the look of voting machines and voter registration at the brennan center for justice. . . pass pass

united states is ready for voting day 10 years after the florida recounted the billions of dollars the states have invested in new machines. but we will begin with a discussion about austerity measures. i am sure you have seen the news from the united kingdom yesterday unveiling dramatic austerity cutbacks. our question is, could it work here? good morning. let me show you some of the headlines and then we will listen to the brief clip of the u.k. treasury chief announcing the policies yesterday on the floor of the house of commons and begin their telephone calls. "the financial times" gives a

large headline. u.k. unveils dramatic austerity cutbacks. 81 billion pounds, a quite still for 0.5% of projected gdp. public sector expected to lose half a million jobs. 500,000 jobs. for u.s. coverage, "the washington post" makes it the lead. effort in sharp contrast with u.s. and europe. our question is -- should we do austerity -- deep austerity measures in this country? let me move on to some other related headlines that will give some background before we go to your calls. "the washington times) -- tea party urges drastic cutting here at home. economists question of move is wise at this time. in many of the papers, signs of protest in europe. here are people protesting in great britain outside of downing

street. thousands of people to protest massive public spending cuts. "the washington post" as photographs, many of them from france where there are continuing protests about the moves there, including raising the retirement age in france. there is continued rioting. our question is, is this the right prescription for the united states in our situation? let's first listen to the treasury chief from great britain, george osborn, as he announced the measures. >> today is the day when britain's steps back from the brink. when we confront the bills, decades of debt. when we set up a four-year plan to put our public services and welfare state on a sustainable footing for the long term. so that they can do their job, providing for families,

protecting the vulnerable and underpinning a competitive economy. it is a hard road, but it leads to a better future. we are going to bring the years of ever writing borrowing to an end. we will ensure, like every solvent household and the country, that what we buy, we can afford. that the bills we concur, we have the income is to meet. and we do not saddle our children but the interest on the interest on the interest of the debt that we were not prepared ourselves to pay. battling this budget deficit is unavoidable. the decisions about how to do it, are not. there are choices, and today we make them. investment in the future, rather than the bills of past failure, that is our choice. we have chosen to spend on the countries most important priorities -- the health care of our people, the education of our young, our nation's security, and in the infrastructure that supports our economic growth.

we have chosen to cut the waste and reform the welfare system that our country can no longer afford. host: let me move to this morning's "wall street journal" to give a sense of the way britain proposes to tackle its record debt and where cuts will be made. in education, the current fiscal budget is 50 billion pounds. projected fiscal in 2015, 53. 6.1% increase. now down -- changing down 3.4% brown health care would go up 1.3%. home office, down 23%. here is interesting because we have this debate in our country, proposing a 7.5% cut in defense spending. and 25% in an area called business innovation and skills. i want to put some other numbers. these were just handed calculations to get them on the record. the u.s. gdp right now is about

$14.20 trillion. our debt stands at $13.60 trillion. united kingdom, $2.10 trillion is current gdp, their debt calculated -- my calculation, using 1.57% interest rate, $1.50 trillion. our budget, $3.50 trillion, u.k., $1.10 trillion, receipts in our country, $2.40 trillion, uk, 850 billion against a $1.10 trillion budget. a lot of numbers to put on the screen. let me put one other thing on before we go to the calls. in "the wall street journal" this morning. asked in an interview if the u.s. could draw lessons, the budget, treasury secretary timothy geithner said --

and more had lied. this is "the guardian's" take. axe falls on the poor. extra cut from welfare to save money elsewhere. osborn claims cuts will pull britain back from the brink. critics say most mobile people will be hardest hit. let's get to your telephone calls. our question is, should the u.s. adopt similar austerity plans, budget cutting, to tackle our national debt. that is the question. we will begin with a telephone call from texas. sandy is on the democrats' line. -- cindy is on the democrats' line. caller: i believe we need to do a lot of cuts, and cutting taxes to have industries coming back here. it will not happen under obama. bush and obama are both economic disasters. host: are you there?

cindy was calling on the democrats' line and critical of the present. beauport, mississippi. victor is on the independent line. caller: how are you this morning? the only way i am looking at all of this is that i have seen this back in the 1930's. i am almost 80 years old. and the only thing that i fear with what is happening, is it is going to go to something i am hoping i am wrong one. and that is a war. because there is no other way to get our around something that i am seeing because of mass population. and the cost of everything going up today. i am wanting to hear what others have to say about this because this is the only way i am looking at this. host: when you say you would see a war as a way out of it, the

united states and engaging in a war to spend more or are you suggesting that there will be violence at home? caller: exactly. you can see if it keeps continuing going the way it is going, it is the only way out of our mess. host: next is joe watching us from sarasota, new york. caller: i just wanted to say when i was walking -- watching the jack conway debate he said something interesting to rand paul, which is he makes callas proposals and friends they are tough decisions. i am paraphrasing. that is something he said. i think that is what we are looking on on a grand scale with austerity measures.

people wanting to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. any kind of austerity measures they might have are not going to affect the rich and the wealthy. i think there is no way to a one book -- avoid that. and i think it was the prime minister but it might have been the exchequer, and he says i don't do this with a audiological zeal. that is just patently untrue. the conservatives -- in both england and the united states, and we inherited the anglo-saxon view of dealing with the poor or the problem with poverty. they are completely related and both of them want to undo the so-called welfare system.

because they don't like to pay taxes. and they are not paying that much in taxes anyway. host: keynes who?, your avoids his approach. -- europe avoids his approach.

the caller also talk about it ecological deal and we will come back to that in a minute. -- ideological zeal. margaret thatcher just celebrating her birthday -- has mr. birthday because of a fluke. anthony, could you hit the volume on your tv. we've got feedback. all right, sorry, we are going to have to move on. san jose, james, independent line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to avoid some of the simplistic characterization is -- characterization's.

of course the british are correct saying you have to make some tough choices. but not talking about medicare, social security, and the military. i am a fiscal conservative with maybe socially liberal values. i do like having a strong military but everything has to be on the table. especially one of those three. you can't just say, like some of the tea party -- you might say truisms, and clearly that is what our founders intended, not to have such a large federal government, or distrust of the federal government. but in order to tackle our problems you have to look at those three and maybe all three of them, including raising the retirement age, cutting military spending, and making medicare

more solvent. host: appreciate the call. a tweeter -- up on capitol hill, another in a series of hearings looking back at some of the big measures taken in 2008 with the dawn of the peninsula crisis. this is looking back at tarp. on the line is vicki needham, a financial reporter for "the hill." ken feinberg will be before the committee. what is the goal? guest: it looks like they will talk about how the executive conversation went with tarp. that is what ken feinberg iran. i think they will look at how well that when and if there are any additional changes on wall

street because of some of the changes that feinberg and the obama administration tried to institute. host: in a nutshell, can you talk about some of the restrictions on it, -- executive compensation for the arms and took tarp money? guest: in the original tarp legislation and then in the stimulus in the early 2009, they put restrictions on how much executives at of larger companies -- they were limited to $500,000 in pay. and then can feinberg had a pretty good list of additional criteria that he followed. rate -- ways to reduce risk spirited they offered to get rid of the larger bonuses. and then look at to -- going into stock and paying into ways that were more long term

focused. host: is it clear whether or not these measures had a larger effect on compensation on wall street? guest: mixed. in some cases, there had been some firms bringing the shareholders into the mix more. definitely looking at sort of the long-term performance goal incentives instead of the short- term incentives. but it does look, too, that wall street will pay itself pretty well. but that is less of a question that i think the amounts of the money than the way it is doled out. executives are given restricted stock where they can't cash it in until two years or four years after they leave a company. then that would provide them an incentive to not take overly- risky behavior, potentially putting the company at greater financial risk.

host: what is expected to come out of the hearing? guest: i would be interesting -- interested to see. now feinberg moved on to the bp accounts, dealing with the oil spill fund. so i think there are several different folks who will be testifying today who certainly have been pushing changes in executive compensation on wall street, including going for more stop package rather than just a guaranteed salary and bonuses. i think getting a better feel of how this particular program went and if they are going to see any additional changes down the road on wall street. host: thank you. c-span cameras will be in the room. starting 11:00 a.m. eastern time. the senator from delaware, in an interim position, he will be leaving after the election. he is the chairman of this hearing on tarp and executive

compensation restrictions. thanks for bringing us up to date on what is expected today. host: let's go back to our conversation this morning. what we are talking to you about is whether or not the kind of austerity plans like in the u.k. should be implemented here. it is it right for our society in the situation we are in. lots and lots of coverage in all of our papers. you can find it on line if you are interested in reading more about that. hear, for example, is "the washington times." i contrast, here at home, from page on our own election with the tea party. tea party for urging drastic cutting with economists questioning whether the move is wise with the state of our economy. let's go back to all calls. little rock, arkansas. paul, republican line. caller: good morning.

yes, i do agree that we should cut our spending. this president -- he is not my president, because i did not vote for him and i never will vote for him -- has created a huge deficit. his reckless health care spending. his reckless stimulus package -- created a huge deficit that our children and our grandchildren should never pay for. yes, i do think that we should have very strong military thatnce, but i don't feel we need a big government. i think the big government has created a very large deficit.

host: book cretonne, florida. anthony on our democrats' line -- boca raton, florida. caller: i see all of this -- we need to spend more money in the country. i like the plan that england has. host: but they are not spending more money. caller: know, they are cutting back on the military -- no, they are cutting back the military and the gdp is up 12.4%, so that is a lot. we don't need that much defense right now because everybody is cutting back on defense. we don't need all of that stuff. but the housing market is the problem. that's the big problem. if they don't take care of the housing market, nobody is going to want to spend anything so now more and more people are probably -- are you still there? more and more people are starting not paying their

mortgage because so many millions of people aren't paying their mortgage and they are just thinking it is not fair. so, they have to fix the housing market. to make it fair -- because all of the lenders are lending money right -- like crazy. lending money and lending money on state income. there is so much fraud going on. everybody is crazy about this housing market. they are starting to see it as a big fraud. host: anthony, thanks, from florida. next up from magnolia, texas, a call from david. caller: i would love to see everything cut. but i notice in england, you have not said anything about all of our secret police and the billions that is costing us. but we won't cut the defense or that. we will just cut the aid to the

poor like we always do. host: thank you for your call. i mentioned a comparison to margaret thatcher. this is a story in this morning's "wall street journal." she writes in this -- the thatcher plan sparked social unrest and initially higher unemployment.

now the question is whether david cameron can do the same trick. back to calls. next is trinity, texas. buddy, independent line. caller: good morning. host: what is your comment, please? caller: i don't think we should adopt the changes england is making. we should put a tariff on anything coming into the united states. host: how would that help? caller: that would give us money and we would not have to tax the rich a better making the jobs. host: thank you.

appreciate the call. the front page of "the wall street journal" this morning, the u.k. embraces austerity, and above the, marchers in london protest budget cuts. travelers in paris approach the willie airport, walking in with their suitcases after workers blocked -- do you think that should be implemented here? what would work? if not, why not? joe, alabama. republican line. are you there? let's move onto a call from

jean, democrats' line. california. caller: good morning, susan. [inaudible] 1946 -- was involved in a war -- host: with apologies, we cannot hear your call but the static on the line. we will move on and takeoff from butler, indiana. caller: the premise is so obvious that there is a simple answer to it, i think it is ironic that europe and england is taking a cue from ronald reagan gave of cutting taxes, cutting back on approach plant -- programs and stimulating the economy. all you have to do is apply it in your personal life.

if you have a checking account and two children and a wife and you make $35,000 a year and your checking account a less $50, don't make a check for $90 and it will bounce. it is so simplistic. we will not do it and we will keep spending. the idea is we are not spending money that we have but we are spending money that we are borrowing and the whole system is going to implode. anybody that gets on the phone and says, no, we should not have an austerity plan is living in la la land because how can you spend money you don't have? host: as a viewer -- a viewer tweets -- and this story.

next is a call from conway, south carolina. maurice is on our independent line. caller: thanks for c-span. i don't think we should be cutting spending at all. i believe with the sum of the republican callers -- we just spend money on the wrong things. if america really wants to save this economy and really wanted to save the world, all we have to do is build a trade system -- train system from california to the east coast because our infrastructure is horrible, our mass transportation is horrible. if we build the train system, it would save money on pollution, save money on gas, but the government don't want to do that because as soon as -- just like the oil companies, any time

anyone of us goes to the gas pump, they get a check. they are not trying to fix the system. they want us to bear the brunt of all the bad decisions been made over the years. what ever they are trying to do is not going to work. you have to improve efficiency in this country. this country is running like an old 1982 pickup. we need better than this from our leaders host: thank you. great britain has about 62 million people, compared to our population of 310 million people. the fed has new numbers. here is reporting on it in "but what -- "the washington post." next is a call from fort

washington, maryland. democrats' line. caller: calling about adding money to the economy. we have a lot of congressmen sitting up on the hill -- adding money to the economy, we have a lot of congressmen sitting on the hill and if we cut their salaries because they are being paid by working people with their tax money is, cut their salaries, that would put money back into the economy and that's about right there because they are getting money and putting it in their bank accounts and living off of the interest and help us put the money back and and stop worrying about whether we are making it on minimum wage, let them work on a minimum wage and see how they survive, see if that works for them. and that should help right there, just putting money back into the economy by putting their salaries and not having them give themselves benefits and increases. host: de from fort washington,

maryland, outside of washington. next is a call from detroit. this is roger. he is calling on us on our republican line. roger, hit that volume control on your tv, please. are you there? it is still in the background. i will put on hold. you have to have it all the way on the new. let's go next to new york, marlene, independent line. caller: i totally disagree with the cuts that the u.k. is proposing. and i would like to comment on our own country and president obama plan. president obama's plan and results got no press on that. economists have issued that since the stimulus the gdp has improved, has increased.

it is a slow process and everyone expected this president to perform miracles like the parting of the red sea. our congress -- the senate and the actually house of representatives is totally out of touch with the american worker. and there should be term limits. congress should have to participate in social security like all americans do. and they should look at ways to cut spending or raise revenue by doing such things as increasing the cap on social security, which would put it in good standing for a very long time. and also eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. actually let them run out. the wealthiest people have gained the greatest share, the

lion's share of the wealth in this country over the past 10 years. it and that is a sin. we call ourselves a -- and that is a sin. we call ourselves a christian country and many of these congressmen talk about that they are a christian country but if they are they certainly are not practicing christian principles. we need campaign finance reform and we need to do what is necessary because our congress is on par with the american worker. host: thank you for your call. you mentioned the social security. here is "the washington post" of the gop's social security plan which has been headlined from paul ryan from wisconsin.

john sends us this message on twitter. next is a call from philadelphia. this is a rose, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree that we need an austerity plan. and i recommend that we first cut those folks who are over, say, 100,000 salary income level and have them not get social

security benefits because they are earning enough money, and then we should be able to absorber that for the lower income. i would recommend that the health care benefits from medicare don't go to those earning $100,000 or over. whenever that tier would be determined by actuarial scared -- actuarials. i don't think the wealthy need medicare and social security. that would add a fund -- rather than penalize the poor, we would say that benefit to those who really need it. host: thank you for philadelphia. peter beinhart is a commentary journalist, at one point was the head of "the new republic." he is riding with "the daily beast."

here is what he writes --

here is again, peter beinhart. camera and started at tackling the budget problem within weeks, republicans at the white house for eight years and did exactly the opposite. tea party types are saying it is not just barack obama's deficit spending the bonds them but they were outraged by bush deficits, too. where were the folks when bush amassed costs with the it -- for the iraq and afghanistan war with appropriations florida outside of the pentagon budget. where was rush limbaugh when the chief actuary note was barton to be fired when he reflected the true cost of the prescription drug plan. you get the flavor of that. you want to read the whole thing is on "the daily beast." new jersey.

ken on the independent line. caller: i think that austerity measures would be acceptable to most people if there are a couple of things that were in place. the first is, if there was something that looked like accountability for the criminals who caused all of these financial problems. if there were consequences for people other than a bernie madoff, a guy who stole from his own class. it is like the people at the top got rewarded and continue to get rewarded and the people who have the least are going to suffer the most, as always. that is my first comment. i think certainly we need to have balanced budgets. the only data i have is mortgage and i amassed as much as i can in savings because i need to take care of myself and my family. but when i look at england i see a country -- it is a different world. they have a socialized medicine.

they have universal health care. they have universal education baird went up prime minister talks about making cuts, he is talking about trying to rebalance a system that is already rich and supports for many of its citizens. it granted its, he is talking about carving up -- granted, he is talk about carving up the benefits. but i think the cuts were balanced, if there were actually penalties for the people who caused these crimes. if we saw some corporate leaders going to jail, if we saw them losing their wealth and having that coming back to the public coffers, then we can say as a society that we need to work together to clean this up. but it always ends up that the people who need to suffer are the people who have very little to begin with and there is very little justice for those at the top. host: next is new jersey. can't -- this is magdy on the

democrats' line. caller: i would like to -- the topic of margaret thatcher. margaret thatcher and ronald reagan bought into this whole milton friedman free-market concept. i would like to explain -- screening -- screaming about liberty and freedom and what it would look like. it the perfect example is in chile which was a perfect laboratory for free-market economics. pinna say -- pinochet was planted it and went along nicely with having government get out of the way and have a everything privatized and getting rid of the unions and either disappearing or killing anyone who was fighting for labor. they opened above flood gates to zero foreign investors.

the result was 54% unemployment and people dying in the streets from malnutrition. if that is the type of freedom and liberty that you want, i think you might be a little bit disillusioned. but that was the outcome and that is where we are heading now. when capitalism works just fine, but on the backs of labor. labor is what enables capitalism. it is not the other way around. and our jobs are being shipped overseas and are giving tax cut for the people for relocation of taking our jobs overseas makes no sense and a country whose economy is based 75% on consumerism. when there is no money in the pocket, there are no consumers. our country will only fail. we have to start reinvesting in things that will improve our ability for the future for our children and grandchildren that

the people are so very concerned with because if we don't invest in education and infrastructure that will be sustainable and we have no manufacturing base, we don't take something, well, basic economics, that if you don't take something of no value and created to make something of value. our manufacturing is in military equipment. you build 8 $2 billion more mechanics -- allied host: i will let you go at that pulled the. it had a chance to make a point on it. this is from "the wall street journal" this morning. china's gdp rose 9.6% from a year earlier in the third quarter, slowing from the 10.3% growth in the second quarter, official data from thursday show.

this is a call on the independent line. caller: it is confusing people when you hear people calling when you say the president deficit -- the amount the added for the u.k., 1.2 billion trillion people? that is what is confusing people, saying he came in with this amount and a little bit that he used to make the economy better, nobody ever talks about that. what i think the media needs to do is try to find ways on how to improve this country and how to

find things that are improving the country instead of finding ways to jump in front of the president and make it look like he is not doing anything. i have one more thing to say. i don't understand when they say that they liked clanton better than they do president obama -- like clinton better than they do president obama, what was the survey and what was the question? it does not even matter -- matter because he is not the present. host: we have a big traffic jam in washington on the route that our guests are taking. our first guest, the attorney general cuccinelli, is caught in that. we will continue this question for another 10 minutes until it gets to the studio. --y duncan's tweet r question this morning is, should the u.s. adopt a similar kind of austerity measures as the u.k. government announced

yesterday. philip, republican line. caller: good morning. i noticed something about what you read earlier out of the paper that was mentioning timothy geithner going in and talking about how we need to find ways to make things more fair across the board. i can't seem to figure out when it became the united states jobs to go out and the world and try to make things fair. we keep going back to the same old arguments about putting more money into the hands of the rich and how terrible it is. as an american who does not take me -- make a ton of money, i want rich americans to have all the money they possibly can. i don't know why -- sending people who are high ranking officials, going to these world summits and almost trying to iron things out to make it simpler for everybody but in reality you kind of have to wonder what they are really

trying to do. if they were trying to support our country and america as it is, they would be trying to keep the money here and not trying to level the playing field with the rest of the countries, i guess which is my point. if we want to fix the problem we need to try to keep the money here and work more strategically on cutting costs. and if we are going to invest in something, we have to seriously invest in something that will pay back like education, and not military spending and world empires. it just seems so obvious. we need to get off of these old arguments and get back to where we were in the 1920's when we knew how to tighten our belts and go back to work. this whole argument seems to be getting silly and it is kind of over inflated, it is just weird. host: he was referring to the "wall street journal" article, geithner's goal of debris balanced world economy, ahead of the meeting of finance ministers that is coming up. here is just another glimpse of

what he had to say -- we are exploring whether we can agree to commit the external imbalances to levels that are more sustainable. next is a call from houston. nancy, independent line. caller: good morning. you got a caller several calls back that really all of a sudden the light bulb went off. i agree, i think congress should only be paid the minimum wage, period. and there should be term limits -- four years for the house and eight years for the senate, and they are out. and i really think that what kind of tend to clean up the

mess. host: pittsburg, webster on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. i am interested in the austerity plan of great britain because our budget for the military is $640 billion a year. that is more than all the other countries in the world. the other countries in the world to spend around $600 billion. china only spend $65 billion on defense. but we are at that figure is $640 billion? if we were to take that money and pay off our debt and give back to education, give the money toward education and infrastructure, i think our country would have a smooth flow and we would write ourselves as a nation. host: dennis tweets --

extending our discussion this morning, talking to you about the announced plans in great britain for austerity measures over the next four years. half a million public jobs will be lost. the treasury chief is announcing $127 billion in spending cuts that will help pare the budget deficit of 155 billion pounds. "the wall street journal" calls this a gamble. winning big u.k. off of robust public spending will keep lending costs low and therefore reinvigorating the private sector without undercutting the countries sluggish recovery. next is westminster, california. leo, independent line. caller: good morning, susan. i just called to say that, what

-- saying england what needs to pay the debt. we in america don't need to go this drastic. if the republicans would start working with the democrats, we would be able to get the people working and get the tax from them. now, what's happened is the republicans are going out -- and we have three right here in california, mccarthy, and my congressman. they are the worst ones crying on the money is going out and they are the ones that are getting it. this is throughout of the united states. they are going out there and taking that accolades for the money that they are getting for building things and yet they come back and tell everybody that it is the democrats that are using all of this. it is not so.

in the paper there is a registered -- a register article from wednesday. it would be nice if we could get some of these articles. this is a republican paper. this is on the stimulus. it would be nice if we could get some of these people will really know what is happening in congress to come on and talk on your show. i really appreciate it. host: appreciate your call. next year next from west columbia, south carolina. charles, republican. good morning. charles, you're on. last try. we will move on to tennessee. tim, independent line. caller: good morning. the austerity thing that you are talking about is not going to work because there are more people working for state, local, and federal government that there are people in the private sector to support them.

it is just unbelievable, and i can't see how you will be able to make it work. they are all union people and they scream bloody murder. and there just isn't enough money out here. the rest of us working every day, we just cannot afford them. host: next is a call from alabama. joe is on the republican line. good morning. caller: how are you doing? i just wanted to say our government is getting so out of control. if you have about half the people -- host: go ahead, we can hear you. caller: about half of the people taking care of the other half of the country as far as social security, such as that. you always hear it that the seniors are eating up so security but actually only a percentage of the seniors -- a lot are the young people who could be out working.

but the british are doing, i am all for it. host: this on twitter from monte who writes -- the next caller is from sumter, south carolina. donna, he's a democrat. you are on. caller: good morning, susan. we don't have too many historians on duty 35 and 36, cut back spending thinking we were out of the depression and we run not. we need to carry on with spending. infrastructure, that is so important. and that will go for the future. also i would recommend that they canceled -- they cancel all student loan debt. that would be another measure the government could it take to bring things along.

the stock market is rather reflective of the future. and you can see now that things are starting to turn around. has been over 11,000 on the dow. a huge mistake would be to cut back now. now is the time to surge and go forth. the infrastructure, which really needs to be repaired. and that's where we should go. host: the next comment. david, los angeles. he's a republican. caller: i just wanted to respond to what was said about chile and milton friedman. his work in chile at to return the country around from a socialist basket case into one of the most prosperous countries in the south america. i think his policies and policies of the people kind of followed his teaching should be reviewed because that was

actually a success policy, or a successful model. it should be tried again in this country. host: thanks, david. a tweet -- >> is green ago, -- next is greenville, south carolina. caller: i would like to make a general comment for all of the people who are voting. when you assess the candidates tried to get you to vote for them. the tea party people who are so hot and heavy about the deficit. if your candidate does not lead with a platform saying we will burn the federal reserve to the ground and put the economy back on the constitutional monetary operations, they are not worth your vote. until we do this we are only treating the symptom and not addressing the problem. host: again, we are talking about a cut in the united kingdom.

lots of coverage in our newspapers this morning. we carried a statement by the u.k. treasury chief on our network. it was on this morning before the program started. if you are interested, the whole thing is available on c- span.org. what we are asking this morning in a blind conversation is whether or not the united states should adopt similar austerity measures or whether or not there is a better prescription for our economy. our next telephone call is from youngstown, ohio. democrat. .aller: i don't think we should i think the economy is really complicated. we have too many old people costing us a lot of money. my mother was 89 and had an operation and then she ended up dying anyway. i think her medical costs were

just taking everything we got. host: we can leave it there. boringfileclerk is part of our twitter community -- next is wallace, north carolina. brian, democrats' line. brian, your tv volume needs to go down, please. all right, brian, we are going to move on. i apologize. lots of new caller is this morning, first-time caller is not used to the system. please keep the volume down so we can actually get to your call. next is miami. republican. you are on the air. caller: hello? i only wanted to say that i

agree. i don't speak very much england -- english. i appreciate very much what you do. ok? thank you. host: we appreciate it. a spring valley, illinois. michael is an independent. you are on the air. caller: when you have one percent of the population owning 42% of its wealth, when you talk about austerity, we should be -- who should be under it? the poor or rich? host: what do you think? caller: statistic from the world book encyclopedia from 1968. 1966, 36% of federal income came from corporations. it 2004, 7%. the governor of pennsylvania, i believe it just the other day on your channel was talking about how 70% of all the corporations in the united states don't pay any taxes at all.

we need to spread out the wealth. it's got a last comment will be doris, democrats' line. -- line host: the last comment will be from doris, democrats' line. caller: i would like to see articles of impeachment of the five justices in the citizens united ruling that led corporations put money in our elections. in the u.k., that is the conservative ideology. they worship the rich and the corporations and they punish the poor and the middle-class. you know, i remember reading about the irish potato famine where england just sat there and let hundreds of thousands of people die in ireland, starved to death, really, because they said they did not want to give them welfare. you know, the poor, they always try to balance a budget or take

it out and the poor are the ones that suffer the most. and here, our middle class is just being washed away. all of the wealth in this country is at the top. it has happened, beginning with ronald reagan all the way through all the rest of the presidents until now. host: thank you for your call. again, if you want to hear the uk speech outlining what they are going to do in its entirety, then you can read the press coverage. you can find the speech and a website. our first guest of the morning is attorney-general of va ken cuccinelli. we will probably be adjusted all the way through because of the crazy traffic in washington this morning. we will be right back after this to talk to va's adjournment -- attorney general. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2010] >> voters head to the polls in less than two weeks. archived debates online at the c-span video library and at our politics page. campaign ads and other helpful resources are there. coverage or 3 election day. >> this week, a british and american parliamentarians compare and contrast the house of representatives and the house of commons, on the rules that

run parliament and congress, sunday night. >> it is time to get your camera at rolling. the video documentary competition. make a video on this year's theme, washington d.c. through my lens. tell us about a topic the better helps you understand the role of the government in your community. be sure to include more than one point of view. you have a chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. the students cannot video documentary competition is open to middle and high school students. for complete details, go to studentcam.org. >> "washington journal continues. >host: on your screen right now

is ken cuccinelli. there was good news from a federal judge this week. guest: we still have to wait for an order from a judge. the summary judgment phase of the case and we're not waiting. but it was a pretty aggressive hearing to the question and it was pretty pointed. if you were to draw from the hearing -- i have a litigation background. i learned not to draw too much from what you see in oral arguments. the questioning was very much along the lines of our brief. he started out by questioning what boundaries are there and if they can order us to buy product and penalize us if we do not. those two issues are the two

central parts of the case of the first -- the federal government has to have one of the constitutional to survive. we have to have the courts decide that both are unconstitutional for virginia to prevailed in the case. we are only targeting the individual mandate the river but has to purchase government- approved health care. that is our challenge. we have a lot that was passed before the federal law on a bipartisan basis to protect virginians from being forced to make such a purchase. it was unique at the time. the penalty you have to pay if you do not by the government- approved health insurance is a tax. congress has the power to tax under the constitution.

if either of those powers will cover what they will do here, this aspect of the bill will be constitutional. host: a subject is the constitutional challenge to the health care what. there are 20 states amassing challenges. guest: there are 20 states and florida. 21 total. we are by ourselves in virginia because we have that virginia statute. i am doing two things in my capacity. i am defending the constitution against the federal government. and i'm defending our virginia statute. our federal courts are quite familiar with our code. the deal with it all the time. that is why we are out

separately. there are four other states -- georgia, missouri, arizona, and i want to say north dakota or utah. my memory is not perfect. they have statutes like virginia. host: a federal judge in michigan found an opposite finding. guest: there are 15 or 20 cases now running around the country. you will see rulings all over the place. that ruling is in the sixth circuit. it is in michigan. the court of appeal -- it has not risen in the court of appeals. in florida, it is the 11th circuit. this will double its way up. nobody has any doubt the supreme court will decide this. the michigan ruling -- the judge

there said the man it was constitutional. i have read the ruling. i think when it's all said and done, my side will be rather grateful for that ruling. it is obvious what a stretch the judge had to engage in. he was explicit about it in his order to find the individual mandate constitutional. it was extraordinary. he recites the line of case law by the supreme court. but they knew about this situation, they would have decided it this way. to leap all of that case law to a new focus by a judge as the basis for his order is really quite an extraordinary leap'. the s leap they have to make to win on this case is pretty substantial. the michigan order is exhibit a to show you that.

host: the judges suggested it will be a fairly quick ruling. guest: keep in mind. the eastern district of virginia. it is called the rocket docket. it is by far the fastest district court in the country court is not even close to two to. -- is not close to number two. i think things will get down to a more ordinary pace by legal standards in the fourth circuit and ultimate in the supreme court. at least some of these cases i would expect will be consolidated at the supreme court. probably the state's case and the virginia case. that is not an unreasonable expectation down the road. these things are going to develop as they go. i would say this is not a

normal trial. there are no witnesses on the stand. this is all legal argument. what people have seen briefed in the virginia case, about 100 pages from each side plastic and make this brief, is probably the universe of what you'll see every level of this discussion. every court will handle it a little bit differently. the universe of material that will be debated is pretty much in the pot right now. so now it just becomes a question at each level of how the judges handle it. host: you have appealed to the court that if they rule in your favor, you are asking for a stay of implantation of the entire health care law. explain your thinking. guest: there is nothing in this legislation -- there is something in this legislation.

the last clause at the end that says "if any clause of this contract is found unenforceable, all of the other clauses will stay in full force." the bad one is severed. legislation has severable the clauses, to pick this bill does not have one. there is no presumption -- it does not in the discussion. there is no presumption the rest of the bill will stand. and so under the case law governing the question, at that point, a judge has to ask the question, with the rest of the bill has passed without the offending provisions? the individual mandate has been called by the federal government in the case the linchpin of the legislation. when you did not have a single vote to give in the senate and you passed 219-212 in the house,

it is hard to imagine how it could have passed without the linchpin of the legislation. host: knowing this is likely to run this way to the supreme court, if in fact the judge in virginia agrees with you and agrees that the rest of the bill should be held in advance, provisions are already under way. what is the societal of fact? guest: one of the problems with the lack of finality in this whole discussion is massive uncertainty, for starters. it is not some of the economy needs. the faster we can be done with this, the better off we're all going to be. the commonwealth of virginia, which represent, is already having to create all sorts of

commissions and implement various aspects of the bill just on the government responsibility. even with a stay, realistically, we cannot stop preparing. if a state is undone and everything comes back into full force, now we're behind the ball. the government and i talked frequently about this. they have to keep marching ahead. they will like us to be done sooner so they know what they have to live with. host: a parallel would be to see what is going on with the "don't ask, don't tell." hold on because it is likely -- guest: the ninth circuit judge stated -- that example is a lot more simple in terms of the societal impact because all the

rule makings and all the collateral rules they go into effect. 's, unless the fourth circuit stays his injunction at this point. there is real world potential consequences of just the order in this case for everybody in the country. host: if you prevail on the commerce clause argument, will there be additional consequences for other challenges against the commerce clause? guest: i don't think so. i think it goes the other way. if we lose on the commerce clause, one of the problems with the rule of law that would be altered by allowing this legislation to stand is the federal government would essentially have a new power

that it did not think it had before, or least it never attempted to exercise, to order people to buy a particular products, whenever they think is a good idea. that is unheard of in america. what is on president about this case is that for the first time in history, the federal government is ordering americans in to commerce. they are not regulating commerce. that is our position, virginia's business center they are ordering people to go buy a product. congress can reach and set rules for what products are and how we might buy them. but we must take a voluntary act to step forward and do something pick what they are trying to regulate is doing nothing. i sit at home and decide i will buy health insurance.

2.flip the channel to c-span t i am not doing anything in commerce. dictionaries are a big impediment to the federal argument. a big problem for the federal government. it is always understood to be regulating something that already exists. it is not to bring it into existence. but the military powers congress has strict is to raise an army. there is no such powers under the commerce clause. what i tell people is that the case really is not about health insurance as it is about the breed and containing the federal power because as the judge said on monday, if the government can do this, why cannot they ordered me to buy a car, and which car to buy? to buy asparagus?

to join a gym? host: a parallel with all cars have a mandatory seat belt falls short. how would it do that? guest: in the things called mandates, when they come to the states come what they are are bribes. medicaid, medicare, the states don't have to participate in the. the government hold out a big pot of money and says if you want this money come you have to comply with these rules permit it is an up and think to put money in front of state legislators. the local for that perfect when it comes to seat belts in cars, they are regulating commerce. those cars are going to be sold in interstate commerce. they have the power to reach that product. what they do not have the power to do is to set a law that would

criminalize you or i not using a seat belt. our states can do that and they do. i think virtually every state desperate the with the government gets the state to do that is basic if you want transportation dollars, you have to put a lock on the books that says it is illegal to ride around in your car without a seatbelt. it is all perfectly constitutional. but it is not a directive that reaches you and died from the federal government. it comes to us from our states. they decide they want this money and so they will comply with the rules. host: let's get to some phone calls. we're talking about state challenges to the new health care law. this is a republican. caller: good morning. i am calling with some concerns

that have respect to mr. cuccinelli use of powers. i will not talk about the witch hunt -- guest: i think you just commented on that. caller: so many americans do not have health care. this is an opportunity to get those who are not covered covered. my son was severely injured. i cannot get anyone to touch him. i am concerned because i am in an open enrollment time. when you have 125 americans dying every day in this country, you cannot rationalize liberty, which is free health care, health care that people need to survive. your argument does not hold water. host: that is from alexandria.

guest: she has skipped the basic point that every law has to comply with the constitution. there is something that everybody would like in here. i am sure myself included. however, if the bill is passed on constitutionally, if congress does not have the power to do it, the complaint should not be with us trying to protect the constitution. the complaint should be for those who voted for an unconstitutional law. i think you mr. alpert you are on the republican line per complaint to mark warner or jim moran, your congressman who voted for this bill. every expansion of federal power takes place for good reasons. every time the power of the government is expanded, it later will be used for things you don't like so much. i am not quite sure how you

equate liberty to everybody having health care. liberty is the avoidance of government intrusion into our lives to the extent that can be maintained while keeping everybody else safe and free to do the same themselves. what you are talking about our policy questions. they could have achieved the goals of this bill constitutionally, but they chose one of the few routes in exercising government power that was not constitutional. they could have made this a tax bill and taxed folks come taking the money in, like to do for other health programs, taking the money into government, and spent it to achieve the health care bills they wanted to achieve. why didn't they do that? they were afraid to vote on a tax bill. that is why the president said this is not a tax when the bill

was being discussed. now his lawyers have said it is a tax. they want to rely on the taxing powers as a fallback position. all of this could have been done constitutionally, but it was not. every legislator voted on this took an oath to uphold the constitution. the ones who voted on this failed to do that. you are predict your complaints should not be with those of us trying to protect the constitution. some folks did not have the guts because they were afraid of taking a tax vote. that is the alternative that could have achieved all of the things in this bill constitutionally. host: mr. cuccinelli is a graduate of uva and has a law degree from george mason university. next call is from north gordon,

virginia. caller: good morning. hello, susan. thank you for the respect you show to everybody on "washington journal." i wonder if you are aware that in the state of virginia won the working court go to the emergency room, that their wages are garnished by 25%. my daughter at nearly lost her house. she is working a job from midnight to 9:00 a.m. for a french company in south side, virginia, where unemployment was 10% before the recession. and she is raising three children. she went to her doctor, could not caught by the -- could not occupy the receptionist. she needed x-rays and stitches.

$5,000 in the emergency room. she's making $9 an hour. she would have lost her house. host: what do you want to have happen with regard to the federal approach to health care? caller: i think the bill is a start. i do not think it is perfect. you can see, mr. cuccinelli, there is very little humanity here. guest: i think we are in the same situation as with the last call. my job as attorney general really is not one related to policy. when we determined that the constitution has been violated with a piece of federal legislation that has effect on virginia, is my obligation to

protect the constitution. the founding fathers sap system or the state was expecting to see check federal power when it overstepped their boundaries. here at the federal government has done that. it is my obligation as the attorney general to stand up for virginia, to for -- to defend the va health-care freedom act. the last house in the vote of delegates was 90-3 to pass the state all that said virginians don't have to be forced to purchase health insurance. that is in conflict with the federal legislation. as you remember, the supremacy clause says federal law trump's state law, but only when the federal law is constitutional, and it is not constitutional here. this is the second caller in a row who is said you should not

oppose this bill because i like what it does. i understand that. if the bill achieves its goal in an unconstitutional manner, we should not let it stand and the courts should not let it stand. i believe when we get all week through the process, the supreme court has decided the case, i think is more likely than not the supreme court will find this bill unconstitutional. how much stake in joint, we will have to see. i do think it will be found unconstitutional. host: this viewer tries to get your thinking from another direction. guest: i think it is an enormous bill, 2700 pages. there are items in it that anyone would appreciate.

there is something in it that everyone would like, whenever that may be. there does seem to be a notion that all of this happens and it does not get paid for somehow, or release the person getting the benefit distraught have to pay for it, but somebody has to pay for it. it will have an economic impact on the health-care market that is not positive. we're not going to get better health care out of this. we will get worse health care even if more people will be insured. those cost will be born in one way or another. for all of the challenges we have in health care financing, we do have the best health-care system in the world. hopefully we will keep it that way. host: this is scott from oklahoma city on the republican line. caller: good morning. i appreciate your eloquence in

stating your position. i agree with you that obama care is completely unconstitutional. i might object to the use of state tax money to sue the federal government in the case of virginia and other states. that is not a necessary thing. nullification is where the state government says would refuse to enforce the law. if the federal government has a problem with that, that is just tough. if the floor of a sense agents to your state to try to enforce so that, that is what the state militia and the county sheriffs are therefore, to protect citizens against marauding federal agents. concern in the commerce clause, i think the commerce clause has been greatly misunderstood. the only reason the commerce

clause was in the constitution was so that states to not interfere with each other as commerce and not to cut the federal government -- they can interfere with that. guest: thank you, scott. i have reviewed an awful lot of commerce clause president over the last six or eight months. i would agree that the presumed power of the government under the commerce clause has expanded dramatically over times since the founding. you walk through an alternative to filing suit in court. your first alternative was no vacation. you mentioned the militias and sheriffs. nullification is for the state refuses to comply with a federal enactment. so the state is -- the talk about enforcing this and you

challenge them physically with state agents. that is interposition. the last time that happened was the civil war. i would rather not go down that road. on the -- i am proud of the history we have been virginia in terms of the founding of this country. thomas jefferson and the declaration of independence. patrick henry more less forced them to support a bill of rights. we have an awful lot of history in virginia. we're going back to first principles with this bill. this bill is about liberty. i will -- i would refer to alexander hamilton. even he said one of the major purposes of the federal courts to exist is to referee these disputes of constitutional power

between states and the federal government for it on monday, the lawyer got up and said his name and said he is here for the government. he corrected himself, the federal government. in court on monday, two governments were contesting with each other directly, the commerce of virginia and the united states of america. the founding fathers, it wasn't just the division between the legislative power, the executive power, and the third period thursday continued vitality of the state's. i would say that the check of power that we are exercising in federal court in this case is the most significant since maybe 50 years ago when the federal government was checking state power when many states were

defined -- were denying the full exercise of their citizens, african-americans in particular, and the federal government exercised its powers to check what the states were doing. you have to go back that far to find as significant a check. i do not think we are at a point where interposition would be appropriate or nullification. we have tools to work with. we're working with them as best we can. i do think this is a good use of the tax peridot to defend the constitution and to defend our unlawful enactment. host: we have a question. does it mean the federal government will no longer be able to require people over 65 to be a medicare?

guest: no is the short answer. this is an excellent example of a way that the bill we are debating could have been done constitution. they set out a tax. the tax us. the money goes from the citizens to the government. the government takes that money and pays for health care services with all of the rules laid on top about how that will happen. that is an exercise of the taxing power which they were trying to avoid in this bill. now of course they are arguing it is a tax bill to try and preserve the individual mandatevia the penalty -- the individual mandate via the penalty you have to pay. host: john. caller: how about signs for all

the hospital -- "no service if you don't have insurance." guest: you are asking a policy question. we are outside the case now. i think that every time we have decided or we have reached a critical mass and said we have to make another change, we have only changed in one direction. we have added more and more government power and authority and directives to the system. it does not work. i think it is time we started to go the other way and rely more on market forces. one thing i did was try to get virginians the ability to buy health insurance from all 50 states. right now we have 50 little market spirit i have a lady that said, my son has developmental

deafness and it is not covered under health insurance, it is not one of the mandates in virginia. call what has it. so i would like you -- colorado has it. solid like you to get it as a state mandate. i said, what if you were able to buy colada health insurance? it would create competition between the state governments. -- i said, what if you were able to buy insurance from colorado? only north carolina is more expensive than virginia's border states for health insurance premiums because of the level of our mandates. if our citizens could go and make our insurance companies compete, we would be able to drive prices down. people would be going to the better programs. it would make health insurance

more accessible to more people. we need to do a whole bunch of little steps like that that move us away from government control towards citizen control if we're going to make health insurance more affordable. host: a number of organizations that will be familiar to our viewers filed amicus briefs. they include the cato institute. the physicians hospital association. guest: i am not as clear on that one. they had their own case in texas. we're supportive of what our sister states are doing in florida. we have not filed amicus briefs

there because we are already in a case. it is not necessary. they are in a case and they have filed a brief in our case. the mandate is on a constitutional -- the man it is unconstitutional. they are coming from a different perspective. they have 5000 doctors as members. their members -- they see what is coming on a policy level, i believe. so they are stepping up and making the constitutional objections. these are a bunch of doctors, thousands of them, who believe this legislation is going to make health care worse for their patients. that is what they say in their briefs. host: this is another question. guest: yes, they did.

the government has conceded in their breeze that if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, that all of the changes to the insurance industry they made, ordering children to be covered till 26, the ban on lifetime caps for insurance benefits, and the mandatory issue of insurance predict all of those the federal government says cannot survive without the individual mandate. this is how they are financing their program. they are bypassing the taxing power and tried to make and end run around the taxing power. it is true that the industry would implode if you edit all of these mandates but did not bring everybody in and order them to pay the premiums that are required to by the government- approved health insurance. the changes to the insurance

market cannot work without the individual mandate. even the federal government has conceded that in their briefs. there are three most likely outcomes if the mandate is unconstitutional. the whole bill will be enjoined. two, in addition to the individual mandate, all the insurance industry changes would fall. the federal government has conceded that. they cannot operate without the individual mandate. this is a way of financing their changes to the health-care market. we have argued an alternative would beat the medicaid changes which are also financing changes would also fall with the insurance element if the whole

bill is not in joined by the courts. there are a couple of different ways this can be sliced by the judge. there is an infinite number of other alternatives. i do not think we're likely to see a court go through 2700 pages and pick 1 cents at a time, what is going to stay and what is going to go. host: next is a call from georgia. republican line. caller: hello. i wanted to say that i am so pleased that you are fighting to defeat this bill because i do not want the irs having anything to do with my health care. i think there are lots of constructive ways and ideas that we can all have good health care. there are so many people that do not have it and they want it right now.

i think the states should have some kind of safety net. remember when my phone bill was $650 a month per after deregulation, it is a whole lot better now. thank you very much and hope you kill this bill. guest: thank you. the irs comment -- the irs is who collect the penalty from you. as part of the legislation, they intended to hire over 16,000 new agents just to handle those collections. that is the kind of government mechanism that is being put in place to enforce the mandate was to comes into effect in 2014. host: states already tweaking the law.

guest: i do think we are going to see efforts -- any bill 2700 pages, the implement this will say, that is not what i meant. i am also aware there were known errors in the bill. there were unwilling to amend them. once you open one part, it is hard not to say he should not clean up other parts, as well. there was an intention to go back and clean up some of the bill after the fact. we saw that with the reconciliation bill with higher education financing with a took over except for north dakota student loans from out of the public market more centralization, which has worked so well in the past but i think you will see congressmen and senators bring bills to tweak it

or amendments to other bills on the floor in the for the benefit of their stayed or to adjust general provisions as to how they work. i do not think that should surprise anybody. i don't expect the repeal will be successful until there is a different president. i would presume president obama would veto such a thing. i do think you can expect a republican house of representatives to pass just a bill. we will have that debate again. this is not over a host:. last call from woodbridge, virginia. caller: good morning. i have deep roots in virginia. i appreciate the history. it is true we can question the constitutionality of a lot of bills that are passed in the

state and the country. here in virginia, we're forced to pay a car tax. we're mandated to pay auto insurance. what are you going to do about that? guest: i get the auto insurance analogy all the time. let me moved it over to the massachusetts health care plan. it is very much like the federal bill, but a state version. nobody breves a whisper it was unconstitutional. remember that the federal government is the one that has the limited powers. have the rest. massachusetts could enact something like that and is properly constitutional. virginia could order every virginia to have health insurance, which is what massachusetts has done, and is

constitutional because the state has the power to do that. when you have to give your auto insurance in virginia, it is a condition of driving on our roads. you do not have to get auto insurance is because you are breathing in virginia. there is a significant difference. part of what we're doing in this case is we're trying to maintain the distinction between federal power and the residual power that is with the states and the people. this bill ends farrell wasn't as we've known it for zero220 years. so your state has powers that the federal government does not. there will not be much of that left if this sort of legislation is constitutional. that is a big part of the motivation to bring the case, to enforce the boundaries the

founding fathers put in place and to preserve economic opportunity in this country. host: if people to wait news search will fight you have been spending some time on the campaign trail and have been speaking at a few tea party defense. guest: i have been supporting other candidates running for attorney general. i am going to oklahoma. scott is running in oklahoma for the attorney general. i will go out there on monday. he will announce he will intend to establish an office of federal wasn't in his attorney general's office if elected. i hope that he will pabe. the federal government has grown, particularly in the last decade republicans did it in the last half of this decade. it is not just the democrats. and so the attorneys general

role of being the last line of defense against the overreach of federal power becomes more important. i'm trying to get more allies around the country on this wall, according the constitution along with me. that is a big part of what i have been doing this year. host: 2 like for being on c- span today. we'll come back and introduce you to a soldier that was discharged because he was -- it was announced that he was gay. and now with the latest court ruling, he is seeking to read- enlist in the military. we're taking a break. >> democratic governor deval patrick is facing a tough reelection bid. take a look at the latest ad. >> the difference on health care.

charlie baker raised premium 150%, over $3,000 for the average family. his salary triple to $1.7 million deval patrick. capped premiums. >> this is not a permanent solution. it gives working families some breathing room. >> if he think things are going well and massachusetts, you should vote for the governor. he thinks so, too. he talks about how massachusetts is on the move. if you think we can do better, if you think it will be good to have a governor who has turned something around and knows how to make the tough decisions, to live within your budget, get people back to work, then you should vote for me. >> imagine dreaming big.

a boy who wrestled in college and coached. he opened a small business because he needed a job. he had four girls and taught them right from wrong. one of the best treasurers' is now running for governor. the noncandidate who is one of us. jim cahill, a different direction for different results. >> patrick leads the republican by just five points. joining us is jon keller, a political analyst. why is this such a tough race for deval patrick? >> thank you for having me this morning. it is a tough race because it has been a tough time in massachusetts. governor patrick has had a tough time dealing with it. we have suffered the same

economic problems as the rest of the country the governor had a number of well-publicized stumbles early on, anchoring the public by spending public money on fancy drapes and an upgrading car to ride around in. he arranged a high-paying public job for a political crony. these sort incidents mounted up. the economy has hurt and angered a lot of people. last january, you had a political shock to our system in the bluest states of america with the election of scott brown in the u.s. senate race to succeed the late ted kennedy. serving is up for grabs politically in massachusetts, and one of them turns out to be job.atrick's host: what issues do expect to come up tonight?

guest: the economy has been issued number one. no question about it. charlie baker has tried to make it a debate over taxes, saying governor patrick will raise taxes. we have had a major increase over the sales tax a year ago. governor patrick has said to stay the course. he created 60,000 new jobs. cahill has tried to straddle the line, a defendant in some cases the pensions of public employees, and another times joint baker in his attack on patrick to try him as a tax and spend ther. beyond that, there's been no galvanizing issue that has jumped up here. the health-care issue was front and center in january. it was still in play on capitol

hill when scott brown won the senate race. many people were upset about that. massachusetts has had its own mini version of obama care for some time now. there are issues surrounding that. it has not gained traction as an issue. i expect the focus to be on the economy because the debate is geared toward a western massachusetts audience. the part of the state has really struggled. host: jon keller, thank you 4 previewing tonight's debate. live coverage here run c-span. for more information, go to our website, c-span.org/politics. host: as we continue, on your screen is the tenant dan choi -- is lt. dan choi.

he announced he was gay, a west point graduate. after a series of proceedings, he was discharged for being in violation of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. he is here to talk with you -- to talk to about his opposition to the policy. this is now playing out in federal court. bergesen up to speak -- a temporary reprieve for the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. the white house won a temporary stay, granting the pentagon to enforce the ban on gay men and women serving in the military.

guest: we all know that our system of government allows and mandates that the judicial branch repudiates unconstitutional laws made an executed by the other branches of government. that is american government day one. obama and congress have both said that they want to direct of "don't ask, don't tell," but we have not seen any actions. the court's heard a case saying that "don't ask, don't tell" has caused immense harm. judge philips said it is unconstitutional. you cannot enforce it anymore. the pentagon said that is right. we will allow recruiters and the recruiting stations to allow the gay and lesbian americans who want to serve their country to do so with the degree of

honesty and integrity just like all the other american spirit is the problem anymore. when i went into the recruiting station to sign back up, even though i was fired, it was an ecstatic day. i was excited about that. yesterday night when i heard that president obama and the justice department wanted to put a stay on a ruling, essentially revising "don't ask, don't tell ," . back to life, that was devastating and it hurt. host: they wanted to proceed in an orderly fashion. what is your response to that? guest: i do not buy that. there is a midterm election in a few days.

the president is playing politics. they continued to use rhetoric and say they want to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." is wrong and un-american. the reason what you should force people to like in order to serve the country. we all agree on the upper 80% of the country says we to get rid of discrimination and justified, damaging discrimination, particularly in a time of war. the president has not been able to do anything other than give speeches and give a lot of talk about it. he could have stopped the discharges. he has that authority. he refused to transmit in his budget proposals the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" to the congress. they would like for the congress to repeal "don't ask, don't

tell." their argument is that is a statute, it is a lot. we heard that there is a nation of laws? the president has a way he wants to do this. he does not want this to affect the midterm elections. he said, let's do a study. let's make sure that people are ok with this. let's wait until december. i think everybody sees what is going on here. i do not know why the president says we have to wait. he has been in office for a long time. he could have instituted a nondiscrimination policy.

if he repeals happens his white -- right now i think the president has two choices. he can continue to do what he is doing and appeal the decision, essentially bringing back "don't ask, don't tell" from the dead, or he can realize the courts have done the heavy work for him. the courts are supposed to do that. i don't understand the disconnect here. there are a lot disconnect between the president and the system of government that he purports to represent in the executive branch. there is a disconnect between the president and the american people. host: we want to get to telephone calls. we have a fourth line set up for active duty military. .02-628-0184 -- outside th

we have pulled a couple of winds that apply to this to ease some background on the nation of law concepts. section 654. host: i would like to have you respond to that.

guest: i do not think it is a right to serve in the military. i think we have to see it as what it is. it is a responsibility, to do everything that you can, particularly for those people who have the training and the skills. .e're fighting in afghanistan we're still engaged in iraq. i do not see how any government sees it is beneficial to national security to keep out arabic linguists and people who are able to serve fully and they're ready and capable and patriotic and just want to serve their country. they do not want to live. the coats are on the books. my first day at west point, i learned the honor code. a cadet will not lie. that is a very simple. bottom line, you have to have

integrity. those values the military is founded on, they're all repeated the -- they all repudiated by "don't ask, don't tell." those words you put up on the screen are contrary. host: a couple of details from a group called service member's legal defense members. more than 14,000 members have been fired under the law since it has been enacted. there are six to 6000 gay americans serving in active duty. more than two dozen countries allow gays to serve openly in their countries military. let's go to phone calls but we begin in seattle. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that i

think "don't ask, don't tell" policy was not the best policy. what should have been the issue was being gay in national security risk, which is what their argument was. when i was in the military, there were gay members that served alongside with us. we all knew who the gate members were. kansas have always served in the military. to be -- gays have always served in the military. whether this is a writer ron, this is just the facts of life. i would say if you're not a security risk and you are not

openly gay, it may not be the way we want our society to be, but the military is not a reflection of our society. they are there to defend democracy, not to practice it. what did you say? i wonder what your comments would be along those lines. guest: well, i disagree with you on the point that the military does not represent society. it absolutely must represent society. that is the way our military was set up. our country, when we go to war, we need to support all of the people in our country. and i think it is a travesty whenever we cannot. so you have some people say, why should i support this because i am in this community that it discriminated against? it is difficult. i understand him from the gay community. you bring up some good points, but some are absolutely inaccurate.

especially after some the burr 11, the influx of volunteers in this volunteer force this simply want to serve their country, they have no qualms about people who are gay or lesbian, they know people who are gay, is not an issue i was an infantry officer. an infantry unit were the ground pounders are the ones are there on the front lines and have our rifles and we know how to shoot. well, when i went out to my training just the weekend after coming out on national tv, i believe i was fairly openly gay. i was very honest about myself. i thought that there was going to be some morale problems like you brought up. i thought maybe some people are going to up and leave, quit. none of that happened. and i served openly for a year and a half and continued to do our mission. i do not know how long it has been since he served in the military, but for those people 18, 19 years old right now, we get it. it is not a big deal.

and we want to know about boyfriends and girlfriends. we want to support all of our troops and all of our families. so when we talk about supporting them and supporting people in our units, i think what we have to do is realize, yes, our country is diverse. yes, people are gay. some people are lesbian, some people are straight. people all across the board. and that a subsidy to be afraid of in my personal experience, i do not see any of those fears of morale or unit cohesion. no disruptions. in fact, i saw a positive impact. whenever people are honest about who they are, whenever people can share the truth, that is what cohesion is built from. honesty, truth, and trust. those are the building blocks. as far as national security or security risks, i think it really does but our units at risk a lot more when you take out an arabic linguists, somebody who can translate and can communicate to the people

that are in iraq or afghanistan in the counterinsurgency environment. particularly after 9/11, i do not know why we continue to two people were talented and able to protect their country. host: and you are one of those linguists that you are referencing. guest: i have a degree in arabic from west point, yes. caller: a call from maryland, republican line. caller: i have never heard in a bid to discuss this, but if you have homosexual men, and i assume it is in the barracks, and i have a great nephew who has gone back to his third tour in iraq. i do not see him, so i have not asked him about it. but if you all are in barracks, do men have sex if you're homosexual? are you allowed to have sex with each other? no. guest: caller: i am not finished

yet, please. mint do they not have women and men be in the same barracks? what is the difference? that is what we're talking about, sex. and then what would that do to marriages? host: i will stop and have lt. choi thought about how the military would operate if it was repealed. guest: well, men are going to be men, women are going to be women. in society, people have not changed radically because all of they said and gave people could get married or tell the truth about who they are. the fact that you go directly to sex, i do not know what is on your mind all the time but if that is all you think about, and that is for you. but for those soldiers on the front lines, we're going to be in the barracks.

we're going to be all on the front lines at the same time. the bottom line is right now you have gay people who are in the military, and they go in the showers. the goal in the barracks. they're fighting right alongside street people. it is not a big issue. and when you look at great britain and canada and australia, some of our allies in the coalition that our overseas probably with your great nephew, i think people will realize that since they have people were openly gay serving, they are already serving with people. and when you bring up sex, sex, sex all the time, i just wonder sometimes, where our minds are with this debate, why it has gone down to that. i thought it was about protecting our country. fighting with the person on your right or left, it does not matter what race they are, what religion they are, or what orientation they are. it does not matter what gender they are. can they do their job? that is what i think you should

be worried about for your great nephew's team as well as for our national security. for anybody to devolve this into the kind of debate, that kind of subject matter, i think it is fairly immature. host: this is a question from twitter, and other consequences question. it says this -- guest: well, in my personal experience, when i went back to my unit, there was no such gay bashing, no harassment, no hate crimes and i want to point out that in my time in the military, i am asian-american. so i was the only asian- american and at some time throughout my entire journey that lived in certain barracks and were in certain units. at west point, i was the only asian person in some of my glasses. i was afraid sometimes that

people would harass mayor treat me differently, and there is certainly a level of racism and sexism, some of those sentiments still exist. there's certainly religious bigotry. i think when you consider that there are people that come from all different parts of the country altogether, there are always people who will have different opinions. they're gong to have tons of diversity, and that is a great thing. when you talk about people getting gave-or people getting harassed, that is a leadership issue. if the leadership says very clearly that discrimination or bashing or bullying of any sort because of somebody's identity, that is wrong. and if they said that from the very beginning, they have policies ran out against racist, against sexists, against religious bigots, and people that would harm other people on their team. they say in no, that conduct is unbecoming and wrong, and it does not belong in our military.

it takes leadership. host: we're talking dan choi to dan, live in our studios -- we're talking to lieutenant dan choi. we have a call from our independent line from san antonio. caller: i am @ captain in the air force and my partner is a major in the army. i really want to salute you for standing up because a lot of us cannot do it. as a psychologist, a lot of people come out and confess, and a lot of the cohesion issues is because they cannot truly respect your integrity. they have to deny people that they are dating. it is about time that we step up and fix these issues. there's a lot of hatred because people do not understand or orause of their religioun because they're from nowhere. i came from an open family. i was out of the closet.

if we cannot be ourselves, i just want to salute you, sir. guest: i salute you. thank you for your service. you bring up a very important point. a lot of people ask me why did i come out when i did. obviously, there were consequences and risks. they asked me, did you know that there was a don't ask don't tell policy, surely you did. i did not deny that. i looked at the risks and consequences. and i wonder why did not come out for 28 years and i kept that secret. for me, don't ask don't tell the not mean what it was. don't ask don't tell in all of its danger and all of its poison, it was not what it was until i fell in love. and when i was finally committed to somebody, when i finally understood maturity and growth, sacrifice, and mutual decision making, equality in that relationship, all in the context of intimacy. you see, because i understood all of those values in a

military context for my unit, my team. sacrifice and sharing of the burden. but i never understood it in terms of love, somebody who was my number one support in the world, my boyfriend. i had at the nine myself that my entire life. never had a girlfriend or boyfriend. i thought, this will be fine, i will continue being a soldier, and i will try to work as hard as i can get a that is what i am going to do, and forget love. love is for you straight people. i said, that it's not for me. but when i realized what love is, truly what it is, i realized how dangerous it is not to have it. and when you finally fall in love, you are a full person. for me as an officer, i understood my soldiers better. in arrested with everybody talked about when they said they want to get engaged -- i understood what everybody talked about when they said they wanted to get engaged or tie the knot.

i and arrested the songs on the radio. i thought, that is for me now, to be up and became a better officer and better soldier. i became a better person. and i thought, what if i go back to iraq, what if i go back to south baghdad, to the triangle of death? and i am in the most dangerous area and i am not allowed to talk to this one person that i loved so deeply, so dearly? what if i get injured or killed? and that person back home in america watching tv or trying to keep up with the news, they do not even get notified. they would ever get notified unless maybe a reporter would ask them a question about my death. and that, i think, goes beyond what we talked about. previous callers who want to talk about cohesion or sex, you know, i think that misses the point. i think all soldiers deserve to have a family to support them. and when you deny that ability

to have love or integrity, i think you're being absolutely unpatriotic and un-american. it is not just unfair. it is absolutely immoral to deny somebody of that full person. host: next phone call from arkansas, and this is on the independent line. caller: good morning. i will try to keep my frustration with the conversation to a good level. number one, if you were in the military, you were supposed to put country above selfish desires. number to the, homosexuality is all about sex. it is about a desire to have sex with a person of the same sex. which means that demand is not a man and a woman is not a woman. and homosexuality is an unnatural desire. and a problem that i have, because i served in the marine corps, and we had to shower in close quarters naked amongst a bunch of other men. i do not want another man who was openly homosexual looking at me as i am taking a shower.

he seemed to think that is fine, it is ok, why should i care. my question is, why should i not care? and if you are really wanting to serve the country, you should just keep it to yourself. yes, i understand there were probably people there with us or homosexuals, but they kept it to themselves and it should stay that way if you want to have a boyfriend, satisfy -- that is fine. that is your business. but when you are in the military, you're supposed to act as a unit, and you should do absolutely nothing to adversely affect the condition of the union. i can assure you that having a clear -- queer sit next to me would affect the cohesion of the unit. host: that is the argument from the other side of what is your response? guest: well, it is absolutely offensive. when you talk about having been in the military, you know, i want you to know that when you were in the showers, there were

gay people in those showers. and so what if they were checking you out? what are you so afraid of? you're willing to go to war, a strong man, very sure of your convictions. i do not understand why you're so afraid of gay people. when i talk about cohesion and when you talk about the unit and you bring up some of these age old arguments, some of the people in the military today, they do not buy it. if you take a look at the groups that may be what makes soldiers uncomfortable, let's take this, for instance, fighting in two wars. islamic countries. after september 11, you know the arguments about burning a koran, about a ground zero islamic center. you heard about major nadal hasan killing soldiers in fort hood, texas. all the minority groups that are

skate coded and stigmatized that you would be uncomfortable with. you would think it would be muslim americans. well, what does the leadership say in a time of war about people who are muslim americans? they say no, you should just judge your soldiers based on the talent that they bring to the teens. that is putting your country first. that is putting commission first. and for you to say that we should pick out any group at this time of war, i do not think you're serving the country in any capacity. you are doing the country a disservice. regardless of your previous experience, those people who are actually serving in the war on terror right now all around the world, they do not buy it. and i understand, you were raised in a different generation, and you represent those views and you are very strong in those views, and you have capacity to communicate those very strongly.

but you do not speak for the soldiers better on the ground today. host: next telephone call is from maryland, and this is on our active duty line. rodney. caller: yes, how're you doing? i am lt. my question as, with the don't ask don't tell policy, this is more along the line of you do not think it should be done in an ordinary fashion. we have been -- [unintelligible] i do not cure about the gay stuff, and i do think it should go away. but shouldn't we, as military, respect the process? that is really my question. guest: well, thank you very much for that question. i do believe that if the president did away with the

don't ask don't tell right now, it would be done in an orderly fashion. when you talk about what we can learn from our coalition partners when they repealed the don't ask don't tell or the gay ban in great britain, it was simply an order that came from the highest command and said do it, fall in line. and for people to say that it is not going to be an orderly process, for people to say that there will be enormous consequences, you're probably hearing some of this rhetoric and political talk from the department of defense or political appointees. i do not buy that. we serve in the military, and you know that when the military commander says something needs to be done, he just says this is what needs to be done. that is the order, and you go on. general petraeus, general of the air no -- general odierno,

admiral mike mullens, many generals in the past have come up and said there is no reason why we cannot get rid of don't ask don't tell. if they have served with gay people. some of them are openly gay. i do not see why there's such a fear tactic that is being used right now. so people that tell you that it is for an orderly fashion, i think you have to really analyze that. and your job as a soldier goes beyond just following all instructions. you have to understand that those instructions make sense, that they are in keeping with the code, that they are immoral, that they aren't legal. and when i take a look it don't ask don't tell, it is immoral to force people to like. it is unconstitutional to deny people of their due process and equal projections and they're free speech. just identified themselves truthfully as who they are.

when i talk about orderly, the orderliness of this is dependent on a clear statement from the highest level saying discrimination is anti-american. host: we have only a couple minutes left. this is a call from fort dix, active duty. you are on the air. he has left us. let's go on to a call from philadelphia, democrat line. caller: good morning. i have seen you on several talk shows, and your platform -- as are not bothered by your platform. i just wonder about your agenda. you started off your whole speech this morning with the president will not do this, the president will not do that. a couple weeks before the midterm. i want to know, how long has this don't ask don't tell been in effect in the law and why you're not beating the drum

during the eight years of the george bush administration? host: thank you very much. guest: i was in baghdad, iraq during most of the years that i was in service and in active duty. and when i came back from the military, because i fell in love, i realized that don't ask don't tell was a horrible policy, a horrible law. and to point out one thing to you, i know that you must love the democrats and you must love the party for what they stand for. i do not choose a party. i am not a democrat, and i am not a republican. i think that when you take a look at what has happened throughout the history of our country with the don't ask don't tell as well as the defensive marriage act as well as a lot of other discriminatory policies and laws, president clinton was the one assigned this long and to order, the one assigned this law in two books was a democrat.

and we should realize that the platforms of parties, they are the ones the need to represent the needs of the people. and when you talk about equal rights and our civil rights movement, here we must realize that civil rights does not depend on one particular party. if civil rights lives only in one party, it will die in one party. i believe it is incumbent on all of us to stand up. it is important for all of us as citizens. i love president barack obama. i love him very much, and that is why i am going to hold him accountable. and i think it is an insult when people say that you should not all your leaders accountable, you should not do this because he has a tough time, it is difficult, there's a lot of his plea. well, i am sorry, but i trust president obama to do the right thing, just like you promised. he has been failing in that regard. and as a soldier, when you do not measure up to what you say

you are going to do, you'll be held accountable. and the worst insult but you can give to any of the soldiers the deuce group -- that screw up is sick, you know what, do not worry about it, we do not expect any better out of the. i expect the best out of this president. we're going to judge him very closely now. host: unfortunately, we're out of time. quickly, can you tell people what life has been like you on a personal level since he decided to become the public face and these are actively seen publicly? guest: it has been difficult, sure. my dad is a southern baptist minister. my mom and dad came here from south korea. my mother is an orphan of the korean war. they do not understand all of the things that i am talking about, but when i go on tv and i continue to tell people with one simple message to those who might be able to hear this, if

you are gay or your lesbian, god made you that way. you should not be ashamed of who you are. god loves you exactly as he made you. if you are gay, it is our obligation to tell other people that you are gay, because you never know when somebody is dealing with such difficult times of their own identity and they are on the brink of committing suicide or their depressed or a loan or they're isolated, i am going to keep on talking and keep on walking in this journey, because those are very much in keeping with my dad, what he said, all the discrimination he faced when he came to america because he was haitian-american, because he did not speak english quite so well. he wanted to make the world better for the future generations, and that is what i hope to do. i hope to make the world better for those gay and transgendered kids were growing up or have not even been born yet, and they need to know that somebody in 2010, somebody, even though it

was so difficult, even though you get fired from your job, when you fall in love and tell the truth, and makes it all worth it. and we will continue to fight. host: lt. dan choi joining us right now from new york city. if people are interested in continuing the observation, i understand you have a facebook page and you are on twitter. guest: i am on twitter. the page. >> you can find them on twitter @ltdanchoi. thank you very much for being here to take our viewers questions and comments. we appreciate your time. guest: why pleasure. thank you so much. host: we have one more guest joining us from new york city. larry noden is a technology project director at the bryn incentive for justice. we will talk about his assessment of how well the states are ready for voting day. we will be right back. >> it is 9:25 a.m. eastern time, and an update on the don't ask

don't tell policy on gays in the military. the pentagon says it is working to come up with new guidelines regarding gays serving in the military after the court ruling restore the don't ask don't tell law, and least for now defense department spokesman said earlier that he expects the guidelines to be announced later in the day. new number today on jobless claims. the labor department says that fewer people applied for unemployment benefits last week. it is the third decline in four weeks. but the drop was not enough to reverse the big increase the previous week. an update on the budget cuts announced yesterday in britain. the institute for fiscal studies in a statement today says its analysis shows the cut in benefits and services are likely to hit poor people the hardest. ordinary britons say they are deeply worried about the impact. turning to the campaign trail, republican delaware senate candidate christine o'donnell speaking earlier on "good morning america" says she

regrets making the campaign ad in which she declared "i am not a wage. she said it was meant to put to rest the controversy surrounding her past statements but instead simply brought it up again. her comments about witchcraft or made over a decade ago during a taping at the politically incorrect tv show. the election was on november 2 and more than 3 million americans have already taken advantage of early voting. the associated press says patterns show good numbers for democrats in a number of states and big counties. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> saturdays in march supreme court cases on c-span radio. >> at christmastime in 1965, they decided that they would wear small black armbands to express certain views was the head in regards to the war in vietnam. >> the principal and suspended them, which led to tinker versus

the board -- reverses the more independent community school district. this is saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio. and on 90.1 fm in washington d.c.. and on xm selling radio and online. >> this weekend, the american history tv takes a look at pre civil war virginia and how the most populous slave state in the south struggle with the abolition of slavery and the idea of secession will visit richmond for one of the largest civil war arms and antique shows and learn the motive behind buying and selling of historical items. back to the classroom and former civil-rights leader and professor for unique look of the 1955 montgomery bus boycott. american history tv, all weekend, every weekend, on c- span3. "washington journal" continues. host: on your screen is larry

noden, the voting technology project director at the brain and center for justice. i want to start with two maps produced this week by usa today. the first one looks at how america voted in the year 2000. and all these different colors on the screen are the various ways, 10 years ago, that states allow their citizens to vote. punch card, data, lever machines, paper, optical scanners, or a mix. below that is the map of the year 2010. and if you can see, it is much less an eclectic. the majority are using optical scanner. that is the green. the second largest popular method is the electronic voting. what got us here? guest: well, what really got us here is the 2000 election and all the problems that we had, particularly in florida, that exposed an antiquated system of voting in most of the country.

as a result of the chaos of the 2000 election, congress in 2002 passed the help america vote act, which authorized billions of dollars for the states to purchase new voting equipment. initially after the help america vote act was passed, a lot of jurisdictions went to touch screen machines, what are technically known as direct recording electronic machines. those are like atm's. and i think in the couple of years after the passage of the help america vote act in 2002, most people in the country thought that that is what everybody would be voting on by now, by 2010. there were a lot of controversies around and that technology in the ensuing years. so we still have a number of jurisdictions in the country using this touchscreen machines, but many more went to optical

scanning machines. those are electronic machines. you fill out a paper ballot by hand and then scan that paper ballot into an electronic machine that counts the votes. so we got rid of the punch card machines used in florida, the lever machines used here in new york and elsewhere. and we now have primarily two systems that we use around the country. when people are voting in the polling place, and obviously, there have been other developments since 2002. we have lots more people voting, for instance, by mail than they used to. host: we would like to invite u.s. would do closer to the november 2 election to join in our conversation about the mechanics of voting and house secure and accurate your polling place will be on such a hotly contested election ahead of us. what is your essential message about those two questions? we have spent billions of dollars as a nation investing in

new voting technology. how well are you anticipating it will work in most places on november 2? guest: look, for the most part, i think that we have learned a lot about these machines in the past several years, and for most people, voting will be hopefully a relatively simple process. and i do not think that we're going to have nearly as many breakdowns and other problems that we saw certainly in 2000 and then again in 2004 when many jurisdictions were using these systems for the first time. i think whenever you change a voting system, as we're doing right now in new york -- we're the last date in the country to move to new systems. you tend to have difficulties the first time around. a poll workers are not as familiar with the machines. voters are not as familiar with the machines. that could mean more problems. i will say that we will have some problems somewhere with machines breaking down.

that happens. these machines are machines. they're not perfect. unfortunately, and this is something the brennans center has written about recently, although we have made a lot of progress in understanding these machines in developing better procedures for these machines, we have not done as much as we should to make sure that these machines are as accurate and reliable as possible. we still have a lot to learn, and there's still more that we can do going forward so that the kinds of problems that we have seen in the past with voting systems decline as much as possible. host: from your research at the print center, are there any particular states where you are casting a more wary eye? guest: well, new york is the most obvious candidate for casting a wary eye. because as i said, this is the first time we're going to be using a new voting machines in a major general election.

and whenever that happens, you're going to have voters who may not even know that they're voting on new systems for the first time, poll workers or not as familiar. we had some issues with these machines in the primary in new york, in large part because poll workers were not as familiar with the machines as they should have been in the right procedures were not in place. so new york is certainly a place i will be looking to. but the last several years of elections shows but you just never know where problems can pop up. and the key thing is, do jurisdictions have in place the right procedures so that when something does go wrong, the machines stopped working, for instance, in long lines or wer machines dropping votes when counting, they do whatever they can to insure everybody gets to vote and to make sure that they are recovering all the votes

that may have been lost or ms. recorded. and there are things that jurisdictions can it do to make sure that happens. host: such as the paper received guest: when you: right. at this point, most of the country, in most jurisdictions, there will be some of voter- verify paper record of the vote, whether it is the voter that filled it out herself or what you call a paper receipt, a paper trail. that is on the side of these touch screen machines. we should be using those to check the electronic totals. we should be doing things like checking the number of people assigned in when they came to vote and checking that against the totals that the machines are recording. these kinds of things flag for us potential problems. one of the things we have seen, unfortunately, is that the problems that we have with voting machines, there is no central federal agency that

mandates, for the most part, problems reported to them. there's no central authority collecting this data of problems, at least as extensively as we do for many consumer products and automobiles and airplanes, so that we can have a problem in one county and one part of the country in a 2006 that might pop up again in 2008 across the country because election officials across the country did not know about it. so that is one area where i think we could use some improvement, a better centralization of reporting of these problems, so that we know about the matter of time and do not have to deal with them afterwards. host: columbus, indiana, a democrat line. caller: yes, i wanted to find out how if your state or your location or county does not lead you see who you voted for one and is done, i mean, i might

tell you, yes, you completed all the answers, but how would you find out if you do not have a paper receipt to look at our call somebody to ask them? how would you know? guest: i mean, this is one of the difficulties, the technical and security difficulties in a voting. because of the secrecy of the ballot, we cannot publish for somebody how their vote was recorded, because we do not want other people to have access to how you voted. we want that to be secret. but your point is a good one. if you have filled out the ballot yourself and inserted it into a machine or if there is a paper trail that you can look at on your touch screen machine, then at the very least what should be done is they can compare those paper tallies to what is in the machine, what the

software is reporting the tolls were. in the states where they do not have that, where they do not have an independent voter verified paper record, a paper record that the voter has looked at, unfortunately there is no way to independently confirmed that the software is recording the votes accurately. of course, you know, we do test before hand to see the votes are being recorded accurately. we do tests afterwards to see the machines are recording things correctly. but our recommendation that the brain and center is that there should be some kind of independent record and should be used to check the software. because you know, software, like software on any machine sometimes has boggs. sometimes their programming errors. and that this when mistakes happen. the best way to make sure votes are recorded accurately is to have an independent record that can be used to check and that can be used to substitute in

case there's any kind of problem with the software. host: we're getting a lot of tweets about people's experience in their own states. here's one of your who says we tested electronic voting machines in one place, a paper trail, and more -- host: how do you account for the human factor? guest: that is a huge factor. we should not forget about it when we talk about problems with voting systems. very often, it is because voters did not do what they're supposed to do for poll workers have some problems with the systems. as much as that is a problem with the voter or the poll worker, it is a problem with the machine. if a machine, for whatever reason the way a machine is set up is causing problems for voters said that their votes enacted being recorded accurately or is causing problems for poll workers or

election officials said that the votes are not added up and totaled correctly, then we should be working to improve those machines to make them as user-friendly as possible. one of the analogies i often draw is if we had traffic signs that were confusing to drivers and there were causing traffic accidents, we will not say -- we might say was the driver is all for getting in the accident, of course, but we would do whatever we could to make the traffic signs more easy to understand and avoid accidents. we should be doing the same thing with voting machines. but again, unfortunately, as i said, unlike automobiles or microwave ovens or toasters, we are not mandating that that data be recorded to a central agency so that we can collect it and understand where voters are having problems. for instance, this message you got about the 250 voters who did

not press enter, how often has that happened elsewhere? if it has happened elsewhere in many parts of the country, we should understand this is a user face problem with the mission needs to be fixed. host: bristol, pennsylvania, bob, republican. guest: the soldiers and stuff overseas other absentee ballots. there were supposed to give them 40 days before the election as of 15 days before the election, as far as i know, they have not got their ballots yet. host: thanks. we have been reading about that in the newspaper but can you bring us up-to-date? guest: yeah, this is a huge problem and needs to be fixed. congress act -- congress passed an act last year to enter the military overseas voters were getting their ballots for the days ahead of time. it also authorized ballots to be sent by the internet so that

military and overseas voters could print out their ballots and then send them back by regular mail. you know, it is really -- there's no other way of putting it. it is really a tragedy that this continues to be a problem. there are people that are serving their country overseas -- i think all of us would agree that those people who are fighting for us overseas and protecting us should have the right to vote. and we should be doing everything we can to ensure that they get their balance on time and that they get them back to be counted in time. i do not have anything more to up date in terms of the problems with military and overseas voters getting their ballots. but certainly i hope that counties and states around the country make allowance for military and overseas of voters who did not get their ballots in

that time to give them extra time to ensure that their votes get counted. host: next up, our independent line, a call from memphis. caller: good morning. listen, i do not know if you are familiar with what happened in memphis, tennessee in our august 5 election with rampant voter fraud. the problem i have is when we have rampant voter fraud and the election commission is implicated that there are no criminal prosecutions. and our election commission, those being sued numerous times, have never lost a case. in this recent incident, although there were irregularities, there is fraud or malicious content, but criminal intent was not the case. so they dropped the charges. so what can we do about the human error in the pretense of

corruption in the election process? and if people are not afraid of being prosecuted, then don't you think these irregularities will continue? guest: well, i familiar with the situation you are referring to in tennessee. i am not sure what kind of fraud you're talking about. but i do think that there are a number of things that can be done to ensure that whatever corruption there is in elections is prevented. the most obvious thing is to make processes as transparent as possible. so that the counting process, it is transparent, so that when we are checking the software tallies, that we're checking them against voter verify paper records, that we're taking them against a number of people who signed in. we now have statewide voter

registration databases, and every state in the country that keeps track of all the people who are registered to vote, there is a lot that we can do to automate the process to make sure that our registration rolls are as accurate as possible. all of those things and making all of it as open as possible, it seems to me, is the best way of ensuring that, number one, that our elections are as fair as possible, but also frankly, insuring everybody else that is watching the election that when there are accusations of fraud, the their dog with as fairly as .ossible hoste host: next up, republican from the state of texas. caller: i was in florida for the 2000 elections. it hurts me the way everything went down. ameritech, maybe you should get some illegal aliens to count

your votes, because that is the only way that you're going to make sure that who you voted for god counted. check this out. first, they're going to rig the election machines. the supreme court has now ruled that corporations can be considered as individuals, so now all this money that is going into these campaigns are giving you a false reality. how is harry reid somehow in the polls almost even with the lady he is running with? how was charlie rangel getting in again? they got the voting machines are rigged. an electronic experts cannot rig any of those voting machines. we need to go back to hand- counting these votes. america, i feel sorry for you because somebody's going to blame this on barack obama. thank you, c-span, and god bless you. host: we need to go back to hand-counting votes, he argues.

guest: i think unfortunately, in a place like los angeles county, they might have as many as 250 contests in the county and it is in one election. it is probably not realistic in most places in at the united states to hand-count those ballots if we want accurate results in a timely manner. what i do think that we can do is, you know, we have these machines now, and in much of the country, as i said, we have ballots that are either filled out by the voter or a paper trail, we can check this offer totals. so that if there are suspicions that for whatever reason the software is inaccurate, we have this paper record, and we can hand-counts of percentage of them. there are all kinds of formulas out there that statisticians have been together where we can have extreme confidence of the

software is giving us accurate totals. so i do not think that we have to throw up our hands and say there is no way that we can know if these electronic machines are giving is accurate results. host: earlier, you reference the investment of new voting machines and there has also been a number of innovations in how people vote, including early voting and absentee ballots. will you talk about how widespread this is and what effect it has on an accurate count? guest: sure, well, this is been one of the biggest changes in the way we vote that has gone unnoticed in many ways in the last 10 years. in the last election and the last big federal election in 2008, close to a third of voters either voted early or voted by mail. i thinks of the like 20 percent of voters voted by mail. it makes it a lot of desert -- a lot easier for people to vote. it is less likely that we have

situations that many of us remember in ohio in a 2004 with incredibly long lines and people waiting for hours, people not being able to vote because they cannot wait that long. when people can vote early and vote by mail, you spread out of the tightest and when people are voting, and you make it less likely that you have those kinds of problems. on the other hand, there's no, unfortunately, there's no perfect system for voting. and there are problems with these alternative methods of voting. one of the biggest problems with the vote by mail is that unlike when you go into a polling place and vote, you're not guaranteed that your vote is going to count. what i mean by that is if you fail to fill out the envelope correctly, and this happens to voters, if you fail to sign your name or you're supposed to, if the mail gets lost, your vote might not get counted.

you know, it depends on the state, but there are one, two, in some states where a vote by mail is less frequent, as much as 10% of those that do not counted because of these basically technical ministerial reasons, their votes do not get counted. you know, it is still a relatively small percentage of votes that are coming in by mail better not counted, but it is a very treal difference than votig in the polling place. it is a concern, and we saw that in minnesota in the recount in 2008. there was a hotly contested in very close race between al franken and norm coleman. a lot of disputes over whether votes should be counted were around the absentee ballots, because those could be challenged. were the filled out correctly? whereas, again, with votes

counted in the polling place, it is counted. it went into the ballot box or was recorded on the dre and there's no question of whether or not the voters filled all the technical requirements out that he or she needed to. host: our guest served as the terror of the ohio secretary of state's bipartisan elections summit -- as the chair of the ohio secretary of state bipartisan elections summit. prior to joining the brennan center, he was in private practice as an attorney, concentrating in bankruptcy law. how did you get into the field of voter law and ballot access? guest: by accident. i was lucky enough to be -- this is so is sending a was interested in, and i was lucky enough to be volunteering at the brennan center while i was in private practice. as i said, i was already very

interested in this. we were working on a project at the brennan center analyzing voting systems, and i was lucky enough to be offered a position there, a permanent position while i was volunteering. host: will you tell people what the brennan center is? guest: it was founded by the family of the late and great justice brennan, one of the most important supreme court justices of the 20th century. and we are at think tanks and public law institute at new york university school of law. and we are meant as a living low world to justice brennan. we work on many of the issues he was concerned with all his life. and as justice and the supreme court. in my case, i am in the area of voting rights, but there are folks working on access to the courts, on issues like campaign

finance reform, and other important issues of justice and democracy. host: next is a call from new haven, connecticut, a democrat. caller: i cannot believe in the mail-in vote. taking corruption out of election day, i think it also allows the voters to not be swayed by late october surprises and tricks with the media. and it gets the candidates to focus on the issues. and the voters to focus on the issues. and it is the voters' responsibility to actually fill out these forms correctly, to get themselves educated as to how to do it properly. and while they do that, there is so much internet connection now they can actually researched the issues and the candidates on their own and come up with realistic expectations of them.

i think that it is a much better voting system than the one that has been in place for 200 years in this country. i mean, i was a candidate one time with the green party, and i saw our candidates' names all upside down on the voting machine and voting things where you could not pull the switch on for our candidates. they pull all kinds of tricks with the voting machines. diebold was involved in the 2000 election, wasn't it? seems like a real mess to me. guest: well, there certainly are a lot of benefits to a vote by mail. i do not think there's any question of that. convenience has to be one of them. but again, first of all, i would hate to see is a tuition or we got rid of polling-place -- i would hate to see a situation where we got rid of polling place of voting around the

country. there are a lot of benefits to the voting machines we're using now, including the fact that when you do make a mistake, for instance, as we did in florida in 2000 or a confusing design needs people to make a mistake and try to correct it, the machines now tell you, we cannot read that balladur and it will not count unless you fill it out again. and you know, all the problems that you have with voting -- russianoff sale, but many of the problems with the voting at a polling place that you're going to have with vote by mail. if you have a poorly designed ballot, the confuses people and leaves them to make mistakes. then it is going to have disenfranchising a fax, just the way it does in the polling place. people make mistakes in their vote one market counted on the ballot at home, and that will happen the same way as it does in the polling place. one thing i have been very glad

to see is jurisdictions like oregon where they have all of vote by mail and minnesota has recently worked on at this. they have worked with usability experts and design experts to begin to put together ballots that are easier for people to use, that are less likely to cause confusion. i think, unfortunately, that is one of the lessons we did not learn right away after 2000. we bought all these new machines. one of the things people think about when they think about the 2011 is actually the butter 5 ballot. why we do not to the butterfly ballot anymore, they're plenty of these design mistakes the cause confusion that we still see on ballots in every election. and there is lots we can do to prevent them. some jurisdictions have started doing those things. host: next is alabama, john, republican line. caller: good morning. i have been a service member for most of my life, and i have been overseas. i have watched what has

happened in the elections probably very closely in the last 10, 15 years. and we do not have polling places in the military. they are not geared to do that for the servicemen overseas. and when you get to sending in these ballots, absentee ballots in the mail, and i have watched this closely, both in the civilian newspaper and the stars and stripes, and it has been very consistent. even though they have said we have done this much to get this corrected. but when the ballots get at the state level, over 50% of them were thrown out for a irregularities, for problems in the process. now if the military cannot do a polehinke type of thing to validate and make sure that there -- cannot do a polling thing to validate and make sure they're correct, what is to

expect that they be counted? guest: well, i think you hit the nail on the head in that statement. we have got to allow more time for military and overseas ballots to get in. and we are relying on mail services that might not be as reliable as the u.s. postal service. you know, i think a lot of it is a question of paying more attention to this problem, which has been happening recently in the past couple of years. one of the things that we can do, as i said before, is we can get ballots over to military and overseas voters more quickly by sending them either by express mail or by internet so that they get them and can print them out. they can get a much quicker and print them out and then send them back by regular mail. and i think allowing an

additional time, and again, making the forms -- the votes should not be drawn up for irregularities. making the forms as user- friendly as possible so we do not have these irregularities, giving extra time to military and overseas voters so that if the ballot comes in a couple of days later, it is still counted. i think we can allow extra time for that. we should be changing that in most states and localities to allow for that. all those things would, i think, go a long way to making sure that we are counting as many of the military and overseas the host:as possible ho last night, c-span hit the 100 mark for the number of debates we have telecast. they're all log on our website at c-span.org. if you have not yet made your decision in your state and would like to review with the