the american petroleum institute. then we will have a reporter on the u.s. economy. also on the program, how to fix our schools. we will talk with educators and education policy analysts. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] host: and little later this morning, we will talk about oil drilling and the environment, economics, and education. but starting off with politics and the 2010 election now less than three weeks away. with the obamas on the campaign trail with nearly 1000 candidates for federal office, we want to know what you think about the focus of the election. it is the 2010 election about

president obama and his policies? that is the question on "washington journal" this morning. please allow 30 days between calls and stay on topic. you can also send us an e-mail. or join us on twitter. is the 2010 election about president obama, in your view? this is from "the new york post" this morning. president obama's approval rating has taken another died in the polls. -- dive in the polls.

again, this is based on a reuters poll. once again, the numbers. currently president obama's job approval, 43. 53 disapprove. that is a change from 47-50 in september. country in the right direction? 31% say yes, 63% wrong. in september, 33-61. a plan to back democrat or republican for congress among likely voters. 44% democrat, 48% republican. that is from "the new york post." "financial times" this morning. it picture of president obama and pennsylvania. -- a picture of president obama in pennsylvania.

this, again, from "financial times." do you think this election is about president obama? we will start with richard from new jersey. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i don't know if this election is purely a referendum on obama as it is a referendum on the state of affairs in america. let me tell you why i say that. did you watch the debate between cristi and o'donnell and chris koons? koons? >> -- host: i did. caller: she used the term obamacare. there is no legislation on the books called obamacare. i have been a long time wolf blood sir -- wolf blitzer watcher, it is disconcerting when you talk about legislation that does not exist.

what if we talk about the o'donnell wiccan candidacy because i think it would be underhanded. just like that there is not anything obamacare that the president signed in congress voted on. why do we spend an entire debate with two very sharp people managing the debate and get people can constantly talk about legislation that does not exist. host: our good friend joe from georgia. republican line. caller: great to talk to you. i think it is definitely about obama. we are having a meeting with our congressman tom gray and a great talk-show host and tom is a lead sponsor to repeal the obama health care. i can tell you, i think everybody i am talking to is voting republican because we just cannot afford obama.

i think one reason the stock market has gone up so much is because they think republicans will take over the house and probably the senate and i think we will landslide the president in 2012. host: you have a lot of competitive races. jim marshall, democratic congressman from georgia, is running ads that are anti nancy pelosi. the singing he voted with the republicans but caller: that is correct. and the congressman will campaign for marshall's opponent this weekend. i think scott has a good chance to beat marshall. it shows how unpopular -- i think the guy is the most unpopular -- he is a nice man but by far the most unpopular president in history. we don't need a lot of government, we need less government and taxes and i am thrilled we have a congressman. i think, braised will be president of the united states someday. a great leader for the conservative cause -- host: how is pools barbeque

going? caller: peter, that is why we are there. we are honoring him -- he broke every record. he started a business 21 years ago and this is every -- great news. he broke every record in the history of the barbecue. he is doing super. he is great. i want you to come down and did that in some time. host: there will be campaign stops at that bar-b-q in georgia. is this 2010 election about president obama? caller: i believe without a doubt it is a referendum because many people came out, normally would be republican or independent, and voted for him with great expectations. and all the things he promised, he could have done. but if the democrats start calling and lying and saying he is doing a great job, the need to put his foot to the fire.

the money he is spending in the unwarranted war and now pakistan, and now threatening iran, how can we ever get anything done? we can never get our house in order. believe it or not, i would have expected sarah palin and mccain to behave like this because of this seems like an extension of the bush administration. host: who did you vote for in 2008? caller: believe it or not, i was stupid enough to vote for him. host: who will you vote for for california governor and senate. caller: believe it or not, it will definitely be jerry brown because he's got experience and he cares. host: what about the senate race? caller: i am not voting for none of the incumbents, out of the question. two female senators -- and our state it is in a pure mess. career politicians to not care. i don't care if joe the

trashman -- he will get my vote. host: from "the new york times ," the reporter traveled to wisconsin with michelle obama. here is a picture of michelle obama and a little bit from the article. a misses obama's reemergence after a nearly two-year hiatus from politics reflects the deep trouble the democrats are in. she is not keen to be on the campaign trail.

she talked to the talk-show host. >> we got this man an office. i think we are proud of barack and his accomplishments, everyone in the communities are playing with us and we feel that. let me just tell your listeners that it means all the world to

us to know that there are prayer circles out there and people who are keeping the spirit clean are around us. so, that means a great deal. we have, along with the we've got to keep it coming. this election is going to make a statement about whether barack 's power and support is as deep. people are questioning whether his support is as deep. they want to make light, this is just a one time thing. host: jimmy, portland, oregon. is this election about president obama? caller: i don't think this election about barack. he has been trying to go across the party lines and get these people to talk to each other. they have philosophical differences, one filibuster can stop it all. i think that a lot of people are making a bad mistake, that there

is going to be a republican wave november 2. if it was not for republicans -- all this money from outside foreign countries, into the elections in the millions, maybe 100 million, and the elections -- they are close. with obama, they are starting to tighten up. remember, this is supposed to be a cycle where the republicans automatically pick up because the economy is bad, because of all of this other stuff is bad. host: carol, republican, at water park, new jersey. caller: yes, this election is about obama. even the commercials are not identifying whether they are

democrats or republicans, just trying to push the particular individual. we have john runyn running here who is a new guy, not a career politician, and he is going to washington to make it less government. we are a member of the 9/12 organization, when we started three months ago there were 60 people in attendance and then 120 the next month and now up to 160 people. these are independents, democrats, republicans, who are patriots and they are voting for runyon because they want smaller government. government. host: david from maryland, here in the suburbs. caller: this election is not about barack obama. this election -- it should not have anything to do with barack obama. i find it amazing how republicans can set up there and blame barack obama for every

single problem that has come up in america. eight years of failed politics with the bush and all obama was trying to do was clean up the mess that president bush has started. it should not have any bearing on what barack obama has done. it has only been two years since this man has been in office. two years. he said it himself. it will take longer than even his first term for some of the bills, and some of the mistakes to, for his term -- it will take longer for that. i cannot see how republicans could strictly blamed barack obama. last time i checked, there were three main branches of the united states government. if barack obama vetoes a bill or even accept a bill, it still has to go through the house, right? two-thirds of the house still has to approve a bill? i don't see how people can set

up there and blame barack obama for anything. host: from the front page of "the new york times." stephen ratner, who oversaw the obama administration overall of the auto industry for months resisted a settlement with regulators over his role in the new york pension fund kickbacks because he did not want to be banned from the securities industry.

that was the front page. then you go to the jump, and that is a picture of him at the top. here is how this article the includes, about his book " overhaul" that just came out and, by the way, book tv will be covering him in detroit in a week or two. here is how this article concludes --

john, helena, montana. is this election about barack obama? caller: good morning. i would say no, this is not about president obama. i would say it is not even about republicans and democrats. if you look at polling over the last 10 or 15 years you see this country is 40% conservative, 40% moderate, and 20% liberal. i would say that this election

is about voting members to congress that reflect that demographic more than anything else. i also have a warning to many other republicans -- republican politicians, that is. we are electing republicans because you say you are the conservative party. but if you choose to nominate people who are not conservative to run against mr. obama in 2012, -- people like mitch daniels, sarah palin, people who raise taxes and increase government. host: you are calling on the republican line. who is your favorite republican? caller: who is my favorite republican? i like mitt romney a lot. i like what i have seen from chris cristi so far. these are men who have governed as conservatives in blue states. i like rudy giuliani. i did not know if he is electable because of republican primary politics.

, but people who have governed as far as limiting taxes and limiting government. host: north carolina. ward on our independent mind. 2010 election. caller: no, i do not think it is about president obama so much. i think people are really on to the issues in this election campaign. i think we are being overlooked. we have someone taking office away from richard burn -- we have someone taking office it's got is a senator burr up 15%? caller: it depends on the polls you here. you get out in the public you can readily assess yourself of that a lot of people were excited about elaine mars. -- marshall. host: why are you excited about

her? caller: i have been following her for years. i am not a democrat, i tell you, but the democratic party down here tends to turn out more great leaders than the republicans do. as for joe in georgia, we have the best barbecue here in north carolina. host: where should we go there? caller: just about 20 miles down the road. lexington -- host: yep thanks for the tip. caller: i know everybody is saying it is not about president obama, but my whole question is, i was tired of him running. it seems like they start running from dayone and when he goes state to state all over, i have to wonder, why is he going all over for all of this if he is not running himself for his next campaign?

i want them to stop running the minute they get into office. i want them to get into office and do their job. and i think we should have a bill that only two months before an election comes, then they go out and start doing it. i want our people to work for their money. host: this is the style section of "the washington post" this morning. a picture of harry whittington, the gentleman down in texas shot by dick cheney. a long article in "the washington post." we will read some experts -- exurbs and maybe you will go on the website and read the whole thing for yourself. he still speaks with a slight flutter in his voice.

finally, we will conclude just a little bit more from this very long article in "the washington post."

that is just a little bit. if you want to read the whole thing it is on "the washington post" web site. back to your calls about the

2010 election, a referendum on obama or not? donna from jacksonville, florida. republican. caller: can you hear me? my whole thing is you are all saying that obama is not running all the time. then answer me this year gave -- and to me this. can you hear me? i can't hear you but i consider your mouth moving, that is why i am wondering. since he says they one has been out campaigning. they are always looking to the future, who will be elected next time. my whole thing with that is, i want congress people in there to be thinking about now -- the bills they are passing, what they are doing. i think in america i think they let them start campaigning too early. the only need to be there a couple of months before it is time to vote. host: atlantic city, new jersey.

ronnie, a democrat. caller: thank you -- good morning. thank you for letting me have this time to speak. i don't think this election is about president obama. i do think that people are amazed by seeing him get into office when the odds were so much against him. much against him. so all of the special-interest, conservatives, different groups are now trying to raise their profile. they see they can do something that they thought they could not do. you see a transformation within you see a transformation within the republican party, that and is in a tea party effort. causing a great logjam in our legislation. they don't want obama to be successful. in order to raise their profile they are doing things to hinder him.

i'd think we need to get back to the core values, which is america. jobs freeze, where we can produce any more jobs. i would like to say that most of our jobs are going overseas. we need to be concentrated on working with our president. host: all right, thanks, ronnie. princeton, west virginia. steve, republican. caller: i don't think this election is about obama as much as it is failed democratic policies -- policies that keep bringing the economy down. the last caller, interesting, here is -- we send jobs overseas because they keep making it practical for companies to flourish here -- it impractical for companies to flourish here. it is not so much about obama as it is an the other democrats. it is the things they do, the

things they believe in. host: a couple of e-mails. that is part of his email. another e-mail from bill. guntotindem tweets in -- stone mountain, georgia. you are on the democrats' line. caller: this is not about obama. it is about the disparity between the super rich and the

lower and middle class people, the people who work 10 or 15 hours a day and can't even pay their bills. it is about fox news, who brings the whole fiat -- for a fiasco on obama. people out here who really need help. we don't need to blame obama. host: mike, glen falls, new york, republican line. you are on c-span. go ahead. moving on. sarah, marietta, south carolina. independent line. caller: of course, it is about obama because he has made such a mess of the economy that people are terrified to spend any

money. they are supporting it. and we have to let this money come and go and flow. obama has prevented that from happening through his policies. he has done what to many people do. they put the stopper in the tub and they cannot get it out. host: next call, a republican line. go ahead with your comments. craig. it turned down the volume on your tv. just listen to the phone. all right, we are going to put you on hold and come back to you. a san francisco, independent line. hi. caller: how are you? host: good, how are you? caller: i am well. i would like to say that honestly president obama has

been under the microscope and it is no secret he has been under the microscope after -- ever since the 2008 election. i am saddened that people are not as enthusiastic as they were when they went out to the polls and voted for him. i don't understand how they don't understand that it is going to take some much more time than a little time he has been in office to change anything. bush did not care about the country. he cared about his own personal issues and what he wanted to prove to the world and even himself. yes, this is about obama. they want him out. these do they started -- he started the race and now they want somebody else to finish it. host: we will give oklahoma one more try. craig -- are you with us? caller: yes, i am. i just think the president should remember his pledges that he has given to the people and just keep his word and he is

having trouble with that. social security is one thing, too. does not want to give them raises but once to raise money for everything else. i don't see how he can give the government agencies raises and not give it to social security. senior citizens have a hard time with that and the disabled. we raise more money for wars and we cannot raise more money for our own people? it makes no sense. host: you have a couple of elections, governor and senator. how are you voting? caller: i am going to wait to see how they are going to react over the next year and a half before i make it committed decision. host: coming up in three weeks, i know mary allen is running for governor and tom coburn is running for reelection. caller: i am not voting for tom

coburn because he has been an office a long time and has not gotten anything done. host: this from "the hill" newspaper. voters in 10 battleground congressional district strongly backed a plan to extend the george w. bush era tax cuts only for families earning less than $250,000, according to a midterm election polls. the survey found a rare bipartisan support for the position of president obama and democratic party leaders who oppose extending the tax cut for the top income brackets. tacoma, washington. you are on the air. republican line. caller: good morning. i think it really is a referendum on the president as much as it is anything else. and i think we understand that this president did not step into a mess, but he as the president of the united states has to serve the people and not politics. he played too much politics.

i think if he were to focus on jobs and the economy first and not the healthcare bill, then he would have gotten more support for health-care reform. i think what he took power, he decided to serve just one side of the island i think that has been his biggest problem. i wish you would have a segment on flash trading, the algorithm is trading. we talked about the separation of wealth and i found out after doing some research on google and watching that "60 minutes" podcast if you days ago that exposed this, goldman sachs is the 4 runner and it is a essentially supercomputers, tens of millions of dollars invested in supercomputers on wall street and it is estimated about 70% of all the trading is done by these complex algorithms trading so the average person -- and i am not in the stock market -- but the average person who is the not stand a chance. you cannot build a wealth for

companies when you have supercomputer's scraping off thousands of transactions per second, whether they are 13 cents or $1.13. host: what kind of work you do? caller: i do software development. it is an interesting topic. i did not want to go off topic. host: appreciate the idea. thank you for calling in. boehner a rubber-stamp for pelosi?

sandy, stockton, california. a democrat. caller: i don't think this election is about president obama. i actually agree with the person that emailed and said that this election is actually about 40

years of republican government. the policies that we are currently suffering under -- high unemployment, stagnant wages, a decrease in wages for american workers, no health care -- all of these issues, president obama did not create. president obama came into that office with those policies in place. he has not even been in office for two years. there is no way that he had an uptime to make the kinds of changes that would need to be made legislatively in order to change things. let me give you an example. even when he was campaigning,

made a statement that he wanted to remove the tax incentive, the tax break that corporations receive when they ship jobs overseas -- meaning, they close plants in america and then the ship of those jobs overseas because the labor is cheaper. there was a bill recently in the congress to repeal that tax breaks. it did not get passed in congress. those are the kinds of issues this election is about. host: leslie in maryland. host: leslie in maryland. caller: i think that when barack obama was elected, he was full of hope and it was history to be made. i think people expected him afterwards to walk on water and 6 a lot of what was going wrong with the economy.

i think for the previous eight years. i think that since he didn't walk on water and since he started going in new direction, people got scared. and the economy did not instantly bounceback. they think now that he cannot fix it. so they are willing to go back to the status quo of what was there before. it seems like americans really are not into rewarding or helping themselves. we are willing to help iraq did things and afghanistan do things. but really are very reluctant to spend money on our cells or helping fellow americans. -- on ourselves, but fellow americans. host: gains in mid 40's or above.

from "the politico" you probably heard about this interview the president obama did with peter bakker from "the new york times." the whole article will be in the sunday "the new york times" magazine but politico has exurbs. the glimpses of the inner obama.

a couple more points, just in case you are interested --

finally, this from the interview that will be printed in "the new york times" magazine this weekend -- that was all in the "politico" this morning. texas, bubble on the independent line. -- bubba on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is not about president obama. he is not perfect, but i think this election is about power, power achieved through money and misinformation.

i just think that the folks who are going to report republican either -- they may be lost their either -- they may be lost their memory for the misinformation is blinding them to the fact. host: thank you for calling in this morning. a tweeted -- edgewood, maryland. frank on the republican line. caller: last week when the president was in bowie state university, the president himself said this election was about him. make me vote now, don't look bad. so the president, i take him for

his word. he said himself that this election was about him and his policy. policy. just watch the video. people calling in saying this was not about the president, i don't know what they have seen of the last two years. it is all about his policies. host: thank you for calling in. final article, "the washington times" lead story, exclusive. obama choice helped fannie block oversight.

that is "the washington times" lead story. one more article -- house democratic moderates appear likely to suffer heavy losses in the midterm election and some progressive think the result will be a democratic caucus more ideologically unified around policy positions they support. this article is in "roll call." coming up, a roundtable discussion on oil drilling and the environment. the obama administration lifted the deep water drilling band. that is our discussion next. we will be right back.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> with the supreme court back in session watch our exclusive interviews with current and former justice. unique insight into how the court works. search and watch, more than 25 years of our coverage of the judicial branch, on line, all free at the c-span video library. it is washington your way. >> this weekend on c-span 3's american history tv, follow our cameras to the national archives for a rare look of hitler's

nirenberg laws. historian on the u.s. federal prison system spur first institution, leavenworth, and how political divisions of the early 19th century gave rise to what a professor turned the old republicans. american history tv, all we can, every weekend, when c-span 3. >> all this weekend, live coverage of the texas book festival on book tv, with eugene robinson on the splintering of black america, ingrid betancourt on six years of captivity, and an author on science and human values. throughout the weekend, panels on medical mysteries, capital punishment, and infamous fugitives. but the entire schedule at book tv.org. >> "washington journal" continues.

rayola duhrer of the american petroleum institute, president obama lifted a moratorium yesterday. what is your reaction? guest: please to have lifted sooner than later. but we are concerned moving forward how swiftly the permitting process will continue and whether there will be further delays. we are working hard and ready to get back to work and we are hopeful the process will go smoother. host: what is the permitting process? guest: we have to comply with a knoll -- whole series of regulations going forward. those have to be approved by the government and we have to have everything inspected, third parties look at the plans, the well-designed, cementing, casing. that could take some time. the interior department is asking for more staff to be able to process this. our concern when we look at especially what has happened to the shallow water drillers, they have had a defect of moratorium just trying to comply with

their rules and regulations since may and they are all getting about a dozen or so permits reviewed in five men -- five months. normally they would have that done in one month. it is concerned that that it could run over to deep water. but we are pleased to see the moratorium lifted sooner and we are ready to get back to work and hopeful that the process goes smoothly. host: also joining us is peter lehner, executive director of national resources defense council. what is your reaction to the lifting of the moratorium? guest: we think the lifting is still a little premature. there are three studies that are going on. the national academy of engineering, coast guard, and of course, the president oil spill commission. it seems wise and prudent, given the tremendous impact, just to pause a bit more until we are

absolutely sure we know what happened. as i talked about in my book, we already know quite a bit about what happened. bp cut a lot of corners and made a lot of choices that turned out to increase the risk of the spill. but there are still some unanswered questions. and given the tremendous impact this has had on the gulf and the hundreds of thousands of people put out of work in other industries, doesn't make sense to be really careful before we move ahead? host: we do -- would you have preferred the moratorium stay in place? and how long, in perpetuity or just an extended period? guest: these other studies are coming down with their report in just a month or two. one is coming out with an interim report this month. it is really until we really know what is going on. the whole car but -- carpenter added, measure twice, cut once. we really need to measure carefully so we are really sure what happening.

when you are drilling in water that is a mile deep, we have learned is that is a very, very tough environment and mistakes can happen and we want to make sure the chances of that are as small as possible and we are fully ready to respond. we know now industry was not at all ready to respond to the spill and we want to be sure that if there is a spill, which are much better able to respond. but really, prevention is by far the best response. host: what is your response? guest: a few things. we do we know what to -- it takes to have a safe operation and we have to go over 40,000 wells successfully in the gulf. we know, too, a lot went wrong on that rig. we went back and had four industry task forces, and tightened up everything we could. this is not a one-stop process. this is an ongoing process for our industry. as technology involves, we evolved. we have learned an awful lot

about well controlled the last several months. we had an excellent we did not think could happen. we learned a lot and we put measures in place to address that. as i say, this is not a one-stop shopping. we do it continuously, for decades. we do it all the time. no one cares more about the safety and the viability of our operations than the men and women who work in this industry. host: 202 is the area code, talking about the lifting of the deep water moratorium -- drilling moratorium. we set aside a fourth line for gulf coast residents. we want to get your view about this. 628-0184, and please allow 30 days between calls. and you could join us by e-mail

or tweaked as well. -- tweet as well. he said 40,000 wells have been dug in the gulf. how many are currently operating given this moratorium? guest: 33 exploratory rakes taken off line. those are the deep water ones. but we have over 3600 drilling rigs -- or platforms in the gulf of mexico. they are shallow and deep. over 2000 deep water wells that were drilled successfully. we have a lot of operations, and we have been doing this for a very long time. host: what has been the economic impact of the moratorium? guest: i think it is difficult to measure. i think the biggest impact is on the gulf coast states and employment in the region, and of course, even eight days of delay, the big impact will be months down the road when we

wouldn't not have the energy that would have had it -- had would not press this pause but veered -- pause button. it is how long it will take this permitting process. some estimates say the second quarter next year. it depends. the government said at least 100,000 barrels next year for just the six-month pause. what does it mean if it is a year? i have seen estimates up to 350 barrels a day. that is energy we need, but not only that, the tens of thousands of jobs that are connected to those operations are on hold as well. >> peter, what is your response to that? guest: first, there are 10 times as many people working in the twill industry and it -- than the oil industry and we have to think about them. and a comment about in this task force cuts two ways. the real challenge, what has

happened is the minimal management service, government oversight, turned out to be not working. they were really in bed with the industry. when it is said that there are thousands of wells drilled without a problem, that is true, but we don't know what causes this. that is really the on nerving thing. what we need is to establish careful oversight because someone has to look out for the shrimpers, fishermen, tourism industry. the oil industry's job is to drill for oil and not look out for others. that is something we can learn from this. the other thing that, of course, that is most critical is we have to take the opportunity to reduce our oil use. we are as a country using vast amounts of oil and for decades we have done virtually nothing to reduce that. the last year and a half the administration has for the first

time started making our cars and vehicles more efficient. just a couple of weeks ago, the administration announced moving forward for the first time ever making trucks more efficient. we think we can get to having our cars reach 60 miles a gallon by 2025. that would be almost a three times improvement from where we are now. if we aren't so desperate for oil, then we can drill more carefully and perhaps will not have to mortgage our national security by importing oil from countries that cause a few problems. really critical here -- and i hope of the oil industry and all americans will join -- in an effort to reduce our oil addiction. if we use oil, which really, we do use a lot, if we use it more carefully rather than wasteful cars and throwaway plastics, then we can drill more

carefully and when we slow things down to do it safely, it won't cause the economic troubles. host: final word before we go take calls. guest: our goal was always been a safe operation, it has never been on a line of either/or. that has never changed and will never change. host: we have the senior economic advisor for the american petroleum institute and we have the executive director of the natural resources defense council and author of this book "in deep water." the first book published about the bp oil spill. the first caller is south carolina. scooter on our republican line. caller: first of all, the government doesn't want us to have cars that are more efficient because they get 18

cents for every gallon of fuel burns. now for the oil spill, we have big brother looking over petroleum shoulder with more red tape before they can get permiting. it used to take a month and now she is saying it is going to take five months. we keep adding to the government. each government employee, the average salary is $119,000 a year and we have about 2.3 million government employees right now at $119,000. let us get it back to 1 million employees and we can cut our deficit. we've got way too much government agencies with too many loopholes that host: we have your points. what is your response? guest: it was in charge of

bringing in revenue and oil. they did not do a good job of ensuring it was done safely. someone has to look out for us, the public. the oil industry's job is to drill the oil. it is the natural inclination that the that is what bp did. they cut corners because they wanted to make more money. someone has to make sure they are looking out for us, the rest of us. you cannot have a football game without an umpire. you cannot have these companies moving ahead when these activities are naturally risky, without somebody making sure it is done really carefully in safely. host: what is your response when you hear bp cut corners?

guest: i do not represent one company but an entire industry. i am not going to go there at all. we do need a balance. there is a risk associated with these operations. we need a balance between regulators and business. trying to do that is not often easy. the government has had a hard job of it. we are trying this time around and are looking closely. we have looked over everything. every company has gone back over their operations. one thing for sure is they will be as safe as they can be with this new regime in order. host: walker from louisiana. host: walker from louisiana. caller: i am curious if the

administration is so worried about the safety of deep water drilling, why would they loan and $10 billion to brazil to drill wells that are 2 miles deep? it is dangerous here, it should be dangerous in brazil as well. guest: i cannot answer the specifics about the loan to brazil. we are not saying that there should not be drilling in the gulf of mexico. we say it should be done as safely as possible. it is a balance between the industry and the regulators. the balance got out of whack before the deepwater horizons bill. if things take longer to get the balance just right, that seems to be something that americans

are very supportive of. we can get to the balance into better shape if we reduce the amount of oil that we demand every day. so we can drill a little more carefully. the empire state building, if that were our national gas tank, we would fill it up three times a day. we use a lot of oil every day. if we could cut that in half, we could get that balance and drill safely with less pressure. i think we all can look forward to reaching that moment. host: what is the status of the five-year plan for proposed drilling for the last week in office of president bush? guest: we are moving forward. we disagree with some of the proposals from this administration in the opening up some arctic areas.

what did the horizon water still showed is that it is tough work in tough responding to the warm, calm waters of the gulf of mexico. imagine how hard it would be to respond to the waters in the arctic? the waters are almost freezing with carol force winds. it is unfortunate that they are force winds. it is unfortunate that they are moving ahead. we hope we can get a longer pause there and learn our lessons from the gulf. host: we are talking about deepwater drilling and the lifting of the moratorium ban on it. caller: it is like listening to democrats and republicans going at it. talk about balance.

we need honesty. there is no honesty on both sides. talk about the oil industry with millions iof shortages. there seems to be no shortage of oil in the world. then go to the guy that is conservative about drilling. the ministration did a hell with deepwater drilling to brazil. they say cut, cut, cut. we are still dependent on fossil fuels in this country. guest: you are right. guest: you are right. over 63% of our energy needs are met by oil and gas. we cannot afford to walk away

from our resources. the gulf of mexico and other areas on the continental shelf can be important sources for us. average challenge is to go to these places and develop them safely and ensure that we have the resources and we continue to do this as we move forward. even conservation and energy efficiency, and developing new technology is important to the future. we have to look at all of these things to do them well. host: is it true that the response plans written for a cold climate just changed over? guest: i looked at some of that testimony. it did seem that there were different templates. it is not surprising.

i think there was a summit taking of one plan and applying it to another. the fact is you have to protect the wildlife and what ever is in the ocean, whatever fish, they have to be protected. it was an embarrassing oversight with a one size fits all mentality. host: no one has confirmed adriatic oil corrupted according to the last caller. -- corrected the last caller. guest: exxon mobil has a big project to try to determine just that. the oil companies -- they are

looking at new hydrocarbon technologies moving forward. a lot is being done in that realm. we are looking to the future and investing in that future. host: we are talking about the deep water drilling ban and lifting of the moratorium. the executive director of the natural resources defense council and author of the first book out on the bp water spilled. that was covered on book tv. you can watch him and his co- author talk about that. we are also joined with the senior economic adviser for the american petroleum institute.

fayetteville, north carolina, republican. caller: i just love listening to her. she explains everything so clearly. if they are so worried about the deep water drilling, can't we do more shallow drilling and the land drilling? in alaska they can do land drilling. they have discovered several different places in united states where we can kids natural gas. can we not try to do that? can we not try to do that? guest: absolutely. we are doing just that. the natural gas from a rock. we now have over 100 years of

supply of natural gas. these deposits are all over the country. it is very exciting that we are going into these areas and are developing these fuels. it is not just offshore they give as 10% of our nation's oil from a different type of drilling. they were affected by this moratorium as well. we have done all we can to make sure we have the supply we need. it is always a channel. we are going to places and accessing these resources. it is a stabilizing the price of gas and what it means if

manufacturing companies and others could rely on these supplies. these are exciting things. i am very optimistic about what we are doing here in united states. we are moving forward. guest: one of the disappointing facts, the failure of the senate to move on a climate energy bill is one of the great opportunities we have is to take the carbon dioxide and use its to enhanced oil recovery. a lot of oil wells in the united states from which we can not get the oil. if you pump carbon dioxide into them, you would get a lot more oil. it is a great opportunity to get more oil out of existing wells.

that is rather than having to drill new wells. that was one of the really exciting new opportunities that we have and we are putting more into clean energy that we are missing out on, because the senate failed to act. senate failed to act. again, i agree with her on this, the best opportunity we have is efficiency. we are wasting vast amounts of oil right now. if we can stop wasting, that would free up this for economic development or means that we do not have to import from countries that are tough to import from. one of my colleagues wrote a book about invisible energy. when we talk about opportunity for efficiency, we are not talking about reducing energy use, but major reductions by

half or more. we have a plan that is very clear and it uses technology that is available today of cleaner cars in switching to mass transit and rail, making for a happier and healthier community where we can cut our oil use in half. that is the equivalent of an extraordinary new amount of oil. one that is quite the best and are mentally and economically. host: next caller. caller: we have wells that have been drilled and not used. what are we not using those? and what about getting natural

gas of this rock. -- out of this rock? no energy source is free of a risk. some wells are just sitting there not being used. guest: some of them, you cannot pull it out of all of them, unless you are pushing its -- pushing into that with carbon sorrell recovery. there is a pollutant contaminated our atmosphere. it had we done this, it would have been a win-win. that was one of the programs in the bill for clean energy and climate reduction that was

passed by the house of representatives. we are very hopeful that we can do that. let's take advantage of these wells that are there and get to the oil out of them. i hope other people listen to the caller. guest: they do not pay. if it would work, they would be doing it. that is not new to us. it is geology or the economics but not enough to pay, depending on the price of oil and gas. in terms of the high-profile cases in pennsylvania.

a problem with one of the companies when they were drilling. that company was fined $250,000. they must build sanitation, lines in those houses where it happened. pennsylvania is doing a good job staying on top of this. the industry is serious about safe operations moving forward. they always have been. host: san francisco, david, republican. caller: this question is for the professor. my question is a part a, very straightforward. i am a little bit confused, because i read about the

organization that he represents based in new york city. you have some headquarters in beijing. i am curious how can you expect i am curious how can you expect beijing to protect the environment, when they cannot protect human beings? guest: we are focusing on the environment and what works in trying to have a targeted fashion. our main work of there is on energy efficiency and clean energy. they are quite aware that a dirty energy, pollution from power plants is killing people. they are very interested in trying to clean that up.

are they building 30 coal plants after building windmills? yes. some internal contradictions. but we are trying to help them clean of their energy supply. we have been working with them on improving their clean air and clean water laws. right now, they are more modern than the united states. if you look around the air, it is quite remarkable. when i came back from china, it was a pleasure to see clean air. in china, i barely saw the sun, because the air and water is so polluted. so this has worked really well in this country. we hope congress does not weaken the authority of the epa.

we do not want the ear as 30 in this country as it is in china. we are making progress. the atmosphere of the planet mixes. on bad days, 30% of the pollution in america comes from china. we have a real interest in cleaning of the air in china. host: anything you want to add? guest: i do not have any particular expertise in that area. as an economy, they are rolling along. they will need a lot more energy moving forward. working on energy efficiency in china is a great goal. all of these countries around the world, their demand is

picking up. that means consequences for all of us. host: 30% on average of l.a.'s daily pollution comes from china. guest: not on average, but it depends on the weather pattern. sulfur dioxide and nitrogen that come out of coal plants can travel a long way in the atmosphere. the same way most pollution comes from the midwest. that pollution travels across the pacific from china and hits california. host: he is a professor and has his law degree and continues to teach. florida, and the pin . -- independent line.

caller:raola, i think this is big business. you talk about energy. all of the billions of gallons of oil pumped out of alaska, 19 percent of it was sold to asia. i am not opposed to drilling if the oil is kept here and it was not put on the world market to make money. we import from a rack. we are in business with them. we own some of the oil wells. guest: you are making a good point. it is a global world market. we produce as much as we can domestically.

the idea that a lot of our oil goes to asia -- you can look up the assessment on the department of energy website. that is not so. we are in this together. new jobs means revenue. it is better for our nation to do that. we want to keep our own independent oil companies strong and viable. we need to protect that as we move forward. we need to invest in technologies and do what we need to do to secure energy futures. host: what percentage of our daily use to reproduce domestically? guest: 40%. we have some wiggle room for

fuel-efficient cars to do what we can. most of our oil comes from canada. about 21%. our security laws are not just domestic prevention but diversifying our sources of supply, partnering with our neighbors, and moving forward in that direction. host: 21% per day on average from canada. how much from mexico? guest: 7% or so. it could be 5%. host: if the bush plan were fully implemented, the offshore plan announced in 2009, and here is a map showing some of those areas, what is the estimate of what we would produce that would

meet our daily needs? guest: i do not know. they carved it up. it takes time to get new products to the market once you start that process along the atlantic coast and florida coast. i do not have that number off the top of my head. everything we can add makes a difference. if you look at a chart of what has happened, it has been going downhill. it should flatten in increase a little bit from those supplies. if you add the entire continental shelf, you have a significant supply moving forward.

we have not been able to go back. it is bigger than initial estimates. what we are getting from north dakota, we could not imagine years ago. host: next call from which a tall falls. democrat. falls. ato democrat. caller: i have worked in a place that is safe with the restrictions in the training that you have to have to go to work out there is very extensive. one of my questions for both of you is have you been to an offshore site?

host: what is your next question? caller: i have to comment on the oil companies themselves. the process they go to train their personnel and the investments they go through to put the environmental people out there. one of the comments stated in is the oil companies drill, but they do not watch the environment. they are very respectful of the environment. that is a high concern out there. host: have you visited in offshore oil well and what about the safety of our middle concerns? guest: i am dying to go. my colleagues have gone. just to help out there, what you have to go through, it is really

rigorous. they are really serious about safety and the environment. they always have been. they have such a good record. they are committed to doing whatever it takes to move forward. i have not been yet. but i like to go. guest: i have not been either. i have been to onshore drilling operations, but not offshore. we want the industry to work as safely as possible for the safety of the workers. 11 people died on the deepwater horizon explosion. and for the environment. a tough pressure cooker environment. what we talk about in my book

is there was pressure, because these rigs are so expensive, to move quickly than perhaps prudent. sure there are safety rules, but there is great pressure to move quickly and get the drilling done quickly. the pressure to make money quickly is counterbalanced by someone making sure the safety complied with. i was thrilled to hear from the caller that he thinks there is a great culture of safety. i hope he is right. i hope is enhanced by this horrible disaster. i hope everyone will make sure to redouble their efforts to do everything safely for

themselves and the co-workers and the community and in burma. [unintelligible] host: what about ken salazar? guest: i think he is doing his best. the administration has issued new rules that make a lot of sense and cover many issues that we know about that have been disclosed in the testimony so far. as we have mentioned earlier, i think many americans would believe that is a good trade- off, but be sure you do it safely. do they address everything? no, we do not know everything. the national academy of engineering in the president's

commission should fill in the gaps that we have. host: we have about five minutes with our guests. republican. the petroleumf companies produce natural gas. bp is one of them. as i understand it, there is an abundance of natural gas. abundance of natural gas. and yet last september, i was spending a certain amount for natural gas. later it was 66 cents. that is a 100% increase within six months at a time were there is an abundance of natural gas. guest: during the winter heating season, you see a change in price. it depends on a particular

region. it depends on where you are and the surge in demand. we have had harsh weather in the northeast. it is not surprising to me that she may see a crisis. overall, it has come down dramatically from where it has been over the past few years. it is a loss -- a lot less than what we have seen in recent past. the new region is connected to supply and demand in one way or another. host: independent line. caller: i read in the paper about the bacon oil discovery.

in canada and south and north dakota. also under the rockies 4 trillion barrels of oil there. are our strategic reserve looking at going after that oil than looking at going after the gulf? guest: we are going after the oil in a serious way. new technology allows us to excess oil in ways we never have before. in terms of the reserve, in case of a severe disruption in supply -- if there are hurricanes in the gulf of mexico, the national government

can release of those supplies. it is a good policy to set aside some and at the same time continue to develop our resources where it is economically feasible. guest: it is not just a question of whether there is oil out there. sometimes it takes a lot to get that oil. a lot of that oil means they have to dig up vast quantities of sand in refinement before it is reusable as gasoline. that process is a very dirty process. it pollutes a lot. oil is what comes in your gas tank in can come from many different places. some are dirtier than others. even though there is a loss of oil and gas out of their, there is a limited amount of atmosphere of there. as we burn off that oil and gas,

the pollution goes into the atmosphere and is changing the world around us. we have a lot of oil, but a finite amount of atmosphere that we can dump our pollution. we are running out of a place to dump our waste faster than what we are running out of oil. we need to stop dumping so much out there by using it more efficiently as in cars and trucks and change how we move around and find ways to shift the clean energy and clean up the pollution, taking that carbon dioxide and putting it in the ground. we are concerned about running out of the atmosphere. we need clean air to keep going. that is going to need our joint efforts.

host: your response to this tweet about the rocky mountains? guest: he is right. that is the challenge. all of the source of oil and gas causing environmental damage. the best thing we can do is not to drive around in gas guzzling as tvs but taking mass transit or taking more energy responsible vehicles. we do not want to blow the tops off of the rockies. we are causing water contamination where we are moving too aggressively for gas. all of this oil and gas and coal

development is risky. we tried to minimize the risk, but it is an inherently dangerous process. the best we can do is use a lot less of it. then use that time that we have to shift to a clean energy future, finding ways to harness the wind and the sun in ways that are not inherently dangerous. that has to be our future. host: he is the executive director of the natural resources defense council and the author of "in deep water." guest: we will need all of the resources we can develop. that will be our challenge as we move forward.

we need energy efficiency. we cannot walk away from our nation's that resources. we will need them for a long time to come. we will lead businesses to invest in new technology. we need a balanced approach and we need to recognize the needs. host: thank you both for being here. coming up next is a discussion with the chief correspondent. >> senate majority leader read and sharon ankle will have their only debate of this general election campaign tonight. what do you expect these candidates to say tonight? what will be their strategies for this debate? >> both of these are known for saying in temperate things will

try to not make a mistake. it is interesting to see them play the expectations game. because sharon is the challenger, if she does not fall out over herself, she will do well. she is not known as the most electrifying speaker. and as long as read it is not a flood to badly, he will do well a, too. >> in tonight's debate a an,gle needs to be able to close it. what has gone into her debate preparation? she has not talked to the national media up to this point. >> exactly. that is why i think it will be so interesting. she will get a question about some of those things.

will they be able to ask each other about their past statements? they have high negatives in the way voters see them. >> many have seen the headlines over the past couple of days. sharon was able to raise millions. will harry reid be able to outspend version the coming weeks? >> we are waiting to see the reports that are filed to see how much money they each have left. $14 million is a stunning amount of money. there is no way harry reid will be able to raise the same amount in a single quarter. the question is how much cash on hand they need. we do not know how much sharon angle has already spent.

that money is going to be important in mobilizing their voters and buying television time. >> take a look at some of the ads put out by them. am sharon angle and i approve this message. >> look at the taxes that kerry reid approved. that is a big reason for the economic melt some of nevada. he is planning to raise taxes on 34 million families right after the election. let us stop harry reid from ever raising our taxes again. >> i work with kids that have been abused. their stories break my heart. when you create a program by helping these groups and

churches to do background checks, sharon angle voted no and wanted some protect the rights of sex offenders instead of our kids. >> im harry reid, and i approve this message. >> harry reid has been trying to say that sharon is unfit for office. is it working? >> we will find out on election day. she is trying to upend the dismal economic situation of and the data onto the senate majority leader into harry reid is trying to make it about sharon and her record, her vote, some of the things she has done that he characterizes as extreme. >> this race is very close. a new poll shows harry reid up

by three percentage points. it looks like the strategy of sharon is working to keep her in the race. >> she is still in the race. one poll has her up with 1 margin of error. every vote is going to count. this is going to be a close race. >> what is the senate majority leader planning? >> it lot of money and effort into mobilizing voters. they are spending a lot of their money and time knocking on doors, contacting people, making phone calls, doing everything they can to increase turnout. the higher turnout, the more it will benefit to carry read, because republicans have a natural turnout advantage when they have the enthusiasm on their side. it is harder for democrats to

mobilize voters who are discouraged or not enthusiastic. >> republicans say they will put money into sharon and her campaign. president obama spent about $4 million. >> that is a lot of money going into this. the 2008 campaign in nevada was the most impressive of voter mobilization anyone had ever seen. the organizational efforts were largely unmatched. we did not see the campaign of john mccain putting forth that much effort in nevada. in this case, they are saving money and efforts on both sides. >> a competitive race. why is it so competitive? >> it is great if you want to

find a microcosm of the house races across the country. the third district is a suburban district around las vegas where you have a lot of those independent voters worried about the economy, home foreclosures. the challenger is a former state senator. he is a public can, a colonel in the army reserve. candace that no these districts very well are overshadowed by the senate race, because there is so much money in it. voters are feeling bombarded. i do not know how much attention they are paying for this race. it is a race that is encapsulating the entire landscape this year. >> viewers can hear from the candidates themselves tonight when they have their debate.

we are covering both the senate and house debates tonight. senate delighted 9:00 p.m. eastern and nevada live at 11:00 p.m. on c-span. thanks so much. >> thanks for having me. >> "washington journal" will be right back. >> unique insight into how the court works. search and what were the 25 years of our coverage of the judicial branch, on line in a free on the c-span video library. it is washington your way. >> this weekend on the american mystery tv on c-span 3 look at a rare look at hitler's loss and the racial policies against jews. look at how political divisions of the early 19th century gave rise to a history professors

term. american history tv. every weekend all weekend on c- span3. >> this weekend, live coverage from the texas book festival on book tv. one person will speak on her captivity in a jumble. authors of the obama presidency and throughout the weekend, panels on medical mysteries, capital punishment, and fugitives. it to the entire schedule booktv.org. >> we are back live and joined by the chief economics correspondent for the "wall street journal" to talk about economic issues, specifically, some of the lessons learned from japan's economic troubles in the 1990's.

what happened to them in the 1990's? guest: in some ways, it is similar to what is happening in the united states. japan had a bubble. a stock-market bubble and real- estate bubble in the late '80s and early '90s. it did a lot of damage to the banking system. they entered a recession. there slump lasted for more than a decade. their action recession today. it was hard to break out of the economic malaise that reacted from the bubble almost 20 years later. the lessons that been bernanke learned from that, before he came to the fed, he was a professor at princeton university. he spent a lot of time studying

the japanese problem and lecturing japanese officials in sternway is about what they needed to do differently to address their economic malaise. what we will see in the months ahead, is ben bernanke applying the lessons that he learned in japan to the federal reserve itself. host: why the japanese bubble burst? guest: the bubble burst because the bank of japan, the central bank, the equivalent of the federal reserve, decided it needed to burst. home prices, land prices got ridiculous. there was an analogy where the value of the land was worth more than the real estate in manhattan. i do not remember the exact analogy. the nikkei had gone up to 40,000. today it is less than 15.

the bank of japan decided there was a bubble and they needed to burst it. they tightened monetary policy and sucked the went out of the financial system. what resulted from that was trouble for the banking system. host: why so long of a recovery or non recovery time frame for japan? guest: there are a couple of explanations. one is it is typical of what happens after a bubble bursts. there are different economists say professors have looked at the financial baubles and have found that after the bubble bursts, in stocks and real- estate, it takes a long time for the financial system to heal for the banks to clean up the bad

loans they got on their balance sheets. with the foreclosure crisis in the u.s., these banks are still struggling to figure out what to do with this reality. that process takes a long time. in japan, the other part of the story, which bernanke looked at closely as an academic, it is the japanese policy makers made a mistake. they did not deal with the problem aggressively enough earlier in the crisis to clean up the banks, lower interest rates, do some of the things the fed has done. they tried to pull back the stimulus very early. they may have made a bad situation worse and made it harder for the japanese economy to emerge from the slump. policy mistakes and the aftermath of the bubbles, which can have a negative impact,

unlike other kinds of recessions we have seen in the past. host: he is the chief economics correspondent for the "wall street journal". here are the lines that you can call listed at the bottom of our screen. what is deflation and how can that play a role? guest: good question. deflation is when consumer prices and wages, the wage part is important, they fall. we are used to inflation. you go to the gas pump, and it was $2 last week and now it is $2.50. when the price level rises. that has been the experience of

almost all americans. almost all americans. anyone that remembers the inflation of the 1970's, japan has had the opposite of that. instead of prices rising, they have fallen. priceove when you're i've had goes down. there are different kinds of deflation. some products like computers have a prices fall. there is another kind of deflation you get when the economy is very weak. there is so little demand for stuff, that they have to cut prices in order to stimulate more demand from consumers. the problem with this kind of inflation is it typically comes hand in hand with wages falling. i like when the cost of my computer falls, but when i come

home in my paycheck is lower than what it was last year or i do not get the bonus. the deflation that is bad is the one that comes with falling wages. that is what the fed is worried about. they know how to deal with inflation. when prices are going up, raise interest rates which causes a recession. by raising interest rates, it takes some of the excess demand out of the economy. the problem with the inflation is -- deflation is you can only lower interest rates to zero. you cannot reduce them beyond the zero. if you get into a situation where prices and wages are falling, and you 0 down and cannot do anything else to stimulate the economy, you have a problem and a trap, where you are trying to figure out what you do next.

that is what the fed is struggling with now. they have cut interest rates to zero. now they are wondering what else they can do to stimulate the economy. host: what else can they do? guest: ben bernanke and other economists have spent time looking at that question. there are a couple of things they focus on. the first one is the fed has the capacity to create money. they can say, i am making an extra billion dollars. they can credit it to the accounts of banks. and the lever that they are thinking about pulling is you go out and buy long-term bonds such as treasury bonds or mortgage- backed securities. you're putting money into the

financial system, because banks have more money to play with. you create a demand for long- term securities that pushes up prices and pulls down their interest rate. we have short-term interest rates going to zero and long- term interest rates on bonds that some company might issue falling also. that is what the fed is looking at doing also. buying long-term bonds and using that lever to pull down long-term interest rates to become easier to borrow in the long-term and short-term. host: chairman bernanke is speaking on friday. what is the word on the street about what he is going to say? guest: he is speaking in boston at the federal reserve bank of

boston. they are holding a conference. how do you manage monetary policy in an environment where inflation is low and interest rates are low? what is interesting is the boston fed had this same conference in 1999. this is a reprise of a conference they did years ago. it was meant to address the situation that japan was in. very interesting exchanges. a policy member spoke at the conference. never get to the place where interest rates are as low as they are and inflation is as low as they are. he said i can assure you, it will be more painful than you can possibly imagine. a survey of the people in the

audience said do you think america can ever get into this situation? not a single person raise their hand. here we are 11 years later in the situation. we are in a situation where is similar to japan's back then. one of the people in the audience was our fed chairman, ben bernanke. host: this discussion that we have had is based on his front- page article yesterday. it is a long piece with different parts in it. if you're interested, you probably have to be a subscriber to the website to find it. if you find it, and i encourage you to read it. california, independent line. caller: thanks for letting me be

on the air. it has been said that a smart man learns from his mistakes and wise man learns from others. not to take history into effect, because the japanese are resourceful people. it would be foolish of us not to listen to them. if i were in the audience, i would have been the first to raise my hand. why is the fed feeling the need to lower -- to pull down the value of our dollar instead of raising interest rates? guest: that was something that guest: that was something that ben bernanke talked about. how does the currency play a role in stimulating the economy? his advice to the japanese in what we see happening in united states is reducing the value of the dollar.

why do you do that? the economy needs a new engines of growth. one of the problems that we had was we depended on american consumers to consume this goods and services that the nation was making. in the process of consuming so much, we did not save very much. the idea is we could increase exports. it is wa lot of the emerging markets have done after they have had financial crises. it is not simple for the united states to do, because it is such a big economy, our currency is the world's prime currency. when the currency value falls, but the things like commodity values go up. it is the advice that bernanke gave to the japanese and others

-- they are reluctant to take it here. the fed would probably not mind seeing the value of the dollar decline a little bit, in a gradual way, but they would hate to see it fall very fast. the fact of the matter is, there needs to be an adjustment between the united states and the rest of the world, a relative value adjustment between us and the chinese. their currency is overvalued. it is a question of how do you get this adjusted. host: we have been talking about host: we have been talking about the chinese currency being overvalued for several years now .gu guest: and it has been. we allow hours to float and be determined based on market dynamics. the chinese have controls, date prevent their currencies from

trading openly with the rest of the world. they tried to keep a fixed level because their economy -- they don't want to abruptly raised the value of the currency because they are for a double negative -- they are afraid that will negatively affect their export industries. there is a line of thinking that weakening your currency would not have a big impact on exports. the chinese are arguing now that strengthening the value of their currency would not necessarily change the trade position in the world. host: why do commodity prices go up dependent on the dollar, the strength of the dollar? guest: let's take one commodity as an example, the price of oil. oil trades globally in dollars. s and say you are the saudi you are selling all of this oil

all over the world, and the price of the dollar goes down. well, the money that you are taking in for your oil is worth less because the value of the dollar is going down, and it creates a demand for an adjustment, and that adjustment happens to be the price of oil. host: next call for jon hilsenrath comes from potomac, maryland, republican. caller: i read with strong interest your article in yesterday's "wall street journal." great piece of journalism. i hope "the wall street journal" allows you to keep writing about this, about these issues. over the course of the last two or three years, the downturn in the economy, i guess the way i see it is this is in a lot of ways and housing recession -- a housing recession to read your

article goes into a comparison of the tools japan used to get out of the economic turmoil of the 1990's, and compare what is going on in today's climate. one of the tools the federal government had over the years was fannie mae and freddie mac. what is the, this show another shows -- obviously, this show and other shows talk about the downfall that occurred with these two housing gse's. the japan had a secondary market -- did japan have a secondary market in the 1990's? did they create that? we used to have housing recessions in the oil patch, going back to the 1980's, and part of fannie and freddie's structure was to ensure that the entire regional disparities in the housing market place did not

occur. host: ok, we will get an answer to that question. what do you do for a living? caller: i work in the housing finance sector. host: thank you. mr. hilsenrath. guest: japan was and remains a very bank-centered economy. most of the financing of real estate went through the japanese banks. you have to realize, it is geographically, and a sparse population, a smaller country -- and as far as population, a smaller country. it did not have the widespread secondary market at the united states has. when the japan's real estate when the japan's real estate bubble burst, it hit the banks, and the banks became the primary source of the financial instability and economic malaise

in the country. the u.s. has a different system. mortgages in our country have tended over the last couple of decades -- actually, at fannie mae is a relic of the great depression, and freddie mac came sometime after that. we have relied on this second ever market. mortgages that written by banks and then they sold by banks bundled into these mortgage- backed securities, which are securities that have the mortgages themselves behind them as collateral. it is a little more complicated than that. and then the securities did sold all over the world. fannie mae and freddie mac were the primary institutions that were involved in doing this bumbling -- bundling. they came with a government subsidies. our problems have been concentrated in the mortgage- backed securities market, especially fannie mae and freddie mac. despite all the talk about bailouts of the banks during the financial crisis, we are getting

a lot of money -- i say "week" " -- the federal government is getting a lot of the money back that they put into bank of america and citigroup fannie mae and freddie mac are gigantic black holes that are bleeding money, and have not figured out how to fix those institutions and they are at the core of the continuing problem we have in the housing market. host: what is the result of the host: what is the result of the moratorium on foreclosures that you see? guest: well, it's a complicated issue. what happened during the crisis, leading up to the crisis, during the bubble, the boom in housing market, was not only fannie mae and freddie mac, but also the banks just went into a frenzy of writing mortgages. think of it as a machine, a factory that they ran overtime and over speed to crank out all

of these mortgages. well, the machine broke down, and now what they discovered after the bubble burst is that with all of these foreclosures, they did not have processes in place, they did not have the people in place to manage this huge groundswell of dealing with mortgages and bridges that need to go into foreclosure -- of a delinquent mortgages and mortgages that needed to go into foreclosure. the same way they did a sloppy underwriting before the bubble, or during the bubble, the processes of trying to clean up the mortgages they had and putting them -- we are discovering that they made all kinds of mistakes. they are trying to fix the problem and they just said, " stop the process, we have to figure out what went wrong." there is a parallel with japan, which is a little troubling.

the japanese banks took a really long time to clean up the mess of problem loans that they have. what i see in this foreclosure problem we have today is an example of what a hard time we are having cleaning up the mess of the mortgage loans. host: jon hilsenrath, economics correspondent for "the wall street journal" is our guest. elaine, hi. caller: an example of 2001 to now to my house was taken and i get social security, a $500, and they sold my house and 2004. they put me out in 2001 and said i was bipolar and hallucinating. i have no medical. i have no medical. host: elaine -- what is your question for our test?

-- guest? caller: they are -- they plan to this -- host: you are saying this was preplanned? caller: this is slavery. host: ok, thank you. back when japan was going to the problems, was anyone yelling, the sky is going to fall in the u.s.? guest: let me talk a little bit about what the guest said about this happening in the early 2000's and late 1990's. the mortgage machine to get cranked up in the late 1990's -- really got cranked up in the late 1990's and well into the 2000's. we had just started to see in the late 1990's subprime mortgages, that sector, grow. the subprime mortgages were

underwritten by fannie mae and freddie mac, just by the banks and sold by the banks themselves into these mortgage- backed securities. my sense is that there was a lot suspect underwriting that was going on back then. we rode a fair amount about mortgage fraud in the early 2000's. but it did not become the national, systemic problem that we have seen until midway through the 2000's. it was an issue back then, that your guest is talking about, that the caller was talking about, but it did not become a national problem until later. as far as the warnings ago, maybe this will sound a little self-serving, but "the wall street journal" wrote a lot about these issues. we had a lot of stories about fannie mae and freddie mac in the early part of the last decade, about their excessive growth and potential problems that it was causing them. it tells us something about the

nature of bubbles, because when you write some of this stuff, people call you chicken little, and then when the thing bursts, people say, "why didn't anybody want us?" the fact is that there was a lot out there, but the incentives were not a line for people to deal with it. the bush administration and the fed in the early part of the last decade wanted to get the economy going because we just had the tech bubble burst. the fed lowered interest rates in the early part of the last decade. the bush administration, following the clinton administration, was pushing home ownership as part of the economic engine. wall street was making a bundle by bundling mortgages and selling them off. none of the incentives were in place to get the people who really needed to make our decisions to address the problems that were building. -- make hard decisions to address the problems that were building.

host: you are on with jon hilsenrath. caller: i have a bit of a different point of view that you do, but you obviously are very talented in explaining complicated monetary terms and the ways people can understand. but earlier, you described deflation as lowering prices and sometimes lowering wages, and you even mentioned that when technology advances and allows prices to decrease, that is a form of deflation. i think that a common interpretation of deflation is a decrease in the money supply. the other things are consequences of deflation. when you talk about the consequences of deflation, you also are forced to expand the scope of the discussion about it, right? now you have to think about the consequences of all the money supply -- of the money supply. as ron paul writes in his book, "end the fed," does the

monetary policy we have now caused a boom-bust cycle, does it enable war and empire? this is to be unanimity in the debate about -- there seems to be unanimity in the debate about fiat currency. is there some middle ground -- host: all right, we got the point. thanks. guest: let me take a few points from that comment as far as my perspective and goes, i would not say that i have a perspective in opposition are contrary to the ron paul, of perspective -- the ron paul kind of perspective. i see my role as a journalist as to understand what is going on, to cover the federal reserve and

what they are thinking, and explained to people -- explain it to people. i have looked at ron paul's arguments, and the fed's arguments, and try to explain the direction of the country based on that. one of the points i think the caller was making was that you can look at deflation as a monetary phenomenon. this is the milton friedman point of view. i talked about deflation and inflation as defined by rising prices and rising wages or falling prices and falling wages. ultimately, i think every economist would agree that in the long run, the price level, where the prices or rising or falling, is dictated by the amount of money that the federal reserve creates and puts in the financial system. financial system. it is a monetary phenomenon. what milton friedman argued after the 1930's, the great depression, is that the deflation that we experienced

was a result of mistakes that the federal reserve made in not creating more money, that it allowed the money supply to shrink, and that created a period of falling prices. he would argue, he did argue, that the inflation of the 1970's that we experienced was the result of the fed printing too much money. all the interest rate is is the price of money. if the interest rate is falling, to suggest that the supply of money is falling. one of the problems that the fed has had in the modern era is measuring money, because it expresses itself in so many ways. as our financial system has gotten more complex, it becomes harder to measure this stuff. one of the things that we're discovering right now, for instance, is that while the fed has printed an enormous amount of money in the last few years,

it has gone out and got all these bonds and pushed interest rates down, so the monetary base, the raw amount of money put into the system, has gone way up. other measures of money, the money that shows up in bank accounts or money-market funds, have been barely growing. it is absolutely the case that money matters, but the problem is translating that lesson of how much money you print it into some kind of usable technique for managing the economy. host: jon hilsenrath was educated at duke, got his m.b.a. at columbia, and studied at the university of wisconsin and hong kong university of science and technology. last call for him, st. augustine, florida. caller: hey, jon. comparing japan's economy to the american economy is like comparing a cat or dog.

i don't see how you can make that comparison. number two, the junk bonds -- they read these things out, call the aaa, and sold them. the problem is that the wealthy, wall street, has sold junk bonds. that is why we got the collapse. it is not due to housing, really. wrap them all up and sell them off, aaa -- host: we got the point. mr. hilsenrath. guest: we have been talking about the comparisons between the u.s. and japan. your caller makes it a very important point. there are very important differences between the u.s. and japan that ought to give us some sense of hope that we're not going down the same path. for one, japan has had serious demographic problems over the course of the last two decades.

an asian population, and in immigration policy, that does not allow the population to grow and make up for all the older people and the shrinkage of the working population. we have had a very vibrant and growing workforce over this period. our population is not as old as japan's is, although it is aging, and has the potential to run into the same situation. weekend reenergize i work force -- we reenergize our work force with immigration policies. our work force tends to be more productive and there is more movement within the workforce. it is easier for people to change jobs and even industries that has been the case in japan. most importantly, we have been talking about deflation in japan. we don't have a deflation in the united states yet -- we have not had it since the 1930's. it is absolutely the case that

these are two different kinds of economies, but we cannot ignore the common factors, the commonalities, the commonalities that we have seen across centuries of what happens in any economy after you experience a financial bubble. our economy today is much different than the economy was in the 1930's, but there was a bubble, the bubble burst, and it had a real economic consequences. that is the commonality we have to pay attention to today. . -- one final thing on junk bonds. the problem we experienced in this particular period -- junk bonds are usually used to describe corporate bonds, corporate debt that is kind of a very low grade. this was not a junk bond problem. this was related to mortgage backed securities of a very low quality. it is not quite junk-bonds.

there are similarities, but it is about mortgage-backed securities that were underwritten by all these subprime mortgages. host: jon hilsenrath is chief economics correspondent for "the wall street journal." please come back. thank you for being on "washington journal." for the remaining 40 minutes or so of our time, we will turn our attention to education. we are basing our conversation on this op-ed which appeared in "the washington post" on sunday, "how to fix our schools ." is signed by the chancellor of the new york city education, michelle lee, formerly of d.c., -- michelle rhee, formerly of d.c., and the superintendents of a lot of large school districts. we will talk about what you think would be the best way to fix our schools. here are the numbers. we would love to hear from students. hopefully you are all in class, but if you are not, or you are

on the west coast and have not gone to school yet, we would like to hear from you. teachers and administrators, very important to hear from you as well. how to fix our schools, what is your solution -- we will go through this manifesto and get your answer, etc. we will get this news update from c-span radio. >> jobless numbers just in from last week showed applications for benefits increasing, the second rise in eight weeks, and evidence that companies are still reluctant to hire in the slow economy but it was the second rise in to the big moments, and despite ups and downs, claims that the stock near 450,000 all year. -- claims have been stuck near

450,000 all year. 450,000 all year. secretary of state hillary clinton, in remarks earlier on a "good morning america," is criticizing what she called a " the absolute barbarity shown by terrorists and criminals are around the world." she talked specifically about the reported murder of an american along the mexican border, and added that the u.s. is doing all it can. meanwhile, daniel benjamin, a u.s. counterterrorism official at the state department, says the european terror plot is still active, and travel all its remain. he advised american citizens living or traveling in europe to take more precautions about their security, following reports that terrorists may be plotting attacks in europe. today is the 50th anniversary of jfk's historic 2:00 a.m. campaign speech to the university of michigan, which inspired the peace corps. more than 200,000 people have

volunteered to serve in more than 139 countries. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> "washington journal" continues. host: for the remainder of our time on "washington journal," we will talk about how to fix our schools. we will put the numbers back on the screen. we have divided them between students, parents, and teachers and administrators. go ahead and start dialing in. we will base our conversation on this right here, a manifesto that was published in "the washington post" on sunday. it is signed by several superintendents of large school districts. a little bit of what they have written here -- "as chancellor is responsible for educating nearly 2.5 million students in america, we know that the path

to reforming the countries public schools begins with us. it is our obligation to enhance the personal growth and academic achievements of our students, and we must be accountable for how our schools perform. all of us have taken steps to move our students for word, and the obama administration's race to the top program has been the catalyst for more reforms and then we have seen in decades. but those reforms are still outpaced and outsized by the crisis in public education." the superintendent's go through and make some general reform ideas. they put forth some general reform ideas such as -- this is -- a "for two long, we have left teacher hiring and retention be determined by archaic rules involving seniority and academic credentials." here is another thing that the superintendents say need to

happen. "there is not a business in america that would survive if they could not make personnel decisions based on performance." phone isus now on the f one of the signers of the manifesto, peter gorman, the superintendent of the charlotte school district in north carolina, charlotte-mecklenburg county school district. why the manifesto? guest: first off, that was not actually the title when we wrote it. i wrote the original draft of the document, and when you have this many signers, it gets added many, many times. but we thought it was important to put a stake in the ground and said that many to push this discussion -- say that we need to push this discussion on education and put our cards on the table and said that these are the challenges we have to

address and what people to join us in addressing them. host: what is new in this op-ed that you all have written? guest: the peace that might be getting discussion is the technology components, but these other discussions have been happening in small groups around the nation for years. we have to take advantage of the fact that there is a national attention, let's bring this to bear right now, that if you're going to get the kind of results we want for our children, we must do some things differently. our teachers are trying hard. we have to make sure that they are with the most effective teachers as partners, that we are evaluating them fairly, that we are compensating them fairly, providing training. we have to step up and demand excellence from all of us. host: what about -- a little bit about the teachers is in here, but what about the administrators? what about the backup for the teachers in the classroom?

guest: i think you hit on a key point. i never such great school but did not have a great principal. having a great principal is largely determined by having the authority to do the right thing and being held accountable for it and holding the staff accountable. but it is also backing up the staff. this is not one piece -- this is not up to one individual. we have got to have the support of students and parents and the community and the finest staff. we cannot as of a control the level of desire to learn -- we cannot necessarily control the level of desire to learn, but we are not abdicating our responsibility. the biggest factor we can control is the quality teacher in the classroom, and we take that seriously. host: give us a snapshot of the

charlotte-mecklenburg county district. caller: we are a majority minority district, about 140,000 students. we have the majority of our students qualify for the federal free and reduced lunch program. we also have areas that are extremely wealthy and even in areas that are a little bit wi -- little bit rural, almost 600 square miles. we have high performing schools and at low performing schools. host: what is your job with the low performing schools, particularly? what is your focus? guest: almost 2/3 of our students below grade level or in 1/3 of our schools. if we don't tackle the challenges in that 1/3 of our schools, we're not getting our job done. my job is to make sure we have the most effective staff the schools and we have the tools and staff -- the tools the staff

needs to get the job done. some children need more resources for us to get the job done. that is more staff in some cases, the highest quality staff, access to things they might not get outside of school. but the lynch pin for it all is an effective teacher. all those other parts did not matter if you do not have an effective teacher. host: peter gorman, at two major educational reforms that have come into play in the last 10 years, no child left behind and president obama's race to the top -- what is your view on those? guest: while i don't agree with everything in no child left behind, thank goodness we had a moment when we decided to focus on every single child, that we will lot have a particular subgroup that is struggling and he pushed -- will not have a particular subgroup that is struggling be pushed to the background. all kids need a great education and that started moving the ball

forward. i am pleased with what i've seen with parts of race to the top, that is based on putting in place competition for dollars to do things that are effective. entitlement programs have a place in education, but also, we need to reward excellence. i think we are seeing this more as a new day and a different day, and i think it is a positive step forward. is it perfect? absolutely not. is it a step forward? yes. host: is the nea your partner or a road block, in your view? guest: our teachers association is a partner, because they are doing a great work. now, there are times when we have faced challenges as well. some of the work rules that are in place i don't believe benefit our children. that needs to be our number one priority. at the same point in time, don't want to just cast stones. we negotiated those work rules as management and we put in

place. now we are standing up and saying we don't want those. teachers want to be treated fairly and we bought what is best for our students. there is ground to move forward with. we have to be more aggressive on all fronts. host: finally, what is the hiring process for your job? who hires you? guest: i'm hired by the board of education, where some of my colleagues are involved in control of our district, where there is a nine-member board elected by the public who hires me. host: peter gorman, superintendent of charlotte- mecklenburg county schools, thank you for joining us this morning. by the way, did "the charlotte observer" print the manifesto as well? guest: it did. host: ok, we will have other phoners this morning, but we want to hear from you. andy is on our teachers line.

caller: we really need to look at the testing and how our students are assessed i work in an area and these -- where these tests are completely in appropriate. it is demoralizing to kids to but many, many tests and if one of them that they cannot do. it promotes teaching to the task. white -- teaching oto the test. i advocate having it brought kirkland -- having a broad curriculum. host: what you teach? caller: i teach third graders. i have kids that are reading at middle and first grade -- they are in third grade, and they are

giving a third great test that we would give to a middle-class kid. to me is unfair to the child. host: recently, "the l.a. times" printed a database reading -- rating teachers and it seemed to be based on test scores. what is your view as a teacher on that? caller: we are working as a team, and so we rotate kids to meet their needs. that is kind of the way it is going. i don't know how they are going to evaluate, that teaches special ed or in a middle-class neighborhood or an area with a lot of the second class letters. i don't know how they will implement that. it seems to be unworkable. host: before we let you go and go to class, in the manifesto, here is what they wrote -- a "for too long, we have let teacher hiring and retention be

governed by archaic rules. there is not a business in america that would survive if it cannot make personnel decisions based on performance." caller: well, i agree that we need to look at our evaluation system. but in my experience, i see a lot of a very hardworking, capable teachers, and i think that is -- firing teachers is not going to get us where we want to be. host: lauren, st. paul, -- lorne, st. paul, minnesota, parents line. caller: there are terrible problems and i will take the second one first. -- two problems and i will take the second one for a spre -- first. we have legislated schools to teach more than they can. you cannot teach tolerance and you cannot teach tolerance and diversity and for all of these

things at schools and say, oh, by the way, teach the basics of reading, writing, arithmetic. i do get tired of people putting the blame on teachers and unions when, in fact, the primary responsibility, and i will use the word "accountability," goes with the parent. until the parents take their responsibilities serious and dig in and do their part, it is only going to get worse. host: where do your kids go to school? which school system? caller: we are here in the st. paul-minneapolis area. host: do they go to public school, private school? caller: actually, both, for different reasons. host: do you see a difference? caller: it goes back to the word "accountability." public schools, i have no complaint, but you notice the difference between accountability and.

but as a patient. it is a joke, in it not a good the you notice the difference between accountability and participation. it is a joke, not a good way to rid the private school books for kids who are not of well-to-do means. -- to private school books for kids who are not of well-to-do means. host: we had a textbook writer on our show about a year or so ago. she talked about the denver school system. she talked about the growth of the denver school system and what it looks like now. here is what she had to say. >> we have now is staggering levels of administrators. the big difference between the private school that charges

enormous tuition -- you know, there is a principal, and i see layers of assistant principals, and very few administrators. you go into public schools, and there is layer after layer of administrators. in denver, where i live, the administration building is nine stories high. i have tried to make forays into there and nobody will talk to me. they keep the public out. 30 years ago, 40 years ago, whatever, when denver had many more of the students before the flow to the suburbs, there was eight two-story building for administration. -- a two-story building for administration did each time you add a layer, that person has to justify his or her job.

they make these storms that they have to fill out. -- these forms that they have to fill out. a lot of the teachers are not in the classroom. host: al, teacher online, please go ahead. caller: i am a retired teacher. i taught a number of years in catholic schools, a middle school, and then high school. i have a couple of comments. one, the federal government, other than financial aid, should get the heck out of vegetation. there is no one in washington who knows -- should get the heck out of education. there is no one in washington who knows the needs of a small town. second, i said i taught in catholic schools. we have absolutely zero problems with the discipline kids --

disciplined kids, because if they acted up and did not want to be in school, they were gone. that should be what the situation is in every school. the problem is that parents the problem is that parents should be responsible for their kids going to a school and the saving in school. the way that this can be done is that the law should be passed a federally that every child should have the ability for their parents to control the amount of money that costs that community to go to school. host: all right, we're going to leave it there. thank you very much for that. a little bit more from the manifesto -- "just as we should give teachers and schools capability and flexibility to

meet the needs of students, which should give parents a better portfolio of the school courses. that starts with having the courage to replace or substantially restructured persistently low-performing schools that continuously fail our students. we almost -- we also must make a charter schools are truly viable option." well, after the manifest was written and printed up in "the washington post" and other papers, the director of the national education policy center, kevin welner, blogged about it. you are not a fan of this, are you? guest: no, i cannot say that i am but i like some of what you have shown on the screen already. i agree with the need for high quality teachers, strong teacher accountability and evaluation. but i do not overall think of this manifesto is a good thing at all. host: besides the trichet, what

should it have focused on? -- besides the teacher issue, what should it have focused on? guest: i think the way it is done is very counterproductive. one of the falsehoods in the manifesto actually misrepresents what president obama had said. it implies that teachers are the most important thing in determining test scores, determine outcomes. making that mistake, which is just in this reading of the -- a misreading of the research, it leads to a lot of that policy decisions. -- a lot of bad policy decisions. host: dr. welner, where do you teach and what you teach? guest: the university of colorado at boulder, and i am a

former lawyer so i did a lot of -- teach a lot of education policy. host: i hate to generalize, and i will let you be specific, but the societal factors that influence school performance. guest: that is not my research. that goes back 35 years and to tons and tons of other research. i want to really stress that that is not saying that schools should not be responsible for providing high quality education to students. the problem is that when we make the mistake of mistreating research and say, oh, my gosh, we have to blame the teacher or student x, we make a mistake in attributing to the teacher a lot of things that are beyond the teacher's control. so this idea of saying if we

want to have a rigorous evaluation of teachers, we need to turn to student test scores, which is not stated explicitly in this manifesto but is underlying a lot of policies -- if we're going to be doing that, we are going to be making mistakes. there are so many better ways of comprehensively looking at teacher quality. you just had someone on their speaking about denver, the area where i am, and they have a system which is an alternative teacher evaluation and pay system. that uses a lot of different approaches, copperhead's of things to look at teacher quality. but in the state of colorado, which just passed a law that uses a different system and says that basically, a 50%, a different way of reading it, but most likely 50% of the evaluation will be determined by test scores.

that is highly problematic. that is not me saying that. that is every reputable teacher who looks a teacher assessment to run the country, from the national academy of sciences, a statement from the economic policy institute. this is just wrongheaded, misleading, misrepresentation of the research, ignoring the research. it is very dangerous. host: you say that the master should be resignation letter to -- that the manifesto should be a resignation letter. if people are interested in reading your response, where should they go? guest: it was published on "the washington post" blog "answer sheet." if you put "washington post answer sheet" and your favorite search engine, you should find it. our website is

netc.colorado.edu. we will link to it as well. host: back to your calls on how to improve education, and the manifesto from different superintendents around the country, new york, washington, d.c. michelle rhee is at leaving at the end of the month, but her deputy is continuing. line., parents' caller: i have been listening to the comments that have been made and i pretty much agree with most of them. however, if you want a good teacher, you have to pay that present a good salary. -- that person a good salary.

if we expect somebody will perform at allied will and you pay them -- at a low level and you pay them as unskilled labor, it will not get the same kind of expertise from that person. so i think that the salary, in our country, is one of the lowest of any developed nations for educators. across the board, from elementary school or through higher education. host: are your kids currently in school? caller: yes. i have one was in junior high school. host: public? private? caller: i do not believe in private schools. host: are you happy with the new mexico school system? caller: our community is very active. i am quite involved in the

district, the meetings and all that. our district is trying to address -- of course, we cannot address salaries, i know, especially at this time. but they are trying to address several other things that i had in mind. as you know, in new mexico -- we are in southern new mexico and we have english language lerner students -- learner students. i think it is the second most important thing in public education, that unless parents sit down with their children and read and said abbott -- set a habit of being at home and studying every day as a matter of any other kinds of activities that go on in the household, there will not be improvement in

our schools. host: thank you for calling in, appreciate it. according to the center for education reform, there are about 23 million -- 49.3 million at students on a public school in the u.s., up 5.9 million in private schools, 2.3 million in catholic schools. andrew is a student in germantown, maryland. caller: how are you doing today? host: good. where are you a student? caller: two years ago i graduated from gaithersburg high school and i'm currently in college. what i have come to realize is that the hardest problem that the teacher has had, the special education case manager teachers, is that they have to balance

having caseloads of special education students, and they also have to teach at the same time. when you only have one class of every day, at that makes it really hard. also, a lot of the parents don't get involved with their children, either. i think that is a really big problem that does need to be addressed. a lot of our politicians and bounce around that issue, they talk about teachers and they don't talk about the real problem. another problem i have seen is unions, too. if we did not have unions, which would be able to spend more money on the resources that the teachers need to complete the job. another problem that i see -- host: ok, well, tell you what, andrew, two things. did you put a germantown -- kind of a suburb in washington, d.c.

-- did you go to public school? caller: yes, i did. host: were your parents involved? caller: my father was very involved in education, and i went to a special education program i was able to get out of the program by the end of my senior year. i went to gaithersburg high school. it is byrd high school is not that well funded -- gaithersburg high school is not that well funded, to be honest. funded, to be honest. our superintendent is -- we have not had a renovation in over 100 years, and the superintendent has prevented that renovation. host: you are in college now. are you studying education? caller: no, i am not. host: thank you for sharing your experience.

john, on the teacher's online. -- teachers line. caller: i am a retired teacher and have been a substitute teacher for about 10 years. it is a junior high when they talk about social problems and this and that and go into areas that their children are not prepared for. i would like to see us go to as many k-8 schools and to elementary schools in the neighborhood. -- keep elementary schools in the neighborhood. i would like to compare the schools we have had to the schools that go k-four, k-six, and see the difference. that is a long-range plan. i would eliminate as many junior high or middle schools as i could. privately, what i think we did is ignore -- no child left behind was working. when i substitute, i talk to librarians, and they tell me

that children are reading better, and they have been in the last few years, especially third and fourth and fifth grade students, and especially boys are reading better. for some reason, they are doing away with no child left behind. i know it was not popular with teachers, because they had to do a lot more work, but there were certain things that students had to do. if a third grade student knows that five x 8 is 40, that is better than 40% of them -- host: i was going to ask you, that exact criticism of teaching kids to the test. caller: well, i understand that, but if 90% of the students know that columbus is the capital of ohio, that is better than 40%. if 90% can find ohio on a map, that is better than 40% -- host: some more calls.

thank you for that. we are now joined by a robert enlow, president and ceo of the foundation for educational tours. a lot of the talk in the manifesto was about charter schools and school choice. is that one of the answer is, is that important, as that proved to be -- has that proved to be helpful in improving education systems? guest: peter, thanks for having me. the answer is yes, it is very helpful around the country. i am very pleased just to see that the superintendents that included charters and j choice. you need more charter school options and more school choice is. you need to ensure that you have high quality teachers in the class. you need to make sure you have high quality principals as well. all of these things are working

on the supply side in the system and the demand side with the choices. host: kevin welner, who we talked to earlier, writes in his answer to the manifest of the charter schools do not have better records -- manifesto that the charter schools do not have better records. guest: the research done by the national alliance of charter schools and the foundation for educational reform, if you look at the preponderance of the evidence, you see that charter schools on the whole do a better job than traditional schools. a lot of times charter schools are starting with kids that are 3 to four years behind. the research into private schools, like the opportunity for a scholarship program -- those children learn even more. the studies are incontrovertible. host: finally, archer archer

schools' growing? -- are charter schools growing? guest: when we started in 1996, there were about 500 charter schools, and now there are about 5000. the same thing with private school choice. when we started there were only about five voucher programs. now there are 26. the number of choices is going to parents want more choices and they understand that this the -- 24 the number of choices is growing. parents want more choices and they understand that this the 21st century, not the 18th century. host: what is the foundation for educational choice? guest: the foundation for educational choice, thank you, was founded by milton and rose friedman, and milton friedman was a nobel prize winner in economics.

host: what is your website? guest: www.edchoice.gov. host: back to your calls. jim is a teacher in takoma park, maryland, and its suburbs. jim, you with us? last fall. -- last call. caller: quite honestly, i think the authority needs to be returned to the teacher in the classroom. i have a family that teach in the inner city and i teach at a small university. in the attitude of the students that go through the classroom in i schools, a freshman at come into my classes, there seems to be a sense of entitlement where there is not a lot of respect for the authority of the teacher in the classroom and longer. -- in the classroom any longer.

determining the performance of students -- that is very important, but that does not offer a true comes into the classroom until the parents and students respect -- that does not offer a troop glimpse into the classroom until the parents and students respect the authority of the teacher. then we will see whether or not teachers are performing. just now i do not think it is effective. host: heidi, ohio, parent. caller: i am here. thank you. i have not read a manifesto yet, but i have two sons in the public schools, southwestern city schools, in ohio. what is and 11th grade -- one is in 11th grade and the other is in fourth grade. i have tried to be involved, and the unions and administrators do seem to keep parents out.

you have an opportunity to get involved if you joined the pga an -- the pta and fundraise and sell candy bars. we need to give parents back control. we have given them a chance for years to fix things and it is not working. our country is suffering. host: what is the most specific complaint you have about the school system that your sons attend? caller: i really think the parents need to be more in control of their children's education. giving teacher evaluation -- our experiences with the teachers over the years -- getting involved with requesting teachers. if word of mouth, our friends say that this teacher worth