bernstein of the national retail federation on its recent report on the value added tax. then fawn johnson of the national journal will discuss how states are dealing with immigration issues. this is "washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] h., $68 million spent in the past week on campaign 2010 by interest groups and political parties. and the colorado senate rate, $750,000 is being spent every day, a total of 17.5 million on that race alone by interesting route -- groups and the political parties. according to "the washington post" they spent $250 million so far in house and senate races.

david brooks's write this morning in the "the new york times" op-ed piece that this money does not make a difference but washington consultants argue otherwise. what do you think about the role money plays in politics? all numbers are on your screen. start dialing now. host: on that colorado race, "the washington post" in colorado, a slew of negative ads. if you look at who is spending money as far as the interest groups, the groups are a who's who of big money in the campaign this year. american crossroads, 65 million

group, funded by the support a political adviser karl rove was the first to go in and air act of the primary. a few nights later, other conservative and business groups dropped it six-figure sums, including anti-tax group club for growth, chamber of commerce and the senate conservative fund run by senator john demand. it has favored joe buck, the republican candidate, but the democratic party picked up some of the difference on behalf of michael bennett. at union backed citizens for strength and security and campaign money watch, a nonprofit to promote public funding for elections. also "the new york times" has a story about sharron angle of nevada, tea party candidate running against harry reid. her exit in the war chest evaporates. it says --

it says here that spending to about a third of the war chest she amassed -- the story goes on to say that besides her on a blistering

spending pace, she has been backed by independent groups who have spent more than $4.3 million on her behalf since july. in contrast, outside groups during that same time spend only about $2 million in support of mr. harry reid's effort. what do you think the role is in politics? what role does it play in a campaign 2010? santiago on the democratic line. you are the first phone call. you ever taking my call. host: what your thoughts? caller: i have been watching all the races and i would like to thank c-span for all of the information you provided the voters. it is very easy to see that the candidates in these races, if it wasn't for money, they wouldn't even be on the ballot, especially the republicans. and i think the money that is pouring into these republican

candidates pockets is actually -- reducing our democracy. host: what about democratic candidates? they are benefiting from outside groups as well. david brooks writes in his column today that the service employees international union is spending about $40 million for democrats. caller: i agree that democrats also are receiving money but we already know republicans are receiving a lot more money, from especially the karl rove group and the united states citizens united thing. let me finish. the unions have to disclose everything they do. these other groups do not. we already know that. we cannot prove there is no foreign money. we do understand -- we are not

stupid people out here in our area. we know they are doing this because they want to outsource the jobs to foreign countries. host: what do you think the impact is of republicans, as you say, republicans receiving more money? what do you think the impact of all of this money is? caller: i think the impact is going to show us that this is really about the haves and the have nots. if you don't have anything in this country and you are depending on a politician to help you, then you need the money. the money will give you access and it will help you, as sharron angle has shown, $40 million raised in one quarter, she already spent 12 million of it already? she would not even be able to do that and compete if it were not for the outside money coming into nevada to help her.

host: have you ever contributed to a campaign? caller: yes, i have. i contributed to the democratic campaign but i only contributed to hundred dollars. and after you paid $200, everybody knows i contributed. i don't know who is contributing to these outside groups. some in the media will not follow up. host: one final question. what did you expect in return for your money? caller: in return for my money? i expected health care because if my understanding was correct, the people in this country when it health care reform. i thought the people in this country one of financial reform. i thought the people wanted equal pay, though lillie ledbetter act. host: that was held up -- hilda. brian.

go ahead, bryan. caller: i think it is kind of odd, in the 2008 election, barack obama out raised john mccain huge. he chose not to do public financing. he got tons of money from special interests. and all of a sudden now, because of the court ruling which i and understand it does not bring more money into the picture, it just takes some of the red tape -- before they had to go through a charitable -- charitable organizations. what is funny, if i heard you right, that senator reid has just about as much money as sharron angle? host: going into the final stretch. caller: the media, if anything, is biased toward the democrats again because everybody believes that the republicans have way more money. they are just getting as much -- it is a fair fight now. i really think it is hypocritical that now we are talking about it, when in the

2008 election, did barack obama outspend john mccain in any swing state at least 2 to 1. host: david brooks writes in his piece --

maryland. george, independent line. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. ,f the money wasn't an issue then money wouldn't be used so much in an election. money is influence. they would not be using all of this money just to go ahead and do the ad buy, the push calls. the advertisement.

people will see that the money comes from the corporations were the groups that follows back to them with ad buys, one big cycle. we need campaign finance reform. we need term limits. money is a big influence in politics. always has been. you can trace it all the way back to the beginning, that people use money to influence. people are not too educated on how the system works. in order to get the information out you need to do the advertisements buys, the push calls to influence people because people did not go out to get the information they need to make it informed decision. host: what about the argument that people tend to tune it out after a while? they hear so many negative ads that after awhile they stop paying attention. the caller: if you follow anything in psychology, if you

plant the seed of doubt, you get people to wonder. if you do it early enough, you have people usually making up their minds. -- pretty early on one way or another. so if you start to influence them early. like a repetitive thing. notice politicians always repeat the same thing over and over again. just like pavlov's dog. if he says of the over and over again, a mentally that seed is set in their mind and gives them doubt. most people will not go out and do the research, look to the politicians, look to the platforms, look at what they are actually saying and doing. it instead, they hear it, and it kind of influence is them. host: you have experience in campaigning? caller: no, i have experience in marketing so i know the techniques. i know how it works. a direct marketing. if you put the money out there, especially with politicians and elections, they can put people on the ground. people to people talking has

more influence when you pay people to do the work. host: let me get your response to david brooks writing this morning. why is there some of money in politics? every consultant has an incentive to tell every client to raise money. what do you think? caller: i think that is slightly wrong. all the donors side, -- on the donors side, there's a feeling that they are special and they can attend certain events but they also know it buys influence. money buys influence. if it didn't, people would not be spending this type of money. corporations and the chambers of commerce would not be spending this type of money. what they are trying to do now is influence the electorate to their point of view.

host: let me ask you this -- what is the best way to get bang for your buck when it comes to marketing, when it comes to politics? beaverbrooks said it may be best where name recognition is low. -- david brooks said it may work best where name recognition is low. caller: a lot of these organizations do a lot of studies. what they come back is what actually touches -- what message do you want to get them to bid to buy into? you do the message, you see what their concerns are, you see what name recognition are, the reactions, and that is when you send out the message and you repeat the message over and over again to get the buy in. with the local races, if you have a person with a common name

for a familiar name, if you notice any go around town and look at the signs, the bigger the sign of the common name is most recognizable. so, people see that -- and that you may hit it on the tv or radio or in the flyer. it that name gets repeated over and over again. at the same technique. it sets the seed in their mind to say, okay, this person is a representative in my county. i have seen him for years or heard of him for years. there is that influence. host: all right. kathy, democratic live. in dallas. caller: that young man sums it up really well. it is not so much i more about the money aspect. i was just worried about the type of people the money is putting up. when you hear all the crazy stuff from the tea party. they don't believe in civil rights. they don't believe in gays. i think in that aspect, having

money and putting money up for that type of craziness. they want to repeal the health care. really not good for the people. money can put up anybody with stupidity. we need strong people that will try to put the country together for everybody. host: kathy mentions the health- care law. front page of "the richmond times dispatch" and other papers. the va judge said he will make a ruling on the health-care law by the end of the year. the salisbury, maryland. gilbert, republican line. caller: i just wanted to agree with the previous sentiment about the science behind the money and how it influences. it seems pretty straightforward -- if you just take the money

out of campaigns, use of the solutions and solve the problems. if it does not influence the campaign, it is no big of taken it out. then you can put the candidates on public television to debate the point. they could do you watch debates? have you been -- age could you watch debates? have you been following them? caller: have you seen a few of them. host: we are covering a lot on c-span. if you go to c-span.org /politics, you can look to see which debates we are covering every night prime-time on c- span. we are hearing several debates. some of them live. go to c-span.org/politics and our upcoming events section and you could see what we are covering. dallas, texas.

jack, independent line. caller: the thing that bothers me about all this money people are talking about, is there was a time in america where contributions broad access. now it buys candidates. pure and simple. it is time we went to public financing. get away from these big donations. probably have a tick off a box in your income tax, the income tax, where you can get $5 to $200, and that the american people decide. when a candidate or congressman has to get $20,000 a day in contributions from the moment he steps into office for his next election -- term limits, we have them already, voting.

when you have to spend $20,000 a day to be competitive, it is obscene, if not evil. host: this tweet from our viewer -- concord, new hampshire. nancy. go ahead. are you with us? caller: good morning to you. i think this money coming in -- in new hampshire where we have this battleground between our congressmen, running for senate , and the former attorney general hoping to replace senator judd gregg. i am a registered democrat and everything i do politically, my husband has a different last name from me, so he is getting

garage with its anti paul hodes mailing. cornerstone people, a crossroads, limited taxation. they are sending out the nastiest mailings against our congressmen, and i think it is -- i think the money has influenced or is trying to influence people's votes. watching c-span as the only option for real news and information. i might suggest that maybe you folks could do a week or two of all the legislation that has actually passed in this past congress. because nobody actually talks about the gi bill, all of the expanded -- expanded veterans' issue. but we also need a program about these tax cuts. because my understanding, although it is limited, is when our government passes a budget,

it is to fund certain programs and what ever else in our government. and yet when it cut the taxes, the money is not there to fund these projects so we are borrowing the money. how we make tax cuts permanent if it is not funding our government for what you voted for? host: i want to show you and other viewers interested this story. abrams writes for the associated press this morning, in "the philadelphia inquirer." delays out what has passed during the 2010 year in congress. the if you look at the front page of "the wall street journal," --

we are talking about the role in politics this morning. what role does it play. if you look at "the washington post" this morning, they told of the campaign spending by interest groups to political parties. 68.2 million spent so far. if you look at the different interest groups, the top 10 from this past week, 11.9 spent by nrcc, national republican congressional committee, 7.2 million by american crossroads, 9.7 million by, 5.2 million by -- these are all the political parties.

interest groups, americans for tax reform, a 2.6 million. american action network, a 2.4 million. national association of realtors, 2.4 million. the center for individual freedom, 2.2 million. 1.9 million spent by the national -- national education association's. if you go to "the washington post" website i have an interactive data map. the update it every tuesday. you can click on the top 100 interest groups that spending money. it is not just republicans. also democratic groups as well spending a lot of money. national education association. other democratic groups and republican groups that are spending on house and senate races. national, tennessee. dave on the republican line. caller: good morning. just sitting there watching the numbers and it just kind of chuckling because it seems so paltry in comparison to the trillion we spent on stimulus, a

trillion on bailout. $2.60 trillion on obamacare. that is really the truth. this is a red herring because democrats can't run on the issues. yes, they did a lot of socialist legislation. they jam the lot of it down our throats. but the truth is, america spends more on cereal than they do on their governments. that is kind of sad. the first time i can remember this foreign money being brought up was bill clinton's election. unions have thousands of affiliate's. their contributions into this country are not reported. it is just silliness, that is what this really is. host: let me ask you, though, about what influence, if any, do you think advised to spend so much money? what do you think the impact is? caller: i think earlier on an article in talks about the fact that if you got a relative unknown, that is when it really helps to get that person out

there. and that is really about all it can do. i know who my congressmen is and i know how he voted and that is why i voted against him. i already knew who i was going to vote for and who i was going to vote against. host: who did you vote for? caller: jim cooper is our socialist in chief congressman. and i voted for dave paul, his republican opponent but i already knew who both of the more. i did not need advertising to figure it out. host: do you think you are the exception? caller: i certainly hope not. host: a little bit more from david brooks this morning. he writes this --

indianapolis on the independent line. your turn. what do you think? caller: i think is great. the more money, the better. in these people are involved. if people don't want money in politics, they should move to china or vietnam. there is not a lot of money in

politics but not a lot of freedom, either. the more money, the better. it means the free-speech. people have a right to redress their grievances. i think it is really just a ploy by the media to control public opinion because they can -- there are the ones molding public opinion. and incumbents don't like it because they already have name recognition and the challengers have the get their name out. you are not going to get money out of politics because the bad guys are not going to follow the -- the clinton administration made a mockery of the can -- campaign finance laws and nobody did anything about it. you passed gun laws, the criminals will follow it so you heard the good people will follow the law. caller: i am just fed up with all of the money going into a lot of these campaigns, especially when your previous

caller talked about the union's not having to -- unions not having to make their contribution is known. however, what he fails to realize is unions are financed by their members, where as corporations are financed by anybody with the money to buy candidates. especially when you are talking about the u.s. chamber of commerce where the u.s. chamber of commerce once to literally out source every job in the united states. here they are talking about how the democrats are outsourcing jobs when they are the ones that are outsourcing, and dumping all of the campaign cash into all of

. e republican campaign's i just think there has got to being -- gotta be a stop to it. host: what role does money play into politics? david brooks in his column says it has very little influence. it is limited. but "the washington post" frontpage says whitman's $139 million could turn the california race.

virginia beach, virginia. it will be on the republican line. caller: c-span, you do a great job. i have been watching since you first came on and you are helping to educate the american people. it's amazing. but i would like to say one thing. everybody out there remember, we in america don't have any money. we are broke. the only way we are getting money is printing it. and then selling it back to the treasury. and then the government is buying it back. or we are borrowing it from china.

china loaned us probably $2 billion less one trillion dollars last year. and that money goes all into the treasury. it is fungible. it means, we don't know where it goes. let me ask you, when you talk about the chamber of commerce, who is paying for all of the salaries, who is paying the salaries of the political parties? it is not our tax dollars. they have volunteered it is the money that we on our way, is about as foreign money. host: a couple of stories about the economy this morning. the front page of "the new york times." top u.s. banks set to resume its foreclosure process. they are all going forward with many of the cases that they were taking a second look at. also in "the financial times" this morning, companies in appeal for a tax amnesty. about 75% of companies' cash

balances is stock overseas. corporations are asking for a tax holiday from the united states in order for them to bring some of that money that is overseas back into this country. illinois, barbara, independent line. caller: thank you very much for c-span, like everyone else says. there is no question there is the influence on people who watch tv and don't study things much. but i do think that those who win in spite of not having much money are almost sure to be outstanding candidates. they went on how good they are and not much how money -- not how much money. i am calling to remind callers and watchers of something i have been reading about in a book called "the people's history of the united states. come -- he reminds us nixon had

somebody approached a campaign -- well, let's see. someone was approached by a nixon campaign official and was told for a $25,000 contribution, he would be appreciated. but for a $50,000, he would get to talk to the president. this was a meatpacking executives. then later on, ict was trying to take over the hartford fire insurance co. and they settled out of court. agreed to donate $400,000 to the republican party. this is 1971. host: what do you think? does money influence politics? caller: yes, i am afraid it does. i wish i knew how to solve the problem. i would hope that if there was some way to legislate a level

playing field, that should do it. but i am not sure how it can be done. host: have you ever donated money to a campaign? caller: yes, no more than $10.50 dollars. host: did you expect something in return? caller: no. host: robert, indiana. caller: i have been sitting back and watching these elections recently, and i do think money plays a big role in these political parties. i do believe the couple -- the political parties need to be abolished. a two-party system, it is like a wrestling match, democrats and republicans get together and fight on tv and then they go and make a back room deals. who in the world would spend $139 of their own personal fortune to get a government

seat? i am a democrat. registered democrats. but i believe that there needs to be turned limits -- term limits. and not have some senator in congress 88 or 90 years old, who has been a lifelong career politician, living on the taxpayers' dime forever and putting pork and all of this other money into people's pockets. it is just ridiculous what they do. the republicans -- you find the corruption and the lies. it comes out and the wash. democrats do it also. it is just a same how our system is ruled by money at this point and i wish we could have some real campaign finance reform and

get rid of a bunch of the other things. host: robert, we believe that there. a couple of other political headlines. "the financial times." white house rage -- white hot rage forces veteran to break sweat. the debate between barney frank and his opponent was last tuesday. we are going to air that tonight on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. and from. frum'sweb site -- david web site. the frum forum. a third-party presidential effort in 2012 is not far off and hinted at his involvement in one.

if you are interested in reading that story. mckinnon, who is discussing his daily basis, and, centrist manifesto, says there is no one who gets rewarded for bipartisan behavior and, in fact, gets punished. there is a real possibility for a legitimate third-party effort in 2012. american voters are so hungry for more voice and more choice. washington on the republican line. good morning. caller: yes, as far as where the money leaves, one word, george soros for those lefties who think they are all innocent and pure and light. one thing that we can take away from politics is, yes, money is ridiculous. the money that is spent, i don't like it. in fact, it is like, here we are, our country is bleeding jobs and we have people spending and always amounts of money on just trying to get their little heads up above the sand to make

a political life style for themselves. i think that is disgusting. i think it is also disgusting that we have our potus and flotus treading around the world having a grand old time while the people of america are having a hard time. there are very few people i would doubt -- i doubt on either side of the aisle, republican or democrat, that are even giving money right now. they can't afford it. not the regular joe's. no, the people back to giving money right now are probably people who are really wealthy. host: have you ever contributed? caller: no, i have never been able to afford it. i wish i could. it would be great. i could never afford to donate money to a political candidate. i would have liked to. host:why, what do you think it

would get you? caller: i don't think it will give me anything. i think that is the problem with some of our politics. it is people think they got to get something out of it. for me, it would not be getting something out of it. it would be actually just helping -- for me, it would be helping our basic fundamental freaking -- just basic rights of liberty, justice and supporting the this is what drives me nuts about our political climate right now. is that we are not even basing our politics any more on the fundamentals of our liberty and our freekin'-- i cannot say it right now but i am half awake. i had a pot of coffee. host: but we got your point.

thank you for coming in on this issue of interest groups. the front page of "the financial times caused what has this headline. -- the front page of "the financial times" has this headline. this is "the washington times" this morning, front page of that newspaper. good morning. caller: good morning.

host: go ahead, keith. you are on the air. caller: i am wanting to say that candidates to spend their own money, money that they earned in what ever and ever as a private citizen, i'd belt -- don't necessarily have a problem with them spending that money to get elected. i do believe that the gentleman said before, anyone who spends $139 million of their own money to get elected to a governor position has an ulterior motive. it would to the kind of make me not want to vote for that person. but i think it is ok for them to spend their own money. as for money coming from corporations that make them equal to citizens, i think that is an unfair advantage because i feel as a citizen, i get drowned out by that money because i can't possibly compete. then when candidates do take that money, people are not offering millions and millions of dollars to support these candidates for altruistic

purposes. they want something. so they are beholding -- beholden to the special-interest and a vote that way. that is why nothing ever -- i will not say anything -- because despite what a lot of people think, this congress has passed a lot of things. not 100% of what it wanted but more than what a lot of congresses have. host: have you ever put your money towards one of these interest groups hoping that the contribution that you make will be bundled total? caller: i have never donated to an interest group. i already -- always donated to a specific candidate. host: were you expecting anything? caller: no, i wasn't expecting anything except for open that my little bit of contribution got to the person that i felt would do the best job into the position that they were running for. host: all right. dallas, texas. the democratic line. caller: good morning.

i just wanted to say that it is really a disgrace how our political system has turned out, to where corporations can influence our election. it is heartbreaking to know that my vote in essence really does not count especially when you have so much money coming into the system. i will agree with the other caller, my vote is being drowned out. david brooks, he is a republican commentary so it is only one side of the story and i really don't read anything he is saying. i do believe we have a problem with money coming from foreign entities coming into this country and i do think it is a threat to our democracy. host: an e-mail from a viewer. you can email journal@c- span.org.

chicago, chris on the republican line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call this morning. i would like to comment about the money in politics and complete dishonesty of this whole argument. people want to break the u.s. chamber of commerce. i got news for everybody, when you walk past a little barbershopper beauty shop and you see that u.s. chamber of commerce occur on the window, that means they donated. they are not foreign entities. do they have an international arm? of course. so does the afl-cio and the international brotherhood of teamsters. to these people who think that corporations are this evil entity that should not be allowed to engage in politics, they are made up of u.s. citizens who went to u.s. business schools and colleges across the country. they are our sons and daughters who we hope would succeed, so we send them to the best universities to be the best and

brightest among us and somehow when they get into part of the corporation, they are evil. at the same token, nobody says anything saysnaral, la raza, and all these activist groups that have corporate lobbyist offices on k street in washington. it's cut that was chris in chicago on the republican line -- host: that was chris in chicago on the republican line. we will continue our conversation on campaign 2010 and our focus will be on african-american and voter turnout.

>> saturdays, landmark supreme court cases on c-span radio. >> it was essentially this -- christmas time in 1965 decided they would wear small black armbands to express certain views which they had in regards to the war in vietnam. >> the principal suspended them, which led to tinker versus the more in independent community school district, still the acid test for constitutional rights of students. in the final weeks of campaign 2010, the c-span video library is a great resource for voters.

hear from the candidates, party officials, strategist, and reporters. the c-span video library, all free online anytime. >> "washington journal" continues. host: jamal simmons joins us, democratic strategist, political analyst for cbs news and a principal at the raysden group in washington, d.c. we have seen two polls recently. here is one. "the st. petersburg" web site. u.s. blacks enthusiastic about voting in midterm election. and then if you go to another website, from "new american media" the newest gallup poll found black voters are poised to desert voting booths by nearly 2 to 1 gap, whites are more apt to say they are thinking about the november election than blacks. what are you hearing?

are african-americans enthusiastic or not? guest: when you think about the difference between what will happen this election, the question is not a baseline question. the question is about the difference between voters -- african-american voters and white voters. what you have seen historically is in midterm elections there have been these large gaps between african-american and white voters. in 1994, 10.2% difference between african-american and white voters. in 1998 when bill clinton was under incredible stress, there was only 3.7% difference. you saw democrats picked up five seats which is unusual in a midterm election. this is coming from the joint center for political and economic studies as well as some research 5 pew big moments director jesse jackson concert -- after jesse jackson was a campaign in 1984, in 1988 -- 96 in the midterm. what democrats are focused on

is, let's talk to voters. let's communicate with them very clearly about issues that are at stake. let us talk about the change they got in 2008. and that this election will help continue that change. and that's really where the democratic party is focused. they are also doing a lot of door knocking, phone calls, all the traditional campaign things that friendly you are not seeing republicans doing much of. they are spending a lot of money on television, mail. democrats are doing television, mail, and traditional grassroots door knocking. host: there has been a lot made of president obama not going to need it -- certain districts because he is not very popular. a low approval rate. but in a column in "the wall street journal" this morning is president obama is all the democrats got. when you look at other democratic leaders in the party, his poll numbers are the best. it is president obama doing enough to get african-americans

specifically -- because they are part of the democratic base -- to turn out? guest: he is. he was on radio. there was a big event in philadelphia. he was at the congressional black caucus meeting a few weeks ago. he just did an interview last week with a group of african- american columnist from the country that people are talking about. so, he is out there communicating with people very directly. at the same time, it is not just about barack obama. each one of these candidates has to run his or her own race. when did you don't want to have happen is to have candidates who rely on barack obama to rescue them in the last few weeks. so these candidates have had to communicate with voters directly. the ones who have been doing that should see a pretty good turnout and those who have not might catch it on the chin. if you are a candidate, you still have to go out and get the voters to vote for you. host: what is the best way?

guest: you talk about it -- to people about the issues. the three biggest issues are jobs, like anyone else, education, like many other people, and also crime. people are seeing an uptick in crime in some of their local communities. these politicians want to talk to voters about issues they care about. of those of the issues that most important. host: do they need to spend a lot of money? we talking about the roll money plays and politics. guest: money is important but at some point there is diminishing return. there are so many -- only so many as you can watch, so much radio you could listen to. at some point, you care about what is their perspective, what is their viewpoint. african-american voters are a lot like everyone else. the notion that there is an african-american community is kind of an old-time notion. there are african-american communities. in some places you have people who are more religiously focus, some places you have urban voters concerned about things

like crime. another place as you have very educated voters who are very middle-class to care about their taxes and health care, and they want to start a business and cannot get access to capital. i was talking to a guy in washington, d.c., he said he ran a transportation company. he uses vans to carry people who have disabilities or elderly citizens from one location to another. you get a contract right now, except he can't get funding to buy more vans to supply the contracts. this issue was not really tax cuts as much as it was, he needed loans. he needed access to capital. they're all kinds of issues that african-americans face, just like everyone else, that candidates have to talk to. you can't walk, the terminator and has a screen that reads across that says it 35-year-old african american male, you have to talk affirmative-action. host: you refer to 1986 where

jesse jackson had a national bank that helped turn out african-american voters. a program to register and mobilize black voters for the midterms. it worked. is there something similar happening? guest: absolutely. organizers for america and at the dnc, they have ground operations across the board for congress, senate, governor. they are going out and knocking on doors. what i am hearing is for instance, the democratic national committee, they have talked to more african-american voters in the month of september then they talk to african- american voters the entire year of 2006. you are seeing extraordinary efforts at doing door knocking. host: of the dnc plans to spend seven times to eight times more than previous years. it used to work there. explain how this works. how the ground game works at that level? how do they spend that money? guest: they raise money nationally and a part of that

money into states that are most in portland. they make sure that the state party in michigan is going to get enough money to be able to run their program. they said staff members out to communicate directly and not on doors in that community. they also -- advertising, whether radio and television ads, they will run a radio and television advertising in communities to make sure they are also getting a national message out. but again, it in a lot of these communities, there is going to have to be a state-by-state, race race method to make sure the candidate is back to the communicating directly to the voters. host: what is the guarantee that this could work? when you look at 2009 governor races in virginia and new hampshire or the 2010 primaries, the data shows that african- americans didn't turn out of the races. guest: if you look at congressional special elections that took place in 2009,

democrats swept those. i'm wary about congressional elections in this case because the house -- whether it is mississippi or tennessee or more -- or sanford bishop in georgia, those candidates are communicating to african- american voters that they need them to show up. someone like war barnes running in georgia, who was governor when i was down there, he has a great relationship with the african-american community. he knocked the confederate flag down there that cost some white voters. you have mike firmans -- the only african-american elected state wide, he will help turn out african-american voters who will also help roy barnes was running for governor. host: jamal simmons is our guest, democratic strategist, talking about african-american turnout.

what is your involvement in camping 2010? guest: spending a lot of time with people like you. my day job is i work for a lot of foundations that do communications around health care and criminal justice policies and things like that. i spent a lot of time in democratic politics. i have been chief of staff on the hill. interesting, there is a stir in the paper about what is happening in the south. most of my career i worked with seven politicians, whether bill clinton, al gore, a westley clark. so, i have a good sense and feel about how this works on the ground. in the south, you pretty much do have to have kind of a message. people are pretty conservative. even when they are democratic voters, the care a lot about faith, about family, people look out for their neighbors. sometimes these big messages about big business and other things that happening don't mean as much to someone. so you have to have a candidate that can connect to the voters.

host: the story he is referring to is the front page of "the new york times" below the fold. white southern democrats see bad outlook turned worse. since the civil rights act, democrats have been losing seats consecutively in the south. guest: we know a lot of the reason why it is the case. it talks about the 1964 voting rights act. there were a lot of white voters who had the democrats but they were conservatives. what we have now is -- where we use at two parties that both had conservative and liberal members, were national party. what you are seeing now in the last 40 years is we have sort of a liberal party and the conservative party that don't really have a lot of cross between them. we almost have a parliamentary party system but we don't have a parliamentary government. in washington, you then come to washington where compromise is required but you don't have people built the inside the party that can do that compromise. there is not a lot of reason.

host: first phone call. kent, independent line. irving, texas. are you with us? good morning. caller: good morning. first, i have a question for you, gretchen -- greta. when a republican calls in on the republican line use a republican. and when an independent, you call it the independent line. when somebody calls and on the democratic line you don't say here is a democratic on the democratic line. would you please go like -- start calling them the democrats' line so it would not be descriptive but just identity. host: i see that -- go ahead with your comments or questions. caller: in connection with this subject. the local congress lady here has recently been in the paper for

handing out about 23 different scholarships to people, and it has caused a lot of problems here. so, i have some black friends and i asked one of them who has a church what he thought was going to happen. and he just kind of laughed and said, we are still going to call vote for her because she has been a conversely we are just going to go ahead and vote because she is one of us. so i would like to make comments about our guest. host: what is your question? caller: this minister, who has been a friend of mine -- host: do you have any thoughts to add? guest: people make the determination on who they are going to vote for based on who they think can operate the best.

that candidate may have a way to beat her but you cannot say that you are going to vote against somebody because you do not like what they did some place else. host: chattanooga, tennessee. james. caller: good morning. i remember you, jamal. i am 61 years old. i am a vietnam combat veteran. but braze to god. i get up every morning and read the bible. -- but praise to god. i have always done what was required of me, and i urge all black people to vote. it is a ploy to downplay the out

come up the push that black people do to get out the vote. i vote early. i take my friends. i ask them in the barber shop, have you voted? there is a silent force here, and we are working. it is a play, strategy to downplay the black vote. we are getting out there. we are proud of you. keep up the good work. host: what about tennessee, that state in particular, getting african-americans out to vote? guest: he is doing things that are effective. talking to people directly. here is an african-american

woman who works at an office. she drives a mercedes. ok, maybe we know some of the things that they are concerned about. so you could communicate directly with them through mail , phone calls. host: next phone call. bob. caller: if the republican party had a program to get out white voters, would you consider them racist? why aren't you racist? guest: everyone is trying to get everyone out. republicans do have some programs try to reach out to latino voters. in general, people talk to voters, regardless of their income, other ways, all sorts of

ways to dissect the party. david in north carolina. independent line. caller: thank you for c-span. i want to make a short question and then a comment. are you familiar, in legal terms, of the public duty doctrine? guest: tell me what it means. caller: well, i will get to my statement first. for the past 10 years, the right wing of the party does not want any refs on the field on wall street. they are talking freedom, constitution, they do not want these legislations, restrictions.

the democrats, on the other hand, want refs on the field, and they are responding. as you mentioned, gretchen, a minute ago, the african americans is one of the basis to the democratic party. the democrats and african americans want refs on the field, someone to protect them. this is where the public duty doctor and comes in. under the law, there is no duty to protect. if an african-american sued the sec for giving madoff a clean bill of health six months before, he turned himself in, and you sued the sec for failure to protect, and they would come with me public duty doctrine.

i would like for you to look into the public to the doctrine. there is no duty to protect. host: we will leave it there. i saw one story this morning, all voters -- not just african- american -- turned out to vote. the commentator asked the question, do democrats really want to win in the house and senate? does president obama want them to win? would it not serve his interest best if republicans shared the burden of running the government? guest: that would make sense if it seemed that there was a republican party that had any desire to help us out of the ditch that we are in.

instead, we have a party presenting the pledge of america. it talks about competitiveness. america.ed to ameri to it talks about education, but does not mention "education" at all, and reduces spending back to 2008 levels. that means we have to take 28% of the budget out. gutting education is not going to help us become more competitive as a nation. if you had a republican party that was serious about dealing with the nation's issues, that could be the case. but instead you have someone like darrell issa who wants to have hearings and investigations

for everything that has happened in the past two years. president obama decided that he was not going to look back and scrutinize everything about the budget ministration. the clinton administration constantly did subpoenas and it did not help you get policy. the obama administration understands there is no good to come from a republican in charge and all they want to do is investigate. host: in the washingto the same congress

wants to extend tax cuts for those people who make over $250,000 a year. they do not need these tax cuts. so we are going to borrow $700 billion abroad to kick tax cut to will be people in the united states and then cut down on domestic programs? it does not make sense. that is why we cannot trust republicans to take back the mantle of leadership. host: the front page of "role call newspaper." -- "roll call" newspaper --

pensacola, florida. ellis on the democratic line. caller: thank you for taking my call. earlier on, you had someone who said he was voting against his congressman. my opinion is he probably did not vote for him the first time. secondly, florida has started their dirty tricks campaign. last night, i received a call stating that we should vote against two amendments that are on the ballot, five and six, trying to fix the gerrymandering

that we have going on. we got a phone call saying that african-american organization were against those amendments. i went on their website and they had a list of about 20 minority organizations saying to vote for it because it would cut out the gerrymandering that the republicans have done in florida. what do you think about that? guest: i was in west palm beach during the recount, so i am familiar with the shenanigans that go on in a state like florida. democrats have to be sure that we have people in these states monitoring the vote. we have to make sure that there is not voter intimidation happening. if there are problems, do the little things that are necessary

to get the problems addressed. host: what are you hearing about possible every counts in these senate races. -- races? guest: it can be a bigger issue depending on the year. harry reid was in a recount in 1998. nevada no longer has a law where -- i am sorry, he was in a runoff that turned into a recount. right now, the first person past the post winds. -- wins. so there are recounts around the country and there are some interesting election laws that people should pay attention to. host: wayne from tennessee. caller: i hope you do not get a

raise, gretchen, because mr. simmons will say that you do not deserve it. i have a comment about the black community singular and black community, plural. guest: african-americans vote for african-americans for a variety of reasons. around the country, you see different americans living in different conditions. many times people have different ideas about what is important in their lives. a candidate in new york is running on something different than someone in rural alabama. host: washington, d.c., filled up. -- phillip.

caller: washington, d.c. it is no stranger to race politics. he looks at a candidate, sees with their platform is in relation to what he would like to see in office. do you vote democrat down the line? guest: i voted for a friend of my mother who was a republican in college. for the most part, i will vote for the democrat. i have a hard time voting for republicans who are against my interests, even if there is a democrat who will not express my best interests. host: this morning, cnn is talking about not only the african-american vote, but the

lending enthusiasm of young voters. ging enthusiasm of young voters. guest: we have seen the excitement go up since 2006. you want to see young voters again this year because they have a perspective that has to be in the debate. we saw in 2008, not only did barack obama do well with young voters, but so did john mccain. if you look at a group like rock the vote, what they will tell you is, these types of leaders tend to be more inspirational. it is important for young voters to show up so that their perspective is heard. if you look at the election now, it is not just african-

americans deciding the election. it is also college students, their professors. if liberal whites are so disgruntled because they did not get a public option or something else that they wanted to get done in the past two years, democrats will not win. the need to have a maximum party turned out to make sure that we have more opportunities to change the country, going forward. host: prince george's county, maryland. jeff on the democratic line. caller: i have so much to say about this issue. to those folks who are calling and saying that we do not need a level playing field, a robbery, -- referee, think about all the

changes that have had to happen because folks in power are being voted out. it is appalling for people to take these disingenuous stances because of the president, the democrats are trying to get some sort of tax reform, campaign reform, essentially fairness. it is ridiculous. i could go on and on. this thing called the fairness doctrine, i think fox news tried to co-op that. the republican party is trying to get a market on being american. black americans, we are going to get out and vote, regardless of

which party we are affiliated with. to coin a phrase from a hard- working friend of mine, i would consider myself a demopublican. there are some ideas i like from one, some from others. but what we do not like is having someone tried to buy our public opinion. guest: you touched on something at the end which is important. he said this idea of money coming in to buy votes -- the one thing i am more about this election is the amount of unregulated cash coming into this election. it is not that people are spending money for the person they believe in, that is normal. the question is, do voters have a right to know where the money is coming from? who is putting money in these

races? we do not want to end up in a case like russia where you have the billionaire oligarchs who are buying the elections on behalf of candidates. you want to make sure that you have a fair electorate. it seems, right now, all of our work on finance reform -- campaign finance reform has gone out the window. host: a twitter response -- guest: i did not say that. 2008 was clearly a high water mark. it is like a first kiss. you can never experience it again. the question is, will you do better than you did in 2002, 2006, other midterm elections?

will you be able to close the gap with the youth voters, african-american voters? if democrats have a chance to win, it is about getting those younger people under 35 to come out. host: what is it about those younger people that make a difference? when it has made a difference for democrats, the percentage between those two is quite small. is there a point at which it really hurts the democrats? guest: if it is less than 5%, democrats generally do well. host: janet in memphis.

caller: i will say this quickly, but come back through history with me. tom bradley was running for governor in california. that election was stolen and given to ronald reagan. anyway, ronald reagan stripped education -- funding for education from poor kids, like me, and gave it to the asians. we saw all these people coming in and then all the money being given to them, and then we saw a slide of our jobs being given to them and then overseas. the slide continued to where we are now. president clinton had such a troubled past, it was known he

could not stand up against globalization. now we have president obama who is squeaky clean and it is hard for someone to use his past against him but they are fighting him in all these nefarious ways because he is really the person to do the job. what affect do you think the black vote can have won the elections can be stolen, in the matter that it was done with ron reagan in california? as soon as he guided the schools there, he was awarded by becoming president. everyone knows he was not intelligent enough to do that. guest: as a student of political history, i do not think tom bradley ran for governor against ronald reagan. he did lose in his election in what people thought would be a massive turnout for him, but he ended up losing by a couple of points. she also talked about the

democrats' standing against globalization. i do not think anyone is doing that. we are in the middle of it. the question is, how do we get our work force to be able to harness globalization for the benefit of american citizens. how can we be competitive where we are still competitive in science, math, engineering, in order to compete against that? thomas friedman was relating a conversation that he had with the chairman of intel, saying that he could be a seat -- could not be a successful company without american workers. we have to do better in our high schools to make sure that kids are involved in technology, engineering, and math to compete with people across the world.

i would love to see us at a place -- on the issue of competition, there is a consensus that we have to address it. but some are more to the left, some more to the right, but everyone focused that we are competitive so that our children can have a piece of the world. host: jamal simmons is with us, a principal at the raven group. he is also a cbs political analyst. there was a recent report put out by the joint center for political and economic studies. the influence of black candidates on 2010 midterm elections. there are 20 seats where black voters could determine the outcome. most of these seats are in southern states and only three are held by republicans. if the democrats retain half of these seats, it would be tough

for the gop to regain the seats necessary to get the majority in the house. guest: that is an important point that democrats have to compete in the south, as well as the midwest and west. i am not one of these people running around worrying about the sky is falling on election day, but we have two weeks left. this is the rough and tumble part of the campaign. you look at this advertising between ran paul and -- there is a lot happening in the next few weeks. as a candidate, you have to make sure that you are keeping the ball moving. i was in a campaign ones where we were ahead the entire year

until the final 10 days and the election turnaround. we lost. you could see what was happening. this wave that everyone is talking about to defeat democrats, it may exist, but it is not taking hold yet. carli fear russia is up slightly in california. washington state, patty murray is also ahead. in mississippi, childers is also up. so you look around the country and republicans have to take control in order to win, and they are not blowing anyone away yet. democrats are still holding their own. guest: what is your prediction

for the house? -- host: what is your prediction for the house? guest: i predict the democrats will retain power of the house. there are some seats that republicans hold the democrats will be able to take. if you look at the seat in new orleans, that is a democratic pickup opportunity. there is one in delaware, another in hawaii. you have a few of these races where democrats can do pretty well and finished strong -- finish strong. host: moving on to read still, north carolina. mary, you are on the line. caller: i see that your guest is a democratic strategist.

it seems that democrats and president obama are afraid to tout what they have really done, spending time holding the republicans off, rather than showing the public their accomplishments. it seems that their strategy is to tell everybody what you're young, what is good, what hav have accomplished. host: has there been a communication problem from the white house? guest: i could argue that the white house is in a better position today. if we had said from the beginning, focus on competitive, focus on long-term issues. in the short term, we have some

hard work to do. thinking more of a long-term strategy as well as focusing short-term on jobs. health care is important, something that the democrats have tried to do. next year, you will see kids left off of the roles having benefits because they are allowed to be on their parents' plan. maybe have a mom who has a job with a birth defect cannot get that child cover because of a pre-existing condition, she will be able to get them covered. right now, we do not have many real time examples because of the timing, but next year, i think you will see democrats talk more about the bill. host: if you want to take a look at a list of the things

that work, jim abrams writes in "the philadelphia inquirer" -- fresno, california. david, good morning. caller: i am a white, independent voter. i voted for barack obama. i gave him a pass on the reverend wright situation. since he has been in office, there has been two incidents including race. one was the person at harvard, professor gates, where president obama made a comment, gave his opinion on police officers not being very bright about that. i was shocked that he made that

comment. being president, he should have allowed the police to handle the situation. i do not know why he would make a comment concerning that. the second thing is, the new black panthers, the situation where they were convicted but did not get any time for intimidation, i am surprised that the administration, with the department of justice, did not do something that showed they wanted to make a statement that we are not going to let anybody intimidate us, no matter what race they are. i believe this is the reason all lot of white independent voters are going against this administration. guest: most people who do not want fox news are not familiar

with this new black panthers case. if you look at the clip, there is one gentleman standing in front of an african-american voting district, looking at him as if he is a nut job. so is not really that he is intimidating voters. this was all cleared up under the bush administration. i think people think that this is an important case tried to highlight racial issues. barack obama was talking about a specific police officer who walked into the professor's home and questioned him. clearly, it was his home. i think the president probably learned a lesson in both cases. but if you look at barack obama

brought the, he is someone who has been appealing to voters across the spectrum. he treats everyone equally. some people do not want him to be equal. they want him to favor in a different direction. i think that is something that he is not in the business of. you just have to look at this from a broader stance and you see that we have a president, even though people are not extraordinarily happy about the economy, he is still getting about 63% personal approval ratings. host: you have worked on presidential campaigns, have worked for the democratic national committee, specific races. describe what it is like to be in a campaign at this moment. guest: can you say hell on c-

span? the common joke on the campaign is every day is a week, every week, a month. day's low in two nights, you are up early, out late. you are tired a lot. you have not talked to your friends and family. it is a tough environment but anybody that has been through it -- some of my good friends are republicans who have been on the opposite side. there is this strange bond that you have with each other because you understand the grueling life that the person has led, how much they had been through. it is fun, something that you cannot get an excitement level doing something else. every day you get up, you are doing something because you believe in it, you think you can

make the world a better place. if nothing else, -- it makes some people cynical -- but i have become more optimistic. most people are supporting a candidate because they can believe they can make -- they believe they can make a difference every day. i am working all day and i am really not getting paid that much. host: baton rouge. tyrone. good morning. caller: i do not know if republican blacks were more republican from the lincoln days, up to president roosevelt, i think maybe they started to switch parties. certainly, after kennedy, after

he got martin luther king out of a jam. do you think it is a danger that the democratic party may start to take the black vote for granted and say that they will come running to all the time? host: thank you. guest: you hit on a good point. i am a democrat, but it is good for the country to be voting on people from all spectrums. in fact, too often, candidates will treat black voters like a one-night stand. everything to get them to vote at one day and then they do not pay much attention to them. we need to have continual involvement, a trust level that

the candidate will operate in the best interest of those folks. host: dennis in new york. democratic line. can you make it quick? caller: i will do my best. mr. simmons, as a white liberal, it is not just the government option that is missing. the republiklan party set up that medicare part b thing which is a slush fund for drug companies. middle-class seniors have to pay two sets of premiums for one drug benefit. they should have put the prescription drug benefit into part be. for this reason, i am writing in tom harkin for senator in 2012. host: what is your question?

caller: when is the democratic party going to get off of their corporate agenda and get back to acting more liberal? guest: to me, the question is whether or not you want to make the perfect enemy out of the good. there are lots of things that i would like to see democrats do, and compare that to the average republican, a democrat tend to come out on the line that i come out on. look for the candidate that you want to do the best. if they are not doing what you like, you press the case. too often, what we saw was the tea party showing up expressing their case for more conservative policies, but you did not see democrats and liberals showing up and vociferously stating their case. the tea party is exercising

their constitutional duty, advocating in a peaceful way. i 1 democrats and progressives to do the same. host: jamal simmons, thank you for being here. coming up next, we turn our attention to the value-added tax. we will stick to the national retail foundation who recently did a report on the negative impacts of a value added tax. first, a campaign 2010 update. today, we focus on the west virginia senate race. the two candidates left by the late robert byrd had a debate last night. joe mentioned faced off against mr. racy for the republican candidacy. >> i hate to inform my opponent but mr. obama's name will not be on the ballot. it will be me. my record has been clear. i have worked hard.

working to bring all sides together. the bottom line is, when this much money has been spent against me trying to scare people -- that i would do things that i have never done, and i would but someone control may -- me. >> the reason we are concerned about what president obama has done, if you are in business, it is virtually impossible to make a business plan right now. when you look at obamacare, we have not made decisions on the bush tax cuts, cap and trade, even when you look at governor policies, you have to wonder about him and obama.

there are clear choices in this election, and those choices are clear. host: paul knight is with us, a staff writer to talk about the debate. let's talk about the debate. how will their answer the resonate with voters? >> i think a lot of interesting things came out of the debate. it is one of the more contentious things that i have seen following these races. john racy kept saying i do not know how he could be more negative. he opposes the minimum wage, he called obamacare pure, unadulterated socialism, he is against federal regulations, he says global warming is a myth.

manchion is being attacked as a stooge for obama. he says that the infrastructure in west virginia are important, that is used to build highways, sewers, other important things. manchion supports minimum wage and says we need to support some aspects of the health care bill. host: the governor has said that he would vote to repeal some aspects of the health care policy. he is also against some parts of the cap and trade. he has been at odds with some of the policies of the democrats. would that be a problem? >> he does not want to scrap the entire bill, and he wants to protect children with pre- existing conditions.

racy, on the other hand, said that it was the worst bill that ever came out of the senate and house, pure, unadulterated socialism. host: why is this race so competitive? >> it confuses me. manchion was a popular governor. he won 70% of the vote. this time, the margins are smaller. i think manchion is starting to pull ahead. host: we talked about money, its role in politics. can you talk about that specifically in this west virginia case? >> there is definitely a lot of money coming in not directly related to either candidate. the supreme court decision in january has made it possible for all sorts of money to come into these races and across the

country, without anyone knowing where the money is coming from. host: what will you be watching for in the next two weeks? >> i think it is going to get more and more negative. it is interesting. there is another race happening here at the local level and it is getting pretty nasty. one man is being attacked for his middle eastern heritage, although he was born here, and i think it is a pretty bad strategy to be going after him like that. host: if you want to see the debate, go to our website, c- span.org. and joining us at the table is

rachelle bernstein, here to talk about the new study on a value added tax. let's begin with the definition of what a guy you added tax is. we found a definition -- the value added tax is. we found a definition at allbusiness.com -- so it pretty much every product is taxed along the way. how is that passed along to the consumer? guest: it is embedded in the price. the economics are the same, whether you charge a 10% tax on a $100 sweater. that $10 is taxed by the retailer, whether there is $2 at

the retailer it remits in tax, another $8 that the wholesaler remits until it is finally purchased by the consumer. the point is, the consumer has paid in total, $10 in taxes. it is just collected in various stages. host: the deficit commission is looking at the issue of how we can cut our deficit. one thing that could come up is a value added tax. our u.s. debt as a share of the economy is right down near 62%. by 2013, it could be 185% of the share of our economy. the retail federation -- foundation did a study about how this might work -- you chose a number around 10%. guest: we did not choose the number, first of all. we had commissioned the study.

it was performed by an economic advisory firm, tax policy advisers. what our economists did was, to assume that debt that you just talked about, a certain amount of deficit reduction would be needed. perhaps that would be the recommendation to come out of the commission. we assumed that what they are looking for was deficit reduction at the level of 2% of gdp than you would need a 10.3% value-added tax to achieve that level of deficit reduction. that also assumes the base for the tax would be a narrow base, similar to the bases for the value added tax in europe, similar to state sales taxes, and not tax all the services in the economy.

host: other countries have value added taxes. guest: about 130 other countries have it. host: let's take a look at the study and what you found. guest: we found if we impose a value-added tax at the level we are talking about to achieve a reduction of the deficit equal to 2% of gdp, we would have an immediate loss of 850,000 jobs in the economy. retail spending would decline by 5% a year, which is $250 billion, $2.50 trillion over the decade. gdp would decline for three years and would be very sluggish for several years thereafter. also as a basis of comparison, we looked at what spending

reduction would do. if a similar level of spending reduction to reduce the deficit by 2% of gdp was enacted, we would have immediate job growth, 250,000 jobs would be added in the first year. gdp would also begin to climb in the lead in the first year. so there is clearly a difference in putting a consumption tax on the economy and achieving deficit reduction in some other way. host: why not a value added tax? we have to do something about the deficit. people say you can cut spending, but that will not do it alone. you have to raise taxes and somehow. if you go to the bloomberg website, a couple of stories specifically -- chris ferrell writes --

why not? guest: first of all, a value added tax is not necessarily inefficient tax. our research looked at the various european vats and there were huge compliance issues. about 26% on compliance rates. -- noncompliance rates. it is not an easy task, despite people saying that. the other thing is not only

would we be losing hundreds of thousands of jobs, this is a pact that would lower the standard of living for most americans. the price for purchases for poor, middle-class, senior citizens would go up. this is not a tax that is really good for americans. host: what if you got rid of the other taxes that we are talking about and just had the vat tax? guest: first of all, our study did not address a substitution. one could devise all sorts of ways of coming up with a substitution. i think what you read for me was not a complete substitution for the tax system but a partial substitution. host: right.

guest: i am sure the economic model in would be different depending on how you apply that. currently, 40% of americans do not pay taxes. just providing income tax relief will not progress -- address the regressive the of americans paying taxes. host: our guest is rachelle bernstein. she is from the national retail federation. beth from florida. caller: ok, let's model ourselves after socialist year. people there are not doing anything because their government is broke. the government does not know how to limit their spending. that is the bottom line. let's just keep going after

taxes, break the people's wallet, and then we end up a broken country. have a great day, god bless. host: did you look at other countries? guest: yes, we did. the caller's point is exactly right. since the mid 1970's, european vats as a percentage of gdp, have decreased 37%. basically, they are taxing more in order to spend more in the economy. in the u.s., with our income tax system, we have kept the percentage of gdp fairly stable during that same time period. host: some sarcasm here from a twitter viewer -- guest: the reason we did the

study was to determine what the impact would be on our retell members and on the economy. did we assume a consumption tax would hurt consumer spending? absolutely. we knew that but we had no numbers behind it. believe it or not, nobody had studied what an add-on value added tax would mean to our economy. we thought, with the work being done by the deficit reduction commission, it was important for someone to know what the macro effects would be. host: are you speaking to the deficit commission? have you been asked to? guest: we have submitted our studies, we have not made any presentations. host: will you? guest: i do not know yet. they are working on this for six weeks before they pull together

their final report. as you know, most of them are members of congress, and they are home by now campaigning. host: wayne on the republican line. caller: your example earlier of the $10 tax being added to the $100 sweater is just an example of what we're talking about, with an exception. i do not see anything that out lost sales tax on the state and local level. here in birmingham, it is 8%. so that would be an extra $8.80 added to the $110. that drives me crazy when i think about it. the second thing is, this is the only instance with government that i have seen where if my income goes down, my spending has to go down.

this is the only thing i see where if the spending goes up, well, we just raise taxes in perspective. we do not worry if it is going to hurt somebody or not. -- taxes irrespective. guest: you make a good point bringing in the point with the state and local sales taxes. the europeans do not have the same types of system that we do with state and local governments imposing their own taxes to collect revenues that they need. there would be a lot of pressure on the state and local government if there were a federal consumption tax enacted. states that are relying on these taxes as their form of revenue, it would be difficult for them to raise these taxes if we had a large federal consumption tax at

the same time, and it would put a lot of pressure on them on where to get additional sources of revenue. host: very on the democratic line. new hampshire. -- barry on the democratic line. caller: you cannot just add another tax on this to solve the problem. if you are going to have a substantial body added tax and eliminate the income tax, eliminate state and local, if we go to a flat tax and have the value added tax, maybe that is something. but the system is way too complex. we need a reduction in spending, 1st. get rid of the complexity of the irs. lay off of the bureaucrats and let them go out and look for a job. host: is there a tax increase

that you would support? guest: we are not advocating any specific tax increases at the moment. our study showed the economy would do better if we have spending cuts, not tax increases. our retailers have been hurting for the last couple of years with this economy. the one thing that we think we need to get the economy going again is for jobs to come back. a new tax would basically throw away hundreds of thousands of jobs. we would like to see something done that would be helpful to getting the economy going, and it is not putting in a new tax, based on the research that was done. host: robert, texas. independent line. caller: i have a comment and a question. does your guest really believe

-- hello? does your just really believe the deficit is a problem -- if your just really believes the deficit is a problem, you need to those solutions. guest: we agree with you a rational person would not put this tax on top of the economy at this point in time. six months ago, when this commission was put together, there was an awful lot of talk in washington about the possibility of a value added tax. a lot of people thought it would be a silver bullet. we wanted to know what the economic result of doing that would be. that was the reason that we looked at the way we did. host: james, pittsburgh.

you are on not there. caller: i am a 47-year-old male. many of our taxes are wasted. there is so much waste. all we really have to do is spend our money more efficiently. host: did you want to finish? caller: spend our money more efficiently. it is an awful lot of money. right now -- i am a former construction worker, so you cannot get anything out of me, i do not have a job. but when i did work, i did not notice my tax money being spent on anything that i agree with, anything that helped me, personally. host: do you have or that helpe.

guest: i understand your frustration and hopefully this is something that the commission is looking at, what we need and what we do not need in these hard economic times. host: the governor of indiana was mentioned recently. he was mentioned as a possible gop candidates. let's listen to what he had to say about this issue. >> he wrote, "it would be most useful to encourage savings and investment. a value-added tax and a flat income tax were the only exception."

that might suit our current situation pretty well. it also might fit bill simons '70s of the late nation to have a tax system that looks like someone designed it on purpose. [laughter] host: your reaction? guest: it sounds to me like governor daniels is talking a are redesigning the tax system and perhaps putting in a consumption tax. our study did not look at that because the deficit reduction commission was put together to do just that, to reduce the deficit. we modeled a tax that would raise revenue because we thought that was what their goal was and we wanted to see what that impact would be on the economy. i have to say, we did not address that exactly. about 10 years ago when there

was a lot of talk about looking at tax reform and perhaps replacing a consumption tax within our system, dnr f. -- the nrf did look at that and it would cost a lot of jobs. of the time, the modeling showed about 1 million jobs would be lost, and that was during the time that the economy was doing a lot better than right now. i know the results are old, but when you transition to a totally different tax system, you will have a slowdown for a certain period of time. i do not think we can afford that right now. host: after that speech he played down the significance of his comments and said that he would only support that under the right circumstances. you talk about consumption tax,

and we explained in a value- added tax. i did want to clarify that we're talking about the same thing. guest: yes, i am. some people of talked about a national retail sales tax. even a flat tax as a form of a consumption tax. host: you said you are afraid of the consumption tax system. there are a bunch of taxes that fall under the system of consumption taxes? guest: i'm not sure exactly how i used that. i guess i'm saying that under any type of consumption tax, because we can design consumption taxes differently. they will have served -- similar affects on the economy, whether it is a national sales tax or a value-added tax. host: we will move on to rich in maryland, republican line.

good morning. caller: and think we are in real competition here and other countries are learning lessons from us and doing really well, like china and russia. and they laugh at us because of our taxes. we let something take off and then we burden down with taxes so that it cannot fly and cannot move. it is like getting a drunk a drink. he is not just spend $1 trillion on the economy. he spends at $10 because you give him one. giving money is not a problem. the problem is them cutting down and reducing the complexity of the tax system. and really, even generating money when it comes to retirement. guest: i could not agree more. i think our income tax system is broken as it is. that is another issue.

and hopefully, one that congress will address. since 1986 when we had our last major income tax reform, the system has become extraordinarily complex. and then we have all of these temporary taxes that we put in that will expire and that adds a huge amount of complexity. but that does not mean we should go to ratting on another level of a new type of tax -- adding on another level of a new type of tax. i think that is what the caller was saying. host: this your tweet in about corporate taxes and says, look at the difference between a corporate nominal tax rate and an effective tax rate. u.s. is at the low end come off very far from the highest. -- is at the low end, very far from the highest. guest: it is true that the

united states is far lower than the nominal tax rate. the viewer is absolutely right. we have the second highest, and soon to be the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but because of the various deductions and credits in different -- and different things in our system, the taxes paid by many companies are much lower. when you had on the state income tax burden, our industry is paying 37%, 30% effective rate of tax. host: ok, dan on the independent line. caller: reason for most of this government debt, in my opinion, is because the last administration started two wars that they did not pay for as they go. and then the corporations

incorporate offshore interests on p.o. box and they do not have to pay tax on that. you know, just your thoughts on that. host: why do you take the last part of his statement there. guest: i do not think the corporate tax system is quite that simple. the system still does tax earnings in the united states, but i do understand the frustration with the corporate tax system has its pluses and minuses. i think there are ways of approaching it that would lower the corporate and encourage businesses to come in and do far more in the united states because i think that would help our economy to grow. right now, we are keeping foreign businesses from doing business here because we have such a high tax rates.

host: can you speak to this had nine -- this headline? it is the front page of the "financial times." it speaks about taxes being more of a barrier in getting credit. guest: i will tell you that the retail industry is basically a domestic carrier. we do have stores overseas. there are more operations going overseas, but a lot of what you are talking about there does not apply to our industry. nonetheless, the point that i was just making, and anybody who is familiar with our tax system and tax policy would understand it and it is correct.

when we have a 35% tax at a much lower rate outside of the u.s., there is a barrier. it gets to this concept of corporate tax reform that is really desperately needed. host: cathy, on the independent line. caller: it seems to me ever since president obama set up the debt commission that i hear so many people lining up on one side or the other. we either cut spending or we cut taxes or raise taxes, and they talk like we have a choice. from my perspective, i do not really see a choice. it is like we know that we have to cut government spending, especially in social security and medicare. we know we have to raise taxes and we know that the economy has to be growing. all three of those things, it is like a three legged stool.

they all have to be balanced, but they all have to happen. when i do not -- what i do not hear people saying is, how are we responsibly going to raise taxes? how're we responsibly going to cut the social security and medicare? and at what rate does our economy need to be growing in order to balance out all three? we really do not have a choice of either/or. host: rachelle bernstein? guest: i think the comments are really dead on. i think that is why the president set up a bipartisan deficit-reduction commission with the hope that the people that he selected from both parties will be able to work together on what could be a compromise resolution that actually could get passed by our progrescongress.

and you speak to the fact that there are many things that need to be done to get us to that point, but you also add very importantly that we need an element to come out from economic growth. we want whatever is done to add to economic growth. and i think that our study did show that deficit reduction does help economic growth, but if it is done in the wrong way it can harm economic growth. and that is the point that has come out from our study. host: another headline for you. this one is from the "wall street journal" this morning. can you explain that? it says the u.s. retailers are caught between for consumers and escalating costs. the prices for commodities and manufacturing, it is costing them more for their goods and

they are not able to pass on those increased costs to the customers because customers are not spending money. guest: this is a real problem. this is a problem that japan has been going through in the past decade and the reason they have been having such a difficult time. and economists have looked at this and one of the worst thing that they did was to raise their consumption tax during that time frame. consumers are now saying, even if i have a job, i'm not going to go out and spend because my friend just lost their job and i may not be able to get a new one. if i do buy, i will get the most value out of what i can buy. it makes it very difficult for retailers who were on very thin profit margins. having dared prices increased and being able to sell their goods. host: what was the national retail federation -- what would you like the president or congress to do to get consumers

spending? guest: we think the best thing that can be done to get consumers spending is to get employment back up. when people feel confident about getting jobs or getting back jobs than they will feel comfortable shopping again. host: in illinois, john on the republican line. caller: i have a question. i received an e-mail recently regarding a house bill, h.r. 4646, and i've never heard of it before, but it has something to do with a 1% transaction fee that would be charged to anybody using their bank. in other words, if i deposited $1,000 in my banking account, 1% would have to be sent out to the government. and if i wrote a check to pay my electric bill, 1% additional would go to the government.

i'm not sure i understand that bill. it came out of texas, i believe. host: are you familiar with it? guest: not terribly. i'm aware that there is some legislation that somebody has proposed, but i'm not comfortable enough to address it. host: we will go to indiana, diana. caller: fellow, i just want to say that, you know, the people that are on social security and disability do not get a pass and life -- a past in life. there was someone saying that they will not get another one next year. i heard that in the stimulus bill there was enough money spent on a study in africa on that i think would have

taken care of us seniors. host: diana, what is your point? caller: my point is that you talk about people that do not pay income tax, people that are on social stability -- social security and disability do not pay income tax. and this is going to cause them to take money out of their pockets. host: the rachelle bernstein, you are shaking your head. guest: that is absolutely correct. lower and middle-income taxpayers of to a certain level there are many that do not pay taxes. this would be an additional tax. in our study we calculated it would be about $1,600 in additional taxes for people under $40,000 per year of

income. for a family of four that is currently at the median income level for that family of four, they would double the amount of income taxes they are paying 51 were enacted as we have modeled. you are absolutely right. this is an additional tax on poor, middle-class, senior citizens living off fixed incomes. it is going to cross -- caused prices to go up and it is going to squeeze you more. host: rachelle bernstein is talking about a value-added tax. it is added on to a product at each stage of its manufacture or distribution, ultimately, passed on to the consumer caridad -- t.

guest: i think there are responses for the. the article you just read speaks to that. there are problems going into prices. first of all, there are many things not made in this country anymore that consumers do have demands for. we have just moved on to different things and are not producing some of those things right now. the other thing is, the prices are cheaper from overseas and there is pressure on the price that is coming from the consumer. but our u.s. economy has moved from what we produced 100 years ago and we are in a different stage now in the production process. host: we will go to manhattan on the independent line. caller: i want to mention a couple of things. in new york, mayor bloomberg recently asked new workers to help identify places where we

could save money -- ask new yorker staff to help identify places where we could save money. it was very interesting asking citizens ways that we can save money. instead of looking for ways to tax, but we will pay and pay more. how can we save money? the answer is, every single possible way. there's so much waste on federal, local and state levels. a value-added tax is already included in gasoline and telephone bills and so on. we are accustomed to it. it does not slow people down at all from using those products. on top of that, it is already kind of like a flat tax. everybody agrees to pay it whether you are rich or poor. it is equal. and it makes sense what you call it a value-added or flat tax or sales tax.

host: what you think of that? guest: caller is correct, whether you call it a flat tax or a value-added tax or a sales tax. and we do pay them on many products right now. they would be increased. i think it would hurt our economy that is in such bad shape right now. for example, this tax would be applied to automobile purchases. high ticket items, you put another 10% tax on aid, and that is going to slow down those purchases. i'm sure our u.s. auto industry would not look forward to this. there are concerns about how a new tax like this would hurt the system. i think the caller is talking about are broken system and where our revenues are. it might make sense for congress to first look at the system that we have and figure of how to make it a more efficient way to collect revenue before just

coming up with a new tax on top of a broken system to collect more money, and as our study said, to actually throw away hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process. host: michelle bernstein from the national retail federation, thanks for joining us. guest: thank you. host: coming up, we will turn our attention to national immigration. but first, a news update. >> ahead of elections president obama has asked congress to give social security recipients a onetime payment. nancy pelosi and harry reid said they will bring up the issue for the lame-duck session after those november elections. it will make up for a second year of no cost-of-living increase. john mccain and made remarks earlier on abc's good morning

america." and he says he agrees with sarah palin about the anti-tax message. he added, "they betrayed our base, particularly in the area of fiscal responsibility." and were repudiated in the next two elections. turning to the war in afghanistan, nato says two service members have been killed in separate attacks in the country today. one was killed by an insurgent and the other by a roadside bomb. nato did not give their nationalities. meanwhile, to devote taliban commanders will also killed in separate incidents. -- two taliban commanders were also killed in separate incidents. saudi intelligence services are warning european officials that al qaeda in the arabian peninsula are doubtless active, or envisioned being active on

the european continent, notably france. and in britain, a major defense spending cuts are coming. review will be published today and david cameron will outline its at 10:30 a.m. eastern time. those are some of the latest headlines. >> it is time to get your camera rolling for this year's studentcam. c-span's video document patients -- documentary competition. tell us about an issue, event, our topic that helps you better understand the role of the federal government in your life or committee. be sure to include more than one point of view, along with c-span programming. the deadline is january 20 and you will have the chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. there is $50,000 in total prices. the competition is open to middle and high school student''

grades 6 through 12. for complete details, go to studentcam.org. >> c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning it is washington journal -- "washington journal" our live call-in continue to -- connecting you to officials and policy. every weekend, look for our signature interview programs, "the communicators"on saturday evenings and also, prime minister's questions from the british house of commons. and see coverage of campaign 2010. our programming is available any time at c-span.org and searchable at the c-span video library. c-span, graded by cable, provided as a public service. -- created by cable, provided as a public service. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: faun johnson, correspondent with the national journal magazine is here to talk with us. she wrote recently about how various states are taking immigration policy into their own hands in what they perceive as a lack of action at the federal level. this u.s. map shows us you cannot see that. the purple, the deeper purpose were the states are taking the most action. what is happening? guest: the states are reacting to the lack of action in congress. three years ago there was a big bill that died spectacularly on the senate floor with many republicans who initially said it -- saying they would support there was a major piece of legislation. john mccain was one of the people of was on board with that. but the republipublic reacted so

strongly to that that congress was unwilling to take any action. the spearheading moment was in arizona where they passed this immigration law that has now been challenged in court. other states are looking at the fact the congress is not going to do anything for the next several years and they are trying to decide what they can do. they're watching the courts and legislation. there also acting on more mundane type of issues, you know, passing laws that would say you have to have some kind of license, even a fishing license, you have to be a legal person in the u.s. they are talking about it on major enforcement levels and also doing minor things as well. host: if you look at the states that have passed the most immigration laws, arizona those

-- arizona does not top the list. it is actually utah, followed by illinois with 15, arizona, 11, nebraska with 10. what is happening in utah? guest: utah is interesting. they are very conservative. they're not looking at strict immigration enforcement stuff like arizona or some other states. but there also questioning the issue -- they have an undocumented population. but they also have a lot of community. there is a huge mormon population in utah and many members of the church there. their legislation is -- their legislators are really struggling with this issue. host: some of the undocumented members, members of the church? guest: yes.

from what i understand, they're looking for a way to recognize this group of people that are there and are part of their community. they also want to make sure that these people are reporting. that there is a strict rule of law. and they want to make sure that they are recognized for many reasons, for tax purposes, accountability, to make sure that they have car insurance if they are driving a car. it is a little bit of a different question in then a, say, places like arizona or nebraska, which is one place you are starting to see politicians saying that they want things to be even tougher. you know, they want landlords' checking and employers checking and double checking. you guys try to figure out how to of knowledge the people there, -- utah is trying to figure how to acknowledge the people there. it is very interesting to see

what might be happening. host: what is the dynamic when you look at this map that you have put together? your of arizona in this dark purple, states that have moved aggressively to enforcement. and above that, utah with this lighter shade of purple. guest: keep in mind that the lighter purple, what is intended there is to discuss -- the laws are minor. not every law is the same in terms of its impact or death. but some of them have a more mixed impact. in utah they have a license to drive for undocumented workers there. the whole purpose -- it is like i was saying before. they want to be sure that the people driving have insurance. you could look at this a ahead as an acknowledgement that this

undocumented population is there. as opposed to a more strict enforcement-related law that would say, if you are going to rent an apartment to somebody, you need to be sure that they have something to demonstrate that they are here legally. host: we have talked about these conservative states, but our liberal states reacting to -- like the and arizona and immigration law? guest: not much. the ones that are more liberal are kind of staying away from it. new mexico is one of the ones that has passed something -- a resolution saying that we should have a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants here in the u.s. that is the closest i have seen to anything that is a statement of positive feeling toward immigration. most states are staying away from it. immigration is a federal responsibility.

people in various states understand that. the legislators understand that but they are frustrated. the citizens are frustrated. host: in one way, some cities are addressing this like chicago, miami, new york. they're conducting business as usual by keeping their support system available to all residents, including undocumented workers. guest: mayor michael bloomberg is republic about this. we need a comprehensive -- comprehensive system. we need to bring these guys out of the shadows, but it is not our business. our business is to take care of people in new york. the we will take care of them at a matter who they are. they're just waiting for the federal government -- we will take care of them no matter who they are. they are just waiting for the federal government to act. host: because the immigration

policy is the responsibility of the federal government. guest: right. host: you write in your story that the first indication on this could come in december. guest: this is the first supreme court argument. it is a different law than the arizona and force of law. it is a law that requires employers to check with the department of homeland security database. the chamber of commerce has challenged the law saying that his particular program was never intended to be something required by employers. there are millions of employers in the country. the supreme court will hear oral arguments about that and the big question in that case will be about how far states can go in their laws before they bump up against a federal responsibility. people will be watching -- what

usually happens in a supreme court argument is what questions the justices are arguing. they could roll very broadly and say to -- they could rule very broadly and say to arizona, you have no place passing this law. but in many cases the justices are a little bit more moderate. they will touch on a lot, but they might leave some openings elsewhere. aw, but theya lo might leave openings elsewhere. host: we are talking too fond of johnson about immigration law -- we are talking to fawn johnson about immigration law. sarasota, fla., republican line. thanks for waiting. caller: thank you. i have two questions, basically.

i have been listening to these debates about immigration, illegal. i am an inherent -- an immigrant myself from england. i came here many years ago. illegalt the issue is immigration? that has been the issue in europe and it has turned out to be an amazing issue in england. they are having a serious problem with that. why can't we just confront the basic issue of illegal immigration. if you moved here and you are in a legal person and not supposed to be here, shouldn't you go about whatever you need to do to become legal? guest: that is an excellent question, and the problem is, of course, if you come here illegally, it is virtually impossible to go through any process to become legal. there are huge penalties for people who come here illegally, or even if they come here

illegally and -- come here legally and overstay their visas. there are sometimes bars of 10 years if you do that. the problem with the legal population here in the u.s. is that sometimes when you are here, it is hard to leave. you cannot leave because you got to go through some element of security and then you are subjected to all of these penalties. that is one problem that the states are frustrated about because they know that these people are here. they would like to have a way to deal with them. congress is has not been able to come up with a solution, in part because it is so politically radioactive. host: jimmy in rockville, ill., your next. againsti guess i'm immigration that is illegal. if it is illegal, you do not

belong here. i'm licensed in the philippines. we went through all of the physical, paid the dues, etc., and somebody can just walk across the border and bring possible disease or wherever with them. we are paying our bills. host: jimmy, how long did it take your wife to go through the process? caller: about two years. guest: and that is the basic problem, especially in states like arizona or nebraska. qarizadah is sort of ground zero for this particular problem -- arizona is sort of ground zero for this particular problem because people really do just walk across the desert. you have a problem of people who cross the border and are coming year for work. the only illegal act they are committing is to come across the border. and then there is the drug trade that comes along with it.

you have people on the border trying to enforce all of that. but the border is just too big. it is too porous. there are states that it understandably frustrated because they are not feeling the support of the federal government. host: what is the next state that could pass an arizona-like immigration law? guest: there are those that have been talking about it. and it is important to understand this is political. you have a gubernatorial candidates in some states, for example, nebraska and idaho and also in mississippi -- these are campaign statements in some cases. but there are states that are working up some legislation. in texas, there is a representative, debbie riddle, who has a bill that is ready to go when it convenes next year. it is not sure it will pass. in part, because some of the

legislators are looking at the arizona law and saying, arizona is being sued because of this law. it will cost us a lot of money. host: of some states are worried that it will bankrupt them. guest: exactly, and it is the situation in hazleton, pa., one of the first county to pass a law that was very strict, much stricter than the arizona law, actually. if required -- if required landlords and land owners to check. it cost several million dollars for the defendant to defend it. -- for the city to defend it. and they find people leaving because they are just worried about -- even if they are legal , they're worried about being apprehended for something.

it is a big problem. host: in the christian science monitor there is a big story about arizona raising money for a defense. one gentleman contribute $1.5 million alone to the total of about $6 million to defend these legal challenges from the federal government. it says that money keeps pouring in from virtually every state. guest: that just shows how frustrated people aren'. and people are saying, why can't we just make something happen? and is happening. but because of the lack of, -- because of a lack of action by congress, it is happening in the states. you have courts over here deciding one particular law and a another court looking at it and everyone is watching to see

what the court is doing. it is not clear who will come out on the top in the end. host: j. on the democratic line, j., the state of indiana is one of the handful of states that have passed the most immigration policy. go ahead. caller: i am 75 and i have been watching congress for the last five years. in 108 days they never rejected everything, was put before them. i have these people living down the street who have shipped in year from another country. they're not even allowed here. they are building new houses and bring in people over

here. indiana is. host: those the situation, the scenario that he is drawing sound familiar? guest: yes, and the problem is that in the last couple of years we have had an economic downturn. there was a huge need for these workers to work the construction -- construction type jobs that you are describing and there were not already in the country as students. there were a lot of illegal immigrants in this country to do these jobs. then the economy tanks. there is no construction happening. but the problem is that some of these people who came here for these jobs, they are still here. as we discussed, they cannot go home without either getting incredibly -- incredible penalties, or they might not be able to get out of the country.

it is hard to say where they may go. it is difficult to find american workers to do farm work. they may find work as farm workers. even if they see a construction site that looks like -- they might very well have workers who are legal, they still get upset. host: on the line in oklahoma. caller: this is my first time calling. i have a few questions for your guest concerning immigration funding. i have a few things to suggest. the one would be tax brackets. they need to have more brackets. if you are aware of the tax

bracket system, just the first bracket is $0 to $15,000. and it goes up to $45,000. the third one stops at $75,000. there need to be more tax brackets so that it is more spread out. and the social security threshold, taxes early paid up to $106,000 and it stops right there. -- taxes are only paid of to $106,000 and it stops right there. host: i think you are talking about deficit issues. we're talking about states that pass the most legislation tied to bill imrick -- immigration. guest: these are really just, sort of the sign on the dotted line. in massachusetts, for example,

they passed a law dictated by the federal government saying that if you are going to be getting health benefits, you have to be in the country legally. these are business as usual type laws. they are trying to declare that for budget reasons, we pay out benefits only to people who are here legally. one thing just to address the caller's point, in any kind of legislation where they are trying to talk about coming up with legislation to recognize that illegal residents are here and get them through normalization, there is a lot of talk about what kind of taxes they would be paying. the taxes on employers, for example, if they want to bring somebody in on a guest worker program, they would have to pay a fee. these are parts of a large piece of legislation, but there would be fined four people were here

illegally. -- but there would be financed for people who are here illegally. -- fines for people who are here illegally. host: john, go ahead. caller: i just want to say that we're all immigrants to this country to begin with. secondly, do you think, ms. johnson, the democrats -- well, the president especially -- can get anything done on immigration policy with congress the way it is right now. and if the republicans win in november, it would just be that much harder for the president to do anything. guest: that is an excellent point. and that is part of what spurred me to write this article. it is hard to see how congress

will do anything in the next couple of years. i am always surprised by what can happen. you never know if there is going to be a political will there that was not there yesterday. on the new republicans coming into the congress, by and large, are opposed to anything that would be considered comprehensive, which would give the people who are here illegally a way to normalize. in the past, congress has attempted to do anything like this, the backlash has been so strong. especially in the house it has caused a lot of problems. there is a lot of gridlock. but the president has repeatedly said this is one of his priorities. it is not clear how much he can actually do to make the members in congress to move on the issue, especially in the house. host: on the issue of addressing those that are here illegally, ets -- rson tweak

guest: is impossible, and that is the crux of the problem. one thing to keep in mind, though, is that the department of homeland security has deported more illegal immigrants than any in this -- any administration ever. there really stepping up efforts with police forces and their goal is to -- if you arrest someone for robbery or whatever they are arrested for, check their likinlegal status. but it is costing millions and billions. the amount that americans are putting toward border security, those efforts are helping, but there are not that many people that can have those jobs. even if you pass a bill that says we will have 100,000 more

people on the border to help control it, how will you hire those guys? it is very difficult. host: oklahoma city, ray, you are on the air, good morning. caller: their job is to enforce immigration on the border. they make the policies about how many can come in and how they cannot. but once they get into the interior, it should be up to the states to protect their own state. right, going to indianapolis. it brought on the republican line. caller: i'm not sure how i want to go about this, but it involves, i assume, people who are in this country illegally through religious persecution and they leave their former country. but my problem is, in this particular case, we will put it

in a nutshell. they wanted -- [unintelligible] my problem is the most of these people were over the age of 65 and their apartments are paid for. they have to pay $1 for the unit, but their utilities are paid for. they receive a social security check. host: are you familiar with this? guest: i think he is referring to repeat it -- a particular type of visa for people who basically come here for asylum. there is religious persecution and others that come here for work reasons.

and those particular visas, i do not think there are a lot of them, but this is part of the sad human element of this. it is not really about the work force, but people who are trying to escape persecution elsewhere. they're given legal status and by doing that, they probably have access to some benefits as well. host: a new poll shows that americans say no to public benefits for illegal immigrants. guest: and i think nobody actually disagrees with that, even the people who are the most ardent advocates for trying to make sure that they will stay there for amnesty would agree. if you are paying taxes, you should be able to get benefits from paying your taxes, but that is not such a subject of

dispute. host: james on the independent line. caller: i believe that if you put the border all the way from the pacific ocean to the gulf of mexico, put the fence up, stop them from coming in, take the ones that are already here and make them -- and list them in the services and put them in afghanistan and bring our people home, and after they serve for five years they can be citizens of the u.s. host: there is legislation to deal with those immigrants who are not quite legal get, but are serving in our military. guest: it is limited, because people are very sensitive about this.

i do not think there are that many who are here illegally who are serving in the military. this is a population, you know, it is children, people who are older, probably a lot of wives who would not be eligible to serve in the military. there have not been serious discussions on this. i'm sure it for help everybody if they had access to some of the population, but they just do not. host: a tweet hear from the viewer that wants to know about the history of migration here in this country. why is that? guest: there used to be an actual guest worker program. there are a lot of reasons, especially anyone who is an

immigrant advocates will tell you that it allowed people to come for a few months during the season you are in and do the work and then go back home. they did not have a lot of rights. there are some people that do not like at program. but the situation is different now. there are not really any legal avenues to bring people in on a short-term basis like that. barbara mikulski of maryland, actually, was one of the last people that was successful in getting a temporary visa for people. but there is not that same type of program. our tweeter is right. host: back to the phone calls. the democratic line in battleground, washington. caller: our government has spent

a lot of time on hispanics, in that area about them coming over the border, but they are not focusing on the nigerian people that come to our country and are marion our citizens. what are we doing about those issues? rying oure mary e citizens. what we doing about those issues? guest: there is now a lot you can do about that. that is legal. at the moment, that is perfectly legal. it is not the kind of thing that people would be going to jail for. host: on the republican line, maria in panorama city, california. caller: i just want to call to

say it is like an invasion here. you just cannot understand what is going on. everybody is getting welfare. and i'm here because i worked in this area. their lending out their children social security number for other people to get social security. social security, a driver's license -- and i know because of where i work. a guy that owns a paper, store came and asked me, do you need a social security, a driver's license? and they work right next to the police station. guest: there are people who are here that might come up with they way of getting a social security card, but then there are all of the fake cards that come out.

do not make us be the police here because i cannot say the difference between a fake social security card and a real one. there is a huge business there, you are right. host: california has looked at this issue before, of providing services to undocumented workers. and of course, eventually ruled against that. proposition 187 said it was unconstitutional. the measure would have done -- would have denied benefits to illegal immigrants. guest: is is where you have the laws in the country as they are. if you are here illegally, you should not be getting any benefits that come from taxpayers. the thing that advocates say, and they are right, is that their people -- there are people who come here and they work and they do pay taxes and they are

denied benefits. if you come here and are working illegally, you will have benefits taken out of your paycheck just like me. but the courts are looking at these laws and saying, if you are here illegally, you should not be getting any benefits. host: capable of more phone calls. we are talking about how in light of federal inaction, states are going ahead with their own immigration legislation. long island, good morning. caller: i'm part american india n and i would like to know, who is illegal? who is coming over the border taking our resources? i think people ought to think about it. guest: that is an excellent point. anybody that has been advocating on behalf of the illegal

population will tell you that 100 years ago, there was no check at the border. you just came and you were here illegally. and the reason why is that they needed a huge population of people to work here. that is part of the nation's history and that is how it has been. but if you look long term over the past several hundred years, you have had populations that have come, they work, then there is a huge backlash against them saying, you know, what are you doing here? we are seeing it happen again now. the only difference, really, is that it has become almost impossible for the government to figure out how to deal with it. host: last phone call from kentucky, nathan on the democratic line. caller: how're you doing this morning? host: good morning, and nathan. go ahead with your question. caller: i would like to know why we did not seal the border

several years ago. if you remember, we were sending tips to congress to deal with it. congress is not working. we are in serious trouble if they do not get their act together. i understand why they come here, but it would be easy to stop if we just required everybody who hired more than five people to check and do a service background and make sure they are americans. we do not have to deport them. if they cannot get a job, they will go home. guest: there are a couple of issues there. there has been a lot of money poured into the fence and the border is just too big to actually have a