host: i'm sorry. >>caller: it's a carpet, hard wood, we install floors. it's construction. and i have other friends in the construction business. they build houses. they have lost, literally lost

their jobs to illegals. host: thanks. one other thing, the social security recipients will not get's cost of living increase because inflation is at 0 percent. this is now two years in a row. guest: clearly, this is a huge problem. we need to get together in a bipartisan way. republicans have not been serious about that. ever since obama took office. their whole mantra has been to see him fail. they have been very clear about that. that's not the way to govern or find solutions. what i would say to the american people. i'm sorry to hear the sentiments of the last caller, but clearly what republicans have done is sell a bill of goods to the american people that's basically

no. it's full of negativism. it's full of obstructionism. they have no new ideas. no new solutions and frankly. they are more than a bit hypocri hypocritical. >> congress got nasty. i will not try play sociologist. look at the growing incidence of bullying. the internet to smear ones we don't like and the popular shows people are fired or voted off island. she's seen a huge change just in the last couple of years. how do you fix it? guest: i don't know how you fix

it except let the americans vote for the candidates they want. in terms of it being divisive. we have a president who, i don't think by and large, they don't realize how far left he was. we are not quite prepared to go as far and again he pushes them with obama care. they didn't want to. if you recall, when congress was getting ready to go on break, the democrats, the leadership, wanted to keep them in town and force on healthcare. the last thing they wanted was these democrats to go home and hear from these folks. that's exactly what happened. then these democratic members would come back. they were squirrely about voting for this. we haven't made the sale. harry reed and barack obama and

nancy pelosi forced them to do. if that's what makes the senate testy, so be it. this is democracy. it's not supposed to be pretty. that might be true. the internet, we have blogging. we have these reality shows. that i don't many of them. i would say they are not necessarily based on reality. there might be a perception that's what's happening. i think it's a smaller percentage of the population engaging and a more civil debate. >> absolutely. i do have to take up one exception. liberalist agenda. he has governed down the middle. that's the reason the liberal

democratses aren't so in love with him. the fact of the matter, what he has done first and formost. put working families first. small businesses first at the expense of republicans saying no and republicans instructing and absolutely refusing to come to the table to talk about how we solve the biggest problems. i believe it's that obstructionism and this whole myth of obama being a socialist. all that has really gone towards poisoning the kind of discourse here in washington. there's no question about that. when president obama took

office, he really, he tried over and over and over again after being slapped down several times to be bipartisan in the way he did business. he tried to bring republicans to the table. >> when it comes to healthcare -- >> 218 republican amendments how can you say that's not bipartisan. >> this is what in part -- >> suzanne said during the last two years, the republican party has been shut out even in the senate when is an open debate. procedural tactics have been used to prevent debate. guest: the republicans are paying a huge price.

amount of democrats are very angry with this. that's a problem republicans do have answers. >> carlos is going to be angry, he's on the republican line from texas. >>caller: will good morning. my comment is directed toward maria. what makes you say the hispanic community is against republicans. what have you done for the hispanic community to give them a step up? not a hand up. but a hand up? what have democrats done for us lately. i don't see anything. i'm a republican. and i don't see any real action being done to help things in the hispanic community. the rhetoric about democrats, i don't buy into it and i think it's that kind of rhetoric this keep this is community in limbo

in the political world. because we really don't know who supports us. >> i can tell you, carlos, the hispanic community overwhelmingly supports president obama by 65%. i will tell you why. clearly he has been on the side of latino community. he has been on the side of creating jobs for latino community. giving 9 million latinos before the affordable care act did not have health insurance. he has given the women latinos equal pay. given latino students an opportunity to get an education in this country by pell grants

and the biggest tax cuts and importantly, pushing if day one. immigration reform. not only have they advocated and run away from this when just three years ago, we had 23 republicans to count on to help us solve this incredible problem of immigration reform in this country. we now have 11 of those republicans still in the senate and 0, 0 have decided to step up to the plate to help not just the american people, but to carlos 'point. by the way. comprehensive immigration reform is something the majority of the americans want. >> we have 10% unemployment.

it's about jobs. when we talk about immigration reform. what happens years ago. they were talking about doing amnesty and protecting the borders. the american people, the american people spoke up loud and clear and said we first want to take up securing our borders. i think it's a little bit of an insult to assume that everybody of spanish heritage focuses on what to do about illegal immigration. there are people that came here and work hard to be here. i have a sister-in-law in that situation. you have to be honest about the situation. the fact is, when you have 10% unemployment. this president promised it would stay at 8%. that's what this election is

about. steven, from indiana on the democrats line. >>caller: morning. sherry needs to get her facts right, because like on the taxes, we are paying less taxes now that we ever had. and on illegal immigrants, if they get these stupid employers who are employing and arrest them and put them in jail. the illegal immigrants will stay in mexico because they don't have jobs. >> i think the illegal immigration issue is more complicated than that. i think employers need to be accountant. with regard to taxes. come new years eve, no one knows what our taxes are going to be.

are they going to extend the bush tax cuts or play class ware fare. we only want to extend the tax cuts for some. not those rich republicans. i am glad we live in a country to become rich and provide jobs. i would like to see policies that promote that rather than playing in this heavy class war fare game. when you don't have it, you get mad at the people that have it. when you start doing well or your friends and family start doing well, you see the positive. we are the greatest country in the world. host: front page of the l.a. times. a deficit that could reach $19 billion in california. full of bickers and posturing.

in a modern maze of calling it just an absolute mess out there. there's a piece in the" new republic". of course. this campaign getting attention. we talked to the head of emily's list about a comment that was degoratory. here's part of the comment >> what's the ramification when words like this are used in the public forum? >> they just shouldn't be used by anywhere period. it's just not where democracy is. it's unfortunate to hear in any place. >> beyond this program, are you extending to speak out against the word? >> i will make it clear it's inappropriate. we have a lot to do to focus on our incumbent woman.

that's clearly where we're going to keep our focus. >> we won't repeat the word. >> it's in the path. it's unfortunate. host: with respect to race? guest: i think the impact would be showing meg whitman and her response. she's a big girl. will she's a successful woman. this is something that makes brown look bad. host: jerry brown has spent about $45 million. the race is dead even or jerry brown is up 3 or 4 percentage points. >> you know what i think it is? this is just my hunch.

people kind of are, they kind of like these self-made millionair millionaires. the fact this is a woman that doesn't have her money from marrying into it or being born into a wealthy family. these the real deal. she did it herself. i think that kind of makes a difference. these going to control huge budgets. we need somebody who knows what they're doing in the business. i think that has a lot to do with how well she's doing host don't call her ma'am. call her senate. right now. barbara boxer is slightly ahead in the polls. >> i will say a couple things about california. i think going into this, everything thought meg whitman was going to be a fantastic candidate. that's definitely true. but the fact of the matter is, after spending $140 million on

this race. californians look at this and say, she's trying to buy this race. they don't like that. yes. jerry brown has been a known -- and has had baggage. for people with real ideas and real solutions for california which has been in desire straights for a long time. somebody who, it's a state that has been in a lot of trouble. if somebody has come in with real solutions and real public policy campaign as opposed to trying to buy the senate with $120 million. i think california voters would will have taken a second look. i think she's in trouble. host: tim cane needs to be replaced. she's a fantastic defender of

principles. >> i have been promoted. host: here's the profile of tim cane. marry is joining us from mar low, oklahoma. >>caller: good morning steve. can you hear me? host: we sure can. >>caller: i am 97 years old. i wanted to tell these two girls. they don't know what black is all about yet. let me tell america too. what i was born in 1923, came up through all the depressions. we have got a beautiful, beautiful world. and it's worth conserving. it's worth saving. but we're going to have to get rid of people with diarrhea of the mouth. get rid of trash. we're going to have to get rid of people that don't know what they're talking about. they are raised on welfare. that's all they know is welfare.

and let me tell you some little jokes while i'm on here, please. and they're nice. the old indian said. democrats cut off the top of their blanky, sewed it on the bottom and told people it was the same length. foot longer. i will tell you what, i'm a proud republican. i live and die republican because i don't have diarrhea of the mouth. i don't lie, i don't steal. i don't get out here and want the government to feed me. i do not and have never been on welfare my entire life. we are going to have to return back and we're going to have to let a lot of people die, which is, this here president will do. he's going to let a lot of them die. he's not concerned with anything but obama and his family.

obama is an enemy to america and you mark it down. host: strong words. thank you for the call. guest: obviously, i do not grow with the caller. she talked about having grown up in the depression and i will go become to the main message that democrats are going to talk to their constituents. they have put in place a clear path to economic recovery in this country. after having been on the brink of a second great depression. the economic recovery act did bring us back from that great depression. it would have been a lot worse if they had not been put in place. following that, everything that democrats and this president has done has been to fight for the middle class. the republicans have fought for the wealthy and the huge corporations who are spending

millions of dollars to get rid of democrats. >> you know, more bad news for democrats is that projections now is joblessness continues at this rate. it will be 2020 by the time we have any kind of a recovery. that's the pretty bad news. the rhetoric right now. it's not working for the democrats. we are three weeks out from the elections. it's about spending, cutting taxes. longer than that to see the democratic congress. i hope republicans stay the course and go out there and stay on message. i think it's working for them >> from loretta that said. whitman spending over 140 million people. she could have done more with her money. >> it's her money. i think if she's governor.

she will be able to help a lot more people in california. i'm sure she gives a lot to charity. this is a successful woman. it's a race in california. just as president obama spent unprecedented amounts. this is a self-made woman. in that regard. i would have a lot of confidence in her. i think california have confidence in her when you look at what she did with ebay and the dire straight that is california is in right now. she might be just what the doctor ordered at this point in time. >> can i say one comment. sherry talks about the amount of money president obama spent. yes. because he had donors in an unprecedented number. they were donors who were so excited. they gave to the campaign

>> a lot of special interest >> but you know who those people are. >> and we know-- >> i think all the special interests that pay on behalf of republicans. >> because that was not his personal money. that was money that donors to gave to obama. >> meg whitman is not using special interests. i think in this particular case. self-made woman who knows how to get this done. i do give her the edge. she doesn't have special interests pulling strings. host: is that also hurting meg

whitman? guest: i don't think so. we saw her if the mcchain campaign. i don't think people link her to anybody else. she is seen and viewed as her own person ken from florida. >>caller:. during the bush administration. we passed a pharmaceutical bill that was a windfall for the companies. i have patients who have to choose between food and medicine. some of them have been yet to be able to get out of their dough nut hole. they kept the chinese off our budget. it was a surplus when clinton

was in and turned into this incredible deficit. i would like to point out if i may. all of these family values people like senator enson who was involved in an affair and the senator who visits with prostitute and of course, larry craig and all of these people, foley and of course, sanford ask sin of south carolina. all of these people are claiming family values. if i may make so bold. this is the mantra of the republican party, nobody ever got poor under estimating the intelligence of the american public host: thanks for the call. >> some of the ethic have been very difficult. one of the things that's a real problem. they have put off these ethics

trials, for democratics until the lame duck session. this looks like something they don't want to deal with. they have had ethices violation. i think it's about the economy. host: in the early point. the obama voters wanted a refund. i am going to end on that note. i want to share one of moments from saturday night live as they took aim of the president. >> delaware republican senate candidate christine o'donnell claims unfair coverage in the media. we used two tricks. record and play. while speaking at a women's

conference. president obama's speech was interrupted when his seal fell off two years early. >> it's simple that voters can make this november. either you vote for continuing to get us out of this economic hole that the republicans drove us into. the democrats have put us on a clear path to recovery. standing with the middle class and working-class families or vote with the republicans who will go back to the same failed economic policies that will only stand up for the big companies. oil and wall street and credit card companies. all who whom have done their dammest >> republicans are going to cut spending. we are spending too much money.

if we don't, the voters will vote us out in two years. we will repeal obama care and we will try and get these, this unemployment number down and make them again. >> we will reduce spending it matters. host: sherry jacobus is a report and maria cardona. thank you both for being with us. will you come back again? absolutely. >> coming up in just a couple minutes. just how much does this cost to run capital hill? numbers coming up in just a moment. first we look at events of this past week from the leading editorial cartoonists from around the country.

"washington journal" continues. >> we want to welcome paul barton. a political reporter. thanks so much for being here. host: we want to look at how much it costs to operate the federal government. guest: the host of running congress. how much money congress spends on itself, and that's gone up about 89% over the past decade. host: let me go over the

numbers. it's up 89%. members sales ands bests is up 24%. the expense allowances for senate leaders is $180,000. that's up almost a hundred %. for the house. it's $26 million. up 82% and salary of the architect, up 118%. guest: in researching this story. i got i impression, there's a blind spot in terms to congressional spending and the amount of money congress spends on itself. i didn't find a lot of articles. there's always the focus on the the expense of salaries for the members of the house and senate.

but, it goes way beyond that. congress is its only bureaucracy and has a million moving parts. and there hasn't been a lot of attention to this. there's been sporadic articles. it doesn't get highlighted by the press or the public. i don't think congress knows how much it cost to run the government. host: we will get to your phone calls in just a moment. if you're listening on c span. 202 is the area code 737-0001 for republicans. and also join the conversation only at twitter.com/cpan wj.

this is what taxpayers pay for. $5.2 billion. let me repeat that. number of congress. each individual. $236,000. an average. $60,000 a year for pensions for 400 plus members of the house. >> congressional benefits have been a hot button issue for a lot of people. again, that's, both figures are anonymous. to the average american, this is, but, again, it's very small. the salaries and perks, there's a lot that goes beyond that. i am -- i asked these scholars

about this no one has really done a study on how to organize itself. i didn't come across anything like that. dave is with us, paul barton is with us. >>caller: hey. good morning. taxpayers are really paying for everything. we are bailing everyone out. i don't want my president to fail. socialism is not work here. if a true american, work jobs, raise my family. 49% of americans pay, not pay taxes. there's a lot of people that will pay taxes. we have to bail everybody out. obama was born in kenya.

and then he moved to indonesia. he forgave them right away. he's from kenya. host: i'm going to stop you here. i'm not here to criticize the president. he was born here and his family is from kenya. unless you have another information. he's an american citizen. >>caller: i want someone to run my country. taxpayers we are paying so much. . force.

if you want to bring up the plrks, one of the weird things, economist comes up with its own budget east mat and then it submits those to the executive branch. and then they put those in his budget which comes out around the first of february. then later on, during hearings, members of congress can say we want to slash the legislative branch to below what the administration requested. but it wasn't the administration who came up with those figures in the first place. it's kind of congress talking to itself. >> this is what the story looks like. you point out in the story that over the last ten years

inflation was at about 26% and yet spending increases range between 70 to 100% over the last decade. guest: the one thing, what i was told and i believe this to be true, if you look right after 9/11 and if you look at some of the documents of the congressional research service and so forth, you'll see that there was an immediate like $350 million increase in spending on capitol hill just for security. and security continues to be an embedded cost. it's a cost, one for the members, the capitol police have been greatly expanded. but also, security is an embedded cost in other ways, too. like you find things like spending money for new house id system for house members and so

forth. but those are some of the factors that have driven the increase over the past ten years. host: also, the senate cham lynn. is that a full or part time job? guest: i'm not sure. but that was definitely bun of the surprises researching this thing was how much money. i mean, this is sunday, i don't want to be anti-religious. but how much money goes to the chaplain, especially the senate chaplain. host: the house chaplain earns $172,500 a year. guest: i'm sure they're both full-time positions. but i tried many times to get ahold of the senate chaplain and i kept getting a recording. this was in august during the recress. i kept getting a recording

about inviting members to daily bible study sessions with food provided at noon. but i could never get them to call back. host: and operating costs for the office of the speenger has increased 62% from $2.9 million to $4.9 million. ford meed, florida. what it costs to operate congress. caller: good morning. mr. barton, i'm looking at the numbers that you are presenting and it's real numbers. the sad part about it is that while we have partisan bickering with everything else in this country, we see that we have a real bipartisan effort in making sure that we, the taxpayers, do not realize kind of the costs it's costing us for this government to run and these people's salary.

and even after they leave, the costs that they'll cost us to keep maintaining them. that's one of the things i wanted to comment on. if you can comment on whether is this something that the federal government or the house will look into as far as to curb some of this cost? and if there's a report on that? and as far as, i just wanted to point one thing. this is one of the places where, as a citizen i go to real and -- news or comments as to what, how this country is running. the sad part this morning i'm looking, and i was very amazed. at one point i wanted to ask you whether or not you are sitting there on the, it sounds like an attack. but what i noticed is that if somebody comes on making a call

concerning, ant-government, if they are against the obama administration they get a full

we talked about the house and senate chaplain. in the house of representatives the speaker has seen a budget increase of 191%. the majority leader um almost 50%.

the minority leader up 120%. and the minority whip up 61%. the majority whip up 54%. guest: one of the comments i got on this story was from one of the watch dog groups in town , and they told me that they were quite struck by the increases in the leadership office expenses. and in talking to pelosi's office, pelosi's office said that what happened after she became speaker in january of 2007 is that they consolidated a lot of thing that is had been spread out in the other leadership office they brought into her office, and that they contend that's why her figures jumped so much. but the increase in house leadership offices the whole and actual funding from 2007 to 2008 is about equal to the

increase in pelosi's office. host: sharon from north carolina, with paul barton here in washington. good morning. caller: hello. i just wanted to say first thank you, mr. barton, for coming on here and speaking. i think, instead of being a reporter you should probably have an office on capitol hill. you should have your own office because you're telling us probably the most important information than anything else. i watched a segment before with the two ladies and they were going back and forth. i am, i don't know if you can recognize from my voice, am an african american woman. well, i used to be a democrat. i voted for clinton and kerry. it's the first time i am a newly registered republican.

and the reason why is this very topic. i am looking at this and listening, i've been listening for the past year about what's been going on in washington. and what i'm hearing from plinds, they use terms of the american people fired us. i like that. because they speak as though they know that when they're going to capitol hill they're doing a job that they can be fired. democrats speak as though they're -- they've been coordinated into some kind of king's court that they should have for the rest of their lives. and looking at this spending tells me that they have no idea, no wonder washington or the beltway people call it is so detached from american people. i mean, my god, they talk about wall street executives and how they abuse their money. and look at what they do. host: thank you, sharon. guest: well, doing this project

i was trying to get my hands or discern the shape and size. i didn't get to examine all the individual as much as i would like to. it is -- again, i can only say it's going to be interesting to see if anything is done on this issue by the republicans if they regain control. now, both the chairman of the senate legislative appropriations subcommittee and the house legislative, they have spoken to the need this year to contain congressional costs. in fact, at the committee level the house even passed a small cut but it was miniscule compared to the total amount of outlays. host: so brian wants to know are these unprecedented. do you have a comparison from 1990 to 2000 or 1980 to 1990? >>

guest: i don't. i didn't see that much in research. i saw some sporadic audit that is looked at the cost of congress. i didn't see anything that looked at it over an extended time prame, which is what i tried to do. host: you begin your piece that money that congress spends on itself has been an increase of 89%. this is for staff, salaries, committees and operating expenses. $60,000 a year in pensions. guest: again, like salaries, congressional pensions have always been a hot button issue. the documents show or the

materials i came across showed that right now anyway, that congress, the retirement benefits available to congress do not differ that much from those available to the rest of the federal government. of course, federal pay in general is a huge issue right now with the economy being what it is. and people looking at federal workers making far more than average private sector workers in many instances. host: in 2000, the operating expenses on capitol hill was about $2.8 billion. this year, it is $5.5 billion on average. so you can see the increase. here's a look at some of the numbers. good morning. caller: good morning. one of the things i would like to know is how can people see things so differently? when you're looking at a congressman making $236,000 in benefits and salaries and the

other perks that they're receiving and not look at what they're doing to the american public. if they're so concerned about the deficit why don't they give up some of that money they're make sng if they're so concerned about what president obama is doing to the nation, why don't they look at what they're doing to the nation and what other large companies are doing? nobody ever speaks on the fact that president george bush gave lots of credit to the wealthy. so here comes mr. obama giving people credit that don't have money. he's filtering money from the bottom to the top. host: we're short of time. thank you for your call. your comment and your response. guest: well, again, debbie

wasserman schultz of florida, the chairman of the house legislative bratch appropriations subcommittee and ben nelson of nebraska, the chairman of the counterpart in the senate, they have both talked about the need for congress to set an example for the rest of the government and monitoring its own budget. but you get the impression looking at this budget over the years that it's been something that has kind of mushroomed without anybody looking at it. and like one strange thing is there's a political -- the political imperative that is come up to do something about congress can often lead to more costs. host: bob has this comment. guest: well, again, i was looking at the size of the forest rather than the individual trees.

but i would like that gentleman to go on line and it has an excellent website. in the house clerk's office where you can look at the dispersments from the house office. but for the most part, house and senate members get roughly the same budget although it's adjusted in the senate case for the size of the state and it's adjusted in both cases for the amount of travel they have to do. host: the electricity bill is about $51, water and suer. and one of the biggest areas of increase, 800% increase for capitol hill police officers as a result, as you indicated earlier, part of 9/11 and heightened security. susan, republican line, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call and thank you for c-span. i just have a few comments and then a question. i think a lot of americans are

upset with congress for the frivolous spending that they do. for example, the trips that they take where it's totally unnecessary. sort of grand standing type thing. nancy pelosi remaking the cafeteria there on capitol hill and making it environmentally friendly. that was, you know, maybe a thoughtful thing to do but it was totally frivolous. in my household you have to cut out frivolous spending. my husband has been unemployed for almost two years and can't find a job anywhere. what they're doing is sucking the taxpayers dry. they're killing the host. i'm infuriated for not reading the bills and for slipping things into the bills after the fact. and just reminding the american people that the democrats have been in charge of the purse strings for the last four years and things weren't quite so bad. 5.4% unemployment wasn't nearly as bad as 10.1%. i think that they should not be able to vote for their own

races. i'm tired -- raises. i'm tired of them voting in raises. that should be something up for debate. host: thanks for the call. i look at the printing expenses. 212% increase over the last decade to print documents. about $94 million just for that service. and congressional research up almost 60%. guest: all the information, congress has many research or information gathering arms and the budget is on all of them considerably over the past year, lots of things go into those budgets. they've been trying to include their incentives for staff so they can get better staff. the previous caller brought up a question about congress

spending some money. nansie pelosi did institute a green initiative to try to promote better and more environmentally friendly work conditions into the capitol. for instance, switching to more energy efficient lighting. and there's lots of things when you look at the budget you'll find lots of things that you just never heard of. for instance, established over the years and continues to draw money, there's a thing called the open world congress which was established back in the 90s to promote congress' way of promoting democracy too the rest of the world and they bring people in and so forth. but these programs get established and they continue on. and again, nobody -- i don't think anybody's ever looked at whether or not all of these are

justified. they may be, they may not be. host: one of our twitter comments from a viewer if you're a member of the leadership, it is $20 to 40,000 higher. michelle is joining us. caller: good morning. my comment is about people's at tude of entitlement. not only the congressmen's but the average american. i realize there are a lot of good, hard working american people who are out of work through no fault of their own. but i still see a lot of people with this extending unemployment and that where they aren't really looking for

a job. and here are possibly the five best sentences you'll ever read. you cannot legislate the poor into prosperity. by legislating the wealth out of prosperity. what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. the government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. when half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation. you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. i do not understand that we're going to punish the wealthy. i am not wealthy by any means.

i am very middle class. but what is the incentive of working hard and making more money if you're just going to have less of it? host: thank you, michelle. guest: well, again, some of the scholars i talk to say it would probably be a good idea if congress did initiate some sort of study to see if they're really being cost effective. there is that imperative for congress to withhold or -- its costs as much as possible, especially in this time with the economy being as shaky as it is. host: the hoin is congress' operating costs sky rocket. guest: that's -- to be honest,

i don't know. that's been -- there's been publicity over the years about hastert and pelosi and their use of airplanes. but again, that was one of the trees i didn't get to examine as much as possible. host: but the other headline is costs have increased and it costs $5.5 billion a year to operate congress, much more than double ten years ago. guest: oh, yeah. if you look at the -- go on line and look at some congressional research service reports on this, you look at the ten-year figures just really start to show an increase, especially in the latter part of owes. from 2006 to 2010 there were some very large increases in congressional outlays. host: you can read the story on line at capital news

connection.org. thanks very much for your time. guest: thank you. host: coming up in just a moment, bill adair is going to be joining us. he is the editor of po lit fact keeping track of what's right and wrong, fact and fiction in some of these ads. the website is on your screen. first, a look at some of the issues, the guests, the top 86 on the sunday morning programs.

>> despite the uprising and state crackdown that followed last year's elections, many influential and liberal iranians still believe in an islamic republic. the complexities of modern iran. find this weekend's complete schedule of nonfiction books and authors at booktv.org. >> most generals greats in is what they do on the battlefield. i tried showing the book much

of his greatness was what he did between battles, holding the army together. >> these labor politicians who nearly bankrupted our country, who left a legacy of cuts and debt who are still in denial of the disaster that they created, they must never, ever be allowed anywhere near our economy ever again. >> british prime minister and conservative party leader david cameron from their annual party conference, tonight on c-span. >> washington journal continues. host: another campaign, another season of television adds. now spawning off into a number of different states around the country, thanks for being with us. guest: thanks for having me.

it's an effort to broaden fact checking the way that we do it, where we rate things on a truth meter from true to false to our lowest rating, pants on fire. we've partnered with newspapers around the country in sen states to do the same fact checking that we do. we train them, we host their content, and they put the truth meter to politicians in their states. and it's been very successful. we've done more than 600 fact checks in those states since we started earlier this year. and i think it's really been good for voters. voters now have a better sense of what's true and what's not. host: one of the ads that's been getting attention, harry reid and sharon angle will be debating and we will cover it

this week. did he? guest: we rated this barely true on our truth meter. this is one we did on friday. this is an ad similar to some scomplinets that have been made about democrats in other states. we check this at first in one of their races and what we found is that indeed the congress did pass when it passed health care reform it rejected an amendment that would have put some restrictions on health care coverage on things like viagara. but in this case, it's not the case that harry reid or anyone was out saying we've got to make sure that there is viagara coverage for convicted sex offenders. and indeed, during the debate in the senate one of the democrats said, well, all you're doing here is creating material for a campaign commercial. to one of the republicans. well, that was true. they created good material. we rated it barely true.

there is truth in the sense that that coverage exists. but it was not an affirmtive effort by harry reid or other democrats to do this. and they have opportunity before that provision of the law kicks in to correct it. host: a lot of attention on cross roads gps. this is a group put together by karl rove and ed gillespie. is this one example of what we're going to see this election and in 2012? guest: we've seen an explosion in the ads from these independent groups that are maybe not as independent as the law might suggest. and what's happened is a lot of the corporate money instead of aca company or a big corporation advertising under

its name, the corporate money has gone to these groups that depending on how the group is set up, whether regulated by the commission or under the tax laws, the group can operate without disclosing its donors or at least in not disclosing its donors initially. and so they can spend tens of millions of dollars without us knowing who is behind the ad. and in many cases these ads repeat the same points that are being made by the republican or democratic candidates, i guess it's important to point out that the spending has been very lop sided in favor of republicans, that groups like cross roads are affill yated with republicans spending much more money. and their record for accuracy is not very good. i think we've rated five or six ads for cross roads gps or its affiliated group and i don't think they've gotten better

than a half true on our truth meter. host: let's look at some of the ads. in the california senate race, the first, a republican 527, if you want to call it that and the response from barbara boxer. >> california seniors are worried. barbara boxer voted to cut spending on medicare benefits by $500 billion, cuts so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking medicare altogether. boxer's cuts would sharply reduce benefits for some and could jeopardize access to medicare for others. and millions of americans won't be able to keep the plan or doctor they already have. check the facts and take action. call boxer. stop the medicare cuts. >> as c.e.o. she laid off workers and shipped jobs to india. >> i know precisely where those jobs go. >> because she shipped them

there to shanghai instead of san jose, banglor instead of bur banks. 30,000 workers gone while she took 100 million for herself. outsourcing jobs, out for herself. >> i'm barbara boxer and i approve this message. guest: we've looked at both of those claims first in terms of the claim about medicare is one that we've heard in a lot of congressional races, not just in california. and this is interesting an attack from republicans. republicans have never been totally comfortable with medicare, the whole idea that government would run a big health insurance program like that but they have used it often in this campaign to go after democrats. and what they're saying is that by voting for the health care law that democrats, in doing so, voted to cut medicare. and they're trying to give the impression, particularly to seniors, that their medicare

benefits might be jeopardized. in this case and in many others that we've rated, we rated the claim barely true. it is true that barbara boxer and other democrats voted in favor of the medicare law which does reduce the future growth of medicare spending by about $500 billion. but it is not the case that that would cut medicare benefits, which is the implication by the add. and likewise in the case, and i don't remember our ruling on the attack on fiorina, we have found many exaggerations particularly on issues where the republican candidate ran or helped run a company and the democrats will seize on that and try to say that the republican in some way eliminated jobs, and particularly sent these jobs

overseas. there's a front page story in the "new york times" today about this pattern particularly as it relates to china. in ohio, we have in several cases rated claims by lee fisher, the democratic candidate where he has tried to blame rob portman, the republican candidate, who was president bush's trade representative for shipping jobs to china. and we have rated those in one case i think half true and in another case false because i think in many cases here the democrats are exaggerating the impact that the republicans had on where the jobs have gone. host: so who is cross roads gps? that's a question on our twitter page. guest: sure. cross roads gps is one of the two groups, and you mentioned earlier, that fair affiliated with karl rove and ed gillespie, very prominent republicans in the past ten years, and it is a group that is funded to a large extent by corporate donations from what

we've been able to tell. we don't know a lot about the donors because particularly for cross roads gps they don't have to reveal the donors. cross roads gps operates as an -- under the tax code as a nonprofit 401, not c but 401 something organization, and so we don't know who the donors are. we do know that it is republicans who are running it. and in many cases they're repeating the talking points that the republican candidates are using in those races. now, last week a couple of groups, democracy 21 and another group that's concerned about spending money and politics, they asked the i.r.s. to investigate cross roads gps and questioned whether it is truly operating under the tax laws properly. host: our next call is dar lean

from dallas. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you c-span. calling to reference to the ladies you had on earlier, ms. cheryl and also ms. maria. i enjoyed watching them. please have them on more often. and also, with the sites, i didn't know we had one here in texas. that's wonderful. and also, we are excited and we start early voting at the end of the week. so we just wanted to let you know that we are actively ready to go and we are fired up and ready to vote again. host: thank you. let me bring up her point because she talks about early voting which in many ways is changing the dynamics of these elections as more and more people vote by mail. guest: it really is. there were questions about the concerns about the sanctity of the voting booth and what

happens when people vote early. on the other hand, it's very convenient for people working during the day and can't make it to the polls in florida where my news organization is based, a huge percentage of people are going to vote early. so it raises some interesting issues. it also changes the dynamic of some of the last minute ads and things which aren't necessarily going to be just the week before the election. i think it sort of moves everything forward. host: let's look at the florida race, where crist is running against meek. and according to the current polls here are some of the ads in that race. >> work longer, get by on less. that's the rubio retirement plan. rubio wants to raise the social security retirement age. that means you'll work harder and longer for your money.

and rubio wants to cut benefits. it's already tough enough to make ends meet. there's a better choice. charlie crist is against raising the retirement age. he'll protect social security because our srs have earned it. >> the choice is clear. marco rubio stood up for taxpayers by saying no to the failed obama stimulus. charlie crist embraced it. marco rubio opposed obama care. charlie crist has flip flopped. marco rubio says no to obama's energy tax. florida needs a strong leader to put a check on obama's agenda. that's marco rubio. >> i'm kendrick meek. with three of us running you should know what makes me different. i'm the only one who has fought against developers draining the

everyglades. the only one against privatizing social security. the only one who is prochoice who took on george bush, who fought for tax cuts. i'm the only one who can approve this message. >> a little bit of humor but also some pretty sharp attacks in that race. >> we've been very active in florida. we're part of the st. petersburg times so naturally we've been doing a lot of fact checking there. we operate plit fact florida as a partnership with the high pressure system herald and we're getting help -- moim herald. the press is helping us. and we rate that first ad that you showed, the charlie crist ad that had those very unflattering black and white images of marco rubio. this is part of the art form of these campaign ads. i always think it's funny how

thake -- they can find the least flattering photos, and they show themselves in living color. in this case charlie crist was making a claim about marco rubio in social security saying that marco rubio wants to raise the retirement age for social security and some other things. we rated that half true. we -- it is true that rubio has talked about that. we gave it a half true because we felt that crist was leaving out some important information. that being that rubio has said, like many other republicans who have talked about making changes to social security, that he would protect current retirees and people who were close to retirement, and that these changes wouldn't occur immediately and they would somehow be phased in. the other ad that you showed, the across roads gps ad attacking crist, we haven't looked at that particular ad but we have looked at several

others with some of the same changes, some of the same charges about crist. his support of the stimulus. and he was indeed, and that ad shows the very famous hugs that he gave president obama when obama came to florida. and we've looked at some of those, too. it's interesting when you watch these ads all day long like i do and you just hope that voters look beyond the ads because they're giving such limited amount of information about what's happening in these races. and i hope that they go to a site like ours or to other news sites to find out what the truth is about these things. because if we had to look at the overall accuracy of ads in this campaign, i would rate them as barely true. having a germ of truth, i would say most of the charges that we see here on these ads have some grain of truth, but they are twisting it, distorting it,

exaggerating it in some way. host: our conversation is with bill adair, the editor of pliti fakt, which he is keeping track of these ads. you can check it out. and what is the liar, liar, pants on fire, which is my favorite at the website. robert is joining us from tennessee. republican line. good morning. caller: hello, gentlemen. i was wondering what the gentleman thought about maybe a state-run fining system for these politicians who are not quite fully honest with their ad. guest: in other words, fining them for not telling the truth? caller: yes, sir. guest: i don't think that would be a good idea. we have freedom of speech in this country, and i think it's important to allow our elected officials, to allow anybody to say what they want and then to allow a free and independent

press, like ours, to help you, the voter, understand what the truth is about those things. and you can take that information and do something with it. but i don't think it would be a good idea to get government involved and have the government deciding what's true and what's not. host: sasha asking the question guest: no. we have groups in various states, and even with all that we have sort of the equivalent of two to three full-time fact checkers in each state plus three full-time fact checkers for our national staff. we're getting a relatively small portion of all the ads. we are, though, i think getting the majority of the points that are being made. for example, that claim about medicare that we heard in the

ad against barbara boxer has been made repeatedly in many republican races, and so i think we're getting the main themes. and if you come to our search box by topic, you can probably find that we have rated the claim that you're interested in. host: we have a compilation of ads as well on our site and a lot of debates coming up in the week ahead. we encourage you to check it out on our website. tomorrow night, the kentucky senate live here on c-span getting under way at 7:00 eastern time. that will be followed by an indiana senate debate. and later in the week, the only debate wednesday in that delaware senate race. and on thursday evening, live coverage between senate democratic leader harry reid and sharon angle his republican opponent. that gets under way at 9:00 eastern time. you can see it all this week here on c-span and on c-span

radio. john from huntington, new york, good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to mention about what you said about the medicare thing. i was -- my supplemental was canceled last week and i was on the phone all week and nobody wants to accept me. and it's scary. it's scary stuff. so i don't think the republicans are lying so much about it. guest: i'm not sure how much individual cancellation for supplementry medicare would be a factor of the health care law. are you sure that's a function of the new law? caller: well, it seems to be, because nobody wants to accept me. and they're saying that they're not going to take the medicare. and i'm trying to stay with my heart doctor because i had a buy past and because i'm trying

to stay with him i'm having a really hard time. guest: i think what i know about the law, and i'm not an expert in health care coverage, we have a reporter on our staff who really to focuses on health care. the core benefits are not being changed. the impact from the law is going to be felt more by patients who use medicare advantage programs and if you use the medicare advantage program it's likely that some of your sort of extra benefits, things like vision care, health care club memberships are likely to be affected. but the law is not supposed to change the core health care benefits. now, supplementry insurance is a different thing. i know you're going to the private market to kind of fill in the gaps that medicare wouldn't cover. i'm not sure how much that is covered or not covered by the new law.

host: in the knows senate race, an open seat and congressman blunt is vying for it as the republican nominee being challenged by robin carnhan, one of the well none families in american politics. >> our bill is up for a vote. just hours before, roy blunt secretly inserts language to benefit tobacco giant. blunt's girl friend and son are lobbyists for the cigarette companies. the the consummate washington insider. roy blunt. what's wrong with washington. >> they promised jobs. instead, we got generations of debt. where did our money go? are ask robin carnhan. her brother's wind farm got over $100 million stimulus dollars. robin carnhan campaigned for

obama and the stimulus. >> her brother lobbied for the special deal. >> the payoff? over $100 million. >> they get a real windfall. >> we get the bill. >> and no jobs. >> i'm roy blunt and i approve this message. >> bill. closely watched race. >> it is. we rated that first ad about roy blunt and tobacco, and we rated that one mostly true. the ad pretty much gets it right in terms of blunt's role in getting an amendment passed in a bill. now, the reason we gave it a mostly true is there's a couple of mitigating factors. one is it reasonably could be put in a national security bill because there were some concerns that tobacco, products were being used by groups associated with terrorism and so it wasn't that big of a

stretch to put nit that particular law. it also wasn't done secretly. the ad says it was done secretly. this was, as things are in congress, done largely in the sunlight. but otherwise, in terms of capturing the role of the girlfriend and the lobbying, that was correct. so we rated that one mostly true. the other one we didn't rate. and it makes me want to fact check that one. i'd be curious to check the wind farm claim. guest: don't tell my boss this, but i have the best job in american journalism. this is the most rewarding job in journalism because you get to blow the whistle on

falsehoods, you get to help people make a decision on democracy. it doesn't get tiring. and, if anything, we could do it 24 hours a day because there's so many interesting claims being made. and that's really the nice thing about our state operations. having us in these growing number of states, we have more fact checking being done than ever before. i don't think that there's a new organization that has ever done as much fact checking than we have this election. and i can the result is voters have lots more valuable information to make their decisions about who they're going to vote for. >> the web site is politifact.com. new jersey, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. my question has to do with a sweeping generalization statement of fact that is made in political add ver tiesments

as well as in talking points for the democratic party. and it is that president clinton left a huge surplus to president bush. but president bush left a huge deficit for president obama. in the panel this morning with ms. jack oby and ms. car donea, ms. car donna made the statement that he left a huge surplus. i don't think that was a surplus of monetary value, i think it was a projected surplus which never materialized. host: we should point out also that the republicans were in control when bill clinton was in the white house. the democrats in control of congress during the last two years of the bush administration. guest: that's correct. i think that's a really good point. and that gets to, i should

explain how we might fact check something like that because i think it shows the different elements of a claim. the call ser exactly right that this is a common talking point. you hear this from democrats over and over again. and as you noted, steve, remember, it was not just bill clinton who came up with a balanced budget agreement. it was bill clinton and knut gingrich who came to an historic agreement that ultimately led to the surpluses that were there at the end of clinton's presidency. and the way that we would fact check something like this is we sort of break out the parts of it. so one part is what are the numbers? what, was there indeed a surplus at the end of clinton's presidency and what was the deficit at the end of bush's presidency? and then we would attempt to, in talking to experts, try to sort out well who is

responsible and try to figure out within the bounds of objective journalism can we call it bill clinton's surplus and george w. bush's deficit? or to what extent do you hold them responsible? and we've done this not just at the federal level for a claim like that but we've done it for claims at the state level and congressional races where someone will say since so and so was governor, our state lost so many jobs. and so we'd check the number of jobs. but then we'd also look at, well, how much can you hold the governor responsible for that. host: one other set of ads in florida. congressman gracen who is seeking reelection and his challenger is dan webster. >> washington backers are attacking allen gracen on women's issues. the facts on webster's record. sponsored a bill to create a form of marriage that would trap women in abusive

relationships. webster is an advocate for a group that teaches mothers should not work outside the home. webster would force victims of rape and incest to bear their attacker's child. don't let daniel webster make the laws we will have to live with. >> you want to know why washington is broken? here are three numbers. 4 billion. that's what they're borrowing every day. 2.6 million. that's how many jobs we've lost. and 98%. that's how often my opponent has voted with nancy pelosi. together we will cut spending, jump start the economy, and restore the promise because america is not broken. washington is. host: the house race is getting a lot of attention. guest: it is. allen grayson, democrat in the orlando area, it's a seat that had been held for many years by republicans. so it is very much a vulnerable

seat. and allen grayson is a really in your face colorful character in the democratic party saying things that many democrats in difficult seats are not saying. he's very outspoken. so he put out an ad a couple weeks ago that was called taliban dan, that tried to really portray dan webster as an extremist. and we looked at a couple of the claims in that ad and rated them, i believe, false and barely true. and then so this add that you just showed from alen grayson was in many ways the response by grayson to the backlash that came out of that ad. grayson's attempt to actually give the facts. oddly, the ad is called the facts, which i thought was sort of funny, suggesting that maybe the previous ad wasn't. and so we looked at two of the claims there.

the claim that daniel webster is an advocate for a group that teaches that mothers should not work outside the home. we rate that barely home. we found there is a religious group that he is affiliated with where the leader has talked about that. but that's not like that's one of the basic tenets of the group. we looked at the other claim that webster had sponsored a bill to create a form of marriage that would trap women in abusive relationships. indeed, webster was a supporter in the early 90's of a law that actually, a bill that didn't pass in florida that would create covenant marriage, which would be a more restrictive form of marriage that couples could opt for. and indeed, the only way out of that, out of a covenant marriage would be in the case of infidelity. and so because of that, because it would have allowed, because it -- people who were victims

of abuse or something would not be able to get out of their marriage under the way the law was written, we rated that law true -- that claim true. host: what will people find when they go to your site? guest: we have two main features. the truth meter section where we post the latest items that we've done. we also have the owe bomb ter, which is a feature where we've tracked president obama's campaign promises, all 508 of them, and we rate them as promise kept, promise broken, stalled or in the works. and so it's a good way to get an independent look, because we're not affiliated with either party, we're a news organization. it's a good way to get an independent assessment of the facts in american politics. host: thanks very much for stopping by. guest: thanks for having me. host: please come back again. guest: you